Apply Maoism and Crush Revisionism [Archive]

View Full Version : Apply Maoism and Crush Revisionism

mosfeld

22nd July 2011, 15:08

TO THE PERU PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT:
APPLY MAOISM AND CRUSH REVISIONISM!
MAY MAOISM ASSUME THE COMMAND OF THE NEW GREAT WAVE OF THE WORLD PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION!

“The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in historical perspective is the most significant aspect of Chairman Mao’s development of Marxism-Leninism; it is the solution of the great pending question of the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat; ‘it represents a new stage, even deeper and broader, in the development of the socialist revolution in our country’…”.

“The Communist Party of Peru, through the faction led by Chairman Gonzalo that drove forward the reconstitution, took up Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in 1966; in 1979 the slogan ‘Uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung thought!’, in 1981: ‘Towards Maoism!’; and in 1982 Maoism as an integral part and higher development of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism…”

Fundamental Documents, PCP

The PCP salutes the work developed by the Peru People’s Movement (MPP), in developing the current international campaign: Apply Maoism and Crush Revisionism! conceived as a part of the task of serving to impose Maoism as Command and Guide of the World Proletarian revolution! and May Maoism Assume the Command of the New Great Wave of the World Proletarian Revolution! A task put forward by Chairman Gonzalo and that the PCP is developing since 1982, applying and showing the world the universal validity of our scientific ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.

The Party demands that the MPP applies the directives to be able to serve the unity of the international communist movement, and we hope that the campaign contributes to overcome the differences, strengthen its unity and create conditions for calling a conference with representatives of the Communist Parties and revolutionary organizations. There are currently many differences concerning principles; however complex they may be, we must unite our forces and strive to strengthen the Communist Parties in the struggle against Yankee imperialism.
We must defend the unity in the ICM, struggle against splits in the heart of the movement, combat those who want to liquidate, those who from the outside, without having participated in meetings, without having put forward things as should be done with documents, pronounce themselves against the unity and call for the formation of new organizations. They clearly apply the revisionist politics of: “since the things I say are not being done, I will go and form another organization”. These are the ones that capitulate, the ones that run away without waging two line struggle, and want to use other Parties that talk or act on their behalf. From the coming meetings, the leap will come.

Comrades, let us reaffirm ourselves in what Chairman Mao put forward:

“A most important lesson from the experience of the international communist movement is that the development and victory of a revolution depend on the existence of a revolutionary proletarian party.
There must be a revolutionary party.
There must be a revolutionary party built according to the revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism.
There must be a revolutionary party able to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in its own country.
There must be a revolutionary party able to link the leadership closely with the broad masses of the people.
There must be a revolutionary party that perseveres in the truth, corrects its errors and knows how to conduct criticism and self-criticism.”

Combat the revisionist positions that put forward:

“That there is a great disorder in the International Communist Movement, and the attempts that are made to make a joint declaration have caused even more disagreement… The struggle for communist unity on the world level finds itself in a very complicated situation and it is without doubt a golden opportunity for the liquidationist elements to cause harm. The important thing for those who want to struggle for communist unity is thus to put the principles of Marxism in the first place and nothing else.”

This campaign has the objective of serving the campaign May Maoism Assume the Command of the New Great Wave of the World Proletarian Revolution! It will serve to unite the communists, to develop a correct two line struggle, crush the revisionists, crush the peace accord here and in the world; it will serve to initiate people’s war. That is how it is! The revisionists are panicking and see everything black as their tomb; they want amnesty, they think it is enough to only put principles and nothing more; “line is enough” once again. They see splitting in everything, they are the ones that aim to form groups, and work without proletarian leadership, they are the ones that list problems in order to question the revolutionary organizations – old positions combated here.

We must insist with the Parties and revolutionary organizations in the fundamental point of Maoism, the power; the power under the leadership of the proletariat, in the democratic revolution, in the socialist revolution and the cultural revolutions. The power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party, conquered and defended through the people’s war. For us this is of the utmost importance; not understanding and setting aside the fundamental point of Maoism has led some members of the RIM to develop revolution detached from the question of the power, trying to destroy the old state without building the new power, being the principal aspect; it is a war that does not build or exercise the new power, the new politics, the new economy, the new culture, and the revolution cannot advance – see the situation in Nepal. This is a principal problem that must be addressed extensively in the RIM. The experience of all the Communist Parties that develop people’s war must serve to embody and apply Maoism. Therefore it is crucial to strive for the RIM to call an Expanded Conference with the participation of all its members, to address the following points:

1. Evaluation of the application of Maoism. The fundamental point of Maoism, and the Great Cultural Revolution.

2. The experience of the international proletariat, principally of those that develop people’s war.

3. The struggle against the revisionism of today.

4. Other important points that the other members put forward.

Comrades, drive the debate concerning the application of Maoism to crush revisionism and combat parliamentary cretinism; a debate that is necessary in the international communist movement and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. It has to serve the task put forward by Chairman Gonzalo: May Maoism Assume the Command of the New Great Wave of the World Proletarian Revolution! grasping the experience of the Communist Party of China, especially the Cultural Revolution.

