Wednesday, September 11, 2024

NOTES AND MATERIALS ON CONTEMPORARY PERU (II)


Describing contemporary Peruvian society, Chairman Gonzalo says: "... contemporary Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society in which bureaucratic capitalism develops." Although Mariátegui defined this character in point 3 of the Program of the Party Constitution, it is in the light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism, that Chairman Gonzalo has demonstrated how the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character is maintained and new forms are developed, and particularly how bureaucratic capitalism has developed on this basis throughout the process of contemporary society, a problem of transcendence to understand the character of society and the Peruvian revolution.

 

Bureaucratic capitalism is a fundamental thesis of Chairman Mao that is not yet understood or accepted by all Marxists in the world and that obviously for historical reasons was not known by Mariátegui and that Chairman Gonzalo applies to the concrete conditions of our country. He argues that in order to analyze the contemporary social process, we must start from three closely related questions: the moments that bureaucratic capitalism is going through; the process of the proletariat expressed in its highest expression: the Communist Party; and the path that the revolution must follow. Thus, he teaches us that in contemporary Peruvian society, three moments can be distinguished from 1895 onwards: First moment. Development of bureaucratic capitalism. Constitution of the PCP. Indication and outline of the path to surround the cities from the countryside; Second moment. Deepening of bureaucratic capitalism. Reconstitution of the PCP. Establishment of the path to surround the cities from the countryside; and Third moment. General crisis of bureaucratic capitalism. Direction of the PCP of the people's war. Application and development of the path to surround the cities from the countryside.

 

At the same time, it states that contemporary Peruvian society is in a general crisis, sick, serious, incurable and that it can only be transformed through armed struggle as the Communist Party of Peru has been doing leading the people, and that there is no other solution.

 

After the above and to continue with our task started with NOTES AND MATERIALS ON CONTEMPORARY PERU (I), today we present a speech by Chairman Gonzalo at the University of Huamanga (Ayacucho, 1974) on the National Problem, we do so to understand some fundamental issues that have to do with the character of our society and the character of the revolution. A topic that is presented in a masterful, clear and simple way by Chairman Gonzalo in the document that we deliver to you today.

 

The document is below:

 

THE NATIONAL PROBLEM

 

Every debate is open to those who have an opinion,

not to those who remain silent.

J.C. Mariátegui

 

Controversy is useful when it is intended

to truly clarify theories

and facts, and when it brings to it only clear ideas and motives.

J.C. Mariátegui.

 

 

NATIONAL PROBLEMS

 

Speech given by Dr. Abimael Guzmán in 1974 at the Teachers Union

of Huamanga

 

Today's Peruvian Society

 

• Character of our society.

 

• Character of the revolutionary process of Peruvian society.

 

Bureaucratic Capitalism

 

• What do we understand by bureaucratic capitalism?

 

• Three lines of bureaucratic capitalism

 

The Current Situation of the Country

 

• Conditions in which the current regime arises

• The plans and character of the regime.

 

Obviously it is very important to analyze the problems of Peruvian society.

We believe that it is necessary to know it, because without knowing it it is not possible to understand the processes that occur; if we are not clear about the character of Peruvian society, about the process that is being experienced today, we can hardly understand what the education law or the mining law represents. That is, it is not possible to understand the specific problem in the country, such as that of education, without understanding what the character of Peruvian society is today and what the political situation is. Unfortunately, very little is known about the national problem; and more so in recent times, the State has mounted a whole campaign to distort these issues; therefore, the need to analyze these problems is more urgent.

 

Peruvian Society Today

 

Character of our society

 

We pose: Peru is a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society. What do we mean by semi-feudal and semi-colonial? Let's look at these questions.

 

Our country emancipated itself in the last century. 150 years ago, we were a colony; we lived subject to a metropolis (Spain), we had no political independence. On the other hand, at the beginning of the last century it was a feudal country, meaning that our society was based fundamentally on the work of the land, which was the support of the economy.

Naturally there was trade and incipient industrial modalities; but the economic foundation was feudalism. Based on the existence of large estates that belonged to a few people, and on this latifundist property there was serfdom, the exploitation of peasants, who for a piece of land had toprovide personal services, working the land of the lord or other services, even domestic.

 

Our country was backward, where the fundamentals were the old forms of production and totally outdated forms of government. Our country at the beginning of the 19th century had two problems, which with variations still persist: One, the problem of land, the problem of feudalism, that of the peasantry's servitude based on latifundist property; Two, the problem of national sovereignty, that ofour nation being a colony of Spain.

 

Emancipation faced both problems, as proven by the struggles for independence regarding sovereignty; and, Bolívar's decrees on territorial property and, the parliamentary debates in which it was stated that emancipation could only be secured by giving the land to the peasants, regarding the land problem. But emancipation only implied breaking ties with Spain. However, the country was soon controlled and then dominated by England. This great capitalist power dominated all of Latin America and, therefore, our country. What importance does English domination have in our country? Before emancipation, we were a feudal and colonial country. When we emancipated ourselves, we continued to have a feudal base but with a certain political independence; we formed a Republic despite the vicissitudes of emancipation and republican beginnings. But England introduced higher development modalities to the country, capitalist modalities, fundamentally through its trade and tied it to the world trade of guano. This implies that the destruction of feudalism began to accelerate; the fact that England brought goods and introduced capitalist methods accelerated and spurred the destruction of feudalism. On the other hand, England began to control and introduce a process of colonization in the country. Thus, English domination implied the beginning of a change, the passage towards the formation of a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society in the country.

 

In this century, the United States managed to displace English domination and become the master, back in the 1920s. Thus, our country was dominated by another world power, but an imperialist one; when the United States dominated us, it was an imperialist country, it had developed a monopolistic system, large companies that concentrated the country's economy; on the other hand, it was a power in colonialist expansion in Latin America and even in part of Asia.

 

Under these conditions of Yankee imperialist domination, our society evolves its semi-feudal character, but it is not totally destroyed, it continues to survive. As under English domination (especially after the war with Chile), there is a greater impetus to the destruction of feudalism under the development of a form of capitalism linked to the large monopolies and dependent on imperialism. In addition to maintaining its semi-feudal character, our country continues to be semi-colonial; that is, a dominated country that, although it has declared political independence, lives under the domination of an imperialist power in economic, diplomatic, cultural and military terms that make political independence a formal matter.

 

Thus, Peruvian society, since the 19th century, has evolved from a feudal society to a semi-feudal one and from a colonial society to a semi-colonial one. In this long process, three powers have dominated and exploited it: First Spain until 1824, however, the Spanish continued to dominate for many more decades. Later, England, which dominated us more subtly; it even created bourgeois political parties and a better state apparatus for us, to better control us with a hidden, more concealed, but no less exploitative domination. Finally, the United States, which still oppresses and exploits us; imperialism, which, despite everything that is said, dominates us on all levels.

 

When we were a colonial country, we had two problems: the land problem and the national problem. Under English rule, we were a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society, much more basic than the current one, obviously, and we had two problems: the land problem and the national problem; because the land remained in few hands and serfdom continued to prevail in the country and because England dominated us. In this century we are dominated by the USA, we are still a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society, much more evolved than the previous one, undoubtedly, but the basic problems of the country remain two: the land problem and the national problem. The land problem, because even the feudal modes of exploitation survive and our entire society: our unscientific and superstitious mentality, our ideology in general as well as our social and political relations have a lot of feudalism. The national problem because we are an oppressed nation; apparently free, but deep down subject to a thousand forms.

 

In short, the history of the country from the last century until today is that of the feudal and colonial class struggle that, under the English capitalist domination and Yankee imperialism successively, has evolved to become and is currently a semi-feudal and semi-colonial society with two basic problems not resolved until today: the land problem and the national problem.

 

                                   Character of the Revolutionary Process of Peruvian Society

 

Having established the character of Peruvian society, a question arises: what is the path to revolutionary transformation? Specifically, what is the character of the Peruvian revolution? We have established that there are two problems: the land problem and the national problem, from which the solution to the rest of the country's problems derives; because all national problems depend on the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of Peruvian society. This means that, for Peruvian society to change, to truly revolutionize, these two questions must be resolved: 1) the land problem, the solution to which requires sweeping away semi-feudalism, because until it is swept away, the land problem is not resolved; 2) the national problem, the solution to which requires sweeping away Yankee imperialist oppression, because until this semi-colonial domination is swept away, the national problem is not resolved. Thus, as long as we do not sweep away semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism, it is not possible to truly and truly transform Peruvian society, despite all that they tell us; besides, what they preach today is not new, for example, in the year 19 of this century, we already heard similar siren songs. Consequently, the process of transformation of Peruvian society, what is scientifically called the Peruvian revolution, has two tasks to accomplish: 1) destroy semi-feudalism and 2) destroy semi-colonialism. These are the tasks of the Peruvian revolution in its first stage. The above means that the Peruvian revolution is anti-feudal and anti-imperialist; that is, that feudal survival and the dominance of imperialism must necessarily be destroyed. Therefore, the Peruvian revolution is necessarily democratic and national. Scientifically speaking, the character of the Peruvian revolution is to be a democratic-national revolution; democratic in that it goes against feudalism, to destroy the feudal relations of the country; and national in that it is anti-imperialist, aimed at crushing Yankee imperialist oppression. Thus, in the current semi-feudal and semi-colonial Peruvian society, only a democratic-national, anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution is possible.

 

Let us analyze the character of the Peruvian revolution in relation to the concrete historical conditions. We had two problems since the last century: that of the land and the national problem; but the last century and the current one have great differences: in the last century there was no imperialism; in this century there was; in the last century there was no internationally converted working class as the leader of the revolution, nor was there a developed working class in the country, in the current one we have a triumphant working class and in the country a working class with a long history of struggle. These are very important differences in the revolutionary process of our country.

 

In the last century and until the 1920s, the bourgeoisie in the country was able to lead the process of transformation by solving these two problems. But in our country, even before the year 20, there were great struggles; heroic struggles and successive peasant uprisings, student mobilizations and struggles and powerful great battles of the working class; generating a great process of political struggle in the midst of which the ideology of the proletariat began to spread and apply to our reality, through an extraordinary figure: José Carlos Mariátegui, whose combative work as a thinking and active man marked a milestone in history by founding, in 1928 the party of the working class of Peru, the Communist Party. Thus, this period determines a fundamental change in our revolution by which the bourgeoisie, in the conditions of imperialist domination and the existence of a working class forged in a struggle, can no longer lead the revolutionary process in our country; because, the working class has already emerged and developed, which, in addition to disputing the leadership of the bourgeoisie, is the only consistent class capable of leading the Peruvian revolution to ist triumph. In this way, the bourgeois revolution in the country has two periods: 1) the old bourgeois revolution that was able to be fulfilled until the beginning of the century, under bourgeois leadership; and 2) the new bourgeois revolution or democratic-national revolution, or a new type of bourgeois revolution, under the leadership of the proletariat, which is the only historical perspective of the country. The bourgeoisie, for historical reasons, have not been able to fulfill their role in the country; But after 1928 the politically organized proletariat rose up and took from the bourgeoisie the historical leadership of the revolutionary process, as the only class that can accomplish it. Therefore, the revolution in the country, the destruction of feudalism and imperialist domination, can only be accomplished and from 1928 onwards through a national democratic revolution and under the leadership of the proletariat, a class that in order to fulfill its historical role has to unite with the peasantry in a solid worker-peasant alliance, since the peasantry, as the majority, is the main force, although not the leader of the process.

 

These problems of the character of society and of the revolution are of vital importance, because we firmly adhere to the position that in the country either the proletariat with ist party leads the movement or there is no national-democratic revolution, we will not be deceived, directly or indirectly we will serve the enemies of the class.

 

To conclude this topic we point out that there are other theses contrary to those presented, emphasizing that the thesis that Peruvian society is capitalist is today the most dangerous. If the country is capitalist; and if the revolution is socialist; the proletariat and not the peasantry would be the main force. This thesis fundamentally changes the very important problem of the path of the revolution; as we saw there are two paths: 1) that of the October revolution, which is from the city to the countryside and is followed by the capitalist countries through a socialist revolution; a path that old Russia followed or that France should follow today, for example; and 2) the path of the Chinese revolution, which is from the countryside to the city and is followed by the semi-feudal and semi-colonial or colonial countries through a democratic-national revolution, a path that Vietnam is following today, among others. Therefore, whether the country is semi-feudal or capitalist is not a simple Byzantine discussion, because if one errs in the character of society, one errs in the path of the revolution and, consequently, this will not succeed.

 

The thesis of the capitalist character of Peruvian society has been and is supported by Trotskyism and positions close to it, however such a typification begins to be supported by revisionism to further deepen its surrender to the regime.

 

                                                         Bureaucratic Capitalism

 

This problem is important for understanding Peruvian society, and its ignorance is the root of serious political errors; we find the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism in the classics and in Mariátegui, although in this case with another name.

 

                             What do we understand by Bureaucratic Capitalism?

 

It is the capitalism that promotes imperialism in a backward country; the type of capitalism, the special form of capitalism, that an imperialist country imposes on a backward country, whether semi-feudal or semi-colonial. Let us analyze this historical process.

 

How did capitalism develop in the old European nations? Let us suppose France; at the end of the 18th century it was a feudal country, it had 20 to 22 million peasants, the workers and laborers did not add up to but 600 thousand, (there you can see the feudal step that it had); It was based on serfdom in its different forms. However, in the feudal core of France new productive, manufacturing, and capitalist forms were generated; and a class, the bourgeoisie, was gaining more and more strength, more economic power, even political influence. Let us ask ourselves: Was France a country subject to another? Was it an oppressed country? No. France was an absolute monarchy that disputed with England the hegemony of the world; it was not oppressed by anyone. Its socioeconomic and historical conditions had made it develop like this. At that time, was there imperialism? No. Imperialism is from this century. What there were are countries in capitalist development like England, for example; and France was independently developing a capitalist society. Other countries followed the same path, and when the 19th century came, France, England, Belgium, Holland, etc. and they are developed independent capitalist countries.

 

What was the situation of the Latin American nations in the 19th century? When the emancipation of America began (1810), the nations of Europe were already powerful, in contrast, the Latin American nations were just beginning to structure their nationality, a problem that has not yet been resolved. Furthermore, these nations, shortly after emancipation, fell under the domination of a power, England; thus their capitalism will develop under English domination, as a dependent capitalism. There is, therefore, a notable historical, economic and political difference compared to the European process.

 

On the other hand, the bourgeoisies in Latin America are developing and becoming more and more linked to the dominant country, in such a way that these weak bourgeoisies, instead of developing independently, as the European ones did, and serving national interests, will develop with the subjugated, dependent bourgeoisies, given over body and soul to the imperialist powers (England or the USA) to the extent that they believe, until they become wealthy and developed intermediary bourgeoisies, as the history of this century shows.

 

This last path was the one that occurred in Peru. As we have seen, in the second decade of this century, Yankee imperialism replaced English domination. To do this, the United States used its intermediaries and seized state power; this is the meaning and function of the 1919 coup d'état by Leguía and his eleven. This period is key in the national process. In 1919, Leguía raised some issues: the vindication of natural resources, the granting of land to those who work it, the vindication of natural resources, the participation of the people through a plebiscite and the renovation of the state apparatus. Leguía was the direct political instrument of the United States to promote its dependent bureaucratic capitalism in the country, to which end he promoted his own intermediary bourgeoisie, displacing from the state apparatus that which was linked to England through a renewal of the intermediary bourgeoisie that fought sharply against the so-called oligarchy. From this process we must draw one lesson, among others: it is not enough for a regime to attack the oligarchy or to claim natural resources or to talk about giving the land to those who work it in order to be considered revolutionary; it may be a matter, as with Leguía today, of a renewal of the intermediate bourgeoisie and the development of bureaucratic capitalism.

 

Thus, the United States began its domination in the country and gradually introduced itself into our economy, changing its forms according to international fluctuations and the correlation of classes within the country. In one period, American imperialism uses state capitalist modalities, in another, free enterprise as the fundamental; according to which the State intervenes directly in a broader way in the economic process, promoting it or putting in the foreground its role as guardian of the free relations of private enterprise.

 

                                                   Three Lines of Bureaucratic Capitalism

 

Bureaucratic capitalism develops three lines in its process: a landowning line in the countryside, a bureaucratic one in industry and a third, also bureaucratic, in the ideological field. Without pretending that these are the only ones.

 

It introduces the landowning line in the countryside through expropriatory agrarian laws that do not aim at destroying the feudal landowning class and its property but at progressively evolving them through the purchase and payment of the land by the peasants. The bureaucratic line in industry aims at controlling and centralizing industrial production, in commerce, etc., placing them more and more in the hands of monopolists in order to promote a faster and more systematic accumulation of capital, to the detriment of the working class and other workers, naturally, and to the benefit of the largest monopolies and of imperialism as a result; In this process, the forced savings to which workers are subjected, as seen in the industrial law, are of great importance. The bureaucratic line in the ideological field consists of the process to mold the entire people, through mass media, especially in the political conception and ideas, particularly, that serve bureaucratic capitalism; the general law of education is the concentrated expression of this line, and one of the constants of this line is ist anti-communism, its anti-Marxism, open or hidden.

 

These three lines are part of the bureaucratic path that is opposed by the DEMOCRATIC WAY, the revolutionary path of the people; if the former defends feudal property, the latter proposes its destruction and opposes confiscation in the face of payment for land; if the former recognizes and strengthens imperialist industrial property, the latter denies it and fights for its confiscation; if the former strives to ideologically subjugate the people, the latter strives to ideologically arm them; and if the former persecutes Marxism, the latter maintains that one must be guided by Marxism as the only scientific instrument to understand reality. They are, therefore, two absolutely contrary paths. The history of the country in this century is the history of the struggle of these two paths: the bureaucratic path, that is, of capitalism subjected to imperialism, and the democratic path, the path of the working class, of the peasantry, of the petite bourgeoisie and, in certain circumstances, the national bourgeoisie.

 

In order to understand bureaucratic capitalism, it is very useful to study and analyze the 60s, in which the process of the destruction of feudalism advanced more; in this period industry and capitalist relations in agriculture were promoted. On the other hand, the class struggle developed greatly; the union, peasant and student movements reached high levels. Thus a strong union movement developed that at a certain moment took locals and leaders as hostages; the peasant movement also had a great boom, in the second half of 63 like wildfire it ran from the center of the country to the south; and the student movement had a considerable rise. In summary, the struggle of the masses has lived great experiences in that period, political struggle.

 

Likewise, party politics had a great boom; On the one hand, the political parties of the reaction ran into serious difficulties and struggles, leading to the crisis of the so-called representative democracy in the years 67 and 68; on the other hand, the left developed a vigorous political life, within which the struggle between Marxism and revisionism was waged, later to return to the path of Mariátegui as a condition for developing the revolution.

 

Another rather important fact, and not sufficiently studied, is the problem of the guerrillas: in the year 65, even in this area there was a guerrilla outbreak. The guerrilla movement in the country is part of the national process. This is a first issue that must be highlighted because sectarians sometimes try to consider it the simple experience of an organization and do not see it as the experience of the Peruvian people. It is a movement intimately linked to the political process of the country, developed according to petty bourgeois conceptions; It is a great experience that needs to be analyzed from the position of the proletariat in order to draw fruitful lessons.

 

It is impossible to understand our situation in the 1970s and its perspective without understanding the concrete conditions of the 1960s. There is one good thing: in recent years, the Peruvian intellectual community has begun to understand the need to study the 1960s. Only by understanding this period will we be better armed ideologically to understand the current situation.

 

The problem of bureaucratic capitalism is important because it allows us to understand the dominant path that imperialism is taking in a backward country, in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country; by understanding this problem we will be equipped to combat the thesis of the capitalist character of the country and its political derivations.

To conclude this topic, let us deal with the following: some maintain that to propose bureaucratic capitalism in the country is to ignore its semi-feudal and semi-colonial character; they say that it is covertly proposed that the country is capitalist. This is an error that ignores the laws of social development of our country and of the backward countries; because, precisely, bureaucratic capitalism is nothing but the path of imperialism in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, without semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions there would be no bureaucratic capitalism, thus, to propose the existence of bureaucratic capitalism is to propose as a premise that the country is semi-feudal and semi-colonial.

 

                                     The Current Situation of the Country

 

                               Conditions in which the current regime arises

 

Under what conditions does the current regime arise? Let us look at the end of the 60s. What was happening? Economic problem: 67 currency devaluation, freezing of wages, etc. Economic crisis. On the other hand, the rising mass struggles, strong worker and peasant struggles, were clearly seen to begin to appear similar to those given in the initial years of the decade; a future rise of the mass movement was in sight. Politically, there were clashes and divisions between and in the political organizations of the dominant classes; the famous disputes between parliament and executive. In addition, the elections were approaching, giving an opportunity to clarify many of the country's problems and even for the parties in dispute, in their eagerness to monopolize votes, to air dirty laundry. Ideologically, our country had gone through a profound debate of ideas and it had become quite clear what Marxism and what revisionism are; moreover, the path of Mariátegui was beginning to be taken up again, to apply Marxism to the specific conditions of the country.

 

In addition to what has been said, two situations must be highlighted:

 

1) The economic situation of the country, that is, the development of bureaucratic capitalism,

could no longer continue to develop in the previous form, and it was urgent to deepen it. We needed to open a wider path for this process to advance in the form of imperialism; with the previous forms it could not advance. Let us not forget that the agrarian problem had been discussed for many years, there were even agrarian laws: the Beltrán project,

the Pérez Godoy and Belaúnde laws. Another issue: in the industrial problem, the law of the

second Prado government was already insufficient and the need to create

industrial parks, give priority to the state role, plan, etc. was reconsidered; there is the Belaúnde plan from 1967 to 1970 that even more raised the need to change the social condition of the country to build a new society, national, democratic, Christian. In

conclusion, the process of bureaucratic capitalism needed to be deepened.

 

2) In the country there was the so-called representative democracy, but parliamentarism

did not satisfy the needs of the exploiters; the popular masses advanced with

relative ease, causing difficulties, although temporary, for the exploiting classes.

They then needed to replace the representative modality, parliamentarism. Was

this a typical case that occurred only in the country? No. The 1960s, in Latin America, implied the fragility of the so-called representative democracy regime, the crisis of

parliamentarism and therefore the need to replace it with state modalities more

effective for the reaction.

 

In short, the economic need to deepen bureaucratic capitalism and the

fragility of parliamentarism, in the conditions indicated, posed to the exploited classes and imperialism the need for a new political approach for the country.

Thus, the current regime arises from economic, social and political needs to deepen bureaucratic capitalism.

 

There is currently an economic-social plan that is rarely discussed. In summary, it establishes: the need to promote bureaucratic capitalism, through the efforts of workers and peasants, the former contributing through the industrial law and the latter through the agrarian law. In turn, it proposes the direct and primary action of the State to open conditions for investment of private capital; that financing necessarily has to come from imperialism and since this financing is insufficient, the fundamental thing lies in the country's own resources. This plan clearly shows its connection with the process of bureaucratic capitalism in the country; this plan is clearly linked to that of Belaúnde and this one with the entire system of bureaucratic capitalism in the country.

 

The economic plan is very closely linked to social mobilization, but this is another thing that is not very clear. The regime, having approved its fundamental measures (agrarian, industrial and educational) has moved on to an organizational stage. Today and in the immediate future, we are developing within the organization, mobilization and participation that the regime is promoting. Social mobilization must be understood as being linked to the economic process. The government itself says that without social mobilization it will not be able to fulfill its economic-social plan; and it states that social mobilization has a basis, participation in property. Lately, the representatives of the regime have been talking about social property. What is this for? Property serves, behind the lure of participating in property, to mobilize the masses for the benefit of bureaucratic capitalism. For this reason, the basis of social mobilization is social participation.

 

What is the purpose of social mobilization? Social mobilization is a political instrument in the hands of the regime to promote its concepts and open a path that is neither capitalist nor communist, that is, to spread its ideas. And by spreading its ideas it seeks to prevent the masses from being imprinted with strange, exotic, foreign ideas. What ideas are you referring to? Marxism. This ideological process is to prevent the masses from learning Marxism and thus tie them to the bureaucratic path. Likewise, mobilization is a means to organize, based on the modalities of ownership, the masses and channel them under a vertical command. This is what they understand by social mobilization; it is a master piece of the system at the service of their economic and political plan. One of the reasons why the economic plan is not advancing, as they expected it to, is the lack of their so-called social mobilization.

 

From what has been said, we can conclude: the current political situation in the country is centered on the problem of mobilizing the masses. Now and in the immediate future, we are moving in this situation: who and how to mobilize the masses. The government intends to move them according to its conception; the facts demonstrate this. The regime aims to organize the peasant masses, this is what Law 19400 serves, they aim to organize the workers through the so-called CTRP. Nationalist, revolutionary, participatory; among the student body it creates organizations that are born one day and disappear the next. All this means the attempt to organize the working, peasant and student masses, which reveals that the struggle is taking place on the organizational level.

 

However, despite the propaganda and efforts of the regime and its followers, the mass struggle is intensified and developed. Why? Because the living conditions of the masses are worsening as a consequence of the system itself; Therefore, no matter how much they shout that it is the ultra-left that moves the masses and agitates them, the truth is that the masses are moved by their interests, and the more conscious they are, the more they defend it.

In summary, the social, economic and political conditions lead to an intensification of the struggle of the masses; and the organizational question faces serious difficulties in the face of the organizational offensive of the regime, which, incapable of imposing its total control, will have to resort more to systematic repression (of which there are several and very instructive examples).

 

In conclusion: the ideology and the politics of the regime, including the organizational one, express a fascist character. The measures of the regime, what its leaders express, its way of organizing, the expressions it has in relation to the representative regime, the way of treating civil liberties, only demonstrate one thing: the abandonment of the demo-liberal and representative system and the adhesion to fascism. The head of Sinamos himself says that there is a pre-revolutionary period, and that all political regimes and organizations have become obsolete under the new social conditions.

 

On the other hand, the measures applied in the political, economic and organizational fields prove conclusively that they are laying the foundations for a CORPORATISTIC system. The essence of this issue is the organizations at the different levels, in which the bosses, the workers and the State must participate.Three parts in the organizations, this is what has been defined as a corporation since the last century. This is how those who supported corporatism have put it in the 20s and how they support it today in Spain and Portugal.

 

Thus, the current regime is a system that has a fascist ideological orientation and is laying the foundations for a CORPORATISTIC system. It will be said that there are other theses. Of course. There are theses that maintain that this is not true, some maintain that it is a bourgeois revolutionary regime that is completing a stage of the revolution; if we remember what we have seen, this is an assertion without political, ideological or economic foundation. Another thesis maintains that the regime is bourgeois reformist, that it is implementing reforms. What is reform? Reform is the concession that the people extract with their struggles, or is it the by-product of the revolution, said Lenin. Are the agrarian, industrial or educational laws concessions to the people? This was enough to see the inconsistency of this thesis.

 

Finally, when we emancipated ourselves we had two problems, the land problem and the national problem, the problem of feudalism and the problem of the domination of a foreign power. Many years have passed, our society has advanced. The people of today are not the people of yesterday. We believe that today, after so many years, we still have two problems: the land problem and the national problem. Hence, the process of transformation in our country, scientifically called, is still a NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION and this can only be led by the proletariat.