Why Marxists oppose individual terrorism

[jdhoch]

If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us. The account we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some functionary called a minister. To learn to see all the crimes against humanity, all the indignities to which the human body and spirit are subjected, as the twisted outgrowths and expressions of the existing social system, in order to direct all our energies into a collective struggle against this system–that is the direction in which the burning desire for revenge can find its highest moral satisfaction.

MORE...

http://www.systemiccapital.com/why-marxists-oppose-individual-terrorism/

[PetyaRostov]

In the battle for Algeirs (French-Algerian War) acts of terrorism were used as propaganda of the deed to liberate the Algerians from French rule. My guess is that much the same is happening in the middle east. Other notable examples include The Weather Underground, The Red Brigades, Black October, The Red Army Faction, in certain cases the PLO, the IRA, ETA...
I'm not necessarily defending these groups or their actoins but I'm not sure its fair to say that Marxists (as in a collective whole) oppose terrorism

Plus, this ultimately seems less like an article about terrorism and more of a veilled slam against anarchists destroyin' shit.
I agree with the generally agreeable premise, acts of revenge have no place in revolution, but theres a whole host of ideology being presented without proper arguement.
Of course its a SW article so i mean what can one expect?
(dont get me wrong i dig the SW, but it is propaganda)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh god, I just recently mentioned how overplayed that Trotsky piece on "terrorism" was, and lo and behold, it reared it's dreary head once again. :rolleyes:

[theblackmask]

Why does this even exist? Can I just start posting a quote and a link and calling it a legit thread? No substance at all, just some rehashed Trotsky...nothing to see here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Plus, this ultimately seems less like an article about terrorism and more of a veilled slam against anarchists destroyin' shit.
I agree with the generally agreeable premise, acts of revenge have no place in revolution, but theres a whole host of ideology being presented without proper arguement.

It's a Trotsky article and specifically about anarchists using "propaganda of the deed" so it's not a veiled slam in that it's not veiled against this anarchist tactic, and it's not a slam of anarchism itself.

I think this papragrah is the heart of the argument:


In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the "propaganda of the deed" can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more "effective" the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organization and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.


Oh god, I just recently mentioned how overplayed that Trotsky piece on "terrorism" was, and lo and behold, it reared it's dreary head once again. :rolleyes:

Why is this important now? Because unfortunately some in this generation of radicals are leaning towards the same dead-end tactics and views from the era of this article or the New Left and so on. I don't think this argument is overplayed at all - I think radicals thinking that they are a self-proclaimed vanguard or a spark that just needs to show the masses what to do is far too overplayed even when it's dressed up in fancy new grad-student buzzwords and pomo philosophical jargon.

[Comrade #138672]

I agree with TS. Except that I believe that it's not about revenge but balance.

P.S. I haven't read the article (yet).

[Grenzer]

Why is this important now? Because unfortunately some in this generation of radicals are leaning towards the same dead-end tactics and views from the era of this article or the New Left and so on. I don't think this argument is overplayed at all - I think radicals thinking that they are a self-proclaimed vanguard or a spark that just needs to show the masses what to do is far too overplayed even when it's dressed up in fancy new grad-student buzzwords and pomo philosophical jargon.

I quoted this primarily for emphasis.

Why do people insist on the same "overwrought" quotes from Engels and Trotsky? If Anarchists insist on the same old crap that they have been since 1872(such as the imaginary issue of hierarchy), then it's only fair to expect that our arguments against them have not changed. The remarkable thing is how little the arguments put forth by anarchists have changed in substance, even if they insist on bizarre, incoherent changes in the style of their rhetoric that don't have the faintest mote of legitimacy like "Student-teacher social relations are capitalist by nature!".

[Comrade #138672]

I quoted this primarily for emphasis.

Why do people insist on the same "overwrought" quotes from Engels and Trotsky? If Anarchists insist on the same old crap that they have been since 1872(such as the imaginary issue of hierarchy), then it's only fair to expect that our arguments against them have not changed. The remarkable thing is how little the arguments put forth by anarchists have changed in substance, even if they insist on bizarre, incoherent changes in the style of their rhetoric that don't have the faintest mote of legitimacy like "Student-teacher social relations are capitalist by nature!".But what if some fundamental parts of the System haven't changed? This could make these arguments still valid in these times.

Although I would recommend always further developing the theories.

