One cannot be a Communist without defending Maoism

From MLM Library
Jump to: navigation, search

The level which the Proletarian science has reached with Maoism, or the criteria for being a revolutionary communist cannot be limited by the uplift of the class struggle to the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the defense of the proletarian dictatorship. Besides the acceptance of these, the necessity to be aware of the ongoing antagonistic class contradictions during the socialist period, under the proletarian dictatorship, to be aware of the class struggle amidst the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and to continue the class struggle till communism, upholds the need to continue the revolution. On the contrary one cannot be a Marxist, nor a Leninist nor Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. Together with the socialist transformation and improvement of production, the theories of the ones proclaiming the absence of a turning back or that there might be a very slight possibility, were proven in vain by the practice of the Soviet Union, China and East Europe. Those supporting or leaning on Marx related with these issues, have either not understood Marx or due to their revisionist gains engaged themselves nor alterations. As is known, Marx contemplated on the mark, during his own period, the development of socialism in capitalist countries, In Europe and in other developed countries. In the realization of such an event, the capitalist siege could be destroyed, due to the fact that these countries are developed, the production and distribution problems could have been sufficient enough. Consequently the danger of a regression in not completely dismissed but it would be complicated. However the revolution evolved during the imperialist period in the more weak chains relatively in backward areas. The reality of the imperialist stage capitalism, was the source for contrary development of Marx’s foresight. This situation is not the error of Marx’s theory, but the result of new developments and problems which were caused by concrete conditions. The one who could not project the developments in the concrete conditions, who confuse this with Marx’s period and on account of this the ones who use the strategy and tactics of the struggle line appropriate for the concrete reality of Marx’s period, in order to reply to the imperialists, are represent of the past, the wrong. For those who are stuck in this time tunnel, even the reality of the revolution and the engineering of socialism in a backward country like Russia had not been sufficient enough for them to come to their senses. We will elaborate on this issue in the context of another discussion. We will concentrate on the issue of regression. The uprising of the construction of Socialism in countries like Russia and not in developed capitalist countries although not in all of them, made the economic bases of the risks of regression increase in power. This is an disadvantage. However the issue cannot just be dealt with in the confines of the economic development. The key position holders of the high level bourgeoisie would gain access to the new bourgeoisie dangers. From this point of view, danger would not originate form, what was originally thought to be the main originator, the exploiting classes but from the new bourgeoisie appearing within the government and party and which has its foundation in the soil of socialism. Socialism is not a society without classes or clashes and not without contradictions. It is a transition period in which there are severe fights caused by antagonistic contradictions. The transfer of the relations of productions in fact was not a socialization of society in name of the workers but it meant the control of the owners of the production. The distribution was again organized by the bourgeois law principles, this action was “according to labor”. It was quite impossible to stop inequality with this in true sense. The transformation of the ownership of production means in socialism was far from producing a solution to the problems in the relations between the producers among themselves, between the producers and the managers. All these problems, were sufficient enough to understand that in socialism the proletariat -bourgeois contradiction, despite the above mentioned transformation of ownership would continue on the economic bases. The position of power of the proletariat, is a barricade against the new bourgeoisie, but this did not mean the end of the relapse risk. Even with the proletariat in power the state -the party formed a problem. Although these are the essential instruments in order to reach communism, from the perspective of communism, these have a bourgeois side to them. This means “Bourgeoisie state of the bourgeoisie”. From this point of view, the fact who is controlling the state and party, how it was seized and the political ideological line were key issues. If a line is not leading a society to communism, if it does not put its capacity into resolving the existing contradictions in favor of the workers, and if it is not minimizing the need for the state and party in order for the workers to become leaders and if it is not capable of dividing the power over the society on the road to communism, there is a problem. One may not use to being in control. Being in power is an instrument to mobilize the working masses to communism. Here the importance of the question of “socialist revolution” becomes more apparent. The proletarian power is not a monopoly of the party, it is the leading force through the agency of the party leadership and it is the enforcement of this power by the working masses. No matter in what name it is; the workers cannot be deprived of controlling the society, the right to revolt against injustice and they cannot be deprived of their right for continuation of the revolution. Comrade Kaypakkaya who had been armed with these lesson was a great Maoist… those hiding behind his back , those attacking Maoism, calculated the biggest blows from Kaypakkaya. He expresses the fact that in socialism, let alone new bourgeoisie, the former exploiting forces will continue their existence, en that they cannot fully be disposed of as following:

“After the realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat and even after the complete collective transformation of the production instruments they will remain their ideological- cultural existence. This is the reason why even during the dictatorship of the proletariat the revolution is continued.” (Complete works pg. 430)

Stating that after the socialist transformation of the production means there are no former factory owners, “there is no bourgeoisie”,

Kaypakkaya is the weapon of Maoism in Turkey

Kaypakkaya is a new qualitative stage in the history of the revolution in Turkey. The communist movement in Turkey emerged as a result of the October Revolution. With the conference held on September 10 1920 in Baku, the TCP (Turkish Communist Party) was founded under the leadership of Mustafa Suphi. Despite its communist qualities the TCP led by Mustafa Suphi had its important errors. The Turkish comprador bourgeois feudal counter-revolutionary side of Kemalizm had not been seen. This error, led the TCP towards the problems and weaknesses concerning the problems and duties of revolution. Also on the issues of the oppressed people and minorities a strong stable program was not expressed. Although a very important aspect the limitations of the conditions of that period, the inexperince of the movement, should not have implied not to criticize the mistakes and should also not imply separation from these problems. Just so these mistakes coasted the TCP too much . Mustafa Suphi and his comrades were massacred an the Black Sea by the Kemalist counter-revolutionaries by deception and conspiracy. After M.Suphi , Sefik Husnu and his group assumed leadership of the TCP. Despite of all these experiences instead of learning from these errors, the mistake the TCP was made into the place for reformism, revisionism and social-chauvinism. Led by the clique of Yakup Demir-Ismail Bilen the TCP became the puppet of the Russian social imperialism. In the history of the Turkish revolution in short the period of 50 years after Mustafa Suphi till the 1970’s , had gone by under the authority of class collaboration, reformism, bourgeoisie followers and chauvinism. In the 1970’s THKO, THKP’s revolutionary rebellious sorties were defying pacifism. But these revolutionary upsurges however were ideologically and politically not in the line of a communist alignment. The struggle against the modern revisionism and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution under the guidance of Mao Zedong, influenced as all the revolutionary movements including the THKO, THKPC. But they could not assimilate and integrate with the line of this struggle. They could not separate themselves radically from modern revisionism, they displayed a benevolent position. They could also not express a fundamental separation from the old mistakes in all the other matter of the revolution. They could not separate themselves from Kemalizm which is the official ideology of the system. The bourgeois state, military theories were not outgrown, the optimism towards the Turkish military, led into coup tendencies. The wrong line on the essence of Democratic Revolution, its duties, its allies, its objectives and so on, had not been overcome. It remained in the Castro-Guevara frame. TIIKP which allegedly defended Maoism was on a reformist rightist line. Comrade Kaypakkaya ideologically struggled without mercy against the rightist reformist line of the TIIKP. This struggle reached a new stage in February of 1972 with the DABK(East Anatolia Territory Committee) decisions. TIIKP insisted on and depend its errors. In the ideological struggle against the incorrigibly persistent revisionist-opportunist headquarters, a new period started. Amidst the struggle against the TIIKP revisionism, on April 1972 the TKP(ML) was founded under the leadership of Comrade Ibrahim Kaypakkaya as a product of the Great Proletarian Culture Revolution. The world proletariat reached an important position with the foundation and the rise of TKP(ML) on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles in Turkey and in Turkish-Kurdistan. Our peoples from varying nationalities and proletariat claimed a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard. The foundation of TKP(ML) was indeed a new qualitative path. The true descendants of MLM in Turkey were on stage. Chauvinistic, revisionist, reformist and all kinds of bourgeois lines were blown. Instead of the leftist due to the fact that they could not separate from Kemalizm and the bourgeois-feudal system, a strong programmatic leveled struggle related to the problems of our revolution was initiated, in practice which would prove to be costing lives.

