¡Proletarios de todos los países, uníos!
¡VIVA ELLIVE PRIMERO DEDAY MAYO LONG MAY FIRST
CAMARADA NANCY: RESOLUCIÓN ¡Abajo llamada guerra contra DÍAla DEL PROLETARIADO INTERNACIONAL! ¡Día de la“nueva Heroicidad! OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT! ¡HONOR Y GLORIA ¡VIVA EL 87 ANIVERSARIO RESOLUCIÓN ESPECIAL A LA OPINIÓN PÚBLICA ¡COMBATIENTE COMUNISTA DEL PARTIDO COMUNISTA DEL PERÚ el terrorismo” del gobierno turco 30 Aniversario ¡COMUNISTAS, PROLETARIOS Y PUEBLOS DEL MUNDO, COMMUNISTS, PROLETARIANS AND PEOPLES AOF DEL COMITÉ CENTRAL DEL PARTIDO COMUNISTA CON MOTIVO 80 ANIVERSARIO DE TODA LA VIDA! UNÁMONOS EN EL MARXISMO-LENINISMO-MAOÍSMO THE WORLD, LET’S UNITE UNDER ¡Camaradas yDEL compañeros caídos, contra elLOS PKK yHÉROES el pueblo kurdo! PARA COMBATIR POR LA REVOLUCIÓN MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM DEL DEL PARTIDO COMUNISTA DEL PERÚ 4 DE OCTUBRE! DEL PERÚ! Presente! PROLETARIA MUNDIAL! IN ORDER TO FIGHT FOR PROLETARIAN WORLD REVOLUTION!
Comité ComiteCentral Central Central Committee Partido Comunista del Perú Partido Comunista Communist Partydel ofPerú Peru Diciembre 2014 Mayo 2016 Febrero 2015 Agosto 2015 Octubre 2015 Junio 2015 Setiembre 2015 May first, 2016
1
2
LONG LIVE MAY FIRST DAY OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT! COMMUNISTS, PROLETARIANS AND PEOPLES OF THE WORLD, LET’S UNITE UNDER MARXISM-LENINISMMAOISM IN ORDER TO FIGHT FOR PROLETARIAN WORLD REVOLUTION! Any serious study about the origins of World War I shows a world in which each one of the actors attributed the aggressive intentions to his adversary and the defensive ones to himself. In the most recent times the precipitation of the events and the similarity with the above actions, above all the outbreak of World War I, reveals the correctness of the argument that we are living the prelude of a new imperialist predatory war for a new partition of the world. In the Middle East, Syria is a showcase of the contradictions and forces in contention, and simultaneously a critical spot within the red-hottest front, from which such a kind of war can erupt. The United States has recently announced that in 2017 the NATO will reinforce its military positions in the frontier of Eastern Europe, heating the European region and the relationships among the United States, Russia and Europe, invoking the need to prevent a possible threat from Russia. Meanwhile Russia, strengthened after its intervention in Syria where no agreement was reached despite the peace negotiations, declares that today we are witnessing an unprecedented increase of NATO’s military activity in the so called oriental front (Baltic countries) since the times of the cold war, and that the announcement of the broadening of NATO occurs with a previous campaign of demonization of Russia, replying that it is a direct threat in the face of which it will take the necessary measures against such an unjustified presence. Let’s take into account that in the Middle-East front Saudi Arabia (Sunni) already announced that it will penetrate in Yemen to fight against the Shia defended by Iran, and both regional powers are disputing the hegemony in the Arab world. Turkey too, in ice-cold relations with Russia, attacks the Kurd nationalists as its main target in the struggle against the Islamic State. Meanwhile the United States insists that it won’t limit its defence capabilities or those of its allies in the face of the nuclear threats of North Korea that just launched a trial missile, nor will it give away in the face of Iran’s
3
technological development, even when they subscribed a treaty on nuclear restriction. In this way Asia elevated its temperature with the creation of strategic artificial islands by China, asserting its sovereignty mainly in conflict with the United States, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam concerning East China Sea and South China Sea; immediately the United States sent its warships to negotiate the supposed maritime sovereignty of China. Meanwhile China, since late 2015, has proclaimed that its country “has passed over from being large to be a big and powerful country, so that the evolution of its defence and its military development would require a new and historical stage”, at the same time announcing to its military leaders the major reform of the Army since the fifties of the twentieth century, with the objective of bettering its fighting capability. Let’s not forget that the Chinese Army is the biggest in the world and one of the most terrible, furthermore, it is rapidly modernising its navy because it considers that the main threat to its national security is by way of the sea, remember also her great nuclear might, China is a member with full rights of the “nuclear club” due to the strength of its strategic missiles. On the other hand, the massive protests against the repercussions of the economic crisis, the unemployment, sub-employment, restrictions of rights and in favour of their restitution, the masses manifest themselves in the main capital cities of Europe, as well as in Paris, still in state of war and under emergency because the Islamic State extended its attacks to Paris and Belgium, the situation worsens due to economic stagnation and the delicate situation of the refugees caused by imperialist aggressions mainly in the Middle East, Syria specially, and other African countries (Mali, Libya or the Central African Republic) by France. Latin America goes through a process of destitution of rulers who are critical of imperialist domination, like Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela or Dilma Rouseff in Brazil, raising the theme of corruption, and making use of legal political manoeuvres as a modality different from that of a coup d’état, seeking to strengthen one of the main areas of influence of US imperialism, a strategic measure to confront in better conditions the warring situation; in addition, it already ensured Cuba and pacified Colombia. But, if we are witnessing an intensification of inter-imperialist contradictions as a source of war and political derivation of the biggest and most extended crisis of the capitalist system, and a panorama exists which reflects the prelude of a new imperialist predatory war for a new partition of the world,
4
what is the reply of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Parties of the world? Shouldn’t there be a reply in the face of a possible outbreak of war? Firstly, the Communist Party of Perú starts by reasserting in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the universal ideology of the proletariat, and in Gonzalo thought our strategic, specific and main ideological weapon for Peruvian revolution. And it incorporates Chairman Gonzalo’s argument which invokes the communists, the proletarians and peoples of the world to unite under Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in order to fight for the proletarian world revolution. The CPP reasserts in that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a dialectical unity in development, that it advances to the degree that it is implemented so as to solve the new problems of the revolution, actively involving in its preparation, development or continuation, and not idealistically separating theory from practice, as we were taught by the same great titans of thinking and action: Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao Tsetung. We reassert also in its universal validity and actuality, and we reject the imputation against Marx of alleged errors, his ideology is by no way ancillary because it is a fundamental part of dialectical and historical materialism, just as the inevitability of communism; which will be accessed by way of the unfolding of the same laws of capitalism as a system of exploitation sustained on plus-value and the conversion of the worker’s manpower in merchandise that is purchased and sold in order to yield the biggest possible profit; system that accumulates capital each time in fewer hands, meanwhile impoverishing more and more the proletariat and the people’s masses; while, simultaneously, production gets more socialised, and an ever greater amount of riches and means of production are accumulated in fewer hands. The material and historical laws, which constitute the material foundation on which the proletariat operates decisively with its ideology, its politics and its organisation leading the proletarian revolution that materialises a new system of production, socialism, as a period of transition under proletarian dictatorship, toward the goal of Communism. A period of transition in which, as the entire twentieth century has witnessed, class struggle with continue, even in the Party itself, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat about who leads. A long process within which the four suppressions and the indispensable subversion must be materialised by way of force, also through revolutions, in order to confront restoration and access to Communism. It
5
has nothing to do with making concessions to the bourgeoisie, as some revise today. No, in socialism the proletarian dictatorship represents the antagonistic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and demands that the proletariat be installed in power, and that it applies the dictatorship of the proletariat to guarantee the continuation of socialism, and transforms private ownership into ownership of all the people, and “an association in which the free development of each one will be the condition for the free development of everyone” may arise, as Marx pointed out in the Communist Manifesto:
“Once in the course of development the class differences have disappeared and all the production has been concentrated in the hands of associated individuals, the state power will lose its political character. The state power, properly speaking, is the organised violence of one class for the oppression of another class. If, in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, the proletariat constitutes itself unfailingly into a class, if, through the revolution it becomes a ruling class and, as a ruling class, it suppresses through force the old relationships of production, and simultaneously these relationships of production, it suppresses the conditions for the existence of class antagonism and that of all the classes in general, and thus, its own domination as a class. Substituting the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, an association will arise in which the free development of each one will be the condition of the free development of everyone”.
From there arises the importance of reasserting in the need of a class party established by Lenin, a new type party, with an ideology, a politics and an organisation of its own, opposed and different to those of the bourgeoisie. Because without a Party there is no leadership of the proletarian revolution, and it is indispensable today when they intend to replace the proletarian leadership of the proletarian revolution by a bourgeois leadership, and a bourgeois revolution that replaces open dictatorships and does not fight against capitalist exploitation nor the imperialist rule but only some alleged corruptions, “bad administrations” or “barbaric models”. Thus the existence of Communist Parties which uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the ideology of the proletariat is a political necessity in order to oppose the new imperialist predatory war. Marx pointed out the importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat for the transformation of capitalist economy, politics and society of the bourgeoisie into a socialist economy, politics and society; but also for the ex-
6
tinction of the State itself, and it is completely false that he did not grasp the dialectical relationship between base and superstructure, a problem that Engels himself explained and later Chairman Mao developed. Yes, the economic base is the one which determines the political and ideological superstructure, but it is a dialectical relationship of actions and reactions because the latter also acts on the earlier, and in certain moments they play a decisive role. Engels in the introduction to “Class Struggle in France”, in March 1895, wrote: “The work that we reedit here was Marx’s first essay to explain a fragment of contemporary history through his materialist conception, starting from the existing economic situation. In the “Communist Manifesto” the theory was applied, roughly, to all of modern history, and in the articles published by Marx and by me in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung”, this theory has been constantly used to explain the political events of that time. Here it had to do with manifesting, along long years of evolution, as critical as it was typical for all of Europe, the internal causal link; so it had to do with reducing, following the author’s concept, the political events to consequences of causes, ultimately, the economic ones”.
There he also wrote: “When Marx wrote this work, the mentioned source of errors was even more inevitable. It turned out to be absolutely impossible to follow, during the revolutionary period of 1848-1849, the economic changes that operated simultaneously and, even more, in order not to lose the vision in its entirety. The same thing occurred during the first months of his exile in London, during autumn and winter of 1849-1850. But that was precisely the period in which Marx started his work. And, despite these unfavourable circumstances, his accurate knowledge, both of the economic situation of France on the eve of the February Revolution, and the political history of that country afterwards, allowed him to make an exposition of the events that revealed the internal tether in such a way that nobody has overcome until today, and that has brilliantly resisted the double test to which Marx himself had to summit it”.
That quote continues clarifying, but here the aforementioned is enough; we add that also in Engels’ letter to Conrado Smith, dated London, October 27, 1890, he clarifies the following:
7
“…With the economic, political, reflections etc. the same thing occurs as when they are reflected in the eye: they go through a lens, and therefore appear inverted, head down. What is needed is the nervous apparatus in charge of straightening them up for our perception. The stockbroker does not see the movement of industry and the market in the world more than the inverted reflection of the money and stock market, therefore the effect seems to him as the cause. “It is a game of actions between two unequal forces: on one side, the economic movement, and on the other side, the new political power that aspires to the greatest possible independence and that, once installed, also enjoys a movement of its own. The economic movement imposes itself always, in general terms, but finds itself also summited to the repercussions of the political movement created by itself and equipped with a relative independence: the movement of State power, on one hand, and on the other that of the opposition, created simultaneously with the earlier one… What all these gentlemen suffer from, is the lack of dialectics. They don’t see further than causes here and effects there. That this is an empty abstraction, that in the real world these metaphysical polar antitheses do not exist more than in moments of crises, and that the general trajectory of things flow under the form of action and reaction,--despite being very unequal forces, the stronger, primary and more decisive one of the two is the economic movement--, that here nothing is absolute, and everything is relative, is something that they do not see”.
Even more, in Engels’ letter to F. Mehring dated in London July 14, 1893, he says: “Furthermore one sole item is lacking, which, generally, neither Marx nor myself have underlined in our writings, so the blame corresponds to all in the same way. What we insisted on more—and we couldn’t do it this way for less—was to derive from the basic economic facts the political, legal, ideas, etc. and the actions conditioned by them. And when proceeding in this way, the contents made us forget the form, in other words, the original process of these ideas, etc. With them we furnish our adversaries with a good excuse for their mistakes and misinterpretations… This appearance of a history independent of political constitutions… of the ideological concepts in each specific field of research is what enthrals most people… And since to this has been added the bourgeois
8
illusion of the perpetuity and unappealability of capitalist production… A. Smith considers it simply as an exclusive triumph of thinking, not as the ideological reflection of a change of economic facts, but as a fair vision, at last accessed, of effective conditions that rule always and everywhere… this way of thinking is based on a vulgar anti-dialectic representation of the cause and effect of actions and reactions. That a historical factor, once given birth by other facts, which are ultimately economic facts, impacts at the same time on its surroundings, and even on its own causes, is something that sometimes these gentlemen very intentionally forget”.
The CPP also rejects and condemns the “solid nucleus and great elasticity” stand for the building of socialism under the dictatorship of the proletariat, since it means to surrender before the imputations of “authoritarianism” and “lack of democracy” raised by imperialism’s anti-communist offensive, and intends to give concessions to the bourgeoisie when in the building of socialism under the dictatorship of the proletariat the main contradiction is proletariat-bourgeoisie. Deep down it denies the need of the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialism. Keep in mind that it was Marx himself who conceived that: “The communist revolution is the most radical break-up with the traditional relationships of ownership” and that “during the course of its development it must break up, in the most radical manner, with the traditional ideas” (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
That on the dictatorship of the proletariat he provided the inerasable conclusion that: “Between the capitalist society and the communist society dwells the period of revolutionary transition from the earlier one to the latter. A political period of transition also befits this period, whose State cannot be any other but a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Ibid).
On socialism and its limitation, and the subsistence of the bourgeois right, he affirmed: “What is dealt with here is not a communist society that has developed on its own groundwork, but one that has just emerged precisely from the capitalist society, and that, therefore, still presents, in all its aspects,
9
the economic, the moral, and the intellectual aspects, the seal of the old society from whose bosom it arises”. Therefore he also states “the right here continues to be, in principle, the bourgeois right” (Ibid).
Thus, also on Communism, Marx establishes that: “In the higher stage of the communist society, when the slaved subordination of the individuals to the division of labour has disappeared, and with it the opposition between intellectual labour and manual labour, when labour will not be solely a means of living but the primary necessity of life, when, with the development of individuals in all their aspects, the productive forces also grow, and the streams of collective riches run at full blast, only then can bourgeois right be totally overcome, and society will write in its banner: From each according to his capability, to each according to his needs” (Ibid).
Lenin, on the other hand, about the dictatorship of the proletariat taught that: “In order to eliminate the social classes the first thing that is needed is to overthrow the landlords and the capitalists. We have fulfilled—he states—this part of the task, but it is only one part and not the most difficult one. In order to eliminate the social classes it is necessary, in the second place, to eliminate the existing difference between the industrial workers and the peasants, converting all of them into workers. And it is not possible to achieve it overnight”. “In order to solve this second part of the work, which is the most difficult one, the proletariat, after defeating the bourgeoisie, must keep, in an unwavering way, the following fundamental political line concerning the peasants: separate, differentiate the peasant workers from the owners, the working peasants from the merchant peasants, the peasants who work from the peasant who speculate… In this differentiation lies the essence of socialism” (This quote and others are found in “Economy and Politics of the Epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”)
On Socialism Lenin states: “Socialism is the suppression of the classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all that was within its reach to achieve it. But the classes cannot be eliminated at once”.
10
Concerning that social classes do not disappear in socialism: “During the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the classes subsist, and will subsist. The dictatorship will cease to be necessary when classes cease to exist. But they do not disappear without the dictatorship of the proletariat”. “Class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat: the only thing it does is to take up new forms”.
On Democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat: “If we focus on all the fundamental forces or social classes in their entirety, in their mutual relationships, such as how they were modified by the dictatorship of the proletariat, we will realise how unlimitedly absurd it is, from the theoretical point of view, and how huge a stupidity represents this petit bourgeois idea about advancing to Socialism through democracy in general, which we find in every representative of the Second International. The foundation on which this mistake rests is the prejudice, inherited from the bourgeoisie, about what is considered as the contents of an absolute “democracy”, situated over the social classes. In fact, with the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy enters also in a totally new phase, and class struggle soars to a higher plane, in such a way that all the different forms are subjected to it”. “The general quotes about freedom, equality and democracy are, actually, nothing else but a blind repetition of concepts copied from the mould of the relationships of merchandise production. To try to solve, by way of these general quotes the concrete tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is equivalent to pass over, thoroughly, to the theoretical stand, the principles, of the bourgeoisie. From the standpoint of the proletariat the problem is formulated this way and only this way: Freedom concerning the oppression of which social class? Equality between which classes? Democracy based on private ownership, or based on the struggle for the abolition of private ownership? etc.”
And on the central issue: the dictatorship of the proletariat and its relationship with what being a Marxist means, Lenin, in “State and Revolution” establishes: “He who only acknowledges class struggle is still not a Marxist; he can still maintain himself within the framework of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To limit Marxism to the doctrine of class
11
struggle means to curtail Marxism, to distort it, to reduce it to something acceptable for the bourgeoisie. Someone is a Marxist only when he extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Herein consists the deepest difference between a Marxist and an ordinary petit (or grand) bourgeois. This is the touchstone through which the real understanding and acknowledgement of Marxism must be proven”.
And concerning that the petit bourgeoisie engenders capitalism twenty four hours a day, he says: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most unselfish and pitiless war of the new class against a more powerful enemy, against the bourgeoisie, whose resistance doubles with its overthrowing (even when it happens in only one country) and whose might does not solely consist in the strength of international capital, in the strength and hardness of the international relationships of the bourgeoisie, but also in the strength of custom, in the strength of small production. Because, unfortunately, in the world there is still a lot and a whole lot of small production, and small production engenders capitalism and bourgeoisie constantly, every day, every hour, spontaneously and massively. Due to all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and the victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a protracted, tenacious, bloody war to death, a war which demands sternness, discipline, firmness, inflexibility and sole will” (“The Infantile Sickness…”).
Chairman Mao Tsetung, in his raising of Marxism to a new, third and superior stage, developed in an extraordinary way scientific socialism as theory and practice of the revolution, with his three revolutions but mainly with the great proletarian cultural revolution, in which he deepened and developed the fundamental question of socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat, he established the way how to advance the revolution under the conditions of a socialist society and under the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to continue the march towards Communism. In this way we quote some of his extraordinary words to continue crushing the concessions to the bourgeoisie: “The history of all revolutions has proven that it is not necessary to, previously, have the productive forces fully developed, in order to transform the decrepit relationships of production… It is necessary,
12
before anything else, that the revolution abolishes the old superstructure, so that the old relationships of production may be abolished. It is after the elimination of the latter that new relationships of production can be created, opening a course towards the development of the productive forces in the new society. Only then will it be possible to develop a great technological revolution, in order to vigorously develop the productive forces, continuing at the same time the transformation of the relationships of production and the ideologies”. (In “Reading Notes of the Manual of Political Economy of the USSR”) “In China, remainders of the overthrown classes subsist: the landlord class and the comprador bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie subsists and the transformation of the petit bourgeoisie has just started. Class struggle has not ended. Class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the different political forces and between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the ideological domain will continue being long, zigzagging, and sometimes even very inflamed. The proletariat aspires to transform the universe according to its world view, and the bourgeoisie according to his. In relation to this, the question of who will vanquish, socialism or capitalism, still has not been solved” (In “On the Correct Treatment of the Contradictions Amidst the People”). “Despite that in the socialist system there isn’t a revolution during which one class would overthrow another, revolution exists always. The passing of socialism to communism is a revolution. The passing of one stadium to another stadium within communism is also a revolution. Likewise there are technical revolutions and cultural revolutions. Communism will necessarily go through many stadiums. Therefore there will be many revolutions”. “Socialist society covers a very elongated historical period. During the historical period of socialism, there still are classes, class contradictions and class struggle; the struggle between the socialist path and the capitalist path exists, and also the danger of a capitalist restoration… It is necessary to carry out socialist education… Grasp and address correctly the problem of the contradictions and of class struggle and distinguish with precision the contradictions between us and the enemy from those that exist amidst the people, and address them correctly. Otherwise, a socialist country like ours will turn into its opposite, it will degenerate and restoration will occur” (Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth CC of the CPC, 1962).
13
Another quote: “The old social-democrats during the last decades, and the contemporary revisionists… deny completely that the history of humanity… is the history of class struggle, they deny completely the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, and they deny completely the revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and its dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they are devoted lackeys of the bourgeoisie and imperialism and are associated with them, they insist on the bourgeois ideology of oppression and exploitation of the proletariat and in the capitalist social system… Uphold the great banner of the proletarian cultural revolution, denounce completely the bourgeois reactionary stand… representatives of the bourgeoisie have infiltrated the Party, the government, the army and the various cultural sectors, they are a group of counter-revolutionary revisionists who will turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, if a chance is presented to them”.
On the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Gonzalo taught us: “Thus, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, as the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, marks the direction of the proletarian world revolution in its heroic and irrepressible march to communism, and in the greatest revolutionary epic of humanity it conquered imperishable victories for the international proletariat”. “However, when Chairman Mao Tsetung’s death took place, a counter-revolutionary revisionist coup occurred; the objective of which is capitalist restoration” (CPP, December 1976).
And in order to finish let’s take up again Chairman Mao, who with great foresight, in 1968 with profound understanding of history and proletarian internationalism taught: “We have conquered huge victories. But the defeated class will continue to tussle. This people still exist, and also this class. Therefore we must not talk about a final victory. We cannot do it even in the next decades. We must not relax our surveillance: according to the Leninist viewpoint, the final victory of a socialist country requires not only the effort of its own proletariat and its broad people’s masses, but it also depends on the triumph of the world revolution and on the abolition
14
of the system of exploitation of man by man in the world, that is, the emancipation of the entire humanity. Therefore, it is mistaken, contrary to Leninism and does not befit reality to speak lightly of the final victory of the revolution in our country”.
These great truths constitute the linkage of theory and practice of proletarian world revolution, and the whole of the twentieth century proves it, no construct or imputation coming from those who are revising Marxism will be able to hide the actuality and validity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, nor the very high proletarian quality of its highest exponents: a Marx, a Lenin and a Chairman Mao Tsetung, who are stealthily attacked through alleged secondary mistakes that are not such, but rather fundamental bases of the scientific conception; and the alleged new contributions are nothing else but factual revisionism product of the general counter-revolutionary offensive. Revisionism which the Communist Party of Perú rejects and condemns today even more than it did yesterday. After reasserting in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and condemning revisionism of the general counter-revolutionary offensive, an important issue of the revolution is the need to condemn the imperialist predatory war and to oppose it denouncing it ideologically and politically without any doubt. Therefore the CPP takes up Chairman Mao’s words: “The transformation of the present imperialist war into a civil war is the only just proletarian motto, pointed out by the experience of the Paris Commune, pointed out by the Basle resolution (1912) and derived from all the conditions of the imperialist war among the highly developed bourgeois countries. No matter how large the difficulties of such transformation may seem in one moment or another, the socialists will never give up in executing a systematic, persistent and continuous preparatory work in this direction, since war is a fact”.
Lenin. “War and social-democracy in Russia”. September 1914.
“Among the unjust wars, World War I was a case in which both parties fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the communists of the whole world resolutely opposed it. The way of fighting against a war of this type is to do whatever we can to prevent it before it erupts, and if that
15
happens, oppose the war with war, oppose the unjust war with a just war, as soon as possible”. Mao Tsetung. “On Protracted War”. May 1938. “The imperialist world war has erupted because the imperialist countries seek to disentangle themselves from the new economic and political crisis. Whether from the side of Germany or from the side of Britain and France, this war, by its nature, is unjust, predatory, and imperialistic. The Communist Parties of the entire world must firmly oppose it, as well as the criminal conduct of the social-democratic parties which, when they give it their support, they betray the proletariat”. Mao Tsetung. “The Present Situation and the Tasks of the Party”. October 1939. “In synthesis, we appraise that the problems in the international plane must still be focused in the following way: On top of all the contradictions stand out the one which supposes the scramble among the imperialist countries and their dispute for the colonies. What they are doing now is to take advantage of the contradictions that they have with us in order to cover up theirs. We, in our turn, can take advantage of their contradictions, concerning this there is much that we can do”. Mao Tsetung. “Speech in a Conference of Secretaries of the Committees at Provincial and Municipal level, and of the Autonomous Region of the Party”. January 1957. “Peoples of the whole world, let’s unite and oppose the war of aggression that any imperialism may unleash…, let’s especially oppose the war of aggression in which the atomic bombs are used as a weapon! If such a war erupts, the peoples of the whole world must eliminate it with a revolutionary war, and must make the preparations right now!” Declaration of Chairman Mao Tsetung in January 1964.
16
“…all the peoples of the different continents must unite, all the peace loving countries and all the countries summited to the aggression, control, intervention and humiliation by part of the United States must
unite. All of them must constitute the broadest united front of opposition against the politics of aggression and war of US imperialism, in order to safeguard world peace. Chairman Mao Tsetung, January 1964.
Finally, the CPP reasserts and calls on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Parties of the world to concur that: I. THE PROLETARIAT: is the last class in history, and has the historical role of leading the revolution until communism, it has its own ideology, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and has its goal: communism. II. THE COMMUNIST PARTIES, FIGHTING ALMOST TWO HUNDREAD YEARS IN BEHALF OF THE PROLETARIAT materialised two great revolutions, the great October revolution which opens up the era of the Proletarian World Revolution, and the great Revolution of China which tilted the weight of the world and carried out three revolutions: the new type democratic revolution, the socialist revolution and the great proletarian cultural revolution, undeniable milestones that left great lessons, mainly positive ones, for revolution. III. WE COMMUNISTS CONFRONT A GENERAL COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY OFFENSIVE which intends to wipe out the proletarian revolution and its ideology from the minds of the proletariat and the hearts of the people. They will never be able to achieve this! Derived from this offensive is today’s revisionism, a revisionism of the general counter-revolutionary offensive which we condemn because it serves imperialism and the mentioned offensive; and IV. It is peremptory to: FIGHT FOR THE PROLETARIAN WORLD REVOLUTION! Until the victory of the revolution in the whole world! LONG LIVE THE INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT! GLORY TO MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM! May first, 2016
Central Committee Communist Party of Peru
17
18
19
20