Proletarians of All Countries, Unite!

From the coming issue #40 of the magazine Sol Rojo / Red Sun:





“Based on the experiences in Peru with the hoax of the “peace accords”, the ROL and the fact that this was a plan conceived and led by yankee imperialism, and based on the analysis of the international situation, the PCP has established that there is today a world-scale imperialist plan for “peace accords”, with which they hope to annihilate every revolutionary armed struggle, especially those led by Maoist parties, by turning them into “tamed” Maoists, i.e. bourgeois legal organizations that conciliate with the reaction, participate in elections and become part of the old system of exploitation and oppression (or turn into armed revisionists waging armed struggle to “put pressure” on the old state in order to get a piece of its power, like we see in connection with the ROL and the LOL in Peru). To achieve this, they hope for old revisionist positions to gain influence within the revolutionary movement: the old theory of “peaceful transition”, the old “personality cult” slander etc.”


Imperialism is going through its general and last crisis and tries to hold back the masses, the communist revolution, sowing capitulation among the world’s communists and revolutionaries through its plan of “peace accords”. It is still incapable of refloating its economy. The economy of the Yankee superpower is broken, and now Chinese social-imperialism is going into crisis, as well as Brazil, South Africa, India among others, which according to bourgeois economists were going to become the new economic driving forces of the imperialist economy. On the other hand, the peoples of the world are rising up against a mode of production that, as is put forward in the “Communist Manifesto”, is incapable of guaranteeing the lives of the wage slaves, while at the same time it is sharpening the contradictions that will inevitably lead to its burial, which will be carried out by the international proletariat and the masses of the world. So we see how in the midst of the imperialist war, the masses of the whole world, including the imperialist countries, rise up against the old bourgeois order, and against the imperialist superpowers and states of the second or third order as well as against the reactionary states of the countries where bureaucrat capitalism is developed. The highest expression of these struggles are the people’s wars and armed struggles led by Maoist Parties, Peru, India, Phillippines etc. – the people’s war in Peru led by the PCP and its CC being the beacon and guide of the world proletarian revolution.

Imperialism has learned from its earlier mistakes. It has understood that it is not sufficient to simply kill the communists and revolutionary people of Peru (although they did all they could to do this as well). Yankee imperialism and its reactionary lackeys in Peru came up with the hoax of the “peace accords” in the hope of:

  1. Slandering the Great Leader of the Peruvian revolution
  2. Turning the PCP into a legal, bourgeois and revisionist party, a Maoist party only in name, integrated into their own system of exploitation and oppression. This was important for them, not only to “save” Peru from revolution but, perhaps more importantly, to “save” the world from the dangerous influence of Chairman Gonzalo and the PCP worldwide, and
  3. Divert the struggles of the proletariat and the masses of the world so that these would not crush and sweep away the imperialist states, so that they would not install New Democracy and without interruption continue the socialist revolution until communism, but on the contrary embrace bourgeois dictatorship behind the veil of “socialism for the 21st century” or bourgeois democracy.

This is the plan of “peace accords”, of capitulation and amnesty, of parliamentary cretinism, that they now spread with the help of new revisionism, i.e. a revisionism to fulfill the role of installing “Maoist parties” only in name and whose plan was carried out in Peru with the hoax of the “peace letters”.

In 1992 Chairman Gonzalo and part of the Central Committee of the PCP are arrested. In 1993 the reaction and imperialism along with the rats of the Right Opportunist Line (ROL) uphold the hoax of the “peace letters”. In the prisons and with the help of the reactionary state and imperialism, a ROL with its own head (the rats Miriam, Morote, Pantoja etc.) and an ideological and political revisionist line (see their monstrosity “Assume and Fight for the New Great Decision and Definition!” from 1993) are structured. The CC of the PCP declares that the “peace letters” are written by imperialism and the reaction (facts that are later confirmed from the reactionaries’ own mouths), that the ROL has been structured outside the PCP (do not forget that these elements were the same who had been crushed at the II Plenum by Chairman Gonzalo and were “left dirty as the stick in a chicken run”) . The PCP reaffirms itself in the people’s war. Imperialism, reaction and new revisionism, the ROL as well as the one inside the CoMRI, on the contrary say that Chairman Gonzalo is the author of the letters, that the ROL is found within some of the Party organizations and that the struggle was waged inside the PCP. Still today, the revisionist Avakian continues to insist that the letters are made by Chairman Gonzalo, in order to slander him. On the contrary, the Party reaffirms itself in the principles that from the prisons, in the hands of the enemy, one does not lead; and that every militant, Chairman Gonzalo included, subjects to the CC until there be a new Congress.

The followers of Avakian, just like all kinds of other revisionists, have taken up the old revisionist and counterrevolutionary thesis of the “cult of personality” in order to 1) attack the greatest living Marxist-Leninist-Maoist on the face of the Earth, attack Gonzalo thought and set the Great Leadership of the PCP against the masses of Peru and of the world, as part of the low-intensity campaign of imperialism, mainly Yankee imperialism, to attack the people’s war in Peru and isolate it, and 2) undermine the whole ICM and the Communist Parties, attacking the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thesis of Great Leaders, Great Leadership and guiding thought of the revolution; to avoid the concrete application of Maoism to the conditions of each revolution.



“The handling of the two-line struggle by the Committee of the RIM (CoRIM), does not serve to cohere the Movement on the basis of Maoism and our principles. Concretely CoRIM has opposed that position of the CC of the Communist Party of Peru reach the member parties and organizations of the RIM and the masses in a clear way, refusing to spread Party documents concerning the defense of the Great Leadership and Gonzalo Thought. On the contrary, they have echoed all the black vomit of reaction and the ROL against Chairman Gonzalo, they have spread the hoax that “Chairman Gonzalo is behind the “peace letters””, saying that they don’t know what is his current position. The Party has publicly demarcated itself from these revisionist positions, after having explained internally, over and over again, our position, firmly based on the principles and the truth of the irrefutable facts, of defending our Great Leadership against any attack. Because of this we do not agree with the CoRIM on how they carry forward the struggle over this and other crucial problems of our Movement. This is nothing but opening a wide breach to favor the development of revisionism and repress the left. This is practicing revisionism and not Marxism. We also find it necessary to reiterate that the RIM is a step forward in the reunification of the communists on world level, but it is not the reconstituted Communist International. The reconstitution of the international communist movement and its organizational expression, the Communist International, is not done in seminaries, conferences or forums, nor among “close and beloved ones”, but it is the work of the Communist Parties that develop people’s war in each country, having as its base the people’s wars of the oppressed nations. The International Communist Movement will be the work of the Communist Parties that develop people’s war in every country, having as its basis the people’s wars of the oppressed nations. The international communist movement will be of the communists of the world, of the Maoists; it is an immediate task, we have a great responsibility, that each Party accomplishes well its day’s work.”


In 1995, against the position of the CC of the PCP, in the magazine “A World to Win”, the following statement is made: “Two years ago, after suffering a dramatic blow after the capture of Chairman Gonzalo, an important two-line struggle broke out in the heart of the Communist Party of Peru”. It is important to emphasize that the position of the CC of the PCP was that the ROL had been structured outside the Party and that the ROL therefore was not part of the PCP as Avakian said.

Then, according to Avakian:

“Emerged the criteria of ‘political truth’, an approach that abandoned the principles and made decisions not on the basis of ‘searching for truth in the facts’ nor applying our revolutionary science to understand reality, but on the basis of what seemed to be ‘useful’. In particular, this point of view was used to justify the theory of the hoax, put forward by the leadership of the Communist Party of Peru (PCP), that insisted, against all the available evidence, that Chairman Gonzalo did not have any link to the Right Opportunist Line in the Party and that even investigating this possibility was the most vile treason.”
(Quote from the letters from the RCP (USA) 2005 to 2008, sent to Prachanda)

Avakian already in this text twists reality and deforms it as the good revisionist he is. The question put forward had nothing to do with the question of objective reality, it is undeniable that an objective reality exists. Avakian talks about the political truth to present the class truth as something subjective and that does not offer any knowledge of reality. The position of the communists is that communism is a scientific ideology, and not just plain science as Avakian puts forward. It has a class character and serves a class: the proletariat.

The objective truth (coming from the objective reality) is one, no one can deny it: there cannot exist multiple truths. But all the social classes do not have the same possibility of discovering the truth about the laws of society; the discovery of the truth implies some limits, which are class origin and class position. Only one class, the proletariat, when it constitutes itself as a “class for itself”, whose interests go in the direction of the objective development laws of the world, can discover and utilize the objective truth; a class whose interests go against this direction will not be able to reach this truth, and, on the contrary, opposes this truth, attacks it, persecutes it, like Avakian does when he defends the “truth” outside of the classes and their interests. What Avakian tries to do is to conciliate the proletariat with the bourgeoisie and make the working class tail behind the bourgeoisie. On the basis of his “objective truth” outside of the classes and of the revolutionary practice of the proletariat, he tries to make the petty bourgeoisie the one that leads the revolutionary processes. According to Avakian, we are all equal before the objective truth, and the petty bourgeois intellectuals, like Avakian himself, can contribute with their points of view to enrich the revolutionary process. The fundamental point of Avakian’s ideas is the conciliation with the bourgeoisie.

There is also an antagonistic contradiction between the PCP’s and Maoism’s conception of two-line struggle and  Avakian’s and new revisionism’s. To the Maoists there are two kinds of struggle: antagonistic, that is waged against the exploiting classes and their lackeys, and non-antagonistic, that is waged within our ranks. In the Party there is always two-line struggle as a reflection of the class struggle in society. When attitudes, ideas, opinions, criteria etc. are expressed in the Party, in the ranks of the people, two-line struggle is waged with the purpose of saving the patient and that the person with problems advances, on the condition that he does not hide his sickness for fear of treatment, as Chairman Mao says. The method is criticism and self-criticism.

The antagonistic struggle is solved with antagonistic methods, using non-antagonistic methods is to conciliate with the enemy.

What Avakian puts forward at this moment, when he questions the position of the CC of the PCP concerning the hoax, is that the differences with the ROL must be settled with non-antagonistic methods. So, when members of the ROL are freed from the prisons in order to assault the PCP apparatuses with the collaboration of the reaction and are annihilated, Avakian denounces this as use of mafia methods. What Avakian puts forward is the conciliation with new revisionism, imperialism and reaction. Avakian’s conception of Party is counterrevolutionary. According to Avakian, the PCP had two heads, on one hand the CC and on the other the ROL leadership, against the Maoist conception of one Party: one head, one ideology, that of the proletariat, Maoism and two-line struggle so that no opportunist line is structured within the Party. What it is about is guaranteeing the proletarian leadership of the revolution, which is what Avakian denies.

About the “objective truth” in the concrete case of the “peace accords” it is necessary to clear up some points:

In 2008, Rafael Merino Bartet, former advisor of the [Peruvian] National Intelligence Service (SIN) and member of the CIA,  disclosed before a tribunal of the Peruvian state, in the trial against Fujimori, that the former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori personally corrected the resolution that authorized the execution of the leaders of “Sendero Luminoso”. At that time, the agency EFE informed that Merino Bartet showed the court a draft decree order, a memorandum and a communication that he wrote, signed October 14th 1992, with the detailed norms for the execution. That is to say, there was a plan, the hoax was part of a plan of imperialism and reaction walking hand in hand with new revisionism. Rafael Merino himself admitted at the trial that he was the author of the “peace accords”. Imperialism did not want martyrs, it had reserved for Chairman Gonzalo, had he betrayed, the role that Mandela fulfilled in his country.

Part of the plan is the isolation of Chairman Gonzalo. The reaction tried to present Chairman Gonzalo as defeated and humiliated. They dressed him up in a striped prison uniform and presented him in a cage before the world as if he was a wild beast. And once again he showed his condition as communist, crushing the enemy’s plan and calling, with a clear and firm voice, full of energy, to continue the people’s war and overcome the bend in the road, showing the world what is a great leader of the proletariat, the Great Leadership of the PCP. Since then, not even the members of the International Emergency Committee (IEC) delegations, nor Santiago Roncagliolo, who came to interview Elena Iparraguirre and other rats of the ROL when he was working on his book about Chairman Gonzalo, have been able to see him. But as the author himself recognizes, the purpose of interviewing Chairman Gonzalo was sabotaged by the government authorities. In 2006, Alejandro Cardenas, son of Peter Cardenas Shulte (MRTA), presents the documentary Alias Alejandro, that describes his trip from Germany to the Callao Naval Base and the interview that he did with his father, who had already repented. Only Chairman Gonzalo has been kept isolated from the world.

In 2004 the farce of the trial against Chairman Gonzalo was carried out. The Peruvian newspaper “El Comercio” informs on November 5th 2004: “when the judge Dante Terrel requested that the photographers and graphic reporters leave the courtroom (since it was forbidden for the press to use this equipment during the hearing), the subversives raised their voices to shout “long live…” their terrorist actions that cost the lives of thousands of Peruvians. This commotion forced the judge to postpone the trial until the coming Friday the 12th.”

In the Spanish press, the newspaper ABC informed the following on November 6th 2004:

“EL CALLAO (PERU). The initial hearing in the first civil trial against the leader of the armed Peruvian group Sendero Luminoso, Abimael Guzman, and his “staff”, only lasted 10 minutes, being suspended for a week after the disorder created by the accused, who shouted “long live” the armed struggle, taking advantage of the media presence. The surprising decision was taken after Guzman ordered the leadership, made up of fifteen persons, to rise in unison to shout long live the armed struggle and the revolution and salute with their fists in the air before the photographers and television cameras while these retired from the courtroom.
Seconds earlier, the chairman of the court, judge Dante Terrel, had suspended the reading of the papers of the trial for the crime of terrorism, to let the audiovisual media leave the courtroom after having taken their pictures.”

Agencia Perú gives more details of the court:

“One of the first incidents was caused by the judge Dante Terrel’s decision to evacuate the journalists who had cameras and video cameras from the courtroom; therefore there was a 5 minute break.
However, this caused Abimael Guzman, Elena Iparraguirre and their accomplices to take advantage of the moment when the journalists retired to raise their fists and shout slogans in favor of the revolution and the armed struggle in the country.
‘Long live the armed struggle’, ‘Long live the people’s war’, ‘Long live the people’, they shouted all at once.
That is why the judges decided that all the journalists and the defendants had to leave, and that the hearing was suspended.”

These images, edited and manipulated by the reaction, could be seen all over the world on television. The trial is suspended indefinitely, and when it is resumed, the reactionary state has replaced the judge, the trial is not broadcast even with edited images, and the farce of the public hearing is over. The last time that Chairman Gonzalo took position publicly was in his masterful Speech of the 24th of September 1992. However, in collusion with the reactionary state the ROL was to present a text in which Chairman Gonzalo would have changed his attitude and stated that he would not speak before any judge in his new process, because they did not intend to respect his rights and that they, on the contrary, only intended to formalize a sentence against him with the new antiterrorist law. This is another one of the apocryphal texts that the ROL publishes in coordination with imperialism and reaction.

These are the objective facts and the objective reality that are in accordance with the position of the CC of the PCP concerning the “peace letters”, that they are a hoax and that the ROL is a group of capitulators nursed by the CIA. That the contradiction with the ROL has an antagonistic character and is resolved with people’s war. These rats who capitulated and sold themselves for a plate of beans, are the “comrades” of the new revisionists and those who Avakian defended as full members of the Communist Party of Peru, upholding them as historical leaders of the Party, with whom one should conciliate, treating these capitulating rats as if they were part of the people, the class. That Avakian and new revisionism are not able to see all this is because of their bourgeois class position, which makes them incapable of  “searching for truth in the facts”. But he consciously acts, works and sells himself in favor of the enemy. With the hoax, new revisionism starts to raise its head on the international level under the umbrella of struggle against the “dogmatists”, against the PCP and against the “irritating” members of the MPP abroad.

If we make an evaluation of the hoax it stands without doubt that with the collaboration of new revisionism it has had a certain amount of transitory success, but fundamentally it has failed. The Communist Party of Peru and its Central Committee today continues to lead the people’s war under the difficult conditions of the bend in the road, mobilizing the class and the masses against the old reactionary state and against imperialism, applying Gonzalo thought to solve any problem that appears on the road of the revolution.

With a small effort of memory we can see how in a few years, conflicts that were developing for decades, or armed struggles like the one in Nepal, have ended up at the negotiation table: Colombia (FARC), Philippines (the Moro Islamic Liberation Front), Ireland (IRA), Basque Country (ETA), Palestine, Kurdistan, etc.



In 1910, the black people in South Africa were deprived of their right to vote and their property. Later, “Apartheid” (ethnic separation) was created. In 1956 the Bantustans were created, in which the black population was confined. The African National Congress (ANC), of which Mandela was a member, rose up, organized boycotts, mobilized the masses against Apartheid. During these mass mobilizations, Mandela and other ANC leaders were arrested. In 1960, while the trial was being held, the South African police opened fire on a demonstration in support of the prisoners. 69 people were murdered. The ANC was banned, went into clandestinity and made the leap to armed struggle. Nelson Mandela went through the South African prisons from 1964 to 1990. During this period the struggle of the masses was being radicalized. In June 1976, the massacre of Soweto students took place. The 12th of September 1977, Steve Biko was murdered through the torture he suffered in room 619, another death among the many in the prison cells of South Africa. Meanwhile, Mandela had changed. The businessman Mario Vargas Llosa describes it as follows: “Instead of committing suicide or going crazy, like many of his comrades in prison, during these nine years Mandela meditated, revised his own ideas and ideals, made a radical self-criticism of his convictions and reached that serenity and wisdom that from that point on would guide all his political initiatives. (…) It must have taken him a long time – months, years – to become convinced that that whole conception of struggle against oppression and racism in South Africa was wrong and ineffective, and that it was necessary to renounce the violence and opt for peaceful methods, i.e. seek negotiations with the leaders of the white minority (12% of the country that iniquitously exploited and discriminated against the remaining 88% ) which would have to be persuaded to stay in the country because the coexistence of the two communities was possible and necessary, when South Africa became a democracy governed by the black majority.”

In 1990, Frederik De Klerk, Chairman of the National Party, freed Mandela, and after various meetings and negotiations came the elections of 1994 in which Mandela became President of South Africa. In 1993 De Klerk and Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize, and Mandela launched his policy of “national reconciliation”.

In 1993, the situation was the following: for the people, the misery, the exploitation, and as the businessman Vargas Llosa points out, “the government violence had created a climate of rancor and hatred that for this country foreboded, sooner or later, a cataclysmic ending”. For the bourgeoisie, South Africa found itself in a deep economic crisis and 20 years of economic stagnation; therefore, the bourgeoisie needed social peace and to revive South African economy. What is certain is that the “peace process”, for the white bourgeoisie and for the new black bureaucratic bourgeoisie, linked to the government apparatus, has served to hold back the uprising of the masses with relative success and to develop the South African economy, i.e. intensify the exploitation and the oppression, at least up until now.

On the side of the people, the facts are clear. The facts from the 1994 United Nations Report on Human Development, South Africa held 93rd place in terms of “human (or social) development”. 5% of the population owned 88% of the national wealth, while according to the World Bank, half of the black population did not have formal employment. The life expectancy then was 59.9 years, in 1995. Today the life expectancy has fallen to 53.4 years, and according to the “Human Development Index” South Africa held 123rd place among 187 countries. This in spite of the economic growth of the last few years. South Africa is considered to be one of the emerging countries, along with Brazil, India and China. Its GNP is almost 40% of Africa’s total GNP. It is the biggest producer and exporter of gold, platinum and chrome, and fourth largest producer of diamonds in the world. The country produces 80% of the world’s platinum and also has 60% of the global coal reserve. South Africa has various manufacture industries and is foremost in the world in various specialized sectors, for example railway rolling stock, synthetic fuels and mining equipment and machinery. However, a big part of the population does not even have sufficient access to running water, electricity, education or sanitation; there is only one doctor for every 4.219 residents, etc. The official level of unemployment is 25.20% - the actual level is close to 45%, affecting mainly the black population (85%). The total youth unemployment level (age 15-24) is 48.2%. According to the World Bank, South Africa has the highest Gini Coefficient in the world, which measures the economic inequality of a country, which is to say the country has the highest index of inequality between rich and poor in the world.

On the side of the new black bureaucratic bourgeoisie, Mandela’s children are competing for his fortune. Ramaphosa, an ANC leader who took part in the peace negotiations, is today a millionaire and a member of the board of directors of Lonmin, the British company that owns the Marikana mine. Khulubuse Zuma, Jacob Zuma’s nephew, and Zondwa Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s grandson, were the managers of the gold mine Aurora and have been accused of not paying the workers and of enriching themselves by selling the mine’s assets, etc.

On the 16th of August 2012, in the Marinaka mine, 40 miners died after being shot by the police. They were demanding better work conditions and higher salaries. The great majority of the black masses continue to live under Apartheid two decades later.

We can see how imperialism and reaction promoted a person, and a whole plan, for him to fulfill his role. To hold back the rage of the masses and the revolution.



It is important to see how imperialism and its NGO’s are working in the “peace and reconciliation processes”. In 1994 the project Do No Harm was developed by the team Collaborative for Development Action – CDA, developed by Yankee imperialism.  Today the “Do No Harm” approach is the one used by all the NGO’s that work in the “peace processes”. We see how imperialism is learning and refining their interventions. The NGO’s in Nepal would have a very important role in preparing the conditions for Prachanda’s capitulation.

Norwegian imperialism has had and still has an important role in different “peace processes”. The government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) asked Norwegian imperialism to host the first formal round of negotiations.

The Norwegian state has participated in the “peace processes” in the whole world. In 1993, the negotiations for the declaration that established the mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were secretly held in Oslo (Norway). The Norwegian state created the Peace and Reconciliation Unit and allocated a specific budget for its projects. Also in 1993, the “peace letters” were presented in Peru, and in 1993 Mandela receives the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway. Coincidences?

Petter Skauen, of the NGO Norwegian Church Aid, who participated in the negotiations between the government and the URNG (Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity), explains that “there are many Norwegians who participate in UN delegations and in NGO’s. Norway is also the country with the highest number of missionaries per inhabitant. There is a lot of work, a policy of compromise and of humanitarian work”. Norway tops the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Other processes in which Norwegian imperialism has been present are: Sri Lanka, Mali, Guatemala, the Balkans, Sudan, Philippines and now in Colombia and, of course, in the “peace process” in Nepal as well. Is it a coincidence that Josu Ternera (ETA), persecuted by Spanish imperialism, has passed through Norway?

Norway fulfills the role of the “good” imperialism and a “model” for the peoples of the Third World. A third way between the “bad” imperialisms and the communist revolution. It is not strange that Prachanda said the goal of the “revolution” in Nepal was to become the Switzerland of Asia (another “good” imperialism). The “good” imperialism (Sweden, Norway, Switzerland etc.), while it is dedicated to hold back the revolution in the world, is also dedicated to actively participating in the NATO military operation in Afghanistan and in the destruction of Libya.

The state of Switzerland is another imperialism that is actively participating in the “processes of peace and reconciliation”, as a way of intervening in countries where it acts as mediator and driving force behind these processes. At the same time, it finances related projects with the same theme. Within this framework, it supports the “program for the promotion of peace” of the Swiss NGO’s. As part of its “promotion of peace” diplomacy, it has participated in Guatemala. It also participates in the “peace” process in Colombia. To support the “peace process”, the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Burkhalter, travelled to Colombia and stated that “Switzerland is willing, if wanted, to support the post-conflict efforts to build a lasting peace in Colombia”; the embassadors trip would also include Peru and Chile. Didier Burkhalter already announced that the Swiss cooperation must be channeled towards the struggle against poverty, towards an aid for development. He warned: “That step has to do with the fact that the development respects the rights of the population, otherwise, the investment turns into a new factor of impoverishment”. Therefore, part of the “peace and reconciliation process” also must create the conditions for imperialist investments. As a part of this, the NGO’s take upon them to create favorable conditions for the investments of Swiss, German, Norwegian, Swedish multinationals, apart from the Yankee multinationals.

In 2006, the handbook “Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries” was published. This guide, worked out by International Alert, an NGO with headquarters in Great Britain and, according to its own manual “dedicated to peace-building”, points out that “Company experience in Angola, Burma, Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria and elsewhere demonstrates that there are a range of conflict risks posed by investing in unstable states. Oil, gas and mining projects can inadvertently trigger or sustain violence, or become the focus of resentment themselves. (...)
Violent conflict imposes a range of costs on companies. A ‘conflict-sensitive’ approach to doing business – one that seeks to avoid these costs by developing informed conflict-management strategies – is therefore a strategic choice for company managers. At both a local level, through improved relationships with stakeholders, and at regional and national levels, companies can benefit from avoiding, or handling conflict more effectively through a joined-up understanding of all conflict risks and impacts.” To whom is this guide directed? “Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries consists of guidance on doing business in societies at risk of conflict for field managers working across a range of business activities, as well as headquarters staff in political risk, security, external relations and social performance departments.”

Box 1: Costs of conflict to companies

Direct costs



Risk management







Higher payments to state/private security firms; staff time spent on security management.

Insurance, loss of coverage, specialist training for staff, reduced mobility and higher transport costs

Destruction of property or infrastructure.

Disruption of production, delays on imports.

Increased cost of raising capital.

Kidnapping, killing and injury; stress; recruitment difficulties; higher wages to offset risk; cost of management time spent protecting staff.

Consumer campaigns, risk-rating, share price, competitive loss.

Expensive and damaging law suits.

Indirect costs







Loss of life, health, intellectual and physical capacity.

Weakening of social capital.

Damage to financial and physical infrastructure, loss of markets.

Pollution, degradation, resource depletion.

Weakening of institutions, rule of law, governance.

Source: adapted from Nelson, J. (2000) The Business of Peace: The Private Sector as a Partner in Conflict Prevention and Resolution (London: International Alert, International Business Leaders Forum and Council on Economic Priorities).


This guide and all the investigative work was financed by the Swiss Department for Foreign Affairs, Human Security Division; UK Department for International Development, Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Division; Foreign Affairs Canada, Security Programme; and the Swedish SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency).

A whole handbook for how to plunder the riches of the Third World countries, by trying to hold back the struggles of the masses through peaceful ways (and to save money) and to dispute the spheres of influence with the Yankee superpower and with Chinese social imperialism.

