The Communist Party of India (Maoist) recently published an article titled “Position of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the Establishment of the International Communist League (ICL).” In this article, the CPI (Maoist) elaborates on its stance regarding the proposal of the International Marxist Unified Conference (UMIC)—a proposal issued in 2021 concerning the international communist movement and its current general political line—the organization of the UMIC and the “Political Declaration and Principles” it adopted, as well as the stance of the International Communist League (ICL), established in 2022.
First, the International Communist League (ICL) extends communist greetings with particular enthusiasm to the CPI (Maoist), its Central Committee, the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA), and to the masses fighting under your leadership and in the invincible people’s war, especially to the immortal heroes of the Indian revolution.
Comrades, we also wish to clarify that we cannot agree with the reasons you provided for delaying the expression of a stance on the crucial issue facing the global proletarian revolution today—namely, reversing the fragmentation of the international communist movement—especially considering that, as a party with such a long-standing tradition of internationalism, the stance of the CPI (Maoist) is of vital importance. Therefore, we believe that the CPI (Maoist) should clearly state its position regarding the International Communist League (ICL). We trust that your declaration will contribute to the two-line struggle necessary for the development and unity of the international communist movement. It is precisely through active discussion of differences that we can eliminate erroneous ideas among ourselves, ultimately achieve higher and broader international unity, and make greater contributions to the world proletarian revolution.
Discussing such criticisms and evaluations on public platforms helps the international communist movement recognize existing problems more broadly. But we should not be content with such platforms alone. If our goal is to eliminate errors within the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement and ensure it acts more effectively and powerfully in class struggle, we must also utilize bilateral platforms for more specific, detailed, and open discussions about developments. Establishing such platforms between the CPI (Maoist) and the International Communist League (ICL) is both important and necessary.
We advocate that the only Marxist-Leninist-Maoist method to resolve internal contradictions within the communist movement is through open struggle, the struggle of the two lines, sincere and brotherly criticism and self-criticism. Therefore, we attach great importance to the criticism and suggestions of sister parties. Likewise, we are always ready to conduct serious self-criticism when necessary. However, the statement of the CPI (Maoist) raises some issues that require clarification regarding the UMIC, the establishment of the ICL, and the unity of the international communist movement.
To draw correct conclusions on any issue, one must start from objective facts. Instead of seeking truth in facts, a dogmatic approach is adopted—using “facts” fabricated in our minds or “facts” with pre-set outcomes—this is incompatible with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles. Such an approach must be avoided, especially when we speak in the name of the international proletariat and claim to serve its interests. If the way we acquire information itself is flawed, then the conclusions we draw from it are inherently wrong.
The statement of the CPI (Maoist) aligns with this situation. What data and efforts led to the conclusions in the CPI (Maoist) statement? If these conclusions are based on discussions reflected in public opinion during the preparation of the UMIC, and thus derived from the party and organization statements criticizing the establishment of the ICL, then clearly this is incorrect and not a scientific way to solve the problem. We can conclude from the following facts: the CPI (Maoist) cited statements from parties and organizations that did not participate in the ICL (for various reasons) and held critical views of the ICL’s establishment, accepting these criticisms as fundamentally correct: “Although we largely do not fully agree with the critical assessments and arguments of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations worldwide regarding the establishment of the ICL.”
It is clear from their statement that this is their fundamental approach. We are not referring here to ideological-theoretical criticisms from comrades within the CPI (Maoist); we refer to the process and progress of the ICL’s establishment.
First, it must be clarified that we also value criticisms from parties and organizations that are not part of the ICL but hold critical attitudes towards it. We can also explicitly state that some aspects of these criticisms and evaluations are taken into account, which helps us conduct deeper and sharper self-reflection. Past, present, and future—this will continue. Throughout this entire process, we have indeed had shortcomings. We are talking about a platform process that has involved dozens of bilateral and multilateral meetings over many years, with participants being parties and organizations united on fundamental issues but divided on many specific issues. We have never claimed to do everything perfectly. Criticism of the form, content, and adequacy of discussions during the establishment of the ICL is certainly acceptable. From this perspective, we have no objection to evaluations and criticisms. We value and take seriously the criticisms and evaluations from parties and organizations that hold critical attitudes towards the ICL.
The main issue with the comrades of the CPI (Maoist) here is that they only adopt criticisms and evaluations from parties and organizations that are critical of the ICL. Without participating in the organizational process, without communicating with the ICL, and without understanding the entire process from the ICL side, they take a stance and criticize unilaterally—this shows a unilateral approach. And unilateralism is undoubtedly a method prone to errors. The comrades of the CPI (Maoist) have essentially made this mistake. A comprehensive understanding and grasp of the overall situation are crucial for genuine criticism. From this perspective, criticism of the entire organizational process is biased. Similarly, drawing conclusions based solely on public documents is problematic.
Throughout the process, many bilateral and broader meetings were held. The UMIC process and the issues encountered were discussed in these meetings, which included parties and organizations that did not join the ICL due to disagreements. Records exist of these discussions and the attitudes of the participating parties and organizations on various issues. We hope and look forward to engaging in specific discussions with the comrades of the CPI (Maoist) on these documents and hearing their criticisms after discussions and briefings. It is unacceptable to remain detached, only referencing public documents, and then draw conclusions about the entire process, thereby dismissing the efforts made.
Second, during the entire process, the comrades of the CPI (Maoist) did not feel it necessary or responsible to coordinate or contact the UMIC Coordination Committee or the parties and organizations involved in the UMIC. The former UMIC Coordination Committee and its member parties had attempted to establish direct and secure communication channels with the CPI (Maoist) in various ways. Through these channels, we could have directly informed and discussed all major issues concerning the ICL and the preparations for the UMIC. But the CPI (Maoist) ignored all these efforts. Like all parties and organizations, the CPI (Maoist) undoubtedly has reasons for not making these efforts public. But we are talking about a process that has lasted for many years without contact. At the end of this non-contact process, comrades chose to issue a statement—without contacting the former UMIC Coordination Committee, the leadership of the ICL, or any party or organization within the ICL, nor did they seek any information. This situation is shocking!
Third, we take seriously the criticisms of the CPI (Maoist) regarding the ICL’s theoretical, ideological, organizational, and political construction. These criticisms can be debated based on the following three basic principles: 1. Defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; 2. Oppose revisionism; 3. Support the world proletarian revolution. These principles are also necessary conditions for the development of the international communist movement on a more solid ideological, theoretical, political, and organizational foundation. The struggle of the two lines should be carried out, not opportunist compromises. During the discussions of the UMIC Coordination Committee, similar criticisms and evaluations were also raised by different parties and organizations, including some that have now joined the ICL. Contrary to the claims of the CPI (Maoist), the ICL is an organization that contains these differences. These differences are not ignored but are being and will continue to be discussed. They are also reflected in public opinion during the discussion process. But the key is how we handle these differences based on the needs of the proletarian world revolution and how we advance on the path of unity—struggle—unity. We have already established consensus on basic principles and uphold an attitude of promoting unity through discussion on this basis. We believe that, considering the current world class struggle and the needs of the proletarian world revolution, this approach is much more appropriate.
In its statement, the CPI (Maoist) accuses us of sectarianism and wrong working methods, claiming that this would hinder the struggle of the two lines. When making this accusation, they did not specify what objective facts and information this assessment is based on. Chairman Mao Zedong defined sectarianism as a “closed-door” policy. A brief objective analysis is enough to show that this statement lacks objective basis. The initiation of the UMIC and the establishment of the ICL are the results of over a decade of internationalist efforts, especially during the ten years from 2012 to 2022, when ideological, political, and organizational preparations were strengthened, leading to a significant rise in the struggle of the two lines within the international communist movement. During this period, in addition to drafting and publishing numerous documents, theoretical journals, and public statements, dozens of party congresses, gatherings, and hundreds of working meetings were held. These meetings and gatherings discussed based on the documents and declarations, considering that the preparatory work involved thousands of pages of files, coordination efforts, experience exchanges, educational activities, and joint actions—all requiring substantial material effort and face-to-face meetings. These included seven meetings of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations in Europe, five in Latin America, and the first meeting of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations in the Americas. CPI (Maoist) participated in the third Latin American party meeting and issued a report on its inability to attend the fourth, requesting the agenda to submit written opinions. These requests were unexpectedly received by a specific group dedicated to obstructing the UMIC process by any means, and due to information sabotage, were not delivered. This process involved all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations with direct contact channels with us, whether they participated or not. They were always invited to join—directly and personally invited to attend the UMIC. It must be emphasized that this is the only collective initiative that systematically advanced the preparations for the UMIC and is the only effort to overcome the serious and long-standing splits within the international communist movement. Compared to sectarianism, this process truly reflects an effort—rather than symbolic or verbal—to achieve communist unity. If such “sectarian stance” truly exists, how can one explain the significant amendments made to the “Proposal for the Discussion of the International Communist Movement and Its Current General Political Line” in the “Political Declaration and Principles” (PDP)? These changes are based on objective facts. All those who wish to actively participate in the UMIC can put forward their views, engage in open and sincere struggle, express firm unity, and achieve genuine unity at the highest level. Almost every stage of the UMIC process has been realized through the struggle of the two lines. Important ideological and political differences among ICL members have been discussed throughout. But this has not prevented the participating parties from uniting around the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the general political line of the international communist movement. This is as it should be. Of course, since the UMIC is not based on a compromise agreement but on a struggle of the two lines aimed at achieving unity on the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as broadly as possible, all criticisms of the “Discussion Basis” raised during the preparations naturally could not be fully incorporated into the “Political Declaration and Principles.”
Assessment of the establishment of the ICL: “Therefore, the international communist league (ICL), formed under the guise of ‘unity,’ merely reflects a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist attitude. It does not represent the unified understanding of several parties.” This should be evaluated from multiple aspects. First, our concern is not only about which understanding signifies the adopted or possible stance but also whether the formed ideological-theoretical, organizational-political line is reflected in the class struggle. Second, the judgment that “it does not represent the unified understanding of several parties” is subjective rather than objective. According to what standard or whose judgment? The ICL’s Marxist-Leninist-Maoist members believe that the current conditions of class struggle require communists to adopt a unified stance and establish a central platform. For various reasons, some Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces did not participate in this process. Naturally, two different understandings and directions have emerged. Any stance or platform that may or will be formed cannot represent the “whole.”
Representing the whole always manifests as consistency in the general line, basic principles, and overall direction. This is exactly the case with the ICL. Of course, we hope for as broad a unity as possible. But using this as an excuse to indefinitely delay the task of establishing an international communist center based on the current historical stage and future struggle tasks is unacceptable. Moreover, as stated in the ICL’s founding declaration, it is an organization open to all Marxist-Leninist-Maoists. During the process toward the UMIC, the practice of “accepting the discussion draft submitted by the Coordination Committee for participation” has never been adopted. Instead, we explicitly state that comrades who criticize the political draft of the UMIC Coordination Committee should express their views and criticisms within the UMIC, strive to have their positions dominant, and, together with those who decide to participate in the UMIC but criticize the political draft, form a stronger struggle unity. If, after all these efforts, they still choose to remain distant, who should be criticized? It is worth noting that among those who did not participate, no one claims they were not invited or obstructed. In other words, who is obstructing broader unity? The “certain Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” stance is undoubtedly related to criticisms of sectarianism within the ICL. This attitude is based on the unity of the political, ideological, and organizational lines of a significant part of the ICL members. We firmly oppose dividing Maoist currents into “different types and groups.” Even if some communist parties are closer to each other, it does not mean they belong to the same “type.” Such a division would obscure the political-ideological differences between Maoist movements in different countries, conceal the struggle of the two lines within Maoist movements, and ignore the uniqueness and independence of each country’s Maoist movement. Comrades of the CPI (Maoist) wrongly view the ICL as a “certain” faction within Maoism. The ideological and political consistency of the vast majority of ICL members leads comrades to this erroneous conclusion. The criticism of “sectarianism” perhaps stems from a hypothesis: that most members, due to close relations, impose their positions on others, but this is not the case. The ICL rejects the so-called “monolithic” or “one-size-fits-all” criticism from comrades. Such criticism is neither realistic nor aligned with the principles of the ICL, which is based on and practices the struggle of the two lines.
The statement of the CPI (Maoist) states: “Our Central Committee issued a policy document on the formation of an international organization in 2017, published in ‘Maoist Path,’ as part of the international debate […]. Before this, we issued a document explicitly mentioning the experience of the international communist movement, synthesizing the current international situation and movement, and the formation of an international communist organization suitable for it, meaning a proletarian international organization composed of Maoist parties, organizations, and related ideological, political, and organizational aspects. The international communist movement also issued this. The Communist Party of Nepal (Revolutionary Maoism), Tunisia, Canada Revolutionary Communist Party - Mars (PCR-RCP Canada-Isra), Afghanistan Communist Party (Maoism), and the Communist Workers’ League (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) conducted responsible research and observation, wrote critical explanations, and submitted them to the UMIC Coordination Committee for debate. But the organizers and supporters did not respond in any way.”
Discussion can be opened on the following questions: why was the draft of the international communist movement program proposed in the 2017 resolution of the CPI (Maoist) Central Committee not included in the agenda? We believe the main reason is that the CPI (Maoist) did not make a special effort to include this document in the agenda of other parties and organizations. We are talking about a document spread via the internet or “middlemen”! As cited above, the CPI (Maoist) article states, “others” have tried to include this statement in the agenda. Therefore, this document has been repeatedly mentioned in the international communist movement by many parties and organizations. Obviously, not every statement issued by each party or organization must be included in the agenda of others. The CPI (Maoist) did not make any special efforts to promote discussion of this document but instead questioned “why you did not discuss our document,” which is untenable. However, it must be pointed out that a party like the CPI (Maoist), which has steadfastly carried out Maoist movement for 60 years, with a long and solid revolutionary tradition, holds a special position among all Maoist forces. The ICL also upholds this position. Based on this stance, every member of the ICL has analyzed and evaluated the documents issued by the comrades. It is incorrect to say that this document did not receive due attention. On the contrary, one of the ICL member parties, at the request of the CPI (Maoist), distributed this document through internal channels and encouraged discussion before it was published in “Maoist Path” or other websites.
From this perspective, it has had an indirect influence on the process. Moreover, the process continued to develop, mature, and organize through discussion and ideological exchange. The practice of demanding a special evaluation of one’s own text without participating in this stage of the process contradicts the spirit of these processes. There is another aspect that needs clarification: in the CPI (Maoist) statement, the CPI (Maoist) was one of the initial participants in the process that led to the formation of the ICL. The CPI (Maoist) participated in discussions on the unity of the international communist movement and attended bilateral and multilateral meetings of such discussions. Therefore, the ICL did not suddenly “appear out of nowhere.” It is also not the result of a process controlled and planned by “a certain group.” The CPI (Maoist) participated in the beginning of this process but then abandoned it and took a different path.
The CPI (Maoist) statement: “Our Central Committee believes that, contrary to the process of forming the ICL, it is very necessary to mobilize and establish a common forum based on recognition and consensus among all parties, so that, besides the parties within the ICL, all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist revolutionary parties and organizations that are ideologically close can exchange experiences and ideological-political positions.” Subjectively dismissing the process of the ICL’s formation and proposing to “establish a common forum based on recognition and consensus among all parties” is incomprehensible to us. You can point out shortcomings, flaws, or even errors in the ICL, and these issues have been discussed. Why not make efforts to improve?How can we avoid overcoming the shortcomings, errors, and deficiencies of this organization and instead focus on achieving broader unity among members of the international communist movement around the existing organization? After long and arduous efforts, a central organization composed of 15 parties and organizations from 14 countries has been formed, and the almost complete disregard for it and attempts to establish a new one are unacceptable to us.
