On the Committee to Reconstitute CPUSA

 

On the Committee to Reconstitute CPUSA

By: Ivet.J

21/10/2025

Preface

I originally wrote this for the Organization for a Revolutionary Communist Party - USA (The American branch of the MSC). Therefore its solutions and conclusions are primarily applicable to America, however  it does hold lessons applicable internationally.

The Current Communist Party USA

The modern CPUSA is an extremely reformist, Browderite and Khrushchevite revisionist organization in the USA. Although it started as a legitimate Marxist-Leninist party, it fell deep into revisionism, anti-Stalinism, social-democracy and reformism with the leadership of Earl Browder in the 1940s. They have continued this course. The organization is now unfit to represent the proletariat, they have made this clear such as in their statement on ICE and the government shut down. It read "Shut down ICE, not the government!" this is a clear showing of their social-democrat tendencies and reformism.

Who were the Red Guards USA?

The Red Guards were a decentralized organization founded in 2015 in Austin, Texas operated in Austin, Los Angeles,  Kansas City, Tampa, Charlotte and Houston which follow Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.  They had many successes and many failures in organizing. Their primary mistake was to attack local DSA and PSL meetings (Attacking the PSL meetings was very much justified as the said PSL meeting had been protecting a pedophile. The Democratic Socialists of America attack was more erroneous). Unfortunately the only thing this accomplished was a decrease in public opinion of the revolutionary struggle and controversies that led to the collapse of the Red Guards. The organization fully collapsed and reformed into the Committee to Reconstitute CPUSA after the Austin and LA branches were dissolved in 2019.

The strategy of the Committee to Reconstitute CPUSA

The initial strategy of the CR-CPUSA was to "reform" the current CPUSA under Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, this was of course impossible as they would find out. This lead to the brief dissolution and reconvening of the organizational line in 2022. They would resolve to try and reconstitute a new party under Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. They have stayed mostly underground since then and the only information available is from the Worker Magazine (A Magazine heavily associated with the CR-CPUSA), but they don't have much real information on the recent activities of the CR-CPUSA either. As of now its unclear if the organization even exists anymore. 

The lessons of the CR-CPUSA and how to go forward

Our organization exists to correct their past mistakes and move forward. In order to do this we must first identify these mistakes, why they were made and how to avoid them going forward. 

• Attacking DSA meetings

This only served to reduce popular support and to hurt the Mass Line. We must only carry out such actions when absolutely necessary. An example when this was necessary is when the Red Guards attacked a PSL meeting where a known rapist pedophile was being protected. Even then it would be best to avoid such incidents.

• Being too decentralized

This led to the Red Guards becoming uncoordinated, divided and in some cases, mostly separate organizations. Any movement going forward must have a united leadership to carry out the preparation for and initiation of the revolution and people's war. 

• Rejecting mass line and failing to fully represent the American proletariat

These are some of their worst mistakes, they only represented those who are already Marxists and in the organization. They failed to represent the average proletarian in their common struggles. We must have an accompanying mass line organization, offer Marxist education programs and engage with the masses.

We must learn from these mistakes going forward.

Proletarians of the World, unite!
Maoist Students Collective 

Reformism: the Betrayal of Leftism

Reformism: The Betrayal of Leftism 

By: Nate

23/10/2025

A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of reformism. Reformism tries to change capitalism through small improvements instead of revolution; this is the betrayal of Marxism: it doesn’t overthrow the bourgeoisie, it makes capitalism slightly more tolerable for a small group of people.

Their belief in social justice, equality, and peace sounds like a dream; nevertheless, it necessarily has to manifest itself only as such: a dream. These fundamental goals they’re chasing after are mere excuses that can never be achieved in a capitalist framework. The problem is not to be blamed solely on the billionaire, but on the internal contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, there is no justice, there is no freedom.

In order to truly achieve the goals that reformists merely dream about, we must follow the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and Gonzalo with the means to free ourselves from the chains of capitalism. They teach us and show us the revolutionary path to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat, the only true form of justice.

A good example of a reformist party gaining more and more appeal from the youth is Die Linke in Germany. Die Linke, meaning “The Left,” is a liberal reformist party in Germany that is winning the hearts of many young leftists with their friendly and inviting politics. On the other hand, the right-wing party AfD, meaning “Alternative for Germany,” and its trusty nationalist following spread hate about the leftists. Die Linke is being labeled “Communist” and “Left-Extremist,” whilst not even in the slightest resembling true leftist thought. Not only are they betraying true leftist ideology by ignoring the central contradiction that it tries to fight against (bourgeoisie/proletariat), they indirectly hurt the revolutionary cause; them being labeled as “communists” makes the actual communist movement less credible and more of an insult. This greatly damages the reputation of Marxism as a form of science. There is too much misinformation, such that comrades that actually call themselves communists have no chance of making any of their points with any credibility.

These reformist and social-democrat organizations are simply a petite bourgeois distraction from class struggle and revolution. We must struggle against these revisionist lines and fight for people's war and socialism!

Proletarians of the World, unite!
Maoist Students Collective

What is Hoxhaism?: Debunking hoxhaite claims.

 

What is Hoxhaism?: 
Debunking hoxhaite claims.

By: Ivet. J and Paulus Strother

Between 1978 and 1985, many Maoist parties began to adopt dogmatic positions. The primary reason for this shift was the influence of Enver Hoxha’s false claims about Chairman Mao. We have carefully analyzed the misrepresentations made against Maoism, and today we will debunk these distortions found in essays and books such as:

 Declaration of War on Maoists by the Comintern (SH), Imperialism and the Revolution (1978) by Enver Hoxha, Can the Chinese revolution be called a proletarian revolution? (1979) by Enver Hoxha. 

Can the Chinese revolution be called a proletarian revolution?

This book, written by Enver Hoxha, claims that the Chinese revolution was led by the peasantry rather than the proletariat. This argument is often used by Hoxhaists.

The claim is partly true, since around 80–90 percent of the Chinese population during the Republican and Kuomintang era were peasants. The peasantry had existed in China for thousands of years. The revolution was led by both proletarians and peasants; however, the proletariat was a minority at the time, as pre-Mao China was largely agrarian and had not yet developed significant industry.

During Chairman Mao’s era, many peasants were transformed into proletarians. It is important to note that the Chinese economy was based on both agriculture and industry. By the 1970s, Maoist China had surpassed the United Kingdom in steel production, demonstrating that China was not solely reliant on agriculture but had also developed a strong industrial base.

Maoist China developed both heavy and light industry, which grew steadily from the 1960s through the 1970s.

Accusations of Class Collaborationism

Calling Maoism Class Collaborationist is a common trope among Hoxhaist arguments but how true is this? Not at all, the "Collaboration" with the Petty Bourgeoisie they speak of is not "Collaboration" but rather the proletarianizing of the other oppressed classes in Chinese society, by the end of the transition period all of these such classes had been liquidated and proletarianized.[1][2][3]

,,Bureaucrats and capitalist inside the Communist Party of China''

Enver Hoxha claimed that bureaucrats, “capitalists,” reactionaries, and revisionists were present within the Communist Party of China. This is true as is in all communist parties there will always be a left wing and a right wing, this even applies to the Party of Labor of Albania which collapsed due to a rise in revisionism after Hoxha's death. However Mao and the CPC were persistent in expelling revisionists in the party. Furthermore, during the Cultural Revolution, a major campaign was launched against revisionists and other reactionary elements within the Party. Many reactionary CPC members were purged during this period.

About the Nixon and Chairman Mao meeting

Hoxhaists often claim that Chairman Mao formed an “alliance” with Nixon. This is not accurate. It was not the opening of a relationship between the two nations, but rather peace talks. This does not mean that Maoist China traded with the United States or maintained any other significant contact with it.

Here is an overview of Chinese foreign policy during Chairman Mao’s rule:

Mao never relented in his support for the broader revolutionary struggle, Maoist China constantly funded and trained foreign revolutionaries such as in the Philippines where the revolutionaries there (The NPA led by the CPP) were given 1,400 M-14 rifles and 8,000 rounds of ammunition as well as training in China. With the meeting with Nixon Mao demanded that the U.S. withdraw from Vietnam and to stop helping the Kuomintang in Taiwan. This meeting did not actually change anything as Maoist China continued their support for the Vietnamese revolutionaries and never normalized relations with America.

The direction of the party in Mao's old age

Mao was very sick in his old age and even then he was clearly upset and depressed on where the country was going. He very much aligned with the Gang of four which also rejected the capitalist roaders advances. Even in his old age and illness he took every opportunity he had to fight against the revisionist elements inside the party such as harshly criticizing Zhou Enlai and Deng.

We, the Maoist Students Collective, view the Hoxhaist era of Albania very critical and dogmatic. Enver Hoxha made false claims on Chairman Mao, one of the last standing Socialists together with Hoxha himself until 1978.

We wrote this essay in order to debunk Hoxhaist lies and slanders about Chairman Mao.

Proletarians of the World, unite!
Maoist Students Collective

Nepalese youth against Corruption: What happened in Nepal?

By Paulus Strother and Ivet. J

On the 4th of September in Nepal a large number of young people protested against the social-media censorship that was enacted by the corrupt state. Apps like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitter and others were banned by the government. Over 50 People were killed by the Nepalese State during the peaceful protests. The so-called Nepalese Gen-Z protests then turned into a protest not only against the social-media censorship but also against corruption and inequality. The youth that united themselves for the end of corruption and inequality started to destroy and beat the bourgeois politicians ruling Nepal. On the 9th of September, the youth protesters burned down the federal parliament building of Nepal. The bourgeois state was losing to the proletariat that fully outnumbered them. Many politicians in Nepal resigned from their position and fled the country. A large problem of this spontaneous uprising is the lack of any guiding party organization that could lead to the fizzling out of the movement unless a revolutionary party organization takes advantage of this situation.

What does the Maoist Students Collective support inside these Nepalese protests?

We as anti-revisionists support the Communist Party of Nepal and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Nepal because of their potential for fighting against the bourgeoisie and the state together with the workers and peasants for a socialist, stable, and anti-revisionist Nepal held together by the revolutionary masses. Though the RCPN initially failed to develop an independent line and had talks of rejoining the CPN(MC) they still have potential as a revolutionary force, however the CPN has come further in the revolutionary line than the RCPN so we must give them more of our support as the leading revolutionary force in Nepal. The ,,Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist)'' has failed to attempt any revolutionary activity as they are not Marxists-Leninists but they are revisionists and chauvinists engaging in corruption and banning social-media apps, same with the ,,Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre)'' which claims to follow Marxism-Leninism-Maoism but really only cares about maintaining the existing parliamentarianism of the current state.

Many anti-communists have claimed that modern-day Nepal would be ,,communist'' which is not true. The revisionists have a high status inside the parliament and the State but they are not Communists, they have no interest in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and they would rather fight against any real revolutionaries.

We urge the RCPN and the CPN or any revolutionary proletarian organization in Nepal to take full advantage of this situation and lead the revolutionary masses in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Workers of the world, unite!
Released by the Maoist Students Collective!

Anti-revisionism in China: China’s Repression of Anti-Revisionist movements

By Paulus Strother

In 1978, China shifted from being an anti-revisionist nation toward a capitalist one. Deng Xiaoping, the key figure behind this transformation, began implementing capitalist reforms such as the "Reform and Opening Up," which marked a betrayal of socialism and anti-revisionism. Many people who had supported Chairman Mao during his rule opposed the new capitalist direction of the Chinese government, and created small parties, such as the Communist Party of China (Marxist-Leninist) they sought to overthrow the revisionist regime and continue Maoism in China, advocating for armed struggle rather than elections, since the ,,Communist'' Party of China (CPC) had banned political parties. During the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests, many Maoist also attended and protested against the new capitalist government, but were later arrested by the Chinese government. Looking at other Maoist parties in China, one notable example is the Maoist Communist Party, that got banned for opposing Deng Xiaoping and the ,,Communist'' Party of China. So far, many underground Maoist movements exist, according to a Chinese Maoist comrade. The Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on Maoist movements and comrades, especially in the year 2025. During the Jiangyou protests on July 6, 2025, which were primarily triggered by public anger over a school bullying case, a Maoist comrade reportedly marched with a portrait of Chairman Mao and shouted, “Long live Chairman Mao!” He was later arrested by police. This incident reflects the broader suppression of anti-revisionist sentiment and the increasing intolerance toward political dissent in China. This was not the first instance of Maoists being arrested. In 2018, amid a strike at a factory in Shenzhen, a group of young Maoist students rallied in support of the workers in effort of helping the workers strike. Since the fall of Maoism in China, numerous protests have occurred in factories. During Chairman Mao’s leadership, such protests and strikes were nonexistent since everyone was well payed, compared to modern day China. After years of revisionism, the youth and others have stood against the Dengist government and advocating for the return of Maoism in China.

China’s Capitalist Turn: Has Socialism Been Abandoned?

By Paulus Strother and Niny Yorke

Since 1978, the People’s Republic of China has taken a sharp turn away from its revolutionary foundations. Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms were a decisive break from Marxism-Leninism and the legacy of Mao Zedong. Private ownership was reintroduced. Foreign capital was invited. Special Economic Zones were established. These policies did not serve the working masses. They served the rise of a new bourgeois class.

True socialism rests on proletarian dictatorship, collective ownership, and the abolition of exploitation. Deng’s course deepened inequality. It widened class divisions. It hollowed out the revolutionary spirit that once defined the People’s Republic. Today, China continues down the path of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” This is market capitalism. Over 80 billionaires sit in the National People’s Congress. This is not socialism. It is betrayal.

Some defenders of Dengism argue that Mao tolerated a national bourgeoisie. This is a distortion. Under Mao, the national bourgeoisie had a transitional role tied to the peasantry’s central place in building industry and agriculture. Once that role was fulfilled, they were phased out. Deng legitimized a class that continues to dominate and exploit.

Dengist China is not the same as the Soviet Union under the New Economic Policy. The NEP was a tactical retreat to overcome feudal remnants. Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that capitalism emerges from the ruins of feudalism, and socialism emerges from capitalism. The USSR still had feudal structures to dismantle. China, by the time of Deng’s reforms, did not. There was no historical necessity to reintroduce capitalist elements. It was a political choice. A revisionist one.

As Marxists, we must reject the social-imperialist and revisionist path China has taken. No equivocation. No illusions. The line must be drawn.

The Importance of Maoism in Germany: Spread Maoism towards the German working class!

By Paulus Strother

Germany—a nation with parties that call themselves “socialist,” yet none that truly oppose revisionism. In today's political landscape, finding committed Maoists is a rarity, as most factions have succumbed to revisionist trends.

There was once a time when this was not the case, and Maoism was widely known among left-minded people. In the 1960s and 1970s, the majority of socialist movements were Maoist—such as the KPD/ML, active from 1968 until 1978, when they fell into the Hoxhaite “trap.”

Today, there is no popular anti-revisionist movement, and it's time to change that. We, the Maoist Students Collective, are an international organization of writers from different countries, seeking to influence the working masses by promoting the study of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, and by fighting against revisionism.

Before the Maoist Students Collective existed, we were the KPD/ML Internationale—an organization of students aiming to raise awareness about revisionism and capitalism.

The fight against revisionism in Germany is an important one and must be carried on for years to come. Maoists in western Germany are rare, so we plan to spread the socialist idea among the working masses.

When the Maoist Students Collective was still the KPD/ML Internationale, we wrote a short essay about revisionism in Germany. Here it is:

---

As we know, in Germany there is the party “Die Linke” (in English: The Left), which proclaims itself to be a democratic “socialist” party. But should we really consider them socialist? No, we shouldn’t.

After taking a closer look at Die Linke, the members of the KPD/ML Internationale revealed the truth behind the party:

Upon further investigation, we showed that Die Linke is not socialist, but more likely state-capitalist. The people within Die Linke are anti-Stalin and more social-democratic than genuinely socialist. Die Linke rejects Marxism-Leninism and seeks its own form of socialism.

Here is a transcription from a video of a speech by Gregor Gysi, discussing capitalism vs. “socialism”:

“In addition, there must be a maximum of democracy and freedom, otherwise it is not socialism for me. In this sense, I would like to reform capitalism towards democratic socialism, if you like, because I say that we must adopt what capitalism can do and overcome what it cannot. It can produce a highly efficient economy, it can also produce top science and research, and it can be structured in a reasonably liberal democratic way—but it doesn't have to be. It cannot secure peace because too much is earned from wars, it cannot create social justice, it always ensures that some become filthy rich and others poor. We can work together to overcome these aspects of capitalism, then it will become much more bearable. I call it democratic socialism; you can call it whatever you like. That is part of the freedom of the individual.”

There are many other speeches from Die Linke that seem to “glorify” capitalism. From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, what Gysi described would not be considered socialism.

So, should we still consider Die Linke a socialist party? Not really. They aim to implement something similar to Deng Xiaoping’s reforms: capitalism for the economy and “socialism” for governance.

Additionally, Gysi claimed that modern-day China is “socialist”—but is that true?

We, the KPD/ML Internationale, do not consider China genuinely socialist. Here’s why:

“The modern-day People’s Republic of China does not follow Marxism-Leninism, but rather what we call ‘liberal socialism.’ Why? In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping came to power, he introduced capitalist reforms in China—much like Khrushchev did in 1956 and afterward. Deng allowed privatization, invited Western companies into China, and permitted the bourgeoisie to exist and exploit. Today, 85% of all companies in China are state-owned, but not entirely. Dengists also falsely claim that Deng continued Mao’s vision, but this is misleading and makes no sense. What Deng did was transform Mao’s revolutionary leadership into capitalist governance.”