When did FARC Change?

joshhyman says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:04:

I don't know but I can tell you it had something to do with the leaders of the FARC getting their hands on large sums of money. As we all know money is the root of all evil and I am sure is the cause of the corruption of the FARC as it was with all communist situations. Ever read Animal Farm? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? I can just imagine the wives of the leaders of the FARC shopping in Miami for Louis Vutton handbags.

I'll bet they were always corrupted from the start but during the time of Escobar things really changed.

kalder says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:18:

Marxists are thugs and murderers.

Their goal is to destroy society and bring about their messianic vision of heaven on earth through violence.

So far, they've manged to chalk up about 80-100 million victims worldwide.

Murderers.

Even if they try to justify it by reference to some nutty political religion cooked up by some German malcontent in the British Library.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

RonDubya says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:44:

joshhyman: Just a slight correction - it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil - not money itself.

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.

manINred says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:46:

"As we all know money is the root of all evil"

The root of all evil resides in human nature for some: selfishness. Money has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't even call money a necessary evil. It is just simply necessary.

Chelesupercono says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:54:

Money is one of the tools of POWER and that is root of all Evil

never go to bed with someone crazier then you are, you will do it and you will regret it.......

Sr Tertius says on Jan 6, 2008, 08:55:

"Marxists are thugs and murderers."

I thought the thugs and murderers were the neoliberal imperialistic global capital profiteers...

I always get both statements confused, as neither one makes a bit of sense.

More seriously, Rikito, I think the change might have happened, progressively, sometime between the late eighties and the early nineties. What might have been responsible is a combination of the death of their main ideologue, Jacobo Arenas, paramilitarism taking over the country and physically wiping out their democratic option, the end of the USSR and of support from Cuba, other guerrillas like M19 giving up their weapons, and the establishment of a truly democratic Constitution. I think after all these events, their ideas went out the window.

BTW, it is a common misconception that FARC is a monolithic organization; it isn't. It just happens that their political component, people like Alfonso Cano, have very little power now compared to their military component. The way I think they see it is that they first have to survive, then they may have time to think.

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

kalder says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:02:

Can you drum up enough ivory tower doublethink to dismiss this part of my post:

"So far, they've manged to chalk up about 80-100 million victims worldwide" ?

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

robi666 says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:18:

Also, I'd consider the difficult to be in control of a clandestine big organization.

I mean, if you talk to a Marulanda or a Marquez than you may discuss about something.
If it happens that you cross the way of a "mando medio", with no culture, than you're into something else. No ideals, and just hunger for money.

Look at the remains of the AUC, at new groups. They are plain into crime, with no political aim.

It's a progressive disbandment and corruption, caused by time and the war.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

manINred says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:18:

Everything is a tool of power. Money simply allows for the division of labour, which is necessary, unless we want to live as undeveloped tribes.

Kalder, what is an ivory tower?

kalder says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:23:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Tower

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

kalder says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:23:

And you a varsity man...

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

Sr Tertius says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:25:

"ivory tower doublethink"

Are you being sarcastic Kalder? Who speaks like that anymore?

If your idea of Marxism is Stalin and Mao, well shit, then my idea of laissez-faire Capitalism is Colonial Britain, the US kicking the shit out of everyone from Japan to Iraq, and US-backed dictatorships like Pinochet, Videla, the Sha, Batista, etc.

Just because you wave a banner doesn't mean you stand by it. I know animal rights advocates and environmentalists that are completely mental, but that doesn't mean that animal welfare and the environment shouldn't be taken into consideration. And besides, you're talking 60 years in the past, man. Welcome to the 21st Century. We've learned our lessons and moved on. If that's "ivory tower doublethink," then I'm guilty as charged.

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

manINred says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:28:

ahh ok, thanks! Am I a varsity man?

juancegomez says on Jan 6, 2008, 09:31:

I'd like to partially agree with SrTertius, in that it's a progressive development which has been affected by the elements mentioned, among others...but I also believe, and here things go in a very different direction, that their political ideas, attitudes and actions, even when they were somewhat more prominent, had plenty of practical problems and negative repercussions, which are still present to this day.

