"Social Bandits"-can they be truly revolutionary?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The thesis of social bandits (from my understanding) is that in some societies with a state force which is arbitrary and predatory in nature and a propertied class that is exceptionally corrupt will produce criminal groups motivated by social inequality. Because the state forces are so arbitrary and the propertied classes so corrupt, inevitably a large portion of the masses end up sympathizing with or even assisting the bandits against authorities. I understand Hobsbawm advocated this concept.


It seems like a good descriptor of various revolutionaries, such as Pancho Villa. However, Pancho Villa seems also to show some of the flaws of such Social bandits. In particular, the Villista leadership seems to have lacked a good theoretical understanding of their society and revolution at large, and thus repeatedly took actions which alienated the rural people. They were not a movement based on class consciousness by any means. His armies also adopted the same kinds of arbitrary tactics that the government did. They resorted to incredibly egregious atrocities once Carranza began to seriously pressure the movement. Persecution of Chinese, Spanish and Gringos, as well as sexual violence and atrocities against civilians in the pueblos, became commonplace from all of the "social bandits" in Mexico including Villa. Naturally, they would run around acting like Robin Hood, gaining the trust of the poor masses, then lose it all right away with some unforgivable atrocity. Ultimately, Villa fell victim of very reactionary beliefs about the role of women in society and whether or not foreign immigrants had any place in Mexican society.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Felipe_%C3%81ngeles.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_%C3%81ngeles

The story of Felipe Angeles and other intellectuals who tried to turn Villa's "social bandit" revolution into an ideological revolution is also a historical case of something theoretically interesting. Can such movements be reformed and turned into something truly revolutionary? Or are they condemned by their nature as a reaction to a predatory society lacking in political consciousness? In Villa's case it seems that Villa's personal failings and limited educational background undermined the possibility that he would ever become anything more than a social bandit, but is this always the case? Are there historical examples of movements which started as "social bandits" which did not participate in atrocities and who either embraced or thought up a cohesive social critique?


What is the modern view on such "social bandits"? It seems that they pose a serious threat to the social order, but they inevitably seem to adopt reactionary ideas and tactics along the way because their movement is not based on a cohesive social program or class consciousness, but instead a punished people lashing out at a highly predatory system in general. They adopt the same tactics as the forces oppressing them because it never occurs to try anything else.

[OhYesIdid]

Speaking as a northern Mexican, I can assure you most people here think highly of Villa. However, these same people are also lacking in social and class consciousness, and therefore not realize a Villa-style revolt would be ultimately for naught.
Personally, I find the idea of social bandits (modern day Robin Hoods) enthralling, and sincerely hope large criminal organizations of today (like, say, Somali pirates) would take such a stance.
One thing most people don't take into account is that the revolution officially 'ended' after the Battle of Juarez City, and that the next decade was really just a drawn-out civil war. I mention this because the revolution's original leader, the bourgeoisie Madero, originally made use of Villa's bands to gain the tactical upper hand in the Battle of Juarez City, and, I believed, hoped to quiet him by giving him a small governorship or something. However, once Madero was murdered the revolution was beheaded, and Villa's raiding was nothing more than the beheaded corpse's violent spasms.

I do believe the lumpen is highly reactionary, but I also believe it has great potential. Before you ask, no, the same cannot be said for our local drug lords.

[Os Cangaceiros]

An interesting example of this were the bandits in Southern Italy, which the (at the time) fledgling Italian republic had to fight a protracted war against. They were not nice people, quite greedy and sadistic in some cases, but their memory was generally viewed positively by the poor Italian peasants in the south long after the final bands had been killed or dispersed. They'd ambush and slaughter divisions of Italian soldiers sent to destroy them, then ride into nearby towns where they'd be celebrated like conquering heroes.

They had absolutely no revolutionary ambitions, though. They were all about da money.

