Base Areas

[Dimentio]

What do you think of the theory which states that a revolutionary movement needs to control land and resources in order to be relevant?

[Dros]

out dated in the first world

still relevant in the third world

[Dimentio]

I do not think it is outdated in the First World.

The control vectors (mainly energy provision) of the First World are contestable.

[Ferryman 5]

What do you think of the theory which states that a revolutionary movement needs to control land and resources in order to be relevant?

What 'theory' are you talking about?

[Dimentio]

The idea is that by controlling resources and territory, the revolutionary movement will consolidate itself and grow. Mao developed it for the Third World, where as it was imported to the First by Kai Murros.

[Maybe-not]

Disagree. The Modern day 1'st world revolutionary cannot hold ground. It's not possible. They instead, need to grow by positive action. Distributing food among the poor (Stolen, of course), destroying military arms, and so on.

[Dimentio]

Disagree. The Modern day 1'st world revolutionary cannot hold ground. It's not possible. They instead, need to grow by positive action. Distributing food among the poor (Stolen, of course), destroying military arms, and so on.

Not hold ground, own ground. And hold it.

[RNK]

Must make distinction between base areas and base areas of support.

In the first world it is not possible for bands of revolutionaries to liberate territory and start their own economy from within it, as seen in China. Instead, we create base areas of support, ie cities or towns or whatever where a large number of supporters reside, in factories, schools, workplaces, etc.

[Dimentio]

Must make distinction between base areas and base areas of support.

In the first world it is not possible for bands of revolutionaries to liberate territory and start their own economy from within it, as seen in China. Instead, we create base areas of support, ie cities or towns or whatever where a large number of supporters reside, in factories, schools, workplaces, etc.

The best would be to provide people there with healthcare, social support, energy, food, whatever. That requires physical control of land.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Hezbollah doesn't control land, and yet it can provide all those social services.

RNK, you still didn't really answer my question regarding the application of Maoist countryside warfare tactics to the First World through support from farm workers (as opposed to peasants).

To you, and to the original poster: For example, there are "occupied factories" in Argentina and Venezuela. Alan Maki proposed something similar for a to-be-closed plant in Minnesota. What about a radicalized "occupied farms" movement?

[Dimentio]

^^^ Hezbollah doesn't control land, and yet it can provide all those social services.

RNK, you still didn't really answer my question regarding the application of Maoist countryside warfare tactics to the First World through support from farm workers (as opposed to peasants).

To you, and to the original poster: For example, there are "occupied factories" in Argentina and Venezuela. Alan Maki proposed something similar for a to-be-closed plant in Minnesota. What about a radicalized "occupied farms" movement?

Hezbollah controls large parts of southern Lebanon.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think what RNK said is right, in any country first or third, a revolutionary movement needs to have overwhelming support in neighborhoods, factories, towns, cities etc.. they don't necessarily need to be the governing force as that may be difficult in the first world