peoples march

from the people against injustice in the society

PCP Kill Soldier, Wound Four Others in Peru

Posted by ajadhind on June 8, 2009

LIMA – At least one soldier died and four more were wounded in an attack launched by Communist Party Of Perú (PCP) against the military base at Sanabamba in the Ayacucho region.

On Friday the attack occurred during a changing of troops at the military base, when a helicopter arrived bringing reinforcements.

Defense Ministry officials said that the aircraft was not shot down, but was hit by several bullets in the fuselage.

Soldiers at the Sanabamba base are carrying out an offensive against the PCP in the valley of the Aspurimac and Ene rivers (VRAE), who move throughout this jungle region in an attempt to establish base areas.

It was in that same area that the PCP ambushed an army patrol last Easter Week, leaving 14 soldiers dead.

The Maoist-inspired group launched its uprising on May 17, 1980, with an attack on Chuschi, a small town in Ayacucho province.

Advertisements

One Response to “PCP Kill Soldier, Wound Four Others in Peru”

  1. Harsh Thakor said

    a.On Maoism V.Mao Tse Tung Thought

    There is a debate in the Revolutionary Camp on the question of whether Maoism can replace the term Mao Tse Tung Thought.One section states that only the term Maoism can correctly credit his contribution,the other condemns this replacement as it feels the that that it replaces the era of ‘Leninism.”

    One aspect nobody can deny that Comrade Mao took Leninsim to a higher phase through his development of protracted PeoplesWar in semi-colonial countries and with his thesis on continuous Revolution under the dictatorship of the Proletariat.It was Mao who discovered that even a Socialist Society or State can degenerate into a bourgeoisie order in the economic and political Sheres.He imbibed Crucial lesson from Kruschev’s transformation of China into a Revisionist State.He introduced the concept of a Revolution within a Socialist Society itself ,without which he felt that it would revert to a bourgeoisie society. Infact historically Mao’s teachings are most relevant when analysing the triumph of Krusuchev’s bourgeois state In 1956.Infact Revisonism had it’s roots in the Stalinist era as though he led his country to a great victory in the world War agaisnt Nazi Germay saving the Socialist State he hardly called for Democratic Struggles from below in a Socialist party and unleashed repression on party Members. Mao had earlier applied Lenin’s colonial thesis in applying a military line for the colonial or Semi-colonial Countries thus developing the theory of New emocratic Revolution.Wihout this first stage a Socialist Society could not develop in third World Countries,where a united Front was made with the national bourgeoisie.,in aliance with the petite bougeoisie,proletariat and peasntry under the leadership of the proletariat/Even after the triumph of the Revolution in 1949 the CC.P called the ideology “Marxism-Leninsm and the Thought of Mao Tse Tung.In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched in 1966 period the C.C.P,termed it Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought. Imperialism’If hypothetically tomorrow Socialist Revolutions exist in Europe they would have applied Mao’s revolutionary theories before and after Revolution without which they would not be true Marxists. To conduct 2-line struggle in a Socialist Society within a Leninist party as Mao did i the Cultural Revolution was an innovation in itself. To me Mao’s military line can be relevant everywhere whether in a third world Country or a European Country.Look at the peoples War in Chechyna.True it would not have the same charasterictis in China or Asia but the concept copuld be adapted in the relevant manner towards accomplishing the goal of a Socialist Revolution.Remember it was Comrade Mao who discovered the first military line and it would be wrong to say that his theory was inapplicable to a first World Country.Mao was the first to provide the International Proletraiat with a correct Military line. Mao also made philisophical contributions like his discovery of he Law of Contradiction as the fundamental law o dialectics in nature.