Bring the Party’s experience in detail, in these 31 years of glorious people’s war; let us see some principal aspects: how the PCP is firmly applying our ideology Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism; and in particular for us Gonzalo thought, the concentrical construction of the three instruments of the revolution, the militarization of the Party, the principle of Great Leadership and Great leaders of the revolution; that the revolution is not led from the prisons. That being firmly settled in and starting from communist principles allows us to maintain the course of the revolution laid down by the Party and the Congress; this has allowed us to confront the arrest of the Great Leadership and of leaders of the Central Committee, confront the inflection of the PLA, of the New Power, confront the campaigns of encirclement and annihilation, maintain high the banner of the world revolution; aspects that each one must be developed. The PCP, keeping in mind the experience of the international proletariat facing the loss of Chairman Mao, and of Comrade Stalin, considered that a ROL could be structured and raise its head intending to take the Party by assault, and in the name of Chairman Gonzalo raise red banners to combat the revolution, wanting to sustain and promote capitulation; they resumed this saying that “…the PCP made the strategic turnabout after the arrest of Chairman Gonzalo and the Historical Central Leadership, where they had to develop a New Strategy, new GPL [General Political Line – transl.], new tactic, new construction work, mass work, etc. A new line that would have to be imposed in struggle defeating the previous line…”

There they argue for the retreat of the world revolution, there these miserable ones, now in detention, say: “that the people’s war should not have been initiated in 1980, we are in retreat, …imperialism is strong”, negating the strategic offensive of the world revolution, when they some months before were boasting, without meaning it, that “the strategic equilibrium shakes the country more”. Facing the arrest of Chairman Gonzalo, the whole Party closed ranks around the Central Committee, all the Party members reaffirmed themselves in maintaining the course of the revolution and applying the Speech of Chairman Gonzalo, in warding off and crushing every attack from within and outside the Party. Defend Chairman Gonzalo’s life.

The Party confronted and stopped the ROL, miserable SIN agents, from taking the regional committees. They were hit forcefully as the traitors they are. The ROL staged and continues to put together hoaxes, peace accords (imperialism’s plan for wherever there is revolution, see the role of the UN), we must look at the evidence. In the prisons they used leaders that had influence, who said: “I met with the Chairman and he said we have to struggle for the peace accord”. The concrete fact is that the Chairman has not made any public declaration! No one can affirm that the Chairman has expressed himself publicly after the Speech; everything else is: letters, videos, that “he told me or they said”, that he “wrote a book” etc.: anything and everything can be said on paper.

Comrades, since before the ILA we are forged in that the war is not stopped for a minute, it is that simple and concrete; to not lower the banner of the revolution under any circumstance, the point is to continue applying the principles , for us principally Gonzalo thought.

We would like to share our experiences together with other Communist Parties. To the RIM we reiterate the great responsibility; the international proletariat demands more people’s war, we must struggle unconditionally to unite the communists of the world. There have been milestones since the triumph of the Chinese revolution that the proletariat must assimilate in order to then apply them. There are problems in the ideological and political line that the RIM has not known to put forward correctly, and it did not take position at the right time in the struggle against the revisionism of today. There is lack of understanding and in some cases even opposition to the fundamental point of Maoism.

Concerning the Middle East; Yankee imperialism, Zionism and Saudi Arabia are trying to restrain and lead astray the struggle of the Arab people, and they are colluding in order to replace one tyrant with another, to position themselves better in this region and expand their territorial hegemony. To this end they will develop greater genocide. It is urgent to connect with the Arabic communists. It is a subject that must be developed more thoroughly.

Comrades, we wish you success in the tasks for this year; firmly grasp the Party responsibility, apply the directives and the guiding quotes above. Combat revisionism and petty groups that swarm abroad, that work with the reaction.

PCP-Central Committee
http://www.redsun.org/pcp_doc/pcp_201106_En.htm

t.shonku

22nd July 2011, 15:19

Thanks for the article Comrade Mosfeld

scarletghoul

22nd July 2011, 15:30

PPW intensifies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14212293

I'm never sure about the different factions, its pretty confusing.

agnixie

22nd July 2011, 15:59

Wait, I know I'm going to set a foot on the slippery land of bullshit marxist-leninist intersect fighting, but since when is Maoism, and even more MLM, not revisionist by the basic idea of revisionism...

scarletghoul

22nd July 2011, 16:10

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd July 2011, 16:34

Why do so many documents that Maoist orgs put out end up sounding like documents from scientology or some other cult? Replace "Chairman Gonzalo" and "Mao" with "L Ron Hubbard" or "Jim Jones" for fun. I'm much more interested in what Peruvian peasants and workers think and what is happening to them than what Chairman Gonzalo thinks and what is happening to them. But I think Chairman Gonzalo is mentioned far more in that doc than anything about classes or economic analysis.

Also I find the group indefensible myself considering previous human rights issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucanamarca_massacre
Why sympathize with a Communist movement which kills campesinos and proletarians? And before you jump on me Maoists, this is a serious question, don't just flame.

mosfeld

22nd July 2011, 16:42

agnixie

22nd July 2011, 16:56

mosfeld

22nd July 2011, 17:16

How is strength, which is mostly an assertion, a measure of a movement's legitimacy, again? Strength gave fascism half of Europe and much of South America, after all.

A People's War cannot be successful without the support and active participation of the masses. I'd say that the fact that the PCP controlled huge swathes of the country, had the support of millions and had reached strategic equilibrium in the early '90s pays homage to their legitimacy.

The People's War in practice was extremely liberating, with land distributions for peasants (through the People's Committees), empowerment for women, justice against class enemies and bad elements (e.g. landlords, snitches) etc. Compare this with the Fujimori regime, which sold off the country's state companies, natural resources, actively promoted neo-liberalism, etc.

