Our Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Proposition on the Contemporary World Proletarian Revolution
In today’s world, the imperialist system of rule is plunging into a profound crisis, the danger of a new imperialist world war is increasingly imminent, and the proletariat and oppressed people all over the world are living in an abyss of suffering. The objective conditions for a new world proletarian revolution are growing ever more mature; however, the subjective conditions for revolution remain extremely weak. The world proletarian revolution lacks a mature leading force! We, the contemporary Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of China, having summarized the experiences of both history and present reality, hereby put forward our proposition on the contemporary world proletarian revolution:
I. What Is to Be Done?
1. Building the Vanguard through the Political-Newspaper Line is the Universally Applicable Organizational Line for the Contemporary World Proletarian Revolution
Conditions vary from country to country, and naturally, the specific methods of revolution in each country will differ. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has always opposed dogmatism. Every Marxist-Leninist-Maoist must grasp the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, integrate theory with practice, and determine specific revolutionary methods based on concrete conditions.
However, while specific methods may vary, fundamental principles must be firmly grasped. The basic revolutionary nature of the proletarian revolution is universal; therefore, it has universally applicable fundamental principles and a basic line. No matter the country, a proletarian vanguard must be built to lead the revolution, and the vanguard, as an organization, must have a basic organizational line. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists must oppose all revisionists and opportunists who, under the guise of opposing dogmatism, distort the basic organizational principles and tenets of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The organizational line of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard is the political-newspaper line, which is universally applicable worldwide and holds guiding significance for the task of party-building for vanguards across the globe.
The vanguard of any country in the world must inherit Lenin’s political-newspaper line. Through the scaffolding of revolutionary volunteer labor, it must build a centralized, unified, highly disciplined, and tightly organized vanguard with a strict division of labor. This vanguard must be industrialized, practice democratic centralism, and be capable of implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat underground. It must be a vanguard composed of an underground organization of revolutionaries + an organization of revolutionaries in industries (the “organization of revolutionaries in industries” refers to the underground organization of revolutionaries rooted among the masses in all trades and professions. It is a subset of the entire underground organization of revolutionaries; there is no distinction between an “industry revolutionary” and an “underground revolutionary,” as they are often the same identity. Singling out the “organization of revolutionaries in industries” is to illustrate the way the underground organization of revolutionaries integrates with the masses—that is, a complete vanguard must be broadly integrated with the masses). Only in this way can it lead and organize the proletariat and the laboring masses to defeat the highly industrialized bourgeoisie and all reactionary ruling classes, which possess formidable organizational power.
Such an organizational line is universally applicable throughout the world. Without building a vanguard through the political-newspaper line, no country can possibly have the material force required to lead the contemporary proletarian revolution to victory.
Organizations whose primary goals are reformism, legal struggle, or parliamentary struggle are opportunist and serve to maintain the interests of the bourgeoisie. They do not raise the consciousness of the proletariat by means of volunteer labor, revolutionary discipline, or bringing the political line to them from without. They do not organize the proletariat into a powerful material force through the construction of a vanguard. They merely use economic benefits to make the proletariat endure silently, and they cannot lead the proletariat to achieve its most fundamental political interest: its own emancipation. By making the bourgeoisie concede a fraction of its interests to dissolve the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat, they are upholding bourgeois rule; they are the enemies of the proletariat.
2. Building the Vanguard Requires Resolute Opposition to the Erroneous Line of “Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions”
The line of “Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions” runs entirely counter to the political-newspaper line; it is an erroneous line of party building. This line essentially unites various pan-leftist circles, sects, or various “communist parties,” forming a hodgepodge, coalition-style party through negotiation, compromise, and the carving up of intra-party posts. A party built in this way will inevitably compromise with opportunism in its political line, inevitably form various opportunist factions within the party, and inevitably fail to overcome the handicraft mentality to forge a centralized and unified party. Consequently, it will inevitably fail to shoulder the task of leading the proletarian revolution.
In contrast, the political-newspaper line forms a unified chain of communization through a uniform revolutionary scaffolding—such as a political newspaper. This chain relies on revolutionary volunteer labor, organizational discipline, bringing the political line to them from without, and most crucially, selection and purification through two-line struggle to build a centralized and unified vanguard. Under the political-newspaper line, anyone who wishes to join must dissolve their original organizations or sects and join the unified revolutionary scaffolding as individuals. Through the chain of communization, they must thoroughly settle accounts with and discard any handicraft mentality and erroneous lines of the past, wholeheartedly accepting the leadership of the correct line and revolutionary organizational discipline. Only a party built in this manner can overcome the handicraft mentality, defeat opportunist factions, prevent an opportunist line from usurping power, implement the correct line, and truly shoulder the responsibility of leading the proletarian revolution.
