supporting FARC

[spartan]

dont you think chavez of venezuala, castro of cuba and morales of bolivia should give clandestine support (such as giving weapons, money, etc) to farc in colombia? or do they already do this?

[Faux Real]

That would give the US reason to invade and overthrow the governments of those countries for supporting known terrorists; installing their own puppet regime. No.

[spartan]

first of all the us could never get the support it needs for such a project. secondly the us does not have the will to invade three or four large nations whose majority population is anti us. the resulting guerilla war and the huge casualties suffered by the yankees would make the us more politically unstable then in the vietnam war days! thirdly what reason would they give for the invasion? "three nations supported by the majority of its populations is giving support to a group who have never done anything to us before so we are going to invade and cost thousands of your sons and daughters lives just like we did in iraq" the fact is vietnam, iraq and afghanistan have teached the us a valuable lesson that direct military action to create regime change to a pro us government simply does not work.

[Faux Real]

the fact is vietnam, iraq and afghanistan have teached the us a valuable lesson that direct military action to create regime change to a pro us government simply does not work.
Great examples of what you are willing to see. :rolleyes:

Why offer hundreds of thousands of deaths in turn for supporting an unpopular resistance movement? What would they gain from it? Nothing!

Furthermore, those countries [small] movements towards socialism will be set back. It is simply not worth the exchange.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Evo Morales is no communist. He is a reformist and has no interest in seeing a successful communist revolution in Colombia.

As for Venezuela and Cuba, there have long been accusations that they are supporting FARC. I won't weigh in on that, but you can research the question and see what you can find. It should be noted that FARC is supportive of both socialist Cuba and the process taking place in Venezuela.

Finally, calling FARC 'unpopular' is just inaccurate. It also doesn't address the key question, which is: unpopular amongst whom?

There are threads on FARC linked in 'topics of frequent discussion' thread stickied in this forum. You may want to check them out.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 02, 2007 08:32 pm
Evo Morales is no communist.
And the FARC are?

Luís Henrique

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes.. and a lot more so than people that mechanically wait for material conditions to bring about communism 'some day in the future' and argue against the arming of the working class in the face of some of the most violent and repressive ruling classes in world history.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+September 02, 2007 06:53 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ September 02, 2007 06:53 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 02, 2007 08:32 pm
Evo Morales is no communist.
And the FARC are?

Luís Henrique [/b]
yes yes the FARC are

[RNK]

IIRC the FARC-EP started as the military wing of the Communist Party of Colombia, and then split at some point in the 60s or 70s. Although their ideology remains Marxist-Leninist, they are more focused on guerilla resistance rather than political power. In a sense they are somewhat "Guevarist" as opposed to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, in reference to the focus on military resistance instead of political resistance.

[RGacky3]

As well as protect drug runners, and terrorize peolpe that don't support them, obviously the Paramilitaries do this much much much more, it still does'nt excuse farc.

the Latin AMerican Social Democrats supporting someone like Farc would destroy their PR, then they would be painted as supporting drug running terrorists, not social revolutoinaries.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:10 am
As well as protect drug runners, and terrorize peolpe that don't support them, obviously the Paramilitaries do this much much much more, it still does'nt excuse farc.

the Latin AMerican Social Democrats supporting someone like Farc would destroy their PR, then they would be painted as supporting drug running terrorists, not social revolutoinaries.
They are not involved in the drug industry; they have placed a tax on local coca farmers, but they have not engaged in transactions with drug dealers, and just recently have been battling dealers in the streets.


In Buenaventura alone, the local police chief said about 30 people were being killed each month. The weekend before the joint mission arrived, seven inhabitants in the port neighbourhood of Lleras, from which drug cargoes routinely leave in speedboats, were killed by men in uniform. Near Cartago, three groups of FARC guerrillas are fighting the drug cartels. Some neighbourhoods of Cali are ruled by armed gangs.

There have been many instances, for example, in which they have executed drug dealers.

[Herman]

and a lot more so than people that mechanically wait for material conditions to bring about communism 'some day in the future'

Thank you for saying this! It HAD to be said!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

RD, that's been said so many times before. It seems that facts don't matter to some, who feel more comfortable relying on the words of notorious anti-communists like Jesse Helms.

