Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “Develop the Construction, Mainly of the Party, Serving the Armed Struggle”

Proletarians of all countries, unite!
There is one goal, the conquest of Power!


Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
May 1977

Red Flag PublicationsTranslated and Reproduced by The Red Flag



In the Peruvian society of the 20th Century, two roads face each other as an expression of the class struggle: The bureaucratic road and the democratic road. The first is the road of the exploiting classes, of imperialism, of feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, the road of the monopoly bourgeoisie, mainly of Yankee imperialism which oppresses us, of the feudal landowners and of the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie. This is the road of the development and deepening of bureaucratic capitalism in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society; the road of the State of landlord-bureaucratic dictatorship under imperialist command; of the predominance of imperialist and feudal ideology.

The bureaucratic path is the one followed by the exploiting classes in the country since 1895 until today. A path which in the 1920s enthroned the „mercantile bourgeoisie“ as the ruling class of the reactionary camp, and in which the Peruvian State was restructured from the point of view of so-called „representative democracy“. This first State restructuring, under the leadership of the comprador bourgeoisie, took place, let us not forget, „at a time when, having reached the stage of monopolies and imperialism, all the liberal ideology, corresponding to the stage of free competition, has ceased to be valid“, as stated in point 3 of the Party Programme. But if the 1920 constitution served the development of bureaucratic capitalism and the slow evolution of feudalism as well as the domination of Yankee imperialism and the comprador bourgeoisie linked to it; the development of the economic process, the contradictions within reaction itself and mainly the development of the class struggle, the mobilization, politicization and organization of the masses, peasants and workers in particular, and what is fundamental, the founding of the Communist Party of Peru (CPP) by Mariátegui, in an atmosphere of general crisis, deeply aggravated by the world crisis of 1929, led to the second State restructuring of this century. This, also like the first, derived directly from a so-called „revolutionary“ movement, was embodied in the constitution of 1933 which, with variations that do not change its essence, is framed within the same conditions of the bureaucratic road.

Since the ‘50s this road enters into the deepening of bureaucratic capitalism with a growing participation of the State in all national life, especially in the economic field. The decade of the ‘60s is crucial for this second moment, in which its economic process showed more of its obstacles and limitations, even engendering dangerous perspectives for its system and, in addition, the so-called“”representative democracy“ entered into crisis. Let us note in passing that similar conditions prevailed throughout Latin America. Thus, in October 1968 the Armed Forces assumed power to fulfill two tasks: to deepen bureaucratic capitalism and to restructure Peruvian society, a task they have been carrying out for almost 10 years. The new government, presenting itself as „revolutionary“ and with the main cooperation of the corporativist social revisionism of „Unity“, began a high-sounding campaign questioning the „pre-revolutionary order“ and especially the „democratic-representative“ system. The Armed Forces, guided by a fascist political conception, after immediate economic and political readjustments, set about laying the foundations for the corporativization and deepening of bureaucratic capitalism, taking the State as the driving force of the economy through State monopoly; later, its own process and the world crisis which aggravated the situation will lead the government to a general corporativist readjustment, in the economic, political and ideological planes, adopting reactivation measures and others tending towards corporativization. The course it has followed is being developed today as a stage of restructuring of the corporative State to be completed in several years.

The bureaucratic road is, therefore, a process of more than 80 years and if yesterday its leadership was in the hands of the comprador bourgeoisie, since the 1960s it is the developing bureaucratic bourgeoisie which commands the process through the Armed Forces. And if in the past decades on two occasions the State was restructured fundamentally on the molds of the so-called „representative democracy“, at present the third restructuring of the landlord-bureaucratic State is being carried out on corporative bases.

Faced with the bureaucratic road, the democratic road is developing, the road of the people. This is the road of the exploited and oppressed; it is the road of the people‘s masses to destroy the exploitation of feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism and the exploitation and oppression of Yankee imperialism that dominates us, preventing any other imperialist domination, especially of social-imperialism that today contends for world hegemony. It is the road of the uprising of the masses, mainly peasants to overthrow the existing order, to seize power by violence. It is the road that the proletariat, through its Party, leads as the leading class and that the peasantry develops fighting as the main force; it is the road that the petty bourgeoisie actively supports and in which the national bourgeoisie can participate, in certain circumstances and conditions.

The road of the people, in contemporary Peruvian history, also began at the end of the 19th Century and its course is marked by the political development of the proletariat. Mariátegui, founder of the Communist Party, taught us that the formation of the industrial proletariat in our country „changes the terms of the political struggle“, this is an unavoidable truth for all revolutionaries. In the heat of the ‘20s on the struggle of our people, especially the peasant uprisings and through the heroic struggle of the proletariat, under the banners of Marxism-Leninism, José Carlos Mariátegui, on October 7th, 1928, founded the Communist Party, „the vanguard of the proletariat, the political force that assumes the task of its orientation and leadership, in the struggle for the realization of its class ideals“, as it is written in point 9 of our Programme. Thus, the old bourgeois revolution which the bourgeoisie was able to lead, although in fact it was incapable of doing so, became a bourgeois revolution of a new type, a new democratic revolution, an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution which only the proletariat, through its Party, is capable of leading by following the road of encircling the cities from the countryside and waging a protracted People‘s War. This is the road that Chairman Mao Tse-tung established for countries like ours and the road that our founder points out to us.

In its second moment, parallel to the bureaucratic one, the democratic road had a great development in the ‘60s: the proletariat waged great struggles and the peasantry, reediting its old actions, shook the foundations of Peruvian society, while students, workers, intellectuals and people‘s masses, especially the working masses of neighborhoods and slums, increased their combativity; in short, a great rise in the struggle of the people‘s masses. Also in this decade the country was the scene of guerrilla struggles from whose defeats we must draw lessons for the future. The class struggle stirred up the defense of Marxism-Leninism against revisionism and in the light of the international struggle between Marxism and revisionism and under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, we Communists fought to retake the path of Mariátegui and reconstitute his Party; to return to Mariátegui, to his road, to his General Political Line, to his Line of Construction, to his Mass Line; concretely, to take up his road again to continue and develop it and on this basis to reconstitute his Party.

The democratic road, the road of the people, in its contemporary transit of more than 80 years also has two moments, the first whose axis is the decade of the 1920s and in which Mariátegui founded the Communist Party making the proletariat the leading, conscious and organized political class of the revolutionary camp; at that time it corresponded to the Peruvian proletariat to constitute itself as a Party under Marxism-Leninism. The second moment, in which we are living, has a key task: To retake Mariátegui and reconstitute his Party which develops under the banners of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, and in the deepening of bureaucratic capitalism and corporativization advocated by the exploiters; deepening in which the conditions for democratic revolution mature and, as the guerrillas of the sixties showed, the conditions that lead to deciding the revolution through armed struggle are brewing.

Paying attention to the problem of the two roads is of utmost importance. We must study this problem since it implies knowing the process, the situation and the perspective of the fields of revolution and counter-revolution, it is part of understanding our history according to the class struggle; thus our course is clearer and there is less risk of disorientation. In synthesis, the bureaucratic road today has entered into the structuring of its corporative State under the command of the so-called „social democracy of full participation“; and it will seek, through the application of its „gradualism“ in the economic and political spheres and serves precisely to fulfill its plans, to tie the people to this road and focus its attention on the electoral activities that it programs, structuring and activities that it will also want to use to avert the crisis and reactivate the economy.

For the democratic road the problem is to change the existing social order, taking power by means of the road of encircling the cities from the countryside, to create a People‘s Republic, for as long as this is not achieved their situation will essentially remain the same. For the people the question is to convert their tendency to development into organized action of their own forces, to build and develop their revolutionary instruments and not to allow themselves to be tied to the chariot of the structuring of the corporative State. For the people the problem is to develop the growing people‘s protest and organize the struggles for the benefits of conquests, rights and liberties; for their demands, particularly economic, without forgetting their course and not allowing themselves to be centered in electoral activities contrary to their deep interests. Not forgetting that, as Engels said, elections are „instruments of domination of the bourgeoisie“; and remembering Mariátegui who taught to use „elections for mere purposes of agitation and class propaganda“. In synthesis, for the people, for the working class and for the Party, the problem is: To reconstitute the Party from the countryside and to put peasant work as a base to follow the road of encircling the cities from the countryside.


What course have the people‘s masses followed under the present regime? First there was a withdrawal in the face of the offensive of the military coup of 1968; then there was a reactivation of the people‘s struggle in 1971; and from the reactivation to the development of the democratic struggle for the unification of the masses which reached great expression in the second half of 1973; later, in 1975, the people‘s masses tend to development as their main tendency, which implies progress in ideological, political and organizational matters. Throughout almost nine years the masses with zigzags, as is natural, have developed an intense struggle: A broad strike movement, especially in this decade, the year ‘75 being the culminating point until today, show the growing combativity of the proletariat; the peasantry in turn has continued to fight for land and has fought the agrarian law, the struggles of Andahuaylas are reliable proof if not the only one, because in the various regions of our country continues to beat the old and still unsatisfied peasant struggle; the people‘s masses of the various cities of the country have also waged exemplary actions and it can be affirmed that there is no important city that has not been the scene of people‘s protest.

