What is "propaganda of the deed"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

OK, so I know that what the anarchists call "propaganda of the deed" is in fact terrorism, but the reason why I ask this question is because of the modern phenomenon known as "cyber-terrorism"? What actions are considered "cyber-terrorism," and would the Bolsheviks themselves have been considered "cyber-terrorists" if they did a modern equivalent of a bank or train robbery (one of their many ways of raising funds for their newspapers)?

[Clarksist]

OK, so I know that what the anarchists call "propaganda of the deed" is in fact terrorism

No, you don't know that because it's incorrect.

Propaganda of the deed means carrying out serious revolutionary action instead of talking about it. Not using violence to create terror.


What actions are considered "cyber-terrorism,"

Using hacking and computer technology to create actual violence.


and would the Bolsheviks themselves have been considered "cyber-terrorists" if they did a modern equivalent of a bank or train robbery (one of their many ways of raising funds for their newspapers)?

No, because a bank robbery or a train robbery aren't using hacking and computer technology to create actual violence.

[which doctor]

OK, so I know that what the anarchists call "propaganda of the deed" is in fact terrorism
Propaganda of the deed is committing an action, and believing the propaganda of that action is in fact more powerful than the action itself. The action in question can really be anything. Assassination was popular at the turn of the 20th century. Take for instance the murder of a president. While it's just killing a single man, and another will take his place, the belief was that the masses would be influenced by this and rise up themselves. Terrorism, while an incredibly muddled word to begin with, is the use of violence to incite fear. Propaganda of the deed is action used to incite passion.


What actions are considered "cyber-terrorism," and would the Bolsheviks themselves have been considered "cyber-terrorists" if they did a modern equivalent of a bank or train robbery (one of their many ways of raising funds for their newspapers)?
I'm not sure if I completely understand you. I guess if a large and popular reactionary website was hacked and defaced, and money was possibly stolen from it. It could be called cyber-terrorism if their was some sort of political motive.

[ComradeOm]

As FoB points out, propaganda of the deed is not merely terrorism but the idea that a single act of terrorism can incite a popular revolt. It was only really popular amongst anarchists during the mid-19th C but its continued failure was quickly obvious. Despite this it continues to surface every now and again even today.

Propaganda of the deed was overwhelmingly abandoned by even the most radical socialists in the late-19th C as Marx's theories of class struggle became increasingly popular. Most anarchist theorists followed suit shortly afterwards, although the image of the bomb throwing anarchist had already become ingrained in popular culture. Today its accepted that while there is nothing wrong with cyber-terrorism, for example, in furthering revolutionary aims, it is incorrect to assume that this act of terrorism is enough in itself to cause a revolution.

[gilhyle]

I think - but Im happy to be corrected - that the correct phrase is 'propagansa BY deed'.

In addition to being popular among anarchists of a certain type in the late 19th century, it also approximates to the view of the German Red Army Faction and the Japanese Red Army. The underlying idea is that the fundamental obstacle to reolution is not material conditions splitting up the working class, nor is it taken to be the compromised leadership of the organisations of the working class. Rather - I generalise here - is taken to be the lack of imagination and lack of indignation of the working class.

It is very close to the idea that the working class needs to suffer police oppression and this will enliven it to act. This view was articulated by the RAF and splits from it in the 1970s.

The concept of 'terrorism' is so debased that it is now without much meaning so the question can hardly be answered. If the term were taken seriously it would involve the idea that people act because they are 'terrorised' That is different from people acting because they refuse to be terrorised.

Ironically, trying to determine the course of political events by terror is much more common on the right. Death Squads are the classic example. The state policy in the Algerian civil war recently is one of the most successful examples as was the actions of the contras in Nicaragua. What one of the things that surely differentiates Islamic fundamentalists is a belief that the west is weak and therefore susceptible to being terrorised into certain actions. Others might be better placed to comment whether Maoist guerrilla groups have fallen into exemplary terror tactics in rural areas. I suspect they have and -if unsympathetic accounts are to be believed - only echo Mao's approach in this regard.

Logically it should be more effective for a State to rely on terror than any informal grouping. The threat from the State is credible. Thus if it indicates a willingness to engage in arbitrary actions of violence, it is credible that it will repeat this and that you or those known to you will suffer. By contrast, terror threats from guerrilla groups lack credibility as they are not replicable at will. Establishment politicians can easily make credible speeches refusing to be terrorised.

The modern concept of terrorism might best be understood as a straw man invented by capitalist politicians so that they can defie it. Few of those who take up arms against states really believe that they can terrorise States or populations into action They usually have more conventional strategies of taking and holding terrirotory.

Having said that, the suicide bomber campaign by Hamas in Israel may fall into this category, but the ambiguity of Hamas in their commitment to that strategy reflects the fact that it lacks credibility.

Propaganda by Deed is something quite different. Maybe its most signficant form was the actions of PLO groups in the 1970s, particularly the munich olympics action designed to highlight the plight of palestinians. This differed from classic propaganda by deed in being addressed not to those who one desired to rise up but ratther to those from whom one wished sympathy - i.e. the general populace of Europe.

[Janus]

Propaganda of the deed (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64242)


What actions are considered "cyber-terrorism,"
Any action that involves the use of computers and Internet to disrupt computer systems or other electronic systems and thus cause damage of some sort.

The Bolsheviks would be considered cyber criminals if they pulled off a bank heist electronically.

[RGacky3]

Its been mentioned before, but its the idea that a smal act, such as blowing up a building, killing a leader, or whatever will enbolden workers to revolt, in technical terms it is in a way terrorism, but not at all the way people think of terrorism in todays world, i.e. in the past Anarchists have been very careful not to hurt civilians, although not Anarchist, the weathermen could be considered a group that used this theory.

I think its still relevent, but very limited and it can backfire easily, obviously it depends on the situation, but Direct Action through worker self-organization is the best way to go about it, propagando of the deep may be useful later on, but generally without a strong worker movement behind it its useless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:09 pm
Propaganda of the deed (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64242)


What actions are considered "cyber-terrorism,"
Any action that involves the use of computers and Internet to disrupt computer systems or other electronic systems and thus cause damage of some sort.

The Bolsheviks would be considered cyber criminals if they pulled off a bank heist electronically.
One no vote and one yes vote, so far. But what makes such actions "terrorist" as opposed to hacking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-terrorism

Pulling off an electronic bank heist (mere $$$) is far different from what some Chinese did to the White House website before the 9/11 attacks.

[RGacky3]

I don't think "Cyber-Terrorism" (If there can be such a thing) could be considered Propaganda of the Deed, unless it was highly publicised and had a clear class motive.

[Janus]

But what makes such actions "terrorist" as opposed to hacking?
The term hacking is only used to describe the method used while terrorism refers to some sort of overall political goal or motive.