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.)
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.