Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Serious Satire Warning : Rocket Man by Steven Colbert and Elton John

Iranian Filmaker Majid Adin Reimagines Rocket Man - Rocket Man 2 will be Iranian North Korean Production

Spain: 'Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) party deputy Rafael Rufian in Spanish Parliament says 'Remove your filthy hands from Catalan institutions'

Spanish "Coup" in Catalonia ? has Guardia Civil Storm the Catalan Government

The Guardia Civil stormed the Catalan government on Wednesday morning, 20 September. The Spanish police invaded the Ministry of Economy and various Catalan finance agencies including the Treasury Agency and the Ministry of External Affairs. The Guardia Civil arrested the Catalan Finance Minister Josep Maria Jové. The police also stormed the Catalan Ministry of Social Affairs. "We are in a state of siege! It's a shame ! "Said Minister of Social Affairs Dolors Bassa.

The interventions of the Guardia Civil multiply in Catalonia. A dozen officials of the Catalan administration were arrested.

Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos, said the people arrested there this morning are "political prisoners".

Carles Puigdemont, President of the Generalitat of Catalonia, convened an extraordinary meeting with the main leaders of the parties of the Catalan Parliament.

The spokesman of the same Government called for calm. The ANC, Assemblea Nacional Catalana, the main engine of the independence movement, did the same, calling also a great mobilization of the citizens before the ministries and places of power Catalan.La Guardia Civil stormed this Wednesday 20 September in the morning, the Catalan government. The Spanish police invaded the Ministry of Economy and various Catalan finance agencies including the Treasury Agency and the Ministry of External Affairs. The Guardia Civil arrested the Catalan Finance Minister Josep Maria Jové. The police also stormed the Catalan Ministry of Social Affairs. "We are in a state of siege! It's a shame ! "Said Minister of Social Affairs Dolors Bassa.

Pablo Hasél - Referèndum o feixisme - Referendum or Fascism

Democracy and Class Struggle view of the struggle in Catalonia and Marxism Leninism Maoism and the National Question here :

Socialism and Independence

Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr in Wales says the Catalan struggle is basically a struggle for democracy against a corrupt bourgeois Spanish State which has taken a national form in Catalonia.

However the bourgeois nationalist Catalan leadership seeks to subordinate Catalonia to a corrupt Brussels and the European Union - this is  not national liberation but a readjustment among the national bourgeois in the Spanish State and Europe.

The Revolutionary Left in Catalonia should oppose both the corrupt Spanish State and the corrupt European Union and NATO and elevate the working class to political leadership of the national struggle for democracy in Catalonia - the working class should win the direction of national liberation.

At UN, Trump Continues Assault on Iran Nuclear Deal

Trump's Threat to "Totally Destroy" North Korea is illegal says Phyllis Bennis

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Gregory Elich says by blocking North Korea’s ability to engage in international trade, the United States has succeeded in weaponizing food by denying North Korea the means of providing an adequate supply to its people.

                                                     Smash United States Imperialism

Amid renewed talk by the Trump administration of a military option against North Korea, one salient fact goes unnoticed. The United States is already at war with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – the formal name for North Korea). It is doing so through non-military means, with the aim of inducing economic collapse. In a sense, the policy is a continuation of the Obama administration’s ‘strategic patience’ on steroids, in that it couples a refusal to engage in diplomacy with the piling on of sanctions that constitute collective punishment of the entire North Korean population.

We are told that UN Security Council resolution 2375, passed on September 11, was “watered down” so as to obtain Chinese and Russian agreement. In relative terms, this is true, in that the original draft as submitted by the United States called for extreme measures such as a total oil embargo. However, Western media give the impression that the resolution as passed is mild or mainly symbolic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The resolution, in tandem with previous sanction votes and in particular resolution 2371 from August 5, is aimed squarely at inflicting economic misery. Among other things, the August sanctions prohibit North Korea from exporting coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore, and seafood, all key commodities in the nation’s international trade.  The resolution also banned countries from opening new or expanding existing joint ventures with the DPRK. [1]

September’s resolution further constrains North Korea’s ability to engage in regular international trade by barring the export of textiles. It is estimated that together, the sanctions eliminate 90 percent of the DPRK’s export earnings. [2] Foreign exchange is essential for the smooth operation of any modern economy, and U.S. officials hope that by blocking North Korea’s ability to earn sufficient foreign exchange, the resolutions will deal a crippling blow to the economy.

For North Korea’s estimated 100,000 to 200,000 textile workers the impact will be immediate, plunging most of them into unemployment. “If the goal of the sanctions is to create difficulties for ordinary workers and their ability to make a livelihood, then a ban on textiles will work,” specialist Paul Tija wryly notes. [3]

With around eighty percent of its land comprising mountainous terrain, North Korea has a limited amount of arable land, and the nation typically fills its food gap through imports. Sharply reduced rainfall during the April-June planting season this year reduced the amount of water available for irrigation and hampered sowing activities. Satellite monitoring indicates that crop yields are likely to fall well below the norm. [4] To make up for the shortfall, the DPRK has significantly boosted imports. [5] How much longer it can continue to do so remains to be seen, in the face of dwindling reserves of foreign exchange. In effect, by blocking North Korea’s ability to engage in international trade, the United States has succeeded in weaponizing food by denying North Korea the means of providing an adequate supply to its people.

The September resolution also adversely impacts the livelihoods of North Korea’s overseas workers, who will not be allowed to renew their contracts once they expire. They can only look forward to being forced from their jobs and expelled from their homes. [6]

International partnership is discouraged, as the resolution bans “the opening, maintenance, and operation of all joint ventures or cooperative entities, new and existing,” which in effect permanently kills off any prospect of the reopening of the Kaesong Industrial Complex. With only two exceptions, all current operations are ordered to shut down within four months. [7]

A cap is imposed on the amount of oil North Korea is allowed to import, amounting to about a thirty percent reduction from current levels, along with a total ban on the import of natural gas and condensates. [8] Many factories and manufacturing plants could be forced to close down when they can no longer operate machinery. For the average person, hardship lies ahead as winter approaches, when many homes and offices will no longer be able to be heated.

What has any of this to do with North Korea’s nuclear program? Nothing. The sanctions are an expression of pure malevolence. Vengeance is hitting every citizen of North Korea to further the U.S. goal of geopolitical domination of the Asia-Pacific.

Like North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have nuclear and missile arsenals.

India and Pakistan launched ICBMs earlier in the year. North Korea is singled out for punishment, while the others receive U.S. aid. There is no principle at stake here. 

For that matter, there is something unseemly in the United States, with over one thousand nuclear tests, denouncing North Korea for its six. The U.S., having launched four ICBMs this year, condemns the DPRK for launching half that many. Is it not absurd that the United States, with its long record in recent years of bombing, invading, threatening, and overthrowing other nations, accuses North Korea, which has been at peace for several decades, of being an international threat?

North Korea observed the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, and concluded that only a nuclear deterrent could stop the United States from attacking. It is the “threat” of North Korea being able to defend itself that has aroused U.S. ire on a spectacular scale.

The U.S. war on the North Korean people does not stop with UN sanctions. In a recent hearing, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce called for Chinese banks that do ordinary business with North Korea to be targeted: “We can designate Chinese banks and companies unilaterally, giving them a choice between doing business with North Korea or the United States…It’s not just China. We should go after banks and companies in other countries that do business with North Korea in the same way…We should press countries to end all trade with North Korea.” [9]

At the same hearing, the Treasury Assistant Secretary Marshall Billingslea mentioned that his department had worked with the Justice Department to blacklist Russia’s Independent Petroleum Company in June, along with associated individuals and companies, for having shipped oil to North Korea. Despite the fact that there was no UN resolution at that time which forbade such trade, the U.S. seized nearly $7 million belonging to the company and its partners. [10]

Acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton was, if anything, more aggressive in her rhetoric than her colleagues, announcing that “we continue to call for all countries to cut trade ties with Pyongyang to increase North Korea’s financial isolation and choke off revenue sources.” She cautioned China and Russia that they must acquiesce to U.S. demands, warning them that if they “do not act, we will use the tools we have at our disposal. Just last month we rolled out new sanctions targeting Russian and Chinese individuals and entities supporting the DPRK.” [11]

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had threats to deliver, as well, warning China that if its actions against North Korea fail to live up to U.S. expectations, “we will put additional sanctions on them and prevent them from accessing the U.S. and international dollar system.” [12] Since all international financial transactions process through the U.S. banking system, this threat is tantamount to shutting down Beijing’s ability to conduct trade with any nation. It was a rather extravagant threat, and undoubtedly a difficult one to pull off, but one which the Trump administration is just reckless enough to consider undertaking.

