Baader-Meinhoff

[scott thesocialist]

i just watched a program about the story of the RAF,Baader-Meinhoff the so called terroist group from germany, who killed german and us people in 1968 till 1999, but all killings where between '68'71 i think, do poeple know much about this group and do people agree with what the did???? basically the stood against capitalism, and the german government at the time.

[Sabocat]

From what I've read, they were fighting against the Nazi's turned to politicians. They also struck against the German secret police. Very anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist. I love how the western media portrays any group like this as "terrorists".

This is a good place to read some interesting stuff.

http://www.baader-meinhof.com/terminology/.../terms/raf.html (http://www.baader-meinhof.com/terminology/terms/raf.html)

There also happens to be a member of the board community here who may be able to give you a much better idea of who they really were. ;)

[stonerboi]

I supported what the Baader-Meinhoff (official name Red Army Faction or RAF) did 100%!

The individuals who were targeted and 'taken out' by RAF deserved what was coming to them. That industrialist they took out was a former SS officer who took part in the nazi genocide in Eastern Europe. When Shmidt, the German PM in the 1970s talks on TV about RAF's 'taking out' of the industrialist as a blow to German democracy, it shows you that the system isn't that democratic.

Any system which allows ex-nazis/gestapo/SS people to take up powerful positions of influence in society is a dictatorship no matter how many elections are held.

You have to look at it in the context of the time. RAF was fighting against the ex-nazi state and against policemen who shot at and killed in 1972 students. The very same policemen who were killing jewish men, women and children 20 years earlier!

Anyone who criticises them should ponder what has non-violent demos, petitions and the rest achieved? Nothing, because capitalism will never give up its power without a fight! Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Guevera all said this as well!

Che also said that its right to use violence against the system because it uses violence as well! The oppresed should use the weapon of their oppressor!

Looking at the way things are now, we in the first world need armed struggle groups more than ever!

[Kez]

it is one thing to use violence, it is another to use terrorism.

The RAF useed individual acts of terror, something both marx and lenin were very strongly opposed to.

What the RAF achieved was to allow the state to build 3 massive Police HQ's which could be used to capture and survey real marxists and real opposition.

the RAF was a naive group who had similair views to socialism, however, how they trieed to achieve it was in the most un-socialist way possible. Marxism is for the people to achieve, not a small clique of "revolutionaries"

comrade kamo

[Sabocat]

At one point it had been reported that the RAF were supported by 20-30% of the German people. If that's not the start of a revolution I don't know what is. The police barracks/agencies were built out of fear of the movement, proving how effective they were being.

Didn't the Cuban revolution start with a "small clique of revolutionaries"?

So your definition of terrorism is taking out a few capitalist industrialists, and yet what the industrialists and bankers at the time were doing to the population of Germany wasn't terrorism?

What about what the police most likely did to the jailed members? Was that justice or terrorism?

Sometimes drastic times, call for drastic measures.

[Comrade Raz]

I saw that program as well on BBC2.

It was a very intersting program, as to whether I suppor them or not, I'm unsure. They where fighting for the right things and some of the protest stuuf they did against the Vietnam War was good. For example lighting up those department stores and then saying your shocked at this you should check whats going on in Vietnam, it's like this just a hundred times worse. The hostage video of that Nazi guy was funny, he was saying shit like you must help save me to uphold democracy and freedom in West Germany when he supported the Nazis :D . They did go too far in some of their actions though, when they indangered inocent human lives.

[Kez]

Originally posted by Nathaniel [email protected] 31 2003, 07:43 PM
At one point it had been reported that the RAF were supported by 20-30% of the German people. If that's not the start of a revolution I don't know what is. The police barracks/agencies were built out of fear of the movement, proving how effective they were being.

Didn't the Cuban revolution start with a "small clique of revolutionaries"?

So your definition of terrorism is taking out a few capitalist industrialists, and yet what the industrialists and bankers at the time were doing to the population of Germany wasn't terrorism?

What about what the police most likely did to the jailed members? Was that justice or terrorism?

