>
> This illustrates my point - a molotov cocktail drew heavier fire than a
> rock. It stands to reason that a gun would have drawn a fusilade too. If
> you raise the ante the other guy might follow suit instead of folding.
>
> I suppose it is theoretically possible for an armed citizenry to act as a
> check on gov't power. It raises the cost of repression, no doubt.
>
> But it can also evoke a nasty reaction, making the conflict more violent
> and bloody. The gov't will normally have greater firepower, and can almost
> always do as it wishes anyway (although the cost of implementing some kind
> of unpopular program will be increased). And this has to be factored into
> the equation. I can't think of one example where this kind of thing has
> really worked the way its advocates claim it should. More often than not,
> it just increases the bloodshed.
>
> Take South Africa under Apartheid as an example. Had the blacks armed
> themselves and fought for their rights, does anyone doubt what the reaction
> would have been? It would have been swift and brutal. The death toll
> would have been much higher. It would have magnified the level of hatred
> on each side. It would have made a bad situation worse.
Many blacks did arm themselves. It was a disaster mostly because their military strategists like Joe Slovo were inept and had no idea had to prosecute a guerrilla war.
>
>
> In fact, the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that this
> notion that guns will prevent gov't abuses is out to lunch. Has it
> diminished Israeli repression in the occupied territories? Has it driven
> Britain out of Northern Ireland? I can't think of a single success story.
Defenders of la lucha armada ( i think there is still a few around) would say the independence movements would not be in the place they are today without the armed struggle. This is more obvious in N.Ireland than in Palestine where there was a large non-armed though sometimes violent mass movement for independence (the intifada) which forced Israel to the table. I would add the armed movement attempting to force Israel out of S. Lebanon (Hizbollah) may be succeeding now that there is very serious talk in Israel of quitting Lebanon for good. The Israeli proxy army will be left to the wolves.
I've said this before, but history is full of examples of small military forces winning victories from much larger forces often against heroic odds. Most left wing armies arise because there is too much repression to proceed peacefully. The causality is different. State repression is what leads to more violence. This was the case in Latin America. The FMLN of El Salvador (10,000 soldiers) fought the regular army (200,000 soldiers + superior technology + 5000 U.S. Marines&many U.S. advisors)) to a standstill. The El Salvadorean Army received something like 10 billion dollars in aid from the U.S. over the course of that war. I would argue that the FMLN could have won the war in 1989 if they had attacked and destroyed the airfields like they did in 1981. During the big offensive in 1989 the E.S. Airforce was able to get off the ground and bomb poor civilian areas in the outskirts of San Salvador which turned the FMLN's base of support in those areas against them. The difference was not so much in the amount or quality of arms but in the fact that the FMLN was run by volunteers who believed in what they were doing i.e. thought they fighting for a better society. The regulars were mostly peasant conscripts who had no desire to fight. FMLN veterans in Salvador told me that the regular troops (like the Contras in Nic.) would often just throw down their weapons and surrender when confronted with the FMLN. During peace negotiations the FMLN was in a position to demand much more than they received i.e. they could have affected a structural tranformation of society but, alas, their middle class leaders sold them out (like they did in Guatemala and Chile) and spat on the graves of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting for a better society.
Some armed movements like the ERP in Argentina deliberately try to provoke more repression in hopes that more repression will make the masses more revolutionary. Obviously a stupid strategy.
What do you think would have happened if Allende had armed the workers when they asked him to? What do you think would have happened if the large and militant left wing movement in Turkey had been armed during the 1980 coup?
However, there are also many examples like Chile in the early 80's where a large peaceful movement worked successfully for change. It depends on the political and historical context where violent suppression of a mass movement will not work for the government. If Pinochet in 1982 had turned up the repression to 1974 levels, there probably would have been a revolution. Who knows?
Sam Pawlett