Maoist War

[MEXCOM]

In todays America we have very few militias or armed citizens and so a violent revolution would readily and swiftly be crushed. But I was thinking that if it were possible, again this is in theory, for a "people's war" to be effectively fought against the government and the armed forces.

Would guerilla tactics work or would the proletariat have to go to extreme, if not terrorist-like acts of war to hinder the bourgeoisie and aristocracy.

Comments?

 

[The Duke of Earl]

THE PEOPLE ARE WEAK MINDED, HAVE NO WILL, AND DO NOT CARE TO LOOK AT REALITY .PEOPLE RATHER JUST KEEP UP WITH THE JONES THAN DO ANYTHING PRODUCTIVE.FOR THERE TO BE CHANGE THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE EDUCATED , MAYBE THAT'S WHY OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM SUCKS KEEP THEM STUIP AND DISTRACTED WITH HOLLYWOOD, SPORTS, TV..................

THERE NEEDS TO BE A REVOULUTION OF THE MIND IN ORDER TO HAVE A REAL CHANGE

 

[DeceptaKhan]

guerilla warfare tactics from the past would be useless,in this day and age with how much force is backin up the government youd have to have more then half the fuckin country ragin through the streets.Suposedly thats why the right to bear arms is the second amendment in the consitution because if ever the people have to unite and through out the current government, swut my history teacher told me once

 

[Stealth]

In todays America we have very few militias or armed citizens and so a violent revolution would readily and swiftly be crushed. But I was thinking that if it were possible, again this is in theory, for a "people's war" to be effectively fought against the government and the armed forces.

Would guerilla tactics work or would the proletariat have to go to extreme, if not terrorist-like acts of war to hinder the bourgeoisie and aristocracy.

Comments?

The second amendment was supposed to give us the means to take arms against our country should it ever come to that, and those days are long gone. The US has more military power and weapons than anyone else in the world, and we have essentially become the same Britain that we fought against in the 1770s.

IF we were going to have a people's revolution, guerilla warfare is the ONLY way we would win. Take the American revolution - it was on American soil, fought by Americans, who knew their country. It wasn't a "we want to take this country over" type battle. It was a battle where nobody knew who was on what side, and it wasn't enough to just conquer the army. People were spread throughout, and when you can't see who you are battling or aren't familiar with the land, its hard to win a battle. Its also hard to win a battle when guerillas are just running around everywhere. I wish I could make more sense out of what I was trying to say, but basically my 11th grade AP American History teacher told us that the American revolution was the first real "guerilla" war, and the British didn't win because there was no way for them to get a decisive victory. We wore them out, stayed on the move, constantly moved our capital, and basically knew our own land better than the British, and were able to withstand the harsh winter.

The Vietnam War was the same way. Considered the only war America lost, we didn't stand a chance from the beginning. We were in a foreign country, and it wasn't enough to just sack the capital and take over the government. There were guerillas in the woods and it was impossible to ever have a decisive victory.

Now, Iraq is the same way. You dont know who is the terrorist and who isn't. There is no central staging point for attack. It is modernized guerilla warfare.

Having said that - if we ever wanted to overthrow our government, it wouldn't be a people's war - it would be a civil war. And a lot of the benifits of guerilla warfare don't exist during a civil war because both people live in the country, both sides know the country, and the "guerillas" don't have the same type of advantage that they would have if they were defending their turf from invaders.

Since we, the people, have no distinct advantage over our government's army, we don't stand a chance. Without that advantage, we are about evenly matched. Then you factor in the army's manpower/firepower, and the advantage goes very much in the government's favor.

 

[MEXCOM]

The Colonial pre-United States also had one other advantage. The British were fighting the French over seas. Imagine what the people would be able to accomplish if they struck at the right time. What if a new Hitleresque enemy appeared, preferably over sea's, and the US had no other choice but to send most their armed forced over there. Then the people would be given time to rise up and fight back. Whether by conventional means or not.

 

[ThatBoyJd]

I agree wit homie this country is full of people, even one's who talk major shit about the govt. he would never really go aginst it.

 

[Stealth]

The Colonial pre-United States also had one other advantage.

That's a really good point.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

My mind is a bit scattered, rough morning...

I’m not sure I agree that Guerilla warfare or a “Maoist” war would be possible in Amerika, it probably would be unnecessary. The only means to revolution is a massive uprising of the proletariat, when the majority of the people want and desire change and are willing to fight for that change. If you look at other countries as an example when there is a massive uprising that is so large, the ruling elite have little power and the police/military are simply not effective in oppressing the uprising. When the police/military are ordered to fire upon crowds of people and some of those soldiers/officers have friends/family in those crowds, what are they going to do?

A perfect example is in France 1968 when exactly that occurred. After brutal police repression of student demonstrations, tens of millions of French workers went on strike and eventually took over entire cities/universities/factories etc. The entire country was paralyzed. Because the uprising was so massive, the military/police were infected by the revolution and most eventually sided with the people. Once the tools of oppression of the ruling elite are no longer willing to take orders, the ruling elite are powerless.

Of course, in order for revolution it’s essential that there is good leadership to lead the people. Without it the revolution will eventually wither and die, as in the case of France ’68. There were millions of people in the streets that occupied the cities and obviously wanted change, but the leadership was useless, IMO because they lacked a Marxist understanding and were mostly reformists not willing to completely overthrow the current corrupt government.

If you look at the Russian Revolution in 1917, only 40 people were killed. It was a hugely successful and a non-violent revolution and for the first time in the history, the proletariat overthrew the ruling class. The bloodshed was spilled during the COUNTER Revolution, where 21 or so Capitalist countries sent in troops to try and crush the revolution, which obviously ultimately failed. The difference between Russia 1917 and the US today is one was a backwards, 3rd world country while the other is arguably the most powerful nation in the world. If there were ever a revolution in Amerika, there would not be other nations that would send in troops. The ripple effect of Revolution in Amerika would spread across the world within weeks, if not days.

I think also we have to look at Guerrilla tactics and terrorists tactics that have already occurred in Amerika. During the late 60s and 70s when there really was a revolution sweeping not only Amerika, but the entire world there were a number of Maoists groups, one in particular The Weatherman Underground who bombed government and police facilities for years, about 11 in total. Dozens upon dozens of bombings which for the most part were very successful. The problem with their tactics is that it isolated them from the people. They were forced to live underground and constantly on alert to avoid the police. Members were wanted by the FBI. They had trouble getting their message out. They started out with the potential to be an influential mass party, but ended up being an isolated, insignificant terrorist group.

But as Stealth pointed out, civil war is a completely different story and possibly more likely.

 

[HERESY]

In todays America we have very few militias or armed citizens and so a violent revolution would readily and swiftly be crushed. But I was thinking that if it were possible, again this is in theory, for a "people's war" to be effectively fought against the government and the armed forces.

Would guerilla tactics work or would the proletariat have to go to extreme, if not terrorist-like acts of war to hinder the bourgeoisie and aristocracy.

Comments?

IMHO if the average american citizen understood money, the way it flows and how it operates a revolution would be reality. How would the people finance a war?

 

[MEXCOM]

The difference between Russia 1917 and the US today is one was a backwards, 3rd world country while the other is arguably the most powerful nation in the world.

I see this as the biggest deterent to any revolt, either violent or not. America is not seen as a a poor, illiterate, starving country in which such a quick change is necessary by the average American, Russia was.

 

[MEXCOM]

How would the people finance a war?

I dont think the people would have any organized and visible military unit. At least not at first. After that I would assume they would pillage what they could. All though this could pose problems.

