Continuing
with our NOTES AND MATERIALS ON CONTEMPORARY PERU (III, continuation of
Annexes), we include the following as annexes:
I
As an
introduction:
In the
light of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism, Chairman Gonzalo has shown how
the semi-feudal and semi-colonial character of contemporary Peru is maintained
and new modalities 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
Peruvian society and revolution.
The
character of contemporary Peruvian society, which not only remains, but which,
in the midst of its general irreversible crisis and sweeping process, deepens
as we have seen in these notes. In this process, it lashes out like a mortally
wounded beast. Thus, the old society and the old State that represents and
defends it are mortally wounded, dying, but not dead. This situation will
continue until the democratic revolution culminates with the seizure of power
throughout the country; because today, any revolution can only be accomplished
through the people's war led by the Communist Party, the main form of struggle,
and the revolutionary armed forces, the main form of organization. In the case
of the democratic revolution, like ours, the path that follows is that of
surrounding the cities from the countryside (CCCC), as a unitary people's war,
the main countryside and the city as a necessary complement.
That
Chairman Gonzalo masterfully establishes that the capitalism that is developing
in Peru is a bureaucratic capitalism hindered by the subsistent shackles of
semi-feudalism that bind it and on the other hand subjugated to imperialism
that does not allow the national economy to develop, it is, therefore, a
bureaucratic capitalism that oppresses and exploits the proletariat, the
peasantry and the petite bourgeoisie, and that constrains the middle
bourgeoisie. Why? Because the capitalism that is developing is a late process
and only allows an economy for its imperialist interests. It is a capitalism
that represents the big bourgeoisie, the landowners and the rich peasantry of
the old type, classes that constitute a minority and exploit and oppress the
great majorities, the masses.
That bureaucratic
capitalism is not a process particular to China or Peru, but rather is
due to the late conditions in which imperialism subjugates the oppressed
nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America and when these have not yet
destroyed the subsisting feudalism and less developed capitalism.
Logic and
history show us the full validity of what Chairman Gonzalo established
regarding the character of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial Peruvian society
in which bureaucratic capitalism is developing, regarding the targets of the revolution,
the tasks to be undertaken, the social classes and the essence of the
democratic revolution and also how it is being carried out today and its
perspective.
In this
Annex I, we show how the LOD intends to revise Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo
Thought in relation to the problem of bureaucratic capitalism and the evolution
of semi-feudalism.
In 2013,
the opportunist, revisionist and capitulationist line of the right, continuing
its course of revisionist renegades and traitors to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
Gonzalo Thought, the Communist Party of Peru, the People's War, the Peruvian
Revolution and the world revolution, raised the "dependent
capitalist" character of Peruvian society, that semi-feudalism was
undermined and the semi-colonial condition was evolved.
Chairman
Mao and Chairman Gonzalo clearly point out that the point is to sweep away,
through the people's war, the three mountains that oppress us: imperialism,
bureaucratic capitalism and semi-feudalism, not to undermine or evolve, for
which the democratic revolution must be completed with the seizure of power
throughout the country. The process of sweeping away the old social relations
of production and the old power takes place amidst restorations and
counter-reestablishments amidst the fluidity of the people's war. The Peruvian
revolution and the people's war led by the PCP are in this process, which in
order to continue its victorious development and carry the revolution to the
end demands further development and completion of the general reorganization of
the Party.
We know
that the people's war can never be stopped, because as long as there is a
single communist in the Party, it will have to raise everything again and
continue with the task.
1. Fundamental question: semi-feudalism
and bureaucratic capitalism
President
Gonzalo, in the Second Plenary Session of the Central Committee (1991), on such
approaches of reaction and revisionism, in The Document, said:
What we
must know is that they seek to confuse problems and in this way aim to make us
believe that there is a capitalist process that advances, and thus avoid and
cover up bureaucratic capitalism.
We must see
what the specific, concrete situations are in Peru (starting from bureaucratic
capitalism) because today they are leading to an unbridled dispossession of the
peasants' property.
We make the
peasants fight against this dispossession and we tell them that only with a new
order will there be a profound transformation and that this will benefit them.
The
so-called "agrarian reform" of the fascist government of Velasco did
not resolve the problem of land ownership, neither the latifundia nor its counterpart
the minifundia were destroyed. What was done was to deepen bureaucratic
capitalism according to fascist and corporate molds.
