Post by tand on Feb 3, 2013 15:18:21 GMT -5
toanewdawn.blogspot.in/2013/01/the-colombian-revolution-briefing-some.html
The Colombian Revolution: Briefing some untold tales
Bodhayan Roy
(This article has been published in the Nov-Dec'12 issue of the printed edition of the magazine )
On 4th November, 2011, the international communist movement received a great blow. Guillermo León Sáenz, better known as Alfonso Cano, the founder and leader of the Clandestine Communist Party of Colombia (PCCC), also the leader of its military wing, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was martyred that day in the hands of the Colombian army. But the teachings and leadership of the 63 years old veteran revolutionary and his predecessors were not in vain; "a policy has been laid out and it will continue", stated the FARC as it vowed to continue its struggle against the ruling classes and imperialism[1].
Alfonso Cano
A SHORT INTRODUCTION
The FARC was founded as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party (PCC), by Manuel Marulanda Vélez, in 1964. It carries on the oldest revolutionary armed struggle continued till date, closely followed by the struggle in India, which started in 1967. Initially, the PCC combined the methods of armed struggle and participation in elections. Gradually, the PCC turned towards the fully opportunistic road of confining all of its struggles to parliamentary politics. The FARC, throughout the 80s, distanced itself from the PCC. They officially broke from each other in 1993. But political organizations were already arising from the FARC's armed struggle, and finally consolidated themselves into the PCCC in 2000.
THE LATIN AMERICAN SCENARIO
The parliamentary revisionists including the CPI, CPI(Marxist) etc. often hail many Latin American governments as socialists/communists, which could mislead the common reader into believing that the FARC has many allies. However, these so called socialist governments are far from being socialist. They are actually at most reformist in nature, and are internationally allied to fascist groups disguised as communists, such as the CPI(Marxist) itself. Even the most hailed of them all, the Cuban state, is an ally of imperialism. Soon after the overthrow of Batista, the Soviet Union swooped in to establish control over the new Cuban regime. The interests of Soviet social imperialism and the Cuban peoples, manifested itself as a struggle within the Cuban communist party and government. Castro and Che stood on diametrically opposite points on the key issues of the day, and Castro's clique had grown strong in the party as well as the government. As a result Che set out to help the oppressed people of the world to make revolution in their own countries. It is not clear whether he went out on his own or was forced by the hostile pro-Castro factions to do so. In his last days, during his capture in Bollivia, Che complained of Castro's betrayal to his revolutionary struggles. At present we see that Cuba is slowly but steadily walking the road of capitalist development. The buying and selling of houses has already been legalized, religious institutions have been given a red carpet and so on.
Hugo Chavez, the military coup-leader of Venezuela has been the most flexible socialist in human history. If yesterday he was a socialist because of Jesus Christ, then today he is an ardent follower of Trotsky. Again tomorrow, while asking for favors from Chinese revisionists, he becomes a Maoist without any hesitation. His policies never consisted of overthrowing the bourgeoisie. He is nothing more than a bourgeois populist usuring reforms from above, which sometimes include nationalizing banks etc. Other so called "leftist" leaders of Latin America include the likes of Dilma Rousseff, who used to be a Marxist guerrilla, but is now not uncomfortable at all in continuing the same old exploitative structure of Brazil as its president.
Similarly, the once revolutionary Sandinistas of Nicaragua and Zapatistas of Mexico have plunged themselves deep into reformism and pacifism respectively. The PCP, which was once very close to seizing power in the Peruvian cities, has suffered a series of setbacks since the capture of Gonzalo. Recently its last fighting member of the original Central Committee surrendered. The remaining forces of the PCP are divided, but particularly one of them, the PCP(MLM), are advancing, though still weak. In countries like Brazil and Argentina, strong peasant and Maoist movements are being formed, though all of them are very weak as of now. In this surrounding situation, the PCCC and the FARC are continuing to defend the interests of the Colombian masses against imperialism and its lackeys.
FARC rebels on patrol
THE QUESTION OF ARMED REVISIONISM
Historical conflicts within genuine communists and revisionists along with their armed brethren, have been fierce. China and Soviet Union backed forces fought each other in Africa, the Soviet Union itself collaborated with the USA to militarily surround China in the 60s, the CPI(Marxist) state forces and party-sponsored mercenaries regularly fought the guerrilla squads of the CPI(Maoist) upto last year and so on. There has been some tendency from the Maoist spectrum to dismiss the Colombian movement as armed revisionism. So it is necessary to compare it with historical examples of armed revisionism and obtain evidence either supporting or opposing this notion.
