Why Publish Guerilla Manuals [Archive]

Vargha Poralli

18th February 2007, 12:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:22 pm
I was wodnering , why were Mao and ERnesto Guevara publishing texts on the metthods of guerrilla warfare? Couldnt these texts be used by the enemy ?
I have not read Che's material but Mao's military writings are really awesome. AFAIK Mao's on On Protracted warfare (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_09.htm) and Problems of War and Strategy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_12.htm) are used by Indian Police to tackle Naxalites once. How bad it has been for Naxalites is highly controversial since they had been mainly defeated by their own Infighting rather by Police actions.

Whitten

18th February 2007, 13:05

When Geurilla warfare is waged properly, the enemy having read the works of Mao and Che shouldn't matter.

bolshevik butcher

18th February 2007, 17:26

They published them for the benefit of others hoping to start guerilla movements. These movements by and large failed. Guerilla warfare is now in most of the world, including its spiritual homeland of Latin America an outdated strategy for a sodialist revolution. Even at the time that Che Guevara wrote gurilla warfare it was by and large out dated.

UndergroundConnexion

18th February 2007, 17:33

outdated? i believe that during that era, youhad the vietnam war everything, which proved the succselfullsness of guerilla warfare

RGacky3

18th February 2007, 19:00

Both Ches and Maos Manuals are way out of date, looking at modern technology. I don't think Guerilla warfare will every be out of date, its been around almost as long as war has been around. But the specifics change quickly, nowerdays I would think they change every year.

Whitten

18th February 2007, 19:07

Both Che's and Maos manuals are applied today, and are not outdated. They obviously couldnt be used against the US military, but for insurrection in Nepal or Colobia, they are completly relevant.

bolshevik butcher

18th February 2007, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:33 pm
outdated? i believe that during that era, youhad the vietnam war everything, which proved the succselfullsness of guerilla warfare
During the Vietnam war the guerilla war was successful as a national liberation movement, and effective in opposing US imperialism. This is not the same as bringing about a socialist revolution.

OneBrickOneVoice

18th February 2007, 19:16

they are published so that guerilla forces have a tactical foundation for carrying out protracted people's war. Obviously yes, counter-insurgencies have read the books by Che and Mao, which is why those texts shouldnt be taken in a strict orthodox fashion. They should be adapted and adjusted to your surroundings and who you're up against. However even today, the Nepalese Maoists and Indian Naxalite Maoists have been pretty successful using Mao's military tactics. The Nepal Maoists control 3/4 of the countryside with they're PLA, and the Naxalites also control a large porition of India.

bolshevik butcher

18th February 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:07 pm
Both Che's and Maos manuals are applied today, and are not outdated. They obviously couldnt be used against the US military, but for insurrection in Nepal or Colobia, they are completly relevant.
The gurilla movement in Columbia has failed, and allienated the best working class militants from the rank and file of the labour movement.

Nepal is possibly an exception, I never said in all countries guerilla war was outdated just in most.

Janus

18th February 2007, 20:28

Both Ches and Maos Manuals are way out of date, looking at modern technology
Certain practices, yes but not the theories behind it. It would be like saying that The Art of War is outdated.

Janus

18th February 2007, 20:30

why were Mao and ERnesto Guevara publishing texts on the metthods of guerrilla warfare?
In order to pass on knowledge gained through their experiences to other revolutionaries.

Couldnt these texts be used by the enemy ?
Yes and they have. Obviously, every guerrilla movement is only going to adapt certain key points to their campaigns.

bezdomni

19th February 2007, 03:35

Military tactic isn't military secret.

ie: It doesn't matter if the enemy knows how you will attack them (they will figure that out anyway), what matters is if they know when and where you will attack them.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th February 2007, 04:37

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+February 18, 2007 07:18 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ February 18, 2007 07:18 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 07:07 pm
Both Che's and Maos manuals are applied today, and are not outdated. They obviously couldnt be used against the US military, but for insurrection in Nepal or Colobia, they are completly relevant.
The gurilla movement in Columbia has failed, and allienated the best working class militants from the rank and file of the labour movement.