 

[nefar559]

in the US, i dont think WAR is going to be an option for change. first of all, becuase we are not a 3rd world country, and 2nd, well the millitary/police can repress any war movement. And there hasnt been any major volient struggle in the US since the civil war (i believe)

Hersery is on to something...i think common people need to get together and build up their communities, and become as one, instead of people working against one another, not knowing what their neigbors are doing, and what the people on the other side of town are doing. That really needs to be looked in, there should be a sence of community, especailly in communities that are minority. Business need to evolve and be more worker oriented (which is happening by the way) and institutions should then be in place to protect/fight for our rights.

If i can i will post some articles that mentions some of my points, later, when i have time.

 

[Jae iLL]

In my opinion, a violent war is the only way to bring forth change in this nation, and the world. The North American imperialists along with their European counterparts are reaping amazing profits while the developing world is left diseased, and poverty stricken. However, many American "liberals" will not be willing to lose their comforts although they might hold "leftist views", most have never had the struggle at their doorstep. Their socialist ideals come from moral convictions as opposed to real life experience. Those of us living in the States have rarely, if ever, had our convictions seriously tested. Therefore, I doubt the support of such a movement within the borders of the United States would be limited. Also, I feel that many "soft revolutionaries" would join the revolution to boost their ego and eventually do more harm than good.

Also, a MAOIST war wouldn't fare well with the people of America, and it would encounter resistance very early. The idea of a proletariat dictatorship would scare most of middle america whom are the key to any revolution. I think that the Cuban revolution is a good guideline for a revolution in the United States. The number one key essential is public support, in actual fighting as well as shelter, supplies, food, etc etc. However, the revolutionary force must be careful not to bring any undue stress on to the people by the government for this would turn the people against the revolution. The revolution must set up bases in communities and be able to protect the people from the imperialist powers.

In most proleterian revolutions, the revolutionary government became corrupt (example: Stalin). Anybody in the leadership position must be frequently changed. A good model is the Zapatistas. Their communities are run by councils which constantly rotate people from the community so as many people as possible know what's going on. Eventually, the need for leadership and government would be non-existant once communism is reached. At this point, the people can govern themselves.

So basically, it would have to be a large uprising by the public accompanied by a revolutionary attack on the government. Given the US's involvement overseas, I think it might be successful, but only if it were a global event.

 

[AGENT707]

IMHO if the average american citizen understood money, the way it flows and how it operates a revolution would be reality. How would the people finance a war?

drugs....


LOL!!

if the average american understood his/her ass from a hole in the wall....there would be no such thing as "Bush"....

 

[2-0-Sixx]

The North American imperialists along with their European counterparts are reaping amazing profits while the developing world is left diseased, and poverty stricken.

Yep…either we move towards socialism or barbarism.

However, many American "liberals" will not be willing to lose their comforts although they might hold "leftist views", most have never had the struggle at their doorstep

The problem with liberals is that they are not willing, nor do they want to overthrow capitalism, they themselves are capitalists.

Also, a MAOIST war wouldn't fare well with the people of America, and it would encounter resistance very early. The idea of a proletariat dictatorship would scare most of middle america whom are the key to any revolution.

Why do you say a proletariat dictatorship would scare middle amerika? It would be in the interests of the middle class.

I think that the Cuban revolution is a good guideline for a revolution in the United States.

IMO the Cuban revolution is a horrible guideline for revolution in amerika. It might work in a 3rd world nation, but surely not an advanced nation. The guerillas would be wiped out in no time. Even if it were to be successful, whenever you have a small elite group in charge, it will always lead to a bureaucracy or dictatorship, as in the case of Cuba. The working class and communities needs to be equally involved.

The number one key essential is public support, in actual fighting as well as shelter, supplies, food, etc etc. However, the revolutionary force must be careful not to bring any undue stress on to the people by the government for this would turn the people against the revolution. The revolution must set up bases in communities and be able to protect the people from the imperialist powers.

