Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:25:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan-AT-umich.edu>
To: Jorn Andersen <ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
cc: "'marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU'" <marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: "Terrorism and Communism"


Excellent points.  The critique of propaganda by the deed from within the 
anarchist tradition (hence the misnomer of labeling such violence simply 
'anarchist') adds that assassinations don't harm the structures of 
domination, and don't build hierarchy-free communities.



Bryan Alexander					Department of English
email: bnalexan-AT-umich.edu			University of Michigan
phone: (313) 764-0418				Ann Arbor, MI  USA    48103
fax: (313) 763-3128				http://www.umich.edu/~bnalexan

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Jorn Andersen wrote:

> Chris:
> >The other issue is what attitude marxists take to terror 
> >under a non-socialist state. 
> >
> >My understanding is that Marx was
> >hostile to the anarchists' use of terrorism.
> 
> Jorn:
> Chris, you are quite right. I suggest you read a small pamphlet by
> Trotsky: "Against Individual Terrorism" - where the basic arguments
> are put along the same line as your mail.
> 
> I think the problem with terrorism is not a question of morality. I
> mean: *If* terrorism could get rid of capitalism and achieve socialism
> tomorrow, I certainly would be in favor of it. The terror of how
> capitalism works every day, week or month of the year is much,
> much greater than anything labeled as terrorism.
> 
> The problem is that it can't. From Russian Narodniks to the IRA, ETA
> etc. of today terrorism has only strengthened the hand of the state
> - not weakened it.
> 
> Terrorism usually is an act of desperation by people who for whatever
> reason didn't believe in the strength of collective working class action.
> Sometimes this belief is "understandable" in the sense that working
> class movement really has weakened.
> 
> The "classic" example from my lifetime is Italy in the mid-70's.
> The combination of PCI reformism and the impatience of an inexperienced
> revolutionary leadership built a gap between the activists and the mass of
> workers at a time when there was an impasse in the struggle. This allowed
> the state to split the movement - and resulted in a major setback.
> 
> This could have been overcome by united front tactics, but instead the
> Italian left collapsed - some into the CP, some into various brands of
> "autonomy", arguing *in favor* of the struggles being separated and not
> linked together. But most of the collapse was into passivity.
> 
> This defeat opened the door to the terrorism of Red Brigades, which only
> made sure that even more people abstained from the struggle. The capitalist
> state of course was very well aware of this. It exploited this weakness
> very well by encouraging more terrorism one the one hand and by putting
> forward slogans of law and order on the other.
> 
> The result of all this we all know: The mass movement of 1969-76 was
> followed by 15 years of defeats and only within the last few years have
> we seen a beginning revival.
> 
> The lessons to be learnt is, I think, that terrorism is one the one hand an
> *expression* of weakness of the mass movement. On the other it
> deepens this weakness.
> 
> But maybe one much more important lesson is the need to build an
> experienced mass working class leadership as one very important
> component of the struggles to come, so that the next time the left
> wouldn't be marginalized as quickly as it happened to the very strong
> Italian left.
> 
> *How* this can be done is the subject for various *other* debates on/off list.
> 
> Yours
> 
> Jorn Andersen
> ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk
> 
> IS
> Denmark
> 
> 


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---