Rebels or Terroists?

[CommieTommy]

FARC, is the largest of many leftist and rightist rebel wings of the Colombian insurgency. They operate in the barren abandoned regions of the Colombian jungle. They were formed in the late 40s by the liberal party in Colombia, it was the parties millitant wing. But when the conservative goverment began to crack down on the communists and libertarians of the country, the millitary launched a attack on them in 1964. They grew for the next few decades but remained unimportant to Colombian national security. But in the 1980s they began campaigns of kidnapping buisness owners and politcians of city streets and holding them randsom, and if they weren't given the randsom, they captured people would be beheaded by the FARC weapon of choice, the machette. They also sided with drug dealers and protected their farms for money help.

Are these guys terroists? OR just another freindly marxist group?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Do a search of the forums there have been numerous threads on this. So many so that I can't bothered to go much in depth with a response.

I will say however that they are a legitimate guerrilla force and deserve the full support of all communists.

[Andy Bowden]

They definitely do things I would oppose, but there is literally mountains of propaganda set against them. I would give them my critical support, as I would to any other national liberation movement.

They are much better than the Colombian state, so out of the 2 I would back them.

[bolshevik butcher]

I support them over the colomiban state. I preffer ezln but they're tiny compared to farc.

[CommieTommy]

I support neither, I think the Colombian FARC is a bunch of murderous thugs and I think the goverment is a bunch of fascists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right, who would expect a revolutionary guerrilla army to have to kill anyone? They should have started a prayer circle of nonviolent protestors to overthrow imperialism and capitalism in their country. :rolleyes:

Also, it would be nice if you could back up your claim of the Uribe government being 'fascist'.

About the ELN, they're ideology is very Christian-influenced. They have their roots in "liberation theology", so, although I support them critically over the government and imperialists I recognize the limitations of their political orientation.

[redstar2000]

Modern Echoes of 1789 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1122651577&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Guerrilla Warriors -- "Good Guys" or "Assholes"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1110072578&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:35 PM
I support neither, I think the Colombian FARC is a bunch of murderous thugs and I think the goverment is a bunch of fascists.
Its a revolution, there is going to be violence, people gnerally get killed in wars. Sometimes civillians do get killed. RIn order to obtain an actual revolution, sometimes violence is needed. Its not like when you protested the war in Iraq on the sidewalk with peace signs with your liberal friends.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Redstar you seem to share the outlook that the Mensheviks had on the issue, with slight modification. Also, your "analysis" fails where Cuba is concerned. Cuba has proved that you can build socialism, and defend the process, as the world revolutionary process grows (and sometimes receeds, as we've seen). I hardly think the "verdict is out" as you seem to proclaim, or that revolutionary may ever occur in the first world if they don't first occur in the third world.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:31 PM


FARC, is the largest of many leftist and rightist rebel wings of the Colombian insurgency.

there is no "rightist rebel wing of colombian insurgency". If you refer to the paramilitaries as "right wing rebels" as Uribe wants to show them, you are an apologist of state terrorism.


They were formed in the late 40s by the liberal party in Colombia, it was the parties millitant wing

Blatant lies. where did you get this information from? FARC has never been part of any political party in Colombia. They had ideological ties with the communist party but always acted independently. You can say that after the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan (the radical liberal presidential candidate), The conservative government "began to openly crack down on the communists and libertarians of the country" starting the bloody period known as "La Violencia" (1948-mid fifties), especially in the country side, and in response to the official agression liberals formed regional guerrillas that followed no political agenda, and often the interests of liberal landlords and burguoise politicians. After the 1957 coalition agreement between the two burguoise parties (liberal and conservative),and the peace between the parties, exploited masses in Colombia started organizing and this time the struggle wasn't against a party, but against the system. Peasants families were torn apart by the violent period and submerged in extreme poverty. They started claiming land reforms and occupying lands. Meanwhile, armed self-defense groups of communists who were organizing the peasantry had successfully established their rule in a remote region of the country. Soon the Government attacks supposed "independent republics" in an attempt to cut off the insurrectional potential of hungry armed peasants, and this is when FARC is oficially formed into a marxist guerrilla armed organization aimed at the overthrowing of burgouis state.


and if they weren't given the randsom, they captured people would be beheaded by the FARC weapon of choice, the machette
Pure bullshit, I think you are confusing them with the military and paramilitary ways, who have been waging dirty war agaisnt the colombian people for more than 50 years, the same ones that chainsaw to mutilate poor peasants; FARC kidnaped landlords, druglords and burguoise politicians who supported the dirty war.


They also sided with drug dealers and protected their farms for money help

They actually fight paramilitaries, that are partially sponsored by druglords, and protect and tax coca growing peansant as it is their only way of subsistance


Are these guys terroists? OR just another freindly marxist group?
SON EL EJERCITO DEL PUEBLO (they're the army of the people)


I support neither, I think the Colombian FARC is a bunch of murderous thugs and I think the goverment is a bunch of fascists.

need to understand and research more on the colombian conflict, indifference is not a good choice these days over here...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:49 PM
Redstar you seem to share the outlook that the Mensheviks had on the issue, with slight modification. Also, your "analysis" fails where Cuba is concerned. Cuba has proved that you can build socialism, and defend the process, as the world revolutionary process grows (and sometimes recedes, as we've seen).
Yes, there's no question but that Martov (a leading Menshevik theorist) largely anticipated the views that I developed in ignorance of his work.

It is, when you stop and think about it, a logical extension of Marx's understanding of the decisive importance of objective material conditions.

Cuba is, admittedly, "awkward" for me...it doesn't quite "fit" my analysis. If capitalism is openly restored in Cuba after Castro's retirement, then my case for the Cuban Revolution as "another 1789" would be proved.

On the other hand, if the Cubans proceeded to construct a communist society, then my thesis would be disproved in an indisputable way...and the entire Marxist paradigm shaken to its foundations.

What could we say (with any certainty) about a world in which people "could establish any social system they pleased" without regard to objective material conditions?

Recreate feudalism or hydraulic despotism? "Sure, if that's what people want!" Restore slavery? "Why not?"

It would be a decisive victory of "post-modernism" over Marxism.

"The real world is whatever we say it is!"

I find that an intellectually repugnant conclusion...and will resist it until the evidence in favor of it is indisputable.

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

[chebol]

What an excellent example of gas-bagging. It's like chewing rags in your sleep. (Surely if you see yourself in Martov you would want to buy a new mirror...)

The example of Cuba's revolution has always been subject to the laws of objective reality. The retreat in the construction of socialism during the nineties due to the collapse of the USSR, and the subsequent increase in social problems; followed by the gains that have been made in the face of this adversity are examples of this.

What was always clear, however, was that role of the revolutionary leadership and an empowered population, would be decisive- as it has been. Cuba isn't going back to anything- capitalism, or 1789- just yet, nor for a while. Hopefully, rather, it's going forward to continental revolution, alongside Venezuela.

One could also discuss the importance of internationalism to the Cuban revolution.

I'm not about to enter this debate atm, as I'm too busy, but the key problem, and why Cuba doesn't "fit" in Redstar grand theories, is because Redstar's theories (and understanding of Marxism) are wrong. I promise we'll have this debate some other time. Just not now, eh?

On Colombia, a couple of things.

There is no EZLN in Colombia- there is an ELN. Please do not confuse Colombia with Mexico.
The FARC were supporters of the UP party in the 80's (and called a ceasefire), which was immediately attacked by the right and thousands of members and candidates murdered.
The colombian state is well on the road to militaristic fascism, fueled by drugs and US military "aid". Uribe himself, the current president, was a close friend and collaborator of Pablo Escobar, and has long ties with the paramilitaries.
The FARC receive about 1.4% of profits from coca production- made through taxes, not the drug trade.
www.farcep.org

[ComradeOm]

I tend to withhold judgement on FARC not because they are not a revolutionary force but because of their, perhaps simply alleged, drug connections. To be honest as long as FARC continues to fund its activities by peddling drugs I don’t care what objectives it has. It may spit in the eye of the US but that doesn’t make me any happier about the increasing (almost globally) penetration of cocaine and crack into the working class. Whether its heroin or coke I disapprove of all such drugs and those that market them.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Come on man get real. FARC doesn't grow any drugs, they tax the ones that are being grown already. This is capitalism, there is a demand, FARC didn't fucking create it. The thousands of poor (yes poor!) coca farmers in Colombia didn't create it. You think they want all the hassles that come along with it? They're just trying to survive. If you want to be mad at someone about that shit look at the CIA and US Customs.

Anyways, the right-wing AUC paramilitaries get 80% of their funding from growing coke as opposed to about 1% for FARC-EP.

[ComradeOm]

What does it matter if FARC grow the drugs or not? They are profiting from and managing much of the drug trade in their territory.

Now I know that the "War of Drugs" is bullshit and that the US government would be much better off tackling the demand side back home. I also know that many of these farmers are so poor that they have little choice but to grow this hugely profitable drug. But none of that makes FARC the "good guys". No matter where the funding is going the white powder ends up on our streets causing serious social problems. I simply refuse to support any group that has any involvement in peddling that shit.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chebol
What an excellent example of gas-bagging. It's like chewing rags in your sleep. (Surely if you see yourself in Martov you would want to buy a new mirror...)

What an excellent example of the substitution of mindless abuse for political discussion.


I'm not about to enter this debate atm, as I'm too busy, but the key problem, and why Cuba doesn't "fit" in Redstar grand theories, is because Redstar's theories (and understanding of Marxism) are wrong.

Well, oh "busy one", when you can "spare a few moments" of "your precious time", perhaps you will explain why my "grand theories" seem to represent objective social reality everywhere except Cuba.

Not to mention the mysterious failures of "revolutionary leadership" throughout the last century.

I wonder if you will at least come up with some fresh versions of Leninist hagiography.

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

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:08 AM
I tend to withhold judgement on FARC not because they are not a revolutionary force but because of their, perhaps simply alleged, drug connections. To be honest as long as FARC continues to fund its activities by peddling drugs I don’t care what objectives it has. It may spit in the eye of the US but that doesn’t make me any happier about the increasing (almost globally) penetration of cocaine and crack into the working class. Whether its heroin or coke I disapprove of all such drugs and those that market them.
The reason FARC got into the drug trade was to be able to purchase enough weapons to adequetaly maintain their revolution. They really had no choice. The uS supplies the Colombian government with millions of dollars worth of weaponry each year. The Shon liberation army inBurma does the same thing. I don't see why people have a problem with this.

[4514]

The reason FARC got into the drug trade was to be able to purchase enough weapons to adequetaly maintain their revolution. They really had no choice. The uS supplies the Colombian government with millions of dollars worth of weaponry each year. The Shon liberation army inBurma does the same thing. I don't see why people have a problem with this.

becuz cocaine and heroin are destroying thousands of people every day.
anyperson/s who support this by any means is against the working class, not for.

i dont no if this is true but cant colombian farmers grow bananas or other alternative crops but choose to grow coca cuz its more profitable?
and/or alot of farmers are forced to grow coca instead of alternative crops?
4514
borken and dying

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Let me make a few things clear:

1. FARC doesn't grow coca.

2. FARC doesn't make people snort coke or smoke crack.

3. If coca wasn't grown in FARC territory, it would be grown else where.

4. If many farmers in South America didn't grow coca they would starve to death.

5. Farmers would still grow coca if FARC stopped taxing them.

6. FARC wouldn't be able to buy the amount of weapons it needs if it were to stop taxing coca farmers.

[ComradeOm]

I'm well aware of that CompaneroDeLibertad but to my mind it still doesn't excuse FARC's involvement in a trade which does great harm to many working class neighbourhoods. I don't really care about the extent to which FARC are involved or whether the crop would be grown elsewhere, as long as they use drug money I feel their cause is tarnished.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if FARC won the war, would they make the farmers stop growing the coca?

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:06 AM
I'm well aware of that CompaneroDeLibertad but to my mind it still doesn't excuse FARC's involvement in a trade which does great harm to many working class neighbourhoods. I don't really care about the extent to which FARC are involved or whether the crop would be grown elsewhere, as long as they use drug money I feel their cause is tarnished.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if FARC won the war, would they make the farmers stop growing the coca?
The FARC-EP do nothing but supply a substance which is in great demand. Now if one wishes to snort cocaine, what right have we to deny them this right? Like CompaneroDeLibertad said, the FARC-EP are not forcing people to do these drugs and they do so in their own free will.

I would assume that they would cease to create the drug as a means of gaining support by the rest of the world community.

Or they could stick to true Marxist ideology and let the people use cocaine if they so wished but this is the unlikely of the two.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Good thing it doesn't matter if you feel FARC is "tarnished". ;)

And no, they wouldn't stop people from farming it; but it's most likely it would decrease as agriculture would be increased to meet consumption needs. But, Bolivia doesn't stop farmers from growing under capitalism. Coca has legitimate uses, and otherwise, farmers can't get nearly enough money growing other crops any more. Don't blame them, blame the world market, blame free trade, blame governments of capitalist countries that subsidize their farmers, blame governments of capitalist countries that allow drugs to enter (and even perpetuate their use) in order to kill of "undesirables".


Or they could stick to true Marxist ideology and let the people use cocaine if they so wished but this is the unlikely of the two.

What "true Marxist ideology" would that be?

[Colombia]

The ideology to not deny or govern people based on principles created by others.

[donnie_middel1]

Ive always been a supported of the farc-ep, they are doing what they have to do in order to stay efficient, yah i may not agree with the drug trafficking etc but they need to do it so its understandable.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The ideology to not deny or govern people based on principles created by others.

That's new to me; from which of Marx's work did you derive that?