FARC are good, not bad !!

[nanovapor]

a revolution has to be armed, Machiavelli said an unarmed prince is weaker than armed one, like The Count of Montecristo who said after he killed a man: "I am a count, not a saint.".

So i was thinking that FARC rebels are not evil, they are good men, fighting for justice

nanovapor

[Guerrilla Manila]

Avg Quasi-Leftist: "But they kidnap and kill people, revolutionary armies are so much more trendy when they look cool and just pose with their guns."

:glare:

[Yazman]

Well said, nanovapor.

War is not as glamorous as many would like to think, especially not revolutionary war.

[Cult of Reason]

a revolution has to be armed, Machiavelli said an unarmed prince is weaker than armed one, like The Count of Montecristo who said after he killed a man: "I am a count, not a saint.".

So i was thinking that FARC rebels are not evil, they are good men, fighting for justice

nanovapor

Regardless of whether the FARC are 'evil' or not, that is the most ill-thought-out argument I have ever heard.

[Coggeh]

Regardless of whether the FARC are 'evil' or not, that is the most ill-thought-out argument I have ever heard.
Agreed .

Farc are alienated from the working class , and are only by using kidnappings further alienating their struggle .

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I support FARC and their cause, but they are lacking in popular support, probably because their tactics allow the gov. to justify attacks and spread propoganda easily

[spartan]

I support FARC though that doesnt mean that i wont critiscise any bad things that they do (Though even their bad actions are far more understandable when you factor in the fact that they are facing a government and its army that is supported by US Imperialism).

[BIG BROTHER]

I support FARC and their cause, but they are lacking in popular support, probably because their tactics allow the gov. to justify attacks and spread propoganda easily

yep you just nailed the problem.

[nanovapor]

However folks, i like to be the most objective, scientifical, and rational that i can be in judging things. I could be wrong though, FARC might be a sectarianist group, aliented from homeless, workers, and poor people. It's really hard to judge things from a computer, it is like 9-11, we still scientifcally don't know who did 9-11. So it is real hard to judge if FARC are good or evil. Because the tactic of kidnapping people is not good indeed, it is not Marxist, it is not written in a Marx book. So i am leaving room for doubt to come to a final conclusion to see if FARC are evil or good


nanovapor

[OrientalHado]

It's pretty simple. The Fascist administration of Uribe and his right-wing thugs have prevented F.A.R.C and other leftist movements from undermining the hegemony of the state within these urban centres. Look up when F.A.R.C fielded a political wing and see how thousands were killed and tortured. Colombia does not have one of the highest political assassination rates for no reason.

If it was not for F.A.R.C’s self defensive revolutionary war. It would be even worse for the leftist movement within Colombia.

Despite this, F.A.R.C support is still relatively large, and I personally believe removal of U.S aid would have granted the F.A.R.C victory ages ago. I suggest comrades actually look at the material conditions, then spout nonsense.

[AGITprop]

a revolution has to be armed, Machiavelli said an unarmed prince is weaker than armed one, like The Count of Montecristo who said after he killed a man: "I am a count, not a saint.".

So i was thinking that FARC rebels are not evil, they are good men, fighting for justice

nanovapor

:lol:
They may be good men fighting for justice. And I do agree as well that the revolution needs to be armed. But a group of people with guns is not the revolution. Fighting and use of force is always the last thing on the agenda. The proletariat need to oust their bosses and take control of their work places and the means of production. Then when the state fights back, I will fully support a group like FARC trying to protect the revolution, fighting with the armed worker's defending their interests as well.

[Ferryman 5]

Rosa Lichtenstein (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?find=lastposter&t=74271) is a “moderator” which means she will threaten to shut you out of this site if you persist in arguing with here. That is why she is able to talk nonsense without sanction. The best thing is to pretend that she is of some consequence and talk round her.

[RHIZOMES]

yeah kidnapping and murder is wrong but that's what war is.

[Dros]

:lol:
They may be good men fighting for justice. And I do agree as well that the revolution needs to be armed. But a group of people with guns is not the revolution. Fighting and use of force is always the last thing on the agenda. The proletariat need to oust their bosses and take control of their work places and the means of production. Then when the state fights back, I will fully support a group like FARC trying to protect the revolution, fighting with the armed worker's defending their interests as well.

That is patently absurd. If anything, it can only happen the other way around. This kind of strategy may have had some sort of basis in the nineteenth century. I'm sorry but this is simply unscientific in terms of its outlook. The state is now stronger than it used to be. This kind of economism is ridiculous to propose for the twenty-first century because of the strength of the state.

For the revolution to succeed, it must first overthrow the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

[RNK]

What Gunther and most Trotskyists fail to realize or understand is that not everyone (infact, very few people) in this world have the oppurtunity to stroll to a polling station and in one fell swoop of the pen (or stamp, or computer screen, or hole puncher) disembowel the bourgeoisie's empire. Here in the West there is a bad habit of taking this useless liberty for granted; we do not have to deal with roaming right-wing paramilitary death squads, corporate mercenaries, CIA-funded drug warlords and fascist juntas. We have the liberty of sitting around all day, pining over workers' rule and printing leaflets in their thousands, avoiding any and all direct confrontation.

The view is one born out of priviledge and one which attempts to force those who do not share our "liberties" to act in accordance with our principles. I get the feeling many western revolutionaries view themselves as "Generals of the Revolution"; men disconnected from the struggle who feel they can dictate how those on the front lines, those facing the most severe and violent reproachment of capitalism, should act.

