Provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Switzerland (Red Faction): “Fragments Concerning Guiding Thought: 2nd Edition”

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



Provisional Central Committee
Communist Party of Switzerland (Red Faction)
July 2021

Reproduced by The Red Flag


As part of the ongoing culmination of the 1st Plenum of the Provisional Central Committee (PCC) of the CPS(RF), culmination of a protracted nature due to significant developments on ours and the enemy‘s barricade, we publish this updated second edition of our document, „Fragments Concerning Guiding Thought“, according to the decisions of the plenum as published in its communiqué of May 2021. We forward this document for publication alongside „Identify, Retake and Develop the Guiding Thought of the Party“.

The changes which have been made to this present edition are as follows:

  • Mistaken dates and sect-like grammar have been changed.
  • Additional parts of the minutes of the 1st Congress of the Communist Party of Peru have been added.
  • Several more quotations have been added.
  • The over-all structure of the document has been changed.
  • More emphasis is put on the role of Comrade Feliciano, one of the great leaders of the Peruvian revolution, in establishing the universal validity of Gonzalo thought.

This document is considered the complement and appendix to the declaration of the 1st Plenu, „Identify, Retake and Develop the Guiding Thought of the Party“. In this document, we state:

„It does not matter how large the communist party is; what matters is that it is ‚purposeful‘. Chairman Gonzalo similarly expresses that too much emphasis is put on gathering a certain amount of people, and that the question really is ‚to do it or not to do it‘. At the 3rd Work Session of the 4th Countrywide Conference, during the discussion about the position of the CPS in regards to the Social-Democratic Party of Switzerland (SPS) and parliamentarism, Comrade Herzog establishes: ‚Don‘t initiate politics of compromise, better to have a small number of conscious comrades than a big party which vacillates and wants to fight the revolution with battles of speeches in the National Council.‘ (Our emphasis)1 Better to be few but red and expert, to — like the party puts forward — have a small number of comrades that break completely with the old society in whatever way the faction (and in perspective, the party) demands it — because what is there to win in this outdated social order? in this moloch2 that sucks us dry for their profits and oppresses and represses us when we fight and resist? Comrades that dedicate their life to the Swiss revolution, its immediate (refounding), strategic (conquest of power) and final objective (communism), as a part of and serving the proletarian world revolution — because the point is not to interpret the world, ‚[…] the point is to change it‘3; conscious comrades that carry their lives on their very finger tips, being ready to give their lives today, tomorrow and always for the red faction, for the revolution, if the necessity arises. Like the red factions of Chairman Gonzalo and of Comrade Leonie Kascher, we, the CPS(RF), are full of revolutionary conviction: we will refound the CPS. Nothing and nobody can stand in our way: not imperialism, nor reaction or revisionism — not even nature itself can hold us back, can hold our class, masses and people back! We will persist on the only honorful path that the proletariat can take – everything else means cowardly death on our knees, may that be because of preventable disease, workplace accidents, police violence, femicide, hate crimes or imperialism’s ruthless destruction of our planet — that is path of fighting and resisting everything that is old, everything that is outdated, capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, this old State, because like Lenin sternly teaches us: there is still so much to be swept away from the face of the earth, to cleanse with blood, with steel, with lead. ‚Tomorrow your ballot paper is taken from you and you are given a rifle or a splendid and most up-to-date quick-firing gun — take this weapon of death and destruction, pay no heed to the mawkish snivellers who are afraid of war; too much still remains in the world that must be destroyed with fire and sword for the emancipation of the working class; if anger and desperation grow among the masses, if a revolutionary situation arises, prepare to create new organisations and use these useful weapons of death and destruction against your own government and your own bourgeoisie‘ (Our emphasis.)4, that is what he says. Pay no attention to mawkish snivvelers, real and radical transformation for the people, that means power, and power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power for the people, the democratic dictatorship as Chairman Mao teaches us, is in its essence the dictatorship of the proletariat, being that it will be based on the deepest and broadest masses in this country, the workers, peasants and soldiers, mainly the workers. Nobody can stop the march forward of history, nobody can stand in the way of years of eternal matter in motion towards communism, because the revolution is the main tendency and it will be until all of humanity reaches communism. We will not regret the price we have to pay. It does not matter how many we are today, what matter is that our movement is ‚purposeful‘ and that our comrades, even if few, are ‚conscious‘. If we are correct, then we will get more and better people, if we are not correct, then we will either lose them or we will lose sight of our objectives, and become a ‚big party which vacillates‘ and fights (or rather: pretends to fight) the revolution with ‚battles of speeches‘ — this is how matters stand.“

This document was originally drafted for the purpose of study within the PCC to ideologically prepare our 1st Plenum. Later, it was circulated in the faction more generally, and then, it was decided to publish it. We hope that the publication of the present, second edition will have a positive effect on the development of the proletarian revolutionary movement in Switzerland and of the international communist movement as a whole, just as we hoped when we published the first edition. Some may say that we focus on a matter of little importance, with their dogmatism, or others — with their criterion of „learn to mechanically apply by creatively applying“, trying to convince the proletarian revolutionaires of the world to degenerate into sectlets, completely separated from the laws of the class struggle in their own country, will want us to memorize the quotes instead of applying them to our concrete reality. This criteria is a menshevik one, not a bolshevik, it aims to gut marxism of its living soul itself, to turn it into a rotting corpse robbed of its creating and creative power, propped up by puppet masters, instead of the guide to action Lenin declares it to be. As Comrade Stalin put forward:

There are two groups of marxists. Both work under the flag of marxism and consider themselves ‚genuinly‘ marxist. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically oppossed to each other.

The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of marxism, being unable or unwilling to put it into practice, it converts the living, revolutionary principles of marxism into lifeless, meaningless formulas. It does not base its activities on experience, on what practical work teaches, but on quotations from Marx. It does not derive its instructions and directions from an analysis of living reality, but from analogies and historical parallels. Discrepancy between word and deed is the chief malady of this group. Hence the disillusionment and perpetual grudge against fate, which time and again lets it down and makes a ‚dupe‘ of it. The name for this group is menshevism (in Russia), opportunism (in Europe). […]

The second group, on the contrary, shifts the centre of gravity of of the question from the outward acceptance of marxism to its realization, its application in practice. What this group chiefly concentrates its attention on is determining the ways and means of realizing marxism that best answer the situation, and changing these ways and means as the situation changes. It does not derive its directions and instructions from historical analogies and parallels, but from the study of surrounding conditions. It does not base its activities on quotations and maxims, but on practical experience, testing every step by experience, learning from its mistakes and teaching others how to build a new life. That, in fact, explains why there is no discrepancy between word and deed in the activities of this group, and why the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force. To this group may be fully applied Marx‘s saying that marxists cannot rest content with interpreting the world but must go further and change it. The name for this group is bolshevism, communism.“

J. V. Stalin

All marxist-leninist-maoists in the world have a duty to assume Gonzalo thought, the universally valid guiding thought of the proletarian world revolution in the present moment, as imperialism has entered its final around 50 years of existence. It is decisive to creatively apply Gonzalo thought to found/refound the communist parties and initiate the people‘s war, by also making a correct and justified evaluation of the specifications, contributions and also (as a subordinate aspect) mistakes of Chairman Gonzalo. This is completely necessary.

Without Gonzalo thought, it will not be possible to achieve victory in the people‘s war in any country today, except if truly extraordinary circumstances were to exist. Without integrating Gonzalo thought into the guiding thought of each revolution, they will inevitably fail, and despite the death of imperialism in the next around 50 years, those countries where Gonzalo thought is not applied will be converted into reactionary, capitalist enclaves.

There are those in the current international communist movement, or rather, those who act within it, who believe that the revolution can succeed without Gonzalo thought, that it is only a matter of „universally valid contributions“; we ask these people, what is the main thing in Gonzalo thought? The contributions or the specifications? Clearly, it is the contributions, the main of which is the synthesis and definition of maoism as the new, third and higher stage of marxism. Others include the militarization of the communist party, concentric construction of the three instruments of the revolution, unified people‘s war, the deepened grasp of bureaucratic capitalism, dialectics, fascism and other questions, and the reaffirmation of the universality of the protracted people‘s war, a thesis by Chairman Mao often forgotten, even by those claiming to be „maoists“.5

When these contributions constitute the main aspect, the decisive part, i.e. the essence of Gonzalo thought, then who is to claim that Gonzalo thought is not universal, and it is only a matter of „some“ universally valid contributions? Clearly not; Gonzalo thought occupies a position equivalent to that of the ideas of Stalin in the 1930s to ‘50s and Engels in the 1880s and ‘90s. Gonzalo thought and maoism are inseperable, just as the thought of Stalin and Engels was inseperable from leninism and marxism respectively.

Concerning those who traffick with maoism, with Gonzalo thought and with the people‘s wars — they are enemies of the working class. They are the vilest revisionists, precisely because they choose not to act openly, but to disguise themselves as the reddest communists in the world — pulling every lever in order to prevent their character from being exposed. Communists don‘t hide or obscure their views.

Let us remember Lenin‘s words:

The relatively ‚peaceful‘ character of the period between 1871 and 1914 served to foster opportunism first as a mood, then as a trend, until finally it formed a group or stratum among the labour bureaucracy and petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers. These elements were able to gain control of the labour movement only by paying lip-service to revolutionary aims and revolutionary tactics. They were able to win the confidence of the masses only by their protestations that all this ‚peaceful‘ work served to prepare the proletarian revolution. This contradiction was a boil which just had to burst, and burst it has. Here is the question: is it worth trying, as Kautsky and Co. are doing, to force the pus back into the body for the sake of ‚unity‘ (with the pus), or should the pus be removed as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, regardless of the pang of pain caused by the process, to help bring about the complete recovery of the body of the labour movement?“6

Our 1st Plenum has resolved to never end the struggle against revisionism, which is the main danger for the communists, no matter what it may cost:

We express our deepest and most burning class hatred for all revisionism. We will sweep it away with revolutionary violence, in the ultimate analysis with people‘s war until communism. We will unmask […] all revisionism […] before the revolutionist proletariat, keeping in mind that our class is an international class, that our struggle does not end at national borders.“7

Away with illusions, away with sectarianism, away with revisionism — only Gonzalo thought can teach us how to apply maoism creatively to our conditions, identifying, retaking and developing or establishing the guiding thought of our parties and revolutions, so the world people‘s war can develop and smash imperialism forever. But it demands that we struggle and go over the heads of many of those revisionists who have already expelled themselves from the international communist movement, but who persist in it; they can hide for a short while, but not forever. They will be found and they will be hanged.

July 2021



All revolutions, in their process of development, through the struggle of the proletariat as the leading class and, above all, the struggle of the communist party that raises their unrenounceable class interests, give rise to a group of great leaders and mainly one who represents and leads it, a Great Leader with acknowledged authority and influence. In our reality this has taken shape, on account of historical necessity and coincidence, in Chairman Gonzalo, great leader of the party and the revolution.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru

The present document has been produced for studies in the CPS(RF) on the question of guiding thought, which is an integral part of the marxist-leninist-maoist-Gonzalo thought, mainly Gonzalo thought, world outlook of the development of marxism.

Consider the following outline of the development of marxism:

Marxism. It was founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, mainly Marx. It develops through the following stages: 1) Ideas of Marx and Engels, pre-1845. 2) Marx thought, 1845-64. 3) Marx thought (as the guiding thought of the proletarian world revolution, or not yet synthesized marxism), 1864-77. 4) Marxism, synthesized in 1877-80 by Engels („Anti-Dühring“) and defined as: „[…] the fundamental proposition, which forms [the] nucleus [of the ‚Manifesto of the Communist Party‘], belongs to Marx. That proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, now-a-days, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class struggles.“ 5) Marxism-Engels thought (as the guiding thought of the proletarian world revolution), 1880-95.

Leninism. It was generated by V. I. Lenin. It develops through the following stages: 1) Marxism, Lenin thought, 1893-1912. 2) Marxism-Lenin thought, 1912-24. 3) Marxism-leninism, synthesized in 1924 by Stalin („The Foundations of Leninism“) and defined as: „Leninism is marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.“ (4) Marxism-Stalin thought, 1924-53.

Maoism. It was generated by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. It develops through the following stages: 1) Marxism-leninism, Mao Tse-tung thought, 1926-56. 2) Marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought, 1956-76. 3) Marxism-leninism-maoism, defined in 1982 and synthesized in 1988 by Chairman Gonzalo („On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism“) and defined as: „And what is maoism? Maoism is the elevation of marxism-leninism to a new, third, and higher stage in the struggle for proletarian leadership of the democratic revolution, the development of the construction of socialism and the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat as proletarian cultural revolution; when imperialism deepens its decomposition and revolution has become the main tendency of history, amidst the most complex and largest wars seen to date and the implacable struggle against contemporary revisionism.“ 4) Marxism-leninism-maoism, Gonzalo thought, 1988-92. 5) Marxism-leninism-maoism-Gonzalo thought, 1992-.

Keeping this in mind, continue with the fragments from the works of Chairman Gonzalo and Comrade Feliciano.



All revolutions, in their process of development, through the struggle of the proletariat as the leading class and, above all, the struggle of the communist party that raises their unrenounceable class interests, generate a group of leaders and principally one who represents and leads it, a Great Leader with acknowledged authority and rising influence. In our reality this has materialized, on account of historical necessity and causality, in Chairman Gonzalo, great leader of the party and of the revolution.

Moreover, and this is the basis upon which all great leadership is formed, revolutions give rise to a thought that guides them, the result of the application of the universal truth of the ideology of the international proletariat to the concrete conditions of each revolution; a guiding thought indispensable to reach victory and to conquer political power and, moreover, to continue the revolution and to maintain the course always towards the only, great goal: communism; a guiding thought that, arriving at a qualitative leap of decisive importance for the revolutionary process which it leads, becomes identified with the name of the one who shaped it theoretically and practically. In our situation, this phenomenon specified itself first as guiding thought, then as Chairman Gonzalo‘s guiding thought, and later, as Gonzalo thought; because it is the Chairman who, creatively applying marxism-leninism-maoism to the concrete conditions of Peruvian reality, has generated it; thus endowing the party and the revolution with an indispensable weapon that is the guarantee of victory.

Gonzalo thought has been forged through long years of intense, tenacious, and incessant struggle to uphold, defend and apply marxism-leninism-maoism, to retake Mariátegui‘s path and to develop it, to refound the party and principally to initiate, maintain and develop the people‘s war in Peru serving the world revolution, and that marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism, become in theory and practice its sole command and guide.

It is of substantive necessity for the party to study Gonzalo thought for a more just and correct understanding of the general political line, and principally of the military line, aiming at deepening the understanding of the particularities of the Peruvian revolution, what is specific and particular that Chairman Gonzalo has masterfully emphasized. In this way we serve the Great Plan to Develop Support Bases, the development of the people‘s war and the perspective of conquering political power countrywide.

We must study Gonzalo thought, starting from the historical context that generated it; examine the ideological base which sustains it; precisely specify its content, more substantially expressed in the general political line and in the military line that is its center; aiming at what is fundamental within it, the problem of power, of the seizure of power here in Peru, which is inextricably linked to the conquest of power by the proletariat in the whole world; and we must pay close attention to its forging in the two-line struggle.

