fighting to the death?

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
No borders No state No war's picture
No borders No s...
Offline
Joined: 22-06-10
Dec 18 2010 19:58
fighting to the death?

Im sure that we all like to think that if the situation arised we would all fight and die for our own and others freedom (for example, The Spanish Civil War). So, along the lines that we should all be willing die for freedom, should suicide bombing not be considered as a way to eliminate the enemy?I AM NOT PLANNING ANYTHING AND AM PERSONALY AGAINST IT
Personaly, i think that if you are willing to blow yourself up you are not only dangerously close to brain-washing, you are also destroying one of of the most valuable things the working class have, working class people.
Im just intreseted in other peoples views on this...

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 18 2010 20:08

Last time I check the situation has not got to that stage yet....So I wouldnt worry about it.

No borders No state No war's picture
No borders No s...
Offline
Joined: 22-06-10
Dec 18 2010 22:04

I know, i was just intrested i what other people thought about it...

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Dec 19 2010 06:16
Quote:
we should all be willing die for freedom

No way!
Though the struggle for LIFE might involve risking being killed by the forces defending the living death of this society, this is a risk and has nothing to do with being willing to die. Refusing to accept the intensification of humiliation and sheer destruction that capital imposes involves, in certain situations, being prepared to take a chance of being killed but no-one should willingly die - bullets should be dodged where possible.

Sacrifice, whatever the "radical" ideology attempting to justify it, is always Christian. See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4jtSFYlbr4 - about 8 mins 20 seconds in.
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp1CmV2m4MQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp - about 40 seconds in till 2 minutes in.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 19 2010 06:44
No borders No state No war wrote:
I know, i was just intrested i what other people thought about it...

The media and police regularly look at this site.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Dec 19 2010 10:25

Just in reply to the initial question, suicide bombing--at least as it's used in military circles and the media--involves killing many others beyond yourself, usually civilians. No anarchist could justify that.

This is not to say that during a revolutionary situation anyone is denying the state may use lethal force and we may have to confront that force.

No borders No state No war's picture
No borders No s...
Offline
Joined: 22-06-10
Dec 21 2010 15:54
Quote:
Refusing to accept the intensification of humiliation and sheer destruction that capital imposes involves, in certain situations, being prepared to take a chance of being killed but no-one should willingly die

So were do you draw the line? What about geting into a fight you cannot win? Attacking armed police or troops would be a definate death-sentence. But if they opened fire on a crowd like in Northen Ireland, would it still not be the right thing to do? You would knowingly be killing yourself to try and protect other. Or hunger-strikes? If you dont eat your obviously going to die but if it was a form of protest against injustice would it not be justifyed? And would it not still count as sucide?

No borders No state No war's picture
No borders No s...
Offline
Joined: 22-06-10
Dec 21 2010 15:58

Just to make it clear, IM AGAINST SUICIDE BOMBING! I just wondered were you draw the line...

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Dec 21 2010 16:43

Last time I checked, working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness have never engaged in suicide bombing. Whenever working class people fighting for working class liberation (that anti-statists would recognize as real liberation) have blown themselves up, it has been accidental.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Dec 21 2010 16:50
Black Badger wrote:
Last time I checked, working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness have never engaged in suicide bombing. .

Well, to be fair, I think the first use of suicide bombs came from a Lebanese Marxist guerrilla group during the civil war.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Dec 21 2010 17:16
Juan Conatz wrote:
Black Badger wrote:
Last time I checked, working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness have never engaged in suicide bombing. .

Well, to be fair, I think the first use of suicide bombs came from a Lebanese Marxist guerrilla group during the civil war.

Was it not the Tamil Tigers?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 21 2010 17:22

It was the Tigers.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Dec 21 2010 19:31

Ah, I think I was thinking of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an secular Arab socialist party who the first female suicide bomber is credited to.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Dec 22 2010 00:12
Juan Conatz wrote:
Ah, I think I was thinking of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an secular Arab socialist party who the first female suicide bomber is credited to.

The Syrian Social Nationalist Party doesn't exactly qualify as

black badger wrote:
working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness.

