Post

I don't think we should disavow terror. Capitalist governments love to label their enemies as terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers, but we should not shy away from the idea of terror itself.

Revolution necessitates some degree of "terror". The bourgeoisie can't be beaten on their own terms, because for them class struggle should be limited to legal reforms and governmental policies. From the bourgeois perspective, revolution is inherently "terrorist". Even in the case of Allende, a socialist who was elected into executive office in Chile 1973, the bourgeoisie experienced revolutionary terror. There was no open warfare in this case; the only battlefield was the election campaign.

But that doesn't mean there was no violence. Despite the lack of, say, clashes in the streets between Allende supporters and capitalists, there was still violence in the sense that the capitalist order was simply destroyed. There was no bloodshed, and yet the capitalist resistance was still crushed.

Look at Venezuela several years ago, when the Chavistas seized farmland from capitalists growing cash crops for export while Venezuela was suffering dire shortages of staples like sugar and flour.

Just as capitalists call freedom-fighters "terrorists", they also call resistance to bourgeois ideology and the imposition of radical equality "terrorist". We should welcome their accusations - but not on their terms. Rather, we should take them more seriously than they take themselves.

If freedom-fighters are "terrorists" to the bourgeoisie, then terror is necessary for true freedom.

If the imposition of the People's will is "terrorist", then inflicting terror upon the capitalists is necessary to establish the People's democracy.

If radical equality is "terrorist" because it appropriates land and property from the bourgeoisie, then terrorizing the capitalist order is the duty of everyone who fights for the cause of social justice.