On the Formation of the International Communist League - Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal

 On the Formation of the International Communist League

International Department

Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal

Fifteen Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties operating in fourteen countries have founded an organisation

named the International Communist League (ICL) and released its declaration on December 26, 2022. In

addition, the ICL published an appeal on February 8, 2023. It reads, "We call on the entire international

proletariat, all Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties and organizations to join the red flag of ICL to strengthen

this new wave of world proletarian revolution." Our party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal,

releases in brief its opinion on the formation of the ICL, the declaration it issued, and the call through this

declaration to join the ICL.

For the past year, we were busy in bilateral discussions and debates for party unity between our two

parties, the then CPN (Revolutionary Maoist) led by Comrade Kiran and the then CPN (Majority) led by

Comrade Kanchan. We did not think it appropriate to publicize separate views of the two parties on ICL

while the unity process was undergoing, and we did not do that. After the success of the unity talk

between the two parties and the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal under the

leadership of Comrade Kiran, our party has prepared its opinion on this question. Mainly because of this

unity process, our party was a little late in publicizing its views on such an important international event

for the world proletariat. We apologize for this.

After the undeclared dissolution of the RIM, we, the constituents of the United Party, have been

continuously working hard to build an international organization under the guidance of Marxism-

Leninism-Maoism. In this sense, we were positive yesterday, and we are so today to any initiative taken

or to be taken by genuine Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties to build that kind of organization. Not only

this, but we also have a clear opinion that the foundation of an international centre of genuine communist

parties based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is inevitable today. In this situation, our party offers

revolutionary greetings to the ICL and the constituent parties that formed it aimed at facing the current

challenges of the world proletarian revolution.

But our party has disagreements on some issues of this international event. We believe that the way the

ICL was constituted, and its declaration was adopted without discussing with many influential parties has

failed to build a strong ideological and political foundation that unifies the ICM. Therefore, in the given

situation, our party will not join the ICL according to its call. However, it does not mean that we do not

want to work together with ICL and go ahead. Our party is in favour of trustworthy and enduring

cooperation and principled unity. Also, pursuing the Maoist method of unity-struggle-transformation and

new unity on a new basis, our party wants to go ahead for a higher level of unity. We are striving for this

and will continue to do so.

ICL has taken positions on many ideological, political, and organizational issues in the declaration. We

agree with many of them and disagree with a few others. We believe that not by negating one another but

by learning from each other's positive aspects through a healthy two-line struggle and reducing one's

limitations and weaknesses can create a strong base that helps achieve a higher level of unity. This is what

we mean by saying that the two-line struggle is the driving force of the Communist Party. In this context,

we have presented our position in points as follows.

First, ICL says, "The principal problem for the ICM is still the dispersion of forces and the main danger is

revisionism." This statement is correct. In addition, it has identified five questions that draw a

demarcation line between Marxism and revisionism in the present world context. They are: "1)

acknowledging or not acknowledging Maoism as the third, new and higher stage of Marxism and the

necessity to combat revisionism and all opportunism; 2) acknowledging or not acknowledging the

omnipotence of revolutionary violence in order to make revolution in each one’s own country; 3)

acknowledging or not acknowledging the necessity to demolish the old state apparatus and replace the

dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat; 4) acknowledging or not

acknowledging the necessity of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, 5) acknowledging or not

acknowledging the necessity of proletarian internationalism." Our party agrees with the four points

mentioned here. However, the terminology 'omnipotence of revolutionary violence' in point No. 2 seems

to mislead and create some confusion. It is necessary to be clear on this.

Mao spoke in one context about the "omnipotence of war." In an article titled "Problems of War and

Strategy," Mao says, "Some people ridicule us as advocates of the "omnipotence of war." Yes, we are

advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad; it is Marxist. The guns of the

Russian Communist Party created socialism. We shall create a democratic republic. Experience in the

class struggle in the era of imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working

class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense, we may say

that only with guns can the whole world be transformed. We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do

not want war, but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary

to take up the gun." (Mao, Selected Works, Vol. 2, Page 225). In this article, Mao has again said, "Every

Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that

the party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the party.” Right at this

point, it is notable what Mao meant by saying, "Put politics in command" during the Great Proletarian

Cultural Revolution in China.

In that article, when Mao said "the omnipotence of war" is Marxist, he meant that violence is an integral

part of Marxism but not more powerful than Marxism. By saying so, Mao has emphasised that violence is

inevitable for revolution, it is universally applicable, and the role of war guided by Marxist principles in

revolution is omnipotent. The way the ICL has put forward the subject matter is not logical. We believe

the debate that puts aside other related aspects and picks up only those that serve one's logic does not help

anyone reach a correct conclusion. If the demarcation line between Marxism and revisionism is drawn

based on whether one accepts the "omnipotence of war," there is a severe danger that Marxism is reduced

to revolutionary violence. The revolutionary violence is an integral and decisive aspect of Marxism but

not more powerful than Marxism. We want to draw ICL's serious attention to this question. MLM is

omnipotent, not the revolutionary violence. To clarify this Lenin said, "The Marxist doctrine is

omnipotent because it is true." (Lenin Volume 19 Page 23). But we agree that ICL's emphasis on

revolutionary violence is undeniably justified in the present context where parliamentarism has prevailed

in the international communist movement.

Second, the ICL declaration reads, "The new international organization is a centre of ideological,

political, and organizational coordination, based on democratic centralism." Given the present level of

ideological and political unity among the parties, the subjective conditions of our movement to build an

international organization based on democratic centralism have not been met yet. The formation of an

international organization based on democratic centralism, among Communist Parties that have weak

ideological and political grounds and are unable even to publish a joint statement on May Day does not

match the actual objective condition of the movement. In the given situation, every communist party must

emphasize the development of a revolutionary class struggle consistent with the characteristics of its

country, learn from the experiences of the fraternal communist parties, and develop a healthy two-line

struggle to achieve a higher level of unity. The form of an international organization that helps exchange

experiences and organize ideological debates is a loose coordination centre of MLM parties that makes

decisions based on consensus. At this time, all our international work should be focused on this.

We have acquired experiences of First, Second, and Third Internationals active in the past. Summation of

all those experiences is not possible here. But it is relevant to mention Mao's conclusion about the Third

International (Comintern) that operated based on democratic centralism. In a question asked after the

dissolution of the Comintern, Mao said, "At present, the form of revolutionary organization known as the

Communist International is no longer adapted to the necessities of the struggle. To continue this

organizational form would, on the contrary, hinder the development of the revolutionary struggle in each

country." (Mao, Selected Works, Vol. 6, Page 332). We must seriously take this statement of Chairman

Mao, who rejected the instructions issued by the Comintern and said that maintaining an organization

based on democratic centralism means hindering the development of the struggle in every country. How

can democratic centralism be operative now, while it was not so in the past when the communist

movement had its global influence and there were established proletarian leaders like Stalin and Mao to

lead it?

Third, the draft proposal placed by the Coordinating Committee for the Unified Maoist International

Conference (CUMIC) asserted that the guiding principle of the international communist movement would

be Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism. But now, ICL's declaration does not contain the term

mainly Maoism but says Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the guiding principle. It is a correct political

decision. However, it is silent on why they deemed necessary yesterday and irrelevant today. It is not a

minor issue that someone can retain or remove on will, but an important theoretical question. It would

impart its political significance had it clarified why 'mainly Maoism' was wrong to add to our guiding

ideology. By not doing this, ICL has shown its ambiguity on this question.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the integrated revolutionary principle of the proletariat. It is not the

arithmetic sum of three different doctrines: Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism. Leninism was born on the

foundation of Marxism and became Marxism-Leninism. In the same way, Maoism was born on the

foundation of Marxism-Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism developed. So, Marxism, Leninism,

and Maoism are not separate theories; they are inseparably interconnected, and the latter stands upon the

base of the former. It is what is meant by saying no party or person can be a Marxist without being a

Maoist in today's era. The terminology 'mainly Maoism' separates Maoism from Marxism and Marxism-

Leninism, so it is wrong. Although the declaration did not give any reason why ICL stopped saying

'mainly Maoism', its decision to adopt Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the guiding principle is correct. In

today's situation, the theoretical foundation of unity of the international communist movement is

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, nothing else.

Fourth, another question of debate raised by ICL in the declaration is that of people's war. The way the

ICL uses the terminology people's war in its declaration is ambiguous. During the new democratic

revolution in China, the form of violence developed and applied by Mao was a protracted people's war,

not merely a people's war. Some communist parties, including ICL, use the term people's war. But no one

has yet explained and clarified whether it is the protracted people's war defined by Mao or its different or

developed form that corresponds to the present context. The ICL declaration writes, "People’s War is a

war of masses led by the Communist Party to conquer and defend the New Power for the proletariat."

This statement implies that all forms of violence that are applied in revolution are people's wars. Here lies

ICL's serious theoretical problem regarding the nature of violence. It is necessary to be clear whether the

People's War is a protracted people's war as defined and applied by Chairman Mao or different from it,

and if it is different, how it is so. If we are not clear on this, we will not wage revolutionary war but will

be infinitely groping in the dark in pursuit of finding the correct path of revolutionary violence.

The lesson we have learned from Mao is that the protracted people's war goes through three strategic

stages: namely defensive, equilibrium, and offensive. In these three stages, the guerilla war, mobile war,

and positional war, respectively play principal roles. Moreover, the base area is the backbone of the

protracted people's war. In capitalist countries, the development of science and technology and the

information, communication, and transportation networks they have laid have made it impossible to

establish the base areas. Then what kind of people's war will it be without base areas? It needs to be

identified. Even in the semi/neo-colonial countries oppressed by imperialism, the protracted people's war

cannot now be applied as it was done during the Chinese revolution. In this situation, the models of

revolutionary violence in developed capitalist countries, where the centre of class struggle is the cities,

and in oppressed countries, where the centre of revolution is the countryside, should both be developed

relative to new objective conditions. It is necessary to correctly identify to what extent the two models of

violence applied in the past revolutions ‒ protracted people's war and armed people's insurrection ‒

resemble or differ from the terminology people's war that the international communist movement,

including ICL, is using now. The word people's war is lovely to hear, but if we are not clear about how it

is applied in the field of revolution, the communist movement will not advance but will continue groping

in the dark.

In the past few years, there have been spontaneous rebellions in many countries of the world. In the

absence of revolutionary party leadership in those countries, all those rebellions have disappeared as the

high waves of the sea do. We all witnessed the spontaneous uprising of the people of Sri Lanka last year.

The Sri Lankan military and armed police remained mute spectators. It was inevitable for the spontaneous

public outcry to subside, and in due course that did. Let us imagine, had there been a genuine

revolutionary communist party and even a small but committed army under its leadership, what would

have happened in Sri Lanka at that time? When we talk of using force in the revolution, we must pay

attention to such events. Besides, when we speak of developing the military line, we should seriously

consider the development of science and technology. The crux of what Lenin meant when he said, "the

concrete analysis of concrete conditions' is the essence of Marxism" and 'Marxism is not a dogma but a

guide to action', remains here. We believe that none of the two models of the successful revolutionary

violence of the past can be applied without timely modification that corresponds to the changing objective

reality.

Fifth, the ICL declaration reads, "With the ongoing people's war in India, Peru, Turkey and the

Philippines, and preparations for it in many other countries, a new great wave of world proletarian

revolution has arisen in the world." In our party's opinion, it is a subjective analysis; it does not

correspond to the present reality of the world communist movement. This analysis is nothing except a

mechanical replication of Chairman Mao's 1962 statement, which said, "The next 50 to 100 years or so, as

of today, will be a great epoch of radical change of the social system in the world." This interpretation

was objective and correct when the Socialist Revolution and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in

China had spread a revolutionary message around the world, and imperialism was weak. But in the

present condition, when the Communist Party is nowhere in power after 1976, and the international

communist movement is dispersed, the ICL position is subjective. We disagree with this.

Six, the correct analysis of the fundamental and principal contradictions of the world is one of the

essential conditions for the development and success of the proletarian revolution. ICL declaration has

defined that the contradiction between capitalism and socialism, the contradiction between labour and

capital, the inter-imperialist contradiction, and the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed

nations and the people are the fundamental contradictions of the world today. In addition, it has identified

the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and people of the world as the principal

contradiction. Our party believes that the ideological contradiction between capitalism and socialism will

remain so long as there are classes in society. Nevertheless, to consider it as a fundamental contradiction

in the present condition when no single socialist country exists in the world does not confirm the

objective reality. It is one of the contradictions of the world, but not the fundamental one at present. As

far as other contradictions are concerned, they are correct.

However, there is a problem with the declaration on comprehending the relationship between the

imperialist powers and the present international balance of power. There exists always a state of

contention and collusion among the imperialist powers, in which the former is absolute, and the latter is

relative. Imperialist powers collude with other forces to form temporary alliances and blocs to undermine

their rivals. They confront each other to establish their monopoly and capture the natural resources and

markets. In the present world, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have formed a bloc against another

bloc, the US-led NATO. Right in this context, the ICL declaration reads, "The imperialist dispute is

absolute, and the collusion is relative. This determines the circumstantial and temporary character of the

imperialist alliances; this is why one cannot speak about “imperialist blocks;” this is revisionism. Thus,

the European Union is not a block, or an “European imperialism,” but an alliance of countries of Europe,

under hegemony of Germany.” According to them, the concept of the circumstantial alliance between the

imperialist powers is Marxist, the bloc is revisionist, and the European Union is not imperialism. What

kind of Marxism is this? Our party does not agree with this kind of metaphysical argument.

Again, the declaration reads, "On the side of the imperialist powers, Yankee imperialism is the sole

hegemonic superpower. Russia is still an atomic superpower and there is a handful of second-tier

imperialist powers." This interpretation implies that the US is the only enemy of the world proletarian

revolution because it is the sole hegemonic superpower, and all others are not so because they are second-

tier imperialists. Right here, the declaration does not write a single word about the Russian invasion of

Ukraine and the war that is going on between the US-led NATO and Russia in Ukrainian Land. Why is

ICL indecisive on such a formidable international issue with worldwide political and economic

implications? We think it is a serious question.

As a result of the unequal development of capitalism, the imperialist country that is weak today can

become powerful tomorrow and vice versa. No imperialist power is number one forever, including the

US. At present, the development of China is pushing the US behind in many respects. And another

country may emerge as a superpower tomorrow. In this way, ICL's analysis of the current balance of

power between the imperialist superpowers and their level of confrontation does not correspond to the

existing objective reality. It is a metaphysical understanding.

Seven, there is no unity among the Maoist forces in understanding Comrade Gonzalo and his valuable

contributions to the international communist movement. Gonzalo's contribution is vital in defining

Maoism, applying it in the specific conditions of Peru, and establishing it in the international communist

movement. There is no doubt that his firm conviction in MLM, and relentless struggle and sacrifice for

the emancipation of the world proletariat are exemplary and unique. He has exhibited a great ideal of

being a revolutionary communist. The communist movement should highly admire him. Notwithstanding

this, we do not think it is a mature decision to address him as Chairman Gonzalo and synthesize his

contributions as Gonzalo Thought.

Eight, the issue of evaluating the Comintern and Stalin has been controversial in the international

communist movement. Our party considers Stalin a true successor of Lenin, a builder of socialism in

Russia, the hero of the Second World War, and a great leader of the world proletariat. Our party believes

that the decision taken by the Seventh Congress of the Comintern under Stalin's leadership to defeat

fascism and protect the proletarian power in the Soviet Union was correct. In this regard, our party agrees

with ICL. Our party believes that although he was a great revolutionary, he made some metaphysical

mistakes. We think the evaluation of Stalin made by Mao is correct.

Nine, there are differences in the contemporary communist movement as regards the evaluation of RIM.

After the counter-revolution in China, and particularly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the

establishment of the Committee of RIM (CoRIM) was a revolutionary step of far-reaching significance. It

was a befitting reply to the apologists of imperialism when they had attacked the communist movement

from all angles, saying Marxism has failed, socialism has been defeated, and capitalism has been proved

to be the only viable option. The RIM Manifesto prepared by the Second International Conference held in

1984 and the document Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism adopted by the Second Extended Meeting

of CoRIM held in 1993 had become the correct ideological and political guidance to the world communist

movement at that time. In our party's opinion, the role played by the RIM at that time was vital in sharing

the experiences of people's wars in Peru, Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, and other countries and in

building communist parties in several others. Also, RIM was established as a trustworthy Marxist-

Leninist-Maoist international centre of the world proletariat among the revolutionary communists the

world over.

However, given the sectarian and authoritarian trend of RCP, USA, and the unhealthy competition that

had developed among the chief leaders of the prominent parties in RIM, the role of the CoRIM weakened

in the later period. The class and national capitulation of Prachanda and the post-Marxist deviation of Bob

Avakian resulted in the undeclared dissolution of CoRIM in 2008. Although it could not last long, we

should highly evaluate the revolutionary role the CoRIM had played in most parts of its existence. Now,

we are on a mission of constituting an international organization of the proletariat; the experiences the

world proletariat has accumulated in the past are valuable to guide the upcoming tasks. The initiative to

build an international communist centre should be based on the synthesis of the overall experiences of the

first, second, and third internationals, including the RIM.

Finally,

We placed above our party's critical comments on the formation of ICL and the major ideological and

political positions adopted by it. We believe the pursuit of forming ICL is admirable, and an international

centre of the Maoist parties is a must in the present world situation. Nevertheless, the process of its

formation, the organizational method and principle it has adopted, the ideological and political positions

of the declaration, and the path of revolution it has pursued do not correctly grasp the Marxist-Leninist-

Maoist principles. There are problems with militarist thinking in the document adopted by ICL. Instead of

understanding the organization as a unity of opposites, the sectarian and monolithic thinking that

entertains the unity of like-minded parties seems to prevail in the ICL. The opinion of our party is that the

ideological and political line expressed in this manifesto cannot unite the dispersed MLM parties and

thereby face the current challenges imposed by imperialism. Instead, it has split the movement and made

it weaker.

The international unity of the revolutionaries is the imperative need of the moment. At present, the

communist parties are not only internationally scattered but also, are not ideologically and politically

strong and unified as well. An organization based on democratic centralism in such a shaky situation

cannot bring desired results. It is the time to build a solid ideological and political base that enables

scattered Maoist forces to confront the impending challenges. The healthy and sharp two-line struggle

that helps develop ideological and political unity can materialize this task. It makes us go along the spiral

path to achieve a higher level of unity through unity-struggle-transformation, not through a circular one of

unity-struggle-unity. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, Mao emphasized that the

target of the two-line struggle should be revolutionary transformation. It is the imperative need of the

present day to grasp and apply it scientifically.

ICL declaration says that all fundamental contradictions, including the world's principal contradiction, are

intensifying. This is a correct analysis. Now, the imperialist superpowers do not seem prepared for a

world war, but the danger of the inter-imperialist conflict turning into a Third World War still exists.

Mao's synthesis that either the world war would give rise to a proletarian revolution, or the proletarian

revolution would prevent the world war, therefore, revolution is the main trend at present is relevant even

today. But an important weapon to turn this basic trend into reality is the united intervention of

revolutionary communists scattered around the world based on MLM.

Many important revolutionary communist parties have remained outside even after the formation of ICL.

They have presented their disagreements with ICL in their political documents. In the given situation, the

ideological and political line adopted by ICL is short of making the genuine Maoist Parties rally under its

red flag. To realize the international unity of the genuine Communists, it is necessary to take the initiative

from a newer height. It is our firm opinion that every genuine Maoist Party should play its creative role in

building a new international coordination centre among those parties united in ICL and outside of it. It is

the need of the day. We are ready to play a required role in this regard. Prejudice does not help us unite.

Working without prejudice can the scattered Maoist parties be united at the international level. And by so

doing the ideological, political, and organizational basis to build a communist international centre based

on democratic centralism is prepared for tomorrow. In the present context, it is the appropriate way to

bring together the entire scattered revolutionary communists in one international centre.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!

Down With Imperialism and All Sorts of Reactions!

Down With All Sorts of Revisionism!

Long Live the World Socialist Revolution!

‹STOP THE THIEF!› - Central Committee Communist Party of Switzerland

 Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

‹STOP THE THIEF!›

REPLY TO A RECENT ACCUSATION OF ‹NATIONALISM› AND ‹RIGHT-WING LIQUIDATIONISM› BY THE NORWEGIAN DOGMATO-REVISIONISTS

Central Committee
Communist Party of Switzerland

June 2026

As far as we are concerned, I hold that it is bad if a person, a political party, an army, or a school is not attacked by the enemy, since that would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is even better if the enemy attacks us wildly, paints us completely black, and portray us as being without a single virtue, since that demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves, but also achieved a great deal in our work.

— Mao Zedong: To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing, But Rather a Good Thing (26^th of May, 1939)

The Norwegian dogmato-revisionist sect hiding behind the name of the erstwhile Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization Serve the People has decided to be the first member of its little transnational clique to publicly throw itself against the Communist Party of Switzerland.

This is just another case of the dogmato-revisionist ringleaders — namely, ‹Geronimo›, the leader of the Communist Party of Brazil, and ‹Constantine›, the leader of the Committee Red Flag in Germany — hiding behind their puppet sects in other countries and relying on them to do their dirty work. In applying this tactic, the dogmato-revisionists mirror the Soviet revisionists of old, who launched their attack on the Communist Party of China through their lackeys and puppets in the French, Italian, and other revisionist communist parties, after a long period of talking behind the backs of the Chinese comrades and spreading circulars full of fake rumours and allegations to everyone in the international communist movement but the actual subjects of those circulars, as the dogmato-revisionists have done in relation to us for almost six years at this point.

In the recently released preface to a rag originally written in 2023 in indirect and underhanded response to a Swiss polemic against the German dogmato-revisionists concerning the national question, the Norwegian dogmato-revisionists write:

Nationalism in the Norwegian labour movement has developed in symbiosis with other forms of right-wing opportunism. Nationalism has also affected the Communist League — Serve the People, which we ourselves grew out of. Hence, the struggle against nationalism is both historically important and very relevant. It is only made more relevant by the increasingly aggressive nationalism of the Red Party, Pål Steigan’s nationalism, new social-chauvinist groups in Sweden, and the nationalist deviations of the right-wing liquidators in Germany and Switzerland. [Our emphasis.] [1]

In synthesis, our Party is being accused of ‹nationalist deviations›, on the one hand, and of ‹right-wing liquidationism›, on the other hand.

Let us begin by addressing the accusation of ‹right-wing liquidationism›.

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› making up the Red Star Collective who liquidated their organization, or was it the Committee Red Flag?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› who fought tooth and nail against the Swiss Marxist-Leninist-Maoists identifying, reclaiming, and further developing the red line in the history of the Swiss communist movement, as represented among others by the founders of our Party — namely, Comrades Leonie Kascher and Jakob Herzog — or was it the Committee Red Flag?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› who restored the Red Star Collective and reclaimed the road of the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Switzerland, or was it the Committee Red Flag?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› who refounded the Communist Party of Switzerland in a symbolic show of determination and resolve to carry the process of reconstitution through to the end, or was it the Committee Red Flag?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› who objectively colluded with opportunists in the Swiss revolutionary movement and with the reactionary Swiss police to force the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists underground, where they continued carrying out revolutionary mass work under difficult conditions, or was it the Committee Red Flag?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› who denounced the Red Flag website to the US imperialist ‹authorities›, in order to get it taken down on multiple occasions, or was it the Committee Red Flag?

It should also be asked:

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Germany who liquidated their own Youth Resistance organization, or was it the Committee Red Flag that aided the German police in doing so by publishing crucial information about the internal workings of that organization on the Internet?

Let us not stop there.

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who liquidated the unity of the Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist-Leninist and split that Party into two opposing factions, or was it the dogmato-revisionists in the ‹International Communist League› who have usurped that name?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who liquidated their bonds of unity with the Maoist Communist Party of Turkey and North Kurdistan following the usurpation of its leadership by revisionists in 2013, having absolutely no faith in the determination and strength of the Anatolian communists, and who even tried to isolate a communist party of such prestige from the rest of the international communist movement after its reconstitution in 2022, simply because it maintained relations with those evil Swiss liquidators — or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the ‹International Communist League›?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who liquidated the unity of the Communist League of Sweden by usurping its leadership and splitting it into two opposing factions, or was it a group of former members of the Red Sun group who had affiliated themselves with the ‹International Communist League›, infiltrated the Communist League of Sweden, and groomed a handful of politically immature teenagers for the explicit purpose of usurping that organization?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who liquidated the ‹Committee to Reconstitute the Communist Party of the United States of America›, or did it collapse under the mounting pressure of its members in the face of the literal blows of the darling of the ‹International Communist League› ‹Comrade Dallas› pistol-whipping them into submission?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who interfered in the internal affairs of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada, thus providing the liquidators on both sides of the split in that Party with every possible opportunity to halt the process of reconstitution of the communist party in that country, or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the ‹International Communist League› in the United States, Germany, and elsewhere?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who usurped and liquidated the Red Wave group in Denmark and turned it into a cocoon for hatching the ‹Committee Red Star› as a carbon copy of the Committee Red Flag, while trying to derail the actual ongoing effort to reconstitute the Communist Party of Denmark by the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of the Communist Youth League, or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the Committee Red Flag, a leading member organization of the ‹International Communist League›?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who repeatedly split apart the Maoist Communist Party of France and the people’s organizations created by it, and thus dragged the legacy of Comrade Pierre’s decades-long struggle for the reconstitution of the Party through the mud, or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the ‹International Communist League›?

Was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who liquidated the relative basis of unity of the international communist movement, which had been achieved through decades of struggle both inside and outside of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement on the initiative of the Communist Party of Peru, and split the international communist movement by forming a separate organization on a sectarian basis of unity, or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the ‹International Communist League›?

Indeed, was it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland scheming in the womb before they had even been born who sabotaged the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in objective collusion with Avakian and Prachanda by converting anagonistic contradictions into antagonistic ones, among other things by practically expelling Comrade Gonzalo’s faction of the Communist Party of Peru from the Movement, thus falling right into the trap laid for them by the US and Peruvian intelligence services, or was it the dogmato-revisionists of the Peruvian People’s Movement, who have mutated and grown into the ‹International Communist League› of today?

Finally, is it the ‹right-wing liquidators› in Switzerland who are even now scheming to influence, infiltrate, usurp, split, isolate, and destroy the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Communist Party of India (Maoist), especially the latter, by interfering in their internal affairs whenever they face difficulties, just as was done to the Communist Party of Peru in the past, or is it the dogmato-revisionists of the ‹International Communist League› who are doing so?

We could go on, but there is no need to do so.

As for the accusation of ‹nationalist deviations›, we simply want to ask:

Is it ‹nationalism› for a communist party to practice independence, autonomy, and self-reliance, as the ‹Swiss nationalists› do?

Would it be better to dance to the tune of another communist party, to accept its ‹aid›, and to request directives from it before taking any action, as you ‹proletarian internationalists› do?

Is it ‹nationalism› for a communist party to refuse to submit to the national organization of another country, as the ‹Swiss nationalists› refuse to do?

Would it be better to liquidate one’s own organizational structure into the extraterritorial structure of a foreign organization acting like the old Bund or a Trotskijite organization, as we indeed did in the past under the influence of the dogmato-revisionist line, and as you ‹proletarian internationalists› do today?

Is it ‹nationalism› for a communist party to refuse to be a part of a revisionist current, just because that current is ‹international› in scope, as the ‹Swiss nationalists› refuse to do?

Would it be better to try to ingratiate oneself with the ‹international movement› for the sake of achieving an unprincipled unity above all else, as we indeed briefly tried to do in the past under the influence of the dogmato-revisionist line, and as you ‹proletarian internationalists› do today?

Is it ‹nationalism› for a communist party in a minor imperialist country to defend the people of that country against the imperialist superpowers, while simultaneously defending all oppressed countries from the imperialism of that country?

Would it be better to call the opposition to a prospective Russian annexation of Svalbard or a prospective US annexation of Greenland ‹social-chauvinist› without a drop of nuance, as if the world had not long ago differentiated itself into three different parts, as you ‹proletarian internationalists› do?

Is it ‹nationalism› for a communist party to not scream at the top of its lungs about the ‹death› of the nationalities to which its members belong — ‹Germany must die›, ‹Germany, never again›, and so on, to the point of getting sick from the phrase-mongering alone — as if the party adhered to some kind of Anti-German hysteria or the revisionism of Gotfred Appel?

Would it be better to pretend that there is no proletariat outside of the migrant strata in the imperialist countries, as if one were a member of the ‹Maoist Internationalist Movement› or the Communist Working Group, as you ‹proletarian internationalists› objectively do?

In synthesis, these accusations of ‹nationalism› and ‹right-wing liquidationism› have one and only one purpose — namely, to cover up the crimes and deviations of the dogmato-revisionists themselves, like a thief shouting: ‹Stop the thief!›

These are the same old opportunist tricks that the revisionists and opportunists have always used.

Mihail Bakunin accused Marx of wanting to be a ‹dictator›, even though Bakunin was the one who was planning to set up a secret committee exercising dictatorship over the working class after his ‹revolution›.

Karl Kautsky repeated the same accusation against Lenin, even though Kautsky’s former party comrades were the ones who drowned the German revolution in blood, while he himself stood by inactively and let them exercise their bourgeois dictatorship unopposed.

Leon Trotskij accused both Lenin and Stalin of ‹bureaucratism›, even though Trotskij was the one who wanted to turn the trade-union bureaucrats into military dictators over the proletariat.

Nikita Hrusev repeated the same accusation against both Stalin and Mao, while also accusing the latter of being a ‹nationalist› and a ‹militarist›, even though it was Hrusev who rigged up the infamous Soviet Nomenklatura system, imposed greater Russian nationalism on the Union of Socialist Council Republics, and converted the Council Union into a military superpower that was socialist in name, but imperialist in deeds.

Enver Hoxha repeated the same accusations against Mao, even though it was Hoxha who preached that ‹the religion of the Albanian nation is Albanianism› and other nationalist nonsense, while his successor also accused Gonzalo of being a ‹terrorist›, even though the Hoxha-Alia regime exercised a reign of terror over the Albanian people.

Indeed, the specific accusation of ‹nationalism› has been levelled against Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Gonzalo alike by revisionists, opportunists, and renegades of all stripes for centuries. The dogmato-revisionists are no different.

Here, we are by no means trying to imply that we are on the same level as the classics of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism; rather, what we mean is that our dogmato-revisionist friends have sunk to the level — but certainly not the stature — of people like Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotskij, Hrusev, and Hoxha.

For such revisionists, opportunists, and renegades, it is truly the case that ‹every accusation is a confession›.

We communists have gone through far too many positive and negative experiences with such opportunist tactics to ever fall for them again.

The Communist Party of Switzerland stands firm and defiant in the face of such baseless accusations.

We have fundamentally completed our campaign to rectify dogmato-revisionism and study Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and come out of it stronger than ever ideologically.

We are advancing in creatively integrating Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism and the contributions of such prominent leaders of the international communist movement as Comrade Gonzalo and others to the inevitable fourth stage of development of the ideology of the international proletariat with the concrete conditions of the eco-socialist revolution in Switzerland in the era of globalized monopoly capitalism by identifying, reclaiming, and further developing the elements of the guiding thought of the Swiss revolution specified by Marx, Engels, and Lenin internationally and by Johann Philipp Becker, Leonie Kascher, Jakob Herzog, Lorenz Teuscher, Hans Bruggmann, and others nationally.

Our practical work has been striking roots in the underground and is about to slowly yet surely blossom through the cracks of the asphalt into the sunlight.

Thus, we are pushing forward the protracted process of reconstitution of our Party in all spheres in preparation for ultimately making the revolution in our country under the guidance of the military doctrine of the proletariat as a component part and in the service of the proletarian world revolution.

Neither the Committee Red Flag nor the Swiss police was able to prevent us from continuing marching forward along this road, and the words of an increasingly politically irrelevant Norwegian sect will certainly not be able to make a single dint in our morale and resolve. Moreover, our friends in the ‹International Communist League› should be fully aware that they had better limit their attacks on us to words alone; any attempt to once again take this dispute beyond words and make good on their threats about ‹military consequences› will be met with a resolute response.

In a few decades, we will either be in power or in prison, either way having contributed decisive positive and negative experience to the memory of the international proletariat, while you will still be scribbling on the Internet in pure isolation from the events of the world around you, like all other dogmato-revisionists today, from the adherents of Enver Hoxha to those of Amadeo Bordiga, Karl Kautsky, and other historical footnotes.

Meanwhile, the international communist movement is slowly yet surely advancing in its process of reunification in the International Communist Forum proposed by the Communist Party of India (Maoist) as a step in the right direction of the reconstitution of the Communist International — a process of reunification that is taking place on the already existing relative basis of unity of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the revolutionary principles established by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement. This will only be the prelude to even higher levels of unity, which you tried to reach in your impetuous leap, only to fall short — into the abyss of isolation from the real communists of the world, from Anatolia and Afghanistan through India and Burma to the Philippines and Peru and beyond. We are infinitely proud of standing shoulder to shoulder with these real communist comrades all over the world and of having so firmly burned all bridges with your so-called ‹internationalism›.

In the words of the great Chinese poet Lu Xun:

With fate shrouded by the stars, what more can I seek?
Before I dare to turn over, I have already bumped my head.

A tattered hat shading my face, I pass through bustling streets;
A leaking boat carrying wine, I float midstream.

Fierce-browed, I coolly defy a thousand pointing fingers;
Head-bowed, like a willing ox I serve the children.

Hiding in my small attic, I establish my own rule;
Regardless of winter, summer, spring, or autumn. [2]

We have spoken. Let the traitors say what they want — their words cannot drown out the coming storm.

---

[1] Source: Editorial Board of Serve the People Media: Preface to Marxism and Social-Chauvinism (7^th of June, 2026)

[2] Lu Xun: In Mockery of Myself (1932)