Understanding Liberation Movements

The political is paramount as a catalyst for social change. The preceding section outlines the necessity of political education and mobilization through an understanding of internal colonialism and its subsequent political critique by Third World ideology. Conservative, liberal and revolutionary scholars agree this critique of colonialism and internal colonialism around the world has helped to develop the will to resist both Corporatism and U.S. political hegemony. Within this internal colonial critique it is clear that without an understanding of why political change must occur all hard work toward change will fail especially in regards to building armed resistance movements.

After the second World War, Third World ideology in the United States springing from the “Third World Non Aligned Movement” connected, at first ideologically and later militarily “aspiring U.S. revolutionaries to the Third World parties and leaders … who were proving that ‘the power of the people is greater than the man’s technology.” Based on the revolutionary axiom that the political education of the nation is the first order of business for those seeking to bring political change including change through armed resistance Mao Tse-Tung wrote, "without a political goal, guerilla warfare must fail, as it must if its political objectives do not coincide with the aspirations of the people and their sympathy, cooperation and assistance cannot be gained."

For the purposes of this paper definitions of seizing of power (or creating political change) will be limited to the idea there are three ways to SEIZE political power: “Revolution, plot (or coup d’etat), and insurgency.” It is important to understand the differences and overlaps of each category and to note that by definition none of these three categories are inherently progressive and in fact may be just the opposite. Also noteworthy for Chicano scholars engaged in the study of revolutionary movements, particularly armed movements, is the amount of literature written by governments and military leaders on how to suppress guerilla and insurgent movements. This large body of research and publication speaks directly to the seriousness; legitimacy, viability and success of these movements particularly post World War II.

For purposes of academic clarity and discussion within this paper we will define these three concepts in the following way: Revolution: “usually is an explosive upheaval – sudden brief, spontaneous, unplanned (France 1789; China, 1911; Russia, 1917; Hungary, 1956). It is an accident, which can be explained afterward but not predicted other than to note the existence of a revolutionary situation … in a revolution, masses move and then the leaders appear.” Plot: “is the clandestine action of an insurgent group directed at the overthrow of the top leadership in its country. Because of its clandestine nature, a plot cannot and does not involve the masses … it is always a gamble.” Insurgency: “a protracted struggle conducted methodically, step by step, in order to attain specific intermediate objectives leading finally to the overthrow of the existing order … To be sure it can no more be predicted than a revolution ... when an insurgency starts is a difficult legal, political and historical problem … though it cannot be predicted, an insurgency is usually slow to develop and is not an accident, for in an insurgency leaders appear and then the masses are made to move … [a] revolutionary situation did not have to be acute in order for a the insurgency to be initiated.”

Although the words revolution and insurgency are used at times interchangeably and often insurgencies develop into revolutions, it is clear from the definitions that military thinkers do not view them as the same thing. The reminder of this paper will concentrate on definitions and theories of insurgency and later on how those theories could be put into operation through present day Xicano community organizing methodologies.

Guerilla warfare is first and foremost a revolutionary war, a political effort and “whereas in conventional war, either side can initiate the conflict, only one – the insurgent – can initiate a revolutionary war.” Revolutionary wars, particularly since the end of World War II, have succeeded in successfully addressing issues of social and economic inequalities the world over. A purposely misleading and unfortunate reaction by imperialist governments and their the capitalist/corporate structure using multinational corporate media outlets have been to cleverly and successfully misrepresent in modern times most revolutionary wars as simple terrorism or the work of the mentally unbalanced for the purpose of securing their own financial investments in Third World countries and Third World communities within the United States.

These different insurgencies are not solely wars of terror or violence, although those are tactics often used by insurgents and counter insurgents. Nor, are they at first wars to gain control of the land, although that is an end goal of guerilla and insurgent movement. No, the first job of the guerilla is political mobilization. Not in the liberal sense of electoral politics, which in most countries where a revolutionary situation is developing means protecting the status quo by the solidifying of the national bourgeoisie, but in terms of, Raising the level of political consciousness of the people and involving them actively in the revolutionary struggle – is the first task of the guerillas; and it is the nature of this effort, which necessarily takes time, that accounts for the protracted character of the revolutionary war.