In the different “peace processes” there is also collusion and struggle between the imperialist superpowers and imperialist powers. Norway, Switzerland and Germany are fulfilling the role that the Yankee superpower cannot, to present themselves as mediators and promote the peace processes. Although the “Do No Harm” approach of the interventions was born in Yankee universities, it is being applied by NGO’s and government organizations connected to other imperialisms that do not provoke the same hatred and rejection from the masses of the whole world that the Yankee superpower does. And while there is collusion between the imperialists when it comes to holding back the struggle of the masses (German, Norwegian and Swiss imperialism implementing the “peace processes” together with Yankee imperialism), there is also struggle between all the imperialists, including Chinese social imperialism, and against Yankee imperialism with which they are disputing the markets.

Participating among others in the International Conference to promote the solution of the conflict in the Basque Country was Gerry Adams, the “Irish Mandela”, and a key figure in the Belfast peace accords in 1998. The Conference was promoted by Berghof Foundation, Conciliation Resources, The Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the GIC, Lokarri, with the purpose of promoting an “inclusive” peace process.

Concilian Resources (CR) was an active part in the negotiation and the “peace process” between the Philippines Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (2012). In Bolivia, together with the fascist Evo Morales, German imperialism was the driving force behind the Program in Support of Decentralized Public Administration and the Struggle Against Poverty of the German Association for Technical Cooperation  (PADEP/GTZ) (2009), whose objective is the "peaceful transformation of social and political conflicts". Here appears also the concept of inclusion as a goal for the foundation's work: "After a difficult process of constitution making and negotiations on autonomy and electoral regime, the elections in late 2009 and early 2010 cemented the majority of MAS. This also marked the challenges ahead: namely, continuing the envisioned reforms in an inclusive way and agreeing on the legal framework for the constitutional provisions while respecting the rule-of-law."  "the quality of Bolivia’s transformation will depend on the degree of pluralism and inclusiveness of the process, we aim at fostering the capacity for transforming conflicts and engage in dialogue and reflection beyond negotiations around the immediate political situation." Furthermore, on the initiative of the Program in Support of Decentralized Public Administration and the Struggle Against Poverty (PADEP) of the German Association for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), a technical team is set up, specialized in giving advice for the "constructive management of conflicts and a culture of peace" in its component "constructive conflict management" that since 2007 is carried out by the consortium COMO-Berghof-GOPA. Constructive conflict management, democratization, inclusiveness, i.e. conciliation of class antagonisms.

Berghof Foundation: according to its own documentation it proposes reaching an  "enduring peace" in conflict situations. It is present or has intervened in countries like Lebanon, Yemen, Bolivia, Colombia, Thailand, India, etc. In its handbook "The Berghof Handbook for Conflict transformation", in the chapter "Training for Conflict Transformation – An Overview of Approaches"  it explains the importance that the NGO's have been acquiring during the two last decades: " The past two decades have seen a marked increase in conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity on all levels, involving, among others, local activists, international civil society organisations and diplomats. Training in conflict resolution or management skills has become an important part of such conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity."

Furthermore, it tells us which are the main institutions that educate the "peace" activists, a majority of whom are Yankees:

"In general, it is possible to distinguish professional training institutes – which specialise in delivering tailor-made training courses – and organisations in which training forms but one piece of their strategy (see also Arajärvi 2007). Examples of the former – professionalised training providers, who often have an analysis and strategic consulting component – are the US-based NGO CDR Associates, the internationally operating Coverdale Institute, Johan Galtung’s Transcend based at different sites throughout Europe and the US (most notably the Peace Action Training and Research Institute of Romania, PATRIR), Responding to Conflict in the UK or Partners for Democratic Change (with a focus on South Eastern Europe). Examples of the latter – conflict resolution organisations, which also provide training courses when circumstances call for it – are the US-based NGO Search for Common Ground, the UK’s Conciliation Resources and International Alert and the South African Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR).
There are, moreover, freelance trainers with different specialisations. Many trainers (socalled scholar-practitioners) are affiliated with academic centres, such as Harvard Law Schooland the Program on Negotiation (PON), the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) at George Mason University in the US, the Dutch Clingendael Institute for International Affairs, the Austrian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Bradford University’s Centre for Conflict Resolution in the UK and others.
A very useful resource for exploring this large field is the directory of conflict resolution organisations published by the European Centre for Conflict Prevention, which was updated in 2005. National platforms and umbrella organisations also provide good initial access to training resources and courses: among them are the Association for Conflict Resolution in the USA, the University of Colorado’s Conflict Resolution Consortium and its resource websites, the German Plattform Zivile Konfliktbearbeitung, the Swiss Peace Foundation, the European Initiative for Peacebuilding, or INCORE and INTRAC in the UK."

The Desmond Tutu and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation continues to work in South Africa in the "national reconciliation" effort.

As we can see, the same names keep appearing in the different "peace processes". We see how imperialism, the capitulators and the reaction coordinate all these processes, in order for the Communist Parties and revolutionary organizations to capitulate, and how imperialism has refined its activities.



2001 is the year when the role of the NGO's international work is redefined. In the first volume of Conflict Sensitive Practices: Conceptual Contribution and Examples of Application, commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ - Germany) for its work in Colombia, we read:

"While the cooperation for development used to be defined as a non-political activity - even though the motivation for funding development has always been political -, the beginning of the new millennium saw the beginning of a redefinition of development in the context of national and international security strategies (Duffield 2001). One example is how some donating governments reserved certain development funds for "combating the structural causes of terrorism" after the attacks of September 11th 2001. At the same time, the development organizations started to assume a more active role in the "pre-conflict" and "post-conflict" phases, complementing and partially replacing the diplomatic efforts to solve these conflicts. Examples include the role of the international community in Kosovo and East Timor, but also the post-conflict reconstruction in Angola, Liberia and Guatemala." [Editor's note: the book is only available in Spanish online. The translation from Spanish is ours]

In 2003, the ONG's start operating in Nepal with this new approach.

After the event of the II National Party Conference of the PCN (m), and coinciding with imperialism's redefinition of the role of the NGO's, the magazine "A World to Win" in 2001 publishes an interview with Prachanda that sums up the content and the decisions of the Conference. Prachanda himself states:

"The main subject of the Conference was the ideological synthesis based on the past five years experiences of the People's War and chalking out the future direction of the People's War. The Conference has been totally successful in fulfilling its aim, by unanimously adopting its ideological synthesis in the form of 'Prachanda Path'"

Thus Prachanda presents his "new synthesis" of Marxism.

"The Party considers Prachanda Path as an enrichment of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." " The Party has defined Prachanda Path in the Nepalese context as a new link of creative Marxism, opposed to both the right revisionists and sectarian dogmatists."

The result of this "creative development" of Maoism, very much applauded up until 2005 by new revisionism, is the acceptance of the multi-party system (2001) and imperialism's intervention in the liberated areas, through its NGO's (2003).

These were the years during which Avakian raised his banner against "dogmatism" and "sectarianism", joined by Prachanda with his "new synthesis" and the new course taken by the people's war in Nepal. Prachanda Path is not a guiding thought, it is not Maoism applied to the reality of Nepal - it is an "enrichment" of it, it is a "new link" of Marxism, it is a "new synthesis", it is revisionism. Prachanda applies in Nepal not only Avakian's ideas, but also his language, including his "synthesis". One must go back to Avakian's thesis on his "objective truth" to understand what is the content of this new course taken by the people's war in Nepal.

Avakian rejects "class truth" and opposes it with "looking for the truth in the facts". Like in natural science, every one and all the classes are equal before the study of the "truth of facts". We reaffirm ourselves in that concerning the revolutionary transformation of society, only the proletariat has the objective and consistent motivation to transform it and abolish private property, exploitation and class society. That facing any ideological, political or organizational question there is only one proletarian class position and not several. That the duty of every communist is to defend the proletarian “class truth” and carry out struggle to the death against the bourgeois influence in our ranks, against revisionism; this, to Avakian, is dogmatism and of course not at all democratic; to him it means trying to impose ideas. Concerning the class character of ideas, if they are bourgeois or proletarian, this is not so important to him. The important thing is to not impose, not be sectarian, not be dogmatic. In the same way that the document approved at the II Conference in Nepal “was unanimously adopted through exercising a high-level proletarian democratic and lively debate, has unified the Party on a new basis”, also the mass work had been expanded: “To expand our ties to the masses we laid emphasis on developing different mass organisations, forums and so forth. Throughout all this process, the Party has been following the policy of strategic firmness and tactical flexibility with particular seriousness”. Avakian talks about a “solid core” and a “soft core”.

Based on this tactical flexibility, in 2001 the multi-party system is approved, and in 2003 the first NGO’s appear in the liberated zones, paving the way for the future “peace accord”.

Concilation Resources (CR), concerning their work in Colombia, puts forward the problems and alternatives handled by the NGO’s that work in the “peace processes”: “The polarization caused by decades of conflict has permitted isolation between social groups. CR considers it essential to strengthen relations between people regardless of their social, political, cultural, economic, geographical, gender- and age differences. We promote the establishment of such relations through a project of “cooperative learning”, in which we facilitate the dialogue between people with different types of social and political profiles with peers from other countries, so that they may work together around a common goal of peacebuilding.” [Our transl. from Spanish  –editor’s note]

This was to be culminated in 2005 in the hands of new revisionism, the reaction and the imperialists, principally yankee, through organizations such as the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the BMZ.

The international cooperation of Swiss imperialism (SDC), that takes part in the peace process in Nepal, explains its work as follows: “SDC is in favour of a pluralistic, decentralized democracy, in favour of a transparent government, against impunity from punishment and despotism, against abasement, humiliation and discrimination as concerns gender, ethnic affiliation [sic], social origin, or religion. SDC programmes are linked to structural, social processes of change, supporting them in different thematic points in order to reduce poverty and contribute to development. As a result, the programmes are often part of the context of social conflict: they create room for negotiations on varied objectives and interests; they promote the participation of certain actors and exclude others; they support disadvantaged women and men to articulate and demand their rights (empowerment). Thus, they intervene in existing power structures.” Furthermore, “Conflict-sensitive SDC programmes aim to prevent, or to help overcome violence and to support constructive ways of dealing with differences.” Dealing with differences in constructive ways – it is not new revisionism saying this, it is imperialism through its apparatuses that expresses itself in the same way. Class conciliation. “A conflict-sensitive approach therefore means strengthening the constructive behaviour and disengaging from or boycotting of the destructive behaviour – an approach perhaps best demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi.”

As an example of how imperialism acts, in Colombia, years later, German imperialism reappears. Between July 2010 and June 2011, it carried out the project “Study of Regional Reconciliation Processes in Colombia and the Promotion of a National Reconciliation Policy” financed by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and realized by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Colombia (FESCOL) and the GIZ Programme for Cooperation Between Government and Civil Society for Peace Development (CERCAPAZ).

Having denied the “class truth”, having denounced the “dogmatists” and “sectarians” (the PCP and its organization for work abroad, the MPP) and having capitulated before the bourgeoisie, which the “distiller” refuses to fight against with the excuse that one must not impose ideas; it is no coincidence that the goal of new revisionism coincides with that of imperialism, and its language with that of the NGO’s. Let us take another look at how the imperialists express themselves.

On reconciliation, and within the project “Study of Regional Reconciliation Processes in Colombia and the Promotion of a National Reconciliation Policy”, realized by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Colombia (FESCOL) and the GIZ Programme for Cooperation Between Government and Civil Society for Peace Development (CERCAPAZ), one of the documents generated during the project, and gathering different interpretations among the interventions in the “peace processes” states the following: “The fifth and last definition interprets reconciliation as the construction of communities. This vision does not focus on the social level, but on the individual level, according to which the conflict breaks the relations between individuals, which is why reconciliation would mean recovering the confidence between persons and rebuilding their bonds. Therefore, it focuses on the changes and transformations of individual behavior” [Our translation from Spanish – editor’s note].  It is important to emphasize that “this vision does not focus on the social level, but on the individual level”. Just like new revisionism, it does not see classes but individuals, and therefore it denies “class truth” and only sees its own skin. The ideas are not class ideas, but individual ideas; unity is not reached by crushing the bourgeoisie, now unity is reached respecting the individual, respecting the individual’s points of view, even if they are reactionary.

SDC puts forward the following concerning the understanding between opposing parties: “An agreement takes shape when the behaviors and the attitudes of the parties are being modified. (…) the attitudes are modified when polarization yields, and therefore some goals are abandoned in the interest of achieving others.” [Our translation from Spanish – editor’s note]. The imperialists, who just like the revisionist Avakian try to conciliate and make the working class and the peoples of the world tail after the imperialists’ interests, put the emphasis on the forms and the way of acting. To conciliate, “polarization” needs to diminish. Since the PCP never stopped criticizing, did not capitulate before the bourgeoisie and carried out the two line struggle until the end, conscious that there is only one class truth; since it comprehended unity in struggle and on principles, not conciliating but “polarizing”, the campaign was started against the PCP and its generated organization abroad, using the method of slander: “they are sectarian”, “they try to impose their ideas”, etc., today updated with the label of “attacking the people’s war in India”. Around 2001, instead of dealing with the two line struggle, Avakian launched the directive to isolate the people’s war in Peru, that many continue to apply today.

In 2005, when the PCN(m)’s betrayal was already consummated, Avakian sent several letters to Prachanda which were made public in 2008, raising the banner of struggle against “centrism”, which was nothing else than opportunism. He even went as far as to criticize Prachanda’s and the CPN(m)’s unity with the old revisionists in one unified party, although he tried to do the same with the PCP and the ROL in Peru. In 2009, there were already organizations that jumped on Avakian’s wagon. The “struggle against centrism” was only a way of hiding the fact that the capitulation was the result of the application of his ideas in Nepal and the abandonment of the road initiated by the PCP in Peru. It was a way to avoid the evaluation of what had been applied in Nepal and learn from it. In the end, it was a way to wipe the slate clean.

Today, Avakian and the capitulators, who are incapable of fighting against the bourgeoisie, of waging frank and honest two line struggle, not even face to face in meetings, and therefore in complicity with the other members of the CoMRI prevented the PCP from participating in the meetings, continue up until today with their attacks against the PCP: “Some comrades have refused, to this very day, to condemn the handful of PCP supporters abroad whose deep vitriol against comrade Avakian and the CoRIM was matched only by their heights of fantasy about the current state of the People’s War in Peru.”(Letter to Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, May 2012).

One can thus observe how for the last few decades, imperialism, principally Yankee imperialism, united with other imperialist powers, along with reaction and revisionism, has developed a plan of “peace accords” and capitulation. They have been perfecting this plan. Peru was the pilot experience, and Nepal was a temporary success for imperialism, reaction and new revisionism. Imperialism has managed new revisionism and the capitulators to serve its ends; many of whom capitulated in the reaction’s prisons, Gerry Adams (IRA), Öcalan (PKK), Otegui and Josu Ternera (ETA), Mandela (ANC), the ROL in Peru etc. The plan aims above all against the people’s wars or armed struggles led by Maoist Parties. One must learn the lesson of all this in order to advance.

It is necessary to develop two line struggle in a frank and honest way, in order to crush and sweep away all this new revisionism, all the convergences with Avakian. It is necessary to combat imperialism’s, reaction’s and revisonism’s plan to turn every popular struggle, principally the people’s wars and armed struggles led by Communist Parties, into sold-out struggles, adjusted to the interests of imperialism. Struggles not aiming to crush and sweep away the imperialist states, not to install New Democracy and without interruption continue with the socialist revolution and the proletarian cultural revolutions until communism, but struggles for the bourgeois dictatorship under the cover of  “socialism of the XXI century” or bourgeois democracy. This is the plan of the “peace accords”, of capitulation and amnesty, of parliamentary cretinism, that they now spread with the help of new revisionism, i.e. a revisionism to fulfill the role of installing “Maoist parties” in name only.


Documentos Home Get in contact