Of course, most so-called "communists" (especially western) do not consider the PCP to be "legitimate", no matter what evidence is presented. I have no interest at all in engaging with such people. I'm actually pretty sick of having PCP discussions on this forum at all, since "enlightened" idiots usually flood these threads after having read Orin Starn, Degregori or other garbage propaganda and repeat age old bullshit.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd July 2011, 17:28

mosfeld

22nd July 2011, 17:59

Thanks for not treating my post like a troll and at least trying to give a serious answer, but I'm a little underwhelmed. Calling it an "excess" seems like a cop-out. From what I understand, they killed over sixty villagers, including children, in a brutal manner because of the killing of a commander by some counter-revolutionary police. There's no justifiable rationale for that-thats not an excess, that's a crime against humanity. Saying it is "slander" to bring up an actual thing which actually happened also seems like a cop out. And lastly, saying they "gained strength" is a cop-out too. The USA gained strength after killing Indians at Wounded Knee, that doesn't mean it was OK.

You're ignoring the basic moral flaw that allowed the whole thing to happen by saying "well, we don't know exactly what happened, but its OK because Maoists did it and they grew stronger afterwards".

Also, they may have "gained strength" during the 80s, but these "excesses" eventually led to a backlash that allowed Fujimori to gain a fair amount of popular support for a brutal war during the 90s. Sure, the Shining Path are still around, but they've needed to be on the down-low for quite some time.

The Peruvian ruling class, through the "Truth and Reconciliation Committee", whose basic message was that the people have no right to rebel, were the ones who stated that the PCP ruthlessly killed the children of Lucanamarca without any rationale. These claims against them are extremely dubious, especially since the Peruvian Army conducted several massacres, and have been said to have committed genocide, and then later blamed it on the PCP. They're known liars.

The reason I say that the events surrounding Lucanamarca are uncertain is because we actually don't get to know anything about it -- were they snitches? was this a paramilitary village? etc. The Peruvian state often marked paramilitary deaths as civilian deaths. The only perspective we get from the PCP is from the interview with Chairman Gonzalo, which is not enough. Sure, this might've been unjustified, but why should this suddenly negate all the liberating aspects of the PPW?

I think it is very inappropriate to compare a revolutionary movement which was composed almost entirely of hopeless peasants and women to European fascists and settler-colonialists.

It's also not true that Fujimori ever had popular support. One of the main reasons that Fujimori received some support in the urban areas was due to the perception he promoted that he could win over some Japanese investment due to his Japanese heritage and other lies that he could make the country richer (in an extremely poor country where the major concern for the masses was economic survival.) . The rural areas were entirely different. There, despite the illegality of not casting a vote, the majority of the population boycotted the elections (due to the PCP's continued initiative since 1980.) Whatever support Fujimori had dropped quickly after he took dictatorial control of the country and pretty much sold off its little wealth.

scarletghoul

22nd July 2011, 18:31

A synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism requires revising ideological aspects of both to make them work together, especially in their views of nationalism, the classes, etc. If third wordism didn't exist, MLM would basically be the arch-revisionist branch of communism.
It seems you have a mistaken view of what constitutes marxism leninism and maoism. Mao Zedong was, above all, a Marxist-Leninist.

o well this is ok I guess

22nd July 2011, 18:35

What's so wrong with "revisionism", anyways?

Jolly Red Giant

22nd July 2011, 19:02

JoeySteel

22nd July 2011, 19:06

The Shining Path were/are a bunch of nutjobs - who spend more time shooting workers and peasants (and one another) than anything else.

Really? Can you actually show that SL members spent "more time shooting workers and peasants" than "anything else" or are you just a rotten lying stooge? I suspect the latter.

agnixie

23rd July 2011, 00:48

What's so wrong with "revisionism", anyways?

Perceptions of the superiority of ideological purism? Thus requiring basically reinventing the history of their ideological sect.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd July 2011, 02:38

The SL personified the concept of "secular religion". Their language was steeped in millenarian apocalyptic language. Many of their recruits (upon capture) were interviewed in the aftermath of the SL's downfall, and the common response as far as issues of discrimination were concerned was "it'll all be settled once the revolution happens". There was little to no addressing of the indigenous Peruvian culture; the philosophy professor and his cadre were not particularly interested in it, in fact, even denying villagers important routines of traditional village life...as Gustavo Gorrito touches upon in his book on SL, the argument could be made that the SL was merely replicating the kind of relationship that the indigenous peoples of Peru have suffered under for years: the non-indigenous (personified by Guzman himself) coming into their communities and pounding ideology into their heads (but it's for their own good this time!) Membership of SL never really made up for more than a few thousand militants, even at it's peak, but they made up for it with plenty of bloodshed of "enemies of the people", including their rival "revisionist" socialists in Peru.

The radical left in Peru had a unique opportunity for advancement in the wake of the military regime. Ultimately this was hindered a great deal by SL's moronic substitionalist policy of "building" communism using Maoist missionaries with machine guns and dynamite.

Broletariat

23rd July 2011, 02:46

The article in the OP made me lol, then cry a little realising some people believe it.

Sort of like reading/watching Fox.

Apoi_Viitor

23rd July 2011, 03:07

The reason I say that the events surrounding Lucanamarca are uncertain is because we actually don't get to know anything about it -- were they snitches? was this a paramilitary village? etc. The Peruvian state often marked paramilitary deaths as civilian deaths. The only perspective we get from the PCP is from the interview with Chairman Gonzalo, which is not enough. Sure, this might've been unjustified, but why should this suddenly negate all the liberating aspects of the PPW?