The practice of the proletarian revolution has completely proven the above conclusions. Lenin formulated the political-newspaper line precisely to overcome the circle mentality in the Russian proletarian revolutionary movement. However, during the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, due to a lack of experience, he temporarily compromised with the line of Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions, taking a detour. At that Congress, aside from the “Iskra-ists” gathered through the political-newspaper line, many “left-wing” circles were invited to “jointly build the party.” Consequently, these circles allied with wavering elements among the Iskra-ists to stir up trouble, launching frantic attacks on Lenin’s correct line, which led to the adoption of an erroneous party statute. Although the Leninist faction eventually secured a majority in the Central Committee elections, the “minority” (the bloc formed by various circles and wavering Iskra-ists) refused to obey the majority of the Central Committee after the Congress. They engaged heavily in sectarianism. Ultimately, Lenin lost control of Iskra, and the Central Committee became entirely unable to fulfill its leadership duties. It was not until the Leninist faction (the Bolsheviks) independently built their own party that the task of establishing the vanguard was finally accomplished.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which surrendered its weapons and degenerated into a party of the landlord and bourgeois classes, was formed through the merger of numerous small “Maoist” parties. It was never able to effectively carry out two-line struggles or overcome the opportunist factions within the party, ultimately leading to the party’s opportunist degeneration. Yet, the parties in Nepal currently opposing the revisionism of the CPN (Maoist) are still treading the old path of Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions: the merger of the CPN (Revolutionary Maoist) and the CPN (Bolshevik) required an 8-month period coordinated by a 12-person committee, and it only reached the stage of a collective group photo on International Workers’ Day, with further processes still pending. A party built through such prolonged negotiations and compromises can hardly possess genuine revolutionary combat effectiveness or bear the task of leading a revolution.
The predecessor organizations of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) were also built through a coalition of circles, and the ultimate establishment of the CPI (Maoist) was the result of a merger between two organizations: the Maoist Communist Centre of India and the CPI (ML) (People’s War) (later merging again with the CPI (ML) Naxalbari). The process of this merger was: “discussed by high-level delegations of the two parties, and then confirmed by a joint Central Committee meeting of the two parties”—that is to say, it was established through negotiation and compromise, not through two-line struggle, nor through a unified revolutionary scaffolding and a unified chain of communization. It must be understood that a two-line struggle is irreconcilable. A line struggle is not a business transaction where everyone takes a step back to find a common denominator. Negotiation, compromise, and circle coalitions can only lead to impurity in the party’s line, the existence of opportunist factions within the party, weak two-line struggles, and an inability to truly achieve centralization and unity. This is precisely the root cause of the severe setbacks the CPI (Maoist) is suffering today, with capitulationists running rampant within the party and numerous high-level and important leaders surrendering.
To build a genuine proletarian vanguard in the world today, one must resolutely oppose the “line of Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions” and firmly implement the political-newspaper line!
3. Protracted People’s War Led by the Vanguard is the Universally Applicable Revolutionary Path for the Contemporary World Proletarian Revolution
Today’s world is divided into imperialism and the colonial and semi-colonial countries oppressed by it. The contemporary world proletarian revolution takes the form of proletarian socialist revolution in imperialist countries; socialist anti-imperialist revolution led by the proletariat in semi-colonial capitalist countries; and New Democratic Revolution led by the proletariat in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries.
Regardless of the type of proletarian revolution, the revolutionary history of the past century has fully proven to us: only by relying on the people and waging a People’s War can the revolution achieve victory.
Revolution is a material movement. If the vanguard is to lead the proletariat to revolutionary victory, it must organize a powerful material force capable of defeating the bourgeoisie (in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries, this means defeating imperialism, the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie, and the feudal landlord class; hereafter, the “bourgeoisie” will be used to represent the enemies of the proletariat for brevity). This material force comes from the people.
Revolution is an act of violence. Without annihilating the violent dictatorial forces of the bourgeoisie through revolutionary armed struggle, the proletariat cannot overthrow bourgeois rule and cannot establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any illusion of peaceful transition is a betrayal of the fundamental interests of the proletariat and will inevitably degrade into becoming running dogs of the bourgeoisie. The revolutionary armed struggle led by the proletariat is precisely the People’s War.
Today, whether in imperialist or semi-colonial countries, the universal situation regarding the balance of class forces is that the strength of the bourgeoisie far exceeds that of the proletariat. This strength manifests in political, economic, military, and organizational aspects. Only by reversing the balance of power in these areas can the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie. The material force of the bourgeoisie stems from their control of the means of production and dictatorial power; that is, they control social production by owning the means of production, thereby acquiring immense wealth. They control violent apparatuses like the army and police to maintain their rule, and on this basis, they force the proletariat to labor for them, continuously creating value. Although many capitalist countries emphasize “freedom,” the proletariat only has the freedom to be oppressed and exploited, lacking the freedom to rebel and make revolution. The global proletariat is in a state of extreme powerlessness.
Marxist-Leninist-Maoists firmly uphold historical materialism, recognizing that the proletariat is the foundation of modern human society, and the most powerful material force is the proletariat itself. The bourgeoisie merely suppresses this force through its dictatorship; however, when the proletariat is fully organized and launches an offensive against the bourgeoisie, the entire material foundation upon which the bourgeoisie maintains its rule will cease to exist. The proletariat inherently contains a mighty material force, but because it remains disorganized and unconscious, it can be defeated piecemeal by the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the key to galvanizing the powerful material force of the proletariat and achieving revolutionary victory lies in establishing a conscious revolutionary organization.
The political-newspaper line points out that the proletariat must be organized through the vanguard. That is, the underground organization of revolutionaries (the Party) provides centralized leadership and extensively develops various public mass organizations; under the strict segregation of the public and the underground, the Party channels advanced elements from public fronts into the underground through secret recruitment pipelines, thereby developing them into the Party and cultivating them into conscious revolutionaries. Concurrently, it must develop revolutionary armed struggle to gradually smash the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat; otherwise, this chain of communization cannot sustainably develop. By continuously advancing the chain of communization, the revolutionary forces will gradually strengthen. As more and more masses are organized under the Party’s leadership, the human factor is resolved. With a fully organized proletariat, the revolutionary forces can build a powerful revolutionary military, organize production, and engage in a comprehensive armed struggle against the bourgeoisie for the emancipation of the proletariat. In the final analysis, all of the bourgeoisie’s advantages are created by the proletariat. Once the proletariat consciously organizes itself, the bourgeoisie will turn from a real tiger into a paper tiger, and the proletariat will be able to achieve revolutionary victory. This proves the correctness and necessity of the People’s War.
