Urban Maoism [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

12th June 2015, 12:56

Mao came up in a conversation I was having and I presented an idea. The idea was criticised and I wonder what others thought about it.

Mao's contribution to communist theory was that rural areas comprising of the various levels of peasantry could act as a revolutionary force to bring about communism. Aside from living in rural areas, these peasants were essentially considered to be a largely disaffected, politically, socially and economically disenfranchised, colonially oppressed population that lived outside of the means of production. From these areas, Mao believed that he could build a base of support to mount a conflict against imperialists and the state, and win military victories in order to establish the workers' state. (Some revision of this might need to be made in order to perfect the analysis -- I'm not saying this is definitively what Maoism is, rather a broad understanding of his position on these issues.)

I proposed that in Western industrialised nations there was a similar constituency. While not people living in rural areas, they shared the same characteristics that provided them a revolutionary potential. Usually black and ethnic communities, living in slum like or 'ghettoised' conditions within inner cities (or in suburbs as has become popular in Northern English city gentrification engineering). I further proposed that Mao's view that these areas could act as bases from which to mount militarised conflicts was a legitimate transfer of Maoism into an urban setting

The criticism was (aside from the objection to whether military conflict/guerrilla tactics was a legitimate class-struggle strategy), that Maoism's contribution was specific to the peasantry and to the conditions of China, and if transferred into an urban setting it no longer is Maoism. Further to that, militarised tactics á la China, could not be employed in an industrialised Western nation with a secure and stable state.

PhoenixAsh

12th June 2015, 13:15

Sharia Lawn

12th June 2015, 14:05

The Feral Underclass

12th June 2015, 14:27

No, the Chinese peasantry did not live "outside of the means of production." What actually gave peasants an impetus toward communist struggle, and potentially makes them allies of the proletariat, is the fact that they possess the means of production and often relate to it on a relatively communal basis, however transformed by growing stratification, and despite having surplus they produced from it being forcibly extracted by exploiters. That's the opposite of living outside of it.

Right, but Mao talked of poor peasants who had no land, owned very little and produced nothing. Mao claimed that of all the peasantry 70% of them were, as he called them, poor peasants.

The question then arises: on what basis would you expect such an amorphous group to join together in armed struggle besides some vague feeling of alienation? What would the program be? Certainly, as with the peasantry, elements of this group can play important albeit subordinate roles within a socialist struggle. To look at them as a primary revolutionary agent, though? A questionable move.

I reject the definition of "lumpenproletariat," or at least the way it is used to somehow dismiss large sections of the working class as having no revolutionary potential. "Unemployment precedes employment, and the informal economy precedes the formal, both historically and conceptually. We must insist that ‘proletarian’ is not a synonym for ‘wage labourer’ but for dispossession, expropriation and radical dependence on the market. You don’t need a job to be a proletarian: wageless life, not wage labour, is the starting point in understanding the free market.’ Michael Denning, ‘Wageless Life.’ Their revolutionary potential exists because they are proletarian and therefore have a unique interest in destroying capitalism. Plus, this section of the working class consistently show more of an impetus to take radical, escalatable action than other sections -- especially unionised workers.

I am also not clear what you specifically mean when you use the word "program."

Sharia Lawn

12th June 2015, 14:42

The Feral Underclass

12th June 2015, 15:49

Mao's definition of "poor peasant" is actually basically the same as Lenin's: they are the group of peasants who no longer owned their own land but rather were compelled to rent the land now owned, owing to encroaching capitalist relations, by better-off peasants in a position to exploit their poorer neighbors. The point still stands: none of these peasants was operating outside a system of production relations stemming from a definite relationship to the means of production. They were very much part of a system, and the role they played in that system established general parameters for what could be expected of them in regards to struggling for certain social changes, like the overturning of private property. Pointing this out, or pointing out that the urban dwellers you alluded to above do not occupy definite roles in such a system, is not dismissing people in some general sense. It's not a moral judgment; it's a social-scientific one.

If you own no property and produce nothing, then what relation to production is that? I accept they are part of a system of production in so far as they have the potential to have a relationship to the means of production, but as they currently stood/stand, I don't see what that relationship is beyond that.

Are a system of production and the means of production the same thing? I'm not sure they are actually.

On what basis would you expect these urban dwellers to unite? And what would their program look like? By political program, I mean a shared basis upon which all participants of a movement draw from in making immediate political demands (higher minimum wage? universal health care?) and in sketching out a long-term vision of how they want to transform society (decentralized communes? a dictatorship of the proletariat transitioning to international communism?).

I think this is a different issue that I haven't really thought about. I'm not sure, however, that a "program" would determine whether or not it were possible. In any case, I don't see any use for having demands like higher wages or universal healthcare

Sharia Lawn

12th June 2015, 16:17

If you own no property and produce nothing, then what relation to production is that? I accept they are part of a system of production in so far as they have the potential to have a relationship to the means of production, but as they currently stood/stand, I don't see what that relationship is beyond that.

That's my point. According to Mao, the poor peasants did produce something, despite not owning property. That is a definite relationship to production. Mao's thinking on this was borrowed straight from Lenin. In Mao's own words:

Among the poor peasants some own part of their land and have a few odd farm implements, others own no land at all but only a few odd farm implements. As a rule poor peasants have to rent the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to pay land rent and interest on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent. In general, a middle peasant does not need to sell his labour power, while the poor peasant has to sell part of his labour power. This is the principal criterion for distinguishing between a middle and a poor peasant.

The peasantry and general, or the segments within it, are decidedly different than the social group Marxists have often identified as lumpenproletariat, who are the unemployed street people who engage in various semi-legal or illegal activities, or hire themselves out on various odd jobs, to scrape by, but have no stable formalized role within the relations of production.

I think this is a different issue that I haven't really thought about. I'm not sure, however, that a "program" would determine whether or not it were possible. In any case, I don't see any use for having demands like higher wages or universal healthcareThe reason I ask is that the issue you raise is an important and interesting one. I'd be curious to hear your answer when you've had time to consider it.

The Feral Underclass

12th June 2015, 21:03

That's my point. According to Mao, the poor peasants did produce something, despite not owning property. That is a definite relationship to production. Mao's thinking on this was borrowed straight from Lenin. In Mao's own words:

Among the poor peasants some own part of their land and have a few odd farm implements, others own no land at all but only a few odd farm implements. As a rule poor peasants have to rent the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to pay land rent and interest on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent. In general, a middle peasant does not need to sell his labour power, while the poor peasant has to sell part of his labour power. This is the principal criterion for distinguishing between a middle and a poor peasant.

The peasantry and general, or the segments within it, are decidedly different than the social group Marxists have often identified as lumpenproletariat, who are the unemployed street people who engage in various semi-legal or illegal activities, or hire themselves out on various odd jobs, to scrape by, but have no stable formalized role within the relations of production.

Okay, so Mao divided further what he called poor peasants:

The 70 per cent, the poor peasants, may be sub-divided into two categories, the utterly destitute and the less destitute. The utterly destitute, [12] comprising 20 per cent, are the completely dispossessed, that is, people who have neither land nor money, are without any means of livelihood, and are forced to leave home and become mercenaries or hired labourers or wandering beggars. The less destitute, [13] the other 50 per cent, are the partially dispossessed, that is, people with just a little land or a little money who eat up more than they earn and live in toil and distress the year round, such as the handicraftsmen, the tenant-peasants (not including the rich tenant-peasants) and the semi-owner-peasants.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm

What you are talking about are this second and larger section that makes up poor peasants whose relationship to the means of production is that they will, when able, sell their labour to operate them. That's fair enough, I can concede that this is a relationship to the means of production, but this parallels very easily with the section of the working class I am discussing. These communities are not all "lumpen," many work very precarious, un-unionsed and often illegal service industry jobs.

I think, however, it was wrong of me to say that there was no relationship to means of production, as evidently the issue is more complex.

The reason I ask is that the issue you raise is an important and interesting one. I'd be curious to hear your answer when you've had time to consider it.

I suppose the reason I haven't thought about it is because I'm not really proposing this, I was merely arguing that it were possible to draw a similar parallel.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th June 2015, 22:33

I think it's a valid analysis. Whether or not it has much to do with Maoism per se is another thing; whereas Maoism was focused on the peasantry as the 'militant' base, the ghettoised inner cities in the west are generally populated by the working class; either the unionised, the semi-employed/under-employed, or the reserve army of labour.

In terms of militarised conflicts, what do you mean? Are you talking literally of 'urban brigades', armed and 'taking it to the state'? Or do you mean in terms of organisation, ensuring that small units are militantly organised and take strategic but not necessarily violent actions against specific targets, campaigns etc.?

I would think that the 1960s/1970s showed us that genuine insurrection is a tactic that tends to end up in romanticised failure, rather than any degree of emancipation for workers.

Os Cangaceiros

12th June 2015, 22:36

Certain Maoist organizations like the NPA in the Philippines had urban divisions (one of these divisions in Manila broke from the organization and threatened to assassinate Jose Maria Sison through their connections to communist groups in Europe). Most major Maoist organizations I know of merely viewed urban areas as a useful way to funnel recruits into the countryside, though (per Maoist orthodoxy).

AFAIK most of the far-left urban guerrilla groups weren't Maoist, or only borrowed selectively from Mao.

BIXX

12th June 2015, 23:02

John Nada

13th June 2015, 07:14

Hypothetically, it is possible. I don't see much that can't be applied in nations without a significant peasantry. Even an advance one. Only thing is I don't think an advance capitalist country will go through a new democratic revolution, or fight an anti-imperialist or anti-fascist war. It would be a proletarian socialist revolution.

Peasants, in alliance with the proletariat, are still a revolutionary force in some nations. If the Paris Commune were to have gone any further, the revolutionaries would've had to figure out about the peasant question too. Engels latter said that the poor peasants should be the proletariat's allies, and that the proletariat should help them and rural proletarians fight against the rich peasants and landlords and win their support. The peasantry was either going to get squeezed out by the bourgeoisie and turned into proletarians anyway, or the proletariat could win the their support and industrialize agriculture for the peasants' benefit.

On the peasants not being a revolutionary force it was Chen Duxiu who was the revisionist going against Marxism. Whether Mao read Engels's advice in The Peasant Question in France and Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm), or independently recreated it, I don't know. On one hand IIRC a lot of Marxist literature wasn't yet translated into Mandarin. However, according to journalist Edgard Snow, Mao knew English, which I'd imagine The Peasant Question was translated into. Either Engels rather accurately predicted how a revolution would play out in a country with a peasant majority(he cites Danish Socialists, which apparently only had one major city att, as a positive example), Mao came to the same conclusion independently, or Mao applied Engels's theories on the German and French peasantry to China. Last one is kind of hilarious when you consider that many say Mao's theories are only for the 3rd-world:lol:

A city could be viewed like countryside with mountains and forests made of concrete. Major means of production could be like the big cities. The various oppressed classes and strata as strata of the proletariat. China's and Japan's roles could be replaced by the proletariat and the bourgeois. One currently weak and divided, but large, numerous, and a revolutionary force in history that can grow strong and united. The other, strong and powerful, with the support of many traitors, yet small, oppressive, unjust and reactionary, with it's own hidden divide and doomed to fail.

Creative Destruction

13th June 2015, 07:23

The Black Panthers could have reasonably been called an urban Maoist organization. Much of their theory was derived from Mao.

The Feral Underclass

13th June 2015, 20:40

In terms of militarised conflicts, what do you mean? Are you talking literally of 'urban brigades', armed and 'taking it to the state'? Or do you mean in terms of organisation, ensuring that small units are militantly organised and take strategic but not necessarily violent actions against specific targets, campaigns etc.?

Maoist military tactics were to form a base in an area that you could build support in and then prepare yourself for conflict. At a point that you felt confident to escalate the idea was the draw in the enemy and then use guerrilla tactics to engage in skirmishes that were designed to harass and fatigue them. At this point you advance on major urban centres, surround them and eventually take them over. This was possible in China because of the vast nature of the country. In a modern Western urban setting, I'm not sure how this would be employed. The overall point would be to build base areas, harass and fatigue the state, while building popular support towards the capturing of major urban centres. I'm not sure how strategically possible that would be in a country like the UK.

This is the original idea of protracted people's war:

"In its original formulation by Mao Zedong, people's war exploits the few advantages that a small revolutionary movement has—broad-based popular support can be one of them—against a state's power[disambiguation needed] with a large and well-equipped army. People's war strategically avoids decisive battles, since a tiny force of a few dozen soldiers would easily be routed in an all-out confrontation with the state. Instead, it favours a three stage strategy of protracted warfare, with carefully chosen battles that can realistically be won.

In stage one, revolutionary force conducting people's war starts in a remote area with mountainous or otherwise difficult terrain in which its enemy is weak. It attempts to establish a local stronghold known as a revolutionary base area. As it grows in power, it enters stage two, establishes other revolutionary base areas and spreads its influence through the surrounding countryside, where it may become the governing power and gain popular support through such programmes as land reform. Eventually in stage three, the movement has enough strength to encircle and capture small cities, then larger ones, until finally it seizes power in the entire country."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_war

I would think that the 1960s/1970s showed us that genuine insurrection is a tactic that tends to end up in romanticised failure, rather than any degree of emancipation for workers.

I'm not really sure there has ever been a genuine insurrection.

Observational Change

21st August 2015, 15:12

Revolution is a positive-cancel (sublation). Revolutionary communism is the positive-cancel of politico-economic communism over class societies. Engels called communism the 'doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat' because it is an emancipation from poverty and wealth into a classless, stateless commune. Anyone can be an advocate of a classless, stateless commune: bourgeois capitalist, petite-bourgeoisie professionals, proletarians, peasants, landless peasants and poors. Yet as a historical conjuncture the proletarian self-activity is self-emancipation. Those who are proletarian-like in their class conjuncture also have utmost revolutionary potential: proletarians, poors, adjunct professionals, and landless peasants/farmers. But there also members of the bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie who are positive-cancelers of class-societies and members of the aforementioned poors, proletarians, landless farmers, and adjunct professionals who are ideological reactionaries. This all feels like a pedantic statement but I hope it's helpful.

Rafiq

24th August 2015, 20:16

Feral, your analysis is basically correct - of what constitutes the proletariat today, the problem is the comparison with Maoism. There can be none.

Comrade Marcel

1st September 2015, 23:58

I'm not saying this is definitively what Maoism is, rather a broad understanding of his position on these issues.)

This is what is important-- not confusing what Mao did with what Maoism or Mao Zedong thought is.

I further proposed that Mao's view that these areas could act as bases from which to mount militarised conflicts was a legitimate transfer of Maoism into an urban setting

Stuff like this worked in the past, like say 1930s Germany, but there aren't too many examples of this working in many places in contemporary especially in terms of protracted people's war. I'm sure there are some places/ghettos/slums in urban areas in the 3rd world that are "no go zones" for the authorities even today; but these places are small geographically and can't carry out a base the way you can in rural environments. Besides the theory you are referring to requires the People's Army always be mobile anyways. Fighting any kind of guerilla/asymmetrical warfare requires this. A people's army doesn't usually have the luxury of "digging in" the way the bourgeois army / imperialist invaders do (there are examples of the exception, of course, where this is strategically good like Stalin/Leningrad).

The criticism was (aside from the objection to whether military conflict/guerrilla tactics was a legitimate class-struggle strategy), that Maoism's contribution was specific to the peasantry and to the conditions of China, and if transferred into an urban setting it no longer is Maoism. Further to that, militarised tactics á la China, could not be employed in an industrialised Western nation with a secure and stable state.

Well, it's failed in all the 1st world attempts from The Weathermen and Black Panthers in the U$, RAF in Germany, Red Brigades in Italy and FLQ in Quebec. Something like this requires mass support and even in the case of the FLQ where some was there it went away pretty quick once things really heated up. Can you guess why?

__________________

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 00:03

Interesting. I need to think about this.

My first instinct is that militaries tactics aren't possible in a technologically advanced country with a structured police and military force in a small geographic area that offers limited shelter and has maximised surveillance without resulting in immediate heavy reprisal, targeted arrests and even military intervention by means of lock down.

Of course this is always a concern, in any situation where the enemy is stronger but at the end of the day the will of the masses can overcome tremendous odds through improvising, moles on the inside, dirty tactics and numbers. I would hate to say overcoming stuff like this is impossible. That's not the question in my mind, the question is: is the will to do so there?

And more importantly...without devolving in warlordism, criminal gangs and exploitation within the community. This kind of shit happens. Revolutions are messy, not clean. That's why they involve a lot of shootings through the back of the neck (or in the old days, the guillotine). ;)

That said....if you expand the concept of it to being the base of continued protests and civil disobedience and staging area from which disruptive events and tactics are organised....the yes....there could be a lot of value there.That's insurrection not people's war.

In fact this question caused a split among the 1st worldist Maoists in Toronto.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 00:12

Certain Maoist organizations like the NPA in the Philippines had urban divisions (one of these divisions in Manila broke from the organization and threatened to assassinate Jose Maria Sison through their connections to communist groups in Europe).

I never heard about this, but I have not kept up with the CPP / NPA stuff lately. I was trained by An Bayan back in the old days.

My understanding is that the "front" groups (labour organizations, some unions and social justice groups) that support or are sympathetic to the CPP are a presence in urban areas and that if they really wanted to the NPA / CPP could shut down the country by encircling the cities, controlling what goes in and out and calling general strikes / protests in the cities through those entities.

Of course it would require coordination with the Muslim militants in the south to which they have a sort of truce with to truly affect the whole country. As I understood it was only something they would ever do on some serious and rare occurrence, as it's sort of an "ace" up the sleeve / bargaining chip.

But these front groups don't really act as communist organizers or factions of the NPA in the cities; at least not to my knowledge. And much of the time they don't go around spouting Maoist politics, they act more like you would expect mainstream social justice / unions do.

John Nada

2nd September 2015, 05:23

Stuff like this worked in the past, like say 1930s Germany, but there aren't too many examples of this working in many places in contemporary especially in terms of protracted people's war. I'm sure there are some places/ghettos/slums in urban areas in the 3rd world that are "no go zones" for the authorities even today; but these places are small geographically and can't carry out a base the way you can in rural environments. Besides the theory you are referring to requires the People's Army always be mobile anyways. Fighting any kind of guerilla/asymmetrical warfare requires this. A people's army doesn't usually have the luxury of "digging in" the way the bourgeois army / imperialist invaders do (there are examples of the exception, of course, where this is strategically good like Stalin/Leningrad).
A base area for guerrilla war can be truly established only with the gradual fulfilment of the three basic conditions, i.e., only after the anti-Japanese armed forces are built up, the enemy has suffered defeats and the people are aroused. http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PSGW38.html#c6s3 Mao lists mountainous, plain and subtropical areas as good base areas. He said mountainous areas have the obvious benefits and can hold out the longest, yet it should be expansive in order to maneuver. Plains are easier to maneuver, but shorter-term. The subtropical and tropical areas were viewed as promising and better than plains, and obviously later proved advantageous. To defend these bases required active defense, a mix of mobile supplemented by guerrilla and positional war, though this changes depending on the phase of the war.
2. It should now be made clear that these base areas are not to be built in the big cities or along the main communication lines that are or will be occupied by the Kuomintang; under present conditions this is not practicable. Nor are they to be built in regions close to big cities or main communication lines held by the Kuomintang. The reason is that the Kuomintang, having seized the big cities and the main communication lines, will not let us build stable base areas in regions very close to them. Our Party should do adequate work and set up our first line of military defence in these regions, which must never be lightly abandoned. But they will be guerrilla zones for both parties and not our stable base areas. Therefore, the regions in which to build stable bases are the cities and vast rural areas comparatively remote from the centres of Kuomintang occupation. Those regions should now be designated so that we can dispose our forces accordingly and lead the whole Party towards this goal. http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/BSBA45.html

The problem with many of the big cities in China(but not necessarily with small and medium) was this was where the enemy got supplies, communication, and reinforcements. This made them enemy zones, but the outskirts and latter the cities themselves became guerrilla zones.

Yet in theory I don't see how a city is different than a metaphoric mountain. There's the terrain advantage, actually harder to maneuver than plains, yet can be very expansive in the 1st world. In fact, there has been guerrilla warfare fought in cities a bunch of times, including by Maoist(though it was principally in the country, complemented by the cities in the case of those nations).
Well, it's failed in all the 1st world attempts from The Weathermen and Black Panthers in the U$, RAF in Germany, Red Brigades in Italy and FLQ in Quebec. Something like this requires mass support and even in the case of the FLQ where some was there it went away pretty quick once things really heated up. Can you guess why?Besides the fact that there's a large petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy:grin:(probably more detrimental than the lack of peasants, lol) none of them were waging a people's war, or at least how it's envisioned in Maoism. Their "people's war" was based on Guevara's foco theory. These were not attempts to win the broad support of the masses, but for a small conspiracy trying to force things in spite of the lack of support. In the case of the Black Panthers, under the pressure of police repression, they split into "left" opportunism of focoism and right opportunism of reformism. Had they carried out a protracted people's war, I think it would've been more successful.

GiantMonkeyMan

2nd September 2015, 08:39

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 09:11

I think, if you're planning urban insurrection, instead of looking to Mao, you should look to the early Red Guard in Petrograd, the more militant cities in Italy during the Biennio Rosso such as Turin and Milan and other such situations. Both in Turin and Petrograd, workers were able to virtually disarm the standing police and prepare to broaden the organised fight.

But where has this worked in modern times? There has to be the material conditions and will of the people to initiate something of that sort. Also in Petrograd back then you could count on some of the military defecting. The only thing you can count on from a soldier in the National Guard today is a bullet to the head.

GiantMonkeyMan

2nd September 2015, 09:29

But where has this worked in modern times? There has to be the material conditions and will of the people to initiate something of that sort. Also in Petrograd back then you could count on some of the military defecting. The only thing you can count on from a soldier in the National Guard today is a bullet to the head.
Yes, and Mao didn't have to deal with drones or cruise missiles either but the methods of organising armed sections around neighbourhoods and workplaces seems far more relevant than organising small bands of fighters in the mountains to the conditions of today in urban environments.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 09:39

Yes, and Mao didn't have to deal with drones or cruise missiles either but the methods of organising armed sections around neighbourhoods and workplaces seems far more relevant than organising small bands of fighters in the mountains to the conditions of today in urban environments.

That seems like the exact opposite of what's mostly going on in reality, at least in terms of fighting imperialism.

There are plenty of bands of fighters today dealing with cruise missiles and drones. In any case urban environments don't guarantee you shelter from that, even in America, if that was what you were hinting at.

John Nada

2nd September 2015, 11:21

I don't think you can translate fighting in the mountains or other inhospitable areas to fighting in the city. Firstly, fighting in the mountains takes away the human element - no one to rat you out, no spies or peace police. Secondly, the point of fighting in mountains or jungles is to stretch your enemy's supply lines thin - urban areas are often the source of these supplies...I was not being literal(and I'm not sure Mao was either). It was an analogy. The advantage of mountains was the terrain. It'd be harder to maneuver for both the attacker and defender, and the mountain base was away from potential supplies for the defender too, though to a lesser extent. I was comparing the cities vs. plain has similar problems as plain vs. mountain in terms of mobility, not the same anymore than a mountain is like a jungle. He didn't spell out a desert, islands or a tundra either, yet the overall logic can still extend to other climates and terrain(and has, including cities). If anything, being close to the supplies can have its advantages, seeing as it have to be expropriated.

The Chinese Red Army was not away from the people, because China was a predominately rural country. They were going to the countryside because that's where the people(poor peasants and rural proletarians) were, not to hide because someone might snitch. There was tens of millions of people in the bases and even more in the guerrilla zones. Actually controlled some decent sized towns and even cities IIRC, just not most of the main ones till later.

Political work and propaganda was carried out in these bases and guerrilla zones, including the mountains, to win the people's support. It was to build a mass movement, not to hide from a few liberal peace police. That's the beauty of it, not the tough guerrilla shit but the political side.
I think, if you're planning urban insurrection, instead of looking to Mao, you should look to the early Red Guard in Petrograd, the more militant cities in Italy during the Biennio Rosso such as Turin and Milan and other such situations. Both in Turin and Petrograd, workers were able to virtually disarm the standing police and prepare to broaden the organised fight.Maoist call that the "October Road". It's a valid strategy, but not the only strategy for eternity. Basically building up support to eventually launch an insurrection in major cities when the bourgeoisie is in crises. In the case of Russia, it was decades of struggle preceding it, along with WWI, with a brutal civil war to follow. There was a conscript military of workers and peasants who were only fighting for the state against their will. It was also imperialism "weakest link" with a peasant majority too, yet it's viewed as a model for first-world urban revolutions.

Attempting to repeat the October Revolution has been tried over and over, or at least waiting for the conditions to arise for something like it to occur(more the latter). In the mean time, the bourgeoisie has been learning each time. The military is now professionals, the state has adapted and they have experience fighting communist insurrections.

What modern imperialist and guerrillas alike read up on is Mao(though they study the October Revolution and Cuban Revolution too). It's not just rural warfare, though even in imperialist countries there's a lot of workers and oppressed peoples in rural and suburban areas. There was urban warfare in China, Vietnam(not Maoist), and IIRC even in Peru and Nepal. Hell there's obviously been urban war in Iraq, Syria and Kurdistan, though mostly not by Maoist.

Basically, rather than focus on Petrograd 1917 specifically, look at the process leading up to it and after. Protracted people's war is just that, a process leading up to the final insurrection and seizure of power.

Hatshepsut

2nd September 2015, 13:05

A city could be viewed like countryside with mountains and forests made of concrete...

Or, the countryside in an advanced country like the USA, or even in a middle-income society like Columbia or Brazil, can almost be viewed as an extension of the city. You can’t hide there anymore. Ghettos in the USA also have more connections with the rest of society that it seems. That’s been alluded to here in connection with “precarious” employment, although urban “ghetto” minorities with fairly nice jobs, or owning their own businesses, aren’t rare either. Alienation and oppression do not imply economic or physical isolation.

Not to pick on you in particular. But I’m coming to question the continued usefulness of revolutionary models from the past, despite their historical lessons. Our world no longer resembles theirs. The modern bourgeoisie, while oppressive as ever, rests on a much larger base of support than formerly. Namely, the so-called “middle class,” those who are technically proletarian (because they can’t quit their jobs) yet enjoying success and holding modest property stakes in the system, e.g. homes, cars, and 401(k)s.

In such true backwaters still found in the world, the models of revolution are Islamic, not western. These areas contain 300 million people but not a word about them has ever been written by a revolutionary communist. You’re more likely to see them dismissed with a wave of the hand. I’m not so sure they won’t play some role in future. We don’t want to see an Islamic theocracy of course, yet at some point we may have to search for way of working with or making use of such peoples against global capitalism.

Actions within the computerized global financial system may also figure prominently. This was completely unknown to Lenin or Mao. The comfortable “middle classes” must be radicalized if we are to expect success, however, and it won’t happen until the credit system implodes, leaving the horn of plenty that issues those homes, cars, and overstuffed shopping carts empty for good. Financial sabotage by traders who work as double agents for revolutionary causes may bring about such an event.

I don’t really know what’s best. I’m just convinced that the future will require new theories and new tactics we haven’t considered up to now.

LeninistIthink

2nd September 2015, 13:18

I'd agree with the end of the main post, maoism taken out of the context of at least the third world, is no longer maoism, I've never seen an urban maoist group which supports new democracy , protracted people's war etc in the first world. I'd quite like to see if any urban maoists do support those two key points in an urban situation. However the OP raised the point of the ethnic minority struggle , I don't think protracted peoples war could work in the belly of the beast, USA, and in an urban setting. TL; DR : you can hide in a jungle, you can't hide in a skyscraper.
Disclaimer: Not an expert on maoism nor do I claim to be.

GiantMonkeyMan

2nd September 2015, 15:05

That seems like the exact opposite of what's mostly going on in reality, at least in terms of fighting imperialism.

There are plenty of bands of fighters today dealing with cruise missiles and drones. In any case urban environments don't guarantee you shelter from that, even in America, if that was what you were hinting at.
The point I was trying to make is that the conditions that we face in the 'developed' capitalist world have little in common with the conditions that the communists in China faced so instead of poorly translating the tactics of Mao we should look to the tactics of communists in situations and conditions similar to contemporary 'developed' capitalism.

Political work and propaganda was carried out in these bases and guerrilla zones, including the mountains, to win the people's support. It was to build a mass movement, not to hide from a few liberal peace police. That's the beauty of it, not the tough guerrilla shit but the political side.
The conditions of China in the 1930s-50s are, as you say, completely different from the conditions of contemporary urban areas. The things that communists would have to consider that would affect insurrection would be significantly different to that which Mao had to deal with.

Maoist call that the "October Road". It's a valid strategy, but not the only strategy for eternity. Basically building up support to eventually launch an insurrection in major cities when the bourgeoisie is in crises.
I agree that we should look at multiple strategies and discern which amongst them are the most relevant to our contemporary conditions.

Basically, rather than focus on Petrograd 1917 specifically, look at the process leading up to it and after. Protracted people's war is just that, a process leading up to the final insurrection and seizure of power.
I agree that it's important to look at the organisation that made the October Revolution possible, how the Red Guards first organised and grew, and also other times in history where insurrection in urban environments have seen some success, which is why I also mentioned Turin in the Biennio Rosso period since they were the most militant and organised of the factory occupation movements. However, I feel that these conditions are much closer to the conditions we face today - or are closer to conditions that we could face if capitalism reaches a similar crises point (it's another thing altogether to consider the civil war that followed which is different). Other possible moments in history to look at could include the early insurrectionary movement in Barcelona after the attempted coup at the start of the SCW, the mass urban movements through Europe during the 60s and 70s etc. It's a shame more isn't written about the urban Chinese movements that culminated in the Shanghai Commune of 1927.

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 17:47

I had this Idea arleady, long ago, but I never developed it much. In my nation this strategy is almost unthinkable right now as the State is militarily occupying the slums and fighting a guerrilla war with the criminals that once commanded it.

Sure, some of those criminals are police. So.... fuck.

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 19:06

Allright, I found some of my old papers. This is designed how some years ago were the violent and lumpen(Police+=Bandits)-controlled slums of Brazil, particulary São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro one's.

My translation is horrible (I write in a conjunction of extraresumed text, arrows, abreviations and meaningless schemes I won't understand one week after writing them)
Take Lumpen as Police+=Bandit here.

I will also write [present-day comments like this]

Considering that these areas arleady have their own "States", their own economy, their own police forces and their people have for decades been under ruthless, warlord rule. [The proper State shouldn't matter as they are not losing anything, in fact, there will be less criminality]

Them by themselves cannot reach consciousness, simply because the obvious fact that they are not exactly living in capitalism [I probably wrote shit here]

However, if a Communist Party organizes and takes control of one of this areas, they can have a power base, and an economic base for a protracted "slumish" people's war (sic) [I too took Maoism as basis for my theory]

They are not to use direct communist insigna, flags, etc... and are to at start be confused as a common warlord gang. Of course, their actions will differ enormously from those. They should create a party thou, one that stays apparently disconnected but made from the "commune" people's

They are to stabilish schools, a stable economy (pirating-oriented), and must offer infraestructure to the people. They are to do whatever they can to reach this, including forming separate groups of bank-"socializers" [Robbers :) ] (the least the "commune" is connected to them, the best: this way the "commune" can survive and still receive the richness needed to thrive) [Also, no marighella-like on-site propagandas. This ruined marxism by confusing it with normal banditry and giving the military legitimacy. No stealing poor people too.]

One way to both keep the people happy and make some money is to tax them and in turn provide services, like cable TV, infraestructure, house-building, clean water, education, [Products like cellphones, cars (steal them, sell them cheap to communers), computers, internet, medical attention, weapons] etc. As the State can't provide these and won't charge "slumpeople" for those they should be happy to pay up for quality service [And also make we and them build it together, this will increase the self-consciosness of the "commune" and link the marxists and the people]

The people must be educated, both in "normal" education and "marxist" education, but cannot [correction: should not] be forced into marxism. Marxism must not be called marxism. In order to survive, the "commune" will be state-capitalist (or slum-commune-capitalist or whatever) (sic) [Let's call ourselves "extremist-democrats" or shit like this. Everyone likes democracy (sic) :laugh: ]

The "commune" will expand against the other lumpen warlords, by direct engagement. In order to do this, the "commune" must recruit the locals and train them to form a people's army. The "commune" will also do all it can to expand into other cities slums and other countries slums too if the opportunity presents itself. [Like, let's take a walk in Buenos Aires, who's in?]

The "commune" will reveal itself marxist when they have the means to defend itself against the army, and to completely take over the citie (sic), wich should by now be surrounded or almost-completely surrounded.

The commune must also start rural and common urban guerrillas before it reveals itself, and propaganda marxism to the whole population aswell, they should do some intelectual work and write about Brazil [My nation] and blablabla

[Also, I forgot to add] And the Marxists should treat the communers addictions, as all warlords have their economic basis on the commercialization of drugs.

I do write a whole lot of shit like a "marxist" "warlord" "commune" hiding its marxism for years, gobbling up other warlords (the police too) until it can seize the city.

I have not written all I had here, part because some was plain crap and others I couldn't understand my own writing, drawing, abreviations, etc.

I am still new to marxism today, at that time I had never even read Marx proper. So forgive me. If something looks decent, it's probably because I adapted that part.

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 19:14

And of course, the marxists must blend in the people.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 19:25

This is why it's so important for Maoists to sort out the question of protracted people's war vs. insurrection.

We could talk about it in the context of the 1st world, but aside from RCP-PCR I can't think of a single organization that actually thinks PPW is a good idea in the 1st world.

Now, even in the context of the 3rd world, PPW may not always be the right tactic. In the context of the Philippines it is obviously working well for the NPA. As I talked about they also have coordinated their efforts with mass movements in the urban centres, so in a sense they can coordinate their PPW with insurrectionary moves as well.

I don't think PPW is possible in almost any urban context. As I said ghettos are limited geographically and launching a PPW usually requires you are mobile (with some exceptions as Juan Moreno pointed out via Mao).

Therefor if you are talking about urban warfare in the revolutionary context you are probably talking about series of insurrections, similar to what happened with the Russian revolution, that would lead to one big "climax" eventually. You could be talking even different entities taking power at different times, etc. and it could get messy with purges, cultural revolution type of stuff, etc.

If you can coordinate PPW from the countryside with insurrectionary tactics all the better. But this obviously won't work in many countries.

To have a revolutionary urban movement you have to be able to blend in with the general population, be able to strike an insurrection at a moments notice, be very well coordinated and very likely that you would have to have some inside sympathy to get away with it (i.e. moles on the inside).

I think in this context it is indeed helpful to look at history.

The reason urban warfare worked with the Red Army is that it basically had the entire populace behind it who's life and death depended on breaking the Nazi siege of their cities. From the tactical standpoint not completely evacuate these cities made sense because Hitler refused to move forward until he captured them (Leningrad and Stalingrad), which kept him from getting to vital oilfields.

Having that kind of support only occurs very rarely.

Even if we look at Iraq / Afghanistan complete mass support against imperialism wasn't there, the imperialists were mostly able to capture the cities and the insurrectionists had to flee to rural areas and basically switch to PPW.

Of course once NATO started to withdraw; well we know ISIL took one city after the other...

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 19:49

Hell, complete mobility is possible in slums, once of course we have some trucks, we can just move through the city quickly (By making extensive use of the knowledge of the territory, as Marighella said) and if really required to retreat into the rural areas.

Check this out: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/

We can stabilish bases with the people, retreat from our bases when necessary (Thus creating the rural base - guerrilla - enemy city bases into a more simple "our" area (with people that support us) and guerrilla areas - their areas. If they get into our area, heavy and intense guerrilla attacks.)

This war would be even more mobile as the whole bases would need to be mobile, or temporary, but it's doable.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 19:52

Hell, complete mobility is possible in slums, once of course we have some trucks, we can just move through the city quickly (By making extensive use of the knowledge of the territory, as Marighella said) and if really required to retreat into the rural areas.

Check this out: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/

Where exactly are you going to hide out when you leave the ghetto, in the bourgeois neighbourhood?

This may work with a small band of guerillas, say 30 people max, but try doing that with a whole army. Impossible in the modern context. I'll take a look at the text though, thanks for posting.

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 20:00

Where exactly are you going to hide out when you leave the ghetto, in the bourgeois neighbourhood?

This may work with a small band of guerillas, say 30 people max, but try doing that with a whole army. Impossible in the modern context. I'll take a look at the text though, thanks for posting.

The army should be a sleeper army I guess, with small active units financing the war and expanding the area of influence at first.

As soon as the second phase starts, the army takes controll of the far-away areas of the Nation (In a more maoist stance) and takes controll of the slums.
Hell, in Brazil we had dozens, if not hundreds of small groups of criminals controlling this areas. (If they had, together, 10k soldiers, and I doubt they had so few, I would say they could had have more if their economic base was planned and they had popular support.) You may study their "art of war" if you want to know how a "protacted slum peoples war" would happend. Of course, they lost: The economy is expanding and these lumpens are being integrated into the regular economy, and the army interfered. Without some unity or strategy, they all retreated to other areas and are continuosly losing land to the Army.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 20:24

A people's army and gangsters work differently.

It's also very likely that gangsters have at least some law enforcement paid off, if not a massive amount of them like the Mexican Cartels.

A people's army and gangsters both require support from the masses and gain that through respect. Respect is a mix of love and fear. But the difference is a people's army has more love, whereas the gangster will lean more toward fear.

It's certainly possible that a revolutionary movement can blend gangsterism with social-activism; though there is always the danger of your movement devolving as it seems to have with Sendero Luminoso in Peru.

The way Marighella talks about moving around is very outdated. Even by the time he wrote that those tactics must have been obsolete. Compared to now? I would not dare try it.

First, it would require mass support to even think about it. Well, let's say for the sake of argument you have it through years of social-work and activism (and still somehow remain clandestine enough to become a guerilla warrior).

Marighella is talking about moving through the streets in ally ways, underground, etc. as if the cops will be lost. But in most major cities video cameras are almost everywhere. Most places aren't as bad as the UK yet, but it's moving in that direction even in North America now. Plus, the police have GPS, mobile communications and the ability to tap into almost anything now. It's like this in 3rd world urban places as well.

Say you pack your small band into trucks to stage a getaway and you manage to have your trucks move out unseen. Where are you going to go? You can't just camp out in some park. Obviously you will have to have people willing to shelter you. That means you will need support outside of the ghetto as well. Because if the pigs want to get you, they will cordon off the ghetto and go block-by-block and door-to-door like they did with Iraq.

Eventually the authorities catch up. FLQ only evaded capture for so long.
Gangsters have money to pay for sanctuary. They usually get it from drug dealing. Revolutionaries can rob banks, but that is not easy to do anymore and get away with (my grandfather was a bank robber in in the 1940s in an infamous gang); at least not with any significant amounts of money.

Stuff like this is bad:
Apart from being faster than the horseman, the helicopter has no better chance in pursuit. If the horse is too slow compared to the urban guerrilla's automobile, the helicopter is too fast. Moving at 200 kilometers an hour, it will never succeed in hitting from above a target that is lost among the crowds and street vehicles, nor can the helicopter land in public streets in order to capture someone. At the same time, whenever it flies too low, it will be excessively vulnerable to the fire of the urban guerrillas.

They have heat sensor shit now, they can track you from the air and hit you easily. Just look at how they found that Boston bomber guy hiding in the boat: from the air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhVnoUlSDNk

Check out the wikileak video where those Iraqi journalists get cut down by an apache they can't even see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogFZlRiTHuw

This is what we are up against. I hate to sound defeatist, I don't mean to say victory is impossible, but the kind of shit Marighella talks about; well can you show successful examples of it?

This is why I say insurrection, rather than people's war, is what makes sense in the urban context.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 20:30

The army should be a sleeper army I guess, with small active units financing the war and expanding the area of influence at first.

In that sense you are not talking about PPW then. This shit has been tried, see RAF, Red Brigades, The Weatherman... Some of the more successful at gaining mass sympathy include FLQ and The Black Panthers but they were coming from the prospective of an oppressed nationality so they had cultural identity to rally behind to gain mass support.

Comrade Marcel

2nd September 2015, 20:37

In the modern context this type of warfare will almost always detract from being a people's war into terrorism.

I'm not saying terrorism is always wrong but a "pure" PPW is not terrorism.

If those examples are what you seek, then we can look at IRA, the PLO, the Basques, South Africa, etc. but again these groups are/were successful because it was the context of national liberation. They have/had bourgeois support from time to time. A proletarian revolution doesn't have these contexts so gathering mass support is a more difficult task.

Guardia Rossa

2nd September 2015, 21:29

I am not proposing a new theory, neither I have one, I was just saying I arleady looked up to it and I explained how I did it.
I am doing this for the sake of discussion and idea-generation, it certainly is impracticable and certainly ain't maoism.

And Marighella failed exactly because 1) He couldn't get popular support, as I said, the people confused him with the common criminal 2) He couldn't make himself safe. His comrades were caught and as the banks were each time harder to rob, the police was better equiped, they were less well-equiped and they were losing their rural guerrillas to this sistematic elimination (The Brazillian army used 3 thousent man to kill 60 guerrilla. They closed the whole forest and murdered them all.)

And 3) Brazil ain't revolutionary. It is many things but it is no France.

John Nada

3rd September 2015, 01:40

Or, the countryside in an advanced country like the USA, or even in a middle-income society like Columbia or Brazil, can almost be viewed as an extension of the city. You can't hide there anymore. Ghettos in the USA also have more connections with the rest of society that it seems. That's been alluded to here in connection with "precarious" employment, although urban "ghetto" minorities with fairly nice jobs, or owning their own businesses, aren't rare either. Alienation and oppression do not imply economic or physical isolation.That too. The divide is blurred in advance capitalist countries. This is partly why IMO you could treat the cities like an extension of the countryside(metaphorically speaking), and the countryside like an extension of the city.

There was a petit-bourgeoisie, big/middle peasantry and even national middle bourgeoisie led by the proletariat in various people's wars, though this was for the national democratic revolution. The proletariat was a small minority(10-20%) in China and Russia, yet that did not stop them from having a revolution. In fact a big debate at the time in those countries was how to go about the worker-peasant alliance.That might sound irrelevant to a modern person in the first-world, but how to have a proletarian socialist revolution with a proletarian minority was a big problem that needed to be solved.

For example, if a proletarian socialist revolution requires a proletarian majority, then no where could a socialist revolution be carried out. Most of the world was held back by imperialism(and still is), so there was a significant peasant, semi-proletarian and peasant majority in most countries. Even if you count the US, UK, France and others, their colonies, semi-colonies, internal colonies and later neo-colonies would make the proletariat an even smaller minority. For example, Britain proper may have had the proletariat as the majority in the island of Britain proper, but you throw in India alone it's not so different from Russia or China in that regard.

Yet the nations that had a proletarian majority had states, bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie propped up from super-exploiting said peasant majority nations. Even a small upper stratum of the workers was "bought off" due to imperialism, and those nations were rich enough to placate the proletariat with reforms here and there and finance a powerful military and police too.

The solution was the proletariat in oppressed nation would form an alliance with the peasantry and other oppressed classes. The peasantry is turning into rural proletarians and even moving to the cities more and more every year. Rather than wait for the bourgeoisie to complete this(and they might never, since imperialism benefits from underdeveloped countries) and make their life miserable, or for the proletariat of the dominate nation to have a revolution(so far not as forthcoming), the proletariat can take the lead and fight for revolution with the other oppressed classes. By liberating the colonies with a peasant majority, this would free up the proletariat in the dominate nation to wage their own revolution too. That's the point of the so-called "peasant armies"(most of the people's wars have proletarians fighting too) in not just Maoism, but for any revolution that wants to succeed in a nation with sizable peasantry.

If anything, the US has the advantage of a large proletariat, even by conservative estimates. Among oppressed peoples in the US, the petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy(I think it exists among oppressed people's too) they can be class allies of the proletariat, as can some of the lumpenproletariat(as defined as criminal or homeless, not the cops, military, PMC or guards as used under some definitions). Hell, IMO some of the white North American petit-bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy and lumpenproletariat can be allies of the proletariat(of all nationalities and races) too.
Not to pick on you in particular. But I'm coming to question the continued usefulness of revolutionary models from the past, despite their historical lessons. Our world no longer resembles theirs. The modern bourgeoisie, while oppressive as ever, rests on a much larger base of support than formerly. Namely, the so-called "middle class," those who are technically proletarian (because they can't quit their jobs) yet enjoying success and holding modest property stakes in the system, e.g. homes, cars, and 401(k)s.It's cool:). None of the past revolutions can simply be applied mechanically. I think if there was a revolution in, say the US, there would be a whole new rich experience for other revolutionaries to study, how can a revolution succeed in a powerful imperialist multinational country with a large petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy. Poses it's own challenges like working with a peasant majority, though there's is a proletarian majority. I merely speculate that it can take a different path than an October-style revolution. Likely a mix of both people's war and insurrection, though IMO not focoism(ie the Weather Underground or RAF). Not to throw out a protracted people's war altogether because,"Muh peasants! Proletarian pureness FTW.":rolleyes:
In such true backwaters still found in the world, the models of revolution are Islamic, not western. These areas contain 300 million people but not a word about them has ever been written by a revolutionary communist. You're more likely to see them dismissed with a wave of the hand. I'm not so sure they won't play some role in future. We don't want to see an Islamic theocracy of course, yet at some point we may have to search for way of working with or making use of such peoples against global capitalism.I would dispute the label "revolution"(a class overthrowing another) unless going by the "reactionary revolution" theory on fascism(though fuck Hitchens's "Islamofascism" imperialist apologia nonsense). Many are working on behalf of imperialism and big capitalist in the Gulf states and Turkey.

I don't dismiss people in predominately Muslim nations. To be fair, the left in the first-world, outside of a few Maoist/ML groups, doesn't seem to care about anything outside of a few developed countries either, or even "their own" for that matter:lol:. However, there is leftists in many of those same countries. Some had very strong leftist movements, some still do.

And I would dispute that not a word has been written. There's leftist throughout the Muslim world. There's national liberation movements. Leftists in say India, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, have written about it. At one point, the third largest Communist Party in the world after the USSR and China was in Indonesia. Much has been written, like about national liberation, Islamophobic persecution or how it's diverting the proletariat and peasantry away from revolution, often a misguided anti-imperialism.

Thing is, a lot of the tactics and strategies of the Islamist are recuperated from earlier leftist movements. The various national liberation struggles left its mark. Marxist-Leninist were at the forefront of national liberation and attempted revolutions during the Cold War, such as in Palestine. Many of the militaries in the Muslim world were modeled after the USSR and China. Various Jihadists have actually said to study Che, Mao and Giap for strategy and tactics. It was copied not because of some "horseshoe theory" horseshit, but because it set the standard.
Actions within the computerized global financial system may also figure prominently. This was completely unknown to Lenin or Mao. The comfortable "middle classes" must be radicalized if we are to expect success, however, and it won't happen until the credit system implodes, leaving the horn of plenty that issues those homes, cars, and overstuffed shopping carts empty for good. Financial sabotage by traders who work as double agents for revolutionary causes may bring about such an event.

I don't really know what's best. I'm just convinced that the future will require new theories and new tactics we haven't considered up to now.Capitalism enters crises like ever 10-15 years. As I've said, there was a significant petit-bourgeois strata in both Russia and China. It's different in the US, but IMO not insurmountable. I just think the "wait for the apocalypse" strategy has not worked, nor has focoism. It'll take on a different form, but I think some things can be learned from Mao's theory too. Like Clausewitz said,"War is a continuation of politics by another means."

John Nada

3rd September 2015, 03:47

The point I was trying to make is that the conditions that we face in the 'developed' capitalist world have little in common with the conditions that the communists in China faced so instead of poorly translating the tactics of Mao we should look to the tactics of communists in situations and conditions similar to contemporary 'developed' capitalism.Early 20th century Russia and Italy weren't like modern advance capitalist nations either, with Russia being semi-feudal imperialist and Italy being the "poor man's imperialism" as Lenin put it. Poorly translating either those or any other strategy to anywhere will not work, regardless of if it's Mao's, Lenin's or Che's.
The conditions of China in the 1930s-50s are, as you say, completely different from the conditions of contemporary urban areas. The things that communists would have to consider that would affect insurrection would be significantly different to that which Mao had to deal with.The focus seems to be on the form and not the substance of what Mao theorized. How is three stages(defense, stalemate and offensive, though it can move in any direction), "preserve oneself and destroy the enemy", growing one's forces from quantitatively small and qualitatively weak to quantitatively large and qualitatively strong, "establishing a revolutionary army, defeating the enemy and arousing the masses", create dual power via bases, ect. only applicable in a rural, semi-feudal, semi-colonial 1930-40s China? No where else had the exact same rivers and lakes Mao listed either, yet protracted people's wars have been carried out elsewhere in the third world. I say the overall operational theory can be applied, even in the first-world, and even if some of the tactical aspects cannot.

In fact, there is a proletariat outside of major cities anyway. There's Native American reservation, the Black Belt, impoverished regions like Appalachia and the Rust Belt. There's small towns, and I've read that the suburbs are even starting to be the home of impoverished communities, like they already are in much of Europe. Just because they're not living in a nice big juice city doesn't mean they should be ignored.
I agree that it's important to look at the organisation that made the October Revolution possible, how the Red Guards first organised and grew, and also other times in history where insurrection in urban environments have seen some success, which is why I also mentioned Turin in the Biennio Rosso period since they were the most militant and organised of the factory occupation movements. However, I feel that these conditions are much closer to the conditions we face today - or are closer to conditions that we could face if capitalism reaches a similar crises point (it's another thing altogether to consider the civil war that followed which is different). Other possible moments in history to look at could include the early insurrectionary movement in Barcelona after the attempted coup at the start of the SCW, the mass urban movements through Europe during the 60s and 70s etc. It's a shame more isn't written about the urban Chinese movements that culminated in the Shanghai Commune of 1927.Yeah, it'd be interesting to look more into the Shanghai Commune too, though it seems like the CCP was going for something closer to Russia, but ended up like the Paris Commune in a bad way.

Problem is that the strategy of mechanically emulating those you've listed, it's based on the old "wait for shit to hit the fan" theory. I think there's much to learn from them, and they were at least not a bad thing;). However, basing it strictly on those insurrection, it doesn't have the strategic deep that Mao and others added. If after the crises and insurrection, it gets crushed, insurrection traditionally end there.

Also there was a lot of "legalist" aspects to those insurrections that are not applicable in many advance capitalist nations, like multiparty parliamentarian election(with immunity in the case of Russia) and a vibrant union movement to build off of. The police are(ironically) more powerful, and the military is not worker/peasant conscripts but basically mercenaries. So in that respect its got more in common with Mao's China(no bourgeois democratic rights, even less than Russia) than most of the urban insurrection in Europe. That's part of why Mao didn't think protracted people's war was applicable in advance capitalist nations, because there was bourgeois democratic rights enabling a dual legalist/illegalist struggle.
I had this Idea arleady, long ago, but I never developed it much. In my nation this strategy is almost unthinkable right now as the State is militarily occupying the slums and fighting a guerrilla war with the criminals that once commanded it.

Sure, some of those criminals are police. So.... fuck.According to Maoism, Brazil is a semi-colonial(me personally, not sure about that) bureaucratic-capitalist nation. So if you go strictly by the book, it should be even more likely!
Hell, in Brazil we had dozens, if not hundreds of small groups of criminals controlling this areas. (If they had, together, 10k soldiers, and I doubt they had so few, I would say they could had have more if their economic base was planned and they had popular support.) You may study their "art of war" if you want to know how a "protacted slum peoples war" would happend. Of course, they lost: The economy is expanding and these lumpens are being integrated into the regular economy, and the army interfered. Without some unity or strategy, they all retreated to other areas and are continuosly losing land to the Army.That's partly what I was thinking of. Didn't they shoot done helicopters a few times? Some of the hoods and barrios were similar in the US, but obviously not as impenetrable as the favela.

It's possible the pigs were just paid off not to enter. But I'll use an analogy. It used to be that cattle would often tear down fences and wander off. Then in the US, barbed wire was popularized. It was demonstrated that the cattle would avoid touching the sharp barbs. In theory, a whole herd charging at it could've tore up the fence. But as soon as they touched the shape spikes, they'd instinctively pull back in pain. A salesman demonstrated this by intentionally driving them towards the fence. It held, and sales skyrocketed.
We could talk about it in the context of the 1st world, but aside from RCP-PCR I can't think of a single organization that actually thinks PPW is a good idea in the 1st world.I believe the PCP thought it is applicable everywhere, even the first-world.
If you can coordinate PPW from the countryside with insurrectionary tactics all the better. But this obviously won't work in many countries.That was what the PCP and CPN(M) did, principally in the countryside, complemented by the cities, adapting this to their nations.

Guardia Rossa

8th September 2015, 19:40

According to Maoism, Brazil is a semi-colonial(me personally, not sure about that) bureaucratic-capitalist nation. So if you go strictly by the book, it should be even more likely!That's partly what I was thinking of. Didn't they shoot done helicopters a few times? Some of the hoods and barrios were similar in the US, but obviously not as impenetrable as the favela.

Well, we are sub-imperialist and semi-colonial. The whole world has capital invested here.

And I agree the bureocracy has a lot of power here, but this power is given to it by the bourgeoisie. This is seen in Brazillian history, at times the WHOLE bureocracy was expurged/changed/expelled and the same sistem went on, after some re-adaptation.

But a revolution here is highly unlikely, our revolutionary left is either elitist/academicist or chauvinist and anti-worker (And elitist...)

John Nada

8th September 2015, 23:54

Well, we are sub-imperialist and semi-colonial. The whole world has capital invested here.There's different theories on what's Brazil's place in imperialism is. One of those is the theory of sub-imperialism, formulated by Ruy Mauro Marini. Basically, under this theory Brazil is monopoly capitalist that developed from semi-colonialism that acts as a regional "cop" for imperialist-capitalists. The bourgeoisie has expansionist ambitions(export of capital to other nations in South America and Africa, intervention via UN troops), but this is in alliance with, financed by and at the behest of imperialist-capitalists. In agriculture, the peasantry is subjected to an "encloser" and turned into proletarians. Austerity in imposed on the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie. This is to increase profitability, but super-exploitation of the masses at home for imperialism continues.

Another is bureaucratic-capitalism, theorized by Gonzalo. This is where in nations that are semi-feudal and semi-colonial, imperialism develop monopoly capitalism, an alliance of large landowners and haute-bourgeoisie. It's semi-colonial, because it has political independence but economic dependence on imperialism. And semi-feudal, because of the old landlord relations in the country(fazenda?), which is propped up in alliance with state and non-state monopoly capitalists. These two factions of non-state comprador-capitalists(capitalists depended on imperialism) and bureaucratic-capitalists(state-dependent) often clash. This often leads to the mistake of tailing one or the other, like viewing bureaucratic-capitalists as "progressive" and "anti-imperialist", or comprador-capitalists as "anti-corruption" and "democratic".

Not sure which one is more accurate. Both have their strong points. Argument against sub-imperialist is it's kind of vague and not too different from China or the Ottoman Empire, which were semi-colonial but expansionists. Argument against bureaucratic-capitalism is Brazil is more developed and semi-feudalism no more. On one hand Brazil's growth into the "BRICS" nations seems like it's more than semi-colonial. On the other, it is still dependent on foreign imperialism and the bureaucratic vs comprador capitalist would explain the different bourgeois factions in politics, Rousseff and the Workers' Party being of bureaucratic-capitalist faction favoring more state intervention to a point, and the further right opposition being comprador-capitalists, so demanding more austerity and against "corruption". There was an interesting article on the Brazilian economy: http://monthlyreview.org/2015/05/01/the-strength-and-fragility-of-the-brazilian-economy/ but I'd need to look into it more.
And I agree the bureocracy has a lot of power here, but this power is given to it by the bourgeoisie. This is seen in Brazillian history, at times the WHOLE bureocracy was expurged/changed/expelled and the same sistem went on, after some re-adaptation.Hmm, maybe this is a point in the sub-imperialism's favor.
But a revolution here is highly unlikely, our revolutionary left is either elitist/academicist or chauvinist and anti-worker (And elitist...)Which is why I don't get the argument that 3rd-world=way more revolutionary. Similar could be said about Mexico and Central America, though there's somewhat stronger revolutionary movements there.

Guardia Rossa

9th September 2015, 02:11

MASTEREDIT: This was [REDACTED] because it was impeding the socialist revolution.

As a good and chivalous englishmen that I'm not, I will replace this bigotry with some random quotes:

Quote 1: "The cake is a lie"
Quote 2: "Two makes a plural"

Hatshepsut

9th September 2015, 04:19

There was an interesting article on the Brazilian economy: (MR) http://monthlyreview.org/2015/05/01/the-strength-and-fragility-of-the-brazilian-economy/ but I'd need to look into it more...

From what's written there, it looks like they're following the USA's dance steps with nearly the precision of the late George Balanchine. Anti-monetary position for low inflation and relatively expensive currency, although inflationary past and lack of confidence in promissory notes (note the sovereign debt's junk BBB rating) keeps interest rates high. Unlike the USA, Brazil can't buy abroad using its own money, the main difference between the neo-colonial powers (Wallerstein's "core") and the rest of the world ("periphery"). That will limit whatever benefit Brazil gains from its higher Real which nonetheless has lost over half its value against the dollar since 2011. Fuel has to be paid for with dollars, for instance, spotlighting another contradiction: Brazil has crude oil but insufficient refinery capacity. Among items the capital flowing into the country is buying are offshore oil rigs:

One-fifth of Fuel from India & USA, Reuters Business, Jan. 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-brazil-refining-analysis-idUSBREA0M04I20140123

So the investors are fat while the consumers are fucked: The MR article states credit outstanding to households as 10.5% of GDP; compare this with 80% of a much larger GDP in the USA despite recent pay-downs, according to the Federal Reserve:

FRB of St. Louis, household debt
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HDTGPDUSQ163N

Since I don't live there, I have to take MR's word that extreme poverty in Brazil has declined. It is a large country with adequate food and water supplies, without groups like Boko Haram running around, therefore presumably spared the gross malnutrition and eye flies North Americans associate with the developing world. Question is, how long will these good times roll? I expect the rich world to glut its finances into insolvency at some point. Once bailout options don't cure financial crises anymore, it will put the squeeze on the poorer countries and create a more revolutionary world situation, where workers North & South alike lose faith in the system.

John Nada

9th September 2015, 12:52

Greavyard, please do a third edit. In English "retarded" is a derogatory term for people with intellectual disabilities. It's oppressive, ableist language towards a very oppressed section of society. Maybe put "backward", "ignorant" or "foolish" instead?

Edit:Goddamn it Greavyard! Calling the ruling class "mentally disabled" isn't better. You're still using people with mentally disabilities as a slur for stubborn or misguided.:mad: They were very much "mentally abled" and had sound class reasons to act the way they did, even if it wasn't in the best interests of Brazilian capitalism or their own in the long-term.

The Feral Underclass

9th September 2015, 14:01

Hatshepsut

9th September 2015, 15:10

Although he used the word to describe the 19th-century monarchical system in Brazil and then its later republican political cronies. Regarding persons with what we call intellectual disability in the USA, "mental retardation" replaced the earlier categorizations "idiot," "imbecile," and "moron" in 1952, when the first Diagnostic & Statistical Manual came out. The DSM-V went to "intellectual disability" or ID as of 2013.

But why do we consider such persons disabled in the first place? Only modern society with its heavy workplace intellectual demands and the prestige it attaches to symbol manipulation can think this. In the Middle Ages most persons diagnosed today would have fared about as well as anyone else. Unless the disability was profound, in which case it was almost always accompanied by physical problems causing early mortality. A fact that should convince us that there's no real difference between physical and intellectual disability; the latter just means verbal or analytical functions in the central nervous system are involved.

A literature of how millennial bourgeois society encodes the human body for commodification is found in

David Lowe, 1995. The Body in Late-Capitalist USA. Duke Univ. Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IqGNx5hFLNIC&dq=mental+retardation+first+edition+dsm+i&source=gbs_navlinks_s

John Nada

9th September 2015, 18:50

I was in a not-as-bad mood, so perhaps I'm being too generous and hoping Greavyard merely mistranslated impeding or hindrance.:glare:

This is an article by Marini on Brazilian sub-imperialism [pdf warning] http://www.marini-escritos.unam.mx/pdf/041_brazilian_subimperialism_b.pdf . There does seem to be monopolies and a strong financial sector in Brazil, yet it's not at the same level of independence as, say, the Netherlands or Canada. I think it's an interesting concept, fills a gap between not-quite-imperialist and not-quite-semi-colonial.

But I'm not sure what that changes in terms of what the workers and peasants in Brazil(or South Africa, Turkey or India, which some have labeled sub-imperialist too) have to do in terms of praxis. Because from some theories, like Maoist to get back on topic, if it's imperialist then you'd just go straight to socialist revolution. In (semi/neo-)colonies it'd be the new democratic revolution that moves uninterrupted into a socialist revolution.

Difference being the bourgeoisie is divided in (semi/neo-)colonies and in theory the middle and petit-bourgeoisie can be pitted against the haute-bourgeoisie and imperialist-capitalists "Peasant War" style(just like the bourgeoisie does to workers:)). But in imperialist countries the bourgeoisie is almost entirely reactionary. Though the bourgeoisie is never united as much as a lot of people seem to build up in their heads. By definition the bourgeoisie are constantly at each others' throats and can barely unite part of a nation at best.

And the difference is also the proletariat is the main and leading force of the revolution in imperialist countries(where it's the supermajority, unless you're counting lumpenproletariat as a separate class and think the labor aristocracy is large). While the peasantry is the main force with the proletariat as the leading class in a new democratic revolution in places where capitalism in underdeveloped.

What effect does the class structure and the degree capitalism has developed have on strategy? Look at what Mao wrote in Analysis of The Classes in Chinese Society" (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm). You must "tell the fakes from the snakes, enemies from phonies, friends from your homies" as 2Pac said.:grin:
Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all previous revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was their failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real enemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses, and no revolution ever succeeds when the revolutionary party leads them astray. To ensure that we will definitely achieve success in our revolution and will not lead the masses astray, we must pay attention to uniting with our real friends in order to attack our real enemies. To distinguish real friends from real enemies, we must make a general analysis of the economic status of the various classes in Chinese society and of their respective attitudes towards the revolution.Similarly, Bangladeshi Communist Siraj Sikder also did a class analysis of Bangladesh: https://www.marxists.org/archive/sikder/1972/class.htm

The classes and strata importance in Marxism isn't for academic masturbation or essentialist identities, though it often turns into that. It's to examine a class's relations in society, then use this to plan a strategy for making revolution. There's a reason why the proletariat is the most revolutionary class, not based on dogma. It's a numerically large class that engage in essential social labor, exploit no one and have nothing to lose. They are more progressive than the bourgeoisie, which had their time in the sun but under imperialist-capitalism is dying and only a source of reaction.

In the case of a place like the US, a class analysis would entail examining the various classes and strata, proletariat, lumpenproletariat, students/artists/intellectuals, soldiers/guards/cops/spies, labor aristocracy/bureaucracy, farmers, small shop owners and small proprietors, the middle bourgeoisie, and various sections of the haute-bourgeoisie(agriculture, service, finances, energy, retail, food, pharmaceuticals, ect), as well as the class dynamic among oppressed peoples and the national situation. From there, size up the revolutionary or counterrevolution potential and its role in a potential revolution.

Something interesting, in the Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_2.htm) The Feral Underclass posted earlier, notice how in Hunan, associations are set up, and rules changing the culture are made(like banning opium smoking, and setting alcohol prices, dismantling old feudal organizations). This is attacking the superstructure of the status quo, and setting up a new one in its place. The new superstructure leads to a new base, since the productive relations(landlord vs. peasant) were drastically altered too. And when the base-superstructure don't align, like having a capitalist base but feudal superstructure in pre-revolution France, that usually leads to a revolutionary situation. That something I don't think is only applicable to semi-feudal rural countries, fighting over the superstructure, then imposing a new base. Which IMO is what a base area entails, dual power with a "counter-superstructure". Not strictly military but political.

Guardia Rossa

9th September 2015, 19:16

EDIT: I will make a book out of it, from what it seems

Also, Infraction up!

The Feral Underclass

10th September 2015, 09:43

I will re-write that crappy text I wrote in a half-hour timelimit and make it more "scientific" and extensive, and post it in my blog.

Remove the word "retard" from the text, otherwise you'll likely receive an infraction.

Hatshepsut

10th September 2015, 15:23

Bangladeshi Communist Siraj Sikder also did a class analysis of Bangladesh:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/sikder/1972/class.htm

The classes and strata importance in Marxism isn't for academic masturbation or essentialist identities, though it often turns into that. It's to examine a class's relations in society, then use this to plan a strategy for making revolution.

And guessing the proper class affiliations, a tough job. There are tactical moves conducted without respect to class, as when Mao allied with the Kuomintang while the Japanese were in town. Then there is the determination of which are the revolutionary classes. Some questions regarding Siraj Sikder:

The changed political situation of 1972 was obviously the birth of Bangladesh in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, relieving Bangladeshis of impending domination by conservative Muslim masters of the Indus River Valley (although the people have not abandoned Islam). Religious complications also included repression by the Hindu bourgeoisie up to 1971. Sikder considered Muslim landlords as remaining in feudal orbits before and after independence from Britain. Society harbors four contradictions in both periods, detailed in

Siraj Sikder, Theses, 1968
https://www.marxists.org/archive/sikder/1968/jan/08.htm

But why his nationalist tack? Partition from West Pakistan made sense, but there is added a split of the Bangladeshi proletariat from its Hindu counterpart along what can only amount to religious lines. Sikder dodges this issue.

Ascription of Soviet “revisionism” to the national-imperial antagonisms suggests ratification of the Sino-Soviet split. However, although India did align with the USSR for some time, misinterpretation of Soviet moves led to an incorrect prediction: The USSR, and particularly Cuba, not China, opposed Western colonialism in Africa, whereas China became the economic player on the continent over the long run. We forget the presence of an influential Chinese minority in South Africa which, though hardly in Mao’s camp, grew more supportive of their motherland after Mao’s death. The USSR supported Nigeria against Biafra because the USA sought an independent Biafra as an oil state. The Soviets also backed Ho Chi Minh, a development counter to the thesis that they were “hatching conspiracy to...wipe out great struggle of Vietnam.”

Sikder’s other predictions, the U.S. efforts to create an anti-China bloc in the region and render Bangladesh into neocolonial status, are closer to reality. Indeed, WalMart buys shirts from garment factories that have a habit of collapsing on the Bangladeshi sewing machine operators inside. Sikder wisely steered clear of coarse rural communisms in the Horn of Africa, where Barre and Mengistu went down after limited Soviet aid, intended as counterweight to U.S. influence over Egypt, petered out. The saga ends in brutal tragedy when his life is snuffed out in a police van.

Guardia Rossa

10th September 2015, 17:59

Remove the word "retard" from the text, otherwise you'll likely receive an infraction.

Jawohl mein Herr.

