By a commentator for Tjen Folket Media.

Our comrades in the editorial staff of the magazine Røde Fane [Red Flag] have made a text in which they show that it was Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China who established that the theory of People’s War is valid in all countries, and that the communists must boycott the bourgeois elections in our time.

We encourage our readers to study the text.

____

This translation to English of the text “Folkekrig og valboikott er gyldig i alle land” was originally written by the editorial staff of Norwegian magazine Røde Fane (Red Flag). The translation is official and made by the editorial staff itself.

Link to original text:

____

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

People’s War and Election Boycott are valid in all countries without exception

Introduction

In 2023, the International Communist League took initiative to make an international campaign on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of Chairman Mao’s birth. This campaign is part of the struggle to unite the International Communist Movement under Maoism in order to put Maoism in command of the World Revolution. Putting Maoism in command must mean upholding, defending and applying, mainly applying, Maoism.

In order to apply Maoism, we must understand the content of Maoism. Chairman Gonzalo states: “Maoism is the third, new and superior stage of the ideology of the international proletariat” (PCP, 1988). This is the first definition of Maoism, an event of historical significance carried out at the First Congress of the Communist Party of Peru in 1988, and it is the correct definition. Why is this definition important? For us, it is obvious that it is impossible to apply Maoism without an understanding of what Maoism is – and what it is not. It is also obvious that unity in politics and organization must be based on unity in understanding the ideology. In the contradiction theory—practice, practice is the main side. This is a fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but the practice of the proletariat must be guided by the ideology of the proletariat. In short, our position, on this basis, is that the main thing is not to unite around the word “Maoism”, but to unite around the content of Maoism, in order to be able to apply Maoism in practice, so that the practice of communists and revolutionaries can be guided by Maoism. We therefore need to understand how Chairman Mao elevates the ideology to a new stage and what is part of this stage.

In this text we will deal with two questions in Maoism – the People’s War and the Election Boycott. These are two central issues in the two-line struggle in the International Communist Movement, especially in the imperialist countries. Our German comrades in the journal Klassenstandpunkt have for example in the text “People’s War – The sole path to liberation” from Klassenstandpunkt number 15, dealt with the question of People’s War in a thorough manner. Klassenstandpunkt has also raised the question in connection with the celebration of the 130th anniversary of Chairman Mao’s birth in 2023, in a polemic against positions put forward by Indian and Nepalese comrades. We agree with the positions put forward by the German comrades. Norwegian Maoists have also raised the issue several times, including in Røde Fane number 2, published in November 2019. In this text, written in 2024, our aim is to show that both the universality of the People’s War and the boycott of bourgeois elections in our era are parts of Maoism, and that the Maoist position on these issues was established by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and Chairman Mao himself in the 1960s.

What is People’s War?

The Communist Party of Peru writes: “What is fundamental in Maoism? Political Power is fundamental in Maoism. Political power for the proletariat, power for the dictatorship of the proletariat, power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party. More explicitly: 1. Political power under the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution; 2. Political power for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the socialist and cultural revolutions; 3. Political power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party, conquered and defended through people’s war.” (Our emphasis.) Furthermore, the PCP states: “The People’s War is the military theory of the international proletariat; in it are summarized, for the first time in a systematic and complete form, the theoretical and practical experience of the struggles, military actions, and wars waged by the proletariat.” (Our emphasis.)

Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China synthesized Maoism, the third, new and higher stage of the sole ideology of the proletariat. To synthesize means to bring together into a whole, and for Maoists, it is synthesis that enables us to grasp the essence of knowledge. Without synthesis, there can be no leap. In the first issue of Røde Fane (2019), we wrote that it was the Communist Party of Peru that synthesized Maoism, but today we see this as an error in our understanding of Maoism. Maoism is the synthesis that Chairman Mao and the CPC made of the experiences of the proletariat, through solving new problems, which lifted the ideology to a new and higher stage. Maoism was given it’s name by Chairman Mao because he synthesized Maoism. On the other hand, Chairman Gonzalo and the PCP defined Maoism for the first time in the midst of the development of the People’s War in Peru. Here, the Peruvian communists and masses were able to confirm Maoism in practice. This affirmation confirmed the universal validity of the People’s War, i.e. its universal and world-wide character. Thus, the Peruvian People’s War, in practice, confirmed the place of People’s War in Maoism as the military theory of the proletariat, synthesized by Chairman Mao “in a systematic and complete manner”.

The theory of People’s War was thus developed by Chairman Mao, who says, among other things, “we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war” and “[t]he revolutionary war is a war of the masses” [quotations from Formann Mao Tse-tung om folkekrigen, transl.]. Chairman Mao drew up the principles for the operations of the People’s War, which he summarizes as “you fight your way and we fight our way”. However, it was not Chairman Mao who first used the term people’s war. “People’s war” is often used in bourgeois modern military theory. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz uses the term people’s war (Volkskrieg) 23 times in his classic work On War from 1832. To this day, the term is frequently used by bourgeois military theorists and leaders. For example, Ole Martin Brunborg at the Norwegian Defense Staff College writes: “The modern industrialized people’s war with enormous numbers of casualties, as in the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War, was relatively unnoticed in Norway”. Former defense chief Sverre Diesen writes: “We are no longer preparing for an existential people’s war, while at the same time the broad, mobilization-based people’s defense is gone for economic reasons anyway.” Lieutenant Colonel Palle Ydstebø states about the war in Ukraine: “That’s what happens when there’s a people’s war – the whole population goes to war.” In other words, there is a widespread bourgeois use of the word “people’s war”, but the bourgeoisie has a different concept of people’s war than the proletariat has acquired with Maoism.

When we talk about the people’s war, we do so in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist sense, with the content given by Chairman Mao, and nothing else. We are talking here about People’s War as the military theory of the proletariat and as the revolutionary war of the masses under the leadership of the proletariat. What is the content of the people’s war? The Communist Party of Peru writes “He (Chariman Gonzalo, ed.) holds that in order to carry forward the People’s War, we must take into account four fundamental questions: 1. The ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that must be specified in a guiding thought —therefore we base ourselves on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Thought, primarily the latter; 2. The need for the Communist Party of Peru that leads the People’s War; 3. The People’s War is specified as a peasant war that follows the road of surrounding the cities from the countryside; and 4. Support Bases or the New Power, the construction of the Support Bases, which is the essence of the path of surrounding the cities from the countryside.” (PCP, 2019, p. 179.) We understand this to mean that the universal from these four points gives us the following four-part definition: (1) People’s War is the war of the masses (2) under the leadership of the Communist Party, (3) guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which (4) develops through the construction of New Power in the support bases. The role of the poor peasants and the path of encircling the cities from the countryside are two particularities of oppressed countries like Peru, semi-feudal and semi-colonial countries, and not universal principles. Societies in imperialist countries have other particularities with a different class structure, which means that neither poor peasants nor the countryside play the same role.

Without the ideology of the proletariat as guide and the party of the proletariat as leadership, there cannot, as we see it, be a People’s War according to Maoism. This is true in all countries. Yet other forms of armed struggle, such as the heroic national liberation struggle in Palestine, can confirm aspects of the validity of People’s War. This in the same way as the bourgeoisie’s own theorists also confirm aspects of the theory of People’s War, by stating that modern war takes the form of “people’s war” – in the sense that it involves the whole people. Furthermore, such a war would encompass the whole of society and thus increasingly resemble what Clausewitz called “total war”, which also confirms aspects of the validity of the People’s War. Over the past 300 years, this tendency has become more and more evident: Wars tend to involve ever larger sections of society and the boundaries between combatants and civilians are becoming increasingly blurred. The two world wars are striking examples of this, and the tendency is evident in all the wars of our time, for example in Ukraine and Palestine. In short, modern war generally tends to involve the masses on a large scale, underlining the necessity for revolutionary war to be the war of the masses.

