A tribute to FARC and Alfonso Cano

[Black_Rose]

I was literally lachrymose, shedding a few tears, when I read about unfortunate death of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP) commander, known by his nom-de-guerre Alfonso Cano.

After reading about his death, I had the urge to compose a panegyrical eulogy in his honor in order to venerate a virtuous life and courageous man.

Unfortunately, I do not have much specific knowledge on Alfonso Cano from personal contact or reading to write a substantial hagiography.

I praise Cano, not for his specific military accomplishments, his innate strategic or tactical brilliance, or his leadership as a revolutionary guerrilla, but for his revolutionary spirit. It is better for one commit the error of eliding and underappreciating his value as leader in the revolutionary struggle than to think of Cano as an irreplaceable asset. That remark was not intended to denigrate or trivialize his role as a competent insurgent leader, but simply to evince the logistic advantage of not being dependent on a single commander who is vulnerable to death and having a decentralized organization without it being dependent on the inputs of a single, titled executive. It is best if the FARC, to use a rather pedestrian analogy, is like the Hydra with its heads easily replaceable and a new roborant one spawns after one is slain. FARC certainly knows that some of their commanders would be slain, and they structured FARC to be resilient from the effects of assassinations.

To reiterate, I venerate Cano for his revolutionary spirit; his decision to consciously pursue a life of adversity and ardousness, while incessantly being under the threat of imminent mortality in order to resist the institutions of neoliberalism is commendable. His life is a rebuke of pacifism. A cursory perusal of world history shows that the bourgeoisie and other reactionaries lack virtue and exhibit flagrant callousness (beyond that necessary in the exigencies of dignified combat) in their treatment of the revolutionary peasants and proletariat. Cano and his fellow revolutionaries knew that the reactionary elements would act out of virtue and benevolence but from practical self-interest, at the expense of the welfare of the working classes, and would only capitulate and compromise under the apprehension that revolution would succeed (from their sense of self-interest). From this, Cano deduced that one way, and perhaps the only way, of removing the domestic landowners and imperialist foreigners from political and economic influence of Colombia was through armed struggle by physically liquidating some of the reactionaries and/or damaging/destroying the physical infrastructure necessary for the proper functioning of oppressive social and economic institutions.

What Cano and FARC brought to the Colombian peasants is hope -- the decision to engage an armed struggle is itself a rejection of fatalism and despair that would convince one to accept that the reactionary and imperialist forces possess enough military power to quell any resistance and that the peasants and proletariat should except a lifestyle of subjugation. In contrast, while living with the guerrillas, one is afforded with dignity. It is better for one to die while being a combatant that at least poses a credible threat to the opposition's supplies, transportation, physical infrastructure and personnel, than to be murdered by a death squad. FARC certainly has enough probity not to delude its recruits that life with the guerrillas is commodious or that even victory is assured or inevitable. A life of meaningful resistance and struggle will revitalize a a vacuous life devoid of meaning while being subjugated by a physically superior yet morally inferior party - it is better to die pursuing a noble, hopeful cause than to live a life of despair. Even if one dies in the revolutionary struggle even failing to accomplish any strategic or tactical objective, her struggle would not be in vain if her death just manages to sustain the fervent flame of revolutionary sentiment and hope. *edit* This does not mean a revolutionary readily embraces death, but she accepts it as a possible consequence of the struggle: to the contrary, a revolutionary has the moral obligation to do what is possible to ensure her own survival (as long as it does not endanger the strategic goals of the revolution); one's survival is a prerequisite for resistance, the capacity to inflict damage on one's enemy.

While Cano is slain, FARC is not yet vanquished! However, I see two things that can extinguish the flame of revolution, irrespective of the tactics, strategy and overwhelming forces of the Colombian military and imperialist forces:

1). If FARC abandons their mission and renege their objective of liberating the peasants. FARC fights on the behalf of the peasants and they should respect their interests, culture, and institutions. This is the critical error of the Shining Path, lead by Amibael Guzman, of Bolivia; in contrast, the soldiers of the People's Liberation Army had to follow the The Rules of Discipline and Eight Points of Attention, a code of conduct that prohibited soldiers from harassing the Chinese peasants.


2). The Colombian government becomes a social democracy and genuinely tries to improve the standard of living of the peasants instead of just using neoliberal nostrums and repeating free-trade and free-market incantations. However, this seems to be an unlikely outcome because bourgeoisie culture breeds a mentality that threats the socioeconomically disadvantaged with disdain and apathy towards their physical and financial situation. They will often justify the peasant's penury by stating that they lack the aptitude or discipline to provide value and compete in the domestic and global, neoliberal marketplace finance a dignified life. In addition, neoliberal policies, such as the privatization of national resources and increased access to the competitive global market, is done on the behalf of the national interests of imperialist nations to give their markets access to nature resources and cheap manufactured or agricultural goods, while to local elites benefit. Moreover, if the anti-guerrilla forces and the Colombian government show their disregard to human life by murdering non-combatant peasants, this will fuel the desire for retribution of the peasants and will maintain the flames of revolution.

Zettai ni akiramenai! Definitely never surrender.

[~Spectre]

Reactionary.

[RedSonRising]

While I respect anyone who risks themselves to better society and bring about revolutionary change, I believe that the FARC and its leadership have waned in a losing war against the armed forces of the ruling class and have degenerated in their conduct to the point of being detrimental to the advancement of peasant/proletarian interests in Colombia. I wish it weren't true, but the methods of violence and engagement with the predatory drug business have done more to halt the workers of Colombia from realizing their consciousness and considering alternative means of struggle that actually politicize and mobilize the masses. Hopefully a recent revival of student and labor activism reverses this trend, but Cano and his leadership, in my view, have failed to offer an alternative cooperative society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"lachrymose"

that's an SAT word, right thar.

[rundontwalk]

I, too, mourn the loss of the head of a glorified drug syndicate.

[Black_Rose]

I believe that the FARC and its leadership have waned in a losing war against the armed forces of the ruling class and have degenerated in their conduct to the point of being detrimental to the advancement of peasant/proletarian interests in Colombia. I wish it weren't true, but the methods of violence and engagement with the predatory drug business have done more to halt the workers of Colombia from realizing their consciousness and considering alternative means of struggle that actually politicize and mobilize the masses. Hopefully a recent revival of student and labor activism reverses this trend, but Cano and his leadership, in my view, have failed to offer an alternative cooperative society.

Huh? Could you provide evidence that FARC's conduct is considered immoral in the theater of armed combat against the security apparatus of Colombian government and paramilitaries that is outside of its activities necessary to finance itself? Could you proffer a moral way of financing their struggle besides kidnappings and taxation of the drug trade? Do you think FARC can sell bonds in a financial market to finance its struggle, like how the neoteric United States issued continental dollars to finance the American Revolution? FARC is not a sovereign that can potentially earn money through the taxation of business transactions and incomes of its citizens nor does it have the capacity earn money from legitimate business enterprises; FARC has no credit in a financial sense.


“You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue... It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen—in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication... No one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation... To attempt to operate on a good-will basis rather than on a power basis would be to attempt something that the world has not yet experienced - Saul Alinsky.

From www.dieoff.org.

Perhaps Cano, like Alinsky, realized that an "alternative cooperative society" is not possible under a neoliberal geopolitical regime and the domestic feudalistic upper class of Colombia.

[thefinalmarch]

What's all this shit about FARC being revolutionary anyway?

Where has FARC worked with the wider working class to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Where has FARC helped expropriate the bourgeoisie?

FARC has got shit all to do with the working class.

[Black_Rose]

What's all this shit about FARC being revolutionary anyway?

Where has FARC worked with the wider working class to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Where has FARC helped expropriate the bourgeoisie?

FARC has got shit all to do with the working class.

Needless to say, FARC has little political power since it possess little influence in the formulation of policy of any government. FARC attempts to acquire political power through military belligerence so can take over the Colombian government or force it to make concessions. How can FARC possibly do anything significant to improve the life of the peasants and proletariat without political power.

Now, FARC at least improved the standard of living of coca farmers:


In those FARC-EP controlled territories that do produce coca, it is generally grown by peasants on small plots; in paramilitary or government controlled areas, coca is generally grown on large plantations.[156] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-155) The FARC-EP generally makes sure that peasant coca growers receive a much larger share of profits than the paramilitaries would give them,[146] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-inside-rebellion-291-145)[149] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-vanguard-rev-135-137-148)[157] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-beyond-bogata-223-156) and demands that traffickers pay a decent wage to their workers.[146] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-inside-rebellion-291-145) When growers in a FARC-controlled area are caught selling coca to non-FARC brokers, they are generally forced to leave the region, but when growers are caught selling to FARC in paramilitary-controlled areas, they are generally killed.[157] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#cite_note-beyond-bogata-223-156) Lower prices paid for raw coca in paramilitary-controlled areas lead to significantly larger profits for the drug processing and trafficking organizations, which means that they generally prefer that paramilitaries control an area rather than FARC.From wiki.


I, too, mourn the loss of the head of a glorified drug syndicate. I am sure that remark had a negative connotation. I would deem this a valid criticism of FARC if the end of taxing the drug trade is to primarily enrich its commanders and, to a lesser extent, subordinates; instead it is primarily a means to finance its guerrilla activities. FARC didn't originate the drug trade. More importantly, it is not like the commanders of FARC live opulently with a retinue of mistresses with the drug money cached in a Swiss bank account (like the mafia); remember that Cano died in the Colombian jungle. His life can hardly be considered opulent; a little geography lesson, Colombia is located between the Tropic of Cancer and the Equator, meaning that the average temperature would be high and it would be humid. Cano and the other FARC guerrillas had to deal with this.

In my posts, I made the assumption that FARC-EP is a revolutionary Marxist belligerent force, but perhaps, as some posters believe, this is merely a facade. I apologize if I was ignorant, and I am willing to accept that as a possibility, but still, that hardly justifies being called the epithet "reactionary" for mourning the loss of a commander of an ostensibly revolutionary force.

Also, my posts do not endorse or glorify terrorism; even if my assumption of FARC being "revolutionary" is incorrect, I believe that my OP still furnishes some value since it glorifies violent revolution in the abstract sense. The paragraph "What Cano and FARC" can apply to any other leftist revolutionary organization that engages in violence. There was a thread in the Politics forum recently that quoted Marx on the folly of moralism written after the denouement of Paris Commune, but when I applied it to a concrete, *edit*contemporary*edit* example like FARC, I am deemed a "reactionary"!

[thefinalmarch]

so can take over the Colombian government
you say that like it's a good thing

[Os Cangaceiros]

FARC attempts to acquire political power through military belligerence so can take over the Colombian government

Yeah, that's never gonna happen.

The most groups like FARC can hope for is carving out their own little districts which the state's that oppose them either don't have enough resources to fully control, or simply don't care enough about to re-take.

[Hiero]

What's all this shit about FARC being revolutionary anyway?

Where has FARC worked with the wider working class to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Where has FARC helped expropriate the bourgeoisie?

FARC has got shit all to do with the working class.

Where has any group armed or not done this lately?

It is called a protracted war, because it is protracted. FARC are up against a US comprador state. They are the only group fighting the repressive side of the state. The Colombian state and other forces in it's absence is general already represive, imprisoning and killing trade union activists. While FARC keeps up the fight they occupy the interests of the bourgeois state amd drain funds from US imperialism. FARC are part of the process for ataining socialism in Colombia. It is a multi sided struggle.

[thefinalmarch]

Where has any group armed or not done this lately?
Hence my rejection of most conceivable left groups in existence.

[Hiero]

Hence my rejection of most conceivable left groups in existence.

That would also be your rejection of the movement then and any possibility.

[thefinalmarch]

That would also be your rejection of the movement then and any possibility.
I don't see the fate of the communist movement as necessarily lying in any left groups.

[Black_Rose]

I don't see the fate of the communist movement as necessarily lying in any left groups.

So what do you think are the means of feasibly advancing a radical leftist agenda in any country? You dismiss guerrilla organizations such as FARC, and, since you are not restricted, I can infer that you are not a liberal leftist and thus do not find traversing on the reformist avenue in a bourgeoisie democracy product.

[thefinalmarch]

So what do you think are the means of feasibly advancing a radical leftist agenda in any country?
I am of the view that the great majority of the working class will never subscribe to Anarchism, Marxism, or their derivatives. The practical realisation of communism doesn't require the advancement of a "leftist agenda".


In the first place, those who will overthrow the capitalist system will not do so because they consider themselves 'socialists' or any derivative of said term. They will do so because the capitalist system cannot provide what they believe it is supposed to, and because they will understand their role in the economic movement of their society.
So the label means nothing. The action everything.

[...]

Finally, the negative associations made between the 'radical left' and atrocities committed by dictators are not going to be destroyed. They need to be overcome by an evolutionary process of the radical left - not by fighting back against history because we know all-to-well that you cannot fight history.

- August

Ideology isn't and hasn't been the cause of revolutions. This is materialism 101.

“…the Communists know only too well … that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” – Engels

[mrmikhail]

Reactionary.

How can you even call her a reactionary? While I do not agree with FARC's methods nor their Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) school of thought, they are at the very least trying to improve the lives of the peasant farmers and workers of Colombia, and fight America's favorite South American neo-colonial government at the same time. For this I must say they deserve some credit as a revolutionary movement, perhaps not a perfect movement, but a movement none the less.

[thefinalmarch]

How can you even call her a reactionary?
See:

their Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) school of thought

[mrmikhail]

See:

I don't personally consider Stalinists to be reactionary (despite the fact they seem to consider us Trotskyists to be fascists). They are authoritarian, revisionist, and wrong in their methods, but they are still on the left side of things, so to speak.

