FUNDAMENTALS OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY-1991

10670221_1484648311819800_3675381834715441341_n

1. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought:

In Defense of Marxism Against the Combined Offensive of Revisionism and Imperialism

a. The combined counter-revolutionary campaign of imperialism, revisionism, and world reaction against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

In recent years we have been combating the new revisionist counter-revolutionary offensive (1990). We have been the only Party that defined it as such. What we ought to see now is that new offensive has been developed more completely by Gorbachev, who has largely repeated the sinister action of Teng (China). We have seen the direct participation of the Soviet Union and its subsequent repercussions, in collusion and struggle with Yankee imperialism, on the uncontrolled wave of capitalism in Eastern Europe. The participation of Gorbachev in that sinister counter-revolutionary plan is undeniable. A manifest proof of his services rendered to imperialism is seen in his nomination for the Nobel peace prize.

At the same time, we have also denounced the new and extended attack of imperialism against Marxism, which proclaims one more time its collapse. We have seen how on the ideological plane, in a form most wild and excessive, the problem has been explained as primarily a struggle between two imperialist superpowers. We believe that, in summary, we ought to arrive at a conclusion: a combined counter-revolutionary campaign of imperialism, revisionism, and world reaction against Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is being developed. This is the central question that we must deal with. This campaign develops by means of collusion and struggle, but predominantly the collusion among the three enemies which in unison attack and try to wipe Marxism off the face of the earth. Once again, we state that this campaign will be defeated. It is destined to failure. It is no more than the prologue to a new development of Marxism. Sooner or later Marxism will triumph.

b. From the General Decay to the Collapse of Revisionism: Soviet Union, China, Albania.

This is our perspective: in the Soviet Union, quickly and without restraint, a market economy, privatizations, the free market, and finally a complete, uncontrolled capitalist system develop. The law that first the political power is usurped in order to change the social relations for exploitation, is being fulfilled. Then steps are taken toward a system of parliamentary representation, multiple parties, and other bourgeois principles, and consequently capitalist economic modes of production are adopted, such as the approval of a plan for developing a market economy. A period of stabilization is planned, to face the very difficult crisis through which they are undergoing. Non-government property is increased, of the monopolies, especially the imperialist monopolies, and of the non-State industries within the Soviet Union. Private ownership of land is granted. Non-State ownership of housing is extended. Lastly, the convertibility of the ruble is instituted.

All of this is to the benefit of the grand bourgeois class of the Soviet Union. The measures to wipe out the balance that remains of traditions and traditional forms are evident. The revisionist party, for example, is each day more limited, and has to contend with bourgeois and openly nationalist parties. The revisionist armed forces have eliminated the political control of the Party. The Constitution has suffered numerous changes, and of the old socialist Constitution of Comrade Stalin, now not even a shadow remains. Education has entered the slide of privatization. The church is used shamelessly to restore capitalism, and to spread its ultra-reactionary ideology. Attacks against the glorious tradition of the Bolshevik Party are witnessed, attacks on Lenin himself, which take a hypocritical form, and present themselves with false values, now that his own party -now revisionist– in his congress, has opened the door to attack him with the statement that Lenin was no more than one of the many thinkers in the socialist process.

Also there exists a serious national problem: understandably, if socialism is abandoned, if the party is abandoned, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is abandoned, all those measures have results, and the slide toward nationalism continues. All this happens during an extreme economic crisis, and a bitter struggle among factions within revisionism itself, in which splinter groups contend to defend their positions, old and new, fascistic and bourgeois-democratic factions. Thus, everything moves from the general decomposition of revisionism to its collapse, promoted by imperialism, and directed by Gorbachev, from the time he began the reactionary policy of perestroika in 1985. The path of revisionism is clearly one of total decay, and it takes little time to arrive at its collapse.

If we turn to revisionism in China, again we find intense struggles, as for example the events in Tiananmin Square. In this situation, one faction, which wished to control the centralized government apparatus, and use it to manage a return to capitalism, defeated the more reactionary bourgeois-democratic faction. We see here that the fascistic revisionists had learned a lesson by observing the Soviet Union; they managed to prevent their own displacement from power. Thus, such a faction (led by Teng) struggled against the movement called liberal-bourgeois, Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang having been the leaders of the latter faction. We have analyzed above how revisionism first passes through a stage essentially fascistic, but this tend to dissolve as the restoration of capitalism continues to move toward bourgeois-democratic modes — which are those which historically created the conditions for the development of capitalism — as in the Soviet Union, which now has arrived at bourgeois-democratic modes, which puts it more in accordance with the capitalist and imperialist process as it is understood in the West. By contrast, China has developed in the fascistic mode for about 15 years, but this continues to be undermined. As the capitalist and imperialist system develops, the pressure to conform to bourgeois-democratic modes continues. It is clear that both factions are revisionist, each with its own agenda. Thus, the second path of revisionism also leads to the decay of revisionism itself, but at a slower rate than in the Soviet Union.

Albania is a third example of revisionism. At the 9th Session of the Party in 1979, we heard the statements by Hoxha against Chairman Mao, then deceased, and Ramis Alia. And we can follow the development of the revisionist path, though here it is restrained by the lessons gained in observing what was taking place in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. We see relations with the United Nations developed, and concessions made to guarantee “human rights.” Defectors are permitted to flee the country by first taking refuge in foreign embassies, as had been taking place in Hungary and East Germany. Foreign investment is accepted, and profits flow to foreign countries. We also see political changes and elections, and schools named for Mother Theresa, from which campaigns against atheism are launched. It is another revisionist path. We keep in mind the good reputation it has had, but it also is in decay. The rate obviously is not the same, but the direction is the same. Here the decay is just beginning to accelerate. Thus, we have various degrees of the rush toward the restoration of capitalism and bourgeois-democratic modes.