While I'm not familiar with the SSNP, I am guessing that it is/was a leftist, statist, vanguardist, pro-(state)capitalist party, probably of the Stalinist variety.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jan 11 2011 06:29

Sorry for long delay in response, but I've only just seen this:
No borders No state:

Quote:
Samotnaf:
Quote:
Refusing to accept the intensification of humiliation and sheer destruction that capital imposes involves, in certain situations, being prepared to take a chance of being killed but no-one should willingly die

So were do you draw the line? What about geting into a fight you cannot win? Attacking armed police or troops would be a definate death-sentence. But if they opened fire on a crowd like in Northen Ireland, would it still not be the right thing to do? You would knowingly be killing yourself to try and protect other. Or hunger-strikes? If you dont eat your obviously going to die but if it was a form of protest against injustice would it not be justifyed? And would it not still count as sucide?

Attacking armed police or troops is not a definite death sentence by any means - even in the revolution in South Africa in the '70s and '80s, when the cops had a culture of shooting anything that moved, the vast majority of those who attacked the armed cops survived (though whether they survived the ANC's economic onslaughts is another question). In most countries in the world the cops are openly armed (in the UK many are, but they hide their guns), but they still get attacked.

As for hunger strikes - going on one to the death is not my idea of struggle. Though they might work sometimes - going so far as dying is stupid; I don't think the death of the hunger strikers in Northern Ireland in the early '80s contributed one tiny bit to the struggle for freedom; it was a typical Christian (in this case, Catholic) reflex hoping to win by moralism against forces that didn't (and still don't) give a toss for moral arguments.

deerbusker's picture
deerbusker
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jan 13 2011 22:51

This is a reply to the original question at the start.

In this country up until the age of three children have a period of growth which affects their capacity to deal with fear. Psychiatrists have labels for their theories explaining the scientific data from their research which is usually relative to treatment, but I don't want to get into that, so, to cut a long story short, this ability we have to understand how to act when being threatened can present an obstacle. When something like this happens all you have is your personality and when you can't cope that can change when society changes, but the schools and religious organisations which take away our initiative to create a free society that is something we struggle to understand collectively we reach the stage of the job market when the formal hierachies we encounter there have such a lasting effect on our behavior that capitalism takes over personal functionality. An example of this is the idea of the right of possession.

Where countries are struggling for state power the case is different. Indeed, this is even a barbarous condition for living-people to sustain themselves and that is why they have gone so far as to commit suicide. We have to question the environment children are being brought up in. And when we start to look to how we can improve our environment by acting locally with the grassroots there are many places we cannot go. At least, that would seem to be the case, but I have found it eases every momentary exchange to tolerate the amount of adversity when there appears to be an obstacle which can be overcome by taking strength from the simple synergy of a community with the same aim. Kropotkin said:

Quote:
‘This, then, is the form—sociable institution—of which we ask the development of the spirit of harmony that church and State had undertaken to impose on us—with the sad result we know only too well. And these remarks contain our answer to those who affirm that communism and anarchism cannot go together. They are, you see, a necessary complement to one another. The most powerful development of individuality, individual originality—as one of our comrades has so well said—can only be produced when the first needs of food and shelter are satisfied; when the struggle for existence against the forces of nature has been simplified; when man’s time is no longer taken up entirely by the meaner side of daily subsistence, then only his intelligence, his artistic taste, inventive spirit, his genius, can develop freely and ever strive to greater achievements.’
Kropotkin, Fugitive Writings, p. 119

