The title of the report is very expressive, it goes beyond simple cohesion. It is titled this way because the congress is a higher goal than mere consolidation! It doesn’t say “unite firmly” because there is no choice but to unite firmly unless we unite with the congress. Secondly, to avoid giving room for claims that there are internal struggle issues questioning the congress, the second part is to develop the Metropolitan Committee. This involves everything, not just the leadership committee of the Metropolitan Committee but implies the entire Party contingent, the EGP [People’s Guerrilla Army], and the masses that support us.
Our party, founded in 1928, has a particularity. It was not a constitutional congress like other parties had, for example, the CPSU in 1898 or the CPC in 1921. Our party had different circumstances. Mariátegui, in about ten years of immense struggle, founded the party on clear Marxist-Leninist principles and provided substantive documents for the party, such as the programmatic points. He mentioned that there should have been a constitutional congress to sanction the fundamental documents of the party. However, he passed away in 1930 and did not have time to realize that congress. From then on, the life of the party has been winding, and it has suffered opportunistic usurpations, with revisionists attempting to generalize. Ravines, for instance, represented rightism in a left form.
In the 1940s, the congresses began to unfold, three congresses in total. The first one was called a constitution congress, but it was never truly one because what it established was the “national unity” under the Browderite revisionist line. The second and third unfolded within the same framework, and by the fourth, it had become Khrushchevite revisionist. The party’s name itself was not accurate, as it was called the “Peruvian Communist Party.” Sotomayor, in 1960, organized a “Marxist-Leninist congress” when Mao Zedong Thought had already been established. “Patria Roja” also usurped, or attempted to usurp, the name of the party because the current name was agreed upon by the party in a congress. However, to my knowledge, “Patria Roja” has never held a congress. The red fraction, which has taken on the task of reconstituting the party, proposed the celebration of the Fifth congress in 1967, but it was never realized due to a lack of ideological and political unity. So, how could there be a congress when there was a mixture of four contending factions, including some entirely concealed factions like “Patria Roja,” which was the “Ching-kang” group with old anarchist positions? Lenin has stated that there can be fractions within the party, but they should openly engage in the two-line struggle. The self-proclaimed “Bolshevik” group was also a concealed fraction, and Lenin argued that this implies cowardice and political incapacity to debate proposals.
In 1977 we proposed to carry out the congress of reconstitution, however it could not materialize because at the end of 1976 a ROL arose, or rather, we unmasked it; because it never sustained nor systematized anything. In 1978 the problem worsened, there they wanted to contain the proletarian line labeling it as ultraism and began to say that there was ultraism in the struggle.
The Eighth plenum made balance of the reconstitution and agreed to lay the foundations for ILA and agreed that the congress would be carried out in armed action. The experience of many communist parties showed that every time armed struggle has been proposed they have become entangled in internal struggles, they have split. In that session only one third of the Central Committee remained and two thirds wobbled.
In the Ninth plenum of 1979 the ROL was finally crushed and swept away, in which rightist positions converged. The struggle was clear and intense and half of the Central Committee had to be purged, the purge strengthened and the party could not continue to reconstitute itself but had to begin the armed struggle, the doomsayers said that the party would crash, that there were no conditions, etc., and today practice is the source of truth and proves it. The doomsayers said that the party would crash, that there were no conditions, etc., and today practice is the source of truth and proves it. It has been a sharp and hard struggle. Thus the party had a historical task pending, to initiate the armed struggle because the party was not for itself but to fulfill the historical task of the proletariat and in 1980 we fulfilled that pending historical task.
The years have passed, and it is the people’s war that has generated and allowed the party congress to take place, and thus we have fulfilled the pending historical task.
The party is the father of the people’s war and the congress is the son of the people’s war, what better origin can it have. All of this is under the light of our glorious ideology: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo thought. It confirms what Chairman Mao says: “All things grow out of the barrel of a gun, so how can we doubt the people’s war?” For us, the communists of today, it has fallen to us, with this party, to contribute to the realization of the First congress of the Party. It has correctly defined itself as a Marxist congress because none of the previous ones were. It is a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Gonzalo thought congress, because that is the Marxism of the time, until there is a new stage. It also says Gonzalo thought because the international and national class struggle of the proletariat has mainly led to the fusion of universal truth, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, with our concrete reality. Doing so is a creative application; not doing it would make us opportunists. This is our congress; we have fulfilled a great historical debt. Thus, the people’s war, through the campaign, has established an imperishable milestone of victory.
