Che Guevara, focoism, and Bolivar

[1949]

In the course of a conversation at Ernesto Guevara, J. Jordan queried as to why the RCP is so opposed to Che Guevara and Cuba. He said:

“And Che was very pro-Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. He sided with Mao Tse Tung during the 60's split in fact. Regardless of little disagreements with Che, I do not see why RCP members are so against him. I think its because Che, like me, held great hatred for western european and American culture and even people to a degree, and that gets in the way of RCP's idealist agenda ('revolution in america is possible').”

I quoted from the RW article “The CIA Murder of Ernesto Che Guevara”:

“Che's Theory of Focoism

For several years after coming to power, the Cuban government encouraged people throughout Latin America to start their own armed struggles against pro-U.S. dictatorships. Several groups were given training in Cuba.

Che Guevara was closely associated with this call for continental guerrilla warfare. In a series of essays he argued that the Cuban experience could be duplicated throughout Latin America. This idea had a powerful influence within the new generation of fighters rising up in Latin America.

Che argued that small groups of determined armed fighters (called "focos") could take to the mountains and use armed actions to rally other forces--triggering the crisis and collapse of hated governments.

At the time, many people saw this Guevarist theory of focoism as a fresh alternative to Latin America's pro-Soviet Communist parties. These rotten parties closely followed the lead of the Soviet Union and were openly hostile to armed struggle against pro-U.S. governments. They were revisionists--phony "communists."

Focoism had the added attraction of offering a hope of relatively easy victory. People were taught that revolution was fundamentally an act of will and daring--that they could become representatives of the people's discontent without organizing new vanguard parties or carrying out the agrarian revolution in the countryside. And as for facing down the inevitable U.S. responses--people were taught that, like Cuba, their new movements would be able to turn to the Soviet Union for support and backing.

In the early 1960s, several attempts at armed focos were made--in Peru, Argentina, Venezuela and other countries. None of them succeeded.”

“The path to power advocated by Maoists was radically different from the one formulated by Che Guevara. The Maoists argued that power won through shortcuts would not be able to resist the pressures of imperialism or lead to an all-the-way revolutionary society. For that, the masses needed to be mobilized and trained in the course of a protracted class struggle, led by the proletariat. In the Third World, Maoists argued the armed struggle needed to take the form of a protracted people's war--that was waged by relying on the masses of people, surrounding the cities from the countryside and building up a new power within revolutionary base areas. Though this approach was based on the rich experience of the Chinese revolution, Mao warned revolutionaries around the world not to copy that experience but to creatively apply this strategic orientation to their own conditions.”

And from a conversation at 2changetheworld:

“I agree, you have raised some good points here.

Che Guevara has become a beloved symbol to people, especially young people, who hate this system. But you have to analyse his theories, you can't get anywhere by just saying so and so is great. Basically the foco theory as advocated by Guevara only succeeded in Cuba. This was mainly because the US imperialists did not intervene and the 26th of July movement never really faced any sustained, powerful attacks from the Batista military.

The foco theory definetly has nothing to do with people's war, more to do with some saviors coming and saving the masses, rather than the workers and peasants liberating themselves.

All you have to do is read Che's book on guerilla warfare, and compare it to the Maoist military line.

Che said there was no nead for a vangaurd party, no need to do any preparation with propaganda, organizing among the masses before the armed struggle begins, no need for base areas, he says actions in cities such as selective annihilation and bombings should not be used.

I once read the Bolivian dairy of Pombo (Harry Villegas, one of Che's comrades) and it shows how the foco theory got Che and all but 5 of the ELN killed. Almost at every turn they were informed on by the peasants. The peasants should not be blamed for this because they didn't even know anything about the ELN. There was no propaganda work prior to and during the armed struggle to tell the masses about the need for revolution, the objectives of the armed struggle, etc.

The combatants wrote out a few communiques to the Bolivian people but I don't think they ever got out to be published. So as you would expect, when the army came, the ELN was isolated from the masses, like a fish out of water.

Then compare this to the people's war lead by the PCP. In 1983-1984 they faced a terrible genocide by the Peruvian army, it is estimated that the army killed about 10% of Ayacucho's population. But because they party had deep roots among the masses they were able to survive.”

To which J. Jordan responded:

“From the description of "focoism" you give me, it sounds a lot like the strategies Bolivar and San Martin used to Liberate Latin America. When Bolivarian bands would go in an liberate a nation, they would assume the role of 'saviours' to a degree and the people would eventually join them (if there was enough discontent of course).

So this theory of Che, which is nothing he came up with since it has been used before (Che was extremely Bolivarian as well as Marxist-Leninist in thinking) is not entirely incorrect and unsuccessful due to the fact that Bolivar liberated an entire continent with similar tactics . I do however think Maoist military tactics are more modern and more successful (although the only truly successful Maoist government I have seen is China, all the other revolutions have not been victorious).

The Cuban revolution had some very Maoist elements. The reason was because the revolution had many ties in the city that could help with propaganda, building up a base of support in the cities etc leading to practically no urban armed counter-revolution. The revolution was also extremely agrarian based in the sense that many peasents strikes and revolutionary actions crippled Batista's economy, the majority of the J-26-M was peasentry.”

I didn’t know how to respond to that. Does the experience of Bolivar show that focoism works? And how did the Cuban revolution have any Maoist elements? I don’t believe that.

[redstar2000]

Actually, I think a good argument could probably be made that "Guevaraism" was Maoism...adapted for small countries without the possibility of quasi-permanent "liberated zones".

One could make some pretty serious criticisms, of course. I was shocked to learn that Che's "foco" in Bolivia had only one Bolivian member.

I've never been clear why Che chose Bolivia...surely there must have been better alternatives.

And, as a personal matter, a guy who's nearly 40 and suffers from asthma is not thinking very clearly if he imagines that he's going to romp through the mountains like he did when he was 30.

It's possible that the "foco strategy" did ignore (or at least diminished) the necessity of "connecting" with the peasantry...many of those foco groups were initially composed, I suspect, of urban radical intellectuals with little knowledge of (or even interest in) the concerns of the peasantry. On the other hand, Mao was a peasant and carefully considered their interests throughout the revolutionary process and after the seizure of power.

One could argue, in a way, that the Cuban revolution was "too easy" and misled many people in central and south America about the realistic possibilities...not least Che himself.

[ComradeRed]

Redstar2000 said:I've never been clear why Che chose Bolivia...surely there must have been better alternatives.
It was because Bolivia bordered so many nations, it would have acted as an easier "vanguard state" than Cuba...

[1949]

Redstar2000 says: "On the other hand, Mao was a peasant and carefully considered their interests throughout the revolutionary process and after the seizure of power."

Are you being sarcastic? You sound as if you are supporting Mao even though I know you don't.

[redstar2000]

1949 wrote: Are you being sarcastic? You sound as if you are supporting Mao even though I know you don't.

I support Maoism in pre-capitalist countries dominated by huge peasant majorities, a decaying landed aristocracy, and a "colonialized" bourgeoisie incapable of taking the next step...modern capitalism.

Mao "revised" both Marx and Lenin to develop a formula for revolution that would fit the objective conditions in China...and countries like China.

And, no surprise, it "works".

All that's required is that you grasp its limitations.

It won't give you "socialism" (except in words) but it will give you sufficient economic development to achieve modern capitalism. And it will likely do so in a more humane fashion than capitalism developed in the "west".

So, as I've said in other threads here, I happily cheer on the Maoists in the "third world"...may they kick imperialist ass.

What is most frustrating, of course, is to see otherwise intelligent people attempt to apply Maoism "in the west"...where it is completely disconnected from objective reality. We have no peasantry.

Trying to apply Maoism in the advanced capitalist countries is like trying to repair a computer with a hammer.

It's the wrong tool for the job.

