Peru People’s Movement: “Necessary Condensations in Order to Orient Oneself in the Class Struggle of the Masses”

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


Peru People‘s Movement
June 2020

New PeruTranslated and Reproduced by The Red Flag


Elaborated by the Peru People‘s Movement on the basis of the „Document of the 2nd Plenum“ of the 1st Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru.


Marx teaches us that in critical times when wages go down the bourgeoisie aims to compensate for what is lacking with so-called aid, with philanthropy and thus even appear to be good to the class. We have to judge in the light of Marxism the essence of the PES: it has been raised to contain the explosiveness that they imagined (that the objective conditions were not going to produce), but as it did not occur, they no longer agitate it and it has failed. However, the plan to use free labor and more „aid“ is coming and we must be prepared. Denounce the role of the Catholic Church, as an ideological battering ram to attack Marxism based on charity. At the bottom of the ideas of poverty is to traffic with the condition of misery of the masses to hide their revolutionary capacity. Combat in depth this reactionary position of „helping the poor out of charity“.

Marx, in „The Poverty of Philosophy“, taught us the problem of poverty and how it is judged by reactionaries, revolutionaries and Communists. „As well as economists […] in revolutionary.“ He says that the economists are the representatives of the bourgeoisie, that the utopians (today applying to the concrete circumstances of the country, would be the revisionists), in their head they invent, they lucubrate; and that the Communists they do see reality. To emphasize that this has to do with the degree of development of capitalism; well, the revisionists seek to tie the masses to contain the revolution, today they tie them to the tail of Fujimori’s plans, they are trying to make this axis conform with the micro and small business; that is why we must develop our policy from the Front, in this cushion that the reactionaries want to make, to which the revisionists contribute, there is petty bourgeoisie and we must organize them, not allow them to be exploited or used against the class.

The position of the Communists, of us, is: to see the creative, transforming, revolutionary capacity of poverty, as Marx teaches us, it is not charity, it is class struggle; it is not only solidarity, less concertation, it is struggle to wrest and defend conquests, to wrest wages, that the labor force invested be compensated with the wage that corresponds to it and break the vicious circle.

We insist, study Marx’s „Wages, Prices and Profit“. There we can see how wages are affected by historical vicissitudes. We should pay attention to the quotation: „The value […] in pauperization.“ On the working day, here in Peru it is becoming clearer every day that the 8-hour working day only exists on paper, since people work up to 12 hours a day, the street workers for example work 60 hours a week; denounce that what matters to reaction is productivity and if there are sick and stunted workers they replace them with vigorous ones until they get sick, especially if the reserve army is being strengthened with such high and growing unemployment. To raise that it is the class itself that has to assume these problems and raise its struggles, Lenin told us to trust in the class not in the State. He continues „One thing […] servitude“, we must differentiate that one thing is the physical element and another the conditions in which the worker develops; in some places the workers require higher wages, for example if he works in the cities a part of the salary is to satisfy a little culture. Marx teaches that we must see the social or historical element in the wage, which is different from the physical element.

He says that there are cases in which the salary is lowered below the physical minimum and that in order to perpetuate the race, it is complemented with poor people’s laws. In Peru, for reasons of the acute crisis, wages can be lowered below the physical minimum, then, what do they do? They compensate it with this „aid“, with these social aid or social emergency plans; their objective is to keep alive the class, the mass that yields surplus value and thus generate the „paupers“ or the pauperized, it is no longer the problem of paying them to maintain their physical capacity and reproduce themselves but slaves. (See with this part how pauperization occurs in the imperialist countries and their so-called „Welfare State“ with which opportunists and revisionists want to deny the law of Marxism of the growing pauperization of the class, our note.)

LENIN: „It cannot give […] landed property“, this quotation is found in Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume 9. The content in synthesis refers to the fact that a bourgeois government cannot give bread to the masses, cannot satisfy their hunger; but the people have to reject hunger, denounce why there is hunger, denounce that the cause is that there is private property, imperialism, exploitation, oppression. Then, he tells us that he will only be able to satisfy his hunger by fighting for the conquest of a new order; he teaches us that the bourgeoisie strangles the people by hunger and that only the revolution can solve the hunger of the masses; that the problem is not to complain but to develop the revolutionary situation.

„In the West […] revolution“, quote from 1918, very clearly states that poverty is a revolutionary program, it moves the masses for the revolution. (That is why the „social programs“ always accompany the „packages“ with which the exploiters unload the consequences of the crisis on the exploited masses, to try to extinguish the explosiveness of the masses, our note).

„Anarchy […] the world collapses“. Here he tells us that the attitude of the petty bourgeoisie is not to relate hunger with unemployment, not to establish the relationship between organization and discipline. He teaches us that it is not enough to see hunger, we must see the political relationship between hunger and unemployment; there is hunger because there is unemployment and we stress, there is unemployment because private property subsists, because there are cyclical crises that are generated by the law of the capitalist system and which governs under imperialism; because we do not organize ourselves to destroy the old system and build a new one, and we do not organize ourselves because there is anarchy. So he says there is hunger, it is because of unemployment, the cause? the system; what is to be done? organization and discipline to overthrow the old system. About the petty bourgeoisie he says that he focuses on an individual solution, let each one look for it.

CHAIRMAN MAO. He says that poverty drives the yearning for change, that the poor want change, revolution.


Malthus, a 19th Century clergyman, argued that people reproduced geometrically while food increased arithmetically and that it was necessary to generate an equilibrium; he thought that plagues, wars, were stabilizing elements of these imbalances. Marx fought it and said that these were ideas of the bourgeoisie that became reactionary; from there we are anti-Malthusian. In America there was much debate on this approach, the Brazilian Josué de Castro maintained that these were erroneous ideas, that the Earth had enough food to feed humanity. Russell said that working only 4 hours a day would satisfy the hunger of all mankind, this was said in 1948. From 1950 to 1975, the entire production of all human history has doubled. So it is not true that humanity cannot produce all that it needs to feed itself, the reason why it does not satisfy its food needs can be found in the existence of private property of the means of production, property concentrated in a few hands, in the imposition of an imperialist system that appropriates the wealth of the oppressed nations, in the existence, then, of relations of exploitation and oppression. Also a U.S. senator once said that the real dangerous bomb that can blow up the world, his world, his system, is the population growth and this, precisely, is expressed in the oppressed nations, it is estimated that by the year 2000 they will comprise 85% of the total world population.

Well, it is for these reasons that we must ask ourselves how Marxism sees the problem of the birth rate. Lenin in his „The Working Class and Neo-Malthusianism“ analyzes how the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie think about it and contrasts the criteria of the proletariat. In synthesis, he states that the bourgeoisie, particularly the petty bourgeoisie, thinks that they should not have many children because they are terrified of the black future they see, they are dazzled by the difficulties of a world that is sinking, they wonder why leave them in a world of poverty and oppression, they will suffer hunger, misery, wars, suffering; but thus they reach the absurdity because if each generation will see that the world is blacker than the previous one then why would they have children? Humanity, then, would become extinct. The position of the class, of Marxism consists in seeing that the future is bright, that the goal of humanity is Communism and that it is necessarily going to reach that goal; that the future of the children is the combat to achieve those objectives, it is to offer children to the revolution so that they fight for it and to fight for communism, to make the new world that is opening its way and will necessarily impose itself a reality.

Another thing is that only with the new order women will be able to decide freely to have children or not, to conceive them or not; we are against the imperialist programs to reduce population growth at the cost of the sterilization of the women of the oppressed nations, compulsory and massive, based on these reactionary positions of Malthusianism. We need children for the revolution, the more oppressed masses there are, the more fighters for the new world that will crush the handful of exploiters who rule the Earth. Then, the freedom to have or not to have children should exist for the women of the majority, not only for a few, and it should not be obligatory but a free decision of the parents; besides, it is necessary to provide all the means that do not harm the health of mothers so that they can freely have the children they want or avoid having them. Marxism is not against abortion, abortion must be free but in the full sense of freedom, this is freedom with class content, freedom for those below, oppressed and exploited women must have the free right to apply abortion with all the necessary medical conditions and not allow high costs or absurd prohibitions.

It is very important to use Lenin’s quotations in this work.


