The Farc women who have given up the revolution

[spartan]

Jungle Fever
When would-be president Ingrid Betancourt was rescued last month, Colombia's Marxist guerrillas lost their most treasured hostage. But morale in the jungle was already low, with hunger, executions and forced abortions among Farc's female troops. Alice O'Keeffe meets the women who have given up the revolution.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2008/08/21/farc460x276.jpg
Rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) parade in the main square of San Vicente del Caguan. Photograph: Ricardo Mazalan/AP

Lina grips her face with her hands and lets out a groan of pain. Her uncle is standing over her, his hands forming the shape of a pistol and pointing down at an imaginary body on the floor. 'They had him on the ground, like this,' he says. 'They fired two shots into his head from here.'

'They humiliated him before killing him?' wails Lina, tears running down her face. Her body is bent double at the news of her brother's death. Gunned down aged 27 in her home town of Florencia, southern Colombia, he was murdered, she believes, by her former 'boss' - her commandant in the ruthless guerrilla army, Farc.

Lina was a member of Farc - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - for seven years. Last December, exhausted and demoralised, she deserted, handing herself in to the army. Farc does not take such betrayal lightly. A terrible revenge has been exacted upon her family.

Her compact body is built for life in the jungle; she has strong arms, black hair tied back in a functional ponytail, and long unmanicured nails. From the age of 13, when she signed up, her bed was a cambuche, made from sticks hacked from the trees or a bit of plastic thrown over roots and stones on the ground. She ate lentils, rice and beans - sometimes supplementing them with cockroaches, ants and worms (the big white ones were the best - 'they tasted like butter'). And she saw combat many times - she still has the angry welt where an army bullet pierced her neck and exited through her upper arm. ('They gave me aspirin and sent me to recover back at the camp.')

Today things look different. In a moment of reflection, she glances out of the window of her uncle's bungalow in a grubby, frenetic barrio of Bogota. 'I still can't believe it when I wake up and see the city,' she says. 'I never thought I would get a chance to live like this.'

Lina is one of the thousands of Colombian women who have joined the ranks of Farc. Founded as a peasant militia in 1964, Farc still has its roots in hardline Marxist ideology. For more than four decades it has conducted an implacable battle with the Colombian state and the rival paramilitary death squads of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC). Farc began as a rural movement, but has been gradually driven into bases deep inside Colombia's near-impenetrable jungles, some of which are almost the size of Switzerland.

Not surprisingly, hard facts about the rebel group are difficult to come by. The government puts its troop numbers at around 9,000, while other estimates have it at over 30,000. What is better understood is how Farc finances its campaign - through the cocaine trade, kidnapping and extortion.

My visit to Colombia comes a few days after the release of Farc hostage Ingrid Betancourt, a former presidential candidate who was seized in 2002 and held in the jungle, sometimes chained by the neck. The rescue of Betancourt - along with 14 other captives - at the hands of military intelligence officers posing as aid workers has hit the group's morale; her description of the 'exceptional malice' with which Farc treats its captives has damaged its international standing further. It is estimated that Farc now holds 700 hostages.

But there's a surprising aspect of Farc's armed struggle: like the kidnap victims, many of the rebel group's own frontline fighters also see themselves as prisoners. And another unusual aspect of this 'war' - around 40 per cent of Farc's frontline soldiers are female.

Lina joined after her mother left home and her father was left struggling to support five children. 'I didn't want to be a problem for him. Farc promised me an education and a wage, so I went to live with them.' Neither of those promises were honoured once she arrived - and it was made clear that any attempt to leave would be punishable by death.

Carolina Escobar Neira is the manager of a programme for former combatants at the Colombian government's High Council for Reintegration. 'Farc has traditionally had a policy of equality among its troops,' she says. 'Women are expected to do the same work as men, whether that is heavy manual work, long marches or combat.'

Farc women, however, often face a life of sexual exploitation, fear and physical abuse. Contraceptive injections are administered forcibly and pregnancies are dealt with by means of abortions with whatever basic medical equipment is to hand.

'They teach you all this Marxist philosophy and then treat you like a slave,' says Lina. Betancourt, too, recalled her shock at the group's treatment of its own female soldiers. 'They were victims, too,' she said. 'I've always had a lot of esteem for them. The girls are tiny, but I've seen them carry heavy logs just like the men. They are slaves.'

It's 20 July, Independence Day in Colombia. Hundreds of thousands of protestors have spilled out on to the streets, amid cries of 'Liberty, Liberty, Liberty!' Magazine racks on street corners show Betancourt's weary but glamorous face, alongside triumphant headlines predicting Farc's demise. T-shirts hanging in shop windows tell a similar story. Their slogan reads: 'No more kidnappings, no more extortion, no more Farc!'

There's a mood of optimism in the air. In March, spokesman Raul Reyes, seen as Farc's number two, was killed in Ecuador, in a cross-border raid by Colombian troops. Days later, another member of Farc's ruling body was murdered by his bodyguard. Then in May, Manuel 'Sureshot' Marulanda, Farc's founder and commander, died of a heart attack. Many Colombians hope these events signal the beginning of the end of the organisation they blame for wreaking havoc and destruction upon their country.

'The collective sensation is that Farc is in its final stages,' says Carlos Montoya, of the National Commission for Reparation and Reintegration. 'The Colombian people have given a clear signal that it is time for them to demobilise.'

President Alvaro Uribe's hardline stance is credited by many with getting the country back on its feet. But any improvement has come at a price. Uribe's government and associates are mired in allegations of involvement in the drugs trade, and senior politicians in his administration have been linked to the AUC's death squads. Amid the flurry of accusations, eight pro-Uribe congressmen have been arrested, and his foreign minister has been forced to resign. Yet, despite these scandals, his supporters are campaigning for a third term for Uribe.

Meanwhile, Cesar Avila Romero, manager of the Esmeralda Peace Home in the east of the capital, has an influx on his hands. Funded by the Ministry of Defence, his place looks after women and families who have recently deserted Farc. 'This year the numbers have been incredible,' he says. 'We are really seeing a massive demobilisation. Many people are arriving here who have spent 10, 15 years in armed combat.' The government reports 1,405 desertions from Farc in 2008, a 10 per cent increase on last year. In total, since Uribe mounted a full-frontal assault on the group in 2002, it's said that nearly 10,000 Farc members have handed themselves in to the authorities.

The Esmeralda has a caring, if slightly chaotic, atmosphere: downstairs in the TV room, rows of young men, women and children watch the evening soap opera, while others snatch a few minutes' sleep in the cramped bedrooms upstairs. A beautiful, blinking baby lies passively on the bed in Romero's office while we talk - she and her twin sister were born prematurely shortly after her mother arrived from the jungle. Both twins have suffered health problems, and her mother is still in the clinic, so he is keeping an eye on her. 'We try to unite families here. Many women arrive feeling that everyone is the enemy - it is our job to show them civil society has something to offer.'

Marcela, 26, has been living at the Esmeralda since May. She deserted Farc after nine years serving in various fronts in the regions of Choco and Antioquia. Petite and pretty, she says she still wakes at night dreaming she is back in the jungle with helicopters overhead and Farc hunting her through the trees. Sometimes she falls out of bed, being unused to sleeping on a mattress after so long on the ground. Being outside Farc 'feels good though. This was the only decision I could make. With time the fear will go away.'

She says conditions have deteriorated for Farc soldiers on the front line. 'When President Uribe arrived everything changed. The commanders were under more pressure. There was more hunger, and more punishment.' She had been living on a diet of pasta, water and salt, and the death penalty was regularly administered to those accused of being 'traitors' or 'infiltrators'.

'When I joined, it was a big deal to sentence a comrade to death. Now, they are getting so desperate that they will kill people for stealing sugar,' says Marcela. Increasing numbers thought about leaving - the 400-strong front had dwindled to 83. 'When we heard the news [about the death of Raul Reyes] we thought - "If he can't survive, what on earth will happen to us?"'

Marcela went through two forced abortions during her time with Farc, and now dreams of starting a family. 'It's a priority. But not yet - I have to get back on my feet first.'

Family is one of the strongest motivations for women - and many men - to attempt the transition into civilian life. Romance in the ranks is frowned upon; couples who wish to have a sexual relationship have to ask their commander for permission, and they can be split up at any time if it is deemed necessary.

In San Cristobal, a hillside barrio on the outskirts of Bogota, one family has stayed together despite the best efforts of the guerrillas. The home of Esperanza Sierra Ramirez, 26, and Jose Orlando Aguirre, 36, is a picture of domestic bliss. Beans and potatoes sprout from a small patch of earth outside the front door, and two dogs chase each other in the chilly morning air. Esperanza is getting her two-year-old son Jose Eduardo ready for nursery, heating his milk in the kitchen while his father dresses him in dungarees and a woolly balaclava.

Orlando and Esperanza served together in Farc for four years, eventually deserting in 2005. Orlando was a committed revolutionary, while Esperanza joined, she says, 'for love', having met Orlando at a party in her home town of Ibague. 'I was very innocent when I met him,' she says, stirring the saucepan of milk and smiling fondly at her husband. 'I didn't even know there was such a thing as a guerrilla. When I first went to the camps I found the physical labour and the lack of food hard. But I was very much in love - at that time I wouldn't have changed my decision for anything in the world.' She admits there were also elements of the lifestyle she liked. 'It wasn't like in ordinary life where the woman has to wash her husband's underpants. In Farc everyone has to look after themselves.'

The crisis came when their commander decided to split the couple up, sending them off to different fronts. They didn't know whether they would ever see one another again. 'I wanted to die. I felt like part of my soul had gone,' says Esperanza. For Orlando, who was becoming increasingly disillusioned with Farc's mistreatment of its troops and its abuse of civilians, the separation was the last straw.

'I had always thought the most important thing was the revolution,' he says. 'But when I had to say goodbye to Esperanza I found myself crying in the ranks. I had to ask for permission to sit down. Everybody was shocked - they had never seen me cry. I started to realise I was abandoning my wife for the sake of a revolution that was never going to happen.'

Another recent deserter resorted to particularly dramatic measures in order to return to the family she had left behind when she joined Farc. Sitting in her mother's sparse sitting room in a Bogota housing estate, she looks every inch the typical city girl: manicured nails, carefully groomed hair, white trousers. Amalia now has a respectable job in a travel agency and keeps her guerrilla past a secret from her neighbours. When she went to the camps, her two-year-old daughter was sent to live in Bogota with her grandmother but, after two-and-a-half years, Amalia could no longer bear the separation. 'I was given the task of looking after an airstrip, and I saw my opportunity,' she says. She got on to the plane with her gun and told the pilot he was being hijacked. 'He went very pale and did what I said.' On the journey to freedom she read her horoscope in the newspaper El Tiempo. 'It said I was about to start a new cycle in my life. I remember thinking how true it was.'

Amalia suffered a traumatic forced abortion during her time in the jungle. She was given drugs which succeeded in killing the foetus, but not in provoking a miscarriage. The foetus was later extracted with pincers, and she was given just 20 days' rest before going back into combat. 'I was so angry with the commander. Farc say their policy is social equality, but internally they don't practise that. That is why there is so much demobilisation. And women suffer worst of all.'

Female combatants often find it harder than their male colleagues to fit back into civilian society. 'Women feel more rejection from people in the community, because they have broken not only social rules but also the rules of gender,' says Carolina Escobar Neira of the government's High Council for Reintegration. 'Nevertheless, we find that women take better advantage than men of the government programmes available to former combatants. They are more likely than men to attend counselling sessions and workshops, and to take up further study.'

There are signs, too, that bonds of gender can be a powerful force in promoting peace and reconciliation. Valledupar is a sweltering pueblo nestling just inland from Colombia's Caribbean coast. It was a traditional heartland for the AUC paramilitaries until a demobilisation agreement with the government in 2006, and on its strangely quiet streets people are still tense, suspicious. It is here that an extraordinary group of women have achieved post-conflict reconciliation of a sort the government can still only dream of.

Todos Somos Mujeres ('We are all women') consists of 40 women who meet every Thursday on the patio of a colonial house in the town centre. Half are former combatants with the AUC; the other half had children or husbands killed by the same group. Through sharing their experiences, the two sides have formed a strong bond and now hope to start workshops with both women and men across the country.

In the shade of a mango tree, the women sit hand in hand and explain how they overcame their grief and resentment towards one another. 'Initially we were very defensive in the presence of the victims. In order to ask for forgiveness you have to forgive yourself first,' says Luz Paulina de la Rosa, 42, a former combatant.

Otilia Cordoba, an outspoken community leader whose teacher son was killed by the paramilitaries, testifies to the group's healing effect for the victims. 'I no longer simply think of myself as a victim,' she says. 'Or rather, I realise the women in the armed groups are victims, too. I think as women we realise that, for the sake of our families, we have to try to reach out to the other side. Otherwise how much lower will Colombia sink?'

Could such a programme work for Farc women? Clara Rojas, who was kidnapped with Betancourt while working as her aide, thinks so. I meet her at a breakfast reception in a smart club in Bogota, where she is due to give a speech to a group of immaculately dressed upper-class women. Rojas's lined face betrays some of the strain of the past years. At liberty only since January, she's had just a few months to get to know her four-year-old son Emmanuel, who was taken from her by the rebels when he was eight months old in order to seek medical treatment, and was not reunited with his mother until her release.

Rojas basks in the attention and adoration heaped upon her by the audience. She explains that during her time in the jungle she developed strong, affectionate relationships with some of her female guards. 'At first, I found the female Farc very harsh, very tough,' she says. Things changed when she was pregnant, and she was isolated from the other hostages with only two female guards. Emmanuel's birth left the baby with a broken arm - and his mother in bed for 40 days.

'During the pregnancy I got very ill, and when my son was born I nearly died. If it hadn't been for those two women, I never would have survived. We developed a very intense female solidarity: they were the ones who urged me to pull through for the sake of my son, and they cared for him when I couldn't.'

Rojas believes Farc's female members should have an important role in bringing the group's members back into civilian society. 'Through women you can change things a lot. You can see they suffer - not only in the small ways like being deprived of female clothes and identity, but also in the fact they are not able to achieve the most minimum level of security for themselves and their families. In my experience, lots of Farc women would like a change. I think there is work we could do there.'

But for many Colombians, both victim and combatant, the cycle of suffering is still red raw. Back at the apartment owned by Lina's uncle, no talk of change, of optimism, of solidarity will bring back her murdered brother. Oblivious to the non-stop urban roar of the taxis and street vendors outside, Lina, and her aunts and cousins gather around a mobile phone in the kitchen. They're looking at pictures of the young man sentenced to death by Farc merely for being the brother of a deserter. Lina's mother and her surviving sibling have been forced to flee their home, with no money and nowhere to go.

Lina wipes away a tear. The words she utters don't convey the desperation in her voice. 'Son of a *****,' she cries. No matter how hard she tries to run, war just keeps catching up with her.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/24/farc.colombia

[Trystan]

FARC are just the Latin American equivalent of the modern IRA.

[rednordman]

Things in this artical are bad, but it certainly does not display the whole picture (only about 5 lines in whole article about the governments very poor role in the whole of this). In general its a rather standard display of 'western liberal' anti communism/socialism. By the way, the guardian/observer are about as leftwing as any media gets within the UK. So it dosent say very much:(

[spartan]

Things in this artical are bad, but it certainly does not display the whole picture (only about 5 lines in whole article about the governments very poor role in the whole of this). In general its a rather standard display of 'western liberal' anti communism/socialism. By the way, the guardian/observer are about as leftwing as any media gets within the UK. So it dosent say very much:(
Yes but are you saying that these women's stories about forced abortions and being lured in with false promises - only to be threatened with death once they found this out and wanted to leave - are false?

If this was from a paper that was say critical against George Bush for not being hard enough then I can understand why you wouldn't like this article, but this is from a paper that has it's own columnists send in articles which openly discuss topics like imperialism by the US and all that stuff which the other mainstream papers wouldn't be seen dead doing.

[rednordman]

Please dont get me wrong here. If farc really have forced abortians than im absolutly appauled by it (and the artical is rather convincing). Its just the language that they have used (like 'slave' etc) that has got me a little bit sceptical of the whole political persuasion of the artical. I mean it mentions that the Colombian government have dealt with proff. drug dealers etc and is well corrupt (in 5 lines). What point is it going to get across? yep it is totally terrible if those stories are true, but farc giving will simply be a victory for the government and paramilitaries+ an excuse to continue with thier 'social cleanisng' that they have been doing the last 5 or so years (so i hear)

[gla22]

More bad info regarding FARC. They haven't got anywhere and their movement is dying. It is time for them to dismantle.

[rednordman]

If this was from a paper that was say critical against George Bush for not being hard enough then I can understand why you wouldn't like this article, but this is from a paper that has it's own columnists send in articles which openly discuss topics like imperialism by the US and all that stuff which the other mainstream papers wouldn't be seen dead doing.

This newspaper also accuses Russia of being imperialistic in its war with Georgia and almost totally ignours the fact that Georgia started the incident.

[#FF0000]

Things in this artical are bad, but it certainly does not display the whole picture (only about 5 lines in whole article about the governments very poor role in the whole of this). In general its a rather standard display of 'western liberal' anti communism/socialism. By the way, the guardian/observer are about as leftwing as any media gets within the UK. So it dosent say very much:(

I'm absolutely floored by this. What is anti-communist about the article? What I see here is a report on the abuse of women within the ranks of FARC, and nothing about how it's because of Marxism.

To me it seems reasonably neutral in its tone.


This newspaper also accuses Russia of being imperialistic in its war with Georgia and almost totally ignours the fact that Georgia started the incident.

Well, this is a whole other debate, but what you're saying has nothing to do with the anti-communist bent of the newspaper, since Russia and Georgia are both capitalist.

[Charles Xavier]

Well first of all this is a civil war, not something pretty. The conservatives killed off the left-wing Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, and installed their fascist government, this caused the whole conflict we see today.

[spartan]

Well first of all this is a civil war, not something pretty. The conservatives killed off the left-wing Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, and installed their fascist government, this caused the whole conflict we see today.
And that justifies Farc's horrendous treatment of women?

Civil war or not, pro-US fascist regime overthrowing a democratically elected government or not, no one should be allowed to treat women like that no matter the exceptional circumstances they are surrounded by and involved in.

Honest to god from the stroies these women tell you would think that Farc are run by a bunch of stalinist tankies desperate for revolutionary "purification" or some shit like that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some folks here will believe anything written about any forces actually fighting for socialism, without any investigation into where the information comes from.

This article comes from a bourgeois newspaper and is based on the accounts of some deserters. Doesn't that raise any doubt as to its authenticity to you?

Of course here and there you can pull some facts out of the crap that the bourgeois papers try to pass off as news.. for example, a BBC article a few years ago pointed to the important role women play in FARC, explaining that "Without the women the FARC would not be able to maintain such territorial domination or mount such frequent operations."

In the same article Mariana Paez is quoted as saying "In the FARC, there is no machismo, as a policy ... Yes there are macho men in the FARC, because let's face it, this is a macho culture ... But such is the discipline in the FARC, that we are erasing these tendencies ... Women are not treated differently, we do not cut them any slack during training or operations ...They march with the men, they carry their equipment and they fight just the same.

Women and men enjoy equal ranks in FARC. All units are integrated and there are no restrictions on women limiting them to certain actions or operations. Around one-third of FARC is made up of women fighters.

Anyway, for those interested, here's some real news about FARC that came out recently:

Colombian FARC Renews Humanitarian Offer

Bogota, Aug 21 (Prensa Latina) FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) reiterated their willingness to exchange prisoners with the government.

In a communiqué released on Thursday by ANNCOL news agency, the guerrillas presented a list of 29 military officials and police officers of different ranks they hold as war prisoners.

The text adds that any process intended for advancing in humanitarian exchanges or agreements to protect the civilian population from conflict must have full guarantees and the involvement and presence of countries and governments providing absolute confidence.

The text adds that the Government is obviously lying and distorting the facts, thus violating commitments and standards with cynicism and impunity by waging a war under no rules amid the international community's almost conspiratorial laxity.

[AGITprop]

More bad info regarding FARC. They haven't got anywhere and their movement is dying. It is time for them to dismantle.

The first part of your statement is correct. They're movement is dead, and now exists only to further its own existence.

On the other hand, they CANNOT hand over their weapons and dismantle. This would not only mean suicide for every committed revolutionary in the FARC, but a major step back in terms of potential to defend a possible revolution.

FARC needs to keep their weapons and use them to defend labour activists who are targeted by he government and paramilitary forces.

[Dros]

FARC is not now, nor were they ever, Communists fighting for socialism.

The fact that they are now on the verge of defeat doesn't change that one way or the other.

[AGITprop]

FARC is not now, nor were they ever, Communists fighting for socialism.

I don't claim to know THAT much about FARC's history, but I'd like to know how you justify such a statement.

This is in no way a challenge Dros, I'm simply interested in your opinion.

[spartan]

Some folks here will believe anything written about any forces actually fighting for socialism, without any investigation into where the information comes from.

This article comes from a bourgeois newspaper and is based on the accounts of some deserters. Doesn't that raise any doubt as to its authenticity to you?

Of course here and there you can pull some facts out of the crap that the bourgeois papers try to pass off as news.. for example, a BBC article a few years ago pointed to the important role women play in FARC, explaining that "Without the women the FARC would not be able to maintain such territorial domination or mount such frequent operations."

In the same article Mariana Paez is quoted as saying "In the FARC, there is no machismo, as a policy ... Yes there are macho men in the FARC, because let's face it, this is a macho culture ... But such is the discipline in the FARC, that we are erasing these tendencies ... Women are not treated differently, we do not cut them any slack during training or operations ...They march with the men, they carry their equipment and they fight just the same.

Women and men enjoy equal ranks in FARC. All units are integrated and there are no restrictions on women limiting them to certain actions or operations. Around one-third of FARC is made up of women fighters.
Funnily enough the article agrees with all of the above about equal treatment of women within Farc, but it also exposes that in some instances this has been taken to extreme lengths where women are being forcibly injected with shit to stop them getting pregnant, as well as forced abortions when they become pregnant and seperating couples (if they are even allowed permission to be together by their commander).

It also exposes the disgusting practice of luring people into the group with false promises which lead to death threats against those recently lured in who find that all is not what it seems and who consequently wish to leave.

Are you calling these men and women liars?

Is the journalist a member of the bourgeois class who has been given a mission by his "bourgeois media masters" to discredit Farc?:lol:

You seem to bring into question the authenticity of these deserters stories just because of the fact that they are deserters.

Well how about asking yourself why did they desert in the first place?

Could it be because all that they are saying is true which led them to desert?

I would say so especially when you have battle-hardened veterans of 10 plus years suddenly deciding to give up the fight when they have known nothing else most of their lives.

Just because this article doesn't agree with your somewhat naive view of Farc (who seem to be some sort of model revolutionary group who can do no wrong in your opinion) doesn't mean that what it says is all lies designed to discredit Farc (though to be honest Farc do a good job of that themselves considering most Colombians hate them).

Farc are dying a slow painful death which is so painfully obvious to everyone that even Chavez has recommended they drop their weapons and instead enter into the political field like he himself did when his coup failed (and he, as well as all the other Latin American socialists, all got elected).

[#FF0000]

Some folks here will believe anything written about any forces actually fighting for socialism, without any investigation into where the information comes from.
This article comes from a bourgeois newspaper and is based on the accounts of some deserters. Doesn't that raise any doubt as to its authenticity to you?

It would, if this journalist was an ardent capitalist and wrote in a very biased tone, as if trying to prove a point using logical fallacies and rhetoric, rather than reporting on occurrences based on first-hand experiences from sources that were once involved with FARC, AND if those sources had only been with the FARC for a very short stint before quitting, rather than having fought for their cause over a significant span of time, risking their lives only to desert for some reason.

Then I would seriously doubt this story.

Also, I'm supposed to believe something that comes from a socialist, just because the source is socialist? Aside from the my run-on of logic above, there is a reason I'm not as skeptical of this story in particular: because it involved the FARC, and organization that I've heard plenty about, and precious little of what I hear is good. Now, if this article were talking about the EZLN. for example, then I'd be highly skeptical.


Of course here and there you can pull some facts out of the crap that the bourgeois papers try to pass off as news.. for example, a BBC article a few years ago pointed to the important role women play in FARC, explaining that "Without the women the FARC would not be able to maintain such territorial domination or mount such frequent operations."
...
In the same article Mariana Paez is quoted as saying "In the FARC, there is no machismo, as a policy ... Yes there are macho men in the FARC, because let's face it, this is a macho culture ... But such is the discipline in the FARC, that we are erasing these tendencies ... Women are not treated differently, we do not cut them any slack during training or operations ...They march with the men, they carry their equipment and they fight just the same.

But the BBC is a bourgeois source. Why am I supposed to believe them when they praise socialists but not what they say in criticism?



Women and men enjoy equal ranks in FARC. All units are integrated and there are no restrictions on women limiting them to certain actions or operations.

Sure, as policy. The United States military has some of the same rules as well, but sexual harassment is still rampant. Why am I supposed to believe that abuse in FARC, an organization that I would say often operates in much harsher and much more brutal conditions than a good part of the U.S. Military does, is so unlikely? Just because a bourgeois source reported it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

... but I'd like to know how you justify such a statement.Because they don't call themselves Maoists or read Bob Avakian's writings.


Funnily enough the article agrees with all of the above about equal treatment of women within Farc, but it also exposes that in some instances this has been taken to extreme lengths where women are being forcibly injected with shit to stop them getting pregnant, as well as forced abortions when they become pregnant and seperating couples (if they are even allowed permission to be together by their commander).How could women have "equal treatment" while being forced to have abortions? That makes no sense.

Then you condemn a revolutionary army for having structure. Of course there are rules and discipline within FARC. Without those things, FARC would have been destroyed long ago. Every fighter cannot simply do whatever they want. Each person is a member of the revolutionary army as a whole. That means that sometimes husbands and wives have to be seperated when they're needed in different areas. It also means that sometimes its best for certain fighters not to maintain a romantic relationship.

Of course these rules don't mean that relationships or banned or anything like that. Members of FARC do have relationships. Couples in FARC do have children.These are facts.


Is the journalist a member of the bourgeois class who has been given a mission by his "bourgeois media masters" to discredit Farc?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifThis is a strawman argument. I never said any such thing.

The fact is that we live in class-divided society. There is no "neutral" press. While usually there is no one telling journalists exactly what they can or can't say (though there have definitely been times in different media outlets when journalists were fired, censored, etc., for going against the bosses and corporate sponsors), the general outlook of any media source is dictated by its position in society. The capitalist media pushes capitalist ideas.

Why you do think there are no stories on the numerous murders of union leaders and members in Colombia on the news? Could it have something to do with Coca Cola being a huge advertiser?


You seem to bring into question the authenticity of these deserters stories just because of the fact that they are deserters.All I said was consider the source.

Do you think someone who deserted a revolutionary army is going to have something positive to say about that army to a reporter from a bourgeois paper in the UK. Really?

What if these people just couldn't keep up with the rigors of being in FARC? Do you think they would rather admit that they just weren't strong enough to continue on, or go along with some slander to make themselves look like victims?

Is it easier for someone who quit a communist guerrilla army to reintegrate themselves into a capitalist society by maintaining firm communist principles, or to condemn communism and say they were "tricked" into joining, or "brainwashed" (ala Patty Hearst)?

Would a bourgeois newspaper print an interview of (or even want to hear from at all) someone who admited they quit FARC because, for example, they were suffering from battle fatigue?

The fact is, I have no way to verify whether what this small group is saying is true or not. But I can make an educated guess, and I certainly have to consider every aspect of the situation. I can also rely on the bulk of information out there that refutes the constant barrage of slander coming from the bourgeois media over the years.. and the fact that such slander exists to begin with tells me a lot.


Well how about asking yourself why did they desert in the first place?People desert armies of all types all the time. There can be all sorts of issues involved. Folks could abandon FARC because of personal grudges, the death of someone close, battle fatigue, even seeking some sort of stardom (perhaps including an interview with The Observer).

Claiming that every person who has left FARC did so because of 'brutal conditions' wouldn't be any more honest than claiming every soldier that has ever deserted the U.S. military did so because they opposed imperialism.

Basing your view of an organization on the claims of a handful of people that a writer for a bourgeois newspaper says once belonged to FARC isn't materialist.. in fact, it isn't something a thinking person of any variety would do.


Just because this article doesn't agree with your somewhat naive view of Farc (who seem to be some sort of model revolutionary group who can do no wrong in your opinion) doesn't mean that what it says is all lies designed to discredit Farc I never said it was "designed to discredit Farc" [sic] or that it was "all lies." I actually said that even bourgeois articles contain some truths.. I simply criticized a tendancy among folks here to accept everything they read in the bourgeois media as fact -- especially when its in regard to a revolutionary communist army.

Nor did I say FARC "can do no wrong." I do not agree with everything FARC does, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hop in bed with U.S. imperialism and Colombian capitalists and join in their assault.

I have to wonder if you would have believed the propaganda/lies being pushed around the time of the Cuban Revolution's victory that the revolutionary leadership was going to send children to the USSR to be turned into canned meat.


(though to be honest Farc do a good job of that themselves considering most Colombians hate them).Really? And how do you know what "most Colombians" think?

Secondly, how do you think a guerrilla army, with no outside funding, can manage not only to survive, but to have tens of thousands of members and control around one-third of the country -- while under constant attack from rightwing paramilitaries and a government that is funded by the richest country in the world -- if "most Colombians hate them"?


Farc are dying a slow painful death which is so painfully obvious to everyone that even Chavez has recommended they drop their weapons and instead enter into the political field like he himself did when his coup failed (and he, as well as all the other Latin American socialists, all got elected).Chavez has done a lot of reactionary things. Abortion is banned in Venezuela, under his "socialist leadership." He's the leader of a capitalist state.

I've seen a lot of "socialists" get elected in Latin America, but I'm still waiting for the socialism. I wouldn't hold my breathe.

What Marx said long ago remains true today: "The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machine, and deploy it for its own purposes."

FARC is fighting to destroy that "ready-made state machine," and that's why the capitalists hate them so much. And no, they're not "dying" anymore than communism itself is "dead," despite claims by the capitalists to the contrary (on both accounts).

Even if they were being defeated, would that be reason for communists to rejoice.. or join in with their capitalist rulers in condeming those heroic fighters? What kind of communist would revel in the victory of the capitalists over a band of communist guerrillas? I'll tell you: the same sort of "comrades" that gleefully pointed to the defeat and murder of Che Guevara in Bolivia as vindication of their condemnation of his ideas.

You are the one who is naive. You write approvingly of Chavez's "recommendation" that the FARC lay down their arms and enter "the political field" (which to you apaprently is limited to bourgeois electoral politics). The reality is that FARC did create a political party to contest elections in 1985 (the UP or "Patriotic Union"). It was destroyed by attacks by the armed forces, druglord militias and rightwing paramilitaries. By 1988 some 500 members of the UP had been assasinated. By the end, up to 5,000 UP members were killed.


And I'm supposed to believe something that comes from a socialist, just because the source is socialist? There is a reason I'm not as skeptical of this story in particular: because it involved the FARC, and organization that I've heard plenty about, and precious little of it is good. Yep, the bourgeois media is constantly attacking FARC. What does that tell you?

And no, you don't believe or discount a story because of its source, but you surely have to consider it. All media has some class bias. When things are coming from the capitalist media about a communist guerrillla army, you should get out the salt shaker.


Now, if this article were talking about the EZLN. for example, then I'd be highly skeptical.Yes, the EZLN is a darling of a large section of the left, including radical liberals and ultraleftists. This is despite the fact they are in reality little more than armed reformists that don't even aspire to overthrow capitalism. They're easy to support because they have a purely defensive purpose and they have a charismatic leader.

FARC, on the other hand, is fighting guns-in-hand to overthrow the neocolonial capitalist order in Colombia. It's one of the largest armed revolutionary organizations in the world and it comes into constant conflict (which is, incidentally, why you've "heard so much about them"). The imperialists are concerned about FARC, which has tens of thousands of members and controls a large section of Colombia, and that's why they commit so much time and energy in slandering them (as well as actively working to physically destroy them).


Sure, as policy. The United States military has some of the same rules as well, but sexual harassment is still rampant. Why am I supposed to believe that abuse in FARC, an organization that I would say often operates in much harsher and much more brutal conditions than a good part of the U.S. Military does, is so unlikely? Just because a bourgeois source reported it?Like I said before, a lot of people believe anything the bourgeois media says about revolutionaries.. but only if it's negative.

You're quick to believe everything negative the bourgeois media has to say about FARC, but the one or two positive things that appear are rejected outright.. even when they come from the mouth's of actual women fighters in the organization in question.

When the bourgeois media grudgingly admits something positive about a revolutionary organization like FARC there's a good chance it is true. It's not like they're out there digging for positive things to say about communist guerrillas... but occasionally some facts slip in. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yes, gender equality is policy in FARC. What do you want.. or expect? Colombia is a society in which "machismo" is rampant. It's tied in with the whole history and development of society in Colombia and Latin American in general. Do you expect the leadership of FARC to devise some special method of immediately removing all reactionary ideas and habits of members instantly, or what? They established a policy and practice of equality between the sexes. When that policy is violated, action is taken. Of course, that is condemned too...

(I won't dignify the comparison of the imperialist U.S. army and FARC with a response)

[chegitz guevara]

FARC is not now, nor were they ever, Communists fighting for socialism.

Why, cuz they aren't followers of Avakian?

They came out of the Colombian Communist Party and were at one time fighting for socialism. They've become corrupted by the easy money of the drug trade and kidnapping, and ceased to play a positive role.

[Asoka89]

Read the IMT's piece on FARC, its complicated. very complicated but i think that piece does a decent job, marxist.com

[KurtFF8]

Well I'm not going to be quick to dismiss the account by these people as some of the other members here have. If this is true, then it would certainly explain at least one factor as to why the FARC are starting to lose their conflict.

It will be quite interesting to see what the future of the organization holds. I don't know if the FARC are quite on the "verge of defeat" is that a popular opinion of what might happen among leftists?

[Devrim]

It is not surprising. FARC is an anti-working class gang.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

If this is true, then it would certainly explain at least one factor as to why the FARC are starting to lose their conflict.

Um, you base the statement that they're losing the conflict on what, exactly? Revolutionary struggles move in ups and downs. Whether the struggle is that of the NPA in the Philippines, the CPI (M) in India, the CPN (M) in Nepal, the FARC in Colombia or whoever else you want to name, it is highly idealist to expect that the struggle will meet with constant success all the time, and will never suffer blows or lose a battle. Yes, the FARC has been under attack lately. Yes, it's suffered some defeats. But this does not in any way mean that it's losing.

The FARC continues to represent the revolutionary pole in Colombia. It controls large sections of the country (where it has introduced land reform, collective management, and struggled for gender equality), and is active in most of the country.

I would advise all the people participating in the attacks and slanders the bourgeoisie level at the FARC to read this article. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905brittain.htm)


In each of these blocks there are a number of fronts that contain, on average, 300 to 600 combatants per unit. By 2002, it was generally conceded that 105 fronts exist throughout the country. Figures obtained by the author through participant observation and open-ended interviews with the FARC–EP establish that there are at least an additional dozen fronts. Today the number of regions in Colombia with a significant FARC–EP presence is substantial; however, very little analysis of this topic has been collected, examined, or presented to the larger public.

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

If the FARC is "hated by most Colombians", why did 740,000 people migrate to FARC controlled areas during the peace talks? I suppose they all just wanted to be raped and see their babies eaten alive by the murderous terrorists!

NHIA has already dealth with most of what I would have said - it's enough to say that there is no scope for succesful non-violent struggle in Colombia, espescially for former members of the FARC. A defeat for the FARC is a defeat for the communist movement and the working people of Colombia and the world, and true leftsist should not be calling for such a thing.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well let me start by saying what Mao said once: "a revolution, is not a tea party". Even though this article for my judgment seems biased against las FARC, lets face it, there is truth in it. But this is a war which las FARC has been losing, therefore is not surprising if stuff like this is going on in their ranks. I mean, don't get me wrong I'm not condoning this, but besides the fact that the article is biased, desperate times require desperate/strict/though measures.

I still think hence that support should still be given to las FARC.

[Saorsa]

But this is a war which las FARC has been losing

Upon what do you base that statement?

I would suggest to all the people making the ridiculous claim that the FARC is losing the revolutionary war in Colombia that they read this article -

http://www.counterpunch.org/brittain08012008.html

[rednordman]

I'm absolutely floored by this. What is anti-communist about the article? What I see here is a report on the abuse of women within the ranks of FARC, and nothing about how it's because of Marxism.

To me it seems reasonably neutral in its tone.



Well, this is a whole other debate, but what you're saying has nothing to do with the anti-communist bent of the newspaper, since Russia and Georgia are both capitalist.

Sorry for the late response. The reason I am a bit bothered with this article is the main fact that the newspaper is a nationally read paper in Britain. Alot of people in UK do not really understand much about marxism and have only heard negative things associated with it (like this article).
The guardian/observer is aimed mainly at people who sway slightly to the left of the conservative party, i.e NewLabour, and most of the readers will have given up on socialism, associating it with the bad side of the soviet union (well thats the impression i get from some of the articles).
Anyone reading this particular article who does not know much about marxism will 1)probly think that Farc are marxists and, 2)marxism=bad.
Also i do not believe that the article portrays the womens equall treatment to men (in labour) in a positive light at all.

Like Nothing is Human is Alien said, its a bourgois newspaper, just a bit more to the left than all the other british newspapers.

[RHIZOMES]

Man, spartan falls for this shit so easily. :lol:

[Andropov]

They've become corrupted by the easy money of the drug trade and kidnapping, and ceased to play a positive role.
Ya thats why FARC's leaders and members are living in opulence?

[BIG BROTHER]

Upon what do you base that statement?

I would suggest to all the people making the ridiculous claim that the FARC is losing the revolutionary war in Colombia that they read this article -

http://www.counterpunch.org/brittain08012008.html

I'm sorry but the article didn't really changed my mind. Of course las FARC still has a lot of fighting in them and things could always turn around, but they are currently losing, its not like in the old days were they had a good portion of Colombia under their control.

[BIG BROTHER]

Ya thats why FARC's leaders and members are living in opulence?

well actually there are people who claim that FARC's secretariat does live in opulence.

[Dros]

Why, cuz they aren't followers of Avakian?

ermm... no.

[dez]

The orlando and esperanza couple seem like a serious case.
The disbelief that the revolution will happen amongst battle-hardened revolutionaries means that the propaganda war is being lost.
The deaths of icons in farc means the same.
The fact that important leaderships were captured and forced to tell their former comrades to disband, too.


'They teach you all this Marxist philosophy and then treat you like a slave,' says Lina. Betancourt, too, recalled her shock at the group's treatment of its own female soldiers. 'They were victims, too,' she said. 'I've always had a lot of esteem for them. The girls are tiny, but I've seen them carry heavy logs just like the men. They are slaves.'Perhaps she shouldn't be in Farc at all. She is a conservative, reactionary bigot. Women can do heavy labour just like men. Some men, as some women, can do less heavy labour, but the gender thing is completely irrelevant.



Sure, as policy. The United States military has some of the same rules as well, but sexual harassment is still rampant. Why am I supposed to believe that abuse in FARC, an organization that I would say often operates in much harsher and much more brutal conditions than a good part of the U.S. Military does, is so unlikely? Just because a bourgeois source reported it?



Family is one of the strongest motivations for women - and many men - to attempt the transition into civilian life. Romance in the ranks is frowned upon; couples who wish to have a sexual relationship have to ask their commander for permission, and they can be split up at any time if it is deemed necessary.This and the fact that they are even killing people for stealing sugar at night.





Female combatants often find it harder than their male colleagues to fit back into civilian society. 'Women feel more rejection from people in the community, because they have broken not only social rules but also the rules of gender,'DAMN FARC FOR MAKING THOSE WOMEN FREE.


"Rojas believes Farc's female members should have an important role in bringing the group's members back into civilian society. 'Through women you can change things a lot. You can see they suffer - not only in the small ways like being deprived of female clothes and identity, but also in the fact they are not able to achieve the most minimum level of security for themselves and their families. In my experience, lots of Farc women would like a change. I think there is work we could do there.'"This captive woman became a feminist.





I'm absolutely floored by this. What is anti-communist about the article? What I see here is a report on the abuse of women within the ranks of FARC, and nothing about how it's because of Marxism.

To me it seems reasonably neutral in its tone.


It doesn't seem anti communist, but it seems anti war.
All you have to do is read it again, and check for emotionalistic appeals to the consience of the readers.


Funnily enough the article agrees with all of the above about equal treatment of women within Farc, but it also exposes that in some instances this has been taken to extreme lengths where women are being forcibly injected with shit to stop them getting pregnant, as well as forced abortions when they become pregnant and seperating couples (if they are even allowed permission to be together by their commander).

It also exposes the disgusting practice of luring people into the group with false promises which lead to death threats against those recently lured in who find that all is not what it seems and who consequently wish to leave.


Are you familiar with the concept of war?
It's not exactly peechy.
Its the worst scenario immaginable.
It is madness, and it happens sometimes in the history of mankind. Sometimes you cannot even avoid it.
You're not supposed to be soft and gentle in the midst of a battlefield.
You are there to kill people and be killed.


Are you calling these men and women liars?

Is the journalist a member of the bourgeois class who has been given a mission by his "bourgeois media masters" to discredit Farc?:lol:He lives in civil society. He has not got an entire army and a number of death squads chasing his ass, and men propense to defecting and even shooting him while his guard is down.


You seem to bring into question the authenticity of these deserters stories just because of the fact that they are deserters.This would be a good reason.


Well how about asking yourself why did they desert in the first place?How about not listening to everything they say and considering just a little that they actually may have interest on preserving themselves and slandering FARC as much as possible in order to ease things for them amonsgt colombian society?



Could it be because all that they are saying is true which led them to desert?Perhaps. Can you know?


I would say so especially when you have battle-hardened veterans of 10 plus years suddenly deciding to give up the fight when they have known nothing else most of their lives.Maybe they are simply deserting because they are losing?


Just because this article doesn't agree with your somewhat naive view of Farc (who seem to be some sort of model revolutionary group who can do no wrong in your opinion) doesn't mean that what it says is all lies designed to discredit Farc (though to be honest Farc do a good job of that themselves considering most Colombians hate them).Maybe you have a naive view of what a revolutionary group's activities consist of.
Which colombians hate farc?


Farc are dying a slow painful death which is so painfully obvious to everyone that even Chavez has recommended they drop their weapons and instead enter into the political field like he himself did when his coup failed (and he, as well as all the other Latin American socialists, all got elected).Even Chavez, as if he was the revolutionary model.

[spartan]

It seems obvious that all those terming this article "bourgeois propganda" and all that, think that Farc are some sort of angelic bunch of noble revolutionaries who are entirely blameless from any accusations coming their way.

Anything that is contray to their vision of this "anti-working class gang", as Devrim termed them, is "bourgeois propaganda" which is the biggest cop out I have ever heard amongst fellow leftists and really does nothing to help our image amongst real workers in the real world.

We are supposed to be not "too hard" on Farc because what they do, and the situation they are in, is "hard" and revolution is "not pretty", etc, but personally I think that none of this justifies what they have been doing to the women in the article.

And I think that the first responses to this article, by mostly authoritarian leftists, that "these women are liars" and it's all "bourgeois propaganda" etc is the really sad thing here.

I have nothing against Farc and I think that they were a revolutionary leftist group who once represented the Colombian workers against oppression.

However times have changed and the Colombian people (mostly in urban areas) have by and large moved on from Farc and their complete failure of a revolution (which has descended into some sort of drug war against the right-wing militias and survival against the government forces).

Farc are now seen as mearly a stumbling block to stability and potential prosperity for the country by Colombians who are sick and tired of them.

[Asoka89]

Abuse is not right, but it happens in the US Army too, read about cases of rape within the army in Iraq. FARC is fighting two great evils worse then them, 40 years of conflict can hurt an organization, but they cant put down their arms, last time they did that they got massacred. They have to keep resisting if they want to survive.

[chegitz guevara]

nm

[chegitz guevara]

Ya thats why FARC's leaders and members are living in opulence?

Do you know that they aren't?

[rednordman]

It seems obvious that all those terming this "bourgeois propganda" and all that, think that Farc are some sort of angelic bunch of noble revolutionaries who are entirely blameless from any accusations coming their way.

Anything that is contray to their vision of this "anti-working class gang", as Devrim termed them, is "bourgeois propaganda" which is the biggest cop out I have ever heard amongst fellow leftists and really does nothing to help our image amongst real workers in the real world.

We are supposed to not be "too hard" on Farc because what they do, and the situation they are in, is "hard" and revolution is "not pretty", etc, but personally I think that none of this justifies what they have been doing to the women in the article.

And I think that the first response to this article, by mostly authoritarian leftists, that "these women are liars" and it's all "bourgeois propaganda" etc is the really sad thing here.

Dammit:)I never said the women where liars and i havent even claimed to be supporting farc as of yet. Its just sometimes it is necersary to look at things from different angles and not to take everything you hear as gospel. I think the posters that have mentioned that war is not pretty and that it is kill or be killed are rather spot on. I do not condon it, but its the sad truth of life. This is why I question the article. Its easy for 'some well to do' journalist to write this article and even go to colombia and interview people themselves, but they generally have not been in war or even gurrilla combat, and i think its fair to say that it would probly fuck them up. Its horrible and i certainly would not wish it on them but thats the problem with the western media and people in my view, they tend to take the moral high view about things that they really dont know much about. Its all a case of 'if i was it that situation i would...'. A good example of this is the old right-wing (mabey not moral high view) "we should drop a atom on the middle east..that i'll sort them out" bullshit that i keep on hearing from people nowadays. Ok its only a joke, but it shows how ignourant people generally are to conflicts in the world.
Im sorry if i'v upset you and if their really is sexuall and physical abuse of women their than its absolutly awfull, but like Asoka89 said, it happens in militaries all over the world including the US army. If i could somehow stop that from happenening than i definitly would, but im not out their and if i was to cause a fuss, whats stopping someone shooting me and blaming it on an opponent fighter or saying that it was an accident (i got in their way or something). That might sound daft, but I could bet that it really has happened in all armed forces at sometime. War sucks:(.

Also, how can you see this as a stumbling block to stablity in colombia, when it is already rife with drugs and crime, and their is now 'vigilantie' paramilitaries taking it upon themselves to do 'social cleansing' within the cities.

[dez]

It seems obvious that all those terming this article "bourgeois propganda" and all that, think that Farc are some sort of angelic bunch of noble revolutionaries who are entirely blameless from any accusations coming their way.

Both sides stink, one stinks more and the other has a goal we agree.
Who should we support on this propaganda war, if we support anyone?



Anything that is contray to their vision of this "anti-working class gang", as Devrim termed them, is "bourgeois propaganda" which is the biggest cop out I have ever heard amongst fellow leftists and really does nothing to help our image amongst real workers in the real world.Maybe the workers would change their position if they were exposed to the actual truth.
Maybe we should not change our position according to the listener.


We are supposed to be not "too hard" on Farc because what they do, and the situation they are in, is "hard" and revolution is "not pretty", etc, but personally I think that none of this justifies what they have been doing to the women in the article.And what exactly they have been doing?
Having a policy of equality?
Because that is what seems to have bothered people the most.
And the forced abortions are clearly a tactical manouver.
You just cannot carry a pregnant woman in a guerilla army.
It probably works as a way to discourage giving birth.
I agree that it is terrible and that is is inhumane, but I must remember you that they are not in position to act accordingly to the best codes of conduct.


And I think that the first responses to this article, by mostly authoritarian leftists, that "these women are liars" and it's all "bourgeois propaganda" etc is the really sad thing here.No, the sad thing is that peasants had to form a revolutionary army to express themselves and many of them joined it solely to survive rural violence.


I have nothing against Farc and I think that they were a revolutionary leftist group who once represented the Colombian workers against oppression.You say that based on what empiric evidence?


However times have changed and the Colombian people (mostly in urban areas) have by and large moved on from Farc and their complete failure of a revolution (which has descended into some sort of drug war against the right-wing militias and survival against the government forces).Have you been to colombia?
What do you have to say about the statement that if the FARC managed to survive as an insurgent organization persecuted by the government on national soil for 40 years they must have some sort of support?
What do you have to say about the fact that urban guerillas are prone to fail due to the strong presence of the state and the easyness concerning monitoring, repressing and using of propaganda war against said guerilla that the very state finds on a urban medium?


Farc are now seen as mearly a stumbling block to stability and potential prosperity for the country by Colombians who are sick and tired of them.Which colombians are sick and tired of them?
Do you know that "venezuelans are sick and tired of chavez"?
Check out facebook.
Of course, the average venezuelan cannot speak english.

[spartan]

Dammit:)I never said the women where liars and i havent even claimed to be supporting farc as of yet. Its just sometimes it is necersary to look at things from different angles and not to take everything you hear as gospel. I think the posters that have mentioned that war is not pretty and that it is kill or be killed are rather spot on. I do not condon it, but its the sad truth of life. This is why I question the article. Its easy for 'some well to do' journalist to write this article and even go to colombia and interview people themselves, but they generally have not been in war or even gurrilla combat, and i think its fair to say that it would probly fuck them up. Its horrible and i certainly would not wish it on them but thats the problem with the western media and people in my view, they tend to take the moral high view about things that they really dont know much about. Its all a case of 'if i was it that situation i would...'. A good example of this is the old right-wing (mabey not moral high view) "we should drop a atom on the middle east..that i'll sort them out" bullshit that i keep on hearing from people nowadays. Ok its only a joke, but it shows how ignourant people generally are to conflicts in the world.
Im sorry if i'v upset you and if their really is sexuall and physical abuse of women their than its absolutly awfull, but like Asoka89 said, it happens in militaries all over the world including the US army. If i could somehow stop that from happenening than i definitly would, but im not out their and if i was to cause a fuss, whats stopping someone shooting me and blaming it on an opponent fighter or saying that it was an accident (i got in their way or something). That might sound daft, but I could bet that it really has happened in all armed forces at sometime. War sucks:(.

Also, how can you see this as a stumbling block to stablity in colombia, when it is already rife with drugs and crime, and their is now 'vigilantie' paramilitaries taking it upon themselves to do 'social cleansing' within the cities.
I wasn't referring specifically to you mate.

I know you weren't like the all others with your criticism of the article as you at least haven't descended to all the shit all the other article haters have.

I agree that the war is hard and that journalists should take these things into account when they hear these stories and not take the moral high ground without realising the situation that all this has taken place in, but I still say that all this doesn't justify not criticisng Farc for the abuse that these women have suffered.

I don't think that what happened to these women is widespread or even internal policy within Farc as a whole, but what it does raise is the fact that elements of Farc have descended to this horrible level which means that everything with Farc isn't all that great (whereas others here want to paint a picture of Farc winning the war and being in a strong position, and that this article is merely part of an attempt to discredit them and marxism).

Farc isn't popular with the urban Colombian proletariat, and they are even becoming unpopular with the rural peasants which is where they originated from and who they rely on for support (volunteers, food, etc).

Farc are hindering socialism in Colombia as they merely boost the popularity of reactionaries like Uribe amongst Colombians sick and tired of all the shit that the civil war has caused.

Anyway I hope you didn't take my last post before as directed at you, I would hate to start shit other something so futile.:)

[Incendiarism]

Good point, spartan. We shouldn't simply offer unconditional support onto just any organization or revolution, but be critical. If this proves true, that some parts of FARC have descended into this type of barbarism, then it is necessary to analyze.

[JimmyJazz]

Well let me start by saying what Mao said once: "a revolution, is not a tea party". Even though this article for my judgment seems biased against las FARC, lets face it, there is truth in it. But this is a war which las FARC has been losing, therefore is not surprising if stuff like this is going on in their ranks. I mean, don't get me wrong I'm not condoning this, but besides the fact that the article is biased, desperate times require desperate/strict/though measures.

Not measures that target one gender, though.

[Saorsa]

I know you weren't like the all others with your criticism of the article as you at least haven't descended to all the shit all the other article haters have.

LOL. The more slander the bourgeois media throws at a left wing and/or anti-imperialist movement, the more likely it is they're doing something right. Sadly however, there will always be leftie liberal types who blindly swallow what the ever reputable capitalist press pumps out, partly because they're gullible and partly because they don't have the guts to stand up and say with pride that they're a revolutionary communist and this is bullshit propaganda.


I agree that the war is hard and that journalists should take these things into account when they hear these stories and not take the moral high ground without realising the situation that all this has taken place in, but I still say that all this doesn't justify not criticisng Farc for the abuse that these women have suffered.

Why do you assume they're true? As others have said, it'd be a wee bit hard to integrate back into Colombian society and not get murdered by the thugs of the state if you don't make up these kind of slanders about the FARC. You can hardly just waltz back into the cities saying "yeah in FARC I was treated as a comrade and an equal, but I couldn't handle the fighting so I left".


I don't think that what happened to these women is widespread or even internal policy within Farc as a whole, but what it does raise is the fact that elements of Farc have descended to this horrible level which means that everything with Farc isn't all that great (whereas others here want to paint a picture of Farc winning the war and being in a strong position, and that this article is merely part of an attempt to discredit them and marxism).

Yes, and when the capitalist media wrote articles about how Lenin and the Bolsheviks were putting babies in blenders to use their juices as gun oil, you'd have been condemning the Bolsheviks for it as after all, the sources in the bourgeois media are always accurate and truthful right? :lol:


Farc isn't popular with the urban Colombian proletariat, and they are even becoming unpopular with the rural peasants which is where they originated from and who they rely on for support (volunteers, food, etc).

Well it's a bit hard to measure their popularity when anyone who does openly support the FARC is killed. But hey. don't let that get in the way of an otherwise good liberal argument! And pardon my curiosity, but if FARC were so unpopular with the rural peasants, how come 740,000 peasants migrated to the liberated zones during peace negotiations? What do you base you're ridiculous notion that the FARC is losing on?


Farc are hindering socialism in Colombia as they merely boost the popularity of reactionaries like Uribe amongst Colombians sick and tired of all the shit that the civil war has caused.

Ah, the age old liberal argument. Don't do anything militant, it'll only turn people off and let the Tories/Liberals/Republicans/Uribe win. Instead we should... we should... vote for the Labour Party! Yeah, that's how to bring about socialism, we don't need any of this revolutionary struggle anymore, that's so last century.


Farc are now seen as mearly a stumbling block to stability and potential prosperity for the country by Colombians who are sick and tired of them.

By who? Who sees them in this way? And what the fuck is up with all this liberal bulshit about "stability" and "prosperity"? You want a stable capitalist system without any struggles to overthrow it, that brings prosperity to the ruling class above and beyond the vast amounts it already enjoys? How very revolutionary of you Spartan.

[Hiero]

ermm... no.
umm...yes.

If this was a Maoist group you be more inclined to criticise the anti-communist lies about FARC.

It is interesting when I told a comrade the other day who is interested in FARC that SBS news said FARC is on the decline. He replied that every day during the Vietnam war they were told the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam were on the decline and losing the war, they repeated these lies up until the day they were evacuting imperialists from the roof of the US embassy.

The bourgeoisie have no idea about guerrilla warfare. They can't be relied upon to assess the situation, they don't understand the nature of guerrilla warfare. To them a small victory, a tactical retreat, a ceasefire means the guerilla's are given up. When we look at it from a Communist method, specifically Maoist, we see the guerilla movement as very fluid, these ups and downs only influence the next series of attacks and counter attacks of the guerilla movement.

It really shows your dogmatic attitude, you clearly haven't learnt anything from the civil war in China other then Mao is the greatest. At one time it looked like the Communist were finished, other times it looked like they could sweep the country in one go. However through Mao's leadership a correct criticism developed that countered both adventurism and defeatism.

[leftist manson]

Some folks here will believe anything written about any forces actually fighting for socialism, without any investigation into where the information comes from.

.
Thankyou:)

[spartan]

LOL. The more slander the bourgeois media throws at a left wing and/or anti-imperialist movement, the more likely it is they're doing something right. Sadly however, there will always be leftie liberal types who blindly swallow what the ever reputable capitalist press pumps out, partly because they're gullible and partly because they don't have the guts to stand up and say with pride that they're a revolutionary communist and this is bullshit propaganda.


Why do you assume they're true? As others have said, it'd be a wee bit hard to integrate back into Colombian society and not get murdered by the thugs of the state if you don't make up these kind of slanders about the FARC. You can hardly just waltz back into the cities saying "yeah in FARC I was treated as a comrade and an equal, but I couldn't handle the fighting so I left".



Yes, and when the capitalist media wrote articles about how Lenin and the Bolsheviks were putting babies in blenders to use their juices as gun oil, you'd have been condemning the Bolsheviks for it as after all, the sources in the bourgeois media are always accurate and truthful right? :lol:


Well it's a bit hard to measure their popularity when anyone who does openly support the FARC is killed. But hey. don't let that get in the way of an otherwise good liberal argument! And pardon my curiosity, but if FARC were so unpopular with the rural peasants, how come 740,000 peasants migrated to the liberated zones during peace negotiations? What do you base you're ridiculous notion that the FARC is losing on?


Ah, the age old liberal argument. Don't do anything militant, it'll only turn people off and let the Tories/Liberals/Republicans/Uribe win. Instead we should... we should... vote for the Labour Party! Yeah, that's how to bring about socialism, we don't need any of this revolutionary struggle anymore, that's so last century.


By who? Who sees them in this way? And what the fuck is up with all this liberal bulshit about "stability" and "prosperity"? You want a stable capitalist system without any struggles to overthrow it, that brings prosperity to the ruling class above and beyond the vast amounts it already enjoys? How very revolutionary of you Spartan.
And we wonder why no one takes us seriously anymore?:rolleyes:

Please inform us of when you have made it back amongst us in the real world and not tankie land where everything negative about any left-wing group is a "bourgeois conspiracy" to undermine marxism or whatever shit you come up with next.:lol:

People seem to have completely forgotten about the original theme of this thread; an article detailing certain elements of Farc's abuse of former women soldiers.

Somewhere along the line this thread has been hijacked by people with a pretty horrible agenda against these brave women, who's only "crime" is to tell their stories of the abuse they suffered whilst in Farc.

I personally think you sholuld all be ashamed of yourselves.

If this is the first response we have to women who tell of their abuse no wonder we have falling rates of women coming forward to tell of being raped and abused.

I can't say I blame them if this is the shit that they expect to face.

[chegitz guevara]

Something we need to keep in mind. As bad as the FARC may be, they are still far, far more progressive than the current Colombian state. A FARC victory would be an improvement for most Colombians and a FARC defeat likely spells disaster.

[Goose]

OK - so they have readily available quick abortion 'get it up your minge and kill the thing before god knows anything about it' medication, but only aspirins for gunshot wounds? Errrr, were I a guerilla faction with access to some form of medicine, you know.

Yadda yadda.

[Saorsa]

And we wonder why no one takes us seriously anymore?:rolleyes:

I don't waste time wondering about that - I get out there and work on making people take me and my ideas seriously. And you know what? Once people learn a bit about what you think and see that you walk the walk, even if they don't instantly convert to revolutionary communism they do at the least take me seriously. If people aren't taking you seriously Spartan it's not because you're too radical - it's because you hide you're radicalism behind a liberal veneer. Perhaps you should try removing it.


Please inform us of when you have made it back amongst us in the real world and not tankie land where everything negative about any left-wing group is a "bourgeois conspiracy" to undermine marxism or whatever shit you come up with next.:lol:Please inform me when you've returned to the camp of revolutionary communism, a camp that supports revolutionary struggles going on around the world and doesn't blindly swallow whatever counter-revolutionary bit of propaganda pops up because they're too cowardly to go against the tide and stand up for their ideals and their movement. It can be hard to work up the courage to argue with your history teacher Spartan, but I advise you try it sometime - that way you won't be a Labour Party supporter in 20 years time!


People seem to have completely forgotten about the original theme of this thread; an article detailing certain elements of Farc's abuse of former women soldiers.Similar shit (i.e. different details, same purpose - to slander communism) has been spread about the Bolsheviks, the CCP, the NLF in Vietnam, the Communist Party of Peru and countless others. The bourgeoisie slanders those it feels threatened by - we should have the intelligence and the courage to see through it.


Somewhere along the line this thread has been hijacked by people with a pretty horrible agenda against these brave women, who's only "crime" is to tell their stories of the abuse they suffered whilst in Farc.LOL :p If you post shit like this, expect it to take shit in response.


I personally think you sholuld all be ashamed of yourselves.*prostrates himself for not being a liberal dupe*


If this is the first response we have to women who tell of their abuse no wonder we have falling rates of women coming forward to tell of being raped and abused.

I can't say I blame them if this is the shit that they expect to face.
Oh for fucks sake. We are attacking this article because it's counter-revolutionary propaganda, not because we are sexist. I know women who have been raped, do you?

[Andropov]

Do you know that they aren't?
I dont but I would hazard a guess that they werent stealing from the cookie jar since the top boys in FARC, Velez and Reyes died in relative poverty.
This is undeniable.

[Wanted Man]

I never said it was "designed to discredit Farc" [sic] or that it was "all lies." I actually said that even bourgeois articles contain some truths.. I simply criticized a tendancy among folks here to accept everything they read in the bourgeois media as fact -- especially when its in regard to a revolutionary communist army.

Nor did I say FARC "can do no wrong." I do not agree with everything FARC does, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hop in bed with U.S. imperialism and Colombian capitalists and join in their assault.


It seems obvious that all those terming this article "bourgeois propganda" and all that, think that Farc are some sort of angelic bunch of noble revolutionaries who are entirely blameless from any accusations coming their way.

It is interesting to compare these posts. I believe this is what we call a strawman. Certainly, I haven't seen any of the hasty conclusions that Mr Spartan attributes to his opponents. Speaking of hasty conclusions, I would refrain from claiming to know what 'the Colombian people' are 'sick of' and what they have 'moved on' from. Such a statement could be perceived as arrogant in some way. Especially when Mr Spartan has already proven himself woefully ignorant of the political situation in just about every foreign country he regrettably decides to comment on.


Anything that is contray to their vision of this "anti-working class gang", as Devrim termed them, is "bourgeois propaganda" which is the biggest cop out I have ever heard amongst fellow leftists and really does nothing to help our image amongst real workers in the real world.
I would also suggest to not refer to 'fellow leftists', 'our' and 'real workers in the real world'. It is very pretentious when you clearly have no say about any of those three. Your 'fellow leftists' are doing fine without sideline naysayers.

As for FARC, I don't know if their situation is as bad as this article claims. If it is, I see no reason to cheer. Those who wish that FARC suffers total defeat are right in line with the multi-billion dollar Uribe war machine. There is a word for people who switch sides when they can gain from it, and it's called opportunism. I respect Chávez's point of view, but I agree with Fidel much more. He wrote that he would not recommend any guerrilla movement to disarm, because this has never brought peace to the millions of people who continue to be exploited. Calls for FARC to just 'participate in parliamentary politics' show a high amount of faith in parliamentary politics that does not manifest itself in other situations. Again: opportunism. Anyway, such attempts usually lead to the bloody murder of the figureheads of such a parliamentary party, proving Fidel quite right.

The fawning over the Guardian article is misguided by naïveté when it comes to journalism and its position within society. It is compelling as a human interest story, but it misses an important principle: hear the other side. Any pretention of being 'fair and balanced' goes out of the window when one side gets no chance to defend itself, or when its statements already trigger a conditioned reflex from tendentious reporting in the past. This leads the reader to think: "Yeah, they say that, but it's obviously just communist propaganda."

Now let's start the countdown until someone says that I'm 'defending FARC' because I think that they 'can do no wrong'.

[spartan]

As for FARC, I don't know if their situation is as bad as this article claims. If it is, I see no reason to cheer. Those who wish that FARC suffers total defeat are right in line with the multi-billion dollar Uribe war machine.

I support Farc's struggle against Uribe and the pro-US regime in Colombia but that doesn't mean I won't criticise them if they start doing things I don't personally agree with.

Like I said earlier though, if what these women say is true then I don't believe that this is internal policy within the whole of Farc, just certain elements of Farc which have degenerated to this shocking level for whatever reason.


There is a word for people who switch sides when they can gain from it, and it's called opportunism. I respect Chávez's point of view, but I agree with Fidel much more. He wrote that he would not recommend any guerrilla movement to disarm, because this has never brought peace to the millions of people who continue to be exploited. Calls for FARC to just 'participate in parliamentary politics' show a high amount of faith in parliamentary politics that does not manifest itself in other situations. Again: opportunism. Anyway, such attempts usually lead to the bloody murder of the figureheads of such a parliamentary party, proving Fidel quite right.

I didn't call for them to disarm and enter parliamentary politics, I merely pointed out that other Latin American socialists have had amazing success by doing this where armed conflict has failed (Chavez's earlier coup, Che unsuccessfully trying to start a guerrilla war in Bolivia, etc. Now these countries have socialists in power by being elected by the people).

This probably wouldn't work in Colombia with Farc due to the unpopularity of Farc amongst the urban Colombians.


Now let's start the countdown until someone says that I'm 'defending FARC' because I think that they 'can do no wrong'.

I was pissed off when I said that.

Besides there probably are some tankies here who do have this attitude (one certainly gets that impression with the way they come across when replying).

[spartan]

Wow, spartan endorses reformism and bourgeois parliamentarianism. Shocking.:rolleyes:
:huh:

Care to explain?

I pointed out the fact that Latin America has had success with lots of socialist politicians being elected and you deduce from this that I endorse reformism and bourgeois parliamentarianism?

Why does revleft have a periodic invasion of stalinist trolls who contribute nothing but unfounded accusations and insults to anyone who doesn't hold their particular views, every few weeks?

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't have time read through every single accusation which has been made in this thread. However, the FARC-EP is a progressive movement, as shown by the fact that 20,000 peasants decided to migrate to Villa Nueva Colombia (a town under the control of the movement) in one year alone during the brief period of negotiations between the FARC-EP and the central government (1998-2002) because they knew that the movement would be able to provide them with access to arable land through the collective system of agriculture which has been implemented in all areas where the FARC-EP has a strong presence (in contrast to the rest of Colombia, where private ownership is still dominant) as well as protection from the authoritarian Colombian state which has always carried out attacks against union activists and anyone who dares to challenge the hegemony of the political elite by organizing the oppressed. During the same period the population of the DMZ consolidated by the FARC-EP increased from 100,000 to 740,000 also due to the influx of peasants from other areas. This is not something that happened in the distant past - it is a recent event and so indicates that the FARC-EP can still claim the support of the working masses, especially the impoverished peasantry who have objectively benefited from the military expansion of the FARC-EP. As for the specific allegation that the FARC-EP forces women to have abortions, when women decide to enter the movement they are informed that giving birth to children is not acceptable because a large dependent population would compromise the war effort, and the movement also provides information on how women can avoid getting pregnant and prevent the spread of infectious diseases. When pregnancy does occur, most female combatants request to have an abortion and the procedure is carried out in clean conditions by qualified doctors with all the necessary measures taken to prevent any risk to their lives, and the fact that a very small minority of women have been forced to undergo abortion is unfortunate, but understandable given the difficult conditions faced by the FARC-EP and the pressing need to maintain revolutionary discipline.

The FARC-EP is a revolutionary movement struggling against an authoritarian state which commands the support of the most powerful country in the entire world, and should be supported by all communists.


Latin America has had success with lots of socialist politicians being elected and you deduce from this that I endorse reformism and bourgeois parliamentarianism?What kind of success? The "socialist" politicians have all gained power through the bourgeois political process by contesting elections, but Marx recognized that socialism can only be developed when the armed proletariat smashes the structure of the bourgeois state and constructs a proletarian state based on mass participation and the democratic management of production. The FARC-EP leadership recognizes the need to conquer state power which is why they are engaged in a revolutionary struggle. The danger of resorting to a parliamentary strategy was demonstrated in 1985 when the FARC-EP entered national politics as part of the Uribe accords in the form of the Patriotic Union, which was subsequently eliminated by the state due to fears that the party would attain mass electoral support.

[PRC-UTE]

Great post, comrade bobkindles.

I think a lot of comrades are forgetting the basic facts of the situation: that the FARC have been pushed into their position of guerrilla resistance, and though being far from perfect are fighting for objectively revolutionary goals against a state that colludes with rightist paramilitaries and corporations like Coke in murdering trade unionists.

[Saorsa]

I think a lot of comrades are forgetting the basic facts of the situation: that the FARC have been pushed into their position of guerrilla resistance, and though being far from perfect are fighting for objectively revolutionary goals against a state that colludes with rightist paramilitaries and corporations like Coke in murdering trade unionists.

But... but... a capitalist newspaper published an article that said the FARC were a big sexist reactionary gang that rips babies from their mothers wombs and eats them! They must be liek evil Stalinists OMG RUN

They should liek disarm and liek take part in parliamentary politics (i know they tried this already and they all got massacred, but they should liek do it anyway it liek cant fail!), because atm all the workers liek hate them (dont ask me how I know this, I just do!).