In synthesis, these fundamental questions can be dealt with by applying the following outline:


a. International Context

In relationship to historical events: 1) the development since the 2nd World War onwards; 2) the powerful national liberation movement and, within it, the process and triumph of the Chinese revolution; 3) the Cuban Revolution and its repercussion on Latin America; 4) the great struggle between marxism and revisionism; 5) the GPCR. But the key point is to see how, in this great class struggle on the world level, Gonzalo thought considers that a third stage of the proletarian ideology arises: First, as marxism-leninism, Mao Tse-tung thought; then marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought; and later, it is defined as maoism, understanding its universal validity; and in this way reaching marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism, as the current expression of marxism.

b. National Context

1) The postwar Peruvian society and within it the political struggle, the so-called National Democratic Front, the action of APRA, Odría‘s State coup and the struggle against his eight year rule, the contention between APRA followers and communists; and particularly, the development of bureaucratic capitalism in the 1960s and part of the 1970s and the sharp class struggle that accompanied it; „Velasquism“ and its so-called revolution, the contention and collusion between the comprador bourgeoisie and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie (factions of the big bourgeoisie), and with opportunism and mainly revisionism as supporters; 2) the class struggle in the peasant movement; 3) the process of the working class movement; 4) the intellectual movement; 5) the armed struggle in the country, especially by the MIR8 and the ELN9 in 1965, as well as their antecedents in Blanco, Vallejos, and Heraud; and 6) the problem of the party: How a party founded on a clear marxist-leninist basis degenerated into a revisionist party, the necessity to retake Mariátegui‘s path, develop it, and to refound the party, the CPP that Mariátegui himself founded in 1928, and how through this refounding a marxist-leninist-maoist party was built. Here it is fundamental how Gonzalo thought profoundly understood Peruvian society, and focusing on the crucial problem of bureaucratic capitalism, saw the necessity to refound the party and to conquer power and defend it with people‘s war.


Without marxism-leninism-maoism, Gonzalo thought cannot be conceived, because the latter is the creative application of the former to our reality. The key question on this point lies in the understanding of the historical process of the development of the proletarian ideology, of its three stages shaped into marxism-leninism-maoism and with maoism as the main one; and, essentially, it is the application of marxism-leninism-maoism as a universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Peruvian revolution; hence Gonzalo thought is specifically principal for the CPP and the revolution it leads.

The guiding thought, having reached a qualitative leap of decisive importance for the party and the revolution, has evolved into Gonzalo thought, thus stamping a milestone in the party’s life.


a. Theory

How it understands and applies the three integral parts of marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism; emphasizing the importance that marxism gives to philosophy, the necessity of shaping ourselves within it, and especially its application of the law of contradiction in the study of every problem, always aiming at defining the main aspect and the process of things; in political economy, the concern about the relations of exploitation, and most especially about bureaucratic capitalism, orienting itself towards the ripening of the revolution and the repercussion of the people‘s war on the base, as well as paying attention to the economic relations of imperialism, looking for their political consequences; in scientific socialism it centers on the people‘s war and its concretization in the country, since it always has the problem of power in mind and, particularly, its formation and development as a new State.

b. On the Contents

The most substantive and developed part of Gonzalo Thought is found in the party‘s general political line; this thought directly sustains, therefore, the line and its five elements, with the point of departure of this being how it understands and maintains the course of the programme.

c. Highlights

In Gonzalo thought we must highlight the notable fulfillment of the demands stated by Chairman Mao: theoretical solidity, an understanding of history, and a good practical handling of politics.


What is fundamental in Gonzalo thought is the question of power; concretely, the conquest of political power in Peru, wholly and completely throughout the country, as a consequential application of the universal truth of marxism-leninism-maoism to our revolution. But being a communist thought, it understands the conquest of political power in Peru as a part of the conquest of power for the proletariat on a world level; and that the conquest of power in the country, shaping itself today in the people‘s committees, support bases, and the People‘s Republic of New Democracy in formation within the perspective of establishing the People‘s Republic of Peru, serves to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, because without it, it is impossible to march towards communism. And all of this as a function of firmly and decisively serving the setting up of people’s republics and principally the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the whole world, under the leadership of Communist Parties, with revolutionary armies of a new type, through people‘s war and the development of cultural revolutions, so that communism may illuminate all of the Earth.


It is through a persistent, firm, and sagacious two-line struggle, defending the proletarian line and defeating the opposing lines that Gonzalo thought has been forged. Among the most outstanding struggles that deserve to be emphasized are those waged against modern revisionism, represented here by Del Prado and his henchmen; those against the Right-liquidationism of Paredes and his gang; those against „Left“-liquidationism headed by the one who was called Sergio and his self-proclaimed „Bolsheviks“; and against the Right-opportunist line that opposed the initiation of the armed struggle. Without struggle, Gonzalo thought could not have been developed; and its remarkable handling of the two-line struggle within the party is a fundamental question which we must study and learn.

To study and principally to apply Gonzalo thought is decisive in order to better serve the party, the development of the people‘s war and the proletarian world revolution. Likewise, to learn from Chairman Gonzalo is decisive in order to wholeheartedly serve the people.

From the Fundamental Documents of the
Communist Party of Peru, as sanctioned
by the 1st Congress in 1988-89.


Chairman Gonzalo’s specifications in the general political line and contributions to the world revolution:

Without marxism-leninism-maoism, Gonzalo thought cannot be conceived, because it is the creative application of marxism-leninism-maoism to our reality. The key question in this point is the understanding of the historical development of the ideology of the proletariat, of its three stages shaped into marxism-leninism-maoism, with maoism as the main one. And in essence, mainly, the application of marxism-leninism-maoism as universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Peruvian revolution. Hence Gonzalo thought is specifically main for the Communist Party of Peru and the revolution it leads.

[…] The most substantial and developed part of Gonzalo thought is found in the Party’s general political line. This thought directly sustains the line and its five elements, since it is the point of departure of this sustainance how it understands and firmly maintains the course of the programme.

[…] To study and mainly to apply Gonzalo thought is decisive in order to serve the Party, the development of the people‘s war and the proletarian world revolution more and better. Thus it is decisive to learn from Chairman Gonzalo to wholeheartedly serve the people.“10


a. Struggle to impose maoism as the new, third and higher stage of marxism.

b. World people‘s war as response to imperialist world war.

c. The fundamental contradictions and their solution: The main contradiction.

d. The three moments of the world revolution: strategic offensive of the world revolution.

e. Develop bases for strategy and tactics in the world revolution.

f. The process of marxism.

g. Definition of the total and complete bankruptcy of contemporary revisionism.

h. Combat imperialism, revisionism and world reaction inseparably and implacably.


a. How the Peruvian revolution is perceived: democratic revolution, socialist revolution and proletarian cultural revolution until communism (expounded as the third type of revolution).

b. Generalization of bureaucratic capitalism.

c. The character of Peruvian society, its fundamental contradictions and the main contradiction.

d. On the State: old State and new State.

e. The essence of the democratic revolution: peasant war led by the Communist Party by means of the people‘s war.


a. Reaffirmation of the principle of revolutionary violence as an universal law, concretized in people‘s war.

b. Unified people‘s war and the importance of the initiation.

c. Specification of the support bases.

d. Strategic development. Strategic plan of development.

e. The five parts of a campaign.

f. The five steps of an action.

g. The strategic-operational plans.

h. Mass work through the people‘s army.


a. Principle of construction.

b. Militarization of the Communist Parties and the concentric construction.

c. Construction of the People‘s Guerrilla Army. Incorporation of the militia.

d. The rural front: new State (people‘s committees, support bases and People‘s Democratic Republic in formation towards the People‘s Republic of Peru). The urban front, Revolutionary Movement in Defense of the People.

e. The six forms of the new power: organizational committee of the people‘s power, people‘s committees of dual power, people‘s committees, open people‘s committees and people‘s struggle committees.

f. Militancy: Communists first and foremost, combatants and administrators.

g. Strategy of Construction.


a. Reaffirmation of the principle The masses make history!“ and To rebel is justified!.

b. The specific weight of the masses in the world revolution (serves to define the main contradiction in the world).

c. Mass work in and for the people‘s war. The countryside. Leadership in the cities.

d. The struggle for daily demands serving the power.

e. The generated organizations, militarized in the countryside and specification in the cities.

f. Law of incorporation of the masses in the people‘s war.

g. The only marxist-leninist-maoist, Gonzalo thought tactic.

h. Scientific organization of poverty.

i. The sea of armed masses.

February 1994


From the work session of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Peru,
held in August 1993.


We must bear in mind who the documents are aimed at, we are not in Europe, we are in Peru, you must bear this in mind. Marx‘s circumstances when he had to establish was one thing, that is why ‚Capital‘ has three volumes plus the two on surplus value, five. Marx said through Engels that it should not be more than five parts, we should not be guided by different publications but what Marx elaborated. Or Lenin‘s circumstances, if you think about the Bolshevik Party, you find that this party waged a great moment of ideological struggle, a long time, carried out among people with a broad marxist formation, cosmopolitan elements, several of them spoke several languages and it was an intellectuality that as such debated on that level, that is why we have Lenin‘s works as they are written. If you compare the texts of Comrade Stalin, they are already much more concrete, and if we take the works of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, they are extremely profound, very simple and very clear and do not go into many ins and outs; but if you carefully follow the exposition by the Chairman in his works, you understand clearly what he wants to tell us. So you must take into account the concrete conditions in which you operate, and to not have them present is wrong.“

Chairman Gonzalo
1st Congress


The first two paragraphs of the document „On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism“ tell us literally:

In the furnace of class struggle, the ideology of the international proletariat emerged as marxism, afterwards developed into marxism-leninism and later marxism-leninism-maoism. Therefore, the scientific ideology of the proletariat, all-powerful because it is true, has three stages or landmarks in its dialectical process of development: 1) marxism, 2) leninism, and 3) raoism. These three stages are part of the same unity which began with the ‚Communist Manifesto‘ 140 years ago, with the heroic epic of the class struggle, in fierce and fruitful two-line struggles within the Communist Parties themselves and in the work of the titans of thought and action that only the working class could generate. Today, three unfading lights are outstanding: Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung who, through three grand leaps have armed us with the invincible ideology of marxism-leninism-maoism, which today is mainly maoism.

Nevertheless, while marxism-leninism has obtained an acknowledgment of its universal validity, maoism is not completely acknowledged as the third stage. Some simply deny its condition as such, while others only accept it as ‚Mao Tse-tung thought‘. In essence, both positions, with the obvious differences between them, deny the general development of marxism made by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The denial of the ‚-ism‘ character of maoism denies its universal validity and, consequently, its condition as the third, new, and higher stage of the ideology of the international proletariat: marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism, that we uphold, defend, and apply.“

We would like to emphasize some points which deserve a small foundation, but we do not intend to make big foundations, not because marxism does not have them, but because we have to keep in mind who the documents are addressed to.


a. The Ideology of the International Proletariat

The quotation begins with the first question, which is the „ideology of the international proletariat“, its definition is understood.

Ideology, because there are those who speak of science as opposed to marxist ideology, forgetting that our ideology is scientific. When Engels dealt with the problem of ideology in his famous letters from ‘90 to ‘95 of the last century, he told us that all classes before the proletariat had an inverted reflection of reality. What does this mean? Like the camera obscura, it inverts the figure, it puts the head on its feet and vice versa. In this way, every non-proletarian ideology twists reality, deforms it and therefore cannot understand the essence of reality, cannot understand the truth as it is, cannot grasp the contradiction as it is. Therefore, non-proletarian ideologies are deformations, they are not scientific and there is one root, it is very concrete: they are based on exploitation. Or, in order to generalize and encompass them all, they are sustained by the private property of the means of production, while the proletariat is not sustained by the property of the means of production or by exploitation, its historical mission is precisely to destroy private property of the means of production in order to sweep away all existing exploitation and differences.

b. The Ideology of the International Proletariat is Scientific

We must claim the term ideology in the understanding that our ideology is that of the international proletariat and that only this ideology, not that of any other class, is scientific. Yes, it is scientific, but that does not take away its character of ideology. When you insist on replacing the term ideology with scientific or science, you sump into bourgeois criteria, into bourgeois philosophy centered on the theory of knowledge, that is basically it. In the 1960s, we saw again very clearly these concerns in the approaches of the French revisionist Althusser, he was the one who insisted in this problem. But what was the basis of it? He stated that the ideology of the proletariat was not scientific and the essence of his thought, of the thought of this revisionist — we must not forget what he is — according to him is to foolishly distort the history of the sciences. Althusser thought that marxism, condensed according to his revisionist criteria only into scientific socialism, was a new science which had not been philosophically founded, and that he was going to make that scientific foundation. Thus, he accused Marx of having created scientific socialism as a new science, but of not having given it its doctrinal, philosophical foundations, to be precise. That is the basis of that criterion. If you analyze the works of this individual, you find that he proposed that the foundation of marxism carried a fusion of Spinoza‘s materialism — Spinoza was a Jewish philosopher expelled from Spain, whose tfamily ended up in the Netherlands at the time; Spinoza was a great philosopher at his time and for his time, he was a materialist at the beginning of the bourgeoisie. Althusser considered that the foundation of marxism had to be made by fusing spinozaism with kantianism, which is another bourgeois philosophy. There you can see his nefarious position. In essence, what does it imply? A re-edition of the theses of the old revisionists, such as Kautsky, who maintained that marxism had no philosophy and that marxist philosophy was kantianism; that is to say, it put bourgeois philosophy as the basis of our world outlook, which is agnosticism or an inability to understand.

c. The Ideology of the International Proletariat Is the World Outlook of the Proletariat — It Is the Ideology of the Last Class in History, Whose Understanding Is Scientific

We need to be clear about the implications of that. See, you take one word and there‘s a whole background. That is why there is the equidistant „ideology of the international proletariat“ to express the world outlook of the proletariat, the last class in history, whose understanding of the world is scientific. That is what we must know in concrete terms. Why the above? So it can be seen that there is a whole foundation in Marx, in Engels, there is a deep understanding, and so you can see what it means to insist repeatedly on certain terms, believing that they will thus raise marxism up, when at the bottom they are bastard concessions to the bourgeoisie, and this must make us think that we cannot simply repeat all the ideologies that are swarming; first, because it falls into easy snobbery — it is called snobbery to go after the new, fashion, as a lot of intellectuals do. We, then, have to go to the core of things and grasp the substantive things and have a high critical spirit to judge many or all of the things that are written in the world about our world outlook. You might ask, what does world outlook mean? It is the understanding of everything that exists, that means understanding of the material world, understanding of the class struggle, that is, the social world, and it means understanding of knowledge as a reflection of matter in the mind, which is another form of matter. That means world outlook. What have I just done? Put Marx‘s definition of dialectics forward, omitting only the reference to laws.

d. It Is More than 2.500 Years of Knowledge Which Have Been Reworked From the Position and Interests of the International Proletariat

Our ideas of the international proletariat are therefore the product of a very high level of elaboration, they are more than 2.500 years of knowledge which have been reworked from the position and interests of the international proletariat, that is our prosthesis, that is our background: 2.500 years! That is why we always laugh when some cretins and pretend geniuses say that Marxism has no foundations, that it is something frozen. They don‘t know what they are talking about! That could be repeated by an ignoramus from head to toe. Many things can be written and said, the saying is correct: „Paper doesn‘t blush“, and stupidity is impudent. This is what we face when we speak about the ideology of the international proletariat: the elaboration — I repeat — of more than 2.500 years of Western thought, because in that field it has developed without diminishing its universal validity, and elaborated from the position and interests of the working class, of the proletariat, which is its strictest name; strictly speaking, it is called proletariat, and it is international because it is one class, so we only have one ideology.

e. What Is Insurgency?

The quotation also says: insurgió. What is insurgió? It is linked to insurgency, isn‘t it? It is a combative, revolutionary rupture, that is what it means. You see, the term is not for pleasure. Sometimes when you read, you read very quickly or write very quickly. So you have to repair, know how to read and study and think. The brevity of the documents precisely moves the comrades to think, to develop the initiative of understanding in order to be able to transform.

f. Why Is the Ideology of the Proletariat All-Powerful?

In the quotation it is said that it is all-powerful. Of course it is all-powerful because it is true, Lenin‘s thesis proved to be true.

g. There are Three Stages of a Dialectical Process of Development of the Ideology of the Proletariat

The three stages. The document says stages, moments or milestones, but one is the more precise term and the one we use: stages; then moments or milestones are equivalent, but one is the one that expresses it. In the end, in no language and not in ours either is there any term or word which is identical to another, they can have similar, but not identical content.

