Sunday, December 30, 2012

Protesters try to break police barricades at Jantar Mantar India

NEW DELHI: Angry protesters at Jantar Mantar tried to break police barricades as they gathered to mourn the 23-year-old braveheart and demand speedy justice for her.

The protesters clashed with the police, who are present at Jantar Mantar in large numbers, according to TV reports.

Police have imposed prohibitory orders around India Gate and Raisina Hill and barricaded all roads leading to the area, as well as shutting down 10 Metro stations in central Delhi.

Comprising mostly students, the protesters are demanding tougher anti-rape laws.

"We want to carry out a peaceful protest; we want to carry forward the movement. But why do police restrain us from protesting at India Gate?

"We will continue to protest even if they barricade major stretches of roads and shut all Metro stations... The police can't stop us from raising our voices," Praveen Pandey, a law student at Jamia Millia Islamia University said.

"We want speedy justice in the gang-rape case. We want strict laws. Till then, we will continue our protest," said Deepali Sharma, a student of Amity University, who came to the protest along with friends.

The protesters, including some elderly people, mourned in silence the braveheart who died on Saturday morning in a Singapore hospital.

"We will be protesting silently, but if the police become violent, we will also have no other option but to retaliate. We demand a special session of Parliament to discuss the issue of rising incidence of rapes in India," Rohit Chahal, state secretary of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad said.

The 23-year-old gang-rape victim was cremated Sunday morning in secrecy after her body was flown in from Singapore, officials said.

The woman was brutally gang-raped on December 16 in a moving bus.

(With inputs from IANS)

A victorious decade of People's War in Mindanao

Inline images 1
Inline images 1
Jorge Madlos (Ka Oris)
December 26, 2012
Read in Bisaya
Resize text: A+ A- Reset
Together with all revolutionaries and the the people of Mindanao and the entire nation, the NDFP-Mindanao wishes to express its warmest congratulations and highest tribute to the Communist Party of the Philippines (MLM) on the 44th anniversary of its re-establishment. Through the Party’s leadership, the National Democratic Revolution has advanced to its current phase despite the relentless counterrevolutionary attacks of US imperialism and the local ruling class. We also proudly salute all our revolutionary martyrs who have heroically offered their lives for the revolution.
As we celebrate this auspicious day, our deepest sympathies and concern go out to the families and friends of the victims of typhoons Sendong and Pablo. In line with this, we call upon all revolutionary forces in the island to be modest and simple yet meaningful and militant in their celebrations of the Party’s 44th anniversary. To help facilitate relief and retrieval operations, NDFP-Mindanao has declared a 29 day ceasefire in all areas affected by Typhoon Pablo. We also call on the people to unite and join in the collective and long term rehabilitation of the people’s livelihood and continue to help preserve and protect the environment.
Offensive Posture
In the face of brutal and relentless attacks by the Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL) and Oplan Bayanihan (OPB) of the local ruling class and its imperialist master, the revolutionary struggle of the people of Mindanao has boldly and heroically advanced in the last decade because of the determined and correct leadership of the Communist Party and the wide and strong support and participation of the people.
Never daunted nor defeated, we have daringly crossed difficulties and sacrifices. From a trying first decade of launching the Second Great Rectification Movement (SGRM), the people’s war has rapidly accelerated over the last ten years (2002-2012). The Party’s correct leadership of the people’s war has been decisive in frustrating OBL 1 and 2, and initially thwarting OPB. We continue to take the initiative, despite the NPA being the priority focus of the AFP, amid the declining Moro armed resistance.
The offensive posture in both the military and political arena has been instilled among our forces. We have concretely shown this in our determination and daringness to frustrate the brutal OBL and OPB of the reactionary regime, so the people’s war may advance. Overall, we have overcome the lingering conservative tendencies among our ranks, as we continued with our offensive posture especially in our tactical offensives.
Establishing revolutionary bases and the revolutionary mass movement
We have rapidly expanded and strengthened our guerrilla bases in the entire island. More municipalities have been covered from the more than 200 towns originally listed the previous year. Hundreds of barrios have also been added to the 2000 barrios of the same period. Twenty-five percent (25%) of these have been consolidated from the level of barrio Organizing Committee (OC) to the level of Balangay. A good number of organs of political power (OPP) at the barrio, section and town levels have also been established. The hundreds of thousands organized under the revolutionary mass organizations continue to expand. They have undergone political education and they carry the national democratic political line with a socialist perspective. There are regions, however, that need to march in step in expanding and strengthening their guerrilla bases, while the more advanced regions must consolidate their bases further as they complete the process of covering their area of responsibility.
Agrarian revolution (agrev), which is the main content of the people’s democratic revolution as well as the key link to our mass work in the countryside, has been waged repeatedly in numerous barrios of the island. Hundreds of thousands of farmers and their families have benefited from the different forms and levels of anti-feudal struggles and other mass campaigns.
Through agrev, we have successfully decreased rent on land, farm animals and farm implements in many areas. We have also raised the wages of agri-workers from P250-P300. A relatively good number of areas have also benefited from an increase in the price of their farm produce, while there is a gradual reduction of the various forms of exploitative practices by traders and usurers. We have also reduced the prices of basic commodities inside our base areas. Our mass campaigns directly blocking the expansion of the giant imperialist plantations of Dole-Stanfilco, Del Monte, Sumifru and others have gain ground.
Cooperativization such as labor exchange, communal farms, consumers and marketing cooperatives continue to be developed and practiced in the peasant associations. We are developing self-reliant war economies in our relatively strong guerrilla bases. We have also established basic social services like education, health, culture and many more in our base areas.
All of these are slowly but surely building up the peasants’ economic and political power on one hand while weakening the power of the landlords, bourgeois compradors and the imperialists on the other hand. But on the whole, there is still a need to wage agrarian revolution on a deeper, wider scale and thus advance the people’s protracted war.
In general, we have firmly grasped the correct coordination between the armed struggle as the main form and the parliamentary struggle, as the secondary form. We have correctly combined the legal and illegal forms of struggle. This has greatly helped in exposing and fighting enemy attacks against our agrarian revolution and the anti-imperialist mass movement. While we advocate and struggle for the legitimate demands of the people, it is imperative that we sharpen our political line, especially in establishing the links and interrelationships between the anti-imperialist, anti-fascist and anti-feudal lines. The correct combination of the legal/open with the illegal/underground forms have helped in widening and strengthening our bases, and in sustaining our cultural movement and social services.
We have strengthened the antifascist and anti-imperialist mass movement. In numerous instances, abuses perpetrated by the operating troops in the countryside have been openly protested and condemned. More and more people have stood up and marched on the streets to denounce and condemn the long list of human rights violations committed by the regime’s armed forces such as the extra judicial killing of Fr. Pops Tentorio, Jimmy Liguyon, Rudy and Roderick Dejos, Eliezer Boy Billanes, Jenesis Ambason, Margarito Cabal, the massacre of the Cafeon family and many other bloody incidents. We have also waged a series of multisectoral protests against the direct intervention of US troops in Mindanao and in the entire country.
The movement against imperialist-owned mines and plantations has gained ground. These imperialist industries have caused irreparable damage to the environment, displaced and exploited the Lumads, peasants and workers. Thus, the NPA has conducted punitive measures against these highly destructive imperialist mining and agri-business companies.
As a result of a wider and more dynamic mass movement in the urban areas and a resurgence of the youth & student movement, many young activists have decided to join the NPA. Apart from the relatively marginal increase in numbers, greater strides must be taken to widen and strengthen our forces in the white area, particularly among the ranks of the workers and the student youth in order to jumpstart an upsurge in the open democratic mass movement.
Our Guerrilla Warfare in the island
Guerrilla warfare has become stronger and more widespread based on an ever widening and deepening mass base in the entire island and within the regions; this in effect has thwarted the enemy’s scheme to focus its operations in only a few areas. In 2007, for instance, the Eastmincom was forced to shift its attack from Northeast Mindanao to Southern Mindanao because of the bigger, more frequent tactical offensives in the said region. The North Central, FarSouth and West Mindanao Regions also launched tactical offensives, so that the enemy’s troops were not limited to SMR and NEMR alone. Within SMR and NEMR, tactical offensives were also launched on a wider, more frequent scale and range. While enemy forces concentrated on two or three regions, the other regions in Mindanao were given the latitude to regain the strength of their forces and reinvigorate their tactical offensives and mass movement.
The enemy’s offensive campaigns and operations, which include their Re-engineered Special Operations Team (RSOT) now renamed Community Organizing for Peace and Development (COPD), were met with our active defense, enabling us to launch annihilative actions amid widespread and daring attritive actions, as well as sustaining our counter-offensives against unremitting enemy campaigns and operations. Our active defense was able to sustain heavy damage on enemy troops, and on highly destructive imperialist companies which continue to plunder our patrimony, destroy the environment and exploit and oppress our people.
Many joined ranks with the NPA, and because of this, the Red fighters grew by 10% each year, and a great number of platoons were formed due to the ever widening and deepening mass base alongside widespread agrarian revolution. Milisyang Bayan (MB) and Yunit Depensa sa Baryo (YDB) now number by the thousands, both of which serve as direct support and reserved force for the NPA full-time guerrillas. In order to expand and strengthen the people’s war, we must rapidly establish platoon-sized MB units in every baryo and squad-sized YDB units per sityo or purok, train and arm them according to our capacity to do so.
Spread across the five regions of Mindanao are the NPA’s 44 guerrilla fronts, more than 40% of which are company-sized. Nearly 20% of NPA guerrilla forces are SDG or sentro-de-grabedad forces of either the region or sub-region. We must complete all guerrilla front formations in all regions. Two-thirds of all guerrilla fronts must have company-sized formations, 30% of which must operate as SDGs and the rest as SYP platoons in order to complete the rational deployment of our forces, and allow the guerrilla warfare to become more widespread and more intense, in conjunction with the advancement of people’s war in the entire country.
On the basis of our ever widening and deepening mass base, we have launched 400 tactical offensives in the entire island in 2012, which means more than one tactical offensive per day. Nearly 100 of these were annihilative tactical offensives where we were able to confiscate at least 150 high powered rifles. More than 70% of the 400 were attritive actions, including sniping, harassment and punitive actions. In these military actions, including 40 defensive actions where enemy forces had the initiative to attack the Red army, around a battalion of enemy troops has been killed, not including the numerous who were wounded. Clearly this is a significant advance compared with previous years. However, the frequency and intensity of our tactical offensives are still much lower than its actual potential capability, considering the number and size of our guerrilla units. A large number of our platoons have yet to launch the requisite 2-3 basic tactical offensives and attritive actions in a single year.
We have elevated the capability level of the NPA in terms of tactics and technique, coordination and formation, and operating with complicated targets. This has been manifested in the number of big-scale military actions that we have launched during OBL and OPB.
We successfully participated and contributed to the nationally-coordinated TO in 2005 and 2006, while we had our own coordinated TOs in the regions. We have launched inter-regional TOs, such as the raid at Earthsaver Security Agency in Butuan City, OMC Mining in Rosario, Agusan Sur, PICOP, Bislig City, and the PNP station in Talacogon, Agusan Sur. We have also launched multiple target operations using company-sized and undersized battalion formations, such as the raid in Taganito Mines (TMC), San Roque Minerals Inc. (SRMI), raid in Siargao Island, the raid in PNP station and ambush in Lingig, Surigao del Sur and others. We have also conducted special operations like the rescue of a detained comrade in transit along Bukidnon-Davao National Highway, the isparo operation in Tagum City and others. We have raided PNP headquarters in many municipalities, including lately the raid on PNP station in Tigbao, Zamboanga del Sur. We succeeded in attacking several detachments such as those in Mlang and Luna Sur in North Cotabato, in Binicalan, Agusan Sur, in Maputi, Davao Oriental, Ginabsan ambush in Buenavista, Agusan Norte, and the raid on the COPD in Tandag city, among others. We successfully raided the Davao Penal Colony which garnered for us at least a hundred high powered rifles.
We have strengthened the organization of the People’s Army. There now stands a territorial Regional Command of the NPA (ROC) separate and distinct from the Regional Party Committee, however we still need to fortify and train this. There are still many Sub-Regions without distinct NPA territorial commands (SROC); and, after which, we must focus on strengthening the command at the guerrilla front. There is an immediate need to train all military cadres and political guides in our units.
Apart from the other general guidelines from the Party’s Central Committee, the national call in 2002 to establish the platoon in every municipality as basic formation serving as horizontal force and the SDG as the vertical force of the region, sub-region and front, has significantly and strategically helped all the regions in Mindanao. But, in general, we must still take great strides in taking to task the further development of the four different levels of NPA forces, which are the SDG, SYP Platoon , partisan units and the Milisyang Bayan and Yunit Depensa sa Baryo.
The national call to launch coordinated tactical offensives in 2005 and 2006 accelerated the pace for more TOs in Mindanao. However, after the nationally coordinated T.O. some regions reduced in intensity because of an erroneous concept with regard to the combination between attritive and annihilative tactical offensives, a lingering conservative tendency among military cadres and other pressing reasons. It is imperative that we learn, understand and firmly grasp the theories of People’s War.
Anchored on the basic alliance of workers and peasants and in carrying forward the armed political struggle in the entire island, our alliances have become broader and stronger. This is concretized in the political and material support given by the religious, teachers and other professionals, including business people. United by common issues against the US-Aquino regime, many from the local government units and politicians have reached out to the revolutionary movement,. But, compared to what we have achieved in the 80s, we still have to recover a lot more in our united front work.
We have maintained our linkage with the MILF. Despite the Framework Agreement it has signed with the Aquino government, we have continued to urge the MILF to be cautious so as not to fall into the trap of the reactionary US-Aquino regime. We have also linked with other legitimate Moro groups that continue to genuinely fight for their right to self-determination of the Bangsamoro.
Party growth and Party leadership
From the first Party branch organized in 1971, the Communist Party of the Philippines is now widely and deeply rooted among the workers, peasants, Lumad, youth, women and the middle forces in the 5 regions in almost all provinces in Mindanao. This year alone, Party membership increased by almost 50%. While this is clearly a victory in establishing the Party in the whole island, we still need to widen and strengthen the Party organization many times over in order for us to effectively lead more demanding and complicated tasks of the coming years.
In general, the Party has decisively led the entire revolutionary forces in the people’s war despite relentless enemy attacks. Recently, we have further strengthened the Regional Party Committees to even more effectively direct the war. The regional committees has made a thoroughgoing study on the balance of forces, the enemy situation particularly the nature of OBL and OPB, and how to wield initiative and flexibility in the ever-changing developments of the war. We have also firmed our priorities, rallied all our forces and coordinated the armed and legal struggles and other major components of the peoples war.
The theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has been widely and deeply rooted like no other in the entire history of the Party in Mindanao. Almost all fulltime Party members have completed the basic course, most committee sections have undergone the intermediate course. As some regional level cadres have finished the advance course, we have programmed a study on this for all members of regional and sub-regional committees.
This year, there has been a marked increase in the number of local Party branches who have completed the Basic Party Course (BPC). We should persevere in launching the mass movement in studying BPC in order for Marxism, Leninism and Maoism to be firmly rooted among the widest section of the masses and for this to be the material force in waging the people’s war. There is also a need for us to further enrich the Intermediate Party Course with the more advanced practices that we have gained these past few years.
Based on the objective condition, and on the call of the national leadership, taken into consideration our short comings and weakneses, we shall inevitably advance to the next higher stage of the people’s war in the coming years, conscious and firm conviction that we would complete the last sub-stage of the strategic defensive in the next few years. These are our urgent tasks, these are our main contributions to forward the people’s war in the entire archipelago.
Dare to struggle! Dare to win!
Long live the Communist Party of the Philippines!

