On "Individualist Terror"

[Old Mole]

"This latest Fenian exploit in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure."
/Karl Marx to Engels, 14 december 1867 (talking about Fenians bombing Clerkenwell prison to free some leaders while only destroying neighbouring houses and killing civilians)

"From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals."
/Engels, The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune

I recently read this piece by fellow revleft-member Lunacharsky:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1666
The point of this text is to advocate "Individualist terror", that is, "Armed Action against the Bourgeois State by Groups/Individuals that they [not explicitly stated whom they are] are considering 'Unorganized'".
I do not know who considers who unorganized, but I am pretty sure if an act of terror is not made by a group, organization is impossible. I do not think that a single individual can constitute a political organization. Lunacharsky apparently believes in the Blanquist idea that a small group of militants is able to directly threat capitalism as a system ("Class Based Society", the ability "to accumulate capital", Lunacharsky does not explain how this is to be achieved. Lunacharsky is only capable of repeating that old nonsense of the seventies' urban guerilla folks that claimed that acts of terror would provoke violent reactions from the bourgeois state (increased exploitation, political repression, Lunacharsky mentions). Thus, the cappies would accidentally reveal the "fascist nature of the state" (Ulrike Meinhof) and then a peoples movement would magically appear to save the day.

It is hilarious that someone can still believe the same today, as the RAF believed in the seventies, that the state would view small terror groups as a political expression of the proletariat as a whole, and even more ridiculous, that the proletariat would identify with the terrorists. RAF actually (accidentally) on occasion killed workers, because they were really lousy terrorists. This is of course not so strange, because "Individualist terrorism", by its secretive nature divorces the militants involved from the proletariat. In the strange world of the terrorist cell (the world of the colllectives' imagination) the strange notion develops that the group somehow is identifiable with the class. From this we get the "if you´re not with us, you´re against us" B.S. that RAF proclaimed.

Opinions on this?

[RED DAVE]

By and large correct. I would expand this to small group activity as well. The terrorist act in Greece, where several bank workers were killed, did not do the movement there any good.

RED DAVE

[Paulappaul]

My question to the "Old Mole" would be whether or not he considers actions conducted by Individual Workers in their factories aganist the means of production is identifiable with the class at large.

[Old Mole]

My question to the "Old Mole" would be whether or not he considers actions conducted by Individual Workers in their factories aganist the means of production is identifiable with the class at large.
How is sabotage, working class organization etc., etc. identifiable with terrorism? I dont get it.

[The Douche]

We should point out that 1/4 of the population under 40 was sympathetic to the RAF and one tenth of them supported them (in that they were willing to hide them).

[Old Mole]

We should point out that 1/4 of the population under 40 was sympathetic to the RAF and one tenth of them supported them (in that they were willing to hide them).
I am aware of this fact, I myself was once young and stupid and hence liked RAF. The Blanquists had some popular support as well. To hide RAF-militants from the state is indeed not such a bad thing, they are after all struggling. The problem: They are also quite useless.

[Paulappaul]

How is sabotage, working class organization etc., etc. identifiable with terrorism? I dont get it.

Terrorism

1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Sabotage

1.any underhand interference with production, work, etc., in a plant, factory, etc., as by enemy agents during wartime or by employees during a trade dispute.

(I.E. to coerce an employer to a certain set of demands laid out by the workers)

Does it have to be any more clear?

[pastradamus]

My question to the "Old Mole" would be whether or not he considers actions conducted by Individual Workers in their factories aganist the means of production is identifiable with the class at large.

Point raised, but my question to you is how does one conduct such measures on an individual basis without getting fired/displaying them to the fellow workers? Even if he/she has the luxury to display this.

[Old Mole]

Does it have to be any more clear?
Would you care to elaborate?
No, of course the struggle of individual workers isolated from each other has extremely limited potentiality to change anything. Indeed the resistance of an individual worker when unable to unite with others often ends terribly for said worker. We even have cases in which individual struggle becomes antagonistic to collective, if one worker for example, lacking in solidarity with his/her co-workers decides to individually negotiate on change of his/her salary. Negotiations done by the workers together is stronger, and these negotiations are weakened by individuals lack of solidarity.

The distinction between class-in-itself and for-itself might be of some use...

[Paulappaul]

Point raised, but my question to you is how does one conduct such measures on an individual basis without getting fired/displaying them to the fellow workers? Even if he/she has the luxury to display this.

It starts with an individual and it takes on larger and larger groups of workers. One famous Sabotage recently in American History was with the Detroit Autoworkers in the 40s I believe. The UAW was in negotiations and the union took a stance aganist the workers in the plant. As a result a worker sabotaged one of the machines while the others were packing up to leave. Later more and workers started to do it while other workers were on break, in between shifts at closing etc. They started to come into groups when they saw how easy it was. There was a whole crisis within the Union because of this and basically the leadership sided with the Boss.

