​Moishe Postone has a knack for a certain type of theoretical seduction. Reading Time, Labour and Social Domination is like watching a magic trick in slow motion. Marx's categories are taken apart and put back together, and suddenly you are looking at capitalism with no ruling class, no exploited class, no agent, no exit. Just a structure. Domineering everybody. Equally. Forever. Not by anybody's design. It is pretty. And it is also, when you actually sit with it, one of the more effective depoliticizations of Marx ever produced under the banner of rescuing him.
​
It's a seductive story, where he explains how the Soviet experiment, more or less, of getting rid of private property and setting up a planning bureau did not get rid of the compulsion to produce for the sake of producing, of treating time as scarce, of disciplining bodies to the clock. If it was simply a matter of who owns the means of production, socialism ought to have felt like a sigh of relief. Postone’s answer is that the “deep” structure of capitalist domination is not ownership at all, but a historically specific form of social mediation, which he calls “abstract labour”, and that to get rid of the capitalist class without getting rid of that form of mediation is simply a matter of the automatic subject finding a new chauffeur.
​
Let’s disassemble it properly.
 
The trick starts with a false choice
Postone's entire architecture rests on a binary he sets up early on and never really lets you question: either you believe that labour is transhistorical and capitalism merely distributes its fruits unjustly ("traditional Marxism", which he treats as a strawman worth demolishing) or you accept his alternative, that abstract labour is a uniquely capitalist form of domination so total that the working class is internal to it rather than opposed to it. Note that there is no third option on the table. You are not allowed to think that capitalism exploits labour and structures a historically specific mode of domination through the value-form. Postone turns what a materialist would say is “both, and here’s how they relate” into an either/or. The whole engine of the book is the false choice and once you see that a lot of the inevitability of the argument disappears.
 
Murdering the proletariat and naming it rigour
This false choice leads to Postone’s signature move: labour constitutes value rather than simply being exploited by capitalists who hoard it, so the proletariat can’t be the negation of capital, it’s one of capital’s structural conditions of existence. That sounds posh. In fact, it is a very old political conclusion in new philosophical disguise: the workers are not going anywhere, so stop waiting for them.
What’s wiped out in this move is staggering. And every wave of strikes, every occupation of factories, every general strike, every time in the twentieth century when workers actually took control of production and asked what to do with it, all of that is re-categorized, retroactively, as something that was never really about anything at the structural level. Postone does not have to deny that any of this history occurred. All he needs is for you to admit that none of it was a real negation of capital, because the workers doing it were, by definition, internal to the totality they were fighting. This is not a neutral theoretical observation. It is a theory designed to make defeat look like a category error rather than a defeat.
And the logic trick beneath it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If 'internal to the totality' is disqualifying then it disqualifies everyone, peasants, the colonized, women doing unwaged reproductive labour, everyone is internal to a totality that by definition includes everything. Why is only the proletariat robbed of agency, with literally nothing put in its place? The truth is that Postone never really replaces the revolutionary subject. He just kills the position. Crises still occur in his framework, they are still generated by the contradictions of capital between abstract and concrete time, but they are solved, or not solved, without any particular agent acting. History marches on. No one is driving. It is no longer a critique of political economy. It's a metaphysics that just happens to be in the vocabulary of Marx."
 
Value theory cloaked in universal, quietly parochial
Follow the value theory and the same evasions are repeated. In Postone's account abstract labour becomes visible only through exchange, labour gets "abstracted" when it is socially validated on the market. Fine. But then ask: what about all the labour that makes capitalism work, and never passes through exchange at all? Silvia Federici’s answer, developed in Caliban and the Witch and after, is that this isn't a gap in the theory, it's the theory's blind spot by design. Centuries of unwaged reproductive labour, often violently and always forcibly extracted, mostly from women, were the prerequisite for waged labour to exist at all. None of this appears in Postone’s account of what “socially mediates” life in capitalism. If a theory describes its central category as “the specific form of social interdependence” in capitalist society, but does not describe the labour that reproduces the labourers who produce that interdependence, then it is not describing all of capitalist society. It describes half of it, and says that half is universal.
Samir Amin's criticism is from a whole different coordinate and is if anything more devastating. Implicitly, Postone's abstract labour assumes something like equivalence across labour globally, an hour is an hour, value is value, the categories operate the same way everyplace capitalism has taken hold. But, in fact, the history of capitalism since the sixteenth century is one of unequal exchange: value systematically drained from colonized and peripheral economies and transferred to the core, precisely by treating radically unequal labour as if it were commensurate. Postone’s ‘capital’ moves through Fordism and then neoliberalism as if it were one coherent global subject with a single unfolding logic. The entire body of Amin’s work is there to demonstrate that this is a perspective from the metropole, not a perspective from nowhere. There is no abstract universal labour without imperialism doing the work of making unequal things appear equal. Postone’s silence on this isn’t an oversight that can be added later, but constitutive of how the theory was constructed, from inside a frame where the international division of labour doesn’t need to be explained because it isn’t seen.
 
The idealism problem nobody will talk about
The tradition of Ellen Meiksins Wood locates the deepest structural problem: Postone’s capital is a self-moving Subject explicitly modeled on Hegel’s Geist whose contradictions “point toward” transformation through the unfolding of its own logic. But capitalism didn't develop. It was achieved through the forced eviction of English tenants from common land, through the imposition of market dependence on those who had other options and those options were taken away, through centuries of particular, contingent, reversible class violence that historians can actually document. In explaining the dynamic of capitalism by deriving it from the internal logic of the commodity-form, Postone is doing something that looks like theory but functions like myth: a story in which the ending is guarantyd by the premises, not an outcome of struggles that could have gone otherwise. That's the oldest problem in Hegelian Marxism and Postone never really solves it, for all his sophistication. He just phrases it in more technical language about abstract and concrete labour.
 
Michael Parenti’s blunt objection, and why it matters
Parenti asked the question Postone has constructed his whole framework to make sound naive: If domination is structural rather than agential, why does it require coups, sanctions, assassinations, debt regimes, standing armies to uphold the structure? “Structures don’t overthrow elected governments in Guatemala or Chile. That is done by people with names, institutional addresses, and class interests. An abstract-domination theory that cannot account for the sheer amount of organized, intentional ruling-class violence necessary to sustain global capitalism is not more refined than “vulgar” class analysis, it is less precise. It just gave up on the people who are still, demonstrably, pulling the levers.
 
What remains
If you take out the Hegelian architecture, what is left of Postone's contribution is a lot smaller than his admirers would have it be. Yes, capitalism produces forms of domination that don't translate into a boss ordering a worker around. Yes, reification captures something real about how capitalist categories present themselves as natural. That’s worth saving. The price, however, that Postone demands for this insight is prohibitive: a theory of capitalism that has no ruling class to do the ruling, no gendered labour to do the reproducing, no colonized world to do the subsidizing and no revolutionary subject to do the resisting. Wood, Federici, Amin and Parenti are not four separate quibbles with an otherwise sound edifice. Read together they're a demonstration that Postone's "totality" wasn't total, it was a very specific description of capitalism as seen from a vantage point that doesn't have to deal with gender, empire, or the people still calling the shots. That is not a refinement on Marx. It's Marx without the politics, and the absence of politics is said to be rigorous.

​Since the 1959 Revolution, the United States has sought to overthrow Cuba's socialist government by any means necessary. From the Bay of Pigs invasion and hundreds of assassination attempts against Fidel Castro to the six-decade blockade, the relationship has been defined by U.S. aggression.
​
The 1960 memorandum from Lester Mallory, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, made the reasons for this aggression clear: to strangle Cuba economically and create discontent internally that could be channeled against the popular government.

Yet the current situation could produce an unprecedented effort to overthrow Cuba's democratically elected government. The reasons go beyond what is often portrayed in the media as merely Marco Rubio's personal agenda, forged by the anti-Cuba lobby in Florida.

While Rubio’s presence certainly heightens the stakes, there are objective reasons why the U.S. has its attention turned to Cuba. After all, it isn’t just Cuba whom the U.S. has its eye on in the region, to greater or lesser extents, it has maneuvered to remove left-wing governments all across the Americas, from Bolivia, Honduras, Colombia, and Venezuela, where President Nicolas Maduro was kidnapped and jailed in the United States.

Cuba is a central node in the operation to return the Americas to being the docile “backyard” of the U.S., which was outlined in the Monroe Doctrine. Since this has intensified with Trump’s presidency, many analysts are labeling it the “Donroe Doctrine.”

The U.S. is facing a period of deep crisis. Its existence as a state for decades has been intertwined with its geopolitical position as global hegemon. But as the world transitions into multipolarity – a transition spearheaded by China, Russia, Iran, etc. – the U.S. experiences this as an existential threat to its global power, that is, to the force it could exert over countries to give up their raw materials and mineral wealth through imposed unilateral trade “deals.”

It would be erroneous to think that for the U.S. this is merely a problem of “foreign policy.” It hits at the very center of what the American state is. The crisis is not just one the U.S. faces abroad but at home too.
The failure of the U.S.-NATO proxy war against Russia and the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is accelerating this decline in the U.S.’s global power. More countries in West Asia, Africa, and the Americas are turning to China and Russia as key trading partners who offer them “win-win” deals, not unilaterally imposed arrangements. Under this predicament the U.S. has tried even harder to secure its influence in the Americas, which it considers to be the last global hemispheric region it could have virtually total control over.

So, why a renewed and more intensified pressure on Cuba? There are two reasons, both tied to this objective crisis.

The first is economic. In 2025 a report by the U.S. Government Geological Survey outlined the most important minerals for national security and new economies. Amongst those listed are nickel and cobalt, which Cuba just so happens to have one of the largest reserves in the world, ranking fifth in cobalt and third in nickel. Combined with the reserves Cuba has of oil, gold, and with its strategic geographic positioning in the intersection of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean, there are clear economic motives for a U.S. declining in global influence to be turning its attention more aggressively toward Cuba.

In addition to what Cuba provides in terms of crucial minerals, resources, and geographical positioning, Cuba – as a result of the crippling sanctions – has a labor force which, under conditions of U.S. control, could be employed for pennies on the dollar of what companies could pay Mexican or American workers. The cost of producing with a Cuban labor force could be extremely low if Cuba’s sovereignty is lost in U.S. aggression.

The second reason is symbolic. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has been seen as a bastion of resistance to capitalism and U.S. imperial aggression. The symbols of the Cuban revolution, such as the Cuban flag, the flag of the 26th of July movement, the faces of Fidel and Che, are flown across the world, from West Asia, Africa, and the Americas. For hundreds of millions – if not perhaps billions – of people around the world, Cuba’s existence as a socialist state ninety miles off the coast of the United States is a sign of almost biblical resistance, of David resisting Goliath. If Cuba falls, the global forces of anti-imperialist resistance would be terribly demoralized.

It is for such reasons that the preparations for an attack on Cuba are a threat not only to Cuba, but to all countries who value sovereignty and the emergence of the multipolar world. How the world, especially those spearheading the transition to multipolarity, decides to react to U.S. aggression toward Cuba will dictate how bold the U.S. will be in exerting its will unilaterally across the world.

Author
​
Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party and as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

To mark the 105th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xinhua decided to ask several friends of China for their opinions on the CPC.

Jean-Pierre Page Interview by Xinhua News Agency.
 
Jean Pierre Page worked at Air France, served as a member of the CGT’s Confederal Executive Committee[1], and headed the CGT’s international department. He is the author of several books, including *Masters of the World* (co-authored with Chomsky, Samir Amin, and Georges Labica) on the war in Yugoslavia, as well as several books on China, including *China Without Blinders* (co-authored with Maxime Vivas). Since 2004, he has served as editor-in-chief of the journal *La Pensée Libre*.
 
 
1. On the CPC’s Self-Revolution
 
CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping has defined “self-revolution” as a way for the CPC to break free from the historical cycle of decline. In your view, what insights does this “self-revolution” offer to political parties around the world?
 
In an article published in late 2024, President Xi Jinping discussed the concept of self-revolution, as he often does, in a concrete, clear, and compelling manner.  Indeed, this is a major issue—I would even say an existential one—for any communist party, both for its credibility and for the substance of its commitment and that of its members. It is about winning over the broad masses and giving meaning and substance to their historic struggles. From the Taiping Rebellion to the Long March, the history of the Chinese people’s struggle against feudalism and imperialism and for their liberation is rich and profound. President Xi Jinping takes this into account. This is therefore linked to his own conception of the party’s role. The party must define itself clearly through its function, its purpose—I would even say its utility—and its history. A Communist Party, more than any other party, is a living, militant body, organized according to principles and centered on a vision grounded in the role of the working class as a revolutionary class. Its objective is to unite the people by breaking with the old capitalist order and with the ambition of building a new order: a socialist and communist society. Not one without the other.
 
To achieve this, it must rely on the capacity of each of its members—who share common values centered on an ideal and an ambition—to build upon a program and concrete objectives that take into account the history of the entire people, their class struggles, their victories as well as their failures, and the values that are their own. That is why the party and its members must be directly engaged with a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, be capable of taking initiative, assume their responsibilities as communists wherever they find themselves, be attentive, listen to and learn from the masses, be creative, take into account reality—and thus the balance of power, life, and the needs of the people as a whole—and therefore take into account history, diversity, culture, differences, and contradictions within it. This living organism that the Party must be has to take into account both the strengths and weaknesses of each and every one of its members—their successes as well as their mistakes—and how these must be corrected through patient and rigorous collective work. Criticism and self-criticism are fundamental practices for every communist, regardless of their level of responsibility.
 
I believe that this is precisely what President Xi Jinping means by “self-revolution”—that is, the guidance given to every member of the Chinese Communist Party, without exception, so that they may hold themselves accountable with the aim of improving their political practice through concrete actions and daily conduct that must be exemplary. In this way, they will help strengthen the party’s cohesion and unity. This requires a great deal of personal effort, particularly in the constant study and practical application of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Xi Jinping Thought. Consequently, in my view, this approach—or, one might say, this concept—applies to every communist party in the world. Of course, it is up to each party to decide how it operates, taking its own history into account. There is no single model, but it is always important to draw on the experience of others.
For the parties of the oligarchy that represent the interests of capital and the bourgeoisie, the situation is different. Their political goal is quite distinct. Serving a handful of parasites is not the same as serving the entire people.
 
Chairman Mao Zedong, in his famous essay “Serving the People,” liked to say, “All men must die, but the weight of death can vary.” The ancient Chinese writer Sima Qian said, ‘Although death befalls all men alike, it can be heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.’ To die for the people is a death heavier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is a death lighter than a feather.
 
If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid of having them pointed out or criticized, for we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who they are, may point out our shortcomings. If they are right, we will correct them. If what they propose benefits the people, we will implement it.
 
2. On Strict Party Governance
 
In many countries, ruling parties have long been plagued by bureaucratization, the ossification of interests, and a disconnect from the people. Do you believe that the CPC’s efforts to promote strict and comprehensive Party governance offer new approaches for political parties worldwide to resolve this dilemma of long-term power?
 
That observation is accurate! In France or elsewhere, no organized political or social force is immune to this trend, which is obviously dangerous—especially when it comes to democracy. This therefore applies to communist parties as well; no one is safe from these destructive tendencies. We recall the words of the German playwright and writer Bertolt Brecht: “The people do not understand party politics, so we must change the people.” This troubling evolution in political practices is synonymous with bureaucratization, a disconnect from reality, corruption, ambition, careerism, institutionalization, and the professionalization of political and union life alike. It affects all parties and unions without distinction, including communist parties, within which some are more concerned with fighting for positions than with the class struggle.
 
Thus, for a communist party, renouncing or distancing itself from the principles of class struggle always has consequences—not only in terms of its influence through its relationship with workers and their families in workplaces and neighborhoods, but also in the very way it functions. Distancing oneself from the concerns and needs of the people almost always comes at a very heavy price. This is the case in most European countries, with a few exceptions, where the decline of certain communist parties—due to strategic errors, the abandonment of communist principles, and operations influenced by bourgeois ideas—deprives the people of the means to defend their interests.
 
 As a general rule, we must add—and this is a new phenomenon—a very alarming level of mediocrity and political illiteracy among political figures in the broad sense of the term— . For my part, I believe that this is yet another manifestation of capitalism’s systemic crisis. Especially since no Western country is spared; we are witnessing an unprecedented deterioration of political life, where principles and rules are disappearing and anything goes. This is very alarming! In his fable “The Animals Stricken by the Plague,” our great 18th-century fabulist La Fontaine wrote: “They would not all die, but all were stricken.” It’s a bit like that.
 
On another level, we do not attach the same meanings to the same words—such as the word “governance.” In developed capitalist countries, governance is an abstract concept in its formulation but highly one-sided in its definition and application. For Western governments and states, there is supposedly only one conception of governance--one that is universal—and that is their own. There is therefore no concern here with democratically taking into account the experience of other states. Yet we all have much to learn from one another. No one can dictate their vision and methods of government to another. There is no doubt that many political parties around the world would benefit from learning from and drawing on the long political experience accumulated by the rich Chinese civilization. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, for what still prevails in many Western countries is arrogance, self-satisfaction, and the conviction that their actions are divinely ordained and must be imposed on the rest of the world. The President of the United States is the perfect illustration of this—with added vulgarity.
 
This alarming trend is leading to widespread disengagement from political life across Europe. This approach to politics provokes such rejection that many citizens resort to abstaining from elections or supporting racist, extremist, and fascist parties. This is the case in France, where only slightly more than 50% of the population participates in elections.
 
3. On a People-Centered Philosophy of Development
 
In many parts of the world, the policies of political parties are easily hijacked by capital, factions, or interest groups. In your view, what is the significance of the CPC’s commitment to a people-centered development philosophy in reshaping the value systems of political parties?
 
