Essay:On the Question of Anti-Revisionist Unity

Introduction

The international communist movement has long been divided by ideological fractures that, while rooted in theory, often serve to obscure the fundamental commonalities shared by revolutionaries committed to the overthrow of imperialism and capitalism. Chief among these divisions is the split between the Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists (most of the time called “Hoxhaists”) and Maoists. Yet, in a period defined by intensifying capitalist crises, ecological collapse, and the growing threat of fascism, the question presents itself with renewed urgency:Can the forces of anti-revisionism still afford to be divided?

We should explore the political and theoretical imperative for unity among anti-revisionist currents, particularly Marxist-Leninists and Maoists. It argues that despite historical tensions and ideological differences, a principled unity based on anti-revisionism is not only possible, but it is necessary. The first step in this process is to understand why unity is essential.

Why do we need Anti-Revisionist Unity

The world-historic mission of the proletariat, to abolish the capitalist mode of production and construct a classless society, requires organization, discipline, and theoretical clarity. In our time, the revolutionary left remains fractured and isolated, often relegated to the margins of political life. The continued disunity among anti-revisionist forces, namely between Marxist-Leninists and Maoists, weakens our capacity to intervene in struggles, build power among the masses, and present a coherent challenge to both imperialism and opportunism.

Revisionism, whether in the form of Khrushchevite betrayal, Dengist capitalist restoration, Trotskyism, or reformist social democracy, has repeatedly led to the disarming of the working class. Against this tide, both MLs and Maoists have upheld the revolutionary essence of Marxism, defending the dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle under socialism, and the necessity of armed revolution. While their theoretical emphases and historical references may differ, their rejection of revisionism unites them more than it divides.

Unity, however, must not mean liquidation of differences or a lowest-common-denominator alliance. Rather, it should be based on a shared commitment to principled struggle against revisionism in all its forms, and to the development of a revolutionary line grounded in both theory and practice. The failures of past decades, including sectarianism, dogmatism, and localism, must be overcome by forging a new anti-revisionist unity capable of leading the masses in concrete struggle.

In this context, anti-revisionist unity is not a matter of abstract idealism, but of political necessity. Without it, the revolutionary left risks perpetual fragmentation, leaving the working class without the leadership it desperately needs in this epoch of crisis.

Whom to Unite with and with whom not

Not all unity is principled unity. The revolutionary movement must draw a firm line between those who uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat in deed and in theory—and those who betray it under the guise of pragmatism, pacifism, or national opportunism. The call for anti-revisionist unity is not a call to unite with every organization that adopts the red flag while liquidating its revolutionary content. Instead, we must distinguish between potential comrades-in-struggle and those whose practice serves the enemy, even if they wear Marxist phraseology.

We must unite with those who:

• Defend the necessity of revolution and armed struggle as the only road to socialism;

• Uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat and reject capitalist restoration;

• Are self-critical and committed to ideological struggle, without sliding into sectarianism or unprincipled hostility;

• Place proletarian internationalism above the interests of any one nation or party.

This includes both Marxist-Leninists and Maoists, even if they differ in their interpretations or tactical assessments. Such forces, while not identical, are united in their rejection of revisionism, factionalism, adventurism and bourgeois parliamentarism.

We cannot unite with those who:

• Support or whitewash capitalist restoration (as seen in Dengism or modern-day Chinese "socialism");

• Subordinate class struggle to alliances with the bourgeoisie or reactionary nationalists;

• Reduce Marxism to slogans, refusing to engage with the changing conditions of class struggle;

• Weaponize dogma to isolate themselves from the masses and other revolutionaries.

In this light, unity must be forged not only by shared ideology but through practical struggle, where theoretical differences can be clarified through common work, criticism, self-criticism and where unprincipled opportunism can be exposed through its inability to advance proletarian interests. Unity without clarity is dangerous, but clarity without unity is impotent.

On the nature of past splits in the movement

To understand the challenges of anti-revisionist unity today, we must study the historical splits that fractured the revolutionary movement in the 20th century. Chief among them was the post-Stalin rupture between the Soviet and Chinese lines, what would become the Sino-Soviet split, and later, the split between Maoists and the anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists often associated with Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania.

These splits were not merely personal or national rivalries; they reflected deep theoretical disagreements on the path to socialism, the nature of class struggle under socialism, and the character of revisionism itself.

1. The Hoxhaist Critique of Maoism

Hoxha and anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists, accused Maoism of:

• Class collaborationism, especially through Mao’s “Three Worlds Theory,” which they argued subordinated the international proletariat to a strategic alliance with U.S. imperialism against the Soviet Union;

• Eclecticism, by incorporating bourgeois elements in the name of “mass line” and “contradiction analysis,” which they saw as diluting proletarian ideology;

• Anarchist deviations, in their interpretation of the Cultural Revolution as a chaotic and spontaneous movement, rather than a structured development of socialism.

Hoxha stated most of this criticism in his works"Imperialism and the Revolution" and "Can the Chinese Revolution be Called a Proletarian Revolution?".To the Hoxhaists, Mao’s deviation represented a form of "left" opportunism that masked a rightist surrender to bourgeois politics, especially in China’s later foreign policy and rapprochement with the West. In line with this critique, Hoxha described the Chinese revolution as not being a “Proletarian Revolution” but a “Bourgeois Democratic Revolution”.

2. The Maoist Critique of Hoxhaism

Maoists, on the other hand, charged the Hoxhaists with:

• Dogmato-revisionism, that is, clinging mechanically to 1930s-style Stalinism without grasping the need for continued revolution under socialism (as Mao theorized with the concept of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat);

• Sectarianism, by treating any theoretical innovation as “revisionist” and refusing to engage dialectically with the new contradictions arising in socialist society;

• Isolation, both politically and geographically, as Albania became increasingly removed from international revolutionary developments and movements.

Maoists argued that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a necessary and groundbreaking response to the problem of capitalist restoration under socialism, a problem the Hoxhaists had no theoretical solution to, despite acknowledging its existence.

3. The Consequences of These Splits

While both sides offered valid critiques, the result was a fracturing of anti-revisionist forces across the world. In some places, Marxist-Leninist and Maoist organizations fought each other harder than they fought the bourgeoisie. This infighting, often encouraged by foreign policy concerns and party diplomacy, weakened both currents and contributed to the marginalization of revolutionary communism in the post-Cold War period.

Yet despite the polemics, both traditions continued to resist the dominant tide of revisionism. They stood firm against Soviet social-imperialism, exposed Dengist betrayal, and upheld revolutionary violence as essential to proletarian victory. Today, we must reassess these splits not to rehash old feuds, but to draw lessons, both from their errors and their strengths. Unity based on the combined struggle, discussions, criticism, self-criticism and combined analysis of modern conditions will guide the way for a united front, among Anti-Revisionist Communists. With it, forming an even stronger internationalist movement, a real proletarian movement around the world.

How can we achieve Unity?

Achieving unity between Maoist and Marxist-Leninist forces requires more than declarations or vague appeals to cooperation. It demands concrete, structured efforts rooted in shared struggle, ideological clarity, and revolutionary practice. The conditions of the current global crisis, intensifying imperialist war, ecological collapse, and the growing immiseration of the proletariat, make it a pressing necessity. Unity will not come through nostalgia, sentiment, or party diplomacy, but through the hard work of principled political engagement and joint practice from both sides.

One of the first steps toward building this unity is the organization of joint study groups or forums between Maoist and Marxist-Leninist organisations and parties. These forums must not become spectacles of sectarian debate, but spaces for ideological development and clarification. They must serve as places where differences are confronted openly but comradely, and where shared commitments, especially the rejection of revisionism, can be articulated into a coherent political program. These summits can help recover the spirit of principled polemic that once defined the international communist movement, and they must be guided by the goal of finding synthesis, not deepening fracture.

However, theory alone is insufficient. Shared mass work is essential. Maoists and Marxist-Leninists must work together in labor organizing, tenant struggles, anti-fascist defense, and anti-imperialist solidarity campaigns. It is in these arenas,among the masses, in the concrete contradictions of daily struggle, that theory is tested and unity is forged. When revolutionaries share the same picket lines, tenant meetings, and community defense efforts, they develop trust, build practical coordination, and sharpen their political lines together. It is not through isolation but through mass-based action that ideological divisions can be resolved in practice.

A central component of this process must be a renewed commitment to criticism and self-criticism as tools of a real dialectical unity. Instead of using critique as a weapon of expulsion, it must become a means of development and unity. Unity without criticism leads to opportunism; criticism without unity leads to sectarian paralysis. The revolutionary movement must relearn how to struggle internally with comrades, not against them.

To provide a common foundation for joint action, both tendencies should develop and commit to an anti-revisionist, revolutionary and proletarian program. This should include unwavering support for socialism, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the legitimacy of armed struggle for revolution, and a firm stance on proletarian internationalism. It must explicitly reject factionalism, capitalist restoration, bourgeois parliamentarism, and imperialist collaboration of all forms.

Finally, unity must never be based on party diplomacy, prestige, or the legacies of past leaderships. Too often, past attempts at international coordination failed because they prioritized organizational ego over revolutionary content. True unity cannot be inherited, it must be constructed on the basis of line and practice. That means rejecting the bureaucratic methods of party-to-party relations and instead emphasizing the fusion of mass line organizing with principled theory and praxis.

In this historical moment, the world proletariat demands more than fragmented resistance. It demands a unified, disciplined, revolutionary movement. That movement will only be possible if we recognize our shared commitment to anti-revisionism and take active steps toward unity, not abstractly, but in the concrete terrain of class struggle. Such unity will not emerge spontaneously; it must be built. But with clear political foundations and the courage to struggle through contradictions, it can become the decisive weapon of our time.