What is Revolutionary Marxism?

We often get asked what our ideology is. Are the United Communists of Europe Trotskyists? Are we Marxist-Leninists? Are we Maoists? We always answer that we are revolutionary Marxists. This is confusing to people because it does not correspond to one of the common labels that are usually used to identify political organisations. To explain why we prefer the label revolutionary Marxism, we must briefly discuss the tradition out of which we come. 

The origin of the United Communists of Europe lies in the Communist Organisation of Scotland (COS), which was founded in February of 2018. It began as a small collective in Glasgow of five communists who wanted to create a new communist party in Scotland. At the time of our founding, we called ourselves Marxist-Leninist (ML), as most of us came out of traditional ML organisations. 

A comrade who lived in America had been around the Freedom Road Socialist Organisation (FRSO), which was founded in 1985 as a merger of a few Maoist organisations. FRSO is committed to the self-determination of the African-American people in the United States, up to and including independence. This is a viewpoint that they got from the African-American communist, Harry Haywood, who was deeply involved in crafting the CPUSA's policy towards black people in the United States in the thirties. Furthermore, FRSO views the Soviet Union as having been socialist from 1917 until 1991, which was the result of counter-revolutionary tendencies in the CPSU. To this day, it remains an important US communist organisation in the anti-imperialist movement, rank-and-file movements in the Teamster union, and the student movement. When COS was founded, some of our ideas were influenced by FRSO, although we strongly diverged from them in many ways. 

Another leading COS comrade had been active in the Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG), a British anti-imperialist organisation that puts out the paper Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism. The RCG, like FRSO, is strongly committed to defending the Cuban Revolution and has prominent members like Helen Yaffe, who have close links with the Cuban leadership and has published two major books on the Cuban Revolution. They have always been supportive of the independence of Northern Ireland, an issue that seems self-evident but which many leftist organisations have failed to support. 

A major issue with both FRSO and the RCG is their internal culture and somewhat hostile environment. These organisations are not interested in engaging with new developments in Marxist thought and do not allow a lot of discussion. They have a fairly rigid doctrine, which is constantly reaffirmed in their newspapers and other publications. While members join on the basis of agreement with these principles, discussion on ideas that diverge from them is discouraged and met with hostility. For example, everyone in such an organisation will agree that Cuba is socialist and that the Cuban revolution must be defended. However, if someone wishes to critically examine Cuban socialism, exploring internal contradictions within the social formation, they are automatically perceived as anti-communist and told off. Such behaviour is very harmful and creates a hostile environment that results in factionalism and splits. 

When we formed the Communist Organisation of Scotland, we wanted to continue upholding what was correct in the politics of the Marxist-Leninist organisations that we came out of. However, we wanted to create a more friendly, welcoming, and inclusive organisation that would make every comrade feel respected and safe. While our members unite on the basis of some common principles, everyone is welcome to share their thoughts, contribute their talents, and explore viewpoints contrary to those of our organisation. In this we are heavily inspired by Mao Tse-Tung, who never viewed socialism as a perfect society but one riddled with contradictions. 

While we are not Maoists, we think Mao's approach of examining contradictions among the people is one of the most important aspects of Marxist analysis. It helps prevent the dogmatic idealising of socialist countries, and instead views them as part of a world system and as a process. This is a process where contradictions exist from beginning to end, where limitations are always present, and in which mistakes are made. Our approach to the former and existing socialist countries is thus critical but supportive. We do not dispute the Cuban Revolution or the right of socialism to exist within Cuba, but wish to explore the complex Cuban social formation with all of its contradictions. In doing this, we retain what is positive in the Marxism-Leninism while rejecting its often dogmatic and uncritical attitude towards socialist social formations. 

Like FRSO and the RCG, we have some basic principles formulated in our Unity Statement that our members agree with when they join. Because we see joining as a long process rather than filling out a membership form, people are given time to decide whether the organisation is right for them. Unlike many Marxist-Leninist (and Trotskyist) organisations, we do not condemn those who decide our group is not the right one for them. We retain friendly relations with them, continue inviting them to events, and treat them like a comrade. This is because we do not view ourselves as possessing the truth, but a current within the international communist movement. If we are indeed correct, then people will be inspired by our politics and join us. Truth has to be proved and shown in action, not deduced from a priori principles. Therefore, if someone decides we are not the right organisation after a candidacy period, we harbour no resentment towards that person. 