Sometimes drastic times, call for drastic measures.
Sympathtic support is nice, but so what?
What is neededd is a mass insurection, not the passive approval of a minority of the population. Only the masses can change their situation, and 20% approval is not mass active solidarity with the RAF
The buildings were not built from fear, the police always want new buildings, new tech, new equipment, this was an EXCUSE for them to justify their reasons for wanting new shit

Yes the cuban revolutionaries were a small clique, however, the situation was much different as it was a 3rd world country. Even che said that it shouldnt be conducted in 1st world countries. In anycase, it was the masses who bought the revolution, with the general strike, not the small clique of revolutionaries

on your 3rd point, i never said such a thing

What happened in the jails the RAF shouldve known about and was an injustice in human terms, however the RAF knew that all this would happen if they were caught. The shit that was sed to Ulrika (?) in jail by the others was a disgrace, and very unmarxist.

Indeedd drastic times call for drastic measures, however not for ultra-left adventurism and individual terrorism

[RevolucioN NoW]

The RAF did have the support of 20% of the population, but at this stage they had only burnt down a few department stores and shot some cops, not blown up military complexes and sent pieces of american soldiers stringing from trees.

A deeper look at the RAF reveals that they were indeed a rather small (less than 100 strong) military/revolutionary group lead by a motorcycle theif turned revolutionary Andrees Baader and his girlfriend, the real ideological light behind the group. They engages in many assasinations and bombings from 1968, when they detonated 2 time delayed incendary bombs inside department stores right up to 1998, when a message was sent to news agencies claiming the formal disbanding of the RAF.

The name 'Baader Meinhoff' is misleading, the leader was always the control freak Baader, who was reported to have shot a person for wanting to leave the group and the insecure Meinhofplayed only a small part.

two good sites for more information are:
www.badder-meinhof.com
www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/meinhof/1.html

:ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Only the masses can change their situation, and 20% approval is not mass active solidarity with the RAF.

Quite so. The real test was (and is): do others imitate you? If you launch a "pilot project" of urban guerilla warfare, do significant numbers of other people "take up" that form of struggle?

Your "approval rating" in the polls is meaningless. That kind of passive support is "easy" and "without risk". Do enough other people hate the existing system enough to risk their lives opposing it like you have?

If the answer is no, or appears likely to be no, then you're just wasting your time. Many years later, after the revolution, you might get a street or a park named after you...but no one will really appreciate what you tried to do.

I kind of expect that there will be more RAFs in the not-too-distant future...small groups of people who are so outraged that they are willing (and eager?) to be "martyrs" to the revolution.

But I think it's a waste, myself. We don't need martyrs...we need people who can communicate to other people why there should be a revolution in the first place.

Maybe that's just a harder job. Shooting is easy compared to really persuading people.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

if i can just emphasize on redstars correct points (tell me if this is not what u meant RS)

the masses need to be DOING the revolting, not a small group. How can a small group of fanatic terrorists take on a capitalist state with its media, troops, police, judiciary etc.

It cant, only when the workers stop the wheels of the state, can anything happen

[Vinny Rafarino]

Waiting for the"masses" to revolt is like waiting for Redstar to no longer be considered a hack. An impossible dream.

Kamo you sould like the posterboy for the Whitey House.



Civilians have never been targeted by the RAF but as is the case in any war, civialians sometimes become casualties due to unforeseen circumstances.


The alleged shooting of Ingeborg Barz for wanting to leave the faction has NEVER been proven to be accurate. The only evidence is testimony of a traitor to the RAF. This tesimony was proven in a court of law to be bullshit and Andreas was never charged for this crime. That is all I will say on that.


The goal of Socialist praxis is to get the revolution moving. It is up to the people to actually broaden the war. Perhaps if all of the whiney new-leftist pseudo-socialist kids today would support socialist praxis then the stigma attached to armed struggle would not be as severe as it is today. How can we get to masses to revolt when we cannot even get our own party members to revolt. It's truly disgusting.

