Guerrilla Warfare

[Rawthentic]

I have been contemplating the issue of guerrilla warfare as the means of liberation. Yet I find some contradictions. To me, and others I've spoken to, guerrilla warfare makes the action and responsibility of the proletariat something passive, while the guerrilla unit takes the active means. So, what do y'all think?

[The Bitter Hippy]

guerilla warfare is all very well and good for liberation struggles against dictators, bourgeois plutocracies and the like, and i support them wholeheartedly. But don't expect a guerilla campaign to result in anything but a (quite probably authoritarian) state run by the winners.

A guerilla revolution will go the same way as all the others, with a strong state (theoretically) working for the workers. Sometimes that goes well, sometimes it doesn't go so well.

But still its usually a damned sight better than the conditions that generally precede the war, after a while.

Basically, don't look for the real-thing marxian global proletarian uprising in a guerilla struggle, but they're great for the individual workers in the countries where they happen and are deserving of our support.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, i dig what you're saying, those are pretty much my beliefs.

[Lamanov]

Guerilla warfare needs authoritarian comand structure, which is necessary to transplant itself onto the state after the victory.

That's why all peoples' movements were resulted in state capitalism.

The autonomous role of the proletariat is minimized, channeled, or simply destroyed (as the defeat of the Shanghai Commune shows).

[Ze]

If you read Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare, he states repeatedly that a successful revolutionary guerrilla campaign needs the support of the general populace in the form of new troops, equipment, aid, spreading the word, and most importantly public disobedience and protests.

[Pirate Utopian]

Guerrilla warfare is great way to defend or defeat power and does not nesscarly create "authorian" countries (this word is used way too much).
it just uses diffrent and in my opion more clever tactics

[Epoche]

o me, and others I've spoken to, guerrilla warfare makes the action and responsibility of the proletariat something passive, while the guerrilla unit takes the active means.

I don't understand the problem here. Are you saying that guerilla warfare gives an excuse to the masses for not fighting or resisting?

If so, you need to keep in mind that guerilla warfare is usually the last resort and means to defend against oppressions, and the guerillas which fight are usually ordinary men from the masses which they seek to defend. The are the "poor man's" soldiers and, in fact, the only way a people can be emanicapted from the oppressions that prevent any real military or diplomatic action. When the guerillas emerge, all other options are usually exhausted and they are the last resort of the people.

Guerilla warfare is the alternative to financing a real war, or declaring war. The guerilla's are "ghosts" which serve to antagonize the offenders, hoping to discourage further action from them. They act as a "pest", and that is all they can do for lack of better rsources.

[bcbm]

Guerilla warfare will probably be neccessary if the under-classes overthrow the bosses and the state, but it should only be one tool in a toolbox of methods. The guerrilla should never become the method of struggle, nor should people ever find themselves subordinate to the guerrilla, especially given the guerrilla's history. It will be a mass struggle, not a specialist, spectacular one.

[Rawthentic]

Right on the spot. Thats what I'm talking about.

Power to the People

[OneBrickOneVoice]

why wouldn't we as communists advocate guerrilla warfare? Every past revolution has liberated its people through a form of guerrila warfare or people's war.

[Prairie Fire]

:D This remionds me of Grade 8 Social Studies in School; We learned the concept of the " Party Vangaurd" as being akin to elitism on the part of the Bolshevik party during the 1917 Revolution, but this just isn't so.

It's the same thing with guerrilla warfare; some people are trying to make this method of popular liberation seem elitist. In actuality, this is not so.
Look at the Vietnam war: The guerrillas WERE the masses. Usually, guerrilla fighters are not military regulars, they are common people who take up guns.
The masses are the determining factor in every guerrilla war. I would hardly say that is a passive role.

[Severian]

It's stupid to make this a subject of theoretical debate. Guerilla warfare is a tactic, both in military and political terms. Like other tactics, it can be useful depending on the exact situation, but isn't a cure-all. It can't be ruled out - nor fetishized either.


Originally posted by DJ-TC
Guerilla warfare needs authoritarian comand structure, which is necessary to transplant itself onto the state after the victory.

No. You have a brain, why refuse to use it? Think.

All warfare needs an "authoritarian command structure," which is necessary to win the war. And if the working class can't win wars, it can't hold power.

This is the real world, where all political questions are ultimately settled by contenting military forces. And where decentralized armed groups may rarely win battles, but never wars.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:07 pm
The masses are the determining factor in every guerrilla war. I would hardly say that is a passive role.
Depends on the context. Either way, like I said before: guerrilla warfare should never be completely thrown out, but it should never be completely championed either. It is one tool, in a large toolbox, and we should use everything at our disposal to destroy the bosses.

[Dimentio]

One very interesting thing is that modern, especially islamist, guerillas, actually are a lot smarter than the guerillas of the 70;s, since they instead of wasting their credentials on taking over the state and become just as bad instead leaves the political power and builds a counter-structure with social welfare [remniscent of the theories advocated by Kai Murros].

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 03:53 pm

o me, and others I've spoken to, guerrilla warfare makes the action and responsibility of the proletariat something passive, while the guerrilla unit takes the active means.

I don't understand the problem here. Are you saying that guerilla warfare gives an excuse to the masses for not fighting or resisting?

If so, you need to keep in mind that guerilla warfare is usually the last resort and means to defend against oppressions, and the guerillas which fight are usually ordinary men from the masses which they seek to defend. The are the "poor man's" soldiers and, in fact, the only way a people can be emanicapted from the oppressions that prevent any real military or diplomatic action. When the guerillas emerge, all other options are usually exhausted and they are the last resort of the people.

Guerilla warfare is the alternative to financing a real war, or declaring war. The guerilla's are "ghosts" which serve to antagonize the offenders, hoping to discourage further action from them. They act as a "pest", and that is all they can do for lack of better rsources.
The arguement against guerilla warafre is usually that in the process of guerilla warfare there is almost always a leader or authortaive figure (I cant spell) and a social hieracy within the guerilla "force" and if the guerilla "force" is sucessful the revoultion then it leaves the chance open for those people to become a new ruling power so instead of liberarting the people they just replace the old oppresor's with new ones. But as other have said my opinon is that guerilla warafre is a tactic and of course there will always be a leader within a guerilla force because without that then it would not be sucesful. Should it be hailed as the only way in order to overthrow the current goverement? Absoluetly not. Should it be ruled out? Hell No. It is a very effective tactic and we should use it in the revolution, How much? We dont know till the revolution occurs.

[Springmeester]

I agree. Guerilla warfare is a powerfull tool in the toolbox called revolution but I think that its applicability (is it a word?) is limited. For example; in the Chiapas wich is hard to control because of its jungle terain it is a great tool to form a stronghold (as the Zapatista's did) from where more revolutionary action can be organized. On the other hand you have Oaxaca, the state right next to the Chiapas that takes on a completely different fighting style (that of the mass-rebellion). But these two trends should compliment eacht other, and I think that right now in Mexico is a great example of how that could work.

On Guevara's texts on Guerilla Warfare there is only one thing I disagree with him, and that is on the matter of urban guerilla. I think the RAF and Brigade Rossa have shown that these kind of methods quickly start to taste like terrorist action. Now I don't mean the bourgeois talks on terrorism but I mean the (very powerfull) critics Lenin made, for example, on the social revolutionary's. Placing carbombs and kidnapping people isn't gonna get you to a revolution of the working class.

In my opinion urban guerilla is only applicable in situations like (for example) in the German occupation in Holland ('40-'45) or any other openly fascist dictatorship. But NOT as long as the bourgeoisie can control the public with its parlimentary democracy.

[Janus]

The autonomous role of the proletariat is minimized, channeled, or simply destroyed (as the defeat of the Shanghai Commune shows).
Guerrilla warfare is a tactic rather than a binding role. It doesn't have to undermine the role of the urban proletariat at all. Besides, the Shanghai Commune established by Zhang Chunqiao has nothing to do with guerrilla warfare.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 11:58 pm
One very interesting thing is that modern, especially islamist, guerillas, actually are a lot smarter than the guerillas of the 70;s, since they instead of wasting their credentials on taking over the state and become just as bad instead leaves the political power and builds a counter-structure with social welfare [remniscent of the theories advocated by Kai Murros].
That's not because they're smart. It's because they usually have failed to take power.

[Exovedate]

To me, and others I've spoken to, guerrilla warfare makes the action and responsibility of the proletariat something passive, while the guerrilla unit takes the active means.

The guerilla unit may be the group taking the active means, but they are dependant upon the masses for support. Without the support of the local people they would soon encounter great problems with acquiring food, knowledge of the local terrain, smuggling in arms and ammunition, and a host of other problems.
As stated before, the guerillas are often from the proletariat class themselves, and even though the guerilla unit is taking the most obvious action, it would be unable to survive without an underground network of support from the local populance.

[Vargha Poralli]

Mao really shines when it comes to theory of Guerilla warfare

On Protracted war (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm) I have heard that this work was given and a sepearte exam is conducted in this to IPS(Indian Police Service)trainees in India to effectively counter Insurgency.

Problems of war and strategy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_12.htm)

3 main rules of disicipline and 8 points of attention (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_23.htm) this is the factor that really turned masses to CPC. I doubht it was followed by any self proclaimed Maoists.

[Rawthentic]

I assume that in China, guerrilla warfare was much more applicable since it was a feudal state and had a huge populace of rural peasants.

[Vargha Poralli]

I assume that in China, guerrilla warfare was much more applicable since it was a feudal state and had a huge populace of rural peasants.

It is applicable anywhere if there are real revolutionaries. Of course it is not applicable anywhere to armchair revolutionaries.

[Rawthentic]

Haha, ok. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but as far as I'm concerned, guerrilla warfare as the dominant force in a revolution creates a passive proletariat in the cities, who are supposed to be the driving force. This is why it is so applicable in underdeveloped, agrarian states, but parasitic as a dominant force in advanced capitalist nations where the proletariat are the driving force and all other methods fall under it.

And you are immature to see it as black and white, as if guerrillas were revolutionaries, and those who are not are "armchair socialists". But yeah, see how far you get preaching guerrilla warfare instead of mass proletarian insurrection.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Severian+December 17, 2006 06:22 am--> (Severian @ December 17, 2006 06:22 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 11:58 pm
One very interesting thing is that modern, especially islamist, guerillas, actually are a lot smarter than the guerillas of the 70;s, since they instead of wasting their credentials on taking over the state and become just as bad instead leaves the political power and builds a counter-structure with social welfare [remniscent of the theories advocated by Kai Murros].
That's not because they're smart. It's because they usually have failed to take power. [/b]
Hezbollah could probably take over Lebanon when they wish, but they refrain from doing that.

[Vargha Poralli]

Haha, ok. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but as far as I'm concerned, guerrilla warfare as the dominant force in a revolution creates a passive proletariat in the cities, who are supposed to be the driving force. This is why it is so applicable in underdeveloped, agrarian states, but parasitic as a dominant force in advanced capitalist nations where the proletariat are the driving force and all other methods fall under it.

And you are immature to see it as black and white, as if guerrillas were revolutionaries, and those who are not are "armchair socialists". But yeah, see how far you get preaching guerrilla warfare instead of mass proletarian insurrection.


I am just attacking your elitist mentality that first world workers are superior to workers of the 3rd world.



And you are immature to see it as black and white, as if guerrillas were revolutionaries, and those who are not are "armchair socialists". But yeah, see how far you get preaching guerrilla warfare instead of mass proletarian insurrection.

Look I live in India which is certainly not a first world nation and Naxalites here are conducting protracted warfare for almost 30 years and I actually criticise it.Ceratinly as Severian posted above it is a tactic which have to be used where it is needed.

Did you ever click those links I gave.If you had read them certainly you would have not posted your stupid reply within minutes I have posted them.


But yeah, see how far you get preaching guerrilla warfare instead of mass proletarian insurrection.

I am not preaching one god instead of other god. I gave a link to a work by a person who have successfully conducted guerrilla warfare and gained power through it.Workers every where must learn through his experience if at all they really need to hold on to power they have gained even if they are successfull in mass proletarian insurrection you preach.

[Americancommi]

Basically as Che describes it, the purpose of Guerilla Warfare is for it to act as a catalyst for revolution. The idea is that even if the proletariat is not yet ready to seize the means of production, the Guerilla unit will help mobilise the people and create a popular force. Once the people have been gained by the Guerilla unit it will have the manpower to form a fullscale army which can openly fight the army of the oppresive government. This army will then be able to liberate the people. The idea is not the Guerilla Warfare is totally neccessary, but what Che says is that you should go create the conditions necessary for a revolution rather than waiting for them to all fall into place.

[Rawthentic]

I am just attacking your elitist mentality that first world workers are superior to workers of the 3rd world.

Wrong again. Its not an elitist mentality. Plus, where the fuck did I say that I see 1st world workers as superior to 3rd world workers? Just because the 3rd world is underdeveloped doesn't mean that its only road for liberation is through guerrilla warfare. All I said is that as its dominant force, it creates passivity for the urban proletariat, whom are supposed to be the driving force in a proletarian revolution.

[redpawn89]

Guerrilla warfare has now evolved into Terrorist warfare or at least mix. Ever since Munich moderen terrorist have become more aware of their power an in some ways it has become more useful. If it takes 20 well trained men to fight 100 lightly armed enemys and both sides will lose lives its much more effective to be able to send one untraind man into a building with 1000 people and plant a bomb in the core sets of the base. with terrorist warfare your losses are minimal (and replaceable and the key figures in your orginization are kept safe. The methods are not moral nor are they right but in the fog of war those words are lost. a relolution is the uprising of the people and though Guerrilla warfare is a good tatic it is becomeing outdated. a decent vietcong sinper could take out an entire squad but now snipers have become another pawn in the battlefeild with thermal imaging being more and more inexpensive. Ambushing are more and more difficult. Most enemys will fight fire with fire. so what do u do? You fight with the fire that you know they won't dare play with or atleast not to the scale you are.

[Coggeh]

Guerilla warfare needs authoritarian comand structure, which is necessary to transplant itself onto the state after the victory.

Well In the early part of the Spainish civil war in the militia's their was no saluteing no ranking structure and they seemed to be getting on fine until the popular army came along that is . Socialism should be socialism from day one , you cant use authoritarian means to create a workers state , by using this method it already has set up a basis of a new aristocracy which would be the high ranking officers of the guerilla movement .