Each generation leaves the other generation more indebted, each new generation begins in more unfavorable conditions.“ Isn’t this seen in the cycle of production of imperialism in general? Do you remember the process of the decomposition of bureaucratic capitalism that we studied in the Congress, in the 3rd Session? In the capitalist system and also in imperialism cyclical crises are produced and this continues to rule in spite of the denials made by the big bourgeoisie; this thesis of Marx is valid and nobody can deny it, there has been nobody until today, nor will there ever be, who can demonstrate that cyclical crises are no longer produced in capitalism; what we have to see is how, after so many years since Marx founded his theory, he expressed specifications, how today the crises are presented. Well, there are cycles, but each cycle leads to a crisis, to a collapse and then expresses a recovery that starts from a lower point to then generate an expansion, a crisis and a stagnation that reaches a new point deeper than the previous one; and from there a new recovery starts again and the cycle continues, but always from a lower point.


Marx also says the solution: „The peasantry needs a red republic, it needs the dictatorship of the proletariat, it needs to unite with the proletariat to fight, only in this way can it find its true historical destiny.“

Marx says: „It is easy to understand the situation in which the French peasants found themselves when the republic added to the old burdens new ones“, „the exploiter is the same, capital, undoubtedly the capitalists exploit the peasants by means of mortgages and usury. The capitalist class exploits the peasant class by means of State taxes“. He is describing to us in what the exploitation consists, to see the difference, in one way it is exploited: as an organized class the bourgeoisie exploits it through the State by means of taxes; and as capitalists, in the modalities of usury, of loan, of capital, of interest, those that are not paid are charged with the mortgage. And how does the landowner exploit it? Through rent. This is how semi-feudalism is differentiated.


(Here the quote refers to Fujimori‘s government, when the „privatizations“ were being considered and his economists said:) „They should follow the rules of the private sector […] they should not be an onerous burden.“ This poses serious problems; public enterprises have their own peculiarities in terms of the services they provide to the majority, and now they want to apply the rules of market liberalization to them. It is true that they are a disaster, yes, but why? because of bad administrative management, because they are at the service of the big bourgeoisie not of the masses, they serve the imperialist productive process, but all this is kept quiet.

Since Morales Bermudez there has been talk of privatizations, the bottom line today is that this enormous mass of capital of 5.000.000 dollars of public enterprises should pass into the hands of national or foreign private investment; in Peru the entire financial system does not cover what is required by these enterprises.

Fujimori proposes to sell some and not the strategic ones. The Minister of Labor has been very clear: either they are refloated or they are sold, and they would be refloated without the help of the State. When Velasco sold them to the workers to generate „social property“ but now not even that, they say if you want to keep your work center, help us to refloat it and then sell it. They propose to refloat through workers’ participation. Or „Management Contracts“ consist in handing over the management of the public enterprise to a private company, which would dispose of it without investing any means; the State provides the means of production and the company imposes which production lines to move.

With regard to the public enterprises they do not propose, nor could they propose at any time, that the dictatorship which exercises the property change, therefore these enterprises continue to benefit the landlord-bureaucratic State, only when the revolution changes the State, builds a State of new democracy, changes the bourgeois dictatorship for a joint dictatorship of workers, peasants and petty bourgeoisie, restricts the middle bourgeoisie, only then, will the class and the people benefit; we will take the State enterprise as the axis.

We must state that this is part of their process of accumulation, it is the appropriation of the means of production by private individuals and that it would imply strong unemployment, therefore the State must continue to maintain them as a source of work, not allowing the big bourgeoisie to be strengthened at the expense of the efforts of the workers and laborers, not allowing them to be squandered, what is not convenient is that they pass into the hands of the workers because it would be making them owners.

We do not think that State enterprises with a bourgeois dictatorship is a socialist form, it is part of bureaucratic capitalism, of the process of capitalism which at a certain point requires the State to assume economic control as an engine and this does not mean anything but an indication that it is going to collapse, it is a symptom of the crisis of the final part of bourgeois society, this is what Engels taught us. In bureaucratic capitalism this law also applies; today the big bourgeoisie wants to appropriate these enterprises for its new accumulation of capital, particularly the comprador bourgeoisie and enters into contradiction with the bureaucracy, but in the background is the contradiction with the masses and this will generate strong unemployment. Struggle so that the State continues to maintain them and the workers defend their source of work; the State must fulfill its obligation to provide work, especially if there is so much unemployment and make them set social tariffs, not exorbitant ones like the ones they have raised.

Synthesis: Thus, in the face of State enterprises: first, they want to transfer them, we are against it; second, that the workers refloat them, we oppose them and that the State maintains them, that the workers prevent mismanagement and that they fight to defend their source of work; third, that tariffs with social prices be established. A slogan should be sought. Do not allow imperialism to take them away.


The traditional law is the civil law, it is the trunk that protects the property; but as the process has continued to develop, particularly in the last century, with the pressure of peasants and workers and the people in general, a set of laws have been given, provisions that have led to the renewal of the law and to the establishment of other fields to regulate new and complex, explosive relationships. For example in France in the last century, where the civil law guarantees the property as a sacred matter and therefore the things that derive from the property, laws were given restricting the functions and the rights of the owner as far as leasing and rents and in certain critical moments in function or in the name of the social function and the caution of the State, the debts for rents were condoned, for example. All this generates, then, new criteria, new relationships; these are things that the masses have been pulling out, imposing. All this is what has led to the establishment of other modalities, other specialties, such as agrarian law or labor law, which have their peculiarities; this has been the case, and even more so, since the world is moving on and there is a new agrarian law, which is no longer the one of decades ago; this is what he is referring to. „This has meant moving away from the substantive and procedural rules of civil law and becoming aware of the jus propium of agrarian law“; that is to say of agricultural activity, that is to say of the law itself, the particular, specific, characteristic law contained in agrarian law, which therefore governs agricultural activity.

In essence, they cannot go on with this disorder, this chaos, they have to order and they need a system of laws, clear and concrete, in order to know how to deal with and develop. They are a complementary, indispensable part of the system.

They enter, then, into discussions about the new laws. We know that the agrarian reform and the real transformation is not made with laws; but we also know that this order moves with laws and we have to know them, and we know that when they are given, the people who participate in it have to defend their rights, because otherwise they are imposed very serious conditions. So, there is a need to take care of that. Of course, one „profoundly revolutionary“ could say, but with that we gain nothing, when we triumph we will erase all the laws, yes, but in the meantime, what happens in the meantime? To the worker who asks me and says: Comrade, what do I do now? they are going to pass a law on the problem of labor, what are we going to do about the union? what do I raise about the strike, about the salary, about conditions; answer him, wait for the revolution to triumph, what would the worker say? And if they tell me that I cannot have a union, that I cannot strike and that I have to work 20 hours a day; obviously he is going to say I have to know what to do, it is also a front of struggle, and it is part of the defense of what has been won and if we do not fight there, then we give room for them to impose extremely onerous conditions, even more serious. In any case, if we do not have the strength, what can we do, engage in the battle and unmask them; but if we did nothing, what would happen? that then others would assume that leadership, that advice, who would it be? the revisionists, the opportunists or others. Would we act correctly in acting in that way? No, because we would be absolutely foolish and stupid ultras. Would we be unfounded declamators? Would we serve in this way to win in the arena of the class struggle, the leadership of the workers, to have their confidence? Is it necessary or not to lead them in the daily guerrilla struggle? Yes, because in this way we prepare them for future moments of transcendence and the peasants as well.

Then, he warns, what is coming ahead? A legislative decree No. 612, dated July 26th, has been issued and declares the vacancy of the law, that is to say, the expiration of the law, of the norms; what is going to expire, he says? The laws of the Judiciary. It is going to change the structure of the judicial power, eliminating the agrarian jurisdiction, that is, a special jurisdiction, where these problems are ventilated, which has a different process and provides more guarantees than the common civil procedure. Likewise, the labor jurisdiction, which within this order of exploitation, oppression, etc., etc., gives it more room for maneuvering than the civil code could give it, or not? We do not propose that there they will solve their problems, that there they will solve the property or the rights of the class. But are these rights useful or useless? Have they been conquered or not? Are they simply going to lose them? This is a good warning. Both social rights would be subject to the civil code and the code of civil procedures. A situation that must be foreseen, why? because they also require the existence of these jurisdictions, because they are easier to handle than the civil one; the civil one is very cumbersome, very slow, there the trials take forever, are they not? No. Eternity is less in the agrarian jurisdiction and in the labor jurisdiction. They also have their interest, their right. That is why they also speak. There are two parties, so, if it is going to be regulated for both parties, why are only the employer and the landowner going to worry about it? The counterpart has to take care of it; otherwise it would lose by not attending, in absence the counterpart does whatever it wants. That is the question.

