We are taught in the West, through the liberal-individualism that pervades our stories and media, that liberation is won by standing our ground in the face of insurmountable odds. We are made to worship the valiant but doomed. We are encouraged to envision desperate last stands and murdered revolutionaries. Our stories of revolution always contain a lacuna when it comes to the period before the violence; there is injustice, then there are barricades and shooting. For many of us with a petit-bourgeois or labor-aristocratic class background, we are often filled with a deep moral guilt at the realization that we have lived materially privileged lives at the expense of others; that we, too, have feasted on the flesh of our siblings, if not at the same table, then at least in the same room as the bourgeoisie. This stupendous realization often creates, in the person realizing it, a desperate drive to purify the ego, to recognize the crime in which we have taken part by the self-sacrifice of the body. This petit-bourgeois death-drive can manifest as adventurism — throwing one’s life away on military-style action or terroristic violence before the masses are prepared to confront the state — or as needlessly submitting oneself to arrest and degradation in the imperial U.S. court system.

Whatever the origin of this behavior, whatever the individual psychological root or tactical misjudgement which gives rise to it, it is destructive to the movement. Death or arrest do not help the cause of liberation unless they are absolutely unavoidable and pursued with an overall plan to carry the fight to victory. The people do not need martyrs. It may feel cathartic to invite the lash of the state, but it is not purifying. To purify the moral stain of eating the flesh of our kin, only one thing will do: not to die, but to live; not to be held in jail, but to escape and be free; not to be a lone voice crying out, but to be the organizer of a vast chorus.

To do this, we must master the art of retreat. Much of this understanding is compiled from military science dating back to Carl von Clausewitz. In the 20th century it was updated  by Mao Zedong, Võ Nguyên Giáp, Carlos Marighella, and others to strategize for guerilla struggle against enemies with apparently overwhelming numerical and technical power.

To understand retreat, we must place it in its context. Retreat is the opposite of advance. It is to withdraw and surrender some strategically valuable element to the enemy in order to preserve the integrity of one’s force or organization, or to gain a tactical advantage later. In the classical guerilla sense, this is often posed as trading ground (territory, space) for time. Retreat is often confused with defeat, but in actuality it is merely a tactic that sometimes accompanies a partial defeat. Retreat has its own characteristics apart from the question of victory. Retreat may accompany defeat, as a means of preserving an organization and staving off disaster. However, one may also retreat in victory. Not every victory is necessarily accompanied by an advance.

In this context, there are also several types of “ground” that may be given up. Identifying which “ground” will constitute a defeat (ultimate or interim) and which will constitute merely a strategic retreat is critical to enable us to make good decisions when we are engaged with the enemy.

For instance, in this current conflict between the student movement for Palestine and the agents of state repression (in the form of the hyper-militarized police departments), the most visible and obvious vector of advance and retreat is spatial. Geographic territory represents the primary field of conflict. The student movement has by and large pledged to “hold” space or territory on various campuses. Police advance on these encampments and threaten them.

However, there is also an organizational element of retreat and advance. The pressure exerted upon these encampments, although it takes the form of police advancing in the most visible sense, is actually not primarily for the purpose of physical removal. Rather, with all forms of pressure currently exerted on the student movement, the purpose is to disorganize them and break their will to continue resistance in any form. Physical incursion by the police or other elements is merely the most visible and sharpest example of this. Other examples include the “peace talks” held by some university administrations, which serve to sap the strength of the movement with false promises, and with which the administration hopes to induce disorganization.

While territory is not crucial — in Marxist terms, the contradiction of territorial control is a secondary one — organization is. That is to say that organization and dissolution is the primary contradiction, of which organization is itself the primary aspect. This means that the loss of physical territory is temporary and non-fundamental, but the loss of organization is permanent and mortal.

To put this in strategic terms: we can surrender any degree of territory without damaging our movement. Any surrender of organization whatsoever, any lessening in its militancy and preparedness, any action that tends to reduce the strength or complexity of internal relationships within a camp, is a clear defeat that must be resisted by all efforts.

When to Retreat

This is a complex question. For the purposes of the current analysis, we will deal with it in a very brief fashion. Firstly, we are not in a position of possessing a regular military capable of standing up to a war of attrition. Even the most radical student-organizers and Communists, in any conflict for the foreseeable future, must adhere to doctrines of a war of movement. We cannot hold any territory indefinitely. If the enemy wishes to deprive us of it, they will. Therefore, we must be fluid; we must retreat when the enemy attacks, we must attack when the enemy retreats.

In our instance, we are facing a numerically, technically, and logistically superior enemy. We are like a spindly man in a boxing match facing off against a musclebound Goliath. One punch from our enemy will flatten us, so when he gathers his strength and swings, we have to be somewhere else.

They also use the weapon of the capitalist court system, which we must avoid. The court is controlled by our enemy; the same class that sics the police on us commands every judge and prosecutor and has infinite money and time to spend prosecuting us. The old civil rights tactic of filling jails to paralyze the police is no longer viable, the enemy has learned from it and adapted. Every night in a jail cell is a blow to the organization. It’s a night you aren’t able to organize. It’s a night you cannot spend regenerating your energy. It’s a night that your people are deprived of your labor and your insight. This is how movements die. Their members are thrown into the dark or to years-long legal battles that keep them from the work.

Generally, when the enemy brings overwhelming force against you, to preserve the integrity of your own force, you should retreat. How will you recognize overwhelming force before it is already throwing your efforts into disarray? This question is composed of many smaller questions, each inter-related. For instance, if your organization is not prepared to make use of physical force to resist and hold ground, then it will be overwhelmed by an enemy prepared to make use of even a moderate exercise of force. When the police are unwilling to use force, even the minimal amount put forward by walking toward them in an ordered line with some protection will remove them. However, should they be willing to exert considerable force, only a very considerable defense would hold them off.

We should examine the following questions when we determine whether a physical retreat is correct:

Disposition of the Enemy

1. The physical makeup of the enemy force;
2. The morale of the enemy force, including what percentages are likely to be willing to continue fighting after heavy resistance;
3. The equipment available to the enemy force and an assessment of whether or not they are willing to use it;
4. The degree of violence the enemy force is willing to exert to achieve removal of the resistance;
5. The physical disposition of the enemy force in relation to your force;

Disposition of Resistance

1. The physical makeup of the resistance, including a sober assessment of the absolute number of reliable resisters, discounting those who will not remain;
2. The equipment available to the resistance and an assessment of whether or not using it will cause escalatory force; we must be aware that we lack a traditional military or even a widespread single organization — our enemy can always escalate to a level we cannot;
3. The physical disposition of the resistance in relation to the enemy force, whether the resistance has defensive ground, clear lanes of retreat, etc.;
4. A sober assessment of whether or not the resistance is willing and capable of using sufficient violence to match that of the enemy;

How to Effectuate a Retreat

Before a retreat is possible, there must be a clear lane of escape. For this reason, if defending a position, methods of retreat must be kept clear and open. If lanes of retreat are in danger of being closed off, then the time to assess whether retreat is necessary has come. You must begin your retreat before a cordon closes it off. All the better if you have access to a method of retreat unknown to your enemies.

The following principles will guide your retreat:

1. We must be prepared for retreat as a tactical option. This means that we must have contingency plans for the retreat and for what happens afterward. A retreat can become a true defeat if it transforms into a rout or if the organization does not reform. To pursue the strategy of retreat when they attack, attack when they retreat, we must set definite times for meetings after the retreat, to re-constitute or maintain the organization.
2. It must be orderly, or you risk a rout, disorganization, and complete disruption by the enemy. This means the least reliable elements must retreat first, before the situation is dire. In the case of a campus encampment, this means the marshals should first guide out those elements which cannot afford to be arrested. Then, the remainder of the encampment should depart, leaving only the marshals and self-defense committee to hold the line until they, too, retreat.
3. For those of us pursuing guerilla or semi-guerilla tactics, once the retreat from the area of danger has been effectuated, we must disperse to pre-arranged locations, dissolve, and lose our character as members of an organization. We arise from the civilian masses, and we return to the civilian masses. Once the retreat begins, organization becomes a secondary aspect and dissolution becomes the primary aspect. With these aspects in their inverse, you must separate, disorganize, and dissolve.
4. We must continue to avoid arrest. This may mean an extended period of retreat, or extended stays in an underground state without any above-ground agitation. Tactical retreat may necessitate the nail-biting withdrawal from the above-ground scene entirely. While the enemy runs rampant and controls the media narrative, the organization can begin to reconstruct itself, increase its scope with underground agitation, and prepare to strike once the enemy relaxes its attention.

You will hopefully see quite clearly that considerations of retreat cannot be left until the last minute. In fact, every action should be undertaken with an understanding of the plan for retreat. No single action will result in the defeat of our enemy. Thus, our strategic understanding must include retreat as a planned tactical maneuver in each instance. The question of when to retreat may be fluid, but many of the questions about how and where to retreat should be solved prior to the engagement.

Of course, it is also possible that these things may change during the action. If lanes of retreat become cut off, it may be necessary to open new ones. Plans must always be flexible. However, to have no calculation of retreat from the outset is to fall prey to the petit-bourgeois trap of revolutionary self-destruction. Do not self-destruct for the revolution. Live, and fight on.