• Drewfro66English
    3·
    8 months 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.eeEnglish
      1·
      8 months 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.