Vietnam, for example, with a mainly agricultural economy, today is applying the principle of private ownership of land, developing products for export, developing relations with the U.S., after the dominance of the Soviet Union there. Today, they bow before the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The process of the restoration of capitalism [in Vietnam] is faster than in Albania, but the path is basically the same. In short, contemporary revisionism moves from general decay toward collapse, though the process takes different forms on the three different Paths.

c. Support, Defend, and Apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, especially Maoism!  International Communist Movement (ICM). International Revolutionary Movement: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, world proletarian revolution, and relentlessly combating revisionism, as the basis of unity; the New Declaration. The role of the PCP and the conquest of power.

The combined campaign, and revisionism which moves toward collapse, demand that we reaffirm our commitment to this ideology. Support, defend, and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism on all levels. Especially apply it, because that is the best way to support and defend it. Then the problem is principally Maoism, because it is the new, third, and superior stage of Marxism. Do not follow, therefore, any other ideology. All the communists of the Earth must support it, or they are not true communists. It is of great historical importance. It is within this context that we must consider the ICM.

The regrouping of communists is an ever greater necessity. Coordinating all the disparate communists, who may now be speaking as communists individually, as organizations, or as communist parties, should be our goal, in order to defend Marxism and the ideology of the proletariat, and to fight for the world proletarian revolution, holding high the flag of communism. The coordination and development of communist parties is an urgent task. There is no reason why all cannot be united in the Party. There is no necessary quality which the Party lacks. Remember the glorious example of Marx and Engels, who began as just two. The Bolsheviks began with just a few members; the Chinese Communist Party also. Too much time is wasted discussing the obstacles which stand in the way of the formation of parties. This is meaningless to those who know what it means to belong to the Party. The problem is to understand the correct ideology, and for the party to discipline itself and spread the correct ideology. Then the movement will develop naturally through time. Also communist parties must give attention to their militarization, based on correct principles, in order to develop the People’s War, because through arms the world can be transformed, as was done in the Soviet Union and China.

Beside the need to regroup in the International Communist Movement, we must look at the situation of the IRM. It moves forward on its path (1990), through difficulties, but so it is with anything new. The PCP is part of the IRM, as it must be. Our Party supports the IRM, using our influence on it, and struggling steadily to transform the country by means of the People’s War. It is necessary to do more. The revolution requires it. We have not done all we can for the development of the IRM. We must take a more active role, participate more directly, and support it ideologically. We must unite and coordinate ourselves better for three things: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, service to the world proletarian revolution, and relentless struggle against revisionism. This can be a good basis of unity for a better and more developed structure for the IRM. We must communicate with other communist groups, and try to unite with them on the basis of correct ideology.

We must strive to persuade them of the correctness of our ideology: Marxism-Leninism Maoism, especially Maoism. Also, there should be a New Declaration [of the IRM]. The committee should establish fundamentals, perhaps only in outline. The important thing is to present a Declaration of basic principles, which would give maximum flexibility to parties. The roll of the PCP is to take control of the entire country. The PCP has increasing influence, and must develop the People’s War. It is by developing our own power in Perú that we do our most essential part in the IRM. The World Proletarian Revolution means to develop the People’s War in each country. Success in Perú will alter the balance of the class struggle throughout the world. A successful campaign here will greatly strengthen communism, the ICM, IRM, and the World Proletarian Revolution (WPR). In short, we must support parties and revolutions throughout the world, but our primary responsibility, and the way we can help international communism most of all, is to succeed in Perú.

2. Revolution and Counter-revolution on the Planetary Level. Revolution as the Principal Process of History.

a. Contradictions and the primary contradiction. Facts confirm that the primary contradiction in the world is oppressed nations against superpowers and imperialist powers. In the document of May [“Elections No! People’s War Yes!”] we again insisted on this. This contradiction is and will be the perspective, whatever may be the circumstances. Other less essential conflicts may arise and temporarily suspend the basic conflict, but these less essential conflicts pass, and the struggle of the oppressed against imperialism continues. Our understanding of this problem has developed through time. Lenin placed Marxism-Leninism at the service of the World Proletarian Revolution.

Comrade Stalin stressed that the Soviet Union was a link between advanced and developing countries. Chairman Mao demonstrated the increasing importance of the people’s revolution in oppressed nations, in revolutionary movements directed by communist parties conducting the People’s War. In the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, revolution spread throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These places are hotbeds of revolution. Since the end of World War II, the process has not ceased for a single moment. The phenomenon of Eastern Europe does not contradict the importance of oppressed nations. Although these countries are in Europe, they have been semi-colonies of the Soviet Union, against which they were unable to develop revolutions without falling under the influence of Western imperialism, and into revisionist decay, which created opportunities for the unscrupulous bourgeois and uncontrolled capitalism. Thus they passed from the hands of one oppressor to another.

While the Chinese Communist Party insisted that Asia, Africa, and Latin America were the important battlefields of revolution, the Soviet Communist Party did not agree, because the Soviets saw the primary struggle as between socialism and capitalism, while the Chinese saw the primary struggle as between oppressed nations and imperialism. So the primary struggle was not yet defined, and the two communist superpowers argued over how it should be defined.

In 1967, Lin Piao presented the proclamation: May the People’s War Triumph! with the knowledge of the Central Committee, stating that the primary contradiction in the world is oppressed nations versus imperialism. At that moment, the struggle against revisionism had already begun, and successfully. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continued to develop its positions. This was the great cultural revolution. Later, the communists began to regroup over the problem, and there were different opinions. But for some, the primary struggle remained that against imperialism, so that for them, the People’s War throughout the world remained the goal. The Communist Party of Perú (PCP) accepted the position that the primary struggle in the world today is of oppressed nations against imperialism. The parties in oppressed nations agreed that this is the primary struggle. But parties in developed capitalist countries did not agree, and argued against the idea.

