ANALYSIS: ON ROMANTIC VIOLENCE

Soob links to an interesting article on the legacy of the German urban terrorist groups of the 60's and 70's. One paragraph stands out in particular:

Some German leftists (very often of a younger generation) are still attracted to the idea of effecting radical social change in a cataclysmic burst rather than through the tedium of grassroots organizing or gradual social movements—the processes that are essential to progressive social change in liberal democracies. As much as the German left has changed since the late ’70s and as critically as it has distanced itself from the RAF and its like, there persists a mythical aura around Baader-Meinhof as the true believers who fought the good fight in its purest form. Baader, Meinhof, and Ensslin are still considered heroes in some left-wing circles, even though their unsuccessful assault on the state cost the lives of 57 people and ended in disaster for the German left.

Unfortunately, this isn't just a German problem.

It is depressing that articles titled "The Martyrdom of Che Guevara" continue to be published in leading American political journals, despite Guevara's own enthusiastic role in the murderous purges carried out in the early days of Castro's regime. Or take the continuing admiration for Hugo Chavez in some segments of the American left. As Matt Zeitlin notes, social democrats continue to gloss over Chavez's authoritarian tendencies. More baffling is Arundhati Roy's praise for an Iraqi "resistance" that even she admits would kill her if they could. Why do some who live in democratic societies continue to glorify those hostile to basic democratic ideals?

We live in a era of romantic violence. 20th century political movements such as Communism and Fascism believed that violence was not just a tool for achieving political objectives--violence in itself was a redemptive, liberating force. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte argued in his preface to Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth that Algerians could regain their dignity through the slaughter of Europeans. This view of violence was at the heart of the 60's-70's urban guerrilla movements in the West. With the belief that democracy was a facade that hid a powerful fascism, the New Left rejected the ballot box and took up the bomb.

Though the cold war is over, this belief still persists in some quarters. Sadly, intellectuals, academics, and celebrities are uniquely vulnerable to the blandishments of "freedom fighters." As Anne Applebaum writes in Slate:

For the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, [Hugo] Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome...the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. ...For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions.

 

Comments

[subadei]

Oliver Stone's take on FARC [1]

"I have no illusions about the FARC, but it looks like they are a peasant army fighting for a decent living," Stone said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press at his hotel bar. "And here, if you fight, you fight to win."

And Chavez [2]

The Oscar-winning director, who made a 2003 documentary about Cuban President Fidel Castro as well as the movie "Platoon," called Chavez a "great man" and said "I'm a fan."

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_on_en_mo/colomba_hostages_stone

2. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/29/news/People-Stone.php

[A.E.]

I've seen that. I like Stone's movies but he should stay from this situation. Joining the negotiating team is only going to complicate the situation more than it already is.

[Account Deleted]

HalfSigma [1] likes punchy rhetoric, but his point about the left and rooting-for-the-underdog is right on

[1] http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/12/liberals-are-an.html

[A.E.]

Dan, on an unrelated note, I noticed on a past post of yours that you like VNV Nation. Do still you listen to them? I have all of their albums up from Empires.

[Jay]

I've been watching HalfSigma and his analysis is a breath of fresh air as it's almost cruelly unapologetic and heaves the essence of political correctness right off the ship. Some of the commentary is patently ignorant but the substance he presents is enlightening.

[LC]

One must distinguish between terrorists like the Baader-Meinhof gang and radical movements that do not use violence but are not content just to work within the confines of electoral politics. The "ballot box" and "the bomb" do not exhaust the available political alternatives. If they did, we'd be in trouble.

[A.E.]

LC,

Your point is valid, but my article is about those who glorify left-wing terrorists and tyrants and explicitly reject democratic processes (which include civil disobedience, protest, etc). The "ballot box" was meant to encompass those things.