​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)