Gonzalo's own writing makes the dude sound like a quack. He keep talking about a "death quota" that must be obtained for socialism to be achieved, not like saying "violence is necessary for revolution" but literally "there is a specific number of people we're going to have to fucking kill to achieve revolution", and that number was always around like a third of Peru's population. Plus they engaged in a lot of random terror bombings in Lima that needlessly caused civilian collateral damages. Even if they were actual communists they conducted themselves in a totally ineffective and adventurous manner.
Show me where Gonzalo writes that. The reason why they committed acts of violence is because they thought it would benefit the revolution. Plus why are we retreating back to liberal terms? How does one mention death of "citizens", were they ronderos who were a reactionary force in the peasantry? The truth is that despite all these liberal accusations of Gonzalo, they were still massively popular among the peasantry and had to be put down by full force of the US and the fascist Fujimori regime. Ill leave with a Mao quote
" Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. [4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Really, were just repeating the Soviet accusations against Mao, they too thought that Mao was being a left adventurist in his revolution and even Hoxha thought he was Petty-Bourgiosie. It seems like we are repeating the Wang Ming vs Mao Zedong debates all over again
Show me where Gonzalo writes that. The reason why they committed acts of violence is because they thought it would benefit the revolution.
Then Gonzalo was a fucking idiot at best and (more likely) a goddamn CIA asset at worst. “Acts of violence” is putting it fucking mildly and is a disgusting attempt at papering over the atrocities of the shining path and the damage it did to the Peruvian Socialist movement.
" Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. [4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Keep his words out of your mouth. Villages of farmers, indigenous people, LGBTQIA+ people, actual Marxist-Leninists, and children were not “another class”.
Please stop, you sound like a conservative. "Won't somebody think of the children??!!?!?!?" Why dont you actually read who you're named after. I dont think you realize the reactionary nature of the ronderos and their class basis.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105487 This books claims that the CPC killed 150,000 innocent civilians. Should we denounce Mao? Or hell even Stalin who supposedly starved the Ukranians. Or the Kim Il Sung for starting the Korean war leaving millions dead and splintered off a country
damage it did to the Peruvian Socialist movement
I would like to see you do a comparative analysis on the revolutions done by the Shining Path and by the MRTA. Why were the peasants much more receptive to the Shining Path than the MRTA and why did the former get so much more popular than its counterpart? What made the Shining Path succeed instead? It seems your assertion is the opposite of truth.
Gonzalo's own writing makes the dude sound like a quack. He keep talking about a "death quota" that must be obtained for socialism to be achieved, not like saying "violence is necessary for revolution" but literally "there is a specific number of people we're going to have to fucking kill to achieve revolution", and that number was always around like a third of Peru's population. Plus they engaged in a lot of random terror bombings in Lima that needlessly caused civilian collateral damages. Even if they were actual communists they conducted themselves in a totally ineffective and adventurous manner.
Show me where Gonzalo writes that. The reason why they committed acts of violence is because they thought it would benefit the revolution. Plus why are we retreating back to liberal terms? How does one mention death of "citizens", were they ronderos who were a reactionary force in the peasantry? The truth is that despite all these liberal accusations of Gonzalo, they were still massively popular among the peasantry and had to be put down by full force of the US and the fascist Fujimori regime. Ill leave with a Mao quote
" Revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. [4] A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
Really, were just repeating the Soviet accusations against Mao, they too thought that Mao was being a left adventurist in his revolution and even Hoxha thought he was Petty-Bourgiosie. It seems like we are repeating the Wang Ming vs Mao Zedong debates all over again
Then Gonzalo was a fucking idiot at best and (more likely) a goddamn CIA asset at worst. “Acts of violence” is putting it fucking mildly and is a disgusting attempt at papering over the atrocities of the shining path and the damage it did to the Peruvian Socialist movement.
Keep his words out of your mouth. Villages of farmers, indigenous people, LGBTQIA+ people, actual Marxist-Leninists, and children were not “another class”.
Please stop, you sound like a conservative. "Won't somebody think of the children??!!?!?!?" Why dont you actually read who you're named after. I dont think you realize the reactionary nature of the ronderos and their class basis.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105487 This books claims that the CPC killed 150,000 innocent civilians. Should we denounce Mao? Or hell even Stalin who supposedly starved the Ukranians. Or the Kim Il Sung for starting the Korean war leaving millions dead and splintered off a country
I would like to see you do a comparative analysis on the revolutions done by the Shining Path and by the MRTA. Why were the peasants much more receptive to the Shining Path than the MRTA and why did the former get so much more popular than its counterpart? What made the Shining Path succeed instead? It seems your assertion is the opposite of truth.