I responded below the original post and created a separate thread here
https://www.jfdzlt.com/t/topic/533/91
From this paragraph, it is clear that your detachment from reality and your lack of learning are summarized by an old poem: “Heavy head and light feet, shallow roots,” “Sharp mouth, thick skin, hollow belly.” The voluntarist stance advocates that at this stage, the focus should be on preparing for people’s war, but this has already been refuted by others above. Moreover, you have grossly distorted the views of foreign comrades. The German magazine Class Standpoint emphasized in the article “People’s War – The Only Path to Liberation”: “Before the people’s war is launched, everything serves to initiate the people’s war; once it is launched, everything serves to develop the people’s war.” In summary, revolutionary work should serve the launch and development of people’s war, emphasizing the necessity and importance of violent revolution, not blindly focusing on preparing for people’s war without specific conditions. The Peruvian Communist Party also conducted extensive revolutionary preparations before truly launching people’s war, as can be seen in The General Line of the Peruvian Communist Party: Military Line; I will not elaborate further. In The General Line of the Peruvian Communist Party: Mass Line, it states: “Chairman Gonzalo refuted the claims that the masses do not want revolution and do not support people’s war. He told us that these issues do not exist among the masses because they have long been prepared for rebellion; it is the Communist Party’s duty to lead them and organize the army. He distinguished this from those who claim to ‘accumulate strength,’ advocating for so-called ‘democratic space’ or using legitimacy to grudgingly gather the masses. Such accumulation of strength does not conform to the current international and domestic class struggle situation, nor to the type of democratic revolution we are conducting, nor to other characteristics of socialist revolution, because we live in a world of unequal development of revolutions. He opposes and condemns these opportunist positions that turn the masses into tails of big bourgeoisie, and also strongly opposes views that aim to achieve goals through electoral routes or under the orders of superpowers or great powers.”
Combined with the discussion in Military Line, it is clear that the refutation is actually directed against the right opportunists within the Peruvian Communist Party who oppose launching people’s war and limit activities to legal propaganda, based on the international and domestic situation at the time, and not a universal principle applicable to all countries—detailed analysis of the social classes in China and their attitudes towards revolution can be found in the article The Road of Future Revolution in China, which I will not repeat here.
This is shameless black-and-white reversal. Such contradictory attacks only show that you are talking nonsense: this forum itself is a platform for revolutionary propaganda and mass transformation, always open to sincere revolutionaries, patiently encouraging them to turn to revolutionaries. The subsequent attack contradicts the previous one: if “cultivating class stance through ideological struggle is primary,” and “organizational building is the focus,” then how can you claim that “some revolutionary-leaning masses who have not yet accepted Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory are labeled as counterrevolutionaries and their possibility of turning to revolutionaries is denied”? It’s laughable.
The so-called “denial of the current central task of preparing for people’s war” has already been refuted above; the claim of “denying the main task of rebuilding the militarized Communist Party” is even more absurd and ridiculous. When the association explicitly elaborates on how important ideological struggle is for rebuilding the party and continually makes efforts in this regard, what are you doing? Engaging in revisionism, abandoning Marxism; dividing instead of uniting; scheming instead of being upright. It’s just posturing, blackening the facts, trying to fool people.
This paragraph even lacks a complete argument (though your words often are like that), and it is factually incorrect, not worth refuting. As for the “peaceful accumulation” issue, the Peruvian Communist Party’s discourse on the universality of people’s war states: “People’s war theory is the military theory of the international proletariat. This theory systematically and comprehensively summarizes the experiences of class struggle, military actions, and proletarian war theory and practice, especially the long history of people’s armed struggles—particularly the revolutionary wars of China… How to understand the universality of people’s war and its application under different types of revolutions and specific conditions is a critical and decisive issue. To answer this, one must consider examples like the Petrograd uprising, anti-fascist resistance, or guerrilla warfare in Europe during WWII, which did not replicate exactly the same. Ultimately, the October Revolution was not just a riot but a prolonged revolutionary war. Therefore, in imperialist countries, only through revolutionary war—today meaning people’s war—can revolutionary goals be achieved.” [The General Line of the Peruvian Communist Party: Basic Documents, 1988]
And the distinction between “peaceful accumulation” and “permanent people’s war” is explicitly stated by Norwegian For the People—Communist League: “Maoism proposes the universality of people’s war, pointing out that it is the only military strategy of the world proletariat; as long as people’s war is combined with different specific conditions, it can be applied in any country. However, some stubbornly deny this, clinging to their old strategies: they believe that long-term legal struggle must be conducted first, and only after a series of crises, when revolutionaries have accumulated overwhelming advantages over the old bourgeois state and the ‘revolutionary opportunity’ is ripe, can victory be achieved through lightning warfare or similar methods.” [Defend and Apply the Universality of People’s War!, 2019]
It is quite absurd to attack the association for advocating “peaceful accumulation” just because of the word “uprising”—which is a rejection of illegal revolutionary preparations and passive waiting for revolutionary conditions, advocating for quick victory. The association does not deny that: people’s war is universal and necessary; revolutionary war is not just a single uprising. The specific form of people’s war depends on actual circumstances. Based on the experience of the Russian October Revolution, it is feasible to establish bases through uprisings in urban areas with relatively strong proletarian forces, then defeat reactionaries through people’s war. Regarding urban guerrilla warfare in Western Europe—some advocate that before the official outbreak of revolutionary war, similar methods should be used to “accumulate military experience” and prepare for establishing the Red Army. Chairman Gonzalo said very well: “As for armed actions in Europe, we see the persistence of guerrilla warfare. They are expressions of objective reality. Therefore, the task is not to condemn them but to understand, study, and analyze how they reflect the fact that old Europe also has revolutionary potential. Moreover, we must recognize those who take up arms, understanding that this is the only way to seize power. This is a strong blow to revisionism because, in Europe, revisionism is beginning to be abandoned. No matter what level the struggles reach or how many problems remain, these struggles are undoubtedly an important progress.”
In summary, this proves that there is also an unbalanced revolutionary situation in Europe. Some are tired of decayed revisionism and are taking up arms in the belly of imperialism’s complex and difficult struggles to change the world, which is the only feasible way. This gives us more hope, helps us see that the main trend in the world is revolution, and shows how Europe is turning toward revolution. It also makes us realize that the Europeans who pioneered the revolution in the past are opening a new path and ultimately offering more hope. We should understand them more because some people are paying attention to the Communist Party and are once again accepting Maoism. That is, they want to return to Marxism and understand it fully as Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. As with all struggles, these European struggles also have limitations and errors, but we should see them as manifestations of the unstoppable progress of revolution, and how more and more countries and peoples are taking up arms to overthrow the existing order. They are summarizing experiences, heading toward the Communist Party and the ideology of the proletariat—Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism.
Seeing the revolution opening a path in Europe makes me happy. Despite possible setbacks along the way, we must have confidence in the masses—believing they will, under the guidance of Marxism, take up arms to revolutionize. They will also revolutionize there, and this is something we must consider. I emphasize that we must view this from a historical and long-term perspective, carefully study these movements, and encourage all who accept Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to build parties and develop people’s war. [Interview with Chairman Gonzalo, 1988]
It is nothing but a matter of recognizing the positive aspects of these organizations attacked as “terrorist” and their actions, studying them, perhaps learning from them, but currently there is little research or experience on these examples themselves and how to combine them with China’s specific realities—without baseless judgments. Without a base for armed struggle, it is easy for armed struggle to fall into banditry, etc., and armed struggle is not yet suitable at this stage. The reason why the Avakian-led US Revolution Communist Party is criticized as revisionist is mainly not because of the so-called “peaceful accumulation theory,” but because since 1980, it has distorted and slandered the great mentors of the international communist movement, socialist Soviet Union, and Comintern, and has played a reactionary role as a rightist in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), even being a key factor in the disintegration of RIM.
As mentioned above, their discussion of the Peruvian Communist Party’s theory is completely off the mark and is a smear of the Peruvian Communist Party.
