Over recent months, a group of Marxists in China have engaged in discussions wit the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI). These comrades are exploring the history, theory and practical experience of Trotskyism and the CWI’s work. The following exchange of questions and answers reflects their interest in revolutionary Marxist theory and practice, independent working‑class organisation, the approach taken by Marxists on key issues today, such as the war in Ukraine, and the lessons of past struggles. We believe this correspondence will be of value to readers seeking to understand the development of Marxist and Trotskyist ideas internationally.
The numbered questions are from the Marxist comrades in China followed by the replies from the CWI.
socialistworld.net
1. On lineage and key differences
Many people associate your organization’s name and tradition with the legacy of the Grant tendency. Could you briefly outline the main differences—at the level of theory, political line, and organizational practice—between your organization and the International Marxist Tendency(IMT)/Revolutionary Communist International (RCI), as well as the International Socialist Alliance (ISA) and its later split off, the International Standpoint?
The CWI traces our historical lineage back to the Fourth International, formed by Trotsky in 1938. In Britain our origins go back to the Workers’ Internal League and the Revolutionary Communist Party, from which all the main revolutionary groups emerged. The ‘Militant’ was launched in 1964 as the journal of our organisation, which was then conducting ‘entry’ work into the bourgeois workers’ Labour Party. We say “bourgeois workers’ party” as it had a pro–bourgeois leadership and a working–class base. Our distinct international organisation, the CWI, was founded in 1974.
Despite political disagreements with the leadership of the Fourth International, we were officially part of the Fourth International for two separate periods, 1944 to 1951, and 1957 to 1966. After we were ‘demoted’ in 1966 we drew the conclusion that we had to work to build an International on a firm Trotskyist basis, which the Fourth International had moved away from. (Our new document, “Programmatic Foundations of the CWI and the Historic Struggle for a Revolutionary Socialist International,” explains this in greater detail.) As you mention, Ted Grant historically played an important role in the earlier history of Trotskyism in Britain and internationally, especially in the post–Second World War period. He played an especially important role in the need to reappraise the world situation following the Second World War and the tasks for revolutionary socialists that flowed from that during the upswing and boom of capitalism, which came to an end in 1974.
However, a new historical period also opened following the collapse of the former USSR and the capitalist restoration there and in Eastern/Central Europe. Grant was unable to face up to this new period. He maintained a fossilized analysis which corresponded to the post–war period but not to what followed from the collapse of the former Stalinist states in the former USSR and Eastern/Central Europe. Grant and his supporters initially refused to recognize that capitalist restoration had taken place. There was a fundamental change in the class composition of the former bourgeois workers’ parties like the British Labour Party. They became wholly bourgeois capitalist parties and lost the active working–class base they previously enjoyed. An overwhelming majority of the CWI recognized these decisive changes. A minority refused to do so and dogmatically remained imprisoned in the past, sometimes distorting our own history, such as previous willingness to do ‘open work’, to justify staying in the Labour Party. Militant supporters were being expelled from the Labour Party as its class composition changed. We eventually launched an open revolutionary party as opposed to working in the Labour Party.
This resulted in a split in our organisation in 1991–92 and the eventual formation of what was to become the IMT/RCI. Having refused to recognise the changes in the Labour Party and continuing to work in its moribund structures, they eventually “caught up with reality.” They undertook an ultra–left lurch and launched themselves as a Revolutionary Communist Party with no explanation of why they had undertaken such a sharp change. They fail to use the transitional method and oscillate between ultra–leftism and opportunism in practice.
As the processes involved in the 1991–92 debate were international, our comrades in other countries also generally ceased activity within social–democratic parties. The accidental election of Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party was an exception and a temporary development. When it happened, we flexibly responded to the changed situation when he became leader of the Labour Party without compromising our independent position.
In the complex world situation in the 1990s and the early part of the 2000s, it was necessary for revolutionary socialists to conduct an ideological struggle to defend socialist, Marxist ideas and defend the role of the working class in the face of a massive ideological offensive by the ruling class following the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe. It was necessary, and still is, to fight within the workers’ organisations and among the working class to defend the ideas of socialism and class struggle.
Frustration with the objective situation, delay in a big movement of the working class, and opportunistic pressures of the period led some CWI members to turn away from the organised working class, in many cases ‘softening’ their policies and looking for shortcuts. They abandoned a class approach to intervening in the important women’s and gender movements that took place and buckled to the pressures of ‘identity politics’, which is used by the bourgeois and petty bourgeois to divide the working class. This culminated in a split in 2019 and the formation of the ISA. This grouping lacked principled political cohesion and rapidly fragmented into numerous grouplets. Since then CWI has worked to strengthen and rebuild our forces, which is part of the need to rebuild the ideas, programme and methods of revolutionary socialism.
2. On your assessment of the 2018 Jasic Incident (China)
[The Jasic incident refers to a major labour dispute and political crackdown in Shenzhen, China, that took place between 27 July and 24 August 2018. It became one of the most significant labour‑rights confrontations in recent years -Eds]
Before the split in ISA, comrades linked to CWI in China paid close attention to the 2018 Jasic Incident / Jasic workers’ movement. Some activists argue that it ended in failure due to an ultra-left line and serious mistakes at key moments, and that it contributed to the subsequent fragmentation of the left in China. How did your organization assess the incident at the time, and have you since reflected on or adjusted that assessment? If so, in what ways?
Unfortunately, the former CWI group in China avoided full and open discussion with us about the work it was conducting in China, apart from very cursory reports. This was also partly due to the security threats they faced. However, they did not inform us or report on the incident or how they intervened. We are therefore not in a position to judge or comment at this stage regarding this event. We are of the opinion that the group tended to be extremely rigid, run in a ‘top-down’ manner, and it is quite possible that they made some errors.
3. On rebuilding work in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
At present, many former branches or contacts across Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan appear to have aligned with RCI or ISA/ISp. Does your organization have any plans to rebuild work in these areas, and to explore principled cooperation with other revolutionary-left currents? If so, what would your priorities and basic approach be?
We aim to win supporters for the CWI in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. We would always engage and explore whether it is possible to reach a principled political agreement with seriously revolutionary socialist organisations and individuals. On this basis, we would hope that it would be possible for them to come together with the CWI. This does not mean 100% agreement on all issues but a principled agreement on the analysis of the world and domestic situation, programme and tasks. Even if agreement is not reached, we would support joint collaboration, work and solidarity with serious revolutionary organisations, especially those with an orientation to the working class.
Revolutionaries face significant security risks and repression in these countries. We do not advocate adventurism. Building a revolutionary force in an era of pervasive surveillance requires a clear, disciplined political approach and robust security practices. We would aim to develop and refine such an approach in collaboration with those willing to work with us in the region.
4. On sectarianism, historical baggage, and building a new International
Compared with the two main post-split currents mentioned above, your organization is sometimes seen as carrying less sectarianism and historical baggage. Could you share your general view of the different contemporary Trotskyist traditions, as well as other socialist/Marxist currents? Looking ahead, after no longer using the “Fourth International (FI)” label, how does CWI think about building a new revolutionary International?
Regarding the other main Trotskyist traditions or currents, there are of course important differences between us. We are, despite this, open to discussing and exchanging ideas and experiences with serious revolutionary socialist organisations. Where relevant we would, and have, undertaken some collaboration and activity, for example in protests and campaigns against repression. Following the collapse of Stalinism, we explored this further and tried to examine the possibility of reaching a principled agreement on the analysis, programme, tasks and methods needed for the new world situation which developed. We opened discussions with the USFI, the LIT (from a Trotskyist background) and some other organisations. We discussed the idea of forming a federation or alliance of Trotskyist and revolutionary organisations. Yet it failed to materialise at that time.
The USFI, which has numerous groupings or parties in various countries, has lost the concept of building a revolutionary socialist international party. Today it is a federation of various groups and tendencies which have many differences among themselves. They are often marked by opportunist adaptations and do not intervene in the movements with a distinct, independent Marxist programme. They also lack a sustained orientation to the organised working class. Another group of tendencies originates from the Moreno current, which is largely concentrated in Latin America. This tendency did succeed in building relatively large organisations, especially in Argentina and Brazil, with a significant base among the working class. However, politically it is marked by a sectarian, ultra–left method and a lack of application of a transitional method which links the day–to–day struggles and demands of the working class and those in struggle with the ideas and programme necessary for socialist revolution. With these and some other organisations we are open to engaging in a process of discussion and exchange of ideas and experiences to see if it is possible to reach a principled political agreement. Even where there is no agreement, such discussions can be beneficial and help to clarify issues. Regarding other socialist trends, for example some Communist or Maoist organisations, they are passing through a process of debate and discussion. We are in favour of participating in these where possible.
Regarding the building of a revolutionary socialist international, the CWI stands and struggles to build such a force. Such an organisation is crucial to overthrow capitalism globally. Our name was consciously adopted: a “Committee for a Workers’ International” illustrates our approach to this crucial task. We do not regard ourselves as “the international” like some other international organisations. We are fighting to build such an organisation. A large or mass international organisation of the working class will not be built in a linear fashion simply by recruiting individuals or building existing parties or groups. These can play an important role, but other developments will also be an important part of the process. A powerful and eventually mass international can emerge during the course of the revolutionary process and class struggle. New parties of the working class can emerge from these processes that can evolve to embrace revolutionary socialist ideas and programmes. It is also possible that another part of the process will involve political agreement being reached with some existing Trotskyist trends and possible fusion. Exactly how this process will develop is not fixed or predetermined. The CWI thinks we can contribute and play an important role in this process, but a mass international will not develop from the CWI alone.
5. On organizational history
Within what can be discussed publicly, could you summarize your organization’s history and key turning points (major dates, debates, and changes in structure)?
In Britain during the 1980s the CWI section led mass battles in Liverpool (which included a 50,000–strong city–wide general strike), brought down Thatcher after over 17 million refused to pay the Poll Tax in a struggle that lasted nearly four years and, through work in the Labour Party, got three Trotskyist MPs elected.
Prior to this the NSSP in Sri Lanka had led the 1980 mass public–sector general strike. [The Nava Sama Samaja Party was a Trotskyist political party in Sri Lanka, founded in 1977 after a split from the historic Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) – Eds]. In Spain in 1986–87 a mass movement of school students was led by the then CWI section. In Ireland a victory was scored in the anti–water charges campaign, while other campaigns like opposition to the introduction of “bin charges” were fought. The then Irish section also got three comrades elected to the parliament and one to the European Parliament. In South Africa CWI members played an important role in the struggle against the apartheid regime; its members had played a pioneering role in helping to build trade unions in some areas and later, in 2012, in the strike by miners in Marikana. During the struggle against the then Nigerian military regime’s annulment of the 1993 presidential election, CWI members played a key role in calling a general strike and mass protests.
In 1992 CWI sections in Europe mobilised 40,000 in the first mass international demonstration against racism in Europe, which was followed by thousands participating in anti–racist and anti–fascist activity in many European countries. Major school student strikes against the 1991 Iraq war were led by CWI members in Germany and Ireland. This was repeated in 2003 in Britain and other countries in mobilisations against the US–led invasion of Iraq. In the US we elected a Socialist against a Democratic opponent to the city council in Seattle in 2014 and defeated the employers, including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, in a battle for a higher minimum wage. The theoretical ideas that the CWI was founded on were tested in practice in the class struggle.
Apart from the internal debates and splits which flowed from the crucial changes in the world situation mentioned above, we would also add that we won a majority in the then Labour Party youth organisation, the LPYS, in 1970. This opened a crucial new chapter as we massively expanded the LPYS, thereby assisting us to make important leaps forward during the class struggles and left radicalisation in the 1970s and 1980s.
