Chapter 84 Chapter 15 The Third World and Revolution 2

2 The thing that most astonishes both sides of the revolution is that, since 1945, guerrilla warfare seems to have been the dominant form of struggle in revolutions in the Third World—and revolutions everywhere.Since World War II, a total of 32 wars have been listed in the "Chronology of Guerrilla Warfare Events" compiled in 1970. Except for three of them-the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s, Cyprus in the 1950s, and Northern Ireland's confrontation with the United Kingdom in 1969-the rest all occurred Outside of Europe and North America (Lapueur, 1977, p. 442).Since then, the list has grown rapidly.However, the impression that revolutions are launched in the mountains and forests is not entirely correct, and it is unavoidable to underestimate the role played by left-wing military coups in it.The latter approach, which did not seem to work in Europe until a dramatic first in Portugal in 1974, is the norm in the Islamic world and not surprisingly in Latin America. The Bolivian Revolution of 1952 was initiated by miners and military rebels; the most drastic reforms in Peruvian society were driven by the military regime of the late 1960s and 1970s.Similarly, the revolutionary potential of urban people is also an old force that cannot be ignored. The Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Eastern European society in the future are the best examples.But back to the third stage of this century, the focus of the world is on guerrilla warfare, and the superiority of guerrilla tactics has been repeatedly advocated by fierce leftist thinkers who are dissatisfied with the Soviet line.Mao Zedong after the split with the Soviet Union, Castro after 1959—more precisely, it should be Castro’s handsome comrade, Che Guevara (1928-1967)— — that is, its spiritual leader.As for the number one team with the most successful guerrilla tactics: the Communist Party of Vietnam, which defeated France and the powerful United States successively, has been warmly praised by the world.However, these Communist parties strongly discourage worshipers from killing each other in the internal struggle of leftist consciousness.

The third world in the 1950s was full of endless guerrilla warfare, and almost all of these wars took place in countries where the colonial powers (or colonists who immigrated there) were unwilling to let the former colonies easily peacefully independent—such as the disintegrated British Empire Malaya, Kenya Mau Mau movement and Cyprus under rule.As for the most serious wars, they took place in the declining French Empire, such as Algeria and Vietnam.But, oddly enough, it was another, much smaller operation—certainly smaller than the Malayan Rebellion (Thomas, 1971, p. 1040)—that finally brought guerrilla warfare to the front pages of the world—namely Playing cards not according to common sense, the result was a great success. On January 1, 1959, a revolution in the regime of the Cuban island in the Caribbean was achieved.Castro was, in fact, not an uncommon figure in Latin American politics: young, tough, charismatic, well-born landlord family; politically ambiguous, but determined to show personal heroism—whatever it was Under the banner of freedom and rebellion, as long as the right time arises, I am determined to become the number one hero in it.Even his slogans belonged to the old emancipation movement, respectable but lacking in precision (“No Fatherland is Death”—formerly “Either Victory or Death” and “We will come out”).After an obscure period of student politics among gun-wielding teenagers at Havana University, Castro joined forces against the Cuban dictator General Fulgencio Batista's government - Batis As a non-commissioned officer, Tata made his debut in the military coup in 1933. He was a brutal figure known to everyone in Cuban politics. He won power again in 1952 and abolished the constitution single-handedly.Castro fought with activism: Attacking a military camp in 1953, he was imprisoned, exiled, led guerrillas back to Cuba, and consolidated his power in the remote mountainous province during his second attack.This ill-prepared gamble has paid off big-in fact, from a purely military point of view, the difficulty of the challenge is not high.The genius leader of the guerrilla warfare, Guevara, who was born as an Argentine doctor, led only 148 soldiers, and then continued to conquer the rest of Cuba.However, Castro's own troops only occupied the first village with a population of 1,000 in December 1958 (Thomas, 1971, pp. 997, 1020, 1024).Until 1958, Castro's greatest achievement-but it was indeed not trivial-was that he showed that a small irregular army could control a vast "liberated area" and resist regular army attacks ——Of course, the morale of the latter is low, which is an accepted fact.The reason why Castro won was that Batista's regime itself was so weak that it had no sincere support except for its own interests, and its leaders themselves were slack and lazy under corruption.As a result, as soon as opposition forces united by various political lines from the democratic bourgeoisie to the Communist Party rose up, and the dictator's own military and police minions also believed that he was exhausted, the regime immediately collapsed.Castro provided this proof of his doom, and the forces he led naturally became orthodox.At the moment of the victory of the rebels, most of the Cuban people sincerely felt that liberation was coming, and they had boundless hope from then on; and this symbol of liberation and hope was embodied in the young rebel commander.The short twentieth century was full of natural leaders who stood on high platforms and in front of microphones, and were worshiped as idols by the masses.Among these talented and wise leaders, there is probably no other person who has such a convinced and loving audience as Castro.The tall, bearded hero, in a rumpled battle uniform, has no sense of time, and can talk for two hours without stopping.Although the content is complicated and the thoughts are disordered, it can win the unquestioned full attention of the public (including the author).Finally, for one time, the revolution became a collective honeymoon experience for everyone.Where will it take us?There must be something better!

