revolutionares or terrorists?

[Colonello Buendia]

As a kid in Italy I heard from a very young age about how dangerous the Brigate Rosse were. After further reading I heard about the Rote Armee Fraktion. as a socialist I disagree with their politics but were they communist revolutionaries or just terrorists waving the red flag?

[lvleph]

I don't recall them killing "innocent" people, so not terrorist.

[Comrade Rage]

Borderline Communist Revolutionaries. I've heard to much about the RAF attacking civilian targets for my taste.

Any and all attacks must be made on military/government targets, as well as select business targets at times when no proletarian will be harmed.

[Colonello Buendia]

I know that the Brigate Rosse did in fact kill innocents by putting bombs in churches and supermarkets

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:23 pm
I know that the Brigate Rosse did in fact kill innocents by putting bombs in churches and supermarkets
Well then, I was wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

bombing is not communist. Bombs dont know the difference between proletarian and beourgioise.

[Exovedate]

I don't recall them killing "innocent" people, so not terrorist.
Actually lvleph terrorism isn't about killing innocent people, it is about using fear (or terror) as a weapon.

[TC]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 07:36 pm
bombing is not communist. Bombs dont know the difference between proletarian and beourgioise.
they do if they're well placed ;) .


And anyways the categories are not mutually exclusive, anyone who is a terrorist to someone is a revolutionary to someone else and vice versa. The need to exercise the demons of 'terrorism' is a liberal not a radical impulse.

[spartan]

Actually lvleph terrorism isn't about killing innocent people, it is about using fear (or terror) as a weapon.
Yes and as a rule the indiscriminate killing of unarmed innocent civilians usually falls into that catergory.

Terrorism is a bad idea as it alienates our most likely supporters, the Proletarian, as they are the ones who end up suffering the most from terrorist attacks.

Economic sabotage is a better idea as it affects the Proletarian the most and it will be hard to blame us for it as it is virtually intraceable!

Thus the Bourgeoisie will be blamed for the economic disaster and the Proletarian will, hopefully, flock to our cause.

I think Che Guevara advocated something similar in his "Guerrilla Warfare" book?

[lvleph]

But one can cause terror in the eyes of the enemy soldiers and that is certainly not terrorism. I feel that one must make innocent people fear for their lives for it to actually be terrorism.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:51 pm

Actually lvleph terrorism isn't about killing innocent people, it is about using fear (or terror) as a weapon.
Yes and as a rule the indiscriminate killing of unarmed innocent civilians falls into that catergory.
Spartan, I am not denying that the indiscriminate killing of unarmed innocent civilians is terrorism, I am just pointing out that the target of terrorism is irrelevant when one is defining an act as a terrorist act. Yes bombing civilians is terrorism, but so is bombing a government building, or a military installation, or anything else that will instill fear in someone.

[Exovedate]

But one can cause terror in the eyes of the enemy soldiers and that is certainly not terrorism. I feel that one must make innocent people fear for their lives for it to actually be terrorism.
Well then you are wrong, terrorism is just about using fear as a weapon, that's it!

[spartan]

Well then you are wrong, terrorism is just about using fear as a weapon, that's it!
As in fear equals terror which equals terrorism right?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:59 pm

But one can cause terror in the eyes of the enemy soldiers and that is certainly not terrorism. I feel that one must make innocent people fear for their lives for it to actually be terrorism.
Well then you are wrong, terrorism is just about using fear as a weapon, that's it!
Okay, then the discussion of whether someone is a terrorist or not is quite irrelevant, since it is a valid tactic when fighting an army. By your definition almost any standing army uses terrorism.

[Marsella]

As far as I am aware the RAF and BR aimed their attacks at military targets, business figureheads and politicians.

I can scarcely show remorse over those attacks.