I agree with the support, but it has to be more than just support. They need to be involved in the revolution. Strikes, protests, marches, etc. Taking over factories/universities, shutting down cities, etc. I sort of agree with the last part, but instead of having groups sent in to protect the communities, you arm the communities and have the people create their own militias and train and protect themselves, as in the case of Venezuela today. It’s the people’s army, not a small elite group of fighters.

In most proleterian revolutions, the revolutionary government became corrupt (example: Stalin).

Well, there are a number of factors that have to be considered. Regarding Russia, read Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky and How the Bureaucracy Seized Power By George Collins.

So basically, it would have to be a large uprising by the public accompanied by a revolutionary attack on the government.

I agree and that’s what I’ve been saying. A Maoist war or guerilla warfare is something that is typically isolated from the masses and IMO something that would fail miserably in the US.

 

[Jae iLL]

Yep…either we move towards socialism or barbarism.

Or wipe out the vanguard completely after the revolution and create anarcho Communism.. I'm not sure exactly what type of "government" I support because I see the state as becoming corrupt whenever power is left in the hands of a few.

The problem with liberals is that they are not willing, nor do they want to overthrow capitalism, they themselves are capitalists.

Right, my point is that some so-called revolutionaries share the same feelings underneath it all. Some Democratic Socialists might betray the revolution when the time comes and the revolution shows its true colors.

Why do you say a proletariat dictatorship would scare middle amerika? It would be in the interests of the middle class.

It woud be in their interest; however, because they do not fully understand it they would first need to be introduced to the revolution and then slowly taught the ideals etc etc. I feel to straight up say that this is a Communist revolution would hurt the cause.

IMO the Cuban revolution is a horrible guideline for revolution in amerika. It might work in a 3rd world nation, but surely not an advanced nation. The guerillas would be wiped out in no time. Even if it were to be successful, whenever you have a small elite group in charge, it will always lead to a bureaucracy or dictatorship, as in the case of Cuba. The working class and communities needs to be equally involved.

Isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat in the best interest of the revolution as it will surpress the Capitalists from regaining power?

I agree with the support, but it has to be more than just support. They need to be involved in the revolution. Strikes, protests, marches, etc. Taking over factories/universities, shutting down cities, etc. I sort of agree with the last part, but instead of having groups sent in to protect the communities, you arm the communities and have the people create their own militias and train and protect themselves, as in the case of Venezuela today. It’s the people’s army, not a small elite group of fighters.

You make a good point, the people should be armed. It would take a lot of organization before the actual fighting can begin.

Well, there are a number of factors that have to be considered. Regarding Russia, read Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky and How the Bureaucracy Seized Power By George Collins.

The petit-bourgeois and Capitalist elements were always present within the Bolsheviks tho. From the very beginning, IMO, it wasn't a communist or proleterian revolution.

I agree and that’s what I’ve been saying. A Maoist war or guerilla warfare is something that is typically isolated from the masses and IMO something that would fail miserably in the US.

My question to you, is assuming a revolution does become reality in the US, how do you think it should be done? Do you think we should move towards a government of the proleteriat to surpress the Capitalist class? Or, given the past failures of Cuba, Russia, China, etc etc, do you think we should move to directly do away with the "state" and have the people directly governing ourselves? Basically, smashing the whole system in one swift blow?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

It woud be in their interest; however, because they do not fully understand it they would first need to be introduced to the revolution and then slowly taught the ideals etc etc. I feel to straight up say that this is a Communist revolution would hurt the cause.

Well, right...it takes time. Revolution doesn’t come over night and when it does finally come, it's also a long process. The key is the masses and raising their level of consciousness, which obviously is a challenge.

Capitalism is in decay in Amerika, that’s why we need to invade countries like Iraq and suck resources from 3rd world nations. The economy has rapidly been in decay and will continue to get worse. Eventually conditions will reach the point were the average man is living uncomfortable, which then of course creates the desire for change.

Isn't a dictatorship of the proletariat in the best interest of the revolution as it will surpress the Capitalists from regaining power?

yeah it is but I'm saying Cuba never had a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The petit-bourgeois and Capitalist elements were always present within the Bolsheviks tho. From the very beginning, IMO, it wasn't a communist or proleterian revolution.

I disagree. I would say the Mensheviks had this element; they were definitely more of a reformist group, so did the Socialist Revolutionaries who were largely supported by the upper class, but the Bolsheviks were the most revolutionary and Marxist group the world has probably ever seen. The Bolsheviks were indeed communists and the overwhelming majority of its members were the working class. The Russian Revolution was a Proletarian Revolution; it was the first and only successful one that I can think of and the only time when the Proletariat established a real workers' democracy. The Bolsheviks were defeated by Stalinism, the counter-revolution, the failure of revolution in Germany and the economic backwardness of Russia. Stalin imprisoned and executed Bolsheviks by the thousands. Those factors are what killed them, not because they had capitalist elements in their party.

My question to you, is assuming a revolution does become reality in the US, how do you think it should be done? Do you think we should move towards a government of the proleteriat to surpress the Capitalist class? Or, given the past failures of Cuba, Russia, China, etc etc, do you think we should move to directly do away with the "state" and have the people directly governing ourselves? Basically, smashing the whole system in one swift blow?

I think we would need to move towards a socialist state, a government of the proletariat which will eventually lead to Communism. The Russian Revolution was the greatest step forward in history and should always be looked at as a model to follow. The working class led all oppressed and exploited people in overthrowing the Tsarist dictatorship. They took state power through their councils; the armed workers overthrew landlordism and capitalism, which led the first foundations for a state owned and planned economy which is what we need to follow. IMO you cannot simply overthrow capitalism and immediately abolish the state...there must be a transitional period (socialism).

 

[Viet Loc]

What exactly would we be rebelling from?

 

[MEXCOM]

The problem with liberals is that they are not willing, nor do they want to overthrow capitalism, they themselves are capitalists.

I still do not hold that capitalism is "inherently" bad. It can possibly be the most corruptible of the economic systems currently still in practice. The problem lies on the people. Like one of you said, and I tried to get this across earlier, Americans, as every other nationality of people, will ONLY be willing to overthrow their governments once they have been visibly exploited to such a degree in which inaction is more dangerous than action. Americans are being manipulated, Americans are being duped, and Americans are being sedated and reprogrammed. We are still not to that point in our histories. We may be very soon, but not now.

Why do you say a proletariat dictatorship would scare middle amerika? It would be in the interests of the middle class.

I agree. But unlike Jae I do not think it would "scare" the middle class. I doubt that the middle class, most being moderately if not highly well read, wouldn't be able to quickly grasp the concept and benefits that would arise from such a movement. I think that it would be harder to convince them to fight than it would be to convince them to understand or accept the idea.

I agree with the support, but it has to be more than just support. They need to be involved in the revolution. Strikes, protests, marches, etc. Taking over factories/universities, shutting down cities, etc. I sort of agree with the last part, but instead of having groups sent in to protect the communities, you arm the communities and have the people create their own militias and train and protect themselves, as in the case of Venezuela today. It’s the people’s army, not a small elite group of fighters.

Which is why I still think a Maoist/People's War is the only credible option. I do think a different variation might be needed but the people would be the ones that would ultimately have to fight the government. Either unarmed guerillas or professional militias, the goal is ultimately the same. The survival of the people's movement.

Like with Mao's war there are three steps.
(1)Guerilla's attacking the establishment and spreading of propaganda
[In order to win support of the people]
(2)As the war advances and the guerillas rank increase more and more attacks are made on "the government's military and vital institutions."
(3)A shift from guerilla fighting into more conventional means.
[I think of it as a reversed situation in Iraq. First the guerillas fight the oppressors. They are soon exhalted as heroes. Then they form an actual army. Soon the Militarized People will disband and a governing system is chosen.]