First off all, politics, through the Marxist-Leninist eye of an armed organization, is but one part and one form of a greater revolutionary struggle. This isn't just propaganda, you can see signs of this in many FARC statements, old and new, including the recent holiday "salute" from "Tirofijo". I don't think that's just rhetoric, it's part of their actual strategy. Their final political objectives can sound nice enough, but the meaning of their political practice is something else.

FARC already had quite ambitious politico-military plans to grow an army ("Ejército del Pueblo", which is where the "EP" comes from) and subsequently take over the country using a combination of multiplied military force and urban cells as far back as 1982, when "Jacobo Arenas" was still alive, when President Turbay was on the way out and President Betancur was on the way in. You can even see signs of this during the UP years, as chronicled in the book "Walking Ghosts" and probably other sources as well.

As a result, in my opinion, the "change" isn't as radical as it's been usually presented. That probably goes for "Alfonso Cano" too, who appears to be in charge of the "Bolivarian Movement" and/or the Clandestine Communist Party at this point. There's also a brief interview with him near the end of the above book, btw.

So I don't really think that being "political" is necessarily a good thing, if your political ideology and practice is like that: politics is one of the means, one of the forms of struggle, which can be exploited and combined with other forms.

To this day I still consider the existing FARC to be, in part, a political organization, but that doesn't mean much unless they honestly decide to choose a political form of struggle over, not in combination with, revolutionary war.

Evidently, outside circumstances have to help or force them do so (which, of course, is also part of the problem, as history and even current events have shown, I'm not denying that). A successful UP could have been part of such a process but, tragically, that didn't happen (and, honestly, FARC didn't exactly make things easier at all, though the actual murderers can't escape their own responsibilities, moral if not judicial).


.

britabroad says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:02:

Just to clarify, FARC remained a relatively small insurgency group until the mid 80´s. In 1974 their number was estimated as consisting of some 780 combattants in total.
After 1982 they adapted their aims from those of armed insurgents to those of an aspiring guerrilla army. In 1984 the Uribe Peace Agreement, under President Belisano Betancur, led to a 3 year ceasefire with FARC. However, FARC retained their weapons and military capabilities during this time, and were able to enjoy a certain amount of high profile media coverage which reached wider audiences than ever before throughout Colombia. This, in turn, led to an increase in volunteers. Also during this time a left-wing political party known as the UP (Patriot Union) was formed, which was violently persecuted by the armed forces, police, and drug lords. With the consequent decline of the UP and the break down of the Peace Agreement in 1987, more cocaine growing rural peasants enlisted in FARC, having lost their political voice in the shape of the UP.
Now numbering some 5000, FARC were able to mount multi-front conventional military attacks on specified targets. In 1989 FARC suffered a vast reduction in arms and income due to the demise of the Nicaraguan Sandinista administration, and began to utilise their cocaine crops to make up for this loss. The Colombian Communist Party consequently broke their official attachment with FARC during the early 1990´s.
Between 1994 and 2000, fielding between 9000 and 15000 troops, FARC columns were active on an estimated 60 fronts throughout Colombia, and between 1996 and 1998 were able to mount several high profile, large scale military operations against the armed forces and civilian targets, such as towns and villages within contested areas.
I agree that a successful UP, or even an existing UP, would have probably kept FARC numbers down during the 1980´s, although their long-term ambitions were already there for everyone to see. High profile media coverage also gave FARC an unpresidented voice, heard by some as a call to arms. I also agree that FARC have changed gradually over a prolonged period, sometimes due to circumstance, sometimes due to design.
Under Uribe FARC claimed to have fought a tactical withdrawal into the deepest recesses of their hinterlands in the face of increased security strategies, although military action around the borders with Ecuador and Venezuela, and the subsequent dispalcement of the civilian population in some of these areas, would point to FARC actually being pushed back to the outlying border areas of the country on some fronts. The recently publicised claim that FARC operate with impunity from behind the Venezuelan border would seem to reinforce this, although this may be a political mistruth or exaggeration to justify some future miltary action indirectly against Chaves by the US.
The latest tactic of FARC is also to ´go underground´ by utilising terrorist cells in urban areas, infiltrating the security forces and local government, employing sympathizers as informants, and using IED´s, car bombs, etc. By doing so they appear to have left any pretence of being a bona fide ´peoples army´ behind, and have looked to the tactics of other terrorist organisations (such as the PIRA, ETA etc) in order to gain publicity and enhance the illusion of their capabilities. This is real ´terrorism´, where murder and injury is inflicted on a civilian populace indiscriminantly in an attempt to secure an aim or objective. Although some would argue that FARC have been doing this since its formation in the 1960´s.
As with all things to do with Colombian politics and history there are a lot of grey areas, and things can be seen very differently depending on your personal political viewpoint and experiences. This a very black & white version of events which doesn´t really do the whole situation justice.

