Bad Language

national | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Monday December 19, 2005 17:16

by Mairtin O'Cathain - Organise!

organiseireland at yahoo dot ie

Mairtin O'Cathain reflects on uncritical use of the word terrorist by many on the left, including anarchists and libertarian communists (and Organise! for that matter) and examines the meaning of the words Terror and Terrorism.

From a term applied to the exercise of violence by the state to one that is used to identify the enemies of the state these are now among the most politically loaded words in the English language.

The coverage of the recent attacks on London has led to resounding denunciations of ‘terrorism’ and ‘terror’ from almost every quarter, including all sections of the left, anarchists included. The harrowing and random nature of the attacks naturally led most people to condemn those involved and outline their opposition to their methods and politics.

While this is, of course, a legitimate and understandable expression it falls into the trap of mouthing the same line as those whose actions have led to the attacks in the first place. The uncritical parroting of the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ in particular have been sickening in their repetition. These words are among the most politically loaded in the English language, and although used by greater and greater numbers of people, they originated with governments and their allies in the security services and mass media, who have continued to push for their definition of ‘terrorism’ to be accepted by all sections of society since the nebulous ‘war on terror’ began. It’s interesting to note that the United Nations refuse to accept as authoritative the term ‘terrorism’, and their own expert on the subject, Alexander Schmidt, has been researching globally to try and find a suitably palatable definition.

Naturally, no group accused of ‘terrorism’ actually admits to the title and it should be particularly important to anarchists that not only is it forwarded by states but also originates with them. It was first used by the French Republican state during the ‘Reign of Terror’ against its enemies of the left and right, and re-employed by various Marxist regimes, including the Soviet Union. It was only in the later twentieth century that the term was used more widely and pejoratively to define the state’s enemies. At all times its use has been opposed by many anarchists, reminding people that it began with the state and lies with the state today. When we speak of terrorism we are speaking of the state, there should be no need to qualify it by talk of ‘state terrorism’ as if it were somehow just an aspect of regular terrorism. Only states can bring the full power of unbridled physical violence to bear in all its barbarous variety from nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction to machine-gun and night-stick. They have the monopoly on violence, and armies of brainwashed individuals to enforce their will.

This is not to excuse or dismiss religious fundamentalists and their violence. The nexus of Islam, Orientalism, post-Colonial hysteria and oil wealth has created a small but vicious array of Muslim fundamentalist groupings scattered across the globe, gathering up grudges and causes like stones, and representing myriad religious and political demands. Of course, it’s easier for states to define them all as one big group of ‘baddies’ – like the pirates of the 17th century, the republicans of the 18th, anarchists of the 19th century and communists of the 20th. This is done by the simple application of the word ‘terrorist’ to those who challenge the state’s monopoly of violence, and condemns society to further violence and repression, generates untold wealth for those who profit by war, and puts aside all notion of political solution and compromise until thousands are dead.

save preference

Comments (13 of 13)

more insubstantiated claims from...

by boul - Organise!

Sat Dec 24, 2005 00:08

...Spartacus - fair play to SD but members of the forerunners of Organise! weren't in a position to intervene effectively during the Holy Cross atrocity. I would question exactly how the SD were able to effectively intervene though - or did they secretly negotiate an end to hostilities?

Nor are we great believers in parachuting people into communities or struggles to gain political brownie points and then fucking off.

Members of the ASF, one of the groups that came together to set up Organise!, were however involved in organising in response to other 'loyalist atrocities' where we could effectively take part in that. In the wake of Danny McColgans murder members of the ASF, most of whom are now members of Organise!, were active in ensuring that 'protestants', 'catholics' and 'others' in our workplaces were mobilised for the NIC-ICTU rally in the wake of Danny's murder.

Just prior to Danny's murder some of us had been active as shop stewards and in our unions as part of a groundswell of pressure building up in relation to attacks on public service workers, this extract from a talk posted on the old ASF website touches on this:

"Everything is not hopeless however as demonstrations in the wake of the murder of postal worker Danny McColgan have helped demonstrate. Pressure had been mounting for some time within the Trades Unions, particularly those in public service industries, on NIC ICTU to take action over the growing number of attacks and assaults, sectarian or not, on public service workers across the north. Pressure was already being brought to bear on NIC ICTU by rank and file workers and shop stewards like myself in the public transport industry. This pressure arose in several different areas almost simultaneously as more and more workers were assaulted and was beginning to become more and more co-ordinated particularly with the threat of action from Ambulance Drivers, Fire-fighters and Nurses across the north. With Danny’s murder NIC ICTU could no longer stall or sit back and do nothing. Thousands took to the streets." from http://www.geocities.com/asf_ireland/sectarianism.html

So no we do not ignore loyalist atrocities, nor as you claimed without proof do we believe the LOL should march where-ever it wants, nor have we blamed people for their own oppression (as you also claim without substantiating it), nor have we called republicans 'Terrorists'. As for Organise! - or those who are now its members - just prior to its existance the first joint bulletin (Autumn 2002) produced by the ASF and Anarchist Federation pointed out that in the wake of the GFA: "Sectarianism... has not been eroded. It's enjoying a profile now that it hasn't enjoyed since the early 70's, and to which the Holy Cross dispute is only one of the more extreme examples. We are opposed to all forms of sectarianism, institutional and otherwise."

But I think this is where your real problem lies - its with our acknowledgement that sectarianism is not simply something perpetrated against the 'nationalist community' by 'loyalism' or the six county statelet but something that nationalists are also quite capable of themselves. Your list of atrocities are a case in point - no questions about where we were in the wake of the Shankill bombing, or during attacks on the 'protestant' Fountain in Derry or Torrens in Belfast.

We are a small organisation who do what we can to counter sectarianism and foster working class unity, solidarity and struggle. That this doesn't square with your notions of 'revolutionary' activity says more about the failings of your politics that it does about ours.

Slan;

boul'

boul

by Spartacus

Wed Dec 21, 2005 18:32

ORANGEise was around in a different form or are you pretending that your members decanted from clone vats to form ORANGEise? Why didnt your members do anything about Harryville and the other Loyalist atrocities? Other small groups such as SD were able to.

As for Terror you refer to Republicans as Terrorists. Why dont yu think Durrutti and Makhno were terrorists?

all very illuminating but its really just

by boul' - Organise!

Wed Dec 21, 2005 18:19

more bollox from Spartacus - in addition to not answering what I've already asked about I don't suppose you could give any evidence of where we've said that victims of oppression are "responsible for their own oppression"?
Nor do we believe the Orange Order "should be allowed to march into nationalist areas". As for Harryville and the rest Organise! didn't exist at the time.
Nor do I believe a small class struggle anarchist group could have provided much assistance in the instances you give.
All very emotive, all very baseless - have you been handed a mission to troll Organise! posts on indymedia?

James

Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:38

I do not consider either Makhno or Durrutti to be terrorists. I used the word terror because it was being freely bandied about here. I take your organisation a lot more seriously than I do ORANGEise. I dont fully agree with your position on the National Question and Imperialism in Ireland but you at least have an understanding of the reality of what occurred.

ORANGEise couldnt care less about the oppression that the Nationalist Communities suffered in the North. Rather than seeing them as victims they accuse them of being responsible for their own oppression. This results in ORANGEise beleeving that the Orange Order should be allowed to march into Nationalist areas. ORANGEise were nowhere to be seen when the Catholic Church at Harryville was under siege. THey would not even come to the assistance of Catholic primary school children in North Belfast who had urine thrown at them at them by Loyalists.

illiterate...

Tue Dec 20, 2005 20:45

P.O. Box 505, Belfast, BT12 6BQ

...are you then Spartacus or do you reckon you can throw in claims like that without having even bothered to read the article in question?

Find me an instance where we have referred to republicans as 'terrorists', or are unsubstantiated claims and slander all you can manage. Seems to be the case from yer track record on here.

Any evidence on that

by James - WSM - Pesonal Capacity

Tue Dec 20, 2005 20:23

>Makhno and Durrutti lived in the real world and fully understood the need for Terror and Armed Struggle

Have you any evidence at all for your dodgy claims of terrorism? Makhno and Durruti and the organisations which they were involved with certainly were prepared to use force to defend their working class in the midst of foreign occupation and civil war. Yep, there were dodgy incidents, but where is the evidence that terror as defined by "rodent" was practiced or advocated?

>What mandate did Makhno have to fight the Whites and eventually the Red Army? I dont think such petit bourgeois concepts bothered his mind.

How does using "petit bourgeois" advance anybody's understanding? It just sounds like you've got a robotic version of Marxism drummed into you. The Makhnovists had fairly widespread support in their section of the Ukraine; if they didn't they wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks. And if they didn't have it they would have been wrong, as well as stupid, to fight. They were neither.

Rodent

Tue Dec 20, 2005 19:04

"If you cease to describe armed psychos killing civilians as terrorists then it'll look to Joe and Jane as if you're somehow condoning them "

Do you consider Makhno and Durrutti to have been Terrorists? How was their cases any different.

An accurate but expropriated term

by Gerry Gerbil - Pesky Rodents

Tue Dec 20, 2005 18:46

gerry.gerbil at gmail dot com

It's exactly what it says on the tin - the use of terror against people to achieve ends. If a local gangster beats up people to extort money and frighten others in the area into coughing up and obeying him, that's terrorism. If a bunch of fundamentalists (secular or religious) kill and maim ordinary non-combatant people for a cause, they're using terror to frighten people into following their ends. If a military carries out air bombings of civilian areas, that's terrorism. If a militia rapes its way across the land, that's terrorism. Just because the State is trying to appropriate the word to describe any force it doesn't like (such as 'animal rights extremists') doesn't make it any less meaningful.