The above shows the tendency to development that nests as a main current in the people‘s masses, especially in workers and peasants who are the basic forces: and all this leads more deeply to a sharpening of the class struggle that tends to become the future rise of the people‘s struggle. But the upsurge in our country, in essence, is the development and upsurge of the peasant movement and without it we cannot speak of a strong and true upsurge of the people‘s struggle. Here, also, is the importance of the peasantry which is but a reflection of its condition as the main force; this problem is fundamental and is, clearly, the weak point of the revolutionary work of the country.

Against the development of the mass movement, the regime launched its fascist and corporatizing political offensive, trying to organize the people‘s masses in its so-called „base organizations“, to unite them to its counter-revolutionary program; however, its plans did not fully achieve their objectives. An example of this can be seen in the trade union front: In it, the government began by denying the need for trade unions, then supported „trade union pluralism“ and then went on to organize its own corporative unions, the propagandized CTRP; later, it promoted its „revolutionary labor movement“ (MLR) aiming at storming the unions and usurping their leaderships. Evolution of this trade union policy paralleled the constant „dialogue“ and relations of coordination and collaboration that he maintained with the „recognized centers“: CGTP, CNT and CTP, which with minor discrepancies have supported it, mainly the CGTP; and also paralleled its constant and systematic use of repressive violence that it applied from the beginning of its administration and which, from 1976, became a year of suspension of guarantees, State of Emergency and anti-union and anti-people offensive.

The regime and its program tending to control the masses and organize them were supported, in addition to the above-mentioned centers, by the reactionary political parties: thus by the American People‘s Revolutionary Alliance (APRA), mainly among the parties defending the so-called „representative democracy“, this being the point of divergence between these parties and the government, which in turn are united, government and parties, by their submission to Yankee imperialism. And by the revisionist party of „Unity“, mainly among the parties addicted to corporativization; within these, the agreement between the government and „Unity“ is corporativization and their divergence is that revisionism is the spearhead of social-imperialism.

Thus throughout these years, the government has counted, directly or indirectly and through secondary divergences, with the support of APRA and revisionism, fundamentally, among the parties of „representative democracy“ and the corporatizers, but it is the revisionist party of „Unity“ which to this day is the main ally and support of the regime and at the present time, it is even precisely the one that calls to close ranks around the so-called „conquests of the revolution“ and fights for the purest structuring of the corporatist state, which the government and revisionism call „social democracy of full participation“. Christian Democracy is linked to the government, in addition to its corporatist position, by its links to Yankee imperialism and by its Christian social conception; however, given its little influence, it has not played the same role as revisionism.

However, in spite of all that, including the confusions that revolutionism sows in the ranks of the people and in spite of the historical burdens that entered a popular struggle and its present weaknesses, the popular masses have not been tied to the corporatist cart; this shows the degree of development of the masses, especially the basic ones, and that political propagandization is never in vain no matter how long it takes between the sowing and the harvest, as Lenin teaches us.

Since 1975 the people have been enduring a crisis resulting from the application of the program of deepening bureaucratic capitalism and the corporatization of Peruvian society, accentuated by the world crisis. This crisis, which will continue in 1978 and whose consequences threaten to extend into 1980, hits the masses with low wages expressed in strong losses in the purchasing power of wages and salaries; in growing unemployment which falls mainly on young people and women and expands in the countryside as underemployment; in galloping rises in the cost of living and in the lack of basic products for the people’s food; and, in a systematic anti-union, anti-popular and anti-democratic offensive that has been carried out for more than a year, recently, in the suspension of guarantees, state of emergency and denial of elementary rights of wage demands, union organization and the right to strike, in addition to prisons and repression.

This crisis is one more of the usual crises we suffer and to which the social system condemns the people; and it poses a question to the masses: how to get out of the crisis? Marxism teaches that the crisis is a vicious circle that repeats itself every certain number of years, since its own root is in the social order itself; that the workers through a well-conducted union struggle can obtain successes in their demands such as wage increases, reduction of working hours and working conditions; that when the crisis arrives what has been won is lost and that, once it is overcome, the workers return to follow the same path of struggle to recover what was lost and obtain new conquests, which will be lost again in another crisis and so on and so forth. This is the vicious circle of which Engels speaks, the repeated cyclical repetition that will continue as long as the dominant order of exploitation exists and which poses the proletariat and the people to fight to break it. The crisis poses us two problems: first, how to defend or conquered, and that, although in the crisis the conquests are lost more will be lost the less they are defended; this is the question of the necessity of the struggle for demands that we must always wage subject to the principle of „reason, advantage and limitation“. Struggle for demands which not only implies the defense of benefits and conquests and of rights and liberties; economic struggle as a demand for a group or a part of the class and political struggle as a general demand; but, in addition, the struggle for demands is forging the class and the workers for their struggle for power. Second, how to put an end to the crisis; being the crises a cyclical product of the social order of exploitation it will not be possible to put an end to them if the predominant social order is not put an end to; this is the question, in synthesis, of the struggle for power, it is the problem of developing the road of encircling the cities from the countryside to carry forward the revolution of new democracy with the People‘s War; it is, then, the necessity of the revolutionary struggle that serves the seizure of power by the working class, under the leadership of its Party. These two questions, the struggle for daily demands and the struggle for power, which are aggravated and made evident in the crises, cannot be separated one from the other, the problem is that the masses wage both, that the people‘s masses develop the struggle for daily demands having power as their course. The relation of both problems is concretized in developing the struggle for daily demands as a function of power; hence: to focus mainly on the struggle for daily demands is revisionism.

At present, more than ever we must adhere to the great principle that the masses make history and that „the proletariat has, in its struggle for power, no other weapon than organization“; and, be guided by the following great orientation: Only when the workers and peasants, who constitute 90% of the population, are organized and mobilized, will it be possible to overthrow imperialism and feudalism.“ Fundamental statements of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought that we must keep in mind; and today, when the struggle against revisionism, the main danger of the national and international revolutionary struggle, becomes more necessary, to apply with firmness the Marxist tactic of distinguishing the „bourgeois workers‘ Party, that of the privileged minority, from the ‚lower mass‘, the true majority, […] which is not contaminated with ‚bourgeois respectability‘“, that the great Lenin established and to persist in his orientation that „if we want to remain socialists, [that is Communists], our duty is to go lower and deeper, to the true masses: therein lies the meaning of the struggle against opportunism and the whole content of this struggle“; and to stick to the line that he himself condensed thus: „The only Marxist line in the world workers’ movement consists in explaining to the masses that the split with opportunism is inevitable and indispensable, in educating them for the revolution in a ruthless struggle against it, in taking advantage of the experience of the war to unmask all the infamies of the liberal-nationalist workers’ politics, and not to cover them up.“

To raise the problem of the people‘s masses in Peru is to focus attention on the peasantry, which is the main force of the revolution. Mariátegui, founder of the Communist Party, centered this problem; in synthesis, the democratic-national revolution has as its foundation the land question and the land problem in Peru is that of the survival of feudalism, „of the feudal economic regime, whose expressions are gamonalism, big landownership and serfdom“, emphasizing that „the regime of land ownership determines the political, and administrative regime of every nation“. Therefore, Mariátegui with great vision established that the first problem we must solve is „that of the liquidation of feudalism“. On the other hand, he masterfully specified the relationship between the indigenous problem and that of nationality by pointing out: „Peru is still a nationality in formation. It is being built on the inert indigenous strata, the alluvium of western civilization“; adding that the „problem of the Indians […] is the problem of the majority. It is the problem of nationality“. And deepening the indigenous problem he stated: „The indigenous question starts from our economy. It has its roots in the regime of land ownership“ and „the dominion of the land places in the hands of the ‚gamonals‘ the fate of the indigenous race“. Thus, our founder established the inseparable relationship between the land problem and the national problem; in this way the struggle for land is the basis of the national struggle and it cannot develop in a revolutionary way without it.