[redstar2000]

Waiting for the "masses" to revolt is like waiting for Redstar to no longer be considered a hack. An impossible dream.

:lol:

Perhaps if all of the whiney new-leftist pseudo-socialist kids today would support socialist praxis then the stigma attached to armed struggle would not be as severe as it is today. How can we get to masses to revolt when we cannot even get our own party members to revolt. It's truly disgusting.

Yeah, Comrade RAF, it's just "disgusting" that all these "whiney new-leftist pseudo-socialist" kids want to think about this stuff instead of running off to volunteer for your personal "martyrs brigade". Shame on them! :lol:

The goal of Socialist praxis is to get the revolution moving.

Who would question such a banal assertion? What is being questioned is the utility of urban guerilla warfare in persuit of that goal. There might come a point where it would be useful...it is clearly not useful in the advanced capitalist countries at this time.

I already said that I expected some small groups to give it a try in the not-too-distant future...perhaps you will be a part of one such effort.

Should that happen, you know what I will say. Depending on the content of the political views put forward and the extent to which I agree with them, I'll either praise your efforts or criticize them harshly.

Naturally, as a communist, I would not criticize you for resistance to capitalist hegemony.

But I'd question your good sense.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

The only thing banal here is your use of these cute little smiley faces. I reckon if we include them in a modern edition of the Manifest of the Communist party we would be in business eh? Please explain to me how the concept of Socialist Praxis is banal. I have yet to see anyone on this forum even remotely understand tho concept or even make an attempt to understand it. Perhaps you think "banal" means something different that it actually means.


There might come a point where it would be useful...it is clearly not useful in the advanced capitalist countries at this time.



The reason urban armed struggle presents a lack of usefulness in modern society is due to the lack of support of "armchair revolutionaries" like yourself.



already said that I expected some small groups to give it a try in the not-too-distant future...perhaps you will be a part of one such effort.


Perhaps this is an understatement.



Should that happen, you know what I will say. Depending on the content of the political views put forward and the extent to which I agree with them, I'll either praise your efforts or criticize them harshly.


A "fair weather fan" I see. How admirable. I can read between the lines quite well Redster. Allow me to re-phrase your statement with one that reflect what you really wanted to say;

"Should that happen, you know what I will say. Depending on the success of the movement put forward and the extent to which I can gain public regonisation, I'll either ride your coat tails or critisise you harshly."

[redstar2000]

The reason urban armed struggle presents a lack of usefulness in modern society is due to the lack of support of "armchair revolutionaries" like yourself.

You know, I'm beginning to wonder now if I am the one who is holding up everyone?

One guy says that it's my fault if George W. Bush gets re-elected because I won't support some corporate Democrat. :o

Another guy says that my "ultra-leftism" is holding up his plans for "market socialism". :o

And now I'm standing in the way of urban guerilla warfare!!! :o

I have truly underestimated the power of "the awkward question". To those with dubious politics, it appears a veritable juggernaut...capable of halting all social progress.

Please explain to me how the concept of Socialist Praxis is banal.

Because it's just a fancy way of saying "translating an idea into a course of action"...something that no one disagrees with in principle.

Whenever people debate political questions, they are discussing praxis implicitly...even if they never heard of the word.

We could even re-name the Practice Forum the Praxis Forum...give it a little more "tone" or make it sound more "cool".

The real question, which you evaded, is: does urban guerilla warfare make sense at the present time in the advanced capitalist countries?

I don't think it does...and you've certainly presented no arguments to support your contention. So it seems to me that you're just playing at being "r-r-r-revolutionary" (as someone you admire once said).

All things considered, that's probably a good thing.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well forgive me if I cannot go into extreme detail about my views on Urban Armed Struggle.


Put two and two together RS old buddy.


Do I think it's effective today? No. I don't. We will have to wait another year or two.


Will I stop? No I won't.


Good enough mate?

[Bianconero]

redstar2000 ...


First of all, any protracted armed contest between the bourgeois organs of repression and a relatively small group of civilians (no matter how well trained or armed)...is going to end in victory for the state. Modern military technology is simply overwhelming.

Secondly, the infrastructure of capitalist society--at least at the present time--is robust...knock out the power in the central business district and it will be back up within the hour and maybe within minutes. It is no more than a flea-bite.

This may be the case in countries taking profit of imperialism. On the other hand, we have countries where the capital isn't as strong as in the countries you mean. The capital is not concentrated there, i.e. the capitalist class is weaker.


I contend that proletarian revolution in advanced capitalist countries will be characterized by massive insurgency--like that of February 1917 in Russia--in which armed struggle will play a minor role if any at all. The personnel that the capitalist state apparatus counts on to defend it will have become demoralized and/or mutinous...or will simply have quietly shed their uniforms and melted into the rebellious population.

I don't see your 'rebellious population' at all. Neither today nor in the future. I've said it in another thread and I'll say it again. The dream that the 'masses' one day pimp the system 'all together', without any authorities within the movement, is simply not ging to happen. Redstar, what you suggest is that we, the left, educate the masses today so that they are one day able to rise all together. That would be, of course, the best option but we can't compete with the bourgeois' media, with the bourgeois' method of brainwashing the workingman, we simply can't succeed in educating the workingman when the capital opposes itself to our attempts to do so.

We have no chance, it's rather useless. The masses will only rise together if they are determined, educated enough.


Of course, I can't "prove" it will happen that way...I just can't see any other practical alternative if the revolution is to win.

That is, reformism (of all kinds) is clearly a dead end. Urban guerilla warfare (West Germany and Italy) made headlines for a while and then sputtered out. What else is left (in both senses of the word)?

I basically agree with that typical leninist method. But I don't agree that so - called 'first' world countries are where the revolution needs to start off. It's rather countries that really suffer from imperialism that can see the revolution succeed. And yes, we need 'professional' revolutionaries to lead the working class, we need them to be their head. And I don't think that the masses will turn 'passive' then. Looking at what happened in Cuba I think we have a good example that those who are 'able' and who are ready can still actively join the revolution lateron in the armed struggle.

[redstar2000]

I basically agree with that typical leninist method. But I don't agree that so - called 'first' world countries are where the revolution needs to start off. It's rather countries that really suffer from imperialism that can see the revolution succeed. And yes, we need 'professional' revolutionaries to lead the working class, we need them to be their head.

We're talking "apples and oranges" here. As I noted in another thread, the Leninist-Maoist model "works" in countries like yours...and the model I suggest is intended for "first world countries".

What will come of it all is another matter...

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[socialist_chick]

RAF

Socialism as far as I can see is about a working class unity, so our strength is in numbers, not in fanatical cliques.

All this direct action and individual terrorism/violence is actually more suited to 'newbie kids' as ive heard them term used, because they feel they have to do something now instead of trying to build a genuine movement.

Throw a brick, light a fire, hit a police officer...

These things dont harm one hair on the head of capitalism though, do they.

I respect you're commitment, but maybe its time to rethink you're ways ;)

[socialist_chick]

btw I heard you are from Scotland, where abouts? I live in Dundee (Im at Uni) although I'm from Forfar originally :D

[elijahcraig]

I am a little unsure on this issue.

On one side, I see what RAF is saying, that the working class in first world countries is so (forgive me if this is incorrect) pampered, etc., that a revolution is not possible at this time from the standpoint of mass movement. And that small strikes against the capitalist system is a way to keep the movement alive in first world nations.

On the other side, I see what RedStar is saying. Will this be effective from the standpoint of the Marxist? Will the media turn the working class against communism, even more than they already are? I say yes. I think the media-corporate-government collage is very well conformed in their ability to do that. Che thought so.

I have also heard RAF say that "people like violence"...now, I would agree in a way, but not in another. They like passive violence, they don't like violence in its raw nature. For example, when the media shows what the war for what it really is (Vietnam, for instance), the public immediately turns against the violence. It is a reaction. This is a bourgeois tendency...first world pampering of the working class, as compared to the third world proletariat.

Those are my thoughts on the issue anyway.