The
peasantry wants the land for those who work it and the exploiters could not and
cannot apply that, they are opposed to the slogan of true agrarian reform
because this can only be fulfilled if semi-feudalism is destroyed with a
people's war, raising the peasantry and leading it towards a red Republic, the
People's Republic of Peru, only by applying the peasant path led by the
Communist Party.
Semi-feudalism
persists with its three characteristics: latifundia, serfdom and gamonalism,
despite the evolution generated by the landowning path of development of
bureaucratic capitalism.
The
important thing is that in the Sierra the extensive properties are maintained
despite the fact that there has been an "agrarian reform."
Para diferenciar:
de una manera se explota a la clase campesina: como clase organizada la
burguesía la explota a través del Estado mediante impuestos; y como
capitalistas, en las modalidades de la usura, del préstamo, del capital, del
interés, los que no pagados se cobran con la hipoteca. Y ¿cómo lo explota el
terrateniente? por la renta. Así es como se diferencia la semifeudalidad.
Las formas feudales tienen tres modalidades
que son: el pago de la renta en trabajo personal, en especie y en dinero;
también el pago en dinero es una modalidad feudal y que el capitalista la
aplique no quiere decir que no tengan raigambre feudal
Criticando una de
las conclusiones de un informe de un representante de la reacción, que
afirmó: “Se reduce la importancia
relativa del minifundio, que aumentó su tamaño promedio”. El Presidente dice,,
claro su posición es que hay un desarrollo capitalista derivado de su exitosa
reforma, de ahí que minimice o tergiverse la realidad; aquí sus propias
palabras son: “se reduce el minifundio”, por tanto, existe aún no ha
desaparecido, así que no hay tal éxito de su reforma; las formas serviles de
explotación también subsisten, el latifundio y el minifundio siguen
coexistiendo.
Dice, el minifundismo determina
un retroceso en el cultivo del suelo, porque se restringe la posibilidad de
aplicar formas nueva. En la parcela, trabaja
toda la familia hasta el agotamiento, se invierte una gran fuerza de trabajo
pero el producto neto disminuye progresivamente al aumento del producto bruto.
Esto mismo rige en la micro y pequeña producción. Esto es óptimo para el
imperialismo porque compra a menor costo explotando inmensamente.
Este fenómeno (está en la base
semifeudal del capitalismo burocrático) en el campo, además repercute en contra
del proletariado porque así el campo tiene que consumir menos, la producción
tiene que bajar, los salarios de los obreros se reducen y hay mucho margen de
desocupación.
Ver en la Línea de la Revolución
Democrática: El caduco sistema
semifeudal sigue subsistiendo y marcando al país desde sus bases más
profundas hasta sus más elaboradas ideas y, en esencia, manteniendo
persistente el problema de la tierra, motor de la lucha de clases del
campesinado, especialmente pobre que es la inmensa mayoría
Las formas
asociativas que se gestaron con la ley corporativa de Velasco se vinieron
abajo.
Con el gobierno de
Fujimori a partir de julio de 1990, es la nueva concentración que pretenden
ahora que la empresa privada tiende a jugar un papel importante en la economía
peruana.
Decir, que ese
proceso (de parcelación), ha comenzado espontáneamente es también soslayar que
lo que se está expresando es el camino campesino que subsiste y se desarrolla
frente al camino terrateniente; y sobre todo que con la parcelación hoy día lo
que se está buscando de parte de la reacción es que se den los títulos de
propiedad a los campesinos para atarlos al proceso de la hipoteca y la usura,
despojarlos de las tierras y que de éstas se apropien los banqueros, la gran
burguesía y los terratenientes; quieren amplio campo para que puedan invertir
en el campo y desenvolver la agro-industria; apoderarse de las tierras;
usufructuar de las pocas irrigaciones que hay o agarrarse las grandes
concesiones de terrenos eriazos a través de los “PRIDI”.
En síntesis, despojo de la tierra de los
campesinos para que los terratenientes y la gran burguesía se apoderen y
desenvuelva el campo en función de lo que demanda el imperialismo, producir
para exportar no para alimentar al pueblo ( pero si un país no produce sus
alimentos comienza a depender de otros, y no hay que olvidar que la política
del imperialismo es controlar precisamente la producción alimenticia).