Leave the big stick at home...carry a cannon!

joshhyman says on Jan 6, 2008, 11:16:

Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. & Nelson Mandela created massive changes against tremendous odds. The FARC is just one of many terrorists groups that know they will never make any changes but just want to continue the "business" of what they do.

Neonovo says on Jan 6, 2008, 23:05:

An expert answers when the FARC changed.

Colombian Lieutenant Colonel José Joaquín Matallana, who served in Korea under US command and led the "final" attack against Manuel Marulanda and his band of thieves and bandoleros on May 27, 1964 (with US advisors monitoring a-la Vietnam) assault which lasted about a month, and drew world-wide protests by personalities such as Jean-Paul Sartre, stated many years later the following.

"The (Colombian) army helped give birth to something that hand not existed up to that point - "the mobile guerrillas today called the FARC". ("More terrible than death" by Robin Kirk (pgs 54-55))

Neonovo

juancegomez says on Jan 7, 2008, 08:37:

That, to a certain extent, explains the origin of FARC in chronological terms, but not the kind of "changes" being talked about previously....

Rikito says on Jan 7, 2008, 18:03:

I think that in a good summary, joshhyman makes a clear, concise, and correct statement. Farc is farc and will always be farc. Farc should be a synonym for failure.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

hongo_joe says on Jan 7, 2008, 19:22:

Joshyman: Do you really know this, or are you guessing?

"The FARC is just one of many terrorists groups that know they will never make any changes but just want to continue the "business" of what they do."

What are some other examples?

kalder says on Jan 8, 2008, 04:59:

Just about any bunch of cut-throats with an acronym would do. They all seem to be banging away at the same old-same old of nihilism and moneymaking.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

hongo_joe says on Jan 8, 2008, 06:32:

Well, is there some evidence to support this fact?

Rikito says on Jan 8, 2008, 07:47:

Good grief...another cassini.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

hongo_joe says on Jan 8, 2008, 08:18:

Let me put it another way. Here is the quote from your OP, which I agree with.

A military professor once told me that "if you do not know and understand the principles and beliefs of your enemy, you know nothing and will be defeated."

If you want to accept some simplistic platitude pulled out of the air with no evidence to support it (that I have seen, anyway - if there is evidence please provide it) as "understanding the... beliefs of your enemy" then I have to agree with the professor - "you know nothing".

I don't like Farc. I think they are brutal bastards - criminals. But it doesn't help in the important task of understanding your enemy to buy into statements with no basis in reality.

Rikito says on Jan 9, 2008, 05:40:

What I try to say is that you are asking for some kind of proof when thewre is written. empirical, and prgmatic proof all around you. You can talk to almost anyone, read newspapers (of both sides), read other authoritative acounts, etc. What more do you want.

