COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE FIFTH CONFERENCE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF MARXIST-LENINIST PARTIES AND ORGANISATIONS
Comments on the Resolutions Adopted by the Fifth Conference of the
International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
were written by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM)
Committee and distributed privately to participants in that Conference
in the summer of 1998. The Resolutions are reprinted after this
It is with considerable interest that the Committee of the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement and the participating parties and organisations
of our Movement have received the Resolutions of the Fifth Conference
of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist (ICML) Parties
and Organisations. Our Movement, which is based on Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism, is always attentive to initiatives aimed at contributing
to forging further unity among the genuine communist forces world-wide.
Furthermore, we note that on a number of crucial ideological and
political questions there is a convergence between the positions
expressed in your Resolutions and our positions of the Declaration
of RIM in 1984 and Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!,
a document issued by RIM in 1993 on the occasion of the Mao centenary.
We note that among the parties and organisations taking part in
your Conference are several with whom our Movement has maintained
close fraternal relations. Finally, we noted and appreciated the
support expressed in your Resolutions for "the freedom and
the democratic rights of thousands upon thousands of revolutionary
fighters and leaders such as Abimael Guzman and Jose Maria Sison."
We believe it is the obligation of all communist forces to examine
and express their views on any serious international document concerning
the process of unifying the genuine communist forces. For all these
reasons we have decided to formulate an evaluation of your Resolutions
and to circulate these comments to the parties and organisations
that signed them, as well as to the participants in RIM (along with
the Resolutions themselves, of course). These comments are limited
in scope to the Resolutions and do not represent an overall evaluation
of the ICML initiative to regroup the international communist movement.
Nonetheless we do believe that these comments will contribute to
the process of discussion and debate in the communist movement,
which is necessary for the further advance of the unification of
the genuine communist forces.
We consider the Resolutions of the Fifth Conference as an overall
positive advance, despite what we see as certain shortcomings and
weaknesses. The Resolutions take the important stand of upholding
the need for proletarian revolution, recognising the developments
made by Mao Tsetung to the scientific ideology of the proletariat,
criticising the most important forms of revisionism and calling
for unity of the genuine communist forces.
The Resolutions stress that "the accelerated contradiction"
between the productive forces and the relations of production leads
to crisis of the world imperialist system and the intensification
of the contradictions between the imperialist powers and the oppressed
nations, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and amongst
the imperialist powers themselves. We share both the optimism expressed
in the Resolutions for the possibility of making revolutionary advances
and the important observation that "however, there is neither
automatic collapse of imperialism nor an unhindered and limitless
World imperialism and all reaction can be defeated, but only through
the tenacious and revolutionary struggle of the masses, led by genuine
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties. This means preparing and leading
the violent overthrow of the existing state and establishing the
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and allied classes.
In the countries oppressed by imperialism, the new-democratic revolution
is required and in these countries the conditions for revolutionary
warfare are ripening. This orientation is, in the main, reflected
in the Resolutions of the Fifth Conference and provides important
common ground for striving to overcome the remaining differences.
At the same time, in many instances the Resolutions fall short of
drawing a sharp line of distinction between Marxism and revisionism
and thus leave the door open to conciliation with erroneous tendencies.
Sometimes a sharply worded and correct point is undercut by deliberately
vague wording on the same subject elsewhere in the documents. For
example, the Resolutions discuss different types of struggles going
on in the world today, but it is often not clearly indicated that
only the revolutionary armed struggle led by the proletariat and
its vanguard party can lead to genuine liberation. Similarly the
importance of uniting the genuine communist forces and the task
of uniting all who can be united in the struggle against imperialism
are both mentioned. However, it is not always made clear that the
former task, of uniting the genuine Marxist-Leninist- Maoist forces,
is the necessary condition and driving element for accomplishing
the latter task of uniting the people's struggles. In a general
sense, the Resolutions sometimes suffer from not clearly distinguishing
the main point from the secondary points, not firmly enough grasping
the key link to advance the whole revolutionary movement.
Below we will comment in more detail on some of the most important
points of the Resolutions, which we hope will further clarify both
our overall evaluation, as well as our criticisms of what we see
as their shortcomings and weaknesses.
COMMENTS ON "THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE WORLD AS BASIC CIRCUMSTANCES FOR REVOLUTIONARY WORK"
This Resolution makes a number of correct and important evaluations.
It emphasises that the present world situation is favourable for
the advance of proletarian revolution. This analysis is particularly
important in the context of the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the East Bloc and the efforts by the imperialists and reformists
to portray these developments as a defeat for communism and a source
of new strength for the world imperialist system. As noted above,
RIM also shares the analysis that the main contradictions in the
world are sharpening, that the conditions of the masses are worsening
and that possibilities for revolution are improving.
Furthermore, the Resolution correctly stresses that "the development
of the world capitalist system has become more uneven than ever
before." This is particularly important given the tendency
by some forces within the international communist movement to claim
that the current trends toward "globalisation" are in
fact diminishing or even eliminating the qualitative distinction
between the imperialist countries and the countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America that are oppressed and exploited by these imperialist
When analysing the developments in the contemporary world situation
it is important to base our understanding on Lenin's analysis of
the imperialist era. Lenin gave great stress to the division of
the world into two types of countries as a feature of our era having
profound implications for the strategy and tactics of revolution
in both types of countries.
COMMENTS ON "THE SITUATION IN THE IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES"
In this section the Resolution suffers from making no mention
of the division of the working class into two hostile camps, the
proletariat and the labour aristocracy. As we know, Lenin considered
this development one of the important changes that had taken place
during the era of imperialism. It is true that the deepening crisis
of imperialism can undermine the ability of the ruling class to
bribe or pacify sections of the working class, but history has also
shown that crisis alone will not eliminate this deep division in
the working class nor eliminate the effect that several decades
of relative social peace has had on the struggle, consciousness
and organisation of the proletariat in the imperialist countries.
The "split in the working class" helps identify those
sections of the working class that can and must be the solid bedrock
upon which any revolutionary effort for power must be based.
The Resolution is correct in stating that, "in many countries,
the monopoly capitalists' state is increasingly losing its ability
to blunt class contradictions and has itself become the target of
growing mass discontent manifested in latent and open political
crises and in an upswing of mass struggles and protests." But
the picture of the political situation, the class forces and the
tasks of revolutionaries in these countries is incomplete and even,
to an extent, misleading.
It is true that an important strike movement took place in France
in 1995. However, by singling out this movement alone for mention
in this Resolution, there is a tendency to imply that this movement,
or movements like it, are the most important manifestation of the
class struggle in the advanced capitalist countries. For example,
the 1992 violent rebellion in Los Angeles is also an expression,
and a very important one at that, of the class struggle in this
type of country. It is important to take adequate note of important
outbreaks of struggle, as in Los Angeles, or the danger will exist
of not recognising the revolutionary potential of the proletariat
in the imperialist countries.
You conclude this section of the Resolution by saying that "this
situation demands from Marxist-Leninists painstaking revolutionary
work and support for the self-organising efforts of the masses."
Our understanding is that Communists, in all countries, should persevere
in holding high the banner of proletarian revolution. In describing
the tasks of the Communists in the imperialist countries it is best
to clearly state that they should not concentrate their attention
on parliamentary politics or trade unionism.
Communists in the imperialist countries must prepare for, and lead,
revolutionary struggle. Like all Communists, they must be prepared
to "go against the tide" and represent the long-term and
international interests of the proletariat and not attempt to lower
themselves to the level of the "average worker" nor still
less the "average labour aristocrat". The current international
situation is sure to create greater jolts, dislocations and hardships.
The polarisation within the imperialist countries, and within the
working class itself between its revolutionary and its reformist
and revisionist poles, will continue to operate. By following Lenin's
instructions to go "lower and deeper" amongst the proletariat,
whilst resolutely supporting every struggle against the imperialist
ruling classes and giving direction to all progressive sections
of the people, the communists in the West will prepare to fulfil
their historic obligations.
RIM also believes it is necessary to fully master and apply Mao's
developments to revolutionary work in the imperialist countries,
as well as in the oppressed countries. Mao's theory of people's
war is applicable to waging revolutionary warfare in both kinds
of countries, even if it is true that the course of revolution will
follow two generally distinct paths in the imperialist and the oppressed
COMMENTS ON "THE SITUATION IN THE NEO-COLONIES AND DEPENDENT
COUNTRIES IN ASIA, AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA"
The Resolution holds that, "In the current period, the struggle
between armed revolution and armed counter-revolution is focused
on the countries of the oppressed nations and peoples." This
is correct and corresponds to our understanding that in the period
since World War II the "storm centres" of the world proletarian
revolution have been in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Any discussion of the tasks of communists in these countries must
take Mao's teachings as its starting point. New-democratic revolution,
the path of protracted people's war and the need for the proletarian
party to unite and lead a broad united front of the masses, based
on the worker-peasant alliance, are universal truths of Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism that need to be creatively applied to each of the
However, there is a consistent problem in this section of the Resolution
and elsewhere in not distinguishing the armed revolutionary struggle
led by the proletariat and the armed struggles led by other class
forces. It is necessary and correct to note that throughout this
vast region various armed struggles against imperialism and reaction
have been going on. These struggles, even when they are led by non-proletarian
forces, often play an important role in dealing blows to the imperialists
and reactionary ruling classes, and act as a barometer of the mood
of the masses and in awakening their revolutionary enthusiasm.
However, we cannot fail to note that the hopes and aspirations of
the masses in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have
been repeatedly betrayed and perverted by non-proletarian revolutionary
forces, who have proven incapable of carrying the struggle against
the imperialists and reactionaries through to the end and have always
ended up either capitulating to these enemies or being crushed by
them. Given this history, it is better to be clear on the nature
of revolutionary work and revolutionary organisation that is required
in these countries. If there is to be a revolution, there must be
a revolutionary party guided by Marxism- Leninism-Maoism.
In the discussion of the situation in Latin America, the Resolution
speaks of a "new upswing in the people's struggle". But
it is misleading to speak of the "armed struggle being launched
in Chiapas and Guerrero (Mexico), persisting in Peru and developing
in Colombia". This formulation blurs over the class nature
of these "armed struggles". The struggle led by the EZLN
(Zapatistas) in Chiapas, for example, is most definitely a just
struggle and, in this sense, should be supported. But it is not
an armed struggle for people's political power. Both the proclamations
and the acts of the EZLN leadership show clearly that its armed
activities have been seen as a pressure tactic to force the government
and the imperialists to negotiate a "solution" that will
leave intact Mexico's fundamental subordination to imperialism and
the rule of the reactionary classes in that country.
It is not our intention to fail to recognise the importance of struggles
like that in Chiapas. But it is very important not to blur the distinction
between such struggles, however just, and a genuine people's war
led by a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard proletarian party, such
as in Peru.
In speaking of South Asia, the Resolution says that "militant
mass movements and/or armed struggles in varying degrees are on
the rise in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal."
Unfortunately this formulation has the effect of muddying the waters
and making it harder for people to see who should be supported and
who should be opposed, what line should be followed and what line
should be rejected. It is necessary to draw sharp distinctions between
the different struggles, whether they be armed or unarmed, and the
different class forces that lead them. In Nepal, we must clearly
and forthrightly uphold the People's War initiated by the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) in February 1996 as the highest expression
of the people's struggle and the only path to liberation.
In India, for example, there is the revolutionary armed struggle
being waged by Maoist organisations and there are also revolutionary
struggles being waged by bourgeois and petit-bourgeois nationalist
forces and even some counter-revolutionary armed struggles as well
led by religious forces and so on. Here also, which struggles to
support whole-heartedly, which struggles to support critically and
which to oppose are important questions of line.
When discussing South-east Asia, the Resolution clearly states that
"in the Philippines, protracted people's war is being waged
under the leadership of a proletarian revolutionary party".
It is correct that the proletarian nature of this struggle not be
confused with that of other classes and strata, who may be carrying
out armed struggle or "militant mass movements" in the
Philippines. But the very sharpness of the Resolution's correct
description of the situation in the Philippines underscores and
highlights the inadequate and deliberately vague descriptions concerning
South Asia and Latin America.
COMMENTS ON "THE SITUATION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND
IN EASTERN EUROPE"
The Resolution correctly emphasises the need in the countries
of the former East Bloc for a proletarian revolutionary party and
that such a party must be able "to make a thorough and fundamental
criticism of modern revisionism and capitalist restoration".
This is a correct and important point. We feel it is important to
point out that the analysis and criticism of capitalist restoration
is only possible if we base ourselves on Mao Tsetung's teachings
concerning the contradictory nature of socialist society, the class
struggle under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat
and so on. The reason why the different attempts have failed, up
to now, to build proletarian vanguards in the countries of the former
East Bloc is due essentially to this point.
In the ex-Soviet Union, to take the outstanding example, it will
not be possible to simply criticise the modern revisionists and
uphold the accomplishments of socialism under the leadership of
Lenin and Stalin. If we hope to win the masses of the former East
Bloc to a revolutionary position, we need Mao's revolutionary critique,
which revealed the basic nature and capitalist essence of revisionist
society. A line that tries to pose as the inheritors or defenders
of the "good aspects" of a rotten revisionist regime will
never arouse enthusiasm for revolution.
COMMENTS ON "ON TASKS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE MARXIST-LENINISTS
AND WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT"
This Resolution addresses a number of the tasks of the communists
on a world scale. Importance is given to the task of fighting for
the unity of the communists and promoting proletarian internationalism.
However, there is a tendency not to indicate clearly and correctly
the relationship between the different tasks that are referred to.
The Resolution states that the "first principal task"
of proletarian internationalism is "solidarity with all the
struggles of the working class throughout the world". The Resolution
then goes on to call for the world proletariat to take militant
action against mass unemployment, deteriorating terms of employment
and in defence of workers' rights. The Resolution thus blurs over
the distinction between the conscious revolutionary struggle of
the proletariat to establish socialism and advance towards communism
and the various struggles that the workers all over the world do
and must wage against the conditions of exploitation. It blurs over
the distinction between the consciousness and tasks of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
revolutionaries and the task of simple international solidarity.
There is no doubt a role, and at times a very important one, for
the kind of struggles called for in this part of the Resolution.
But such building of concerted actions and solidarity can at no
time be put on an equal par, and still less raised above, Lenin's
well-known definition of internationalism: "There is one, and
only one, kind of real internationalism, and this is -working whole-heartedly
for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary
struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda,
sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only
this, line, in every country without exception." (Lenin,
"The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution", CW,
Vol. 24, p. 75.)
We strongly believe that the above quotation from Lenin summarises
well the correct understanding of proletarian internationalism.
The heart of this internationalism is, as the RIM Declaration
puts it, that the proletariat is a single class with the common
historic task of wiping out imperialism and ushering in the era
of communism. This understanding is also forcefully reflected in
point 4 of your Resolution. From this truth flows a series of implications
concerning the kind of internationalist propaganda, revolutionary
tactics and international organisation that needs to be at the heart
of our efforts.
Point 2 of Resolution 3 calls for the unity of the communist forces.
So it is particularly important to be clear for whom such a call
is intended and to avoid dangerously vague formulations such as
"parties which have a positive attitude toward Mao", which
does not provide a basis to do what the Resolution calls for, namely
"to confront and defeat revisionism". It is necessary
to solidify the international communist movement on the basis of
our science, as it has developed through stages to its current and
highest level: Marxism- Leninism-Maoism Of course, it is always
necessary for the genuine Maoist forces to extend a hand of unity
to other revolutionaries, who may be unclear on important aspects
of our ideology, and help these forces advance. Through a process
of interaction some such forces, especially newer ones who have
not yet grasped Mao's all-round development, can be helped to do
so and can be demarcated from those die-hard opportunists, who,
today and in the past, have paid Mao mere lip service, whilst refusing
to recognise, and even attacking, his qualitative development of
the science of Marxism-Leninism. Some of today's neo-revisionists
profess a "positive attitude toward Mao", even while they
concentrate their efforts on attacking Mao's leadership of the struggle
against modern revisionism, brand him as "sectarian" and
The Resolution calls for giving all-out support to the armed struggles
of the oppressed peoples "in the Philippines, Cambodia, India,
Kurdistan, Mexico, Peru and others". Here again the Resolution
suffers from putting struggles led by proletarian vanguard parties
in Peru and in the Philippines on the same plane as struggles led
by non-proletarian forces in Mexico, Colombia and other places.
Whilst it is correct to support all struggles that are directed
against imperialism and reaction, we cannot forget what Lenin said,
cited above, about the need to support "this line and no other".
In other words, while we do support, and must support, all struggles
against imperialism, our first and most important duty is to support
the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist- Maoist forces in every
country "without exception". It is an important task of
the international communist movement to reinforce the position of
the communists all over the world, to help them strengthen their
vanguard organisation or build it where it does not yet exist.
The resolution speaks of the necessity to "promote and help
the resistance of the peoples and nations of the third world against
economic plunder, and oppose imperialist intervention be it under
the UN banner or not as in the cases of Cuba, North Korea, Iraq,
Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti and others".
The world proletariat must oppose imperialist crimes everywhere
in the world. But how well the peoples and nations can resist imperialist
plunder and intervention is directly linked to the problem of proletarian
leadership, of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard.
In Cuba or Iraq, for example, the leadership of these states has
been unable to mount a consistent and consequential resistance to
imperialist aggression. During the 1991 Gulf War the inability of
the Sadaam Hussein regime to put up any effective resistance to
the US-led war machine was a source of great frustration and disappointment
for revolutionary masses the world over. Similarly, for decades
the Cuban leadership subordinated itself to Soviet social-imperialism.
Now that the East Bloc has collapsed the Cuban leadership has been
vigorously seeking accommodation with the Western imperialists as
well. The Pope's visit to Cuba was but the most recent and telling
example of this. Our main support must go to the proletariat and
the masses in these countries and we cannot sow illusions as to
the anti-imperialist character of the ruling classes of these states.
This point is all the more important with regard to those countries
ruled by revisionists that posture not only as anti-imperialists
but even as "communists". The Resolution can give a wrong
implication when it argues that forging the unity of the genuine
communists and opposing revisionism must not "negate the unity
of all anti-imperialist forces". While it is important to oppose
imperialist aggression and other depredations against these countries,
it is vital to consistently expose their phoney communist nature
and the consequences of revisionist rule for the masses of people,
including in weakening their ability to resist imperialist domination
We should not forget the problems the international communist movement
suffered as a result of the "three worlds theory", proclaimed
as doctrine by the revisionist usurpers in China. One of the principal
problems with this theory was the failure to correctly identify
the class nature of the regimes of the third world countries, to
falsely portray leaders of reactionary regimes as anti-imperialist
and to liquidate the role of the masses, the proletariat and its
communist vanguard in resisting imperialism. The damage done by
the "three worlds theory" needs to be carefully summed
up so that we can avoid repeating similar errors today or in the
Point 10 of this resolution is absolutely correct to insist on the
need for a "vanguard party with revolutionary theory".