[thefinalmarch]

They are authoritarian, revisionist, and wrong in their methods, but they are still on the left side of things, so to speak.
The left wing of capital, you mean.

[KurtFF8]

What's all this shit about FARC being revolutionary anyway?

Where has FARC worked with the wider working class to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Where has FARC helped expropriate the bourgeoisie?

FARC has got shit all to do with the working class.

Right, they are mainly a peasant based organization. Although their insurgency is an attempt to bring worker/peasant ownership over the means of production in Colombia.

What have they done? This article is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_armed_conflict_%281964%E2%80%93present%2 9


I, too, mourn the loss of the head of a glorified drug syndicate.

While it's true that they tax some trade in their areas, to label them a drug syndicate is quite inaccurate.


The left wing of capital, you mean.

Yes, this is the universal truth of the Left: every other sect is just the "left wing of capital" or an agent of the ruling class in terms of their ideology and methods.

[RedSonRising]

The conflicts with indigenous groups is just the first of a series of problems with the FARCs methods:

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/on-the-farc-ep%E2%80%99s-contradictions-with-colombias-natives/

NlbZ3SoMSNM

(If you don't speak Spanish, the summary is basically an indigenous leader condemning an attack on public places on indigenous land which he says is a method of intimidation which they have used before, and then the video mentions some 8 members of the Awa community who were killed on their own land, who the FARC claimed were paramilitaries.)

This link demonstrates that many natives still oppose the state, but do not see progress coming through the methods of resistance by the FARC.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/07/2011724954224859.html

The Colombia Journal is also an objective source which covers the horrendous crimes of the Colombian State (with the aid of Yankee Imperialism), but also examines the criticisms of the FARC.

http://colombiajournal.org/?cat=12

From my personal experiences in Colombia, I detail another series of reasons why the FARC aren't conducive to revolutionary progress and why they harm the advancement of working class interests in this thread, if you're interested.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-colombian-revolution-t153643/index.html

[OHumanista]

The FARC have zero chance of achieving anything significant, true enough they WERE once revolutionary (even if MLs) but not only have they missed their chance but also lost all focus.
Nowadays like RedSonRising said they harm the left far more than help it.

[Искра]

Marxism-Leninism-Cocaineism is only right tendecy! The rest are just a bunch of revisionists!

FARC leaders have probably read that Marx said that “religion is opium for masses”, so they used scientific methods of Marxism-Leninism to investigate the best way to get into contact with international working class. Scientific method of Marxism-Leninism urged them to sell cocaine and other stuff to working class, because people like drugs more than leaflets and boring speeches.

To conclude – workers of the world let’s get overdose!

[tir1944]

Wow,let's completely renounce a proletarian revolutionary movement because they finance themselves with drugs.Let me ask you Kontra,if drug production was the only way you can finance the movement,would you accept it as a necessity or would you give up on the proletarian revolution?

[Искра]

FARC and proletarian revolution? :blink: What about those proletarians who work on their coca fields? What about proletarians who make cocaine? What about proletarians who buy their drugs and die? I can not answer you on your question, since revolutionary movement of working class would never finance itself by selling drugs to working class of another country. Proletarian movement is INTERNATIONAL and proletarians do not kill each other. Therfore FARC is just one group which would like to take a state power and I have no interest in such lousers.

Question to you, since you are all realpolitik now: Would you accept prostitution as a way to finance "revolutionary movement"?

[tir1944]

How many proletarians can buy coke?


Would you accept prostitution as a way to finance "revolutionary movement"?
No.
Never and i've never heard of any revolutionary movement that does this.
Also prostitution is direct(don't jump on this term,i know it's not appropriate but i couldn't think of the better term to denote the selling of one's own body for sexual purposes) exploitation,one of the most horrible ways of exploitation.
But who the fuck cares if some rich guy snorts coke,if that's what finances the revolutionary movement.

[Искра]

How many proletarians can buy coke?
Welcome to the real world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine


Never and i've never heard of any revolutionary movement that does this.
It was rethorical question.


Also prostitution is direct(don't jump on this term,i know it's not appropriate but i couldn't think of the better term to denote the selling of one's own body for sexual purposes) exploitation,one of the most horrible ways of exploitation.
But who the fuck cares if some rich guy snorts coke,if that's what finances the revolutionary movement.
Same goes for killing working class people on crack in ghettos and for using kids as "drug mules" etc.

[tir1944]

Welcome to the real world:It'd be really interested too see what's the proportion of coke(for the rich) that gets converted to crack(for the poor).