My life experience is that if you do not want to beleive the ploy is to continually ask for more proof and reject, reject, reject what has already been provided and that is factual. So I ask you what exactly do you want?

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

hongo_joe says on Jan 9, 2008, 07:12:

Well, the statement doesn't ring true to me. If proof is everywhere why is it difficult to provide it?

My life experience is that people will believe any ridiculous statement pulled out of the air with absolutely no substance if it fits with their beliefs.

My last comment - have a nice life.

tomtom33 says on Jan 9, 2008, 07:31:

And others question reality when it hits them in the face. The more decades you have, the clearer the picture becomes.

joshhyman says on Jan 9, 2008, 10:58:

Look, they commit criminal acts against innocent civilians.

They have been directly linked to drug trafficking. They have been declared a terrorist organization by the US government. They have had many volunteers leave and tell the truth about how bad they are treated. They kidnap children and enlist them into their "army". They murder innocent people who do not agree with their philosophy. Many farmers in rural areas who would not like to work for the FARC are forced to, which is a form of slavery. All of these acts have been documented over the last 30 years and can be accessed in many different ways.

O, and by the way, they have been tried and convicted of these crimes in a court of law of a democratic country.

diabloblas says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:20:

keep it coming o'reilly man rikito...both of you entertain me....

hongo_joe says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:29:

This is beyond stupid. Are you people complete idiots? I told you what I thought of Farc. I know what they've done. I think they should be wiped out.

Here is the statement that J make and R thought was a good summary:

"The FARC is just one of many terrorists groups that know they will never make any changes but just want to continue the "business" of what they do.

How the fok do you know what they think? That's what I want to know. How do you know that they ."know they will never make any changes". I think you are talking out of your ass.

diabloblas says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:33:

the baddest gang in los angeles, new york & chicago et al... is the police department

..the biggest terrorist group world wide is bush/cheney/rumsford

joshhyman says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:41:

The reason why I said that is because they continue to do the same things over and over with the same results.
The only explanation could be that they want to keep generating the money machine. It's not like they have been doing this for a few years. It's been decades now. Decades without progress towards their original reason for inception. They have stopped all political avenues and have not appealed to outside governments for political help. All they do is generate money via illegal criminal acts without any political gains.

And I don't appreciate you telling me I am talking out of my ass. I wish you were raised by better parents.

paisa29 says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:50:

Rikito... Where are you from?

Sr Tertius says on Jan 9, 2008, 11:57:

Josh,

There was a discussion, sometime ago, about FARConomics:

http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/post/farc-no-prisoner-exchange-while-...

I raised some questions that are yet not answered. Until then, I am not convinced that FARC's motivation is mainly the money. I think some people may be, but many are in it for political convictions (as kooky as their politics might be), because they have very few skills other than shooting/kidnap/etc, and even for mere survival.

Also, if you look at the criminal activity of FARC as a simple grocery list, you could also apply that to the Colombian military. Not long ago they engaged in the criminal practice of recruiting minors (I know it because I was one!) and even today there is evidence suggesting their participation in massacres such as the one in San Jose de Apartado.

I'm not trying to put the Colombian military (an institution that is largely controlled by democratically elected civilians) at the same level of FARC (which is little more than organized crime with political ambitions). I question the grocery-list approach to support your statements.

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

joshhyman says on Jan 9, 2008, 12:08:

Thank you Sr Tertius for your intelligent comments. You make good points. There is always a gray area in life. However, you say: I'm not trying to put the Colombian military (an institution that is largely controlled by democratically elected civilians) at the same level of FARC (which is little more than organized crime with political ambitions).

To me, and I may be naive, since the FARC is not a democratically elected body they are simply criminals. The use of violence is not needed to make political change as proved by Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela. The fact that they use violence and terrorism in the face of knowing that it doesn't work for them shows they have no real political agenda and only use the voice of one for an excuse.

paisa29 says on Jan 9, 2008, 12:40:

La mayoría de personas que tienen pensamientos romanticos sobre las FARC, es porque no conocen la situación de Colombia como Oliver Stone, locos como Chavez, los abuelos que estudiaron en universidades públicas.

billyb says on Jan 9, 2008, 12:58:

Who is Rumsford? Do you mean the now retired Rumsfeld?

