Anyone who has been in this movement for any amount of time will have experienced the ongoing disputes between the dogmatic adherents to pet theories and those who may be accused of revisionism. It is also too often the case that those with revisionist tendencies will cite the theory or specific writings that they feel best justifies their strategies. As with all things, a balance must be achieved based on the understanding that theory and history, while crucially important, do not guarantee a successful result of our cause any more than anything else. A librarian who spends all their time reading is no closer to fulfilling the goals of revolution than some illiterate and disgruntled steel worker.

The Path to Liberation

Theorists will tell you that the way to a Communist world has been laid out in such a way that we only must follow in the footsteps of the previous generations. They act as if there is a checklist of achievements that must be met before we can even attempt a revolution, and that to do otherwise dooms us to failure and revisionism. But any examination of history reveals that the paths used before were created both by knowledge of the landscape and the wisdom and guts to take advantage of opportunities as they presented themselves. The world of the theorist is a static thing that follows well-known cycles, rather than the evolving and changing mess we find ourselves in today.

Rather than a well-laid path, history has given us a vague map laid out by our predecessors that tells us only the destination and how they got to the goal. There are no neat roads laid out with signs pointing the way. We see the pitfalls and dangerous areas that were discovered previously, but we cannot follow the same carefully made trail because the landscape has changed with time. The knowledge of theory is our compass to navigate this map. Irreplaceable for the trailblazing we must do, but useless without the courage to cut our way through the forests to our objective. Theorists would guide us along the same overgrown trails used by the heroes of yesterday as if this entire project was historical reenactment, rather than making history of our own. Their way lacks bravery or a realistic understanding of science. Theorists also assume that our enemies have not also read the same books and learned the same histories. Often, the metaphorical paths used before are filled with real dangers, such as has brought down so many of our great projects, such as the Black Panthers and the National Parties. Progressing down them is folly. We must forge our own destiny.

“Follow your own path, no matter what people say“

Karl Marx

This analogy leads to one great truth that I have observed, and it is that no-one can achieve someone else’s success. You cannot replicate the actions of any others in an ever-changing world and expect the same results. Rather, you must adapt yourself to your strengths and your opponent’s weaknesses, and use your understanding of such things to your advantage. As Communists, we have the advantage of being correct in our understanding of how economics and other sciences are interlinked with the lives of the people, and the advantage of the greatness of our goals. We carry the hopes of untold generations before us as innumerable generations behind us inspire our actions. With this inspiration comes the duty to use our knowledge, and not squander it on endless talk or weak dependence on other groups support as conducted by the theorists who cite our predecessors as if they carry on their legacies.

Parties as a Tool

Before I left the CPUSA, I wrote an analysis of a problem that our club faced in which I restated my belief that the party, or any party or organization, is a tool to achieve the cause of revolution. This statement offended a great number of the party advocates who viewed the party and the cause interchangeably. In a direct response to my analysis, titled “the Party is not a tool”, it was claimed that the Party (the CPUSA National Party here) is instead crucial for the project of liberation, and that all focus must be on maintaining strong central unity against all other groups. The author cited Lenin in “What is to be Done[1]” as if that citation alone would end the debate. The author further made the statement that refusal to work with party leadership or subordinating the Party to the cause of Communism was tantamount to disrupting the party and is inherently anti-Communist, saying “[to] subordinate the Party to the “cause” is to dissolve its vanguard role into the shifting tides of mass struggle, leaving the movement without a compass[2].” (This is even more shocking when one understands that the “cause” referred to is the cause of Communism. A party cannot call itself “Communist” if it doesn’t subordinate itself to the goal of Communism, and if the membership is not in support of the cause of Communism, than it is no longer a Communist Party).

This belief is at the heart of the theorists problems. They rely on others to tell them how to achieve our aims rather than taking the initiative to go forth themselves, but armed with the knowledge of the past. They would even discharge the term “Communist” if they feel that it becomes a burden.

The Burden of the Past

“The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”[3]

Karl Marx

We are not the Bolsheviks or The Renovation of the People Study Society or Castro’s Mountain Fighters, or any of the other historical Revolutionary groups. Nor are any of the present National Organizations a continuance of their legacies. We are and must be our own body, as we must forge our own path to victory. A response of “but this is what [X] did” will not give us any more guidance on what we must do than an old map that reflects none of the current setting we face, other than to tell us how they faced their specific problems in their specific situation. We certainly cannot wait for distant national leaders to give us an okay before we act on any opportunities that occur, as so many Party loyalists seem to do. Such a thing would be like listening to a far-away person on a radio give us directions using an ancient map. They would have us soon lost, as many of the National Parties are when facing modern problems.

“The revolution is not an apple that falls when ripe. You have to make it fall.”

Che Guevara

Many of the theorists have a list of goals, saying “we need at least this number of people before we can begin the revolution, or we will fail” and “we must get the support of [X] group of people before we can openly advocate for Revolution, or we will fail”. This is nothing more than their spineless lack of character revealing itself. The timing of the Revolution is up to our enemies as much as it ours, as anyone who has seen history can attest[4]. We will never have the support or numbers sufficient to fully secure the chances at victory as conceived by these armchair organizers and Party journalists. We must understand that the numbers and support we have will have to do when the time comes to take action against our oppressors, and that winning or losing is often as much up to chance as it is to preparation. History is also replete with examples demonstrating that victory breed victory[5], and that war or revolution is not a game in which each side starts out with a static number of irreplaceable units that they must be carefully marshaled to beat the other team. Revolutions has been won by forces much smaller and worst equipped than those opposed to them[6], and which did not have the full support of all the population. Rather, the idea carried by so many that we must wait until we have some certain percentage of the population “on our side” before we can even try for victory is the leftover effects of the liberalism that those who hold such thoughts thought themselves to have escaped from. It is based on the ridiculous idea that we will achieve Communism via the ballot box held by the National Parties to the continued detriment of the cause of worker liberation, despite recent electoral successes (even if that success came as part of the Democratic Party, rather than otherwise)[7]^&[8].

Organic vs. Inorganic Development

Perhaps the source of the problems in our National Parties is that so few of them grew organically from local actions or groups, but were instead either ordered to form up from disparate groups by foreign powers[9] or from splits from an existing central organization[10]. This is in contrast to the successful Communist projects around the world, which mostly developed from small local groups into nationwide organizations, such as the Marxist study groups once attended by Lenin[11] or Mao[12]. This means that these large national organizations started out with a claim to leadership that they never truly earned and areas of interest that they were never familiarized with. They also began with the theories and understanding of those theories second hand, rather than as something developed and molded to fit the material conditions we face in the U.S. by people more familiar with this nation. It also brings into question whether such national groups are currently necessary for organizing the 50 individual nations that functionally make up the U.S., which is a question I have yet to hear any response to other than references to either the Democratic Party/ GOP or something along the lines of an incredulous “of course we need a national party” (always meaning their national party). The successful groups that have sprung up in this country, in terms of reaching the masses and engaging in actual revolutionary struggle, are those that did evolve naturally from much smaller groups. The Black Panthers are the premiere example of this, as they even further developed theory in accordance with the conditions they faced but based on our predecessors.

Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, and Fred Hampton of the Panthers are a perfect demonstration that the U.S. has had its share of great Communist thinkers, but that the insistence the National Parties have that they, and only they, are owed the allegiance and credit as “The National Communist Group™” has too often made the voices of such luminaries subordinated or limited to whatever group they belonged to, if any, rather than part of the shared history of American Communists as a whole. Each party uncritically insists that its’ line of thinking is the only correct one, and take every action to defend those positions other than open dialectics. All the while the party lines they espouse were not created by them through learning and struggle but adopted wholesale from other groups. Even if the strategies they seek to use worked for those parent groups, there will never be any guarantee that they will work again. I at times wonder on the usefulness of even personally refereeing to ourselves as adherents of any tendency beyond simply “Marxist” as dividing us in to groups labelled “M-L” or “Maoist” etc. seems counterproductive to our need for unity and an understanding each other better.

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”[13]

Mao Tse Tung

We do not know what form the Revolution that finally liberates us here will take, or that we will even be able to see it for what it is until it has already begun, and unless we are playing an insider role in it, it is unlikely we will see any difference between individualist adventurism and an organized effort. We must all act as best we can to both push the cause forward and prepare ourselves for any openings that present themselves to achieve it. None of these needs are furthered by more dogmatic references to the events of the past as if they represent absolute requirements, and no person that acts as they have an absolute and sure path the victory based on an encyclopedic knowledge of theory and history is any more prepared to face the coming metaphorical storm as a person who did naught but read about storms would be in facing a real one.

---

[1] Lenin’s Collected Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961, Moscow, Volume 5, pp. 347-530.

[2] I’m still confused by this statement, as it seems that the whole stated purpose of any Communist Party is (or should be) the cause of Communism.

[3] 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Karl Marx 1852. www.marxist.org (accessed 2025).

[4] Ex: The Bolsheviks did not start the war which they were able to capitalize on for their needs, nor did the Chinese Communists decades later.

[5] Even in biology. See: Coates, John M. The Hour between Dog and Wolf: Risk Taking, Gut Feelings and the Biology of Boom and Bust. Random House Canada, 2012.

[6] Cuban Revolution – Wikipedia (accessed 2025).

[7] Communist Councilwoman from Ithaca: Hannah Shvets defeats landlord candidate – People’s World. Jason Villarruel. Nov. 7, 2025

[8] These events also highlight the National Parties fixation on their own liberal strongholds at the cost of everywhere else, and their belief that a victory for the Democrat is theirs as long as the candidate has duel loyalties.

[9] Such as the CPUSA. See: Communist Party of the USA History Archive (accessed 2025).

[10] Such as the PSL, FRSO, or ACP (and arguably, the Kansas Communist Party itself).

[11] Allegedly, the Bolsheviks started as a reading group before joining the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (and later splitting from that group). See: Who Were the Bolsheviks and How Did They Rise to Power? | History Hit. Aug. 19, 2020.

[12] See: Schram, Stuart (1966). Mao Tse-Tung. London: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0140208405.

[13] Mao Tse Tung. “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan” (March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 28.