The big
bourgeoisie, especially the buyer class, is favoured by the parcelling out
because it facilitates the dispossession for a new concentration with the
objective of evolving the countryside, to create large agro-industrial
complexes.
They do the
parcelling out in function of new accumulation of capital, they bring
bureaucratic capitalism to the countryside.
The community is
not as it is believed, an organism that works collectively, it is not like
that, they are made up of family productive units, there is a distribution, a
distribution of lands, that should make one think because then a process of
dismemberment of the community is taking place, it is not like the pum
(revisionists) do, a united process in which everyone has the same interest, it
is not like that.
In the
communities there are poor, middle class and rich, apart from the fact that
they are constantly harassed by landowners. This means that there is the
process of that decomposition of the community. There, of course, forms of
collective work subsist, such as sowing, ayni, etc.; These things are like
that, but that doesn't mean that we don't see classes within the community.
In the communities,
what is also happening? Owning the land is the clear demand of the peasantry,
that is a key element in the background of the destruction of the associative
forms. That expresses the survival of the peasant path and obviously in a
dominant order, which directs the reaction, that path becomes a subservient and
subsidiary path that complements the other; but they express two paths: the
peasant path and the bureaucratic path, we must keep in mind.
I insist again,
the community is a process of increasing decomposition and there are rich,
middle class and poor. That phenomenon, I repeat, is expressing the peasant
path.
The problem is
that the titling and the exercise of their rights within this order, only leads
to coupling to the system, to being a complement to it; but if the peasant path
is not directed by the revolution, it serves bureaucratic capitalism.
In 1972, at an
event in Ayacucho, analyzing the invasions, particularly those of Caccamarca
and Pomacocha, in the province that was then Cangallo, the Party concluded that
all this courageous, heroic and bloody struggle, which cost blood, although it
gave the land, by not developing a revolutionary process, ended up coupling and
complementing the old order and linking, unfortunately, to the power of the
gamonal, which in the Sierra is the system through which the old State
exercises its functions.
Something similar
to what was previously stated, we should consider today. The parceling out of
lands that occurs, dismantling the associations, expresses the peasant path
that is concretized in that need of the peasantry to have their own land; but
if it is not linked to the revolution, it will also simply be a complement and
serve bureaucratic capitalism in the countryside. This is what we must think
about.
The Fujimori
government sees a long time frame for rural development, focuses on productive
development and wants to change the model; it is waiting for what the
presidents of Latin America decide to adjust to Bush's initiative for America;
it is within the criteria of the Cepal that we studied at the Bureau in August
1990, it states that in Latin America, by the year 2000, land will not increase
nor will the number of workers increase, so it should focus on agricultural
productivity; it says that the problem is to develop agricultural technology,
etc. That is precisely what Fujimori is proposing and what the buying
bourgeoisie applauds; for them the problem is no longer the distribution of
land because it has already been distributed but rather productivity, how to
produce more, with what techniques, with what organic devices, what markets to
cover, etc., etc.
There we have the
position of the purchasing bourgeoisie in Peru, seeking to evolve the
countryside, to regularize the titles of property for dispossession and new
concentration. (This scientific prediction of the President has been fulfilled
and there has been a new concentration of land in the hands of landowners and
the big bourgeoisie, as we have been seeing with reports from academics and
reactionary institutes, for export and not for the benefit of the people).
As we will show
with other reports, which study the new concentration of land, what the
President said has been fulfilled, that:
The big
bourgeoisie, especially the purchasing bourgeoisie, is favored by parceling
because it facilitates dispossession for a new concentration of plots because
the plot is small and unproductive; they want parceling with the objective of
evolving the countryside, to make large agro-industrial complexes.
Also on the
social classes in the countryside, the President says:
We can take the
agricultural census of 1972, the National Survey on Rural Households that has
been done in the countryside, although it has some limitations (we now have the
last census from 2012 and the new Surveys, our note), so we could establish a
table to classify based on property and exploitation relationship, to define
the poor, medium and rich peasants, the landowners and the agricultural wage
earner; and in turn establish the differences in each of these areas. What we
must know is that they seek to confuse problems and in this way aim to suggest
that there is a capitalist process that advances, and thus avoid and cover up
bureaucratic capitalism.
He tells us that
we have to look at: “sharecropping.” We have seen very small smallholders, now
we are seeing tenants, who rent their land because they cannot work or who, not
being able to work it, are linked to whoever has capital and work with tax
modalities and in this way the semi-feudal relationship is concealed. It could
be sharecropping or another form; it could simply be delivering in kind, in
products (we will see all this in detail with the new reports that we will
address in these notes).
The President
quotes part of a report, which says: “Of the population grouped in agricultural
production, 2,175,000, that is, 96.5%, would correspond to households that own
agricultural holdings. These households add up to 1,573,000.”
And he comments:
An immense mass. When he speaks of households here, he refers to the entire
family that works on the agricultural holding. “From this group, what could we
derive? 601,000 are employed in family farms and/or are salaried workers of
other units or of an associative company.” Very interesting and extremely important.
Of course, this is discounting the group of people who manage these work units.
The question is, as you say, that there are a good number of salaried workers.
Let's take your
figures, 1,700,000 would be direct and indirect drivers, but there are 702,000
who are salaried workers, 45% more or less. Very important. In other words, we
have a good percentage of agricultural salaried workers, here they are not
called that, but they are; they are not simply salaried workers, they are not
industrial proletariat, nor are they factory proletariat, they are agricultural
proletariat that sells their labor force in agricultural tasks. They are direct
brothers of the proletariat. It is very important to work with this sector,
there are, roughly speaking, 700,000 agricultural workers, they are rural
proletarians, they do not have the peculiarity of the industrial, the factory,
but both are proletariat, they generate surplus value.
We are in the process
of conquering power and we should consider doing an investigation ourselves
into the general and specific situation of the Peruvian proletariat. There are
so many in the factory, so many in mining, so many in the countryside as
agricultural wage earners. Then, in the factory, classify by production
sectors, how much they contribute to the GDP, how much is taken from them by
surplus value, how they are being exploited more and more, how their purchasing
power is being reduced, what are their working conditions like, how they apply
their own reactionary laws torn from the struggle of the Peruvian proletariat,
what is the working day like in each sector. There are 80,000 miners, but their
importance lies in the fact that they move wealth, they generate 50% of the
foreign currency at a national level by exporting. The agricultural proletariat
is important because of its size and of course, it is in the countryside; It
would be a good instrument to penetrate more rural areas because they come from
the mountains or from coastal towns that we have not yet worked... Then, these
semi-salaried workers would also have to be organized, the fact that they are
temporary does not mean that they are not salaried workers;
On the peasants
from the mountains who emigrated to the jungle, he says:
It is a peasant
mass that has to develop within a relationship, no longer servile but of
capitalist modalities, but what type of capitalism? The capitalism that gives
them the land, within the peasant path or the forms of capitalist property
within the landowning path that develops semi-feudalism under bureaucratic
capitalism? Who rules over all this?: the big bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Here, too, the
two paths that confront each other are expressed, both paths occur and collide;
the peasantry wants the land, wants to have property over the land and finds
itself with the possibility of possessing a few and not so good lands; In order
to develop its plans, the reaction facilitates land ownership for the national
bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie, but above all it facilitates the large
property, the big bourgeoisie, the landowners, and imperialism so that they can
invest in large areas for products to be exported; it also favors the
imperialists who apply development plans in the jungle and in the lower jungle,
for example the CORAH project of the World Bank.
All this makes
the two paths collide and the Peruvian experience shows that in these areas of
the jungle, when one passes from one form of exploitation to another, from semi-feudalism
to capitalism, they engender sharp class struggles; this is what explains the
mobilization and the sharpening of the class struggle that occurred years ago,
for example, in Quillabamba and recently in San Martin.
We have to
specify the demands that the middle bourgeoisie, the rich peasantry, the
national bourgeois have; also those of the petty bourgeoisie in the countryside
and in the cities. In the specific case of the countryside, we persistently
uphold and put into practice the idea of basing ourselves on the mainly poor
peasantry, but in certain cases we are expressing it not as the main one but as
the exclusive one and that is not good, although they are the majority there
are also middle class and rich people and the revolution is democratic.
(The above
extracts belong to the document “II PLENO DEL COMITE CENTRAL, DEL PARTIDO
COMUNISTA DEL PERU, EXTRACTOS DE LA SESIÒN PREPARATORIA DEL II PLENO DEL COMITÈ
CENTRAL)
2. Bureaucratic capitalism and the agrarian
process in Peru
.................
....