Robert L. Emory A Theoretical Discussion of People's War Political Science M.A. Thesis abstract The analytic concep~ of "revolutionary perspective" is developed as a tool for explaining different concepts of and approaches to people's war. This involves three aspects: a writer, his specifie framework of people's war, and the national environment. Part one of the thesis examines national environment; part two discusses and analyzes the writings of Ernesto Guevara, Regis Debray, Vo Nguyen Giap, Truong Chinh, Frantz Fanon, and Mao Tse-tung. Part two of the thesis shows that there is a progression of sophistication in the views of the authors examined and this is reflected in the definitions of guerilla warfare, revolutionary warfare, national liberationary warfare, and people's war offered in part three. The thesis concludes that while local con­ ditions are extremely important in determining the path of a struggle an author's conception and definition of the struggle itself (whether considered as continuing after "national liberation" or not) can be more important. '.".'.• '.:r, A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF PEOPLE'S WAR by Robert L. Emory A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science. McGil1 University Montreal, Canada Spring, 1970. l(i) Robert. L. F.morv 1970 1 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While this author alone is responsible for the analysis in this thesis he would like to thank the following for their valuable assistance: Professor S. J. Noumoff, the author"'s graduate advisor at McGi11 University; Professor Michael Elliot-Bateman, University of Manchester; William Rinton, author; and General Richard L. Clutterbuck, Ministry of Defense, Whitehall. \, " "TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ••••••.••••••••••••.••.••••••••••. 1 Chapter l - Introduction •••••••••••••••••••••• ".... 1 Chapter II - Revolutionary Perspective: The Author and His National Environment •••••••• 14 Chapter III - Revolutionary Perspective: Specifie Frameworks of People's War 55 Chapter IV - Conclusion ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 125 Bibliography ...................................... 136 CHAPTER l INTRODUCTION Lin Piao claims that the writings of Mao Tse-tung have, "not only been valid for China, (but also) a great contribution to the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and people's throughout the world Comrade Mao Tse-tung's theory of people's war solves not only the problem of daring to fight a people's war, but 1 also that of how to wage it". Another view of Mao Tse-tung's writings was expressed in an article in the liorld Marxist Review. "On the ideological (emphasis in original) plane, the theses of the Chinese leaders come dangerously close to some of the most threadbare con- cepts of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism i~ Latin America •••• lt (the Chine se ideological campaign) has thus become a factor retarding the building of the national liberation fron and qaus,ing fdeological disunity 2 in the camp of Latin American revolution". 1 Lin Piao, Long Live the Victory of People's War!, (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966), pp. 43, 47. 2 R. Arismendi, "Some Aspects of the Revolutionary Process in Latin America", (World Marxist Review, Vol. II, No. 4), p. 18 • .' 2 The polemical debate between Marxists and non­ Marxists, between Marxists of differing persuasions and between other groups and individuals has qot clarified the issue. Analysis based solely on doctrinaire ideological position leads, by its very nature, to a clouding of the question. In seeking to clarify different frameworks of people's war it is necessary to divorce the investigation from the polemical level and conduct an analysis which isolates and explains the specific formulations of each theory. In reading such diverse writers as Mao Tse-tung, Lin Piao, Regis Debray, Ernesto Guevara, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Truong Chinh, and Frantz Fanon one finds that rather than examining a constant, static condition for which one model of revolution could be sufficient. These writers are examining an ever-changing, dynamic situation. For these authors the laws of history dictate a scientific development of society. They see this development as both necessary and inevitable. But while this movement is a "constant" there is no consensus on the "tactical" means· to be used to carry· the process through to the end. While an historical imperative is 3 recognized by these writers there is no agreement beyond this recognition. Schafik BandaI, for example, has commented on the Chinese attempt to influence Latin American revolutionary movements by saying, "Beyond question, the attempt of the Chinese Communist Party leadership to impose their theoretical ideas on the wor1d revolutionary movement did, at a definite stage, exert a distinct influence on the polemics. But that influence has now waned and the debate is mainly on the real and basic problems of the Latin American (emphasis in original) revolution!'. 3 Recognizing that people's war revolves around a f1uid situation most authors warn that they are writing "an outline, not a bible". 4 Debray goes to great 1engths to offer an argument against doctrinaire acceptance of one formula. That an intellectual, especially if he is a bourgeois, should speak of startegy before aIl else is normal. Unfortunately, however, the right road, the only feasible one, sets out from tactical data, rising gradually to- 3Shafik BandaI, "Reflections on Continental Strategy ~or Latin American Revolution", (World Marxist Review, Vol. II, No. 4), p.SO. 4Ernesto Guevara, Guerilla Warfare,(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1961), p. 88. 4 ward a definition of strategy. The abuse of strategyand the lack of tactics isa delight­ fuI vice, characteristic of the contemplative man - a vice to which we, by writing these lines, must also plead guilty. All.the more reason to remain aware of the inversion (emphasis in original) of which we are victims when we read theoretical works.S In a different context Debray offers a justifi- cation for Revolution in the Revolution? It, he says, "had only one ambition: to play a part in breaking down a mental, theoretical, and practical block hindering the upsurge of the revolutionary armed struggle where,' and only where, it was then under way; and to lift what might be called an historica1 ban by an aggressive and crude formulation of that which was on1y just able to ho1d in check.,,6 Debray is arguing against the 1ine of "self-defense" which has been accepted by certain Latin American Communist Parties as the major path toward· national 1iberation. Gilberto Vieira's writings serve as an examp1e. "Mass se1f-defense is a feature of the popu1ar movement in Columbia. It is an integra1 part of SRegis Debray, Revo1utio~ in the Revolution? (New York Month1y Review Press, 1967), p. 60. (Hereafter cited as Revolution). 6Regis Debray, "A Rep1y", (Month1y Review, Vol. 20, No. 9), p. 14 (hereafter cited as Rep1y). 5 the revolutionary process •••• In our conditions mass defense is a combination of the peaceful and non-peace­ f~l way.,,7 Debray becomes very specifie when he says, When l drafted the booklet, the specifie question of the antagonism People's War/ Communist Parties had arisen in a polemic form for comrades in specifie countries - Venezuela and Guatemala - and in a specifie period, from approximate1y 1964 on. This question was suspect and disconcerting because historically ne~T; and wherever it was posed by events, it crysta11ized the most important facet of the contradiction between the re­ formist 1ine and the consistent 1ine. Thus it became the vital question within the armed revo1utionary movement in the precise sense that the very 1ife or death of the movement depended on Hs solutioll. What was required was to throw the 1ight of these experiences one upon the other, to com­ pare fai1ures and euëcesses, differences and simi1arities, so as to bring to 1ight the lessons to be drawn from them. 8 Debray's comments indicate that rather than attempt- ing to justify one specifie method of peop1e's war he is c1arifying the Cuban Revo1ution's path and placing it 7Gi1berto Vieira, "Growth of Militarism in Columbia and the Line of the C.P.", (Wor1d Marxist Review, Vol. 6 No. 4), p. 17. 8Regis Debray, Reply, op.cit., p. 15. 6 within the context of the revo1utionary movements in Latin America. In quoting from the French journal, Humanite Nouvelle, however, Peking Review describes Debray's book as, "the manifesto of a po1itical 1ine which is anti-revisionist in appearance ••• but anti­ Marxist in rea1ity. It 1eads a11 honest people dis­ gusted with revisionism to a side track, down the drain, to a blind a11ey. ,,9 The article go es ~n to cal1 Revolution in the Revolution? ·"an attack on Marxist- Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought, and to deny the univers al significance of Mao Tse-tung's theories."10 In order to show the importance of understanding an author's approach in the matter of 1iberation strugg1e and theory it wou1d be instructive to examine a series of criticisms of Regis Debray and see how a few commentators react to Revolution in the Revo1uton? 9peking Review, No. 30 (Ju1y 28, 1968), p. 11. 10Ibid• 7 We sha11 see that each writer has his own particu1ar approach to the question of national 1iberation and if BebrâyJ. ... ~:'"tfeem -iconocla-st1e.:· then he must be refuted. One criticism from the authors of Month1y Review wou1d seem to contradict the thesis presented by Debray and Lin Piao quoted above. "In the last analysis, it seems to us, the greatest weakness of Debray's theory is not its specifie errors and omissions, as important as they are, but its attempt to prescribe a course of action which aIl Latin !merican revolutions must fol1ow.,,11 A more fundamental criticisffi comes from another article in Regis Debray and the Latin American Revolution.