Two Lines Struggle

Our Position/Views on some of the subjects of Debate on the International Line

by CC, PBSP/Bangladesh
(Written: November 2023

Introduction
After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, the takeover of the party and state power by revisionists in China, and the degeneration of Hoxaist Albania, RIM was formed in 1984 as an international unity of world Maoists. But after playing and important positive role for nearly two decades, RIM became inactive in the latter half of the first decade of this century. Since then the absence of an international 
coordination or forum/centre of genuine communist revolutionaries or Maoists has been felt.

Various initiatives had been taken to fill this vacuum in the past years, from both the sides who were or were not in the RIM. Finally, this initiative was developed by issuing joint statements on the occasion of May Day in 2021 and 2022 by several
Maoist parties and organizations of the world. Based on this, efforts were also being made to organize an international conference with the participation of related organizations. But before that, practically at the time of issuing the May Day statement of 2022, the split of the Maoists into two camps was noticed. Although some attempts were made to avoid such a split, but shortly afterwards an international organization called ICL was announced by a section of them. This was announced by excluding important and prestigious parties and organizations participating/supporting the aforementioned May-Statement. Thus the above process of initiative and unity falls into a clear division.
In fact, ideological-political debates and differences among international Maoists served as the basis of the split. But apart from the differences between the ICL and its outsiders, there are serious differences within the entire Maoist movement, which also has a long past history. Meanwhile, both the Maoist parties of India and Nepal have submitted their line-disagreements in writing on the declaration of formation of ICL. Apart from this, their line-differences on various other issues have been and are being revealed from various Maoist centers. Some of these are being published in the journal called “2 Line Struggle”. Beyond this, some statements are also available.
Our party had and has positions on almost all these important issues. Due to various limitations, we are unable to rapidly consolidate our views in writing and present them internationally through translation. We sincerely apologize for our incompetence. Through this document we will try to express our positions on important debates. We hope these will help develop the ongoing international debate.
From which we can learn more, develop our opinions and also overcome our wrongs/weaknesses/limitations.

1. About the formation of an ‘International’ There does not appear to be any fundamental disagreement on the question of the formation of an international coordination center or forum or organization of Maoists with a few exeption. It seems that, except a few, everyone wants that. But this
does not mean that everyone has the same position on this question.
The first important question is what kind of organization do we want to build and what will its character be? There is no room for disagreement about the internationalism of the proletariat, as taught by our great teachers. They had formed the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Internationals based on this ideology. But in 1943, during World War II, the latest 3rd International was abolished by the great Stalin. The main argument that came in that case is that, it is not possible to solve or guide the complex situation in different parts of the world from a single international center. We must remember that this was the situation
during World War II when the Socialist Soviet Union under Stalin formed a united front with the imperialists of the Allied Powers to resist and overthrow fascist bloc. Hence, there arose a real conflicting problem of how to lead the revolutionary struggle in such allied imperialist countries and their subordinate colonies or semi-colonies from an international centre. In this regard it must also be remembered that the 3rd International was practically formed and governed as a world-party and had almost as much a single-party principle of democratic centralism.
Stalin did not live long after World War II. Shortly after his death, capitalists seized state power in the socialist Soviet Union. In the early 1960s, the Chinese Party led by the great Mao led a great international ideological polemics against this revisionist betrayal. In this debate they also presented a general line/programme of the international communist movement. But soon the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" against the capitalist roaders began in China itself, and continued for a
decade. In the process, "Mao Zedong Thought" was established as the foundation of the International General Line. But Mao died before this earth-shattering revolution could be completed. China degenerated into capitalism.
It was in this context that the RIM was formed on the basis of Mao Tsetung Thought (later on it was formulated as “Maoism”). But we know that some important Maoist parties did not join RIM then. Although there were some other ideological-political differences as a reason for that, the major differences those came to the fore were
-a) How do we assess the extinction of the 3rd International? Since the great Stalin abolished it, so will it be correct to form a new international now?
b) How do we evaluate the fact that Mao himself did not form another international in the decades after Stalin?
c) Whether the situation is ripe for the formation of an international? Has there been enough unity among the concerned parties on ideological-political lines?
d) In this situation, can we take the initiative to build a new international organization?

Today, when we are trying to build a Maoist unity internationally, these questions are re-emerging. Many are of the opinion that it is necessary to develop some kind of unified forum instead of taking the initiative to form an International.
And that's why they all agreed on the joint statements of the past years.
In this regard, we would like to highlight our position below.
Firstly, it is necessary to be clear why we want to build international unity. It depends on what will be the goal of building this unity now?
According to the demands of today's world situation, the subjective situation of the Maoists is extremely weak. Almost no single party is able to play a strong global role in keeping with the enormous development of the world situation. Though one or two parties like India or the Philippines are leading strong people's wars, there are hardly any party or organization that can play a major role in the world situation in general.
Therefore, there is a consciousness in many like-minded organizations that it is needed to unite to meet the demands of the situation. But in that case there is a difference between advancing in an pragmatist way and advancing in a basic Marxist ideological direction.
MLM's founders path was not merely pragmatic. If that so, they would not have formed three Internationals one after one. Even Mao's Chinese Party would not have presented an international general line/programme in the early 1960s. Even at the beginning of the GPCR, Mao Zedong Thought was not accepted by the Chinese Party as a qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism, which is internationally applicable and acceptable.
An ideological-political line demands a corresponding organizational structure also. 1st to 3rd internationals were like that. Therefore, MLM should not only be given internationally acceptable recognition, but appropriate international organizations are also needed on this basis.
There were various assessments in RIM about the question of the dissolution of the 3rd International by Stalin. It may still be there, though we need to arrive at a unified summation. But until that happens there can be no justification for not building an international organization of the proletariat.
There must be an explanation of the complexity of today's world situation.
When the general situation of the world can be known and understood more and faster than any time in the past due to technological development, then the development of an international unity cannot be excluded by this argument. The opportunity to know the situation of a country from any part of the world and to spread the message of revolutionary struggle globally has never been so much, which can be done now with the opportunities of communication and IT.
It is true that the question arises as to whether the principle of democratic centralism in leading the organizations applies to international organization in the same way as it applies to a party of a country. We don't think so. It will not be correct to build an international organization like the previous world-party type International.
RIM advocated a new kind of internationalism and a new kind of democratic centralism. We think that is right. RIM successfully applied and developed such a practice for two decades.
Some argue that the dissolution of RIM itself proves that RIM-formation was incorrect. Or it was pre-mature. Shall we then say that the formation of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Internationals was incorrect as they all dissolved after a few years of operation? On the contrary, we have seen that after the dissolution of an international due to pol-ideo cause, great leaders had taken the initiative to form new internationals
on a higher basis.
The root cause of RIM‟s dissolution does not indicate the wrongness of RIM-forming at all. The real reason was the decadence or wrong lines of the leading/dominant parties in the RIM itself. We will discuss about that later.

It is true that MLM's recognition alone is not enough to build an international organization today, without some minimal consensus on other important subjects.
Especially we should consider seriously the RIM-achievements today. But for the sake of unity, we cannot postpone fundamental work for ages. The formation of the ICL has already proved that it is not possible to reach consensus on all issues. An international organization of some kind can be formed based on the achievement of some basic unity of international General lines (not a full-fledged international organization at first—or perhaps, a preparatory organization for it, as RIM claimed
itself). The development of two line struggle and development of unity on general line - this is the only way development can take place. In this regard, RIM practice can certainly provide many positive guidance, if we decide that an international organization is necessary. What type or character of organization we will have depends on the degree of unity. How strong-unity will it be based on, or how loosely will it be organized? But its aim must be to build a new international organization.
That was what RIM did. Those who are united about the goal itself have to come forward to build the kind of organization and unity that is appropriate for today. Arguments that there is not enough ideological-political unity, so one has to wait for it to be achieved etc. are not the way to actually achieve unity. There are and must be differences of opinion. Many new theoretical-political questions will continue to emerge. And the differences will continue to grow worse, unless an international
organization enters into a process of resolving differences on the basis of unity. We have seen how the lack of an International for long four decades after the dissolution of the 3rd International in 1943 played a serious negative role in diversifying the ideological consciousness of revolutionary communists in different countries. The problem of each country has to be solved only by the communists of that country and only they have the jurisdiction, how this kind of nationalistic deviant spirit has corrupted the communist movement in every country. Even the mutual solidarity and
learning from each other of the revolutionary movements of the countries had been severely weakened.
Even in 1984 some important Maoist organizations felt that the time for international-forming was not yet come. The question is, what are the conditions that would make the time positive to form an international? It had been said that not even after long four decades after the dissolution of the 3rd International, time is not ripe.
It did not happen for four decades after the formation of RIM! So when will that time be? This question is very natural. In practice, it has been observed that the longer an international unity is delayed, the greater the differences. It has no end.
Despite our above position on the question of "International" formation, we do not think that in today's situation, there cannot be a relatively loose unified forum based on the aspects of unity, if genuine Maoists disagree in that regard (forimg an international centre) for various reasons. But we think that we must strive for the highest unity. At the same time, we are ready to unite on the lowest basis, as long as no principle is sacrificed. That is how we must proceed today.

2. Principally/Especially Maoism
In the context of this question, we had clarified our position during the RIM era. Following the presentation of the "Principally Maoism" formulation from the side of the Peruvian party, extensive discussions had taken place within the RIM milieu.
Many parties did not agree with it, and neither did we. However, due to the success of Peru's People's War, some parties around the world extended support to the Peruvian party because of the prestige it gained. Nevertheless, in the RIM context, viewing it through the prism of debate, some parties refrained from outright acceptance and modified it somewhat, designating it as "Especially Maoism."
Later on, our party expressed our opinion on this matter through various documents. For example, what was mentioned in a document in the year 2006 was something like that -“We believe that our ideological-theoretical base is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM). This constitutes the ideology of the international proletariat. This MLM is the latest stage in the three stages of development in our ideology, which is an integral whole.

Although at times we use the term 'Maoism' and identify ourselves as Maoists. It is noticed among the international Communist Movement also. This is not to diminish Marxism-Leninism and we don't assert that one is primary while the other is secondary, nor do we understand it in such a way.
“Marxism-Leninism is based on and developed to a higher stage of Marxism, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is based on Marxism-Leninism and it too is developed to next higher stage. Here, the three words cannot be separated to denote three distinct parts or components of the ideology. What's even more incorrect is to label one as primary or secondary.
“By framing it as primary/secondary, the problem that arises is the weakness in maintaining the integrity and comprehensiveness of the ideology. It could lead to directing the development of Maoism in terms of its role in the ideology as merely a „supplemental contribution' to Marxism-Leninism, as if Mao played a lesser role. Thus, emphasizing the 'Principally Maoism' may overlook the fact that Mao has entirely developed the entire ideology into a new and elevated level. Therefore, referring to MLM, or Maoism as our ideology, and highlighting the 'Principally Maoism,' holds significant nuance."
* In a document regarding the debate on the international line, it was stated in the year 2009 -“The Peru Party under the leadership of Comrade Gonzalo played a significant role in formulating the third stage of our ideology was recognized as Maoism or MLM through the process by RIM in 1993.
“However, within RIM, there was a significant ideological distinction from the beginning regarding the acceptance and recognition of Maoism. Firstly, Maoism articulates and synthesizes the third stage of our ideology, and there exist qualitative and level differences of stage with the Mao Zedong Thought. On the other hand, the acceptance of Maoism by RIM initially identifies this third level, even though it later acknowledges the higher development of this third stage after Mao's death, which Mao Zedong Thought did not undertake. In the case of embracing Maoism, we have held from the beginning that the second perspective should be elevated. However, the Peru Party embraced the first perspective, and its influence was significant within certain sections of RIM parties.
"In a different context, the ideology was also articulated as 'MLM, Principally Maoism,' through this synthesis. Our party has opposed the 'Principally Maoism' synthesis from the very beginning, which, according to MLM, fractures the 'integrity of the whole.‟
Peru Party's mistake in adopting this synthesis has had a significant impact on many parties within RIM. An example of this manifestation is the use of the term 'Especially' instead of 'Principally' to express the same tendency."
In 2011, at the party's National Representative Conference, it was again stated in the document titled "New Thesis" -“MLM is an integral whole. When we refer to our ideology as MLM today, it cannot
be separated and expressed separately as the contributions of Marx, Lenin, and Mao.
Because MLM is an synthesized whole. Therefore, the final development of the ideology cannot be separated, and cannot be expressed adding 'Principally' or 'especially‟ to it. In other words, the ideology cannot be referred to as "Principally/especifically Maoism." Our ideology is not a sum of three ideologies; instead, it is one.
“Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism—the three formulas articulate the three stages of development of our ideology, where each subsequent one is necessarily higher than the preceding ones. When we use the term Maoism, we inherently understand MLM, not necessarily comprehending the distinct contributions of Mao himself.
In today's general discourse, the ideology of MLM can not be analyzed separately in terms of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism. Although it is possible to separately discuss the contributions of these three mentors of the working class during three distinct periods. MLM, too, can undoubtedly be analyzed, considering its three components: economics, politics, and philosophy.”
* Our position is expressed through our statements in all thse documents

Amidst the current debate, both the Maoist Party of India and theRevolutionary Maoist Party of Nepal have presented their opinions (in the context ofthe formation of the ICL and in Outllook/2) which are correct. Therefore, it is clear that, in the realm of Maoist ideologies, the Maoist movement has already undergone a 'one devides into two‟. It won't be correct to separate the formation of the ICL from it.
Although, in their declaration, they did not explicitly mention the phrase 'Principally Maoism.'
* Here, we want to reiterate that during China's Cultural Revolution, under the leadership of Chairman Mao himself, the Communist Party of China had articulated the development of our ideology at the third stage, which was then referred to as the 'Mao Zedong Thought‟.
It is true that there was weaknesses regarding the third stage of ideology in many parties and organizations internationally. Who spoke in favor of accepting Mao Zedong Thought on one side, but couldn't accept it as a qualitative devolopment of Marxism-Leninism on the other. As a result, after Mao's death, when another significant turn occurred in the international communist movement, Mao's Thought became 'one devides into two' opposing streams. Whether Mao Zedong Thought should be embraced as the third stage of our ideology or not became a divisive question among Maoist adherents. It is during this time that a portion of genuine Maoists formed RIM, and the Peruvian Party presented the “Maoism” formulation.

In this context, recognition must be given to the contribution of the Peruvian party. However, it would not be appropriate to exaggerate it and make unclear the history of embracing Mao Zedong Thought as the third stage in China and in various countries like India, Bangladesh, Turkey, the Philippines, during the late 60s.
At the same time, the one-sided leftist deviation that was paved by the formulation of “Principally Maoism” cannot be overlooked today, which extends to all other important line issues. We will talk more about this in another point.
Rather, RIM presented the subject correctly and played a crucial role in establishing it among Maoists globally. Recognizing this is of paramount importance.

3. Question of Thought/Path/Ism The term "Thought" is first seen in the Chinese Party. It is known that the term "Mao Zedong Thought" was introduced in the Party as early as 1945. However, it was
not observed to be used later, except for its official use during the GPCR era. It was officially recognized in the 1969 Ninth Congress as a qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism, i.e. development at the third stage of the ideology of the proletariat. It is not clear why at that time, it was not formulated as "Maoism."
However, later in 1993, when the RIM adopted Maoism, the question arose whether the terms "Thought" and "Ism" have separate meanings and represent distinct stages, or whether they do not. And various opinions were expressed on this matter.
However, at that time it was raised in a completely different way by the Peruvian party. They wanted to show "Thought" as MLM's applied result in a particular country. So the formulation of “Maoism” by Peruvian Party may mean expressing a separate stage from the essence of “Mao Thought” as formulated by the Mao-led Chinese Party, and Maoists in many countries around the world. In this way an opportunity was created to exaggerate the achievements of the Peruvian Party in initiating the third stage of development of our doctrine. Which began to be reflected in their documents also.
In this context, there is clearly some contradictory aspects in this position.
According to the above urgument, when Maoists around the world adopted "Mao Thought," in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it was not recognized as a third stage of doctrine, but rather reduced to learning derived from Mao's application to China's concrete situation. This is obviously wrong. We have already mentioned that in the 60‟s and 70‟s, in many countries including India, Philippines, Turkey, Bangladesh,
"Mao Thought" was adopted as third stage development of doctrine. That was done in China's Cultural Revolution itself. However, later “Maoism” formulation made it more transparent and clear, which we mentioned in the previous point.
However, this understanding led the Peru Party to initiate "Gonzalo Thought" formulation. They went on saying that MLM's application would develop a certain way of thinking in each country. The Peru Party did not stop at this, they expressed their party's ideology/doctrine as “MLM, Ganjalo Thought”. And they said that 'Gonzalo Thought' is principal in Peru‟s context, as they presented the formula
'Principally Maoism' in the world context. We believe that there are several flaws in such a statement.
First, the proletariat is an international and internationalist class. Hence, his ideology/doctrine cannot be different from country to country. The idea of separate „Thought‟ for every country will lead to nationalist deviation, which we may have seen in some parties of the seventies like Korean Party.
It is true that application of general truths of MLM to the particular conditions of particular countries develops some distinctive lines. It is also important to specify and formulate it. Failure to do so would encourage the dogmatism of abstract theories.
But in projecting it into the ideology/doctrine of the proletariat of that particular country lies the dangerous seed of nationalistic deviation of having a separate ideology of the proletariat.
The question is, how will MLM develop? Does it not evolve through certain revolutions? As Mao did in the Chinese revolution?
Certainly it is. But caution must be exercised in perceiving and understanding things unilaterally. The proletarian revolution of a particular country must definitely be a part of the world proletarian revolution. Therefore, such a revolution is simultaneously part of and subordinate to the line of proletarian world revolution. It follows that there is a dialectical relationship between the general line of the world revolution and the world revolutionary activities, and the revolutionary activities of
specific countries and development of their line. Among which, of course, the revolutionary activities and line-building of certain countries are the main aspects. But it needs to be cautious about the development of nationalistic ideas/outlook to view and practice it in a strait-line way. If our doctrine develops qualitatively through these two processes, it must be presented, as the Chinese Party under Mao did during the GPCR. Or did the Bolshevik Party led by Stalin. So, one can say that Gonzalo
Thought is of international significance, that it developed MLM's general truth, if he think so and he needs to be brought it up as part of the doctrine. But he cannot say that different schools of thought will develop in different countries, and that for the proletarian party of that particular country that school of thought is part of its doctrine, and even the principal one. It seriously undermines the internationalist doctrinal question of the proletariat, pushing MLM back, despite all it‟s sincerity.
Certainly, we consider some of the contributions of the Peruvian Party under the leadership of Comrade Gonzalo until 1992 to be of international significance; but at the same time we consider some of its serious flaws to be combative. We will discuss this later. Even in those areas where this party's  ontributions, such as the formulation of Maoism, universality of people's war, etc., are not without flaws, they are tainted by the left-wing one-sidedness, which we have discussed above, and we will more discuss them later.
Such an understanding of the Peruvian Party regarding "Thought" has had a major negative impact on many Maoist parties/organizations in the world, especially on several organizations belonging to the RIM, and even on the line and revolutionary activities of the Peruvian Party itself. This gave rise to the “Zefetura” or great leadership theory which brought serious negative consequences to the trajectory of the Peruvian Party after the arrest of Comrade Gonzalo. We will discuss more about that later.
The same type of understanding developed especially in the Nepat Party which was leading the developing People's War. They ventured to adopt the “Prachanda Thought” formula. However, in the face of criticism of this within the RIM, they modified it somewhat to adopt the "Prachanda Path" formula according to Prachanda's eclectic thinking. But despite this difference in the naming of the theory, it was actually a follow-up to the "Thought" of the Peru Party. They also include "Prachanda Path" in the doctrine, although they refrain from calling it "Principal" like the Peruvian party. But nothing has changed much. Because of this, despite the important contribution and role of the Nepali Party under the leadership of Prachanda, they fell into the grip of deep eclecticism in the doctrinal field, weakening MLM's spirit. As a result, they began to move away from MLM's principles in the name of
new "Development". About which everyone is aware.
So, by whatever name we call "Thought" or "Path" or "Teaching," such a conflation of "national" experiences with universal doctrine must be opposed. Which was said by the Peru Party. In other countries also, the same problems, to some extent, was seen.
But at the same time, it should be emphasized that what the revolutionar struggle, especially successful proletarian revolution of a particular country actually contributes to the world proletarian revolution, what lessons can be learned from it, or whether it has universal lessons or contributions, and how these are to be recognized as part of the international general line of the proletariat. This point also demands
attention. But as the thinking of exaggeration or haste about it develops nationalism, it also plays a role in developing individualistic ideology. This is how prosperous Peru revolution and Nepal revolution were crushed in the past.
Extensive discussion is needed on how the development in doctrinal question can be accepted and formulated. In this regard, the experiences of the Chinese party can be a model for us. The experience of the Bolshevik Party seems to have been similar.

4. The question of Universality of People's War As we know, the formula of universality of people's war was first raised by the Peru Party, when the people of that country were leading a great people's war. It was later adopted by RIM, although there were different tendencies on the question among
members of RIM, including the Peruvian Party.
Previously, people's war was generally understood to refer to Mao's "Protracted People's War"(PPW) followed in the Chinese Revolution, and applied to the agrarian feudal semi-feudal countries of the "Third World". At the same time, it was believed that the path to revolution in advanced imperialist countries was urban armed mass insurrections, as was the case with the Russian Revolution. In this way, two models were presented as the path to seize state power in the Maoist communist movement -the Russian model, which is the way of urban-centered armed insurrection; and theChinese model, which would follow the path of protracted people's war.

But through this the truth of the universality of war paled. In the works in which Mao spoke of the above two paths, or in contemporary works, what Mao clearly stated is ignored. He said,
“The central task and highest form of revolution is the seizure of political power by armed force, the solution of problems by war. This revolutionary principle of Marxism-
Leninism applies everywhere.” (Mao, Red Book, Problems of War and Strategy, Six Military
Writing, p. 378). In fact, Marx himself made such a statement in one of his speeches
after the Paris Commune experience. He said, "The working class will have to earn its
right to emancipation on the very battlefield." (summarizing the teachings of the Party
Commune in a speech given on the occasion of the 7th anniversary of the founding of the 1st
International).
The theory of the destruction of the existing state apparatus by force is one of
the very basic principles of Marxism. Every Maoist admits this. But what is the way to
forcefully destroy the existing state apparatus and oust its ruling class from power? In
this regard, the experience of the past 150 years of the proletarian revolution has
brought forward a common truth included in the two models discussed above. That is
war. And the people's revolutionary military line can nothing but be people's war.
It is necessary to make some comments about the confusions those are
emerging in the ongoing debate about this.
First, although the Peruvian Party played a leading role in presenting the theory
of the universality of the People's War, lack of clarity about the left onel-sidedness in
its presentation and realization is linked to the emergence of paradoxical deviations in
this regard. On the question of the universality of people's war, they also reveal
ambiguity and confusion on the question of its two basic paths in the case of
capitalist-imperialist countries and countries oppressed by imperialism. The effect of
which we can see later on by the demand of some parties that in the imperialist
countries also in general the strategy of 'protacted people's war' is effective. It is a
wrong strategy.
But while opposing it, some parties are rejecting the very universality of
people's war. Which is the mistake like throwing away the baby along with the dirty
water in the bowl. For example, they assume that since Mao invented and applied the
line of protracted people's war in the Chinese revolution, the universality of people's
war (PW) is as if the theory of protracted people's war (PPW) is applicable to
imperialist countries as well. This is a big confusion. Because Mao—who has made a
great contribution to proletariat military science in applying the line of protracted
people's war—has brought out some general rules and principles of people's war,
which have been forgotten to apply to both imperialist and oppressed countries.
We know, however, that after Mao's death, no proletarian-led revolution and
peoples war took place in any imperialist country. Therefore, we cannot yet say
exactly how Mao-mentioned three strategic stages, or establishing base-areas, will be
applicable to the Mao-mentioned war process in those countries. The revolutionary
communist parties of those countries can only invent them through the experience of
such a revolutionary war. But without some of its basic principles today, a hundred
and fifty years after the first proletarian revolution, the proletarian parties of those
countries would be forced to continue without any direction. They cannot confine
them to the nineteenth-century theories of “violent force” advocated by Marx. They
must develop this theory from the experiences of 150 years of world revolution. Not
doing so cannot be acceptable.
10
We have already said that there is a fundamental difference of strategies
between the people's war in the two types of countries, which arises from the
distinctive socio-economic systems of these two types of countries. The most
important of which is the practice or not of basic importance of the peasant problem,
and the presence or not of revolutionary situation. To deny it would be a serious
mistake. Such deviations can be glimpsed in the formation and perception of the
Peruvian Party. Therefore, we must mention the clear differences in these two types of
countries, how and when the people‟s war will be initiated, where and how the
guerilla war will play it‟s role, how basel-areas will be built and what kind of stages
the people‟s war will pass through. But saying that in an imperialist country, there will
be no stages of war, or base-areas are not possible-- these are not revolutionary
arguments. The experiences of the revolutionary wars of the past century and the
experiences of various types of ongoing warfare in urbanized nations would speak
against such an argument.
It would be a big mistake to think that the seizure of central state power is the
end of the proletarian revolution. In practice, war may almost always continue even
after the revolutionary seizure of power and the formation of a socialist/democratic
state. We know that, during the three-year civil war that followed the Russian
Revolution, and during World War II, the central cities served as bases for peoples
warfare in socialist Russia. Let's assume that during World War II Hitler's invasion,
the Soviet centers of power have been destroyed. or the collapse of the revolutionary
centers in the three years of civil war. If so, would not the revolutionary parties be
able to restore it only through people's war?
Before concluding this topic, we would like to quote from our party's military
line document published recently (in 2022) to more clarify our position—
"Whereever and whenever a people's war is waged, it is not a short-term bourgeois
war. Rather, it is conducted over a somewhat longer period of time. Because, the enemy of
the revolution in the world is very strong militarily. They do not accept the revolution, nor
can they accept it. They plot to suppress it and wage counter-revolutionary warfare at their
very end. Therefore, on the contrary, from the side of people also, war has to be waged for a
long time. No such war can be successfully waged by the people without a revolutionary
base. It applies to all imperialist and oppressed countries.
"Actually, if the revolution is successful in any one or a few countries, imperialist or
oppressed, they also play a role as the base of the world revolution. which occasionally have
to engage in imposed wars against imperialists and their subordinates, no matter how
revolutionary states pursue a foreign policy of 'peaceful coexistence'. Which can ultimately
only achieve final victory through world revolution. Until then, the base-area question will
remain a fundamental question in the world revolution.
............. .........
“But the process of establishment of bases is generally not the same in imperialist
and oppressed countries. Because, the path of revolution in these two countries is of two
types. From there the two types of character of the base-areas arise.
"The path of revolution in these two types of countries of the world, imperialist-
capitalist and oppressed by imperialism (peasant-dominant semi-feudal) is of two kinds.
"Revolutionary situation does not generally exist in imperialist countries, these
countries and their main revolutionary classes and masses are urban-based, which are also
centers of enemy power. In those countries, the proletariat has to wait for the economic-
political crisis of the system to intensify. A period in which a strong proletarian party must be
built through long revolutionary political work. It may be possible to seize power in some
politically and militarily favorable areas of the enemy's power center through a revolutionary
armed insurrection that destroys the state apparatus in due course. And then those places are
transformed into revolutionary base-areas. On the basis of these bases, a peoples army can
11
be formed as large as possible from among the armed people created in the armed popular
uprising, and the people‟s war can be carried out to defeat the enemy in the entire country.
"That is, the seizure of power in such a country usually begins with a mass armed
insurredtion after a process of long non-armed political work and waiting for and hastening
the political situation to mature for revolution. This armed insurrection is followed by
people‟s war.
“In reality, popular armed insurrection is itself a form of people's war. But it is an
activity of a short time. Armed insurrection cannot last long. Its victory or defeat is
determined in a short time. But the revolution has to go on dealing with the war of its enemy
until the enemy is defeated in such a way that he is forced to suspend its war for the time
being. Since the proletarian revolution is part of an international revolution, international
imperialism and its proxies are re-armed, though largely deposed in armed popular
uprisings, with the help of their international masters and allies, they start war activities,
they try to regain power in the territories lost by their war activities.
“We saw that in the Russian Revolution, even in the Paris Commune.
“But countries like ours are oppressed by imperialism, and in the countryside (and to
a great extent in the cities too) feudal and semi-feudal relations prevail. For this reason, the
new-democratic revolution under the leadership of the working-class parties in these
countries is the immediate program of the revolution, the main theater of which is the
countryside, and the main character of which is the

peasantry. Therefore, the peasantry is the
main force of the proletarian revolution in these countries and the countryside is the main
field of revolution here. The state apparatus and system of such countries is autocratic - often
overtly fascist or under military or one-party rule. So in these countries a revolutionary
situation generally prevails, although it has its ups and downs. Here, it is not possible to
make the people conscious for revolution or to build a strong revolutionary proletarian party
through a long revolutionary non-armed political activities. Therefore, the revolutionary
base must be established in the countryside by starting a people's war based on the
countryside. It has to be developed and strengthened in the process of people's war to
encircle the power centers of the enemy and engage them in the final battle for central state
power.
“So it appears that the bases also have two types of characteristics due to the two
types of character of people's war in two types of countries”.
* In connection with this, we would like to say something about the question of
the "omnipotence" of the People's War, whether it is said or used to be said by the ICL
or the Peru Party.
We do not think it is right to go on uttering such policy. Mao once said that in a
certain context, when the question of people's war was not brought up in the
communist movement and he was being opposed anyway. It cannot actually replace
the importance of party formation or the multifaceted nature of united front formation,
above all MLM.
Such formulation also brings a leftist dogmatism in the name of People's War,
that needs to be opposed.
5. Summation of RIM
At a time when the international communist movement was thrown into
disarray after Mao's death, the formation of RIM was an important step forward
towards the unity of genuine communist revolutionaries on the basis of Maoism in the
international movement.
In building a General Line of the international communist movement and on
that basis the progress in line of the old Maoist parties in the world, the formation of
new parties/organizations on this new basis in some countries, the establishment of
unity among the real revolutionaries in some countries, raise a common voice of the
12
Maoists on important political issues in the world, developing two-line struggle in a
positive direction on most important lines, and, above all, initiate and develop the
revolutionary struggles in some countries—RIM made important contribution.
We feel that it is necessary for today's Maoist unity to highlight the pioneering
roles and experience that RIM had played for more than two decades. But at the same
time, it is also necessary to summarize the experiences of RIM's defunct after a period
in the first decade of this century. Especially because there have already been
published many erroneous and deviant statements about it with which we differ.
It is a fact that RIM could not unite all the important Maoist parties of the
world at that time. But there exist a strong effort to term it as 'failure' of RIM or RIM‟s
formation was immature. It would be a distortion of history to say that there was no
attempt on the part of RIM to unite other Maoists who were still outside RIM. It was
also succeeding though not totally, such as one of India's largest Maoist parties, the
then MCCI, joined RIM, long after its formation. However, they did not continue their
role as a member of RIM later in the interest of uniting with PW. But it would be a
mistake to deny the fact that RIM's continued efforts to incorporate non-RIM Maoists
into the RIM, and the influence of its advance line positions. However, important
Maoist organizations such as the main two parties of India and the party of Philippines
remained out of it. In that case what was their line-position can be discussed.
However, RIM tried to develop a close fraternal relationship with all the
sincere Maoist parties/organizations. At least in the case of the South Asian region, a
major breakthrough in this relationship took place with the formation of the
“CCOMPOSA”, which included almost all Maoist parties/organizations within and
outside the RIM of the region.
The question is, what was the main reason why many non-RIM parties
remained outside the RIM?
The reason for this is to be found in the differences in line between the RIM
and forces outside the RIM, not in the failure of the RIM. Instead, it would allow the
language to conversely say that non-RIM parties "failed" to join the RIM. The use of
such evaluation and language results in blaming others while avoiding line questions.
Of the line-factors that actually prevented unity, the most urgent and important
was the question of whether or not we would work towards the formation of a new
'International' organization. Stalin dissolved the 3rd International, what is the
summation? Later Mao himself did not form any International, and so on. Or, whether
the situation is ripe for such an organization to exist. We have raised our point on
these issues in the first point. There are still such statements that an international
organization should not be formed or we should not work for that aim, rather a forum
like coordination center can be formed between the Maoists internationally only for
mutual exchange and some joint statements, or some mutual assistance.
We do not want to say that such a coordination center cannot be formed under
the pressure of present situation. But it would be a backward task if the aim of
forming an international organization and the building of its general line was not set
forth and the task to lead it to its continued development. It must be remembered that
the acceptance of "Maoism" itself is the main aspect of foundation of the International
General Line. The communist movement can never be reduced to a “national”
movement. Therefore, the task of any genuine Communist Party is to present an
international line and to unite internationally on that basis. This can be the leading
force in building, coordinating and uniting the anti-imperialist movement
internationally. Without international proletarian leadership, the work of the
international anti-imperialist United Front cannot develop properly.
13
* The question is, despite so many positive contributions and role of RIM, RIM
has been dissolved. It must be summarized today. But this summation must be done in
the correct perspective with a correct outlook. Summation means an area of two-line
struggle. Therefore, we would like to highlight our position on some of these.
Two reasons are often cited for RIM's dissolutio: one, the revisionist betrayal
of the Prachanda-Baburam clique; and two, the RCP-Avakian's theory of new-
communism. We think this statement is incomplete. In fact, the first reason for the
split in the RIM was the Peru problem, on which there is a lack of adequate
discussion. In fact, there is almost no mention of it recently, as if it is better to avoid
the subject.
The collapse of the world's first important revolutionary struggle that
developed after Mao's death, the emergence of an important two-line struggle in that
party, the blurring of Comrade Gonzalo's relationship with the conflicting two lines
and the terrible anti-RIM propaganda, sectarianism, offensive activities by a large
section of Peru Party claimants-- how can international Maoists avoid all these even
after long three decades? And how can there be an accurate summation/ assessment of
RIM‟s dissolution by avoiding it? The relationship of these to today's sectarianist
activities in the ICL formation must be discussed.
Although the PCP never participated in the leadership of RIM, but it was a very
important party of RIM from its inception, and the Peruvian People's War and its
development contributed significantly to RIM's prestige and influence. The PCP
movement also contributed some important theoretical formulations, namely, the
formulation of Maoism and universility of PW, although on both these questions the
PCP's one-sided leftist understanding differed from that of many parties in the RIM.
There were differences of opinion over these, which were still internal of the
comrades and Maoists. Until the arrest of Comrade Gonzalo in 1992, the situation and
relationship remained essentially the same. Especially in the famous cage speech of C.
Gonzalo there was strong and positive statements about RIM, which was following
the position of C. Gonzalo in the 1st and 2nd meetings of PCP-CC after their
Congress in 1988.
But we do know that since 1993, a year after Gonzalo's arrest, an all-pervasive
2LS developed in the Peruvian party. We will mention more about this in the next
point. But what needs to be mentioned here is, the RIM Committee had important
differences about the evaluation of two-line struggle, the split in PCP in the process,
the collapse of the PPW in Peru, and how it assessed and handled all the aboe-
mentioned things. In fact, that was the beginning of RIM's split with the PCP,
although an extended meeting (EM) of RIM in 2000 attempted to patch things up.
However, it soon broke down. This situation initiates large cracks and fractures within
the RIM. Serious line-disagreements developed. Because, during the successful
progress of the Peruvian People's War, due to it‟s influence, the great status and
influence of the Peruvian Party was developed in the parties belonging to the RIM. It
now culminates in a multi-directional journey.
So the first reason for the dissolution of the RIM was the great disagreement
within the RIM over the disaster of the Peruvian Prople‟sWar and its assessment. As a
result, various anti-RIM factions were created from the Peru Party. which played a
major role in RIM‟s dissolution. Therefore, without discussing the situation in Peru,
the discussion of the dissolution of the RIM cannot properly take place.
We think

the above-mentioned situation has to do with the formation of today's
ICL.
14
Recently, we have also seen allegations from some parties where the then
RCP's so-called „sectarianism‟ and „hegemonism‟ are also blamed. It is even being
said that there was a ill rivalry/competetion between some of the RIM parties and their
leadership. Newly formed ICL raised these allegations nakedly to oppose RIM in the
guise of opposing degenaration of some RIM-parties and their leadership in the later
period.
These again show how the problem of individualistic and institutional
parochialist views are there instead of ideological-political line-differences.
The RCP undoubtedly played a leading role in the RIM. But, it is unfortunate
to link the anti-RCP campaign to RIM‟s evaluation. We are not going into detail here
about RIM‟s functioning. But we should not negate RCP‟s earlier revolutionary and
important positive roles because of the degeneration of the RCP in the process of
bringing about the "New Communism" later on. For example, the important
revolutionary roles of Gonzalo/PCP up to 1992 should not be ruled out because of the
post-92 positions of them. Or because of Prachanda's post-2004 bourgeouse
revisionism and subsequent treachery, his role in the Nepal Peoples War cannot be
ruled out.
RCP under the leadership of Avakian made a very important contribution to the
formation and one of the leading roles of RIM until the first half of the first decade.
Even during this period all their line-related roles were not above question. Even in
the functioning of a newly emerged international organization, there were various
differences within the RIM. We had too. But despite those minor differences, we do
not think that the RCP had not manage the two-line struggle properly or that it had
been hegemonic. What they did came from their line-understanding, which was
obvious. We do not think that any other party had been able to mount any positive
struggle against them on the line-question. Rather, even at the beginning of Nepal's
decline, only the RCP in 2006 fought fiercely against their revisionism in writing,
which neither the then Nepali Party nor any other major party—in or outside of the
RIM—did. Of course we would point out that even in that struggle we did not agree
with all the views of the RCP, but basically they fought fierce against revisionism
from a revolutionary position. This also applies to the period of struggle between the
two lines of the Peruvian Party. In that case too, the role of RCP was revolutionary
and positive. Rather, the positions of both sides of the Peru Party were wrong. None
of them played any positive role in the development of the two-line struggle of their
country. We will talk more about this later.
The statement about the rise of unhealthy competition between the main
leaders of important parties in the RIM seems to us individualistic. The “competition”
or struggle was line-related. A separate magazine called “Struggle” was also being
published to conduct that line-struggle. But by this time the erroneous/revisionist lines
of Peru, Nepal and RCP gradually came to dominate. As a result, the two-line struggle
could not develop properly. These should be seen on the basis of line-differences and
character, not as conflicts of leadership.
RIM clearly spoke of "a new kind of international" and "a new kind of
democratic centralism". In that case RIM gained important experiences. The 1993
(and later on in 2000) Expanded Meetings (EM) also unanimously adopted an
organizational principles for the functioning of RIM. No one on the RIM-Committee
fundamentally violated that principle. Therefore, they must be taken into account
when summarizing RIM functioning. We believe that a proper summation of the RIM
experiences will be crucial in resuming the process of a new international formation.
15
6. About the situation in Peru
We note that the crucial line debate that existed among international Maoists
over the assessment question of the situation in the Peruvian People's War,
particularly the situation in the Peruvian Party, is being almost entirely avoided at
present. We also believe that it has a deep connection with the recently formed ICL
line. This is a manifestation of pushing aside the RIM experience. Which cannot
properly help advance the task of forming a new international.
In order to make an assessment in this regard, we have to look back at the
events of about three decades back.
Everyone knows that a "peace-line" was raised there in '93, almost a year after
the arrest of C. Gonzalo in '92 and his famous cage speech. It was claimed that the
proponent of this line was C. Gonzalo. Based on this, at one point the Peru party was
clearly divided.
The RIM-Committee investigated as much as possible, reviewed the lines and
in 1995 identified, refuted and rejected the peace line as a right opportunist line(ROL).
But the Peruvian party never defined it as a two-line struggle. They promote it
as an enemy conspiracy/hoax. Those who do not accept their "hoax-line" were also
accused of joining or aiding the enemy's conspiracy. This had serious implications
internationally. The MPP, a claimant to the Peruvian Party abroad, began to wage a
hostile, divisive and aggressive struggle against RIM-Committee (CoRIM). The
reason is that they wanted to show that the RIM Committee is instigated by the
enemy, aiding the enemy, by describing it as a 2LS. This is how the first split in RIM
begins, which we mentioned in the previous point.
The serious matter is that, all those who were arrested from the party's historic
leadership row later became supporters of the ROL. All of whom, while free, were
staunch supporters of the “Persist in People's War" line. In this case, they said that
Gonzalo himself convinced them on ROL while in prison. Hence, the question of C.
Gonzalo's involvement with this Peace-line comes forward more forcefully.
But what emerges as a more serious problem in terms of line is that both sides
of the two opposing lines kept claiming that Gonzalo was their leader and leading the
respected line.
In these circumstances, we believe that the position taken by the RIM
Committee, based on much international debate and investigation, was fundamentally
correct. Based on which a report was published in issue no 32 of "A World to Win"
magazine under the initiative of RIM Committee.
The Peruvian Party itself has never commented on the aggressive sectarianism
activities that the claimants of the Peruvian Party abroad were carrying out against
RIM and the RIM Committee. In particular, the questions that arise are, what is the
position of the claimants of the Peru Party today on the question of these two lines of
struggle that arose in the Peru Party? What was the role of C. Gonzalo in relation to
the right opportunist line? And what is the situation of the people‟s war in Peru?
In response to these questions, up to a stage (as long as the RIM-Committee
had communications with the Peru Party's CC), the PCP kept giving a statement that it
was not a two-line struggle, only a conspiracy of the enemy, that C. Gonzalo had no
connection with the right line- ROL. It's all enemy propaganda, and the people's war is
going on.
The international Maoists' unification efforts after RIM's dissolution often refer
to the Peruvian People's War. Some of its also bear the signature of the Peru Party. It
16
can be assumed that this Peruvian party was particularly active in the formation of the
recently formed ICL.
From what we have discussed above, we have a serious question, what are the
facts and opinions about the post-1992 Peruvian People's War and the total disaster of
the Peruvian Party? We do not know for sure whether there is still a people‟s war
going on in Peru along revolutionary lines. This question arises because Armetio, the
last promoted leader of Peru's CC, himself offered a line at the end of an "armed
struggle for political reconciliation". Then he was also arrested. After that, whether a
CC of the Peru Party was formed or not, if so, based on which line, when and how it
was formed, what is their position about the above-discussed 2LS, what was the role
of C. Gonzalo in that 2LS, is there have been any all-embracing split in the Party and
People's War in Peru, if so, what is their summation, and what is the current strategic
plan of the Party and what is their overall situation (including the People's War)? etc.
We believe that the question remains unresolved. The more important issue is whether
they have any understanding of the issues that need to be addressed. The current
ideological-political line of the party of that country can be revealed today only
through the answers to these questions.
The arrest of all the historical leadership of such a strong people's war of the
world, an all-out two-line struggle, disaster of such a big party and the people's war,
the role of the leadership, especially the main leader in the two-line struggle, the role
of the RIM on all these things, and today's situation—all these cannot be avoided by
the international Maoists. What is worse, they cannot condone any side or initiative
who want to cover them up. We have said this in the previous point as well.
We want to clearly state that the arrest of C. Gonzalo, emergence of ROL,
giving support to the ROL by all of the arrested historical leaders one by one, holding
high C.G by both the ROL and PW-line, a total split of the party, taking the cheap
route by the then CC of calling it an enemy conspiracy without taking seriously the
grave two-line struggle-- as a result of all these, the Peruvian Party and the Peruvian
People's War fell in a complete disaster. We do not know whether those who claim to
be Peru-Party have taken a specific position on these issues even after these long three
decades. If no, why don't they take it? Why are these not

being presented to the
Maoists of the world?
* The question of C. Gonzalo's role after his imprisonment is related to this.
We are all aware of C. Gonzalo's decisive role in the construction of the Peru-
Party and the Peruvian Revolution in the past and in the creation and development of
the People's War during pre-92 period. His historic cage speech was also part of it.
But we disagree with or are not convinced by many's assessment of his political role
in the long 29 years since '93. We do not want to discuss and debate about this in
details here. However, we would like to emphasize the RIM-Committee‟s report that
was printed in the then "A World to Win" magazine in 2006. RIM-Committee did not
issue this report from zero. This report was compiled on the basis of the data collected
through a great effort under many odds over a long period of time. The main
responsibility of the work was for the Peru-Party claimants; They did not fulfill that
responsibility. They did not even wage a significant two-line struggle against the
emerging ROL. Which only the RIM Committee did against considerable odds. We
are not aware that any other Maoist force internationally has made a detailed line-
struggle in this regard.
However, from this report, there is enough room to doubt whether C. Gonzalo
remained on the line of continuing the People's War or not. It is important that the
reactionary state, the ruling class and their Yankee imperialist masters never forgave
17
C. Gonzalo because of his historical role in the formation of the Peru- people‟s war, as
we have seen from the fascist actions they took after his death. But it does not prove
that he did not give a different line after his arrest. The alleged peace-line that he had
nothing to do with the line is not substantiated either. Rather, it is true that after 1993
he never condemned the ROL despite various opportunities. Rather, he behaved
comradely in court with detained leaders who openly supported that line, which was
seen publicly.
This does not mean that he was joining hands with the enemy. But the fact that
he was somehow associated with the Right/Peace line cannot be ruled out either. Let's
not forget that line-confusion or mistake, which did great damage to the Peruvian
revolution. And we think that damage has not yet been healed. The second reason is
that as long as the CC led by the historical leaders of the Peruvian Party was in force,
they were not able to properly address these 2LS, and could not lead the Party and the
people. It has caused great damage to the Maoist movement not only in Peru but also
in the world.
We have not yet received any assessment of the tragic past historical chapter
from the Peru Party claimants. But a line resolution of the above issues is essential to
any progress in the Peruvian revolution.
We are not saying that our above statements or assessments should be accepted
or settled by international unity initiatives today. But we cannot consent to various
subjective, individualistic, eclectic and misjudgments about Peru. That is why until
this question is settled there can be a compromise, so that we can get busy with
matters of greater interest.
However, we think that the settlement of these differences is very important for
international unity. Today it involves taking a principled and progressive position on
ICL issues. That is why the issue is raised here. So that we can seriously discuss and
debate, review and research on it in the future. And we can strengthen the basis of
international Maoist unity.
7. About GT
Some of the parties mentioned in their documents why what was formulated as
"Gonzalo Thought" should not be accepted in international unity, why it is not correct
to refer to Gonzalo as "Chairman". We think that despite the important contributions
of C. Gonzalo in the Peruvian revolution until 1992, and in fact in the world
proletarian revolution, it is necessary to expose and oppose some of the important
errors of the contents that have been presented as "Gonzalo Thought".
First of all, it is necessary to pay attention to the difference between the
position of Peru Party claimants and the way the Peru Party under the leadership of C.
Gonzalo until 1992 presented the "Gonzalo Thought". We would like to draw
attention to a few things.
During the revolutionary period, the Peruvian Party referred to "Gonzalo
Thought" as MLM's creative application and synthesis to the specific situation in
Peru. But later it was cited as the guiding principle of ICM in various places. With
Marx, Lenin and Mao mentioned as the three swords, Gonzalo was/is mentioned as
the fourth sword also. Also described as "the greatest living Marxist/Communist". In
addition, they did not even recognize the two-line struggle, completely avoiding the
serious issue of the involvement of almost all living historical leaders of the Peruvian
Party with the ROL that caused great damage to the Peruvian revolution and the world
revolution since 93. They also described it as a follower of "Gonzalo Thought".
Moreover, when the proponents of the peace line mentioned the role of C. Gonzalo as
18
the creator of that line and expressed this line as the follower of Gonzalo Thought,
they did not refute it in line and factually. Instead, it was blamed as a conspiracy of
the enemy. All of these express certain new understanding/outlook, which were not
included in the 92 earlier "Gonzalo Thought". But these things were not unrelated to
that "Thought".
Later we find various disguised manifestations of such ideas in the declaration
of ICL.
However, we will here express some criticisms on the ideas raised by the Peru
Party until 92 which expressed "Gonzalo Thought".
* It is necessary to mention here that during RIM period there was criticism
and struggle on these issues from different parties. But due to the wartime situation in
Peru, the problem of the RIM-Committee's communication with the Peruvian Party,
and the subsequent unfavorable conditions created by the arrest of C. Gonzalo, the
debate could not develop further. After the arrest of C. Gonzalo, at some stage these
issues started to come up in the Peru Party CC's communications and discussions with
the RIM Committee. At that time, the ROL and the line adopted by CC on this
question came forward as the main issue. But this process was also undermined by a
series of disasters in Peru, and since then by a series of smears, propaganda, offensive
and divisive activities against RIM and the RIM-Committee by the Peruvian party
claimants in exile.
However, we will outline some of our points of disagreement with “Gonzalo
Thought” in point form below.
First, Principally Maoism,
Second, the omnipotence of PW
On these two questions, we have already discussed the left-wing dogmatism of
GT in point no 2 and 4 above.
Thirdly, their nationalistic deviation on Thought question is also discussed in
point no 3.
Fourth, the “Jephetura” or great leadership theory.
This means that, according to them, Jeffe level leadership, who can make no
fundamental mistakes on questions of line, is the kind of leader Gonzalo was. That it
is an individualistic line and anti-dialectical ideology is quite clear from the
experience of the ICM. Even the recent betrayal of Prachanda, the main architect and
leader of the Nepal People's War, and the degeneration of RIM's other key leader
Avakian from MLM have proved it wrong. Although both of them at one time made
important contributions to the world revolution. Despite the enormous contributions of
the great Stalin, the chief leader of the ICM for long three decades after Lenin, Mao's
correct evaluation of him also dismisses it.
In fact, this kind of individualistic ideas is a manifestation of the Lin-ist
approach, which was discussed in China. We know that such Lin-ist tendency
emerged in India too after the death of CM in the seventies, though they waged a
heroic revolutionary movement for some time, and then turned completely in the
opposite direction during it‟s disaster. Total silence about Lin-headquarter, the
capitalist roader during GPCR, in some docs of PCP and the Declaration of ICL is not
root-less.
In the two-line struggle that developed in the Peru Party after Gonzalo's arrest,
both the rightist opportunist faction and revolutionary faction claimed to be followers
of Gonzalo's ideology. CC, the revolutionary side, continued to say that Gonzalo
19
cannot support ROL, because it is a right-wing opportunist line, and Gonzalo cannot
be its creator, because he is Jeffetura. But those who were staunchly pro-People's War
while free, and did not break even under brutal enemy persecution after arrest,
emerged as ROL supporters in jail. As it‟s reason they explained that Gonzalo himself
convinced them on that line. Since he is Jefeturah, he cannot make fundamental
mistakes. For this reason, no center of the Peruvian Party could develop the anti-rol
line struggle, and at the same time did not walk the path of any summation of the
Peruvian People's War and the overall disaster of the Peruvian Party. Even today after
long three decades, the situation remains the same. Therefore, it can be said with
certainty that the Jefetura theory was a major factor in the disaster of the Peruvian
Party and Revolution.
Fifth, the strategic offensive stage of world revolution.
An essential part of Gonzalo Thought is the identification of the beginning of
the Peruvian People's War in 1980 as the beginning of the strategic offensive stage of
the world revolution in the assessment of the world situation and the world communist
movement.
It is a dogmatic leftist formulation completely out of touch with reality.
Surely the imperialists are in dire straits, economic and political, which are
pushing them to another world war. But the subjective condition of world
revolutionary forces is very weak compared to that. There is no socialist

country, not
even in the 80s. True communists have no international center, not even in the 1980s.
Although Maoist people‟s war is ongoing in some countries. Various types of mass
struggles and armed struggle of the people are also ongoing in many countries. But the
lack of a real revolutionary program and path is woefully visible.
The beginning of the strategic stage of world revolution cannot be determined
only by material conditions. Such ideas do not apply to any revolutionary struggle or
people's war. Peru's People's War or Nepal's People's War can be an addition of a
degree to the people's wars and revolutionary struggles of different countries.
It wouldn't be wrong to say that such a formulation is an expression of the GT's
inherent subjectivism, which has, in hindsight, given rise to various right and left lines
since '93.
Sixth, People's War untill Communism.
This is also a manifestation of GT's one-sided dogmatic understanding about
the omnipotence of PW.
To think that revolution means people's war, and until communism revolution
means PW, is flawed and inconsistent with the experiences of the world communist
movement.
Mao talked about continuing the revolution under socialism and he exemplified
that revolution himself by running the GPCR. So is GPCR and people‟s war are the
same thing? Or is the GPCR being invalidated by such descriptions of people's war?
Society must go through socialism to get to communism. The principle of
people's war for the coming to power of the proletariat, and the principle of the ruling
proletariat to move towards communism are not the same. A socialist state, however,
must wage a people's war against outside imperialist aggression, which Stalin did. Or
even within a socialist state, people's war may sometimes be necessary to quell the
armed resistance of the capitalist-roaders. But we don't think it is right to express the
general line of revolutionary struggle in socialist countries as people's war.
20
In addition to these, we believe that many more issues will come up in the
process of debate. But in the above-discussed aspects of GT, there is subjectivism,
one-sidedness, left-wing dogmatism and individualism etc.
It is for these reasons that we strongly oppose the introduction of GT as a guide
to ICM.
* Along with this, the allegation of C. Gonzalo's involvement in the ROL that
originated in the Peru Party must also be discussed. It would be a grave mistake to
discard or ignore the findings and assessments arrived at by the RIM Committee. If it
is so, that would not provide an accurate assessment of the situation in Peru, which
would in no way help the Peruvian revolution, but rather harm it. Added to this, why
is it not acceptable to present Gonzalo as "Chairman". Only by discussing GT's errors
can C. Gonzalo's contribution to the Peruvian revolution up to 1992 be correctly
highlighted, a correct and dialectical summation of the Peruvian experience can be
made, and a role can be played in helping Peru and the world revolution.
8. World situation
We are noticing different trends in the Maoist sphere in the evaluation and
interpretation of the world situation. There are several factors those are connected
with the evaluation of ICL. There is something beyond that. We are presenting our
position on these issues.
* In today's world, whether we will say that the imperialists are divided into
two conflicting blocs or not. Or will it be divided between the imperialists like this—
the superpowers on the one hand, and the second tier imperialists, who are in some
conflicts with the superpowers, on the other? Associated with it, a question is, is there
only one superpower, US imperialism; Or is the Russia-China axis also a superpower?
Firstly, a US-led unipolar world emerged after the collapse of former Soviet
social imperialism in the early 1990s. For several years, the US was the sole
superpower. All the Maoists of the world made this assessment as far we know.
But since the first decade of this century, as China has become a social
imperialism, it gradually entered into a trade war with US imperialism and then a cold
war for world domination. China is now almost equal to the US both militarily and
financially. On the other hand, Russian imperialism has also recovered from the crisis
of the 1990s and is engaged in a campaign to recover its lost empire. Russian
imperialism is the nuclear power equivalent to the US. In the meantime, China-Russia
agreement and closeness against US monopoly has developed a different pole. Thus a
bi-polar world has developed today, which is different from the situation in the 1990s.
The conflict between these two poles is intensifying over the division of the world,
which has brought the threat of a new world war. Maoists should reflect this reality in
their line and strategy.
But the question is how do we evaluate the relationship of the second-grade
imperialists with the two superpowers of the US and the Russia-China axis?
Imperialists such as Canada, Japan, Australia along with the European Union are not
able to play a role in the world as superpowers‟ authority. It cannot be ruled out that
they have definitely some contradiction/contention with superpowers.
A socialist state can use such conflicts as possible to the strength, influence and
interests of the actual existence of the socialist state, from which Mao placed the
division of three worlds policy. But at present there is no such opportunity in the
absence of any such socialist state. Rather, the Ukraine war has made it clear that
main portion of such middle-grade imperialists are united in a bloc led by the US and
21
are fighting a coalition against the opposite bloc, albeit indirectly for the time being.
At the same time, the ruling class of Ukraine, led by Zelensky, continues to work as a
tool of the bloc.
So, if the division of blocs of imperialists is ignored it will be along the line of
3WT or by its influence.
* In another subject also, two types of tendency can be seen among the
Maoists. That is the question of the liberation struggle of the people of the third world
countries. Internationally, the nations and peoples of the Third World continue to fight
for freedom and liberation against imperialism. But it is dangerous to conflate the
struggle for freedom and liberation of the oppressed nations and the reactionary
leadership that is using it to entrench itself among the oppressed nations. Which is
influenced by the three world theory. Such leadership is generally associated with one
or the other side of imperialism in today's world, serve their comprador or the other
side's plans against rival imperialism knowingly or unknowingly. Strong
fundamentalist groups, particularly in oppressed Muslim-dominated countries, are the
product of US/Western imperialism in general in today's world. But due to ideological
conflict, some of them are also engaged in full or limited war with them. Such forces
are generally fiercely anti-communist and against the progressive and democratic
values. Rather, they represent reactionary feudal values and systems against these. In
the light of these, the role of reactionary nationalists or religious groups in the national
liberation movements of the present world should be evaluated.
It is problematic to lump the people's struggle for freedom in Afghanistan or
Palestine, and the above-mentioned reactionary forces occupying the leadership of
that struggle. Even the alleged al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers was
enthusiastically supported from many quarters, as it dealt a major blow to the
heartland of US imperialism. They are sometimes referred to as "forces of national
liberation". These trends and evaluations emphasize action, not its political position or
program. Struggle and sacrifice are not everything; it is very dangerous to exclude
what kind of society they want to build or what kind of social system they represent.
We believe that this trend is also influenced by the revisionist Three-World Theory.
The first point is whether such religious fundamentalist struggles contain any
democratic anti-imperialist side in today's world. The Taliban was created in
Afghanistan with the planning and support of US imperialism, to fight the then Soviet
social imperialism, who were at the time America's main rival for world domination.
The Taliban later went to war against the US due to a series of ideological conflicts.
Al-Qaeda was created the same way, and the same thing happened to it.
Such forces do not represent a national liberation force as opposed to
imperialism. Rather, in today's world, they are in many ways intertwined with one or
the other side of imperialism. To oppose one imperialism, they espouse another
imperialism. And they attack/eliminate any anti-imperialist and genuine national
liberation and democratic forces in a fascist manner. They do not represent a
progressive or anti-imperialist system in their country but rather a reactionary
medieval feudal religious society associated with imperialism.
When such a force is at war with the main enemy of the country, nation and the
people, opposing the occupying power, it is one thing to make tactical compromises
(if possible) with them, and it is another thing to evaluate those powers as forces of
national liberation. In our country too, during the struggle against the Pakistani
occupiers in 1971, many left-wing forces including the Awami League sided with
India and Russia in their so-called national liberation war. But at that time, all the real
Maoist revolutionaries here considered them as enemies of national liberation and
22
fought on two fronts. Even Subhash Bose, who was very popular in undivided India
during World War II, fought bravely against the British colonial rulers. But he did it
with the help of fascist Japan and became a tool of fascism, the main enemy
internationally at that time.
In

the ongoing national liberation struggles of the world, and even in many
struggles of the recent past, the weakness and deviation on this question has done
great harm to those struggle and to the revolutionary struggles. Examples of which are
everywhere in Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine, Bangladesh.
* In the contemporary world, there is a difference of opinion on whether the
fundamental contradictions are four or three, as is mentioned in the ICL clause.
After Mao's death in the 1970s, no socialist country had existed in the world.
Therefore, the fundamental contradiction between the socialist system and the
capitalist system does not exist in reality. However, the contradiction still exists - such
a view is based on fundamentalist understanding rather than on the objective reality of
the world. And for that, they are presenting various ideological arguments on it‟s
behalf. It needs to be opposed.
9. ICL
Many parties or organizations who were involved in the unity process, but who
did not join it, spoke about the formation of the ICL. We are not discussing those in
details here. But like somebody, we can't “congratulate” its formation.
Because, the formation of the ICL not only created a sectarian wound in the
ongoing unity process of international Maoists, but behind it lies a series of
ideological-political positions which are not MLMist and deviate from it.
They have placed themselves within the Maoist range, but at the same time
they also represent a "One devides into two"—ideologically and politically—in the
Maoist camp. Ignoring the latter would develop wrong ideas for principle-based unity
in today's communist movement. In addition, what needs to be emphasized is that this
ideological-political trend is not mere today's issue, it was present in the Maoist
movement for decades.
We have already discussed why what is today called "Gonzalo Thought"
should not be the basis of Maoist unity. We have highlighted several of it‟s wrong
formulations and deviations above. However, it needs to be deepened. Some of which
some parties have mentioned in their statements. But discussion of the underlying
deviations in "Gonzalo Thought" as the source of these deviations is weak. Without
criticizing these deviations, we cannot accurately highlight the contributions of
Gonzalo and the Peruvian People's War.
We have noted above how they have negatively developed GT's wrong ideas of
certain issues, such as the question of the universality of PW or the world's
fundamental contradiction or bloc-formation.
Although they took opportunistic caution in using the phrase “Principally
Maoism” during the formation of the ICL (which the Nepali Party revealed in its
document), in practice that tendency was not hidden. It has been revealed here and
there through the cover of caution.
They have taken such a divisive position in the formation of an international
that they have even erased the correct history of the Maoist movement at their
convenience. They have maintained an opportunistic silence about RIM‟s very
important contributions and positive aspects, which was the most important initiative
of international Maoist unity since Mao's death. It is also important to expose the fact
that they themselves have deviated from the positive position of Gonzalo and the Peru
23
Party until 1992. ICL have not denounced or opposed the extremely divisive and
fiercely aggressive activities on the RIM question by some sections of the post-92
Peru-Party for several decades. In this way they have legalized those conspiratorial
activities. Though they have mentioned some good talks about RIM in their
Declatation, but those are to extent that is in line of MPP-version of GT. In this
respect, they have taken a tactical and disguised propaganda.
While they cite extreme Prachanda or Avakian revisionism as the cause of
RIM's ineffectiveness or long-standing disunity in the Maoist movement, they forgot
to mention about the two-line struggle in the Peruvian Party and the wrong positions
of the then CC about that 2LS, the collapse of the Peruvian Revolution and the crisis
from it and the line-question behind it. While for them it was most important to
explain and assess the situation in Peru. Surprisingly, they talked about the right-wing
opportunist line emerging in the Peruvian Party but did not mention the position of the
CC and of the historical leaders of the Peruvian Party on this question, who claimed
that the mention of the two-line struggle was a conspiracy of the enemy. The failure of
the most important revolutionary struggle after Mao's death, its non-recovery for long
three decades, its causes and evaluations, the claims of the right-wing opportunist line
that Gonzalo himself was the creator of that line, have not been touched upon. In fact,
this was the first reason behind RIM‟s split and dissolution, which we discussed
above. Following which the problems of Prachanda and RCP came to the fore.
In effect, the ICL was formed on the basis of 'Gonzalo Thought'; better to say
that, on the basis of protecting its inherent deviations and wrong tendencies. Whether
or not the Maoists will base on the „Gonzalo Thought‟ in such a way is the dividing
line. The ICL sought to impose it on the Maoist movement in a highly divisive
manner, and when they failed to do so, they quickly divided the Maoist movement
into different centers.
This cannot be supported in any way. Rather, it is necessary to identify the
ideological-political basis of this split of the Maoist movement and deepen the two-
line struggle against it. In this case, taking the path of eclectic compromise will
weaken the very course of the Maoist movement.
** Apart from the above issues, we feel that some important issues deserve
more discussion in the genuine Maoist movement.
A) Anti-Fascist United Front Line:
There are differing assessments of the international general line adopted
against fascism during World War II. Many consider this to be correct and think that
the Third International or Stalin did nothing wrong in this regard.
We do not agree with this and think it needs further review.
First, it was necessary to push/introduce a program and call of a United Front
against fascism what the Third International did in the wake of the entrance and
gaining power throught-out Europe. In fact, it was on this basis that the Anti-Fascist
United Front was formed later during World War II.
But we think that one-sided understanding worked in it. It was necessary to
build a united front with the Allied forces to protect the Soviet socialist base in the
face of fascist attacks. But subordinating the world communist movement/revolutions
to it and making it the International General Line seems to have been problematic.
The task of world revolution and the task of preserving socialism in a country
do not always lie in the same straight line. There is a contradiction between them. The
24
above general line and determination of duties hindered it‟s proper solution. In our
opinion, the dissolution of the 3rd International was related to this.
Until then many countries of the world, the major part of the world, were
colonies or semi-colonies of the imperialists of the Allied Powers. India was very
important among them. The tasks of the above-mentioned colonial countries were
merged with the tasks of an important semi-colony (eg, China) or a country affected
by fascism (eg, France or Europe).
For the colonies like India how to reconcile the two policies, that is-- fascism,
the main enemy internationally, and the British colonial power, which was the main
enemy of revolution in such countries, was a complex matter. Our idea is that in such
a country, it was necessary to fight on two fronts and take tactics against the principal
enemy according to the concrete situation.
We faced such a situation in our country in 1971. In the face of the Pakistani
genocide with the help of the US, the Bengali nation and the people waged a struggle
for independence. But using this struggle, the India-Russia axis then waged a war to
capture East Bengal (Purbo Bangla). As a result of which the state of Bangladesh was
created.
At that time, China opposed the India-Russian conspiracy at the international
level. We think it was right. But without bringing Pakistan's main problem
domestically, the line of forming a united front with the genocidal and nationally
oppressive Pak-forces against the India-Russia conspiracy also came within a section
of the then Maoists, which alienated them from the people. In that situation it would
have been correct to conduct the struggle on two fronts and decide the tactics
according to the situation. Despite various ideological and theoretical confusions the
main body of Maoists followed the same.
In our opinion, this matter should be reviewed more in the international
movement. However, care should be taken that this review does not weaken the urgent
task of unity of the Maoists.
Another such question we feel needs to be brought up in a long-term review.
Which is mentioned below.
b) GT (Gonzalo Thought), PP (Prachanda Path) and
NC (New Communism):
The above three formulations came from the Maoist parties of Peru, Nepal, and
the United States, respectively, which were important and leading parties in RIM.
To discuss this, the first point to be brought up is to seperate the two different
positions of these parties—firstly, when the respective parties were leading the
revolution or playing an important revolutionary role in the world Maoist movement;
and secondly their roles in the period during which they were subsequently thrown
into negative/catastrophic situations and fall into the clutches of revisionist/various
wrong lines.
All the three parties discussed played important roles in the line-question,
organization and development of the revolutionary struggle after Mao's death.
The parties' lines and their

development served as the basis for the formation
and development of the people‟s wars in Peru and Nepal. Again, the development of
the revolutions developed those lines in important areas.
The RCP and Avakian also gave an important leadership on line questions and
practice in the formation of the RIM and ideological development on the question of
internationalism. We also consider it‟s contribution important in summarizing the
anti-fascist general line.
25
All the three parties formulated their revolutionary contributions as Gonzalo
Thought, Prachanda Patha and New Synthesis respectively. They generally did not
demand MLM's qualitative development during the revolutionary period. However,
Peru's party and, following it, Nepal's party also associated these formulations with
MLM in their respective party ideologies. Later, the RCP began to use the formula of
"New Communism" instead of the NS, claiming it as MLM's superior stage.
We have earlier outlined our position on this issue and opposed such
formulation by linking it to party ideology.
But despite this, what we think is that the new thinking on line that these
formulations expressed during the revolutionary period cannot be negated in one
word.
The question is, was the subsequent development to revisionism sudden? Or
was the embryo of these were not present during the revolutionary period? We think
they were not accidental. There were various deviations, albeit secondary, in the
positions of that time, which were drowned out by the tide of major revolutionary
positions and contributions of that time. We have seen how they have evolved into
various forms of revisionism in later times.
But for this reason, it is not a correct consideration to discard the new
revolutionary contributions and valuable experiences that these RIM-parties (or some
others out-side RIM) gained in the international communist movement. We consider
them to be the achievements of our movement and they must be reviewed and the
movement must take a long-term stand on those issues. Based on positive
achievements, we believe that our movement can move through the post-RIM phase.
How the international movement will do that will depend on what basis and on what
goals we unite, as we have already mentioned.
We want to build the highest level of unity, which we want to proclaim loudly.
But at the same time we are ready for the lowest possible unity among international
Maoists. We must continue our struggle against all forms of sectarian policies. We
need to develop mutual review and debate in a friendly manner. It is necessary to unite
on the basis of the lowest level of unity. The question of higher unity must be kept
alive. That too should be achieved as much as possible.
***