A vicious two line struggle raging within the Communist Party of Peru for
some time now has drawn the attention of the revolutionaries the world over.
As the PCP is a participating member of the RIM and the people's war led
by it since 1981 on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is ahead of all
the revolutionary movements going on in the present day world, a line struggle
affecting the very continuation of this people's war and overtly being
manipulated by the reactionary ruling classes of Peru and their chief external
prop U.S. imperialism, should naturally be a subject of serious concern for
all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionaries and particularly those affiliated
lo the RIM.
It is already well recorded that Com. Gonzalo, Chairman of the PCP, was captured
by the reactionary Fujimori regime at the height of the people's war in September
1992. After one year, i.e. in October 1993, while Com. Gonzalo was kept in
strict solitary confinement, Fujimori made a dramatic claim that there was
a proposal from Com. Gonzalo for a peace accord with the reactionary regime.
The CC of the PCP quickly denounced it as a total fabrication and a hoax,
and hence nobody took Fujimori's claim with seriousness. However, when a
group of incarcerated PCP leaders came out with a similar proposal of peace
accord and claimed Com. Gonzalo's concurrence with it, while Com. Gonzalo
was still kept incommunicado, the matter assumed serious proportions. Meanwhile
the group of jailed leaders made their proposal public through the document
"Take up and fight for the New decision and the New definition" (or
Asumir in Spanish) and forwarded a "11-point proposal" outlining
their terms and conditions for the peace negotiation, and a public debate
ensued over the issue. As the PCP CC and the Committee of the RIM have already
condemned the line and proposal of this peace negotiation as a right opportunist
line and capitulationist proposal, it has become easier for all the revolutionary
forces to take a clear position on the issue.
Revolutionary communists do not negate peace negotiations or compromises
per se. The changes in objective situation, the twists and turns of the
revolutionary struggle, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing
camps, etc. may necessitate the changes in the strategy and tactics of the
Party. The examples of the oft-cited Brest-Litovsk treaty with the German
imperialists by the Russian communists, or the Chungking negotiations with
Chiang Kai-she by the Chinese communists, or the famous Long March, are there
for all to see. But the revolutionary communists always negotiate for peace,
or compromise with the opposing camp, or make a temporary retreat, to enhance
the prospects of ultimate seizure of power for the proletariat, or without
reneging with the basic interests of the people. But the case with advocates
of the peace accord in the PCP seems to be just the opposite. Their "11-point
proposal" for peace negotiation makes it crystal clear that they want to
disband the revolutionary army, dismantle the revolutionary base areas and
return to the position of 1980 (i.e. before the initiation of the people's
war) leaving the masses of the people at the mercy of the fascist rulers,
just for the release of some people in jails. This is a clear case of abject
surrender and cowardly capitulation, and no 'peace negotiation'! Their vain
arguments of change in the objective situation in the form of viability of
the bureaucrat capital, (as if the character of imperialism and bureaucrat
capitalism underwent a sudden change after 19921) etc., and in the subjective
situation in the form of 'lack of leadership' to lead the war (as if the
CC leading the war successfully so far does not exist!), do not cut any ice
either with logic or truth and sound mere apologies for surrender. Also their
proposal to wind up the war (not a temporary cease-fire or a retreat from
specific areas!) and start it from the scratch in the distant future goes
against the basic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of people's war, which cannot
be developed to a victorious conclusion by just turning it on and off at
will. In this context, detailed critiques by the Committee of the RIM and
the Union of Communists of Iran (Sarbedaran) (See, A World to Win,
No. 21 ) deserve perusal by all.
Though ordinarily questions of two-line struggle within a given Party should be best left to be resolved by the concerned Party, the revolutionaries cannot remain a silent spectator when the struggle centers around broader ideological and political questions with universal implications like this one. For the Nepalese revolutionaries who have recently embarked upon the path of the people's war the experiences of the PCP on such questions would have a direct bearing and added significance. In this context the recent Peru campaign launched in different metropolitan cities of India, including Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Ludhiana etc., in which revolutionary intellectuals like Raymond Lotta from U.S.A., Hisila Yami from Nepal and others gave a discourse on the two-line struggle within the PCP and demanded the breaking of isolation of Com. Gonzalo could not have been more timely.