Anarchists Claim Responsibility for Rome Bombs

[B0LSHEVIK]

An anarchist group claimed responsibility for parcel bombs on Thursday that wounded two people at the Swiss and Chilean embassies in Rome, a reminder of Europe's home-grown threats at a time of political instability.

A Swiss man was seriously wounded and rushed to hospital. An employee at the Chilean embassy was less seriously hurt. A note was found stuck to his clothing, claiming responsibility for the attack on behalf of the FAI, or Informal Anarchist Federation.

"We have decided to make our voice heard with words and with facts, we will destroy the system of dominance, long live the FAI, long-live Anarchy," said the note, written in Italian, which was released in the evening by the police.

The incidents bore similarities to an episode in Greece last month in which far-left militants sent parcel bombs to foreign governments abroad and to embassies in Athens.

The note was signed by the "Lambros Fountas revolutionary cell" of the FAI, named for a Greek anarchist killed in a clash with Athens police in March. It also made reference to anarchist movements in Chile, Mexico, Spain and Argentina.

"Greece, Italy and Spain have seen the presence of anarcho-insurrectionalist groups that are tightly linked," Italy's Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said before the note was found. "They are very violent."
The FAI is well known to Italian authorities. Intelligence services said in a report to parliament last year that it was "the main national terrorist threat of an anarchist-insurrectionalist type."

In December 2009 the group claimed responsibility for a bomb that partially exploded in a tunnel under Milan's Bocconi University at 3 am, causing no casualties.

No note was found at the Swiss embassy, but police said the packages that exploded were almost identical.

The explosions came at a time of tension in Italy. Last week saw an anti-government student protest that descended into some of the worst street violence in Rome for many years.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini condemned the incidents, which he said were a serious threat to diplomatic missions in Rome. He urged caution and warned against alarmist reactions.

The attacks, like those in Greece, focused attention on Europe's domestic security threats at a time when authorities had otherwise been warning of the risk of attacks by al Qaeda.

"It doesn't look like a typical jihadist thing. It looks more like the act of a leftist, fringe group," said Stephan Bierling, professor of International Politics at Regensburg University in Germany.

Spending cuts caused by the financial crisis have led to demonstrations and strikes around Europe, and experts expect a rise in political violence by far-left groups.

"Given the similarities with the recent parcel bombs in Greece following anti-austerity protests, this could be a copycat incident by domestic activists," said Samantha Wolreich, European risk analyst at advisory firm AKE.

A Greek police official said they had so far not received a request for help from Italian police. He said Greek authorities had stepped up checks of parcels at airports across the country following the attacks in Italy.

HEIGHTENED SECURITY FEARS


Bomb disposal experts searched the Swiss embassy offices but staff remained in the building following the incident, which occurred at around midday (1100 GMT).

Firefighters conducted checks of the Chilean embassy, in the same prosperous neighborhood, after the explosion of the package the size of a document. Other inspections were carried out at foreign missions across the Italian capital.

A source in the Rome prosecutors' office said the package in the Chilean embassy had been sent from Italy, while the package in the Swiss embassy had been completely destroyed.

"We are reviewing our security posture in Rome in light of incidents today," U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in Washington.

Chilean ambassador Oscar Godoy said there had been no indication that an attack was likely.

"This is an absolutely irrational and brutal act of terrorism," he told reporters.
The explosions follow the discovery of a rudimentary device in an empty underground train in Rome on Tuesday. However, police said that it lacked a detonator and tests showed it contained no explosive.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101223/wl_nm/us_italy_explosion

[Antifa94]

Years of lead all over again?

[B0LSHEVIK]

The current situation is very favorable for a mass movement. The right is organizing fine. Berlusconni (I cant spell italian) and Putin were recently on a honey moon after signing arms agreements and trade deals. And right psuedo fascists were taking rifles to health care debates in America. But where are we? Not just anarchists, where is the left period? I think its quite unfortunate that certain anarchists resort to bombing proletarians in embassies as a means of media attention, rather than being constructive.

[FreeFocus]

I think its quite unfortunate that certain anarchists resort to bombing proletarians in embassies as a means of media attention, rather than being constructive.

What proletarians? I wouldn't consider people working in embassies "civilians." They are diplomats (unless it's like a janitor).

I'm not sure targeting the Chilean embassy is the most productive thing, Chile doesn't negatively affect Italy. The Swiss man might have just been walking by. Of course these are unfortunate things and they could choose more appropriate sites. But who says armed resistance isn't "productive?" It's a matter of strategy. Would such actions, channeled properly, complement a mass movement that could develop? I don't know a ton about the situation there, only that people are pissed off.

[theAnarch]

Whats the point of sending mail bombs to the swiss and chileian embassys?

[B0LSHEVIK]

What proletarians? I wouldn't consider people working in embassies "civilians." They are diplomats (unless it's like a janitor).

I'm not sure targeting the Chilean embassy is the most productive thing, Chile doesn't negatively affect Italy. The Swiss man might have just been walking by. Of course these are unfortunate things and they could choose more appropriate sites. But who says armed resistance isn't "productive?" It's a matter of strategy. Would such actions, channeled properly, complement a mass movement that could develop? I don't know a ton about the situation there, only that people are pissed off.

Well I think it should be common sense that if you send a letter/package to any upper profile person, hes not going to be the one who initially opens up. It'll probably be one of his college interns or other locale civilian contracted for administrative work, or janitorial too. I dont know. As an anarchist, I dont find this productive. Now, you've given the mass media (and most popular and powerful too) the right to label you a terrorist and classify you in the same group as Al-Qaeda. And, Americans have only supported two wars on so called terror, can you imagine a war on red terror? Fuck, thats scary.

[Political_Chucky]

Well I think it should be common sense that if you send a letter/package to any upper profile person, hes not going to be the one who initially opens up. It'll probably be one of his college interns or other locale civilian contracted for administrative work, or janitorial too. I dont know. As an anarchist, I dont find this productive. Now, you've given the mass media (and most popular and powerful too) the right to label you a terrorist and classify you in the same group as Al-Qaeda. And, Americans have only supported two wars on so called terror, can you imagine a war on red terror? Fuck, thats scary.

Totally Agree.

We have some fucking idiots who really live on the term "By All Means Neccessary." Come on, really, when has it been productive to bomb anyone during peacetime? Unless there is a global mass movement, or at least a movement that has more power then the powers that be, then there is NO productive and morally justified reason to bomb a restraunt, bus, coffee shop, home, Embassy, or any other type of building you want to include.:thumbdown:

We are going to have some idiots trying to justify this by saying people who work at the embassy aren't civilians, but who are you really against? The people who work there, or the people who control it?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Pissin' in the wind.

That being said I really hate these types of discussions, because they usually just devolve into an echo chamber of all tendencies concuring with one another that "propaganda of the deed is a failure". Not very interesting.

[gorillafuck]

That being said I really hate these types of discussions, because they usually just devolve into an echo chamber of all tendencies concuring with one another that "propaganda of the deed is a failure". Not very interesting.
I'm also not interested in that discussion, but I am curious as to why the Chilean embassy was targeted.

Any explanation of that?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Chile (and Argentina) have both been having some problems with the local anarchist scene (although neither are as active as Mexico). One recent incident was a firebombing attack on the UDI (Chilean political party) headquarters. Anarchists seem to be particularly upset about how the Chilean government is treating the indigenous population.

[Eastside Revolt]

I'm also not interested in that discussion, but I am curious as to why the Chilean embassy was targeted.

Any explanation of that?

Probably in solidarity with imprisoned Anarchist and Mapuche comrades in Chile: http://325.nostate.net/?p=1120

[Magón]

When I first heard this, I was actually more curious on why the Swiss Embassy was hit. I've got a Chilean friend, and she's usually pretty up to date on Anarchists in SA.

[bricolage]

Strategy of tension business.

I've been told that in 2003 there were letter bombs attributed to the 'Informal Anarchist Federation', which coincidentally has the same acronym as the largest Italian anarchist group. At the time the Italian Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists (FdCA) said it was some kind of state far-right provocation.

[bots]

Strategy of tension business.

I've been told that in 2003 there were letter bombs attributed to the 'Informal Anarchist Federation', which coincidentally has the same acronym as the largest Italian anarchist group. At the time the Italian Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists (FdCA) said it was some kind of state far-right provocation.

That's the first thing that came to my mind.

"Long live the FAI, long live Anarchy!"? Even if they were legit they're probably the dumbest shits going.

[vyborg]

It's 40 years Italian secret service uses anarchist bombs to attack the workers' movement, they are not very clever as no one believes it, especially because in 40 years they never succeded in upgrading the plot, always these mad anarchist guys that put bombs here and there. in 40 years not a single arrest not a single process not a single proof of these anarchists dropping bomb every now and then...

the reality is that he cut to the budget of italian police is showing up. they cannot even invent something better as they are so out of money...

[Manic Impressive]

So the Bolsheviks and their predecessors were not justified in bombings while organizing the proletariat?

I have no idea why they chose those targets, ok the Chilean one is in solidarity with the anarchists there but the Swiss? and why embassies at all? They seem like really silly targets to me. General infrastructure would be much better to avoid casualties.

[Delenda Carthago]

It's 40 years Italian secret service uses anarchist bombs to attack the workers' movement, they are not very clever as no one believes it, especially because in 40 years they never succeded in upgrading the plot, always these mad anarchist guys that put bombs here and there. in 40 years not a single arrest not a single process not a single proof of these anarchists dropping bomb every now and then...

the reality is that he cut to the budget of italian police is showing up. they cannot even invent something better as they are so out of money...
Since you are the only Italian here(which makes you actually the only person that i would like to discuss the incident), can you tell me what is the situation with the students movement right now in Italy and if the anarchist/communist presence is being evolved? And also, how was the incident commented about the greeks?i heard that they think there is a connection with conspiracy cells of fire.

[B0LSHEVIK]

So the Bolsheviks and their predecessors were not justified in bombings while organizing the proletariat?

I have no idea why they chose those targets, ok the Chilean one is in solidarity with the anarchists there but the Swiss? and why embassies at all? They seem like really silly targets to me. General infrastructure would be much better to avoid casualties.


Thats different. Revolution was in the air when the Bolsheviks were bombing high level officials, instead of clerks. And, there was a movement then that both understood and supported it. There was starvation. There was misery. Death was all around. Men were still being marched eastwards. It was proper given the political context of the late the 1910's. But propaganda of the deed is basically suicide if the situation isnt right. Its fine to disagree. But Id much rather have a healthy and unimprisoned comrade than a ghost in the dark.

Is there such a movement in Rome? I honestly dont know. Maybe. But from what another comrade out of Milan just posted, these are frame ups. Not really anarchists. Which makes sense, because, you would think that after 50-60 years of such bombings, methods would have improven ten-fold square. Instead they're always the same crude tactics. Interesting that post was.

[Devrim]

Strategy of tension business.

I've been told that in 2003 there were letter bombs attributed to the 'Informal Anarchist Federation', which coincidentally has the same acronym as the largest Italian anarchist group. At the time the Italian Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists (FdCA) said it was some kind of state far-right provocation.

Yes, that was the first thing that struck me.

Devrim

[Nolan]

Jesus, if you have to throw bombs, bomb the fascists.

Then again, the group is probably fake.

[vyborg]

Since you are the only Italian here(which makes you actually the only person that i would like to discuss the incident), can you tell me what is the situation with the students movement right now in Italy and if the anarchist/communist presence is being evolved? And also, how was the incident commented about the greeks?i heard that they think there is a connection with conspiracy cells of fire.

The student movement in Italy had a very big wave in 2008. now it is regaining momentum. the problem is there is not a single national organization not even a reformist bureaucratic one, so any school or university is basically alone in organizing the struggle, that is madness of course.

anarchy in Italy ceased to be a recognized tendency inside the labour movement before WWII. in any big class struggle explosion after WWII, anarchists were by far the most insignificant presence. with this i'm not giving a political analysis or attacking them for being insignificant etc., I'm only stating a fact. they are negligible in terms of size. anyway they still have a tradition in some town.

As they are so weak and easily to infiltrate, in the 60 and 70s police and fascists (that in Italy are basically the same thing) heavily infiltrated some small anarchist group to use them as agent provocateur. for instance, after the bomb of december 12 1969 in Milan, they accused anarchists and also arrested some of them. one of them (a real anarchist not a provocateur, a poor train worker, Pino Pinelli) was trown down from a police building after having been tortured, pretending he committed suicide. this poor guy is rememberd every year by all the left wing part of the population in Milan.

