Mao's On Guerrilla Warfare vs. Che's

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I recently finished reading Mao's Yu Chi Chan. I think it was one of the most brilliant texts and one of the most influential written in recent history especially as it has acted as a major manual in people's revolutions since it was written. I haven't read Che's Guerrilla warfare as I've had a hard time finding it, but I was just curious for those who have read both, which one do you prefer? Which one make more sense theoretically? Also what are your thoughts on focoism (che) vs. guerrilla bands building into revolutionary armies (Mao)?

[Pirate Utopian]

http://www.bellum.nu/literature/guevara001.html - Che's book, on the left of the screen you can find the chapters.

I think that while Che and Mao's tactics both have lead to a succesfull revolution, Che's later faced that his tactics only worked in Cuba.
As to wich Maoist groups have taken big parts of countries.

Che came to Congo when the liberation army owned 1/3rd, it ended it up with very little.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think that while Che and Mao's tactics both have lead to a succesfull revolution, Che's later faced that his tactics only worked in Cuba.

Wrong.

I'm exhausted and have been up for almost 30 hours; but I'll give a more detailed reply to this thread after I sleep.

[RGacky3]

I have read Che's Guerilla warfare book, and I think (my humble opinion, I don't know much about military tactics), that its quite outdated, and would be very hard to work especially against a technalogically advanced country or one supported by one.

[Forward Union]

I don't think this discussion is of any practical benefit to anyone - It's just a bit of mental masturbation. And is afterall a discussion about two historical books, so I will move it to literature for now.

[Vargha Poralli]

I think both of them had a specific advantages in the places they have been put in to practice.

Mao regardless his actions after gaining power was a very brilliant Military strategist. And his strategy was developed from day to day experiences facing the most vicious assault from Chiang,Long March and Japanese invasions. His strategy would be very much useful for those who live in a country were repression was rampant and the state machinery has much strength(material strength not popular support/apathy from workers and common people). But they will not earn victory if it has been dogmatically followed as the Naxalite experience shows it.

I have not read Che's work and don't have much knowledge about it to make any appreciation or criticism of it. But I think Che was damn wrong in his strategies in Congo. But we can't really blame him since he was very much new to the place and couldn't have developed a sound strategy to achieve victory.


Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)Which one make more sense theoretically?[/b]


It is stupid to call both a theory.

IMO guerrilla warfare method was not a thing that should be fetished nor to be thrown out of question immediately. It is a tactic which should be applied where/when it is needed.


RGacky3
I have read Che's Guerilla warfare book, and I think (my humble opinion, I don't know much about military tactics), that its quite outdated, and would be very hard to work especially against a technalogically advanced country or one supported by one.

And Mao's work much predates Che's but it is used by the Indian Police training and also by the paramilitaries everywhere(US included) for all counter insurgency operations. Military tactics don't get outdated so soon only the doctrine changes with time.

[Janus]

I have read Che's Guerilla warfare book, and I think (my humble opinion, I don't know much about military tactics), that its quite outdated, and would be very hard to work especially against a technalogically advanced country or one supported by one.
That's the whole point of guerrilla/asymetrical warfare. It is meant to be applied against a more powerful foe. As far as the actual strategy goes, it doesn't become outdated, the armed forces still read such books as the Art of War which was written over 2000 years ago. Guerrilla strategy is not meant to be static and although certain tactics can become outdated it is always the responsibility of the guerrilla movement to come up with new ones and adapt them to their situation.

[RNK]

They're different.

Mao believed strongly in the need to develop both a mass vanguard Party as well as a "red army", a large guerilla force capable of gnawing down a conventional army through sheer attrition and assymetrical tactics.

Che, on the other hand, believed that an army could be developed independantly of any revolutionary party. He believed that a small, core group of hardened revolutionaries could operate out of the countryside, securing the means to their own survival, and eventually, through the act of fighting against the system, draw supporters from the population, and thus lead to a larger movement and eventually a fully-fledged revolutionay army.

Mao's tactics heavily involved absolute involvement in all aspects of society during the struggle; whether through armed militias in the countryside carrying out raids and attacks on the enemy, or armed insurrection, factory occupations and mass upheavel in the cities. His strategy involved securing the rural areas, towns, villages, and using liberated zones as staging grounds to impliment revolutionary society as well as forming "home territory" for the army; cities and towns would be surrounded, cut off from the outside, and slowly brought down through external and internal pressure.

Che's strategy involved the same goal but he believed that an army could operate independantly, on its own. It would gain support through "propaganda of the deed", that is, drum up revolutionary spirit in the people by showing them the possibility of fighting against their oppressors.