Insurgencies begin when a group of people under the control of what they consider to be either a colonial or oppressive government have attempted to resolve their issues (whatever they maybe) with the dominant social group but have either failed to do so or are ignored until the point of rebellion which unfailingly “presupposes the existence of valid popular grievances, sharp social divisions, an unsound or stagnant economy, and oppressive government.” Crucial to the success of any guerilla mobilization is the ability to articulate their political grievances in such a way that will persuade others to accept their version of the outstanding political problem or as it was termed by Mao the “unsolved contradiction” within the current political system. This position leaves little room for accusations of outside interference and political agitation, two of the main allegations made by governments against insurgents engage in political mobilization. If one accepts the notion, “revolutionary propaganda must be essentially true order to be believed,” and that “if it is not believed, people cannot be induced to act on it,” then aligning the insurgency as a political outgrowth of one side of the “unsolved contradiction” becomes a reality. So then,

“If revolution is to be understood as a historical, social process, rather than an accident or a plot, then it will not do to consider guerrillas, terrorist, political assassin as deviants or agents somehow apart from the social fabric, irrelevant or only fortuitously relevant to the historical process. Guerrillas are of the people, or they cannot survive, cannot even come into being. Terrorism, while it aroused the popular will to revolt, is at the same time a manifestation of that will, expressing the first surge of the popular impulse toward a new and different order of existence. It may be argued the terroristic movements attract criminals and psychopaths. So they do. But criminality itself is a form of unconscious social protest, reflecting the distortions of an imperfect society, and in a revolutionary situation the criminal, the psychopath, may become as a good revolutionary as the idealist” (Taber).

Military analysts identify classical modern guerilla warfare mainly by two distinct theoretical paradigms. The first is the Chinese/Vietnamese theories of war developed by Mao Tse-Tung and subsequently expanded on by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap during the Viet Nam War and the Focoismo theory of guerilla warfare developed in Cuba by Cubans revolutionaries and imported throughout Africa and Latin America by the efforts of Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The organizational differences between the two theories are significant, and although they are both ideologies designed to create revolutionary situations within countries, they approach change in society very differently. An explanation of the two theoretical bodies in terms of their similarities, differences and rules of engagement is central to helping Xicano Third World scholars, organizers and activists currently working in the U.S. today develop a better understanding of the way political change is approached, a fuller appreciation of political glam revolution, and the fetishization of resistance by segments of the Xicano/Latino community here in the United States.

Because of the pervasiveness of revolutionary example during the last half of the 20th century a deeper appreciation for the impact of revolutionary political methodologies on organizing efforts within U.S. Third World communities can be seen and should understood in terms of their contribution to change around the globe. It is important to reiterate that revolutionary war is political war or the furtherance of politics by the means of the gun. Revolutionary political war is by all definitions a protracted or long lasting war. There can be no quick solution to revolutionary or guerilla warfare that is good for the insurgent because “it takes time for a small group of insurgent leaders to organize a revolutionary movement, to raise and develop armed forces, to reach a balance with the opponent, and to overpower him.” (Galula, 10) This sense that time is truly on the side of the insurgent is reiterated by Galula when he writes, “revolutionary war is short only if the counterinsurgency collapses at and early stage, With this central theme in mind we begin to understand “the insurgent has no interest in producing a shock until he feels fully able to withstand the enemy’s expected reaction,” (Galula) this is a situation that could go on for years and in fact until intentions are revealed through “subversion or open violence … an insurgency can reach a high degree of development by legal and peaceful means, at least in countries where political opposition is tolerated,” (Galula).

In order to fully appreciate the emphasis on developing the will of the nation to resist and how this emphasis leads inescapably to a peoples war which is the production of “military power as a consequence of political mobilization.” (Marks) an in depth discussion on the theories of Mao Tse-Tung on guerrilla warfare as a primarily political operation concerned mainly with the mobilization of the Chinese people for what he termed “Total Resistance.” This model of resistance was developed by Mao and his generals because the Chinese were not an industrialized power in control of manufacturing resources with which to create the tools of war to fight first against a Japanese invasion of mainland China during the Sino-Japan War and later while combating the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (Taber).

---
Vijay Prashad "The Darker Nations"
Elbaum, Max (2002) What Legacy from the Radical Internationalism of 1968? Radical History Review Issue 82, Winter, p.41
Mao Tse-Tung Primer on Guerilla Methods
Galula, David (1964) “Counter Insurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” Frederick A. Praeger, New York, NY.
Taber, Robert (1965) “The War of the Flea: A study of Guerilla Warfare Theory and Practice” Lyle Stuart New York, NY.
Marks, Thomas A. (2003) “Urban Insurgency” Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 14, No. 3,

space + time = will

The challenge of past generations to this structure of force now over us, called colonialism was uttered when as Fanon wrote concerning those past struggles “they fought as well they could ... and if the echoes of their struggle have not resounded in the international arena … this silence lies less in their lack of heroism than in the fundamentally different international situation of our time.” This war between the descendents of European colonizers, their lackey’s and the indigenous inhabitants of this land is ongoing and in the end we will prevail. The only question that remains is whether our world will be sick and twisted copy of the European legacy that has dragged and mutilated our planet to the brink of extinction or a nation built on the principles of sustaining life.

Franz Fanon, the intellectual ambassador of African anti-colonization has shown through his work the necessity of opposing our oppressors to whatever extent we deem necessary in order to end the colonial project. However, he warns repeatedly against eliminating the colonizer simply to replace them or recreate their structure by our inaction, “If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe, and America in to a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better that the most gifted among us.”

Fanon understood the colonial dilemma facing so-called third world people then and now. He clearly saw and experienced how indigenous cultures under colonialism begin to dissipate as the assault by the colonial system is focused on every facet of who they are as a people. This attack on the fabric of our civilizations is what makes us become jealous puppets, dark shadows of our colonial masters, it is the cultural sickness that makes it possible for us to unwittingly duplicate their system of oppression. Again Fanon points out the dialectical nature of colonial oppression to those who will listen when he writes, “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip…by a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed peoples and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” We must choose our own path by finding ways to restore a mental veiw of Xicanos as indigenous people in the Americas. Once the battle for this land is joined and it was joined full scale the day our first ancestors were slaughtered by European invaders there is no turning back, “when a people undertakes an armed struggle or even a political struggle against a relentless colonialism, the significance of tradition changes” writes Fanon. This struggle is or becomes the main vehicle for developing the necessary power/force to challenge the power of the colonial state.
In his reading of Walter Benjamin’s classic essay “Critique of Violence” Algerian born French philosopher Jacques Derrida asserts every society is initiated by the use of force. A supposition that can be easily supported with the creation of colonial nations; this force (Gewalt) , which upholds the law of society and establishes “the foundation … in a situation that one can thus call revolutionary. It inaugurates a new law; it always does so in violence.” It is exactly this idea that colonized people must examine closely. If all society is founded in force or violence, and certainly we see the truth of that in situation of indigenous people in the Americas, then what role can there possibly be for nonviolence to play in founding a new society, even if that non-violence is based in a determined struggle? How does a combination of these diametrically opposed philosophies contribute to the political power of indigenous peoples in the Americas?

What then is the source for creating this society creating force? We begin a discourse, search for truth in our choices and allow that truth to create an oppositional force to colonialism within the framework of our colonized minds. In the past this has created what some call revolutionary violence. However, it was revolutionary or transformative only to the extent it swept away the old oppressive system. Can the type of force (Gewalt), which Derrida and Benjamin define as “the dominance of legal power, the authorizing or authorized authority: the force of law” be exerted by nonviolent means? Derrida goes on to explain there are two different outcomes with the use of this type of force (Gewalt) which he calls a “distinction between the two kinds of violence of law, in relation to law: the founding violence, the one that institutes and posits law and the violence that preserves, the one that maintains, confirms, insures the permanence and enforceability of law.” Can indigenous people use a version of nonviolence as political defiance? Can non-violence rise to the level of “founding violence [Force/Gewalt], the one that institutes and posits law”?

We must strive for a transformative force that extends beyond anger and works itself into the fabric of national proposals. The idea we can make our lives and the lives of our people better by simply overthrowing our colonizers in some type of final cataclysmic conflict has had its day. Fanon tells us “history teaches us clearly that the battle against colonialism does not run straight along lines of nationalism,” This is an unconcluded struggle whose ending must be written by those within the Xicano movement.

It is vital to remember that we should strive to be according to Emiliano Zapata’s Plan de Ayala “partisans of principles rather than men." For to long our community has existed as personalists – we worship the leader, the strong man, the hero. Instead of accepting the responsibility for our own free choice we fall trap to the messianic ideal a person can deliver us from our bondage as a people. We fail to realize that way of thinking is bondage itself. To the extent it is possible we must all accept the charge of messianic deliverer. And by doing so accept the necessity of choice of deciding for us the ultimate course to nationhood and liberation. How this can be accomplished is actually the question we must find ways to as separate movements working toward common goals to articulate.