The point is that those movements have completely failed and its probably best not to attempt a resurrection.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:03 pm

Well then you are wrong, terrorism is just about using fear as a weapon, that's it!
As in fear equals terror which equals terrorism right?
Okay, here is exactly what I am trying to get across:
Terrorism is about using fear as a weapon (or military tactic). It is about purposefully trying to create uncertainty or weakness in one's enemy by causing them to fear you. Now because it is a tactic of war, jumping out of a closet and yelling boo at your friend is not terrorism. It has to have some sort of political goal that it is trying to achieve. Now if the main objective of an action is something besides causing terror, and instilling fear is just an unplanned side effect, that I would not consider that act to be terrorist in nature. Terrorism is simply a military tactic in which the main goal is to instill fear in your enemy to weaken their resolve.

[spartan]

Okay, then the discussion of whether someone is a terrorist or not is quite irrelevant, since it is a valid tactic when fighting an army. By your definition almost any standing army uses terrorism.
Most armies historically, through rape and robbery etc, used terrorism as a tool yes, as the invading conquerors often needed to make a statement to the recently conquerored native inhabitants not to rebel against the new rulers.

It has also been utilised by modern militaries especially in the total war era where aerial bombings and tanks etc are a great psychological advantage/edge over your enemies.

The use of terrorism can backfire though as it often breeds resistance by the population on which the terrorist attacks are aimed at.

However most resistance groups who use terrorism as atactic dont usually get a "rebellion" by the people they attack probably because most resistance groups either have the support of the majority of the people and/or they are less visible then a modern invading army which makes them that much harder to retaliate against.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 07, 2007 02:04 pm--> (lvleph @ November 07, 2007 02:04 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:59 pm

But one can cause terror in the eyes of the enemy soldiers and that is certainly not terrorism. I feel that one must make innocent people fear for their lives for it to actually be terrorism.
Well then you are wrong, terrorism is just about using fear as a weapon, that's it!
Okay, then the discussion of whether someone is a terrorist or not is quite irrelevant, since it is a valid tactic when fighting an army. By your definition almost any standing army uses terrorism. [/b]
Yes most standing armies do use terrorism, it is a very effective military tactic. An enemies that fears you is an enemy half-beaten.
In my opinion terrorism is not bad, it is simply a military tactic. I feel terrorism is only bad when it is aimed at innocents.

[spartan]

In my opinion terrorism is not bad, it is simply a military tactic. I feel terrorism is only bad when it is aimed at innocents.
Exactly!

Attacks against civilians who might be open to a new order is useless and i think that this is where the left should draw the line, so to speak, which should'nt be crossed.

What about using terrorism against known civilians who are actively against us?

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:18 pm

In my opinion terrorism is not bad, it is simply a military tactic. I feel terrorism is only bad when it is aimed at innocents.
Exactly!

Attacks against civilians who might be open to a new order is useless and i think that this is where the left should draw the line, so to speak, which should'nt be crossed.

What about using terrorism against known civilians who are actively against us?
Actively? If they are active then how are they civilians? If they are voicing their opinions then I say no.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:19 pm
Actively? If they are active then how are they civilians? If they are voicing their opinions then I say no.
Whoa there, Ivleph. There is a big difference between voicing their opinions and "working actively against us." Thats like comparing badmouthing revolution to one's neighbours, to picking up a gun and carrying out counter-revolutionary acts.

[Killer Enigma]

For American audiences, undoubtedly the most compelling case for terrorism in defense of a revolution comes from Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism when he details President Lincoln's usage during the civil war (1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch04.htm)). Terrorism is a nasty buzzword until Americans realize that their greatest President utilized it in defense of freedom.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Exovedate+November 07, 2007 08:24 pm--> (Exovedate @ November 07, 2007 08:24 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 02:19 pm
Actively? If they are active then how are they civilians? If they are voicing their opinions then I say no.
Whoa there, Ivleph. There is a big difference between voicing their opinions and "working actively against us." Thats like comparing badmouthing revolution to one's neighbours, to picking up a gun and carrying out counter-revolutionary acts. [/b]
Which is why I said, "Actively?" I was asking what Actively meant.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by TragicClown+November 07, 2007 07:48 pm--> (TragicClown @ November 07, 2007 07:48 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 07, 2007 07:36 pm
bombing is not communist. Bombs dont know the difference between proletarian and beourgioise.
they do if they're well placed ;) .

