Talk:Communist Party of Peru

Article should be renamed to "Communist Party of Peru"

The PCP doesn't call itself the "Shining Path". This was a name given to them by the anti-communist Peruvian government and used as a pejorative against the PCP. Unless we are looking to have an article of no better quality than Wikipedia, and start calling the Communist Party of China "CCP," we should be referring to the party by the name it actually uses. --SpaceHaitian (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi SpaceHaitian, I am in favor of discussing a potential move. From a cursory search online it seems that the party indeed does not use the term officially, but I cannot find any sources which claim either that it was a pejorative term or that it was developed by the government of Peru. Can you provide a source that we could use in the article? My Spanish is poor but sources in that language would work just as well (if not better?). In any case I will most likely support a move. Thanks - Harrystein (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple formations in Peru entitle themselves the "Communist Party of Peru" (or a similar form to that). For that reason, "Communist Party of Peru" currently redirects to a disambiguation page linking to the various organizations of this name which exist. The assertion that the only correct name for the Shining Path is the Communist Party of Peru is, from my investigation, largely a Maoist belief which is generated by their view that the other Communist Party of Peru was an illegitimate vanguard of the working class which had fallen to revisionism. Various people, largely Maoists, claim that "Shining Path" is an anti-communist term invented to make the organization in question seem cultic and fanatical, although as Harrystein had mentioned, that cannot be substantiated. I may be supportive of a rename to Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path) as that would disambiguate to an adequate extent. SociusVenger (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

While it's true that multiple parties in Peru call themselves some form of "Communist Party of Peru", namely the PCP (Unity) and PCP-PR, the Party referred to as the "Shining Path" is the most presently relevant both inside and outside of Peru. When people are looking up the PCP, that's going to be the party they're most often looking for. Like in the struggle in the Philippines, where the old Communist Party of the Philippines changed its name to PKP-1930 as their reformism became sidelined in the revolutionary struggle, the other Communist Parties in Peru remain marginal and insignificant, even while the PCP itself is in disarray. We aren't talking about a marginal Maoist split from a larger party, we're talking about a nationwide movement that very nearly took state power and had reactionaries panicking. From a RAND corporation report in 1990: "The worst case scenario is that Sendero could win. Although that seemed inconceivable even as late as 1987, it has become a plausible outcome.... The movement is firmly entrenched in the highlands and is already a permanent presence in and around Lima. Its growth has not been rapid, but it has been steady. Sendero now enjoys a substantial base of support in the countryside and has begun actively recruiting from among the urban work force and the country's rapidly growing mass of urban unemployed. It has also proven to be a resilient, adaptable, and ruthless organization. These traits, together, have made Sendero a formidable adversary." I can also speak from experience traveling the countryside around Cuzco in 2018 that even in areas where the PCP is not thought to be supported, it's not unusual to see signs of popular support in the form of graffiti. The people's war is in retreat, but it still haunts Peru and continuing arrests of activists as suspected "Senderos" is not uncommon.