Before he wrote that Marx said,

Quote:
‘The second form - and like this the first it has essential modifications of the original clans - also assumes the community as its first presupposition, but not, as in the first case, as the substance of which the individuals are mere accidents, or of which they form purely natural component parts - it presupposes as base not the countryside, but the town as an already created seat (centre) of the rural population (owners of land). The cultivated field here appears as a territorium belonging to the town; not the village as mere accessory to the land. The earth in itself - regardless of the obstacles it may place in the way of working it, really appropriating it - offers no resistance to [attempts to] relate to it as the inorganic nature of the living individual, as his workshop, as the means and object of labour and the means of life for the subject. The difficulties which the commune encounters can arise only from other communes, which have either previously occupied the land and soil, or which disturb the commune in its own occupation. War is therefore the great comprehensive task, the great communal labour which is required either to occupy the objective conditions of being there alive, or to protect and perpetuate the occupation. Hence the commune consisting of families initially organised in a warlike way - as a system of war and army, and this is one of the conditions of its being there as proprietor. The concentration of residences in the town, basis of this bellicose organisation. The clan system in itself leads to higher and lower ancestral lineages [Geschelecterm], a distinction which is still further developed through intermixture with subjugated clans etc. Communal property - as state property, ager publicus - here separated from private property. The property [Eigentum] of the individual is here not, unlike the first case, itself directly communal property, where it is, the individual has no property as distinct from the commune, but rather is merely its possessor [Besitzer]. The less it is the case that the individual’s property can in fact be realised solely through communal labour - thus e.g. the aqueducts in the Orient - the more the purely naturally arisen, spontaneous character of the clan has been broken by historic movement, migration; the more, further, the clan removes itself from its original seat and occupies alien ground, hence enters into essentially new conditions of labour, and develops the energy of the individual more - its common character appearing, necessarily, more as a negative unity towards the outside - the more, therefore, are the conditions given under which the individual can become a private proprietor of land and soil - of a particular plot - whose particular cultivation falls to him and his family. The commune - as state - is, on one side, the relation of these free and equal private proprietors to one another, their bind against the outside, and is at the same time their safeguard. The commune here rests as much on the fact that its members consist of working landed proprietors, small-owning peasants, as the peasants’ independence rests as much on their mutual relations as commune members, on protection of the ager pubicus for communal needs and communal glory etc. Membership in the commune remains th presupposition for the appropriation of land and soil, but, as a member of the commune, the individual is a private proprietor. He relates to his private property as land and soil, but at the same time as to his being as commune member; and his own sustenance of the commune, and conversely etc. The commune, although already a product of history here, not only in fact but also known as a such, and therefore possessing an origin, is the presupposition of property in land and soil - i.e. of the relation of the working subject to the natural presupposition of property in land and soil i.e. of the relation of the working subject to the natural presuppositions of labour as belonging to him - but this belonging [is] mediated by his being a supposition regarded as divine etc. Concentration in the town, with the land as terrtorium; small agriculture working for direct consumption; manufacture as domestic side occupation of wives and daughters (spinning and weaving) or, independently, in individual branches only (fabri etc.). The presupposition of the survival of the community is the preservation of equality among its free self-sustaining peasants, and their own labour as the condition of the survival of their property. They relate as proprietors to the natural conditions of labour; but these conditions must also constantly be posited as real conditions and objective elements of the personality of the individual, by means of personal labour. On the other side, the tendency of this small bellicose community system drives beyond these barriers etc. (Rome, Greece, Jews etc.)’
Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 474-6

The right of possession has been the cause of sucide bombers. It is the cause of all wars. Nations maintain borders strictly by controling who and what is in transition across those borders which is the source of all the diplomatic machinery we encounter that is a real obstacle which has to be smashed. Within every state legisaltion is enforced by various departments of government to control where people go and what they use and how they use it for most of the time when it is being regulated in this way, but the majority of people, the working class, are disenfranchised by it and are coerced by the system of the state to resort to other means. Through this we are able to resist the oppression, while we are still tied to the proverbial ship of fools, the bosses ruling the profits.

chebba
Offline
Joined: 15-06-10
Jan 14 2011 00:40

apologies for the last post. please remove. thanks

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jan 14 2011 00:58
Black Badger wrote:
Last time I checked, working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness have never engaged in suicide bombing. Whenever working class people fighting for working class liberation (that anti-statists would recognize as real liberation) have blown themselves up, it has been accidental.

I too wish that no one would do such an insane thing to themselves and their loved ones, but the horrors of war have little to do with what seems reasonable and rational.
I can think of at least one horrific example of non-propaganda-by-the-deed suicide bombing in the context of the Spanish Revolution. A rare example perhaps, but only because the histories of past struggles remain largely unwritten.

Quote:
“We are going to rush the square,” replied Durruti, “and you will lead us.”

But no mass attack was necessary. Two barefooted, ragged peasant boys quietly wrapped bundles of dynamite around their waists, inserted the caps in one of the sticks, and then, with a lighted cigarette in the one hand and the short fuse in the other, suddenly dashed across the square. One fell wounded by a burst of machine-gun fire, but he crawled on and reached the cathedral’s porch. His companion had already applied his cigarette to the fuse. There was a moment of suspense and then the ear-tearing rip of an explosion... and another one. The boys had blown themselves up. The balcony with the machine guns crashed down in chunks to the flagstones.

A minute later the militia stormed across and a thick column of smoke poured from the tower. The Fascists in the bell chamber were roasting to death. Those inside the church surrendered. http://libcom.org/history/barcelona-meeting-durruti-taking-sietamo-%E2%80%93-pierre-van-paassen

It is easy to say "I will definitely die for liberty" or "No way, nothing is worth dying for" but imo the proof is in the pudding, and you can never know beforehand what you're truly capable of (for better or for worse) in a total-war, life-or-death situation.
Let's not generalize, one way or the other.

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jan 19 2011 15:22
Quote:
It is easy to say "I will definitely die for liberty" or "No way, nothing is worth dying for" but imo the proof is in the pudding, and you can never know beforehand what you're truly capable of (for better or for worse) in a total-war, life-or-death situation.

Agree with Black Badger. I couldn't resist pointing out the inter-imperialist nature of Spanish civil war. The example raises the question how two peasant boys got their hands on bundles of dynamite in the first place. Most likely they were already supporting, if not fighting as soldiers, with the republicans, and any ordinary soldier is de facto prepared to sacrifice his life for the Great Cause, it's part of his job, so there's not some deeper 'existentialist' shit going on here.
A class struggle type of action would have been for them to distribute propaganda to the nationalist forces, behind enemy lines, knowing when they'd be arrested to expect a slow torturous death.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Jan 19 2011 21:02
waslax wrote:
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party doesn't exactly qualify as
black badger wrote:
working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness.

While I'm not familiar with the SSNP, I am guessing that it is/was a leftist, statist, vanguardist, pro-(state)capitalist party, probably of the Stalinist variety.

The SSNP was originally fascist, but I think they made the switch to leftism in the 70s.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jan 19 2011 22:02
Felix Frost wrote:
waslax wrote:
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party doesn't exactly qualify as
black badger wrote:
working class people with what is commonly referred to as working class consciousness.

While I'm not familiar with the SSNP, I am guessing that it is/was a leftist, statist, vanguardist, pro-(state)capitalist party, probably of the Stalinist variety.

The SSNP was originally fascist, but I think they made the switch to leftism in the 70s.

I think it's likely that the transition was only in name as the only SSNP I ever came across was a virulent antisemite and racist.

crwydryny
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jan 23 2011 11:23

there's an old quote I remember hearing a long time ago "no soul can live in freedom so long as another remains enslaved"

personally I would willingly give my life for a cause I truly believed in, this is not to say I'd strap on 20lb of C4 walk into a populated place and blow myself up as such tactics are useless and can quickly be turned against a cause.

take for example 9/11 or 7/7 bombings (no arguing about conspiracy theories as that doesn't matter in this context)
if we were to use similar tactics who would get hurt the most? the wealthy who owned the property that is hit... property that is probably ensured for more than it's worth. or the hundreds or thousands of innocent mostly working class people who get caught in the whole thing. the result is when you then try to gain support from the working class you get nothing but anger.

to quote old ernesto "che" guevera "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth"

I myself would lay down my life fighting for what I believe, fighting to protect the freedom of another or to help another gain his freedom from any form of slavery or discrimination, be it racism, classism, sexism or any other -ism.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jan 23 2011 11:46
crwydryny wrote:
to quote old ernesto "che" guevera "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth"
.

shame he didn't practise what he preached.

crwydryny
Offline
Joined: 31-05-09
Jan 23 2011 12:10
Quote:
shame he didn't practise what he preached.

true, but given the situation he was in he did what he had to do. if memory serves he joined the movement to free cuba as a non combatant medic, it wasn't until he saw the guy next to him get shot and killed did he pick up a rifle and fight.

from what I've read of his writings he was a great philosopher, and a caring person. and apparently he became increasingly disillusioned by what he was fighting for being kicked out of cuba because fidel feared his popularity, constantly being betrayed by the people whom he was fighting for. from what I've read in the end he started becoming more and more reckless taking stupid risks and it's little surprise that he was so calm when they executed him almost as if he welcomed an end after all he had witnessed and done. but that's just my opinion unfortunately it's a little late to ask him... unless someone has a quija board lol.

GASR's picture
GASR
Offline
Joined: 11-12-10
Jan 23 2011 16:28

sorry i haven't read all -- but surely we should be saying and enacting MORE LIFE, in the form of freedom.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jan 25 2011 09:58

Caring person? Che? For gawd's sake he was a nasty little Stalinist who personally executed people! See here http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Feb 2 2011 17:34

A similar debate was had by anarchists in the late 19th/early 20th c. over the attentat (propaganda by the deed, usually political assassination). The majority, and especially the class conscious anarchists, came down against the attentat. Whilst attentat does not necessarily imply suicide, it was often carried out by those who fully expected to be executed for their actions. I think it would not be true to say that such people did not include in their number class conscious workers. For example, Alexander Berkman tried to assassinate a boss responsible for the murder of striking workers, expecting to get executed as a result. Berkman was surely a class conscious worker. It makes little material difference that he made the attempt using a pistol expecting to die a few weeks later rather than using dynamite and expecting to die instantly. Emma Goldman, another class conscious worker, helped him plan and execute the deed. I've nothing against workers taking revenge on murderous bosses. I've no particular desire to get myself killed, but if others feel like that's something they want to do, I'm not going to condemn them for it, or pretend that it makes them crypto-Christians (why Christian in particular?). In the case of Berkman, I think the reason was his ascetic psuedo-Leninist view of 'the revolutionary'.

On the use of bombs, the problem is that they are thought to be less discriminate than bullets. But they needn't be if used right. It is absolutely true that the generalised indiscriminate terror of the market place suicide bomber is anti-working class, but targeted terror against particular elements of the bourgeoisie needn't be. All class struggle contains the psychological element, of which terror is one part, and it would be foolish to neglect this particularly during a revolutionary period. And for those that are willing to die to create the revolutionary terror in the class enemy, I don't understand them, but I will not condemn them.

For me the key consideration is the tactical validity of the act. Almost always, political killing is tactically unsound. It alienates people and is used to justify intensification of repression. But not always. When the the struggle is already one of life and death (as when striking workers are gunned down) the time may well be right for a revolutionary to take the fight to the bosses on the same terms. There is a danger of such acts being isolated elitist 'activisty' actions, but they needn't always be, in my opinion.

Sorry to veer off the direct topic of suicide bombing but, as I say, I think methods are not the heart of the issue and concentrating too much on a particular method obfuscates the real debate.

[legal disclaimer: the above comments are made for entertainment purposes only, and are in no way an illegal endorsement of terrorism. smile ]

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Feb 2 2011 18:50

A bit of an anachronism really, Berkman being a "psuedo- (sic) Leninist" before Leninism had actually appeared.!!??

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Feb 2 2011 21:04
Battlescarred wrote:
A bit of an anachronism really, Berkman being a "psuedo- (sic) Leninist" before Leninism had actually appeared.!!??

I'm merely drawing comparison between their ideas about how 'the revolutionary' should act. I'm not trying to say Berkman copied Lenin, or shared his politics, or anything of the kind. Also, he significantly changed these ideas later in his life, and the only real description of them are given in his and Emma Goldman's autobiographies, afaik.

gomez adelante's picture
gomez adelante
Offline
Joined: 12-02-11
Mar 3 2011 20:53

I think peaceful protest is better as you can do it again and again,can
you imagine what would happen if we all just didn't turn up at work
on the same day!. Martin Luther King type of stuff !

Dame Quicky
Offline
Joined: 1-03-11
Mar 4 2011 02:12
Quote:
I think peaceful protest is better as you can do it again and again,can
you imagine what would happen if we all just didn't turn up at work
on the same day!. Martin Luther King type of stuff !

What you mean? internationally? yeah, that would be great. but there seems to be this slight problem in the present, if one hasn't the means to produce wealth: 'theft' as it is called by the ruling classes is resisted with violence. what we call force, they call violence. and what they have is a monopoly on violence.