Thursday, June 21, 2018

Songs in Memory of the 19th June 1986 and 250 comrades killed in Peruvian Prisons

In the 19th  of June 1986 the revolutionary political prisoners and prisoners of war rose up in rebellion in the three Lima prisons: Lurigancho, El Frontón and Callao.

They gave in an enormous display of revolutionary heroism, where over 250 of them gave their lives to defeat the genocidal plans of the old Peruvian state and its imperialist masters. These comrades, as all the sons and daughters of the people, lives on in the struggle of the international proletariat and the peoples of the world.

Himno de la Izquierda Unida (Anthem of the United Left)
La Internacional (The Internationale)
Himno a la Camarada Norah (Hymn of Comrade Norah) Al Presidente Gonzalo (To President Gonzalo) Salvo el Poder (Except for Power) El Partido (The Party) El Guerrillero (The Guerrilla Fighter) Los Rojos Guerreros (The Red Warriors) Canto de Batalla (Battle Song) Soldados Rojos (Red Soldiers) Canto al Nuevo Poder (Chant of New Power) Por el Gran Camino (On the High Road) Brilla, Brilla el Nuevo Poder (Twinkle Twinkle, the New Power) Bandera Roja (Red Flag) Canto de Mar Armado (Chant of the Armed Sea) Marcha Triunfal (Triumphant March) A las Masas (To the Masses) Labor de Titanes (Labour of Titans) Torrente Rojo (Red Torrent) Sembrando el Fuego (Sowing Fire) Rumbo al Comunismo (Towards Communism) Gloria a los Heroes (Glory to the Heroes) Por el Este Nace el Sol (For this the Sun Rises)

Peru : 19th June Day of Heroism - New Text from Comrades of Dem Volke Dienen

Democracy and Class Struggle says we have received this new document from Dem Volke Dienen and it helps us clarify the relationship between the Party the United Front and the Army and the idea of the militarisation of the party.

19th of June day of heroism

Every year the communists revolutionaries in the whole world celebrate the 19 of June as the day of heroism and the international day of political prisoners.

 In the 19 of June 1986 the revolutionary political prisoners and prisoners of war rose up in rebellion in the three Lima prisons: Lurigancho, El Frontón and Callao.

They gave in an enormous display of revolutionary heroism, where over 250 of them gave their lives to defeat the genocidal plans of the old Peruvian state and its imperialist masters. These comrades, as all the sons and daughters of the people, lives on in the struggle of the international proletariat and the peoples of the world.

The best way to honor these comrades is to continue their struggle, to follow the same path and to learn from their great leader Chairman Gonzalo, today when the communists of the world are intensively struggling to achieve higher levels of unity based on the principles of marxism-leninies-maoism, principally maoism, the struggle against revisionism and to serve the world proletarian revolution, it is of decisive importance to advance boldly and through leaps in the struggle for the reconstitution of the communist parties, in that sense in honor of the fallen heroes and serving their aims, today we publish in Spanish a document from the communist party of Peru titled:

DEVELOP THE CONSTRUCTION, PRINCIPALLY OF THE PARTY IN SERVICE OF THE ARMED STRUGGLE which is a declaration from the sixth and seventh plenary sessions of the central committee of the PCP.

 In English we publish an excerpt from the document and we will publish the full translation as soon as possible.

As far as we know, this document was not published before in the Internet and we hope by this publication it will also reach comrades who didn't know it before.

Regarding this we want to note one important point, we have transcribed the documents from ”GUERRA POPULAR EN EL PERU El Pensamiento Gonzalo TOMO II” a recompilation of PCP documents which was published 1993 by a certain BORJA.

This figure at some point were linked to the newspaper “el diario” and also published an international edition of this newspaper but he was never a party member and never represented the position of the party. After the publication of the mentioned recompilation, he tried to use it as well as the other works he have done so to attack the position of the party and destroy the work of the party abroad, obviously these intentions failed and he ended up as an open renegade of the people’s war and until this day continues vomiting his reactionary class hatred against Chairman Gonzalo.

From such a person not even the slightest degree of “intellectual honesty” can be expected so we warn the reader that the text may include some errors in regard to the original text published by the pcp.

The case of “the great mister Borja” is well known to everyone who is familiar with the history of the Revolutionary internationalist Movement in the 90s and is a good lesson because it shows how individuals with the support of some right opportunist in the leadership of parties momentously can generate confusion and difficulties by applying the revisionist method of “fighting red flags with red flags” and its particularly interesting because it also shows that these particular characters end up forgotten and irrelevant at the garbage heap of history while the communists march forward overcoming every difficulties and raising the red flag to even higher peaks.

We hope today’s publication is a humble recognition of the fallen comrades.

Glory to the fallen heroes! Long live revolution!

¡Gloria à los heróes caídos! ¡Viva la revolución!

The Writers of Dem Volke Dienen



The development of the party work and the two lines struggle led us, during the last years, to the following conclusion: develop the construction taking the ideological-political construction as the base and develop the organizational construction simultaneously, in the midst of the class struggle of the masses and the two lines struggle, that is of the proletarian line of Mariategui and its development against the right and left opportunism.

 And more recently, we have advanced in the understanding of the unseparable link between construction and struggle. This process is particularly linked to the struggle against the right and left liquidationism; is struggling against liquidationism that we have understood these important problems.

These experiences the party have lived in these last years are just to those of the international proletariat; thus, in the experience of China take the following certain synthesis into account:

“Whether to persist in inner-Party struggle or not is a principled difference between Chairman Mao’s line and the revisionist line in Party building.

In general lines and from the point of view of the construction of the party in particular, we could divide our history in the following stages: first, of the establishment of the Road of Mariategui and the constitution of the party; second, of the pursuit of the road of Mariategui and the defense of the party; third, of the struggle to retake the road of Mariategui and of the reconstitution of the party.

 If we want to concrete more, to point out the problems of the construction of the party, the three stages we would specify like this: constitution, defense and reconstitution.

The constitution of the Communist party, in October 1928, the greatest work of Jose Carlos Mariategui was a long and great struggle that concludes more than three decades of combat of the Peruvian proletariat. The constitution implied struggle against anarco-sindicalism and against the machinations of the emerging Apra-ism, and was the triumph of the necessity of the party of the proletariat in our country.

Since the constitution or founding of the party we can highlight five important struggles:

1. against the abandonment of the road of Mariategui and the left liquidationism of Ravinez and co.;
2. against capitulationism and right liquidationism of Terreros – Portocarrero and Acosta – Del Prado – Barrio, under the influence of browderism;
3. against the revisionism of Del Prado and co. under the command of the contemporary revisionism of Khrushchev – Brezhnev;
4. For the construction of the three instruments of the revolution and against the rightism disguised as “left” and,
5. against both the right and “left” liquidationism.

These are important struggles in the almost fifty years of history of the party, we must pay great attention to it in order to draw experiences and lessons from it which serves to the development of the construction which we are engaged. The study and investigation of the history of the party, although have advanced, should be reinforced, it is vital to understand the two lines struggle, the process of construction of the three instruments in the country and to adhere more to the line of Mariategui and its development.


The process of reconstitution of the party is a consequence of retaking the road of Mariategui; it was initiated in the beginning of the decade of the 1960s and although raises over the class struggle of our motherland, especially of the proletariat and the peasantry, is intimately linked in its development to marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought. During more than 15 years the reconstitution has passed by the following moments: of its determination, which is established in the VI Conference with the establishment of the Party Unity Base (marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought, Mariategui thought and general political line) and the decision on the necessity of the reconstitution of the party, in 1969; of its application, which key is the III plenum that sanctioned the basis of the reconstitution in the ideological-political, the organizational and in the mass work, in 1973; of its impulse, which develops since 1975. thus, the reconstitution of the party entered in the actuality in the moment of its culmination which should be concluded in the V Congress. The task today is, then, culminate the reconstitution.

The reconstitution has allowed to understand with more clarity and certainty the inseparable relation between the construction of the party and general political line; that the construction of the party serves the general political line which core is to follow the path of encircle the city from the countryside, this is the stage of the democratic revolution which we find ourselves, and to move away from the political line undermines the construction and leads to negate the character of the party and its role as the organized vanguard of the proletariat making it impossible to struggle for power, central problem of the revolution. All that is proven by our own party history.

The development of the reconstitution had been done, as it must be, in struggle against opposed lines; against revisionism, rightism disguised as “left” and liquidationism; the struggle against right and left liquidationism while waged in parallel to the application of the reconstitution was successfully completed when it was decided to “liquidate liquidationism to advance and develop two lines struggle against revisionism as the main danger” and while concreting the political line for its immediate application in the guideline of “Reconstitute the party from the countryside and put the peasant work as the base to follow the path of encircling the city from the countryside.”


the development of the two lines struggle in the party in the present puts forward to combat revisionism as the main danger; the summary of the waged struggles in the last years and the problems we face today demands us to combat revisionism having the following points in mind:

1. opposition to marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought and the thought of Mariategui. Negation of the development of the line of Mariategui.
2. opposition to the path of encircle the city from the countryside. Hopes in the reactionary state and in the regime and questioning of directing the work to serve the struggle for power.
3. opposition to reconstitute the party from the countryside and to build it in struggle against revisionism as the main danger. Questioning the path of building the party in a backward country as ours.
4. separate the ideological-political construction from the organizational and pretend to develop the construction outside the framework of the class struggle and of the two lines struggle.
5. unilateral application of the open and secret work which negates its interrelation. Questioning of the party system, structure an work.
6. negation of the role of the leadership and the great leaders and opposition to proletarian discipline.
7. negate to the peasantry its condition of main force and be against putting the peasant work as the base of the whole construction.
8. questioning the effective leadership of the proletariat in the revolution while following the criteria of considering it as the main force.
9. negate the necessity of “to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses” in order to educate them for revolution and that the split with revisionism is unavoidable and indispensable. Negate to develop the struggle for demands in service of the struggle for power.
10. accept the worker-peasant alliance as the base of the united front in theory but questioning in praxis and negate the necessity of building the united front from the countryside.
11. negation of the People’s War. Opposition to principles and military line of Chairman Mao Tsetung and raising insurrectionist and urban guerrilla criteria. Negation of the universal law of the revolutionary violence.
12. questioning of the necessity of combating revisionism as the main danger. Negation of proletarian internationalism, particularly as a defense of marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought and obligation of combating revisionism. Conciliation with revisionism.
13. exaltation of revolutionarism and preaching of “unitarianism” without demarcation.
14. opposition to the “philosophy of struggle”. Liberalism, conciliationism and groupism. “Dirty struggle”.
15. questioning the view of proletariat to substitute it for the bourgeois view.

The struggle against revisionism as the main danger that is currently being developed is of a great importance and in perspective, and its generalization and differentiation which considers all the fronts of our activity and the diversity of concrete situations, as how to conduct it correctly and with firmness and sagacity is a decisive question for the development of the construction.


The construction is the fundamental weapon of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is through it that the political line becomes reality and can move the masses under the leadership of the party. The construction among us, since the constitution of the party implies three instruments: party, united front and armed struggle; and the construction of the party puts forward, today as yesterday, its necessity, how to build it in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society and how to develop it through the struggle. In this problem, like in all, we should stick to marxism, to our experience and the current concrete conditions of the class struggle. Is important to study and apply what was established by Lenin in “one step forward, two steps back”, vital for the comprehension of the opportunist line in this field, aiming to solve our specific problems. There Lenin established the importance of the organization, the simultaneous construction of the ideological-political, which is its base, and the organizational, and the development in the midst of the class struggle for power and the two lines struggle against opportunism. He say:

“In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organisation. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the "lower depths" of utter destitution, savagery, and degeneration, the proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class. Neither the senile rule of the Russian autocracy nor the senescent rule of international capital will be able to withstand this army. It will more and more firmly close its ranks, in spite of all zigzags and backward steps, in spite of the opportunist phrase-mongering of the Girondists of present-day Social-Democracy, in spite of the self-satisfied exaltation of the retrograde circle spirit, and in spite of the tinsel and fuss of intellectualist anarchism.”

In the same text it is put forward how the necessity of the structure, system and party work unified and centralized “Unity on questions of programme and tactics is an essential but by no means a sufficient condition for Party unity, for the centralisation of Party work … The latter requires, in addition, unity of organisation, which, in a party that has grown to be anything more than a mere family circle, is inconceivable without formal Rules, without the subordination of the minority to the majority and of the part to the whole. As long as we had no unity on the fundamental questions of programme and tactics, we bluntly admitted that we were living in a period of disunity and separate circles, we bluntly declared that before we could unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn; we did not even talk of the forms of a joint organisation, but exclusively discussed the new (at that time they really were new) problems of fighting opportunism on programme and tactics. At present, as we all agree, this fight has already produced a sufficient degree of unity, as formulated in the Party programme and the Party resolutions on tactics; we had to take the next step, and, by common consent, we did take it, working out the forms of a united organisation that would merge all the circles together.”

in this same book, Lenin characterizes the opportunist line in organizational problems: “their advocacy of a diffuse, not strongly welded, Party organisation; their hostility to the idea (the "bureaucratic" idea) of building the Party from the top downwards, starting from the Party Congress and the bodies set up by it; their tendency to proceed from the bottom upwards, allowing every professor, every high school student and "every striker" to declare himself a member of the Party; their hostility to the "formalism" which demands that a Party member should belong to one of the organisations recognised by the Party; their leaning towards the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual, who is only prepared to "accept organisational relations platonically"; their penchant for opportunist profundity and for anarchistic phrases; their tendency towards autonomism as against centralism.”

all the previous are basic questions that we should deeply assimilate and apply having the experience of fifty years of the party in account, always acting with firmness and with initiative.