Friday, December 28, 2012

Celebrate the 119th Anniversary of Chairman Mao’s Birth -Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan

Proletarian of all countries, unite!
Celebrate the 119th Anniversary of Chairman Mao’s Birth

Central Committee
Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)
December 26th, 2012
Prepared for the Internet by People’s War Editorial Board

People’s war until communism!
Celebrate the 119th Anniversary of Chairman Mao’s Birth

December 26th 2012, marks the 119th anniversary of birth of beloved leader of world proletarian revolution, the guarantee of triumph of international Communism, Chairman Mao. Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist) celebrates this glorious event. Why do we have to celebrate such events? Celebrating such events means to celebrate the qualified leaders of international proletariat. Why do we have to celebrate the international leaders of the proletariat? As history proves, and as comrade Lenin has pointed out, no class in the history has triumphed without having qualified leaders of their own. Celebrating the revolutionary leaders means celebrating the revolutionary efforts of the class, being concreted in leaders’ theoretical and practical contributions. Finally why do we have to celebrate Chairman Mao? Because, he is the one who developed Marxism-Leninism, the international ideology of the proletariat, to a new, higher and third stage, establishing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
What is the best celebration of Chairman Mao? It is to wage more people’s wars. It is to understand what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is. It is to understand that: Today, to be a Marxist means to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist.
International proletariat needs Maoism in order to fight feudalism, bureaucratic capitalism and imperialism. So, it is Maoism that is the guide to world proletarian revolution. All communist parties must uphold, defend and apply Maoism in order to follow the path of world proletarian revolution. There is no revolution without Maoism, and there is no triumph without continuing the revolution under dictatorship of the proletariat, waging more people’s wars until communism.
The revisionists of all kinds, the “new “revisionism, are preaching “Maoism” without application, Maoism without the question of conquering the conquest of power. They have replaced Maoism with armed revisionism (as is the case with” Left” Opportunist Line in Peru), and those in the right wing of “modern” revisionism, have shamelessly revived the path of parliamentarianism and peaceful developments. They have capitulated by bannering “Peace Accords” and are renegades of “Amnesty” and, are internationally, right opportunist Liners! The opportunist line, in both forms, either right or “left”, has one task and that is to serve for imperialism and to smash revolutionary tide. Centrism is nothing than revisionism in a “Maoist” covering, which only plays with words, and indeed, sides with imperialism.
In this glorious momentum of celebrating the anniversary of Chairman Mao’s birth, let us reaffirm ourselves in what chairman Gonzalo has taught us: People’s war until communism!
We believe that: to fight Avakianism, Prachandism and other revisionist and Post-Maoist Lines, it is necessary to study Gonzalo Thought. Let us study the International Line of Communist Party of Peru again. It was Chairman Gonzalo who opposed revisionism! It was he who formulated Maoism. So, to defend Maoism, we have to reaffirm ourselves in Chairman Gonzalo and his all-powerful thought. Internationally, after Chairman Mao’s death, there is only one great authority, capable to be called the greatest Marxist-Leninist-Maoist in the face of earth, and that is Chairman Gonzalo. However Gonzalo thought is the concrete application of Maoism to Peruvian reality, but, it also has some aspects which are applicable internationally. Those aspects are in continuation of Chairman Mao’s contributions to international ideology of proletariat. The thesis of militarization of the communist parties, and forming communist parties of a new type is one of the most valuable contributions of chairman Gonzalo to Maoism. Concentric construction of communist parties, the thesis of Great Leadership, and more than all, understanding Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, as a synthesis, the question of formation and generating a “guiding thought” are other major contributions of Chairman Gonzalo. At the core of all of contributions of Chairman Gonzalo to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the unique message of “uphold, defend, apply Maoism, and for that cause, wage people ‘wars until communism!”
As mentioned above, the best to celebrate Chairman Mao’s anniversary is to wage more people’s war, nationally and internationally. Our organization is in preparatory phase of waging a people’s war. We know that: there will be no new democracy without smashing the old state, and there will be no new state without waging people’s war, leading to establishing base areas, liberated areas, revolutionary committees of masses, and finally establishing the conquest of power in all over our beloved country, Afghanistan. By celebrating Chairman Mao’s Anniversary, once again we reaffirm ourselves in Maoism and People’s war until communism!