[/b]
bombs are never 'well placed'. The beourgioise members are so few and far between they are hardly out of earshot of a fellow prol, be it their chauffeur or butler. I do not want to see any worker die unnecessarilly in the name of communism.

[bolshevik butcher]

I think its deffinatley fair to say that the red brigade was composed of committed communists, whatever you want to reffer to their tactics as, terrorism, urban guerillaism etc. However, individual heroism and absoloute commitment are not in themselves enough to create a successful revolutionary movement unfortunatley, otherwise the world would have reached socialism long ago. The Red Brigades actions ultimatley isolated them from the mass of the Italian labour movement, which was at this period of time exceedingly militant. It is a tragedy that Italy given its levels of class conscious for a sustained period, of which the Red Brigades never expirienced a successful revolutionary challenge to the capitalist state. The failure of the red brigade to appeal to the most militant elements of the Italian working class and not group them into a revolutionary party must be ultimatley looked upon as part of the reason for this failure.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 07, 2007 02:42 pm--> (lvleph @ November 07, 2007 02:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:24 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 02:19 pm
Actively? If they are active then how are they civilians? If they are voicing their opinions then I say no.
Whoa there, Ivleph. There is a big difference between voicing their opinions and "working actively against us." Thats like comparing badmouthing revolution to one's neighbours, to picking up a gun and carrying out counter-revolutionary acts.
Which is why I said, "Actively?" I was asking what Actively meant. [/b]
My apologies then Ivleph, my mistake. I thought you were advocating using terrorism against people who were voicing an opinion that opposed that of revolution.

[bolshevik butcher]

Sorry appeal is the wrong word, their methods isolated themseves is perhaps a more correct way of putting it. Even if they had support they were not able to turn this into conceret militant action. The Red Brigades methods effectivley substituted themselves for a revolutionary movement and terrorist tactics for mass actions of the working class, which as communists we regard as the only way to change society.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:18 pm

In my opinion terrorism is not bad, it is simply a military tactic. I feel terrorism is only bad when it is aimed at innocents.
Exactly!

Attacks against civilians who might be open to a new order is useless and i think that this is where the left should draw the line, so to speak, which should'nt be crossed.

What about using terrorism against known civilians who are actively against us?
Terrorism is useless. Either it has no effect or it has a negative effect.

[Nosotros]

The Brigade Rosse were blamed for terrorist attacks that were carried out by the state, including Italian Freemasons: http://libcom.org/history/operation-gladio-italy

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:23 pm
Terrorism is useless. Either it has no effect or it has a negative effect.
I agree it can often have a negative effect, but I disagree that it ever has no effect. Terrorist acts either cause fear, which results in either inaction or submission (depending on the situation) or anger, which often results in retaliation. I can't think of one situation in which a terrorist act had absolutely no effect.

[Marion]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 10:57 pm
Many German workers had even more admiration, and were willing to assist the similar RAF in that country.
I'm pretty sure that there was a survey around the time of the RAF showing that about 20% of students supported them. May have been slightly more or less, but not much - perhaps someone has the exact figures. Anyway, given those rough figures I'd suspect it was very unlikely that anywhere approaching a notable percentage of the German working class supported the RAF, let alone would have been willing to assist them.

[Colonello Buendia]

IN the cold war years the Italian communist party was the one of the biggest parties, easily getting 30% of the votes. Unfortunately the other parties united in the penta-partito(5 parties) to ensure that the communists didn't get in. The main stream party clearly had a lot of support but the Brigate Rosse were very badly isolated. Their attacks weren't like the operations staged in Cuba or other revolutionary sucseses , they often killed proletarians and had little effect apart from causing resentment among the people.