I understand that in any revolution there will be excesses, but Chairman Gonzalo's response was very disconcerting. Even if it happened to be a paramilitary village, there was no reason to kill the infants and children in the village...

Kadir Ateş

23rd July 2011, 03:10

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif Apply Maoism and Crush Revisionism

Apply Maoism and Crush Revolution

mosfeld

23rd July 2011, 04:26

I understand that in any revolution there will be excesses, but Chairman Gonzalo's response was very disconcerting. Even if it happened to be a paramilitary village, there was no reason to kill the infants and children in the village...

You'd have to be silly to think that I'd actually justify something like that. However, once again, the details surrounding this event are very uncertain and there is reason to doubt whether these reports of baby killing are legitimate.

Imperialism and capitalism, I'd also like to note, kills like... what, tens of thousands of children every day due to starvation and other means? Shouldn't the PCP get some credit for taking a step forward and trying to overthrow this aforementioned system which systematically and, in an institutionalized fashion, absolutely fucks over everyone who isn't rich, i.e., the majority?

In this baby-killing contest, I'd say that the PCP has a moral high-ground both in terms of what I mentioned earlier and also due to the Peruvian state massacres at Canto Grande, Barrios Altos, and elsewhere, mass use of torture, genocide, country-selling, etc.

Apply Maoism and Crush Revolution :sneaky:

Red_Struggle

23rd July 2011, 05:25

Apply Maoism and Crush Revolution

What a worthless post. If you don't have anything productive to contribute, why waste yours and our time with such pointless braindead statements? Yeah, I have a fair amount of criticisms of Maoism, but I can't fucking stand cop-out and flame posts like this.

That being said, I don't have a lot of info on the Peruvian Communist Party. Last I heard, there were more than one faction proclaiming to be the legitimate Shining Path organization. What their recent activities are are beyond me so I'm not going to comment on any supposed massacres of civilians or anyone else.

Back to article: How is Maoism a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism? Explain to me what makes Mao's teachings supposedly superior to those of Lenin's and Stalin's? What did Mao contribute that the classics (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin) failed to tackle or take into account?

heftieleftie

23rd July 2011, 06:04

Details surrounding Lucanamarca are very uncertain and unexplained. The highlighting of this event is similar to the highlighting of the Hue massacre in Vietnam, where legitimate revolutionaries get slandered due to one event. Whatever happened that fateful day, we do know is that the Peruvian PPW grew stronger and stronger despite this excess.

The details don't seem to be hazy for Abimael Guzmán:

In the face of reactionary military actions... we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983. But everything in life has two aspects. Our task was to deal a devastating blow in order to put them in check, to make them understand that it was not going to be so easy. On some occasions, like that one, it was the Central Leadership itself that planned the action and gave instructions. That's how it was. In that case, the principal thing is that we dealt them a devastating blow, and we checked them and they understood that they were dealing with a different kind of people's fighters, that we weren't the same as those they had fought before. This is what they understood. The excesses are the negative aspect... If we were to give the masses a lot of restrictions, requirements and prohibitions, it would mean that deep down we didn't want the waters to overflow. And what we needed was for the waters to overflow, to let the flood rage, because we know that when a river floods its banks it causes devastation, but then it returns to its riverbed.... [T]he main point was to make them understand that we were a hard nut to crack, and that we were ready for anything, anything.

— Abimael Guzmán

Which details are "very uncertain and unexplained", exactly? Do you mean details like these, which come from the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's report?:

In April 1983 Shining Path militants responded to the death of Olegario Curitomay by entering the province of Huancasancos and the towns of Yanaccollpa, Ataccara, Llacchua, Muylacruz, and Lucanamarca, and killing 69 people. Of those killed by the Shining Path, eighteen were children, the youngest of whom was only six months old. Also killed were eleven women, some of whom were pregnant. Eight of the victims were between fifty and seventy years old. Most victims died by machete and axe hacks, and some were shot at close range in the head. Shining Path members also scalded villagers with boiling water. This was the first massacre by Shining Path of the peasant community.

I am seriously asking which of these details you dispute, and what your reasons are for disputing each one. I'm curious.

mosfeld

23rd July 2011, 11:49

Which details are "very uncertain and unexplained", exactly? Do you mean details like these, which come from the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's report?: Yes, I'm talking about the TRC. I think that you should take whatever is said in that report with a grain of salt, for it's highly biased towards the state. I recommend running through a few articles available on the CSRP website for another perspective, if you're interested.

Peru: The Truth about the "Truth Commission" (http://web.archive.org/web/20050204173002/http://www.csrp.org/cmte/Truthcom.htm)
Refuting the "Big Lies" about Peru (http://web.archive.org/web/20050209073937/http://www.csrp.org/marga.htm)
The Crimes of the U.S. Backed Fujimori Regime (http://web.archive.org/web/20050211063203/http://www.csrp.org/usint.htm)

Roach

23rd July 2011, 13:31

What a worthless post. If you don't have anything productive to contribute, why waste yours and our time with such pointless braindead statements?

He did it for the rep. Trots in this website have somekind of passionate hate over Maoism, they like to attack its weakest political links and claim that Maoist bankruptcy is the proof of Anti-Revisionist bankruptcy.

That being said, I don't have a lot of info on the Peruvian Communist Party. Last I heard, there were more than one faction proclaiming to be the legitimate Shining Path organization. What their recent activities are are beyond me so I'm not going to comment on any supposed massacres of civilians or anyone else.

