Best parallels between specific terrorist attacks

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Russian nihilists come to mind. Destroy the state by terrorism and then pick up the pieces later. The plan is to have no plan but to have a goal.
Islamic terrorism strikes me as similar in some ways.

What Russian nihilist?

What are you talking about?

No Russian leader was motivated by nihilism. They were all motivated by the same thing most leaders are motivated by, a lust for power and recognition.

The Nihilists were an interesting bunch. Realizing they did not have the strength to impose a new government on Czarist Russia, they preached a purely destructive, destabilizing program. In hopes that eventually a paralyzed government would fall and leave a power vaccum. This sort of terrorism was later called "direct action" and was an inspiration to some types of anarchists, early proto-facists and communists. Which here in America lead to the pre-world war 2 red scares.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
"By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides."

How did you think I was writing about a Russian leader?

 

[iolo]

What Russian nihilist?

What are you talking about?

No Russian leader was motivated by nihilism. They were all motivated by the same thing most leaders are motivated by, a lust for power and recognition.

The Nihilists were an interesting bunch. Realizing they did not have the strength to impose a new government on Czarist Russia, they preached a purely destructive, destabilizing program. In hopes that eventually a paralyzed government would fall and leave a power vaccum. This sort of terrorism was later called "direct action" and was an inspiration to some types of anarchists, early proto-facists and communists. Which here in America lead to the pre-world war 2 red scares.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
"By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides."

How did you think I was writing about a Russian leader?

No communist who knows anything at all indulges in individual terrorism. It is a footling waste of good activists, obviously.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Nihilists were an interesting bunch. Realizing they did not have the strength to impose a new government on Czarist Russia, they preached a purely destructive, destabilizing program. In hopes that eventually a paralyzed government would fall and leave a power vaccum. This sort of terrorism was later called "direct action" and was an inspiration to some types of anarchists, early proto-facists and communists. Which here in America lead to the pre-world war 2 red scares.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
"By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides."

How did you think I was writing about a Russian leader?

No communist who knows anything at all indulges in individual terrorism. It is a footling waste of good activists, obviously.

The nihilists predate the Bolsheviks. Some later communists agreed, some did not. Of course once Stalin took control of Russia, terrorism was right out (in Russia). But continued, which caused Stalin to unleash the purges and Stalinist terrors. Permanent revolution, preached by Trotsky and others was interpreted by some as mandating terrorism. Which fed the red terrorist organizations of the 60's.

 

[iolo]

No communist who knows anything at all indulges in individual terrorism. It is a footling waste of good activists, obviously.

The nihilists predate the Bolsheviks. Some later communists agreed, some did not. Of course once Stalin took control of Russia, terrorism was right out (in Russia). But continued, which caused Stalin to unleash the purges and Stalinist terrors. Permanent revolution, preached by Trotsky and others was interpreted by some as mandating terrorism. Which fed the red terrorist organizations of the 60's.

Revolution means the replacement of the rule of one class by that of another. Individual terror cannot bring that about, as everyone knows, which is why no informed communist ever believed in individual terror. The State capitalist use of state terror was just par for the capitalist course.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the 1800's terrorism was very common and no, not everybody knew terrorism would be a failure all the time. It worked for the Bolsheviks. And many ISIL members seem to think terrorism will goad the West in a final battle that will usher in the end times predicted by the Quran. So some of this has an apocalyptic aim. Terrorism isn't really a totally modern thing. Remember the Jewish Sicarii that battle Roman occupation of Judea for example. Or the Ismaili Old Man of the Mountain and his hasishins.

 

[iolo]

In the 1800's terrorism was very common and no, not everybody knew terrorism would be a failure all the time. It worked for the Bolsheviks. And many ISIL members seem to think terrorism will goad the West in a final battle that will usher in the end times predicted by the Quran. So some of this has an apocalyptic aim. Terrorism isn't really a totally modern thing. Remember the Jewish Sicarii that battle Roman occupation of Judea for example. Or the Ismaili Old Man of the Mountain and his hasishins.

No it didn't - stealing money from Banks was what Stalin did. Terrorism does not produce Revolution, which is what the Bolsheviks were about. What happened during the capitalist intervention and the development of State Capitalism is nothing to do with communism.