re:Re: Not in solidarity with Peruvian hostage takers

A.P. (
Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:11:45 -0800


harry wrote:

"-Some people it seems have learned nothing from the past 20 years. The
-capitalist regimes of eastern europe were brought down by societies. Which
-rejected the unethical corrupt and extralegal nature of these degenerate
-Marxist regimes.
-If a bunch of Marxists in Latin America choose to take hostages that's
-terrorism. Hostage taking means a willingness to kill to advance a political
-agenda. It is an act of terror against the individuals and their families
-who are the pawns in this sick game. It doesn't matter who or what they have
-done. As an anarchist I reject absolutely the right of anyone, state
-functionary, judge, or 'revolutionary guerilla' to decide who shall live and
-who shall die."

dear harry,
i and i think a lot of other non-pacifistic anarchists could not agree with
first: if you compare the peruian guerrilla with the state-capitalist regimes
that broke down in eastern europe, you should tell us the reasons for, you
should prove that they are dogmatic marxists.
two: but even if they are: so long as they do not terrorise all people that
do not agree with their ideologie, so long as they do not act like the
terrorists of shining path (pol-pot-style), i see no reason why we should not
be solidarian (if you take of all solidarity in this case, on the
informations we got at the moment, this means standing on the other side of
the barricade together with the terroristic state officialls of peru, with
the multinational capitalists and the supporting ruling class media).
three: what is terrorism? real terrorism is "acting and calculating with the
fear of the masses" (dictionary definition), that means careless violence
against various victims (that means for example bombs on public places where
it could hit and kill everyone). you may call the case of taking hostages in
the japanese embassy violence (for you condamnable violence), but you can not
call this terrorism.
oh the poor, poor victims...the poor, poor families. sorry harry, i can not
hide answering your cynism with some irony. it seems that the guerrilla let
those people free who are less responsable for the horrible things that went
on in peru. you are so carefull about the poor hostages and their families -
that seems to be cynistic against their victims (tousands of tortured and
killed workers, peasants, prisoners...) and their families. would you like to
found a society for the saving massmuderers? (i think there is no need to
tell you what the politics of the so-called poor victims mean for the most
peruanian people...)
harrys statement "it does not matter who people are and what they have done"
is maybe a high-etical theory, but it got nothing to do with realities. and
also the formulation is wrong - it would be better to say: "What they
continue to do!" because this makes an important difference (especially for
their victims!).
i would tell you an example here: Trus Menger, a woman who fought against the
nazi-occupators in the nederlands, told on a anti-fashist-meating about 4
years ago:
they would not kill some people just because they wear the uniform of the
enemy. so they try to find out who are the worst ss-murderer are. if they
found out they killed him by bomb or shooting. she told, that for exaple, one
who took a jewish child on the feet and kills it by smashing its head to the
wall, got no right to live in her eyes and that it is not a statement of past
years, she told that this would be her opinion even nowadays.
i did not know, how i would act in a similar situation, but i agree with her
position. and this got nothing to do with undiffernt slaughter or arbitrary
judgings. it is a very big differnce wheater you are "in power" or not (means
that you oppose against a repressive regime). the continuance is very
important here: if you do not kill this pig, he will continue his doing! if
you got the choice to end his life and you did not, are you not responsable
for his further doings, killings...
i would like to hear your alternatives in this special case. and: can you not
imagine similar situations in peru, kurdistan, mexico, elsewhere...?
how is your oppinion about the EZLN in mexico? it is clear that you can not
prejudice them as dogmatic marxists or whatelse, but they are not principally


"-I hope this incident does not end in bloodshed. As an anarchist I believe
-that the end does not justify the means. Instead that the means determine
-the end. You cannot make a freer society, one in which everyone, can
-determine for themselves their future, from a heap of corpses.
-I would have thought the sort of simple minded knee jerk response of right
-on the guerrillas belonged on a Marxist mailing list. One posting
"---'We cannot judge the tactics used by people in their own countries in
----their own struggle to make their own lives better."'
-Why the hell not? If we have no ethical basis for our politics then what do
-we have to offer that's different from the opportunism of the left and the
-greed and power plays of the state and capital. What is needed is a new kind
-of politics that genuinely respects human life and the aspirations of
-ordinary people not a rerun of Castroite bullshit
Harry Robinson

as i told in the chapter befor, i can not genuiely respect the human life of
massmuderer, especially not while they are in power. the aims of you, harry,
are high-ethical but quite naive and hardly to realize in real struggle for
the ending of states, corporations and repressive power. i do not believe
that it is possible to "pray" or "laugh" all the state and corporations
leeders away, as much as i believe that indifferent violence brings no
anarchist revolution.
i think you got no right to judge the tactics of people in their own country
until you did not do your possible tactics under the same circumstances
(sure, red kmer or shining path are special cases). in your case that means:
go to peru and act there pacifistic with a look for the rights of the
muderers. than you can judge the once who do it otherway. it is oh so easy
for us as (mainly) white-arsed first-world anarchists sitting on it and
typing clever statements how the people that being exploited from systems and
corporations in our countries should act. this sounds like colonization even
in addition with anarchistic ideologie.
the main question that we should ask ourselvers is not "how some groups in
the exploited countries act", more important is "what do we do against the
worldwide exploitation and repression of people everywhere?"
What are you doing against your neo-liberal governments, against GM, Siemens,
Nestle, Montesano, Ciba-Geigy, Coca-Cola, Uni-Lever, Mercedes-Benz,

i could write a book about harrys nice "splitting the whole world in black
and white", but so far... i hope for more discussions on such things...