[AGITprop]

What Gunther and most Trotskyists fail to realize or understand is that not everyone (infact, very few people) in this world have the oppurtunity to stroll to a polling station and in one fell swoop of the pen (or stamp, or computer screen, or hole puncher) disembowel the bourgeoisie's empire. Here in the West there is a bad habit of taking this useless liberty for granted; we do not have to deal with roaming right-wing paramilitary death squads, corporate mercenaries, CIA-funded drug warlords and fascist juntas. We have the liberty of sitting around all day, pining over workers' rule and printing leaflets in their thousands, avoiding any and all direct confrontation.

The view is one born out of priviledge and one which attempts to force those who do not share our "liberties" to act in accordance with our principles. I get the feeling many western revolutionaries view themselves as "Generals of the Revolution"; men disconnected from the struggle who feel they can dictate how those on the front lines, those facing the most severe and violent reproachment of capitalism, should act.

Well, the fact of the matter is that all of this state repression is done to protect certain interests. What interests? The interests of the ruling class. Whom do they rule? The peasants and workers. Why do they rule? To extract profit. So the state repression is a means of continuing to extract profit, on behalf of the class which owns the means of production. This also means that this repressive state can only be overthrown by a change in who OWNS the means of production. An armed struggle simply contends for control of the state, not the people who keep it funded and connected.

[Dros]

Well, the fact of the matter is that all of this state repression is done to protect certain interests. What interests? The interests of the ruling class. Whom do they rule? The peasants and workers. Why do they rule? To extract profit. So the state repression is a means of continuing to extract profit, on behalf of the class which owns the means of production. This also means that this repressive state can only be overthrown by a change in who OWNS the means of production. An armed struggle simply contends for control of the state, not the people who keep it funded and connected.

No one is saying that control over the means of production much switch to the proletariat. What is being said is that state power is a precursor not a "postcursor" to that happening. It is impossible for the proletariat to seize control of the means of production as long as the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie remains intact.

[AGITprop]

No one is saying that control over the means of production much switch to the proletariat. What is being said is that state power is a precursor not a "postcursor" to that happening. It is impossible for the proletariat to seize control of the means of production as long as the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie remains intact.

How do you explain factory occupations then? This is the embryonic form of a more organized movement. I shudder at the fact that you believe to take control of the means of production, we must absolutely do so by using force against the state. Taking control of the means of production is a weapon in itself against the bourgeoisie. We just need to make sure that when we do so, we are armed to protect ourselves and the revolution from the desperate attempts of the ruling class to crush us.

[RHIZOMES]

Well, the fact of the matter is that all of this state repression is done to protect certain interests. What interests? The interests of the ruling class. Whom do they rule? The peasants and workers. Why do they rule? To extract profit. So the state repression is a means of continuing to extract profit, on behalf of the class which owns the means of production. This also means that this repressive state can only be overthrown by a change in who OWNS the means of production. An armed struggle simply contends for control of the state, not the people who keep it funded and connected.

Control of the state in the interest of the working class.

[AGITprop]

Control of the state in the interest of the working class.


You're kidding?




PS Post 500 :), the qualitative leap between being a Marxist, and having no life.

[BIG BROTHER]

How do you explain factory occupations then? This is the embryonic form of a more organized movement. I shudder at the fact that you believe to take control of the means of production, we must absolutely do so by using force against the state. Taking control of the means of production is a weapon in itself against the bourgeoisie. We just need to make sure that when we do so, we are armed to protect ourselves and the revolution from the desperate attempts of the ruling class to crush us.

yeah Comrade, but in the end, a factory ocupation would most likely end wit the police trying to force the workers out of it. And even if they left them alone or the workers repelled them, they wouldn't be able to function properly because the whole state aparatus would be working on the burgoise behalf. That's why an armed struggle is necesary.

p.s. so that's why I support las FARC, although you're right they're quite dissconected from the proles in the city.

[AGITprop]

yeah Comrade, but in the end, a factory ocupation would most likely end wit the police trying to force the workers out of it. I'm not saying a factory occupation is the revolution. Perhaps you should read my post. I said it is the beginnings of revolutionary sentiment. If all workers are occupying their factories how do expect the state to stop this? This is why I said the workers need to arm themselves, to defend their occupations, not the worker's arming themselves, attacking the government, and then reclaiming the workplace. Needless violence. Force should be used only when necessary, and that is when they attempt to fight us. Please don't waste people's time, just read the posts through.



And even if they left them alone or the workers repelled them, they wouldn't be able to function properly because the whole state aparatus would be working on the burgoise behalf. That's why an armed struggle is necesary. The whole state apparatus is useless, as is the bourgeoisie and are devoid of power, when the means of production are no longer in their hands.

[RHIZOMES]

You're kidding?

No. Lenin did this too. Taking control the state in the interests of the working class.

[AGITprop]

No. Lenin did this too. Taking control the state in the interests of the working class.

Of course control of the state is in the interests of the working class, if it is controlled by the workers.

I was being sarcastic in my post... :glare:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There's a war in Colombia between the FARC and the government. Considering that, I frankly don't understand why anyone would make a point of saying that the FARC are out of touch with the workers or that their use of violence alienates people, seeing as the government uses far more violence and is far more alienated from Colombian workers than the FARC.

[AGITprop]

There's a war in Colombia between the FARC and the government. Considering that, I frankly don't understand why anyone would make a point of saying that the FARC are out of touch with the workers or that their use of violence alienates people, seeing as the government uses far more violence and is far more alienated from Colombian workers than the FARC.

Because, this is not a war between the workers and the state, its a war between an extremely small minority guerilla group and the state.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Except the guerrilla group is actually enormous. I agree with those who defend that the FARC are justified in using violence in pursuing their ends, seeing as they're at the forefront of the struggle against the murderous fascist Colombian government and therefore they represent the struggle of the Colombian people against bourgeois tyranny.

[AGITprop]

Except the guerrilla group is actually enormous.

16 000
HUGE!