cullinane
10th November 2001, 22:25
Some interesting points were made on terrorism as a means to dehabilitate the US economic system. If I may, I would like to make some possible conclusions towards terrorism as a strategy. This does not mean I'm disregarding other's important and worthy contributions.
Communists are opposed to the terrorism as a means to an end. Although some aspects of the strategy can be derserving of genuine support. The strategy of guerrilla war whether in a “foco” or “peoples war” variant is to some extent an anti-working class movement. Petty bourgeois guerrillaism is opposed to the construction of a workers’ party, to workers’ councils and to a proletarian insurrection. It wants to dissolve the proletariat’s interests into the cross-class programme of the petty bourgeoisie. It wants to impose bureaucratic organisations and avoid the development of workers’ councils and autonomous democratic workers’ militias. Even where it succeeds in downing a decrepit dictatorship (Cuba, Nicaragua) it paves the way for a nationalist solution. Guerrilla victories are always accompanied by the crushing of the proletariat’s independent organisations. Behind an ultra-left phraseology and methodology guerrillaism in fact evinces a tremendous lack of confidence in the working class and a predisposition to make deals with sections of the bourgeoisie. It involves surrendering political leadership to the urban bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and, in so far as it seeks a mass base for its actions (i.e. people’s war), it dissolves the independent interests of the working class into that of the petty bourgeoisie. In that sense guerrillaism as a strategy always has the tendency to be an armed popular front. Guerrillaism downgrades economic and political struggle in favour of episodic and often desultory military action. Individual terrorism, the destruction of factories (centres of proletarian concentration) and spectacular military actions are methods counterposed to the strategy of the working class. Against communism’s dictum that the emancipation of the workers can only be carried out by the workers themselves, the guerrillaists proclaim that liberation will be the act of external saviours.
By its undemocratic and elitist attitude towards the masses they claim to represent, the guerrilla leaders can often leave the masses defenceless in the face of the state’s superior military forces or of vigilante groups. To withdraw the most fearless and combative fighters from the factories, the urban centres and densely populated rural districts, is to strip the workers’ and peasants’ organisations of their cadres and their leaders. Guerrillaists may also attack the workers’ organisations themselves, as in the case of Sendero Luminoso in Peru.
For revolutionary communists guerrilla action is a tactic that can be used in the communist struggle against capitalism under specific circumstances. We do not reject forming a tactical alliance with petty bourgeois guerrilla armies or entry work within such armies.
The ruling class like to label all the activities of the proletariat directed against the class enemy's interests as terrorism. If terrorism is understood as any action inspiring fear in, or doing harm to, the enemy, the bourgeoisie then of course the entire class struggle is nothing but an act of terrorism.
The murder of a prominent politicans or industrialists produces effects of a police nature only, or a change of personnel devoid of any social significance. Whether a terrorist attempt throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be shortlived. Take for example the actions of the Red Army Faction in West Germany, the Communist Cells in Belgium or Action Direct in France.
the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.
The wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before, but the states repression is intensified.
Our account with which we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some politician.
Communists are opposed to the terrorism as a means to an end. Although some aspects of the strategy can be derserving of genuine support. The strategy of guerrilla war whether in a “foco” or “peoples war” variant is to some extent an anti-working class movement. Petty bourgeois guerrillaism is opposed to the construction of a workers’ party, to workers’ councils and to a proletarian insurrection. It wants to dissolve the proletariat’s interests into the cross-class programme of the petty bourgeoisie. It wants to impose bureaucratic organisations and avoid the development of workers’ councils and autonomous democratic workers’ militias. Even where it succeeds in downing a decrepit dictatorship (Cuba, Nicaragua) it paves the way for a nationalist solution. Guerrilla victories are always accompanied by the crushing of the proletariat’s independent organisations. Behind an ultra-left phraseology and methodology guerrillaism in fact evinces a tremendous lack of confidence in the working class and a predisposition to make deals with sections of the bourgeoisie. It involves surrendering political leadership to the urban bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and, in so far as it seeks a mass base for its actions (i.e. people’s war), it dissolves the independent interests of the working class into that of the petty bourgeoisie. In that sense guerrillaism as a strategy always has the tendency to be an armed popular front. Guerrillaism downgrades economic and political struggle in favour of episodic and often desultory military action. Individual terrorism, the destruction of factories (centres of proletarian concentration) and spectacular military actions are methods counterposed to the strategy of the working class. Against communism’s dictum that the emancipation of the workers can only be carried out by the workers themselves, the guerrillaists proclaim that liberation will be the act of external saviours.
By its undemocratic and elitist attitude towards the masses they claim to represent, the guerrilla leaders can often leave the masses defenceless in the face of the state’s superior military forces or of vigilante groups. To withdraw the most fearless and combative fighters from the factories, the urban centres and densely populated rural districts, is to strip the workers’ and peasants’ organisations of their cadres and their leaders. Guerrillaists may also attack the workers’ organisations themselves, as in the case of Sendero Luminoso in Peru.
For revolutionary communists guerrilla action is a tactic that can be used in the communist struggle against capitalism under specific circumstances. We do not reject forming a tactical alliance with petty bourgeois guerrilla armies or entry work within such armies.
The ruling class like to label all the activities of the proletariat directed against the class enemy's interests as terrorism. If terrorism is understood as any action inspiring fear in, or doing harm to, the enemy, the bourgeoisie then of course the entire class struggle is nothing but an act of terrorism.
The murder of a prominent politicans or industrialists produces effects of a police nature only, or a change of personnel devoid of any social significance. Whether a terrorist attempt throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be shortlived. Take for example the actions of the Red Army Faction in West Germany, the Communist Cells in Belgium or Action Direct in France.
the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.
The wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before, but the states repression is intensified.
Our account with which we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some politician.