The 2026 Forum on Global Human Rights Governance was recently held in Beijing; I attended and spoke there. Nearly 300 participants from 91 countries were in attendance. The event also marked the40thanniversary of the United Nations’ landmark documents on the Declaration on the Right to Development. For my part, and taking the compelling example of China, I would say that poverty eradication and human rights are inseparable from the legitimacy and effectiveness of the socialism being built in China. This historic mission echoes the story of how Yukong moved the mountains--a legend that Chairman Mao Zedong liked to cite when speaking to the Chinese people about the two obstacles of feudalism and imperialism that they had to face. Nearly eighty years later, the Chinese people have risen, and the concrete results stemming from the choice of socialism are helping to transform the status quo in this five-millennia-old continental nation, where Confucianism remains a point of reference that Communist leader Xi Jinping likes to cite.
Your country’s success can also be appreciated on the international stage, as, on the one hand, capitalist countries are turning to China for aid and assistance—as is the case with France and Germany, among others—and, on the other hand, the rest of the world seeks to free itself from the stifling control of the West and its institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, or NATO. While China may not be a model, it is an example with undeniable values for peoples seeking alternatives for development.
Through its achievements, China lends indisputable credibility to socialism and encourages a renewed reflection on it. Its contribution—all the more so with a Communist Party at its helm, boasting nearly 100 million members, for whom the “dictatorship of the proletariat” remains one of the ideological cornerstones—is, in many respects, instructive. Consequently, we can state without fear of contradiction: socialism works, and China is living proof of it! Between rising powers and declining powers, “the Thucydides Trap” is therefore not a figment of the imagination. It can be viewed as either a risk or an opportunity.
4. On the Relationship Between Party Building and State Governance
 
 
How do you assess General Secretary Xi Jinping’s assertion that “Party building must advance in step with the development of the Party’s and the people’s cause”? Does this demonstrate that Party building is not merely a partisan matter, but a crucial aspect of the state’s capacity for governance?
 
In building socialism with Chinese characteristics, President Xi Jinping emphasizes the practical nature of the pace of development and consistently stresses Party building. Aligning these two approaches into a single effort requires strong political will on the part of leaders, particularly the leader at the top. President Xi Jinping has no shortage of such will. This is a core conviction of his. We must move forward with the people, helping to guide their actions at their own pace, rather than marching kilometers ahead of them. This choice and this approach have greatly contributed to China’s political stability, which is, moreover, one of the strengths underpinning its development, the cohesion of its multi-ethnic people, and its continued adherence to the principles of socialism. Take human rights, for example: they are not some “extra” aspect of the soul, a mere formula, or a slogan, nor should they be a political weapon in the service of hegemony, as is the case in Western countries and in the United States in particular. As for their implementation, the credibility of the Communist Party’s actions, its influence, and its organized strength are at stake—both at the state and government levels and at the local level in villages, neighborhoods, enterprises, and rural areas. Everywhere, the Party’s presence is decisive. The results achieved are further proof of the strength of socialism with Chinese characteristics, led by a Communist Party worthy of the name.
 
 
5. On the Fight Against Corruption and Political Leadership
 
General Secretary Xi Jinping has led the fight against corruption with a sense of responsibility summed up by the saying: “I would rather offend thousands of people than disappoint a population of 1.4 billion.” What kind of leadership does this approach reflect? What lessons does the CPC’s track record in the fight against corruption offer political parties around the world in their quest for stable governance? 
 
Self-reform and the fight against corruption go hand in hand. President Xi Jinping has rightly made this one of the priorities of his administration. To allow corruption to persist is to allow inequalities to grow, to let a life of ease and personal enrichment take root for a select few at the expense of the vast majority of the people, and to increase tensions and the risks of destabilization. There can be no corrupt individuals without those who corrupt them. We must therefore address both the causes and the consequences—this is the responsibility of every communist. Refusing to do so leads the country into a dead end. The countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR itself experienced such abuses, which led to a estrangement from the people and their interests; this was not unrelated to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, we have since seen how these trends, far from being resolved, rapidly worsened under capitalism. The example of Ukraine—arguably the most corrupt country in the world—is proof of this. Above all, this is profoundly contrary to the concept of socialism and to what should be the ethics of communists, whose behavior and work must be exemplary.
 
In Western countries, corruption at all levels of government, political parties, and labor unions is wreaking havoc; it has worsened exponentially and involves institutions and businesses as much as it does individuals. There is no shortage of examples, and scandals are most often the manifestations of this problem. Furthermore, there is a culture of impunity that provokes legitimate anger among the people, especially when the state practices a lenient and permissive form of justice toward the powerful—a two-tiered justice system—and here again, there is no shortage of examples. Lobby groups play a significant role in influencing institutions; at the European level, there are more than a thousand of them, and corruption is one of their methods. This alarming situation continues to worsen and undermines the credibility of those institutions and individuals who speak at length about democracy and respect for human rights but who, in practice, consider themselves above the law.
 
6. On the Synergy Between Party Building and Socioeconomic Development
 
From poverty reduction to rural revitalization, including green development, the CPC integrates its leadership throughout the entire process of national governance. In your view, what does this reveal about the relationship between “Party building” and a country’s socioeconomic development?
 
From this perspective, China has just published its National Action Plan on Human Rights 2026–2030. This is, of course, a political event of the utmost importance for China, but more fundamentally, it is a concrete response to those in the West who claim to define human rights. As the CPC demonstrates, human rights and the right to development must have a concrete definition, and this vision must contribute to the substance of the Party’s actions. What would be the point of talking about human rights to peoples, to men, women, children, and the elderly who are deprived of an income, a job, or a roof over their heads—things that would allow them to live, receive an education, and receive medical care with dignity? Similarly, what good would it do to glorify the CPC if these same people are unable to appreciate the usefulness and effectiveness of its actions? Defending the promotion of human rights means fighting against inequalities—all inequalities. This therefore calls for a concrete definition linked to the right to development. This is a major objective of socialism and, consequently, the responsibility of a communist party. There is thus a profound coherence in China’s vision and its definition of human rights—through its precise approach to economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil, political, and environmental rights—just as there is in its conception of the role of a communist party.
 
7. On Theoretical Innovation and Cultural Roots
 
Xi Jinping’s thinking on Party building is both rooted in Marxist theory and nourished by the wisdom of traditional Chinese culture. What insights does this approach to theoretical innovation offer to parties in other countries to strengthen their own Party building in line with their history and culture?
 
President Xi Jinping has established himself internationally as a head of state of undeniable political stature. I would say he is a man of vision, principles, reconciliation, and concrete alternatives. He is also a man of great culture and open-mindedness. His passion for reading is well known, particularly for French literature. The two cannot be separated. We might add—and this stems from his youth and the years he spent living among poor farmers—that, as he says, he learned a great deal and came to appreciate the richness of Chinese civilization. Chinese thought, the place it occupies in universal culture, and the ideas of certain philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi have profoundly shaped and influenced not only China but all of humanity. Moreover, President Xi Jinping received a gift from France to which he is particularly attached: a book titled *Confucius and the Science of Princes*, published in France in 1688. 
 
As communists, we must take this dimension of history and thought into account—not to reject it in an artificial and sometimes violent manner, but to acknowledge it because it is an integral part of the people’s way of thinking. It is, moreover, a valuable contribution to the development of civilizations in all their diversity. This, I believe, is the meaning that President Xi Jinping intends to give to the actions and thought of the CCP, which is an important and stimulating contribution to Marxist thought. Above all, I note that he is not only a man of reflection but also a man of action; not a man of rhetoric but of concrete achievements—one who takes reality into account as it is, not as we imagine it to be. When he speaks of a “community with a shared future” and “win-win outcomes,” he is addressing the world and its nations, taking into account the tremendous upheavals we are witnessing on the international stage. If we consider the New Silk Roads (BRI), in which nearly 150 countries are involved and which are now concrete infrastructure projects around the world, I believe this is a compelling illustration of how Xi Jinping’s ideas translate into real life and the needs of the people.
 
The French writer Victor Hugo once said, “We need a mind vaster than the sky.” I believe this captures quite well what should be a political and intellectual challenge for many countries around the world—for their leaders, as well as for all political, economic, and social forces. We do not choose the era in which we live; we must know how to rise to the level of what it demands. President Xi Jinping is a prime example of this; he has this ambition for China as well as for all of humanity.
 
​---
[1] The CGT, “Confederation Generale du Travail,” or General Confederation of Labor is a major French union.

Author

Jean-Pierre Page is a French author and trade union activist.

Addressing the National Assembly of People’s Power on July 29, 2026, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez declared that the United States is destroying the pillars of international law that have guided world affairs since the Second World War. The United States is determined to impose its will on the sovereign governments of the world through a variety of means, including coercive economic measures and military aggression. The leadership of the United States demonstrates that it has not learned the lessons of history.

Confronting this situation, the Cuban Foreign Minister declared, Cuba has the duty and the right to defend its sovereignty. All who come to the defense of Cuba, in defending the principles that must guide humanity, are defending humanity for all time. Cuba will continue to defend its sovereignty, while maintaining willingness to negotiate differences with the United States on a basis of mutual respect.

The text of Rodríguez’s address follows. I have taken the address from the Website of the National Assembly of People’s Power and translated it from the original Spanish.

The international political context in which our Revolution defends and represents the interests of the people has been aggravated significantly.
​
The government of the United States has taken the decision to break from and destroy International Law, the United Nations Charter, and the pillars that emerged from the Second World War, which for more than eighty years have guided the relations among States, on the basis of respect for sovereignty and the formal principle of the sovereign equality of States.

It has demonstrated, in addition, its relative and temporary capacity to impose its will on diverse governments, above their sovereign and constitutional prerogatives, by means of intimidation, coercion, and particularly the utilization of unilateral coercive measures and punitive commercial tariffs.

It has resorted to military aggression, wars without any justification, the bombing of civilian populations, the kidnapping of a Chief of State in office, political assassinations, State terrorism, “regime change,” and unconventional war.

They base this conduct on a new and insolent doctrine they call “peace through strength,” which repeats the past history of plundering, dispossession, conquest, extermination, occupation, slavery, and ethnic cleansing. It is the peace of the old colonial empires, the world wars, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fascism and Nazism, the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries, and the design that must have motivated Hitler when he proposed to reconfigure the map of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. …

In recent weeks, as though they had not learned the lessons of history, there re-emerged in the United States as official policy the ghost of McCarthyism and the witch hunt. A strange Summit, to which Washington convoked without warning dozens of foreign ministers, was dedicated to the intention of launching the persecution of a phenomenon that no one had heard about. They called it “the resurgence of extreme leftist terrorism.” Previously, they had tried to coin the strange concept of “narco-terrorism,” which would have reminded of the bloody Latin American dictatorships and the Condor Plan that they imposed.

Subsequently, the State Department published an extensive report on Cuba, which was characterized by superficiality, lying, and inconsistency, as if it were written through the application of badly employed Artificial Intelligence, but with the intention of singling out Cuba as a danger for the United States. Besides the absurdity of supposing that our country could threaten the greatest nuclear military power of the planet, the report seeks to criminalize and repress genuine expressions of solidarity with Cuba, expressed in many sectors of U.S. society.

The U.S. government seeks to condemn and criminalize the sympathy of the Cuban Revolution for causes in support of justice and civil rights and against racism, Zionism, war, and oppression. It questions our right to defend ourselves against imperialist aggression. It attacks the solidary and humanist work to which we are committed in many parts of the world. It condemns the international effort of Cuba in support of the liberation of the people of Africa and against apartheid, and it identifies our country as a danger for its example, its resistance, its dignity, and its work of social justice.

……….
The U.S. government reinforces to the extreme its economic war and collective punishment against Cuba, applying to the maximum its energy siege and strangling our possibilities of commercial interaction with other countries, advancing in its determination to disconnect Cuba from the international economy.
……….

Even in these circumstances, our people enjoy ample and profound relations everywhere, which as a norm are friendly relations of cooperation and respect, even with countries and governments with which we have political differences.
There is no doubt that the majority of countries reject the economic blockade of the United States against Cuba. The overwhelming vote of 136 versus nine against the U.S. attempt to prevent debate on the theme in the UN General Assembly on July 7, even in the current climate of intimidation, is a sure indication of world opinion.

Whoever rises up for Cuba, rises up for all times, Martí would surely repeat in these circumstances. Silence, indifference, or defense of narrow and selfish interests places all humanity in danger. Any State could be next, if an ample international coordination does not stop the barbarity. If the citizens of the United States were to have access to true and sufficient information, they themselves would impede the catastrophe with which their government threatens the planet.

On January 1, 2024, the Leader of the Revolution, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, expressed: “The policy of permanent hostility and blockade of the government of the United States is the principal cause of the difficulties of our economy. Do not doubt this reality, even though the enemy invests millions of dollars and much effort to hide it.”

Our people understand with complete clarity that a macabre and well-designed plan is unfolding, which is oriented to cut, step by step, sources of financial income, access to markets and technology, and supplies essential for the economy and for the life of Cubans, including food and medicine. Added to these and other significant limitations, a total energy blockade has been imposed since January of this year, which impedes the importation of equipment and parts, including solar panels and technical supplies associated with the generation of electricity.

Our people also are aware that the threat of military aggression continues in effect. Even though no logically conceivable pretext could be put forth for such a criminal and irresponsible act, the aggressive appetite of the anti-Cuban sectors within the United States to not appear to have limits. They themselves celebrate as signs of the success of their policy the agony and suffering of a mother that loses her son for the lack of medical supplies. They are happy for each megawatt that is not generated in the country, for the hours of blackout that the people endure, for restrictions in the supply of water for significant segments of the population, for the garbage that cannot be collected, and for difficulties in public transportation.

The government of the United States knows very well our disposition to find solution to bilateral differences through dialogue, and it knows the patience with which we have accepted its proposal to converse on the basis of respect. All have observed our disposition to accede, in spite of lies and manipulations, to an offering of aid, which it curiously qualifies as humanitarian, for an amount that is equivalent to the economic and social impact of merely five days of the blockade, that is inferior to the aid of the World Food Program that it tried to impede; and in spite of the fact that the same government uselessly provokes pain and suffering in generating a humanitarian crisis in Cuba.
The real goal and true inclination of the government of the United States is not expressed through dialogue or diplomacy or through the offer of aid, but by means of coercion and the determination to provoke the greatest possible punishment of the Cuban people in order to obtain their surrender.

Cuba is not a threat to the United States, nor does it desire to be its adversary or its enemy. Our vocation is peace, as is seen in the relations that we enjoy with all the international community, and in the Proclamation of Peace of Latin America and the Caribbean, signed by the Heads of State and Government of the region in Havana.

Our only commitment is with the Cuban people. Our mandate is that which emanates directly from the full, unique, and absolute sovereignty of the Cuban people. We have the right and the duty to reject and confront an aggression that castigates and threatens, and we have the right and the supreme duty to defend ourselves, even with arms, if we are attacked militarily.

We continue aspiring to the eventual possibility of a respectful and constructive relation with our voracious neighbor to the North and to take steps that lead in that direction, always with absolute, total, and complete respect for the rights and sovereign prerogatives of each part, which is how the relations among States ought to be guided.

Many of our compatriots live in U.S. territory. We strive to strengthen ties with our compatriots and to offer them the greatest possibilities of interaction with the Homeland and fraternal ties with their families and friends. Many of the government measures adopted now and in recent years are oriented in that direction and are based on the conviction that Cubans residing outside Cuba, anywhere in the world, have an important role in the development of the nation, from wherever they are, and also if they return to the country. The new economic and social transformations in which we are immersed considerably expand these possibilities.

I wish to express our immense gratitude for the expressions of solidarity with the cause of Cuba from all continents, for the constant humanitarian aid, without conditions or political opportunism, of numerous governments, parliaments and parliamentarians, international organizations, fraternal organizations, social movements, political parties, businesspersons, friendship, solidarity and civil society associations, intellectuals and artists, personalities and academics, and individuals of diverse political signs and ideological commitments, but who coincide in the rejection of injustice and the crime committed against Cuba.

Barely four years had passed following the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, when Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz said, in 1963: “It is true that we are still under the imperialist blockade. It is true that the imperialists are trying to tighten this blockade, and that we do not know how long we will have to resist this situation. And we will resist it! Because our revolutionary flag will never be folded! Because the high head of this nation will never bow! Because we will face the risks that are necessary for as long as necessary; we will face the sacrifices that are necessary, as long as necessary.”

We know that Independence, Revolution, Socialism and the very existence of our Nation and our Culture will depend on it.

In the year of his Centennial, it is necessary to understand, assimilate, act and repeat tirelessly that idea established by Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro Ruz that a better world is possible, a world without cruel blockades, a world that does not “kill men, women and children, young and old, like silent atomic bombs.” Fidel aspired and called for a struggle for a better world that will only be the result of revolutionary and progressive struggle. That vision feeds optimism, the certainty of victory and commits us to fight tirelessly, even in circumstances as hard and challenging as those we live in today.

Let us repeat with José Martí: “before giving up in the effort to make the Homeland free and prosperous, the South Sea will join the North Sea, and a snake will be born from an eagle’s egg.”
Socialism or Death!

Homeland or Death, we will overcome!

One of the most notable lines of Blade Runner 2049 is uttered by Freysa, who tells K that “dying for the right cause is the most human thing we can do.” A more Kojévean line could hardly be spotted anywhere else in cinema.​

For Alexandre Kojéve, central to what makes a person is our capacity to subvert the Schopenhauerian will-to-life and stake our fragile existence for the sake of recognition. It is when we encounter the predicament where we would rather die fighting than continue as we are, that is when we become fully human.

This is what Kojéve calls anthropogenic desire:

For man to be truly human, for him to be essentially and really different from an animal, his human Desire must actually win out over his animal Desire. Now, all Desire is desire for a value. The supreme value for an animal is its animal life. All the Desires of an animal are in the final analysis a function of its desire to preserve its life. Human Desire, therefore, must win out over this desire for preservation. In other words, man’s humanity ‘comes to light’ only if he risks his (animal) life for the sake of his human Desire. Therefore, to desire the Desire of another is in the final analysis to desire that the value that I am or that I ‘represent’ be the value desired by the other: I want him to ‘recognize’ my value as his value, I want him to ‘recognize’ me as an autonomous value. In other words, all human, anthropogenic Desire – the Desire that generates Self-Consciousness, a human reality – is, finally a function of the desire for ‘recognition.’”[1]

One becomes fully human when they are willing to stake one’s life to fight for change. Not only, therefore, is dying for a cause one of the most human things we can do, as Freysa said, for Kojéve it is what constitutes the human qua human, what sets us apart from nature and our mere existence as biological entities. Perhaps person is a better term to employ for what Kojéve (and Blade Runner 2049) refers to as the human, leaving therefore “human” as a biological category that elevates itself to personhood when it stakes its life in such a form.[2] With such an adjustment, we can say that the human animal becomes fully a person, as Boris Groys puts it, when their desire for recognition “values the mode, the form of their life more than life itself.”[3]

The world of Blade Runner is premised on the work of slaves, the replicants. Niander Wallace, the owner of the Wallace Corporation, admits that all human societies have been sustained by a permanent underclass of slaves. Freysa, the Replicant, is a part of the Replicant Freedom Movement, for whom the fact that the replicant species (or, class) can replicate (the existence of Dr. Ana Stelline being proof of this) is a rallying cry for recognition and autonomy. Lt. Joshi, K’s boss, is clear about the catastrophic potential the spread of this information could have for their social order: “The world is built on a wall. That separates kind. Tell either side there’s no wall... you’ve bought a war. Or a slaughter.”

Humans thus are presented as a conservative force seeking to sustain a species (or class) fragmentation with humans at the top and replicants (alongside other digital entities) at the bottom as their slaves and servants. Thus, from a Kojévean standpoint, it makes perfect sense why Freysa says replicants are “more human than humans,” it is precisely because there is a replicant revolution on the horizon, that is, because the slave replicant class/species is staking its life for a cause, for freedom, for recognition of their dignity and personhood. As Christopher M. Innes wrote, “Freysa’s battle cry is not that different from Marx [and Engels’s] “Workers of the World, Unite!”[4]

Would this not make the replicants a form of non-human persons? The Replicant Freedom Movement clearly articulates the preference of death through struggle than the preservation of life through submission and enslavement. From a Kojévean standpoint, therefore, they are persons (or, how Kojéve and Blade Runner would put it, “human”).

But what about Joi, the general digital entity you could personalize to serve you, whose sole purpose is serving you, bringing you “joy?” Hence, the marketing tagline for the Joi models: “everything you want her to be!” It is easier to consider the replicants as persons, even if not of the same kind as humans. But could the same apply for K’s Joi?​

I think yes. Not only does she exhibit, as Chris Lay shows, an advanced degree of consciousness, self-consciousness, and sentiency, but in addition to this, she also dies for a cause.[5] When Joi agrees to stake her existence on the well-being of the emanator, she understands that such a risky operation under conditions of imminent persecution makes her previous potential for infinite life null. Her life is now as, if not even more, fragile than anyone else’s. A break of the emanator, a task which doesn’t take much effort, would mean her death. Joi invites this possibility as her chance of being “like a real girl.” She accepts a predicament of inhabiting the world with the background of death, to put it in Heidegger’s terms, as the “possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all.”[6] She throws herself, in other words, to live with the anxiety of an authentic being-toward-death.[7]

​In the end, Joi sacrifices herself to save K. She stakes her life for a cause, not just to save the man she loves, but to keep the horizon of their search for truth – their search to tear down the wall Lt. Joshi said their world was built on – alive. Joi, then, has taken the leap of preferring annihilation to an immortal will-to-life. In such sacrifice she precisely earns her personhood.

Originally published on Carlos' blog Philosophy in Crisis

Author
Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party and as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

References

[1] Alexandre Kojéve, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (New York: Cornell University Press, 1980), 7.
[2] For Kojéve, in good Hegelian fashion, a form of recognition is also achieved through labor, although “to attain true recognition, the slaves/workers must also risk their lives – or, in other words, start a revolution.” Boris Groys, Alexandre Kojéve: An Intellectual Biography (New York: Verso, 2025), 17.
[3] Groys, Alexandre Kojéve: An Intellectual Biography, 34.
[4] Christopher M. Innes, “Replicants of California, Unite!” Blade Runner 2049 and Philosophy (Chicago: Open Court, 2019), 233.
[5] Chris Lay has a great argument for Joi’s autonomy as a person, not simply an artificial device set up to a priori submit to K’s will. For instance, consider the following argument from Lay, reflecting on what happens after K tells Joi, once he gets her the emanator, that “you don’t have to say that” when she tells him “I’m so happy when I’m with you”: “From this interaction, we can tease apart K’s instructions to Joi. By telling Joi that she doesn’t have to dote on him, he says to her that if she’s going to care for him, she should do it because she wants to and not because she’s programmed to cling to his every word. So, if Joi truly were “whatever K wants her to be,” she would either care for him independently of her programming, or, barring that, not at all. Since Joi continues to care deeply for K, it seems that she has either defied her programming and chosen to care for K on her own, or followed her programming and done what K asked—to reject her programming and, again, freely chosen to care for K. Either way, Joi’s affection for K seems authentic.” Chris Lay, “Is Joi a Person?” Blade Runner 2049 and Philosophy, 13.
[6] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 307.
[7] Heidegger, Being and Time, 310-311.

​Discourse online is saturated with everyone calling everyone else a LARPer. The meme of the three Spider-Man’s pointing at each other nicely registers the structure of LARP accusations online. 

LARP, for those not versed in this online lingo, is short for live-action role-playing. When you accuse someone of LARPing, you are suggesting that they are inauthentic, that they are pretending (role-playing) something they are not.
​
It is clear why such an accusation becomes so popular in leftists spaces in the West. Since there is no strong independent left-wing, anyone who attempts to build one is seen as LARPing: “those guys aren’t actually revolutionaries, they’re just LARPers.”

There is of course a kernel of truth in this. There are many for whom communism is a lifestyle, a counterculture identity they take on, not for the sake of struggling to change the world, but to look hip, edgy, and dissident within the current form of life.

In my book, The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism, I call these subjects ‘identity socialists.” For them the label of “communist” is grounded in a self-imposed identity (putting the hammer and sickle on one’s bio), not in a classification one earns through work, that is, through joining an organization that makes you “earn your stripes” as a communist organizer.

Nonetheless, what those who accuse others of being LARPers presuppose is the possibility of activity that is not LARP, of acts that are radically new, acts for which there is no pre-established roles one could have possibly role-played.

Who are the non-LARPers of leftist history? Of course, the classics: Lenin, Mao, Fidel, etc. All those who waged revolutionary struggles, won, and opened up a new dimension of revolutionary activity, which is to say (when translated to the domain of theory), advanced the revolutionary framework Marxism beyond that which they inherited.

The problem faced by those who sustain this simple binary of inauthentic LARPer versus true revolutionary is that all of the true revolutionaries saw themselves, in various ways, as reenacting a moment of the past, as going back to the original tradition, and it was precisely in this act of pretending to go back that the new was born.

Slavoj Žižek makes an interesting observation in this domain, anticipating by a decade this hysteria around LARP accusations: “the invention of some new content can only occur in the illusory form of returning to the past original truth.”

What the LARP-police officers are not aware of is that all of their favorite revolutionaries saw their task as returning to the basics of the tradition they were a part of, and it was precisely in doing this that a new content was arrived at: “their ‘return to’ constitutes the very object to which it returns… in the very act of returning to tradition, they are inventing it.”

Martin Luther LARP’s as an original, pre-Catholic Christian, in doing so, he creates a radical rupture, something qualitatively new. A return to origins gives birth to novelty: Protestantism.

The Bolsheviks LARP as communards (perhaps even as Jacobins), and through the LARP they go beyond LARP and develop something new. They sought to go back to real Marxism after it had been corrupted by the Second International. But precisely in this attempt to recapture lost origins something new is born (the ‘new’ here, of course, should be understood dialectically, as in building up and sublating the old): Marxism-Leninism.

The Chinese Communists LARP as Bolsheviks, and in doing so, genuinely develop upon Marxism and our historically shared index of wisdom on the struggle for building socialism. Who could’ve imagined a socialist revolution led (and not just supported by, as in Russia) the peasants? It was by trying to reenact the revolutionary spirit of 1917 in a Chinese context that the newness of the 1949 revolution emerges.
The 26 of July Movement LARPS a return to the unfinished business of the 1953 assault on the Moncada barracks, but in doing so goes beyond anything that could have been foreseen in 1953. By LARPing they develop a new synthesis of Cuban Marxism-Leninism and socialism with Cuban characteristics.

In each case, the structure is the same: artful LARPing is often the form through which something radically new is born. Even those traditions which seek to define themselves through a complete break with all of the traditions of old, nonetheless do so by reenacting all those who have purported to take up the same task in the past.

Marx already knew this well, as the famous first paragraphs of the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte show:

The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.

One can say there is a certain naivety to these revolutionary breaks (I think this is central to what Marx is highlighting), they are forced to “conjure up the spirits of the past to their service” even when the service (the revolution process) is producing something often times unimaginable to those old ghosts.

We shouldn’t simply see this as a contingent mistake, it is the necessary (at least from what we can see historically) form revolutionary struggles take. It is as if correctly developing something new requires this constitutive delusion that one is simply reenacting the old, returning to the origins.

And so the real question is not, to reformulate the Shakespearean “to be or not to be,” “to LARP or not to LARP?”

But: “how can we LARP in a revolutionary manner, that is, how can we go through LARP to new revolutionary activity?”

How can we dialectically turn LARPing, the enactment of the old, into its opposite, into new revolutionary activity?

Author

Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Partyand as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

Author
Haz Al-Din is the Chairman of the American Communist Party.

​The irreversible decline of the U.S. empire’s global hegemony is not merely an economic or technological issue. Such an reductionist approach would prevent us from grasping the full scope and the many dimensions of this slow but inexorable decline. It is also a military issue: the inability to win wars, continually highlighted by analysts in that country and confirmed in recent days by the setback suffered by Washington (and its cronies in Tel Aviv) in the war against Iran.

It is also political, because one of the consequences of the dictatorship of capital that underlies the logic of the empire has been the growing dissatisfaction with bourgeois democracy, the practice of which has only served to make the rich exponentially wealthier and keep the vast majority of the U.S. population in poverty: that is, without universal access to quality public health care and education, decent housing, and a wide range of labor and social rights. This is one of the reasons why some sections of the American poor are increasingly inclined to seek and vote progressive or left-wing alternatives—alternatives that were denounced as “communist” by Donald Trump in his speech of the recent Fourth of July.
​
And it is also a moral issue because societies—not only the United States but Western societies in general—seem to have been numbed into feeling no compassion whatsoever for the victims of the brutality unleashed by the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and theft of foreign territories carried out by the Israeli neo-fascist regime, with its indiscriminate attacks against defenseless civilian populations; or by the ruthless attacks that the United States and Israel launched against the Iranian population and the selective annihilation of Iran’s religious and political leadership; or by the U.S. bombing of a defenseless Caracas and the subsequent abduction of Nicolás Maduro, president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and his wife, Congresswoman Cilia Flores. Outrageous acts, typical of monstrous characters like Adolf Hitler, which in their time drew near-universal condemnation today are “normalized” and accepted with indifference by the public—all thanks to the media scoundrels, the reign of algorithms, and the instruments of cognitive and volitional control that the ruling classes have at their disposal to subjugate the people and consolidate their supremacy.

Yet, the forms of genocide have evolved over time. The Nazi barbarism that led to the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe, or the ongoing massacre of the Palestinian people—especially women and children—coexist today with a more covert but no less criminal form of genocide: the policy of “sanctions” imposed by the United States and its unworthy European pawns against countless countries. Recently, a lecture by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer cited a study published in the prestigious British journal  The Lancet, which reported the findings of a research on the medical and social consequences of “unilateral coercive measures” imposed on 152 countries between 1971 and 2021. The authors of the aforementioned study—Francisco Rodríguez, Silvio Rendón, and Mark Weisbrot—summarized their findings by stating that “unilateral sanctions are associated with an annual death toll of 564,258 people.” In other words, some 28 million people died as a result of the economic “sanctions” imposed by Washington over the course of half a century—just over a third of the casualties caused by World War II !. Consequently, we are witnessing a slow, invisible, and relentless genocide that provokes condemnation from only a small fraction of the global public. That is why the Chicago scholar speaks of “mass murder” caused by these policies.

Among the many countries that have suffered from them are Venezuela—especially since 2015—and Cuba, continuously since 1960, when the Eisenhower administration began imposing the first sanctions against the Cuban Revolution. The criminal intensification of the blockade decreed by Donald Trump and his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has taken things to an unprecedented extreme. In vain, the overwhelming majority of UN member states have been calling on the U.S. government for decades to end the blockade (which the empire’s spin doctors try to sugarcoat by referring to it as an “embargo” rather than a blockade).

The empire, whose brutality grows as its decline gains momentum, has ignored these demands and has continued to inflict “collective punishment” on the Cuban people, causing deaths and terrible suffering, especially among those in need of medical care. This is in addition to the punishment imposed by the blockade regarding oil supplies for the daily lives of the entire population: extremely long power outages, obstacles to mobility, shortages of essential goods, and the paralysis of institutions, from schools and universities to public hospitals.

From a strictly medical standpoint, it is important to note that Cuba—which had been among the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates in the world—saw a 148% increase between 2018 and 2025, rising from 4.0 per 1,000 live births to 9.9, according to a study released by the Center for Economic and Policy Research based in Washington. This surge means that approximately 1,800 Cuban children have died as a result of the blockade—a figure that pales in comparison when you add the deaths of patients who cannot access their cancer medications or drugs for the treatment of diabetes and many other chronic diseases.

In short, Washington’s policy is a war crime, and those responsible should be brought to trial, just as the regime’s leaders responsible for the genocide of the Jews were at the Nuremberg trials following the defeat of Nazism. Today we have another one underway—in Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon—which, however, does not provoke the outrage and condemnation that arose at the mid forties of the past century. To make matters worse, we find ourselves facing a society that has been numbed in its ability to think critically and react against the true mass murder caused by U.S. sanctions policies against Cuba, Venezuela, and numerous countries around the world.

This tacit acceptance of the blockade is one of the great accomplishments of the imperial “soft power.” Hence the urgency of waging the “war of ideas,” as Martí put it, urging us to win it “through the power of thought.” This means fighting with all our might against the dominant conventional wisdom and those who, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of this tragedy and turn a blind eye to it; also against the apathetic and those who worship depoliticization and retreat into selfish interests. In its decay, the empire has debased the societies of the collective West, fostering selfishness and rendering them insensitive to the suffering of their fellow human beings. The words that a young Gramsci used in his article titled “I Hate the Indifferent” are particularly relevant here. There he said, among other things, that “indifference is the dead weight of history. But indifference exerts a powerful influence on history. It operates passively, but it operates nonetheless. It is fate; that which cannot be told.” Or, we might add, that which can be told but is not told because the media landscape is dominated by the enemy, determined to cover up the crimes of the system. And Gramsci went on to say that “to live means to take sides.

Whoever truly lives cannot fail to be a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism; they are cowardice; they are not life. That is why I hate the indifferent.” In that short article, Gramsci draws on the humanist legacy that Dante Alighieri imprinted in *The Divine Comedy* when he declared that “God had reserved the most horrendous circle of hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, had opted for neutrality.”

Author

Atilio Boron is an Argentine sociologist, political scientist, professor and writer. He holds a PH.D. in Political Science from Harvard University.

​Nicholas Reed speaks with a representative of the communist movement in Armenia, amid a critical geopolitical point where the government of Nikol Pashinyan is pivoting away from Russia and closer to the European Union. As Pashinyan claims victory in the June 2026 election, the future of Armenia looks doomed to repeat past scenarios which took place in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

It's 2 a.m. Yerevan time right now. To answer the last question... I'm sitting on the couch at home. My wife and son are sleeping in the next room. And I swear, I'm scared. Scared for a future my brain can even contemplate. Scared not just for my family, but for the entire country, and for all the people I know and love. Scared for my people, who have already suffered so much in their lifetime. I'm terrified of what could happen to my people again. Just 115 years later. Two days left until the elections. Tomorrow morning, the day of silence begins. And the day after tomorrow, no matter what my people do, no matter how they vote, the future seems bleak to me at best…

To begin, could you introduce yourself, tell us about your background, career, and the experiences that shaped your political worldview? How would you define your current political position, and do you associate yourself with any party, movement, or ideological tradition in Armenia or abroad?

Hello. I'll answer each question separately. I'm the Acting First Secretary of the Central Committee of Komsomol and a member of the Communist Party of Armenia. I first joined the party four years ago and became a member a year ago. Before joining the party, I already had a certain knowledge of Marxism and a clearly defined ideological vector. However, my path was arduous. I've been interested in politics and history since I was 9 or 10 years old. And, of course, first and foremost, the history of my country and its people. It's a very long history, spanning approximately 3,000 years. Studying such a long period of history, even from a nationalist perspective—the only one we had—certain patterns emerge that can't be explained by anything other than dialectical materialism. Thanks to a blogger, Dmitry Puchkov, I learned about the ideological basis of communism. Historians of communist views often visited him at the time.

So, from then on, I began studying Marxism and the history of communist movements around the world in more detail. I was 15 or 16 years old at the time. And so here I am, 26. Ten years have passed, and my confidence has left no doubt, and my knowledge has deepened. There have been some ups and downs along the way. At times, I leaned toward nationalism, sometimes toward cosmopolitanism, but ultimately, I cast aside all these adolescent vacillations and chose the path that led me to the party.
The Komsomol line is orthodox Marxism. However, we allow room within the organization for alternative interpretations. This gives us the opportunity to work with diverse population groups and ideological leanings around the world. We are not afraid to listen to other interpretations of the goals of the communist movement, and we are not afraid to express our own interpretations. Under these circumstances, this is the best and most pragmatic approach.

