A WORLD TO WIN    #26   (2000)


The following 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 article.

Dear Comrades,
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 capitalist growth."

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.


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 powers.

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.


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 countries.


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 oppressed countries.

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.


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.


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 so on.

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 and oppression.

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 future.

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 masses).

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 revolution.


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.


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.


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