On Wednesday's front page, Simon Romero wrote from Peru about the troubling reemergence of the Shining Path, the Maoist guerilla movement also known as the Communist Party of Peru (but not in the Times) which has been in an armed struggle against the Peruvian government since 1980, waging brutal campaigns killing civilians and elected officials alike. 
The capture of charismatic tyrant Abimael Guzman in 1992 scuttled but did not finish off the menace, and Romero worried that "a brutal war that terrorized the country for two decades may be sparking back to life" through production of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine.
Romero's story,"Cocaine [1]Trade Helps Rebels Reignite War in Peru [1]," doesn't use the word "Communist" to refer to the murderous group, and only referred to the Shining Path as "Maoist" twice, the first time in the 15th paragraph. The print edition text box (which Romerois probably not responsible for) used the term Maoist,but in an ironic, dismissive sense to denigrate free markets by comparing the murderous drug traffickers to entrepreneurs:
The Shining Path Maoists now embrace capitalism in the form of an illicit business.
Maoists embrace capitalism? Will all those anti-capitalist manifestosnow be disappeared? Romero's actual story doesn't use the word capitalism.