- 08 Mar 2009 16:50
#1827499
Some have claimed that Guerrilla warfare is an ineffective way of organizing class conflict in favor of the working class.
This makes me wonder if those same critics also believe in the vanguard party theory. If a political organization can be formed to represent the working class, why would a militant organization be unable to capture power via this specific tactic of warfare to establish a worker's state?
I thought of this in thinking of the Cuban revolution, where a small band of rebels (of course they were not alone in any sense) helped liberate the island slowly from the Batista military. As they went on, they worked with peasants and workers and gained their support as the rebels were representing their interests instead of the interests too.
It seems then that guerrilla warfare (at least when being used by leftists) also requires an adaptation of a vanguard theory as guerrilla warfare is generally not a mass movement (as those tend to be "instant" revolutions).
I think that Cuba demonstrates where the vanguard theory and guerrilla warfare can be fused to form a workers state (although many will argue the nature of Cuba's socialism, which I suppose is quite important).
But one thing that Cuban Revolution does demonstrate is that the vanguard theory of orgnizing and gureilla warfare can gain mass support and represent the working and peasant classes, and while the nature of what type of state arises from it, this method of abolishing the previous state has shown to be effective.
And for those who point to the flaws of the Cuban state and thus their causes as the revolution itself, we can perhaps rethink the way in which the post-revolutionary state itself is organized as the problem, but perhaps we shouldn't be too hasty in writing off that method of getting rid of the previous ruling class.
This makes me wonder if those same critics also believe in the vanguard party theory. If a political organization can be formed to represent the working class, why would a militant organization be unable to capture power via this specific tactic of warfare to establish a worker's state?
I thought of this in thinking of the Cuban revolution, where a small band of rebels (of course they were not alone in any sense) helped liberate the island slowly from the Batista military. As they went on, they worked with peasants and workers and gained their support as the rebels were representing their interests instead of the interests too.
It seems then that guerrilla warfare (at least when being used by leftists) also requires an adaptation of a vanguard theory as guerrilla warfare is generally not a mass movement (as those tend to be "instant" revolutions).
I think that Cuba demonstrates where the vanguard theory and guerrilla warfare can be fused to form a workers state (although many will argue the nature of Cuba's socialism, which I suppose is quite important).
But one thing that Cuban Revolution does demonstrate is that the vanguard theory of orgnizing and gureilla warfare can gain mass support and represent the working and peasant classes, and while the nature of what type of state arises from it, this method of abolishing the previous state has shown to be effective.
And for those who point to the flaws of the Cuban state and thus their causes as the revolution itself, we can perhaps rethink the way in which the post-revolutionary state itself is organized as the problem, but perhaps we shouldn't be too hasty in writing off that method of getting rid of the previous ruling class.