Revolutinary Violence

[KR1Z4]

during the 60 and 70's there was the famous "Jackal" Carlos, swiss and german revolutionary organisations planning attacks against imperialist symbols, arab marxist-leninist organisations like "Black September" and the famous Wadi' Haddad hijacking israeli aircrafts.

do u agree with this method? i wanted to ask this question to see if this *revolutionary* left forum contains members who really believe in the marxist radical movement.

thx

[More Fire for the People]

Some of us would agree in terrorism, but I do not.

For the view of most revolutionary leftist, I would read these:
The Mass Strike by Rosa Luxemburg (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm)
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism by Leon Trotsky (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1909/tia09.htm)
Quotations from Mao Tse Tung, Chapter 8. People's War by Mao Tse Tung (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch08.htm)

[Holocaustpulp]

Terrorism is not adovcated by socialists - we do not wish to harm the people. This is a reason why Lenin spearated the Bolsheviks from the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia.

- HP

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:53 PM
Terrorism is not adovcated by socialists - we do not wish to harm the people. This is a reason why Lenin spearated the Bolsheviks from the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia.

- HP
Lenin seperated the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks, not the Social Revolutionaries.

[redstar2000]

About 15 years ago, I read an excellent anarchist pamphlet called (I believe) You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship.

I don't know if anyone has ever put it online...but it's a good materialist critique of small-scale violence and how ineffective that really is.

Maybe you could poke around some anarchist sites and see if someone has it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Black Dagger]

Here:
You can't blow up a social relationship (http://www.radio4all.org/redblack/books/see_sharp1_social.html)

AND, another text- a short critique of 'propaganda by the deed'/individual acts of violence/terror meant to 'spark' mass rebellion:
Propaganda by the deed (http://flag.blackened.net/noterror/ws55_prop_deed.html)

[Guest]

Revolutionary violence is completely legitimate but the examples you gave are of groups that advocated individual terrorism and propaganda by the deed.

Inevitably, the current ruling class, like in all previous revolutions, will not voluntarily and peacefully give up their status in society. Somewhere along the way force will be necessary.

Highly recommended:
Terrorism And Communism [Dictatorship Versus Democracy], A Reply To Karl Kautsky by Leon Trotsky (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920/dictatorvs/index.htm)

[RedSkinheadUltra]

Revolutionary violence is completely legitimate but the examples you gave are of groups that advocated individual terrorism and propaganda by the deed.

Inevitably, the current ruling class, like in all previous revolutions, will not voluntarily and peacefully give up their status in society. Somewhere along the way force will be necessary.

Highly recommended:
Terrorism And Communism [Dictatorship Versus Democracy], A Reply To Karl Kautsky by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920/dictatorvs/index.htm)

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:26 PM
during the 60 and 70's there was the famous "Jackal" Carlos, swiss and german revolutionary organisations planning attacks against imperialist symbols, arab marxist-leninist organisations like "Black September" and the famous Wadi' Haddad hijacking israeli aircrafts.

do u agree with this method? i wanted to ask this question to see if this *revolutionary* left forum contains members who really believe in the marxist radical movement.

thx
There are currently active groups like this, in Europe and around the world.

I agree that this is a good thing.

[RedAnarchist]

Terrorism is simply attacking the people for the actions of the government. It is ineffective and is just murder. Terrorists may have good intentions, but their actions do much damage to the cause they cliam to be fighting for.

Guerillas, who attack the military and the government, arent terrorists.

[KR1Z4]

Terrorism is simply attacking the people for the actions of the government.
governments are responsible of their citizens...and citizens are responsible in choosin their governors.

currently "terrorism" is not an objective word. anyone ACTING against imperialism, blood for oil, or fightin imperialism allies (israel) is called a terrorist...and all his society is affected by his action because the counter-terrorists will say "this anger is because of his society and his religion, so let's invade the whole country because they may cause harm to the FREE WORLD".

this language was not present in teh 70's ...those who used to make attacks , hijack airplanes, kidnapp the OPEC ppl and takin them on a trip from europe to algeria to libya to yemen weren't described in the media like nowadays. they had a cause, maybe it isnt the best way to talk abt their cause but this is wt they got only. the guy who was arrested in germany for example in a "terrorist" attack is jailed for a couple of weeks, he's shows in a respectful way in a press conference and near him the police chief, to talk abt his cause and why he wanted to do that attack.

so maybe it's because ur seeing the current terrorism that u got this idea abt it.

i dnt call it terrorism, i call it revolutionary violence.

[Organic Revolution]

terrorism is just trying to change a social order.

[Black Dagger]

terrorism is just trying to change a social order.

And its' a largely ineffective method of doing so, which- in most cases alienates said 'terrorists' from the 'mainstream' of society- defeating their purpose, no?

[enigma2517]

Just my 2 cents with no explanation, although i do agree what was written above

Terrorism- No no no. Does not advance the cause a bit

Guerrillaism- Go for it. When the time comes to make a change thats going to be the only to make (and defend) the revolution.

[AK47]

Outright violence aimed at no one is just foolish. Before one can have something to fight for, there must be something to fight for. Sounds simplistic I know, but the idea is usually lost in the passions of the day. The revolution will not be won by attacking, but in creating an alternative mode of behavior and living stile that proves more compatible to human need. The commune comes to mind. Look what the capitalists did to that dream. Make sure at a local level such living arrangements are illegal by limiting the number of families in a household. This is obviously something opposed by the ruling elite, so they find ways to make sure it will not happen in places where it would be convenient IE most of the east coast.
Now back to the topic. A wise plan would be to create communal living arrangements that would create a shared burden on its co-inhibitors. If this could get big enough and wide spread enough. People could lessen the hours worked each week creating a job surplus that could raise standard wages. Now this is not a fix all in any st reach of the imagination, just a step.
It is just a idea, and has some unplanned aspects that needs to be worked out, but I am just getting sick of the Blog-Post world, and want to actually start real changes. A true revolutionary eventually gets off the chair and acts. Not just rallies, but actual structures of change. too much theory and not enough practice makes jack a waste of nucleotides.
Oh, there will be those who oppose this. It will get messy. Those who stand to lose will send there pawn to stop what they see as a threat to their power and wealth. Violence is a definite possibility. If the public sees people in defense it will bode better for the movement. If they see random cars on fire it will just be a tool the status quo can use against the movement.