A Response to the RCP-USA’s May 1st 2012 Letter
The Revolutionary Communist Party - USA’s [RCP-USA] May 1st Letter (Letter to Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) is, after its new Constitution and Manifesto, the third most important party document regarding “Avakian’s New Synthesis.” Although this document was initially intended to be an internal letter addressing the members of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM], the RCP-USA reversed its earlier decision and published the letter publicly without a clear explanation.
We believe this whole game of internally addressing only the participants of RIM was an unnecessary theatrical show from the very beginning. There is no reason to pursue an internal RIM discussion around issues that have been public for several years––issues that were made into a public matter first and foremost by the RCP-USA itself.
The RCP-USA’s Manifesto (Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, A Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) publicly broadcasted its new post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line in 2008 and thus not as a document for discussion and debate within the RIM. Then, in May 2009, this same document (as an appendix to a letter whose audience clearly was not only the members and participants of the RIM) was presented “to all the communist of the world.” It is worth mentioning that the RCP-USA’s new Constitution––the first post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document prior to its Manifesto––was also not an internal document.
The fourth plenum of the central committee meeting of the Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan [C(M)PA] took a stance against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the new Constitution and Manifesto of the RCP-USA and shared its position internally in this regard with members and participants of RIM in August 2009. However, this internal discussion had no principled or positive outcome since––in violation of the organizational, political, and ideological commitments of RIM––all of the respective discussions were openly and publicly broadcasted by the RCP-USA.
Subsequently, the central committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) [CPI (MLM)] made public their post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document “A Call to all Iranian Communists.” Approximately around this time, the RCP-USA proposed an internal discussion around our critique of their new Manifesto and Constitution. We realized, however, the futility of keeping the debate internal after witnessing the open publication of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document of the central committee of the CPI(MLM), the RCP-USA’s continuous international efforts in propagating their post-MLM line, the harm inflicted by this line upon the existence and activities of the RIM, and finally, at the same time, the consolidation of this line within the RCP-USA that purged opposing views under the label of an “inner party cultural revolution.” Thus, we rejected the RCP-USA’s proposal, which appeared to be in bad faith, and published the position of the fourth plenum of the central committee of our party in our organ, Sholajawid. Afterwards, we also criticised the CPI (MLM)’s post-MLM document in an article entitled The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) also fell in the lost road of post-MLM that was published in the aforementioned party organ.
Now that the struggle for the formation of a new international Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization on a solid political and ideological basis against various forms of revisionism (particularly the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revisionism and the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism) has clearly materialized internationally, the RCP-USA once again wanted to use the ploy of engaging in internal discussion around their post-MLM line; apparently they immediately realized that their game no longer works.
Nonetheless, the open publication of the RCP-USA’s May 1st Letter, published four years after the publication of its Manifesto, is its first formal and organized response in regards to the theoretical struggles against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line by our party and other participants in the RIM. Until now it seems as if the RCP-USA expected opponents of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line within RIM to only engage in internal debates with the RCP-USA and thus, in our opinion, end up lonely and isolated. However, the publication of documents regarding the Special Meeting of the members of RIM illustrated that this expectation was clearly incorrect and unrealistic.
Without submitting itself to a process of discussion and debate within the RIM, the Manifesto of the RCP-USA was openly published, thus presenting its post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line internationally outside of RIM. This single party’s unilateral action concretely meant the dissolution and dismantling of the RIM and its committee. Given the effective role that the RCP-USA played in carrying forward the activities of the committee of RIM, as well as the overall activities of RIM, this act practically heralded the collapse and liquidation of this vital international organization. No other party had such a determining role within the RIM. Moreover, this party had a key role in ending the publication of the RIM’s internal journal, eliminating the conditions for internal debate and discussion between RIM members. For this reason, the RCP-USA did not have the right to expect internal struggle from other participants and members of RIM.
Now this party, with the publication of its May 1st Letter, accuses us of “sentencing first and putting [it] on trial later!” This claim is the expression of an Afghan proverb that states: “accuse before being accused!” In actual fact, it was RCP-USA that sentenced first and then conducted a trial. For was it not this party that––in the unilateral publication of its Manifesto in 2008, along with the defenders and supporters of its political line––sentenced all of the participants and members of RIM with accusations of “revisionism” and “dogmatism” and, above all, imposed a punishment that was the liquidation of the RIM? Why did this party imagine that it alone possessed the right to “sentence first and put on trial later?”
Indeed, the leadership of the RCP-USA, that had purged opposing views within its party through a supposed “cultural revolution”, and considered the RIM its “backyard”,wanting to restructure this organization––first ideologically then politically and organizationally––so that it would tail the RCP-USA’s unquestioned hegemony. This plan, however, could not be executed. Now that other parties, including ours, have begun ideological, political and organizational struggles for the reestablishment of an international Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization, the RCP-USA warns against “sentencing first and putting on trial later.”
In any case, the RCP-USA should not expect others to follow a framework that was already decimated by the RCP-USA itself.
We believe that the decision, on the part of ourselves and our comrade parties, to hold a Special Meeting of RIM not only resulted in a successful meeting where particular and important decisions were met, but also forced the RCP-USA to once again clearly present its post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, thus providing the opportunity to carry out a mainly successful theoretical struggle against it.
But the RCP-USA avoided participating in this Special Meeting and in fact evaded a face-to-face collective debate. This party has, over the past few years, constantly attempted to start one-on-one discussions with different members of the RIM, including our party, while they have been willing to send their members to many countries to pursue these isolated discussions, they have never shown any willingness to visit us in Afghanistan.
Thus we will debate the May 1st document of the RCP-USA in a serialized manner, focusing on different key areas, and publish each separate but connected part of this series upon completion. This first section is specifically related to the discussion against our party in section VIII of the May 1st document.
[ 本帖最后由 红色翻译 于 2012-12-8 03:32 编辑 ]
伊朗共产党（马列毛主义）与美革共立场相近，阿富汗共产党（毛主义）明确反对美革共revisionism of the Bob Avakian’s post-MLM ，Bob Avakian的post-MLM 修正主义。
其它主要毛主义共产党如菲共、印共（毛）没有公开表态，印度有一个Communist Party of India (M-L) [Naxalbari]，印共（马列）（纳萨尔巴里）和阿富汗共产党（毛主义）立场相同，这里有这个组织的介绍：http://mao.bu1917.info/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=7070
[ 本帖最后由 红色翻译 于 2012-12-8 04:27 编辑 ]
The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) has fallen into the lost road of “post MLM”
By the Communist Party of Afghanistan (Maoist)
The document of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist Leninist Maoist) Central Committee that has been published under the title “Call for All Iranian Communists: Two roads for Communism” is an Iranian version of the post Marxism Leninism Maoism of the new statement and the Constitution of the American Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP USA) and carries every single basic feature of that line within itself. However, on certain points, this document talks more bluntly and clearly than the new Constitution of the RCP USA and, occasionally talks more in a more mixed up fashion than that one.
The Iranian document is basically an international topic and therefore it must be presented for discussion on an international communist movement level rather than solely Call for All Iranian Communists.
For many years the CPI MLM has been one of the important members of the Revolutionary International Movement and their representatives have played key roles alongside representatives of a couple of other parties on this Movement’s leading committee. Thus it would have been necessary for the CPI MLM to bring its discussion in its new document first with the RIM related parties, including ours (The Communist Party of Afghanistan – Maoist) as an internal document as opposed to a call to every Iranian communist–an unprecedented act.
The text of the document exposes who the CPI MLM means by “all Iranian Communists”. They are leftover various Fedaee guerrilla groups, Worker-Communist groups, different types of pro- Russian, Chinese and Hoxhaite groups such as Komeleh, Ranjbaran, Toofan and others associated who all are self proclaimed Iranian communists.
MAIN SPEECH OF THE PERU PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT
AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN MADRID, OCTOBER 27 2012
The Peru People’s Movement, the generated organ of the Communist Party of Peru for the work abroad, expresses its revolutionary greetings to the present comrades, as well as to all the Parties and organizations of the International Communist Movement. Our Party, firmly led by its Central Committee, continues to carry forward the invincible people’s war in the complex situation of overcoming the bend in the road, advancing in the mass work in the midst of the struggle to the death against the ROL and the LOL. And, being a people’s war that is part of and serves the world revolution, the Party duly strives to contribute to the struggle for Maoism and against revisionism on world level.
We have called this Conference with the purpose of debating, in an open and honest way, the main points of the two-line struggle today in our movement on world level, in order to thus serve its unity. As we have pointed out in the Call, we insist that we communists must apply the methods of our class, the international proletariat. That is to say, that what every communist should do is to take position and put it forward clearly and openly in two-line struggle, based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, struggle implacably against revisionism, and reject the bourgeois methods of conciliation, dirty struggle, struggle without principles and all kinds of opportunism. Only in this way will we communists of the world be able to unite and advance in our task of imposing Maoism as the only command and guide of the world proletarian revolution.
What are the current differences and the main points of debate at the present time? Some comrades say that what we see today is a struggle between Avakian’s “new synthesis” on one hand, and on the other hand Gonzalo Thought, which are supposedly two theories that each struggle to impose itself as “universal ideology”. We do not agree with this position. To us, the struggle is between the universal ideology of the international proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, on one hand, and on the other hand revisionism, today mainly new revisionism that presents itself as “Maoism” and serves the plans of imperialism to annihilate the revolution in all the countries. To us, Chairman Gonzalo is the Great Leadership of our revolution in Peru, center of Party unity and guarantee of triumph until communism, because he is a Great Leadership based on Gonzalo Thought, the creative application of Maoism to our reality in Peru – based on the whole practical experience of our revolution. It is not, and it has never been the PCP’s position that Gonzalo Thought has universal validity. However, we do insist that 1) Chairman Gonzalo and Gonzalo Thought have had, and continue to have today, a decisive role of undeniable importance in the struggle to defend and apply the principles of Maoism and impose it on world level and 2) Chairman Gonzalo and Gonzalo Thought give contributions to Marxism, like the militarization of the Communist Parties, and “we consider this experience to have universal validity, which is why it is a demand and a necessity that the Communist Parties of the world be militarized”.
Some say that the PCP and the MPP “label everyone revisionist” and “attack other Communist Parties and people’s wars” when we insist in the struggle and reject conciliation. We express our total disagreement with such accusations. What we do apply is 1) implacable struggle against the revisionists, i.e. the traitors, groups and organizations that are no longer in the ranks of our class, like the ROL and the LOL in Peru or the traitors in Nepal, and 2) Two-line struggle inside the ranks of the proletariat on world level to combat and crush the revisionist positions that appear in the ICM. It is with this purpose that we have called this Conference: to develop the Two-line struggle inside our ranks so that we may unite in the struggle against new revisionism and advance in our common task of advancing the world proletarian revolution. If on the contrary one refuses to debate, and rejects every criticism and every expression of concern as “attacks”, it does not serve unity, but opportunism and the plans of imperialism. And when some even unite with the reactionary campaign to isolate and slander the PCP, its Central Committee and the people’s war it leads, it leaves room to think that there is a more direct influence from the reaction.
Avakian’s “new synthesis” and its repercussions in the ICM
Since the beginning of the RIM, the RCP(USA) has had a leading role in its formation, and in the history of the RIM we can see the trajectory of the current differences. Since the beginning, the PCP pointed out the main problems expressed by the RCP at the time:
Opposition against the definition of Maoism as the third, new and higher stage of Marxism, of universal validity.
Opposition against the general validity of the people’s war as the military theory of the international proletariat, to be applied to the specific conditions of each country.
Problems concerning the mass work, that for us is done to initiate or develop the people’s war.
Problems concerning the leadership, that is “of key importance and requires time for its formation, development and recognized authority” (a problem linked to the opposition against the Marxist thesis of Great Leaders and Great Leadership of the revolution, that has to do with the application of Maoism to the specific conditions of each revolution).
Other points, like the question of the main contradiction in the world, the revolutionary situation in uneven development in the world, the revolution as main tendency, the world war and criteria concerning the role of the RIM. And, concerning the two-line struggle, that it is not managed as it should.
It is useful to see how the PCP summarized this in the following quote from our Basis of Party Unity:
“These are problems of development, but that if they are not justly and correctly managed may become phenomena of disarticulation, and these negative possibilities can not but cause concern. We consider that the Committee of the RIM aims to impose the designation “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought”, to frame us within the declaration and solve the problems of leadership in the Committee, which gives reason to think about the existence of hegemonist tendencies. “ (PCP – International Line, 1988)
If we look at these ideological and political problems expressed since the beginning in the very leadership of the RIM, and principally represented by the RCP, and if we look at the Party’s warning above, we can better understand the present situation. Have the problems been “justly and correctly managed”? Have they become “phenomena of disarticulation”? Yes, clearly. Not only do these problems continue to exist, but they have become a structured revisionism by the name “new synthesis”, and continue to have repercussions inside the ranks of the international proletariat, flowing together with the general counterrevolutionary offensive and all kinds of revisionism, forming what we have defined as new revisionism – i.e. a revisionism to revise the Marxism of today, Maoism. So, to make the evaluation of the RIM and the application of Maoism, it is of key importance to see the role of the RCP, of Avakian and his “new synthesis”. See how it has affected and continues to affect the work of the Parties and organizations of the RIM, and see its role in its liquidation. See its hegemonist role in the CoRIM and in the dark work to isolate the PCP and attack Chairman Gonzalo and his Thought, and see how today the revisionist positions of the “new synthesis” continue to be expressed in the ICM, even as convergences or conciliation with it among those who talk of “criticizing it”.
We are not here going to deepen our criticism of the “new synthesis” in detail, but it is necessary to see its main points and link them to the problems that are being expressed in several Parties and organizations of the ICM.
First, it is clear that the “new synthesis” is not an application of Maoism to the concrete conditions of the revolution in the U.S., nor to the present conditions in the world – and even the Avakianists themselves do not make any great effort to present it as such. In fact, the extensive documents of the RCP are not about practical and concrete experiences, but about the “introspection”, lucubrations and “distillation” of the great intellectualoid Avakian. This, for Marxists, is what is called idealism. However, there is no doubt that according to them, the “new synthesis” must replace MLM on world level. As is expressed in their “Manifesto of the RCP”, we have supposedly entered a “new stage” of the world revolution, in which we have to question the so-called “errors” that are supposedly the results of the concrete application of our ideology, made by Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao. Thus we see, that opposition to Maoism continues to be one of the main characteristics of the RCP. That is to say, that when they launch their attacks against Chairman Gonzalo and his Thought, and against the whole Marxist thesis of Great Leaders and Great Leaderships, it is not because they are “anti-authoritarian” or “more democratic”, but because they do not want Maoism to be applied to the concrete conditions of each country, expressing itself in guiding thought and Great Leadership of the revolution, embodying itself in the proletariat and the revolutionary people. They want to reduce Marxism to a “pure science”, separated from the class struggle. What does this lead to? What does it mean when the Parties, like the Communist Party of India (Maoist), reject the concrete application of Maoism, and makes do with a Maoism “in general”? It leads to converting Maoism into a dead dogma that belongs to the past, into a gospel of empty words, to worship and pay tribute to, but not to apply to the concrete problems, new problems, that appear on the road of the revolution. And if the Communist Parties do not apply Maoism to confront the problems of today – the imperialist plan of “peace accords” for example – there is nothing left but to apply pragmatism, subjectivism, short-sighted politics, which inevitably leads to opportunism and revisionism. It is not strange then that some can say, now that it is an undeniable fact, that the so-called tactics of “peace accords” in Nepal was erroneous, but that in other countries the same “tactic” CAN be applied. Nor is it strange then, that the LOL in Peru (that in some of their monstrous document even calls itself the “RCP of Peru”), rejects Gonzalo Thought and only wants a “Maoism in general”, separated from its application in practice, or that they replace the world proletarian revolution with “world socialist revolution”.
Another point, directly linked to the above, is how new revisionism emphasizes the importance of the intellectuals. According to the RCP, compared to MLM and the whole practical experience of the ICM, “This new synthesis also involves a greater appreciation of the important role of intellectuals”. In the same document, the proclaim that Avakian “has criticized the tendency [in MLM and the history of the ICM] toward a ‘reification’ of the proletariat and other exploited (or formerly exploited) groups in society”. So, according to Avakian, we must break with the supposed “domatism” of the Marxists-Leninists-Maoists who insist that the proletariat lead the revolution – and we have to submit to the great intellectuals who, rather comfortable in their libraries (or maybe abroad?), have understood better than the communists how to make revolution and lead it. And watch out – when he speaks of “the important role of the intellectuals”, he does not say a single word about the class character of these intellectuals, because as he also explains “the truth has no class character”. So, like all revisionism, the new revisionism aims against the proletarian leadership of the revolution and against the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not for forging proletarian intellectuals, but for imposing the authority of bourgeois and petty bourgeois intellectuals and thus imposing the principles of the bourgeoisie in the Communist Parties: bourgeois democracy, liberalism, parliamentarianism, etc. We are sure that the comrades present agree when we say that this is pure revisionism that has nothing to do with Marxism. But still, we see how the same ideas are expressed in our ranks. If a Party does not have a basis of unity that applies the principles of Maoism to the construction of the three instruments in its country, how will it guarantee the proletarian leadership of the Party, Army and Front? If it does not apply Maoism, it will resort, once again, to pragmatism and revisionism, building a “mass party”, led by bourgeois intellectuals, an army of Guevara-type “heroes”, or a Front based on class conciliation instead of the joint dictatorship aiming for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Once again, we see how in Nepal this new revisionism has served the plans of imperialism perfectly. It is the same thing that they have tried in Peru, and the same that they want to do in India, in the Philippines, in Turkey or in any other country where people’s wars and revolutionary armed struggles are being waged. What the communists must do to confront this imperialist plan is not “rupture” with the principles of MLM, but rupture with revisionism and defense and concrete application of Maoism. We insist on the Maoist principle that the revolution is not led by the “great intellectuals” sitting in their offices or abroad (like Avakian’s position that the revolution can be led from abroad), but by the communists who are in the battlefield and have the concrete experience of applying Maoism to the class struggle in their country. Therefore we also condemn the miserable intellectualoid capitulators abroad who have never been in the war, but think that they know better than the Communist militants in Peru how to make revolution, and pretend to “distill” the experience of the people’s war in Peru, attacking it with their monstrous documents from Germany or Belgium or Sweden where they have made themselves quite comfortable in the imperialist system.
Avakian and the other intellectuals of the above mentioned type, do not base their authority or their theory on their own experience of the class struggle, and so they need to traffic with the heroic people’s wars and armed struggles waged by others to be able to present themselves as “Marxist authorities”. Thus we see how the RCP and others raised the people’s war in Peru when it was opportune for them – but when our people’s war confronted the difficult circumstances of the bend in the road, they started to waver and more and more serve the hoaxes of imperialism and reaction, taking the situation of the bend in the road and the arrest of our Great Leadership as an opportunity to impose their hegemonism and their “new synthesis”. After that, they raised the people’s war in Nepal, which was conveniently published in the whole reactionary and revisionist world press with photos and reports, presenting it as the great example of “Maoism in the 21st century”, and when the communists expressed their criticisms and concerns about this, the right accused us of being “dogmatic” or “religious”. Today, when the treason in Nepal is already a fact, nobody wants to assume their responsibility. Today, concerning the revolution in India and other countries, some fall once again in the trap of the opportunists: trafficking with the revolution in India, using the heroic struggle of its people for their “accumulation of forces” through their “solidarity work”, not based on the principles of Maoism, but on the philanthropy of petty bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals in the imperialist countries. Therefore, they do not want to wage two-line struggle, they do not want to criticize nor debate the disagreements within the ICM. Instead of the Marxist method of two-line struggle, they apply the thesis of “two unite into one”. On the other hand, we are for supporting the revolution in India – but it must be a support led by the proletariat and based on the principles of the proletariat and its universal ideology MLM, mainly Maoism. We are not against the mobilization of intellectuals or petty bourgeois as part of this support – the problem is when such support take these groups and their principles as its foundation, replacing our principles with bourgeois principles and thus leaving the door open for the plans of imperialism and reaction to annihilate the revolutions through “peace accords”, parliamentary cretinism, elections, amnesty, multi-party system, like we have already seen in Peru with the ROL and the treason in Nepal.
We call all communists and revolutionaries to deepen and specify their criticism of new revisionism, and not simply discard it in words and close their eyes to its repercussions in the world. See how things are connected, see how the same revisionist positions appear in different places. When the revisionist thesis of the “personality cult” appears once more, do we not have enough historical experience to know what it means? So, when the revisionists, like the LOL and others, follow Avakian’s guidelines, defending and upholding the counterrevolutionary hoaxes of the reaction against Chairman Gonzalo and Gonzalo Thought, against the whole Marxist thesis of Great Leaders and Great Leaderships, are we going to accept it and spread the same old story of “authoritarianism” or “personality cult”? When they attack the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the words well known from all the reaction’s counterrevolutionary propaganda – “dissent”, “multi-party system”, etc. – are we going to accept it? When they attack the revolutionary violence and spread their bourgeois pacifism to disarm the proletariat and the people, are we going to accept it and say “we do not want violence; we only use it to defend ourselves”? When imperialism wants to repeat in other countries what they have done in Peru with the ROL or in Nepal with Prachanda, are we going to fall in the same trap and say that “yes, but here it is different, here we can participate in elections and make peace accords”?
To us, the answer to each of these questions is NO! We are not going to accept any attack against our all-powerful universal proletarian ideology, all-powerful because it is true, and true because it is scientific! The revisionists will always take every setback, every obstacle or problem on the road of the revolution, to say that “it is the ideology that does not work, it must be revised” – but we communists know that the setbacks and obstacles are part of the process, and the solution is to apply the ideology to the concrete conditions. It is in the revolutionary practice, not in the heads of the intellectualoids, that our ideology develops, and in this way we crush dogmatism as well as revisionism – in two-line struggle based on the application of our principles. “…the action that transforms, however modest it may be, is what sows the idea… The action that transforms the world, it is in carrying out that action, transforming the world, that the human being generates ideas, generates thought” (Chairman Gonzalo).
Facing the present situation, we insist on the following points:
[list=1]Struggle to make the evaluation of the application of Maoism in two-line struggle, crushing new revisionism, in order to unite ourselves around Maoism and impose it as the only command and guide of the world proletarian revolution. Unmask and crush the imperialist plan of “peace accords”, of parliamentary cretinism, amnesty and conciliation. Take firm position against the ROL and the LOL in Peru, against the treason in Nepal, against the whole politics of “peace accords” and against armed revisionism. Defend the Great Leadership, Chairman Gonzalo, Gonzalo thought and the Communist Party of Peru and its Central Committee against the attacks of revisionists, traitors and capitulators who serve the plans of the reaction. Crush the hoax that “the PCP does not exist” and that “it has no leadership”, which aims to isolate the Party and exclude it from the debate on international level. Support the people’s wars and revolutionary armed struggles in the world combatting and crushing revisionism and opportunism. Develop the support work based on the principles of the international proletariat. [/list]LONG LIVE MAOISM! DOWN WITH REVISIONISM!
LONG LIVE THE GLORIOUS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT!
LONG LIVE MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM, PRINCIPALLY MAOISM!
PEOPLE’S WAR UNTIL COMMUNISM!
Madrid, October 2012
Peru People’s Movement
[ 本帖最后由 红色翻译 于 2012-12-10 08:40 编辑 ]
What does it mean when the Parties, like the Communist Party of India (Maoist), reject the concrete application of Maoism
Once again, we see how in Nepal this new revisionism has served the plans of imperialism perfectly. It is the same thing that they have tried in Peru, and the same that they want to do in India, in the Philippines, in Turkey or in any other country where people’s wars and revolutionary armed struggles are being waged.
'Once again, we see how in Nepal this new revisionism has served the plans of imperialism perfectly. It is the same thing that they have tried in Peru, and the same that they want to do in India, in the Philippines, in Turkey or in any other country where people’s wars and revolutionary armed struggles are being waged.
同样的办法： 成功地让 尼共、秘鲁共变修的办法，放弃斗争、参加议会