There is nothing illegal or forbidden in a nation trading with North Korea in non-prohibited commodities. Yet, a total trade blockade is what Washington is after. U.S. officials are preparing sanctions against foreign banks and companies that do business with North Korea. “We intend to deny the regime its last remaining sources of revenue, unless and until it reverses course and denuclearizes,” Billingslea darkly warns. “Those who collaborate with them are exposing themselves to enormous jeopardy.” [13] In essence, Washington is running an international protection racket: give us what we demand, or we will hurt you. This is gangsterism as foreign policy.

China opposed the UN sanctions that the Trump administration presented at the UN Security Council in September. However, according to U.S. and UN officials, the United States managed to extort China’s acquiescence by threatening to hit Chinese businesses with secondary sanctions. [14]

Before the August UN vote, similar threats were conveyed to Chinese diplomats at the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, as U.S. officials indicated that ten businesses and individuals would be sanctioned if China did not vote in favor of sanctions. [15]

As a shot across the bow, the U.S. sanctioned the Chinese Bank of Dandong back in June, leading to Western firms severing contacts with the institution. [16]

Washington’s threats prompted China to implement steps in the financial realm that exceed what is called for by the UN Security Council resolutions. China’s largest banks have banned North Korean individuals and entities from opening new accounts, and some firms are not allowing deposits in existing accounts. [17] There is no UN prohibition on North Koreans opening accounts abroad, so the action is regarded as a proactive measure by Chinese banks to avoid becoming the target of U.S. sanctions. [18]

The demands never cease, no matter how much China gives way. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently insisted that China impose a total oil embargo on North Korea. [19] China refused to go along, but it can expect be subjected to mounting pressure from the U.S. in the weeks ahead.

U.S. officials are fanning out across the globe, seeking to cajole or threaten other nations to join the anti-DPRK crusade. Since most nations stand to lose far more by displeasing the U.S. than in ending a longstanding relationship with the DPRK, the campaign is having an effect.

In April, India banned all trade with North Korea, with the exception of food and medicine. This action failed to satisfy the Trump administration, which sent officials to New Delhi to ask for the curtailing of diplomatic contacts with the DPRK and help in monitoring North Korean economic activities in the region.[20] The Philippines, for its part, responded to U.S. demands by suspending all trade activity with North Korea. [21] Mexico and Peru are among the nations that are expelling North Korean diplomats, on the arbitrary basis of responding to U.S. directives. [22] In addition to announcing that it would reduce North Korea’s diplomatic staff, Kuwait also said it would no longer issue visas to North Korean citizens. [23]

Many African nations have warm relations with the DPRK, dating back to the period of the continent’s liberation struggles. U.S. officials are focusing particular attention on Africa, and several nations are currently under investigation by the United Nations for their trade with North Korea. [24] The demand to cut relations with North Korea is not an easy sell for Washington, as Africans remember the U.S. for having backed apartheid regimes, while the DPRK had supported African liberation. “Our world outlook was determined by who was on our side during the most crucial time of our struggle, and North Korea was there for us,” says Tuliameni Kalomoh, an official in Namibia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [25] This is not the kind of language Washington likes to hear. U.S. economic power is sufficient to ruin any small nation, and with little choice in the matter, Namibia cancelled all contracts with North Korean firms. [26]

Egypt and Uganda are among the nations that have cut ties with the DPRK, and more nations are expected to follow suit, as the United States turns up the heat. Outside of the United Nations, the Trump administration is systematically erecting a total trade blockade against North Korea. Through this means, the U.S. hopes that North Korea will capitulate. That aim is premised on a serious misjudgment of the North Korean character.

The Trump administration claims that UN sanctions and its policy of maximum pressure are intended to bring North Korea to the negotiating table. But it is not the DPRK that needs to be persuaded to talk. President Trump has tweeted, “Talking is not the answer!”  U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert laid down a stringent condition for negotiations: “For us to engage in talks with the DPRK, they would have to denuclearize.” [27] The demand for North Korea to give the United States everything it wants upfront, without receiving anything in return, as a precondition for talks is such an obvious nonstarter that it has to be regarded as a recipe for avoiding diplomacy.

North Korea contacted the Obama administration on several occasions and requested talks, only to be rebuffed each time and told it needed to denuclearize. This sad disconnect continues under Trump. In May, the DPRK informed the United States that it would stop nuclear testing and missile launches if the U.S. would drop its hostile policy and sanctions, as well as sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War. [28] The U.S. may not have cared for the conditions, but it could have suggested adjustments, had it been so inclined. Certainly, it was an opening that could have led to dialogue.

It is not diplomacy that the Trump administration seeks, but to crush North Korea. If the ostensible reason for UN sanctions is to persuade a reluctant party to negotiate, then one can only conclude that the wrong nation is being sanctioned. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying was scathing in her criticism of American and British leaders: “They are the loudest when it comes to sanctions, but nowhere to be found when it comes to making efforts to promote peace talks. They want nothing to do with responsibility.” [29] The months ahead look bleak. Unless China and Russia can find a way to oppose U.S. designs without becoming targets themselves, the North Korean people will stand alone and bear the burden of Trump’s malice. It says something for their character that they refuse to be cowed.


[1] SC/12945, “Security Council Toughens Sanctions Against Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2371 (2017), United Nations Security Council, August 5, 2017.

[2] “UN Security Council Toughens Sanctions on North Korea,” Radio Free Europe, September 12, 2017.

[3] Sue-Lin Wong, Richa Naidu, “U.N. Ban on North Korean Textiles Will Disrupt Industry and Ordinary Lives, Experts Say,” Reuters, September 12, 2017.

[4] “Prolonged Dry Weather Threatens the 2017 Main Season Food Crop Production,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, July 20, 2017.

[5] “North Korean Food Imports Climb in June: KITA,” NK News, August 18, 2017.

[6] “Fact Sheet: Resolution 2375 (2017) Strengthening Sanctions on North Korea,” United States Mission to the United Nations, September 11, 2017.

[7] SC/12983, “Security Council Imposes Fresh Sanctions on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Including Bans on Natural Gas Sales, Worth Authorizations for its Nationals,” United Nations Security Council, September 11, 2017.

[8] “Fact Sheet: Resolution 2375 (2017) Strengthening Sanctions on North Korea,” United States Mission to the United Nations, September 11, 2017.

[9] Opening Statement of the Honorable Ed Royce (R-CA), “Sanctions, Diplomacy, and Information: Pressuring North Korea,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing, September 12, 2017.

[10] “Testimony of Assistant Secretary Marshall S. Billingslea,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing, September 12, 2017.

“Treasury Sanctions Suppliers of North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Proliferation Programs,” U.S. Department of Treasury, June 1, 2017.

[11] “Statement of Susan Thornton, Acting Secretary of State,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing, September 12, 2017.

[12] Ian Talley, “U.S. Threatens China Over North Korea Sanctions,” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2017.

[13] Ian Talley, “U.S. Threatens China Over North Korea Sanctions,” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2017.

[14] “Clear and Present Blackmail: US Coaxes China to Back Anti-N Korea UN Resolution,” Sputnik News, September 12, 2017.

[15] Yi Yong-in, “US Pledges to Sanction Ten More Chinese Entities if China Doesn’t Cooperate in NK UNSC Resolution,” Hankyoreh, July 22, 2017.

[16] Matthew Pennington, “US Blacklists China Bank, Revving Up Pressure Over NKorea,” Associated Press, June 30, 2017.

Joel Schectman and David Brunnstrom, “U.S. targets Chinese Bank, Company, Two Individuals Over North Korea,” Reuters, June 20, 2017.

[17] “China’s Biggest Banks Ban New North Korean Accounts,” Financial Times, September 12, 2017.

[18] Stephen McDonell, “China Banks Fear US North Korea Sanctions,” BBC News, September 12, 2017.

[19] Nick Wadhams, “China Rebuffs U.S. Demand to Cut Off Oil Exports to North Korea,” September 15, 2017.

[20] Indrani Bagchi, “Scale Back Engagement with North Korea, US Tells India,” The Times of India, July 30, 2017.

[21] “Philippines Suspends Trade with N. Korea,” Yonhap, September 9, 2017.

[22] “North Korea-U.S. Te4nsions Are Not Mexico’s Business: Diplomat,” Reuters, September 8, 2017.

“Peru Says Expelling North Korean Ambassador Over Nuclear Program,” Reuters, September 11, 2017.

[23] “Kuwait Decides to Reduce N.K. Diplomatic Staff, Stops Issuing Visas for N. Koreans,” Yonhap, September 16, 2017.

[24] Kevin J. Kelley, “UN Probes Tanzania and Uganda Deals with North Korea,” East African, September 13, 2017.

[25] Kevin Sieff, “North Korea’s Surprising, Lucrative Relationship with Africa,” Washington Post, July 10, 2017.

[26] George Hendricks, “North Korean Contracts Terminated,” The Namibian, September 15, 2017.

[27] Heather Nauert, “Department Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, June 15, 2017.

[28] Jeong Yong-soo, “In May, North Offered to End Testing if Washington Backs Off,” JoongAng Ilbo, September 5, 2017.

[29] “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on August 30, 2017,” (China) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 30, 2017.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language. He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific. His website is Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich


Wilkerson: Trump a 'Diplomatic Fiasco' at the UN

MLM and the National Question by Nickglais : The National Question in the Basque Country and Catalonia

The National Question in the Basque Country and Catalonia

Democracy and Class Struggle opposes the Imperialist States of Britain and France and Spain - these Imperialist States arose by conquering the nations within those states and practiced in many cases colonial practices on those conquered nations  - before exporting those colonial practices  to overseas colonies  - it is time for the nations in these states to begin their process of National and Social Liberation.

Our Comrades in Wales statement on Catalonia captures the democratic content of these national struggles.

Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr says the Catalan struggle is basically a struggle for democracy against a corrupt bourgeois Spanish State which has taken a national form in Catalonia.

However the bourgeois nationalist Catalan leadership seeks to subordinate Catalonia to a corrupt Brussels and the European Union - this is  not national liberation but a readjustment among the national bourgeois in the Spanish State and Europe.

The Revolutionary Left in Catalonia should oppose both the corrupt Spanish State and the corrupt European Union and NATO and elevate the working class to political leadership of the national struggle for democracy in Catalonia - the working class should win the direction of national liberation.

Democracy and Class Struggles says we must oppose revisionism on the National Question which does not recognize these popular mass struggles as part of the democratic class struggle for socialism and develop the Marxist Leninist Maoist Position on Imperialist States and national struggles within those States.

Whether it was Marx ridiculing Paul Lafargue who said that socialism had abolished nationalities has he addressed the First International in French language which nine tenths of the audience did not understand - to Lenin in a bout of criticism and self criticism who castigated those that oppose pure socialism to the national struggle something he had been prone to do before the First World War .

Lenin had opened his eyes wide open to Imperialism and the National Question  in 1916 as a result of the Easter Rising and we thank James Connolly for his education of Lenin on this question.

Lenin denounced Imperialist Economism on the National Question

It was the doctrine that it was sufficient for a workers’ party to prefer proletarian demands, and that democratic demands were not their business. 

Imperialist Economism is something that pervades vast sections of the erstwhile Left Today even those that have the pretense to be revolutionary and is one of the contributing factors to the renewed strength of the political right.

Stalin was even critical of his pre First World War Marxism and The National Question article because its was a pre Imperialist analysis of the the National Question.

Stalin Wrote :

“Stalin’s pamphlet was written before the imperialist war, at the time when the national question had not yet assumed world-wide significance in the eyes of Marxists, and when the basic demands concerning the right to self-determination were considered to be, not a part of the proletarian revolution, but a part of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. It would be absurd to ig-nore the fact that since then a fundamental change has taken place in the international situation, that the war on the one hand and the October revolu-tion in Russia on the other has converted the national question from being a particle of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a particle of the proletar-ian-socialist revolution.”

Revolutionary Marxism Leninism did not stop developing its work on the National Question in the 1920's but was further developed by Ibrahim Kaypakkaya who was inspired by Mao Zedong Thought in Turkey in the 1970's with his path breaking  work on the Kurdish National Question which brought clarity to the communist movement on the Kurdish Question unlike the Post Nationalism of Abdullah Ocalan which has brought nothing but confusion.

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya is a solid base on which to develop a Marxist Leninist Maoist View of the National Question and Imperialism in the 21st Century in the spirit of Marx Engels Lenin Stalin and Mao Zedong.

Democracy and Class Struggle is a platform for the further development of Marxism Leninism Maoism on the National Question and Imperialism.

                                     A Europe of Nations


Sunday, September 17, 2017

Pablo Hasel - Resiste Venezuela (y que duela)

Democracy and Class Struggle says the Venezuelan People can only ultimately defeat US Imperialism with People's War.

Gente do "Sendero Lumininso" ( People of the Shining Path)

Democracy and Class Struggle says 25 years after the arrest and imprisonment of Chairman Gonzalo what became of the movement and the ideas he developed in Ayachuco Peru ?

The movement certainly suffered a setback and Harsh Thakor analyses some of the reasons here

However in the last 25 years the ideas of Marxism Leninism Maoism have spread like wildfire - with notable MLM movements in India and Nepal, Philippines and Turkey  MLM has also arisen in North America and Europe and Africa and Middle East.

The revolutionary ideology of  MLM is still under development and application - but history will record it as one of Chairman Gonzalo's immortal contributions to have systematized and summarized the contribution of Chairman Mao Zedong as the third stage of communism. 

Democracy and Class Struggle says Chairman Gonzalo's immortal contribution is a summation of Mao Zedong's contribution - it was not merely local Mao Zedong Thought but universal Marxism Leninism Maoism an idea that cannot be imprisoned that is rapidly developing in the real world in the last 25 years - that was summarized by Chairman Gonzalo.

The Path Shines bigger and brighter today around the world -  thanks to the people of Ayachuco who lit the first flame.

The Future of Warfare by Andrew Feinstein

Saturday, September 16, 2017

MLM for Red Power by Tjen Folket - Serve the People - Norway

The following is the keynote speech given by an activist during Serve the People – Norway’s summer camp in 2016 for the study subject “MLM – Party and Ideology”. Some parts have been edited for print.

A: Maoism is Today’s Marxism

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) was formulated in the 1980s, not by Mao or the Chinese communists who lived in his time, but by revolutionary communists waging people’s war in Peru, and later internationally by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and the parties waging people’s war in the Philippines, Nepal, Turkey, and India.

Prior to this, there were several who claimed to be building on “Mao Zedong Thought”. However, this is not the same as MLM. They recognized Mao as a great revolutionary leader and his thoughts as a creative expression of Marxism-Leninism in the specific case of China, but they did not speak of Maoism as a new and higher stage of Marxism.

We say that Maoism IS Marxism today. Maoism is not a “Chinese Marxism”—it is today’s Marxism for today’s world. Marxism must develop in order to be Marxism. It cannot become rigid like some religious dogma. Just as Leninism was Marxism yesterday, Maoism is Marxism today. Today, pre-Maoist Marxism is rigid dogmatism that belongs to another time.

B: Three points about what Maoism is and what it is not

1) Maoism is not about Mao as an individual. It is not a cultivation of Mao’s character. Mao and his name are symbols for the third stage of development of revolutionary science for the proletariat. This is why Mao’s personal life is nowhere near central when we discuss Maoism. What is central is the political development and future of our ideology.

Stalin claimed that theory only becomes a material force when the masses seize it, make it their own, and use it to change reality. This is also the case for Maoism. It was not until the masses took Mao’s teachings in the struggle against Soviet revisionism, in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and later in other people’s wars that it became a material force. Material forces are the only reason MLM is of interest to the proletariat.

We do not display Mao’s face as some object for worship, but rather as a symbol for an ideological direction and to openly show who we are and what we stand for.

2) Maoism’s core is the line for establishing proletarian political power, red power, through protracted people’s war and cultural revolution. The question of political power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the key question in Marxism, in Leninism—and in Maoism.

Maoism offers new concepts for Marxism’s teachings on proletarian power:

The protracted people’s war is the proletarian political-military strategy for liberating areas from the bourgeoisie’s control and building red power and socialism there.

Proletarian cultural revolution must continue under socialism, all the way to communism, in order to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in all areas.

The mass line as a method, standpoint, and perspective—based the fact that it is the people and the people alone who are the driving force of changing history and the application of this fact in our work.

The three tools; the party, the front, and the army, as a proletarian necessity for carrying out people’s war, building the new worker’s state and grasping political power.

This clear formulation is fundamentally new content that lifts ML to MLM—and distinguishes MLM from all the other tendencies that call themselves revolutionary and Marxist. It provides a general line for the development of the proletarian struggle all the way from capitalism’s vale of tears to a communist world.

This line does not give us ALL of the answers, but it provides us with the theoretical tools we need to find the answers from the biggest questions to the smallest concerns.

3) MLM is a science, and like every other science, it must be tested against experiment and it must develop according to new facts. This is precisely how the current form of MLM was established. A former politician of Rødt [Red Party, a parliamentary party in Norway] once told me that naming ideologies after people was an old European priestly tradition. But this is not true. Within several scientific disciplines, this is the norm. We speak of Newton’s Law and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We speak of Darwinism and a stone statue of Darwin sits in front of the natural history museum in London.

When MLMs are given flak for using people’s names and faces, it is nothing but rhetoric. People must be encouraged to focus on the political content we offer, on Maoism’s strategy and Maoism’s line. When we present the Five Great Teachers and speak of MLM, it is a fundamentally honest approach where we allow people to see us for who we truly are. We make it possible for people to genuinely research what it is we stand for, by understanding what we base ourselves on and why. This is a scientific approach to politics—in stark contrast to the bourgeoisie and other opportunists, who are most often notorious liars who deceive and knowingly or otherwise obscure the source of their thoughts and theories.

MLM is a tool for revolutionary practice, and it has proven itself to be a reliable resource. In a number of countries, it has been Maoist people’s wars that have shown themselves to be the most advanced revolutionary struggles of our time.

The world is constantly changing. Marxism was developed in the 19th century. Leninism was formulated in the 1920s. We have had nearly 100 years of class war, revolutions, counterrevolutions, cultural revolutions and people’s wars since Lenin—and it has been over 150 years since Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto. Yet, there are those who can suggest that we need to “return” Marxism to Marx, or that Marxism-Leninism stopped developing in 1922. This is a dogmatism that fails to take into account the huge leaps that the people have taken since then—nor does it take into account the failures. We should not accept these ideological errors if we are serious about crushing capitalism.

C: Can we be in a hurry for a long time?

Serve the People – Norway has phrased our main objective in the following way: we must create the conditions for establishing a true communist party in Norway. Such a party will serve and lead the proletariat and all the people in their struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

We live in exciting times. People are rebelling in France against worsened working conditions and labour laws, Brits want to leave the EU, the bourgeoisie themselves are fearing serious crises in the near future, Ukraine is in a low-intensity civil war, Syria is being torn to pieces by war and imperialism, Libya is constantly being bombed by NATO planes, politicians in the West have record-low approval ratings, the old parties are losing their influence and votes, thousands of Western youth are becoming jihadists for ISIS—the world burns and the world still cries out for revolution. It will never stop!

The capitalists will never become greens. They will never voluntarily stop killing ocean life and destroying the forests. They will never give everybody food, a job, and a home. They will continue to practice violence and terror to keep the people down and split and oppress the proletariat.

They will continue until the proletariat stops it. Nobody else will. And we can only do this with a scientific revolutionary political line and a real communist party in the leadership. But perhaps we need to break with two dangerous ideas—the first one, that says that we have plenty of time, and the second one that says that we will win a quick victory. Perhaps we should insist that despite the fact that we have extremely little time—not a second to lose—it will still take a very long time to motivate, mobilize, and organized the proletariat over and over again for revolution and communism. Maybe MLM is a resource that can help us to remain in a hurry over an extended period of time.

This task will be extremely difficult! It will not be easy! Even the best tools in the world demand blood, sweat and tears if they are to be used to create anything on the order of what we want to create. But without these tools, it would be impossible to reach our goal, a goal that is worth all the exhaustion and struggle: a communist world built on the ashes of capitalism.



Japanese Education already a problem on Second World War now seeks to exclude real North Korean History for Korean Students by withdrawing subsidy to Korean Schools in Japan

Democracy and Class Struggle says the Japanese Education System teaches justificatory education for Japanese Imperialism now also seeks to attack Korean Schools in Japan which teach the real North Korean History of Korea not the fake military history taught in South Korea.

Recent changes by Moon Jae-in Presidency to allow more honest versions of history in South Korean schools as advocated by Korean Teachers Union shows the importance of history for resolution of inter Korean Conflict.

This action cannot be taken in isolation from other anti Korean acts in Japan and a total inability of Japan to deal with its past with its neighbours and play a necessary constructive role in resolution of the Korean conflict.

Rohingya: Hate Speech, lies and media misinformation

Democracy and Class Struggle says Burma has a problem recognizing minority groups be they Karen or Rohingya their inability to extent rights to non Buddhist minorities bodes ill for Burma's future - we trust Burmese Maoist Communist revolutionaries can take on the problems its bourgeoisie cannot solve and help all Burmese People to a bright future.

Mode of Production in India - Semi feudal and Semi Colonial - N.Venugopal

Should Catalonia be independent from Spain?

Democracy and Class Struggle says the Catalan struggle is basically a struggle for democracy against a corrupt bourgeois Spanish State which has taken a national form in Catalonia.

However the bourgeois nationalist Catalan leadership seeks to subordinate Catalonia to a corrupt Brussels and the European Union - this is  not national liberation but a readjustment among the national bourgeois in the Spanish State and Europe.

The Revolutionary Left in Catalonia should oppose both the corrupt Spanish State and the corrupt European Union and NATO and elevate the working class to political leadership of the national struggle for democracy in Catalonia - the working class should win the direction of national liberation.



Friday, September 15, 2017

Korean Tragedy by Tim Beal - The Failure of Moon Jae-in

Democracy and Class Struggle says we like many others have been very disappointed by the new President of South Korea given that his actions today are the opposite of his words yesterday - Tim Beal  has written a three part article on the failure of Moon Jae-in - 

We publish the third part but strongly recommend you read the parts one and two which we have linked to our pages get a better understanding of Moon Jae-in's failures and what South Korea needs to do to improve inter Korean Relations. 

Since parts one and two of this article were published on 15 August (by a cruel irony the anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonialism), events have moved rapidly and decisively to confirm that Moon Jae-in’s failure to seek autonomy from American dominance and his enthusiastic embrace of the client status manifested in the US-SK alliance is pushing his country, the peninsula and perhaps the world deeper into danger.

The major events in this short period were North Korea’s test of a Hwasong-12 intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) on 29 August and the nuclear test, purportedly of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)-compatible H-bomb on 3 September. Both tests demonstrated North Korea’s rapid progress in developing a nuclear deterrent, and although development has been faster than American experts expected, the tests were predictable.

As long as the US refuses to engage in meaningful negotiations, Pyongyang has little choice but to press ahead. Moreover North Korea is in a perilous situation at the moment–the period between America’s realisation that before too long it will have the capability to deliver a high-yield bomb to the US mainland, and the attainment of that capability.

This imparts great urgency to North Korea’s programme. Once it has the perceived capability of hitting the US mainland, it is probably safe from US attack–unless that were part of a war against China. Until then, at least in the eyes of President Trump, it will be a question of a war that ‘…will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here.’

In truth, deaths might number millions, including more than 300,000 American civilians and soldiers in the region who would be vulnerable, but the principle holds good. The costs of war would be paid mainly in Korea and the immediate region, and would not be shared by the United States. 

President Moon’s confidence that he can forbid the US from going to war seems misplaced.

Whilst the nuclear test was very important in demonstrating North Korea’s ability to construct an advanced nuclear device, one capable of obliterating Seoul, it was the missile test that perhaps best highlighted the foolishness and dangers of Moon’s policy. 

The Hwasong-12 was not, as in previous tests, notably that of the Hwasong-14 ICBM in July, on ‘lofted trajectory’ where it would fall short of Japan, but on a standard trajectory whereby, given the constraints of geography, it had to overfly Japan.

It was sent on the safest possible course, over the Tsugaru Strait between Hokkaido and Honshu and would have been well above Japanese airspace, as a map in the New York Times makes clear.

Although the Japanese government made as much fuss as it could, stirring up public opinion with sirens, with Abe Shinzo seeing this as another opportunity to advance Japanese remilitarisation, in fact the Hwasong-12 test posed little danger to Japan. 

Indeed, North Korea’s development of long-range missiles actually lessens the risk.

The nuclear deterrent is a matter between the United States and North Korea.

The US threatens North Korea, despite the sanctimonious and dishonest spin from Mattis and Tillerson.

North Korea threatens retaliation if attacked.

Given that its deterrent arsenal is very limited, it will focus on the United States.

Japan would suffer collateral damage, because it is part of the American war machine. 

However long-range missiles are designed for distant targets – Guam and then the continental US – and not for Tokyo.

In that calculus, the more North Korea is able to strike back directly at the US, the less likely it is to waste resources on Japan.

Making use of a perceived threat from North Korean IRBMs and ICBMs makes sense for Abe because it furthers his aim of remilitarisation, revising the constitution and making Japan a ‘normal country’.

For Moon the situation is rather different. As with Japan, and for the same reasons of geography and technology, North Korean long-range missiles have no direct military significance and produce a constraint on precipitate American action.

Yet Moon’s response to the Hwasong-12 test was as belligerent as that of Abe, or of Trump. Moon had declared on 17 August that a North Korean ICBM would be a ‘red line.’ This was a particularly strange thing to do.

It is usually considered that drawing ‘red lines’ is an unwise strategy, because it yields the initiative to others. 

Here it was even more foolish, because an ICBM test would be a matter of US-North Korea dynamics over which South Korea would have no control and precious little influence.

Moon’s statements demonstrated and deepened the predicament into which his failure to distance himself from the US has brought him and his country. 

He is reduced to waving the American flag more vigorously than the Americans themselves and to no avail.

Trump has publicly chastised him for not being loyal enough – the charge of ‘appeasement’ towards the enemy – and has indicated that he will withdraw from the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) and inflict various other economic and social damages on South Korea.

There is little gratitude there for Moon’s subservience.

THAAD deployment is being expanded, despite local protests and the great damage done to its relations with China. Hyundai is closing down plants in China, and Beijing appears to have made it clear that Moon will not be invited to China this year.

The meeting with President Putin in Vladivostok seems to have been polite but perhaps a little frosty – certainly there was no agreement on the North Korean issues, and Putin explicitly rebuffed Moon on oil sanctions.

The only foreign leader who seems to agree with Moon on North Korea is Abe Shinzo.

Moon Jae-in has not promoted peace when he could have, either bilaterally, such as by reopening Kaesong, or on the international stage by supporting the Chinese/Russia freeze-for-freeze tension–reducing proposal.

On the contrary, his interventions have reinforced American intransigence. His call for China to stop oil exports to North Korea was a mix of the impotent – it is unlikely that China will oblige – and the malevolent – if China did cut back it would have impact not on North Korea’s military capability but on the welfare of the people.

So far President Moon’s public support is holding up remarkably well, but then the media gives him an easy ride.

The liberal press supports him, because he is one of theirs and the conservatives, grudgingly, because he is following their programme in respect of North Korea.

But ultimately he can satisfy the conservatives no more than he can Trump, and the dissatisfaction of both will grow.

He remains popular with ordinary people, because his personal style is a refreshing contrast to that of Park Geun-hye. 

Moreover in a time of crisis, people tend to rally around incumbent authority.

However it is uncertain how long Moon’s levitation can defy gravity; leaders that embody great promise on their road to power but betray those aspirations when in office can suffer a precipitate decline in popularity.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

North Korea- Peace is on our Bayonet - However Precious Peace is - We will never beg for it

Democracy and Class Struggle says  the anti imperialism of North Korea is its living spirit from its birth as nation in the fires of the American War in Korea  to today it has faced all manner of threats and intimidation from the United States including nuclear.

North Korea NOT the United States wants  a PEACE TREATY for the KOREAN PENINSULA and not just an ARMISTICE..

Peace is on our Bayonet - However Precious Peace is - We will Not Beg for It.

5000 Years of Korean History is our strength

China's Maritime Strategic Realignment

Pablo Hasel - Catalan Comrade on Indian Maoists Naxalites

Revolutionary Movement in Punjab - Experiences of Agrarian Revolution : Sukhvinder

Democracy and Class Struggle says another excellent speech from Hyderabad Naxalbari Seminar from Sukhvinder.




Around 2000 students assembled in Patiala  today from Punjab Students Union.First a huge rally was theld  for 1km reaching the house of Congress minister Amrinder Singh.

The Police interspersed the students at this juncture.

The main demands were for free education for girl students as promised by govt,for scraping fee rise,scholarships,and opposing privatisation of educational institutions .

The fierce determination expressed by students has great significance who displayed their vent against the wrath of the anti-poor socio-economic political order.

The wrath of the fascist govt policies is sharpening contradictions  affecting the student community of which many are forced to leave education.Students assembled from districts of Patiala,Barnala,Moga,Bathinda,Faridkot,Mansa Muktsar,Jalandhar and Gursapur.

Basically the state-level gathering was a success in awakening the student comunity.It sowed the seeds for the resurrection of the great movement of Punjab Students Union of the 1970's that challenged the repressive social system and played a vanguard role in the anti-feudal struggle.

Today's event continued the thread of the state level gathering in March commemorating Shaheed Bhagat Singh.

Maoists condemn Gauri Lankesh murder, ask people to hit streets for ‘determined fight’

Democracy and Class Struggle says that Hindu Fascist forces responsible for murder of Gauri Lankesh in typical fascist manner try to flip the script on their murder of Gauri Lankesh by blaming Maoists.

Her is a statement by comrade Abhay on this sick lie by Hindu Fascists.

The Communist Party of India (Maoist) has rejected the “propaganda by Hindu fascist forces” that Kannada journalist Gauri Lankesh was killed by Maoists.

It said that the “Sangh Parivar” killed Lankesh to muzzle the voice of pro-people forces.

In a release issued by Abhay, spokesman for Central Committee of CPI (Maoist), said, “The party strongly condemns the murder of Leftist, pro-people, progressive and democratic journalist Gauri Lankesh by Brahminical fascist goons of the Sangh Parivar protected by the BJP government at the Centre.

The party appeals to all like-minded forces to hit the streets for a determined fight against the forces that killed Lankesh.”

Observing that Lankesh fearlessly campaigned for the downtrodden and the marginalised, against atrocities on minorities by Hindutva forces and corrupt governments, the party has said, “Lankesh had become an eyesore for the Hindutva forces ever since she had translated the book ‘Gujarat Files’ by Gujarat journalist Rana Ayyub exposing the involvement of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah in the Muslim carnage in 2002.

She had printed the matter in her publication in Kannada language.

The fascist Hindutva hand was evident from the fact that BJP leader D N Yuvraj had said that she would have been alive had she not celebrated the death of RSS people.”

The CPI (Maoist) also targeted PM Modi for his silence on her murder which it says was “indicative of the Hindutva hand in her murder”. “It is their lowly and dirty act to pressure and get her brother to hint at the possibility of Maoist hand in her murder,” the release further says.

The party has rubbished the probe ordered into Lankesh’s murder saying, “when the rulers themselves are complicit in it, everybody knows what is going to be the outcome of such a probe.

That is the reason, till now, there has been no headway in the probe in the murders of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, Leftist thinker Govind Pansare and progressive writer M M Kalburgi.”

The party called for intensifying struggle against “fascist Hindutva forces” by all progressive and democratic forces beyond “symbolic protests” with “now or never” urgency.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

You must tell the World : 25 years On The Arrest of Chairman Gonzalo



Democracy and Class Struggle says Chairman Gonzalo's immortal contribution is a summation of Mao Zedong's contribution - it was not merely local Mao Zedong Thought but universal Marxism Leninism Maoism an idea that cannot be imprisoned that is rapidly developing in the real world in the last 25 years - that was summarized by Chairman Gonzalo.

Our Critics usually confound Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism Leninism Maoism - ignorance being the hallmark of revisionism they do not study the concrete conditions and reality but parrot a Marxism Leninism from a bygone age that has long been superceded thanks to the work of Chairman Gonzalo.

Free Chairman Gonzalo Now !

