Revolutionary Resistance: Who we are and why we exist.
Hier kun je discussieren over Revolutionary Resistance: Who we are and why we exist..
We are anarchist organization who believes in militant struggle against the state and capitalism. We see necessity in returning violence to the oppressors by breaking the monopoly on violence of the state. Social movements need to be able to defend themselves against state terrorism. When armed to the teeth soldiers of capital attack our class, they should expect armed resistance.
We don't write it to justify ourselves. It's the state and capital who need to justify their existence to the society.
We believe in the necessity of armed struggle in the time of social revolution. But we do not limit ourselves to the time of the revolution, we use it in preparation.
We are aware that this way of struggle almost does not exists in Nederlands. And some of our comrades may have doubts about our actions. But we ask these comrades to not accept the state's propaganda against militant actions. There is no social peace. We are in the class war and we are loosing it. We should take back our social power.
We believe that only mass social movement will bring the revolution. But we can't wait for it, we need to prepare and push it closer.
RR
08.06.2021
Comment was hidden
@onze huis uitkeringstrekker
ga toch eens iets doen joh,ipv hier te klagen.
Kreatief zijn met kurk, (vrijwilligers)werk doen, een 3D puzzel proberen te voltooien, heck, een demo organiseren voor mensen in jouw positie, de mogelijkheden zijn eindeloos! The world is your oister!
Nu,serieuzer,
een tip voor de kameraden van RR:
jullie logo ziet er strak uit, edoch een beetje gedateerd:
Ik zou aanraden hier
(https://special-ops.org/m16-vs-ak-47-history-of-excelence/#:~:text=When%.... )
eens te kijken, en jullie logo eventueel daarna aan te passen.
Het is nu 2021, en er zijn betere alternatieven!
DFTT (gvd)
Every time you feed a troll, god kills a kitten. Stop murdering kittens!
pff
met al die zwerfkatten die ik heb, ergens tussen 5 en 8,kan ik nog wel een tijdje trollen voeden
maar ik zie je put, en wens nix slechts aan mijn katten toe
Comment was hidden
what happened to the
what happened to the anarchist reconstruction of the militant proletariat, or what was their name?
don't mention the....
snitches get stitches!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
let them use the same way of speaking, regardless of their name
Naar de ruis verbannen
https://indymedia.nl/node/49621
Aim well ....
While 'violence' should never be excluded categorically as it clearly has it's purpose and some thing cannot be achieved without it, it should always be seen as a means to an end.
Such an end can better be very concrete and achievable |(think breaking people out of a prison, effectively sabotage means of oppression, liberate means achieving revolutionary goals), as any violence randomly attacking the (perceived) enemy with the only goal being to make a point in principle will be depicted as terrorism, and such accusation will be difficult to refute.
In fact such violent action will implicate those, in support of whom such actions are perform, even though they are not invoilved or informed beforehand. This can only be mitigated if whoever performs the violence is effectively capable of offering millitant protection against the represion that will undoubtly follow.
Example: burning a bunch of cop cars as a reaction to a squat eviction will trigger more repression against squatters, Conversely, doing a millitant resquatting of a recently evicted building over and over again will make the city think twice before evicting at the nexty sdquatting action.
I think stating that burning
I think stating that burning a bunch of cop cars 'will' trigger more repression is kind of suggestive. It might also be that this makes the city think its not worth the price. I think exactly your line of argumentation is what pacifists use against violence; a line of argumentation you say you refute.
I agree however that with it should not become a goal, and that violence is a very complex matter, should not be fetishized and comes great responsibility. Responsibility towards your own goals, towards your comrades, towards society (present and future), in a way even towards your enemies. Revolutionary violence out of political impatience has however never brought closer the revolution. Violence is easy to be used, but the results are far reaching and is only effective in very specific instances, where other means, like slow and painstaking political work, might take a lot lot longer and have very different results (which sometimes might be difficuly to see).
Added should also be that revolutionary violence can only be succesfull if there is a certain backing within society, and even then can also be damaging for a movement. Look for instance at the effects of the Brigada Rossa in Italy. The movement was huge and strong, and these militants, although they also had huge support networkds, didn't last. Eventually they circled around themselves (like also the RAF and many other similar groups).
Dont do this! (It's not tactical)
To start: I have zero problems with revolutionary violence, nor with defying the laws of the Dutch State. However, at this time and place, the use of physical violence against the government of the Netherlands has zero tactical use. The anarchist movement in the Netherlands is still very small, with only a couple of hundred people actively sympathizing with it. Many people in the Netherlands think that anarchism is a naive ideology or actively fear it, and see the Dutch State as legitimate, all be it flawed.
This is not a climate that will make insurrection viable, and will only result in repression by the State, mass alienation and a reactionary backlash.
We should focus on gaining mass support (without resorting to petty respectabillity politics), millitant direct action that does not turn into full scale terrorism, and expand the practice of mutual aid.