I agree and that’s what I’ve been saying. A Maoist war or guerilla warfare is something that is typically isolated from the masses and IMO something that would fail miserably in the US.

To think that guerilla tactics win wars is ludicrous. Look at the American revolution. Guerillas started the war. An organized army won it. Look at the Cuban Revolution. Guerillas started the fighting. An organized Army won it. Look at the Mexican revolution. Guerillas started the fighting. An organized army won it. Etc, etc. The people fighting in a guerilla-esque fashion is necessary to commence the revolution but it wont win the war. It will only dishearten the enemy and enlighten the people.

 

[ColdBlooded]

some responces to what i've read thus far . . .

In todays America we have very few armed citizens

Really? I’m under the impression there are many armed citizens in the U.S., organized they may not be, armed they are.

a violent revolution would readily and swiftly be crushed.

Disagree. If/when this country reached the point of a vanguard lead revolution fought militarily there would be many contributing factors to the creation of the vanguard that would ensure it would not be crushed swiftly.

Would guerilla tactics work or would the proletariat have to go to extreme, if not terrorist-like acts of war to hinder the bourgeoisie and aristocracy.

Comments?

Yes, guerilla tactics would work(urban and rural). Depends on what you consider terrorist-like acts. * clarify for me *

guerilla warfare tactics from the past would be useless,in this day and age with how much force is backin up the government youd have to have more then half the fuckin country ragin through the streets

guerilla tactics are constantly evolving that’s what makes them so hard to counter. they adapt to the conditions.
not even close to that amount would be needed.
Vs. the national guard and police and domestic enforcement arms of the bourgeoisie a force of not even half the size with efficient leadership would be sufficient to counter it.

Having said that - if we ever wanted to overthrow our government, it wouldn't be a people's war - it would be a civil war. And a lot of the benifits of guerilla warfare don't exist during a civil war because both people live in the country, both sides know the country, and the "guerillas" don't have the same type of advantage that they would have if they were defending their turf from invaders.

I was in agreement up until this point. If the U.S. sent troops to your city you WOULD be defending your turf from invaders. If the U.S. gov were to invade your hood how many national guard troops you think would be from your block? Probably none. Guerillas would still have the territorial knowledge advantage. + they would be living among the people so they would have an advantage of the majority of the civilians in the area being on their side (or at least not working directly against them), so again another advantage Vs the gov. Bahgdad and your average large American city are about the same when it comes to U.S. troops invading (except the U.S. troops would have more of a false sence of security/familurarity when invading a U.S. city: working more to their downfall).

becuase we are not a 3rd world country

you have to be a 3rd world country for armed revolution to be an option?

And there hasnt been any major volient struggle in the US since the civil war (i believe)

Ripe

A Maoist war or guerilla warfare is something that is typically isolated from the masses and IMO something that would fail miserably in the US.

Quite the contrary. A Maoist revolution or a guerilla war is something that MUST be supported by the masses and only fails miserably when it is not.

Your mention of Cuba proves this. The Cuban revolution would have never achieved what it did without the support of the people. It wasn’t 4 dudes up in the mountains tossin molotovs. (China, Vietnam, etc included)

The petit-bourgeois and Capitalist elements were always present within the Bolsheviks tho. From the very beginning, IMO, it wasn't a communist or proleterian revolution.

that's why lennin developed the theory of the vanguard leading the revolution, to cover for the proletariate not doing it all by themselves

I agree. But unlike Jae I do not think it would "scare" the middle class. I doubt that the middle class, most being moderately if not highly well read, wouldn't be able to quickly grasp the concept and benefits that would arise from such a movement. I think that it would be harder to convince them to fight than it would be to convince them to understand or accept the idea.

It’d scare the crap outta the middle class (at least at first). What we call the middle class in this country are the guardians of the bourgeois class, though they themselves do not belong to it. Not to say that some/most wouldn’t figure it out, but most would indeed be fervent opponents of the revolution early on.