Organ of Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America);
Volume 1, Issue 5; September 2003 $1.00
A L L I A N C E ! A Revolutionary Communist Monthly
Where We
Stand: Terrorism or Revolution?
An Introduction
“Terrorism” has become the great political buzzword of
our day. In the hands of spokespersons for US imperialism or the bourgeois
media, the term “terrorism/ist” is equivalent to anyone who disagrees with
or takes action against US policy. Hence, groups as widely divergent
as Al-Qaeda and the Columbian FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia,)
the former a fundamentalist Islamist group, the latter putatively ‘Communist,”
are both damned as being “terrorists.” Yet groups such as the Nicaraguan
Contras, who in the 1980s routinely performed acts of sabotage and assassination,
are hailed as “freedom fighters.” Although both sets of organizations
engaged in political violence (of differing sorts) the first is opposed to
US policy, the second embraces it. ‘With us, you’re a freedom fighter;
against us, you’re a terrorist,’ is Washington’s maxim.
However, despite the Orwellian cynicism emanating from
the White House, many honest people are confused by the sobriquet, “terrorism.”
Many questions beg to be answered: What is terrorism? Are all
acts of political violence terrorism? What stand do the Communists take
on the issue of terrorism, especially since some groups claiming to be “Communist”
engage in seemingly terrorist activity? These questions cut right to
the heart of contemporary political affairs and address some of the most
controversial issues of our day. IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT WE
SHOULD BE CLEAR ON
THE MARXIST-LENINIST ATTITUDE TOWARDS TERRORISM.
A "Punishment for Opportunism"
The victory of revisionism in the international communist
movement has transformed the Communist Parties of most countries into parties
that objectively serve the interests of monopoly capital by preaching the
illusion of "peaceful, parliamentary transition to socialism.” These parties
are seen ever more clearly by those who have become rebels against the evils
of modern capitalist society to become "left-wing" opportunist parties, drawn
more and more into the political machinery of the capitalist state as instruments
of deception of the working people. In the absence of scientific parties
of socialist revolution, it is inevitable that rebelliousness should manifest
itself to a certain extent in the form of unscientific "leftist" activity
such as terrorism.
In speaking of anarchism of which terrorism is one of the two fundamental
concepts (the other being repudiation of the state in all its forms), Lenin
made precisely this point when he described it as "a sort of punishment for
opportunism" in the working class movement:
"Anarchism was often a sort of punishment for the opportunist
sins of the working class movement. Both monstrosities mutually supplemented
each other.” (Lenin, Selected Works, 10, p. 71)
Petty-bourgeois Rebelliousness
The rebelliousness that manifests itself in the form
of terrorism is essentially that of persons drawn from, or with the
Continued on page three.
outlook of, the petty-bourge-oisie:
"Petty-bourgeois revolutionariness, which smacks of, or borrows
something from anarchism . . . in all essentials falls short of the conditions
and requirements of sustained proletarian class struggle. . . The small proprietor,
the small master, (a social type that is represented in many European countries
on a wide mass scale). . easily becomes extremely revolutionary, but is incapable
of displaying perseverance, discipline and staunchness. The petty bourgeois
in a 'frenzy' over the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon, which,
like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability
of such revolutionariness, its barrenness, its liability to become swiftly
transformed into submission, apathy, something fantastic, and even into a
'mad' infatuation with one or another bourgeois 'fad' -- all this is a matter
of common knowledge.” (Ibid, pp. 70-71)
The petty bourgeoisie is a class that is in process of
rapid destruction by monopoly capital - so that, anarchism must be seen as
a political reflection of the desperate and futile striving of the petty bourgeois
to retain their individual freedom:
"The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned
inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal
are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of
bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialization
of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination
of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small producer.” (Ibid,
p. 73)
"The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different
principles in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of struggle
under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual,
whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for
the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets
of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual
is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the individual’.
The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according
to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual.
That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the
individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its
slogan is: "Everything for the masses!" (Stalin, Works, 1, p. 299).
Though very different, both terrorism and economism (the
theory that the working class can be expected to engage only in economic,
and not political, struggles) have common roots in the "theory of spontaneity"
-- which rejects the possibility of elevating the working class to socialist
consciousness through the propaganda and day-to-day leadership of a vanguard
party:
"The Economists and the modern terrorists spring from a common
root, namely, subservience to spontaneity. . . At first sight, our assertion
may appear paradoxical, for the difference between these two appears to be
so enormous: one stresses the 'drab everyday struggle' and the other calls
for the most self-sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox.
The Economists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity:
the Economists bow to the spontaneity of the 'pure and simple' labour movements
while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation
of the intellectuals, who are either incapable of linking up the revolutionary
struggle with the labour movement, or lack the opportunity to do so. It is
very difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never
believed that this is possible, to find some other outlet for their indignation
and revolutionary energy than terror.” (Lenin, Selected Works, 2, p.
94).
"The present-day terrorists are really 'economists' turned inside out, going
to the equally foolish but opposite extreme.” (Lenin, Collected Works,
6, p. 192)
Thus, terrorism -- like economism -- reflects the lack
of faith of the petty bourgeoisie in the masses of the working people.
Reviewing a leaflet issued by the Socialist-Revolutionaries in 1902, Lenin
remarks:
“The April 3 leaflet follows the pattern of the terrorists' latest
arguments with remarkable accuracy. The first thing that strike's the eye
is the words: 'we advocate terrorism, not in place of work among the masses,
but precisely for and simultaneously with that work'. They strike the eye
particularly because these words are printed in letters three times as large
as the rest of the text. But just read the whole leaflet and you will see
that the protestation in bold type takes the name of the masses in vain. The
day "when the working people will emerge from the shadows' and 'the mighty
popular wave will shatter the iron gates to smithereens' 'alas' (literally,
'alas!') 'is still a long way off, and it is frightful to think of the future
toll of victims!' Do not these words 'alas, still a long way off' - reflect
an utter failure to understand the mass movement and a lack of faith in it?"
(Ibid. pp. 190-91).
"Individual" Terrorism
In repudiating terrorism, Marxist-Leninists are speaking,
of course, of what is generally termed "individual terrorism", such acts as
the assassination of a reactionary judge or the planting of a car bomb outside
the office of a government department. Any action which targets civilians
and non-combatants is absolutely rejected and repudiated by Marxist-Leninists.
In the sense of "attempting to strike terror into an enemy" Marxist-Leninists
by no means reject the use of terrorism. The socialist revolution can
be brought about only against the armed men who form the core of the machinery
of force of the capitalist state, and one of the aims of armed struggle is
to strike terror into the enemy and so facilitate his defeat. Again, one of
the functions of a state is to strike terror into those who might attempt
to overthrow it. Thus, the dictatorship of the working class, which must be
installed on the victory of the socialist revolution, has as one of its aims
to strike terror into the overthrown capitalist class, and its active supporters,
so as to restrain their desire to overthrow the power of the working class.
Marxist-Leninists, therefore, repudiate individual terrorism
not on the grounds that terrorism -- in the sense of striking terror into
the enemy – is unethical, but because acts of individual terrorism harm the
cause they purport to serve:
"In principle we have never rejected, and cannot reject terror.
Terror is one of the forms of military action that may...be perfectly suitable
and even essential at a definite juncture in
Continued on page four.
the battle, given a definite state of the troops and the existence of definite
conditions. Nevertheless, the important point is that terror, at the present
time, is by no means suggested as an operation for the army in the field,
an operation closely connected with and integrated into the entire system
of struggle. Without a central body and with weakness of local revolutionary
originations, this in fact, is all that terror can be. We, therefore, declare
emphatically that under the present conditions such a means of struggle is
inopportune and unsuitable; that it diverts the most active fighters from
their real task, the task which is most important from the standpoint of the
interests of the movement as a whole, it disorganizes the forces not of the
government, but of the revolution.” (Lenin, Collected Works, 5, p.
19.)
"Of course, we reject individual terrorism only out of considerations
of expediency; upon those who 'on principle' were capable of condemning the
terror of the Great French Revolution, or the terror in general employed by
a victorious revolutionary party which is besieged by the bourgeoisie of
the whole world -- upon such people even Plekhanov in 1900-0, when he was
a Marxist, and a revolutionary, heaped ridicule and scorn.” (Lenin,
Selected Works, 10, p.72)
Usually no one individual is generally capable of planning and carrying
out a series of terrorist acts. Nonetheless such acts constitute "individual
terrorism" in so far as the organizations involved in them are extremely small,
composed of a few skilled persons (usually petty bourgeois intellectuals),
and secret (to the working class if not to the police).
Spurious Arguments for Terrorism
The advocates of terrorism argue that terrorist acts weaken the capitalist
state machine and so assist the revolutionary process. However, if a
judge is assassinated, there are a dozen reactionary barristers waiting to
step into his shoes; if a courthouse is destroyed, it can be rebuilt at the
cost of the working people. The strength of the state relative to that of
a small terrorist group, and the protective measures which the state has the
power to take when a threat of terrorist acts becomes apparent, causes terrorism
to be directed increasingly against the less well defended -- because less
important -- aspects of the state. Indeed, this process often results in
the activity of terrorist groups, in an effort to evade the defenses erected
by the state degenerating into mere indiscriminate acts of destruction in
which working people are killed and maimed.
Reviewing the leaflet of the Socialist-Revolutionaries
already mentioned, Lenin poured scorn on the illusion that the state could
be significantly weakened by acts of terrorism:
"Just listen to what follows: 'every terrorist blow, as it were,
takes away part of the strength of the autocracy and transfers (!) all this
strength (!) to the side of the fighters for freedom’. 'And if terrorism is
practiced systematically (!) it is obvious that the scales of the balance
will finally weigh down on our side'. Yes, indeed, it is obvious to all that
we have here in its grossest form one of the greatest prejudices of the terrorists:
political assassination of itself 'transfers strength." (Lenin, Collected
Works, 6, p.191)
The advocates of terrorism also argue that terrorist
acts "excite" the masses to greater revolutionary enthusiasm. This
theory, too, was discussed by Lenin:
"It would be interesting to note here the specific arguments that
'Svoboda' (a terrorist group-- Ed.) advanced in defense of terrorism. It
. . . stresses its excitative significance . . . It is difficult to imagine
an argument that disproves itself more than this one does! Are there not enough
outrages committed in Russian life that a special 'stimulant' has to be invented?
On the other hand, is it not obvious that those who are not, and cannot be
aroused to excitement even by Russian tyranny will stand by ‘twiddling their
thumbs’ –even while a handful of terrorists are engaged in a single combat
with the government? The fact is, however, that the masses of the workers
are roused to a high pitch of excitement by the outrages committed in Russian
life, but we are unable to collect, if one may put it that way, and concentrate
all these drops and streamlets of popular excitement, which are called forth
by the conditions of Russian life to a far larger extent than we imagine,
but which it is precisely necessary to combine into a single gigantic flood..
. Calls for terror. . are merely forms of evading the most pressing duty
that now rests upon Russian revolutionaries, namely, to organize all-sided
political agitation. ‘Svoboda’ desires to substitute terror for agitation,
openly admitting that 'as soon as intensified and strenuous agitation is
commenced among the masses its excitative function will be finished.” (Lenin,
Selected Works, 2, pp. 96-97)
"Nor does the leaflet eschew the theory of excitative terrorism.’Each time
a hero engages in single combat, this arouses in us all a spirit of struggle
and courage', we are told. But . . . single combat has the immediate effect
of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads
to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout. We are further assured that
'every flash of terrorism lights up the mind’ which unfortunately, we have
not noticed to be the case with the terrorism preaching party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.”
(Lenin, Collected Works; 6; p.193)
A Pretext for Repression
The Marxist-Leninist case against terrorism is not merely
that it amounts to a repudiation of the need for the political mobilization
of the masses of the working class -- the force that alone is capable of smashing
the state machinery of force of monopoly capital:
'Their tactics (i.e., of the anarchists -- Ed.) . . . amount to
a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert
them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy, or another.”
(Lenin, Collected Works, 10, p. 73)
In fact, far from weakening the state, acts of terrorism
provide the pretext for the strengthening of the state machinery of force
and for the imposition of repressive measures against the genuine progressive
movement -- measures which, without that pretext, would arouse much more vigorous
opposition from the working people. In this respect, terrorist groups, whatever
their intentions, objectively assist monopoly capital. Thus, the counter-productive
hi-jacking of civilian airliners by Arab terrorists was, used by King Hussein
of Jordan as the pretext for a war of extermination in September 1970 against
the Palestine liberation forces in Jordan, an act necessary to the new policy
of US imperialism in the Middle East.
In the United States, historically, terrorist acts provided
the pretext for the strengthening of the FBI, for police raids on the homes
and offices of anti-war activists, and for widespread ‘bugging’ and wire-tapping
of opposition organizations.
Continued on page five.
Agents Provocateurs
An agent of the class enemy who succeeds in entering
a revolutionary, or pseudo-revolutionary, organization is generally an agent
of the state intelligence service. His aim, in doing so may simply be to collect
information about the members, leaders, strength, etc.; of the organization
for the benefit of the state (that is, to act as a spy), or it may also be
to seek to incite the members of the organization to commit a terrorist act
which would provide a pretext- -- a pretext that would seem a reasonable one
to wide sections of working people -- for some repressive measure or measures
on the part of the state (that is, to act as an agent provocateur).
Where it is not possible to incite a terrorist group
to commit a terrorist act desired by the state, this might be performed directly
by the intelligence service itself. Moreover, where one or more terrorist
groups exist, it is difficult or impossible for an outsider to know whether
a particular act of terrorism has been carried out by such a group or by the
intelligence service. In either case, however, the act may provide the pretext
for some repressive measure or measures on the part of the state directed
at the genuine progressive movement.
The most notorious example of such a terrorist act carried
but by the state itself is, of course, the burning of the Reichstag in 1933
to provide the pretext for the repression of the Communist Party of Germany,
even though that party was completely opposed to the carrying out of such
acts of terrorism.
Within a genuine revolutionary organization, it is difficult
to distinguish an agent provocateur from an honest, but misguided exponent
of "left" adventurism. Indeed this distinction can be made, not based
on political analysis, but only by means of counter-intelligence activity,
that reveals the agent's connection with the state. However, an agent
provocateur is powerless to incite an act of terrorism on the part of a genuine
revolutionary organization unless there is support for such acts on the part
of a majority of the members. The cardinal task, therefore, is to expose terrorism
politically to its honest, but misguided, supporters, thus isolating the
agent provocateur and opening the way to his exposure to the members and
supporters of the organization and his expulsion from it:
"We must get the workers to understand that while the killing
of spies, agents provocateurs and traitors may sometimes of course, be absolutely
unavoidable, it is highly undesirable and mistaken to make a system of it,
and that we must strive to create an organization which will be able to render
spies innocuous by exposing them and tracking them down. It is impossible
to do away with all spies, but to create an organization which will ferret
them out and educate the working class masses is both possible and necessary.”
(Lenin, Collected Works, 6, p. 245)
In addition, of course, given a partially clandestine
organization with adequate security measures and tight discipline, the harm
that agents may do to a Marxist-Leninist Party may be limited, and they can
even be compelled to do positive Party work – as Lenin pointed out in the
case of the tsarist police agent Roman Malinovsky:
"In 1912 … an agent provocateur, Malinovsky got into the Central
Committee, of the Bolsheviks. He betrayed scores and scores of the best and
most loyal comrades, caused them to be sent to penal servitude and hastened
the death of many of them. If he did not cause even more harm than he did,
it was because we had established proper coordination between our legal and
illegal work. As a member of the Central Committee of the Party and a deputy
in the Duma, Malinovsky was forced, in order to gain our confidence, to aid
us in establishing legal daily paper. While with one hand Malinovsky sent
scores and scores of the best Bolsheviks to penal servitude, and to death,
with the other he was compelled to assist in the education of scores and scores
of thousands of new Bolsheviks through the medium of the legal press.”
(Lenin, Selected Works, 10, p. 85)
Guerilla Warfare
Socialist revolution involves armed struggle -- that
is civil war - between, on the one hand, the machinery of force under the
leadership of its Marxist-Leninist vanguard party, and on the other hand
– the machinery of force of the capitalist state. Guerilla warfare
is a form of armed struggle waged by relatively small units of armed men
against a considerably stronger armed force – in the case of revolutionary
guerilla warfare against the armed force of a reactionary state. The essence
of guerilla military tactics is to make localized "hit-and-run" attacks on
the weakest and most exposed sectors of the enemy's forces, so nibbling away
at his strength without the losses to one’s own forces that would result
from a direct confrontation with his main forces. Thus, revolutionary guerilla
warfare must be seen as a development of the struggle for socialist revolution
-- when this has reached the stage of armed struggle:
Firstly, before this armed struggle has reached
the stage of a country-wide armed uprising, and
Secondly, when it has reached the stage of a countrywide
armed uprising in the intervals between major engagements:
"The phenomenon in which we are interested (i.e., guerilla warfare
- Ed.) - is the armed struggle. It is conducted by individuals and by small
groups . . . Guerilla warfare is an inevitable form of` struggle at a time
when the mass movement has actually reached the point of an uprising and when
fairly large intervals occur between the 'big engagements’ in the civil war.
. . An uprising cannot assume the old form of individual acts restricted to
a very short time and to a very small area. It is absolutely natural and inevitable
that the uprising should assume the higher and more complex form of a prolonged
civil war embracing the whole country. . . Such a war cannot be conceived
otherwise than as a series of a few big engagements at comparatively long
intervals and a large number of small encounters during these intervals.
That being so -- and it is undoubtedly so – the Social-Democrats (i.e.,
Marxist-Leninists — Ed.) must absolutely make it their duty to create organizations
best adapted to lead, the masses in these big engagements and, as far as
possible, in these small encounters as well.” (Lenin, Collected Works,
11, pp. 216, 219, 222-23)
Revolutionary guerilla warfare has three principal
aims:
Firstly, to weaken the military and paramilitary armed
forces of the capitalist state (and of fascist militia) by killing their
officers and men
Continued on page six.
"The Party must regard the fighting guerrilla operations of the
squads affiliated or associated with it as being, in principle, permissible
and advisable in the present period. . . the paramount immediate object of
these operations is to destroy the government, police and military machinery,
and to wage a relentless struggle against the active Black Hundred Organizations
(i.e. rural fascist-type organizations in Tsarist Russia -- Ed.) which are
using violence against the population and intimidating it.” (Lenin, Collected
Works, 10, p. 154).
"In the first place, this (guerilla - Ed.) struggle aims at assassinating
individuals, chiefs or subordinates, in the army and police.” (Lenin, Collected
Works, 11, p. 216)
Secondly, to give practical military training to working
class leaders:
"The character of these fighting guerilla operations must be adjusted
to the task of training leaders of the masses of the workers at a time of
insurrection, and of acquiring experience in conducting offensive and surprise
military operations.” (Lenin, Collected Works, 10, p. 154)
Thirdly, to confiscate funds in the possession of the
capitalist class for the use of the revolutionary movement:
"In the second place, it aims at the confiscation of monetary
funds both from the government and from private persons. The confiscated funds
go into the treasury of the Party, partly for the special purpose of arming
and preparing for an uprising, and partly for the maintenance of the persons
engaged in the struggle we are describing.” (Lenin, Collected Works, 11,
p. 216)
"Fighting operations are also permissible for the purpose of seizing funds
belonging to the enemies, i.e., the autocratic government, to meet the needs
of insurrection, particular care being taken so that the interests of the
people are infringed as little as possible.” (Lenin, Collected Works, 10,
p. 154)
So deep was the respect for private property inculcated
in the minds of a majority of the delegates to the 1906 Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, that the congress approved guerilla warfare
for the purpose of killing soldiers and police, but rejected Lenin's clause
approving it for the purpose of confiscating funds from the ruling class for
the financing of the revolutionary movement.
Terrorism vs. Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare.
At first glance, the distinction between terrorism (which
Marxist-Leninists oppose), and revolutionary guerilla warfare (which Marxist-Leninists
support) seems blurred. In fact, however, the distinction is quite clear.
In the first place, guerilla warfare becomes a correct
revolutionary tactic only when it has the support of the mass of the working
people in the locality in which it is carried out:
"Fighting guerilla organizations must be conducted … such a way
as . . . to ensure that the state of the working class movement and
the mood of the broad masses of the given locality are taken into account.”
(Lenin, Collected Works, l0, p. 154)
In the second place, and following from the above, guerilla
war becomes a revolutionary tactic only when the class struggle has been elevated,
as a result of correct day-to-day leadership by the Marxist-Leninist Party,
to the stage where the mass of the working people have come to see the armed-forces
of the capitalist state and the fascist bands as their irreconcilable enemies
who must be fought. For only then will this guerilla warfare have the
support of the mass of the working people in the locality in which it is
carried out. Terrorist acts, on the other hand, are carried out before this
stage has been reached and in isolation from the class struggle of the working
people:
"This act was in no way connected with the masses, and moreover
could, not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out
--that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor
hoped for any definitive action nor support on the part of the masses. In
their naiveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realize that their
predilection for terrorism is most intimately linked with the fact that, from
the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working
class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary
class which is waging the class struggle.” (Lenin, Collected Works,
6, p. 189)
In the third place, guerilla warfare becomes a correct
revolutionary tactic in the special circumstance that it is conducted under
the control of the Marxist-Leninist Party:
"Fighting guerilla organizations must be conducted under the control
of the Party.” (Lenin, Collected Works, 10, p. 154)
Conclusion
Individual terrorism, whatever the motives of the terrorists,
objectively serves the interests of the forces opposed to social and national
liberation. It is necessary for Marxist-Leninists, therefore, to expose terrorism
for what it is, and to wage a principled and consistent struggle against this
ideology and against this practice.
_____________________________________________________________________End._________________________________________________________________________