FARC and the liberation of hostages

[Robert]

We are all happy for the release of the hostages, yes?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/02/betancourt.colombia/index.html


I'll say this for las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia: they aren't just, um, "talking" revolution.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/farc.htm

[Bud Struggle]

FARC is just a bunch of grimey, nasty hoodlums, murders and kidnappers. If they are what the Revolutionary vanguard is going to be like there is going to be a Counter-Revolution not too long after the Revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I support FARC, not because I wish that innocent Americans are kidnapped and kept from their families for years, but because there needs to be an alternative to the death-squad sweatshop state.

It's strange how so many Western (and even Latino) 'critics' hang from the side-lines, exhausting their intellectual energy on raising how FARC has disobeyed the moral laws of a 'just war' by composing long lists of their gross 'violations' in the field of battle. It's hypocritical to condemn them as "grimey, nasty hoodlums, murders and kidnappers," when nearly 85% of all attacks on civilian targets have been directed by right-wing paramilitary forces, backed by the Colombian military. Uribe, Colombia's 'democratic' president, has close ties to the paramilitaries himself.

If there is 'criticism', then it should be based on the tactical usefullness of their terror and kidnappings, not on the entire organization, or the struggle they are waging.

[Robert]

the tactical capability of their terror and kidnappings

Capability???:lol:

Tom, seems to me that one either wants Marxist revolution or one does not. FARC is marxist and revolutionary.

[RGacky3]

If there is 'criticism', then it should be based on the tactical capability of their terror and kidnappings, not on the entire organization, or the struggle they are waging.

The struggle they are waging, them and many so-called revolutionary groups, has nothing to do with liberation or socialism, it has to do with power, its been that way for a while. FARC is just anoter one of those organizations that started out somewhat revolutoinary, but then just got so caught up in power nad the attainment of it, its become almost as bad as the paramilitary groups.


It's strange how so many Western (and even Latino) 'critics' hang from the side-lines, exhausting their intellectual energy on raising how FARC has disobeyed the moral laws of a 'just war' by composing long lists of their gross 'violations' in the field of battle. It's hypocritical to condemn them as "grimey, nasty hoodlums, murders and kidnappers," when nearly 85% of all attacks on civilian targets have been directed by right-wing paramilitary forces, backed by the Colombian military. Uribe, Colombia's 'democratic' president, has close ties to the paramilitaries himself.


What does being Latino have to do with it stupid? What kind of racist crap is that?

What the paramilitaries and the government do has nothing to do with it, hopefully we arn't basing our moral reasoning on paramilitaires and governments? If we are then were in big trouble.

In my view once a guerilla group starts murdering the people its supposed to liberate, because of who they support, their views, their position, then they've betrayed their point. The Kidnapping of Americans was wrong, but both FARC and the paramilitaries have kidnapped and killed many many more colombians, wich is just as wrong, and in my view FARC is just another power monger along with the state.

Now that being said, its still horrifically hypocritical for those who support the colombian state to critisize FARC, what FARC has done (which is wrong and unjustifiable) pales in comparison to the state and paramilitiares that the state supports, but everyone in the west seams to conveniently ignore those atrocities, but they can't be ignored.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Robert the Great,

It's more of a red-nationalism in tune with Ho Chi Minh or other third world militants. Raul Reyes, the deceased co-founder of FARC, defined it like this.


“The guerrillas of the FARC are formulating a proposal to create a New Government of National Reconstruction to the most diverse social, political and economic expressions of the Colombian people. It guarantees peace with social justice, in defense of our people’s dignity, sovereignty and the definitive independence necessary for the construction of a New Colombia, free from exploitation.”RGacky3,

First off, what is so 'racist' about characterizing how some 'critics' as Latino, at a spot where there is an upsurge of national consciousness about the U.S. and their policies to keep them down?

The anti-apartheid, anti-slavery, and anti-colonial movements have all used terror tactics. In Algeria, thousands of Pied-nors were killed by the FLN. In the antebellum south, slave revolts targeted not only armed guards, but the families of the slave-owners. In fact, I can't think of a single movement in which violence targeted at 'civilians' wasn't regularly used. Even India had assorted groups that violently attacked unarmed British officials.

Whenever I see your posts, it always looks like a mythological, evil force of 'power' comes out of nowhere to destroy every sense of human goodness that has ever existed. Do you feel like you are on a moral high-ground since you are not after 'power'?

[Robert]

The Kidnapping of Americans was wrong

Hooray! Gack for President!!!

[RGacky3]

“The guerrillas of the FARC are formulating a proposal to create a New Government of National Reconstruction to the most diverse social, political and economic expressions of the Colombian people. It guarantees peace with social justice, in defense of our people’s dignity, sovereignty and the definitive independence necessary for the construction of a New Colombia, free from exploitation.”

I'm one of those that tends to judge revolutionary groups by what they do rather than what they say.


First off, what is so 'racist' about characterizing how some 'critics' as Latino, at a spot where there is an upsurge of national consciousness about the U.S. and their policies to keep them down?

Whats racist is your saying that "even some latinos critizise FARC" as if simply the fact that they are Latino should make them support a group like FARC, a group that has nothing to do with most American Latinos, and hurts many many colombians, its racist, or racist is a bit strong, its ignorant to lump latinos into one category and expect them to bindly support groups simply becaue they are latino.


The anti-apartheid, anti-slavery, and anti-colonial movements have all used terror tactics. In Algeria, thousands of Pied-nors were killed by the FLN. In the antebellum south, slave revolts targeted not only armed guards, but the families of the slave-owners. In fact, I can't think of a single movement in which violence targeted at 'civilians' wasn't regularly used. Even India had assorted groups that violently attacked unarmed British officials.


I can think of groups that did'nt use terrorist tactics, there were many, plus targeting civilians is'nt a nessesary tactic at all, and its unjustifiable, that being said, FARC has shown itself to be a group thats mainly concerned about its own power. Think about it, if its willing to give up principles so easily, like killing campesinos, kidnapping people and the such, whats to say they would'nt give up other principles, in my eyes they already have.

Also in many of those examples you posted civilian attacks or the such wern't 'strategies' or consistant 'tactic's used with regularity, they were singular events, that happend, not the norm.

The Zapatista rebellion is one that has gone out of its way to keep its principles in tact, the same goes for the rebellion in Oaxaca, that being said generally speaking vanguardist guerilla groups tend to give up their morals easily.


Whenever I see your posts, it always looks like a mythological, evil force of 'power' comes out of nowhere to destroy every sense of human goodness that has ever existed.

Its noy mythalogical, infact its the basis of Capitalism and all class systems, or hiarchical systems, its also what happens when people get power, they want more of it, they want to keep it, historiaclly thats been proven over and over again. Whats mythilogical is the idea that people can be given unchecked authority, and power and simply not be corrupted, and just be selfless, its not going to happen.


Do you feel like you are on a moral high-ground since you are not after 'power'?

Most people arn't after power, most people are just trying to stay afloat, but I'll tell you this much, if you, or me, or anyone was given absolute authority over people, I can't tell you how we would react, it has nothing to do with moral high-ground its just common sense, groups that try to take state power generally are concerned with that, state power, above all, people with power, generally are concerned with getting and keeping more of it, thats the way the world works, and thast why we are trying to get rid of power structures like Capitalism and the State.

[PigmerikanMao]

The FARC should have killed 'em. :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

Betancourt looked pretty well fed and healthy for someone who´d just been through a terrible "ordeal". unlike the 500 FARC members starving in Uribe´s jails!

I wish they had killed the dickhead betancourt long ago to be honest, but unfortunately she´s all over the news spewing vacuous crap and being hailed as a "hero". :lol: I mean jesus christ, have you heard her speak? as marx said, on the flat plains of bourgeois intellect even molehills look like mountains.:rolleyes:

[Robert]

Why don't you start murdering some counterrevolutionary pigs yourself, Zurdito? there are plenty around who are "worse" than the well fed Betancourt. I mean, since it's such a good idea and you wish it so fervently. You do have the courage of your convictions, correct?

[RedAnarchist]

Why don't you start murdering some counterrevolutionary pigs yourself, Zurdito? there are plenty around who are "worse" than the well fed Betancourt. I mean, since it's such a good idea and you wish it so fervently. You do have the courage of your convictions, correct?

Yeah, because hes right in the middle of the action in the Colombian jungle. Do you really think he would do that in the US? There is no revolutionary situation in America, at least not on the same scale as that in Colombia.

[Killfacer]

thats vile. FARC have just become a bunch on terrorists. They kill innocents, bomb civilians and have forsaken the pretence of being socialists. They should give up the ghost, they're just hurting people now and there is no chance of them being successful, their chance died long ago.

[Robert]

Do you really think he would do that in the US?
No, I don't. I don't think he would do it anywhere.


There is no revolutionary situation in America, at least not on the same scale as that in Colombia.There will be one as soon as you guys stop talking, buy some guns, and start shooting some capitalists. What's stopping you? Judges and prosecutors? You can shoot them, too. Come to think of it, you'd better shoot them.

You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. You want an omelet or not?

[RedAnarchist]

thats vile. FARC have just become a bunch on terrorists. They kill innocents, bomb civilians and have forsaken the pretence of being socialists. They should give up the ghost, they're just hurting people now and there is no chance of them being successful, their chance died long ago.

If killing innocents makes them terrorists, then both sides are terrorists. Uribes government has its fair share of the killings as well.

[RedAnarchist]

There will be one as soon as you guys stop talking, buy some guns, and start shooting some capitalists. What's stopping you? Judges and prosecutors? You can shoot them, too. Come to think of it, you'd better shoot them.

You have to break some eggs to make an omelet. You want an omelet or not?

I don't live in America. And do you really think a bunch of armed people shooting rich people at random will bring about a revolution? I cannot think for a minute that your post was fully serious.

[Robert]

Red, I am serious to this extent: if you and Zurdito are for revolution, then get busy. Obviously I oppose you.

I don't think any of you, on the other hand, are serious at all. I know you want to save the world, but the material conditions of the people are not anywhere close to being intolerable enough (especially in Europe and the USA) to trigger the massive confiscations of property and re-orderings of power you envision.

Why don't you come over to the dark side and try it for a while? There's plenty of good you can do within the existing system. Maybe you already are, I don't know.

[Killfacer]

the fact that the government are a load of murderers doesnt my FARC devoid of responsibility. Neither side has exactly covered itself in glory. I must admit i do not know much of the government's state terrorism, but i can beleive it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

the fact that the government are a load of murderers doesnt my FARC devoid of responsibility. Neither side has exactly covered itself in glory. I must admit i do not know much of the government's state terrorism, but i can beleive it.

Then what side are you on? The Colombian social movement to oust the foreign capitalists, the compradors, big land-owners, or the latter?

[Bud Struggle]

Then what side are you on? The Colombian social movement to oust the foreign capitalists, the compradors, big land-owners, or the latter?

How about: "A plague on both their houses." :)

[Labor Shall Rule]

How about: "A plague on both their houses." :)

FARC-EP tried being "peaceful" and "nice" by participating in Colombian elections, which resulted in massacre. Today, the ELN has joined in a left-coalition and has ceased fighting. The 'Left' in Colombia (including the FARC-EP) want to invalidate free-trade agreements, end privatization and the attack on the salaries of all workers, lower the retirement age and heighten aid for the unemployed, and destroy paramilitarism.

If you sit on the fence and slam both sides, you are not promoting the Left's aims, so by default, you are letting the 'stronger' enemy of U.S. imperialism to pick them off with their paramilitaries or criminal agents.

[Bud Struggle]

FARC-EP tried being "peaceful" and "nice" by participating in Colombian elections, which resulted in massacre. Today, the ELN has joined in a left-coalition and has ceased fighting. The 'Left' in Colombia (including the FARC-EP) want to invalidate free-trade agreements, end privatization and the attack on the salaries of all workers, lower the retirement age and heighten aid for the unemployed, and destroy paramilitarism.

If you sit on the fence and slam both sides, you are not promoting the Left's aims, so by default, you are letting the 'stronger' enemy of U.S. imperialism to pick them off with their paramilitaries or criminal agents.

Difficult point. The problem is that I see any betrayal of the Marxist ideal as a betrayal of Communist standards--and there's been plenty of that--and plenty of failure to show for it.

I don't know your exact politics--but I see someone like Stalin as the biggest evil that ever happened to Communism--it made it universally despised. Not much chance for a revolution when your are hated by everyone the world over.

For Marxism to trimph it must win over the HEARTS and MINDS of people--tactical victories are phyrric at best.

[RGacky3]

Then what side are you on? The Colombian social movement to oust the foreign capitalists, the compradors, big land-owners, or the latter?

That reminds me of Bush "are you with us or with the terrorists" statements. First of all, FARC and the ELN are not the Colombian social movement, they are 2 organizations, big ones, but not THE 'colombian social movement'.


If you sit on the fence and slam both sides, you are not promoting the Left's aims, so by default, you are letting the 'stronger' enemy of U.S. imperialism to pick them off with their paramilitaries or criminal agents.

With that logic we should support the Taliban, we should have supported Saddam Hussein. If State power is the left's aim I want nothing to do with it, the aim of the left should be dismanteling state and capitalist power.

You don't have to support FARC to be against the State.

[Labor Shall Rule]

TomK:

Are you saying that FARC-EP betrayed the "Marxist ideal"? I'd argue that they never were truly Marxist, but a true Marxist would support the Colombian's decision to negotiate where and to what volume their material wealth is distributed. We'd also support it since their national-liberation will be a break from international (mainly American in South America's case) capital.

To be honest, I don't give a shit about Stalin, and I also don't see how being able to accurately recite his 'atrocities' without looking down to your Robert Conquest novella is essential to forming a genuine communist movement. In Nepal, Dominican Republic, Turkey, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, there are 'Stalinists' who millions of workers and bonded farmers have followed. To them, pointing out how evil a man was that died over fourty years ago is stupid, but acquiring real power, along with school for their children, food to eat, and free and accesible health care is what really matters.

RGacky3:

The Social and Political Front, Democratic Pole, Democratic Alternative, and M-19 are parties of the 'Left' that have stuck to electoralism. Their failures are obvious - to 'win votes' they've capitulated to ruling parties (including Uribe's Liberal Party), which has lead to the opening of internal commerce to US capital, the slashing of the salaries of public workers, the raising of the retirement age, cutting subsidies to the health system, and the neoliberal whatnot.

The 'social movement' I refer to is the anti-imperialist front to oust U.S.-control. The 'others' that are violently confronting the paramilitaries, police, and US-armed military thugs that murder trade unionists and democratic activists, and that are not voting to 'compromise' with the traitors (while worsening the poor and working class), are the true enemies of imperialism. So they are the threat that Washington fears, while the reformists are just a joke.

If you can name another party, that has mass support of the Colombian people in their struggle against foreign control, then I'd concede. But since they are the "largest insurgency in the Western hemisphere" and that they are the scariest threat to foreign investors, they are worth our support. I frankly don't care if the ELN, or even the 'reformist' parties send Uribe and the bureaucrat-capitalists packing their bags and fleeing to Miami, but if they are apart of the Colombian's effort to end U.S. imperialism, it is progressive to back them no matter what.

[Hiero]

I don't know your exact politics--but I see someone like Stalin as the biggest evil that ever happened to Communism--it made it universally despised. Not much chance for a revolution when your are hated by everyone the world over.

AmeriKKKA is not the universe.

Following WW2 there was a great revolutonary movement against neo-colonialism, Marxist-Leninists in the majority of cases were the leaders in this movement and created many socialist states. If anything Stalin's succesful leadership of the USSR, the great increase in living standards for it's citizens and the revoutionary defeat of Nazi Germany increased the popularity of Communism.

The continued existance of FARC proves the popularity of Communism, that they are the vangaurd of proleteriat and peasantary in Colombia and will defeat the US comprador state in Colombian territory. The continued existance of Maoist parties in Asia, and the election of the CPN-M in Nepal shows that revolution has not left the world scene, Communism is not despised by the most oppressed in this world. The conditions that create revolution still exist, the great contradiction between rich and poor, between labour and private ownership, these contradictions make Communism popular.

And really, if there is one thing that is universally despised it is AmeriKKKan imperialism. So it is AmeriKKKa that has very little chance of surviving the next century. The one good thing that came out of Kruschev's mouth is "History is on our side, we will bury you".

In Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Philipines, Cuba and the list goes on and on of examples where AmeriKKKan imperialism is being burried in the trash bin of history. The future looks good!

[RGacky3]

The 'social movement' I refer to is the anti-imperialist front to oust U.S.-control. The 'others' that are violently confronting the paramilitaries, police, and US-armed military thugs that murder trade unionists and democratic activists, and that are not voting to 'compromise' with the traitors (while worsening the poor and working class), are the true enemies of imperialism. So they are the threat that Washington fears, while the reformists are just a joke.

Thats true, Im not supporting reformist parties either, and the US does view them as a threat, that does'nt justify them though. I don't care if they were the only revolutoinary group in the country, the way they do things discredits their ideology.


In Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal, India, Philipines, Cuba and the list goes on and on of examples where AmeriKKKan imperialism is being burried in the trash bin of history. The future looks good!

AmeriKKKan imperialism replaced by Stalnism is no improvement, AmeriKKKan imperialism replaced by Islamist despots is'nt improvement either. AmeriKKKan imperialism is'nt the only enemy, power structers in general are the enemy, Capitalism, the state, exploitation and oppression are the enemy, and AmeriKKKan imperialism is just one part of that.

why do you spell it AmeriKKKan? It just looks silly.


If anything Stalin's succesful leadership of the USSR, the great increase in living standards for it's citizens and the revoutionary defeat of Nazi Germany increased the popularity of Communism.


Increase in living standards for many yes, also gulags and death for many. And no freedom. Also the defeat of Nazi Germany was a war effort, not revolutionary, ask the people that came under Soviet control if it was revolutionary, it was imposed, yes they liberated the people from the Nazis, but then they oppressed them with their own states.

Stalinism was a discrace to communism, in fact the USSR was.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK:

Are you saying that FARC-EP betrayed the "Marxist ideal"? I'd argue that they never were truly Marxist, but a true Marxist would support the Colombian's decision to negotiate where and to what volume their material wealth is distributed. We'd also support it since their national-liberation will be a break from international (mainly American in South America's case) capital.

That's a fair point about them never really being Marxist.


To be honest, I don't give a shit about Stalin, and I also don't see how being able to accurately recite his 'atrocities' without looking down to your Robert Conquest novella is essential to forming a genuine communist movement. In Nepal, Dominican Republic, Turkey, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, there are 'Stalinists' who millions of workers and bonded farmers have followed. To them, pointing out how evil a man was that died over fourty years ago is stupid, but acquiring real power, along with school for their children, food to eat, and free and accesible health care is what really matters.

Maybe there are some small movements in these little countries--but Nepal is hardly a good trade for China which is turning more Capitalist every day. I frankly think that Stalin and other rather dubious leaders of Communist movements have hurt the party greatly.

[Killfacer]

labour shall rule, you're a fool. Im not on either side, both sides are morally reprehensible. Thats like asking me to say who i like more: a fascist or another fascist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's simple to say you're on neither side. You're sitting in your comfortable house on your computer, you're not a Coca Cola worker that lives under the fear of assasination if you attempt to organize.

[RGacky3]

It's simple to say you're on neither side. You're sitting in your comfortable house on your computer, you're not a Coca Cola worker that lives under the fear of assasination if you attempt to organize.

Yeah, of coarse, the same way its hard in afghanistan to be on niether side when your in the same sitation, that does'nt justify anything, also what does Coca Cola workers being killed for organizing have naything to do with FARC? Does the cocacola worker have to be siding with FARC to try and organize against the odds? Also someone supporting FARC for pragmatic reasons, i.e. they don't want to die, does'nt justify them either.

Your appeal to emotion is simply that, an appeal to emotion.

[Killfacer]

RGacky3 is right.

Also why should i have to choose between two sides which are clearly both in the wrong?

[Hiero]

AmeriKKKan imperialism replaced by Stalnism is no improvement,

Sure it is.


AmeriKKKan imperialism is'nt the only enemy, power structers in general are the enemy, Capitalism, the state, exploitation and oppression are the enemy, and AmeriKKKan imperialism is just one part of that.

It is the primary contradiction between the world's progresive people. The main obstacle for the world proleteriat taking power is the USA. This is evident in all socialist revolutions where the USA has steped in and in some cases succesfully conducted counter revolutionary action.


why do you spell it AmeriKKKan? It just looks silly.

America is a continent, AmeriKKKa is an imperialist entity of settlers and comprador states. The KKK reflects it's racist nature.


Increase in living standards for many yes, also gulags and death for many.

Let's correct this, Increased living standards for millions, gulags and death for a few.

In comparison to the errors of the USSR, the material improvements under a socialist and collectivised system are so great that its existance is positive. What I wanted to show is that Stalin did nothing to harm the Communist movement, maybe in the 1st world countries (but economic conditions play a greater role here). After Stalin Communist ideology in the 3rd world increased greatly in popularity.

It is very easy for 1st world people to view history as stangent. But it is quite different, Communist and other militant anti-imperialist ideologies are very popular. FARC's existance is part of this movement against USA imperialism. So before you dismiss FARC you should learn the conditions they came about in.

I read a National Geographic the other day from 1998 about FARC. It asked the question "Fighting Social Injustice or Working in the Drug Trade?" They never explained the social injustice side, the corruption and brutatility of the Colombian state. The article jumped straight to criticising FARC's tactics. FARC's tactics, like the tactics of all guerrilla groups grows in a connection and opposition to the brutatlity to the capitalist state against the ordinary people.

You can't understand FARC or criticise FARC without understanding the oppressive nature of US comprador states, thoose states that work in interest of imperialist bourgeoisie. Hostage taking, taxing cocoa farmers (the only connection that the FARC has with drug trade, and only exists as a result of rich mulitnationals expelling peasants from fertile land and cokeheads in 1st world countries) and its violent tactics really mean nothing when the state uses similar and worse tactics. FARC's actions are within the sphere ofr the conflict with the corrupt comprador state and can't be judge outside of it.

[RGacky3]

America is a continent, AmeriKKKa is an imperialist entity of settlers and comprador states. The KKK reflects it's racist nature.



Ok I'm going to start of with this, thats the stupidest thing I've heard, your right America is a nation, second of all, American imperialism has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with profits and power, also its the United States of America, all you did was take America and replace the c with a KKK, which just lookst stupid and childish. Also the America, is'nt just the government and ruling class, its also comprised of Americans.


Sure it is.

Yeah how so? I'll tell you this much, I'd rather live in Capitalist United States rather than Stalinist Russia, so anyway, how so? Stalin was imperialistic too, remember the end of WW2? You can't tell me that was'nt imperialism.


It is the primary contradiction between the world's progresive people. The main obstacle for the world proleteriat taking power is the USA. This is evident in all socialist revolutions where the USA has steped in and in some cases succesfully conducted counter revolutionary action.

Yeah, you know why? BECAUSE THE USA IS THE DOMINANT WORLD POWER NOW!!! Every world power in the past has acted the exact same way, if you just attack the united states now and replace it with some other power what have you done? Nothing, you've just changed oppressors. The main enemy is power in general, not the USA, it just so happens that the USA is the main imperialistic power now, if the USSR won the cold war, they would be the main imperialistic power, suppressing (real) socialist revolutions around the world too.


Let's correct this, Increased living standards for millions, gulags and death for a few.

Your arithmetic is somehwat like your politics. Increased living standards for millions, and Gulags and death ... FOR MILLIONS, remember also, after WW2 living standards were raised for everyone.


In comparison to the errors of the USSR, the material improvements under a socialist and collectivised system are so great that its existance is positive. What I wanted to show is that Stalin did nothing to harm the Communist movement, maybe in the 1st world countries (but economic conditions play a greater role here). After Stalin Communist ideology in the 3rd world increased greatly in popularity.


THey wern't errors, it was'nt like Stalin tripped and created massiave gulags, a totalitarian police state and murdered millions. They were planned and executed for a specific purpose.

Stalin did nothing to harm the Communist movement? First of all, remember the Spanish civil war? There was a chance at a real communist revolution, and what happend? Stalins guys crushed it (I'm talking of coarse of the CNT-FAI).

I don't know about whether Stalin had anything to do with Communist popularity, but that does'nt change a thing, plus how many Socialsit groups now look at Stalin as being positive? Not many. Other than Maoists, who generally do so very shyly.


. But it is quite different, Communist and other militant anti-imperialist ideologies are very popular. FARC's existance is part of this movement against USA imperialism. So before you dismiss FARC you should learn the conditions they came about in.


I know their conditions, but again, that does'nt justify anything.


I read a National Geographic the other day from 1998 about FARC. It asked the question "Fighting Social Injustice or Working in the Drug Trade?" They never explained the social injustice side, the corruption and brutatility of the Colombian state. The article jumped straight to criticising FARC's tactics. FARC's tactics, like the tactics of all guerrilla groups grows in a connection and opposition to the brutatlity to the capitalist state against the ordinary people.

Your absolutely right in this 100%.


You can't understand FARC or criticise FARC without understanding the oppressive nature of US comprador states, thoose states that work in interest of imperialist bourgeoisie. Hostage taking, taxing cocoa farmers (the only connection that the FARC has with drug trade, and only exists as a result of rich mulitnationals expelling peasants from fertile land and cokeheads in 1st world countries) and its violent tactics really mean nothing when the state uses similar and worse tactics. FARC's actions are within the sphere ofr the conflict with the corrupt comprador state and can't be judge outside of it.

Here your wrong, what the other guys does does'nt justify what you do, if that was the case than the United States was 100% justified purring Japaneese in camps, but they arn't justified.

Meeting oppression with oppression does'nt justify a thing.

[Drink Activist]

On the other hand, have you ever heard opinion that FARC politic involvment is only a cover for their drugs trading to AmeriKKKa and European countries? I'm not on their side or the governments' but it seems to be very realistic to me. Don't you think that FARC leaders use their people who believe in the ideology to make their own business which have nothing in common with an 'official'?

Sorry for my English and welcome on the forum :)

[RGacky3]

On the other hand, have you ever heard opinion that FARC politic involvment is only a cover for their drugs trading to AmeriKKKa and European countries? I'm not on their side or the governments' but it seems to be very realistic to me. Don't you think that FARC leaders use their people who believe in the ideology to make their own business which have nothing in common with an 'official'?

Sorry for my English and welcome on the forum http://www.revleft.com/vb/farc-and-liberation-t83944/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I don't believe that, I think FARC are genuinely commited to their cause, but they suffer from what many many socialist revolutoinary groups suffer from, the ends justify the means concept. I also think their cause, the leninist cause, is one that will never lead to genuine communism.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry for my English and welcome on the forum :)

Indeed!!!

Welcome to the Forum. :)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yeah, of coarse, the same way its hard in afghanistan to be on niether side when your in the same sitation, that does'nt justify anything, also what does Coca Cola workers being killed for organizing have naything to do with FARC? Does the cocacola worker have to be siding with FARC to try and organize against the odds? Also someone supporting FARC for pragmatic reasons, i.e. they don't want to die, does'nt justify them either.

Your appeal to emotion is simply that, an appeal to emotion.

Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world for trade union organizers at bottling facilities owned by Coca Cola and their western subsidiaries. Why is that? Oh yeah - Coca Cola (and other U.S. companies) demand lower wages from Colombian soil to have a higher rate of return, so they hire paramilitaries to kill the martyrs that are organizing for better conditions.

Thus, if the U.S. and their puppets are pushed out (by FARC, the most 'anti-imperialist' of them all), Coca Cola can't exploit them anymore.

[RGacky3]

Thus, if the U.S. and their puppets are pushed out (by FARC, the most 'anti-imperialist' of them all), Coca Cola can't exploit them anymore.

Yeah, but who's to say FARC won't exploit them, other groups of their type that have come into power have shown that, revolutionary groups are very capable of exploiting and oppressing their people.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yeah, but who's to say FARC won't exploit them, other groups of their type that have come into power have shown that, revolutionary groups are very capable of exploiting and oppressing their people.

Well, 'exploitation' in classical Marxist terms is the expropriation of surplus-value by the owners of the means of production. This will not end, even if FARC or anyone takes over, but it'd be significantly reduced in speed and intensity, and capital will be relocated to develop the material level of Colombians.

[RGacky3]

Well, 'exploitation' in classical Marxist terms is the expropriation of surplus-value by the owners of the means of production. This will not end, even if FARC or anyone takes over, but it'd be significantly reduced in speed and intensity, and capital will be relocated to develop the material forces of Colombians.

Even if FARC taking over would improove things, (i'm not saying it would'nt, it probably would.) That does'nt justify them, that does'nt mean that a different type of tyranny is the only option, I don't buy into the lesser of 2 evils. As you said before, if I was in colombia I would have to be a lot more pragmatic, and your right, I would (For most of the Colombians I konw that ment getting the hell out of the country), but we are speaking ethically here, the FARC is'nt the only option, Libertarian Socialism, is a very viable option for Colombia, as it is for everywhere else.

[Robert]

I'll tell you this much, I'd rather live in Capitalist United States rather than Stalinist Russia

There goes any chance for your rehabilitation, Gack. You going for a permanent ban or something?