The Gonzalites, and the issue of Protracted People’s War

By SJ Otto

Not long ago I posted an article called “A fairly or nearly complete debate on the merits of Chairman Gonzalo.”

I enjoy writing abut the Gonzalites and I like to defend them. But recently I came across this article called “REGARDING THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN CPP AND THE GONZALITES.” I have to admit that I have a problem with Protracted Peoples War (PPW). I have written some articles on this and have made it clear that supporting PPW in some countries seems almost suicidal: Protracted People’s War is not universal and in some places—suicidal/ Protracted People’s War is not universal and in some places—suicidal- Part 2.

According to the author calling him/herself  maosite1917:

I’ve read this reply: https://tjen-folket.no/index.php/en/2019/09/24/to-discard-peoples-war-is-to-discard-the-proletarian-revolution-part-1/ And it strikes me how gonzalites again fail to say anything regarding the condition of revolution and Protracted Peoples War (PPW). Mao wrote:

“Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basiss that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis”

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

If we think about revolution as the chicken, the communist party as the egg and the political situation in a country as the temperature – can we exclude the temperature when we analyze about when to start the war for revolution? Why are gonzalites only answer PPW, unrelated to political condition? Why are they so quiet about Lenins writing regarding a revolutionary situation? Isn’t that hyper relevant for the discussion on PPW?

A few years ago there was a discussion at the blog, Democracy and Class Struggle.  Harsh Thakor argued that PPW was not universal and each country had to be analyzed for the conditions of that society and the ability of the Maoist parties to wage PPW.

Posted on January 17, 2019:

“Protracted People's War or Unified Peoples War?” by Harsh Thakor:

CONCLUSION

I feel we have to morally defend 'Gonzalo thought' even if they are strongly sectarian.

Even if he made gross errors we have to recognize the positive achievements of the PCP and Chairman Gonzalo of being 70% correct.

All the Communist parties of the world could learn from the great strides and serious mistakes of the PCP.

I agree with Comrade Steve Otto who feels in the main we should defend the 'Gonazaloites.'

I hope all cadres read the selected works of the Communist Party of Peru published by Red Spark and refer to the posts in blog Democracy and Class Struggle on contribution of Gonzalo and PCP.

I do not accept that strategy of protracted peoples War is universal but I maintain that nor is insurrection of the Russian road necessarily the path of Imperialist countries.

The Military line of Mao cannot be just duplicated and developed into another form in accordance to the variance in conditions even in 3rd world countries and arguably there could be a peoples war applying Mao's thought of a completely different type from the Chinese revolution in the imperialist countries.

SOURCE: https://redguardsla.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/RGLA-4-Year-Summation-1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR14-6PcFPrYKuuyBFBIk4BFJvcJLcOnVBCbJb_O391AOL-MHFITHtKb1DU

Then the comrades at Democracy and Class Struggle had a rebuttal of Thakor.

NOTE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH HARSH THAKOR FROM DEMOCRACY AND CLASS STRUGGLE

Democracy and Class Struggle upholds the Universality of Protracted Peoples War unlike Comrade Thakor and Comrade Sison but we do not see it being implemented worldwide in the classic way but it has to take account of national and local particularities - in fact the universal theory becomes more powerful the more particularities are taken account of in the implementation of Protracted People's War.

On Comrade Harsh's view of the Nepalese debacle we disagree strongly with the Dhruv Jain view that Kathmandu could not have been captured with an urban insurrection supported by a PLA assault and all the information we have to date of existence of revolutionary armed forces in Kathmandu support that conclusion - it was the revisionist leadership that pulled back from the assault on Kathmandu for politically opportuntistic reasons

For a Strategy for Protracted People's War in an advanced Industrial Country - Italy we call on you to read

http://democracyandclasstruggle.blogspot.com/2013/10/gramsci-and-protracted-revolutionary.html#more

It is not that I opposed to using PPW here in the US, it is that I don’t understand HOW we will use it. I don’t understand how we can make use of PPW here in the US. The last two well known groups to try and use any form of PPW was the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) and US government. They were brave and took on the largest and most well organized militarized system in the world. At Otto’s War Room (毛派) we have elevated those folks to military Heros. They may have lost, but it took a lot of nerve to take on the US government. We have honored them.

The Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA).

While both of these groups are now defunct, both groups had people who had the nerve to take on the US government. 

The last leftist group that tried to take on the US government was among five men arrested after allegedly conspiring to blow up a bridge about 15 miles south of Cleveland, according to court documents, back in 2012. They tried to buy explosives from an FBI informant.
So I have written against using PPW, not because I actually oppose it, but I just want to know how we can make use of these ideas. So this is the next faze in a debate. It is an important debate on an important position. We all need to take part in this debate. I am willing to hear from all sides.