There are probably more than just two organisations calling themselves ''Shining Path'', in a similar mood of the IRA today, in a complicated scenario like this, all you need to know is that these Senderos can be divided in two groups, the ones that are not upholded by Maoists, that allegedly protect drug dealers and are deeply involved in Cocaine smuggling, and the ones upholded by Maoists, that are heavely splitted in factions over issues like ''should the people's war continue?'' or ''Is Gonzalo a traitor?''.

When one of these factions commits an assault against the goverment, the media prefers not to specify who actually commited the assault, that makes even more dificult for us to conclude what faction is the most active.

And there is also Comrade Artemio, some say that he is a drug trafficker, claims repeated by the bourgeois press, which can make one wonder if Cocaine smuggling is actually as widespread as the media likes to makes it seem, some Peruvian communists say that he is an ultra-leftist terrorist, showing their clear shift to reformism, but the most common Maoist line is that he is a capitulationist for demanding peace accords, and consequently denying the Peoples War. Unfortanetly for the Maoists, Artemio can be considered the modern face of the shining path, perhaps his group is not the most active, but certainly is the one that gets in front of the cameras to spread its message.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd July 2011, 19:01

You'd have to be silly to think that I'd actually justify something like that. However, once again, the details surrounding this event are very uncertain and there is reason to doubt whether these reports of baby killing are legitimate.

Imperialism and capitalism, I'd also like to note, kills like... what, tens of thousands of children every day due to starvation and other means? Shouldn't the PCP get some credit for taking a step forward and trying to overthrow this aforementioned system which systematically and, in an institutionalized fashion, absolutely fucks over everyone who isn't rich, i.e., the majority?

In this baby-killing contest, I'd say that the PCP has a moral high-ground both in terms of what I mentioned earlier and also due to the Peruvian state massacres at Canto Grande, Barrios Altos, and elsewhere, mass use of torture, genocide, country-selling, etc.

This is a weak rationale. Yes, we all know Capitalism kills a lot of people. This doesn't mean Communists have a free license to commit horrendous crimes against humanity. Capitalists commit war crimes, let children starve, and overwork the poor, but that does not then justify similar activity from the Left.

The reason I say that the events surrounding Lucanamarca are uncertain is because we actually don't get to know anything about it -- were they snitches? was this a paramilitary village? etc. The Peruvian state often marked paramilitary deaths as civilian deaths. The only perspective we get from the PCP is from the interview with Chairman Gonzalo, which is not enough. Sure, this might've been unjustified, but why should this suddenly negate all the liberating aspects of the PPW?Why would any of these things justify the event? There may have been snitches or paramilitaries in the village, but that's no reason to kill so many people so brutally. Especially when you consider the fact that these villagers are the people that the Shining Path are claiming to protect. Perhaps if these rural villagers are joining the paramilitaries, the Maoists should try to find the social context and correct that instead of committing collective punishment against them.

No, it does not negate the liberating aspects of the shining path, but it does raise serious questions about their true nature, especially since Maoist groups such as the Khmer Rouge have gone down very bloody paths before. Just because a group calls themselves Communist and builds some collectives, it doesn't mean we should assume that their nature as an organization is necessarily going to liberate everyone. Perhaps the Shining Path really is just a misunderstood organization, but its not unreasonable to find its combination of cult-like manifestos and dubious political activities to be very worrying nonetheless. Looking at how they try to institute the policies and also how they deal with populations which do not conform to these policies is always a useful indicator of how an organization will perform and try to overcome problems in the future.

I think it is very inappropriate to compare a revolutionary movement which was composed almost entirely of hopeless peasants and women to European fascists and settler-colonialists.
Maybe the Maoists had an ideological viewpoint which you find more appealing, but it's not like the villagers who were killed felt any more "liberated" by the Maoists than the Sioux did by those European "fascists" (1800s predates fascism) and settler colonialists. In this case, actions speak louder than words. The shining path may have had a lot of followers among the indigenous and a leftwing ideology, but that does not then justify their crimes against indigenous people who did not accept the Shining Path's revolutionary leadership.

It's also not true that Fujimori ever had popular support. One of the main reasons that Fujimori received some support in the urban areas was due to the perception he promoted that he could win over some Japanese investment due to his Japanese heritage and other lies that he could make the country richer (in an extremely poor country where the major concern for the masses was economic survival.) . The rural areas were entirely different. There, despite the illegality of not casting a vote, the majority of the population boycotted the elections (due to the PCP's continued initiative since 1980.) Whatever support Fujimori had dropped quickly after he took dictatorial control of the country and pretty much sold off its little wealth.I more meant in terms of political capital than Fujimori having a majority. The shining path had less sympathy than they otherwise would have had thanks to the "excesses" (what a horrible word), and Fujimori was able to gain enough adherents to go along with it, so it was a relatively easy way to solidify his power.

Os Cangaceiros

23rd July 2011, 23:23

Back to article: How is Maoism a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism? Explain to me what makes Mao's teachings supposedly superior to those of Lenin's and Stalin's? What did Mao contribute that the classics (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin) failed to tackle or take into account?

Not just Maoism..."Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo thought". Yes, Guzman actually talked up his own ideology as somehow unique and "imperishable".

The chutzpah is just unreal.

scarletghoul

24th July 2011, 00:12

Not just Maoism..."Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo thought". Yes, Guzman actually talked up his own ideology as somehow unique and "imperishable".

The chutzpah is just unreal.
cant make a revolution without a bit of chutzpah

Os Cangaceiros

24th July 2011, 00:31

I agree...as Marx once said, "the revolution will be made by idealistic faculty members and idealistic faculty members alone."