We must wage a protracted revolutionary war. Under the leadership of the vanguard, organizing the proletariat and reversing the balance of power cannot be accomplished overnight; it requires a prolonged process of development. To describe this process, we must grasp its essence: the balance of class forces between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Starting from this balance of power, the revolution can be divided into three strategic stages: the stage of strategic defensive where the enemy is strong and we are weak overall; the stage of strategic stalemate where we become strong and the enemy weak locally; and the stage of strategic offensive where we are strong and the enemy is weak overall. This division is a universal law in the revolutions of all countries.
Therefore, the protracted People’s War led by the vanguard is the universally applicable revolutionary path. However, different countries must formulate specific strategies and tactics based on their concrete social nature and balance of power; they must not mechanically copy the experiences of other countries.
Generally speaking, in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries, a People’s War encircling the cities from the countryside should be carried out. In imperialist countries, to wage a protracted People’s War, one must first establish an underground organization of revolutionaries operating under the unified global chessboard strategy (that is, first establishing a centralized and unified underground organization that spans the nation rather than being confined to local areas, capable of leading and coordinating the struggle nationwide). Under its leadership, an armed struggle under the unified global chessboard strategy must be developed to achieve independent armed regimes, gradually alter the balance of power, and ultimately launch a strategic offensive to smash the bourgeois dictatorship.
We must discard the erroneous line—long treated as the revolutionary line for imperialist countries—of accumulating strength through prolonged legal struggle and waiting for the opportune moment to launch an armed uprising to seize power. As a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself. Without waging revolutionary armed struggle, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie will not be weakened or destroyed, and the proletarian revolutionary forces will not develop. Long-term legal struggle cannot touch a single hair of the bourgeois dictatorship; what it can develop are only those legal forces permitted by the bourgeoisie—namely, the forces of trade unionism, parliamentarianism, and reformism. Such forces have a fundamentally different qualitative nature from proletarian revolutionary forces. No matter how much of this force is accumulated, it is completely impossible to launch an armed uprising to seize power. This has been fully proven by the history of proletarian revolutions in imperialist countries. The victory of the October Revolution cannot serve as a justification for this erroneous line. The October Revolution was by no means won by accumulating strength through legal struggle and then winning victory via a single uprising in Petrograd. Rather, the Bolshevik Party accumulated revolutionary strength through long-term illegal underground struggles, including the armed struggles since the 1905 Revolution, which enabled them to seize the opportunity of the imperialist war to take power by armed force. Even after seizing power, it took three years of revolutionary war to ultimately secure victory. Indeed, the proletarian revolution must walk on two legs: peaceful struggle and armed war; but the most fundamental leg, the one that ultimately solves the problem, is revolutionary war—that is, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. After the Russian Revolution, communist parties in imperialist countries understood the historical experience of the Bolshevik Party one-sidedly, largely remaining bogged down in the quagmire of legal and parliamentary struggles for a long time. Relying only on the leg of peaceful struggle and passively waiting for opportunities, the result was that even when the imperialist war arrived, they could not seize the opportunity, or they turned revisionist themselves before the opportunity ever came. Therefore, imperialist countries must also wage a protracted People’s War to win the victory of the proletarian revolution.
We must oppose the dogmatism and sectarianism of mechanically copying the experiences of other countries and treating the experience of one country as sacred. The proletarian revolutions in all countries must implement the political-newspaper line and wage protracted People’s War. However, specific strategies, tactics, and concrete revolutionary methods must integrate the fundamental principles of revolution with the specific realities of that country. They must not blindly copy other countries’ experiences, nor treat one country’s experience as an inviolable holy scripture. In the world today, the “Gonzaloites” who appear under the guise of supporting the Communist Party of Peru, and the International Communist League (ICL) they established, suffer from the dogmatist and sectarian errors of deifying and dogmatizing the Peruvian revolutionary experience, forcing other countries to mechanically copy it. This is also something Marxist-Leninist-Maoists must oppose.
II. The Contemporary World Lacks a Mature Revolutionary Force of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism to Lead the World Proletarian Revolution
1. Critique of Modern Revisionism and Opportunist Forces
The struggle between Marxism and revisionism/opportunism is the very two-line struggle that runs through the nearly 200-year history of the world proletarian revolutionary movement, determining the success or failure of the revolution. In the contemporary era, the two-line struggle manifests as the struggle between Marxism–Leninism–Maoism and various shades of modern revisionism and opportunism. Only when the revolutionary line of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism firmly grasps the leadership of the world proletarian revolutionary movement can a new high tide of world revolution be launched in the 21st century to achieve the universal victory of the proletarian revolution. In the world today, there are many organizations operating under the banners of communist, left-wing, revolutionary, or even “Marxism–Leninism–Maoism.” Fundamentally, they are modern revisionist and opportunist organizations that deceive the masses, sabotage the proletarian revolution, and act as accomplices of the bourgeoisie in maintaining stability. Below is a brief critique of the representative forces among them, standing from the standpoint of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism.
