is violent revolution "terrorism?" [Archive]

RedMarxist

6th July 2011, 23:19

GPDP

6th July 2011, 23:28

It is - if you're a capitalist.

Zav

6th July 2011, 23:31

Well, terrorism is something like good and evil. No one thinks they are evil, and whomever one calls terrorists call themselves freedom-fighters, revolutionaries, or guerrillas. It's all relative to one's point of view.

the last donut of the night

6th July 2011, 23:43

Yes, it will inspire terror in our enemies' hearts.

no but seriously that term has been so destroyed by the media that it's hard to use it accurately in any discussions nowadays. the way i see it, a revolution is necessarily violent event. Violence is pretty fucking scary, for both sides envolved. However, terrorism is a political act, where a group's intention is to kill anybody (civilians, police officers, soldiers, whatever) to create fear and to potentially weaken enemy morale. Terrorism is a tactic. By this definition, the US Army and police force can be classified as terrorist groups. But any working-class revolution shouldn't use this tactic, for various reasons -- any proletarian resistance should be based off mass attacks, not on individual bombings or assassinations that do nothing to advance revolutionary ideology and ideals. Furthermore, terrorist attacks are always a good excuse for the bourgeois state to crack down on any dissenting organizations: after all, how progressive can an organization that organizes car bombings be?

OhYesIdid

6th July 2011, 23:50

RM, something tells me you're not seriously considering the other side of the issue, and are just looking for people to agree with you. :rolleyes:
Obviously, capitalist media would engage in blood libel if given the chance,
however, TLDOTN has a good point: terrorism is any violent act meant to cause fear, and socialist revolutions shouldn't need to do such things when gaining the people's support is what revolution is all about. This doesn't mean, however, that no one has done this: just off the top of my head, I remember the Peruvian Shining Path guerrillas engaging in civilian mass murder towards the end of the eighties. We must remain pragmatical, though, for sometimes terrorism can be of help to world revolution, but only when done with the people's support, and only when done against the people's enemies (such as soldiers, policemen, or bourgeois politicians). We must, however, be honest when engaging in such acts, and not shy away from the term.

Then again, I'm the sort of guy who takes pride in being Communist*, so what do I know?

*Not Anarcho-syndicalist, not far leftist, not reformist: Communist

RedMarxist

6th July 2011, 23:50

so the answer is no?

By the way, the NPA website(and I know it's biased) is down for some reason.

Can anyone fill me in as to the state of their revolution there?

Bronco

6th July 2011, 23:57

Sorry to whack out a clichéd quote but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

If you really wanted to get semantic then technically it would be terrorism in that it is using violence to further a political aim but the distortion of the word and the controversies surrounding it's legal definition means that it's simplest to just say it's a matter of personal perspective, and it's not of particularly great significance if Capitalists do apply the "terrorist" label to any militant organisation that's a threat to them

-marx-

7th July 2011, 00:05

Terrorism is the new popular/lovable word people (the U.S and her allies) use to label anyone or any movement they don't agree with.

If I, along with a communist party, were to lead a guerrilla army to overthrow the Government in my country and fail, I would be charged with terrorism and high treason. I get the high treason part under its current laws, but terrorism...come on.

So although it's bullshit it's something needed to be taken seriously should any seizure of power fail. There is a risk of it failing, or counter revolution that must be realized.

Any seizure of power can never fail, the benefit of humankind depends on it.

Decolonize The Left

7th July 2011, 00:11

I'm really confused. The communist movements in the Philippines and India, even Nepal, constantly get accused of being terrorism, plain and simple. Is it really that clear cut?

For example, is not the massacres committed by both nations against the revolutionaries terrorism as well? If so, why does no one criticize them as much as the rebels are criticized?

The newspapers in India for example, use phraseology like "Maoists STOLE weapons from DEAD SOLDIERS"(which begs the question is it really stealing if they cant use their weapons anymore?) "GANGS" of Maoists "RUTHLESSLY" attacked HELPLESS SOLDIERS who were JUST ON PATROL and so forth. Is this just fear mongering by the most likely government owned papers?

Do most terrorist organizations, excluding the Taliban, even possess well trained armies? Would generalizing the revolutions in those two nations, India and the Philippines, Imply that The Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laos, and Cuban revolutions were all "terrorist" actions orchestrated by "terrorist organizations?" So Lenin is a terrorist now???