Same goes for killing working class people on crack in ghettosIt's the task of proletarian forces in the ghettos to teach people not to use it,as comrades Newton and the Black Panthers did.


Same goes for killing working class people on crack in ghettos and for using kids as "drug mules" etc.
Do be honest,these people are in the end killing themselves.There's a degree of personal responsibility after all.
Also,source for the drug mule kids?

[Искра]

It'd be really interested too see what's the proportion of coke(for the rich) that gets converted to crack(for the poor).I don't see what's your point here. It's ok to poison people if there more rich drug addicts than poor?


It's the task of proletarian forces in the ghettos to teach people not to use it,as comrades Newton and the Black Panthers did.
Still, those forces do not exist, and "revolutionary forces" like FARC are poisonong people...


Do be honest,these people are in the end killing themselves.There's a degree of personal responsibility after all.
Yeah, right... Good thing that you call yourself communist and that you understand materialist conditions why do people take drugs. :rolleyes:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Anybody who is willing to take a rifle and fight against the ruling class is deserving of my respect. Methods be damned, they have the right target they just may not have utilized the best methods in some peoples opinion. They must be doing something right if the peasants are rallying behind them. What they are doing is far more effective than spray painting A's for Anarchy and Hammer and Sickles on city walls.

As for funding themselves through drug trafficking, well they do not have many other options to fund themselves. They can't necessarily have a lemonade stand fundraiser.

[tir1944]

It's ok to poison people if there more rich drug addicts than poor?I'm inclined to believe that most of this coke is indeep "exported" as pure coke,but i don't have any scientific data,which is why i asked for you to provide some statistics if you can.


Still, those forces do not exist, and "revolutionary forces" like FARC are poisonong people...It's not FARC's fault that these forces don't exist and don't get so emotional,the people have their own brains and they can think for themselves.


Yeah, right... Good thing that you call yourself communist and that you understand materialist conditions why do people take drugs. :rolleyes: Yes and vulgar materialists such as you don't understand that people are not mere reflections of material(not materalist!) conditions they live in.It's a much more complex dialectical relationship.Read Lenin,he explained it better than i ever could.
Anyway,if this was the case then most ghetto residents would be on crack which is of false.
And don't be so condescending.Even people from the ghetto can see and think for themselves,that's why only a relatively small population is addicted to crack,thanks to the CIA sponsored crack-epidemic in the 80s.

[Fedorov]

First let me second the points that Kontr has made. Drug use is a result of materialist conditions first and foremost and personal resposibility is really secondary. On a further point I am actually in Bogota, Colombia right now and let me tell you, when I was in a bar on Friday night nearly everyone drank to the news of his death, and this was a more run down local bar in the Chapinero historic district. In any case the prolonged war and drug trade has if anything actually taken away from the appeal that Marxism once had. All the communist graphitty in the city is mostly over a decade or more old. I'm not saying that the Colombian government is not a corrupt US backed psuedo-puppet state but it does garner much more popular support these days and living standards are rising so between a relatively strong and growing capitalist government and a drug and kidnapping perverted left-wing FARC Colombia is one of the least likely places for any real progressive movement to occurr in the near future.

*PS why does it matter if FARC exports pure coke or chopped crack? It still becomes crack in one proportion or another and is readily available to people? And the ghettos do have a disproportionately high amount of crack use. Walk in halrem in the morining and I guarantee you will see a guy flailing his arms wacked out on something. You don't see that on Park Ave.

[Искра]

I'm inclined to believe that most of this coke is indeep "exported" as pure coke,but i don't have any scientific data,which is why i asked for you to provide some statistics if you can.
If you are interested in statistics, google them.

As far as I know, yes FARC is indeed exporting “pure cocaine”, but when it arrives to Mexico or States people turn it into crack, because there’s bigger market for that. But what kind of drug they are exporting and who’s turning it into what is less important. What is important here is that so called revolutionary movement is financing itself by drug trafficking and drugs kill people. Also, what are important are conditions in which coca farmers and drug mules work and live. They are exploited by your same revolutionary organization you all support.

I’m not idiot so I will not make differences between drug users. It’s not important are they rich or a poor, are they working class or middle class. What is important that so called revolutionary organization is financed by slave/wedge labor and by poisoning people.


It's not FARC's fault that these forces don't exist and don't get so emotional,the people have their own brains and they can think for themselves.
It’s not drug dealers fault that people buy drugs.
It’s not capitalists’ problem that workers are on medications because of stress.


Yes and vulgar materialists such as you don't understand that people are not mere reflections of material(not materalist!) conditions they live in.It's a much more complex dialectical relationship.Read Lenin,he explained it better than i ever could.
What. The. Fuck. :confused: This goes also for the rest of your brilliant post. It’s fucking sweet when you criticize Stalinist’s moralization and liberal politics and you get called vulgar materialist. Haha. If you can’t read Marx listen to this... YO!

