Shining Path, Red Brigade, RAF, etc. etc.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I was just watching a Discovery Channel program on communist revolution/terrorism (depending on what you like to call it).

They used Che Guevara through the whole program, showing pictures of him and quoting him and his tactics. But they were focusing mostly on groups like the Shining Path, RAF, Red Brigade, FARC and etc.

Would you agree that these groups at least started out with Che Guevara's Cuban revolution as a guide? Did they just get out of hand? Was it human frailties that caused them to break apart and degenerate?

I'm interested in what people here think about these small but violent revolutionary groups.

I'm rather partial to FARC and the Zapatistas, and I understand the Red Brigade did *some* good work before the shit hit the fan. The others seem a bit over the top to me though, with the possible exception of the Shining Path which I know very little about.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 8:59 pm on Feb. 3, 2003)

[kylie]

im now reading on Che's Guerilla Warfare :)
im not very far though, ive only now finished 'Guerilla strategy' section in his first essay. the tactics he talked about do seem quite like those of the Vietcong. But as for the Zapatista's is doesnt at all seem like their tactics, but thats probably because military isnt their first means, its just a way of protecting themselves.

[redstar2000]

I think you'd really have to study each individual group, the situation in their particular country at the time, etc. to make any kind of realistic assessment.

On the question of when it is "correct" to wage guerilla warfare, I don't think a "one size fits all" answer is possible at this time.

It would have been "easy" to dismiss Fidel and his tiny "army" as a bunch of petty-bourgeois nutballs...in 1957! Who would have predicted the wonderful victory parade into Havana in 1959?

Sometimes it's best to "wait and see"...

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Very true.

I guess what I'm fishing for is how legitimate it is for small groups to use methods deemed as "terrorism" today, such as kidnappings and assasinations....

--- G.

[Kez]

i think we have to be weary of tosspot nutters that often crop up. Guerilla warfare is not possible in Urban areas, instead direct workers control of industry and office.
There are no need for guns of the public is behind you.

The task of a revolutionary is to convince the public that this is the right thing

[deimos]

I don't know much about the shining path and the red brigade(where are this guys from?Italy?). I know soe things about the RAF. There methods were, lets say, idiotic. The ppl lived in fear of the RAF. Its no wonder that they were heavily supported by the BND...
The farc does, or at least did some good work. I don't know much about the shining path. I think that organizations like the RAF don't have any chance to be succesful.

[sin miedo]

The shining path is a Maoist insurrgency group in Peru. And from what I've heard dey crazy.

[Fabetz]

Hey TavareeshKamo, during the Ditadura here in Brasil (1964-85), there were lots of Urban Guerrilhas, and they did good works....

There's a Manual of urban Guerrilha, called "Manual do Guerrilheiro Urbano" writen by Carlos Marighela an comunist "terrorist" murdered by police during the 70's...

I have a copy of it in mey computer, but it's in portuguese...







.

(Edited by Fabetz at 3:03 am on Feb. 4, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Also, there was the Tupamaros (spelling?) which operated in Montevideo, Uruguay--Costa-Gravas made a terrific movie about them called State of Seige.

But...they were crushed by a military dictatorship.

In principle, urban guerilla warfare "ought" to be practical under some circumstances. But if you have enough popular support to make urban guerilla warfare a practical proposition, there are probably better things to do.

:cool:

[thursday night]

I suggest you all read the book "Direct Action" by Ann Hansen. Ann was one of the five freedom fighters who blew up a Litton industries building in Toronto in the early eighties. Litton was producing nuclear weapons for the American war machine.

Nobody was killed in this "terrorist" attack. In fact, Ann's freedom fighting group 'Direct Action' insured that nobody would be killed by phoning in to insure everybody left.

That is the difference between the direct action taken against capitalism by such groups as the Red Army Faction, Direct Action and others. Innocent people should never be killed, it's that simple. They don't deserve to die and they are not guilty of the crimes of capitalism. However, sometimes the working people must take matters into their own hands and fight 'fire with fire,' so to speak and take actio against capitalism however.

[Dhul Fiqar]

There was an interview in the program with some RAF and Red Brigade members (yeah, they were Italian btw). They basically said that they had believed it was justified to kill the politicians, soldiers and policemen that worked against them, as well as former Nazi officers that were never prosecuted for their warcrimes.

I tend to agree...

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 4:01 pm on Feb. 4, 2003)

[Just Joe]

armed struggle, like all wars, should always be a last resort. but in times of armed struggle, kidnappings, assasinations etc are as justified as they are in any war.

i support ETA, FARC and naturally the IRA and the Intifada. some of these 'Maoist' groups seem a bit crazy though.

[Som]

I'm rather partial to FARC and the Zapatistas

I wouldn't even put these two in the same category.

I've heard absolutly nothing good about the FARC from any source. Come out to be nothing brutal drug gangs who've lost any ideology they once had. Not quite as brutal as the right-wing paramilitaries of course, but they are still very murderous and brutal.

The zapatistas on the other hand, have been the best revolutionary army i've seen. They have a great things, and the whole army is still accountable to the actual population of chiapas through democratic assemblies. They even openly state that the people should resist them if they do kill any innocents or anything else thats.. losing track of what theyre doing.
They dont want to reach state power and so on. Sort of a humble army.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 3:58 pm on Feb. 4, 2003
There was an interview in the program with some RAF and Red Brigade members (yeah, they were Italian btw). They basically said that they had believed it was justified to kill the politicians, soldiers and policemen that worked against them, as well as former Nazi officers that were never prosecuted for their warcrimes.

I tend to agree...

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 4:01 pm on Feb. 4, 2003)


Definitely.

BTW, was their any info on the Japanese RAF?

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Just Joe on 2:37 am on Feb. 5, 2003

i support ETA, FARC and naturally the IRA and the Intifada. some of these 'Maoist' groups seem a bit crazy though.


ETA are a bunch of ultra-nationalist bastards that have nothing to do with leftist internationalism. The Basque aren't an "oppressed people" like the Palestinians, Irish, or Indigenous people of Mexico. Its just a stupid separatist movement.

I support all the others though (and the Maoists aren't "crazy").

[Just Joe]

for the last time, there is a difference between the Nationalism of an oppressed people and the jingoism of imperialist states. ETA's Nationalism is National Liberation and they are actually based on Marxist principles, but the Nationalism of, say, Germany, would be jingoistic and right wing.

and anyone who follows Mao ZeDong is crazy in my book.

[sin miedo]

Look at some of the things the Shining Path has done in Peru, they are definately not working on fully functional minds.

They basically believe that anyone who isn't a peasent just corrupts society. And they are not afraid to kill anyone who isn't a peasent. That's a little odd, don't ya think?

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Just Joe on 9:35 am on Feb. 5, 2003
for the last time, there is a difference between the Nationalism of an oppressed people and the jingoism of imperialist states. ETA's Nationalism is National Liberation and they are actually based on Marxist principles, but the Nationalism of, say, Germany, would be jingoistic and right wing.

and anyone who follows Mao ZeDong is crazy in my book.


Exactly, there is a huge difference between being freed from imperialism and ultra-nationalism (segregation and supremacy). The Basque are in no way "opressed" by the Spanish government as say the Palestinians by the Israelite government or the indigenous people by the Mexican government and have almost always been a part of Spain. ETA was never a Marxist movement, it simply appealed to marxists because it began as an opposition to Franco.

And how are Maoists "crazy" in your book? Instead of mindlessly ranting and jumping to conclusions about things, make valid arguments with proof. Maoism is the closest there is to genuine socialism because it promotes worker control over the state through democratic centralism (a key factor in any true Marxist society).

[Just Joe]

the Basques deserve there own state. every people has the right to self determinatino, if they aren't given it, they can resort to any means necessary to achieve it.

i don't know what you've been reading, but many Maoist groups are insane. you only have to look at Mao's 'great leap forward' to see his insanity. and what about the Khmer Rouge? enough said.

Maoism is the closest there is to genuine socialism because it promotes worker control over the state through democratic centralism

err...yeah. some all powerful Politburo making the entire countrys descisions for them is 'worker control'. sure.

[El Brujo]

Should minorities in every country have their "own state" then? I personally think thats fuckin ridiculous unless they are opressed by the state that they belong to as are the Palestinians or the indigenous people of Mexico. Apart from that, trying to have ones "own state" is a segregationalist idea that is against everything internationalism is about. The Basque have always been a part of Spain and were not "colonized" by the Spanish as say, the Congo was colonized by Belgium.

"you only have to look at Mao's 'great leap forward' to see his insanity."

Most of the killings in The Great Leap Forward were done by Deng Xiaopeng's henchmen. They were not authorized by Mao. Deng Xiaopeng was a capitalist roader that has nothing to do with Maoism.

"and what about the Khmer Rouge?"

What about the Khmer Rouge? They were NOT Maoists by any means. Not until Mao died did Pol Pot begin to claim he was a Maoist. Before, he had even went as far as blatantly criticizing Mao and calling him a "counterrevolutionary". If you do any amount of research, you would know this.

"some all powerful Politburo making the entire countrys descisions for them is 'worker control'. sure."

Well, the revolutionaries are WORKERS, after all. The only ones who were prosecuted in China (without counting Deng Xiaopeng's sabotage, of course) were the landowners and foreign imperialists (and they very much deserved it), not to mention they were even given the chance to redeem themselves and work for the common good. Mao's government worked for the interests of the people to advance as a society, he openly encouraged debate within the party as well as civillians rights to criticize it and make proper suggestions. That is the whole idea behind democratic centralism.

(Edited by El Brujo at 8:28 am on Feb. 6, 2003)