Faliure of the Foco Theory.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Che Guevara is held in almost Mythical staus, and i can see why, a man who gives up his life as a middle class training doctor in Bueno Aires to slog through Cuba and fight a brutal and harsh guerrilla war, then leaving the revolutionary Government to put himself through two more attempted Guerrilla insurections before being martyred, but when we look at ches theory through the lens of the proverbial revolutionary microscope, we see his views on guerrilla warfare being used before conditions are ready, trying to create them through struggle as totally useless. His view seem almost eletist in their detachment from the people, this is a shame because thousands of revolutionaries went to cuba for training weapones etc and went to fight in Argentina, Honduras Guatemala, then che went to the cong and Brazil, none of these ill fated missions were succesfull, so why do we hold comrade Guevara up in the same light as we do Mao or lenin, che was a great Comrade, but his lack of pro worker theories led to his faliure.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Your thoughts and comments please All power to the people.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I agree. Illusions in the idea that you can have a successful socialist revolution made, not by the working class but by small guerrilla armies caused many groups to turn to guerrillaism, leading to their destruction.

[Luisrah]

But Guevara's theory of Focoism is that an armed struggle can trigger small insurrections until a revolution can be achieved.
It's not the Guerrilas that make the revolution, but the proletariat and the peasants. The guerrilas are only there to give consciousness and fight the military dictatorship.

And revolutionaires don't really look at Guevara for his theories, but rather because he is a sort of symbol of revolution. He had passion for the opressed peoples of the world, he was a true internationalist and devoted his life ot his beliefs.

You may argue that he was too romantic, but he did in fact make an impression on South America, and furthered our revolutionary cause, you can't say he didn't.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Yes but He also ruined the conditions by training and arming Guerrilla groups from Cuba who went back to their countries(mainly if not all in latin America) and were crushed, this led to the Dictators in those countries banning communist parties and the people losing momentum and conditions and social conciousness falling.
He was a good man, but somewhat of a poor strategist, he is even said to have remarked how him and fidel had proven marx and lenin wrong by showing a small number of armed combatants can create a revolution without having mass support in the book revolutionary life by john lee anderson , or words to that effect.

[Luisrah]

Yes but He also ruined the conditions by training and arming Guerrilla groups from Cuba who went back to their countries(mainly if not all in latin America) and were crushed, this led to the Dictators in those countries banning communist parties and the people losing momentum and conditions and social conciousness falling.
He was a good man, but somewhat of a poor strategist, he is even said to have remarked how him and fidel had proven marx and lenin wrong by showing a small number of armed combatants can create a revolution without having mass support in the book revolutionary life by john lee anderson , or words to that effect.

For that matter, I could argue that it is useless to try for socialism. All those dictators in South America were because of Guevarism, Fidel is in Cuba, Stalin was in Russia, Mao was in China, look at Kim in North Korea.
Heh, that looks like the anti-cap arguments that trying to get to communism will always end in a Stalin.

I don't care what they said in the book and petty words. One thing is words, another is action. The theory of Guevarism is what I have told above. Every nation is different, that is why you have ''micro-tendencies'' like Castroism, for example. Guevarism arguably worked in Cuba. It didn't work in the other places that Guevara tried. Bolivia wasn't ready, you may say. But it was better wasn't it? It enriched us with new theories, Marx's theories aren't sacred. I'm not saying the proletariat isn't needed to make the revolution, and the description I gave of Guevarism proves that, but things change, you can't blame people for trying different things.

Every contry is different with different characteristics and a unique situation. There will never be two identical revolutions in different parts of the world.
Some of the Baltic countries also banned the word communism. So does that make that the attempt of socialism made by Russia should have never happened? No!

We can't stop being critical about things, but until things start to shape up for us, I don't think we should be too picky, and that's why I think we should support countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Nepal, those manifestations in Greece, because they are trying to fend off a giant, they are outnumbered. I'm not an anarchist, but if an anarchist type of revolution sprouted somewhere, I would support it, because ''we need all the help we can get''. (with never straying away from our ideals)

[Little Bobby Hutton]

What are you talking about Comrade, i didnt mean we shouldnt try to create a revolution or that they would turn into dictatorships, what i meant is, instead of letting the masses in Bolivia for example, build their own movement, as they were starting to do, che went with a guerrilla band anyway, even though the Bolivian communist party told him not to, he ignored them, this turned out to anger them, so they sdidnt give him the suplies he asked for, he basically thought he was better than everyone else and fucked them off to go play the heroic guerrilla, against the wishes of the communist party, the people and against the general movements that were building up in America Latina

[Robocommie]

To me, Che is a Marxist warrior saint. People need heroes, people need symbols. That may seem shallow to some, but the truth is, people always seek out heroes and symbols, without fail. People want champions and role models, heroes to emulate, to inspire them to carry on. Che, or at least the idea of Che, suits that purpose.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

The man who dosent need the glory of being a guerrilla is a hero, the man who works hard endlessly raising class conciousness and helping the working class is a hero.
The men like Andreas Baader and Che are the ones who give up on the masses and carry out their eletist theories that exclude the masses, no disrespect to che, he was a good man and help create the socialist cuba we see today, but you cant deny his whole view of revolution by the few stinks of eletism and it shows he had given up on the masses and didnt want to put his faith in them .
BTW he was one of my biggest inspirations, and still is, but i am against the views that he had towards revolutionary struggle and the ways to bring it about.

All power to the people.

[Robocommie]

In fact I disagree that his theories excluded the masses, as the very concept of guerilla warfare in essence is a method of military resistance by the poor and disenfranchised against the establishment. Che believed that only armed resistance could muster the strength necessary to destroy the old order, but that doesn't make him an elitist. Quite the contrary.

"There are no liberators. The people liberate themselves." - Che

[Little Bobby Hutton]

i think he was a good military tactician, having read his GW manual, i just dont like the concept of waging guerrilla war rather than letting the masses rise up, supported by a vanguard, only cwhen the majority of the people are on our side should we take up arms, otherwise it is useless, with some exceptions like cuba, allthough most wanted batista gone anyway.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Also revolution cant be exported, not only is it an insult and act of snobery to the natives but shows that conditions are not ready, no ammount of foreign force will change that, a movement must be homegrown.

[Kléber]

Yep, there was a revolutionary situation in the Bolivian cities at the time Guevara went there. To his credit, he must have felt that building a peasant guerrilla movement would help the urban workers' struggle and vice versa. Unfortunately there had been some more substantial land reforms in Bolivia from 1952 and the rural population was much less disposed to form a poor peasant army.

[red cat]

Yep, there was a revolutionary situation in the Bolivian cities at the time Guevara went there. To his credit, he must have felt that building a peasant guerrilla movement would help the urban workers' struggle and vice versa. Unfortunately there had been some more substantial land reforms in Bolivia from 1952 and the rural population was much less disposed to form a poor peasant army.

These so called land reforms generally exist only on paper. Considering the colonial nature of Bollivia, Che's strategy of rural guerrilla warfare had been correct. He failed in involving the masses in the war, which ultimately led to defeat.

[red cat]

Also revolution cant be exported, not only is it an insult and act of snobery to the natives but shows that conditions are not ready, no ammount of foreign force will change that, a movement must be homegrown.

Communist ideology itself was historically exported to the rest of the world from Europe. I believe that foreign elements can initiate a revolution in a country, given certain conditions. For example, if country A and country B share borders, and country A contains a well-developed communist movement, then communists from country A can initiate guerrilla warfare in country B. In the course of the war, guerrillas will engage in mass activities and result in the masses of country B forming a CP of their own.

[Kléber]

National conditions vary from place to place. Even if the holy peasant war line had been successful in other countries, which it wasn't, Bolivia was an exceptional country with a very conservative peasantry. From 1952-1985 Bolivian governments were relatively protective of small agriculture.

[red cat]

National conditions vary from place to place. Even if the holy peasant war line had been successful in other countries, which it wasn't, Bolivia was an exceptional country with a very conservative peasantry.

No matter how conservative they initially may be, the peasantry can always be won over.




From 1952-1985 Bolivian governments were relatively protective of small agriculture.

I don't believe that any measures taken by the government could prevent the peasants from taking part in the revolution. The guerrillas only required time.

[el_chavista]

I don't believe that any measures taken by the government could prevent the peasants from taking part in the revolution. The guerrillas only required time.
Time to get rooted in the peasantry. That's the main problem to be overcome for a group of petty bourgeois "willpowerists". They were just triggering the protracted People's war through propaganda by the deeds.
Under the appropriated conditions -like in Colombia- the guerrilla becomes so menacing that the government needs the help of the US Department of State's to cope with it. For instance, rumor has it that comandante Reyes was killed by USA's 'intelligent bombs' which are only possibly be carried by USA's planes piloted by USA's pilots.

[red cat]

Time to get rooted in the peasantry. That's the main problem to be overcome for a group of petty bourgeois "willpowerists". They were just triggering the protracted People's war through propaganda by the deeds.
Under the appropriated conditions -like in Colombia- the guerrilla becomes so menacing that the government needs the help of the US Department of State's to cope with it. For instance, rumor has it that comandante Reyes was killed by USA's 'intelligent bombs' which are only possibly be carried by USA's planes piloted by USA's pilots.

When the guerrilla squads are culturally different from the masses, they lack a place to retreat when the enemy advances. I think this was the problem with Che's movement in Bollivia. On the other hand, if they succeeded in retreating and thus forcing the enemy troops to stay near the rural masses, then the tendency of the government troops to torture and rob villagers could have pushed the masses to the guerrillas' side.

[Luisrah]

When the guerrilla squads are culturally different from the masses, they lack a place to retreat when the enemy advances. I think this was the problem with Che's movement in Bollivia. On the other hand, if they succeeded in retreating and thus forcing the enemy troops to stay near the rural masses, then the tendency of the government troops to torture and rob villagers could have pushed the masses to the guerrillas' side.

If I'm not wrong, something similar happened in Congo. The culture was too different, they didn't feel like people of the same country but like strangers to them.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

The capitalist/imperialist armies always end up carrying out massacres and giving guerrillas widespread support.
Bloody Sunday was an irish example, the IRA had more recruits than guns after that, the same goes for the 1981 hungerstrikes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not the Guerrilas that make the revolution, but the proletariat and the peasants. The guerrilas are only there to give consciousness and fight the military dictatorship.

How different is that from Bakunin's take on revolutionist terrorism?

After all, revolutionist terrorism is also meant not to make revolution, but to inspire the proletariat into another one of Bakunin's tactics: the general strike.

[red cat]

How different is that from Bakunin's take on revolutionist terrorism?

After all, revolutionist terrorism is also meant not to make revolution, but to inspire the proletariat into another one of Bakunin's tactics: the general strike.

Are you aware of the fact that a whole class can participate in what you call revolutionist terrorism ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am referring to assassinations of state officials, blowing up buildings, and such.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

The Bourgesie use their propoganda networks to make Guerrillas look like mad Bombers, in the first world the states grip reaches everywhere and everyone watches news, reads papers etc, so really we are doomed to loose the propoganda war, well when i say we i mean any guerrillas without mass suppor to begin with.

[bcbm]

Are you aware of the fact that a whole class can participate in what you call revolutionist terrorism ?if the entire class is already at that point, why would they bother with terrorism when their mass alone would allow them to more or less walk over the enemy?

[red cat]

if the entire class is already at that point, why would they bother with terrorism when their mass alone would allow them to more or less walk over the enemy?

A military victory is necessary. Also, the whole class will not participate suddenly in a single day. Revolutionary violence will gradually increase to the point where the revolutionary classes as a whole will capture the headquarters of the ruling class.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Protracted peoples war in 3rd world nations seems the only possible way, and as in Guerrilla warfare you surround the cities by taking the countryside, we shall surround ther first world nations with revolutionary masses overthrowing their bourgesie in the third world.

[red cat]

Protracted peoples war in 3rd world nations seems the only possible way, and as in Guerrilla warfare you surround the cities by taking the countryside, we shall surround ther first world nations with revolutionary masses overthrowing their bourgesie in the third world.

One difference will be that while the red army army surrounds cities, the production relations in the cities are not bourgeois, hence the number of city insurrections staged by the proletariat is relatively few. But when revolutionary third world countries surround the first and second world countries, imperialism will face a well developed proletariat in its own lair which is likely to overthrow it even before the encirclement is complete.

[bcbm]

A military victory is necessary. Also, the whole class will not participate suddenly in a single day. Revolutionary violence will gradually increase to the point where the revolutionary classes as a whole will capture the headquarters of the ruling class.

who said anything about "suddenly in a single day?" i think it is possible for an insurgency to spread horizontally through the social terrain to the point where the ruling class can be basically disregarded without requiring a military campaign.

[Die Neue Zeit]

if the entire class is already at that point, why would they bother with terrorism when their mass alone would allow them to more or less walk over the enemy?

I could ask anarchists like you the same question about general or mass strikes. :(

[bcbm]

I could ask anarchists like you the same question about general or mass strikes. :(

you could, but i would suspect you haven't read anything i've posted in years if you did. :huh:

[red cat]

who said anything about "suddenly in a single day?" i think it is possible for an insurgency to spread horizontally through the social terrain to the point where the ruling class can be basically disregarded without requiring a military campaign.

But then, the insurgency would consist of military operations throughout its phase of expansion.

[bcbm]

But then, the insurgency would consist of military operations throughout its phase of expansion.

i recognize that insurgency generally constitutes military action, but i can't think of a another phrase that adequately describes a general spread of resistance to the ruling class and the formation of a material base for that resistance. the mechanisms of social control used by the ruling class are a much more powerful force than their military might; once we have the social base to destroy them, their military will be little more than a paper tiger.

[red cat]

i recognize that insurgency generally constitutes military action, but i can't think of a another phrase that adequately describes a general spread of resistance to the ruling class and the formation of a material base for that resistance. the mechanisms of social control used by the ruling class are a much more powerful force than their military might; once we have the social base to destroy them, their military will be little more than a paper tiger.

Their military might is what protects their social base. So a military victory is necessary. And it is in the course of carrying out military operations that the revolutionary forces beat back the oppressive social system and build a revolutionary one.

The social base you are talking about is possible due to the greater production capabilities of the revolutionary classes, and this is what makes military victory feasible in the first place.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

But Guevara's theory of Focoism is that an armed struggle can trigger small insurrections until a revolution can be achieved.
It's not the Guerrilas that make the revolution, but the proletariat and the peasants.

Who ends up in power after this revolution? If it is just the guerilla movement being propelled into power by the actions of the proletariat and peasants, then it doesn't matter that they technically "make the revolution."

[Luisrah]

Who ends up in power after this revolution? If it is just the guerilla movement being propelled into power by the actions of the proletariat and peasants, then it doesn't matter that they technically "make the revolution."

Actually it does. You don't need political conscience to make a coup, or if it was the guerrila movement that made the revolution.
If it's the workers and peasants who do it, then you have a conscious proletariat, one capable of withstanding the capitalist threat much more, or set things straight if things start to go out of hand (socialist degeneration), enrich our movement with new theory and spread the ideals of socialism.

You may or may not agree with the vanguard theory, but if the guerrila movement starts alone trying to consciencialize the workers, then when the revolution comes, it's probable that they are the most conscious and prepared members of the proletariat of peasantry, thus fit to be atleast part of the vanguard.

That's the theory, it's in our hands to do or not the practice correctly.
The OP said that Focoism is bad in theory, and what I am saying is that it's not bad in theory. The only thing I think you can argue is if it was put to practice correctly or not.

[bcbm]

Their military might is what protects their social base. So a military victory is necessary. And it is in the course of carrying out military operations that the revolutionary forces beat back the oppressive social system and build a revolutionary one.

The social base you are talking about is possible due to the greater production capabilities of the revolutionary classes, and this is what makes military victory feasible in the first place.

military might may offer protection, but it is generally not the force maintaining commodity relations. it is through media, schools, unions, wage-labor, etc that society is both protected and reproduced. if we can break the reproduction of social control, then we've already overcome the primary means of control and whatever military is left (they're kept in line by social control too) won't be much of a threat. obviously we should be prepared to defend any gains, but i think the majority of the struggle can be won without pulling a trigger.

[red cat]

military might may offer protection, but it is generally not the force maintaining commodity relations. it is through media, schools, unions, wage-labor, etc that society is both protected and reproduced. if we can break the reproduction of social control, then we've already overcome the primary means of control and whatever military is left (they're kept in line by social control too) won't be much of a threat. obviously we should be prepared to defend any gains, but i think the majority of the struggle can be won without pulling a trigger.

Yes, those are also important tools of the bourgeoisie for protecting their system, but it is their military might that makes the big difference. Without their armed forces, the bourgeoisie cannot protect their system for long from the wrath of organized masses. On the other hand, there are places where imperialism retains control without any of the factors you mentioned, and only through its military strength.

I would rather say that an efficient system of communication, education, unions etc. are necessary for the proletariat to develop and maintain socialism.

[bcbm]

Yes, those are also important tools of the bourgeoisie for protecting their system, but it is their military might that makes the big difference. Without their armed forces, the bourgeoisie cannot protect their system for long from the wrath of organized masses.

i think if we truly have an organized mass, that is most of society, behind us than there is little the military would be able to do and the military would probably even be part of that mass.


On the other hand, there are places where imperialism retains control without any of the factors you mentioned, and only through its military strength.

i agree completely, and i think in those places a different strategy is probably needed.

[red cat]

i think if we truly have an organized mass, that is most of society, behind us than there is little the military would be able to do and the military would probably even be part of that mass.

In imperialist countries, it is hard to imagine what the bourgeoisie can resort to for remaining in power. I think that the only reason that they haven't used their military strength in directly suppressing the proletariat is probably because the proletariat never got organized well enough to challenge them and seize state power.

Even if you are able to win most of the government troops to your side, the bourgeoisie is likely to receive military help from countries where the revolutionary situation is not developed enough.

[chebol]

Demonstrably, "Guevara's" foco theory never worked - not in the Congo, nor in Bolivia, and certainly not in Cuba.

In fact, it is Cuba which shows why Che was wrong. Never have been to Cuba before he joined the guerrilla, Che fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the struggle, and of the revolutionary movement in Cuba in the 50s and before.

His only experiences of the Cuban struggle before the overthrow of Batista were of the guerrilla in the mountains, and what he (mistakenly) perceived to be a poorly organised and ineffective urban movement whose only genuine use (as far as he was concerned) was to support the guerrilla.

That is, Che believed that the guerrilla gave life to the worker's struggle, not vice versa. You can see this in Guerrilla Warfare, where Che - as a Marxist - notes the supreme necessity of a proletarian movement, but thinks that he can short cut to one by starting a Guerrilla.

This view was dangerously mistaken and ultimately led to Che's death.

The Cuban revolution (the first stage that is - ie anti-Batista. The second part - making the revolution socialist - was made almost entirely by urban forces, specifically the organised working class) was made largely by urban forces - despite the failed strike of April 1958. The guerrilla DID play a vital role, however - but not, as Che imagined, the main one.

In some ways, his mistake is forgivable, as he led a victorious column out of the mountains, across the plains and through some of Cuba's large cities. But the main role of the guerrilla was as a propaganda tool, showing the people across Cuba that Batista was indeed defeatable. The victories of the guerrilla in late 1958 is what gave the Cuban people the confidence to join in the January 1959 strike, thereby preventing the replacement of one dictator with another, and ensuring the first part of the revolution was successful.

Che partially understood this, but he denigrated the role of the urban movement (and they took him to task for this too Enrique Oltuski and Armando Hart have written accounts of the urban underground of the July 26 movement that show just how wrong Che was.)

The Congo was a monumental failure for a number of reasons, but focoismo was never going to be the key to fixing those. Fail.

Bolivia was something of a special case.
Firstly, it was a compromise - Che preferred Peru or his home Argentina.

Secondly, the CP essentially betrayed him - refusing to support the struggle by leading their own in the cities and supporting the guerrilla (and Che should bear some responsibility for this too - his arrogance didn't help the situation much).

Thirdly, however, and more importantly, the Bolivian people had recently won a number of concessions from the government - including land reform - and so were less inclined to join either an insurrection or an armed struggle. The Bolivian venture had fail written all over it from the start.

The myth of the heroic guerrilla - the olive green revolution, etc - was promulgated by Fidel and others largely as part of the struggle against anti-socialist forces in the early years of the revolution. The most reliable cadre for taking the revolution forward were members of the J26 movement, rather than the Student Directorate or the PSP (Stalinists), and this became reflected in the story of the revolution as a bulwark against counter-revolution and bureaucratism.