There’s a big qualifier to all of the tactics described by Che’s Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare: that without sufficient support from the masses, none of them can be applied, and if one tries to apply them they’ll at best end up running in an endless circle of skirmishes with the state.
Thank you for this very important post. This is especially relevant now, because we are facing a ton of people, socialists, who are claiming those of us who support the war are "not Marxist-Leninists."
They don't see the connection between the need for:
1. Recognizing that we must accept the material conditions in which we live. We do not pick the way the world is.
2. We live in a world which is dominated by Western imperialism. It has destroyed many in the Global South since the fall of the Soviet Union. The death toll from the 2003 Iraq invasion is 1.2 million people.
3. Russia is acting in a defensive manner because it is threatened by NATO building up to its gates. NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is an aggressive one, camouflaged as a defensive one. It is responsible for destroying Libya, which was the most prosperous nation in Africa. Now it is a failed state with public slave markets. It also destroyed Yugoslavia, bombing it into oblivion. The Republicans in Congress recently were working on a bill that would force the U.S. to defend Ukraine against Russia. This was to be used to retake Crimea, and to trap Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin would not have been able to protect them because he couldn't risk WWIII.
4. People fetishize the role of "sovereign rights," all part of the nonsense of liberal democracy. But this fails to account for the implications of exercising these choices. It is myopic and entitled. As Marx discussed, the notion of "rights" is a bourgeois trap, used to create the moral equivalent of minimum wage, in which we are entitled to a 15 minute smoke break when we should be co-owners of the shop. We should be invested in our relations with others, not breaking them down to standardized units. "Rights" are the abandonment of the old "noblesse oblige."
Next, people fail to consider that Sun Tzu was right, that there is a balance of power. When that is disrupted, war results, balancing the equation. If we don't recognize the reality of other nations and our relationships, they will remind us with violence. This is the real world, not some political science seminar.
5. A unipolar world is a dangerous one. The benefit of Russia as a counterbalancing force against the West has saved the Syrians from a brutal 10 year war, funded by the U.S., giving jihadi's weapons. It saved Venezuela from being attacked by the U.S., as Putin put troops there, temporarily. The Russian people have suffered immensely. They don't need to be squeezed like a boa constrictor out of existence by NATO encirclement. They have suffered enough.
6. There is a martyr complex that some socialists have. They would rather be Purity Queens than pragmatically build socialism by being involved in the world. We can only make the world better by engaging with it, not idealistically dreaming of one. Marxism-Leninism is the only historically proven way to overturn capitalism and replace it with socialism, holding it for the long term. Trotskyism and libertarian socialism have never amounted to anything. A snitch like George Orwell was a Purity Queen. He developed a list of socialists and communists, writing down why he thought they were "fake." Later in life, he turned this over to the government in exchange for a good job. Many lives were ruined. It was a monstrous thing to do. My experience has been that the reason socialism has not succeeded is because there are many on the left who are backstabbers. It is like herding cats to get them to work together. Meanwhile, the right tows the line and builds coalitions to prevail. And that they do. I have had countless numbers of people whom I thought were comrades cancel me. They prefer their dogma to being a comrade.
7. Being a comrade is about having faith. It is about loyalty, and giving another comrade the benefit of the doubt. My experience has been that Western communists are far more likely to toss you under the bus for not holding the "correct" dogma than Eastern comrades. People from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam are often less doctrinaire. They are realists. Frankly, I think they know what dialectical materialism actually means.
Thank you again for your excellent writing. You are an important Marxist-Leninist thinker and voice. Your work is greatly appreciated.
The key detail is that the U.S. flag, or more specifically the colonization project it represents, is opposed to the interests of the oppressed peoples within the country. Clinging to the identity of this country, and trying to set oneself up against the project for returning the stolen land, will alienate the key parts of the masses, namely the Native masses who are fighting for the interests of their nations. It would also alienate the growing amounts of the U.S. masses who no longer feel patriotic. In other words, it would be a mistake parallel to the one the Gonzaloists made.