Is it all just propaganda? I do side with the rebels of course, but is supporting them openly supporting terrorism?

Look, terrorism is the use of violence against citizenry for political/economic purposes.

A working-class revolution, even if it be violent, cannot be terrorism as the working class is the citizenry. The working class revolution is a ceasure of the means of production and if it does turn violent it will be because the state reacts violently in order to maintain control.

Finally, the way in which you are using the term 'terrorism' in the OP is the common meaning which is defined by the government to mean anyone/group who doesn't agree with their ideology and seeks to achieve their own goals through violence. In short, 'terrorism' as used in the OP is an exclusionary term used to maintain normalcy within the minds of the public.

- August

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 00:28

well, yes you can put it that way. But isn't using violence against soldiers to achieve your own political aims terrorism as well?

If I formed a CP, raised an army, and started launching hit and run tactics against military outposts and ambushing convoys, Would I be leading a terrorist movement?

Because that's what the news publications all across India and the Philippines(or at least he corporate or government ones) say. They tell me if I oppose the military then I'm a terrorist as it requires violence to do so. For example, in the Philippines violence is often used against mining corporations. Is that terrorism?

Just type in "Naxalite Terrorist" into Google and thousands of websites from nationalistic, government/corporate sponsored news publications pop up that support the right of the corporation to mine. Preventing them is terrorism. The right for the military to fight them, and not the rebels to fight them back, otherwise they are committing inhuman acts against our armed forces fighting for freedom, and the right to peacefully promote communism

Le Socialiste

7th July 2011, 00:29

Calling any potential uprising a "terrorist movement" is the go-to phrase of the day among today's capitalists. Granted, I don't know enough about the movements in the countries you listed, but I doubt they can qualify as terrorist in the modern sense of the word. Today, governments use terrorism as a way of denouncing any possible threat to their rule. I wouldn't go by what the government or media says, but rather what terrorism actually is. Take the time to research tactics and methods, and see for yourself if these match with what these movements are doing. Violent revolution can't be considered "terrorism", because ultimately terrorism relies on isolated attacks to get its message across. Unless the majority of the population engages in it, it can't qualify as a revolution. A revolution can only occur when the masses refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the governing power(s). Terrorism may be considered by some as the means by which to spur the people on to force social change, but it can't single-handedly do so itself.

Savage

7th July 2011, 01:02

Proletarian revolution involves the working class on an international scale, fighting against capital's crisis by seizing power and changing social relations globally. The violence inherent in proletarian revolution is the (if need be) forced expropriation of capitalists as well as the defense against reaction. The exploits of small groups traveling around the jungle is not class struggle and the proletarian revolution of the future will not come in this form (so commonly labelled as terrorism).

The definition of terrorism usually entails targeting non-combatants, so in this way proletarian revolution wouldn't necessarily be labelled terrorist, but I have no doubt that it will be labelled as terrorist regardless of this.

Jose Gracchus

7th July 2011, 01:23

Terrorism is a meaningless ideological term employed by bourgeois when and how it suits their interests in the manner they see fit. Its like "totalitarianism," which if you notice, is basically just a closely empirically-gerrymandered 'theory' intended to explain why America's 20th c. enemies are doubleplusungood and different from LAND OF FREEDOM.

Fopeos

7th July 2011, 01:59

I believe terrorism is violence against purely civilian targets. Any attack on military personnel or installations is legitimate guerilla warfare. That is not, however, the opinion of the United States ruling class. Most of the detainees in Guantanamo bay were captured attacking U.S. military installations or personnel within their own countries.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 02:43

uh, maybe its because they attacked US installations and Personnel... :D

Why is it that no one in America has arisen like in Greece yet? the strongest "RESISTANCE" I saw was in Wisconsin, and that was a fail protest.

My grandmother was more revolutionary then most Americans. She went on and on about how the states wealth is being stolen by corporations, politicians lie blah blah blah.

Why has no one gone to Appalachia, raised an army from the oppressed masses there(its the poorest part of the Union), supplying them with guns, and organizing them in such a way to attack military installations there?

we'd be unstoppable...the military can't possibly fire upon its own people right. And it is not like they'd label their own people as terrorists?

and what about seizing control of the White House. Why has no one done that? what are they gonna do, send in the national guard!?! :lol:

But seriously, in my school no one gives a shit about politics. i really feel I should discuss Naxalism and the issue of terrorism Labels at the club meeting.