[tachosomoza]

I think illegalism can be used effectively in a leftist movement...think of the SLA, only without all of the BS. I mean, the Right has been doing it forever. Look up "The Order".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think illegalism can be used effectively in a leftist movement...think of the SLA, only without all of the BS. I mean, the Right has been doing it forever. Look up "The Order".

This is true, but the SLA was well-indoctrinated in Leftist ideology before it started its movement. Many social bandits come from societies with extreme predatory governments and a lack of effective social policy. I think that's what makes them so interesting-they are more "organic" revolutionaries (in a sense, all revolutions are "organic", however "social bandits" rise directly out of people living in material conditions without any theoretical critique of those conditions)


Speaking as a northern Mexican, I can assure you most people here think highly of Villa. However, these same people are also lacking in social and class consciousness, and therefore not realize a Villa-style revolt would be ultimately for naught.
Personally, I find the idea of social bandits (modern day Robin Hoods) enthralling, and sincerely hope large criminal organizations of today (like, say, Somali pirates) would take such a stance.
One thing most people don't take into account is that the revolution officially 'ended' after the Battle of Juarez City, and that the next decade was really just a drawn-out civil war. I mention this because the revolution's original leader, the bourgeoisie Madero, originally made use of Villa's bands to gain the tactical upper hand in the Battle of Juarez City, and, I believed, hoped to quiet him by giving him a small governorship or something. However, once Madero was murdered the revolution was beheaded, and Villa's raiding was nothing more than the beheaded corpse's violent spasms.


I agree that groups like the Somali pirates are very interesting as social bandits, but they still lack a cohesive social program. It seems that some Somali pirates have "joined" (or are probably being extorted by) the Shabab in Somalia. However, thanks to over-exploitation of fishing waters and instability caused by the Ethiopian invasion and terrorism from Shabab, there's really no option but to resort to piracy.

It is sad in a way that another intellectual was utilize Villa the way Madero did. The Mexican revolution was doomed by the parochialism of its leaders. Madero, even if he were just a liberal, seemed much more able to unite these various figures than the anarchists and socialists like Soto y Gama, Angeles or Magon. What's interesting about Villa is that even though he was never a theoretician, he showed himself very adept at controlling the message. I can certainly understand why Northern Mexicans still revere Villa, not out of any political theory but the nature of his mystique. He made Carranza look like a pro-Yanqui stooge for instance, and he understood how to manipulate the whole situation to benefit himself. Any other simple bandit would not have been so politically astute as Villa.



I do believe the lumpen is highly reactionary, but I also believe it has great potential. Before you ask, no, the same cannot be said for our local drug lords.I must admit I wondered myself if a "Villa" type figure would come out of the cartels at some point, although I agree with you it hardly seems very likely. Some Cartels, such as the Zetas and La Familia, seem to be far more reactionary than others too, but it seems that they are all so wedded to greed, corruption of the state and a mafioso lifestyle. On the other hand it is interesting to see how their propaganda in many respects mirrors that of Villa and the other revolutionaries-ie, the writing of corridos, etc.

On that note, I wonder if the general instability of the drug war and the general respect towards "social bandits" like Villa means that the same conditions exist as before, despite all the "institutionalization" of the revolution in the 70-80 years after. It might also of course merely speak to the effectiveness of Villista propaganda. But if not then could this lead to a new wave of "social banditry" independent of the mafioso narco-capital?


An interesting example of this were the bandits in Southern Italy, which the (at the time) fledgling Italian republic had to fight a protracted war against. They were not nice people, quite greedy and sadistic in some cases, but their memory was generally viewed positively by the poor Italian peasants in the south long after the final bands had been killed or dispersed. They'd ambush and slaughter divisions of Italian soldiers sent to destroy them, then ride into nearby towns where they'd be celebrated like conquering heroes.

They had absolutely no revolutionary ambitions, though. They were all about da money.

This is the thing-society at large sympathizes with even the most brutal bandits because they see the State as worse. Why hate predatory bandits when your government is just as bad? :P This is why the crimes of groups like the Villistas ultimately say more about how bad the state system is than how evil the bandits are.