We believe that we have made progress, because the trend has been toward most parties agreeing with the idea we hold. They see the importance of the oppressed nations, and better understand the role these nations play. They see that the problem is not that which was earlier expressed, i.e., that there are democratic revolutions, which are less advanced, and socialist revolutions, which are more advanced. The reality is that in the oppressed nations there have been developed democratic revolutions of a new type. They are revolutions directed by the proletariat through their parties. We see successful revolution in the example of China, which was first democratic, then socialist, and then developed the great proletarian cultural revolution.

b. Superpowers and imperialist powers: Collusion and struggle.

Each day the collusion and collision among imperialist powers and superpowers develop further, as recent events as in the Persian Gulf demonstrate. There is collusion between the two superpowers the US and the Soviet Union (1990), and also among the superpowers and the great powers Germany and France, and we see support by Third World countries such as Egypt, Syria, Argentina, and Honduras. This is part of the world counter-revolutionary offensive. Does this resemble the Holy Alliance? We think so, because their defeat of Napoleon was followed by the crushing of revolutions and the oppression of nations. Today, there are great collusions on the planetary level, but they take place amidst a quiet, growing, bitter struggle in a commercial world, of contention among superpowers and great powers, because Germany and Japan would like to gain strength to create world hegemony of their own.

There is collusion among the great powers, but there is also competition. This competition is not confined to the economic sphere, but spills over into other areas in conflict. There is contention over the specific and diverse interests of each of the superpowers, the great powers, and the oppressed nations. Obviously these struggles are not to the benefit of the peoples of these countries, but of the classes of exploiters. This collusion and struggle stimulates the international class struggle, resembling winds that can result in a great conflagration.

Areas of domination, and the new repartition of the world.

Maps. All of Europe and Asia contain great concentrations of masses of people and traditional-historical centers of humanity. The Middle East. America and Oceania developed later. America is an isolated continent. Oceania is much smaller than the others. The Asian continent includes such countries as the Soviet Union, with an area of 8.7 million square miles. China is another country of great importance. It is an enclave which reaches the heart of Asia and has peripheral parts. Another continent is Europe, extending to the Urals, and the axis here is Germany. The African continent is immense, and includes many countries. The poverty is great, and the plunder by the superpowers and great powers is also great. Japan, with 130 million inhabitants (1990) and little land, is a great economic center, which interacts with all the Orient, establishing a region of Asiatic trade and prosperity.

In World War II, Japan invaded China, Korea, Thailand, Laos, Burma, the Philippines, etc. Today, it is said that their [Japan] sphere of influence reaches as far as the Middle East. But they are not able to take control of all of Asia and the Pacific rim, because this is seen by the U.S. as one of the US’s regions of hegemony. Nonetheless, Japan’s base is Asia, its great region the Pacific, and its dream even greater: world domination. Japan’s leaders face problems: in order to maintain low production costs, in order to flood the world with Japanese products, they come into conflict with the proletariat, by trying to shorten vacation time, for example. They have decided that they must have more global political influence, and that they must control banking in Asia.

Now they are unable to guarantee the protection of their economic power without a powerful military, and so they are developing their armed forces in preparation for major conflicts. They face problems with the so-called Asian tigers, some of which want to become leaders, such as South Korea, which is struggling against Japanese economic control. They exploit their own people, and they also face their historical atrocities against the nations they have oppressed: they have expressed their apologies to Korea, China, etc.

The necessity to strengthen their armed forces meets with the resistance of their people, but their militarization is of course a key element of power. Extending their [Japan] domination conflicts with U.S. interests in Latin America, and each day the commercial war with the U.S. grows in force. Ninety percent (90%) of the petroleum they consume is from the Middle East, and now there is the Gulf war. And so there are conflicts with the interests of the superpowers, of the great powers, with those of the countries which dispute in the region of Asia, with the interests of their own people, and with the interests of the nations they oppressed during World War II. Therefore, the struggle for world hegemony, and even to secure domination of the Orient, will be very difficult.

Germany and the so-called European Union.

Today the Germans are united — 80 million inhabitants, located in the heart of Europe. Their area of influence is all of Europe. In World War II, they invaded and threatened all the countries of Europe, reaching the vital points of the Soviet Union, and also North Africa. Their territories encompassed Europe, and much of the Soviet Union, Africa, and the Middle East. They created a geopolitics; their theory was that if one controlled Europe, the so-called “world island,” one controlled the world. The so-called European Union is but the expansionism of German imperialism, which through 45 years struggled to establish the dreamed of “Reich.” The “Reich” whose modern impulse came from the 18th Century, was concretized in the 19th Century, and took a leading part in the two world wars. German imperialism developed from a fusion of grand bourgeois with landholders and the Junkers — the old military aristocracy of Prussia.

In peculiar conditions, they sought the domination of the world — they had arrived late at the repartition of the world. Defeated in World War II, today they began their “unification,” and East Germany is becoming a poor, oppressed society. German imperialism is beginning to develop its expansion, its famous “march to the East,” which is only its expansionism. Now the old dream of annexation of all of Europe for the Aryan race, for Germany, finds expression. Fascist ideas emerge, the dream to unite with Austria, to recover territories from Poland, to expand to the Soviet Union, to dominate over France and all of Europe. These expansionist fervors are raised through the so-called “European Union” –“Europe of all the nations.” Lenin dreamed that European unity included socialism as an indispensable condition. Any other unity today is simply imperialist unity under German hegemony to dominate the world. For this reason we cannot applaud it; rather, we must unmask and denounce it.

This talk of “European unity” has repercussions in the thought of Peruvian reaction, the celebrated “El Comercio” (main bourgeois papaer in Perú), for example. Internationally it is said that the superior culture of the earth, the European, is catching up with the U.S., etc. But we should see that also in German imperialism this unification is not going to be easy. They have a series of serious problems to face, and their fervor for world hegemony conflicts with reality. The expansion to East Germany involves a disruption of the economic process of socialist Germany, the undermining of its agriculture, high unemployment, a reserve army to lower salaries throughout Europe, especially in Germany.

