When does armed insurgency go too far?

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Simple question:-

When does an armed insurgency, in your opinion, go too far? Can it go too far, or are all of its actions justified?

I am interested to know as I was speaking to some of my friends last night, and we eventually gave up on this subject because we could not agree.

[drain.you]

Are you talking about an insurgency in particular?
The revolution will be insurgency as such, judging by the wikipedia defination:

An insurgency is an organized rebellion that engages in deliberate actions to cause the downfall of a governmental authority, through destruction and armed actions

I suppose 'going too far' could consist of killing/raping/torturing innocent civilians. I mean, it wouldn't be right for people to do those things under the name of the revolution and if that began to happen we would have to take serious disciplinary action if possible.

I believe the revolution will be violent but we must strive to save as much life as possible.

It depends on the nature of the insurgent group as to what is acceptable, for instance communist insurgents have different morals and ideals than say Iraqi insurgents. Its a matter regarding your stance on something as to what actions can and cannot be justified.

[Guerrilla22]

A movement has only gone too far when the people within the movement sell out the original ideology behind the movement.

[Atlas Swallowed]

When the oppressed become the oppressors.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

When the oppressed [workers] become the oppressors [of the bourgeoisie] that's called victory.

[which doctor]

I think he means when the oppressed [insurgents] become the oppressors [of the common man]. They start out as the commoner fighting for their freedom. Then they win, rise up to power, and become no better then the people they had fought earlier. Example: the first American Revolution

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 16 2005, 05:48 PM
I think he means when the oppressed [insurgents] become the oppressors [of the common man]. They start out as the commoner fighting for their freedom. Then they win, rise up to power, and become no better then the people they had fought earlier. Example: the first American Revolution
I wouldn't say that's a good example. The leaders of the American revolution, the people who became the oppressors afterwards, were just as much oppressors prior to the war.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right, because the US Revolution was a bourgeois revolution as opposed to a proletarian one.

[Delirium]

You have to always remember that absolutle power corrupts absolutley.
As long as you dont concentrate power amoung a small group, the corruption of ideals will not occur rapidly.

[novemba]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 16 2005, 06:48 PM
I think he means when the oppressed [insurgents] become the oppressors [of the common man]. They start out as the commoner fighting for their freedom. Then they win, rise up to power, and become no better then the people they had fought earlier. Example: the first American Revolution
you mean like the cuban revolution?

that's right CdL, the cuban revolution.

[Correa]

Originally posted by novemba+Nov 16 2005, 09:36 PM--> (novemba @ Nov 16 2005, 09:36 PM)
Fist of [email protected] 16 2005, 06:48 PM
I think he means when the oppressed [insurgents] become the oppressors [of the common man]. They start out as the commoner fighting for their freedom. Then they win, rise up to power, and become no better then the people they had fought earlier. Example: the first American Revolution
you mean like the cuban revolution?

that's right CdL, the cuban revolution. [/b]
What's your beef with the Cuban Revolution? :cuba: :che: :angry: :castro: :cuba:

[novemba]

so much to learn. lemme just make my complete statement on the issue to avoid a debate...

the cuban revolution was 1)more or less a maoist revolution 2)unsuccesful 3)lead by leaders and not the people 4)che and fidel are/were both AT LEAST petite-bourgeosie 5)cuba now is far from what marx ever perceived 6) i could go forever

to get past the negative stuff

it did a lot for the cuban people from 1959-now, is much better than the US democratically and socially, but after the fidel dies i can almost guarentee you it will revert back to capitalism and delay the real revolution forever

OR

the faith i have in the cuban people is proven correct and the move farther to the left, like an actual workers state...with councils and comittees and everything it should be...but well see...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

so much to learn.

I don't think you're in a position to tell anyone they have "so much to learn".


lemme just make my complete statement on the issue to avoid a debate...

Why would you want to "avoid a debate"? That's what this board is for.

I'll take your points out of order for logic's sake.


the cuban revolution was 1)more or less a maoist revolution 3)lead by leaders and not the people 4)che and fidel are/were both AT LEAST petite-bourgeosie

It was "lead" by "leaders"? Yeah, that's usually what leaders do, lead. Where did those "leaders" come from? Aren't they a part of the "people" (what "people" anyway? Capitalists are people right?)?

Do you even know who the "leaders" of the 26-July where? Juan Almeida was a mulatto brick-layer who became a commander after proving himself as a soldier in the rebel army. Camillo Cienfuegos came from a poor peasant background!

Che and Fidel both left comfortable backgrounds to join the revolution. Che travelled Latin America, giving free medical care and working whatever job he could find while living as a vagrant! Fidel was so poor before July 26th that his furniture was repossesed!

Hell, among the first lands the revolution seized were that of Fidel's father!

The rebel army was 3,000 strong, made up almost entirely of peasants and workers.

And you contradict yourself anyway. "Maoists revolutions" consist of peasants taking up guerrilla war, no? If that's not based in "the people" what is?

Mao was surely one of the first to show the potential of landless peasants, and if anything the Cuban revolution improved upon that. The rebel army was tied in with the urban proletariat. It was after all a general strike in Habana that delivered one of the final blows to Batista.


2)unsuccesful

In what sense could that possibly be said? Cuba is the last bastion of socialism on earth! The tiny island nation has stood up to the greatest superpower the world has ever known for 46 years!


5)cuba now is far from what marx ever perceived

So is the world in many ways. What's your point?


6) i could go forever

Would you ever say anything meaningful if you did, or would it be more of this shit?


it did a lot for the cuban people from 1959-now, is much better than the US democratically and socially, but after the fidel dies i can almost guarentee you it will revert back to capitalism and delay the real revolution forever

You make this assertion on what basis?


the faith i have in the cuban people is proven correct and the move farther to the left, like an actual workers state...

So if the workers don't control the Cuban state right now, what class does?


with councils and comittees and everything it should be...but well see...

You mean like the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, National, Provincial, and Local levels of Peoples Power, Cuban Federation of Women, etc?

[Creature]

the cuban revolution was 1)more or less a maoist revolution 3)lead by leaders and not the people 4)che and fidel are/were both AT LEAST petite-bourgeosie



It was "lead" by "leaders"? Yeah, that's usually what leaders do, lead. Where did those "leaders" come from? Aren't they a part of the "people" (what "people" anyway? Capitalists are people right?)?

Novemba sounds more or less like an Anarchist. The problem when a revolution is lead by a person or persons, those particular people come into a lot of power, and like it. They then don't wish to give up their power, and place themselves in some position of power in the new government. Thos eleaders are then corrupted by the power they wished to abolish.

Once the leaders establish themselves as leaders, they are no longer a part of the people. Make no mistake, you can have temporary leaders, but set leaders are become corrupt.

[drain.you]

Novemba sounds more or less like an Anarchist
Since you only have 19 posts I guess you are new around here so I'll let you in on a little secret; comrade Novemba is not an anarchist, he is just a jerk.

[Commie Rat]

tee hee hee
Novemba is just a little confused

now the world hasn't gone exactally the way marx predicted so cuba is not socialist

<_<

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 03:40 AM

Novemba sounds more or less like an Anarchist
Since you only have 19 posts I guess you are new around here so I&#39;ll let you in on a little secret; comrade Novemba is not an anarchist, he is just a jerk.
Agreed.

Oh shit, I didn&#39;t even noticed he was banned. Well, bravo then&#33;

[viva le revolution]

When the concept of armed struggle over-shadows the political objective.