The preparation, development, and final formation of the International Maoist Unity Conference (UMIC) were all conducted under the guidance of the struggle between two lines. The conclusion is that the fundamental task of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists is to achieve unity and development around three main pillars: 1) Defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; 2) Fight against revisionism; 3) Proletarian world revolution.
These principles are embodied in the slogan “Unite Under Maoism.” This slogan also guides the work of the International Maoist Unity Conference (UMIC), as well as the spirit and guidelines for establishing the International Communist League (ICL) on the basis of firm defense of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism principles. That is why we believe it must be retained as a guiding principle for distinguishing Marxism from revisionism within the International Communist League (ICL).
These ideological—theoretical and political—organizational issues are widely discussed among Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations. The successful preparation of the International Maoist Unity Conference (UMIC) over many years and the eventual establishment of the International Communist League (ICL) are of great significance for the international proletarian movement’s struggle. This long and difficult process, despite its shortcomings, was completed through relentless effort. The founding of the ICL did not hinder the struggle between two lines but elevated the ongoing two-line struggle within the international communist movement to a new level.
In March 2023, the International Communist League (ICL) adopted a statement on the unity of the international communist movement, clearly articulating its position on this issue and addressing several related questions following the convening of the UMIC. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) did not mention this statement. Therefore, we will excerpt some parts of this important document:
“The International Communist League (ICL) will spare no effort to establish direct relations with all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations that want to work towards unity rather than division, defending three basic principles: (1) Defend Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; (2) Fight against revisionism; and (3) For the world proletarian revolution. The ICL will hold meetings, gatherings, and forums to promote the struggle between two lines and foster ideological and political unity. Therefore, it will support all proposals, initiatives, and forums aimed at developing unity—struggle—unity. As stated in its ‘Political Declaration and Principles’:
‘The new international organization is a center for ideological, political, and organizational coordination, based on democratic centralism, through the joint and long-term coordination of the parties and organizations that compose it, and extending this approach to all allied foreign parties and organizations that participate based on the same principles and objectives.’
Therefore, the establishment of the ICL does not end the process of struggle for unity but opens a new stage of ‘rebuilding the Communist International under the guidance and command of Maoism, organized struggle.’ We are always ready and determined to work tirelessly for the reconstruction of the glorious Communist International.”
We are prepared and determined to fight for the restoration of the glorious Communist International.
If a vibrant and important part of the international communist movement can unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism principles, why can’t these parties do so? Why do your statements see this progress as a matter of unity? Is this unity only achievable when the entire international communist movement is united simultaneously? Considering that the subjective revolutionary factors are too weak, and the international communist movement is too poor, is it not contradictory to claim that 15 parties and organizations can achieve close and conscious unity around the advanced political line of the international communist movement on the ideological basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Doesn’t the historical experience of the international proletariat show otherwise—that proletarian international unity has been achieved through both unification and division (the First, Second, and Third Internationals)?
We believe that the criticism and evaluation of the general political line contained in the ‘Political Declaration and Principles’ by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) is a real issue that needs to be clarified in the struggle between two lines, using revolutionary proletarian methods and standards, in an organized manner. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss these issues bilaterally, directly, and in an organized way. We emphasize, however, that these differences do not represent any ideological disagreements that form the basis of the unity of the 15 parties and organizations at the founding of the International Communist League (ICL). We firmly believe that the international communist movement, reunited under this red banner, will continue to advance and deliver heavy blows to imperialism, reactionary forces, and all revisionism and opportunism.
Note: ‘Political Declaration and Principles’ is a main part of the ‘Declaration of the International Communist League (ICL)’, and ‘Discussion Basis’ refers to the ‘Proposal on the discussion of the international communist movement and its current general political line’.
Original link: Our Evaluation of The Stand of CPI (Maoist) on the Formation of International Communist League (ICL) – Communist International
Italic quote from: ‘The Position of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) on the Establishment of the International Communist League (ICL)’