As for the name "Shining Path" itself, the simple fact of the matter is that it's not the name of the party. Maoists do not make the claim of the term being an anti-communist dogwhistle baselessly, and have consistently held this analysis for nearly 40 years. From "A World To Win" #3 published in 1985: "From the start of the armed struggle in Peru in 1980 until only recently, the Peruvian authorities used as one weapon in their arsenal of lies (along with their other arsenal) the charge that the PCP was "completely isolated" from the worldwide revolutionary movement and that its outlook was "nationalistic." This went along with their habit of only referring to the PCP as "Sendero Luminoso," "Shining Path," as if it were some kind of sect and not a communist party at all." But even if that weren't the case, it's still not the name of the party and a left wing project documenting its history/thought has no place exclusively referring to it by a name only used by its enemies. I really wanna emphasize the example I gave earlier of referring to the Communist Party of China as the "CCP". All present would agree that, with some exceptions of communist writers which use "CCP" and "CPC" interchangeably, the present usage of "CCP" over "CPC" by liberals and fascists is an anti-communist dogwhistle. However I strongly doubt any of us would be able to produce a source where it's directly stated by those liberals and fascists, with no need for inference, that their intent in popularizing that name is to frame China as the new Soviet enemy, and to prepare the western masses for a reignited Cold War. Instead, sources supporting that claim would be by and large communists analyzing the political situation and coming to that reasonable conclusion, recognizing how this framing is being used in practice and to what end. In both these cases we are disadvantaged by the fact that this is all modern history. For many realities of these political and military conflicts there wont be good sources to utilize for many years to come, because much of what happened (especially on the side of western and neocolonial governments) is still very much classified, and on the side of the communists the people involved can't speak out for fear of imprisonment or murder. So ultimately, like with the Communist Party of China, it boils down to whether or not we should refer to the party by the name it uses and respectfully asks others to use, or how reactionaries, class enemies, and the uninformed public refer to it. I would say that, if the goal is political and historical education, we should use the proper name of the party rather than implicitly ceding ground to a reactionary narrative. --SpaceHaitian (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. If the party does not use the name to refer to themselves, and if Maoists hold the label to be controversial, then I support a name change in some form. I also understand that organizations such as the RIM and the (Maoist-aligned?) website Bannedthought.net use the bare term "Communist Party of Peru" seemingly without issue. However, changing the page name to remove any qualifiers is a different question. The existence of several parties of similar name, including (as you mentioned) the slightly different "Partido Comunista Peruano" historically connected with Mariátegui, seems it would make the topic confusing to users who are not Maoists or Peruvians. Many of these parties, whether marginal, defunct, or in disarray, evidently continue to participate in general elections (whereas the party we are discussing boycotts them, putting it in a parallel sphere) and I would argue that the success or notoriety of a newer party does not necessarily mean that another party, or even series of parties, who have held the same name for longer are unimportant on a site which has a historical tone. I wonder if a discriminator such as "(Gonzalo)" or perhaps "(guerrilla)", would be effective. Do you happen to know what term non-Maoist Peruvian leftists use to be unambiguous? If they use the term "Sendero Luminoso", then maybe it is ultimately worth putting it in the title (e.g. "Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path)") and adding a note in the lede explaining the controversy.

Finally, I would add that, while I typically avoid sectarian discussion, I must correct you about what my own views are. I do not in fact take it as given that the term CCP is, by itself, impeachable or ideologically motivated. I refer you to this site's (very short) Communist Party of China page, in particular the "Name" header, to get a better idea of how I try to treat the issue. And yes, I did choose the title of that page deliberately. I of course invite you to contribute and make revisions on that page as well. Tell me if my suggestions have been agreeable. Harrystein (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While I concur with some aspects of SpaceHaitian's arguments, I do not believe it addresses the fact that "Shining Path" is still the common term for the organization in question at least outside of Peru, including in left-wing circles. If "Communist Party of Peru" comes into common usage among leftist discourse for this formation, it should almost certainly be the name of the article, but I do not believe that is the case. Likewise, regarding this organization as the dominate communist party in Peru (renaming it to "Communist Party of Peru" would certain imply that) omits the fact that other communist parties of Peru still are active and to some extent important, at least from my understanding. For instance, the Peruvian Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist) is reportedly actively participating in political demonstrations in the country since the early part of this year. The very fact that other organizations in Peru refer to themselves as the "Communist Party of Peru" or a similar form of that is justification for disambiguation in the title, lest we begin to accept Maoist propaganda as facts within the context of a non-sectarian leftist project. SociusVenger (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally I consider a clarification in the opening paragraph of the article such as "unofficially known as the "Shining Path" (Sendero Luminoso)" and including a "Name" header near the top (similar to the one on the CPC page) where the topic can be elaborated on is more than sufficient to clarify which party is being discussed in the article. We can also maintain a disambiguation page linked at the top of the article, and "Shining Path" will of course still redirect to this. I want to be clear that I do think it's fine to acknowledge that this party is referred to as the "Shining Path", especially considering the lack of awareness in the western left of non-mainstream media, non-bourgeois sources on the party has led to it becoming near-ubiquitous. However I think that this ubiquity should be seen as a problem, rather than a neutral fact. That the vast majority of the western left's "common sense" in regards to the PCP is filtered through the language of bourgeois-aligned media and a neocolonial "truth and reconciliation commission" covering the people's war is a serious issue if we want to pursue a correct understanding of the party and its history, regardless of whether the final conclusion is positive, negative, or somewhere in-between.