As I said before, no one in Italy ever believed this story. this is also because the state in Italy has a long story of using someone to slaughter people. for instance in the 40s it was the mafia, in the 70s fascist groups, etc. Italian people know very well that political instability in the country always means "anarchic bombs" somewhere.

even very right wing and backward people understand that anarchist are used as a scapegoat.

[Delenda Carthago]

And all these militant students we see in the videos?Proletaria autonomia or maybe PCI?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

one of them (a real anarchist not a provocateur, a poor train worker, Pino Pinelli) was trown down from a police building after having been tortured, pretending he committed suicide. this poor guy is rememberd every year by all the left wing part of the population in Milan.
m

Not to mentioyn the play, "Accidental death of an anarchist" by Dario Fo, the only clown to win a Nobel Prize - I mean the only real clown.

[human strike]

I'll confess to having only skimmed this thread, but there seems to be some confusion as to why the Swiss embassy was targeted. My understanding is it due to Swiss authorities aiding in the arrest of Italian anarchists recently.

http://ww4report.com/node/9280

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Well I think it should be common sense that if you send a letter/package to any upper profile person, hes not going to be the one who initially opens up. It'll probably be one of his college interns or other locale civilian contracted for administrative work, or janitorial too. I dont know. As an anarchist, I dont find this productive. Now, you've given the mass media (and most popular and powerful too) the right to label you a terrorist and classify you in the same group as Al-Qaeda. And, Americans have only supported two wars on so called terror, can you imagine a war on red terror? Fuck, thats scary.

Scary? Sure. But welcome to being a revolutionary.

I think a war against anti-capitalist political ideologies would be the best thing that had ever happened for the movement. We are a danger to the capitalist establishment and such a war would only prove that it takes us seriously.

[Broletariat]

Scary? Sure. But welcome to being a revolutionary.

I think a war against anti-capitalist political ideologies would be the best thing that had ever happened for the movement. We are a danger to the capitalist establishment and such a war would only prove that it takes us seriously.
I'm not really sure I care if they take us seriously, in fact I'd rather they ignore us completely. If they took us seriously they could easily dispatch of most of us with minimal media coverage. What good is that going to do for us?

But thinking more about it, it makes me wonder why America had such big red scares if it were the case to be easier to just covertly dispatch of revolutionaries. Can anyone help me on my thoughts here?

[Q]

So the Bolsheviks and their predecessors were not justified in bombings while organizing the proletariat?


Thats different. Revolution was in the air when the Bolsheviks were bombing high level officials, instead of clerks. And, there was a movement then that both understood and supported it. There was starvation. There was misery. Death was all around. Men were still being marched eastwards. It was proper given the political context of the late the 1910's. But propaganda of the deed is basically suicide if the situation isnt right. Its fine to disagree. But Id much rather have a healthy and unimprisoned comrade than a ghost in the dark.

You're both mistakenly mixing up the Bolsheviks with the Narodniks. Lenin always very aggressively polemicised against terrorist tactics. Trotsky wrote a little piece in 1911 (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) that is still very up to date under the current circumstances:


Terrorism

Our class enemies are in the habit of complaining about our terrorism. What they mean by this is rather unclear. They would like to label all the activities of the proletariat directed against the class enemy s interests as terrorism. The strike, in their eyes, is the principal method of terrorism. The threat of a strike, the organisation of strike pickets, an economic boycott of a slave driving boss, a moral boycott of a traitor from our own ranks – all this and much more they call terrorism.

If terrorism is understood in this way as any action inspiring fear in, or doing harm to, the enemy. then of course the entire class struggle is nothing but terrorism. And the only question remaining is whether the bourgeois politicians have the right to pour out their floods of moral indignation about proletarian terrorism when their entire state apparatus with its laws, police, and army is nothing but an apparatus for capitalist terror!

However, it must be said that when they reproach us with terrorism, they are trying – although not always consciously – to give this word a narrower, less indirect meaning. The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister – all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international social democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism, and done so in the most irreconcilable way.

Why? “Terrorising” with the threat of a strike, or actually conducting a strike, is something only industrial or agricultural workers can do. The social insignificance of a strike depends directly upon, first, the size of the enterprise or the branch of industry that it affects; and second, the degree to which the workers taking part in it are organised, disciplined, and ready for action. This is just as true of a political strike as it is of an economic one.

In order to develop, the capitalist system heeds a parliamentary superstructure. But because it cannot confine the modern proletariat to a political ghetto, it must sooner or later allow the workers to participate in parliament. In elections, the class character of the proletariat and its level of political development – qualities which, again, are determined by its social role, i.e., above all its productive role – find their expression.

Only the workers can conduct a strike. Artisans ruined by the factory, peasants whose water the factory is poisoning, or lumpen proletarians, in search of plunder, can smash machines, set fire to a factory, or murder its owner.

Only the conscious and organised working class can send-a strong representation into the halls of parliament to look out for proletarian interests. However, in order to murder a prominent official you need not have the organised masses behind you. The recipe for explosives is accessible to all, and a Browning can be obtained anywhere.

In the first case, there is a social struggle, whose methods and means flow necessarily from the nature of the prevailing social order; in the second, a purely mechanical reaction identical everywhere – in China as in France – very striking is its outward form (murder, explosions, and so forth) but absolutely harmless as far as the social system goes.

A strike, even of modest size, has social consequences: strengthening of the workers’ self-confidence, growth of the trade union, and not infrequently, even an improvement in production technology. The murder of a factory owner produces effects of a police nature only, or a change of proprietors devoid of any social significance.

Whether a terrorist attempt, even a “successful” one, throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be short-lived; the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.

But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for a party? Why meetings, mass agitation, and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own cosnciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of “the propaganda of the deed” can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more “effective” the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education.

But the smoke from the explosion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement come disillusion and apathy.

The efforts of reaction to put an end to strikes and to the mass workers’ movement in general have always, everywhere, ended in failure. Capitalist society needs an active, mobile, and intelligent proletariat; it cannot, therefore, bind the proletariat hand and foot for very long. On the other hand the anarchist “propaganda of the deed” has shown every time that the state is much richer in the means of physical destruction and mechanical repression than are the terrorist groups.

If that is so, where does it leave the revolution? Is it negated or rendered impossible by this state of affairs! Not at all. For the revolution is not a simple aggregate of mechanical means. The revolution can arise only out of the sharpening of the class struggle, and it can find a guarantee of victory only in the social functions of the proletariat. The mass political strike, the armed insurrection, the conquest of state power – all this is determined by the degree to which production has been developed, the alignment of class forces, the proletariat’s social weight, and finally, by the social composition of the army, since the armed forces are the factor that in time of revolution determines the fate of state power.

Social democracy is realistic enough not to try to avoid the revolution that is developing out of the existing historical conditions; on the contrary, it is moving to meet the revolution with eyes wide open. But – contrary to the anarchists and in direct struggle against them – social democracy rejects all methods and means that have as their goal to artificially force the development of society and to substitute chemical preparations for the insufficient revolutionary strength of the proletariat.

Before it is elevated to the level of a method of political struggles, terrorism makes its appearance in the form of individual acts of revenge. So it was in Russia, the classic land of terrorism. The flogging of political prisoners impelled Vera Zasulich to give expression to the general feeling of indignation by an assassination attempt on General Trepov. Her example was imitated in the circles of the revolutionary intelligentsia, who lacked any mass support. What began as an act of unthinking revenge was developed into an entire system in 1879-81.

There is no need to belabour the point that social democracy has nothing in common with those bought-and-paid-for moralists who, in response to any terrorist act, make solemn declamations about the “absolute value” of human life. These are the same people who, on other occasions, in the name of other absolute values – for example, the nation’s honour or the monarch’s prestige – are ready to shove millions of people into the hell of war. Today their national hero is the minister who gives the order for unarmed workers to be fired on – in the name of the most sacred right of private property; and tomorrow, when the desperate hand of the unemployed worker is clenched into a fist or picks up a weapon, they will start in with all sorts of nonsense about the inadmissability of violence in any form.

Whatever the eunuchs and pharisees of morality may say, the feeling of revenge has its rights. It does the working class the greatest moral credit that it does not look with vacant indifference upon what is going on in this best of all possible worlds. Not to extinguish the proletariat’s unfulfilled feeling of revenge, but on the contrary to stir it up again and again, to deepen it, and to direct it against the real causes of all injustice and human baseness – that is the task of social democracy.

If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us. The account we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some functionary called a minister. To learn to see all the crimes against humanity, all the indignities to which the human body and spirit are subjected, as the twisted outgrowths and expressions of the existing social system, in order to direct all our energies into a collective struggle against this system – that is the direction in which the burning desire for revenge can find its highest moral satisfaction.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why meetings, mass agitation, and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

This dichotomy is totally silly, but, further, if one had to choose . . .

[ellipsis]

And right psuedo fascists were taking rifles to health care debates in America.

To be fair there was only one dude with one rifle, IIRC, and the others had handguns

[Omi]

For all the people saying the informal anarchist federation is not legit and state provocation, heres a little publication they did

http://325.nostate.net/library/escalation1.pdf

So don't be so quick in telling everyone that they are not part of the movement, cause they are. Whether you like this or not, is not a matter of fact but of opinion. Don't portray it that way.

[Q]

For all the people saying the informal anarchist federation is not legit and state provocation, heres a little publication they did

http://325.nostate.net/library/escalation1.pdf

So don't be so quick in telling everyone that they are not part of the movement, cause they are. Whether you like this or not, is not a matter of fact but of opinion. Don't portray it that way.

Individualist terrorism has, sadly, always been a part of the movement. It is an expression of the weakness of our class organisation that some elements seek to pay retribution through TNT, semtex or whatever is popular these days.

What people like Virgin Molotov Cocktail apparently don't get is that there is a very real contradiction between the organisation of the masses as a collective and the secretive conspirational scheming that is necessary to organise terrorist attacks.

This point is underlined in the publication you link to:

3. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS

The groups of action in the Anarchist Informal Organisation are not required to know one another. This will avoid repression to strike them and possible leaders or bureaucrat from emerging. Communication between groups or individuals is carried out through the actions and through the channels of the movement without them to know one another directly.

So, while part of our movement, we must vehemently condemn it and offer a positive alternative by organising ourselves collectively and work on the long and hard work that requires "revolutionary patience" to organise our class in a mass movement as a class for its own that can take on the role as the hegemonic class of society, one that can carry out the task of revolution.

[Omi]

The fact that it is not the same as collective organisation, does not mean it is mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it does certainly not mean we have to 'vehemently condemn' it in any way. Critical analysis is enough.

[Q]

The fact that it is not the same as collective organisation, does not mean it is mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it does certainly not mean we have to 'vehemently condemn' it in any way. Critical analysis is enough.

Could you elaborate both statements?

[vyborg]

And all these militant students we see in the videos?Proletaria autonomia or maybe PCI?


autonomia, democrazia proletaria and the pci has all disappeared many decades ago...

[Omi]

1: That 'terrorist' attacks and the collective organisation of our class (in whatever way, be it formal or informal) are not mutually exclusive. I don't mean I support these actions, but some knee jerk reaction to media generated images are not really productive.

2: That the condemnation of some element of the class war is not really going to stop it or change it. The condemnation will not contribute to anything, while critical analysis of such phenomena will. The regurgitation of some old Marxist critique of this phenomenon is not the same as critical analysis. It negates the role ''terrorists'' currently fulfil in our society, and the state mechanisms which try to hunt them down.

[Delenda Carthago]

autonomia, democrazia proletaria and the pci has all disappeared many decades ago...
so what do you have over there?you say there is no anarchists,there is no pci,no autonomia, no nothing that was great over there for the last 40 years and so... what is the italy's left right now?

[vyborg]

so what do you have over there?you say there is no anarchists,there is no pci,no autonomia, no nothing that was great over there for the last 40 years and so... what is the italy's left right now?

well this is a very good point. the answer is not much. I mean, the PCI had 1 and a half million member, the revolutionary left some hundred of thousands in the in the 70s...at its best Rifondazione had 150.000, now maybe 30-40.000 real members...

the only class mass organization in Italy right now is the Fiom, that is the metalworkers.

[vyborg]

For all the people saying the informal anarchist federation is not legit and state provocation, heres a little publication they did

http://325.nostate.net/library/escalation1.pdf

So don't be so quick in telling everyone that they are not part of the movement, cause they are. Whether you like this or not, is not a matter of fact but of opinion. Don't portray it that way.

if this post is a comment to mine, I never stated anarchist as such are state provocation or they are not part of the movement. I only explained that they at least in Italya are the easiest to infiltrate and the state normally used some anarchist group directed by its agents provocateurs.

