Proletarians of all countries, unite!
A (NEW) DEBATE ON THE
CENTRAL TASK OF EVERY REVOLUTION
The document we are publishing below—dating from February 2009—was originally released under the title "A New Debate on the Central Task of Every Revolution" and was drafted entirely by us, the Peru People's Movement. It is a historic document—a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, Gonzalo Thought document—that remains highly relevant to the current debate within the International Communist Movement (ICM). This debate centers on the central task of every revolution: the seizure of power through people's war. Consequently, the document retains its full validity, even though the association that originally signed it ceased operations in 2011.
The importance of this document transcends the transient figures of that era—individuals who have since sunk into the mire. We are confident in its utility not only for comrades in the United States striving for the reconstitution of the Communist Party, but also for comrades in other imperialist countries who recognize the necessity of a Communist Party to wage socialist revolution through people's war. Furthermore, it is invaluable for our comrades in oppressed nations—who operate amidst the life-and-death struggle between revolution and counter-revolution and are striving to realize the long-overdue strategic task of constituting or reconstituting the Party to wage a New Democratic revolution through people's war. This applies, for instance, to comrades in countries currently engaged in wars of national resistance against imperialist-Zionist wars of aggression—such as Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and others.
What is the duty of communists in the aforementioned countries? It is their duty to carry out the democratic revolution; to use the Party and people's war to transform those wars of resistance into a revolution capable of sweeping away imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and semi-feudalism. Conditions in those countries are difficult yet ideal for carrying out the principal, long-overdue task: striving—with a Communist Party—to lead those struggles and transform them into a people's war of national resistance. In other words, to wage one's own revolution in the service of, and as part of, the world revolution. That is the only solution to the contradiction between the superpowers and imperialist powers, on the one hand, and the oppressed countries of the Third World, on the other.
Peru People’s Movement (MPP)
July 2026
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
A NEW DEBATE REGARDING THE
CENTRAL TASK OF EVERY REVOLUTION
The central task of every revolution is the seizure of power through revolutionary violence—which today can be nothing other than people's war. Therefore, Maoism has established that prior to the start of the people's war, all efforts and struggles are directed toward initiating it; once begun, everything must serve to develop it in order to carry the revolution to the end—that is, to the conquest of power throughout the country. This holds true for the United States just as it does for any other country in the world. Reality demonstrates the existence of a revolutionary situation—developing unevenly—in every country on Earth. For Comrade Avakian, there is no revolutionary situation; his slogan does not affirm the central task of the revolution—power—but rather constitutes a negation, declaring "Against Power!" Here, we affirm that this is not the task; rather, the task is to go to the masses, mobilize them, and develop their struggles in order to reconstitute the Party of the proletariat—as a Party of a new type capable of assuming the task of initiating and developing people's war—so as to launch the people's war.
Increasing Reactionary Nature of the
Bourgeois State in the United States
The process of the bourgeois state becoming increasingly reactionary is part of the death throes of imperialism—amidst the life-and-death struggle between revolution and counter-revolution worldwide—and occurs in both imperialist and oppressed nations. This process, characterized by the growing curtailment of rights and freedoms—for instance, in the United States—follows a path of centralizing power in the President and the Executive branch (presidential absolutism) and the increasing militarization of policy, both foreign and domestic. A significant step in this direction occurred under Reagan in the early 1980s with the militarization of the so-called "war on drugs"; this trend advanced significantly under Bush and continues at an even higher level now under Obama. John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer under the Bush administration—who, as an advisor, authored the memos authorizing the detention of prisoners of war at Guantanamo as "unlawful combatants" and the use of interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding"—has just published a book titled *Crisis and Command*. In it, he explores how this process is reflected in the consciousness of the imperialist actors themselves, tracing the evolution of presidential power in the United States—particularly the power to wage war—up to the Bush Jr. administration, a process that has continued unabated.
To this process of centralizing and concentrating power in the presidency described by Mr. Yoo, one must add the economic bailout measures implemented since 2008. Bush and Obama have injected over $2 trillion into the economy, granting the President immense power; this allows the Executive branch to intervene in industrial firms, banks, investment houses, and the like, acting as a shareholder with greater rights and authority than any other partner or creditor. Added to this is the initiative to centralize healthcare services, among other things.
