Maoist War

[Jae iLL]

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

I agree, I think most of America's citizens are armed although they may not be able to shoot well. However, there are already organized militias established in this country, they're just bible-thumping, racist, redneck folks.

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

Guerilla tactics would definitely be something of a necessity in the revolution. Urban warfare would be waged, and the revolutionary army would grow and eventually members of the American military would join the people and the fight would shift from a guerilla war to an all out war much like the Cuban revolution which was my original point. However, terrorist acts are acts committed to envoke terror in the people, i.e. suicide or car bombings done by small groups aimed at the people. This would alienate the people from the revolution and ultimately hurt the revolution. I don't think most revolutionaries condone terrorist attacks.

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).

Also, at this point how many people would still be fighting for the government? Of course there are those who are diehard military, but I'm sure a large number of the military and police forces would eventually join the people. However, those militias I spoke of before would also join the fight in the form of guerilla warfare (mostly rural I would imagine). They are definitely a lot more familiar with the country sides and would be able to wage a successful campaign in the swamps, forests, etc etc as opposed to a people's army I think.

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)

Exactly, the people joined in the fight. This was why the Bolivian and Congo wars were unsuccesful because of lack of support by the people.

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

However, I do not think a vanguard should lead the revolution. It should be a people's war with a people's army. A leader, or group of leaders, is really not needed, and might be detrimental to the revolution. This has shown to be true in past revolutions.

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.

Exactly, not to mention the counterrevolutionaries such as the militias I stated earlier. A heavy propaganda campaign would have to be in effect by the people along with actual fighting. The support and trust of the people is needed to find counterrevolutionaries and protect the revolution.

 

[ColdBlooded]

However, terrorist acts are acts committed to envoke terror in the people, i.e. suicide or car bombings done by small groups aimed at the people. This would alienate the people from the revolution and ultimately hurt the revolution. I don't think most revolutionaries condone terrorist attacks.

I think people have different def. of what terrorist actions are. And a lot of what some people would call “terrorist” actions are quite viable options at certain stages in a revolutionary offensive. Some tactics are specifically designed to create a response from the ruling class which in turn drive more people to side with the revolutionaries. Also a lot of the actions of the revolutionary forces will be called “terrorist” no matter what happens. Blow up a police station or a military barracks and it’ll get called a terrorist action. Different strokes for different folks. Different tactics for different situations. Different methods for different goals.

Also, at this point how many people would still be fighting for the government? Of course there are those who are diehard military, but I'm sure a large number of the military and police forces would eventually join the people.

Process takes time, initially the force would be quite isolated and would face stiff opposition. As the true nature of the ruling class revealed itself through it’s responses to the guerilla force’s actions more and more people would abandon their “support” for the gov. and side with the revolution.

However, those militias I spoke of before would also join the fight in the form of guerilla warfare (mostly rural I would imagine). They are definitely a lot more familiar with the country sides and would be able to wage a successful campaign in the swamps, forests, etc etc as opposed to a people's army I think.

I wouldn’t count on them to support the revolution, more likely they would become the para-military death squad type forces that would go through towns slaughtering people to try and prevent the success of the revolution and people joining it.

This was why the Bolivian and Congo wars were unsuccesful because of lack of support by the people.

I wouldn’t simplify it that much. There were quite a few factors unique to each situation that resulted in the operations’ failures.

However, I do not think a vanguard should lead the revolution. It should be a people's war with a people's army. A leader, or group of leaders, is really not needed, and might be detrimental to the revolution. This has shown to be true in past revolutions.

It’s shown to be the failure of many “revolutions” in the past not having a vanguard as well. Different situations require different approaches. I’d say expecting a bunch of unions to rise up and create a revolutionary democracy and overthrown the ruling class just out of the blue on their own is a bit far fetched. Even using the example of the Russian Soviets, they wouldn’t have done what they did without a vanguard.

The vanguard is the point of the spear head and the people are the spear. The spear is useless without the tip of the spear to pierce the flesh and the tip of the spear is useless without the force of the spear behind it.