Facing this legal contingency it is opportune to remember that the spirit of the jurists who elaborated the civil code of 1984 was to clearly demarcate in article 883 of the civil code „the real rights on rustic properties, are governed by the legislation of the matter“; if even the code has said it, then how is it that García Pérez has given this law that gives margin to the elimination of the agrarian and labor laws; nevertheless very loose of bones he went to tell the workers that they should rise if they put hard conditions, pure rotten demagogy.

He says „all this importance becomes more evident when we know that two thirds of the economic activity of the country are still in agriculture and cattle raising“. Very important! That is very good because it is said that the peasants are a small part of the productive process of Peru. And here, what does it say?

„All this importance becomes more evident when we know that 2/3 of the economic activity of the country is still in agriculture and livestock.“ This is more than enough reason to attend to this majority of those who are subject to trial with jurisdictional principles proper to agrarian law, attending to the important universe of peasant and native communities. But what has Mr. Fujimori said? He has only referred to the natives who are the foresters; and what does he say: „peasant communities“, which is a much broader, larger scope; „in many of which Spanish is not even spoken, showing a high rate of illiteracy“, this is obviously another element that must be taken into account in the special jurisdictions, just as it is taken into account in the criminal jurisdiction. The civil law of the exploiters has a procedural peculiarity, it is this, the judge only resolves from what the parties invoke and does not advise anyone; the judge may know that he is making a mistake, but he cannot tell him; that is typical of that civil law, it is the parties who deal and the Judge the only thing he has to do is to abide by the law, he cannot apply another one obviously. But I repeat, if the Judge sees a very serious error on the part of a party, he simply lets him continue to make mistakes; well, it is his right, his problem, it is not his. But in jurisdictions such as labor or agrarian law the situation is different, since they are matters of social rights; there are other elements of judgment that have to be considered, not the mere procedural formality, for example, well, even this shows us that this author has another criterion than the one expressed by Fujimori or Garcia Perez.

To conclude, he says, we see it convenient to transcribe article 156 of the constitution: „The State gives priority to the integral development of the agrarian sector.“ He ends by saying: „In coherence with this mandate, it must be fulfilled both in the creation of the agrarian code and in the permanence of a specialized, autonomous, jurisdictional and administrative agrarian justice.“ However, it should also be noted that they have formed a commission to look into the problem of the organic law of the judiciary; the commission in charge of formulating the new project includes, among others, a magistrate from the agrarian court and another from the labor court, which could guarantee these social jurisdictions. This is positive and they are supposed to see to these special jurisdictions, that is the situation, what derives from here? that a set of provisions and laws are being given and there are others to come, and, therefore, the interests of the proletariat, of the peasantry, of the people are at stake, we say we are concerned about these interests and defend them in every field. The revolutionary struggle has many fronts, and there are Comrades and colleagues who can and should handle these problems very well.

Ulloa proposes powers for them to elaborate agrarian legislation, extraordinary powers to the executive to elaborate an integral and coherent agrarian legislation. Formidable! So that Ulloa takes advantage of the situation? That is the way they are working, they propose that the agrarian law should be seen by IMF specialists. Shortly after Minister Amat’s intervention, Ulloa said that this legal structure could be the starting point for a consensus, a national agreement projected for the next two or three decades. His problem is not an easy one.

This shows us that just as they have to provide economic measures and as the document says, they also need modifications, adjustments and institutional readjustments. The problem is that they want these laws to be ventilated at the executive level, through extraordinary powers. Remember all those requested by the minister; he has only been granted economic and financial powers; purely tributary until November 30th. This should also be taken into account. On September 21st, 1990, „The Commercial“ editorialized with the following title: „Bases of the new agrarian reform that Peru needs“; they are not against the „agrarian reform“ they want a new one, they want a better one for their interests and needs.

June 2020
Peru People‘s Movement