We make a big statement here which is essential: there are three stages, first marxism, second leninism, third maoism, that is how it is defined. But notice that it says stages of a dialectical process of development, of course, it is a dialectical process of development. Why is it that way? Because it is a process of knowledge, a reflection in the mind, a reflection of matter in the mind and matter in movement, dialectical, knowledge is so and not by simple method as some say, but by essence, that is another mania. Methodologism is another concession to bourgeois philosophy. Is it used sometimes? Yes, but never do marxists oppose our world outlook and even less reduce it to a simple methodology. It is a crass error to get entangled in the theory of knowledge. None of them, neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor the Chairman did it; if they talk about methods, they never refer to reducing all of marxism to a simple methodological question, it would lose its quality of world outlook; because world outlook has the method as a component, as a derivation; in the end, method is procedure, nothing else. That is why it is important to have a dialectical process, because reality itself does, its laws are correctly grasped through practice, because it is impossible to have knowledge without practice, it cannot be; precisely separating theory from practice is another concession to the bourgeoisie, it is a strictly bourgeois idea, in our case of the narrow empiricism of the 18th Century. These are the things that are at the basis of our criteria as Communists.

h. The „Manifesto of the Communist Party“ of 1848 Is the First Milestone On Which the Great Entirety of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Is Built

It is a starting point of the party. The „Manifesto“, it is 140 years since its appearance. Before there were attempts, precursors, if any; in Marx‘s and Engels‘ own work, we have their participation in the Communist League, but that Communist League was a jumble of different ideas, it was not a clear expression of the proletariat. It is only with the „Manifesto of the Communist Party“, which is its full name, that for the first time the communists put forward their position and programme, and it is the starting point, the milestone or first stone on which our entire edifice is built, the great entirety of marxism-leninism-maoism; it is the „Manifesto“ which remains a valid flag until communism, not as Khrushchev said, that it had finished its mission with the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) of 1961, taking away our class position and introducing a rotten bourgeois world outlook, a complete and comprehensive revision of marxism as a whole. Therefore, the „Manifesto“ is our starting point, the first milestone; a milestone because it will last thousands of years, and when there is communism, it will still be considered as the great beginning which led to the new humanity.

i. Only the Class Struggle Can Generate Our World Outlook, Our Ideology

It says that it is a heroic epic of class struggle, of course, only class struggle can generate our world outlook, our ideology; only the proletariat with its great and incessant transformation of material reality in its productive practice or in the class struggle, the center of which is politics, as the conquest and defense of power for the class by overthrowing other powers, only as a practice of research, could the class, generating titans of thought and action, shape itself as the great ideology which we always uphold and will uphold. What is behind this titans of thought and action“? It is linked to „three unfading lights: Marx, Lenin and Mao Tse-tung“, a chain of mountains not only has big heights, there are also small summits, medium summits, but there are very high peaks. Traditionally, it has always stood out and we also recognize the work of Engels; Engels is a founder of marxism. Moreover, if we go into these things, it was Engels who first established an outline for understanding the basis of society, the relations of exploitation, that is to say, political economy, it was him, as Marx himself recognized. But it was Marx, with the wonderful talent and capacity for action which he had, who shaped the first great summit, especially recognized by Engels; it was Engels who proposed that Marx should found the new ideology. It was Engels who developed or handled the philosophical part of marxism more. The reason, Marx did not have the time to do it; he said that he was working to elaborate a treatise on dialectics, and unfortunately he did not manage to complete it; there we would have had a great work. But in short, comrades, there were things which were more urgent, he did not have the time.

We also recognize Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin was a great marxist-leninist. Did he commit mistakes? Yes, but he never sold the revolution. He made mistakes, he lacked understanding; as the Chairman taught us, his mistakes began with an insufficient understanding of dialectics, from remnants of metaphysics, from this derives the problems of Comrade Stalin; but nobody can deny his enormous role, nor can anybody take away his condition of great leader of the international proletariat for decades, facing for the first time the construction of socialism, without precedent, nor the great effort he led in the 2nd World War. He has contributions, of course he has them, we cannot deny them and must know how to value them. So there are already five of them, the three added up to five; but it is a pleiad, a considerable group of great figures, of titans of thought and action. So this is enclosed. Why have we not listed them? To make it clear that there are three great figures: Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, that is the reason.

j. And How Will Our Ideology Develop as a Dialectical Process?

Our ideology will develop as a dialectical process through great leaps; therefore, the document says through great leaps and three great, of course, three great qualitative leaps: Marx, Lenin, Chairman Mao Tse-tung. But these three great qualitative leaps could not be understood without other big, medium and even small leaps and with these incessant leaps which we do not consider as such because of their elementary magnitude.

That is the fact, that is what this first paragraph implies, all that is its background. It is in this way that a great dialectical process, then, generated by the proletariat producing men that only the class can produce, that we have arrived at marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism. This is how it should be seen. What are we demonstrating once more? There is a whole background of foundation.


a. Not Recognizing „-ism“, not Recognizing „Maoism“.

Marxism-leninism is recognized as having universal validity, but maoism is not fully recognized as the third stage. It is clearly said: Some simply deny its condition as such, i.e. third stage; others only reach Mao Tse-tung thought. In essence, what is behind these two positions within the proletariat, within marxism? We are not talking about reaction, it is within the marxists today, even marxist-leninists, what exists? In essence, not recognizing the „-ism“, not recognizing „maoism“. The „-ism“ has a clear meaning; „thought“ is nothing but a set of ideas, nothing else, while the „-ism“ is a doctrine that interprets all matter in its different ways of expression, which are the three above mentioned: nature, society, knowledge — stop counting, there is nothing else.

b. It Is a Doctrine, not a System

I said „doctrine“. I stress, I did not say „system“. If you say „system“, you would be making a big mistake. Engels already expressly analyzed this point, but some people who use „system“ make a grave error, the correct thing to say is „doctrine“, understanding it as we have just specified it. The innovative mania, is it good? No, it goes against the unique language and there are things that are established in a party way, to have a unique language, that expresses therefore a party maturity, its own language; the rest, the people already express themselves according to the social conformation and the development that each one has, on that we could not center any more. Do you understand? We cannot enter, they are already the peculiarities of each person. But we have to serve to establish a unique language, let us leave aside the superfluous manias of originality, because at the end of the day, originality is not expressed in terms, it is expressed in discovering new realities, small, medium or big. Is that clear? The originality, that is useless, undermines the unique language and therefore the consolidation, the unification. What did many foreigners and even many of the Chinese comrades say? They said: It is enough to listen to one Chinese person to listen to all Chinese people. What did they want? Each Chinese to have their own line? False originality, that is not originality; originality is the discovery of new things, not the use of terminology, less snobbery, we must guard against snobbery and the intelligentsia is a source of snobbery, of terminology that confuses the language, confuses our unified understanding, apart from the fact that they miserably destroy the language which we speak which is an element in the shaping of the nation. Marxism is not a fashion problem; there is no room for these useless fumes.

Marxist philosophy is the basis of our world outlook, it is the core of ideology, of course, that is why we cannot neglect it. Lenin drew the great lesson when he said: For a time, I thought that philosophy was a question of the specialists of the party in this problem, but the struggle made me understand that philosophy cannot be left in the hands of the specialists because philosophy is the very basis of the party.“ And you cannot fight against revisionism if you don‘t grasp marxist philosophy, and marxist philosophy cannot be split into dialectical materialism on the one hand and materialism applied to the social world on the other hand. No, Comrades, this is a big mistake! Although it was Marx who solved the problem of understanding the social world, he did it by applying dialectical materialism; therefore, it is nothing but the dialectical-materialist understanding of society, nothing else, however new it may be. It is a radically new and different creation, so what is new and different is not only the application to the social world. Why do I say this? The bourgeoisie in the 18th Century, through Diderot — that French character — developed mechanical materialism to its highest level and came to intuit the contradiction, to sense it, but never to understand it. Materialism is very old, comrades, as well as dialectics, they are parallel, contemporary in origin, they are older than 2.550 years in the West, we owe them to the Greeks. But it was Marx who took the idea as a derivation of matter, fusing dialectics with matter, who gave the great transformation generating the new philosophy, the exhaustive and complete philosophy; not in a closed sense, that is why we cannot talk about a system, a system implies a closed circle and knowledge is a spiral, everybody remembers what a spiral is, it is not a closed circle and nor are the circles that form the spiral closed, it is not true, they are not.

c. So it Is the Essential Point, it Is the „-ism“

We are told, for example, what is the difference between Mao Tse-tung thought and maoism? If the same truths are held or defended, why fight for that term? It is not simply a problem of the term; what is at stake is whether it has universal validity or not, and if it is an „-ism“, then it has it, and if it is not an „-ism“, then it does not. That is the problem, so it is not a problem of terminology, is it? Well, if things were like that, then it would be identical, so why don‘t we then say „the ideology of the international proletariat: Marx thought-Lenin thought-Mao Tse-tung thought“? Why don‘t we say that if it is identical? It would be logical. Then, why should we use marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought? If it is the same, then let us say Marx-Lenin-Mao Tse-tung thought. Would it be correct? Deeply absurd, it would be to deny its universal character. What is the aim? To deny the universality of Chairman Mao Tse-tung‘s development, that is it. That is why we say that these two positions are basically against the same, in essence; with differences, of course they have them, because one thing is only to reach marxism-leninism, and another thing is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP-USA) having reached the previous further Mao Tse-tung thought; but in essence, it is the same, and here what interests us are the substantive questions, the essential.

As for the introduction. As comrades know well, this document is based on what the Central Committee aired in ‘82 and ‘84 in a general way, complete, the whole problem means and specifically aired on many occasions in the party. From the beginning, we have used an introduction taking two questions: an accurate thesis of the great Lenin and a great defense of leninism done by Comrade Stalin. That is why Stalin cannot be denied or condemned to hell. Because the fact that he said that we were entering leninism and that he defended it as he did and imposed it on the world is enough merit, or do you think it was not enough?

We have taken these two issues. Here what deserves explanation is what Lenin said: as the revolution goes into the East, it expresses specific conditions. These are not strictly the words of the great Lenin, but his idea. He was telling us: the revolution in Russia expresses particularities, apart from the fact that it takes place in a very specific situation: the 1st World War, the final part of it, the defeat of tsarism at the hands of Germany, the unsatisfied needs of the peasant who was asking for land in a country that, although it was a prison of peoples because it had reached imperialism, had a wide feudal base that Lenin masterfully synthesizes by saying „land concentrated in very few hands and a huge mass with few or no lands“, without going into figures which he handles extraordinarily. In this way he tells us: the revolution in Russia does not deny the truth established by Marx as the law of the revolution. He does not deny it, what he is doing is simply seeing the peculiarities, the specifics; and he says that the revolution, as it goes into the East, shows that peculiarity, whether we like it or not, that is so. The incomprehension of European social-democracy, of the European opportunists, mercenary writers of the European reactionaries, condemned that revolution, they even called it reactionary, non-marxist. Brave defenders of marxism! What, then, did they say about that revolution? It is an Eastern despotism, as it has always been seen in the East, and with that, they had already solved the problem. They said: a mass of ignorant people, how can they make a socialist revolution? That is what they said, abounding in their „arguments“. How did the great Lenin respond? „In what text is it that we must first educate before conquering power for the class, before establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, in what document is it? Is it expressly forbidden in Marx or Engels for one to conquer power and then educate? There is no such prohibition, so what are you crying about?“ This is how he puts it. What happens is that those who are burdened by bourgeois liberalism do not understand the new and how it is expressed, because if we are going to talk about it, what proletarian revolution have they made? The Europeans are clucking a lot, the imperialist countries or the so-called advanced countries are clucking a lot, and they say that the mistake of the revolution is that it has taken place in backward peripheral areas such as Russia and China. Well, where has the proletarian revolution been made in the West? When has it been made? Why has it not been made, if they are so enlightened? Because enlightened they are, we have to admit, they are, but it is not enough to make the revolution. The great Lenin, going deeper into this, was telling us: wait, you will see the revolution in the East and when you see it, your surprise will be huge, immense, you will fall back! — using our turn, that is: you are going to fall backwards! — Didn‘t he say that? Moreover, to the Comrades from the East, whom he gathered, what did Lenin put forward? We, he said, including him, know the revolution in the capitalist countries, but not in the backward countries under imperialist domination; that is your task, it is pending, you have to solve it without forgetting that you are communists and that you must organize as such, as a party, linked to the Communist International (CI). Were those not his words?

Why should this question be highlighted? Because it is obvious that the Chinese revolution which has been generated by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, through the proletariat itself, is taking place in the East, or is it not the East? Is what Lenin said fulfilled or not? Of course it is fulfilled! And from there, then, what is implied? That the same thing that happened to Lenin is happening to the Chairman: the usual cry of the „profound“ connoisseurs of marxism, of the intellectuals who are burdened with the bourgeois, parliamentary-cretinist feathers of the reaction.

As for Comrade Stalin, what was his work which interests us on this point? In Russia itself, it was said: leninism is true, but for Russia, because the core, the fundamental thing is the role of the peasantry. Comrade Stalin clearly, then, says: Consequently, it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, Lenin only rules in Russia and it is not universal, leninism is specifically Russian, and it is an infamy to say it, because Lenin was precisely the one who emphasized the importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he was. You will then say: But Marx already raised it. In marxism, any elementary history shows you that the great truths have to be reiterated from time to time because they are forgotten, covered with dust or simply negated; just like Lenin said, the great characters of history are turned into icons. An icon here in Peru is Mariátegui; incense is poured on him, nothing else. It was a hard fight in Russia, particularly against Zinoviev.

From this, we derive:

Today, maoism faces similar situations. All new things, like marxism, have always advanced through struggle, and similarly, maoism will impose itself and be acknowledged.“

As the Chairman said:

Marxism has never taken one step in life, except in the midst of struggle. Without it, it will never take a step.“

And a great qualitative leap, as great as he has given us, a new stage, will it be easily accepted? No, it has to be resisted, denied, questioned, interrogated, but behind all of these interrogations, there are positions of denial, reduction, minimalizing or whatever. But it is, that is what is interesting. Comrades, marxism gives us weapons! They have had the wisdom to arm us for the future and to answer our questions, questions that are being asked and will be asked in the future; they have armed us. That is the reason for the introduction, it has a meaning.

From the 1st Congress of the Communist
Party of Peru, convened in 1988-89.


„Concerning Gonzalo Thought“ has is an introductory part, although it is not expressed, it is an introduction and then there are five problems.

Let‘s look at this introductory part. It says: „All revolutions, in their process of development, through the struggle of the proletariat as the leading class and, above all, the struggle of the communist party that raises their unrenounceable class interests, give rise to a group of great leaders and mainly one who represents and leads it, a great leader with acknowledged authority and influence. In our reality this has taken shape, on account of historical necessity and coincidence, in Chairman Gonzalo, great leader of the Party and the revolution.“

It refers to great leaders and if we take into account what Lenin established in „‚Left-Wing‘ Communism: An Infatile Disorder“ in relation to masses, party and great leaders; but it is not as the comrades say that this is the thesis of Lenin, it is not so comrades, they have not read Lenin well, it is necessary to read Lenin well, to know him well. If you think carefully, here is specified the problem of revolution, ruling class (proletariat) and party, the three things he is specifying; that is what must be taken into account. We recommend comrades, we must read well, study and think, striving for the greatest objectivity in order to understand what the document says, not what one has in one‘s head; that what one has in one‘s head disturbs, understandable, but we have the need, the obligation to be objective, we must combat subjectivism, it is very important, therefore, pay attention to that, comrades. There are three questions that are invoked: revolution, proletarian leading class and party, the action of the three, that is what it says; these three questions generate great leaders.

Every process of whatever type, also a literary type, has great leaders, has heads, and these bosses do not arise in great numbers and it takes time for their forging; Lenin insisted on this, but this already comes from Marx and is further developed by the Chairman. It is a handful of great leadersthat a revolution generates in decades, what is generated in a greater quantity are leaders, an even greater quantity of cadres and a whole mass of militants.

In our party we have established many years ago a relationship between masses, cadres and leaders with a proportion; that proportion given the great growth of the party, of combatants and masses that work more closely with us has unbalanced that proportion and from there derives the need to worry a lot about increasing militancy but without forgetting a good selection, which is possible because having more access to the masses, there will be more candidates on which to select militants; we need to form cadres, these documents contribute to that formation and also to increase the number of leaders.