The idea of free choice within our indigenous politics is found within the practice of collective action, collective decision-making and building a popular front as an umbrella for an anti-colonialist movement. The biggest obstacle in the way of an even marginally successful Xicano nationalist movement with a growing indigenous philosophy has an unclear, romanticized vision of where and how this type of struggle begins. Taiaiake Alfred in his book “Wasase – indigenous pathways of action and freedom” tells us that options like armed struggle through Guerilla warfare are impractical, “it is clear that guerrilla and terrorist strategies are futile … violent revolt is simply not an intelligent and realistic approach to confronting the injustice we face,” While Alfred’s words are important, it is also important to understand a variety of organizational methodologies that may at one time or another be appropriate for the people to try. The challenge is whether as a people or nation we have the ability to enact these different methods, even in learning about guerilla warfare as an extreme example we come to understand that it is much more guns and fighting.

For Xicanos examining the words of revolutionary guerilla fighter Mao Tse Tung along with the modern analysis of an liberation theorist like Alfred and Adams is important, it is Mao who states simply but eloquently, “without a political goal guerrilla warfare must fail” for Xicanos engaged in indigenous liberation politics this one statement should shine a bright light on the necessity of political partying building organization. The nature of guerrilla warfare or what Mao calls revolutionary war is a “protracted one” the goal of the revolutionary is not to produce a quick military decision but rather “how to avoid a military decision … give way before the determined advance of the enemy, and, like the sea, close in again as the enemy passes,” according to Mao in the beginning of a revolution there are no pitched battles – there is merely a struggle for the minds and allegiance of the people through political education.

Because of the impoverished nature of Chinese society (and maybe to some extent Chinese culture itself) Mao choose to develop his revolutionary theory focusing on the three intangible aspects of warfare: space, time and will, “the basic premise of this theory is that political mobilization may be substituted for industrial mobilization” according to Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President John F. Kennedy, in his influential essay on the military theories of Mao Tse Tung .

Today, within this slowly emerging indigenous Xicano movement we suffer from a sense of unrealistic impatience about our roles and the activities we should be undertaking at this point in our liberation struggle. An important lesson from Katzenbach’s analysis of Mao’s guerrilla theory that places our own movement with in a proper lens of what constitutes appropriate action at the beginning of a revolution is about timing,

Mao’s military problem was how to organize space so that it could be made to yield time. His political problem was how to organized time so that could be made to yield will, that quality which makes willingness to sacrifice the order of the day … Mao’s real military problem was not that of getting the war over with, the question to which Western military thinkers have directed the greater part of their attention, but that of keeping it going.

Space + time = will is the equation Mao used to explain his theories of protracted warfare, and one that may well serve the needs of indigenous liberation movements today. For indigenous fighters in the America’s today even a basic understanding of Mao’s military theory tell us that while we consider ourselves at war, we have not lost, “only those willing to admit defeat can be defeat.” And while it may seem to some that war can only be conducted in a specific way it is evident through reading not only Mao, but other revolutionary theorists that war is at its very basic level an attack on the force of law Benjamin and Derrida spoke of earlier. It is an attempt to reconstitute that society, or as Derrida points out “war is in fact … a violence that serves to found law.”

Authoritarian measures instituted by the colonial system i.e. courts, police, social workers perpetuate the misery around us. They have as their basis our mental relationship with the colonized mindset and the perpetuation of colonialism within our personal and public affairs. We respond as a colonized people to this type of oppressive authority as a people because it is all we have ever known and we cannot conceive of a different system because we have an incomplete understanding of our role as indigenous people in the Americas. Albert Memmi a Tunisian philosopher who wrote extensively about the conditions of both the colonized and the colonizer said, “regardless of how soon or how violently the colonized rejects his situation, he will one day begin to overthrow his unliveable existence with the whole force of his oppressed personality.” (Memmi 62-63) The greatest danger our movement faces today is falling prey to the seductive force and philosophy of defeatist assimilation whether it is overt or not.

Our current structure within the Xicano movement is conveniently set up, running and allegedly functioning all around us. We unwittingly structure many of the changes we try to institute within the context of the current system of exploitation. This colonial mindset is so ingrained in our national psyche at this point the only hope toward any significant change in the way we see the world and deal with each other would come only after it was clearly articulate how a recovery of indigenous identity and nationalism would work and then begin to order the very identity and nation we have proposed. Law and our understanding of that law and colonialism as a system must be fundamentally altered to grasp the importance and necessity of understanding the role that violence plays in founding law.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be citizens of the United States and continue to talk about Aztlan as if it were a real entity. If we are to be good Americans than we must halt this talk of stolen land, oppression and colonization because “History shows that serious potential for conflicts exists when people in one country begin referring to territory in a neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights and claims to that territory.” (Huntington. 4)

The decision we have before us is one of great historical importance. If we are to choose the path of nation building and pay more than lip service to the creation of a state for Xicanos and other indigenous people on this continent then it is imperative that we begin studying the methods of achieving that end.