And yes they are part of the movement as a ant on a tree is part of the tree. unfortunately no one can see the ant.

[revolution inaction]

This just demonstrates how irrelevant anarchism has become. Blowing up people isn't a legitimate political tactic. I thought anarchists had moved on from this nonsense?

we really have no evidence that who ever sent the bombs was an anarchist, or that this "informal anarchist federation" is more than one person. so i am not sure how you think this reflects on the anarchists in general?

this is the website of the Italian Anarchist Federation btw http://federazioneanarchica.org/ which is the biggest anarchist organisation in italy

and these are some statements they have previously made about the "informal anarchist federation"

http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20031228cdc.html google translation (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20031228cdc.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhg1YB9Y2455Ofo9UIBivBzOakm5iA)

http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20090429cdc.html google translation (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20090429cdc.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhj_sRiIMQvNiYWw9CIrPlA5rjeGzA)

[Sasha]

so what do you have over there?you say there is no anarchists,there is no pci,no autonomia, no nothing that was great over there for the last 40 years and so... what is the italy's left right now?


as far as i know there is still an squat movement, not as big as it was during autonomia but in most cities you still find several squatted social centers (sadly now a days also a few fascist ones popped up and are very active)
here are some leftist ones:
http://www.csavittoria.org/
http://www.ambulatoriopopolare.org/

lots of them have active student groups, pirate radiostations etc etc

some very OK italian people are involved with the antifa group "militant": http://www.militant-blog.org/
other anitfa groups: http://antifa-milano.noblogs.org/
http://www.antifaresistance.org/
http://maldestra.noblogs.org/
http://www.osservatoriodemocratico.org/
http://www.parmantifascista.org/

[Manic Impressive]

You're both mistakenly mixing up the Bolsheviks with the Narodniks. Lenin always very aggressively polemicised against terrorist tactics. Trotsky wrote a little piece in 1911 (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) that is still very up to date under the current circumstances:
I did say and their predecessors (as I couldn't remember their name) but I'm pretty sure Stalin's group was involved in some bombings as well as robberies.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

This just demonstrates how irrelevant anarchism has become. Blowing up people isn't a legitimate political tactic. I thought anarchists had moved on from this nonsense?

Propaganda of the deed will never die. It may be a tactic you disagree with, but not everyone does.

Tactics also have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. I'm not sure how this demonstrates that anarchism has become irrelevant. Arguably, anarchism's heyday was also when propaganda of the deed was most popular.

[revolution inaction]

[QUOTE=revolution inaction;1969393]we really have no evidence that who ever sent the bombs was an anarchist, or that this "informal anarchist federation" is more than one person. so i am not sure how you think this reflects on the anarchists in general?

this is the website of the Italian Anarchist Federation btw which is the biggest anarchist organisation in italy

and these are some statements they have previously made about the "informal anarchist federation"/QUOTE]

It's obvious that the state is ignorant and always gets this wrong and mixed up - they just don't understand revolutionary politics, but what's the prove that this wasn't a group of anarchists or even anarchists connected to this other FAI?

Italian anarchists are notoriously criminal - robbing banks, killing workers (security guards at banks). It's completely in keeping with anarchists in Italy to send bombs. To be honest, I'm not that surprised.

I also don't see many anarchists coming out against these bombings.

fuck off troll

[Sasha]

another "bomb" was discoverd in the greek embassy

[Delenda Carthago]

Propaganda of the deed will never die. It may be a tactic you disagree with, but not everyone does.

Tactics also have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. I'm not sure how this demonstrates that anarchism has become irrelevant. Arguably, anarchism's heyday was also when propaganda of the deed was most popular.
Quite the opposite.Propaganda of the deed as the primarly mean was the desperation of the anarchists after their first huge crash in Russia in the late 1800s.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Can you name one situation where "propaganda of the deed" has actually successfully created anything other than massive state repression?

Yes, the state and revolutionaries are enemies. Violence leads to violence, and because the state tends to be more powerful it usually doesn't end well for the revolutionaries. I'm not sure what your point is.

And just like anarchist violence leads to state violence, the opposite is also true. I'm not sure why it surprises so many people when the victims of state and capitalist violence return the favor.

Has propaganda of the deed successfully done anything? What tactic of anarchists/socialist/communists has EVER successfully done anything? When you think of something that actually works, maybe people will give up on these old tactics.



This is why anarchism is irrelevant. You just don't understand political process. Tactics have nothing to do with ideology? I mean, that's just crazy talk. Of course they do! Ideology clearly informs the best possible tactics to use.Perhaps I should have been more specific. Anarchism as a general idea has nothing to do with tactics beyond seizing the means of production from capitalists. It is specific schools of theory that leads to different ideas on tactics. Calling anarchism irrelevant because of a certain school of thought and a certain tactic is simply ridiculous.

As I said, if there were other tactics that proved to actually be useful maybe tactics such as propaganda of the deed wouldn't be as popular.


But the point is that the only people to effectively create a socialist/communist society are the workers. Setting off bombs in embassies achieves nothing for no one.You sure about that? I doubt someone would go through the trouble of bombing embassies if they didn't get anything out of it. It might not be furthering the class struggle, but what class struggle is there to further? People who are usually attracted to these tactics are those who are fed up with the failures of the rest of the movement. I can't really blame them either.


Even less because it's for "revenge"? Revenge against who? The diplomatic workers who work in the embassy?

These views are just out of touch with reality.Some people show solidarity with marches (easily ignored), others with bombs (not so easily ignored). I'm not expressing my support for one or the other, just pointing out that different people have different views on tactics. Disagree with propaganda of the deed as much as you like, it's not going to stop others from using it. If you hate it that much, give them a better alternative.

[Delenda Carthago]

Today the 3 members of Revolutionary Struggle,sended a letter where they described how their organisation was against the system and the establishment and how they were always cautious not to have innicent victims, so they asked to stop doing these kind of actions in the name of their dead comrade, Lambros Fountas.


On the other hand,the greek press are still talking about the international call for solidarity and co-work from the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, who got its first answer with the italian anarchists of FAI.

[Delenda Carthago]

.


Announcement from the 3 imprisoned members of Revolutionary Struggle organisation about the attacks to embassies in Rome.
About the letter - bombs which were sent to the embassies of Chile and Switzerland in Rome on 23/12/2010, that had as a result the injury of two officials and the responsibility was taken by the organisation "Federazione Anarchica Informale - FAI - Revolutionary Cell Lambros Fountas", we have to state the following:

As Revolutionary Struggle we were always chosing to bring out actions which a political aim. We were always aiming on the status - quo, the structures and those who represent and protect it. We were organising them (our actions) in such a way, so that to avoid injuries of people who were not among our political targets and we would have never brought out actions which could result the injury for example of a random embassy official, as it happened in the cases above with the letter - bombs.

The above framework has always been a principle of action for us all and of course a principle of our dead comrade - member of the organisation, Lambros Fountas. For this reason we ask for not happening actions of such type in the name of our comrade.

Pola Roupa, Nikos Maziotis, Kostas Gournas

[Steve_j]

The anarchists have gone quiet?

Blanketing a whole movement because of the tactical actions of a minority highlights your own stupidity and irrelevence. By your logic i assume that you feel communism is irrelevant due to the actions of the RAF and co.

[Ravachol]

Individualist terrorism has, sadly, always been a part of the movement. It is an expression of the weakness of our class organisation that some elements seek to pay retribution through TNT, semtex or whatever is popular these days.


I think it's funny though how many orthodox Marxists shout THIS IS INDIVIDUALIST TERRORISM when some bearded insurrectionists blow shit up but totally cheerlead whatever this or that guerilla movement or national liberation paramilitary does, while both boil down to small, disciplined groups executing military style attacks.

I don't think either have anything to offer as far as destroying the old world goes, but then again I don't think endless boring rallies, picket-lines or whatever have anything to offer either.

Any assault that doesn't immediately liberate space our increases the strength of the proletarian movement is futile. Our struggle needs to be an extension of the way we construct a new order and this order needs to supplement our struggle. This is the revolutionary process.



War can’t be allowed to be put away as an isolated moment from our existence, as the decisive confrontation; from now on, it is our existence itself, in all of its aspects, that is war. That is to say that the first movement of this war is reappropriation. Reappropriation of means to live-and-struggle. Reappropriation, then, of spaces: squat, occupation or collectivizing private spaces. Reappropriation of what’s in common: constitution of languages, syntaxes, means of communication, of an autonomous culture –snatching the transmission of experience from the hands of the State. Reappropriation of violence: communizing fighting techniques, forming self-defense forces, arms. Lastly, reappropriation of basic survival: diffusion of medical knowledge-ability, progressive organization of a network of autonomous resupply.


In short, the idea of 'individual terrorism' is a ridiculous one since it creates a false dichtomy between mass and individual action. What matters is the relation between individual acts and the mass of the class struggle. In this regard I'd like to refer to a pamphlet by Anton Pannekoek (http://libcom.org/library/the-personal-act-pannekoek).

As Pannekoek observes:



There is a certain current running in history where individual actions, in moments of tension, are like sparks on a powder keg. But the proletarian revolution is nothing like the explosion of a powder keg. Even if the Communist Party strives to convince itself and convince the world that the revolution can break out at any moment, we know that the proletariat must still form itself in a new manner to fight as a mass.
(..)
The vision today in which a personal act could set the masses in motion reveals itself to be a bourgeois conception of a chief; not the leader of an elected party, but a chief who designates himself and, who by his actions leads the passive masses. The proletarian revolution finds nothing in this outdated romanticism of the leader; a class, impelled by massive social forces, must be the source of all initiative.

But the mass, after all, is composed of individuals, and the actions of the mass contain a certain number of personal actions. Certainly, it is here that we touch on the true value of the personal act. Separated from mass action, the act of an individual who thinks he can realize alone something great is useless. But as part of a mass movement, the personal act Has the highest importance. Workers in struggle are not a regiment of marionettes identical in courage but composed of forces of different natures concentrated toward the same goal, their movement irresistible. In this body, the audacity of the bravest finds the time and place to express itself in personal acts of courage, when the clear comprehension of others leads them towards a suitable goal in order not to lose the gains. Likewise, in a rising movement, this interaction of forces and acts is of great value when it is guided by a clear comprehension that animates, at this moment, the workers which is necessary to develop their combativity.


Thus it is not the intensity of actions that matters but their social spread, their heightening effect on the struggle (http://schriftzine.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/issue-1-some-notes-on-the-pace-of-the-struggle/):



Throughout history, many words have been spoken about the programmes revolutionary groups should follow. For some, the revolutionary milieu should always act on it’s own whims, always seek the hardest direct confrontation with the powers that be and set the pace and intensity of the struggle for the rest of the masses in true vanguardist fashion. For others, the time is never right. For them there’s always a media-image to be considered, there’s always the argument that the “conditions just aren’t right yet”. In fact, both positions are problematic.

The former position is susceptible to an endless descent into conflict of ever-increasing intensity while at the same time losing the sheer mass-base to support the level of intensity it’s project requires. It is essential to control the pace of struggle , avoiding unfavorable engagements. After all, social transformation is a process involving society at large and thus requires the sheer force of mass and the sweeping away of social passivity. By focusing on high-intensity conflict at all times, even when there seems to be little to no social base for this level of confrontation, the revolutionary group is forced into the position of a milieu, an easily crushed and controlled clique of isolated evangelists.

On the other hand, the perpetual passivity of the latter position, commonly espoused by placard-waving activists and bureaucrats, leads to an endless cycle of inertia and entropy. The argument put forward by the proponents of ‘waiting for the natural pace of the struggle’ goes as follows:

“If we look at the intensity of the struggles waged outside of our milieu, we can see that any action that is more radical will surely alienate them. For if they were ready for this kind of action, wouldn’t they have undertaken it themselves”

The logical conclusion of this kind of reasoning, however, would be a total negation of the role of revolutionary groups. If all revolutionary groups are to wait for certain actions to occur before copying them, then what is the role of these groups? To follow mass-movements as a rear-guard?

This kind of logic also ignores the fact that the revolutionary groups are made up of working-class members themselves. Why do they value the intensity of the actions of the ‘general’ masses above those of working-class members of the revolutionary groups? That is not to say that the revolutionary groups should set the pace of the class struggle like some kind of visionary vanguard. Even if that would be desirable (which it is not), this would be an idealist fantasy. After all, it is material conditions that move the levers of history, not the sheer willpower of this or that group.

However, as Anton Pannekoek so correctly stated in “Persoonlijke Daad”, the pace of the class struggle does not resemble the marching of a military regiment, the pace and intensity being equal at all places, at all times. Historically some segments of the working class have had a more advanced revolutionary consciousness than others and the intensity of conflict differs throughout the social terrain.

For the revolutionary group to act like a ‘whip of the class struggle’, constantly raising the level of conflict until it cumulates in a revolutionary situation, what matters is the spread of actions rather than the particular intensity of a single action.

After all, the force of revolution is social and not military. Social revolution is achieved by societal transformation and is thus measured not by single clashes but by the extent to which the social order is disturbed and transformed, the extent to which our goals are achieved. No power can exist without the pseudo-voluntary servitude of those it dominates. General revolt disturbs this servitude and breaks the smooth-running cogs of the machine of domination. What matters is thus not the particular intensity of an action but the generalized spread of revolt.

For this reason, the intensity of actions matters only insofar as it supports the wider spread of such actions. At times it might be better to restrain oneself if this means that actions of lower intensity spread further amongst the working class. This is not to say one should be swayed by portrayals in the media , parliaments or other bourgeois institutions with which we have nothing to do. Our goal is to subvert their order and counting on their blessings for doing so would be utter folly. Neither should we bow to cultural hegemony and restrain our actions because dominant discourse ‘frowns upon them’. After all, it is to be expected that the actions of groups seeking to overthrow a given social order are ‘frowned upon’ by the discourse of that same order. Anything else would, again, be folly.

What we should consider, however, is the spreading potential of our actions amongst the social base of a given struggle. If we undertake a certain action and we suspect that it will set a ‘leading example’ surely to be followed by others it is to be undertaken, regardless of what ‘the media’ will say about it or if some will speak shame of it. We cannot pander to the lowest common denominator if we seek to raise the level of confrontation. If, however, our actions turn out to be too conflictual for the moment, continuing a raise of confrontation would only result in a quick and glory less defeat of a small group.

In the end, we can only analyze every given situation, it’s potential and experiment with actions and evaluate the results, constantly re-adjusting our strategy on the basis of practical experience rather than dogma bursting forth from theoretical bubbles spawned in the ivory towers of a few, whether those of the armed vanguardist or the placard-waving activist. The only pointers we can go by is the refusal of compromise or mediation of any kind and a focus on raising the general level of confrontation, the spread of revolutionary consciousness.

[revolution inaction]

And even more proof that anarchists are irrelevant. You can't even construct a coherent response to criticisms. It's pathetic. You call me a troll because I disagree with you?

make some criticisms and maybe i'll respond to them, and learn how to use quotes, its not hard

[Q]

I think it's funny though how many orthodox Marxists shout THIS IS INDIVIDUALIST TERRORISM when some bearded insurrectionists blow shit up but totally cheerlead whatever this or that guerilla movement or national liberation paramilitary does, while both boil down to small, disciplined groups executing military style attacks.

I don't think either have anything to offer as far as destroying the old world goes, but then again I don't think endless boring rallies, picket-lines or whatever have anything to offer either.
Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I don't support guerilla groups, never have.

[Magón]

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I don't support guerilla groups, never have.

Ah man, that's so reactionary of you. :crying: :lol:

[Rocky Rococo]

"Strategy of Tension", anyone? P2 Lodge lives?

[nuisance]

I'm not sure targeting the Chilean embassy is the most productive thing, Chile doesn't negatively affect Italy. The Swiss man might have just been walking by. Of course these are unfortunate things and they could choose more appropriate sites. But who says armed resistance isn't "productive?" It's a matter of strategy. Would such actions, channeled properly, complement a mass movement that could develop? I don't know a ton about the situation there, only that people are pissed off.
The Swiss, Greek and Chilean embassies were targetted in solidarity with anarchists facing repression in those countries.

[nuisance]

we really have no evidence that who ever sent the bombs was an anarchist, or that this "informal anarchist federation" is more than one person. so i am not sure how you think this reflects on the anarchists in general?

this is the website of the Italian Anarchist Federation btw http://federazioneanarchica.org/ which is the biggest anarchist organisation in italy

and these are some statements they have previously made about the "informal anarchist federation"

http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20031228cdc.html google translation (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20031228cdc.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhg1YB9Y2455Ofo9UIBivBzOakm5iA)

http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20090429cdc.html google translation (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://federazioneanarchica.org/archivio/20090429cdc.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhj_sRiIMQvNiYWw9CIrPlA5rjeGzA)
The Informal Anarchist Federation has been active for awhile and is quite clearly not 'one person', as already shown in this thread by Omi.
Here's a text of theirs that includes a 'who we are' and interview piece- http://325.nostate.net/library/escalation1.pdf

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think either have anything to offer as far as destroying the old world goes, but then again I don't think endless boring rallies, picket-lines or whatever have anything to offer either.A "boreing" picket-line allows workers to organize themselves in their own economic interests at a workplace and defend their strike against scabs. If violence is used it is for a specific purpose of keeping scabs out and therefore making the strike effective. Rallies can potentially organize our side and mass rallies can act as a counter to ruling class propaganda about "everyone supporting our governments policies/wars/budget cuts". Until hundreds of thousands of people marched against the Iraq war, most people felt like saying anything negative about the war was taboo. Even though the anti-war movement stagnated and failed (due to politics, not the tactics alone), to say that early mass marches had no effect on politics or mass consciousness is just wrong. Or look at what happened when Immigrants in the US marched against the Sensenbrener anti-immigrant bill - Congress removed the bill without even sending it to vote. Do you think they would have done that if there hadn't been a series of boring marches of immigrants? What has had more of an impact in Greece on public reaction to austerity - boring marches (which were often quite violent anyway) or some isolated bomb scares.

I went to a so-called "redneck" high school and we had bomb scares at least twice a year and those acts didn't even succeed at stopping a pop-quiz in Spanish class.

Tactics need to be seen in the context of means and ends... do the means help you get towards your ends. I think for most of us on this site and in the radical left, our end is the self-emancipation of the working class. Since these bombings do not organize anyone, allow workers to gain experience in struggle, or radicalize, I think they are not effective in advancing towards working class self-emancipation. In that context, these bombings are totally useless for all ends other than justifying crack-downs on the protest movements.

[Ravachol]

Rallies can potentially organize our side and mass rallies can act as a counter to ruling class propaganda about "everyone supporting our governments policies/wars/budget cuts". Until hundreds of thousands of people marched against the Iraq war, most people felt like saying anything negative about the war was taboo.


Only it doesn't change shit. In fact, the passive rally just reproduces the authority of the state as legitimate, it is a passive appeal to our rulers to 'please stop this or that'. Revolutionaries ought not to be concerned with kneeling at the altar of power, instead they ought to force the state into meeting our demands. A strike or blockade of critical infrastructure during wartime is a thousand times more effective than some half-liberal impotent march.



Even though the anti-war movement stagnated and failed (due to politics, not the tactics alone), to say that early mass marches had no effect on politics or mass consciousness is just wrong.


This, ofcourse, assumes 'cousciousness' changes anything. This is a highly idealist way of reasoning. 'Exposing the lie' doesn't set any material mechanism into motion out of itself, on the contrary. Focussing on the spreading of impotent ideas merely statisfies the pseudo-democratic need to have 'said something about it'. Everybody has their little march, shouts their little slogan and goes home with the feeling "that's all we could have done", it's about as empowering as voting.



`Each time we gather like this the pressure grows. We are forcing the G8 leaders to answer our questions. Dracula cannot stand daylight. If you put him in the light, he will shrivel and die.'
– Jose Bove

you wish a shining of your light would change the world.

you wish the revelation of corruption, your gazing upon how things really are, could turn the powerful into stone if only, you think, your good desires were hands upon the levers of power.
But that is not it. The world has tired of scandals and injustices. It shrugs its shoulders at corruption, `So what, to the slaughter. So what, to the profiteering. So what, to election fraud. It's in the nature of things.'

The more frequently journalistic investigations expose dark practices and
institutionalised criminality the more the act of revelation functions as a sufficient cause for the final banishing of all ideological pretexts in state misbehaviour. Critique now appears to serve in some small way in the restoration of a kind of unapproachable and godless divine right to power. The instituted right to protest, to blow the whistle, to stage inquiries into governmental lies and illegalities occurs at precisely the moment such activities cease to have any significance beyond demonstrating the state's
`democratic' credentials.
It has got to the stage where you, like a grand master, are well-rehearsed in the winning moves of political debate. You have the details, the facts are easily available,and the state makes no attempt to suppress websites and why should it when the factsmake no difference?

Now that you have won the argument it has withdrawn from argument altogether and it smiles, like a carnivorous Dalai Lama, saying nothing, laughing, inscrutable.
The more you seize hold of its details, and the more your practice institutes a
`participatory democracy', the less you have impact upon its decisions.
If light, as Bove shines it, is understanding then you must recognise how and why understanding does not function as an adequate lever upon the dynamic of economic forces. Understanding, for the existing structure, is not in itself a force.
An understanding of the mechanisms of the commodity does not aid in the overthrow of the commodity system except in so far as to say the understanding of the workings of the commodity aids in the critique of the revolutionary milieu and its integration into the system, it aids that critique because such an understanding would show why the revolutionary milieu can never overthrow the commodity.
The pro-revolutionary milieu does not understand itself in relation to the structure of capitalist society, it cannot see where it fits in, how it functions within the machine.
This critical blindness is perhaps the cause of its own conception of the transforming of society as something similar to present political process, where everyone has their say, only without any disagreement, the democratic fantasy of the unanimous verdict."





What has had more of an impact in Greece on public reaction to austerity - boring marches (which were often quite violent anyway) or some isolated bomb scares.


Pray tell, where have I advocated either? Also, 'boring marches' in Greece? Are you taking the piss? Most marches in Greece have a completely different function from the impotent shout-shout-yell-yell marches in other places, they serve as convergence points for massive direct action and confrontation with the structures of power, putting pressure on social kettle.



Tactics need to be seen in the context of means and ends... do the means help you get towards your ends. I think for most of us on this site and in the radical left, our end is the self-emancipation of the working class.


Which isn't helped at all by spectaclist marches where we listen to this or that speaker rant about this or that and then go home with, AT BEST, a feeling that 'things are wrong'. You seem to confuse a mass of people getting together with massive direct action.



Since these bombings do not organize anyone, allow workers to gain experience in struggle, or radicalize, I think they are not effective in advancing towards working class self-emancipation.


Hurray, you just said what I said AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF MY POST. Did you even care to read it since you haven't addressed even ONE of the points about the synthesis of living & struggeling I made.

[∞]

What is the point?
Get the police more pissed? Good job dumbfucks...instead of militant unionism, this is what we get? Bomb Junkies? Great, just fucking great.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Only it doesn't change shit. In fact, the passive rally just reproduces the authority of the state as legitimate, it is a passive appeal to our rulers to 'please stop this or that'. Revolutionaries ought not to be concerned with kneeling at the altar of power, instead they ought to force the state into meeting our demands. A strike or blockade of critical infrastructure during wartime is a thousand times more effective than some half-liberal impotent march.Great so we'll just get the hundreds of thousands of radicalized people to... oh wait, there aren't hundreds of thousands of radicalized workers!!! Oh shit, how are you going to shut down the US government when most workers still hope that maybe Obama will do something?

Unlike some elitist Marxists and anarchists who want to take the handful of existing revolutionaries out there now and fight back in the name of the ("ignorant or passive or apathetic") masses, I think most people on this site recognize the need to reach out and build a resistance out of the millions of as of yet unradicalized people. Yeah and doing that takes a lot of patience and working with people who are not yet ready to take on the ruling class directly. So like you said, some "marxist" coup or "anarchist" insurrectionist action are worthless, so how do we build our resistance in a way where the working class can radicalize and learn to fight in its own interests?

You don't seem to realize that I want to see much more radical actions, general strikes, workplace occupations, etc... but in order to get there we have to sit through a lot of boring coalition meetings and go to a lot of dumb rallies - often led by people who are much more conservative than you or I.


This, ofcourse, assumes 'cousciousness' changes anything. This is a highly idealist way of reasoning. 'Exposing the lie' doesn't set any material mechanism into motion out of itself, on the contrary. Focussing on the spreading of impotent ideas merely statisfies the pseudo-democratic need to have 'said something about it'. Everybody has their little march, shouts their little slogan and goes home with the feeling "that's all we could have done", it's about as empowering as voting.I'm not talking about abstract "consiousness" of "being informed of issues" - I'm sorry if I am using marxist jargon you are not familiar with, but I mean political and class consciousness. Apparently you popped out of the womb with a Molotov cocktail, but most of us actually had to learn to break from the ruling class ideas that were handed down to us from schools, parents, religion, politicians etc. Since I want to see mass general strikes and independent militant actions by workers, I think it's important that we radicals go out and try and win activists with liberal and reformist ideas, rank and file trade-unionists and so on to our political perspective.


Which isn't helped at all by spectaclist marches where we listen to this or that speaker rant about this or that and then go home with, AT BEST, a feeling that 'things are wrong'. You seem to confuse a mass of people getting together with massive direct action. If you go to an anti-war rally, sit down, don't talk to people, and just listen to the speakers... then yes, it is a waste of time, stay at home playing video games or reading instead. It's more effective to organize with like-minded people and try and build something out of these kinds of gatherings... or at the very least try and promote radical ideas among these single-issue crowds.


Hurray, you just said what I said AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF MY POST. Did you even care to read it since you haven't addressed even ONE of the points about the synthesis of living & struggeling I made.Man you have some kind of persecution complex or egomania or something... I was making a general point about my perspective on the bombs, not trying to counter and specific thing you said. Christ, you need to relax.

But since you are trying to counter what I said about rallies... will you answer my question: was the initial protests against the Iraq war totally without impact on politics... the immigrant rights march that pushed back a legislative attack on immigrants? I've argued that they are a first step towards potentially building something more radical or a step towards building class consciousness.

[Искра]

It's not real group but a police provocation. Everyone with little connection with anarchist movement in Italy knows that. Regarding the rest, everyone with a little sense for reality would know that anarchists can't bomb anyone these days :)

[Ravachol]

Great so we'll just get the hundreds of thousands of radicalized people to... oh wait, there aren't hundreds of thousands of radicalized workers!!! Oh shit, how are you going to shut down the US government when most workers still hope that maybe Obama will do something?


The very idea that workers have to be 'radicalised' from zero to whatever by a 'revolutionary' minority is not only highly authoritarian, it's also idealist nonsense. 'Radicalisation' originates in an intensification of our subjectivities, this intensification is born from material conditions and cannot be forced out of thin air through the sheer will power of revolutionary minorities.



Unlike some elitist Marxists and anarchists who want to take the handful of existing revolutionaries out there now and fight back in the name of the ("ignorant or passive or apathetic") masses,


If you had, again, read my post you would know that this is the exact opposite of what I advocate. Again, revolutionary groups are ants on the levers of history. I reject leftist fetishism of spectaclist manifestations and other action-forms born out of an idealist conception of revolutionary transformation, don't mistake that for vanguardism.



I think most people on this site recognize the need to reach out and build a resistance out of the millions of as of yet unradicalized people.


That's what I advocate, only the thing is that marches aimed at moving 'the powers that be' to do this or that is at it's core not only reformist through it's legimatisation of those same powers, it's also not 'resistance'. Resistance is born from direct action, the direct unmediated class struggle. From small, uncoordinated acts of workplace sabotage and re-appropriation to the massive general strike, this is what the revolutionary process consists of.



So like you said, some "marxist" coup or "anarchist" insurrectionist action are worthless, so how do we build our resistance in a way where the working class can radicalize and learn to fight in its own interests?


Certainly not by having impotent shouting marches which, if anything, drain everybody of all will to live or struggle.



You don't seem to realize that I want to see much more radical actions, general strikes, workplace occupations, etc... but in order to get there we have to sit through a lot of boring coalition meetings and go to a lot of dumb rallies - often led by people who are much more conservative than you or I.


No we don't. I have plenty of experience doing this or that coalition, I've marched enough miles to warrent many a new pair of shoes and frankly it gets you fuck all.

I'm not going to have a quotefest here, so I'll just refer to this link (http://schriftzine.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/issue-1-some-notes-on-the-pace-of-the-struggle/) regarding 'the pace of the struggle'.

Basically it says that what matters is not the intensity of this or that action but it's potential in spreading socially and it's capacity for interrupting the functioning of state and Capital.



I'm not talking about abstract "consiousness" of "being informed of issues" - I'm sorry if I am using marxist jargon you are not familiar with, but I mean political and class consciousness.


Spare me your condescending attitude. I'm more than familiar with marxist jargon.



Apparently you popped out of the womb with a Molotov cocktail, but most of us actually had to learn to break from the ruling class ideas that were handed down to us from schools, parents, religion, politicians etc.


I fully agree. And continuing to organise marches appealing to and reproducing the authority of State and Capital isn't going to help that.

Now, don't mistake this for an argument in favor of sitting in some political niche. Sure, I'll attend demonstrations organised by reformist organisations but if I do so it's to stand next to fellow workers, to engage with them and organise alongside like-minded workers. If I attend spectaclist bullshit-marches it's to agitate against the petty bureaucrats recuperating struggle who organise these kinds of marches.




If you go to an anti-war rally, sit down, don't talk to people, and just listen to the speakers... then yes, it is a waste of time, stay at home playing video games or reading instead. It's more effective to organize with like-minded people and try and build something out of these kinds of gatherings... or at the very least try and promote radical ideas among these single-issue crowds.


This is what I advocated above. That doesn't change all my earlier statements about these marches in themselves being completely and utterly useless.



Man you have some kind of persecution complex or egomania or something... I was making a general point about my perspective on the bombs, not trying to counter and specific thing you said. Christ, you need to relax.


I was actually pretty relaxed when I wrote that. No hard feelings, it's just the internet bro.



But since you are trying to counter what I said about rallies... will you answer my question: was the initial protests against the Iraq war totally without impact on politics


The thing is that I don't care about 'politics'. I don't think the sphere of politics, which is essentially a spectaclist masquerade for the management of the society, has anything to do with the communist process.

[Omi]

It's not real group but a police provocation. Everyone with little connection with anarchist movement in Italy knows that. Regarding the rest, everyone with a little sense for reality would know that anarchists can't bomb anyone these days :)

Care to elaborate?

[Jimmie Higgins]

The thing is that I don't care about 'politics'. I don't think the sphere of politics, which is essentially a spectaclist masquerade for the management of the society, has anything to do with the communist process.

So you don't think that the millions of Immigrants marching in 2006 on May Day had any effect? You don't think that the initial anti-war rallies impacted anything?

Of course we should ask ourselves if building this or that is going to be the best thing to advance class consciousness and struggle, but at a time when there are no real organizations based on anti-imperialism, no mass labor parties, no visible and organized left in the US, boring marches and meetings are the first steps towards building something.

You keep saying that I'm idealist like it's the term on your word-a-day calender today, but it's more idealist to expect, as you seem (so correct me if I'm wrong), to for people to somehow come out of a society where they are surrounded by the ruling class "common sense" ideas and radicalize without any process of development. How do people move from liberal or reformist ideas without going through a learning process where they see that a one-day limited strike is not enough? How do they develop ideas about what it might actually take to challenge US imperialism without taking the first step of going out to a protest and trying to "ask"?

No movement starts out militant, almost all begin with humble demands and then begin to radicalize later... but this is not guaranteed and a lot depends on if there is a left-wing inside a movement to criticize liberal leadership and argue for more militant actions as appropriate.

There's no formula and not every protest leads to something bigger (and as a radical minority, usually there is only so much that we as radicals can do about that subjectively). the Oscar Grant Protests had direct action throughout and I'm sure you would have thought that they did everything right tactically and yet the movement still failed to build anything lasting and now a chunk of black activists in the bay area have been convinced by liberal forces that "anarchists" wreaked the movement and didn't really care about Oscar Grant (and by extension the black community, since that's how the media played it) and only care about smashing windows.

The Immigrant rights marches on the other hand also ultimately failed (and had been solidly controlled by liberal back-stabbers after the first marches scared the shit out of the US ruling class) to build a movement but it also brought millions of workers out onto the street, brought back May Day in the US, and probably helped encourage things like the Republic Windows and Doors occupation.

So even though both failed, it was equally important IMO for radicals to be a part of both and to try and do what we thought needed to happen to build a lasting movement that could run on its own two feet independent from the liberal leaders and their political ideas.

If people are sincerely angry and riot, then I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't be angry, but I will try and convince people that it's not enough and we need to actually organize at the grassroots in an open and democratic way to be effective. It's the same with the big anti-war marches, if people have liberal illusions then not engaging or challenging them on these things is not going to convince them otherwise and when these limited actions fail, then they will probably become demoralized rather than engaged.


If you had, again, read my post you would know that this is the exact opposite of what I advocate.Yeah, I said "some elitist marxists and anarchists" not as some sly euphamisim for "you"... and if YOU had read the next sentance I wrote in that same paragraph you would have also read this:

So like you said, some "marxist" coup or "anarchist" insurrectionist action are worthless,In other words I was trying to find some common ground so we could have a clearer argument. Stop jumping to conclusions, I'm only trying to argue my perspective on why radicals SHOULD participate where people are engaging in struggle even if that struggle at that current instance is tactically less than what is required.

I have never been on a picket line for a really militant strike... most of the time the leadership is more concerned with not getting slapped with injunctions than actually shutting down a workplace... but these kinds of things are still important if we are ever going to be in a position to meet rank and file workers and explain why more militant actions are needed like illegal actions such as solidarity strikes and actually keeping scabs out and so on as well as give our take on the limitations the leadership of the unions, liberal politicians and so on.

[Ravachol]

So you don't think that the millions of Immigrants marching in 2006 on May Day had any effect? You don't think that the initial anti-war rallies impacted anything?


The war never stopped did it? Could you elaborate how the marches, in and of themselves (barring, as I said, agitation and networking done within them) brought us any closer to Communism?

I'm not informed well enough about the immigrant marches, as I'm not from the USA, so I'll refrain from commenting on them. I bet my ass the same goes for them though.



Of course we should ask ourselves if building this or that is going to be the best thing to advance class consciousness and struggle, but at a time when there are no real organizations based on anti-imperialism, no mass labor parties, no visible and organized left in the US, boring marches and meetings are the first steps towards building something.


Building what exactly, we must ask ourselves. What is is that we seek to build? An organization for the sake of an organization isn't worth anything. An organization that isn't capable of waging direct, unmediated class struggle isn't something Communists ought to be concerned with.

And before you say: "But nothing will happen then!", nothing will happen with huge reformist organizations either. Class struggle is still subject to material conditions and like it or not subject to revolutionary spontaneism.




You keep saying that I'm idealist like it's the term on your word-a-day calender today, but it's more idealist to expect, as you seem (so correct me if I'm wrong), to for people to somehow come out of a society where they are surrounded by the ruling class "common sense" ideas and radicalize without any process of development.


I never claimed such a thing. I merely said spectaclist marches aren't breaking out of bourgeois hegemony AT ALL because of them being spectaclist.



How do people move from liberal or reformist ideas without going through a learning process where they see that a one-day limited strike is not enough?
How do they develop ideas about what it might actually take to challenge US imperialism without taking the first step of going out to a protest and trying to "ask"?


Again, you seem to privilege ideas and the sphere of ideas as the battleground for communists.



No movement starts out militant, almost all begin with humble demands and then begin to radicalize later...


There is plenty of historic evidence showing otherwise. From the Sparacist uprising to the Bolshevik revolution and the Spanish revolution, the Italian movement of '77 or whatever. None of these started out as movements where people had a march begging the bourgeoisie to implement this or that, next to reformist party leaders. They were the result of an increasing intensification in direct, unmediated class struggle.



In other words I was trying to find some common ground so we could have a clearer argument. Stop jumping to conclusions, I'm only trying to argue my perspective on why radicals SHOULD participate where people are engaging in struggle even if that struggle at that current instance is tactically less than what is required.


I never said we should stay home at all, in fact I said:



Now, don't mistake this for an argument in favor of sitting in some political niche. Sure, I'll attend demonstrations organised by reformist organisations but if I do so it's to stand next to fellow workers, to engage with them and organise alongside like-minded workers. If I attend spectaclist bullshit-marches it's to agitate against the petty bureaucrats recuperating struggle who organise these kinds of marches.




I have never been on a picket line for a really militant strike... most of the time the leadership is more concerned with not getting slapped with injunctions than actually shutting down a workplace


Exactly what I'm talking about.



... but these kinds of things are still important if we are ever going to be in a position to meet rank and file workers


Again, this is what I'm saying. I'm not saying we shouldn't attend but I sure as hell don't advocate working together with the structures and petty reformist bureaucrats in control of those struggles. If anything, they need to be smashed.

[B0LSHEVIK]

There is plenty of historic evidence showing otherwise. From the Sparacist uprising to the Bolshevik revolution and the Spanish revolution, the Italian movement of '77 or whatever. None of these started out as movements where people had a march begging the bourgeoisie to implement this or that, next to reformist party leaders. They were the result of an increasing intensification in direct, unmediated class struggle.

Really? Are you serious?

ON EDIT:

Of course not begging. But are you saying then that all these events were all spontaneous? Just one day normal folk just picked up a rifle for social justice? If so, why even be a communist? Or organize people? Did all these movements not have coherent organization, discipline, and militancy? The bavarian revolution just happened? Lenin wasnt a 'pamphlet' writer before Oct 17? Didnt he 'antagonize' the masses? The trade unionists who squashed the rebellion in many parts of republican spain on july of 36 did so spontaneously? So, the unions didnt organize the rank and file in Spain prior the rebellion? And, didnt these same unions at times fight for simple things like break periods?

What Im getting at is that the mark on history left by these movements was very deep, and, could not have come without prior popular organization; which takes time to build.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The war never stopped did it? Could you elaborate how the marches, in and of themselves (barring, as I said, agitation and networking done within them) brought us any closer to Communism?After the Afganistan war in the US, there was a great deal of social pressure to support the war, Bush's approval was high and of course all but one or two of the elected "opposition" Democrats were cheering for an invasion of Iraq and beyond. The large marches against the invasion dispelled myths about total popular support for the war and allowed the beginnings of new anti-war organizing leading to groups like Iraqi Veterans Against the War.

Of course, as I have said, the movement ultimately failed... well so did the Civil Rights movement ultimately (not that the anti-war movement of the last decade even got as far as the civil rights movement). But it failed largely because people were often not organized at the grassroots level by the more progressive organizations, many of the organizations like MoveON were run in a top-down way and basically just pro-Democrat organizations that would not protest during a campaign or use their resources for "get out the vote" drives. But rather than abandoning all these workers to the liberal organizations, radicals should go to the big coalition marches and argue for the need for radical working class politics. I'm not argueing to join MoveOn, but that it's important that when there is a 10,000 people march against a war or for immigrant rights, radicals need to be there to promote our politics, network and try and build out of.

Can you really argue that what we have now - no visible popular opposition to Obama's wars - is the same or better for radicals in organizing against imperialism and war as it was during the large anti-war marches? If it was better for struggle when the large anti-war marches were happening, then you must concede that radicals should be involved at the grassroots level: promoting our ideas and strategies as the best way to fight.

I'm not saying this is the end-all be-all, but it can be a starting point where pre-existing networks and organizations don't exist (as it always the case in the US). If there is no movement, then a rally is better than none... if rallies happen, then organizing a coalition or political action is better than just rallies and so on.

[thesadmafioso]

'Anarchist' groups like the one supposedly involved in this incident really need to look at the context they are trying to apply their out of place tactics to, it would do them some good. Mailing out bombs to embassy's is not an effectual strategy which will have any real positive effect, all it will bring upon their movement is stigma and negativity. Their isn't even any readily apparent symbolism behind the attacks either, if people that are actually a part of the leftist community have to ask why you did something than it does not exactly show a clear and entirely coherent motive.

[nuisance]

. Their isn't even any readily apparent symbolism behind the attacks either, if people that are actually a part of the leftist community have to ask why you did something than it does not exactly show a clear and entirely coherent motive.
The meaning is obvious and has been stated in this thread mulitple times. aswell as on the statement issued by the IFA. Read it
Also, I doubt the perpetrators consider themselves as leftists and it is unlikely they want anything to do with leftism in general.

[thesadmafioso]

The meaning is obvious and has been stated in this thread mulitple times. aswell as on the statement issued by the IFA. Read it
Also, I doubt the perpetrators consider themselves as leftists and it is unlikely they want anything to do with leftism in general.

I have read the intended meaning, I was referring to how it will be viewed by the general people. I am sure they know what their motive was perfectly well, but the reality is that it will reflect poorly upon their group in the actual media and with the masses. Perhaps a bit of careful reading would of helped to avoid this lack of comprehension on your behalf.

Also, I consider it more than likely that the perpetrators would consider themselves to be leftists as anarchists generally are, more often than not. I highly doubt their motives were right leaning or anything of the sort, as such movements generally take on different names.

[nuisance]

I have read the intended meaning, I was referring to how it will be viewed by the general people. I am sure they know what their motive was perfectly well, but the reality is that it will reflect poorly upon their group in the actual media and with the masses. Perhaps a bit of careful reading would of helped to avoid this lack of comprehension on your behalf.
No, you are simply unable to understand the purpose and intent of the actions. The perpetrators aren't acting for 'the masses'. The message is from anarchists to State bodies that their actions will not go ahead without international retaliation. It is not appeal to anyone.


Also, I consider it more than likely that the perpetrators would consider themselves to be leftists as anarchists generally are, more often than not. I highly doubt their motives were right leaning or anything of the sort, as such movements generally take on different names.
This is why you cannot comprehend the intent of the actions. The anarchists of the IFA are insurrectionists, though arguably a niche brand of the modern tradition. They do not consider themselves to be leftists, and in many places they come to violent conflict with them, and in other places at the very most there exists an unease truce.
Anyway, what anarchists consider themselves leftist, since not even the anarchist federations in the UK (AFED, Solfed) understand themselves to be.

[thesadmafioso]

No, you are simply unable to understand the purpose and intent of the actions. The perpetrators aren't acting for 'the masses'. The message is from anarchists to State bodies that their actions will not go ahead without international retaliation. It is not appeal to anyone.


This is why you cannot comprehend the intent of the actions. The anarchists of the IFA are insurrectionists, though arguably a niche brand of the modern tradition. They do not consider themselves to be leftists, and in many places they come to violent conflict with them, and in other places at the very most there exists an unease truce.
Anyway, what anarchists consider themselves leftist, since not even the anarchist federations in the UK (AFED, Solfed) understand themselves to be.

You still seem to be missing the point of my aforementioned remarks. I am referring to the publics interpretation of the acts intended motives. I don't care if they intended them to send a message to the state, I am referring to their movement on a larger scale. But even if we take their acts on that limited level, they will still be futile. It is not as if various state bodies are now terrified of anarchist groups, or even as if any impact was had.

And I know what anarchists think of themselves, but generally speaking they intend to bring about a leftist result about after the collapse of the state. It doesn't matter so much what someone calls themselves, but rather what they actually are. Since most anarchist groups have broad goals similar to many leftist groups, they are easily comparable to such. Historically speaking this has been made into an established truth, and it seems rather unnecessary to question such a basic reality.

[nuisance]

You still seem to be missing the point of my aforementioned remarks. I am referring to the publics interpretation of the acts intended motives. I don't care if they intended them to send a message to the state, I am referring to their movement on a larger scale. But even if we take their acts on that limited level, they will still be futile. It is not as if various state bodies are now terrified of anarchist groups, or even as if any impact was had.
Again, a lack of understanding is shown.
You mentioned that the motives of the action hasn't be communicated well enough to the public. This is a fair enough statement, but you have to look at the message the group was trying to comunicate and why it has that outcome. The fact is, it wasn't intended to have a massive influence on the public, and I'm pretty sure that the anarchists involved understand that an action like this isn't going to gain massive amounts of sympathy from the wider public.
Now, I must ask what do you mean by 'their movement'? What is a movement, by your definition?
It's not about creating a state of fear for the State either, please, people aren't as niave or arrogant to believe that parcel bombs are going to create hysteria along the corridors of power.


And I know what anarchists think of themselves, but generally speaking they intend to bring about a leftist result about after the collapse of the state. It doesn't matter so much what someone calls themselves, but rather what they actually are. Since most anarchist groups have broad goals similar to many leftist groups, they are easily comparable to such. Historically speaking this has been made into an established truth, and it seems rather unnecessary to question such a basic reality.
http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/historical/113-anarchist-federation-neither-left-nor-right.html

[thesadmafioso]

Again, a lack of understanding is shown.
You mentioned that the motives of the action hasn't be communicated well enough to the public. This is a fair enough statement, but you have to look at the message the group was trying to comunicate and why it has that outcome. The fact is, it wasn't intended to have a massive influence on the public, and I'm pretty sure that the anarchists involved understand that an action like this isn't going to gain massive amounts of sympathy from the wider public.
Now, I must ask what do you mean by 'their movement'? What is a movement, by your definition?
It's not about creating a state of fear for the State either, please, people aren't as niave or arrogant to believe that parcel bombs are going to create hysteria along the corridors of power.


http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/historical/113-anarchist-federation-neither-left-nor-right.html

I will make this as blunt and devoid of any intended connotations and general nuance as possible then, this attack resulted in far more negativity for their cause than it did otherwise. Those behind it did not make a proper and developed analysis of the political climate before acting, and the results clearly relate such.

And once more, I do not particularly care what they think they are so much as what they actually are. They have an agenda which sounds to be quite in line with certain aspects of leftist thought, so pardon me for considering them to be aligned with that region of the political spectrum. It is not as if they are exposing some alien ideology which the world has never seen, what they expose is hardly different from anarchist thought a century ago.

[nuisance]

I will make this as blunt and devoid of any intended connotations and general nuance as possible then, this attack resulted in far more negativity for their cause than it did otherwise. Those behind it did not make a proper and developed analysis of the political climate before acting, and the results clearly relate such.
In your opinion. This was a response to the repression of anarchists by the embassies nations. So, the 'climate' was perfectly ripe for a solidarity action, not tlo mention the heighentened levels of militancy in Italy at this time. Or, by a 'proper and developed analysis, do you mean your own?
Have you actually read, from a reliable source, about the massive amounts of dissent from the working class that this action has appartently envoked? And how did it affect them negatively, when the action wasn't an attempt at harvesting good public relations and it is most understandable that the knew that people may object?


And once more, I do not particularly care what they think they are so much as what they actually are. They have an agenda which sounds to be quite in line with certain aspects of leftist thought, so pardon me for considering them to be aligned with that region of the political spectrum. It is not as if they are exposing some alien ideology which the world has never seen, what they expose is hardly different from anarchist thought a century ago.
When it intrinsically effects the way the groups and individuals operate, then I'd say that it massively effects what they are.


It is not as if they are exposing some alien ideology which the world has never seen, what they expose is hardly different from anarchist thought a century ago.
:confused:

[thesadmafioso]

In your opinion. This was a response to the repression of anarchists by the embassies nations. So, the 'climate' was perfectly ripe for a solidarity action, not tlo mention the heighentened levels of militancy in Italy at this time. Or, by a 'proper and developed analysis, do you mean your own?
Have you actually read, from a reliable source, about the massive amounts of dissent from the working class that this action has appartently envoked? And how did it affect them negatively, when the action wasn't an attempt at harvesting good public relations and it is most understandable that the knew that people may object?


When it intrinsically effects the way the groups and individuals operate, then I'd say that it massively effects what they are.

:confused:

Do you honestly believe that these various nations have really been effected by the recent attacks? The action was short sighted and it did not take into consideration public opinion, it did not have any notable impact on the intended target, and the base of the movement is so minuscule that it is simply pointless to play to it in such a dramatic fashion. Go right ahead and play up the fictitious effects that these attacks had, I suppose I cannot hope to change or alter such a skewered view of reality. The amount of time and effort which would have to be put into educating you in the workings of practical and applied politics would be far too much for me to even consider trying.

[nuisance]

Do you honestly believe that these various nations have really been effected by the recent attacks?
Have you not read my posts?
'It's not about creating a state of fear for the State either, please, people aren't as niave or arrogant [enough] to believe that parcel bombs are going to create hysteria along the corridors of power.'

The purpose is to show solidarity and for such actions to spread across the social terrain. This isn't going happen out of nothing.


The action was short sighted and it did not take into consideration public opinion, it did not have any notable impact on the intended target, and the base of the movement is so minuscule that it is simply pointless to play to it in such a dramatic fashion.
The action doesn't require having a large base movement.
Public opinion wasn't appealed to.
They knew the target wasn't going to be destoryed.
If you're going to criticise an action, please try and critique the intentions of the action. Did the action meet its aim of attacking a symbol of the political authority of the nations responsible for the repression of anarchists? Yes.
Did it get a reaction from anarchists in that country. Yes.
Did it prompt debate in some anarchist groups. Yes.


Go right ahead and play up the fictitious effects that these attacks had, I suppose I cannot hope to change or alter such a skewered view of reality.
You are the only one who has offered any appartent effects of the action, not I. In fact upon me questioning yours you failed in responding, suggesting that your views are based upon assumption. Personally I believe the action was barely spoken about by the general public in Italy, outside of leftist talking shops and anarchist spaces. But alas, that was one of the intentions.


The amount of time and effort which would have to be put into educating you in the workings of practical and applied politics would be far too much for me to even consider trying.
Sorry, but your criticisms really do not warrant arrogance.