[Sabocat]

How is what the RAF tried to accomplish different in principal than what Fidel, Raul, Che and Camillo and their small band of guerillas' were trying to do?

Were they a just a small clique as well?

Isn't it possible that the RAF were trying to ignite sentiment in the German population and to build a real revolutionary movement?

Weren't they fighting against capitalist and social oppression?

I guess the question that needs to be asked if you've looked into what they were trying to accomplish, is why wouldn't we have supported them? Is it possible that the reason they didn't get full support and more "recruits" in Germany due to a strong opposing capitalist press and media coverage? Those are difficult hurdles to overcome.

[Bianconero]

Is it possible that the reason they didn't get full support and more "recruits" in Germany due to a strong opposing capitalist press and media coverage? Those are difficult hurdles to overcome.

That's the point really. How is the German working class supposed to support the RAF when the 'Bild' ('Sun' style, probably even worse, the most read newspaper by a long range in Germany) is launching their propaganda war from the very beggining. Every Guerilla movement needs the support of the people and that's where the RAF failed in my oppinion.

[Sabocat]

I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make. Failure doesn't mean that it wasn't right. If that's the case, are we to only back "winners"?

Like all things in history, there was definitely something to be learned from it, and we shouldn't be afraid to support a movement in history because it was unsuccessful.

[socialist_chick]

Didn't Che and Castro consistently deny that they were communists throughout their lives though? I even seem to remember somewhere Castro saying he would never have anything to do with Marxism :o

Btw, the Cuban revolution would never have happened without the Cuban working class!

[Sabocat]

Che absolutely was a Marxist. Reading Marx was part of his "transformation". Fidel did not want to publicly announce that he was a Communist at the beginning to prevent reaction by the U$.

Yes, the working class Cuban was decisive, however, it was still a small band of guerilla's that landed on Cuban shores to begin the revolution.

[Bianconero]

I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make. Failure doesn't mean that it wasn't right. If that's the case, are we to only back "winners"?

Like all things in history, there was definitely something to be learned from it, and we shouldn't be afraid to support a movement in history because it was unsuccessful.

That the RAF movement was actually 'right' only means we must not denounche them. Support them is something different, I mean I'd personally not join an Urban Guerilla organization.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 04:12 AM
RAF

Socialism as far as I can see is about a working class unity, so our strength is in numbers, not in fanatical cliques.

All this direct action and individual terrorism/violence is actually more suited to 'newbie kids' as ive heard them term used, because they feel they have to do something now instead of trying to build a genuine movement.

Throw a brick, light a fire, hit a police officer...

These things dont harm one hair on the head of capitalism though, do they.

I respect you're commitment, but maybe its time to rethink you're ways ;)
Who said anything about "throwing bricks, lighting fires or hitting police offices"? We used to to things like that when I was a kid in London. This is business for petty rioting not urban armed struggle. I am originally from Aberdeen however I left there in the seventees.


I think perhaps it's time for you to research urban armed struggle.

[Urban Rubble]

"Didn't Che and Castro consistently deny that they were communists throughout their lives though? I even seem to remember somewhere Castro saying he would never have anything to do with Marxism "

Are you dead fucking serious with that shit ? Sorry to go off topic people, but I feel the need to correct this woman. Fidel didn't reveal he was a Marxist until after revolution simply because he wanted as much support as possible ( and to avoid U.S intervention as Disgustipated pointed out), I see nothing wrong with that. Che NEVER denied being a Marxist, in fact, he was TOO outspoken about it. People tried to make him shut up about it if I remember correctly.

I agree with RAF and Bianconero, small bands of armed Marxist are O.K with me.

[socialist_chick]

Urban Rubble,

Che and Castro denied they were Marxists countless times including after the revolution, i'll have a look for some quotes later on. They didn't just deny it either, it rather annoyed them.

[Urban Rubble]

Jesus Christ, you couldn't be more wrong.

I will personally send you $100 the minute you find one quote from Che denying his Marxism, during or after the revolution.

Fidel is a different case, he denied it for awhile (for reasons already stated) but then he revealed his true nature.

It will take me a minute, but I will try to find the exact date that Fidel declared the revolution to be a Socialist one. There is actually a Stadium in Cuba named after this date.

Again, you are completely and totally wrong.

[Urban Rubble]

April 19th 1961

Fidel Castro gives his speech declaring Cuba a Socialist nation.

I believe he announced his Marxism publicly before this, maybe I could be wrong. However, Che never denied being a Marxist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 03:40 AM
Urban Rubble,

Che and Castro denied they were Marxists countless times including after the revolution, i'll have a look for some quotes later on. They didn't just deny it either, it rather annoyed them.
Socialist Chick you should be ashamed of yourself. Fidel in 1959 told the US government Cuba was not a communist nation due to the severe amount of control of cuban industry the US currently held. The entire ecomomy was based on US money. Once comrade Castro's reforms began to nationalise cubas property and industry, the fear of monetary retaliation by the US was not longer an issue, thus his 1961 speach.

Perhaps you should re-phrase your statements into questions from now on.

[Nobody]

Going back to the intial topic about the RAF. I think we need groups like that to get the ball rolling. No one wants to take the first step. 99% of people are sheep, they just follow the shepred, the RAF tried to be that shepred. It takes an insanly brave person to form or join a group like the RAF, to step away from what society accepts, and try and take that first step. A large number of communist in a country is like a powder keg, but you still need that spark to set it off.

In short, I respect groups like the RAF and what they stand for.

PS Che was a communist, and Castro publicly announce he was a Marxist-Leninist to the end of his days after the Bay of Pigs.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redstar from the RAF thread-


Of course, I could possibly be wrong about this...perhaps a new group(s) even better organized than the German RAF or Italy's Red Brigades with an even better eye for the "weak spots" in the capitalist system could provoke a crisis in "state authority" and a subsequent general uprising. History is full of warnings about over-hasty conclusions.


Perhaps there are these groups. Perhaps the seventh and eight generation of RAF are already among us? Who can tell. Perhaps there is even others you mentioned still operating like Le Brigate Rosse- Partito Comunista Combattente (BR-PCC) or in English, the RB-CCP. (Red Brigade-Communist Combattant Party)

Organizzazione di militanti brigatisti. Ricordare le combattimento del 1993!

Could be possible eh? Only time will tell

EDIT

The support in Italy is still very big. Underground and above.

[Bianconero]

Hi there.

I just watched a programm on TV (Internet actually, the show dates back to 2002, I had to download it) discussing the year 1977. 1977, when Hanns Martin Schleyer was kidnapped in Germany by the RAF with the intention to free fellow comrades Baader, Ensslin, Raspe and Möller (the most important) from Stuttgart prison 'Stammheim.' The programm mainly discussed the events of 1977, the 'Landshut - drama' etc. all resulting in the execution of Schleyer following the death of the Stammheim prisoners.

Now among the guests was Peter Jürgen Boock. Boock, who was among the 'terrorists' who kidnapped Schleyer. Boock, who had a close relationship to both Baader and Ensslin. Now up until now, I knew Boock mainly from books and internet articles I read. I knew him as the heroic communist revolutionary, who was one of those leading RAF - members looking to free the 'Stammheim' prisoners Baader, Ensslin and Raspe.

Boock was arrested in the early 80s and only got out of prison in 1998 (or 1996, not sure here).

The Peter Jürgen Boock I just saw on TV was a broken man. He left the RAF while in prison, wrote a book on his experiences and is today often seen as the symbol of the downfall of the Red Army Faction, the 'moral downfall' that resulted in the group's split in 1998. Listening to Boock talking about '77 really got me thinking and this is actually why I write this. He admits (wrong word maybe) that he was morally wrong back then, that there was something within his mind from the very beginning that told him he was wrong, morally wrong. He furthermore talks about Schleyer being completely the opposite of what the RAF members thought before they had kidnapped him. Kind, thoughtful, caring - not the 'capitalist - pig' Boock and his comrades had expected. Seeing Boock regretting his past, seeing him looking for explanations, seeing him today leads me to an inevitable question: Can we see the Boock of today as a victim of western propaganda, was/is he simply not 'up to it'? Or is there more behind it?