Of course, States are orders of magnitude more deadly terrorists than any homegrown group or tinpot militia. Even 9/11 is a drop in the ocean of the hundreds of millions killed by States over the last century, and the millions killed in just the first few years of this one. Just because Bin Laden and the rest are rank amateurs who 'only' kill a few tens, hundreds or thousands at a time, doesn't mean that you should therefore only use the word terrorist about States. If a group is using terror to achieve its ends, it's terrorist - that's pretty damn simple, and that's what Joe and Jane Punter understand full well.

Instead of relinquishing the word to the State, what we should be doing is a bit of ju-jitsu, pointing out that what States describe as "vile terrorism" and use as a justification for social control, is just a very small-scale version of what States do as a matter of course. States condemn suicide bombers killing 50 or so people in London, yet blithely wipe out whole villages whilst 'rooting out insurgents' with firepower that your average fundie could only dream of. 'Shock and awe', anyone?

And, of course, yesterday's terrorist is today's statesman, once the terrorist serves rather than opposes the interests of the State. Morals don't come into it, and never have - just look at the psychopathic crazies now populating Afghanistan's new parliament. Not to mention ex-Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or of course Saddam in the days when he was 'our son of a bitch' and feted by Rumsfeld. You can make propaganda hay out of exposing the cynical amoral hypocrisy of States dealing with those they once described as 'terrorists'.

If you cease to describe armed psychos killing civilians as terrorists then it'll look to Joe and Jane as if you're somehow condoning them - at the very least they'll be shaking their heads at your refusal to call a spade a spade, and you'll make an awful arse of yourself.

Gerry

Terror

Tue Dec 20, 2005 13:40

I think you will find that any armed resistance to British Imperialism will be described as Terrorism by ORANGEise. I wonder if these befuddled "Anarchists" think the State is going to roll over and just give up and let an Anarchist Society emerge?

Makhno and Durrutti lived in the real world and fully understood the need for Terror and Armed Struggle. What mandate did Makhno have to fight the Whites and eventually the Red Army? I dont think such petit bourgeois concepts bothered his mind.

How old is this?

by C Ó Brolcháin

Mon Dec 19, 2005 20:11

This is something of an old piece, isn't it? I recall reading it in a magazine a few months back.

bily mundle

by reader

Mon Dec 19, 2005 18:59

hey,

this is from the Organise! website, as an answer to your question (I'm not a member).

"We are opposed to the ideology of nationalism and national liberation movements, which claim that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination.
We are opposed to all forms of nationalism, be that the British nationalism of Loyalism and Unionism, Irish nationalism or the Ulster nationalist current evident within Loyalism. All have as central to their ideology the nationalist myth that people in an arbitrarily drawn up nation (be it based on an island, region, language, ‘culture’, or religion, or any combination of these or other elements), have common interests which can be represented by the nation state. The nation state is in effect the government over the majority, the working class, by the wealthy few. The working class and those who hold power, the bosses and their lackeys, have no common interests.
We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as they only serve to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. "

I think this shows that Organise!'s perspective on nationalism is quite thorough and non-sectarian.

There's terrorism and then there's horrorism

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha

Mon Dec 19, 2005 18:18

Máigh Nuad, Co. Cill Dara

Thanks for pointing out the historical origin of terrorism as something practised by the state, Martin!

Wikipedia has the following comment on the Reign of Terror:
****
"La terreur n'est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible." ("Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice.") — Robespierre
The result was a policy through which the state used violent repression to crush resistance to the central government.
****

At the same time, it seems to me that we need a specific word to describe the processes by which a state generates and nurtures an exaggerated fear of "terrorist" attacks in order to promote its own ends - e.g. to justify spying on peace activists, invasions and bombings of foreign countries, torture of suspected dissidents, etc.

How about "horrorism"?

To illustrate usage, I would suggest that the way the Bush administration has conducted the public relations campaign known as the war on terror is a perfect example of horrorism. The risk of any particular American citizen being killed or injured by some action of an Islamist group is small and generally distant, while the risk of being killed or injured in a car accident is great and ever-present for most Americans. But instead of promoting calm and investing in the biggest health issues, the administration prefers to keep people on constant alert - i.e. in constant fear of the Islamist threat - and to squander enormous sums of money on fighting a poorly defined enemy.

Note that the horrorism centred on the personality of Saddam Hussein and the imaginary threat of weapons of mass destruction in the decade 1993-2003 was used to justify the biological terrorism of the trade embargo, under which the US repeatedly obstructed the import of water purification equipment, water tankers, etc.
(Documentation here:
List of U.S. Holds as of February 28, 2001
http://ccmep.org/list.html )

Best,
Coilín.

Question for Martin

by Billy Mundle

Mon Dec 19, 2005 17:45

Tyrone

Martin I presume having read your article it would lead you to conclude that the Continuity IRA and the RSF are terrorists?
They should surely be condemned by anarcho syndicalists like yourself and Organise.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Bad Language

Comments (13 of 13)