The On the Situation and Strategy of the Chinese Revolution obviously exposes the real intentions behind the superficial Marxist-Leninist-Maoist phrases of the author. I will now give some rebuttal:
However, a small number of opportunists infiltrating the revolutionary ranks talk extensively about using so-called “ideological struggle” to “cultivate class stance,” but this ideological struggle only focuses on trivial details of daily life, mistakenly believing that class stance is determined by lifestyle rather than leading to lifestyle.
This is essentially the viewpoint of “harmless minor details,” belittling the importance of guiding all practice with Marxism-Leninism, and separating “trivial details” from class stance. Little do they know that Chairman Mao emphasized in Oppose Liberalism that:
“We advocate active ideological struggle because it is a weapon to achieve unity within the party and revolutionary organizations, and every Communist and revolutionary should pick up this weapon. However, liberalism cancels ideological struggle and advocates unprincipled peace, resulting in decayed and vulgar conduct, causing political corruption within the party and revolutionary groups… Liberalism in revolutionary collectives is very harmful. It is a corrosive agent that disperses unity, loosens relationships, leads to passive work, and causes disagreements. It causes revolutionary organizations to lose tight discipline and organization, making policies difficult to implement thoroughly, and separates the party’s organizations from the masses it leads. This is a serious and bad tendency. Liberalism is a form of opportunism and fundamentally conflicts with Marxism. It is negative and objectively aids the enemy, so the enemy welcomes the internal preservation of liberalism. The nature of liberalism is such that revolutionary organizations should not retain its position. We must use the positive spirit of Marxism to overcome negative liberalism. A Communist Party member should be frank, loyal, active, and prioritize revolutionary interests over personal interests; always uphold correct principles, fight tirelessly against incorrect ideas and behaviors to strengthen the party’s collective life, and maintain the connection between the party and the masses; care more about the party and the masses than about oneself, and care more about others than oneself. Only then can one be considered a true Communist. All loyal, frank, active, and upright Communist Party members should unite to oppose tendencies of liberalism among some, and work to correct them.”
Only by insisting on the proletariat’s class stance and Marxist principles in all aspects, actively criticizing and self-criticizing, can one gradually rid oneself of petty-bourgeois liberalism, bourgeois hedonism, etc., and move toward thorough proletarianization. The article The Road of Future Revolution in China also discusses the dangers of spiritual opium and low-level pleasures, which our author obviously refuses to acknowledge—and even if acknowledged, refuses to implement.
Under the banner of “ideological struggle,” they accuse revolutionary theory of being “stale,” superficially admit but actually oppose Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and revolutionary guidance, deny Chairman Gonzalo’s revolutionary historical achievements, and claim that slandering Chairman Gonzalo is merely “a matter of understanding” and “internal contradictions among the people.”
Calling this “stale” and verbose is quite fitting for an article that is inept and selling black propaganda. The association actually affirms Chairman Gonzalo’s revolutionary achievements, opposing both the excessive elevation of Chairman Gonzalo’s “leftist” tendencies and the attacks and slanders against him. Based on observations, I believe that the latter group—those who slander Gonzalo—are more problematic. Those who deny Gonzalo’s contributions are not necessarily a matter of understanding, but those who do not recognize Gonzalo’s historical contributions are likely to be a matter of understanding. In fact, the author is expanding the scope of “slander” to attack those who lack understanding of Gonzalo and Maoism, thus elevating themselves.
The idea that “as long as one insists on ‘Marxist principles,’ unity can be achieved” fragments the unity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; they believe that some small-leftist organizations that superficially acknowledge or deny Maoism but emphasize “ideological struggle” are also revolutionary groups.
The fundamental interests of the proletariat are unified. If both sides insist on Marxist principles—“uphold Marxism, oppose revisionism; unite, oppose split; be open and honest, oppose conspiracy”—and only have differences in understanding specific issues, then full unity through “big debates, big criticism, big banners, big debates” is entirely possible. Why talk about “splitting the unity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”? In fact, this is an attempt to brand all those who do not yet understand Gonzalo or Maoism as counterrevolutionaries—“only my revolution is correct.” Of course, some revisionists do oppose Maoism, but they are precisely those who do not uphold Marxist principles. If the other side has been thoroughly clarified and contradictions have been fully exposed, yet they still refuse to change, then their superficial words are just tools for personal gain. As for the latter half, it only reveals the author’s guilty conscience—he cannot even provide specific examples.
They completely ignore the importance of ideological propaganda in cultivating revolutionary advanced elements and the guiding role of revolutionary theory in practice, instead promoting reactionary empiricism and pragmatism; they deny the existence of two-line struggle within the revolutionary ranks, uphold bourgeois reactionary authority, oppose criticism and self-criticism within the revolutionary ranks, oppose the forms of struggle such as big debates, banners, and criticism, and oppose revolutionary mass criticism.
This is not worth refuting; in fact, these words are most suitable for describing the author.
Critique of the Revisionism of “Ideological Struggle,” Conducting Two-Line Struggle in the Ideological Field, and Conscious Transformation of Subjective and Objective Worlds
This “article” appears to use seemingly correct phrases to covertly attack the association’s advocacy of “ideological struggle,” claiming it is disconnected from practice, echoing Lin Biao’s “Severe Criticism of the Private Mind” and “Revolution in the Depths of the Soul,” completely ignoring the necessity of continuous ideological struggle to break free from various low-level tastes and comfortable lifestyles, which is an objective reality for maintaining revolutionary practice. It is, in fact, counterproductive—similar to Hu’s “Two Whatevers.”
I am the one you refer to as “the backbone member of Maoist groups” 19586. In fact, it is mainly people like “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Red Guards” (Black Guards), Yun Shen, led by myself, who, in order to preserve their “positions,” have been unreasonable, throwing tantrums, engaging in splits and refusing to accept the correct leadership of the association—now they can only indulge in their own factions, even allowing liberals and those spreading pornographic content to stay in their groups. The chat records and subsequent summaries are shared by Apai (who really wrote an introduction, at least more sincere than you Qin Cheng and your good partner Bamboo Chair) in the link (Wanli Wuyun is that “Ji Xuhua @wanliwuyun0:matrix.im”). As for the so-called “revolutionary position,” it essentially does not exist; what exists is just a verbal claim of Maoist-Leninist-Maoist principles, with no real intention to practice them—only leftist factions. Besides what was mentioned above, Qin Cheng previously used Peruvian Communist Party propaganda posters as avatars, later switched to anime-style Bai You Shou avatars, which reveals the reason why he now arrogantly opposes the association—because the association criticizes anime and aims to eliminate it completely. He cannot tolerate this, nor can he tolerate the fact that his mouth is full of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist slogans while indulging in bourgeois decadent porn culture, exposing the hypocritical and self-deceptive reality.
Wanli Wuyun is an ambitious, scheming, two-faced individual. He only claims to engage in “ideological struggle” and “theoretical study” verbally, but in reality, he is a political prostitute. When I was still in the Maoist group, Wanli Wuyun was servile and conciliatory toward the Proletarian Stand (or called Liaoyuan, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist big group), trying to lead the Maoist group into that low-level, porn-culture-rampant, “Gonzaloist” attacking, and during diplomatic exchanges, he forcibly demanded others switch from Protonmail, an anonymous email platform, to Telegram, which is difficult to anonymize and heavily monitored, to contact the “Jinggangshan Robot” (their AI)—otherwise, he refused to continue communication. Even a reluctant liaison was stuck with a disgusting anime avatar and a bad attitude. This incident fully exposes Wanli Wuyun’s disbelief in the power of the masses and his belief in the appearance of strength of the bourgeois worldview. The association once gave Wanli Wuyun, this former traitor, a chance to reform, but he quickly engaged in conspiracy, secretly chatting with traitors to attack the correct line of the association, attempting to recruit traitors to rebuild his faction, and was soon reported and expelled again.