Comrades, think about the following: in ‘76 we calculated more or less the need, then, of about 75 leaders to make the party march, but the party today is many times bigger than it was in ‘76; and then think that we have an army and think that we have new power, please copy what I am saying, I do not believe that you have a great memory; comrades, some here believe that what is said is for nothing, then they do not know what to broadcast or they broadcast nonsense and they do it late and badly; we are in congress and the attention must be very high, we are all tired, understandable, but it does not count, the obligation counts; well, excuse this intermission but it is necessary, comrades if you compare that in ‘76 we needed 75 leaders, how many will we need today, do you understand? And mainly what, we need a Central Committee with an adequate number, and a good Central Committee, well versed in party politics; that has to make an effort to study the theory in the books or texts that the party indicates, not in others, comrades, because in that way we break the unitary formation that we must have; these are questions that we must think seriously. Any revolution that is seen shows that only in decades a number of great leaders are forged. If we think of the glorious Bolshevik Party, that of Lenin and Stalin, but mainly of Lenin who was its creator, its forger, think, we speak of great leaders and we have a Stalin, we have a Sverdlov, a Dzerzhinsky, a […] to highlight real great leaders, few; the Chinese revolution is similar.

But the main thing is that a great leader is generated, a single head that stands out clearly, far above the others, and that is what we have to understand and it is not by the will of anyone, it is the very reality of the revolution, of the class and of the party, which demand and promote this conformation. If we speak of a great leader, we have for example Marx, a notoriously outstanding great leader, a summit. If we speak of the great Lenin, there is another great leader of recognized authority and immense ascendancy; nobody could compare Stalin with all his merits and greatness, with the immensity of Lenin, nobody, and I reiterate, once again, Lenin did not have the specific position of general secretary because there was no such thing, it was – I repeat – that the general secretariat in the CPSU arose precisely by Lenin‘s own proposal, and in him is also expressed a glorious summit. Or in the case of China, Chairman Mao Tse-tung; obviously none of the great leaders generated by the Chinese revolution can equal Chairman Mao Tse-tung, none of them, and in him we also have a glorious summit.

These are the three greatest leaders of the world revolution, because that is their dimension; that they were also great leaders of their Parties and of their concrete revolution is subsidiary because the main thing is that they have been great leaders of the world revolution and have established for us, then, the great process of the development of marxism, shaping marxism-leninism-maoism. On another level, without pretending in any way to compare, there would be no reason, but to show that every revolution needs a head, think for example of Albania itself – I do not intend to relieve those figures but even in those revolutions there must be a head – Hoxha in Albania; Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam; Kim Il-Sung with all his rotten idea of reign, was the head, that is the problem. So it always happens, there is nothing strange about it, but it is a necessity; Engels already insisted on this and told us that even a literary movement has a head that represents it.

The problem lies in the definition of a great leadership with acknowledged authority and influence“. Are they unquestionable authorities? Yes, for the red line, but that they are questioned and denied, bread and butter.

Was not the leadership of Marx denied, questioned, and even vilified by a miserable creeping servant of the Tsar like Bakunin or by an „academic scholar“, full of ideas that he could not even manage to understand, like Dühring, who said that our glorious founder Marx, said that he was a Prussian soul and of a Chinese knowledge, so did not say that individual whose name is only remembered because it is in a work by Engels? Was Lenin questioned or not? Of course; how many times did Trotsky‘s gymnastics fight against Lenin, how many times did he deny him? One should not be fooled by that gross misrepresentation which proclaims that Trotsky was a leninist, Lenin himself described him as a menshevik gymnast, a late bolshevik, who jumped on the bandwagon; one of the things for which Trotsky fell silent at the death of the great Lenin, when it was necessary to select the general secretary and, obviously, with all the limitations that Lenin himself pointed out, it was up to Stalin, who was a real and authentic bolshevik, to exercise it, one of the things that led Trotsky to keep silent and to be mute at the congress where the great leadership and the recognition as secretary of Comrade Stalin was agreed upon was the fear that Trotsky had that the letters in which he attacked and denigrated Stalin would be taken out, we must not forget that, comrades; and I bring this up because the trotskyists are very much like fools and want to pull the wool over our eyes, and today they continue to do so, infecting the proletarian movement, and some believe them and repeat them; many things that are being aired today about Stalin are nothing but crude repetitions of what Trotsky said. Did not Zinoviev also attack Lenin? Did not Kamenev and several others even say that Lenin was mad when he proposed to prepare the October Revolution and even went so far as to denounce it? These are realities comrades.

And in the case of the great leadership of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the struggle was even more fierce; that struggle, as it is said in the history of the Communist Party of China (CPCh), the struggle against the 28 and a half Bolsheviks, those who had learned in Moscow and wanted simply to apply marxism-leninism to China strictly, mechanically; was not Chang Kuo-tao himself a student who became a communist and believed himself called to great destinies and even dared to pressure the Central Committee to recognize him as general secretary, thus denying Chairman Mao Tse-tung whose leadership had been recognized in the year ‘35 in Tsunyi? These are facts, comrades; Liu Shao-shi himself, who for a time supported Chairman Mao Tse-tung, did he not become a denier of the Chairman? Or Teng Hsiao-ping, has he not even developed a personal hatred against Chairman Mao Tse-tung? And even Chou En-lai himself, in the first part, up to the year ‘35, did he not fight the ideas of the Chairman and deny Chairman Mao Tse-tung, did he not label him as a peasant and even, in an absurd criterion, did he not call him a rightist? These are things to remember. Great leadership is recognized in the midst of intense struggles.


It can therefore never draw attention to the fact that there are problems around great leadership. And it is in every party where such a problem is aired; but notwithstanding this, the objective reality itself generates great leaders and a great leader, mainly a great leader who becomes even a symbol of a revolution, or a world one in the case of a Marx, a Lenin, a Chairman Mao Tse-tung. An example can show this condition in which sometimes we do not think and do not see: the prisoners of war in the Spanish civil revolution, did they not reanimate their optimism by simply seeing Lenin‘s insignia, as Marcos Aria himself says, even he says so, and he is a revisionist.

These are things that we must understand and it is time that, mainly the great leaders, we understand things because, comrades, it is in the great leaders where especially these problems occur because there are those who believe they are called to great destinies and do not even know how to measure their capacities nor know their limitations and are not capable of seeing the objective, what they have rubbing their own noses in it; I am speaking of historical facts, comrades, I am not speaking of eagerness, I am speaking of historical facts. The problem is not simply to have read or repeated, the problem will always be to apply and therefore to understand. We believe that this is important.

Also in this first paragraph, we must emphasize how Chairman Gonzalo has become the Great Leader of the party and of the revolution. […] Here it is good to emphasize this point of historical necessity and coincidence, a point that is misunderstood and misrepresented; for example, the comrades prisoners of war have made a ruckus, a jumble about this problem, when it is clear and simple, I am referring to what is called necessity and coincidence in marxism.

Engels dealt with this point and said that the social order is governed by necessary laws. The word necessity has a clear and precise meaning, it means that it is fulfilled, that it governs, that means, independently of the individual will of people; necessity, philosophically speaking, is what has to be fulfilled, the law that has to govern, that means necessity. In social and literary processes, for example, there is a need for someone to lead a movement, to be the head of a school; if one sees, for example, the formation of the Spanish language, which is the one we speak, was concretized in a Cervantes, or can that be denied, it had to have someone to shape it, to establish its rules, to lead the management of the language, as in Italy it is Dante – not the Dante, as they say, it is just Dante – there you have an example even in the literary world. In the scientific world, contemporary physics is made up of a group of notable theoreticians, and yet it needed someone to lead it in the understanding of the macrocosm: Einstein, it is undeniable, it was necessary for someone to lead that, it is a whole different way, he takes a great step in the physical understanding of the world; or in the understanding of the microcosm a Planck who opens a new world in physical science; it was necessary, the law demanded by necessity that someone lead the movement. Or in a revolutionary struggle as they are in the examples ventilated in marxism; the French revolution necessarily had to have a head, for example Robespierre, so it is. Engels said, then, every movement at whatever level must have a head, but it is a general law and as such it is necessarily fulfilled.

Whereas coincidence – which is the most precise name because sometimes I use chance, which is too imprecise, however it can occur, comrades, but the term is coincidence – coincidence, Engels said, is nothing more than how necessity comes into being in certain circumstances, specifying a character, taking shape in a person. The example of physics comes back, there it is proved, once again, how it always generates opportunely the men that the society needs to develop a field of its development (do not worry to put the names because they are sometimes complicated and difficult), if one looks at physics in the 20th Century, we have an Edington, a Sommerfeld, a Planck, we have a Schwinger, a Heisenberg, a Schrödinger, a De Broglia, a multitude of very remarkable physicists; any of them, if it had not been Einstein, would have come to establish relativity, so it is said in physics for example, if one reviews any history of physics one finds that, but chance, circumstances specified that it was Einstein.

That is how necessity is understood, as a law and chance as a concretion of that law and that is how the heads establish it, that is how the great leaders and a great leadership are established. The problem is simple and clear; the confusion derives on the one hand, from the lack of knowledge or from the imprecision of knowledge, from the confusion that one has, apart from the struggles in which such a situation is defined. I give you a historical example, of science, and I appeal to science because in science there are some very special conditions, however, there is also in the midst of disputes, for example, who created or discovered the infinitesimal calculus, Newton or Leibniz, a dispute for centuries and it is still being discussed, a conclusion has already been reached; in that case, for example, both discovered independently; however, the followers have fought tooth and nail to say it was Newton, others, it was Leibniz! And that one stole from the other, what is clear is that the best notation was that of Newton, that is why the one he established is used. There you have it, even in science, where apparently there should not be such contentions, but everything is contradiction.

In any human activity, consequently, wherever the axes are placed, every school, every development needs a head and a great leadership and around that great leadership there is contention, but a great leadership is specified by historical necessity and coincidence. And in our case, in our party it has been specified in Chairman Gonzalo; we can like or dislike him, comrades, I dislike the summer but it does not pay attention to me, it continues to develop, do you understand what I mean? You will say, but social laws are not like physics, oh yes? Read then what Marx says, that they are different does not mean that they are not laws, they have a specific field, but social laws are as much laws as physical laws.

Well, how is the great leadership specified here: great leader of the party and the revolution.“ It is not an ambiguity, why, what are we talking about, what are we dealing with, of the Fundamental Documents of the party, consequently of the Peruvian revolution, that is how we have to understand what it says here; we know well that outside they will say other things, it will be their problem, not ours. The great leadership was established, recognized – because that is what is appropriate with a great leadership, to recognize it – in the Enlarged National Conference of ‘79, in struggle, where two factions contended; one, that the great leadership was that of Chairman Gonzalo and that this had to be recognized; another, invoking Mariátegui, I stress, invoking, is that one of the „defenders of Mariátegui“, as he himself said and expressed his thought, the Lima of the balconies and the colonies, what a way of seeing Lima! For a communist position, it is good for a poem by Don José Gálvez but not for a communist, and after all, those who invoked Mariátegui did not even know him and were 50 years behind; they are facts, comrades, that is what we are talking about. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, did Mariátegui usurp or was he recognized as a great leader, have you ever heard that? No, and why, have you asked yourselves, he did not have time, we must never forget that the founder of the party died less than two years after the party was founded; that is why you will never find any document that says Mariátegui‘s great leadership, who was to blame? It is therefore the concrete situations that were expressed in the reality of the country.

The second paragraph tells us: „Moreover, and this is the base upon which all great leadership is formed, revolutions give rise to a thought that guides them, which is the result of the application of the universal truth of the ideology of the international proletariat to the concrete conditions of each revolution.“ What must be emphasized here in order to understand well and not to make mistakes is that a great leadership is based on a guiding thought, on an application, requiring time for a great leadership to be recognized. It is not as it is said that the great leadership sustains Gonzalo thought, it is absurd, comrades; on the contrary, that is what the document says very clearly, because it could not be understood in any other way; the comrades, how do they think, believe that thought is a washroom, that the great leadership sustains it, how absurd, it is sustained, it is based on a thought, otherwise there is no great leadership; that is what we must see and that is clearly stated here.

Then it tells us: „[…] a guiding thought indispensable to reach victory and to conquer political power and, moreover, to continue the revolution and to maintain the course always towards the only, great goal: communism“. What function does a guiding thought fulfill, that is what is clarified here, what is it for and it says: „indispensable to reach victory and conquer political power“, without it, do not even dream of conquering power, otherwise, take a single case, there is none, comrades; but moreover, what is it for, „to continue the revolution and to maintain the course“. The problem of maintaining the course is fundamental! Because if it is not maintained, we deviate, and if we deviate, the revolution is slowed down, hindered, unnecessarily dilated and can lead to great defeats, which will demand new and more incessant and redoubled efforts to continue struggling and fighting for the revolution, for the conquest of power and for the goal, why, the revolution is uncontainable, but the guiding thought fulfills a function, a necessity.

It goes on to say: „[…] a guiding thought that, arriving at a qualitative leap of decisive importance for the revolutionary process which it leads, identifies itself with the name of the one who shaped it theoretically and practically“. Let us understand well, we cannot continue with the absurdity of bourgeois empiricism of the 18th Century, anti-marxist, of separating theory from practice, it is to deny that practice is the source of knowledge. Do we not know that without practice there is no knowledge, we do not understand that, what do we understand then, nothing, is it not the starting point of differentiation between marxism and bourgeois position, is it not perhaps the first of the theses established by Marx on Feuerbach?


They foolishly throw themselves against principles and historical realities that deny class, deny ideology, that is the ABC of marxism. Here the remarkable thing is that a moment of „qualitative leap of decisive importance for a revolution“ is coming. What is our situation, because now Gonzalo thought is being raised? Because we are in a qualitative, decisive leap, or a congress, is this congress not implying the balance of what has been done, is it not implying the establishment of the base of party unity, is it not implying the laying of solid foundations for the conquest of power in the whole country, as a part of and serving of the World Revolution, do we not see the leap, are we so blind, so short-sighted, so stupid, politically speaking? Comrades, we can no longer allow in the party such immaturity. A mature party and the maturity of a party is the consequence of a long historical process, it is not that of individuals; that is why they do not understand, they are confusing the maturity of the party with their own individual immaturity, that is the concrete root that those who do not understand this problem have, it has personal roots in that aspect, it is their concreteness, their own reality that they never manage to see, why, they do not search, they do not think in depth, that is it comrades. That is the reason why we are making this leap in the problem of thought.

The document clearly states: „In our situation, this phenomenon specified itself first as guiding thought, then as Chairman Gonzalo‘s guiding thought, and later as Gonzalo thought.“ Well, let us look for the party, revolutionary, historical correlation of why these specifications were produced. Guiding thought, 2nd National Conference when we prepared ourselves to generate a vacuum in the countryside and create new power, that was the concrete historical foundation. The reference to guiding thought of Chairman Gonzalo, 1st Plenum of the Central Committee of the 3rd Conference, what was agreed there, Great Leap, within what plan, to conquer bases, important or not in the people‘s war? Obviously, comrades. There you have the correlation. Gonzalo thought, I have already said why, it is not free elucubration. Please, comrades, always think, meditate and refer the things that are raised to the party circumstances, to the circumstances of the people‘s war that is being carried out, to those of the Peruvian revolution, to the needs of the class, of our people, or is it that they separate the party from the class and the people, without this meaning that this vanguard – as some say – of the proletariat and the people, no, comrades, the party is the vanguard of the proletariat, it is not of the people. Here is something else more remarkable.

Let us continue, it says: […] because it is the Chairman who, creatively applying marxism-leninism-maoism to the concrete conditions of Peruvian reality, has generated it; thus endowing the party and the revolution with an indispensable weapon which is guarantee of victory.“ Is there or is there not the creative application, a little word that some do not like, is it mechanical, then, when it is simply said „application“, in some mouths! Not to say „creative“ is to propose, because of what they think, mechanical, well, prove it, prove it, it is not a problem of regurgitation, confusion, that is not the problem, it is to see the history of our party, the problems that it is solving. Because defining guiding thought, Chairman Gonzalo‘s guiding thought and Gonzalo thought are problems of the party, as they see everything through the person, through their individualism, they believe that it is a personal problem and thus they subjectivize the revolution and turn it into a subjective reality, not an objective one. Comrades, it is fine for a Frondizi, for an idealist but not for a marxist; to reduce a social problem to subjective questions may be fine for a Feuerbach, before Marx. That is what must be seen at the bottom of these things that are there; everything has its foundation, it is not a word written by chance, nor is it a word said unthinkingly, which does not express its errors because it is unthoughtful.