Capitalist Countries Flaunting the Banner of Socialism
Since the subversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China in 1976, there are no longer any genuine socialist countries in the world. The so-called “socialist countries” still governed by “communist parties” today are, in essence, capitalist countries in which the bourgeoisie within the party has usurped power and carried out capitalist restoration. Among them, China has become a social-imperialist power participating in the global contest for hegemony. They play only a reactionary role in relation to the world proletarian revolution; these countries themselves are objects of the proletarian revolution.
Remnants of Soviet Revisionism
In the second half of the 20th century, the most important two-line struggle in the world proletarian revolutionary movement was the struggle between the Communist Party of China led by Chairman Mao and the modern revisionism of the CPSU. After Stalin’s death, the bourgeoisie within the CPSU usurped power, turning the Soviet Union into a social-imperialist state under the dictatorship of the bureaucrat-monopoly bourgeoisie. At the same time, they comprehensively promoted modern revisionism in the international communist movement, vigorously pushing reformism and “peaceful transition,” using the international communist movement as a tool for contending with U.S. imperialism for hegemony, manipulating puppets, and fighting for spheres of influence. The parties that followed Soviet revisionism during the Sino-Soviet polemics were modern revisionist parties. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these parties continued to adhere to modern revisionism. Though many still fly the banner of the “Communist Party,” they have long degenerated into parliamentary and reformist parties, becoming petty lackeys in bourgeois politics and accomplices in bourgeois stability maintenance. Typical examples include the French Communist Party and other European communist parties, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and the Japanese Communist Party.
Dogmatist Revisionism
Following the passing of Chairman Mao, the Party of Labour of Albania, led by Enver Hoxha—which had once allied with the CPC in the struggle against Soviet revisionism—began to attack Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line. They repudiated the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and attacked the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as petty-bourgeois adventurism. Their understanding of opposing modern revisionism was merely defending the idol of Stalin, denying that Stalin and the Stalin era possessed flaws, denying the roots within socialist society that give rise to the bourgeoisie inside the party and capitalist restoration, and denying the necessity to mobilize the masses to continue the revolution. They merely viewed the emergence of revisionism and the restoration of capitalism as the result of external imperialist infiltration and a few spies and traitors. This is actually a type of revisionism appearing under a “Left” guise, which also serves the bureaucrat-monopoly bourgeoisie that usurped the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Hoxha clique and Soviet revisionism were truly cut from the same cloth. If Soviet revisionism amended Stalin from the right, the Hoxha clique amended him from the “Left,” using Stalin as a banner to intimidate others. We Marxist-Leninist-Maoists hold that Stalin’s lifelong achievements and errors are objective historical realities. Compared to his errors, his achievements were paramount. His primary aspect was correct, while his mistakes were secondary. While correctly recognizing, criticizing, and overcoming Stalin’s errors, we must defend the main aspects of his life and defend the Marxism-Leninism he protected and developed. As for Stalin’s secondary, erroneous aspects, they should be treated as historical lessons; they must be seriously summarized and absorbed as warnings to further develop Marxism-Leninism and better guide the proletarian revolution. This is precisely what Chairman Mao did, thereby putting forward the theories of continuing the revolution and opposing and preventing revisionism, carrying out the practice of the Cultural Revolution, and developing Marxism-Leninism into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. The Hoxha clique, however, enshrined Stalin’s erroneous aspects as unshakeable dogmas; what they defended and pursued were not Stalin’s correct aspects, but rather the inheritance and development of his errors, thus evolving into dogmatist revisionism. This ultimately led to the demise of the Hoxha clique. After its collapse, there remain some parties around the globe that still follow the Hoxhaist line. Clinging to the obsolete, these parties have degenerated into small petty-bourgeois left-wing sects worshiping idols, entirely incapable of leading a real proletarian revolution.
Trotskyists
From its inception, the Trotskyist faction has been an opportunist sect appearing with a “Left” face to sabotage the proletarian revolution. They opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction in the Soviet Union led by Stalin; they opposed the Chinese Revolution, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist New Democratic Revolution, and the theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Organizationally, they oppose the political-newspaper line and democratic centralism, frequently driving their organizations into infinite splinters. In their revolutionary line, they oppose People’s War; shouting revolutionary slogans, they engage in nothing more than trade unionism and parliamentary struggle. The opportunist nature of the Trotskyists dictates their characteristic vacillation from “Left” adventurism to right capitulation, full of opportunistic speculation. The mainstream Trotskyists have long become a reformist political force in capitalist society, faithfully participating in bourgeois politics, while the remaining minorities have degraded into powerless micro-sects.
Anarchists
Anarchist factions have high visibility in contemporary struggles of resistance by the masses and the “Left.” They are present in or influence many large-scale protests and mass movements, such as the activity of the “Antifa” (anti-fascist) movement in European and American protests, the “Occupy” movements of the 2010s like Occupy Wall Street, and their influence on the Kurdish national liberation struggle. However, the practical results of contemporary anarchism fully prove its fundamental weakness: contemporary anarchist movements, like those in history, politically engage in adventurist charges against the state or intense street movements to gain influence, but organizationally remain a sheet of loose sand. They are entirely incapable of forming a sustained force capable of contending with the bourgeois dictatorship. They amount to nothing more than the cathartic revelry of the petty bourgeoisie, unable to defeat the bourgeois dictatorship to achieve revolutionary victory. It is a dead end. For instance, the Kurdish “Rojava Commune,” once widely spotlighted and pinned with hopes by many “Left-wing” and anarchist forces, was nothing but petty-bourgeois reformism. It was utterly incapable of implementing thorough socio-economic transformation and did not substantially touch the local semi-colonial, semi-feudal relations of production. Its leadership instead capitulated to U.S. imperialism, engaged in massive compromise and surrender to Syrian reactionary forces, and steadily retreated under the offensives of Turkey and the new reactionary Syrian government.
Capitulationists and Opportunists Under the Banner of “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”
There are also revisionist and opportunist organizations in the world today that operate under the banner of “Maoism” or “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.” The key to judging an organization’s nature is not what it says, but what it does. Organizations that pay lip service to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism but in practice capitulate and lay down their arms before the landlords and bourgeoisie to the landlords and bourgeoisie, or vigorously promote reformism, trade unionism, and parliamentarianism, are revisionist and opportunist organizations. Crucially, they do not pursue the political-newspaper line, nor do they actually prepare for armed struggle or wage People’s War. Thus, they do not implement and develop Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in practice, but merely use it as a banner, trading on its authority to deceive the masses. Typical examples include the CPN (Maoist), the various small “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” parties in India engaging in parliamentary struggle, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), and some other European “Maoist” parties.
Other “Pan-Leftist” Factions
Other “pan-leftist” factions that maintain a certain level of activity and influence in today’s world are likewise incapable of shouldering the task of overthrowing the bourgeois dictatorship. Examples include the various reformist socialisms in Latin America represented by Hugo Chávez’s “Socialism of the 21st Century,” as well as so-called democratic socialist movements in the U.S. and other countries. Inherently, they do not challenge the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the reactionary ruling classes, nor do they dismantle reactionary relations of production. Their reformism is destined to be a pipe dream and can never liberate the proletariat from oppression. Various trade union movements are merely practicing trade unionism, seeking reforms within capitalist society so that wage slaves can fetch a better price, without any possibility of shaking capitalist relations of production. Mass movements targeting localized ills or forms of oppression within capitalist society—such as anti-racism, environmentalism, non-proletarian feminism, and movements for the rights of sexual minorities—as long as they lack the leadership of a proletarian revolutionary force and are divorced from the proletariat’s class struggle, will always remain mere reformist movements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. They are fundamentally incapable of striking at the chief culprit: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system.
Armchair “Leftists” Divorced from Practice
Within bourgeois academic circles, there exist various shades of armchair “Leftists.” Their fundamental characteristic is being divorced from revolutionary practice, instead playing conceptual games and proposing obscure concepts and convoluted theories to “oppose capitalism.” Examples include so-called Western Marxism, various “radical critical theories” on culture, gender, and race, “postmodernism,” “world-systems theory,” and so forth. These theories are actually products of bourgeois academic circles; they cannot step an inch beyond the confines of the bourgeois-funded academic world, and are of no use whatsoever to revolutionary practice. However, they deceive and mislead many young students, enticing them into academic activities divorced from practice to wage “struggle,” effectively becoming accomplices to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the ideological sphere.
2. Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties Remain Insufficiently Mature
Setting aside the revisionist and opportunist forces mentioned above, who use Marxism–Leninism–Maoism as a banner while trading on its authority to mislead revolutionary youth, are there any genuine, revolution-persisting Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties? Fortunately, there remain some revolutionary forces worldwide that, unswayed by the bourgeois restoration in the Soviet Union or the defeat of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, continue to adhere to the line of people’s revolution. Based on their national conditions of semi-colonial and semi-feudal or semi-colonial and semi-capitalist societies, they carry out armed struggle, firmly grasping the leadership of the proletarian revolution in their own countries, and constitute broad revolutionary forces. Such forces include the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the South Asian subcontinent, the Communist Party of the Philippines in the archipelagos of the South China Sea, the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist in West Asia, and the Communist Party of Peru on the South American continent. While these Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties are undoubtedly revolutionary in their overall struggle and direction, immaturities and lessons needing to be summarized remain, resulting in a lack of major breakthroughs for the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionary movement over the past few decades. Therefore, we must never treat these still-revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties as spiritual totems, treating their current revolutionary programs as a “Bible” like Christians do. On the contrary, we must straightforwardly point out the errors and problems these comrades have made in past and present revolutions, using comradely criticism to help these revolutionary comrades recognize where their mistakes lie.
In their foundational document Strategy and Tactics of the Indian Revolution, the comrades of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) are undoubtedly correct in their characterization of India as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society, their conclusion that the current Indian revolution is a New Democratic Revolution led by the proletariat, and their path of a protracted People’s War encircling the cities from the countryside. However, their understanding of the revolutionary line exhibits certain mechanistic tendencies. They lack a systematic, scientific understanding of how to properly conduct the struggle between two lines to ensure the party’s revolutionary nature and advance the revolutionary cause. Furthermore, their understanding of the revolutionary path in capitalist and imperialist countries remains stuck on the backward notion of first accumulating strength through public, legal struggles and then launching uprisings in central cities, which is highly muddled. On the most fundamental line issue, the CPI (Maoist) still upholds the erroneous line of Building the Party from a Conglomeration of loose factions, failing to consider building a resolute proletarian vanguard through the political-newspaper line. This line error has already manifested in their concrete practice: in May 2025, Nambala Keshava Rao, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPI (Maoist), was martyred; in November 2025, the Central Regional Bureau of the CPI (Maoist) began armed and unarmed capitulations, reaching surrender agreements with the Indian authorities; that same month, Sonu, a former CPI (Maoist) Politburo member who had surrendered, released a surrender appeal video via the media; in January 2026, 17 Maoist members, including Comrade Anal of the Central Committee, were martyred in the Saranda region… The comrades of the CPI (Maoist) urgently need to halt the internal opportunist sabotage and terminate this trend of collapse from the level of their political line.
The Communist Party of the Philippines, founded on December 26, 1968, is the proletarian revolutionary party of the Philippine proletariat and people, guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It aims to continue the unfinished revolution launched by the Katipunan in 1896, striving for national liberation and democracy against U.S. imperialism and the domestic big compradors, landlords, and bureaucrat-capitalists. Similarly, the CPP correctly identified the country’s semi-colonial, semi-feudal nature and adopted the practice of a People’s War primarily consisting of violent revolution. Over the decades since its founding, it has achieved significant results, including the development of the New People’s Army, the overthrow of the Marcos reactionary regime in 1986, and the overthrow of the Estrada reactionary regime in 2001. In recent years, it has fully established guerrilla fronts and conducted domestic struggles. However, hidden dangers exist in the CPP comrades’ revolutionary strategy. For instance, they have not strictly adhered to the crucial principle of the segregation of the public and the underground. Revolutionaries and activists involved in negotiation work, such as Benito Tiamzon and Wilma Austria, were easily arrested and murdered by the Philippine comprador authorities. Additionally, the CPP’s program emphasizes the “principle of centralized ideological and political leadership and decentralized operations.” While this accounts for the needs of guerrilla warfare, the vanguard itself must be centralized, unified, and operating under unified global chessboard strategy. This embeds the hidden dangers of decentralism and localism, which is an important reason why the CPP has experienced several major opportunist lines since its founding (such as the “Left” and right opportunist lines in the 1980s and early 1990s, which caused severe setbacks to the Philippine revolution and required the Second Great Rectification Movement to correct). Furthermore, the CPP comrades also oppose waging protracted People’s War in imperialist countries, still supporting the erroneous line of prior legal struggle followed by uprisings in central cities. Under the pressure of the new reactionary government and the joint exploitation of U.S. and Chinese imperialism, the CPP comrades need to conduct a new examination of their revolutionary line.
The Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist (TKP/ML) was born out of the two-line struggle within the Turkish proletarian revolution. It not only thoroughly criticized Kemalism at the time, exposing its essence as a fascist movement engineered by the comprador and big landlord classes, but also, guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, correctly analyzed the national and class contradictions in Turkey. It also had a correct understanding of the bourgeoisie’s usurpation of power in the Soviet Union and its path toward social imperialism. However, following the arrest and martyrdom of its leader, İbrahim Kaypakkaya, the TKP/ML suffered frantic counterattacks and repression from the Turkish authorities and the bourgeoisie, virtually destroying its central organization. Through subsequent reorganizations, it constantly splintered into other pan-leftist and opportunist factions. Today, the main forces still flying the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism include the TKP/ML (Central Committee), TKP/ML (Organizing Committee), and the Maoist Communist Party (MKP). However, in terms of its line and revolutionary struggle, the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolution in Turkey has factually fractured into pieces. Taking the stance of the “Central Committee” as an example, its advocacy that it “should obtain a certain degree of political, ideological, and organizational leadership” within the united front fully exposes an opportunist line geared toward political influence, evidently far removed from the original TKP/ML.
The Communist Party of Peru (also known as “Shining Path”) was a proletarian revolutionary party founded by proletarian revolutionaries represented by Abimael Guzmán (Gonzalo), under the inspiration and influence of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in socialist China. It played an indispensable role in the Peruvian proletarian revolution. The Communist Party of Peru correctly assessed the semi-colonial, semi-feudal nature of Peruvian society, systematically and theoretically compiled and narrated the thought of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism for the first time, and using this as its guiding ideology, rooted itself in rural areas to wage guerrilla warfare. It achieved a series of significant results in the practice of People’s War and violent revolution in Peru. However, in the later stages, Comrade Gonzalo and others misjudged the overall revolutionary situation in Peru and the balance of forces between the enemy and ourselves, making erroneous estimates and strategic decisions that led them down a wrong line. Simultaneously, under the intervention of U.S. imperialism and the instigation of opportunists within the PCP, the Communist Party of Peru suffered severe destruction, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the revolution. Meanwhile, in party-building, Comrade Gonzalo and others neglected to build the capacity of comrades within the organization to rebuild the party and implement communization, making the prospect of organizational reconstruction after the PCP’s defeat distant and bleak. The currently existing forces represented by the International Communist League (ICL) and the “Gonzaloites” cannot represent the Communist Party of Peru of that era. They are merely opportunist organizations saturated with sectarianism and dogmatism, intent on thoughtlessly copy-pasting the specific experiences of the Peruvian revolution onto other regions. They are organizations seeking political influence and interests draped in the outer skin of “Left” deviation and Comrade Gonzalo. We must distinguish them from the “Shining Path” led by Comrade Gonzalo.
Overall, all the current proletarian revolutionary parties adhering to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and persisting in revolutionary armed struggle still possess varying degrees of immaturity in implementing and upholding the universally applicable paths of the political-newspaper line and People’s War within their countries. The most critical issue is that they have not strictly implemented the political-newspaper line and have not placed the intra-party two-line struggle in the primary position. This has prevented them from overcoming opportunist factions within the party. Without a correct methodology for two-line struggle, they cannot effectively defeat opportunist lines or cultivate the capacity for communization, and therefore cannot avoid revolutionary setbacks, major betrayals, and organizational splits. Objectively, this has resulted in the world proletarian revolution lacking a leading force.
III. The Need to Build a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communist party of humanity to Lead the World Proletarian Revolution
1. The Need to Build a Unified communist party of humanity to Overcome the Circle Isolation of the Revolutionary Forces in Various Countries
“Proletarians of all countries, unite!” The ideal of proletarian internationalism summons Marxist-Leninist-Maoists to realize the unity of the world’s proletarians. This unity has occurred in history, such as the three Internationals (when they still maintained their revolutionary character), Comrade Norman Bethune’s support for the Chinese revolution, and China’s support for the world revolution during the Cultural Revolution. However, this support was generally handicraft in nature and lacked unified leadership, making it impossible to realize the conscious unity of forces on a global scale. Yet, the bourgeoisie has formed the leadership of the conscious force at a global level—such as NATO and other bourgeois dictatorial machineries—vainly attempting to sabotage the revolution from the outside. Opportunists and revisionists collude with each other to sabotage the revolution from within the communist parties of various countries, just as the likes of Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping colluded with Soviet revisionists to sabotage the Great Leap Forward. The spontaneous and scattered state of the proletariat worldwide cannot resist the conscious and centralized state of the bourgeoisie worldwide. Therefore, establishing a unified communist party of humanity is highly necessary.
In fact, the concept of a communist party of humanity was previously proposed by Comrade Lenin. While drafting the Programme of the RCP(B), Lenin envisioned an “International Communist Party,” which he viewed as the conscious embodiment of the proletarian class movement. Lenin believed that the International Communist Party takes upon itself the task of enabling the proletariat to fulfill its great historical mission, organizing the proletariat into an independent political party opposed to all bourgeois parties, leading all forms of the proletariat’s class struggle, revealing to the proletariat the irreconcilable antagonism between the interests of the exploiters and the exploited, and clarifying the historical significance and necessary conditions for the impending social revolution. At the same time, the International Communist Party points out to all other exploited laboring masses that their situation in capitalist society is hopeless and that they must carry out a social revolution to cast off the yoke of capital. The party of the working class, namely the Communist Party, calls upon all strata of the exploited laborers to join its ranks, because they are taking up the standpoint of the proletariat.
To realize the vision of the “International Communist Party,” Comrade Lenin founded the Third International, vigorously propelling the development of the international communist movement and national liberation movements. He negated and criticized the revisionism of the Second International on the level of line, promoting the universal establishment of communist parties across countries and the surging revolutionary situation after World War I. It should be said that, within the scope of Comrade Lenin’s ability, the vision of the “International Communist Party” was realized and played a massive role. After Lenin’s death, despite interference from opportunist lines, the Communist International continued to play a huge role in the world revolution. However, due to the revisionist degeneration of the Soviet Union and China, revisionists usurped proletarian leadership from within, burying the revolutionary cause of the great unity of the proletariat.
Today’s world faces a situation similar to Lenin’s era: capitalist crises are continuously deepening, revisionist parties like the Chinese revisionists run rampant worldwide, and opportunist parties, much like the Mensheviks of the past, tread the erroneous line of legal and parliamentary struggle. They engage in massive compromise and surrender to the bourgeoisie, needlessly throwing away revolutionary strength to gain political influence. Genuinely conscious revolutionary forces are in a scattered state. If the forces of consciousness in the world cannot be converged and firmly twisted into a single rope, then facing the transnational repression of the bourgeoisie and the transnational collusion of revisionists, the revolutionary forces of various countries may still face immense blows and losses. Without forming a unified organization, correct revolutionary lines and strategies cannot be effectively implemented worldwide. The conscious forces will be unable to effectively lead the world revolution, and the advanced forces of the proletariat will be trapped in a state of handicraft isolation, sinking into the quagmire of fighting on their own.
There is only one correct organizational line for the proletarian revolution: the political-newspaper line. Using the political newspaper as scaffolding, through volunteer labor and revolutionary discipline, a democratic-centralist, industrialized underground organization of revolutionaries must be established underground, out of the reach of the bourgeois dictatorship. The proletariat has no weapon to rely on other than organization. The bourgeoisie’s suppression of the proletariat relies on the bourgeoisie’s conscious, industrialized organization. Therefore, only when the proletariat organizes itself and establishes a conscious, industrialized organization of revolutionaries can it lead a protracted People’s War, defeat the bourgeoisie, and achieve revolutionary victory. Various opportunist lines—such as cultural critique, theoretical research, propagandism, parliamentary struggle, reformism, etc.—all refuse to consider revolution from the perspective of armed struggle. They are unwilling to solidly carry out organizational construction; they harbor illusions about the bourgeoisie, beg for the bourgeoisie’s charity with wagging tails, and follow an anti-political-newspaper line that sabotages the revolution. If the proletariat wishes to secure the victory of the world revolution, it must rely on the united organization of the global proletariat—the communist party of humanity. It must cleanse the erroneous lines with the correct line, utilizing the political-newspaper line to wash away all shades of opportunist and revisionist lines, thereby achieving the massive development and great unity of revolutionary forces worldwide.
2. The communist party of humanity Must Absorb Historical Lessons and Correctly Lead the World Revolution
Over a century ago, the Third International, founded under the direction of Comrade Lenin, provided massive assistance to the world proletarian revolution. Under its correct guidance, the Communist Party of China(CPC) established the system of democratic centralism and correctly carried out the construction of party organizations. As the central authority, the Third International greatly advanced the proletarian revolutionary cause in China, and prevented the CPC from falling into the wrong path of building the party, from the conglomeration of circles, and saving the Chinese proletarian revolution from detours. However, following the counter-revolutionary April 12 coup led by the Chinese capitalists, the Third International’s guidance for the CPC encountered problems. It failed to fully utilize democratic centralism or adopt the opinions of the conscious comrades led by Chairman Mao. It made erroneous judgments about the Chinese proletarian revolution, mistakenly believing that the Chinese proletarian revolution needed to mechanically imitate the socialist revolution of Russia, by urban uprisings. It completely ignored the actual conditions of the Chinese proletarian forces and the semi-colonial, semi-feudal essence of China. The erroneous analysis by the Third International, coupled with the blind execution by the CPC locality, caused the Chinese proletarian revolution to take a detour, and the party organization was sabotaged by opportunists like Chen Duxiu and Wang Ming.
The above historical lesson of the Third International as the central authority, leading the CPC as the local authority, points to a substantive need: when developing the communist party of humanity in the future, we must correctly handle the dialectical relationship between the central and local authorities to avoid the kind of erroneous guidance the Third International forced upon the CPC after the April 12 Coup. Therefore, we must clarify the dialectical relationship between these two.
For the central authority, it must, through the system of democratic centralism, thoroughly investigate and understand the revolutionary conditions of the local authorities, analyze the strength of the revolutionary classes, and adopt the proposals of local proletarian revolutionaries to formulate correct policies. It must not harbor bureaucratic thinking, suppress local opinions, or refuse to adopt them. If opportunist or revisionist tendencies appear in the local authority, the central authority has the power, duty, and obligation to dispatch conscious forces to lead the local conscious forces in purging the unenlightened elements, ensuring the normal progression of the correct line. However, if the central authority provides erroneous guidance, or if revisionists and opportunists usurp power and ignore local opinions, the local authorities have the right to reject the erroneous guidance, lead the local conscious forces to rebel against the central authority, purge the opportunist forces in the central authority, and rebuild the proletarian revolutionary center.
Absorbing historical lessons, the future Communist Party of Humanity will not directly establish a Central Committee from the outset. under conditions that are not yet ripe, building a Central Committee from the very beginning makes it exceedingly easy for opportunists to seize power, which would bring massive harm to the world revolution. Instead, a Joint Committee of General Branches and Central Departments should instead establish.Namely, the General Branch of China, the General Branch of Japan, the General Branch of India, the Central Department of Propaganda, the Central Department of Discipline etc. The Central Departments are on an equal footing with the General Branches. The confirmation of major issues should be determined by a joint conference of all General Branches and all Central Departments(this ensures that all General Branches and all Central Departments are de facto on an equal footing).Of course, problems will arise. If a certain revisionist General Branch emerges at this time, this committee will hold a conference to revoke its status as a General Branch. If the majority of General Branches turn to revisionism, then the minority of revolutionary General Branches will rise in opposition and form a new Joint Committee. Only through repeated struggles can a solid, revolutionary Joint Committee of General Branches and Central Departments of the Communist Party of Humanity be formed. On this foundation, the time will come to officially build the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Humanity.
The two-line struggle is also the principal contradiction in the course of the development of the Communist Party of Humanity. Under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, especially Chairman Mao’s theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as his teachings on opposing and preventing revisionism and correctly handling contradictions among the people, it is imperative to correctly conduct the two-line struggle…We must correctly handle the two types of contradictions—those between ourselves and the enemy, and those among the people—develop the conscious elements, and defeat opportunism. Only then can we ensure the correct leadership of the Communist Party of Humanity over the world revolution.
Now, over a century later, whether in the tropical rainforests of the Philippines, the South Asian subcontinent of India, or the deserts of Africa, the struggles of the proletariat worldwide are underway. The death knell of the bourgeoisie has sounded once again. “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” is no longer a slogan confined to revolutionary books; it is the inevitable path of the world proletarian revolution. Only through the correct leadership of the communist party of humanity, correctly guiding the communist parties in all parts of the world to apply the political newspaper line to develop revolutionary organizational strength, and to wage protracted People’s War to annihilate the enemy and develop revolutionary armed forces, can we ultimately eradicate the parasites of humanity—the bourgeoisie—establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Human society will ultimately enter communism!
Glossary
-
Unified Global Chessboard Strategy
A revolutionary framework mandating unified leadership by the vanguard Party to ensure a cohesive global movement. By framing the revolution as a “chessboard,” this strategy requires all constituent forces to adhere to a single, synchronized command, thereby eliminating sectarian divisions.
We must simultaneously take into consideration and do unified planning for, our work in making arrangements for these three areas: the livelihood of the people, the commune’s accumulation of capital and satisfying the needs of the state. Only in this way can it be said that we have truly succeeded in doing things as if the affairs of the entire nation were a single game of chess. Otherwise, the so-called chess game is actually only half a chess game, or it is an incomplete chess game. ——Mao Zedong. (Febuary 27, 1959). Speech At Cheng-chow
-
Joint Committee of General Branches and Central Departments
The leading center of the universal human revolution. It acts as the de facto leadership of the Communist Party of Humanity, with the key distinction that it is a preparatory body rather than an official central committee. This approach is taken because an early establishment of a formal central committee could allow opportunists to seize power. The official transition to a central committee will occur only when the party’s conscious force has firmly secured leadership through a long-term two-line struggle. The priority is not the formal announcement, but the integrity of the leadership; thus, the proletarian revolution must be guided by the hands of its most conscious elements.