ABOUT THE NEW POWER.

Since 1982 we have been destroying the Old Power in the countryside; generating in consequence a Power vacuum, each day greater and extending to larger areas; as is well known and recognized. Does that Power vacuum remain a political limbo, an interregnum of the class struggle? Can anyone believe that the Old Power is destroyed and nothing can replace it? Doesn't the destruction of the Old Power imply, as counterweight, the construction of the New Power? Aren't destruction of the Old Power and construction of the New Power two terms of the same contradiction? Well then, over the destruction of the Old Power the New is created, which is a joint dictatorship, based on the worker-peasant alliance and supported by the People's Army. As the ABC of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism reads, the New Power in its development obviously follows the fluidity of the People's War, and the specifications of our concrete reality. But precisely with the multiplication of the Open People's Committees, in 1989, the New State tends to achieve a relative stability.

About strategic equilibrium, we can't just pull it out of a thin air, nor like a gambler pulls an ace off his sleeves. These problems must be studied seriously, and especially the military ones. The point is clear and concise: the defensive, the equilibrium and the strategic offensive, as we well know, are the three elements of the protracted war. The first being longest and, how international experience shows it, the development of the second and third are intimately linked to the complex situation of the overall class struggle in the country, and to the world situation, since they entail sweeping away in the entire country, the rule of reaction and of imperialism and the installation in the entire nation of a People's Republic, with all the repercussions it has in the world, starting from the neighboring countries.

The above is a brief description about the direction and perspective of the People's War in Peru, which continues firmly and on the rise, with unbending tenacity. Have we set any specific date to go over to strategic equilibrium? Did any military plan have that specific objective? Is it an unfulfilled "commitment?" Is it a task linked to the reactionary elections? or is it a "goal" of Capping off the Great Leap with a Golden Seal! or any other campaign, as they say? Pure speculations aimed at slandering the People's War, trying to discredit it before the masses, and sow confusion. As the Central Committee session stated, this engender is being propagated precisely at the time that Peruvian reaction and imperialism have "a need to develop the counterinsurgency war, empower their military actions, mobilize the masses and increase [foreign] intervention, mainly Yankee," and when, under the disguise of fighting against "drug trafficking," Yankee imperialism plans its greater direct aggression against the People's War. Situations which, linked to the transcendental progress of the People's War in 89 enabled the advance from guerrilla warfare to war of movements, and clearly showed that strategic equilibrium was in the cards and that the revolution developed in decisive moments. That too, of course, was within our concrete material conditions.

In conclusion, the purported "strategic failure of Sendero," supposedly based on the so-called "swamping" sustained by the nonsense that there is "an abandonment of the road" and "non attainment of goals," is simply a new sinister reactionary campaign led by Yankee imperialism itself. It is part of the psychological warfare and the ongoing plan to empower the counterinsurgency war. But besides all that, in the short term, it seeks to sow confusion amidst the Peruvian people and to undermine the linking between the masses and the People's War.

In order to expose and mark with fire those vile mercenaries who miserably and treacherously help reaction and imperialism, it is worth highlighting two questions: First, they do not pay attention to the material conditions of the Peruvian Revolution; this is something they obviously cannot see now or in the future, but we take it fully into account, which at the same time refutes the lie that we practice dogmatism. Second, that behind their demagoguery, lies the old rotten revisionist criteria about revolutionary situations, which take them to imagine today (even if they do not say so explicitly), the existence of a revolutionary crisis that, according to them, not to seize Power now would imply the failure of the revolution in general and of the People's War in particular. Let's remember the three requirements for the existence of a revolutionary situation:

Specifically in our case, the revolutionary crisis is linked to the People's War, it suffices to say:

Therefore, what we have is a revolutionary situation in increasing development due to the sharpening of the class struggle and, mainly, the People's War, which not only has persisted for ten years, but each day goes on, it is demolishing the Old State and constructing the New Power a little more, aiming at completely sweeping aside the obsolete and putrid Peruvian society of oppression and exploitation. Consequently, the perspective of the current revolutionary situation in development is the revolutionary crisis or the rise (auge) of the revolution, in the words of P. Mao Tse-tung.

Closely linked to the lie about the "strategic failure of Sendero" is the lie about "division and surrender." The "surrender" farce is not new. Since the beginning of his genocidal demagogic government, Garcia Perez and the armed forces [repeatedly] staged it; in the [document] "Develop the People's War to Serve the World Revolution," we read:

"The October 1986 Lurigancho genocide followed, after the reactionary APRA government staged the farce of the `massive capitulation of Senderistas' at Llochegua and Corazon-Pampa, province of La Mar, Department of Ayacucho; even, as reported by all the media, an interview was staged between the `supreme chief' (Garcia Perez) with `surrendered leaders' who he received at the Palace, 'an act filmed from a distance' in which nobody heard anything or saw anyone's face due ostensibly to `understandable security reasons.' But the engender was quickly disemboweled by the published statements of a navy officer who took part in the operative in question: `the same officer explained in the interview by this reporter that the hundred or so people who allegedly surrendered, among men, women and children, never got near the bases of Corazon-Pampa or Llochegua, but were rounded up by marine infantry at the mountain heights and later on taken to both localities. When lieutenant Anibal was asked if the peasants, at the time of the surrendering, carried any weapons, he answered no . . . '; according to La Republica of October 25, 1985. That was the famous lie about the 'surrendering.'"

Again today, they resurrect the same treacherous lie trying to undermine the People's War and cover up the forceful nucleation they inflict upon the peasantry, to create mesnadas (paramilitary peasants), repeating obsolete molds previously smashed by the convergence of the enslaved masses themselves and by guerrilla actions. It is evident that with the increasing surrender of mesnadas created by the armed forces, which we saw more frequently these past few months, their aim is to reenact the genocidal blood bath of the years 83 and 84.

THE REACTIONARY DREAM "SPLIT IN SENDERO".

This purulent tale repeated over and over by reaction is "based" on the purported "surrender," "swamping" and "strategic failure" discussed previously, and on forgered flyers distributed by the armed forces (as part of their psychological warfare) as well as on a supposedly, "being tired of so much fighting," "being sorry for so many deaths," "hard life and difficult conditions," etc., all falsehoods that clearly revealed which institutions, organizations and feathery pens were the sources of such engenders. All of them are defenders or sustainers or "retainers" of the old State and the obsolete Peruvian society: deadly enemies of the People's War who cover up the crimes of the Peruvian State and its armed and police forces of the daily genocides they perpetrate against the people. These hacks deny the basic principles of war; the quota needed to annihilate the enemy, the aspects of construction that the war requires. They are sunk in the historical pessimism of reaction and imperialism, whom they serve, incapable of understanding that the People's War is animated and developed by the optimism of class provided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought and that each fighter of the People's Army is forged by the principle of, "Serving the people with all her/his heart." The nonsense they preach, naturally, is well suited to the counterinsurgency plans and aimed against the People's War and the Party, seeking to fetter the brilliant revolutionary perspective.

In addition, those who have internal problems derived from their own mistakes and opportunism, infatuated especially by their persistent electioneering, joyfully cry out the supposed existence of the two positions in the Party: "a militarist one and a political one." Such differentiation is theoretically erroneous; assuming, as they speculate, the existence of a military position as such, would be a right opportunist line, whose component, with regard to the military line, would be bourgeois line opposed to the Party. On what do they base such Philistine speculation? On the disemboweled "defeat and swamping of 1989" and the "strategic failure!" All this only shows their desperation and impotence before the advance of a People's War which threatens their nefarious riding on the masses and shakes their blessed chapels of parliamentary cretinism.

However, all that chatter is only dead leaves before the strong unity of the Party, solidly sustained on the Basis of Party Unity (BUP), sanctioned at the First Congress, and an irreplaceable warranty of the steady development of the People's War.

In synthesis, what are the bottom causes of the insane fabrication about "split and surrender?" The general elections, which acquire a crucial character to reaction and its lackeys, even more so after the major weakening of the demo bourgeois system derived from the April election and the dark perspectives faced by whoever results elected in the runoff. The emboldened wave of strikes, the stunning expression of the sharpening class struggle, which day after day assumes the slogan of, "Fight and Resist!" And the vigorous and expansive development of the People's War, whose brilliant perspective is to, Conquer Power in all the Country! These are the three bottom causes carrying the armed and police forces, no doubt with the approval and support of their "supreme chief," the genocidal demagogue. No one with at least -a half an ounce of brain can take seriously the crude and ridiculous fabricated lie about "split and surrender." A campaign launched also launched as part of their psychological warfare. And each organization, parties, celebrities, candidates and lackeys, "revolutionary leader," and workers' unions hacks, according to his/her particular degree of dialectic collusion vs. contention in the amidst of reaction, as well as appetite and pay, has trafficked with the bizarre farce. But who, with the persistence of a gambler, has trafficked most with the engender, is its coauthor Garcia Perez, the notorious "charismatic" genocidal demagogue, the nefarious head of the government bringing in most hunger in over 1000 years of Peruvian history, who especially in the last few months, cried at the top of his lungs "the defeat of Sendero." In this way, in that personal style of his which cavalierly ignores the most obvious truths, oblivious to reality, champion of the flamboyant empty chatter; and so he stated last April: Terrorism proposed a social revolution, an insurrection generalized in the entire country. And in all that it failed, I assure you without any doubts." What is Garcia Perez after? To present himself as the victor and his government as successful in order to, manipulate the disaster the next government will be, returning as a savior in 95. That is his dream, to which some self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" are helping too. That is, then, the gaseous lie of the so-called "split and surrendering of Sendero," which as its predecessors, vanishes before the fire storm of the People's War.

And since it couldn't be any other way, the reactionaries loudly preached that the votes and parliamentary cretinism of the general elections, as well as the municipal elections in 89, loudly preached [that the PCP was] the "first and biggest loser," and the imaginary defeat of the boycott. Already in the 1985 election the same was cried; then Belaunde, now a conspicuous member of FREDEMO, proclaimed "the biggest loser is terrorism." While Barrantes, "the natural United Left candidate," who today can't even get 5% of the votes cast, recited: "Sendero will fail . . . the electoral results of April 14th, with the massive presence of the entire people, constituted the best rejection of terrorism." But, who truly failed? Where is now the bankrupted champion of votes and polling places? At the same time, the current editor of [the daily] "Expreso" pontificated: "there were two big losers in Sunday's general election: sender ism . . . " Therefore, the chatter is nothing new, the lyrics and the tune are the same, except that today is more anguished as well as more unbelievable. Now Garcia Perez, the non-registered candidate, who prepares his presidential dream for 95 [that will never happen], who in the municipal elections called to cast blank or null votes, because, he claimed, the issue was to vote in any way in order to "defend democracy against terrorism." On the same April 8th, Garcia Perez proclaimed arrogantly and triumphantly: "Today you will see how the immense majority of the people (99% according to the APRA's daily Hoy) participate in democracy by casting their votes, and will bury terrorism by the electoral act."

Meanwhile Vargas Llosa and Fujimori, the winning candidates of the first round, with the emphasis and interpretation satisfactory to their endeavors, then in closed solidarity greeted the "triumph of democracy and the defeat of terrorism," thus repeating and honoring the same reactionary blabber of their predecessors. H. Pease, the new hero of the so-called "Left" Unity, from the ebb of his 7% of cast votes, proclaimed: "The first and biggest loser is Sendero." Of course, all of their statements were accompanied by an obliging chorus of the media and feathery pens. A simple conclusion follows from all of this: the same script and characters, defense of the existing order and the Old State, only the actors are changing [the same circus and plays but different clowns], publicity increases and demagoguery grows. The same grotesque farce every five years!

In their publicity development, elections have the following course: First, to elevate to the skies the importance of elections and fight the alleged "sinister terrorist plan of preventing elections throughout the country by threatening to amputate fingers and murder those who vote";

Second, to loudly celebrate with drums and platters the "massive participation of people in the polling places" (in Peru voting is compulsory and, according to experts, if it wasn't forced not even half of current voters would show up), as well as the "triumph of democracy," the "failures of the boycott" and the "defeat of Sendero," while results are manipulated and adulterated, especially in the emergency zones, and the true figure on absenteeism is hidden; and,

Third, as late (and slowly) as possible, data on results begins to trickle in, until finally the well groomed and tailored results are announced by the National Electoral Board. Keep in mind this process so as not to be fooled by the electoral mumbo jumbo and find the truth behind all that compromised reactionary charade.

Well then, what do the official electoral results themselves say? Besides the fact that some 20% of able voters are not registered at all, 21.25% of those registered did not go to vote, a percentage which rises to 27% if we consider blank and null votes, including those who voted blank or null. Thus, this amount (27%) is only 0.6% less than the one obtained by Vargas Llosa (the winning candidate in the first run), and 2.4% more than the one obtained by Fujimori, who finished second. Consequently, if we compare the last two general elections in the five-year period, while absenteeism in 1985 only reached 8.8% of registered voters, in April of 1990 it climbed to 21.2%. In other words, from 1985 to 1990 absenteeism increased 2.5 times (150%). So, can anyone with a grain of sense speak of the failure of the boycott? , Or can anyone with a breeze of objectivity say, "the first and biggest loser is Sendero?" The matter is very clear and stunning, the tactic of the boycott, applied by the Party as part of the People's War, is each time more successful and complete, deepening the class struggle throughout the country with an increasing tendency against the elections, and in that way undermining one of the fundamental pillars of the demo bourgeois order, of the Peruvian State, of the class dictatorship headed by the big bourgeoisie. An anti-electoral tendency was also reflected in the municipal election of 89, when it was also loudly preached the defeat of the boycott, then absenteeism, according to projections, reached 17%; which obviously shows an evident increase. The boycott, therefore, is an incontrovertible reality and an undeniable success. It shows clearly how the policy of obstructing the elections, of undermining them and impeding them wherever possible is highly successful and, above all, it generates an anti-electoral tendency helpful to the formation of the political conscience of the people. A boycott tactic and anti-electoral tendency applied are forged by the People's War and is developed as an integral part of it. It is a good example of how to utilize the elections in the development of the People's War.

As to blank and null votes, they reached 15.35% of votes cast, that means in 1990 there was an increase of 1.45% with respect to 1985. Although null/blank votes went up, however it was much less than absenteeism; which (reasonably) raises the issue of fraud with this type of votes in detriment of those who cast them.

The following comparative table is most expressive; of importance is the increase of absenteeism, especially in areas in which the People's War develops more intensely:

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 1985 AND 1990 GENERAL ELECTIONS (PERCENTAGES)

Department Null and Blank Votes (1) Absenteeism (2)
1985 1990 1985 1990
Ayacucho 15.8 41.3 17.1 48.0
Apurimac 13.5 38.3 17.9 28.0
Huancavelica (3) -- 36.2 -- 40.4
Pasco 16.45 25.7 13.05 37.1
Junin 16.89 19.9 9.8 49.5
Huanuco 26.62 29.9 14.5 50.1
San Martin 11.49 26.77 14.5 31.4
Puno 24.5 28.45 9.0 23.0
Cusco 23.6 22.53 12.9 24.4
Cajamarca 22.2 27.03 15.8 27.0
Ancash 22.95 23.97 8.6 27.1
Ucayali 13.0 17.85 14.05 30.0
La Libertad 11.9 15.02 6.45 18.0
Lima 6.87 8.61 7.8 13.0

THE BOYCOTT: AN UNDENIABLE SUCCESS

Here we can see the boycott as an incontestable success, a boycott which besides developing a tendency among the people against the elections, it helps the People's War; and the results of the April 1990 elections, an electoral process which, contrary to what reaction and imperialism wanted, weakened the system undermining its purported legitimacy (an important matter for the counterinsurgency war), a matter of obvious grave repercussions for the existing order. To conclude, on the elections and on the boycott, we only need to remember the following paragraphs of the already quoted "Developing . . . " [Document of the PCP, Developing the People's War at the Service of the World Proletarian Revolution, "]:

"The fundamental thing about these tables is that the sum of the non registered, of the non voters and the null and blank voters added millions. This large mass is composed mostly by the non registered, that is people who operate outside the existing political system or who are openly against the same. It is also composed by non voters, who are against the elections or who are not interested in them; and by null and blank voters who formally comply with the obligation to vote and do not expect anything out it, its outcome or are not in agreement with any of the participating political parties. In general terms, this mass of citizens expresses repudiation, or indifference with respect to the existing political order and its elections to choose oppressors, its parties, which are instruments in the service of maintaining the established order, its preservation and evolution.

In synthesis, it means the objective negation and questioning of the Peruvian society and its institutions, of the historically obsolete social system, which must be swept away, as we are already doing with weapons since there is no other way of doing it, in the search of a new society which truly serves the people." And:

"In the last elections, as in others, the Communist Party of Peru only called for the boycott, to obstruct them and impede them wherever possible, but not to prevent the entire process as reaction pretends to impute the Party in order to proclaim its false triumphs due to the lack of real ones. But the historical main tendency is the fusion of the People's War led by the Party, with that great torrent represented by the millions of non registered, non voting and those blank or null vote casters; this is the torrent, which the Party is helping to structure as part of the sea of masses which necessarily will sweep away the old order of exploitation and oppression."

Up to here is the development of the People's War, and the boycott as part of it; but the principal, and transcendental question concentrating our attention, as necessary consequence of the road followed, is the conquest of Power countrywide. This is the brilliant perspective of the People's War; more so in light of the turbulent and decisive years we visualize for Peruvian society in the years to come in the near future, and especially in view of the extremely complex class struggle developing in today's world. For that reason, let's keep more in mind than ever Mariategui's words:

"I am a revolutionary. But I believe that between men of clear thinking and defined positions, it is easy to understand and appreciate each other, even when fighting against each other. Above all, fighting against each other. With the political sector that I will never be able to reach an understanding is with the other one: with mediocre reformism, with domesticated socialism, with pharisean democracy. Furthermore, if the revolution demands violence, authority, discipline, I am for violence, for authority, for discipline. I accept them, as a whole, with all their horrors, without cowardly reservations."

And above all what Marx, the great founder of Marxism, established: "Only under an order of things in which there are no classes or class antagonisms, is that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions. Until such time comes, on the eve of each general reorganization of society, the last word will always be: `Struggle or die, the bloody struggle or nothing. It is the inexorable dilemma."'

Go to the next section