[black magick hustla]

because insurrectos don't understand historical materialism and they think they can normalize insurrectionary action by blowing up police stations

[Ocean Seal]

because insurrectos don't understand historical materialism and they think they can normalize insurrectionary action by blowing up police stations
This would seem to be perversion of historical materialism.


I don't think that I take a stand against individual terrorism so much as I do the attitude that individual terrorism ought to accomplish a given task everytime that it is performed. This might seem like a hidden defense of terrorism, but I assure you the optimism that comes along with it, is nothing short of senseless. You won't always get your way, not with the strike, not with the riot, not with the windows of 100 starbucks' smashed.

If I recall earlier this year someone was posting about how Tiqqin posited that their tactics were deployed not to raise class consciousness, but rather to stop production. A little blip on the radar doesn't stop production, do you not think that capitalists have insurance? Rather we should accept that insurrectionary actions when adopted by class conscious individuals through actions distinct form our class are most probably not going to have any immediate effect.

Strike back when it is called for, use what tactics are necessary, but don't believe that you are the holy grail.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I quoted this primarily for emphasis.

Why do people insist on the same "overwrought" quotes from Engels and Trotsky? If Anarchists insist on the same old crap that they have been since 1872(such as the imaginary issue of hierarchy), then it's only fair to expect that our arguments against them have not changed. The remarkable thing is how little the arguments put forth by anarchists have changed in substance, even if they insist on bizarre, incoherent changes in the style of their rhetoric that don't have the faintest mote of legitimacy like "Student-teacher social relations are capitalist by nature!".

That assumes that anarchist thought hasn't changed since 1872.

A major assumption indeed.

[black magick hustla]

That assumes that anarchist thought hasn't changed since 1872.

A major assumption indeed.

bleh, all the new hip stuff is just a redressing and rediscovering of old perspectives really. one would think that the russian revolution would have put in the grave the old perspective of individual terrorism, but not really.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That assumes that anarchist thought hasn't changed since 1872.

A major assumption indeed.No, it obviously has but I think this specific debate is a throw-back through and through. Anarchism is important to the radical tradition, but really the high point was syndicalism and after that, anarchist thought like Marxist thought has been pretty hampered by the dominance of Stalinist ideas on the one hand and a lack of struggle from below on the other.

Where these "new ideas" which are really re-hashing old ideas in new ways, come from is not a continuation, but the beginning of a new radicalization that is inexperienced enough not to have faced some of the things that settled some of these questions in the past.

And personally I don't think this is a case of "old anarchist ideas" - some of them are, but I think insurrectionist, specifically is "old Maoist ideas" not anarchist ones. Just as Maoism made a theory out of the necessities of a failing revolution in China (i.e. being pushed out of the factories and cities, became not a defeat, but a new strategy of organizing the country-side!) I think the European thinkers behind a lot of these "new ideas" are coming from a point of low-struggle and treating it as a principle rather than something to overcome: no class struggle from workers? Well then the fight won't come from workers, it will come from those who are fed up and marginalized from the system!

So the social-dems (or sometimes CP) control the unions and ice-out radicals and the radicals create a theories like "the precariate" to make a virtue out of the lack of workplace struggle. The Maoists got severed from the working class and so made a virtue of peasant struggle. Working class power couldn't be maintained in Russia and the International struggle began to fail, so later Bolsheviks made a principle of "socialism in one country" and rule by the party over the class.

These are old mistakes. Working class people working together and fighting for their own rule is the road to liberation, not self-selected revolutionaries from the Blanquists to the Nardodniks, to the Stalinist CPs, to the Maoist militias, to the Weathermen Underground, and now today's Insurrectionists.

[o well this is ok I guess]

bizarre, incoherent changes in the style of their rhetoric that don't have the faintest mote of legitimacy like "Student-teacher social relations are capitalist by nature!". What is incoherent about this
what is illegitimate about this

[Os Cangaceiros]

bleh, all the new hip stuff is just a redressing and rediscovering of old perspectives really. one would think that the russian revolution would have put in the grave the old perspective of individual terrorism, but not really.

"knowledge is essentially banal", eh?

You're right, actually, most ideas are nothing new, but they still change. Anarchism as an ideology changes because stuff in the world changes. Back in the 90's some people abandoned traditional anarchist stances for other ideologies, like eco-anarchism or Negri-influenced stuff/the anti-globalization movement. In the last five years or so I think it shifted back quite a bit, and more and more people who were influenced by anarchism saw it as a matter of political economy. Read what Crimethinc wrote in it's early inception and read what it's writing now, and you'll see what I mean. Not completely different, but obviously different.

Honestly I just can't stand people saying "herp derp what did my ideological mentors say about this?", and just post some shit without any sort of context or an original thought on their part. Not even a reference to the fact that the opposition has FREQUENTLY responded to the exact points made in the article! Why don't people attempt to put arguments in their own goddamn words and maybe try to be a little original rather than simply re-releasing the same old propaganda about what Trotsky thought of the Bonnot gang or something. :rolleyes:

[Le Socialiste]

The problem with insurrectionism (and individual terrorism in general) is that it supplants the critical and historical role of the working-class with the idiocy and non strategical tactics of an insulated group of self-proclaimed radicals. This separation and trajectory finds its basis in very real developmental circumstances, and it would be foolish to dismiss or ignore them. Oftentimes, these groups draw their conclusions from the state of the movement and their role(s) in it out of necessity more than anything else. This serves little other purpose than to paint themselves into a tactical and ideological corner, further lessening and isolating their importance in relation to the general movement(s) of working-class people. In short, individual acts of terrorism cannot rouse the working-class to action because it is - by its very nature - an act that replaces the latter's self-activity with the former's own leadership, which is brought on (in part) by lack of proper, organic ties with working people.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't give a damn what Trotsky said about "terrorism". First we must define this term which has been hijacked by the capitalist media for a reason. Second, we clearly define what the purpose is in regards to defensive acts by small groups of radical workers/students. Assassinations of capitalists leaders or military officers, destroyed ports or bridges, all carefully planned so as to inflict the required damage without unforeseen losses(other workers). These acts will not rush in the revolution but can effect the dialog and attitude of the capitalist in regards to a once complacent working class. Though the initial repercussions would be severe, every war must have it's initial skirmishes.

So in response to the OP. There is no such thing as terrorism, as currently defined in the national consciousness. I believe in self-defense.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't give a damn what Trotsky said about "terrorism". First we must define this term which has been hijacked by the capitalist media for a reason. Second, we clearly define what the purpose is in regards to defensive acts by small groups of radical workers/students. Assassinations of capitalists leaders or military officers, destroyed ports or bridges, all carefully planned so as to inflict the required damage without unforeseen losses(other workers). These acts will not rush in the revolution but can effect the dialog and attitude of the capitalist in regards to a once complacent working class. Though the initial repercussions would be severe, every war must have it's initial skirmishes.

So in response to the OP. There is no such thing as terrorism, as currently defined in the national consciousness. I believe in self-defense.

What does this accomplish? Like all tactics, they have their time and place, but they must be framed accordingly, utilized in conjunction with mass self-activity and movement - not in its stead.

[Prometeo liberado]

What does this accomplish? Like all tactics, they have their time and place, but they must be framed accordingly, utilized in conjunction with mass self-activity and movement - not in its stead.

It was precisely tactics like these that brought the British to the negotiating table. Taking out key people of the machine sends a message. Leaves one more thing off the to-do list. Like I said these are defensive measures.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't give a damn what Trotsky said about "terrorism". First we must define this term which has been hijacked by the capitalist media for a reason.Funny because you should read "Their Morals and Ours" where Trotsky further talks of terrorism and why sometimes it is needed by the working class and what makes terror justified or not from the perspective of class. He doesn't see it as a principle, he see's it as a tactic and therfore totally dependant on the circumstances and context. In the above article his main problem isn't with the "terrorism" part of "induvidual acts of terror" it's the induvidual part that is the main flaw.


Second, we clearly define what the purpose is in regards to defensive acts by small groups of radical workers/students. Assassinations of capitalists leaders or military officers, destroyed ports or bridges, all carefully planned so as to inflict the required damage without unforeseen losses(other workers). These acts will not rush in the revolution but can effect the dialog and attitude of the capitalist in regards to a once complacent working class. Though the initial repercussions would be severe, every war must have it's initial skirmishes.So in this analogy... we are the fodder of this "war" led by insurrectionists. Worker's generally, but specifically other radicals would bear the brunt. I mean it's not like any other wave of direct repression and political clamp-down has been built on the excuse of "stopping terror". It's not like the US has a whole series of Eastern European prisons and one in Cuba becuase they are supposedly stopping some terrorism.

And if this is a war, don't there need to be two sides consious of the conflict. I'm pretty sure the bosses know they are trying to take a lot of ground here, but wouldn't war from our side require an organized and self-consious counter-force? If we don't have that and that option is available, wouldn't you think that helping workers to create that self-organization would be the most important task at hand?

2nd, how does seeing a bridge being blown up create the consiousness and ability for people to say, "hey, know what, I bet we could form a voting body at work and administer everything ourselves and then coordinate that with all the workplaces we recieve from and ship too as well as with the catering and janitorial staff and then we should make a security team at work to prevent the bosses security or the cops from attacking us, and well need to figure out what to do with all the accountants and other people who will not be out of their possitions..."

I don't think outside and alienated action by some elite revolutionaries creates this sense or the networks and experience to pull this off. A series of wildcat strikes and then there are more people who might think, shit we can do this ourselves and these workers now have experience in organizing together and reaching out to other workplaces and co-workers. A series of general strikes? If these are not top-down affairs but actual class-struggle from below, then you have basically a working class who has organized food to go around, organized defense, organized multiple workplaces, organized barricades in neighborhoods and so on.


So in response to the OP. There is no such thing as terrorism, as currently defined in the national consciousness. I believe in self-defense.Self-denfense is great in a pinch - a strike to stop cut-backs etc. But stopping there makes one inherently a reformist. The point isn't to defend ourselves but to liberate ourselves and that means not throwing wrenches into the gears, but throwing out the bosses and running the machine ourselves for our own benifit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But what if some fundamental parts of the System haven't changed? This could make these arguments still valid in these times.

Although I would recommend always further developing the theories.Well yes and on the academic/theory side this is the rationale of almost all post-marxism and po-mo anarchist trends. And Marxism and anarchism are always developing, that's why boards like this can exist and be so fisty. But the question is, are these useful or accurate developments on the theory, or developments that lead away from ideologies which can help workers understand the world and how they can possibly change it?

And frankly on the academic side I think a small part of these "new discoveries" arguing that the system is fundamentally different, rendering all previous tactics and strategies and even social class irrlevant are due to the fact that it's hard to get noticed if you write, "while there have been many changes in the way the system works, it's fundamenatlly the same as Marx described". Academics always have to have "new theories" or gear their research to whatever is the fashionable new theory - even if that's just arguing against it.

On a more political side I think that really a lot of these arguments are impressionistic and the result of on the one hand a decline in and containment of class struggle in much of the "west" and the bankrupsy of the marxist thought alligned with the later USSR. In the US the new left went into academics when the movements declined and made a kind of idealist stand by dealing with the lack of struggle by going into "radical theory and discorse". Marxists and anarchists became dogmatic in theory and tactics at the same time, so this is not a slam against academics or radical academics, just an argument that the material conditions of class struggle influenced the development of these ideas.

At any rate, these are ideas that arose under conditions of lack of revolution and often lack of worker's movements and because of this I think they often mistake surface changes for fundamental changes. Take the concept of the "precariate" for example - some new oberservation of working class life and how things are fundamentally differnet? Well weren't workers always "precarious" wasn't it the struggles and fight for unionization that made them "less precarious"? Isn't dockworkers lining up for a job each day just a precarious as temp work or underpaid part-time work? Haven't we always had to deal with some degree of instablility and underemployment where we didn't or couldn't fight it?

Marx took for granted that the system was always "revolutionizing itself" and so what he sought to do was take out all the variabls and try and figure out the main driving forces of the system - the fundamentals. This is why I'm pretty confident that as long as capitalism exists, Marx will be relevant and all the generations past and future who say, "oh well that was accurete then, but not now" will probably be forgotten and then revived and then forgotten again.

[barbelo]

God forbid me, I'll quote wikipedia directly.


The Moscovites had a woman as a delegate—of course simply for propaganda reasons. She had shot a Governor who had been unpopular among the Leftists, and was not sentenced to death but to life-long imprisonment due to the mild Tsarist practice. This person, who looked like an elderly housekeeper, Madame Bizenko, apparently a simple-minded fanatic, detailed to Prince Leopold of Bavaria who sat next to her at the dinner table how she conducted the assault. She demonstrated with the menu card in her left hand how she handed a petition to the General Governor—"he was an evil man," she explained—and shot him from beneath the petition with a revolver in her right hand. Prince Leopold listened in a friendly way, as if vividly interested in the murderer's story.

These people are total bad asses. I envy them and their time, maybe it's an infantile and immature admiration, but seems a much healthier and truthful life than hammering keyboards in forums, complaining about irrelevant things.
I can't really understand how this, turned into that.

Maybe this is the way thing dies, once they are revolutionaries and then they are the enforcers of the status quo.