left wing terrorism

[spartan]

do you think left wing terrorism is/could be good or bad for the movement. i would like both sides of the arguement.

[Matty_UK]

Bad.
Terrorism is the weapon of those without any mass support....for a socialist revolution to exist, never mind succeed, mass support must be present. Organisation of workers and industrial action is the key, and middle class terrorism only alienates potential revolutionaries.

[spartan]

yes but i am sure that some prominent russian revolutionaries argued that if the necessary conditions dont exist then they should create it via robbery and terroism etc.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:56 pm
yes but i am sure that some prominent russian revolutionaries argued that if the necessary conditions dont exist then they should create it via robbery and terroism etc.
Do you mean propoganda of the deed? That isn't really accepted as a legitimate tactic nowadays.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:56 pm
yes but i am sure that some prominent russian revolutionaries argued that if the necessary conditions dont exist then they should create it via robbery and terroism etc.
They didn't achieve anything substantial, they were a fringe minority on the left, and no-one accepts those tactics anymore other than total nuts.

[An archist]

You can not push the masses into action by terrorist tactics, it simply doesn't work.

[spartan]

yes fair enough. what if we had the support of a significant minority of the world but couldnt peacefully overthrow capitalism would a guerrilla war or any other type of war be the solution.

[freakazoid]

Terrorism is the weapon of those without any mass support

We don't have mass support.


You can not push the masses into action by terrorist tactics, it simply doesn't work.

One thing that you could do is push the government into oppressing the people even more until the people realize the true nature of governments.


what if we had the support of a significant minority of the world but couldnt peacefully overthrow capitalism would a guerrilla war or any other type of war be the solution.

Yes. I think that it will be necessary here.

There is also

I'm not saying that we should be blowing people up, just buildings, and walls that would separate us.

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world. " V from V for Vendetta

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:54 pm


Terrorism is the weapon of those without any mass support

We don't have mass support.
And terrorist tactics aren't going to change that, for sure.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:54 pm
We don't have mass support.


True for now.

But when a Revolution is ready to occur, in theory the support of the masses is required.

Terrorism won't fix that anyway.

[guerilla E]

Terrorism and militancy should not be confused.
The media does a good job at blurring the lines about this already;
We would require a clear definition about left wing terrorism and left wing militancy.
Acts of violence or destruction can achieve long term goals, providing the individuals were cold enough to sacrifice sections of their own movement (which is not theirs to sacrifice anyway).

[freakazoid]

And terrorist tactics aren't going to change that, for sure.

When I talk about terroristic tactics it does not include the killing of innocents.


Terrorism won't fix that anyway.

It may not be the end all, but I believe that it will be required.

[bezdomni]

No. terrorism grows out of the same tendency as economism - the subservience to sponteneity.

A revoltionary movement will not grow out of terrorism. It will, at best, achieve some immediate short-term goals...and at worst, get everybody in your organization arrested and alienate the masses.

[Zero]

Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism.

It doesn't matter what you say you are, if you're killing innocent people, you're killing innocent people.

[freakazoid]

A revoltionary movement will not grow out of terrorism.

"Terrorism" would grow out of the revolutionary movement. If we do have some sort of revolutionary movement you can be sure that the media and the government would be calling us terrorists.


It will, at best, achieve some immediate short-term goals

True, this is why I say that it would not be the end all.


get everybody in your organization arrested

That could happen without the "terrorism".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Terrorism, even when it doesn't involve killing anyone, provides capitalists with a wonderful excuse to repress the working class, increase exploitation, and drum up nationalist fervor. It is extremely counter-productive for any revolutionary struggle.

In fact, terrorist actions can sometimes benefit the ruling class so much that the ruling class itself sees it necessary to stage fake terrorist attacks. (Reichstag Fire, anyone?)

[freakazoid]

Terrorism, even when it doesn't involve killing anyone, provides capitalists with a wonderful excuse to repress the working class, increase exploitation, and drum up nationalist fervor.

Which would eventually help the people to wake up and realize the true nature of governments.

[Dr Mindbender]

how many successful revolutions have there been so far as a result of terrorism?
Zip.
Why should we start believing that it will work in the future?

