I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things.
I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position.
This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me.
What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed.
PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever.
No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.
I’d be curious how their position compares to Che’s (which, in spite of my username, I’m no expert in). My understanding is that, after witnessing the success of the Cuban revolution, he thought similar tactics would be widely applicable elsewhere.
The method was essentially:
Unfortunately, history showed things were not so easy. Che’s efforts failed in Congo, and led to his death in Bolivia.
(FWIW, I’m drawing this from my memory of Anderson’s Che Guevara.)
Sadly, using the example of Latin America, fascists have perfected the counter insurgency tactics against guerrilla warfare with the aid of the USA which is the main country funding fascists dictators and/or bloody counter insurgency. From my standpoint, guerrilla tactics will only work where the US imperialism is the weakest(ex the Sahel).
An important, perhaps the most important, aspect of guerrilla warfare is the destruction and disruption of the enemies supplies and industrial base. Its hard to wage a war when your weapons factories are being blown up. The US became the manufacturing base for fascist regimes at war with their people and so it was impossible for those people to actually disrupt the industry of their enemy. The best you could do is try to intercept shipments, and disrupt freight but that only goes so far.
When there is no longer a massive outside power providing endless supplies things should start to tilt in the favor of guerrillas again.
And that’s why sooner than later we imperial core residents should start blowing up arms factories and stealing guns.
To defeat a global empire the revolution must be global. As long as the working class in the imperial core is complicit in the oppression of our comrades elsewhere it will be very hard to defeat the empire of the west. The best strategy sans western working class comrades joining the fight is to simply bunker up and try to wait it out. Which is what you see many AES nations doing to varying degrees.
? Trying to wait it out? Sure China’s interests may be chilling while the west declines, but we are in a decent position to sabotage things from the heart of the beast. Yeah, we won’t convince all the petty bourgeois jerks and fools but we can organize national minorities and anti-imperialist solidarity. China won’t save us. We need to save us.
i think you misread what i posted. I never said people in the west should wait it out. I said AES states have to. They are basically in survival mode. China also isnt the best example since its so powerful itself and is a better position. Other smaller nations like DPRK, Cuba, etc really have no choice but to just try and hunker down and survive for now.
Of course, I agree.
Exactly this! If fascists have a strong support from the imperialist through extensive weapon manufacturing, they can outlast any guerrilla in the region unless the guerrilla have a strong backing from another power such as the case of the DPRK during the Korean war where Mao’s son died or invasion of Vietnam.
If we take the conditions now, there are very few regions where the guerrilla can defeat the local capitalists. However, that is not the case for plenty of regions of this world(ex latin america).
It’s weakening everywhere. Mao says that the early stage of the guerrilla war is when help is most important to both sides to be helped by outside aid. At a certain point if either side is strong enough they will probably win. Plenty of guerrilla movements have lasted a long time in spite of powerful state suppression: another point made in the piece.
Will that due respect, (at least in Latin America) it is not weakened enough to allow guerrilla warfare. As evidence of this, you can see the strategies of the SOUTHCOM in the region and how countries like Perú(with Dina Boluarte, which is a product of a coup), Ecuador(with the american citizen Daniel Noboa that is pushing to bring US troops into the country again), Argentina(Javier Milei) and Chile are constantly using the drug war as an excuse to oppress indigenous people with the aid of US dollars. Peru recently even bought new F-16 aircraft from the USA.
Once again, guerrilla warfare is not a good choice if the region’s local capitalists are still experiencing a strong imperialist backing. If we use Mao as an example, he even made the choice to fight alongside the Kuomintang to repel the strong japanese imperialists that were storming the region. That’s why it is important to analyze the principal contradiction and how to successfully resolve it with a pragmatic point of view.
Of course you want to be pragmatic. If conditions are too bad to even start waging war you may do other things while imperialist power worsens. Still it is necessary, if difficult. I still need to research the PCP but they faced a significant amount of repression and were relatively successful before ultimately losing. The Peruvian government sterilized thousands of indigenous women with the explicit intent to prevent people who would become guerrillas from being born.
Yes, the Mao informed position is that nationalist alliances against imperialism may be practically necessary.
Idk, but here’s an interesting passage:
If that’s true then the Gonzalites might have something on Che.
I noticed that’s from the NYT, so I’d take that with a barrel of salt. They have every reason to misdirect us towards methodologies that don’t actually threaten imperialism.
Have you seen Prolewiki’s translation of The CIA’s Shining Path? https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_CIA’s_Shining_Path:_Political_Warfare#INTRODUCTION
(This isn’t to say there’s absolutely nothing to learn from their organization or perhaps specific tactics. But we need to be very careful about doing so, making sure we don’t attribute “bloodshed” a mystical revolutionary power. The history of failed revolutions should thoroughly undermine any such conception.)
The thing with sources like the NYT is that it makes sense to trust what they admit which would be against their interests. They want the US to be able to look unstoppable and crush such movements with a stroke of a finger, but if that’s not the case they’d want to fear monger and tell people what is threatening their power. If congress had to meet to figure out what to do about the situation that lends credence to the claim that the revolutionary forces were on par with the imperialists.
That said, I have more research to do and am kind of playing devil’s advocate. I already intend to read that work and more that opposes it.
I would be open to hearing about what “success” was for them. Was it that they managed to take over territory especially quickly? Or did they also succeed in building up anything that actually threatened imperialist interests?
In other words, what makes them different from “marxist” purveyors of violence like the Khmer Rouge?
Quoting again from The CIA’s Shining Path:
Idk but I was given this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16bue8TQo-knWAKlkpuNBnePOs7j7KDh11aDoNa_dPO0/edit
That document is an unorganized mess of quotes. But one thing I got from a quick skim was a claim that they provided security patrols to new slums. This apparently earned them the support of the residents, who were otherwise vulnerable to both criminals and the state. Putting aside the question of whether these claims are true or not, tactically it would certainly make sense and be a good means to build up support.