Os Cangaceiros

24th July 2011, 00:43

The SL kind of reminds me of the populists/narodniks of Russia way back when, before the Bolsheviks. They were armed with a different set of ideas, true (namely folks like Herzen, Fourier and Bakunin, rather than the "fourth sword of Marxism"), but the tactic of slumming it in some village while your relatively privilaged ass heroicly tries to white knight some peasants (or serfs, in the case of Russia), most of whom seem ambivalent to your preaching (the likes of which would impress any Christian missionary, only replace the Bible with the little red book)...well, lets just say it's been tried before, with less than satisfying results. The most you can hope for is a temporary zone of autonomy, before the military finally decides to roll in and stomp your ass.

mosfeld

24th July 2011, 15:10

Why would any of these things justify the event? There may have been snitches or paramilitaries in the village, but that's no reason to kill so many people so brutally. Especially when you consider the fact that these villagers are the people that the Shining Path are claiming to protect. Perhaps if these rural villagers are joining the paramilitaries, the Maoists should try to find the social context and correct that instead of committing collective punishment against them.

No, it does not negate the liberating aspects of the shining path, but it does raise serious questions about their true nature, especially since Maoist groups such as the Khmer Rouge have gone down very bloody paths before. Just because a group calls themselves Communist and builds some collectives, it doesn't mean we should assume that their nature as an organization is necessarily going to liberate everyone. Perhaps the Shining Path really is just a misunderstood organization, but its not unreasonable to find its combination of cult-like manifestos and dubious political activities to be very worrying nonetheless. Looking at how they try to institute the policies and also how they deal with populations which do not conform to these policies is always a useful indicator of how an organization will perform and try to overcome problems in the future.

Maybe the Maoists had an ideological viewpoint which you find more appealing, but it's not like the villagers who were killed felt any more "liberated" by the Maoists than the Sioux did by those European "fascists" (1800s predates fascism) and settler colonialists. In this case, actions speak louder than words. The shining path may have had a lot of followers among the indigenous and a leftwing ideology, but that does not then justify their crimes against indigenous people who did not accept the Shining Path's revolutionary leadership.

I more meant in terms of political capital than Fujimori having a majority. The shining path had less sympathy than they otherwise would have had thanks to the "excesses" (what a horrible word), and Fujimori was able to gain enough adherents to go along with it, so it was a relatively easy way to solidify his power.

I decided to read a bit more on stuff relating to Lucanamarca.
-----
The Peruvian state followed similar tactics as the U.S. did in Vietnam which was to establish strategic hamlets. Villagers were forced to join paramilitary groups or they'd be marked as subversives and get tortured and/or murdered, basically. Most often, these paramilitaries, or rather rondas, were made up of mainly the richer strata of peasants who committed atrocities on behalf of the armies such as village looting and sacking, mass rape, murder of the poorer strata of peasants, etc. So when you hear/heard news reports of the PCP murdering peasants, it was against these rondas which were in service of the armed forces. Whenever the rondas, who were the Peruvian counterpart of the Salwa Judum, got executed, the Peruvian press reported that these were peasants murdered by the PCP. It's all a big lie.

This racist rationale that the Indian peasants, who formed the majority of the PCP cadre, were some irrational lunatics who went around and slaughtered their peasant companions is simply nonsense. A People's War could not last for a month, let along decades, if it were actually like that.

Another factor leading up to the Lucanamarca massacre was, to put it bluntly, a mass slaughter in the countryside in '83/'84, leading up to reportedly 10,000 deaths, which democratic lawyers and people condemned as genocide.

As Chairman Gonzalo said in his famous interview:

"In the face of reactionary military actions [the '83/'84 genocide mentioned above] and the use of mesnadas, we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca (...) And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983"

Lucanamarca was rectified as an excess. Despite this, it did strike fear into the rondas -- this does, however, not mean that they created some "collective fear" amongst the peasantry (it's main support base). The Peruvian state might have skillfully mashed the rondas and the peasants together when reporting deaths in the PPW, but that does not mean we have to.

Refuting the "collective fear" propaganda, Luis Arce Borja noted in an interview:

"The execution of an individual who serves the Armed Forces or Peruvian police is not done in a hurry. The party first explains their error to them and gives them an opportunity to leave their duty if they are a state functionary, or to leave the village. Furthermore, these executions, who are they done by? Is it an extraterrestrial force that is arriving from outside saying: "who are the bad people so we can execute them?". No. The party has its base work and comes to know the most intimate fabric of the population. The masses make the revolution, the party leads them."

Comrade, the propaganda machinery used by the Peruvian state is identical to the one used by the Indian state. Do you believe that, for example, the Naxalites use cannibalism to create mass fear amongst the masses in India? If it were like that, how could they have mass support and continue the PPW? I really hope that you'll see through these obvious lies.

RED DAVE

24th July 2011, 19:46

The OP:

http://www.redsun.org/pcp_doc/pcp_201106_En.htmThis is a fog of rhetoric worthy of some stalinist apologetics from the 1930s. Exactly the same kind of bullshit was being used a year or so ago to justify the sell-out of the Nepalese maoists. Maoists/stalinists are masters at the use of pseudo-Marxism to justify whatever the fuck they want to do from mass murder to social democracy.

RED DAVE

Kiev Communard

24th July 2011, 22:13

Jose Gracchus

25th July 2011, 01:24

He did it for the rep. Trots in this website have somekind of passionate hate over Maoism, they like to attack its weakest political links and claim that Maoist bankruptcy is the proof of Anti-Revisionist bankruptcy.