Don't destroy the cocoon of Dutch anarchism, because a movement in its infancy cannot defend itself from fully matured institutions of repression.
some random thoughts in response to this
I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but I tend to disagree in some things you say. Because the way to gain mass support is through actions. Otherwise it's just hollow words and nobody's looking for that. You say that many people see the dutch state as legitimate. Firstly, we have nothing to do with people who agree with the state, they are not a part of "us" - so why legitimize their narrative? Why play into it? We have nothing to explain to them. We are not them. Secondly, there are many many people in this region who don't like the state but they are not heard. The media is owned and controlled by the rich. And to focus only on gaining mass support without fighting back, that's not building a movement. A movement you build it through acting together. Of course there is the theory but it cannot exist without practice. People cannot support a resistance that's invisible, an action that's not happening, their body cannot learn from an experience that they haven't had. Non-active ways of trying to gain mass support have only lead to deception. We have a long history of cooptation and segregation. Fear of repression only serves to pacify us (that's what the repression is for: if we become passive because of repression, then they already won without even executing the repression). "Mutual aid" is practically made impossible/illegal already. Of course we should try to be tactical and be aware of the danger of self-sabotage, but every moment of non-insurrection is a moment for the enemy to easily expand the surveillance state (and so it has been) - so that's a serious paradox right there. At the end nobody can stay safe from repression, so I don't care if this "cocoon" is destroyed because it is about to time to mature ourselves, actually. Our biggest danger is the segregation and the fact that many acts of oppression and violence done by the dutch state are almost secretly done and nobody hears or knows much about it. To take action against the oppression and to make it more known, is the best defense we have because they will come to understand "an attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us" . Yes there is the chance of very severe repression - but we have to trust that other comrades will pick up where we left. You cannot grow (in numbers as well as in emotional strength) without trying and trying means risking. And I'm not against the tactics of being tactical, but there is a reason why some people say "now or never". Tomorrow doesn't exist
Politieval, obviously
Dit is zooo duidelijk een valstrik van de politie. Seriously, politie stuurt wel vaker stillen op een demonstratie af om die demonstratie te saboteren, en infiltranten een organisatie in om die organisatie te saboteren. Dan is er voor hun niets mooiers dan een vaste "revolutionaire" club binnen radicaal-links met uitgelezen excuus voor de politie om in te grijpen: illegaal wapenbezit en de dreiging om terrorisme-wetten te overtreden. Op zoveel manieren fout.
Wie durft er nog te demonstreren als daar vuurgevaarlijk tuig bij staat? Mensen blijven massaal weg. Betere sabotage bestaat niet. Het wordt voor links onveiliger omdat de smeris nu "reden" heeft om alles te controleren en hard aan te pakken. En het wordt voor extreemrechts makkelijker om zelf gewapende bendes "als tegenreactie" op te richten. Voor het grote publiek wordt het één pot nat: "radicaallinks en extreemrechts doen hetzelfde"
RR-lieden hoeven zich niet ideologisch te bewijzen (te laten zien dat ze anarchistisch of socialistisch of links zijn) met bijvoorbeeld spandoeken en flyers en toespraken. Hun kern is niet het linkse principe maar de methode. Die "revolutionaire" club hoeft daarom alleen maar met wapens op komen draven op een linkse demo, want dat is waarin ze zich van anderen onderscheiden. Dus eigenlijk weet je niet of ze de argumenten op een rijtje hebben, en waar ze die wapens dan voor gaan gebruiken. Ook hoeven ze niet democratisch te zijn of transparant voor politieke bondgenoten. Sterker nog, dat kunnen ze niet eens, zelfs als ze het zouden willen, want ze hebben geheimhouding nodig voor hun wapenstrategie.
Dit betekent ook deals doen met wapenhandelaren. Die crimineel zijn, aan mafia-praktijken doen, zoals afpersing, seksslavernij, drugshandel en liquidatie.
En als (als!) dit activisten zijn i.p.v. agenten, dan vereist dat veel trainen i.p.v. argumenteren en organiseren. Het type "activist" dat hierop afstapt hoeft zelf niet goed in de principes te zitten, maar moet van zichzelf een beetje gewelddadig zijn om zijn rol goed te kunnen spelen, stoer, macho, arrogant. En vanwege de achterdocht en afkeuring binnen de linkse beweging, zal ie dus ook arrogant tegen links moeten zijn.
Er zijn twee opties in mijn
Er zijn twee opties in mijn hoofd: ofwel deze reactie is zelf een politieval (haha dat moment dat "metaparanoia" in begint te werken, maar okay) - ofwel je zit zélf héél slecht in de principes. Aub doe het nodige huiswerk. Sla een zine open of vraag even een kameraad die je kent irl over wat er mis is met je statement. Je reactie is verdelend en destructief, inhoudelijk incorrect, je schetst problematische beelden en je gebruikt conformistische al dan niet reformistische concepten etc. Kan zijn dat je dit gewoon goed bedoeld hoor, maar zet aub andere stappen in een betere richting. Het is irritant voor de beweging dat veel "linkse" mensen zo lang blijven hangen in vage cirkelredeneringen die links zijn noch radicaal, maar het is ook aan onszelf om elkaar daarop aan te spreken, vandaar mijn reactie. Gedetailleerder ga ik er hier niet op in: offline gespreken zijn kwalitatiever wat dat betreft :)