Armed revisionism can be defined as a movement that conducts armed struggle with revisionist aims. That is, the armed revisionists do not opt for making a revolutions, but rather negotiate and share power, or topple the old regime but keep the old system intact after seizing power through armed struggle. The Cuban revolution is largely an example of armed revisionism, since most of its major leaders, including Fidel Castro, were anti-communist even after the seizure of power. Their class character was petty bourgeois which by definition cannot lead a revolution to overthrow colonial or neo-colonial relations for long, in the era of Leninism. In addition to this, their armed struggle did not have mass participation, so that capitulation to Soviet social imperialism was quite natural. There have also been armed revisionist movements in Latin America, where armed struggles were only a supplement to parliamentary maneuvers. These armed struggles cannot introduce revolutionary change in the mode of production and hence do not have active participation of the masses. In fact, one of the reasons that prevents them from organizing the masses in armed struggle is that they tend to prevent the possibility of the masses taking up the reins of the struggle in their own hands, in which case it would turn into a genuine revolutionary struggle. This can be very well observed within the FARC. Earlier the PCC would combine armed struggles with participation in parliamentary politics. But as the FARC's armed struggle assumed a mass character, it slowly broke away from the PCC, which was becoming more and more revisionist, till a new communist party able to politically guide the revolutionary armed struggle arose from the FARC itself. If an armed struggle affiliated to a revisionist political leadership starts gaining a mass character, then this is how its contradictions with capitulation-ism unfold.
However, the final aim of negotiations should not be confused with peace talks, that the FARC is often accused of. Peace talks are sometimes necessary for the revolutionary camp to do more undisturbed mass-work or to reorganize itself. The Chinese Revolution teaches us that even temporary unity with an enemy is permitted according to the circumstances.
"War and peace, as everybody knows, transform themselves into each other. War is transformed into peace; for instance, the First World War was transformed into the post-war peace, and the civil war in China has now stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace is transformed into war; for instance, the Kuomintang-Communist co-operation was transformed into war in 1927, and today's situation of world peace may be transformed into a second world war. Why is this so? Because in class society such contradictory things as war and peace have an identity in given conditions." -Mao[2].
IMPERIALIST AND RIGHTIST ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE FARC
The FARC is regularly pointed to as criminals, murderers etc. but we will not deal with these allegations explicitly here as being attacked by enemies in such a manner is a common feature of every revolutionary struggle. However, the FARC has been blamed for a long time by US imperialists for drug-trafficking. In fact, the biggest excuse the US imperialists use to fund anti-FARC operations and even use its armed forces directly on Colombian soil.
By pretending to wage war with drugs, US imperialism actually helps drug lords and drug-traffickers in Colombia. Like in most neo-colonial countries, the best agricultural lands in Colombia too are concentrated in the hands of very few land owners, with more land grabbing by them every day. Therefore the peasants are forced to flee to mountainous regions where nothing but coca can be grown. Again, the coca is bought on a large scale by the drug lords and their money circulates at every level of the state machinery. Thus, by evicting peasants, the ruling classes make a two-way gain. They themselves aid in drug-trafficking while pretending to be against it. On the other hand, Klaus Nyholm, former director of the UN International Drug Control Programme in Colombia, noted, "The guerrillas are something different than the traffickers, the local fronts are quite autonomous. But in some areas, they’re not involved at all. And in others, they actively tell farmers not to grow coca".
Now let us look at some data to get a brief idea of the popularity of the FARC. As of 2004, it was present in every municipality of Colombia with at least 50,000 armed fighters and a many times larger mass base. During the peace talks of 1998-2002, around 740,000 peasants had migrated to FARC dominated territories from those dominated by the Colombian government[3]. The 'democratic' Colombian government has to bring in foreign mercenaries besides its own murderous troops to counter the 'terrorist' FARC which apparently enjoyed more popular support among the masses than the government itself. And these 'democratic' forces, not only do the pursue the FARC, but use Colombia as an experiment ground for their biological and chemical weapons, damaging its forests as well as fertile agricultural fields and crops, thus forcing even more peasants to take up coca cultivation[4].
