Log in

View Full Version : The Red Army Faction (RAF)



Bianconero
4th August 2003, 12:44
I'm reading a book on the Red Army Faction right now. I'm reading it in German ('Bader - Meinhof Komplex') and it's basically a lot of information on what happened, on the roots of the movement and from what I read until now I have to say that it's surprisingly unbiased.

So for those who don't know - the Red Army Faction basically was a communist organization lead by Andreas Bader, Ulrike Meinhof, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan - Carl Raspe. The RAF was an urban Guerilla organization in western Germany of the 1970s. They kidnapped planes or single people such as the president of Germany's employers Schleyer.

So what do you all think of the urban Guerila concept. Do you think a revolution can be launched in a country (such as 1970s Germany) that takes profit of the system of imperialism? And what do you think of the Red Army Faction? Would you have supported them or even joined them?

Personally, I'm rather sceptical about the concept of starting a revolution in a western country. I think the problem the RAF had to face, was that people, at least those who should (i.e. Germany's workers), never understood the RAF's motives. The bourgeois tabloids such as the 'Bild' soon launched a propaganda war and the RAF was by then too often labelled simply 'mindless terrorists' with no sense for reality etc.

Thoughs!

A RAF communiqué ...

"The Concept Urban Guerrilla (excerpt)

English Translation

If we are correct in saying that American imperialism is a paper tiger, i.e., that it can ultimately be defeated, and if the Chinese Communists are correct in their thesis that victory over American imperialism has become possible because the struggle against it is now being waged in all four corners of the earth, with the result that the forces of imperialism are fragmented, a fragmentation which makes them possible to defeat -- if this is correct, then there is no reason to exclude or disqualify any particular country or any particular region from taking part in the anti-imperialist struggle because the forces of revolution are especially weak there and the forces of reaction especially strong.

As it is wrong to discourage the forces of revolution by underestimating their power, so it is wrong to suggest they should seek confrontations in which these forces cannot but be squandered or annihilated. The contradiction between the sincere comrades in the organization -- let's forget about the prattler -- and the Red Army Faction, is that we charge them with discouraging the forces of revolution and they suspect us of squandering the forces of revolution. Certainly, this analysis does indicate the directions in which the fraction of those comrades working in the factories and at local level and the Red Army Faction are overdoing things, if they are overdoing things. Dogmatism and adventurism have since time immemorial been characteristic deviations in periods of revolutionary weakness in all countries. Anarchists have since time immemorial been the sharpest critics of opportunism, anyone criticizing the opportunists exposes himself to the charge of anarchism. This is something of an old chestnut.

The concept of the "urban guerrilla" originated in Latin America. Here, the urban guerrilla can only be what he is there: the only revolutionary method of intervention available to what are on the whole weak revolutionary forces.

The urban guerrilla starts by recognizing that there will be no Prussian order of march of the kind in which so many so-called revolutionaries would like to lead the people into battle. He starts by recognizing that by the time the moment for armed struggle arrives, it will already be too late to start preparing for it; that in a country whose potential for violence is as great and whose revolutionary traditions are as broken and feeble as the Federal Republic's, there will not -- without revolutionary initiative -- even be a revolutionary orientation when conditions for revolutionary struggle are better than they are at present -- which will happen as an inevitable consequence of the development of late capitalism itself.

To this extent, the "urban guerrilla" is the logical consequence of the negation of parliamentary democracy long since perpetuated by it very own representatives; the only and inevitable response to emergency laws and the rule of the hand grenade; the readiness to fight with those same means the system has chosen to use in trying to eliminate its opponents. The "urban guerrilla" is based on a recognition of the facts instead of an apologia of the facts.

The student movement, for one, realized something of what the urban guerrilla can do. He can make concrete agitation and propaganda which remain the sum total of left-wing activity. One can imagine the concept being applied to the Springer campaign at that time or to the Heidelberg students' Cabora Bassa Campaign, to the squads in Frankfurt, or in relation to the Federal Republic's military aid to the comprador regimes in Africa, in relation to criticism of prison sentences and class justice, of safely legislation at work and injustice there.

The urban guerrilla can concretize verbal internationalism as the requisition of guns and money. He can blunt the state's weapon of a ban on communists by organizing an underground beyond the reach of the police. The urban guerrilla is a weapon in the class war.

The "urban guerrilla" signifies armed struggle, necessary to the extent that it is the police which make indiscriminate use of firearms, exonerating class justice from guilt and burying our comrades alive unless we prevent them. To be an "urban guerrilla" means not to let oneself be demoralized by the violence of the system.

The urban guerrilla's aim is to attack the state's apparatus of control at certain points and put them out of action, to destroy the myth of the system's omnipresence and invulnerability.

The "urban guerrilla" presupposes the organization of an illegal apparatus, in other words apartments, weapons, ammunition, cars and papers. A detailed description of what is involved is to be found in Marighella's "Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla." As for what else is involved, we are ready at any time to inform anyone who needs to know because he intends to do it. We do not know a great deal yet, but we do know something.

What is important is that one should have had some political experience in legality before deciding to take up armed struggle. Those who have joined the revolutionary left just to be trendy had better be careful not to involve themselves in something from which there is no going back. The Red Army Faction and the "urban guerrilla" are the that fraction and praxis which, because they draw a clear dividing line between themselves and the enemy, are combated most intensively. This presupposes a political identity, presupposed that one or two lessons have already been learned.

In our original concept, we planned to combine urban guerrilla activity with grass-roots work. What we wanted was for each of us to work simultaneously within existing socialist groups at the work place and in local districts, helping to influence the discussion process, learning, gaining experience. It has become clear that this cannot be done. These groups are under such close surveillance by the political police, their meetings, timetables, and the content of their discussion so well monitored, that it is impossible to attend without being put under surveillance oneself. We have learned that individuals cannot combine legal and illegal activity.

Becoming an "urban guerrilla" presupposes that one is clear about one's own motivation that one is sure of being immune to "Bild-Zeitung" methods, sure that the whole anti-Semite-criminal-subhuman-murderer-arsonist syndrome they use against revolutionaries, all that shit that they alone are able to abstract and articulate and that still influences some comrades' attitude to us, that none of this has any effect on us.

RAF"

Comrade Raz
4th August 2003, 15:05
There is a thread about the RAF in the Politics forum.

redstar2000
4th August 2003, 15:30
Here's a bit of background discussion...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=4&t=16104 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=16104)

He starts by recognizing that by the time the moment for armed struggle arrives, it will already be too late to start preparing for it; that in a country whose potential for violence is as great and whose revolutionary traditions are as broken and feeble as the Federal Republic's, there will not -- without revolutionary initiative -- even be a revolutionary orientation when conditions for revolutionary struggle are better than they are at present -- which will happen as an inevitable consequence of the development of late capitalism itself.

This paragraph seems to me to be the core assertion; that is, that revolution in advanced capitalist countries is characterized by protracted armed struggle.

It follows that there must be cadre both trained and experienced who are already at hand when the moment arrives for a "general insurrection".

I don't think it's going to work like that.

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.

And thirdly, it paradoxically encourages passivity...even among supporters on the left. If someone else is out there "doing heroic stuff", anything that you're doing is going to look and feel like "small beer"...so why bother?

Experienced revolutionaries will see past that third objection, of course, and realize that the "non-glamorous" stuff is even more important. But for the newbies, it will seem like there's nothing to choose between putting a poster of Ulrike on your bedroom wall and actually being part of the guerilla "army" (and they don't take people who walk in off the street...even if you could find their recruiting office).

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.

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)?

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.

But for the time being, I remain unconvinced; I don't think urban guerilla warfare is a viable strategy in the advanced capitalist countries.

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

Bianconero
4th August 2003, 17:00
I suggest some moderator closes this thread as we already have one on this topic that I oversaw unfortunatly. I'll reply to your post there redstar2000.