SKJHltEI788

[Black_Rose]

Your concern is indeed sincere.


What about proletarians who make cocaine?
I quoted wiki already to address this.


What about proletarians who buy their drugs and die? I can not answer you on your question, since revolutionary movement of working class would never finance itself by selling drugs to working class of another country.
FARC is not directly responsible for any mortality and morbidity inflicted through illicit drug use, although you can criticize FARC for being a complicit party. Consider the issue from a consequentialist perspective: first consider the logistics and economic incentives of the drug trade. The drug trade is so lucrative that even if plantations in Colombia were fumigated, that would merely be another opportunity for someone with control over arable land and docile agricultural labor to grow cocaine and ship it to developed countries. This is called the "balloon effect" as the supply of cocaine merely moves elsewhere and it is often cited as a reason why domestic prevention programs are more effective at reducing the consumption of illicit substances than airborne fumigation efforts that often wreak collateral ecological damage.



Question to you, since you are all realpolitik now: Would you accept prostitution as a way to finance "revolutionary movement"?

Prostitution is an affront to human dignity, since, in most cases, women often engages in prostitution because of economic duress and coercion, reflecting a lack of freedom and volition. in addition, prostitutes are universally reviled by society (and often themselves) and shown no compassion. FARC needs to remember its mission; it is an army of the peasants, thus it cannot actively exploit the peasants against their will. (The peasants provide valuable material support and information to the guerrillas; one reason why the FARC guerrillas are intractable in the Colombian jungle is the a single peasant can alert the guerrillas of the army or paramilitaries position and ambush them.) Prostitution may provide cash flow for FARC in the short term, but the inherent economic exploitation of prostitution would cause them to lose their most valuable ally and would, in the long term, result in decreased recruiting. Some women are willing donate their bodies and lives to the revolutionary cause, but they can play a dignified role in FARC by being a guerrilla (or plainclothes support) than donating the money they earn from prostitution to FARC


In our statutes we have decided that we can recruit 15 year-olds and up. In some fronts there may have been some younger, but a short time ago we decided to send them back home. But what is the cost? In the last year a girl arrived at the office in San Vicente, 14 years-old and wanting to join the guerrillas. When the mother found out that she had joined she contacted the guerrillas and cried and said her daughter is only 14 years-old. In March she was sent back home because the FARC’s Central Command said they would return to their parents all those younger than fifteen. Two weeks ago I met this girl and asked her what she was doing. She said she was working in a bar from 6 pm until sunrise. I asked what she was doing in this bar and she said, ‘I attend to the customers.’ When I asked in what way does she attend to the customers, she lowered her head and started to cry. She is a whore. She is 14 years old. A child prostitute. She was better in the guerrillas. In the guerrillas we have dignity, respect and we provide them with clothes, food and education.

- Simon Trinidad (quote from wiki)

[tir1944]

It’s not drug dealers fault that people buy drugs.
It’s not capitalists’ problem that workers are on medications because of stress. A part of that fault lies on the people who buy them.


What. The. Fuck. :confused: This goes also for the rest of your brilliant post. It’s fucking sweet when you criticize Stalinist’s moralization and liberal politics and you get called vulgar materialist. Haha. If you can’t read Marx listen to this... YO! My impression is that it's you who's being the moralist here.
Also where did Stalin talk about drugs?

[Fedorov]

Could you adress the conflict with indiginous Colombians and FARC perhaps Black Rose and Tir? Doesn't that in itself at least hint at FARC being a little, dare I say, reactionary.

It has transformed itself into an organization only based on utilitarian concepts so even if in some fluke of history FARC did take over Colombia I would suspect an authoritarian Stalinist regime based on their prior actions. I know idealism can take a back seat in revolutions but there is a fine line.

[Искра]

A part of that fault lies on the people who buy them.A part of fault of capitalist system lies in people who work. We should all stop working and system will fail.... :laugh:


My impression is that it's you who's being the moralist here. Yeah, I’m a bad liberal moralist who’s talking about material conditions of working class people who work in drug industry and who use drugs, while you are scientific Marxist-Leninist who’s saying that “people are to blame” because of drug use. I’m moralist because I don’t support reactionary organization which is exploiting working class and “communism” as idea. Fuck yeah! Yeez, you sound like some conservative politician.


Also where did Stalin talk about drugs?Are you serious? :blink:

[tir1944]

A part of fault of capitalist system lies in people who work. We should all stop working and system will fail.... :laugh:
But you can't survive without working,tho that ain't true when it comes to drugs(on the contrary actually).What are you even arguing about.