Well, the following paragraph says: „Gonzalo thought has been forged through long years of intense, tenacious, and incessant struggle to uphold, defend and apply marxism-leninism-maoism, to retake Mariátegui’s path and to develop it, to refound the party and, mainly, to initiate, maintain and develop the people’s war in Peru serving the world revolution, and that marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism be, in theory and practice, its sole command and guide.“ Here there are things that jump out that must be seriously reflected; in short, we have until August because now we only need to take a position and what we do is to give foundations because the comrades need it to be able to explain because it is understandable that there must be questions. First thing to emphasize here: It „has been forged through long years“, yes, through long years, it is not forged in one day or in two years or in three years, in long years! We will give you an example: when we had a meeting with the comrades from Spain, when we saw the problem of guiding thought, of the thought that we call Gonzalo thought, Comrade Roberto who heads the Communist Party of Spain, he already believed that he was „Roberto thought“, they had just been founded not even six months ago and he already believed that he was „Roberto thought“; it cannot be so, comrades, how easy it would be, no, that way no thought is generated anywhere on Earth, why? Everything has a process, absolutely everything, there is nothing that does not have a process, reason: because everything is contradiction and contradiction has a path, a process. Has it been intense, well, the struggles we have had, I think that proves it; tenacious, well, I think I have been persistent, otherwise we would not be talking today about Gonzalo thought; incessant, of course, we must not falter, we must persist, continue, continue, continue, we must not get tired!

But about what things? The first thing it puts forward is to Uphold, defend and apply marxism-leninism-maoism!“ and it is understandable, because if we do not start from the universal ideology, what application are we going to talk about, or are we going to create – by originality – another world outlook of the proletariat? In this we are consistent with the practice taught to us by Marx, Lenin and Mao and the great marxists that have been on Earth and that the founder himself taught us, „the only way to be free and to create, is to take the conception of the proletariat as a dogma, understanding it as such […]“. Some people find it hard when they hear the word dogma in Marxism and I tell them that they have not read Lenin well; „our old dogma“ and the specific, „our old inapplied principles“, I think we all understand that, it is confused, because the mind repeats „Lenin has said that it is not a dogma“, but there he refers to that there is no mechanical application, we must try to understand what Lenin says in each case and in each moment, we must not be content with repeating and with superficial appreciations; we have already seen how Chairman Mao Tse-tung can only be understood if we see as a unity all that he has done, Lenin the same and Marx, the same. That was then, comrades. Without having done that, what application would there be, it would be a ridiculous joke, I think.

It says to retake Mariátegui‘s path and to develop it“, key: develop it. On this we have contended, comrades, for many years in the party; it fell to me to draft the document of the 19th Plenum of the Central Committee, in ‘66, and there it is written, Red Flag No. 18 – for the collectors – there it is written that Mariátegui‘s path should never be abandoned, that it should be continued and developed; please remember how we have been fought against. Of the party, what have the „Mariáteguists“ of the Unified Mariáteguist Party (PUM) said, those former Vanguardists, that we took Mariátegui not seeing that Mariátegui died on the in 1930 and that Peru had advanced a lot because we were already in the 1960s, is that not what they said? Well, comrades, that is why the problem was to develop it; there are reasons for this – if there is time we will see when we deal with the question of Mariátegui – not to propose not to develop it is not to understand that time goes by and that new problems arise, it is to want to remain in the 1930s and, beware, Mariátegui is not a universal thought, beware, of refounding of the party and, mainly – of what? – of initiating, maintaining and developing the people‘s war. This is extremely important, this is the main thing in this refounding of the party, to take up Mariátegui again, why? Because in the process of Gonzalo thought it is the people‘s war which has driven it, which has led it to become concrete as Gonzalo thought, I believe it is so, comrades; any analysis, however lightly we might make of the history of the party proves what I have recently said: the people‘s war has made us deeply understand things already known and has made us understand many new things, solve new problems and see new problems still pending solution and it also makes us understand that there are many more things that will have to be dealt with. So, in this process, one cannot but see that retaking the path of Mariátegui and developing it is not ignoring the founder. I believe that of the founder, of Mariátegui, many speak but few know about him, too few, and if they have studied him, not in depth, I say […], how wrong it is to bring things by the hair, comrades.

Then it tells us that „It is of substantive necessity for the party to study Gonzalo thought.“ Substantive necessity“ for the party, what does this imply, of the leaders, of the cadres, of the militants and mainly of the leaders, I stress, mainly of the leaders! Because this is where the mess is expressed and this is not by chance, it has always been like this in every party; let us remember what we have often said: the Central Committee is the eye of the storm, that is, the center of the storm, we must never forget it. But why do we need this study, „for a more just and correct understanding of the general political line, and mainly of the military line“, for that, because if we do not see the Gonzalo thought, how are we going to manage the general political line and the military line which is its center if they are derived from that thought? It is like taking away the river‘s source, the lagoon from where it begins to flow, or do you see a river with no beginning, maybe you imagine that rivers have no beginning — as some have only seen the Rimac, a little piece, don’t they, they think it has no beginning — nonsense, comrades, any material fact on which your eyes rest, you always see the path, the process, the origin of something. Consequently, it is necessary to handle the line and the military line in particular; if we begin by denying it, if we begin by putting Mariátegui, I ask: very well, tell me now the general political line of Mariátegui? And you are not going to repeat the five elements, reason: because I did them, comrades, tell me now the military line of Mariátegui, what is it; now tell me if with that line we are making the people‘s war. We do not meditate or think and the Chairman has told us that we have to use the head, he has told us that the head is for thinking, that is what the head is for, that is what the Chairman said, and the work of the leaders is to move the head, mainly to move the head; the Chinese comrades said: The leaders have to move the head but some leaders think they have to move their feet“, very expressive, very expressive what the Chinese comrades said!

Well, when it comes to Gonzalo thought, where to aim, there it says: „aiming at deepening the understanding of the particularities of the Peruvian revolution, what is specific and particular“, because if we do not take the specific, we would badly manage this revolution that the party leads; but as the party is an entity composed of a system of organizations, it does it through its leaders, its cadres, its militants who move all the rest of the organizations. Only in this way will we „serve the Great Plan to Develop Bases, the development of the people’s war and the perspective of conquering political power countrywide“. These are eminently practical reasons, reasons of exigency, of peremptory demands, needs of the Peruvian revolution; as there are many narrow empiricists here, then I think they understand well if we say „practical“, they are practical reasons! Although I understand comrades, to speak of practice demands leaving narrow empiricism, of course, because with narrow empiricism they will never handle practice from the marxist position, never, they will do bastard empiricism, narrow, crawling, Sanchopansism they will do, yes comrades, we must understand things well.

The other paragraph says: „We must study Gonzalo thought, starting from the historical context that generated it“. Reason: it is the class struggle that forms us all, it is the party that nourishes us with marxism.


From the 1st Congress of the Communist
Party of Peru, convened in 1988-89.


Regarding the programme, we must think that the programme must be a document that establishes principles in a concrete way and that at the same time serves to highlight the basic principles that we need to enumerate in an exhaustive way in order to manage them better, this is our need. Thus, the statutes of ‘45 or ‘69 in China are not written in this way; but we have to think of making the documents according to what our party needs at present; we must always keep in mind that we have a new militancy that has a little formation, that we must deliver a document in consequence that allows them to have clearer, more concrete things and that at the same time are easier to study and understand; that is why we list in this way, with asterisks, the problems of principles. This programme and statutes are adjusted not only to what is read in the 7th and 9th Congresses of the CPCh. But also to what Chairman Mao Tse-tung presents us as a programme in „On Coalition Government“ in volume 3; those are our bases, apart from having seen those programmes we have just read, the programmes established by Lenin and also the programmes analyzed by Marx and Engels; „Critique of the Gotha Programme“, for example, is very interesting, of great transcendence, we must think that this was written by Marx himself, of course, as prior knowledge and acceptance of Engels, because they always acted like that.


The CPP is based on and guided by marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism and, specifically, by Gonzalo thought as a creative application of the universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Peruvian revolution, as made by Chairman Gonzalo, Great Leader of our party.“ It is very concrete. Here we would have nothing to substantiate, as we have already done so; it would be useless, especially in the absence of time, to reiterate what we have already seen at length.

The CPP, organized vanguard of the Peruvian proletariat and integral part of the international proletariat, especially upholds the following basic principles […]“.And to highlight that the Party assumes very specially the following basic principles, that is to say, to highlight basic principles, but it does not say that those are all of them but that those are the ones we assume very especially; that must be taken into account, […] there are 11 and in order not to number them but to highlight them well, we have put an asterisk because it would not be good to put 1, 2, 3, 4, it would not be right; but then why do we not put them one after the other? Because this way it is clearer, sharper, that is the reason.

Contradiction as the only fundamental law of the incessant transformation of eternal matter“. We adhere to this world outlook, from there we must start, it is very clear, it is the world outlook. Here we express our condition of materialists when we say eternal matter and dialectics when we emphasize contradiction. Here then is world outlook in condensed form.

The masses make history and ‚To rebel is justified!‘“. Here we move on to the social world, to the society that is the product of the masses. Why do we put „To rebel is justified!“? Because this is a great principle established by Chairman Mao Tse-tung; he says that up until then servitude was taught, the subjugation of the masses, but it is Marx who calls the masses to rebel, establishing a turn in history. Here what we have put is that in the Chairman‘s quote „To rebel is justified!“, which is part of a more extensive quote where he expresses what I have just said, that is what is expressed there, the turn that marxism implies of the role of the masses in society, the problem of rebellion, the negation of the submission of the masses; never before had it been raised in this way, they had always been called to submission, capitalism is a clear expression of that.

Class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism“. What does this part deal with? With the motor, with the contradiction in the social world, it deals with it because that contradiction expresses itself in class struggle. It establishes a connection between class struggle, dictatorship of the proletariat and proletarian internationalism. Marx told us that he had not discovered the class struggle because it was done by French historians, that is true; what Marx did was to give a foundation of the basis that supported the classes and the class struggle and he drew the transcendental conclusion that the class struggle led to the dictatorship of the proletariat, but being the class, the proletariat being a single class at international level that develops in the various countries of the Earth, then we have to raise proletarian internationalism, because the class has the same interest, the same common goal, no matter if it is Peruvian, Bolivian, Japanese, North American, French or whatever, it is the same class, the same goal, the same interest, that is why we have to raise proletarian internationalism.

The need for a marxist-leninist-maoist Communist Party that firmly applies independence, autonomy and self-reliance“. Chairman Mao Tse-tung, in 1948, reiterating Lenin and Marx, speaks of the need for the Communist Party, because without a Communist Party there is no way for the proletariat to lead the revolution nor to serve the people. What we must emphasize is our marxist-leninist-maoist condition, in accordance with what it says in the paragraph, it is not simply a marxist-leninist party; the declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) speaks of marxist-leninist parties, we cannot speak like that, we are a marxist-leninist-maoist party, it is not possible to be in the case, as the RIM states, marxist-leninist-Mao Tse-tung thought and have a marxist-leninist party, at least we should put: marxist-leninist-Mao Tse-tung thought party, there is then always the problem of staying within marxism-leninism, that is why this is why we must affirm it.

As for firmly applying independence: Since Marx it has been established that the Communist Party is a party distinct from and opposed to all the others, because it has its own class interest, opposed to, distinct from that of the other classes. because while the other classes seek property, the proletariat does not; from there derives its condition of final class in history and derives a goal, communism; only the proletariat has that historical task, that is why we must emphasize its independence from the parties of other classes. Autonomy: a party must decide for itself, because the Communist Party — in our case — responds to the Peruvian revolution, as a part of and serving the world revolution, in agreement, but for the Peruvian revolution we must have autonomy, we cannot follow any command staff; the Chairman reiterated many times: „There is no father party, there is no son party, the parties are equal and each party must decide for itself“, for that reason what fits between parties is the conversations to arrive at common points, in common agreement; this is very important, no command staff! That is revisionism! Self-reliance: the Party must base itself on its own forces; the main thing is, from this, to base itself on its own forces to establish its politics, that is the main thing in self-reliance, it is necessary to think well because sometimes it is reduced to a simple economic question, it is also part, but it is not the main thing, comrades; also, of course, it means that a party should not live on what another gives it, that is not to rely on its own efforts, but obviously this does not deny, in any way, proletarian internationalism and the fraternal help that some parties owe to others, that is already a problem of proletarian internationalism.

To fight imperialism, revisionism, and reaction unbreakably and implacably“. We consider that although it is said to fight imperialism and to fight revisionism, it is an unbreakable and implacable struggle, it is also necessary to fight reaction because these three: imperialism, revisionism and reaction, are unbreakably united and all three must be fought implacably. What is the point of this? To emphasize that there is also an obligation to fight reaction implacably. For example, the reactionary ideology of the Catholic Church, are we going to accept it, the semi-feudal world outlook, are we going to accept it, the feudalists, the reactionary ideas in the world or reactionary systems in the world, are we going to accept them? No. Are they linked to revisionism? Yes, it is enough to see that fetid alliance between communists and catholics raised by the Italian party, a clear revisionist position. That is what we put forward. Imperialism and revisionism are not enough, also reaction, because, I repeat, is imperialism linked to revisionism? Yes, and reaction, too.

To conquer and to defend power with the people’s war“. It is a reaffirmation that power can only be conquered with people‘s war and only through it can it be defended; I believe that it needs no further substantiation.

Militarization of the party and concentric construction of the three instruments of the revolution“. Here it is only appropriate to put it that way, because it is the programme and statutes of the CPP: here we could not put „of the communist parties“, in any way. We are not naming other parties, we are regulating ourselves; I think we also understand that.

Two-line struggle as the driving force of party development“. It is the problem that the contradiction energizes the life of the party and this is concretized in the two-line struggle, between the proletarian line and all the other lines, especially bourgeois, which in the end is concretized in revisionism.

Constant ideological transformation and to always put politics in command“. The ideological transformation is fundamental for all of us, for all the militants, for the whole party, it cannot stop, it cannot end, because it is necessary to change the soul completely and utterly.


It takes place through successive leaps in step with the development of the revolution according to its stages and periods; because the definitive change, the change of soul, the new soul, will only be expressed in communism and in the meantime, we are proclaimers of that new soul, but we are elements of a transition period between the old society and the future new society that is communism. This should be of great importance to us. To always put politics in command, we already know, we have seen it when speaking of maoism; if we do not put politics in command, it is not that we do not put politics or avoid it, we are putting another politics in command, that of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie or whatever it may be.

To serve to the people and the proletarian world revolution“. This is what the Chairman has taught us; every militant has to be guided by serving the people and the proletarian world revolution, by proletarian internationalism.

An absolute unselfishness and a just and correct style of work“. Absolute unselfishness was taught by Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and why is absolute unselfishness demanded of us? Because we correspond to a class which has no property, which aims to sweep away private property of the means of production and which has no other interest than to arrive at communism, to reach the final goal; as we will not see that goal, we are expressing absolute unselfishness — because we will not see that goal, comrades — it is an expression of the destruction of particular interests as part of the class whose essence is to be extinguished as such, it is part of being communists, that is to say, to assume the interests of the proletariat. As for the style of work, the Chairman masterfully synthesized it, telling us: „Link theory with practice, integrate with the masses and practice criticism and self-criticism“; these are the three styles of work, it is masterful.