Furthermore, we see that in today’s world, the inferior part in an asymmetrical war, such as a guerrilla war, will be forced to apply tactics and strategy that Chairman Mao uncovered, systematized and made an integral part of the theory of People’s War. This is also suggested by bourgeois military theorists (see, for example, Høiback and Ydstebø’s The Science of War, 2012, pp. 161-165). If a warring party with inferior forces is to fight with any degree of success against the superior power, it must apply principles formulated by Chairman Mao, for example: “Our strategy is ‘pit one against ten’ and our

tactics are ‘pit ten against one’ – this is one of our fundamental principles for gaining mastery over the enemy.” We find examples of this in the protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only must guerrilla organizations around the world adhere to the same universal laws described by Chairman Mao, they often consciously study Chairman Mao, regardless of their political orientation. On the other hand, the imperialists and their lackeys also study Chairman Mao, as in Høiback and Ydstebø’s The Science of War. The imperialists’ bourgeois military theorists try to turn Chairman Mao’s thinking upside down in order to use it against rebellion and resistance, for example by applying the reactionary principle of separating the guerrillas from the masses.

We emphasize that the people’s war can only lead to the liberation of the proletariat and oppressed nations by being led by the proletariat with its own ideology and its own party, yet examples like the above confirm several aspects of the omnipotence and universality of the people’s war – and often precisely those aspects that are most disputed in the international communist movement (that the people’s war must be prolonged and must be developed through the construction of new power). On the whole, the theory of People’s War is confirmed by the collective experience of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world. No New Democracy or Socialism anywhere in the world in the last hundred years has been established without the proletariat leading a People’s War to conquer power. Not even power in limited areas has been created in any other way. This leaves critics of the People’s War without concrete examples of a practical alternative to the People’s War. Isn’t practice the Marxists’ criterion for truth?

People’s War in all countries

The universal validity of People’s War was first formulated by Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China in the 1960s and 1970s, when they established the universal law of revolutionary violence in the form of People’s War in all countries. At the same time, the Chinese comrades rejected the idea that communists still should to participate in bourgeois elections. We must see this development in the context of the fact that the situation for the Proletarian World Revolution changed after World War II, and that bourgeois elections and parliaments had changed in the time that had passed since Lenin and the Bolsheviks used electoral participation as a tactic in the early 1900s.

As substantiation for our claim, we first refer to the booklet Kritiser og gjendriv Kinas Khrusjtsjov [Criticize and Rebut the Chinese Khrushchev, transl.] published in Norwegian by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in 1968, where we find the text “Kritikk av den revisjonistiske militære tenkningen” [Criticism of Revisionist Military Thinking, transl.], first published in 1967. Like other similar texts, this text must be understood as a document of the Party, sanctioned by the Central Committee and Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, although the text is signed by “proletarian revolutionaries in the offices of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army”. Those who do not understand communist parties and the concept of Democratic Centralism may have difficulty understanding this, but it is inconceivable that important bodies under the party’s leadership would publish such a text without it being an expression of the line of the party leadership. It is even more unthinkable that the text should be translated into countless languages and distributed all over the world through Chinese embassies, and thus circulated in large numbers in Norway, without the approval of the leadership of the CPC!

Hypothetically, an exception to this rule could be that the revisionists took over all or part of the party leadership, thus spreading counter-revolutionary ideas. With the 8th Party Congress of the CPC in 1956, the right-wing opportunists led by Liu Shaoqi advanced their positions in the party leadership and revised several correct Maoist positions. But this text was distributed two years after the initiation of the Cultural Revolution (1966), where Chairman Mao and the proletarian revolutionaries consolidated the left-wing leadership of the party and smashed right-wing opportunists such as Liu Shaoqi and Teng Hsiao-p’ing. Thus, we must understand this text as part of the proletarian offensive in the party, the army, the state and in the entire international communist movement, under the direct leadership of Chairman Mao. In other words, this text must be understood as part of the high point of the development and spread of Maoism – a high point conquered through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

We can read in this text: “The distinction between Chairman Mao’s military thinking and bourgeois military thinking consists in whether or not to fight a people’s war.” And “Chairman Mao’s great theory of the people’s war has creatively and ingeniously developed Marxism-Leninism. It points not only to the correct path that the Chinese people must take in order to win victory on a national scale, it also points to the path that leads to liberation for the oppressed nations and oppressed classes throughout the world.” (Our emphasis.) In other words, the comrades explicitly state that the people’s war is part of Chairman Mao’s further development of the ideology of the proletariat, and that it is the road to liberation for both the oppressed nations and the oppressed classes. In short: People’s War is applicable to the international proletariat and oppressed nations in all countries without exception.

