The RAF (Red Army Faction)

[ВАЛТЕР]

What are your views on them?

I feel that they had the correct goal of encouraging the class struggle. However, I feel their methods were self destructive. I mean, blowing up a department store does nothing for class-consciousness. Also, the assassination of easily replaceable figureheads was kind of ass-backwards.

I mean sure you could blow police/government head quarters up and shit, but in actuality it frightens the working class away from you. Alienating the very people who you are trying to encourage to rise up.


Was there anything they could have done to make themselves more effective? The fact that they were prepared to use force is great. However, the force being directed in the wrong direction caused a backlash and made them viewed as terrorists.

I think they could have utilized a more informative approach. Not necessarily attacking with force constantly, but spreading their ideas in a more intellectual manner, resorting to force once class consciousness is at an all time high. Just a thought.

What do you guys think, could they have used their position in a far more effective manner? If so, how?

[RedSonRising]

I think this is a general problem with militant armed groups that don't have a strong enough network for popular support. Certain (not all) guerrilla movements, as well as militant urban groups like the Weather Underground, were well-organized in their use of force, but lacked the proper politicization tactics and committments that any revolutionary group should have. I'm not an expert on the RAF, but it fits into the trends and patterns I've noticed and read about. You simply shouldn't shed blood without making sure your organization can be used as a base for social mobilization. Propaganda by the deed only gets you so far, and is problematic and potentially polarizing in itself.

[tir1944]

Marxism is against individual terrorism.

[jmlima]

Far from being an expert but the RAF seemed to contain the usual mishmash of idealists, opportunists, adventurers and lost people that composes these groups. Their actions being dictated by the guy or girl with the biggest 'charisma' at any particular moment.

Their methods proved to be completely contra-productive.

[Искра]

Their actions being dictated by the guy or girl with the biggest 'charisma' at any particular moment.
This is the thing with all small leftist organisations in the world - from anarchist to Marxist-Leninist.

[tir1944]

to Marxist-Leninist.
Example? (except that Chairman Avakian's Party...:laugh:)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They were a product of their time.

It's all too easy to moralise, in 2011, about their actions being 100% counter-productive, but they actually had a fair amount of support at the time and the reason for that is that, whilst their methods cannot in any way be supported, their analysis of what was wrong with society (Nazis continuing to rule society, white, male conservatism etc.) was actually correct and was shared by many.

Unfortunately, their methods were at times anti-working class and, ultimately, gave the ruling class in Germany the most opportune moment to play the 'terrorism' card.

It's a shame, but there you go. History shows that they failed spectacularly, but had they amended their methods somewhat they might have actually sparked something a bit more explosive. It seems to me that the 60s and 70s in Germany were radical times indeed; the establishment seemed ripe to be overthrown.

I mean, that disgusting Nazi Kurt Kiesinger was Chancellor for a time. Disgraceful.

[Tablo]

They suffered from the same lack of solid theory to back them up as the whole student movement of the 60s did. These kinds of acts have been long proven to be unsuccessful.

[jmlima]

... History shows that they failed spectacularly, but had they amended their methods somewhat they might have actually sparked something a bit more explosive. ....

The fact is that all we have to judge them is their actions and their outcome.

What could have been is open to speculation naturally. I would say that they where on a downward spiral from the start, and that many people look at them from their starting point and actions, not from where they where at the end. If you notice the pattern I would say that they were potentially more likely to continue the self-destructive trend than amend ways.

[thefinalmarch]

Did RAF have a meaningful role in any organic workers' movements?
No.

Can you blow up a social relationship?
No.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Like I said, you have to understand them in the perspective of German society in the 1960s.

Whilst today their actions seem totally ridiculous, you have to imagine a time where your Chancellor is a man who was a Nazi for 12 years, your country is divided into two by a wall, Socialists are being assassinated in public and if you're a communist, then your party is banned! The Shah's visit showed that there was a lot of popular anger and that a modified version of the RAF - based on alternative culture and consensus demoracy rather than dictatorial terrorism - might have actually tapped into the anger amongst the younger generation and the left-leaning West Germans.

But yeah, history will regard the RAF as a failure, obviously, if we are going by outcomes. It's just not that simple as to say that, though, and only a poor historian would come to that conclusion and be satisfied. They were not a random terrorist group that suddenly decided that blowing up shit would lead the working class to glorious revolution; their (wrongful!) actions were a product of the society that Baader et al. grew up in. They made the wrong decisions, but their decisions were not random, they followed some sort of (twisted) logic.

[thefinalmarch]

Like I said, you have to understand them in the perspective of German society in the 1960s.

Whilst today their actions seem totally ridiculous, you have to imagine a time where your Chancellor is a man who was a Nazi for 12 years, your country is divided into two by a wall, Socialists are being assassinated in public and if you're a communist, then your party is banned! The Shah's visit showed that there was a lot of popular anger and that a modified version of the RAF - based on alternative culture and consensus demoracy rather than dictatorial terrorism - might have actually tapped into the anger amongst the younger generation and the left-leaning West Germans.

