World Situation and the Revolution in Peru

Every Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party must be armed with a correct analysis of the world situation. This is crucial for developing correct strategy and tactics for carrying out the revolution in every country. Because the world is the framework and context for every country, it shapes the objective situation in every country and interacts with the regional and national contradictions.

Important two-line struggles in the ICM [international communist movement] have erupted in conjunction with dramatic changes in the world situation. These changes influence the class alignments at large, which in turn and in different times and circumstances can give rise to struggle between lines in the communist parties. One example in the more recent history of the ICM is how the shift in the world situation had influence over the alignments of the forces within the Communist Party of China. When there was a shift in the world situation from the 1960s to the 1970s, and in that context the USSR became a big threat to the People's Republic of China, Lin Piao wanted to capitulate to the Soviet social-imperialists, whereas Deng Xiaoping and Chou En-lai thought the solution lay in capitulating to the U.S. imperialists. After the fall of the East bloc, our movement witnessed the rise of K. Venu revisionism from the Central Reorganisation Committee, Communist Party of India (ML). One of the important factors in the line of all these revisionists was their analysis of the world situation and, more importantly, their programme.

With this in mind, we should look at Asumir's views of the world situation.

According to Asumir, Because of the Fall of the East Bloc, We Cannot Make Revolution!

Asumir says, "The present GPE (general political ebb) derives from the process of restoration, from the creation of unfavorable public opinion of this whole stage of the revolution (140 years). So far the GPE has lasted 3 years. In the light of Marxism, and this is decisive and key in order to sketch out the strategy of the World Proletarian Revolution in the New Great Wave, we understand why this period is a hinge between the culmination of a stage of the World Proletarian Revolution and the future Great Wave of the World Proletarian Revolution. This is the argument for the general political withdrawal, among other questions." (our emphasis--UICS)

According to Asumir's analysis of the world situation, there is a strategic and global ebb, and this is the grounds for its proposal for a general retreat for the world proletarian revolution.

Why is the situation, according to Asumir, unfavorable for advancing the revolution? Chiefly because public opinion has become unfavorable towards communism since the fall of the East.

Public opinion, in the sense of the moods and aspirations of different classes of the people during each period, is an important factor to be taken into account by a revolutionary party in its tactics and policies. But we should ask Asumir: how does unfavorable "public opinion" reflect the situation of the underlying contradictions that give rise to revolution?

In contrast to the idealist approach of Asumir, whose appraisal of the world situation is based on "public opinion," RIM's recent resolution on the world situation is based on a study of the major contradictions in the world. Its analysis sees that the major contradictions of the imperialist system are going through changes, and that the contradictions between the oppressed nations and the imperialist powers, and between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries, are intensifying. The RIM resolution emphasizes that the crisis of the imperialist system is deepening, and that the fall of the East bloc was a resounding expression of that, even though it has temporarily mitigated the contradictions among the imperialists. It points to the upsurges of struggles in the oppressed nations, particularly the People's War in Peru, as one of the main features of the world situation. On the basis of this analysis, it calls upon all Maoist parties and organizations and the masses to step up revolution.

If important events of the world are not analyzed with this dialectical materialist method, they will not be understood correctly. For example, let us look at the mass rebellions in the East bloc countries: due to the overall lack of revolutionary consciousness, anti-Communist slogans were chanted by sections of the masses--yet the masses' rebellion was just! This situation arose partly because the masses were up against repressive revisionist states, which for a long time had wrapped themselves in filthy false "communist" flags, and also because, if we look at the depth of the rebellion, we will see that its content was anti-capitalist. It is also true that at the end of the day their rebellion was mis-used by different factions of the ruling classes for their own ends. But is it not true that whenever the workers and oppressed masses are without a vanguard, the fruits of their rebellion will be stolen and their movements will be betrayed or drowned in blood and confusion? Has not the PCP fought against a "mountain heap of garbage" among the masses to rescue them from revisionist, religious, and other bourgeois ideologies? In addition, as a result of these rebellions, the terrain in the countries of the East bloc has become more favorable than at any time since the restoration of capitalism for spreading the influence of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and building Maoist parties for making genuine socialist revolution. And it is one of the important internationalist tasks of the Maoist parties and organizations united in RIM to assist the CoRIM in attending to this task.

As far as public opinion in other countries goes, we should remind Asumir that the Los Angeles rebellion was not an "anti-communist" rebellion either in form or in content. It was a rebellion against the U.S., who is the father of the world anti-communist crusade. In Iran, one year after the L.A. rebellion, a mass revolt unprecedented since 1980 rocked Mashad, one of the most religious cities in the country. There the masses in the shantytowns burned thousands of copies of the Koran in the Islamic propaganda center of the town, along with other state symbols such as government buildings. This was a rebellion against a regime whose propaganda machine, for 2 years since the fall of the East bloc, gargled the anti-communist hysteria of BBC and CNN word for word (modified only by the opening phrase "in the name of god"). Or, more recently, the peasants of Chiapas heralded a strong message that the downtrodden masses of Latin America are not going to go along with the Yankee agenda. After the arrest of Comrade Gonzalo, the most renowned communist in the world, a worldwide mass movement in his defense was set into motion by RIM that caught the enemy by real surprise. These are very favorable grounds for revolution and communism!

But is it not true that the dominant ideas are always the ruling ideas? Hasn't religion had a major influence among the masses who need revolution? What has been the solution of the communists? Certainly not abandoning the revolution or slowing it down with the hope of a better situation in this regard. It is by going against the tide that the cause of the revolution, led by the party of the proletariat, can advance. Asumir's line is devoid of such a spirit altogether. If it were not the case that the dominant ideas are those of the dominant classes, making revolution would be much easier. Organizing the conscious rebellion of the masses under the leadership of a revolutionary party with a revolutionary ideology and programme is the main solution for this problem. In Peru, along with the Party's propaganda, mainly it is the People's War which cleans the minds of the oppressed masses of the ideas and habits alien to their class interests.

Now, which classes does Asumir have in mind in Peru in regard to this "problem" of unfavorable public opinion? Most probably, certain strata of the intelligentsia who used to be "Marxists" in the 1960s and 1970s and today have turned away from Marxism. We are not suggesting that all of them have been or have become reactionaries. No. The fact that at times some national bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie claim to be "communist" or "Maoists" or even join the communist party arises from the bourgeois democratic nature of the revolution in the semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries.

We know that the PCP always exposed Marxist impostors and today would not be disturbed by the fact these kinds of people do not call themselves Marxists any more! But let us say, OK, probably the majority of the intelligentsia who used to be "Marxists" and followers of the United Left or others don't even want to hear a word about Marxism. But how about the peasants and workers of Peru? Aren't many more of them--compared to the 1960s and 1970s--eager to hear about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Yes, definitely. Go to the University of San Marcos! It is not like the 1960s. But also go to Ayacucho! It is not like the 1960s either. It is much better than the 1960s in terms of public opinion towards communism. Asumir does not take this into account. It only sees certain classes!

As long as the powerful socialist state of China existed, its prominence attracted many petit-bourgeois and even national bourgeois elements who called themselves Maoist. Other strata of the same classes, along with sections of the comprador bourgeoisie, cloaked themselves in the garb of "Marxism" because of the attraction of an imperialist superpower calling itself "socialist"; these forces wanted to rely on one imperialist power--the USSR--to fight or draw concessions from the dominant imperialist power, the U.S., and/or other Western powers. Now, in the new conditions, it is only natural that a sizeable number of these forces have become "ex-Marxists"--so much the better. On the other hand, with the death of false communism, a lot of people and masses have been freed from the dead weight of revisionism, and more ears have opened to real communism. In conjunction with the death of false communism, today the influence of real communism--Marxism-Leninism-Maoism--is growing in all four corners of the world as a result of the People's War in Peru and the advances of other parties and organizations of RIM as well as the work of RIM itself. In addition, as the bankruptcy of the "Western market economy" becomes obvious, even the type of "public opinion" that Asumir is most likely referring to will start to doubt the advisability of following the Western imperialists.

The fall of the East bloc has created some opportunities for the Western imperialists, politically, economically and militarily. But it has also created opportunities for the camp of revolution. The red flag was not lowered by the world's Maoists in the aftermath of the fall of the East bloc; instead, they went on a counter-offensive against the international bourgeoisie's anti-communist offensive. In Peru, the People's War raged ahead with resounding victories, and RIM became even stronger and more influential among the oppressed of the world. All this showed the bankruptcy of the imperialists and the reactionaries of the world. They soon focused their attacks on the Maoists and especially on the People's War in Peru and RIM. They intend to crack this "hard nut" in order to later clamp down on rebellions of the masses around the world with a freer hand. This is because they know what they are doing to the masses of the world, and that this inevitably will give rise to great resistance against them. The winds in the towers portend the storms ahead, and the imperialists and reactionaries are preparing for them in this way.

The fall of the East bloc has probably caused some tactical disadvantages for the revolutionaries in some parts of the world, while creating tactical advantages in other parts. It has given some temporary room to the Yankee rulers who wield their hegemony in the imperialist world in the service of their economic and political interests, and specifically in tightening their grip on Latin America. Undoubtedly, these changes must be analyzed carefully by our Movement in the Americas, and especially by the PCP so as to help push the People's War forward. But the fall of the East bloc is strategically advantageous for the world proletarian revolution, both ideologically and also in terms of weakening tremendously one of the bulwarks of imperialism.