[Faux Real]

To make my stance clear on this, I would love to see the leftist countries south of the US support FARC, though as the situation stands today it would be political suicide as well as national suicide following a reaction from the US.

As for FARC itself I italicized "known terrorists" because that's the justification America would give should it invade known supporters of them. Not in any way do I consider them terrorists, though do frown upon the few civilian hostages taken in by them as well as the screwup 2 months ago.

I commend them on their 30+ years of struggle against the Imperialist backed Colombian government which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of comrades slain. Hopefully Chavez's talk with Uribe on the hostage situation will fuel more support within Colombia of the guerillas. As of now, though, they don't have the mass(popular) support to overthrow the bourgeoisie state.

[RNK]

But, importantly, they do have the mass support to continue their fighting, even after 30 years.

[Faux Real]

Just not enough, for now.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:07 am
But, importantly, they do have the mass support to continue their fighting, even after 30 years.
Right, it's basically impossible to sustain a significant resistance without support within the local population.


Yes.. and a lot more so than people that mechanically wait for material conditions to bring about communism 'some day in the future' and argue against the arming of the working class in the face of some of the most violent and repressive ruling classes in world history.

Quoted for truth.

[Tekun]

The PR campaign that the US via the DEA, and Uribe have employed has vilified the FARC now more than ever, as a result the people of Colombia have been slowly losing their support for a "continued guerilla movement"
Yet, most of Colombia's workers, farmers, and poor still support the aims and plans that the FARC has within its philosophy
Its a mixed bag...

[ComradeR]

I've heard that a top leader in FARC has recently been killed in a government military campaign that has been pushing FARC back deeper into the jungles, is there any truth to this!?

[Guerrilla22]

I think the uS should covertly support FARC, sure it would cause even more chaos inside Colombia, but hey it would mean lucrative contracts for defense contractors and provide the US with an excuse to further become involved in Colombia politics. In the end, that's all that really matters to the US government,

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:54 am
I've heard that a top leader in FARC has recently been killed in a government military campaign that has been pushing FARC back deeper into the jungles, is there any truth to this!?
it is indeed truth.


Latin americans in general see Farc as a drug dealing organized movement, so i think it would be sort of unpopular to support it via government

[grove street]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 01:30 am
Yes.. and a lot more so than people that mechanically wait for material conditions to bring about communism 'some day in the future' and argue against the arming of the working class in the face of some of the most violent and repressive ruling classes in world history.
Columbia"s material conditions when FARC formed for it"s time was perfect for a gurellia style peoples war> This mainly has to do with the fact that Colombia"s wealth was at the time based upon the exploitation of a mostly peseant background> It stil does but FARC seems not to have engaged the emerging urban proliteratel>

[metalero]

Interview with FARC Commander Raul Reyes, by Gary Leech (http://www.anncol.org/uk/site/doc.php?id=297)

Q: The Uribe government claims that Plan Patriota is succeeding in defeating the FARC and bringing territory under state control. How has Plan Patriota affected the FARC and peasants in the region?

Reyes: I am in charge of analyzing the consequences of Plan Patriota and the ways it has hurt the revolutionary army of the FARC, as well as the ways it has hurt the civil population, the popular and social organizations, and the unarmed revolutionaries. And we have found that those who have suffered the least are those of us who have taken up arms. While we do not possess the weapons that the State has, much less the aid and the advising that it has received from the United States, but still in the end we are two armed forces, two armies. One army has a lot of power, many men, a lot of technology, air and naval support, and advisors who they say know everything. It has a very clear objective: to liquidate the FARC, to kill or imprison its main leaders, to recover prisoners by force and to force the survivors to sign whatever agreement Uribe wants. That has been, and still is, the objective of Plan Patriota.

But it so happens that it has not achieved its objective, it has failed to get any of the main leaders of the FARC, it has failed to weaken the FARC and it has failed to recover the prisoners of war. On the other hand, however, it has hurt the civil population, by applying the theory that “the friend of my enemy is also my enemy” They have displayed many guerrillas captured in certain regions. However, it so happens that they were not guerrillas, they were people considered to be friends of the guerrillas. I remember one case in Cartagena de Chaira where, according to the press, 80 guerrillas from the 14th Front were captured. But the capture of 80 guerrillas has never occurred, never. But that was the news, that was what was fed to the people’s imagination. But it so happens that not one of them was a guerrilla, they were from the population and later they had to free them all because it wasn’t true. However, when they freed them nobody from the army said, “I was mistaken.” One time they said that 200 FARC guerrillas were killed in the Cañon del Duda. It also wasn’t true. But who is going to challenge that?

