|
From MIM Notes 43, August 1, 1990
translated by MA10
The following is an excerpt from an interview conducted in
1989 by the Peruvian newspaper El Diario which supported the
PCP and the people's war in Peru. This is the first in a two-
part series; next month MIM Notes will publish Chairperson
Gonzalo's discussion of the conditions for world revolution.
Note: Where MIM translates "popular war," we should say
"People's War" in Maoist idiom.
Bureaucratic capitalism
El Diario: Chairperson, what is the analysis of the PCP
(Communist Party of Peru) on the process of the Peruvian state
and where is it going? (p. 77)
Gonzalo: We have an understanding of the contemporary
Peruvian society, understood as that which began in 1895, we
consider that from there began the process which we are living
and we think there are three moments. The first moment in
which were established bases for the (disentanglement) of
bureaucratic capitalism; a second moment after the second
world war because until then embraces the first, to go deeply
into bureaucratic capitalism; this (deepening) of bureaucratic
capital will mature the conditions for the revolution and with
the beginning of the popular war, in 1980, we entered the
third moment of general crisis of bureaucratic capitalism; the
destruction of the contemporary Peruvian society because it
historically lapsed/expired, consequently, what we see is its
finale and that which fits is hard work, and combat, and a
struggle to bury it.
Diario: Why do you consider the thesis of bureaucratic
capitalism fundamental?
Gonzalo: We consider this thesis of Chairperson Mao Tse-tung
key because without understanding it and acting on it, it
isn't feasible to develop a democratic revolution without
conceiving of its uninterrupted continuation as a socialist
revolution.
We understand that bureaucratic capitalism, which began to
occur in Peru since (1895), in the three moments which we just
sketched. We conceive of this form, on a semifeudal base and
beneath a dominant imperialism develops a capitalism, a late
capitalism, a capitalism which was born from feudalism and
submitted to dominant imperialism. It is these conditions
which generated that which Chairperson Mao Tse-tung designated
bureaucratic capitalism. So, bureaucratic capitalism developed
the large monopoly capitalism which controlled the economy of
the country, capitalism made up of, as Chairperson Mao said,
the large capital of the large landowners, of the comprador
bourgeoisie and the large bankers; from here was generated the
bureaucratic capitalism (tied up/reiterated) with feudalism,
submitted to imperialism and monopoly, and this one must keep
in mind, is monopoly.
This capitalism reached a certain moment of evolution and
combined with the power of the state and used the economic
means of the state, utilized economic influence and this
process generated another faction of the grand bourgeoisie,
the bourgeois bureaucrat; in this way it will give a
development of bureaucratic capitalism which is
monopolistic... but this process will lead to generate
conditions which mature the revolution; this is another
important concept, speaking politically, which the Chairperson
raised regarding bureaucratic capitalism.
It is erroneous to consider that bureaucratic capitalism is
the capitalism which the state develops with the economic
means of production it has in its hands; it is erroneous, and
doesnUt (agree) with the thesis of Chairperson Mao Tsetung. It
would be enough to think this way, if bureaucratic capitalism
was only the state, if this capitalist state was confiscated
and the other, monopoly capitalism, wasn't, in whose hands
would it be? In those of the reactionary of the grand
bourgeoisie.
Besides, politically we permit a differentiation with much
clarity between the grand bourgeoisie and the national or
middle bourgeoisie, and this we see as instrumental to
understanding so as not to put ourselves at the tail of any of
the factions of the grand bourgeoisie, nor of the comprador
nor of the bureaucrats, which in Peru is what the revisionists
and the opportunists have done and continue to do, decades of
this sinister/left politics of labeling a faction of the grand
bourgeoisie as national bourgeoisie, progressive and
supportive. The comprehension of bureaucratic capitalism
allows us to understand the difference, reiterated, between
national bourgeoisie and grand bourgeoisie, and to understand
the correct tactic which we must follow: precisely that which
Maritegui established. For this we consider extremely
important the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism. (p. 79)
On Nicaragua
Diario: What is your opinion of Nicaragua, what of Cuba? (p.
123)
Gonzalo: I would like to reiterate that which I said in a
conversation with friends on these problems. Nicaragua had an
inconclusive revolution and its problem is that is didn't
destroy the power of all the grand bourgeoisie, it was
centered in antisomocismo, and I think this is a problem. A
democratic revolution must remove the three mountains and here
that wasnUt done. On the other hand, it developed within Cuban
criticisms readjusted in recent times and this simply lead it
to depend, in the final analysis, on the Soviet Union. How can
we understand this? Because in the conversations between
diplomatic representatives of the two superpowers is where...
we see and act the situation of Nicaragua, like that of
Afghanistan or that of the Middle East; they are all very
symptomatic of the steps of progress and counterprogress that
it is very coincidental with reunions and agreements of the
superpowers the measures taken in Nicaragua, in its
relationship with the contra.
We think that Nicaragua, as well deserves this heroic country,
to follow the correct road must develop the democratic
revolution completely, and this will demand a popular war, it
must break with the stick of command of the Soviet Union,
assume in its hands its own destiny and defend its class
independence and this demands a party, and obviously, to
subject to the concept of the proletariat; otherwise continue
being a pawn and this is lamentable. We think that this
country has shown the sign of great combativeness and its
historic destiny cannot continue without developing the
revolution as corresponds with a party based in Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism and a popular war, and develop itself
independently without guardianship of anyone, and no-one,
neither near nor far.
On Cuba
Of Cuba, I can only say this concretely, the game of a role in
service to the Soviet Union is not only in Latin America, it
is carried out in Angola for example, and in other places.
Passed from one hand to another hand, from one owner to
another; a process presented as an "exceptional case" to the
Cubans themselves.
Cuba has a high responsibility in America because it was a
hope; but we must record well what happened in 1970, Fidel
Castro said that the strategy of armed revolution had failed,
looked to abandon it, to leave that which was it incentive and
support. Douglas Brava left the front arguing that it wasn't
the fault of the strategy but of the "Castro" tactic, but also
unfortunately after Brava sought amnesty. We think these
situations have generated many problems in America, but today
these same criteria readjusted will be the voice of the social
imperialist owner spread and presented as a new revolutionary
development which will be concretized in Nicaragua. This is a
falsehood. That which we must affirm, is that Latin America is
already mature (enough) for popular war, and this is its road.
Latin America has an important role to carry out, we donUt
forget "backyard of the U.S." as the insolent imperialist
yanqui continues to say. Latin America also has importance in
the world, fulfilling the ideology of the proletariat, the
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, of forging
communist parties and moving toward popular wars within the
world revolution.
Latin America at the end of the century will be more than 500
million people. We have many things which unite us and we must
work together for closeness. I don't want to say that we will
disentangle from the world revolution, because we will only
fulfill our work as part of the world revolution; not enough
with Latin America, communism is for all the world or for no-
one. (p.125)
Peru and the world revolution
Diario: What is the contribution of the Communist Party of
Peru to the world revolution?
Gonzalo: The principal contribution is to (plan/outline/carry
out) Maoism, as the new, third and superior stage of Marxism;
we assumed serving and contributing what this ideology
constitutes in commanding and guiding the world revolution.
The question derived from this is to show the strength, the
transcendental perspective of Maoism. Also to show that it
principally supports the proper efforts, without continuing
the staff of command of the superpower, nor any imperialist
power, it's possible to make the revolution, and even that
it's necessary to do it thus; and demonstrate the potential of
popular war which is expressed in spite of all our
limitations. And if it happens, we will be as some say a hope,
that which implicated responsibility and will be a torch for
the world revolution, an example which can serve other
communists. In this way we are serving the world revolution.
___________________
Postcript by mc5:
The most difficult point above is the one concerning
bureaucrat capitalists. The context is the common revisionist
practice of seeing state-capitalists as progressive or at
least a certain wing of the bureaucratic capitalists as
progressive. Gonzalo is not attributing a "progressive" role
to state-capitalism the way many revisionists and "leftists"
do. In seeking temporary allies in a national bourgeoisie,
Gonzalo looks outside of the bureaucrat capitalist class.
|
|