From the construction we must start from that our basic and fundamental problem is how to build the party, as the organized vanguard of the proletariat and its highest form of organization, which serves to seize power leading in deeds the democratic revolution in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society.

This problem solved, in its general and valid laws, by Chairman Mao Tsetung, in “Introducing The Communist”, is necessary to always remember.

In the referred work, it was established that the construction of the party, in these conditions, is developed linked to the united front and the armed struggle, remarking the three problems and its interrelation in the following terms:

“Therefore the united front, armed struggle and Party building are the three fundamental questions for our Party in the Chinese revolution. Having a correct grasp of these three questions and their interrelations is tantamount to giving correct leadership to the whole Chinese revolution.

 We are now able to draw correct conclusions concerning these three questions by virtue of our abundant experience in the eighteen years of our Party's history, our rich and profound experience of failures and successes, retreats and advances, contraction and expansion.

This means that we are now able to handle the questions of the united front, of armed struggle and of Party building in a correct way. It also means that our eighteen years of experience have taught us that the united front, armed struggle and Party building are the Chinese Communist Party's three "magic weapons", its three principal magic weapons for defeating the enemy in the Chinese revolution. This is a great achievement of the Chinese Communist Party and of the Chinese revolution.”

it is here the substantive question of the necessity to build and develop the party through the armed struggle and the united front; here the question to subject ourselves to that the armed struggle is the principal form of struggle and the people’s army is the principal form of organization; here is the problem that the party is the “heroic combatant” that handles the united front and the armed struggle.

All this is to subject the construction of the party to the law of marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought of the revolutionary violence to seize power; what Chairman Mao masterly synthesized in the necessity of the revolutionary army to change the world:

“Whoever has an army has power, and war decides everything.”

“those which have more guns have more power”

“ Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’.”

“Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army.”

“Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed;

We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

all the previous is a solid whole of marxist truths and indispensable part of our education in the view of the proletariat and sole criteria that can correctly guide the transformation of the Peruvian society. To these criteria we must subject ourselves and implement them in the masses, today, is more necessary given the upcoming electionary political perspective.

The three problems and their interrelation are present from the constitution of the party. Synthesizing we could say, Mariategui started from the principle of the revolutionary violence, framed the action inside the democratic revolution led by the proletariat (because, the bourgeoisie can not lead it); and, conceived and furnished the party linking it to the united front and the necessity of the armed struggle of the peasantry.

Thus our founder, precisely established how to develop the party in the first stage of the revolution. His thesis on this question should be seriously studied both in its practical work for constituting the party organization; to which we should add the experience of almost fifty years, paying particular attention to the lessons about party, united front and armed struggle has left from the decade of 1960s, and principally sum up the experience of the reconstitution of the party and its struggle around the problem of the construction.


Which guidelines should we follow? The construction of the party develops in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country where the proletariat should lead, in deeds, the democratic revolution getting ready to develop the armed struggle to seize power through People’s War and following the road from the countryside to the city. Consequently, the party develops necessarily in relation with the armed struggle and the united front. This is the guideline of the construction of the party in our country if we subject to marxism-leninism-Mao Tsetung thought.

Applying this guideline, in the current conditions, means that the questions of structure, system and party work should be solved.

The first, puts forward to develop a sole organization structure that is national, unified and centralized, in its whole subjected to the leadership of the central committee, key expression of the democratic centralism; this is the question of structure.

The second, is the problem of the distribution of forces, to center the activity in the peasantry to develop the principal forms of struggle and organization and is the problem of following a road of accumulation of forces in the cities; this is the question of party system.

The third, is the problem of secret work, of the clandestine activity, of the armor that guarantee the constant functioning under whatever circumstance; is the problem of the open work; of the mass work, which in the country puts forward the necessity of “invert the triangle”, which means of putting the peasant work as the base of the revolutionary struggle, the problem of the necessity of having the struggle for the seizure of power while leading the peasantry in the revolution under the leadership of the Party tenaciously and firmly as the course of the worker movement, is the problem of “our duty of going down lower and deeper” to forge the masses in the necessity to make revolution and combat revisionism, of mobilize, politicize and organize workers and peasants, who are the basic masses, to incorporate in the struggle intellectuals, women and youth, and is the obligation of developing the struggle for demands in service of power; is, finally, the problem of the necessity of the secret and open work and its indispensable interrelation, subjecting to the orientation that the first is the principal and leads the second; all this is the question of the party work.

The structure, the system and the party work are three fundamental questions of the organizational line and are of vital importance for the construction of the party; but, as in everything, the application of these questions subjecting to the correct line the struggle against opposite lines is waged; in synthesis, a just organizational line can not be applied nor develops if not in struggle, and currently its application and development can only take place combating revisionism as the main danger.


the VI and VII Plenum of the Central Committee have been important events dedicated to the problems of the construction, it was sanctioned in them “reconstitute the party from the countryside and put the peasant work as the base to follow the road of encircle the cities from the countryside”, thus concretizing the general political line; and, “develop the construction, principally of the party, in service of the armed struggle”, as guidelines to develop the construction of the three instruments synthesized in the slogan of “construct in service of the armed struggle”.

Furthermore, it was called to celebrate the “50 anniversary” of the foundation of the party and to prepare the successful realization of the V Congress, which must be “RECONSTITUTION CONGRESS” which culminates the reconstitution of the party sanctioning the program and the general political line of Mariategui and its development and the new Party constitution.

These positions are historical and important and the development of the Party as the organized vanguard of the proletariat depends from the firm and resolute application of it, as well as the fulfillment of its mission: the emancipation of the proletariat, fulfilling in this first stage with carrying forward the Revolution of New Democracy

Members of European Parliament, condemn the presence of Sushma Swaraj on Yoga Day

Members of European Parliament, condemn the presence of Sushma Swaraj on Yoga Day


Dear President of the European Parliament,

We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament, regret the presence of the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, on the International Day of Yoga in the European Parliament tomorrow, Thursday 21th. Indian government does not respect human rights, it does not allow people to have the same rights, it indiscriminately kills Adivasis and Dalits communities and religious minorities such as Muslim or Christian, and it imprisons human rights defenders.

The presence of the Minister of External Affairs of India, Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, may jeopardize the good name of the European Parliament as a guarantor of the defense of human rights.

We condemn the arrests made by Maharashtra police in the early morning of June 6, 2018 of:

• Surendra Gadling, human rights lawyer and general secretary of the Indian Association of People?s Lawyers, which has represented activists and others arrested on fabricated charges.
• Rona Wilson, member of the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners,
which has campaigned against the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and other repressive laws.
• Sudhir Dhawale, Dalit rights activist and the editor of the Marathi magazine ?Vidrohi?.
• Shoma Sen, professor at Nagpur University.
• Mahesh Raut, land rights activist.

Regarding the words of Aakar Patel, Executive Director Amnesty International India: These arrests are a matter of grave concern. Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen and Mahesh Raut have a history of working to protect the rights of some of India?s most marginalized people.

Their arrests raise disturbing questions about whether they are being targeted for their activism. Anyone arrested for legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression must be released immediately and unconditionally.?

During the current European Parliament term, two written questions have been addressed to the European Commission regarding the situation of the Indian teacher GN Saibaba.

He has a 90% physical disability, aggravated in recent months with acute pancreatitis, and was recommended the removal of his gallbladder. Because of this, this life imprisonment sentence is actually a death sentence for this professor, who has done nothing but defend the rights of the Adivasis and Dalits people with words, as well as denounce the counterinsurgency strategy ?Operation Green Hunt?.

The answers given by Vice-President Mogherini on behalf of the European Commission were the following: ?The EU has been closely following cases of human rights defenders arrested in India, including the cases of professor Saibaba, accused of having links with Naxal militants, and of Ms. Arundathi Roy, accused of contempt of court for her article defending the cause of Professor Saibaba.

The EU Delegation in New Delhi has made appeals on humanitarian grounds with the National Human Rights Commission. 

The EU attaches great importance to the issues at stake, most importantly to the freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and the rights of human rights defenders. These issues are also addressed at the EU-India human rights dialogue.? ?The EU continues to follow the case of professor Saibaba convicted by sessions court in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra in March 2017.

As Professor Saibaba lodged an appeal against the verdict with the Nagpur High Court, the case is still sub judice. The EU has been raising the case on humanitarian grounds with the Indian authorities.? 

How can the European Parliament allow the presence of a Minister of a Government that defends that there are first and second humans, indiscriminately kills the Adivasis, Dalits and religious minorities? population and that imprison human rights activists?

We urge the cancellation of the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of India, Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, in the European Parliamient and demands the immediate release of Prof. GN Saibaba, Advocate Surendra Gadling, Prof Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawle, Rona Wilson Mahesh Raut and all human rights defenders in India.