The Chinese comrades further write: “For all oppressed nations and oppressed classes who want to liberate themselves, it is most important of all to arm themselves with Chairman Mao’s theory of the people’s war, smash the old state apparatus with gun in hand, overthrow imperialism and its lackeys with gun in hand, and transform the whole world by force of arms.” And “Whether one intends to fight a people’s war or not, whether one has the courage to fight a people’s war or not, this is what forms the dividing line between Chairman Mao’s military thinking and bourgeois military thinking, between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, between real and false revolution.”

So we see here that the CPC, in the midst of the great proletarian cultural revolution, highlights Chairman Mao’s theory of people’s war as the most important thing of all, for all oppressed nations and oppressed classes. Thus, in 1968, they established the central place of people’s war in Maoism, which was later confirmed in practice in the ongoing people’s wars in Peru, Turkey, India and the Philippines – and in a number of other countries.

In our view, it is dogmatic subjectivism to deny the CPC’s position in 1967 by referring to statements made by Chairman Mao in 1928 or 1938, as some do. We cannot understand Maoism as a selection of detached quotations, or as fully developed in 1928 or 1938. As dialectical materialists, we must look at the ideological developmental process of the Communist Party of China, from guiding thought to Mao Tse-tung’s thought to Maoism, and at its significance and position in the international communist movement. We must look at the whole of this process. In the spirit of this holistic approach, we find it interesting that Chairman Gonzalo was forged not only in the class struggle in Peru, but also in China. In the midst of the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Gonzalo spent several months at the Chinese school for communists and revolutionaries from other countries. The education he received here is part of the basis for the documents he wrote on behalf of the Communist Party of Peru, and for the theory and practice of the People’s War in Peru.

As for those who claim that modern weapons, technology, geographical conditions or the development of the bourgeoisie’s military theories make the theory of people’s war obsolete or impossible today, especially in the imperialist countries, we will respond with a quote from the same text: “Is it perhaps true that under modern conditions it is not necessary to put one’s trust in the masses, that it is not necessary to wage a people’s war? No, that is not true. ‘The test of strength is not only a test of military and economic power, but also a test of human power and morality. Military and economic power is necessarily exercised by human beings.’ No matter how sophisticated modern weapons and technical equipment may be, victory in a war is still determined by the support and help of the masses. It depends, after all, on the people’s war. This is the main and surest guarantee of victory over the enemy.” (Same place, our emphasis.)

We find more examples of the Chinese comrades’ standpoint in the text “Long live the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat!” from 1971, signed by the editors of People’s Daily, Red Flag and Liberation Army Daily. These three magazines and newspapers were the main organs of the People’s Republic of China, the Communist Party of China and the People’s Liberation Army respectively. Here we find the Chinese comrades reaffirming their positions in favor of the People’s War and against electoral participation. The text was published in Norwegian by the Culture and Information Department at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Norway. Again, we emphasize that this text obviously must be understood as a party document written after the left had consolidated its power over the most important command positions in the party, the army and the state.

Here the Chinese comrades write: “Violent revolution is the universal principle of proletarian revolution. (…) Historical experience shows that the seizure of political power by the proletariat and the oppressed people of a country and the seizure of victory in their revolution are accomplished invariably by the power of the gun; they are accomplished under the leadership of a proletarian party, by acting in accordance with that country’s specific conditions, by gradually building up the people’s armed forces and fighting a people’s war on the basis of arousing the broad masses to action, and by waging repeated struggles against the imperialists and reactionaries. This is true of the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, and the revolutions of Albania, Viet Nam, Korea and other countries, and there is no exception.” (Our emphasis.)

Firstly, the CPC here again affirms that power must be conquered by force using the gun and that this applies to all countries without exception. Secondly, it establishes that conquering power with the gun means gradually building up armed forces and fighting a people’s war. Thirdly, the Chinese comrades establish that all revolutions of the proletariat and oppressed nations – including the Russian revolution – must be understood as people’s wars. Thus, it is the Chinese comrades themselves who have established the thesis that the PCP affirmed in its founding documents: “In the final analysis, the October Revolution was not only an insurrection but a revolutionary war that lasted for several years. Consequently, in the imperialist countries the revolution can only be conceived as a revolutionary war which today is simply people’s war.” (PCP, 1988, our emphasis.)

In short, it was Chairman Mao and the CPC that established the universality of the people’s war, and in the same text, the Chinese comrades also point forward towards the World People’s War: “The proletariat and the oppressed peoples and nations of the world will all together go from being unarmed and incapable of waging war to being armed and capable of waging war. American imperialism and all its lackeys will eventually be burnt to ashes in the raging flames of the people’s war they themselves have lit the spark for.” (Our emphasis.)

Election Boycott in all countries

Comrade Charu Majumdar, one of the acknowledged founders of what is today the Communist Party of India (Maoist), wrote in “‘Boycott Elections!’ International Significance of the Slogan” from 1968: “In the present era when imperialism is heading towards total collapse, revolutionary struggle in every country has taken the form of armed struggle; (…) world revolution has entered a new higher phase; and socialism is marching irrepressibly forward to victory – in such an era, to take to the parliamentary road means stopping this onward march of world revolution. Today, the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists cannot opt for the parliamentary road . This is true not only for the colonial and semi-colonial countries, but for the capitalist countries as well.” (Our emphasis.)

Majumdar thus understands the election boycott on the basis that in today’s era, revolutionary struggle takes the form of armed struggle. In other words, the people’s war and the election boycott are two sides of the same coin. As the Communist Party of Peru synthesized in its slogan “Elections, no! People’s war, yes!” Only dogmatists and opportunists still cling to the tactic of electoral participation today, because it was right in some countries at the beginning of the 20th century. We live in a completely different situation than our comrades did over a hundred years ago, with new conditions and new tasks.

There is full correspondence between what Majumdar writes and what the Chinese comrades also stated in the aforementioned text from 1971: “In the past decades, many Communist Parties have participated in elections and parliaments, but none has set up a dictatorship of the proletariat by such means. (…) If a proletarian party does no mass work, rejects armed struggle and makes a fetish of parliamentary elections, it will only lull the masses and corrupt itself. The bourgeoisie buys over a Communist Party through parliamentary elections and turns it into a revisionist party, a party of the bourgeoisie – are such cases rare in history? The proletariat must use the gun to seize political power and must use the gun to defend it. The people’s army under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist party is the bulwark of the dictatorship of the proletariat and among the various factors for preventing the restoration of capitalism it is the main one. Having a people’s army armed with the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the proletariat can deal with any complicated situation in the domestic or international class struggle and safeguard the proletarian state.” (Our emphasis.)

The comrades do not distinguish between imperialist countries and oppressed nations when dealing with election participation and people’s war. In our reading, the CPC has thus established that the election boycott is also valid for the proletariat and its party in all countries after World War II.

Conclusion

Finally, we want to assert that the “burden of proof” is not on us who affirm both the theory and practice of Maoism, but on those who call themselves Maoists but deny the universality of people’s war. It is up to them to show us the alternative. All revolutions led by the proletariat in the last hundred years have taken the form of people’s war. All national liberation struggles that have been waged with some success or over a longer period of time have applied the tactics and strategy established by Chairman Mao in the theory of people’s war. All the revolutionary wars the proletariat has ever waged can and must today be understood as “simply people’s wars”. There are no alternative examples from concrete practice. Furthermore, it is also the case that in the last hundred years no communist parties seized power by combining revolutionary struggle with parliamentary work and participation in bourgeois elections. Thus, there is complete correspondence between the principles established by Chairman Mao and the CPC for people’s war and electoral boycott, and the concrete experiences our class has conquered in struggle over the past hundred years.

People’s War is the only road to liberation for the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world. The People’s War is an inseparable part of Maoism, valid in all countries without exception, and this universality was established by Chairman Mao and the Communist Party of China itself, as in the aforementioned texts of 1967 and 1971. Furthermore, this universality has been confirmed in the people’s wars in Peru, Turkey, the Philippines and India, not to mention important experiences from other countries, such as Nepal. The necessity of boycotting bourgeois elections in our time is also universal. The alternative practice, the only alternative that exists, is to apply the same strategy and tactics as the revisionist and opportunist parties. They “exploit legality” in anticipation of a “revolutionary situation” – without acknowledging that a revolutionary situation is already developing unevenly throughout the world, and claim that, when “objective conditions” are ripe, they will seize power by taking the bourgeoisie by surprise with a massive popular uprising. The practical result of this strategy is pure reformism, regardless of whether the party is called AKP (former Workers Communist Party of Norway), Rødt (Norwegian party Red), PTB or MLPD. In this section, we use the words “alternative” and “strategy” in their broadest sense. In reality, the opportunists give us no real alternative to the people’s war. Instead, they replace revolutionary strategy with the dogmatic application of disjointed quotations.

This insight is crucially important for the proletariat, for all communists and revolutionaries. Firstly, because power is fundamental to Maoism. Without power, the proletariat cannot achieve anything, and the people’s war is the only way to conquer, defend and develop power to the proletariat. Secondly, because such an ideological insight necessarily has political and organizational consequences. If we take these principles as a basis, we will have to demand communist forms of struggle and organization that will fundamentally distinguish the communists from the revisionists and opportunists. This will manifest itself irrespective of the maturity of the objective conditions or the subjective forces. The communists cannot struggle or organize in the same way as the opportunists, but this insight can only be reached if we take Maoism as a base and guide and understand the people’s war and the election boycott as integral components of Maoism, which cannot be separated from it.

Editorial board of the magazine Røde Fane (Red Flag)
February 2024

References

Clausewitz, Carl von (2010). Vom Kriege. Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://www.clausewitz-gesellschaft.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/VomKriege-a4.pdf

Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction) (2014). People’s War and Revolution, by the Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction). Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://www.docdroid.net/CWqc4dr/peoples-war-and-revolution-pdf

Communist Party of China (1968). “Kritikk av den revisjonistiske militære tenkningen”. Published by Tjen Folket Media and retrieved from the pamphlet Kritiser og gjendriv Kinas Khrusjtsjov published by the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in 1968. Signed proletarian revolutionaries at the offices of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in 1967. Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://tjen-folket.no/2020/07/15/kritikk-av-den-revisjonistiske-militaere-tenkningen/

Communist Party of China (1971). “Leve det proletariske diktaturets seier”. Signed by the editorial staff of People’s Daily, Red Flag and Liberation Army Daily in 1971, the text was published in Norwegian by Kultur- og Opplysningsavdelingen at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Norway. Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://tjen-folket.no/2021/03/18/pariserkommunen-150-ar-leve-det-proletariske-diktaturets-seier/

Communist Party of Peru (2019). Grunnlaget for partiets enhet. «Militærlinja». Forlaget Røde Fane.

Communist Party of Peru (2019). Grunnlaget for partiets enhet. «Om marxismen-leninismen-maoismen». Forlaget Røde Fane.

Høiback, Harald and Ydstebø, Palle (ed.) (2012). Krigens vitenskap – en innføring i militærteori. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.

Mao Tse-tung (1967). Formann Mao Tse-tung om folkekrigen. The text was scanned and edited by Tjen Folket Forlag from a pamphlet published by Kultur- og Opplysningsavdelingen at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Norway in 1967. Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://tjen-folket.no/2015/10/22/formann-mao-tse-tung-om-folkekrigen/

Tjen Folket Media (2021). “Heder og ære til Charu Mazumdar”. Retrieved 20.02.2024 from https://tjen-folket.no/2021/06/25/heder-og-aere-til-charu-mazumdar/