How do you assess Nikol Pashinyan's leadership in the current political climate? To what extent does he retain public legitimacy, and is his proposed turn toward the West perceived by ordinary Armenians as a pragmatic necessity, a risky gamble, or a betrayal of traditional alliances?
 
So, firstly, in the Third Republic of Armenia, no government has ever shone with legitimacy except the first, and then only for a very short period of two or three years, until the people recovered from the nationalist frenzy. Secondly, Pashinyan has always been someone who knows how to garner political capital. His entire career has been populism in the worst sense of the word. In my observations, any decision he makes is based on two factors. The first is how popular the decision is currently, and the second is how much potential it can generate for hype. And the decision regarding Russian-Armenian relations is no exception. He doesn't care about the economic or long-term consequences for the country. He only cares about the political capital he can extract from the situation and the potential for further promotion. The fact that the Armenian economy will collapse after abandoning cooperation with Russia within the Eurasian Economic Union doesn't interest him one bit. What matters is his popularity and the marketing techniques his team employs.
 
And what about the people? He's accustomed to being pushed around and unable to do anything. The people are afraid. And not without reason. The level of political repression in our country is off the charts. Constant jailings of opposition figures, persecution, unreasonable and unproven accusations, and so on.
 
It's even reached the point of persecuting the relatives of opposition-minded citizens. For example, a member of our party received a call from home. His mother was crying and begging him to cease his political activities. She worked in a ministry and received a clear demand: either force her son to give up his activities or lose his job.
 
Another example. An Armenian-language communist blogger from Argentina was forced to delete all his video content from the "Commune" channel. His relatives in Armenia were threatened with dismissal, and their children were even threatened with expulsion from school.
 
If this isn't a classic dictatorship, what is? So the people will be neither for nor against it. He's simply accustomed to being bullied and held under the strictest oppression for 40 years. And resistance breeds even greater oppression and greater problems. After all, there's no one to wage a fight without ending up in the same boat. The entire opposition is the same dictators of the past or those who imagine themselves as such in the future. And at the same time, they're the same populists talking about freedom and independence.
 
This brings to mind the words of a certain Ukrainian rapper:
<< Words of freedom in snake tongues.>> This is our reality.
 
When we talk about a "pivot to the West," what does this mean in practice: in terms of policy, security guarantees, economic integration, and democratic reforms? And most importantly, has the West demonstrated a willingness to provide Armenia with real material support, or is this rapprochement still largely symbolic

To answer this question, I must return to the previous one. Armenia's entire economy depends on trade with Russia by more than 40 percent. A sudden abandonment of this would be catastrophic. So I don't think the government is counting on that. I think they were hoping for a gradual rejection of everything related to Russia and a transition to complete dependence on Europe. However, this approach ignores the fact that Russia is also an active participant in foreign policy and involves treating Russia as a large, immovable rock. You can move away from it, but the rock won't go anywhere, and when the sun gets too hot, you can return and relax in its shade. I'm willing to bet that our government officials haven't even considered Russia's role as a subject. But Russia is not a rock. And it won't stand idly by as its adversaries encroach on its sphere of influence. Russia has launched a plan to exert economic pressure. Armenian goods have been restricted from entering the Russian market, to the point of being completely unavailable. Products made in Armenia have been banned from accessing Russian marketplaces like Ozon and Wildberries.

This is just the beginning. After Pashinyan's victory, Russia is preparing to raise gas prices, which will be an absolute disaster for Armenia. How will the government get out of this? They won't. The bourgeoisie that seized power will simply sell everything on time and flee into the sunset to the French Riviera, London, or wherever. And we'll be left with empty pockets, freezing in the mountains in winter without gas. That's what will happen to our country under the "Civil Contract" party.

On the other hand, some describe Pashinyan as soft or even friendly toward Turkey, sometimes claiming he downplays the tragedy of the Armenian Genocide. What, in your opinion, is Pashinyan's and modern Armenia's attitude toward Turkey and the 1915-1923 genocide?

You're absolutely right to call it a Turkish puppet. And of course, our party as a whole, shares this view. There are many reasons for this. From the interesting pasts of various government officials, to the occasional Turkish foundation, university, and politician connection, to the fact that Pashinyan and his cronies do everything they can to avoid disturbing Turkey and Azerbaijan. It's reached the point of political jargon and ceremonial peculiarities. For example, the word Artsakh is forbidden. And the director of the Institute for the Study of the Armenian Genocide was fired from her job for daring to give Jaydee Vance a book containing the word Artsakh. This is appalling. Even a caricature. Armenia is essentially a dictatorship on the level of Batista-era Cuba and Bokassa-era Central African Republic, and the ruling party pretends to have created, as its representatives say, a "bastion of democracy."
The only difference between the two aforementioned dictatorships and Pashinyan's regime is that in Armenia, they don't kill yet; they imprison. But I think the worst is yet to come, and dark times await us.
And naturally, everything we see, from the political strategies used by his party in Armenia to the talk of peace with the transfer of Armenian territories to Azerbaijan, clearly and unambiguously hints at their connection to, or even complete subordination to, Turkish and Azerbaijani structures.

There's often a gap between official political rhetoric and the actual mood of society. How do ordinary Armenians perceive Nikol Pashinyan today? Is their support or opposition to him driven more by ideology, economic conditions, or the emotional consequences of military defeat?
 
In fact, it's a bit of everything. Each of the aforementioned components has its place in the opposition. But the most important component is ambitious bourgeois clans. They are united by common financial interests and also have great potential to become a center of capital concentration in Armenia. Today, the Karabakh clan, which allies with Kocharyan from the opposition, is in the ascendancy, while from the government, the Sukiasyan brothers, who have vast resources and various assets throughout the country, from banks to manufacturing. There are also several less stable clans, or even hypothetical clans, that are formed temporarily to achieve a specific political-economic goal. Each clan has a party or parties that serve its interests. Some of them are headed by well-known business oligarchs.
 
This is the main source of the opposition's formation. It is the money of the bourgeois clans. Accordingly, the opposition is little different from the ruling Sukiasyan clan and other oligarchs who have joined the government.
 
And the people? They have a choice. Who exactly will rob and profit from the people more than anyone else?
 
However, with Pashinyan as a variable, things are no longer so simple. Pashinyan's policies could lead to the destruction of the country and lead to catastrophe. And, of course, the authorities are trying in every way to contrast themselves with the former government and contrast themselves with it, reminding us why the people rose up and overthrew the government in 2018. Meanwhile, the opposition talks about past victories in 1994, about Artsakh's enormous foreign debt, the lack of visible social change, and so on.
 
And no one can break this vicious circle. The people are simply tired. All the money is in the hands of the oligarchs and their tame parties. Any new blood in politics is either bought with money most could never imagine, or the new political force is initially determined to find a cozy place for itself under the wing of the capitalists and bask there.
 
The Communist Party, however, has no sources of funding because it doesn't sell itself to anyone. This is precisely why it doesn't fit into the generally accepted understanding of politics among the Armenian public.
 
It's also important to note the Russia-Europe discourse. This is one of the most important aspects of political agitation. Accusations of mutual espionage are the norm in our politics. These accusations are primarily made by the authorities, accusing them of spying for Russia. In the event of counter-accusations, opposition members risk imprisonment. This is precisely why the opposition speaks less about espionage. Our political arena has become a cheapened theater. And this is very disappointing.
 
How has the regional balance of power changed since the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran? Has this situation pushed Armenia toward closer cooperation with its Western partners or, on the contrary, increased its caution, given its geographic and defense limitation
 
To understand how our government thinks, one thing must be understood. It doesn't act out of considerations of national security. It doesn't act out of considerations of its own security, for those needs have already been met. It doesn't act out of considerations of even the country's existence. It acts out of purely petty-bourgeois considerations of how to make more money. And, of course, being pro-Turkish at their core and pro-Western in their agenda, our government and its representatives don't bother at all with thoughts of regional policy and security. On February 28, when the attacks on Iran began, our country launched its prime minister's election campaign. When more than 100 children died in a bombing at a school in Minab in a neighboring country, the Armenian prime minister was busy eating corn on camera as part of his campaign. The connection between eating corn and the election campaign may be unclear to the reader. However, his political strategists have quite skillfully found a method of psychologically influencing the population. Corn is considered an inexpensive food in Armenia. By doing so, the prime minister wanted to demonstrate once again that he is flesh and blood of the people, unlike all his electoral competitors. So our government cares about regional security, the balance of power, foreign policy, or even domestic politics only to the extent that it affects their wallets. Even if it affects their political reputation. Even then, their own wallets are more important to them, since they need a reputation not for great achievements, but only to fill their wallets.
 
However, regarding our party's position on the Iranian issue, we unequivocally support the people of Iran and their sovereignty, despite everything that has happened to the communists in Iran since the 1970s. And despite the brutal confrontation between communists and Islamists in Iran. However, as has already been said, our government is absolutely unconcerned about this. During the entire war between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, there was only one telephone conversation between the Iranian and Armenian Foreign Ministers, in which the Armenian Foreign Minister offered to send humanitarian aid to Iran. No one else discussed anything with Iran.
 
And, based on the above, we can essentially conclude: our government has absolutely no position on the Iran issue.
 
Given the upcoming elections, are there any authoritative political figures or movements today that could pose serious competition to Nikol Pashinyan? If so, how do they differ from the current leadership—ideologically or strategically?
 
Yes, there are certainly parties capable of challenging Nikol Pashinyan. A total of 18 parties are participating in the elections. There were 19, and one filed a withdrawal request. Of these 18 parties, in my opinion, only 6-7 have a chance of entering parliament. And of these, 4 are guaranteed to enter. The first is the ruling party itself, the Civil Contract. According to all polls, it has a lead, but not an absolute one. The second is the Strong Armenia party, created before these elections by Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian oligarch of Armenian descent. Samvel Karapetyan has a total net worth of approximately $5 billion.
 
Next is the Armenia bloc. The Armenia bloc consists of several parties, the main one, the largest of which, is Tashnaktsutyun. The Tashnaks are known for their historically anti-communist leanings and are nationalists, but they position themselves as socialists and are members of the Socialist International, which I consider one of the greatest injustices. The list of this bloc of parties is headed by Robert Kocharyan, the second president of Armenia. He served as president from 1997 to 2008. At that time, Armenia was a presidential republic until the constitutional reform of 2016, when the country was declared a parliamentary republic. In 2008, Robert Kocharyan handed over power to his fellow party member, Serzh Sargsyan, with whom he now has a very poor relationship, despite the fact that Serzh was his comrade-in-arms. He, like Robert Kocharyan, was a participant in the First Karabakh War. In fact, he was the first president of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from 1992 to 1996. Many people will vote for him, but whether it will be enough for the bloc of parties to enter parliament is a question. For a bloc of parties to enter parliament, at least 7% of the vote is needed, while for a party to enter parliament, 4% is needed. Personally, I believe Robert Kocharyan will receive approximately 10-12% of the vote. The next candidate who might garner enough support to enter parliament is Arman Tatoyan and his Wings of Unity party. Arman Tatoyan was the former Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia in the 1990s and also a human rights defender in Armenia. He has a fairly good reputation among certain circles, especially intellectuals and young people interested in politics. But whether that's enough, I don't know. The next party that will garner enough votes to enter parliament is Gagik Tsarukyan and his Prosperous Armenia party. Unlike Samvel Karapetyan, Gagik Tsarukyan is a purely Armenian oligarch who conducted all his activities in our country and made his money from Armenian workers and their exploitation. Essentially, he's a feudal kinglet who has turned his small homeland, the city of Abovyan, into his personal fiefdom. And, essentially, he can run this city however he wants. Which is disgusting. However, he enjoys widespread support among the poor and is very religious, which also adds to his support among religious Armenians.
 
He also enjoys widespread support among athletes, as he has headed the Armenian Olympic Committee for a long time, right up to the present day. He is known as a great philanthropist. He has helped sick children, athletes who lacked sufficient funds to continue their careers, and so on. He has a very ambitious project to build a statue of Jesus Christ. This statue is intended to be larger than the one in Rio de Janeiro. Construction is currently underway. Essentially, it is a project to build a huge shopping mall around this statue. Other political parties, in my opinion, have little or no chance of entering parliament. For example, the pro-European "In the Name of the Republic – Defenders of Democracy" Party of Arman Babajanyan is essentially not an independent political force. They are literally hired hands of the French embassy, ​​as well as the embassy of the European Union. For the sake of correctness, I should note that this is my personal opinion. So, as you can see from the above, there are very few worthy political forces in our country. Specifically, there are none at all among the most well-known and popular ones.

How would you assess the current state of political pluralism in Armenia? Can opposition figures operate freely and competitively, or are there legitimate concerns about political pressure, legal prosecution, or informal restrictions? In this context, do you see any similarities or significant differences between Armenia and countries like Ukraine or Moldova in their approach to opposition groups perceived as pro-Russian?

This is a very funny question. Our government is trying to create the image of a very peace-loving, democratic (in the bourgeois sense, of course), and modern government. However, in reality, quite harsh political repression is taking place within the country. A huge number of opposition figures are in prison, while not a single government official is behind bars. The opposition in our country, especially the pro-Russian opposition, which constitutes the bulk of political forces in the country, is persecuted. As I noted above, the mayor of Kyumri, Vartan Ghukasyan, is in prison because of his opposition statements. Several mayors of other cities are in prison because of their affiliation with the opposition party. Representatives of the highest clergy are in prison because of their conflict with the ruling party. Anyone who in any way could pose a threat to the continuation of power and to Nikol Pashinyan personally as prime minister will be imprisoned. Even the leaders of opposition parties are in prison. Popular opposition podcast hosts, who have garnered hundreds of thousands of views, are also in prison—a significant number for Armenia. The authorities are trying to find any possible formal pretext to lock up opposition figures. It could be anything: a careless remark that could be classified as slander. A drunken brawl in a bar ten years ago, or even if a current opposition figure had connections to the administration during the previous government. A simple miscalculation turns into rampant corruption. I won't deny, of course, that corruption has existed and continues to exist in Armenian society. Moreover, its rate hasn't slowed down, but rather increased. But what's interesting is that only those corrupt officials who are unfavorable to the authorities are being imprisoned.

From this, I conclude that they are being imprisoned not for corruption, but for opposition political statements. Overall, it's normal. You can register a political party within the law, with absolutely any ideology, absolutely anywhere, and with any number of people. But only as long as you don't hinder the government's efforts to reproduce itself. As for Ukraine or Moldova, Ukraine is certainly far from us. People weren't imprisoned there, they were killed. As for Moldova, we're openly discussing the concept of a "Moldovan scenario." And it's believed that the Moldovan scenario will be implemented in the upcoming elections. That is, several days before the elections, some political parties will likely be banned on formal, legal grounds. Essentially, today the entire state security apparatus serves not the people, but the Civil Contract party and its interests. It has been transformed into a vast repressive mechanism, the essence of which is to suppress protests, seek out and isolate opposition figures who have a voice in society, while at the same time formally maintaining the appearance of being a highly civilized, democratic Western country. All of this, of course, is in quotation marks.
 
In your opinion, how did the collapse of the Soviet Union impact Armenia politically, economically, and culturally? What long-term structural changes—both positive and negative—still shape Armenian society?
 
This is another topic on which one could write a vast, multi-volume treatise. But I will try to be as concise and brief as possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union effectively began in its active phase with the outbreak of the Karabakh conflict in 1988. Thanks to this conflict, the domestic politics of Armenia and Azerbaijan changed so much that even a hint of internationalism became a betrayal in the eyes of society. People who had gone to school, college, and the army together, who had grown up in the same village, were now forced to hate each other. And if they did not succumb to this mass psychosis, they were considered outcasts within their own national communities. Most of these people were forced to simply move to Russia, where the traditions of internationalism still partially survived. Not to mention mixed Armenian-Azerbaijani marriages. And the children of these marriages. To sum up, this was not a national catastrophe, but an international catastrophe. All peoples involved in this conflict suffered. And everyone was forced to choose a side. There were even isolated cases where Armenians fought for Azerbaijanis, and Azerbaijanis for Armenians. But the fate of these people was usually very tragic. People of mixed descent, of whom there were many in Karabakh, were forced to choose one side of the family. It was effectively ethnic cleansing based on national identity on both sides. Only rarely among the field commanders of that war were there people uninfluenced by radical nationalism. On the Armenian side, such a person was Monte Melkonian. He died from a shell from an infantry fighting vehicle in 1993, during the war. His ideas, unfortunately, never gained widespread acceptance in Armenian society, despite his status as a national hero of Armenia, which was awarded posthumously. The result was mutual interethnic hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the complete destruction of the concept of friendship between peoples.
 
And anyone who dared to mention it would be considered a traitor. Personally, I often encountered the argument that it was impossible to be friends with the murderers of one's relatives. After 2020, this hatred only intensified. So, the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the complete degradation of public life and a contraction of the economy by more than 50-70 percent. For comparison, Soviet Armenia had an economy comparable to that of Spain. The absolute and complete degradation of cultural life also befell Armenian society. Due to the destruction of Soviet institutions and state sponsorship of all cultural sites and events, there was simply no one left to finance culture. As a result, only bourgeois culture began to develop—that is, culture that could be sold. And sold profitably. And at that time, only nationalism could be sold profitably. For the vast majority of society was infected with this disease. Thus, the fall of the USSR resulted in nationalists taking control of the state. And this continued in Armenia until 2018, when the nationalists were replaced by liberals. More specifically, liberal globalists. Led, of course, by Nikolai Pashinyan. The country's entire economic structure was also reforged for capitalism. As a result, a country with enormous industrial potential began producing only what benefited the global financial elites, including those of Russia, France, and America. For example, the only heavy industrial facility remaining in Armenia from the Soviet era is the Zangezur Copper and Molybdenum Plant. It produces enormous quantities of molybdenum, which is sold to Russia, China, Europe, and many other countries around the world. Armenia accounts for 10% of the country's northeastern copper and molybdenum deposits. There was another similar copper and molybdenum plant, which was comparable in production volume. However, it was destroyed. Its final destruction occurred in the 1920s. Overall, all Armenia gained economically from the collapse of the USSR was famine, poverty, and a lack of fuel until the late 1990s. It also suffered political and economic isolation from both the west and the east. The entire eastern border became a front line, as did Armenia's southwestern border with the Nakhichevan Autonomous Region. Turkey, meanwhile, became a supremely unfriendly country, having always supported culturally related Azerbaijan in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. A positive change. I can only note one thing. It was a rise in national consciousness, and only for a short time. Specifically, only for the first half of the 1990s. Then, as Marx wrote, the bourgeois system of society transformed everything into lucre, erasing all the chivalrous prejudices of the old society.

To what extent do elements of the Soviet-era political culture (such as centralized power, clientelism, or a power-state mentality) still influence decision-making in Armenia? Are they weakening or merely adapting under the new elites?

The Soviet legacy is actually typical for almost all CIS countries. However, each country used it in its own way. Armenia decided to slowly but surely move away from these traditions over time, initially in favor of nationalist rhetoric and an attempt to reforge Soviet governance systems to suit nationalism, removing anything that didn't fit.

Then, the corrupted remains of this system fell under the steamroller of the liberal globalist system created by Pashinyan, who is a supporter of the idea of ​​a self-regulating market. This means there's no need to do anything. The market will regulate itself. So, unfortunately, little remains of the Soviet legacy in Armenia today.

Following Armenia's loss of control over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023/2024, how would you characterize the current state of Armenia's relations with Russia? Did this moment mark a decisive break, a strategic reassessment, or merely a temporary strain within a historically close alliance?

What happened in 2023 is largely the fault of the Armenian state. The fact is that the Russian peacekeeping contingent was obligated, according to the October 7 agreement, to protect the population of Nagorno-Karabakh and prevent any threat to their lives, as well as to ensure the right of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh to live in their historical homeland, that is, Nagorno-Karabakh. Almost none of this was fully implemented. And despite the fact that the agreement was concluded for five years, the peacekeepers remained there for only three. They only had enough strength to evacuate the population to special regions, from where they were then evacuated to Armenia, a total of approximately 120,000 people.
The Russian peacekeeping contingent even suffered several casualties during the evacuation process. And in most cases, these were soldiers and officers who were protecting the Armenian population from the Azerbaijani army by their own choice. Honor and praise to these people.
However, as you understand, the result was the ethnic cleansing of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, its destruction and abolition. A huge number of civilian casualties, deliberate attacks on civilian targets by the Azerbaijani army, which were not met with systematic resistance from Russian peacekeepers. And this is a fact. The Armenian people have a right to be outraged by this, in my humble opinion. However, as I have already said, the lion's share of the blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh lies with the Armenian government, which, firstly, withdrew the Armenian army from Nagorno-Karabakh, in accordance with the documents signed on October 7. Secondly, Nikol Pashinyan signed a document in Prague removing any claims Armenia had against Azerbaijan. From that moment on, Armenia effectively renounced its role as patron of Nagorno-Karabakh and its Armenian population, delegating all this to Russia. Russia, for its part, perceived this as assistance to the Republic of Armenia, its ally. While Armenia has ceased to be interested in the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia has deemed it pointless to independently pursue its own interests in Nagorno-Karabakh while its main forces are engaged in a special military operation on Ukrainian territory. Nikol Pashinyan, with his pro-European Civil Contract party, is exploiting the justified discontent of the Armenian people to advance his own political interests. All his talk of diversification actually implies one thing: making Armenia dependent not on Russian capital, but on European capital. For Armenia, this could be an absolute disaster. I've already described why.

Given Armenia's tense relations with Russia following the events in Nagorno-Karabakh, is Armenia truly capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy, or will it inevitably be forced to trade one sphere of influence for another?

I believe I've already answered this question. However, I'll repeat it. Armenia is a country that has been in economic and political isolation for decades. Armenia has no fossil fuels of its own and no political structure capable of withstanding long-term isolation, like North Korea's. Armenia lacks a powerful army capable of defending itself, defending its homeland, or even... from its neighbors. Our western neighbor is Turkey, with its 350,000-strong army. Our army, at best, has 80,000 soldiers. In reality, it's even fewer. Our country lacks modern technology in the military, economic, or any other sphere, and is generally quite technologically backward. It lacks extensive manufacturing capabilities, as all production facilities... or almost all of them were destroyed between 1991 and the 2010s. Armenia is a country that cannot effectively function independently without skillful diplomacy and serious societal changes. Only then will our country be able to claim sovereignty.

How has the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh changed Armenian national identity and political consciousness? Does it foster a desire for reform and realism, or, conversely, does it fuel revanchism and distrust of both allies and adversaries?
 
Well, the short answer is a bit of everything. A better illustration might be the list of parliamentary parties, or rather, those participating in the current elections. There are pro-Russian parties there, which believe that the turn toward Europe led to the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh. There are pro-Western parties, which consider Pashinyan a traitor for not having done enough to end Russian influence in Armenia. There are nationalist, reformist, and all sorts of other parties. But there are simply no leftist parties there. Communists, especially not. Thus, the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh has had different impacts on different segments of society. And the result has been the formation of various politically motivated circles, which strive for different goals and appeal to different audiences. But, as I already said, among these various forces, not a single communist one.
 
Based on both personal experience and political analysis, how would you describe how ordinary Armenians perceive Azerbaijanis—and vice versa? To what extent are these views shaped by historical memory, state narratives, and the recent conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh? Do you see real room for reconciliation at the societal level, or are disagreements becoming more entrenched?
 
In short, Azerbaijan suffered from Weimar syndrome for decades. That is, a crushing defeat, an insult to the nation, and so on. The ruling faction in Azerbaijan took advantage of this and fueled public hatred against Armenians. And against any Armenian. Almost the same thing happened in Armenia. However, the narrative was somewhat deeper. The fact is that in Armenia, we rarely pronounce the word "Azerbaijani." To us, they are the same Turks who live west of the Araks.

They share almost the same language, the same culture, and even proclaim the concept of "two states, one people." In fact, this is one possible starting point for a pan-Turanian project.
 
As a result, the hatred of Turks, which stems from the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, is very easily transferred to Azerbaijanis, which is also a variation of Weimar syndrome. Following the war with Azerbaijan in 2020 and the destruction of Karabakh in 2023, two parallel tendencies have become dominant in Armenian society. One is the tendency of fear. Fear of war as a horrific, inhumane phenomenon, and the understanding that everything, absolutely everything, must be done to prevent war from breaking out. This includes making any compromises, and sometimes even unilateral concessions. The second tendency is revenge. The desire for revenge, the desire to kill perceived enemies in the same way they killed relatives, friends, or acquaintances. The vengeful spirit also has strong potential for development in Armenia. So far, the pacifists are winning. However, everything could change. Both tendencies, if left unchecked, are capable of destroying the very concept of the Armenian people. This also poses an existential threat.
 
In conclusion, what future do you envision for Armenia under current conditions, and what future would you prefer—is it different from what you expect? (Include a final summary or concluding statement.)
 
It's 2 a.m. Yerevan time right now. To answer the last question... I'm sitting on the couch at home. My wife and son are sleeping in the next room. And I swear, I'm scared. Scared for a future my brain can even contemplate. Scared not just for my family, but for the entire country, and for all the people I know and love. Scared for my people, who have already suffered so much in their lifetime. I'm terrified of what could happen to my people again. Just 115 years later. Two days left until the elections. Tomorrow morning, the day of silence begins. And the day after tomorrow, no matter what my people do, no matter how they vote, the future seems bleak to me at best. And what would I like to see? I think my membership in the Communist Party and the fact that I've been involved in the communist movement for years answer that question. Long live the revolution!

Since the declaration of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1, 1949, the Chinese socialist project has evolved through three stages. (1) The period of “socialist revolution and reconstruction” from 1949 to 1978, led by Mao Zedong, was characterized by the consolidation of state power and the socialist transformation of agriculture and industry. (2) The period of “reform, opening, and socialist modernization” from 1978 to 2012, led by Deng Xiaoping, was characterized by an emphasis on productivity, the introduction of market strategies in state-owned enterprises, the expansion of space for private enterprise, and the expansion of foreign investment and foreign commerce, all developed under state direction in accordance with a long-term development plan. The Reform and Opening had enormous success in unleashing economic productivity. (3) The third stage, led by Xi Jinping, began with the 2012 National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It has focused on improving the development policy of the Reform and Opening and addressing its inherent negative consequences, such as inequality, poverty, environmental destruction, and corruption.

On July 1, 2026, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPC and President of the PRC, addressed a commemoration of the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. In his address, Xi described the Party as the reliable backbone of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. The Party has discerned the broad trends in world development, enabling the Chinese people and the Chinese nation to overcome imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism and to bring China’s history of semi-colonialism to a definitive end. The Party has led the people through various stages in the construction of a modern socialism with Chinese characteristics, such that China is now widely recognized as a builder of world peace and a defender of international order. The Party has stood with steadfast commitment to its purposes and goals, Xi declared, with a clear understanding of the particular conditions of China.

I provide here the full text of Xi’s speech, taken from the Xinhua News Agency by the Friends of Socialist China.

Comrades, friends:
Today we gather solemnly to celebrate the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, to look back on the glorious course our Party has travelled, to look ahead to the bright prospects for the cause of the Party and the people, and to rally the whole Party and the people of all ethnic groups across the country to advance with confidence toward the grand goals of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and realising the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

First, on behalf of the Party Central Committee, I extend festive greetings to all members of the Communist Party of China. I offer warm congratulations to the recipients of the July 1 Medal and to the national outstanding Party members, outstanding Party affairs workers, and advanced primary-level Party organisations being honoured today.

Comrades, friends!
One hundred and five years ago, amid the great awakening of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation and the close integration of Marxism-Leninism with China’s workers’ movement, the Communist Party of China was born. From that point on, the Chinese people and the Chinese nation had a most reliable backbone, and a China beset by internal turmoil and external aggression and mired in poverty and weakness embarked on an earth-shaking historical transformation.
Over these 105 years, our Party has held fast to its founding mission of seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. It has discerned the broad trends of world development, accurately grasped the changes in the principal social contradiction across different historical periods, and united and led the people of all ethnic groups in unremitting struggle. It has achieved the great successes of the new democratic revolution, of socialist revolution and construction, of reform and opening up and socialist modernisation, and of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, writing the most magnificent epic in the several-thousand-year history of the Chinese nation.

One hundred and five years of unremitting struggle have fundamentally changed the future and destiny of the Chinese people. Leading the people through magnificent and great struggles, our Party overthrew the three big mountains of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism, established a New China in which the people are masters of the country, brought a definitive end to old China’s history as a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society, and achieved the historic leap in the people’s lives from inadequate food and clothing, to moderate prosperity in general, and then to moderate prosperity in all respects. Today the Chinese people hold their destiny firmly in their own hands and are striding toward an even better future with confidence, self-reliance, and self-improvement.

One hundred and five years of unremitting struggle have opened up the correct path to realising the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Through the great endeavours of revolution, construction, reform, and the new era, our Party has led the people through countless hardships to successfully open up and stay on the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, completing in a few decades an industrialisation process that took developed countries several centuries, and producing the twin miracles of rapid economic growth and long-term social stability. Today the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is unstoppable, presenting brighter prospects than ever before.

One hundred and five years of unremitting struggle have demonstrated the powerful vitality of Marxism. Our Party has integrated the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture, continually advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and giving rise to Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thereby greatly enriching and developing Marxism. Today the vigour and vitality of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics have fully borne out the scientific and truthful nature of Marxism, fully displayed its people-centred and practical character, and fully demonstrated its openness and contemporary relevance.

One hundred and five years of unremitting struggle have profoundly shaped the course of world history. Our Party has always stood on the right side of history and on the side of human progress, and through tireless self-strengthening it has profoundly changed the trends and configuration of world development. Today, as the Party leads the people in advancing Chinese modernisation, it has created a new form of human civilisation and broadened the paths by which developing countries can achieve modernisation. We are working to build a community with a shared future for humanity, contributing Chinese wisdom, Chinese proposals, and Chinese strength to solving humanity’s major problems. Socialist China under the Party’s leadership is widely recognised as a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and a defender of the international order.

One hundred and five years of unremitting struggle have forged a strong Communist Party of China. Our Party has kept firmly in mind the nature, purpose, and goals of a Marxist party, vigorously carried forward the great founding spirit of the Party, and grown ever more resolute through adversity and ever stronger through repeated tempering. Today our Party has grown into the world’s largest governing party with major global influence, enjoying the wholehearted support of the people, serving as the strong core of leadership for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and proving itself fully worthy of being called a great, glorious, and correct party.

Comrades, friends!
Every achievement we have made over these 105 years is the result of generation after generation of Chinese Communists uniting and leading the Chinese people in unremitting struggle. The Chinese Communists represented chiefly by Comrades Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao established great, history-making merits for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To them we pay our highest respects.

At this moment we deeply cherish the memory of the older generation of revolutionaries such as Comrades Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping, and Chen Yun, and of Comrade Jiang Zemin, and we deeply cherish the memory of the revolutionary martyrs and people of high ideals who advanced wave upon wave, sacrificing and giving of themselves for national independence, the liberation of the people, the prosperity of the country, and the happiness of the people. The great deeds they performed for the country and the nation will forever be recorded in history. Their lofty spirit will forever be enshrined in the hearts of hundreds of millions of people.
The people are the makers of history and the true heroes. Here, on behalf of the Party Central Committee, I pay high tribute to the people across the country and to people from all walks of life who are working hard on every front. I extend sincere greetings to our compatriots in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, our compatriots in the Macao Special Administrative Region, our compatriots in Taiwan, and overseas Chinese. And I extend heartfelt thanks to all the peoples and friends of other countries who have lived in friendship with the Chinese people and who have cared about and supported China’s cause of revolution, construction, and reform.

Comrades, friends!
The reason the Communist Party of China has been able to achieve one brilliant feat after another over 105 years of struggle, and the reason history and the people chose the Communist Party of China, lies fundamentally in the outstanding qualities our Party possesses that no other political party or political force can match.

It is resolutely committed to the pursuit of truth and has always kept a firm grip on the direction of advance. Our Party takes Marxism as a powerful ideological weapon for transforming both the subjective and the objective world; it upholds emancipating the mind, seeking truth from facts, keeping pace with the times, and taking a realistic and pragmatic approach; it works to reveal and apply truth within the movement of social contradictions, is adept at testing and developing truth in practice, and continually uses new theory to guide new practice, ensuring that the cause of the Party and the people advances in the right direction.

It is deeply rooted in the people and has always possessed a solid foundation. Our Party keeps in mind that this country is its people and its people are the country; it upholds building the Party for the public good and exercising power for the people; it consciously acts on the fundamental purpose of serving the people wholeheartedly; and it stands firmly together with the people, thinking and working as one with them, giving it a solid foundation that no storm can shake.
It bravely shoulders its historical mission and has always held the strategic initiative. Our Party cherishes the lofty ideal of communism and is dedicated to the enduring great cause of the Chinese nation; it firmly bears on its shoulders the heavy responsibilities entrusted to it by history and the people; it keeps long-term goals and stage-specific goals unified, sets central tasks in line with changes in the principal social contradiction, and formulates and implements correct lines, principles, and policies, ensuring that it keeps a firm grip on leadership and initiative in the development of its cause.

It moves with the tide of development and has always stood at the forefront of the times. With a strong sense of history and a broad global vision, our Party has a clear-eyed grasp of China’s national conditions and the themes of the era; it actively recognises, responds to, and seeks change, forging ahead with determination; it ensures that all its work reflects the character of the times, follows underlying laws, and is rich in creativity; and it leads the country and the nation forward in the logic of history’s advance and in the current of the era’s development, making it a worthy vanguard of the times and backbone of the nation.

It is both willing and able to struggle and has always maintained the conviction of certain victory. Our Party upholds and carries forward the spirit of fearing no sacrifice and fighting valiantly; for the sake of the people, the country, and the nation, and for the sake of its ideals and convictions, it cuts through thorns and presses forward. However strong the enemy, however perilous the road, however severe the challenge, it is never afraid and never retreats, and with an iron will that stands unshaken whatever storms may come, it inspires the whole nation to move from victory to victory.
It attends to keeping itself strong and has always been full of vigour and vitality. Our Party is clearly aware that it takes a good blacksmith to forge good steel; it is adept at examining itself against the demands of the times, alerting itself with a keen sense of adversity, and improving itself through the spirit of self-reform. It attaches great importance to its own development, resolutely removing every factor that damages the Party’s advanced nature and purity and clearing out every virus that erodes the Party’s healthy body, growing stronger and more capable through revolutionary tempering.

These outstanding qualities are the key code to why the Communist Party of China is able to succeed. In light of new realities, we must continue to carry forward and enhance the Party’s outstanding qualities and ensure that the Party never changes its nature, its colour, or its flavour, and always retains its powerful creativity, cohesion, and fighting capacity.

Comrades, friends!
“Lofty achievements come only from aspiration; great undertakings come only from diligence.” Accomplishing the Party’s mission and tasks on the new journey of the new era requires all Chinese Communists to be firm in confidence, to carry the struggle forward, and to continually achieve new accomplishments worthy of the times and the people.

To be firm in confidence and carry the struggle forward, we must uphold the Party’s basic theory, basic line, and basic policy. The Party’s basic theory, basic line, and basic policy are major achievements gained by the Party and the people through arduous exploration and are the fundamental guide for the cause of the Party and the country. On the new journey, the whole Party must maintain the resolve to keep the path unchanged and the aspiration unshaken; uphold the Party’s overall leadership and the centralised, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee; thoroughly implement the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; hold firm to confidence in our path, our theory, our system, and our culture; carry forward the cause into the future while upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground; and refuse to let drifting clouds block our view or to lose our bearings as we ride the wind and break the waves.
To be firm in confidence and carry the struggle forward, we must rely closely on the people to accomplish great historic undertakings. Upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics is the shared cause of the whole Party and the people of all ethnic groups across the country. On the new journey, the whole Party must further lift the drive and spirit for getting things done and starting new endeavours, uniting and leading the people of all ethnic groups to break new ground; advance the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan as a whole and the Four-Pronged Comprehensive Strategy in a coordinated way; fully and faithfully apply the new development philosophy in every respect; move faster to build a new development pattern; and take solid steps to promote high-quality development. We must act on the people-centred development philosophy, develop whole-process people’s democracy, and continually consolidate and strengthen the great unity of all ethnic groups, the great unity of the whole nation, and the great unity of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, fully unleashing the initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity of hundreds of millions of people and pooling the mighty strength to advance Chinese modernisation.

To be firm in confidence and carry the struggle forward, we must actively meet the risks and challenges on the road ahead. China’s development is at a stage in which strategic opportunities coexist with risks and challenges and in which uncertain and unpredictable factors are increasing, requiring us to be ready at all times to withstand major tests of high winds and rough seas, and even perilous storms. On the new journey, the whole Party must strengthen its sense of adversity and adhere to bottom-line thinking, carry forward the fighting spirit and enhance its capacity to struggle, better coordinate the two overall situations of the domestic and international spheres, coordinate development and security, and improve its ability to scientifically anticipate change, detect risks in good time, and respond effectively to challenges, ensuring that the great ship of China’s rejuvenation cuts through the waves and sails steadily into the distance.

To be firm in confidence and carry the struggle forward, we must continue to promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity. As the once-in-a-century changes accelerate, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, and humanity once again stands at a crossroads over which way to go. On the new journey, we must follow the aspirations of the people and the trend of the times, hold high the banner of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit, champion the common values of humanity, promote the building of a new type of international relations, and push forward the implementation of the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilisation Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative, injecting more positive energy into world peace and development.

To be firm in confidence and carry the struggle forward, we must persist in exercising full and rigorous self-governance of the Party. Exercising full and rigorous self-governance is a journey to which there is no end. On the new journey, we must fully implement the Party’s Thought on Party Building in the New Era, act on the general requirements for Party building in the new era, and, with a view to enhancing the Party’s ability to govern over the long term, preserving the Party’s advanced nature and purity, and maintaining the Party’s flesh-and-blood ties with the people, improve the system for full and rigorous self-governance of the Party. Taking the Party’s political building as the overarching principle, we must strengthen Party building in all respects, resolutely wage the tough, protracted, and all-out battle against corruption, and continually enhance the Party’s capacity to provide political leadership, to guide through theory, to organise the people, and to inspire society, ensuring that the Party always remains the strong core of leadership in the historical process of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era.

Comrades, friends!
A strong country must have a strong military, and only a strong military can ensure national security. On the new journey, we must fully implement the Party’s Thought on Strengthening the Military in the New Era, implement the military strategy for the new era, uphold the Party’s absolute leadership over the people’s armed forces, and unswervingly follow the path of building a strong military with Chinese characteristics. We must comprehensively advance the political work of building the military, the reform and strengthening of the military, the strengthening of the military through science and technology, the strengthening of the military through talent, and law-based governance of the military; promote the modernisation of national defence and the armed forces with high quality; achieve the centenary goal of the People’s Liberation Army on schedule; move faster to build the people’s armed forces into a world-class military; resolutely safeguard China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests; and make greater contributions to safeguarding world peace and development.

Promoting the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and Macao is an inherent requirement of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. On the new journey, we must fully, faithfully, and unswervingly implement the policies of One Country, Two Systems, of the people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong and the people of Macao governing Macao, and of a high degree of autonomy; act on the principle of patriots governing Hong Kong and patriots governing Macao; enhance the effectiveness of law-based governance in Hong Kong and Macao; promote their economic and social development; and support them in better integrating into and serving the country’s overall development.

Resolving the Taiwan question and achieving the complete reunification of the motherland is the unswerving historical task of our Party and the shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. We must thoroughly implement the Party’s overall approach to resolving the Taiwan question in the new era, uphold the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, unite the broad masses of our compatriots in Taiwan, deepen cross-Strait exchanges, cooperation, and integrated development, resolutely combat the separatist forces seeking Taiwan independence, oppose interference by external forces, and firmly advance the great cause of national reunification.

Comrades, friends!
Young people are a vital force in realising the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The whole Party must value, care for, and support its young people and create the conditions for them to grow and succeed. The young people of China in the new era should unswervingly heed the Party and follow the Party, set lofty aspirations, bravely shoulder the great responsibilities of the times, integrate their personal pursuits into the cause of the Party and the country, seize the day and make the most of their prime years, run their leg of the historical relay well on the new journey, pave the way with their youth, and let their ideals shine.

Comrades, friends!
The 105-year glorious history of the Communist Party of China is a source of pride, but we must never become arrogant or complacent or come to a halt. By the middle of this century, we are to build China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and achieve the Second Centenary Goal. Time waits for no one. History waits for no one. All comrades of the Party must never forget our original aspiration and keep our mission firmly in mind, we must be modest and prudent and work hard, we must dare to struggle and be adept at struggling, closely rely on and unite with and lead the people of all ethnic groups of the whole nation in forging ahead on the new journey and performing meritorious deeds in the new era, and strive to create new historic glories!

As we listen to Xi Jinping’s celebration of the achievements of the Communist Party of China and its successful role in leading the people, we should keep in mind that the highest organ of State power in China is not the Party but the National People’s Congress (NPC). Established by the Constitution of 1954, the NPC has great legislative powers. Moreover, only the NPC has the power to amend the Constitution, with proposals for amendments requiring approval by 2/3 of the NPC deputies.

The National People’s Congress also has the constitutional authority to elect the President and the Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China, and to appoint several governmental executives, reserving the power to impeach by majority vote. And the NPC elects the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-General and other members of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Whereas the NPC holds annual ten-to-fourteen-day sessions, its Standing Committee, consisting of approximately 150 to 170 deputies of the NPC, meets in continuous session. In addition to the Standing Committee, there are nine special committees dedicated to such issues as legislative affairs; financial and economic affairs; education, health, science and culture; foreign affairs; environmental protection; and agriculture and rural affairs. These special committees study, consult, and debate with respect to legislative proposals put forth by the executive branch or by deputies of the National People’s Congress, which often includes proposals that originated in the Communist Party of China or its Central Committee.

We should especially be aware that the deputies of the National People’s Congress are elected, directly and indirectly, by the people, in a tiered structure of people’s congresses, with a foundation in the local village or urban neighborhood. At the lowest level, local People’s Congresses are directly elected by the people. At this lowest level, there is no limit on the number of candidates for each seat; candidates can be nominated by the Communist Party of China, various other political parties, mass organizations, and any voter seconded by at least ten other voters. The list of candidates is finalized by an election committee that is appointed by the Standing Committee of the local People’s Congress. Some districts elect one person, while others elect two or three, with the voter allowed as many votes as there are seats to be filled. Voting is done by secret ballot. There are provisions for runoff elections.

Local voting districts are generally from 200 to 1000 voters, but larger counties can have as many as 4,000 voters. Local People’s Congresses also elect the executive branches of local government, including governors, mayors, and heads of cities, city districts, counties, townships, and towns.

Thus, the deputies of the National People’s Congress are elected by the People’s Congresses of the level immediately below, which in turn have been elected by the levels immediately below them. The number of seats is proportionate to the population. Deputies are elected to five-year terms. The current (fourteenth) National Congress consists of 2,977 deputies who were elected in 2023
There is a nearly universal prejudice against indirect elections as somehow not really democratic. But we ought to think it through. At all levels higher than the local, the voters cannot directly know the candidates, so the most successful candidates are those that are capable of raising considerable sums of money to reach the people through campaign advertising. Direct elections at all levels, as is the norm in representative democracies, is a system that is structurally designed to ensure that the wealthy will control the political process through their great capacity to finance political campaigns.
​
In contrast to the structurally flawed system of representative democracies, the countries constructing socialism today are developing people’s democracies, in which systems of tiered direct and indirect elections favor the responsiveness of the State to the interests and needs of the people.

Several decades have passed since the compilation titled The Plebeian Potential burst onto the bibliographies of Latin American scholars, who discovered in it an author whose work had been overshadowed by the repression experienced in Bolivia at the end of the twentieth century. Quickly incorporated as a key reference in the theoretical and political arsenal of critiques of neoliberalism, the name of Álvaro García Linera began circulating ever more widely—that of someone who fulfilled a triple role: politician, senior state administrator (at the time serving as Vice President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia), and, on many occasions, a remarkably capable theorist of contemporary politics.
​
Of course, Latin America's discovery of García Linera's work also meant discovering the man himself. Gradually, it became clear that he belonged to the increasingly rare tradition of the author-militant—a figure largely absent during the final third of the twentieth century, when Marxism found institutional refuge in university departments. García Linera moved against that current, combining theoretical sophistication with direct political experience. This author-militant had written several books whose limited circulation had prevented them from reaching audiences beyond Bolivia's borders. Soon, however, works such as Marx at the Extremities of the Capitalist Social Body, The Sleepless Ghost, Lenin, Workers, and Aymaras, and Value-Form, Community-Form all gained recognition, some more widely than others.

Later, shifting political struggles—global, regional, and specifically Bolivian—transformed García Linera from a state administrator into a strategic thinker: a militant committed not to a particular government or party, but to the broader historical project of emancipation. His engagement with the problem of the state was not sudden. Rather, it occupied his intellectual energies before, during, and after his years in government. Throughout the past three decades, readers saw him citing Pierre Bourdieu, rereading Nicos Poulantzas, revisiting Antonio Gramsci, and reinterpreting V. I. Lenin through Lenin's writings on the New Economic Policy (NEP). Unlike much of the region's Marxism, García Linera never adopted contemporary theoretical currents without grounding them firmly in a deep understanding of Karl Marx's work. He continually returned to Marx, approaching him with the respect of a mature theorist—not as an infallible individual, but as a theoretical terrain from which new ideas could be produced for a new historical era.

For this reason, The Concept of the State in Marx should be regarded as the culmination of two decades of theoretical work carried out in the midst of political struggle, shaped by the specific conditions of the historical moment in which this practical-intellectual intervention takes place. The book also represents a synthesis of practical experience: the revolutionary defeats preceding 1989, the emergence of alternatives during the twenty-first century, and the trajectory of a thinker grappling with the transitions of our own time. It is not an entirely novel work, since many of its central ideas have been developed across García Linera's previous writings. Nevertheless, it constitutes a significant political intervention at a moment when the dominant political paradigm established since the 1980s is undergoing profound rupture. His approach to Marx and the state draws both from the classical Marxist tradition and from the central political questions of our own age, defined by the crisis of liberalism. Consequently, the need to rethink the state and imagine new forms of its relevance goes hand in hand with a critique of its monopolizing tendencies.

The specific aim of this work is to examine the state from a Marxist perspective—that is, through philosophical, anthropological, historical, and political approaches that conventional academic disciplines typically separate into distinct fields. The Marxist method consists in thinking about the social totality in all its problematic dimensions, encompassing both social forms and their concrete material content. It considers both ideas and material reality; both networks of social relations and the abstractions from which they emerge. In other words, it seeks to understand and confront the state from every possible angle: through it, against it, and beyond it.

Unlike many other theories, García Linera does not begin by separating the economic from the political. His reading of Marx therefore does not rest exclusively upon the supposedly "political" writings as distinct from the "economic" ones. Instead, he establishes the necessary relationship between the abstract commodity forms of value and the political community embodied in the state. There can be no political community without an economic community; no political bond without an abstract social connection that links labor together. State and value depend upon one another even as they may stand in tension. This perspective distances him from the endless debates surrounding "derivationism," in which he perceptively identifies an old tendency among Marxist intellectuals to position themselves above and apart from concrete reality.

The state is a form of community—a universal social bond—which, unlike the economy, can emerge as a binding and compulsory institution while remaining fundamentally incapable of transforming the essential structure of the value-form itself. This is the key to understanding the revolutionary dimension of the state: it is necessary because it provides the political form of community, expressing a certain ideal universality, yet by its very nature it cannot fundamentally alter the economic community organized through the value-form. No process of nationalization or expropriation, in itself, overturns the way human beings organize production through abstract exchange relations.

For this reason, García Linera's work is especially significant in emphasizing both the state's communal character and its monopolistic dimension in governance. Ultimately, it offers a diagnosis of the political terrain upon which we must act. The contemporary right, in its subordinate role within global capitalism, seeks to eliminate the state's communal dimension in favor of its monopolistic one. Reversing that tendency, García Linera argues, is an essential task for the political left.

How a state outlines its political projects and programs says a lot about the worldview they operate with.* Behind politics is always a series of assumptions, some explicitly recognized by political actors, others so deeply entrenched and unquestioned they function as “unknown knowns,” as the things taken for granted in making judgements about the world.
​
As a professor of philosophy, I think my discipline works best when it can critically highlight these overlooked assumptions which stand as the background for the judgments made on everything from aesthetic evaluations to political commitments.

The various frameworks through which international relations is conceived of by different states also follows this logic. A worldview — rooted always in the material premises and history of the society — comes to filter how the world is understood, and hence, comes to shape how one acts in it.

What happens when we apply this operation to compare China’s Global Governance Initiative with its American counterpart, the Project for a New American Century?

The Project for a New American Century, first outlined at the tail end of the twentieth century, seeks to defend and further entrench the unipolar world order, a global arrangement of U.S. hegemonism.
It is a global arrangement of win-lose, where the U.S. ruling elite win at the expense of the world and its own population.

This political project is rooted in a western civilizational metaphysic for thinking about the individual. For the west, the individual reigns supreme. Like Robinson Crusoe, the protagonist in Daniel Defoe’s famous novel by the same name, the west holds a conception of the individual as a self-sufficient entity — a being in no need of others.

In René Descartes, who marks the transition into modern philosophy in the west, the individual subject comes to be conceived of as a res cogitans, a thinking substance independent of not only nature and the larger human community, but even one’s own body (the res extensa).

From the standpoint of the dominant metaphysic in the west, the Other is not someone whom my being depends on, and who therefore requires respect, consideration, and care. The Other, instead, is reduced to something that serves the individual. The Other is interacted with only insofar as it can be exploited, that is, have its life and capacities drained to enrich myself.

This worldview goes hand in hand with the development of capitalism, a system which elevates to its ultimate principle capital accumulation. It is the logic upon which is premised the Project for a New American Century.

To defend unipolarity and American hegemonism is to operate under the influence of a metaphysics which holds that one can benefit only at the expense of the Other, an ontology of life as a zero-sum game.

This is why American statesmen and policymakers feel threatened by China’s rise — their philosophy is one in which the possibility of winning together doesn’t exist, they can only win if it is at the expense of someone else, and if someone else is winning (China’s rise, for example), it can only be at my own expense.

The logic behind China’s Global Governance Initiative is completely contrary to this western logos of ruthless individualism. China approaches the world promoting a framework of multipolarity, rooted in true multilateralism, win-win relations between states, and a commitment to a shared future for mankind.

Operative in the background of this initiative is a philosophy which understands the interconnection and unity of everything, from the cosmos to the human moral order.

The thought of considering a person a radically separate and independent individual is ludicrous for Chinese philosophy. Implied in the personhood of an individual is the social, the community of people (from one’s family all the way up to one’s state) which have helped to make them who they are.
The individual obtains their dignity and recognition only through the community of others, the ensemble of relations which made us who we are. The other is not a piece of equipment for me to use up, exploit, and dispense with. The other‘s fate and my own are sealed.

It is this social and holistic philosophy which is at the foundation of China’s Global Governance Initiative. The Communist Party of China understands that humanity does share a common fate, and that the only way anyone could actually win, is if we all collectively win.

The zero-sum logic the U.S. ruling class operates with is not only detrimental for the losers, but also for the winners, who under such predicament could very well find themselves as losers tomorrow.
China’s Global Governance Initiative and push toward true multilateralism, multipolarity, and a shared future for mankind premised on win-win relations is the framework the world as a whole will benefit the most from.

It is a framework rooted in a correct philosophical appreciation for the collective existence of humanity, which can never be amputated to the metaphysics of the lonesome individual, as the worst of western philosophy has, to the benefit only of the mammon of capital.

Author

Dr. Carlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American Professor of Philosophy who received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He serves as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Partyand as a Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist-Leninist think-tank in the United States. Dr. Garrido has authored a few books, including Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview (2022), The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism (2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), and the two forthcoming texts, Domenico Losurdo and the Marxist-Leninist Critique of Western Marxism (2026) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2026-7). Dr. Garrido has published over a dozen scholarly articles and over a hundred articles in popular settings across the U.S., Mexico, Cuba, Iran, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Greece, Peru, Canada, etc. His writings have been translated into over a dozen languages. He also writes short form articles for his Substack, @philosophyincrisis, and does regular YouTube programs for the Midwestern Marx Institute channel. He is on Instagram @carlos.l.garrido

An April, 2026 online article posted by Jacobin (which is considered one of the foremost socialist online publications) cannot help but adopt a tone of irascibility regarding the leader of the West African nation of Burkina Faso: “Ibrahim Traoré Would Like to Be Thomas Sankara’s Heir.” Authored by Bettina Engels, a Professor of Political Science from Berlin, the Jacobin piece serves as a follow-up to her original article for Review of African Political Economy, “More pragmatic than socialist: Burkina Faso’s recent politics is no remake of Sankarism.”

As the Amerikan empire and its allies lash out at sovereign nations throughout the Global South on a weekly basis (see Iran, Venezuela, and Caribbean fishermen), Engels and Jacobin have calculated that their platforms are best utilized launching critiques at one of Africa’s most popular revolutionary movements.​

Why is it that, just as Traoré is fighting off multiple attempted military coups, these so-called ‘leftists’ feel the need to make such claims about the supposed illegitimacy of the current phase of the Burkinabè Revolution? Why do Engels and Jacobin so eagerly delineate the Burkina Faso of Traoré as something that has betrayed the original sentiments of so-called ‘Sankarism?’ Why does this narrative persist among ‘leftists’ in the West despite the concrete material gains achieved by the Burkinabè people since 2022? 
​

​In the years since Traoré took power, some of the developments to which the Burkinabè people have born witness include:

• 2023: The new administration begins rolling out its Offensive agro-pastorale et halieutique 2023–2025 (Agricultural and Fisheries Offensive of 2023-2025) to promote food sovereignty.
• Jan. 2023: Traoré’s government expels the French embassy from the country, referring to France as an ‘imperialist state.’
• Feb. 2023: All French military personnel are forced to leave Burkina Faso after 13 years of operating in the country.
• Jul.-Sep. 2023: The Alliance of the Sahel States (AES) is formed in conjunction with Mali and Niger, setting the course for an independent, anti-colonial movement in West Africa.
• Jun. 2024: The Traoré administration launches its Presidential Initiative for Agriculture, providing a massive government support program for Burkina Faso’s agricultural sector—the lifeblood of its domestic economy.
• Aug. 2024: The first steps are taken to nationalize the country’s mining/mineral industry, the main natural source of Burkina Faso’s material wealth—two of the nation’s largest gold mines were nationalized during this first phase. We note here that Burkina Faso is the world’s 13th-largest producer of gold, while remaining one of the poorest countries in the poorest region of Africa.
• Apr. 2025: The first wide-scale assassination and regime change plot against the Traoré and his administration is undertaken by Ivory Coast-based militia groups and former Burkinabè military personnel. The attack comes just two weeks after AFRICOM Commander Michael Langley testified before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, declaring Traoré a threat to US national security because of the nationalization of Burkina Faso’s precious mineral wealth. As reported by MintPress News, the Amerikan Embassy changed its travel guidelines to “do not travel” regarding Burkina Faso just before the coup attempt; Langley also met with the Defense Minister of the Ivory Coast both before and after the insurgency.
• Jun. 2025: The second wave of mine naturalizations expels French colonialists from five more of the largest gold mines in Burkina Faso. Shortly afterward, all rural land is nationalized for the purpose of agricultural development that serves the Burkinabè people.
• Jan. 2026: Another large coup attempt is foiled by the Traoré administration. Burkinabès took to the streets en masse to demonstrate their support for Traoré and the revolutionary government immediately following the failed regime change effort. People’s Dispatch notes that “to the West on Burkina Faso’s southern border is Togo – home to ‘the principal actor’ [in] this plot, Burkina Faso’s former Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Henri Damiba,” who was ousted by Traoré during the popular uprising of 2022.
• Mar. 2026: Burkina Faso launches its $65 billion National Development Plan with the principal goal of regaining total control of the country from jihadist and terrorist groups. (As Business Insider Africa notes, “despite security challenges, the government has expanded control of national territory from 69% in 2023 to 73.56% by late 2025.” ‘Security challenges’ is a rather misleading term used to describe being under siege by Western-backed jihadist military forces.)
• Jun. 2026: The AES announces the launching of the Union of Territorial Collectivities, a regional initiative designed to promote collaboration and solidarity among the indigenous villages of the Sahel States.
• Jul. 2026: The Burkinabe government inaugurates its first completely state-owned gold mine in the municipality of Yako, which is “expected to produce more than seven tons of gold over the next 15 years while creating more than 1,200 direct and indirect jobs.”

​Despite all this, Engels maintains that “the question remains as to what alternative idea of democracy and political rule Traoré and the MPSR 2 [Traoré’s party] represent. So far, they seem to rely rather on what is often referred to as output or performance legitimacy (legitimacy based on answering the basic demands of the population and improving material living conditions).”

In other words, to Engels and the Jacobin ‘Left,’ the new phase of the Burkinabè Revolution, while resulting in immediate material gains and indubitably responding to some of the most dire needs of its citizenry, is nevertheless at best worth a sort of apathetic ambivalence from their Western audience. Why do they come to this conclusion? 
​

​From the Cold War period onward, the Amerikan empire has achieved the imposition upon much of the Western world a phenomenon which Cuban-American Communist and Professor of Philosophy Dr. Carlos L. Garrido labels the ‘Purity Fetish.’ In his book The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism, Garrido critiques Western ‘leftists’’ inability to come to the realization that:
​
Socialism is not ‘betrayed’ when it, encountering the external and internal pressures of imperialism and a national bourgeois class, is forced to take more so-called ‘authoritarian’ positions to protect the revolution. Socialism is not ‘betrayed’ or transformed into ‘state capitalism’ (in the derogatory, non-Leninist sense) when faced with a backwards economy it takes the risk of tarrying with its opposite and engages a process of opening up to foreign capital to develop its productive forces. The ‘authoritarian’ moment, or the moment of ‘opening up to foreign capital,’ are not an annihilating negation of socialism—as Western Marxists would have you believe—but the sublation of the idealistic conceptions of a ‘pure’ socialism, especially in its earliest stages… The ‘authoritarianism’ that the Western Marxist’s purity fetish condemns is in every instance a necessary component to protect a revolution’s sovereignty and socialist democracy.1

In a similar vein, Italian Marxist militant Domenico Losurdo dubs this tendency the “bifurcation of two Marxisms.” In his seminal book, Western Marxism: How it was Born, How it Died, and How it Can be Reborn, Losurdo outlines “how different socioeconomic contexts and varying cultural traditions contributed to bifurcating the Marxisms in the West and the East.” Indeed, as he points out, there “should not be any contradictions between Western Marxism and Eastern Marxism. We are dealing with two different perspectives on the same social system, each taking off from Lenin’s analyses [which in turn had built upon Marx’s]. In other words, two struggles for recognition called into question imperialism-capitalism.”2

In practice, we can see that there are indeed contradictions between the development of Marxism and ‘progressive’ politics of Western and Eastern countries. Western ‘leftists’ regularly disparage these differences as ‘impurities’ or ‘inefficacies’ of revolutionary movements abroad, especially those of the Global South. In doing so, they remain blind to or willfully ignorant of the political context surrounding the actions taken by these movements.

The purity fetish and the misunderstanding of Marxism by Western ‘leftists’ is due, in large part, to the failure to grasp the essence of imperialism as it was initially laid out by Lenin in 1916-’17. Domenico Losurdo explains that “if, in the West, communism and Marxism are the truth and the weapon to end war and pull it up by the roots, in the East, communism and Marxism-Leninism are the truth and the ideological weapon to end a situation of oppression and being ‘looked down upon’ by colonialism and imperialism.”3

This distinction is highlighted in another example cited by Losurdo of Ho Chi Minh’s 1923 comments on Marxism: “Marx built his doctrine on a certain philosophy of history. What history? That of Europe. But what is Europe? It is not humanity in its entirety.”4 Through the poignant declarations of anti-colonial leaders of the Global South such as Minh, we can see that Losurdo’s mapping of the bifurcation of the two Marxisms leads to a definitive conclusion: at the core of the philosophy of ‘Eastern’ Marxism is the two-pronged struggle against imperialism and colonialism, a crucial aspect of a revolutionary movement that is often lacking (or altogether absent) in Western Marxist movements.

Garrido, for his part, separates the Western ‘left’ from those revolutionary movements of the East with the following analysis:

According to the orthodox view (which was reformed by Marx and Engels in posthumously published manuscripts) where capitalism was most developed, i.e., Western Europe and the US, was where socialism was to first arrive. Yet, the first successful revolution took root in Russia (the ‘weakest link’) and then in China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and other countries from the third world. The colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal conditions in these areas forces these socialist projects to focus on developing a strong state (to defend against aggression and secure sovereignty) and the forces of production sciences, and technology (to raise living standards and shrink global inequality).5

It is not, then, the so-called modern republics of the US and Europe that represent the objectively superior material gains in the struggle against capitalist imperialism. It was first and foremost the peasant and working-class uprisings of Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba which acted as the catalysts for profound and fundamental changes in society to the benefit of the working class majority.
But to many of even the most ‘progressive’ Westerners, “the success [of socialism] in the East, because it has been impure, is deemed a failure, [and] the failure in the West, because purity has been sustained, is deemed a success.” In this way, “the purity the Western Marxists seek to keep their idea of socialism in is to the detriment of the truth of socialism itself.”6 This is the reality that many Westerners who claim to be on the Left fail to recognize—and it is this crucial message which is at the core of Garrido and Losurdo’s work. 
​

​While Burkina Faso’s revolutionary movements have never followed an explicitly Marxist-Leninist program, we can use the above theory to demonstrate that Engels and her colleagues plainly exhibit the hallmarks of the Western purity fetish in their analysis of the current phase of the country’s revolution under Traoré.
​
So begins Jacobin’s article by questioning “whether a military government can be the alternative, and whether the ends justify the means.” Absent is the acknowledgement that before Traoré took power in Burkina Faso, jihadist terrorist groups were estimated to have controlled almost half of the country’s land; if the basic question of the basic right to self-determination of the Burkinabè people over their natural resources is being actively denied, how is anything less than a military response warranted? These complexities seem to fall dead at the feet of such ‘leftists’ as Engels and those at Jacobin who platform her analysis.

Groups such as Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM—which perpetrates the vast majority of the violence in Burkina Faso today), are tied directly to Al-Qaeda, the international terrorist organization proven to be linked to the vast labyrinth of Amerikan intelligence, military/defense personnel and private contractors. Works such as journalist Max Blumenthal’s The Management of Savagery: How America’s National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump explore this phenomenon, relying on primary sources and interviews from ex-government officials and experts within the international community. Indeed, a different article in Engels’ Review of African Political Economy by Jeffrie Quarsie, “Is France Funding Terrorism in the Sahel?” highlights the disturbing correlation between French military presence and the 2000% increase in jihadist terrorist violence between 2007 and 2022. These facts apparently warrant no consideration in Engels’ analysis.

What most Western critics willingly gloss over is the fact that Traoré’s administration (as well as the greater AES alliance) is actively moving away from Western military aid due to strictly the anti-imperialist character of its movement. Traoré and leaders allied with him recognize that, just as Sankara stated four decades ago, “[Western] welfare and aid policies have only ended up disorganizing us, subjugating us, and robbing us of a sense of responsibility for our own economic, political, and cultural affairs.”7

Instead of interpreting the Traoré administration’s ‘authoritarian’ or ‘pragmatic’ measures with this context in mind, Engels accuses him of appropriating “anti-French sentiment, which had increased since 2019, and [using] it to generate support for his government.” Instead of leading his people against a foreign colonizing force, Traoré’s role is reduced to simply taking advantage of the already existing anti-colonial tendencies for what are construed as undemocratic purposes. For Engels, the refusal to address the political context that exists in Burkina Faso works to the benefit of her analysis that Traoré and the current phase of the Burkinabè Revolution are decidedly undemocratic and therefore must be condemned.

We must recognize that the anti-French sentiment which Engels accuses Traoré of exploiting has been present throughout Burkina Faso since the 1980s, and in greater West Africa for much longer; it is not a new phenomenon by any means, and to imply it is in some way unjustifiable or coincidental is to ignore more than a century of evidence to the contrary. With this in mind, one can begin to question why the politico-economic transformations taking place in the Sahel today should be labeled as ‘authoritarian’ at all—for whom, exactly, are they ‘authoritarian?’ If Burkina Faso under Traoré is ‘authoritarian,’ how shall we describe the centuries-long war of oppression waged by Western European colonialist elite against the people of Africa?

Nowhere in Engels’ observations is there the notion that perhaps—as the brutal legacy of Western European imperialism shows—the US and France’s military involvement in the Sahel does not serve the interests of the Burkinabè people; it is rather very much to the contrary. Unmentioned in both articles is the fact that Western nations have a monstrous record when it comes to effective counterterrorism campaigns via AFRICOM, the international colonial military machine, operating primarily out of Western Europe but spearheaded by the US. Multiple reports have shown that the increase in foreign military activity in West Africa is directly correlated with the sharp rise in terrorist violence.

By applying a purity fetishist lens to her analysis of the Burkina Faso Revolution, Engels shifts the focus of the reader away from the fundamental achievements of the Burkinabè working class under Traoré—much of which do indeed echo the popular policies of Sankara’s time—and towards unequivocally condemning the uncomfortable (for Westerners, that is) possibility of the US/French-backed liberal hegemony being existentially threatened in West Africa. As such, the remaining chapters of this project will be dedicated to dissecting some of the specific accusations leveled at Traoré and the Burkina Faso Revolution.

This is part 1 of a series. Parts 2 & 3 coming soon!

References

1 Garrido, Carlos L. The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism. Midwestern Marx Publishing Press, 2023. p. 15.

2 Losurdo, Domenico. Western Marxism: How it was Born, How it Died, and How it Can be Reborn. Monthly Review Press, 2017. p. 73.

3 Id. at p. 51-52.

4 Id. at p. 69.

5 Garrido, Carlos L. The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism. Midwestern Marx Publishing Press, 2023. at p. 35.

6 Id. at p. 36.

7 Sankara, Thomas. Thomas Sankara Speaks: The Burkina Faso Revolution, 1983-1987 (edited by Michael Prairie). Pathfinder Press, 2007. p. 167.

Author 

Owen Anderson (Substack)

As Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, I'd like to analyze the recent 'sweeping victories' of the DSA in an objective matter. I'm far from a delusional sectarian blind to clearly observable shifts in US politics, but I also find the commentary surrounding these events lacking in basic Marxist analysis.

Hype is building around the DSA as a consequence of two NYC “Democratic Socialist” candidates securing congressional primary victories, extending the momentum of Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral election last year.

Suddenly, leftist ‘purity testing’ appears irrelevant and impotent. ‘Results’ speak for themselves: You cannot really argue with winning actual seats of power on the basis of millions of voters.

In comparison to the various sects that predominate the American radical left - or worse yet, “principled” leftists who lack any collective organization at all - the ‘objective, clear, and obvious’ recent victories by the DSA appear to break the decades-long trend of obscurity, irrelevance, and marginalization by the radical left.

CORE DIFFERENCES WITH THE PAST

Bernie Sanders normalized words like “socialism” in US politics over a decade ago. There’s nothing new about “DSA members” securing victory in Congress.

The main difference is that there was no clear direction of momentum. AOC herself was very selective about advertising her affiliation with the DSA.

The key difference today is momentum. Zohran’s victory, and now the two congressional primary victories, make the DSA appear decisively relevant in ways it had never before been.

Today’s context is crucial: Currently, the Democratic Party lacks any positive vision. Trump’s election in 2024 discredited the older generation of Democratic Party politics.

The DSA, though weakened, had built itself up for a decade as the default repository of ‘alternative,’ youthful politics within the Democratic Party.

It seized upon this vacuum and has capitalized off of Trump’s rapid deterioration of popularity across the nation (economic grievances compounded by the Epstein files and Iran war).

That is why the DSA has become seriously relevant in ways it never was before. I myself have pointed out the fact that it’s not hard for leftists to win in NYC and that’s not a proxy for the nation.

But there’s nothing else going on in the Democratic Party - the only officially recognized opposition party today - that has any semblance of vision or energy, and this has seized the attention of the entire nation.

CLASS ANALYSIS: BURSTING THE BUBBLE

So, it's a no brainer. The DSA is surely an organic, rising socialist movement in the United States! Except, it's really not.

The key distinction historically between bourgeois and proletarian politics (which gives rise to 'socialist movements') are the material foundations of the political power itself. So where did the actual material foundations - I'm talking about money, by the way - behind this 'DSA momentum' actually come from?

It definitely doesn't come from the proletariat. In the political class struggle, there are two forms of material power: One rooted in support from the bourgeoisie, and one that arises from the collective power of the proletariat.

In the past, the proletariat first organized itself into trade unions, which accumulated vast revenues from dues that provided the foundation of an independent, proletarian Party. That's how the Socialist Party in America came to be a century ago.

But in both congressional primaries that saw Democratic Socialist victories, organized labor with the sole exception of UAW 9A, sided with the incumbent/establishment candidates. Worse, UAW 9A is not even primarily a proletarian union, but is more like a petty-bourgeois, pencil-pushing professional guild.

Basically every other form of organized labor sided with the losing side.
Surely, this is just the privileged labor aristocracy, opposing a new mass of true proletarians gate kept out of the labor bureaucracy!

PETTY BOURGEOIS PROFESSIONALS, NOT PROLETARIANS

Exit polling about the congressional primaries are currently sparse, but if Mamdani's 2025 Democratic Primary election is anything to go by, this is also wrong.

According to the New York Times interactive precinct analysis (June 25, 2025): Mamdani performed stronger than rivals in precincts where the majority of residents are college graduates, and in middle-income and higher-income neighborhoods. Cuomo had more support in lower-income neighborhoods and among the NYC working class.

Mamdani excelled in renter-heavy gentrifying neighborhoods often associated with upper-middle-class young professionals.

Even the exit polls of the general election prove that Mamdani's margins over Cuomo among the proletariat were much smaller than among the more affluent petty-bourgeois professionals. When we use education alone as a proxy we even find:

• Bachelor's degree: Mamdani 57%, Cuomo 38%
• No College Degree: Cuomo: 47%, Mamdani: 42%

Note that 57.5% of NYC adults (population age 25 and over) have no college degree. That means that voter turnout itself was skewed in favor of the professional petty-bourgeois who already find large concentration in cities like NYC relative to the rest of the country.

Surely the momentum built by the DSA following Mamdani's victory might have reversed this awkward trend? Far from it. Here's a breakdown from all three recent congressional primary victories:

NY-13 is probably the most 'working class' district in comparison to the other two districts that saw 'Democratic Socialist' or 'progressive' (Lander) victories.

But based on an analysis of precincts

• Avila Chevalier performed better in gentrified higher-income areas, and among college-educated precincts
• Incumbent performed better in lower-income neighborhoods and majority-Latino/Black precincts—the traditional working-class cores of NY-13.

NY-7 is a a combination of gentrified neighborhoods and working class Latino neighborhoods. (Brooklyn (Bushwick, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Ridgewood areas) and Queens (Long Island City, Astoria, etc.))

• In gentrified Bushwick/Williamsburg/Ridgewood areas, Valdez (DSA candidate) dominated.
• According to the Brooklyn Paper
  , Valdez Valdez strongest in gentrifying/transplant-heavy zones (East Williamsburg watch party, etc.).
• Valdez lost in majority working class, Latino Cypress Hill
  - and in the Latino/working class neighborhoods she had won, the margins were considerably lower than among the more affluent and gentrified 'transplants.'

The recent 'DSA' sweep is not driven by the working class. It represents a strong consolidation of force, solidarity, and will by the professional petty-bourgeoisie.
But the fact that the Democratic establishment is openly getting nervous about these recent primaries is telling. In contrast to Mamdani's campaign, neither of the two DSA candidates received support from the Working Families Party.
There are some signs that indicate Mamdani has, in some sense, 'gone rogue.'

The "Grassroots" Mamdani Myth

In contrast to the preposterous narratives that Mamdani was able to gain momentum on the basis of 'grassroots support' and 'beat the establishment,' a basic examination of facts tells a very different picture.

Zohran Mamdani is not a modern day Eugene Debs. He is not some organic, grassroots working class leader selected by the masses to represent a newly militant and organized proletarian.

Zohran also did not just spontaneously become 'popular' one day and take off. Mamdani's political origins are thoroughly rooted inside of the bourgeois political machine. This is not sectarian gibberish about his ideology. It is on the basis of recycled billionaire money and donations that Mamdani acquired his political relevance and that is a fact.

Zorhan Mamdani was able to tap into $4.47 million dollars from billionaire backed and funded Super PACs, PACs, nonprofits, and NGOs.
Before the Democratic congressional primary, Zohran Mamdani received at least ~$1.5M in support from PACs.

On March 29, 2025, the Working Families Party voted to support, endorse, and lend their resources to Zohran Mamdani. The WFP is a front group of the financial capitalist class, having received $23.7 million from George Soros alone since 2016!

Confining ourselves to Soros' Open Society alone, which severely understates things, key activist groups, NGOs, and nonprofit networks which were decisive in the rise of Zohran Mamdani had a long history of receiving millions of dollars from the Open Society foundations.

The following organizations represent just some of the vast infrastructure, resources and institutions that were necessary for Mamdani to be relevant in the first place, which simultaneously exist only thanks to donations from George Soros' Open Society Foundations:

• Working Families Organization: ~$23.7 million since 2016.
• Make the Road Action - $3.5M,
• Emgage/MPower Change - $2.5 million combined in recent years,
• Community Voices Heard: ~$2.63 million
• MoveOn Civic Action: ~$2.3+ million.
• Jewish Voice for Peace Action, .$650k.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. It represents only some of the organizations allied to Zohran's campaign, which were indispensable on the campaign, activist, staffing and operations ecosystem that was a condition of Zohran's success and which his 'grassroots momentum' simply took for granted.


Activist-NGO-Philanthropy Ecosystem

Propagandists of the DSA will often cite the organizational power of their 'grassroots socialist movement' as being primarily responsible for the rise of Zohran Mamdani.

The truth is, the majority of the organizers of Zohran's campaign in the DSA were already submerged in a huge activist-NGO-nonprofit political ecosystem tied at the hip to the Democratic Party.

It's known that DSA is not a political party, but it's not even a real socialist organization. It's one of the many network-pools that people loosely affiliate with, while often times being 'members' of dozens of other organizations.
What drives people into these affiliation-networks is not really different from what drives young models to attend depraved sex parties at billionaire mansions. Money and career advancement.

I'm not claiming that these organizations SOLELY depend upon billionaires like Soros. I'm claiming that without that support, they COULD NOT HAVE, in the first place, had a 'fighting chance.'

That is the condition and premise of their ability to tap into resources - not crowdfunding from the working class.

For example, take the American Communist Party. Why can't we tap into these organizations and networks that the DSA does, which recycle the vast resources of the billionaire class?

• We are against the Democratic Party. Sorry, canceled.
• We show solidarity with Russia vs. Ukrainian Nazism. Sorry, canceled.
• We oppose Zionism unilaterally. Sorry, canceled.
• We show solidarity to the PRC and deny Uyghur genocide. Sorry, canceled
• We deny the 'Holodomor' and uphold Stalin. Sorry, canceled.
• We reject bourgeois political correctness. Sorry, canceled.

Your particular views on these matters do not actually matter. They are objectively a proxy of having positions that are different from the hegemonic bourgeoisie, and therefore an objective proxy of organizational independence from the bourgeois hegemony.

The point is not whether you should agree with us on these matters. The point is: Do you even have the rational, discursive freedom to agree with us?
You don't, because if you do, you get cut off from the networks that are decisive for acquiring 'political relevancy.'

The Double Standard: DSA vs. ACP

I am far from interested in being reductive regarding Mamdani and the DSA.
Although, that is very generous of me. Because Jackson sat down with Tulsi Gabbard like 8 years ago (just as all other alt-media figures did), DSA members continue to insist that the ACP owes its existence entirely to her.

Unlike them, nothing the ACP has ever done, has presupposed support from billionaires or any other members of the bourgeoisie. Yet they are confident enough in labeling us as bad-faith actors because Jackson took a photo with Tulsi Gabbard and made AI memes of him beside Trump years ago.

Imagine if we subjected DSA to even 1% of the scrutiny they tried to subject to the ACP - if we traced its key organizers, leaders, and their affiliations in the broader DNC-aligned activist/political ecosystem. If we were even 1% as reductive as they are, it would be an open and shut case: They are direct proxies for the imperialist bourgeoisie and nothing more than that.

ACP relies solely on support from its own primarily working class cadre. Nearly half of whom are actual, blue-collar proletarians - compared to the DSA, which can boast what, 10%?

We have no readily-made resources or infrastructure we can draw from. They take these things for granted like taking air for granted to breathe. Yet no one knows the real price of political independence more than the ACP.

And whether you agree with us or not is immaterial: We are independent, and that alone is why we are not as 'successful' as the DSA at the moment.

The cynical, unprincipled, opportunist DSA propagandists will respond: Too bad, so sad, get your money up!

But when the ACP does seek to address this problem pragmatically, in a way that does not infringe upon its political independence - Party enterprises - we get 'canceled' by these same fuckers for being 'landlords' and 'capitalists.' Despite owning zero rental properties!

But were it not for the philanthropic support of the capitalist class and landlords, they would not have any legs to stand on in the first place!

Zohran vs. Cuomo: Opposing Reductionism

I'm aware of the fact that Zohran's opponents got more money. I'm also aware that the majority of Zohran's funding came from 'small donations.' Although this is itself misleading: Were it not for the giant PACs that spent millions of dollars on advertisements, astroturfing, etc. - Zohran would not have been able to raise as much money as he did in the first place.

In the same way that advertising is indispensable for the sale of a product - 'selling' Zohran's campaign was also accomplished in large-part thanks to existing infrastructural support by PACs and other billionaire-funded organizations.

Both Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani depended on support from the big bourgeoisie. The difference is that Zohran obviously got less support. That is why, for the purposes of an objective analysis, it is meaningless to be reductive.
​
Zohran may have depended on the bourgeois political machine, but it alone was not enough to carry him to victory - or get the ball rolling for DSA's current 'sweeping momentum.'

I simply point this out because most people are too cynical to understand that not everyone interested in politics takes for granted the vast institutional and infrastructural support that comes from minimal alignment with the bourgeoisie on key issues.

People laugh at how small and irrelevant the American Communist Party is in 'comparison' to the DSA - but it really is an organization that, in addition to being only two years old, began from scratch had only two forms of 'capital' to begin with:

• The historical legitimacy of the historical CPUSA
• The social media reach of Jackson Hinkle (primarily), Infrared, Midwestern Marx, etc.

People, for that reason, dismiss us as a 'party of online influencers,' but when they do that, they are implicitly admitting that this is our sole form of 'starting capital' - as opposed to the vast resources that come from minimally acquiescing to the Democratic shitlib machine. Our leftist opponents seem to take those resources for granted, as somehow not fundamentally and materially attaching them to the bourgeoisie, but we do not and can not.

DSA Gone Rogue?

So, if and only when we take for granted support from the bourgeoisie (and not the organized proletariat) - what is the real decisive factor behind the DSA's existing momentum?

I think there are signs Zohran, the DSA, etc. are 'going rogue.' They are beginning to make the Democratic establishment feel nervous. Many of my own comrades will not be receptive to such an observation - but it does us no good to be blind to reality, and confine ourselves to the various slogans and 'left-wing' truisms about Zohran, et. al being Zionist shills of the Democratic Party.

These are truisms, but now it's on us to explain the contradictions that appear to emerge among the bourgeoisie.

A Rebellion by the Professional Petty Bourgeoisie

The professional petty-bourgeoisie is today characterized by the following characteristics:

• Its position is increasingly precarious, professional job availability is decreasing.
• They are indebted with student loans and other kinds of mortgages
• The rising cost of living - primarily rent, but also healthcare, food, etc. - has made life unaffordable.
• Expectations regarding career advancement/security have been shattered
• They are gate kept out of elite positions in hegemonic institutions, corporations, and professional fields.
• They are increasingly declassed - with the primary trajectory being lumpenization.

In places like New York City, the professional petty-bourgeoisie is concentrated enough geographically, and in sheer volume of population and numbers - that it can band together (like a fasces, if you will), unite, and become a major political force.

This strategy cannot scale nationally for the simple reason that in other parts of the country, winning over the working class as a mass is electorally decisive.

The 'top-heavy' strategy of consolidating the professional petty-bourgeoise, and then brute-forcing their way into garnering influence and hegemony, with more marginal victorious leads among the working class - is not tenable in regions where the professional petty-bourgeoisie is less concentrated or capable of collective self-organizing.

But the interesting factor is that the collective self-organization of the professional petty-bourgeoisie has become an alternative source of momentum, power and hegemony to the institutions of the big bourgeoisie.

The masses are always the prize.

In traditional Marxism, proletarian versus bourgeois forms of leadership/organization compete over hegemony over the popular masses.
In the case of the DSA, we find neither proletarian organization, nor the simple bourgeois institutional hegemony - we find an organized rebellion by the professional petty-bourgeoisie, splintering off as a rogue force from the bourgeois institutional hegemony itself.

It was able to do this in New York City, because the professional petty-bourgeois are concentrated there, while themselves simultaneously constituting a politically decisive electoral mass.

Why This Cannot Scale Nationally or Even in New York State

DSA victories depend on a top-heavy strategy of electorally suppressing or marginalizing the proletariat (largely lulled as it is by the bourgeois hegemony) and massively mobilizing educated, professional segments of the population.

Though a brute-force approach, massive turnout by the professional petty-bourgeoisie combined with 'grassroots' media campaigns, allow for comparatively slim, yet observable victories even in largely working class neighborhoods and precincts.

Obviously the affluent bourgeoisie, and the wealthy/well-to-do layers of the professional petty-bourgeoisie can be completely marginalized, since they are not numerous enough to constitute a mass.

In New York City, the majority of the population are proletarians. Yet the professional petty-bourgeoisie constitutes either a majority or a massive plurality of the actual electorate.

The brute-force approach cannot scale. I'm not even sure how viable it is in cities outside of New York City. What is for certain is that in regions of the country where the professional petty-bourgeois do not constitute the necessarily decisive mass, they will not be a able to brute-force their way into victory, however self-organized and self-conscious they are.

To carry momentum outside of enclaves like NYC, the DSA would have to convert its organizational force into something more selfless then it currently is: Aimed at mobilizing not simply its own professional petty-bourgeois class brethren, but the working class masses of the country.

It would have to convert its vast petty-bourgeois professional apparatus into service for the American proletariat, and really compete with the bourgeois hegemony over the proletarian masses/electorate as the prize.

Right now, it only regards the professional petty-bourgeois masses concentrated in NYC as the prize. It lacks even the discursive intelligence to recognize that the proletarian masses are quite separate from the 'masses' that constitute the core of the DSA. In all their self-serving narcissism, they truly believe they are the working class. But it's not so.

And what material incentive do DSA members have to be selfless, as old petty-bourgeois members of the socialist intelligentsia at least tried to be?The material incentives behind the growth of the DSA, in the first place, are based on the self-serving class interests of the professional petty-bourgeoisie.

Bursting the Bubble

The truth is, the DSA is now lining itself up for electoral slaughter by the hegemonic bourgeoisie at the national level, who, at the present moment, have a much greater stranglehold on the actual working class than the DSA does (both the Democratic and Republican parties) - even in New York City itself!

The DSA is able to ignore this problem in New York City, since the professional petty-bourgeoisie reaches a critical enough mass threshold to 'brute force' their way into electoral victory, skirting by from very slim margins of victory (and even in some cases defeat!) in places with large working class concentration.

The DSA could potentially be converted into an apparatus for the construction of something like proletarian hegemony - despite its origins in the bourgeois political machine - but I consider that deeply unlikely.

Pikerdom - a Major Factor

I think a major factor behind the DSA's momentum, in addition to all the material and class factories I just mentioned, lies in the support and direction provided by Hasan Piker.

The Iskraist understanding of politics comprehends that the concentration of strategy and vision through media is fundamental. I straight-up, deadass think that Piker is the only thing that is unifying the current DSA momentum - not even necessarily Zohran Mamdani himself.

ACP was derided for being based in 'streamers' and 'content creators' but I know first hand the power of having a dedicated live-streaming community and how that can translate into real-world power pretty directly.

Hasan Piker's community is much larger than mine and has existed for much longer. It is clear to me that Hasan Piker is a decisive factor here, and that is not because he is mobilizing the masses.

It's because he is mobilizing huge quantities of personnel, activists, staffers, etc. - who are all more or less under the influence of his vast content-creation network, community and parasocial orbit. It may sound ridiculous to many, but we are now living in an age where live-streaming personalities are actually, directly politically relevant.

I call Piker's influence and mini-hegemony 'Pikerdom.'

Aside from the pure media reach provided by Jackson Hinkle and Midwestern Marx, the ACP was able to get off the ground (as modestly as it was) from two factors:

• The Infrared movement ("online cult")
• CPUSA's material legacy/history/organizational infrastructure

Right now, DSA's current momentum appears to be rooted in:

• Pikerdom ("online cult")
• The vast infrastructural, organizational, material resources and personnel accumulated by DNC/Democrat ecosystems.

What happens now?

At a certain point, a decisive confrontation will occur between the DSA/Pikerdom and the Democratic Party establishment. I think the DSA will ultimately lose that confrontation.

The DSA/Pikerdom will have to learn the hard way that they lack the material foundations to challenge the Democratic Party because they do not have any independent material basis. The independent material basis provided by support from the professional petty-bourgeoisie alone in NYC cannot scale nationally - because at the national scale, the professional petty-bourgeoisie alone cannot provide the material basis for anything, especially in Swing states.

At some decisive point, activists in the DSA will learn the hard way that they're going to have to tap into material foundations created primarily by the proletariat (whether that is organized labor or something else) in order to challenge those created by the bourgeoisie.

The American Community Party will definitely attempt to capitalize off of this loss, having upheld the correct line and maintained the correct analysis through it all.
The masses of declassed professional petty-bourgeois will either be lumpenized or proletarianized - and I believe the majority will probably be lumpenized. These are the conditions that will make abrupt political revolution and civil war inevitable in this country.

As Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, I'm fully aware that we ultimately benefit from the DSA's renewed 'momentum.' Ideologically, the overton window is shifting. The DSA is basically gathering together future Communist Party cadre for us.

They are creating a critical mass of personnel and activists dedicated to building out some kind of organization. I am currently banking on the expectation that enough of them (though not the majority) will be won over to the ACP's strategic vision once the bubble bursts and they realize that what they're doing in NYC can't scale nationally.

Proletarianization

As the professional petty-bourgeoisie are declassed, those among them who proletarianize - and this characterizes the majority of blue-collar members of the ACP - will be the most receptive to joining.

Funnily enough, scores of these petty-bourgeois professionals were outraged by SwampCommunists' (of all people, what a surprise!) recent tweet, saying:

We dont need more or better Marxist professors we need a Marxist organized proletariat. Drop out of college and go move boxes for UPS or come lash shipping containers at the port
https://x.com/SwampCommunist/status/2066200258732868010

It clearly struck a nerve, all the glasses-wearing petty-bourgeois professionals were soy raging over it. But the sad truth is that they may not have a choice.

For the bulk of young professional petty-bouregeoisie now represented by the DSA, both present and aspiring, they have two choices:

• Become lumpen heroin/fentanyl addicts
• Become tradesmen/"warehouse workers"

These are the only viable 'career' prospects that offer a way of living compatible with the current material conditions facing the nation.

The lumpen will probably just become psycho killer-clown fascists.

At present time, the American Communist Party is largely drawn from people who made the latter choice. All the peculiar qualities and characters of the ACP - including its 'cancelable' positions on foreign policy and culture - reflect this class character.

The DSA's momentum is unsustainable when you actually analyze its material foundations and class character. I know many people are hyped up and excited, but facts are stubborn things. Time will tell if this material analysis proves correct.

Some people like to make fun of the ACP and compare it to the DSA. The truth is, we are an organization and Party of the future.

We could not possibly be as 'relevant' as the DSA is now, since the majority of the current generation have not accepted the inevitability of proletarianization.

But without accepting proletarianization, proletarian politics is impossible for the current generation, which either aspires to become or have already become petty-bourgeois professionals. ​

Author
​
Haz Al-Din is the Chairman of the American Communist Party.