Should Communists Support New Communist International?

There is some divergence among Marxist-Leninist-Maoist forces over the question of the correctness of pursuing a "new communist international" strategy. On the one hand, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) aims to politically coordinate communists internationally. RIM's founding declaration of 1984 states: "The communist movement is, and can only be, an international movement. Indeed the very launching of scientific socialism, the Communist Manifesto, declared 'Workers of all countries, unite!' With the success of the October Revolution, the formation of the Communist International and the subsequent spreading of Marxism-Leninism to every corner of the globe, the international unity of the working class took on an even more profound meaning. Today, in the midst of profound crisis in the ranks of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, the need for international unity and the need for a new international organisation are urgently felt."

On the other hand, opponents of a "new communist international" are perhaps best represented by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP engages in various meetings of different parties and organizations, but opposes the existing of permanent international organizations unifying communist parties politically and ideologically.

In the past, I never understood the opposition to a new international. It seemed that it only made sense. After all, Stalin dissolved the Comintern during World War 2, seemingly as a concession to the "liberal" bourgeoisie for the sake of the popular anti-fascist front. But it is also true that Mao never took steps to found a new communist international or even something resembling it. He had at least 12 years between the conclusion of the Sino-Soviet polemics and his death during which he could have taken such a course of action, but he did not. That may be evidence that he at a minimum had serious reservations about resurrecting the Lenin-Stalin era type of international.

What is called for is a communist international of a new type. The Communist International, the third international of the working class, spread communism from the Soviet Republic to every corner of the earth. Without that international would the salvoes of the October Revolution bear fruit internationally as it did? But every party must have absolute equality. On matters not related to the basic political foundations of Marxism, there must be a certain degree of non-interference in the internal affairs of fraternal parties. There can be no return to one party being "big brother" (in a non-"Orwellian" sense) or "the center of the world revolution." Indian Communist Charu Mazumdar said in the 1960's, "China's Chairman Is Our Chairman!" Indeed, Mao Zedong was the greatest communist of that era on earth, but India must have its own chairman who can apply communism to Indian conditions. That is why, yes, there should be a new international when conditions arise allowing for it, but it must be an organization of parties each with its own, dynamic leadership capable of carrying the red flag no matter what arises in any quarter. Communists cannot again tolerate the stress of "iron discipline" at the expense of the important principle of "going against the current" when need be.