militancy

[person]

Hello,
I wanted to ask how violence against things as well as people has been part of a left movement, since I wasn't able to find anything that gives an overview as such.
It might be interesting to see how militant behavior has changed over time, and that "our" dresscode and actions on demonstrations and other things didn't just start appearing in the 80's.


So if anybody feels like explaining anything to me... how have militant actions looked like in the past and how have they developed?
Maybe looking at a time frame from the founding of the first communist parties up to today?

[jaffe]

can you be more specific?
which part of the world?
during which times?

[RedAnarchist]

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, a lot of anarchists advocated and took part in what is known as "propoganda of the deed".

In the 1970s, after the revolutionary upheavals of 1968, there were a multiude of "terrorist"/urban guerilla groups, include the Red Army Fraction of West Germany, the Red Brigades of Italy, the Angry Brigade of the UK, the Black Panther Party of the US and the Japanese Red Army of Japan.

[KC]

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, a lot of anarchists advocated and took part in what is known as "propoganda of the deed".

Actually this originated in the early Narodnik movement in Russia, and its effects were devastating.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

In many movements in Britain, as soon as violence was used they lost support. I know there are other factors to these examples losing support, but The Rebecca Riots, Chartists, Radicals for instance lost much support after turning to violence.

Now Im no pacifist, and on many occasion violence has worked and is needed. But as a general rule only in self defence as violence out of the blue can cause a loss of support for the movement

[Clarksist]

Militant behavior has changed according to not only time, but also circumstance. I would say, though, that the left is getting increasingly more passive. The main reason is that support and numbers are dwindling, and government's have become much larger and oppressive in recent times.

Also, with an unpopular war going on, at least in the US, dissidents are becoming more and more tired of warfare, leading to further the passive front. I think this is altogether a good thing, violence has its uses... but right now it is far to premature and the climate towards violent political groups is extremely harsh.

[ellipsis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:44 pm
In the 1970s, after the revolutionary upheavals of 1968, there were a multiude of "terrorist"/urban guerilla groups, include the Red Army Fraction of West Germany, the Red Brigades of Italy, the Angry Brigade of the UK, the Black Panther Party of the US and the Japanese Red Army of Japan.
a rather western centric view of the rise of the urban guerrilla. what about all multitude of movements in latin america, north africa and the middle east. y'all can read my thesis about the rise of transnational urban guerrilla movements, available on my blog The Revolution Script (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/12/flq-and-global-struggle-against-western.html).

as for the question of this post, i feel as though violence has always been a tool of fighting oppression.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by theredson+December 12, 2007 05:33 pm--> (theredson @ December 12, 2007 05:33 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 01:44 pm
In the 1970s, after the revolutionary upheavals of 1968, there were a multiude of "terrorist"/urban guerilla groups, include the Red Army Fraction of West Germany, the Red Brigades of Italy, the Angry Brigade of the UK, the Black Panther Party of the US and the Japanese Red Army of Japan.
a rather western centric view of the rise of the urban guerrilla. what about all multitude of movements in latin america, north africa and the middle east. y'all can read my thesis about the rise of transnational urban guerrilla movements, available on my blog The Revolution Script (http://therevolutionscript.blogspot.com/2007/12/flq-and-global-struggle-against-western.html).

as for the question of this post, i feel as though violence has always been a tool of fighting oppression. [/b]
Sorry, I've never heard of many from latin america apart from SL of Peru.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 10, 2007 02:14 pm
Actually this originated in the early Narodnik movement in Russia, and its effects were devastating.
Propaganda of the deed can hardly be said to have "originated" from anywhere given that no ideology or group has ever claimed a monopoly on individual terrorism. Its true of course that Russia saw a series of high-profile assassinations right up to, and beyond, the October Revolution. However these owe more to the 19th C Russian traditions of radical students and sympathetic assassins than anything else. The weaving of these terrorist acts into some broader political programme was just as likely to occur in Western Europe or America where they were also common.

Secondly, the only ones who felt the "devastating" impact of this misguided doctrine were the local anarchists and socialists themselves. Propaganda by the deed proved to be a compete failure in almost every sense. So great were its theoretical shortcomings (and the response of authorities!) that even leading anarchists (Kropotkin being the most obvious) had begun to renounce it during the 1880s. The idea that a single assassination could somehow "stir the masses" was revealed to be absolute nonsense. By the late 19th C it had given way to, what I like to call, the dogma of mass violence.

[ellipsis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:17 am

Sorry, I've never heard of many from latin america apart from SL of Peru.
tupamaros of uruguay
monteneros of argentina
MR8 of brazil
FLN in Algeria
etc.

are the most famous examples.

[Holden Caulfield]

Algeria isn't in latin america theredson,

[ellipsis]

yes i know that.

[Holden Caulfield]

in which case i apologies for nit picking,

Vermont isn't in afghanistan, lol

[Luís Henrique]

tupamaros of uruguay
monteneros of argentina
MR8 of brazil
FLN in Algeria
etc.

are the most famous examples.

Algeria seems to be still in Africa...

I can't say much about montoneros (a peronist group, btw) and tupamaros.

The MR8 evolved into Stalinism, reformism and nationalism.

Also important as urban guerrilla groups in Brazil were VPR, led by Carlos Lamarca (which was all but destroyed from the inside by a mole, Cabo (Corporal) Anselmo), ALN, led by Carlos Marighella (who wrote the famous manual on urban guerrilla), and VAR-Palmares.

A good account of VPR's adventure is Celso Lungaretti's book, Náufrago da Utopia. Its most important document at their time were the famous Teses do Jamil, in which Jamil (Ladislaw Dowbor) advanced the strange idea that, since in our time capitalism is no longer progressive, any movement against the status quo will necessarily lead to a socialist revolution, even if their members are no socialists at all... (to make him justice, Dowbor long ago abandoned such ideas)

These organisations were completely isolated from the working class; more, I would say they were completely rejected by the working class. They totally failed to further revolution in Brazil. On the contrary, they unwittingly helped the dictatorship's efforts to describe itself as fighting a defencive struggle against political criminals.

Luís Henrique