Brazil Corruption Scandals: No Winners, No End in Sight

FBI, DOJ Eye Russian Media Outlets as "Foreign Agents"

More Speeches from Hyderabad on Naxalbari 50 Years

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

25 Years since Arrest of Chairman Gonzalo : Maoism - On Marxism Leninism Maoism

Democracy and Class Struggle upholds Marxism Leninism Maoism against Marxism Leninism in our recent exchange with Finnish Bolshevik here

Democracy and Class Struggle says Chairman Gonzalo's immortal contribution is a summation of Mao Zedong's contribution - it was not merely local Mao Zedong Thought but universal Marxism Leninism Maoism an idea that cannot be imprisoned that is rapidly developing in the real world in the last 25 years - that was summarized by Chairman Gonzalo.

Our Critics usually confound Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism Leninism Maoism - ignorance being the hallmark of revisionism they do not study the concrete conditions and reality but parrot a Marxism Leninism from a bygone age that has long been superceded thanks to the work of Chairman Gonzalo.

Free Chairman Gonzalo Now !


In the furnace of class struggle, the ideology of the international proletariat emerged as Marxism, afterwards developed into Marxism-Leninism and later Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Therefore, the scientific ideology of the proletariat, all-powerful because it is true, has three stages or landmarks in its dialectical process of development: 1) Marxism, 2) Leninism, and 3) Maoism. These three stages are part of the same unity which began with the Communist Manifesto one hundred and forty years ago, with the heroic epic of the class struggle, in fierce and fruitful two-line struggles within the communist parties themselves and in the titanic work of thought and action that only the working class could generate. Today, three unfading lights are outstanding: Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung who, through three grand leaps have armed us with the invincible ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which today is principally Maoism.

Nevertheless, while Marxism-Leninism has obtained an acknowledgment of its universal validity, Maoism is not completely acknowledged as the third stage. Some simply deny its condition as such, while others only accept it as “Mao Tse-tung Thought.” In essence, both positions, with the obvious differences between them, deny the general development of Marxism made by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. The denial of the “ism” character of Maoism denies its universal validity and, consequently, its condition as the third, new, and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, that we uphold, defend, and apply.

As an INTRODUCTION, in order to better understand Maoism and the necessity to struggle for it, let us remember Lenin. He taught us that as the revolution advanced to the East it expressed specific conditions that, while they did not negate principles or laws, were new situations that Marxism could not ignore, upon the risk of putting the revolution in danger of a defeat. Notwithstanding the uproar against what is new by pedantic and bookish intellectuals, who are stuffed with liberalism and false Marxism, the only just and correct thing to do is to apply Marxism to the concrete conditions and to solve the new situations and problems that every revolution necessarily faces. In the face of the horrified and pharisaic “defenses of the ideology, the class, and of the people” that revisionists, opportunists and renegades proclaim, or the furious attacks against Marxism by brutalized academicians and hacks of the old order who are debased by the rotten bourgeois ideology and blindly defend the old society on which they are parasites. Lenin also said clearly that the revolution in the East would present new and great surprises to the greater amazement of the worshipers of following only the well-trodden paths who are incapable of seeing the new; and, as we all know, he trusted the Eastern comrades to resolve the problems that Marxism had not yet resolved.

Furthermore, we must keep well in mind that when Comrade Stalin justly and correctly stated that we had entered the stage of Leninism as the development of Marxism, there was also opposition by those who rend their garments in a supposed defense of Marxism. There were also those who said that Leninism was only applicable to the backward countries. But, in the midst of struggle, practice has consecrated Leninism as a great development of Marxism, and thus the proletarian ideology shone victoriously in the face of the world as Marxism-Leninism.

Today, Maoism faces similar situations. All new things, like Marxism, have always advanced through struggle, and similarly, Maoism will impose itself and be acknowledged.

As for the CONTEXT in which Chairman Mao Tse-tung developed and Maoism was forged, on an international level it was on the basis of imperialism, world wars, the international proletarian movement, the national liberation movement, the struggle between Marxism and revisionism, and the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Three big historical landmarks must be emphasized in the present century: first, the October Revolution of 1917, which opened the era of the world proletarian revolution; second, the triumph of the Chinese Revolution, in 1949, which changed the correlation of forces in favor of socialism; and third, the great proletarian cultural revolution, which began in 1966 as the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship in order to maintain the revolutionary course towards Communism. It is enough to emphasize that Chairman Mao led two of these glorious historical feats.

In China, as the center of world revolution, Maoism was concretely expressed within the most complex convergence of contradictions, and the intense and ruthless class struggle which was marked by the pretensions of the imperialist powers of tearing and dividing up China after the collapse of the Manchurian Empire (1911), the anti-imperialist movement of 1919, the revolts of the great peasant masses, the twenty-two years of armed struggle of the democratic revolution, the great contest for the building and development of socialism and the ten years of revolutionary storms for carrying forward the Cultural Revolution, as well as the sharpest two-line struggle within the Communist Party of China, especially against revisionism. All this was framed within the international situation described above. It is out of this aggregate of historical deeds that we have to extract four events of extraordinary importance: The founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1921; the Autumn Harvest uprising which initiated the path from the countryside to the city, in 1925; the founding of the People’s Republic, 1949; and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR), from 1966-1976; in all of which Chairman Mao was a protagonist and the acknowledged leader of the Chinese Revolution.

We can say from Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s biography that he was born on December 26th 1893, opening his eyes to an agitated world scorched by the flames of war; son of peasants, he was seven years old when “Boxer Rebellions” began; a student at a Teachers’ Training College, he was in his eighteenth year when the empire collapsed and he enlisted himself as a soldier, later to become a great organizer of peasants and of the youth in Hunan, his native province. Founder of the Communist Party and of the Red Army of workers and peasants, he established the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside developing People’s War as the military theory of the proletariat. He was the theoretician of New Democracy and founder of the People’s Republic; a promoter of the Great Leap Forward and of the development of socialism; the leader of the struggle against the contemporary revisionism of Khrushchev and his henchmen, leader and head of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. These are landmarks of a life devoted thoroughly and solely to the revolution. The proletariat has seen three gigantic triumphs in this century: Two of them belong to Chairman Mao, and if one is glory enough, two are even more.

On the CONTENT of Maoism, of its substance, we must point out the following basic issues:

1. Theory. Marxism has three parts: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The development of all these three components gives rise to a great qualitative leap of Marxism as a whole, as a unity on a superior level, which implies a new stage. Consequently, the essential thing is to show that Chairman Mao, as can be seen in theory and practice, has generated such a great qualitative leap. Let us highlight this with the following points:

In Marxist philosophy he developed the essence of dialectics, the law of contradiction, establishing it as the only fundamental law; and besides his profound dialectical understanding of the theory of knowledge, whose center are the two leaps that make up its law (from practice to knowledge and vice versa, but with knowledge to practice being the main one). We emphasize that he masterfully applied the law of contradiction in politics; and moreover he brought philosophy to the masses of people, fulfilling the task that Marx left.

In Marxist political economy, Chairman Mao applied dialectics to analyze the relationship between the base and superstructure, and, continuing the struggle of Marxism-Leninism against the revisionist thesis of the “productive forces”, he concluded that the superstructure, consciousness, can modify the base, and that with political power the productive forces can be developed. By developing the Leninist idea that politics is the concentrated expression of economics, he established that politics must be in command, (applicable on all levels) and that political work is the life-line of economic work; which takes us to the true handling of political economy, not just a simple economic policy.

Despite its importance, an issue which is often sidestepped, especially by those who face democratic revolutions, is the Maoist thesis of bureaucratic capitalism; that is, the capitalism which is being developed in the oppressed nations by imperialism along with different degrees of underlying feudalism, or even pre-feudal stages. This is a vital problem, mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, since a good revolutionary leadership derives from its understanding, especially when the confiscation of bureaucratic capital forms the economic basis for carrying forward the socialist revolution as the second stage.

But the main thing is that Chairman Mao Tse-tung has developed the political economy of socialism. Of the utmost importance is his criticism of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, as well as his theses on how to develop socialism in China: Taking agriculture as the base and industry as the leading economic force, promoting industrialization guided by the relationship between heavy industry, light industry and agriculture; taking heavy industry as the center of economic construction and simultaneously paying full attention to light industry and agriculture. The Great Leap Forward and the conditions for its execution should be highlighted: One, the political line that gives it a just and correct course; two, small, medium, and large organizational forms in a greater to lesser quantity, respectively; three, a great drive, a gigantic effort of the masses of people in order to put it in motion and to take it through to success, a leap forward whose results are valued more for the new process set in motion and its historical perspective than its immediate achievements, and its linkage with agricultural collectivization and the people’s communes. Finally, we must bear well in mind his teachings on the objectivity and the subjectivity in understanding and handling the laws of socialism, that because the few decades of socialism have not permitted it to see its complete development, and therefore a better understanding of its laws and its specification, and principally the relationship that exists between revolution and the economic process, embodied in the slogan “grasp revolution and promote production”. Despite its transcendental importance, this development of Marxist political economy has received scant attention.

In scientific socialism, Chairman Mao further developed the theory of social classes analyzing them on economic, political, and ideological planes. He upheld revolutionary violence as a universal law without any exception whatsoever; revolution as a violent displacement of one class by another, thus establishing the great thesis that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He resolved the question of the conquest of political power in the oppressed nations through the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside, establishing its general laws. He defined and developed the theory of the class struggle within socialism in which he brilliantly demonstrated that the antagonistic struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and between socialism and capitalism continues. That in socialism it was not concretely determined who would defeat whom, that it was a problem whose solution demands time, the unfolding of a process of restoration and counter-restoration, in order for the proletariat to strongly hold political power definitely through the proletarian dictatorship; and, finally and principally, the grandiose solution of historical transcendence, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as the continuation of the socialist revolution under the proletarian dictatorship.

These basic questions, simply and plainly stated but known and undeniable, show the Chairman’s development of the integral parts of Marxism, and the evident raising of Marxism-Leninism to a new, third and superior stage: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.

Continuing with this brief synthesis, let us look at other specific points which, although deriving from the above, should be considered even if only enumeratively, to emphasize and pay due attention to them.

2. The New Democratic Revolution. Firstly, it is a development of the Marxist theory of the State, establishing three types of dictatorships:

1) Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in the old bourgeois democracies like the United States, a type in which the dictatorships of the oppressed nations such as the Latin American ones can be assimilated;

2) Proletarian dictatorships, like the ones in the Soviet Union or in China before the usurpation of power by the revisionists; and

3) New Democracy, as a joint dictatorship based on the worker-peasant alliance, led by the proletariat headed up by the Communist Party, which was formed in China during its democratic revolution, and which is concretely expressed in Perú today through the People’s Committees, in the base areas and in the People’s Republic of New Democracy in formation. It is fundamental to emphasize, within this development of the theory of the state, the key differentiation between a state system as a dictatorship of a class or classes that hold political power, which is principal, and a system of government, which is understood as an organization for the exercise of political power.

On the other hand, New Democracy, one of the extraordinary developments made by Chairman Mao, masterfully materializes for us the bourgeois revolution of a new type, which only the proletariat can lead. In synthesis, it is the democratic revolution within the new era of world proletarian revolution in which we evolve. The New Democratic Revolution implies a new economy, a new politics, and a new culture, obviously overthrowing the old order and upholding the new one with arms, the only way to transform the world.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that New Democracy is a democratic revolution. Although it mainly fulfills the democratic tasks, it also complementarily advances in some socialist tasks, so that the question of two stages, democratic and socialist, which corresponds to countries like ours, is thoroughly solved by guaranteeing that once the democratic stage is concluded, it will be continued as a socialist revolution, without any intermissions or interruptions.

3. The three instruments. The problem of the construction of the instruments of the revolution presents the Party with the problem of understanding the interrelationship between the Party, the army and the united front; and to understand and correctly handle the interconnected construction of the three instruments in the midst of war or in the defense of the new State based on the power of the armed people, expressing in that way a just and correct task of leadership. Their construction is guided by the principle that a just and correct ideological line decides everything, and it is on this ideological-political basis that the organizational construction is simultaneously developed in the midst of the struggle between the proletarian line and the bourgeois line and within the storm of the class struggle, mainly in war, as the principal form of current or potential struggle.

Regarding the Party, Chairman Mao starts from the necessity of the Communist Party, a new type of party, a party of the proletariat. Today, we would say a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party: a party whose aim is to conquer political power and to defend it, and therefore it is inextricably bound to people’s war in order to initiate it, develop it or wage it to defend itself. A party sustained by the masses of people, be it by way of people’s war which is a war of the masses, or by the united front which, being a front of classes, is based on the broad masses. The Party develops and changes itself according to the stages of the revolution and the periods that these stages may have. The driving of its development is the contradiction which materializes in its heart as the two-line struggle, the proletarian line and the bourgeois or in general non-proletarian line, which is in essence and mainly a struggle against revisionism. This leads to the decisive importance of ideology in the life of the party and to the development of rectification campaigns that serve a greater adjustment of all the systems of party organizations and the membership to the just and correct ideological and political lines, guaranteeing the predominance of the proletarian line and keeping the Party leadership in its iron grip. The Party serves the establishment of political power for the proletariat as the leading class of the New Democracy, and principally for the establishment, strengthening and development of the proletarian dictatorship, and through cultural revolutions the conquest of the great, final goal: Communism. Because of this, the Party must lead everything in an all-around way.

The revolutionary army is of a new type. It is an army for the fulfillment of the political tasks that the Party establishes in accordance with the interests of the proletariat and the people. This characteristic is concretely expressed in three tasks: To combat, to produce in order to pose no parasitical burden, and to mobilize the masses. It is an army based on the political development of the proletariat’s ideology, from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (today), and from the general political line as well as the military one that the Party may establish. It is an army based on people and not on weapons, an army that surged from the masses with whom it has always been linked, serving them wholeheartedly, which allows it to move among the people like fish in the water. Without a people’s army the people have nothing, said Chairman Mao, at the same time he taught us the necessity of the Party’s absolute leadership over the army and his great principle: The Party commands the gun and we will never permit it to be otherwise. Besides having thoroughly established the principles and norms for the construction of a new type of army, the Chairman himself called for preventing the use of the army for the restoration of capitalism by usurping the leadership through a counterrevolutionary coup d’etat and, developing Lenin’s thesis on the people’s militia, he carried out farther than anyone the general policy of arming the people, thus opening a breach and pointing out the path towards the armed sea of masses that will lead us to the definite emancipation of the people and the proletariat.

It was Chairman Mao who for the first time developed a complete theory on the united front and established its laws. A front of social classes based on the worker-peasant alliance as a guarantee of the proletariat’s hegemony in the revolution, which is led by the proletariat represented by the Communist Party; in synthesis, a united front under the leadership of the Communist Party, a united front for the people’s war, for the revolution, for the conquest of power for the proletariat and the people. In synthesis, the united front is the grouping of the revolutionary forces against the counter-revolutionary forces in order to wage the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution mainly through the armed people’s war. The united front, obviously, is not the same in every stage of the revolution and, furthermore, it has its specifications according to the various historical periods of each stage; likewise, the united front in a concrete revolution does not equal the one on a world level, although both follow the same general laws. Apart from this, it is important to emphasize the relation between the front and the State that Chairman Mao established when the war of resistance against Japan was evolving, setting forth that the united front is a form of joint dictatorship, a question that deserves to be especially studied by those who face democratic revolutions.

4. The People’s War is the military theory of the international proletariat; in it are summarized, for the first time in a systematic and complete form, the theoretical and practical experience of the struggles, military actions, and wars waged by the proletariat, and the prolonged experience of the people’s armed struggle and especially of the incessant wars in China. It is with Chairman Mao that the proletariat attains its military theory; nevertheless, there is much confusion and misunderstanding on this issue. And much of it springs from how the People’s War in China is seen. Generally, it is considered derisively and contemptuously simply as a guerrilla war; this alone denotes a lack of understanding. Chairman Mao pointed out that guerrilla warfare achieves a strategic feature; but due to its essential fluidity, the development of guerrilla warfare is not understood as it exists, how it develops mobility, a war of movements, of positions, how it unfolds great plans of the strategic offensive and the seizure of small, mid-sized, and big cities, with millions of inhabitants, combining the attack from outside with the insurrection from within. Thus, in conclusion, the four periods of the Chinese revolution, and mainly from the agrarian war until the people’s war of liberation, considering the anti-Japanese war of resistance between both, shows the various aspects and complexities of the revolutionary war waged during more than twenty years amidst a huge population and an immense mobilization and participation of the masses. In that war there are examples of every kind; and what is principal has been extraordinarily studied and its principles, laws, strategy, tactics, rules, etc. masterfully established. It is, therefore, in this fabulous crucible and on what was established by Marxism-Leninism that Chairman Mao developed the military theory of the proletariat: The People’s War.