Furthermore, in Mariátegui, gamonalism, one of the expressions of feudalism, indissolubly linked to the land problem and the national problem, acquires decisive importance because of its relationship with the problem of the state and the revolution. In „Presentation to Tempest in the Andes“ he wrote:

The term gamonalism does not only designate a social and economic category: that of the big landowners or large agrarian landowners. It designates a whole phenomenon. Gamonalism is not represented by the gamonals strictly speaking. It comprises a long hierarchy of functionaries, intermediaries, agents, parasites. The literate Indian becomes an exploiter of his own race, because he puts himself at the service of gamonalism. The central factor of the phenomenon is the hegemony of the great semi-feudal property in politics and the mechanism of the State. It is on this factor, therefore, that one must act if one wants to attack at its root an evil of which some are determined not to contemplate but the episodic and subsidiary expressions.“

That liquidation of gamonalism or feudalism, could have been carried out by the Republic, within the liberal and capitalist principles […] sabotaged by the same class in charge of applying them, for more than a century they have been impotent to redeem the Indian from his servitude which constitutes a fact in solidarity with that of feudalism. It is not the case to expect that today, when these principles are in crisis in the world, they suddenly acquire in Peru an unusual creative vitality.“

The same founder, dealing with these problems in relation to all America, said:

The present State, in these countries, rests on the alliance of the feudal landowning class and the mercantile bourgeoisie. Once the big landowner feudalism has been overthrown, urban capitalism will lack the strength to resist the growing working class.“

And analyzing the derivations of capitalism in relation to the peasantry he concluded:

Capitalism, with its very instruments of exploitation, pushes the masses along the path of their demands, it moves them to a struggle in which they are materially and mentally trained to preside over a new order.“

All these proposals are of great transcendence for our Party and our people, today more than ever when the application of three agrarian laws since the decade of the ‘60s have promoted the landlordist path of evolution of feudalism, within the deepening of bureaucratic capitalism and corporativization, proving day by day their validity and importance and the need to apply them with decision and firmness, developing them in the midst of the class struggle of the peasantry for land, which is the very basis of the democratic revolution. Hence the increasingly peremptory demand to place peasant labor as the basis of all revolutionary activity in our country. This is the basis of the struggle for power in a country like ours, since the peasantry, we reiterate, is the main force in the transformation of Peruvian society and, consequently, the source that will mainly provide the road to encircle the cities from the countryside. Let us combat the erroneous criteria of revisionist essence which maintain that the proletariat is the main force and that revolutionary activities should be centered on it; in our country, as the Chinese Revolution demonstrates, the proletariat is not the main force but the leading class and precisely its course consists in raising the peasantry and guiding it, through its Party, in the democratic revolution by means of the People‘s War.

In conclusion, our problem is to mobilize, politicize and organize the masses, mainly the peasantry, bearing in mind that the main form of struggle is the armed struggle and that we must develop the struggle for daily demands in terms of power. Only in this way will we serve the proletariat, the people and the revolution; only in this way, in the last analysis, will we serve proletarian internationalism; only in this way, in synthesis, will we forge ourselves as Communists and open the way to fulfill the Programme of the Party until the Communist society. Let us firmly adhere to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, let us develop in the class struggle the General Political Line that Mariátegui established and let us have infinite confidence in the masses, for as the Party Programme that our own founder wrote states:

The working masses of the city, the countryside and the mines and the indigenous peasantry, whose interests and aspirations we represent in the political struggle, will know how to appropriate these demands, and this doctrine, fight perseveringly and strenuously for them and find, through this struggle, the road that leads to the final victory of socialism.“


The development of the Party work and of the two-line struggle led us, in recent years, to the following conclusion: To develop the construction, taking as a basis the ideological-political construction, and to simultaneously develop the organizational construction, in the midst of the class struggle of the masses and in the two-line struggle, that is of the proletarian line of Mariátegui and its development against right- and „left“-opportunism. And more recently, we have advanced in the understanding of the inseparable link between construction and struggle. This process is particularly linked to the struggle against right- and „left“-liquidationism; it is by fighting against liquidationism that we have understood these important problems.

These experiences that the party has lived in recent years are adjusted from those of the international proletariat; thus, in the Chinese experience take into account the following accurate condensation: „To persist or not in the internal struggle of the Party is a difference of principles between the line of Chairman Mao and the revisionist line in the construction of the Party.“


In general terms and from the point of view of the construction of the Party in particular, we could divide our history into the following stages: first, the establishment of the road of Mariátegui and the constitution of the Party; second, the search for the road of Mariátegui and the defense of the Party; third, the struggle to retake the road of Mariátegui and the reconstitution of the Party. If we wanted to be more concrete, to highlight the problems of the construction of the Party, we would specify the three stages as follows: Constitution, Defense and Reconstitution.

The constitution of the Communist Party, in October ‘28, the crowning work of José Carlos Mariátegui, was a long and great struggle that ended more than three decades of struggle of the Peruvian proletariat. The Constitution implied fighting against anarcho-syndicalism and against the machinations of the nascent APRA, and was the triumph of the need for the Party of the proletariat in our country.

Since the constitution or foundation of the Party we can highlight five important struggles:

1. Against the abandonment of the road of Mariátegui and the „left“-liquidationism of Ravínez and company;

2. Against the capitulationism and right-liquidationism of Terreros — Portocarrero and Acosta — Del Prado — Barrio, under the influence of Browderism;

3. Against the revisionism of Del Prado and company under the baton of the contemporary revisionism of Khrushchev — Brezhnev;

4. For the construction of the three instruments of the revolution and against rightism disguised as „leftism“ and,

5. Against both right- and „left“-liquidationism.

These are important struggles in the almost 50 years of the Party‘s history, we should pay great attention to them in order to draw from them experiences and lessons that will serve the development of the construction in which we are engaged. The study and research of the history of the Party, although they have advanced, must be reinforced, it is vital to understand the two-line struggle, the process of construction of the three instruments in the country and to adhere more to the line of Mariátegui and its development.


The process of reconstitution of the Party is a consequence of retaking the road of Mariátegui; it began at the beginning of the 1960s and although it is based on the class struggle of our country, especially of the proletariat and the peasantry, it is intimately linked in its development to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. In more than 15 years the reconstitution has gone through the following moments: From its determination, which ends in the 6th Conference with the establishment of the Base of Party Unity (Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, Thought of Mariátegui and General Political Line) and the agreement on the need for the reconstitution of the Party, in 1969; of its application, whose key is the 3rd Plenum which sanctioned the Base of the Reconstitution in the ideological-political, organizational and mass work, in 1973; that of its impulse, which has been developed since 1975. Thus, the reconstitution of the Party has entered at present in the moment of its culmination that must be completed at the 5th Congress. The task today is, therefore, to culminate the reconstitution.

The reconstitution has allowed to understand with greater clarity and certainty the indissoluble relation between the construction of the Party and the General Political Line; that the construction of the Party is in function of the General Political Line whose core is to follow the road of encircling the cities from the countryside, is this stage of the democratic revolution in which we find ourselves, and that to deviate from this political line undermines the construction and leads to deny the character of the Party and its role as organized vanguard of the proletariat making it impossible for the struggle for the Power, central problem of the revolution. All that is proven by our own Party history.

The development of the reconstitution has taken place, as it had to be, in struggle against contrary lines: Against revisionism, rightism disguised as „leftism“ and liquidationism; the struggle against right- and „left“-liquidationism waged parallel to the implementation of the reconstitution successfully finished off by agreeing to „liquidate liquidationism to advance and develop two-line struggle against revisionism as the main danger“ and by concretizing the political line for its immediate implementation in the orientation of „Reconstitute the Party from the countryside and put as a basis the peasant work to follow the path of encircling the cities from the countryside.“


The development of the two-line struggle in the Party poses today to fight revisionism as the main danger; the summary of the struggles waged in recent years and the problems we face today require us to fight revisionism taking into account the following points:

1. Opposition to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and the Thought of Mariátegui. Denial of the development of the line of Mariátegui.

2. Opposition to the road of encircling the cities from the countryside. Hopes in the reactionary State and in the regime and questioning of orienting the work in function of the struggle for Power.

3. Opposition to reconstitute the Party from the countryside and to build it in struggle against revisionism as the main danger. Questioning the way of building the Party in a backward country like ours.

4. Separating the ideological-political construction from the organizational one and pretending to develop the construction outside the class struggle and the two-line struggle.

5. Unilateral application of open work and secret work that denies their interrelation. Questioning of the system, structure and Party work.

6. Denial of the role of the leadership and the leaders and opposition to proletarian discipline.

7. Denying the peasantry its condition of main force and being against putting peasant work as the basis of all construction.

8. To question the effective leadership of the proletariat in the revolution by following the criterion of conceiving it as the main force.

9. To deny the need to „go lower and deeper, to the real masses“ in order to educate them for the revolution and that the split with revisionism is inevitable and indispensable. Refusal to develop the struggle for daily demands in terms of power.

10. To accept in theory the worker-peasant alliance as the basis of the United Front but to question it in practice and deny the need to build the United Front from the countryside.

11. Denial of the People‘s War. Opposition to the principles and Military Line of Chairman Mao Tse-tung and elevation of insurrectionary and urban guerrilla criteria. Denial of the universal law of revolutionary violence.

12. Questioning of the need to combat revisionism as the main danger. Denial of proletarian internationalism, particularly as a defense of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and obligation to combat revisionism. Conciliation with revisionism.

13. Exaltation of revolutionism and preaching of unitarianism without demarcation.

14. Opposition to the „philosophy of struggle“. Liberalism, conciliationism and groupism. „Dirty fighting“.

15. Questioning of the world outlook of the proletariat in order to replace it with the bourgeois world outlook.

The struggle against revisionism as the main danger unfolding at present is of great importance and perspective, and its generalization and differentiation taking into account all the fronts of our activity and the diversity of concrete situations, as well as conducting it correctly and with firmness and wisdom is a decisive question for the development of the construction.


Construction is the fundamental weapon of the proletariat in its struggle for power, it is through it that the political line becomes a reality and can move the masses under the leadership of the Party. The construction among us, since the constitution of the Party implies three instruments: Party, United Front and armed struggle; and the construction of the Party poses us, today as yesterday, its necessity, how to build it in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society and how to develop it through struggle. In this problem, as in all of them, we must stick to Marxism, to our experience and to the present concrete conditions of the class struggle. It is important to study and apply what Lenin established in „One Step Forward, Two Steps Back“, vital for the understanding of the opportunist line in this field, aiming to solve our specific problems. There Lenin laid down the importance of the organization, the simultaneous construction of the ideological-political, which is its basis, and of the organizational, and the development in the midst of the class struggle for Power and in the two-line struggle against opportunism. It states:

The proletariat has, in its struggle for Power, no other weapon than organization. The proletariat, disunited by the rule of anarchic competition within the bourgeois world, crushed by forced labor in the service of capital, constantly thrown ‚into the abyss‘ of the most complete misery, of brutalization and degeneration, can only become and will inevitably become an invincible force as long as its ideological union through the principles of Marxism is strengthened by the material unity of the organization, which unites the millions of workers in the army of the working class. Before this army neither the decrepit power of the Russian autocracy nor the decaying power of international capitalism will stand. This army will narrow its ranks more and more each day, in spite of all the zigzags and backward steps, in spite of the opportunist phrases of the Girondins of contemporary social democracy, in spite of the fatuous eulogies of the backward circle spirit, in spite of the tinsel and fuss of the intellectuals‘ own anarchism.“

In the same text we are told how the necessity of the structure, system and unique and centralized Party work arises:

The unity in question of Programme and in question of tactics is an indispensable question, but still insufficient for the unification of the Party, for the centralization of the Party work […] For the latter it is necessary, in addition, the unity of organization, inconceivable in a Party that goes out, however little it may be of the familiar limits of circle, without approved Statutes, without subordination of the minority to the majority, without subordination of the part to the whole. While we lacked unity in the fundamental questions of Programme and tactics, we said bluntly that we lived in an epoch of dispersion and circles, we frankly declared that before unifying we had to demarcate fields; we did not even speak of forms of joint organization, but we dealt exclusively with the new questions (then really new) of the struggle against opportunism in matters of Programme and tactics. Now, this struggle, as we all recognize, has already secured sufficient unity, formulated by the Programme of the Party and in the resolutions of the Party on tactics; now we have to take the next step and by common agreement, we have taken it: we have worked out the forms of a single organization in which all the circles are fused.“

In this same book, Lenin characterizes the opportunist line on organizational problems:

Its advocacy of a diffuse and not strongly cemented Party organization; its hostility to the idea (to the ‚bureaucratic‘ idea) of structuring the Party from the top down, on the basis of the Party Congress and the organs created by it; its tendency to go bottom up, allowing any teacher, any high school student and ‚every striker‘ to be considered members of the Party; their hostility to the ‚formalism‘ which requires a Party member to belong to one of the organizations recognized by the Party; their propensity for bourgeois intellectual psychology, ready only to ‚platonic recognition of organizational relations‘; the ease with which they indulge in opportunist lucubrations and anarchic phrases; their tendency to autonomism against centralism.“

All of the above are basic questions that we must deeply assimilate and apply them taking into account the Party‘s 50 years of experience, always acting firmly and with initiative.


We must start from the fact that in the construction our basic and fundamental problem is how to build the Party, as the organized vanguard of the proletariat and its highest form of organization, which will serve to conquer power leading in fact the democratic revolution in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. This problem was solved, in its general and valid laws, by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, in „Introducing ‚The Communist‘“, it is always necessary to remember.

In the referred work, it was established that the construction of the Party, in these conditions, develops linked to the United Front and the armed struggle, pointing out the three problems and their interrelation in the following terms:

Therefore, the United Front, the armed struggle and Party building constitute the three fundamental questions facing our Party in the Chinese Revolution. Correctly understanding these three issues and their interconnection is tantamount to correctly leading the entire Chinese Revolution.“

Here is the substantive question of the need to build and develop the Party through armed struggle and the United Front; here is the question of subjecting ourselves to the fact that armed struggle is the main form of struggle and that the People‘s Army is the main form of organization; here is the problem of the Party being the „heroic combatant“ which wields the United Front and armed struggle. All this is to subject the construction of the Party to the law of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought of revolutionary violence to seize power; what Chairman Mao masterfully synthesized in the necessity of the revolutionary army to change the world:

He who has an army has power, and war decides everything.“

He who has the most rifles has the most power.“

All Communists must understand this truth: ‚Political power grows from the barrel of the gun.‘“

Whoever wishes to seize State power and retain it, must have a powerful army.“

The experience of the class struggle in the epoch of imperialism teaches us that only through the force of the rifle, the working class and the other toiling masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and the landlord class; in this sense it can be affirmed that only with the rifle can the whole world be transformed. We are in favor of the elimination of war; we do not want war. But only through war can war be eliminated. To put an end to the guns we must wield the gun.“

All of the above is a solid set of Marxist truths and an indispensable part of our education in the conception of the proletariat and the only criterion that can correctly guide the transformation of Peruvian society. To these criteria we must subject ourselves and embody them in the masses, today, it is even more necessary given the political election perspective that is approaching.

Since the constitution of the Party, the three problems and their interrelation are present. Synthesizing, we can say that Mariátegui started from the principle of revolutionary violence, framed the action within the democratic revolution led by the proletariat (the bourgeoisie cannot lead it); and, he conceived and shaped the Party linking it to the united front and the need for the armed struggle of the peasantry. Thus our founder, with precision, established how to develop the Party in the first stage of the revolution.

His theses on this question should be seriously studied as much as his practical work to constitute the Party organization; to which we should add the experience of almost 50 years, paying particular attention to the lessons on the Party, United Front and armed struggle left by the decade of the ‘60s, and mainly summarize the experience of the reconstitution of the Party and its struggle around the problem of construction.


What guideline should we follow? The construction of the Party develops in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country where the proletariat must lead, in fact, the democratic revolution preparing to develop the armed struggle to take power through the People‘s War and following the road from the countryside to the city. Consequently, the Party necessarily develops in relation to the armed struggle and in the United Front. This is the guideline of the construction of the Party in our country if we subject ourselves to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.

Applying this guideline, in the present conditions, is that the questions of the Party structure, system and work must be solved.

The first is to develop a single organizational structure that is countrywide, unified and centralized, as a whole subject to the leadership of the Central Committee, the key expression of centralism; this is the question of structure. The second is the problem of the distribution of forces, that of centering the activity in the peasantry to develop the main forms of struggle and organization and is the problem of following a path of accumulation of forces in the cities; this is the question of the Party system. The third, is the problem of secret work, of clandestine activity, of the framework that guarantees the constant functioning in any circumstance; it is the problem of open work; of the mass work, which in the country poses the need to „turn the triangle“, that is, to put peasant work as the basis of the revolutionary struggle, the problem of the need to have tenaciously and firmly as the direction of the workers‘ movement the struggle for the seizure of power leading the peasantry in the revolution under the leadership of the Party, it is the problem of „our duty to go lower and deeper“ to forge the masses in the need to make the revolution and fight revisionism, to mobilize, politicize and organize workers and peasants, who are the basic masses, to incorporate intellectuals, women and youth into the struggle, and it is the obligation to develop the struggle for daily demands in terms of power; it is, finally, the problem of the necessity of secret and open work and of their indispensable interrelation, subject to the orientation that the first is the main and guides the second; all this is the question of Party work. The structure, the system and the Party work are three fundamental questions of the organizational line and are of vital importance for the construction of the Party; but, as in everything, the application of these questions subject to the correct line is given in struggle with contrary lines; in short, a correct organizational line cannot be applied nor developed but in struggle and at present its application and development can only be given by fighting revisionism as the main danger.


The 6th and 7th Plenums of the Central Committee have been important events dedicated to the problems of construction, in them it has been sanctioned to „Reconstitute the Party from the countryside and put as a base the peasant work to follow the path of encircling the cities from the countryside“, thus concretizing the General Political Line; and, „Develop the construction, mainly of the Party, serving of the armed struggle“, as an orientation to develop the construction of the three instruments synthesized in the slogan of „Constructing serving the armed struggle.“ In addition, a call has been made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Party and to prepare for the successful realization of the 5th Congress, which will have to be a „CONGRESS OF RECONSTITUTION“ that culminates the reconstitution of the Party by sanctioning the Programme and General Political Line of Mariátegui and its development and the new Statutes.

These provisions are of transcendence and importance and on their firm and decisive application depends the development of the Party as the organized vanguard of the proletariat and the fulfillment of its mission: the emancipation of the proletariat, fulfilling in this first stage the task of carrying forward the new democratic revolution.


Lenin pointed out that an era of war would accompany the emergence of socialist society:

We have already seen how many difficulties the civil war in Russia caused, how it is becoming intertwined with a whole series of wars. Marxists have never forgotten that violence will inevitably accompany the bankruptcy of capitalism in its entirety and the birth of socialist society. And this violence will fill a whole world historical period, a whole era of the most varied wars: imperialist wars, civil wars within each country, combinations of one and the other, wars of liberation of the nations oppressed by imperialism, diverse combinations between the imperialist powers that will inevitably intervene in diverse alliances, in this epoch of enormous trust and State capitalist consortiums and military monopolies. This epoch — of gigantic bankruptcies, of massive decisions taken under the pressure of military forces, of crises — has already begun; we can clearly distinguish it, but it is only the beginning.“

What the socialists must do is to take advantage of the war waged by the bandits to overthrow them all.“

„‚War is politics by other means‘ (namely: by violence).“

Within this perspective he reiterated:

The distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations which constitutes the essence of imperialism“, and he felt that: The socialist revolution will not be solely and principally a struggle of revolutionary proletarians of each country against its bourgeoisie; no, it will be a struggle of all the colonies and of all the oppressed countries against international imperialism […] that the civil war of the workers against the imperialists and the exploiters of all the advanced countries begins to be conjugated with the national war against international imperialism. This is confirmed by the march of the revolution, and will be more and more confirmed.“

Thus, Lenin specified the two great contemporary forces: the international proletarian movement and the movement of the oppressed nations, setting as an obligation of the Communist International (CI) „to support the national bourgeois-democratic movements in the colonies and the backward countries only on condition that the elements of the future proletarian Parties — Communists not only in name — are grouped and educated in all the backward countries to acquire full consciousness of the special mission incumbent upon them: To fight against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their respective nations“; for if the CI establishes temporary alliances, in these cases, it must „unconditionally maintain the independence of the proletarian movement, even in its most rudimentary forms“; and that, as Communists we will only support these movements „in the case that their representatives do not prevent us from educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasants and the great masses of the exploited“.

Likewise, Lenin teaches us that since the beginning of this century great changes have taken place as „millions and hundreds of millions of people — in fact, the immense majority of the population of the globe — intervene today as active and independent revolutionary factors. And it is clear that in the future decisive battles of the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, directed at first towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and will perhaps play a much more important revolutionary role than we expect […] Naturally, in this immense sector there are many more people than in the past, in this immense sector there are many more stumbling blocks, but, in any case, the movement is advancing, and the working masses, the peasants of the colonies, although they are still backward, will play a very great revolutionary role in the successive phases of the World Revolution.“

And pointing out the revolutionary perspective he said, at the 3rd World Congress of the CI: „World imperialism must fall when the revolutionary thrust of the exploited and oppressed workers of each country, overcoming the resistance of the petty-bourgeois elements and the influence of the insignificant elite constituted by the labor aristocracy is founded with the revolutionary thrust of millions of beings who until now had remained on the sidelines of history, for which they constituted nothing more than a patient subject.“ The great Lenin led the October Revolution, opening a new stage of humanity, however he never thought that capitalist restoration was impossible; he said: „We do not know if after our triumph some transitory period of reaction and triumph of the counterrevolution will ensue — impossible it is not, far from it — that is why, once we triumph, we will raise a ‚triple line of fortifications‘ against such a possibility.“ And analyzing the construction of the new society, in „The State and Revolution“ he wrote:

In its first phase, in its first degree, Communism cannot yet present a complete economic maturity, it cannot yet appear completely free from the traditions or traces of capitalism. Hence such an interesting phenomenon as the subsistence of the ‚narrow horizon of bourgeois law‘ under Communism, in its first phase. Bourgeois law with regard to the distribution of articles of consumption inevitably presupposes also, as is natural, a bourgeois State, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of compelling respect for the norms of the former.“

Whence it follows that under Communism not only does bourgeois law subsist for a certain time, but even the bourgeois State without a bourgeoisie subsists!“

This is why Lenin warned:

The bourgeoisie is defeated in our country, but it is not yet extirpated, it is not yet annihilated, not even completely shattered. That is why a new and higher form of struggle against the bourgeoisie is on the agenda, the transition from the simpler task of the further expropriation of the capitalists to the much more complex and difficult task of creating the conditions which will make the existence and re-emergence of the bourgeoisie impossible. It is evident that this is an incomparably superior task and that without accomplishing it there is still no socialism.“

And he concluded:

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle, it is its continuation under new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the triumphant proletariat which has taken into its hands the political power against the defeated bourgeoisie, but not destroyed, not disappeared; which far from having ceased to resist, intensifies its resistance.“

All these are substantive theses of Lenin on the era in which we live and the period of wars in which we will continue to develop, on the two forces of the contemporary world and in particular on the national movement and on socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat; theses that today we must take very much into account to analyze the class struggle that is developing in the world.

Chairman Mao Tse-tung, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, has systematized the development of world revolution and has established fundamental theses that develop Marxism, and that we must bear in mind in order to orient ourselves in the understanding of the present international situation. In his great work, „On New Democracy“, he emphasized that with the 1st World War and with the October Revolution, history had entered a new era „of the new world revolution: the proletarian socialist world revolution“ and that, in consequence, „every revolution undertaken by a colony or semi- colony against imperialism, that is, against the bourgeoisie or international capitalism, will no more belong to the old category of world democratic bourgeois revolution, but to the new category“.

Thus, he conceived that the powerful revolutionary movement of colonies and semi-colonies was a part of the revolution that the international proletariat leads on a world level. He emphasized, after the 2nd World War, that the peoples of Latin America „are not submissive slaves of the US imperialists“; that in the whole of Asia „a great national liberation movement“ had come forth, and, calling the Asian countries to combat imperialism and the internal reactionaries, having as their goal the emancipation of the oppressed of Asia, he said: „We must take our destiny entirely into our own hands. We must extirpate from our ranks any idea which is an expression of weakness or impotence. Any point of view which overestimates the strength of the enemy and underestimates that of the people is wrong. […] We live in a historical epoch in which capitalism and imperialism in the entire world hasten towards ruin, and socialism and democracy in the entire world march towards victory.“

Condensing the forthcoming struggle, he characterized the present epoch: „The next 50 to 100 years from now, more or less, will be a great epoch of radical change in the social system in the world, an epoch which will shake the Earth, an epoch with which no epoch before it will be able to compare itself. Living in an epoch like this, one must be ready to wage a great struggle whose forms will have many characteristics different from the past epochs.“

Analyzing this epoch of the proletarian revolution, Chairman Mao Tse-tung established his great thesis on the reactionaries: „All the reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful.“ In „Talk with Anna Louise Strong“, where the above quotation is found, analyzing the contradictions and the distribution of social forces, he also stated: „The United States and the Soviet Union are separated by a vast zone which includes many capitalist, colonial and semi-colonial countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Before the US reactionaries have subjugated these countries, an attack on the Soviet Union is out of the question.“ To these statements of 1946, the following of Chairman Mao’s analyses on the contradictions among the imperialists themselves and between the imperialists and the oppressed nations and contending forces must be added: „Above all, the contradiction that has to do with the scramble among the imperialist countries and their dispute for the colonies stands out. What they are doing is to take as an excuse the contradictions that they have with us in order to cover up their own contradictions.“ „In this conflict (the Suez Canal event) that is occurring there, two types of contradictions and three different forces converge. These two types of contradictions are: first, the inter-imperialist contradictions, that is, the contradictions between the United States and England and between the United States and France, and second, the ones that exist between the imperialist powers and the oppressed nations. Of the three forces involved, the first is the United States, which is the major imperialist power; the second is England and France, imperialist countries of a second order, and the third is the oppressed nations.“

In January of 1964, Chairman Mao pronounced a declaration in support of the people of Panama; in it, after emphasizing that US imperialism „has continued oppressing the peoples of Latin America, pillaging them and repressing in those countries the revolutionary national democratic struggle“; after denouncing that „it has converted […] parts of Korea and Vietnam into its colonies, keeps Japan under its control and semi-military occupation […] and intervenes and assaults other Asiatic countries“; after pointing out that in Africa, US imperialism continues intensifying its neo-colonialist policy, „tries by all means to replace the old colonialists, loots and enslaves the peoples of Africa, undermines and suffocates the national liberation movements“; asking for vigilance against the Yankees‘ […] aggression and war „intends firmly to put into practice its policy of ‚peaceful evolution‘ in the the socialist countries“; and that „even with their West European, North American and Oceanian allies, the US imperialists are applying the policy of ‚the law of the jungle‘, and constantly try to step on them“; he concludes calling: The peoples of the countries of the socialist camp should unite; the peoples of the different countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite; all the peoples of the different continents should unite; all the peace-loving countries and all the countries submitted to the aggression, control, intervention and humiliation of the United States should unite. All of them should form the widest united front of opposition to the US imperialists’ policy of aggression and war, in order to safeguard world peace.“

In this way, he denounces US imperialism, calling us to combat it. But the revisionists usurped power in the Soviet Union, restoring capitalism and converting it into a social- imperialist country, which, as such, extended its penetration, subversion, control and domination, contending with Yankee imperialism for world domination.

