Log in

View Full Version : Focoism; What is it? Can it work?



Victory
17th August 2010, 18:54
I've decided to write an article on "Focoism", the theory developed by Che Guevara after he took part in the Cuban Revolution and used his experience as a guerrilla to develop this theory.

The purpose of me writing this article is to educate people on the reality of Focoism, not some misinterpretation argued by somebody who has never studied Focoism or has misunderstand the actual meaning.
"Foco" in Spanish means Focus. The theory is labelled "Focoism" for a specific and accurate reason. - Because the principled idea of Focoism is to become the "focus" of attention.

Che Guevara put forward the argument that a small group of revolutionaries need not wait for revolutionary conditions to arise, instead Che Guevara argued that revolutionary conditions could be created by a popular uprising which would then become the Focus of attention and in-turn gain support from the oppressed masses.
I often hear Communists claim that Focoism does not work, that it is idealistic and that it has failed across the whole of Latin America. The truth could not be far more different, and would be known by all if they truly understood the theory of Focoism, and had not been told by others the incorrect meaning or analysis of it's history.
The FARC is based on the theory of Focoism. No matter what people outside the FARC claim, the FARC is not a principled Marxist-Leninist organisation. The FARC consists of progressive compatriots who support the stated goals of the leadership (Exactly the same strategy Che Guevara used in Bolivia)- Anybody who supports the objectives of the FARC can join, whether you be a social-democrat, a Socialist or a Communist.I am using the FARC as an example both because I know a lot about them and because they are a living example of a revolutionary movement based on the Focoist theory.
The FARC started out as a small group of revolutionaries that initiated an uprising in defence of the oppressed people living in the rural areas of Colombia, who were being isolated and left to die by the state of Colombia, as they still are today.By becoming the Focus of attention, the FARC gained the support of the popular masses and were able to build an army that can challenge the state of Colombia.

Even today, the FARC are still based on the Focoist theory. The FARC still prime themselves as being the alternative for the oppressed people of Colombia, and through resisting the state, they aim to influence enough people in joining the FARC in their efforts to resist and overthrow the state of Colombia. - This is the Focoist theory - To be an influential vanguard that offers a progressive alternative to the oppressed people, which in-turn aims to gain the popular support of the masses in order to overthrow the state in question and install a different regime.
People often misinterprete revolutionary struggles and automaticly don't consider them "Focoist", simply because they are not waving a banner saying "We base our strategy on the Focoist theory".

It is true that vanguards have failed in overthrowing a state whilst basing itself on the Focoist theory. However, the same can be said with the traditional Marxist-Leninist methods of creating revolution, which have been failing and creating nothing for more than a century in the vast majority of countries worldwide.- Yet people often feel the need to label the theory put forward by Che Guevara; "Idealistic", "Incorrect" and "Unworkable". - Using the same analysis in which those people criticize "Focoism", could be said in exactly the same way about the traditional methods in building revolution used by Communists. In fact, it could be said about any strategy ever used in human history, because, some struggles fail, and some struggles succeed. - The same way they have since time began.The fact is, and Communists should know this more than anybody. Different strategies are better used depending on the conditions. We should apply different strategies to conditions which make the strategy more likely to work.For example, A solely working class Revolution would not have succeeded in China at the time it did because the vast majority of people living in China were peasants - Therefore there needed to be a strategy developed which included the peasantry.
People often build an analysis of "Focoism" based on Che Guevara's attempts in Bolivia. - To do this is simplistic and would be a big mistake.

There were many, many reasons why the struggle in Bolivia failed. - Whether it be because the Communist Party of Bolivia refused to support armed struggle, whether it be because the miners strike which was triggered by the uprising was ruthlessly repressed, or whether it be because the local population in Bolivia did not trust foreigners.This does not mean "Focoism" does not work, simply because the struggle failed in Bolivia.To say that would be exactly the same as saying Marxism-Leninism does not work simply because the Soviet Union collapsed. - It's a simplistic warped analysis based on incorrect evaluations and conclusions.

Che Guevara always argued that the Focoist theory was based on developing countries, which is why Focoism was first argued in "Guerrilla Warfare", a type of warfare which is only ideal for developing countries.
But don't write off Focoism simply because other countries tried to use Focoism as a strategy, but failed. If you were to do that, you should be throwing the traditional methods of building revolution by slowly educating people about Socialism in the bin, because like Focoism, that has also failed in struggles.

devoration1
19th August 2010, 17:48
It's just another in a long line of deviations from Marxism.

Che Guevara: Myth And Reality

en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara

Focoism is a failure not because it hasn't worked in practice, but because it simply is impossible for it to have worked in practice. Similar to 'peoples war'. The only revolutionary class is the proletariat- and their revolutionary potential is not linked to how many individual workers believe in communism/socialism, but to their relation to the means of production as a class. Urban guerillaism, peoples war, foco, etc are voluntarist and petit-bourgeois theories. If such a movement is successful, the result is always going to be an authoritarian bourgeois state capitalist regime- as in Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. If the proletariat is not the active class, as a class, with its own organs of power (workers councils, factory committees, mass assemblies, etc) there can be no socialism.

El Louton
5th September 2011, 20:42
Thanks for that! Really understand that now!

Rowan Duffy
5th September 2011, 20:55
The only revolutionary class is the proletariat- and their revolutionary potential is not linked to how many individual workers believe in communism/socialism, but to their relation to the means of production as a class. Urban guerillaism, peoples war, foco, etc are voluntarist and petit-bourgeois theories. If such a movement is successful, the result is always going to be an authoritarian bourgeois state capitalist regime- as in Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. If the proletariat is not the active class, as a class, with its own organs of power (workers councils, factory committees, mass assemblies, etc) there can be no socialism.

If you had a dictatorship of the proletariat in a country which was 90% peasant it would not be progressive. The idea that the only progressive force is the proletariat is the same sort of nonsense that lead to very poor policies in Russia during the revolution. You can't substitute some section of the population for the entire population and constitute your politics on this basis.

Even if the approach is state directed capitalism with a populist government of the peasant and proletariat, you'd still be better off than such a totally undemocratic arrangement.

Foco as a strategy was a successful military strategy in Cuba. Cuba didn't end up an ideal socialism but it's hard to imagine that the material conditions could have lead to something significantly better. Foco certainly wasn't successful on the mainland.

However, I totally fail to see how the military tactics are in themselves voluntaristic. If you have a retrenched bourgeoisie that feels like instigating a civil war or invasion by an imperial power hell-bent on not allowing you to have a socialist revolution, are you going to hit them over the heads with copies of Das Kapital?

Die Neue Zeit
5th September 2011, 21:03
If you had a dictatorship of the proletariat in a country which was 90% peasant it would not be progressive. The idea that the only progressive force is the proletariat is the same sort of nonsense that lead to very poor policies in Russia during the revolution. You can't substitute some section of the population for the entire population and constitute your politics on this basis.

Even if the approach is state directed capitalism with a populist government of the peasant and proletariat, you'd still be better off than such a totally undemocratic arrangement.

To be fair, comrade, the proletariat is the only socially revolutionary class. However, it is neither the only socially radical class nor the only politically revolutionary class.


However, I totally fail to see how the military tactics are in themselves voluntaristic. If you have a retrenched bourgeoisie that feels like instigating a civil war or invasion by an imperial power hell-bent on not allowing you to have a socialist revolution, are you going to hit them over the heads with copies of Das Kapital?

Breakthrough Military Coups can also be quite non-voluntaristic.

El Louton
8th September 2011, 20:27
Do you think Focoism would be realistically possible in a More Economically Developed Country like the United Kingdom or the United States? If so how?

autonomous bomb thrower
9th September 2011, 23:23
Focoism is a failure not because it hasn't worked in practice, but because it simply is impossible for it to have worked in practice. If the proletariat is not the active class, as a class, with its own organs of power (workers councils, factory committees, mass assemblies, etc) there can be no socialism.

As said by Rowan Duffy a reliance on the proletariat would be nonsenseical in a situation like China. Thats why there is a worker/peasant alliance. Saying the proletariat is the only revolutionary class would would ignore the fact of adapting socialism to ones situation. Following marxs words to the core is no better than blindly following the media. Ideas are to be adapted and applied in different areas. We should continue to morph ideas into our own perceptions and apply it to reality.