By Comrade Saoirse

The Austin, Texas chapter of the Revolutionary Study Group recently publicized an upcoming reading group they’re hosting on Slipping into Darkness: The Communist Party’s Last Revolutionary Years by Mike Ely, former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (ironically, during their last revolutionary years).¹ ​​​​​​​In the post advertising this event, they made an important point, which I believe is deserving of deeper discussion among the u.s. Maoist movement:

“[The last revolutionary years of the Communist Party USA are] an important period to study as interest in unions and anti-capitalism are currently increasing with no revolutionary leadership to lead it.”²

There is perhaps no more pertinent question in our movement today than the question of revolutionary leadership. At our current stage of development, there are a number of Maoist organizations: the Revolutionary Maoist Coalition, Revolutionary Study Group, For The People, the Revolutionary Intercommunal Black Panther Party, and Cincinnati Communists just to name a few (although there are plenty of smaller organizations with which we’ve had less contact with than those listed above, and there seems to be all the time new organizations springing up in this or that city proclaiming fidelity to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism). 

This – at least in part – can be attributed to the organizational form which Maoists in the u.s. seem to have more-or-less uniformly adopted. Let it be known that this is not a criticism! We have all witnessed the mistakes made by organizations – be they revolutionary Maoists or revisionists – who spring up from no where and declare themselves Communist Parties. In just the past several years we’ve seen the New Communist Party (Organizing Committee/Liaison Committee), the Maoist Communist Party (Organizing Committee), the Committee to Re-establish the Communist Party USA, and the Communist Organization for Revolutionary Emancipation. Each of these organizations claimed the ideology of Maoism while professing themselves to either be a Party or a “pre-party formation.” While many of us in the communist movement may have supported some of these organizations – perhaps even participated in them – at the time of their formation, the experiences of these groups have left us with particular questions which we must soberly answer. 

1. Where are these organizations now? 

A. Gone. Dissolved. Split. Certainly not leading a proletarian mass movement or revolution. 

2. Why did these organizations dissolve? Why were they not able to assert themselves as the vanguard party at the h elm of a United Front and People’s Army? 

A. All of these different organizations have their own unique – particular, if you will – errors which contributed to their ultimate demise. In the case of at least two of these organizations (CR-CPUSA and CORE), we have yet to see an in-depth summation which fully addresses all these particularities. Study of these particular aspects which led to dissolution is important, however, we are only going to comment on the universal aspects in this article. What is universally true with these organizations – and all organizations who prematurely declare themselves as a Party or pre-party formations – is that they are trying to operate at a level that our movement is simply not at. Communist Parties – vanguards of the workers and oppressed – are not declared by 15-30 politically like-minded individuals; they are forged in the flame of class struggle- through mass movements. Without the experience of a class struggle based mass movement there is no hope for a Communist Party to adopt correct strategies; there is no mass base which follows the leadership of the Party and unites with it; there is no possible way that leadership has developed from the masses through struggle and can provide proper guidance in struggle. 

Most of us who have been involved in any of these organizations, or have simply been organizing as Maoists long enough to have observed all these projects, seem to mostly be on the same page on these matters (if there is anyone who majorly dissents, by all means, please reply to this article with your own criticism and perspective so that we may come closer to a united analysis of our movement!). 

It’s with these questions in mind that the vast majority of us seem to have adopted our current organizational models: revolutionary mass organizations (what the Communist Party of India (Maoist) refers to in Urban Perspective as semi-open revolutionary mass organizations), which seek to first develop a mass movement in the u.s. from which a genuine Maoist Party may be constituted. I emphatically believe that this is the correct path forward. 

However, even as we have adopted this correct path, we still have much work ahead of us if we are to fully solve the question of revolutionary leadership. 

How so? In order for the question of revolutionary leadership to be fully solved, we must have a genuine Communist Party organized under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism which leads a United Front of all oppressed people. It cannot be any of the existing revisionist parties (the Communist Party USA, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Party of Communists USA, etc will sooner lead the proletariat to the slaughter-house than to proletarian democracy) nor can it be a “paper-party” with no genuine unity or mass base. As I’ve made clear, we have made some correct steps in this regard by adopting the structural form of mass organizations rather than parties. Our goal is to develop a true movement which mobilizes the masses in great numbers, gets them directly involved in political struggle, and educates them in revolutionary theory so that the most advanced elements can constitute this Maoist Party. This task is already colossal, and currently is even further hindered by the dispersed state of our movement. 

My dear comrades, I ask you all: what benefit does the existence of several separate organizations of the same type, with the same general political line bring to our struggle? Once upon a time, this was justified. It was not so long ago that our movement was torn apart by petty squabbles. The irrelevant discourses of twitter, petit-bourgeois demagogues, and sectarianism plagued our movement and stifled unity in the u.s. communist movement. Thanks to the great dedication of many principled communists, however, we have overcome these problems. Comrades have largely grown beyond social media centric politics, petit-bourgeois “leadership” has been exposed and purged from our cause, and many of us have come to realize that practical work takes priority over minute political differences which have nothing to do with principles. It would appear that the George Floyd Rebellion, and the subsequent failure of the revolutionary movement to seize upon that moment in order to push it to its full potential, has done a lot to straighten us up and mature the Maoist movement. Whereas once the Maoist organizations in this country were so disconnected and plagued with political immaturity that they were too busy denouncing each other in polemics to accomplish any meaningful work, we now participate in close coordination to serve and defend the people in multiple major cities across the so-called united states. We find ourselves in an extremely similar situation to which Lenin once described, 

[T]he principal feature of our movement, which has become particularly marked in recent times, is its state of disunity and its amateur character, if one may so express it. Local study circles spring up and function independently of one another and—what is particularly important—of circles that have functioned and still function in the same districts. Traditions are not established and continuity is not maintained; local publications fully reflect this disunity and the lack of contact with what Russian Social-Democracy has already achieved.
Such a state of disunity is not in keeping with the demands posed by the movement in its present strength and breadth, and creates, in our opinion, a critical moment in its development. The need for consolidation and for a definite form and organisation is felt with irresistible force in the movement itself; yet among Social-Democrats active in the practical field this need for a transition to a higher form of the movement is not everywhere realised [. . .]
We do not desire to exaggerate the gravity of the situation, but it would be immeasurably more harmful to close our eyes to it [. . .]
The following practical conclusion is to be drawn from the foregoing: we Russian Social-Democrats must unite and direct all our efforts towards the formation of a strong party which must struggle under the single banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy. This is precisely the task laid down by the congress in 1898 at which the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, and which published its Manifesto.
To establish and consolidate the Party means to establish and consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats, and, for the reasons indicated above, such unity can not be decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideological unity which should eliminate discordance and confusion that—let us be frank!—reign among Russian Social-Democrats at the present time. This ideological unity must be consolidated by a Party programme. Secondly, we must work to achieve an organisation especially for the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the centres of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information about the movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals regularly to all parts of Russia. Only when such an organisation has been founded, only when a Russian socialist post has been established, will the Party possess a sound foundation and become a real fact, and, therefore, a mighty political force. We intend to devote our efforts to the first half of this task, i.e., to creating a common literature, consistent in principle and capable of ideologically uniting revolutionary Social-Democracy, since we regard this as the pressing demand of the movement today and a necessary preliminary measure towards the resumption of Party activity. 
As we have said, the ideological unity of Russian Social-Democrats has still to be created, and to this end it is, in our opinion, necessary to have an open and all-embracing discussion of the fundamental questions of principle and tactics raised by the present-day “economists,” Bernsteinians, and “critics.” Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be purely fictitious, it will conceal the prevailing confusion and binder its radical elimination. It is understandable, therefore, that we do not intend to make our publication a mere storehouse of various views. On the contrary, we shall conduct it in the spirit of a strictly defined tendency. This tendency can be expressed by the word Marxism, and there is hardly need to add that we stand for the consistent development of the ideas of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating, vague, and opportunist “corrections” for which Eduard Bernstein, P. Struve, and many others have set the fashion. But although we shall discuss all questions from our own definite point of view, we shall give space in our columns to polemics between comrades. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to afford discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to combat the extremes into which representatives, not only of various views, but even of various localities, or various “specialities” of the revolutionary movement, inevitably fall. Indeed, as noted above, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing views, the effort to conceal differences on fundamental questions.³ 

My dear comrades, we must unite! In the spirit of eventually achieving our goal of constituting a Communist Party guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, we must bring about a single Maoist mass organization. As Lenin pointed out in 1900, this unity won’t be achieved through some meeting of representatives. It cannot be paper unity. It cannot happen overnight. We must deliberately work to achieve the level of unity necessary for a worthwhile unification of the Maoist movement to occur. We must debate, and polemicize- this time not in a sectarian fashion for the purpose of splitting, but in a comradely fashion for the purpose of unity. We must bring our comrades together in struggle- educational committees, dual programs, and legal democratic mass organizations must be established in coordination with each other. The ideological unity which already exists among us must be further expanded- we must come to a common understanding of what the role of semi-open revolutionary mass organizations are, especially in the context of a Communist Party not yet existing and in the conditions of the u.s., we must build a united strategy and a united program. Regular conferences should be organized wherein our members can share summations, offer criticisms/self-criticisms, and engage in two-line struggle. If properly conducted, this can and will bring about a unified Maoist movement which can make true headway in revolutionary organizing. Comrades, we must fight for this potential reality!

---

​​​​​​​1. This article was written– and the referenced reading group took place– in March. 
2. Our italics.
3. V. I. Lenin, Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra, 1900