Personally, I consider myself a 'Socialist' and I have often enough said that violence can only be answered with violence. And theoretically, this is perfectly true. I always thought that if I had, for example, the chance to go back to 1930 and kill Hitler, I wouldn't hesitate. But after all, most of us are Internet - revolutionaries. Can we really say, from our 'secure' position in society now, that we would be 'up to it', that we could fight and kill for our political cause?

These are just the thoughts I had while seeing the former RAF - terrorist, who was actually known to be one of those 'up to it', whatever that means anyway.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Afte that many years in prison, one could definitely see how he would publically say these things. Kind of makes you wonder as to what his conditions of parole are. Moral decandence was in no way the reason for the "disbanding" of the RAF proper. (at least the PUBLIC disbanding of the RAF that is) The old members of the 60's movement are not even relevant in the more modern generations of the RAF, if ever there was such a thing.

[Bianconero]

Kind of makes you wonder as to what his conditions of parole are.

You're correct here, he got out earlier because he 'felt sorry.'

Anyway, I'm not sure if Boock in fact only 'felt sorry' to get out. After Schleyer was brought to Den Haag, some (not to say 'many') RAF members suddenly had doubts (those who articulated them were sent to Bagdad). Few, of course, would make them public to their comrades. The point I wanted to make was that we don't know, we can't know whether we could 'just kill' let's say 10 people for our cause.

[Vinny Rafarino]

There are those of use that do know whether or not they couls and there are those of us who don't. I implore anyone who ever may "feel" urban armed struggle is morally wrong to NEVER make a commitment to suh a group.

[Bianconero]

True that. Anyway, I don't think that for example Boock or Mohnhaupt thought of their actions as morally wrong, yet there was something within them they had to fight all the time.

Nevermind, what got me thinking was the fact that I have no idea if I could do it. That was all.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 02:30 PM
Do I think it's effective today? No. I don't. We will have to wait another year or two.

So it wasn't effective in the seventies, the eighties or the nineties, and it is not effective today... but it will be effective in about a year or two? What exactly is going to happen that is going to change the entire dynamic between pro-Communist violence and the general public?

I support armed struggle - but only if it can be shown to lead to tangiable results. I think hoping for it to suddenly happen at some point in the future - the idea that there will be a time when all these methods suddenly start working - is not terribly realistic.

--- G.

[mentalbunny]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to read all this thread right now, and I don't know much about the RAF, but I do know that this guy last year (Lucien Freud's son actually!) did his A level oral on the Baader Meinhof, you have to argue a point in your oral and he decided to say that the B-M were a good thing, but he has this thing that he can't speak German fluently unless he does a specific accent, and for this one he sounded creepily like Hitler, my german teacher recorded his practice and played it to us, it was really weird! That guy was a real dude, a true genius on the verge of insanity type, they're very rare! But considering his ancestry that's not surprising!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dhul Fiqar+Sep 7 2003, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dhul Fiqar @ Sep 7 2003, 03:15 PM)
COMRADE [email protected] 3 2003, 02:30 PM
Do I think it&#39;s effective today? No. I don&#39;t. We will have to wait another year or two.

So it wasn&#39;t effective in the seventies, the eighties or the nineties, and it is not effective today... but it will be effective in about a year or two? What exactly is going to happen that is going to change the entire dynamic between pro-Communist violence and the general public?

I support armed struggle - but only if it can be shown to lead to tangiable results. I think hoping for it to suddenly happen at some point in the future - the idea that there will be a time when all these methods suddenly start working - is not terribly realistic.

--- G. [/b]
The proof will be in the pudding as they say, comrade Fiqar.

[Dhul Fiqar]

The Christians are still waiting for Jesus to come back and he was expected 2000 years ago - these things have a tendancy to be drawn out a lot longer than anyone can predict. :)

--- G.