    To me the fundamental point is whether the term Maoism replaces the era of Leninsm with Maoism. Lenin took Marxism to a higher stage by discovering Imperialism as a development of Capitalism in his colonial thesis.He also developed the concept of the Party of the Proletariat,unlike Marx who felt a revolutionary Society would continue with the Parliamentary democratic System even after the proletarian dictatorship was established.Mao applied Leninism in Party building stressing the concept of democratic centralism,right upto the Cultural Revolution. Mao has not discovered a new era like Comrade Lenin but he has made major theoretical innovations. Lenin took Marxism to a higher stage to a higher stage as a development of Imperialism from Capitalism and thus created a new era.Similarly Mao Tse Tung Thought does not reject Leninism but just means that Leninism has been taken to a higher stage. To me the Importance is that the contribution of Marx and Lenin are not placed on a lower pedestal.Terming the era as Maoism means rejecting the Leninist era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution?.Maoism can only be applied as a component of Marxism and Leninism.Mao took Marxism –Leninism to a higher stage,but did not discover a new era. We must assert that Maoism is thesis and not a law in itself and it would be an un-marxist trend to call the present era the era of Maoism.

    To divide the revolutionary Camp on the question of Maoism against Mao thought would be harmful.True Comrades in Nepal had led a major armed struggle and a series of Peoples Wars were fought in the World propogating the terminolgy of of Maoism.It is also true that organisations still upholding Mao Te Tung Thought like Liberation Group and the Kanu Sanyal C.P.I(M.L) represent ther rightist or revisionst trend.The esrtwhile Red Flag Group also has wrong reasoning by clubbing Maosim with the term Lin Biaoism which rejects the leadership of the Party of the Proletariat and terming it as a mere military line.

    The Shining Path Movement in Peru was on the verge of victory about 15 years ago ,while in Phillipines it is at a progressive stage. In India the C.P.I(Maoist) leads a powerful armed struggle.However let us examiine that 3 of the 4 organisations mentioned have either capitulated, had amajor setbak or vitiated by left sectarian trends.The Revolutinary Internationalist Movement is also in astage of collapsing.Some ideologues feel that the term Maosim dose true justice to Mao’s Contribution.Describing Maoism as an ism in itself would virtually mean that we are existing in the era of Maoism. However to me as long as we accept the modern era as that of Leninism and Imperialism ,it is incorrect to replace the term Mao Tes Tung Thought with Maoism .It defines Comrade Mao’s contributions in a more clear manner.Maoism canot exist withouth Marxism and Leninism and is a component. The reason why forces like the P.C.P,N.C.P(M), and C.P.I(Maoist )justify this as they decsribe the era as that of total collapse of Imperialism and attribute his to the 9th Congess of the C.P.C.in 1969. as different to “Imperialism and Proletraian Revolution’.

    It is relevant that even the Chinese Communist Party used the terminology of Mao Tse Tung thought ,even in the Cultural Revolution period.A very Important point is whether an ism can be seperated from an era.Despite several proletarian Armed Struggles atking plae worldwide including the Indian Naxalbari version the Chinese Comrades never replaced the term Mao Tse Tung Thought.

    b.Question of Era

    In the 1969 Party Congress the C.C.P had reported that it was the era where “Imperialism was heading for a Collapse and Proletarian revolution were triumphing.”This has been interpreted in different ways by the revolutionary Groups.One section states it maent ‘the era of total Collapse of Imperialism’ and promoted Left Adventurism in defining it as a new era.- and was wrong.Another interprets it as correctly replacing the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution with era of Total colapse of Imperialism. stating that infact it was a different era-that of Mao Tse ung Thought or Maoism where Imperialism was on the verge of a collapse.The latter trend is the view of the C.P.I Maoist like forces.Such Intellectuals assert that it is not the Imperialism of the Lenin’s period and the World economy has undergone qualitaive changes.In their view it has considerably weakened. And that one can only aknowledge Maoism by calling it the eraof Total Collapse of Imperialism and Victory of Proletraian Revolution.Howevever within this section the Jan Muktikami Group (Interestingly this section terms Maoism a Revisionist and MaoTse Tung Thought Correct).asserts that it is still a part of the era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution.(Infact this group referring to Mao Tese ung thought propagate that rejecting total collapse of Imperialism amounts to abandoning Mao Tse Tung Thought..This is a trend to be combated.It denies the modern era as that of ‘Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution a and replaces it .Whatever may have been the changes in he post World War 2 phase in terms of change of dominace of Colonies to that of the Superpowers or 4 decades later the collapse of erstwhile U.S S R and the change in the World Situation.Even groups who fight tooth and nail against replacing Mao Tse Tung Thought with Maoism feel that not accepting the “total collapseof Imperialism’ theory amount s to rejecting Mao. The Cultural revolution left some invaluable lessons for all cadres and students of the Communist Movement. What is most important is to combat the trend of the era of collapse of Imperialism and Vicory of Proletaraian Revolution.The most important theoretical point is whether the . 9th C.P.C Congress held in 1969,actually propogated this.Infact the 10th Congress of 1973 reverted to the defintion of ‘Era of Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution.In the era of globalization there have been Important changes but has Imperialism weakened?Are proletarian Revolutions on the verge of triumphing.?True U.SA,like today has gone through severe economic crisis’s in their history and even European Countries have a fluctuating economies but does that does not prove thhat Imperialism is collapsing.Just because the Imperialuist Countries had resorte to neo-colonialism particularly dose not indicate that Imperialism was collapsing,even i the ra of the cold War betwen the ual Superpowers,U.S.A and the erstwhile U.S S R.Comrade Stalin even after the end of World War 2 asserted the era as that of Imperialism and ProletArian revolution as advocated by Leninism.Another dangerous trend was that which advocated that war was the main trend and not Revolution.Today there are serious revolutinary Movements but no one which is on the verge of triumphing and no Imperialist economy which is on the verge of collapsing.To me it is this wrong analysis that rejects Leninism.It promotes Left Adventurism.

    There is alos an erroneous trend that propogates that Lin Biaoism existed in the C.P.C.(view of C.P.I.M.L-Kanu Sanyal group)True Lin Biao used Mao’s cult to promote the fallacious theory of genius and immortalised the Red Book as works of magic.After becoming succesor he oposed the Cultural Revolution.However if Lin Biaoism prevailed then the line of the C.C.P would have ben vitiated.Another trend advocates that Mao did not learn from the lessons of the Paris Comune and Lenin and legalised the revolutionary Commitees which driscouraged the revolutionary Movement.Such writings undermine the ardous efforts the C.C.P made to carry out 2 –line Struggle and establish proletarian power.

    c.Question of Dictatorship of the Proletariat and International Line

    Anothr Important point is the one on the dicatatorship of the Proletariat..Some forces have gone to he extent of advocating a multi-party system like Nepal or perhaps the R.C.P. U.S A.One thing has to be acceptd.There were important weaknesses in Socialist Society in the Stalinist and Maoist Periods.Dissent was totally supressed in the Stalin era while in Mao’s time intellectuals were wrongly persecuted by Red Guards.Powerful left sectarian trends emerged .One of the most intriguing aspects was the period of Lin Biao and his rises to power.Lin immortalised Mao’s Contribution as though his works were books of magic and greatly promotd a personality Cult of Comrade Mao,of gigantic proportions.Comrade Mao had virtually become aGod.

    .Leaders like Bob Avakian propogate the encouragement of dissidence within a Socialist Society inviting criticism and inviting dissent within the Socialist State.They have gone to the extent of even finding fault with Lenin’s policies in the 1920’s.The Important theoretical debate is that can such dissent save or promote a Socialist State.Particularly in the Soviet Union intellectuals became victims of repression.Several Innocent party members were also killed .In China criticism of Comrade Mao would not have been allowed even in a dicatatorship of the Working class.However if not structured inviting dissent may defeat the dictatorship of the Proletariat or a Working class State.Would a multi-party System have saved erstwhile Socilaist States of Russia and China?Infact they may well have destroyed them.Would U.S SR have won the Graet Patrotic War agaisnt The Nazis with a MultiParty State or China achieve such great Socialist heights (from 1949-1978)in amulti-pary tructure.Let us remember the C.C.P’ phenomenal achievements from 1949-1976Without the serious 2 line Struggle the graet achievements of the Graet Proletarian Cultural Revolution would not have taken placeNever has the proletariat or peasantry been emancipated to such an extent .True there was a great personality Cult in the Maoist era but it was the first Experiment of it’s kind.Stalin had to combat phenomenal pressure in the 2ND World War. from the Imperialist Enemy forces.According to Leninism the party was the vanguard organisation of the Working class and thus the existence of various parties would contradict the dictatorship of the Proletariat.Socialist Theoreticians need to make a serious study of his aspect,particularly in light of overcoming a personality Cult and preventing supression of democratic dissent.One of the most important aspects of study is the contradiction between mass organisations and mass movements with the proletraian party. In the Cultural Revolution there were powerful, left sectarian tendencies and what has to be studied is what would have prevented the personality cult of Comrade Mao,thevictory of he rightist forces and the Socialist base for the Communist Movement.Althouh there was serious struggle there could have been tendencies of factional struggle taking place between the factions of Liu Shao Chi and MaoTse Tung instead of pure 2 –line strugggle of the Working class agaisnt he bourgeoisie.A question that needs to be researched is whether further revolutionary democratic structures could be formed or developed within the party and the revolutionary commitees.Perhaps scope for factions could be created which ideologically struggled but promoted proletarian Unityand dictatorship.The Cultural Revolution was defeated after 10 years of its launching and we have to ask ouselves why the Gang of 4 (Followers of Comrade Mao)was defeated in 1976 and the capitalist regime in China first accepted. Today leaders like Avakian hardly have structured theoretical solutions on Revolution and even propagate wrong trends that have affected the World Revolution.The organisation R.I.M was prematurely formed. in 1984.Today the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement is affected with fallacious tendencies and may well collapse. Remember even the C.P C opposed the forming of such an International learning lessons from the collapse of he 1943 Comintern.The R.I..M has promoted the capitualtion of the C.P.N.(Maoist)in Nepal and the wekening of the armed Struggle of the Shining Path in Peru.It was formed when the development of Communist Parties and the International Proletarian Revolutionary Line was hardly sufficient .

    Some forces criticize the Chinese Communist Party,stating that it was Com Mao who advocated the three World Theory’This is also false as the 3 Worlds theory was advocated by Deng Xiapoing..Some forces go to the extent of stating that Mao and the C.C.P delayed the Graet Debate and that Mao alied with he Natioanl bourgeoisie in the Socialist Revolution.They go on to say that Mao as wrong in elevating Liu Shao-Chi an Lin Bao.They forget that this was a case of 2 line Struggle within a Socialist Society.Infact Mao demonstrated great humility in resigning as head of State in 1959.Some Intellectuals condemn Mao’s foreign policies as pro-U.S as he visted America and advocated relations with them which is wrong.Mao only recognized the bourgeoisie states and did not politicaly support those regimes.It was a political tactic of peacaful-coexistence.I agree that facing it’s border problems with U.S S R it was not able to place as much emphasis on combating U.S Imperialism but Com Mao never differentiated Soviet Social Imperialism as being the greater danger.China gave great support to Vietnam agaisnt America even though Vietnam had taken a centrist postion in the Great Debate.It also never dictated policies to the Communist parties of other Countries. It is interesting that the majority of groups in the Communist Revolutionary Camp upheld the 3 World s theory which advocated that the 2nd World Countries were allies of the Revolutionary Movements against the 2 Superpowers and led them to term Soviet Social Imperialism as the principal Danger of the World people.(Before 1991)The Collapse of the U.S S.R in 1991 was a slap in the face of the 3 world theorists and an abject blow to followers of that line.

    d.United Movement

    In India today a United Movement to defend the line of the International Communist Movement is the need of the hour.There have been a series of seminars and conferences but almost all have reflected ideological deviations.Some valiant efforts were made in the period when the pseudo-Socialist East European regimes had collapsed in 1989 or erstwhile Revisionsit U.S.S R.had collapsed in 1991.The majority of Communist Revolutionary Groups defended the Socialist line ,bar the section like the then C.R.C group led by K.Venu which rejected the theory of proletarian dictatorship.Certain revolutionary groups went to the extent of supporting the Student Movement of China in 1989 and the Movements in East European Countrise overthrowing East European revisionist regimes.They failed to understand that such movements were not supported by the Proletariat and were backed by the Western Imperialist Countries.True the proletraiat rebelled but their voice or demands were not redressed by the leaderships of such Movements. -.In this respect the author feels the best effort was the one launched by the C.P.I.(M.L)T.N.O.C which held an All India Seminar in Erode in 1990 to defnd MaoTes Tung Thought .Over 13 revolutionary Groups participated representing all the trends within the Revolutionary Camp.The efforts stages by C.P.I(M.L)Red Flag were also commendable through a range of seminars carried out all over the Country,particularly in Kerala.They however erred in openly holding their programmes under the banner of the party and not a mass platform.Sadly organisations in the early 1990’s like the having the correct Understanding of the International Communist Line could hardly launch adequate mass -political platforms to defend Leninism,in the last 2 decades were unable to deply mass platforms to defend Mao Tes Tung Thought.The Janashakti Group held a huge rally of Intellectuals commemorating Mao’s 100th Birthday in Calcutta but were hardly able to relate Mao’s achievements in the language of the Masses and virtually organised Intellectuals.Although C.P.I.(M.L)Red Flag organised a Conference in 1994 C.P.I(M.L) Janashakti an International Conference in 1995 in Hyderabad and R.I.M forces organized a seminar in Calcutta in 1999(commemorating the 50th Aniversary of the Chinese Revolution ) they were hardly succesful in defending the Socialist ideology.This was principally beacuse such groups had their own theoretical weaknesses.One Important point is that such seminars should not have imposed ideolgy on the people but carried out healthy debate. It is also neccesary to explain to the Revolutionary masses in their own simple language and methods with which they could relate to that Socialism is not defeated,expose the Current Revisionsit C.P.C, and defend the achievments of the erstwhile Socialist Countries. In their propoganda the Communist Revolutionary Groups displayed dogmatism The errors of the Stalinist era or the Cultural Revolution were not adequately highlighted and very little space given for criticis.The Achievements of the Socialist Period was not explained in away the broad masses could understand.It was important to connect the achievements of he Socialist Countries wit the day to day lives of the broad masses.Although the theory of Proletarian dictatorship was correctly defended the weaknesses of personality Cult were not elaborated or the question of handling dissent in Socialist Society.The Author in Mumbai witnessed several joint Front programmes but observed lack of mass revolutionary aproach which connected ideolgy to thebroad masses.I admired the concerted efforts made by the omrades but felt here was lack of preparation.One of he best programmes taking place was the one carried out by he United Labour Union in 1991 when the erstwhile U.S S.R crashed.A revolutionary paper Jasood made commendable efffors to expose that it was revisionism that was toppled and not Socialism.Even Though today the C.P.I.(Maoist) has a huge mass base ,it’s mass political Platforms are unable to launch a sustained campaign.Even organisations represnting the Correct International Line fail to form effective mas platforms to defend Socialsit Ideology.A big united Front Platform nust be launched at the National level representing groups of all trends in defence of Marxism-Leninism,which should not become a forum for revolutionary groups to project the image of their groups or to debate mutual polemics.Seperate types of programmes should be launched for advanced Intellectuals and politically conscious workers to that of the broad masses.Some of the most Important points discussed should be on the qustion of Formation of a New Communist International.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: