The troubles and the use of "individual terrorism"

[RedFlag32]

Comrades i wonder if you could give me your opinion on the "troubles" and the tactic used by the PIRA and INLA of destroying economic targets with bombs and killing soldiers in the 6 counties. Does this equate to "individual terrorism" and if so, is it a correct marxist position? What lessons can the republican socialists of the future take from this?

[dangeresque]

Individual terrorism was a legitimate criticism made by communists against the tradition within radical Russian politics and also anarchism that hoped to set off a wider revolt through individual, isolated acts of violence, assasination, bombings and that kind of thing. It was almost always a failed strategy.

It's not really comparable at all with the Troubles- it wasn't republican violence that set off the war, it was British / Unionist repression.

Trotsky wrote that “under conditions of civil war, the assassination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror”.

I think the republican strategy quickly shifted from using violence in a hope to actually push the Brits out of Ireland into a long war doctrine in which the armed campaign functioned politically as a counter-veto to the Unionist veto. It just doesn't have much in common with individual terrorism, but I acknowledge that some may disagree with my opinion.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

I think it has its uses. There's lots of things that a bomb could solve, where peaceful means are not working.

If you oppose something being built, and where standing in the cold with a placard praying isnt working, and where media and social control prevent popular support and action - then I think it could be used constructivly.

It could be said to subvert any sort of popular action, but what popular action?, how effective is it? how realistically, as a means, will it achieve the goal? and how can this popular action work within the limited time frame available to a given set of conditions.

The action dosnt have to fit into any 'grand revolutionary strategy', but rather a practical solution to a particular problem faced.

Thats addressing individual terrorism.

Waging an armed struggle is a different kettle of fish. Crucially, there is no time frame, just an end.

If the PIRA and INLA truely had the capability to force the British out militarily to achieve the goal of a united Ireland, then I would see it as something worth attempting. The reality though IMO was something else. Something caught up in emotion, romanticism, bravado and mainly a lack of any sort of objectivity in taking a particular path.

[voxpopuli]

It's relevent in so far as it is an accurate description of what existed in the late 80s and early 90s, as opposed to the popular struggle which existed in the 70s which enjoyed considerable support and/or consent within the nationalist community. It is for this reason that a line of demarcation must be drawn between these two time periods. The left made the a awful mistake in believing it was individual terrorism as opposed to armed struggle in the 70s.

It is also important to refer to the present actions of the RIRA and CIRA, who are attempting to force social change as an isolated group with zero support. However heroic it may be, it's absolutely futile, because the real struggle at present is to build and solidify the Republican base politically.