From: Hank Roth <pnews@igc.apc.org>
Subject: PLP on SANDERO (2)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:37:29 GMT

/* Written 10:16 pm  Jan 23, 1993 by pnews@igc.apc.org in igc:p.news */
/* ---------- "PLP on SANDERO (2)" ---------- */
<<< via P_news/p.nes >>>
{From THE COMMUNIST, the political journal of the Progressive 
Labor Party, Number 6/Fall/1992}
 
[I am presenting this article, by the PLP, on Sandero Luminoso, 
for informational purposes. It contains an accurate picture of 
life in Peru and provides, in my opinion, a better understanding 
of how different politics happens in the Third World. Be aware  
also that theory and practice tend to converge at first, but 
then they diverge from orthodox analysis and practice due to those 
exigencies that are caused by circumstance which are particularly 
peculiar to Latin America and specifically to Peru. 
 
The article is naturally critical of Sandero because of a 
difference in political analysis and process between the PLP and 
the SL, and anyone reading this material should bare that in 
mind. This article should thus be read with a certain objective
`truth seeking' detachment and a degree of skepticism, no less so 
than reports coming in from various amnesty groups and other 
tendencies with a possible ax to grind, and in that respect this 
reading and further reading from other sources should [can] 
present a totality that will be closer to the truth.---Hank Roth] 
    
                            Part 2 (of 4)
 
In 1985  SHINING PATH took the next step with its "Plan to 
Develop Base Areas." The result [The following account was given 
by representatives of the CPP leadership to a PLP delegation, 
February, 1992] was a string of base areas running throughout the 
central highland, led by secret SHINING PATH controlled "Peoples' 
Committees." They ruled these base areas in the way they thought 
appropriate for the "united-front' new bourgeois revolution." 
The "Peoples' Committees" maintained security, distributed land, 
administered market relations by setting production targets and 
prices, ran a school system, judged civil disputes, provided 
welfare for th eelderly and recruited new members for the 
revolutionary forces. One policy the SHINING PATH is proud of is 
its effort to convince coca farmers to stop growing coca and grow 
food and fruit instead. They claim this policy is successful in 
their base areas. Other policies they are proud of include 
eliminating drug use and prostitution in their base areas, and 
not tolerating wife or child abuse, going so far as to shoot 
offenders. By 1990 SHINING PATH felt so strong that they revealed 
the membership of the Peoples' Committees. They also decided to 
set up a national government, based on the twenty-four base areas 
and led by "President Gonzalo," to rival the bourgeois state led 
by Fujimori. (But a SHINING PATH leader told a PLP delegation he 
did not know how this new "Republic of New Democracy actually 
functions.)
 
The army high command, who control an 80,000 man force, revealed 
in Novemeber, 1990 that it was prepared to crush the SHINING 
PATH, and they thought it would take a 20-year military 
dictatorship and killing 600,000 people to do it. [Nelson 
Manrique, "TIME OF FEAR," in NACLA Report on the Americas, Vol 
24, #4, pg 38] More than half the country was already under 
military rule when, on April 5, 1992, President Alberto Fujimori 
took what looks like the next step in the army high command's 
plan and suspended the constitution and the judicial system in 
the rest of the country and dissolved the Congress altogether. 
 
Just because the army plans to suppress the SHINING PATH doesn't 
mean it will be able to. But that is the army's concern. We have 
a different concern. What if SHINING PATH wins? If SHINING PATH 
wins, will it bring about a classless society---no exploitation, 
no oppression, no privilege, equality for all in satisfying 
everyone's needs--in short, communism? Nothing short of communism 
will solve the problems of Peru's working people. And communism 
is what SHINING PATH seems to be promising. This is what has won 
them a huge following from Peru's young people and from the 
poorest of Peru's poor, who know they have no future in 
capitalism, and who desperately want a complete change in 
society. They think that by supporting SHINING PATH they are 
fighting for a communist Peru. They admire SHINING PATH because 
it kills oppresssors, crooks and thugs; because it seems to know 
what it is doing and seemingly can't be stopped; because its 
cadres are disciplined and moral. The poor look on it as their 
avenging angel. We decided to meet with the SHINING PATH to learn 
from them directly what they are all about. 
 
We concluded, unfortunately, that SHINING PATH doesn't aim to, 
and isn't capable of, leading Peru to communism. After speaking 
to their representatives, and studying their material, it is 
clear to us that no one should count on SHINING PATH for this. 
Despite all the "communist" hoopla, their politics are really 
very reactionary.
 
SHINING PATH'S `MAOISM'
 
SHINING PATH promotes something they call "Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism, principally Maoism, and Gonzalo Thought," as the latest 
word in revolutionary Marxist thinking. As they describe this 
"new, third and higher stage of Marxism:"
 
  "..Marxism leads us to Leninism and Leninism to Maoism. Of all 
  these three, Maoism is principal. Moreover, Maoism leads us to 
  Gonzalo Thought, which is the universal truth specific to the 
  concrete reality of Peruvian society and specific to the concrete 
  conditions of the class struggle today." [Guzman, SPEECH: "On 
  the Rectification Campaign Based on the Study of the Document NO 
  TO ELECTIONS, YES TO PEOPLES' WAR," Central Committee, Communist 
  Party of Peru, Aiugust 1991, pg 4]
 
There is not much in this "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally 
Maoism, Gonzalo Thought," and what little there is in it is 
false. As the above quote makes clear, it all hinges on whatever 
it is they call "Maoism." But a problem arises immediately when 
you try to learn what exactly is in "the new, third and higher 
stage of Marxism." After all, Mao himself never claimed to have 
developed a new stage of Marxism, so you can't refer to his 
writings for all insight. In fact, SHINING PATH tells you 
outright that Guzman, not Mao, invented "Maoism." "The principal 
contribution of Gonzalo Thought is to have developed the 
definition of Maoism as a new, third and higher state of 
Marxism." [Guzman, Speech, pg 24] But what is it? The closest 
Guzman gets to "defining" "Maoism" is this:
 
   "Revolutionary violence, class struggle, socialism, 
   proletarian dictatorship and struggle against revisionism. Of 
   these four, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are 
   principal. [Guzman, Speech, pg 24]
 
GBut this combination of ideas originated with MArx many years 
before Mao was born. They were more fully developed by Lenin when 
Mao was still a child. Lenin added to these ideas the idea of the 
revolutionary, democratic-centralist working class party, and 
altogether this was the legacy of the Bolshevik revolution to all 
communists. Mao was one of the inheritors of this legacy, which he 
applied unchanged ot Chinese conditions. 
 
The only conclusion which Mao drew from Chinese revolutionary 
experience which he felt was a new, unique contribution to 
Marxism-Leninism which could be applied by revolutionaries in 
other countries besides China was what he called "peoples' war." 
He held that whenever the working class had to make war, whether 
to seize power in a revolutionary civil war of class against 
class, or in a war of national defense against imperialist 
aggression, that war should be fought in a protracted way, based 
on communist political organizaing, and emphasizing guerrilla 
warfare to annihilate the enemy army. Important as this is, and 
true as it may be, it is not an ideology. Mao never claimed it 
was anything more than a contribution to Marxism-Leninism in the 
political and military fields. 
 
There was one other area where Mao began to develop a distinctive 
body of ideas, but he didn't get too far before he died. These 
ideas were conclusions Mao drew from the experience of all the 
socialist countries, and not only of China. Mao concluded that in 
socialism there is a constant movement to restore private 
capitalism. This movement has a social base in socialist 
society's new privileged elite groups, such as managers, 
professionals, intellectuals, artists and bureaucrats, rather 
than in the old dispossessed classes. The movement's leadership 
was within the leadership of the ruling communist party itself. 
So Mao felt the working people should rise up, overthrow the 
party leadership and institute new social policies which 
restricted privilege, with the long term goal of eliminating it. 
The workers should be prepared to do this over and over again, as 
needed. This process he called "Cultural Revolution." But he had 
no clear idea how to do these things successfully, or how to 
ensure that privledged groups don't arise to begin with, and he 
opposed those within the Cultural Revolution---the Left---who did 
have such a program.
 
In developing his ideas, both about "peoples' war" and about the 
need for "cultural revlution," Mao relied on the characteristic 
method of Marxist-Leninist reasong, called the principle of 
contradiction. Mao developed a slogan to help people use this 
method: "One divides into two." Other phrases with which he, and 
other Cultural Revolutionairies, expressed the same idea, were: 
"Analysis is primary, synthesis is secondary," "Struggle is 
constant, unity is temporary."
 
During the Cultural Revolution this slogan, "One into two," 
became an important political issue. Mao's opponenets--Liu, Deng 
and the other "capitalist roaders"---were accused by Mao of 
betraying Marxism-Leninism by misstating the principle of 
contradiction. They were charged with putting unity first and 
class struggle second---or "two into one." For this they had to 
be struggle against and overthrown. 
 
Now, bearing all this in mind, when we return to considering 
SHINING PATH's "Maoism" we find a very curious thing. They oppose 
Mao's insistence on the primacy of the idea of "One into two." 
Instead they support the capitalist roaders' formulation of "Two 
into one." "President Gonzalo" said this very clearly:
 
  "Pay attention to analysis and synthesis. These are two aspects 
  of a contradiction and synthesis is the principal one...Synthesis 
  is the decisive aspect, the main aspect...from the standpoint of 
  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism..synthesis is the principal aspect." 
  [Guzman, SPEECH, pg 3]
 
While SHINING PATH states that the "Cultural Revolution is the 
greatest achievement of Chairman Mao," they oppose Mao's whole 
idea for the Cultural Revolution. Mao felt there was a ruling 
socialist elite class, led and protected by the Communist Party 
leadership, which was implementing policies and laws which were 
capitalist. They had to be thrown from power, and society had to 
be reorganized to eliminate privilege.
 
SHINING PATH opposes this. They don't see any privileged social 
class or even any social process. They oppose Mao's conclusion 
that capitalism develops out of socialism. As they see it,
 
  "The revisionists..in China with Deng from 1976 to the present 
  usurped the dictatorship of the proletariat, restored capitalism 
  and destroyed socialism." [Guzman, SPEECH, pg 6]  
 
>From the viewpoint there was no point to the Cultural Revolution, 
which began in 1966--ten years before the "revisionist conspiracy 
destroyed socialism."
 
There is not much one can say about a "Maoism" which crucifies 
Mao, and then pretends to worship him. Instead (and more 
fruitfully) we examine the three most important elements of 
SHINING PATH's politics. They are all reactionary. 
 
The imperialists are cocky and arrogant these days, and it would 
be nice if some revolutionary communists were already strong 
enough to really hit them in the head with a two-by-four. But it 
won't be the SHINING PATH.
 
1. SHINING PATH'S AIM
 
First--- the most reactionary thing---is what they aim for. They 
are trying to reform capitalism. They are not trying for 
communism. They talk a lot about communism, but the talk is all 
deception. Communism for them is a goal for the distant, unknown 
future, a goal they don't believe the Peruvian working people can 
reach through their own efforts and, moreover, a goal they 
themselves hav eno idea how to reach. As Guzman put it:
 
  "...as a Communist Party we have one goal: communism...This is 
  our final goal..But until everybody on earth will arrive there, 
  nobody enters communism..Either everybody or nobody will enter 
  communism...[So] we believe the road to communism is a long one." 
  [Guzman, INTERVIEW, pg 110]
 
Everybody at once? [This reminds us of the fight in the Bolshevik 
party in the mid-1920s over whether they could build socialism in 
the Soviet Union even though the socialist revolution in the main 
European industrial countries had failed. The rightwing, then led 
by Trotsky, argued that the Bolsheviks could not go forward alone 
to socialism, and they shouln't gtry. But even Trotsky didn't 
demand that "everybody on earth" be ready to spring into 
socialism. HE would have been cohntent with Germany. Is 
Presidente Gonzolo more rightwing than Trotsky?] How in the world 
could this ever happen? It seems childish, but really it is just 
reactionary politics. 
 
SHINING PATH apparently has decided that Marxism-Leninism is 
wrong in its conclusion that capitalist societies develop 
unevenly, some faster, others slower. It is this uneven 
development that produces a world capitalism that can be imagined 
as a chain with some strong links and some weak links. It is in 
the "weak links" that proletarian revoluion has its best chances 
of succeeding. That was Lenin's idea. It is the basis of the 
communist movment. It was the basis for Mao's work. Guzman 
obviously disagrees with Lenin and world communism, and instead 
agrees with the old rightwing social democrats, from whom Lenin 
split to form the communist movement in the first place.
 
SHINING PATH obviously believes the oppressed can't free 
themselves from oppression. They are not bashful about calling 
their revolution a "BOURGEIOIS REVOLUTION [our emphasis] of a 
new type, which only the proletariat can lead...[and which] is 
the only way to transform the world." [Central Committee, 
Communist Party of Peru, "On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," in 
FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENTS, Red Banner Editorial House, 1988, pg 12. 
This document also was given to a PLP delegation in February, 
1992 by representatives of the CPP leadership as an authoritative 
document of the CPP.] This is what they mean by "New Democracy.") 
Where they have political power, and the ability to put their 
plans into practice, they do no more than supervise capitalism to 
smooth out its roughest edges. 
 
Mariategui--whose heritage SHINING PATH claims to be redeeming--
must be turning over in his grave at this. He completely 
disagreed with any kind of bourgeois revolution, either the "old 
type" or the "new type."
 
When people claiming to be communists get involved with "new 
type" or "new democratic" bourgeois revolutions it is because 
they are trying to win over peasants, a group they believe are 
really capitalist. The problem for these would-be communists is, 
what should you do with the land owned by the feudal landlords? 
The "new style" bourgeois revolution breaks up the huge 
latifundia into small farms and distributes them to the peasants, 
who become small landowners. This "fulfills" the peasants' 
presumed capitalist dreams. SHINING PATH follows this policy in 
th areas they control. But, of course, this is exactly what 
happened in the "old style" bourgeois revolutions the capitalist 
led! SHINING PATH deludes itself into thinking it is doing 
something new because it concerns itself with the problem "Who 
should get what?" Should the poor peasants get everything? Should 
the middle peasants get anyathing? What about the rich peasants? 
How do you distinguish between one group and another? But in the 
end, what's the difference? The end result will be that some 
group will become property owners, (just as in Poland, for 
example, where the communists followed the same policy. That was 
a great success!) What the capitalists did, and what SHINING PATH 
is doing, is the same. Capitalism is being reporduced and 
expanded.
 
SHINING PATH's policy is completely opposed to what Peru's 
peasants need or want. Marategui himself (and not PL) was the 
first to point this out. As far back as 1928 he wrote:
 
   "Everyone mus tknow that according to individualist ideology, 
   the liberal solution to this problem [the problem of how to 
   abolish the grat feudal farms] would be the breaking up of the 
   great feudal farms to create small property...[This is] 
   orthodox...capitalist and bourgeois..."
 
   "I believe that the moment for attempting the liberal, 
   individualist method in Peru has already passed. Aside from 
   reasons of doctrine, I consider that our agrarian problem has a 
   special character due to an indisputable and concrete factor: the 
   survival of the Indian "community" and of elements of practical 
   communism in indigenous agriculture and life." [Jose Carlos 
   Mariategui, "The Problem of Land," in SEVEN INTERPRETIVE ESSAYS 
   ON PERUVIAN REALITY, University of Texas Press, 1990, pg 33]
 
This is the key to Mariategui's unique contribution to communist 
theory, his actual "SHINING PATH." He felt Peru needed a 
communist revolution as the only way to end the oppression of the 
Indian and the worker. He felt Peru was ready for communism 
because there already existed a communist structure on which to 
build a communist Peru.
 
This structure is the traditional Indian AYLLU ("community"0 with 
its collective ownership of land and cooperative labor. The ayllu 
existed a thousand years before the Inca, who founded their 
empire only in 1400 A.D. Inca civilization used the ayllu as its 
social basis. (For this reason Mariategui characterized the Inca 
period as "Inca communism," even though the Inca ruling elite 
forced the ayllus to support their parasitical aristocratic class 
system.) ["If the historical evidence of Inca communism is not 
sufficiently convining, the `community'---the specific organ of 
that communism--should dispel any doubt...Modern communism is 
different from Inca communism...The two communisms are products 
of different human experiences. They belong to different 
historical epochs. They were evolved by dissimilar civilizations. 
The Inca civilization was agrarian; the civilization of Marx...is 
industrial...It is therefore absurd to compare the forms and 
institutions of the two communisms. All that can be compared is 
their esential and material likeness, within the essential and 
material difference of time and space." Mariategui, IBID, pg 74]
The ayllu continued a vibrant existence in Mariategui's time (he 
argued in 1928 that "the Indian `community' is still a living 
organism and .... shows unmistakable potentialities for evolution 
and development." [Mariategue, IBID, pg 56] The ayllu is alive at 
this very moment. 
 
   "The Indian...has not become an individualist. And this is not 
   because he resists progress, as is claimed by his detractors. 
   Rather, it is because individualism under a feudal system does 
   not find the necessary conditions to gain strength and develop. 
   On the other hand, communism has continued to be the Indians's 
   only defense. Individualism cannot flourish or even exist 
   effectively outside a system of free competition. And the Indian 
   has never felt less free than when he has felt along..." 
   [Mariategui, IBID, pg 57]
 
In Peru, communal property does not represent a primitive economy 
that has been gradually replaced by a progressive economy founded 
on individual property... The latifundium compares unfavorably 
with the `community' as an enterprise for agricultural production 
[in terms of crop yield]..." [Mariategui, IBID, pg 58-60]
 
<continued in Part 3>
 
 
 

Xref: sparky misc.activism.progressive:10430 alt.activism:21502 talk.environment:5803