1.Gonzalo and revolutionary optimism
When a class moves in the direction of taking power, it must build strong abilities in all fields, and of course it is more true than ever in the case of the working class, which must have an all powerful cultural and ideological system, permitting to understand all aspects of a society and to revolutionize it.
Gonzalo played a historical role in permitting to understand this. He stressed that the revolutionaries must uphold absolute optimism; in the document “ILA-80” that explains the launching of armed struggle in Peru in 1980, he explained:
“We need a great deal of optimism and there is a reason for it. We are the makers of tomorrow, we are guides, the garrison of the invincible triumph of the class. This is why we are optimists.
We are enthusiastic by nature. We are nurtured by the ideology of our class: Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought. We live the life of the class. We participate in its heroic deeds. The blood of our people flow and burns within us.
We are like a powerful and palpitating blood. Let us take the unbendable iron and steel, the class, and mix it together with the unwithering light of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought.”
2.Each revolutionary class calls to epic struggle
When the French bourgeois revolution stretched out at the end of the 18th century, there was the historical need for an epic mobilization of the masses. The bourgeoisie dived in the past, looking for something that could appeared as near as possible to their own needs and took what could be a design to galvanize the struggle: the Roman republic.
Napoleon, moving from the figure of a Roman general to an imperial Cesar, was the toy of a historical process where he led international changes needed by the French bourgeoisie to fully develop itself in the conquest of power.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have explained this ideological question, removing the ideological mists and bourgeois pretensions of making the last and total revolution. But they did not integrate this ideological-cultural question in scientific socialism, because at their time there was no new democratic / socialist revolution in the world.
3.Thoughts as expression of the movement of matter
With the socialist revolution in Russia in October 1917 and the new democratic revolution in China winning in 1949, dialectical materialism formulated scientifically the question of avant-garde, of the revolutionary party.
Revolutionary ideology leads the revolutionary process; in the revolutionary party itself, two-line struggles arise in the process: the life of the Communist Party obeys also to the rules of dialectical development.
And so do thoughts, as they are the reflect of the world, of matter in dialectical movement, at the dimension of the universe itself.
In the document “Life, Matter, the Universe, part 7: What is a thought?” promoted by the CPMLM [France], it is explained:
“Thought consists in molecular and chemical motions in the brain, motions that are matter and that are the consequence of the movement of matter outside the body – the exterior movement is perceived.
In this movement of perception, gray matter develops itself – it comes to synthetic understanding of the dialectical movement of matter. Then, it becomes openly an expression of matter in movement.”
4.Individuals do not think
In the 13th century, French reaction had to struggle against materialist theses in the University of Paris. These theses were the logical conclusions of the thought of Averroes (1126-1198), the great thinker of the Falsafa, the arabo-persian philosophy.
The Church had forbidden 13 theses in 1270, and among them: “The proposal: ‘man thinks’ is false or incorrect”, “Freewill is a passive power, not active, which is driven by the need of desire”, “Human’s will wants and chooses by necessity”, “There has never been a first man”, “The world is eternal”, “There is only one intellect numerically identical for all men”.
These theses are correct and an expression of materialism.
When is spoken about a thought, it is not spoken about the thought of an individual, even if an individual expresses it. Individuals do not think. Humankind is matter in movement, thought is merely a reflect of the movement. There can not be individual thought, what indivuals thinks is the expression of desire and necessity.
5.Thought as cultural-ideological weapon for revolution in each country
Gonzalo did not only call to revolutionary optimism because there was the need of epic struggles. This would be subjectivist and not conform to communist ideology, that tends to the future and not to the past.
So, along the call for enthusiasm, he formulated the conception that in each country arises a revolutionary thought, synthesizing society and affirming the correct way to resolve the social contradictions.
History in motion produces enthusiasm and the correct understanding of reality in the thoughts of the masses, of the avant-garde, of the revolutionary leadership.
In the document “On Gonzalo’s thought” of the Communist Party of Peru, it is explained:
“Revolutions give rise to a thought that guides them, which is the result of the application of the universal truth of the ideology of the international proletariat to the concrete conditions of each revolution; a guiding thought indispensable to reach victory and to conquer political power and, moreover, to continue the revolution and to maintain the course always towards the only, great goal: Communism.”
6.Thought as synthesis of a society
Each national society knows contradictions, that the communist thought analyzes, producing the revolutionary synthesis that consists in the revolutionary program and the methods to realize it.
In Russia and China, Lenin and Mao Zedong knew not only the political situation, but also precisely the economical situation and the cultural-ideological aspects. They often quoted literary works and made references to their own culture, of the cultural-ideological situation of the masses (for example the relationship of authority in the countryside, the emergence or not of capitalism in the countryside, etc.).
In numerous others situations, revolutionary leaders produced a thought, a synthesis of their own reality.
In Peru, José Carlos Mariátegui wrote in 1928 a full analysis of the history of his country: “Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality”, which explains the history of the process of colonization, the situation of the countryside and of the Quechua Indians, etc.
In Italy, Antonio Gramsci, one of the founder of the Communist Party in 1926, studied in the same way the culture and the history of its country, understanding the nature of the Italian state and the historical contradiction between the north and the south (mezzogiorno) of the country.
Alfred Klahr was the first theoretician to explain that his country Austria was a nation (“On the national question in Austria”, 1937) and how German nazism was not only under control of the imperialist capital, but also of the Junkers.
Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, born in 1949 and killed by the Turkish state in 1973, produced a comprehensive study of the “revolution” made by Mustafa Kemal and the kemalist ideology, paving the way to a correct understanding to Turkey’s economical, political and cultural-ideological nature.
Ulrike Meinhof studied the nature of dependency of West Germany, which was under control of the United States; seeing the process of economical reprise after 1945, she proposed a long term strategy of People’s War based on the poorest elements in the youth and the struggle against the US imperialist presence. She was murdered in prison in 1976.
Another great revolutionary producing a thought was Siraj Sikder, in East Bengal. Born in 1944, he understood both the Pakistani and the Indian expansionism, proposing the path of agrarian revolution to obtain national independence. He was murdered in custody in 1975.
7.People’s War as product of the thought
Following the dialectical materialist lesson of Gonzalo, the communists have in each country the task to produce a synthesis of their own national situation, as the revolutionary contradictions are to be resolved in this frame.
People’s War is not a “method” or a style of work, it is the material production of the thought, i.e. the revolutionary confrontation with the old state and the reactionary ruling classes, according a strategy based on the thought, on the revolutionary synthesis made in the practical study of a country.
When the genuine revolutionary thought is produced, it seeks confrontation with the old society, at all levels. People’s War doesn’t mean only armed struggle, but also the cultural-ideological negation of the values of the old society.
If the revolutionaries don’t have the level to lead the struggle in all fields, they won’t be able to make triumph the revolution and to fight the attempts of restoration of the old society.
This understanding is the direct consequence of Mao Zedong’s teachings about culture and ideology and of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Gonzalo considered that our ideology was not only marxism-leninism-maoism, but marxism-leninism-maoism principally maoism. He wanted to show that our ideology is a synthesis and not an assembly of teachings.
In the same way, he considered that in each country, the ideology was marxism-leninism-maoism and the thought, principally the thought (for example in Peru: marxism-leninism-maoism Gonzalo thought, principally Gonzalo thought).
The reason for that was the thought means the synthesis in a concrete situation, with its application. In the same way, one principle is to “uphold, defend and apply, principally apply.”
The “thought” is genuine and correct only if it means a real confrontation on all aspects of old society, the practical aspect being on the forefront.
9.Thought and People’s War are not independent concepts
During the 1990’s-2000’s, the Peru Popular Movement (MPP), organism generated by the Communist Party of Peru for the work abroad, led an important work to promote marxism-leninism-maoism.
Unfortunately, when moving to the practical national aspects, the MPP only called to follow Peru’s example and has never been able to help communists to produce a synthesis of their own situation.
The MPP never called to study the national realities, and instead of this promoted a cosmopolitism consisting in reproducing a style of work in a stereotyped manner. Instead of accompanying genuine revolutionary forces to marxism-leninism-maoism, the MPP came the point to support centrists, as they were recognizing maoism in words.
This is an example of misunderstanding the main aspect. What counts is not to assume People’s War in an abstract way, but People’s War based on Thought. Revisionism in Nepal is a good example: despite of assuming “People’s War”, what was called “Prachanda’s path” never had a high cultural-ideological level, whereas it contained already numerous errors concerning the basic principles of dialectical materialism.
10.Our horizon: producing thoughts and reject fascism
Our horizon is the following: in each country, a communist thought must be produced, synthesis of the society, showing the way to resolve the contradictions. Communists can not make a revolution in their own country without having a high level on the cultural-ideological fields.
The masses live in a culture full of music, movies, literature; the teachings of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution remember us the importance of the struggle in this field. The communists in the world must exchange their experiences and their knowledge; on many fields, they have the same struggles to lead.
If the communists are not able do this, the reactionary ruling classes will produce an ideology diving in the past to “regenerate” society, a false “socialism”, which is fascism.
Each thought is so of historical significance; it is the basis of People’s War. Each thought permits to launch the People’s War, that destroys the old state, and as this process generalizes itself, it becomes a world People’s War. The thought becomes then the synthesis of the world society that emerges on the rubbles of imperialism, paving the way for the building of a world communist society.