But truly those who have been affected most are the peasants, the civilian population. Many people have fled, shut their businesses, abandoned their farms because of fear and because in many parts the airplanes drop bombs and shoot their machine guns indiscriminately. And there are others who have been affected, union members and all these sectors, because they say that they are all terrorists, or they are the ones that support the “terrorists” and so are likewise the enemy. Then they arrest them and imprison them. The people are affected by the current government; it is a fascist, dictatorial government that has used war as a form of governance and lies and slander as a form of pressure and to distort what is really happening.

Plan Patriota is a true failure for the government. Even more, it is not only a failure for the Colombian government but also a failure for the government of the United States, because it is the United States who finances Plan Patriota and the United States who supplies the military advisors for the war against us. Uribe and the Colombian army were convinced that with all that money and with all that advising they would be able to finish off the FARC, but it so happens that they have not achieved their objective. The FARC has not been weakened militarily nor politically by Plan Patriota.

But Uribe persists in his objective and has large numbers of troops throughout the Colombian territory. There are many troops in the areas containing all our blocs, all our fronts, our columns, our companies, and those troops are on all sides trying to find us in order to annihilate us; there is constant fighting. Among the troops of the State there have been wounded and dead. They are the ones who are risking their lives, it is not Uribe, it is not the Colombian oligarchy, it is not Mister Bush, it is the Colombian people. They are in the police and the army to earn a salary because often they cannot obtain work anywhere else or are unable to go to university. They are defending the interests of the exploiters of Colombia, the interests of the multinationals, the interests of the empire; they defend those interests at the cost of their own lives.

Q: How is it possible to change the neoliberal policies implemented by President Uribe and previous governments in Colombia?

Reyes: For the FARC the only way to change the neoliberal model and the policies of previous governments and of the current one is by taking power. It must begin with the formation of a new democratic, patriotic, diverse government of national reconciliation, which seeks to change the course of the country in a way in which it is truly the people, with their leaders, who build the future. Without this it will be impossible because Colombia has endured 50 years of war during which each of the governments did the same thing, even before the neoliberal model appeared and they applied the prescriptions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And then the neoliberal model appeared and they became wedded to neoliberal policies. This was before Uribe, it was those who preceded him in the presidency. Then they developed the terrorist state and this has increased the problems.

So we think that to truly achieve change, and the ones demanding this are the majority of the Colombian people, what is needed is to form a completely different government to that of Uribe and the previous governments. That is to say, a government that is committed to deep changes and that opens spaces of democracy in order to be able to build the New Colombia. A new Colombia where people would not be exploited and, of course, there would be no exploiters. But to achieve this is a task for titans, because Colombia has a mafia class and a corrupt murderous ruler. And as long as they continue controlling the destiny of our country it is going to be very difficult for the people to become controllers of their own destinies. This is the reason that the FARC continues its revolutionary struggle.

We spoke in a previous question about how they assassinated the Patriotic Union and they assassinated the communists, and how this closed spaces for the legal struggle. And we noted that they continue to murder popular leaders and continue to carry out some selective assassinations. We think this validates the revolutionary armed struggle, whose end is not war. The end of the revolutionary struggle being waged by the FARC is peace. For us, peace is the fundamental thing. We understand that peace is the solution to the problems that affect our people. We understand that peace means that in Colombia we have a true democracy. Not a democracy for the capitalists, but a democracy for the people, who can protest, who can participate, who have the right to live, who have the right to healthcare, to education, who have the right to communication, to electricity, to agrarian reforms, to fight corruption, to not have to kneel before foreign powers, but to be a country free, independent and sovereign with respectful relations with all countries on equal terms. Also, that the weapons of the army not be not used against the people, but just for the defense of our sovereignty and nothing more. To achieve that objective is why we are here in this jungle. And in search of that objective we are willing to continue for as long as is necessary.