They must invest $700 million in the next 10 years [1990-97]. Therefore, they are going to reduce their foreign investments. But they think this will increase their basic strength. This includes the need to strengthen their armed forces, and to promote militarism, patriotism, and racism. Also it has been arisen rivalries, and historical grudges against France, Poland, etc, etc. These problems which we see today in Europe redrawing borders as they were before World War II, and they are stimulating nationalism. So their transition to superpower is not going to go as easily as they dream. Thus these things create a situation which destroys the equilibrium derived from World War II.

The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

This region extends from Finland to the Pacific. The immense land mass is a world power whose dreams go out to all seas. Apart from the problems already seen, there is developing a nationalist movement which aims at the disintegration of the Union (1990). This immense empire has begun to tear itself apart. Also in Eastern Europe, the same process controls Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, East Germany. There, uncontrolled capitalism and bourgeois-democratic tendencies have developed under the influence of imperialist pressure and revisionist decay. But there ought to be seen the participation of Gorbachev especially, colluding with US imperialism, with Bush.

We see the participation of the Soviet Union and the US. Gorbachev has found that these processes succeed more easily in Eastern Europe, and this serves as an example for his own Soviet Union, and strengthen his positions, which were weakened by the attacks of the “conservative” faction, a faction with fascistic ideas and values. So all this imperialist domination of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe has begun to break apart. The Warsaw Pact has fallen to pieces. Thus the problem is of a new equilibrium, a new confrontation, and a new distribution of forces. This is the situation, brought about by imperialist pressure and revisionist decay. Sadly there is no working class or people’s movement. It is a change from one imperialist hand into another.

China and its dreams of power.

In 4.48 million square miles there are 1.1 billion inhabitants (1990). The chinese people have long borders. They are on the Pacific. Their old rival is Japan. They dream of being a great power. They also have problems. The fascistic faction is in power. They have begun to restore a senile capitalist system, which requires the destruction of a very productive socialist system, leading to various harms to the people — their exploitation and oppression. Also there is inflation, unemployment. What we do not find is national division. Also, the rulers dream that they may use the people to serve imperialism, as cannon fodder, and as a market to enrich the rulers and help China become a great power in the 21st Century. The problems resulting from the events in Tiananmin Square have led to certain restrictions; nonetheless, Japan continues to invest in China, and has great economic plans there. Again an agreement exists for the sake of imperialism, and its objective is that the two countries work together in order to maximize the potentials of both.

The US and Latin America, their great area.

The initiative of Bush for Latin America was to unite Mexico with the US and Canada, and from this axis to dominate the Caribbean, extend into South America, gain more and more complete control of Central America, and so prepare for the future in the Pacific rim. Great changes are being attempted. Latin America presents serious problems, as the 80’s were a dark period, and the 90’s may be worse. The U.S. needs to strengthen its economy in order to maintain competition with Germany and Japan, and so less money is invested in the people; education and health care deteriorate, as well as scientific work. There are serious problems with the Latino and black minorities.

Nonetheless, contention is much less than in the Soviet Union. And so the contention between the superpowers is again very clear, and if the U.S. benefits from the problems of the Soviet Union, this is limited; today the more important struggle is commercial competition with Japan, Germany, and France. In the summit of the Seven we see rancorous struggle. Germany and Japan are gaining strength, and Japan invests according to its own agenda in China, while Germany does likewise in the Soviet Union.

The U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan consumes billions. The dollar is in a process of devaluation in relation to the yen and the German mark (1990). The U.S. deficit creates problems in the world economy. Bush has proposed a program to reduce the deficit, but it would involve great social cost, cut benefits to workers, and reduce capital for investment. But the U.S. Congress has opposed it (1990), refusing to approve such a budget. All these questions demonstrate that collusions and struggles are developing, which have to do with areas of domination, and a new repartition of the world.

Again the powers involved are the same as those of World War II. Germany and Japan have arisen as great economic powers, and demand the new repartition. So that we can foresee a new repartition of the world, and this can only come by means of war. We have seen areas of domination and spheres of influence, as the superpowers and great powers struggle for world domination. The great powers want to displace the superpowers, but in order to do so they must themselves become superpowers, and this they are striving to do.

c. The Third World. Asia, Africa, and Latin America: oppressed nations.

Regions of conflict and repartition. The problem of the Persian Gulf. The primary contradiction and local, regional, and world wars. Recognizing revolution as the principal tendency.

Eighty five percent (85%) of the world’s population will be in the oppressed nations by the year 2000. The numbers of the oppressed, the percentage, the injustice this implies, the great weight of the burden on the many for the sake of the few — all this creates tremendous potential for revolution. These regions, with the exception of the so-called tigers of Asia (1990), are underdeveloped regions. Also they are regions of conflict. The superpowers and great powers invest in them, and want to control them, because they are economies in subjection. They are regions of conflict and repartition. Again plunder is under dispute. There is no peace nor tranquility. In the world today, collusion and struggle arise over areas of domination and the new repartition of the world. The offensive by the exploiter develops, and conditions become more explosive throughout the world.

Especially the Third World is plundered. Asia, Africa, and Latin America are becoming like pots boiling over, like erupting volcanoes. The counter-revolutionary offensive develops with the help of opportunists and revisionists, who aim at dialogue, elections, agreements under the control of the United Nations; and so, long processes of revolutionary struggle are seen like that, as in Angola, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, South Africa, etc. And so, we see that, against the great masses who struggle incessantly, comes a revisionist counter-revolutionary offensive based in collusion and struggle, and serves those who struggle to dominate the various regions in the repartition of the world. And the sinister collusion benefits the opportunists and revisionists, who in one way or another are allies with the imperialist Powers.