The various rebels in Latin America in the 1950s inevitably found that the revolution could not rely solely on the teachings of their own historical liberation heroes, such as the revolutionary hero Bolivar in Latin America, and Cuba’s own great man Jose Marti. , the anti-imperialist social-revolutionary tradition after 1917, that is, leftist theory, was obviously also indispensable.Both advocated “agrarian reform”—whatever that meant—and, at least not on the surface, had anti-American sentiments.Especially the impoverished Central America, "so far away from God, but so close to the United States"-to paraphrase the words of the older Mexican strongman Profirio Diaz.Although Castro and his gang were radical, except for two of them, neither he nor his comrades were Communists, and they never even expressed the sympathy and support of any Marxists.In fact, the local Cuban Communist Party—the only major party of its kind in Latin America outside of Chile—not only had no connection with them, it was not even sympathetic at first, and some people did not participate in Castro's activities until much later. .The relationship between the two sides is obviously extremely cold, which has caused frequent disputes among American diplomats and policy advisers. It is not clear whether Castro's people are for or against the Communist Party.If it was indeed the Communist Party, the CIA knew exactly what to do with it—it had already dealt with a reformist government in Guatemala in 1954—but now it clearly decided that the Cuban people were not the Communist Party.

However, the various situations that occurred at that time were prompting Castro's movement to go in the direction of communism.The general theory of social revolution advocated by those who tended to take up guns to fight guerrillas, and Senator McCarthy's anti-communist upsurge in the United States automatically made Latin American rebels against imperialism, Marx's thinking is more agreeable.The global cold war situation made the whole thing more logical.If the new regime hates the United States — and nine times out of ten, it must — all it takes is a threat to American investment to guarantee the sympathetic support of America's arch-enemy.What's more, Castro's monologue-style governance style in front of millions of people is not the way to govern the world. Even a small country or revolution cannot last long.Even populism requires some form of organization; the Communist Party is the only group on the side of the revolution that can provide it.The two sides needed each other, and soon became one.However, by March 1960, long before Castro realized that Cuba must follow the socialist line and that he himself had to become a Communist Party (but he was a Communist Party with his own unique style), the United States had decided to treat him as a At the hands of the Communist Party, the CIA was entrusted with the task of overthrowing him. In 1961, when the CIA instigated Cuban exiles to attack the Bay of Pigs (the Bay of Pigs) failed, a Cuba with a communist regime survived hundreds of kilometers away from Key West, the southernmost island of the United States. Under the blockade of the United States, the dependence on the Soviet Union was deepening.

After 10 years of conservatism flourishing around the world, there is no other revolution that has cheered the left-wing people in the Western Hemisphere and developed countries like Cuba, and only this revolution has made the best propaganda for guerrilla warfare .The Cuban revolution lacks everything, and it has what it wants: there are heroic romances in the mountains and grass;A happy and festive nation, in a tropical tourist paradise, with the pulsating breath of Rumba rhythm.More importantly, its achievements and deeds can be applauded by leftists all over the world. Indeed, Cuba's success is most likely to be cheered by Moscow's critics.For a long time, these people have been extremely dissatisfied with the Soviet Union's policy of peaceful coexistence with capitalism as its first priority.Castro's example inspired militant intellectuals across Latin America.This continent has always been full of passionate people who are ready to pull the trigger at any time, proud of being brave and selfless, and love to show off their heroic style.As time passed, Cuba began to encourage mutiny on the South American continent, and Guevara continued to advocate; he was the number one fighter in the pan-Latin American revolution, and he strongly advocated that there should be "two, three, and more Vietnam."As for ideas, there was a bright young French leftist (who else?) who provided a useful theory.He sorted out a set of theories, that is, on a continent where the revolution is mature, the only thing that is missing is to send small groups of armed forces into the mountains, occupy the mountains as camps, and form the "central focus" (focos) of the mass liberation struggle. It's a matter of course.

So this guerrilla wind swept across Latin America, and groups of enthusiastic young men launched their guerrilla warfare under the banner of Castro, Trotsky or Mao Zedong.But only in Central America and Colombia, where there are farmers who support the armed struggle as an exception, these guerrilla armed forces were all destroyed immediately, leaving only the bones of unsung heroes and illustrious figures everywhere—including Gwa La himself died in Bolivia, and another equally heroic priest-turned-rebel leader, Father Camilo Torres, died in Colombia.This strategy is poorly planned, especially since sustained and effective guerrilla warfare in these countries is possible if the conditions are right. Since 1964, the "Armed Forces of the Columbian Revolution (FARC)" (Armed Forces of the Columbian Revolution, FARC), with official communist status, has continued to this day, and its activities are still going on at the time of writing, as evidenced by this. The Maoist "Shining Path Movement" that emerged in Peru in the 1980s is another example.

However, although peasants also embarked on the guerrilla road, guerrilla warfare itself was by no means a peasant movement—the FARC was an extremely rare exception.The guerrilla movement's entry into the countryside of the third world was mainly done by young intellectuals, and the source of these young people was first the middle class with a solid foundation of wealth in the country, and then a group of sons and daughters of the rural petty bourgeoisie as fresh blood (sons Mainly, daughter less).In the future, when guerrilla warfare shifts from inland rural areas to cities, as in the practice of some leftist revolutions in the third world in the late 1960s (such as Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Europe), its members are no more than the above two sources.Subsequent developments have shown that in urban areas, guerrillas are easier to operate than in rural areas, because the former do not need to rely on (mostly middle class).These "urban guerrillas" or "terrorist groups" discovered that they could achieve a more shocking propaganda effect in the city, and the lethality was more astonishing. ) death by the hands of the separatist Basque Liberal Party; and Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro’s assassination in 1978 by the Italian Red Brigades – and the capabilities of these attacks, Not to mention.In short, the results of guerrilla warfare in the cities are much more brilliant than the revolution in the country's countryside.

Even in Latin America, the main forces of political change come from literati, politicians and the military. In the 1960s, right-wing military regimes swept across most of South America, and the reason was not for armed rebellion—as for Central America, military regimes were always popular, with the exception of revolutionary Mexico and the small country of Costa Rica, the latter even in 1948 After a revolution, its army was wiped out in one fell swoop - the Argentine military overthrew the populist leader Peron, and Peron's power came from the power of labor organizations and the poor (1955).Since then, the Argentine military has been in power intermittently, because on the one hand, the Peronist mass movement has always been difficult to destroy, and on the other hand, no stable civilian government has ever arisen to replace it. In 1973, Perón returned from exile. This time, many local leftists grabbed his trousers to help out.The return of Peron once again showed the strength of his supporters.So the army once again bloodied and patriotically regained power until they lost the short, pointless, but decisive battle of the Falklands (1982) and were ousted.

The Brazilian military, which took over in 1964, drove out similar enemies.Brazil's great populist leader Vargas (1883-1954), his successors began to turn left in the early 1960s, advocating democratization and land reform, and questioning US policies.In fact, the small-scale guerrilla activities that appeared in the late 1960s did not pose a threat to the military regime at all, but it became an excuse for the latter to suppress it ruthlessly.However, after the early 1970s, the authorities gradually loosened their iron grip, and in 1985, the regime was handed over to literati. This must be mentioned.As for the Chilean military's great enemy, it was a left-wing alliance of socialists, communism, and other progressives—what Europeans (and Chile, too) called the "People's Front" (see Chapter 5).The United Front won elections in Chile in the 1930s, when Washington was less nervous about it than it is today, and Chile is generally recognized as a constitutional system of civilian rule.The leader of the United Front, the socialist Salvador Allende, was elected president in 1970, but his regime was unstable, and he was overthrown in 1973 by a military coup backed by, and presumably masterminded by, the United States.Since then, in Chile, the behavior of the military regime in 1970 has prevailed - executions, massacres (official or semi-official methods), systematic torture and abuse of prison inmates, and political opponents have exiled in large numbers.General Pinochet, the head of the military, has been in power for 17 years, but he has implemented extreme liberalism in the economy.This proves once again that, regardless of anything else, political liberal democracy and economic liberalism are not absolute natural partners in reality.

After 1964, Bolivia's revolutionary regime was overthrown by the military, which may have something to do with the United States worrying about Cuba's growing influence in Bolivia.The prodigal hero Guevara died in Bolivia in an untimely guerrilla operation.But Bolivia, no matter how brutal its rulers, is not a place where any local military can rule for long.And so, between a succession of generals coming and going, and growing envious of drug trade profits, Bolivia's military regime ended 15 years later.As for the Uruguayan army, it used an extremely clever "urban guerrilla" movement as an excuse to carry out common massacres. However, the biggest reason for the military's seizure of power in 1972 was the "broad left" (Broad Left) people. The rise of the Common Front stands in direct opposition to the country's traditional two-party politics.However, this country, which can be called the only country with the longest democratic politics in South America, managed to keep its certain traditions. After all, it finally rejected the incomplete constitution with handcuffs and shackles bestowed on them by the military rulers, and in 1985, it was ruled by civilians again.

In Latin America, in Asia, in Africa, guerrilla tactics have been a remarkable achievement and have the potential to be even better.But if the battlefield is moved to a developed country, the guerrilla road is meaningless.But it should come as no surprise that young rebels and revolutionaries—or simply cultural dissidents—in the First World were increasingly inspired by both rural and urban guerrilla warfare in the Third World.Reports about rock music compared the Woodstock music festival (1969) to "a peaceful guerrilla army" (Chapple and Garofalo, 1977, p.144).The portrait of Guevara was carried up and down like an idol by students demonstrating in Paris and Tokyo; his manly appearance with a beret on his head and bearded face stirred every heart, even Even the least political minds of the "countercultural" circles were thrilled by it.Although the leftists in the first world often chanted the name of the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh ("Hey! Hey! Ho Chi Minh!") in actual demonstrations, the global "New Left" in 1968 had After a very thorough survey, Guevara's name is the most frequently mentioned one - second only to the philosopher Marcuse (Marcuse).Therefore, under the support of the Third World guerrillas, and after 1965, amidst the protests of American youths who resisted being sent by the government to fight the Third World guerrillas, the leftists thus produced a great voice for unity; The only thing that is comparable to the cohesion of the two forces is anti-nuclearism. The author of The Wretched of theq Earth was originally a psychologist in the Caribbean who participated in the liberation war in Argentina.The book glorifies violence as a form of spiritual liberation for the oppressed.Some activists in the intellectual circle were deeply shocked by this book, and this book became an important classic for them, and its influence is growing day by day. In short, the image of a guerrilla in camouflage invading the jungle became the central image, if not the main inspiration, of First World radicals in the 1960s. "Third World Theorists" believe that the liberation of the world will be initiated by the poor agricultural belts around them, who are exploited, squeezed, and forced by the "core countries" in what many documents call the "world system" The vast areas that rely on "status", but they want to go back and liberate the whole world.This theory has captured the hearts of leftist theorists in the first world.If, according to the "world system", the source of the world's troubles is not the rise of modern industrial capitalism, but the Third World's fall into the hands of European colonialism in the 16th century, then, as long as the historical If the process is reversed, the revolutionaries in the first world who feel helpless can have a breakthrough and break out of this powerless predicament.It is no wonder that the strongest rhetoric in this regard often comes from the Marxist faction in the United States, because the hope of relying on the internal strength of the United States to generate the victory of socialism is too slim.