Sr Tertius says on Jan 9, 2008, 15:19:

"The use of violence is not needed to make political change as proved by Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela."

Right, but the problem is that, in the course of their work, the first two were murdered and Mandela spent most of his life in prison. I don't think that kind of sacrifice should be expected from politically motivated people.

"The fact that they use violence and terrorism in the face of knowing that it doesn't work for them shows they have no real political agenda and only use the voice of one for an excuse."

Unfortunately violence works. Effective non-violence is the exception, rather than the rule. Look at the independence of the Americas, or the Bolshevik revolution, or the independence of Algiers, or so many other examples, where insurgent violence actually achieved political goals. What sets FARC apart, though, is that they've been doing this for decades, and insist on the same methods expecting different results. But the same thing has been done by successive governments in Colombia, with the hope that a little more (somewhat legitimate) violence will finish FARC. 40 years and it still hasn't happened.

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

Rikito says on Jan 9, 2008, 15:25:

I am from Oklahoma via Colorado. I currently live in Armenia and do some teaching at the U of Grand Colombia. I am retired and also studying political anthropology. Why may I ask?

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

beisbollover says on Jan 9, 2008, 16:37:

FARC vs Colombia has been a failure on both sides.

Rikito, are you lost?

diabloblas says on Jan 9, 2008, 17:48:

read rikito's bio beisbollover....the redundant answer is there

Rikito says on Jan 10, 2008, 01:54:

It's interesting to read people like beisbollover and diabloblas who join the post or PBH in the middle, seldom make worthwhile contributions in PBH, who probably are not hispanic or Colombian, have never been to Colombia. You guys know all of the answers and are quick to criticise someone who is trying to learn more from those people who have an idea of what FARC is and isn't.

You cannot read everything from a book or Wiki. My ex-wife also knew everything...she read a book one day.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

beisbollover says on Jan 10, 2008, 06:18:

Rikito.....

i asked if you were lost because YOU didn't add anything to this discussion. YOU joined in the middle and didn't make a worthwhile contribution. And if I am not hispanic or Colombian, and if I have never been to Colombia does that mean I shouldn't have an opinion? Does that mean I shouldn't partake in discussions that interest me? You gave your Bio for some reason instead of adding anything to this discussion. So are you ONLY going to study political anthropology of Colombia? Is it wrong for you to study political anthropology of other countries that your not from or have been to?

O and by the way, I have been to Colombia over ten times, my wife is from there, and I have personally had to deal with the FARC because of a family member who was kidnapped.

So I guess you were wrong about that? (Edited)

Rikito says on Jan 10, 2008, 07:09:

(Edited) . It is always typical of people like you resort to name-calling when you have nothing to add of worth. If you had bothered to look at the beginning of this thread you would have noticed that I started this thread on January 5. I am trying to learn more about Colombia, and its culture. I am not trying to make up stories or pretend to be something I am not. You on the other habd…

One more thing...your statement that, "O and by the way, I have been to Colombia over ten times, my wife is from there, and I have personally had to deal with the FARC because of a family member who was kidnapped." Is as much full of B.S. as you are.

I now have the information I need about farc from people who are knowledgeable and care enough to provide me the information I need...and who do not resort to insults to make thier case.

Enough from me on this...thanks to all of you who helped educate me.

It is not life that matters, but the journey.

diabloblas says on Jan 10, 2008, 07:51:

beisbollover...you can't reason with rikito any more than you can with a born again christian..his mind is made up

..like his idol bill o'reilly...he tells everybody to shut up who doesn't agree with him...

...look at his bio...what a hoot.
...but you have to admit...he's funny...like steven colbert except rikito isn't acting