But yeah, history will regard the RAF as a failure, obviously, if we are going by outcomes. It's just not that simple as to say that, though, and only a poor historian would come to that conclusion and be satisfied. They were not a random terrorist group that suddenly decided that blowing up shit would lead the working class to glorious revolution; their (wrongful!) actions were a product of the society that Baader et al. grew up in. They made the wrong decisions, but their decisions were not random, they followed some sort of (twisted) logic.
I never denied any of this. I'm simply saying that their actions -- however well-intentioned, principled and supported -- simply set back various aspects of the workers' movement.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I never denied any of this. I'm simply saying that their actions -- however well-intentioned, principled and supported -- simply set back various aspects of the workers' movement.

Agree but I don't think it's appropriate to use the word 'simply' here. Obviously, history will judge them as a failure, but for such a complex academic discipline, history often likes to come down on one side or the other, as we have seen. The truth is that it's pointless to simply condemn the failures (and they were very real, as you say) of the RAF in terms of methodology and outcomes. The point of studying history is not to come down at some self-satisfying conclusion, it's to find out what actually happened, document it and learn from it. If we want to learn from the RAF episode, we need to understand why they went down the path they did, in a period where there was a lot of anger at the political establishment that could have been fostered in better ways.

[Rafiq]

Example? (except that Chairman Avakian's Party...:laugh:)

The RAF was Marxist Leninist.

[Rafiq]

I, on a personal level, like the Red Army faction. I can sympathize with them, and probably would have supported them.

Does that mean we should replicate their actions in modern times? Hell no.

[No_Leaders]

I'm currently reading a very good book on the RAF i bought from AK Press. It's really interesting goes into the history of the RAF and Germany at the time. Also has all their communiques that they released, and statements made in court and so on. I have to say their heart was in the right place, their ideas and goals were great. I can understand why they did this in their time, given the society that they grew up in. Same goes for the Angry Brigades and the Red Brigades in UK and Italy. I'm sure if i was around during that time i more than likely would have supported them as well. However i agree with Rafiq, it's by no means something that should be replicated in this time and day.It would simply allow the state to crush down with more draconian and repressive force. I think really groups like RAF, George Jackson Brigade, Weather Underground, Angry Brigades, Red Brigades, etc. were all a product of their time. Mostly in relation with the social revolution of the 60's, and of course against the vietnam war and against imperialism and so on. Historically each movement failed in it's overall goal, all one can do is learn from previous mistakes and realize we cannot try the same thing again as that is just insanity.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Marxism is against individual terrorism.

tir's opinion:

Petty destruction of property, arson and assassinations of prominent figures of capital and state? BAD.

Institutionalized execution and imprisonment of lifelong communist militants through a system of kangaroo courts? GOOD.

[Rafiq]

Marxism isn't "against" Individual terrorism since Marxism is not a set of ethics one must follow.

Every heard of Revolutionary terrorism, though?

[SemperFidelis]

It was to my understanding that they were more terrorist than political.

[Prometeo liberado]

It was to my understanding that they were more terrorist than political.

I have never understood statements like that at all. What is socialist revolution if not the terror of the working class against the state?

I do understand that organizations like these are born of the frustration of waiting for the working class to collectively rise up. Groups like this will continue to appear only to be crushed by the state without large and well entrenched support from the larger movement and working class.

[el_chavista]

Ah, the years of lead. I love those guys!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v_6FqZLjPA4/TlK6kQR_GeI/AAAAAAAAJLI/5-sA1wSpcXI/s640/raf+5.jpg

[The Cheshire Cat]

What are your views on them?

In my view, we need more of these guys. The only problem that I have with them, is that they weren't quite professional. The did alot of unintended damage, also to civilians. If they had done the same things without the extra unintended damage, than they would have been great.


However, I feel their methods were self destructive. I mean, blowing up a department store does nothing for class-consciousness.

You're wrong here. In their best days they had ALOT of support under the German population. I can't find the exact numbers right now, but if you want, I can search for them.


Also, the assassination of easily replaceable figureheads was kind of ass-backwards.

I mean sure you could blow police/government head quarters up and shit, but in actuality it frightens the working class away from you.

If you keep assassinating figureheads, people will start to realise that if they replace the previous figurehead, they will be assassinated too. It's the same tactic the Israeli's use on Hamas. Just keep killing the leader and there will be a moment when people will refuse to lead.


I think they could have utilized a more informative approach. Not necessarily attacking with force constantly, but spreading their ideas in a more intellectual manner, resorting to force once class consciousness is at an all time high. Just a thought.

There were some Communist groups at that moment in Germany, but the most groups did not accomplish much. RAF became sick of that.

Also, the RAF started to organize after a communist man had been shot in cold blood by a cop during a protest against the Shah of Persia, who was visiting Germany. It was a peacefull protest at first, but there were men hired by the German government and the Shah to cheer for the Shah. Those men stood in front of the angry protesters. Then, suddenly, the fake-happy people turned around and they attacked the real protesters and the police just stood there and watched.

When the real protesters started to fight back, after being attacked and chased, the cops started to attack the protesters too. That was the moment when the communist man was shot. At that time, it was beyond 'spreading information'. People had to stand up and claim their rights, with violence when needed.

And about Andreas Baader, he was indeed chosen because he was charismatic and he had a big mouth. But during shoot-outs, he often mentioned the possibility to surrender because he was very afraid.

If anyone wants to know more about the RAF, I can recommend the movie Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008). It is a fairly neutral and realistic movie.
There is also a good book about them, but I forgot the title.

I hope this helps, if you want to know more, just ask (though I'm not an RAF expert or something, but I know some things about them).

[Ostrinski]

The RAF was cool. And absolutely, completely worthless to the working class.