Interesting criticism of armed adventurism and revisionist militarism in the context of the Puerto Rican struggle for independence:
But revolutionary struggle is not about the war between the “armed vanguard” and imperialism. It is about developing a people’s war, for which it is not enough to struggle for an organization with larger military capabilities, but also one must ensure that it is the very people who develop the war. We are not suggesting that all or most of the people have to take revolutionary consciousness so that then we can develop armed actions against imperialism.
No, what we propose is that in all stages of the process, revolutionary armed actions undertaken must be placed in context and correspond to the level of consciousness and struggle of the working class and the people so that the armed struggle can play the specific role it deserves in each stage. At the stage in the strategic defense of the revolutionary movement and of the strength the enemy, like the one currently in PR, the armed struggle must assume a secondary role subordinate to the task of organizing the mass struggle. In a [future] era of strategic offensive of the revolutionary movement, where military confrontation is the order of the day, the armed struggle can and must come to the fore as a guarantee of the triumph of the revolution.
Revolutionary War has its laws, which must be observed by the revolutionaries. At each stage the laws of war assume a specific character under the conditions that define each stage. Ignoring this rule of thumb is about putting the subjective factors over material reality, it is to want to run a war from a subjective point of view only. All of which leads usually to a militaristic conception, whose political consequences can be disastrous.