Since 1982 we have been destroying the Old Power in the countryside; generating in consequence a Power vacuum, each day greater and extending to larger areas; as is well known and recognized. Does that Power vacuum remain a political limbo, an interregnum of the class struggle? Can anyone believe that the Old Power is destroyed and nothing can replace it? Doesn’t the destruction of the Old Power imply, as counterweight, the construction of the New Power?

Aren’t destruction of the Old Power and construction of the New Power two terms of the same contradiction? Well then, over the destruction of the Old Power the New is created, which is a joint dictatorship, based on the worker-peasant alliance and supported by the People’s Army. As the ABC of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism reads, the New Power in its development obviously follows the fluidity of the People’s War, and the specifications of our concrete reality. But precisely with the multiplication of the Open People’s Committees, in 1989, the New State tends to achieve a relative stability.

About strategic equilibrium, we can’t just pull it out of a thin air, nor like a gambler pulls an ace off his sleeves. These problems must be studied seriously, and especially the military ones. The point is clear and concise: the defensive, the equilibrium and the strategic offensive, as we well know, are the three elements of the protracted war. The first being longest and, how international experience shows it, the development of the second and third are intimately linked to the complex situation of the overall class struggle in the country, and to the world situation, since they entail sweeping away in the entire country, the rule of reaction and of imperialism and the installation in the entire nation of a People’s Republic, with all the repercussions it has in the world, starting from the neighboring countries.

The above is a brief description about the direction and perspective of the People’s War in Peru, which continues firmly and on the rise, with unbending tenacity. Have we set any specific date to go over to strategic equilibrium? Did any military plan have that specific objective? Is it an unfulfilled “commitment?” Is it a task linked to the reactionary elections? or is it a “goal” of Capping off the Great Leap with a Golden Seal! or any other campaign, as they say? Pure speculations aimed at slandering the People’s War, trying to discredit it before the masses, and sow confusion. As the Central Committee session stated, this endeavor is being propagated precisely at the time that Peruvian reaction and imperialism have “a need to develop the counterinsurgency war, empower their military actions, mobilize the masses and increase [foreign] intervention, mainly Yankee,” and when, under the disguise of fighting against “drug trafficking,” Yankee imperialism plans its greater direct aggression against the People’s War.

Situations which, linked to the transcendental progress of the People’s War in 89 enabled the advance from guerrilla warfare to war of movements, and clearly showed that strategic equilibrium was in the cards and that the revolution developed in decisive moments. That too, of course, was within our concrete material conditions. In conclusion, the purported “strategic failure of Sendero,” supposedly based on the so-called “swamping” sustained by the nonsense that there is “an abandonment of the road” and “non attainment of goals,” is simply a new sinister reactionary campaign led by Yankee imperialism itself. It is part of the psychological warfare and the ongoing plan to empower the counterinsurgency war.

But besides all that, in the short term, it seeks to sow confusion amidst the Peruvian people and to undermine the linking between the masses and the People’s War. In order to expose and mark with fire those vile mercenaries who miserably and treacherously help reaction and imperialism, it is worth highlighting two questions: First, they do not pay attention to the material conditions of the Peruvian Revolution; this is something they obviously cannot see now or in the future, but we take it fully into account, which at the same time refutes the lie that we practice dogmatism. Second, that behind their demagoguery, lies the old rotten revisionist criteria about revolutionary situations, which take them to imagine today (even if they do not say so explicitly), the existence of a revolutionary crisis that, according to them, not to seize Power now would imply the failure of the revolution in general and of the People’s War in particular.

Let’s remember the three requirements for the existence of a revolutionary situation:

1. Power escapes the hands of reaction,

2. revisionism and opportunism do not exert an influence over the masses,

3. the masses close ranks around the Party.

Specifically in our case, the revolutionary crisis is linked to the People’s War, it suffices to say:

1. the armed forces retain it capacity to sustain the old State;

2. revisionism and opportunism continue to ride over the masses through the industrial and trade union bureaucracy and;

3. the People’s War must still generate the great jump about incorporating the masses, which happens at the end of it. Therefore, what we have is a revolutionary situation in increasing development due to the sharpening of the class struggle and, mainly, the People’s War, which not only has persisted for ten years, but each day goes on, it is demolishing the Old State and constructing the New Power a little more, aiming at completely sweeping aside the obsolete and putrid Peruvian society of oppression and exploitation.

Consequently, the perspective of the current revolutionary situation in development is the revolutionary crisis or the rise of the revolution, in the words of P. Mao Tse-tung. Closely linked to the lie about the “strategic failure of Sendero” is the lie about “division and surrender.” The “surrender” farce is not new. Since the beginning of his genocidal demagogic government, Garcia Perez and the armed forces [repeatedly] staged it; in the [document] “Develop the People’s War to Serve the World Revolution,” we read:

“The October 1986 Lurigancho genocide followed, after the reactionary APRA government staged the farce of the `massive capitulation of Senderistas’ at Llochegua and Corazon-Pampa, province of La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; even, as reported by all the media, an interview was staged between the `supreme chief’ (Garcia Perez) with `surrendered leaders’ who he received at the Palace, ‘an act filmed from a distance’ in which nobody heard anything or saw anyone’s face due ostensibly to `understandable security reasons.’

But the surrender was quickly disemboweled by the published statements of a navy officer who took part in the operative in question: `the same officer explained in the interview by this reporter that the hundred or so people who allegedly surrendered, among men, women and children, never got near the bases of Corazon-Pampa or Llochegua, but were rounded up by marine infantry at the mountain heights and later on taken to both localities. When lieutenant Anibal was asked if the peasants, at the time of the surrendering, carried any weapons, he answered no . . . ‘; according to La Republica of October 25, 1985. That was the famous lie about the ‘surrendering.'”

Again today, they resurrect the same treacherous lie trying to undermine the People’s War and cover up the forceful nucleation they inflict upon the peasantry, to create mesnadas (paramilitary peasants), repeating obsolete molds previously smashed by the convergence of the enslaved masses themselves and by guerrilla actions. It is evident that with the increasing surrender of mesnadas created by the armed forces, which we saw more frequently these past few months, their aim is to reenact the genocidal blood bath of the years 83 and 84


Ediciones Bandera Roja, May 1990

This entry was posted in Editor's desk, resistance, war and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.