These are what we understand by basic principles. If the comrades analyze this, they see that it goes from the most universal which, is our world outlook to the condition of communist, of militant, why? They are threaded. From the world outlook expressed in contradiction and eternal matter, we pass to the social world in which we move, the party; from there we establish the principle of masses and rebellion; having posed the problem of masses, we pass to the problem of class struggle, which is the contradiction of society, because the masses are grouped in classes and these struggles and they do it for the dictatorship of the proletariat as a consequence of the whole process of class struggle, it is the inevitable consequence, and that poses us the dictatorship of the proletariat; established this, from what guides the proletariat as an international class, we pass to the party which is its highest organization, the first social organization; from party we pass to what the party fights: imperialism, revisionism, reaction; then we pass to how the Party conquers power, because it is the center or the central task of the revolution; from there we pass to how the party organizes itself to fulfill the task that corresponds to it: militarization and concentric construction; then how the party develops: two-line struggle; and from there already, we have seen world outlook, seen the question of society, seen the question of the proletariat, seen the problem of the party, seen how it fights, seen its tasks, seen how it is organized, how it develops, we pass to the problem of the constant ideological transformation and put politics in command as a guide of the party and of the militancy; here already enters the problem of militancy, also of the party? Obviously; to end with serving the people and the proletarian world revolution and absolute unselfishness and style of work. In that way they are ordered. I think it is good to point it out because they could ask them and why are they put like that? That is the reason comrades: it goes from world outlook to militancy. Some things you could ask: But why do you put world outlook first, it seems to us that it is fundamental? But in other places it is not put, but we see that the current need demands to put it, that is our condition because it is not usual, there is none. It is convenient for us because we insist that the programme and statutes are in accordance with what the party needs, this party; the established examples serve us as an example to solve our own problem: it always remains the application to our reality.

The CPP has communism as its final goal; given that the current Peruvian society is oppressed and exploited by imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and semi-feudalism, the revolution has first a democratic stage, then a second socialist one that will later develop successive cultural revolutions. Presently with the people’s war the party develops the democratic revolution, having as its immediate goal to seize power countrywide.“ In this paragraph we had to necessarily put communism as the final goal and this must be emphasized, because if we did not put it, we would not be a communist party. If in thinking about that goal we have to see what the current reality is, this must also be emphasized: current Peruvian society is oppressed and exploited; oppressed refers to the political domination exercised, that is expressed by the word oppressed and oppression which is its noun and exploited refers to exploitation, to how surplus value is generated, how profits are generated which are devoured by the exploiting classes, it is an economic expression; oppression refers to politics and exploitation, to economic basis, that is what it refers to. And who oppresses and exploits us? it says oppressed and exploited — by whom? By imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and its semi-feudalism, that is the present situation of the country, of Peruvian society, we already know: imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, semi-feudalism. That is why the Peruvian revolution has stages, which is the other thing we should emphasize: a democratic stage, a second socialist stage and later to develop successive cultural revolutions, which in our understanding are a third stage, but I think this requires another explanation and it is how to see the revolution; the night before last, we were asking some comrades how we saw the dynamic process of this, it is at a certain moment that the cultural revolution will become a stage, that is what we think, but we do not need to put it here in the programme. We should also emphasize that we are in a people‘s war, with it the party is developing the democratic revolution and that the immediate goal is to culminate it by conquering power throughout the country. These things must be analyzed, highlighted and seen part by part; think comrades, that it is a programme, that it is synthesized, condensed, because that is how it should be, but in explaining, we must explain this problem.


Next comes the GENERAL PROGRAMME OF THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION; because that is what the previous paragraph says in its final part Because of this we raise the following objectives“, why? Because we are currently in the stage of the democratic revolution which, no matter how armed it is developed, continues to be democratic, and if we wage war it is because it is the only way to carry it forward, it does not change, it has nothing to do with the programme, but it should be emphasized. From there then we move on to: „GENERAL PROGRAMME OF THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION“, with 14 points.

1. Demolition of the Peruvian State, the dictatorship of the exploiters led by the big bourgeoisie, and of the armed forces and forces of repression that sustain it and of all its bureaucratic apparatus.“

What are we talking about here? The demolition of the Peruvian State, that is the question, that is the key, here is everything: „demolition of the Peruvian State“. We have taken there the words of Marx, do you remember when he speaks of the Paris Commune? He says that he showed that it was necessary to demolish, very expressive word, from there we have taken it, it is a very precise concept as well as expressive. It can be read as follows: demolition of the Peruvian State, of the armed and repressive forces that sustain it and of all its bureaucratic apparatus. Of course, otherwise there would be no demolition because in order to demolish the State it is necessary to demolish two things fundamentally: one, the armed forces which are the backbone of the State and the repressive apparatus linked to this system, and the bureaucratic apparatus; these are the two fundamental parts of the State, of which the demolition of the armed and repressive forces is the main one because they are the backbone, here it says: „that sustain it“. That is the thesis established from Marx to Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

The phrase that says „dictatorship of the exploiters led by the big bourgeoisie“ aims to emphasize that the Peruvian State is a dictatorship; is it of classes, that is obvious, otherwise it would not be a dictatorship, or could there be dictatorship without classes, could there be? There could not, that is why it is enough to put dictatorship. That is what we must emphasize. But also, „of the exploiters“, yes, because the dictatorship, which is a political problem, is sustained on an economic base which it defends, and that base is the Peruvian State, it is one of exploitation, that is what we must understand that it is a dictatorship because it defends a system of exploitation which is its base and it defends it with blood and fire. That dictatorship is directed by the big bourgeoisie and thus the problem is clear because who else directs the dictatorship in Peru, the big bourgeoisie? That is the reason why they are set up as they are.

We were asked a question, if there would not be a problem here by putting exploiters, if this would not clash with the Erfurt programme, which is the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany of 1891 analyzed by Engels; we have re-read the programme, or Engels‘ criticism of the Erfurt programme, and it has no contraposition with that term, why? Because what Engels criticizes in that Programme is that it says „domination of the capitalists and big landowners“ and he says that an economic problem cannot be explained from a political point of view, that is what he says. To understand this, what does it mean? If one remembers what is in „Anti-Dühring“ on the problem of violence, Engels himself, revised by Marx: „There are those who make say the property of domination, that is to say of violence, consequently property is nothing but simply dispossession, seizure by force“. Engels there, in „Anti-Dühring“, explained to us that exploitation is an economic phenomenon, that is to say social relations of exploitation and that to defend it, to maintain it, there is the State which is organized violence as Engels himself taught it; then, when he criticizes what they proposed as a project of the Erfurt programme and they say „domination of the capitalists and big landowners“, he gives margin, consequently, that way of proposing, to derive property from violence, which is incorrect. That is the essence of the position of the just critique that Engels makes. But the problem is that he says there, in addition, he says „individual capitalists“, so he says; then Engels says that this is another error because society — he is talking about Germany — more and more has trusts, monopolies, joint stock companies and there it is not individual property and in addition, he says, individual property is also that of the small producer, consequently it leads to a second error. Another situation that could be linked to what we are discussing is what Engels says in that critique almost in the final part, when he states that production and he says: the rest is individual and he says again that it should not be individual, the system of production sinks more and more the middle strata, the small producers, etc. Consequently, what Engels is criticizing is to give property a root based on violence, which is Dühring‘s idea, which is what Dühring is criticized for.

That the national bourgeoisie or the national bourgeoisie are also exploiters, it is true, but nobody can say that the national bourgeoisie exercises dictatorship here, in Peru, today, or does it exercise it, obviously not.

Consequently point 1 of the programme proposed in the problem of the demolition of the old State, that is to say of the Peruvian State, that is and it is specified that it is a dictatorship, it is good to point out, but that this dictatorship is of exploiters to point out the base it defends, that is what moves us. And there is no room for confusion with the national bourgeoisie, because it is not part of the dictatorship and also because the problem of the specification of the economic overthrow that we destroyed comes in the subsequent parts and was clarified in point 5; nobody could maintain that the national bourgeoisie is part of the dictatorship led by the big bourgeoisie, that is the crux of this. We do not pretend to explain an economic problem.


To point out here individual property on any side, except when we speak of the peasantry and the land which is another thing, there is therefore no form of confusion.

2. To sweep away all imperialist oppression, mainly Yankee, and that of Soviet social-imperialism and of any imperialist power or superpower. In general to confiscate their monopolies, companies, banks and all forms of their property including the external debt.“

It is the problem of the first mountain, of imperialism, and it is well separated what is oppression because it exercises it, it oppresses us; Lenin tells us that the nations are oppressed by imperialism, these are Lenin‘s own words. Here we must see very clearly that imperialist oppression is mainly Yankee, but not only, it is also Soviet social-imperialism which, I repeat, is penetrating more into our country and dangerously so; and of any imperialist power or country, China for example. China is going to invest in mines, they have also discovered that they already need raw materials, it is very well then, they are already demonstrating their entrails; if this is understood, it answers that question of what is China, if this is understood, it is understood that it is China, the current China I mean. […] any imperialist power or superpower“: Japan, England, France, Spain; Why say Spain? Think about it, Spain is going to invest about dollars in Argentina and here it also has investments: a big one, for example, is an investment in high security prisons for Peru. The problem of those markets that Mr. President is inaugurating are of Jewish capitals that could not be used because there was a difference, a dispute about their value. In other words, we do not accept any domination, any oppression, but we emphasize two: the Yankee and the Soviet, mainly the Yankee because that is the country that mainly dominates and exploits here, that imperialism.

The other part refers to the economic question. How was it proposed to in general confiscatetheir monopolies, companies, banks and all forms of their property“, because there can be many forms, patents for example, royalties, in short, many more will be generated by international economic relations; it remains open here because it is a very clear and very broad term, a legal term already well defined since Roman times, nothing escapes this term. Why are we including the foreign debt here? Because of the importance it is taking on; the debt of the oppressed nations is fabulous and it is a bloodletting or death that this foreign debt implies, but the problem of the foreign debt can only be solved by confiscating it, denying that right, there is no other way, because it is a form of property, in this case, based on credit, that is why we are rescuing this point. The debt we have is growing every day, it must be around dollars. That is the reason.

Point 3 refers to the second mountain, in the order of weight it has; here they are listed in the order of weight, of power they have: economic, political, military or whatever power they have. Here is the problem of:

3. To destroy bureaucratic capitalism, individual as well as State owned; to confiscate all their properties, goods and economic rights to benefit of new State, as well as those belonging to imperialism.“

This is the second mountain: bureaucratic capitalism. We must destroy — destroy is a broad term — demolish it economically, politically, ideologically, as much as possible. Ideologically, for example […] We already know well from the Chairman, that a class can lose economic and political power but maintain its ideological power, it disturbs, which is obviously a serious problem. Why do we put individual as well as State owned“? Here there is not much confusion either because it speaks of bureaucratic capitalism; we agree and we fight against saying private property and State property, because both are forms of private property: the individual is a form of private property, the State is the one managed by the State as a whole, but both are private, the old State manages this way, to put it private would be to fall into an error. „Non-State“ is not very expressive for us, but there is no margin for confusion because here it is said to destroy bureaucratic capitalism and nothing escapes it; and after all, a society, a monopoly have individual owners, of course that is so, so we have no problems either, because — I repeat — „bureaucratic capitalism“ has been specified.

[…] to confiscate all their properties, goods and economic rights to benefit the new State“. Why this? It is key to pass to the second revolution uninterruptedly. But here we have added it as well as those belonging to imperialism“, not in order to reiterate, because both pass to the new State, they are the economic means for the new economy.

4. Liquidation of semi-feudal property and everything subsisting on it, confiscating the land to give it to the peasantry, mainly poor, applying the principle of ‚Land to the tiller!‘.“

It refers to the third mountain. It is listed third, because that mountain is weaker, because we put „all subsistent modality of the same“, because it is, Lenin taught us that there are a thousand and one forms in which feudalism is clothed and others can appear or be specified: the question remains open and we do not tie our hands. That this land is confiscated is understandable, to give it to the peasantry is what he says […]; what we emphasize is „mainly poor“, as that is very understandable and necessary, because read this by the peasantry, the poor will easily identify himself, he will say mainly for me, that is what we are aiming at; we could have simply put peasantry, but no, the Chairman tells us: At the end of the day, if we talk about peasantry, we talk about the poor“, that tells us, remember „A Single Spark…“, by […], was in Junín, the investigation.

The principle Land to the tiller!“ is an old principle, one that is still fully valid. Chairman Mao reiterated it in the point of the programme when he deals with the problem of land, and this is good to emphasize because here in Peru they talk a lot of nonsense, they talk about „land and liberation“, this is not the problem, it is simply Land to the tiller!“, you will have seen the Vietnam programme, do you remember, with other words it says the same thing, both the programme of ‘30 and ‘67 — the one of the South — says the same thing. It is an old situation that every democratic revolution raises; if one thinks well about this, one cannot say that the „demand of the democratic revolution is the problem of the land“, no comrades, how could we say that, and the problem of imperialism, and the problem of bureaucratic capitalism, that is, in the treatment of what we are seeing, I believe we are giving answers to multiple questions.

5. Respect the property and rights of the national bourgeoisie, or middle bourgeoisie, in the countryside as well as in the city.“

Here we move on to another question; it is the problem that characterizes the democratic revolution, what classes it destroys: democratic revolution that does not respect the property and rights of the national bourgeoisie ceases to be national and becomes socialist. National or middle bourgeoisie, to make it clearer, because national is sometimes confused with native, many confuse national with native and that is an error; in the marxist language, of maoism, national bourgeoisie is the middle one and that occurs both in the countryside and in the city, in the countryside it is rural bourgeoisie — that once again solves the problem of the rich peasant and the entanglement we have seen here. This clarifies, makes more precise the democratic character of the revolution and at the same time reiterates what we have always maintained; they are saying that we have changed our line, that now we respect the rights of the national bourgeoisie and I ask myself, what Party document is there where we do not, […] which one?, None; so the „wise man“, senderologist is a poor ignorant devil who only chimes according to what he is paid.

Thus, points 2, 3, 4, and 5 define, precisely the democratic character, what mountains are to be demolished, and the respect for the property and rights of the bourgeoisie. The word is also broad — respect — it does not say that we guarantee them, it does not say anything other than respect and that is how it should remain, why, because out of necessity we can restrict those rights, even today, particularly in the countryside when there is a lack of land, but that does not need to be said here, how are we going to put „I respect you, but I take away from you“, how to put it, then, comrades; we know that because Chairman Mao himself says it.

6. Fight for the setting-up of the People‘s Republic of Peru, as a united front of classes based on the worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat headed by its Communist Party; as a mold for the new democracy that carries forward a new economy, a new politics, and a new culture.“

Point 6 poses the problem of the new State, the new State that we are already forging, but it is not necessary here to begin to specify „people‘s committees, support bases and new democratic people‘s republic in formation“, there is no need, we are setting the goal, the perspective; the other things we know, we do not need to write them in the programme. Here the front of classes is emphasized, but its basis is emphasized — „worker-peasant alliance“ — and the leadership of the new State we are building „led by the proletariat“ — but not simply so, it is not enough, we must be clear: „headed by its Communist Party“. The Programmes that have been made do not say so, it is convenient for us to say that; besides, a long time has passed, I believe, since the programme of the CPCh of ‘28 to date, things are already more defined and especially if we are „the revolution“, how do they say, „the most authentic“. It is evident that „the Shining Path is the movement with the greatest total revolutionary support in the world“, Aguirre, that is what comrades say and what Don Francisco Morales Bermudez, former President of Peru, Major General and other peasants say, that is what he says, „it is evident that the Shining Path is the movement with the greatest total revolutionary support in the world“, that is good, that is very good, you are already understanding, you are already understanding; there is no other, Comrades, which one, which one? Get out! The M-16, the FARC, the revolution in Nicaragua, please! I have just read your programme, it is very clear, isn‘t it, which one, then, the great revolution of Haiti of the RIM, please, it is a bad joke, or the revolution in South Africa, please! Another bad joke then, because that‘s how it is then, the RIM equals us with and even puts us at the tail, first is the revolution in South Africa; yes, I say, yes, for the imbeciles. They are clumsy and they are undermining the international communist movement, that is what is clear comrades: to bread, bread and wine, wine, as they say. So it is convenient to specify this: it is the Communist Party, so let them know it, and we do not hesitate to say it, of course, it is necessary.

Then this „as a mold for the new democracy“ with the triple content, I think it clearly specifies and the affiliation with which Chairman Mao has established, with maoism; there is its content, there is nothing more to explain in content. As a new State, everything is complete, so what is missing, what is missing, are the three issues.

