Terrorism and the State

[apathy maybe]

So I'm writting an essay on terrorism and if state-sponsered violence and counter-terrorism can be considered terrorism. And I come up with this gem.

Originally posted by apathy maybe
Depending on the definition used depends on whether this could be considered terrorism. If violence for political purposes is used as the criterion then, as it could be argued that as all violence committed by the state is for the purposes of defending the state, all state-sanctioned violence is political and thus terrorism. In fact, if with in violence is included restrictions on liberty, the police routinely commit acts of terrorism against the civilian population.

So I thought I would share it with you all.

[VonClausewitz]

Slight problem - Policemen and Counter-Terrorist groups aren't trying to instill fear, 'terror', and generally bring about the downfall of something. They're usually on the defensive. Protecting the general populace from subversive types. At least where I live anyway.

Unless you live in Belarus of course, in which case you could have a point. Restrictions on liberty as terrorism ? It depends entirely on what liberties are being restricted methinks.

An interesting idea though. :)

[TomRK1089]

Attempts to define terrorism recently have been vague and substanceless, usually falling back on "promoting political or ideological views through violence." In my opinion, terrorists is what the big army calls the little army. Sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it isn't.

[Ele'ill]

Let's suppose the terrorists on 9-11 assassinated the president and other key figures of American government instead of killing five thousand or more civilians. Would this be terrorism or war? If only military targets were attacked abroad, and no civilians were killed or injured it would seem to me that the media and government mouth pieces would have a hard time explaining how this is terrorism. Here's another thought, if China flew planes into the WTC towers as a declaration of war, would this be spun as terrorism? This is a stretch, but was hiroshima terrorism, war, or a relativly new phrase 'end of war'. (As if any attrocity carries merrit.)

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
as all violence committed by the state is for the purposes of defending the state, all state-sanctioned violence is political and thus terrorism.

Going from a definition of terrorism being political violence, then all violence by the state is terrorism, as all violence by the state is for the purposes of defending that state, which is political. Thus all states are terrorist states. So smash the state.

VonClausewitz: if you include in a definition of terrorism that you are trying to induce fear (by the use of violence for political purposes), then states still (in my mind) fit this. The police force and system of courts and laws are deterrents on people committing crime. The police use violence to apprehend a person who has committed a "crime", they go to jail, inducing fear in others.

TomRK1089: of course attempts to define terrorism have been vague and substanceless. Politicians and others use words depending on their political allegiances. Thus words like terrorism can not have an objective meaning, because then politicians and the media would not be able to change the meaning when they wanted to. (A Marxist I know says that terrorism can only be committed against the proletariat.)

Mari3L: if you use the definition above (political violence more or less) then war it self is terrorism. (War is terrorism, chant the socialists at the any war rally.)
I use the definition of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians (or non-combatants) for political (etc.) purposes. Thus assassination is not terrorism. This leads to the need for a new word to describe acts that are committed by non-state actors that if committed by states would be classed as war.

Nuclear bombing is terrorism, as was the bombing of Dresden and London.

[Ele'ill]

Mari3L: if you use the definition above (political violence more or less) then war it self is terrorism. (War is terrorism, chant the socialists at the any war rally.)
I use the definition of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians (or non-combatants) for political (etc.) purposes. Thus assassination is not terrorism. This leads to the need for a new word to describe acts that are committed by non-state actors that if committed by states would be classed as war.


The questions in my response were not really meant to be taken seriously. They were rather rhetorical. When two(or more) Military forces engage in combat without the injury, displacement or death of non combatants, this is war. Imagine they fly to an island, with nobody on it, and they fight. Only under these ideal condidtions can open combat be considered 'war' instead of terrorism however this obviously isn't the case. Even revolutionaries (che) were guilty. I'll edit this, I have to go atm.

[bezdomni]

Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism - Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1909/tia09.htm)

Terrorism versus Communism - Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920/dictatorvs/)

Some good essays on Terrorism from a Marxist perspective.

[apathy maybe]

Mari3L: An interesting idea. Thank you.

clownpenisanarchy: Also interesting. Kropotkin also opposed indiscriminate "terrorism". What I disagree with about Trotsky’s ideas is that the individual killing of a head of state is not counter productive. So a certain extent I agree with Bakunin’s idea that individuals acting alone are a good thing.
Anyway, that was Trotsky and "terrorism" by the proletariat, what do Marxist's think of "state-terrorism" or terrorism against the proletariat by the ruling class?

[bezdomni]

What I disagree with about Trotsky’s ideas is that the individual killing of a head of state is not counter productive.
Ironically, Trotsky was involved with a group that tried to assassinated the Czar several times, and the Red Army eventually ended up killing him anyway.


what do Marxist's think of "state-terrorism" or terrorism against the proletariat by the ruling class?
We're against it. :P

Perhaps if you made the question a bit more specific, it would be easier to answer?

[rouchambeau]

Terrorism is more than just violence, but I like where you are comming from.

[apathy maybe]

Political Violence, some say that it also has to be intended to "terrorise" or induce fear in either people not directly attacked.


Umm... a Marxist that I have talked to defines terrorism along the lines that it is violence committed against the working class, by the ruling class. I wonder if any Marxists are willing to comment on this.