[thesadmafioso]

Have you not read my posts?
'It's not about creating a state of fear for the State either, please, people aren't as niave or arrogant [enough] to believe that parcel bombs are going to create hysteria along the corridors of power.'

The purpose is to show solidarity and for such actions to spread across the social terrain. This isn't going happen out of nothing.


The action doesn't require having a large base movement.
Public opinion wasn't appealed to.
They knew the target wasn't going to be destoryed.
If you're going to criticise an action, please try and critique the intentions of the action. Did the action meet its aim of attacking a symbol of the political authority of the nations responsible for the repression of anarchists? Yes.
Did it get a reaction from anarchists in that country. Yes.
Did it prompt debate in some anarchist groups. Yes.


You are the only one who has offered appartent effects of the action, not I. In fact upon me questioning yours you failed to responding, suggesting that your views are based upon assumption. Personally I believe the action was barely spoken about by the general public in Italy, outside of leftist talking shops and anarchist spaces.


Your criticisms really do not warrant arrogance.

I never mentioned fear in that quoted section. I know that they were intended to 'show solidarity' and like, and I also know that trying to do so in such a manner in the given context is all but pointless. It is a meaningless and hollow endeavor beyond the anarchist base, which as I have stated earlier is really quite insignificant. Who cares if a handful of anarchists are talking, what is the importance of that in the grand scheme of things? It would appear that I acted too soon in presuming you to be a more rational individual, I will be quick to admit that given the circumstances. I had presumed that you were defending its results and intend in a more developed fashion, and I presumed you not to be so shortsighted in your outlook of the incident. So lets get beyond that misconception and my overestimation of your reason, you have said that the purpose of the action was based only around anarchistic solidarity. How does that even merit discussion? It was an action which as you have stated was undertaken with no goal other than to fire up their base essentially, why bother wasting resources on such nonsense? It is not a viable political action, and the political reality of this matter is as simple as that. You have only made my point more powerful and clearer by making those remarks, as you show how ineffectual the act was and how poorly thought out its goals were.

[Steve_j]

If you're going to criticise an action, please try and critique the intentions of the action.

Did the action meet its aim of attacking a symbol of the political authority of the nations responsible for the repression of anarchists? Yes.

If wounding and and maiming a postal clerk is a success, what does a failure look like?

Ultimaly this is more of an attack on the working class than any state, and as previously mentioned quite conviently opens hunting season on the libertarian left.


Did it get a reaction from anarchists in that country. Yes.

In which sense has it got a reaction? I havent seen any positive statments, but then i do admit i know fuck all about anarchism in Italy.


Did it prompt debate in some anarchist groups. Yes.


There are better ways to prompt debate than sending bombs to postal clerks, usually talking to people works.

[nuisance]

I never mentioned fear in that quoted section.
Well that would entail your point.


I know that they were intended to 'show solidarity' and like, and I also know that trying to do so in such a manner in the given context is all but pointless.
What context? Again you fail to explain.


It is a meaningless and hollow endeavor beyond the anarchist base, which as I have stated earlier is really quite insignificant. Who cares if a handful of anarchists are talking, what is the importance of that in the grand scheme of things?
Networking and coordination is pointless?


It would appear that I acted too soon in presuming you to be a more rational individual, I will be quick to admit that given the circumstances. I had presumed that you were defending its results and intend in a more developed fashion, and I presumed you not to be so shortsighted in your outlook of the incident.
Don't be getting so cheeky, it's embarrassing. Where have I actually supported the action? I was provide some much needed clarity, because you quite simply do not understand the actions intent.


So lets get beyond that misconception and my overestimation of your reason, you have said that the purpose of the action was based only around anarchistic solidarity. How does that even merit discussion? It was an action which as you have stated was undertaken with no goal other than to fire up their base essentially, why bother wasting resources on such nonsense?
What great resources? And how and why is showing solidarity to perscuted allies rubbish?


It is not a viable political action, and the political reality of this matter is as simple as that. You have only made my point more powerful and clearer by making those remarks, as you show how ineffectual the act was and how poorly thought out its goals were.
Insurrectionists generally reject the 'political'. You really need to scrub up on your theory if you're going to offer anything of merit to discussion. Anyway, you don't have a 'point'. All you have is a list of assertions that don't take the ideas into account while critiquing something they have done. To point it in your words, you're rejecting the context of the action.

[nuisance]

If wounding and and maiming a postal clerk is a success, what does a failure look like?
Did I support the action?

Ultimaly this is more of an attack on the working class than any state, and as previously mentioned quite conviently opens hunting season on the libertarian left.[/quote]
Where did I support the action?




In which sense has it got a reaction? I havent seen any positive statments, but then i do admit i know fuck all about anarchism in Italy.
http://325.nostate.net/
Some letters from groups on there.




There are better ways to prompt debate than sending bombs to postal clerks, usually talking to people works.
That appears to be only one part of the endeavour.

[Steve_j]

I wasnt suggesting you do or you dont, thats why i left this line in as to not take make your words look out of context.

Originally Posted by Edelweiss Pirate http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1978625#post1978625)
If you're going to criticise an action, please try and critique the intentions of the action.

So i was critiquing the intentions and the results.

[thesadmafioso]

Well that would entail your point.


What context? Again you fail to explain.


Networking and coordination is pointless?


Don't be getting so cheeky, it's embarrassing. Where have I actually supported the action? I was provide some much needed clarity, because you quite simply do not understand the actions intent.


What great resources? And how and why is showing solidarity to perscuted allies rubbish?


Insurrectionists generally reject the 'political'. You really need to scrub up on your theory if you're going to offer anything of merit to discussion. Anyway, you don't have a 'point'. All you have is a list of assertions that don't take the ideas into account while critiquing something they have done. To point it in your words, you're rejecting the context of the action.

Again, I am overestimating your ability to pick up basic implied aspects of my point. The state of modern geopolitical affairs, and how such fits into the effectualness of anarchistic tactics of bombing.

When it is going towards efforts which have no achievable or meaningful point, yes they are pointless. I would actually argue that it is due to a lack of proper planning that these attacks failed so miserably, as they failed to take into account all of the prevailing and present factors which would be relevant to this matter.

I never said you supported the action, just that you were defending it. Which you very clearly are. I really don't think that point is up for debate as you are arguing with me over its effectiveness.

I also have stated how little actual clout that most anarchist groups which apply such tactics have, so I don't think that it could be said that I refereed to their resources as 'great' or any other comparable term. Once more it would appear that you would benefit from some basic lessons in the comprehension of written text as you have further distorted the meaning of my writing.

How am I rejecting the context of the action? I feel as if you are just throwing random words together in the hope that they may form a coherent sentence or maybe even with some luck, an argument. I have stated that the context does not warrant the use of bombs in such a blunt and undeveloped fashion, but that is not a rejection of any context. I understand the reality of current affairs, and I realize that current circumstances are not open to such action when applied in such a manner.

And my point is perfectly clear, perhaps you missed it or you had some trouble making sense out of it. Sending bombs to embassies in such a fashion has no meaning effect on anything beyond the anarchist movement itself, and thus it is useless.

[Ravachol]

Dude what's there to understand. The aim of these actions is neither to influence public opinion, nor to create a mass movement, nor to have a physical impact on the structures of power. The aim of such actions is not based on their intensity or result but on their potential to spread socially.

What they hope is that such an act will show to whoever is concerned that such actions are possible and they hope that the multiplication of such actions increases rapidly to the point where they WILL have an effect due to their social spread as opposed to the effect of a singular action.

I don't think it has any potential and there is a whole plethora of problems with this idea, especially since this doesn't differ that much from classical 'propaganda of the deed' (as opposed to other insurrectionist practice) and the fact that the replicability of this action is simple in material terms but not in terms of revolutionary consciousness. Also, these actions are still military and not really socialy, they don't win social terrain from which to expand further, something I think would be rather crucial to any successfull insurrectionist strategy (or whatever the kids of Tiqqun write :p). Then again, that isn't their goal.

Look nobody here is arguing in favor of this stuff but don't go around spewing strawmen.

[thesadmafioso]

Dude what's there to understand. The aim of these actions is neither to influence public opinion, nor to create a mass movement, nor to have a physical impact on the structures of power. The aim of such actions is not based on their intensity or result but on their potential to spread socially.

What they hope is that such an act will show to whoever is concerned that such actions are possible and they hope that the multiplication of such actions increases rapidly to the point where they WILL have an effect due to their social spread as opposed to the effect of a singular action.

I don't think it has any potential and there is a whole plethora of problems with this idea, especially since this doesn't differ that much from classical 'propaganda of the deed' (as opposed to other insurrectionist practice) and the fact that the replicability of this action is simple in material terms but not in terms of revolutionary consciousness. Also, these actions are still military and not really socialy, they don't win social terrain from which to expand further, something I think would be rather crucial to any successfull insurrectionist strategy (or whatever the kids of Tiqqun write :p). Then again, that isn't their goal.

Look nobody here is arguing in favor of this stuff but don't go around spewing strawmen.

Alright, lets ignore the fact that I was focusing on the important factor of how the public views such actions for a moment. Let us suspend all disbelief momentarily and go along with the notion that accounting for public opinion is irrelevant when planning violent action. We will go with the concept that this act was made with the intent of it spreading socially.

How exactly does a parcel bomb equate to an ideology or a concept spreading? And how can you seriously say that public opinion is not related to an attempt to multiply the intensity of violent action. If you really try to look at the question at hand here, the mind does not go far without taking certain social variables into account. Yes, you can pretend that they are not relevant, but once you reach a point in analysis it becomes unavoidable. = Certain connections need to be made here for a proper analysis of these events, and they simply are not.

But that is a strawman, right? Taking a situation and interpreting it in a critical and developed manner, as it is not completely literal and as it forces the mind to make some connections, is a strawman.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

My point is that the tactic of propaganda of the deed was supposed to inspire others to take up struggle. There has never been a successful example of that. It just alienates you from working class people.

And simply calling yourself a "communist" DOESN'T alienate you from working class people?

Wake up. Your ideology alone alienates you. A simple view on tactics is no worse.


It's not surprising that people get angry, but you can't just blow people up. That's just ridiculous and it achieves nothing. My goal is to create a communist society and terrorism isn't going to achieve that.Ok, so name a tactic that HAS created a communist society. Also, who has said anything about blowing people up? Just because people were around when the bomb exploded does not mean that was the goal of the bomber. In Greece for example, the bombers usually call in warnings ahead of time so nobody is hurt.


Erm, you're defending a tactic that is hundreds of years old, so clearly you're included in that.Hundreds? Lol. Anarchism hasn't even been around for hundreds of years.


The creation of successful revolutions have come about because of the self-organisation of working class people and the overthrow of the capitalist state. Workers taking control of state mechanics as well as the means of production is the only way to transfer to a communist society.lol, wait. You actually think there has been successful revolutions? I should have known I was talking to a completely delusional fool.


How is it ridiculous? You're defending the use of terrorist tactics. Do you honestly think that myself or any workers should take you or your ideas seriously when you are defending blowing people up?Terrorist tactics? What are you, the United States government? Way to use the bourgeoisie's propaganda against your own comrades. I don't see how anarchist "terrorists" are any different from state sponsored terrorists - er, I mean war heroes.


Revenge? What a great standard to create. If this is what anarchism is about then you can count me out.Sounds like your complete lack of understanding of anarchism counted you out long ago. Sorry you are so disgusted by class war. Yes, it's class WAR, not class "be nice and hope the state is nice back".


Yet more evidence of how wacky and irrelevant anarchism is. What class struggle? Erm. Have a look around your workplace, if you have a job, or in your communities. People are daily struggling against capital.Yeah, all the people I know who are desperate for jobs and would suck up to a capitalist at any chance they get sure are engaged in class war. Give me a fucking break. There is no class war. Communists are too busy selling newspapers to actually fight the ruling class.


And you think that blowing people up - alienating your movement even further and potentially getting activists imprisoned and organisations repressed is a really positive step forward?Not really. I don't give a shit about "positive steps forward". I also don't think actually engaging in class war is alienating our movement though. Sure beats selling newspapers and debating on internet forums.


Well, actually, terrorism has become a huge part of western society. Acts of terrorism have become more and more common. Reading in the news that a bunch of anarchists blew some one up is not very interesting - in fact it's probably what people would expect thanks to state propaganda. Ignoring anarchists and their attacks on embassy staff is actually very easy to ignore. It just makes workers thankful that there is a strong state to protect them.

Thanks for that.Then those workers are fools. Who would be thankful that there is a state to repress them when they could be fighting for their freedom?

Thanks for proving that many workers are just cowards, ready to suck up to their state capitalist masters.


Of course you are expressing your support.

Defending doesn't mean supporting, actually. Someone has to inject some sense into this conversation. I'm simply pointing out that people support propaganda of the deed because they believe it to be a valuable tactic, not because they're violent maniacs like the state propaganda wants you to believe.

[nuisance]

This is getting boring now, so only respond if you can provide a post that won't continue this circle jerk.


Again, I am overestimating your ability to pick up basic implied aspects of my point. The state of modern geopolitical affairs, and how such fits into the effectualness of anarchistic tactics of bombing.
This means nothing.


When it is going towards efforts which have no achievable or meaningful point, yes they are pointless. I would actually argue that it is due to a lack of proper planning that these attacks failed so miserably, as they failed to take into account all of the prevailing and present factors which would be relevant to this matter.
How can you assess whether the tactic is meaningless, when you don't even understand the intent of it? It would appear that it the action is a success because it met the objectives of the group, whether you agree with it or not. Re-read Ravachols post again for ore clarity on this.


I never said you supported the action, just that you were defending it. Which you very clearly are. I really don't think that point is up for debate as you are arguing with me over its effectiveness.
No, I'm critiquing your knowledge of theory and trying help you to understand why certain groups rise different tactics and what they hope to gain from them.


I also have stated how little actual clout that most anarchist groups which apply such tactics have, so I don't think that it could be said that I refereed to their resources as 'great' or any other comparable term. Once more it would appear that you would benefit from some basic lessons in the comprehension of written text as you have further distorted the meaning of my writing.
You suggested that it was a waste of resources, implying that the resources, presumebly a decent amount otherwise it would be redundant, could be allocated elsewhere. So, what resources were actually wasted? It would appear that you don't even understand what you are posting, a sorry state of affairs indeed.



How am I rejecting the context of the action? I feel as if you are just throwing random words together in the hope that they may form a coherent sentence or maybe even with some luck, an argument. I have stated that the context does not warrant the use of bombs in such a blunt and undeveloped fashion, but that is not a rejection of any context. I understand the reality of current affairs, and I realize that current circumstances are not open to such action when applied in such a manner.
:rolleyes:
Yes, you have claimed that the action doesn't fit the context of the situation, yet you haven't said why. You have also rejected the analysis of the anarchists involved, esstentially the ideas that informed the action- this is included in 'context', who aim at creating their own context and 'fanning the flames of insurrection'.
The context was anarchists attacked by nations, calls for solidarity actions were made, anarchists respond. That is the context, it was an insular act in that remark.


And my point is perfectly clear, perhaps you missed it or you had some trouble making sense out of it. Sending bombs to embassies in such a fashion has no meaning effect on anything beyond the anarchist movement itself, and thus it is useless.
Again, I'll reiterate the same point.
The point is the threat that such actions can spread, as is what happens in insurrectional periods. In Greece we have seen people who have previously criticised the attacking of State and capital taking up these tactics as their own, after being indented in their minds as methods of struggle that are open to themselves.

[thesadmafioso]

This is getting boring now, so only respond if you can provide a post that won't continue this circle jerk.


This means nothing.


How can you assess whether the tactic is meaningless, when you don't even understand the intent of it? It would appear that it the action is a success because it met the objectives of the group, whether you agree with it or not. Re-read Ravachols post again for ore clarity on this.


No, I'm critiquing your knowledge of theory and trying help you to understand why certain groups rise different tactics and what they hope to gain from them.


You suggested that it was a waste of resources, implying that the resources, presumebly a decent amount otherwise it would be redundant, could be allocated elsewhere. So, what resources were actually wasted? It would appear that you don't even understand what you are posting, a sorry state of affairs indeed.



:rolleyes:
Yes, you have claimed that the action doesn't fit the context of the situation, yet you haven't said why. You have also rejected the analysis of the anarchists involved, esstentially the ideas that informed the action- this is included in 'context', who aim at creating their own context and 'fanning the flames of insurrection'.
The context was anarchists attacked by nations, calls for solidarity actions were made, anarchists respond. That is the context, it was an insular act in that remark.


Again, I'll reiterate the same point.
The point is the threat that such actions can spread, as is what happens in insurrectional periods. In Greece we have seen people who have previously criticised the attacking of State and capital taking up these tactics as their own, after being indented in their minds as methods of struggle that are open to themselves.

You are not actually 'helping' me understand anything, I know more about the inner workings of the political and other assorted action to achieve political goals then you will ever hope to have knowledge of. Do not attempt to operate under that pathetic and blatantly false veil of assistance.

You are not capable or even fit to attempt to draw connotations from my words. Don't do it. Why don't you just ask for help the next time you run into a snag in reading my work, perhaps? All it leads us to when you try to go out and understand things on your own is this, the skewering of a very basic word, resources. I don't actually know how to explain how dead wrong you are here without a basic, grade school level English class. Using a word like resources can literal refer to any amount of such, presuming that more than one resource exists. It does not in any way imply amount, as the word can mean most amount larger than one as it is plural. At this point in the debate you are just desperately flailing about trying to grab on to anything which can be argued, stop. It is a complete and utter waste of my time, and you are making an absolute fool out of yourself to anyone capable of higher brain functions.

And fuck it, we have already gone into a basic English lesson today, why not touch on Revolutionary Political Science 101? If an action is to spread, their is a social aspect involved. It has been stated that the action was undertaken with that as the primary intent behind it. But yet you deny the relevance of the public image? How is something to be spread without any regard for the how the public views this event, exactly? Well, I will go ahead and answer that question for you, as apparently I am the professor here. It does not. The context which the anarchists operate under is not the actual context of the geopolitical reality which the rest of the world faces. I don't very well care if anarchists view it as an act of retribution/revenge/defense or anything else even remotely along those lines, as that is not how the rest of the world views it. The rest (all of the influential bits at least)of the political spectrum operates in reality, while anarchists muck about in their own bubble, separate from the individuals who they seek to inspire to action. And even if they do somehow inspire others to action, it does not matter. More small scale bombings like this will only turn popular opinion away from their cause further when they see innocent mailmen being blown to pieces, or any other bystanders which may be caught up in such action. Terrorism is not an effective way of generating support, or building upon your own movement. I don't care what context anarchists are operating under, they need to recognize that it is not shared by the people they seek support from. And yes, I used the word terrorism. They bombed an embassy and only directly threatened the lives of postal workers, and their was no readily apparent political cause behind it. The average man will not realize the cause behind the bombing in question here, and he will not side with the anarchists. The context of modern and developed capitalistic society is not fit for violence in such a poorly applied and blunt manner.

If you are going to ignore the basic logical structure of debate and continue on in such a manner I do not know if i will be able to muster up the will to respond in the future though. If you are going to insist on wasting my time, I am going to have to ask that it be in the format of an actual debate and that you stop with the nonsensical and hollow insults. I will not sit here and listen to a little child scream his head off at me with a slew of insults with no factual support behind them, this is not bloody preschool.

Unless you feel you can abide by these humble parameters, then I would suggest you quit acting like a little child hungry for attention and cease with your post. Simply repeating a flawed point with no substantial base to it does not make it any less wrong or any more right. You will not have anything to show for 'winning' an argument through means of persistence and nothing more. Being the last individual to cobble together some words into a shanty argument is not equatable to a logical victory of any sort, you would be better off if you would take the time to actually comprehend that bit.

[Omi]

That was a very lengthy post that can (if all the arrogant posturing is put aside) be summed up as this:

People will not be inspired to the same kind of tactic that the bombers did because it's not very usable or desirable by everyday working class people. That is true, and we all agree on that!

The point is that some people are trying to point out that this was not the intention of the action. They present you with other possible motivations(why not read their communique if you are interested?) and keep coming up with the same argument without actually addressing their points.

What you seem to fail to understand is that Italy is not in a peaceful social state, but has some big social tensions. Fascists are gaining power and attacks against immigrants keep getting worse and worse en sometimes there are immigrant revolts. There was major rioting in Rome after Berlusconi didn't get revoked as president. There were major riots in Napels also because of the bad state of the public space and the refusal of the local government to do anything about it. In these circumstances I understand people are drawn to more extreme actions because they think that it might escalate tensions. They are wrong in my opinion, but I understand where they're coming from.

[thesadmafioso]

That was a very lengthy post that can (if all the arrogant posturing is put aside) be summed up as this:

People will not be inspired to the same kind of tactic that the bombers did because it's not very usable or desirable by everyday working class people. That is true, and we all agree on that!

The point is that some people are trying to point out that this was not the intention of the action. They present you with other possible motivations(why not read their communique if you are interested?) and keep coming up with the same argument without actually addressing their points.

What you seem to fail to understand is that Italy is not in a peaceful social state, but has some big social tensions. Fascists are gaining power and attacks against immigrants keep getting worse and worse en sometimes there are immigrant revolts. There was major rioting in Rome after Berlusconi didn't get revoked as president. There were major riots in Napels also because of the bad state of the public space and the refusal of the local government to do anything about it. In these circumstances I understand people are drawn to more extreme actions because they think that it might escalate tensions. They are wrong in my opinion, but I understand where they're coming from.

I have dealt with most every possible motivation which could of been behind this attack and I have even dealt with quite contradictory explanations which have been provided by a handful of users, I think I can safely say at this point that I have a proper and fully developed understanding of these attacks and their intent.

[Ravachol]

How is something to be spread without any regard for the how the public views this event, exactly?

I'm not going into this any further because you just re-iterate the same thing again and again.

First of all, what the hell is 'the public'? There is no homogenous 'public', there is only classes. Secondly, the level of militancy throughout the social terrain is not a uniformly distributed constant. Class struggle isn't like the marching of a military regiment, with uniform steps and pace. It is an amorphous struggle with various levels of intensity throughout various segments of the class.

For some a wildcat strike is already 'too much' whilst for other segments of the class this is perfectly acceptable. Likewise, re-appropriation, sabotage and proletarian shopping are perfectly acceptable to some while for others armed struggle is even an option. There is no uniform level of class struggle throughout the class, there is only various loci of struggle with differing intensities.

The FAI obviously believes that there is potential for this action to spread, if only amongst the comrades in the armed struggle. That's that, nobody is arguing in favor of it, there's no more to this.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm not going into this any further because you just re-iterate the same thing again and again.

First of all, what the hell is 'the public'? There is no homogenous 'public', there is only classes. Secondly, the level of militancy throughout the social terrain is not a uniformly distributed constant. Class struggle isn't like the marching of a military regiment, with uniform steps and pace. It is an amorphous struggle with various levels of intensity throughout various segments of the class.

For some a wildcat strike is already 'too much' whilst for other segments of the class this is perfectly acceptable. Likewise, re-appropriation, sabotage and proletarian shopping are perfectly acceptable to some while for others armed struggle is even an option. There is no uniform level of class struggle throughout the class, there is only various loci of struggle with differing intensities.

The FAI obviously believes that there is potential for this action to spread, if only amongst the comrades in the armed struggle. That's that, nobody is arguing in favor of it, there's no more to this.

I need to define the pubic? I had presumed that the term public would be interpreted as referring to the general class make up of the masses. I didn't think that I needed to explicitly include that with my usage of the term, as it seemed to be common enough knowledge. And yes, I am aware that different levels exist to class struggle, that point does not really factor into this equation though. I am arguing against the particular means of this instance due to their context and because of such mentioning the varied degrees of class conflict is not relevant information. I am objectively speaking on the matter of the effectiveness of these tactics, and how they are out of place for a movement which looks to further its ideology.

I know what the FAI thinks they are doing, and I am just saying that their means and objectives are not an effectual way to promote their interests. And I fail to see how anything that you have just said is not a repeat of comments either, so there really isn't much direction behind the 'I am not going to respond because you are not saying anything new' bit. I have simply been defending my stance on this matter and been responding to the inquiries of others, I did not instigate the length of this correspondence.

[Delenda Carthago]

There is something for those who say they dont care about the bystanders...


We have received and are forwarding a few lines of an e-mail received in recent days: “The Chilean boy wounded by the letter bomb is Cesar. A comrade and a friend involved with the experience of Ciclofficina Popolare (people’s bike workshop) of the Ex Lavanderia (the former laundry). We found out today. Suddenly, for us, the natural compassion for an injured person is no longer tempered by anonymity.
Behind this story of national importance there is a person whose name, face and voice we know. Now Cesar is in hospital, with two fingers less and we are angry. [...]“ Associazione Ex Lavanderia
Mon, 27/12/2010 – 17:51

Btw, when the thing happened in Scala in 1979 in Spain, one of the dead workers was a member of CNT and the other one of UGT.Sometimes history plays weird games huh?