What has the congress done? So much rich content, years are captured there and throbbing years for the future.
It has made balance and sanctioned all that long road traveled because all the party’s experience has been seen several times.
It has established the bases of party unity, which is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo thought; program; general political line, not the statute which is something else, according to the program it is the line and according to the line it is the statute that shapes the organization of the party.
It has laid solid foundations for the conquest of power throughout the country and this is what some comrades fear, they fear daring to take power and daring to defend it. The conquest of power implies the complete and thorough demolition of the old reactionary State, of its repressive armed forces; we are going to destroy them, we are not going to incorporate them into our red army of Lenin, who demolished repressive forces and left no stone unturned, we are not Nicaraguans, but why are we waging people’s war? To conquer power, then why be afraid to conquer it? That is a revisionist source of bourgeois origin. It is worrying because it has to be more bloody, it is going to cost rivers of blood and that is unavoidable. Albania for example, a country of one and a half million inhabitants, 28,000 died and the heaviest part of the quota, we have not yet paid it. We have almost 20 million inhabitants, so the largest part of the quota is yet to be paid, or is it that the reaction is going to give power gently as if we were friends? No, because our victory will be their defeat and it will be bloody. Not softly; that is what makes some of them feel uneasy. The problem is solid bases for the conquest of power throughout the country.
Thus, the congress shapes the party like never before, in terms of ideology, politics, and organization (rediscoverers of Mariátegui are emerging who don’t even know his thought), and those who oppose, if yesterday they crashed against an iron wall, today they fall from an airplane; therefore, with the congress, there is nothing to discuss. Never before has the party been so ideologically, politically, and organizationally equipped as it is today. The developmental problems act as straightjackets that constrain the potential, but what the people’s war has done for the congress will be repaid many times over. Given the current context of the bureaucratic capitalism crisis in Peruvian society, the revolution leads us to seize power throughout the country. We do not want a South Vietnam. Some comrades worry about this, as Alan García does. Does taking power not imply the beginning of the real emancipation of the class? Whom do we serve, then?
The congress has analyzed the situation of the struggle and various political problems concerning Maoism, Gonzalo thought, people’s war, democratic revolution, support bases and all this has led to a leap in the two-line struggle by defining revisionism as the main danger, a very important leap; thus we are in line with the danger at world level, revisionism, the crony of imperialism. Thus, the congress armed us with the two-line struggle as well.
The congress serves the world revolution, the people’s war serves it; the congress serves the people’s war which is the principal form of struggle for changing the world. I do not say the only one, but the congress has sanctioned Maoism as the third, new and superior stage, what party poses like this? It is ours, in this way it is the light of the world, the only torch that can unite all the communists of the world. The document is brief as it corresponds to the congress, but it is a milestone that serves to put Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the command and guide of the world revolution. Thus, the congress has given us great fruits and wonderful perspectives, with time it will be before the congress and after the congress, the congress has decided our course, defining the general political line. Thus, if they throw themselves against the line, they throw themselves against the congress, they have already jumped but who believes in renegades or those paid by imperialism... its repercussion is remarkable, even by politically managed flowers we have published it, its repercussion in the world will be great, because the people’s war of the country has prestige. Let’s see what it says: “a world to win,” some are going to jump up to the ceiling because we tell them that it is not the same to say Marxism-Leninism as to say Mao Zedong thought.
So, the congress is a milestone of victory that will deeply mark us for decades, for the entire party, for people’s war, and for world revolution. Once the congress is complete, its implementation follows in the committees, specifically in the work of the Metropolitan Committee. It must now unfold within the framework established by the congress, and from there the development derives. It is your responsibility to study, discuss, and apply it to your organization.
Looking at the struggles in these days we have raised four fundamental problems involving four contradictions.
Unite around the congress. How do you overcome lack of cohesion? By taking over the congress. The growth and development of the work generates lack of cohesion. If so, how to become united again? With the congress, the other thing is the concretion made by the congress, the CC. To unite the lack of cohesion, which derived from the growth.
The documentation of the congress that was approved will be tested in practice. This will allow us to better understand or develop it, until the final drafting comes out, which will be the official drafting. It is necessary to specify the concrete program. It will be done moving all the possible initiative of the Party, the army and the masses; applying democracy. This is the experience of the Chinese communists, applicable to our conditions.
When studying the bases of discussion they have been presented with clashes with Marxism, Gonzalo thought, program, general political line, etc. Let us assume the three worlds in a congress of the international; Lenin after World War I proposes a triple division of the countries of the earth. From there, Avakian of the RCP-USA says that Lenin has given rise to the opportunist three worlds theory. Lenin saw himself faced with a concrete problem, with that foresight he foresaw that the revolution in Europe was not in the immediate future, but that it was taking place in the oppressed nations of the East and thus he began to make an outline of the strategy and tactics for the world revolution. We saw this in 1977 in Bandera Roja [Red Flag] number 47-48 in point V of the agreements of the Sixth and Seventh plenums of the Central Committee, the international problem is posed. Here is what Lenin and Chairman Mao say.
In 1946 Chairman Mao was asked if the war between the USA and the USSR (in Stalin’s time) was something immediate and he said no because between the two there is an intermediate zone of capitalist countries, colonies and semi-colonies; that Yankee imperialism would seek to cover that intermediate zone and as long as it does not cover it there could not be a world war. Forty years have passed and what Chairman Mao said has been proven.
In the year 1956, when the issue of the Suez Canal arose, Chairman Mao commented on the situation. He said that when the British and French forces landed at the canal to retain control of it, the USA opposed, and Egypt (an oppressed nation) even more so. Chairman Mao pointed out that there were contradictions evident in the situation. Firstly, there were inter-imperialist contradictions, and secondly, there was a contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nation, along with other forces involved:
1) England, France, 2) the more powerful U.S., and 3) the Egyptian nation (Nasser being a representative). Each party wanted the canal for themselves, and this highlighted the difference in interests between the weakened imperialist powers of England and France.
In the year 1957, Chairman Mao attended a meeting of communists in Moscow, where he stated, “the east wind prevails over the west wind.” At that moment, he was suggesting that revolution is the main trend and he made a fourfold division of the world. This was during a time when the socialist bloc existed, and no one contradicted him or pointed out that his proposal was incorrect. Not even the foolish revisionist HOXHA, taking into account that Lenin had said that Albania, upon defeat, would become a semi-colony.
In another meeting with the Japanese, Chairman Mao said: China and the vast majority of oppressed nations constitute the third world—the poor and backwards of the earth. England, France, and Japan make up the second world, while the United States is the first world. Years later, when China’s representative at the UN spoke and mentioned that Chairman Mao proposed the concept of “three worlds are delineated,” what was the purpose? By analyzing the world, Mao sought to emphasize the role of the oppressed nations, the vast majority of the earth, and for communists, the masses make history. Earlier, Lenin had stated that the weight of the masses defines, and envisioning the revolution in the East after World War II, an ultra-reactionary advisor said, “The masses and the oppressed nations have politically stood up.” Taking all this into account, Chairman Mao said, “In the world, there are villages and there are metropolises. The path is not against the revolution in Europe but in understanding the world’s trend, and by raising the oppressed nations, imperialism sinks.” Mao argued that Yankee imperialism was defeated by Korea and Vietnam, suggesting the beginning of a period of 50 to 100 years during which imperialism and all reactionaries are mere paper tigers.
If we gather all these ideas of Chairman Mao, to which he dedicated the final part of his life, what he is doing is laying the groundwork for the strategy and tactics of world revolution. In the Chinese Letter, the Chairman raised the need for strategy and tactics, but there are things that are not known. For example, Volume V is cut, however, one must connect the dots. This is to define the strategy and tactics of world revolution. But there are still unknowns. From the congress of the Communist International until today, strategy and tactics have not been defined. In the 1959-1960 meeting of the communists, neither did the Chinese 25-Point Letter define it, nor did Stalin’s Central Committee, because the Seventh Congress sanctioned the anti-fascist front. Subsequently, after Chairman Mao’s death, Deng emerges with his revisionist theory of the three worlds, which implies aligning with the superpowers, specifically Yankee imperialism, and enslaving the situation of oppressed nations to the outcome of conflicts between the great powers.
The Soviets were the first to oppose the “three worlds delineated” when Chairman Mao died in the seventies. Hoxha, on the anniversary of Lenin’s birth, stated, “After Lenin, no one.” And who was the first to support this theory? Khrushchev. In this way, the revisionists have attributed Deng’s revisionist theory to Chairman Mao to combat it and claim victory over it. Furthermore, Hoxha never fought against Chairman Mao. After his death, Hoxha accused him of nationalist revisionism and called him the Chinese Khrushchev. In Peru, some insignificant individuals have echoed Hoxha. Later, Avakian came out against it, criticizing what Chairman Mao said in 1946. He claims that Chairman Mao never opposed the errors of 1935, the 7th Congress of the Communist International. However, he has not investigated the implications of those circumstances as a struggle and content. Avakian has also criticized Chairman Mao’s three worlds, but not Mao’s himself, only Deng’s version, knowing that Mao’s version is different. To make matters worse, Avakian claims that it’s erroneous and well applied by Chairman Mao. They also question the three worlds of the CP of Turkey, but they are not M-L-M nor M-L, Mao Zedong thought, but M-L. They say that Chairman Mao made contributions to the world revolution. The RCP-USA, which claims to be Maoist, accuses Chairman Mao of nationalism.
We, the PCP, are Maoists and must unite the communists. To do so, we have advances; it is admirable to have taken steps and I repeat, we do not know all that is Maoism. What should be said is: Where is the error in what Lenin defined? Where in what Maoism says? Where in what we say? And not to cover up with “process of ideas.”
We have defined the principal contradiction and the three fundamental ones, it is in the document signed by the PCP, where is the principal contradiction wrong? Are the fundamental contradictions wrong? Is it wrong to raise world people’s war against world imperialist war?
On war, RCP-USA says that the problem is the world war. Why do they artfully twist the fundamental contradiction of capitalism? They claim that the world war will eliminate the northern hemisphere. They are repeating what scientists say and have not analyzed what the military is saying, but the problem is deeper: has war lost its class character? It suggests that classes are committing suicide, similar to Khrushchev, and today Gorbachev acknowledges and attacks Stalin, just like Avakian. Coincidence? Avakian supports the theory of productive forces; it either needs correction or it will sink. We focus on revolution, on the masses, while the RCP focuses on the imperialist world war. We advocate for world people’s war because the issue is to see the revolution, not the enemy.
On revolutionary violence, it is the core of Marxism. It is a universal law without any exception. In Marx and Lenin there is an exception, although the latter corrected himself and prepared the insurrection that led him, to clash against revolutionary violence is bourgeois pacifism, the RCP-USA proclaim peace, one is Maoist or one is not Maoist. So first you are firing at the congress, second at Maoism, and you must define yourselves as for or against it. These ideas have no basis whatsoever.
Democratic revolution (DR), it is the height to collide with democratic revolution. Why do some doubt semi-feudalism? Because they have no qualitative idea of what class is, but rather rely on bourgeois statistics falsified about what the city is and what the countryside is to deny that the peasantry is the main force, to abandon the countryside and focus on cities? And focus on what class? On the petite bourgeoisie? Or do they advocate for a socialist revolution? Others have proposed an intermediate revolution, an intermediate revolution, following the criteria of Liu Shaoqi. Before the uprising of 1927, he said, “there are no conditions”; continue the revolution. When Japan is defeated, he proposes to unite with the Kuomintang, surrender weapons, and exchange them for parliamentary seats. When he takes power across the country, he says to continue with the democratic revolution, let the productive forces develop, the bourgeoisie is good, and let the democratic revolution be consolidated. In 1957, in the midst of the socialist revolution, he stated that there is no class struggle, this was expressed in the 8th Congress where he again put forward the theory of “the productive forces.” Chairman Mao in 1930 stated that the revolution has two uninterrupted stages: the democratic revolution, when the revolution triumphs and power is seized in the whole country immediately, without intermission, the socialist revolution begins.
Chairman Mao has resolved the problem of the democratic revolution. Marx spoke to us about the permanent revolution in the 1850s, stating that the revolution in Germany could be realized if the peasant wars were rekindled, channeling the democratic energy of the peasantry.
In 1891 in Germany, the choice was between socialist revolution or democratic revolution. In the past, when there was no imperialism, given the conditions, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was specific to Germany and England, an evolutionary process through collusion between the bourgeoisie and the landowners. Lenin faced problems of democratic revolution because Russia had a semi-feudal system on which a late capitalist process developed. There was the Duma, not a parliament, and there was tsarism, a monarchy that had lasted for 400 years under the Romanovs. The Mensheviks argued that the proletariat was too small to carry out the revolution; this was opportunism because Marx had already said that the proletariat had to lead the democratic revolution. We must consider the nature of the 1905 revolution in Russia, its democratic revolution. In Two Tactics, Lenin states that the proletariat must lead the democratic revolution with a government of workers and peasants. In February 1917, bourgeois revolution led by Kerensky and Lenin said: “that the party could and should have done it, but did not do it because the party was not ready” and so Lenin makes the first socialist revolution in October 1917 and opens up a new era.
Thus Lenin said: “that the proletariat leads the democratic revolution.”
Chairman Mao made the democratic revolution from 1927 to 1949, because he is the one who solved the democratic revolution. Some will say: what about Vietnam? It was before 1945, yes, but Ho Chi Minh himself said:
“we have learned from Chairman Mao Zedong.” So he has solved it and he has established his laws, we have to apply them. This problem of bureaucratic capitalism, Roel raises nonsense. In On Coalition Government, from 1945, Chairman Mao speaks of bureaucratic capitalism, which is the capitalism of the big bourgeoisie, big landowners, financiers, who have a government represented by the Kuomintang, which exploits four classes: the proletariat, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and which restricts the national bourgeoisie. In 1947, Volume IV, page 170, he speaks of bureaucratic capitalism, but he continues calling it bureaucratic capital and that this monopoly capitalism that existed in China had increased in those twenty years and had merged with the state, becoming state bureaucratic and comprador capitalism; it merges then with the economic power of the state; afterwards, they say that in China bureaucratic capitalism must be confiscated. What did Sergio of left liquidationism think? That it was only the state bureaucratic capitalism, not the other part of big capital. Thus, they let this part loose.
In the following pages, Chairman Mao speaks of bureaucratic capitalism, that is why he already says “three mountains.” In unpublished writings he speaks of bureaucratic capitalism as well as of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, he says that the October Revolution was a socialist revolution and that by confiscating bureaucratic capital we are laying the economic foundations that allow us to control the entire economy and the passage from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. In our country we have applied this thesis and in our understanding bureaucratic capitalism is the capitalism that the imperialists belatedly promote in the oppressed nations and it is stubborn not to understand it this way. In Mariátegui we find: “bourgeoisie tied to imperialism and linked to semi-feudalism.” In 1920 the mercantile bourgeoisie assumes the leadership of the State, an accurate approach and linked to Maoism, that is why we have studied the economic process of Peruvian society, applying this theory. We have analyzed this critical phenomenon because from two sick parents; feudalism and imperialism, what comes out? In Peru bureaucratic capitalism has three moments: since 1895 and in the third moment is that the revolution has matured, engendering the same class that destroys it. We have entered the destruction. For this destruction of the old state, the destruction of its backbone, the armed and repressive forces in general, is required. We have applied the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism to differentiate two factions in the big bourgeoisie and not to put ourselves on the tail of any of them.
To be against the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism is to be against Maoism, against Gonzalo thought, it is denied by the Vietnamese who uphold nationalism, by those of the RCP-USA, the revisionists.
The bottom line is a more bloody people’s war must be developed for the conquest of power throughout the country. These ideas jingle when elections begin to be held, are they not going to come out with laying down their arms to enter into dialogue? joining with the IU [United Left]? denying conditions? “Eternal war is the criterion of left liquidationism,” Rojas, but they are just small words to hide. The bottom line is that the war weighs on them. Look at yourselves in the mirror of Rojas, Sergio, and Montañez. It is necessary to sharpen ideas to correct themselves, to sweep away the colossal heap of garbage. The predestined believe in themselves and not in the masses, hence they are bossy in their zones.
The principal form of struggle is the people’s war and the principal form of organization is the EGP. It is not possible to speak disparagingly of the army.
Creating new organizations by dismantling organizations is a problem against militarization. This is because the organizational line follows the political line and follows it because the war is linked to construction. It serves to avoid restoration, this problem must be thought of in depth. We have debated whether a part of the party is destined only to the work of the masses. It cannot be denied that there are problems, but they should lead us to develop militarization. For example, until today the organizations generated are militarized in the countryside, but not in the cities. Concerned about this, the party has to continue developing as militarized; in the international experience it is the army that has always been usurped to strike and restore. Our army is structured with strategic criteria, with the perspective of conjuring the restoration, there are three forces that allow the army to be more easily engulfed by the militia.
The majority in the world are the democratic revolutions, then the socialist revolutions and cultural revolutions towards communism, but today within communism we fulfill what we are responsible for, as a concrete task until we die, why think about how communism is going to be from today?
In these problems of militarization we have raised militarized society, aiming at the armed sea of masses, but we have not gone deeper because it is not the main problem today. Besides, here we have to develop more mass work, we are not going to be pulled by a multitude of ideas. Colossal pile of garbage.
Studying Chapter 27 of quotations from Chairman Mao; criticism and self-criticism. Why do criticisms hurt us? Do we want the black to persist? Criticism and self-criticism are primary weapons, with self-criticism being the key. However, fearing self-criticism, the focus shifts to criticism. If you are criticized, it is because one is not self-critical. Keep in mind that it reflects the struggle between the old and the new; without contradiction, the party’s life would come to an end. It guarantees unity, and we all possess this weapon to engage in active ideological struggle.
If a committee usurps the functions of the Metropolitan Committee, where does it lead the party, to its degeneration? Well, they conciliate, they act as groups, they do not focus on important problems but instead on petty problems; it is dangerous. We communists are rebels, in the past we were taught to submit. Marx taught us to rebel, and Chairman Mao taught us that it is right to rebel. We are rebels. All criticism must have a political sense. We are the political leadership of the masses. A secretary is a political secretary and if he does not take care of this, he should ask himself why? It is a serious problem. The struggle is to strengthen the Metropolitan Committee, not to weaken it. In Volume V it says: when you have already made mistakes you get to the very bottom, yet will come out ahead, never despair, trust in the party if they make you fight unjustly, sooner or later if the injustice is maintained that leadership will fall because the injustice will not last forever. Besides, what is strange about injustice?
Contention is a struggle for personal power. Feud goes against the communist condition of absolute selflessness. We can apply it because we do not sustain ourselves in property but in class extinction; we are bubbles of the immense sea that is the international proletariat. Nietzsche said that man is like a muddy giant with his feet in the slime, but his willpower makes him extend his hands upwards.
Fighting kingdoms do not belong to communists, they belong to feuding kinglets who need an emperor, hence they engage in internal struggle. Selection is a principle and the best are selected. Exercising power for the party and the people, and the functions entrusted to us lead us to exercise by prefecture, by delegation, not by principality. We can also be removed. The problem is not a personal struggle, it is not a contest. That is fiefdom. Apply power for the party and the people.
The Metropolitan Committee is the one that defines everything, even the mass politics, approves plans. The Actions Committee is the one that proposes the plans. Afterwards, it is approved by the Metropolitan Committee. It can prepare it and keep some actions secret, headed by the secretary and the subsecretary is the military command. The third one is the logistic, but they do not have the political decision of war. They have usurped functions and this is a serious problem, because it implies breaking the principle of leadership by committees. What would happen if the military commission usurps the entire Central Committee? They would be emperors of the highest rank, who would manage the whole party, the army, the state. Sweep away this substitution and put the leadership of the Metropolitan Committee as the main one.
The origin of the evil is the strong lack of cohesion, because from there stems the avoidance of politics, lack of reports, lack of debate, personal struggle, personal contention; the contention and substitution are organizational problems. Thus the principal contradiction is strong lack of cohesion because it is ideological-political. Secondly, struggle, because without organized struggle the line can never be realized. Thus, having a line and organizing the struggle, leaders are selected and enter into contention for leadership, but there is disagreement with the selection, and the fourth contradiction is the organizational... But with these four contradictions, which has hindered the work? Lack of cohesion, and they have engaged in a personal struggle that has hindered the power of the committee. Solution: Unite around the congress! Cohesion is strength, lack of cohesion is weakness. Mao teaches: unite with those you disagree with, if you work only with those you like. There is contradiction between the new and the old, the new ones tend to think that the old ones are full of mistakes and the old ones that the new ones are full of inexperience, it is necessary to know how to manage the contradiction, this is what Chairman Mao teaches us.
A committee is like a squad and the leader must lead to unite. Look at the virtue and limitation of all to relocate them in the right place. He has to learn to play the piano with ten fingers, otherwise he falls into the politics of “near and dear ones.” Manage the struggle well to unite, to organize, to weed out... a secretary has to answer for everything, he has a very high responsibility as political secretary of his apparatus, his center is politics. He must see everything and check everything, meetings are not improvised, he must know the cadres well. Take good care of the unity, it is achieved with organized struggle. The first thing to see to nourish is politics; not giving it nourishment leads to death. Take into account the process of renewal of leadership.
Reorganize the Metropolitan Committee. See the process and what is pending, lessons of entryism. See the current situation, it is good, there are conditions and brilliant perspectives of mass work, the problem is in organizational construction, a problem that drags for a long time; it fails in how to shape, which has been aggravated with strong disunity. But if we take the congress and develop organized struggle and actions within the Third campaign as well as develop its mass work, then we will be able to have a better selection.
Conditions for the fulfillment of the Third campaign: Think of gaining international support for the conquest of power throughout the country. Lima is a resounding board and to develop forceful actions for this perspective of the class struggle. For the reaction, the perspective is black, the crisis will deepen more and the class struggle will deepen more, the government is in serious isolation, see: “the homeland needs agreement” speech of February 20, 1988 in Trujillo. Isolation of the government and critical situation; there is an acute contradiction between the comprador bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy, their front is difficult to make, they want the homeland to be on top, but they are three mountains, bureaucratic capitalism is in an acute crisis and has an enemy in front of them that will...
The conquest of power throughout the country and the Metropolitan Committee. Perspective of the insurrection and construction.
Party: ideological-political construction base is Fundamental Documents. Organizational — zonal committees and cells increasing militancy. Congress.
People’s Guerrilla Army: Three forces. Iron legions..., march as a unit to enhance in quality and quantity, so we will prepare for future battles. Commands: Formation. Training. Instruction: Bellicosity. People’s Guerrilla Army — for cities.
Front — Movement. Meeting of August 1987. Setting in motion the meeting of October 1987 is principal. The Metropolitan Committee is the fundamental organization of the People’s Revolutionary Democratic Movement (MRDP). Without the Metropolitan Committee there is no MRDP. Apply the three-in-one. Popular schools: program, outlines, points. Period and cycle end, to the best for reordering. Letters and incorporation into the party.
A candidate states: “against the violence of terrorism.” Why the violence of the state? Nothing. For example, what about the Ames commission? As for regionalization, they propose corporate plans, APRA supporters; they talk about sovereignty and what have they done in parliament against the entry of Yankee troops? They traffick in oil and steel and want everything to remain in the hands of the APRA. It is a claim of the petty bourgeoisie and represents a burden to the people and a destruction of large investments. They propose state property to preserve their order and that is why they maintain it. It is the rotten system that generates an unemployed army, a reserve army that should never have existed, and what happened, what real struggle has been made against it? They are going to arm themselves against us.
They are insecure, they feel that the floor is moving. Otherwise, what’s the point of this insurance?
The counter-subversive war will intensify and focus on strategic and fundamental points.
“Fight and resist” has become a slogan of the people, to have the conquest of power in perspective.
3. (...)
4. (...)
5. (...)
The Third campaign.
The seven points of the meeting of June 7-8, 1987. Unity of the leadership, developing the construction in order to culminate!
Firmly unite the leadership.
Be ideologically-politically and organizationally consolidated.
Combat principally rightism, especially the overestimation of the enemy and the underestimation of one’s own forces.
Develop the construction of the three instruments, principally of the party.
Generate a great leap in the incorporation of the masses in the people’s war, especially in the People’s Guerrilla Army. In its three forms, reject repression and develop their struggles, applicable in combat and resistance.
All in and for the people’s war, an organization of ever-growing masses and...
Serve to: brilliantly culminate by establishing a historic milestone.