The resolution goes on to say that "it is not mere self-proclamation
that determines whether one is the vanguard or not. That is determined
by the class struggle. First the party has to be the vanguard of
the revolutionary proletariat. Second, the revolutionary proletariat
has to be the vanguard of the broad masses of people."
What determines a vanguard party is fundamentally a question of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This fundamental truth is not a question
of "self-proclamation" or abstract theory. In the imperialist
countries, it means that a vanguard party must represent the class
interests of the revolutionary proletariat in that country and internationally,
and not the interests of a small privileged sector that benefits
from imperialism. In the oppressed countries it means, among other
things, that the party must represent not only the immediate struggle
of the masses, but also its goals of socialism and communism. Without
this bedrock, no amount of influence among the masses can make a
political organisation a genuine proletarian vanguard (and we have
seen that revisionist and opportunist parties can, under certain
circumstances, become influential and sway a large portion of the
If a party or organisation is based on a correct ideological and
political line, it will, through a process of struggle, succeed
in deepening its roots among the masses, whilst strengthening its
grasp of Marxism- Leninism-Maoism and leading the people forward
in revolutionary struggle. If it follows an incorrect line, it will
end up isolating itself from the masses of people and undoing any
previous accomplishments it may have made. As Mao put it so succinctly,
"The correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political
line decides everything".
Point 11 of the Resolution calls for the working class to "forge
a united front with all oppressed classes and forces interested
in the revolution according to the conditions in each country, in
order to defeat the reactionary clique of each country." In
our document Long Live Marxism-Leninism- Maoism! RIM recognises
Mao's teachings on the united front as vital to the communists in
all countries. However, we are concerned that the Resolution's definition
of the goal of the united front, namely to "defeat the reactionary
clique of each country", could have the effect of losing sight
of the united front as a weapon for the strategic alignment of the
revolutionary class forces. Of course it is true that the ruling
class is often divided into hostile cliques and it is sometimes
possible and necessary to take advantage of these rifts and conflicts
in the interests of the revolution, but it is still the case that
the united front of the progressive classes is generally aimed at
the reactionary ruling classes as a whole and not only this or that
"clique". We should not confuse possible necessary tactical
manoeuvres with the strategic alignment of class forces for accomplishing
COMMENTS ON "DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST AND WORKING
CLASS MOVEMENT IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST REVISIONISM"
We most definitely agree with the emphasis in this Resolution
on the need to carry out a vigorous struggle against all types of
revisionism. We also agree that the collapse of revisionist regimes
in the East Bloc did not automatically resolve the problem of revisionism,
the struggle against which will indeed be a permanent and necessary
task throughout the era of proletarian revolution.
RIM has always attached great importance to the condemnation and
exposure of the revisionist usurpers in China. The developments
in China put the entire Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement to a severe
test and it is important that the appropriate conclusions are drawn.
We note that the Resolution makes the very important and correct
statement that "after the death of Mao Zedong, the dictatorship
of the proletariat was destroyed and under the leadership of Deng
Xiaoping capitalism was restored." At the same time, this statement
is not complete and leaves itself open to some wrong interpretations.
The reversal in China came about as a result of a coup d'état -
the violent seizure in 1976 of the state apparatus by the capitalist
roaders and the overthrow of the proletarian revolutionaries who
were upholding Mao's line (Chiang Ching and Chang Chun-chiao being
the most outstanding representatives). It is not correct to speak
only of Deng Xiaoping and say nothing of Hua Kuo-feng or to ignore
the question of the coup d'état. We cannot forget that it was Hua
who organised the counter- revolutionary coup nor that it was carried
out under the signboard of "crushing the Gang of Four"
(as the supporters of Mao's line were disparagingly referred to)
and that more than a few in the international communist movement
were taken in by this. This is not only a question of historical
accuracy and correct verdicts. It is necessary to correctly understand
the actual terms of the last great battle led by Mao and the revolutionary
headquarters against the revisionists in China. Basic clarity on
this point is a necessary prerequisite for enabling the international
communist movement to draw further lessons from both the great achievements
and bitter defeat of the proletariat in this struggle.
