IN DEFENSE OF GUERRILLA WARFARE
Trolls online have accused me of being both a “Marxist-Leninist” and a “vanguardist” because I defend the strategy of guerrilla warfare. Apparently it is Marxist and vanguardist to advocate strategies that work.
To be clear, I don’t advocate a strategy of exclusive guerrilla warfare. That is, I’m an insurrectionist at heart. But, I recognize that where insurrections occur, they can be carried further if a wide variety of other strategies are undertaken at the same time, like sabotage campaigns, worker strikes, and armed attacks against the enemy’s symbols of power.
For some reason, in modern times, Marxist-Leninists have cornered the market on guerrilla warfare. As a consequence, when most people think of guerrilla fighters, they imagine Marxist-Leninists with rank and hierarchy. They imagine that Fidel Castro represents every guerrilla, but that’s simply not the case.
Spartacus led the largest slave revolt in history and de-stabilized the Roman Empire, mostly relying on guerrilla strategies. American colonists revolted, using the guerrilla tactics they learned from Native Americans. The Lakota defeated the U.S. in 3 consecutive engagements using guerrilla warfare– something the Marxists of the Viet Cong couldn’t even do. So, if you have to be a Marxist-Leninist to fight in a way that works, Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, and Geronimo never got the memo.
Why is it that Marxist-Leninists cornered the market on guerrilla warfare? Clearly, they’re better at having fun than we are.
And that takes us to the vanguardist argument. As that argument goes, being a guerrilla requires certain skills that everyone doesn’t have, and it requires firearms that everyone doesn’t own. So, those who participate in guerrilla warfare, the argument goes, become a power elite, a group of hot-shots with more prestige than others. Continue reading