In 2005, general map of Colombia with FARC presence
FARC'S RELATIONS WITH REVISIONISTS
The FARC had begun as the armed organization of a revisionist party. It had cordial relations with the Cuban and Venezuelan revisionists. In the 1980s it had sent fighters to the Soviet Union and Vietnam to receive advanced military training. They praised the revisionist governments of Latin America even a few years back, before the death of Raul Reyes[5]. But these are not to be taken as the deciding factors to judge the FARC's true nature; even the Communist Party of the Philippines had, for a time, begun to endorse Gorbachovite revisionism[6]. It is, however, worthy to note that the FARC's latest interactions with the revisionists indicates that it is a revolutionary mass struggle as of now.
On 1st March, 2008, Raul Reyes and several other key leaders of the FARC were killed in a Colombian air-raid over Ecuadorian soil. And in this critical period, when nothing could be better for the FARC than actual support from a state, Castro claimed that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America. He pointed at the history of Latin America and showed that many recent ones had failed. What he omitted was that those revolutions failed precisely because they had either followed the Cuban model or relied on the Castro-Soviet bloc for support. On the other hand, the FARC had carefully gained not only popular support but mass participation. Instead of guerrilla bands dealing the final blow to an already crumbling regime, they had organized themselves into battalions necessary to fight pitched battles with a stable, dictatorial, militaristic state. Their struggle had been developing into a true people's war.
Castro's revisionist comrade in arms, Chavez, too followed suit. Together they advised the FARC to disband, surrender to France and leave the Colombian masses to their doom in the hands of the Uribe gangs (Alvaro Uribe was the president of Columbia and was a UN appointed investigator to investigate Israel invasion operation in Gaza). Chavez did not stop there though; he accused the FARC for US aggression in Latin America. "You in the Farc should know something: you have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us. The day that peace arrives in Colombia, the empire will have no excuses.", he said, accusing FARC of American atrocities, much in the same tone that some self-proclaimed Indian leftists use to hold the CPI(Maoist) responsible for the governments brutal military attacks on the masses. Fortunately the FARC refused to let these capitulators to have their way. Their struggle continued and after a while a disappointed Castro withdrew his statement.
Needless to say, the persistence of the FARC's revolutionary line has been worrisome for the revisionists outside Latin America too. CPI(Marxist), wrote in its mouthpiece, Ganashakti, about the 'Maoist' terrorist FARC and their horrors[7]! Thus we see that even while not being at least explicitly Maoist, the FARC has earned its place among the modern communist revolutionaries of the most advanced category.
FARC leadership along with deceased Alfonso Cano, who are now having a talk with Peru Govt. on the condition of a ceasefire and peace process
PROSPECTS FOR THE COLOMBIAN REVOLUTION
The FARC is not known to have links with any Maoist communist parties engaged in armed struggle. It has not commented on Mao Tsetung thought or Maoism. This is a matter of concern, as a wrong or insufficient line can destroy or temporarily stall even the most advanced of people's wars. The fact that the FARC does not denounce Castroite revisionism even now, is very concerning too. Past experience has shown that neglecting the threat from revisionism can heavily damage or even end a people's war.
The future holds many new possibilities for the FARC, though it suffers from the same international problems as that of other people's wars.
As it has no allies in the form of socialist states, so that it will have to face an all-out imperialist onslaught in a unipolar world. Therefore a burning necessity of the day is that the FARC consolidates its politics and recognize its real allies, and identify those who support it only in words. It must take care to recognize and comprehend the most advanced stage of Marxism. It must explicitly denounce the revisionist cliques. It must strive to form alliances with the other leading revolutionary communist groups of today in Latin America and South Asia. On the other hand, these communist groups must take their own initiative to ally with the FARC. If they cooperate thus, then no force can stop Colombia from becoming yet another nail on the coffin of world capitalism.