Yeah, I’m a bad liberal moralist who’s talking about material conditions of working class people who work in drug industry and who use drugs, while you are scientific Marxist-Leninist who’s saying that “people are to blame” because of drug use. I’m moralist because I don’t support reactionary organization which is exploiting working class and “communism” as idea. Fuck yeah! Yeez, you sound like some conservative politician.
Explain to me why did the Black Panthers advocate people not to use drugs.
Clarly they were aware that capitalism is the main cause for people "needing" them in the first place,but they were also sane enough to realize that in order to lead a working class struggle in the first place,you have to teach people not to consume them.


Are you serious? :blink:
Yes,i seriously wanted you to substantiate this talk about "Stalinist moralism" and its relevance to the topic at hand.

[Fedorov]

Thoughts exactly, I don't believe in the means justify the ends mentality in many scenarios. One being that of drug trade that as a result not only poisons people stuck in a capitalist state but also the surrounding Latin American countries that suffer from the crime involved in being transit states. I will say this with bold faith, most Colombians in all stara do not support the FARC these days and neither do I.

And most people who abuse drugs understand that they are killing them. Its a mental state of apathy and helplessness that drives rational people to do irrational things aka conditions of poverty and neglect found in lower classes in capitalism.

[Искра]

Tir1944 - two advices:
1) Buy yourself a sense for sarcasm.
2) Stop being liberal Stalinist and read some Marx.

[tir1944]

1) Buy yourself a sense for sarcasm.
2) Stop being liberal Stalinist and read some Marx.
Thank your for this meaningful,contentful and substantiated contribution.

[Black_Rose]

Could you adress the conflict with indiginous Colombians and FARC perhaps Black Rose and Tir? Doesn't that in itself at least hint at FARC being a little, dare I say, reactionary.

...

I know idealism can take a back seat in revolutions but there is a fine line.
If one reads my posts, one can infer that I believe that murdering peasants is not in the strategic interests of FARC (and I would say the same about the paramilitaries and Colombian military to a lesser extent), in addition to any valid concerns about its inherent immorality.

FARC does indeed kill peasants, but I thought they were relatively rare events and not official policy. Also, the paramilitaries were responsible for 70-80% of the political murders (and presumably a higher proportion of peasant murders since paramilitaries tend to intimidate peasant sympathizers of the guerrillas), but that does not justify FARC murdering peasants. Perhaps I am wrong, and the intimidation of peasants is a prevalent FARC policy.

[Искра]

Thank your for this meaningful,contentful and substantiated contribution.
I'm learning from the best :)

[RedSonRising]

If one reads my posts, one can infer that I believe that murdering peasants is not in the strategic interests of FARC (and I would say the same about the paramilitaries and Colombian military to a lesser extent), in addition to any valid concerns about its inherent immorality.

FARC does indeed kill peasants, but I thought they were relatively rare events and not official policy. Also, the paramilitaries were responsible for 70-80% of the political murders (and presumably a higher proportion of peasant murders since paramilitaries tend to intimidate peasant sympathizers of the guerrillas), but that does not justify FARC murdering peasants. Perhaps I am wrong, and the intimidation of peasants is a prevalent FARC policy.

There are a lot of things the FARC does that don't fit in with the intentions of their policy (children regularly dismembered by mines arbitrarily planted among civilian routes by the FARC as well as Paramilitaries, civilians caught in crossfires when the FARC assault an oil pipeline, police station, or military base, churches and homes destroyed by misfired mortars, displacing Natives in order to clear jungle for sustainable farmland, etc.), but that doesn't excuse them from regularly committing these crimes and harming the peasants that they supposedly represent.

From my experiences in Colombia, I hear that a lot of destitute peasants join both the FARC and the Paramilitaries (the latter of which obviously don't have working class support but draw from similar pools) and even the army because they simply don't have the resources to materially advance any other way. Members of my family have had friends an family of friends kidnapped and temporarily forced into labor (or even killed) without even being somewhat justifiable targets like property-holders or political affiliates.

As you can see in the thread I posted before (and as others who have visited have commented), condemnation for the FARC is far more common in urban areas than is there celebration, and the countryside is thoroughly divided between collaborators, opponents, and innocent non-partisan victims of violence.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself- to what ends are these extreme measures even achieving? Are peasants on the whole more politicized and economically empowered on their land due to FARC involvement? Are laborers throughout the country coordinating meaningful steps towards working class liberation (or even short-term gains)? Is the State and ruling class becoming any less powerful? Unfortunately, the answer to those questions is a resounding "no." While the paramilitaries are an absolutely awful force and struggling through arms is not in itself a strategy to be inherently dismissed, the FARC have seemed to serve more as a deterrent for ideas of revolutionary socialism within the populace than they have any sort of constructive organ. At the same time, they have provoked an already reactionary state into achieving more legitimacy through an anti-terror media campaign and domestic support for centralized military support, while conveniently ignoring the dire social problems the Colombian masses face (and demonizing anyone who tries to bring such issues to light as a terrorist FARC collaborator.)

