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 repercusions, 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
conques 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 Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
(RIM). It moves forward on its path (1990), through
difficulties, but so it is with anything new. The PCP is
part of the RIM, as it must be. Our Party supports the
RIM, 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 RIM.
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 RIM. 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. 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 RIM. 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,
RIM, 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
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 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. 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 antimperialist 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 seethe-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.
