History of Terrorism - Essay Example

History of Terrorism Introduction Terrorism is a social problem that characterizes human political evolution from simple forms of leadership guided by suppression of opinion to more complex democratic society arrangement that embraces various freedoms. Evolution of the human society under the definition of terrorism demonstrates the willingness of the human community to eliminate political baggage with attributes of suppression, intimidation and brutality. Human society has established leadership and governance over the years through various mechanisms that define power and control over the subjects. The balance of mutual benefits among leaders and the subjects has necessitated various checks which may involve political violence to trim unresponsive trends from both parties in the society. While the leadership need for use of force to quell unsupportive opinion from among the subjects has been justified in some instances, accountability and responsibility of the governments cannot be compromised. In cases of irresponsible governments, the balance of power comes into play where political violence has come into use in favor of the subjects. Terrorism comes into the social equation if extreme force is applied to create the balance needed between the parties, where intense debate has emerged on the reasonableness of the use of such force. Various theories to that effect have been formulated to determine the interplay of politics, violence and terrorism in the human society. Questions to the logic of resorting to violent means in solving social and political problems cannot therefore evade social studies, as illustrated by devotion of some attention by Carl Marx to terrorism as discussed in the following discourse. Marxist Views of Terrorism (1880-1920) It is perhaps important to highlight some of the terrorism perspectives as observed in historic occurrences to assist in the development of the topic of terrorism in this discourse. According to Baldwin and Bowen (2001), there are three forms of terrorism from which the justification debate can be approached. State terrorism can be isolated as a form of extreme act of violence that a government of the day commits towards the people that it rules. Under such circumstances, the government is deemed to be in need of consolidating its power, particularly if there are sections of the population having a negative opinion on the suitability of the regime in terms of possessing the authority to rule over them. Insurgency and revolts come up from among the populations and state terrorism is depicted as the force used to quell the rising dissatisfaction. Although most of such regimes using totalitarian force were not common in the 1920’s, an example can be given by the Soviet Union’s regime under Josef Stalin, Germany under Adolf Hitler as well as Cambodia under Pol Pot. In addition, state-sponsored forms of terrorism have been encountered where one state employs violence on a different state at the foreign policy level usually ending up in changing regimes in other states. As an illustration, the incident where East Germany collaborated with Palestinian terrorists to attack Israelis taking part in Munich Olympic Games can be applied as an attack on one country facilitated by another country. Additionally, revolutionary terrorism is characterized by people rising against their own government in order to trigger certain changes in their own country. Red Brigades in Italy mobilized people to protest against their government paralyzing the government operations until the desired changes were implemented. Marxist views of terrorism from 1880 to 1920 can be based on the fundamental teachings of Marxism which are built on principles of communism. Carl Marx held the philosophical opinion that terrorism could be justified if applied to fight off the development of capitalism, which he argued, came to deny the people of their right to determine their own destiny. Communism was the platform on which social change can be justified in the postulates put forward by Marxists. Marxist views on terrorism are hinged on communist action against forces of capitalism which is deemed as the worst enemy that humanity could ever have. Violence in Marxism is viewed as a necessary force that occasions social change among the working class that lies at the top of the social hierarchy. According to Wardlaw (1989), the use of violence by the working class to gain their rightful place of leadership over the rest of the classes was justifiable and not wrong in any means. It is therefore clear that the rise into power by anyone else without the required conversance of the plight of the working class is not only criminal but unwelcome in the communist society. According to the author, Marxists held the opinion that violence would be used for therapeutic intervention for the appropriate psychological positioning of the society to pick up the challenge of their own life at all costs. With time, however, Marx changed his stance of the therapeutic attributes of violence and instead advocated for peaceful means to achieve the renovation force needed by the working class for their own leadership. However, in absolutist regimes, Marxism supported the use of violence to eliminate the elements of society suffering. In the circumstances of the absolute regime environment, Marx felt that the lack of necessary tools to achieve the appropriate compromise and justice acted in favor of violence against the regime. Terrorist ideologies sprang from the stance to brutally eliminate absolutist regimes as this would be a justifiable violent means to a peaceful end. Several terrorist movements embraced the hard stance against the regimes that they felt that were suppressive and unresponsive