7. Develop the people‘s war that, through a revolutionary army of a new type under the absolute control of the Party, destroys the old power a piece at a time, mainly their armed forces and other repressive forces. This serves to build the new power for the proletariat and the people.“

It is how to carry out this revolution. How to do it? With the people‘s war, there is no other way; with what instrument, the revolutionary Army of a new type but under the absolute leadership of the Party. Again, the Party, of course, because that is how it is, so let the other classes not dream that they will have leadership in the army, let them not dream, it is good that we are in a front of classes, but that does not mean they will command the army; if the Party does not have absolute leadership we cannot carry forward the first revolution, culminate it properly nor pass on to the second.

What are the objectives of this people‘s war with this army, to destroy by parts the old power, mainly what, its armed and repressive forces? Yes, then, we are not like Vietnam or Nicaragua, no then comrades, we are going to demolish the army, we are not going to convert it into a „new national army“, we are not for that, it is not the case of the USSR when Lenin was in power, it is not the case, it was another circumstance, another necessity.

8. To complete the formation of the Peruvian nation, truly unifying the country to defend it from all reactionary and imperialist aggression, safeguarding the rights of the minorities.“

Point 8 is about the Peruvian nation — we must pay close attention to this point. The Union of Struggle of Spain, which does not even know why it fights, says that we do not understand the national problem and we cannot understand it — it says — because Mariátegui never understood it; that is how this imbecile has the shamelessness to speak, a junta of revisionist poltroons whom the RIM consents to and calls to join together with others to form the Communist Party of Spain in an organization that is not of the RIM, whose criticisms against the Party it accepts, it accommodates, it uses. Why does it raise it like that? because the Peruvian nation is a nation in formation and that national formation is being gestated in long years, they are centuries, and it cannot be disintegrated in Quechua nation, in Aymara nation, or nations by dozens of Selvic tribes.


In formation, what corresponds is to culminate the formation of the Peruvian nation, that is either we disintegrate, or there is no Peruvian nation in the concrete. It also says, really unifying the country, because it is not unified, only we will be able to do it, both to complete the formation of the nation and to really unify the country. It also says, to defend it from all imperialist and reactionary aggression, very important; there is our „anti-patriotism“. Whoever speaks of the Peruvian nation, whoever speaks of the Peruvian nation, takes it as already consecrated, as established, and in this way they are following a fascist like Victor Andres Belaúnde, because he began with the refutation that the Peruvian nation already exists, in his „famous refutation“ of the SevenEssays, a refutation in dreams, an empty shell, he could never refute anything, comrades, it has a profound content and it has reality. I reiterate: we are a nation in formation, the country is not unified, we have to unify it, what for, to defend it, we have to defend it, why? It is going to be attacked or is exposed to aggressions at different times, imperialist or reactionary.


And the final part says, safeguarding the rights of the minorities, of course, because unifying the nation, unifying the country, there are minority differences that must be safeguarded; they demand that it is necessary to satisfy; for example, are we going to prohibit the Quechua language, how are we going to do it comrades, are we going to prohibit the Aymara language or the multitude of Selvic languages? We could not comrades, we could not: that is what it is referring to.

That is the way in which we can see the national problem, the problem of the Peruvian nation.

Point 9 is the problem of the proletariat, yes, because it is the class whose interests we are raising and serving until the end, until it fulfills its historic goal, that is what it refers to, the proletariat.

9. To serve the development of the Peruvian proletariat as part of the international working class, and the formation and strengthening of real Communist Parties and their unification in a revived international communist movement guided by marxism-leninism-maoism; all as a function of the proletariat fulfilling its great historical mission as the final class.“

We believe that this is how we should pose the problem of the proletariat, here there is no room for eight hours, unemployment, here there is no room, this is a problem of a concrete programme, because here we are posing the supreme interests of the class. Specifying, „to serve the development of the Peruvian proletariat“, of course, to develop its class consciousness, its political capacity, its capacity for leadership, that is what is meant, to give shape to its class interests, to lead, to assume power whether by leading the democratic revolution or the dictatorship of the proletariat or the cultural revolutions. That the Peruvian proletariat we conceive it as part of the international working class because it cannot separate itself from the class which is only one in the world, I reiterate.

It also says, to the formation and strengthening of real Communist Parties, of course, that is what we serve, let them jump, then; in the programmes we have not seen it this way, and we should put this way because that is how we are, then. […] their unification in a revived international communist movement“, of course, that is what we serve because it is a necessity of the international proletariat, but guided by marxism-leninism-maoism; therefore it is interesting what Morales Bermudez says, there it is then, let them check, which party raises this way, ours then and it is an obligation to do so, can we be branded as nationalists? No; I can already see the frowns of some when they read point 8, ah, nationalism came out of them, they will say and when they read point 9, internationalism came out of them, that‘s how they will say: headbutts to one side, head butts to the other, I see them, and we are going to send a lot of hepabionta, by tons, good for the liver, of course, comrades, everyone knows how to scrub, the other thing, are principles: all as a function of the proletariat fulfilling its great historical mission as the final class“, of course, what better way to serve the proletariat, could we replace it — I repeat — for eight hours? Obviously not comrades, it is a demand, but not the supreme demand of the class.

10. To defend the freedoms, rights, benefits, and conquests that the working class and the masses have achieved at the cost of their own blood, recognizing them and guaranteeing their authentic enforcement in a ‚Declaration of the Rights of the People‘. To observe, particularly, the freedom of religious conscience, but in its widest sense, of believing as not to believe. Also to combat all arrangements harmful to the people‘s interest, especially any form of unpaid work or personal burden and the overwhelming taxes imposed on the masses.“

Point 10 refers to the rights of the people, that is what it refers to, I think it is quite understandable. Let us take the fundamental: „rights of the people“, much is said and spread in the world about human rights, it is raised by imperialist countries, it is raised by the bourgeoisie in concrete terms, it is a bourgeois position, as Marx said, it is in „The Holy Family“, there I raise this problem; he said: To raise human rights, what is it? To raise bourgeois right, it is the position of the bourgeoisie“; that is why Engels speaks of „democratic rights and obligations“ and in that way, he says, the bourgeois character is removed, there is no trace of bourgeois […], he says. Why we raise people‘s rights? Because that is how Lenin taught us, he taught us that way. This is a fundamental document that the revolution, the Party in particular, will have to make.

Good. To defend the liberties, rights, benefits and conquests of the class and the masses: liberties, we understand; rights, we understand; benefits we also understand (social benefits for example) and conquests, of course, we have to end with conquests, let us suppose, the Summer timetable that the State employees have here — because its name is not State bureaucracy, it is State employees; bureaucracy is the upper layer, it is the one in charge, that is it; the others are workers but not workers, obviously — that is what it refers to. How to respect them, how to recognize them? Through the „Declaration of the Rights of the People“; that is why we say this is the problem of the rights of the people, of the big bourgeois? No, of the people alone. What is the people, it is a concept that historically is defined according to the stage and the period of the revolution, it is enough to put people; the Chairman has taught us what the people are, this concept comes from Marx, from Marx comes the problem of the people.

To respect, particularly, the freedom of religious conscience, but in its full extent, both to believe and not to believe, seems to us to be very pertinent, especially if they want to oppose us with the Church, here we are not respecting or keeping the rights of the sacrosanct Roman and Japanese apostolic church, no, that is not our problem, here we are not respecting the rights of the hierarchy that is part of the oppression, as Lenin said: army, police, judges, prisons and priests, the same thing, part of the same thing, of oppression; here what we are, and we have the obligation, is to guarantee the freedom of religious conscience and we have restricted it, it is not freedom of conscience but religious freedom, because that must be highlighted, there are those who want to believe in a potsherd or whatever, that is why, the opium of the people — Marx said it — was vented as the relations of exploitation change and the new relations of production require a long way for that. But in its full extent it implies both believing and not believing; just as some have the right not to believe, we have the right to atheism; in other words, that is the full form of freedom of religious conscience.

Likewise, we must fight against any disposition harmful to the people‘s interests, because many laws, many actions are harmful to the interests and rights of the people, we must fight against them, especially — what? — any form of unpaid work or personal burden; unpaid work cannot be allowed and why do we say personal burden, because it is very broad. The personal burden is strictly of feudal root, the bourgeoisie itself only accepts two personal burdens: 1) taxes and 2) compulsory military service, it accepts nothing else; how many personal burdens can they invent? Many, then it is enough to put personal burden, broad. And the burdensome taxes that fall on the masses, yes; we have not wanted to put, yet, the problem of progressive taxes which is the thesis of Marx, that is the thesis of Engels, it is the thesis of Lenin, it is the thesis of the Chairman, that is a question of specifying, because if there are no taxes the State cannot be economically solvent, but it has to be progressive and it is specified in many ways; we must remember, in Russia Lenin showed various forms according to the needs of the revolution, it is better to leave it open.

Then we enter in point 11 to the protection of special layers of the population by special condition that he has them. Hence we put:

11. Real equality for women […]“

Only the revolution alone will give it, understood, then we are for the emancipation of women but that is part of the whole revolution and it is part of the emancipation of the proletariat; therefore, comrades, wait until communism, it will undoubtedly come, that is what the thesis says, it is no barbarity, according to marxism the emancipation of women is part of the emancipation of the proletariat, that is when there will be full equality before life, they will be leaps that will be made; that is how it is, desire is one thing, reality is another, the other is not seeing reality, that is what marxism says, a decree is not enough, we could give a decree, right? Full legal equality, equality before life, but it is not going to be true, comrades, that is the fact. Lenin distinguished that well, he said: One thing is equality before the law, to guarantee the equality of man and woman, and another thing equality before life“, of course and from there he said that the problem is that women fight for their own emancipation and they can only do it within the emancipation of the proletariat, there is no other way to do it.

[…] a better future for the youth […]“

Obvious. What, then, is the future for the youth in this rotten society?

[…] protection for the mothers and the children […]“

Understandable, comrades, I don’t see what you are going to refute here.

[…] respect and support for the elderly.“

Also, don‘t we see how they treat even the retired, even the police forces themselves, what role do the elderly play here? They also deserve respect and support.

12. A new culture as a combat weapon to solidify the nation, that serves the people‘s masses and is guided by the scientific ideology of the proletariat. Special importance to education will be given.“

Point 12 refers to the new culture. Yes, it is the way in which we are concretizing what the Chairman says about the new culture, that is what we are aiming at. What are we emphasizing, its condition as a weapon to concretize nationality, yes, it is indispensable. That the culture of nationality that we must shape is not the corruption of people‘s music as it is done in the huaynos, it is not that corruption, destroying precisely its deep cultural roots that will shape our nationality, we do not agree with that corruption; it is not those pantomime functions of political task that the United Left does, that is not promoting people‘s culture; to have huacos in your house is not to be nationalist, it is not to have national spirit for that reason, it is not true, to be a collector of antiques does not necessarily express national spirit, why, do you think that Mujica Gallo has national spirit? And I think he has a very valuable historical collection, don’t you think that the Osmas have a national spirit for having a very large collection of art from the Viceroyalty? No, comrades, not that, comrades. We must generate a new culture to make nationality concrete, it is necessary because we are a nation in formation.

That serves the popular masses and is guided by the scientific ideology of the proletariat. Why here we have called it scientific, to emphasize that character that has to go against superstition, false ideologies, against idealism. Because we are not considering a proletarian culture, that corresponds to the second moment; we are talking about a national culture (consequently anti-imperialist), democratic (therefore anti-feudal, it is expressed in that it serves the people‘s masses) and cannot, that culture, but be guided by the ideology of the proletariat that we have said that this ideology is scientific, and here it corresponds to bring out that character for the above mentioned: it goes against superstition, with all that is putrefied in ideology because if it does not have that guide there is no new culture. Compare it with that of Vietnam: „national, democratic“, but what ideology guides it, it does not say.

Give special importance to education, understandable I think. It will be necessary to explain, express, concretize how this education is, because now everybody is in the new education and they are repeating a set of imperialist theses or catholic criteria, rotten of the church like the famous „conscientization“, Frere‘s stupidity; what was that based on? On christian imperialism, that thesis is of feudal origin, we are not going to allow that, the new education is well qualified, well specified: education and work, that is the thesis of marxism, that is the thesis of Marx, that is what we will have to forge.

13. To support the struggles of the international proletariat, of the oppressed nations, and of the peoples of the world; fighting against the superpowers, the United States and Soviet Union, imperialism in general, and international reaction and revisionism of all types, conceiving of the Peruvian revolution as part of the proletarian world revolution.“

Here is expressed the connection of proletarian internationalism, serving the world revolution; we believe it is understandable, it is enough to highlight the parts separated by semicolons. Struggles of the international proletariat, the class, the oppressed nations and the peoples of the world, this is how it has to be. Against the superpowers, because it is the period in which we are, the United States and the Soviet Union, that is why it must be emphasized; imperialism in general, of course, whatever imperialism it may be: the Japanese because they consider it. The Japanese imperialists consider that the Andean Pact area is a complement to their economy, are their Japanese companies not involved everywhere, there are Teng‘s sons, now they are going to invest as well; the French, not to mention the Germans are scrubbing and scrubbing all the time; all that research, that research, who pays for it, well, imperialism, particularly the Europeans, that is where the senderologists like Gonzales come from. International reaction — of course — and revisionism of all kinds, superpowers, half-powers, impotent or whatever, of all kinds. Conceiving of the Peruvian revolution as part of the proletarian world revolution.

Point 14 is the problem of the revolution as a unity, of its stages and its continuation and culmination, that is very necessary, I believe the debate shows it:

14. To struggle tenaciously and heroically for the complete victory of the democratic revolution nationwide and after completing this stage, at once, without pause, to begin the socialist revolution so that, together with the international proletariat, the oppressed nations and the peoples of the world, through cultural revolutions, will continue the march of humanity towards its final goal, communism.“

I think it is extremely necessary, mainly today, to emphasize the permanent revolution; to emphasize, in second place, the complete and utter triumph of the democratic revolution in the whole country, they will not even take away a little piece from us, that generates serious problems; to move on to socialism for and together with the international proletariat, the oppressed nations and the peoples of the world, through cultural revolutions, to continue the march of humanity towards the final goal, communism — why do we say continue the march of humanity? Because we enter together or nobody enters at all.

Both points 13 and 14 express the link between the Peruvian revolution and the world revolution, an unavoidable interrelation not only on principle, but even the triumph of the democratic revolution — as the Chairman conceived — has to do with the world situation, with the world circumstances, and the development of the revolution requires that the revolution takes place in other countries, in other nations, and together we fight for communism and enter it.

Those are the issues of the programme. Then it says: „But considering that the democratic revolution in the country crosses a period characterized by:

1) Deepening of the general crisis of Peruvian society, mainly of bureaucratic capitalism;

2) Greater reactionarization of the State, today with an Aprista government, fascist and corporativist, headed by the genocidal García Pérez;

3) Sharpening of the class struggle, with the masses accepting more and more the need for combating and resisting;

4) The people‘s war developing vigorously and growing; and,

5) The people’s need for a people‘s republic built according to the principles of new democracy.“

Why raise this issue? Chairman Mao tells us: We must have a general programme, but according to the period of the revolution we must establish a concrete programme“; consequently, we must specify the period and 5 notes are proposed to characterize it. You will remember — we said — there is a relation between characteristics 1 and 3, between 2 and 4, because they form contradictions — you will remember — and all these contradictions lead to point 5: „The people‘s need for a people‘s republic built according to the principles of new democracy.“ The period is indispensable to specify it, without it there is no concrete programme; I think that will be that already dealt with even in the preparatory report, comrades, we do not need to endorse.

We must apply a concrete programme […]“ […] From the beginning what have we told you, it is a concrete programme „for this period, with the following specific objectives“. We have proposed that this concrete programme be established, sanctioned after the debate of the general programme and of the period in order to have contributions that specify the application of the problems according to the conditions of the regions or zones; that is why here we put concrete programme, suspensive points.

We have proposed that the statutes be seen later, because it will be the strictly organizational part, even though it will also have to start from affirmations of principle, obviously; that is why we put suspensive dots […].

Well comrades, […]: We must apply a concrete programme“ and then, under that title: concrete programme, is that clear, comrades? I think we all understand […].

Well, that‘s all we can say about programme and statutes.

From the 1st Congress of the Communist
Party of Peru, convened in 1988-89.


THE DAILY: Speaking of ideology, why Gonzalo thought?

CHAIRMAN GONZALO: Marxism has always taught us that the problem lies in the application of universal truth. Chairman Mao Tse-tung was extremely insistent on this point, that if marxism-leninism-maoism is not applied to concrete reality, it is not possible to lead a revolution, not possible to transform the old order, destroy it, or create a new one. It is the application of marxism-leninism-maoism to the Peruvian revolution that has produced Gonzalo thought. Gonzalo thought has been forged in the class struggle of our people, mainly the proletariat, in the incessant struggles of the peasantry, and in the larger framework of the world revolution, in the midst of these earthshaking battles, applying as faithfully as possible the universal truths to the concrete conditions of our country. Previously we called it the guiding thought. And if today the Party, through its Congress, has sanctioned the term Gonzalo thought, it‘s because a leap has been made in the guiding thought through the development of the people‘s war. In sum, Gonzalo thought is none other than the application of marxism-leninism-maoism to our concrete reality. This means that it is main specifically for our Party, for the people‘s war and for the revolution in our country, and I want to emphasize that. But for us, looking at our ideology in universal terms, I emphasize once again, it is maoism that is main.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
„Interview With Chairman Gonzalo“
July 1988


Briefly, the struggle in China for establishing Mao Tse-tung thought began in 1935 at the Tsunyi Meeting, when Chairman Mao assumed the leadership of the CPCh. In 1945 the 7th Congress agreed that the CPCh was guided by marxism-leninism and the ideas of Mao Tse-tung, a specification suppressed by the 8th Congress, since a rightist line prevailed in it. The 9th Congress in 1969 resumed the GPCR and ratified that the CPCh is guided by marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought; that was as far as it advanced.

On an international level, it acquired influence from the 1950s onwards; but it is with the GPCR that it spread intensely and its prestige rose powerfully and Chairman Mao was acknowledged as the great leader of the world revolution and originator of a new stage in marxism-leninism; thus, a great number of Communist Parties assumed the denomination of marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought. On the world level, maoism confronted modern revisionism openly unmasking it profoundly and forcefully, and likewise it did so in the CPCh‘s own ranks, all of which raised the Chairman‘s great red banner still more: The new, third, and higher stage of the ideology of the international proletariat. At present, maoism confronts the triple attack of Soviet, Chinese and Albanian revisionism. But furthermore, even among those who acknowledge the Chairman‘s great contributions, including the development of marxism, there are some who believe that we are still in the stage of marxism-leninism, and others who only accept Mao Tse-tung thought but by no means maoism.

In this country, obviously, the revisionists who follow the baton of their diverse masters, Gorbachev, Teng, Alia or Castro furiously attack and keep attacking maoism; among them one must condemn, unmask and implacably combat Del Prado‘s crusty revisionism and his gang, the so called „Peruvian Communist Party“; the crawling deviousness of the self-proclaimed „Communist Party of Peru, Red Fatherland“, who, after building themselves up as „great maoists“ became Teng‘s servants, after having condemned him when he was defenestrated in 1976, as well as the anti-maoism of the so-called „United Left“, in whose heart swarmed all the revisionist and even anti-marxist positions passed off by false marxists and opportunists of many kinds. We must uphold maoism as a revealing mirror for revisionists in order to combat them implacably, working for the development of the people‘s war and the triumph of the democratic revolution underway, which is an unavoidable and unrenounceable task of a strategic character.

The Communist Party of Peru (CPP), through the faction led by Chairman Gonzalo that propelled its refounding, took up marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought in 1966; in 1979 the slogan ‚Uphold, defend, and apply marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought!‘; in 1981: ‚Towards maoism!‘; and, in 1982, took maoism as an integral part and superior development of the ideology of the international proletariat: marxism-leninism-maoism. It is with the people‘s war that we have understood more deeply what maoism implies and we have taken up the solemn pledge to ‚Uphold, defend, and apply marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism!‘ and to struggle relentlessly in helping to place it as command and guide of the world revolution, the sole red and unfading banner that is the guarantee of triumph for the proletariat, the oppressed nations, and peoples of the world in their inexorable, combative march of iron legions towards the golden and always brilliant communism.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
„Fundamental Documents“

„But it is important, that in this last part („Concerning Gonzalo Thought“), in which it says: ‚Key point is to see how, in this great class struggle on the world level, Gonzalo thought considers that a third stage of the proletarian ideology arises: First, as marxism-leninism, Mao Tse-tung thought; then marxism-leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought; and later, it is defined as maoism, understanding its universal validity; and in this way reaching marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism, as the present expression of marxism.‘

Chairman Gonzalo
„Exposition on the Fundamentals of Gonzalo Thought“

„The key question on this point lies in the understanding of the historical process of the development of the proletarian ideology, of its three stages shaped in marxism-leninism-maoism and with maoism as main; and, mainly, it is the application of marxism-leninism-maoism as a universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Peruvian revolution; hence Gonzalo thought is specifically main for the CPP and the revolution it leads. ‚[…] the understanding of the historical process of the development of the proletarian ideology‘, this is key, how the process of ideology of the international proletariat is understood, which leads us to: To what? To maoism as the main. This is the base that sustains it, that is why it is the main. Without that, there is nothing. And then ‚[…] the application of marxism-leninism-maoism as the universal truth to the concrete conditions of the Peruvian revolution‘. This is what is essential, it is not enough to say the main thing is to take up marxism-leninism-maoism, if you don’t add that what is essential is mainly the application to the concrete conditions because without it, Gonzalo thought would have no sense, you have to see the two things, and this in strict application of what Chairman Mao has taught us. The problem of marxism is its application, and that is what Lenin taught and what Marx taught. I think, that this part must be very much being taken in consideration and what is essential; you take this away, and you take away the essence of Gonzalo thought, it will not have an essence.

Following, concern yourself in what it says: consequently, take this foundation, maoism, from this application which is essential: to what does it lead? ‚Hence Gonzalo thought is specifically main for the Communist Party of Peru and the revolution it leads.‘ Here the word is ‚specifically‘, that is what you have to catch here. Because if it would not say ‚specifically main‘, then comrades would be negating that the main is marxism-leninism-maoism. Do you understand what I want to say? It would be not to see its universal validity, and that we cannot do. To be communist, first, we must be marxist-leninist-maoist, and since we act in this country that is called Peru, it is essential to apply it here in Peru, but without the first, you cannot have the second. From this follows: Gonzalo thought is the main for the Party, yes. Specifically: what does that mean? Regarding the application, regarding the necessity of our revolution, in this specific case, for this concrete question; in this way you cannot in any way leave aside marxism-leninism-maoism, because that is the universal truth and that is the source from which we always have to drink.“


„[…] you cannot put forward a thought if you don’t keep in mind the universal truth which is an integral part.“


„Content of Gonzalo thought. a. Theory. We need to know well, how to conceive Gonzalo thought: it is a specification of our revolution, of our proletariat, of our Party, of the class struggle and of the war which is its highest form and it must be seen like that. If we see it specifically in this manner, our problem is not to put it at the level of marxism-leninism-maoism, because that could not be, it would be a grave error, we could never do it, never, comrades. We should not confuse things. When we treat theory, what we have to see is how its being handled, how marxism-leninism-maoism is being applied, and its three integral parts; if there is a contribution, this is secondary today, might be, that tomorrow it develops, but tomorrow is not today. I think we have to be very clear and very concrete, understand it well, more, when we put forward theory, the theory because here we speak about – I repeat – the three integral parts, of the universal truth and only here we can think about how its being applied, how its being handled; if there are contributions, time will tell. For me, this is the key, comrades, a distant thing is the question about its content – this we are going to see – there is a difference.“


„Regarding the theory, what did the document say? That is why it puts forward: ‚how to understand and apply‘ — that is why they said – ‚how it understands and applies the three integral parts of marxism-leninism-maoism‘, that is what it says. Here its not said, how it is developed. I think you have to be objective and yes, there are perspectives, you can see perspectives, but to me, a perspective is a perspective, first the perspective has to be carried out, so to say this is now truth […] don’t take as a reality, what is a perspective. But regarding theory, you must be very careful, because it handles the universal truth. You have to be very clever and careful and therefore it says like that: ‚how to understand and apply‘.“


„[…] coming to the point of the content of Gonzalo thought – we speak about the part which says ‚most substantial and most developed‘ is the general political line – because here is the problem. Where is it? In the specifications of our line, in what we consider typical or peculiar in our revolution, with all the perspective that it has or might have in some points. That is why we only innumerate the specifications of the general political line and the contributions to the world revolution that we must highlight. I told you, that you have to put it in line; comrades, the first is the universal theory, be very careful with this; if there are contributions, look at them in the general political line, which is the substantial or most substantial, most developed. That is why we put it forward like this: specifications of the general political line and contributions to the world revolution that we must highlight.“


„It is absurd to compare historic figures, historic persons; everyone of us develops in a different and precise historic context. We could never counterpose ourselves to our glorious founder Marx or Lenin or Chairman Mao, and not these two with the first, and not one against another, never, I speak about facts; because counterposing the one who speaks with Chairman Mao, please! It seems to me as a bad joke and stupid taste. How could you counterpose the specification to one country with the highest peak of the universal ideology, how? That makes no sense, comrades, that is not even really worth thinking about.“


„What has Gonzalo thought done? Two things: a) defined a third, new and higher stage of marxism, marxism-leninism-maoism, mainly maoism, and b) the people‘s war; which is the main? Well, […] obviously maoism.“


„About the content, we have to highlight the specifications that we put forward as a question to develop, because we must study more, but somewhere we have to start. Why? Because its the key to treat the content, concerning it being the most substantial and developed part of Gonzalo thought. But there the questions are the specifications from which derives the contributions towards the world revolution. The fundamental is the problem of the conquest of power here in Peru, serving the dictatorship of the proletariat in the world, so as to serve communism. It is very concrete. The forge calls us simply to this: to see how Gonzalo thought has been forged and is being developed in the two-line struggle; without this two-line struggle, there is no Gonzalo thought, it cannot develop, only that way a thought surges and develops, no other way.“


„Construction is the base, people‘s war is the main and the line, the base of party unity, is the guide.“

Communist Party of Peru
„Summary Document of the 1st Congress“

„And these great leaders do not come in large quantities and it takes time for their forging […] In decades, a revolution generates a handful of great leaders, leaders are generated in a larger amount, a larger amount of cadres and a whole mass of militants.“

Chairman Gonzalo
„Thought Foundation“

„However, the main is that a great leader is generated, a single head that clearly stands out, far above of the rest, and this is what we have to understand and it is not because of the will of anyone, it is the reality of the revolution itself, the class and the party, that demand and promote this confirmation.“


„Engels insisted on this and told us that even a literary movement has a head that represents it […] We have the three grandest ones (Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung), great leaders of the world revolution, because that is their extent; it is subsidiary that they were also great leaders of their parties and of their concrete revolution because the main thing is that they are great leaders of the world revolution and therefore established the great process of the development of marxism, shaping marxism-leninism-maoism.“


„Any founding, no matter what it is, has two consecutive parts, two elements which together form any organization or institution. First, the ideological part, that is, the dynamics of thought, the formation of a programme, the founding of its points of agreement, the importance of statutes, etc., and a second part, the founding of the organizational apparatus strictly speaking.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
„In Order to Understand Mariátegui“

„As for the rectification campaign, we believe it is a form of carrying out the struggle and will seek to apply it. We remember that its objective is to unite, differentiate and lead, adjusting itself more to the base of Party unity, upholding that the slightest deviation from Gonzalo thought will cause us to slip into revisionism. To prevent the Party from allowing the creation of a right-opportunist line, which would be revisionist, would entail to fight against four changes:

Change in Party;

Change in Line;

Change in leadership; and

Change in the people‘s war.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
„Preparatory Session of the 2nd Plenum
of the 1st Central Committee“
October-November 1990

„[…] we were few, a handful, so the question is not how many there are but whether you want to or not.“


„Pay attention to its editorial because it explains the path. Not only to retake Mariátegui but also to develop him, that was the criterion from the beginning. We have already fought, we have an ideological-political document, then we begin to promote the refounding, again a parallel between ideological-political and organizational development.“


„Without ideological and political foundations it is not possible to open the road. It is decisive.“


„The 1st Congress of the Party adopted that the main thing in Gonzalo thought is having defined maoism as new, third and higher stage, because Chairman Mao Tse-tung has developed marxism in each of its three component parts: marxist philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism, and thus, it is a universally valid development. In the same way, Chairman Gonzalo has masterfully established that what is fundamental in maoism is power. ‚Power for the proletariat, power for the dictatorship of the proletariat, power based on an armed force directed by the Communist Party‘ and defined that ‚Maoism is the elevation of marxism-leninism to a new, third and higher stage in the struggle for the democratic revolution, the development of the construction of socialism and the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as proletarian cultural revolution, while imperialism deepens its decomposition and the revolution has become the main historic tendency, in midst of the most complete and great wars seen until today and the implacable struggle against contemporary revisionism.‘ Later, with a profound historic vision, he established that maoism in marching to command the new great wave of the proletarian world revolution which is coming towards us and is irresistable, which no force in the world is capable of countering.


From the previous we derive, once again, that the celebration of the centenary of Chairman Mao is a necessity, it is of transcendental historic importance, it has a profound strategic content, it is a glorious task corresponding to the strategic offensive of the world revolution and the new great wave of the proletarian world revolution, and it is inseperably linked to the campaign to „Defend the Life of Chairman Gonzalo!“. We will fill the Earth with wavering red flags, hoisting the slogan: „Long Live Maoism!“, to the top, which jubilantly will flare up to salute the birthday of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, great titan of thought and action, whose life was to the end filled up by the eternal light of marxism, the all-powerful creative force of the masses and the spirit of serving the people.“

Central Committee
Communist Party of Peru
„Resolution: Long Live Maoism!“
August 1993


From the previous can be seen Chairman Gonzalo‘s contributions to the inevitable fourth stage of marxism, which is to come, inevitably, as a result of the class struggle of the international proletariat. Keep in mind the decision of the work session of the Central Committee of the CPP of August 1993, in which it was established that Chairman Gonzalo is not the fourth sword, but that he has contributed to the fourth stage. This is why we say that Gonzalo thought is the only systematized contribution to the inevitable fourth stage of marxism.

It can additionally be seen that there is a clear difference between the synthesis and definition of a stage; the two are not, as some say, the same. It is also not the case that Chairman Gonzalo has only defined maoism; it is clear that „On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism“ provides a general synthesis, based on an analysis of the life and work of Chairman Mao in his great leadership of the proletarian world revolution and the Chinese revolution, and that the definition of maoism only constitutes one paragraph of this masterful document.

These are facts to keep in mind when working to identify, retake and develop the guiding thought of the CPS in theory and practice, together with the programme and general political line, mainly military line, and simoultaneously reconstructing the apparatuses of the party liquidated by the 2nd right-opportunist line (the so-called „Party of Labor“) and building new ones, both as militarized and concentrically built apparatuses, serving the refounding of the party for the people‘s war.

May 2021


1Communist Party of Switzerland: „Exposition by Comrade Wiesendanger and Discussion Regarding the Position of the Communist Party of Switzerland on the Social-Democratic Party and on Parliamentarism“, 3rd Work Session of the 4th Countrywide Conference, 11.04.1920.

2The world moloch stems from the name of the god of the Canaanites and Phoenicians in the bible, to whom children were sacrificed. Moloch is defined in the Duden dictionaryas: „cruel power that always claims new victims and threatens to devour everything“,just as imperialism, the final stage of capitalism.

3Karl Marx: „Theses on Feuerbach“, 1845.

4V. I. Lenin: „The Collapse of the 2nd International“, May-June 1915.

5 See „Long Live the Victory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!“, 18.03.1971.

6V. I. Lenin: „Opportunism and the Collapse of the 2nd International“, January 1916.

7Documents of the 1st Plenum of the Provisional Central Committee of the Communist Party of Switzerland (Red Faction), 2021.

8The Movement of the Revolutionary Left.

9The National Liberation Army.

101st Congress of the Communist Party of Peru: „Fundamental Documents“, 1988.