The Union protected at first from being fired. When the pressure was to much they were fired. Does that answer your question?

[Paulappaul]

Would you care to elaborate?

Sabotage is Terrorism; it's violent acts of coercion for the purpose of realizing a demand.


No, of course the struggle of individual workers isolated from each other has extremely limited potentiality to change anything.

If you look at it from this narrow and a-historical perspective yes. When a worker is pushed to sabotage it reflects some general dismay within the workshop.


Indeed the resistance of an individual worker when unable to unite with others often ends terribly for said worker. We even have cases in which individual struggle becomes antagonistic to collective, if one worker for example, lacking in solidarity with his/her co-workers decides to individually negotiate on change of his/her salary.

Ever heard of Minority Unionism? The Wobblies will tell you wonderful stories about it!

[Hebrew Hammer]

Granted, at first glance this could be seen as 'Blanquist' however I am not against this 'individual terror' per se nor do I ignore the utitility thereof.

[Old Mole]

If you look at it from this narrow and a-historical perspective yes. When a worker is pushed to sabotage it reflects some general dismay within the workshop.
So the individual action is a manifestation of general dismay, while terrorists, like RAF, seeks to create general dismay by using pointless violence.




Ever heard of Minority Unionism? The Wobblies will tell you wonderful stories about it!
Actually I actively support a minority union in my home country, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the problem of "individualistic terror", actually I support my union because I think it represents the interests of the working class to a larger extent then others. If I remember correctly IWW has as a explicit goal to organize as many workers as possible, not to form a tiny secret/illegal/whatever organization intent on steering people in the "right way".

[Paulappaul]

So the individual action is a manifestation of general dismay, while terrorists, like RAF, seeks to create general dismay by using pointless violence.

But Sabotage is Terrorism, remember we already covered this. The RAF wouldn't exist if it weren't for general dismay. So the working class does employ Terrorism on its own.


Actually I actively support a minority union in my home country, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the problem of "individualistic terror", actually I support my union because I think it represents the interests of the working class to a larger extent then others. If I remember correctly IWW has as a explicit goal to organize as many workers as possible, not to form a tiny secret/illegal/whatever organization intent on steering people in the "right way".

The point was that the working class acts in Minorities all the time. Minority Unionism an example thereof. And so while they may act in minorities, this does not mean that their qualities are weak. 1 Worker who acts in defiance aganist the system, who skillfully attacks the system can have way more effect then 30 workers who employ peaceful methods. This is why there are so many great individuals in working class history.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

"This latest Fenian exploit in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure."
/Karl Marx to Engels, 14 december 1867 (talking about Fenians bombing Clerkenwell prison to free some leaders while only destroying neighbouring houses and killing civilians)

"From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals."
/Engels, The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune

I recently read this piece by fellow revleft-member Lunacharsky:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1666
The point of this text is to advocate "Individualist terror", that is, "Armed Action against the Bourgeois State by Groups/Individuals that they [not explicitly stated whom they are] are considering 'Unorganized'".
I do not know who considers who unorganized, but I am pretty sure if an act of terror is not made by a group, organization is impossible. I do not think that a single individual can constitute a political organization. Lunacharsky apparently believes in the Blanquist idea that a small group of militants is able to directly threat capitalism as a system ("Class Based Society", the ability "to accumulate capital", Lunacharsky does not explain how this is to be achieved. Lunacharsky is only capable of repeating that old nonsense of the seventies' urban guerilla folks that claimed that acts of terror would provoke violent reactions from the bourgeois state (increased exploitation, political repression, Lunacharsky mentions). Thus, the cappies would accidentally reveal the "fascist nature of the state" (Ulrike Meinhof) and then a peoples movement would magically appear to save the day.

It is hilarious that someone can still believe the same today, as the RAF believed in the seventies, that the state would view small terror groups as a political expression of the proletariat as a whole, and even more ridiculous, that the proletariat would identify with the terrorists. RAF actually (accidentally) on occasion killed workers, because they were really lousy terrorists. This is of course not so strange, because "Individualist terrorism", by its secretive nature divorces the militants involved from the proletariat. In the strange world of the terrorist cell (the world of the colllectives' imagination) the strange notion develops that the group somehow is identifiable with the class. From this we get the "if you´re not with us, you´re against us" B.S. that RAF proclaimed.

Opinions on this?

'I am pretty sure if an act of terror is not made by a group, organization is impossible.'
The Article is referring to groups representing the interests of the Proletariat that seek to engage in acts of 'Terrorism' against the State in order to achieve goals against the State thereof; IE: ' Communities, Individuals and Societies representing said Individuals'
'I do not think that a single individual can constitute a political organization.'
Nor do I, 'Individualist Terror' was being used sarcastically in response to Trotskyite material relating to 'Individualist Terror' as opposed to this-- The Article is mainly referring to Militant Groups as opposed to 'One Man Organizations and Lone Wolves.'
'Blanquist idea that a small group of militants is able to directly threat capitalism as a system'
Militants are capable of threatening the existence and operation of the Bourgeois Capitalist System through Armed Action that allows for the fallibility of the Capitalist System to be recognized.

