Before I read the book, my eyes see a picture of a grenade, on the top right hand corner of it appears to be a point eye range, and beneath both these images is the title “Guerrilla Warfare, and Introduction”. Already I am questioning myself whether this book is actually going to teach me what it means to be in a war and how to go about it. Like, even the fact that someone could write a book about it makes it seem not only revolutionary in our standards, but also part of the Cuban revolution where the main goal was to recruit people, join masses, and fight against the oppressors. And yet, as I read this book my doubts turn into reality and this book goes into great length, very much in detail, and one could tell, with lots of time, dedication, careful choice of words, and cause. I will say somethings that grabbed my attention while trying to understand and accept how someone could really have gone so far as to write a book on how to do war and win. What first struck me was how he clearly states that war is a science (page 9), that it follows laws and influenced by variables, such that if you do not follow the “scientific method”, in this case “the way of the war”, then you will end up losing (page 9). And we see how this strong affirmation is present in the way he writes his whole book and the language he uses. It is all very detailed, and carefully chosen, and he always gives us different scenarios and that every scenario requires different tactics. But the main idea of war as a science is really interesting. What purpose or effect does treating war like science have on our understanding of revolutions, or our lives in general, I don’t know. Changing the subject, I also like how he describes guerrilla soldiers as social reformers and also agrarian revolutionaries, both of which are true in the context of the Cuban Revolution and he argues, true in all cases of revolutions. Even more interesting, is how he also describes guerrilla warfare as an “embryo” (page 12) in which he describes guerrilla warfare as a prelude to other bigger and significant wars. I can understand this comparison, but I find that it also devalues guerrilla warfare, suggesting that it is ultimately not the one that will lead to victory, the one that will lead to victory is a more advanced stage of guerrilla warfare maybe a civil war. Throughout the book his language is quite metaphorical. For example on page 17 he describes one phase of guerilla warfare as like a queen bee with other bees taking over another beehive. Other things he mentions are ammunitions, food, travel kit, geography, the use of animals, hunting tools, tools to make other tools, a diary to keep notes on, tactical strategies such as destroying enemies’ infrastructure, communication, food supply, etc. Like this is a truly a book intended to teach someone who wants to go to war and learn what it takes. I must though point out what he says about terrorism. On page 21 he clearly distinguishes sabotage which for him is “a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare” with terrorism which he say is “ineffective and indiscriminate in its results” that it only kills unnecessary people. Although I agree with him on that point, I would also like to see how he views his vision of guerrilla warfare no less different. In the end, innocent people die, regardless of them being the enemy or not, and both are forms of violence created by a group of people who use an ideology or goal as there source of inspiration and justification. Nevertheless, I just found it very interesting how he clearly demarcates guerrilla warfare with terrorism, and on numerous occasions throughout the book. There is also a sense of iconizing guerrilla soldiers, where he describes them as strong, disciplined, teachers, messengers of revolutions, and willing to die without fear. Also interesting to add to these descriptions, is how on page 33 he says that “in Cuban war of liberation, to abandon a weapon is a grave offence”. There is this further sense of cult and macho solider like attitude, that the war encompasses honor and dignity. One other interesting topic to discuss his view of women in guerrilla warfare. On page 92 he starts off by saying that women play a vital role, but then further down contradicts himself saying they play a “minor role”, and furthermore, says their only role in the guerrilla warfare is to cook for men and help with the technical stuff. I just find this interesting as for someone who is fighting for a noble cause which is agrarian reforms, and against an oppressive enemy who is hurting the people, he still has this gender stereotype problem where in his view women should occupy less significant jobs. There are just 5 more things I would very briefly like to say. I like how on page 121 he says “revolutionary indoctrination is the basis of national security”. He is really making it clear that revolutions, and teaching about it, serve in the interest of the people who are oppressed and need to fight back in order to live. Also on page 127 he says “Cuba is the symbol of nationality renewed” and “Fidel Castro is the symbol of liberation”. These quotes are now starting to idealize these concepts of the revolution further. Now on a more important issue, Che at the end of the book leaves us with a very good reflection question, “is guerrilla warfare the only formula for seizing power in Latin America?” I appreciate this quote because it makes us think that there may be other alternatives, not