Nepal is possibly an exception, I never said in all countries guerilla war was outdated just in most. [/b]
Not necessarily. FARC controls large parts of Colombia but they don't really follow people's protracted war as much as the Nepalese Maoists which is why they haven't been able to gain so much popular support as the Maoists have in my opinion.

welshred

19th February 2007, 14:33

If a group publishes its guerilla tactics and the people they are fighting get it, then surely the army will know the tactics of the guerillas and will be able to fight them better?

bolshevik butcher

19th February 2007, 15:10

Guerilla tactics are known anyway. The capitalist state is far more than aware of how they work so it's hardly a secret.

FARC have failed, not just because of this pepople's war thing, mainly because guerilla warfare doesnt work in an industrialised society like Columbia. Radically changing Columbian societies function is down to the Columbian working class.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th February 2007, 19:59

that's because people's war builds of rural support and surrounds the cities.

rebelworker

19th February 2007, 20:59

Something that is increasingly out of touch with what is politically possible in the world.

Nepal is a very unique country, it had a monarchy and is one of the most underdeveloped places in the world. The peasants there also have the advantage of living in very isolated mountainous regions.

Much like the Zapatistas, although the tactics used there have had a fairly high level of success, they are not nessesarily relevant for anywhere else.

bolshevik butcher

19th February 2007, 21:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:59 pm
that's because people's war builds of rural support and surrounds the cities.
Yes exactly, and that's why they don't work in industralialised societies because they exclude the mass revolutionary class; the working class.

The Grey Blur

19th February 2007, 21:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:59 pm
that's because people's war builds of rural support and surrounds the cities.
And it ends up being used in extraordinary situations where there exists no revolutionary working class organisation, like in China around Mao's time. And why was that btw? - Due to Stalinist stageism allowing the CCP to be slaughtered by the KMT.

I'm all for reading guerilla manuals out of curiousity or due to a desire to learn more their author but in practical terms they are useless.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th February 2007, 21:50

Yes exactly, and that's why they don't work in industralialised societies because they exclude the mass revolutionary class; the working class.

That's why Mao advocated a bolshevik style uprising in industrialized countries. (I don't know about Che)

And it ends up being used in extraordinary situations where there exists no revolutionary working class organisation, like in China around Mao's time. And why was that btw? - Due to Stalinist stageism allowing the CCP to be slaughtered by the KMT.

what a suprise. More anti-peasant bullshit. Anyhow, the New Democratic stage was making prgress until Chiang Kai-Shek came to power and backstabbed the communists. This was a sudden move btw.

but in practical terms they are useless.

unless of course you consider being the foundation of almost revolution in the underdeveloped world.

bolshevik butcher

19th February 2007, 21:56

Lefty henry if Mao advocated a working class struggle in indusrtialised countries then why are you advocating FARC as answer to the contradictions of capitalism in Columbia? Clearly they are not a working class force, and they do not present a real challenge to the Columbian state. In Columbia socialists need to work inside the Columbian labour movement not remove themselves from the day to day struggle of working people.

What anti-peasant bullshit, pernament revolution is correct. In 1927 the CCP was almost killed off after the stalinist USSR advocated that the CCP ally with Chang Kai-Shek, who found himself on the third internationals executive bizzarley enough. In 1927 the CCP could have lead a revolutionary working class to victory, but just like in Spain in the 1930s it was betrayed by Stalinism.

The Grey Blur

19th February 2007, 22:04

That's why Mao advocated a bolshevik style uprising in industrialized countries. (I don't know about Che)
That's entirely contradictory - the Bolsheviks revolution itself ocurred in a semi-industrialized country.

what a suprise. More anti-peasant bullshit. Anyhow, the New Democratic stage was making prgress until Chiang Kai-Shek came to power and backstabbed the communists. This was a sudden move btw.
Oh yes, I hate peasants. Grr. :rolleyes:

Point is, stageism delayed and ensured the self-destruction of a strong workers revolution.

unless of course you consider being the foundation of almost revolution in the underdeveloped world.
Like in Sri Lanka? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanka_Sama_Samaja_Party)

Or Bolivia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Workers%27_Party_%28Bolivia%29)

Or Venezuala today? (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskyist-president120107.htm)

I hate having to deal with strawmen. Obviously I meant in regards to the majority of us on this board who, like me and you, live in highly industrialised economically dominant capitalist nations.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th February 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 10:04 pm
That's entirely contradictory - the Bolsheviks revolution itself ocurred in a semi-industrialized country.

point is, it overthrew the government through co-ordinated factory uprisings and the storming of the government building.

Point is, stageism delayed and ensured the self-destruction of a strong workers revolution.

haha yeah you're right: "no, no farmers and workers don't revolt and end exploitation. Wait until the trotskyites say it cool. That's why they have conducted so many revolutions" :rolleyes:

Like in Sri Lanka? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanka_Sama_Samaja_Party)

omfg!?!?! Are you joking dude? You critiscize the maoists for "joining the bourgeois" or whatever in Nepal, however, as a shining example of trotskyism in action, you show be a reformist CPUSA-style party which is butchering tamils? Fantastic!!!

Or Bolivia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Workers%27_Party_%28Bolivia%29)

lol I love this line in the wiki entry

he POR was one of the few Trotskyist parties in history to gain a working-class following.

besides I don't see what's so special about this party

Or Venezuala today? (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskyist-president120107.htm)

:rolleyes: social-democratic-trotskyism?

Fawkes

20th February 2007, 02:46

If anyone is interested in learning more about guerrilla warfare tactics when applied to a modern scenario, I recommend Guerrilla's in the Mist: A Battlefield Guide to Clandestine Warfare by Bob Newman.

Vargha Poralli

20th February 2007, 04:49

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 20, 2007 04:19 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 20, 2007 04:19 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 10:04 pm
That's entirely contradictory - the Bolsheviks revolution itself ocurred in a semi-industrialized country.

point is, it overthrew the government through co-ordinated factory uprisings and the storming of the government building.

Point is, stageism delayed and ensured the self-destruction of a strong workers revolution.

haha yeah you're right: "no, no farmers and workers don't revolt and end exploitation. Wait until the trotskyites say it cool. That's why they have conducted so many revolutions" :rolleyes:

Like in Sri Lanka? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanka_Sama_Samaja_Party)

omfg!?!?! Are you joking dude? You critiscize the maoists for "joining the bourgeois" or whatever in Nepal, however, as a shining example of trotskyism in action, you show be a reformist CPUSA-style party which is butchering tamils? Fantastic!!!

Or Bolivia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Workers%27_Party_%28Bolivia%29)

lol I love this line in the wiki entry

he POR was one of the few Trotskyist parties in history to gain a working-class following.

besides I don't see what's so special about this party

Or Venezuala today? (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskyist-president120107.htm)

:rolleyes: social-democratic-trotskyism? [/b]

point is, it overthrew the government through co-ordinated factory uprisings and the storming of the government building.
Which has nothing to do with Mao. Mao captured power by war and military action not through a revolution.

haha yeah you're right: "no, no farmers and workers don't revolt and end exploitation. Wait until the trotskyites say it cool. That's why they have conducted so many revolutions" :rolleyes:

An ad-hominem attack and you have dodged his whole point. What is the point of discussing anything with you ?

LeftyHenry
omfg!?!?! Are you joking dude? You critiscize the maoists for "joining the bourgeois" or whatever in Nepal, however, as a shining example of trotskyism in action, you show be a reformist CPUSA-style party which is butchering tamils? Fantastic!!!

This clearly shows that you don't know any shit about Sri Lanka and its problems or its parties. I advice you to shut up your ass and don't speak bad about something you don't know.

BB,PR

Guerilla war should not be rejected outright nor it should be taken as the onl;y thing to consider. It should be used only where it is necessary .

The Grey Blur

20th February 2007, 08:21

Guerilla war should not be rejected outright nor it should be taken as the onl;y thing to consider. It should be used only where it is necessary .
I agree, I didn't mean to come off entirely dismissive of it's use, I actually find the Cuban guerilla movement highly inspirational.

But for the vast majority of us (living in large industrial cities) guerilla manuals aren't useful, some practical writings of a real working-class organiser like Trotsky or Marx is a lot more useful for someone wanting to bring down Capitalism than instructions on how to ambush Batista soldiers.

Fawkes

21st February 2007, 23:45

Permanent Revolution: You should check out the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla. You can find e-texts easily online.

bcbm

22nd February 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:45 pm
Permanent Revolution: You should check out the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla. You can find e-texts easily online.
It isn't that great. I'd rather get my hands on some of the Brigate Rosse manuals, and even then, urban guerrilla shit is pretty worthless.

The Grey Blur

22nd February 2007, 01:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:45 pm
Permanent Revolution: You should check out the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla. You can find e-texts easily online.
The revolution won't be "urban guerillism", it will be the working class occupying workplaces, arming themselves and destroying the bourgeois state through a coordinated mass movement.

Fawkes

22nd February 2007, 01:21

I know it won't be to practical, though it is an interesting read.

grove street

22nd February 2007, 03:46

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+February 22, 2007 01:16 am--> (Permanent Revolution @ February 22, 2007 01:16 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 11:45 pm
Permanent Revolution: You should check out the Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla. You can find e-texts easily online.
The revolution won't be "urban guerillism", it will be the working class occupying workplaces, arming themselves and destroying the bourgeois state through a coordinated mass movement. [/b]
Urban Guerillism is very important. Did you think about what happens next after you occupy workplaces and government buildings?

The bougerise are not going to stand back and let you take over, they are going to fight with all their power and might to hold onto what they have.

The Proletarians might be bigger in numbers, but the Bougerise will have the police, military and unlimited wealth on its side. The only way for the proletrate to defend themselves and their communes/collectives ect is through asymetrical (gurellia) warfare.

OneBrickOneVoice

22nd February 2007, 05:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:49 am

An ad-hominem attack and you have dodged his whole point. What is the point of discussing anything with you ?

He had no point other than what I responded to.

This clearly shows that you don't know any shit about Sri Lanka and its problems or its parties. I advice you to shut up your ass and don't speak bad about something you don't know.

What the fuck is the point of discussing anything with you when you spew this garbage?

Which has nothing to do with Mao. Mao captured power by war and military action not through a revolution.

umm yeah it was a revolution. The CCP built support in the countryside and relied on the masses of peasants and workers to destroy the bourgeois state.

And Mao initially tried a bolshevik style revolution, but China was not industrialized enough so he relied on guerrilla warfare as a means of revolution and it worked an was a foundation for the liberation of Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and many other places.

OneBrickOneVoice

22nd February 2007, 05:43

The Grey Blur

22nd February 2007, 10:29

"Urban guerrilism" is a term invented by college professors with no faith in the working class and with no experience of a mass movement. A general strike will be our tool not video game-style "urban warfare".

Militarily, the revolution will be defended by organising democratic worker militias and suppressing the bourgeois reaction immediately.

bcbm

22nd February 2007, 16:17

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 21, 2007 09:46 pm
Urban Guerillism is very important. Did you think about what happens next after you occupy workplaces and government buildings?
Well by that point we'll probably already be in open conflict with the class enemy. Urban guerrilla tactics may play a part in that, but in and of themselves they are pretty useless. The urban guerrilla way of thinking generally assumes a non-sympathetic public anyway and is more about provoking greater reaction than advancing revolution. Mass action on the part of the lower classes will push things forward quicker than armed specialists.

The Proletarians might be bigger in numbers, but the Bougerise will have the police, military and unlimited wealth on its side. The only way for the proletrate to defend themselves and their communes/collectives ect is through asymetrical (gurellia) warfare.

Don't count on the military holding ranks with the bourgeoisie. I'd bet they won't. And anyway, they'll find themselves having some major problems pretty quickly if we control things like power, communications, manufacturing...

Fawkes

22nd February 2007, 20:56

Yeah, I know it's just an assumption, but I think that a lot of the soldier in the military will join the class struggle seeing as how they are proletarians. I do however think that guerrilla warfare will play a role in the revolution, albeit a minimal one.

bcbm

23rd February 2007, 00:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:56 pm
Yeah, I know it's just an assumption, but I think that a lot of the soldier in the military will join the class struggle seeing as how they are proletarians. I do however think that guerrilla warfare will play a role in the revolution, albeit a minimal one.
I don't think any tactics should be discounted. By the same token, no tactics should be lifted above others.

Fawkes

23rd February 2007, 00:58

I never said that any should be lifted above others. Actually, I find it really annoying how some people romanticize guerrillas.

Vargha Poralli

23rd February 2007, 09:09

Guerrilla warfare in Military sense itself is the Last and final effort when all other tactics have failed. Its capability is very much limited and guerrilla army should move from it as fast as it can. It can sustain the struggle but will not give an end to both sides.

Rather than fighting guerrilla war the working class after a revolution should build up a regular army like the Bolsheviks did and raise its capacity to fight conventional warfare effectively.Mao himself differentiated his tactics from conventional guerrilla strategy. His tactic is more a mobile war tactic rather than Guerrilla tactic.It is the reason his tactic was called People's war not guerrilla war.