When it comes to what other Peruvian orgs on the left use, it really depends on whether they align with the PCP or not. Nearly all parties that engage in electoral politics in Peru use the name "Sendero Luminoso" when referring to it as the electoral sphere is very much dominated by pro-Fujimori narratives and election-rigging against any genuine left-wing attempt at an electoral takeover (And to be clear I'm not just referring to Maoists when I say "genuine left-wing" here). Keiko Fujimori, daughter of the disgraced dictator Alberto Fujimori (and hilariously former "First Lady" after her mother denounced Alberto as a tyrant and divorced his ass in 1994), has been a serious contender for the past 3 presidential elections. Anything even remotely approaching sympathy for communist politics wouldn't be allowed close to serious political power by the Peruvian state machinery (hence why the closest they came was with Castillo, a Rondero who abandoned his own party less than a year after his election). My statement that the other Communist Parties are marginal isn't simply because I disagree with their line, or "Maoist propaganda". Like I'm trying not to come off as sectarian here, but the electoralist parties have failed to win anything more than a fraction of a percentage of votes in the general elections, and the non-electoralist non-maoist parties have failed to establish a mass base through which armed struggle could begin. By their own metrics these parties cannot be considered significant to the Peruvian communist movement in the way that the PCP was (and through the way it continues to haunt the Peruvian state, is). The Peruvian Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist) is certainly participating in political demonstrations, however this doesn't imply significance. It just demonstrates their existence in a larger movement they (and any other communist party) have zero leadership of. I would also include many Maoist formations, such as the MPCP and MOVADEF, in this assessment as well, as they have failed to either reconstitute the PCP or rebuild its mass base and movement. The simple fact of the matter is that the so-called "Shining Path" is by far the most significant "Communist Party of Peru" to this day, and parties like the modern "Peruvian Communist Party" which predate it principally hold historical significance in their past line establishing Peruvian communism (particularly the line of Mariátegui) and in spawning the modern PCP.

I'll absolutely grant the need to maintain a non-sectarian stance, though. Personally, as I see it calling referring to this party as the "Communist Party of Peru" doesn't violate that, both for what I said in the previous paragraph, but also because the other parties use slightly different names when translating into English, generally as "Peruvian Communist Party". I want to stress again that I'm uninterested in producing a page which glorifies the PCP, especially since I myself believe that serious criticisms must be made of their line and practice. What I am interested in is producing a page that is genuinely interested in discussing the PCP as first and foremost a Communist Party, as a party which has a history, line, and practice that needs to be honestly presented before any analysis can happen in the first place. At present, nowhere on the web is this done, and frankly most of the analysis done is garbage more preoccupied with analyzing Comrade Gonzalo's personal legacy than actually laying out the facts of the party and people's war. Leftypedia has a genuine opportunity to be better than this. The present state of the article on this party is far more sectarian than the name change I'm suggesting here, with a tone and content essentially no different that what would be found on Wikipedia. For example: there is exactly one citation to an actual document of the PCP in the entire article (also the only left-wing/communist source in the article) which is used to support a statement on the party's line towards "great leaders" ("Guzmán openly encouraged the intense cult of personality around him") without discussing why the party took such a line (something which the party has explained in documents translated into English). Why exactly is this acceptable but a name change to "Communist Party of Peru" considered potentially sectarian? I personally do not believe this aspect of their line was correct, but I'm saying that as someone who has actually read their explanation as to why they did that. To me, taking an anti-sectarian stance means laying out the basic fact of what the party's line was/is, explain in their words why they took this line to the best of our ability (carefully summarizing where need be), and give the reader space to analyze and come to their conclusions.

Apologies for the long-winded series of posts, but thank you for honestly engaging in this conversation and not simply dismissing me as a Maoist in an English-speaking space. That fact alone is a large part of why I believe at this moment that Leftypedia is a project worth devoting the energy to write such a post for. --SpaceHaitian (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have poorly expressed my position about this page. Let me state this clearly: I have no attachment whatsoever to the current material in the body. Given that this page is outside my sphere of knowledge, I left it as-is in the hope that relevant leftists, including those both sympathetic and opposed, would clean it up. I want you to understand just how poor some of the articles here were before I and SociusVenger, and Capuch1n, and others started slowly overhauling them about a year ago, meaning I had to prioritize the spheres I am more knowledgeable about. This particular page happens to be the work of @Capuch1n: (Does the ping system work here?), but I considered it a low priority in comparison with the site's most sectarian, informal, disorganized, and unprofessional work and decided to leave the Shining Path article in the expectation that Cap or others would improve the language and sourcing. So my position on the title is unrelated to the body, and I have always had the hope that you would take an interest in improving it along with the RIM page and other topics you described an interest in.

That said.

Here are the determining factors for me:

• At least one other party with the name "Partido Comunista del Perú" has existed for about the same time. You have not stated your position on whether you would support overwriting irrelevant parties on a historically-oriented site.
• Leftists in Peru (self-described communists), and not just liberals, continue to use the term. The exonyms of other groups -- "Trotskyists", "Stalinists", "Hoxhaists", "Bordigists", "Right Opposition", "anarchists", even "Marxists", in a sense -- have indeed been contentious topics, but epithets sometimes become the best disambiguator.

However:

• Upon revisiting, fewer parties actually use the name "del Perú" than I had thought. This narrows room for confusion.
• There is in fact only one blue link at Communist Party of Peru (disambiguation), meaning:

1. This anecdotally demonstrates the party's relative importance.
2. With regard to practicality, this site only has, and for the short term likely will have, one such page. I have redirected and moved articles before with similar considerations in mind.

I am at this point somewhat equally disposed to: a) "Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path)"; and b) "Communist Party of Peru". "Communist Party of Peru (guerrilla/Gonzalo Thought/1969/other discriminator)" seems like an unneeded compromise which should be discussed only if the topic remains controversial down the road. At the end of the day this is one page and, if "Communist Party of Peru" and "Shining Path" will both redirect here, and a disambiguation page will be within reach, I think it is unnecessary to make the issue a cause célèbre. At any rate I hope you will now view the issue in light of what I have stated about the post body. Harrystein (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry if my criticism of the article's content seemed as though it was directed at y'all specifically. I 100% recognize that the content I was criticizing isn't you or SociusVenger's work, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. The intent was simply to interrogate what we were and weren't viewing as sectarian. Additionally, I absolutely intend to contribute to this article once I'm finished with an initial edit of the Marxism-Leninism-Maoism article, especially since there's obviously overlap in history and content there. I don't want to seem as though I'm offering criticism without action. I look forward to the challenge of expanding this article.

To address the two initial things you listed, I wouldn't support overwriting the existence of an irrelevant party outright. I would instead first look to see if there are any differentiators that the party itself has used before adding any parenthetical ourselves. As far as I'm aware, no other party uses "Partido Comunista del Perú" without a parenthetical or other identifier (Patria Roja, Marxista–Leninista, etc.). The only other party that uses no identifier is the "Peruvian Communist Party" (Partido Comunista Peruano), which though I'll grant is a similar name (moreso in english) they're no less distinct than names like "Communist Party USA" and "Party of Communists USA". So, to your point on practicality, I don't really see much of an issue when these parties themselves all have identifiers which distinguish themselves. I don't think we're presently facing the issue of overwriting another party or conflicting overly so with the names of other national parties. It's also important to note that the choice of name Partido Comunista del Perú was chosen by the "shining path" at its formation not simply to claim sole ownership of the Peruvian revolutionary movement, but to differentiate itself from the party it split from: Partido Comunista Peruano – Bandera Roja (now the Partido Comunista Peruano (Marxista–Leninista)).

Thank you for responding to my points. My position is still the same: I am inclined to either solution, but if no others are opposed, I will provisionally change the name to "Communist Party of Peru" until someone decides to reopen this discussion at a later date. @SociusVenger: Do you have a decision or any points or objections to add? Harrystein (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the position taken by Harrystein. I think it would be preferable if the title were "Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path)" as that would still indicate that this organization bears that name, yet still using the common English term for the organization. However, in a provisional sense, it would be better to have a title which is the official name of an organization rather than a potential erroneous (albeit common) one. SociusVenger (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)