I'm going to compile a list of all the atrocities committed by Indian military forces, and then compare them to the "atrocities" of the Maoists. Lets see how they add up...

Hell, I might even read passages or quotes form Ho Chi Mihn's works, USING IT AS ARGUMENTS FOR THE COMMUNISTS WINNING BEING A GOOD THING, well at least at first. That'd be a conversation starter. Don't know how my Vietnamese friend will take it though, if they come to the club which I already tried to get that person to go to the year it started. maybe not a good idea...or is it:wub:

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 03:07

Terrorism works.

Os Cangaceiros

7th July 2011, 03:20

uh, maybe its because they attacked US installations and Personnel... :D

Why is it that no one in America has arisen like in Greece yet? the strongest "RESISTANCE" I saw was in Wisconsin, and that was a fail protest.

The reasons why American hasn't "arisen like in Greece" are multiple and complex. The question makes about as much sense as saying "why hasn't the UK arisen like Greece yet?" or "why hasn't Togo arisen like Greece yet?" These countries have different histories and traditions, and the model that Greece uses can't simply be cookie cuttered across the globe for the same effect without recognizing this fact.

Why has no one gone to Appalachia, raised an army from the oppressed masses there(its the poorest part of the Union), supplying them with guns, and organizing them in such a way to attack military installations there?

we'd be unstoppable...the military can't possibly fire upon its own people right. And it is not like they'd label their own people as terrorists?

I guess this is a joke, but there is a serious problem w/ people on this site being obsessed with the military dimension of class struggle/conflict.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 03:21

ever read the man with the iron heart, By harry turtledove? Nazis wage a vicious terrorist guerrilla war that extends WWII. In it, NO ONE is safe, as bombings happen at random and anywhere. It is very effective in real life, but does the Proletariat need to use it?

Oh, and should I read Ho Chi Mihn? would it be offensive to someone from Vietnam?

Os Cangaceiros

7th July 2011, 03:25

Most Vietnamese people I've met (which admittedly are few) like "Uncle Ho". He's kind of a fatherly nationalist figure.

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 03:34

Oh, and should I read Ho Chi Mihn? would it be offensive to someone from Vietnam?

You should def read Ho Chi Minh, I even have a group you could join to further this. ;)

You could also read some Sorel too.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 03:38

Ya but I have no idea why their family left Vietnam. Maybe it could be because of Communist oppression. Dunno. And I Really am not going to ask that question out of respect. I don't want to offend other people.

I mean, when I asked them to go she thought I wanted her to go because I like her or something[which was kind of awkward] so asking next year if I see them might not be the wisest of choices.[I think the real reason she doesn't want to go is because this person happens to be shy, and not well good in group settings or addressing people in front of class/group meetings]

So I'm afraid if she does go then If I read Ho Chi Mihn it will offend them. I have no idea what she thinks about Uncle Ho. Not all people like him.

It's my call and I still have the rest of summer to think things through.

I once openly read the red flag: a history of communism, and got weird glances from people[including her, or maybe that was something else, cause it happened quite often] who asked me about why I'd read such a book, in other words people who don't want to learn think I
m a communist[which I am], but not in public.

I'd like to see my classmates reaction when I walk in wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt and red start hat, plop down in my desk, and crack open Lenin's The State and Revolution prior to class starting. :lol::lol::lol:

A Revolutionary Tool

7th July 2011, 04:15

so the answer is no?

By the way, the NPA website(and I know it's biased) is down for some reason.

Can anyone fill me in as to the state of their revolution there?
Use this:
http://theprwcblogs.blogspot.com/

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 04:18

thanks. I wonder why their website went down though unless the blog is their website

Do you think she will be offended if I read Uncle Ho.

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 04:36

thanks. I wonder why their website went down though unless the blog is their website

Do you think she will be offended if I read Uncle Ho.

In my last post I didn't know you were wanting to read Ho Chi to someone. Yeah, it could possibly be offensive if you read uncle Ho to a Vietnamese person, you should find out what her stance is on Communism and find out does it even interest her. Reading it simply because she Vietnamese, I could see how that could be offensive.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 05:08

well, I was going to read Ho Chi Mihn to explain better the issue of the Philippines and neo-colonialism. Uncle Ho has some interesting articles on that.

Seeing as how she tends to get, from what I've experienced, very easily offended by other people's casual remarks I think saying to her: "Hey, want me to read some Uncle Ho to you" when addressing group would be in poor taste, unless she admires him for nationalistic reasons.