Long Life Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism!
Down with imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism!
Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)

Write the date here
OWA-Central Committee

On Mao's Birthday- 'against postmaoism RCPUSA' from Democracy and Class Strugglel

On Mao's Birthday Democracy and Class Struggle have published a number of contributions starting with an article on Mao's' leadership methods written in 1943 which contributed to the deveopment of the mass line within the Chinese Communist Party.

The roots of the mass line go back to Leninism and we have recently published an article which shows Stalin was a exponent of the Mass Line prior to Mao's more fuller development of the concept in theory and practice.

The fierce intellectual Post Modern ideological assault on Marxism , Marxism Leninism Maoism in the late 20th century has burned itself out by this first decade of the 21st century has it has been hit by the reality of capitalist class power and class struggle.

The Leninist concept of the State and Capitalist power over the State reasserts itself in the 21st Century with Global Capitalism in profound Crisis.The basis of class power so vigorously denied has been reaffirmed by reality. Social power is Class power.

Parasitic Imperialism is more transparent than ever as a new era of Land grabs shake the globe aided by NGO's.

The anti Marxist Post Modern assault on intellectuals has claimed the RCPUSA has a victim who along with Post Marxism, Post Capitalism, Post Industrial and a host of other cultural posties to proclaim a Post Maoism in Bob Avakian thought.

Jean Paul Sartre once famously said that Marxism had not been superceded because the conditions that gave rise to it still exist, concerning Maoism in the 21st century it is confirmed that Maoism is not superceded by Post Maoism or Avakianism has the intolerable conditions of global capitalism that gave rise to Marxism Leninism Maoism still exist. See Harsh Thakors Critique of New Synthesis

Henry CK Liu comment on China is relevant not just for China but for the world.

"The full impact of Mao's revolutionary spirit is yet to be released on Chinese society. A century from now, Mao's high-minded principles of mass politics will outshine all his neo-liberal critics".

On Comrade Mao's Birthday we call for defense of Marxism Leninism Maoism and the rejection of Prachanda's Neo Revisionism and Avakian's Post Maoism.

Democracy and Class Struggle

Thursday, December 27, 2012

maoist road for a new year of advancement of international unity of mlm mouvement in the world against imperialism, revisionism and opportunism !


As masas populares en moitas cidades da India e de Manipur teñen amosado sua combatividade e denuncia contra á violencia contra as mulleres. Milleiros de homes e mulleres teñen ocupado as rúas para impulsar a loita contra á violencia contra as mulleres; estudantes, campesiñas, obreiras...
Os criminais fascistas teñen convertido á violación nún arma de terror cotidian contra a muller e nas comisarias policiais é unha practica habitual contra as detidas.  Esto non impide que millons de mulleres se rebelen contra á opresión de clase e de xenero. Miles de mulleres conforman pelotons do EGPL e de cotio castigan a seus verdugos.
Á represión reaccionaria das forzas de ocupación da India en Manipur ten asasinado a un periodista que cubria a información das protestas pola violación dunha coñecida actriz.
O Comité Galego de Apoio a Guerra Popular na India amosa sua solidariedade coas masas revolucionarias, coas mulleres da India e Manipur e condena enerxicamente ao rexime ultra-reaccionario da India "falsa Democracia, cadea de pobos" é respalda a victoriosa Guerra Popular Revolucionaria que leva adiante o PCI (maoísta) na maioria dos Estados da India e tamen ao PCm-Manipur, lexitimo representante do pobo oprimido de Manipur.
Facemos un chamado as organización populares da Galiza para que amosen sua condea á violencia contra a muller na India e respaldo publico á sua xusta loita.

Galiza, 24.12.12
Comité Galego de Apoio a Guerra Popular na India.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Towards a Seminar and an International Conference for building of a new international mlm organisation, after RIM's collapse

PCm Italy's celebration of 119 anniversary of the birth of Mao tse tung is a date plein of red fresh air for the success of International Conference to support people's war in india in Hambourg 24 november - against imperialism, revisionism and opportunism- also against 'left opportunists pretty bourgeois' - but this date is good for the launch and call for a strong step towards a most advanced task and objective indicated from the two Resolutions passed in the Special  Meeting  of some Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement .

All comrades in the world can be sure: also these tasks will be realized ! 

PCm Italy
26 december 2012 

"The new international organization must unite in its ranks the genuine MLM parties and organizations that exist and operate in the class struggle, that transform the revolutionary theory into revolutionary practice, that are able to be an advanced and integrant part of the proletariat and the oppressed masses, getting rid of all the old and new waste, not only of revisionism but also of the petty bourgeois revolutionaries and the self-referring "virtualism".
To build this new international organization we must break with revisionism in all its aspects and particularly with those that have led to the current crisis and collapse of the RIM, namely the post-MLM 'new synthesis' of Bob Avakian in the Revolutionary Communist Party,US and the revisionist line established by Prachanda/Bhattarai in the UCPN(M).
The new international organization should have an executive centre, whose internal life must correspond to the stage and methods shared by the political parties and forces that give life to this organization, particularly taking lesson from the positive and negative experiences of the CoRim.

The international organization of MLM communists is and should be the core of a front, of an international anti-imperialist alliance of the proletarians and oppressed peoples.
It is this that will allow the MLM communist parties to establish and develop Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, realize a new unity of the international communist movement, place it at the van of worldwide people’s struggles and fully unleash and realize the potential new wave of world revolution.
Imperialism has no future! The future belongs to communism!.....
               from 1stResolution passed by the Special Meeting of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement –
...We propose the convening of an international conference in order reactivate and reorganize an international organization. We believe that this task must be jointly taken up with the involvement of the Maoist parties leading people’s wars, and all the Maoist forces, including those outside the RIM, so that the conference will benefit from their views and experiences. In order to achieve this aim a process of ideological, political debate must be carried out. As part of preparation for the conference and serving its aims, we will it necessary to organise a seminar on ‘Summation of Experiences of RIM, ICML, and other International Initiatives.’
Through this whole process the points of unity and differences can be identified and a relatively advanced platform can be arrived at, to become the basis of a new international unity concretised in a new international organisation. In the current circumstances, the execution of this revolutionary responsibility can demonstrate a practical expression of the internationalist communist slogan,workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite.It is this that will allow the MLM communist parties to establish and develop Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, realize a new unity of the international communist movement, place it at the van of worldwide peoples struggles and fully unleash and realize the potential new wave of world revolution.....

   from ....2nd Resolution passed by the Special Meeting of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement for an International Conference of the MLM Parties and Organization of the world – May First 2012


Signed and spread by:
Communist Party of India (M-L) [Naxalbari]
Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan
Maoist Communist Party - Italy.




Reponse of Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan to the RCP-USA's May 1st 2012 Letter - C(M)PA is one of signers of Final Document and Call passed by the Special Meeting of MLM Parties and organizations of the RIM

A Response to the RCP-USA's May 1st 2012 Letter
The Revolutionary Communist Party - USA’s [RCP-USA] May 1st Letter (Letter to
Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement)
is, after its new Constitution and Manifesto, the third most important party document
regarding “Avakian’s New Synthesis.” Although this document was initially intended to
be an internal letter addressing the members of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement [RIM], the RCP-USA reversed its earlier decision and published the letter
publicly without a clear explanation.
We believe this whole game of internally addressing only the participants of RIM was an
unnecessary theatrical show from the very beginning. There is no reason to pursue an
internal RIM discussion around issues that have been public for several years––issues
that were made into a public matter first and foremost by the RCP-USA itself.
The RCP-USA’s Manifesto (Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, A Manifesto
from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) publicly broadcasted its new post-
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line in 2008 and thus not as a document for discussion and
debate within the RIM. Then, in May 2009, this same document (as an appendix to a
letter whose audience clearly was not only the members and participants of the RIM) was
presented “to all the communist of the world.” It is worth mentioning that the RCPUSA’s
new Constitution––the first post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document prior to its
Manifesto––was also not an internal document.
The fourth plenum of the central committee meeting of the Communist (Maoist) Party of
Afghanistan [C(M)PA] took a stance against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the
new Constitution and Manifesto of the RCP-USA and shared its position internally in this
regard with members and participants of RIM in August 2009. However, this internal
discussion had no principled or positive outcome since––in violation of the
organizational, political, and ideological commitments of RIM––all of the respective
discussions were openly and publicly broadcasted by the RCP-USA.
Subsequently, the central committee of the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) [CPI
(MLM)] made public their post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document “A Call to all Iranian
Communists.” Approximately around this time, the RCP-USA proposed an internal
discussion around our critique of their new Manifesto and Constitution. We realized,
however, the futility of keeping the debate internal after witnessing the open publication
of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist document of the central committee of the
CPI(MLM), the RCP-USA’s continuous international efforts in propagating their post-
MLM line, the harm inflicted by this line upon the existence and activities of the RIM,
and finally, at the same time, the consolidation of this line within the RCP-USA that
purged opposing views under the label of an “inner party cultural revolution.” Thus, we
rejected the RCP-USA's proposal, which appeared to be in bad faith, and published the
position of the fourth plenum of the central committee of our party in our organ,
Sholajawid. Afterwards, we also criticised the CPI (MLM)’s post-MLM document in an
article entitled The Communist Party of Iran (MLM) also fell in the lost road of post-
MLM that was published in the aforementioned party organ.
Now that the struggle for the formation of a new international Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
organization on a solid political and ideological basis against various forms of
revisionism (particularly the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revisionism and the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism) has clearly materialized internationally, the RCP-USA
once again wanted to use the ploy of engaging in internal discussion around their post-
MLM line; apparently they immediately realized that their game no longer works.
Nonetheless, the open publication of the RCP-USA’s May 1st Letter, published four years
after the publication of its Manifesto, is its first formal and organized response in regards
to the theoretical struggles against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line by our party and
other participants in the RIM. Until now it seems as if the RCP-USA expected opponents
of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line within RIM to only engage in internal debates
with the RCP-USA and thus, in our opinion, end up lonely and isolated. However, the
publication of documents regarding the Special Meeting of the members of RIM
illustrated that this expectation was clearly incorrect and unrealistic.
Without submitting itself to a process of discussion and debate within the RIM, the
Manifesto of the RCP-USA was openly published, thus presenting its post-Marxist-
Leninist-Maoist line internationally outside of RIM. This single party's unilateral action
concretely meant the dissolution and dismantling of the RIM and its committee. Given
the effective role that the RCP-USA played in carrying forward the activities of the
committee of RIM, as well as the overall activities of RIM, this act practically heralded
the collapse and liquidation of this vital international organization. No other party had
such a determining role within the RIM. Moreover, this party had a key role in ending the
publication of the RIM's internal journal, eliminating the conditions for internal debate
and discussion between RIM members. For this reason, the RCP-USA did not have the
right to expect internal struggle from other participants and members of RIM.
Now this party, with the publication of its May 1st Letter, accuses us of “sentencing first
and putting [it] on trial later!” This claim is the expression of an Afghan proverb that
states: “accuse before being accused!” In actual fact, it was RCP-USA that sentenced first
and then conducted a trial. For was it not this party that––in the unilateral publication of
its Manifesto in 2008, along with the defenders and supporters of its political line––
sentenced all of the participants and members of RIM with accusations of “revisionism”
and “dogmatism” and, above all, imposed a punishment that was the liquidation of the
RIM? Why did this party imagine that it alone possessed the right to “sentence first and
put on trial later?”
Indeed, the leadership of the RCP-USA, that had purged opposing views within its party
through a supposed "cultural revolution", and considered the RIM its “backyard”,wanting
to restructure this organization––first ideologically then politically and organizationally–
–so that it would tail the RCP-USA's unquestioned hegemony. This plan, however, could
not be executed. Now that other parties, including ours, have begun ideological, political
and organizational struggles for the reestablishment of an international Marxist-Leninist-
Maoist organization, the RCP-USA warns against “sentencing first and putting on trial
In any case, the RCP-USA should not expect others to follow a framework that was
already decimated by the RCP-USA itself.
We believe that the decision, on the part of ourselves and our comrade parties, to hold a
Special Meeting of RIM not only resulted in a successful meeting where particular and
important decisions were met, but also forced the RCP-USA to once again clearly present
its post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, thus providing the opportunity to carry out a
mainly successful theoretical struggle against it.
But the RCP-USA avoided participating in this Special Meeting and in fact evaded a
face-to-face collective debate. This party has, over the past few years, constantly
attempted to start one-on-one discussions with different members of the RIM, including
our party, while they have been willing to send their members to many countries to
pursue these isolated discussions, they have never shown any willingness to visit us in
Thus we will debate the May 1st document of the RCP-USA in a serialized manner,
focusing on different key areas, and publish each separate but connected part of this
series upon completion. This first section is specifically related to the discussion against
our party in section VIII of the May 1st document.
The RCP-USA, nearly three years after the C(M)PA took a position against its post-
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line, defended its stance in its May 1st 2012 letter. This letter,
however, does not directly respond to the document of the fourth plenum of our party
against the RCP-USA but instead is a response to our document against the statement of
the central committee of CPI(MLM). Such vicarious behaviour avoids the responsibility
of dealing with direct arguments and thus results in an ambiguous and hazy response.
1: the RCP-USA's indefensible defense
All of the points raised against our party in the RCP-USA’s May 1st 2012 letter have been
expressed in only a few pages of a 58 page letter, and even these few pages are affected
by the lazy decision to deal only with our document regarding the CPI(MLM). Why has
the CPI(MLM) itself avoided taking an active role in these discussions? For a while this
party has been obliged to not only respond to our critiques, but has been obliged to
respond to the relatively lengthy discussions regarding A Group of Iranian Maoists
which, in actuality, has been a response to their own call (“…a call to all Iranian
communists”) to act responsibly and engage in a debate and discussion with them.
But why is the RCP-USA refusing to respond to the critiques directed specifically against
them; why are they addressing the wrong document and addressing only a few particular
issues rather than producing a holistic response to all of our arguments and questions?
The reason for this kind of behaviour is clear: this party is unable to defend its post-MLM
line; this is mainly because this line, in itself, is indefensible. Therefore, the RCP-USA
engages in a one-sided and ambiguous debate in order to avoid a lucid and clear
discussion on the actual issue. The result of this kind of behaviour is that, concretely
speaking, post-MLM is defended according to its strategic direction, while being denied
in its tactical orientations.
In 2009, the fourth plenum of the central committee of the Communist (Maoist) Party of
Afghanistan took a stance against the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the new
Constitution and Manifesto of the RCP-USA. Now, after all of this party's delays in
responding to us, the onus should be on them to delve into the main issue of the debate,
namely the post-MLM character of their line, in a clear manner capable of providing
equally clear answers to our questions. In the current situation, the importance of
delivering this clear and precise response has gained double importance now that the
opposition to the post-MLM line not only comes from, in the words of American blogger
Mike Ely, a “sterile place” like Afghanistan (a charge which could be equally levelled at
the RCP-USA’s behaviour), but now possesses an international character.
In one of our documents we have claimed that CPI(MLM) has fallen "on the lost road" of
post-MLM and, in this context, wrote:
"The strategic direction of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line of the RCP-USA's
new Manifesto and Constitution, and now the document of the central committee of
the CPI(MLM) that names this line a 'new synthesis' is obviously clear. This 'new
synthesis' is not a thought like 'Gonzalo Thought', a 'path' like 'Parachanda Path' or
an 'ism' like 'Avakianism'––something that is the continuation and evolution of
MLM––but it claims to be a total synthesis, meaning a fundamentally new post-
MLM theoretical framework and ideological weapon. It is thus that we consider it a
deep and wide deviationist line with a depth and breadth that is deeper and wider
than the deviationist line of the Communist Party of Peru that emerged under the
label of 'Gonzalo Thought'; it is much deeper and wider than the deviationist line of
the Communist Party of Nepal that named itself “Prachanda Path.”1
But the RCP-USA’s document eliminates the first sentence from the above passage, the
sentence that we have italicized for the purpose of identification, and has instead quoted
the remaining part of the passage in order to dodge a principled debate concerning the
issues under discussion. And the main issue was clearly stated in the sentence that has
been cut out; we reiterate: “[t]he strategic direction of the post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
line of RCP-USA’s new Manifesto and Constitution, and now the document of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM) that names this line a 'new synthesis' is obviously clear.”
Due to the elimination of this sentence, the RCP-USA evaluates the remaining portion of
the passage in an ambiguous manner when it writes:
“This statement that Bob Avakian's new synthesis, mislabeled 'Avakianism', is a
'way deeper' deviation than that of the UCPN(M), is itself astounding. Who has
aborted a revolution? Transformed the goal of the struggle to perfecting bourgeois
democracy? Which line has effectively turned its back on the struggling masses all
over the world? Nevertheless, there is something important to be considered
underneath the C(M)PA's denunciation: a wrong understanding of the process
through which Marxism (or any science for that matter) develops from a lower to a
higher stage. In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism
as the C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of Marxism. But the
C(M)PA understands this whole process wrongly.”
But in the initial passage we did not wrongly label Avakian’s "new synthesis" as
Avakianism, as the continuation and evolution of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but rather
treated it a total and fundamental deviationist synthesis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
and a fundamentally new post-MLM deviationist theoretical framework.
Despite the fact that this party considers it wrong to label “Avakian’s new synthesis” as
“Avakianism”, how does it describe and interpret this sentence from its document: “in
reality, Avakian's new synthesis is… a further development of Marxism"? If this is a
“further development” of Marxism then it would be a continuation and evolution of
Marxism––or, to be more precise, a continuation and evolution of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism. And if this is what the RCP-USA is claiming, then why is calling it an “ism”
incorrect? Are we supposed to understand “Avakian’s new synthesis” as something
similar to “Gonzalo Thought” or “Prachanda Path” that has supposedly further developed
MLM? In fact, this tactical orientation in the RCP-USA’s document, like so many of its
tactical orientations, is merely asserted without clearly and precisely demarcating its
limits and boundaries.
Is the RCP-USA actually astounded by the fact that we consider the Avakianite post-
MLM revisionism much deeper and wider than the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism or
are its ideologues merely playing dumb? We believe that their astoundment is proof that
they are indeed playing dumb and the reasons for this are also obvious.
In response to the question “[w]ho has aborted a revolution… [t]ransformed the goal of
the struggle to perfecting bourgeois democracy?” we assert that the direct factor for this
national and class capitulationism was the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism and that, in
this matter, Avakianite post-MLM revisionism did not have a direct role in this process.
At the same time, however, it must be noted that it was the RCP-USA that directly, and
indirectly through the Committee of the RIM (the embryonic cell of the leadership of the
entire RIM), encouraged, prepared the ground for, and formulated the entire premature
assertions of “thought, path and the new synthesis”, leading ideological line struggles
around these formulations.
At the same time, however, when there is no revolution in existence in the USA, how
could the RCP-USA (or any other party in that country, for that matter) manage to abort a
non-existent revolution or transform “the goal of the struggle to perfecting bourgeois
Therefore, the deviations of this party should be evaluated in the light of its own
theoretical and practical activities and compared in a relative manner to the deviation of
the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). In this regard, two arenas of the
activities of the RCP-USA should be considered: the arena of theoretical struggle and the
arena of struggle in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.
From a theoretical perspective, it can be firmly stated that the Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism is a much deeper and wider deviation than the Prachanda-Bhattarai
revisionism. The Avakianite post-MLM revisionism, from the perspective of its strategic
orientation documented in its new Manifesto and Constitution, in fact considers the
totality of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as outdated and obsolete; it rejects this theoretical
formulation in its basic party documents. Although the essence of the Prachanda-
Bhattarai revisionism has no fundamental difference with Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism, from a theoretical perspective it is not "deep and wide" to the same extent as
post-MLM revisionism. As stated in our document against the statement of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM):
“The post-MLM line raised by RCP-USA and the central committee of the
CPI(MLM) is the most profound and expanded deviation from a theoretical
perspective within the RIM. This deviation is much more dangerous than the
deviation in Nepal and the earlier deviation in Peru. Therefore, we think that the
framework of struggle against the deviations that have emerged among participants
of RIM the struggle against the post-MLM deviation is our principal duty in the
current conjuncture.”
The deepness and profoundness of this Avakianite post-MLM revisionism, as compared
to the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism, can be observed in the inner activities and
performances of the respective parties. The Avakianite post-MLM revisionism within the
RCP-USA has so profoundly and totally corrupted the RCP-USA that not even a single
individual has been able to take a correct and principled stance, or even a comparatively
correct stance, against Avakianite post-MLM revisionism. People such as Mike Ely––
who have either quit the RCP-USA or have been purged by the process of the so-called
inner party cultural revolution––are similar in their deviationism and revisionism to the
Avakianites. The inner party “cultural revolution” within the RCP-USA has in reality
been nothing more than the struggle between the dominant Avakianite revisionism and a
variety of counter-revolutionary, revisionist and liquidationist tendencies.
Within the Unified Communist party of Nepal (Maoist), however, it has been possible for
a new faction to form and engage in an actual line-struggle. This possibility, at least,
eventually led to an initial stance against this party's revisionism and has been successful
in the formation of a new Maoist party—the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist. And
though this initial stance is not yet a profound and comprehensive stance against the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism, there is still the possibility that it could transform into
such a positionality.
Moreover, the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism belongs in the 18th century––in that it is
doing no more than demanding a bourgeois revolution––while the Avakianite post-MLM
revisionism is a form of post-modern 21st century revisionism. The former type of
revisionism is influenced by the Nepalese and oppressed nations' sense of inferiority and
presents its universal claims with shyness and timidity; the latter revisionism is
contaminated by the crude hegemony of an imperialist super-power and is thus heady,
reckless in its hegemonic universal claims.
“Prachanda path” has even been cast aside and forgotten within the Unified Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist); and the newly formed party, the Communist party of Nepal-
Maoist, has even announced its struggle against this “path”. Therefore, the Prachanda-
Bhattarai revisionists do not see themselves as standing against the historical waves of
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist struggles for the formation of a new communist international
organization––nor do they oppose it theoretically––but the post-MLM Avakianite
revisionists lay claim to such a position and this is why they have written and published
the current document under discussion.
The crisis in the RIM actually began before the clear and explicit emergence of the
Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism; it started with the undermining of the overall politicoideological
line of the RIM by the committee of RIM––and the RCP-USA was the
primary force behind this development. While it is true that the politico-ideological
expression of the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism (in different realms of practical and
theoretical struggles) further intensified and expanded the crisis of RIM, in the final
analysis it was the RCP-USA that––due to its leadership role in the committee, through
raising a profound and far-reaching revisionist, post-modernist line, and by violating all
of its political, ideological and organizational commitments towards the RIM and all of
its members––decimated the committee of RIM and thus led to the collapse of the entire
RIM, and all of this in order to recast and remold the RIM according to the “new
synthesis”. Thus, despite the fact that the Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism played an
important role in the collapse of the RIM, the principal responsibility lies with Avakianite
post-MLM revisionism. Thus, in response to this question "which line effectively turned
its back on the revolutionary masses?” we can honestly say it was the Avakianite post-
MLM revisionist line.
There is no need to refer at length to the discussions in our previous party documents. In
fact, the RCP-USA document under discussion, and its particular invective against our
party, provides ample evidence of the post-MLM strategic direction of the RCP-USA's
political line. Indeed, this document claims that the entire stance of our party against the
line of the new Manifesto and Constitution of the RCP-USA is based on “a wrong
understanding of the process through which Marxism (or any science for that matter)
develops from a lower to a higher stage.” And yet, in the same passage that supposedly
proves the “wrong understanding” of our party we can clearly see that it is actually the
RCP-USA that misunderstands the process through which Marxism develops as a
Here the RCP-USA document quotes other sections from our document, but this time
both the first and last section of our passage (both of which that have been italicized
below) were ignored and thus, rather than dealing with the entirety of our critique, the
RCP-USA again gets caught up in a tangential issue. We wrote:
"Different natural, social and ideological phenomena, from their occurrence until
their turning into other phenomena, go through different stages of development.
These different stages of transformation and development can in general be divided
into the two types of quantitative and qualitative levels of transformation and
development. The process of quantitative to qualitative transformation is an
expression of the fundamental law of development of every phenomenon––that is,
the law of contradiction. In this process the quantity and quality and also quality
and quantity form the unity of contradictions. In the quantitative level of
transformation, although the quantitative changes are the principal aspects of
transformation in the phenomena, there is also partial qualitative transformation.
Also, in the qualitative level of transformation, while the qualitative transformation
is the principal aspect of the phenomenon transforming into another phenomenon,
there also is partial quantitative transformation as well. Therefore, in the entire
process of quantitative transformation, qualitative transformation is also
accumulated. This qualitative transformation that has been gradually accumulated
in the period of the qualitative transformation of a phenomenon transforms into a
qualitative leap that result into the resolution of the fundamental contradiction of
the phenomenon and transforming it into a new phenomenon. […]
The theoretical framework founded by Marx is also not an exception in regard to
this law. Since the time of Marx and Engels, this ideological weapon has passed
through two new levels of quantitative transformation and development that were
Leninism and Maoism. This is not intended to underestimate the importance of the
new qualities of Leninism and Maoism. Our intention is to clarify that in Marxism-
Leninism, the continuation of Marxism and generality of Marxism-Leninism is the
principal aspect transformation. Rupture from Marxism is the non-principal aspect.
Also in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the continuation of Marxism-Leninism in
Maoism––and the generality of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism––is the principal
aspect of transformation. Rupture from Marxism-Leninism is non-principal aspect.
This is why the different levels of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism are fundamentally different levels of development of a single
ideological weapon. […] We can only talk about a new ideological weapon instead
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism when this ideological weapon has reached a further
level of qualitative transformation and development after passing through different
stages of its quantitative changes and its life is over after its final synthesizing to be
replaced by another ideological weapon. Only in such a situation does the "new
synthesis" finds its fundamental meaning and content. […] Choosing titles such as
"new synthesis", "new ideological weapon" and "new theoretical frame" presented
by the RCP-USA and CPI(MLM) are exactly expressing this theme that finally
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has reached its ultimate qualitative and quantitative
stage of transformation and development, and with its final synthesis to give its
place to a new ideological weapon and framework."
Therefore, the main issue under discussion about the theoretical reasons behind the
choice of the title “new synthesis” for the theoretical works of Bob Avakian, and thus
how this title is indicative of the post-MLM character of this entire ideology, is set aside.
Instead, the RCP-USA document chooses to address another topic:
“The C(M)PA touches on the important question of the relationship between
continuity and rupture in the development of the revolutionary communist science
from a lower to a higher level. In an overall sense, the principal aspect is continuity
– that is, the upholding and enriching of the propositions, theses, methods of
analysis first developed by Marx and later raised to successively higher levels by
Lenin and Mao and today by Avakian, while rupture, which involves (although not
exclusively) the rejection of those elements of the previous understanding that are
discovered to be wrong or partially wrong, is in an overall sense secondary in the
process through which Marxism has taken leaps which does involve synthesis. On
one level, this seems to be what the C(M)PA is arguing in the above cited passage
and with which we would agree – there is a single continuity of Marxism and it
does represent a single ideological weapon. But this correct observation must not
be used to negate that Marxism has gone through leaps in the course of its
developments and these leaps also involve rupture with what were previously
understood truths. Achieving synthesis involves both rupture and continuity,
whereby the whole, including even previous positive elements, are recast. In the
C(M)PA discussion, reaching a new stage is a very mechanical process essentially
resulting from the accumulation of incremental advances in understanding. This
leaves out the central role of synthesis in reaching a higher level of understanding,
especially at key nodal points in the development of our revolutionary science. As
Bob Avakian has expressed it, communism is an integral philosophy and political
theory at the same time as it is a living, critical and continuously developing
“The C(M)PA constructs a Great Wall between rupture and continuity. First, to
note what should be obvious: rupture and continuity are a unity of opposites. It is
the dialectical inter-penetration that needs to be grasped. In the development of
Marxism it is necessary to stress that without rupture there can be no continuity.”
“If Marxism does not rupture with those aspects and elements that are wrong, onesided
and unscientific, Marxism cannot maintain its continuity with its scientific
kernel. If Marxism does not weed out its own previous wrong understandings as
they are discovered in the course of social practice and the advance of human
knowledge more generally, if it is not in this sense continually re-examining and
probing its premises, it ceases to be a science at all. This is what Avakian has been
doing in criticizing those secondary but nonetheless real and damaging elements in
the previous understanding and practice that has actually gone against the basic
scientific understanding of Marxism. And the result is not simply to add
corrections or amendments to the existing body of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: the
previously existing understanding itself is recast, a synthesis emerges.”
“The C(M)PA's mechanical description of quantitative advances in understanding
leading to qualitative leaps and its efforts to apply this to the development of
Marxism is very much linked to the erroneous viewpoint that the application of
Marxism in a specific country will automatically lead to the corresponding advance
in theoretical understanding.”
“Let us return to the C(M)PA's arguments about the quantitative and qualitative
additions to Marxism. In fact, qualitative breakthroughs are not only the result of
an accumulation of partial truths, although that is definitely involved. At certain
nodal points in the development of any science accumulated experience, further
debate, the influence of discoveries and controversies in other fields will require reexamination
of some of the postulates and previous understandings.”
“The process that the C(M)PA objects to so violently, of reaching and uniting
around a new higher understanding of Marxism, is not so puzzling. Indeed, in the
process to form RIM itself and in the subsequent adoption of the formulation of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism the problem of stage and leap in our understanding
was directly struggled out…”
“Today revolutionary communism has again reached a new stage in its
development through the elaboration of Bob Avakian's new synthesis. Like
previous advances in our science it involves both continuity and rupture and the
recasting of the ensemble. The new synthesis provides genuine continuity with
Mao by going beyond Mao, and identifying elements, albeit secondary, which are
actually in contradiction to the overwhelmingly scientific aspects of Mao's
teachings. As the Manifesto from the RCP,USA puts it, ''It is very important not to
underestimate the significance and positive force of this new synthesis: criticizing
and rupturing with significant errors and shortcomings while bringing forward and
recasting what has been positive from the historical experience of the international
communist movements and the socialist countries that have so far existed; in a real
sense reviving – on a new more advanced basis – the viability and, yes, the
desirability of a whole new and radically different world, and placing this on an
ever firmer foundation of materialism and dialectics... So we should not
underestimate the potential of this as a source of hope and of daring on a solid
scientific foundation.”
The above passages were quoted at length in order to illustrate that the RCP-USA is
hiding the post-MLM strategic direction of its new line within a correct MLM tactical
orientation. We believe this tactic is being intentionally employed and that is why it is
For example let us examine the following quotations from this RCP-USA document:
“In an overall sense, the principal aspect is continuity – that is, the upholding and
enriching of the propositions, theses, methods of analysis first developed by Marx
and later raised to successively higher levels by Lenin and Mao and today by
“Today revolutionary communism has again reached a new stage in its
development through the elaboration of Bob Avakian's new synthesis.”
“In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism as the
C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of Marxism.”
In these passages there is no mention of the end of the period of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism and the start of another period, as current RCP-USA documents generally imply;
rather, there is a contradictory attempt to demonstrate that “Avakian’s new synthesis” is a
new stage after Maoism that is principally the continuation of Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism and, in a minor sense, also a rupture from the stage of Maoism. If this claim,
repeated several times in the above passage, is compared with the claims presented in the
Manifesto and Constitution of the RCP-USA––as well as the statement of the central
committee of the CPI(MLM)––and if it becomes the fundamental claim of RCP-USA in
these ongoing debates, then while it would still be fundamentally wrong and deviationist,
it would seem as if this party, to certain extent, is descending from the ivory tower of
post-MLM revisionism and, perhaps in confronting a principled MLM line struggle,
might be made to descend further so as to eventually accept revolutionary science and,
through this, earthly reality and its concrete positionality. Unfortunately, in the passages
cited above, there was an emphasis on three other formulations that, once again,
demonstrate the post-MLM strategic direction of the new synthesis. We will examine
these three formulations in further detail in the following section.
2: three erroneous formulations of the RCP-USA's post-MLM
.2.1. “A totally new and fundamentally different world” that has been emphasized in the
Manifesto of the RCP-USA.
But “[a] totally different world” means a world that is different in both base and
superstructure––a totally new world even from the time of Mao, and also from the
worlds understood by Lenin and Marx. So, if “a fundamentally different world”
means a world fundamentally different in its material base from the world of the
time of Mao, Lenin and Marx, then is such claim correct? Naturally a party that
has asserted such a claim in its Manifesto, and has continuously defended this
position, would strongly believe its claims. In this case, according to this party, the
current world, though it is still an oppressive and exploitative world, is also
somehow a world that has moved beyond imperialist capitalism or has moved
beyond capitalism as whole. And in such an imaginary world Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism cannot be of any utility and should be considered obsolete.
In fact, such an imaginary understanding of the current world is the objective (and
erroneous) basis of Avakianite post-MLM revisionism. A detailed discussion about this
revisionist and incorrect understanding of the current world is not possible in the current
exchange; hopefully we will be able to have a detailed discussion about this problematic
understanding––as well as its politico-ideological developments and consequences on the
line, program, tactics and strategies of the RCP-USA in relation to the American
revolutionary movement and its international responsibility.
To be brief: the current world, despite the many transformations experienced since Mao
Zedong, is still a world under the domination of capitalist imperialism––and in this
context the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist system is the contradiction
between social production and private appropriation, and the contradiction between
imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples, the contradiction between proletariat
and the bourgeoisie, and the contradiction between different imperialist powers, are still
the major contradictions of the world or the expressions of the fundamental contradiction
of the world, even though the contradiction between socialism and imperialism has
temporarily disappeared.
Moreover, we should note the following problems: the weakening of the theory of
proletarian dictatorship and the weakening of the theory of the continuation of the
revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat; disregarding the strategy of general
armed insurrection and replacing it with a strategy of frontism; the lack of emphasis on
revolutionary armed forces as one of the three weapons of revolutions; crude humanist
theorizing, the lack of emphasis on the role of the working-class, and the lack of
emphasis on proletarian internationalism by the RCP-USA is either the total or partial
reflection of this incorrect and revisionist understanding of the world.
2.2. “if [Marxism] is not in this sense continually re-examining and probing its
premises, it ceases to be a science at all.”
Let us evaluate this formulation of the RCP-USA in the light of the two preceding
sentences: “[i]f Marxism does not rupture with those aspects and elements that are wrong,
one-sided and unscientific, Marxism cannot maintain its continuity with its scientific
kernel. If Marxism does not weed out its own previous wrong understandings as they are
discovered in the course of social practice and the advance of human knowledge more
generally, if it is not in this sense continually re-examining and probing its premises, it
ceases to be a science at all.”
Here we can observe the assertion that “elements that are wrong, one-sided and
unscientific” should be discarded; this assertion is immediately employed to “continually
re-examin[e] and prob[e] [Marxism's] premises.” But rupturing from "elements that are
wrong, one-sided and unscientific", and weeding out the previous wrong understandings
of Marxism (that is, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) first of all requires emphasizing the
foundation of a correct, comprehensive and scientific kernel. Without this axiomatic
understanding, Marxism cannot save its scientific kernel. In other words, a firm emphasis
on the scientific kernel simultaneously means a firm emphasis on the continuation of this
Clearly, both continuity and rupture are part of the process of the evolution of every
science, because this process of evolution––of every phenomenon in the natural realm,
society and human thought––is informed by the unity of opposites. Hence, a one-sided
emphasis on rupture at the expense of continuity is incorrect, just as the inverse emphasis
on continuity at the expense of rupture would also be one-sided and incorrect. Therefore,
a Marxism that proceeds according to the correctness of its fundamental foundations and
is capable of creatively applying its universal aspects in the three arenas of social practice
(class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiments) can and should
develop. In this context, there are indeed the two related tasks of continuity and rupture––
not simply the task of continuously re-examining the fundamental foundations, and not
simply the task of continuously weeding out wrongs. If we imagine, however, that the
process of development of Marxism is completed, there would naturally not be a
discussion about the continuation of Marxism; rather, the discussion would concern post-
MLM. This is precisely the point of the RCP-USA's position: that it imagines the process
of Marxism to-date completed and that it is "rebooting" Marxism because all it can see is
"rupture" and, despite speaking of "continuity-rupture", is not really interested in one side
of this dialectical understanding.
2.3. “recasting all elements including previous positive elements.”
The above sentence has been emphasized several times in the RCP-USA document.
Moreover, the document also claims that “previous progress in our science” has also
included this “recasting [of] all elements.” Phraseology such as “recasting all elements,
including previous positive elements” and “these syntheses similar to previous advances
in our science, also includes continuity and rupture and recasting it entirely”––which
ultimately means “recasting all elements including continuity and rupture”––are different
features of post-MLM formulations.
There is no doubt that every rupture and advance––either partially or especially
important––in the process of the evolution of the science and ideology of proletarian
revolution produces the necessity of recasting our theory. However, this recasting can and
should be to the extent that the ideological content of the rupture or advance is
appropriate to the particular concrete circumstances; otherwise there will emerge
contradictions between the ideological content of the rupture and its theoretical
The RCP-USA and the central committee of the CPI(MLM) claim that Avakian’s new
synthesis is the realization of a series of ruptures and advances from the secondary and
subordinate unscientific elements in the theoretical corpus of MLM. Thus, due to this
realization, Avakian is said to have further developed Marxism. The corollary of this
claim should be that Avakian’s new synthesis is not a total rupture from Marxism, or
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but in fact is this theory's further development––that is, only
a partial rupture. However, based on this new synthesis, they are actually claiming that
they are recasting the entire theoretical body of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Such a
claim can only mean a total rupture from the theoretical body of MLM, rather than a
partial rupture, and thus not at all the dialectical relationship of continuity-rupture they
Contrary to what the RCP-USA claims, “previous advances in our science” (such as
Leninism and Maoism) did not mean the total recasting of the continuities and ruptures in
this science's development and, since Marx, has never experienced such a total recasting.
There is no doubt that Leninism was a rupture from Marxism, a rupture from its
secondary or subordinate mistakes and inadequacies (including, in specific cases,
ruptures from elements that, until Leninism, were understood as basic and fundamental),
but at the same time Leninism is also the continuation of Marxism. Therefore, in the
stage of Leninism, the ideology and science of proletarian revolution was not entirely
recast; it was only recast to the extent required by the ideological content of this
development. In this partial recasting, Marxism was not entirely erased and replaced by
Leninism; rather, the principal feature of Marxism was summed up in the term Marxism-
Leninism. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Maoism, while expressing partial ruptures
(a rupture from its secondary and subordinate mistakes, inadequacies, and unscientific
aspects, as well as a rupture from some of its accepted fundamentals elements) mainly
upholds the continuation of Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, it was in the Maoist phase
that the science and ideology of proletarian revolution was recast only to the extent that
the ideological content of the development of Maoism required within its particular,
concrete circumstances. Again, in this partial recasting, Marxism-Leninism was not
eliminated in order to be replaced by Maoism; rather, the principal aspect of the
continuation of Marxism-Leninism is summed up, and short-handed, in the phrase
3: the erasure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Contrary to the previous Leninist and Maoist ruptures and advances, however, the RCPUSA
has removed the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from its Manifesto and
Constitution. It should be repeated that our complaint is not about literary form––that is,
it is not about the use of words––but that this literary form precisely reflects the deviation
of its politico-ideological content.
The erasure of the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from the Manifesto and
Constitution of the RCP-USA, by the orders of Bob Avakian, has occurred without a
debate and discussion, and without any significant opposition from within the party. This
reflects the fact that within all of the RCP-USA's organizational ranks, after the
implementation of the so-called inner party cultural revolution, there was a willingness to
accept this openly revisionist action.
As we noted earlier, those who either quit or were purged from this party, including
bloggers such as Mike Ely and company, are in a similar or even worse situation than the
Avakianite revisionists. For example, Ely expressly supports the erasure of Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism from the RCP-USA’s documents and has called the C(M)PA's
criticism of this problem "dogmatic". Since Ely's condemnation of “Avakian’s new
synthesis” is primarily because of its cult of personality, he entirely rejects the C(M)PA’s
criticism of the political line of the RCP-USA’s new Manifesto and Constitution, content
to mock it for coming from a “sterile place” like Afghanistan. Thus, while expressing
happiness at this criticism of the RCP-USA, he does not forget to openly express his
American supremacism without bothering to hide it in a web of words.
The central committee of the CPI(MLM), some time before publishing its post-MLM
statement and during an internal discussion with the RCP-USA, had discussed the issue
of removing the phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from the RCP-USA's new Manifesto
and Constitution, and had even questioned the contradiction between this literary form
and the ideological/political content of the “new synthesis”. From that time, until the
publication of the statement “A Call to All Iranian Communists”, we thought that there
were still disagreements between the two parties. After all, since the RCP-USA's
justification for the removal of MLM was not only baseless but ridiculous, it was natural
for us to think that there might have been disagreements between this party and the
One RCP-USA rationale was: “Avakian asked us to remove it and we obliged.”
Another reason was that: “the name would get very long.” Apparently, the phrase
“Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakian’s new synthesis” was too long and cumbersome,
thus they kept “Avakian’s new synthesis” and removed the rest!
The third rationale was that: “adding different names, such as Leninism and Maoism,
have given the impression of quantitative additions, if we add new synthesis today and
another name tomorrow, that impression would be further reinforced.”
Finally, there was also this ridiculous rationale: “we have removed this phrase, but we
would not present this as a precondition for others.”*
There is no need to discuss this baseless and ridiculous reasoning. When we read the
statement “A Call to all Iranian Communists” we observed the removal of MLM in that
statement as well. We also noticed that between this removal and the post-MLM strategic
direction accepted by both the American and Iranian parties there is no contradiction;
rather, there exists an overall conformity, despite any contradiction between it and the
tactical orientations of the statements. We believe that when the CPI(MLM) notices this
strategic consistency between the two statements, they will have no reason to be in
disagreement with the RCP-USA about the removal of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
The May 1st Letter of the RCP-USA, unlike its Manifesto and Constitution, in some cases
does refer to Marxism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. But all references to MLM in this
document lack any serious emphasis so as to not disobey Avakian in this regard and thus
keep its post-MLM strategic direction intact.
4: a brief summation
At the end of this part of discussion, we would like to provide a brief summary of the
assertions the RCP-USA makes about the C(M)PA in the aforementioned document.
4.1. The document describes our position as “dogmatic" and "left in form.”
The RCP-USA in its Manifesto considers all of the member parties and organizations of
RIM "revisionist" or "dogmatic", without a discussion of each specific case, if they do
not agree with the “new synthesis”. Now the RCP-USA, in its May 1st letter, has
identified one of the “dogmatic” or more dogmatic parties––the Communist (Maoist)
Party of Afghanistan. In fact, according to the RCP-USA, the criteria for our
"dogmatism" is not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the positive accomplishments of
RIM, but our failure to adhere to post-MLM and “Avakian’s new synthesis”––which was,
in fact, the main deviationist line that emerged within RIM resulting in its collapse.
Indeed, the entire document that the RCP-USA chooses to address––CPI(MLM) also fell
in the lost road of post-MLM––clearly indicates that our party is neither dogmatic nor
4.2. The document claims that our critique of Avakianite post-MLM theory is
contaminated by “venomous and gratuitous attacks” that the C(M)PA has launched
against the RCP-USA and “especially against comrades from the CPI(MLM).”
It would have been helpful if our “venomous and gratuitous attacks” against the RCPUSA
and the CPI(MLM) were indicated clearly rather than simply mentioned in broad
general terms. Definitely our critique, as well as the critique of any other MLM party
against post-MLM ideology, cannot be—and indeed should not be––a comradely mild
and calm discussion; it needs to be sharp and decisive.
4.3. The document states: “The C(M)PA's main point is to argue that it is wrong to
recognize that a stage of the communist movement has ended and it is necessary to usher
in a new one, and similarly it is wrong to believe that the understanding of communists
must also reach a new level.”
Here, once again, the strategic direction of the post-MLM line of the RCP-USA is
demonstrably clear. Announcing the end of one stage of the communist movement
without the start of a new stage is to announce the end of the continuation of that stage.
This also includes the end of this stage from a theoretical point of view.
However, it is not the position of the RCP-USA in its new Manifesto and Constitution
that the phase of Maoism––more precisely Marxism-Leninism-Maoism––which follows
the phase of Marxism-Leninism has ended and we have to move towards a successive
stage. Rather, this party considers all three phases of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to be a single phase that is completed. The Manifesto and
Constitution of the RCP-USA claims that “Avakian’s new Synthesis” is the theoretical
foundation for the beginning of a new stage. The publication of another Manifesto after
the Manifesto written by Marx and Engels is this party's practical step towards pursuing
this claim.
Not only do we believe that it is incorrect to accept that one stage of the communist
movement has ended, we also believe that it is incorrect to claim that there is a need for a
total qualitative rupture from the history of the communist movement in order to begin a
new stage of struggle. Nor do we accept that we have reached a fourth phase in the
evolution of the science of proletarian revolution. We also reject the notion that the
acceptance of this “thought” or “path” or “synthesis” somehow indicate the development
of a fourth revolutionary phase. We only accept the qualitatively real, though often
partial, steps that the RIM––either as a whole or on the part of certain members––has
made in marking the path of development towards a fourth phase; we do not accept frail
and unfounded grandiosity, or hegemonic and deviationist tendencies.
We are not opposed to an understanding of communism that claims the science of
proletarian revolution should evolve into a higher stage––should reach a fourth
revolutionary stage. But in order to reach a fourth phase of political and ideological
development, we believe that any advancement towards such a stage must correspond
with, and can only be achieved by, the course of revolutionary struggle. As it was stated
in our document regarding the CPI(MLM)'s statement, we (that is, the entire MLM
international movement) have achieved real and partial steps on the path of ideological
and scientific development. We believe that this unfounded and frail grandiosity of the
RCP-USA, this deviationist and hegemonic tendency, demonstrates ingratitude to the
struggles and sacrifices that have made it possible for us to take real steps towards
concrete ideological and political transformation.
4.4 The RCP-USA document claims: “[T]here is something important to be considered
underneath the C(M)PA's denunciation [mislabeling Bob Avakian’s new synthesis]: a
wrong understanding of the process through which Marxism (or any science for that
matter) develops from a lower to a higher stage. In reality, Avakian's new synthesis is not
a departure from Marxism as the C(M)PA suggests but rather a further development of
Marxism. But the C(M)PA understands this whole process wrongly.”
As we discussed in a previous section, we have not simply “mislabeled the ‘new
synthesis’ as Avakianism” but, actually, have examined its much more profound and
deeper deviationist essence as post-MLM. However, since it is being claimed here that
“Avakian's new synthesis is not a departure from Marxism as the C(M)PA suggests but
rather a further development of Marxism” there are a few points worth considering.
First of all, it should be asked which rupture/departure is being denied here––an
“Avakianist” rupture or a “post-MLM” rupture? The RCP-USA's document fails to
directly address this matter, specifically when it totally overlooks the discussion
regarding post-MLM; this indicates that the RCP-USA cannot—and does not want to—
have a clear and honest discussion about this issue. Indeed, the RCP-USA's May 1st
document, in its very arguments against our claim that "Avakian's new synthesis" is post-
MLM, calls this "new synthesis" a further development of Marxism, a complete rupture
from Marxism's history to date. It is interesting that we are being accused of an incorrect
understanding of the entire process by which Marxism (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism)
4.5. The RCP-USA claims that the C(M)PA rejects the fact that “Marxism has gone
through leaps in the course of its developments and these leaps also involve rupture with
what were previously understood truths.”
This is an attempt to confuse the critique: rather than a discussion about post-MLM there
is instead a discussion about the development of Marxism.
Here we should restate that partial advances and partial ruptures in all natural, social and
ideological phenomenon results into partial developments. While the final leap and final
rupture results into the ending of the existing phenomenon and sprouting of another
phenomenon. Our discussion in the document CPI(MLM) has also fallen in the lost
road… is about post-MLM, that has supposedly materialized after the completion of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as Avakian’s new synthesis to illuminate and enlighten the
4.6. The RCP-USA states that: “In the C(M)PA discussion, reaching a new stage is a
very mechanical process essentially resulting from the accumulation of incremental
advances in understanding. This leaves out the central role of synthesis in reaching a
higher level of understanding, especially at key nodal points in the development of our
revolutionary science.”
Here again is a mixing up of our discussion regarding post-MLM and “the partial
development of our revolutionary science” which we don’t need to repeat in detail. In
short, and in regards to the accumulation of incremental advances in understanding, we
can say that we believe these advances will result in partial or total advances and
ruptures, resulting in a partial or total new quality––not spontaneously but as a result of
the final partial or total struggle between contradictions at war with each other, where
after the victory of one side, a new partial or total quality will emerge. The evolution and
development of revolutionary science is not an exception to this rule.
4.7. The document claims that: “The C(M)PA constructs a Great Wall between rupture
and continuity. First, to note what should be obvious: rupture and continuity are a unity
of opposites. It is the dialectical inter-penetration that needs to be grasped. In the
development of Marxism it is necessary to stress that without rupture there can be no
This allegation, however, is clearly unfounded and baseless. It needs to be noted that,
with the completion of the final rupture, the continuation and existence of the previous
phenomenon is out of the question; rather, a new phenomenon comes into existence. It is
therefore, when there is discussion of the emergence of a new phenomenon that we
cannot talk about the continuation of the previous phenomenon from which this new
phenomenon emerges. Thus, in the context of post-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist formulations
we cannot talk about the continuation of MLM.
4.8. The document claims that the C(M)PA tries to apply its “mechanical description of
quantitative advances in understanding leading to qualitative leaps…to the development
of Marxism.”
Again there is confusion in this discussion between the development of MLM and the
discussion of post-MLM. Quantitative advances in understanding cannot exist without
qualitative partial advances. These partial advances facilitate the emergence of final
qualitative advances that push the contradiction towards antagonism. But the fruition of
any qualitative advance requires the emergence of an antagonistic struggle between
contradictions and the conclusion of struggle––and such an advance cannot emerge
4.9. The document contends: “In fact, qualitative breakthroughs are not only the result of
an accumulation of partial truths, although that is definitely involved. At certain nodal
points in the development of any science accumulated experience, further debate, the
influence of discoveries and controversies in other fields will require re-examination of
some of the postulates and previous understandings.”
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the mixing up of the discussion between
post-MLM and the development of Marxism. We re-emphasize that the accumulation of
partial truths prepares the condition for final rupture, which means pushing the
contradiction towards antagonism; we repeat, the existing qualitative rupture requires the
antagonistic struggle between contradictions and the conclusion of this struggle and thus
cannot emerge spontaneously.
4.10. The document complains that: “The process that the C(M)PA objects to so
violently, of reaching and uniting around a new higher understanding of Marxism, is not
so puzzling.”
This allegation is extremely unfounded and unjustified. We are not criticizing the process
of reaching a higher understanding of Marxism; rather, we are seriously criticizing the
futile claims of reaching a higher understanding of MLM (i.e. in Peru and Nepal) and the
even worse claim of a higher understanding beyond MLM (i.e. the Avakianite post-MLM
Moreover, the issue of unity between communists of the world––at the national and
international level, meaning the formation of new parties and the strengthening of
existing parties, and the formation of a new international communist organization––is not
only emerging from the necessity of reaching a higher understanding of Marxism (MLM)
but from the necessity of a wide range of other political and theoretical struggles, which
includes the aforementioned necessity, and so the requirement for a higher understanding
of Marxism is not the principal necessity in the current conjuncture.
We believe that the primary requirement for reaching a new unity on an international
level is to properly address the real necessities of struggle internationally and within
various and particular countries. The process of reaching a general summation of the
struggles of revolutionary communists (Marxist-Leninists-Maoists), including a
summation of the positive and negative experiences, over the past three and half decades,
of the RIM can and should provide the theoretical framework for this requirement.
In the closing sentences of the present discussion, it is necessary to mention that the RCPUSA
in its May 1st document, particularly in the section directed against the C(M)PA is
again and again referring to only the phrase “Marxism” and not "Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism" or even "Marxism-Leninism". If this party has really become purely "Marxist",
then they should add the phrase “Marxist” at the end of their name and call themselves
the RCP-USA (Marxist)! But this is not the case for the phrase “Marxism”, according to
the RCP-USA, actually means that "Marxism-Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism" belong to the past and should be replaced with Avakianite post-MLM.
To be continued.