Through the fallibility of the State having been shown and the Capitalist System being threatened by a Revolutionary Organization engaging in Armed Tactics against the State, Capitalism is in its own threatened in its typical operating fashion and is unable to without ease function in the method it could previously so so prior to Militant Action. However, the threatening of the Capitalist System through Armed Action is not attempting to 'fill the hole' for Proletarian Mass Organizations that through the Armed Action that had previously occurred and the result of it-- Capable of forming with a revolutionary conceptualization of the fallibility of the system that has been shown and afterwards the action of the Bourgeois System attempting to maintain itself in reaction to Armed Action.

'Lunacharsky is only capable of repeating that old nonsense of the seventies' urban guerilla folks that claimed that acts of terror would provoke violent reactions from the bourgeois state'
:rolleyes: The Bourgeois State in response to the Armed Action as done by the Red Army Faction, Revolutionary Cells and the Second of June Movement had continually shown itself to be a devolved degenerate Political System that was seeking to maintain itself through violent and repressive methods. The Bourgeois State was at any means willing to maintain itself through a diverse arrangement of methods; The response to this was both continued action from Social Organizations (Non-Armed Organizations) and Armed Organizations that had furtherly used reactions of the Bourgeois State attempting to maintain itself to their advantage.

Continually, Bourgeois States had/have historically responded to these tactics through means that have been degenerate, Imperialist and overall deviant tactics in order to maintain their very system, IE: Narodnik Revolutionary Activity had led to the reaction of the Bourgeois System in order to maintain itself against Narodnik Militants, while at the same time-- Acting in a degenerate fashion and showing what lengths that the Bourgeois System would attempt to go in order to maintain itself. Through these actions, the Narodnik Movement although having faced massive Political Repression and the Militants thereof suffering the fates of execution-- Had directly shown the system to be fallible and were capable of striking the very heart of the Bourgeois System in a form in which, the Bourgeois had feared massive action similar in nature to this. Inevitably, Armed Action and the willingness to strike against the Capitalist State had led to the 1905 Revolution that the Narodnik's had previously predicted of fomenting itself due to the fallibility of the System being shown, the System's reactions at maintaining itself and the actuality of the System having been presented.

'Thus, the cappies would accidentally reveal the "fascist nature of the state"'
:rolleyes: It certainly isn't an accident that this is revealed. It is simply the Bourgeois State in the face of a Revolutionary Group that is striking against the Bourgeois System attempting to maintain itself; Reactions to this of 'Fascist Nature' are simply the lengths to which the Bourgeois System will do in order to preserve itself.

'peoples movement would magically appear to save the day.'
Revolutionary Movements have the potential of being formed spontaneously, certainly though the People are capable of forming themselves along side the Revolutionary Armed Movement in order to through the Armed Actions be capable of emancipating themselves from the Capitalist System.

'RAF actually (accidentally) on occasion killed workers, '
:rolleyes: The Bourgeois System as well had slaughtered workers and had been responsible for the slaughter of workers on more than an occasion and had done so massively. Through the extensive supporting of Imperialism throughout the World. IE: The West German Government's supporting of Imperialism within South East Asia and Iran had massively slaughtered those representing the Working Class and the Working Class itself.

'that the proletariat would identify with the terrorists'
In the same sense that the Bourgeois is capable of identifying with those representing the Armed Action of its system that seeks to preserve itself and expand capital. Certainly, the Revolutionary sections of the Proletariat is capable of identifying with Militants that are in the interests of the Proletariat engaging in Armed Action against the Bourgeois System of Capitalism and Imperialism.

'because they were really lousy terrorists'

:rolleyes: Actually, the Red Army Faction (RAF), Revolutionary Cells (RZ) and the Second of June Movement (2JM) had become increasingly capable of engaging in Armed Action against Imperialism and Capitalism with ease and expertise.

' its secretive nature divorces the militants involved from the proletariat'

It does not divorce the Militants from the Proletariat due to these actions, as these actions whether or not they are recognized by certain sections of Society, are directly being done in opposition to Imperialism and Capitalism and are capable of showing the fallibility and the lengths that Capitalism and Imperialism will react in order to furtherly maintain itself.

'From this we get the "if you´re not with us, you´re against us" '


As a previous User had excellently stated... 'Terrorism' itself is a direct reaction to the Bourgeois System and is created by the Bourgeois System itself in the same sense that a disease can be created or that a chemical is capable of being synthesized by an individual and then itself be against the individuals health interest due to the disease that he had created being against the general interests of themselves, 'Terrorism' in its extremely pure nature more or less is general discontent that has been unchanneled and is seeking to directly respond to the Bourgeois System.