Do the poor support the FARC

Sam Salmon says on Jan 9, 2005, 12:45:

All Pended No one in Colombia supports FARC except those who directly benefit from it's various criminal enterprises-Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping and Extortion.
It's important to remember that FARC hasn't been any kind of political movement for years now.
The mindless violence and brutality practised by FARC on the Colombian people gives lie to any 'political agenda' as espoused by various web sites.
It's a criminal organization dedicated to making money, money and more money for it's leaders and nothing more.



' a la orden!'

' a la orden!'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 9, 2005, 14:27:

The worst victims of the FARC are the poor.

What's most baffling about the FARC, if they even pretend to a Marxist ideology, is why the vast majority of their targets for kidnapping, murder, extortion, etc. are the poor. Just look at recent FARC activities in Bogota. They tried to blow up the Transmilenio, public buses that transport mostly the lower classes and certainly none of the bourgois they claim to target. Or their massacres of peasants picking coca, or their massacres of indigenous peoples.

I'm sure there are a few poor people who suppport the FARC, just like there are a few misguided rich people who do, but as a class, no, the poor don't.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 9, 2005, 14:42:

Everyone will give you a different answer My own:

While there are no available trustworthy statistics, not even from the FARC themselves, a few tendencies can be identified through analysis and observation.

An unknown number of people, especially (but by all means not all) of the poor peasants in remote rural areas in the South/Southeast of the country, which have traditionally had little state presence and have been historically under FARC influence, do support them fully and honestly. This is probably the FARC's " historical core", so to speak, and from which they get manpower and food resources.

This can theoretically be estimated at anywhere from a few tens of thousands (low) to several hundred thousands (high), or even higher if you want to push it, but there's no way to really prove any specific numbers.

The choice depends on your political perspectives, I guess. I believe that the most reasonable figure might be somewhere in the middle of both extremes, changing every so often as some "new" people are converted in and some of the "older" change their minds as the conflict progresses, but have no way to prove it.

Add to that a small number of radically leftwing university academics/students/etc. (however, far from constituting all leftwingers and it would be ridiculous to deny that many DO NOT support them) , that do actively and voluntarily support them, providing intellectual and logistical basis but very little real manpower. Probably no more than a few thousands here.

However, one has to factor in a logically much higher number of people (certainly in the hundred thousands or millions) that *may* potentially collaborate with them not willingly but through pressure and circumstances, because they have no choice.

These *may* also give manpower and standard resources to the FARC, but more through threats and extorsions than through freedom of action and thought. Yet they would also help the AUC or the Army if they were equally forced to do so. And that they do, when they show up. Just as they'll help the FARC when they leave.

This appears to be the majority of rural, or semi-rural citizens that, personally, don't care about any of the armed actors, not even about the government, but just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace.

In the urban centers, where most of the population is concentrated, I'd say that most Colombians are even more sick and tired of the war, corruption and repression, of everything else, from all sides, and are literally exhausted to the point of either becoming indifferent (which partially explains the sometimes rather low %s of political participation), or taking an unconformist position of plainly but strongly desiring a definite peace.

------------------------------------------------------------

In the past, in the 1960s, 1970s and even up to the mid-1980s at most, their support (active and potential) in rural areas was probably greater in %s than whatever it remains today, when Colombia is no longer, demographically, a rural country and most of the FARC's programme is neither as ideologically or practically attractive to the masses as it looked like a few decades back.

And, more importantly, as the FARC have progressively alienated or simply lost a significant number of their potential bases through abuses, displacement, or threats and other violent actions.

------------------------

Here one also has to mention that the UP, while a shortlived political party that was created in the 1980s as a possible vehicle for them and did include FARC members, was not simply the "political branch" of the FARC and didn't exactly copy their beliefs and justifications to the core. Many mainstream leftwingers also were part of it.

In fact, the UP didn't agree with the armed struggle and you can even find instances in which its leaders and members critized the FARC in several important areas. I'd say that the UP was, in some ways, an alternative rather than a full complement to the FARC, and thus didn't just appeal to the same "core" audience (which it did, to a point) but also to a wider one among the left. Their support wasn't just "legalized" FARC support and nothing else. Some might disagree, but there are enough different opinions to go around.

That, to me, makes its extermination even more tragic and a greater crime, one that remains mostly unresolved due to impunity (ironically enough, the FARC claims that the UP's extermination in itself justifies the armed struggle...but that's something for a different debate).

-----------

Perhaps at one time they could really speak of having or being close to achieving truly "popular" support, or at least widespread sympathy, in really significant numbers (higher than the estimates above, I mean), but not any longer.

For all the above reasons and more, the FARC today cannot claim to have substantial and active popular support among the majority of the population, outside of their "core" zones of influence, but they don't need to.

They are already financially and militarily autonomous enough to live by with the limited support and extorsion systems that they already have in place. And, of course, through their involvement in the drug trade (which, while initially marginal, has tended to increase in the past two decades).

There's also an ideological explanation for this: What comes with being a marxist revolutionary organization is the belief that it doesn't need really massive popular support ( that "will come eventually" once the poor become "socially conscious of their class interests"), but just "representativity", so to speak. They think that they are the "vanguard" of the proletariat, in essence.

And as such, they'd say that their actions are legitimated by this fact, despite whatever public opinion might think of them *now*, nationally or internationally (though any extra support is nice and symbolic, it's far from essential and relevant for the day-to-day activities of the FARC).

--------

Conclusion: Currently, the "poor" as a vague class don't majoritarilly support the FARC (unless you believe in the above marxist interpretation of the matter or similar lines of thought), nor does the majority of the rest of the population, but they do have some degree of real support behind them, that can't be underestimated or simply reduced to the status of "terrorist sympathizers". There are some real concerns and problems behind all this that have yet to be properly resolved.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 9, 2005, 16:45:

FARC I believe there are areas of the country which have been under FARC control for decades and where the FARC counts on the peasant populatin for support. I've read that there is an element of peasant (campesino) vs. city in the conflict rather than just poor vs. rich. For example, there have been periods of time when peasant organizations violently took over the estates of the rich landowners and agrarian reform is supposedely one of the objectives of the FARC. That said, I've personally never met a Colombian that doesn't consider the FARC to be a plague on the country. The main complaint from that I've heard is that the FARC are atheists and believe, god forbid, that women can have abortions!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 9, 2005, 20:03:

Then again... Land reform is obviously still an important concern (since in addition to any previously unfair distribution in place, now a lot of the land in faraway rural areas is at least nominally controlled by either paramilitaries, guerrillas or drug lords) but since the country isn't as rurally populated as it used to be (in part due to the effects of gradual modernization and in part due to violent displacement) but rather heavily urbanized in specific areas (even if much of the urbanization is in evidently less than adequate conditions), it's become less appealing by default to the non-rural population as a whole. That doesn't mean that the issue has become totally meaningless, on the contrary, it's still present, but much less visibly.

One could argue that the FARC's practical position isn't exactly that women at large "can have abortions", as a statement of rights (absolutely nothing wrong with that, in theory), but rather that it's "recommended" that their female fighters submit to the procedure (that's one way to put it...actual implementation of the "recommendations" probably varies according to their local commanders) when necessary. To the point: there have been cases, I wouldn't know how many or how representative they are, when such a procedure has been performed against the woman's individual will.

And btw, I also wouldn't say that the "rank and file" of the FARC are necessarily atheists...some might be, and especially their intellectual "comrades", but practical marxism isn't as opposed to religion these days (or actually since the 60's themselves) as it used to be...look at the ELN's history for example.

And in an overwhelmingly catholic (or christian, if you prefer) country like Colombia, the poor peasants actually tend to be much more religious (and some would say supersticius) than the urban dwellers, plus low to mid-level priests often tend to be influential community leaders and/or mediators in the conflict, with at least a semblance of respect from the armed groups and the government.

That said, when the FARC or the AUC kill, kidnap or threaten a priest, that's usually seen as a sign of intimidation against his entire community, not just him alone or because of his religious affiliation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 10, 2005, 00:28:

Excellent thread: a very needed an informative discussion. I have very little to add to what Juance already mentioned, except for a few anecdotes:

1. In a presentation by the then secretary general of the Colombian Communist Party in the mid-90s, he was asked the same question: do the poor support the FARC? He said "I don't know". That is, in general, the same answer I would provide (unless Sam Salmon and Mr. Hollywood can provide some clarifying evidence for their absolutist statements).

2. About the same time, I worked for six months in a rural guerrilla-controlled area ("zona roja"), a very illuminating experience at many levels, to say the least. The relationship between peasant population and the FARC in that area seemed much more complex that I would have ever thought of. One thing was clear though: few sympathized with the military (not out of coercion, but out of deep-seeded and justifiable anymosity), and those that did, didn't say it too loud.

3. I cannot emphasize more the position of the FARC relative to public opinion, as already described by Juance. They view themselves as the vanguard, the armed forces of the OBJECTIVE interests of peasants and working class. I would never justify the death of civilians in any conflict, but the simplistic criticism that the FARC contradict their alleged principles by attacking the poor (and therefore have no ideological guidance for their actions), is dumb and counterproductive. The little relevance of ideology is due to other reasons, and, ultimately, the sworn enemies of the FARC should try to follow the dictum: "know thy enemy" (one of Robert McNamara's 11 lessons, this one from Vietnam, in the extraordinary documentary "Fog of War").

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 10, 2005, 09:33:

Sr Tertius "Fog Of War" should be a must-see for everyone here...good point.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Jan 11, 2005, 02:19:

Many people do support the Farc. What would you do if you are poor, you dont have cloth nor enough food for yoursels and then you got to feed your children, too.
The Farc say: come here are some clothing here is some food and a gun, help us fighting the corruption and the gringo intevencion in Colombia. For that we take care of you.

UMM

My Forum

dogwood says on Jan 11, 2005, 23:22:

Wrong Your wrong...they don't. They're miserable either way. It all depends on who is extorting them at the time.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

umm says on Jan 12, 2005, 00:38:

No, you are wrong, go to the south to the poorer areas and you see who is supported.

UMM

My Forum

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 12, 2005, 12:14:

Absolutest statements I don't remember making any absolutest statements. My answer was meant this way: Do Colombia's poor, speaking as a class or demographic, largely support the FARC? No, you can't generalize about them that way. Do some poor people support the FARC? Sure.

I've seen social research that suggests that about 2% of Colombians actively support the FARC. Since more than 50% of Colombians are poor, I think it's fair to presume the majority of poor don't chose to support the FARC, especially since they are frequent victims of the FARC through direct violence and displacement.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 12, 2005, 12:16:

By the way Another vote here for "The Fog of War". Really amazing for people interested in politics and history.

0 funny, 0 helpful.