of the needs of the people that they ought to take care of. Whereas capitalism and absolutism are different perspectives from which violence can be viewed from, Marxism offered little distinction in the manner to deal with each case as a power opposing communism. Terrorism from Above and Below In view of the types of terrorist activity launched against the leadership or the ordinary citizen, terror directionality can be developed. Terror form above is where the government unleashes terror on its people using its forces in order to quell a certain uprising or protest. This is characterized by the deployment of government armed forces against the defiant population which has occurred in revolutions. As an illustration, the Russian Revolution which broke out in 1905 was characterized by the government deploying its army machinery to silence the revolution (Holmes, 2002). There was unmatched magnitude of force from the civilians although the fighting was to continue for several days. In the end of the revolution, terror statistics were obtained to demonstrate the magnitude of violent forces applied against the revolutionists where 233 people died in 1905 alone, 535 more in 1906 and 1907 recorded the highest figure of 1231. Complete military combat was launched against the revolution which was spread across Moscow. In the same period, as the author (Holmes, 2002) reckons, the terror from above was met by equally spirited enthusiasm by terror form below. This implies that the revolution leaders were also significantly equipped, to tackle government forces against silencing them. Thornton (1964) refers to the terror from above as enforcement terror where regimes apply force to consolidate their rule despite the unpopular following from the population. Terror from below in the context of origin of terrorism represents the resistance offered by the civilians or revolutionists which is usually considerably inferior in terms of organization and resource deprived to counter the might of the government. Ironically, the numbers of the parties drive the revolution in unparalleled magnitude if the terrorism from below is more spirited and consistent in launching massive fights against the terrorists from above (Wardlaw, 1989). Violence in such sense fits in the Marx’s postulate to the effect that violence is a strong social force that can be used to eliminate unpopular regimes, particularly those that suppress community desires. According to Bottomore, (1992) the application of “propaganda by the deed” is an influential source of inspiration for the revolution which sustains the force of terror from below throughout course of revolution. According to Thornton (1964), the form of terror from below is usually aimed at forcing surrender of undesirable policy or power in entirety and is variously referred to as agitational terror. Marxist Theory of Revolution Karl Marx is one of the most prominent advocates of revolutionary terrorism and violence, which is held in the spirit of freedom of expression as well as non-tolerance to capitalist ideologies within the society (Corlett, 2003). According to the author, Marx shares in the opinion of other communists who held freedoms such as the freedom of expression with highest esteem among other freedoms. 1n 1982, Marx wrote on the progressive threat that compromise of a single element of freedom resents to the freedom itself. “As soon as one facet of freedom is repudiated, freedom itself is repudiated and it can lead only to mere semblance of life, since afterwards it is pure chance which object unfreedom takes over as the dominant power. Unfreedom is the rule and freedom the exception of chance and caprice,” Karl Marx On Freedom of the Press and Censorship (Corlett, 2003, p52). In view of the need of the people to exercise their freedoms such as expression without suppression, Marx implies that any force at the disposal of the revolution is admissible before the society. Revolutions are a common way for the masses to partake in any action including violence against a regime standing in the way of the majority. According to Corlett (2003), civil disobedience is justifiable if the cause of its application presents the people with a better chance to exercise their freedoms and remain in control of their lives. According to Thornton (1964), the form of terror unleashed on the regime to induce desired changes in governance may also be referred to as agitational terror which may end up in championing for changes or complete overthrowal of the regime. The author reckons that the population in need of the changes in governance pushes the government to introduce the changes in a brutal way to send the strong message of intolerance that they are likely to allow to the regime in case the changes are not implemented. In the work of Hutchinson (1972), revolutionary terrorism is adopted from the characteristic of the revolutions that continuously apply violence against a regime in order to force through seizure of power forcing the government of the day to leave office. The author reckons that the magnitude of violence launched at the time of the revolution can be used to distinguish terrorist revolutions from other revolutions. In terrorist revolutions, there are high levels of unacceptable social and political violence in an unprecedented scale. In the use of terrorism as a revolutionary tool, there is a direct intention of causing a psychological impact on the regime so that it ultimately cedes power. Psychological and physical effects of revolutionary terrorism are important determinants of the duration of time that the violent environment exists (Hutchinson, 1972). To achieve the mix in the development of the revolution, there is need for extra force to sustain the movement, for instance by use of propaganda which exaggerates the psychological and physical effect. Revolutions employ strategies where they attempt to maintain a cordial relationship with the civilians as much as they need to overthrow the unpopular regime. Theoretical perspectives propose that popular revolutions target the civilians for support in order to sustain their quest for complete transition from the unpopular regime to one that they will form after a successful course. According to revolutionaries also identify the unsupportive civilian segments in order to win over their support in a number of ways which include propaganda (Goodwin, n.d). Marxists’ Account of Terrorism Leon Trotsky Trotsky is among the most verbal Marxists particularly regarding the justification of use of terrorism during the Russian Revolution. Just as Marx postulates in his opinion concerning morality and violence he argues that terrorism is a vital social tool for a good cause such as liberation of the working class from oppression of a few insensitive individuals. As an illustration of his support for Marxist opinion with regard to terrorism and justifiable use of violence against the political elite, Leon Trotsky wrote a book on titled Terrorism and Communism that highlights the balance of power in a society under a totalitarian regime. According to marxists.org (Clayton, 2006), the book by Leon was rewritten by Clayton to highlight his clear position of Marxism support on various perspectives such as justification of the use of terror against insensitive regimes that oppress the human community. According to the editor of the book, it is clear that while Leon expressly embraces revolution, he is reluctant to reveal how terrorism is a celebrated tool bearing in mind that it occasions very severe outcomes on either side of the conflict. Satpathy (2003) presents Che Guevara as a prominent supporter of terrorism as a tool to inculcate the spirit of revolutionary liberation of the marginalized peasantry communities in Cuba and South America. Despite his use of guerilla tactics in the Cuban revolution, Che has been quoted supporting other channels of pushing for better life conditions among the peasants. One of the most dominant criticism points against the opinion and position held by Che as a revolutionary is usually attached to his attack on both combatants and non-combatants. Che represents a class of revolution terrorism advocates that practice a huge departure from the Marxist intention of application of force against the oppressing regime and sparing the civilians. Perhaps what makes Che more of a terrorist than a revolutionary is his indistinct target of both the oppressor and oppressed in the revolution. Conclusion Terrorism is largely an ideology driven movement where the oppressed group comes together to champion for the plight of their interests and freedoms by use of violent means. Karl Marx is the undisputed father of communism which finds offense in capitalist regimes in a similar manner it does for totalitarian regimes. By identifying the common patterns of application of violence in revolutions from 1880 to 1920, there is enough ground associate revolutionary terrorism with Marxist views and ideologies. According to Marx, it is justifiable to apply violent means to enable the oppressed majority to rise against unpopular regimes forcing them to step down or facilitate the desired reforms. According to postulates of Marxism, there is no force that can stop the people from exercising their freedoms particularly if it is from a regime that does not keep in touch with the plight of the most important group of the society; the working class. Historical developments in major revolutions such as the Russian revolution point at the accuracy of Marx in defining the role of terrorism in forcing regimes to be receptive to people’s desires. Democracy must have had its foundations built on a popular consideration to avoid such uprisings. Violent eruptions of conflict for power are characterized by two forms of terrorist forces; terrorist from above and terrorist force from below. Terrorism ideologies present a channel of communist governments to facilitate the appropriate checks in order to ensure that people’s power is not misused by a few individuals. References Baldwin, M. & Bowen, G. L. (2001) “Russian Revolutionary Theory” Retrieved from: http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/russianRevo.htm#19th%20century Bottomore, T. B. (1991) A dictionary of Marxist thought. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Clayton, C. (2006) “Terrorism and Communism” (ed) Retrieved from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/index.htm Corlett, J. A. (2003) Terrorism: a philosophical analysis. Norwell, MA: Springer Goodwin, J. (n.d) “Understanding Revolutionary Terrorism” Retrieved from: www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/oldwww/.../JGoodwin.pdf Holmes, D. (2002) Terrorism: a Marxist perspective. Newtown, Australia: Resistance Books Hutchinson, M. C. (1972) “The concept of Revolutionary Terrorism” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16(3):383-396 Jenkins, G. (2006) “International Socialism” A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Theory, Retrieved from: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=182&issue=110 Price, H. E (n.d) “The Strategy and Tactics of Revolutionary Terrorism” Retrieved from: http://www.psci.unt.edu/jbooks/TerrorBib_files/Revolutionary%20Terrorism/Price-The%20Strategy%20and%20Tactics%20of%20Revolutionary%20Terrorism.pdf Satpathy, G. C. (2003) Biological weapons and terrorism. New Delhi, India: Gyan Publishing House Wardlaw, G. (1989) Political terrorism: theory, tactics and counter-measures. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Read More