It is significant to note that the Democratic Party candidate—Obama’s party—running for a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts lost to the Republican candidate, who based his campaign on "defending citizens' rights against the ever-growing power of Washington," and so forth. This serves as further political proof of the point we are making. It demonstrates that this process of a shift toward reaction generates a spontaneous sentiment of rejection among the population; yet, due to the absence of a revolutionary party to drive and channel this sentiment, it is manipulated by the reactionary forces themselves for their own electoral contests. Thus, the other political mafia that alternates in power in the United States—the Republican Party—has employed its old slogan, "Against the Power of Washington!", to mobilize voters for its candidate. In other words, during elections, the opposition candidate—regardless of party affiliation—will always rally around this slogan (meaning "against Power," or more precisely, "against the central government in Washington," etc.) to win votes, promising (as candidates often do) to grant citizens greater rights as "individuals" to make decisions at the local level—a slogan rendered obsolete by the very development of the bourgeois state.
In the United States, the struggle is to blow up the bourgeois state
and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
However, there are some comrades who claim to apply a "New Synthesis of Marxism"—yet, instead of distinguishing themselves from the two political mafias of the imperialist financial oligarchy (which alternate in government and divide up seats in the House of Representatives, the US Senate, state legislatures, etc.), they go against the core tenet of Maoism—Power—and tail after one of the two warring bourgeois factions.
As we have seen on numerous occasions—such as during the previous elections under the Bush Jr. administration—the comrades of the PCR-USA tailed after the Democratic Party mafia by failing to call for an election boycott, arguing that... “it would be foolish to do so”—now, through their “wise leader” Bob Avakian, they are pushing the following:
“...it is not the time and the conditions do not yet exist to risk everything to seize power, but “now IS the time to be WORKING FOR THE REVOLUTION—to be increasing resistance while forging a movement for revolution—in order to prepare for the moment when it WILL be possible to risk everything to seize power”... but “accelerate while we wait” for the development of a revolutionary situation and the emergence of a revolutionary people of millions and millions.... But I do want to emphasize the importance of this understanding: on the one hand, without resistance, without fighting against power, it will not be possible to build a revolutionary movement; on the other hand, if communists do not see that resistance with the orientation of building a movement for revolution and the goal of abolishing this capitalist system and creating a radically new society and world, that resistance will remain… Although other people with whom we join in particular struggles will have different points of view, we must proceed in everything we do with the understanding and from the point From a viewpoint that is concentrated on the statement: “Fight against power, and transform the people, for the revolution.” (Bob Avakian, Resistance and the Building of a Movement for Revolution, Contradictions Still to be Resolved, Forces Driving the Revolution)
What is the implication of this? That there is no revolutionary situation in the United States; in essence, it asserts that objective conditions are not favorable for revolution. This implies that the vast majority in the United States does not suffer from the class oppression and exploitation inflicted by the big imperialist bourgeoisie (the financial oligarchy)—exploitation that is becoming increasingly unbearable by the day. Is this true? No. One need only read any bourgeois report or statistic regarding the condition of the masses to see that their suffering is intensifying, that it has become unbearable for them, and that they no longer wish to live this way—especially given the development of the current crisis of imperialism. Furthermore, regarding the other aspect characterizing a revolutionary situation, one need only observe the process of absolute centralization occurring in the United States—which affects the foundations of the state structure (a point we briefly touched upon at the beginning of this article)—to see that those at the top can no longer govern as before. As Maoism teaches us, it is precisely these two conditions that generate mass mobilizations and struggles, including the strike movement of the proletariat. And such struggles are constantly taking place in the United States. One cannot claim that the proletariat does not struggle in the United States; their own party organ, *Revolution*, contains numerous examples of these struggles. How you interpret or present them, however, is another matter. It is not that mass mobilization generates the revolutionary situation, but rather the reverse: the revolutionary situation—that is, the objective conditions for revolution—is the cause of the mobilizations, and the mobilizations are the effect (for a better understanding of this, it is highly important to study the document: *Let Us Develop the Growing Popular Protest!*, Central Committee of the PCP, September 1979).
So, why does Comrade Avakian say there is no revolutionary situation? Because, in his own words, there is not—at least not yet—"a revolutionary people of millions upon millions." In other words, as we have just seen, he confuses effect with cause because he refuses to analyze the concrete reality of the revolution in the United States in light of Maoism. Consequently—since all political strategy, tactics, and action must proceed from an acknowledgment of the revolutionary situation—he errs gravely. He establishes a tactic and a slogan that call upon the masses to follow the bourgeois path of parliamentary cretinism. Only by recognizing the revolutionary situation—which is developing unevenly—can the proletariat, its Party, and the revolutionaries in the United States assess the current political situation and determine their tactics.
The masses are always ready
Furthermore, Comrade Avakian is essentially telling us that the people do not "yet" want revolution. But can a Maoist, in the twenty-first century, claim that the masses do not want revolution and still maintain that he is a Maoist? No. For, as we have seen, the objective conditions for revolution are ripe; the issue is one of determination—that is, whether or not one is willing to carry out the revolution. If one wishes to carry out the revolution, one must—in the United States, as anywhere else—go to the deepest ranks of the proletarian masses and the people; live with these masses, work with them, struggle alongside them, and mobilize them for the revolution. It is not a matter of watering down Marxism to convince the Harvard pseudo-intellectuals of how good, intelligent, and democratic we are. No, Comrade Avakian, that is not what it is about.
Comrade Avakian, you and your comrades in the PCR—though few in number—are sufficient to initiate this task once and for all, provided, of course, that you decide to do so. The task facing anyone who calls themselves a revolutionary and feels like one is to reach those deepest, most profound masses, to transform themselves, and to mobilize the masses for revolution; this entails building the Party of the class and—with the Party as the center—building the other two instruments of revolution around it. What is required, then, is the revolutionaries' resolve to prepare for the leap to initiate people's war.
The problem does not lie with the masses; they are always ready. As Maoism teaches us, where there are masses and a Party, all manner of miracles can be performed. Thus, the problem is not a lack of "a revolutionary people numbering in the millions upon millions"; the problem is always ours—primarily that of the revolutionaries. The issue, therefore, is that there is no desire to carry out the revolution—at least not for the time being—and talk turns instead to "resistance." That does not befit a true Maoist. We Maoists uphold the principle of *fighting and resisting*! We transform reality through struggle and combat; we fight in order to resist, and we resist in order to fight—our central focus is combat. This concerns the masses, who are always an arena of contention between revolution and counter-revolution. If we do not win them over to the revolution, the enemy turns the situation to its own advantage, using the masses against their own class interests. Yet—contrary to all these Marxist-Leninist-Maoist truths—you claim that the time is not right for revolution; instead, you call upon your supporters to raise the slogan: "Fight against power and transform the people for the revolution."
In conclusion, then: Comrade Avakian thus separates daily struggle from political struggle, and the struggle for specific demands from the struggle for Power, attempting to convince us that a political struggle can exist that is not a struggle for Power. And by confusing a revolutionary situation with a revolutionary crisis, you propose "fighting against Power itself"...! That amounts to trying to rally the people behind a "struggle against the government"; that is what happens when—in other words—you adopt the bourgeois slogan "against Washington's Power" (under any of its interpretations), leading to a "struggle against officials rather than the emperor." In this way, the subjective factor of the revolution—the revolutionary Party—is not developed; armed detachments are not prepared to act as the initiators and embryos of the future revolutionary army; and the masses are not mobilized to break through established bounds and launch the struggle. In short, this fails to generate the revolutionary mass movement needed to build a Party distinct from and opposed to all others—one capable of leading the seizure of Power—and instead leaves you waiting for a future "revolutionary crisis" to be triggered by the reaction. That is to say, despite the PCP’s criticisms—pointing out since the early 1980s that "revolution does not come from the reaction"—you stubbornly persist, in defiance of reality, in expecting the revolution to arise spontaneously from the twists and turns of Yankee reaction itself. Deep down—as has been pointed out to you on previous occasions—you still view Yankee imperialism as all-powerful; you fail to see its internal struggles and contradictions, or how its situation is worsening and its collapse is accelerating—a collapse that drives the imperialist State toward violence against the people within the United States and toward wars of imperialist aggression.
Your slogan fails to educate the people in a revolutionary spirit or to mobilize them. It fails to educate them in revolutionary violence and the relentless struggle against revisionism. Quite the contrary—perhaps despite good intentions—it reeks of parliamentary cretinism. Despite the "pretty" words adorning it, your slogan serves to drag discontented masses—who spontaneously reject the system, its institutions, representatives, parties, etc.—into the wake of factions of the big imperialist bourgeoisie (the financial oligarchy). It leads them to participate in elections backing candidates from one of the two mafias "for the time being," with the plan to—surely, if the strength arises—field their own candidate later. We do not wish to put words in the mouth of Comrade Avakian or his party, the PCR. We base our position on concrete facts and the logical consequences of those facts and their own words.
If Comrade Avakian or any of his party's representatives believe we are misinterpreting them, let them say so with absolute clarity: let them draw a line, crush, and sweep away the position we are attributing to them. In that event, we would be the first to admit our error with great joy and profound self-criticism; we would celebrate the fact that we had misjudged their words and actions. In that event, we would engage in self-criticism and publish—in large, bold letters—your repudiation of any act or word that leads to parliamentary cretinism rather than embracing the Maoist position of making revolution. And if we criticize you now, it is not to pick a fight with you or other comrades who share your position, but because we advocate for debate, because we are not political weaklings, and because we possess the strength that Maoism gives us.
New Peru Friendship Association USA
Feb. 2009