Logistically, Mao's strategy required a much larger solid base of support before it would be ready to operate against its enemies; it would first require hundreds or thousands of members, essentially, form a rather large self-sufficient force. Che on the other hand required nothing more than a handful of fighters who were willing to "rough it".

As for practicality... I've often considered myself a Maoist-Guevarist.. I believe both strategies (either seperate, or combined) are practical. Historic precedence, however, is more telling. In Vietnam, Mao's strategies managed to defeat the full fury of the United States military and economy. In Cuba, Castro managed to win; but Che met abysmal failure in the Congo and Bolivia, both for similar reasons; there was simply not enough popular support streaming in, and not enough logistics. And in North America, the Weathermen were semi-Guevarist, but they failed to drum up any mass support whatsoever, and eventually they were all either killed, captured, or simply gave up. In Quebec, the FLQ (Front for the Liberation of Quebec) carried out attacks, bombings, kidnappings and bank robberies, but they too failed to get the popular support needed to survive, and eventually they too were either killed, captured, or stopped fighting. One important note however is that both of these modern movements (both took place during the 70s IIRC) were mainly urban-based, rather than based on the "guerillas in the forests" cliche.

[FOREVER LEFT]

I've read and own both books. I tend to prefer Mao's because his book was more poetic and he had more experience than Che. Che had 2-3 years experience in Cuba's struggle while Mao was more mature. That is not to say that you can not gain some good tactics from Che's version. You can. What was that quote Che used:

"The great desperation of the enemy army ... will be to find something to receive his blows. Instead he will find a gelatinous mass, in movement, impenetrable, that retreats and never presents a solid front, though it inflicts wounds from every side."

Pretty poetic, eh???

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 21, 2007 07:33 pm
Che came to Congo when the liberation army owned 1/3rd, it ended it up with very little.
That was simply due to the lack of cooperation of the local peoples. The structure of the liberation army there was extremely loose and unorganized. The problem was not in the tactics but in motivating the locals to adopt his tactics, and in convincing them to abandon some dangerous cultural practices such as their 'magic paint' which they used to protect themselves from harm, which, when Che confronted them on this, only served to create a further divide between Che's Cubans and the soldiers of the liberation army.

[lvatt]

Originally posted by Witnere+May 02, 2007 07:51 pm--> (Witnere @ May 02, 2007 07:51 pm)
Big [email protected] 21, 2007 07:33 pm
Che came to Congo when the liberation army owned 1/3rd, it ended it up with very little.
That was simply due to the lack of cooperation of the local peoples. The structure of the liberation army there was extremely loose and unorganized. The problem was not in the tactics but in motivating the locals to adopt his tactics, and in convincing them to abandon some dangerous cultural practices such as their 'magic paint' which they used to protect themselves from harm, which, when Che confronted them on this, only served to create a further divide between Che's Cubans and the soldiers of the liberation army. [/b]
I agree. I don't believe the failure in Congo was a technical error on Che's part (although he appears he actually blamed himself at some point, I think he was just being too hard on himself). The situation IMO wasn't proper for a revolution to take place, at least not with the elements at Che's disposition at that moment.

Many of the Congolese fighters with Che deserted the group whenever there was danger, running away with their weapons. Some of them refused to work, refused to carry heavy equipment, asked for vacations, were insubordinate, etc. It was just total chaos. They were cowards, not fighters.

Not only that, but the rebellion didn't really have the same kind of popular support they had in Cuba, because the Congolese rebels had used their power to abuse the peasants, rape women, etc. I believe this particular problem is also part of what caused the failure in Bolivia.

BTW this is my first post here, so hello everyone :ph34r:

[SanPatricio'sSoul]

For all of Che's strengths I will say this, he is the most God-Awfully boring writer I have come across in many years

[Red October]

I haven't read Mao's book, but I though Guerrilla Warfare was pretty good. Most of the tactics seemed still very applicable today, though only in certain areas, so it is limited in that regard. It also had a lot of helpful stuff on practical strategies for training, supplies, etc. And it has a really cool guide on how to turn a breach loading shotgun into a molotov mortar.

[FOREVER LEFT]

Originally posted by SanPatricio'[email protected] 09, 2007 06:44 am
For all of Che's strengths I will say this, he is the most God-Awfully boring writer I have come across in many years
I disagree. Che has a good writing style maybe it was the translator who fucked it over for you.

[Red October]

Originally posted by FOREVER LEFT+May 10, 2007 10:22 am--> (FOREVER LEFT @ May 10, 2007 10:22 am)
SanPatricio'[email protected] 09, 2007 06:44 am
For all of Che's strengths I will say this, he is the most God-Awfully boring writer I have come across in many years
I disagree. Che has a good writing style maybe it was the translator who fucked it over for you. [/b]
Yeah, it must have been the translator. My copy of Guerrilla Warfare was a great read and not boring at all.