Revolutionary Terrorism

[BobKKKindle$]

I have recently been reading about the Red Army Faction group in Germany in the 1970s and the Italian Red briagdes. Both of these groups felt that conducting attacks against public officials and important figures in the ruling class could lead to a revolutionary uprising - their basis for this was that the proletariat normally conceives of the state as an institution that exists above society and independent of class interests, and that through conducting acts of terror, one could force the state to reveal its true character as a political manifestation of the economic power of the ruling class, which would in turn rid the Proletariat of their idealism and encourage a general revolutionary insurrection.

I found this premise really interesting, and would be interested to hear your views on whether the left should resume revolutionary terrorism as a tactic - is it possible that the actions of a small insurrectionary group can lead to revolution?

Information about RAF : http://www.baader-meinhof.com/gun/chapter/index.htm

[RedLenin]

All of history has shown that individual terrorism does not in any way lead to general insurrection or proletarian revolution more specifically. This is for two key reasons.

First, the state is always more powerful than terrorists. If you kill one reactionary bastard, another one will immediately take his place and may even be worse than the last one. No terrorist group will ever be able to destroy an existing state. Even if they did, it would be them that would take power, not the working class.

Second, the superstructure of capitalist society includes cultural hegemony. The proletariat of pretty much every country is infected with false consciousness, a fact that is definitely to the benefit of the bourgeoisie. If a terrorist group was to bomb a bank or a government building, the state would simply unleash a propaganda campaign against the act. Hence, the act would completely loose all propagandistic value. In fact, it would turn the masses against the group and their cause. So unless you want to turn the masess against communism, terrorism is not a good method of propaganda. The problem with the Red Army Faction is that they did not recognize the existence of cultural hegemony, aka the ideological monopoly of the bourgeoisie.

Our strength lies in the masses, and only patient explanation and strong organization will create a mass movement of the proletariat with the power to overthrow capitalism on a global scale.

[BobKKKindle$]

I accept your point on Cultural Hegemony, but what if a revolutionary group chose to destroy or even capture the means of communication, i.e. the devices with which the ruling class determines the ideas and concepts that make up the proletarian worldview? This would challenge the cultural hegemony and could even allow Socialists to put forward their own ideology on a large scale, even if this was for only a limited period of time. This would demonstrate to the proletariat that the ideas of the Bourgeoisie are not absolute and unchallenged. The prospect of controlling a single Fox News Station, even if was for only a power, is a very seductive one. Socialists cannot build independent control of the means of communication due to the monopolisation of the media by a small number of conglomerates with a limited ideological breadth, and so we must use violence to deprive the Bourgeoisie of their ideological hegemony.

I think the idea of Revolutionary Terrorism is not to directly destroy the state, but rather to develop the class consciousness of the proletariat by means of violence and challengeing the conception of the state as objective and permissive.

[freakazoid]

You would probably get more results by using terrorism to get the State to become even more totalitarianistic. By doing things to make them inact even more harsher laws until finallly the proletariat cannot take it any more. But I do not hink that this would be a very wise move right now because the State could still twists the facts around by saying that it is the terrorists fault and since they controle the media we would have no way of getting out our message to the people about why we do what we do.

Also anybody seen V for Vendetta? Or read the graphic novel?

[apathy maybe]

Firstly, any such discussion should define terrorism. The word "terrorism" should not be used because it can't be defined in such a way as to satisfy all parties. It is a word that is used to de-legitimise certain acts, while letting other acts (not defined as terrorism) go without question. You should instead use terms such as, killing of innocent civilians, killing of politicians or other ruling class members, killing of police or military or the destruction of property or similar terms. Though more cumbersome, they will be better at getting across what you mean (because of the problems with the word "terrorism"). Now that is out of the way ...

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)I found this premise really interesting, and would be interested to hear your views on whether the left should resume revolutionary terrorism as a tactic - is it possible that the actions of a small insurrectionary group can lead to revolution?[/b]It really depends on what you mean by terrorism. Killing those in power (politicians or CEOs of large companies for example) is not terrorism.

However, no I don't think that the acts of a few can lead directly to revolution. Revolution the mass uprising of the people.


Originally posted by [email protected]
First, the state is always more powerful than terrorists. If you kill one reactionary bastard, another one will immediately take his place and may even be worse than the last one. No terrorist group will ever be able to destroy an existing state. Even if they did, it would be them that would take power, not the working class.OK, I agree with the first part, but saying that the terrorist group would take power is just stupid. How could a small group of people acting outside the state structure take over the state in this modern age? Yes it is possible for a small group working with in the state to stage a coup (parts of the military for example), but not for a small group working outside and against the state. A coup takes over the state as it is, with such things as the army and police intact.



freakazoid
You would probably get more results by using terrorism to get the State to become even more totalitarianistic. By doing things to make them inact even more harsher laws until finallly the proletariat cannot take it any more. But I do not hink that this would be a very wise move right now because the State could still twists the facts around by saying that it is the terrorists fault and since they controle the media we would have no way of getting out our message to the people about why we do what we do.This idea has been used in the past. It is part of the "propaganda of the dead" idea. By making the state more totalitarian, you force it to show its true colours. There are a number of problems with this idea that I won't go into now. But I would appreciate if others did.

[BobKKKindle$]

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve one's political goals, and as such is a tactic and not an end unto-itself - even though terrorism has a negative connatation due to its association with Islamic extremism, Terrorism is simply a reaction to conditions that prevent one from realizing a poltical ideology through legitimate institutions, or in a situation in which the proletariat has not yet developed a class consciousness sufficient for a mass uprising to occur. Revolutionary Socialism cannot, by definition, be implemented within the existing political and economic system, and it should be clear that violence will have to be used in the transition to socialism - it is simply a matter of when violence occurs and the relevant importance and role of violence is one's Praxis.


Killing those in power (politicians or CEOs of large companies for example) is not terrorism.

How so? Killing a member of the ruling class is the ultimate form of violence - revolutionary praxis extended as far as possible given current positions.

[apathy maybe]

I absolutely dispute that definition of terrorism. One, it is not ever actually used, two it is far too broad (is revolution terrorism?).

The word terrorism has negative connotations because it is defined negatively. No one ever calls themselves 'terrorists' and have not done so since the start of the 20th century. The media is the reason for the negativity.

You could start to have a useful definition if you restricted it to simply attacks on innocents, however, what is an innocent? Also, states will define the word (and do so, see the US government definition) as excluding government action (which is terrorism).

[R_P_A_S]

revolutionary and terrorism should not be together in a sentence.

[Fawkes]

Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve one's political goals
No, it's the use of terror to achieve one's political goals. If you use the definition that you gave, of course terrorism is a good thing for the revolutionary because a revolution wouldn't be successful without it. But, the definition you gave is incorrect and misleading. If we are to use the generally agreed upon definition of terrorism, which is what I stated in the beginning of this post, than no, terrorism should never be a tool of the revolutionary.

[Sir_No_Sir]

Once the proletariat wakes up,violence,if you wish to call it revolutionary terrorism, it will be useful to seize funds from banks and stuff....so at the present stage in most developed nations...no