[Freddy]

RCP members are not against Che Guevera, the man who did so much work in the name of Marxism. Th RCP criticizes Che's Focoism theory, and for good reason they should. Focoism was successful in Cuba for a host of another reasons, but it did not work exactly to plan. For instance, the Soviet Union came as the divine savior for Cuba in this time, and prevented the United States from getting a chance to launch more anti-Castro actions. Soviet Union supplied the island nation throughout its history, Cuba never devorced itself from self-reliance throughout the Cold War. When the Soviet Union died, Cuba looked to the Social-Democrats for their needed investments. After the 1961 Cuban-Missle Crisis, the Soviet Union's Social-Imperial interests were taken out of South America. They did not want full confrontation at this point with the US, trying to broker a "peaceful co-existence". The Soviet Union would avoid any such commitments that would bring them to go into another confrontation with the US is South America. Which explains the CIA report on Soviet interest in Chile, "Soviet overtures to Chile and South America … characterized by caution and restraint"; "Soviet desire to avoid" another Cuba-type commitment; Russians "advising Allende to put his relations with the United States in order … to ease the strain between the two countries." Che Guevera lost his largest supporter on which Focoism relied upon, his lack for Focoism to sooner or later propagate and bring the masses as his back bone was soon to be seen in Bolivia. Focoism died there because the US imperial machine had a firm grip on the continent, and if you are divorced from the masses in such a situation, you can not lead successful revolution. Che thought that since the Soviet Union would not become involved in any situation, that Cuba could be this devine savior. Protracted War in what Mao refered to is different from Focoism, in Protracted War there is need for mass support at the core, there is also need for a Regular Army. Mao stressed the need for strategic planning of a regular army and argued with many of his comrades that guerilla warfare, by itself, would not lead anywhere in a country like China. Protracted War, is mostly defensive war. It comes from the basis that you pull in an aggressor who might outnumber you, out gun you, but you focus attention on his weakest line and attack there. This has work not just in China, but it is successful in Vietnam, and Nepal today as well. Proving its relevancy in strategic planning today. Guerilla warfare, in itself, has yet to bare the same fruit it has since Cuba. Focoism is doomed as well without the Soviet Union or atleast a nation which can support the effort. Boliviar tactics are more comparable to Mao Tsetung than to Che, Boliviar never argued Guerilla warfare but also he waged a protracted war against Spain throughout his campaign, then when Napoleon invaded Spain itself, Boliviar and Martin took the chance of defeating the Spaniards out right. Boliviar and san Martin's struggle was that of a Class War as well, they were not divorced from the masses. Bolviar and san Martin depended on Creole support against Peninsulars, being backed by the Peasantry and Workers in these nations as well. Also Boliviar and san Martin's war was self reliant, taking advantage of opportunity in South America when Spain was invaded. Mao Tsetung's revolution was itself, self reliant as well taking advantage of the KMT in their downfall. Cuba was self reliant, but needed Soviet Union after the intial phase of Revolution in order to prevent its demsie.

Also to address someone's statement that Maoism is irrelevant in an Imperial country. How so? the fact is that Mao contributed not to just strategic road or socialist revolution in these nations, he himself saying that every nation's path depends on situations. the RCP acknowledges this, and sees a course more similar to the Bolsheviks coming to power. Maoism is more than the "planning" of Socialist Revolution in a nation, it jumps into the theoritical questions, the meaning, the stance, of what Marxism and Leninism left off. Maoism is also more about the situation as well, taking a stance against Revisionism and Neo-Colonial situation that did not exist to the extent it does now with the US beaconing the light. Mao has contributed so much to just the all around nature of Class War situation, and throwing is lessons away just because his method of revolution might not apply to the US is illogical.

[redstar2000]

Freddy wrote: ...the RCP acknowledges this, and sees a course more similar to the Bolsheviks coming to power.

Yes, I'm aware of this; unfortunately, modern capitalist countries don't really resemble Russia in 1900 any more than they resemble China in 1930.

Wrong tool, again.

