• KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s wrong in the context of the Chinese civil war though. Mao and the CPC didn’t win because they had more guns or a more powerful army. In fact, the KMT almost wiped them out several times.

    According to their own lore, they were more inspirational to the local people, who supported them in return. Mao specifically said “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”

    You can read it in Mao’s own words: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/113625.On_Guerrilla_Warfare

    But this has been known from the days of Napoleon. A gun doesn’t win a war, the idea wins the war. That’s where ballots and debates come in.

    • Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When the CPC was losing to the KMT, they did not have more political power. I feel you’re misunderstanding the quote, which is a colorful way of saying that force is the ultimate basis of all political power—which should be obvious from a cursory examination of international politics.

    • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re being overly simplistic - sure, ideas and debates have a place in politics. And “political power flows out of the barrel of a gun” doesn’t mean “Whoever has the most guns wins” (though this is the case most of the time) - but it does mean that a group with no guns has no power.

      Like the other commenter said, the quote is partially metaphorical - it just means that force is the basis of political power. The people willing and able to apply the most force will almost always win in the end.

      Think about in America. If, tomorrow, 75% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the police, would it happen? Maybe, but probably not - because the people with political power, the people with guns and the will to use them (cops, troops, fascists, small business tyrants) support the police.

      History is shaped by material conditions; ideas play a part in this, but material interest is the primary driving force.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You just said:

        the Chinese civil war was not fought with ballots or debates, it was fought with guns, on both sides.

        Ultimately, the people with the guns hold all political power in society.

        That directly contradicts Mao’s idea that guerillas are supported by the people they live with. If the people withhold support, guerillas become like a fish out of water. Ordinary people (without guns) actually exercise more power in this scenario.

        By focusing on guns instead of class, you are not using a Marxist or Neo-Marxist framework to analyze the civil war. You are using a Realist or Neo-Realist framework, similar to Henry Kissinger. Marxist frameworks believe class is much more important than guns.

        The statement “political power flows from the barrel of a gun” is almost anti-Marxist in the way it completely ignores class conflict.