Sources:
1. Colombia's Farc rebels vow to keep fighting despite top commander's death (6th November, 2011), The Guardian, UK
2. On Contradiction-Mao Tse Tung, 1937.
3. Revolutionary Social Change in Colombia: The Origin and Direction of the FARC-EP, James Brittain.
4. Plan Colombia, Noam Chomsky.
5. Interview with Raúl Reyes, The Guardian, UK.
6. General Review Of Important Events And Decisions (1980 To 1991), Communist Party of the Philippines.
7. Death in the Andes, Ganashakti, 15th May, 2010.
The Colombian Revolution: Briefing some untold tales
Bodhayan Roy
(This article has been published in the Nov-Dec'12 issue of the printed edition of the magazine )
On 4th November, 2011, the international communist movement received a great blow. Guillermo León Sáenz, better known as Alfonso Cano, the founder and leader of the Clandestine Communist Party of Colombia (PCCC), also the leader of its military wing, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was martyred that day in the hands of the Colombian army. But the teachings and leadership of the 63 years old veteran revolutionary and his predecessors were not in vain; "a policy has been laid out and it will continue", stated the FARC as it vowed to continue its struggle against the ruling classes and imperialism[1].
Alfonso Cano
A SHORT INTRODUCTION
The FARC was founded as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party (PCC), by Manuel Marulanda Vélez, in 1964. It carries on the oldest revolutionary armed struggle continued till date, closely followed by the struggle in India, which started in 1967. Initially, the PCC combined the methods of armed struggle and participation in elections. Gradually, the PCC turned towards the fully opportunistic road of confining all of its struggles to parliamentary politics. The FARC, throughout the 80s, distanced itself from the PCC. They officially broke from each other in 1993. But political organizations were already arising from the FARC's armed struggle, and finally consolidated themselves into the PCCC in 2000.
THE LATIN AMERICAN SCENARIO
The parliamentary revisionists including the CPI, CPI(Marxist) etc. often hail many Latin American governments as socialists/communists, which could mislead the common reader into believing that the FARC has many allies. However, these so called socialist governments are far from being socialist. They are actually at most reformist in nature, and are internationally allied to fascist groups disguised as communists, such as the CPI(Marxist) itself. Even the most hailed of them all, the Cuban state, is an ally of imperialism. Soon after the overthrow of Batista, the Soviet Union swooped in to establish control over the new Cuban regime. The interests of Soviet social imperialism and the Cuban peoples, manifested itself as a struggle within the Cuban communist party and government. Castro and Che stood on diametrically opposite points on the key issues of the day, and Castro's clique had grown strong in the party as well as the government. As a result Che set out to help the oppressed people of the world to make revolution in their own countries. It is not clear whether he went out on his own or was forced by the hostile pro-Castro factions to do so. In his last days, during his capture in Bollivia, Che complained of Castro's betrayal to his revolutionary struggles. At present we see that Cuba is slowly but steadily walking the road of capitalist development. The buying and selling of houses has already been legalized, religious institutions have been given a red carpet and so on.
Hugo Chavez, the military coup-leader of Venezuela has been the most flexible socialist in human history. If yesterday he was a socialist because of Jesus Christ, then today he is an ardent follower of Trotsky. Again tomorrow, while asking for favors from Chinese revisionists, he becomes a Maoist without any hesitation. His policies never consisted of overthrowing the bourgeoisie. He is nothing more than a bourgeois populist usuring reforms from above, which sometimes include nationalizing banks etc. Other so called "leftist" leaders of Latin America include the likes of Dilma Rousseff, who used to be a Marxist guerrilla, but is now not uncomfortable at all in continuing the same old exploitative structure of Brazil as its president.
Similarly, the once revolutionary Sandinistas of Nicaragua and Zapatistas of Mexico have plunged themselves deep into reformism and pacifism respectively. The PCP, which was once very close to seizing power in the Peruvian cities, has suffered a series of setbacks since the capture of Gonzalo. Recently its last fighting member of the original Central Committee surrendered. The remaining forces of the PCP are divided, but particularly one of them, the PCP(MLM), are advancing, though still weak. In countries like Brazil and Argentina, strong peasant and Maoist movements are being formed, though all of them are very weak as of now. In this surrounding situation, the PCCC and the FARC are continuing to defend the interests of the Colombian masses against imperialism and its lackeys.
FARC rebels on patrol
THE QUESTION OF ARMED REVISIONISM
Historical conflicts within genuine communists and revisionists along with their armed brethren, have been fierce. China and Soviet Union backed forces fought each other in Africa, the Soviet Union itself collaborated with the USA to militarily surround China in the 60s, the CPI(Marxist) state forces and party-sponsored mercenaries regularly fought the guerrilla squads of the CPI(Maoist) upto last year and so on. There has been some tendency from the Maoist spectrum to dismiss the Colombian movement as armed revisionism. So it is necessary to compare it with historical examples of armed revisionism and obtain evidence either supporting or opposing this notion.
Armed revisionism can be defined as a movement that conducts armed struggle with revisionist aims. That is, the armed revisionists do not opt for making a revolutions, but rather negotiate and share power, or topple the old regime but keep the old system intact after seizing power through armed struggle. The Cuban revolution is largely an example of armed revisionism, since most of its major leaders, including Fidel Castro, were anti-communist even after the seizure of power. Their class character was petty bourgeois which by definition cannot lead a revolution to overthrow colonial or neo-colonial relations for long, in the era of Leninism. In addition to this, their armed struggle did not have mass participation, so that capitulation to Soviet social imperialism was quite natural. There have also been armed revisionist movements in Latin America, where armed struggles were only a supplement to parliamentary maneuvers. These armed struggles cannot introduce revolutionary change in the mode of production and hence do not have active participation of the masses. In fact, one of the reasons that prevents them from organizing the masses in armed struggle is that they tend to prevent the possibility of the masses taking up the reins of the struggle in their own hands, in which case it would turn into a genuine revolutionary struggle. This can be very well observed within the FARC. Earlier the PCC would combine armed struggles with participation in parliamentary politics. But as the FARC's armed struggle assumed a mass character, it slowly broke away from the PCC, which was becoming more and more revisionist, till a new communist party able to politically guide the revolutionary armed struggle arose from the FARC itself. If an armed struggle affiliated to a revisionist political leadership starts gaining a mass character, then this is how its contradictions with capitulation-ism unfold.
However, the final aim of negotiations should not be confused with peace talks, that the FARC is often accused of. Peace talks are sometimes necessary for the revolutionary camp to do more undisturbed mass-work or to reorganize itself. The Chinese Revolution teaches us that even temporary unity with an enemy is permitted according to the circumstances.
"War and peace, as everybody knows, transform themselves into each other. War is transformed into peace; for instance, the First World War was transformed into the post-war peace, and the civil war in China has now stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace is transformed into war; for instance, the Kuomintang-Communist co-operation was transformed into war in 1927, and today's situation of world peace may be transformed into a second world war. Why is this so? Because in class society such contradictory things as war and peace have an identity in given conditions." -Mao[2].
IMPERIALIST AND RIGHTIST ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE FARC
The FARC is regularly pointed to as criminals, murderers etc. but we will not deal with these allegations explicitly here as being attacked by enemies in such a manner is a common feature of every revolutionary struggle. However, the FARC has been blamed for a long time by US imperialists for drug-trafficking. In fact, the biggest excuse the US imperialists use to fund anti-FARC operations and even use its armed forces directly on Colombian soil.
By pretending to wage war with drugs, US imperialism actually helps drug lords and drug-traffickers in Colombia. Like in most neo-colonial countries, the best agricultural lands in Colombia too are concentrated in the hands of very few land owners, with more land grabbing by them every day. Therefore the peasants are forced to flee to mountainous regions where nothing but coca can be grown. Again, the coca is bought on a large scale by the drug lords and their money circulates at every level of the state machinery. Thus, by evicting peasants, the ruling classes make a two-way gain. They themselves aid in drug-trafficking while pretending to be against it. On the other hand, Klaus Nyholm, former director of the UN International Drug Control Programme in Colombia, noted, "The guerrillas are something different than the traffickers, the local fronts are quite autonomous. But in some areas, they’re not involved at all. And in others, they actively tell farmers not to grow coca".
Now let us look at some data to get a brief idea of the popularity of the FARC. As of 2004, it was present in every municipality of Colombia with at least 50,000 armed fighters and a many times larger mass base. During the peace talks of 1998-2002, around 740,000 peasants had migrated to FARC dominated territories from those dominated by the Colombian government[3]. The 'democratic' Colombian government has to bring in foreign mercenaries besides its own murderous troops to counter the 'terrorist' FARC which apparently enjoyed more popular support among the masses than the government itself. And these 'democratic' forces, not only do the pursue the FARC, but use Colombia as an experiment ground for their biological and chemical weapons, damaging its forests as well as fertile agricultural fields and crops, thus forcing even more peasants to take up coca cultivation[4].
