The FARC-EP: Red-headed stepchild of 1st world revolutionaries. Good, bad or just keepin it real?

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jan 25 2007 13:15
jonnyflash wrote:
The informant that gave the map of Fred Hampton's apartment to the cops, then slipped a sleep drug into Fred's drink wasn't "in the loop", he was simply there doing some party business.

What does that have to do with it? If you have good reason to think that someone's an informant, you keep an eye on them, if you catch them red-handed, you can just kick them out of the group. Why the hell would you have to kill them? Once you know they're informers, they're of no use to your enemies. How does killing help?

jonnyflash wrote:
If it was demonstrably difficult to keep informants from doing harm in the BPP, how would you suggest a jungle-based geurilla organization do so? The point is not to terrorize the informant, but to stop the activity permanently, as it endangers the struggle and exposed the best elements of the movement to the worst of the state.

Again, why the hell would you need to kill the informant? You know who he is, you tell everyone about it, you try him in front of other group members, and then you remove him from, for that matter, doing "party business."

You still haven't explained to me the non-terrorist purpose of killing informants.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 25 2007 14:34
jonnyflash wrote:
They call Chavez a dictator, a caudillo, anti-democratic, oppressive.

but he is.
oh well, i guess i'm an imperialist tool.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 25 2007 15:40
newyawka wrote:
jonnyflash wrote:
They call Chavez a dictator, a caudillo, anti-democratic, oppressive.

but he is.
oh well, i guess i'm an imperialist tool.

Actually its not clear Chavez is anti-democratic or oppressive in the sense of the normal workings of a parliamentary democracy which is what the state department would mean. I suspect democracy in Venezula under Chavez would be comparable to democracy in the USA under Bush or Britain under Blair. Of course this is comparison is a two edged sword hardly likely to win friends among the 'Chavez the great red hope' crowd either.

So you can't simply endorse their words when you (hopefully) mean something else by these terms without becoming 'an imperialist tool.' All the more so when a US sponsored coup is not impossible and would be backed on exactly the grounds that Chavez was a significant deviation from normal parliamentary democracy.

I think a lot of the anarchist analysis of what is happening in Venezula is so shallow because of the usual anarchist problem of 'if the left says black I have to say white'. Clearly what is happening on the ground is neither black nor white so endorsing the language of either extreme makes little sense.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 25 2007 18:03

not sure i followed jblack2's whole last post. i make no comment here on his foreign policy or his classic-socialist welfarism, which actually seems to be materially beneficial. but this is what i saw just yesterday:

"To Mr. Chávez’s critics here, it is clear that his “21st century socialism” includes a large dose of autocracy. Why else, they argue, would Mr. Chávez request decree powers when his supporters already control Congress, the Supreme Court and every state government but two? "

"Another influence was Norberto Ceresole, an Argentine sociologist who was an adviser to Mr. Chávez in the 1990s. Mr. Ceresole, who championed the idea of a caudillo, or strongman, to rule Venezuela, was also known for his virulently anti-Semitic views. Mr. Chávez later distanced himself from Mr. Ceresole, who died in 2003."

"But there are those who see Mr. Chávez’s socialist ramblings more darkly. After hearing him resuscitate Che Guevara’s idea to forge socialism through the creation of a “new man,” the historian Manuel Caballero caused a stir recently by saying that a large part of the electorate voted for Mr. Chávez “because it wanted a dictatorship.” "

we can extract the facts from the interpretation. he has asked for power to rule by decree; one of his associates and ideological fathers was a proponent of 'caudillismo'; and he has spoken (though see below) of a desire to create a "new man" for the purpose of socialism. i'd call those things dictatorial, caudillistic, anti-democratic in the sense of the normal workings of a parliamentary democracy, and oppressive.

all quotes from nytimes. other citations, in case you don't like the times: for ceresole and caudillismo: http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2006/01/03.html, which has links and citations. for decree power:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-18-chavez-venezuela-socialism_x.htm, wherein the venezuelan national assembly sounds as bad as the us congress. the "new man" talk comes from the lips of others, tho' i can't come up with a reference to chavez as the speaker: washpost.

