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.