MEP Lídia Senra
MEP Julie Ward

20th of June 2018

Brave Yemeni's resistance at al-Hudaydah Airport - it Still Remains Contested




From Anti Imperialism to Socialism - Victory to the Yemeni People

USA: A Once Silent Crisis is Now Turning into a Deafening Cry

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

An air attack in eastern Syria killed 52 Syrian and Iraqi government-backed forces who were fighting ISIS. They blamed the US, but it said Israel is responsible.

Israel escalating attacks on Syria

Erdogan Accelerates Attacks on Syria and Iraq in Lead-up to Turkish Election

Young Friedrich Engels 1970 Yunosha Fridrih Engels Russian animation English subs

The animation uses the letter of Friedrich Engels between 1838 and 1842


Prometheus - Russian with English and Spanish Subtitles

You need to switch the English or Spanish sub titles on at CC

Democracy and Class Struggle says Post Modernism has found it very fashionable to criticise Prometheus as the father of  scientific rationalism which they hate and condemn.

They despise human striving for scientific progress they do not see the science behind productivity of green technology because they do not want too.

The Prometheus myth strongly influenced Marx and Stalin and that is enough for most of its critics for utter condemnation.

However the myth will be re interpreted in different ages - we just have to be living in a dark age -  and we give it a dark interpretation.

They mock people who want to help mankind they only understand self interest.


TITAN! to whose immortal eyes 
The sufferings of mortality, 
Seen in their sad reality, 
Were not as things that gods despise; 
What was thy pity's recompense? 
A silent suffering, and intense; 
The rock, the vulture, and the chain, 
All that the proud can feel of pain, 
The agony they do not show, 
The suffocating sense of woe, 
Which speaks but in its loneliness, 
And then is jealous lest the sky 
Should have a listener, nor will sigh 
Until its voice is echoless. 

Titan! to thee the strife was given 
Between the suffering and the will, 
Which torture where they cannot kill; 
And the inexorable Heaven, 
And the deaf tyranny of Fate, 
The ruling principle of Hate, 
Which for its pleasure doth create 
The things it may annihilate, 
Refus'd thee even the boon to die: 
The wretched gift Eternity 
Was thine--and thou hast borne it well. 
All that the Thunderer wrung from thee 
Was but the menace which flung back 
On him the torments of thy rack; 
The fate thou didst so well foresee, 
But would not to appease him tell; 
And in thy Silence was his Sentence, 
And in his Soul a vain repentance, 
And evil dread so ill dissembled, 
That in his hand the lightnings trembled. 

Thy Godlike crime was to be kind, 
To render with thy precepts less 
The sum of human wretchedness, 
And strengthen Man with his own mind; 
But baffled as thou wert from high, 
Still in thy patient energy, 
In the endurance, and repulse 
Of thine impenetrable Spirit, 
Which Earth and Heaven could not convulse, 
A mighty lesson we inherit: 
Thou art a symbol and a sign 
To Mortals of their fate and force; 
Like thee, Man is in part divine, 
A troubled stream from a pure source; 
And Man in portions can foresee 
His own funereal destiny; 
His wretchedness, and his resistance, 
And his sad unallied existence: 
To which his Spirit may oppose 
Itself--and equal to all woes, 
And a firm will, and a deep sense, 
Which even in torture can descry 
Its own concenter'd recompense, 
Triumphant where it dares defy, 
And making Death a Victory.

George Gordon Lord Byron (1788-1824)


Democracy and Class Struggle says there has been insufficient debate on the question of the militarisation of the Party and what it means - we welcome contributions on the subject from readers/viewers - this debate on Communism 101 is a useful start.


 (Initiated by Nick Marlotte in Communism 101 ) 

Posted as I felt it has great relevance today. on the question of peoples war and vanguard party.Complement Pretia Morsest ,Maria Barros and Nick Marlatte for such a deep debate and the clarity of analysis of Maria and Nick.

Does justice to ideology of MLM. and gives it liveliness.

Personally I do not agree with the term as it leans towards Lin Baioism or Che Guevarism, merging the party with the red army.

However the PCP in practice did not do that and practiced massline of MLM.


I know there have been a number of posts on the militarization of the party, but I feel none of them, among theory from Mao, Gonzalo or their parties, effectively conceptualize what peoples' issues with it are.

It seems that many people see militarization of the party as the full transformation of revolutionary party into the red army, but nothing in the work of Gonzalo or Mao suggests this. Instead it designates that the first, leading, and very likely majority if not totality, of forces of a red army are party activists.

This to me is actually uncontroversial, so long as it does not mean the total transformation of a party into an armed fighting force is necessary. 

This is not to say the total militarization is not possible or in situations valuable, but it seems that this is more dependent on the youth and physical capability of cadre and them also having a means to bring in cadre that are not directly military orientated into the party afterwards. 

There is still work to be done with in situations that face enough repression to include rifles, and lots of people will continue to need to be won over the the violence used to create proletarian rule.

My question then is, where do people in this group fall with this? 

If I'm missing something (I do genuinely feel there might be a false contradiction on this and that it needs to be clarified - if not it's gonna be a minority of us)? 

Then how do we orientate ourselves to this?

Undoubtedly the party must start the Red army. Through directing members of it's cadres towards red army work and uniting militant sections of the masses. However, we need a clearer depictions of what this means.

Question of Pretia Morsest:

Lot of this understanding is based on an understanding of what concentric means. Like, concentric means one entirely contains the other, the party is entirely within the people's army and is at its center. 

This really can't occur unless every member of the party is also a member of the people's army. This doesn't have to be literally true, but it is overwhelmingly true. 

This is so that the party maintains what the PCP calls a "double command" (political and military) over the army: it provides overall strategic command of the army by providing its orders on the highest level, and it also seeks to ensure that the leading members of each UNIT in the army, at whatever level, are also party members, thereby "fractally" directly providing command at every level of the army as well.

Is the Party then only military forces - including whatever leadership, administrative or propaganda work needs to be done for the military?

Every member of the party is militarized--that is, has become involved in the military question. The vast majority of the party are literally soldiers--that is, are involved in actually carrying out the operations of building toward or carrying out the war, in terms of actually leading specific/concrete military actions/tasks.

What is the place for non-military mass-work?

If you mean mass work that is carried out by people who aren't in the people's army, the idea is that this is facilitated by and guided by the people's army. 

But at the same time, the people's army seeks to constantly arm and train and organize those who get involved in mass work into militias, and recruit from those militias into the people's army. 

So at any given time there will be people in the united front / New State (same thing) who have not been organized into militias, but they should be a minority, and the movement should be moving in the direction of ensuring those specific individuals are, more and more, incorporated into militias.

aren’t there territories where struggle will be less developed where party work would take less explicit to military activity, or at least have forces that will be acting not as permanent militants?

Yes, but I think to some extent this is not such a mystery if we understand that there are degrees of militarization. 

You can begin physical conditioning even if you can't begin tactics drills. And you can begin tactics drills with certain people even if you can't yet put guns in their hands to carry out firearms drills. 

And if you can put guns in their hands to carry out firearms drills, you can't necessarily bring them along on raids yet. Etc. 

But you can begin the process of training and organizing for military work to *some* degree even in areas where the great majority of the work is still legal, and thus you ensure that the highest degree of training feasible is being implemented in every place, whatever the conditions. ("The armed forces started out as armed detachments without arms, because as Lenin taught the lack of arms cannot be used as a pretext for not organizing an armed apparatus; later they armed themselves with whatever they could, including with dynamite, which is still very important, since rudimentary and traditional weapons play a fundamental role.")

What does it actually mean to be part of the Red Army if we conclude that there will definitely be non-military struggles in work places and in communities not directly engaged in armed conflict?

Among other things, a higher level of discipline expected, and a formal promise to carry out orders coming from the central leadership of the army. 

This makes being in the army distinct from being a member of the militia, which is more of a voluntary commitment.

Is there then also an ambiguity in the interpretation of concentric development, such that building the Red Army is the main focus of party or developing party forces comparatively to the party needing to be the centre from which the Red Army springs at the initiation of people's war which takes place after the party has developed forces?

Your syntax loses me here. Maybe you can lay out your question like this: "Which of the following does concentric construction entail?:

(a) Situation
(b) Other situation"

Reply of Maria Lorena Barros:

A Party doesn't create a Red Army overnight. The creation and development of the Party's armed forces goes through stages. 

Using EGP from Peru (its Army divided into 3 sections: principal force, local force, and main "mass" force). At first its organized guerilla units. So for example they focus primarily on ambushes and smaller raids. 

The armed forces don't have sufficient strength to go toe to toe with the reactionary armed forces. Even the local people's militias are weak and ineffective but they serve to begin making changes in local areas the Party has successfully taken over. 

So once key reactionary leaders in a village, town, city have been driven out (sometimes liquidated) the Party sets up a new leadership structure using closed Peoples Committees to begin transforming local conditions by changing production methods. War communism becomes the rallying cries. 

What can serve the masses but also ensure the success of the revolutionary war? The Peoples militias ensures it can hold on to power locally while the guerilla units are out carrying out ambushes in different parts of the region. 

As the war progresses, an emphasis is placed on developing combat platoons. 

For example, whereas the red forces wouldn't dare attack a military outpost on its own (having previously relied mainly on ambushes and raids on police depts), now it can directly attack military outposts with hundreds of guerillas due to their increased strength in numbers, weaponry, reconnaisance. 

But throughout this whole process New Power is developed in the areas the Party has successfully held on to Power (the creation of dual power, the seeds of a new republic. 

This process consolidates itself and is strengthened with the development if the war). Etc etc.

Are you familiar with how Base Areas, people's committees, and EGP operated in the construction of New Power in Peru?

I think you're conflating ultra militarism with the Maoist conception of political-military organizing. I think you are getting the misconception that people who are for militarization of the Party and masses place political, economic, and social work secondary to military affairs. 

Quite the opposite. Anyone who keep insisting on this is misrepresenting and misreading Gonzalo thought and PCP theory.

Also in the Chinese Communist Party and Peoples Liberation Army, not every soldier was a Party member. 

If I remember correctly, before 1949 at best the ratio of a Party member who was also a soldier in PLA to non-Party member soldiers was 3-to-1, meaning most soldiers in PLA were not Party members per se. PLA soldiers did have to engage in changing production methods and consolidating dual power but they weren't authorized, for example, to give lessons and classes on theory. 

There will always be a constant contradiction present between Party forces and elevating individual soldiers to Party membership status.

But remember and hopefully I'm answering your question: its okay if the Party forces are smaller than the Red Army forces numerically. 

Not every soldier need become a Party member immediately (though the goal is to always elevate and develop Red Army soldiers to Party members authorized to represent the Party lines on all affairs, and not just have soldiers simply focus on military affairs).

This contradiction will always be present but the main push and emphasis should be to militarize the proletarian class constantly (the Party, Liberation Army, and masses in general) until we reach worldwide communism (I'll need to re-write this when not on my cell).

Reply by Nick Marlatte on militarisation of party concept

I'll try and respond to every point that I have issue with by numbering them.

1. Concentric doesn't necessarily mean that one is fully contained within the other. It directly means having the same centre, which does not mean the party is totally within the People's army. It definitely does mean that the Party control's the gun, or the people's army, but this is the point that needs to be clarified and actually isn't by the use of language.

2. Again, this is somewhat ambiguous. To reframe, does party work liquidate in areas where the struggle is not as acute? Does this mean assuming that a party organizer in a factory will be mandated to join the People's Army, and does that not mean joining regular platoons or sections of the Peoples' Army? 

Do we not consider work stoppages, strikes, and advancing the class struggle in the cities in other forms, and actively recruiting workers to join the People's army and to organize in the cities as supportive of the war, or even doing production work and organizing those in their community to support the war, and are we calling this the work of the People's Army?

This is exactly what I mean by non-military work, not being a combatant or directly tied to combat but advancing revolutionary goals.

3. Why is work in non-acute places of struggle carried out by the People's Army, would they not be largely tied to places there is fighting?

4. I agree with this wholeheartedly, it is definitely the goal to organize people into the most effective forms of given the conditions.

5. So I'll refocus this, because it seems to be the crux of a lot of the problems.

You respond that the Red Army provides a higher discipline than militias, but my question is why are people in the People's Army organizing in factories, perhaps permanently without ever picking up a gun because of whatever conditions prevent them from doing so, rather than saying this is the Party?

Your answer about discipline actually implies that Workplace struggles will have a lower level of unity and discipline than the party, because the People's Army is built around the Party, but also somehow includes the interventions of people actively involved in military action. Rather than having non-People's Army party members in these places organizing people and advancing the class struggle.

There seems to also be a weird conflation that being apart of the People's Army means that they are more suited for mass-work than a Party member who lives and breath MLM and organizes the masses for revolution but is physically incapable of being a part of the military.

Like either this requires very wishy-washy definitions of what an Army and Party are, and I say this largely getting the impression that we generally agree with each other about what needs to happen concretely but still are using words differently.

6. My point with this is: Is the party conceived as being in existence prior to the People's army? 

Or do they have to be initiated at the same time.

I have seen a couple of Maoists from the US argue that a party will not be made until the conditions are ready to initiate a Peoples War there. 

Is this because of a reading of Concentric development that misuses the word to also mean coinciding?