just violence. At least, this is how I interpreted his reasons to be. Then 2 pages later, on page 145 he says that “revolutions are inevitable because of the conditions under which they are made”. This is true, and he further goes on by saying “he who wages war in a country when he can avoid it, is a criminal, just as he who fails to promote war which cannot be avoided is a criminal”. Once again showing that revolutions are necessary and at times inevitable. At the end of reading this novel we obviously see that to him, guerrilla warfare is the only and best means of winning, and which is why he went to great lengths to write this book. He has in this book brought up good points, and one has to admire his determination and cause. But still, after reading this book, I still find it hard to comprehend how someone could have the “audacity” to write a book that promotes and encourages people to take arms and tell them how to successfully do it. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
Monthly Archives: February 2016
Guerrilla Warfare
“An army marches on its stomach,” said Napoleon (or maybe it was Frederick the Great; it’s unclear). But in Guerrilla Warfare, Che Guevara is keen to remind us that an army also marches, rather more prosaically, on its feet. For he repeatedly stresses the importance of shoes, “one of the fundamental accessories in the struggle” (83). “Above everything else,” indeed, it is a vital necessity that a guerrilla army “have adequate shoes” (29). These should be “of the best possible construction” and “one of the first articles laid up in reserve” (50). After all,
it is not possible for a troop to walk without shoes in wooded zones, hilly, with many rocks and thorns. It is very difficult to march without shoes in such conditions; only the natives, and not all of them, can do it. The rest must have shoes. (102)
No wonder that one of the very first tasks of the guerrilla army, once it has liberated even the most limited of zones, is to establish “shoe factories” that “can initially be cobbler installations that replace half-soles on old shoes, expanding afterwards into a series of organized factories with a good average daily production of shoes” (29). Along with an armory, this is one of the “two fundamental industries” a rebel army has to establish–and in fact, it is mentioned in first place (102). Not just for the human combatants, what’s more. The mule train also “should be well supplied with shoes” (85).
These comments on cobbling indicate the practical nature of Che’s guide to guerilla strategy and tactics. Nothing is too mundane to go unsaid. He equally notes the importance, for instance, of salt, and methods of procuring it. There are discussions of how to string a hammock, and how much underwear a fighter should carry (answer: not much). More obviously to the point, there are diagrams outlining how to make a device that can launch Molotov cocktails and how best to train new recruits in target practice without great expenditures of precious ammunition. This is a manual for the would-be revolutionary that leaves little to chance.
But more than this, the focus on footwear is a clue to the specificities and idiosyncrasies of what we’d now call “unconventional warfare.” For “the basic tactic of the guerrilla army is the march,” which is also why “neither slow men nor tired men can be tolerated” (119). The guerrilla band is relentlessly on the move: its “fundamental characteristic [. . .] is mobility” (18). It always attacks far from its base, and is prepared to retreat if necessary. At times it “can dedicate itself exclusively to fleeing from an encirclement”; at other times “it can also change the battle into a counter-encirclement” (19). The guerrilla constantly changes front, redefines the lines of combat, advances, steps back, circles around, advances again. No wonder Che compares tactics in the field to a “minuet” (19). Creativity and innovation are at a premium: “Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight” (20-21). The all-important shoes have as much in common with ballet slippers as with hiking boots. As well as mobility, guerrilla warfare requires extreme flexibility. The guerrilla must be prepared to turn, side-step, glide, perform arabesques, and then melt away, always en pointe, in a heightened state of awareness.
The foco theory at the heart of Guevara’s book has long been much maligned. The notion that a small vanguard of rural fighters can create the conditions for its own success failed dismally in many Latin American countries, not least in Bolivia under Che himself. Not many people will now be taking this book as the practical guide that it was initially intended–even though it was anxiously examined as much by the would-be experts in counter-insurgency as by trigger-happy leftists. But there’s still surely something for revolutionaries to learn here on a more abstract level. For instance about the importance of space, of knowing the lay of the land, and finding suitable terrain that best aids your cause and disadvantages your enemy. But also the importance of timing, of the tactic of surprise, of knowing when to break off an engagement and regroup. Or the observation that it is the enemy that will be the best source of your ammunition (another reason why shoe factories are if anything more vital than armories), that nomadic adaptability outweighs even the virtues of ascetic purity and sacrifice that the book also (and less convincingly) preaches.
For if Emma Goldman complained that “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution,” a contemporary Che might respond that the Revolution itself should be a dance, playful and joyous. So go get your shoes.
Week 6 – Guerilla Warfare
As I finished reading (to the end of the epilogue), my initial last thoughts are summed up in “The Five P’s” -a saying drilled into my head by my mother. The Five P’s are simply, “Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.” This is the essence of how I feel about this book. Che writes a detailed “outline” of what is necessary for guerilla warfare to be successful, which ultimately leads to the success of a revolution… supposedly. Now, my knowledge of Che and the Cuban Revolution are incredibly limited, so please forgive any blunders on my part, but from reading this it seems that this revolution was a success, at the very least it was so in the eyes of Che.
He covers a lot of ground for a short book, from the start of a guerilla army to the way in which a successful overthrow should be maintained and how society should change, to even thoughts on how to deal with reactions from capitalism, especially from the States. The main essence I draw from the epilogue is that of Cuban unity, that “an army of six million Cubans will grasp weapons as a single man in order to defend its territory and its Revolution.” The idea that from peasant to worker to those in command will be trained and able to function as an entire unit to defend an ideal, is something that just stirs up emotion, more so if you ignore the use of “man” as opposed to an all-inclusive pronoun.
It is important to note that this book has a direct mention to the role of women in the revolution. There are two things I want to mention here. First is a contradiction made by Che. On page 92, he notes that “despite current belief, she does not create conflicts of a sexual type in the troops.” In the appendices, he writes “it must be emphasized that they [women] can play a destructive part [in the revolution]. The weakness for women that young men have… is well known.” He also mentions in the Role of Women section that women can marry and life as man and wife while in the appendices he says that “it is necessary also to prohibit relations with women” because of the above as well as fear of spies.
Furthermore, while Che originally writes that women can fight alongside the men, and have other important assignments such as communications, while in the epilogue he only talks of “auxiliary” tasks which are in essence the stereo-typical feminine roles such as cooking, cleaning, comforting.
guidebook for a revolution
Che’s Guerrilla Warfare was a lot different than my readings for other classes this week. His book is a step-by-step romantic guide to armed resistance and I cant help but feel he would be a little disappointed by the context in which I read his book, sipping my coffee at jj bean. It outlines how to go about overthrowing a non-communist government, with writings on everything from winning local support to which exact guns work best in the mountains to dealing with the sent of fellow comrades.
One aspect of his outline that I appreciated was that he does not call for complete conformity. For example, as he discusses military strategy he says, “ Another fundamental characteristic of the guerrilla soldier is his flexibility, his ability to adapt himself to all circumstances, and to convert to his service all of the accidents of the action. Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight and constantly surprises the enemy.” It seems like this space for creativity in resistance is key to success as it breaks from the hegemonic chain of command and encourages a diversity of ideas. That is not to say that Che is campaigning for a non-hierarchical military (he’s not) but, any move in that direction seems like it will create a more adaptable and ultimately successful resistance. He also encourages respect for ideas and knowledge specific to the land on which the fighters are engaged. “Conduct toward the civil population ought to be regulated by a large respect for all the rules and traditions of the people of the zone, in order to demonstrate effectively, with deeds, the moral superiority of the guerrilla fighter over the oppressing soldier.’ Again this policy listens rather than overpowers and in theory I believe would encourage exchange and growth within the resistance.
Another interesting move that Che makes in the book is his attempt to build the “Guerrilla Fighter.” Through the chapters he builds a ideal fighter that is kind, compassionate, morally flawless and willing to die without regret. To quote a particularly romantic passage, “To the stoicism imposed by the difficult conditions of warfare should be added an austerity born of rigid self-control that will prevent a single excess, a single slip, whatever the circumstances. The guerrilla soldier should be an ascetic.” Clearly, Che is suggesting a type of person that would be difficult to find in real life. However, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing and seems to represent an goal to work towards for resistance fighters. It guides them towards a kind of moral honor rather power gained though physical domination. I think this is a real positive in his vision and separates his book from more typical military strategy. Overall, I thought the book was an interesting read and an informative window into Che’s optimism for the revolutionary movements of the world immediately after the Cuban revolution.
and if anyone still needs it, I found a link for the movie next week w/subtitles –
Che – Part 1
teaching
Teaching class was okay. I liked it but I was unsure whether it was that enjoyable for the other people involved. Saw a few cellphones out (If you think I’m talking about you I almost definitely am) but who am I to judge. For Cartucho we found that the text was so dynamic we didn’t really feel the need to look elsewhere for class material. So it felt more like a book club than a class. But I liked that.
We divided our questions into three main categories: trauma, violence and the role of women.
For trauma I was mostly interested in whether or not the protagonist was traumatized. I still don’t think I’ve decided. I thought that was an interesting discussion.
For violence we looked at a few segments specifically and tried to deduce what purpose the violence was serving in the narrative, if any.
The role of women brought up a lot of questions around motherhood, inter generational knowledge and implicit work/strength. I think that any of the sections we chose as discussion topics for each subject were likely interchangeable as there was so much going on in each vignette. I enjoyed hearing about other people’s experiences with the book, especially around the scene where the soldiers become obsessed with the baby.
I also like the semi-circle formation (maybe that’s just because I was in front) and going around in a circle because I think it encouraged everyone to speak up without being forceful about it.
Blueprint for Revolution?
Leave a reply
I mentioned this guy in class: a Serb called Srdja Popovic has written a book called Blueprint for Revolution. I plan to read it and report back.
In the meantime, here are two articles about him:
- “Meet Srdja Popovic, the secret architect of global revolution”
- “How to start a revolution in five easy steps: humour and hobbits, but no guns”
And here’s a snippet: “Even under the direst conditions, it is still possible to get people to fight for a cause. So the first step in starting a revolution is believing that it can happen, wherever you are.”
Bernie Sanders, Revolutionary?
(go to 14.45)
Week 5: Cartucho and Pancho Villa.
This week’s assigned reading was Cartucho by Nellie Campobello. I found the novel quite interesting in its unconventional style of multiple “short stories” imbedded in one book. The perspective of the Mexican Revolution taken from the view of Campobello’s writing seems to give an air of authenticity that Viva Zapata! and Underdogs just did not have. The way Campobello writes is also interesting as she clearly is influenced by Mexican culture. Her writing is extremely poetic and musters intense feelings of melancholy and sadness (or at least I found). For instance when describing the death of a soldier, Campobello describes “his body turning cold, the tissue of his porous flesh clutching the bullets that killed him.” This writing style shows how metaphorical and tragically poetic Campobello is trying to portray the Mexican Revolution.
I also found the book interesting because it is the first time that we can gaze through the eyes of a woman and see the Mexican Revolution. Additionally, the cultural significance of this book is extremely important as much of what is written likely came from stories that actually were told and happened during the revolution. Of course some of these stories may be embellished but I think its quite interesting that Cartucho can be seen almost as a historical text that encapsulates the tales that actually circulated during the revolution. However is should also be noted that this fanaticism of storytelling and embellishments may have been a cause for the revolutions downfall. Campobello herself even notes how important these tales were during the revolution. She proclaims that “[Mexico is] a country where legends are invented and where people lull their pain listening to them …”. I think her tone here is really important because we are given the sense that she herself is almost angry at the failures of the revolution. She also notes how the mysticism surrounding individuals within the revolution may have been a cause for the lack of triumph but the “true” revolutionary forces.
What I also found interesting was both the novels we have read were from the perspectives of those most closely aligned with Pancho Villa (his soldiers thus being known as “Villistas” as noted in the books). What I don’t quite clearly understand is the Mexican peoples obsession over Villa. From some basic reading on Villa, it seems to me that he was an extremely vain and opportunist man who built himself up to be some amazing revolutionary hero. Multiple sources point to the idea that Villa himself wanted essentially embed himself in the memory of the Mexican Revolution as a shining example of a wonderful man, but it seems that could not be farther from the truth. Along these lines I think it is important to note that revolutions should have there heroes, but these heroes should not become the sole reason for fighting, nor should individuals be considered heroes simply through word of mouth. We must also learn that all hero’s have their flaws and should be followed not through their legendary status, but rather should be appreciated for their political ideology and their willingness to devote their life to the struggle of the peasants and proletariat.
The Underdogs – Aja/Mitch – Summary
So I thought our class on Thursday went quite well. (I apologize if I was a bit out of it. I was at the start of a really bad flu) However, I thought the comparison of the three perspectives on the revolution was especially productive and I really appreciated the insights people shared about what role they saw each playing in the legacy of the revolution. One more week to go! Here was our plan for the class.
Recognize the territory and Musqueam history of resistance.
organize class in semi circle
Revolution as a claim on history
How perspective can shape the story –
Who is Mariano Azuela –
Short bio
in what ways could azuelas past frame his understanding of the revolution?
Break into groups and tell the story from the perspective as –
Demitero– (you guys said)Frantic, No structure, Impulse, Muscle of revolution, Journal, Revenge, Personal gain, Relies on others to tell his story, Revolution as a way of life
Camilla-Female stereotype, Love at the center of the story, How does she feel about Cervantes? The revolution as dangerous, Daily life as important
Villa- Clear picture of what is going on, How he creates mythical image, Does no know what is going on on the ground, Villa as a human. why? Less mythic
3 takes on a revolution-
Mexican government – 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x60UdXFXl0
American diplomats wife – sympathetic – but of the upper class
octavio paz –
Does one story win? Why? What is the legacy of the loosing sides claim on history?
How did Azuela/Cervantes help the cause? How did it tke away from it?
How does language frame history?
What tools to further their perspective?
In what ways do the authors differ? In what ways are they the same?
The Pebble – revolution as an addiction – p. 132
Mate quote-
What are the different ways people come to join the revolution?
What does the violence achieve for the men either intentionally or unintentionally?
Are some reasons more or less justifiable?
cartucho
It was a little hard to get into the vignette style of Cartucho however by the end I really came to enjoy what Nellie Campobello has created. It reads a bit like a Tarantino movie with violence central to every page but it paints a poetic picture of the revolution. One thing that I appreciated was that it feels a lot more like oral storytelling than literature. She always emphasizes things like the men’s personal character, weather or not they behaved bravely when they died, their clothing…it feels like stories your grandpa would tell you about his friends in the war. The book comes across as more honest because of this and is able to avoid picking a single streamlined narrative for a super complicated situation. I think this helps the reader gain insight into the revolution by allowing them to paint the bigger picture.
Another unique characteristic of Campobello’s work is how she often connects herself to the characters and locates them for the reader within her community. I feel like this is important because it demonstrates that the characters are/were people before they were revolutionaries. One example was in the vignette “Babis Sentence” where she describes Babi saying, “Babi was my friend. He used to give me tons of candy. He told me he loved be because I knew how to fight with boys who threw stones.” She then tells of how he went to fight but she knew he would die and in the end she was right. This story helps the reader build a much deeper connection to Babi than if he had just been described as a candy store worker conscripted and killed.
Campobello is also very poetic and her voice contributes to the mythologizing of the soldiers and the revolution. She often recalls how the soldiers tilted their head to the sky in brave acceptance of death and mentions tiny details like how they smoked or stole candy for her. It works really well to humanize them and connect the reader to the story. In death as well she uses lines like, “his body turning cold, the tissue of his porous flesh clutching the bullets that killed him” or her memory of picking up the soldiers frozen blood to make it feel almost dreamlike rather than meaningless. This poeticism works not just in the individual stories but at the end of the book as well it felt like I had just listen to rich folk ballad rather than read fifty stories of murder. It made me think a lot about the importance this kind of work plays in creating a positive legacy for the revolution.