The U.S. flag is reactionary by definition, as it’s pro-colonial. Our duty is to abolish the settler state, not nurture the reactionary sentiments that keep it in place.
My position comes from my decision. My decision to not have my thinking constrained by the notion that the illegal occupation of sovereign Native territories is an immutable reality, impossible to ever end. It can absolutely be brought to an end, like the Israeli occupation can be ended. I’ve explained myself quite well. Whatever other queries you might have can be solved quite readily, if you make the same decision I have.
If you were to read my linked article, these things would be more easily apparent. I’ve encountered all these queries a hundred times before, and what they fundamentally stem from is a lack of willingness to imagine a future outside of what colonialism has created. It’s a rigidness in thinking, one that causes hostile reactions whenever the colonial question gets brought up.
Because the U.S. flag is reactionary, representing oneself by it goes against the goal of uniting the masses. Reactionary politics is opposed to the interests of the masses. Which is why I consider CPI and its coalition a movement wrecking-operation to frustrate the class struggle.
Opposing the efforts to return the land, and to give the colonized nations self-determination, makes for a scenario where you can’t unite the masses. It would be like trying to create a socialist Israel, while rejecting the demand to return all the stolen land to the Palestinians. I’m not opposed to patriotism for the land or the people, only for the country itself, which is lacking in legitimacy. This is an important distinction.
Once one accepts the narrative that the USA is a nation, rather than a prison of nations, one has set themselves up against serious efforts to resolve the colonial contradiction. The USA lacks the qualifications for a nation, and is nothing more than a colony of settlers. Resolving the colonial contradiction will first and foremost require giving full jurisdiction to the tribes, and then (I believe) unifying them into a socialist federation in the vein of the USSR. The decolonial position contradicts none of Lenin and Mao’s points.
It’s not possible to oppose imperialism while being patriotic for a settler-colonial country. The arguments otherwise depend on baseless statements like “decolonization would have to involve kicking millions of people out.”
Rainer,
Thank you for this very important post. This is especially relevant now, because we are facing a ton of people, socialists, who are claiming those of us who support the war are "not Marxist-Leninists."
They don't see the connection between the need for:
1. Recognizing that we must accept the material conditions in which we live. We do not pick the way the world is.
2. We live in a world which is dominated by Western imperialism. It has destroyed many in the Global South since the fall of the Soviet Union. The death toll from the 2003 Iraq invasion is 1.2 million people.
3. Russia is acting in a defensive manner because it is threatened by NATO building up to its gates. NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is an aggressive one, camouflaged as a defensive one. It is responsible for destroying Libya, which was the most prosperous nation in Africa. Now it is a failed state with public slave markets. It also destroyed Yugoslavia, bombing it into oblivion. The Republicans in Congress recently were working on a bill that would force the U.S. to defend Ukraine against Russia. This was to be used to retake Crimea, and to trap Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin would not have been able to protect them because he couldn't risk WWIII.
4. People fetishize the role of "sovereign rights," all part of the nonsense of liberal democracy. But this fails to account for the implications of exercising these choices. It is myopic and entitled. As Marx discussed, the notion of "rights" is a bourgeois trap, used to create the moral equivalent of minimum wage, in which we are entitled to a 15 minute smoke break when we should be co-owners of the shop. We should be invested in our relations with others, not breaking them down to standardized units. "Rights" are the abandonment of the old "noblesse oblige."
Next, people fail to consider that Sun Tzu was right, that there is a balance of power. When that is disrupted, war results, balancing the equation. If we don't recognize the reality of other nations and our relationships, they will remind us with violence. This is the real world, not some political science seminar.
5. A unipolar world is a dangerous one. The benefit of Russia as a counterbalancing force against the West has saved the Syrians from a brutal 10 year war, funded by the U.S., giving jihadi's weapons. It saved Venezuela from being attacked by the U.S., as Putin put troops there, temporarily. The Russian people have suffered immensely. They don't need to be squeezed like a boa constrictor out of existence by NATO encirclement. They have suffered enough.