=The Great October Revolution had opened the age of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Together with this century, the struggle for the New Democratic Revolution which was to be against imperialism and its servant in colonial and semi-colonial countries, became a part of the world proletarian revolution, contrary to the former bourgeois democratic revolution. Comrade Mao Zedong enriched the proletariat science on this matter with qualitative contributions. He personally led it, and with the experiences gained during the Chinese Democratic Revolution, he uplifted the theory to a new stage. Comrade Kaypakkaya perceived the Democratic Peoples Revolution and the Democratic Peoples Power teaching of comrade Mao Zedong and implemented these on the concrete conditions of our country. He analyzed Turkey as a semi-colonial semi-feudal country witch ties to the imperialism. Moving forward from the realty that imperialism, comprador capitalism and feudalism are the largest obstacles for our revolution will not be proletarian socialist but new democratic revolution, and that the duties to be solved were mainly of anti-feudal, anti-imperialist essence. Comrade Kaypakkaya dealt with the compulsory result of the conditions of the revolutionary proletariat of our country, the maximum programs of the new democratic revolution and democratic peoples power in the perspective of making way for the socialist revolution and in the since of persistent struggle for the transition from socialism to communism. It is due to the fact that he dealt with this from the point of view of the greatest experience of the Proletarian World Revolution, that in this line the bourgeois democratic, bourgeois parliamentary foolishness and the bourgeois elections were the points opposed in every way. Comrade Kaypakkaya expressed that the contradiction of feudalism and the broad masses is the main contradiction because of the fact that this contradiction plays a determining role on the other contradictions which are proletariat-bourgeoisie-imperialism and the people and the rulers. Together with the deep changes which can occur in conditions (for example during imperialist occupation) he expressed that the main contradiction could changes but for the semi-colonial, semi-feudal Turkey bonded with the imperialist, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will distinctively become clearer, and that will emerge on the agenda for a solution, through practice. This could be made possible with the dissolving of the contradiction of feudalism and the peoples masses. He also expressed that the conditions for socialism would be made possible with the modification of the remains of the middle ages. He stated that the solution to the contradiction between feudalism and the masses would play a decisive role in the elimination of imperialism and their social supporters in our country. He also pointed out that the democratic peoples revolution which is a land revolution in its essence, shows that our struggle is anti fascist as well. For fascism, in Turkey is the form of power of the servants of the imperialists, the comprador bourgeoisie and the landowners. The economic, social, political and historical conditions in Turkey made the appeal of the comprador bourgeoisie power for fascism compulsory. The break down of fascism , the gains of democracy is possible through new democratic revolution. From this view anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle is at the same time a anti-fascist struggle. The reality of Turkey has proven this and it made the ones hoping for democracy without revolution suffer serious disappointment. How is it possible to win democracy and independence if the basic issue of seizing political power is omitted. Those who could not comprehend the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory of the continuous gradual revolution, accused comrade Kaypakkaya of “peasant revolutionary”. The Trotskyites who defend the “one type of revolution” deny the truth of the two components of the world proletarian revolution which are in imperialist countries: the socialist revolution, in oppressed countries democratic revolution. These Trotstskyites could also not comprehend and opposed the Chinese Democratic Revolution in the past. Trotskyites who deny the basic role of the peasantry in the revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries, opposed to the line of establishment of the poor and landless peasantry as leaders in China, where billions of them were mobilized to the peasant movement. This denial expressed itself partly in the form of cries such as ” the leadership of the proletariat is been denied”. Whereas, it was in general not a matter of who would lead the revolution but more of which force within the peasantry would be taken as base. All of the opportunists who embrace these Trotskyism rooted ideas, are far from comprehending the quality of the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries. In fact this was an attack not merely on the Chinese revolution but on the proletariat of the world revolution. One of allegations of vain efforts of those who try to smear Maoism or to disgrace it with cheap accusation, such as ‘ that the doctrine of the Maoist New Democratic Revolution ” does not exceed the perspective frame of “the bourgeois democratic” and that “it excludes socialism”. Mao destroys this enormous lie the next day after the victory of the Democratic Revolution. On March 5th 1949 he stated: “the objective is communism”. Mao opposed those , as Liu Sio Si who denied the transition from socialism and the steps towards communism with the slogans ” Consolidation of New Democratic State”, ” The strengthening of the New Democratic Economics”. He said that the main contradiction existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and he ordered the immediate initiation of the socialist revolution.

The Communist Party, People’s Army, The United Front New Democratic Revolution

Thus said Comrade Kaypakkaya;

“Nowadays the main duty of the communist revolutionaries in Turkey, are amidst the armed struggle, is to create the three weapons of the people”…. ” A steel disciplined Communist Party which is purified of subjectivism, revisionism and dogmatism, united with the people which unites the theory and practice, which implements the method of self criticism under the leadership of such a party the peoples armed forces and again under the leadership of such a party peoples united front”

In the absence of these it would only remain a dream to lead the The Democratic Revolution to victory. In the revolution the hegemony of the proletariat is only significant whit the role of the party. Those who opportunistically defy the Party’s vanguard role, the people’s army, the people’s war, under the guidance of the proletariat, the basic alliance of the workers and peasants and the denial of the uplift of the Party on these principles those who try to degenerate these must be opposed of. Foremost, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party has key importance in the struggle to change the world. The proletarian revolution cannot be separated from the Proletarian Party. The uplift of the collectiveness of the conscious-voluntary most advanced elements of the proletariat, cannot mobilize the masses on the right bases, they cannot improve towards communism without a vanguard communist party as an instrument in the struggle for revolution-socialism-communism. While pointing out the essential importance of the Maoist Party, we cannot equalize the the party with the classes and the worker. The party is meaningful to the proportion it lends itself to be the instrument of this. A party which breaks with the benefits of the proletariat, with the revolution cannot be the leader of the proletariat. From this point of view it cannot be seen as a taboo to ‘touch’ the party. Against the mistakes, injustices, there is naturally opposition. This is a right as well as a duty. Leadership is partly taking concessions and cannot be seen as superiority above others. Leadership is the ability to be the instrument which improves the revolution. It is to be at the service of the masses and to transform them in to leadership. It is not despite the masses, but it is to fulfill the attraction of the masses in the political struggle. The Maoist Party is a conditions for the revolution. TKP(ML) is a Maoist party. The dissociate oneself from a Maoist party is to create distance from the proletarian revolution. TKP(ML) which is equipped with sound Maoist consciousness; is aware of the fact that the party is not a single part but that it divides into two continuously. It has comprehended that the struggle between right and wrong, continues every where. The true character of this struggle which we call the two line struggle in class societies imply class struggle. There is not one substance which does not allows two pieces to become one and from one to become two. The Party is not exempted from the contradiction forming the essence of dialectics. As a product of class society, varying in level or even if it has some changes, it is present continuously, who only call “a complete platform line” and what is called “deviation” are those who have not comprehended Maoism. There has to be adjustments on the level of the line. But it is to comprehend different views outside the line only because they are not on the level of ” a systematic platform”. Peasantry exists of several poles. For instance the rich-middle-poor and landless peasantry. Therefore at the centre of the alliance with the general peasantry masses should be the landless semi-proletariat of the little land owning peasantry of the countryside . The petit-bourgeoisie and the left wing of the national bourgeoisie, are the other components of the United Front. The United Peoples Front means, the unification of these allied forces such as the workers-peasant basic alliance under the leadership of the proletariat. It is imminent that this cannot be realized in one straight line. This would on the condition that the Proletariat is an alternative for and that the alliance of the workers and peasants is realized. It is due to close relations that Comrade Kaypakkaya dealt with the Front in the perspective of the organs of political power between the proletariat and the Front. The logic is absolutely correct. Is it possible to unite the other revolutionary forces under the banner of the banner of the proletariat, without first becoming a serious alternative force. It is possible when the proletarian banner is abandonment and when one becomes the follower of the bourgeoisie.. The proletariat cannot accept this. The leadership of the proletariat accurse not only the duties of the workers -peasants alliance or just the Democratic Revolution, but to mobilize the masses with the perspective of socialisms and communism. This requires the absolute rejection of the bourgeoisie following lines.

People’s War

In colonial and semi-colonial countries the path of victory fro the New Democratic Revolution is the People’s War. One of the motives of these countries is the unstable development of the economic-political-social structures. This situation causes the unstable development of the revolutionary war instead of a straight line. Again an other realty of countries as ours is the relatively weakness of capitalism, the presence of feudalism and due to their social contents the National Question and other peasantry problems. Another essence of People’s War is the present war and because of the role the peasantry will assume in our revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. People’s War cannot be explained by merely the reasons ‘Feudalism heightened’ or ‘ the majority of the population consists of peasants’. The most important aspect is the dependence to imperialism. This situation brings about the relatively easier control of the cities by the imperialists and their servants. And the countryside to become their weak spot. Because of its complex relations the revolution is more advantaged in the countryside. People’s War cannot be reflected as just merely a military lie. People’s war is above all the strategic and political line of the New Democratic Revolution. People’s war lays down the condition of the establishment of the leadership of the proletariat with the Communist Party as its instrument. This is an important point of distinction, with the adventurous lines. The base areas and the Organs of Political Power are the basic components of People’s war. The peasant guerrilla warfare is the instrument to create these. Guerrilla warfare is the actual form of the first stage of People’s war which is during the Strategic defense the armed struggle. However this does not mean that during the stages of Strategic equilibrium and the strategic offence the guerrilla does not have a role. People’s war has indeed a strategic importance. The extreme importance of the People’s Guerrilla Army is directly related to these truths. The importance of the interpretations of this issue by Comrade Kaypakkaya were proven by the social practices in our country. It is the sole way to defeat the enemy, to accomplish the tasks of the New Democratic Revolution. The experiences of the Kurdish National Movement, the realty of the Peasants Guerrilla War, under the leadership for the Organs of Political Power TKP(ML) is proven by the People’s Wars in Peru and the Philippines. People’s war is not ‘ fighting, for the sake of fighting’ but it is the path of carrying out the tasks of the revolution in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Line. Our central task today is in order to establish Organs of Political Power the Peasant Guerilla War, this is the instrument to engender our ideological-political Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line. It is the highest form of politics. Comrade Kaypakkaya had a very clear understanding of, the relations between the Party the army, between the politics and arms. He pointed out the principle that the party guides the army and politics the arms and that this cannot be tampered with. Thus he stated:

“The solely military point of view is defended by those who assume the ‘fighting for the sake of fighting’ idea. We want to struggle to fight in order to fulfill the political tasks of the revolution. We defend armed struggle to accomplish peoples power by destroying the local and central authorities step by step. This we could do in the countryside, through the People’s Army under the leadership of the Party.” (complete works, pg262)

The conditions and its truths in our country, forces on us the armed struggle as the main struggle form, in order to enable us to fulfill the duties of the revolution. Those who persistently refuse to understand the historical, social, political and cultural conditions which brought about these conditions are damaging the revolution. Comrade Kaypakkaya represented the revolutionary Maoist line. He brought effective strokes upon the understandings of engaging in politics with the Endeavour of the followers and the so called intellectual, from the frame of economist and foucaultism.. He implemented the politics of ” from the masses to the masses” which is the basic component of the revolutionary mass line. He excellently showed in his theory as well as his practice that it is a matter of trusting the Party as well as the masses. He defended the people’s benefits on the scientific bases for the revolution and communism. Comrade Kaypakkaya did not perceive the masses as one sole part. He signaled that there are separations in the forms of advanced, middle, and backward. This would mean; in the political struggle leaning on the advanced masses, to advance those in the in the middle and at least neutralize the backward ones. In the stabilization of politics the advanced group should be taken as the base. If this is not done, can those be the vanguard if politics is fixed for the middle and backward masses.

The National Question

For the first time in Turkish revolution history Kaypakkaya represented the advance theory which brought the right solutions on the Kurdish National Question as well as all the other issues. He opposed to the national oppression imposed on the Kurdish people and the minorities by the Turkish ruling classes, with the banner of the true enemy of the Revolutionary Proletariat He unconditionally defended the right of the Kurdish nation to establish their own state. He deciphered the true nature of this and of the chauvinism opposing this right. He denied the concessions of the Turkish dominants, on the Kurdish nation and the minorities on the base of revolutionary communism. He defended the democratic part of the National Movement of the Kurdish nation which opposed the national oppression and the concessions of the dominant nation. He deciphered the Kemalist ideology of the Turkish chauvinists. Kaypakkaya was analytic and scientific. For he was a Maoist in true sense. He grew beyond the mistakes in the past of the Comintern concerning the Kurdish National Movement and Kemalizm. Turkish chauvinism who applauded the fascist and barbaric oppression of the Kemalist fascists was for the first time struck most effectively by the ideological-political line Kaypakkaya represented. While Kaypakkaya defended the democratic side the National Movement, he exposed the intentions of the leaders of this movement. Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords, to impose their authority and their effort to use the Kurdish people as an instrument for their aim. He also called upon the workers to gather under the banner of the proletariat. He raised the banner of the world revolution against the Turkish Ruling Classes who under the pretence of ‘National Unity, Motherland, and National Indivisibility, made use of barbaric methods to keep the Kurdish nation within the Turkish borders. He did this in the line of ‘ equal rights for all people…self-determination for all people and the unity of workers and oppressed peoples of all nationalities’. The line path to liberty is this one. The sole force to wipe out the class, national, religious, language, gender oppression from the face of the earth is the revolutionary proletariat. The true weapon against all sorts of reactionary is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

The Conditions Are Good

The objective conditions for the revolution are good. The Turkish dominants are in a serious economical and political crises. The results of the economical crisis are, the 60 billion dollars foreign debts, the highly increasing devaluation. The bankruptcy of Total War, instructed by the rulers against the Kurdish nation and to all the different nationalities of our people has worsened the economical crisis. The sub-contractionizm of imperialism with the orders from IMF to privatization have agitated the balances even more. Even the rulers exclaimed cries of ‘help’, ‘we are finished’. They have no cure. The system is also defeated politically. All the policies have gone bankrupt. They cannot give guidance . Is there anything left they haven’t tried yet? Now they are discussing a campaign. Whereas the General Chief of Staff is already in power? The clashes contradictions between the rulers have deepened the contradictions of the system parties within themselves. The system with all its organizations is faced with bankruptcy. This is the reason for their savageness, their ferocity. Their army in which they trust is decaying. Desertions increase, recruiting soldiers is becoming a problem. Their ferocious attacks increase their depression. This economical and political crisis welded with a uprising revolutionary situation. It is very clear what has to be done. To persevere in People’s War. To reject the vulgar so called solution alternatives. ‘to alert the masses, against the I.II. Republic” and the ‘Reform Projects.’ A liberation but the Organs of Political Power and for this the central duty of the guerrilla warfare is an illusion, The construction of a new society, to gain the political power for the World Revolution cannot be postponed. To destroy this decaying system piece by piece is fairly possible and necessary. The imperialists are trying to disguise the old with the “New World Order” with their thoughts of “World of Peace” But it is this system, confusion is the more apparent. Contrary to their lies of stabilization their main contradictions have deepened. The colonial, semi-colonials the storm of revolution continues. The social-imperialists Russia and its allies have given up in the competition with the U.S. and the NATO . The world counter-revolutionaries have falsely tried to give the impressions that ‘communism is dead’. They are rather frightened by the struggles of the world proletariat and the peoples struggle. Interventions, imperialist world has reached a dead lock in Peru, in the Philippines and in Turkey. The so called alternatives try to implement the impasses the Philistine, the Middle-East, Kaukasen, and Yugoslavia are clear. The ‘stabilization’ and the ” New World Order” have reached a greater chaos and ambiguity. The imperialist competition is also deepening. However the revolution is the main flow. The main contradiction is again the contradiction between the world imperialist and the oppressed people. As Mao stated ” The road is troublesome” but the future is promising. Once again the improvement of the People’s War has proven that the strongest one is not one with the big guns and bombs but the people. Their seemingly frightening military forces can be defeated and have been defeated by the powerful force of the people guided by the Communist Party. As long as Maoism is comprehended, as long as the Maoist People’s War is conducted to its correct position. Those with the backward idea who look at this merely from the point of technological and arms teach not to rebel for the revolution. In spite of the support of initially the U.S. supported by the other imperialist and the other imperialist and the United Nations, with the honorable result of the People’s War in Peru under the leadership of the Communist Party of Peru and with its uprising the TKP(ML) is not to be ignored. The tasks is to join the struggle, and to shoulder it.

Forward on the Kaypakkaya line with Maoism!

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Communist Leader KAYPAKKAYA lives!

Long Live Chairman Gonzalo!

Gonzalo line lives and Fighting!