Which is why I plan to talk about the communist rebellion in the Philippines, and then be like: "To better explain it, why don't I read a selection from one of Ho Chi Mihn's articles on colonialism?"

that way I guess I won't be sudden about it. I'll probably get some odd remarks from people asking me why I'd read Uncle Ho, as if I'm reading Mein Kampf to them.

Doubt she will even come though. she's too shy.:wub:

A Revolutionary Tool

7th July 2011, 07:01

thanks. I wonder why their website went down though unless the blog is their website

Do you think she will be offended if I read Uncle Ho.

Don't know why it's down but that blog has links to other interesting sites too.

bcbm

7th July 2011, 10:22

the revolution of the oppressed against our enemies can only be won through means of class terror

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 15:55

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 19:11

was that a joke. class terror? no

No, it really is this:

the revolution of the oppressed against our enemies can only be won through means of class terror

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 19:42

so if a revolution happens today you'd suggest donning a suicide vest and blowing yourself up outside of a corporation's office or even government buildings?

If the revolution began today I'd only strictly fight military personnel and try to help people. Terrorism gets you know where and only makes people against you.

bcbm

7th July 2011, 20:33

was that a joke. class terror? no the revolution can only be won through legal, yet violent means under the Geneva convention.

bourgeois law means nothing to the oppressed we will do whatever it takes to win. child soldiers, torture, burning gated communities with the inhabitants locked inside, whatever. we have been afraid all our lives of missing rent of starvation of not finding work, in order to secure victory our terror must be supreme and sublime.

You have a right to violence if violence is being used against you.

the whole system is violent violence is the fabric of everything we do, that we are so far removed we don't realize it doesn't change this

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 20:58

so your justifying cold blooded murder of the rich just because they oppress you?

Christ, Child soldiers? bombings? are you part of an armed resistance group? if so count me IN!(no really count me in, as long as it doesn't involve terrorism)

Look seriously. I know the rich fucks oppress us, but should we burn them out inside their gated communities? should we arm children to fight for us? should we detonate nail bombs outside corporate offices?

I say no.

YES, we should fight for our freedom. YES we should get people to support us. But terrorism is the antithesis of support. We need more then not to make the rich look like the real terrorists.

Would you be willing to give up everything you own, and wage a decades long guerrilla war against the rich here in America? would you actually be willing to throw away education, your job, your family, all in the name of emancipating the working class? would you be willing to plant nail bombs outside their homes and offices, to terrorize entire segments of society?

I say its not worth it! when the revolution comes, we should strive for law and order, not lawless terrorism. Only then will we have the moral high ground.

-marx-

7th July 2011, 23:38

was that a joke. class terror? no the revolution can only be won through legal, yet violent means under the Geneva convention.

I'm serious here. The NPA claims to not have child soldiers, respect the geneva convention, and not use terrorism even though its accused of all three.

Legal? Under who's "Laws"? We will be classed as terrorists in any uprising anyways so these "Laws" don't really matter in revolution.
The Geneva convention ain't worth shit. All the worse atrocities have and are being committed under it.

You have a right to violence if violence is being used against you.

We have that right even if violence isn't being used against us (which it will) because we have been the oppressed throughout history and revolutions are generally violent events...a Socialist one will certainly be.

I like these quotes on revolution:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao Tse-Tung

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."
Mao Tse-Tung

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Mao Tse-Tung

"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."
Che Guevara

And on a side note:

"...Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world...I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense."
V.I.Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.

Waiting around until every country is ready for revolution is indeed nonsense and somewhat of a fantasy. We must make revolution happen and consequently we will be branded terrorists by the international Bourgeoisie. This is an inevitable consequence of being a revolutionary but one I can live with.

A revolution will not just "come", this is fantasy. Unless we make it happen it will never happen!

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 23:52

so if a revolution happens today you'd suggest donning a suicide vest and blowing yourself up outside of a corporation's office or even government buildings?

No, that's a waste of good man power. The use of revolutionary terror in general, yes, but we need not go into the 'hows' here.

Terrorism gets you know where and only makes people against you.

The defintion of 'terrorism' is subjective, really.

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 00:33

so your not against using class terrorism, but are against using terrorism?

Me Not Understand

So what is class terrorism? is it like burning down rich people's homes? confiscating corporate property and giving it to the poor? hit and run tactics? assassinating politicians and wealthy members of society?

Did Lenin say we should use terrorism? :confused:

Tim Finnegan

8th July 2011, 00:43

So what is class terrorism? is it like burning down rich people's homes? confiscating corporate property and giving it to the poor? hit and run tactics? assassinating politicians and wealthy members of society?
Things along those lines, if I understand it correctly. Throw Wat Tyler, John Brown, Michael Collins and Buenaventura Durruti together- maybe with a bit of W.T.Sherman for good measure- and you'll get some idea.

There's a discussion to be had about the "hows", of course, and frankly I think that BCBM is all too cavalier in talking about things like child soldiers and massacring civilians, but the principle is essentially that of any "shock and awe" campaign, to use the new, media-friendly euphemism. Don't let anyone fool you, every conflict ever waged has been terroristic to some degree or another; the idea that you can just have a gentlemanly scrap out in a field somewhere is absurd in the extreme.

Hebrew Hammer

8th July 2011, 00:54

so your not against using class terrorism, but are against using terrorism?

I'm not against 'terrorism' or 'political terror' as practiced by revolutionaries, no.

So what is class terrorism? is it like burning down rich people's homes? confiscating corporate property and giving it to the poor? hit and run tactics? assassinating politicians and wealthy members of society?

Who knows? Could be those things, could be holding a train hostage, could be any number of things.

Did Lenin say we should use terrorism? :confused:

Red terror?

bcbm

8th July 2011, 03:59

so your justifying cold blooded murder of the rich just because they oppress you?

they started it

Christ, Child soldiers? bombings? are you part of an armed resistance group? if so count me IN!(no really count me in, as long as it doesn't involve terrorism)

of course not i prefer to exhort extreme violence from the comfort of my armchair

Look seriously. I know the rich fucks oppress us, but should we burn them out inside their gated communities? should we arm children to fight for us? should we detonate nail bombs outside corporate offices?

I say no.

your lack of vision and moralism belong to a bourgeois mentality

Would you be willing to give up everything you own, and wage a decades long guerrilla war against the rich here in America? would you actually be willing to throw away education, your job, your family, all in the name of emancipating the working class? would you be willing to plant nail bombs outside their homes and offices, to terrorize entire segments of society?

no of course not, but i will certainly encourage such behavior in others

I say its not worth it! when the revolution comes, we should strive for law and order, not lawless terrorism. Only then will we have the moral high ground.

the only high ground we seek will be the top of a pile of guillotined millionaires

Tim Finnegan

8th July 2011, 04:12

they started it
I genuinely LOLed. :laugh:

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 04:25

this guy is damn psychopath. Murder is murder.

Look, military targets are different. MP's(military personnel) can defend themselves. rich civilians cannot. That is the difference in what constitutes terrorism.

Hebrew Hammer

8th July 2011, 04:50

Look, military targets are different. MP's(military personnel) can defend themselves. rich civilians cannot. That is the difference in what constitutes terrorism.

Do the international bougeoisie respect these rules? Ever? Past or present? No, they don't.

Geiseric

8th July 2011, 04:57

Terrorism works. You're a moron, is there proof anywhere that terrorism (sole use of isolated violence such as blowing up buildings, assassinations, car bombings, etc.) "works" in emancipating the working class? red army faction failed miserably, and their failure should be enough to show that OP's definition of terrorism doesn't work for an armed struggle. Terrorism isolates the working class's goals and is ultimately useless when you're trying to get anything done since in capitalism everything is replacable.

Aspiring Humanist

8th July 2011, 05:04

terrorism is such a relative term that we should stop using it all together. If a group struggling for independence is forced to kill informants/counter-revolutionaries, that's one thing. But when that group purposefully murders groups of innocent people at a time for no reason, that's objectively wrong (I'm looking at you shining path) whether its a liberation force or the government

RedMarxist

8th July 2011, 05:08

which is why the NPA and the Naxals are NOT failing miserably. They both have the support of the people.

In a real revolution, IE not one involving brutal acts of terrorism against innocent people, the working class, organized around lets just say for lack of anything better, a CP, would have its own army. It would be organized. The army would consist of armed workers. They'd strictly engage military personnel and hopefully abide to the laws of warfare.

So explain to me why randomly bombing civilian structures would lead to the overthrow of the government? I don't think the RAF had any support BECAUSE of terrorism same deal with the Red Army of Japan. Their idea of "CLASS LIBERATION" was bombing an airport(really, I mean REALLY)

I expect in a few years to here a news story about some Red Army of America, founded by bcbm, bombing random rich people and their houses to liberate the classes. While you conduct evil terrorist plots, I'll laugh as I organize my CP to lead the worker to victory!:laugh:

Hebrew Hammer

8th July 2011, 05:10

You're a moron,

K.

is there proof anywhere that terrorism (sole use of isolated violence such as blowing up buildings, assassinations, car bombings, etc.) "works" in emancipating the working class?

Potentially, yes, I do believe political terror could be useful towards the goal of liberating the proletariat. Have any terrorist incidents worked and obtained their desired objectives? Yes, I would assume so, have their been failures in particular, failures with the revolutionary use of such tactics? Most definitely but I wouldn't say, outright, that such tactics are moronic or that they lead only to alienation.

Geiseric

8th July 2011, 05:11

Before i say something else, what's bcbm's definition of terrorism?

Geiseric

8th July 2011, 05:15

By the way terrorism DOESN'T WORK. Ever. How has it worked for al quaeda? Has it gotten the imperialists out of the middle east? How about RAF, did it start the second german socialist revolution? Or the IRA, has it gotten england out of ireland? NO IT HASN'T. It's a better use of time organising workers than bombing the general motor's lobby.

A Revolutionary Tool

8th July 2011, 05:54

Would you be willing to give up everything you own, and wage a decades long guerrilla war against the rich here in America? would you actually be willing to throw away education, your job, your family, all in the name of emancipating the working class? would you be willing to plant nail bombs outside their homes and offices, to terrorize entire segments of society?
But if you felt the liberation of the proletariat was able to be accomplished through a decades long guerrilla war wouldn't you give up your education, your job, your family, and everything you own? And it's not that hard when you don't actually own much.

I say its not worth it! when the revolution comes, we should strive for law and order, not lawless terrorism. Only then will we have the moral high ground.Where is this moral high ground? No executions? No bombings of government buildings? Where is this moral high ground when we are using violence to overthrow capitalism? Because most would say you already lost that when you start to use violence.

bcbm

8th July 2011, 09:03

I expect in a few years to here a news story about some Red Army of America, founded by bcbm, bombing random rich people and their houses to liberate the classes. While you conduct evil terrorist plots, I'll laugh as I organize my CP to lead the worker to victory!:laugh:

i wouldn't hold my breath on either

ArrowLance

8th July 2011, 09:38

Any revolution that moves with the strength required to burn the old society and establish new systems, that is any revolution that can properly be called one, will naturally include terror.

What is terrorism if not the willful implementation of terror? Forget the suicide vests you are so keen on thinking of. Executions, investigations, incarcerations, consumptions of peoples property by the working class these are all elements of terror. Justice is the aim of our terror, and terror is the only tool we can use to achieve that justice.

If you support real revolution you support the implementation of terror, anything else is a delusion that can only end to the benefit of the bourgeois. How can the revolution be fulfilled if the bourgeois class is not dismantled, if the systems of production are not radically redesigned, if culture is not turned on its head and made a proletarian culture.

But it is also important not to rule out any tactic that would secure the revolution. The proletariat has no reason to withhold any action it sees to benefit its revolution as its will is extra-moral. Nothing the proletariat does can be seen through moral lenses, its terror must be absolute so the revolution can be as well.

-marx-

9th July 2011, 00:46

Terrorism (as defined by the US Government) in and of itself is useless. However, in a Guerrilla campaign (like in a revolution) to overthrow the Government nothing will be classed as terrorism (by us) as everything is permitted to achieve the goal. No true communist would slaughter innocent people for no reason whatsoever so the whole argument is flawed. Anyone who was killed would be enemy combatants, reactionaries and traitors etc.

In a Socialist Revolution the means justifies the end and the end result will ultimately be less violence than if the cappies keep their system in operation.

RAF style Guerrilla campaigns were doomed from the start and as such they were labeled terrorists, and by the laws and standards of the day I suppose they were. Had what they done sparked a German Revolution and the proletariat had overthrown the ruling classes, they would have been deemed heroic revolutionaries and there would be statues of Ensslin and Baader etc all over Germany.

As for tactics, not all terror tactics make one a terrorist, and not all terrorists use terror tactics, it's not a black and white picture like the US Government and its allies would have us believe.