Chavez calls for FARC to put down arms, has he sold out?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7443080.stm

according to this article from BBC, chavez encouraged FARC to put down arms and enter a peace process with the fascist government of Columbia. What do you think of this? Is Chavez right? Or has he sold out?

[PRC-UTE]

Probably motivated more by fear that the FARC will suffer an outright defeat, which could well be in the cards...

[bootleg42]

Just look at how far Bolivia and Venezuela have come without the guerilla tactics. Maybe Chavez is trying to create a situation where a left can exist in peace in Colombia and can advance ala Bolivia, Venezuela etc.

If more international pressure and NGO, world movements, etc can assure the security of a left in the country, good progress can be made and Colombia could take it's first step in ending being a U.S. right-wing heaven.

[Asoka89]

Yes, FARC needs a political solution to this crisis. They are losing strength and their presence allows Uribe to keep high popularity, distract attenton from scandals and allows the paras to crackdown on union and working-class organizing in Colombia. Not to mention the billions of dollars in US aid they get.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The bourgeois media has been saying for 40 years that FARC is losing strength, yet they control about 40% of the country and they fight on despite Uribe's fascist policies.

[bootleg42]

The bourgeois media has been saying for 40 years that FARC is losing strength, yet they control about 40% of the country and they fight on despite Uribe's fascist policies.

True. But most of the country and the areas with the most economic activity is in control of the right-wing and it has gained "legitimacy" with the population.

And when you compare Colombia politically to a place like Venezuela or Bolivia, Colombia is WAYYYYYYY behind and they're still living in the 1960's-1970's.

This needs a political solution and Chavez is trying to create safety for ALL leftists (radical or not) to resume political activity without the threat of being killed.

[R_P_A_S]

Sold out to who? I think he has a point. But what is to be done after the Farc lay down arms? would the Uribe govt kiss and make up? I think we all know that this is far from the end or the solution. We'll see how things play out.

[DancingLarry]

Sold out to who? I think he has a point. But what is to be done after the Farc lay down arms? would the Uribe govt kiss and make up? I think we all know that this is far from the end or the solution. We'll see how things play out.

I agree, and I suspect that what we are getting through the capitalist press on this selectively edits what Chavez said into making sound like a call for surrender by the FARC rather than a change in strategy, which I suspect is what his purpose was. I remember that Chavez began his career with a Blanquist/putschist strategy as well, but came to recognize the strategic superiority of a mass movement approach.

[metalero]

RPAS has a point. Laying down arms and pursuing a leftist radical agenda in Colombia under paramilitary control, would be a suicide. But I do think that FARC needs to act in a more political way, if they mean to survive the military and multiple front attack, and gain more credibility in the eyes of colombian workers and peasants. One first step would be the total liberation of civilians held for political or "financial" reasons.

[Zurdito]

he's the head of a bourgeois state, of course he wants to disarm guerrilla movements. that's the whole reason he uses left rhetoric ffs, to appeal to the masses and disarm/co-opt them into working within the system!

this isn't some new revelation the trick has been tried many times before, I'm amazed some people are surprised and think Chavez is a sell-out. What's he "selling out"?

[Andy Bowden]

The problem with saying FARC should become solely a political organisation, or establish a political wing is that they tried it before.

Former FARC guerillas founded the Patriotic Union party in the late 80's and most of the party was exterminated by death squads.

Whats to stop that happening again?

[piet11111]

the best the FARC can hope for to get out of this unconditional surrender is lifetime imprisonment :glare:

[Dean]

This is a shame. I could understand calling for the release of hostages, but calling for defeat when there is a real conflict there against a dangerous dictator... I don't know what to think of Chavez anymore, he seems to have become nothing more than a figure of the Venezuelan gov't.

[Coggeh]

The bourgeois media has been saying for 40 years that FARC is losing strength, yet they control about 40% of the country and they fight on despite Uribe's fascist policies.
and for 40years FARC have been up in a forest in the mountains somewhere doing sweet f**k in terms of providing a real alternative to the Columbian people . I am unsure about Chavez motives tbh but their needs to be a mass workers movement in Columbian not some focoist isolated movement

[KC]

and for 40years FARC have been up in a forest in the mountains somewhere doing sweet f**k in terms of providing a real alternative to the Columbian people . I am unsure about Chavez motives tbh but their needs to be a mass workers movement in Columbian not some focoist isolated movement

That's kind of difficult when union leaders and labor movement leaders are regularly assassinated.

[Coggeh]

That's kind of difficult when union leaders and labor movement leaders are regularly assassinated.
I don't know the complete situation in Columbia but Farc aren't doing much , surely theirs some sort of other alternative ?

Why not just support one of the alternative parties to try and build a bigger org capable of taking power off the Colombian fascist party .

[Herman]

Smart move by Chavez.

[Coggeh]

Smart move by Chavez.
In what sense ?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Chavez is the head of a capitalist state. This latest statement in only one in a long line of opportunist maneuvers designed to keep himself at the head of that state. Chavez has described himself at various times as a Marxist, Trotskyist, Christian, Quixotist, Maoist, etc., etc. Sometimes he says he's fighting for the socialism of Marx and Lenin, and other times he says otherwise. This is populism.

He says FARC gives U.S. imperialism an excuse to intervene in Latin America. As if U.S. imperialism needs an excuse! Jacobo Arbenz? Salvador Allende? Chavez himself was removed by a U.S.-sponsored coup!

A basic principle of communists, since the days of Marx, has been that we cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state and use it for our own ends, but that we must smash the capitalist state and build a new, workers' state, in its place.

Capitalism cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed. We must seize power and create our own state that acts in our interests and defends against imperialism and counterrevolution.

Will it take the forceful overthrow of Chavez and the massacre of countless Venezuelans ala' Chile 1979 to make todays "leftists" understand that?

FARC, with it's problems, represents and is fighting for genuine revolution. The FARC is not going to lay down their weapons (to do so would be suicide). The new leadership has just committed itself to renewed fighting.

[dirtycommiebastard]

FARC shouldn't put down their arms. It would be suicide for them.

On the other hand, as much as I support FARC's cause, I believe their approach is incorrect, and that guerilla tactics won't get them anywhere.

There is also the threat of the right wing paramilitaries, who terrorize workers and slaughter left wing activists. I comrade of mine who has contacts in South America told me that they do horrible things. In one case, two labour movement activists were strung up by their feet upside down and cut from their groin to their chest with a chainsaw in the town square, left to bleed to death in-front of the townspeople.

This is why the workers need to be armed, and FARC should probably campaign to organize and educate workers and help them defend themselves.

Other than that, I don't know what else to say, as my knowledge of South America, past Venezuela is limited.

[KC]

I don't know the complete situation in Columbia but Farc aren't doing much , surely theirs some sort of other alternative ?

Labor leaders are killed so often it is incredibly difficult to organize on any mass scale.


Why not just support one of the alternative parties to try and build a bigger org capable of taking power off the Colombian fascist party .

Because the problem isn't solely with the party currently in power but the entire situation as a whole in the country. Simply put, removing the party in power will not end the reactionary paramilitaries or the assassinations. What is needed is a fundamental change in the very nature of the Colombian state and its role in the country as the monopoly on violence. In other words, the only solution to the problem is proletarian revolution, but then the problem is what I referred to earlier.


He says FARC gives U.S. imperialism an excuse to intervene in Latin America. As if U.S. imperialism needs an excuse! Jacobo Arbenz? Salvador Allende? Chavez himself was removed by a U.S.-sponsored coup!

Of course it doesn't need an excuse, but having one is incredibly powerful for them to gain support for their actions. However, I'm not sure I see a viable alternative for the Colombian situation.

[BIG BROTHER]

I wonder, that what if Chavez had some disagreement with las FARC and that's why he's pressuring them now to surrender and to release all the prisioners.

Has anyone considered the posibility that perhaps he could also just be lying in order to give the media a different image.

but if he is serious, well its surprising even though he's a capitalist president because he changed opinion so radically.

And yea las FARC already tried doing things a different way with their party union patriotica but the pretty much got kidnapped or murdered.

[KC]

I wonder, that what if Chavez had some disagreement with las FARC and that's why he's pressuring them now to surrender and to release all the prisioners.

I'm 98% sure it has to do with the heat he's catching from the FARC computer issue and the alleged funding of FARC by the Venezuelan government.

[dirtycommiebastard]

but if he is serious, well its surprising even though he's a capitalist president because he changed opinion so radically.

How is Chavez a capitalist president?

He may preside over a bourgeois state, but that does not make him a capitalist. :)

[Herman]

In what sense ?

In the sense that kidnapping is unbecoming of any leftist and that it's smart for him in terms of reputation to ask for their liberation.

[punisa]

There is also the threat of the right wing paramilitaries, who terrorize workers and slaughter left wing activists. I comrade of mine who has contacts in South America told me that they do horrible things. In one case, two labour movement activists were strung up by their feet upside down and cut from their groin to their chest with a chainsaw in the town square, left to bleed to death in-front of the townspeople.


Horror/scare warfare is probably the ugliest tactics that you can encounter on the face of this planet. Happened all over Yugoslavia in the "Yugoslav wars".

For obvious reasons it has huge impact on uneducated population. Being ripped apart by a chainsaw makes you think twice before getting political.

As for FARC, they have been trying for 40 years now, maybe it is time to try something else. But just surrendering does not seem like a smart option. I suggest holding ground and take a "break" so to speak.

I doubt Chavez would just sell out like that, I believe he has different plans on how to expand socialism in South America.
What are they? No idea, we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

FARC has had set backs, but it has also made huge advances. The fact that the rightist Colombian government receives huge amounts of money and military assistance from the U.S. imperialists is the largest contributing factor to the inability of the revolution to fully succeed thus far.

[Zurdito]

It's a real shame to see how many people have faith ina great leader, that Chavez will just take care of it somehow, and instead of questioning, we should all just sit back and let him do what he likes, and just have faith that he'll introduce socialism for us.

What happened to class struggle - not smart realpolitik - being the driving force of history? :confused:

[dirtycommiebastard]

It's a real shame to see how many people have faith ina great leader, that Chavez will just take care of it somehow, and instead of questioning, we should all just sit back and let him do what he likes, and just have faith that he'll introduce socialism for us.

What happened to class struggle - not smart realpolitik - being the driving force of history? :confused:

I would argue that workers faith in Chavez is a RESULT of class struggle.

They are looking for solutions and have turned to someone they believe can solve their problems.

I don't understand how you don't realize this.

[Zurdito]

I would argue that workers faith in Chavez is a RESULT of class struggle.

They are looking for solutions and have turned to someone they believe can solve their problems.

I don't understand how you don't realize this.

I could say the same about Obama. Our job is to break those illusions. Sometimes this is through critical support, I accept, but you shouldn't forget the final goal.

Anyway, your quote above doesn't mean that you don't criticise him when, in any given instance (like this one) he turns openly against the class struggle, what is your idea of struggle, stop struggling as soon as the bourgeois reformist/populsit gets in, don't hold him to any promises, don't force him leftwards, don't try to build a mass movement to eventually transcend him, just...defend him desperately every time he represses the working class and strengthens the bourgeois state, i.e. helping Colombia defeat its own guerrilla movements, in the desperate fear that your favoured reformist/populist will be replaced by an outright right-wing President?

Where's the sense in that?

This was never Lenin's method btw, I don't know if you're a Leninist, but just in case.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I could say the same about Obama. Our job is to break those illusions. Sometimes this is through critical support, I accept, but you shouldn't forget the final goal.

Anyway, your quote above doesn't mean that you don't criticise him when he betrays the class struggle, what is your idea of struggle, stop struggling as soon as the bourgeois reformist/populsit gets in, don't hold him to any promises, don't force him leftwards, don't try to build a mass movement to eventually transcend him, just...defend him desperately every time he represses the working class and strengthens the bourgeois state, i.e. helping Colombia defeat its own guerrilla movements, in the desperate fear that your favoured reformist/populsit will be replaced by an outright right-wing President?

Where's the sense in that?

This was never Lenin's method btw, I don't know if you're a Leninist, but just in case.

I never said anything of the like Zurdito.

You just went off and accused me of such criminal charges! :)

Of course we must critically support Chavez (who I would most definitely not compare to Obama).

The point was, that you criticize the masses for supporting Chavez, but clearly there has been no other leadership showing its face yet. The masses look to Chavez because he is the one who has made progressive changes in their lives. But, of course, he is no Marxist.

[KC]

I think he was talking about Marxists, not workers in general.

[Zurdito]

I think he was talking about Marxists, not workers in general.

This.

[Herman]

Apart from the fact that all the other leftist parties before Chavez came to power in 1998 were absolutely ridiculous.

[Davie zepeda]

No Chavez is not a traitor he is following Marx by the book theres time when arm struggle is called for and when is is just a tool for the bourgeoise remember are job as communist is to remember the people who are suffering in this war millions are dying in this civil war and it's are job to help them one step is stopping this war.

HAHAHA Chavez is smarter than you realize he has almost all of south American on his side except Peru. Chile will head to the left in 2009 why defuse the Colombian rebels while the leftist movement in south American has happened with out civil war but the ballot and now a new block will be built. This time right under the belly of the beast so all the men can see for them selves what socialisms can do to help society .

peace in Colombians would only help to get the working masses also the new block that is needed in south America to help each other economy's grow with safety and haveing a strong unity against imperialism.

[Uncle Hank]

FARC isn't going to give up, and I think Chavez knows this. It seems just a political ploy to get those who think he is funding FARC behind him in one way or another.

[R_P_A_S]

Chavez does have a point. regarding the hostages... they are old, fragile and sick. let them go. I don't really see any point in keeping them around.

FARC's image will not change, will not appear more humanitarian, nor will people sympathize with them more if they "put down the arms" or even after they release the hostages. Their image is one of an evil terrorist group, stubborn to live in peace. as it has been portrait by the media, Colombian and U.S. governments. The imperialist, capitalist or whatever you wanna call them have done a much better job at persuading the minds of working people than the FARC has.

I think Chavez is a hypocrite for saying shit like "put down the arms and work towards peace" yeah right! him out of all people should know thats impossible there will never be a reconciliation between a guerrilla and their enemy. It's victory or defeat simple as that.

Perhaps the guerrilla tactics are a bit out dated for this particular times and place. Colombia is much stronger and organized than it has been the last 40 years. People I think they have the bigger upper hands for the very first time. I'm still skeptic on Chavez's reasoning and motives. er how red he claims to be.:glare: We always should be when they come from a capitalist head of state no matt

[R_P_A_S]

Chavez does have a point. regarding the hostages... they are old, fragile and sick. let them go. I don't really see any point in keeping them around.

FARC's image will not change, will not appear more humanitarian, nor will people sympathize with them more if they "put down the arms" or even after they release the hostages. Their image is one of an evil terrorist group, stubborn to live in peace. as it has been portrait by the media, Colombian and U.S. governments. The imperialist, capitalist or whatever you wanna call them have done a much better job at persuading the minds of working people than the FARC has.

I think Chavez is a hypocrite for saying shit like "put down the arms and work towards peace" yeah right! him out of all people should know thats impossible there will never be a reconciliation between a guerrilla and their enemy. It's victory or defeat simple as that.

Perhaps the guerrilla tactics are a bit out dated for this particular times and place. Colombia is much stronger and organized than it has been the last 40 years. People I think they have the bigger upper hands for the very first time. I'm still skeptic on Chavez's reasoning and motives. We always should be when they come from a capitalist head of state no matter how red he claims to be.

[nvm]

Chavez has been reading a lot of Trotskyist stuff lately:D

Recently he quoted twice the book Bolshevism-the road to revolution by Alan Woods on National TV (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-quotes-alan-woods-book-bolshevism.htm) , he has recomended Trotsky's transitional program (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskytransitional-program.htm), and he has close relations with Alan Woods and the IMT (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-thanking-hands-off-venezuela.htm) . Chavez has realized that guerilla movements are outdated. The FARC is just harming the left in Colombia as it gives an excuse for Uribe to hunt the leftists. It also does not have the support of the masses in a big scale.
I think through Chavez an agreement can be reach and that the FARC can disarm and work legitimately with the workers , if of course there are safety guarantees for it's members.
Chavez has read a lot of Trotsky as I said before and he is moving closer to the Bolshevk tactics and the way to achieve socialism as described in the transitional program. He has been moving the revolution faster as it was recomended by the IMT and he is certainly not a sell out.
The FARC can make a change more easily once its disarmed.
Of course Chavez has to ensure that they will not be slaughtered after the disarmament.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Chavez does have a point. regarding the hostages... they are old, fragile and sick. let them go. I don't really see any point in keeping them around.

Criticizing a tactic is different than calling on the army to disband. But even still, why doesn't Chavez spend his time criticizing his counterparts in the capitalist Colombian Government that oversees the exploitation and murder of workers everyday, instead of attacking the already-attacked communist FARC?

The answer lies in my original post in this thread.


peace in Colombian Do you honestly think if FARC lays down their guns there will be peace in Colombia?!?

As long as one class oppresses another, there can never be peace. That is the basis of class war.

[R_P_A_S]

Criticizing a tactic is different than calling on the army to disband. But even still, why doesn't Chavez spend his time criticizing his counterparts in the capitalist Colombian Government that oversees the exploitation and murder of workers everyday, instead of attacking the already-attacked communist FARC?

The answer lies in my original post in this thread.

Do you honestly think if FARC lays down their guns there will be peace in Colombia?!?

As long as one class oppresses another, there can never be peace. That is the basis of class war.

He has attacked the Uribe government and it's deadly tactics. however instead of raising a strong case against them with the solid evidence their is he just shouts insults that come of as theatrics and rhetoric!

[Forward Union]

Chavez is the head of a capitalist state. This latest statement in only one in a long line of opportunist maneuvers designed to keep himself at the head of that state. Chavez has described himself at various times as a Marxist, Trotskyist, Christian, Quixotist, Maoist, etc., etc. Sometimes he says he's fighting for the socialism of Marx and Lenin, and other times he says otherwise. This is populism.

He says FARC gives U.S. imperialism an excuse to intervene in Latin America. As if U.S. imperialism needs an excuse! Jacobo Arbenz? Salvador Allende? Chavez himself was removed by a U.S.-sponsored coup!

A basic principle of communists, since the days of Marx, has been that we cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state and use it for our own ends, but that we must smash the capitalist state and build a new, workers' state, in its place.

Capitalism cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed. We must seize power and create our own state that acts in our interests and defends against imperialism and counterrevolution.

Will it take the forceful overthrow of Chavez and the massacre of countless Venezuelans ala' Chile 1979 to make todays "leftists" understand that?

FARC, with it's problems, represents and is fighting for genuine revolution. The FARC is not going to lay down their weapons (to do so would be suicide). The new leadership has just committed itself to renewed fighting.

Good post.

What I will add is that Chavez has publically declared support for the FARC. This means he can be associated with what they do, and it is therefor in his interests that they do very little.

[BIG BROTHER]

I'm 98% sure it has to do with the heat he's catching from the FARC computer issue and the alleged funding of FARC by the Venezuelan government.

Yeah, I have been thinking that. Perhaps Chavez is just trying to make people think that he doesn't really support las FARC, when in reality he still does.

But whatever happens in reality we can be sure of two things. If las FARC lays down their arms, the Colombian will still see them as murderers and terrorists, and the paramilitary along with the right wing movement in Colombia will continue to attack the labor movement, terrorize the country side, and profit from the drug trade.

The only good thing that would probably come out of las FARC putting their arms down, might be that the Colombian people would perhaps start looking around at who their real enemies are.

[Guerrilla22]

That's kind of difficult when union leaders and labor movement leaders are regularly assassinated.

No kidding. FARC did attempt to enter the political process once as well, and their politicians ended up (surprise!) getting assassinated in mass by the paramilitaries. I'm not sure what FARC is supposed to do, they can either keep fighting or end up getting slaughtered.

[Louis Pio]

Regarding FARC they seem to be at a deadend, according to that female guerilla who surrendered herself recently she hadn't been in contact with the leadership for 3 years, and she's not just a footsoldier but a leader.
Guerillatactics can be usefull for a short period of time, but after 40 years I think it's pretty clear they are not accomplishing the goal. Moreover they have some negative effect on the classstruggle and the organisations involved: violence spiral, absence of accountability (the masses of workers are cut of from them) etc. Chavez certainly has a point, especially when the media tries to portrait the Venezuela as having responsibility for those insane kidnapping tactics.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Regarding FARC they seem to be at a deadend, according to that female guerilla who surrendered herself recently she hadn't been in contact with the leadership for 3 years, and she's not just a footsoldier but a leader.
Guerillatactics can be usefull for a short period of time, but after 40 years I think it's pretty clear they are not accomplishing the goal. Moreover they have some negative effect on the classstruggle and the organisations involved: violence spiral, absence of accountability (the masses of workers are cut of from them) etc. Chavez certainly has a point, especially when the media tries to portrait the Venezuela as having responsibility for those insane kidnapping tactics.

Under no circumstances
should they just disarm and sell out, like, for
example, the IRA in Ireland. At the same time, the
terrorist tactics, just like in Ireland, have proven
useless against the state.

The FARC has failed after decades of armed struggle,
its leadership has passed on, the time has come for
new tactics and a new leadership. Chavez knows this
and he is making moves that will place the FARC,
indirectly, under his leadership.

We can't predict what's going to happen, but from the
Trotskyist perspective there are certain basic things
that should happen. The whole point is to transform
the guerilla struggle, which pits army against army,
into a social struggle, which pits class against
class. The main power is not in the state but in the
ownership of the productive forces which the state
defends.

We can't undo 30 years of history. The FARC leadership
has trained the rank and file to be guerrillas
completely divorced from the rest of society. So, this
is all hypothetical. But from this starting point,
things can still be done.

Their base is among the peasantry. The first step
would be to reach out to the working class of
Columbia, which has a very militant trade union
movement, that the government represses even more
brutally than the FARC.
They could deploy some of their soldiers as workers'
defence militias, which would embolden the workers
against the capitalists and the armed state. Columbian
workers could begin occupying their factories and
running production under workers control.
Expropriating the capitalist is much easier when you
have someone to help you out!

FARC's whole role should be to use their strength
among the peasantry to empower the working class
movement. This would create a powerful alliance
between the peasantry and the working class of
Columbia.

At the same time, they should encourage poor peasants
to take over the land from the landowners, providing
protection for the peasants and small farmers against
fascist paramilitaries. They do own coca plantations,
etc., which could be set up and run democratically and
collectively, as an example to the small farmers. They
could use their connections with the machine factories
in the cities (which they can only make by reaching
out to the trade union movement) to get the peasants
cheaper tractors and farming implements.

Obviously, this would put their struggle on the same
page as the revolutions in Bolivia, Ecuador, and
Venezuela. They absolutely should set up a legal wing
that can wage a parliamentary struggle linked with the
Bolivarian revolutions. This would enable them to win
small but important victories like bringing in cheap
fuel for transport and agriculture.

These changes in approach would create the basis for a
"fifth column" of the Bolivarian revolution, inside
the belly of the US's main Latin American ally.

Chavez is moving very intelligently in this aspect,
just as he did with the threat of a coup in Bolivia.
And he seems to have picked up some renewed
revolutionary energy recently at home. A strong
workers' and peasants' SOCIAL movement, not merely a
military movement, in Colombia would completely upset
the balance of forces in the region in the favour of
the revolution.

We can only hope that the FARC don't waste this
opportunity to turn their extremely bad approach
around.

[BIG BROTHER]

sounds good man, but easier said than done though.

[dirtycommiebastard]

sounds good man, but easier said than done though.

Of course.
This is a discussion I had with one of my comrades as he brought it up a few nights ago as well, but this seems to me as the road that needs to be followed to make any real headway in Colombia. Of course the world never plays out the way you may have it written on paper, but these are goals I think should try to be met.

[BIG BROTHER]

Of course.
This is a discussion I had with one of my comrades as he brought it up a few nights ago as well, but this seems to me as the road that needs to be followed to make any real headway in Colombia. Of course the world never plays out the way you may have it written on paper, but these are goals I think should try to be met.

Well, with the new official leader ship in FARC, perhaps they will take a new direction. Who knows. The only thing is that being in the spot they currently are, whatever they chose to do isn't going to be easy.

[Saorsa]

In the sense that kidnapping is unbecoming of any leftist and that it's smart for him in terms of reputation to ask for their liberation.The only reasons that the FARC takes hostages are A: to raise funds for their armed struggle in the form of ransoms, and B: to pressure the Colombian state into releasing the hundreds of FARC prisoners of war it holds.

In the first case, why should we as Marxists give two shits about a wealthy capitalist, landowner or bourgeois politician being kidnapped? These people are class enemies, and we should feel no sympathy for them. The only people such an action will alienate are middle-class liberals (particularly foreign ones), and I doubt FARC has much of a chance with them anyway!

With the second point in mind, the taking of hostages is a perfectly legitimate tactic. It is hypocritical and reactionary to call for the FARC to "unconditionally" release it's prisoners, without calling on the Colombian state to do the same! If the Colombian regime truly cared about those hostages, it would offer to exchange FARC prisoners of war for them.

It's very easy for revolutionaries in the First World, who do not (generally) face the threat of murder, torture, rape and imprisonment in any real way, to condemn revolutionaries in the Third World for actually struggling to make a revolution in the face of all these things!

Trotsky took the families of Tsarist officers hostage to ensure that they would fight for the Red Army. Should he be condemned for this, for alienating those middle-class liberals who some on this forum seem to think are our target audience? Of course not! So why should we not apply the same principle to the FARC?


Chavez does have a point. regarding the hostages... they are old, fragile and sick. let them go. I don't really see any point in keeping them around.


When the FARC prisoners of war are released, so too will their hostages. There is no other way to do this.


I think Chavez is a hypocrite for saying shit like "put down the arms and work towards peace" yeah right! him out of all people should know thats impossible there will never be a reconciliation between a guerrilla and their enemy. It's victory or defeat simple as that.

Agree totally. Considering the murderous history of the Colombian state past and present, it would be suicide for the FARC rebels to lay down their arms.


If las FARC lays down their arms, the Colombian will still see them as murderers and terrorists

The Colombian what? The Colombian people? The workers and peasants of Colombia? They certainly don't see the FARC as "murderers and terrorists", or they wouldn't still be joining them in such large numbers! They may not all be totally enamored with the FARC, but they certainly don't hate them.



They absolutely should set up a legal wing that can wage a parliamentary struggle linked with the Bolivarian revolutions.

They already tried this! They set up the Patriotic Union, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_%28Colombia%29) and it's member and leaders were taken down like flies by the military and the paramilitaries linked to them! It's kinda hard to wage a parliamentary struggle when you're MPs are being assasinated every two or three days!

Perhaps this link will make you think a wee bit longer before you go around telling the FARC how to wage their struggle.

http://www.desaparecidos.org/colombia/fmcepeda/genocidio-up/


At the same time, the terrorist tactics, just like in Ireland, have proven useless against the state.

You display a poor understanding of history, comrade. The armed struggle in the occupied 6 counties was not "useless", it achieved huge things! The British troops could not go out on patrol without fearing for their lives, and Northern Ireland descended into a state of siege, a wartime atmosphere. In the course of this, the reactionaries and phoney leftists (such as the SDLP) exposed themselves for who they were, and the gloves came off.

As well as that, both in occupied Ireland and Colombia, it is both justifiable and applaudable for revolutionaries to wage armed struggle against the forces of the state. There is nothing wrong with killing soldiers, policemen etc. As well as the fact that armed struggle represents the purest form of struggle between opposing forces, it can act as a source of inspiration to the oppressed peoples concerned. Think how the people of Gaza feel when they see a rocket flying over the wall to crash into a Zionist settlement - it gives them hope, and shows that the struggle continues.

We need to avoid the idea that armed struggle somehow detracts from the class struggle and the broader social struggle. In fact, armed struggle complements the class struggle, and is an irremovable part of it. However, armed struggle which becomes divorced from the struggles of working people results in the revolutionary forces no longer acting as a vanguard of the workers and peasants, but instead an organisation whose actions only serve the purpose of perpetuating itself.

I think there are elements of this in the FARC, but I do not feel that the FARC is totally removed from the class struggle in Colombia. I also recognise that I cannot make an all-encompassing judgement about the FARC, it's strategies and it's lines from here in New Zealand, a comparatively wealthy nation with little class struggle going on.

In particular, I don't hold the lunatic belief that I, or the organisation I belong to, hold the answers on what the revolutionary program should be in Colombia, Venezuela, Nepal, India, the Philippines, Ireland, Burkina Faso or wherever. As revolutionaries in the First World, it is our job to offer critical support to the mass struggle of working people in the Third World, and the leadership through which these struggles are expressed. It is not our job to tell them how to make a revolution in their own countries, and it is not our job to issue blanket condemnations of forces which we can only know a very small amount about.

This is the problem I have with DCB's post. He sets out this big program listing what the FARC should do here, what the FARC should do there... what makes DCB think he understands the objective conditions in Colombia better than the FARC?!? And with that in mind, what makes him think that he knows better than the FARC what their subjective line, their revolutionary program should be? It's actually a very arrogant attitude, and one that's far too prevalent amongst the revolutionary left.

In short, I do not believe the FARC should have to lay down their arms, OR release a single hostage until their own POWs are released as well. They're not playing games over there - they're fighting a war.

I think that this call of Chavez's is mostly tactical. He's copping a lot of flack over his support for the FARC, so he's publicly distancing himself from them. It may be a good move in a tactical sense, but at the same time I have inherent disquiets about a socialist leader calling on an entrenched revolutionary organisation that's fighting a bloody and bitter armed struggle to lay down it's arms. I don't think any good will come of this in the long term.

[BIG BROTHER]

The only reasons that the FARC takes hostages are A: to raise funds for their armed struggle in the form of ransoms, and B: to pressure the Colombian state into releasing the hundreds of FARC prisoners of war it holds.
That's true.



In the first case, why should we as Marxists give two shits about a wealthy capitalist, landowner or bourgeois politician being kidnapped? These people are class enemies, and we should feel no sympathy for them. The only people such an action will alienate are middle-class liberals (particularly foreign ones), and I doubt FARC has much of a chance with them anyway!

The problem is that actually not only is not only "middle-class" liberals the ones who are alienated from las FARC but if you notice by the (dammed)popularity of the reactionary presidente Uribe is pretty much the majority of Colombians who are alienated from las FARC.



With the second point in mind, the taking of hostages is a perfectly legitimate tactic. It is hypocritical and reactionary to call for the FARC to "unconditionally" release it's prisoners, without calling on the Colombian state to do the same! If the Colombian regime truly cared about those hostages, it would offer to exchange FARC prisoners of war for them.

I'm tottaly with you on that one. If the state is supposed to be the "good one" then it should set an example. Of course they don't do it because in reality because they are reactionary capitalists who seek to exterminate any trace of leftist resistance to their regime.




They already tried this! They set up the Patriotic Union, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Union_%28Colombia%29) and it's member and leaders were taken down like flies by the military and the paramilitaries linked to them! It's kinda hard to wage a parliamentary struggle when you're MPs are being assasinated every two or three days!

Thats very true, didn't 5000 members from Patriotic Union "disappear"

[dirtycommiebastard]

The only reasons that the FARC takes hostages are A: to raise funds for their armed struggle in the form of ransoms, and B: to pressure the Colombian state into releasing the hundreds of FARC prisoners of war it holds. So its basically a back and forth game they have going.


In the first case, why should we as Marxists give two shits about a wealthy capitalist, landowner or bourgeois politician being kidnapped? These people are class enemies, and we should feel no sympathy for them. The only people such an action will alienate are middle-class liberals (particularly foreign ones), and I doubt FARC has much of a chance with them anyway! If the working class was at the point of consciousness where kidnapping and killing the ruling class was as normal as waking up in the morning, then Uribe would not be in power and there would be a revolution occurring. FARC's methods ARE outdated and are not serving to gain ground for the proletariat. FARC is in a state of self-maintenance now, stuck in a conflict with the Colombian army and paramilitary, instead of organizing workers and peasants to make headway in the fight against capitalism.



It's very easy for revolutionaries in the First World, who do not (generally) face the threat of murder, torture, rape and imprisonment in any real way, to condemn revolutionaries in the Third World for actually struggling to make a revolution in the face of all these things! No but it is easy for revolutionaries in the first world who have comrades and contacts living in those conditions to make judgements on the shortcomings of FARC who are is 'supposedly' trying to create a revolution.


Trotsky took the families of Tsarist officers hostage to ensure that they would fight for the Red Army. Should he be condemned for this, for alienating those middle-class liberals who some on this forum seem to think are our target audience? There was actually a proletarian revolution also occurring in Russia at the time. Would you like to point me toward the revolution in Columbia? These tactics will only serve to be detrimental to FARC in this stage of history. They are only creating more confrontations with the State.




Agree totally. Considering the murderous history of the Colombian state past and present, it would be suicide for the FARC rebels to lay down their arms. Agreed. They should use their weapons to defend workers who are actively organizing in the labour movement. Is it so wrong for me to put forward a real Marxist line?



The Colombian what? The Colombian people? The workers and peasants of Colombia? They certainly don't see the FARC as "murderers and terrorists", or they wouldn't still be joining them in such large numbers! They may not all be totally enamored with the FARC, but they certainly don't hate them. State your sources? Many workers in the cities do not see FARC as a good thing.


As well as that, both in occupied Ireland and Colombia, it is both justifiable and applaudable for revolutionaries to wage armed struggle against the forces of the state. There is nothing wrong with killing soldiers, policemen etc. As well as the fact that armed struggle represents the purest form of struggle between opposing forces, it can act as a source of inspiration to the oppressed peoples concerned. It may be necessary to use force when the labour movement is under direct attack by the ruling class and fascists elements, and this I fully support. As for killing soldiers and police officers. Do you really believe that a small group of people going around doing this is going to attract the layers of the working class who have not reached revolutionary conclusions yet, who still believe the police force is there to protect them? No, it will only further alienate this group from the masses.



We need to avoid the idea that armed struggle somehow detracts from the class struggle and the broader social struggle. In fact, armed struggle complements the class struggle, and is an irremovable part of it. However, armed struggle which becomes divorced from the struggles of working people results in the revolutionary forces no longer acting as a vanguard of the workers and peasants, but instead an organisation whose actions only serve the purpose of perpetuating itself. Exactly what FARC has become.




In particular, I don't hold the lunatic belief that I, or the organisation I belong to, hold the answers on what the revolutionary program should be in Colombia, Venezuela, Nepal, India, the Philippines, Ireland, Burkina Faso or wherever. As revolutionaries in the First World, it is our job to offer critical support to the mass struggle of working people in the Third World, and the leadership through which these struggles are expressed. It is not our job to tell them how to make a revolution in their own countries, and it is not our job to issue blanket condemnations of forces which we can only know a very small amount about. I don't think anyone issued a blanket condemnation. I have critical support of FARC and their ideas, though I denounce their methods as un-Marxist. I would never call for them to disarm, as I recognize the insane threat the right wing poses in Colombia and I know of gruesome events that take on a regular basis to those who try to oppose the ruling class.

This is the problem I have with DCB's post. He sets out this big program listing what the FARC should do here, what the FARC should do there... what makes DCB think he understands the objective conditions in Colombia better than the FARC?!? :lol: It's just a hunch.


they're fighting a war. They are no longer fighting a class war, they are fighting a war to maintain their existence. Give it up.

[Saorsa]

So its basically a back and forth game they have going.

You call trying to get you're comrades freed from imprisonment in jails where they face the constant threat of murder and torture a game? You need to get you're head checked, or perhaps you need to experience some kind of revolutionary struggle yourself before being so flippant about it.


If the working class was at the point of consciousness where kidnapping and killing the ruling class was as normal as waking up in the morning, then Uribe would not be in power and there would be a revolution occurring. FARC's methods ARE outdated and are not serving to gain ground for the proletariat. FARC is in a state of self-maintenance now, stuck in a conflict with the Colombian army and paramilitary, instead of organizing workers and peasants to make headway in the fight against capitalism.

My point was not that the working class considered "kidnapping and killing the ruling class [to be] as normal as waking up in the morning". My point was that there is no need for us to condemn the FARC for the use of such tactics, because the people concerned deserve no better. The FARC's kidnapping of capitalists, landlords and bourgeois politicians gives them a bargaining chip to use in exchange for their own POWs. If they weren't doing it, the Colombian state and the Colombian media would find something else to condemn them for.

The FARC may well be stuck in a state of "self-maintenance", but how is that a bad thing? The FARC has set up People's Courts in the area it controls, and has instituted land reforms. They have struggled to eradicate machismo and to institute women's rights.1 They have helped the peasants to clear the land, built roads and sealed highways, and have defended the peasants from coca eradication programs.2

If the FARC is defeated, all of this goes. The unbridled rule of capital and landlords will be restored in the FARC controlled areas (15-20% of Colombia), and the focal point of revolutionary struggle in Colombia will be gone.

In the context of the revolutionary struggle in Colombia, the self-maintenance of the FARC is a revolutionary struggle in itself, and the FARC's defeat would be a great blow to the workers and peasants of Colombia and a great boon to the oppressor classes.


No but it is easy for revolutionaries in the first world who have comrades and contacts living in those conditions to make judgements on the shortcomings of FARC who are is 'supposedly' trying to create a revolution.

Be specific if you're using you're "contacts" in Colombia to prop up you're argument. Who are these contacts of yours, what is their class background, their political beliefs, and what is you're connection to them?


There was actually a proletarian revolution also occurring in Russia at the time. Would you like to point me toward the revolution in Columbia? These tactics will only serve to be detrimental to FARC in this stage of history. They are only creating more confrontations with the State.

The FARC, and the armed struggle it is leading in the countryside (supported by underground organising amongst workers and students in the cities), represents the revolution in Colombia. Are you saying you have to seize state power before you're allowed to take hostages? Why? And if so, how does that relate to you're claim that it is counter-productive for the FARC to take hostages?

Also, it's somewhat strange to hear a supposed revolutionary saying we should avoid "confontations with the state". I'm sure you'll have a great deal of success leading a revolution that doesn't involve confronting the state! :lol:


Agreed. They should use their weapons to defend workers who are actively organizing in the labour movement. Is it so wrong for me to put forward a real Marxist line?

They do use their weapons for that, and they use them to wage armed struggle against the soldiers who shoot down striking workers. While I'm sure a "real Marxist" such as yourself would be able to easily transport the weapons and fighters down into the cities every time a strike was taking place, the FARC, being mere mortals, find it quite difficult. Perhaps you have some tips to offer them?

And before you bring out the standard dogmatic-Marxist line about how they shouldn't be in the countryside, and should instead be in the cities where the workers are, the answer to that would be obvious to anyone who knows how to seek truth from facts, rather than imposing dogma on reality. They're in the countryside because their cadre in the cities get assassinated and repressed if they operate openly, thus justifying their strategy of encircling the cities.

Marxism is more than just quoting from books written a century or more ago. Marxism is about taking a dialectical materialist approach to reality, it's about seeking truth from facts. You analyse the objective conditions and chart you're course accordingly. You don't chart you're course according to what was written 200 years ago about how you should do it, or how somebody else charted their course through a different reef 100 years ago. If you do that, you're ship will end up smashed on the rocks.


State your sources? Many workers in the cities do not see FARC as a good thing.

I was speaking about Colombia a few weeks ago to Anthony Main, a leader of the Socialist Party of Australia, which is affiliated to the CWI. It's third-hand information, but it's information nonetheless. The FARC draws at least a third of it's recruits from the cities, and that's split 50/50 between workers and students.

The statement that "many workers... do not see the FARC as a good thing" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Many workers did not see the Bolsheviks as a good thing!


It may be necessary to use force when the labour movement is under direct attack by the ruling class and fascists elements, and this I fully support. As for killing soldiers and police officers. Do you really believe that a small group of people going around doing this is going to attract the layers of the working class who have not reached revolutionary conclusions yet, who still believe the police force is there to protect them? No, it will only further alienate this group from the masses.

It will not attract them alone, it must be couple with other avenues of struggle. But I would argue, and I think history shows, that undertaking such actions does attract militant workers to you're cause, and only by building a mass movement based on the militant, advanced section of the working people, can we ever hope to seriously challenge the capitalist class. And olny when we challenge the capitalist class can we hope to attract the backward elements of the working class.

If you tailor you're politics and you're actions to the backward elements of the class, you'll end up with a moderate, reformist group that doesn't "challenge the state" (which I don't see as something to be applauded!). If you tailor you're politics and you're actions to the advanced section of the class, you'll ultimately win overt the backward elements.

The fact that in 2002 the FARC was estimated to be active in 93% of Colombia kinda suggests that it isn't espescially alienated from the masses. The arguments you're using are incredibly similar to those that used to be used against the NLF in Vietnam... Funny how all these revolutionary movements come to power through protracted armed struggle based in the countryside, isn't it? Very un-Marxist of them to do what works, not what results in them getting killed.


I don't think anyone issued a blanket condemnation. I have critical support of FARC and their ideas, though I denounce their methods as un-Marxist. I would never call for them to disarm, as I recognize the insane threat the right wing poses in Colombia and I know of gruesome events that take on a regular basis to those who try to oppose the ruling class.

I'm glad to hear that you don't support them laying down their aims, but you are being ultra-critical of them. And in what way, exactly, are their methods "un-Marxist"?


It's just a hunch.

It's both a wrong and an arrogant one.


They are no longer fighting a class war, they are fighting a war to maintain their existence. Give it up.

The war to maintain their existence is inextricably linked with the class war in Colombia, because like it or not the FARC represents the expression of revolutionary class struggle there. And it is simply ridiculous to claim that an organisation that enforces land to the tiller, people's courts, grassroots health care and education systems and so on in the areas it controls, and consistently issues statements supporting the strike action of workers etc, is not fighting a class struggle.

I would recommend reading this article. I found this paragraph particularly illuminating;


Immediately after its founding, the insurgency was active in four municipalities and expanded its influence during the 1970s and 1980s. It was during the 1990s—with the rise of neoliberal economic policies accompanied by increased state repression, often carried out with unspeakable brutality by government-sanctioned paramilitaries—that the FARC–EP dramatically increased its social presence throughout the country. A comprehensive study published in 1997 revealed that the insurgency had tangible influence in 622 municipalities (out of a total 1,050).4 In 1999, the FARC–EP had increased its power to more than 60 percent of the country, and in less than three years it was estimated that over 93 percent of all “regions of recent settlement” in Colombia had a guerrilla presence.5 One example is the department of Cundinamarca, which completely surrounds the capital city of Bogotá. Within this area the power of the FARC–EP extends throughout 83 of the department’s 116 municipalities. Although its power varies in each borough, there is good reason to believe that the FARC–EP is present in every municipality throughout Colombia. Some areas are formally arranged by the FARC–EP with schools, medical facilities, grassroots judicial structures, and so on, while others may have a guerrilla presence albeit in a much smaller capacity. In conjunction with the material rise of the FARC–EP it cannot be denied that the insurgency has considerable support from the civilian population. Over the past several years, an increasing number of rural inhabitants have begun to migrate to FARC–EP inhabited regions, be it for protection or solidarity. During peace negotiations between the insurgency and the Colombian government (1998–2002), over 20,000 people migrated to the FARC–EP held Villa Nueva Colombia in one year alone. Many preferred to live in the rebel safe haven since it provided a sense of security and the ability to create alternative community-based development projects.6 No better example of the growing support for the FARC–EP exists than the number of rural inhabitants entering the FARC–EP maintained demilitarized zone (DMZ), acquired by the insurgency during the peace talks. The DMZ, prior to (official) FARC–EP consolidation, had a population of only about 100,000 inhabitants.7 By the time the Colombian government invaded the region and ended the peace negotiations there were roughly 740,000 Colombians who had migrated to the guerrilla held territory.8

1: http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia20.htm (http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia20.htm)
2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1849603.stm
3:

[Glenn Beck]

The problem with saying FARC should become solely a political organisation, or establish a political wing is that they tried it before.

Former FARC guerillas founded the Patriotic Union party in the late 80's and most of the party was exterminated by death squads.

Whats to stop that happening again?

I think this is exactly the issue that Chavez is concerned with. He obviously must know what happened with the Union Patriotica in the 1980s. From listening to his actual words (which I recommend before coming to a kind of judgment, the press has tended to distort things significantly) it seems to me that his evaluation of the situation is the following:

FARC is either losing or at the very least not gaining any ground in the armed struggle with the Colombian government. They have lost much of their base of support and have been forced to resort to criminal activities for some time now just to survive. This has compromised some elements of their organization and tarnished their image in the eyes of many, most importantly really the people of Colombia who should be their natural constituency.

FARC has given the imperialists an excuse to intervene more boldly in Latin America than they could otherwise get away with diplomatically in the current climate. And the continued conflict in Colombia is a threat to the stability of the region and the continued pushes for regional integration (ALBA, Unasur, etc.)

FARC has also given the right-wing inside Colombia a lease on life, even though the paras are responsible for most of the violence and most of the drug trafficking the Uribe govt. and previous administrations have managed to vilify the guerillas and most of the supposed "drug eradication" aid from Plan Colombia goes to killing the FARC anyway. This antithesis is what gives the Right in Colombia its strength, an end to the conflict would completely change the political terrain in Colombia.

For the first time ever, progressive governments in opposition to North American imperialism possess most of the diplomatic clout in Latin America. Even highly suspect social-democratic regimes like Brazil's and Argentina's support Chavez and the vision of Latin American integration and independent development.

This gives FARC a chance to reach a political settlement and an end to the conflict WITHOUT unconditional surrender or being destroyed as a political force. In his speech Chavez specifically proposed this as his solution to the conflict: a negotiation mediated by the governments of the region which would presumably prevent the Colombian government and their Yankee benefactors from twisting FARC's arm at the negotiating table and achieve the closest thing to a just peace possible.


I think this plan makes a good bit of sense and as the prospects for FARC aren't looking good at the moment and there is no guarantee that the current anti-imperialist political climate in Latin America will last, it would make sense to reach some kind of settlement that would end the armed conflict while allowing the Left in Colombia to rebuild and regroup and wage struggle in a political context. Ending this conflict would also deprive North American imperialism of its last major military outpost in South America.

Of course this is just a plan, it sounds all nice and rosy but the US and the Colombian establishment are not going to go for this and will resist with all their might. There is also the threat of opportunism and betrayal from the various progressive (with our without squarequotes depending on your POV) Latin American governments, including Chavez himself.

But even though this plan might end up a splintered wreck on the rocky shores of reality (or whatever the metaphor is) I'm pretty much at a loss to come up with a better alternative. :confused:

[Herman]

The only reasons that the FARC takes hostages are A: to raise funds for their armed struggle in the form of ransoms, and B: to pressure the Colombian state into releasing the hundreds of FARC prisoners of war it holds.

In the first case, why should we as Marxists give two shits about a wealthy capitalist, landowner or bourgeois politician being kidnapped? These people are class enemies, and we should feel no sympathy for them. The only people such an action will alienate are middle-class liberals (particularly foreign ones), and I doubt FARC has much of a chance with them anyway!

You are viewing things in a very black and white manner. It's not about the liberal middle class (apart from the fact that some of the middle class can be socialist as well), it's the fact that in the eyes of the common folk (poor, peasants and workers alike) they are discredited. The culture of "peace" has long been imposed on the populace and these are its effects: denouncing anything which uses violence as a means to an end, especially criminal-like tactics like kidnapping, even if it's "wealthy capitalists", "bourgeois politicians" and "landowners" (assuming all of the kidnapped are categorized in these, which they are not anyway). In other words, kidnapping is counter-productive to armed struggle.


With the second point in mind, the taking of hostages is a perfectly legitimate tactic. It is hypocritical and reactionary to call for the FARC to "unconditionally" release it's prisoners, without calling on the Colombian state to do the same! If the Colombian regime truly cared about those hostages, it would offer to exchange FARC prisoners of war for them.

Perhaps, but the Colombian government and state have the support of the majority, including the poor (and they want to keep the prisoners in jail). The FARC have low bargaining power (most of what they ask is money anyway).


It's very easy for revolutionaries in the First World, who do not (generally) face the threat of murder, torture, rape and imprisonment in any real way, to condemn revolutionaries in the Third World for actually struggling to make a revolution in the face of all these things!

It's also very easy to support any revolutionary movement for revolutionaries in the first world no matter how reactionary or counter-productive their struggle is.


Trotsky took the families of Tsarist officers hostage to ensure that they would fight for the Red Army. Should he be condemned for this, for alienating those middle-class liberals who some on this forum seem to think are our target audience? Of course not! So why should we not apply the same principle to the FARC?

Because in the case of Russia, there was no mass media (as we know it today) and the workers generally supported the actions of the Bolsheviks. This does not apply to the FARC.


When the FARC prisoners of war are released, so too will their hostages. There is no other way to do this.

Yes, there is. To free them gives them credibility in the eyes of the workers.

[Saorsa]

You are viewing things in a very black and white manner.

And you are viewing things in a moralistic, liberal manner.


It's not about the liberal middle class (apart from the fact that some of the middle class can be socialist as well), it's the fact that in the eyes of the common folk (poor, peasants and workers alike) they are discredited.

That simply is not the case, as the FARCS level of popular support shows.



No better example of the growing support for the FARC–EP exists than the number of rural inhabitants entering the FARC–EP maintained demilitarized zone (DMZ), acquired by the insurgency during the peace talks. The DMZ, prior to (official) FARC–EP consolidation, had a population of only about 100,000 inhabitants.7 By the time the Colombian government invaded the region and ended the peace negotiations there were roughly 740,000 Colombians who had migrated to the guerrilla held territory.No better example of the growing support for the FARC–EP exists than the number of rural inhabitants entering the FARC–EP maintained demilitarized zone (DMZ), acquired by the insurgency during the peace talks. The DMZ, prior to (official) FARC–EP consolidation, had a population of only about 100,000 inhabitants.7 By the time the Colombian government invaded the region and ended the peace negotiations there were roughly 740,000 Colombians who had migrated to the guerrilla held territory.




The culture of "peace" has long been imposed on the populace and these are its effects: denouncing anything which uses violence as a means to an end, especially criminal-like tactics like kidnapping, even if it's "wealthy capitalists", "bourgeois politicians" and "landowners" (assuming all of the kidnapped are categorized in these, which they are not anyway). In other words, kidnapping is counter-productive to armed struggle.


Explain what you mean by "culture of peace". Are you referring to the efforts by the ruling class to promote the idea that the oppressed masses should not resist their oppression with violence? I highly doubt they're going to suddenly stop promoting that idea just because FARC releases some hostages!


Perhaps, but the Colombian government and state have the support of the majority, including the poor (and they want to keep the prisoners in jail). The FARC have low bargaining power (most of what they ask is money anyway).

President Uribe's clames of 70% support are ludicrous. The polls are almost entirely conducted among middle and upper income Colombians, and it's kind of hard for the workers in the barrios and the peasants in the countryside to vote in these polls when they have access to neither telephones nor internet! Why are you swallowing the propaganda of his reactionary regime?


It's also very easy to support any revolutionary movement for revolutionaries in the first world no matter how reactionary or counter-productive their struggle is.

*snip First World arrogant attitude that thinks it has the right to pronounce revolutionary mass movements "reactionary or counter-productive"*


Because in the case of Russia, there was no mass media (as we know it today) and the workers generally supported the actions of the Bolsheviks. This does not apply to the FARC.

What a ridiculous statement. For one thing, workers aren't stupid, and they aren't just empty vessels - they don't blindly swallow everything the mass media tells them, and the fact that you think they do shows how little contact with workers you must have. There was media in the time of the Bolsheviks, and most workers and peasants in Colombia don't have access to internet or cable TV!

Furthermore, if you think the Bolsheviks had support for their actions, why do you suppose the FARC does not? The Bolsheviks only won a quarter of the vote in the CA elections, and I expect that had you been alive then you'd have been condemning them just as harshly as you now condemn the FARC!


Yes, there is. To free them gives them credibility in the eyes of the workers.

It would make them loom weak and pacifistic, as if they were givin up the struggle. To their credit, they are not.