We were active in Scotland between 2017 and 2020. During that entire period, we identified ourselves as Marxist-Leninists. The people we tended to attract to our organisation were rarely the kinds that we wished to recruit. Most of the time, it was exactly the uncritical ideologues discussed above that we wanted to break with. We would get people who wanted to idolise Stalin, were heavily invested in Soviet imagery, and had a somewhat narrow understanding of Marxist theory. This was not helpful for our organisation and prevented us from developing our own organisation. Since we have relaunched COS and created the broader United Communists of Europe (which is also active in the Netherlands), we have decided on the term revolutionary Marxism. Our hope is that this label attracts those who accept the true principles of Marxism-Leninism, while rejecting the harmful, toxic behaviours found in many Marxist-Leninist organisations. 

To elaborate further, we should explain another way that we differ from traditional Marxist-Leninist organisations. Between 2020 and 2023, the Communist Organisation of Scotland was inactive and was replaced with the International Communist Study Group (ICSG). This was due to the COVID pandemic and the fact that a leading member moved to the Netherlands. During this period, the ICSG explored quite a vast range of Marxist theoretical texts outside of the traditional Marxist-Leninist canon. First, we discussed many articles and books published by Monthly Review, such as Paul Sweezy's Monopoly Capital, Samir Amin's Accumulation on a World Scale, John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century, and Intan Suwandi's Value Chains and Imperialism. In the Monthly Review tradition, we found a helpful addition to traditional Marxism-Leninism. Importantly, many of us also discovered the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which our organisation views positively. One book that inspired us was Dongping Han's The Unknown Cultural Revolution, which shows how the Cultural Revolution revolutionised the Chinese countryside and liberated many of the peasants. Our approach to the Cultural Revolution is to deduce universal truths from it, such as the persistence of class struggle under socialism and the necessity of empowering the workers and peasants to take a leading role in socialist construction. Instead of fixating on the Mao cult, which we indeed think is harmful, we try to draw the lessons from the Maoist period. 

This brings us to a way that we are quite different from many Marxist-Leninist organisations like FRSO and the RCG. FRSO and the RCG both claim that China is a socialist country and support the reforms under Deng Xiaoping. Currently, they devote significant energy to defending the Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping and opposing attacks on China by US imperialism. Our organisation differs quite significantly in that we do not view China as a socialist country. Rather, we think that capitalist was restored in the nineties during the reforms under Deng Xiaoping. 

We have a critical attitude towards capitalist restoration in China, which is heavily influenced by Martin Hart-Landsberg book China and Socialism. While some of the capitalist reforms in China were the result of external pressure and China's underdevelopment, we do not think that it is necessary to continue these reforms in contemporary conditions. Within the Communist Party of China there is a left-wing, which often has to operate underground and faces harassment from security forces. Outside of the CPC, there are a number of Maoist and Trotskyist organisations who agitate for a political revolution against the capitalist reformers around Xi Jinping. Instead of uncritically supporting 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', our organisation unites with the left-wing of the Communist Party of China, as well as militants in China who are seeking to put China back on the socialist path. At the same time, we oppose anti-China propaganda and would denounce any attacks by US imperialism on China.

Ultimately, we think a revolution in China to remove pro-capitalist elements is necessary, but we do not think that this requires the overthrow of the Communist Party of China. Rather, it will be the product of a united front between the CPC left, Chinese revolutionary Marxists outside of the party, and rank-and-file trade union militants. Such a revolution will radically transform China and put it back on the long road to socialism. Our organisation therefore critically engages with China, viewing it as a complex social formation, characterised by many contradictions, composed of many currents of thought, and embodied by a rich historical tradition. 

During the period between 2020 and 2023 when we were active as the International Communist Study Group (ICSG) we also conducted a serious study of Trotskyism. One of our members also briefly participated in two Trotskyist organisations, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) and the League for the Fifth International (LFI). Both of these organisations share similar problems. First, they uphold Trotsky's transitional method, which involves making 'transitional demands' as a bridge between the current consciousness of the workers and the need for socialist revolution. For example, calling for 'housing for all' and even agitating for it, but then demonstrating the inability of capitalism to meet people's housing needs. When this is done right, as the LFI generally does, it involves a process of gradual escalation and a general conclusion that socialist revolution is necessary. While it is certainly true that socialist revolution is necessary to meet people's material needs, a transitional approach often involves subordinating all of one's activity towards organising for reformist demands. While revolutionary politics is sometimes introduced to allies in a mass organisation, the actual practice just involves putting socialist revolution on the backburner. In the case of the UK, the transitional method often involves 'critical support for Labour', despite clear evidence that Labour does not uphold the interests of the working class and is no longer a progressive force (since purging the left-wing of the Party, represented by Jeremy Corbyn). 

Additionally, Trotskyist organisations have a highly mistaken approach to the United Front, which they dogmatically adhere to. Basically, the idea of a United Front is that a communist group must retain its political independence while working in a coalition with social democrats and reformists. In this united front, Trotskyists will try to show that they are the most serious organisers for the limited demands of the coalition. Their participation is supposed to expose the social democratic leaders as betrayers of the working class, and show themselves as the true proletarian vanguard. The United Front theory was developed at the 1923 Comintern Congress to respond to weaknesses in communist strategy and tactic. It was a heavily politicised environment in which communists were hugely influential and received significant support from the Soviet Union. In such a situation, the United Front tactic made a lot of sense and could result in significant amounts of workers breaking from social democracy. The problem with contemporary Trotskyist groups, which are usually not very influential, is that they try to emulate the 1923 United Front tactic and uncritically apply it to every situation. 

The United Communists of Europe rejects the transitional method. We have learned a lot more from Mao Tse-Tung's theory of the mass line, which involves communists participating in mass struggles and uniting with the advanced elements within them. The idea is to listen to what people are saying in order to be sensitive to their concerns and needs, a process Mao calls investigation. Instead of tailing the masses (as some Maoists unfortunately have done), a group of communists uses their investigation to formulate demands that correspond to what people actually want. Furthermore, by actively participating in mass struggles, the mass-line enables communists to become respected leaders of the people. Whereas Trotskyists tend to come to the masses with an entire programme, Mao recognises the importance of investigation as an integral aspect of formulating programmatic demands. While a communist programme is of course necessary, it can only be produced through engagement with the movement of the popular masses. Until that happens, we have revolutionary Marxism and our Unity Statement to guide us. 

We also reject Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union, which is expressed through his Revolution Betrayed. In that book, Trotsky shows that due to the isolation of the USSR in the 20's, a bureaucratic stratum emerged in the Soviet leadership around Stalin that gained special privileges from their position in the Party. While Trotsky initially called for reforming the Soviet leadership, in the Revolution Betrayed he viewed it as a deformed workers state. He claimed that there was a contradiction between the socialist base of the USSR and the 'bureaucratic' leadership, which held back the development of socialism. Trotsky laid a lot of emphasis on the international revolution as the key to defeating Stalinism, while also calling for a political revolution to remove the bureaucratic stratum. 

While Trotsky is certainly correct that communists should prioritise international proletarian revolution, we think it is entirely for an individual country to break from the capitalist system and embark on the long road to socialism. This is indeed a transitional period marked by a heavy involvement of the socialist state in economic planning and political leadership. When the working class seizes state-power, its goal should be to use its resources to promote revolution abroad while defending the gains of the revolution at home. Trotsky was certainly correct in the New Course to denounce the harmful tendencies under Stalin, such as the heavy use of repression against dissidents and lack of involvement of the popular masses in planning. Whereas Trotsky called for a political revolution–which involves overthrowing the ruling Party–we would call for a Cultural Revolution such as the one in China in the 60s. Such a Cultural Revolution is an organised effort by the left-wing of the Communist Party to revive party-democracy, open discussion about key issues, and the restoration of workplace democracy. As Mao often stated, the purpose of the Cultural Revolution is to transform the relation of production in order to liberate the productive forces. This involves retaining the ruling communist party while confronting the contradictions that are holding back the full development of socialism. 

Unlike Trotskyists, who prioritise socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist centres, the United Communists of Europe views revolution in the global South as the vanguard of the international proletarian revolution. Nations like Bangladesh, India, Sri-Lanka, Mexico, and Cambodia are dominated by imperialism. Working people in these countries work for extremely low-wages and are super-exploited by multinational corporations. When workers in the South confront the imperialist bourgeoisie and their local comprador agents, this strengthens the working class movement internationally. Workers everywhere benefit when a nation in the South delinks from the imperialist system and embarks on the road to progressive independence. While we call for socialist revolution in the global South, we think that a country that breaks from imperialism is progressive even if it has not yet embarked on socialist construction. It can only do this by aligning itself with progressive and socialist nations like China, Vietnam, Cuba and Bolivia. When a country breaks from the imperialist system, the conditions for socialist revolution are more favourable than if it were still under imperialist domination. Every genuine victory against imperialism strengthens the entire international working class movement and creates better conditions for socialist revolution.

Although we are anti-imperialist, we qualify our anti-imperialism with a few points. First, a country cannot break from imperialism if its leadership is reactionary. An example of this is Afghanistan under the Taliban, which defeated US imperialist domination of their country but created a highly reactionary, terrorist regime that does not benefit the people of Afghanistan. Although no longer ruled by America, Afghanistan under the Taliban is unable to truly liberate itself from imperialism because it adheres to a reactionary ideology–Islamism–that is created by imperialism. There is nothing progressive about political Islam, which is a tool of the national bourgeoisie to exploit and oppress the people under highly unstable conditions. We think it is important to support feminist and progressive movements in countries like Afghanistan in order to break the masses from Islamism and the hold of the national bourgeoisie. Delinking from imperialism is an inherently progressive process and is incompatible with conservative religious ideologies, whether Christian fundamentalist, Islamist, Hindu supremacist, etc. 

Although we reject religious ideology, our organisation is open to religious people. As long as they accept our Unity Statement, they can join. Faith is a purely private matter that our organisation does not judge or engage with. What we reject is Islamism, Christian fundamentalism, Hindu supremacism and other religious ideologies. These are all reactionary ideologies that have no place in our organisation, for they seek to make faith something far more than a purely private matter. Rather, they seek to use religion as an instrument to oppress women and LGBT people, promote nationalism and uphold capitalism. Such ideologies have no place in our organisation. 

To summarise our position on anti-imperialism: our organisation supports an international united front against imperialism composed of socialist countries, Communist parties, and progressive social movements. We exclude all reactionary forces from our united front, whether religious or secular. The progressive social movements are a key front for many people to become politically active in the global South. They confront local issues that are produced by capitalism, feudalism, and underdevelopment. The United Communists of Europe unites with these progressive movements as the key to building unity between communists and the peoples of the global South. 

Returning to our discussion about Trotskyism, we should add that we have no problem with reading and discussing relevant works by Trotsky. We think Trotsky was an important revolutionary who made huge contributions to the Russian Revolution. His works Results and Prospects, the New Course, Terrorism and Communism, Permanent Revolution, History of the Russian Revolution, and the Revolution Betrayed all contain partial truths. Unlike many Marxist-Leninist groups that denounce Trotsky as a counter-revolutionary, we are able to recognise what is revolutionary about his life and writings. Therefore, although we reject Trotskyism, we have no problem engaging with Trotsky and even some of the work of his followers. We do not consider Trotskyists our enemies, although we are not interested in forming alliances with Trotskyist organisations. As a political current, they are part of the international communist movement and committed to the same communist goal as us. 

Another important aspect of revolutionary Marxism is our view of the necessity of a revolutionary communist Party. This is something that we share with Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism, although we differ with them about how to build a communist party. We think that Lenin laid the fundamental principles for party-building in his What is to be Done? and further developed by the first four congresses of the Communist International. Furthermore, the experience of party-building in the 1960s and 1970s in the New Communist Movement is illustrative for understanding how to build a communist party that is able to link up with the masses. We think that building the Party is of essential importance, for "without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement". Our organisation is currently a network of communists across Europe who share common principles concerning party-building. We are not trying to build a European communist party or a communist party of the EU (as current around the Weekly Worker is seeking to do). Rather, we are trying to lay the foundation for workers across the European continent to form new communist parties in their own country. Through the United Communists of Europe, we want to link these communists in order to coordinate our efforts on a European-wide basis. This enables us to share experiences, coordinate joint actions, and develop a common programme. 

This brings us to the conclusion. We can now answer the question, 'what is revolutionary Marxism'? Revolutionary Marxism takes the best elements of Marxism-Leninism and integrates them into a revolutionary system of ideas. It is able to take the ideas of Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao, and uphold what is true in these systems of thought. Furthermore, revolutionary Marxism tries to learn from the experience of socialist construction by adopting a critical lens. Utilising figures such as Albert Szymanski, Charles Bettelheim and Paul Sweezy, revolutionary Marxism is able to view socialist construction as a process ridden with contradictions rather than a static state-of-affairs. Revolutionary Marxism is anti-imperialist and supports the international united front against imperialism. Because it is principled anti-imperialism, revolutionary Marxism is able to clearly distinguish between genuine and reactionary currents within movements against imperialism. This prevents us from falling prey to the national bourgeoisie, who will use anti-imperialism as a way to strengthen their own domestic rule over the working class. Our anti-imperialism, while recognising that the national bourgeoisie can be part of the united front, sees the working class and the popular masses as the force for change in the developing world. Revolutionary Marxism is thus related to Marxism-Leninism, but is more thoughtful, friendly, and inclusive. 

There are probably still some elements of revolutionary Marxism not discussed here, such as our attitude towards women's and transgender liberation, anti-racism, and political economy. We will publish articles in the future that address these issues. We hope that this article helps those who are interested in our organisation to clearly understand our basic ideological points of unity.