And our proposal for a “prisoner exchange,” which cannot be modified to the favor of Mister Uribe, is issued with the desire to solve one of the by-products of the conflict. Colombia suffers an armed, social, political, and economic conflict that no government has wanted to resolve. Therefore, we say, the signing of an agreement to liberate prisoners on both sides could also be the door to the beginning of a new dialogue to work towards achieving peace. As I already said, the FARC seeks peace, but not a peace that comes from surrender, nor a peace that accommodates the leaders of the organization and certain friends, but a peace for the people. It must be a peace that protects the life and the dignity of our population.

Check the full interview on many issues regarding FARC and their resistance.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

We have even members, revolutionary leftists, on this forum from Colombia who have fled with their families due to FARC's oppression.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:52 pm
first of all the us could never get the support it needs for such a project. secondly the us does not have the will to invade three or four large nations whose majority population is anti us. the resulting guerilla war and the huge casualties suffered by the yankees would make the us more politically unstable then in the vietnam war days! thirdly what reason would they give for the invasion? "three nations supported by the majority of its populations is giving support to a group who have never done anything to us before so we are going to invade and cost thousands of your sons and daughters lives just like we did in iraq" the fact is vietnam, iraq and afghanistan have teached the us a valuable lesson that direct military action to create regime change to a pro us government simply does not work.
It could potentially trigger a war between colombia and Venezuela, or between Venezuela and cuba. That would hardly be a step in the right direction. Plus it would undermine the Cuban CP or Chavez's support at home.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:25 pm
Latin americans in general see Farc as a drug dealing organized movement, so i think it would be sort of unpopular to support it via government
I don't think Latin Americans in general believe FARC is a drug dealing movement; and even if they did so, it wouldn't make it true. In blunter words, it is a slander propagated by the CIA and the Colombian State - people who have a lot more to do with drug dealing than the FARC have.

This doesn't mean that the FARC are a supportable movement. Their strategy is flawed, since the Colombian cities cannot be sieged by the countryside as Chinese or Vietnamese cities could; and it ends playing an useful role for the Colombian State - it helps them justify their inaction against drugdealers, it helps them in begging foreign aid which is then lost among the corrupts entrails of the Colombian bureaucracy and political system, and it helps them justify a policiac and military apparatus to terrorise the Colombian populace.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Ah, yes. Regarding the OP. Besides not believing the FARC should be supported, either openly or clandestinely, I usually oppose clandestine things. Proletarian class struggle must be open, and must rely in showing things, not in hiding them. But if some thing should be done in a clandestine way, then it should be done in a clandestine way - which includes, with absolutely certainty, not discussing it in an internet message board!!

Luís Henrique

[metalero]

are you suggesting colombian peasants should give up their arms to state terror and paramilitary fascism?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here you go:

Chavez says could meet Colombian rebels

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said he was willing to meet guerrilla leaders in the Colombian jungle to broker a humanitarian accord between Colombia's government and leftist rebels.

Chavez met with Colombia's peace envoy on Friday and traveled to Colombia last month to advance an accord for the release of thousands of hostages kidnapped during the nation's 40-year-old civil war.

During his weekly Sunday broadcast, Chavez said Manuel Marulanda, commander of Colombia's FARC guerrillas, assured him in a latter that he could not travel to Venezuela for peace talks with Chavez.

"I'm willing to travel to the deepest part of the biggest jungle to meet with Marulanda," Chavez said.

He added that Marulanda's letter reiterated demands by the FARC, Colombia's largest rebel group, that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe pull troops out of a rural area the size of New York to create a safe haven for talks.

Uribe has refused to do this, saying rebel commanders would use the area to regroup.

Chavez met on Friday with Colombia's top peace negotiator, Luis Carlos Restrepo, in Caracas. A delegation of the smaller ELN guerrilla group also met Restrepo in Caracas, along with a Venezuelan diplomat.

Uribe tapped Chavez several months ago to help with the hostage talks, despite the conservative Colombian leader's ideological differences with Chavez, who has become the most visible face of Latin America's resurgent leftist politics.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also backed Chavez's involvement, in hopes the talks may lead to the release of French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt.