Maoism and Insurrection

[The Feral Underclass]

What is the relationship between Maoism and insurrection? I.e. How does Maoism define insurrection, what significance does Maoism place on that and how does the ideas of insurrection shape Maoist praxis?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The question of Insurrection vs Protracted peoples War is one of the defining characteristics of the present two-line struggle within the world Maoist movement. To be as brief as possible I can say this: one side promotes insurrection as the primary means of waging revolution (the October Road) whereas another says that only through PPW can the revolution succeed since Insurrection theory cannot be realized in Imperialist centers.

Some groups: The RCPUSA promotes a theory of Insurrection, Kasama promotes the creation of a communist pole which has a lesser emphasis on Insurrection. Yet I would say most Maoist outfits uphold some level of peoples war as their primary means of proposed strategy. Maoism defines Insurrection much in the same way which Lenin defined it; some theotical twists may happen depending on the locality in question but for the most part it is October Road theory sprinkled with speckles of modernity.

To this end those who support peoples war I dub Right-wing Maoists while those who support some conception of regrouping (Kasama, the Canadian based Revolutionary Initiative, etc) are Left-wing Maoists (also called "post-Maoists" by the dogmatic Right-Wingers). So the concept of significance largely rests with which faction you are referring to.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thanks. Can you briefly illustrate what that Maoist definition of insurrection is? What is the October Road theory? Could you also explain what the difference between insurrection and protracted peoples' war is?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is an interesting little article: October Road Mythology (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/october-road-mythology.html)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thanks. Can you briefly illustrate what that Maoist definition of insurrection is? What is the October Road theory? Could you also explain what the difference between insurrection and protracted peoples' war is?

I haven't studied all of the various strains of Insurrection so unfortunately I cannot give a prolonged explanation. As I understand it however Insurrection is understood as a series of events, beginning with agitation and culminating with violent attacks against the state with the goal of establishing a socialist state after the bourgeoisie have been overthrown. It is important to mention though that I do not believe a pure theory of Insurrection exists as I see the Russian Revolution an early form of Peoples War (people's' war being distinct from protracted people's war).

To this end The October Road is simply another way of saying traditional Insurrection theory (such as that promoted by the RCPUSA).

The difference between insurrection and protracted people's war is that ppw advocates for the creation of base areas which act as a gradual climb to power, one that chokes the bourgeoisie. This is in sharp contrast to insurrection theory which merely states there needs to be agitation, a build up, a crisis and revolutionary masses. However, this question is difficult to a answer because first world ppw is different from third world ppw.

So that is my answer in a nutshell. It would have been longer but the device I am on makes typing difficult. I hope I made sense.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD

[The Feral Underclass]

What does "a build up" mean? Also what are these "base areas"? What specifically is traditional insurrection theory? What is the difference between peoples' war and a protracted peoples' war?

I appreciate the time you are taking to respond to me, but they are throwing up more questions than they are answering :)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What does "a build up" mean? Also what are these "base areas"? What specifically is traditional insurrection theory? What is the difference between peoples' war and a protracted peoples' war?

I appreciate the time you are taking to respond to me, but they are throwing up more questions than they are answering :)

(1) I suppose "build-up" is the incorrect term as in any revolutionary theory there will need to be a process of building up resources. What I should have said is this: protracted peoples war is seen as a process of agitation, recruitment, the erection of base areas, the creation of a red area (in which revolutionaries have complete control), and the strangulation of bourgeois power in the White Areas (or the areas where the ruling capitalist class reign). In this sense an armed force, a Red Army, is paramount; the revolution has a combat heavy side which necessarily involves years of fighting both guerrilla and conventional. So build up as in setting teh stage for each of the needed phases listed above.

(2) A base area is a locale in which revolutionaries enjoy not only support from the locale population but are able to create a alternative economy to the bourgeois one; an economy lined among the needs of the people. In a sense a base area can be called a military base by which outfits of troops and guerrillas are supplied, depart for missions against the enemy, and by which information can travel; to this end it is a area safe from reactionary law edicts.

(3) By Traditional Insurrection I merely meant theory by which sees Insurrection as a strategy in and of itself, and not something which is seen as a early predecessor of peoples war. Most individuals who promote Insurrection as a means for overthrowing capitalism do not view it in relation to the October Revolution. At any rate I have kinda conflated these two as one in the same when it is important to note Insurrection theory taken by itself (without a larger framework to work by, such as the October Revolution) cannot be seen as any kind of predecessor to other revolutionary theory. My energies here in discussing Insurrection and its relation to peoples war was merely to illustrate that Insurrection can be more than simply a tactic if it is aligned with proper guidance and mass support. Still, I apologize for mangling it so much.

(4) The difference between protracted peoples war and peoples war lies in the first word: protracted. The former is prolonged in nature (taking decades before any objective is reached) while the other is more fast paced and is able to achieve its goals in a matter of years as compared to decades. This ties into my musings on the October Revolution: the moment before the Bolsheviks seized power was the culmination of years of effort and by the good graces of the proletariat (I include the Civil War in this period); the revolution in China took over thirty years, which despite having loads of support from the working class and peasantry still found roadblocks which set the pace back severely. So in short: the difference lies in time.

I apologize for giving you more questions than answers. A lot of the time I just assume people know what I am talking about and this can create a heaping bit of confusion. In addition I am not known to give straightforward answers so that doesn't help either. At any rate I hope the answers I have given you in this post are more clear cut than the ones in my last.

(Also, it is important to note that other Maoists would probably disagree with me on the points I have made above as I come from the Left-Wing).

[Lensky]

The flaw in the insurrectionary theory of seizing power is that it assumes a red army can be instantly drafted, trained, and prepped to go on the eve of revolution. Those who adhere to PPW believe that only through practice and experience in warfare can a revolutionary people's army be built.
There is also the factor that PPW doesn't wait for a revolutionary situation, but it actively tries to build such a moment. Contradictions between the state and the working class are pronounced through class struggle. The big question is can PPW be applicable in an urban, first world setting, or are cities simply not suited for guerrilla style warfare. The Black Panthers were relatively quickly liquidated and unable to sustain their forces once state suppression came down on them. If a guerrilla movement were to be started in a country such as Canada, who would sustain the fighters, misdirect police / armed forces, and provide recruits? In the countryside there are only petite-bourgeois, with small towns scattered here and there that have a proletarian base. Therefore it is unlikely that a militant army would avoid annihilation in a North American setting.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thanks for the responses.