Here are some works criticising Guerrilla war strategy by Trotsky

Guerrilla-ism and the Regular Army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch08.htm)
Do we need Guerrillas (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch95.htm)
Overcoming Guerrillaism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch109.htm)

OneBrickOneVoice

23rd February 2007, 18:19

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 10:29 am
Militarily, the revolution will be defended by organising democratic worker militias and suppressing the bourgeois reaction immediately.
In other words, guerilla warfare

Vargha Poralli

24th February 2007, 07:22

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 23, 2007 11:49 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ February 23, 2007 11:49 pm)
Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 10:29 am
Militarily, the revolution will be defended by organising democratic worker militias and suppressing the bourgeois reaction immediately.
In other words, guerilla warfare [/b]

In other words, guerilla warfare

NO you are wrong. Guerrilla tactic is the last tactic to throw for an entity which has been totally defeated in Conventional war.Guerrilla can sting the enemy harder but they certainly can't win the war with that tactic alone.

Fawkes

24th February 2007, 20:15

Originally posted by g.ram+February 24, 2007 02:22 am--> (g.ram @ February 24, 2007 02:22 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:49 pm

Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 10:29 am
Militarily, the revolution will be defended by organising democratic worker militias and suppressing the bourgeois reaction immediately.
In other words, guerilla warfare

In other words, guerilla warfare

NO you are wrong. Guerrilla tactic is the last tactic to throw for an entity which has been totally defeated in Conventional war.Guerrilla can sting the enemy harder but they certainly can't win the war with that tactic alone. [/b]
First of all, guerrillas have won wars using solely guerrilla warfare. Second, are you suggesting that the workers would defend themselves through conventional means as opposed to guerrilla ones? I'm sorry, but they would be absolutely slaughtered.

OneBrickOneVoice

25th February 2007, 06:06

Originally posted by g.ram+February 24, 2007 07:22 am--> (g.ram @ February 24, 2007 07:22 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:49 pm

Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 10:29 am
Militarily, the revolution will be defended by organising democratic worker militias and suppressing the bourgeois reaction immediately.
In other words, guerilla warfare

In other words, guerilla warfare

NO you are wrong. Guerrilla tactic is the last tactic to throw for an entity which has been totally defeated in Conventional war.Guerrilla can sting the enemy harder but they certainly can't win the war with that tactic alone. [/b]
who said ONLY guerrilla warfare would be used?

Vargha Poralli

25th February 2007, 07:46

Fawkes

Originally posted by Fawkes+--> (Fawkes) First of all, guerrillas have won wars using solely guerrilla warfare.[/b]

No at one point they had to evolve from Guerrilla tactics if it was winning the war Militarily. Guerrilla's have not won those wars using guerrilla warfare tactic alone.

Originally posted by Fawkes+--> (Fawkes)Second, are you suggesting that the workers would defend themselves through conventional means as opposed to guerrilla ones?[/b]

Yes Russian workers and peasants won the Civil War through Conventional warfare. Mao's army drove out Chiang only after it had enough strength and received adequate material aid from USSR to conduct a full scale warfare.Vietnamese guerrilla tactics(mainly NLF army) were usually defeated several times(Tet offensive being the worst). Military victory was only achived after US pulled out and the PAVN was faced by a less capable South vietnamnese army.See Ho Chi Minh Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_Campaign)

Originally posted by Fawkes
I'm sorry, but they would be absolutely slaughtered.

Not if they have equipped and evolved to have the ABILITY to conduct Conventional
War.

[email protected]

who said ONLY guerrilla warfare would be used?
You.

Lefty
In other words, guerrilla warfare

Maybe you have Misunderstood me or I have misunderstood you.

grove street

26th February 2007, 10:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:09 am
Guerrilla warfare in Military sense itself is the Last and final effort when all other tactics have failed. Its capability is very much limited and guerrilla army should move from it as fast as it can. It can sustain the struggle but will not give an end to both sides.

Rather than fighting guerrilla war the working class after a revolution should build up a regular army like the Bolsheviks did and raise its capacity to fight conventional warfare effectively.Mao himself differentiated his tactics from conventional guerrilla strategy. His tactic is more a mobile war tactic rather than Guerrilla tactic.It is the reason his tactic was called People's war not guerrilla war.

Here are some works criticising Guerrilla war strategy by Trotsky

Guerrilla-ism and the Regular Army (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch08.htm)
Do we need Guerrillas (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch95.htm)
Overcoming Guerrillaism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1919/military/ch109.htm)
The Russian Revolution is a terrible example of why conventinal warfare is best for todays workers. The Russian army was in a state of decay because of WW1, this gave the Bolsheviks the uppper hand, so Conventinal warfare was best for them. In first world countries where the Bougerise military have the upper hand in terms of fire power, it would be absolute slaughter for the workers to oppose them in a conventinal manner until they have the upper hand, then they can switch to conventinal warfare.

A Marxist revolution needs to be based upon both Historical and dilatecal materialism. The way in which the revolution is carried out and fought needs to take into context the material world around it.

Fawkes

26th February 2007, 17:02

No at one point they had to evolve from Guerrilla tactics if it was winning the war Militarily. Guerrilla's have not won those wars using guerrilla warfare tactic alone.
Yes they have, the Vietnam war being one example.

Yes Russian workers and peasants won the Civil War through Conventional warfare. Mao's army drove out Chiang only after it had enough strength and received adequate material aid from USSR to conduct a full scale warfare.Vietnamese guerrilla tactics(mainly NLF army) were usually defeated several times(Tet offensive being the worst). Military victory was only achived after US pulled out and the PAVN was faced by a less capable South vietnamnese army.See Ho Chi Minh Campaign
So you think that had the Vietnamese fought the Americans using conventional tactics that the war would've been over sooner and in the N. Vietnamese's favor? The main reason why the U.S. was unable to win in Vietnam was because of the tactics used by the N. Vietnamese guerrillas.

Vargha Poralli

27th February 2007, 05:43

Originally posted by Fawkes
So you think that had the Vietnamese fought the Americans using conventional tactics that the war would've been over sooner and in the N. Vietnamese's favor? The main reason why the U.S. was unable to win in Vietnam was because of the tactics used by the N. Vietnamese guerrillas.

Did I say that ?? Anyway if you have misunderstood I meant that Guerilla war in military terms cannot win the war. Guerillas can only prolong the battle but cannot win the war. Only when they move away from the guerilla tactic---- provided they have the support of masses. control huge amount of resources etc can they move to win the war. The sustained guerilla war conducted by NLF did just that it lost in many battles but it won out politically because of it.

Anyway at this point we cannot agree and it is really pointless to discuss about it. Guerrilla war is a tactic it should be applied where a situation arise. It is not a thing to be rejected outright also a thing not to be used when conditions didn't demand(e.g Naxalites in India).

Severians reply regarding this in another thread is really a good point. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60024&view=findpost&p=1292228919)

Saorsa no bas

28th February 2007, 04:42

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 19, 2007 03:10 pm
Guerilla tactics are known anyway. The capitalist state is far more than aware of how they work so it's hardly a secret.

FARC have failed, not just because of this pepople's war thing, mainly because guerilla warfare doesnt work in an industrialised society like Columbia. Radically changing Columbian societies function is down to the Columbian working class.
A dual strategy of proletarian revolution in the urban areas and the peasant FARC insurgency in rural Colombia is the most likely scenario there. I fear you throw the baby out with the bath water with your dismissal of the FARCs capability.

If your point is that the FARC on their own are incapable of the socialist revolution there is a certain validity there, but history teaches us that stranger things have happened. At the minute the Bolivarian movement and Chavez are having a profound effect on the balance of forces in South America.

Saorsa no bas

1st March 2007, 10:48

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 20, 2007 08:21 am

Guerilla war should not be rejected outright nor it should be taken as the onl;y thing to consider. It should be used only where it is necessary .
I agree, I didn't mean to come off entirely dismissive of it's use, I actually find the Cuban guerilla movement highly inspirational.

But for the vast majority of us (living in large industrial cities) guerilla manuals aren't useful, some practical writings of a real working-class organiser like Trotsky or Marx is a lot more useful for someone wanting to bring down Capitalism than instructions on how to ambush Batista soldiers.
Comrade are you familiar with James Connollys writing on urban warfare in Revolutionary Warfare?

The Grey Blur

1st March 2007, 21:28

Nope. I don't read military texts since I'm not a soldier. And the ICA are exactly what I'm describing, a worker's militia.