Im not entirely in favour of violence, per se. When a revolution comes, it will have to be through the consensus, (if possible peaceful) of the majority. Once you lose that majority support it ceases to be a revolution and becomes a coup de' etat.
History has shown that violence by in large alienates that support base.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:29 pm
Which would eventually help the people to wake up and realize the true nature of governments.
Be careful what you wish for. Yes, a repressive government will create discontent - people will be more likely to want a revolution and to start a revolution - but it will also make it harder for people to actually organize and carry out that revolution, even if they want to.

So, government repression = more popular support, but less chances of success after the revolution starts.

Besides, you might not even get increased popular support if the propaganda machine successfully persuades people that a repressive government is less bad than those "crazy revolutionaries" blowing stuff up.

[Dr Mindbender]

i wouldnt particulary like to see comrades getting hassled at airports in much the same way that muslim men are at the moment. The closer the left can stay to mainstream debate the better.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:00 pm
Im not entirely in favour of violence, per se.
No Revolutionary should be. The only reason why any Anti-Capitalist should support violent Revolution is because theoritically the State will definitely use violence no matter our action.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ+August 18, 2007 11:35 pm--> (ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ @ August 18, 2007 11:35 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:00 pm
Im not entirely in favour of violence, per se.
No Revolutionary should be. The only reason why any Anti-Capitalist should support violent Revolution is because theoritically the State will definitely use violence no matter our action. [/b]
if the army join our side (as happened in 1917 in Russia) then its entirely possible that any aggressive resistance would have the sense to surrender quietly. If the beourgiouse employ the use of fash boot boys however (who will never be won over) then I could support the use of force.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:56 pm
yes but i am sure that some prominent russian revolutionaries argued that if the necessary conditions dont exist then they should create it via robbery and terroism etc.
False. You're an "elitist provocateur". :P

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:40 pm
the army join our side
Is that necassarily likely?...at all?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ+August 18, 2007 11:55 pm--> (ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ @ August 18, 2007 11:55 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:40 pm
the army join our side
Is that necassarily likely?...at all? [/b]
it depends on the circumstances. If the general population are in revolutionary fervour, then theres no reason why not. They are after all, working class.

[freakazoid]

but it will also make it harder for people to actually organize and carry out that revolution, even if they want to.

Which is why we need to be preparing now. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...60&hl=Nazi&st=0 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl=Nazi&st=0)


Besides, you might not even get increased popular support if the propaganda machine successfully persuades people that a repressive government is less bad than those "crazy revolutionaries" blowing stuff up.

True but, again, this is why we need to be actively working now. Like what the BPP had done, they had support of the community.


If the beourgiouse employ the use of fash boot boys however (who will never be won over) then I could support the use of force.

Which if I was a betting person I would bet that that is what is going to happen.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 18, 2007 11:57 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 18, 2007 11:57 pm)
Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ@August 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:40 pm
the army join our side
Is that necassarily likely?...at all?
it depends on the circumstances. If the general population are in revolutionary fervour, then theres no reason why not. They are after all, working class. [/b]
I agree with you on that, we had a discussion two nights ago about how about 90% of the military is Proletarian.

But though they are Proles, and since there is no draft, most join to "defend their country and our freedom" and therefore they are usually Right Wingers with the same Anti-Communist attitude as the politicians that fuck them over.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ+August 18, 2007 11:59 pm--> (ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ @ August 18, 2007 11:59 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:57 pm

Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ@August 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:40 pm
the army join our side
Is that necassarily likely?...at all?
it depends on the circumstances. If the general population are in revolutionary fervour, then theres no reason why not. They are after all, working class.
I agree with you on that, we had a discussion two nights ago about how about 90% of the military is Proletarian.

But though they are Proles, and since there is no draft, most join to "defend their country and our freedom" and therefore they are usually Right Wingers with the same Anti-Communist attitude as the politicians that fuck them over. [/b]
people are individuals by nature, and they have their own loyalties. Hell, a lot of people who join the army dont even buy into the 'defend your country' crap and are doing it merely because theres no life opportunities in civie street and simply want a bed with 3 square meals. That said, there will be a line drawn and those who put their devotion to the people will stand up to those standing up for the beourgiouse. Some people have their own interpretation of 'patriotism' which isnt always in the right wing context.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 19, 2007 12:02 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 19, 2007 12:02 am)
Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ@August 18, 2007 11:59 pm

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:57 pm

Originally posted by ÁÒØâÕà ±ÐÑãèÚØ@August 18, 2007 11:55 pm

Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 11:40 pm
the army join our side
Is that necassarily likely?...at all?
it depends on the circumstances. If the general population are in revolutionary fervour, then theres no reason why not. They are after all, working class.
I agree with you on that, we had a discussion two nights ago about how about 90% of the military is Proletarian.

But though they are Proles, and since there is no draft, most join to "defend their country and our freedom" and therefore they are usually Right Wingers with the same Anti-Communist attitude as the politicians that fuck them over.
people are individuals by nature, and they have their own loyalties. Hell, a lot of people who join the army dont even buy into the 'defend your country' crap and are doing it merely because theres no life opportunities in civie street and simply want a bed with 3 square meals. That said, there will be a line drawn and those who put their devotion to the people will stand up to those standing up for the beourgiouse. Some people have their own interpretation of 'patriotism' which isnt always in the right wing context. [/b]
Ya got me there. I agree on all sides.

[Dublin Red]

I believe that some sort of campaign could work or at least draw more attention to the movement and its idealogies. An example would be the increase in Islamic terrorism over the last 6 or so years has caused people to explore Islam more than they would have during a period when there was not as much Islamic terrorism.

Although i do not agree with the murder of innocent people I think some sort of military attacks against capatilist and possibly government targets would be welcome as long as there was as little civilian casualties as possible.

[Coggeh]

I disagree . Attacks like this only promote a hatred of the left and not an understanding .

The way to win the people over is to better life for them by fighting for them and defending their rights on the ground .

[freakazoid]

The way to win the people over is to better life for them by fighting for them and defending their rights on the ground .

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...60&hl=Nazi&st=0 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl=Nazi&st=0) :D

[Herman]

Take ETA. They're not getting anywhere really.

[spartan]

one of the results of islamic terrorism in the west is that westerners like a previous poster said are exploring/researching islam more. hell look at the huge numbers of western converts to islam. would they have been intrested if the whole islamic terrorism thing hadnt come about? some times terrorism works both ways in other words it alienates some whilst it may attract others. maybe the same would result from left wing terrorism?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:26 pm
do you think left wing terrorism is/could be good or bad for the movement. i would like both sides of the arguement.
Depends on whether or not we look good doing it.

[Idola Mentis]

Everything's terrorism these days. I think there are situations where violent resistance is legitimate, but those situations generally involve a revolution, a rather extreme state of exception.

As for the Jihadist style of terrorism: If the Iraq war has thaught us anything, it is that messing up civilian infrastructure equals sawing off the branch you're sitting on. Doing it deliberately is incredibly fucking stupid in almost any imaginable situation. If you do it, you better be sure there's no other alternative. And doesn't it seem preferable to have a nice new branch ready, rather than hit the ground hard?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:54 am

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world. " V from V for Vendetta
You do realize that you are getting your political ideas from a Hollywood B-film right?

Let me guess, at one point in time your signature contained: "The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is - you DO NOT talk about Fight Club. -- Tyler Durden

:lol:

[NorthStarRepublicML]

do you think left wing terrorism is/could be good or bad for the movement. i would like both sides of the arguement.

i would say that "terrorism" as it is currently understood in popular culture is throughly negative, however since the US led "War on Terror" many other nations have adopted the term "terrorism" to identify hostile groups (which actually assists in their relations with the US and allies) ... Somalian warlords, just a couple of months ago were defined by the US as an Anti-Terror group and supplied with weapons to defeat the "terrorist" Islamic Courts ... i was listening to one of the warlords spokespeople and he sounded like a republican, throwing around 9-11 and War on Terror rhetoric ... it was strange.

so if you mean killing innocent people or destroying buildings and services to inspire "terror" in a population .. then i would say that is bad ...

those type of actions are spectacular and scary, thus people are going to talk about them, they are going to inspire people to act in the same way ... but that is not necessarily good ... because that ensures that political movements that would otherwise be led or composed of responsible and level-headed individuals are led by and composed of persons that are accustomed or accepting of fear-mongering and the use of political violence to rule by terror ....

I personally would not want to see a government led by persons who had committed acts of terror to achieve governance


one of the results of islamic terrorism in the west is that westerners like a previous poster said are exploring/researching islam more.

yes, obviously true ... six years ago most people in the west did not know the difference between Sunni and Shiite ... not that we are much better off now but Islam has indeed been injected into western thoughts (i mean aside from being the bad guys in action movies)

it is a natural response to attempt to understand things that scare you .... the unknown is often frightening, i would say that the response by Americans to Islam (at least recently) has been varied ... major trends being an increase in study to better understand and thus de-mystify the climate of fear that has been created by media, polticians, and terrorists. The other trend is one of rejection, instead of attempting to understand they work to strengthen their own beliefs, either a belief in Christian superiority or American (or larger Western) nationalism.

I want to be clear here when i say that an increase in the study of Islam by westerners does not imply sympathy or solidarity of any kind, often the act of studying Islam and understanding it is merely a response to fear ... although it may lead to a greater understanding of the political history of traditionally Muslim nations and the material conditions that led to violent expressions such as terrorism ...

thus while terrorism may attract some to contribute to the political cause in question, it often attracts the wrong sort, and always engenders anger and hate.


some times terrorism works both ways in other words it alienates some whilst it may attract others. maybe the same would result from left wing terrorism?

terrorism by left or right (in my opinion) is just simply not worth it ...

however i am not opposed to liberation actions or the bearing of arms for defense or otherwise.

but often what is most important is what the media calls "spin control" or what we would understand is propaganda.

[Idola Mentis]

You do realize that you are getting your political ideas from a Hollywood B-film right?

Oh come on. Can't you just beat the shit out of something smaller than you? Why go online to have your tantrums?

Alan Moore may be a complete lunatic, but he does spout some interesting stuff from time to time.

Not sure if that quote's in the comic, though.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 22, 2007 02:17 pm
Oh come on. Can't you just beat the shit out of something smaller than you? Why go online to have your tantrums?

Alan Moore may be a complete lunatic, but he does spout some interesting stuff from time to time.

Not sure if that quote's in the comic, though.
Pretty soon they will be casting for the third season; you should give them a call.

Take off your cape and boogie down, jack. (http://www.nashentertainment.com/television/superhero2/)

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 22, 2007 10:50 pm
Take off your cape and boogie down, jack. (http://www.nashentertainment.com/television/superhero2/)
I dislike that show.

[freakazoid]

You do realize that you are getting your political ideas from a Hollywood B-film right?

So? Does it really matter where ideas come from? If they speak the truth then what does it matter where they come from. Also you do realize that the movie is based off of a graphic novel, and the TV part in that is much much better than the one in the movie.


Let me guess, at one point in time your signature contained: "The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is - you DO NOT talk about Fight Club. -- Tyler Durden

Never seen it, :(

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by freaky deaky+--> (freaky deaky)So? Does it really matter where ideas come from?[/b]

Yes, it does.

Leftist thought is derived from theories that are grounded in reality.


minimao
I dislike that show.

Your application got turned down huh?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Leftist thought is derived from theories that are grounded in reality.

well there are several sources of leftist thought that are fictional ... take the book The Monkey Wrench Gang which is the inspiration for Earth First ...

yes, leftist thought is grounded in reality ....

but is it not possible that certain authors are able to apply these theories against a fictional backdrop?

consider Animal Farm ...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:41 pm

well there are several sources of leftist thought that are fictional ... take the book The Monkey Wrench Gang which is the inspiration for Earth First ...

yes, leftist thought is grounded in reality ....

but is it not possible that certain authors are able to apply these theories against a fictional backdrop?

consider Animal Farm ...
Fictional fantasies are not leftist thought.

They're merely fictional fantasies that have no more relevance to the left than Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

[freakazoid]

So Animal Farm is JUST a fictional fantasy? Is the communist manifesto just a fictional fantasy? After all, it is just a book that someone wrote.

[Capital Punishment]

Just because an idea is derived from fiction doesn't make it any less relevant. People can make any idea a reality through action. An idea is simply an idea, equally useless regardless of the source, until someone stands behind it to make it happen. Does it really matter if it comes from a political manifesto or a Disney movie if it's relevant to someone's cause?

[settlefornothin]

For anyone to say that terrorism is counterrevolutionary, has anyone considered looking at a few historical examples? South Africa comes to mind when Mandela and others formed the armed wing of the ANC with the south african communist party called the MK or "Spear of the Nation." Last time I checked apartheid was overthrown (although capitalism wasn't). Terrorism can work if utilized correctly. Consider the Weather Underground, they never took an innocent life but did numerous bombings against the government. Terrorism without killing, to me at least, seems like a possibly good tactic for several reasons. Namely, that if you are carrying out terrorist attacks against property and other sites of political importance and it is well known that you don't kill people and go out of your way not to kill, then it begins to make people think: if they're goal isn't murder, what is it? And if you can make people think about your objectives without essentializing them to murder, then at least you are making the people think. plus if your stated goal isn't death, it's one less slander campaign the media can mount against you.

As for terrorism being capable of inspiring the masses toward revolution, I think it could work. Personally, I know that if a group or several groups were doing terrorist attacks in my area (North Eastern USA) it would be the spark (iskra, haha) that would make me either go out and join those groups, or commit my own actions in solidarity. In this way terrorism won't be able to make a person who has never thought about politics all of a sudden become revolutionary, however, for someone like me and many of us on this forum it might just be the thing that would get us out from behind our computers and out in the streets.

As for violence, personally I hope that when the revolution comes, it is violent. Call me what you will but I would look forward to lining up all the CEO's, politicians, the generals, bankers, sweatshop owners/managers, etc. against the wall and taking care of them. A revolution can never succeed without the counterrevolutionaries being properly neutralized, Allende's Chile, for example, only proves this correct.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm
So Animal Farm is JUST a fictional fantasy?
Yes it is.


Is the communist manifesto just a fictional fantasy? After all, it is just a book that someone wrote.

Good grief.

If you don't know the difference between the novel "Animal Farm" and the political theory "The Manifest of the Communist Party" then I can't help you.

No one can.

[OcelotAdaska]

Terroism is allways a bad thing, Unless used against milatary , Not citizens.
Because innocent people get hurt, And the most common victems of it are the working class anyway, as it is an warfare directed directly against citizens,

I think that its fine against milatary targets, Because they train for that..
And their ment to deal with it/.
That may sound weird, i admit.. But i feel if you join the Army/Navy/Airforce, no matter what country it is, thats the risk you take, and you are agreeing to be in the line of fire. ;S

[Capital Punishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:20 pm
I think that its fine against milatary targets
Well, it still will result only in a blemish of the leftist image. Our future relies on evolutionary changes within society. A revolution will only be made possible with enough public support, and hopefully, when that time comes, bloodshed will be minimal.

[guerilla E]

Left Wing Terrorism is Bad.

Left Wing Militancy is Good.

Mmmmkay?

No seriously though, the definition of Terrorism (not the Fox News definition that it is Angry Arabs) is attacks directed towards specific civilian targets. They also include attacks specific to civilian targets for maximum casualties, or logistical strikes against civilian networks.

Militaristic strikes are not covered by acts of 'terrorism', they are an element of guerilla warfare. Attacks against military industry is not terrorism. Attacks against military personal is not terrorism. Blowing up an aparment block is terrorism. Get the idea?

Left Wing Terrorism, by the way, is a term invented by Right Wing Media (terrorist by definition; spreading chaos and panic through civic life).

Left Wing Militancy is armed struggle against counter-revolutionary elements, it is not fighting a civilian population. Militancy can encompass tactical strikes or actions against enemy elements; to cause confusion or panic etc.

I do think that we need to support a distinction, a clean one, between terrorism and militancy because most media sources are trying to blur that line.

[spartan]

i now think that sabotage is much better and much more effective than terrorism ever could be especially after reading Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare.