Washington DC, 2021

First edition, Washington DC, 2022

ISBN:

0,({2.�CWJ
This book is under license Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Contents

Chairman Mao on Study 1

Introduction to Part I
Center For Popular Studies, Bolivia 2

Part I:
Chairman Mao on Bureaucrat-Capitalism 4

Introduction to Part II
Center For Popular Studies, Bolivia 68

Part II:
Communist Party of Peru on Bureaucrat-Capitalism 70

Introduction to Part III

Peru People’s Movement (Reorganizing Committee) 197

Part III:
What is Bureaucrat-Capitalism?
Revolutionary Student Front 198
Chairman Mao on Study

Although we are studying Marxism, the way many of our peo-

ple study it runs directly counter to Marxism. That is to say,
they violate the fundamental principle earnestly enjoined on
us by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, the unity of theory and
practice. Having violated this principle, they invent an oppo-
site principle of their own, the separation of theory from
practice. In the schools and in the education of cadres at work,
teachers of philosophy do not guide students to study the
logic of the Chinese revolution; teachers of economics do not
guide them to study the characteristics of the Chinese econ-
omy; teachers of political science do not guide them to study
the tactics of the Chinese revolution; teachers of military sci-
ence do not guide them to study the strategy and tactics
adapted to China’s special features; and so on and so forth.
Consequently, error is disseminated, doing people great harm.
A person does not know how to apply in Fuhsien 1what he
has learned in Yenan. Professors of economics cannot ex-
plain the relationship between the Border Region currency
and the Kuomintang currency, 2 so naturally the students can-
not explain it either. Thus a perverse mentality has been cre-
ated among many students; instead of showing an interest in
China’s problems and taking the Party’s directives seriously,
they give all their hearts to the supposedly eternal and immu-
table dogmas learned from their teachers.

1 Fuhsien County is about seventy kilometres south of Yenan.

2 The Border Region currency consisted of the currency notes is-
sued by the Bank of the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region
Government. The Kuomintang currency was the paper currency
issued by the four big Kuomintang bureaucrat-capitalist banks from
1935 onwards with British and U.S. imperialist support. Comrade
Mao Tse-tung was referring to the fluctuations in the rates of ex-
change between these two currencies.

1
Introduction to Part I

The land tenure system determines the political and adminis-

trative system of the nation. The agrarian problem, which the
republic has not yet been able to solve, dominates all other
problems. Democratic and liberal institutions cannot flourish
or operate in a semi-feudal economy.

José Carlos Mariátegui

Imperialism “first allies itself with the ruling strata of the pre-
vious social structure, with the feudal lords and the trading and
money-lending bourgeoisie, against the majority of the people.
Everywhere imperialism attempts to preserve and to perpetuate
all those pre-capitalist forms of exploitation (especially in the
villages) which serve as the basis for the existence of its reac-
tionary allies”. “Imperialism, with all its financial and mili-
tary might, is the force in China that supports, inspires, fosters
and preserves the feudal survivals, together with their entire
bureaucratic-militarist superstructure.”

Chairman Mao

Both students and intellectuals should study hard. In addition

to the study of their specialized subjects, they must make pro-
gress ideologically and politically, which means they should
study Marxism, current events and politics. Not to have a
correct political orientation is like not having a soul.

Chairman Mao

This year we are resuming the study of the historical cate-

gory of bureaucrat-capitalism for a greater and better under-
standing of the development process of our societies. Con-
cept that has been worked from our luminaries of Marxism

2
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Chairman Mao and in the last 50 years
by Dr. Abimael Guzman of the Communist Party of Peru.
The thesis of bureaucrat-capitalism comes from the syn-
thesis made by Chairman Mao of the theory of Marx and
Lenin, the same that can and should be applied in all coun-
tries where the bourgeois revolution did not triumph.
In this opportunity we have compiled extracts of notes
elaborated by Chairman Mao and found in his extensive work,
where he deals with bureaucratic capitalism.
We hope it can be useful and theoretical tool for the study
and creative application in our concrete reality: Bolivia.

Center For Popular Studies

Bolivia, May 2008

3
Part I:
Chairman Mao on
Bureaucrat-Capitalism

Persisting in its dictatorial rule, the chief ruling clique of the

Kuomintang has followed a policy of passive resistance to
Japan and a domestic policy directed against the people. In
consequence, its armed forces have shrunk to less than half
their original size and most of them have virtually lost their
combat effectiveness; there is a profound rift between this
clique and the broad masses and a grave crisis of mass im-
poverishment, seething discontent and widespread revolt;
not only has its role in the war been sharply reduced, but it
has also become an obstacle to the mobilization and unity of
all the anti-Japanese forces of the Chinese people.
Why has such a grave situation arisen under the leadership
of the Kuomintang’s chief ruling clique? It has arisen because
that clique represents the interests of China’s big landlords,
big bankers and big compradors. The handful of people
forming this reactionary stratum monopolize all the im-
portant military, political, economic and cultural organiza-
tions under the Kuomintang government. They place the
safeguarding of their own interests above resistance to Japan.
They too say “the nation above all”, but their actions do not
accord with the demands of the great majority of the nation.
They too say “the state above all”, but what they mean is the
feudal-fascist dictatorship of the big landlords, big bankers
and big compradors, and not a democratic state of the people.
Therefore they are afraid of the rise of the people, afraid of
the democratic movement and afraid of full mass mobiliza-
tion for war against Japan. Herein lies the root cause of their
policy of passive resistance to Japan and their reactionary do-
mestic policy against the people, democracy and the Com-
munist Party. They have a double-faced policy in everything.

4
For instance, on the one hand they are resisting Japan but on
the other they are pursuing a passive war policy, and moreo-
ver they are the constant target of Japanese inducements to
surrender. They talk about developing China’s economy, but
in fact they build up their own bureaucrat-capital, i.e., the cap-
ital of the big landlords, bankers and compradors, and mo-
nopolize the lifelines of China’s economy, ruthlessly oppress-
ing the peasants, the workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the
non-monopoly bourgeoisie.

On Coalition Government
April 24, 1945

On December 1, 1958, at a meeting of the Political Bureau

of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
held at Wuchang, Comrade Mao Tse-tung stated:

Just as there is not a single thing in the world with-

out a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of op-
posites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a
dual nature -- they are real tigers and paper tigers at
the same time. In past history, before they won state
power and for some time afterwards, the slave-own-
ing class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoi-
sie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive;
they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, be-
cause their opposites -- the slave class, the peasant
class and the proletariat -- grew in strength step by
step, struggled against them and became more and
more formidable, these ruling classes changed step
by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries,
changed into backward people, changed into paper
tigers. And eventually they were overthrown, or will
be overthrown, by the people. The reactionary, back-
ward, decaying classes retained this dual nature even

5
 in their last life-and-death struggles against the peo-
ple. On the one hand, they were real tigers; they ate
people, ate people by the millions and tens of mil-
lions. The cause of the people’s struggle went
through a period of difficulties and hardships, and
along the path there were many twists and turns. To
destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bu-
reaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people
more than a hundred years and cost them tens of
millions of lives before the victory in 1949. Look!
Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers?
But in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead
tigers, bean-curd tigers. These are historical facts.
Have people not seen or heard about these facts?
There have indeed been thousands and tens of thou-
sands of them! Thousands and tens of thousands!
Hence, imperialism and all reactionaries, looked at in
essence, from a long-term point of view, from a stra-
tegic point of view, must be seen for what they are -
- paper tigers. On this we should build our strategic
thinking. On the other hand, they are also living ti-
gers, iron tigers, real tigers which can eat people. On
this we should build our tactical thinking.

Talk with the American Correspondent Anna Louise Strong

August 1946

The section on “Economic and Financial Affairs” provided

that “the development of bureaucrat-capital shall be curbed
and government officials strictly forbidden to make use of
their official position and influence to engage in speculation,
monopoly, tax evasion, smuggling, embezzlement of public
funds and unlawful use of the means of transport”; that
“rents and rates of interest shall be reduced, the rights of les-
sees protected, the payment of farm rents ensured,

6
agricultural credits expanded, usury strictly prohibited in or-
der to better the life of the peasants and an agrarian law to
attain the objective of ‘land to the tillers’ shall be put into
effect”; that “labour laws shall be put into effect to improve
working conditions”; that “the administration of finance shall
be made public, the budget system and the system of financial
reports strictly adhered to, budget expenditures drastically re-
duced, revenues and expenditures balanced, central and local
government finances defined, the currency in circulation con-
tracted and the monetary system stabilized and the raising of
both domestic and foreign loans and their uses made public
and subject to supervision by public bodies”; and that “the
system of taxation shall be reformed and all exorbitant and
miscellaneous levies and illegal exactions completely abol-
ished”.

Notes from Smash Chiang Kai-shek’s Offensive by a War of

Self-Defense
July 20, 1946

7. Because the Chiang Kai-shek government has pursued re-

actionary financial and economic policies for a long time and
because Chiang Kai-shek’s bureaucrat-comprador capital [5]
has become linked with U.S. imperialist capital through the
notorious and treasonable Sino-U.S. Treaty of Commerce,[6]
malignant inflation has swiftly developed; the industry and
commerce of China’s national bourgeoisie are daily going
bankrupt; the livelihood of the working masses, government
employees and teachers is deteriorating every day; large num-
bers of middle class elements are losing their savings and be-
coming penniless; and therefore strikes of workers and stu-
dents and other struggles are constantly occurring. An eco-
nomic crisis more serious than China has ever faced before is
threatening all strata of the people.

7
 In order to carry on the civil war, Chiang Kai-shek has re-
stored the extremely vicious system of conscription and grain
levies of the period of the War of Resistance; this makes life
impossible for the vast rural population, particularly the pov-
erty-stricken peasants; as a result, peasant revolts have already
started and will continue to spread. Hence, the reactionary
Chiang Kai-shek ruling clique will become more and more
discredited in the eyes of the broad masses of the people and
be confronted with serious political and military crises. On
the one hand, this situation is daily pushing forward the peo-
ple’s anti-imperialist, anti-feudal movement in the areas un-
der Chiang Kai-shek’s control; on the other hand, it is further
demoralizing Chiang’s troops and increasing the possibility
of victory by the People’s Liberation Army.
______________
5. See “The Present Situation and Our Tasks”, Section 6, pp. 167-
69 of this volume.
6. The “Sino-U.S. Treaty of Commerce” or “Sino-U.S. Treaty of
Friendship, Commerce and Navigation” was concluded between
the Chiang Kai-shek government and the U.S. government on No-
vember 4, 1946, in Nanking. This treaty, which sold out a large part
of China’s sovereignty to the United States, contains thirty articles,
the main contents of which are as follows:
(1) U.S. nationals shall enjoy in “the whole extent of . . . the
territories” of China the rights to reside, travel, carry on com-
mercial, manufacturing, processing, scientific, educational, reli-
gious and philanthropic activities, explore and exploit mineral
resources, lease and hold land, and follow various occupations
and pursuits. In regard to economic rights U.S. nationals in
China shall be accorded the same treatment as Chinese.
(2) In respect of taxation, sale, distribution and use in China,
U.S. commodities shall be accorded treatment no less favourable
than that accorded to the commodities of any third country or
to Chinese commodities. “No prohibition or restriction shall be
imposed” by China on the importation from the United States
of any article grown, produced or manufactured in the United
States, or on the exportation to the United States of any Chinese
article.

8
 (3) U.S. vessels shall have the freedom of sailing in any of the
ports, places or waters in China which are open to foreign com-
merce or navigation, and their personnel and freight shall have
freedom of transit through Chinese territory “by the routes most
convenient”. On the pretext of “any . . . distress”, U.S. vessels
including warships, can sail into “any of the ports, places or wa-
ters” of China which are “not open to foreign commerce or nav-
igation”.
Wellington Koo, then Chiang Kai-shek’s ambassador to the
United States, openly and shamelessly stated that this treaty meant
“the opening of the entire territory of China to U.S. merchants”.

Greet the New High Tide of the Chinese Revolution

February 1, 1947

We are the army of the Chinese people and in all things we

take the will of the Chinese people as our will. The policies
of our army represent the urgent demands of the Chinese
people and chief among them are the following:
[...]
(5) Confiscate the property of the four big families[9] of
Chiang Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H. H. Kung and the Chen Li-
fu brothers, and the property of the other chief war criminals;
confiscate bureaucrat-capital, develop the industry and com-
merce of the national bourgeoisie, improve the livelihood of
workers and employees, and give relief to victims of natural
calamities and to poverty-stricken people.
______________
9. This refers to the four big monopoly capitalist groups of Chiang
Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H. H. Kung and Chen Li-fu. See “The Pre-
sent Situation and Our Tasks”, Section 6, pp. 167-69 of this volume.

Manifesto of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army

October 1947

9
Confiscate the land of the feudal class and turn it over to the
peasants. Confiscate monopoly capital, headed by Chiang
Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H. H. Kung and Chen Li-fu, and turn
it over to the new-democratic state. Protect the industry and
commerce of the national bourgeoisie. These are the three
major economic policies of the new-democratic revolution.
During their twenty-year rule, the four big families, Chiang,
Soong, Kung and Chen, have piled up enormous fortunes
valued at ten to twenty thousand million U.S. dollars and mo-
nopolized the economic lifelines of the whole country. This
monopoly capital, combined with state power, has become
state-monopoly capitalism. This monopoly capitalism, closely
tied up with foreign imperialism, the domestic landlord class
and the old-type rich peasants, has become comprador, feu-
dal, state-monopoly capitalism. Such is the economic base of
Chiang Kai-shek’s reactionary regime. This state-monopoly
capitalism oppresses not only the workers and peasants but
also the urban petty bourgeoisie, and it injures the middle
bourgeoisie. This state-monopoly capitalism reached the
peak of its development during the War of Resistance and
after the Japanese surrender; it has prepared ample material
conditions for the new-democratic revolution. This capital is
popularly known in China as bureaucrat-capital. This capital-
ist class, known as the bureaucrat-capitalist class, is the big
bourgeoisie of China. Besides doing away with the special
privileges of imperialism in China, the task of the new-dem-
ocratic revolution at home is to abolish exploitation and op-
pression by the landlord class and by the bureaucrat-capitalist
class (the big bourgeoisie), change the comprador, feudal re-
lations of production and unfetter the productive forces. The
upper petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie, oppressed
and injured by the landlords and big bourgeoisie and their
state power, may take part in the new-democratic revolution
or stay neutral, though they are themselves bourgeois. They
have no ties, or comparatively few, with imperialism and are
the genuine national bourgeoisie. Wherever the state power

10
of New Democracy extends, it must firmly and unhesitatingly
protect them. In Chiang Kai-shek’s areas, there are a small
number of people among the upper petty bourgeoisie and the
middle bourgeoisie, the right wing of these classes, who have
reactionary political tendencies, spread illusions about U.S.
imperialism and the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek clique and
oppose the people’s democratic revolution. As long as their
reactionary tendencies can affect the masses, we should un-
mask them before the people under their political influence,
attack this influence and liberate the masses from it. But po-
litical attack and economic annihilation are two different mat-
ters, and we shall make mistakes if we confuse the two. The
new-democratic revolution aims at wiping out only feudalism
and monopoly capitalism, only the landlord class and the bu-
reaucrat-capitalist class (the big bourgeoisie), and not at wip-
ing out capitalism in general, the upper petty bourgeoisie or
the middle bourgeoisie. In view of China’s economic back-
wardness, even after the country-wide victory of the revolu-
tion, it will still be necessary to permit the existence for a long
time of a capitalist sector of the economy represented by the
extensive upper petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie. In
accordance with the division of labour in the national econ-
omy, a certain development of all parts of this capitalist sector
which are beneficial to the national economy will still be
needed. This capitalist sector will still be an indispensable part
of the whole national economy. The upper petty bourgeoisie
referred to here are small industrialists and merchants em-
ploying workers or assistants. In addition, there are also great
numbers of small independent craftsmen and traders who
employ no workers or assistants and, needless to say, they
should be firmly protected. After the victory of the revolution
all over the country, the new-democratic state will possess
huge state enterprises taken over from the bureaucrat-capi-
talist class and controlling the economic lifelines of the coun-
try, and there will be an agricultural economy liberated from
feudalism which, though it will remain basically scattered and

11
individual for a fairly long time, can later be led to develop,
step by step, in the direction of co-operatives. In these cir-
cumstances the existence and development of these small and
middle capitalist sectors will present no danger. The same is
true of the new rich peasant economy which will inevitably
emerge in the rural areas after the land reform. It is absolutely
impermissible to repeat such wrong ultra-Left polices to-
wards the upper petty bourgeois and middle bourgeois sec-
tors in the economy as our Party adopted during 1931-34 (un-
duly advanced labour conditions, excessive income tax rates,
encroachment on the interests of industrialists and merchants
during the land reform, and the adoption as a goal of the so-
called “workers’ welfare”, which was a short-sighted and one-
sided concept, instead of the goal of developing production,
promoting economic prosperity, giving consideration to both
public and private interests and benefiting both labour and
capital). To repeat such mistakes would certainly damage the
interests both of the working masses and of the new-demo-
cratic state. One of the provisions in the Outline Land Law
of China reads, “The property and lawful business of indus-
trialists and merchants shall be protected from encroach-
ment.” “Industrialists and merchants” refers to all small in-
dependent craftsmen and traders as well as all small and mid-
dle capitalist elements. To sum up, the economic structure of
New China will consist of: (1) the state-owned economy,
which is the leading sector; (2) the agricultural economy, de-
veloping step by step from individual to collective; and (3)
the economy of small independent craftsmen and traders and
the economy of small and middle private capital. These con-
stitute the whole of the new-democratic national economy.
The principles guiding the new-democratic national economy
must closely conform to the general objective of developing
production, promoting economic prosperity, giving consid-
eration to both public and private interests and benefiting
both labour and capital. Any principle, policy or measure that
deviates from this general objective is wrong.

12
 The Present Situation and Our Tasks
December 25, 1947

Oppose overestimation of the enemy’s strength. For example:

fear of U.S. imperialism; fear of carrying the battle into the
Kuomintang areas; fear of wiping out the comprador-feudal
system, of distributing the land of the landlords and of con-
fiscating bureaucrat-capital; fear of a long-drawn-out war;
and so on. All these are incorrect. Imperialism throughout
the world and the rule of the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek
clique in China are already rotten and have no future. We
have reason to despise them and we are confident and certain
that we shall defeat all the domestic and foreign enemies of
the Chinese people. But with regard to each part, each spe-
cific struggle (military, political, economic or ideological), we
must never take the enemy lightly; on the contrary, we should
take the enemy seriously and concentrate all our strength for
battle in order to win victory. While we correctly point out
that, strategically, with regard to the whole, we should take
the enemy lightly, we must never take the enemy lightly in any
part, in any specific struggle. If, with regard to the whole, we
overestimate the strength of our enemy and hence do not
dare to overthrow him and do not dare to win victory, we
shall be committing a Right opportunist error. If, with regard
to each part, each specific problem, we are not prudent, do
not carefully study and perfect the art of struggle, do not con-
centrate all our strength for battle and do not pay attention
to winning over all the allies that should be won over (middle
peasants, small independent craftsmen and traders, the mid-
dle bourgeoisie, students, teachers, professors and ordinary
intellectuals, ordinary government employees, professionals
and enlightened gentry), we shall be committing a “Left” op-
portunist error.
[...]

13
 3. We must avoid adopting any adventurist policies to-
wards middle and small industrialists and merchants. The
policy, adopted in the past in the Liberated Areas, of protect-
ing and encouraging the development of all private industry
and commerce beneficial to the national economy was cor-
rect and should be continued in the future. The policy of en-
couraging landlords and rich peasants to switch to industry
and commerce, adopted during the period of rent and interest
reduction, was also correct; it is wrong to regard such switch-
ing as a “disguise” and therefore to oppose it and confiscate
and distribute the property so switched. The industrial and
commercial holdings of landlords and rich peasants should in
general be protected; the only industrial and commercial
holdings that may be confiscated are those of bureaucrat-cap-
italists and of real counter-revolutionary local tyrants. Among
the industrial and commercial enterprises which should be
confiscated, those beneficial to the national economy must
continue to operate after they have been taken over by the
state and the people and must not be allowed to break up or
close down. The transactions tax on the industry and com-
merce which are beneficial to the national economy should
be levied only to the extent that it does not hamper their de-
velopment. In each public enterprise, the administration and
the trade union must set up a joint management committee
to strengthen the work of management in order to reduce
costs, increase output and see that both public and individual
interests are benefited. Private capitalist enterprises should
also try out this method in order to reduce costs, increase
output and benefit both labour and capital. The workers’ live-
lihood must be appropriately improved, but unduly high
wages and benefits must be avoided.

On Some Important Problems of the Party’s Present Policy

January 18, 1948

14
1. They did not propagate the line of relying on the poor
peasants and farm labourers and firmly uniting with the mid-
dle peasants in order to abolish the feudal system, but one-
sidedly propagated a poor peasant-farm labourer line. They
did not propagate the view that the proletariat should unite
with all working people and others who are oppressed, the
national bourgeoisie, the intellectuals and other patriots (in-
cluding the enlightened gentry who do not oppose land re-
form) in order to overthrow the rule of imperialism, feudal-
ism and bureaucrat-capitalism and establish a People’s Re-
public of China and a people’s democratic government, but
one-sidedly propagated the view that the poor peasants and
farm labourers conquer the country and should rule the
country, or that the democratic government should be a gov-
ernment of the peasants only, or that the democratic govern-
ment should listen only to the workers, poor peasants and
farm labourers, while no mention at all was made of the mid-
dle peasants, the independent craftsmen, the national bour-
geoisie and the intellectuals. This is a serious error of princi-
ple. Yet reports of this kind have been circulated by our news
agency, newspapers and radio stations. And the propaganda
departments of the Party committees in various places have
failed to report these errors to the higher levels. In the past
few months such propaganda, though not widespread, has
been fairly frequent and has created an atmosphere in which
people have been misled into believing that it might represent
the correct leading ideas. Because the Northern Shensi Radio
Station broadcast some incorrect items, people even mistak-
enly believed that these were views approved by the Central
Committee.

Combat the “Left” Errors in Land Reform Propaganda

February 18, 1948

15
The spokesman said: It is not only in the Northwest that this
new type of ideological education movement in the army has
been carried out; it has been, or is being, carried on in the
People’s Liberation Army throughout the country. Con-
ducted between battles, the movement does not interfere
with fighting. Taking in conjunction with the movement for
Party consolidation and the land reform movement now be-
ing correctly carried out by our Party, taking in co-ordination
with our Party’s correct policy of narrowing the scope of at-
tack by opposing only imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-
capitalism, by strictly forbidding beating and killing without
discrimination (the fewer killings, the better) and by firmly
uniting the masses of the people who make up over 90 per
cent of the country’s population, and taking in co-ordination
with the application of our Party’s correct urban policy and
its policy of firmly protecting and developing the industry and
commerce of the national bourgeoisie, this ideological educa-
tion movement is bound to make the People’s Liberation
Army invincible.

On the Great Victory in the Northwest and on the New Type of

Ideological Education Movement in the Liberation Army
March 7, 1948

The Chinese revolution at the present stage is in its character

a revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-
capitalism waged by the broad masses of the people under
the leadership of the proletariat. By the broad masses of the
people is meant all those who are oppressed, injured or fet-
tered by imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism,
namely, workers, peasants, soldiers, intellectuals, business-
men and other patriots, as clearly stated in the Manifesto of
the Chinese People’s Liberation Army of October 1947.[1] In
the manifesto “intellectuals” means all intellectuals who are
persecuted and fettered. “Businessmen” means all the

16
national bourgeois who are persecuted and fettered, that is,
the middle and petty bourgeois. “Other patriots” refers pri-
marily to the enlightened gentry. The Chinese revolution at
the present stage is a revolution in which all these people
form a united front against imperialism, feudalism and bu-
reaucrat-capitalism and in which the working people are the
main body. By working people are meant all those engaged in
manual labour (such as workers, peasants, handicraftsmen,
etc.) as well as those engaged in mental labour who are close
to those engaged in manual labour and are not exploiters but
are exploited. The aim of the Chinese revolution at the pre-
sent stage is to overthrow the rule of imperialism, feudalism
and bureaucrat-capitalism and to establish a new-democratic
republic of the broad masses of the people with the working
people as the main force; its aim is not to abolish capitalism
in general.
We should not abandon the enlightened gentry who co-
operated with us in the past and continue to co-operate with
us at present, who approve of the struggle against the United
States and Chiang Kai-shek and who approve of the land re-
form. Take, for instance, people like Liu Shao-pai of the
Shansi-Suiyuan Border Region and Li Ting-ming of the
Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region.[2]Since they gave us
considerable help in the hard times during and after the War
of Resistance Against Japan and did not obstruct or oppose
the land reform when we were carrying it out, we should con-
tinue the policy of uniting with them. But uniting with them
does not mean treating them as a force that determines the
character of the Chinese revolution. The forces that deter-
mine the character of a revolution are the chief enemies on
the one side and the chief revolutionaries on the other. At
present our chief enemies are imperialism, feudalism and bu-
reaucrat-capitalism, while the main forces in our struggle
against these enemies are the people engaged in manual and
mental labour, who make up 90 per cent of the country’s pop-
ulation. And this determines that our revolution at the

17
present stage is a new-democratic, a people’s democratic rev-
olution in character and is different from a socialist revolu-
tion such as the October Revolution.
The few right-wingers among the national bourgeoisie
who attach themselves to imperialism, feudalism and bureau-
crat-capitalism and oppose the people’s democratic revolu-
tion are also enemies of the revolution, while the left-wingers
among the national bourgeoisie who attach themselves to the
working people and oppose the reactionaries are also revolu-
tionaries, as are the few enlightened gentry who have broken
away from the feudal class. But the former are not the main
body of the enemy any more than the latter are the main body
among the revolutionaries; neither is a force that determines
the character of the revolution. The national bourgeoisie is a
class which is politically very weak and vacillating. But the
majority of its members may either join the people’s demo-
cratic revolution or take a neutral stand, because they too are
persecuted and fettered by imperialism, feudalism and bu-
reaucrat-capitalism. They are part of the broad masses of the
people but not the main body, nor are they a force that de-
termines the character of the revolution. However, because
they are important economically and may either join in the
struggle against the United States and Chiang Kai-shek or re-
main neutral in that struggle, it is possible and necessary for
us to unite with them.
[...]
The enlightened gentry are individual landlords and rich
peasants with democratic leanings. Such people have contra-
dictions with bureaucrat-capitalism and imperialism and to a
certain extent also with the feudal landlords and rich peasants.
We unite with them not because they are a political force to
be reckoned with nor because they are of any economic im-
portance (their feudal landholdings should be handed over
with their consent to the peasants for distribution) but be-
cause they gave us considerable help politically during the

18
War of Resistance and during the struggle against the United
States and Chiang Kai-shek.

On the Question of the National Bourgeoisie and the Enlightened

Gentry
March 1, 1948

2. Set a clear line of demarcation in defining bureaucrat-cap-

ital; do not designate as bureaucrat-capital and do not confis-
cate all the industrial and commercial enterprises run by Kuo-
mintang members. The principle should be laid down that
the democratic government should take over and operate all
industrial and commercial enterprises which are definitely
verified as having been run by the Kuomintang’s central, pro-
vincial, county or municipal governments, that is, enterprises
operated wholly by official bodies. But if, for the time being,
the democratic government is not yet ready to take them over
or is unable to do so, the individuals previously in charge
should be temporarily entrusted with the responsibility of
management so that these enterprises can function as usual
until the democratic government appoints people to take
over. The workers and technicians in these industrial and
commercial enterprises should be organized to participate in
management, and their competence should be trusted. If the
Kuomintang personnel have fled and the enterprise has sus-
pended operations, a management committee of representa-
tives elected by the workers and technicians should be set up,
pending the appointment by the democratic government of
managers and directors who will manage it together with the
workers. Enterprises run by notorious big bureaucrats of the
Kuomintang should be dealt with in conformity with the
principles and measures stated above. Industrial and com-
mercial enterprises run by small bureaucrats or by landlords,
however, are not subject to confiscation. Encroachment on

19
any enterprise run by the national bourgeoisie is strictly pro-
hibited.

Telegram to the Headquarters of the Loyang Front After the Re-

capture of the City
April 8, 1948

The question now facing the Chinese people, all democratic

parties and all people’s organizations is whether to carry the
revolution through to the end or to abandon it half-way. If
the revolution is to be carried through to the end, we must
use the revolutionary method to wipe out all the forces of
reaction resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely; we
must unswervingly persist in overthrowing imperialism, feu-
dalism and bureaucrat-capitalism; and we must overthrow the
reactionary rule of the Kuomintang on a country-wide scale
and set up a republic that is a people’s democratic dictator-
ship under the leadership of the proletariat and with the
worker-peasant alliance as its main body. In this way, the Chi-
nese nation will completely throw off the oppressor; the
country will be transformed from a semi-colony into a genu-
inely independent state; the Chinese people will be fully
emancipated, overthrowing once and for all both feudal op-
pression and oppression by bureaucrat-capital (Chinese mo-
nopoly capital) and will thus achieve unity, democracy and
peace, create the prerequisites for transforming China from
an agricultural into an industrial country and make it possible
for her to develop from a society with exploitation of man by
man into a socialist society. If the revolution is abandoned
half-way, it will mean going against the will of the people,
bowing to the will of the foreign aggressors and Chinese re-
actionaries and giving the Kuomintang a chance to heal its
wounds, so that one day it may pounce suddenly to strangle
the revolution and again plunge the whole country into dark-
ness. That is how clearly and sharply the question is now

20
posed. Which of these two roads to choose? Every demo-
cratic party, every people’s organization in China must con-
sider this question, must choose its road and clarify its stand.
Whether China’s democratic parties and people’s organiza-
tions can sincerely co-operate without parting company half-
way depends on whether they are agreed on this question and
take unanimous action to overthrow the common enemy of
the Chinese people. What is needed here is unanimity and co-
operation, not the setting up of any “opposition faction” or
the pursuit of any “middle road”.[4]
[...]
The Chinese people will never take pity on snake-like
scoundrels, and they honestly believe that no one is their true
friend who guilefully says that pity should be shown these
scoundrels and says that anything else would be out of keep-
ing with China’s traditions, fall short of greatness, etc. Why
should one take pity on snake-like scoundrels? What worker,
what peasant, what soldier, says that such scoundrels should
be pitied? True, there are “Kuomintang liberals” or non-
Kuomintang “liberals” who advise the Chinese people to ac-
cept the “peace” offered by the United States and the Kuo-
mintang, that is, to enshrine and worship the remnants of im-
perialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism so that these
treasures shall not become extinct on earth. But they are de-
cidedly not workers, peasants or soldiers, nor are they the
friends of workers, peasants and soldiers.
______________
4. The “middle road” was also called the “third road”. See “The
Present Situation and Our Tasks”, Note 9, p. 176 of this volume.

Carry the Revolution Through to the End

December 30, 1948

3. China’s modern industry, though the value of its output

amounts to only about 10 per cent of the total value of output

21
of the national economy, is extremely concentrated; the larg-
est and most important part of the capital is concentrated in
the hands of the imperialists and their lackeys, the Chinese
bureaucrat-capitalists. The confiscation of this capital and its
transfer to the people’s republic led by the proletariat will en-
able the people’s republic to control the economic lifelines of
the country and will enable the state-owned economy to be-
come the leading sector of the entire national economy. This
sector of the economy is socialist, not capitalist, in character.
Whoever overlooks or belittles this point will commit Right
opportunist mistakes.
4. China’s private capitalist industry, which occupies sec-
ond place in her modern industry, is a force which must not
be ignored. Because they have been oppressed or hemmed in
by imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, the na-
tional bourgeoisie of China and its representatives have often
taken part in the people’s democratic revolutionary struggles
or maintained a neutral stand. For this reason and because
China’s economy is still backward, there will be need, for a
fairly long period after the victory of the revolution, to make
use of the positive qualities of urban and rural private capi-
talism as far as possible, in the interest of developing the na-
tional economy. In this period, all capitalist elements in the
cities and countryside which are not harmful but beneficial to
the national economy should be allowed to exist and expand.
This is not only unavoidable but also economically necessary.
But the existence and expansion of capitalism in China will
not be unrestricted and uncurbed as in the capitalist countries.
It will be restricted from several directions -- in the scope of
its operation and by tax policy, market prices and labour con-
ditions. We shall adopt well-measured and flexible policies
for restricting capitalism from several directions according to
the specific conditions in each place, each industry and each
period. It is necessary and useful for us to apply Sun Yat-sen’s
slogan of “regulation of capital”.[2] However, in the interest
of the whole national economy and in the present and future

22
interest of the working class and all the labouring people, we
must not restrict the private capitalist economy too much or
too rigidly, but must leave room for it to exist and develop
within the framework of the economic policy and planning
of the people’s republic. The policy of restricting private cap-
italism is bound to meet with resistance in varying degrees
and forms from the bourgeoisie, especially from the big own-
ers of private enterprises, that is, from the big capitalists. Re-
striction versus opposition to restriction will be the main
form of class struggle in the new-democratic state. It is en-
tirely wrong to think that at present we need not restrict cap-
italism and can discard the slogan of “regulation of capital”;
that is a Right opportunist view. But the opposite view, which
advocates too much or too rigid restriction of private capital
or holds that we can simply eliminate private capital very
quickly, is also entirely wrong; this is a “Left” opportunist or
adventurist view.
[...]
6. The restoration and development of the national econ-
omy of the people’s republic would be impossible without a
policy of controlling foreign trade. When imperialism, feudal-
ism, bureaucrat-capitalism and the concentrated expression
of all three, the Kuomintang regime, have been eliminated in
China, the problem of establishing an independent and inte-
grated industrial system will remain unsolved and it will be
finally solved only when our country has greatly developed
economically and changed from a backward agricultural into
an advanced industrial country. It will be impossible to
achieve this aim without controlling foreign trade. After the
country-wide victory of the Chinese revolution and the solu-
tion of the land problem, two basic contradictions will still
exist in China. The first is internal, that is, the contradiction
between the working class and the bourgeoisie. The second
is external, that is, the contradiction between China and the
imperialist countries. Consequently, after the victory of the
people’s democratic revolution, the state power of the

23
people’s republic under the leadership of the working class
must not be weakened but must be strengthened. The two
basic policies of the state in the economic struggle will be
regulation of capital at home and control of foreign trade.
Whoever overlooks or belittles this point will commit ex-
tremely serious mistakes.
______________
2. “Regulation of capital” was one of Sun Yat-sen’s well-known slo-
gans. The Manifesto of the Kuomintang’s First National Congress,
in which the Kuomintang and the Communist Party co-operated,
was published on January 23, 1924 and gave the following interpre-
tation to this slogan: “Private industries, whether of Chinese or of
foreign nationals, which are either of a monopolistic nature or are
beyond the capacity of private individuals to develop, such as bank-
ing, railways, and navigation, shall be undertaken by the state, so
that privately owned capital shall not control the economic life of
the people.”

Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Com-

mittee of the Communist Party of China
March 5, 1949

In this situation, all comrades must firmly grasp the general

line of the Party, that is, the line of the new-democratic rev-
olution. The new-democratic revolution is not any other rev-
olution, but can only be and must be a revolution against im-
perialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism waged by the
broad masses of the people under the leadership of the pro-
letariat. This means that leadership in this revolution can and
must be assumed by no class and party other than the prole-
tariat and the Communist Party of China. This means that the
united front of those joining this revolution is very broad,
embracing the workers, peasants, independent craftsmen,
professionals, intellectuals, the national bourgeoisie and the
section of the enlightened gentry which has broken away
from the landlord class. All these are what we refer to as the

24
broad masses of the people. The state and the government to
be founded by the broad masses of the people will be the
People’s Republic of China and the democratic coalition gov-
ernment of the alliance of all democratic classes under the
leadership of the proletariat. The enemies to be overthrown
in this revolution can only be and must be imperialism, feu-
dalism and bureaucrat-capitalism. The concentrated expres-
sion of all these enemies is the reactionary regime of Chiang
Kai-shek’s Kuomintang.
Feudalism is the ally of imperialism and bureaucrat-capi-
talism and the foundation of their rule. Therefore, the reform
of the land system is the main content of China’s new-dem-
ocratic revolution. The general line in the land reform is to
rely on the poor peasants, unite with the middle peasants,
abolish the system of feudal exploitation step by step and in
a discriminating way, and develop agricultural production.
The basic force to be relied upon in the land reform can only
be and must be the poor peasants. Together with the farm
labourers, they make up about 70 per cent of China’s rural
population. The main and immediate task of the land reform
is to satisfy the demands of the masses of poor peasants and
farm labourers. In the land reform it is necessary to unite with
the middle peasants; the poor peasants and the farm labour-
ers must form a solid united front with the middle peasants,
who account for about 20 per cent of the rural population.
Otherwise, the poor peasants and farm labourers will find
themselves isolated and the land reform will fail. One of the
tasks in the land reform is to satisfy the demands of certain
middle peasants. A section of the middle peasants must be
allowed to keep some land over and above the average ob-
tained by the poor peasants. We support the peasants’ de-
mand for equal distribution of land in order to help arouse
the broad masses of peasants speedily to abolish the system
of landownership by the feudal landlord class, but we do not
advocate absolute equalitarianism. Whoever advocates abso-
lute equalitarianism is wrong. There is a kind of thinking now

25
current in the countryside which undermines industry and
commerce and advocates absolute equalitarianism in land dis-
tribution. Such thinking is reactionary, backward and retro-
gressive in nature. We must criticize it. The target of the land
reform is only and must be the system of feudal exploitation
by the landlord class and by the old-type rich peasants, and
there should be no encroachment either upon the national
bourgeoisie or upon the industrial and commercial enter-
prises run by the landlords and rich peasants. In particular,
care must be taken not to encroach upon the interests of the
middle peasants, independent craftsmen, professionals and
new rich peasants, all of whom engage in little or no exploi-
tation. The aim of the land reform is to abolish the system of
feudal exploitation, that is, to eliminate the feudal landlords
as a class, not as individuals. Therefore a landlord must re-
ceive the same allotment of land and property as does a peas-
ant and must be made to learn productive labour and join the
ranks of the nation’s economic life. Except for the most hei-
nous counter-revolutionaries and local tyrants, who have in-
curred the bitter hatred of the broad masses, who have been
proved guilty and who therefore may and ought to be pun-
ished, a policy of leniency must be applied to all, and any
beating or killing without discrimination must be forbidden.
The system of feudal exploitation should be abolished step
by step, that is, in a tactical way. In launching the struggle we
must determine our tactics according to the circumstances
and the degree to which the peasant masses are awakened and
organized. We must not attempt to wipe out overnight the
whole system of feudal exploitation. In accordance with the
actual conditions of the system of feudal exploitation in
China’s villages, the total scope of attack in the land reform
should generally not exceed about 8 per cent of the rural
households or about 10 per cent of the rural population. In
the old and semi-old Liberated Areas the percentage should
be even smaller. It is dangerous to depart from actual condi-
tions and mistakenly enlarge the scope of attack. In the new

26
Liberated Areas, moreover, it is necessary to distinguish be-
tween different places and different stages. By distinguishing
between places we mean that in those places which we can
hold securely we should concentrate our efforts on carrying
out appropriate land reform work that accords with the
wishes of the local masses, while in those places which for
the time being are difficult to hold securely, until there is a
change in the situation we should not be in a hurry to start
the land reform but should confine ourselves to activities
which are feasible and beneficial to the masses in the present
circumstances. By distinguishing between stages we mean
that in places recently occupied by the People’s Liberation
Army we should put forward and carry out the tactics of neu-
tralizing the rich peasants, of neutralizing the middle and
small landlords, and thus narrow the scope of the attack so
as to destroy only the reactionary Kuomintang armed forces
and deal blows at the bad gentry and local tyrants. We should
concentrate all our efforts on accomplishing this task as the
first stage of work in the new Liberated Areas. We should
then advance step by step to the stage of total abolition of the
feudal system, in accordance with the rising level of political
consciousness and organization of the masses. In the new
Liberated Areas we should distribute movable property and
land only when conditions are relatively secure and the over-
whelming majority of the masses have been fully roused to
action; to act otherwise would be adventurist and undepend-
able and would do harm rather than good. In the new Liber-
ated Areas the experience gained during the War of Re-
sistance must be fully utilized. By abolishing feudalism in a
discriminating way we mean that we should distinguish be-
tween landlords and rich peasants, among big, middle and
small landlords and between those landlords and rich peas-
ants who are local tyrants and those who are not, and that,
subject to the major premise of the equal distribution of land
and the abolition of the feudal system, we should not decide
on and give the same treatment to them all, but should

27
differentiate and vary the treatment according to varying con-
ditions. When we do this, people will see that our work is
completely reasonable. The development of agricultural pro-
duction is the immediate aim of the land reform. Only by
abolishing the feudal system can the conditions for such de-
velopment be created. In every area, as soon as feudalism is
wiped out and the land reform is completed, the Party and
the democratic government must put forward the task of re-
storing and developing agricultural production, transfer all
available forces in the countryside to this task, organize co-
operation and mutual aid, improve agricultural technique,
promote seed selection and build irrigation works -- all to en-
sure increased production. Party organizations in the rural ar-
eas must devote the greatest energy to restoring and develop-
ing agricultural production and also industrial production in
small towns. In order to speed up this restoration and devel-
opment, we must do our utmost, in the course of our struggle
for the abolition of the feudal system, to preserve all useful
means of production and of livelihood, take resolute
measures against anyone’s destroying or wasting them, op-
pose extravagant eating and drinking and pay attention to
thrift and economy. In order to develop agricultural produc-
tion, we must advise the peasants to organize, voluntarily and
step by step, the various types of producers’ and consumers’
co-operatives based on private ownership, which are permis-
sible under present economic conditions. The abolition of
the feudal system and the development of agricultural pro-
duction will lay the foundation for the development of indus-
trial production and the transformation of an agricultural
country into an industrial one. This is the ultimate goal of the
new-democratic revolution.
[...]
Let me repeat:
The revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureau-
crat-capitalism waged by the broad masses of the people un-
der the leadership of the proletariat -- this is China’s new-

28
democratic revolution, and this is the general line and general
policy of the Communist Party of China at the present stage
of history.
To rely on the poor peasants, unite with the middle peas-
ants, abolish the system of feudal exploitation step by step
and in a discriminating way, and develop agricultural produc-
tion -- this is the general line and general policy of the Com-
munist Party of China in the work of land reform during the
period of the new-democratic revolution.

Speech at a conference of cadres in the Shansi-Suiyuan liberated

area
April 1, 1948

The reactionary Nanking Kuomintang government deprives

the people of all their freedoms and rights; it oppresses all the
democratic parties and the people’s organizations, denying
them their legal status; it suppresses the righteous movement
of the students against civil war, hunger and persecution and
against U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs and U.S.
fostering of the forces of aggression in Japan; it floods the
country with the bogus national currency and the bogus gold
yuan notes, thus ruining the economic life of the people and
reducing the broad masses to bankruptcy; and by various
means of expropriation it concentrates the greatest part of
the nation’s wealth in the hands of the bureaucrat-capitalists
headed by the four big families of Chiang, Soong, Kung and
Chen. In short, the reactionary Nanking Kuomintang gov-
ernment has plunged the whole nation into dire suffering by
waging a civil war based on its reactionary and traitorous
basic policies, domestic and foreign; it absolutely cannot es-
cape full responsibility. In contrast to the Kuomintang, the
Communist Party of China did all it could after Japan’s sur-
render to press the Kuomintang government to prevent and
stop the civil war and realize domestic peace.

29
 Statement on the Present Situation by Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
January 14, 1949

On January 14 of the same year, the Communist Party of

China issued a statement agreeing to this proposal of the
Kuomintang government at Nanking and putting forward
eight terms as the basis for the peace negotiations between
the two sides. These terms are as follows: punish the war
criminals; abolish the bogus constitution; abolish the bogus
“constituted authority”; reorganize all reactionary troops on
democratic principles; confiscate bureaucrat-capital; reform
the land system; abrogate treasonable treaties; convene a New
Political Consultative Conference without the participation
of reactionary elements and form a democratic coalition gov-
ernment to take over all the power and authority of the reac-
tionary Nanking Kuomintang government and of its subor-
dinate governments at all levels. These eight basic terms were
agreed to by the National Government at Nanking. There-
upon, the Communist Party of China and the National Gov-
ernment at Nanking appointed their respective delegations,
fully empowered to conduct negotiations and to sign an
agreement.
[...]
Article 11. Both sides agree that all bureaucrat-capitalist
enterprises and property (including banks, factories, mines,
vessels, companies and shops) acquired or seized during the
rule of the National Government at Nanking through the use
of political prerogatives and the influence of wealth and po-
sition shall be confiscated and become the property of the
state.
Article 12. In areas not yet entered and taken over by the
People’s Liberation Army, the National Government at Nan-
king shall be held responsible for supervising the bureaucrat-

30
capitalist enterprises and property mentioned in Article 11 so
that no theft or concealment, damage, transfer or secret sale
shall occur. Assets which have already been moved shall be
frozen wherever found, and their being subsequently re-
moved, transported abroad or damaged shall not be permit-
ted. Bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises and property located
abroad shall be declared the property of the state.
Article 13. In areas already entered and taken over by the
People’s Liberation Army, the bureaucrat-capitalist enter-
prises and property mentioned in Article 11 shall be confis-
cated by the local Military Control Commissions or institu-
tions authorized by the Democratic Coalition Government.
Private shares in them, if any, shall be investigated, after they
have been verified as being in fact private and not secretly
transferred bureaucrat-capital, they shall be recognized, and
their owners shall be permitted to remain shareholders or to
withdraw their shares.

Order to the Army for the Country-wide Advance

April 21, 1949

We hereby proclaim the following eight-point covenant by

which we, together with the whole people, shall abide.
1. Protect the lives and property of all the people. People
in all walks of life, irrespective of class, belief or occupation,
are expected to maintain order and adopt a co-operative atti-
tude towards the People’s Liberation Army. The People’s
Liberation Army on its part will adopt a co-operative attitude
towards people in all walks of life. Counter-revolutionaries or
other saboteurs who seize the opportunity to create disturb-
ances, loot or sabotage shall be severely dealt with.
2. Protect the industrial, commercial, agricultural and live-
stock enterprises of the national bourgeoisie. All privately
owned factories, shops, banks, warehouses, vessels, wharves,
farms, livestock farms and other enterprises will without

31
exception be protected against any encroachment. It is hoped
that workers and employees in all occupations will maintain
production as usual and that all shops will remain open as
usual.
3. Confiscate bureaucrat-capital. All factories, shops,
banks and warehouses, all vessels, wharves and railways, all
postal, telegraph, electric light, telephone and water supply
services, and all farms, livestock farms and other enterprises
operated by the reactionary Kuomintang government and the
big bureaucrats shall be taken over by the People’s Govern-
ment. In such enterprises the private shares held by national
capitalists engaged in industry, commerce, agriculture or live-
stock raising shall be recognized, after their ownership is ver-
ified. All personnel working in bureaucrat-capitalist enter-
prises must remain at their posts pending the take-over by the
People’s Government and must assume responsibility for the
safekeeping of all assets, machinery, charts, account books,
records, etc., in preparation for the check-up and take-over.
Those who render useful service in this connection will be
rewarded; those who obstruct or sabotage will be punished.
Those desiring to go on working after the take-over by the
People’s Government will be given employment commensu-
rate with their abilities so that they will not become destitute
and homeless.
4. Protect all public and private schools, hospitals, cultural
and educational institutions, athletic fields and other public
welfare establishments. It is hoped that all personnel in these
institutions will remain at their posts; the People’s Liberation
Army will protect them from molestation.
5. Except for the incorrigible war criminals and counter-
revolutionaries who have committed the most heinous
crimes, the People’s Liberation Army and the People’s Gov-
ernment will not hold captive, arrest or subject to indignity
any officials, whether high or low, in the Kuomintang’s cen-
tral, provincial, municipal and county governments, deputies
to the “National Assembly”, members of the Legislative and

32
Control Yuans, members of the political consultative coun-
cils, police officers and district, township, village and pao-
chia[1] officials, so long as they do not offer armed resistance
or plot sabotage. All these persons are enjoined, pending the
take-over, to stay at their posts, abide by the orders and de-
crees of the People’s Liberation Army and the People’s Gov-
ernment and assume responsibility for the safekeeping of all
the assets and records of their offices. The People’s Govern-
ment will permit the employment of those among them who
can make themselves useful in some kind of work and have
not committed any grave reactionary act or other flagrant
misdeed. Punishment shall be meted out to those who seize
the opportunity to engage in sabotage, theft or embezzlement,
or abscond with public funds, assets or records, or refuse to
give an accounting.
6. In order to ensure peace and security in both cities and
rural areas and to maintain public order, all stragglers and dis-
banded soldiers are required to report and surrender to the
People’s Liberation Army or the People’s Government in
their localities. No action will be taken against those who vol-
untarily do so and hand over their arms. Those who refuse to
report or who conceal their arms shall be arrested and inves-
tigated. Persons who shelter stragglers and disbanded soldiers
and do not report them to the authorities shall be duly pun-
ished.
7. The feudal system of landownership in the rural areas is
irrational and should be abolished. To abolish it, however,
preparations must be made and the necessary steps taken.
Generally speaking, the reduction of rent and interest should
come first and land distribution later; only after the People’s
Liberation Army has arrived at a place and worked there for
a considerable time will it be possible to speak of solving the
land problem in earnest. The peasant masses should organize
themselves and help the People’s Liberation Army to carry
out the various initial reforms. They should also work hard at
their farming so as to prevent the present level of agricultural

33
production from falling and should then raise it step by step
to improve their own livelihood and supply the people of the
cities with commodity grain. Urban land and buildings cannot
be dealt with in the same way as the problem of rural land.
8. Protect the lives and property of foreign nationals. It is
hoped that all foreign nationals will follow their usual pursuits
and observe order. All foreign nationals must abide by the
orders and decrees of the People’s Liberation Army and the
People’s Government and must not engage in espionage, act
against the cause of China’s national independence and the
people’s liberation, or harbour Chinese war criminals, coun-
ter-revolutionaries or other law-breakers. Otherwise, they
shall be dealt with according to law by the People’s Liberation
Army and the People’s Government.
The People’s Liberation Army is highly disciplined; it is
fair in buying and selling and is not allowed to take even a
needle or a piece of thread from the people. It is hoped that
the people throughout the country will live and work in peace
and will not give credence to rumours or raise false alarms.
This proclamation is hereby issued in all sincerity and earnest-
ness.

Mao Tse-tung
Chairman of the Chinese
People’s Revolutionary
Military Commission

Chu Teh
Commander-in-Chief of
the Chinese People’s Lib-
eration Army

Proclamation of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army

April 25, 1949

34
The convening of the New Political Consultative Conference
was proposed to the people of the whole country by the
Communist Party of China on May 1, 1948.[2] The proposal
obtained a quick response from the democratic parties, peo-
ple’s organizations, democratic personages in all walks of life
throughout China, the country’s minority nationalities and
the overseas Chinese. The Communist Party of China, the
democratic parties, people’s organizations, democratic per-
sonages in all walks of life, minority nationalities and overseas
Chinese all hold that we must overthrow the rule of imperi-
alism, feudalism, bureaucrat-capitalism and the Kuomintang
reactionaries, convene a Political Consultative Conference of
representatives of all the democratic parties, people’s organi-
zations, democratic personages in all walks of life, minority
nationalities and overseas Chinese, proclaim the founding of
the People’s Republic of China and elect a democratic coali-
tion government to represent it.
[...]
The Chinese revolution is a revolution of the broad masses
of the whole nation. Everybody is our friend, except the im-
perialists, the feudalists and the bureaucrat-capitalists, the
Kuomintang reactionaries and their accomplices. We have a
broad and solid revolutionary united front. This united front
is so broad that it includes the working class, the peasantry,
the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.
This united front is so solid that it possesses the resolute will
and the inexhaustible capacity to defeat every enemy and
overcome every difficulty. The epoch we are living in is an
epoch in which the imperialist system is heading for total col-
lapse, the imperialists have fallen inextricably into crisis and,
no matter how they continue to oppose the Chinese people,
the Chinese people will always have a way to win final victory.
______________
2. See “On the September Meeting- Circular of the Central Com-
mittee of the Communist Party of China”, Note 4, p. 276 of this
volume.

35
 Address to the Preparatory Meeting of the New Political Consul-
tive Conference
June 15, 1949

Is it true that “so far none has succeeded”? In the old Liber-
ated Areas in northwestern, northern, northeastern and east-
ern China, where the land problem has already been solved,
does the problem of “feeding this population”, as Acheson
puts it, still exist? The United States has kept quite a number
of spies or so-called observers in China. Why have they not
ferreted out even this fact? In places like Shanghai, the prob-
lem of unemployment, or of feeding the population, arose
solely because of cruel, heartless oppression and exploitation
by imperialism, feudalism, bureaucrat-capitalism and the re-
actionary Kuomintang government. Under the People’s
Government, it will take only a few years for this problem of
unemployment, or of feeding the population, to be solved as
completely as in the northern, northeastern and other parts
of the country.

The Bankruptcy of the Idealist Conception of History

September 16, 1949

Our conference is called the Political Consultative Confer-

ence because some three years ago we held a Political Con-
sultative Conference with Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang.[1]
The results of that conference were sabotaged by Chiang Kai-
shek’s Kuomintang and its accomplices; nevertheless the
conference left an indelible impression on the people. It
showed that nothing in the interest of the people could be
accomplished together with Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang,
the running dog of imperialism, and its accomplices. Even
when resolutions were reluctantly adopted, it was of no avail,

36
for as soon as the time was ripe, they tore them up and started
a ruthless war against the people. The only gain from that
conference was the profound lesson it taught the people that
there is absolutely no room for compromise with Chiang Kai-
shek’s Kuomintang, the running dog of imperialism, and its
accomplices -- overthrow these enemies or be oppressed and
slaughtered by them, either one or the other, there is no other
choice. In a little more than three years the Chinese people,
led by the Chinese Communist Party, have quickly awakened
and organized themselves into a nation-wide united front
against imperialism, feudalism, bureaucrat-capitalism and
their general representative, the reactionary Kuomintang
government, supported the People’s War of Liberation, basi-
cally defeated the reactionary Kuomintang government,
overthrown the rule of imperialism in China and restored the
Political Consultative Conference.
______________
1. “Smash Chiang Kai-shek’s Offensive by a War of Self-Defence”,
Note 2, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. IV.

The Chinese People Have Stood Up!

September 21, 1949

Our present session had many subjects for discussion, the

central one being the question of transforming the old land
system. We have endorsed the Draft Agrarian Reform Law
[3] proposed by the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China to which we have made a number of useful
amendments and supplements. This is fine. I am glad and
wish to congratulate the hundreds of millions of new China’s
rural population on winning the opportunity for emancipa-
tion and the nation on winning the basic condition for indus-
trialization. The peasants form the bulk of China’s population.
It was with their help that victory was won in the revolution,
and it is again their help that will make the industrialization

37
of the country possible. Therefore, the working class should
actively help the peasants carry out the agrarian reform; the
urban petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie should also
give their support, and still more so should all the democratic
parties and people’s organizations. War and agrarian reform
are two tests everyone and every political party in China must
go through in the historical period of New Democracy. Who-
ever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary.
Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-
capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whoever sides with the
revolutionary people in word only but not in deed is a revo-
lutionary in word. Whoever sides with the revolutionary peo-
ple in deed as well as in word is a true revolutionary. The test
of war is basically over, and we have all come through well,
to the satisfaction of the people of the whole country. Now
it is the test of agrarian reform that we have to pass, and I
hope we shall acquit ourselves just as well as we did in the
test of war. Let us give this matter more thought, have more
consultation, straighten out our thinking, march in step and
form a great anti-feudal united front, and then we shall be
able to lead the people and help them pass this test success-
fully. When the tests of war and agrarian reform are passed,
the remaining test will be easy to pass, that is, the test of so-
cialism, of country-wide socialist transformation. As for
those who have made contributions in the revolutionary war
and in the revolutionary transformation of the land system
and who continue to do so in the coming years of economic
and cultural construction, the people will not forget them
when the time comes for nationalizing private industry and
socializing agriculture (which is still quite far off), and they
will have a bright future. This is how our country steadily ad-
vances; it has passed through the war and is undergoing new-
democratic reforms, and in the future it will enter the new era
of socialism unhurriedly and with proper arrangements when
our economy and culture are flourishing, when conditions are
ripe and when the transition has been fully considered and

38
endorsed by the whole nation. I think it is necessary to make
this point clear so that people will have confidence and stop
worrying: “Don’t know when I’ll no longer be wanted and be
given the chance to serve the people even if I wish to.” No,
that won’t happen. The people and their government have no
reason to reject anyone or deny him the opportunity of mak-
ing a living and rendering service to the country, provided he
is really willing to serve the people and provided he really
helped and did a good turn when the people were faced with
difficulties and keeps on doing good without giving up half-
way.
______________
3. This refers to the “Draft Agrarian Reform Law of the People’s
Republic of China”. The Central Committee of the Chinese Com-
munist Party presented the draft to the Second Session of the First
National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative
Conference on June 14, 1950 for discussion. After it had been dis-
cussed and endorsed by the session, the Central People’s Govern-
ment Council approved the draft. On June 30 of the same year,
Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central People’s Government,
promulgated the “Agrarian Reform Law of the People’s Republic
of China”.

Be a True Revolutionary
June 23, 1950

Why do all of you here and the vast numbers of activists sup-
port the Draft Constitution and find it satisfactory? There are
two main reasons: one is that it sums up the experience of
the past and the other is that it combines principle with flex-
ibility.
First, it sums up the experience of the past, especially that
in our revolution and construction over the last five years. It
sums up our experience in the people’s revolution led by the
proletariat against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-
capitalism as well as our experience in social reform,

39
economic construction, cultural construction and govern-
ment work over the last few years. Besides, it sums up the
experience in constitution-making since the last years of the
Ching Dynasty, that is, from the Nineteen Constitutional Ar-
ticles [1] in the final days of the Ching Dynasty to the Provi-
sional Constitution of the Republic of China [2] in 1912, the
various constitutions and draft constitutions under the gov-
ernments of the Northern warlords, [3] the Provisional Con-
stitution of the Republic of China in the Period Under Polit-
ical Tutelage of the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek regime and
right up to Chiang Kai-shek’s bogus constitution. One of
these was positive in nature and the others negative. Thus the
Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China in 1912
was a fairly good one for its time. Of course it had its imper-
fections and faults and was bourgeois in nature, but there was
something revolutionary and democratic about it. It was con-
cise and is said to have been drafted in haste, taking only a
month from the time of its framing to its adoption. As for
the other constitutions and draft constitutions, they were al-
together reactionary. This Draft Constitution of ours is
chiefly a summing-up of our experience in revolution and
construction, but at the same time it is a synthesis of domestic
and international experience. Our constitution is of a socialist
type. It is based mainly on our own experience but has drawn
upon what is good in the constitutions of the Soviet Union
and the People’s Democracies. Speaking of constitutions, the
bourgeoisie was the forerunner. The bourgeoisie, whether in
Britain, France or the United States, was revolutionary for a
period, and it was during this period that the bourgeoisie be-
gan making constitutions. We should not write off bourgeois
democracy with one stroke of the pen and deny bourgeois
constitutions a place in history. All the same, present-day
bourgeois constitutions are no good at all, they are bad, par-
ticularly the constitutions of the imperialist countries, which
are designed to deceive and oppress the majority of the peo-
ple. Our constitution is of a new, socialist type, different from

40
any of the bourgeois type. It is far more progressive than the
constitutions of the bourgeoisie even in its revolutionary pe-
riod. We are superior to the bourgeoisie.
______________
1. This refers to the Nineteen Constitutional Articles promulgated
by the Ching government in November 1911.
2. The Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China was
promulgated by Dr. Sun Yat-sen when he took office as Provisional
President of the Republic of China after the 1911 Revolution.
3. These refer to the Yuan Shih-kai government’s Temple of
Heaven Draft Constitution of 1913 and its Provisional Constitution
of 1914, the Tsao Kun government’s Constitution of 1923 and
Tuan Chi-jui’s provisional government’s Draft Constitution of
1925.

On the Draft Constitution of the People’s Republic of China

June 14, 1954

Comrades,
The speeches from the floor have ended. Now I’ll say a
few words on the following questions: an evaluation of the
present conference, the Five-Year Plan, the case of Kao Kang
and Jao Shu-shih, the current situation, and the Eighth Con-
gress.

1. EVALUATION OF THE PRESENT CONFERENCE

Most comrades agree that the conference has been a great

success and that it has been another rectification meeting, fol-
lowing the rectification of the Yenan days. Democracy has
been promoted and criticism and self-criticism carried out,
which has enabled us to know each other better, think more
along the same lines and arrive at a common understanding.
There was common understanding among us, but on some
questions opinions differed, and this conference has enabled
us to unify our understanding. Our Party will be better united

41
on this basis, that is, on the basis of our common understand-
ing of ideology, politics and various policies. As Comrade
Chou En-lai put it, if the Seventh National Congress of the
Party and the all-Party ideological and political rectification in
the period preceding it laid the foundation of our Party’s ide-
ological unity, a unity on which we proceeded to win victory
in the democratic revolution against imperialism, feudalism
and bureaucrat-capitalism, then the present conference will
enable us to win victory for socialism.
This conference has proved that our Party has attained a
much higher level. Our Party has made great strides not only
since the Seventh Congress ten years ago, but also since the
Second and Third Plenary Sessions of the Seventh Central
Committee in 1949 and 1950. This is good, the conference
indicates our progress.
We have entered a period, a new period in our history, in
which what we have set ourselves to do, think about and dig
into is socialist industrialization, socialist transformation and
the modernization of our national defence, and we are begin-
ning to do the same thing with atomic energy. So far as the
Party as a whole is concerned, some comrades are digging
deep into their jobs while others are not, and this is true of
the comrades present at this conference. As is the case with
doctors, some can perform operations, others can’t. Some
can give intravenous injections while others can’t and know
only how to give subcutaneous injections. And there are doc-
tors who don’t dare to go beneath the skin and can work only
on the surface. Although some are not digging into their jobs,
most comrades are, and quite a few seem to have learned their
trade and are becoming rather expert at it. This has been
borne out at this conference and is a very good thing. For we
are now confronted with new problems, socialist industriali-
zation, socialist transformation, a new defence system and
other new fields of work. It is our task to adapt ourselves to
this new situation, dig into our jobs and become experts. It is
therefore necessary to educate those who have failed to dig

42
into their jobs and remained on the surface, so that they will
all turn into experts.
The struggle against the anti-Party alliance of Kao Kang
and Jao Shu-shih will take our Party a big step forward.
We must propagate dialectical materialism among the five
million intellectuals inside and outside the Party and among
cadres at all levels so that they will grasp it and combat ideal-
ism, and we shall then be able to organize a powerful corps
of theoretical workers, which we urgently need. That again
will be a very good thing.
We must draw up a plan for the formation of such a corps
with several million people taking up the study of dialectical
materialism and historical materialism, the theoretical basis of
Marxism, and combating all shades of idealism and mechan-
ical materialism. At present there are many cadres doing the-
oretical work, but there is still no corps of theoretical workers,
much less a powerful one. Without such a corps, the cause of
the entire Party, the socialist industrialization and socialist
transformation of our country, the modernization of our na-
tional defence and our research in atomic energy cannot
move along or succeed. I therefore recommend that you
comrades read philosophy. Quite a few people are not inter-
ested in philosophy and have not cultivated the habit of read-
ing it. They can begin by reading pamphlets or short articles
and, after their interest is thus aroused, tackle books running
to a length of seventy thousand or eighty thousand and then
even several hundred thousand words. Marxism consists of
several branches of learning: Marxist philosophy, Marxist
economics and Marxist socialism, that is, the theory of class
struggle, but the foundation is Marxist philosophy. If this is
not grasped, we will not have a common language or any
common method, and we may keep on arguing back and
forth without making things any clearer. Once dialectical ma-
terialism is grasped, a lot of trouble will be saved and many
mistakes avoided.

43
 Speeches at the National Conference of the Communist Party of
China
March 31, 1955

In recent months the Political Bureau of the Central Com-

mittee has heard reports on the work of thirty-four industrial,
agricultural, transport, commercial, financial and other de-
partments under the: central authorities and from these re-
ports has identified a number of problems concerning social-
ist construction and socialist transformation. In all, they boil
down to ten problems, or ten major relationships.
It is to focus on one basic policy that these ten problems
are being raised, the basic policy of mobilizing all positive
factors, internal and external, to serve the cause of socialism.
In the past we followed this policy of mobilizing all positive
factors in order to put an end to the rule of imperialism, feu-
dalism and bureaucrat-capitalism and to win victory for the
people’s democratic revolution. We are now following the
same policy in order to carry on the socialist revolution and
build a socialist country. Nevertheless, there are some prob-
lems in our work that need discussion. Particularly worthy of
attention is the fact that in the Soviet Union certain defects
and errors that occurred in the course of their building social-
ism have lately come to light. Do you want to follow the de-
tours they have made? It was by drawing lessons from their
experience that we were able to avoid certain detours in the
past, and there is all the more reason for us to do so now.*
______________
* Speech at an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the Cen-
tral Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Bearing in mind
lessons drawn from the Soviet Union, Comrade Mao Tse-tung
summed up China’s experience, dealt with ten major relationships
in socialist revolution and socialist construction and set forth the
ideas underlying the general line of building socialism with greater,
faster, better and more economical results, a line suited to the con-
ditions of our country.

44
 On the Ten Major Relationships
April 25, 1956

A few cadres with an intellectual background at the level of

department or bureau head advocate great democracy, saying
that small democracy is not satisfying enough. Their “great
democracy” means the adoption of the bourgeois parliamen-
tary system of the West and the imitation of such Western
stuff as “parliamentary democracy”, “freedom of the press”
and “freedom of speech”. Their advocacy is wrong, for they
lack the Marxist viewpoint, the class viewpoint. However, the
terms great democracy and small democracy are quite graphic,
so we have borrowed them.
Democracy is a method, and it all depends on to whom it
is applied and for what purpose. We are in favour of great
democracy. And what we favour is great democracy under
the leadership of the proletariat. We mobilized the masses to
fight Chiang Kai-shek and licked him after a struggle lasting
more than twenty years. In the agrarian reform movement,
the peasant masses rose against the landlord class and got
land after three years of struggle. These were instances of
great democracy. The movement against the “three evils” was
a struggle against those of our personnel who had been cor-
rupted by the bourgeoisie. The movement against the “five
evils” was a struggle against the bourgeoisie. In both move-
ments relentless blows were dealt. These were all vigorous
mass movements and instances of great democracy. A few
days ago, masses of people held a demonstration in front of
the Office of the British Chargé d’Affaires in China, and sev-
eral hundred thousand people held a rally at Tien An Men
Square in Peking in support of Egypt’s resistance to Anglo-
French aggression. This was also an instance of great democ-
racy, aimed at imperialism. Why shouldn’t we cherish this
great democracy? We do in fact cherish it. Who is this great

45
democracy directed against? Against imperialism, feudalism
and bureaucrat-capitalism, and against capitalism. The social-
ist transformation of private industry and commerce was di-
rected against capitalism. The socialist transformation of ag-
riculture, which was designed to abolish the private owner-
ship of small producers, was by its nature also directed against
capitalism. It was by means of the mass movement that we
carried out the socialist transformation of agriculture, mobi-
lizing the peasants, principally the poor and lower-middle
peasants first, to organize themselves, so that the upper-mid-
dle peasants could not but agree. As for the fact that the cap-
italists beat drums and struck gongs to welcome the socialist
transformation, it was because they had no alternative with
the advent of the socialist upsurge in the countryside and with
the pressure from the masses of workers under them.
If great democracy is now to be practiced again, I am for
it. You are afraid of the masses taking to the streets, I am not,
not even if hundreds of thousands should do so. “He who is
not afraid of death by a thousand cuts dares to unhorse the
emperor.” This was a saying of a character in a classical Chi-
nese novel, Wang Hsi-feng, otherwise called Sister Feng. She
it was who said this. The great democracy set in motion by
the proletariat is directed against class enemies. Enemies of
the nation (who are none other than the imperialists and the
foreign monopoly capitalists) are class enemies also. Great
democracy can be directed against bureaucrats too. I just said
that there would still be revolutions ten thousand years from
now, so possibly great democracy will have to be practiced
then. If some people grow tired of life and so become bu-
reaucratic, if, when meeting the masses, they have not a single
kind word for them but only take them to task, and if they
don’t bother to solve any of the problems the masses may
have, they are destined to be overthrown. Now this danger
does exist. If you alienate yourself from the masses and fail
to solve their problems, the peasants will wield their carrying-
poles, the workers will demonstrate in the streets and the

46
students will create disturbances. Whenever such things hap-
pen, they must in the first place be taken as good things, and
that is how I look at the matter.
Several years ago, an airfield was to be built somewhere in
Honan Province, but no proper arrangements were made be-
forehand for the peasants living there nor any adequate ex-
planations offered them when they were compelled to move
out. The peasants of the village affected said, even the birds
will make a few squawks if you go poking with your pole at
their nest in a tree and try to bring it down. Teng Hsiao-ping,
you, too, have a nest, and if I destroyed it, wouldn’t you make
a few squawks? So the local people set up three lines of de-
fence: the first line was composed of children, the second of
women, and the third of able-bodied young men. All who
went there to do the surveying were driven away and the
peasants won out in the end. Later, when satisfactory expla-
nations were given and arrangements made, they agreed to
move and the airfield was built. There are quite a few similar
cases. Now there are people who seem to think that, as state
power has been won, they can sleep soundly without any
worry and play the tyrant at will. The masses will oppose such
persons, throw stones at them and strike at them with their
hoes, which will, I think, serve them right and will please me
immensely. Moreover, sometimes to fight is the only way to
solve a problem. The Communist Party needs to learn a les-
son. Whenever students and workers take to the streets, you
comrades should regard it as a good thing. There were over a
hundred students from Chengtu who wanted to come to Pe-
king to present a petition, but those in one train were halted
at the Kuangyuan station in Szechuan Province, while those
in another train got as far as Loyang but failed to reach Peking.
It is my opinion and Premier Chou’s too that the students
should have been allowed to come to Peking and call on the
departments concerned. The workers should be allowed to
go on strike and the masses to hold demonstrations. Proces-
sions and demonstrations are provided for in our

47
Constitution. In the future when the Constitution is revised,
I suggest that the freedom to strike be added, so that the
workers shall be allowed to go on strike. This will help resolve
the contradictions between the state and the factory director
on the one hand and the masses of workers on the other.
After all they are nothing but contradictions. The world is full
of contradictions. The democratic revolution resolved the set
of contradictions with imperialism, feudalism and bureau-
crat-capitalism. At present, when the contradictions with na-
tional capitalism and small production with respect to own-
ership have been basically resolved, contradictions in other
respects have come to the fore, and new contradictions have
arisen. There are several hundred thousand cadres at the level
of the county Party committee and above who hold the des-
tiny of the country in their hands. If they fail to do a good
job, alienate themselves from the masses and do not live
plainly and work hard, the workers, peasants and students will
have good reason to disapprove of them. We must watch out
lest we foster the bureaucratic style of work and grow into an
aristocratic stratum divorced from the people. The masses
will have good reason to remove from office whoever prac-
tices bureaucracy, makes no effort to solve their problems,
scolds them, tyrannizes over them and never tries to make
amends. I say it is fine to remove such fellows, and they ought
to be removed.
Now the democratic parties and the bourgeoisie are
against the great democracy of the proletariat. If we were to
start a second movement against the “five evils”, they would
not like it. They are very much afraid that the democratic par-
ties will be eliminated and will not enjoy long-term coexist-
ence if great democracy is put into practice. Do professors
like great democracy? It is hard to say, but I think they are on
their guard, they too are afraid of proletarian great democracy.
If they want to practice bourgeois great democracy, I will pro-
pose a rectification, that is, ideological remoulding. All the
students will be mobilized to criticize them, and in every

48
college a checkpoint, so to speak, will be set up which they
must pass through before the whole matter can be considered
closed. So professors, too, are afraid of proletarian great de-
mocracy.

Speech at the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Com-

mittee of the Communist Party of China
November 15, 1956

The contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are an-

tagonistic contradictions. Within the ranks of the people, the
contradictions among the working people are non-antagonis-
tic, while those between the exploited and the exploiting clas-
ses have a non-antagonistic as well as an antagonistic aspect.
There have always been contradictions among the people,
but they are different in content in each period of the revo-
lution and in the period of building socialism. In the condi-
tions prevailing in China today, the contradictions among the
people comprise the contradictions within the working class,
the contradictions within the peasantry, the contradictions
within the intelligentsia, the contradictions between the
working class and the peasantry, the contradictions between
the workers and peasants on the one hand and the intellectu-
als on the other, the contradictions between the working class
and other sections of the working people on the one hand
and the national bourgeoisie on the other, the contradictions
within the national bourgeoisie, and so on. Our People’s
Government is one that genuinely represents the people’s in-
terests, it is a government that serves the people. Neverthe-
less, there are still certain contradictions between this govern-
ment and the people. These include the contradictions be-
tween the interests of the state and the interests of the collec-
tive on the one hand and the interests of the individual on
the other, between democracy and centralism, between the
leadership and the led, and the contradictions arising from

49
the bureaucratic style of work of some of the state personnel
in their relations with the masses. All these are also contra-
dictions among the people. Generally speaking, the funda-
mental identity of the people’s interests underlies the contra-
dictions among the people.
In our country, the contradiction between the working
class and the national bourgeoisie comes under the category
of contradictions among the people. By and large, the class
struggle between the two is a class struggle within the ranks
of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has
a dual character. In the period of the bourgeois-democratic
revolution, it had both a revolutionary and a conciliationist
side to its character. In the period of the socialist revolution,
exploitation of the working class for profit constitutes one
side of the character of the national bourgeoisie, while its sup-
port of the Constitution and its willingness to accept socialist
transformation constitute the other. The national bourgeoisie
differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureau-
crat-capitalists. The contradiction between the national bour-
geoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and
exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete
conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between
the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into
a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods.
However, the contradiction between the working class and
the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction be-
tween ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it
properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criti-
cizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the na-
tional bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours.
Since they are different in nature, the contradictions be-
tween ourselves and the enemy and the contradictions among
the people must be resolved by different methods. To put it
briefly, the former entail drawing a clear distinction between
ourselves and the enemy, and the latter entail drawing a clear
distinction between right and wrong. It is of course true that

50
the distinction between ourselves and the enemy is also one
of right and wrong. For example, the question of who is in
the right, we or the domestic and foreign reactionaries, the
imperialists, the feudalists and bureaucrat-capitalists, is also
one of right and wrong, but it is in a different category from
questions of right and wrong among the people.
Our state is a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the
working class and based on the worker-peasant alliance. What
is this dictatorship for? Its first function is internal, namely,
to suppress the reactionary classes and elements and those
exploiters who resist the socialist revolution, to suppress
those who try to wreck our socialist construction, or in other
words, to resolve the contradictions between ourselves and
the internal enemy. For instance, to arrest, try and sentence
certain counter-revolutionaries, and to deprive landlords and
bureaucrat-capitalists of their right to vote and their freedom
of speech for a certain period of time -- all this comes within
the scope of our dictatorship. To maintain public order and
safeguard the interests of the people, it is necessary to exer-
cise dictatorship as well over thieves, swindlers, murderers,
arsonists, criminal gangs and other scoundrels who seriously
disrupt public order. The second function of this dictatorship
is to protect our country from subversion and possible ag-
gression by external enemies. In such contingencies, it is the
task of this dictatorship to resolve the contradiction between
ourselves and the external enemy. The aim of this dictator-
ship is to protect all our people so that they can devote them-
selves to peaceful labour and make China a socialist country
with modern industry, modern agriculture, and modern sci-
ence and culture. Who is to exercise this dictatorship? Natu-
rally, the working class and the entire people under its lead-
ership. Dictatorship does not apply within the ranks of the
people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over them-
selves, nor must one section of the people oppress another.
Law-breakers among the people will be punished according
to law, but this is different in principle from the exercise of

51
dictatorship to suppress enemies of the people. What applies
among the people is democratic centralism. Our Constitution
lays it down that citizens of the People’s Republic of China
enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association,
procession, demonstration, religious belief, and so on. Our
Constitution also provides that the organs of state must prac-
tice democratic centralism, that they must rely on the masses
and that their personnel must serve the people. Our socialist
democracy is the broadest kind of democracy, such as is not
to be found in any bourgeois state. Our dictatorship is the
people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and
based on the worker-peasant alliance. That is to say, democ-
racy operates within the ranks of the people, while the work-
ing class, uniting with all others enjoying civil rights, and in
the first place with the peasantry, enforces dictatorship over
the reactionary classes and elements and all those who resist
socialist transformation and oppose socialist construction. By
civil rights, we mean, politically, the rights of freedom and
democracy.
But this freedom is freedom with leadership and this de-
mocracy is democracy under centralized guidance, not anar-
chy. Anarchy does not accord with the interests or wishes of
the people.
[...]
n socialist society the basic contradictions are still those
between the relations of production and the productive
forces and between the superstructure and the economic base.
However, they are fundamentally different in character and
have different features from the contradictions between the
relations of production and the productive forces and be-
tween the superstructure and the economic base in the old
societies. The present social system of our country is far su-
perior to that of the old days. If it were not so, the old system
would not have been overthrown and the new system could
not have been established. In saying that the socialist relations
of production correspond better to the character of the

52
productive forces than did the old relations of production,
we mean that they allow the productive forces to develop at
a speed unattainable in the old society, so that production can
expand steadily and increasingly meet the constantly growing
needs of the people. Under the rule of imperialism, feudalism
and bureaucrat-capitalism, the productive forces of the old
China grew very slowly. For more than fifty years before lib-
eration, China produced only a few tens of thousands of tons
of steel a year, not counting the output of the northeastern
provinces. If these provinces are included, the peak annual
steel output only amounted to a little over 900,000 tons. In
1949, the national steel output was a little over 100,000 tons.
Yet now, a mere seven years after the liberation of our coun-
try, steel output already exceeds 4,000,000 tons. In the old
China, there was hardly any machine-building industry, to say
nothing of the automobile and aircraft industries; now we
have all three. When the people overthrew the rule of impe-
rialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, many were not
clear as to which way China should head -- towards capitalism
or towards socialism. Facts have now provided the answer:
Only socialism can save China. The socialist system has pro-
moted the rapid development of the productive forces of our
country, a fact even our enemies abroad have had to
acknowledge.
But our socialist system has only just been set up; it is not
yet fully established or fully consolidated. In joint state-pri-
vate industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still get
a fixed rate of interest on their capital, that is to say, exploita-
tion still exists. So far as ownership is concerned, these enter-
prises are not yet completely socialist in nature. A number of
our agricultural and handicraft producers’ co-operatives are
still semi-socialist, while even in the fully socialist co-opera-
tives certain specific problems of ownership remain to be
solved. Relations between production and exchange in ac-
cordance with socialist principles are being gradually estab-
lished within and between all branches of our economy, and

53
more and more appropriate forms are being sought. The
problem of the proper relation of accumulation to consump-
tion within each of the two sectors of the socialist economy
-- the one where the means of production are owned by the
whole people and the other where the means of production
are. owned by the collective -- and the problem of the proper
relation of accumulation to consumption between the two
sectors themselves are complicated problems for which it is
not easy to work out a perfectly rational solution all at once.
To sum up, socialist relations of production have been estab-
lished and are in correspondence with the growth of the pro-
ductive forces, but these relations are still far from perfect,
and this imperfection stands in contradiction to the growth
of the productive forces. Apart from correspondence as well
as contradiction between the relations of production and the
growth: of the productive forces, there is correspondence as
well as contradiction between the superstructure and the eco-
nomic base. The superstructure, comprising the state system
and laws of the people’s democratic dictatorship and the so-
cialist ideology guided by Marxism-Leninism, plays a positive
role in facilitating the victory of socialist transformation and
the socialist way of organizing labour; it is in correspondence
with the socialist economic base, that is, with socialist rela-
tions of production. But the existence of bourgeois ideology,
a certain bureaucratic style of work in our state organs and
defects in some of the links in our state institutions are in
contradiction with the socialist economic base. We must con-
tinue to resolve all such contradictions in the light of our spe-
cific conditions. Of course, new problems will emerge as
these contradictions are resolved. And further efforts will be
required to resolve the new contradictions. For instance, a
constant process of readjustment through state planning is
needed to deal with the contradiction between production
and the needs of society, which will long remain an objective
reality. Every year our country draws up an economic plan in
order to establish a proper ratio between accumulation and

54
consumption and achieve an equilibrium between production
and needs. Equilibrium is nothing but a temporary, relative,
unity of opposites. By the end of each year, this equilibrium,
taken as a whole, is upset by the struggle of opposites; the
unity undergoes a change, equilibrium becomes disequilib-
rium, unity becomes disunity, and once again it is necessary
to work out an equilibrium and unity for the next year. Herein
lies the superiority of our planned economy. As a matter of
fact, this equilibrium, this unity, is partially upset every month
or every quarter, and partial readjustments are called for.
Sometimes, contradictions arise and the equilibrium is upset
because our subjective arrangements do not conform to ob-
jective reality; this is what we call making a mistake. The
ceaseless emergence and ceaseless resolution of contradic-
tions constitute the dialectical law of the development of
things.
Today, matters stand as follows. The large-scale, turbulent
class struggles of the masses characteristic of times of revo-
lution have in the main come to an end, but class struggle is
by no means entirely over. While welcoming the new system,
the masses are not yet quite accustomed to it. Government
personnel are not sufficiently experienced and have to under-
take further study and investigation of specific policies. In
other words, time is needed for our socialist system to be-
come established and consolidated, for the masses to become
accustomed to the new system, and for government person-
nel to learn and acquire experience. It is therefore imperative
for us at this juncture to raise the question of distinguishing
contradictions among the people from those between our-
selves and the enemy, as well as the question of the correct
handling of contradictions among the people, in order to
unite the people of all nationalities in our country for the new
battle, the battle against nature, develop our economy and
culture, help the whole nation to traverse this period of tran-
sition relatively smoothly, consolidate our new system and
build up our new state.

55
 On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
February 27, 1957

The basic thing is to have faith in the majority of the people,

in the fact that the majority are good. The majority of the
workers are good, and so are the majority of the peasants.
And so are most members of the Communist Party and the
Youth League. None of them want to throw our country into
disorder. Most of the bourgeois intellectuals, the capitalists
and the members of the democratic parties can be remoulded.
Therefore we need not be afraid, for there won’t and can’t be
disorder. We must have faith in the majority, and by that do
we mean 51 per cent? No, we do not, we mean 90 to 98 per
cent.
The socialist revolution is new to us all. The revolution we
carried out in the past was only a democratic revolution,
which was bourgeois in nature. It only destroyed imperialist,
feudal and bureaucrat-capitalist ownership, but not individual
ownership or national capitalist ownership. Thus many peo-
ple could pass the test of the democratic revolution. While
some were not really keen on a thoroughgoing democratic
revolution and barely managed to come through, others were
willing to work hard for it and passed the test all right. The
test now is socialism, and it is hard for some people.
[...]
Many people take exception to what I said on April 30. [2]
“With the skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself?” I said
there used to be five skins in China. Three of them were old
ones, namely, imperialist ownership, feudal ownership and
bureaucrat-capitalist ownership. In the past the intellectuals
depended on these skins for a living. They also depended on
national capitalist ownership and on ownership by small pro-
ducers, that is, petty-bourgeois ownership. Our democratic
revolution was aimed at removing the first three skins and,

56
counting from the time of Lin Tse-hsu, [3] it went on for
more than a century. The last two skins, namely, national cap-
italist and small producer ownership, were targets of the so-
cialist revolution. All these five skins are now things of the
past. The three older skins disappeared long ago and now the
other two are gone. What skin is there now? The skin of so-
cialist public ownership. Of course, this is divided into two
parts, ownership by the whole people and ownership by the
collective. On whom do they depend for a living? Whether
members of the democratic parties, professors, scientists or
journalists, they all depend on the working class, on the col-
lective peasants, on ownership by the whole people and on
ownership by the collective, in a word, they live off socialist
public ownership. With those five skins gone, the hair is fly-
ing in mid-air and it won’t stay put when it comes down. The
intellectuals still look with disdain on this new skin, they have
a very low opinion of the proletariat and the poor and lower-
middle peasants, who, they say, are as ignorant of astronomy
as of geography, and they think that people of all “three reli-
gions and nine schools of thought”[4] are not fit to hold a
candle to them. The intellectuals are reluctant to accept Marx-
ism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism was opposed by many
people in the past. The imperialists opposed it. Chiang Kai-
shek opposed it, day in day out, saying “Communism is not
suited to China’s conditions” and making people afraid of it.
It requires time as well as a socialist ideological revolutionary
movement for intellectuals to embrace Marxism-Leninism
and transform their bourgeois world outlook into the prole-
tarian world outlook. The movement this year is meant to
pave the way.
______________
1. In October 1957 the Polish Government banned the weekly Po
Prostu, which led to student riots.
2. This refers to the address by Comrade Mao Tse-tung on April
30, 1957 at a meeting of leading members of the democratic parties
and democrats without party affiliation on the rectification move-
ment and the ideological remoulding of intellectuals.

57
3. Lin Tse-hsu (1785-1850), Ching Dynasty viceroy of Kwangtung
and Kwangsi Provinces during the First Opium War, stood for res-
olute resistance to British aggression.
4. In ancient China, the three religions were Confucianism, Taoism
and Buddhism, and the nine schools of thought were the Confu-
cians, the Taoists, the Yin-Yang, the Legalists, the Logicians, the
Mohists, the Political Strategists, the Eclectics and the Agricultur-
ists. Later the “three religions and nine schools of thought” took
on a broader meaning to indicate the different religious sects and
academic schools. In the old society the phrase was also used to
mean people in dubious trades.

Have Firm Faith in the Majority of the People

October 13, 1957

We should not be afraid of the masses but should be with

them Some comrades fear the masses just as they fear water.
Do you swim? I encourage swimming everywhere I go. Water
is a good thing. If you put in an hour every day to learn swim-
ming and keep it up, taking a dip today and another tomor-
row, I bet you will learn how in a hundred days. First, you
mustn’t get a coach, second, you mustn’t use a rubber tyre, as
you won’t learn if you use one. “But I fear for my life, I can’t
swim yet!” Well, you can first start in shallow water. Suppose
you are to learn swimming in a hundred days, you paddle in
the shallow water for thirty days and then you get the hang
of it. Once you know how, it makes no difference whether
you go swimming in the Yangtse River or in the Pacific
Ocean, it is just water, the same thing. Some argue that you
can’t drown in a swimming-pool, because somebody will
come to your rescue if you sink; but swimming in the Yangtse
is terrifying, the current is so swift, won’t you be lost for good
once you go under? This is an argument some use to scare
people. I say that’s the way amateurs talk. None of our top-
notch swimmers, none of our coaches and experts at the
swimming-pools dared to go swimming in the Yangtse at first,

58
but they do now. Don’t people swim in your Whangpoo
River here nowadays? The Whangpoo and the Yangtse are
admission-free swimming-pools. Metaphorically speaking,
the people are like water and the leaders at various levels are
like swimmers who must stay in the water and swim with the
current, not against it. Don’t rail at the masses! In no circum-
stances must you do so. You mustn’t rail at the worker, peas-
ant and student masses and the majority of the members of
the democratic parties and of the intellectuals. You mustn’t
set yourselves up against the masses, on the contrary you
must always be with them. The masses may make mistakes.
When they do, patiently reason things out with them, and if
they refuse to listen, then wait for another chance to talk to
them. But don’t alienate yourselves from them, just as in
swimming you don’t leave the water. When Liu Pei got
Chukeh Liang to help him, he said he felt “just like a fish in
water”. This is all true. Their fish-water relationship is not
only described in fiction but recorded in history. The masses
are Chukeh Liangs, the leaders are Liu Peis. One leads, the
other is led.
All wisdom comes from the masses. I have always said that
it is intellectuals who are most ignorant. This is the heart of
the matter. Overweening intellectuals stick up their tails
which are longer than that of the Monkey Sun Wu-kung. Sun
Wu-kung can make seventy-two metamorphoses, and on one
occasion he changes his tail into a Flagstaff -- that long. It’s
just terrific when the intellectuals stick up their tails. “If I’m
not Number One Under Heaven, then I’m at least Number
Two.” “Who do the workers and peasants think they are?
They’re just blockheads! They can barely read and write.” But
the over-all situation is determined not by the intellectuals but
ultimately by the working people, by their most advanced sec-
tion, the proletariat.
Which leads which – the proletariat the bourgeoisie, or
vice versa? The proletariat the intellectuals, or vice versa? The
intellectuals must transform themselves into proletarian

59
intellectuals. There is no other way out for them. “With the
skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself?”[3] In the past
the “hair”, meaning the intellectuals, attached itself to five
“skins”, that is, depended on them for a living. Imperialist
ownership was the first skin, feudal ownership the second
and bureaucrat-capitalist ownership the third. Wasn’t the pur-
pose of the democratic revolution to topple the three big
mountains of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capital-
ism? National capitalist ownership was the fourth skin, and
the fifth was ownership by small producers, that is, individual
ownership by the peasants and handicraftsmen. In the past
the intellectuals attached themselves either to the first three
skins or to the latter two and depended on them for a living.
Do these five skins still exist? “The skins are gone.” Imperi-
alism is gone and its property has been taken over. Feudal
ownership was liquidated and the land restored to the peas-
ants, and now there is agricultural co-operation. Bureaucrat-
capitalist enterprises were nationalized. National capitalist in-
dustry and commerce have been transformed into joint state-
private enterprises and have by and large become socialist en-
terprises, though not entirely. Individual ownership by the
peasants and handicraftsmen has been changed into collec-
tive ownership, even though the latter is not yet consolidated
and will take a few years to consolidate itself. These five skins
are no more, but they have a lingering effect on the “hair”,
on the capitalists and the intellectuals. These people can’t get
these skins out of their systems, and even dwell on them in
their dreams. Those who came over from the old society, the
old orbits, are nostalgic for their old habits and ways of life.
Therefore the transformation of man will take a much longer
time.
At present what kind of skin do intellectuals attach them-
selves to? To the skin of public ownership, to the proletariat.
Who provides them with a living? The workers and peasants.
Intellectuals are teachers employed by the working class and
the labouring people to teach their children. If they go against

60
the wishes of their masters and insist on teaching their own
set of subjects, teaching stereotyped writing, Confucian clas-
sics or capitalist rubbish, and turn out a number of counter-
revolutionaries, the working class will not tolerate it and will
sack them and not renew their contract for the coming year.
As I said here a hundred days ago, the intellectuals from
the old society are now without a base, they have lost their
former social and economic base, that is, the five skins, and
they have no alternative but to attach themselves to a new
one. Some intellectuals are now unsettled. Suspended as they
are in mid-air, they have nothing to hang on to above and no
solid ground to rest their feet on below. I say, these people
may be called “gentlemen in mid-air”. Flying in mid-air, they
want to go back but are unable to because they find their old
home, those skins, gone. Though now homeless, they are still
unwilling to attach themselves to the proletariat. If they are
to do so, they must make a study of proletarian ideas, have
some feeling for the proletariat and make friends with work-
ers and peasants. But no, they won’t. They still hanker after
what they know is gone. What we are doing now is persuad-
ing them to wake up. After this great debate, I think they will
wake up somehow or other.
______________
3. Tso Chuan, “The 14th Year of Marquis Hsi”.

Beat Back the Attacks of the Bourgeois Rightists

July 9, 1957

Here (p. 331) the text goes on to express the view that the
reason why countries dominated by precapitalist economic
forms could carry through a socialist revolution was because
of assistance from advanced socialist countries. This is an in-
complete way of putting the matter. After the democratic rev-
olution succeeded in China we were able to take the path of
socialism mainly because we overthrew the rule of

61
imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism. The inter-
nal factors were the main ones. While the assistance we re-
ceived from successful socialist countries was an important
condition, it was not one which could settle the question of
whether or not we could take the road of socialism, but only
one which could influence our rate of advance after we had
taken the road. With aid we could advance more quickly,
without it less so. What we mean by assistance includes, in
addition to economic aid, our studious application of the pos-
itive and negative experiences of both the successes and the
failures of the assisting country.
[...]
At the end of page 330 the text takes up the transfor-
mation of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolu-
tion but does not clearly explain how the transformation is
effected. The October Revolution was a socialist revolution
which concomitantly fulfilled tasks left over from the bour-
geois democratic revolution. Immediately after the victory of
the October Revolution the nationalization of land was pro-
claimed. But bringing the democratic revolution to a conclu-
sion on the land question was yet to take a period of time.
During the War of Liberation China solved the tasks of
the democratic revolution. The founding of the People’s Re-
public of China in 1949 marked the basic conclusion of the
democratic revolution and the beginning of the transition to
socialism. It took another three years to conclude the land
reform, but at the time the Republic was founded we imme-
diately expropriated the bureaucrat capitalist enterprises —
80 percent of the fixed assets of our industry and transport
— and converted them to ownership by the whole people.
During the War of Liberation we raised antibureaucrat
capitalist slogans as well as anti-imperialist and antifeudal
ones. The struggle against bureaucrat-capitalism had a two
sided character: it had a democratic revolutionary character
insofar as it amounted to opposition to comprador

62
capitalism,[4] but it had a socialist character insofar as it
amounted to opposition to the big bourgeoisie.
After the war of resistance was won, the Nationalist Party
[KMT] took over a very large portion of bureaucrat capital
from Japan and Germany and Italy. The ratio of bureaucratic
to national [i.e., Chinese] capital was 8 to 2. After liberation
we expropriated all bureaucrat capital, thus eliminating the
major components of Chinese capitalism.[5]
But it would be wrong to think that after the liberation of
the whole country “the revolution in its earliest stages had
only in the main the character of a bourgeois democratic rev-
olution and not until later would it gradually develop into a
socialist revolution.” [No page reference]
[...]

8. Transforming Capitalist Industry and Commerce

On page 335 there is an incorrect explanation of the pro-

cess by which capitalist ownership changed into state owner-
ship in China. The book only explains our policy toward na-
tional capital but not our policy toward bureaucrat capital (ex-
propriation). In order to convert the property of the bureau-
crat capitalist to public ownership we chose the method of
expropriation.
In paragraph 2 of page 335 the experience of passing
through the state capitalist form in order to transform capi-
talism is treated as a singular and special experience; its uni-
versal significance is denied. The countries of Western Eu-
rope and the United States have a very high level of capitalist
development, and the controlling positions are held by a mi-
nority of monopoly capitalists. But there are a great number
of small and middle capitalists as well. Thus it is said that
American capital is concentrated but also widely distributed.
After a successful revolution in these countries monopoly
capital will undoubtedly have to be expropriated, but will the
small and middle capitalists likewise be uniformly

63
expropriated? It may well be the case that some form of state
capitalism will have to be adopted to transform them.
Our northeast provinces may be thought of as a region
with a high level of capitalist development. The same is true
for Kiangsu (with centers in Shanghai and the southern part
of the province). If state capitalism could work in these areas,
tell me why the same policy could not work in other countries
which resemble these provincial sectors?
The method the Japanese used when they held our north-
east provinces was to eliminate the major local capitalists and
turn their enterprises into Japanese state-managed, or in some
cases monopoly capitalist enterprises. For the small and mid-
dle capitalists they established subsidiary companies as a
means of imposing control.
Our transformation of national capital passed through
three stages: private manufacture on state order, unified gov-
ernment purchase and sale of private output, joint state pri-
vate operation (of individual units and of whole complexes).
Each phase was carried out in a methodical way. This pre-
vented any damage to production, which actually developed
as the transformation progressed. We have gained much new
experience with state capitalism; for one example, the provid-
ing of capitalists with fixed interest after the joint state-pri-
vate operation phase.[7]
[...]

26. The Claim That “for China There Is No Necessity to

Adopt Acute Forms of Class Struggle”

There is an error on page 419. After the October Revolu-

tion Russia’s bourgeoisie saw that the country’s economy had
suffered severe damage, and so they decided that the prole-
tariat could not change the situation and lacked the strength
to maintain its political power. They judged that they only had
to make the move and proletarian political power could be
overthrown. At this point they carried out armed resistance,

64
thus compelling the Russian proletariat to take drastic steps
to expropriate their property. At that time neither class had
much experience.
To say that China’s class struggle is not acute is unrealistic.
It was fierce enough! We fought for twenty-two years straight.
By waging war we overthrew the rule of the bourgeoisie’s Na-
tionalist Party, and expropriated bureaucrat capital, which
amounted to 80 percent of our entire capitalist economy.
Only thus was it possible for us to use peaceful methods to
remold the remaining 20 percent of national capital. In the
remoulding process we still had to go through such fierce
struggles as the “three-antis” and the “five-antis” cam-
paigns.[16]
Page 420 incorrectly describes the remoulding of bour-
geois industrial and commercial enterprises. After Liberation
the national bourgeoisie was forced to take the road of so-
cialist remoulding. We brought down Chiang Kai-shek, ex-
propriated bureaucrat capital, concluded the land reform, car-
ried out the “three-antis” and “five-antis” campaigns, and
made the cooperatives a working reality. We controlled the
markets from the beginning. This series of transformations
forced the national bourgeoisie to accept remoulding step by
step. From yet another point of view, the Common Program
stipulated that various kinds of economic interests were to be
given scope. This enabled the capitalists to try for what prof-
its they could. In addition, the constitution gave them the
right to a ballot and a living. These things helped the bour-
geoisie to realize that by accepting remoulding they could
hold onto a social position and also play a certain role in the
culture and in the economy.
In joint state-private enterprises the capitalists have no real
managerial rights over the enterprise. Production is certainly
not jointly managed by the capitalists and representatives of
the public. Nor can it be said that “Capital’s exploitation of
labor has been limited.” It has been virtually curtailed. The
text seems to have missed the idea that the jointly operated

65
enterprises we are speaking of were 75 per cent socialist. Of
course at present they are 90 percent socialist or more.
The remoulding of capitalist industry and commerce has
been basically concluded. But if the capitalists had the chance
they would attack us without restraint. In 1957 we pushed
back the onslaught of the right.[17] In 1959, through their
representatives in the party, they again set in motion an attack
against us.[18] Our policy toward the national capitalists is to
take them along with us and then to encompass them.
The text uses Lenin’s statement that state capitalism “con-
tinues the class struggle in another form.” This is correct. (p.
421)
______________
5. For Comrade Mao’s discussions of the importance of bureaucrat
capital and policy toward it at that time, see “The Present Situation
and Our Tasks,” December 25, 1947, and “Report to the Second
Session of the Seventh Central Committee,” March 5, 1949, in Se-
lected Works of Mao Tse-tung, vol. 4 (Peking: Foreign Languages
Press, 1961), pp. 167-68 and 361-75.
7. Fixed interest was a specific part of the CCP’s strategy of “buying
out” the national bourgeoisie. After Liberation, policy toward them
went through several stages. The first stage was the placing of or-
ders by the state with private enterprises for manufacturing and
processing and the unified purchase and distribution of products
produced by these enterprises. After the rectification campaign in
private industry in 1952, a second phase of “dividing the profits
into four shares” was implemented. The four relatively equal shares
were: (1) taxes paid to the state; (2) contributions to the worker
welfare fund; (3) enterprise development funds; and (4) profits for
the capitalists.
16. The “three-antis” (Sanfan) campaign, begun in the northeast in
August 1951 and nationally in January 1952, was directed against
corruption, waste, and bureaucratism among government employ-
ees, many of whom were still carryovers from the Nationalist re-
gime. The “five-antis” (Wufan) campaign was directed at the na-
tional bourgeoisie. Its specific foci were the elimination of bribery,
theft of state property, tax evasion, theft of state economic secrets,
and embezzlement in carrying out government contracts.

66
17. Here Comrade Mao is referring to the rightist criticisms of the
CCP during the “blooming and contending” period in the spring of
1957, shortly after he had delivered his talk, “On the Correct Han-
dling of Contradictions Among the People,” in February 1957.

Reading Notes on the Soviet Text Political Economy

1961-62

67
Introduction to Part II

Only by mobilizing and organizing the workers and peasants,

who comprise 90 per cent of the population, is it possible to
overthrow imperialism and feudalism.

Chairman Mao

The life of communists is struggle, not solace. Marx once re-

plied to his daughter: what is happiness? It is struggle; years
later Chairman Mao taught: to work is to struggle. We cling
to all of this; our difficulties can be overcome because we are a
new force with a bright future.

Chairman Gonzalo

The organization of the workers and peasants with a purely

class character constitutes the object of our efforts and our prop-
aganda.

José Carlos Mariátegui

The present document compiles a series of texts of the

Communist Party of Peru in which one of the most im-
portant theses of Maoism, bureaucrat-capitalism, is dealt with,
as well as how the CPP conceives the restructuring of the
state and deals with other themes. It is key to fully understand
bureaucrat-capitalism, since this will allow us at the same time
to understand the character of society, as well as the road of
the revolution to follow.
The document has no other objective than to provide the-
oretical guidelines that will allow us to apply Marxism-Lenin-
ism-Maoism to our concrete reality, and to clearly identify
and analyze the existing social classes, as well as the system
of government and the state system.

68
 We hope that this compilation of texts will serve our peo-
ple in the process of politicization, mobilization and organi-
zation on the road to raise their class consciousness and as-
sume the transforming role that corresponds to them in his-
tory towards the construction of a society of new democracy,
passing uninterruptedly to the socialist revolution, and
through cultural revolutions to reach our golden goal: com-
munism.

Center For Popular Studies

Bolivia, February 2006

69
Part II:
The Communist Party of Peru on
Bureaucrat-Capitalism

2. BUREAUCRAT-CAPITALISM

This question is important for the comprehension of Pe-

ruvian society, and ignorance of it is the root of grave political
errors. The thesis of bureaucrat-capitalism is found in the
classics and in Mariátegui, although he used another term.

a. What do we mean by bureaucrat-capitalism?

This is the capitalism that imperialism promotes in a back-

wards country; the type of capitalism, the special form of cap-
italism, that is imposed by an imperialist country onto a back-
wards country, whether it is semi-feudal or semi-colonial. Let
us analyze this historic process.
How did capitalism develop in the old European nations?
Consider France; toward the end of the 18th Century it was
a feudal country, with 20-22.000.000 peasants while workers
numbered only around 600.000 (from which we can see the
feudal passage it had); it was based on servitude of various
forms. Nevertheless, within the feudal entrails of France new
productive forms, of manufacturing, and capitalist forms
were generated, and a class, the bourgeoisie, was gaining ever
more force, more economic power, including political influ-
ence. We ask: Was France a nation subjugated by another?
No. France was an absolute monarchy that contested with
England for global hegemony, it was not oppressed by any-
one. Its socio-economic and historical conditions had made
it develop that way. Did imperialism exist in that era? No.
Imperialism is of this century. What existed were countries
undergoing capitalist development, like England for example,

70
and France was independently developing a capitalist society.
Other countries followed the same path, and when they
reached the 19th Century, France, England, Belgium, Hol-
land, etc. were capitalist countries that developed in-de-
pendently.
What was the situation of Latin America in the 19th Cen-
tury? When the emancipation of America began (1810), the
nations of Europe were al-ready powerful, whereas the Latin
American ones had only recently begun to structure their na-
tionalities, a problem that has not yet been concluded. More-
over, soon after becoming independent these nations fall un-
der the domination of a power, namely England; thus their
capitalism will develop under English domination, a kind of
dependent capitalism. Thus, there is a well-known historical,
economic, and political difference compared to the European
process.
On another side, the bourgeoisies that develop in Latin
America begin to link themselves more and more to the dom-
inant country, in such a way that these weak bourgeoisies, in-
stead of developing independently like the Europeans did,
serving the national interests, they evolve as subjugated bour-
geoisies, dependent, given over body and soul to the imperi-
alist powers (England or the US) to the extent they even be-
lieve in converting themselves into rich men and developed
intermediate bourgeoisies, as our history in this century
shows.
This latter path is the one taken in Peru. As we have seen,
in the second decade of this century Yankee imperialism sup-
planted English domination.

b. Three Lines Within Bureaucrat-capitalism

Bureaucrat-capitalism develops three lines within its pro-

cess: a landlord line in the countryside, a bureaucratic one in
industry, and a third, also bureaucratic, in the ideological

71
sphere. This is without pretending that that these are the only
ones.
It introduces the landlord line in the countryside by way
of expropiatory agrarian laws that do not aim to destroy the
feudal landlord class and their property, but rather progres-
sively evolve them by means of the purchase and payment of
the land for the peasants. The bureaucratic line in industry
aims at controlling and centralizing industrial production,
commerce, etc., putting them ever more in the hands of mo-
nopoly with the goal of sponsoring a more rapid and system-
atic accumulation of capital, to the detriment of the working
class and other workers, naturally, to the benefit of the big-
gest monopolies and consequently imperialism. In this pro-
cess the forced saving which workers are subjected to plays
an important role, as we can see in the industrial law. The
bureaucratic line in ideology consists of the process of mold-
ing the people, by means of the massive diffusion, especially
in political conceptions and ideas, that serve bureaucrat-cap-
italism. The general law of education is a concentrated ex-
pression of this line, and one of the constants of this line is
its anti-Communism, its anti-Marxism, whether open or con-
cealed.
These three lines form part of the bureaucratic path, which
is op-posed by the DEMOCRATIC PATH, the revolution-
ary road of the people. If the former defends feudal property,
the latter proposes its destruction, and it opposes the buying
of lands with confiscation; if the former recognizes and for-
tifies imperialist industrial property, the latter denies it and
struggles for its confiscation; if the former fights to ideologi-
cally subjugate the people, the latter strives to arm them ide-
ologically; if the former attacks Marxism, the latter upholds
that we must guide ourselves by Marxism as the only scien-
tific instrument to understand reality. They are thus two ab-
solutely contrary paths. The history of the country in this cen-
tury is a history of struggle between these two paths: the bu-
reaucratic path, that is capitalism submitted to imperialism,

72
and the democratic path, the road of the working class, the
peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and under certain circum-
stances, the national bourgeoisie. In order to understand bu-
reaucrat-capitalism, it is very useful to study and analyze the
decade of the 1960s, during which the process of the destruc-
tion of feudalism advanced more; in this period industry and
capitalist relations in agriculture are strengthened. From an-
other side, the class struggle developed greatly; the trade un-
ion movement, the peasant movement, and the student
movement reached higher levels. Thus a strong trade union
movement developed that in a particular moment took local-
ities and bosses as hostages; the peasant movement also had
a great apogee, in the second half of 1963 it ran from the
center of the country to the south like a trail of gunpowder;
and the student movement rose rapidly. In synthesis, the
mass struggles have lived through great experiences in this
period of political struggles.
Thus, party politics had a great apogee, on the one hand
the reactionary political parties entered into grave difficulties
and struggles leading up to the crisis of the so-called “repre-
sentative democracy” in 1967 and 1968, and on the other the
left developed a vigorous political life, within which it un-
leashed the struggle between Marxism and revisionism, which
later re-took the path of Mariátegui as a condition to develop
the revolution.
Another very important deed which is not sufficiently
studied is the question of the guerrillas: in 1965 there was a
outbreak of guerrilla warfare, including this zone. The guer-
rilla movement in the country is part of the national process.
It is a primary question that must be highlighted because due
to sectarianism, sometimes it is considered as simply the ex-
perience of an organization and it is not seen as the experi-
ence of the Peruvian people. It is a movement intimately
linked to the political process of the country, developed ac-
cording to petty bourgeois conceptions; it is a great

73
experience that needs to be analyzed from the point of view
of the proletariat in order to draw fruitful lessons.
It is impossible to understand our situation and perspec-
tive since 1970 without understanding the concrete condi-
tions of the 1960s. There is a good thing: in the last few years,
the Peruvian intelligentsia begins to under-stand the necessity
of studying the decade of the 1960s. Only by understanding
this period will we be better armed ideologically, in order to
understand the current situation.
The problem of bureaucrat-capitalism is important be-
cause it al-lows us to understand which is the dominant path
that imperialism imposes on a backwards country, on a semi-
feudal and semi-colonial country; by understanding this
problem we will be armed and equipped to combat the thesis
of the capitalist character of the country and its political der-
ivations.
In order to conclude this theme, we will deal with the fol-
lowing: some maintain that to hold that bureaucrat-capitalism
is in the country is to ignore its semi-feudal and semi-colonial
character; they say it proposes that the nation is capitalist in
a hidden manner. This is an error ignores the laws of social
development of our country and of the backwards countries;
precisely because bureaucrat-capitalism is no more than the
path of imperialism in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial coun-
try and without semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions
there would be no bureaucrat-capitalism. Thus, to propose
the existence of bureaucrat-capitalism is to propose as a
premise that the country is semi-feudal and semi-colonial.

3. THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF THE

COUNTRY

a. The Conditions Under Which the Current Regime Grows

Under what conditions does the current regime arise? Let

us go back to the end of the 1960s. What was happening?

74
Economic problems: in 1967 the currency devaluation, freez-
ing of credits, etc. An economic crisis. On another side, the
struggle of the masses was rising, strong worker and peas-ant
struggles, and we saw daily that characteristics similar to those
in the first year of the decade were beginning to present
themselves; a future rise in the movement of the masses was
within sight. In politics, confrontations and factionalizing be-
tween and within the political organizations of the ruling clas-
ses; the famous dispute between parliament and the executive.
Furthermore, the elections drew near, creating the juncture
for many of the nation’s problems to be illuminated, even for
the parties in dispute, because in their eagerness to get votes
the “dragged out their dirty laundry”. Ideologically our coun-
try had passed through a profound debate of ideas and this
greatly clarified what is Marxism and what is revisionism. Fur-
thermore the path of Mariátegui began to be retaken by ap-
plying Marxism to the concrete conditions of the country.
Aside from the above we must highlight two situations:
1. The economic situation of the country, which is the de-
velopment of bureaucrat-capitalism could no longer continue
developing itself in the old way, urging its deepening. It
needed to open a wider path so that this process in the form
of imperialism would advance; with the previous forms it
could not advance. We must not forget that for many years
the agrarian problem was discussed, there were even agrarian
laws: the Beltran project, the laws of Pérez Godoy and of
Belaúnde. Another question: in the industrial problem the law
of the second government of Prado was now insufficient and
raised again the necessity of making industrial parks, give a
priority to the state role in planning, etc. There is the plan of
Belaúnde of 1967 to 1970 that stated the necessity of chang-
ing the social condition of the country in order to construct
a “new society, national, democratic, and Christian”. In con-
clusion, the process of bureaucrat-capitalism needed to
deepen itself.

75
 2. In the country there was the so-called “representative
democracy”, but parliamentarism did not satisfy the needs of
the exploiters; the popular masses advanced with relative ease
putting the exploiting classes in difficult, although temporary,
positions. Thus, they needed to substitute the representative
modality, parliamentarism. Was this a typical case that only
happened in our country? No. The decade of the 1960s im-
plied the fragility of the so-called “regime of representative
democracy” in Latin America, the crisis of parliamentarism,
and consequently the need to substitute it for State modalities
more efficient for reaction.
In synthesis, the economic necessities of deepening bu-
reaucrat-capitalism and the fragility of parliamentarism, in the
conditions indicated, presented the exploiting classes and im-
perialism with the necessity of a new political establishment
for the country. Thus, the current regime arises from eco-
nomic, social, and political necessities of deepening bureau-
crat-capitalism.

On the National Question

1974

a) Class development and struggle in Peruvian society. Mod-

ern industry was developed in Peru from 1895 and completed
in the decade of the 1920’s, a decade demarcating the impetus
of bureaucrat-capitalism under Yankee domination. This in-
dustrialization took place in a semi-feudal society whose
economy developed increasingly subjected to North Ameri-
can imperialism, which displaced English domination. That
way bureaucrat-capitalism implies development of our semi-
colonial condition and underscores the entire development
of Peruvian society. This understanding is vital to interpret
the Peruvian class struggle in the 20th century.
[...]

76
 But economic matters do not end here. He also analyzed
the economy of the underdeveloped nations; he astutely ana-
lyzed the semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition of the
Latin America countries, especially ours. He showed how in-
dustrialization in the backwards nations is tied to and devel-
ops as a function of the imperialist powers, in the case of Peru
Yankee imperialism. He saw clearly how imperialism does
not allow the backwards nations to develop a national econ-
omy nor independent industrialization; how on top of their
semi-feudal base monopoly capitalism is installed, linked to
the feudal landlords and generating a “mercantile bourgeoi-
sie,” a bourgeoisie controlled by imperialism for which it is
the intermediate plunderer of national resources and the ex-
ploiters of the people. And he set forth the following thesis,
which we must not forget, about the Latin American repub-
lics: “The economic condition of these republics is, without
a doubt, semi-colonial; and to the same degree that capitalism
grows, and consequently imperialist penetration, this aspect
of their economy must grow even more acute.” Have these
theses been fulfilled? Even the most superfluous look at
America factually corroborates the semi-colonial domination
exerted by Yankee imperialism. For the rest, Mariátegui’s the-
ses on capitalism in the backward nations must be under-
stood in relation with those of Mao Tse-tung, about bureau-
crat-capitalism and appreciate them taking into account the
specific conditions of Latin America.
[...]
Finally, on political economy, let’s recall his thesis on cor-
porativism: “In the degree to which the advancement of syn-
dicalism enters a country, so too enters the progress of cor-
porativism” and “the cooperative, within a system of free
competition, and even with certain state support, is not op-
posed to, but on the contrary, quite useful to capitalist enter-
prises.” Let’s ask then, can corporativism develop, as it is pre-
tended, simultaneously with an anti-union offensive and even
more so when a corporativist unionism is being promoted?

77
In the age of imperialism, can corporativism serve, within a
regime like ours, as anything else but a complement to bu-
reaucrat-capitalism? In light of the ideas transcribed the an-
swer obviously is: No! And let’s bear in mind that corpora-
tivism can be of service to the working class and the people
only when the proletariat has power in their hands. To finish
this point, let’s remember his teaching that imperialism de-
velops the increasing state intervention in the economic pro-
cess and that, representing and defending the bourgeoisie, it
sees itself compelled even to carry out “nationalizations”; so
the question is to see who has benefitted from the nationali-
zations, and that is decided by which class controls power. In
light of this, who has benefitted from the nationalizations of
the current government?
[...]
With respect to semi-colonialism, Mariátegui maintained
that a country can be politically independent while its econ-
omy continues to be dominated by imperialism; Furthermore,
he firmly maintained that South American countries like ours
are “politically independent, economically colonized.” And
that situation continues to develop; our economy suffers
growing and diversified imperialist and social-imperialist pen-
etration, direct and indirect. The semi-colonial situation has
been questioned in recent years, by affirming without proof
that Peru has become a colony, since that is what is affirmed
when one typifies the country as a “neo-colony”; and that af-
firmation reaches an extreme when it is proposed that we are
a “neo-colony,” but ruled by “a bourgeois reformist govern-
ment.”
The quoted paragraph proposed that capitalism develops
in Peru, but it is a capitalism subjected to the control mainly
of North American imperialism, not a capitalism that allows
a national economy and independent industrialization; but
quite the opposite, a capitalism subservient to the imperialist
metropolis which does not tolerate a true national economy
serving our nation, nor independent industrialization. Thus,

78
Mariátegui does not deny capitalist development in the coun-
try, but specifies our type of capitalism; capitalism in a semi-
feudal country living in the age of monopolies and political
reaction, a capitalism that while it develops it increases our
semi-colonial condition; a capitalism engendering a compra-
dor bourgeoisie linked to U.S. imperialism. In summary, a bu-
reaucrat-capitalism from the viewpoint of Mao Tse-tung.
That is the valid and current understanding Mariátegui had
about the character of Peruvian society. Later studies and re-
search only confirmed and specified the accurate theses sus-
tained by our founder.
[...]
b) Retaking Mariátegui’s Road. The decade of the 1960’s
shook the international communist world with the struggle
between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, which had re-
percussions in our country, mainly the great works of Com-
rade Mao Tse-tung and the very important struggle waged by
the Communist Party of China together with fraternal parties.
Simultaneously, the 1960’s in our country implied the sharp-
ening of the class struggle and a great rise in the movement
of the masses, especially of the peasantry. The country expe-
rienced the deepening of bureaucrat-capitalism, still going on;
the workers carried out large strike movements and increased
affiliation to their unions; the peasantry spontaneously car-
ried forward, most of the time, conquering the land with their
own actions and an unending wave of land occupations
shook the entire country. The petty-bourgeoisie, especially
teachers and students, became more and more involved in
the people’s struggles. At the same time, the demo-liberal par-
liamentary order entered a crisis, as in other parts of America,
and its political parties, its reactionary political parties entered
a fierce battle to gain positions and reap privileges. This con-
fronted reaction with the need to fulfill two tasks: To deepen
bureaucrat-capitalism, taking the State as the main economic
leverage, and the corporate remodeling of Peruvian society
so as to overcome the crisis of bourgeois parliamentarism.

79
These are the conditions and the cause of the rise of the cur-
rent fascist regime and the tasks the exploiting classes and
imperialism have charged it with fulfilling, when they saw the
dangers of the questioning of their order entailed by the rise
in the struggles of the masses, one chapter of which was the
guerrilla struggle, which contained important future lessons
for the people.

Let Us Retake Mariátegui and Reconstitute His Party

1975

II. The peasant movement and the national-democratic rev-

olution.

The peasant struggle for land, which is an anti-feudal

struggle, lays the foundations for the national-democratic
revolution; this follows from the general laws of the class
struggle of our revolution, laws systematized by Mariátegui as
the General Political Line. Our society has a semi-colonial
and semi-feudal character where the Peruvian people suffer
the exploitation and oppression of imperialism, the feudal
landlords and bureaucrat-capitalism; from here arises the
need to overthrow these classes and sweep away their rule.
The present stage of the revolution is situated in this: its con-
tent is demo-bourgeois, that does not go against the whole
bourgeoisie but only against a part of it, the bureaucrat bour-
geoisie, in addition to fighting the feudal landlords and impe-
rialism.
Let us emphasize the role of bureaucrat-capitalism, which
in its development makes the final conditions for the triumph
of the national-democratic revolution mature. Mao teaches
us that monopoly capital associated with the power of the
state, as well as closely subjected and linked to imperialism
and the landlords, forms a state of the comprador and feudal
monopoly capital; in this way it reaches the peak of its

80
development and prepares “sufficient material conditions for
the new-democratic revolution”, leaving the task of “confiscat-
ing the land of the feudal class and handing it over to the peasants” and
“confiscating monopoly capital”. In our country a deepening of
this bureaucrat-capitalism is developing, and the state mo-
nopoly capital is particularly elevated to being a lever of the
economy, seeking to amass enormous capital and monopo-
lize the vital arteries of the economy. All of which necessarily
leads to the same conclusions that Mao Tse-tung points out
about the national-democratic revolution and the peasant war.
On the extent the peasant problem and the problem of war
are intimately linked as absolute conditions of the bourgeois-
democratic revolution, Mao Tse-tung establishes in analyzing
the Chinese revolution:
“ Thus, there are two basic specific features in the Chinese
bourgeois-democratic revolution: (1) the proletariat either es-
tablishes a revolutionary national united front with the bour-
geoisie, or is forced to break it up; and (2) armed struggle is
the principal form of the revolution. Here we do not describe
the Party’s relations with the peasantry and the urban petty
bourgeoisie as a basic specific feature, first, because these re-
lations are in principle the same as those which confront
Communist Parties all over the world, and secondly, because
armed struggle in China is, in essence, peasant war and the
Party’s relations with the peasantry and its close relations with
the peasant war are one and the same thing.” (“Introducing
‘The Communist’”).
It is thus very clear that the armed struggle that we have
to carry out is an agrarian revolution carried out by the peas-
antry under the leadership of the proletariat, which consti-
tutes a constant, as the natural means of the revolution. If the
war has not yet been unleashed, everything must serve to pre-
pare it and, once it begins, everything must serve to develop
it.
[...]

81
III. The struggle for land

The bureaucratic path. For centuries feudal oppression

has manifested itself in the fact that land ownership is con-
centrated in the hands of a few landlords, while millions of
peasants do not own any land, or if they do, it is very little.
Thus, on this gigantic concentration of land, cruelly usurped
by the feudal class, a system of servitude is established. This
system, under different modalities (free labor, payment in
yield or money), allows the feudal landlord class to live as a
parasite in luxury at the expense of the misery and unlimited
oppression of the peasants, thus plunging our entire people
into backwardness and hunger. Big landownership and serf-
dom have thus been maintained, over several centuries, as
pillars of the social, political and economic organization of
Peru.
The landlord economy is evolved in a very slow and pro-
longed process towards a capitalist form following the bu-
reaucratic path that consists of introducing capitalist tech-
niques and modalities while maintaining the large agrarian
property and safeguarding the power of the feudal landlord
class. By this path the landlord economy is evolved internally,
and instead of liberating the peasant, it takes full advantage
of the exploitation of free labor and other feudal modalities
to achieve an accelerated accumulation of capital. The peas-
ant suffers painfully from this long process of transformation,
in which his labor and his goods are sucked away, he is de-
prived of his few lands and is even thrown out of the coun-
tryside. The latifundia and serfdom are maintained, hidden
under new names (CAP, SAIS, “Social Property”, “commu-
nal work”, etc.) [1], and become more closely linked to bu-
reaucrat-capitalism and State power.
Mariátegui explains this process with the following words:
“ Capitalism, as an economic and political sys­tem, proves
incapable, in Latin America, of building an economy
emanci­pated from the feudal tares. The prejudice of the

82
inferiority of the indige­nous race, allows him a maximum
exploitation of the work of this race; and he is not willing to
give up this advantage, from which he gets so many benefits.
In agriculture, the establishment of the wage-earner, the
adoption of the machine, do not erase the feudal character of
the great property. They simply perfect the system of exploi-
tation of the land and of the peasant masses”.[2]
The peasant problem cannot be separated from the na-
tional problem. Already Mariátegui told us “The problem of
the Indians is the problem of three quarters of the population
of Peru. It is the problem of the majority. It is the problem
of nationality”. [3] The struggle against imperialism has its
basis in the struggle of the peasantry, in the semi-feudal strug-
gle. To separate the two is to fall into a false rationalism.
[...]

V. The path of reaction

In our country reaction is developing a bureaucratic path

which, in essence, develops imperialist and feudal domination,
and on these two pillars it develops bureaucrat-capitalism.
This path has been firmly opposed by the people from the
beginning and has been presented with a series of difficulties
to advance. In the 1960s, the peasantry rose up and dragged
the entire people into a revolutionary upsurge that put reac-
tion in serious trouble and questioned its power. From this,
reaction drew two conclusions: 1) to deepen bureaucrat-capitalism
and 2) to corporatize Peruvian society.
It was in this spirit that the fascist regime emerged as a
pilot and preventive plan aimed at crushing the People’s War.
One of the main measures taken was the agrarian law which
consisted of the maintenance and development of large prop-
erty based on new forms of free labor. This is the bureau-
cratic path in the countryside and not “socialization” as some
say.

83
 Faced with the difficulties that this measure encounters
due to the opposition of the peasantry, the general corporate
readjustment undertaken two years ago by the fascist regime,
seeks to ensure its objectives through “bringing capitalism to
the countryside”, and through a frantic exploitation of the
peasants to achieve its desired “accelerated accumulation of
capital”. On the 7th. Anniversary of the Agrarian Law (June
1976), the Minister of Agriculture announced that “all insti-
tutions, both the public and private sectors, must concur in
this great mobilization to transform the Peruvian countryside
into the fastest and most powerful wheel that will make our
country move towards development”.
In reality, with these measures, with bringing bureaucrat-
capitalism to the countryside, they will make the countryside
walk on the road to revolution. Engels has long made this
problem clear: “ Its realisation is seen to be the transfor-
mation of all the small rural house owners into industrial do-
mestic workers; the destruction of the old isolation and with
it the destruction of the political insignificance of the small
peasants who would be dragged into the “social whirlpool”;
the extension of the industrial revolution over the rural areas
and thus the transformation of the most stable and conserva-
tive class of the population into a revolutionary hotbed; and,
as the culmination of the whole process, the expropriation by
machinery of the peasants engaged in home industry, driving
them forcibly into insurrection”.[4]
______________
1. CAP: Agrarian Production Cooperatives. SAIS: Agriculture So-
cieties of Social Interest. Both are institutions established by the
fascist Velasco regime with the agrarian reform of 1969 in order to
corporatize the countryside.
2. “The Problem of Races in Latin America”, Ideology and Politics.
3. “The Primary Problem of Peru”, Peruanize Peru.
4. “1887 Preface to the Second German Edition”, The Housing
Question.

The Peasant Question and the Revolution

84
 August 1976

II. THE CURRENT PERIOD

This problem requires the analysis of two issues: The eco-

nomic situation and crisis in the country, and the third re-
structuring of the Peruvian State.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION AND CRISIS

After the Second World War, the development of bureau-

crat-capitalism was increased. This type of capitalism can be
traced to the end of the last century. The expansion of bu-
reaucrat-capitalism is more considerable in the 1960’s, espe-
cially after October of 1968, with the current regime which is
based on the problem of the peasantry. To this end, it carried
out the more extensive and profound evolution of feudal
landowning property. As a result, there is a greater concen-
tration of the property land, the preservation of servile forms
of exploitation, bureaucratic management systems and direct
control by the State over territorial rents. Thus, the State lays
the roots for bureaucrat-capitalism in the countryside.
In synthesis, the expansion of bureaucrat-capitalism aims
at the process of industrialization and generates, an industry
more dependent on imperialism (mainly Yankee), as well as
greater participation by the State, especially in those indus-
tries which are considered basic and extractive. Thus, the
State becomes the motor that sustains the economic process,
and plays a principal role in banking, finance, including trade.
In this manner, the expansion of bureaucrat-capitalism is
the continuation of the capitalist process already pointed out
by Mariátegui: a capitalism subject to the domination of Yan-
kee imperialism and linked to feudalism. It is this process and
expansion (profundizacion) that have generated the current

85
crisis Peruvian society is going through, which is aggravated
by the world crisis.
The crisis, in essence, is the result of the expansion of the
capitalist development in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial
country. It is not the result of the destruction of semi-feudal-
ism but of its evolution, and it is not the result of freeing the
country from imperialist domination, mainly Yankee, but the
development of semi-colonialism. Therefore, after three
years of economic measures aimed at ending the crisis, we
now see ourselves in the midst of a deep crisis whose end is
not foreseen or expected in 1980. The following data helps
us visualize the economic situation:
Land Distribution, Comparison Between 1961-1972
Area in hectares Total Units (1961) Total Units (1972)
(Has.)
1 hectare=2.47 % Of % Of % Of % Of
acres farms Has. farms Has.
A less than 5 83.2 5.5 77.9 6.6
Has.
less than 1 34.2 0.6 34.7 0.8
1-5 49.0 4.9 43.2 5.8
B 5-20 12.6 4.7 16.7 8.7
C 20-100 2.9 5.2 4.3 9.3
D more than 100 1.3 84.6 1.1 75.4
100-500 0.9 8.7 0.8 9.1
500-1000 0.2 6.2 0.1 4.6
1000-2500 0.1 8.8 0.1 7.4
more than 2500 0.1 60.9 1.1 54.3

A = very small properties (minifundio)

B = family units
C = medium size properties
D = large and very large properties (latifundio)

If we add the agrarian debt of tens of thousands of soles,

68% of which total is payable to the landlords, 24% of which
is payment for credits due to the bankers, and 8% of which

86
is bureaucratic expense; and if we bear in mind that the State
has extracted 6.473 billion soles for real estate taxes from the
production of agrarian cooperatives in the five-year period
1971-1975, of which 3,639 billion, more than 50% was taken
in 1975, can anyone then speak of the old semi-feudal system
as having been destroyed? Can anyone really claim to have
broken the backbone of the “oligarchy?” Isn’t it clear who
benefits and who is protected by the agrarian law? But let’s
see other data:
1974 1975 1976 1977
Rate of Growth (GNP) 6.9 3.3 3.0 -0.2
% Increase of prices in 16.9 23.6 33.5 39.0
Lima
Government Deficit (bil- - - - -
lions of soles) 14.09 30.591 48.432 38.2

GNP: Gross National Product

On these tables, recession and inflation are seen very

clearly. They also show the diminished production and rise in
prices that whip the Peruvian economy, as well as the serious
situation of the State budget. But let’s point out, that while
wages were multiplied by four from 1968 to 1976, profits for
enterprises or businesses were multiplied by seven in the
same period. And if we add the evolution of wages and sala-
ries, based on the indices of actual remuneration for metro-
politan Lima (since there are no other), wages were 100 soles
in 1968, by December of 1977, had been reduced to 72.23
soles, and it is foreseen that by December of 1978 they will
be reduced to 52.29 soles, whereas the salaries that was 100
soles in 1968, in December of 1977 was reduced to 86.95,
and it is predicted that by December of 1978 they will be re-
duced to 60.70 soles. These figures are enough to see the sit-
uation in which the economic production develops, who ben-
efits from it and whom it hits, and the above does not take
into consideration the bankruptcies, factory closings, layoffs,

87
etc.; which added onto the above show the serious crisis and
the ongoing process of greater concentration of capital for
the benefit of the landlords, the big capitalists and imperial-
ism.
To complete this trend, let’s see the problem of the foreign
debt and the real value of the sol, which shows clearly, the
domain of imperialism and the dispute between the super-
powers. Remember that in September of 1975 exchange was
established at 45 soles to a dollar, in June of 1976 it went
down to 65, then came the mini-devaluations that ended in
80 soles to a dollar by September of 1977; and from October
of that year came on floating, which raised the exchange to
130, in December, and now, to speculation paying 180 soles
per dollar in money order certificates, although the official
exchange value did not vary; a situation intimately linked to
the International Monetary Fund controlled by the United
States. According to official figures, in 1968, the country’s
foreign debt was 737 million dollars, but by 1977 it was 4.17
billion dollars, a sum that forced the use of up to 41% of
exports to cancel off interest payments of the debt in 1977.
The foreign debt is one of the hottest problems today and
from this we can see how the superpowers contend in our
country, as can also be seen by the Yankee concern that their
loans are not used to pay the Soviet Social Imperialist credi-
tors to our country, especially for the sale of weapons; as well
as for Soviet maneuvers on the renegotiation of the debt with
Peru, and using it as leverage to take positions. This is clearly
seen in the campaign of the revisionist newspaper “Unidad”
and others who exalt the Soviet social-imperialist “kindness”
and “understanding.”
These facts, on the agrarian problem, especially the indus-
trial economic production and the rule of imperialism and the
quarrel of the superpowers, are stunning proof of the expan-
sion (profundizacion) of bureaucrat-capitalism, the evolution
of semi-feudalism and the development of our semi-colonial
condition; of serious crisis the first one throws us in, and

88
shows the current situation and the perspective which forces
the specialized economic publication to say that, “the fore-
casts for this year, 1978, are even more nefarious.”
In 10 years, what economic direction has the government
followed? In general lines, in 1969 and 1970 they prepared
conditions for their plans. Then they applied the 1971-75
economic-social plan aiming at accumulating capital. This
was canceled in its last year because the difficulties had al-
ready begun, the 1975-78 plan was approved aimed of a
greater accumulation of capital. It was a plan that in its first
two years sought the control of the crisis but without achiev-
ing it. In 1977, the Tupac Amaru Plan was approved, which
applied the modifications proposed by the President in
March of 1976, a plan to extend until 1980, on which date the
crisis was supposed to be over. During this period the State
fulfilled a main role, as the driving force in the economic pro-
cess, and developed the State’s monopoly. However, in the
last few years, the need to reinvigorate the private economic
activity was proposed, and in the imperialist order within
which our country and the State operate, it prepares condi-
tions for future development of the monopoly production of
imperialism and the big bourgeoisie associated with it.
What is being proposed today for the country’s economic
process? Concretely, that the non-state monopoly, or private
sector, is the motor reinvigorating the economy, so that the
expropriation, or “privatization,” of the great means of pro-
duction which the State has been managing and concentrat-
ing, especially in the last ten years, and the greater concentra-
tion of property derived from the crisis; as well as the estab-
lishing of new forms incrementing the exploitation of the la-
bor forces, to restrict or cancel the benefits, rights and con-
quests of the masses, as usually happens in every economic
crisis, and it is a condition to contain and overcome the crisis.
This the economic period in which we now evolve, a period
that in the short-term benefits imperialism, the exploiting
classes and their government in two important problems:

89
 a) The financial problem, now centered in the foreign debt.
This will demand to take other measures besides the ones al-
ready taken.
b) the economic problem, taken as the productive process,
which demands an economic plan which has already been an-
nounced and is closely linked to the ongoing electoral process
and to the “social pact for the national salvation” that is being
elaborated; between these two questions, the second one is
more important, since the first for the most part has already
been defined, while the second is more complex and has a
long term effect in perspective.
ABOUT THE THIRD RESTRUCTURING OF THE
PERUVIAN STATE. The bureaucrat bourgeoisie was devel-
oped during the Second World War, and it aims at leading the
State. Its presence was notorious in the governments of
Bustamante and Belaunde, especially the latter; however, only
recently, in October of 68 it was when it assumed the leader-
ship of the State, that is it assumed the reins of government
through the armed forces, displacing the comprador bour-
geoisie, who since the 1920’s had been enthroned as the lead-
ing class in the reactionary camp.
Under what conditions did this promotion take place? It
takes place amidst the crisis of the so-called representative
democracy. The Peruvian State was organized as a formal
bourgeois democracy, systematically, with the Constitution
of 1920, under the leadership of the comprador or “mercan-
tile” bourgeoisie, as Mariategui called it. This helped develop
bureaucrat-capitalism, which is a process that consolidating
its Power through the “Oncenio” de Leguia , under the man-
tle of Yankee imperialism. However, the 1929-1934 crisis and
the development of the class struggle, mainly by the proletar-
iat, with the founding of the Communist Party, generated a
period of upheaval in our contemporary history. Also, during
this period the elections of 1931 took place, which drafted
the current Constitution still in force (at least in words.)

90
 The constitution of 1933 has the characteristics that Karl
Marx masterfully pointed out:
a) While it recognizes the demo-bourgeois type rights and
liberties, each article sanctioning them contains its own con-
tradiction, that is, the same time that rights and freedoms are
stipulated, they are lawfully restricted. The following samples
suffice and it’s precisely one of the examples given by Marx,
Art. 62 reads: “All persons have the right to assemble peace-
fully and without weapons, without compromising the public
order. The law will regulate the exercise of the right to assem-
ble.”
b) It shows the contradiction between the Executive
Power and the Legislative Power, and while in its words, the
latter attempts to tie down the former, in the legislative facts
the Executive has been imposing itself more and more, re-
flecting the development process of the bourgeois State,
which inevitably strengthens the Executive Power as well as
its principal support, the army.
c) Finally, it was born under the protection of the bayonets
which brought to the world to it, and questioned its current
validity whenever the interests of the State demanded it. As
these matters are foreseen, they will be found again in the
new Constitution and its debates, but on the base of the con-
tradiction between representative democracy and corpora-
tivism.
After 1945, all these constitutional contradictions sharp-
ened with the struggle between the comprador bourgeoisie
and the bureaucrat bourgeoisie and more by the increasing
development of the force of the people and of the working
class. During the government of Bustamante, the contradic-
tion Parliament-Executive sharpened, and the President him-
self had to propose the need for a new Constitution. The
problem surfaced again during the Belaunde government and
there were many disputes about a referendum and reform of
the Constitution, which in 1965 took Popular Action to draft
and introduced a bill about the functional Senate, a

91
corporativist modality established by article 89 of the Consti-
tution, but never implemented up to this day, since even the
Popular Action’s bill was rejected by the APRA-Odria coali-
tion. This direction, on the base of deepening bureaucrat-cap-
italism, and the contradiction in the midst of the big bour-
geoisie between the comprador and bureaucrat factions and,
above all, the development of the proletariat (its return to
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Mao Tse-tung Thought and the
Road of Mariátegui), and the upsurge of the people’s move-
ment, mainly the great surge of the peasants movement
which shook Peruvian society profoundly, and the 1965 guer-
rilla struggles, which provoked the crisis of representative de-
mocracy (a similar problem occurring in contemporary Latin
America).
Under these circumstances the armed forces took over the
leadership of the State in function, mainly the interests of the
bureaucrat bourgeoisie, with two tasks to fulfill: the first one,
to carry forward the expansion of bureaucrat-capitalism and,
second, to reorganize Peruvian society. That is how the cur-
rent regime began, guided by a fascist political conception,
developing the corporativization of the Peruvian Society,
which is a process that is taking place through the following
three phases:
1. Bases and development of the corporativization, in
which all past practices are questioned, labeled as the old
“pre-revolutionary” order, the bases of organization are set
and the so-called “ideological bases” are established. This
lasted all the way to 1975.
2. General corporative readjustment, and evaluation of its
successes and problems so as to consolidate positions and
advance toward the Corporative State, presented as a “social
democracy with full participation.” That began with the re-
placement of Velasco by Morales Bermudez, August 1975.
3. Third restructuring of the Peruvian State, from July
1977 to the present, and the establishing of a political timeta-
ble with elections for a Constituent Assembly, approval of a

92
constitutional charter which must “institutionalize the struc-
tural transformations carried on since October 3, 1968” and
must carry out the general elections, according to the Tupac
Amaru Plan, until 1980.
So here we have, in general terms, the corporativization
followed in ten years. How has the contradiction between bu-
reaucrat bourgeoisies and the proletariat developed in this
decade? The bureaucrat bourgeoisie heads the counterrevo-
lutionary camp, and it commands the feudal landlords and
the comprador bourgeoisie, and it is linked to imperialism,
mainly Yankee imperialism, although in the last decade social-
imperialism began its penetration, and established links pre-
cisely with the bureaucrat bourgeoisie. The people’s camp has
a center: the proletariat, the only class capable of leading them,
provided it can develop its vanguard and in fact lead the
armed struggle. Thus, it will be able to forge the worker-peas-
ant alliance as its great ally, to win over the petty-bourgeoisie
as a sure ally and, under certain conditions and circumstances,
to unite even with the national bourgeoisie.
In the first stage of corporativization, the bureaucrat bour-
geoisie managed to isolate the proletariat, and even to par-
tially tie it down, presenting itself as a progressive force and
as a “revolutionary” with the support of opportunism, mainly
the social-corporativist revisionism of “Unidad”.
In the second stage, the general readjustment of corpora-
tivism, the influence of the bureaucrat bourgeoisie in State
affairs began to decrease, its mask fell, and it shed its disguises
making it more difficult for opportunism to tie down the pro-
letariat to the tail of its enemy.
The third stage of corporativization was the restructuring
of the State, in which the contradiction between bureaucrat
bourgeoisie and proletariat became sharper again in its antag-
onism. Both contending classes began to polarize its posi-
tions more, one against the other, and consequently the pro-
letariat acquires a greater dimension, as the only leading class
of the revolution of new democracy.

93
 What is the period that we now live? Since 1977, we live
in a political period which will last four or five years charac-
terized by the third restructuring of the Peruvian State in the
20th century, and by the development of the struggle of the
popular masses in preparation for the launching of the armed
struggle. This is a period that occurred in the second moment
of the contemporary history of the country, that is, from the
Second World War to the present; a period in which bureau-
crat-capitalism deepens and the corporativization develops
under the leadership of the bureaucrat bourgeoisie; a moment
in which, on the other hand, the conditions for the demo-
cratic revolution mature and this begins to define it by the
force of arms in order to create a State of new democracy.
But what is the immediate situation of the political period
that we now live in? To imperialism, to the exploiting classes
and the bureaucrat bourgeoisie leading the process, two mat-
ters arise: first, to carry on elections for the Constituent As-
sembly, and second, to open up the road to materialize the
third restructuring of the Peruvian State. The second, is the
principal one because it is more complex and has future im-
plications, and from which the bureaucrat bourgeoisie ex-
pects to consolidate its leadership role. On the other hand,
the first task has the support of most of the political parties,
who see in the Constituent their revival and perspective. To
the people, the ones exploited and the proletariat, what is be-
ing proposed is that they do not allow themselves to be tied
to the electioneering process, which opens the door to the
restructuring of the State, and to develop the growing popu-
lar protest to mobilize, to politicize and to organize the
masses, especially the peasantry. This second aspect is the
most important one.

III. POLITICAL SITUATION AND THE PEOPLE’S

ROAD

94
 In order to analyze the elections and orient ourselves cor-
rectly, we need to keep in mind the fundamental issues arisen
from it, and the current situation. If not, we run the risk of
sliding toward the opportunist swamp. We reiterate, the Con-
stituent Assembly elections are the real beginning of the third
restructuring of the Peruvian State by the bureaucrat bour-
geoisie, and the ones who will struggle most to carry the cor-
porativization forward as much they are able to, aiming at es-
tablishing themselves as the leading class of the exploiters.
The ongoing State restructuring is a consequence of the ex-
pansion of bureaucrat-capitalism and the corporativization of
Peruvian society and the elections are in fact its beginnings.
They are a preamble to “institutionalize the structural trans-
formations” whose consequences for the people are in sight.
Well then, the Constituent Assembly elections help first and
foremost the bureaucrat bourgeoisie. That is our main con-
cern. This is the starting point in taking a position with re-
gards to the ongoing electoral process; and in doing it that
way, we, and those who follow Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-
tung Thought, those who really follow the road of Mariátegui
and who are at the service of the proletariat and the people,
cannot fail to take into account this basic question and must
judge it from the position of the working class, in function of
the Peruvian revolution.

Against Constitutional Illusions, For the State of New Democracy

April 1978

Chairman Mao Tse-tung uses the term objective situation to

analyze the revolutionary situation or the objective condi-
tions of the revolution and their development in backward
countries, that is, semi-feudal and semi-colonial. He starts off
from the need to penetrate to the essence of things and not
stay with simple appearances. To him, the main thing is to
consider the semi-feudal base and imperialist oppression of

95
the backward countries. Under these conditions, the revolu-
tion is democratic, that is, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist,
whose development demands the armed struggle from the
countryside to the city through revolutionary support bases
as the New State, which begins to emerge and simultaneously,
the old bureaucratic landowning reactionary State is being de-
stroyed. This is fundamental in understanding the specific
conditions that the revolutionary situation has in a semi-feu-
dal and semi-colonial society, and the development of these
societies.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung establishes the conditions that
conform to the objective situation and also the contradictions
that exist, and from which the road of the revolution derives,
which in essence is the armed struggle, and the inevitable tri-
umph of the revolution. As stated in point four of his work,
“A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire,” he highlights the
following points and contradictions:
1) On the international level, he discusses the develop-
ment of the contradiction between the imperialist countries.
Evidently, it has increased between the two superpowers,
Yankee imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. These
contradictions have an impact on our country as contradic-
tions in the midst of the exploiters, mainly the big bourgeoisie,
as we have seen lately in its two factions: the bureaucrat bour-
geoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie, which far from ame-
liorating, will develop further.
2) He also illustrates the contradiction between the reac-
tionary rulers and the great masses of taxpayers. The growing
state apparatus necessarily ends up raising taxes, which fall
upon the masses of the people and, besides, the state econ-
omy develops amidst constant budgetary crises. The proce-
dure that is being followed under the current regime and the
situation today proves this. In addition, the masses of people
are the ones, who through indirect taxation, support the state
expenditures more and more; a situation which is getting
worse and will continue to worsen.

96
 3) Contradiction between imperialism and national indus-
try. In the country this contradiction is evident; the national
industry is increasingly subject to imperialist domination and
access to markets is more restricted every day. On the other
hand, the aggression by foreign imports (e.g., commodities)
handled by imperialism, restricts the development of the na-
tional industry, and the financial impositions of imperialism,
sinks it into an economic recession, which is worsened by the
worldwide crisis. As Mariátegui said, imperialism does not al-
low the development of a national industry.
4) Contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working
class. The capitalists, “trying to elude the crisis and solve their
problems deepen the exploitation of the workers, who in turn
oppose and resist these measures.” This statement of fact by
Chairman Mao is proven to satiety every day among us. We
see today the profound crisis the country has been suffering
in the last few years. In synthesis, we see how brutally salaries
have been cut. The workday has been increased and harsh
working conditions have been imposed so as to safeguard en-
trepreneurial profits. Furthermore, we see the resistance of
the proletariat through the persistent strike struggle, even
when faced with all sorts of persecution and repression, sus-
pension of constitutional guarantees and a state of emergency.
5) Further deepening of the contradiction between the
landowning class and the peasantry. In the country, the State
has assumed collection of land rents through the agrarian
debt, imperialist investment mainly through the agrarian bank
and control of the entire system of associations (cooperatives,
SAIS, etc.) in agricultural production and, besides, it main-
tains servile forms of production, and is included in the old
landlords feudal exploitation. In this way, the situation of the
peasantry has worsened by the evolution of feudalism result-
ing from the agrarian law, and the penetration of bureaucrat-
capitalism into the countryside.
6) Merchants in national commodities and independent
producers see themselves pushed more and more toward

97
bankruptcy. Today, the economic crisis clearly shows the va-
lidity of this premise. It suffices to recall the situation of
bankruptcy confronted by the small industrial producers and
small merchants, as well as small miners. We must highlight
the serious situation faced by the ambulatory merchants who
are affected by a brutal repression, and much repression falls
upon them. But the crises hit the medium producers as well.
7) The reactionary government increases its troops with-
out limits. Throughout the country the development and re-
inforcement of the reactionary armed and police force is evi-
dent, both in size of contingents and in weaponry. This is
shown by the creation of new repressive bodies of the state
and the widening of their functions, and the greater control
they exert over society. Inevitably, this process will develop
further.
8) Hunger and banditry extends throughout the country.
The popular masses of Peru suffer chronic hunger, but today,
the crisis is even worse. The masses, the peasantry, especially
the poor peasants, has absolutely nothing to feed themselves,
and hunger is paired with sickness, which mostly affects in-
fants and youth. Criminality increases more and more and
cow-thievery (abigeato) grow in the countryside protected by
the authorities themselves.
9) The majority of the peasants’ masses and the poor in
the cities find themselves in a situation in which they are
barely able to survive. This comparison, which Chairman
Mao made in China is also a cruel reality that prevails among
us, misery entrenches itself more and more amidst the popu-
lar masses of our nation.
10) Because of the lack of budget funds, many students
fear that they will not be able to continue their studies. This
is also a reality for the country, as the educational budget as
well as the health budget is cut. The education sector is faced
with a profound financial crisis. As a result, many students do
not study for lack schools or drop school in large numbers
because they don’t have the resources available to them.

98
 11) Due to the backward character of production, many
graduating students have no hope of finding employment in
their vocation or academic field, and thousands of them have
to work in anything they can.
That is how Chairman Mao Tse-tung analyzes the revolu-
tionary situation in the backward countries. In analyzing the
contradictions present in the objective situation, he finds the
material base that sustains armed struggle, its development
and victory. From the above, we can see how in our country,
we have a similar objective situation and how the same con-
tradictions develop. This is a fact that nobody can deny.
These are contradictions that are developing, and in no way
can they be resolved by a reactionary government. Further-
more, we all know that these contradictions are not being re-
solved, but continue to sharpen, so the objective situation in
our country is and will be each time more propitious to the
development of revolution, and to the development of a su-
perior form, the armed struggle. Consequently, the most im-
portant matter that concerns all of us is to start the armed
struggle. This is an unavoidable perspective that our country
has. What other road can we follow in Peru? What other
hopes can our popular masses and the proletariat have?
Chairman Mao Tse-tung stated the following as he concluded
his analysis:
“Once we understand all these contradictions, we shall see
in what a desperate situation, in what a chaotic state, China
finds herself. We shall also see that the high tide of revolution
against the imperialists, the warlords and the landlords is in-
evitable, and will come very soon. All China is littered with
dry faggots which will soon be aflame. “ Since our country
follows the same laws of revolution, has a similar experience
and the same perspective, can we think in any other way? No,
not at all.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung established a brilliant distinction
between a developing revolutionary situation and a stationary,
revolutionary situation, as can be seen in point three of

99
chapter II of his work, “Why is it that Red Political Power
Can Exist in China?” He stated that in a semi-feudal and sem-
icolonial country such as ours, there is always a revolutionary
situation, or objective situation as he calls it, for the develop-
ment of an armed struggle, however this occurs in two forms:
1) a stationary revolutionary situation and, 2) a revolutionary
situation in development.
By analyzing his theses, we are able to say that a stationary
revolutionary situation can be transformed into a developing
revolutionary situation, by the action of the subjective condi-
tions on the objective condition; that is very important to
keep in mind. In addition, we must be able to differentiate
between uneven development and revolutionary situation
and take into account, that the latter can occur in a region,
and then the revolution may spread to the entire country, or
it can even begin by a general retreat of the revolution, as was
shown by the autumn harvest uprising of August 1927 in
China.

TODAY WE LIVE IN A REVOLUTIONARY SITUA-

TION IN DEVELOPMENT

The analysis of our national reality, based on the applica-

tion of the theses of Lenin and Mao, which is Marxism-Len-
inism-Mao Tse-tung Thought, draws the following conclu-
sions: 1) Our country meets the two conditions about the ex-
istence of a revolutionary situation set forth by Lenin. 2) Our
country shows the objective situation which Mao analyzed as
a contradiction. 3) In order to understand our situation, it is
fundamental that we keep in mind the difference between a
stationary revolutionary situation, and a developing revolu-
tionary situation. 4) Based on the analysis of the theses of
Lenin and Mao, and their application to our reality, we con-
clude that we are living in a developing revolutionary situa-
tion. This is expressed by the growing popular protest which

100
is developing among us, and is being fueled by the crisis that
we have been living in for years.
Thus, if we base ourselves on Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tse-tung Thought, and analyze the concrete reality of the Pe-
ruvian revolution, we have to conclude that we live in a de-
veloping revolutionary situation and, consequently, all strat-
egy, tactics and political actions must be based on that fact, if
not, we would be grossly mistaken. In synthesis, the class
struggle, the antagonistic contention between revolution and
counterrevolution, can only be seen accurately and correctly,
and applied firmly and decisively, if we start from the recog-
nition that there is a developing revolutionary situation. It is
from this recognition that the proletariat, the Party, and the
revolutionaries in the country will be able to judge the current
political situation, and then establish the correct tactics.

Develop the Growing People’s Protest

September 1979

What is the current situation of the reactionary forces? The

former military government, which lasted twelve years, came
to power with two goals to achieve:
1. to strengthen bureaucrat-capitalism, and
2. to reorganize Peruvian society.
To complete the first task, it took as the driven force the
state-controlled economy. In order to fulfill the second task,
the government was guided by a fascist political outlook and
promoted the reorganization of society along corporate lines.
In its first phase it made advances in obtaining its objectives,
but the economic crisis generated by itself, and especially the
persistent struggle of the masses, forced the military govern-
ment to reexamine its objectives and limit itself to a general
readjustment of its plan to subsequently proceed with the
corporate reorganization in order to institutionalize those
changes that they had set out from the beginning, and,

101
moreover, to proceed to a future transfer of state power.
Nevertheless, the deepening of the economic crisis and the
intensification of the class struggle cut short their goals, and
the new constitution, thus representing the third reorganiza-
tion of the Peruvian state in this century did not achieve the
molding of a corporate Peruvian society. It only allowed for
the strengthening of executive power at the expense of the
parliament, and a greater participation of the armed forces in
the running of the state. As a corollary to the military
measures, two elections were held, the elections for the con-
stituent assembly and the general elections of 1980. In both,
voter turnouts declined, part of a trend common throughout
Latin America, showing a loss of faith in elections and gov-
ernment.
Under these conditions, Belaunde took over the govern-
ment, and today, more than one and a half years since his
term began, the economic crisis continues, the publicized re-
surgence of the economy is nowhere in sight, a persistent,
growing inflation continues to pound any economic advance,
and the budget deficits, the very basis of the government’s
measures, increase uncontrollably, gravely threatening an in-
creasingly battered Peruvian economy. Imperialist domina-
tion sinks its nails deeper in our country, taking over more
and more of our natural resources, especially oil, extending
its grip into the peasant’s areas, and broadening its control
over the country’s commerce and finance. The so-called
“agrarian reform” has been concluded.
The electoral opportunists join the chorus of those claim-
ing that the land problem is ended and resolved. They try to
fool the peasants with the botched “farming and cattle-raising
programs” at the same time as they advocate the develop-
ment of the “associative property” to cover up the return of
the big landlords to promote bureaucrat capitalism in agricul-
ture under the control of the big banks and with the direct
participation of Yankee imperialism. The proletariat and peo-
ple are burdened with growing unemployment and declining

102
wages while working conditions deteriorate and prior gains
are negated or threatened every day, such as the right to strike.
The petty bourgeoisie suffers increasing pauperization, the
intellectuals in particular are thwarted and the people in gen-
eral face hunger while the new reactionary government tries
to subjugate them even more. The national bourgeoisie and
medium-sized capitalists see growing restrictions on their
businesses, suffering also the consequences of the govern-
ment’s intensified undermining of national industry. Mean-
while, in the very bosom of the big bourgeoisie, a sharp strug-
gle between the bureaucratic and comprador factions, and
even within these factions is taking place over who will reap
the most profits or benefits.
In sum, then, guided by an orientation that sees develop-
ing big monopoly, mainly Yankee capital, as the motor of
economic development, the present government aims at fur-
ther developing the subjugating semifeudal structure, that still
rules the country, for the direct benefit of the old and new
type landlords and the old type rich peasants. The current
government undermines the basic industrial structure of the
country in order to direct even more the economic trend to-
ward extraction and production, particularly mining and pe-
troleum. And now, it transfers and seeks to auction off the
state enterprises, those which the former government had
concentrated in the hands of the state at the cost of a stag-
gering public debt placed on the backs of the people. Thus,
preparing a succulent offering to the insatiable appetite of big
capitalists, particularly imperialist capital. The current reac-
tionary government, whose head, prime mover, and most re-
sponsible representative is Belaunde, is as servile as any be-
fore it in its eagerness to build up bureaucrat capital (big mo-
nopoly capital, vassals to the feudal landlords and subjugated
to imperialism) principally to the benefit of big monopoly
capital, especially big banking and finance capital under the
asphyxiating and ever widening expansion of U.S. imperial-
ism. But even if this is the outline and scheme of the

103
government, the same complex conflict of interests among
the exploiters, the persistent and deepening crisis, and even
more, the class struggle which sharpens day by days does not
allow the government to overcome its present difficulties, a
crucial matter in order to organize and work out a coherent
plan based on the clear and defined program that the ruling
order loudly demands.

Let’s Develop the Guerrilla Warfare

September 1981

Contemporary Peruvian society is in general crisis. This soci-

ety, whose trajectory began toward the end of the XIX cen-
tury, is gravely ill and is incurable. It can only be transformed
through the armed struggle, which the Communist Party of
Peru is doing it today, leading the Peruvian people. There is
no other solution.
The fact is that Peru today is a semifeudal and semicolonial
society in which a bureaucrat-capitalism is developing, a de-
layed capitalism linked to the big landlords. interests and
which, consequently, in no way seeks the destruction of sem-
ifeudal conditions but at most seeks its evolution. What is
more important, it is a type of capitalism completely subju-
gated to imperialism, in our case principally Yankee imperial-
ism, and therefore, does not develop the great potential of
the productive forces of our country. Furthermore, it wastes,
shackles, or destroys the productive forces and in no way de-
velops a national economy. On the contrary, it is completely
at the service of imperialism’s increasing exploitation and is
totally against the national interests of the majority of the
population, and the basic and urgent needs of our people.
Thus, the modern Peruvian economy was born deformed
and ill at its roots. It was born intrinsically tied to the archaic
semifeudal system which, despite the regimes’ bragged-about
“agrarian reforms,” continues to exist and characterizes the

104
country from its most basic foundations to its most elaborate
ideas. This situation maintains, in essence, the great land
problem, the driven force of the peasants’ class struggle, es-
pecially the poor peasants that made up the immense majority.
Moreover, the Peruvian economy was born subjugated by
imperialism, the last phase of capitalism, masterfully charac-
terized as monopolistic, parasitic, and moribund.
Although this imperialism allows our political independ-
ence, as long as it serves imperialist interests, controls the en-
tire Peruvian economic process: our natural resources, export
products, industry, banking and finance, etc. In sum, it sucks
the blood of our people, devours the energy of our national
development, and today, especially, it squeezes us through
the huge interests of the foreign debt, just as it does other
oppressed nations.
Therefore, the modern economy, the bureaucrat-capital-
ism, is tied to the unburied cadaver semi feudalism, and it is
subjugated by the moribund imperialism, which increasingly
lives off from the blood of the oppressed, reaped from an
exploitation guarantee by its own weapons and those of its
lackeys, while the domination of the world is dispute in a
never-ending crisis and contention waged primarily by the
two superpowers, the United States and the social-imperialist
Soviet Union. In conclusion, we are in the midst of the gen-
eral crisis of Peruvian society. This crisis, including the crisis
of bureaucrat-capitalism which has entered into its final stage,
has fully matured the conditions for the development and tri-
umph of the revolution, then the general crisis that plagues
the old society encompasses the revolution in its entirety and
in all its manifestations.
This is our reality; this is the foundation on which Peru-
vian society rests and the material roots of our problems and
the misfortunes of our people. This is the social system that
the ruling classes and their Yankee imperialist masters are
faithful to and defend with blood and fire, through their bu-
reaucratic-landlord state based on their reactionary armed

105
forces, continuously exercising the class dictatorship of the
big bourgeoisie and landlords, whether it is through de facto
military governments like the many we had, for example Ve-
lasco and Morales Bermudez, to mention just the most recent
ones, or through governments born out of elections and
called constitutional like Belaunde’s government today.
[...]
Moreover, looking in perspective, what can the people
hope for, the masses, expect from participating in the general
elections of 1985? Well, simply and plainly: To Vote is to avail
the social system and to elect another government that will
bring more hunger and more genocide! It will help landlord-
bureaucrat state to replace, according to its own laws and
conditions, their authorities who shall exert the class dictator-
ship against the people and in favor of maintaining the semi-
feudal and semi-colonial society in whose womb bureaucrat-
capitalism is developing, for the benefit of the ruling classes
and their principal master, Yanqui imperialism. To vote is to
help install a government who will bring still more hunger,
since this is determined by the needs and the class character
of the old State of which it is a part. To vote is to help estab-
lish a government which will still be more genocidal than the
current one, since this too is determined by the needs of the
old state, to defend its decrepit society in the face of the rev-
olution, that way it will also push the Old State to defend their
obsolete society facing the people’s struggle and mainly be-
fore the push of the armed struggle which with guns is de-
stroying the old to create the new: the forms of the New
Power, of the New Society, sustained by the people rising up
in arms.
The people cannot help their exploiters and oppressors,
they cannot help them to resolve their problems, they cannot
avail their social system, even less to help elect another gov-
ernment bringing still more hunger and more genocide. Since
that is not their road nor it helps their own interests, the only
thing that can be presented today is, NOT TO VOTE! and

106
the only truly popular answer before the elections by the re-
actionary State that brings hunger and genocide.

Don’t Vote! Instead, Expand the Guerrilla Warfare to Conquer

Power for the People!
February 1985

Since 1983 the Peruvian revolution evolves under the great

political strategic conception of “Building Base Areas” and in
military terms of developing People’s War, which means
principally guerrilla warfare complemented by guerrilla ac-
tions such as sabotage, selective annihilation and propaganda
and agitation, so as to carry out the central task of building,
preserving and developing base areas and spreading the Peo-
ple’s War throughout the country, taking into account the
variability that the fluidity of guerrilla warfare imposes not
just on the new state power but on all forms of revolutionary
construction and work. This basic plan of “Building Bases”
forms the context for the present “Plan for the Great Leap,”
based on the specific political strategy of “two republics, two
roads, two poles,” that is, the Republic of the old reactionary
Peruvian state vs. the New Democratic People’s Republic in
formation; the old dead-end road of votes which only serves
to preserve the old exploiting order vs. the new road of arms
which is transforming Peruvian society to serve the people.
These are two poles, one of the big bourgeoisie heading up
the dictatorship of the ruling classes in the service of imperi-
alism, bureaucrat capitalism and semi-feudalism, the black
and odious past which is being destroyed, versus the prole-
tarian pole, represented by its Communist Party in the lead-
ership of the democratic revolution whose victory will open
the way to socialism and through the course of repeated cul-
tural revolutions, fused with the great epic of the world rev-
olution, someday will lead to communism, humanity’s sole,
necessary and an inevitable goal that can never be abandoned.

107
Through the military strategy of generalizing People’s War,
this strategy has taken the concrete form of four campaigns,
each with its specific content.
[...]
First let’s look at the need for a party; then later when we
take up its building we’ll deal with its present role. Since its
very beginnings Marxism has held that there must be a Party
to lead the struggle to seize state power; this was reiterated by
Leninism and emphatically reaffirmed by Maoism. Without a
revolutionary party of a new type, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist,
there can be no revolution for the proletariat and the people.
This is a great truth that no communist can evade without
ceasing to be one, a truth we Peruvian communists had to
confront. The Communist Party of Peru was founded on Oc-
tober 7th, 1928 on a solid Marxist-Leninist basis by José Car-
los Mariátegui, who provided it with basic theses concerning
Peruvian society, the land question, imperialist domination,
the role of the Peruvian proletariat, as well as programmatic
points and a general political line and consequent particular
lines. But the founder died in 1930, less than two years after-
wards; even a first congress remained pending, so that the
Party did not have time to consolidate itself before trends that
had already been developing took a leap, Mariátegui and his
line were openly put into question, and the line was changed
by Ravines. Thus opportunism usurped Party leadership and
imposed its authority in the two-line struggle within the Party
with the gravest consequences for the class and the revolu-
tion.
This road led to the parliamentary cretinism manifested in
the 1939 elections, in the service of the comprador bourgeoi-
sie represented by Prado. Later, during World War II, there
was a phony “founding congress” which adopted the general
political line of “national unity” under the guidance of
Browderite revisionism, an expression of capitulation to Yan-
kee imperialism’s domination and the domestic rule of the
comprador bourgeoisie and the feudal landlords, under the

108
pretext of the struggle against fascism. Subsequently, this sit-
uation led to the Party’s participation in the 1945elections as
part of the “National Democratic Front” with the APRA
party, with the excuse of bringing about a democratic open-
ing; this new electoral adventure ended when the balloon the
Party had become blew up after Odria’s 1948 coup d’etat. In
the beginning of the sixties the faction founded by Chairman
Gonzalo began to develop within the Ayacucho Regional
Committee. By faction, what is meant is what Lenin taught:
“A section in a party is a group of like-minded persons
formed for the purpose primarily influencing the party in a
definite direction, for the purpose of securing acceptance for
their principles in the party in the purest form. For this, real
unanimity of opinion is necessary.” The faction arose as the
product of the development of the class struggle on the world
level, especially the great struggle between Marxism and revi-
sionism that spread Mao Tse-tung Thought, as Chairman
Mao’s development of Marxism-Leninism was known in the
mid-1960s. This was the principal and decisive factor giving
rise to the faction.
At the same time, a substantial basis for it was provided by
the development of Peruvian society, the advance of bureau-
crat capitalism, the sharpening class struggle of the masses,
the intensification of political activity and growing propa-
ganda about armed struggle, and by developments in the re-
gion itself where the faction arose, a region where the decrep-
itude of semi feudalism was becoming increasingly stark and
where the peasantry was beginning to awaken in a particularly
militant fashion reflecting a similar process going on through-
out the country. Within the Party at that time, the struggle
between Marxism and revisionism deepened.
The faction headed by the Ayacucho Regional Committee
fought the revisionism of Del Prado and his followers in the
IV National Conference where Del Prado and Company
were expelled. From then on the faction developed within the
Party nationwide. The development of Marxism-Leninism by

109
Chairman Mao and the great lessons and experiences of the
Communist Party of China played a vital and decisive in this
initial process. Since then both our initial commitment to
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and our application of it to our
conditions have developed further.
After the V National Conference in November 1965, in
the two-line struggle within the Party the faction came to
fight for building the three magic weapons of the revolution:
the party, armed forces and united front, demanding that
these tasks are fulfilled in the light of the political line of the
Conference which had established the building revolutionary
armed forces for armed struggle as the principal task, but in
a thousand ways the dead weight of revisionism hindered and
opposed the fulfillment of the principal task; under these cir-
cumstances the faction, reaffirming the necessity of an ideo-
logically united and organizationally centralized Party, called
for the Reconstruction of the Party” based on “the heroic
fighter.” This process was carried out in three periods, each
with its corresponding political strategy:

1. Defining the problem of Reconstruction, guided by the po-

litical strategy of “surrounding the cities from the country-
side.”

At this point the problem was to build a Party to lead the

armed struggle on this road, which meant that the peasant
and land question acquired tremendous importance and it
was vital to put the Party’s center of gravity in the countryside.
Further, the decisive question of ideological and political line
centered on “basing ourselves on Mao Tse-tung Thought,”
as it was said in those days, and on “reclaiming and develop-
ing Mariátegui,” with development being the outstanding as-
pect of this. It was not enough to reclaim him for two key
reasons: the development of Marxism-Leninism by Chairman
Mao Tse-tung, and the development of bureaucrat capitalism
in Peru. This phase took place during the struggle against

110
Khrushchevite revisionism and its manifestations in various
spheres of Party life and ended with the January 1969 VI
Conference which approved “the Reconstruction of the
Party” “on the basis of Party unity around Marxism-Lenin-
ism-Mao Tse-tung Thought (as was said in those days now it
is Maoism), Mariátegui’s Thought and the general political
line. “

2. Carrying Out the Reconstruction

This period was guided by the political strategy of “Recon-

struct the Party” in accordance with the Party’s basis of unity.
October 1968 saw the coup d’ etat of Velasco, who took on
the task of deepening the development of bureaucrat capital-
ism, carrying out the corporativization of Peruvian society
guided by a fascist political outlook and suppressing the rising
mass movements. This period divides into two parts: first the
struggle against right liquidationism, a form of revisionism
which sought to destroy the Party by centering it on open,
masses work and pushing it into legalism; on the strictly po-
litical level this line put forward expropriating the land instead
of confiscating it and above all denied the fascist character of
the government. When these liquidationists couldn’t take
over the Party, they perversely attempted to destroy it and the
faction took up the Party’s defense. In February 1970 a split
took place and the faction assumed the leadership of the
Party; from then on it led the process of Reconstruction. In
the second part there was a struggle against “left” liquidation-
ism, another variant of revisionism that tried to destroy the
Party by shutting it up behind four walls, denying the im-
portance of peasant work and the possibility of any mass
work because, according to them, mass work and organiza-
tions are impossible under fascism. They reduced fascism to
simply a question of violence, and worse, to an irresistible
violence in the face of which nothing could be done but wait
for better times. They put forward the “relative stability of

111
capitalism” and consequently of the social system. They said
“the line is enough” and that there was no reason to develop
Mariátegui further, and called Maoism into question, brag-
ging about being “pure Bolsheviks.” This “left” liquidation-
ism was smashed in 1975 at a Central Committee plenum.
During this period, our-political understanding of Peru-
vian society deepened, especially our understanding of bu-
reaucrat capitalism, based on Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s the-
sis. This question is fundamental for understanding and lead-
ing the democratic revolution. In fact this concept slammed
the door on the opportunist tendency to tail a faction of the
big bourgeoisie while pretending to unite and struggle with
the national bourgeoisie, and to support the Velasco’s fascist
and corporativist plans, “reforms” and measures, and it con-
tinues to be extremely useful today. The ideological-political
building of the Party also advanced, especially regarding the
understanding of Mariátegui’s thought and general political
line synthesised for the first time in five basic points taken
from his works as well as the necessity to develop it further.
The relationship between secret and open work was deline-
ated and the latter was developed according to the Leninist
criteria of areas of support for the Party’s mass work; thus,
mass organizations were created by the Party to develop the
links between the Party and the masses.

3. The Culmination of the Reconstruction

This period was guided by the political strategy of “Culmi-

nate and Lay the Basis,” in other words, culminate the recon-
struction and lay the basis for launching the armed struggle.
With the unfolding of the process the Party was approaching
the conclusion of its Reconstruction and so had to sum up
what had been achieved, define and sanction the general po-
litical line, continue the building of the Party on a national
level with its center of gravity in the countryside, define the
specifics of the armed struggle and lay the basis to launch it

112
by developing the work among the peasants. The left fought
tenaciously to attain these objectives, waging intense and
sharp struggle against right ism. This rightism developed into
a right opportunist line that first opposed the Culmination
and then launched an onslaught against the general political
line, labeling it “ultra-leftist,” and ended up rapidly opposing
the initiation of the armed struggle. Nevertheless, with firm-
ness and wisdom the left repeatedly defeated right opportun-
ism, another form of revisionism opposed in the last instance
to revolutionary violence, to armed struggle, to people’s war,
to the Party’s fulfillment of its role of fighting to seize power
for the proletariat and the people, and to the proletariat’s ad-
vance in its historic mission. In April 1977 the left defeated
the right opportunist opposition to Culminate, with the ap-
proval of the national plan to build the Party under the slogan
“Build for the purpose of launching the armed struggle”; the
left again resoundingly defeated the right in September 1978
with the approval of the “Summation of the Reconstruction,
“ the sanctioning of “Mariátegui’s general political line and its
development, “ and the drafting of the “Outline of the
Armed Struggle.” Finally, it thoroughly and completely de-
feated the right opportunist line at the May 1979 IX Ex-
panded Central Committee Plenum, when under the slogan
“Define and Decide” the agreement was taken to “Initiate
the Armed Struggle.”
A long chapter of the Party’s history had closed and an-
other one opened: the Reconstruction had been culminated
and a new stage would open, that of the armed struggle. It
should be clearly and firmly emphasize that during this period
of the Culmination, when Chairman Mao died, the Party
pledged to the international proletariat and the revolution
that it would always hold high the banners of Marx, Lenin
and Mao, and declared that “To be a Marxist today is to be
Marxist-Leninist-Mao Tse-tung Thought” (now Marx-
ist-Leninist-Maoist) Thus, when the Hua-Deng coup took
place, with the latter of course in charge at the end of the day,

113
the Party condemned it as a counterrevolutionary coup
against the dictatorship of the proletariat in China, against the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for the restoration of
capitalism and against the world revolution.
In sum, then, the Communist Party of Peru was recon-
structed and became a Party of a new type, Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist, and so once again there existed the organized van-
guard of the proletariat, capable of leading it to the seizure of
state power. In this way “Define and Decide” can be consid-
ered the first milestone of the people’s war unfolding today.
Later the Party achieved the second milestone, that of Prep-
aration; a period of the auctioning of the Party Programme,
the general political line of the Peruvian revolution and the
Party statutes whose norms guide us today, the resolution of
strategic political questions regarding revolutionary violence,
people’s war and the Party, the army and the United Front.
The following decision was taken: “Forge the First Com-
pany in Deeds! Let violence flourish concretized in initiating and
developing the armed struggle; let us open up a new chapter with lead
and offer our blood to write it, a new chapter in the history of our Party
and people, and let us forge the First Company in deeds! Peru, December
3rd,1979.”
[...]
THE SO-CALLED “NATIONALIST, DEMOCRATIC
AND PEOPLE’S STATE”. On July 28, 1985, starting his
manifesto to Congress, García Pérez said: “I must repeat be-
fore the nation, that my commitment is with the totality of its
citizens”; the same concepts that in 1963 and 1980 Belaúnde
Terry used when he proclaimed himself “president of all Pe-
ruvians”, as well as the same perorations on the “popular vote”
and the vaunted “ascent to the presidency in the odor of the
multitude”; simple coincidences? in no way whatsoever, but
old essences and palaver of the exploiting classes and their
hacks. But even more so, the one who acts as president, dust-
ing off old APRA ideas that have been revived today and with
his usual demagogy, goes back to the transcendental historical

114
analysis pontificating: “Because our history is also the history
of our dependence on external forces that allied and ex-
pressed in powerful internal interests, this have led our coun-
try to the current crisis. Lacking a national project, lacking a
historical and people’s leadership, we have lived adapting our
economy to the great interests of international capitalism”;
later on, he formulated on “proclaiming the revolution”:
“The crisis we are living today is not a crisis within depend-
ence, it is the crisis of dependence itself and it can only have
one answer. The democratic revolution that will make us
more free, more just and more owners of well-being, and that
revolution that I proclaim here will be the independence of
our economic interests”. In short, what is it all about, what is
being covered up? Well, that the Peruvian history of this cen-
tury that García Pérez pretends to delineate is of the domin-
ion of Yankee imperialism mainly, allied with the big bour-
geoisie and the feudal landlords; These, exploitation and op-
pression, are the causes of the current crisis and of the ties to
the imperialist system and not the “deficiencies” of “project”
and “leadership” which are another form of his “thesis” of
our supposed co-responsibility with the “civilizing” imperial-
ist domination, which as a member of the APRA he must
think about in depth, although his demagogy forbids him to
say so. As for the second paragraph, the invoked “crisis of
dependence” is simply and plainly the crisis of imperialism
and its domination. The democratic revolution that these de-
mand is not a mere “independence of our economic interests”
but fundamentally and principally will be a political feat that
destroys the three mountains that bend us: imperialism, bu-
reaucrat-capitalism and semi-feudalism, a political feat that
will only be fulfilled with the people’s war and even more
within the world proletarian revolution that will overthrow
the imperialist and reactionary domination across the globe;
it is not the “new relations” of reinsertion into imperialism to
maintain it as García raised, but the destruction of the system;
Thus the question is political and the great turns of Peruvian

115
history themselves prove it, where the political and military
feat preceded the economic change; and today in Peru, the
peremptory necessity is the ongoing democratic revolution
carried forward through people’s war within Marxism-Lenin-
ism-Maoism, guiding thought, and no one can hide this. What
Garcia Perez says are nothing but old and rotten APRA clap-
trap, now presented with modern pseudo-scientific shavings
of the so-called “different future”, as can be seen in his dif-
ferent lucubrations of the same message and even more so in
the confrontation with reality, in practice the supreme crite-
rion of truth.
On the so-called “three injustices”. This is what García
Pérez says about his “three injustices”. “Our economic his-
tory concludes in a situation of profound injustices, and the
economic problems we suffer today are due to them”. Here
the problem is no longer “the crisis of dependence”, his false
anti-imperialism has vanished, now the issue is “the profound
injustices” that are causes of our problems; the supposed
anti-imperialist becomes a vigilante, he jumps into the lime-
light as “the champion of justice” raising as his great banner
of “Social Justice”! This is an outdated nineteenth-century
slogan linked to anarchism, one of the acting facets of the
APRA through figures of the so-called free syndicalism such
as Sabroso and his cohorts; we are not talking about Gonza-
lez Prada, a notorious figure with whom the APRA has al-
ways tried to traffic. In concrete terms, then, the issue is one
of injustice, let us see its first “dimension” in the words of
García Pérez: “First, there is a regional injustice, which sepa-
rates Lima, the city and the Coast, from the rest of forgotten
Peru. In Lima is 80% of the industry, in Lima, not in the
shanty towns that are still provincial, but in the Lima of
wealth and the middle classes, the State concentrates its ad-
ministrative services of education and health... If things con-
tinue this way, for whom will Lima produce in the future, if
the country is getting poorer and poorer”. This “regional in-
justice” raises two salient points: the condition of Lima and

116
the State; why is there such a great difference and separation
of Lima from the rest of the country...? Because of the sub-
sisting semi-feudalism, despite stubbornly denying it, the un-
deniable reality and mainly the people’s war is making them
see that the Sierra exists, an area in which precisely semi-feu-
dal relations are evident wherever one looks; because of the
development of bureaucrat-capitalism which increasingly
concentrates the means of production in the capital, remem-
ber that Velasco also spoke of decentralization, but promot-
ing the former, today the concentration is greater; and mainly
because of the domination of Yankee imperialism. The back-
ward world and particularly Latin America show this mon-
strous macrocephaly: Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina prove it.
These are the causes and that is what we must talk about and
not hide behind “regional injustice”. But, in addition, the
President speaks of “the Lima of wealth and of the middle
classes”; middle classes are the intermediate classes, between
them the national bourgeoisie and the upper layer of the petty
bourgeoisie, the so-called “emerging” ones, are these the
ones that hold the wealth? No, but the big bourgeoisie in its
comprador and bureaucrat factions who as big bankers, in-
dustrialists, merchants and real estate landlords concentrate
the ownership of the means of production, added to the big-
gest imperialist interests also concentrated in Lima and this is
what is hidden, the economic power of these classes and of
imperialism, in synthesis the power of the big exploiting clas-
ses is covered up, but he didn’t forget the classes, because, as
can be seen he speaks of “the middle classes”. The other sa-
lient point is the concentration of the power of the State of
the armed forces which are its backbone and of the bureau-
cracy which, precisely, concentrate their means in the capital
to sustain the dictatorship of the landlord-bureaucrat class
which is the Peruvian State and from there control the whole
country; this is what is fundamental and not the concentra-
tion of “administrative services of education and health”
which are derivative questions; And this is the central

117
question that must be considered, especially when the milita-
rization and bureaucratization of the Peruvian State has been
increasing more and more in the last decades as a conse-
quence of the increasingly outdated process of the prevailing
social system itself and, mainly, of the revolutionary develop-
ment of the masses and especially of the people’s war that
undermines it and aims to destroy it. Finally, García Pérez
says: “If things go on like this, for whom will Lima pro-
duce...”; what does he want then, does he agree with the in-
voked “regional injustice”? In the end he is interested in
“market” for the productive system of the exploiting classes
and imperialism, what already before him worried Velasco,
Morales, Belaúnde and other “heads of state” that preceded
him, with their conditions and circumstances, with the pop-
ular saying “I don’t love pork, I just love chicharrones”.
But let’s continue with the famous “injustices”: “But there
is a second dimension of injustice, an economic divorce of
sectors, when we analyze the economic functioning of the
country we see that there are two clearly divided sectors”.
“On one side, there is the modern industry... That is the
modern sector, where 85% of Peru’s investment is and only
38% of Peruvians work. But on the other side of the econ-
omy, there is the marginalized sector, rural Andean agricul-
ture, with millions of communal farmers and land owners and
that human group that some have called the marginal urban
sector, made up of the unemployed, the underemployed, al-
most always living in shanty towns... It is worth asking for
whom the industry will produce if the majorities are increas-
ingly poorer. What will the State administer if there is no pro-
duction in the country? I come to say that there will be no
real solution as long as the State is only for industry and ad-
ministration. There will be no profound revolution until the
State reaches the commoner and the unemployed”.
Once again let us ask ourselves, what is modern industry
in Peru; simply, it is bureaucrat-capitalism that has developed
under imperialist domination and linked to feudal landlords;

118
the degree of submission of modern industry to imperialism,
especially Yankee, can be seen in the following two para-
graphs by scholars on the industrial problem:
“The dynamics of industrial growth in Peru in the last two
decades has been driven by large multinational companies
and conglomerates of North American, European and Japa-
nese origin, the same that upon penetrating our economy
have tended to establish either monopolistic or oligopolistic
forms, both in terms of production and distribution of the
product it manufactures...”
“The penetration of large companies and multinational
conglomerates in the ‘Peruvian’ manufacturing industry has
directly contributed to generate a slow but sure marginaliza-
tion of the new and old sectors of the national bourgeoisie...
Thus, in the last two decades the role assumed by the ‘na-
tional bourgeoisie’ has been that of developing new industrial
groups which, over time, have been controlled by foreign
capital. Therefore, what is currently developing is an interme-
diary bourgeoisie arising from certain groups, which on the
basis of their prestige, experience and their social and eco-
nomic links have been integrated into the large multinational
companies and conglomerates, becoming part of the increas-
ingly growing intermediary sector” (E. Anaya, “Imperialismo,
industrialización y transferencia de tecnología en el Perú”;
bear in mind that when the author speaks of the national
bourgeoisie he is referring to the native bourgeoisie and, even
more, to the big bourgeoisie).
“Perhaps the most significant conclusion of the structural
analysis is the high degree of control that foreign companies
have even in the extractive and industrial sectors of Peru.
Moreover, a direct quantification of the level of foreign in-
vestment in the country would not give an accurate picture
of the degree of control of foreign capital in the economy.
This control is substantially amplified by the strategic charac-
ter of this investment, by the fact that the most important
companies in each industry are foreign, and because most of

119
these companies are subsidiaries of large multinational cor-
porations” (J.A. Torres, “Estructura económica de la indus-
tria peruana”).
This is the question, not the cover of “a second dimension
of injustice”; and it’s the sinister bureaucrat-capitalism and
mainly its subjection to imperialism what should be talked
about. What should even more be discussed would be for the
mountains to be overthrown with weapons in hand in order
to raise a true national economy that is for the oppressed
masses, and within it, an industry for the class and the people;
But García Pérez, artful and demagogic, asks himself, “for
whom will industry produce if the majorities are poorer and
poorer”, once again it is clear which side he is on and what
his real concern is.
But what is a “marginalized sector”? First of all, what is
Andean rural agriculture, namely semi-feudalism with the
three connotations was already established by Mariátegui:
land, servitude and gamonalism. It is the question of land as
the driving force of the class struggle in the countryside; the
century-old problem of land concentration with feudal roots;
a basic problem of the country as shown by the fact that in
the sixties three agrarian laws of sale and purchase were
passed, which in essence have done nothing but maintain the
concentration, as shown in the following table of the “Gen-
eral Directorate of Agrarian Reform and Rural Settlement”
itself:

ADVANCES OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM

1963-1979
(Report from June 24, 1979)

120
 Adjudi- Be-
Adjudi-
cated ex- nefi-
cated
tensions. cia-
units
Has. ries
% Nº %
Cooperatives 581 2,196,147 25.5 79,568 21.2
Agro-industrial
12 128,566 1.5 27,783 7.4
complexes
SAIS 60 2,805,048 32.6 60,954 16.2
EPS 11 232,653 2.7 1,375 0.4
Peasant groups 834 1,685,382 19.6 45,561 12.1
Peasant commu-
448 889,364 20.3 117,710 31.4
nities
Independent pea-
--- 662,093 7.7 42,295 11.2
sants
Total 1,907 8,599,253 100.0 375,246 100.0

From the table it is clearly seen that the delivery to indi-

vidual peasants would have been only 7.7% of the adjudicated
land; and if we make an estimate of the number of peasant
“beneficiaries” it would be around one million eight hundred
thousand, but the 81 census tells us that there are six million
two hundred and forty-five thousand peasants; the propagan-
dized “agrarian reforms” would not have reached even a third
of the peasantry; and if we remember that in 1961, according
to the National Agricultural Census, 83.5% of the agricultural
units had less than five hectares owning only 5.7% of the land,
while 1% of the units occupied 81% of the land. If we re-
member that in 1961, according to the National Agricultural
Census, 83.5% of the agricultural units had less than five hec-
tares, owning only 5.7% of the surface area, while 1% of the
units occupied 81% of the land, the question arises: what is
the problem? what is the root of the situation? This is being
shown today, very acutely and seriously, by the reality of
Puno, by García Pérez himself, posed “as another Ayacucho”

121
which, although he does not like it, neither he nor others, is
already opening up as such.

AGRARIAN REFORM IN PUNO (D.L. 17716)

Adjusticated Benefited fa-

Modality % %
hectares milies
23 SAIS 1,024,287 52.20 6,249* 20.87
16 CAPS 499,503 25.50 6,480 21.64
05 ERPS 216,845 11.06 939 3.13
1,740,635 88.76 13,668 45.64
74 Peasant com-
46,180 2.30 14,547 48.59
munities
72 Peasant groups 131,672 6.80 1,460 4.87
177,852 9.10 16,007 53.46
261 individuals 41,069 2.10 261 0.87

* Does not include the 6,663 families of the SAIS partner

communities; in practice they do not receive significant ben-
efits from the companies. They should not be considered
“beneficiary” families (this is general in all the SAIS of the
country).

This table from the “General Direction of Agrarian Re-

form” of December 1983, shows how 23 SAIS have 52.20%
of the adjudicated lands with only 20.87% of the families,
while 74 peasant communities with 48.59% of the families
have 2.30% of the lands; on the other hand: the associative
companies that would have 45.64% of the families benefited
have 88.76% of the adjudicated lands, while communities and
peasant groups with 53.46% of the families received only 9.10%
of the lands. This is the great underlying problem of the Sierra,
principally but not exclusively; it is not “another dimension
of injustice”, it is the subsisting semi-feudalism with its trilogy

122
of land, servitude and gamonalism and this is not resolved by
any law of the old State, only the peasantry under the leader-
ship of the Communist Party conquering and defending the
land with weapons in hand through the people’s war, as we
are already seeing in our own soil.
But let us look at the other part “of injustice”, the question
of unemployment and underemployment. If we consult the
“Statistic Compendium 1985” of the “National Institute of
Statistics” itself, we find:

UNEMPLOYMENT, UNDEREMPLOYMENT AND

ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT; AGRICULTURAL AND
NON-AGRICULTURAL
1980-85
(RELATIVE FIGURES)

Level of 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

employ-
ment
status
Rate of
unem-
7.0 6.8 7.0 9.2 10.9 11.8
ploy-
ment
Agricul-
0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
tural
Non-
agricul- 10.9 10.4 10.7 13.9 16.4 18.4
tural
Rate of
unde-
rem- 51.2 47.9 49.9 53.3 54.2 54.1
ploy-
ment
Agricul-
68.2 61.5 60.9 67.5 63.2 60.4
tural

123
Level of 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
employ-
ment
status
Non-
agricul- 41.4 40.3 43.9 45.8 49.6 50.5
tural
Rate of
adequate
41.8 45.3 43.1 37.5 34.9 34.1
employ-
ment
Agricul-
31.5 38.2 38.8 32.2 36.5 39.3
tural
Non-
agricul- 47.7 49.3 45.4 40.3 34.0 31.1
tural

Unemployment and underemployment clearly increased

from 7% in 1980 to 11.8% in 1985; moreover, in the non-
agricultural sector, specifically in the cities, unemployment
rose from 10.9% to 18.4% in the same years. Underemploy-
ment went from 51.2% in 1980 to 54.1% in 1985; but it oc-
curred in both rural and urban areas, with the particularity
that while in the rural areas it went from 68.2% to 60.4% in
the same years, in the cities it rose from 41.4% to 50.5%. Is
this another form of “injustice”? Not at all, it is only the nec-
essary consequence of the outdated semi-feudal and semi-co-
lonial system in which bureaucrat-capitalism develops and of
the crisis we are enduring; it is the necessity of the nefarious
social system that in order to maintain itself condemns two
thirds of its population to hunger, of a rotten system that
plunges the Peruvian population, the popular masses in the
narrowness of a per capita income similar to that of the year
65. Of a social system that in order to survive requires each
time a more militarized and bureaucratized State and that per-
emptorily reaches the most distant place and the poorest
masses to control their revolutionary explosiveness and their

124
incorporation to the people’s war, to be ready to suffocate
the people with blood and fire continuing its genocide; this is
what García Pérez hides behind his “what will the State ad-
minister if there is no production in the country” and “that
the State reaches the commoner and the unemployed”.
Finally, let us look at the last of the trinity of injustices
pontifically consecrated by García Pérez; we will deal with it
in parts given its importance, following the already alluded
message: “But injustice in Peru is not only between regions
and between sectors of economic operation. It is also a pro-
found social injustice. I have spoken of a symbolic pyramid.
At the top of which 2% of the population obtains the highest
income through its monopolistic companies and thanks to
the ownership of the means of production. Many times that
wealth made with the effort of Peru, has been achieved
thanks to the hunger of the Peruvians...”. Let us emphasize
that it is here where we come across the so often brought and
brought as magical pyramid whose symbolism we will unravel.
Let us consider the “top 2% of the population”, what is it
here, in the country, according to the ideology of the prole-
tariat? Well, it is the very nucleus of the exploiting classes: the
big bourgeoisie (in its two comprador and bureaucrat factions)
and the landlords, as well as the imperialist domination,
mainly Yankee, as far as its most direct representatives are
concerned; they are the concentrated expression of the three
mountains that oppress the people and consequently the core
representation of that minority (calculated at 10% more or
less), whose power must be completely and utterly destroyed,
at least politically and economically, in order to fulfill the
democratic stage of the revolution; the question, therefore, in
essence is not because they are “2%” but their class character;
likewise, the problem is not simply that they “obtain the
greatest income through their monopolistic enterprises and
thanks to the ownership of the means of production”, as the
message demagogically says, but that they are members of the
three targets of the democratic revolution: Imperialism,

125
bureaucrat-capitalism and semi-feudalism, obviously monop-
olists and exploiters in that they have appropriated the most
important social means of production of Peruvian society, of
the wealth that the people, the masses, the exploited have
generated and that was and continues to be taken from them
by force of exploitation and oppression that lives daily suck-
ing the blood of the people while they are plunged them
deeper into hunger and misery.
“But I have also said,” the so-called president continues,
“that the State, in order to guarantee a model of domination
and to safeguard the wealth of that 2%, has also become an
instrument of unjust concentration of income. Like a bureau-
cratic cushion to defend the most powerful, it has become
unproductive and centralist. It has provided jobs, but more
than what’s needed, sometimes to pay electoral clientele and
in other cases to create nuclei of bureaucratic wealth”. Once
again with his famous “injustices”, after covering up the class
struggle, he distorts and muddles the fundamental problem
of the State; what does García intend? to reduce the question
to the fact that the Peruvian State “has become an instrument
of unjust (again his magic word), concentration of income”
generating too many posts “to pay electoral clientele” thus
becoming “unproductive and centralist”, “to guarantee a
model of domination”; therefore, the question would be less
bureaucracy and the years ago propagandized decentraliza-
tion, hiding the bottom line and the main thing: the function
of the armed forces. “ Two institutions most characteristic of
this state machine are the bureaucracy and the standing army...
The bureaucracy and the standing army are a ‘parasite’ on the
body of bourgeois society – a parasite created by the internal
antagonisms which rend that society, but a parasite which
‘chokes’ all its vital pores,” as Lenin taught. He further
stressed: “ imperialism... has clearly shown an unprecedented
growth in its bureaucratic and military apparatus in connec-
tion with the intensification of repressive measures against
the proletariat.” To which should be added this great

126
condensation of Chairman Mao Tse-tung: “ All things grow
out of the barrel of a gun. According to the Marxist theory of
the state, the army is the chief component of state power.”
This is the only truthful and scientific way to analyze the
problem, highlighting how the man of the so-called “injus-
tices”, besides denying the historical process of the State es-
pecially under a not-talked-about imperialism, hides the main
component, the very source of reactionary power. This is a
matter of great importance, especially in a country where rev-
olution and counterrevolution confront each other in arms;
therefore, let us insist again on the Marxist thesis: “ A stand-
ing army and police are the chief instruments of state power.
But how can it be otherwise?”
From the lies we’ve seen, García Pérez has shown all of us
the reactionary essence of his “symbolic pyramid”, according
to his own demagogic rhetoric: “But on this path, the State
has been indebting itself and indebting Peru and almost all
the debt is for the top 30% urban, industrial and administra-
tive of the country. But below, there is a 70% marginal agri-
cultural and peasant population, unemployed and displaced,
provincial and from shanty towns”.
First of all, the indebtedness of the Peruvian State is part
of the development plans of loans and investments that im-
perialism imposes on oppressed nations such as ours, in ac-
cordance with the development plans of bureaucrat-capital-
ism and the evolution of semi-feudalism that the exploiters
develop through their State. And if we focus our attention
from 1970 to date, a period in which the foreign debt grew
enormously, we find that from 1974 to 1983 the economic
growth of the country was almost nil (0.1%), while that of the
nine preceding years had an average rate of 5.1%; the industry
only went from 24.7% of the GDP in 1970 to 24.7% of the
GDP in 1983. From 7% of GDP in 1970 to 25.1% in 1980,
to drop to 22.0% in 1984; the manufacturing proletariat was
reduced to 13.7% of the labor force in 1980 from 14.6%;
while business profits in 1972 reached 17.5% of national

127
income, they rose to 31.9% in 1980 (in 1979 even higher:
33.3%), the renumerations which in 72 comprised 51.2%
were reduced to 39.3% in 1980, and let us remember that it
was the renumerations of the state employees which suffered
the greatest reduction; and as a complement to this same pro-
cess the agricultural labor force went from being 43.7% in 70
to only 35%. However, this reduction, which could not be
discounted by industrialization, necessarily led to the growth
of the service sector from 28.6% in 1970 to 38.8% in 1980.
This phenomenon also occurred in the capital itself, the larg-
est industrial center of the country, as can easily be seen from
the following data: in 1972 industry occupied 19.1% of the
economically active population (EAP), but in 1981 only
16.9%, while the commerce and services sectors, from 48%
of the EAP in 1972, rose to 62% in 1981.
From the above it can be seen that the foreign debt and
the plans applied have not benefited the supposed “top 30%
urban, industrial and administrative of the country” but ra-
ther imperialism, the native exploiters and their State, as can
be seen from the growth of corporate profits and the amount
of the foreign debt, which more or less from 800 million in
1969 has risen to 16 billion dollars today. What does Garcia
want? Well, simply the defense of his so-called “top 2%”; in
his lucubration of the “top 30%...” he wants to recast mainly
the proletariat, part of the petty bourgeoisie and the national
bourgeoisie in a bloc, to hide behind it and protect the inter-
ests of the imperialists, big bourgeoisie and landlords and to
this false grouping counterpose his crude demagogic inven-
tion of the “70% agricultural and peasant marginal, unem-
ployed and itinerant, provincial and from shanty towns”, as
is clear from the subsequent paragraph of his message to
Congress: “The State until now is not theirs, because until
today, the State enriched very few and reached others in
scarce resources in employment, health and service; but it was
alien to that 70% on which I think the future of national his-
tory depends. We must find a solution to the social conflict

128
that confronts, on the one hand, those who own the means
of production plus their public or private subsidiary groups
and, on the other hand, the disinherited, who are the vast ma-
jority”. (Emphasis added).
This is the reactionary essence that closes the “symbolic
pyramids” of the one who serves as president: around his
“2%” of monopolists and owners of the social means of pro-
duction he builds his “top 30%” and he opposes those with
his formulation of the “marginal 70%”; thus arise the two
counterparts of his pyramid, the two terms of the contradic-
tion that generates the “social conflict”, as he says: “owners
of the means of production plus their public or private sub-
sidiary groups” on the one hand and on the other, “the dis-
inherited who are the vast majority”; but since “we must
solve the social conflict that confronts (them)”, where does
his whole “symbolic pyramid” point to? To defend the ex-
ploiters and oppressors of our people, the rest is lucubration,
rhetoric and demagogy; in the end the same old APRA ideas
spruced up according to the new scientistic and convoluted
sociological fashion, concluding with this trinity of theirs,
solving the problem of the Peruvian State with a declaration:
“I declare, and this is my commitment, that from today, the
State belongs to all Peruvians, and that if no one has spoken
for the communards and unemployed, from today the State
will speak on their behalf for good and justice.” (underlined
ours). A year later, those who believed these falsehoods, hy-
pocrisies and arrogance and confront the daily reality that the
country lives cannot but understand better and better what
Marxism, the conception of the proletariat teaches: “The
State is an organ for the oppression of one class by another
“, because: “The state is the product and the manifestation of
the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises
when, where, and to the extent that the class antagonisms
cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely, the exist-
ence of the stat proves that the class antagonisms are irrec-
oncilable.”

129
 In conclusion, the three so-called “injustices” obviously
deny the character of Peruvian society, the classes and the
class struggle that takes place in it and centrally the character
of landlord-bureaucrat dictatorship of the Peruvian State, as
well as the need for revolutionary violence to overthrow the
old State and the exploiters to begin to develop the new so-
ciety; and starting from all this is that he proposes his so-
called “democratic revolution”, which the aforementioned
message states as follows: “What I come to affirm is some-
thing different, what Peru needs is a democratic revolution, a
historical restructuring that reactivates the deep, that un-
leashes the social forces ignored until today.”
“I propose to give impulse to agriculture, where millions
of Peruvians live as they did centuries ago so that those aban-
doned lands, without seeds, without fertilizers, without trac-
tors, lands that are cultivated every eight years, produce the
food that we now buy abroad.”
“That is the productive social reactivation. I propose sec-
ondly that the hundreds of thousands of unemployed and un-
deremployed arms of the shanty towns have some access to
income or employment. That will be the social reactivation
of consumption.”
“And so, when we link at the bases of society the produc-
tion of agriculture, with the consumption of those who now
cannot eat for lack of employment, a different Peru will be
launched, and it will then be the national market to which the
products of the Lima industry that little by little is now shut-
ting down for lack of buyers can reach. And then, the public
administration, most of which is in Lima, and which now ap-
pears to be administering an unproductive country, will have
a historical explanation in a country reactivated from its very
bases”.
“...if we do not decide for change, the situation in a short
time will be thousands of times worse, with more violence,
more recession and more unemployment”. (The underlining
is ours).

130
 Is this the democratic revolution that Peruvian society
needs, the one that demands the overthrow of imperialism,
bureaucrat-capitalism and semi-feudalism in the country
through the people’s war as it has been developing for six
years? No, not at all; rather it has expressive coincidences
with problems that were pointed out and solutions that were
proposed previously for many decades. Suffice it to recall
some of the proposals of the “Economic and Social Devel-
opment Plan 1967-1970”, approved during Belaúnde’s first
government, which stated, for example: “In general, if the
current tendencies of the economy are not vigorously cor-
rected and oriented towards new directions... it can cause se-
rious tensions, with unpredictable economic, political and so-
cial results...”, as well as to take “into account that the main
political decisions for economic development normally refer
to the process of capital formation... establishing limitations
on the consumption of goods... establishing limitations on
the consumption of luxury goods in order to free up capital
for attractive investments based on adequate incentives”; the
importance given to the development of agriculture as a stra-
tegic sector to reduce the importation of agricultural products
and mainly for the expansion of the national market “indis-
pensable for the process of growth and expansion of indus-
try”, for which “structural changes” were required and “to
concentrate the direct and indirect action of the State in the
agricultural sector”; another fundamental purpose of the plan
was the development of industry, stressing that “industry cur-
rently has a high dependence on imported inputs”; consider-
ing that financially “the role of the State in the plan appears
as an agency for the transfer of income from consumption,
specifically from urban areas, to investment. From the point
of view of income distribution, as a way of transferring in-
come from the city to the countryside”; and, among other
issues, the organization of Popular Cooperation oriented pre-
cisely to the so-called marginalized masses.

131
 On the other hand, for the sake of completeness, we tran-
scribe two quotations from speeches of General Velasco Al-
varado: “By sustaining and defending a nationalist and reso-
lutely revolutionary policy, we are fulfilling a high duty of pat-
riotism. We believe that our country can achieve neither se-
curity nor greatness, maintaining untouched its old structures
of discrimination of the national majorities. We aspire to the
creation of a truly free and just social order that we consider
incompatible with the survival of the imbalances that have
made our country a nation of great injustices”; April ‘69.
“When on various occasions we have said that one of the
central goals of our movement is the decisive impulse of in-
dustrialization, we have told the truth. Peru completely lacked
an industrial future within the traditional molds. The under-
development imposed on this country by power groups with
no sense of history made it impossible to create a true indus-
trial apparatus. The imbalances of underdevelopment were
always translated into the existence of social sectors com-
posed of millions of our compatriots whose very low pur-
chasing power never allowed them to constitute the internal
market indispensable for the consolidation of a truly Peruvian
industry”.
“This was, precisely, one of the motivations of the agrarian
reform. It obeyed not only to the need to transform the une-
qual and unjust land tenure but also to redistribute wealth to
increase the purchasing power of the peasantry that in the
future should be the consumer of the manufactured products
of the true industry that we have never had”.
“...One of the cornerstones of the structural transfor-
mation we want to carry out must necessarily be the acceler-
ated development of industry...” (October ‘69).
What does all this imply? Concretely and simply, those are
similar problems and approaches that the governments, both
de facto and elected from elections, have been facing since
decades ago, trying nothing more than to develop Peruvian
society, developing bureaucrat-capitalism and evolving semi-

132
feudalism all within the conditions imposed by imperialism,
mainly Yankee and facing the concrete situations presented
to them, hence their specific differences. But all of them are
within the maintenance and defense of the landlord-bureau-
crat dictatorship that is the Peruvian State.
These are, then, in general terms, the foundations on
which the July 85 message of García Pérez is based and on
which his so-called “nationalist, democratic and popular State”
is built and on which his governmental administration is de-
veloped.
The self-proclaimed “nationalist State”. “We know
that to make the democratic revolution we must be anti-im-
perialist...” said García at the United Nations; but one cannot
be anti-imperialist only by defending “the nation from the
monopolistic structure of some companies”, but by fighting
head on against the monopolies which are the economic basis
of imperialism, and even less so by benefiting the largest oil
monopoly in the world, which are the contracts with Occi-
dental Petroleum Company. No one can call himself an anti-
imperialist by maintaining that the foreign debt, one of the
most serious and throbbing problems afflicting mainly the
backward nations, is a problem of “relations between the
poor and the rich” or “between North and South”, when we
all know that it is a burning problem of the exportation of
capital, one of the characteristics of imperialism, an expres-
sion of its parasitic character of living off the “coupon clip-
ping” as Lenin taught, a striking and forceful demonstration
of the squeezing relationship of exploitation between imperi-
alist countries and oppressed nations and, moreover, holding
the oppressed nations also responsible for the crippling debt
that overwhelms and suffocates them. Nor can one be anti-
imperialist by pretending to detach the problem of foreign
debt from the world struggle of the superpowers for hegem-
ony; and, even less, to say to just put oneself on the margin
of this struggle, basically ignoring it, which is the same as
serving it. One should be fighting it, denouncing the collusion

133
and struggle that U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperial-
ism are carrying out which is plunging especially the Third
World deeper into misery, while unleashing counterrevolu-
tionary wars in different parts of the world and preparing a
third world war, wielding their atomic power to terrorize and
paralyze the combativity of the exploited and oppressed. In
the same way, one cannot be anti-imperialist calling on the
other imperialists, especially Europeans, to help the poor of
the world, much less dreaming and hoping to find under-
standing and support in the superpowers themselves. And
the false anti-imperialism is unmasked more quickly when in
addition to serving the monopolies such as OXY and recog-
nizing the debt and committing to pay it, invoking the false-
hood of “honoring our commitments”, when it rises up scan-
dalously shouting denouncing imperialist aggression by sus-
pending the so-called “military aid” that only serves to train
genocidal officers like Hurtado, the nicknamed “Truck” and
others of his ilk. They are clamoring for their continued ex-
istence with the support of their cronies, also “anti-imperial-
ists”, like the heads of the self-styled “socialist international”,
like Castro and like the United Left headed by Barrantes, to
end up paying their back dues and reestablish the “military
aid” that trains genocidal officers; and even more so when in
high-flown defiance they proclaim to pay only 10% of their
export income and end up paying 35.5% or 56.9% in the sec-
ond semester of 1985 (14.7% by public debt, 6.4% by the
Central Reserve Bank and 35.8% by the private sector) as
shown by economists; or when they threaten to withdraw
from the nefarious International Monetary Fund if such con-
ditions are not accepted and rejected, it is concluded that it is
more convenient to remain in it. There is, therefore, in no
way whatsoever, the false “nationalist State”, but simply a
false anti-imperialism and a true pro-imperialism.
The self-proclaimed “democratic state”. “In second
place, says the hopeful message for some, we require a dem-
ocratic State that is democratic not only for its elective origin

134
or for its respect for freedom of opinion and expression, but
also for its role as arbiter of justice, but fundamentally for its
new organizational structure”. First of all, regarding “its elec-
tive origin”, we have shown in previous pages that the current
APRA government has emerged violating its constitution and
other electoral laws; that, in synthesis, more than 50% did not
vote for it as required by the Constitution in this country, its
selection being the product of the collusion of Yankee impe-
rialism with the native exploiting classes and the endorsement
of the Armed Forces, for which reason Alan García Pérez
simply acts as president and, consequently, the ministers he
appoints and the functions they fulfill have no legal basis
within his own system. Likewise, the Congress of the Repub-
lic suffers from serious problems related to the preferential
vote, about which there have been complaints, questionings
and scandals that have not been clarified to this day. Regard-
ing the “respect for freedom of opinion and expression” as it
corresponds within the reactionary order, it is only for the
exploiters who own almost all the mass media; but what is
striking is the uniform management that the APRA govern-
ment has imposed in this field, a striking and undeniable ex-
ample is the information on the genocide of June 19 against
the prisoners of war; This, in addition to the indirect and even
brutally unmasked restriction against some of the few media
that escape state control, the censorship and persecution of
the “Nuevo Diario” and television programs, are clear exam-
ples; otherwise, let us ask ourselves a simple question, when
has any newspaper or media outlet ever accepted to publish
a communiqué denouncing the persecution, torture, disap-
pearances and genocide against the people other than the
aforementioned newspaper or the magazine “Equis X”? But
the freedoms and rights that the masses have conquered and
even forced to be written in the laws cannot be reduced to
freedom of opinion and expression; are the right to life and
physical integrity, freedom of thought and its expression, the
inviolability of the home and correspondence, the right to

135
assembly, organization and strike, labor stability and social
benefits, etc., etc., and the right to bury their dead respected
in the country, and in this so-called “democratic State”? And
this is not to mention the state of emergency and curfew with
all its implications of the sacred “defense of order”. And as
for the State “as arbiter of justice”, it will suffice to ask the
workers of Sima, Moraveco, the miners of Canaria and Pasco,
the members of CITE, SUTEP, doctors, the sugar cane
growers all over the country and the people of Puno, Cusco
and San Martin and the people of Puno, Cusco and San Mar-
tin, Cusco and San Martin and to the inhabitants of shanty
towns like those of Garagay and not to mention the “arbiter
of justice’s” performance in Aqomarca, Lurigancho and the
last genocide of the three shining trenches of combat and the
frantic “Enough is enough! I have run out of patience!” of
García Pérez against the struggles of workers and laborers
and all the repression unleashed by the APRA government
since he began his administration, are evidently part of
reestablishing “national order and the return to the principle
of authority” and of his “if those who do not want to under-
stand fall into agitation, the order of the State will know how
to sanction them by applying legal discipline with firmness
and energy...there cannot be a tremulous conduct that favors
disorder but a firm decision...”, as he said in the message of
1985.
But what deserves the most attention is the statement:
“...democratic State...fundamentally because of its new organ-
izational structure.” The Peruvian State is fundamentally con-
ceived as a bourgeois “representative democracy”, that is,
parliamentary; so, what does “new organizational structure”
mean? In short, to give it a corporative structure; and this is
aimed at through “decentralization and deconcentration”, re-
gionalization, development committees, micro-regions and
“peasant communities as a social base” and the “National
Economic Congress”, to which the organizational work
mainly with the so-called marginalized masses are added:

136
shanty towns and peasantry of the “Andean trapeze” are
served by organizations and federation of shanty towns like
“Rimanacuy” that make plans, in addition to the assault of
the “people’s dining rooms”, “mothers’ clubs”, and activity
with women through the so-called “Direct Assistance Pro-
gram”; and the recently created “Council for the Promotion
of Youth”, to which must be added the capture of “profes-
sional colleges”, etc. And what can in no way be ignored is
the trade union parallelism and, very especially, the formation
of shock groups that the APRA has been rapidly setting up,
as well as the eagerness to pit masses against masses, as has
been seen in the use of the PAIT in the teachers’ and doctors’
strikes. But the setting up of this corporate structure cannot
be separated from the fascist political conception whose ex-
pression can be seen in the parliamentary crisis in which the
Legislative Power is sinking deeper and deeper, in the system-
atic denial of rights and liberties and in the actions and ges-
tures of a condottiere shown by García Pérez, whom his closest
henchmen call “leader”. In synthesis, is there the vaunted
“democratic State”? No, not at all, since what is taking place
and being prepared is the substitution of the democratic-rep-
resentative order for a corporative social reordering under the
direction of a fascist policy that is already making its way and
is expressed as a black future.
The self-proclaimed “people’s State”. “However, said
the message of ‘85, the people’s State, must give answers to
the most immediate and serious problems suffered by the
country”. How has the economy been managed for the ben-
efit of the masses? In the same message he already warned:
“I announce, because it is my duty, that we will set in motion
a hard economic program of government that will order the
economy towards the revolutionary transformation...” (The
underline is ours). As soon as García Pérez took office, he
immediately put into effect an emergency plan, which was a
copy, although with limitations, of Alfonsín’s Argentine plan
within the criteria of the so-called “expansionary-adjustment”

137
(a criterion which had the approval of J. de Larosiére, head
of the IMF, and let us bear in mind that the same plan was
for adjusting to the Fund); which had to be readjusted in Oc-
tober, later in February and recently in July; generalizing, we
can say that more and more it has been adjusting to the needs
of developing bureaucrat-capitalism subject to imperialism,
mainly Yankee and linked to semi-feudalism, focusing on
overcoming the crisis it has been suffering since 1974 and
seeking the so longed for “reactivation of the economy”. For
a long time, the great success of the “new economy” was
propagandized, however, the reality is different and has led
to the “call for reflection” proposed by the President and to
face reality and put an end to the triumphalism prevailing for
months.

Develop the People’s War, Serving the World Revolution

August 1986

On the CONTENT of Maoism, of its substance, we must

point out the following basic issues:
1. Theory. Marxism has three parts: Marxist philosophy,
Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The de-
velopment of all these three components gives rise to a great
qualitative leap of Marxism as a whole, as a unity on a supe-
rior level, which implies a new stage. Consequently, the es-
sential thing is to show that Chairman Mao, as can be seen in
theory and practice, has generated such a great qualitative
leap. Let us highlight this with the following points:
In Marxist philosophy he developed the essence of dialec-
tics, the law of contradiction, establishing it as the only fun-
damental law; and besides his profound dialectical under-
standing of the theory of knowledge, whose center are the
two leaps that make up its law (from practice to knowledge
and vice versa, but with knowledge to practice being the main
one). We emphasize that he masterfully applied the law of

138
contradiction in politics; and moreover he brought philoso-
phy to the masses of people, fulfilling the task that Marx left.
In Marxist political economy, Chairman Mao applied dia-
lectics to analyze the relationship between the base and su-
perstructure, and, continuing the struggle of Marxism-Lenin-
ism against the revisionist thesis of the “productive forces”,
he concluded that the superstructure, consciousness, can
modify the base, and that with political power the productive
forces can be developed. By developing the Leninist idea that
politics is the concentrated expression of economics, he es-
tablished that politics must be in command, (applicable on all
levels) and that political work is the life-line of economic
work; which takes us to the true handling of political econ-
omy, not just a simple economic policy.
Despite its importance, an issue which is often sidestepped,
especially by those who face democratic revolutions, is the
Maoist thesis of bureaucrat-capitalism; that is, the capitalism
which is being developed in the oppressed nations by impe-
rialism along with different degrees of underlying feudalism,
or even pre-feudal stages. This is a vital problem, mainly in
Asia, Africa and Latin America, since a good revolutionary
leadership derives from its understanding, especially when
the confiscation of bureaucrat capital forms the economic ba-
sis for carrying forward the socialist revolution as the second
stage.
But the main thing is that Chairman Mao Tse-tung has de-
veloped the political economy of socialism. Of the utmost
importance is his criticism of socialist construction in the So-
viet Union, as well as his theses on how to develop socialism
in China: Taking agriculture as the base and industry as the
leading economic force, promoting industrialization guided
by the relationship between heavy industry, light industry and
agriculture; taking heavy industry as the center of economic
construction and simultaneously paying full attention to light
industry and agriculture. The Great Leap Forward and the
conditions for its execution should be highlighted: One, the

139
political line that gives it a just and correct course; two, small,
medium, and large organizational forms in a greater to lesser
quantity, respectively; three, a great drive, a gigantic effort of
the masses of people in order to put it in motion and to take
it through to success, a leap forward whose results are valued
more for the new process set in motion and its historical per-
spective than its immediate achievements, and its linkage with
agricultural collectivization and the people’s communes. Fi-
nally, we must bear well in mind his teachings on the objec-
tivity and the subjectivity in understanding and handling the
laws of socialism, that because the few decades of socialism
have not permitted it to see its complete development, and
therefore a better understanding of its laws and its specifica-
tion, and principally the relationship that exists between rev-
olution and the economic process, embodied in the slogan
“grasp revolution and promote production”. Despite its tran-
scendental importance, this development of Marxist political
economy has received scant attention.
In scientific socialism, Chairman Mao further developed
the theory of social classes analyzing them on economic, po-
litical, and ideological planes. He upheld revolutionary vio-
lence as a universal law without any exception whatsoever;
revolution as a violent displacement of one class by another,
thus establishing the great thesis that “political power grows
out of the barrel of a gun”. He resolved the question of the
conquest of political power in the oppressed nations through
the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside, es-
tablishing its general laws. He defined and developed the the-
ory of the class struggle within socialism in which he bril-
liantly demonstrated that the antagonistic struggle between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist road
and the capitalist road, and between socialism and capitalism
continues. That in socialism it was not concretely determined
who would defeat whom, that it was a problem whose solu-
tion demands time, the unfolding of a process of restoration
and counter-restoration, in order for the proletariat to

140
strongly hold political power definitely through the proletar-
ian dictatorship; and, finally and principally, the grandiose so-
lution of historical transcendence, the Great Proletarian Cul-
tural Revolution as the continuation of the socialist revolu-
tion under the proletarian dictatorship.
These basic questions, simply and plainly stated but
known and undeniable, show the Chairman’s development of
the integral parts of Marxism, and the evident raising of
Marxism-Leninism to a new, third and superior stage: Marx-
ism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.
Continuing with this brief synthesis, let us look at other
specific points which, although deriving from the above,
should be considered even if only enumeratively, to empha-
size and pay due attention to them.
[...]
We must study Gonzalo Thought, starting from the his-
torical context that generated it; examine the ideological base
which sustains it; explain its content, more substantially ex-
pressed in the general political line and in the military line
which is its center; aiming at what is fundamental within it,
the problem of political power, of the seizure of power in
Perú, which is inextricably linked to the conquest of power
by the proletariat in the whole world; and we must pay close
attention to its forging in the two-line struggle.
In synthesis, these fundamental issues can be dealt with by
applying the following scheme:

I. HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

International context. In relationship to historical events:

1) the development since the Second World War onwards; 2)
the powerful national liberation movement and, within it, the
process and triumph of the Chinese Revolution; 3) the Cuban
Revolution and its repercussion on Latin America; 4) the
great struggle between Marxism and revisionism; 5) the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution. But the key point is to see

141
how, in this great class struggle on the world level, Gonzalo
Thought considers that a third stage of the proletarian ideol-
ogy arises: First, as Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung
Thought; then Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought;
and later, it is defined as Maoism, understanding its universal
validity; and in this way reaching Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
principally Maoism, as the present expression of Marxism.
National context. 1) the postwar Peruvian society and
within it the political struggle, the so called National Demo-
cratic Front, the action of APRA, Odría’s coup d’etat and the
struggle against his Eight Year Rule, the contest between
APRA followers and Communists; and particularly, the de-
velopment of bureaucrat-capitalism in the 1960s and part of
the 1970s and the sharp class struggle that accompanied it;
“Velasquism” and its so-called revolution, the contention and
collusion between the comprador bourgeoisie and the bu-
reaucrat bourgeoisie (factions of the big bourgeoisie), and op-
portunism and mainly revisionism by their supporters; 2) the
class struggle in the peasant movement; 3) the process of the
working class movement; 4) the intellectual movement; 5) the
armed struggle in the country, especially by the MIR [Move-
ment of the Revolutionary Left] and the ELN [National Lib-
eration Army] in 1965, as well as their antecedents in Blanco,
Vallejos, and Heraud; and 6) the problem of the Party: How
a Party founded on a clear Marxist-Leninist basis degenerated
into a revisionist party, the need to retake Mariátegui’s path,
develop it, and to reconstitute the Party, the Communist
Party of Perú that Mariátegui himself founded in 1928, and
how through this reconstitution a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
Party was built. Here it is fundamental how Gonzalo
Thought profoundly understood Peruvian society, and fo-
cused on the crucial problem of bureaucrat-capitalism, and
saw the need to reconstitute the Party and to conquer Politi-
cal Power and defend it with the People’s War.
[...]

142
III. CONTENTS.

a. Theory. How it understands and applies the three inte-

gral parts of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism; it
emphasizes the importance that Marxism gives to philosophy,
the necessity of forming ourselves in it, and especially its ap-
plication of the law of contradiction in the study of every
problem, always aiming at defining the principal aspect and
the process of things; in political economy, the concern about
the relations of exploitation, and especially about bureaucrat-
capitalism, orienting itself towards ripening the revolution
and the repercussion of the People’s War on the base, as well
as paying attention to the economic relations of imperialism,
looking for their political consequences; in scientific social-
ism it centers on the People’s War and its concrete expression
in the country, since it always has the problem of political
power in mind and, particularly, its shaping and development
as a New State.
[...]
The Communist Party of Perú has Communism as its final
goal; given that the current Peruvian society is oppressed and
exploited by imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism, and semi-
feudalism, the revolution has first a democratic stage, then a
second socialist one that will later develop successive cultural
revolutions. Presently with the People’s War the Party devel-
ops the democratic revolution, having as its immediate goal
to seize power countrywide. Because of this we raise the fol-
lowing objectives:

GENERAL PROGRAMME OF THE DEMOCRATIC

REVOLUTION

1. Demolition of the Peruvian State, the dictatorship of

the exploiters led by the big bourgeoisie, and of the armed
forces and forces of repression that sustain it and of all its his
bureaucratic apparatus.

143
 2. To sweep away all imperialist oppression, mainly Yan-
kee, and that of Soviet social-imperialism and of any power
or imperialist country. In general to confiscate their monop-
olies, companies, banks and all forms of their property in-
cluding the external debt.
3. To destroy bureaucrat-capitalism, private as well as state
owned; to confiscate all their properties, goods and economic
rights to benefit of new state, as well as those belonging to
imperialism.
4. Liquidation of semi-feudal property and everything sub-
sisting on it, in the countryside as well as in the city.
5. Respect the property and rights of the national bour-
geoisie, or middle bourgeoisie, in the country as well as in the
city.
6. Fight for the setting-up of the People’s Republic of Perú,
as a united front of classes based on the worker-peasant alli-
ance led by the proletariat headed by its Communist Party; as
a mold for the new democracy that carries forward a new
economy, a new politics, and a new culture.
7. Develop the People’s War that, through a revolutionary
army of a new type under the absolute control of the Party,
destroys the old power a piece at a time, mainly their armed
forces and other repressive forces. This serves to build the
new power for the proletariat and the people.
8. To complete the formation of the Peruvian nation, truly
unifying the country to defend it from all reactionary and im-
perialist aggression, safeguarding the rights of the minorities.
9. To serve the development of the Peruvian proletariat as
part of the international working class, and the formation and
strengthening of real Communist Parties and their unification
in a revived international Communist movement guided by
the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; all as a function of the pro-
letariat fulfilling its great historical mission as the final class.
10. To defend the freedoms, rights, benefits, and con-
quests that the working class and the masses have achieved
at the cost of their own blood, recognizing them and

144
guaranteeing their authentic enforcement in a “Declaration
of the Rights of the People”. To observe, particularly, the
freedom of religious conscience, but in its widest sense, of
believing as not to believe. Also to combat all arrangements
harmful to the popular interest, especially any form of unpaid
work or personal burden and the overwhelming taxes im-
posed on the masses.
11. Real equality for women; a better future for the youth;
protection for the mothers and the children; respect and sup-
port for the elderly.
12. A new culture as a combat weapon to solidify the na-
tion, that serves the popular masses and is guided by the sci-
entific ideology of the proletariat. Special importance to edu-
cation will be given.
13. To support the struggles of the international proletariat,
of the oppressed nations, and of the peoples of the world;
fighting against the superpowers, the United States and So-
viet Union, imperialism in general, and international reaction
and revisionism of all types, conceiving the Peruvian revolu-
tion as part of the world proletarian revolution.
14. To struggle tenaciously and heroically for the complete
victory and of the democratic revolution nationwide and after
completing this stage, at once, without pause, to begin the
socialist revolution so that, together with the international
proletariat, the oppressed nations and the peoples of the
world, through cultural revolutions, will continue the march
of humanity towards its final goal, Communism.

Fundamental Documents
1988

EL DIARIO: Chairman, let’s talk about one of the ideologi-

cal foundations of the CPP, Maoism. Why do you consider
Maoism the third stage of Marxism?

145
 CHAIRMAN GONZALO: This point is crucial, and of
enormous consequence. For us, Marxism is a process of de-
velopment, and this great process has given us a new, third,
and higher stage. Why do we say that we are in a new, third,
and higher stage, Maoism? We say this because in examining
the three component parts of Marxism, it is clearly evident
that Chairman Mao Tse-tung has developed each one of
these three parts. Let’s enumerate them: in Marxist philoso-
phy no one can deny his great contribution to the develop-
ment of dialectics, focusing on the law of contradiction, es-
tablishing that it is the only fundamental law. On political
economy, it will suffice to highlight twothings. The first, of
immediate and concrete importance for us, is bureaucrat cap-
italism, and second, the development of the political econ-
omy of socialism, since in synthesis we can say that it is Mao
who really established and developed the political economy
of socialism. With regard to scientific socialism, it is enough
to point to people’s war, since it is with Chairman Mao Tse-
tung that the international proletariat has attained a fully de-
veloped military theory, giving us then the military theory of
our class, the proletariat, applicable everywhere. We believe
that these three questions demonstrate a development of uni-
versal character. Looked at in this way what we have is a new
stage--and we call it the third one, because Marxism has two
preceding stages, that of Marx and that of Lenin, which is
why we speak of Marxism-Leninism. A higher stage, because
with Maoism the ideology of the worldwide proletariat attains
its highest development up to now, its loftiest peak, but with
the understanding that Marxism is--if you’ll excuse the reiter-
ation--a dialectical unity that develops through great leaps,
and that these great leaps are what give rise to stages. So for
us, what exists in the world today is Marxism-Leninism-Mao-
ism, and principally Maoism. We think that to be Marxists
today, to be Communists, necessarily demands that we be
Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and principally Maoists. Otherwise,
we couldn’t be genuine communists.

146
 [...]
EL DIARIO: Why did the Communist Party of Peru ini-
tiate the people’s war in 1980? What is the military and his-
torical explanation for this? What social, economic and polit-
ical analysis did the CPP carry out in order to launch the war?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: We studied the country, par-
ticularly from World War II on, and we saw that in its process
of development Peruvian society was entering a complex sit-
uation. The government’s own analysis showed that critical
questions would present themselves in the ‘80s. In Peru it can
be seen that there is a crisis every 10 years in the second half
of the decade and each crisis is worse than the one before.
We also analyzed bureaucrat capitalism, which makes condi-
tions more ripe for revolution. In 1980, the government was
to change hands through elections, which meant that the new
government would need a year and a half to two years to fully
put in place the operations of its State. So we concluded that
bureaucrat capitalism had ripened the conditions for revolu-
tion, and that the difficult decade of the ‘80s approached--
with crisis, an elected government, etc. All this provided a
very favorable conjuncture for initiating the people’s war and
refuted the position that armed struggle, or in our case peo-
ple’s war, cannot be initiated when there’s a new government
events have demonstrated the incorrectness of that position.
Such was our evaluation, and such was the situation as the
new government took over, that is, the military, having left
the government after ruling for 12 years, could not easily take
up the struggle against us right away, nor could they immedi-
ately take the helm of state again because they were worn
down and had become discredited. These were the concrete
facts, the reality.
Prior to that time, we had already put forward that partic-
ipation in the Constituent Assembly was incorrect, that the
only thing to do was to boycott it, because to participate in
the Constituent Assembly was simply to serve the restructur-
ing of the Peruvian State and to produce a constitution like

147
the one we have. All this was foreseeable, there was nothing
that could not be foreseen in this case. Therefore, we had
planned for some time to lay the basis to initiate the people’s
war, to make our move before the new government took of-
fice, which is what we did. We began the armed struggle on
May 17, the day before the elections.
We thought that under these conditions we could initiate
our actions and even unfold them broadly and advance to the
greatest extent possible--and that is exactly what we did. We
were also thinking that in the second part of the decade there
would have to be a more serious crisis than the previous one
and therefore, better conditions for advancing. The initiation
of the people’s war was planned based on these considera-
tions. But it’s been said that we didn’t think but only acted
dogmatically. In what way? Some people preach about dogma
while swallowing anything they’re told.
For these reasons we chose that moment, and the correct-
ness of our decision has been borne out by events. It was
obvious that Belaúnde--and this is something we discussed
openly--would fear a coup d’etat and therefore would restrain
the armed forces. Was that difficult to foresee? No, because
of the experience he had in 1968. These things could be cal-
culated, and we’ve been taught to evaluate, analyze and weigh
things--that’s how we’ve been taught. The Chairman was very
exacting with regard to these problems, especially in regard
to preparation. We believe that events have confirmed our
analysis. For two years the armed forces could not come in.
Was that the case or not? Now they are saying that they
burned the intelligence information that they had. In short,
the new government had problems setting up its administra-
tion and the facts have shown that. Then came the crisis. The
military has entered the battle with ever larger contingents
and in fighting them for a number of years we are more pow-
erful, we continue to flourish and develop. These were the
reasons for initiating the people’s war in 1980, and the facts

148
show that we were not wrong, at least not in the broad out-
lines, which is where one must not be wrong.
[...]
EL DIARIO: What changes do you think have taken place
in Peruvian politics, in the economic base of society and
among the masses as a result of eight years of people’s war?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: The first change is the devel-
opment of a people s war that is advancing irrepressibly;
which means that, for the first time, the democratic revolu-
tion is really being carried out in our country. This has
changed all the terms of Peruvian politics. Hence, the reac-
tion itself, their accomplices, beginning with the revisionists
and their supporters on duty, whoever they may be, have con-
cluded that the first and main problem facing the Peruvian
State is the people’s war. Thus, we are changing the world in
this country. Out of this comes the most important and prin-
cipal thing we’ve accomplished, the emergence and develop-
ment of a New Power which marches forward and will end
up extending itself throughout the country.
In the economic base, under the New Power we are estab-
lishing new relations of production. A concrete example of
this is how we apply the land policy, utilizing collective work,
and the organization of social life according to a new reality,
with a joint dictatorship where for the first time workers,
peasants and progressives rule--understanding this to mean
those who want to transform this country by the only means
possible – people’s war.
As for them, the reactionaries, without mentioning the
economic drain of fighting the people’s war, we are destroy-
ing bureaucrat capitalism, and for some time we’ve been un-
dermining the gamonal basis for the semifeudal relations that
sustain this whole structure, while at the same time strong
blows against imperialism.
For the masses of our people, these heroic masses, princi-
pally for the proletariat, the leading class that we will always
recognize; for the first time they are taking Power and they

149
have begun to taste the honey on their lips. They will not stop
there. They will want it all, and they will get it.
[...]
EL DIARIO: Chairman, what is the CPP’s analysis of the
Peruvian state and where it is headed?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: We have an understanding of
the workings of contemporary Peruvian society, by which we
mean the society which came into being in I895. We believe
that the process we are living through began then and that
there have been three stages. The first stage laid the basis for
the development of bureaucrat capitalism; the second stage,
which deepened the development of bureaucrat capitalism,
began after World War II, because the first stage lasted until
then. This deeper development of bureaucrat capitalism rip-
ened the conditions for revolution. With the beginning of the
people’s war in I980, we entered the third stage, of the general
crisis of bureaucrat capitalism. The destruction of contempo-
rary Peruvian society has begun because it has become his-
torically outmoded. Therefore what we are witnessing is its
end and the only correct course is to battle, to fight, and to
struggle to bury it.
EL DIARIO: Why do you consider the thesis of bureau-
crat capitalism to be fundamental?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: We consider this thesis of
Chairman Mao Tse-tung to be key, because without under-
standing it and wielding it, it is not possible to carry out a
democratic revolution, much less conceive of its uninter-
rupted continuation into the socialist revolution. It is really
very wrong for this thesis of Chairman Mao’s to be disre-
garded. Plainly, they jumble his analysis all up by talking to us
about the development of capitalism in backward countries
or dependent capitalism, which leads to nothing but changing
the character of the revolution. We believe that it is by taking
Chairman Mao as our starting point that we are going to really
understand Peruvian society and those societies that they call
backward.

150
 We understand that bureaucrat capitalism began to emerge
in Peru in 1895 through the three stages that I previously out-
lined. We conceive of it this way: capitalism developed on top
of a semi-feudal base, and under imperialist domination. It is
a capitalism born late born tied to feudalism and subordi-
nated to imperialist domination. These are the conditions that
produce what Chairman Mao Tse-tung has called bureaucrat
capitalism. So, bureaucrat capitalism develops bound to big
monopoly capital which controls the economy of the country.
This capital is made up, as Chairman Mao said, of the big
capital of the large landlords, the comprador bourgeoisie, and
the big bankers. Thus bureaucrat capitalism emerges, bound,
I repeat, to feudalism, subordinated to imperialism, and it is-
monopolistic. We must keep this in mind, it is monopolistic.
At a certain point in its development this capitalism is com-
bined with state power and uses the economic means of the
State, uses the State as an economic lever and this process
gives rise to another faction of the big bourgeoisie, the bu-
reaucrat bourgeoisie. This gives rise to a further development
of bureaucrat capitalism which was already monopolistic and
becomes, in turn, state-owned. But this whole process gives
rise to conditions which ripen the revolution. This is another
important concept, politically speaking, that the Chairman
laid out about bureaucrat capitalism.
If we understand bureaucrat capitalism, we can understand
very well how Peru has semi-feudal conditions, bureaucrat
capitalism, and imperialist, mainly Yankee, domination. This
is what we must understand, and what allows us to under-
stand and lead the democratic revolution.
Now, what other importance does bureaucrat capitalism
have? The Chairman says that the democratic revolution re-
alizes some socialist advances which, he says, were already
expressing themselves, for example, in the mutual aid teams
in the Base Areas of the countryside. To move from the dem-
ocratic to the socialist revolution it is key, from an economic
point of view, to confiscate all bureaucrat capital, which will

151
permit the New State to control the economy, to direct it and,
in this way, serve the development of the socialist revolution.
We understand that this strategic concept is of great im-
portance and, I reiterate, it is unfortunately being disregarded,
and as long as it is disregarded, it will not be possible to cor-
rectly understand what a democratic revolution is under the
present circumstances in which we struggle.
It is erroneous to think that bureaucrat capitalism is the
capitalism that the State develops with the economic means
of production that it directly controls. This is erroneous, and
it does not conform to Chairman Mao’s thesis. Just think of
it like this: if bureaucrat capital were only state-owned capi-
talism, and you confiscated this state-owned capital, in whose
hands would the other, non-state-owned monopoly capital
remain? In the hands of reaction, of the big bourgeoisie. This
view which identifies bureaucrat capitalism with state mo-
nopoly capitalism is a revisionist concept and in our Party it
was upheld by the left liquidationists. Hence, we understand
this problem to be a very important one.
Furthermore, politically it allows us to differentiate very
clearly between the big bourgeoisie and the national or mid-
dle bourgeoisie. And this gives us the means to understand,
so that we don’t pin ourselves to the tail of any faction of the
big bourgeoisie, either the comprador or bureaucrat bour-
geoisies, which is what revisionism and opportunism have
done and continue to do in Peru. There have been decades
of this perverse policy of labeling one faction of the big bour-
geoisie the national bourgeoisie, hence progressive, and sup-
porting them. Grasping bureaucrat capitalism permitted us to
more clearly understand the differentiation, I repeat, between
the national bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie, and grasp
the correct tactics to carry out, taking up again precisely what
Mariátegui had established. For this reason we consider the
thesis on bureaucrat capitalism to be of utmost importance.
EL DIARIO: How would you sum up your political and
economic analysis of the present conjuncture and its

152
prospects? Is this situation perhaps favorable for the CPP?
What does it pose for the reaction, revisionism and oppor-
tunism?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: We believe that bureaucrat
capitalism has entered into a general crisis. Moreover, we be-
lieve that this bureaucrat capitalism was born sick, because it
derived from semi-feudalism (or is tied to it) and from impe-
rialism. Semi-feudalism is obviously outmoded, and imperial-
ism is moribund. What kind of child could come from these
two parents condemned to death by incurable disease? A sick,
stunted monster that has entered its phase of destruction. We
think that the crises will become sharper and sharper, that,
even as some economists say, there have been more or less
30 years of crisis from which we have not emerged except for
some small ripples of recovery. Or, as APRA says in its own
internal documents, this is a crisis that has existed since the
middle of the ‘70s.
We can see that each new crisis is worse than the previous
one. And if we add to this the two critical decades of the ‘80s
and ‘90s, back to back, the situation becomes clear. What do
they themselves say? That this government will leave behind
an extremely grave situation, and that those who follow, sup-
posing that others do follow through their electoral renova-
tion, will have to seek some way to overcome the problems
left behind, and consequently, not until I995 can they even
think about any kind of development--and this is being said
in a country which is already twenty years behind. Because of
all this we think the prospects for them are extremely bleak.
Is this favorable for the revolution, for the people’s war, for
the Party? Yes, it is. First and foremost for our class and the
people, because all our work is for them, so that our class can
rule, lead, so that the people can exercise their freedom and
satisfy their centuries-old hunger. We see no prospects what-
ever for revisionism and reaction. We believe that they are
united, they are like Siamese twins, and they will march to-
gether to the grave. This is what we think.

153
 Interview with Chairman Gonzalo
August 1988

We consider Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s thesis on the differ-

entiation of the three worlds as just and correct and that it
is connected with Lenin’s thesis on the distribution of forces
in the world based on the analysis of classes and contradic-
tions. We reject the opportunist and revisionist distortion by
Teng Hsiao-ping of the three worlds that tends toward fol-
lowing at the tail of the U.S. and selling out the revolution.
From this point of departure, Chairman Gonzalo analyzes
the current situation in which the three worlds are delineated
and demonstrates that it is a reality. The first world is the two
superpowers, the U.S. and the USSR which contend for
global hegemony and which can unleash an imperialist war.
They are superpowers because they are economically, politi-
cally, and militarily more powerful than the other powers.
The U.S. has an economy centered on the monopoly of non-
state property; politically, it unfolds a bourgeois democracy
with a growing restriction of rights. It is a reactionary liberal-
ism; militarily, it is the most powerful in the West and has a
longer process of development. The USSR is economically
based on a state monopoly, with a politically fascist dictator-
ship of a bureaucrat bourgeoisie and is a high-level military
power although its process of development is shorter. The
U.S. seeks to maintain its dominions and also to expand them.
The USSR aims more towards expansion because it is a new
superpower and economically it is interested to capture Eu-
rope to improve its conditions. In synthesis, they are two su-
perpowers which do not constitute a block but which have
contradictions, clear mutual differences, and they move
within the law of collusion and contention for the re-division
of the world. The second world consists of the imperialist
powers which are not superpowers, but have less economic,

154
political, and military power such as Japan, Germany, France,
Italy, etc. which have contradictions with the superpowers
because they sustain, for example, the devaluation of the dol-
lar, military restrictions, and political impositions; these im-
perialist powers want to take advantage of the contention be-
tween the superpowers in order for them to emerge as new
superpowers, and they also unleash wars of aggression
against the oppressed nations and furthermore, acute contra-
dictions exist among them. The third world is composed of
the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
They are colonies or semi-colonies where feudalism has not
been destroyed, and on that basis a bureaucrat capitalism un-
folds. They find themselves subject to one or another super-
power or imperialist power. They have contradictions with
imperialism, furthermore they fight against their own big
bourgeoisie and landlords, both of which are at the service of
and in collusion with imperialism, especially with the super-
powers.

International Line
1988

The war with Chile was waged from 1879 to 1883, and it led
to the collapse of the Peruvian economy. Shortly thereafter,
in 1895 it entered the beginning of bureaucrat-capitalism that
initiated the development of contemporary Peruvian society.
As the XIX Century passed, Peru went from being a colony
to a semi-colony and from feudal to semi-feudal. Bureaucrat-
capitalism bound to US imperialism began to develop, and
thus displaced the English. The modern proletariat emerged
which changed the terms of the political struggle.
From this historical process the following lessons are
drawn: That the people have always struggled, they are not
peaceful and they apply revolutionary violence with the
means they have at hand; that the peasant struggles are those

155
which have most shaken the foundations of society, and these
struggles have not triumphed because they lacked the leader-
ship of the proletariat represented by the Communist Party;
and that political and military events determine the major so-
cial changes.

Military Line
1988

Later, in characterizing contemporary Peruvian society,

Chairman Gonzalo says: “. . . contemporary Peru is a semi-
feudal and semi-colonial society in which bureaucrat
capitalism develops.” Although Mariátegui had defined this
well in Point Three of the Program of the Constitution of the
Party, it is in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly
Maoism, that Chairman Gonzalo has demonstrated how this
semi-feudal and semi-colonial character maintains itself and
develops new modalities, and in particular how bureaucrat
capitalism has developed on this foundation throughout the
entire process of contemporary society. This a question of
highest importance in order to understand the character of
society and of the Peruvian revolution.
Bureaucrat capitalism is a fundamental thesis of Chairman
Mao’s that it is not yet understood nor accepted by all the
Marxists throughout the world, which for obvious historical
reasons was not known to Mariátegui, and that Chairman
Gonzalo applies to the concrete conditions of our country.
He maintains that in order to analyze the contemporary social
process, one must start from three intimately linked questions:
The moments that bureaucrat capitalism is going
through; the process of the proletariat shaped in its highest
expression, the Communist Party; and the road that the rev-
olution must follow. He teaches us that since 1895 three his-
torical moments can be differentiated in contemporary
Peruvian society: 1st moment. The development of

156
bureaucrat capitalism. The constitution of the CPP. Defini-
tion and outlining of the path of surrounding the cities from
the countryside. 2nd moment. The deepening of bureaucrat
capitalism. Reconstitution of the CPP. Establishment of the
road of surrounding the cities from the countryside. 3rd mo-
ment. The general crisis of bureaucrat capitalism. The lead-
ership of the CPP in the People’s War. Application and de-
velopment of the road of surrounding the cities from the
countryside.
At the same time, he expounds that contemporary Peru-
vian society is in a generalized crisis, a serious and incurable
illness that can only be transformed through the armed strug-
gle. The Communist Party of Peru is leading the people in
carrying this out, as there is no other solution.
[...]
Next, he accurately establishes the character and the re-
sults of the agrarian laws passed by the old State, proving the
subsistence of semi-feudalism, whose existence today is often
denied. He characterizes the Basic Law of Pérez Godoy of
1962, the Law 15037 of 1964 and the Law 17716 of 1969
(essentially corporative that fomented big associative prop-
erty) as being three laws of buying and selling, executed by
the bureaucratic apparatus of the State to develop bureaucrat
capitalism. He warns that the Law of Promoting Agriculture
of 1980 treats the land question as resolved and at the same
time advocates associative property and the return of the
gamonals to invigorate bureaucrat capitalism, which is also
under the control of the big bankers and has the direct par-
ticipation of US imperialism. This is the path that the fascist
and corporatist APRA government follows, retaking the fas-
cist and corporative “agrarian reform” of Velasco, raising
cries of “revolutionizing agriculture” to thus strengthen
gamonalism; that treats the land question as resolved and cen-
ters around productivity; that gives the law of communities
and the law of peasant rondas[10] in order to deepen bureau-
crat capitalism and to spread it to every corner of the country;

157
that calls the masses to corporativization, aiming at the peas-
ant communities as the foundation of their corporative zeal,
which equally serves the creation of the micro-regions, the
regions, CORDES and other fascist and corporative crea-
tions. All of this signifies nothing except new modalities of
concentration of the old big-landlord property, still not de-
stroyed, and it is the old landlord’s road followed in contem-
porary Peru that was promoted in the 1920s, deepened in the
1950s and especially in the 1960s, and which is still pursued
today under new conditions.
[...]
Regarding bureaucrat capitalism, Chairman Gonzalo
states that understanding it is essential to the understanding
of Peruvian society. Taking up Chairman Mao’s thesis, he
teaches us that it has five characteristics: 1) that bureaucrat
capitalism is the capitalism that imperialism develops in the
backward countries, which is comprised of the capital of large
landlords, the big bankers, and the magnates of the big bour-
geoisie; 2) it exploits the proletariat, the peasantry, and the
petty bourgeoisie and restricts the middle bourgeoisie; 3) it is
passing through a process in which bureaucrat capitalism is
combined with the power of the State and becomes State mo-
nopoly capitalism, comprador and feudal, from which can be
derived that in a first moment it unfolds as a non-State big
monopoly capitalism and in a second moment, when it is
combined with the power of the State, it unfolds as state mo-
nopoly capitalism; 4) it ripens the conditions for the demo-
cratic revolution as it reaches the apex of its development;
and, 5) confiscating bureaucrat capital is key to reaching the
pinnacle of the democratic revolution and it is decisive to
pass over to the socialist revolution.
In applying the above, he conceives that bureaucrat capi-
talism is the capitalism that imperialism generates in back-
ward countries, which is tied to a decayed feudalism and sub-
jugated to imperialism which is the last phase of capitalism.
This system does not serve the majority of the people but

158
only the imperialists, the big bourgeoisie, and the landlords.
Mariátegui has established that the bourgeoisie, for example
upon creating banks, generates a capital surrendered to impe-
rialism and tied to feudalism. Chairman Gonzalo masterfully
establishes that the capitalism that is unfolding in Peru is a
bureaucrat capitalism hindered by the surviving shackles of
semi-feudalism that bind it on the one hand, and on the other
hand is subjugated to imperialism which does not permit the
development of the national economy; it is, thus, a bureaucrat
capitalism that oppresses and exploits the proletariat, the
peasantry, and the petty bourgeoisie, and that restrains the
middle bourgeoisie. Why? Because the capitalism that devel-
ops is a delayed process that only allows an economy to serve
imperialist interests. It is a capitalism that represents the big
bourgeoisie, the landlords and the rich peasants of the old
type, the classes that constitute a minority but which exploit
and oppress the large majority, the masses.
He analyzes the process that bureaucrat capitalism has
followed in Peru, the first historical moment which develops
from 1895 to the Second World War, in which, during the
1920s, the comprador bourgeoisie assumes control of the
State, displacing the landlords but respecting their interests.
The second moment is from the Second World War to 1980,
a period of its deepening, during which a branch of the big
bourgeoisie evolves into the bureaucrat bourgeoisie, which
began in 1939 during the first government of Prado when the
participation of the State in the economic process begins.
Subsequently, this participation has grown more and more,
and is due to the fact that the big bourgeoisie, because of a
lack of capital, is not capable of deepening bureaucrat capi-
talism. Thus a clash between both factions of the big bour-
geoisie is generated, between the bureaucrat and the compra-
dor bourgeoisie. In 1968, the bureaucrat bourgeoisie takes the
leadership of the State through the armed forces by means of
the military coup of Velasco, which in turn generates a great
growth in the State economy. The number of State-owned

159
companies, for example, increased from 18 to 180; therefore
the State passes to become the motor of the economy led by
the bureaucrat bourgeoisie, but it is during this moment that
the economy enters into a grave crisis. The third moment is
from 1980 onward, in which bureaucrat capitalism enters into
a general crisis and its final destruction, a moment which be-
gins with the People’s War. Since it is a capitalism that is born
in critical condition, sick, rotten, tied to feudalism and subju-
gated to imperialism, at this time it enters into a general crisis,
to its destruction, and no measure can save it. At best it shall
lengthen its agony. On the other hand, like a beast in mortal
agony, it will defend itself by seeking to crush the revolution.
If we see this process from the people’s road, in the first
moment the CPP was constituted with Mariátegui in 1928,
and the history of the country was divided into two; in the
second, the CPP was reconstituted as a Party of a new type
with Chairman Gonzalo and revisionism was purged; and in
the third, the CPP starts to lead the People’s War, a transcen-
dental milestone which radically changed history by taking
the qualitatively superior leap of making the seizure of power
a reality by way of armed force and the People’s War. All of
this only proves the political aspect of bureaucrat capitalism
that is rarely emphasized, but which Chairman Gonzalo con-
siders as the key question: Bureaucrat capitalism ripens the
conditions for revolution, and today as it enters into its final
phase, it ripens the conditions for the development and vic-
tory of the revolution.
It is also very important to see how bureaucrat capitalism
is shaped by non-State monopoly capitalism and by
State monopoly capitalism, that is the reason why he dif-
ferentiates between the two factions of the big bourgeoisie,
the bureaucrat and the comprador, in order to avoid tailing
behind one or the other, a problem that led our Party to 30
years of wrong tactics. It is important to understand it this
way, since the confiscation of bureaucrat capitalism by the
New Power leads to the completion of the democratic

160
revolution and the advance into the socialist revolution. If
only the State monopoly capitalism is targeted, the other part
would remain free, the non-State monopoly capital, and the
big comprador bourgeoisie would remain economically able
to lift its head to snatch away the leadership of the revolution
and to prevent its passage to the socialist revolution.
Furthermore, Chairman Gonzalo generalizes that bureau-
crat capitalism is not a process peculiar to China or to Peru,
but that it follows the belated conditions in which the
various imperialists subjugate the oppressed nations of
Asia, Africa, and Latin America, at a time when these op-
pressed nations have not yet destroyed the vestiges of feudal-
ism, much less developed capitalism.
In synthesis, the key question to understand the process
of contemporary Peruvian society and the character of the
revolution is this Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Gonzalo Though
thesis on bureaucrat capitalism, which is a contribution to the
world revolution that we Marxist-Leninist-Maoists have
firmly assumed with Gonzalo Thought.
What type of State is sustained by this semi-feudal and
semi-colonial society, upon which bureaucrat capitalism is
unfolding? Having analyzed contemporary Peruvian society
and basing himself on the masterful Maoist thesis in “On
New Democracy” which expounds that the many State sys-
tems in the world can be classified according to their class
character into three fundamental types: 1) Republics under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which also include the old
democratic States and may include the States under the joint
dictatorship of landlords and the big bourgeoisie; 2) republics
under the dictatorship of the proletariat; and 3) republics un-
der the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes. Chair-
man Gonzalo establishes that the character of the old reac-
tionary State in Peru is of the first type, a joint dictatorship of
landlords and the big bourgeoisie, the bureaucrat or compra-
dor bourgeoisie that in collusion and contention struggle for
the leadership of the State. Since the historical tendency in

161
Peru is that the bureaucrat bourgeoisie imposes itself, this
necessarily implies a very acute and long struggle, especially
since today the bureaucrat bourgeoisie is in command of the
old landlord-bureaucrat state.
At the same time he differentiates between the system of
the State and the system of government. They are parts of a
whole; the former being the place that classes occupy within
the state and the latter is the form in which power is orga-
nized. Chairman Mao taught that the main thing is to define
the class character of a state, since the forms of government
that are introduced can be civilian or military, with elections
or by decree, liberal-democratic or fascist, but they always
represent the dictatorship of the reactionary classes. To not
see the old State in this way is to fall into the trap of identify-
ing a dictatorship with a military regime and to think that a
civilian government is not a dictatorship, thus tailing behind
one of the factions in the big bourgeoisie behind the tale of
“defending democracy” or “avoiding military coups,” posi-
tions that instead of destroying the old State, support it and
defend it. Such is the case in Peru with the revisionists and
opportunists of the United Left.
The old State is subordinated to imperialism, in our case
mainly US imperialism, which is propped up by its spine, the
reactionary armed forces, and counts on an ever-growing bu-
reaucracy. The armed forces have the same character as the
State that they support and defend.
Chairman Gonzalo tells us clearly: “It is this social system
that the ruling classes and their US imperialist masters usu-
fruct from and defend with blood and fire, through their
landlord-bureaucrat state sustained by their reactionary
armed forces; constantly exercising their class dictatorship (of
the big bourgeoisie and landlords), either through a de facto
military government...or through governments stemming
from elections and so-called constitutional ones...” and,
“...this decayed system of exploitation destroys and halts the

162
powerful creative forces of the people, the only forces capa-
ble of the deepest revolutionary transformation...”
[...]
Chairman Gonzalo teaches us that there are three targets
of the democratic revolution: Imperialism, bureaucrat capi-
talism and semi-feudalism, with one of them being the main
target according to the moment in which the revolution takes
place. Today, in the period of the agrarian war, the main tar-
get is semi-feudalism.
Imperialism, mainly US, because for us it is the main im-
perialism that dominates and that tries to ensure its domi-
nance more and drives home our situation as a semi-colonial
country, but we must also ward off penetration by Russian
social-imperialism and of the other imperialist powers. We
must use the various factions of the old State to sharpen their
contradictions and isolate the main enemy in order to strike
at it. Bureaucrat capitalism is the constant barrier of the dem-
ocratic revolution; it acts to maintain semi-feudalism and
semi-colonialism at the service of imperialism. And so is
semi-feudalism that subsists today under new modalities but
which still constitutes the basic problem of the country.
______________
10. The rondas were reactionary militias set up by the Peruvian
Armed Forces in order to fight the People’s War and pit the people
against each other.

Democratic Revolution
1988

The electoral process highlights fundamental problems in Pe-

ruvian society, despite the pretensions of covering them up:
First, the subsistence of semi-feudalism, basis of the agricul-
tural production crisis, bringing back to the forefront the land
problem which supposedly had been overcome. Second, the

163
existence of bureaucrat-capitalism, which is sustained in eco-
nomic underdevelopment tied to imperialist domination; im-
perialism, mainly Yankee, as always sucking us dry of our
blood and getting ready to suck us drier yet. In synthesis, it
shows the generalized crisis of an obsolete society having
only one solution: revolution, the victory of the ongoing Peo-
ple’s War. On the other hand, the disastrous result obtained
by the APRA government headed by the genocidal dema-
gogue Garcia Perez, is evident. In 1985, we said that the new
government would provoke more hunger and would be still
more genocidal; today hunger eats away and devours the class
and the people; and while according to data from the so-
called “Pacification Commission” of the Senate, the Be-
launde government bloodied the country with 5,880 dead, the
current one surpassed it with 8,504 dead from 1985 to 88,
and with another 3,198 dead in 1989. Both of our 1985 pre-
dictions were correct, and in fact the APRA government of
Garcia Perez created more hunger and more genocide than
any previous one in Peruvian history The people will never
forget him! All of which is sharpened and accented even
more by the uncertainty of the first round of the election and
the postponement of the resolution until the runoff.
[...]
To conclude this fundamental question of the class strug-
gle, in the classic texts of Marxism we can see what Mao Tse-
tung established about imperialism, a key theme developed
by him. We begin with the nature of imperialism and reaction
as a paper tiger: “All reactionaries are paper tigers. They appear ter-
rible, but in reality they are not so powerful. Seen in perspective, it is not
the reactionaries but the people who are truly powerful.” And: “The
United States is a paper tiger. Don’t believe in it. It can be pierced in
one blow. The revisionist Soviet Union is also a paper tiger.” And on
the double character of imperialism and reaction:
“Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature
(this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reac-
tionaries have a dual nature they are real tigers and paper, tigers at the

164
same time. In past history before they won state power and for some time
afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bour-
geoisie were vigorous, revolutionary, and progressive, they were real tigers.
But with the lapse of time, because their opposites (the slave class, the
peasant class and the proletariat) grew in strength step by step, the strug-
gle against ruling classes changed step by step changed into backward
people, changed into paper dyers. were overthrown, or will be overthrown,
by the people. The reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this
dual nature even in their last life-and-death struggles against the people.
On the one hand, they were real dyers; they ate people, ate people by the
millions and tens of millions. The cause of the people’s struggle went
through a period of difficulties and hardships, and along the path there
were many twists and turns. To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism
and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than
a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory
in 1949. Look! Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real dyers? But
in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, bean-curd dyers.
These are historical facts. Have people not seen or heard about these facts?
There have indeed been thousands and tens of thousands of them! Thou-
sands and tens of thousands! Hence imperialism and all reactionaries,
looked at in essence, from a long-term point of view, from a strategic point
of view, must be seen for what they are paper tigers. On this we should
build our strategic thinking. On the other hand, they are also living tigers,
iron tigers, real tigers which can eat people. On this we should build our
tactical thinking.” [Intervention at a meeting of the Political Bu-
reau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
China held at Wuchang, SW, Vol. 4, Talk With the American
Correspondent Anna Louise Strong, August 1946]

Elections, No! People’s War, Yes!

May 1990

“3) Some political issues.

165
 In the government’s new plan, they are handling the three
counterrevolutionary tasks, starting, in order of priorities,
with the re-impulse of bureaucrat-capitalism aiming at con-
juring inflation and its “reinsertion” in the international fi-
nancial system, which is nothing more than submission to all
the conditions of imperialism. Secondly, to annihilate the
people’s war by persisting in genocide, in actions of preven-
tion, reprisal actions, war without prisoners and disappear-
ances; that of the different “new strategy” is nothing but
demagogy of the crafty Fujimori that will quickly fall apart;
what is concrete is that up to today he has not defined a “new
strategy”. And thirdly, they are aiming to manage the restruc-
turing of the State and they are beginning to use fascist crite-
ria and positions, for example “popular participation”, “inte-
gral democracy”, etc. Behind Fujimori, as it served Garcia
yesterday, is the ILD, directed by Hernando de Soto, interna-
tional bureaucrat, agent of Yankee imperialism and main ad-
visor to Fujimori; this Institute for Liberty and Democracy
(ILD) is taking over more and more state, economic and dip-
lomatic positions; the so-called “Fujimori doctrine” was elab-
orated by them; the decree on the Autonomous Authority for
Alternative Development as well. Thus, the ILD is a legisla-
tive source against their own bourgeois democracy. They pro-
pose to “jump over integral democracy with citizen participa-
tion...” their objective is to incorporate the masses into their
plans.
They are preparing important new decrees, they assume
that they are carrying out a “revolution”, the propagandized
modernization and liberalization of the Peruvian economy,
and for this they need to restructure their State, although they
are advancing to a lesser degree. They also need to make mer-
its so that imperialism, mainly Yankee imperialism, will sup-
port them in their so-called “reinsertion”. Among these de-
crees they are preparing one against labor stability, others on
the agrarian question, administrative simplification, etc.

166
 We see more ideas and positions of a fascist base; we are
not saying that the government is fascist. Rather, we must
think that the big bourgeoisie is aiming at a substitute rethink-
ing of the old bourgeois democracy, at a new fascism; it
would no longer have the characters of the old fascism, the
essence would be the same but the forms would be different,
they have to adjust to the new conditions of the class struggle.
We reiterate, let us think about new fascism and let us be at-
tentive to its rethinking.”
“The so-called ‘failure of socialism’ is part of the so-called
‘defeat of Marxism’ and ‘uselessness of the totalitarian dicta-
torship of the proletariat’. This monstrosity is also touted in
the country, now concretely linked to the Fujimori govern-
ment (‘which has been assuming responsibility for the past’).
It is indispensable to thoroughly combat this rotten reaction-
ary hawker. Nothing of what has happened denies Marxism,
nor the necessity and transcendence of socialism nor the un-
stoppable march towards communism, the irreplaceable goal.
The question is, we reiterate: the insufficient knowledge of
the laws of socialism due to the short time of its development;
the inevitable struggle between restoration and counter-res-
toration; and the sinister action of revisionism nursed by im-
perialism and in collusion with it. The question is, in synthesis,
the continuation of the revolution under the dictatorship of
the proletariat. In the face of the campaign of imperialism
and revisionism against socialism, we must: 1) reaffirm our-
selves unshakably in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo
Thought (‘Elections, no! People’s war, yes! ‘, serves this ob-
jective); 2) highlight and spread the great conquests of social-
ism and its grandiose construction: never, in any epoch of
history, has any mode of production done so much, in such
a short time and for such great, extensive and deep exploited
masses, as socialism! Contemporary history and the peoples
of the world are undisputable witnesses; 3) to tirelessly un-
mask all the monstrous exploitation and oppression of impe-
rialism, mainly Yankee, and of revisionism, to show how they

167
sail in a sea of blood of the international proletariat and of
the peoples of the world; 4) who has brought us here? Who
is plunging the Peruvian people into the greatest crisis of its
history, who are those responsible? It is the three mountains
that exploit and oppress the people: Imperialism, bureaucrat-
capitalism and semi-feudalism; mountains that through the
organized reactionary violence that is the Peruvian state, a
state sustained by its armed force as its backbone and by the
bureaucracy, maintain the prevailing order of oppression and
exploitation that still continues; order and state headed and
directed by the big bourgeoisie, mainly comprador, with the
support of revisionism and opportunism of all stripes and the
protection of its imperialist master; 5) ‘sacrifice today for a
better tomorrow’ is an old tale retold, it was told by Leguía,
Velasco, Belaúnde and García Pérez, among others, de-
nounce it by unmasking Fujimori’s ‘new’ hoax; and 6) prop-
agandize how the people’s war is building a new society truly
for the people and that the only perspective is to conquer
power throughout the country. “Comment on article by Luis
García Miró in editorial page of El Comercio “El capital y el
trabajo”; 10/IV/91.”

Construct the Conquest of Power in the Midst of the People’s War!

(Second Plenum of the Central Committee)
February 1991

In the document “The Party, the People’s War and the Boy-
cott”, the document “Against Constitutional Illusions and for
the State of New Democracy!” is transcribed. It is good to
take from that document how the eco- nomic and political
situation was at the end of the fascist government, on page
56 it says:
“In 10 years, what economic direction has the govern-
ment followed? In general lines, in 1969 and 1970 they
prepared conditions for their plans. Then they applied

168
the 1971-75 economic-social plan aiming at accumulat-
ing capital. This was canceled in its last year because
the difficulties had already begun, the 1975-78 plan was
approved aimed of a greater accumulation of capital. It
was a plan that in its first two years sought the control
of the crisis but without achieving it. In 1977, the Túpac
Amaru Plan was approved, which applied the modifica-
tions pro- posed by the President in March of 1976, a
plan to extend until 1980, on which date the crisis was
supposed to be over. During this period the State ful-
filled a main role, as the driving force in the economic
process, and developed the State’s monopoly. However,
in the last few years, the need to reinvigorate the private
economic activity was proposed, and in the imperialist
order within which our country and the State operate, it
prepares conditions for future development of the mo-
nopoly production of imperialism and the big bourgeoi-
sie associated with it.
[...]
When the military government ended the same thing was
said and it was proposed to restructure the economy; when
the APRA took office it was similar but it said that in the face
of this crisis there was room for a “nationalist, democratic,
people’s revolution”; today the same chant. Everything re-
veals the deep root of the collapse of bureaucrat-capitalism,
the general crisis of Peruvian society, mainly of bureaucrat-
capitalism. That is why they need to reimpulse bureaucrat-
capitalism, that is why they talk about the economic base they
have to rebuild.
[...]
Alarming depressed industry, accelerated decapitalization
reveals a decayed industry because its system constrains, does
not develop; furthermore, they are within the imperialist sys-
tem and believe that Peru’s problem is that it has a location
within the world productive system.

169
 The “agricultural system is prostrate”, proof of the sub-
sistence of semi-feudalism, successive decades it is sinking
and what happened to the so-called agrarian reform? What
happened to the three agrarian laws of the ‘60s? Was it not
said that this would renew agriculture and promote industry?
The fact is that this reform was made under the criteria of
Kennedy, of Yankee imperialism at that time and when they
were seeking to suffocate the masses and expand markets,
today other criteria guide them.
The mining industry suffers severe crisis. Root? It has to
do with international prices, with the non-renewal of large
mining companies because it continues to be a system based
on oppression and exploitation to obtain greater surplus
value, not to develop, to advance, not to reinvest, be-cause
bureaucrat-capitalism is more rentier and parasitic.
“Repressed or dammed up inflation of 1,200%.” This was
said during the military regime and was the justification for
the Ulloa’s disbursement. Today he proposes 1,200% infla-
tion, that is 6 times more than the indexes pointed out by all,
even Moreyra criticized him; background? To justify atro-
cious measures against the people.
[...]
Now, they have focused on structural reforms. In April, as
a result of Decree 009 on land, we made the following com-
ment:
“This, like the other recent measures taken with Boloña,
are part of the reimpulsing of bureaucrat-capitalism. What
Fujimori’s government has done so far is: 1) the July guide-
lines, 2) the August adjustment measures and Hurtado’s
propaganda, complemented with re-adjustments in Decem-
ber, 3) Boloña’s measures, which should be included in the
program to be presented by the Prime Minister. Recent
measures, although they express a transaction between fac-
tions of the big bourgeoisie, as it should be, benefit mainly
the comprador group and particularly the financial and big
exporter group. The exporting manufacturing group itself

170
and industry in general, suffer the consequences, obviously
hitting the national bourgeoisie and unloading itself with
great virulence on the popular masses, particularly the attack
against the class is direct. The March measures, a concen-
trated expression of the most obsequious submission to Yan-
kee imperialism, apart from the rejection and resistance that
they strengthen, encounter difficulties in the so-called rein-
sertion which is the light of their eyes, as well as in the signing
of the agreement on drug trafficking, again postponed. The
whole plan and program of the big bourgeoisie, mainly the
comprador bourgeoisie, which they are promoting, is on the
one hand extremely delayed, they should have applied it since
Belaúnde; and, on the other hand, they have to develop it in
the worst international and internal conditions of a prolonged
and worsening general critical situation; all this, apart from
the situation of misery of the masses which continues to ac-
centuate the class struggle which is heading towards the rev-
olutionary crisis and mainly the development of the People’s
War and the New Power. Thus, their new plans and measures
have a difficult and hazardous perspective, and even begin by
aggravating the recession and orphaned of a program to sus-
tain them, at least not agreed upon until to-day, this in the
bosom of the big bourgeoisie itself, since in the popular camp
they can only sow winds and reap storms. Up to now the
comprador bourgeoisie has not been able to put together a
program and plans like those of Velasco’s bureaucracy, nor
does it have the political apparatus or support to apply them.
It is in these circumstances that reaction and imperialism are
pushing ahead with the Boloña measures, without even man-
aging to clean up the financial situation, particularly that of
the State, which was previously done by the military fascist
government to apply its program. As for the agrarian ques-
tion, take into account what was seen in the October meeting.”
We believe that the economic situation of the country is
condensed here, what we started in April is still valid, they are
within that plan. So, what we have seen up to now is that their

171
stabilization plan is failing and a tougher year is coming, not
even the reinsertion is going well and they have assumed huge
payment commitments, this is the situation, up to now these
are the results. Then come the measures, the big measures
that must be understood within this, what is important here,
it says: “What about the proposals made in July by Fujimori”,
then “the adjustment measures of Au-gust and the measures
of Boloña”, in other words, these are the measures that have
been taken, these would be the fourth step taken, I am not
saying that these are moments, that is another problem, I am
not talking about moments here. What the government has
done so far is: first, guidelines, because we have to think that
this is its first message to the country, it should have said what
to do, but we only have generalities, that is the point; then, in
August, the big adjustment that we all know: and then the
Boloña measures. The Prime Minister presented a program,
but it was not even published, this program does not exist, he
outlined guidelines and aimed at reaching a consensus, gen-
erating a dialogue, an agreement, and from there all that came
out was the problem of the Council for Peace, and we know
the result; that is the question, and what did the government
get out of it? the legislative powers. So there was no such
program, that is the important thing. Now that it says: “Re-
cent measures, although they express a transaction between
factions of the big bourgeoisie as it should be, benefit mainly
the buyer and particularly the financial and exporting group”,
but then it adds: “the exporting manufacturing group itself
and the big industry in general suffer the consequences”, even
the financial and big exporting group suffer the consequences,
how are they at this moment? There are banks that are at risk
of bankruptcy, that is the problem, and misery has serious
problems, that is the fact, and manufacturing, industry? it is
getting worse every day; that is, what he says here has wors-
ened, it is the same law that is being complied with. Now,
obviously, who is he hitting? The national bourgeoisie, but
who is he hitting with great virulence? The popular masses,

172
“particularly, the attack against the class is direct”. Then it
tells us “the March measures, concentrated expression of the
most obsequious sub-mission to Yankee imperialism”, that is
what interests us, if those measures are the concentrated ex-
pression of the most obsequious submission to Yankee im-
perialism, these we are seeing are even worse; He says that
the measures generate rejection, they encounter rejection and
strengthen resistance, today even more; apart from this “they
encounter difficulties in the so-called reinsertion which is the
light of their eyes” and those problems have not concluded,
“as well as in the signing of the agreement on drug trafficking,
again postponed”, today they have already signed it, but how
is its application? The hustle and bustle in the U.S. continues
and we have seen all the disputes over it, the discrepancies,
the agreements, the subjugations, so these things also; “The
whole plan and program of the big comprador bourgeoisie
mainly that they are promoting […]” That is the important
thing, that plan and program, there is no sanctioned pro-
gramme or plan, at least it has not been presented to the
country, it has not been ex-posed to anyone: even if it did not
exist, they must have their plans, guide-lines and agreements
to which they must adhere, then, the whole plan and program
of the big comprador bourgeoisie, mainly theirs is on the one
hand extremely delayed, they should have applied it since
Belaúnde (remember what we have read in the document),
on the other hand they have to develop it in the worst inter-
national and internal conditions, what are those internal con-
ditions? “Prolonged general critical action which is getting
worse, that is to say, the social and economic process of Peru
is getting worse, all this apart from the situation of misery of
the masses which continues to worsen; the class struggle
which is heading towards the revolutionary crisis, and mainly
the development of the People’s War and the New Power”,
of course; well, that is the main thing! in those conditions
how are they going to be, compare this now with what we
have read. Rey said: “It is going to begin” and it has already

173
begun, and today how are we? worse than before. Remember
that at the end of the Morales government there was money
in Peru, there were bonds in the bank, they managed to sta-
bilize their economic and financial problems, their budget, we
must not forget that. Now look at what he is going to say:
“Thus, the new plans and measures have a difficult and haz-
ardous perspective, and they even start aggravating the reces-
sion”, of course, instead of cleaning it up, they aggravate it
more “Orphans of a programme to support them”, where is
their programme, then? That is the problem; it says: “(at least
not agreed until today)”, although they have it, they have not
agreed it, much less have they presented it; “this, in the
bosom of the big bourgeoisie itself”, they themselves do not
agree, they have no plan; “Well, in the people’s camp they can
only sow winds and reap storms.” Now what it is going to
say is very important: “Up to now the comprador bourgeoisie
has not been able to put together a programme and plans like
those of the bureaucracy of Velasco, nor do they have politi-
cal apparatus, nor support to apply it”, one could say: but
Velasco did not have a party, yes, but he had an army, armed
force, did he not? And he had a Sinamos at least, today we
have a Sinamos? And he had a whole revisionism and oppor-
tunism which served him as a cushion, do they have it today?
they do not have it then, it is worse. “In these circumstances
is that reaction and imperialism carry their re-impulse
through the measures of Boloña and without even managing
to clean up the financial situation”, it is still the same; “Par-
ticularly emphasize that it was previously done by the military
fascist government to implement its programme.” The agrar-
ian question? refer to what we have seen before. Well, I think
this condenses very clearly what the situation is.
Then, from the second thing we have seen, there is the
appreciation of the whole process. Hard year there it is, who
they serve and they do not have a programme.
Let us study, in addition, the following comments to jour-
nalistic ex-tracts:

174
 “In the ‘50s, ECLAC applied ‘import substitution’ and the
result is the deep crisis in Latin America in the ‘80s from
which they have not yet emerged. Today ECLAC brings us
the new Yankee imperialist recipe: ‘productive transfor-
mation with equity’, and apart from the usual ‘arduous and
difficult task’ and ‘more or less prolonged period of learning
and adaptation’; today they sibyllineally tell us: the countries
of Latin America ‘will perhaps emerge stronger’; in good lan-
guage this means: the catastrophe will be worse for the Latin
American people, and as always Yankee imperialism will be
the big winner. That is what ECLAC’s new recipe is for, as it
was yesterday!” (On the occasion of the article “Productive
transformation with equity” by Gert Rosenthal, Secretary of
ECLAC; The Commercial, 06.05.1991.)
“The so much propagandized privatization began. So far,
keep in mind: a) the so-called ‘diffusion of property’, the pro-
claimed ‘people’s capitalism’ which they said would benefit
the medium and small landlords, as it was before and had to
be, but today, it benefits the big bourgeoisie, mainly the bank-
ers. b) Privatization ‘begins’ late, the question has been pend-
ing since the last part of the fascist government. c) Pressure
for privatization will grow, and the struggle to take over pri-
vate State property will stir up contradictions within reaction.
d) Imperialism is preparing to feast and will take the largest
share.” (Following the sale of the first State enterprise, “Soge-
wise Leasing”; 11.06.1991.)
[...]
“This approach to labor stability, like others sustained by
Express so ardently, superficially and reactionarily, is to return
to the times of ‘savage capitalism’, of 19th Century capitalism,
before the un-ions and the great struggles for the demands of
the working class (we do not say, obviously, of the conquest
of power by the proletariat, of its dictatorship and of social-
ism), and in Peru to the beginnings of bureaucrat-capitalism;
that is the essence of the new liberalism, here and in the im-
perialist metropolises where they engender it and from where

175
they infest the world, in spite of all the verbiage, to the con-
trary, that they spread. Their dream is to return to the epoch
of the most unbridled exploitation of capitalism, before the
powerful development of the class struggle of the proletariat
and the people, and the pressing threat of revolution, wrested
by blood and fire, in heroic days, since nothing was given to
them nor fell from heaven, the social laws sanctioning, simply,
the conquest of liberties, rights and benefits in stormy strug-
gles.” (On the editorial of Express: “Contemporary Muledriv-
ers” on DS 032 that destroys labor stability; 26.10.1991.)
[...]
‘The masses are not in conditions to rebel because they have been
defrauded’. The usual infamy, to unload on the masses; the
masses express pessimism of the present system and opti-
mism of the future, of what they can do with their own hands
that vertebrate a great unity of struggle that has an axis, the
People’s War. The shock has proven once again the impo-
tence of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru
(CGTP) and of the current organizational forms that bind to
legality; the existing forms are those that the law allows to
drain the struggles and bind the masses; inconductive and
passive hunger strikes are armed, while the strikes are carried
out with pacifist methods of serfs and are even reduced to
the ridiculous spectacle of deputies; the forms and methods
of the renegade scabs are those that the system allows. There-
fore, the problem is to move the masses from below and de-
velop new forms of struggle and organization, to strengthen
the struggles of the peasantry, of the proletariat and the peo-
ple, of youth, women and intellectuals and of the masses of
the regions for their true interests: To link the workers’ strug-
gle to the neighborhood struggle; to repel aggression; to wage
combat strikes; to intensify the application of the four forms
of struggle of the People’s War in direct support of the strug-
gle for the daily demands of the masses, particularly sabotage
and selective annihilation, for in this way we pave the way, in
addition, to sweeping away the nefarious legalism. On the

176
other hand, we must combat the stabilization plan as part of
the system which aims to restructure the Old State, annihilate
the People’s War and reimpulse bureaucrat-capitalism; to see
tactics and strategy, how in each action the two problems
move: the daily demand and the conquest of power. The ob-
jective conditions continue to develop and the subjective
ones are going to be strengthened; let us see how the New
State, the Party and the People’s Guerrilla Army (PGA) and
the masses develop, the latter ask for the leadership of the
Party which expresses the maturing of the consciousness of
the masses marching towards more developed organizational
forms.

May the Strategic Stalemate Shake the Country More!

1991

In the second part — THE POLITICAL CRISIS DEEP-

ENS AND THE CONTRADICTIONS MOUNT UP —
one would have to center attention in the process of bureau-
crat-capitalism. Bureaucrat-capitalism is a thesis of our Party.
It is the specific modality, the form which capitalism assumes
here, in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial backward countries
such as ours. This process is related to the fact that the history
of Peruvian society achieves an embryonic development of
capitalism in the 18th Century, that while being subjected to
British imperialism it underwent a surge in the middle of the
last century. and that it suffered the consequences of the war
with Chile.
From 1895 bureaucrat-capitalism underwent three stages
or moments, a process which still continues: 1) From 1895
until 1945 with its axis in the decade of the 20s. This is the
moment of DEVELOPMENT OF BUREAUCRAT-CAPI-
TALISM. 2) From 1945 to 1980, with its axis in the decade
from 1968 to 1978 (1968 saw the fascist corporatist State
coup of Velasco). This is the moment of DEEPENING OF

177
BUREAUCRAT-CAPITALISM. The Party established that
the fascist State coup had three aims: first, the deepening of
bureaucrat-capitalism, second, the restructuring of Peruvian
society, and third, to avert the Peruvian Revolution. It is ob-
vious that they could not quite crown their objectives. They
laid down the basis, but their task was not accomplished. The
best and most overwhelming proof of this is the beginning in
1980 of the armed struggle. Therefore, the third moment be-
gins in 1980, and it is the stage of the DESTRUCTION OF
BUREAUCRAT-CAPITALISM. This is the stage that we are
going through today.
Bureaucrat-capitalism is born ailing and in a critical condi-
tion and today it is in general crisis, approaching its doom.
But if one notes the process of each moment of its develop-
ment, in synthesis, there are in two stages. For example in its
first moment there is a prologue expressed in a preparatory
stage, and then during the decade of the 20s, another stage
when foundations are laid for the development of bureau-
crat-capitalism. Then comes a process of collapse, the in-
tended development is not achieved, a crisis arises, and this
crisis leads to further collapse. Historical facts show this to
be the case.
In the second moment, the moment of the deepening of
bureaucrat-capitalism, we also have a prologue or preparatory
stage, then the laying down of foundations and finally the ar-
rival of the crisis which led to a greater collapse than the one
which occurred at the end of the previous moment. From
1980 onwards, we are in the third moment, the moment of
the destruction of bureaucrat-capitalism. We have also expe-
rienced that prologue, a long and complicated preparation of
conditions which leads us into the decade of the 90s. Today
they are laying the foundations for the application of neolib-
eralism. They blabber about “making a revolution”, but just
as in the two former historical moments of bureaucrat-capi-
talism, in this third moment the laying down of foundations
will necessary lead them to another crisis which in turn will

178
generate an even greater collapse. In order to differentiate the
second from the third historical moment, let us here point
out that the former relied on the State as the main economic
lever, while today they are aiming to enshrine non-State ac-
tivity as the main lever. It is true that history shows that the
laying down of foundations produces some results, but it also
shows that it generates a deeper crisis. Therefore everything
today demonstrates that in the third historical moment bu-
reaucrat-capitalism is in general crisis, ideologically, politically
and economically. The current critical situation has deepened
since 1974 and they have been unable to over-come the crisis.
Politically, the State has become more corrupt: the president
rules by decree abusing the powers granted by Article 211,
Paragraph 20 of their Constitution. Parliament does not com-
ply with legislating, its primary function, and the judicial
power, which is ridiculed even by Fujimori and has no budget,
is every day more subjected to the executive power. Besides,
the laws, among which we have the recent Penal Code, intro-
duce fascist regulations. Daily more signs of fascism appear
and there are more fascist standpoints espoused in the ideo-
logical plane. Like their imperialist masters, weighed down by
their ideology which becomes more rotten everyday and lack-
ing in perspective, they have no other choice but to raise ban-
ners from the 18th and early 19th Century — such as liberal-
ism. If, on the other hand, these banners were already dirty
rags by the time of the 1st World War, as has already been
demonstrated, then socialism really does represents the fu-
ture. Meanwhile, capitalism is a corpse, and like so many
corpses, needs to be buried.
Therefore, they are sinking deeper and deeper in their gen-
eral crisis, ideologically politically and economically, and
every day they are more and more being demolished by the
People’s War.
This government is in a situation that grows more difficult
by the day, the most critical situation which Peruvian society
has ever undergone and they will be unable to handle it. Any

179
measures they may adopt cannot result in anything other than
a transient respite and in general bankruptcy. The main in-
strument of their demolition is the People’s War based on the
class struggle of the masses.
It is important to note the three historical moments of bu-
reaucrat-capitalism and their specific character, especially the
character of the third. In this fashion we will understand why
the three political tasks of Peruvian reaction and its masters,
mainly US imperialism (to refurbish bureaucrat-capitalism, to
restructure the State and to smash the People’s War), cannot
and will not be accomplished. Their accomplishment is an
historical and political impossibility. Even the reactionaries
themselves are saying, here the country and abroad, that Fu-
jimori’s government is not accomplishing a thing, that it in-
stead goes from failure to failure. This is only a part of the
truth since their difficulties are not only growing but are, of
necessity, the embodiment of the bureaucratic road of the ex-
ploiters, the big bourgeoisie, the landlords and imperialism.
This process is the embodiment of a law, a law which estab-
lishes that in its development bureaucrat-capitalism serves
the development and maturing of the revolution and that the
revolution, with the development of the People’s War, accel-
erates and grows more powerful, therefore bringing even
nearer the goal of the seizure of Power in the whole country.

On the Rectification Campaign with “Elections, No! People’s

War, Yes!”
August 1991

The class struggle in the country was characterized by the

conjuncture of a year of a new reactionary government led by
the cynical and crafty Fujimori, the most shamelessly pro-
Yankee imperialist ruler to date. A government that was born
highly discredited before the people and that in its first year
in office acted within the framework of the application of the

180
three tasks that were presented as necessities to Peruvian re-
action and imperialism: to give new impetus to bureaucrat-
capitalism, to annihilate the People’s War and to restructure
the old State.
In the first task it has revealed false successes, since infla-
tion, despite the shock of 08.08.1990 and the measures of
December 1990 and January 1991, with the corresponding
change of Ministers of Economy has not been avoided; the
recession has been maintained for the third consecutive year
and particularly this year it has become more accentuated; a
“low”, fictitious price of the dollar has been maintained in
order to pretend low inflation. The tonic has been to adjust
to all International Monetary Foundation (IMF) demands,
applying a plan that is internationally considered one of the
toughest in the world. The social cost, recognized by the very
economists of North American imperialism, has been ex-
tremely serious and, if yesterday there were 12% Peruvians
living in poverty, today there are more and most of them are
in critical poverty. Their stabilization plan has failed, and they
need a new one, their “reinsertion” has been reduced to being
declared eligible by their Yankee imperialist masters; the debt
was not even minimally condoned, but refinanced to increase
payments. Thus, 1992 will be a difficult year; the situation of
the masses will be worse, the demands of imperialism greater.
This apart from the fact that ‘91 did not mean to stop paying
or receiving the much-trumpeted fresh money; for, to the few
dollars that come in must be added more from where there
are none to pay the part of the debt that corresponds: and,
moreover, in ‘93 they will assume the heavy payments con-
tracted. On the whole, inflation has not been kept at bay, the
recession continues and deepens, and the “reinsertion” has
not been completed; therefore, the desired stabilization has
not been achieved and the economic reactivation is post-
poned even further. As a consequence, in the task of re-
launching bureaucrat-capitalism they have not achieved the
objectives they set themselves, and the law of bureaucrat-

181
capitalism of maturing the conditions for the revolution is
fulfilled; thus, in our case, the conditions for the Seizure of
power in the whole country are maturing.
[...]
He speaks of “Destruction”. Who destroys the productive
forces of a nation in formation like ours? Who forbids the
peasantry to work the land that was theirs for generations,
who condemns them to till the soil with instruments dis-
carded by history hundreds of years ago? Who squeezes the
proletariat to the point of sucking its blood for a miserable
salary? Who imposes that out of every 10 workers only one
can do it properly? Who generates unemployment, the rising
cost of living, terrible working conditions? Who generates the
crisis that grinds the people and sweeps away the small and
medium property? Who squanders our wealth for derisory
payments, plundering the sea, sinking the countryside, closing
mines, plundering jungles, drowning cities in misery? Who
burdens the nation with huge debts, subjugating us even
more? Semi-feudalism, bureaucrat-capitalism and imperial-
ism; they are the destroyers, and the Peruvian State that rep-
resents them and with blood and fire defends them with the
blessing of the Church. The Party, the People’s War, the pro-
letariat and the masses are the authentic builders of a true new
world, which in the future will be a world without private
property over the means of production, without class, with-
out State. The kingdom of freedom! Today we, the Com-
munist Party of Peru, the masses, the People’s War, are build-
ing the New Power where those from below, the people, ex-
ercise power and rule in defense of their class interests, and
we struggle unbendingly for the People’s Republic of Peru.
That “the people demand life” is an artful half-truth. The
people demand life without inequality; they do not want to
simply survive or live however they can, and they prefer to
die fighting than to die of hunger. “Respect for human rights”,
another falsehood; he demands and conquers the rights of
the people with his struggle, with his blood, because nothing

182
has ever been given to the proletariat, nothing has ever fallen
from heaven; all his rights he conquers and defends in this
way. Moreover, its rights are never equal to those of its bu-
reaucrat capitalist exploiters, but opposed and different be-
cause they are two antagonistic classes. It invokes the so-
called “integral development”, thus concealing a system of
exploitation and oppression. And behind “civilized coexist-
ence” it hides class conciliation. This is, in essence, the class
position of Bishop Dammert: defense of imperialism, of bu-
reaucrat-capitalism, of semi-feudalism, of what today is
spread by Yankee imperialism and its lackey Fujimori. It is
against the proletariat and the people; it wants pacification to
preserve the old order, hence its fallacious slogan of “Peace
and Justice”.
[...]

4. “My proposals.”

He puts forward his plan to impose his conditions: 1)

“Campaign of education for peace and against war”, with the chil-
dren, the youth, the family; using teachers, social organiza-
tions, the Armed and Police Forces, the mass media, associ-
ations of businessmen, workers, peasants, women, peasants.
2) “To promote an economic policy that overcomes misery and hunger”,
is to support the first task of reaction: to reimpulse bureau-
crat-capitalism. 3) Ways to bring the State closer to society, is
to restructure the Old State, third task. 4) Open ways for na-
tional dialogue, listen and especially organize the simple peo-
ple and promote the participation of people’s organizations,
is part of the plan to mobilize the masses to march to the tail
of reaction, to use them for the three tasks: is to traffic with
hunger and make them sell out for a crust of bread, go against
their class interests The most sinister use of the hunger of the
people! 5) “The Council deserves respect and preferential attention by
all the powers of the State”. And he calls on all political parties
and organizations to support it because the State has no

183
money to attend to its functions as such; that the people
themselves contribute with their efforts, with their miseries,
with their hunger and with their blood to continue being ex-
ploited and so that the exploitation and oppression to which
they are subjected is not so notorious, for that they promote
subsistence plans Vile desires of the supporters of the Old
State!
[...]
In Peru, both problems, the revolution and drug traffick-
ing, take on greater importance because the People’s War is
becoming a serious danger to consolidate Yankee domination
in America; and, due to the general crisis of bureaucrat-capi-
talism and the pauperization of Peruvian society, coca culti-
vation has proliferated. That is why the relations between
Peru and the U.S. are closely linked to both problems, mainly
to annihilate the people’s war which, after all, is their main
problem.
[..]
And on July 28th, the priest Jorge Aguilar proclaimed his
praise for the pro-imperialist position of the arch-reactionary
Fujimori government defending the so-called people’s capi-
talism, the micro-enterprises that are but a complementary
part of the neoliberal economies and that De Soto described
as the solution to the general crisis of bureaucrat-capitalism:
“As Church we are witnesses of the economic originality that the
people have not only in their creative capacity but their audacity to invest
in projects […] we see how small shops, wineries, small industries, com-
munity and communal works are multiplying, the Church supports them
and asks the government to support these initiatives by easing the for-
malities so that people can work […]”
And since we are the “Devil” who is against these initiatives,
he reminds us to “put down violence as an attitude of life and show
us your faces to build the country”. Our attitude of life is not to
subsist, the people do not want to live for the sake of living,
they want to live to transform the world, to manage its laws
and with these to build a just and equal world for all humanity,

184
to build Communism; and that we show our faces is similar
to what the military spreads, “they do not show their faces”, is that
they seek to betray us and annihilate us; when we are the only
ones who with our naked bodies and our souls filled with
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Gonzalo Thought revolutionary
conviction, show ourselves without hypocrisy and proclaim
our ideology in words and deeds because we are not afraid to
die the death of a thousand cuts, that is why we are capable
of destroying the old and build a world of lasting peace. Who
among Catholics acts like this?

On the Two Hills

1991

“There are several documents, see the Preparatory Session of

the II Plenum: bureaucrat-capitalism develops in cycles with
gradients, it has transitory recoveries but each new cycle starts
from the lowest point of the previous one. In 30 years it is
like this. See how it is developing: the third part of bureau-
crat-capitalism, of contemporary Peruvian society began in
1980. General crisis and how its recovery would be until its
destruction, the people’s war operates and this aggravates the
process of destruction of the economic system. To the pro-
cess of destruction of bureaucrat-capitalism is added the peo-
ple’s war, that is why its economy cannot recover like that of
neighboring countries. Our war is politically managed with
sabotage and armed strikes, the people’s war limits invest-
ments, the security factor increases insurance, etc., etc., etc.
Bureaucrat-capitalism is declining, it has been decompos-
ing since the 80’s and it is declining more and the people’s
war is sinking it. The loans, money given by the imperialists
are in harsher conditions for the oppressed nations, they can
only expect greater investment when the interest of imperial-
ism increases, when they say “what a bad example, we must

185
crush it, put in money”, but that leads to more generalized
putrefaction, as it was in Vietnam and Korea.
It is necessary to develop the criteria of the two paths. To
see how the peasant path develops, to see also how the new
economy develops in order to contrast. Pedraglio speaks of
beneficial conditions for the Huallaga area. We see a decline
fueled by the war. See how the peasant road develops, see
how in the collapse there are little flowers that break through,
new economy, New State.”

Third Plenum of the Central Committee

1992

On the other hand, the bureaucratic path of the old state

headed by the genocidal, the most obedient lackey of Yankee
imperialism, the sell-out puppet Fujimori is traversing the
greatest crisis in the history of the republic. The measures
which he adopts do not achieve anything but illusory gains
leading to general bankruptcy. Each time it confronts greater
difficulty in applying its three conter-revolutionary tasks: re-
viving bureaucrat capitalism, restructuring the old state and
annihilating the People’s War. Of these, restructuring is the
most fundamental. Reality has shown that accomplishing
these goals is a historical and political impossibility. The April
5th coup took a step towards absolute centralization, just re-
cently they carried out their farcical and fraudulent “referen-
dum” which they need to approve, by any means. This trav-
esty of “constitution” one step further in the reactionariza-
tion of the state, one more action toward Fujimori’s presi-
dential absolutism.

Declaration of the Communist Party of Peru

October 7, 1993

186
More and more it is confirmed that revolution is the principal
tendency in the world, but this is concretized through twists
and turns. The end of the so-called “cold war” with the
drowning of Russian social-imperialism has not signified the
“beginning of a new era of peace and stability” as imperialism,
principally Yankee imperialism, proclaims, repeating what the
Chinese revisionists have been bringing up for years, and
which is servilely repeated in our country by the reaction and
the revisionists of the ROL. Rather it constantly proves that
there is neither economic nor political stability anywhere, and
that it is in the midst of wars of all types and a growing mili-
tarization that we attend the end of the 20th century.
There isn’t even peace in Europe itself, where Yugoslavia
continues to disintegrate with more than 200,000 dead in less
than three years of war, while in Chechnya Russian imperial-
ism continues to unfold a barbaric genocide; and what can be
said about Rwanda, a backward country where over 500,000
died in only three months? And what happened to the “Peace”
signed between Israel and the PLO with the endorsement of
Yankee imperialism? To say nothing of the problems which
are breaking out in Mexico, on the flank of the “international
gendarme” itself, or the war between Peru and Ecuador, etc.
Essentially it is as Chairman Mao and the CPC said in the
1960s: Once more there is a great disorder under heaven, and
on another side, a New Wave of the World Revolution has
begun to unfold, and the Communist Parties must militarize
and fulfill their role, putting Maoism in command and apply-
ing People’s War to the conditions of their own countries.
In reference to the situation of our country: hunger, pov-
erty, unemployment, repression, genocide, the sale of na-
tional sovereignty, etc.: these are only some of the calamities
which are deepening to the highest degree because of the gen-
ocidal and country selling dictatorship, in reality headed by
Hemoza Ríos, the apprentice of Pinochet, of which the pup-
pet Fujimori only is a cheap and vulgar figurehead.

187
 The problem is that on the one hand a revolutionary situ-
ation in development is being expressed, strengthened by the
much better revolutionary conditions than in 1980 when the
People’s War was launched; and on the other hand, it shows
once more that what Chairman Gonzalo and the Party estab-
lished in the General Political Line is clearly being fulfilled,
particularly with respect to the general crisis of Bureaucrat-
capitalism and its inexorable process of decomposition. A
very important question, even more so now that we have en-
tered the second half of the decade in which, as in the previ-
ous ones, the critical state is necessarily aggravated. This is an
objective situation which not only smashes to pieces the mind
products of the genocidal gang about the “new Asian tiger”
or the “Peruvian miracle”, but also the shameless partisans of
the revisionist and capitulationist ROL which cackle about
how “bureaucrat-capitalism is becoming viable”. As always,
they are confusing the appearance with the essence, thus
seeking to fool our people by exalting what is no more than
passing blossoms within the process of the inevitable drown-
ing of bureaucrat-capitalism.
Another aspect of the current situation is the realization
of the forthcoming elections, which newly turn crucial for the
reactionaries because they find themselves riddled with con-
tradictions, particularly in the situation in which they carry
out their three tasks, which have become bogged down. Thus,
in the economic sphere the greatest general crisis in the his-
tory of the republic is unfolding and will continue to unfold,
despite fleeting and limited recoveries, which don’t even im-
ply the overcoming of the recession nor inflation, to say noth-
ing of unemployment, which as they themselves say “has
reached historic levels.” We can see how industry continues
to decrease and the cost of living continues to rise, despite
what the crafty conjurers of numbers say. Meanwhile agricul-
ture continues its extreme prostration, made even worse by
the millionaire shady deals in food imports done by those
around the ruling clique. Furthermore, we all know that the

188
foreign debt has grown under this government from $19 bil-
lion to over $25 billion. The ruling clique talks a lot about
how “the economy is growing”, but this is false the way al-
most everything they say is false because this government has
made cynicism and lies the norm in its actions. Growth is not
the demagogic and electorally motivated misconstruction of
schools for students and teachers with empty stomachs, to
say nothing of the extremely high indicators of truancy
reached under this government; growth is not repairing roads
nor opening a few trails with borrowed dollars for which high
interest will have to be paid to imperialism; growth is not dep-
redating the Peruvian sea to benefit the entourage of a vora-
cious clique; nor is growth the cheap selling off of state en-
terprises in order to practically give them away to imperialist
capital, firing thousands of workers with the further aggrava-
tion of not settling accounts with anyone about the money
from that sale.
Regarding the restructuring of the old state, towards the
end of 1990 Chairman Gonzalo and the Central Committee
of the Party said that the government in office was unfolding
a process of absolute centralization and presidential absolut-
ism obliged by the People’s War and in accordance with their
counter-subversive war. Today everyone is talking about this
like a broken record, “forgetting” what the Party said in 1990.
On April 5, 1992 a coup d’etat took place as part of this re-
actionary process and specifically as a response to the Strate-
gic Equilibrium reached by the People’s War, putting in ac-
tion a sinister plan launched by imperialism, principally Yan-
kee imperialism and its followers. This coup was commanded
by a military clique with Hermoza at its head and as always
carried out by the genocidal and country selling armed forces.
And once more we have seen how they trample on their own
constitution and all legal order to better serve their counter-
revolutionary war, adopting positions which are more and
more clearly fascist. Thus we have witnessed for the ump-
teenth time at a shameless electoral fraud manipulated by the

189
dictatorship to approve one of the most reactionary and ret-
rograde constitutions in the history of the Peruvian state, in
such a way that although the previous one was questioned by
Tyrians and Trojans alike, the current one is even worse.
Now in the pre-election contention, we see the announce-
ments by the representatives of the diverse groups of the fac-
tions of the big bourgeoisie who say that if they are elected
they will modify it anyway.
And what have they done with their so-called “judicial
power” and their judicial order? Desperate and terrified in the
face of the advance of the People’s War, not only have they
made a clean slate of their own so-called “universal” judicial
principles, but they have reached the point of denying the
right to defense and have annulled by decree the non-retro-
active character of their laws. They have approved the sen-
tencing of minors, condemned freedom of opinion and
thought by punishing apology for “terrorism” etc., to say
nothing of their Draconian military tribunals where the gen-
ocidals are not content to be judges and parties, but also act
as magistrates. These dark uniformed men know as much
about law as a butcher would know about sculpture, where
the norm is a life sentence to whomever falls into their hands.
The violation of their judicial order is so serious that even the
UN, a procuress for imperialism, principally Yankee imperi-
alism, has had to recommend they moderate their barbaric
atrocities a bit.
Thus, merely by looking at these questions in the problem
of restructuring we can say without fear of mistake that this
other reactionary task has become bogged down.
Regarding the reactionary’s third task of annihilating the
People’s War, they have crowed victory too soon with that
fatuous triumphalism which characterizes them, even giving
a date for its demise. But in this matter as in many others,
they have mistaken from beginning to end, because the Peo-
ple’s War continues its unstoppable march after having re-
sisted a sinister offensive carried out throughout the country.

190
An offensive unleashed since the April 5th coup, conceived
and planned by Yankee imperialism itself within their so-
called “Low Intensity Warfare” strategy, as a response to the
Strategic Equilibrium to be played as one of their final cards
before intervening more directly, and carried out by the gen-
ocidal and country selling armed forces. It is in this form that
they order the mobilization of thousands of troops which had
been deployed on the frontier, putting the national sover-
eignty at grave risk, in order to launch them on each campaign
of “encirclement and annihilation” against the Support Bases
and the Guerrilla Zones, utilizing not only 120mm mortars
and heavily armed helicopters but also light artillery used in
conventional warfare, such as cannons with a 12Km range
and bombs dropped from combat airplanes. At the same time
in the cities they lashed out with a fierce repressive manhunt,
rounding up hundreds of the sons and daughters of the peo-
ple which they jailed, after torturing and harassing them.
Once more they vomited their genocidal guts, beginning by
gorging themselves on May 9, 1992 with the Prisoners of War,
carrying out cowardly and merciless massacre. This time the
mass graves and the disappearances, like the “la Cantuta” case,
were carried out in their own capital, which clearly demon-
strated that this dictatorship is more genocidal than that of
Belaúnde and García Pérez. Furthermore, they have accom-
panied this genocide with crafty “psychological warfare”
hoaxes, promoting capitulation old tricks of mainly Yankee
imperialism, launching grotesque farces which have blown up
in their faces as was already demonstrated in December 1993
with the earth-shaking and powerful celebration of the Chair-
man Mao Tse-tung centennial, of which we will only say as
proof that in Lima alone 16 car bombs were detonated that
month. All of this is aside from the well-known actions for
population control through the formation of “mesnadas”, in-
creased use of informers, and supposed “intelligence” and
“civic action” activities which were already being launched
and which they intensified.

191
 Thus, against all this sinister offensive and against all the
crowing and dark forecasts, the People’s War and the Strate-
gic Equilibrium continue their course. If this were not the
case one should ask why no important occasion passes in
which Pinochet’s apprentice or the puppet Fujimori or some
thread of “senderologists”, reactionaries, revisionists, oppor-
tunists, hacks or even informer priests or promoters of gen-
ocide like Cipriani, Durand, or Vargas Alzamora among oth-
ers, don’t have to talk about the so-called “terrorism” or
about “pacification.” But if they talk so much about how
“they have pacified the country”, why do they maintain the
state of emergency in more than 50% of the national territory?
Why do they keep sending thousands of their armed forces
to the so-called “counter-subversive bases”? Why have they
enrolled and continue to enroll and arm under threat of death
thousands of peasants in the so-called peasant “rondas”? And
why do they continue to fill the prisons with hundreds of the
sons and daughters of the people under suspicion of being a
“terrorist”?
It is because the People’s War persists and will continue to
persist, and although it has had temporary and partial set-
backs it will achieve its glorious objectives demolishing the
Yankee strategy of the so-called “Low Intensity Warfare” and
whatever other strategy it will face, because it bases itself on
the greatest ideology the world has seen, Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism, Gonzalo Thought. It will succeed because there is a
Party which leads it and animates it with a just and correct
political line, because the masses of our people support it,
watering it with their blood and sweat, because it is no more
than the continuation of their struggle with arms in hand.
For all these reasons we affirm that the third task of the
reactionaries, like the other two, has also become bogged
down.
In synthesis we can see that bureaucrat-capitalism has no
way out, it will continue on its inexorable sinking and will be
totally demolished in the midst of the genocide with which it

192
defends itself like a mortally wounded beast. But for that very
reason, these upcoming elections are turning crucial for the
reaction, and particularly for the clique taking its turn who are
desperate to remain in power, having made approving the
“reelection” by any means necessary, now using a shameless
fraud and even using the conflict with Ecuador to achieve
their bastard objectives. And with respect to the so-called
“Union Por el Peru” it doesn’t lower the framework of the
interests of the big comprador bourgeoisie either, since the
little individual [referring to former UN General Secretary
Javier Perez de Cuellar - trans.] which leads it is yet another
known quisling of mainly Yankee imperialism. One only has
to recall his ominous role in the UN against the oppressed
nations, praising the monstrous imperialist genocide against
Iraq and the Palestinian people, for example.

Against the Country Selling and Genocidal Dictatorship, Persist

in the People’s War
March 1995

In spite of the demagogy, lies, fraud and hoaxes, what is real

and objective is that bureaucrat-capitalism has no way out. It
is going from bump to bump. In the economy they
acknowledge that “officially, there are problems again”. Ac-
cording to their own figures on growth in the first trimester
of 1996, inflation is back on the rise and unemployment is
breaking all records, which confirms what Chairman Gon-
zalo and the Party said, that in the second half of each decade
their economic crises sharpen and they sink even more. [1]
______________
1. Use as reference the Interview with Chairman Gonzalo, pg. 61:
“A way out? We believe that they have no way out. Our under-
standing of the process of contemporary Peruvian society is that
starting in 1980 bureaucrat capitalism has entered into its destruc-
tion, and as a result the whole system is falling apart, and they have
no way out. And if we look at it, there’s a serious crisis, but also the

193
two decades have come together back to back, the decade of the
‘80s and the decade of the ‘90s, both of them critical. They have no
way out at all.”

Political Report
May 1996

“Bureaucrat-capitalism within its law of evolving the old state

has only achieved transitory and partial improvements for the
exclusive benefit of a handful of native and foreign exploiters;
and the general crisis that eats away at them was only shov-
eled and its critical essence is untouched. It is impossible to
overcome: the handful of bloodsuckers have had to get on
their knees before imperialism, mainly Yankee, in order to
benefit themselves, and sink all the Peruvian people more in
misery. The government of Fujimori and Hermoza Rios is
the most unbridled pro-imperialist until today, the most gen-
ocidal, the most sold-out; it puts on some “made-up” for the
inflation to contain it to present successes. Regarding the “re-
cession”, the reactivation has been minimal, unemployment
is growing every day, wages and salaries are at rock bottom,
taxes and public rates are sky high, poverty has increased; in
view of this, the government distributes crumbs and unwraps
its demagogic civic action.
Poverty has not been reduced, keep in mind that we are in
the second half of the decade and the worsening of the crisis
of bureaucrat-capitalism is foreseeable; there are several ele-
ments of the bourgeoisie that are saying: “this year and next
year will be difficult”, “we have the problem of the repercus-
sion of the Asian crisis”, “the payment of the foreign debt”,
“the fall of metal prices”, “the El Niño phenomenon”; the
people are being told: “sacrifice for a better tomorrow” but
seven years have already passed and the better tomorrow
never arrived; nor will it ever arrive under this system, under
this landlord-bureaucrat state. This is how this government

194
develops its massive sterilization plan, implying a major gen-
ocide, promoted by Yankee imperialism, through the Inter-
American Development Agency (ALD). All the demagogic
and electioneering traffic that Fujimori’s puppet has been do-
ing with the problems of the masses must be condemned.
With the “El Niño phenomenon”, he wanted to show off in
the north with some measures, but the problems have ex-
ploded on all sides. It is the responsibility of this government
not to have taken all the measures, even though it knew that
the situation would be serious.
On the state restructuring they have not been able to ad-
vance as they wanted since April 5, 1990, under the protec-
tion of Yankee imperialism with a long term plan, they began
to develop a fascist dictatorship within the process of abso-
lute centralization, to better apply the “low intensity warfare”;
fascist dictatorship with the mask of “democracy”; it is fascist
because of the underhand denial of the parliament: on the
one hand it discredits and undermines it, and on the other
hand, it uses it as a sewer to evacuate the laws it needs; alt-
hough the most important laws are decreed by the executive;
it is fascist by the denial of the entire demo-liberal legal order,
trampling on its constitution and all laws when it feels like it;
thus some members of the same reaction or even the oppo-
site faction have said “we live a permanent coup d’état”,
“there is no rule of law”, etc.
A fascist reorganization of the judiciary is being carried out
by an obscure marine who was Velasco’s head of security, it
is no coincidence that other henchmen of Velasco’s fascist
regime are in the shadow of the current government; the ma-
nipulated and fraudulent elections are instruments to perpet-
uate themselves in the government; and the so-called “oppo-
sition” is the chorus that helps to “legitimize” this “direct de-
mocracy”; We see corporativism organized as militarized cor-
porativism linked to “low intensity warfare”, mounted with
blood and fire, under the cover of bayonets and genocide,
pressuring and throwing the masses through the so-called

195
“self-defense committees”, peasant and urban patrols, corpo-
rativism promoted by the Ministry of the Presidency through
COFOPRI, FONCODES, INADE, development commit-
tees, etc. As for its ideological basis, crude pragmatism and
bastard eclecticism, systematically applying the “If you tell a
lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually
come to believe it” (Hitler); fascism that is driven mainly by
the fascist, genocidal and country-selling armed forces; these
armed forces that constitute the backbone of the old state,
are acting today as a militarized political party, complemented
by the SIN, the mesnadas, rondas campesinas; armed forces that
are managed by a clique headed by Hermoza Ríos and Mon-
tesinos, a vulgar agent of the CIA (Central Intelligence
Agency of the U.S.), expelled from the reactionary army for
treason. It is the fascist armed forces who are carrying out the
campaign for the re-election of their puppet [Fujimori].

Unite the People Against the Fascist, Genocidal and Country-Sell-

ing Dictatorship, Develop the People’s War Further
February 1998

196
Introduction to Part III

With this document, WHAT IS BUROCRATIC CAPI-

TALISM?, published by the Revolutionary Student Front
(FER) in 1973, we begin the publication of materials of the
Communist Party of Peru (CPP) and its generated organiza-
tions on bureaucrat-capitalism, as well as documents and leaf-
lets of our own on the subject. This 1973 document of the
FER is a convincing example of how Gonzalo Thought has
been forged throughout years of intense, tenacious and inces-
sant struggle to uphold, defend and apply Marxism-Lenin-
ism-Maoism, to retake the path of Mariátegui and develop it,
to reconstitute the Party and, mainly to initiate, maintain and
develop the people’s war in Peru serving the world revolution
and that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism, be in
theory and practice its only commander and guide.
Chairman Gonzalo says in this regard: “...contemporary
Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society in which a bu-
reaucrat-capitalism develops”; although Mariátegui defined it
in point 3 of the Program of the Constitution of the Party, it
is in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism,
that Chairman Gonzalo has shown how the semi-feudal and
semi-colonial character is maintained and develops new mo-
dalities, and particularly how bureaucrat-capitalism has devel-
oped on this basis in the whole process of contemporary so-
ciety, a transcendental problem, to understand the character
of society and of the Peruvian revolution.

Peru People’s Movement (Reorganizing Committee)

197
Part III:
What is Bureaucrat-Capitalism?
Revolutionary Student Front

- From the book “ The Socialist Transformation of

the National Economy in China”. Süe Mu-chiao, Su
Sing and Liu Tsi-li.

- From the book “ More on the Differences Between

Comrade Togliatti and Us”. Communist Party of
China.

- From the compilation “ Lenin on Imperialism, the

Eve of the Proletarian Social Revolution”. V.I. Lenin,
Beijing, 1960.

Introduction

In the fifth year of the fascist military dictatorship, the

need for a correct analysis of the situation of the country is
even more evident. In particular, the economic analysis pro-
vides us with an x-ray of the current process of corporatist
counter-revolution in our country. With the economic plan
and the political plan stalled, reaction must strive to the max-
imum for the “industrialization” of the country manu militari.
And this expresses that the logical consequence of the devel-
opment of bureaucrat-capitalism is the appearance of the fas-
cist phenomenon.
That is why the urgency of having an accurate understand-
ing of what bureaucrat-capitalism is falls by its own weight.
Many get bogged down in vacuous discussions on whether,
for example, this or that measure of the Government is bad
or not, whether it has “positive aspects”, whether there are
“buried aspects of national reaffirmation”, etc. The much-

198
propagandized chatter of the “nationalizations” is quickly de-
flated by understanding what this form of capitalism pro-
moted by imperialism in the backward countries is.
In this publication we include a series of excerpts from a
Chinese book. The study of bureaucrat-capitalism in China is
of cardinal importance for being one of the most valuable
experiences in the world. On the other hand, we put in the
hands of the students an outline for the study of bureaucrat-
capitalism and it is our desire to contribute to the knowledge
of this important weapon for the scientific understanding of
our reality. Now that the revolutionary struggle in the world
is moving more and more to our America, it is necessary to
understand, armed with the science of Marxism-Leninism,
Mao Tse-tung Thought, the process of development of bu-
reaucrat-capitalism that is being promoted by the political
power of the big bureaucrat-capitalists, represented by the re-
actionary armies.
With regards to the class character of the present regime
there are many positions. One of them is that of “Revolu-
tionary Vanguard”, which maintains that the class in power is
the national bourgeoisie. This is a veiled affirmation that this
is a revolutionary process, because it assumes that the na-
tional bourgeoisie has displaced imperialism, the big bour-
geoisie and the landlords, which in Lenin’s thought is known
as revolution. Furthermore, this is not understanding that the
national bourgeoisie only adopts an anti-imperialist attitude
in the face of the armed aggression of imperialism, a thesis
supported by Mariátegui in Anti-imperialist Viewpoint and by
Mao Tse-tung, years later in his famous essay On Contradiction.
And it is not the first time that this aberration has been com-
mitted in our homeland. On their side, the “Red Fatherland”
says that the class in power is a supposed “industrial-financial
bourgeoisie”. This is a nonsensical “thesis”, in the first place,
according to Lenin, in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,
finance capital is the fusion of banking capital with industrial
capital; in the second place, our “industrialists” are nothing

199
but assemblers and the “financiers”, usurers. The big bour-
geoisie has more the sense of income than that of production,
as Mariátigui has stated in his unsurpassed Seven Essays. The
discussion of these questions is of cardinal importance, since
the conclusions will determine the place occupied by these
“leftist” organizations in our society, particularly for us, at the
university level. Thus, those of the “Revolutionary Vanguard”
are definitely located in the bureaucratic camp, that is, they
are agents of fascism, and the “Red Fatherland” are danger-
ously heading down the same path.
We have in sum, the invaluable analysis of Comrade Mao
Tse-tung on capitalism that drives imperialism in the back-
ward countries. This is a most important development of the
Marxist theory of society, a brilliant contribution to historical
materialism, that is, to Marxist sociology. The theory devel-
oped by Mao Tse-tung on bureaucrat capital has been defin-
itively integrated into Marxist economics.

200
Excerpt from The Socialist Transformation of the Na-
tional Economy in China

Foreign Languages Press, Beijing. 1964

By Sue Mu-chiao, Su Sing and Liu Tsi-li

On October l, 7949 the People’s Republic of China em-

bracing one quarter of the world’s total population was es-
tablished in the East. After Russia’s great October Socialist
Revolution this event constituted another important turning
point in the history of the world. It immensely strengthened
the forces of the socialist camp and weakened those of impe-
rialism.
The founding of the People’s Republic marked the virtual
end of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the begin-
ning of the proletarian socialist revolution in China. The era
of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism was ended for ever.
The Chinese working people have now entered the great new
era of socialist revolution and construction.
For the past one hundred years China had been in semi-
colonial and semi-feudal bondage. For a long period of time
the imperialists had controlled the main arteries of China’s
economic life, transforming her into a market where they
scrambled for raw materials, dumped their commodities, and
to which they exported their capital.
Before the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression
(1937-45) the imperialists monopolized 70 per cent of
China’s coal production, over 95 per cent of her iron, 73 per
cent of her shipping tonnage (83.8 per cent of this being
ocean-going), and by far the greater part, of her public utilities.
They also exerciscd control over her banking, insurance-and
foreign trade. Taking advantage of their various special priv-
ileges, they extorted enormous profits from China. Before
World War II China was a battle-ground where the imperial-
ist nations - Britain, Japan, the United States, Germany and

201
France - haggled over spheres of influence and waged sharp
struggles against each other. During the war, Japan carried
out unbridled armed aggression against China, crowded out
Britain, the U.S. and the others and seized by force most of
China’s markets and resources. With the victory over Japan
the U.S. imperialists stepped into the shoes of the Japanese,
thus becoming the major aggressive force in China.
After the invasion of foreign capital and the development
of Chinese capitalism the feudal economic structure was im-
paired to some degree. But just as Mao Tse-tung wrote in
1939: “The exploitation of the peasantry by the landlord class
- the basis of feudal exploitation - not only remains intact but
is linked with the exploitation of comprador and usurer cap-
ital, and holds an obviously dominant position in China’s so-
cial-economic life.[1] In the countryside the landlords and
rich peasants, who numbered less than 10 per cent of the
population, owned over 70 per cent of all arable land, but
middle peasants, poor peasants and farm labourers, who
numbered 90 per cent of the population, owned less than 30
per cent of the total amount of such land. The peasants had
to give about 50 per cent of what they produced to the land-
lords for the land they rented. For all their toil through the
year they had insufficient food and clothing for themselves.
The capitalist economy of old China consisted of two dif-
ferent sections. One was national capitalism consisting
mainly of medium and small enterprises. These were con-
nected in a thousand and one ways with imperialism and feu-
dalism but, as they were oppressed and preyed upon by im-
perialism and at the same time fettered by feudalism, constant
contradictions existed between them and both imperialism
and feudalism. The national bourgeoisie, who controlled this
section of the national economy, was comparatively weak,
both politically and economically. The other section was feu-
dal, comprador, state-monopoly capitalism, i.e. bureaucrat
capitalism. It was represented by the “Four Big Families” -
Chiang Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H. H. Kung and the Chen Ko-

202
fu and Chen Li-fu brothers. It was built up mainly during the
twenty-odd years’ rule of the Kuomintang reactionaries, who
used their counter-revolutionary political power to ruthlessly
exploit and plunder the people of the whole country. It was
entirely dependent on foreign imperialism and linked with
feudalism within the country. After the victory over Japan,
when the reactionary Kuomintang government had taken
over the properties in China of the imperialist countries - Ja-
pan, Germany and Italy - bureaucrat capitalism reached the
height of its development, controlling the main arteries of the
country’s economy. This state-monopoly capitalism not only
oppressed and exploited the workers and peasants but also
strangled the growth of national industry and encroached
upon the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Like imperial-
ism and feudalism it was a great obstacle to the development
of the productive forces of society. Mao Tse-tung pointed
out:

“Aside from abolishing the special privileges of the im-

perialists in China the object of the new-democratic revo-
lution is to end exploitation and oppression by the land-
lord class and bureaucrat-capitalist class (the big bourgeoi-
sie) in the country, change the feudal and comprador rela-
tions of production, and release all productive forces from
fetters.”

Pg. 1-4

The large-scale building and development of China’s state

sector of the economy began with the confiscation of all bu-
reaucrat-capitalist enterprises around the time of the found-
ing of the People’s Republic.
Bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises were chiefly state-mo-
nopolized capitalist enterprises of a comprador and feudal
character which were controlled by the bureaucrat-bourgeois

203
clique headed by Chiang Kai-shek. In this connection, Mao
Tse-tung said:
During the twenty years when they were in power, the
“Four Big Families” of Chiang Kai-shek, T. V. Soong, H. H.
Kung and the Chen Ko-fu and Chen Li-fu brothers have
amassed in their hands a huge sum of between 10,000 and
20,000 million U.S. dollars by which they established monop-
oly control over the vital economic arteries of the whole na-
tion. Combined with the political power of the state this mo-
nopoly capital became state-monopoly capitalism. Closely
connected with foreign imperialism, the landlord class and
rich peasants of the old type at home, it became comprador-
feudal state-monopoly capitalism.
This type of capitalism did not grow mainly through in-
creased production, but through open plunder with the aid
of the state machine, through exploiting the labouring people
and crowding out and swallowing up the medium-sized and
small capitalist enterprises by means of speculation, currency
inflation and various measures of economic control. Like im-
perialism and feudalism, it seriously impeded the growth of
the productive forces. Bureaucrat capitalism came into exist-
ence prior to the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression.
It reached the peak of its development after victory in the war
when the reactionary Kuomintang government took over the
Japanese, German and Italian imperialists, enterprises in
China. In 1948, bureaucrat capital accounted for about two-
thirds of the total industrial capital in the Kuomintang-con-
trolled areas. On the eve of liberation the National Resources
Commission of the Kuomintang government controlled 90
per cent of the country’s iron and steel output, 33 per cent of
its coal, 67 per cent of its electric power, 45 per cent of its
cement and all its petroleum and non-ferrous metals. Bureau-
crat capital also controlled the nation’s light industry. In 1947,
the China Textile Industries, Incorporated alone possessed
37.6 per cent of the nation’s total number of spindles and 60
per cent of its mechanized looms. In addition, bureaucrat

204
capital had under its control the big banks, all the railways,
highways and air lines, 44 per cent of shipping tonnage and a
dozen or so monopoly trading corporations.
On the eve of the Russian October Revolution, Lenin said:
“State-monopolistic capitalism is a complete material prepa-
ration for Socialism, the threshold of Socialism...” This was also
true of state-monopoly capitalism in old China. Bureaucrat
capital was not only highly concentrated but directly con-
nected with the reactionary state machine. Under such cir-
cumstances, the bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises could be
changed over in a short time from state-monopoly capitalism
of a comprador and feudal character to the socialist state sec-
tor as soon as the dictatorship of the big landlord class and
the big bourgeoisie was destroyed and replaced by the dicta-
torship of the proletariat.
The confiscation of these bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises
was carried out on a nationwide scale following the victory of
the people’s revolution. In a short space of time, all the fac-
tories, mines, railways, shipping, postal services, banks, trad-
ing establishments and other enterprises formerly owned by
the Kuomintang reactionary government and the bureaucrat
bourgeoisie passed into the hands of the state led by the
working class, which then controlled the vital economic ar-
teries of the nation.
Statistics show that by 1949 the state had confiscated 2,858
bureaucrat-capitalist industrial enterprises which employed
more than 750,000 industrial workers. This confiscation led
to the unprecedented growth of the socialist state sector. In
1949, socialist state industrial enterprises accounted for 41.3
per cent of the gross output value of China’s large industries.
The state sector also held 58 per cent of the country’s electric
power, 68 per cent of its coal output, 92 per cent of its pig
iron, 97 per cent of its steel, 68 per cent of its cement and 53
per cent of its cotton yarn. Besides, it controlled all the rail-
ways in the country, most of the modern communications

205
and transport, the far greater part of banking business and
domestic and foreign trade.
Confiscation of bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises meant
not only legally transforming their assets into those of the
people’s democratic state, but at the same time putting them
under the direct management of the state so that they could
produce in accordance with the needs of society. These bu-
reaucrat-capitalist enterprises had their own managerial staff
and management systems which were of a dual nature. These
systems had originated from ‘bureaucrat-capitalist produc-
tion relations and served as an instrument for enslaving and
oppressing the workers. Therefore, these aspects had to be
eliminated. They also had certain other aspects which had to
do with large-scale socialized production, such as the
knowledge of production processes, technical management
and accounting. These could be partly carried over, preserved,
and adapted to the needs of the developing socialist sector.
Some other parts, however, were unreasonable and had an
adverse effect on the workers’ production enthusiasm and on
the development of the enterprises. They needed to be re-
formed. But the reform of these systems was different from
changing the ownership of the means of production. First of
all, they had to be studied and thoroughly understood. Then,
in accordance with the actual conditions and existing possi-
bilities, the unreasonable systems were replaced with reason-
able ones and the lower technical organizations were changed
to more advanced ones. To carry out the reforms blindly in a
disorderly way and without any plan would have dislocated
production, circulation and the whole economy. That is why,
in taking over the bureaucrat-capitalist enterprises, the
measures adopted were essentially different from those in
taking over the Kuomintang state organs. This was for the
purpose of protecting production. These enterprises were
preserved instead of destroyed. In other words, these old en-
terprises with their technical organization and production

206
systems were taken over intact, placed under supervision, and
then reformed step by step.

Pg. 26-30

The second was leading and mobilizing the workers to

completely abolish the surviving portions of the systems of
management inherited from bureaucrat capitalism that had
been used to oppress and enslave them. Some of these were
feudal survivals in the textile industry whereby the workers
were searched when leaving the mills, that of gang-boss in the
collieries, and that of the contractor-boss in the transport en-
terprises. In addition, steps were taken to rid the enterprises
of the hidden counter-revolutionaries and remnants of the
feudal forces.

Pg. 31

1. The Economic Conditions in the Countryside After Land

Reform and the Policy of the Chinese Communist Party Con-
cerning Agricultural Co-operation

The Two Roads for Economic Development in the

Countryside After Land Reform. Land reform began in
various liberated areas in China during the period of the dem-
ocratic revolution” After the founding of the People’s Re-
public the land reform movement was launched on a nation-
wide scale. The aim was to confiscate the land belonging to
the landlord class and distribute it to the landless and land-
poor peasants, thus changing feudal landownership into own-
ership of land by the peasants. This dynamic change in the
history of China was basically completed in 1952.
Land reform gave 700 million mou (or more than 46 mil-
lion hectares) of free land to some 300 million peasants to-
gether with some other means of production, thus funda-
mentally changing the economic relations in the countryside.

207
The system of feudal economy which had prevailed in China
for several thousands of years was abolished. The rich peas-
ants were weakened economically as part of their surplus land
was requisitioned; and the peasants working on their own be-
came the owners of land and some other means of produc-
tion. The peasants no longer had to pay the landlords the ex-
orbitant annual land rent totalling some 70,000 million catties
(35 million tons) of grain and began to use this part of the
fruits of their labour for the expansion of production and the
improvement of their living conditions. This gave rise to
great enthusiasm for production such as had never been wit-
nessed before. At that time this enthusiasm for individual
production was good for the recovery and development of
agriculture and the entire national economy.

Pg. 87-88

3. The Socialist Transformation of Individual Handicrafts

and Small Trades

The Characteristics of Handicrafts Run on an Individual

Basis. In the early transition period there were great numbers
of handicraftsmen. According to the 1954 statistics, about 20
million people were engaged in handicrafts on an individual
basis, and the value of their output was about 9,300 million
yuan. Of the total number, about B million were independent
handicraftsmen whose production was valued at about 6,800
million yuan, and 12 million were peasants who took up the
production of handicrafts commercially on a part-time basis.
The value of the peasants’ output was about 2,500 million
yuan. Also, there were two other groups engaged in handi-
crafts. The first worked in capitalist manufactories, and the
second consisted of those peasants who produced handi-
crafts as side-occupations for their own use. Neither of them
fall into the category of handicrafts on an individual basis.

208
 The individual handicraft economy, like individual farm-
ing, was based on the labourers’ private ownership of the
means of production. However, in comparison with the latter,
it had certain characteristics of its own.
Firstly, individual farming though basically small com-
modity production, possessed some survivals of natural
economy, while handicrafts were a pure commodity economy
the production of which was entirely for the market. Further-
more, the handicraftsmen had to purchase all their means of
production and consumer goods. In comparison with the
peasants working on their own, they maintained closer con-
nections with the market and with the commercial and credit
establishments. In old China, a great number of handicrafts-
men were under the control of commercial capital which sup-
plied them with raw materials and marketed their products.
Even in the early days of the transition period, handicrafts-
men still suffered from exploitation by private commerce and
factory owners. With the development of the socialist state
sector and the gradual realization of the socialist transfor-
mation of capitalist enterprises, the handicraftsmen gradually
freed themselves from their subordination to commercial.
capital. They established a close connection with the socialist
sector; the socialist commercial enterprises supplied them
with raw materials and marketed their products.

Pg. 138-140

When the Social-Democratic student breaks with the revolu-

tionaries and politically minded people of all other trends, this
by no means implies the break-up of the general student and
educational organisations. On the contrary, only on the basis
of a perfectly definite programme can and should one work

209
among the widest student circles to broaden their academic
outlook and to propagate scientific socialism, i.e., Marxism.

The Tasks of the Revolutionary Youth

V.I. Lenin
September 1903

Revolutionary culture is a powerful revolutionary weapon for

the broad masses of the people. It prepares the ground ideo-
logically before the revolution comes and is an important, in-
deed essential, fighting front in the general revolutionary
front during the revolution.

On New Democracy
Mao Tse-Tung
January 1940

210
Excerpt from More on the Differences Between Com-
rade Togliatti and Us

Foreign Languages Press. Beijing, 1963

The Editorial Department of Hongqi (Red Flag)

CAN STATE-MONOPOLY CAPITAL BECOME “A

MORE EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT FOR OPPOS-
ING MONOPOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT”?

Replying to the editorial in our paper Renmin Ribao, Com-

rade Luigi Longo, one of the chief leaders of the Communist
Party of Italy, wrote in an article on January 4, 1963:

Our Tenth Congress has also forcefully reaffirmed that

a firm point in what we call the Italian road to socialism is
the recognition that already today, in the existing interna-
tional and domestic situation, even when the capitalist re-
gime continues to exist, it is possible and necessary to ar-
rive at the liquidation of the monopolies and of their eco-
nomic and political power.

These comrades maintain that by adopting the measures

they have worked out it is possible to change the capitalist
relations of production now existing in Italy and to change
the “big property regime” of the Italian monopoly capitalists.
The economic measures of “structural reform” which
have been worked out by Togliatti and other comrades are,
in their own words, the realization of “the demand for a def-
inite degree of nationalization, the demand for programming,
the demand for state intervention to guarantee democratic
economic development, and so on”; 1 and “the movement

1Togliatti’s speech at the April 1962 session of the Central Com-

mittee of the C.P.I.

211
which tends to increase direct state intervention in economic
life, through programming, the nationalization of whole sec-
tors of production, etc.” 1
Probably Togliatti and the other comrades will go on to
devise still more measures of this sort.
Of course, they have the right to think and say what they
like, and no one has the right to interfere, nor do we want to.
However, since they want others to think and speak as they
do, we cannot but continue the discussion of the questions
they have raised.
Let us take first the question of state intervention in eco-
nomic life.
Has not the state intervened in economic life ever since it
came into being, no matter whether it was a state of slave-
owners, of feudal lords or of the bourgeoisie? When these
classes are in the ascendant, state intervention in economic
life may take one form, and when they are on the decline, it
may take another form. State intervention in economic life
may also take different forms in different countries where the
state power is the same in its class nature. Leaving aside the
question of how the state of slave-owners or feudal lords in-
tervenes in economic life, we shall discuss only the interven-
tion of the bourgeois state in economic life.
Whether a bourgeois state pursues a policy of grabbing
colonies or of contending for world supremacy, a policy of
free trade or of protective tariffs, every such policy consti-
tutes state intervention in economic life, which bourgeois
states have long practised in order to protect the interests of
their bourgeoisie. Such intervention has played an important
role in the development of capitalism. State intervention in
economic life is, therefore, not something new that has re-
cently made its appearance in Italy.
But perhaps what Togliatti and the other comrades refer
to by “state intervention in economic life” is not these

1 “Theses for the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.”

212
policies long practised by the bourgeoisie, but mainly the na-
tionalization they are talking about.
Well then, let us talk about nationalization.
In reality, from slave society onward, different kinds of
states have had different kinds of “nationalized sectors of the
economy”. The state of slave-owners had its nationalized sec-
tor of the economy, and so had the state of feudal lords. The
bourgeois state has had its nationalized sector of the econ-
omy ever since it came into being. Therefore, the question to
be clarified is the nature of the nationalization in each case,
and what class carries it out.
A veteran Communist like Comrade Togliatti is certainly
not ignorant of what Engels said in his “Socialism: Utopian
and Scientific”:

In any case, with trusts or without, the official repre-

sentative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately
have to undertake the direction of production. This neces-
sity for conversion into state property is felt first in the
great institutions for intercourse and communication —
the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.

To this statement, Engels added the following very im-

portant rider:

I say “have to”. For only when the means of production

and distribution have actually outgrown the form of man-
agement by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore,
the taking them over by the state has become economically
inevitable, only then — even if it is the state of today that
effects this — is there an economic advance, the attain-
ment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all
productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bis-
marck went in for state ownership of industrial establish-
ments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerat-
ing, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that

213
 without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the
Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking
over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then
Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the
founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordi-
nary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its
chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic
compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines,
simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case
of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle
for the government, and especially to create for himself a
new source of income independent of parliamentary votes
— this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or
indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the
Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufac-
ture, and even the regimental tailor shops of the Army
would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seri-
ously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III’s
reign, the taking over by the state of the brothels. 1

Engels then went on to emphasize the nature of so-called

state ownership in capitalist countries. He said:

But the transformation, either into joint-stock compa-

nies and trusts, or into state ownership, does not do away
with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the
joint-stock companies and trusts this is obvious. And the
modern state, again, is only the organization that bour-
geois society takes on in order to support the external con-
ditions of the capitalist mode of production against the en-
croachments as well of the workers as of individual capi-
talists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is es-
sentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the

1Marx and Engels, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., Moscow, 1958, Vol. II,
pp. 147-48.

214
 ideal personification of the total national capital. The more
it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the
more does it actually become the national capitalist, the
more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-
workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done
away with. It is rather brought to a head. But, brought to
a head, it topples over. State ownership of the productive
forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed
within it are the technical conditions that form the ele-
ments of that solution. 1

Engels wrote all this in the period when monopoly capital

was first emerging and capitalism had begun to move from
free competition to monopoly. Have his arguments lost their
validity now that monopoly capital has assumed a completely
dominating position? Can it be said that nationalization in the
capitalist countries has now changed and even done away
with “the capitalist nature of the productive forces”? Can it
be said that state-monopoly capitalism, formed through cap-
italist nationalization or in other ways, is no longer capitalism?
Or perhaps this can be said of Italy, though not of other
countries?
Here, then, we have to go into the question of state-mo-
nopoly capitalism, and in Italy in particular.
Concentration of capital results in monopoly. From World
War I onward, world capitalism has not only taken a step fur-
ther towards monopoly in general, but also taken a step fur-
ther away from monopoly in general to state monopoly. After
World War I, and particularly after the economic crisis broke
out in the capitalist world in 1929, state-monopoly capitalism
further developed in all the imperialist countries. During
World War II, the monopoly capitalists in the imperialist
countries on both sides utilized state-monopoly capital to the
fullest possible extent in order to make high profits out of the

1 Ibid., footnote.

215
war. And since the War, state-monopoly capital has actually
become the more or less dominant force in economic life in
some imperialist countries.
Compared with the other principal imperialist countries,
the foundations of capitalism in Italy are relatively weak.
From an early date, therefore, Italy embarked upon state cap-
italism for the purpose of concentrating the forces of capital
so as to grab the highest profits, compete with international
monopoly capital, expand her markets and redivide the colo-
nies. In 1914, the Consorzio per Sovvenzione su Valore In-
dustria was established by the Italian government to provide
the big banks and industrial firms with loans and subsidies.
There was a further integration of the state organs with mo-
nopoly capitalist organizations during Mussolini’s fascist re-
gime. In particular, during the great crisis of 1929-33, the Ital-
ian government bought up at pre-crisis prices large blocks of
shares of many failing banks and other enterprises, brought
many banks and enterprises under state control, and orga-
nized the Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, thus form-
ing a gigantic state-monopoly capitalist organization. After
World War II, Italian monopoly capital, including state-mo-
nopoly capital, which had been the foundation of the fascist
regime, was left intact and developed at still greater speed. At
present, the enterprises run by state-monopoly capital or
jointly by state and private monopoly capital constitute about
30 per cent of Italy’s economy.
What conclusions should Marxist-Leninists draw from the
development of state-monopoly capital? In Italy, can nation-
alized enterprise, i.e., state-monopoly capital, stand “in oppo-
sition to the monopolies”, 1 can it be “the expression of the
popular masses”, 2 and can it become “a more effective

1Ibid., pp. 148-49

2A. Pesenti: “Is It a Question of the Structure or of the Super-
Structure?”

216
instrument for opposing monopolistic development”, 1 as
stated by Togliatti and certain other comrades of the C.P.I.?
No Marxist-Leninist can possibly draw such conclusions.
State-monopoly capitalism is monopoly capitalism in
which monopoly capital has merged with the political power
of the state. Taking full advantage of state power, it acceler-
ates the concentration and aggregation of capital, intensifies
the exploitation of the working people, the devouring of
small and medium enterprises, and the annexation of some
monopoly capitalist groups by others, and strengthens mo-
nopoly capital for international competition and expansion.
Under the cover of “state intervention in economic life” and
“opposition to monopoly”, and using the name of the state
to deceive, it cleverly transfers huge profits into the pockets
of the monopoly groups by underhand methods.
The chief means by which state-monopoly capital serves
the monopoly capitalists are as follows:
1. It uses the funds of the state treasury, and the taxes paid
by the people, to protect the capitalists against risk to their
investments, thus guaranteeing large profits to the monopoly
groups.
For example, on all the bonds issued to raise funds for the
Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, the biggest state-mo-
nopoly organization of Italy, the state both pays interest and
guarantees the principal. The bond-holders generally receive
a high rate of interest, as high as 4.5 to 8 per cent per annum.
In addition, they draw dividends when the enterprises make
a profit.
2. Through legislation and the state budget a substantial
proportion of the national income is redistributed in ways fa-
vourable to the monopoly capitalist organizations, ensuring
that the various monopoly groups get huge profits.

1 A. Pesenti: “Direct and Indirect Forms of State Intervention”

217
 For example, in 1955 about one-third of the total state
budget was allocated by the Italian government for purchas-
ing and ordering goods from private monopoly groups.
3. Through the alternative forms of purchase and sale, the
state on certain occasions takes over those enterprises which
are losing money or going bankrupt or whose nationalization
will benefit particular monopoly groups, and on other occa-
sions sells to the private monopoly groups those enterprises
which are profitable.
For example, according to statistics compiled by the Ital-
ian economist Gino Longo, between 1920 and 1955, succes-
sive Italian governments paid a total of 1,647,000 million lire
(in terms of 1953 prices) to purchase the shares of failing
banks and enterprises, a sum equal to more than 50 per cent
of the total nominal capital in 1955 of all the Italian joint-
stock companies with a capital of 50 million lire or more. On
the other hand, from its establishment to 1958, the Istituto
per la Ricostruzione Industriale alone sold back to private
monopoly organizations shares in profitable enterprises
amounting to a total value of 491,000 million lire (in terms of
1953 prices), according to incomplete statistics.
4. By making use of state authority, state-monopoly capital
intensifies the concentration and aggregation of capital, and
accelerates the annexation of small and medium enterprises
by monopoly capital.
For example, from 1948 to 1958, the total nominal capital
of the ten biggest monopoly groups, which control the life-
lines of the Italian economy, multiplied 15 times. The Fiat
Company multiplied its nominal capital 25 times and the
Italcemento 40 times. Although the ten biggest companies in
Italy constituted only 0.04 per cent of the total number of
joint-stock companies, they directly held or controlled 64 per
cent of the total private share-holding capital in Italy. During
the same period, the number of small and medium enter-
prises which went bankrupt constantly increased.

218
 5. Internationally, state-monopoly capital battles fiercely
for markets, utilizing the name of the state and its diplomatic
measures, and thus serves Italian monopoly capital as a useful
tool for extending its neo-colonialist penetration.
For example, in the period of 1956-61 alone, the Ente Na-
zionale Idrocarburi obtained the right to explore and exploit
oil resources, to sell oil or to build pipe-lines and refineries in
the United Arab Republic, Iran, Libya Morocco, Tunisia,
Ethiopia, Sudan, Jordan, India, Yugoslavia, Austria, Switzer-
land, etc. In this way, it has secured for the Italian monopoly
capitalists a place in the world oil market.
The facts given above make it clear that state monopoly
and private monopoly are in fact two mutually supporting
forms used by the monopoly capitalists for the extraction of
huge profits. The development of state-monopoly capital ag-
gravates the inherent contradictions of the imperialist system
and can never, as Togliatti and the other comrades assert,
“limit and break up the power of the leading big monopoly
groups” 1 or change the contradictions inherent in imperial-
ism.
In Italy there is a view current among certain people that
contemporary Italian capitalism is different from the capital-
ism of fifty years ago and has entered a “new stage”. They call
contemporary Italian capitalism “neocapitalism”. They insist
that under “neo-capitalism”, or in the “new stage” of capital-
ism, such fundamental Marxist-Leninist principles as those
concerning class struggle, socialist revolution, seizure of state
power by the proletariat and proletarian dictatorship are no
longer of any use. In their view, this “neo-capitalism” can ap-
parently perform the function of resolving the fundamental
contradictions of capitalism within the capitalist system itself,
by such means as “programming”, “technical progress”, “full
employment” and the “welfare state”, and through “interna-
tional alliance”. It was the Catholic movement and the social

1 “Theses for the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.”

219
reformists who first advocated and spread these theories in
Italy. Actually, it was in these so-called theories that Togliatti
and the other comrades found a new basis for their “theory
of structural reform”.
Togliatti and the other comrades maintain that “the con-
cepts of planning and programming the economy, considered
at one time a socialist prerogative, are more and more exten-
sively discussed and accepted today”. 1
It is Comrade Togliatti’s opinion (1) that there can be
planned development of the national economy not only in
socialist countries but also under capitalism, and (2) that the
economic planning and programming characteristic of social-
ism can be accepted in capitalist Italy.
Marxist-Leninists have always held that the capitalist state
finds it both possible and necessary to adopt policies which
in some way regulate the national economy in the interests of
the bourgeoisie as a whole. This idea is contained in the pas-
sages quoted above from Engels. In the era of monopoly cap-
ital, this regulatory function of the capitalist state mainly
serves the interests of the monopoly capitalists. Although
such regulation may sometimes sacrifice the interests of cer-
tain monopoly groups, it never harms, but on the contrary
represents, the over-all interests of the monopoly capitalists.
Here is Lenin’s excellent exposition of this point. He said:

. . . the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that

monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no
longer capitalism, but can already be termed “state Social-
ism”, or something of that sort, is most widespread. The
trusts, of course, never produced, do not now produce,
and cannot produce complete planning. But however
much they do plan, however much the capitalist magnates
calculate in advance the volume of production on a na-
tional and even on an international scale, and however

1 Togliatti’s report to the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.

220
 much they systematically regulate it, we still remain under
capitalism — capitalism in its new stage, it is true, but still,
undoubtedly, capitalism. 1

However, some comrades of the C.P.I. maintain that by

carrying out “planning” in Italy under the rule of the monop-
oly capitalists, it is possible to solve the major problems
posed by Italian history, including “the problems of the lib-
erty and emancipation of the working class”.2 2 How is this
miracle possible?
Comrade Togliatti says, “State-monopoly capitalism,
which is the modern aspect of the capitalist regime in almost
all the big countries, is that stage — as Lenin has affirmed —
beyond which, in order to go forward, there is no other way
but socialism. But from this objective necessity it is necessary
to make a conscious movement arise.” 3
There is the well-known statement by Lenin that “capital-
ism, . . . advanced from capitalism to imperialism, from mo-
nopoly to state control. All this has brought the socialist rev-
olution nearer and has created the objective conditions for
it”. 4 He also made similar statements elsewhere. Clearly,
Lenin meant that the development of state-monopoly capi-
talism serves only to prove “the proximity . . . of the socialist
revolution, and not at all as an argument in favour of tolerat-
ing the repudiation of such a revolution and the efforts to
make capitalism look more attractive, an occupation in which
all the reformists are engaged”. 5 In talking about “structural

1 Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., Mos-

cow, 1951, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 269.
2 “Theses for the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.”
3 Togliatti’s report to the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.
4 Lenin, “Report on the Current Situation Delivered at the April

Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., May 7 (April 24), 1917”, Selected

Works, International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VI, p. 99.
5 Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, Selected Works, F.L.P.H., Mos-

cow, 1951, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 269-70.

221
reform” and “conscious movement”, Comrade Togliatti is
using ambiguous language exactly as the reformists do to
evade the question of socialist revolution posed by Marxism-
Leninism, and he is doing his best to make Italian capitalism
look more attractive.

It is particularly necessary to emphasise the following. The

war has caused such untold calamities to the belligerent coun-
tries and has at the same time accelerated the development of
capitalism to such a tremendous degree, converting monop-
oly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, that neither the
proletariat nor the revolutionary petty-bourgeois demo-
crats can keep within the limits of capitalism.

Postscript of The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the

First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907
September 28, 1917

222
Excerpt from Lenin on Imperialism, the Eve of the Pro-
letarian Social Revolution

Foreign Languages Press. Beijing, 1960

V.I. Lenin

MONOPOLY IN GENERAL HAS EVOLVED INTO

STATE MONOPOLY

World capitalism, which in the sixties and seventies of the last

century was an advanced and progressive force of free com-
petition, and which at the beginning of the twentieth century
grew into monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism, took a big
step forward during the war, not only towards greater concen-
tration of finance capital, but also towards transformation
into state capitalism.

A Turn in World Politics

January 31, 1917

On the other hand, opposed to this, mainly Anglo-French

group, we have another group of capitalists, an even more
rapacious, even more predatory one, a group who came to
the capitalist banqueting table when all the seats were occu-
pied, but who introduced into the struggle new methods for
developing capitalist production, improved techniques, and
superior organisation, which turned the old capitalism, the
capitalism of the free-competition age, into the capitalism of
giant trusts, syndicates, and cartels. This group introduced the
beginnings of state-controlled capitalist production, combin-
ing the colossal power of capitalism with the colossal power
of the state into a single mechanism and bringing tens of mil-
lions of people within the single organisation of state capital-
ism.

223
 War and Revolution
May 14, 1917

The development of capitalism has made gigantic strides, par-

ticularly in the twentieth century, and the war has done more
than had been done in twenty-five years. State control of in-
dustry has advanced not only in Germany, but also in Eng-
land. Monopoly in general has evolved into state monopoly.
Objective conditions show that the war has accelerated the
development of capitalism, which advanced from capitalism
to imperialism, from monopoly to state control. All this has
brought the socialist revolution nearer and has created the
objective conditions for it. Thus the course of the war has
brought the socialist revolution nearer.

The Report on the Current Situation, Delivered at the Seventh

(April) All-Russian Conference of the Russian Social-Democratic La-
bour Party (Bolsheviks)
April 24, 1917

STATE-MONOPOLY CAPITALISM IS A COM-

PLETE MATERIAL PREPARATION FOR SOCIAL-
ISM

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinar-

ily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into
state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily ad-
vanced mankind towards socialism.
Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this
not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletar-
ian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the
economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because
state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation

224
for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder
of history between which and the rung called socialism there
are no intermediate rungs.

The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It

September 10-14, 1917

To elucidate the question still more, let us first of all take the
most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows
what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last
word” in modern large-scale capitalist technique and planned
organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeoisie imperial-
ism. Cross out the words in italics, and, in place of the mili-
tarist, Junker-bourgeois imperialist state, put a state, but of a
different social type, of a different class content – a Soviet,
that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of
the conditions necessary for Socialism.

The Food Tax

April 21, 1921

STATE-MONOPOLY CAPITALISM IS STILL UN-

DOUBTABLY CAPITALISM. THE REFORMISTS
CALL IT SOCAILISM FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-
PUDIATING THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

Here we have what is most essential in the theoretical ap-

praisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, viz.,
that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism. The latter
must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois re-
formist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monop-
oly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can already be termed
“state Socialism,” or something of that sort, is most wide-
spread. The trusts, of course, never produced, do not now

225
produce, and cannot produce complete planning. But how-
ever much they do plan, however much the capitalist mag-
nates calculate in advance the volume of production on a na-
tional and even on an international scale, and however much
they systematically regulate it, we still remain under capitalism
– capitalism in its new stage, it is true, but still, undoubtedly,
capitalism. The “proximity” of such capitalism to Socialism
should serve the genuine representatives of the proletariat as
an argument proving the proximity, facility, feasibility and ur-
gency of the socialist revolution, and not at all as an argument
in favour of tolerating the repudiation of such a revolution
and the efforts to make capitalism look more attractive, an
occupation in which all the reformists are engaged.

The State and Revolution

August-September 1917

No political party can possibly lead a great revolutionary

movement to victory unless it possesses revolutionary theory
and a knowledge of history and has a profound grasp of the
practical movement.

The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War

Mao Tse-tung
October 1938

Imperialism’s economic relations constitute the core of the

entire international situation as it now exists. Throughout the
twentieth century, this new, highest and final stage of capital-
ism has fully taken shape.

226
 Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks
of the Communist International
V.I. Lenin
July 19, 1920

The correctness or otherwise of the ideological and political

line decides everything.

Talks with Responsible Comrades at Various Places During Pro-

vincial Tour
Mao Tse-tung
August 1971

227
Outline For the Study of Bureaucrat-Capitalism

The U.S. imperialists and their running dogs – the bureau-

crat-capitalists, the landlords and the Kuomintang reactionar-
ies who represented these two classes – were the enemies of the
people.

Mao Tse-tung

I. Approaching the question.

a. Capital and capitalism.
b. Monopoly capital and Imperialism.
c. State-monopoly capitalism.
d. State monopoly capitalism with a compra-
dor and feudal character: bureaucrat-capital-
ism.
II. In the Thought of José Carlos Mariátegui.
a. Semi-colonialism, economic condition of
our society and our economic structure.
b. Outline of the economic evolution.
III. Current situation.
a. Impulse of the country’s development along
a total bureaucratic line under the current
fascist regime.
b. The line of development of bureaucrat-cap-
italism.
i. Landlord line: in agriculture.
ii. Bureaucratic line: in industry, com-
merce, and finances.
iii. Bureaucratic line: in ideology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lenin:
• Karl Marx. Marx’s Economic Doctrine.
• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

228
 • The Development of Capitalism in Russia.

Mao Tse-tung:
• The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Com-
munist Party.
• The Present Situation and Our Tasks.

C.P.C:
• More on the Differences Between Comrade Togliatti
and Us.
• Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?

Mariátegui:
• Defense of Marxism.
• Seven Essays. I.
• Program of the Communist Party of Peru.
• Anti-imperialist Viewpoint.

Cheprakov:
• State Monopoly Capitalism.

National Planning Institute:

• Documents. Marcé del Pont.
• Global Development Plan. 1971-1975.

Lewis:
• The Principles of Economic Planning.

Virgilio Roel:
• Outline of Economic Evolution.

229