Attacks on the rich

[Comrade B]

I have come across an issue I find myself very divided on. It is that of attacking the rich, simply for the sake of scaring them (terrorism, in other words). Ordinarily, I oppose the targeting of civilians, but can we really consider CEOs and other upper level businessmen innocent of the crimes of capitalism? I am particularly interested in what other communists have to say on this, but feel free to say your piece anarchists.

[benhur]

I have come across an issue I find myself very divided on. It is that of attacking the rich, simply for the sake of scaring them (terrorism, in other words). Ordinarily, I oppose the targeting of civilians, but can we really consider CEOs and other upper level businessmen innocent of the crimes of capitalism? I am particularly interested in what other communists have to say on this, but feel free to say your piece anarchists.

I think I posted something on this in my thread on terrorism. This is a controversial subject because, while, we may not consider the rich to be innocent (due to their support for capitalism), others may also accuse the common man of the exact same charge; and hence, a reasonable target for terror attacks.

[GPDP]

More to the point, what does terrorism of the rich really accomplish?

[Die Neue Zeit]

This "propaganda of the deed" stuff is what we get when attempts at organizing open class struggle stutter. :(

[benhur]

More to the point, what does terrorism of the rich really accomplish?

By terrorizing the rich, the terrorist groups achieve nothing. Because the rich/ruling class are 'more' equal than others, so JUST one attack on them would invite a severe counterattack from the ruling class; which only weakens the said terrorist org.

OTOH, if the terrorists terrorize* the common man to join them in their struggle against the state, not only is there no counterattack from the state (because the state doesn't care enough to waste money protecting its citizens), but the common man is otherwise too ignorant to join the revolution. Lecturing the common man hasn't worked so far, has it?

Just thinking out loud. Not endorsing terrorism.


* By terrorism, I dont mean killing people. Dead people dont join the revolution. Just intimidating them, no physical harm or injury or death.

[cop an Attitude]

By terrorizing the rich, the terrorist groups achieve nothing. Because the rich/ruling class are 'more' equal than others, so JUST one attack on them would invite a severe counterattack from the ruling class; which only weakens the said terrorist org.

OTOH, if the terrorists terrorize* the common man to join them in their struggle against the state, not only is there no counterattack from the state (because the state doesn't care enough to waste money protecting its citizens), but the common man is otherwise too ignorant to join the revolution. Lecturing the common man hasn't worked so far, has it?

Just thinking out loud. Not endorsing terrorism.


* By terrorism, I dont mean killing people. Dead people dont join the revolution. Just intimidating them, no physical harm or injury or death.


sounds a bit like a vanguard. Can't you do it without intimidation, you dont want to scare people into joining. What about education.

[BobKKKindle$]

sounds a bit like a vanguard. Can't you do it without intimidation, you dont want to scare people into joining. What about education.

Nothing in that member's post bears any resemblance to the vanguard or any other element of Lenin's theory of party organization. Lenin never argued that people should be intimidated into supporting the revolution, rather he always emphasized the importance of "patiently explaining" the need for socialism and the failure of capitalism to meet the needs of ordinary people, because socialism can only be created through the mass involvement of the working class, not the intrigues of an isolated and disengaged party. Please, at least read some of Lenin's works or learn about how the Bolsheviks operated in reality, instead of making these ignorant and uneducated comments.

[Sam_b]

I reccommend reading Trotsky's writings On Terror, especially with relation to what Jacob's said briefly about propoganda of the deed. He's spot on.

[cop an Attitude]

Nothing in that member's post bears any resemblance to the vanguard or any other element of Lenin's theory of party organization. Lenin never argued that people should be intimidated into supporting the revolution, rather he always emphasized the importance of "patiently explaining" the need for socialism and the failure of capitalism to meet the needs of ordinary people, because socialism can only be created through the mass involvement of the working class, not the intrigues of an isolated and disengaged party. Please, at least read some of Lenin's works or learn about how the Bolsheviks operated in reality, instead of making these ignorant and uneducated comments.
I was noit saying that that the was core definition of a vanguard, only that it resembeled it slightly. I understand that it was not to be brought out through intimidation and fear but it seemed as if he was discribing an organization of class conscious individuals that would seek out to attact others. I actully agree that a vanguard is needed to a point but as i said before, i think it shoudl be an educational body only.

[JimmyJazz]

I reccommend reading Trotsky's writings On Terror, especially with relation to what Jacob's said briefly about propoganda of the deed. He's spot on.

http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm

[Pogue]

Terroism always, always, always fucks things up. I would never do it. Assasinations (of military and political enemies) and guerilla warfare are not terroism though.

But i'd never instigate the violence in our revolution, only defend myself from it.

[YSR]

Just want to note the difference between propaganda by the deed and terrorism.

[apathy maybe]

I just want to note that "terrorism" is a meaningless term that shouldn't be used. It is, basically, a "ruling class" idea. They define the word, you don't. Therefore, don't use the word.

Anyway, apart from that, I see attacks on tops CEOs and other top business folks, as well as government figures (including politicians), police, military etc. all as legitimate.

[cop an Attitude]

Attacks should not be brought out unless a revolution is actully possible. Now any attacks would be taken the worng way and just seen and a crazy person shooting a CEO or firebombing a walmart. If the people are aware of the actions these people do and then attacks are brought out aganist them, it might gain support.

[RedSabine]

Violence (at least in the form of killing massive amounts of rich people) is not a necessary prerequisite to revolution. In the conversion of Private Property to communal property, the bourgeoisie will cease to exist as bourgeoisie. A bullet wont make the change any fast, in fact it will damage the movement more than anything else, I think.

Terrorism is also out, due to the fact that it discredits both the group commiting terrorist attacks and the ideology that they claim to represent. Against the common working man? Never! Tha is the most counterintuitive thing I have ever heard of. Just because someone disagrees with us dones't make them collaberators with the bourgeoisie...

But I am all for self-defense (against military, police, militia, whatever.)

[Comrade B]

I just want to note that "terrorism" is a meaningless term that shouldn't be used. It is, basically, a "ruling class" idea. They define the word, you don't. Therefore, don't use the word.
So what do you call the bombing of poor highly religious villages in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq? I call that terrorism. Terrorism exists beyond what Tories and Republicans say it is. Sure, a lot of the stuff they call terrorism is not and they are just full of shit (such as insurgents shooting at their military), but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as killing civilians to spread fear.


Against the common working man? Never!
I didn't mean terrorism against the working class, only the wealthy and powerful. For example, Carlos the Jackal's attack on OPEC.
Of course, sometimes these things hurt the working class people, but only when they are standing in the way of the goal (in the OPEC raid, I believe the 3 people killed were security), they should never be the actual target.


http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm)
Thanks for this, I hold a lot of respect for Trotsky and his writings, though I still have yet to get to reading his larger writings

[apathy maybe]

So what do you call the bombing of poor highly religious villages in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq? I call that terrorism. Terrorism exists beyond what Tories and Republicans say it is. Sure, a lot of the stuff they call terrorism is not and they are just full of shit (such as insurgents shooting at their military), but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as killing civilians to spread fear.
Terrorism doesn't mean anything except what the propaganda machine wants it to mean though. Killing civilians is collateral damage if they aren't the target, or a successful attack on terrorists if they are. See where I'm going... They define what "terrorism" means, not you. When you can get a major broadcasting or publishing company to use the word "terrorism" in relation to a military raid by a "western" government against civilians, then I will accept that the meaning has changed. Until then, don't use the word, it doesn't do anything for anyone except the ruling class.

What would I call that attack? How about "killing civilians to spread fear", "war crime", or just "killing civilians"? We need to stop pandering to the propaganda machine and stop using terms like "terrorism", "democracy" (when talking about "representative", "liberal" bullshit), etc.

[JimmyJazz]

I hold a lot of respect for Trotsky and his writings, though I still have yet to get to reading his larger writings

Same here.

That particular pamphlet was pretty instrumental in forming my early understanding of Marxism (even though I didn't come to accept it for quite a while after that). Hopin' to read History of the Russian Revolution pretty soon, as the excerpts I've read were not just interesting history, but really, really good and dramatic prose. The dude was a great writer.

[redguard2009]

I agree with a_m; the very definition of the term "terrorism" has been so brutally skewed by imperialist war-mongers that it isn't really beneficial to use it to describe anything.

I would call attacks on civilians "murder", or "mass murder".

[Foxtrot]

Violence against the rich is a bad move; for example, it rallies others against our cause and casts the party in a bad light. But if the violence is initiated by the puppets of capitalism, go for it.

[Rascolnikova]

Ordinarily, I oppose the targeting of civilians, but can we really consider CEOs and other upper level businessmen innocent of the crimes of capitalism?

Absolutely not.

I personally feel violence should be avoided wherever possible. That means that if it's not tactically sound to attack someone, we shouldn't. Ever. Personally I'm not in favor of the death penalty either.

However, from the perspective of justice, the presence of socio-political structures that conveniently displace any sense of personal responsibility onto entities unable to give any recompense for the atrocities they commit is no excuse. The most horrific violence in history, as far as I know, has all been done under such circumstances.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think this thread is silly - why talk about something in such sweeping turn. Attacking any given particular rich person happens in a context, and it either accomplishes a particular goal, or fails to do so. It's like talking about "smashing windows" or "writing a letter" or "planting a bomb" or any other given tactic - it's not going to go anywhere in the abstract.
We could talk about specific incidences, and try to evaluate, retrospectively, whether or not they were useful, and that might help us in considering when attacking a rich person might be useful, and I think there are plenty of examples of it working well, and working poorly. Anybody want to start?

[Rascolnikova]

How about you, VMC? I'm curious, and it sounds like you know more about this than I do.

[Hit The North]

I just want to note that "terrorism" is a meaningless term that shouldn't be used. It is, basically, a "ruling class" idea. They define the word, you don't. Therefore, don't use the word.

Anyway, apart from that, I see attacks on tops CEOs and other top business folks, as well as government figures (including politicians), police, military etc. all as legitimate. I know I'm supposed to agree with Trotsky on this but I find myself agreeing instead with Apathy Maybe. I wouldn't place such attacks at the centre of revolutionary activity by any means, but if it meant that the rich felt less comfortable parading their riches in our faces and began to feel less secure and feel less free, then I wouldn't mind. Hell, if anyone is organising a mass campaign of mailing dog shit to members of the ruling class, sign me up!

I have a dog!

[Forward Union]

I have come across an issue I find myself very divided on. It is that of attacking the rich, simply for the sake of scaring them (terrorism, in other words). Ordinarily, I oppose the targeting of civilians, but can we really consider CEOs and other upper level businessmen innocent of the crimes of capitalism? I am particularly interested in what other communists have to say on this, but feel free to say your piece anarchists.


Again it's not a moral issue. There's nothing inherantly wrong in attacking anyone, the question here is if it's useful.

Normally it isn't. On a political level at least. On a personal level I can imagine it's quite relieveing, fullfilling etc. If a worker chose to beat up or kill his boss, destroy his car etc, I would recognise that as a legitimate venting of their anger. They've been pushed to do it and I don't think they should be sorry for it. I'd buy them a drink for it anyway.

I'm not going to aadvocate it because that would be a liabilty, and I don't think it's particularly useful. We need to organise constructively. The BNP didn't get to where it is by attacking ethnic minorities.

[PostAnarchy]

This "propaganda of the deed" stuff is what we get when attempts at organizing open class struggle stutter. :(


Agreed.