Focussing on the referred to intermediate zone, Chairperson Mao declaimed: „The Soviet Union is at present under a bourgeois dictatorship, a big bourgeois dictatorship, a German fascist type dictatorship, a dictatorship of the Hitler type.“ And calling for the struggle against the two superpowers, he put down the following important theses: „The United States is a paper tiger. You shouldn’t believe in it. It can be pierced by one stroke. The revisionist Soviet Union is also a paper tiger.“ „Soviet revisionism and US imperialism, entering into conspiracy themselves, have perpetrated so much wickedness and infamy that the revolutionary peoples of the whole world will not let them go unpunished. The people of all the countries are rising up. A new historical period of struggle against US imperialism and Soviet revisionism has begun.“ „Peoples of all the world, let us unite and oppose the war of aggression that any imperialism or social-imperialism might unleash; let us oppose especially a war of aggression in which atomic bombs are used as weapons. If such a war explodes, the peoples of the whole world must eliminate it with a revolutionary war, and we must get ready right now!“

So was fixed the period of struggle that has opened against the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and, within this perspective, reiterating the role of the peoples of the world, he made his famous statement in May 1970: Every time when the people of a small country dare to rise up in struggle, venture to grasp weapons and hold in their hands the destiny of their own country, they will unfailingly be able to defeat the aggression of a big country. This is a law of history.“ Chairman Mao Tse-tung always gave a lot of attention to tactical principles. With regard to this, his work „On Policy“ is of the greatest importance; there he set down the fundamental policy: „In the relations with the different classes of the country, apply the fundamental policy of developing the progressive forces, win over the intermediate ones, and isolate the anti-Communist die-hards“; to have a revolutionary dual policy against the die-hards, and in order to combat them apply: „In the struggle against the anti-Communist die-hards, our policy is to make use of contradictions, win over the many, oppose the few and crush our enemies one by one, and to wage struggle on just grounds, to our advantage, and with restraint.“

These criteria, first established for the struggle in China, are applicable to the struggle against the imperialists. In the year 1957, Chairman Mao summed up the strategical and tactical ideas in the struggle against the enemy:

We have developed a concept over a long period for the struggle against the enemy, namely, strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. In other words, with regard to the whole we must despise the enemy, but with regard to each specific problem we must take him seriously. If we do not despise him with regard to the whole, we shall commit opportunist errors. Marx and Engels were but two individuals, and yet in those early days they already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. But with regard to specific problems and specific enemies, if we do not take them seriously, we shall commit adventurist errors. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one part at a time. Factories can only be built one by one. Peasants can only plough the land plot by plot.

The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly; we are sure to manage it. But when it comes to the actual eating, it must be done mouthful by mouthful. You cannot swallow an entire banquet at one gulp. This is called the piecemeal solution and is known in military writings as destroying the enemy forces one by one.“

Up to here we have the fundamental problems on the historical period in which we are living, the contradictions and the developing forces and the tactics, all substantive problems of strategy and tactics; but furthermore, Chairman Mao Tse-tung also devoted himself to sum up the experience of the socialist revolution, setting forth his great theory and practice of the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

He also found the adequate form of developing it through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). In the beginnings and development of this great revolution he set down the following theses:

A great disorder under the heavens leads to a great order under the heavens, and the same happens all over again every seven or eight years. The monsters and demons will come out by themselves to the palaestra. As their own class nature determines it, they cannot behave otherwise.“

In the past we waged struggles in the rural areas, in the factories, in the cultural circles, and we carried out the movement of socialist education. Nevertheless, all this could not solve the problem, because we had not found a form, a means of mobilizing vast masses in an open way, in all areas and from below upwards, in order to expose our bad side.“

In fact, those elements with power, followers of the capitalist road within the Party, who support the petty tyrants of bourgeois acadamies, and those representatives of the bourgeoisie infiltrated in the Party who protect these petty tyrants, are in fact big petty tyrants in the Party who do not read books or newspapers, who do not keep in touch with the masses or possess any knowledge, and who rely only on ‚acting in an arbitrary form and repressing the people with their authority‘ and usurp the name of the Party.“

The bourgeois representatives who have infiltrated inside the Party, the government, the army and the different cultural sectors, are a group of counterrevolutionary revisionists who will seize power and will convert the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, if they have the chance. Some of these persons, we have already seen through; but not yet others. And in some of them we still trust and we prepare them to be our successors. For example, persons of the Khruschev type still dwell at our side.“

The main target of the present movement are those elements with power, followers of the capitalist-road within the Party.“

What will you do if revisionism appears in the Central Committee? This is very probable, this is the greatest danger.“

The proletariat must exercise an all-embracing dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in the superstructure, including the different domains of culture.“

The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is completely necessary and very timely to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, prevent the restoration of capitalism and build socialism.“

The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the first one, and in the future undoubtedly there will be many more. In a revolution, the problem of who will defeat whom will only be solved in a long historical period. If things are not adequately solved, there will be a possibility in any moment for a capitalist restoration.“

It is right to rebel against the reactionaries.“ „Proletarian revolutionaries, unite to snatch power from the handful of leaders inside the Party who are followers of the capitalist-road!“

The GPCR hit the counter-revolutionary bourgeois headquarters headed by Liu Shao-chi, the Chinese Khruschev, whose deputy is Teng Hsiao-ping, another top element with power following the capitalist-road within the Party“; and it also crushed the counter-revolutionary conspirator headquarters headed by Lin Piao.

Thus, the GPCR was developed in order to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, to prevent the restoration of capitalism and to build socialism; and whose summation was made in the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPCh), which was a great landmark in the history of the CPCh and the International Communist Movement (ICM).

The development of class struggle in China, the struggle between capitalism and socialism, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and between Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and counter-revolutionary and capitulationist revisionism, was manifested in the great campaign of criticism against Confucius and Lin Piao, which discussed the problem of restoration and counter-revolution, the long process of consolidation of a power-holding class which implies preventing its reseizure by the reactionaries and the resultant restoration, and if power is lost, to strive for reconquering it, a problem which was raised in the beginnings of the debate against Khruschev-Brezhnev revisionism.

Later, the struggle centered on the decisive question and on the very essence of power, the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao said:

Why did Lenin talk about the need of exercising a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is necessary to have this question clear. Lack of clarity with regard to this will lead to revisionism. All the nation must be made aware of it.“

In one word, China is a socialist country. Before Liberation it did not differ much from capitalism. Now it still practices a salary system of eight grades, distribution to each one according to his work, and exchange through money, all of which is hardly different from the old society. The difference lays in that the property system has changed.“

Our country now practices a commodities system, a salary system which is also unequal, like that of the eight grades, and things of that type. This, under the proletariat’s dictatorship, only can be restricted. Because of this, it will be very easy for persons like Lin Piao to set up a capitalist system if they climb to power. For this reason, we must study more Marxist-Leninist works.“

Lenin said: ‚Small size production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, every day, every hour, spontaneously and in big volumes.‘ This also occurs with a part of the working class, and a part of Party members. Both among the proletarians and the officials of public enterprises, there are those who indulge in bourgeois lifestyle. “Lenin spoke about a bourgeois state without capitalists, built in order to protect the bourgeois law. We have ourselves built a state like that one, in which things do not differ much from those of the old society, because there is still a hierarchy — an eight grade salary system, a distribution according to work and the exchange of things of equal value still prevail.“

These theses and the former ones are, evidently, the continuation and development of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism. Chairman Mao Tse-tung reiterates the standing of Marx’s and Lenin’s statements concerning the long revolutionary transformation of the old society; the need of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its strengthening, the unceasing class struggle within socialism and of its utmost sharpening in certain circumstances, the persistance of bourgeois right and its necessary restriction, the constant generation of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, and the possibility of the restoration of capitalism through climbing to power […] He establishes, furthermore, the need of aiming against the capitalist-roaders within the Party, and of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of the cultural revolution.

In January 1975, Teng Hsiao-ping became Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee, which he had joined in the 10th Congress. In September the same year, „Unfold Criticism of ‚Water Margin‘!“ was called for. Chairman Mao called for paying attention to capitulation, which is an essential issue in revisionism; he says:

The merit of the narrative ‘On the Water’s Margin’ lays precisely in the description of capitulation. Serving as a teaching material in the negative sense, it helps the people to know the capitulationists.“

„‚Water Margin’ opposes only the corrupt officials, but not the emperor. It excludes Chao Kai of the Hundred and Eight. Sung Chiang capitulates, practices revisionism, changes the name of Chu Yi Parlour, given by Chao Kai, into that of Chung Yi Parlour, and accepts the offer of amnesty and enrolment. The struggle between Sung Chiang and Kao Chiu is a struggle waged by a fraction against another among the landlord class. Sung Chiang capitulates and then goes to combat Fang La.“

(Chao Kai: founder of the peasant rebel army, in the narrative; the 108: the rebel captains; Sung Chiang: a character who usurps the rebel army’s leadership; Chu Yi Parlour means to get together and to rise up in rebellion and so the rebel leader gave that name to the parlour where they met; Chung Yi Parlour means to profess loyalty to the emperor, an evil trick employed by the usurper).