COMMENTS ON "CONTINUING THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES"
We commend you on the successful conclusion of your Fifth Conference
and we hope that your efforts in the future will contribute to the
unification of the international communist movement, on the basis
of a correct Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line.
When discussing the criteria for uniting the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist
forces we should return again to Lenin's celebrated definition of
proletarian internationalism cited above. We must unite those communists
who are fighting consistently for the overthrow of their own ruling
classes and support that line and no other in each and every country.
It is true that "consensus and unanimity in decision-making"
should be sought within the international communist movement. But
unanimity and consensus can never be considered more important than
upholding proletarian revolution and opposing revisionism.
FOR A COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL OF A NEW TYPE
Given that the ICML has expressed its desire to achieve "the
ideological and political unity" of the international communist
movement, the question of the organisational form of such unity
comes sharply to the fore. In our opinion, the ideological and political
unity of the proletariat must have an organisational expression
that unifies the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces to the greatest
degree possible, given the level of political and ideological unity
which has been achieved at any given point. Ultimately this must
take expression in the form of a new Communist International.
In 1993 RIM adopted a resolution proclaiming Marxism-Leninism- Maoism
as its ideology. This decision, after many years of discussion,
struggle and accumulated experience by the parties and organisations
making up RIM, was more than a mere change in terminology. It reflected
our united and deeper understanding of the third, new and higher
stage in the proletarian ideology that had been forged by Mao Tsetung.
We hope you will agree with us that Mao's development is of no less
significance than that of Lenin's earlier development of Marxism
to a second stage.
The requirements of the proletarian revolution, the need to forge
and strengthen genuine communist vanguards in every country, means
that we need to be armed with the fullest and most scientifically
correct understanding achieved by the proletariat to date - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
We understand that the goal of a Communist International of a new
type will not be attained overnight, but we also understand the
importance of proclaiming this goal and taking concrete measures
to advance, step by step, towards achieving it.
Our understanding is that the new Communist International must be
based upon Marxism-Leninism- Maoism and should have a common General
Line for advancing the world proletarian revolution. No doubt there
are many difficulties in organising an International that must function
along the lines of democratic centralism, while taking into account
that this cannot be in the same sense as a party in a single country,
given the fact that revolution will develop in specific states and
each party will have the responsibility of leading the revolution
forward in its own state.
The views of RIM on this subject have been proclaimed in our Declaration
and in the 1993 document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
A recent article in the magazine A World to Win [1998/23]
entitled "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" also reflects
our basic understanding of these questions. We hope very much that
the parties and organisations of the ICML will study our viewpoint
and make an evaluation. In this way the discussion and struggle
necessary to achieve a higher level of unity in the international
communist movement can advance.
Our own intention in distributing these comments privately to your
organisations, as well as recommending the distribution of your
Resolutions, along with these comments, to the rank and file of
the participants in RIM is to encourage an atmosphere of vigorous
discussion and debate, which we are confident will contribute to
clarifying the points of convergence, as well as the remaining differences
between RIM and the ICML and thus lay the basis for resolute efforts
to achieve unity on a correct Marxist- Leninist-Maoist basis. Similarly,
we hope you will distribute these comments to the rank and file
of the parties and organisations of the ICML. We are confident that
the genuine communist revolutionaries, whether they be inside the
ranks of RIM, the parties and organisations of the ICML or not presently
participating in any international grouping, will welcome such an
initiative and will give adequate attention to the task of uniting
internationally on a correct basis.
Our warm communist greetings,
The Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement