CPB(RF): Combat liquidationism and unite the ICM under Maoism and the People’s War About the C(M)PA critique of the Joint Declaration of 1 May 2018

combatliquidation

Following we document the official translation of the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Faction) that was published shortly before May Day 2019 and has now been translated by comrades into an authorized English version:

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

Combat liquidationism and unite the ICM under Maoism and the People’s War

About the C(M)PA critique of the Joint Declaration of 1 May 2018

 

“In other words, provided that no damage is done to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, we accept from others certain views that are acceptable and give up certain of our own views that can be given up. Thus we have two hands to deal with a comrade who has made mistakes, one hand to struggle with him and the other to unite with him. The aim of struggle is to uphold the principles of Marxism, which means being principled; that is one hand. The other hand is to unite with him. The aim of unity is to provide him with a way out, to compromise with him, which means being flexible. The integration of principle with flexibility is a Marxist-Leninist principle, and it is a unity of opposites.”
Chairman Mao, “A dialectical approach to inner-party unity ”
Excerpts from a speech at the Moscow Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers’ Parties,1957
In mid-2018, the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan published a critique to the Joint Declaration of May 1st signed by 8 Maoist parties and organizations, entitled “A Glimpse at the Joint International Statement of the Eight Latin American Maoist Parties and Organizations. ” This document is available on many websites and blogs on the internet and has been translated into Spanish by UOC-mlm from Colombia.

It is affirmed in it, in a very emphatic way, that Gonzalo thought “is continuing to play a negative historical role and was even behind the composition of a joint international statement in celebration of international workers day to promote sectarianism…”, and proclaims that “… Therefore, it is necessary that––alongside the principled theoretical, ideological and political struggles based on MLM against Avakian’s New Synthesis and Prachanda Path revisionisms––a struggle should also be waged against the deviation that has emerged as Gonzalo Thought.” and, while conscripting themselves, they declare that “The C(M)PA is no longer obliged to keep the struggles against the latter internal but deems it totally necessary to begin carrying out such a struggle at the international level.”

Almost a year after its spread, no echo of its appeals was registered, nothing more than the furious attacks that imperialism, the bourgeoisie, landlords, revisionists and all the most reactionary systematically dispenses against the PCP, Chairman Gonzalo and his thought and the People’s War in Peru. And, although this document makes common cause with the reaction, it is seen that the latter has despised such aid offered to its combat against the proletarian revolution. The attacks are not only to the text of the declaration, but to the ideological and political line of the parties that sign it, thus expressing opposition to the theoretical and practical principles in which the International Communist Movement is unifying.

Since the publication of this document, a number of important events have taken place in the ICM, such as the publication of the Joint Declaration on the occasion of the 26 year anniversary of Chairman Gonzalo’s speech of September 24, 2018, a statement of December 26 in the occasion of Chairman Mao’s birthday and the holding of two Meetings of Maoist Parties and Organizations in Europe. As we approach the Joint Declaration of May 1, 2019, and ICM is making strides towards holding the UMIC (United Maoist International Conference), we consider it necessary and appropriate to publicly state our comments on its content in order to reveal the pseudo-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist nature of these attacks by dissecting what was put forward in it as arguments.

Our comments are based on common understandings of ideological, political, and construction issues established over the last 10 years by the parties that started the Meetings of MLM Parties and Organizations in Latin America as well as other parties in Europe, North America and Asia, who started to participate in this initiative. And although we do not speak here in the name of this group, we consider this position as part of the common development of the International Communist Movement, precisely of its left in this most recent period of its history, in which this struggle to culminate in overcoming the great dispersion of forces which has characterized it over the recent decades.

Nevertheless, we consider it good that a Communist Party expresses its views and does not hide them from the International Communist Movement. We are for the active ideological struggle, based on the proletarian principles, criteria and methods, as a necessary condition for the International Communist Movement to reach a higher unity in the ideological, political and organizational fields.

However, we will not answer to all the points of the aforementioned critique, because the themes presented in it, in its immense majority, are already broadly and deeply grounded in a large number of joint statements, documents and in the two editions of the El Maoista Magazine. So we will focus on the issues that we consider to be of major relevance today to the unity of the communists at the world level. In addition, it was necessary to extend certain questions in order to allow the large number of revolutionaries of the new generations, as well as new groups and organizations that have emerged in recent years, to be more familiar with the problems, struggles and development of the MCI of the past decades, mainly of the last thirty years.

The critique of the Afghan comrades is essentially focused in two points:

1) – That the C(m)PA presents itself surprised by the fact that the Communists could not declare a sole declaration for MCI, and considers this as another show of the ICM’s weakness:

“The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan did not expect that this year the Marxist-Leninist- Maoist parties and organizations would be unable to come to an agreement on a joint international May Day statement, but unfortunately this was the situation” And accuses the initiatives of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organisations of Latin America and Europe of Sectarianism, “Fractionalism”: “The signatories consider themselves the most advanced proletarian revolutionaries in the world and they insist so much on this claim that they have justified their sectarianism with the publication of a separate May Day statement, considering themselves to be 100 per cent correct.”

2) That the signing parties of the mentioned declaration are accused of serious deviations regarding the ideological and political line, deviations attributed to their adherence to the contributions of universal validity of Gonzalo thought. Gonzalo thought is presented as a dangerous “deviationism“, a third form of revisionism alongside Avakianism and Prachandism. Gonzalo thought is pointed out, along with the new revisionism for the liquidation of the RIM, including as being the principal one.

It is still a curious fact that the Afghan comrades, while expressing their desire for a unified declaration, launch furious criticism and “demolishing” attacks on the parties of Latin America and Europe, accusing them of having serious deviations of Marxism in fundamental themes, which they attribute to “Gonzalo thought”. Thus, it is immediately shown that the Afghan comrades are proclaiming a unity above the discrepancies of principles, an unprincipled unity. For they complain that they do not have a unified declaration with those whom, without any valid foundation, they stigmatize “sectarians,” fractionists, and divisionists. They point precisely to those who, with full proof of their social practice, work to build a solid unity of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles in the ICM.

1) A necessary clarification
As mentioned above, a large number of organizations that are active in the International Communist Movement have had a relatively recent emergence and have not taken direct part on the two lines struggles that were developed in the last decades, so a brief clarification is necessary.

In the last seven years, since the formal disappearance of the RIM in 2012, there has not been a single year that a sole Declaration of May 1st has occurred, so that the alleged “surprise” of the C(m)PA by the appearance of two declarations finds no correspondence with reality. Moreover, sectarianism and arrogance are from those who, without presenting reasons or minimally valid grounds, that the declaration of the “eight parties and organizations of Latin America and Europe” is what split with the “publication of a separate declaration of the May Day“.

On May 1st, 2013, the year following the official end of the RIM, at least three joint statements were published:

A statement from MLM Parties and Organizations in Latin America: “In the face of the general crisis of imperialism, prepare, initiate and develop People’s Wars until communism!“. This declaration signed by the Communist Party of Brazil – Red Fraction; Communist Party of Ecuador – Red Sun; Revolutionary Front of the People (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) of Bolivia; Red Fraction of the Communist Party of Chile; New Democracy Association (Peru), Germany. This was the first declaration that set the slogan “Struggle for a Unified Maoist International Conference” in order to combat dispersion and deepen the two-line struggle in the most organized way possible to serve more to achieve greater ideological and political unity, according to the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in the midst of class struggle and the inseparable and merciless combat to revisionism and all opportunism; an international conference to establish levels of coordination between different Maoist parties, organizations and initiatives that developed People’s War or were, at different levels of development, preparing to initiate it. The name “Unified” in the character of the proposed Maoist international conference was, and is, a clear consideration and recognition to the existence of other initiatives, of which the one called “Maoist Road” stands out.

In that same year, a declaration that was promoted by “Maoist Road” proclaimed: “The popular masses want to overthrow the capitalist, imperialist governments and the governments their servants! Proletarians want to unite for the Party of the revolution! Communists support anti-imperialist struggles and develop People’s Wars for the world proletarian revolution!”.

In addition to these two declarations, a third proposal by the UOC-MLM-Colombia: “Let us unite and draw a clear line of demarcation between Marxism and revisionism“, which focused on combating the “centrism” in the ICM, attributed to the parties and organizations that came from RIM, who continued to support the so-called “Kiran fraction” in Nepal, referring, in particular, to the parties of the Maoist Road initiative.

In the early years of Maoist Road, its declarations were not principally negative, which is why some parties, such as the Communist Party of Brazil – Red Fraction, signed both statements in a clear show of a desire for unity. In later years, Maoist Road’s declaration proposal indicated to be deviating from its course.

Over the years, due to discrepancies in the content and method of defining it, the first two initiatives developed in separate ways, expressing two conceptions and two distinct political lines.

In this period, we considered the existence of multiple May 1st declarations and burning ideological themes to be justified, since it corresponded to the need for different conceptions, positions, and criteria to be more clearly expressed in order to develop the two-line struggle in the ICM. Corresponding to these differences, the declarations expressed different criteria for the construction of the ICM from the outset. The history of these declarations constitutes part of the struggle for the reunification of the communists in the world, separating two conceptions and two distinct political lines.

While the statement promoted by MLM parties and organizations in Latin America was expressing a growing ideological and political unity, based on the development of Maoist forces in each country, and soon gaining new adhesion in Europe and North America; the other statements, such as the one promoted by “Maoist Road”, seemed to us to follow a reverse spiral.

On May 1st, 2018, “Maoist Road” seems to have culminated its crisis, as its signatories have publicly revealed. In addition to its content represent an amalgam of generic positions that do not respond to the minimal problems of the World Revolution and the ICM, since its very preparation some elementary principles of the relation between communist parties were seriously violated.

In a beautiful show of the prachandist dialectic, in which “two conform one“, we were surprised that the UOC – MLM, which has for years dedicated joint statements against “centrism” – attributed to “Maoist Road” – and signed a declaration with the same, without either party having made any “rectification” of their positions.

Different is our consideration regarding the appearance of the signature of TKP / ML and CPI (Maoist) in these statements. As far as we know, these parties have not even been consulted on these signatures. In this case it is a crude manifestation of opportunistic methods, typical means of revisionism.

2) Some questions regarding the unity of the International Communist Movement

As it is known, the C(m)PA, together with CPm Italy and the then CPI ML-Naxalbari, was one of the signatories of the resolution called “Special Resolution” published on May 1st, 2012. This resolution formalized the liquidation of RIM.

In the aforementioned “Special Resolution”, of which C(m)PA is a signatory, stated that:
“In this context a potential new wave of the world proletarian revolution emerges and develops, with the popular wars led by Maoist parties as points of reference and strategic anchor…”
“… In the crisis it is increasingly clear that the revolution is the main trend…”

“…In the countries oppressed by imperialism the perspective of people’s war is advancing. In India, the people’s war led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) successfully withstands unprecedented attacks by the enemy and is able to expand and advance. The people’s war in the Philippines led by the Communist Party of the Philippines advances and establishes itself as an important part of the wave of world revolution. The people’s war in Peru, initiated under the leadership of the Communist Party of Peru led by chairman Gonzalo remains an ideological and strategic beacon for the whole international communist movement. (1st Resolution passed by the Special Meeting of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement – May First 2012. emphasis added)

Following that, in the same May 2012, CPR-USA launched a letter addressed to the Maoist parties and organizations, where it vomits its revisionism against Maoism, Chairman Gonzalo and the People’s War. In this letter, Avakian attacks the referred “Special Resolution” and its authors and also announces the end of the RIM, advocating many positions that are now defended by the C(m)PA:

“The leaders of this new ”initiative” are not troubled by this lack of substantive engagement, because they are trying to substitute a different criterion for ”unity”, in particular a demagogic and pragmatist appeal to taking Maoist-led people’s wars as ”its reference points and strategic anchor”…

… In the Manifesto from the RCP,USA an analysis is made of two erroneous trends from within the international communist movement … ” an approach to communist theory and principles as some kind of dogma, akin to religious catechism …

… the paltry May 1 Call… including talk of Maoism with no discussion of Mao’s most important contribution on continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and reducing Maoism to people’s war …

… If one examines the May 1, 2011 Call for a new international communist organization, as well as the most recent document of the draft Proposal (see, again, the Appendix below) this type of approach is striking …. in which people’s wars are “the reference points and strategic anchor” (…)In the 2011 document a false (and frankly ridiculous) picture is painted in which people’s war is advancing in Peru, the Philippines and Turkey, and, somehow, this will serve as the basis for regrouping the communists. (Letter to participating parties and organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, May 1, 2012)

This “Special Resolution” was presented to MCI as an inflection point. The Parties that were its signatories proclaimed themselves the vanguard in the struggle for the “formation of a New International Organization” that would replace the RIM and, unlike the CPR-USA, they advocated to be true heirs of the RIM. Each party has the right to become a continuator of the best traditions of the ICM. However, each party or organization must be measured solely and exclusively by its concrete social practice in the application of MLM in the revolution in its own country and in the ICM.

After more than seven years of this so-called “Special Resolution”, differently to being a starting point in which to rely, guide, seeking to broaden and deepen the participation of more parties and organizations, as it was proposed, it was proved to be only the outcome of formalization of a situation that was no longer sustained. Not even the so-called “RIM evaluation seminar” or any other activities that had the minimal characteristics and preparation – Ideologically, politically, and organizationally – needed for the construction of the ICM were carried out. Nor, as it seems to us, did the Maoist forces within it could express a real development that would serve as the basis for the ICM, so that it was already an agonizing initiative in its ideological eclecticism, because of its political incapacity and absolute organizational starvation.

We consider that the RIM was a step forward at the time, and that a correct and justified evaluation of its experience is necessary. To make this correct and justified evaluation of the RIM, it is necessary to analyse the history of the two-line struggle within it and the role of each party in it. Like every revolutionary organisation, the RIM was divided between left, center and right. Those who now advocate legitimate “heirs” of RIM should clearly state which heritage they claim and which heritage they renounce. A centrist position on it is nothing more than adhering to revisionism.

That is why we take as a starting point the Joint Statement of September 24, 2018, on the occasion of the 26th anniversary of Chairman Gonzalo’s speech, to represent the point of view of an expressive set of at least 11 parties and organizations of the ICM, of Different regions of the world: Communist Party of Ecuador-Red Sun, Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction), Peru People’s Movement (Reorganisation Committee), Red Fraction of the Communist Party of Chile, Maoist Organization for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Colombia, Revolutionary nucleus for the Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Mexico, Committee Red Flag – FRG, Committees for the Founding of the (Maoist) Communist Party, Austria, Red Guards – USA, Serve the People – Communist League of Norway and Red Flag Collective (Finland).

This group of parties and organizations has, for the most part if not all of them, its practice to be well-known in the International Communist Movement, so that its positioning has an evident relevance.

On the evaluation of the RIM, we affirm in the Joint Declaration:

“although the RIM was correctly characterized by Chairman Gonzalo as a “step forward”, he also pointed out – with his proper precision – that “as long as it follows a just and correct ideological-political line” the RIM will be a step forward, and it was, and it served to unite the communists on the basis of the red line and this could be no other than the line of Chairman Gonzalo. That is to say, the principal in the evaluation of the RIM is to state that it served the Proletarian World Revolution – and particularly the struggle to reunite the communists, while it served the struggle to impose Maoism as its sole command and guide – that is to say, the struggle which was led by Chairman Gonzalo – and that it ceased to play a positive role when the revisionists of the “RCP” from United States – taking advantage of the problematic situation of the left due to the bend in the People’s War in Peru – turned to totally hegemonize it.”

However, in view of the new situation created by the general offensive of the counterrevolution in the 1990s, the other parties of the RIM did not support this step further. Most of them lacked a clear and correct definition of the content of Maoism, solidity, and sufficient decision to apply it. So that, in the face of the blows provoked by reaction and revisionism, they did not sustain and deviated. Suffice it to say that there were not a few parties and organizations that in a couple of years, publicly or secretly, adhered to the Prachandist or Avakianist positions on fundamental questions of Marxism.

Some, who are fearful of the two-line struggle and refractory to criticism and self-criticism, object in every way to the two-line struggle over the fundamental problems of ICM and WPR. On the problems of the RIM they wanted to impose a “fresh start” (“borron y cuenta nueva”) and prevent that the two-line struggle deepened itself. Persisting on their mistakes, they continue to assert that “no discussion, no two-line struggle can take place before the International Conference“. These are the advocates of the opportunistic criteria that unity may be the result of a discussion in assembly or an agreement between groups and not the two-line struggle that Maoism advocates.

3) On some ideological principles for the construction

The proletariat is international, it is a single class in the whole world, with single class interests and indissolubly bonded destinies, one cannot be communist if one does not think of communism, and that either everyone or no one enters communism, as emphasized by Chairman Mao. That is why internationalism is an unbreakable principle, unity is a goal sought and achieved permanently through struggle.

Unity of opposites just as everything is. The true unity of communist is the unity of principles, which from the one of dialectical and historical materialist world view to the one of democratic centralism as organisational, going through many others, can only be obtained, sustained and developed by the means of struggle. Deepening the stated by the great Lenin, Chairman Mao taught us that unity is relative and can only be achieved through fierce struggle, which is absolute. In this sense and for this very reason, unity is a permanent objective and a powerful flag to be hoisted.

The great comrade Lenin taught us that unity can not be promised, can not “emerge” from agreements between grouplings, “Unity must be won … by stubborn and persistent effort …. unity can be furthered only by the efforts and organisation of the advanced workers … Unity without organisation is impossible. “(Lenin, Unity, May 30, 1914.)

To speak of unity while sabotaging unity is an old opportunist method that seeks to cover up the true nature of the two-line struggle on fundamental questions of Marxism and the ICM. The two-line struggle within a party is a reflection of the class struggle in society, and is absolute while unity is always relative. We are for the method of “two-line struggle as a driving force for party development,” as a fundamental Marxist principle, valid and indispensable, for every International Communist Movement.

After more than two decades of hard struggle of the international proletariat, false leaders such as Prachanda and Bathharai or failed prophets like Avakian were exposed and demoralized as “new revisionism”, opposed to Maoism.

Meanwhile Chairman Gonzalo and the contributions of his thought, more and more, were recognized and assumed by the International Communist Movement. They are contributions with which new parties and organizations have been formed and developed, with renewed force, based on the defense of Maoism and in and for the People’s War. This is a victory of the international proletariat, through hard two-line struggle and class struggle. However, revisionism, of old and new type, continues to be expressed in the ICM through ideas, criteria and positions of parties that claim to combat it, but in practice do not go beyond rhetoric, while revisionism continues to be the main danger.

In his document of criticism, the Afghan comrades affirm: “At this moment claiming a further evolution of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is baseless, whether these claims are the revisionism of ‘Prachanda Path’ and ‘Avakian’s New Synthesis’ or the deviationism of ‘Gonzalo Thought.’… Our party has always emphasized that premature assertions such as Gonzalo Thought, Prachanda Path, and the Avakianite New Synthesis are historically responsible for the collapse of RIM.”

In addition, Gonzalo thought is presented as an even more dangerous form of deviation to be combated, according the accusation of the mentioned document, because, on contrary to Avakian revisionism, Prachanda and the ROL, it continues with growing influence in the ICM:

“is continuing to play a negative historical role and was even behind the composition of a joint international statement in celebration of international workers day to promote sectarianism … Therefore, it is necessary that––alongside the principled theoretical, ideological and political struggles based on MLM against Avakian’s New Synthesis and Prachanda Path revisionisms––a struggle should also be waged against the deviation that has emerged as Gonzalo Thought.The C(M)PA is no longer obliged to keep the struggles against the latter internal but deems it totally necessary to begin carrying out such a struggle at the international level. “(emphasis added)

We reaffirm ourselves in the aforementioned joint statement of September 24, 2018, on the occasion of the anniversary of Chairman Gonzalo’s speech:
“So the problem in the ICM is not principally rooted in that Maoism is not formally acknowledged, but how some understand it, and this is why it is important to start with who defined Maoism as the new, third and superior stage of our ideology; because it is only by starting from what was scientifically established by Chairman Gonzalo that we can understand Maoism as one unit, as one harmonic system. If one does not take the work of Chairman Gonzalo as a starting point, one falls into eclecticism, counterpoising quotes but not understanding the ideas. If we understand this, we can understand the reason why there are not few Parties and Organizations that, while taking longer time, have become stuck and have not made leaps in their processes, while those who put the most effort into learning from Chairman Gonzalo are, in general, advancing principally in qualitative terms, but also in quantitative terms. We advise those who rush to give labels to open their eyes to the material truth instead of getting carried away by their imaginations. “

Today, after 35 years of the foundation of the RIM, Maoism is accepted as a new, third and superior stage of Marxism by the International Communist Movement. Differently from then, apart from revisionists of different types and the worshipers of Hohxa e Teng, there is virtually no party that is part of the ICM that sustains that we are in the epoch of ML or ML-Mao Tsetung Thought. The parties that today have ML or even Mao thought, are already well-known revisionists, and nobody could say that they are part of the ICM. Others who have previously been part of the ICM, such as Avakian and Prachanda, have been unmasked as notorious revisionist. ”

However, among these different parties and organizations, there are different understandings about the content of Maoism. We reaffirm that, in synthesis, there is no leap in the process of knowledge regarding Maoism on the part of these. It is not enough to recognize that Maoism is a third stage, a correct definition of its content is necessary, there can not be a correct application without a correct definition of its fundamental elements.

The Campaign for Maoism can not make a great leap only with declarations, studies and debate if it does not advance in more People’s Wars in the world, in addition to further development of those that are taking place. On the other hand, no party can advance the central and principal task of reconstituting or constituting a CP to initiate the People’s War, without understanding and assuming the contributions of universal validity of Gonzalo thought, as an inseparable and indispensable part for the application of Maoism as ideological-political embodiment.

That is why we reaffirm that Maoism is the third, new and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat, today’s Marxism. Gonzalo thought is the creative application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to the Revolution in Peru through People’s War, without which we could not understand Maoism.

So that today, in order to attack Maoism, revisionism in its most varied expressions points increasingly and centrally against Gonzalo thought, in order to prevent a correct assimilation of Maoism, to empty and reduce its content, and to sterilize it. So the campaign in defence of Chairman Gonzalo and the campaign for Maoism are two strategic and inseparable campaigns, as the Maoist Communist Party (France) recently affirmed, defending “Chairman Gonzalo is defending Maoism.”

The Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan, in launching its attacks against Chairman Gonzalo, invariably points against Maoism and launches itself into the mire of revisionism undermining the unity base of the International Communist Movement.

4) Some questions about the political construction:

The most serious and revealing is the position of the Afghan comrades on the People’s Wars in the world. The C(m)PA separates the ICM from its base, denies the advancement of the Proletarian Revolution by undermining the unity of the Communist International Movement.

The C(m)PA behaves as an implacable judge when it states:

“currently there is no people’s war in Turkey (…). The C(M)PA did not agree with the joint international May Day statement about the existence of a people’s war in Turkey, neither previously nor this year… “. According to the Afghan comrades, to defend the People’s War in Turkey: “will damage the reputation of the statement and its signatories and benefits no one.”

Every Communist in the world has always watched with particular attention the development of Revolution in Turkey. In this country, under the impact of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in People’s China, the party was formed in 1972 by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya as a Communist Marxist-Leninist party adhering to Mao Tsetung thought. In the 1990s the TKP / ML acknowledged Maoism as the third, new and superior stage of Marxism. The history of the Party and the People’s War in this country, like others, suffered blows and deviations from the ideological, political and organizational point of view that prevented its greater development.

However, the central and principal is that the flag of the People’s War raised by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya continued and continues to be upheld by the TKP / ML, the heroic TIKKO, and by the masses who fight under its leadership to carry out the Revolution of a New Democracy through People’s War.

In the last years, as it is public knowledge, an important two-line struggle inside the TKP / ML took place. In it, through hard struggle, the left imposed itself by defeating a right-wing opportunist liquidationist black clique who intended to destroy the Party and liquidate the People’s War, putting the proletariat and the masses tailing the reactionary gang of the PKK. Through hard two-line, the left imposed itself by upholding, defending and applying Maoism, People’s War and purging the Party of the liquidationist clique. This is a great victory of the proletariat and popular masses in Turkey (Turks and Kurds), the struggle for self-determination of the Kurdish nation and the international proletariat, of Maoism and of the ICM.

It is by grasping Maoism and People’s War more firmly that the Turkish Communists are solving and will solve the challenges of revolution, taking a new and powerful impulse. The position of the C(m)PA converges and serves the right-wing revisionist and liquidationist black clique, serving its intended purposes of denying Maoism, destroying the TKP / ML, and liquidating the People’s War.

To support the Communist Parties and the People’s Wars, even if they are going through difficult and complex times and the real situation is not completely clear, is a way to defeat the enemy and encourage the masses and militants when they are at crucial moments.

Elsewhere, it states: “C(M)PA does not agree that there currently exists a people’s war in Peru, … to claim that there exists a people’s war in Peru, as both May Day statements this year have done (the statement that we signed and the statement under discussion), is erroneous. The fact is that what exists in the ‘heights of Vizcatan’ in Peru are party and non-party armed groups “. … ” without a comprehensive evaluation of its past, including both the victories and failures of the party and the peoples war, the PCP cannot reorganize itself and cannot restart the people’s war. Towards this end the PCP should rely on the positive achievements of the first congress of the party in 1986[sic], but this alone is not enough. The party should identify the shortcomings of the congress. Based on the comprehensive evaluation of the positive and negative experiences of the past and deploying the outcomes of this evaluation in revolutionary practice and formalizing their results in the second congress of the party, the party should form a new ideological-political and organizational basis for itself. Relying on a 32 years old congress is clearly insufficient.”

In order to become good teachers it is necessary to become good students, to diligently do your homework is a wise attitude to be able to give an opinion or advise with reason and knowledge. But just like Avakian, the C(m)PA opportunistically tries to take advantage of the blows of the reaction and revisionism and decree the end of the People’s War in Peru and the invalidity of Gonzalo thought.

No Revolution in history, nowhere and in no time, has found an easy path. All had invariably to face moments of great and dangerous challenges, transiting for years in the razor’s edge. Perhaps for the triumph of the Great Socialist October Revolution there was some major change in the general political line after the defeat of 1905-07 – was it not with the same line of revolution that was defeated in 1905 that it triumphed in 1917? Who, if not the Mensheviks, proposed a revision and followed the path of liquidationism facing the offensive of the counterrevolution? Was it not likewise with the Great Chinese Revolution and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? Did it not suffer a hard defeat and the power of the proletariat was usurped by the bourgeoisie? And are not these all also temporary defeats, that there can be no definitive defeat for the proletariat? Because of this temporary defeat, should or should not the communists of the world raise the need for a profound evaluation of Mao Tsetung thought and the role of Chairman Mao, should or should not uphold and defend Maoism against revisionism? The People’s War in Peru led by the PCP and Gonzalo thought gave us Maoism, from the barrel of the guns of the People’s War in Peru an International Maoist Communist Movement was born, this is a forceful, irrefutable and irrevocable fact!

Although the Revolution had suffered a setback and the Party was disorganized by the blows of the reaction in collusion with revisionism, the People’s War has never stopped even for a minute. Firmly uniting over the historic First Congress, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Gonzalo thought congress and the unconditional defence of its leadership, Chairman Gonzalo, that unbreakable Communists are answering to new problems and overcoming the challenges that the all the great and true revolution present, decisively advancing towards the culmination of the general reorganization of the party, which will mean a new and powerful impetus for the People’s War and for the World Proletarian Revolution.

The great Lenin said that only what was won by the proletarian masses is solid in Revolution. Comrade Lenin affirmed that “The founding of the Third, Communist International in Moscow on March 2, 1919, was a record of what has been gained not only by the Russian workers, but also by the German, Austrian, Hungarian, Finnish, Swiss-in a word, by the workers of the world… Precisely because of this the founding of the Third, Communist International really is firm.” (emphasis added). Did the Revolution in Germany, Austria or Switzerland have a great development? Could they keep their positions and consolidate? However Lenin stated clearly and peremptorily: “The ice has been broken! The Soviets have triumphed throughout the world! 

This was the criteria that was established by Lenin to judge the development of the WPR and ICM. This is a valid criterion for a small committee, an organization or a party, and even more for the International Communist Movement.

It is not by chance that the C(m)PA points against the historic First Congress, which in this year of 2019 completes 30 years of conclusion. The First Congress is a fundamental milestone not only for the Peruvian Revolution, but for the World Proletarian Revolution and the International Communist Movement, because it is the First Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Congress of the history of the International Communist Movement, there was no other before it. Even the grand and historic IX Congress of the Communist Party of China, to which we celebrated its 50th anniversary, had not come to define and defend Maoism.

In the First Congress, the scientific definition of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism was formulated for the first time; its application to the theory and practice of the Peruvian revolution as a part and at the service of the world revolution, Maoism and Gonzalo thought, principally, as ideology, the general political line in its five aspects, International line, democratic revolution, military line, construction line and mass line, in addition to the basic principles and program, all achieved and sanctioned by more than 8 years of invincible People’s War. Born by the Party and the People’s War, the historic First Congress synthesized Maoism as the third, new and superior stage of Marxism and gave birth to Gonzalo thought.

Chairman Gonzalo, in the speech on which he substantiates Maoism during the Congress (1988-1989), concluded by recalling what Marx said about The Capital: “Follow your destiny, go your way, book. That they attack, that they accept, that they doubt, that is the reality, but the word is said; the Congress says that it has to be defined accordingly and it is the debate that has to serve us to understand more and better and more deeply Maoism.” Prophetic words!

That is why we reiterate here what was stated by the declaration of September 24, 2018:
“On this occasion of celebrating a new anniversary of the Speech of Chairman Gonzalo, we particularly want to greet the comrades from the Communist Party of Peru who are advancing through firm steps in the general reorganization of the Party, that is already approaching the days of its culmination; a process that is made in the midst of the People’s War, proven one again with the recent forceful actions of the People’s Liberation Army that maintains the People’s Committees and Base Areas. We communists of the world acknowledge the extraordinary role of the PCP and no one can doubt that the culmination of the reorganization of this Party will mean a significant impulse for the Proletarian World Revolution and will be a decisive piece in the struggle for the reunification of the ICM.”

The unbreakable persistence and development of the People’s Wars in India, Peru, Philippines and Turkey against the counterrevolutionary wind and tide, defeating successive siege and annihilation campaigns, as well as the so-called “peace agreements” and capitulation, are a great source of inspiration and solid Maoist strongholds to defeat revisionism and all opportunism. The People’s Wars are the base and centre through which the International Communist Movement could be developed with renewed force.

These are solid achievements, forged as steel in the furnace of the People’s War. To deny these achievements is to deny the People’s War, is to deny Maoism.

In addressing the emergence of new Maoist forces in the imperialist countries, the C(m)P of Afghanistan states:

“Advancements in the implementation of Maoism within the bellies of the imperialist beasts in Europe, for establishing or re-establishing Maoist communist parties, exist in several European countries. However, the great theoretical hurdle preventing their rapid progress (…) but in fact the problematic of the modality of people’s war in imperialist countries (…) We believe that providing such a clear theoretical model is the task of an international Maoist conference and it should be resolved at the international level.”

The long years of living together with Avakian seem to have left a deep weight on the heads of the Afghan comrades. Just like Avakian, the Afghan comrades are putting forward the development of science disconnected from practice. According to them, the People’s War in the imperialist countries is a “theoretical model”, which will be solved by the “International Conference” and not by the application of Maoism and the People’s War to the particularity of each country, as the military line of the international proletariat.

According to the Afghan comrades, the proletariat of the imperialist countries should expect an “International Conference” to define a brand new “theoretical model” of the People’s War. This avakian-like statement is nothing more than to oppose in fact to the whole application of Maoism and People’s War and to the unification of the International Communist Movement based on these principles.

The Afghan comrades say that it is an exaggeration to define as a victory for the International Communist Movement that the communists during the days of struggle against the G20 lifted the banner of Maoism and did not allow it to be lowered. According to the Afghan comrades, these facts are just something “not to be ignored,” and can not be considered “a complete victory” for the international proletariat.

We must clarify that, even though at this point there is a failure in the English translation (the original Portuguese word “rotunda” which means “categorical” or “decisive“, was mistakenly translated with “complete”) this does not essentially change the meaning that was set forth in this excerpt. But the point is that from the point of view of its organizers’ objectives, the demonstration was a complete victory.

Yes, we reaffirm that the classist intervention in the struggles of July 2017 against the G20 was a resounding victory, not only in Germany and Europe, but for all the ICM. For the first time in decades – as the imperialist bourgeoisie’s own newspapers have acknowledged – hundreds of red flags with the hammer and sickle were seen leading the struggle of the proletarian youth against the gendarmerie mounted by the imperialist bourgeoisie’s war apparatus. This Maoist contingent during the demonstrations was part of a broad struggle from within and outside the demonstrations, through actions among the masses of the working-class neighbourhoods.

The Afghan comrades seem to see only what is in front of their noses, the worse about blindness is not wanting to see, more important than the immediate and apparent results is the process set in motion under a revolutionary proletarian ideological-political line. The ice has been broken!

The Afghan comrades behave like implacable judges, they want to sentence that all progress is insufficient, that all victory is casual, that everything that is red is black. They decree the absence of the People’s War in Peru and Turkey, challenge the advances of the Communist Parties in Latin America, United States and Europe and the unification of the communists, where they only see sectarianism and fractionalism, errors, limitations and defeats.

It was not by preaching the revocation of the Cultural Revolution’s verdicts, accusing them of sectarianism and extremism, of only causing ills and of dividing the Chinese people, who, in 1975, the tengsiaopingist followers of the capitalist path generated public opinion confusing the masses by raising Mao Tsetung thought to attack Mao Tsetung thought to defeat the Cultural Revolution, restore capitalism and liquidate the CPCh?

Yes! If the parties that took part in the Meetings of Latin America and Europe are sectarian and fractionists, could the “unifiers” of the C(m)PA provide us with an example of how you worked to achieve unity in the ICM, despite firing diatribes against whoever dedicate any concrete efforts to this? The Afghan comrades, in their eagerness of being world vanguard of rhetoric, seems to us that, surrounded by their own marasmus, they can not but confess their prostration, stating that: “On the other hand, internationally and in relation to re-establishing a new MLM international organization to fill the gap of RIM, at least a decade has passed, and we have not succeeded. ”

That is why the great Lenin warned that “The distinguishing, characteristic feature of the fraternity under consideration was their love of amorphism to “put paid” to that which is contrasted to the amorphous present — this is one of the main features of liquidationism” The C(m)PA attempts to present an International Communist Movement immersed in weakness and chaos, when in reality who is immersed in weakness and chaos, even in the cases where some camouflage themselves into frantic reformist activism, is the opportunist and liquidationist right.

Maríategui taught us that once the idea is realized, it is no longer a question of idea but of realization, of the embodied idea. So, attacking the referendum is to attack the achieved, and opposing the development of the International Communist Movement is to follow the path of liquidationism.

This opportunist and revisionist tendency is a counter current in the International Communist Movement opposed to Maoism, the unity of the ICM and the People’s War. It represents the shift to liquidationism for some of those who remained for years hidden in centrism, sunk in their ideological, political incapacity and absolute lack of initiative.

However, it is necessary to see that this liquidationist tendency in particular is a reflection of the class struggle between revolution and counterrevolution. Where do these positions originate? From the weight of counterrevolution propaganda on the head of some. The essence of this liquidationism sinisterly converges with the triple attack of imperialism against Maoism, against the Communist Party and the unity of the ICM and against the People’s War, in order to undermine the unity of the International Communist Movement and halt the advance of the world proletarian revolution.

Since Avakian and Prachanda, just like the ROL of Peru, have revealed their ideological-political line as opposed to Maoism, the international proletariat has been able to unmask and crush them as new revisionism, firmly uniting on Maoism and People’s War. That is why the rightist liquidationist tendency needs to mask its ideological and political nature in the quest to achieve its nefarious objective, by using the opportunist method of raising the red flag to attack the red flag.

The struggle against this right opportunist tendency is therefore the continuation and deepening of the struggle against the new revisionism, because this liquidationist tendency is a more recalcitrant and pernicious form of the new revisionism. All those who cross this deep border, which separates Marxism and revisionism, must be relentlessly crushed by the international proletariat.

However, we reaffirm what was stated in the joint declaration of September 24, 2018:

“To be clear: We communists reaffirm ourselves in the principle of criticism and self-criticism and the seriousness of a Party that, as Lenin taught us, is measured by its capability to assume self-criticism. This is why we do not close the door to anyone, except to those who stained their hands with the blood of the masses. Hence, if those who committed grave mistakes and errors really want to correct themselves they are very welcome; for this they have to demonstrate their condition as communists and close ranks with the left, understand that to be a Great Leader you have to move more than your “close and dear ones”, that a proletarian Great Leader is not a ridiculous big shot but someone who knows how to lead the transformation of the world. “

And we are going to stress, once again, so that no margin for the misrepresentations and manoeuvres of the opportunist right in the ICM is left: we are for the struggle to achieve unity based on the principles, from this starting point we are for reaching agreements. But we reject any manifestation of hypocrisy, dishonesty and disloyalty in the relations between the communists, for this we put forward all the positions that we defend, putting them on the table in a clear way giving space for no mistakes. Hence, just as in the Declaration, which is the object of the criticism of the Afghan comrades, we defend a Unified Maoist International Conference based on the defence of Maoism and People’s War, and on this basis to reach the necessary agreements for the creation, as soon as possible, of a new international organization for the proletariat, for which it cries out, with its increasingly stormy struggles around the world, towards the future Communist International. The others are themes for the two-line struggle that must continue, always as a means of permanently raising the unity of the communists. Therefore, as Chairman Mao bases on the quote put forth in the introduction of this document, struggle and unity, principles and flexibility. Thus, in the struggle within the party and within the ICM, on the question of internal unity, we have been working together, we have been participants and witnesses of this practice in the struggle for the Unified Maoist International Conference.

5) Defend the unity of the ICM by advancing towards the realization of a UMIC and a New International Organization of the Proletariat

The process of reunification of the world’s communists is not, and will not be, based on Seminars, Conferences, meetings, or group agreements, but the work of communist parties that are already waging People’s Wars, those who prepare to initiate them, and the communists who assume the task of reconstituting Communist Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties. The unity of the International Communist Movement is the unity of the real and developing movement, based on the ideological, political and organizational construction of each party and organization in each country, according to their particularity, and corresponding to internationalism inseparably in the reunification of communists in coordination, new international organization until the full reconstruction of the Communist International is achieved with the advancement of the People’s War where it is being waged and its initiation in more countries.

Thus, in order for the International Communist Movement to achieve true unity, overcoming the dispersion of forces, this unity must be achieved on the ideological, political and organic levels. We specify: the ICM unity should be built based on: 1) Construction of the communist parties in each country and the ICM as a whole, as base; 2) the People’s War – its preparation and development in each country as part and in the service of the World People’s War – as centre, 3) ideology and general political line – Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as guide; all through hard two-line struggle, in class struggle and based in the mass line.
Across the world today, unlike the period of founding or of existence of the RIM, a revived International Communist Movement has flourished and developed. In Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, United States, Canada, Morocco, Tunisia, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spanish state, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Philippines there are true Communist Parties and Organizations based on the defence of Maoism and the People’s War. Among these, there are Parties that wage People’s Wars and Parties and Organizations that are in the preparation phase to initiate it, some are in a more developed phase than others. In addition, in dozens of other countries, the conditions are ripe for new Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations to emerge.

In its overwhelming majority, this process is shaped and organized, first and foremost, in the realization of five Meetings of Latin America, to which were added the four Meetings of Europe, meetings, Unified Campaigns, declarations, Magazines, through which the ICM has advanced in the reunification of forces, expressing a growing unity that was shaped in a greater unification based on ideological and political principles, assuming the principal and pending task of the realization of a UMIC and the formation of a New International Organization of the Proletariat that represent a step forward in the struggle for the reconstitution of the Communist International.

We recall that the First Meeting of MLM Parties and Organizations in Latin America was preceded by a joint declaration signed by the Communist Party of Ecuador – Sol Rojo and the Revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Front of the People of Bolivia in 2008, that accurately affirmed on the situation of the leadership of the RIM at the time:

“Its performance has been ambiguous in the concrete facts such as the peace agreement in Peru and the betrayal of the leadership of the CPN (M) toward the popular masses. Apart from that, we consider that the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement is an important step in the concentration of Maoist organizations and the objectives of its existence are fundamental for the development of the international communist struggle. As Maoists, our duty is to contribute to the construction of a communist leadership and vanguard at international level. The process is difficult, but we are aware that we need to build an ideological coordination, guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and that hoist the proletarian internationalism both in South America and the world.”

This declaration was the starting point of the Meetings of MLM Parties and Organizations of Latin America, and the principal task of the Meetings was already established, a path from which the initiative has never withdrawn.

The agenda of the I Meeting highlighted the struggle regarding the meaning and the situation of the RIM, it was agreed upon to look for more reports so that the question could be deepened and a correct evaluation of its experience could be achieved. Also a Joint Declaration on the situation of the revolution in Nepal and condemning the prachandist treason was made, even though that the signatories, individually, had already taken critical position to the “Comprehensive Peace Accord” in previous years. This declaration was signed by the Communist Party of Ecuador Red Sun, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Revolutionary Front of the People of Bolivia, Communist Party of Brazil Red Fraction and Red Fraction the Communist Party of Chile (that was called by Union of MLM Revolutionary Communists of Chile then).

The Meetings of MLM Parties and Organizations of Latin America, from its first Meeting in 2009, which took at least one week of length each, with a broad previous preparation, which will allowed a wide and deep discussion of all the topics, always through two-line struggle. Other Communist Parties from other regions of the world joined, from which were always invited and were always present when possible, the TKP / ML and the CPI (Maoist), who lead People’s Wars.

The V Meeting of MLM Parties and Organizations of Latin America, on May 2016, represented a leap in the struggle for the reunification of the communists in the world. Because starting from it, parties and organizations from different parts of the world started to work systematically for the preparation of a Unified Maoist International Conference. Soon four Meetings of Parties and Organizations of Europa were held, on which the two-line struggle was elevated, raising the common unity base, through which more adherents joined.

In addition to the constant campaigns of support for the People´s Wars and the defence of the revolutionary prisoners of war and political prisoners, including those called by the ICSPWI in 2016, 2017 and 2018, this initiative developed three great world campaigns, for the 50 years of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for the 100 years of the Great Socialist October Revolution and for the 200 years of the birth of Great Karl Marx, respectively. These campaigns, especially at the last one, were developed in a coordinated way in dozens of countries, under the same slogan “Proletarians of all the countries, unite!”, On the same Plan, same flag, and same leadership.

The five Meetings of MLM Parties and Organizations of Latin America, as well as the four Meetings of Europe, are achievements of the class struggle of the international proletariat, amidst hard two-line struggles. The joint statements, documents, theses, published Magazines, were transcriptions of the role of these achievements of the masses, of the ideological, political unity obtained by the objective development of the World Revolution and the International Communist Movement. It is a concrete and palpable construction, materials through which Maoism is increasingly embodied, one has to open its eyes to see and uncover the ears to listen, especially the process that was set in motion.

The future UMIC will sanction these advances, these achievements, not without two-line struggles, but through them, uniting the communists in what is essential today: Maoism and People’s War. The great Lenin said that “The Third International actually emerged in 1918, when the long years of struggle against opportunism and social-chauvinism, especially during the war, led to the formation of Communist Parties in a number of countries.” (Lenin, The Third International and its Place in History, 1919)

A new International Organization of the Proletariat will be an achievement of the international proletariat, endorsed by a Unified Maoist International Conference, which will establish its basic principles and tasks. So, the International Maoist International Conference will seal and open. It will seal an entire stage of struggle of the communists in the struggle against the dispersion of forces and open a new phase in the struggle of the Communists for the reconstitution of the Communist International. The ice has been broken! A new wave of WPR has already risen and must be propelled. Maoism is triumphing and will triumph all over the world!
Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction) – P.C.B. (FV)
Central Committee
April 25, 2019

 

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s