He's not a Trot, he's a left communist.

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 01:37

the titel was translated wrong. the real version was:

APPLY MAOISM AND CRUSH THE WORKERS AND PEASANT

piss ants. machette socialism to the rescue!!! bloc of 4 classes, with 4 borocrrat asses drinking wine from 4 crystal glasses. falalalala FUJIMORI SHUIFFLE!:blushing:

bcbm

25th July 2011, 01:42

Villagers were forced to join paramilitary groups or they'd be marked as subversives and get tortured and/or murdered, basically.

so if you don't join you get murdered by the state and if you do join you get murdered by sendero luminso. great options

twenty percent tip

25th July 2011, 01:49

sound sgood to me???! where do isign? id rather hide in abus. if they dont blow its up with helicopters or ""revolutionary: pipe bombs.

Os Cangaceiros

26th July 2011, 03:14

This is a gross misrepresentation of Narodniks' actual practice...

I don't know, I read a book about the populists in Russia and a lot of the "middle class" strata of Russia at the time (who were also radicalized) did just that: went out into the countryside, worked with the peasants and tried to radicalize them.

Jose Gracchus

26th July 2011, 04:41

The "going to the people" movement.

milk

26th July 2011, 07:55

An utter failure, too, Lavrovism.

RED DAVE

26th July 2011, 14:57

I don't know, I read a book about the populists in Russia and a lot of the "middle class" strata of Russia at the time (who were also radicalized) did just that: went out into the countryside, worked with the peasants and tried to radicalize them.This is correct, and it's important to study the Narodniks and see what they were about and why they failed.

It's interesting that during some of the community organizing projects during the Sixties, such as ERAP, the Narodniks were consciously evoked. These projects failed as well.

RED DAVE

Kiev Communard

26th July 2011, 15:55

The "going to the people" movement.

I do not think it is fair to say that the "going to the people" movement was ultimately pointless or ineffectual; after all, this is just one of the myths about the other revolutionary socialist movements that the Soviet and Soviet-influenced historiography was fond of spreading. In fact, the participants of this movement was clearly motivated by the 1860s peasant rebellions, which were pretty much radical, and hoped to influence the masses by providing them with the revolutionary ideology. However, the second half of the 1870s was a period of relative prosperity in Russian countryside, so that peasants were broadly sympathetic but unwilling to follow the revolutionary propagandists. Moreover, one of the efforts of Narodnik propagandists actually bore fruit, as in 1877 there was uncovered a conspiracy by rebellious peasants near Tchygyryn, Ukraine, where almost 1,000 peasants were ready to take up arms - under the leadership of Yakov Stefanovich, a revolutionary Narodnik.

The true significance of the "going to the people" movement lay not in its immediate effects but in its long-term repercussions, as it was through this experience that the first mass revolutionary party in Russia, the Socialist Revolutionary Party (which was until the 1910s programmaticaly broadly socialist, in a Proudhonist way) was formed in the 1890s and came to play a much more important role in the 1905-1907 Revolution than it is usually admitted by the orthodox Marxists, especially the Western ones.

An utter failure, too, Lavrovism.

Well, Lavrovism eventually was a 'failure', as a Lavrovist wing of the SR Party became class-collaborationist in 1910s and eventually became a base for the Provisional Government, but, hey, the same happened to the Marxist SPD. In the 1870s to the 1900s, at least, Lavrovism was actually much more popular revolutionary ideology in former Russian Empire than RSDLP's Marxism or anarchism (which at that time attained a characteristically insurrectionist/individualist character in Russia, with the exception of "worker-anarchism" of Bielostok and Odessa).

Jose Gracchus

26th July 2011, 17:21

I'm not biased against the "going to the people" movement, I was just giving him the name that he was searching for, not affirming his claims.

milk

26th July 2011, 19:51

Os Cangaceiros

27th July 2011, 02:17

Usually in a discussion like this, I'd go back and try to find a couple relevant pages from some literature to refresh my memory, since a lot of information I read gets pushed aside after a while to make way for new info. But I'll just have to go from memory, as I no longer have the couple books that I once did about this topic:

Most of the early Russian radicals were members of the educated middle classes and lower aristocracy (which is not particularly suprising, as anyone on lower rungs were probably not literate), and their great revolutionary subject was the same as Bakunin's, the Slavic peasantry. The problem was that, while the peasantry certainly had an element of rebelliousness and revolutionary potential in them, most of it was extremely localized, and the great enemy of the revolutionary populists/narodniks, the Tsar, was actually viewed mostly favorably by the peasants as a sort of fatherly figure of the Russian people, who'd be shocked if he only know what the local demagogues were doing in the countryside. There was actually a saying, "if only the Tsar knew!", or something to that effect. The populists viewed the peasants as a great sleeping beast which only needed the right impetus, the right stimulus, and then the revolution would be at the Tsar's doorstep. The great majority of their efforts in this respect were total failures. Gradually their tactics changed from the kind of thing I mentioned before (i.e. going out into the countryside, working and proselytizing) to a more conspiratorial, violent approach, which eventually consumed the movement, as the idea of the day became, "OK, maybe merely talking about our ideas isn't enough, maybe we need to lead by example, and THEN the spark will be struck!" That's not to say that a certain amount of conspiratorial action wasn't warranted, as the Russian authorities had a dim view of what the activists were doing, but the revolutionary sects that the Chernyshevskyites transformed into became the isolated precursors (tactically-speaking) to later insurrectionary anarchists, urban guerillas and Maoists, IMO.

