The opponents of Mao generally refrain from ever admitting their opposition to him; on the contrary, they generally refer to him and repeat his slogans and watchwords […] it is what the Chinese call, “waving the red flag to oppose the red flag.” Jean Daubier, A History of the Chinese Cultural Revolution

In the imperialist centers Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has yet to carve out its hegemony as the guiding theory of revolution. This is especially true in the United States, which remains the highest developed holdout of capitalism and its ideology in existence. Capitalist hegemony here is reflected in the generally weak revolutionary movement and its susceptibility to right opportunism. The reformist left, even those sectors which pay lip-service to revolution, has proven a dismal failure. It is within this atmosphere that a genuinely revolutionary movement is arising among the youth to challenge the fascist right and reformist left, guided by modern revolutionary communist theory- Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

As this new generation raises the red banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, internal contradictions develop between pre-Maoist ways of thinking and those which represent a genuinely MLM line. This has resulted in two general rightist tendencies among those new to Maoism who have yet to grasp its theory:

Claiming to uphold MZT rather than MLM Denouncing other MLM’s – especially MLM formations identified with RIM – as “ultra-left” and claiming themselves as followers of a different “pure-reasonable” Maoism.

Mao-Zedong-Thought

Something new of great ideological importance is achieved by adopting Maoism. And this newness is not so much in the word as such. It resides in the rupture from an incomplete or fractured understanding of the universality of Mao’s contributions taken as a whole and in the leap to a qualitatively higher, better, deeper grasp of our ideology. Evidently, any reasoning, which harps on emphasizing that nothing new is added, will fail to mobilize the whole Party and lead it in carrying out this rupture. Ajith CPI (ML) Naxalabri, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought are Not the Same

MZT arose within the context of the World Historic Chinese Revolution, as the sinicization of Marxism-Leninism. In other words, the concrete application of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of China made by Mao and the Communist Party of China.(1) This specific application of ML can by definition not be a universal development applicable to the conditions in other countries. Only by recognizing a new stage of revolutionary science open to the world communist movement can we speak of “universality.” Those that identified with China over the USSR during the sino-soviet split throughout the 60s and 70s were naturally called Maoists, and many claimed to uphold MZT. However, this was never a coherent political position. It signified dogmatism within the New Communist Movement (NCM), which proved itself incapable of thinking beyond the Marxist-Leninist terrain and failed to creatively apply revolutionary theory. This dogmatism was a major contradiction within the NCM, and along with external factors such as the death of Mao and counter-revolutionary repression, led to its collapse in the imperialist centers.

It was in this context that parties which had survived the collapse began to analyze the contributions of the Chinese Revolution to revolutionary communism. These parties would reach the conclusion that the lessons of this revolution constituted a paradigm shift in revolutionary science. Through the experience of socialist construction in China, the CPC had reached the limits of Marxism-Leninism and forged the basis for a new stage of revolutionary theory. This new stage was given the name Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. In 1993, these parties which had come together in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), would openly declare this science to the world. Thus MLM was not Marxism-Leninism plus Mao, it was a continuity and rupture within the science of revolution, one that created a new terrain where by MLM provides the theoretical guidelines to make revolution. MLM draws universal lessons from the Chinese Revolution, while not being reducible to “contribution x y or z” of Mao. This is the same as ML, which represented an advance in science rather than simply “Imperialism.”

Applying MZT to any country outside of China was not only impossible from the beginning, but is especially absurd after 1993. By refusing to recognize that revolutionary science is in a new stage of development, those that claim MZT vacillate now to the left and now to the right, unable to creatively apply Marxism to their conditions and instead treating it as dead abstract dogma. Claiming MZT is a way to reconcile oneself to the absurdities of dogmato-revisionism while not moving beyond it. This is why someone can claim to uphold MZT while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that revisionism is the bourgeoisie inside the party – that is, while refusing to acknowledge one of the basic teachings of Mao. One can even claim to be a Maoist of the MZT variety while clinging to productive forces theory, upholding the Cultural Revolution when convenient and denouncing it when not, and applying the Mass Line in an arbitrary and reformist fashion. MZT is filled with contradictions it cannot resolve: those between the old and the new, true and false, revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, revisionist and anti-revisionist.

Often, as will be discussed below, those clinging to MZT see the Philippines as an inspiration. As the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) once used the terminology MZT to describe their practice (as, by the way, every MLM party formed before the 1990s did) these rightists believe they have found proof that their positions are coherent. It is no accident that in 1993, the same year RIM declared MLM universal, the CPP ceased to use the term MZT and adopted “Maoism” and finally Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guiding theory. As Joma Sison of the Communist Party of the Philippines has explained, while MZT may appear the same as MLM in some of its formal positions, in reality MLM is an advance over Marxism-Leninism that must be recognized universally as a third stage of communist theory if we are to grasp the revolutionary character of Marxism in the present. As Joma has stated, “The phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism evokes continuity and advance. The appearance of the word Maoism is symmetrical to Marxism and Leninism. Maoism has further developed all major components of Marxism and Leninism.”(2) This is the only position upheld by the MLM movement, and is thoroughly explained in the book Continuity and Rupture by J. Moufawad-Paul. The CPP upholds Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the third and current stage of communism, while recognizing that formally this rupture evolved based on the principles of MZT. This is not a unique position held by the CPP, it is the position of every Maoist internationally.

MLM without errors?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a universally applicable, living and scientific ideology, constantly developing and being further enriched through its application in making revolution as well as through the advance of human knowledge. Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

The second error, usually made by those new to Maoism, is caused by a lack of investigation into the history, practice, and theory of MLM. Relying solely on clichés, these Maoists believe the RIM was an ultra left organization defined primarily by errors. As such, they claim to be “outside of the ultra left tendency.” There are many problems with this type of thinking.

First, this thinking rejects a historical materialist analysis. The Marxist method of investigation necessitates that we seek truth from facts, learn from past errors, summate them, and rectify them in practice. Idealist Maoists reject this entirely, making no attempt to learn from the past. The irony is, they are thus far more susceptible and ignorant to past errors than Maoists who take the RIM seriously. Maoists must perform investigation and summation. The only coherent summation of the defeats in Peru and Nepal have come from the international Maoist movement, because these reversals are treated with the serious and scientific attitude of Maoism.(3) ML’s on the other hand cannot summate these defeats without falling back on the tired revisionist thesis “the armed struggle itself was the problem.”The international Maoist movement is not monolithic, it is filled with exploration and debate as different parties forge Maoism within their concrete conditions. It is our duty as MLM’s in the United States to take a part in this wider movement and contribute to it. It is fundamentally wrong to take the position that MLM’s in the US are ‘unique’ and hold the key to truth. This is type of thinking, which is a product of chauvinism and Euro-centrism, leads MLM’s expressing rightist lines in the US to dismiss the history of the Maoist movement internationally, reduce it to the Cult of Bob Avakian domestically, and therefore conclude that we must pull a “new correct Maoism” out of thin air. Finally, it should be noted that the tendency to reject RIM comes exclusively from Maoists in the imperialist centers who are not organized into MLM organizations

Second, this deviation ignores that there can be no Marxism-Leninism-Maoism without going through the RIM, the organization that is responsible for recognizing its existence and making the early attempts to put it into practice. It would be as absurd as declaring oneself a Leninist, while rejecting Stalin and the Third International (in other words, being a Trotskyist). Whatever these people might be, they cannot be Maoists if they reject Maoist theory and practice. The desire to advance beyond the RIM is good, not bad, but is insincere at best when those desiring to do so cannot even coherently explain the rise and fall of RIM.

Third, it divides the MLM movement internally. Here, there are two aspects. The first is to do so internationally. In the US, the typical example is for an MLM to claim fidelity to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) while rejecting practically all other MLM organizations and People’s Wars. This arbitrary distinction, by which Maoists in the imperialist centers create non-existent divisions in the MLM movement, does a great disservice to our comrades in the CPP. The CPP has contact internationally with other MLM parties, expresses profound solidarity with them, and was in communication with the RIM (this is similar to the Communist Party of India (Maoist), whose founding organizations came together through the directives and help of RIM).(4)(5) After a RIM criticism of the CPP, the CPP would launch a rectification movement “Putting Mao at the Center of the Party” to make MLM the clear guiding theory of the party. To separate one section of the MLM movement due to its current success and use it as a bludgeon against the movement as a whole is a grossly opportunist maneuver. It is done in a lazy attempt for new MLM’s to identify their ideology with a powerful communist party, without having to combat the bourgeois and euro-centrist lies and distortions told about other MLM parties- such as the Communist Party of Peru. This is an expression of liberalism.

The second aspect is national. MLM’s who denounce the growing movement of Maoist Collectives in one way or another objectively aid the forces of right opportunism and express liberalism. These denouncements are never done in the spirit of solidarity or criticism, but are always an opportunist and arrogant dismissal of Maoists who are putting theory into practice as they forge MLM strategy in the imperialist centers. This is a monumental task, which requires a firm grasp of theory and dedicated practice. Inevitably errors will occur and the road forward will be long and treacherous. Every MLM has a duty to take these efforts seriously, participate in the process by doing active revolutionary work, and engage in constructive criticism and self-criticism. MLM must be made the guiding thought of the revolutionary masses in the United States, all attempts to create this hegemony deserve our active support and critical attention. If a practice is wrong, comrades should explain why rather than gossip and throw insults. Some “MLM’s” who denounce the Collectives are too passive to even consider forming their own revolutionary projects. These people cannot be considered MLM’s, they deny the principle aspect of Maoism- the revolutionary seizure of power. Others are involved primarily in non MLM socialist circles, and as such, justify themselves to their comrades by denouncing the Collectives. Faced primarily with right opportunist lines which have declared themselves revolutionary, everything to the left of this economism must therefore be denounced as “ultra left” regardless of the actual objective content. This is the logic of revisionism. None who denounce the Collectives have discussed strategy and tactics with the cadre of the Collectives themselves. The overwhelming tendency in the US left towards sectarianism is an expression of capitalist ideology.

Mao taught that knowledge is a dialectic of practice-theory-practice. MLM’s who deny this in search of an imaginary untainted communism which will spontaneously transform the world cannot be considered Marxists, let alone Maoists. We are Maoists, and we are in unity with the complete history of the communist movement.

Raise the Banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

The Maoist movement in the United States is in a stage of defense. While it is growing rapidly, significant obstacles remain to be overcome if we are to unite with the masses to lead them towards the seizure of power. As we gather forces around a revolutionary line, we will transform a stage of defense into one of attack where the creation of red power becomes a reality. This can only be done with the building of a genuine communist party as quickly as possible. A major point of consideration towards this task is to defend and apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism against rightist lines, including those held by perhaps well-meaning Maoists. We can identify four types of Maoists based on our analysis:

Those who are revolutionary, studious, apply MLM to their practice using good methods, and positively contribute to the building of a MLM party Those who are relatively revolutionary, while making minor errors in their theory and practice, and focusing less on the need for a party Those who make errors in their theory, practice, and stance towards other MLMs stemming from a halfhearted adoption of MLM Those who adopt Maoism in name -not as MLM but as MZT – and in fact uphold a variant of dogmato-revisionism, or remain unorganized

We must struggle-criticize-transform those of the 3rd and 4th type, who are numerous in the parties clinging to Marxism-Leninism, so that through their rectification a genuine revolutionary party can be built.

Apply Maoism!

Expose and Criticize the Right!

Build the Foundations of the Revolutionary Party!

It was through this application of Marxism-Leninism that the Communist Party of China reached the limits of Marxist-Leninist theory and moved forward onto new terrain, the terrain of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Thus, to recognize MLM is to recognize this new terrain, while claiming MZT is to effectively deny precisely what it is that makes the contributions of the Chinese Revolution universal. https://josemariasison.org/the-communist-party-of-the-philippines-on-maoism-new-democratic-revolution-china-the-current-world/ An example from the RIM, an excellent summation of the PPW in Peru http://bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/2006-32/32Peru.htm RIM statement demanding the release of CPP founder, Joma Sison http://bannedthought.net/International/RIM/CoRIM/2007/ReleaseSison-070830.pdf CPP statement on Operation Green Hunt and CPI (Maoist) http://library.redspark.nu/2010_-_Statement_by_the_CPP_on_Operation_Green_Hunt_and_the_Revolution_in_India