I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things.

I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position.

This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me.

What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed.

PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever.

No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.

  • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
    12·
    2 months ago

    I echo what @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml wrote and would like to add some of my own thoughts as well.

    I checked the book you linked out and was surprised by Sison’s argument, in that he said:

    the term “people’s war” may be flexibly used to mean the necessary armed revolution by the people to overthrow the bourgeois state in an industrial capitalist country. But definitely, what ought to be protracted is the preparation for the armed revolution with the overwhelming participation of the people.

    I find this interesting and will need to check more of him out. I can’t read the entire book right now but looked through a bit of the initial arguments (Sison - Kinera - Belissario).

    Sison’s argument in this portion is basically that PPW starts at the point where organization for it is made. In this way any revolutionary act is an act of PPW. That’s usually different from what most Maoists seem to think of when they say PPW and that’s why I found it interesting.

    Kinera seems to confirm my initial thoughts as he basically says that PPW is when you take up weapons. To illustrate that he points to various imperial core groups:

    The Red Brigades of Italy was active from 1970 up to 1988. The Red Army Faction of Germany was active from 1970 up to 1998. Japanese Red Army was active from 1971 to 2001. The Weather Underground was active in the US from 1969 to 1977. The Black Liberation Army was active in the US from 1970 to 1981.

    That all failed. They all got killed or captured. The previous sentence right before he lists them is “It is simply not true that an armed group must be overwhelmed by “the huge army” (!) as soon as it acts.”

    But what does it matter that the huge army becomes overwhelming 20 years later rather than 6 months later? The point of fighting is to succeed.

    That’s about all I can say about the book at this time anyway before I read it fully. But it leaves me at an impasse. It just leaves the taste in my mouth that Maoists want you to pick up a weapon and die to the bourgeoisie for martyrdom at your earliest convenience.

    Palestine is waging PPW. Vietnam waged PPW. The Incas waged PPW. Revolutionary war doesn’t have to be communist, certainly. But the impasse it leaves me at is that by making it universal, then it’s not PPW, it’s just war, and the word has no reason to exist and be debated as if it’s something unique or different. I think Belissario talks about this in the third article:

    Take note that in his two articles, Kinera sometimes uses the term “protracted people’s war” and at other times simply “people’s war”. But it’s clear, especially when he argues vs. Sison, that he treats the two as interchangeable terms in the context of the theory’s “universality.” This is a crucial weakness in Kinera’s arguments, since the protracted character of the people’s wars that liberated China and Vietnam has a precise socio-economic context and political-military meaning for agrarian or semifeudal countries that are oppressed by imperialism as colonies or semi-colonies. It is not merely expressed in numbers of years that armed revolutions in industrial countries could quantitatively measure up to.

    It starts at a semantic distinction but it does lead to establishing differences. If PPW is not simple people’s war, then it has material differences that warrant it being called protracted people’s war specifically. And the universality of these conditions that make it specifically PPW is what must be debated. In that way I don’t think Sison is making a particulary Maoist argument, and this struck me as soon as I read him; he’s basically saying “as soon as you prepare for revolution then you are waging revolution” and being revolutionary is not something Maoism owns, even if western Maoists like Kinera seem to think so.

    So even in saying that Palestine, China and Vietnam waged PPW I don’t feel entirely confident. They waged war mainly against foreign occupiers for national liberation, not against their own bourgeoisie. And yes I know the history of the CPChina, I wrote about it too.

    Interested to read at least the first three papers in the book though. Maybe it answers my question above.

    Also, you might be interested in this book if you’re delving into the topic of Maoism: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:The_CIA’s_Shining_Path:_Political_Warfare

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
      3·
      2 months ago

      I found the rebuttals to those points most compelling, I suggest you read on.

      PPW is not simply guerrilla war, but Mao’s relevant theory helps it be successful.

      I was looking for that book before. I will have to read it as well as oppositional material to develop an all sided view.