In terms of what is discussed publicly, we are open to organising discussions in public on all political and theoretical questions. For example, we carried in our journals public discussions about the class character of China and another on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. We have made some changes in our structure at different stages which reflect the needs of the organisation at the time.
6. On the international order and a critical framework for states that still claim to be socialist
How does your organization analyze the current international order and the global political-economic structure? From your standpoint, how do you understand the position and role of your main countries/regions of activity and of China within the international system? Additionally, could you share a theoretical framework (or evaluative criteria) for analyzing and critiquing contemporary states/regimes that still describe themselves as socialist (often counted as five today)—for example, in terms of class character, state form, and relations of production
7. How do you view China, and how do you analyze its class structure?
How does your organization understand contemporary China, and what is your approach to class analysis there?
In our analysis of the current international order and the global political and economic dynamics of global capitalism, we think that it is now definitively in a new, distinct historical stage. A global imperialist, capitalist order evidently exists. Previously, in the 1990s, the Soviet Union’s collapse enabled US imperialism to establish itself as the dominant global imperialist power in a fundamentally unipolar world. This did not mean that it was unchallenged, but it was clearly the dominant imperial power. That era has been shattered, along with the old “rules based order” that existed following the Second World War — a “rules based order” in which the “rules” were frequently broken by the imperial powers.
Today a multipolar world exists. This has flowed from the consequences of the collapse of the former USSR, the rapid rise of China over four decades and, to a lesser extent, some other powers, and crucially the relative decline of US imperialism. Europe, also in decline, is being increasingly marginalised. The centre of gravity economically has shifted towards Asia and the East. China, together with Asia, is at the centre of a global struggle which is taking place. The major struggle unfolding is between China and the US, both economically and politically. In addition, struggles and wars between various imperial and regional powers are taking place. This is reflected in the current horrors being fought in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and elsewhere. Global capitalism is now in an era of wars and social and political polarisation.
Global capitalism is now in a historical cul-de-sac from which it cannot escape. It is a protracted, drawn out death agony. It is protracted due to subjective factors — the absence of revolutionary leadership of the working class and the current level of political consciousness of the masses. Political consciousness is developing, but in general it is not yet at the point of concluding that revolutionary change of the entire social system is necessary to establish socialism.
Countries like China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Venezuela require specific theoretical analysis. In China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea, capitalism and landlordism were overthrown. They were replaced by a nationalised, centrally planned economy in the name of socialism or communism. However, in our view, whilst this represented an historic leap forward, socialist societies were not created. The nationalised, planned economies were ruled by bureaucratic, repressive, dictatorial regimes generally modelled on the Stalinist regime in the USSR. We analysed these in the past as deformed workers’ states. This flowed from the character of the revolutions: they were not led by the working class but were the product of peasant and guerrilla armies.
A combination of bureaucracies, corruption and the international situation resulted in stagnation and, in some cases, decline. The regimes in China, Cuba and Vietnam thus moved to try to break out of the impasse by reintroducing the market to varying degrees and allowing varying degrees of capitalist restoration. However, what took place in the former USSR — the collapse of the state — has not been repeated. In China, Vietnam and Cuba the party and the state remained in power and in control. The state and party still controlled and directed the capitalist features of the economy. This can change, especially in Cuba; however, thus far this has remained the situation.
In the case of China, a unique, unprecedented form of state capitalism has been introduced. It has elements of a hybrid system — capitalist but not fully; a deformed workers’ state, but not entirely. The character of the Chinese state and the special form of state capitalism it has assumed is an issue to be further discussed and developed. Yet it is insufficient merely to characterise the Chinese regime as “capitalist — end of story,” as some of our former CWI members did.
Venezuela is somewhat different in that capitalism was never fully overthrown. Following the revolutionary process after 2002, substantial encroachments were made against capitalism and imperialism and important reforms were introduced. The revolutionary process went a long way in that period, but bureaucratic, top down methods were also a factor that inhibited the revolution from going further. These questions are crucial to accurately analyse world events today and draw the right conclusions from them.
8. On experience with public/open work and security-conscious work (without sensitive details)
Without asking for any organizational secrets—and with member safety and legal compliance as clear priorities—could you share general experience and principles for advancing public/open work alongside security-conscious and confidential work in high-pressure environments? For example: organizational development, risk management, member safety, and information security.
This depends on the concrete situation in each country. Since our foundation in 1974, CWI comrades have suffered repression, ranging from imprisonment, torture and death, in several countries including Chile, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, and Britain. Currently, for the most part, comrades are working in countries that allow us to work openly, although repression is generally increasing again. In such conditions we organise public street activity, public meetings, and sell material on the streets, etc. In countries where this is not possible, the type of activity depends on the concrete situation that exists. All revolutionary work entails risk. In the past there were times when comrades in Chile, Nigeria and Sri Lanka had to work in semilegal or underground conditions. Whilst it is always correct to strive to undertake revolutionary socialist activity, this does not mean conducting adventurist activity that threatens comrades unnecessarily. Modern surveillance and repressive methods by the state make conducting work in such conditions more complicated, and what this concretely means in each situation needs to be carefully examined. These are questions that need to be carefully considered by comrades in such situations, drawing upon international experiences and new ones.
9. On balancing theoretical clarity and tactical cooperation
In practice, how does your organization balance theoretical clarity with tactical cooperation with other left currents? How do you view the current fragmentation and realignment both within and between the major traditions—Leninist/Stalinist, Maoist, and Trotskyist?
For the CWI, theoretical clarity is of crucial importance. Without it, it is not possible to develop a balanced and correct analysis, perspective, or conclusions about how to intervene in the class struggle. Theory is a guide to action. If the CWI discusses with organisations that do not have theoretical clarity or agreement with us, it does not automatically mean there can be no tactical collaboration. We have discussions with groups with which we do not agree on some issues. Yet that does not mean that some joint/tactical campaigning work should not be undertaken. In doing so we would never hide or mask our differences.
There is widespread fragmentation and some realignment taking place internationally between various currents — Leninist/Stalinist, Maoist and Trotskyist. This represents the impact of the new world situation on these groups. It can also reflect the political and ideological confusion and disorientation that exists. The CWI is open to discuss with serious revolutionary organisations in this process that have an orientation to the working class or are seeking theoretical or ideological clarity.
10. On plans for East Asia and China
Does your organization have plans to develop partners, broader networks, or formal branches in East Asia, and possibly in China? If yes, how do you assess the local political-social conditions and viable organizational pathways?
The CWI is very enthusiastic about establishing links, collaborators, and supporters throughout Asia, including China, which is of crucial importance. We already have CWI groups in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. We hope to develop this further throughout Asia. The pathways to achieve this are varied. We hope to develop exchanges of ideas through all medium including social media and other discussion forums, through the CWI and in discussion with other groupings. Solidarity and collaboration form part of this, along with arranging meetings where possible, including exchange visits where viable. These are plans that need to be elaborated further.
11. On linking short-term goals and long-term goals
How does your organization connect short-term goals (e.g., building militant unions, defending minority rights, promoting workplace democracy) with long-term goals (e.g., revolutionary transformation, restructuring the state apparatus, and establishing socialist relations of production—whether framed as “socialist construction” in a Maoist discourse or as a transitional approach in a Trotskyist discourse)? In other words, how does your organization aim to act as a workers’ vanguard force and help push struggles beyond what capitalism can accommodate toward a point where a decisive break with capitalism becomes unavoidable?
The CWI uses the transitional method. We think it is necessary to link the need for a revolutionary socialist transformation of society to the immediate needs, struggles, and demands of the working class and the masses. This applies the method of the Transitional Programme that Trotsky advocated, in the Bolshevik tradition of the 1917 revolution. We do this taking into account the existing political consciousness of the working class and the masses and the stage of the class struggle in each country. It is not our method to simply repeat slogans or demands, for example lifting demands from the ‘Transitional Programme’, which do not correspond to the current stage of the class struggle in a particular country.
We participate in, and where possible lead, struggles on immediate demands of workers, students and all those exploited by capitalism; for example, for higher wages, a reduction of the working week, rent freezes, and the defence of women’s and gender rights. At the same time we explain that if such gains are to be won the capitalist or ruling class will aim to eventually take back any concession they are forced to make. In this era of capitalist decline long–term reforms in the interests of the masses are not viable. Only with mass mobilisations and struggles can concessions be forced upon the ruling class. The employers or the ruling class can be forced to make concessions if confronted with powerful mass mobilisations. However, what they give with the left hand they will ultimately try to take back with the right hand. For that reason, we explain that a transformation of society to socialism is necessary. In that way we link together immediate struggles with the wider political objective of the need for a socialist transformation of society.
A part of that struggle is the concrete effort to transform or rebuild the workers’ organisations, like the trade unions, into militant fighting organisations of the working class. Today this is a crucial task. In many countries the trade union apparatus has been incorporated into the state and/or is prepared to act as managers of capitalism. At the same time, in important struggles of the working class and other social movements, new or transitional organisations can also be formed. For example, in Britain, when we led the mass campaign of non–payment of the poll tax, which involved millions and defeated Margaret Thatcher, the Anti–Poll Tax Union was formed to organise that struggle.
12. On theoretical resources beyond the “international sequences” and on “Western Marxism”
What is your organization’s approach to adopting and evaluating Marxist theorists who do not fall within the commonly referenced “three internationals” (in some Maoist discourse) or “four internationals” (in Trotskyist discourse)? How do you understand the concept of “Western Marxism”? Could you illustrate your theoretical orientation by commenting briefly on a few figures—for example Lukács, Marcuse, Althusser, Negri, and Samir Amin?
We would like you to refer to the new document that we produced— ‘Programmatic Foundation of the CWI and the Historical Struggle for a Revolutionary Socialist International 2026’.
This article outlines the development of international organisations and the principal theoretical and programmatic ideas that shaped them. While Marxism needs to be applied in accordance with the specific material and political conditions of different regions, its foundational analytical principles—how capitalism functions, its laws—do not vary by geography. Accordingly, we reject categorizations such as “Western” or “Eastern” Marxism that imply fundamentally different theoretical foundations exist in different parts of the world.
However, the application of Marxism has varied according to concrete objective and subjective conditions. The emergence of Stalinism revived a stageist approach—further formalised with “socialism in one country”—which fundamentally led Communist parties worldwide, when faced with revolutionary developments, to replace the Bolsheviks’ 1917 strategy with that of the Mensheviks, while also subordinating revolutionary internationalism to national state interests and accommodating nationalist politics. Although Maoist currents emphasized anticolonial and anti–imperialist struggle, they also pursued tactical alliances with sections of the national bourgeoisie and state elites, often invoking the “comprador character” of local capitalists to justify it. Nationally or regionally specific adaptations of Marxism—either “Western Marxism,” “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” (Deng-era), or “Prachanda Path” in Nepal—are Marxism reshaped to fit local opportunist needs rather than representing genuine applications of Marxist theory. Criticism of “Western Marxism” is often conflated with critiques of Stalinism, based on the mistaken assumption that Stalinism simply represents a legitimate form of Marxism.
Though Western Marxism is often presented as a departure from Stalinism, it emerged in part from thinkers—such as the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács—whose disillusionment with Stalinist practice shaped their view. It flowed from it rather than representing a complete rupture with Stalinism. It is important to recognise the objective conditions that shaped divergent Marxist currents. The defeat and fragmentation of mass movements and the disillusionment that followed played a part in that. Georg Lukács was influenced by the experience of the brutal repression of the Hungarian Revolution (1956) and the repressive role of the Stalinist bureaucracy; Louis Althusser’s structuralist rereading of Marx emerged amid crises in the French Communist Party that followed the setbacks of French mass movements in the 1960s. In part, these currents sought to justify and explain the failures of Stalinist parties and their leaders; the attempt to “humanise” Marxism thus reflected a subjective response to those defeats—at times brutal. The violent suppression of the first Chinese revolution (1927) and the massacres that followed—and the consequent defeat, for which Comintern directives and Stalinist strategy were responsible—prompted M. N. Roy, Comintern representative in China at that time, to move towards radical humanism and a critique of bureaucratic authoritarianism which predated and anticipated later anti–Stalinist currents. A number of other left intellectuals (Samir Amin, Antonio Negri and so on), including those in the Frankfurt Marxist tradition, can also be approached from the same method.
Of course, this is not to summarily dismiss the many substantive questions and nuances raised by these intellectuals. The CWI adopts a historical–materialist approach in analysing these currents: it points to the core issue—their emergence in the failures of Stalinism, the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and the consequent impact on workers’ and popular consciousness and on intellectual debate.
13. (Maoism-focused) On debates within international Maoism
If you are comfortable addressing it, could you share your views on several common debates within international Maoism:
- “Mao Zedong Thought” vs. “Maoism” (conceptual status and positioning)
- The evaluation of the “Three Worlds Theory”
- Debates around “Avakianism”
- Debates around “Gonzaloism”
CWI had not taken part in the debates that took place within various Maoist currents. This is partly because there is a lack of transparency and a democratic approach existing among Maoist organisations. However, CWI organised work in countries like India where various Marxist–Leninist currents had a significant presence.
The developing divisions between Moscow and Beijing led to the Maoists’ then radical in words gathering support in some countries, from those in opposition to the increasing reformism of the pro–Moscow Communist Parties.
Sometimes Maoist groups ‘inherited’ from the old Communist Parties they split from a base within the working class, but generally were unable to maintain that for long.
At times in the 1960s and 1970s in Europe, Maoist organisations, or organisations influenced by Maoism, developed sizeable, but not mass, memberships, and a few members of parliament, for example in Italy. But these groupings have generally disappeared or become non–revolutionary, ‘left–reformist’ parties.
In the neo–colonial world, especially southern Africa, pro–Beijing splits in the liberation movements soon tended towards effectively pro–Western positions as they fought the pro–Moscow movements, a process which accelerated after Nixon’s 1972 visit to China.
Crisis in Maoism followed the 1976 defeat and arrest of the ‘Gang of Four,’ followed by the turn to encouraging capitalist developments.
But the Maoist currents in western countries and the US never really became part of or led the workers’ movement. They were usually either very small and fragmented sectarian groups or evolved into social–democratic organisations with distant loyalty to some form of Maoism. Unfortunately, they have played next to no role in the class struggle or movements that developed in these countries. Most behaved like sects, isolated from the working class and its action, held together by a small number based on dogmatic and faithful loyalty. Ideas of their leaders flowed from this as they tried to adapt to the reality of developing working–class cities — and no substantial peasantry or rural poor to base themselves on.
On the other hand, in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Maoist ideas had taken root in rural areas in particular, resulting in considerable organisation that followed the path of armed opposition. They were also strengthened in response to repression by landlords, violence of regional semi–feudal authorities, and assaults of capital on nature with disregard to the population — their relation to land and culture and other factors. Most of these groups, however, copied Maoist ideology as they understood it. Working underground, aiming to “surround the city” by mobilising peasant militants had its limitations. They borrowed classical Maoist principles and tactics, but without clarity and often demanded loyalty rather than understanding.
Hence elevating some of the “Mao Zedong Thought” (i.e., the carbon copy of Maoist ideas that existed during and after the Chinese revolution) into a supreme form of Marxism that needed to be “followed.” Shining Path (Communist Party of Peru) reflects one of the most crude expressions of this. Its leader Abimael Guzmán (also known as Chairman Gonzalo — also sometime called “Shampooing master” by cadres, as they would take new recruits to him to brainwash them into becoming consolidated members) attempted to develop Maoism with Peruvian characteristics, rooted in their own survival tactics. While engaging in adventurist, terroristic methods (including murdering trade unionists and other workers’ leaders), they faced a relentless barrage of military opposition. They could not sustain the so–called “people’s war” and justified mindless violence by taking parts of Maoist thought to an extreme form — i.e., the need to eliminate all that is capitalist and transform the “revolutionary fighters” into those who are cleansed of bourgeois influence. Cadres were asked to commit “class suicide,” and offer a “blood quota” to advance the revolution.
Attempts to export aspects of Mao’s tactics and ideals linked to the Chinese revolution (1949) were repeated failures. Indonesia is an example of a defeat as a result of the ‘stages theory.’ International Maoism was never a coherent — democratically centralised — ideological process or organisation. It comprised various interpretations, modified to suit the needs of function and survival of these organisations. Maoism did not exist as a mass force anywhere outside of China. Even the “Red Corridor” that spans from central to eastern India and towards Nepal — total numbers said to be anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000, including various currents. In Nepal, Maoists had mass following due to their opposition to the feudal kingdom, but never a mass base. CWI contributed and took part in proposing a way forward in relation to the Nepali revolution, the Indonesian movement and other material related to Indian Maoists. Though we generally referred to them as Maoism, CWI often differentiates the different phenomena that exist as Maoism in different countries, as there are numerous ideological and strategic differences among them. There is no international organisation that exists that articulates coherent international Maoism across borders.
14. On your “core strategic assumptions”
What are your organization’s core strategic assumptions at the present stage? Which levers do you see as most decisive for the growth of the revolutionary left—electoral work, trade-union and workplace struggle, youth/student work, anti-oppression movements, or anti-war/anti-imperialist work? How do you prioritize these, and why?
Our strategy derives from a perspective grounded in an analysis of the material conditions of each period. Developing a class perspective requires assessing the character of contemporary capitalism, the condition and composition of the working class, and the range of political, social, and economic factors that shape ongoing developments.
At the heart of our approach is the centrality of working–class interests: building its capacity to organise, mobilise, and act independently as a class. Revolutionary organisations grounded in the working class will grow or decline in line with the class’s strength and consciousness. We prioritise work among organised workers and youth — what we call the two pillars of our activity. In countries where there are no independent workers’ parties we have a dual strategic approach to building working–class forces that combines the construction of a revolutionary party with active participation in the formation of broad mass workers’ parties. Electoral work is a key element of mass organising: we aim to create platforms that enable workers, campaigners, and activists to win democratic political representation and use those positions to help build movements outside parliamentary bodies. Workplace and community struggle — resisting attacks on wages and conditions — remains an indispensable component of this strategy.
We actively participate in campaigns on the environment and in movements opposing all forms of oppression. We reject hierarchical framings that rank struggles as primary or secondary; we do not defer one fight to prioritise another. Which struggle predominates at any given time is determined by objective developments, and we commit energetically to the dominant movements that emerge. Our participation is not passive: we advance concrete strategies to win immediate demands and to connect those struggles to the overthrow of the decaying capitalist system. We understand all forms of oppression as interconnected and rooted in systemic relations and therefore insist on linking struggles together in a unified effort. Our programme — the transitional programme — bridges day–to–day demands (the minimum programme) and the fight for socialist transformation (the maximum programme) as Lenin outlined in his 1917 pamphlet “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It.”
15. On the concrete practice of democratic centralism
How does your organization handle the relationship between democratic deliberation and unity in action? When disagreements become sharp, what mechanisms help you avoid factionalism while still ensuring that minority views can be expressed and sustained over time?
16. On member discipline and organizational culture
What minimum standards do you think a healthy revolutionary organizational culture should uphold (e.g., anti-bureaucratism, opposition to personality cults, gender equality, and internal grievance/appeals mechanisms)? What “red lines” would trigger disciplinary action?
A revolutionary party is constituted for a specific goal: the overthrow of capitalism. This entails actively combating bourgeois ideologies and discourses that periodically emerge in varied forms to divide and neutralise the working class. Political clarity about what we stand for, a far–sighted perspective, the capacity to develop class–based positions on all issues, and the ability to formulate concrete strategies to win immediate and strategic struggles are essential to prevent capitalist ideas from taking root within a revolutionary organisation.
A revolutionary party is not a homogeneous, monolithic body. It draws diverse social layers — critical thinkers, theorists, strategists, and technical experts — and unites them behind a common objective. Such a party sustains a healthy internal intellectual life: debates and disagreements are raised openly in branch meetings and escalated to national bodies; branches may present differing positions; and members are encouraged to contribute to the development of collective perspectives and strategies. Regular meetings, conferences and congresses institutionalise this participation.
Without free and vigorous discussion, internal democracy is meaningless. Members must be able to raise questions and dissent without fear; if debates remain unresolved, organised tendencies or factions may form to continue the discussion, subject to agreed party rules. Final direction and policy are determined collectively through democratic processes of debate and vote. Democratically elected leaders and public representatives are accountable to leading party bodies and to the membership.
The CWI rejects cults of personality and the sectarian practices associated with Stalinist or Maoist organisations: no one is above criticism and no one is immune from making mistakes. Among some sectarian Stalinist and Maoist leaderships, it has been common to suppress internal debate; only when confronted with undeniable failure do they perform ritualised “self–criticism” to conceal their errors, after which they typically resume the same erroneous methods. Political differences alone should not trigger disciplinary action; disciplinary measures are reserved for breaches of agreed party rules or the party’s code of conduct.
The party is not a debating society. Endless, aimless discussion can paralyse its activity and impede effective work. We therefore advocate a “mobile balance” between open, democratic debate and disciplined, collective action. Healthy internal democracy must be compatible with centralised coordination and organisational discipline so the party can act as a unified force to challenge capitalism — the party’s raison d’être.
17. On avoiding “organizational survival overriding politics”
How do you prevent an organization, under pressure to grow, from sliding into opportunism (sacrificing program for expansion), or under defensive pressure, from sliding into sectarianism (self-isolation in the name of purity)?
Survival of a revolutionary organisation depends on a range of objective factors: the depth of its roots in the working class and trade unions, the clarity and coherence of its politics, the discipline and training of its cadre, its capacity to act effectively in crises, and its organisational adaptability to changing material conditions, and so on. We argue for principle in politics, flexibility in tactics.
The CWI’s experience of organising in extremely difficult contexts demonstrates the importance of firm political clarity combined with patient, persistent mass work. Being part of an international provides critical advantages: it facilitates testing of ideas in different contexts, drawing lessons from each other, and helps generalise political positions and tactics.
Equally essential are democratic accountability, sustained cadre development, and increasing working–class participation in the party and its activity among organised workers and wider popular layers. There is no foolproof institutional safeguard against opportunism or descent into sectarianism apart from sustained political struggle and clarity of programme. Under no circumstances should the party isolate itself from broader working–class activity, as this acts as an anchor against all sorts of deviations.
18. On the role of revolutionaries in trade unions
How do you define the role of revolutionaries within trade unions? Is the emphasis more on being a left opposition/grassroots-democratic current inside existing unions, or on pushing toward independent workers’ organizations? How do you adapt this approach across different countries?
The role of revolutionaries in trade unions is crucial. We think revolutionaries in trade unions have a role in fighting to transform them into combative organisations of the working class. This includes fighting for the right strategy and tactics to be adopted by workers in struggle. The situation in the trade unions is very different in different countries. In general, revolutionaries need to build opposition, combative groupings that will oppose and provide an alternative to bureaucratic, conservative trade union leaders. In the main, this struggle needs to be carried out through the existing trade unions and federations. Where relevant in struggles, we also advocate the forming of democratic strike committees to lead and organise struggles. Sometimes, in some countries, workers take steps to form independent trade unions outside the established structures. This is a concrete question and, in some situations, we would support such steps; it depends on the exact situation that exists. At the same time, revolutionaries have a responsibility to raise political ideas and programmes within the trade unions so they are not syndicalist in outlook.
19. Lessons from strikes and mass action
Could you summarize one or two examples (without sensitive details) of how you have helped develop an economic struggle (wages, layoffs, working hours, etc.) into broader class mobilization? What are the key turning points that usually matter?
At the Lindsey Oil Refinery in 2009 our members played a crucial role. The employers tried to bring in foreign, Italian workers to take jobs at the plant at a lower rate of pay and under worse conditions. The capitalist press and fascists tried to intervene and raised the slogan “British jobs for British workers.” Our party member on the democratically elected unofficial strike committee intervened and changed the course of the strike. We argued for workers’ unity. After the strike spread to other plants, in the end all jobs were defended and the Italian workers were employed on the same conditions as the British workers. The intervention of one member of our party turned the strike into a struggle for workers’ unity and equal conditions for all workers.
During the COVID pandemic our member played a crucial role in taking measures to protect drivers on London buses. Through the intervention, including strikes, the entry system on the buses was changed, resulting in drivers being protected from exposure to the COVID virus. The crucial lessons from these and other interventions were the need to take bold action, to explain to the workers what is happening, and to raise concrete proposals for action that advanced the struggle of the workers involved.
20. On “workers’ control” and workplace democracy
When you advocate “workers’ control” today, what concrete institutional arrangements do you have in mind within capitalist enterprises—for example, elected management, open books, veto rights, or other mechanisms?
When we advocate workers’ control, we mean democratic control by the workers. We would support the election of committees in the workplace whose members are subject to recall by the workers. The committee then checks and controls the day–to–day functioning of a factory or workplace. We would advocate the right of veto over management decisions. We would also demand the opening of the books and the overseeing of production. This is distinct from the trade unions being co–opted onto management boards in forms of “workers’ participation.” This is not workers’ control.
Democratic workers’ control is distinct from workers’ management, which involves the management and planning of an industry that has been nationalised. We have concretised this question by proposing that the management boards of such nationalised industries be comprised of one third elected by the workforce, one third from the working class as a whole, and one third from the government. Workers’ management usually arises once workers’ control has already been established. Workers’ control under capitalism can be a mechanism to assist workers’ learning of management and planning techniques.
21. On electoral intervention
Do you support electoral intervention, and if so, how? Under what conditions would you run candidates or support “left” or “workers’” candidates? What boundaries or safeguards do you set to avoid parliamentarism and political absorption into liberal politics?
We support electoral intervention with the view of defending the political representation of the working class and using it as a platform to propagate socialist ideas and mobilise the working class. We stand in elections where we can do so and campaign on a fighting socialist programme. Through this we aim to win people to the ideas and struggle for socialism. We see such interventions as part of the struggle to intervene in local communities and participate in the local struggles of the working class and community. We regard intervening in elections as part of the revolutionary struggle but not separate from mass struggle, protests, mobilisations, etc. All candidates of the party are subject to party democracy and accountability. Any member elected to parliament or local council is accountable to the party and to local workers. Elected representatives are accountable to the political party of the working class and the wider masses who voted for them. They must also take only the average wage of a skilled worker and are subject to recall and regular democratic review.
22. On alliances with left populists / progressive forces
When facing social-democratic parties, Green parties, progressive forces, or left wings within labor parties, what kind of united-front strategy do you adopt? Which forms of cooperation are tactical and useful, and which tend to lead to political dilution or absorption?
The exact strategy and tactics clearly depend on the concrete situation. Our general approach in any united front or alliance is to march separately and strike together. We can establish a united front or joint struggle on a specific issue or question. At the same time we would insist on the right to maintain our own distinct political programme and ideas. Political absorption or dilution derives from lowering an independent political programme and banner. We would not do this. We also would not enter into an electoral alliance or bloc with a pro capitalist party that endorses attacks on the working class. The useful tactical united front methods are those that allow us to reach a wider layer of workers or the population and those that advance the struggle of the working class and the oppressed. In all situations we clearly set out our programme and demonstrate the limits of populist and reformist policies.
23. On maintaining a class standpoint in wars and geopolitical conflicts
In conflicts such as Russia–Ukraine or Israel–Palestine, how do you avoid “campist” logic and maintain an analytical framework centered on working-class internationalism? (You can answer at the level of method rather than taking positions on specific cases.)
24. On defining “anti-imperialism”
How do you distinguish anti-imperialism from political endorsement of particular capitalist states or regimes? When “anti-Western” rhetoric becomes entangled with a domestic ruling class’s interests, how do you identify and draw clear lines against that?
While acknowledging unique and special features that exist in different countries and regions, a general class approach can be developed to unite workers across borders. Developing a workers’ programme during wars and conflicts is integral to this strategy, and international organisations play a vital role in this. Workers must refuse to be cannon fodder for capitalist wars and must not suspend class struggle in the name of “national unity.” Our task is to separate the working class from the national bourgeoisie, maintain working class independence, put forward a programme that defends working class interests, offer a socialist way out of the crisis, and appeal to workers in neighbouring countries and beyond to unite.
Specific programmes should be adapted to context but can include workers’ control or oversight of war industries; campaigns to block resources destined for armament and militarisation; and cross border workers’ coordination, including solidarity strikes. As workers expose their national bourgeoisie, they can undermine the cultural and chauvinist narratives capitalists deploy to sustain domination.
This politics does not deny the right of nations to self-determination. We oppose both Chinese annexationism and imperialist intervention by the US or others in Taiwan. The Taiwanese people should have the democratic right to determine their own future without coercion from regional or international powers. We support voluntary association and the formation of confederations of states on a socialist basis.
Imperialist powers frequently exploit national and cultural grievances for their own strategic ends. From Tibet to Kurdistan, there are numerous examples of such manipulation. Some Kurdish militant formations, retaining a stageist approach rooted in Stalinism, have at times entered temporary alignments with imperialist powers with the aim of defeating local enemies. In the name of anti imperialism, various left currents have defended dictatorial, autocratic, or theocratic regimes both historically and today. Unconditional support for Iran, uncritical defence of Ukraine, or, in some cases, communist parties’ justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a fight against “fascism” are all mistaken approaches. Such positions subordinate class interest to that of capitalist interests one way or another — and in doing so disarm the working class.
Instead, an independent class position must be central to antiimperialist campaigns. We must organise to unite workers in warring countries: warmongers, the local bourgeoisie, and imperialist powers are our common enemies. We stand against national oppression in Ukraine, both against the Ukrainian regime’s oppression of national minorities within Ukraine and the Russian regime’s claim that a Ukrainian nation does not exist. This is not simple — without strong mass working class forces on the ground the demand can appear abstract — but the class perspective must be raised and built, because there is no alternative that will advance workers’ interests or secure a lasting solution. We therefore appeal to workers and youth in these countries to join international organisations and build solidarity — join the CWI — share experiences and mobilise together to win rights and end capitalist devastation.
25. On reading recommendations and theoretical training
Beyond the classic Marxist–Leninist works, what would you recommend to a beginner who wants to study Marxist theory? Could your organization recommend 21st-century works of Marxism–Leninism–Trotskyism or broader left theory—either written by your organization or works you consider valuable? Do you have a reading list used in your own theoretical training?
Apart from studying the classical texts that convey Marxism’s scientific method, members are encouraged to read broadly across key theoretical and historical topics. Over the years the CWI has produced extensive analyses and articles covering global developments and country-level struggles on every continent; many are available at SocialistWorld.net, the international organisation’s main website. Each section also publishes local-language media and English materials—links are provided on the site.
Our books, produced over time, can be purchased from the SocialistWorld bookshop (SocialistWorld.net/shop). Not all titles are yet available online, but we are republishing many to increase access. We have also launched an archive site to make our materials publicly accessible and to host theoretical courses. At present there are three courses at SocialistWorld.net/theory; we plan to publish additional courses on core subjects in the coming months and years.
Each national section publishes introductory documents—such as “What We Stand For” and an introduction to Marxism—which are available through the site or the bookshop (see leftbooks.org).
Branches will organise one-to-one discussions or group study to go through the foundations of Marxism. They will normally draw up a reading list based on the planned discussions. The reading list is not limited to CWI material; selections will be made according to the subject discussed.
We also encourage members to learn from practical experience and to apply Marxist analysis in their organising. Marxism is not a dogma or merely a theoretical framework; it is a method that both explains how capitalism functions and guides effective action against it.
26. On the boundary between public statements and internal debate
When disagreements arise with other organizations, do you prefer public polemics or private/internal communication? How do you decide when public argument is necessary and when restraint is more appropriate?
We are accountable to the working class. Differences in approach and key strategic decisions can be discussed or debated in a comradely manner among organisations to reach agreement to take the work forward or to show the limitations of certain ideas. At times polemical debate is also necessary to clarify ideas. In all cases we maintain transparency and make the content of debates and discussions publicly available. Even when internal differences arise, the discussions and materials are made available as soon as possible. In the last split discussion that the CWI had, we circulated all our and the opposition’s materials to all members and made our writings publicly available. We do not encourage secret sessions or concealed debates. However, some circumstances may demand that we keep certain discussions private for security reasons and to defend the organisation’s interests. These are exceptional circumstances. Though most political discussions can be public, there are certain organisational discussions that may have to be kept private. Even then, members are usually informed via different mechanisms, such as members’ bulletins, for example.
27. Why Trotskyism?
Why did your organization choose Trotskyism specifically, rather than other Marxist currents? What do you see as the decisive theoretical and strategic advantages?
Trotskyism defends the scientific foundations of Marxism. Neither Marx, Trotsky, nor other leading Marxist theorists were puritans; it is erroneous to construct cults of personality around any of them. Marx pioneered a systematic analysis of how capitalism functions; Trotskyism does not posit a new theoretical system separate from Marxism but insists on defending and developing that scientific tradition in theory and practice. Lenin defended the foundations and methods of Marxism against the Mensheviks and other opportunist tendencies. Trotsky similarly defended the Marxist principles of workers’ democracy and an internationalist perspective in response to the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union.
One of Trotsky’s important contributions is his analysis of capitalist development. His theory of Permanent Revolution explains the dynamics of capitalist transformation and the conditions under which socialist revolution may arise. His theoretical analyses of Stalinism and his historical work—most notably The History of the Russian Revolution—remain vital contributions for preparing the working class for future struggle. His Transitional Programme remains an important guide for those developing revolutionary strategy and tactics, bridging immediate demands and long–term socialist objectives.
The CWI argues that the theory of Permanent Revolution remains vital for advancing socialist revolution today and in the future. Lessons from its application are relevant across various struggles—from Nepal to Sudan and other movements across the globe. For further analysis, see the articles on our website and the book we published, “Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary Whose Ideas Couldn’t Be Killed.”
To end capitalism, it is important to take up the ideas and methods of Marxism and draw lessons from the past. Take, for example, Trotsky’s writings on how the Chinese revolution was defeated. The role of international strategy discussed at that time provides a graphic picture of what is needed now. We urge young revolutionaries today to read this material in detail—not just to read, but to join the fight to end capitalism. Join the Trotskyist movement. The Trotskyist tradition continues to defend the need for internationalism, while various currents following the Third International have now collapsed.
29. A message to Marxists in China
Finally, is there anything you would like to say to Marxists in China—whether advice, a warning, encouragement, or any message you consider important?
We live in a new era and crucial times — one in which working class struggle will emerge internationally. Chinese workers and youth are a vital part of this development. The role the Chinese working class plays will be enormously important for the future of the planet.
Despite the objective difficulties and repression, it is of the utmost importance that a revolutionary organisation is built in China that can articulate genuine Marxism and put forward a farsighted strategy. We urge everyone studying Marxism to apply it concretely: connect theory to the real conditions of workplaces, communities and social movements. Read CWI materials – read broadly, compare different writings and methods, and test ideas against experience. Contact us for discussion or for any clarifications. Consider coming together on a platform of shared struggle as a first step. If you find our ideas and methods close to your own, get in touch — join forces to help build a democratic, internationalist movement and a better future for all.