Anyway, if we want to discuss this anymore, it should probably be split by a mod, as I don't want to derail mosfeld's thread anymore.

Kiev Communard

28th July 2011, 21:06

It's not just bias against it from Soviet historiography. It was a failure. And it was Lavrovism that inspired the 'going to the people' movement - inextricably linked with it. The gap between the intelligentsia and the peasants, upon whom the radicals projected all kind of romantic silliness, was vast.

They did not view the peasantry as some kind of infallible saviours of the rest of society; the Narodniks actually criticized the patriarchal tendencies of the obschina, while hoping for its better elements to be integrated into the future society. They also worked extensively among the still small urban working class, spreading the literature of the IWMA, among other things.

And later, when it all turned back to conspiracy and the Russian Jacobin-Blanquist tradition was embraced once more, Yakov Stefanovich became more sympathetic to the People's Will, despite being a member of the Black Repartition. The 'rebellion' he was a part of, was frowned upon by the Narodniks, for it involved deception, attempting to exploit the naive patriotism the peasants and burgenoning working class had for the ruling class, with its fake letter from the Tsar approving the assembly of secret organisations, and action against landlords. Such a foolish trick was not indicative of popular support but exposed the Narodniks lack of it among the people, with having to mask their real intentions among the masses.

Well, the problem seems to be that you are talking about the 1870s, when they indeed lacked popular support, while I examine the situation in the 1890s and 1900s, when Narodnikism actually became a quasi-mainstream ideology among many peasants, due to the systemic propaganda work of Narodnik intellectuals led by Mikhailovsky, a famous opponent of Plekhanov, whom the Tsarist regime in the early 1900s thought to be much more dangerous than Marxist leaders. So in that sense the Lavrovist ideas did take root among the Russian small peasantry, albeit 30 years later.

Crux

29th July 2011, 01:04

http://www.redsun.org/pcp_doc/pcp_201106_En.htm
Is this the genuine followers of Chairman Gonzalo thought or is it the revionist scum split offs, infilitrated by the CIA? :laugh:
Oh yeah, that's a trick question.

milk

29th July 2011, 01:51

They did not view the peasantry as some kind of infallible saviours of the rest of society; the Narodniks actually criticized the patriarchal tendencies of the obschina, while hoping for its better elements to be integrated into the future society. They also worked extensively among the still small urban working class, spreading the literature of the IWMA, among other things.

Well, the problem seems to be that you are talking about the 1870s, when they indeed lacked popular support, while I examine the situation in the 1890s and 1900s, when Narodnikism actually became a quasi-mainstream ideology among many peasants, due to the systemic propaganda work of Narodnik intellectuals led by Mikhailovsky, a famous opponent of Plekhanov, whom the Tsarist regime in the early 1900s thought to be much more dangerous than Marxist leaders. So in that sense the Lavrovist ideas did take root among the Russian small peasantry, albeit 30 years later.

You seem to be inferring things I've never said. The self-appointed elitism of the Narodniks was shared by the other more Jacobin wing of the Russian revolutionary tradition of the intelligentsia. Even the likes of Tkachev, who was one of the Lavrovists' fiercest critics, saw the significance of the peasant obschina in finding a separate path to a socialist society (itself ironically coming from the Slavophile side of the Slavophile/Westerner divide) and the possibility of regenerating it, but was under no illusions as to its present condition.

I thought we were talking about the 1870s specifically - when the going to the people movement was an abject failure, as well as the foolish 1876 conspiracy inaccurately seen as a popular 'rebellion.' Their unsuccessful attempts to organise the peasantry, saw them develop the practice of terrorism, and the peasantry shown that their naive patriotism for the Tsar was wrong. Many peasants believed it was the corrupt dvorianin landlords who were mostly at fault, not the Tsar, who, if he knew about their suffering, would put an end to their oppression. This was the lever Stefanovich and his co-conspirators believed could be used, to deceive the peasants into taking up arms against the local elite. The peasants, while uneducated through no fault of their own, weren't childlike, or dumb animals upon which the intelligentsia could place saddles. They found that out to their own disappointment, and disillusionment.

The intelligentsia saw other 'ways in,' too, and there's an interesting history of anti-state religiosity among peasants, who for many years had been members of various rebellious raskolniki Old Believer sects (The Wanderers etc), practising their faith in resistance to the Russian state, and this sectarianism is something which radicals had tried to tap into as a source of revolutionary potential, believing it be a popular manifestation of resistance to social oppression.

With romanticising them as something exotic, they also condescendingly viewed the sects as proof of a desire for social liberation among who they viewed as simple illiterate people, but without scientific knowledge expressed their dissatisfaction in the form of religious dissent. There was the aim of transferring it into their own movement, but the attempt to link the dissent of the peasantry with their own failed.

The professors did know where to find them and record their contact, but their students, who later faked it in the countryside during the Lavrov-inspired and very naive 'going to the people,' usually ended up getting arrested by the Tsarist police, at times with the help of suspicious peasants.

As for later, I would agree about specific things, with organisations like the Socialist Revolutionary Party. They adopted both ideas from the more peaceful and propagandistic Lavrovist side of earlier Narodism, and the direct action and terrorist struggle of the People's Will, with some more extreme off-shoots, like the Maximalists with their programme for widespread violence and terror. There was also some conciliation with Tsarism, sometimes tactical, sometimes not, against the more worker-centric and urban Marxist movement, too.