Freddy wrote: Mao has contributed so much to just the all around nature of Class War situation, and throwing his lessons away just because his method of revolution might not apply to the US is illogical.

So many have said on this board...with the major emphasis being on the problem of class struggle in the post-revolutionary period.

Note, however, that Mao failed to solve the problem.

So if you want to stop the "vanguard party" from breeding a new capitalist ruling class, the lesson from Mao is "don't do what I did...it doesn't work."

[VolPatsyOHara]

We've had a somewhat similar discussion in the Irish Republican Socailist Movement.

Guerillaism has been pursued by the various groups calling themselves the IRA. It has not succeeded b/c Ireland, like the USA, doesn't have the correct conditions - so maoism, the Cuban experience, Vietnam, etc are not at all relevent though constantly invoked in Irish circles. It has taken some time and countless lives to learn this lesson. At least now we don't have to listen to the absurd SinnFein propaganda such as "we will lead you to the republic".

Instead the Irish National Liberation Army, the IRSM's military wing, is pursuing a strategy much more akin to the Irish Citizen Army or any other working class Red Army. The real aim is to defend and empower the working class, not for the middle class vanguard to lead from the mountains.

[ShineThePath]

Firstly the Nation of Russia depended much on Urban Insurrection and Mutiny within the core of their Army. The situation of America as anyone can see, is that the base of Mass support can only be in the cities. As of know the Base support is not in the Rural US, but in the Urban Metropolitan Areas. There is a significant degree also to wage not just Guerilla warfare here, but a mass insurrection based on Protracted conflict.

Also Mao did not fail, Mao actually was the first to point out that the contradictions within Socialism itself created a new Bourgeoisie. This is were Stalin failed at, realizing that Bourgeoisie elements were not just left overs of the old society, but actual problems which arise from the contradictions in Socialism such as Mental and Physical Laboring. Enver Hoxha's critique of Mao is based on this same mistake Stalin made. Mao did not fail to eliminate this, his steps were the percisely needed in China against the Captialist Roaders. The failure during the Cultural Revolution to eliminate these elements fell on the fact that Mao Tsetung believe these people can be reformed and be delivered back into the leadership role.

It was a defeat not a failure, We always will learn from these mistakes and take into consideration of where we were defeated. As Mao Tsetung said "A fall in the Pit, A gain in your Wit"

[redstar2000]

ShineThePath wrote: The failure during the Cultural Revolution to eliminate these elements fell on the fact that Mao Tsetung believed these people could be reformed and be delivered back into the leadership role.

Very good! That is a negative lesson.

To put it in positive terms:

When someone in a position of responsibility gives evidence that they have succumbed to revisionism and become a "capitalist-roader", you must not only remove that individual from their responsible position but you must also never let them get into such a position again.

Once a revisionist, always a "capitalist-roader".

Ok?

[kasama]

ShineThePath wrote: "The failure during the Cultural Revolution to eliminate these elements fell on the fact that Mao Tsetung believed these people could be reformed and be delivered back into the leadership role."

I think this is a mistake.

In fact, there are important distinctions that need to be made.

Mao made a distinction between "leading people within the party forming a bourgeois headquarters" and people (throughout society) who were operating under the influence of a revisionist line.

For example, he said that (in the late 60s) about 90% of the factories and workplaces were operating under conditions heavily influenced by revisiionist politics (one man management, production in command, rather bourgeois relations between people etc.)

In other words, the line promoted by capitalist roaders was influential. But it was not true that every person (every factory manager, party member, military officer, worker etc.) who was "influenced" in this way was a die-hard capitalist roader.

The point of the cultural revolutin was to expose the capitalist approaches broadly and mobilize the masses of people to oppose them. (To transform the outlook of the people.)

On one level, Mao worked to expose, isolate and defeat those in power who were literally seeking to restore capitalism (and elevate themselves to the status of a ruling bureaucrat capitalist class).

On another level, Mao was seeking to mobilize the masses of people in revolutionary struggle against this -- raise their understanding of where different approachs led (i.e. some lead to capitalism, others lead to communism).

And many people were won over to a revolutoinary approach in the course of that revolutoinary process.

And yet, it wasn't simple, or obvious, or permanent.

These are very different roads, with very different forces promoting htem, with very different "logics", that develop in the face of very real challenges (the need to develop production, prepare military defense, support world revolutin etc.)

Redstar writes: "When someone in a position of responsibility gives evidence that they have succumbed to revisionism and become a "capitalist-roader", you must not only remove that individual from their responsible position but you must also never let them get into such a position again."

This was essentially Stalin's approach. He cast the net widely, he saw incorrect lines as the reflection of an essentially "enemy" nature, and he thought that killing people who held wrong lines would permanently remove them from the scene.

However, the fact is that there are contradictions in the very nature of society that give rise to these lines. If you lead a socialist factory, and are trying to create production and also revolutionaize social relations -- there are real world contradictions that arise. There are choices to make (in what to produce, in how to produce it, in how to deal with complex human problems of motivation and conflict). And sometimes it seems "logical
" to people in power to use bourgeois methods.

Also if you simply overthrow everyone, whenever they make a mistake (even a serious one) -- you quickly find the revolution gutted, and overthrown from within in that way. Also people become afraid to act (if major errors lead to removal, and even prison) so you find society "frozen" with everyone afraid to speak, and afraid to take initiative.

In criticism of Stalin's line, Mao said that the majority of cadre were good, even in conditions were most units were following a revisionist (i.e. boureois) line.

And this was the dilemma requireing a great upheaval.

The solution was removing people in some cases (after repeated struggle). but also giving people much room to change, and chances to "go down" for a while (to study the conditions of the people) and then return to their posts.

Redstar writes: "Once a revisionist, always a "capitalist-roader"."

Actually life is more complex.

Albert Parsons (a leader of the Haymarket uprising) was once a confederate solder. Chu Teh (a major military leader of the ChineseRevolutin from its earliest days) was once a minor warlord and opium addict. Stalin was once a seminarian preparing to be a priest. And, in the course of the cultural revolutin, many people (actually including millions of middle cadre) were won over and went through very deep processes of transformation -- in the decade of the cultural revolution.

People go through changes. They have trajectories, they go through transformations. They learn and change.

And, in fact, revolutin is unthinkable if that wasn't true.

The people at various levels of a revolutinary society (cadre, leaders etc.) are not automatically revolutinary because of their history and post. But they also don't have some "essense" as a pig, just because they may have made some errors, or been deeply influenced by a powerful revisionist line.

Mao analyzed that if the approach of "overthrow all" was followed (i.e. overthrow everyone who made serious revisionist errors) that the revolutin would not be strengthened -- infact it would not hold together. Becazuse it would not be "unite all who can be united" -- in fact it would have driven potential allies into the arms of the real, diehard bourgeois headquarters.


Ok?

[redstar2000]

kasama wrote: Mao made a distinction between "leading people within the party forming a bourgeois headquarters" and people (throughout society) who were operating under the influence of a revisionist line.

Indeed he did...but how useful did that distinction turn out to be in practice?

Neither Mao nor any of us are "mind-readers". If someone puts forward what we perceive as a bourgeois line, on what real grounds can we say "this guy really means it" but "that guy doesn't"?

If we happen to know them really well, their political history, etc., then sometimes we can say something along those lines with some assurance of being right.

But as a general abstraction, how does it help?

kasama wrote: These are very different roads, with very different forces promoting them, with very different "logics", that develop in the face of very real challenges (the need to develop production, prepare military defense, support world revolution etc.)

Undoubtedly...but also too abstract to help.

kasama wrote: This was essentially Stalin's approach. He cast the net widely, he saw incorrect lines as the reflection of an essentially "enemy" nature, and he thought that killing people who held wrong lines would permanently remove them from the scene.

Well, I'm not recommending that the best way to deal with an incorrect line is to summarily execute the proponent.

But it seems to me that Mao's approach was not much practical improvement; i.e., a few years of shoveling pig manure does not "transform" a capitalist-roader into a reliable communist.

You can use manual labor to punish people for their bad ideas, but the consequence is that they will simply learn to lie about their opinions in a much more convincing fashion.

As soon as they're returned to a position of responsibility, they're back to their old tricks as soon as your attention is diverted.

kasama wrote: And sometimes it seems "logical" to
people in power to use bourgeois methods.

I don't think it's simply "bourgeois" -- the "power of command" is inherent in any class society. It's the "logic" of those who rule vs. those who are ruled.

kasama wrote: Also if you simply overthrow everyone, whenever they make a mistake (even a serious one) -- you quickly find the revolution gutted, and overthrown from within in that way. Also people become afraid to act (if major errors lead to removal, and even prison) so you find society "frozen" with everyone afraid to speak, and afraid to take initiative.

Well, is revisionism simply an "error"? A "mistake"?

What did the "capitalist-roaders" ("die-hard variety") actually do in China that resulted in them being identified in the first place?

All of us "make mistakes"...but would we have made those particular mistakes?

kasama wrote: Mao analyzed that if the approach of "overthrow all" was followed (i.e. overthrow everyone who made serious revisionist errors) that the revolution would not be strengthened -- in fact it would not hold together. Because it would not be "unite all who can be united" -- in fact it would have driven potential allies into the arms of the real, diehard bourgeois headquarters.

As a general proposition (an abstraction), "unite all who can be united" is indisputable.

The "devil" is always in the details. My view is that once someone in a position of responsibility demonstrates that they cannot be trusted...that ought to be it. One need not shoot them or put them in prison or send them off to the pig farm.

If they are elderly, just pension them off in modest retirement. Encourage them to write their memoirs.

If they are still vigorous, there are many minor administrative posts where they could still make a contribution to society...dispatcher at the local public transit authority, for example.

But to give them a second chance to really fuck things up on a major scale?

That's crazy...even from a Leninist standpoint, that's crazy.

Just off the top of my head, I wonder if that old traditional Chinese "reverence for age" had anything to do with it?

[flyby]

People make mistakes for various reasons.

How do you organize an alternative form of production? How are decisions made? What decisions are made? How are resources allocated? How are human relations within production organized?

The answer to these things are not obvious. And what is possible and necessary actually changes over time.

Someone leading a production unit (and here we are talking about for example a factory, or trucking unit in a socialist society) could quite possible get it wrong.

Why?

Well, they could get it wrong because there is a larger wrong summation (of their industry, or of the planning process, or perhaps of the party itself) for a period of time.

Or they could be part of a circle of poeple who deeply believe in a particular path and set of methods.

Or they could, on their own, be someone committeed -- not just to an "error" -- but to a whole different road of which the error is just a single manifestation.

So there are complex reasons for people "following the capitalist road" at particular points.

How can you tell which people are "diehard capitalist roaders" and which people can be transformed, won over and become representatives of a revolutionary and socialist road?

You can only tell that in the course of repeated struggle.

History so far shows that many (most) people can be won over -- provided that the correct and revolutionary line WINS OUT OVERALL. Here, as everywhere else, the decisive question remains who has overall state power and what line OVERAlL leads. (Which is all the more reason to focus the spearhead at those involved most directly in the intense struggle for the OVERALL direction and line of the party and the revolution -- those in power taking the capitalist road vs. the proletarian headquarters within party and state.)

As Lenin summed up sharply "Without State Power All Else Is Illusion!"

[flyby]

redstar wrote: "Actually, I think a good argument could probably be made that "Guevaraism" was Maoism...adapted for small countries without the possibility of quasi-permanent "liberated zones".

This is a common view, even if it is not a "good argument."

Redstar repeatedly REDUCES Maoism to "rural revolution through guerilla warfare" -- and hear he takes the reduction a step forward and erases the profound difference between Guevarist focoism and Maoist protracted peoples war.