The Persian Gulf.

Located in Asia, traditionally the land of the five seas, it is an area of contradictions, of conflicts. We expect this to continue through the year 2000. Involved here are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, the Soviet Union, etc. Also the U.S. and Europe, which cooperate here for the sake of its petroleum riches, and Japan, ninety percent (90%) of its petroleum energy capacity being dependent on this region. As a historical background, we must note that the most bitter conflict in this region is that between Israel and Palestine, a great struggle, with the Arab world supporting the Palestinian people.

But in the late 70’s, another important conflict developed between Iran and Iraq. Iran under the subjugation of the Shah had been a bastion of the U.S. This was smashed, and a Medieval theocratic system came to power, managed by the Muslim priesthood, Islam thus coming into conflict with the superpowers the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and with the so-called third Satan, Hussein of Iraq. The U.S. had lost its bastion in the Middle East. Israel is very small in comparison to its influence. Therefore, the U.S. supported Iraq in its war against Iran. The war lasted 10 years, cost millions of lives, and included the use of chemical weapons. It involved religious ideology.

The role of the fundamentalists, of the ayatollahs, was central. Khomeini had arisen as the leader able to unite them. And so the center of struggle in the region shifted to Iran-Iraq. Combined with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the Soviets desired to gain access to the Indian Ocean, this was a dangerous situation for the U.S. The play was for control of the Middle East. When the war ended, the problem of who would lead the Arab world arose — who would control the region?

In this context we see the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, claiming that historically Kuwait belongs to Iraq. Nonetheless, it is a war of Iraqi expansionism, and has to do with who will lead the Arab world. How has imperialism responded? Using troops, using the U.N., in collusion with the Soviet Union — which has many convergent interests with the imperialists, whatever the differences — the U.S. began an invasion of the Middle East. They speak of Iraq, but the basic problem is the whole Middle East, the question of petroleum, the strategic situation, and the struggles of the superpowers and imperialist powers. It is a problem of how to guarantee the control of the whole region.

Petroleum involves the energy interests of Japan and Europe, and the economic interests of the U.S. And so, we see the confluence of great powers and superpowers, because the Soviet Union also has interests in the region, and a war near its frontiers can have repercussions in its own Muslim regions (1990), more so in these times when it is experiencing its own disintegration. But in addition, we see that there are regimes of old feudal systems, of old aristocracies, royal families such as in Jordan. We see that all of these oil-producing countries and others see their positions threatened, their interests at risk.

Egypt, for example, helps the U.S., and is part of the forces of occupation (1991), so that the U.S. will cancel some of its debt. Syria helps the U.S. because it has its own disputes with Iraq, and because it hopes to recover the Golan Heights with the help of U.S. influence on Israel, and because it hopes to gain influence in Lebanon in alliance with the U.S. Israel sees itself as gaining strength, and thinks that these struggles could resolve its problems. Palestine also plays for a resolution of the situation in its own favor. Arafat seeks to recover territories and cooperates with the U.S. Lebanon wishes that the resolution of the conflict will somehow help it to end the occupation of its land, and strengthen its government. And so we see the very complex interests of superpowers, world powers, oppressed nations, rotten regimes that may fall, all coming together, and the interests of the Arab people exploited by imperialism and by their own native regimes.

The superpowers, the great powers, and their lackeys raise their voices in self-righteousness, but the Arab people are disregarded, including in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, the different participants have their own interests. The U.S. has stationed 200 thousand men (1991), and waits. The US does not want to waste time. It is agreed to strangle Iraq economically. The superpowers and great powers realize that war will be dangerous for them. It may cost billions of dollars, and perhaps 20 or 30 thousand lives. Most seriously, the Arab people might rise up against imperialism in a major struggle. The U.S. wants to make a rapid strike. They want quick and decisive action. They don’t want a long war.

France would like to maintain its influence in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon. The French have proposed a comprehensive diplomatic solution for major problems of the Middle East, which involves Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, agreement on a redrawing of the border between Iraq and Kuwait, and a solution of the Palestinian problem. In the Lebanese civil war, France supported the Christian faction led by Gen. Michel Aoun, and when Aoun’s compound was attacked by the Muslims, the Christians sought refuge in the French embassy. Japan supports the U.S., and at times attempts direct involvement. The Japanese also have interests other than those of the U.S. Similarly Germany, concentrated on its expansionism, has, like Japan, given millions of dollars in aid in the region, but has not openly disagreed with the U.S.

What way out is there for Saddam Hussein? He could appeal to Islam, and support Palestine, to encourage the nationalist spirit of Arabs. The fundamentalists are few, but are a force capable of taking up arms and fighting. The can carry out terrorist acts in Europe and the U.S. They can sabotage oil wells, including in Saudi Arabia. These things have their limits. A war with the U.S. may happen. The imperialists may want to reduce Saddam’s power as much as possible. Or they may try to institute “democratic change,” i.e., a puppet government. Or they may try to resolve all the problems of the Middle East. Anything less will be only steps toward an ultimate solution. What might the Arab people do? Struggle for liberation from imperialism, especially that of the U.S. This will be a long struggle. Their are lacking in political direction, but the Arabs are experienced in major struggles. They can develop leadership and direction. The interests of the superpowers and great powers are at risk.

The alliance offers the Soviet Union guarantees and dollars. Germany, France, and Japan seek guarantees of control of oil, and await the opportune moment, and hope for the future, as they act in the shadow of the U.S., which leads the alliance. What can the Arab countries do? Use conflicts among the superpowers and great powers to improve their own positions, when opportunities arise. These situations lead one to conclude that wars which occur are not confined to hot-spots, but are wars of superpowers and great powers in collusion and struggle, against oppressed nations, to subjugate them by blood and fire, and perhaps genocide; this is the scheme. This shows that the primary struggle is one of oppressed nations against superpowers and imperialist powers. There may be wars of imperialist plunder, including the primary struggle. And these could pass momentarily to become secondary, if the imperialists begin to fight among themselves.

But this can only be transitory, because as the plunder and repartition of the world continues, and the population of oppressed nations grows, and poverty increases, the revolutionary potential of the masses will increase to the point where people will prefer to die fighting, rather than starve. This will be the basis for anti-imperialist struggles, wars of national liberation, and of resistance to aggression, and revolutions in general. In such circumstances, how will the imperialists respond? With cruel wars to repartition the world and define hegemony.

These then are the basic questions which can be seen in the Gulf war. We uphold the slogan: “Yankees out of the Middle East!” We support the Arab people! We think this is in accordance with the objective situation. Saddam has invaded Kuwait in order to benefit the classes and groups that rule in his country, Iraq. Nonetheless, given the circumstances, especially the aggression of the alliance in which the U.S. leads other imperialist countries and the reactionary Arab regimes, Saddam presents the possibility that the situation could lead to a war of resistance. In that case he could bring about an important change, and become the leader of a just war, defending his country from imperialist aggression, especially Yankee aggression. These circumstances could develop to the point where the people themselves could develop a viable resistance. In that case only, the people could act openly.

We know that today there is Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. But it is not productive to condemn either it or Saddam. This would serve imperialism. We think also that in the Arab world it could reinforce the domination of imperialism. If the people do not take today the role assigned to them — to be the victims of a great massacre — if they reject this, they will become a great caldron boiling over. They will rise up, now that this historical process has demonstrated the capacity to fight. Saddam? His position is difficult. If he were removed by the imperialists, he would be replaced by lackeys of the imperialists. In which case these lackeys would become targets for revolution. But meanwhile they would strengthen imperialism. So, “Yankees out of the Middle East!” expresses our position, and explains why we openly support Saddam and Iraq. Therefore, the Gulf situation has many implications, allowing one to see the primary struggle today in perspective, and its relation with local and regional wars, and even the danger of world war.

And so we see the-characteristics of the anti-imperialist wars, wars of resistance, wars of national liberation, and revolutions in the ope pressed nations. All this magnifies the primary struggle, and leads us to reaffirm that the oppressed nations are the basis of revolution as the primary movement in the world. We insist that this movement must be seen as a historical movement, as a political movement, and understanding it will help communists to recognize more clearly those actions which are necessary to transform society. We reaffirm, in summary, in agreement with the pronouncements of the Chinese Communist Party, that the oppressed nations are the basis of revolution as the primary movement of history.

3. The three tasks of the counter-revolution, and its perspective.

a. Message, program, and stabilization plan.

Character of the government (Message by Alberto Fujimori on July 28, 1990).

We raise substantive questions, without forgetting that much of what is said is generalizations and demagogic declarations, as with every program of a reactionary government. But if we want to understand their positions, we will listen to their false declarations, as each new beginning will be, which we are accustomed to, and listen to each new change of the reactionary authorities.

I. Theme and Application.

Notice that he begins by giving thanks to God, and ends with: “May God enlighten the people, and enlighten me.” On the one hand, he expresses his ideology and adhesion to Catholicism, an ancient and profoundly reactionary ideology. But on the other, politically it is but demagoguery, playing upon the religiosity of the people, and charging God with responsibility for his errors. Beside which he seeks the support of the Catholic church, with which now he has conflicts. “A president who is like yourselves.” This is deceit and hypocrisy, because he is not representative of the people. He is opposed to the people, and is going to exploit them more.

Theme: honesty as a norm of life, and emblem of the ancient Peruvian civilization. He also invokes liberal former President Fernando Belaunde Terry, and identifies himself with the values of that gray head, in order to wrap himself in nationalism. The first part of his theme is to combat immorality, and begin a “crusade for morality.” This is not new; Morales Bermudez promoted a campaign against immorality. The struggle against immorality is an ancient system. This is simply its politicization, in order to traffic in the good faith of the masses, by disturbing their consciences. He proposes a committee against corruption, made up of people selected by him, and answerable only to him. Respect freedom of information. In essence, it is for the exploiters and their lackeys, intended to create counter-revolutionary, pro-imperialist public opinion.

Technology. It is imperialism which presents technology as a new revolution. Revisionism supports this idea. They try to replace the class struggle with a supposed technological revolution. Science has developed high technology. These scientific and technological developments are products of the transformative action of the proletariat and the people. But the financial oligarchy, the grand bourgeois, imperialism appropriate them. They are their private property, of the monopolies and instruments of exploitation. In the shadow of this has developed a layer of scum of technocrats, who craftily try, making noises aimed at the working class, and especially at petit bourgeois intellectuals, to substitute a false revolution, with a different path, without the class struggle. However, only with real revolution can science and technology fulfill their potential. Because only with revolution will their full productivity be realized, and their benefits reach the workers and the poor.

Work. He expresses a bourgeois conceptualization. The economists of the 18th Century stated that work is the source of wealth. Marx made this more clear. Work, he explained, generates surplus value, and the accumulation of surplus value generates capitalism, and consequently, relations of capitalist exploitation. Fujimori uses the term “work” to deceive the petit bourgeoisie, who try to protect their work, and he tries to extend the deception to the working class. But he goes further, and upholds a “culture based upon work.” This erases the character of class. It seeks to make acceptable the idea that, based upon work, a new society can be created, without exploitation — something else, generated from imperialism and reaction.

He says: “Work is a creative force.” Simply to work will create a prosperous society? Who will direct this society? Prosperity will be only for the class that rules. Behind this concept of work are hidden the relations of exploitation. The song of a “new culture of work” turns out to be a strictly bourgeois-reactionary conception, intended to preserve, enrich, and strengthen imperialism. For example, he says: “We invoke international solidarity.” To accept this at face value is to believe that imperialism and oppressed nations such as Perú can be in solidarity, when the relationship is one of subjugation. And for many years we have seen that the participation of imperialism in the country has been to act against the People’s War. Imperialism acts to exploit us, and to try to annihilate the People’s War.

He continues: “Through decades…to lift ourselves out of underdevelopment.” This is the orientation of imperialism, which, in recent years, has demanded that, because of insufficient amounts of capital, the subjugated state should institute internal austerity, so that capital may be accumulated, by squeezing it from the people, by squeezing the working class and the people even more than before. This path has its roots in semi-feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism, and imperialism. But for Fujimori, a faithful lackey, there is no imperialism. The problem of unequal and unjust distribution of wealth is simply a matter of imperialism plundering the people, and of Fujimori plundering his own people.

His “solutions” are ways of increasing the blood-sucking. The bourgeois roots of this new culture of work are also exposed when he says that it will create conditions for an orderly market. Through this shallow concept, he seeks to launch a market economy. As the government said in its proposal of May, before the elections, the problem is to create markets of diverse types, to develop markets especially in agriculture (revealing the semi-feudal foundation). Fujimori says that his culture of work will permit better distribution of wealth, and avoid concentrations, and perhaps monopolies. But we have already seen that the ruling class targets only the state monopolies: Enci, Ecasa, Petro-Peru. He does not discuss the social economics of the market, when he talks about the market economy. Well, we must deal with this very basic theory, in the country and in the world. In the Economic and Financial Dictionary, by Bernard and Colli, the market is defined as the place where goods, services, and capital are bought, sold, or liquidated, a place of confrontation of supply, and demand. The theory which is used to justify the necessity of the market is economic liberalism, a position supported openly by Vargas Llosa, by the bourgeois merchants and imperialism.

It is defined thus: the economic doctrine which affirms that the best economic system is that which guarantees the free play of the individual initiatives of economic agents. But not of governments. They should permit individual interests and the interests of society in general to come together through self-regulation and self-determined norms. In the market, then, free individual initiatives come together, each seeking the highest benefit with the least effort. And here the interests of each comes to coincide with the interests of all, through the action of natural laws. It is free play that operates in the market, and the government should not interfere. It is the free coming together of interests, each seeking his own interest, and as the interest of each and the interest of all come together in the market, they develop the interest of all with the interest of each. When disequilibrium occurs, there are natural laws which will operate to restore equilibrium.

Well, the bourgeois-reactionary theory of work is a superficial illusion, a fetishism which sees the surface relations of goods and their exchange, but does not see their source, how these goods and this wealth are created. The source is not the merchants. It is the work force which generates all that develops in the economy — that doesn’t interest the market economists. We must remember what Marx said: work, the exchange of goods and services, the liquidation of goods and services — these things do not come together for the good of all. Because it is the relations of exploitation which have their own laws. This is the position of Marxist economics. The bourgeois position, the theory of the market points to buying, selling, and liquidation of goods and services, in order to draw attention away from the relations of exploitation which exist prior to the exchange. All this shows that, that which today is said about market economy, free trade, freedom of association, human rights, is the liberalism of the 18th Century revived.

What does the Peruvian Constitution say about this problem? Article 115 says: “Private enterprise is free. It is exercised in a social market economy. The State stimulates and regulates its activity to harmonize it with the interests of society.” This is the economic system of Peruvian society; it is in the Constitution. A representative of the mercantile bourgeois, Chirinos Soto comments on this article, and quotes Garcia Pérez as saying that enterprise is not free if it is restricted; and that if private free enterprise is not exercised in a market economy, it is neither private nor free. Here is the great promoter of nationalist, democratic, and popular revolution, demanding a market economy!

The major theorist of the market economy, W. Ropke, says that the essence of the system of market economy is that it can only operate in a competitive system opposed to all collectivist systems, more clearly, opposed to all socialist systems. It is, then, its antithesis. He says also that it is the best system to defend private property, because in the market economy, competence can be demonstrated, and so it offers better conditions to guarantee property, as he says, to defend it from attack. From all this we can derive that these are forms which permit the development of capitalism, giving it every advantage, leading to monopolies. Reagan, who in his times beat the drum proclaiming this theory, said that all the anti-monopoly laws should be repealed, because the existence of these laws in the U.S. limits the competitiveness of U.S. businesses in relation to the Japanese and Germans, who don’t have these restrictions. Therefore, we can conclude that the system of market economy permits the development of capitalism. It also permits the development of the imperialist form of capitalism. Imperialism on the one hand restricts competition; on the other it opens the market at the world level. This is its contradiction. Monopoly fixes prices. When markets first develop, they compete with one another. That is to say, competition exists in pre-monopoly capitalism.

Imperialism is not against monopolies; it is only against government monopolies. Chirinos Soto himself says that the modern State intervenes to guarantee the market economy. The government does not leave the market economy to its own devices. It intervenes to protect it. Laws of the State function for this purpose. So the market economists are against government monopolies, but they accept government actions which serve the market economy. In reality, we see that monopolies are often unrestricted in the U.S. as well as in Germany and Japan. Chirinos Soto claims that the enemies of private enterprise say that it produces for the sake of wealth, not to satisfy needs, and that to say this is nonsense. But his claim is nonsense, because the production generated by capitalism is not to satisfy needs. It seeks to produce what is most demanded. It seeks to produce what will sell better.

This permits more production, and the employment of more workers, to produce more surplus value. This is not for love of the consumer; it is a means of obtaining more surplus value. And so, to say that this system permits better prices and higher quality is pure lies. Chirinos Soto is a liberal, and has been since the 50’s, and his ideas are the same ones that are followed by Fujimori, who is also basically a liberal. The problem is that the current conditions in Perú do not allow him to express these ideas openly. Therefore, he instead advocates using the State to stimulate the market, as was stated in the government document of May. But this is just rhetoric. Because we can see that the ideas expressed in this Message, and in the Program presented in May, are not what actually guide Fujimori’s actions today. In reality, he follows the thought of Roca and the Cambio 90 group. He has said, for example, that the market is a plebiscite of consumers — a perfectly bourgeois idea!

Erhardt, author of the “German miracle” of 1948, a Christian democrat patron of Bedoya says that there are three questions which make up the theory of the market economy:

1. keep inflation in check,

2. stimulate production on all levels, and

3. maintain the laws of the market economy.

But what do we see happening in Perú today? There is no inflation. Instead, there is recession; there is no consumption, because most people can’t afford to buy anything; there is deflation. A representative of the bourgeois bureaucracy, Alberto Ruiz Eldredge, in his book, “The Constitution Explained,” says that it was the United Left (IU), which proposed the social market economy, and he defends the principles that guided what happened in Germany in 1948. Today also much is said about imitating the German example of those times, the “German miracle.” But we do not see its specific conditions. Germany was defeated in World War II. The military powers of occupation applied a system of organized distribution of consumer goods, which the State itself guaranteed. And the Marshall Plan contributed a tremendous amount of capital, to counter and arrest the action of socialism in Europe.

Having left a fascist regime, the “Principles of the New Order” were applied: personal liberty, social justice, and economic efficiency. The German theories of the market economy state that it is necessary to see all the components of social production as a unity, for example, the cultural, ethical, judicial, and economic spheres. From this comes what today is called ethics. It is said that in Europe before the so-called fall of socialism, what socialist society had lacked was ethics. But this is nothing new. It was seen in the old revisionism of the 2nd International, of Kautsky, who stated that Marxism has no ethical philosophy, nothing corresponding to Kant, who said that man in his actions is guided by ethics, and seeks the common good. The judicial component is the idea that through the laws one can change class relations and the situation of the people. This resembles the practices of Hernando de Soto: the law of the rural register, administrative simplification, the proceedings for the recognition of micro and small businesses, the informal hearings, the dispositions for the producers of coca, etc. As for the economic component, obviously what is sought is to impose the imperialist system.

The cultural component is not what one usually thinks of as culture; instead it resembles Fujimori’s culture of work. Of the four components, ethics is stressed. “Ethics” is used to disguise the relations of exploitation. The social market economy system of German imperialism includes some basic ideas: Do not impede competition among monopolies, but regulate the monopolies. The objective? To diminish the conflicts among them, and with the countries they exploit. Create a system of social security, including a series of social benefits, as a complement to economic plans, in order to pacify the struggle of the working class, which at this time is a magnificent economic resource. A policy of price stabilization, to fight inflation, seeking to diminish the possibility of a crisis. A basic idea is the combination of a policy of competition with a policy of compensation. They are all means to pacifying the class struggle. Therefore, the social market economy is the system of German imperialism, socially oriented to diminish the class struggle, and promote reconciliation among classes. So the United Left, by including Article 115 in the constitution, was encouraging the most forceful capitalist development possible.

Forgetting that Perú is not Germany, they sought to develop bureaucratic capitalism. In Perú, what is discussed today? Though the theory is the social market economy, what they defend and want to apply today is the pure market economy, without the social component, because this is what U.S. imperialism is most interested in establishing, by means of the CEPAL, which speaks of “economic transformation with equality.” The term “social” is sometimes used, but without content. And “equality” is equivalent to “justice,” and is oriented toward “ethics” and “morality.” This is the path that is being followed in Perú; it is the way of Fujimori, grand bourgeois lackey of imperialism, especially Yankee imperialism.

The petit bourgeois intellectuals, who serve imperialism, respond to these ideas, and elucidate and elaborate upon them with many words. They criticize verbally, but they actually help imperialism, and are always proposing ways to lessen the class struggle. An example is the English historian Toynbee, who suggested that the proletariat be raised to the level of “middle income,” an amalgamation of classes, the creation of a social safety net, the application of social justice, and economic productivity, in order to exercise the revolution. As we have seen, the new culture of work serves to enrich imperialist exploitation, to propel the market economy, and targets state monopolies. This last is made clear in a paragraph of the Message in which he proposes a projected anti-monopoly law.

Linked to this new culture of work is also the so-called “full participation.” It comes from fascist government practice, in essence, using the organizations of the masses, controlling them through the worker aristocracy — the union bosses, as guilds which serve to sustain the old State. He has proposed a law of popular participation, for the channelization of public opinion, which is nothing but the “guild socialism,” which Lenin denounced. It is a false socialism; it is revisionism. It calls for the formation of a social machine to apply the system — the same we saw with Velasco, with Garcia, and now with Fujimori. In accordance with this new culture of work is administrative simplification, which is not new; it comes from Garcia Pérez. In his time, tariff laws were adjusted, supposedly to stimulate the exportation of the products of medium and small landholders, but instead, the exports of large businesses were stimulated.

Since part of Fujimori’s plan (1990) is for Perú to reinsert itself into the international financial community, the new culture of work cannot but help fetter the country to the world imperialist system. This is to seek the development of Perú under the subjugation of imperialism, especially Yankee, and of its instruments the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT. He wants to resolve old problems, and resolve the debt, primarily to encourage foreign investment. In summary, all this shows that, as a consequence of this new culture of work — and the work may be very exhausting, we will be able to develop exports, and we may be more prosperous, but if so, it will be under the wing of imperialism, through the international financial community, which demands that the debt be resolved, and gives the best possible conditions for foreign investment. This is the basis of his propagandistic theme. Everything that it contains, through demagogic words, promotes subjugation to imperialism, to reinvigorate bureaucratic capitalism under imperialism.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF PERÚ.

Perú 1991. From Section I of the Document “II Plenum of the PCP.”

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