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?
What I have gotten as answer before is that they can start with armed propaganda actions to wake up the masses to action. But propaganda actions is not PPW. PPW is a war by large parts, and supported by the people, and not a little group of people pretending they have mass support.
The gonzalites writes:
“…people’s war theory as the universally applicable military theory of the proletariat”https://tjen-folket.no/index.php/en/2019/09/24/to-discard-peoples-war-is-to-discard-the-proletarian-revolution-part-1/
They’re only problem is that there is only one theory about PPW – and that one is made for China in an concrete historical situation, where most of the theory are true also for other feudal or semi feudal countries. But regarding modern imperialist countries – there are huge differences. Large part of the theory are not valid, other must be adjusted creatively and there are much new ground to be discovered.
There are some few works on PPW in Imperialist countries – but they have a very thin material basis. The reason for this is simply that it have not been any revolution in any imperialist country in modern times.
So when the gonzalites talks about “people’s war theory as the universally applicable military theory of the proletariat” – they simply talks about a imaginary thing that doesn’t exists.
I believe that the revolution in Imperialist countries will be a peoples war of a new kind, and that it most likely will be protracted. I also think that we have to prepare for this, but to launch the ware before the time is favorable will be reckless adventurism.
The gonzalites will reply to this that right deviated will always say that it’s not favorable time and hence there will not be any revolution. In this they actually are partly correct. On the other hand – the left deviated will always say that it’s favorable time which is just as in-correct as the right deviated. The task for Maoists on the other hand is to be objective on the matter and be able to act at the right moment. This is a much more difficult task than the easy (and lazy) solution of the left and right deviated people who don’t need to do the struggle of analyzing and act according to the actual practical reality.
Regarding theory on PPW in Imperialist countries – we should have more focus on studying the practical experiences from parties which actually are doing PPW in recent times. For example the CPI (MAOIST) URBAN PERSPECTIVE is an excellent Maoist analyze which are highly relevant for Maoists working in Imperialist countries.
This text is actually struggling with concrete theory for concrete urban work. This is real Maoism. Shouting empty phrases without content like the example above, and I will add another quote from the gonzalites: “So much dual power on paper, so little new power in practice. All the time, the answer is quite simple people’s war.” are dogmatic idealism.
To say that PPW in Imperialist countries are an simple answer are an striking evidence of the immaturity and dogmatic idealism that are blocking this groups from actually understand the essence of Maoism.