In 2005, general map of Colombia with FARC presence
FARC'S RELATIONS WITH REVISIONISTS
The FARC had begun as the armed organization of a revisionist party. It had cordial relations with the Cuban and Venezuelan revisionists. In the 1980s it had sent fighters to the Soviet Union and Vietnam to receive advanced military training. They praised the revisionist governments of Latin America even a few years back, before the death of Raul Reyes[5]. But these are not to be taken as the deciding factors to judge the FARC's true nature; even the Communist Party of the Philippines had, for a time, begun to endorse Gorbachovite revisionism[6]. It is, however, worthy to note that the FARC's latest interactions with the revisionists indicates that it is a revolutionary mass struggle as of now.
On 1st March, 2008, Raul Reyes and several other key leaders of the FARC were killed in a Colombian air-raid over Ecuadorian soil. And in this critical period, when nothing could be better for the FARC than actual support from a state, Castro claimed that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America. He pointed at the history of Latin America and showed that many recent ones had failed. What he omitted was that those revolutions failed precisely because they had either followed the Cuban model or relied on the Castro-Soviet bloc for support. On the other hand, the FARC had carefully gained not only popular support but mass participation. Instead of guerrilla bands dealing the final blow to an already crumbling regime, they had organized themselves into battalions necessary to fight pitched battles with a stable, dictatorial, militaristic state. Their struggle had been developing into a true people's war.
Castro's revisionist comrade in arms, Chavez, too followed suit. Together they advised the FARC to disband, surrender to France and leave the Colombian masses to their doom in the hands of the Uribe gangs (Alvaro Uribe was the president of Columbia and was a UN appointed investigator to investigate Israel invasion operation in Gaza). Chavez did not stop there though; he accused the FARC for US aggression in Latin America. "You in the Farc should know something: you have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us. The day that peace arrives in Colombia, the empire will have no excuses.", he said, accusing FARC of American atrocities, much in the same tone that some self-proclaimed Indian leftists use to hold the CPI(Maoist) responsible for the governments brutal military attacks on the masses. Fortunately the FARC refused to let these capitulators to have their way. Their struggle continued and after a while a disappointed Castro withdrew his statement.
Needless to say, the persistence of the FARC's revolutionary line has been worrisome for the revisionists outside Latin America too. CPI(Marxist), wrote in its mouthpiece, Ganashakti, about the 'Maoist' terrorist FARC and their horrors[7]! Thus we see that even while not being at least explicitly Maoist, the FARC has earned its place among the modern communist revolutionaries of the most advanced category.
FARC leadership along with deceased Alfonso Cano, who are now having a talk with Peru Govt. on the condition of a ceasefire and peace process
PROSPECTS FOR THE COLOMBIAN REVOLUTION
The FARC is not known to have links with any Maoist communist parties engaged in armed struggle. It has not commented on Mao Tsetung thought or Maoism. This is a matter of concern, as a wrong or insufficient line can destroy or temporarily stall even the most advanced of people's wars. The fact that the FARC does not denounce Castroite revisionism even now, is very concerning too. Past experience has shown that neglecting the threat from revisionism can heavily damage or even end a people's war.
The future holds many new possibilities for the FARC, though it suffers from the same international problems as that of other people's wars.
As it has no allies in the form of socialist states, so that it will have to face an all-out imperialist onslaught in a unipolar world. Therefore a burning necessity of the day is that the FARC consolidates its politics and recognize its real allies, and identify those who support it only in words. It must take care to recognize and comprehend the most advanced stage of Marxism. It must explicitly denounce the revisionist cliques. It must strive to form alliances with the other leading revolutionary communist groups of today in Latin America and South Asia. On the other hand, these communist groups must take their own initiative to ally with the FARC. If they cooperate thus, then no force can stop Colombia from becoming yet another nail on the coffin of world capitalism.
Sources:
1. Colombia's Farc rebels vow to keep fighting despite top commander's death (6th November, 2011), The Guardian, UK
2. On Contradiction-Mao Tse Tung, 1937.
3. Revolutionary Social Change in Colombia: The Origin and Direction of the FARC-EP, James Brittain.
4. Plan Colombia, Noam Chomsky.
5. Interview with Raúl Reyes, The Guardian, UK.
6. General Review Of Important Events And Decisions (1980 To 1991), Communist Party of the Philippines.
7. Death in the Andes, Ganashakti, 15th May, 2010.