The FARC may have at one time had a genuine base for armed struggle, but it has deteriorated into the functions of a mere insurgency fighting for survival with no social emphasis for the advancement of working class interests in sight. Just as radical Middle Eastern anti-imperialist groups that oppose the terrorism of western states end up doing more harm for their respective communities in their provocative attempts at "liberation" than good, so too do the FARC take two steps backwards every time they shed blood without properly tending to the hearts and minds of the oppressed.

[Black_Rose]

As you can see in the thread I posted before (and as others who have visited have commented), condemnation for the FARC is far more common in urban areas than is there celebration, and the countryside is thoroughly divided between collaborators, opponents, and innocent non-partisan victims of violence.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself- to what ends are these extreme measures even achieving? Are peasants on the whole more politicized and economically empowered on their land due to FARC involvement? Are laborers throughout the country coordinating meaningful steps towards working class liberation (or even short-term gains)? Is the State and ruling class becoming any less powerful? Unfortunately, the answer to those questions is a resounding "no." While the paramilitaries are an absolutely awful force and struggling through arms is not in itself a strategy to be inherently dismissed, the FARC have seemed to serve more as a deterrent for ideas of revolutionary socialism within the populace than they have any sort of constructive organ. At the same time, they have provoked an already reactionary state into achieving more legitimacy through an anti-terror media campaign and domestic support for centralized military support, while conveniently ignoring the dire social problems the Colombian masses face (and demonizing anyone who tries to bring such issues to light as a terrorist FARC collaborator.)

The FARC may have at one time had a genuine base for armed struggle, but it has deteriorated into the functions of a mere insurgency fighting for survival with no social emphasis for the advancement of working class interests in sight. Just as radical Middle Eastern anti-imperialist groups that oppose the terrorism of western states end up doing more harm for their respective communities in their provocative attempts at "liberation" than good, so too do the FARC take two steps backwards every time they shed blood without properly tending to the hearts and minds of the oppressed.


As for the question of whether things would be better without them, I'd say it would have been much better had they adopted different tactics. As a revolutionary leftist I am no fan of the Colombian ruling class which oppresses its working people, but the situation that has been created by the insurgency is not one that can advance political interests- only create a territorial stalemate which leaves many people dead or injured. Many children in the countryside are victims of landmines used by Paramilitaries and the FARC. Many innocent white-collar workers are abducted and some give birth in captivity without proper care. My parents had to leave the country as students because FARC agitators kept using explosives and gas in public schools in order to challenge the state and encourage people to participate in violence against the State. My father had to finish his University schooling in the US because of it. My quarrel is not with the existence of "a" FARC, but the recent and current methods used by the FARC today.

I am sorry that I have not been able to response, and you know more about the Colombian violence that I do. I can offer no rebuttal since I agree with your deadpan (and depressing) assessment on the Colombian class struggle. But I would think that some of the FARC guerrillas would not prefer the hostilities to surcease, even if all the guerrillas are legally pardoned for rebellion, since that would mean living a "normal life", i.e. accepting subjugation by the economically superior in a neoliberal regime.


The way I see it, the FARC simply don't have the organizational basis to ever gain victory through influence in the cities.

That seems to be the main reason why FARC cannot win in the short or medium term. Affecting the urban middle class (of the reactionary government in a supposedly democratic society) is one way to affect policy: for instead, this page (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/08/10/the-power-of-myth/) argues that one reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed was to quickly end the War due to the difficulties faced by American citizens during the home front (as opposed to circumventing Operation Downfall or to demonstrate technological power to the Soviets.) Also, even though the Tet counteroffensive was a strategic success for the American forces, it still come at too high a price and negatively affected attitudes on the war at home. Even though people at home thought that the United States was doing the world a favor out of benevolence by freeing the Vietnamese from the influence of nefarious communism and containing its influence, they were not willing to suffer an inconvenience in the name of anti-communism, especially when it did not directly affect their material interests positively as foreign communism did not pose a direct threat to them.


Nevertheless, I feel there is little for me to retract in my OP, since it was primarily intended to extol those who choose to risk their lives for the revolutionary cause, regardless of the outcome of the struggle (in FARC's case, a territorial stalemate).