Greece will be a war zone, Sect of Revolutionaries warns tourists

[Nachie]

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP


Greek security forces have warned of a wave of violence reminiscent of the terror that stalked Italy in the seventies after urban guerillas threatened last week to turn the country into a "war zone".

"Greece has entered a new phase of political violence by anarchist-oriented organisations that are more murderous, dangerous, capable and nihilistic than ever before," said Athanasios Drougos, a defence and counter-terrorism analyst in Athens.

"For the first time we are seeing a nexus of terrorist and criminal activity," he said. "These groups don't care about collateral damage, innocent bystanders being killed in the process. They are very extreme."


The threats came from a guerrilla group called the Sect of Revolutionaries, as it claimed credit for the murder of Sokratis Giolas, an investigative journalist. Giolas was shot dead outside his Athenian home on 19 July, in front of his pregant wife.

The gang promised to step up attacks on police, businessmen, prison guards and "corrupt" media – and, for the first time, threatened holidaymakers.

"Tourists should learn that Greece is no longer a safe haven of capitalism," its declaration said.

"We intend to turn it into a war zone of revolutionary activity with arson, sabotage, violent demonstrations, bombings and assassinations, and not a country that is a destination for holidays and pleasure."

In an accompanying picture, the group displayed an arsenal that included AK 47 assault rifles, semi-automatic pistols and brass knuckledusters.

"Our guns are full and they are ready to speak," it said. "We are at war with your democracy."

The terror threat comes as Greek authorities endure a summer of strikes and escalating upheaval. Military trucks and petrol company vehicles were employed yesterday to alleviate a fuel shortage as more 30,000 lorry and tanker truck operators ignored a government order to return to work on pain of prosecution. Shortages were reported on many holiday islands and destinations in northern Greece where thousands of tourists are stranded.

The far more serious scourge of domestic terrorism was thought to have been eradicated in 2004, with the disbandment of the 17 November group.

Born out of the turmoil that followed the collapse of US-backed military rule, 17 November murdered the CIA station chief, Richard Welch, in 1975.

For the following 27 years it targeted Turkish envoys, juntists, US military personnel, industrialists and western diplomats, including a British military attaché in Athens, Brigadier Stephen Saunders, who was murdered in 2000.

Unlike 17 November, Greece's new generation of urban guerrillas has not tried to garner popular support.

The Sect of Revolutionaries emerged from the rioting after a teenager, Alexis Grigoropoulos, was shot dead by a policeman in December 2008. The men and women thought to comprise its closely guarded ranks are in their late twenties and thirties and appear to espouse violence almost for the sake of it.

"We don't do politics, we do guerilla warfare," its members announced in the proclamation placed on the boy's grave within hours of their first attack, on a police station, in February 2009. Two weeks later they sprayed the offices of a private television station with bullets. Three months after that, they claimed their first victim, Nectarios Savvas, a police officer protecting a state witness. Six people have died in separate attacks this year.

Last month another group, yet to be named, sent a parcel bomb wrapped up as a gift to the office of Michalis Chrysohoidis, the minister in charge of public security. It killed his chief aide.

The surge in violence comes amid rising social tensions over the austerity measures enforced by the government in exchange for €110bn in emergency aid, the biggest bailout in history.

Mounting social unrest, waning support for political parties and record levels of unemployment among an increasingly radicalised youth are believed to have augmented the ranks of anti-establishment groups.

"The economic crisis has most definitely played a role in aggravating the violence," Chrysohoidis told the Observer. "And the violence we are seeing is worst than ever before because society as a whole is more violent than ever before."

To date Chrysohoidis, who oversaw the break-up of 17 November during a previous stint in the same post, has ordered police to tread a fine line.

But anger is growing. Security officials say it is only a matter of time before one of the three groups currently active in Greece strikes again.

More worrying, they say, are their connections to the Balkan criminal underworld that has made access to weapons dangerously easy.

"In other European countries, home-grown terrorism has been on the decrease for years," said Drougos. "But in Greece the situation is not unlike pre-Bolshevik revolutionary Russia or Italy at the start of the terror campaign by the Red Brigades… it's very unpredictable and tourists should be vigilant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/01/greece-war-zone-revolutionaries-tourists

[addictedToThinking]

i personaly denounce that kind of violence as it leads nowhere but to the death of many innocent people. Some people must understand that the social revolution cant come from 10 or 20 people that go around killing state officers and high-ranked buerocrats .We should try to aware people, to make them understand where their position should be and who they must support. These actions give the chance to the state to make serious propaganda against the left and its goals.

[I.O.T.M]

Didn't these guys say they were interested in warfare, rather than politics? If so, they aren't revolutionaries who are willing to fight for the needs of the working class, they're just hooligans who are looking to capitalise on the current civil unrest. Although, I'd like to see an alternate source that doesn't come from a corporately owned newspaper, to see whether the Sect of Revolutionaries views are just being misrepresented or not.

[Bijan Li Causi X]

Killing pigs and soldiers is fine, but you have to be running a political force too, otherwise, you will fail.

Have a political movement, organising strikes, educating workers, aswell as a cadre of guerrillas.

One without the other is pure impotence.

[Wanted Man]

Blatant cop operation. Oh wait, real revolutionaries specifically try to kill foreigners, dontchaknow?

[Kayser_Soso]

While their strategy may be flawed(most likely because they don't have enough of a support network organized yet), I think you people need to reconcile yourself to the fact that revolution means war. It is not dancing around in the street with paper mache puppets and breaking the occasional Starbucks window.

This being said, the rhetoric displayed does suggest a possible false flag operation. Greece has a similar Cold War history to Turkey, and I wouldn't put it past certain military officials to try something like this.

Either way I hope the real revolution spills over into Turkey, mainly because I don't speak any Greek(nor do I know anyone there).

[bricolage]

While their strategy may be flawed(most likely because they don't have enough of a support network organized yet), I think you people need to reconcile yourself to the fact that revolution means war. It is not dancing around in the street with paper mache puppets and breaking the occasional Starbucks window.
yeah cos revolution is GUNZ GUNZ BOMZ & GUNZ!!!!!

[Wanted Man]

While their strategy may be flawed(most likely because they don't have enough of a support network organized yet), I think you people need to reconcile yourself to the fact that revolution means war. It is not dancing around in the street with paper mache puppets and breaking the occasional Starbucks window.

Completely besides the point.

[bricolage]

Blatant cop operation.

I wouldn't put it past certain military officials to try something like this.
I don't know enough about the situation to fully comment but both of these sound like they could be possible.

If however this isn't the state then they are just idiots.

[Kayser_Soso]

yeah cos revolution is GUNZ GUNZ BOMZ & GUNZ!!!!!

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we could defeat the bourgeoisie and their military might with well-worded arguments and perhaps some witty image macros.

[Kayser_Soso]

I don't know enough about the situation to fully comment but both of these sound like they could be possible.

This thing about being "at war with your democracy" is the most suspicious aspect. What leftist group would say such a thing, and acknowledge that such a state is a democracy? It seems to me a nationalist group would be more likely to write something like that.

[bricolage]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we could defeat the bourgeoisie and their military might with well-worded arguments and perhaps some witty image macros.
you cant blow up a social relationship. communism will be won in our workplaces and communities by our collective organisation and seizure of the social means of production, it will not be won by gangs of guerrillas running around shooting people.
I agree with this; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1791347&postcount=1

[bricolage]

This thing about being "at war with your democracy" is the most suspicious aspect. What leftist group would say such a thing, and acknowledge that such a state is a democracy? It seems to me a nationalist group would be more likely to write something like that.
That does seem odd.
Although the prefix 'your' might be making a distinction between 'your democracy' and 'our democracy'.
To throw something else out there that I'm not sure about I wonder if this was something to do with translation, I'm not sure how democracy (seeing as it comes from a Greek word) is used there. Maybe someone Greek here could help out.

[Kayser_Soso]

you cant blow up a social relationship. communism will be won in our workplaces and communities by our collective organisation and seizure of the social means of production, it will not be won by gangs of guerrillas running around shooting people.
I agree with this; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1791347&postcount=1

Seizure of the means of production with....? And no, I don't support "propaganda of the deed", I'm no anarchist.


As for the "your democracy" bit, I still don't think a leftist would acknowledge that such a state is any kind of democracy.

[bie]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we could defeat the bourgeoisie and their military might with well-worded arguments and perhaps some witty image macros.
I am sorry I didn't know that we can defeat the bourgeoisie by the random acts of nonsense violence that will criminalize the movement and alienate it from the people. I think you are confusing a necessary revolutionary violence of mass social revolutions with state provocation of ministry of Internal Affairs. This is what Lenin said about individual terror:


You, gentlemen, wish to lay the blame where it does not belong. For it is precisely the Svoboda group that, by including terror in its programme, calls for an organisation of terrorists, and such an organisation would indeed prevent our troops from establishing closer contacts with the masses, which, unfortunately, are still not ours, and which, unfortunately, do not yet ask us, or rarely ask us, when and how to launch their military operations.

W.I. Lenin, What is to be done (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ch05.htm#a8)

[bricolage]

Seizure of the means of production with....?
With the working class?
Seizing the means of production isn't some sort of capture the flag kind of thing where you go looking for it then shoot n people and bam, communism.


And no, I don't support "propaganda of the deed", I'm no anarchist.
Neither do most anarchists.


As for the "your democracy" bit, I still don't think a leftist would acknowledge that such a state is any kind of democracy.
It's not about whether we see it as democracy but rather that the word is often used in this context so we can differentiate the different discourses of democracy, ie. liberal democracy vs communist democracy

[Kayser_Soso]

With the working class?
Seizing the means of production isn't some sort of capture the flag kind of thing where you go looking for it then shoot n people and bam, communism.

So the working class is going to be something like the Society of Harmonious Fists or whatever? Let me make this clear- you seize the means of production, and the people with the power are going try to stop you. This is basic class based history- why do they have a police force and military in the first place? To defend the property relations. You try to change them, they will try to stop you. If you defeat them initially, the capitalists will regroup and attack again and again on various levels until either they are defeated or they are victorious. If you can't handle that I suggest giving up the cause of revolution.



Neither do most anarchists.

Yeah, nowadays.

[MortyMingledon]

Wellll I think I have finally decided where to go on holiday next summer :)

[Kayser_Soso]

Wellll I think I have finally decided where to go on holiday next summer :)

I agree.

[bricolage]

Let me make this clear- you seize the means of production, and the people with the power are going try to stop you.
This is an inadequate conceptualisation of power, I think I saw Alex Callinicos once talk about how to be exploited is to be empowered because it means you are needed for economic system to self-perpetuate. In this respect it is of course the working class, not by any sense of virtue or of being good or pure, but simply by the position the class occupies in the social relations of capital, that has the power in society (I also don't think power is a static, quantifiable entity but that isn't that relevant here). So yes there is a police and an army but how is that army going to do anything when they have no soldiers? How can you run a war machine when you have noone in your factories?

And I'm not talking about pacifism here, I could run through reasons why this is a bankrupt strategy but I'm sure you already know that. What I am saying we do not know what a genuine communist revolution will look like and we do not know what path it will follow and sure if you aim for bloodshed there will be bloodshed but most times an increased level of violence is directly correlated to the decreased level of a social base. So instead you can look at what has happened in the past, you can look at how we live our lives now, you can look at what we need to do in the future and you can shift attention away from guns and bombs and you can say yes there will be barricades and yes it will not be easy but, as was written in that thread I linked; 'communism is a flower that will not grow with blood'. And we can stop thinking about how many guns we need here, or how many bombs we need there and start looking at how we can find each other, how we can build affinity, how we can take back control of our lives and how we can seize the means of survival...

Or of course we can just do what most of this forum does and fantasise about running off to Venezuela or North Korea guns blazing or of revolutionary armies charging through our cities and ignore the fact that we are not changing one damn thing about this world.

[RED DAVE]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we could defeat the bourgeoisie and their military might with well-worded arguments and perhaps some witty image macros.Nor can the bourgeoisie and its "military might" be defeated by the military might of the revolutionary organizations.

The military might of the bourgeoisie will be defeated when revolutionary organizations win over massive numbers of members of the armed forces. For revolutionary organizations in industrialized countries to attempt to confront the armed power of the bourgeois state is politically disastrous.

To do this in an underdeveloped country like Nepal presents a different problem. It is indicative that no rural guerrilla movement (that I am aware of) has ever taken over the cities, except in the aftermath of a major war (China, Vietnam).

RED DAVE

[Kayser_Soso]

Nor can the bourgeoisie and its "military might" be defeated by the military might of the revolutionary organizations.

The military might of the bourgeoisie will be defeated when revolutionary organizations win over massive numbers of members of the armed forces. For revolutionary organizations in industrialized countries to attempt to confront the armed power of the bourgeois state is politically disastrous.

I see, just "win over" the majority of the armed forces, they won't fight, and then the other part of the armed forces won't shoot their ex-comrades. Then the bourgeoisie will throw up its hands, and not attempt to raise new armed forces with the remnants of the old coupled with fascist organizations.

You win over the armed forces to get weapons and trained personal to defend against counter-revolution. Even then, when you have done this in one or a few countries, you will have to face foreign invasions.



To do this in an underdeveloped country like Nepal presents a different problem. It is indicative that no rural guerrilla movement (that I am aware of) has ever taken over the cities, except in the aftermath of a major war (China, Vietnam).

A guerrilla movement should not be limited to the rural area. And the Cubans managed to take cities by the way. Of course this is no matter since revolutionary situations tend to arise out of wars which are inherent in an imperialist world.

I think you people have too much knowledge of theory and haven't put enough toward practice.

RED DAVE

[Kayser_Soso]

Nor can the bourgeoisie and its "military might" be defeated by the military might of the revolutionary organizations.

The military might of the bourgeoisie will be defeated when revolutionary organizations win over massive numbers of members of the armed forces. For revolutionary organizations in industrialized countries to attempt to confront the armed power of the bourgeois state is politically disastrous.

I see, just "win over" the majority of the armed forces, they won't fight, and then the other part of the armed forces won't shoot their ex-comrades. Then the bourgeoisie will throw up its hands, and not attempt to raise new armed forces with the remnants of the old coupled with fascist organizations.

You win over the armed forces to get weapons and trained personnel to defend against counter-revolution.



To do this in an underdeveloped country like Nepal presents a different problem. It is indicative that no rural guerrilla movement (that I am aware of) has ever taken over the cities, except in the aftermath of a major war (China, Vietnam).



RED DAVE

A guerrilla movement should not be limited to the rural area. And the Cubans managed to take cities by the way. Of course this is no matter since revolutionary situations tend to arise out of wars which are inherent in an imperialist world.

I think you people have too much knowledge of theory and haven't put enough toward practice.

[Kayser_Soso]

This is an inadequate conceptualisation of power, I think I saw Alex Callinicos once talk about how to be exploited is to be empowered because it means you are needed for economic system to self-perpetuate. In this respect it is of course the working class, not by any sense of virtue or of being good or pure, but simply by the position the class occupies in the social relations of capital, that has the power in society (I also don't think power is a static, quantifiable entity but that isn't that relevant here). So yes there is a police and an army but how is that army going to do anything when they have no soldiers? How can you run a war machine when you have noone in your factories?

And I'm not talking about pacifism here, I could run through reasons why this is a bankrupt strategy but I'm sure you already know that. What I am saying we do not know what a genuine communist revolution will look like and we do not know what path it will follow and sure if you aim for bloodshed there will be bloodshed but most times an increased level of violence is directly correlated to the decreased level of a social base. So instead you can look at what has happened in the past, you can look at how we live our lives now, you can look at what we need to do in the future and you can shift attention away from guns and bombs and you can say yes there will be barricades and yes it will not be easy but, as was written in that thread I linked; 'communism is a flower that will not grow with blood'. And we can stop thinking about how many guns we need here, or how many bombs we need there and start looking at how we can find each other, how we can build affinity, how we can take back control of our lives and how we can seize the means of survival...

Or of course we can just do what most of this forum does and fantasise about running off to Venezuela or North Korea guns blazing or of revolutionary armies charging through our cities and ignore the fact that we are not changing one damn thing about this world.

While we cannot predict what a future revolution would be like, we know that no class willingly gives up its power. There is no way in hell you are going to convince a large portion of the military to come over to your side. The whole "how are they going to have a war if nobody shows up" idea is simply not going to work. Besides, soldiers are more likely to desert when conditions and morale are low, primarily because they are losing.

[bricolage]

There is no way in hell you are going to convince a large portion of the military to come over to your side.
I don't see why not, are you denying that ordinary soldiers have working class interests? It seems just as likely or unlikely as large portions of any other sector coming over to 'our side'.
And I'm pretty sure this is what happened with the Russian revolution (although I might be wrong).

The whole "how are they going to have a war if nobody shows up" idea is simply not going to work.More likely to work than thinking revolution is blowing up barracks and shooting soldiers.

[RED DAVE]

There is no way in hell you are going to convince a large portion of the military to come over to your side.During the Russian Revolution, huge numbers of troops deserted the Russian Army (WWI was raging) and whole units went over to the Revolution. The actual seizure of power was accomplished by units of the army loyal to the Revolution.

In Cuba, as I understand it, the rural guerrilla uprising was accompanied by revolutionary activity in the cities not necessarily organized by the 26th of July Movement (Castro's guerrilla force). This did not include, however, major urban armed confrontations with the armed forces, which numbered some 30,000 (while the rural guerrillas numbered under 1,000). The regime basically collapsed as the guerrilla forces approached the cities.

The role of urban forces, organized and unorganized, in the Cuban Revolution, has never been fully told. I think it is safe to say that in the absence of an urban uprising, and in the absence of massive urban political support for the guerrillas, the 26th of July Movement would not have been able to seize power.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/pais.htm

RED DAVE

[Demogorgon]

Take a step back a moment and imagine you are a member of the public, angry at the Government and its "austerity programme", angry at the way workers in Greece are being expected to pay for capitalist crimes and wanting a solution. You are not entirely sure if you are ready to take the jump into supporting very radical politics and are sizing it up.

Now imagine you see groups proclaiming that they are simply intending to cause mayhem, want to attack innocent tourists (which incidentally a lot of Greek workers depend upon for their livelihoods), apparently oppose democracy and aren;t even interested in politics anyway and just want to cause mayhem. Are you more or less likely to take the plunge into revolutionary politics?

Now don't get me wrong, I daresay this is some pathetic little group being played up by the Government to try and smear real leftist groups. All the same this idiotic rhetoric-and actions too of course if they ever materialise-plays right into bourgeoisie hands.

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

I see, just "win over" the majority of the armed forces, they won't fight, and then the other part of the armed forces won't shoot their ex-comrades. Then the bourgeoisie will throw up its hands, and not attempt to raise new armed forces with the remnants of the old coupled with fascist organizations.

You win over the armed forces to get weapons and trained personnel to defend against counter-revolution.

A guerrilla movement should not be limited to the rural area. And the Cubans managed to take cities by the way. Of course this is no matter since revolutionary situations tend to arise out of wars which are inherent in an imperialist world.

I think you people have too much knowledge of theory and haven't put enough toward practice.

I would disagree with most of what you have said, albeit not from all the perspectives of the other posters present, I don't mean to be impolite at all by the way.

You are right that workers will need to form workers' militias at some point, however they can rarely win a war alone, so we do need enough sections of the armed forces to be won over to our cause, this coupled with the mass disarming of your average workers in a large number of countries (many state forces have weapons in Greece, many workers do not so it seems) and you have quite a complex situation. Sometimes it may not be pretty and I hate to say it, but workers will have to use physical force and any weapons at their immediate disposal to face off against police. Workers in Turkey, on strike last year, could not face off against police with arms as that surely would have been disastrous, inviting complete suppression by the jandarma. There is a time and place for workers to take up arms and.. given the current situation in Greece, it would seem like a very bad idea indeed right now.

On a side note, the Cuban state was taken by guerrilla warfare because it was almost unable to defend itself.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Greece has entered a new phase of political violence by anarchist-oriented organisations that are more murderous, dangerous, capable and nihilistic than ever before," said Athanasios Drougos, a defence and counter-terrorism analyst in Athens.


ahahahahahahahahaha

"First they were only a little nihistic...now they're SUPER nihilistic!"

[Widerstand]

Seems indeed fishy. I find it sort of sad that every bomb thrower call itself / gets called Anarchist nowadays... Thanks a lot Propaganda of the deed.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Seems indeed fishy.

I don't know about this particular organization (Revolutionary Secht), but other orgs that have adopted similar tactics like Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and Revolutionary Struggle are indeed real and not fabrications by the cops/military/authorities, at least not as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be suprised if they are who they say they are (but then again, I wouldn't be suprised if they were a concoction by some other entity, either.)

[Dimentio]

Hahaha... "Sect of Revolutionaries". Who the fuck is giving an organisation a name like that?

That and the hyperlatives used by the Greek security service is making me think of an operation made to make the international community look between their fingers with the Greek security apparatus clamping down on civil rights...

:(

[Magón]

You know, I know four Greek Anarchists very well from my vacation in Mexico, (all of which were in those riots after that poor kid got killed by police), and none of them seemed Nihilistic to me. I mean, how much farther could an Anarchist be from a Nihilist.

This is how I see it really.

Anarchy= the belief or trust in the people, to be self sufficient and self governing, and that revolution is their motivational means to bring a better life, not for just themselves but for those around them as well. That life is a struggle, and that fighting for ones freedom to believe, think, and practice how they like to live their lives. (Even if that means through violent measures.)

Nihilism= People who find life without meaning, and that anything done won't happen.

I don't see a connection?:confused:

[this is an invasion]

Aesthetically, the Secht of Revolutionaries is awesome.


However, they are most likely gonna fuck things up for the anarchists in Greece.

[bie]

Hahaha... "Sect of Revolutionaries". Who the fuck is giving an organisation a name like that?

That and the hyperlatives used by the Greek security service is making me think of an operation made to make the international community look between their fingers with the Greek security apparatus clamping down on civil rights...

:(
I think you are right and it is a provocation.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'm pretty sure the Secht is nihilist, not anarchist. A greek comrade could probably clarify better than me though. Nihilists usually support propaganda of the deed so it should be no surprise.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This seems premature and possibly a RAF and Weather Underground repeat.


well see how this develops.

[Outinleftfield]

Acts of violence aren't going to start a revolution.

The Russian Revolution started by spontaneous demonstrations and a general strike. There was violence, but it came about in the course of the revolution in response to the state's own violence trying to suppress it.

Violence allows the state to claim the moral highground. Its better to let them throw the first punches so the revolutionaries can claim the moral highground.

[MortyMingledon]

Violence allows the state to claim the moral highground. Its better to let them throw the first punches so the revolutionaries can claim the moral highground.

Yo, we already have the moral highground by opposing oppressive systems...

You probably mean public support.

[this is an invasion]

Acts of violence aren't going to start a revolution.

The Russian Revolution started by spontaneous demonstrations and a general strike. There was violence, but it came about in the course of the revolution in response to the state's own violence trying to suppress it.

Violence allows the state to claim the moral highground. Its better to let them throw the first punches so the revolutionaries can claim the moral highground.
Dude, seriously, fuck a moral high ground.

[Dimentio]

I think you are right and it is a provocation.

An overt provocation most likely based on a caricature of how anarchists are thinking.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You know, I know four Greek Anarchists very well from my vacation in Mexico, (all of which were in those riots after that poor kid got killed by police), and none of them seemed Nihilistic to me. I mean, how much farther could an Anarchist be from a Nihilist.

This is how I see it really.

Anarchy= the belief or trust in the people, to be self sufficient and self governing, and that revolution is their motivational means to bring a better life, not for just themselves but for those around them as well. That life is a struggle, and that fighting for ones freedom to believe, think, and practice how they like to live their lives. (Even if that means through violent measures.)

Nihilism= People who find life without meaning, and that anything done won't happen.

I don't see a connection?:confused:

I disagree. I think that nihilists have been part of the admirable historical struggle against systems of oppression, a history of which anarchism is also a part of.


The life of civilized people is full of conventional lies. Persons who dislike each other, meeting in the street, make their faces radiant with a happy smile; the Nihilist remained unmoved, and smiled only for those whom he was really glad to meet. All those forms of outward politeness which are mere hypocrisy were equally repugnant to him, and he assumed a certain external roughness as a protest against the smooth amiability of his fathers...

The Nihilist girl, compelled by her parents to be a doll in a doll's house, and to marry for property's sake, preferred to abandon her house and her silk dresses; she put on a black woolen dress of the plainest description, cut off her hair, and went to a high school, in order to win personal independence...

Nihilism, with it's affirmation of the rights of the individual and it's negation of hypocrisy, was but a first step toward a higher type of men and women, who are equally free, but live for a great cause.

Nihilism as a philosophy hasn't materialized as simple negation of everything and anything (most of the Russian nihilists actually held themselves to a firm ethical code); rather, it has defined itself as an endorsement of rigorous critique of all ideologies, philosophies and ideas, no matter how exalted they may be. In that sense, I think that revolutions throughout history could have used a good dose of nihilism. (I'm currently reading a book about the 19th century Russian nihilists.)

[Dimentio]

This is really out of character, but according to what I've seen, 21st century nihilists tend to more subscribe to right-wing radical ideas than left-wing radical ideas. I think the main reason for that is that anarchists - at least by the liberal media - are portrayed as generally well-meaning but misguided, while national socialists (not to confuse with your average euro-fascist) are portrayed as the spawns of hell. Its always more funny for an angsty teenager to be associated with the Forces of Hell.

www.anus.com

[Rusty Shackleford]

www.anus.com (http://www.anus.com)

:confused::mellow::sleep::lol::laugh:

this is the only thing in this post that is worth anything. in fact. the only thing in this entire thread.


i honestly laughed out loud.

also, 911th post. CONSPIRACY

[InuyashaKnight]

Oh great!

[Kayser_Soso]

I don't see why not, are you denying that ordinary soldiers have working class interests? It seems just as likely or unlikely as large portions of any other sector coming over to 'our side'.

All working class people have working class interests, they often don't know it. That is the problem. You guys are ignoring the effect of military training and tradition. It is very difficult for people to make a decision like desertion or mutiny unless their confidence in the system which employs them is severely shaken.



And I'm pretty sure this is what happened with the Russian revolution (although I might be wrong).
More likely to work than thinking revolution is blowing up barracks and shooting soldiers.

First off the Russian army were fighting a losing war, and second, while many of them did join the revolution, they then had to contend with those who did not, the interventionalist armies and their puppets, and new units raised to replace those who went over to the side of the reds. It is also important to note that in the Russian civil war, units and armies switched sides, often more than once. The White Guards were also able to raise volunteer units from officer cadets.

In Germany, mythology helped raise anti-Communist Freikorps from the defeated German army. In spite of their objective interests, they worked in favor of crushing the revolution.

[Kayser_Soso]

During the Russian Revolution, huge numbers of troops deserted the Russian Army (WWI was raging) and whole units went over to the Revolution. The actual seizure of power was accomplished by units of the army loyal to the Revolution.

In Cuba, as I understand it, the rural guerrilla uprising was accompanied by revolutionary activity in the cities not necessarily organized by the 26th of July Movement (Castro's guerrilla force). This did not include, however, major urban armed confrontations with the armed forces, which numbered some 30,000 (while the rural guerrillas numbered under 1,000). The regime basically collapsed as the guerrilla forces approached the cities.

The role of urban forces, organized and unorganized, in the Cuban Revolution, has never been fully told. I think it is safe to say that in the absence of an urban uprising, and in the absence of massive urban political support for the guerrillas, the 26th of July Movement would not have been able to seize power.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/pais.htm

RED DAVE

The 26th July Movement did have an urban wing, though yes, a lot of the activity was in the rural countryside. Cuba is an exceptional case however, because it is a very small island. I am not a supporter of Che's foco tactics, they only worked in one place for a good reason.

As for your comments on the Russian revolution, I alluded to them in my previous post.

[Ravachol]

Acts of violence aren't going to start a revolution.

The Russian Revolution started by spontaneous demonstrations and a general strike. There was violence, but it came about in the course of the revolution in response to the state's own violence trying to suppress it.

Violence allows the state to claim the moral highground. Its better to let them throw the first punches so the revolutionaries can claim the moral highground.

Revolution isn't some idealist game of "who's the good guy". When material conditions create the fertile soil from which revolutionary struggle can grow, 'the moral highground' (especially bourgeois moralism concerning non-state violence) becomes completely and utterly irrelevant. While people in countries comparable to Greece, but with slightly different conditions, might call for violent state repression against radical demonstrations and riots a lot of normal working class Greeks actually participate in them.

There is no such thing as a 'moral highground', only the subjectivities arising from our condition as the exploited class subject.

[Qayin]

"We don't do politics, we do guerilla warfare," its members announced in the proclamation placed on the boy's grave within hours of their first attack, on a police station, in February 2009 Cant argue with that


"Tourists should learn that Greece is no longer a safe haven of capitalism," its declaration said.
"We intend to turn it into a war zone of revolutionary activity with arson, sabotage, violent demonstrations, bombings and assassinations, and not a country that is a destination for holidays and pleasure."There not saying there going to target tourists there saying don't come to Greece its going to be a "warzone" as they fight against the State.

[RebelDog]

Guardian article:

"We don't do politics, we do guerilla warfare," its members announced in the proclamation placed on the boy's grave within hours of their first attack, on a police station, in February 2009

AMKsurgency:

Cant argue with that

They can never win. We all crave revenge but attacking the state without a political strategy for change and a base of class support is madness.

[Thirsty Crow]

The claim that "they don't do politics" speaks for itself. Therefore, "revolutionary warfare" is an oximoron.
Besides that, radical demonstrations and riots are not the same as assassinations. The tactical difference is crucial, in that the latter belong to the old, defunct "propaganda of the deed strategy". On top of that, one cannot even speak about strategy in relation to these guys since all of it comes down to boiling rthetorics filled with hate: While I can understand that, and relate to it, I have to conclude that these actions are completely and utterly bankrupt, since they are more likely to cause reactionary backlash and defamation of any kind of revolutionary programs.

So, this criticism has nothing to do with a notion of a "moral highground".

[Magón]

I disagree. I think that nihilists have been part of the admirable historical struggle against systems of oppression, a history of which anarchism is also a part of.

Maybe, but I don't see the Greek Anarchists as Nihilist in the least. I mean, sure Nihilism has been great against oppression since that's one of their major things, but Greek Anarchists don't seem like they don't have morals or some sort of Anarchistic idea of right and wrong. Nihilists just don't give a shit, and maybe that's why people don't take them so seriously like Anarchists.

[Outinleftfield]

Revolution isn't some idealist game of "who's the good guy". When material conditions create the fertile soil from which revolutionary struggle can grow, 'the moral highground' (especially bourgeois moralism concerning non-state violence) becomes completely and utterly irrelevant. While people in countries comparable to Greece, but with slightly different conditions, might call for violent state repression against radical demonstrations and riots a lot of normal working class Greeks actually participate in them.

There is no such thing as a 'moral highground', only the subjectivities arising from our condition as the exploited class subject.

Bad choice of words. I probably should've said "public opinion". The brain is made of matter and the mind emerges from the brain so psychology must be considered. Even more than other factors. If a person is starving but their mind says they are not they will act as though they are not starving. If their mind is thoroughly convinced into blaming A when B is responsible they will behave as though A was responsible.

We're starting at a position where the majority of the public is already brainwashed into believing bourgeois propaganda. Many will cling to this even in spite of material losses especially when the system reframes the problems and puts public attention on scapegoats. Its not right or fair but most people will put a lot more weight against revolutionary violence versus capitalist violence even though capitalism causes more violence. The Greek government has already blamed the violence for a drop in tourism and some people hurt by capitalism might buy this propaganda and blame the revolutionaries instead of the capitalists.

But the reason this propaganda is effective at all is the human revulsion to violence. Capitalism is able to distort this heavily with propaganda into demonizing some violence more than others and even approving of violence when it is "washed" through the "justice system". What letting the state throw the first punch does is expose the violence inherent in the system. After that revolutionary violence in response is easier to justify to people who would have otherwise sided with the system.

If people acted as though the revolution had already happened(workers start organizing and deciding by themselves instead of listening to their bosses i.e. take-over strikes) then for the capitalists to preserve their position they would be forced to use violence against people who are by the state's standards only committing a non-violent crime(yet). There's no guarantee that if this happened the masses would side with the revolutionaries but it would be more likely since the state would have less to work with in distorting the truth.

In any case the real question for any tactic is will this spread class consciousness? Will this strengthen or weaken the position of the masses? Will this strengthen or weaken the position of the capitalists? This guerilla violence in Greece might be understood and approved of by people who already understand the problem but it is easy propaganda for the Greek state to use against the left and as an excuse to set up a police state.

[Honggweilo]

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

I couldnt summarize insurrectionist lifestylism/fetishism up any better then the big goon himself.

[Delenda Carthago]

RS is a nihilist anti-politic group,targeting not the big fishes,but the small ones that support the system.That's why they say "we dont do politics".In their last communique,they said that they dont care about the crisis and the IMF,if we live in a society that gets robbed in everyway,still this society cares about some details of that robbery.

Here in Greece,nihilsm has a big presence in comparasing to other countries.Both of the active guerilla teams nowdays(RS and Conspiracy of Cells of Fire)are nihilst.It started inside the anarchist space,but it gets more and more separated.

[Delenda Carthago]

Some quotes from their communique,just to get a clearer picture:

"1,5 year ago we formed RS which became our the vehicle of escape from this fuckin silence of this prison-world that we live in.2-3 guns for a start,some books and some knowledge from previous outlaw experiences combined with some "kilos" of decideness,plus a consciousness that said with surtainty:Either human or pig,either a warrior or a slave,either revolution or giving up."

[Delenda Carthago]

"Nowdays we dont talk about armed propaganda,but we do it.Our attack was not placed on propaganda reasons,but on the descision to end this guys career.

Armed struggle does not apologise and doesnt pretend the hypocrisy of humanism about the value of human life.Revolution is a struggle for the construction of a autonomus code of living,far away from the hypocricy of our modern world.
Human life is a variable,a merchandise in the world of spectacle who sometimes gets ripped in the cells of prison,to dead end descisions,to the illusions of narcotics and other times gets "murdered by the hands of terrorists".

But whats really important is not to live,but how you are living.The true value is on ones descsions.This is where everyone gets judged.Sokratis Giolias made his and we made ours.He chose to live as a +rat+(his blog)in the kingdom of mud throwing lies and we as wolfes outside of the pack"

[Delenda Carthago]

"As RS,we believe that only thgrough the total destruction of the state and the system will be able to bring the rise of new life.A new life of human relations,without authority,without borders,without religion,without separations.A life that wont be ruled by money and property.A life far away from compulsions,compositions and fake idols.

We promote a new civilatation whos values will be build on equality,descency,honor,solidarity,self respect,liberation.Human can and should create a new way of expretion.To come in balance with the nature,to fullfill with emotions,to let himself free on joys,to become the creator of his own world."


"We havent borrowed anything from your world to feel that we are losing it."

[Ravachol]

"As RS,we believe that only thgrough the total destruction of the state and the system will be able to bring the rise of new life.A new life of human relations,without authority,without borders,without religion,without separations.A life that wont be ruled by money and property.A life far away from compulsions,compositions and fake idols.

We promote a new civilatation whos values will be build on equality,descency,honor,solidarity,self respect,liberation.Human can and should create a new way of expretion.To come in balance with the nature,to fullfill with emotions,to let himself free on joys,to become the creator of his own world."


How does this differ at all from what is proposed by Anarchist Communists (Syndicalists included)? What (apart from tactics and a big affinity with poetic communiques) sets the Nihilist groups apart from Anarchist ones on a theoretical level?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Greek security forces have warned of a wave of violence reminiscent of the terror that stalked Italy in the seventies after urban guerillas threatened last week to turn the country into a "war zone".


Ahahahahahaha! Old school Gladio shit. Essentially, the Greek cops have come right out and said "this terrorism? yeah, we're behind it." Classic.

Will anyone even fall for it?

RS = KKKop$

[Delenda Carthago]

How does this differ at all from what is proposed by Anarchist Communists (Syndicalists included)? What (apart from tactics and a big affinity with poetic communiques) sets the Nihilist groups apart from Anarchist ones on a theoretical level?

A.Nihilists promote egoism-anarchists promote communty.

B.Anarchists promote ideology-nihilists promote the denial of every ideology

C.Anarchists promote morality-nihilist deny it.

D.Anarcho syndicalists do not promote the destruction of this world in general,but the changes of some importand things.Anarcho syndicalism promotes the take over of the means of producction,not the destruction of them.That goes for serious anarchists too.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ahahahahahaha! Old school Gladio shit. Essentially, the Greek cops have come right out and said "this terrorism? yeah, we're behind it." Classic.

Will anyone even fall for it?

RS = KKKop$

Nah, the communiques are way too flowery and verbose not to be the work of Greek radicals.

[nuisance]

A.Nihilists promote egoism-anarchists promote communty.

B.Anarchists promote ideology-nihilists promote the denial of every ideology

C.Anarchists promote morality-nihilist deny it.

D.Anarcho syndicalists do not promote the destruction of this world in general,but the changes of some importand things.Anarcho syndicalism promotes the take over of the means of producction,not the destruction of them.That goes for serious anarchists too.
This just sounds like some insurrectionists gone wild, opposed to nihilism tbf.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Nah, the communiques are way too flowery and verbose not to be the work of Greek radicals.

You want a flowery communique? I can get you one by 3 o'clock this afternoon. There are ways...

In all seriousness though, a strategy of tensions works through a synergy of genuine misled radicals and police agents provocateurs.

[Ravachol]

A.Nihilists promote egoism-anarchists promote communty.


I understand they differ from Anarcho-Communists in that they are more akin to Stirnerites and have a very individualist approach to revolution and liberation. This does not exclude the possibilty of being Communist however as is shown by the 'Communist Egoist' texts promoted by the 'For Ourselves' collective such as 'The Right to be Greedy' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_To_Be_Greedy:_Theses_On_The_Practical_Ne cessity_Of_Demanding_Everything), which was highly Stirnerite as well as Communist.



B.Anarchists promote ideology-nihilists promote the denial of every ideology


This is a tricky one and usually a strawman. Anarchists do not promote 'ideology'. Accusations of ideology are usually levelled at Revolutionaries promoting some framework of understanding the world and acting on the basis of that framework (whether it be through the lense of Class struggle, identity politics,etc).



As RS,we believe that only thgrough the total destruction of the state and the system will be able to bring the rise of new life.A new life of human relations,without authority,without borders,without religion,without separations.A life that wont be ruled by money and property.A life far away from compulsions,compositions and fake idols.


The critique of Capital and authority given by SR, however, is just as ideological as any other in the sense that the understanding of society and it's ills is formed by their subjectivities and expressed through their actions.



C.Anarchists promote morality-nihilist deny it.


Anarchism isn't about morality. It's materialist, not idealist.



D.Anarcho syndicalists do not promote the destruction of this world in general,but the changes of some importand things.


'This world' is a rather vague concept. What does it refer to? 'this social order'? 'this physical world'? Anarcho-Syndicalists promote the destruction of this social order just as Nihilists would, we just don't think urban guerilla warfare is going to accomplish the task.



Anarcho syndicalism promotes the take over of the means of producction,not the destruction of them.That goes for serious anarchists too.

Some means of production might be destroyed out of tactical necessity or simply because they do no longer suite the needs of the new society. I doubt, however, that SR propose the destruction of every building, instrument, etc. existing...