a coup is more than a possibility, washington tried to get in on one/was intimately involved in one already. but that doesn't change the fact that chavez is building the organs of a one-party state, which is, or should be, anathema to a libertarian.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Jan 26 2007 02:20

Hey, before we go talking bout imperialist tools, I'd like to clarify that the most advanced (theoretically, eloquency-wise, tactically etc) sectors of any movement (including the pro and anti Chavez movements) generally set the line for the rest of it. In the case of the anti-Chavez movement, clearly, the thinking has been to isolate him from left support bases by constant attention to features that might divide and polarize bases of support for the Bolivarian movement.

To us in the imperial core countries, such features worth media emphasis might include those that set off internal dissention among the following left strata:

Categorical non-violence proponents vs Pragmatists embracing the full diversity of tactical options

Pro-welfare state vs tactically anti-welfare state

Those concerned with adherence to the rituals of bougouis democracy as it exists in the 3rd world, and those unconcerned by such adherence.

Those who see the coup attempt by employer lockout as such vs those who see it as an outrage against principled striking labor

Those who fear or doubt the viability of or need for a socialist state vs those who feel the need exists and the project is valid.

Those who would intervene in organic developments within a country vs those who would respect national autonomy(barring imperial designs by a 3rd party).

Those who consider periphary capitalism preferable to communist projects vs communists

For the Columbian situation, the media uses a different set of divisions to the same end.

Add a pinch of black propaganda every now and then to exacerbate divisions, and you can fool most of the people, most of the time.

Such divisions among us are well-heeded and being worked quite skillfully by the global media wielded by capital, and also their pet NGO's. How we might resolve the differences is a big question.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 26 2007 14:54
jonnyflash wrote:
Add a pinch of black propaganda every now and then to exacerbate divisions, and you can fool most of the people, most of the time.

Such divisions among us are well-heeded and being worked quite skillfully by the global media wielded by capital, and also their pet NGO's. How we might resolve the differences is a big question.

ok, true, but is everything then to be reduced to rhetorical strategies? if so, what happens to the moral basis of the anticapital position?

in the meantime i've noticed the very good comments of treeofjudas and joseph k on the "community councils" thread.

Michael
Offline
Joined: 9-01-07
Jan 26 2007 16:19

Hello again,

I very much liked JoeBlack2's comment:

Quote:
Actually its not clear Chavez is anti-democratic or oppressive in the sense of the normal workings of a parliamentary democracy which is what the state department would mean. I suspect democracy in Venezula under Chavez would be comparable to democracy in the USA under Bush or Britain under Blair. Of course this is comparison is a two edged sword hardly likely to win friends among the 'Chavez the great red hope' crowd either.

It more or less parallels my analysis of the Venezuelan media reform law of 2004, which otherwise thoughtful Chavistas (no, it's not a contradiction in terms) defended by saying it was largely modeled on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States. Again, for most US radicals, especially those involved in community and/or pirate radio, the FCC is not a positive role model.

As my partner Anne and I argued two years ago, one important aspect of the Chavez regime is its modernizing role; creating a set of functional institutions and bureaucracies (whether electoral or regulatory) that resemble those of the global north, in contrast to the sort of endemic corruption that has characterized not only Venezuelan but most other South American governments since the days when Bolivar was marginalized and forgotten in his old age by the new creole ruling classes in the 1820's. Our direct personal experiences observing the interactions between peasant families and Chavista activists-turned-bureaucrats provided another example on a much smaller scale.

(As an aside, I still fail to understand how Rise - in the original binned thread that started much of this conversation - was able to read our piece and conclude that we were opposed to cooperatives and land redistribution. Rather, we were trying to paint a picture in all its complexity: the very laudible efforts of rural communities to gain control of the land on which they live, and even the sincerity and commitment of the Chavistas we were travelling with, were only one side of the story. The other side was the predictable expansion of debt and dependency that were likely to follow the creation of the cooperative.)

Solidarity,
Michael

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 20 2007 05:55

atlemk:

Quote:
Personally I'm not that interested in actual "revolutionary organizations"

Nuff said. You wouldn't be interested in the FARC-EP, located in a primarily peasant-based economy(but with huge support in urban centres as well).
The FARC-EP started as a Oaxaca situation, except rather than making their stand in a city, they made it in a rural autonomous community. Same corruption as Mexico today. Same popular response. Different strategy.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 20 2007 06:54
Quote:
Quote: Joe Black:
Actually its not clear Chavez is anti-democratic or oppressive in the sense of the normal workings of a parliamentary democracy which is what the state department would mean. I suspect democracy in Venezula under Chavez would be comparable to democracy in the USA under Bush or Britain under Blair. Of course this is comparison is a two edged sword hardly likely to win friends among the 'Chavez the great red hope' crowd either.

Interesting analysis, Joe. The Bush and Blair groups are busy spending billions invading and ripping off poor and defenseless countries, with the concommitant large declines of funding for social programs at home. America has a rapidly increasing illiteracy epidemic.
http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Illiteracy.html
The BBC reports that the UK has a 20% illiteracy rate,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/811832.stm
while UNESCO and many observers say that Venezuela has ended illiteracy
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/3558.html

Hmmm...seems like literacy-wise, the experience is different. But hey, I'll let you have that. Let's forget about that little illiteracy thingy, and try another quality of life index. How about poll data reflecting levels of satisfaction with democratic nature of their government? Venezuela came in highest in Latin America. Latinobarmetro polls from 1996-1998 indicate that in the three years before President Hugo Chavez was elected, Venezuelans had a much lower level of satisfaction with the way their democracy functioned. Try as I could, I found no similar polls published for the US or the UK. I'm certain that Katrina and the WMD-less Iraq debacle have boosted the credibility of both governments. Not.

Can anyone find empirical backup for the repeated and (I feel) baseless assertions that Chavez is driving down the quality of life in Venezuela?

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Feb 20 2007 18:49
Quote:
What does that have to do with it? If you have good reason to think that someone's an informant, you keep an eye on them, if you catch them red-handed, you can just kick them out of the group. Why the hell would you have to kill them? Once you know they're informers, they're of no use to your enemies. How does killing help?

Lenin made good use of informants before the Bolshevik revolution. He made sure to have them pick up the Party newspaper Pravda. By giving the informants tasks that other Party members couldn't carry out without getting busted, he was able to disseminate more propoganda. Knowing who an informant is is also valuable, as you can feed them false information and play them off against each other using double blinds.

But, I am not opposed to shooting an informant in self-defense if it would jeapordize the life of a single worker. I don't believe in colateral damage to further the revolution.

I see the FARC as just another statist movement that will replace the existing state with another state. All movements have some veneer or essence of progress to them, but as a communist, we should view them objectively. The prime question should be, "is communism being built"? Is the state being torn down, are workers being facilitated to lead themselves and organize themselves to meet their own needs? Is the commune the principal method of organization? I don't see FARC communes, I don't see FARC following any line other than to create another state, therefore, they are not a communist organization and will not lead to communism. I oppose the organization, but I support the working class and hope that the workers struggle in their own interests.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 20 2007 22:23
Quote:
I see the FARC as just another statist movement that will replace the existing state with another state. All movements have some veneer or essence of progress to them, but as a communist, we should view them objectively. The prime question should be, "is communism being built"? Is the state being torn down, are workers being facilitated to lead themselves and organize themselves to meet their own needs? Is the commune the principal method of organization? I don't see FARC communes, I don't see FARC following any line other than to create another state, therefore, they are
Quote:
not a communist organization

and will not lead to communism - wangwei

Wangwei, the FARC was started by the survivors of an autonomous rural commune that was crushed by the Columbian oligarchy. The FARC isn't in the jungle for fun, but rather because all other forums of struggle (communes and electoral) have been denied them. The institutional memory of the FARC-EP prevents repeating past tactical errors, precluding the reformation of the original autonomous commune until the safety and long-term viability of such can be guaranteed. Such conditions will arise with the dissolution of the bourgoise National Security State in Columbia. That dissolution is currently staved off via US assistance and the highest annual military aid packages in the world. Being in it to win it precludes giving up at this phase of the struggle, and I would argue that both you and I should refrain from giving up on the Farc-EP because they are (currently) locked in this phase of battle with their US proxy state. Rather than castigating the FARC-EP for succeeding to this advanced level and being stalled there by imperial militarism, as communists we have a duty to support our brothers and sisters in their struggle for self-determination and autonomy. If an autonomous communist state model is chosen by the organized working class and peasantry, then so be it. We have no more moral authority over that than the US does in trying to impose its desired model upon those people.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Feb 22 2007 23:48
Quote:
as communists we have a duty to support our brothers and sisters in their struggle for self-determination and autonomy.

The problem with the struggle for "self-determination" is that it recreates the state and is a form of nationalism. The ideology of the state, nationalism, and wokers solidarity must be struggled against. I don't see, nor have I ever seen examples of the FARC fighting against the creation of a state nor do I see them as having a line of fighting directly to a communist society through anarchist struggle.

US capitalist imperialism isn't the enemy so much as capitalism is the enemy.

Are they organizing for the workers to directly control and appropriate all of the social wealth that they create AND using that social wealth solely to meet the needs of the working class?

I've talked to a few FARC supporters, met a few victims of their shit, and frankly, want nothing to do with them. I don't believe in "foco" type guerilla movements, as I know that only the masses of workers themselves can ever be the force that liberates themselves.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Feb 23 2007 00:52

I had a discussion with an annarchist from Columbia at the bookfair here who told me they were on as bad of terms with the FARC there as they were with the paramillitaries- in other words both would made a practice of shooting them.

quint's picture
quint
Offline
Joined: 20-12-05
Feb 25 2007 07:27

I think Devrim was being quite insightful when he pointed out that the "national liberation" argument often plays out as a US (and i would add canada) vs. europe argument.

I'm an american (who lived in canada for 5 years), and I find it incredibly frustrating how many self-described "anarchists" or "communists" in North America end up supporting nationalist crap, just cause it's coming from "the third world". (The exception in North America, is the comrades from Quebec, who have seen the arc national liberation movements and are far more fiercely against quebec nationalism than english canadians or americans). The only conclusion I can come up with is that it comes from weakness. Faced with an aggressive capitalist class and a largely divided and isolated working class, people in North America "want to believe" in something that will save us--chavez, marcos, nasrallah... whatever. The other possibility is that, living at the center of capitalist imperialism, people must just adopt an "anyone but the US" stance. Even if that means supporting nationalist pseudo-governments like Hizbollah.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Feb 25 2007 13:21
quint wrote:
The other possibility is that, living at the center of capitalist imperialism, people must just adopt an "anyone but the US" stance.

I think this is the basic problem. My impression from travelling in Latin America and meeting a lot of americans unhappy with US involvement in the region is that many of them find it genuinely difficult to take a critical view of opposition movements there. As if criticising the left meant giving some kind of support to US foreign policy. This can come across to some extent with writers like Chomsky.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 25 2007 15:42

i second what JH says. it's been true back to the viet cong.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 28 2007 04:41

hey newyawka, , way to rail against the pluralistic coalition of which the Vietnamese communist party was but one component. If you were there then, tell me you wouldn't have joined them as the viable anti-imperial umbrella organization.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 28 2007 04:52

If you honestly beleive that the ideology of workers solidarity needs to be struggled against, then you can get a good job writing about that for a thinktank.

If real existing social movements in struggle aren't anarchistically pure enough for you, prepare for a life of frustration. Any real-world movement is going to be somewhat ideologically heterogeneous, with communists and platformist anarchists within it.

Right now, the FARC-EP is organizing and growing, is the dominant political player in over 50% of the country, and is getting ever closer to being in a position to end all paramilitary and army attacks on the peasants and workers, of which FARC-EP is composed.

Wangwei, I dunno where you live, but chances are any Columbians you have talked to could afford the plane ticket to and cost of living where you are. The average wage (starvation wage)in Columbia is $1700US.
I have hosted a talk by a Columbian peasant leader who's ticket was paid by Canadian union activism funds, and he painted a very different picture from what the anti-third-world-liberation-struggle types hanging round here would have everyone believe.

Wanwei, listen well when I say....the masses of peasants, workers and indigenous A R E the FARC-EP.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 28 2007 05:07

JH, knee-jerk support of anyone resisting when the an Empire iis attacking and bombing and invading, that's called anti-imperialism.
It's called supporting non-intervention and autonomy. It's a GOOD thing. It's what might save your ass some day during a third world war.

If you check around, you might notice all the people criticizing the policies of the empire. Some are saying the empire should get even more medeival and brutal. We shouldnt support them. Some imagine that nation building by the oppressed, for the oppressed, on the land that is supposed to house that opressed, is an inherently bad thing. Such people had best stick to reruns of the "Animal Farm" cartoon, and leave the work of overthrowing oppression, one nation at a time, to the rest of us.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800-02.htm

While criticizing the left doesn't always mean intentionally giving support to the empire which is simultaneously assaulting that left, it will be interpreted as such by many people. When you project this particular hobbyist sad-sack anarchyism onto the real world, don't be surprised when you can't tell the pigs from the real humans.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Feb 28 2007 05:17

I see a weak-kneed pseudo-left, afraid of it's roots as well as it's own shadow, advanced by Devrim and Quint. the pop-psychological dismissals of principled anti-imperialists, while recasting the social movements in struggle as the caricature offered up by the neoliberal media is not limited to this type of pious, purist Anarchyism. We see very similar stances and rationales on the far right. Instead of Quint's "yearning to overcome weakness by supporting liberation moverments," the rightists accuse us of being psychologically "wishy-washy, spineless and gullible sup[porters of totalitarianism, fellow travellers, useful idiots". Both attackers share exactly the same analysis of the social movements in question.
Neither orientation is helping revolutionaries win hearts and minds. Rather, both orientations work to demoralize and divide any support for liberation movements of national scope.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 28 2007 07:53
jonnyflash wrote:
I see a weak-kneed pseudo-left, afraid of it's roots as well as it's own shadow, advanced by Devrim and Quint.

I see a typical North American middle class pseudo-leftism advanced by jonnyflash. The sort of leftism that is quite willing to support workers dying for various nationalist causes in poorer parts of the world, and that gets taken in by anyone who mouths a few leftist, or anti-imperialist phrases. It has nothing to do with the working class.

jonnyflash wrote:
the pop-psychological dismissals of principled anti-imperialists, while recasting the social movements in struggle as the caricature offered up by the neoliberal media is not limited to this type of pious, purist Anarchyism.

It is not 'pious, purist Anarchyism'. I am not an anarchist, but a communist. I think that Quint would say the same. It is interesting though jonny that you have refused to answer all questions about your political orientation. I am about 90% sure that you are not an anarchist (the 10% is because the anarchist movement in the US seems to be infected with the same sort of leftism). Why are you so shy about telling us?

jonnyflash wrote:
Neither orientation is helping revolutionaries win hearts and minds. Rather, both orientations work to demoralize and divide any support for liberation movements of national scope.

National liberation movements are always anti-working class. It is not just an abstract theoretical position. You would know it if you had ever seen one of them operate close up. I suppose that you don't actually come across that in the States though.

Devrim

quint's picture
quint
Offline
Joined: 20-12-05
Feb 28 2007 11:15

First off, just for the record, I'm a communist not an anarchyist.

OK jonny, this is your crazy logic: IF You are against the FARC (or Nasrallah or whoever) AND the imperialists are against the FARC, THEREFORE you are on the side of the imperialists. This is ridiculous. By this logic you should support the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Muqtada Al-Sadr, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, Mahmoud Ahmedeenijad, etc ... This is the same argument that kept ideological CPers defending the soviet union for decades after everything proletarian had been crushed in the USSR. "But if you criticize the USSR, you're supporting the US!" Next thing you'll be calling us "Trotsky-Fascists".

Let's take an example of the war last summer in Lebanon (I know more about that than the FARC, since my parents live in Beirut). Obviously the IDF had all the advantages against Hizbollah, overwhelming technology, overwhelming resources. It was obviously not a fair fight, and obviously the IDF did that vast majority of the killing (which is not to say that a bunch of random working class people in Israel weren't killed). Anyway, obviously we're both against the war. The question is, why do you have to give support to the political rackets claiming to represent the people being massacred?

Hizbollah is essentially the government of large areas of Lebanon. They run schools, hospitals, pick up the garbage, and provide security. The constituency they try to represent is largely Shia and mostly poor. Thus Hizbollah comes into conflict to a certain extent with the more business-oriented Sinora gov't. Everything in Lebanon is horribly sectarian. The gov't seats are assigned based on sectarian affiliation. Hizbollah are a particularly successful political sectarian group. Still they have very different interests from the poor Shia they represent. This can been seen in the rare cases when poor Shia mobilize outside of their control. There was a protest a couple years ago against gas price increases in a Shia neighborhood that Hezbollah didn't organize. Since they didn't organize it, Hizbollah didn't provide it with political cover, and the government had a free hand and moved in and killed a bunch of people. So in this situation, when Hizbollah stepped aside and don't provide the political cover necessary to keep a demonstration from getting shot down (because they didn't organize it and didn't control it), do you support them because they're against Israel and US imperialism? Do you imagine that a more powerful Hizbollah, or even a Hizbollah-run central government would not come into conflict with the Lebanese workers? In real life, support for Hezbollah means support for the massacring of poor Shia demonstrators (not to mention random Israeli proles). So your anti-imperialism would seem to be in direct contradiction to a working class perspective. And that's the point, nationalism is nationalism in the US, in Canada and in Lebanon.

I don't really want to get into an in depth analysis of the Black Panthers. Suffice it to say that they are far from the highpoint of revolutionary activity of the American working class.

Anyway... I'm continually amazed by how North Americans radicals can one minute support vicious third world political rackets, and the next get all upset about "sexist language".

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 28 2007 11:36
quint wrote:
Anyway... I'm continually amazed by how North Americans radicals can one minute support vicious third world political rackets, and the next get all upset about "sexist language".

It is very amusing...

In relation to your Europe vs America comments in relation to national liberation, I'd say the majority of UK anarchists at least support nationalist shite - with the exception of the AF and Solfed, and posters here.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 28 2007 11:51
quint wrote:
By this logic you should support the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Muqtada Al-Sadr, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, Mahmoud Ahmedeenijad

not only that, but also support both Sunni sectarian 'resistance' fighters and anti-american shia death squads operating out of the iraqi interior ministry, even though they mostly kill each other! (and random civilians, though according to the US, in numerical terms although 75% of attacks actually target them they often kill bystanders, and of course there are direct sectarian bombings of markets and mosques etc).

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Feb 28 2007 12:47
Joseph K. wrote:
not only that, but also support both Sunni sectarian 'resistance' fighters and anti-american shia death squads operating out of the iraqi interior ministry, even though they mostly kill each other! (and random civilians, though according to the US, in numerical terms although 75% of attacks actually target them they often kill bystanders, and of course there are direct sectarian bombings of markets and mosques etc).

Likewise regarding Fatah and Hamas in Palestine. It all comes down to who sides with the US/Zionists, which is considered supporting imperialism, even though everyone there gets their funding from some outside imperialist force or another.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 28 2007 17:47
Quote:
hey newyawka, , way to rail against the pluralistic coalition of which the Vietnamese communist party was but one component. If you were there then, tell me you wouldn't have joined them as the viable anti-imperial umbrella organization.

i was alive at the time, if not in vietnam, and it was abundantly obvious to me that the VC were a bunch of totalitarians. and as for dissenters...

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Feb 28 2007 18:29
jonnyflash wrote:
JH, knee-jerk support of anyone resisting when the an Empire iis attacking and bombing and invading, that's called anti-imperialism.
It's called supporting non-intervention and autonomy. It's a GOOD thing.

Jonnyflash, where do you draw the line in supporting anti-imperialist and national liberation movements? Would you support the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the PKK in Turkey, Shining Path in Peru? If you would have supported the VC in Vietnam would you have supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? I'm not saying this is your position but I'd be genuinely interested to know where you make a distinction and why.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Feb 28 2007 18:36

Also the 'communism' of FARC is pretty objectionable, I mean really what we are talking about is state managed top down nationalised enterprises. Even in strictly economic terms (and there is a lot more to the Columbian situation than this) as workers they are hardly worth supporting.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Mar 1 2007 00:24

Johnnyflash, now, you're really starting to piss me da fuck off! You posted three successive ranting posts. Three. Each one extolling the virtues of a movement that is a top down national liberation movement that is leading the working class into a death trap. You know what I think of the FARC. I think that it's sad that they have the workers believeing in their bullshit. That's what I think. I'm a Communist. I fight for Communism, directly for Communism, live it, breath it, have been hospitalized for it, arrested for it, and lost jobs for it -- and still haven't suffered as much as the millions and millions who have died fighting for it only to be led into the valley of death by Ho Chi Minh clones ordering his most dedicated NLF fighters into suicide missions so he can get a better bargaining position in France. Fuck the VietCong. I would NEVER have supported them had I been alive then. I know many people who didn't. My loyalty is with the working class, not their charlatans nor their illusions.

I find it so sad that so many people on the left take the reactionary position that anybody shooting at the US must be the good guys. No man, Hezbollah, Hamas, and FARC are just a bunch of lil' bosses who wanna get real big. They mystify the masses of workers and peasants into believing their line of bullshit. If I were in Columbia, and I know this first hand, I would be shot by the FARC. They are counter-revolution. They are creating a state. They are the enemy.

Now, the question is, what do I mean by "they". "They" would be those who are indemnified to maintaining the social relationship of capital and the organization of FARC against the needs of the working class. The working class must be facilitated to meet their own needs, have the state decentralized from the ruling bourgeoisie and centralized within the entire working class as the negation of the proletariat into a stateless society, and be free to directly meet their own needs. The FARC are centralizing power within the organization, not the working class. 'Nuff said.

Quote:
If you honestly beleive that the ideology of workers solidarity needs to be struggled against,

Yes. I honestly believe that all statist, capitalist, militarist, ideologies need to be struggled against. Yup.

Quote:
Any real-world movement is going to be somewhat ideologically heterogeneous, with communists and platformist anarchists within it.

The FARC kills platformists. So, using your logic, I guess they aren't a real world movement.

Quote:
a very different picture from what the anti-third-world-liberation-struggle types hanging round here would have everyone believe.

Oh really? And what would that be? That the only method of workers' liberation is to rely upon some organization to lead them to the land of milk and honey. And good ole Moses cum FARC is gonna give 'em grapes the size of melons and that anybody that's an enemy of my enemy must be my friend? Uhm, yeah, after a century of national lib bullshit, some of us have learned from the mistakes of the revolutionary movement and are trying to build the next world within the carcass of this one. "The idea is the thing" by Berkman (he states that the ideas of the revolution will create the future of the revolution) and "The ends are a ways to a means" are two classic precepts that you seem to be missing. You sound like a confusionist/revisionist CPUSA, RCP, relic.

Quote:
Wanwei, listen well when I say....the masses of peasants, workers and indigenous A R E the FARC-EP

Johnnyflash, listen well when I say that the masses of peasants and workers in the USA are the Republican Party! Should we support them? Sounds a bit ludicrous huh? Yeah. Again, what .001% of the world's population is revolutionary, if that? So, should we build a movement to smash the state, smash capitalism, smash the oppression that binds us, or should we just settle for whatever is out there because hey, it's what da workers believe?

The masses of the peasants, workers, indigenous, are the proletariat, are the working class and just because they've bought into some capitalist mystification, does not mean that their class nature changes. For you to subsume them under a group is to lack a class analysis of what's going on in Columbia.

Quote:
the pop-psychological dismissals of principled anti-imperialists

Principled "anti-imperialists"!!! You've got to be fuckin' kiddin' me. principled pro-capitalists who are eventually, and are in the process of, dominating, controlling, and killing workers. Yeah, they've got principles all right, and so did the Khmer Rouge and the VietCong when the inustriatl and agricultural working class demanded too many rights. They've got lots and lots of principles...

Quote:
both orientations work to demoralize and divide any support for liberation movements of national scope.

Good. I would like to see all support for national lib movements vanish. That would be great. Yup, that's the goal of Communism, no states, no countries, a brotherhood of man, Imagine dat?

Callin' me a dreamer?

well, I'm not the only one...

I hope someday you'll join us....

and the world will be as one.

I guess it's safe to say that you're not an anarchist, I doubt that you're a communist, and I would peg ya as a Trot. Your politics suck and you're annoying as hell with the same redundant arguments that've been used for over 50 years. Yup. A Trot.

I hate to flame, but now you're just pissin' me off.

jonnyflash
Offline
Joined: 14-01-07
Mar 2 2007 09:13

jonnyflash wrote: JH,
jonnyflash wrote:
JH, knee-jerk support of anyone resisting when the an Empire iis attacking and bombing and invading, that's called anti-imperialism.
It's called supporting non-intervention and autonomy. It's a GOOD thing.

Jonnyflash, where do you draw the line in supporting anti-imperialist and national liberation movements? Would you support the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the PKK in Turkey, Shining Path in Peru? If you would have supported the VC in Vietnam would you have supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? I'm not saying this is your position but I'd be genuinely interested to know where you make a distinction and why.

Quote:

I believe that like every barfight, every war has to be looked at in detail to really see whats going on. I know from school that when the big bully is kicking a little guy's ass,and the little guy is fighting back, thats the time to get in there and mix it up with the bully cuz you can't beat him alone. I also like to follow the money and the overarching strategy of the bully nation. Enough rambling, I think we should tactically support anyone fighting our enemy, even if they have been tortured and twisted into a wee monster by imperial designs. A multi-polar world is really important to me. And believe that people can change, too. I support any project building unity and equality in both rhetoric and practice. I believe that any one big chunk is neccessarily composed of smaller yet cohesive chunks.
You could call it a transitory nationalism if you like. I don't know about every self-described national liberation movement. I know about Vietnam's, Korea's, Cuba's, China's(watch for another revolution there), Russia's, El Salvador's, Venezuela's....Spain's.,,Ireland's...Indonesia's, America's. I know that the Viet Cong went in and overthrew the Khmer Rouge. "....an American policy took root-to provide the Khmer Rouge with food, financial aid and military aid beginning soon after their ouster. The aim, in conjunction with China and long-time American client state, Thailand, was to restore Pol Pot's troops to military capability ..." for more see here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Support_PolPot_RS.html

I've been looking into the movements in the Niger Delta lately. They are getting stronger, and are really savvy about how to hurt stock market values. I think that's cool.
I guess that doesnt really answer your question. I dont know where the "line" is, cuz I don't think about them in a linear way, I guess. The context, goals and funders determines so much.