Saorsa no bas

2nd March 2007, 01:22

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 01, 2007 09:28 pm
Nope. I don't read military texts since I'm not a soldier. And the ICA are exactly what I'm describing, a worker's militia.
Connollys writing - Revolutionary Warfare- along with others, were theoretical and practical guides to workers on methods of urban insurrectionary war. They formed an important educational purpose in 1916 for the Irish Citizens Army and as you know the ICA was as Lenin described it Europes first workers army, made up of workers not soldiers.

Without familiarising ourselves in this non revolutionary period with all aspects of revolutionary struggle, including challenging the bourgeois states monopoly on the right to bear arms and deploy force, we leave ourselves short in our preperation for future developments, dont you think?

CNT-FAI

2nd March 2007, 13:54

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+February 18, 2007 07:16 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ February 18, 2007 07:16 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 05:33 pm
outdated? i believe that during that era, youhad the vietnam war everything, which proved the succselfullsness of guerilla warfare
During the Vietnam war the guerilla war was successful as a national liberation movement, and effective in opposing US imperialism. This is not the same as bringing about a socialist revolution. [/b]
It is a misconception, in part at least, that the Vietnam War was a guerrilla war. The NLF was largely a spent force after the Tet offensive. Increasingly thereafter US troops were facing North Vietnamese regulars.

The Pentagon did study Communist manuals of guerrilla warfare & this helped them in Vietnam as well as El Salvador & Guatemala, where the guerrillas were defeated.

The Grey Blur

2nd March 2007, 13:57

Originally posted by Saorsa no [email protected] 02, 2007 01:22 am
Without familiarising ourselves in this non revolutionary period with all aspects of revolutionary struggle, including challenging the bourgeois states monopoly on the right to bear arms and deploy force, we leave ourselves short in our preperation for future developments, dont you think?
No, not really. Communists at the present time in most Western countries shouldn't be reading military pamphlets describing what actions to take in a revolutionary situation, they should be reading pamphelts describing how to create a revolutionary situation.

What do you think has more practical use in a country where the majority of the proleteriat is not class conscious - "Revolutionary Warfare" or The "Transitional Program"?

as you know the ICA was as Lenin described it Europes first workers army, made up of workers not soldiers.
Why repeat this when I said it in the post above...?

Saorsa no bas

2nd March 2007, 22:56

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+March 02, 2007 01:57 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ March 02, 2007 01:57 pm)
Saorsa no [email protected] 02, 2007 01:22 am
Without familiarising ourselves in this non revolutionary period with all aspects of revolutionary struggle, including challenging the bourgeois states monopoly on the right to bear arms and deploy force, we leave ourselves short in our preperation for future developments, dont you think?
No, not really. Communists at the present time in most Western countries shouldn't be reading military pamphlets describing what actions to take in a revolutionary situation, they should be reading pamphelts describing how to create a revolutionary situation.

What do you think has more practical use in a country where the majority of the proleteriat is not class conscious - "Revolutionary Warfare" or The "Transitional Program"?

as you know the ICA was as Lenin described it Europes first workers army, made up of workers not soldiers.
Why repeat this when I said it in the post above...? [/b]
Well i kinda took for granted that marxists would have familiarised themselves with Trotskys Transitional Programme and be implementing its method in order to raise class consciousness and class combativity and be developing their understanding as cadre of the full tasks of socialist revolution as well. You to my mind create a false dichotomy between two aspects of a programme when they are actually fully compatible. No one is stupid enough for to be doing street work etc raising demands for a workers militia but i would have expected these issues to be raised and developed amongst the comrades.

I got my training in the same organisation as you comrade but im a wee bit surprised that twenty odd years later economism is more dominant than ever.

But hey gas and water socialism lives on.

welshred

9th March 2007, 18:43

Here is a guerilla manual by Carlos Marighella

Guerilla manual (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/index.htm)

freakazoid

10th March 2007, 06:35

Conventunal war is only possible with enough people, until then guerilla warfare is needed. Plus Guerilla warfare tactics can still be used in a conventunal war. Certain tactics work better in different situations.

What do you think has more practical use in a country where the majority of the proleteriat is not class conscious - "Revolutionary Warfare" or The "Transitional Program"?

But then what would happen after you raise class conciousness? Do you think that the government is just going to hand over the factories and such over? Also there still will be soldiers to fight for them.