We must fully bear in mind that subsequently, Chairman Mao himself, aware of the existence of atomic bombs and missiles and with China already having them, sustained and developed people’s war in order to wage it under the new conditions of atomic weapons and of war against powers and super-powers. In synthesis, people’s war is the weapon of the proletariat and of the people, even to confront atomic wars.

A key and decisive question is the understanding of the universal validity of people’s war and its subsequent application taking into account the different types of revolution and the specific conditions of each revolution. To clarify this key issue it is important to consider that no insurrection like that of Petrograd, the anti-fascist resistance, or the European guerrilla movements in the Second World War have been repeated, as well as considering the armed struggles that are presently being waged in Europe. In the final analysis, the October Revolution was not only an insurrection but a revolutionary war that lasted for several years. Consequently, in the imperialist countries the revolution can only be conceived as a revolutionary war which today is simply people’s war.

Finally, today more than ever, we Communists and revolutionaries, the proletariat and the people, need to forge ourselves in: “Yes. We are adherents to the theory of the omnipotence of the revolutionary war. That it is not bad thing; it is good thing. It is Marxist”; which means adhering to the invincibility of people’s war.

5. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in a historical perspective is the most transcendental development of Marxism-Leninism made by Chairman Mao; it is the solution to the great pending problem of the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship: “It represents a more profound and wider new stage in the development of the socialist revolution in our country.”

What was the situation that presented itself? As stated in the Decision of the Communist Party of China on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution states: “Although overthrown, the bourgeoisie still tries to avail itself of the old ideas, culture, habits and ways of the exploiting classes in order to corrupt the masses and to conquer the minds of the people in its endeavors to restore its power. The proletariat must do exactly the opposite: It must deal merciless, frontal blows to all the challenges by the bourgeoisie in the ideological arena and change the spiritual composition of the whole society using its own new ideas, culture, habits and ways. Our present aim is to crush, through struggle, those who occupy leading posts and follow the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois ‘authorities’ in the academic fields, to criticize and repudiate the ideology of the bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes, and to transform education, literature, and art and the rest of areas of the superstructure that do not correspond to the economic base of socialism, in order to facilitate the consolidation and the development of the socialist system.”

It was in these conditions that the most Earth-shaking political process and the greatest mass mobilization the world has ever seen broke out, and whose objectives were thus outlined by Chairman Mao: “The present GPCR is completely necessary and very timely to consolidate the proletarian dictatorship, to prevent the restoration of capitalism, and to build socialism.”

We also emphasize two questions:

1) The GPCR implies a landmark in the development of the proletarian dictatorship towards the proletariat’s securing political power, concretely expressed in the Revolutionary Committees; and

2) The restoration of capitalism in China after the 1976 counter-revolutionary coup is not a negation of the GPCR but is plainly part of the contention between restoration and counter-restoration, and, on the contrary, it shows us the transcendental historical importance of the GPCR in the inexorable march of mankind towards Communism.

6. World Revolution. Chairman Mao emphasizes the importance of the world revolution as a unity, on the basis that revolution is the main trend while the decomposition of imperialism is greater each day, and the role played by the masses grows more immense each year, masses that make and shall make their transforming and unstoppable strength be felt, and reiterates the great truth: Either we all reach Communism or nobody does. Within this specific perspective in the era of imperialism, the great historical moment of the “next 50 to 100 years”, and within this context the opening period of struggle against Yankee imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, paper tigers that contend for hegemony and threaten the world with an atomic war, in the face of which, firstly we must condemn it, and secondly, we must prepare ourselves beforehand in order to oppose it with people’s war and make the revolution. On the other hand, starting from the historical importance of the oppressed nations and, furthermore, from their perspective both in the economic and political relationships that are evolving on account of the process of decomposition of imperialism, Chairman Mao stated his thesis that “three worlds delineate themselves”. All of which leads to the necessity of developing the strategy and tactics of world revolution. Regrettably, we know little or almost nothing about Chairman Mao’s writings and statements on these transcendental questions; nevertheless, the very little that is known shows the grand perspectives which he watched closely and the great outlines that we must follow in order to understand and serve the proletarian world revolution

7. Superstructure, ideology, culture, and education. These and other related issues have been subtly and deeply studied by Chairman Mao. For that reason, this is also another basic question that deserves attention.

In conclusion, the contents seen in these fundamental issues show clearly to whoever wants to see and understand that we have, therefore, a new, third, and superior stage of Marxism: Maoism; and that to be a Marxist in these days demands to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and mainly Maoist.

All that has been explained in the contents leads us to two questions:

What is fundamental in Maoism? Political Power is fundamental in Maoism. Political power for the proletariat, power for the dictatorship of the proletariat, power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party. More explicitly:

1) Political power under the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution;

2) Political power for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the socialist and cultural revolutions;

3) Political power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party, conquered and defended through people’s war.

And, what is Maoism? Maoism is the elevation of Marxism-Leninism to a new, third, and superior stage in the struggle for proletarian leadership of the democratic revolution, the development of the construction of socialism and the continuation of the revolution under the proletarian dictatorship as a proletarian cultural revolution; when imperialism deepens its decomposition and revolution has become the main tendency of history, amidst the most complex and largest wars seen to date and the implacable struggle against contemporary revisionism.

On the STRUGGLE AROUND MAOISM. Briefly, the struggle in China for establishing Mao Tse-tung Thought began in 1935 at the Tsunyi Meeting, when Chairman Mao assumed the leadership of the Communist Party of China. In 1945 the VII Congress agreed that the CPC was guided by Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought, a specification suppressed by the VIII Congress, since a rightist line prevailed in it. The IX Congress in 1969 resumed the GPCR and ratified that the CPC is guided by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought; that was as far as it advanced.

On an international level, it acquired influence from the 1950s onwards; but it is with the GPCR that it intensely spread out and its prestige rose powerfully and Chairman Mao was acknowledged as the leader of the world revolution and originator of a new stage in Marxism-Leninism; thus, a great number of Communist Parties assumed the denomination of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought. On the world level, Maoism confronted contemporary revisionism openly unmasking it profoundly and forcefully, and likewise it did so in the CPC’s own ranks, all of which raised the Chairman’s great red banner still more: The new, third, and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat. At present (1988), Maoism confronts the triple attack of Soviet, Chinese and Albanian revisionism. But today, even among those who acknowledge the Chairman’s great contributions, including the development of Marxism, there are some who believe that we are still in the stage of Marxism-Leninism, and others who only accept Mao Tse-tung Thought but by no means Maoism.

In this country, obviously, the revisionists who follow the baton of their diverse masters, Gorbachev, Teng, Alia or Castro have continuously attacked Maoism; among them one must condemn, unmask, and implacably combat Del Prado’s callous revisionism and his gang, the so called “Peruvian Communist Party”; the abject deviousness of the self-proclaimed “Communist Party of Peru, Patria Roja” who, after raising themselves up as “great Maoists” became Teng’s servants, after having condemned him when he was defenestrated in 1976, as well as the anti-Maoism of the so called “Izquierda Unida” (United Left), in whose heart swarmed all the revisionist and even anti-Marxist positions passed off by false Marxists and opportunists of many kinds. We must raise Maoism as a revealing mirror for revisionists in order to combat them implacably, working for the development of the People’s War and the triumph of the democratic revolution underway, which is an unavoidable and unrenounceable task of a strategic character.

The Communist Party of Peru, through the fraction led by President Gonzalo, who propelled its reconstitution, took up Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tse-tung Thought in 1966; in 1979 the slogan “Uphold, defend, and apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought!”; in 1981: “Towards Maoism!”; and, in 1982, took Maoism as an integral part and superior development of the ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is with the People’s War that we have understood more deeply what Maoism implies and we have taken up the solemn pledge to “Uphold, defend, and apply Marxism-Leninism- Maoism, principally Maoism!” and to work relentlessly in helping to place it as leader and guide of the world revolution, the always red and unfading banner that is the guarantee of triumph for the proletariat, the oppressed nations, and peoples of the world in their inexorable, combative march of iron legions towards the golden and always brilliant goal of Communism.