John Nada

11th September 2015, 17:56

And guessing the proper class affiliations, a tough job. There are tactical moves conducted without respect to class, as when Mao allied with the Kuomintang while the Japanese were in town. Then there is the determination of which are the revolutionary classes. Some questions regarding Siraj Sikder:Well, that was an anti-fascist united front. There was a divide between the pro-Japanese comprador-bourgeoisie and pro-US/UK comprador-bourgeoisie. "One divides into two" was part of Mao's concept of diamat. Situation changes things when your country at risk of ending up like a fascist version of India, and it was very bad at the hands the bourgeois "democratic" Britain in the case of India. Looking at how Imperial Japan was in most other colonies, can't imagine them being any better.
The changed political situation of 1972 was obviously the birth of Bangladesh in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, relieving Bangladeshis of impending domination by conservative Muslim masters of the Indus River Valley (although the people have not abandoned Islam). Religious complications also included repression by the Hindu bourgeoisie up to 1971. Sikder considered Muslim landlords as remaining in feudal orbits before and after independence from Britain. Society harbors four contradictions in both periods, detailed in

Siraj Sikder, Theses, 1968
https://www.marxists.org/archive/sikder/1968/jan/08.htm

But why his nationalist tack? Partition from West Pakistan made sense, but there is added a split of the Bangladeshi proletariat from its Hindu counterpart along what can only amount to religious lines. Sikder dodges this issue.I don't think that's what he meant. Landlords as a class tend to support keeping semi-feudalism alive for obvious reasons. It seems more like he was writing about the split between India and Pakistan(including East Bengal). The Muslim and Hindu bourgeoisie and landlords each wanted "their own" sphere of influence. The Bengal Muslim bourgeoisie didn't want to be swamped as a minority, and joined up with Pakistan. A dialectical contradiction of one becoming two. If anything he wasn't dodging it, but tackling it head on.
Ascription of Soviet "revisionism" to the national-imperial antagonisms suggests ratification of the Sino-Soviet split. However, although India did align with the USSR for some time, misinterpretation of Soviet moves led to an incorrect prediction: The USSR, and particularly Cuba, not China, opposed Western colonialism in Africa, whereas China became the economic player on the continent over the long run. We forget the presence of an influential Chinese minority in South Africa which, though hardly in Mao's camp, grew more supportive of their motherland after Mao's death. The USSR supported Nigeria against Biafra because the USA sought an independent Biafra as an oil state. The Soviets also backed Ho Chi Minh, a development counter to the thesis that they were "hatching conspiracy to...wipe out great struggle of Vietnam."Actually both the US and the Soviets were on the same side for once and supported the Nigerian government. And its relations with Vietnam were rocky at times.

The Soviets were implemented market "reforms" starting in 1956, even more so later under Kosygin-Brezhnev. The anti-revisionist belief was that capitalism was being restored. Profitability and the law of value took greater importance after the "reforms". Part of the nasty side effect was in the sphere of trade, the deals were lopsided. The Soviets were buying goods at a low price and re-selling them to the west at a higher price, dumping goods onto their allies, as well as giving out loans with unfavorable conditions. It was making countries like Cuba dependent on the Soviets, rather than helping them stand on their own. Part of why a lot of the few Eastern Bloc countries were hit so hard after the counterrevolution in the early 90's.

And China's foreign policy was shit too. Pakistan's the closest thing China has to a reliable ally, even during Bangladesh's war of liberation. Not quite sure how Maoists juggle that. They don't bother justifying what China does post-Mao anyway, since Deng also ended up restoring capitalism.
Sikder's other predictions, the U.S. efforts to create an anti-China bloc in the region and render Bangladesh into neocolonial status, are closer to reality. Indeed, WalMart buys shirts from garment factories that have a habit of collapsing on the Bangladeshi sewing machine operators inside. Sikder wisely steered clear of coarse rural communisms in the Horn of Africa, where Barre and Mengistu went down after limited Soviet aid, intended as counterweight to U.S. influence over Egypt, petered out. The saga ends in brutal tragedy when his life is snuffed out in a police van.Was only thirty years old too. And another Maoist(well, proto-Maoist, since it really only took off in the 90's), founder of the TKP/ML Ibrahim Kaypakkaya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0brahim_Kaypakkaya) was only 24. Damn, they're all starting people's wars and shit, and I'm still stuck in dead-end jobs at (?) years.

My point was how to look at the situation. It's often claimed that there's no "real" proletariat anymore, either it's labor aristocracy or it's lumpenproletariat, according to some. But you can see Mao and his later devotees examined the various strata. Even the lumpenproletariat was not off-limits and written off as hopeless. It was viewed dialectically, not a set and sure thing.

Hatshepsut

13th September 2015, 04:29

Actually both the US and the Soviets were on the same side for once and supported the Nigerian government...

An overview of the crisis is linked here. A bourgeois source, it should be received with a few grains of salt, but it provides an extensive summary of the humanitarian dimension and surrounding politics.

ADST, The Famine in Biafra
http://adst.org/2014/05/the-famine-in-biafra-usaids-response-to-the-nigerian-civil-war/

Because the USA did not directly intervene in Biafra or officially recognize this new state, I’ve relied on some declassified Nixon-Kissinger material from the State Dept. to deduce that substantial elements in the Nixon Administration preferred a breakup even though Biafra was steadily being crushed. Lyndon Johnson, the previous president, had articulated a “one Nigeria” policy in public, yet almost certainly had doubts about it in private, and Nixon dropped such rhetoric. Unconditional friendship between the USA and Nigeria was hardly a given during the 1960s. In the first source, note that the event has been labeled a genocide against Biafra.

Memo on earlier Nixon campaign position, State Dept., Feb. 1969
http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/54583.pdf

Issues for decision are put on the table in the second document. These include whether to send arms. A plea from Nigeria’s military dictator to meet with a U.S. envoy is attached. I believe this was declined. It’s clear the military government was blocking aid from the U.S. and France from reaching the famine area and that neither rich country was happy with it.

National Security Council meeting prep, Feb. 1969
http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/54585.pdf

As for the oil state angle or actual delivery of arms, no admission from the U.S. government will ever be forthcoming. The State Dept. probably doesn’t hold documents on these issues, which would stay within the secret Nat’l Security Agency or CIA. In view of a long-run history where Panama is created to get a canal, a Shah installed to prevent Iranian nationalization of oil assets, and L. Paul Bremer picked to auction off Iraq after Bush’s invasion, it’s hard for me to think benign motives that don’t include a compliant petroleum sovereign.

As for either Mao or Sikder, my understanding is quite limited, so your information about them is appreciated. Most revolutionaries seem to take courses of action tactically, by necessity—failure to do so means they lose. That makes it difficult for them to avoid accommodating nationalism, which will always be a major part of sentiment among the workers they wish to appeal to. The workers after all don’t start off having class consciousness.

John Nada

13th September 2015, 09:09

As for either Mao or Sikder, my understanding is quite limited, so your information about them is appreciated. Most revolutionaries seem to take courses of action tactically, by necessity—failure to do so means they lose. That makes it difficult for them to avoid accommodating nationalism, which will always be a major part of sentiment among the workers they wish to appeal to. The workers after all don’t start off having class consciousness.Short-term course would be the minimum program, which according to Maoism(or Marxists-Leninism in general), in semi-feudal, (semi/neo)colonial, oppressed nations is to carry out the national-democratic revolution(sometimes called the bourgeois-democratic, or the new democratic revolution), since a sizable part of the masses(the people, not just workers) in underdeveloped nations are not workers but peasants, semi-proletarians, petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletarians. Then, strategically move uninterrupted to the maximum program of the proletarian socialist revolution. Like the February Revolution against the Tsar in Russia which led to the Democratic-Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, followed by the October Revolution which was the proletarian socialist revolution that led to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Alliance with the Poor Peasantry.

Here's something M.N. Roy(founder of the Communist parties of both Mexico and India) said in the 2nd Congress of the Comintern that might shed some light on the national-democratic revolution:
9. In the first period the revolution in the colonies will not be communist; if however from the very start the communist vanguard emerges at its head the revolutionary masses will be brought on to the correct path along which, through the gradual gathering of revolutionary experience, they will reach the hidden goal. It would be a mistake to try to solve the agrarian question straight away according to purely communist principles. In the first stage of its development the revolution in the colonies must be carried out according to the programme of purely petty-bourgeois demands, such as distribution of the land and so on. But from this it must not be concluded that the leadership in the colonies can be allowed to fall into the hands of the bourgeois democrats. On the contrary, the proletarian parties must carry out an intensive propaganda of communist ideas and found workers’ and peasants’ councils at the first opportunity. These councils must work in the same way as the Soviet Republics in the advanced capitalist countries in order to bring about the final overthrow of the capitalist order throughout the whole world.Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch04.htm#v1-p115

Hatshepsut

13th September 2015, 22:51

At point 6 in his program at the 2nd Congress of the Int’l, Roy stated that foreign domination blocks indigenous social progress, whence backing its overthrow will not advance aims of nationalists in colonized lands, that is, it

“...constantly obstructs the free development of social life; therefore the revolution’s first step must be the removal of this foreign domination. The struggle to overthrow foreign domination in the colonies does not therefore mean underwriting the national aims of the national bourgeoisie but much rather smoothing the path to liberation for the proletariat of the colonies.”

I wonder how much foreign domination affects intellectual development in the oppressed countries today, when the imperialists no longer run local colonial administrations. Sovereignty and political freedom apply while exploitation is perpetuated through the international capital system instead. Is it therefore still true that underwriting of national aims is avoided? That would depend on whether the oppressed countries now have national bourgeoisies. They do at least in name, although higher echelons of the business world are becoming more global in character: Some corporations involved in overseas ventures are rebelling against taxation by imperial states, moving their money offshore in response. Odd, when they expect Uncle Sam to invade “problem” countries at their behest.

In the same July 25, 1920 session, John Reed, Communist Labor Party, USA, offered commentary on segregation, the U.S. form of racial apartheid. Reed considered northern blacks as a revolutionary class by the end of WWI, however using the term “racial consciousness” in connection. Their lack of national separatism was a simplifying factor.

Lenin analyzed revolutionary possibilities in the USA while in exile, tackling the rise of agricultural capitalism up to 1910 in Vol. 22 of his collected works. The USA had more farms then; consolidation has cut the number and put a proletarian workforce, much of it imported from Latin America, into production there. This is another odd aspect of the current colonial system, as agricultural operations on both sides of the border share the same financial capital, playing both sides of immigration and free trade to maximum advantage.

De jure segregation remained in force to some degree when I growing up, with legislatures dodging around federal rulings. Kansas City, Missouri, called this regime the “Troost Wall” because the blacks were east of Troost Avenue; traditionally you couldn’t go there if you were white, nor could blacks cross over into Westport and the Plaza unless they had jobs there. Minus actual ban on free movement, things were just done that way and the housing covenants behind it were legal then, under a contorted language of “neighborhood association bylaws” the J.C. Nichols companies used for their projects—a majority of association members had to vote to allow you to buy a home, keeping racial hygiene with nary a mention of race in the covenant itself, a practice the 1968 Fair Housing Act eventually stopped. The funny part was the huge boneyard, which was integrated. After lifespans spent apart, persons of both races could be buried together.