6. There is a martyr complex that some socialists have. They would rather be Purity Queens than pragmatically build socialism by being involved in the world. We can only make the world better by engaging with it, not idealistically dreaming of one. Marxism-Leninism is the only historically proven way to overturn capitalism and replace it with socialism, holding it for the long term. Trotskyism and libertarian socialism have never amounted to anything. A snitch like George Orwell was a Purity Queen. He developed a list of socialists and communists, writing down why he thought they were "fake." Later in life, he turned this over to the government in exchange for a good job. Many lives were ruined. It was a monstrous thing to do. My experience has been that the reason socialism has not succeeded is because there are many on the left who are backstabbers. It is like herding cats to get them to work together. Meanwhile, the right tows the line and builds coalitions to prevail. And that they do. I have had countless numbers of people whom I thought were comrades cancel me. They prefer their dogma to being a comrade.
7. Being a comrade is about having faith. It is about loyalty, and giving another comrade the benefit of the doubt. My experience has been that Western communists are far more likely to toss you under the bus for not holding the "correct" dogma than Eastern comrades. People from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam are often less doctrinaire. They are realists. Frankly, I think they know what dialectical materialism actually means.
Thank you again for your excellent writing. You are an important Marxist-Leninist thinker and voice. Your work is greatly appreciated.
Thanks so much!
The key detail is that the U.S. flag, or more specifically the colonization project it represents, is opposed to the interests of the oppressed peoples within the country. Clinging to the identity of this country, and trying to set oneself up against the project for returning the stolen land, will alienate the key parts of the masses, namely the Native masses who are fighting for the interests of their nations. It would also alienate the growing amounts of the U.S. masses who no longer feel patriotic. In other words, it would be a mistake parallel to the one the Gonzaloists made.
This essay addresses the many questions that naturally come up when I mention the task of abolishing the settler state. https://rainershea.substack.com/p/ending-settler-colonialism-requires
The U.S. flag is reactionary by definition, as it’s pro-colonial. Our duty is to abolish the settler state, not nurture the reactionary sentiments that keep it in place.
My position comes from my decision. My decision to not have my thinking constrained by the notion that the illegal occupation of sovereign Native territories is an immutable reality, impossible to ever end. It can absolutely be brought to an end, like the Israeli occupation can be ended. I’ve explained myself quite well. Whatever other queries you might have can be solved quite readily, if you make the same decision I have.
If you were to read my linked article, these things would be more easily apparent. I’ve encountered all these queries a hundred times before, and what they fundamentally stem from is a lack of willingness to imagine a future outside of what colonialism has created. It’s a rigidness in thinking, one that causes hostile reactions whenever the colonial question gets brought up.
Because the U.S. flag is reactionary, representing oneself by it goes against the goal of uniting the masses. Reactionary politics is opposed to the interests of the masses. Which is why I consider CPI and its coalition a movement wrecking-operation to frustrate the class struggle.
Opposing the efforts to return the land, and to give the colonized nations self-determination, makes for a scenario where you can’t unite the masses. It would be like trying to create a socialist Israel, while rejecting the demand to return all the stolen land to the Palestinians. I’m not opposed to patriotism for the land or the people, only for the country itself, which is lacking in legitimacy. This is an important distinction.
Once one accepts the narrative that the USA is a nation, rather than a prison of nations, one has set themselves up against serious efforts to resolve the colonial contradiction. The USA lacks the qualifications for a nation, and is nothing more than a colony of settlers. Resolving the colonial contradiction will first and foremost require giving full jurisdiction to the tribes, and then (I believe) unifying them into a socialist federation in the vein of the USSR. The decolonial position contradicts none of Lenin and Mao’s points.
It’s not possible to oppose imperialism while being patriotic for a settler-colonial country. The arguments otherwise depend on baseless statements like “decolonization would have to involve kicking millions of people out.”