Let us emphasize that capitulationism implies class capitulation before the bourgeoisie in the country, and capitulation of the nation before imperialism on an international level, and that capitulationism is revisionism. In these circumstances, the struggle is waged against the restorationist, anti-Cultural Revolution rightist wind.

In it Chairman Mao states:

After the democratic revolution, the workers, the poor peasants and the low middle peasants have not stopped and want to make the revolution. Contrariwise, a part of the militants of the Party are reluctant to continue forward, and some have gone backwards and have placed themselves against the revolution. Why? Because they, as high officials that they have come to be, try to protect the interests of the high officials.“

It so happens that the socialist revolution falls on their own heads, and in this way during the agricultural cooperativization there were already those in the Party who opposed it and when bourgeois right is criticized, their feeling is that of rejection. The socialist revolution is being carried ahead; however, it is not well understood where the bourgeoisie is. It is exactly in the Communist Party, the leaders following the capitalist-road in the Party. The capitalist-roaders still follow their road.“

To revoke just verdicts goes against the will of the people.“

It is impossible to advance without struggle.“

Being 800.000.000 people, can we do without struggle?!“

What is that about ‚take the three instructions as the key link point!‘ Stability and unity do not mean renouncing the class struggle. Class struggle is the key link of the net and all the rest are mails.“

This person does not persist in class struggle; he has never mentioned this key link. He still continues with his ‚white cat or black cat‘, making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism.“

In this way, the struggle centered against Teng Hsiao-ping, against him who, following the Chinese Khruschev, Liu Shao-chi, held the theory of the extinction of class struggle; against who, in 1956, in his report on the statutes’ modification in the 8th Congress of the CPCh, held that classes were extinct, especially the bourgeoisie, that the socialist revolution had already fulfilled the greater part of its tasks, and they should not emphasize the class struggle, but the tasks of construction; against him who, in the same report, followed Liu Shao-chi’s theory of the masses in order to oppose Chairman Mao’s thesis on the Party; against him who upheld the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), in which Khruschev attacked the dictatorship of the proletariat, camouflaging himself under the so-called struggle against the „cult of personality“, considering the congress of possessing „important merits“, precisely for him „one of the most important merits“ is that „struggle against divinization“ which he used to combat Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

The GPCR‘s campaign to counterattack the (revoking) revisionist wind centered against Teng Hsiao-ping. Against the tenacious defender of Peng Te-huai, the climber and conspirator military chief sanctioned in 1959 and defended by Liu Shao-chi and his reactionary headquarters; it aimed against Teng who, forming a gang with the Chinese Khruschev in the difficult years 1959-1961, attacked the three red banners: the General Line, the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Commune.

Against him who advocated the increase of lands for private use, free markets, enterprises responsible for their own profits and losses, and agricultural production shares based on each family, unleashing a revisionist wind of individualistic agricultural labor. Against him who held: „Be it black or white, if a cat hunts mice, it is a good cat.“

This the Teng Hsiao-ping of the 1950s and 60s, „another leading element with power, capitalist-roader within the Party“ as he was typified Liu Shao-chi’s lieutenant, who performed as secretary general and whom the GPCR overthrew. The struggle that Chairman Mao led in order to counter-attack the reactionary revisionist wind aimed at Teng Hsiao-ping, who since the ‘50s held a counter-revolutionary programme and who, like others, as soon as he returned to leading posts continued his old road unfolding anew an opposing programme based on „take the three instructions as the key point“, aiming at „conquer the ideological stand as a means to form public opinion“, „take into account first of all, the leading bodies“, in order to take hold of organizational positions, „they rectified in all aspects“.

It was a programme oriented at revoking the GPCR, usurping the leadership in order to promote restoration, undermining the proletariat’s dictatorship, divulging the extinction of class struggle and centering in the development of the productive forces. It was a programme that fought the GPCR imputing that it „injured“ the „experienced cadres“ and served to „overthrow“ „good cadres of the Party“, typifying it as „ultra-leftist”“for combating the capitalist-roaders.

This struggle to counterstrike the revoking wind led to Teng Hsiao-ping’s removal from all his posts inside and outside the Party“, a resolution taken „according to the proposal of the Great Leader Chairman Mao Tse-tung“: Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s death, as the death of all the proletariat’s Great Leaders, has generated deep commotions and wide repercussions in China and in the world; and, in the conditions in which the struggle developed in China. It propitiated the circumstances for the rightists staging a State coup, usurping the power of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It helped them undermine the conquests of the GPCR and open the doors to capitalist restoration, to capitulation and to revisionism. Class struggle in China between revolution and counterrevolution, between Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and revisionism, between Chairman Mao’s proletarian line and the revisionist bourgeois counter-revolutionary and capitulationist line, headed by Teng Hsiao-ping, has entered into crucial, complex and difficult moments; strange and surprising methods are resorted to in the dealing with problems and the struggle; important and vast changes in the leadership and in the organizations mainly of the Party, were produced; at the same time, the criticism campaign against Teng Hsiao-ping’s revisionist revoking wind is suspended; the GPCR is openly questioned; capitulation is developed, especially national capitulation, and Teng’s counter-revolutionary programme is hoisted as a banner.

All this is nothing but a rightist coup in the sharp two-line struggle in the period of the continuation of the revolution taking advantage of the circumstances and the repercussions of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s death. The situation that arose in China is not an unimportant problem.

It is, on the contrary, a transcendant problem for revolutionaries and Communists of the world and we all must give it a very special attention, because from the usurpation of power derives the general change of the line, both in the development of socialism and in the international policy. The key question of Marxism is the proletariat’s dictatorship; it is its essence, and a rightist coup and its usurpation is a problem of the utmost seriousness and importance; and it is not a question in China alone; it is a question for all Communists since its repercussions have to do with world revolution.

The experience of restoration and of usurpation of power in the USSR are recent lessons that we cannot forget. Mariátegui has taught us: „It is not possible to be uninterested in the destiny of a nation that occupies such a principal place in time and space. China weighs too much in human history for us not to be attracted by its deeds and men.“ This great truth continues to be valid today more than ever for all Communists and revolutionaries in the country.

But although the events in China, especially after Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s death move us to a just concern and to the duty of defending the banners of Marxism, precisely to be able to defend them let us guide ourselves by his own forecasts.

If the rightists carry forward an anti-Communist State coup in China, I am sure that it will not know peace either, and very probably its domination will be short-lived, because it will not be tolerated by any of the revolutionaries who represent the people’s interests, more than 90 percent of the population.“

Let it be in China or in other countries of the world, broadly speaking, more than ninety percent of the population will finally support Marxism-Leninism; many persons who, owing to the deceit of social-democracy, revisionism, imperialism and all the reactionaries, have not taken yet political consciousness. But in any way they will gradually wake up and will support Marxism-Leninism. The truth of Marxism-Leninism is irresistible. The masses will invariably rise up in revolution. The world revolution will inexorably triumph.“

We have raised fundamental theses of Lenin and Chairman Mao on the class struggle at the international level because the understanding of such a complex problem, especially of its strategy and tactics, can only be approached from Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. The international question, the position before it, is part of the General Political Line of the Party since its constitution and its substantive points are in the same Programme: part of the international character of the economy and the revolutionary movement of the proletariat that is guided by the slogan of „Proletarians of all countries, unite!“ it raises the situation of the backward, semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries, which under imperialist oppression cannot have an independent national economy nor at the service of their people; and concludes by affirming that in the epoch of imperialism, epoch of monopolies and wars of rapine for the division of the world, Marxism has become Marxism-Leninism to which we adhere as a guide for our action.

Furthermore, Mariátegui, in his work for the construction of the Party, paid special attention to the international class struggle; for him, with the 1st World War the capitalist system entered into great crisis and with the October Revolution began a new era for humanity; bourgeois democracy accentuated its crisis and engendered fascism, the socialism of the 2nd International, follower of parliamentary cretinism, aggravated its decomposition and the revolution swept through Europe with repercussions throughout the backward world, especially in Asia, whose awakening, he tells us, is worthy of the times. The emergence of the CI, for Mariátegui, implied a great development because for the first time the International really embraced the exploited and oppressed of the world and, with great vision, understanding the perspective of the movement of the oppressed nations and its importance for the World revolution, he was against those who against Lenin wanted to maintain a narrow International circumscribed and centered in Europe, blind to the strategic need to raise the oppressed nations in a powerful movement of national liberation.

As can be seen, since our constitution as a Party, the position before the international class struggle is an important part of the general political line and concrete expression of proletarian internationalism. And if this was so in the foundation, sickle that we are in pursuit of culminating the reconstitution, it is also of importance and necessity to pay attention to this part of the general line; for them it is pertinent to raise some problems.

With the October Revolution a new epoch began: The Proletarian World Revolution, that of the passage to socialism and the construction of the Communist society; historically the Bourgeois World Revolution that developed during centuries expired and if in this one the bourgeoisie was the leading class, in the new epoch the revolution is led by the proletariat through its Communist Parties. In this epoch there are fundamental contradictions: between capitalism and socialism, between bourgeoisie and proletariat, between imperialists, and between imperialism and oppressed nations; of them, the contradiction between capitalism and socialism will continue its development throughout this epoch and the other fundamental contradictions serve to its development because of it depends, ultimately, the construction of the new society; however, in each period one of the four takes shape as the main one as shown by the history of the 20th Century.

The class struggle of this century also proves that two powerful movements are developing: The international proletarian movement and the national liberation movement and, although the first is an expression of the leading class which is concretized in the Communist Parties and the International Communist Movement (ICM), the movement of national liberation, as a consequence of imperialism itself, has acquired great strength and fulfills, as was foreseen, an important strategic role. We must consider that, as long as imperialism and bourgeoisie exist, revisionism will subsist, thus generating the split within the international proletariat, hence the need and importance of fighting its counter-revolutionary activity inseparable from the anti-imperialist and revolutionary struggle.

This epoch, on the other hand, is one of great wars for the hegemony and distribution of the world, for the domination of the colonies and semicolonies, to maintain the exploitation of the proletariat and to prevent the development of socialism, all these are reactionary wars that imperialism carries out with the support of the reactionaries. Against them rise the revolutionary wars: those of national liberation, the civil wars against the exploiters themselves and those for the defense of socialism and the continuation of the revolution; if those are unjust, reactionary wars, these are just wars that serve the revolution and whose direction depends on the course given by the proletariat through its Parties.

In synthesis, we live in the great epoch of the Proletarian World Revolution in which the construction of the new society opens the way through the universal law of revolutionary violence concretized in democratic revolutions, socialist revolutions and continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat; epoch in which the oppressed peoples are incorporated more and more to the revolution mobilizing the masses as never before in history, particularly those of the oppressed nations; in which the proletariat expresses more and more its character of leading class of the new epoch; in which Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought manifests its growing power proven in more than 100 years of struggles and, in which the Communist Parties, which adhere to it, fulfill and will fulfill their role of organized vanguard fighters for the emancipation of the proletariat and the world revolution.

The post-2nd World War development with the vigorous growth of the national liberation movement, the transformation of the USSR into a social-imperialist country, the inter-imperialist struggles especially of the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, for world hegemony, and the development of the proletariat, socialism and Marxism, have led Chairman Mao Tse-tung to the greatest precision of the present epoch. The next 50 to 100 years will shake the Earth and change its face like no previous epoch and in it many new things will emerge, we revolutionaries must be vigilant to grasp them firmly and develop them for the sake of the revolution. The counter-revolutionary activities of the United States and the Soviet Union and the struggle of the peoples of the world against the two superpowers have initiated a new period, that of the struggle against American imperialism and Soviet revisionism; this precision is of extraordinary importance for the development of the world proletarian revolution.

The revisionism of Khrushchev-Brezhnev is one of the substantive questions of this period; the usurpation in the USSR and its conversion from a socialist country into a social-imperialist superpower shows the gravity and transcendence of the restoration of capitalism. And, besides being the superpower that needs a new distribution of the world to enthrone its hegemony, it generates a counter-revolutionary movement, concealed behind the prestige of socialism and the Party that Lenin founded, to develop bourgeois workers‘ Parties at the service of its interests of revisionist social-imperialism; this is a problem of strategic importance, especially for the Communists, hence the character of main danger of revisionism whose center is the social-imperialist Soviet Union cannot go unnoticed.

It is precisely in this period, starting from the fundamental contradictions, the forces in contention and their distribution according to tactics, that the strategic concept that three worlds are delineated can be understood; the question of the existence of the two superpowers vying for world domination, of the inter-imperialist contradictions with the superpowers in particular and of the national liberation movement. To, starting from relying on the peoples of the world whose axis is the international proletariat, „apply the fundamental policy of developing the progressive forces, winning over the intermediate ones and isolating the die-hard anti-Communists“ and „In the struggle against the die-hard anti-Communists, exploit the contradictions, win over the majority, fight a minority and crush the enemies one by one; fight with reason, with advantage and with limitation“; bearing in mind the following and important orientation: „We must take advantage of each of the fights, gaps and contradictions in the enemy camp and use them against our main enemy of the moment.“ All that must be kept very much in mind in order to develop the front against the two superpowers, Yankee imperialism and Soviet revisionism, the United States and the Soviet Union.

This period shows more clearly that the problem of „who will defeat whom“ is not defined, that the restoration of capitalism can take place in any socialist country and that the solution is the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat concretized in the proletarian cultural revolution and not one but several, since the revolutionary transformation of the old society is a long historical process.

The fundamental contradictions, since the social-imperialist transformation of the USSR, have been embodied in the following: The contradiction between the oppressed nations on the one hand and imperialism and social-imperialism on the other; the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries and revisionist countries; the contradiction between the imperialist countries and the social-imperialist country and between the imperialist countries themselves, and the contradiction between the socialist countries on the one hand and imperialism and social-imperialism on the other.“ As established by the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPCh). Every day the great thesis that „imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable“ as long as their system subsists and that the inter-imperialist contradictions are those that lead to world wars in the face of which the revolutionary position has been clearly defined: Either the war makes the revolution break out, or the revolution prevents the war.“ Finally, this period shows more and more the growing role of the peoples of the world, of the millions and millions, especially of the colonies and semi-colonies, who are drawn into the international class struggle and rise up in revolution.

It is in the light of the epoch of the world proletarian revolution and the period of struggle against Yankee imperialism and Soviet revisionist social-imperialism that we must analyze the present international situation. In it the two superpowers vie for world domination; one, the United States, to maintain its domination and even extend it over the colonies and semicolonies of old displaced powers and to tighten control over its own allies; the other, the Soviet Union, struggles to extend its domination and consolidate the positions it has achieved. Both superpowers are hit by the crisis which at various levels is shaking the foundations of the imperialist system headed by the United States and the social-imperialist system headed by the Soviet Union; imperialism in particular is struggling in an unfinished crisis which even threatens to worsen. In these conditions the superpowers are the fundamental source of the world problems at present and their contention ignites the warlike conflicts burning in Africa, the Middle East and others that threaten to lead to a 3rd World War. Although in addition to these enemies, there are imperialism and world reaction in general, it is of the two superpowers that it is right to affirm: „Soviet revisionism and U.S. imperialism, conspiring with each other, have perpetrated so many evils and infamies that the revolutionary peoples of the whole world will not let them go unpunished“; and against the wars they are carrying out or against the world war they are preparing to settle their hegemony, the peoples of the world must unite in opposing any aggressive war unleashed by imperialism or social-imperialism, especially the war of aggression using atomic weapons, and if it breaks out: The peoples of the whole world must eliminate it with the revolutionary war, and we must make preparations right now!“

Thus, if the development of the fundamental contradictions increases the danger of world war, which would be a new war of plunder, a new division of the world by the superpowers and even a means to „overcome“ their crises and impose, as they pretend and dream, new „world orders“, let us not forget that, as Chairman Mao Tse-tung said, „the main trend of today’s world is revolution“. And that it is the law of history that a people, even of a small country, can defeat a powerful country on the contradiction that „it dares to rise up in struggle, dares to take up arms and take into its own hands the destiny of its own country“. The peoples of the world, the international proletariat and the Communist Parties that remain faithful to Marxism have a great historic task and they will fulfill it.

To have a definite position on the international class struggle is of utmost importance given its complexity, the continuation of the „great disorder under the heavens“, the important rethinking that is unfolding, the transcendence of the current situation, the grave perspective of the rightist coup in China, the divergences that are developing in the ICM and the reiterated need to specify the strategy and tactics of the World Revolution at the present time. Furthermore, let us reiterate that the position, the line on the international class struggle is part of the General Political Line, hence the need to deal with it more today that we have entered to complete the reconstitution of the Party. Finally, let us not forget that around the 2nd World War, under Browderist conceptions, with an opportunist position before the international struggle, the way was opened to capitulation in our country, before the comprador bourgeoisie and reaction as class capitulation and before Yankee imperialism as capitulation as a nation. This is, therefore, an important problem that we cannot ignore if we adhere to proletarian internationalism.

The treatment of the line on the international class struggle demands three questions: first, to adhere firmly to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, applying it decisively; second, to take up again Mariátegui‘s line on international politics and its development; third, to summarize the experiences of the Party on this problem and especially the struggles around it. Of the three, the question is to start from the world outlook of the proletariat, of Marxism and its development; for our Party this is what is decisive as a starting point, more so at present, since there is no other starting point or other basis that can serve as a guide for the communists or unite them as is necessary; for our Party, in synthesis, the question today is posed as follows: to be Marxist is to adhere to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. Subjecting ourselves to this position we can make our way towards the understanding of the class struggle at the international level in order to fulfill our role accordingly, both with our revolution and with proletarian internationalism.


Peru, May 1977

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru