PDF Content:

PDF Source:

Proletarians from all countries, unite!
Under the direction of the revolutionary proletarian movement present around the world:
The New Democracy Revolution
It is the main force of the world proletarian revolution
Summary:
I- Introduction
II- The Law of Contradiction: Single Fundamental Law of Materialist Dialectic
1- The establishment of the contradiction law in the MLM development process
2- AVAKIAN AND PRACHANDA: REVIEWS, CAPITULATION AND FILOSOPHICAL FRANITING
3- Unity in MCI will not advance under the principle of integrating two in a
III- Imperialism and Democratic Revolution
1- The fallacious “progressive tendency of imperialism”
2- Imperialism prevents the national development of the oppressed countries
3- Trotskyist analysis of the bourgeoisie in the countries oppressed by imperialism
4- The Revolution of New Democracy and the National Question
5- The penetration of capitalism in the countryside and the peasant problem in semicolonial countries
IV- The maximum profit law and the main contradiction at the imperialist season
1- The maximum profit as a particularity of monopolistic capitalism
2- Land income in semicolonial countries at the time of imperialism
3- The main contradiction of the monopolistic stage of the capitalist process
V- Unite under Maoism!
1- To assume Maoism is relentlessly fighting all the revisionism: the old, the modern kruschovista-the-thexhist
and the 21st century revisionist modalities
2- Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the Democratic Revolution
3- President Gonzalo generalizes and develops the Maoist theory of Bureaucratic Capitalism
4- Two fields were turned off, the dividing line is the effectiveness of the new democracy revolution for the vast majority of
countries and a vast majority of the land population
Communist Party of Brazil - P.C.B.
Central committee


Under the direction of the revolutionary proletarian movement present around the world:
The New Democracy Revolution
It is the main force of the world proletarian revolution
I- Introduction
On December 26, there will be 130 years of the great Titan of the proletariat
International, President Mao Tsetung. President Mao, head of the CCP, was the direct responsible and
personally by the direction of two grand events in the twentieth century: the great Chinese revolution
(1949) and the great proletarian cultural revolution (1966-1976). In the course of these processes, established and
Developed Maoism: New, Third and Higher Stage of Marxism. Boosted the ideology of
international proletariat at its highest summit, continuing the labor of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Stalin, resolving in a manner, decisive issues for the world proletarian revolution. The big
Chinese revolution represented the solution of the problem of how to make the proletarian revolution, uninterrupted to
Socialism, in semicolonial and semi -feudal countries. GRCP resolved the issue of continuing
Revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat towards the golden communism. From the theoretical point of view, the
Maoism is a qualitative leap in the three constitutive parts of Marxism as a whole. At
Marxist philosophy, President Mao makes a brilliant leap in establishing the law of contradiction as law
unique fundamental of the materialistic dialectic, in addition to completing the development of the Marxist theory of the
knowledge established by Lenin. In Marxist political economy, it advances in a crucial way in the
establishment of the economic laws of socialist construction, how the contradiction between proletariat and
Bourgeoisie follows as the main contradiction in this stage of transition to communism. In addition, it establishes
theory of bureaucratic capitalism, type of capitalism engendered by imperialism in
colonies/semicolonies, resulting from the export of capital. In doing so, it develops the Leninist theory of the
imperialism, as it shows the indissoluble relationship between imperialism and landlords in these countries
oppressed. In scientific socialism, President Mao establishes the theory of the new revolution
Democracy, universal form of the proletarian revolution in the colonial/semicolonial countries and the passage
uninterrupted from it to socialism; and how to bring the class struggle in socialism in the conditions of the dictatorship of the
proletariat to develop the transition to communism and cast the danger of restoration, through
successive proletarian cultural revolutions. Moreover, it establishes the military theory of the proletariat in its form
most developed: the prolonged popular war. Today, more than ever, to be a communist is to be Marxist-
Leninist-Maoist. Therefore, it is of great importance the call of the International Communist League (LCI)
For the celebration throughout the Globe of the 130th anniversary of President Mao Tsetung's Christmas.
In this same December 26, a year of the public announcement of the foundation of LCI, Nova, will be completed
international organization of the proletariat created by the successful unified Maoist International Conference
(CIMU). CIMU was the result of more than ten years of concentrated work, meetings, conferences
Regional and international action campaigns. After this resolute and high fight, 15 parties and organizations
Marxist-Leninist-Maoists from 14 countries gave birth to LCI and thus communicated their decision to the proletariat
International:
“Marxist-Leninist-Mauo-Mainist parties and organizations participating in the International Conference
Unified Maoist (CIMU), following the path of the Third International, founded by the great
Lenin, and the best traditions of the International Communist Movement (MCI), solemnly declare
to the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world who made the historical decision and
transcendental to bring to life the new Maoist International Organization, founded under three large and
Glorious Red Flags: Maoism, the fight against revisionism and the proletarian revolution
worldwide.
With deep communist conviction, the parties and communist organizations gathered here in the
We reaffirm, once again and with solemn commitment, to fulfill the conference agreements
Unified Maoist International unfurling, defending and applying the Almighty Ideology of the
International proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.


With a firm commitment to the arduous and tireless struggle to impose Maoism as the only command and guide
of the World Revolution, the only red and iberousable flag that is a guarantee of the triumph for the
proletariat, for the oppressed nations and the people of the world in their inexorable march to
gold and forever resplendent communism. ”

(Political Declaration and Principles of the International Communist League) 1
The realization of CIMU culminated in a phase characterized by dispersion and attempts to regroup
forces and, at the same time, opened a new phase of an intense two -line struggle, which traveled all over the year
2022, after the publication of the discussion bases by the Coordinating Committee for a Conference
Unified Maoist International. The communist international journal published all positions
critics and supporters of the discussion bases, promoting a two -line struggle that has not been seen
In the International Communist Movement. CIMU was the culmination of a step for organizations
Gifts and for the supporters who could not get to the big event. The brilliant political statement and
Principles, published on December 26, was his highest ideological result. The actions of
lining in its celebration, which traveled dozens of countries, in January 2023, were the
first practical results of the Foundation of the International Communist League, followed by the massive
May 1st celebrations, by the international campaign against the construction of the interoceanic corridor of the
Tehuantepec (Mexico) isthmus, from the powerful tribute to the 50th anniversary of the ibrahim fighter
Kaypakkaya (TKP/ML), from the campaign in honor and glory to the memory of the comrades Philippines Benito and Wilma
(PCF), of internationalist actions for the release of political prisoners in the demonstrations in France and the
called to the democratic, anti-imperialist and revolutionary forces there is a forceful
support to the Heroic National Resistance Palestinian and condemnation and rejection of the Zionist state of Israel and
his criminal actions over the 76 years of Palestinian people's genocide.
Exactly 40 years ago, President Gonzalo and the PCP launched the challenging campaign for Maoism. A
CIMU and the founding of the LCI, they have achieved an important stage of this task that represents
a decisive step in the worldwide reunification of communists, overcoming dispersion, in the fight against
revisionism and towards the future reconstitution of the glorious communist international. Therefore represents,
a hard blow to imperialism, revisionism and world reaction, which will be, sooner than late,
swept from the face of the earth by the world proletarian revolution! World revolution is composed of two
large currents: the international proletarian revolutionary movement (present in all countries) and the
National Liberation Movement (present in the colonial and semicolonial countries). The first current is the
Existing communist parties or to be constituted and reconstituted in all countries on the planet and the
MCI; the second stream represents the democratic-revolutionary struggle present in all colonial countries
and semicolonials that must be directed by their respective communist parties. The foundation of LCI is
An important role in the revolutionary fusion of these two major RPM currents.
The brilliant revolutionary countereofensive of the Heroic National Resistance Palestine struck in a
True the genocidal Zionist state of Israel. The bold attack driven by the Palestinian guerrillas,
under the direction of the Palestinian National Resistance (Hamas, Jihad Islamic, Popular Liberation Front of
Palestine and Democratic Front of Liberation of Palestine), against the territory occupied by Israel
A great victory of the world proletarian revolution. After all, it represented a forceful blow against the
occupation and expansionism of the Israeli Zionist state and its master, the Yankee imperialism, the greatest enemy
of the peoples of the world. The masses from around the world celebrated this great victory of the National Resistance
Palestine, which puts even more bluntly at the center of the world debate, than the peoples and nations
oppressed from around the world are alive, burning of hope in a decided and cross fight against the
Imperialist domination. These masses cry out for an ideological, political and military direction consequent and,
Therefore, it is the duty of the international communist movement to accelerate the step of its combat to achieve
The superior form of the revolutionary class struggle which is the popular war.
Heroic Palestinian National Resistance, the great victory of the Taliban in the expulsion of the Yankee troops
territory and the persistent resistance of the Ukrainian people who fight, at the same time, against the occupation
Russian imperialist and against the direction of Zelenski, Lacaio of Yankee and European Union,
represent the current confirmation that in imperialism the main contradiction of this stage of capitalism is
which opposes people and nations oppressed to imperialist domain. This powerful flag, unfurled by the
President Mao in the 1960s, was again raised by LCI, precisely and bluntly, in
your political and principles declaration:


“The process of capitalist society as a whole has as its fundamental contradiction to
contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but when it goes from non -monopolistic capitalism to
monopolistic capitalism, or imperialism, develop in the world three contradictions
Fundamental:
First contradiction: between oppressed nations, on the one hand, and superpowers and imperialist powers,
for another. This is the main contradiction at the present time and, at the same time, the contradiction
main of the time of imperialism.
Second contradiction: between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Third contradiction: interimperialist. ” (CPCH) 2
The restlessness of the tireless struggle of national liberation in the 21st century, expressed
condensed way in the heroic struggle of the Palestinian masses, is a patent manifestation that the revolution
World proletarian urgently calls for the Maoist direction. Because only maoism can direct this
Fight and lead it to victory against imperialism; This is because it was Maoism that in establishing the law of
contradiction as a unique fundamental law of materialistic dialectic, it was able to demonstrate that imperialism
supports national oppression in the reproduction of semi -feudality in the colonial and semicolonial countries and forged
thus the revolution of new democracy as a universal form of the proletarian revolution in the oppressed countries
by imperialism. Maoism will be assumed by these masses insofar as the communists support,
Participate directly and direct these struggles. In this sense the popular wars ongoing, in Peru, Türkiye,
India and Philippines, and those who are beginning, constitute great baluvers for the impulse and correct direction
For these struggles.
Palestinian, Afghan and Ukrainian resistances, despite their national management and national-bourgeois,
spontaneously approaches the postulates of Maoism through the theory of prolonged popular war,
Applying it in your own way, as only then can you give blunt blows to imperialism. At the
However, this is not sufficient, it is necessary that these processes assume Maoism as line and direction
ideological-political, because only in this way will they increase their anti-imperialist resistance to a war
national revolutionary-democratic revolutionary uninterrupted to socialism, the only possible way to defeat and sweep
imperialism of the face of the earth. However, this feat will only be held with the strengthening of MCI, with the
constitution and reconstitution of communist parties in each country due to start and develop the
Popular War. In relation to national resistance, it is urgent that the communists support them, participate
directly from these and thus fight for them proletarian direction.
The founding of LCI is an important step in this regard, as it has advanced largely against the danger of
dispersion, unifying in the same international organization 15 parties and Marxist-Leninist organizations
Maoists from 14 countries. Among which communist party of Peru-PCP and Communist Party of the
Turkey/Marxist-Leninist-TKP/ML, which direct two very important popular wars in the world. To the
At the same time, the foundation of LCI opens a new stage in the fight of two lines in MCI. On the one hand,
important parties such as the Communist Party of the Filipinas-PCF and Communist Party of India (Maoist)-
PCI (m), who drive very important popular wars, but could not participate in CIMU and
their preparatory debates, positioned themselves this year, differently about the founding of LCI and
their political and principles declaration. On the other hand, organizations that were invited to the
Conference, participated in the fight of two public lines last year and deliberately decided not to
Participate in CIMU and defend your positions there. In this last group we highlight two organizations that in the
recent past were very close to Avakianism and Prachandism, respectively UOC (MLM)
Colombia and PCM (Italy), who continued to manifest the same critical positions to CIMU and then
Founded LCI.
The struggle of two lines around the political statement and principles of LCI, which has traveled the year of
2023, is the continuity, in a new level, of the struggle of two lines around the bases of discussion that
they called CIMU. There are several differences and shades in these positions, however between
they there are important differences that outline a demarcation line: those who defend the
of the Revolution of New Democracy and the principle of contradiction between nations and oppressed peoples versus


imperialism; and those who deny the crucial importance of the new democracy revolution and relegate
main contradiction to a secondary condition.
On the one hand, the parties and organizations participating in LCI, plus PCF and PCI (m) position themselves
openly by the proletarian, red line, which fully corresponds to the imperialist stage and the time
gift. On the other hand, UOC (MLM) and PCM (Italy) that argue that imperialism has swept relations
Semi -feudal of semicolonial countries increasingly becoming the revolution of new democracy. You
first represent the defense of Maoism, the universality of the revolution of new democracy for
semicolonial countries. The seconds follow as advocates of the 21st century revisionist modalities,
Notably Avakianism and Prachandism. UOC (MLM) more explicitly, the PCM (Italy) of
more cunning and covered way.
One day after the historical announcement of the founding of the LCI, the Communist Workers Union (MLM), from Colombia,
issued a statement in which he justified to his foundations not to participate in CIMU. Shortly thereafter,
published a long document, in which it criticizes the 15 organizations and founding parties of LCI, and
particularly our party, the Communist Party of Brazil (P.C.B.), for an alleged “sectarianism and
leftism". In this document UOC (MLM) attacks us specifically because they were supposed to have been
treated “grotesque and humiliating” in a visit they made to Brazil in 2016. We will refute,
end, this tail and vile lie, because we consider it more important for MCI to enter the content
ideological, philosophical, political and economic of UOC criticisms (MLM) to CIMU and parties and
Founding organizations of LCI. As President Gonzalo teaches us we must elevate the ideological struggle
at the level of the fight of two lines to eliminate the opportunistic positions of the right and “left” and the
dogmatism, applating revisionism. The UOC (MLM) document of attack on LCI and P.C.B. in
particular, as it defends in detail its position in such a way to understand its
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, which allows us to see its convergence with revisionism and consequent
denial of Maoism. Because, although, it defines itself as a “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” openly denies the law of
contradiction as the only fundamental law of dialectic, denies the validity of the revolution of new democracy
for colonial/semicolonial countries, affirming the existence of a supposed progressive tendency in the
imperialism, denies the decisive importance of the peasant struggle for the revolution in the countries oppressed by the
imperialism. Colombia is the country with the highest land concentration in the world, with one of the largest
traditions of peasant armed struggle in Latin America, and the direction of UOC (MLM) states that in its country
There are virtually no more peasants and the Colombian revolution would be immediately socialist.
After a century of its founding, very tough experiences in the struggle to establish itself as
authentic revolutionary party of the proletariat and especially in the last almost three decades of struggle for
their reconstitution as a militarized communist party, Marxist-leninist-Maoist, mainly
Maoist, President Gonzalo Universal Validity contributions, P.C.B. in the wide learning process of
their own history and international experience, rectifying errors, but always relying on the aspects
positives of all international experience, considers that it is necessary and unavoidable to treat more
complete and strict deviations and tenders on the fundamental issues of Marxism and so crucial
balance of the historical experience of the proletarian revolution and the International Communist Movement-MCI,
particularly of these deviations and their tergiversals in the present time. In this document, in the purpose of
contribute to the struggle of two lines on such issues, we do so in the form of controversy, as
criticism and attacks of the direction of UOC (MLM) to LCI and P.C.B., positions, which we characterize as
Avakianism and trotskism, they present themselves more concentrated and more explicitly. Throughout the text, in
Our analyzes and arguments, we use numerous and long quotes from the classics of Marxism,
many of them already well known by many, however we resort to them repeatedly
We consider extremely important in the present fight of two lines ongoing in MCI, plant with all
scientific rigor its conceptual basis and, at the same time, also pay attention to all possible readers and
interested in this struggle, concerned with attracting to her the growing revolutionary activism of the new
generations, among which many certainly still lack greater mastery of revolutionary theory.
II- The Law of Contradiction: Single Fundamental Law of Materialist Dialectic


Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the scientific ideology of the proletariat, it is the doctrine “Almighty because
Exact ”3, according to Lenin's definition. It is ideology because it is the thought of a certain class
social, it is scientific because it supports and seeks the truth as a weapon to transform the world:
“In a nutshell, all ideology is historically conditional, but all scientific ideology
(differently, for example, of religious ideology) corresponds unconditionally a
objective truth, an absolute nature. ” (Lenin) 4
Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism. The fundamental problem of philosophical materialism constitutes
The relationship between thought and being, in which being is the primacy. Engels establishes this issue in a way
crystal clear in his work Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of German classical philosophy, by defining that materialism
dialectical defends the primary character of being in relation to thought and that thought is capable of
Know, reflecting the objective laws of matter and transforming it. Dialectic deals with the general laws of the
movement, of the connection between processes, things and phenomena. The materialistic dialectic studies the general laws
of the movement of matter in its various manifestations: nature, society and thought.
The most general formulations of dialectical materialism were developing in the course of class struggle and
of the process of application of the ideology of the international proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, in
concrete revolutionary practice. Philosophy as an indispensable part of revolutionary theory was being
more accurately formulated with each step of the development of ideology. As product of this
process, in the third stage, the maoism, works the superior synthesis, the most advanced of the content
Revolutionary of Materialist Dialectic. In his works on practice, on contradiction (1937), on
The correct treatment of contradictions within the people (1957) and where does the right ideas come from? (1963),
as well as in the great philosophical controversy on the CCCH, which occurred between May 1964 and May 1965, around the
philosophical principle that everything in the universe is one that is divided into two, President Mao, amid the acute
Class struggle and two -line struggle, made a big leap in Marxist philosophy, both in its formulation
as in its application, as well as its ability to bring this revolutionary philosophy to the wide
pastas.
The jump in the materialistic dialectic given by Maoism can be summed up: all the processes of matter,
that is, in the universe (nature, society and thought), they occur as the development of a unity
Between two contradictory aspects, the struggle between the opposites runs through all the processes from beginning to end, or
resolution of them. The opposite aspects are interdependent and opposite, at the same time, in the process
development of something or phenomenon, interdependence, or unity between the opposites is
relative and the struggle is absolute. In the development of contradiction, it is advanced from a stage of change
Quantitative for a qualitative stage of change, in which the transformation is apparent and manifest. A
qualitative change corresponds to the quality leap in the phenomenon, when the interdependence between the
contrary aspects break and finally the opposites become their opposite
new unity of opposites and thus develops infinitely. The affirmation of the old unit of
contrary is advanced to the negation of this unit, the transformation of the quality of the phenomenon or to the
emergence of a new process.
As we will see more in detail, this is the highest formulation of the established Marxist philosophy
by Maoism on the eve of the triggering of GRCP. Represents both a leap in the philosophical formulation of the
Marxism as a continuity of it. Because, although, Marx and Lenin had no occasion or
time to establish the law of contradiction as a unique fundamental law of dialectic
Materialist, they applied this same content to their theoretical and practical work. Taking capital, work
Marx Magna, we will find this same fundamental law applied, whose most accurate formulation and
Popular has achieved superior development with Maoism. Likewise, we will find throughout the
Arsenal Leninist numerous examples of the precise application of the unique fundamental law of materialistic dialectic.
Evident, that the establishment of the law of contradiction by President Mao is a leap, as it arms the
proletariat with a sharper and more accurate philosophy. However, philosophy is not a science above
sciences and their development is an inseparable part of the process of advancement of systematized knowledge of the
humanity. Likewise, that the advance of the different branches of science depends on the advance of philosophy,
The advance of this also depends on the advance of social and natural science; and all depend on the advancement of


social practice in its three fundamental types: the struggle for production, class struggle and experimentation
scientific.
Philosophy is an inseparable part of the theory, so that Marx could not truly establish
objective laws of the emergence, development, crisis and replacement of bourgeois society with communism
if they did not start from the most advanced philosophy, the most revolutionary world conception in human history
which is dialectical materialism. President Mao, therefore, formulates and applies the materialistic dialectic in his
superior form not in opposition to Marx and Lenin, but complying with theoretical tasks that could not be
previously resolved. The truth does not arise ready at once, there is no immediate knowledge in
No scientific branch and so is it in the scientific ideology of the proletariat. Lenin points out that:
“If Marx did not leave a 'logic' (with large lyrics), he left the logic of Capital, and that should
use deeply on this issue. In the capital is applied to a science the logic, dialectic and
The theory of knowledge (it is not necessary 3 words: it is one and the same thing) of materialism, which
He took everything valuable in Hegel and made this valuable advance. ” (Lenin) 5
The leap given by President Mao in Marxist philosophy constitutes precisely the elaboration, formulation and
systematization of this “logic of capital”. By making it a jump plasma, as it sets the proletariat of the greatest
theoretical accuracy, key issue for solving new problems that arise in processes
particular revolutionaries and new situations that inevitably appear in the course of history. O
development of philosophy is particularly important for the direction of the struggle of two lines, because
as a conception of the world, mastering and staying firm in dialectical materialism is decisive to persist
In the proletarian revolutionary line, swimming against the current and the tide. President Mao's contributions to
Marxist philosophy handed her into the international proletariat in a deep, simple and combative way. This
Arms the class in a special way against revisionist deviations. Consistently incarnate the principles
Marxist revolutionary philosophical philosophicals are of great importance to successfully face the turmoil of
class struggle, from the process of revolution and counterrevolution in the world, develop the revolutionary struggle to
Higher high, persist in it until the complete victory of the world proletarian revolution.
In the fight against revisionism Marxist philosophy is of particular importance. Revisionism does not arise
of a philosophical “error” itself; Revisionism is an inevitable phenomenon in the class struggle of the proletariat
against bourgeoisie and appears in revolutionary organizations as an inevitable reflection of the class struggle in the
Vanguard consciousness. Revisionism increases its economic and social basis with the advent of
imperialism, and more
persist in Marxism or capitulate by reviewing their truths. The moments of greater intensification, on the eve of
decisive clashes or after important temporary defeats, they are reflected in the consciences of individuals
In two ways: overcoming the difficulties of the Claudicar in front of them. Claudication is the tendency to
revisionism, which initially appears in the form of conduct, after ideas, conceptions and then line
revisionist.
Revisionism, therefore, finds one of its first manifestations in the change of conception of
world, in the abandonment of the proletarian conception (dialectical materialist) and the assuming of others, be bourgeois
or breakfast. To structure a revisionist line, invariably, revisionism will have to
Falsify Marxist philosophy to create a “theoretical base” corresponding to its class betrayal.
After all, it is impossible to support an opportunistic right and “left” line relying on seriously
dialectical materialism. However, as the contingencies of political struggle often require important
tactical modifications, revisionism always seeks to sneak and hide behind what they call
“Particularities of the moment”. Thus, it is often easier to unmask a revisionist position in the
philosophical terrain than in the ground of politics. The importance of the theoretical struggle in the unmasking of
positions or revisionist lines is that it allows the proletarian line to maintain the initiative, anticipate and aplaste
the demonstrations, in their beginnings, of revisionist positions, through the struggle of two lines, preventing that
The revisionist line is structured in the party.
The most recent importance of the philosophical debate in the struggle of two lines in MCI against positions
Revisionists, it became evident in the course of MRI's historical experience. In 1980, PCR-UUSA and
The Chilean PCR called the autumn conference, whose most important result was to resume the fight
President Mao for overcoming the dispersion in MCI caused by the counterrevolutionary coup in China


(1976) and summon the 1984 Conference that gave rise to the MRI. Between 1980 and 1984, Bob Avakian and others
PCR-UUSA leaders published a series of philosophical articles and historical balance of the experience of
First wave of the world proletarian revolution. These documents constitute philosophical falsification
undertaken by Avakian in order to impose an opportunistic right -wing line on MCI. The fundamental of
Their positions is defeated at the 1984 Conference, whose result is the founding of MRI with a statement
Of fundamentally correct principles, although it contains important revisionist smuggling. As
entry into the PCP MRI and the two -line struggle taken by this sustained in the striking progress of
Popular War in Peru, the Avakianist revisionist positions went on to the defensive, waiting for the moment
Opposite to put your head out again. This opportunity occurs after the president's arrest
Gonzalo, in September 1992, and especially after the Patronha of the “Peace Letters”. Avakian, then, jumps to
Lecture by attacking, first in disguise and, therefore, openly the left positions in MRI.
The impact on MCI of the coup of the reaction on the PCP, as well as the recode that the popular war had entered,
negatively reverberated with the opportunistic line of Avakian, which raises the controversy of the need to
Whether or not to investigate whether or not President Gonzalo was the author of the rotten “peace letters”. This position, which
Truth took the patronas of the Peruvian reaction and Ianancal, in 1994, the demobilization of
International Campaign in Defense of the Life of President Gonzalo. With that Avakian intended to open
space to advance in MRI its capitulatory and liquidationist line, and soon, in 1998, with the absurd
Expulsion of MRI's TKP/ml, it works the predominance of its line in the Comri.
In the meantime, February 1996, the Glorious Popular War begins in Nepal, directed by the then PCN (M),
that at first takes a position against Avakianism, but soon converges with its position
capitulating against the general counterrevolutionary offensive that since the late 1980s and the beginning of
1990, it champed the loose reins around the world, but concentrating its attack tells the popular war in
Peru. After five years of significant progress of the Popular War, Prachanda at the II National Conference
of PCN (M), in 2001, launches the document Grande Salto ahead where the first counterfeits appear
Philosophical of dialectical materialism with its rotten “theory of fusion”, in a re -presentation of the old theory
of the “reconciliation of contradictions”, or the revisionist conception of “two conform one”. In November
of 2006, when the Prachandist revisionist direction capitulates the popular war and signs the “Global Agreement of
peace ”, only the process of cabal ideological-political and military capitulation, whose
Philosophical falsifications of 2001 already foreshadowed.
The examples of Avakian and Pachanda illustrate the old and rotten revisionist path: capitulation -
Revisionism - Philosophical falsification to theoretically support line change. Bernstein sought
substantiate your revisionism using neo-kantist philosophy, advocating that there is no essential difference
Between materialism and idealism, between metaphysics and dialectic. Bukharin and Trotsky sought in falsifications
Philosophical of Deerin, who advocated that contradiction only emerged at a certain moment of the process, this
It is, the conciliation of the opposite aspects, the theoretical foundation of its revisionist position that sought
prevent the process of collectivization in agriculture. Kruschov, in turn, has philosophically based his
revisionist position with the “theory of productive forces” in the rehabilitation of the Deberin School in the USSR,
after capitalist restoration. Liu Shao-Chi, in turn, sought to theoretically substantiate his rotten line
of capitalist restoration in the philosophical falsification of Yang Sien-chos, theoretical revisionist, who argued that
The law of contradiction meant the fusion of the opposing aspects, their reconciliation, according to the principle
Revisionist that "two conform one," as opposed to the Maoist principle that "one is divided into two."
Revisionism always seeks to lead the philosophical debate to an academic terrain, where the controversy
appear as a quarrel around terminological or very abstract issues. Different currents
revisionists often opposes mutually around abstract philosophical terms, however, in
essence defend the same bourgeois or small bourgeois philosophical conception. The proletariat
revolutionary should clean the terrain of the philosophical debate of these academic quarrels to arrive
As objective as possible to the essence of the matter and thus reveal the content of the positions in dispute.
However, the importance of the philosophical struggle to the proper and correct development cannot be underestimated
the struggle of two lines, this is very clearly demarcated in the important document of the line of
left of President Mao, published by the CCCH, in 1971, three largest fights in the philosophical front in the
China, where it is stated that:


“The three important struggles in the philosophical front show that the confrontation between the two groups
opposites on this front has always been a reflection of the class struggle and the struggle between the two lines, which
serves these struggles and that we should not consider the struggle in philosophy only ‘controversy
academic ’. Liu Shao-Chi, Yang Sien-chos and his similar to frantically attacked the
dialectical materialism and historical materialism, spread the reactionary idealism and metaphysics and
provoked a fight after another precisely with the vile eagerness to shake the philosophical base of the line
President Mao's proletarian revolutionary and create a 'theoretical base' for the revisionist line
counterrevolutionary that sought to restore capitalism. The three important fights on the front
philosophical teach us that the two -line struggle is, in the end, a struggle between the two
World conceptions, the proletarian and bourgeois. The conception of the world of a decide that line
defends and follows. ” (Copywriter Group for Revolutionary Mass Criticism of the Higher School of
Party, subordinate to the CC of the CCCH) .6
In many terminological and conceptual aspects, the philosophical falsifications of Pachanda and Avakian
They seem to oppose. Avakian, formally, defends the Maoist principle that one is divided into two and criticizes the
Prachanda fusion theory as an expression of the revisionist conception of two conform one.
Prachanda is opposed to Avakian saying that MCI paid close attention to the principle that one is divided into
Two, but very little to the principle of unit unit-transformation. Avakian condemns the use by Marx
denial of denial in the capital as a “expression of almost religious determinism and
metaphysical ”present in the first stage of the ideology of the international proletariat. Prachanda in turn will
defend the denial of denial by stating that this law explains the development of the struggle of two
lines in the history of the Communist Party in Nepal. Avakian will say that the law of contradiction is the law
fundamental dialectic and that the denial of denial should be completely discarded. PRACHANDA
to this and states that it enriched the law of contradiction by adding to it the law of quantity and quality and the
Law of denial of denial.
Taking the terminology and manipulation of concepts, Prachanda and Avakian seem to be in positions
opposite. However, from a practical and ideological point of view, they essentially represent the same
revisionist modality in the 21st century. The proletarian philosophical criticism should clean this terrain of controversy
terminological to demonstrate the common bourgeois essence of these two positions and thus apply them
Kobicly as revisionist, capitulatory and traitors of the revolution.
UOC (MLM) in its attacks on LCI and P.C.B. It starts its philosophical argumentation by rehearsing an apparent
modification in its formulation of the law of contradiction. In his document from January 2023, he says that:
“We do not deny that the law of unity and struggle of contrary is the fundamental law of dialectical”, in addition
They claim to recognize the law “of denial of denial as one of the general laws of dialectic” and even that
This would only be “the third law of dialectic” 7. With this statement, UOC (MLM) appears agreement
with a basic principle of Maoism, namely, the condition of the law of the contradiction of a single fundamental law
of the materialistic dialectic. This would be the least to expect from a political force that claims Maoism,
but enough a look at this same UOC document (MLM) to realize the falseness of
your initial statement. Because, opposing the condition of contradiction as a fundamental law of dialectic, it states
That: “What is this 'role' that plays the denial of denial? Well, it is the general law that indicates the
direction of movement in various areas of social and natural life ”8. So it is not a falsehood of your
initial statement? State that the denial of denial is the law that indicates the direction of the movement is not in
divergence with the statement that the “law of unity and struggle of the opposites is the fundamental law of
dialectic"?
It is not, however, a conceptual or argumentative incongruity by UOC (MLM). Enough
know a little of its history to know the weight they give to the denial of denial as the most law
important dialectic. An illustrative example, in the 1990s, its theoretical organ was called
Contradiction, from the 2000s onwards, is called denial of denial. Already at that time formulates that:
“It is precisely the general law of dialectic that we call denial of denial to which the meaning, the
direction, of the movement: the rise, the progress, advance and replacement of the old with the new ”9. And the
importance that give to this issue, is not restricted to a theoretical or philosophical problem, consider the
management of the denial of denial as a decisive factor in the course of MCI during the experiences of
dictatorship of the proletariat in the twentieth century:


“Everyone knows how Stalin, in his work on dialectical materialism, which appears in history
of the PCU (B), cut out of dialectic the Law of Denial of Denial. And this was not "unpunished". The revolution
proletarian, which can no longer move by dialectical beds, tends to deny the state, to extinguish it
and can no longer deny the denied, affirming the kingdom of freedom, in an apparent return to
society without a state of the primitive community, but on the basis of all development
economic, cultural and political (of democracy), for many centuries of class societies.
Denial of denial! Not accept and take advantage of this trend, this objective social law, as
programmatic postulate and political objective of the working class, led us to two great
Defeats: Russia in 1956 and China in 1976. ” [UOC (MLM)] 10
That is, it states that the fact that Stalin and President Mao did not assume the law of denial of denial resulted
in capitalist restoration in Russia and China. Evident, which contest the importance of the law of contradiction
and the leap represented by Maoism in Marxist philosophy. Conceiving that the denial of denial is the law that
Indicates the direction of movement is a serious error of understanding Marxist dialectic. Say, however, that
only the denial of denial would completely explain the replacement of the old by the new, because “the
movement is not linearly except as apparent cycles, in which each advance is for its
instead a setback, but definitely a ascension ”UOC (mlm) 11, constitutes a forgery
Philosophical of Marxism.
This position reaffirmed by the direction of UOC (MLM) is erroneous for three reasons: 1st) The law of contradiction is the
that governs the process of overcoming the old by the new, and therefore indicates the direction of movement and
transformation of matter; 2) state that the movement in ascending spiral, resulting from the denial of the
denial would correspond to an advance that is at the same time a setback is to apply the revisionist theory of
Conciliation of contradictions, of integrating two into one, is to oppose the Marxist dialectic. And, 3) because the law of
Contradiction is the unique fundamental law of dialectic, which we will underlie below.
President Mao in Contradiction, says that:
“We often talk about the 'replacement of the old with the new'. Such is the general and imprescriptible law of the
Universe. The transformation of one phenomenon into another, by jumps whose forms vary according to the
character of the phenomenon itself and according to the conditions under which it is, this is the process of
Substitution of the old man with the new. Whatever phenomenon is, there is always a contradiction between the old
And the new, which determines a series of winding course struggles. Of these struggles it results that the new grows
And it rises to the dominant position, while the old man, on the contrary, decreases and ends up dying.
As soon as the new gains a dominant position on the old, the old phenomenon becomes
qualitatively in a new phenomenon. ” (President Mao) 12
This is the most objective and developed philosophical formulation about the replacement of the old man, about
from the direction of the movement. It must be seen that this formulation of President Mao corresponds to a great
development of Marxist dialectic. Because it is clarified, as never before, what the process of
Things and phenomena of the transformation of both aspects in their opposites. Every thing and every phenomenon is a
which is divided into two, there is a unit of opposites; in the conformation of this unit the aspect
New always arises fragile and weak, as a dominated aspect, therefore. The old man, initially, is the aspect
dominant and that determines the quality of said phenomenon, through the new struggle against the old man, of fragile
new becomes strong, of dominated aspect becomes dominant aspect and this change corresponds to a
change in the quality of the thing and the phenomenon, a new thing and a new phenomenon arises, but it follows
still the new struggle against the old man, now in new conditions, through this fight the new is still strengthened
more until the old look decreases and die. In this new thing and new phenomenon, as a new unit of
Contrary, the struggle between its two aspects never ceases.
In his argument in favor of denial of denial as the general law of dialectic that would best explain
Movement Directorate, UOC (MLM) contrasts Avakian's attacks on Marx and Engels
denial of denial in capital and anti-dühring. However, it assumes the same interpretation
Avakian counterfeit that for Marx and Engels the denial of denial would be an advance that is at the same
Time a setback. On the other hand, in its defense of denial of denial the direction of the UOC (mlm) mind
blatantly to its bases and the proletariat by presenting that Prachanda would oppose this principle
dialectical, in fact that was just the opposite. In a critique of the shameful capitulation
Prachandist states:


“We start with a small show on the ground of philosophy. The big leap ahead: an inevitable
historical need is a document presented by Prachanda and adopted by the II Conference
NATIONAL OF PCN (M) FEV/2001 (…). In the commitment to silence the qualitative jumps - the law of
revolutions - and in unaware of the denial of denial - the law of development, perspective,
of the future, socialism and communism - Prachanda argues that ‘Lenin raised the philosophy of
dialectical materialism to new heights. He widely explained that the principle of unity and struggle of
contrary is the only fundamental principle of dialectic '(…). ” [UOC (MLM)] 13
Cite a document in which the Prachanda supposedly “would unknown the denial of denial”, and it is
precisely in this document, where the renegade, seeking to clarify the law of contradiction and the principle that a
It is divided into two, presents the history of the communist party of Nepal from the denial of denial:
“The full process of the Nepalese communist movement can also be seen as a denial of
denial. The party's initially correct policy was denied by revisionism and then the
revisionism through the correct revolutionary politics, and finally the great process of the popular war
emerged." (PRACHANDA) 14
Once again it does not seem to be a trivial error of the UOC direction (MLM). It would not be a
Intentional forgery? After all it is repeated on other occasions, as in this passage where apparently
Off PRAY ALSO WITH AVAKIAN PRAY WITH PRACHANDA:
“It happens, therefore, that the founders of dialectical materialism, according to the 'new synthesis', were not, in the
finally, neither materialist nor dialectical, they had 'a somewhat narrow and linear vision',
took the concept of denial of the denial of Hegel's idealistic system, a horrible thing
manifests as 'the tendency for reductionism' and ‘can tend to inevitabilism and a
simplistic formula ’; no less or less like the grotesque refutation than the denial of denial
makes one of the followers of the 'Prachanda Way' at the Red Star, No. 21 (…). ” [UOC (MLM)] 15
The article in question is not a refutation of such a dialectical law, on the contrary it is called denial of denial and
actually makes an open defense of the PCN revisionist positions (M) and, particularly, the rightist
Bhattarai. In this article is interpreted the denial of denial as a “advance that is at the same time a
setback ”and defends himself, to take both the Marxist classics and make a combination with their
revisionist opponents.
This UOC procedure (MLM) is the typical revisionist: a small textual fraud to “support” a
Great conceptual falsification. Textual fraud is the one that matters least, we will only use them to unmask them to
clean the terrain to wage the debate that really matters: the content of these falsifications
philosophical and their political and economic consequences. As seen: Avakian “defends” the law of contradiction
in opposition to the denial of denial and the principle that one is divided into two as opposed to the two
conform one. Prachanda defends the denial of denial, integrated into the law of contradiction, the theory of fusion and
the opposition of unit-unit-transformation to the principle that one is divided into two. UOC (MLM), for its
instead, he defends the denial of denial as the general law of dialectic in “opposition” to Avakian and hides from his
militancy that prachanda is an advocate of this same position. It is necessary to clean the “terminological” land of the
controversy, clarify the development of the unique fundamental law of dialectic, contradiction, in the course of
three stages of the ideology of the international proletariat, and to investigate the real content of the positions of Avakian and
Prachanda, to reveal that behind the “hermeneutic” difference there is, in fact, a convergence of
UOC (MLM) with these variants of revisionism in the 21st century. In essence, all revisionism supports
In one variant or another of bourgeois philosophy, for this is the conception of the world of capitulators.
Therefore, what are these statements of Avakian and Pachanda, but the denial of the law of contradiction,
denial of the principle that one is divided into two and the denial of the Marxist theory of knowledge?
1- The establishment of the contradiction law in the process of development of the
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
The development of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, taken as the forge process of ideology
scientific of the proletariat, like every social and theoretical process is governed by the laws of dialectic and theory
Marxist of knowledge. Applying the law of contradiction to the Marxist theory of knowledge, the president
Mao develops Lenin's reflex theory by establishing that:


“People's social existence determines their thoughts. The correct ideas characteristic of
advanced class, once dominated by the masses, will become a material force to
transform society and the world. (…) In social struggles, the forces representing the class
advanced sometimes suffer from some failure, but not because their ideas are incorrect,
but because in the correlation of the forces in struggle, the advanced forces at the moment are not yet so
powerful as the reactionary, and therefore they fail temporarily, but they reach successful success
or afternoon. (…) In general, one can only achieve correct knowledge after many
reiterations of the process that leads from matter to consciousness and consciousness to matter, that is,
from practice to knowledge and knowledge to practice. This is the Marxist theory of knowledge,
This is the dialectical materialistic theory of knowledge. ” (President Mao) 16
Social practice and knowledge conform the unity of contrary to the knowledge process. The social being
determines the thinking of men, in turn, the right ideas, when embodied by the masses,
convert to the material force capable of transforming the world. In its eternal development process, the
matter, under certain conditions, is reflected in thought, in the same way, in certain
Circumstances, thought becomes a material force. In addition, President Mao points out that the
knowledge process is not immediate, the right ideas do not fall from the sky, they can only be
incessant movement that leads from practice to knowledge and knowledge to practice. Like Lenin already
had established:
“Human representations about space and time are relative, but these representations
relative add up to the absolute truth, go to its development to the absolute truth and if
approach her. ” (Lenin) 17
This successive process of approaching knowledge towards the truth occurs in the sciences
natural as in social science. For this reason, President Mao points out that in social struggles, social forces
Advanced may suffer setbacks, even if their ideas are correct. So that the correct ideas
triumph in the face of reactionary forces, it is necessary to exist certain objective conditions and the
construction of subjective factors for the jump and the new predominates over the old man and thus APLASTE,
which requires a certain time and accumulation of strength. Defeat for the new can only be temporary and, before
Sooner than late, it triumphs over the old man. This is the revolutionary conception of the world of the proletariat, this is
Marxist theory of knowledge formulated by Marx, developed and enhanced by Lenin and President
Hand.
The revisionist and renegade Avakian, has long shifted against such proletarian conception of
world. Assuming the revisionist conception of the Marxist theory of knowledge, Avakian considers
temporary defeats of the proletariat as being caused by "errors" in the ideology of the proletariat
International; and takes any error or insufficiency as a manifestation of philosophical conceptions
idealistic or metaphysical. In his stubborn search for errors, Avakian, the man who never misses anything
do, except to give vent to your “fantastic movement in the head”, identifies metaphysics errors in Marx,
Lenin and Mao. In addition, it presents the development of the stages of the ideology of the international proletariat,
As if each step essentially represented the “correction of errors and insufficiencies” of the preceding step.
Thus, Avakian takes the law of the contradiction of President Mao as a "correction" of use by Marx
of the denial of denial in the final part of Book I, of The Capital. This is another historical falsification woven
by Avakian, aiming to present himself as the general rectifier of errors in his pure, unbeaten and revisionist
“New synthesis of communism”.
The engine of the development of the ideology of the international proletariat is the social practice of class struggle.
It is in this contradiction between consciousness and practice that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has forged itself and will follow
developing. It was in the struggle to transform the world that the titans of the international proletariat established
powerful truths for the class. Marx, Lenin and President Mao made mistakes in his practice? With
sure, but as great communist leaders rectified their errors as readily as possible,
mercilessly with their individual mistakes and inaccuracies. However, what is condemned in the definition of the
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the one that most agreed in the practice of these great leaders and in
revolutionary processes they guided by them. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, therefore, is a set of
Truths as integral and harmonic doctrine and not a combination of two in one, of hits and errors. But
The ideology of the international proletariat, like everything in the universe, is one that is divided into two, is composed of


private truths and universal truths. Particular truths in Marx's thinking, in relation to the
time and the place where it was forged, that is, nineteenth and Europe respectively, from which universal laws,
With the passage of the capital of the internship of free competition to the stage of the monopolistic capital, they had to
be developed and overcome by the universal truths of Leninism, which has been developing Marxism
for the time of imperialism and the proletarian revolution and for regions where the capitalist productive forces or
Little existed or were still very late, the vast majority of nations oppressed by imperialism. From the
The same way, Maoism develops and surpasses the particular truths of Lenin's thinking, referent,
for example, the democratic revolution directed by the proletariat in Russia, where capitalism
developed, but where they still prevailed in vast regions late feudal and semi -feudal relations, but
It was an autocratic empire that opposed dozens of other nations and peoples and, therefore, fighting
Russian bourgeoisie itself. Thus President Mao establishes a more universal truth, the revolution
new democratic-bourgeois, the revolution of new democracy, as an inseparable and necessary part of the
world proletarian revolution, for all colonial and semicolonial countries. The brilliant definition of
Maoism established by President Gonzalo, with the direction of the Popular War in Peru, constituted
precisely the accurate delimitation of the universal truths contained in the thinking of Mao TStung generated from
Integration of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese Revolution.
The process of developing the formulation of the contradiction law, in the course of the three stages of
development of the ideology of the international proletariat, follows the same laws as dialectic and theory
Marxist of knowledge. Of correct initial formulations, they acquire greater accuracy in the extent
that accumulate greater experience in the social transformation process of the struggle for production, the struggle of
classes and scientific experimentation. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the law of contradiction
fully established by President Mao in the contradiction, in 1937, and the dialectic or “the logic
of the capital ”. What happened in Marxist philosophy was the process of closer approximation of the “representations
relative ”towards the absolute truth.
1.1- The development of philosophical formulation in the course of the first stage of the ideology of the proletariat
International
The philosophical richness of Marx and Engels' work is gigantic. There is no doubt that your proletarian conception
of the world, developed philosophically as dialectical materialism, was fully forged between the years of
1845 to 1848. There are works such as the Holy Family and Theses on Feuerbach (1845), ideology
German (1846), misery of philosophy and wage labor and capital (1847) and the party manifesto
Communist (1848). In this spectacular set of works, in which the scientific ideology of the
international proletariat against bourgeois and reactionary ideology, the foundations of the
Marx's thought, that is, of the nascent communism. It is contained in the rupture and reckoning with the
Hegelians, the critique of the absolute system of Hegel's philosophy and the a-historical limits of the
Materialism of Feuerbach; The first elaboration of dialectical historical materialism; the beginning of
economic investigations; Criticism against Proudhon's Small Burge Socialism; and the theory of
proletarian revolution presented to the European working class on the eve of the great wave of revolutions
democratic that swept the European continent in 1848.
The theoretical and philosophical development of Marxism, however, did not end there. After years of
arduous undeliable theoretical work of revolutionary practice, Marx would publish another spectacular sequence of
Works: Book I of The Capital (1867), the Civil War in France (1871), the criticism of Gotha's program
(1875) and, together with Engels, a last preface to the Communist Party Manifesto (1882), in which they address
The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, hitherto absent in the manifesto. While Engels, secondary Marx,
Publish anti-dühring (1877-78), Book II and III of The Capital (1885 and 1894, respectively), the origin
Family, private property and state (1884), as well as Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of philosophy
German classic (1886) and would leave without publishing the important work the dialectic of nature (written between 1878-
88). This set of works, in addition to its correspondences and various notes, completely complete
splendid the theoretical formulation of the first stage of the ideology of the international proletariat in its three
constitutive parts as unity: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy and socialism
scientific. The most important scientific work is undoubtedly capital, in its four books. However,
after the publication of Book I is greatly advanced in the Marxist theory about the state, in the matter of the dictatorship of
proletariat, of the condition of socialism as the lower stage of communism. Advances against the source


Revisionism expressed in the influences of Lassalle and Dühring on German social democracy. And also, with
Engels, the philosophical question, which establishes the central issues that would be necessary to be
Developed in Marxist philosophy: the theory of knowledge and dialectic. Tasks are assumed and
fulfilled by Lenin and President Mao.
In the present philosophical controversy and the eclectic management that UOC (MLM) makes the denial of denial, well
as in the unmasking of the philosophical falsifications of Avakian and Pachanda, the most important
Analysis of the development of Marxist philosophy, particularly in the works Capital and Anti-Dühring.
As part of the work of cleaning the land to reach the essence of revisionist conceptions and so
after the root, it is decisive to clarify the content that Marx employs the denial of denial in the
Capital and what is the real weight of this employment in the whole work. To clarify this content, the work
of Engels is fundamental, because one of the attacks from Dühring to Marx is precisely around the use of
denial of denial to explain the “expropriation of the expropriates”. The philosophical part of the controversy of
Marx against Proudhon is also very important for understanding the revisionist content of the use of
denial of denial, as well as about Marx's conception about this.
Let's look at Marx's use of denial of denial in the final part of The Capital. He starts
presenting the question as follows:
“Private property, antithesis of collective, social property, exists only when the instrumental and the
Other external conditions of the work belong to individuals. Assumes different character as
These individuals are workers or not. The innumerable shades that private property
offers at first glance only the intermediate states that exist between these two
extremes, the private property of workers and non-workers. ”(Marx) 18
Marx initially starts from the opposition between collective property and private property, and soon
in the analysis of private property on production instruments and other external conditions of the
work. Then divides the process of development of private property into two aspects
Contradictory: the private property of workers versus private property of non-workers.
Then Marx analyzes what were the historical conditions in which the private property of workers
on the very means of production existed as a dominant aspect in society in relation to
private property of non-workers:
“Worker ownership on the means of production serves as a basis for small industry (…)
But it only flourishes, only develops all its energies, only conquers the proper classic form
when the worker is a free owner of working conditions (means and object of work)
with which it operates, namely, the peasant owns the land that cultivates, the artisan, of the instruments that
manage with expertise. ” (Marx) 19
Historically, Marx is referring to the process of decomposition of feudalism, of loosening
bonds of servitude, in which peasants and artisans become free owners; Specifically, it is
referring to the late fifteenth century in England. However, the development of this mode of production
based on the private property of workers from their own individual labor instruments
due to their own particular characteristics engenders the contradiction that leads to its dissolution:
“This mode of production presupposes land parceling and dispersion of other means of production. (…)
Has come to a degree of development, this mode of production generates the material means of its
own annihilation. (…) Its destruction, the transformation of the means of production individually
scattered in socially concentrated, the tiny property of many on the property
gigantic of few, the expropriation of the large mass of the population, stripped of their lands, their
means of subsistence and their work instruments, this terrible and difficult expropriation, constitutes
the prehistory of capital. (…) Private property, obtained with personal effort, based on
thus to the identification of the isolated and independent individual worker with his
working conditions, is supplanted by the capitalist private property, based on the
exploitation of the work of others ”. (Marx) 20
The contrary unit between the two extremes of private property, identified by Marx, means of
production belonging to workers versus private ownership of non-workers is denied
by its own development. Workers are expropriated from their means of production and the


private property dominant becomes the property of non-workers, which takes the form of
capitalist property. This first denial gives rise to a new process, in which the aspects
contradictory are: capitalist private property (as dominant) and an increasingly social production
(as a dominated aspect). The development of this new unit of opposing contrary will engender the second
denial that will inaugurate a third process.
As indicated in the quotation above, for Marx, the expropriation of free workers
of production is the prehistory of capital. This expropriation corresponds to the transformation of
workers in proletarians and their working conditions in capital, aspects that configure the mode of
capitalist production. In this new process, another expropriation process develops, which is the
expropriation between the capitalists themselves, called by Marx of centralization of capital. At the
development of capitalism, owners of the best production conditions tend to bring
capitalists competing for bankruptcy and then expropriated them centralize the means of production in
increasingly restricted number of bourgeois. The centralization of capital in turn drives the aspect
Opposite of contradiction, that is, the socialization of production, which becomes increasing, develops like this:
“(…) The cooperative form of the work process, the conscious application of science to progress
technological, the planned exploitation of the soil, the transformation of the means of work that can only be
used in common ”21. Thus social means of work increasingly monopolized by
a small class of capitalists, this way:
“The monopoly of capital starts to burg the mode of production that flourished with him and under him. A
centralization of the means of production and the socialization of work achieve a point where
make it incompatible with the capitalist wrap. The enclosure breaks. Sounds the final time of
Capitalist private property. The expropriates are expropriated. ” (Marx) 22
The contradiction between capitalist property and the social character of production reaches a level of
development, which is sharpened the struggle for its resolution, the expropriation of the expropriates is the denial
From this unit of opposites, it is a second denial, therefore, a denial of denial. Marx summarizes
first and second denial in the following terms:
“The capitalist mode of appropriateness of the goods, resulting from the capitalist mode of production, that is, the
capitalist private property, is the first denial of individual private property based on the
own work. But capitalist production generates its own denial, with the fatality of a
natural process. It is the denial of denial. This second denial does not restore property
private, but individual property based on the conquest of the capitalist era: the
cooperation and common possession of soil and means of production generated by their own work.
The transformation of sparse private property, based on the work proper to individuals, into
capitalist private property, naturally constitutes a much longer, harder and more
more difficult than the transformation into social property of capitalist property than
effectively is already based on a collective mode of production. ” (Marx) 23
The first denial (expropriation of workers from their own means of production) constitutes the
History of Capital; The second negation (expropriation of the expropriates) is the end of capital. A
capitalist property dominates social production, puts social productive forces (workers and means
production) under your control; the social character of production denies this unity of opposites and inaugurates a
new process, the communist society that does not reestablish private property under the means of production,
but institutes social property over them. The denial of denial does not governs development
contradiction, it explains the development and solution of two or more contradictions in a process
sequential contrary units. This is the denial of the denial used by Marx, in The Capital.
Defenestrated, on the one hand, by the renegade Avakian, for considering it “determinism” and “expression of
religious metaphysics in Marxism ”, and, on the other hand, chosen by UOC (MLM) as the“ General Law of
dialectic that best explains the direction of the movement ”, as it would demonstrate that“ each advance is in turn
a setback ”24. Both positions are fakes of Marxism. Let's see.
Marx analyzes here the historical movement taken in its large course, has five centuries of
humanity development, three great interconnected social processes, past, present and future:
owners of individual production means, capitalists owners of social media of


Production, owner workers (social property) of social means of production. Marx analyzes three
forms of ownership of these means of production: individual property, capitalist property and
social property. Describes as denial of denial three distinct historical processes. Would be the great
Marx in divergence with the law of contradiction in presenting the course of history? No.
President Mao shows that the processes are placed on each other, also, according to the Law of
contradiction:
“All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes become their
contrary. The permanence of all processes is relative, while their variability,
expressed in the transformation of one process into another, it is absolute. ” (President Mao) 25
In turn, describing the suppression of capitalist private property, in the form of denial of denial, is
The most developed and complete way to describe this movement and its direction? No, because in this way
analyzes different historical processes in a succession of contrary units, such as historical sequence
broader, without analyzing in detail the fundamental contradiction of the present process to be transformed, this
Yeah, the capitalist society. That is, the denial of denial corresponds to the successive resolution of two
contradictory units, each corresponding to a distinct historical process and the emergence of a
third process, in this case the Communist Society. The table below illustrates this sequence:
Decomposition of
feudalismalisocapitalism communism
Private propriety
of workers on
the means of production 1st Denterers with proprietors and capitalist propriety (form
developed property
private non-workers) 2nd denial and expropriation of the social propriares of the means of production
(Proper form of property
to the social character of production)
versus versus versus
Private propriety
non-work social production individual from workers
on consumer goods
The denial of denial, therefore, is nothing more than the sequential resolution of two contrary units,
of two distinct and chained social processes, which in turn relate to contradictory unit
among themselves (process of decomposition of feudalism versus process of emergence and development of
capitalism). Denial of denial, therefore, is a particular case or a form of manifestation of the law of
contradiction. As a particular case it cannot be the best way to explain the direction of the movement. This
is evident in the very development of the ideology of the international proletariat in its first stage, in the
Engels' struggle against Dühring's falsifications in his attack on Marxism, especially against the
Capital.
Another important aspect to understand is the content of denial in Marx, because it is the same
by President Mao on the contradiction. That is, for Marx, the denial of a unit of contrary
by another unit of contrary, corresponds to the suppression of the old aspect by the new and not to a
combination or reconciliation of the struggle aspects, much less a breakthrough that is at the same time
setback, as advocated to UOC (MLM). To assimilate the revolutionary and non -conservative content of the
Denial on Marx, it is quite useful to resume the brilliant refutation of Engels to Dühring. This socialist of
Chair, criticizing this same passage from the capital, says slanderously that:
“(…) The denial of Hegelian denial had to provide here the midwife services, for which the
Future is gone through the belly of the past. The suppression of individual property, which in the way
Indicated has occurred since the sixteenth century, it is the first denial. It will be followed by a second,
which is characterized as denial of denial and, consequently, as a restoration of the
'Individual property', only in a higher form, founded on the common possession of the land and
of the means of work. The fact that this new 'individual property' is called too,
simultaneously, by mr. Marx of 'social property' highlights the highest unity of Hegel, in the
what contradiction is overcome, namely, according to a joke with the words, it would be so much
surpassed as preserved. (…) Mr. Marx remains confident in the hazy world of his
ownership both individual and social and lets its adherents solve, they
themselves, the deep dialectical puzzle. ” (Dühring apud Engels) 26


Dühring's falsification lies in presenting the denial of denial in Marx, as identical to the system
Hegelian conservative. So, according to Dühring, the denial of Marxist denial would consist of
simultaneous overcoming and conservation of private property, or in a synthesis between individual property and
social property. Engels rejects this falsifying interpretation of Marx's dialectic as if it were equal to
Denial of Hegelian denial; referring to a previous text by Dühring, Engels says he had
“(…) Committed the gaffe of identifying the Marxist dialectic with the Hegelian dialectic” 27. About
Dürhinguiana falsification presented above, Engels refutes it specifically as follows:
“(…) Here he can, without working hard, correct Marx according to Hegel, imputing him
higher unit of a property on which Marx did not say a word. (…) The state
instituted by the expropriation of the expropriates (…) means that social property covers
land and other means of production and individual property covers other products, or
that is, the consumer objects. ” (Engels) 28
Engels irrefutably clarifies the revolutionary meaning of Marx's use of denial of denial.
This is not a conciliation of contradictions, much less a synthesis (taken in the sense of a
combination between opposites) between social property and individual property. The expropriation of
Exproprianers to Marx is the full suppression of capitalist private property, and with this one throws in the trash
of history all private property of the means of production, either its capitalist form is its form of
small owners. What continues to exist in communism is the social production that finds in the
Social property the only appropriate form of property. However, by abolishing the private property of
means of production, social production becomes another historical process, thus modifying its
essence. With the end of the social classes, the social division of labor is also ended, the difference between
workers and peasants, between field and city, between intellectual work and manual work, process that
will charge a long transition course from capitalism to communism, from proletariat dictatorship, period of
Permanent Revolution, as Marx defined. Communist production, based on the socialization of production
previous, will reach an unprecedented degree of development in history will culminate the departure of humanity
from the kingdom of necessity and entry into the kingdom of freedom: human emancipation. But there will be contradictions
In communism? Obviously, social antagonism has ended, the struggle between the new and the old man is incessant and
infinite, as well as between the right and the wrong, as well as the struggle in a multitude of things and phenomena, such
as Marx states that there will continue to be contradiction between social production and the need
individual consumer, the permanent struggle for production overcoming consumption is a condition for
Fulfill the communist motto of each according to their ability and each according to their need. This one
motto will not be reached by the reconciliation of the contradiction, because only the fight can solve any
contradiction, whether antagonistic or non-antagonistic.
Both Avakian and Pachanda and also UOC (MLM) conclude that the content of denial of denial
In Marx is the same described slanderously by Dühring, that is, as if it were a thesis
Antithesis-synthesis, in which synthesis is a combination or conciliation of the opposite aspects. In publication
relatively recent the PCR-UUSA states that:
“In the original conception of the historical development of society until communism, including the
Marx's formulations, there was a tendency (…) to have a somewhat narrow and linear view. Per
example, manifests itself in the concept of 'denial of denial' (the idea that things develop from
way that a particular thing is denied by something else, which in turn leads to another denial and
A synthesis that end elements of previous things, but at a higher level). (…) As
has sustained Bob Avakian, the 'denial of denial' can tend to 'inevitabilism' - as if
one thing had to deny other things in a specific way, leading to what is almost a
predetermined synthesis. ” (PCR-UUS) 29
Renegade and falsifiers, repeat the same argument as Dühring against Marx, as if the denial of
denial in capital indicated a synthesis at a higher level, where elements of
previous things. Avakian turns against an alleged “inevitabilism” of denial of denial, only to
hide that it rises against “inevitabilism” of the law of contradiction fully established by the President
Hand. After all, it is defined in the law of contradiction by President Mao, and not in the denial of denial, that: the
Substitution of the old with the new is the “general and imprescriptible law of the universe”. The anti -this Avakian aims at
Marx, but also seeks to hit President Mao.


Prachanda and the direction of UOC (MLM), in turn, defend the denial of denial in the slanderous sense of
Dühring as if this were the true and used by Marx and Engels. These say that: “The movement does not
It is a linear way but as apparent cycles, in which each advance is in turn
setback ”. Already the renegade pachanda, falsifies that:
“Finally, by synthesizing the Nepalese communist movement, it can be said that this march below
forging a new unit on a new base, according to the dialectical principle of the unit
transformation, or thesis-antithesis-synthesis. (…) The full process of the Nepalese communist movement
It can also be seen as a denial of denial. ” (PRACHANDA) 30
Prachanda clearly takes this slanderous interpretation of Dühring about the denial of denial in Marx
to substantiate their rotten merger theory, updated version of the old theory of reconciliation of
contradictions. Lenin, like Engels, also makes clear the revolutionary and non -conciliatory meaning of
denial of denial in Marx:
“However, this idea, as they formulated Marx and Engels, supporting themselves in Hegel, is very vast and
rich of content than the current idea of evolution. It is a development that seems to repeat
Steps already traveled, but on another base, on a higher base ('denial of denial'); one
Development so to speak in spiral, not in a straight line; a leap development, by
catastrophes, by revolutions; ‘Continuity Solutions’; quantity transformations in quality;
internal impulses of development, caused by contradiction, the shock of forces and
distinct trends acting on a particular body, in the framework of a particular phenomenon or in the
of a particular society (…). ” (Lenin) 31
Only one counterfeit like Avakian can say that the denial of denial in Marx is a combination
among the opposite aspects of a contradiction. As makes clear Lenin, the dialectical movement in spiral
Ascending only in appearance repeats steps already traveled, there is therefore not in the denial of denial in
Marx nothing that represents a resurrection of the past, or a conciliation between past and present in the
future for which we fight.
Marx himself, in the misery of philosophy (1847) already criticized the conciliatory use of Proudhon of the denial of
Denial as a way of merging opposite aspects in a contradiction. In this work, Marx rocks the positions
Breakfasts of Proudhon, who in two previous books had sought to apply a dialectic
conciliatory to criticism of political economy and utopian socialism. In your work what is the property? , in
1840, Proudhon in an idealist manner begins by criticizing the legal concept of ownership and not its
Material existence. The foundation of its anarchist society is: “It suppresses property conserving the
possession, and with only this modification there will be completely changed the laws, the government, the institutions,
You shall have eliminated the evil of the earth ”32. Suppress ownership and maintain private possession of the means of
Production, here is the Proudhonian application of the denial of conservative denial to criticism of political economy.
In the book System of Economic Contradictions, 1846, Proudhon expands his attempt to apply the dialectic
idealistic to political economy, seeking to deduce all economic categories through what he
considered a dialectical method.
In his answer, Marx briefly presents Proudhon's miserable attempt to apply the denial of
denial as conciliation of contradictions:
“The material of economists is the active and active life of men; The material of mr. Proudhon are the
dogmas of economists. But from the moment the historical movement is not pursued
production relations, of which the categories are only the theoretical expression, from the moment
where one wants to see in these categories only ideas, spontaneous thoughts, independent of
real relations, from then on if it is forced to consider the movement of reason pure the origin
of these thoughts.
(…)
Impersonal reason, having neither outside nor land in which it can be placed nor object to which
Opposition, you can be forced to a somersault, putting yourself, opposing and composing-position, opposition,
composition. To speak Greek, we have thesis, antithesis and synthesis. As for those who are unaware of
Hegelian language, we will tell them the sacramental formula: affirmation, negation and denial of
denial." (Marx) 33


Marx clearly unravels with Proudhon's Small Burguean dialectic, which takes denial of denial,
by the thesis-antithesis-synthesis and synthesis form as the composition between the opposite aspects of a
contradiction. The denial of the proudhonian denial has the result of anarchy, a composition between the
suppression of private property and the conservation of private possession of the means of production. This formula
idealistic and conservative criticized by Marx, it was precisely what Dühring slanderously attributes
to him; And it is precisely the way Avakian and Pachanda falsify as if it correspond to the use of Marx
in The Capital.
Prachanda falsifies the content of denial of denial in Marx, as if it were identical to the “dialectic”
Small Burgue, because what he assumes in essence is the denial of Proudhon's denial. As follows
Marx's criticism, made in 1847, the Proudhonian dialectic, fully serves as a full critique of the theory of
fusion of renegade pachanda:
“(…) Since reason has been able to put itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposite to
Even, it unfolds in two contradictory, positive and negative thoughts, yes and no. A
Fight of these two antagonistic elements, understood in the antithesis, constitutes the dialectical movement.
Yes becoming no, not becoming, yes, becoming simultaneously yes and no, no
Becoming simultaneously not, but the opposites balance, neutralize, paralyze. A
fusion of these two contradictory elements is a new thinking, which is their synthesis. That
new thinking unfolds still in two contradictory thoughts that, in turn,
merge into a new synthesis. (…) Mr. Proudhon, despite all his great effort to climb the
contradiction system, never managed to move from the first two steps of the thesis and the
Simple antithesis and, moreover, it only reached them twice - in one of them, it fell on its back. ” (Marx) 34
The “fusion of these two contradictory elements” as a superior synthesis that appears in the Marxist work of
Criticism of Proudhon's Small Burger Socialism represents the precise description of philosophical forgery
of Prachanda, which first implies philosophy, in the so -called fusion theory and then culminating
explicitly and shamefully in the political sphere, in the capitulation of the popular war, in the proposition of
a “joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” 35. In his overwhelming critique of Proudhon, Marx
refutes the entire attempt to conciliate and merge the contradictions, shows that society to the present moved
if through the struggle of opposites, through the antagonistic struggle of opposites, and only through this struggle
can solve your contradictions:
“In the course of its development, the laborious class will replace the old civil society with a
association that will exclude the classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power
Said, since political power is precisely the official summary of the antagonism of civil society.
However, the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a class struggle against
Another, one struggle that led to its highest expression is a total revolution. In addition, it is
provoke astonishment that a society based on the opposition of classes leads to brutal contradiction,
a melee shock as a final solution? Do not say that the social movement excludes the
political movement. There is never a political movement other than socially.
Only an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms
Social evolutions will no longer be political revolutions. Until then, on the eve of each general reorganization
of society, the last word of social science will always be: ‘Combat or death, the struggle
bloody or nothingness. This is how the issue is irresistibly posed '(George Sand). ” (Marx) 36
Marxist dialectic is explicit: only the struggle of contrary and not its reconciliation can solve the
contradictions inherent to bourgeois society. This is the same conception of the world, the same philosophy,
Present in The Capital, the expropriation of the expropriates is the final time of capitalist property; The
denial of denial is therefore not for Marx the conciliation of contradictions, but its resolution
revolutionary through the irreconcilable struggle.
Clarified the content of the denial of the denial used by Marx, it remains only to evaluate the weight of its
use in the whole work. In Book I, of The Capital, Marx only uses the denial of
denial. Therefore, the philosophical core of the capital cannot be summarized to the denial of denial. All the
Capital is based on the dialectical law of unity and struggle of the opposites and its content can be more
easily seized and popularized from the Maoist principle that one is divided into two.


Marx, in studying the concrete phenomenon of capitalism, had to analyze him in his two aspects
contradictory, the process of capitalist production (presented in the book I) and the process of circulation
capitalist (presented in book II), being the production process the dominant aspect that determines in
Last instance the mode of circulation of capital. In Book I, therefore, Marx Abstrai, insofar as this is
Possible, the influence of circulation phenomena on production. This abstraction cannot be absolute,
because the law of value itself, which precedes the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, results from the interaction
Between the two contradictory aspects: production and circulation. In Book II, Marx abstracts, in the same way, the
effects of the production process in the sphere of circulation, in order to understand the circulation of the
Capital, which is the value endowed with added value. Finally, Marx analyzes the relationship between these two aspects in the
Book III: the global process of capitalist production, where the result of the unity and the struggle between
mode of production and the circulation mode, becoming possible for Marx to study the operation
Concrete of the profit rate, the Mais-Valia Distribution Law in the capitalist mode of production.
In analyzing the process of capitalist production, Marx starts from the most concrete element, the unit more
primary and historically preceded capital, the commodity. Demonstrates how goods is a
Unit of two contradictory aspects: the use value and the value of exchange or value, that is, one that is divided
in two, and demonstrates how the development of the division of labor and increasing exchanges, make the value
of exchange or value the dominant aspect in this contradiction. It also demonstrates the double character of work
materialized in the goods: the concrete work that produces use value, and the abstract work that
constitutes the substance of the value of the goods. Concludes, in turn, that the exchange value is the form of the value
and by analyzing the contradictory development of value in its form reaches the money form, in which, more
Once one is divided into two. In the money form of the value, the unit between use value and value of
exchange in the goods; money, in its most developed form, consists of a merchandise whose only
Utility is to serve as a general equivalent or measure of value among other goods. Show how the
money drives exchanges and how this growth raises the social division of labor, then as the
quantitative accumulation of values in the Dinean form, within a set of other social relations,
determines the transformation of money into capital.
Marx then analyzes how capital is a value that is divided into two opposite aspects: constant and variable.
And as in the production process, the constant capital reproduces its own value, while capital
Variable, when buying workforce, through this produces a new value. This new value, in turn,
It is also one that is divided into two: one aspect is the reproduction of the salary, the other is the production of the most
It was worth, that is, the part of the new value created that is appropriate by the capitalist without costing anything to him. More-
It is also worth it into two contradictory aspects: additional capital and consumer fund
of the capitalist, which are the individual expenses of the bourgeois, luxury and for its maintenance. The additional capital
It corresponds to the phenomenon of expanded reproduction which is the transformation of capital value into capital. More-
Valia constitutes the particular, specific product of the capitalist mode of production; Its production conditions and is
conditioned by free competition. The production of surplus value, on the one hand, and free competition for
another, they determine that capitalist production needs to always reproduce itself in a broad manner in order to
Maintain the production of added value, that is, the capitalist's profit. The necessary result of the production of
value under the free competition is a growing capitalist accumulation and, consequently, a high
Centralization of capital. Capitalist accumulation and centralization of capital, by raising its composition
Organic, result in the final product of the capitalist mode of production: surplus overpopulation. Like this,
thus the expanded reproduction of capital inevitably leads, on the one hand, to the expropriation of the capitalists
by the capitalists themselves, and, on the other, the production of the colossal mass of miserables that will, in their time,
necessarily expropriate the capitalists and throw private property of the means of production in the
history.
This development of the contradiction and the process of which one is divided into two, in the capital, can be
Thus represented:


constant capital (c) → means of production → transfers value (c)
Reproduction Employee Capitarallevation of Organic Composition and Centralization of CapitalCapital (K)
Variable Capital (V) → Force of → WorkNOVALOVALEProduct (V)
Producemais-value (m) Additional Capital Production Desuperpopulation.
Marx's great work, capital, therefore, is not based on the denial of denial, but in the law
of contradiction. For this reason, President Mao points out:
“As Lenin pointed out, Marx gave the capital a model of analysis of the movement of
contrary, which runs through the whole process of developing one thing from the beginning to the
end." (President Mao) 37
AND:
“By applying the law of contradiction to things to the study of the socio-historical process, Marx and Engels
discovered the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, the contradiction between the
exploiting and exploited classes (…).
In applying this law to the study of the economic structure of capitalist society, Marx found that the
fundamental contradiction of this society is the contradiction between the social character of production and the character
private property. ” (President Mao) 38
That is, Marx brilliantly applied the law of contradiction to the study of capitalist society. Just no
He had time to form it in a separate philosophical work.
As seen, the use of the denial of denial by Marx in the capital is only a form
Private contradiction law in the analysis of the suppression of capitalist private property. Is important
note how Marxist philosophical formulation develops in anti-dühring, as part of the two
lines against metaphysical conceptions within German social democracy. The work anti-dühring is
Divided into three great sections: philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism; Engels presents,
Thus, for the first time, the doctrine of the proletariat in full, in its three constitutive parts. O
book as a whole from the point of view of the development of Marxist philosophy advances the denial of
Revolutionary denial for the law of contradiction.
In the first section, when refuting the falsification of Dühring, Engels, as already seen, still has the suppression
private property in the form of the denial of revolutionary denial. However, when returning to the same
theme, in the last section of the work, scientific socialism, Engels no longer deals with the suppression of property
capitalist taking the wide course of history, but in detail the contradiction
fundamental of capitalist society. Expressing this development of Marxist philosophy, Engels
presents the same phenomenon, described in The Capital, now, from the unit of contrary to the process
capitalist, of its resolution, or revolutionary denial:
“The bourgeoisie (...) would not be able to transform the limited means of production into
powerful productive without tearing them from their fragmentation and dispersion, without concentrating them,
without converting them from the means of production of the individual to social production, which
can only be applied by a set of people.
(...)
Means of production and production become essentially social. But they are subjected
to a mode of appropriation that presupposes the private production of individuals,
where each has the product and takes it to the market. The mode of production is
submitted to this mode of appropriation (...). In this contradiction, which lends to the new
mode of production its capitalist character, resides embryoly the entire clash of the
present." (Engels) 39
That is, means of production only socially operated and a “essentially collective” mode of production
in contradiction with the mode of appropriation, that is, with the regime of private property, with the property
capitalist. And Engels points out that “in this contradiction” embryoly resides the entire clash today.
And so, this great Titan of the proletariat goes on:
“The division between the means of production concentrated in the hands of the capitalists,
on the one hand, and the producer reduced to possession of nothing but his own workforce,
other. The contradiction between social production and capitalist appropriation has emerged as
antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie. ” (Engels) 40
Engels clearly presents the fundamental contradiction of the process, its economic base: production
Social versus private appropriation and its social expression: proletariat versus bourgeoisie. Departing
centrally of the contradiction of the process of capitalist society, and no longer the denial of denial in
succession chained from two units of contrary from different historical processes, Engels explains the
overproduction crises, from the development of the same fundamental contradiction:
“In crises, the contradiction between social production and capitalist appropriation
Violent rash. The circulation of goods is momentarily annihilated; the middle
circulation, money becomes impediment of circulation; all laws of production of
Goods and the circulation of goods are turned upside down. The shock
economic reaches its highlight: the mode of production rebels against the mode of exchange,
the productive forces rebel against the mode of production in which they originated. ”
(Engels) 41
And the resolution of this contradiction, between social productive forces and private property, between the mode of
Production and circulation mode, it is presented by Marx and Engels in this way in anti-dühring:
“[Social productive forces] once understood in their nature, they can, in the hands
of associated producers, being transformed from demonic dominators into servants
obedient (...). Treat the current productive forces according to their nature finally identified
means replacing social anarchy of production with socially regulation
planned production according to the needs of both the whole and each
individual; Thus, the mode of capitalist appropriation, in which the product enslaves
first the producer and then also who appropriates him, is replaced by the mode of
appropriation of products founded on the nature of the means of production:
one side, directly social appropriation as means of support and expansion of the
production and, on the other, directly individual appropriation as life and
fruition." (Engels) 42
Engels presents in detail the form of resolution of the fundamental contradiction, in its economic aspect,
social property of the means of production and planning. And from the political point of view: “The proletariat
assumes the power of the state and transforms the means of production primarily into state ownership ”43.
The presentation of the suppression of private property, assumes its classic formula for the proletariat
International in this presentation of Engels, later popularized in the work of utopian socialism to the
Scientific Socialism (1880). In the capital the suppression of private property had to be presented to
from the sequential and chained resolution of two contrary units; DENATION OF THE FIRST UNIT
Capitalism arises, from the denial of the second unity, capitalism is destroyed. This initial explanation was
accurate from the scientific point of view, correct from the philosophical point of view, but needed to be deepened and is
This that occurs through the struggle of two lines against Dühring's position. Presenting, the suppression of
capitalist property focusing on the analysis of the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society, allowed
present in greater detail the content and shape of the proletarian revolution. Present the historical movement
Ascending from the law of contradiction, it was at the same time more concrete and more universal. This
constituted an important development of Marxist philosophy in the course of the first stage of
Development of the ideology of the international proletariat.
This development, however, was not only the product of the ideological struggle against chair socialism, but
also from the progress of the class struggle, after all, revolutionary philosophy advances and will always advance in
seeks to transform reality. Capital was published in 1867, the anti-dühring, is published


fully, only in 1878. In this small historical interval, there were great episodes
for the world proletarian revolution and fights of two very important lines in the nascent MCI. In 1871,
the immortal commune of Paris occurs, with the direct intervention of I International, under the personal direction of
Marx, even though it is the minority Marxists in the direction of the commune; and in 1875, it emerges the very important struggle of
Two lines against Lassalismo in Germany. Of the first, Marx formulates the powerful war document
civil in France, in which it highlights, that the Paris Commune had solved the historical problem of
state of the dictatorship of the proletariat; of the second, Marx establishes in criticism of the Gotha program that the
Construction of communism would go through a first stage, that of socialist society; in which after
socialization of the means of production, invariably, it would be necessary to fight the still current right
bourgeois and the social division of labor, particularly against the differences between field and city, between
workers and peasants and between manual and intellectual labor, differences that are expression of
existence of antagonistic classes in socialism.
In The Capital, as Marx's goal was to demonstrate the historical need for the expropriation of
Expropriating, he takes it, related to three qualitatively distinct social processes. So, under
form of denial of denial between these processes, the expropriation of the expropriates appears as a
act. After the commune of Paris and its correct balance in civil war in France, after criticism of the program
of Gotha, to the theoretical and practical development of ideology, in the struggle against Dühring, it was evident that the
question could not be replaced on the same terms. For this reason, the expropriation of the expropriates is
now presented as a process, in which it is necessary to comply with certain steps. A
expropriation of expropriates as a process can only be presented philosophically through the law
of contradiction.
In anti-dühring, Engels presents a series of examples of denial of denial in different processes
development of nature, society and thought. These demonstrations were of great
philosophical importance, because by highlighting the universality of denial of denial in the different forms of
Movement of matter, Engels was unfurling the universality of dialectic. The formulation of
universality of dialectic was a necessary step towards the establishment of universality and
Absolute of the law of contradiction. And, therefore, the work of Engels in every way is an important
Progress for the development of Marxist philosophy.
However, although the denial of denial is present in all forms of movement of matter, it
It is not present in all phenomena as is the absolute term of the law of contradiction. Engels, after
present the universal aspect of denial of denial in the process of development of barley grain,
It also presents its particular aspect. Let us first see how Engels analyzes his validity
universal:
“Take a grain of barley. Billions of barley grains are ground, boiled, fermented and,
Then consumed. But if one of these grains of barley finds the conditions that are normal to it,
when falling into propitious soil, it occurs with it, under the influence of heat and humidity, a change well
Himself: He germinates; the grain disappears as such, is denied, and its place is taken by the plant that
It arose from it, which is the denial of the grain. But what is the normal course of life of this plant? It grows,
It flourish, is fertilized and finally produces other grains of barley; And so that these are
matured, his stalk will be and, in turn, is denied. As a result of this denial of
negation, we have again the initial barley grain, but not the simple grain, but a
Ten, twenty, thirty times larger. ” (Engels) 44
The grain of barley is a unit of opposites that denied, under certain conditions, transforms
in a barley plant; this same plant, in turn, under certain conditions, grows, is fertilized and
It produces many other grains that deny the unity of opposites that constitute the plant. The grain is denied in
First denial, the plant is denied by the set of grains in the denial of denial. Two processes of
units of distinct and chained contrary that necessarily give rise to a third distinct from the two
that preceded them: the quantitative expansion of barley grains. Then Engels indicates the limits of this
sequential form of movement:
“In dialectic, denying does not simply mean not to say or declare that something does not exist or
destroy it in any way. Spinosa already said: Omnis determinatio est negatio, all
Delimitation or determination is at the same time denial. And, moreover, the type of denial is


determined here, first, by the universal nature of the process and, secondly, by its
specific nature. I should not only deny it, but also to revoke denial. I owe, therefore,
Establish the first denial in such a way that the second remains or becomes possible. As?
Always in accordance with the specific nature of each individual case. When a grain of
Barley, when I crush an insect, in fact makes the first act, but makes the second unfeasible. ”
(Engels) 45
This is the particularity of denial of denial: the first unit of opposites must be denied
specific way to ensure the possibility of second denial. In this case the denial of
negation may explain the natural, spontaneous growth of barley, but not the phenomenon of agriculture
for consumption, in which another specific way of denying the grain of barley arises that makes it impossible to
denial of denial. In this case the process of barley seed advances the statement of the unit of
contrary to the grain until the denial of this unit through the germination of the plant; However, the unit of
contrary to the plant advances from the affirmation of this unit to its (unnatural) denial in the form of its
crushing. The affirmation and denial of the unity of opposites is a derived and universal form of the law
contradiction; the denial of denial, in turn, is only a particular form present in all
the forms of movement of matter but that is not able to explain the transformation of all processes and
phenomena. This understanding of affirmation and denial, as we will see later, is one of the
very important philosophical results of the two -line struggle on the CCP around the Maoist principle that
One is divided into two.
Engels not only culminates the development of Marxist philosophy in the first stage, but also establishes
what were the philosophical problems that next generations of communists should concentrate their
Attention in order to cable your resolution. In Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, Engels
highlights what were the tasks present for revolutionary philosophy:
“Now, it is no longer a question of taking the concatenations of things from the head, but to discover them
own facts. To the displaced philosophy of nature and history there is no more refuge than the kingdom
of pure thinking, in what is still left of this: the theory of laws of the process of
knowledge, logic and dialectic. ” (Engels) 46
The theory of laws of the knowledge process was formulated in Marxism by the great Lenin in his work
masterful materialism and empirocriticism, which was brilliantly developed by President Mao in
About practice and where does the right ideas come from? . In relation to logic and dialectic, Engels, in his work
Nature dialectic, gave another important indication of the needs for later
Developments:
“Therefore, it is in the history of nature and the history of human society that the laws of
dialectic. These are only the most general laws of these two phases of historical development, such as
of the thought itself. They are reduced, more precisely, especially to three:
· The law of transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
· The Law of the Interpenetration of Opposites;
· The Law of Denial of Denial;
All three were developed by Hegel to their idealistic way as simple laws of thought:
the first in the first part of logic, in the theory of being; the second occupies the entire second part of its
Logic, which is by far the most important, the theory of essence; The third, finally, figures as law
fundamental for the construction of the whole system.
(…)
At this point, we do not need to compose a dialectic manual, but only to demonstrate that the laws
dialectics are real laws of nature development, that is, they are also valid for the
Theoretical scientific research of nature. Therefore, we cannot address here the
interconnection of these laws. ” (Engels) 47
Engels clarifies, therefore, that it takes the most general laws of nature, society and the thought of the work
Science of Logic, of Hegel. It highlights, their relationship with the Hegelian philosophical system: the law of
conversion of quantity into quality as part of the doctrine of being; the law of contradiction as part of the


Doctrine of essence, highlighted by Engels as the most important part of Hegelian logic; and the law of
denial of denial as part of the doctrine of the concept and, at the same time, as a fundamental law of the
Hegelian system. The most important, however, is that Engels indicates the need to address the
interconnection of these laws.
The great Lenin, unfortunately, could not know the dialectical work of nature, because it was only published in
1927, in the USSR. However, in their brilliant philosophical notebooks, particularly in their studies on
The science of Hegel's logic approached precisely the internal interconnection of these laws. It was up, in turn, to
President Mao, departing largely by the striker by Lenin, toast to the international proletariat
more advanced formulation of the materialistic dialectic in over the contradiction, giving the
exposure of the contradiction law as a unique fundamental law of dialectic and, later, its interconnection
internal with their expressions or derived laws: quantity/quality and affirmation/denial. Which is
We will seek to address in the next topics.
1.2- Leninism: the law of unity and struggle of contrary as the core of dialectic
In the second stage of the ideology of the international proletariat, Lenin will promote an important leap in
Theoretical elaboration of the conception of Marxist world, that is, in dialectical materialism. Marxism-
Leninism drives the development of Marxist philosophy in its two central problems: the theory of
knowledge and dialectic. Regarding the first problem, Lenin establishes in a complete and complete manner
The theory of knowledge as an active reflection of matter in consciousness. In relation to dialectics, it will be Lenin
Who will formulate, for the first time, that the unity of contrary constitutes "the core of dialectic".
One of Lenin's first theoretical works is an important philosophical work, controversial with
Russian populists and their attacks against Marxism. Who are the “friends of the people” and how they fight
Against social democrats (1894), Lenin makes a great defense of dialectical materialism and,
particularly, from the materialistic conception of history developed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels,
still demonstrating very early on its broad theoretical and practical rule of Marxism.
His most important philosophical work, materialism and empirocriticism (1909), would be published a few years
Later, in a time of ideological crisis among the communists in Russia. In the year 1905, the
first democratic revolution in Russia, which mobilized massively workers and peasants, in a
great armed insurrection followed by a relatively prolonged civil war until 1907. This first
revolutionary attempt was defeated by czarism that, after the reflux of the revolutionary wave, establishes a
Broad and violent counterrevolution, the Stolipynian reaction. Many revolutionaries were arrested, outward and
exiled, but the greatest impact on Russian social democracy was the ideological, that is, whether it would be possible or not
make the democratic revolution to defeat the tsarist autocracy, whether or not the tactics were correct
revolutionaries of that period.
At that time, Lenin was already the main communist leader in the country heading the Bolshevik fraction
Russian Social Democratic Worker Party. In the beginning of 1905, already after the beginning of the surveys
armed workers and peasants, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks gathered at separate congresses and
They formulated opposite tactics for the Democratic Revolution in Russia. While the mensheviks
proposed a directist tactic to put themselves the towing the Russian liberal bourgeoisie, trusting this
direction of the bourgeois democratic revolution; Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, in turn, established the powerful
tactic that proposed that the proletariat should fight for the direction of that revolution to take it the maximum
ahead and the establishment of the worker-pamponian alliance to, based on an armed contingent
directed by the proletariat, trigger the insurrection against the tsarist aristocracy and against the bourgeoisie
liberal, seeking to direct this revolution by establishing the revolutionary democratic dictatorship
workers and peasants.
Despite the correction of this political line, the conditions of greater subjective development were lacking while
greater organizational capacity of the Bolshevik fraction to perform the revolutionary tasks required in the
Conducting and achieving the revolution and its triumph. These subjective conditions would be obtained in the years
following for the intake effort of the then Russian Social Democratic Workers Party, reconstituted by
Lenin and the Left Bolsheviks in 1912 at the Prague Conference, which assured with the realization
of the Democratic Revolution in February, 1917, transform it into the victorious great socialist revolution of


October, of the same year. However, the defeat of the 1905 Democratic Revolution had caused a huge
Ideological vacillation in social democratic ranks, including the Bolshevik fraction. These vacillations
ideological sought to theoretically justify their capitulation by assuming bourgeois philosophical conceptions,
in the name of the last advances of the natural sciences, contest the validity of philosophy
Revolutionary of the proletariat, dialectical materialism.
Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacharski and other militants and Bolshevik leaders came to argue that
Empiriocritic philosophy formulated by the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach corresponded to a great advance
Philosophical, which represented the overcoming of the opposition between materialism and idealism. The Great Lenin,
Following the footsteps of Engels in anti-dühring, it undertake a formidable two-line struggle against these
positions, unmasking their philosophical falsifications, their surrender to the bourgeois conception of the world,
Thus by able to apply to the Bolshevik fraction this rotten revisionist position. In this way, materialism
and Empiriocriticism, it constitutes the decisive ideological work to overcome the misconduct of defeat in 1905 and for
if it reaches the victory in 1917 and the great later advances.
For this “critical” empiricism, in the process of knowledge, the sensation was taken as primary, but if
He maintained that matter did not exist as such, and that the essence of the phenomenon could not be known. O
Empiriocriticism mocked philosophical materialism argued that this revolutionary conception
He took matter as something "sacred". For empirocriticism, there was no objective matter outside
Consciousness, for this idealistic conception physical bodies were “complexes of sensations”.
Lenin initially unmasks the philosophical content of empirocriticism showing that in
Mach's philosophical foundation there was no “novelty”, but the reprint of the old theory
Subjectivist idealist philosophical seventeenth century by Bishop Berkeley. Mach's philosophy established a
absolute identity between the sensation and the physical body, thus reduced matter to the sensation that we have
and the process of knowledge to the discoveries of the necessary relationships between our own sensations and
Not of the material movement that is anterior and, relatively, independent to our consciousness. In turn, the
Berkeley's philosophy maintained that things are a “set of ideas”, so it established a
indissoluble identity between consciousness and things, thus reduced the process of knowledge to the
Discovery of the divine ideas present beforehand in all natural and social phenomena.
In opposition to this conception, Lenin will defend the two fundamental principles of philosophical materialism,
Systematized by Engels in Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of German classical philosophy: 1st) The matter is anterior
consciousness and exists independently of this; 2) Consciousness may reflect the objective essence of all
the phenomena. Then, in a new level, the dialectical materialistic theory of
Knowledge, that is, the communist conception of the relationship between thinking and being.
Firstly, Lenin demonstrates that there is no indissoluble connection between thought and thing, nor
between sensation and physical bodies. Demonstrates that matter is prior to human consciousness, reveals that this is
a result, a product from the development of inorganic matter to organic matter and consequences
of the transformation of life in human society. Matter, therefore, is prior to consciousness and, in turn, the
consciousness is a product of the transformation of matter and, thus, matter cannot be a
"Complex of sensations" not even a "set of ideas". The matter is, according to the brilliant definition of
Lenin:
“(…) A philosophical category to designate objective reality, given to man in his sensations,
Decald, photographed and reflected by our sensations and existing independent of them. ” (Lenin) 48
Lenin demonstrates precisely the conditional and relative character of the unity of opposites between thought
and the being. This unity is not indissoluble, for consciousness is neither prior to matter nor arises
immediately with this; the unity between being and thinking is, therefore, a product of the dialectic of nature,
as brilliantly defined Engels. Certain conditions are necessary for this unit to emerge and,
Without these conditions, there can be no awareness. In turn, the conditions for inert matter
transform into organic nature and this organic nature becomes consciousness are created by
very movement and transformation of matter. Consciousness does not arise from the nature caused by a
external force to nature, but by its own movement and transformation, therefore, Lenin points out that
although matter is not a “set of ideas” or a “set of sensations” is “logical to suppose that all


Matter has a property essentially similar to sensation, the property of reflecting. ” And the
intrinsic property of inert matter of reflecting, reacting to mechanical, chemical, electric, etc.,
that is, it is the contradiction inherent in eternal matter that drives its automation in incessant
transformation.
In this way, Lenin supports the dialectical materialistic conception of the transformation of matter into
consciousness, which corresponds to the first fundamental principle of philosophical materialism, or the first
form of identity between being and thinking. Following, Lenin addresses the issue of the capacity of
Awareness of knowing being, reflecting the essence of objective phenomena outside consciousness. This one
It is the second fundamental principle of philosophical materialism, or the second form of identity between being
and thinking. The first form of identity corresponds to the passive aspect of reflex theory; the second
Form of identity, corresponds to the active aspect of reflex theory. In the first form, the being
transforms into consciousness; In the second, consciousness becomes being. Let's see, as Lenin establishes
In a new level this issue in developing the Marxist theory of knowledge.
Lenin begins the treatment of this question by resuming Engels when he says:
“Hegel was the first one who knew how to accurately expose relationships between freedom and necessity. For
He, freedom is nothing other than knowledge of necessity. (…) Freedom does not reside in
dreamed independence in the face of natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility,
based on said knowledge, to make them act in a regular way for certain purposes. (…)
Freedom therefore, in the domain over ourselves and the outer nature, based on the
knowledge of natural needs. ” (Engels apud LENIN) 49
Then Lenin, defends and brilliantly develops this Marxist postulate:
“The development of the consciousness of each separated human individual and the development of
collective knowledge of all humanity show us with each step the transformation of the
in itself 'not known in' things for us' known, the transformation of blind need,
Known, the 'need' itself, in the 'need for us' known. (…), In the reasoned reasoning
Engels, of course, applies to philosophy the method of the 'vital jump', that is, makes a leap from theory to
practice. (…) Domain over nature, which manifests itself in the practice of humanity, is a result
of the faithful objective reflex of the phenomena and processes of nature in the brain of man and constitutes the
proof that said reflex (within the limits of what the practice shows us) is an objective truth,
absolute, eternal. ” (Lenin) 50
In this formulation, Lenin makes an important leap in Marxist philosophy, by establishing that knowledge
corresponds to the transformation of necessity, that the process of knowledge needs a leap of the
theory to practice and, moreover, that practice constitutes the criterion of objective truth of a particular
Subjective reflection in the consciousness of reality.
Masterfully Lenin solves the problem of identity between thought and being, advancing thus
Much in the theoretical formulation of the Marxist conception on the issue. Thus presents the necessary relationship
Between thought and being, of thought as a product of the development of matter; lays down
thus its first form of relative unit. Shows that thinking is a relevant of social practice,
even though social consciousness is a reflection of the social being. By showing, that freedom is the
knowledge of necessity, and that such knowledge is the transformation of this need, that this
transformation occurs through the leap from theory to practice, Lenin presents in a form greater than the second
form of identity between thought and being, or between knowing and doing. And, it also shows the character
relative of this unity between thought and being, this correspondence between the subjective and the objective, to the
solve the problem of the relationship between the relative character and the absolute character of the truth:
“From the point of view of modern materialism, that is, of Marxism, they are historically conditional
the limits of the approximation of our knowledge to the objective, absolute truth, but the existence
Of this truth, as well as the fact that we approach it does not obey conditions. They are
historically conditional the contours of the picture, but it is unconditional that this picture represents
an objectively existing model. It is historically conditional when and under what circumstances
we progress our knowledge of the essence of things (…), but unconditionally each of these
Discoveries is a progress of 'unconditionally objective knowledge'. ” (Lenin) 51


Each discovery constitutes the identity between the subjective and the objective, as every unit of contrary is
Relative, this truth achieved will also have a relative, conditional character. However, the set
Faithful of relative truths constitutes the unconditional, absolute truth of the universe. The process of
knowledge, therefore, is the infinite movement of approximating consciousness to this objective truth and
Absolute. This Leninist formulation represented an important leap in the Marxist theory of knowledge.
The great Lenin in refuting idealistic positions on the theory of knowledge, whether the empiricists
of Mach, be the subjective idealists like Berkeley's, hardly attacked the idealistic background of these
positions that apply to the existence of a divine consciousness prior to nature, sometimes the existence of
an “indissoluble connection of the environment and the self”, as is the case with Fichte's idealistic philosophy and the use that
Bogdanov did this. As already seen above, Lenin showed the relative character of this unit and the condition
necessary of matter as prior to consciousness. However, by correctly criticizing the unit
indissoluble between matter and consciousness, Lenin took the term “identity” as equal to the concept of
“Indissoluble connection” and thus presented the following formulation:
“Social being and social consciousness are not identical, just as they are not the being in general
and consciousness in general. Of the fact that men, when they relate, do so as beings
Conscious, in no way derives that social consciousness is identical to social being. (…) A
Social conscience reflects the social being: so it is as Marx teaches us. The reflection can be a copy
About exactly what is reflected, but it is absurd to talk here in identity. (…) that
theory of the identity of social being and social consciousness is, from beginning to end, an absurd, a
Unquestionably reactionary theory. ” (Lenin) 52
It is evident that Lenin speaking of the non -identity between social being and social consciousness is not denying
that one aspect becomes the other, under certain conditions. So much so that “consciousness
social reflects the social being ”. In this passage, Lenin is fighting the philosophical falsification of Bogadov
which established an absolute identity between social being and social conscience. Starting from the false assumption
that being social = social conscience, Bogdanov concluded that it was enough to study social conscience to
deduce from this the characteristics of the social being. In addition to being idealistic, this revisionist conception is metaphysical, because
It takes two contradictory aspects, in case it is social and social conscience, as if they were one and the same
thing. Absolute and non -relative identity of the opposite aspects of a contradiction is one of the
metaphysical to integrate two into one.
Lenin, therefore, is defending the materialistic conception of Marx's history, which establishes that men
They enter certain social relations without initially aware of these same relationships.
The social awareness of these relationships is a product of the dialectical development of social practice and
Social conscience, and therefore, cannot be immediately given. As established by Lenin, only in
certain conditions there is this identity, which is not absolute but relative; the approximate reflection of the
subjective in the face of the objective.
This passage of materialism and empiriciticism was later used by the revisionist philosophers
In China, Liu Shao-Chi epigons as a way to combat Maoism. We will see this question in detail,
further up. Here, it is only up to us to emphasize the following: in the passage of Lenin, mentioned above, there is no
no error of philosophical conception, but there is an inaccuracy in the formulation of the issue, in the management of
Dialectical concept “identity”, which encompasses the difference and equality at the same time. It will be your own
Lenin who will solve, in philosophical notebooks, this conceptual issue, but here it is important to see that
as well as in the class struggle, not every defeat corresponds to a mistake of political line or conception
philosophical; also in the theoretical struggle not every inaccurate or insufficient formulation corresponds to a
manifestation of idealism or metaphysics. Philosophy corresponds to the theoretical formulation of the conception of
world of a particular class; This formulation is also a process in which it approaches
more accurate and more accurate ways. This is what occurs in the present case. The importance of emphasizing it is
to highlight the importance of Lenin's struggle against the absolute identity of aspects in a contradiction.
For as we will see, there are two ways to integrate two into one; Prachanda does so through conciliation
of the contradictory aspects and Avakian does so through the absolute identity between the opposites. Both
correspond to revisionist perspectives of Marxist philosophy, because in the end, both suppress the
Contrary struggle.


In relation to the other major problem for Marxist philosophy, pointed out by Engels, the dialectic, the great
leap given by Lenin on this ground is condensed in the aforementioned philosophical notebooks (1914-1915), who
were published in the USSR in the years 1929 and 1930. In this vast material, two manuscripts are more
Important: The summary of the book of Hegel “Science of Logic” (1914) and on the issue of dialectic
(1915). The first is a notebook of Lenin notes from his studies of the book Science of Logic
of Hegel; The second is a systematization of Lenin's conclusions about materialistic dialectic. In this
Material is contained a series of great Leninist philosophical formulations about dialectic and some
Essential bumps in your reflection theory.
In relation to the conception of the dialectical materialistic world formulates that:
“(…) Internal contradictions lead to the replacement of old content with a new,
higher." (Lenin) 53
This formulation is that, as it is of general knowledge, would be developed later brilliantly
by President Mao. Regarding the concept “identity”, Lenin fully completes his understanding
about it, formulating precisely that:
“Dialectics is the doctrine of how the opposites can be and are (how they become) identical - in
what conditions they are identical, becoming each other - because the reason for man
should not take these contrary by the dead, rigid, but by alive, conditioned, furniture,
turning each other. ” (Lenin) 54
In this and other passages the development of Lenin's philosophical thinking in the
your own work. As well as Marx and Engels, they advanced from the denial of denial to contradiction in the
Explanation of the suppression of private property, Lenin advances the non -absolute identity between consciousness
social and social being for the understanding that the opposites are and become identical in certain
conditions. The conception is the same, but the formulation has made a significant leap. The advance in understanding
dialectic allows Lenin to formulate in an even more developed and clear form the Marxist theory of the
knowledge, particularly as to the problem of identity between thinking and being:
“The abstraction of matter, the law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all
scientific abstractions (correct, serious, non -absurd) reflect the nature more deeply, more
faithfully, more completely. From living intuition to abstract thinking and from it to practice - such is the
dialectical path of knowledge of truth, knowledge of objective reality. ”
(Lenin) 55
Here Lenin completely presents the two jumps of the knowledge process, fully
later developed by President Mao in about the practice. Regarding the question of
Transformation of the subjective into objective, Lenin points out that:
“Man's consciousness not only reflects the objective world but creates it. That is, the world does not
satisfies man and man decides to modify him with his action. ” (Lenin) 56
About practice as a main aspect in the process of knowledge development, Lenin formula
what:
“Practice is superior to knowledge (theoretical), because it has not only the dignity of universality
but also of immediate reality. ” (Lenin) 57
AND:
“The result of the action is the proof of subjective knowledge and the criterion of objectivity
truly existing. ” (Lenin) 58
In relation to the Leninist leap in the formulation of dialectics, in Marxist philosophy, it appears in the summary of the
Hegel's book “Science of Logic”, the immortalized and fully developed passage, on the
contradiction:


“Briefly, dialectic can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of the opposites. With this
The core of dialectics will be embedded, but this requires clarification and development. ” (Lenin) 59
In the manuscript on the issue of dialectic (1915), Lenin advances even more in the establishment of the Law of
Contradiction as a unique fundamental law of materialistic dialectic. Sitting the foundations for the principle
Revolutionary that everything in the universe is one divided into two, Lenin establishes that:
"The bipartition of the Uno and the knowledge of its contradictory parts is the essence of dialectic."
(Lenin) 60
Developing the formulation of the contrary unit as the core of dialectic, Lenin states that:
“The identity of the opposites (…) is the recognition (the discovery) of contradictory trends,
mutually excluding, opposite in all phenomena and processes of nature (including also
the spirit and society). The condition of knowledge of all processes in the world in its
‘Automation’, in its spontaneous development, in its living life, is their knowledge
as a unit of opposites. Development is 'struggle' of opposites. ” (Lenin) 61
Lenin, following the footsteps of Engels, brilliantly establishes the relationship between objective dialectic and
subjective dialectic. All processes of nature advance as identity and struggle of opposites, therefore, the
The condition for the knowledge of these process is to take them as a unit of contrary. Lenin Embraded of
Classical way The conception of dialectical materialistic world, in its widely known formulation:
“The two fundamental (…) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as
decrease and increase, such as repetition, and development as a unit of opposites (
one in mutually exclusive opposites and reciprocal relationship between them). ” (Lenin) 62
In one passage the law of contradiction is synthesized and the principle that one is divided into two. Moreover,
Lenin establishes the proletarian revolutionary principle of Marxist dialectic:
“Unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of the opposites is conditional, temporary,
Transient, relative. The struggle of the mutually exclusionary opposites is absolute, as absolute is the
development, the movement. ” (Lenin) 63
There is no doubt about the gigantic role of the great Lenin in these two great works materialism and
Empiriocriticism and in philosophical notebooks, to establish the law of contradiction as law
unique fundamental of dialectic. Therefore, it constitutes a total contrast, which does the UOC (mlm) to insist
which is the law of denial of negation to which "best explains the direction of the movement." This is not only
in opposition evident to Maoism, but also, as it should be, to Marxism and the
Leninism.
Finally, it is necessary to dedicate a few words about the role of the great comrade Stalin in the
Development of Marxist philosophy. Stalin was Lenin's continuator and assumed with high wingspan
difficult task of continuing socialist construction, after its premature death in 1924. Following
He directed with great mastery the complex struggle of two lines against Trotskism and, then, against the
Bukharinism. In the fight against the revisionist line of Bukharin, which opposed the conclusion of Nep (new
Economic policy) and socialist collectivization, Stalin faced a more structured restorationist line
than the position openly counterrevolutionary and betraying Trotsky. Bukharin, a faithful follower of
Trotskyist current, he came to argue that the socialist economic base should combine by a long
Capitalist and socialist elements period. To support your position, it had the formulations
Philosophical from the Deberin School, a revisionist philosopher who defended the theory of contradiction reconciliation.
According to Deerin, in the course of a given process contradictions only arise from a given
moment, before only differences would remain, but not contradictions. That is, for this, difference is not
contradiction.
Stalin managed to apologize for Bukharin's restoration line in time to prepare the USSR for the big
clash that was announced in the world, with the rise of Nazifascism in Italy, Germany and Japan.
also the Deberin School unfurling with vigorously the flag of the opposition to the opposition to rotten


Theory of the conciliation of contradictions. The theoretical formulation of the Stalin comrade that condenses the
Fundamentals of the proletarian line to apologize the revisionist line is contained in the work materialism
Dialectical history and materialism, which constitutes a chapter of the very important work of the
PC History (B) USSR (1937). However, in this chapter two important errors of
Unilateralism of comrade Stalin in the fighting to the positions of Bukharin and Deberin. In the fight around
field collectivization, Stalin too much emphasizes the importance of productive forces in relation to the
Revolution of production relations. This was a difficult mistake to avoid, because it was
simply from the first experience of socialist construction. However, when dealing with the “fundamental traits
of the Marxist Dialectical Method ”64, the comrade Stalin makes important mistakes by exposing the dialectic
materialistic. These were errors that could be avoided, because they were questions already advanced by
Lenin in the philosophical notebooks. Therefore, the exposure of dialectic, by Stalin, in this work is a
setback.
It is decisive to emphasize that despite the errors, the exposure of the Marxist philosophical conception was mainly
correct and the errors constituted the secondary aspect, but needed to be overcome by the development
posterior of ideology. The Stalin comrade formula as four fundamental characteristics of dialectic
Marxist: 1) Everything is linked; 2) Everything transforms; 3) the transformation of quantity into quality; and 4)
the fight of the opposites. Stalin rightly establishes that:
“If the world is in incessant movement and development and if the law of development
It is the extinction of the old and the strengthening of the new, it is evident that there can be no regime
unalterable social, nor can there be 'eternal principles' of private property and exploitation,
nor the 'eternal ideas' of the submission of peasants to landlords and workers to
capitalists. ” (Stalin) 65
As President Mao emphasizes the replacement of the old by the new is a “general and imprescriptible law of the
Universe ”and therefore a central question in the conception of the world of Marxist philosophy. Another aspect
very important highlighted by Stalin, in this text, is that a phenomenon can only be resolved by
their internal contradictions and through the struggle between the opposites. In this way the character correctly accentuates
Absolute of the struggle of the opposites, highlighted by Lenin and later developed by President Mao:
“If the development process is a process of revealing internal contradictions, a
shock process between opposed forces on the basis of these contradictions and with the end of
it is evident that the class struggle of the proletariat is a perfectly natural and
inevitable. This means that what should be done is not to conceal the contradictions of the regime
capitalist, if not to take them cable to the end. This means that in politics, so as not to misunderstand,
there must be a proletarian, class, uncompromising, and not a reformist policy of
harmony between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, an opportunistic policy of 'gradual integration'
capitalism in socialism. ” (Stalin) 66
With this formulation, the comrade Stalin sought to apologize the revisionist line of Bukharin and theorizing
Philosophical of Deerin and his defense of the conciliation of contradictions.
However, comrade Stalin ends up unilaterally emphasizing the struggle of the opposites, treating it
dissociated way of the unity of the opposites. And it treats incompletely on the identity of the opposites,
in its most important content: the mutual transformation of opposites and how the conditions are created for
This transformation. In dealing with what lists as the first fundamental feature of the dialectical method,
Stalin deals with mutual dependence between phenomena, “indissoluble connection with phenomena
surrounding and conditioned by them ”67. Thus addresses one aspect of the unity of the opposites, the
their interdependence, but err by treating it dissociated from the struggle, because what connects the
different phenomena, as well as the opposite aspects in a contradiction, is not an indissoluble connection,
but the absolute struggle and the relative unity between the opposites.
On the other hand, when it addresses what it classifies as the fourth characteristic of the dialectical method, the struggle of
against, Stalin does so separately from the unity of the opposites, and does not analyze the transformation of
phenomena from the struggle and identity of the opposites, not unveiling that the qualitative leap in
a process constitutes the mutual transformation between the new and old aspect in the contradiction, with the new


assuming the main, dominant condition and the old man passing the secondary, dominated condition. Thus, the
comrade formulates the quality jump as follows:
“(…) The development process of the lower to the upper does not travel a path of
harmonic development of phenomena, but always putting on relief the contradictions
inherent in objects and phenomena, in a process of 'struggle' between the opposed trends
that act on the basis of those contradictions. ” (Stalin) 68
As Lenin had already pointed out, the process of developing a phenomenon is a process of unity
and struggle between the opposites, and that through the absolute struggle of the opposites under certain conditions each
contrary it becomes its opposite and this constitutes the most important aspect of the identity of the opposites.
Not sufficiently understanding the relationship between unity and struggle of the opposites and, particularly, this
aspect of the identity of the opposites, constituted the errors of metaphysical conception that sometimes incurred the
Comrade Stalin, errors criticized and rectified by President Mao. This conception error is related to
other Stalin errors, such as not considering the identity of opposing contradictions between forces
Productive and Production Relations, between economic base and superstructure. That is, although the productive forces
and the economic basis is ultimately the dominant aspect of production and
superstructure, under certain conditions of the development of the social process, relations of production and
superstructure become the main aspect of contradiction.
However, it should be noted that an important part of these errors were corrected by the comrade himself
Stalin in the course of the development process of his direction. For example, in economic problems of the
Socialism in the USSR (1952), Stalin rectifies his vision on the weight of the development of productive forces
for the construction of socialism and concentrates its attention on the problem of the development of
production. However, in this work appears the other error of the underestimation of the importance of revolution
superstructure to fully complete the revolution of production relations in society
socialist. In a previous work, Marxism and Linguistics Problems (1950), however, Stalin had
correctly established that:
“The superstructure is created by the base precisely to serve it, to actively help it to
take shape and to sharpen, so that it actively fights the destruction of the old base, lame, and
your old superstructure. ” (Stalin) 69
Here Stalin correctly deals with the conditions in which the superstructure assumes the main aspect in
contradiction, of its active role in the destruction of the old economic base of society as a condition for the
flowering and development of new production relationships. This demonstrates how the conception of
world of comrade Stalin was fundamentally correct, and at the same time, how errors in
Theoretical formulation about this conception disrupts ideological development.
Contrary to what UOC (MLM) states, Stalin's philosophical error is not that he has "cut"
denial of the denial of the fundamental laws of dialectic. The issue is in management and development
of the law of contradiction, in advance from the established by Lenin in his work Philosophical notebooks. O
problem is not in the denial of denial, but in the lack of understanding of the advances of Lenin and the
recognition of the great philosophical leap given by President Mao, in 1937, with the practice and on
The contradiction.
1.3- The law of contradiction and its scientific-popular expression in the principle that “one is divided into two”
The leap in Marxist philosophy given by President Mao, in turn, does not arise from the correction of errors
from Stalin. The development of Marxist dialectic and the Marxist theory of knowledge, achieved soon
after the epic long march, it emerges as a necessary leap to Marxism-Leninism for development
of the military line and the line of the Democratic Revolution in China. Without this jump in dialectics it would not be possible
establishment of the method of struggle of two lines in the treatment of internal contradictions in the party
Communist, from the theory of prolonged popular war, of the three fundamental instruments of the revolution -
party, popular army and single revolutionary front - and the six laws for the new revolution
Democracy. The struggle for solving the concrete problems of the Chinese revolution occurs in the midst of


important struggles of two lines, thus assumed and applied by the direction of President Mao, against the
right and “left” and dogmatic opportunistic positions on the CCP and are therefore the origin of the
Great leap in Marxist philosophy achieved by President Mao Tsetung.
Maoism, as a whole, begins its development as the third stage of the development of the
Proletariat ideology by solving the problem of proletarian revolution in colonial/semicolonial countries.
This development, in turn, begins by applying the concrete reality of the Chinese revolution
of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism, especially the contributions of Stalin's thinking, among
These are the definition of Leninism, the main contribution to the ideology of the international proletariat. Stands out
also among Stalin's contributions the fair and correct international line of the single antifascist front in the course
of imperialist World War II. It was applying these universal contributions to the Chinese revolution that the
President Mao forged the theory of the Revolution of New Democracy and the theory of the three instruments of
Revolution.
Development brought by Maoism with the precise formulation of the Marxist political economy of
socialist construction and the resolution of the problem of continuity of the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat,
that is, the great proletarian cultural revolution, necessarily implied the correction of philosophical errors
From the comrade Stalin. This was a pressing need for the development of ideology, but not
constituted the reason for its development, as pointed out by the capitulating balances and revisionists of the
Avakianism and Prachandism.
The works on practice and contradiction were written after a great setback in the Chinese revolution. A
Fifth Grande Campaign of Siege and Annihilation Personally directed by Chiang Kai-Shek against
revolutionary support bases, especially against the most consolidated located in the mountains
Tchincan, who implied a significant defeat for the revolution, especially for the contingents of the
Red Army directed by the CCP. On October 16, 1934, the Red Army, on the
Siege and begins the strategic removal that would turn into the long march of 12,500 km. The main cause
From this defeat was the subjective, the predominance of Wang Ming's opportunistic “left” adventurer line
to “attack in all directions” and seek to quickly conquer large cities; And then, after breaking the
Kuomintang siege, the "escape" line aimlessly. This opportunistic line resulted in losses of many
Living forces of the revolution and all the territory released by agrarian revolutionary war. However, the
President Mao, knowing that a defeat of the proletarian revolution can only be temporary, persisted in the struggle of
two lines on the CCP and first appealed the Wang Ming Military Line and, soon its line to the
Democratic Revolution in China. Thus, it was established, in 1935, that the growing expansion of the invasion
Japanese from the interior of China, which began in 1931 from the Manchuria, corresponded to the modification of
main contradiction in the Chinese Revolution and, in this way, the long march is directed to the north of the
China, defeating the capitulatory and escape line of Chang Kuo-Tao. The support base of the
Shensi, in Yenan, to place himself in the first lines of resistance against the Japanese offensive and
transforming Yenan into the great overall rear of the revolution and the anti -japanese National War.
These philosophical works, among others, prepared by President Mao immediately represented the
ideological consolidation of the left line on the CCP, something similar to what represented materialism and
Empiriocriticism in the Bolshevik Party. The philosophical principles presented by him, in the middle of
1937, however, were already present in their form applied in military theory, in the very important work
Strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, which was prepared in December 1936.
Study of the Laws of the Revolutionary War of China, President Mao establishes the cardinal principles of the law
contradiction:
1) Highlights that war is the highest way to resolve antagonistic social contradictions:
“War, which has existed since the appearance of private property and classes, is the highest form
the struggle to resolve contradictions between classes, nations, states or political groups, when
These contradictions came to a certain stage of their development. ” (President Mao) 70
2) It points out that there are only two types of war and one way to eliminate war:
“War, this monster of killing among men, will finally be eliminated by the progress of
human society, and will be in the non -distant future. But there is only one way to eliminate it: to oppose


war of war, oppose the revolutionary war to the counterrevolutionary war, to oppose war
national to the national counterrevolutionary war and to oppose the revolutionary war from the war
Counterrevolutionary Class. History only knows two types of wars: the righteous and the unfair.
All counterrevolutionary wars are unfair; all revolutionary wars are
fair. ” (President Mao) 71
3) Analyzes all military problems from unity and struggle between two contrary aspects:
“Take into account the distinction as well as the connection between losses and their replacement, the
combat and rest, concentration and dispersal of forces, attack and defense, the main attack
and the secondary attacks, the centralization and decentralization of command, the prolonged war and the
rapid decision war, the war of position and the war of movement, (…) between civil war and
national war, between one historical stage and another, etc. ” (President Mao) 72
4) Establishes the question of fundamental contradiction in the course of the development of the war process:
“These are the two aspects of revolutionary war in China, aspects that exist
At the same time, that is, with favorable conditions there are difficulties. This is the law
fundamental of the revolutionary war of China, from which many other laws derive. ” (President
MAO) 73
5) Establishes the two basic forms of combat and their necessary interchalation in the revolutionary war in
China:
“There are only two basic forms of combat: offensive and defensive. The enemy suffers a defeat
strategic when we devastate your campaign of 'siege and annihilation', our defensive
converts to an offensive and he, in turn, goes to the defensive and has to reorganize his forces before
launch another campaign. ” (President Mao) 74
6) Emphasizes the need to create the conditions to reverse the contradictory aspects in war:
“The purpose of strategic withdrawal is to conserve the war potential and prepare the counteractive.
In the past many people opposed withdrawal to withdrawal, considering it as a 'line
opportunistic, purely defensive. ' Our history demonstrated that its opposition was completely
erroneous. In preparing a counteractive, we must elect and create certain favorable conditions for
we and unfavorable to the enemy in order to achieve a change in the correlation of forces before
enter the counterofessive phase. ” (President Mao) 75
7) It accentuates that only the fight can be operated by the struggle and to in reverse the
contradictory aspects in war:
“The existence of conditions and a favorable situation for us and unfavorable for the enemy not
It means its defeat. These conditions and this situation convert to possibility and not to
reality, our victory and the enemy's defeat. In order to produce victory or defeat, it is
a decisive battle is necessary between the two armies. Only this battle can solve the problem
whose winner is and who is the loser. ” (President Mao) 76
8) emphasizes that in mutual transformation, identity, contradictory aspects, there is
difference and struggle of the opposites:
“This is an offensive counterofenfensive or offensive, the principles for solving these problems are
in essence the same. In this sense we can say that a counteractive is an offensive. At the
However, a countereight is not exactly an offensive. The principles of the countereofensive
apply when the enemy is in the offensive, and the principles of the offensive, when the enemy is in
defensive. In this sense, there are certain differences between counterfensive and offensive. ” (President
Mao) 77
Synthetically, President Mao's military line states that the fundamental contradiction of war
revolutionary in China has aspects contrary to favorable conditions (a vast semicolonial country and
a fair war directed by the Communist Party) versus unfavorable (faces a powerful enemy with


a small and weak army). The only way to solve this contradiction is through a war
prolonged revolutionary. In the face of the enemy's offensive, his siege and annihilation campaigns, the
Revolutionary forces oppose an active defense, as part of the siege and annihilation counteramblane. O
Objective of the defensive phase in the campaign is to create the conditions to pass on to counterfensive; This is only
possible when it comes to creating the conditions to stop a decisive battle that allows to reverse
temporarily the correlation of forces and imposing a tactical offensive against an enemy that is
Strategically superior. The succession of tactical offensive in the prolonged popular war, in the course of
its three strategic steps (defensive, balance and offensive), allows to change the correlation of forces in its
Set to thus achieve the enemy's annihilation and gain power across the country.
In over the contradiction, President Mao develops this brilliant dialectic in his
military thinking already applied successfully in the first four siege and annihilation campaigns of the
Kuomintang against revolutionary support bases in southern China (1930-1933) and during the long epic
March (1934-1936). About the contradiction generalizes and develops this dialectic, arming the proletariat
Chinese and international of an almighty philosophy established in a deeply scientific way and, to the
Even time, genuinely popular.
Your work by establishing that there are only two world conceptions regarding the development of a
thing and phenomenon: the dialectical conception that things develop as a
“Automation, internal and necessary” through quantitative and qualitative changes; and conception
Metaphysics according to which movement is due to external causes and changes are only quantitative.
It establishes that the “universality of contradiction or absolute character of contradiction” has two aspects:
1) contradiction exists in the process of all things and phenomena; It is
2) That the contradiction runs through the whole process from the beginning to the end.
President Mao, in turn, by studying the “particularity or relative character of contradiction”, analyzes it
in five plans demonstrating:
1) that each form of movement of matter has its particular contradictions;
2) That in the case of movement of matter, each of its processes has a contradiction
particular, or fundamental, which distinguishes it from other processes in this form of movement;
3) that this contradiction is composed of two particular opposite aspects;
4) that the development of a process is divided into steps, and each step also has a
particular contradiction;
5) that the particular contradiction of a process of a process also has two contrary aspects
private.
President Mao concludes the study of the particularity of the contradiction, showing the dialectical relationship between the
universality and particularity in the study of all things and phenomena:
“The particular and the universal are united, and not only the particularity but also the
universality of contradiction are inherent in every thing: universality lies in
particularity; So when studying something certain, we should try to discover these two
sides and their interconnections, the particular and the universal and their interconnection, and to discover the
Interconnections between said thing and the numerous things outside her. ” (President Mao) 78
In addition, of the 5 plans referred to in the study of the particularity of the contradiction, President Mao analyzes two
Other questions in particular:
1) the main contradiction; It is
2) The main aspect of the contradiction.
Highlights that every complex process is composed of numerous contradictions, but that of these only
One will be the main contradiction, in a given stage or phase of development of this process. Moreover,
formulates that the solution of the main contradiction determines and conditions the resolution of contradictions
secondary; and that the study of the main aspect of the main contradiction in a given phenomenon is
decisive to gain the resolution of its contradictions.


After the study of universality, the particularity of contradiction and the dialectical relationship between them, the
President Mao advances to the study of identity and the struggle between the aspects of contradiction. Lays down
so that identity has two senses:
1) The existence of an aspect presupposes the existence of its opposite; It is
2) Under certain conditions, each aspect becomes its opposite.
More
phenomena, as well as your direction. As for the relationship between the identity and the struggle of the opposites, the President
Mao, starting from the established by Lenin, formula that:
“Every process has a beginning and end, every process becomes its opposite. The permanence of
every process is relative, while its mutability manifests in the transformation of a
process in another, it is absolute. ” (President Mao) 79
Then establishes the relationship between the identity and struggle of the opposites, with the previously called
Quality quantity conversion law:
“In all things are two stages of movement: relative rest and the
Change manifests. Both have its origin in the struggle between two contradictory elements contained
in each thing. In the first stage of movement, the thing only experiences the changes
quantitative and not qualitative changes and, therefore, seems to be at rest. The thing goes on to
according to the movement stage when the quantitative changes produced in the first stage
They already reach their culminating point, giving rise to the dissolution of the thing as a unique whole, that is,
a qualitative change; In this way the stage of change of change appears. The unit, the
cohesion, unity, harmony, balance, impasse, dead point, rest, permanence,
uniformity, agglutination, attraction, etc., which we see in daily life, are all manifestations of
quantitative change stage of things. In the opposite, the dissolution of the single whole, that is, the
destruction of this cohesion, union, harmony, balance, impasse, dead point, rest, permanence,
uniformity, agglutination, attraction, and their transformation into their respective contrary, are all
manifestations of the qualitative stage of change of things, that is, the transformation of a process
in another. Things change constantly from the first to the second stage; the struggle of
Contrary exists in both internships, and contradiction is resolved through the second stage. It is for
This is what the unity of the opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of
contrary, mutually exclusive, is absolute. ” (President Mao) 80
This passage is very significant in the process of establishing the law of contradiction as law
unique fundamental of dialectic, because for the first in the development of Marxist philosophy the conversion of
quantity in quality is based on the unity and struggle of the opposites, that is, through the law of
contradiction. President Mao divides the movement of all things and phenomena into two stages:
relative rest and manifest change; establishes that the movement in these two stages has its origin in the
struggle of the opposite aspects. That in the first stage there are quantitative changes that create the
Conditions for manifest change, the jump of quality. In the first stage, harmony, balance
Contradictory aspects are manifestations of the quantitative change stage; in the second stage, the
contradictory unity dissolves and an aspect or process becomes its opposite. Emphasizes,
As soon as the fighting of the opposites happens in both stages, but that contradiction is only resolved in the second
Internship, the one of the change manifests. Thus underlies Lenin's definition of being the unity of the opposites
relative and the struggle between the absolute opposites.
In the work on the practice, which due to space we cannot deal with in this document,
a few months before the contradiction appears and constitutes the application of the law of contradiction, in its
more elaborate form, to the process of knowledge. In this way, it also constitutes a philosophical leap
In this key issue of dialectical materialism. In this work President Mao analyzes social practice and the
knowledge as a unity of contrary, the truth is the result of unity and struggle between these two
Contrary aspects, but mainly of the struggle between them. Through social practice, the brain
Human reflects objective reality, and returns to this same reality that confirms or refutes these reflexes.
Social practice and reflex in the conscience of this practice, constitute the contradictory aspects that originate the
Movement of human thought. Human knowledge in turn, in its movement towards the
True, it also has two stages: 1) sensitive knowledge, and 2) rational knowledge. Through the


first stage, human consciousness collects an immense amount of information that allows to reflect the
appearance of things and phenomena. The accumulation of this information, the analysis of this data, creates the
conditions for a quality leap: sensitive knowledge becomes rational knowledge, the
objective data analysis becomes a synthesis that seeks to reflect the essence of things and
phenomena. However, the movement of knowledge does not end in this subjective synthesis, as the
Rational conclusions need to be confirmed by social practice. The knowledge process is never
Immediate, therefore, the search for truth is the infinite movement of practice to theory and theory to practice. At
unity of contrary between social practice and social conscience, social practice constitutes the main aspect,
for it constitutes the origin of knowledge and, at the same time, the criterion of truth. Theory is born of practice
And only by practice can it be confirmed. In turn, in this contradictory movement an aspect transforms
otherwise: practice becomes rational knowledge and rational knowledge, when
True, it transforms objective reality through practice. In addition, President Mao highlights, in
On contradiction, which under certain conditions consciousness becomes the main aspect of the
contradiction.
In the final session of the contradiction, President Mao also analyzes the role of antagonism in
contradiction as part of the study of the fighting of the opposites. Establishes that although the contradiction resolution
can only take place through the struggle of the opposites in turn has two forms of development, which
vary according to the character of the contradiction:
1) antagonistic contradictions; It is
2) non-antagonistic contradictions.
The struggle of the opposites is absolute, present in all processes, things and phenomena; However, contradiction
It is not the same as antagonism, antagonism is a particular form of contradiction and requires method
different and corresponding in the resolution of this. When misconceptions, a non-
Antagonistic can become an antagonistic contradiction, thus making it difficult to resolve. For another
side, a certain contradiction can be antagonistic in a given process and non-antagonistic in a
opposite process, as is the case with the contradiction between Campo and City, which is antagonistic in capitalism, but
that in socialism must be resolved with non-antagonistic methods.
In over the contradiction, President Mao establishes deeply and for the broad masses,
extremely complex in philosophy, never before resolved on this level throughout the history of philosophy
bourgeois. Clearly advances to the establishment of contradiction as a unique fundamental law of the
dialectic, by analyzing it in its various aspects and based on the conversion of quantity to quality
in the law of contradiction. For this reason, President Mao concludes this Magna work of Marxist philosophy with the
next brilliant synthesis:
“The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of contrary, is the fundamental law of
nature and society and, therefore, also the fundamental law of thought. ”
(President Mao) 81
In establishing the law of contradiction as a fundamental law of dialectic, universality and particularity
contradiction and, in particular, the two forms of struggle of the opposites (antagonistic and non-antagonic)
President Mao shamelessly applauds the conceptions of the Deberin School, also fought by the
Comrade Stalin. In this way, the contradiction served as an important contribution from President Mao to the fight
of two lines in MCI against Bukharyism and Trotskism, as an important article emphasizes
During the great philosophical controversy on the CCP, between 1964 and 1965 (question we will address
right ahead):
“Deberin distorted the law of the unity of contrary such as the reconciliation, integration or synthesis of
contrary. He excluded the struggle from contrary within things. From this theory, he also
rejected the existence of class contradiction in Soviet society. In this way, anti-philosophy
Deberin's dialectic was used as an ideological weapon by Bukharin-
Trotsky. ” (JAO CHING-HUANG) 82
The capitalist pro-restoration positions and against socialist construction in one country of Bukharin and Trotsky,
sought in Deberin's philosophy their theoretical foundation. Sought to support their directist line, to maintain


Nep (New Economic Policy) after it essentially met its objectives for reconstruction
of the country after the civil war (1918-1922), in the rotten theories of class reconciliation, the integration of
contrary and defense of the lack of class struggle in the USSR. Stalin fought this position, but only
developments in Marxist philosophy performed by President Mao fully applauded the
Philosophical falsification of the Deberin School.
Just as in the Bolshevik party, revisionist lines sought to ground theoretically
Through the philosophical falsification of dialectical materialism, on the CCP. In this, the same phenomenon occurred
after the conquest of power across the country, in 1949. During the fifteen years they travel from 1949 to 1966, the
main fight of two lines on the CCP, against the capitalist restoration was against the opportunistic line of
right of the renegade and sells workers Liu Shao-Chi. On several occasions, the president's red line
Mao had to apologize the restorationist revisionist positions. Through this important struggle of two
lines, from the concrete experience of the Socialist Revolution in China (from 1949) and with the beginning of GRCP
(culminating in the struggle against the line of Liu Shao-Chi), the thought Mao Tsetung develops and transforms
If in Maoism: third, new and superior stage, as would be defined by President Gonzalo,
posteriorly. In the course of this two-line struggle (1949-1966), inseparable from the development of the
classes in socialist society, there are new and significant advances in the philosophical formulations of the
President Mao.
This long and decisive fight of two lines on the CCP was around the problems of the main contradiction in the
socialist society, from the general line to the transitional period (socialization of industry/commerce, small
business and crafts and movement of cooperativeization and collectivization of the field) and the general line for the
Socialist construction (which embraced the construction of popular communes and the big leap ahead). AND
Importantly, an important part of this two-line struggle against Liu Shao-Chi's right-hand line
He gave the fight of two lines in MCI against modern revisionism of Kruschov, whose height occurs
Between 1963-64, in the big debate, with which the PCCH under the direction of President Mao's Red Line
applauds the Kruscovision positions.
The conquest of total power in China marks the opening of President Mao's two lines against Liu
Shao-Chi. In March 1949, a few months from the victory, President Mao in the II Plenary Session of the CC of
PCCH points out that after the conquest of all power the main contradiction in Chinese society became
be the “contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie” 83. In late 1952, President Mao establishes the
General line for the transitional period, that is, from the course of the socialist revolution:
“(…) To gradually carry out socialist industrialization and gradually perform the transformation
socialist of agriculture, capitalist handicraft and trade ”. (President Mao) 84
As opposed to the advancement of the socialist revolution, Liu Shao-Chi formulates the right opportunistic line of
“Consolidation of the new democracy system”. This position was applauded by President Mao in 1953,
in his speech about the general line of the party for the transitional period:
“Some people follow stops in the same place after reaching the triumph of the revolution
democratic. Without understanding that the character of the revolution has changed, they continue to work for
its new democracy and not by socialist transformations. This will lead them to right -wing errors. ”
(President Mao) 85
The application of the general line of the CCP for the transitional period in the field of China made the
agricultural cooperation movement driven by the socialist initiative of poor peasants and
Midfielder of the lower layer. The reaction of the right to the socialist offensive in the field, was to reformulate the
theoretical foundation of its restoration line, the struggle of “consolidation of the new system
Democracy ”come to argue that in the period of transition the socialist superstructure would be based on a
“Synthesized economic base”, that is, both socialist and capitalist and that the dictatorship of the proletariat
should boost and serve both. The theoretical formulation of this opportunistic line was in charge of Liu
Shao-Chi to the revisionist philosopher Yang Sien-chun, who wrote the reactionary booklet about the base and the
superstructure during the transitional period in the Popular Republic of China.
This right offensive initially resulted in reducing the “number of cooperatives” 86. However, the
position of the “synthesized economic base” was applauded by the struggle fought by President Mao in 1955, which


with the document on the problem of agricultural cooperativization attacks the essence of that directist position
bourgeois: the reissue of the rotten theory of productive forces adapted to the Chinese conditions, which
advocated that production relations in the field in China could only advance to socialist relations after
the mechanization of the field. As the country's industrial base was very late this would be a process that
It would charge a lot of time. President Mao rocks these positions and demonstrates how the relationships of
Production could be advanced in relation to productive forces and boosting their development.
In this way agricultural cooperativization quickly advanced in China, even with mechanization
still precarious and insufficient. This was a great contribution from President Mao to socialist political economy.
After this second defeat, Liu Shao-Chi's right-wing line tries to recover breath after the XX
Congress of the PCU, which took place in February 1956 and which gives the Word Word of March to the
Capitalist restoration in the USSR, with the offensive revisionist of Kruschov and his rotten and liar report
Secret. Supported by the revisionist and restorationists of that congress and the temporary defeat of
Dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, the bourgeois rider of Liu Shao-Chi throws itself in the offensive in
VIII CCP Congress, held in October of the same year, and manages to approve the setback in the definition
Ideological of the party that removes part of the adopted by the VII Congress, 1945, from “Marxism-Leninism
ideas of comrade Mao tsetung ”to“ Marxism-Leninism ”, just at a time when the
thought Mao Tsetung advanced stridely to turn into a new, third and superior
Step of Marxism. From the point of view, from the general line to the socialist construction, after the defeat of the theory of
“Synthesized Economic Base” The right -wing opportunistic line tries to get a new ruse, still approving
in the VIII Congress the position that the main contradiction in China was “the one between the system
advanced socialist and late social productive forces ”87, thus enjoying, with a new label, the
old and revisionist theory of productive forces, arguing that only after the advancement of mechanization
could advance socialist relations of production.
Despite the setback at the VIII CCP Congress, President Mao's revolutionary proletarian line
Initiative and watch new blows against Liu Shao-Chi's right-wing line. Still, in 1958, President Mao
wins in the CC establishing the general line for socialist construction:
“Put all their strength in tension and fight to march always forward to build socialism
according to the standard of quantity, speed, quality and economy. ” (President Mao) 88
With this powerful line, the masses in China, under the direction of the CCCH and under the head of President Mao,
they launched themselves boldly in the socialist construction boosting the great leap ahead and the construction of the
Popular communes, economic and political units, where the struggle for overcoming the
differences between the city and the countryside, between the workers and the peasants, and between manual labor and the
intellectual work. In addition, to ensure greater rights to women working people guaranteeing their wide
Participation in production, class struggle and scientific experimentation.
Difficulties caused mainly by inevitable natural calamities (dry, floods, earthquakes,
pests etc.) and others of performance in the application of an audacious plan like this of the big leap ahead,
involving hundreds of millions of workers, peasants, intellectual workers, women and
youth, in addition to the sabotage of counteraRorevolutionaries, were used by
Liu Shao-Chi to attack the thought Mao Tsetung. Again the rightists use the philosopher
revisionist Yang Sien-chos to attack the Red Line on the CCCH, which also, in 1958, writes the
reactionary article brief exposure on the two categories of “identity”, in which he stated that the defense
of the identity between thought and being was an idealistic conception. This document was used to
theoretically based, from the falsification of the theory of Marxist-Leninist knowledge, the position
Revisionist who criticized President Mao's socialist construction line, as if he were subjectivist.
Thus pointed out that the mishaps in the application of the socialist construction plan were products of a
idealistic conception of theory of knowledge, of a theory that would be subjectivist, because it believed it was
possible to adapt to reality to party plans.
These philosophical falsifications of Yang Sien-chos in 1958 were applauding by the president's red line
Hand. In this combat, the maoist and proletarian philosopher ai si-chi was highlighted, as stressed by
Editor group for revolutionary mass criticism of the party's Higher School, subordinate to the
CC of the PCCH, in 1971:


“Our enemies, which are rotten and decaying reactionaries, a handful of stupid blind for their
Hunger ambitions, always mistakenly estimate the situation. When they were committed to their
Wild counterattack, the proletarian headquarters headed by President Mao marked
penetrating that it was necessary to criticize the Yang Sien-chos and company, which
time were deliberately tergivating Engels' words to support their own fallacies
reactionary. With the proletarian headquarters guide, Ai Si-Chi and other comrades published
articles denouncing and criticizing in the theorist and politician the theory of lack of identity between thinking
and the being '. ” (Redator Group for Revolutionary Mass Criticism) 89
The ruse of Liu Shao-Chi's revisionist line was to falsify Marxist philosophy to theoretically substantiate
His attack on President Mao's line for socialist construction. Cover up with pseudo-marxist phraseology
Its rotten bourgeois line of capitalist restoration. This revisionist counterattack once again was
applauded by President Mao, who pointed out:
“The transitional period is full of contradiction and struggle. Our current revolutionary struggle is still
deeper than the revolutionary armed struggles of the past. It is a revolution that will bury
forever the capitalist system and other exploration systems. ” (President Mao) 90
The understanding that socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat should be a period of revolution
permanent to communism, as unfurled by Marx in criticism of the Gotha program, was
acquiring a higher development, sustained in the concrete experience of the struggle for construction
socialist and against capitalist restoration. Amid this two-line fight on the CCP, the theory was forged
the need for successive proletarian cultural revolutions to reach communism.
The struggle of two lines against Liu Shao-Chi, the “Kruschov Chinese”, focused essentially on questions
ideological and socialist construction, in the defense of thinking Mao TStung and its general line for the
Socialist construction. However, this two-line struggle expressed itself in a special way as “three
great struggles in the philosophical front ”from 1949 to 1964:
1st great struggle: against the theory of the “synthesized economic base” (1949-1955)
2nd Great Fight: In defense of the conception of dialectical identity between thought and being (1958-1959)
3rd Great Fight: In defense of the dialectical principle that one is divided into two (1964-1965)
All these philosophical struggles were in essence ideological clashes between the president's red line
Mao and the revisionist line of Liu Shao-Chi. In all these philosophical struggles, Liu Shao-Chi used his
Assacla Yang Sien-chos aimed at creating a theoretical base and a public opinion favorable to his line
revisionist. As synthesized the article three great struggle in the philosophical front:
“Between 1949 and 1964, three important struggles of principles in the philosophical front of our country were crashed,
namely: the struggle around the issue of economic base and superstructure, the struggle around the issue
If there is identity between thinking and being, and the struggle around the question that 'one is divided into two'
or 'two are part of one'. The three struggles were caused, one after another, by Yang Sien-chun,
agent of the renegade, hidden traitor and sells workers Liu Shao-Chi in philosophical circles, in
crucial conjunctures of the struggle between the two classes (the proletariat and the bourgeoisie), between the two ways
(the socialist and the capitalist) and between the two lines (the Marxist and the revisionist). It was hard
battles between dialectical materialism and historical materialism, by one part, and idealism and
metaphysics by another. Were a reflection, in the philosophical front of the acute national class struggle and
International." (Redator Group for Revolutionary Mass Criticism) 91
These two -line struggles as a reflection of the class struggle in socialist revolution and construction in China,
boosted the development of Marxist philosophy. Among the ideological works that mark the advance
philosophical of the ideology of the international proletariat in the course of the Socialist Revolution in China, highlight
SE: About the problem of agricultural cooperativization (1955), about the correct treatment of contradictions in the
People's bosom (1957), dialectical method for internal unity in the party (1957) and where ideas come from
correct? (1963).
As mentioned earlier, in about the problem of agricultural cooperativization, President Mao does
In pieces, in theory and in practice, the rotten and revisionist “theory of productive forces”. In over the


correct treatment of contradictions within the people, President Mao advances the Marxist dialectic in
decisive issues for socialist construction, how to treat unity and the struggle of contrary when it is
It is necessary to seek the relative balance between the aspects of a contradiction. That is, how to achieve the
Balance between: production and consumption, industry and agriculture, centralism and democracy. President Mao
demonstrates that this balance can only be achieved through the struggle of the opposites and not by the reconciliation of the
contradiction:
“What we call balance is the relative and temporary unity of the opposites. After a year, this
balance, taken as a whole, is broken by the struggle of the opposite, this unit is altered,
balance becomes imbalance, unity in division and then, once again
necessary to get balance and unity for the following year. In this lies the superiority of our
planned economy. In fact, this balance and this unit partially break each month
and every quarter, and require partial adjustments. ” (President Mao) 92
Recognition of contradiction and the proper method of the struggle to solve contradiction, are decisive for
progressively advance in socialist construction. In socialist society, not even in communism, if
will reach a point where there will be no contradictions. The balance between production and consumption can only be
achieved from the recognition of the contradiction between these two opposite aspects, this balance does not
will be achieved by the conciliation of the contradiction; After all, the resolution of every contradiction is only possible
through the struggle, so the desired balance between these two aspects can only be achieved through the struggle
Decided against the imbalance that arises the “month and all quarter”, between these two contradictory aspects.
This was an important philosophical development established by President Mao, essential for the
Correct formulation of plans for socialist construction, towards the bright communism.
In dealing with the particular contradictions of socialist construction, President Mao reaffirms the universal character
and absolute of the law of contradiction. Therefore, in 1957, the condition of the law of
contradiction as the fundamental law of materialist dialectic:
“Marxist philosophy maintains that the law of unity of contrary is the fundamental law of the universe.
This law has universal validity, both for nature and human society and for the thought of the
man. The opposite sides of a contradiction form a unit and in turn fight with each other, the
which produces the movement and the transformation of things. Everywhere there are contradictions,
But they have a different character according to the nature of things. In anything concrete, the
unity of the opposites is conditional, temporary, transient and, therefore, relative, while the struggle
Among the opposites is absolute. ” (President Mao) 93
In recalcating the law of contradiction as the fundamental law of the universe, President Mao also emphasizes that
It is the contradiction that produces the movement and transformation of things and phenomena. So it doesn't pass
for falsification of the direction of the UOC (MLM) to say Maoist and at the same time argue that it is the denial of
denial that best explains the direction of movement and the transformation of things. In this case, the difficulty
is not in identifying forgery, but in analyzing the relationship of this forgery with other misrepresentations
Ideological and political, a question that we will also deal with.
As mentioned earlier, where do the right ideas come from? (1963) constituted a significant
development in the Marxist theory of knowledge in that it emphasized the issue of
identity between thought and being. This development was also the product of the concrete struggle by
Socialist construction and the struggle of two lines against the revisionist Liu Shao-Chi and his scribe Yang Sien-chun.
Yang Sien-chen's theoretical foundation came from the philosophical falsification of the Leninist work materialism
and empirocriticism. As we saw in the previous session, in this work, Lenin develops the Marxist theory of
knowledge by establishing the theory of reflex, defending the contradictory unity between theory and practice,
as well as the identity between both aspects, that is, the identity between thought and being. However,
Lenin also fought another philosophical falsification revisionist who advocated an absolute identity
between social being and social conscience. This was, for example, the position of the Empiriocriticist-Revisionist
Bogdanov, who applied Mach theory that linked the absolute identity between sensation and matter to theory
of knowledge, presenting this eclectic mix as the overcoming of the “dualism” between materialism and
idealism. Yang Sien-chos uses Lenin's critic
falsifying its content, denying any possibility of dialectical identity between thought and
Being, as the red line comrades analyze on the CCP in 1971:


“In his book Materialism and Empiriocriticism, Lenin fully criticized the macho theory of
put thinking and being in the same plane, that is, the reactionary subjective idealist fallacies
Proposed by Ernst Mach and Company that 'things are complex of sensations' and'
social and social conscience are identical '. Intentionally taking each other: the identity
Between thinking and the being and the macho fallacy that thinking and being are identical, Yang Sien-chos said
arbitrarily that Lenin's materialism and empiriciticism criticized from the beginning to the
End the identity between thinking and being ’.” (Redator Group for Revolutionary Mass Criticism) 94
President Mao, where does the right ideas come from? , applauds these revisionist falsifications and
develops the formulation of the identity between thought and being in the following terms:
“People's social existence determines their thoughts. The correct ideas characteristic of
advanced class, once dominated by the masses, will become a material force to
transform society and the world. (…) In the beginning, knowledge is purely sensitive. To the
quantitatively accumulate this sensory knowledge will be produced a leap and will become
rational knowledge, in ideas. This is the process of knowledge. It is the first stage of the process
of knowledge as a whole, the stage that leads from objective matter to subjective consciousness,
From existence to ideas. (…) Soon the second stage of the knowledge process, the stage
that leads consciousness to matter, from ideas to existence, that is, to apply to social practice the
knowledge obtained in the first step, to see if these theories, policies, plans and resolutions can
achieve the expected consequences. Speaking in general terms, those that result well are suitable,
And those that result badly are wrong, especially in the struggle of humanity against nature. ”
(President Mao) 95
President Mao even more crystalline the resolution of the important philosophical question of
identity between thought and being. Shows the dialectical movement of the mutual transformation of
thought and social existence. Highlights that, on the one hand, social existence determines the thinking of
people; On the other hand, the right ideas, when assumed by the masses, become a force
material capable of transforming society and the world. Shows how in the first stage of knowledge
objective matter becomes subjective consciousness, and as in the second stage of knowledge
Subjective consciousness becomes material strength. The two quality heels of the process of the
knowledge, that is, from practice to theory and theory to practice, correspond to the double movement of
identity between thought and being, when being becomes thought and when thought is
transforms into being. In this formulation the President Mao refutes the conception of Yang Sien-chun, who denies the
transformation of thought into material strength. In addition, it attacks the falsification made by Yang Sien-chun, who
transforms Lenin's critique to the absolute identity between thought and being in denial of identity
dialectic between these contrary aspects. After all, if there was this absolute identity between thought and
Being knowledge would be immediate; However, as the Marxist theory of knowledge establishes, the
knowledge is a process of approximation, reflex, objective reality by thought, process
This is mediated by social practice.
Yang Sien-Chen's critique of the absolute identity between social being and social conscience was completely
Farcers, what he pursued was to attack the Marxist theory of knowledge. As a revisionist philosopher, Yang
Sien-as shared the same essence as Bogadov's bourgeois positions and just as he denied the
Knowledge as a process of successive approach to objective truth. As the articles of the
Redator Group for Revolutionary Mass Criticism:
“Yang Sien-chen completely denied the need for a process for the knowledge of
objective things for man. In your eyes, it is 'idealism' when the subjective cannot
agree at once with the goal. From this nonsense, he invested against a point without
consider all the others, overwhelmingly exaggerating some passing and isolated defects that
They were difficult to avoid in our practical work and condemning them as 'idealists'. ” (Group
Editor for revolutionary mass criticism) 96
As already demonstrated pages before, we insisted, President Mao, in 1963, fully refuted such a position
of the revisionist Yang. Starting from the rich experience of socialist construction in China still needed
plus the Marxist theory of knowledge, allow us to repeat it:


“In social struggles, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer from some
failure, but not because their ideas are incorrect, except because in the correlation of forces in
struggle, the advanced forces at the moment are not yet as powerful as the reactionary, and for this
They fail temporarily, but they reach successes sooner or later. (…) In general, you can only
achieve correct knowledge after many reiterations of the process that leads from
matter to consciousness and consciousness to matter, that is, from practice to knowledge and
knowledge to practice. This is the Marxist theory of knowledge, this is the dialectical materialistic theory
of knowledge. ” (President Mao) 97
President Mao, developing the Marxist theory of knowledge, touches ideological issues
extremely important for MCI in the present days. This is a scientific and proletarian way to face
errors and defeats. Even starting from a fair line a certain proportion of errors, in its application, will be
Inevitable, after all “failure is the mother of success”, much more valid for the one who pursues the truth. Just
After the repeated applications of a fair line it is possible to create the objective conditions that allow the
Inversion in the correlation of forces between revolution and counterrevolution. For the forces representing the future,
For revolutionary causes defeats can only be temporary and fleeting, so there
definitive defeat for the proletariat. Certainty in the future, the certainty that the proletariat will achieve success
Sooner or later, it should be an unshakable conviction of the communists. Only overflowing this
revolutionary optimism can do communists overcome all obstacles to destruction and
Shipping of imperialism and the whole reaction, as well as the class society. This is not subjectivism, this
It is an incarnation of revolutionary ideology, it is Marxist theory of knowledge, this is an important contribution of
President Mao.
Where do the right ideas come from? , the important successes of socialist construction in the early years of
1960 and the beginning of the big debate against Kruschovista revisionism in July 1963, with the publication
From the famous Chinese letter, he pushed the revisionist positions on the CCP for a position of total defensive.
After the applauding of the rotten theory of the “synthesized economic base” and the “impossibility of identity
Between thought and being, ”Liu Shao-Chi, through Yang Sien-chos, tries one last card. Starting from
a more abstract argument about dialectics now argues that the law of contradiction, the identity of
Contrary, it could be synthesized in the philosophical principle that "two combine in one." This was a
subrepticious attempt to attack the principle formulated by President Mao that everything in the universe is one that
is divided into two. Still, in 1957, President Mao, in a dialectical method for the internal unit of the
Party, established this important philosophical synthesis:
"One is divided into two: this is a universal phenomenon, this is dialectical." (President Mao) 98
In addition, it established in greater detail the universality of this phenomenon:
"Every thing is divided into two." “In human society, just as in nature, each
entity invariably divides into its different parts; There are only differences in
content and form under various concrete conditions. ” (President Mao) 99
In raising the principle that “two combine in one,” Liu Shao-Chi sought to renew the rotten theory of
reconciliation of the contradictions of the Deberin School, fought by Stalin and President Mao in the years
of 1930. However, the formulations of Yang Sien-chos were more dangerous, as they sought to present themselves
as the correct and non -unilateral interpretation of the law of contradiction. How is typical of Yang revisionists
Sien-chin presented his argument in a subreptious manner. Presented its philosophical falsification
through articles by some of their pupils and with the argument that the law of contradiction could only be
fully understood from the two principles together: one is divided into two and two
combine in one.
The publication of the first revisionist article occurred in May 1964, in the philosophical magazine Kuangming
Ribao. From then on other revisionist articles were published, but what happened was mainly a
Avalanche of leftist articles by fighting and attacking the hidden revisionist conceptions in Fajuta
attempt to integrate two antagonistic philosophical principles. Among the three great philosophical struggles, the debate
in defense of the dialectical principle that one is divided into two, due to the large dimension that involved the struggle
of two lines became known as the great debate in the philosophical front. Just like conversations about
political economy in the experience of socialist construction in the USSR, which occurred in the late 1950s,


whose notes came to public during GRCP through the red guards, the conversations
Philosophical of President Mao Tsetung, who occurred in August 1964, dealing precisely from the topics of
philosophical controversy over one divided into two, also during the GRCP had their minutes published, from
Which, abroad, only its English version is known. All the materials of the philosophical controversy were
published in important PCCH newspapers and magazines such as Remina Ribao and Hongqi and constituted a
very important struggle of two mass lines against revisionism, representing a culmination
for the establishment of the law of contradiction as the unique fundamental law of materialistic dialectic.
The arguments of the right, although fallacious and counterfeitors were not simple to be rebound and, for
This, they demanded and implied a significant development of Marxist philosophy in the course of
Process of Maoism itself.
Yang Sien-chin presented as follows his rotten position:
“The idea of the unity of contrary simply means that both sides of a contradiction
They are inseparably connected. All things are two by combining one. So, in the resolution of
Problems, it is necessary to 'divide one in two' to adopt the method of integrating two into one.
Learning the law of the contrary unit is to acquire the ability to connect two ideas. Is needed to
capture the opposites in the contrary unit, always remember that both sides of something are
inseparably linked. This way it will be possible to avoid unilaterality in practical work. ”
(Yang sien-chin apud ai si-ch) 100
The philosophical falsification of revisionists transforms the interdependence of aspects in contradiction into a
inseparable connection between the opposite aspects. Unilaterally take only the first sense of
Identity of the contrary, interdependence; and hide the second and most important sense of
Identity: the transformation of an aspect to its contrary. In addition, they formulate the eclectic principle that
In the analysis of a problem or contradiction it is necessary to divide one into two, but that the resolution of this
problem or contradiction should be integrated two into one. Thus generalize that the analysis would correspond
to divide one into two and the synthesis would correspond to integrate two into one:
“[According to Yang Sien-chos] the method of knowing things and solving problems includes both
aspects of analysis and synthesis, and that the one is divided into two applies only to analysis while
that 'integrating two in one' applies to synthesis. ” (Ai Si-Chi) 101
In presenting this philosophical falsification, the revisionists never presented examples related to
Class struggle, since this would facilitate its unmasking. None of the revisionist articles, for
example, argues that the resolution of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie would be the combination of
Both aspects, or by the reconciliation of the contradiction between them. Defend this after the applauding of
Opportunistic line of the “synthesized economic base” would be a blatantly bourgeois position. Via de
rule, revisionists gave an example of the need to integrate two into one type
contradictions in the course of socialist construction that seeks a relative balance between the aspects
contradictory. This ruse of the opportunists is thus pointed out there si-chi:
“Yang Sien-chos and his friends concentrate their main energies on issues not directly
related to class struggle, in which they can easily hide their
true ideological colors. They concentrate on: reds and experts, work and rest,
Quality and quantity, industry and agriculture, and similar questions of synthesis and coordination. ”
(Ai Si-Chi) 102
As it seeks to coordinate the advancement of industry with agriculture, how it was struggled to be red and
experts, the revisionists sought to confuse public opinion maintaining that this type of
contradictions was resolved by the method of integrating two into one. And that the principle that one is divided into two
it was worthless for this type of contradiction, as it would lead to unilateralism to an alleged separation of
industry and agriculture, etc. This revisionist ruse was the same copied by pachanda when in 2001
launched his revisionist "Theory of Fusion." At first presented the need to merge the insurrectional way
with the siege of the city through the countryside, then the need to merge parliamentary work with the war
Popular to present, in 2008, the ultimate result of its “dialectical” combinations of the “fusion theory”:
the “joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” 103. If Pachanda presented this forgery


Explicit as early as 2001, of course it would be defeated in the party. Therefore, which presented it in terms
more confused, with which he paved the land at the party's directive center, and then
smuggling, all its revisionist capitulation. On the left, from the then NCP (Maoist), would fit and all fit
be aware of these revisionist counterfeits, because then the danger of smuggling positions lies
bourgeois with the appearance of Marxist positions.
Like Pachanda, the Yang Sien-chun minions always used the metaphor of “walking with
two legs ”as a way to combat the supposed unilateralism of the Maoist principle that one is divided into
two. This revisionist forgery is thus formulated in its first article, May 1964:
“In the work of building socialism in China, there are many opposite aspects. Firstly,
the conditions must be found to connect together and to unite opposites, and to unite and
integrate opposites at work. To use symbolic language, this is 'walking with both legs'.
For example, the general line of socialist construction because we strive to the fullest and advance
consistently to achieve larger, faster, better and more economical results
expresses the law of the unity of the opposites. Larger results, faster, better and more
economic are mutually opposed and connected with each other, and also condition
mutually. There is a contradiction between larger and faster results, on the one hand, and between
better and more economical, on the other hand. However, larger and faster results do not
can be divorced from better and more economical results. ” (Ai Heng-Fu and Lin Ching-Shan) 104
Revisionists intentionally confuse the need for coordination, relative balance,
balancing between two contradictory aspects, in a non-antagonistic contradiction, with the principle of
Integrate two in one. As was already established by President Mao in the correct treatment of
contradictions within the people, in the units of contrary in which the relative balance between the two
aspects, as in the case between larger and faster results, the recognition of
contradictions between them and through the struggle to reach balance at a new level. As they are opposed,
imbalance will always emerge, this imbalance can only be resolved by the struggle between aspects and not by
fusion or integration of both. Balance, therefore, is only reached through the struggle to maintain the aspect
main as dominant in the contradiction. As established by President Mao in the contradiction, the
contradictory aspects in a unit always develop unevenly and it is always necessary to struggle
so that the most advanced and necessary aspect predominates in the contrary unit.
Regarding the main aspect in a contradiction, revisionists falsify arguing that in
some types of contradiction either aspect can be the main thing:
“Regarding the contradiction between democracy and dictatorship, because contradictions within the people and
those with the enemy are intermediate and can be confused with each other, we must
clearly distinguish between them to prevent the enemy from exploring the situation when we are
talking about democracy, and to avoid giving false impressions to some people when we
We talk about dictatorship. And also, the dictatorship will eventually be eliminated, leaving only one
Communist Union of all the people. Of both aspects, democracy and centralism, anyone has
precedence over the other in real life. ” (Pan Hsiao-Yuan) 105
The revisionists tergivers the maleist principles about the correct treatment of contradictions in the bosom
of the people, they falsify the law of contradiction and argue that in certain contradictions it does not matter
What is the main aspect in the unit. Once again, they use as an example a contradiction where
seeks a relative balance between the aspects, after all, whether in the party or in socialist society, there must be
Both centralism and democracy, both dictatorship and democracy. But this does not mean that between
Two aspects are not one of them that is the main one. Deny the main aspect of the contradiction and the struggle to
Let the new prevail is to deny the upward direction of the resolution of contradictions. In this way, in
contradiction between centralism and democracy, although a balance of both centralism should be sought
It is the main aspect of the contradiction. After all, democracy in party life aims to reach the unity of action,
for only the centralized action of the proletariat is able to destroy capitalism. This contradiction relates
with the unity between the collective and the individual, where, ultimately, the collective is the main aspect of
contradiction. However, under certain conditions democracy or the individual necessarily assume
the mainness of contradiction.


The left articles of the left of refuting and unmasking one by one the revisionist philosophical falsifications
revealing its vilian objective of creating a theoretical basis and a public opinion that justifies the restoration
capitalist. In doing so as a two-line struggle, these articles contribute a lot to emphasize elements
very important of the philosophical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and, especially, President Mao
TSETUNG, which sometimes go unnoticed in a study outside the heat of the controversy. Let's see now
Some of the arguments on the left that applied the revisionist positions in those struggles.
Refuting the revisionist falsification that in the contradictions in which a relative balance is sought between
Opposites should apply the principle of integrating two into one, and that the motto of “walking with both legs”
formulated in the socialist construction line of the CCCH is used as if it corresponded to this principle
Revisionist, the maleist left article on the CCP states that:
“In the present internship, in China, between industry and agriculture and between workers and peasants
connected to them, there are not only two different property systems, two different types of
production relations and two different types of workers. Also, with regard to
development of industry or agriculture itself, there is objectively a constant
Imbalance, and such imbalance is also a contradiction. In order to develop the economy
national, the way of dealing with industry and agriculture is not to implement the two combine in
one, that is, to deny the contradiction between them, but to formulate guidelines and policies on the
face the contradiction. The party's general line for the development of the national economy, with the
agriculture as a basis and industry as a leading factor, was formulated on the basis of the analysis of
objective contradiction. The line of 'walking with both legs', and not with one, it was precisely
developed to correctly handle the contradiction between them. ” (Chin Jan) 106
The conception of “walking with the two legs” starts precisely from the recognition of contradiction and the
correct management in its resolution. The resolution of the whole contradiction can only be the struggle of the opposites,
and the struggle of the contrary corresponds to the advanced aspect of the dominant in the contradiction. All balance
It can therefore only be relative and relative balance when necessary only leads to historical progress,
when the most advanced aspect predominates in the unity of the opposites. In contradiction between industry and
Agriculture, the general line of socialist construction provided for the gradual predominance of industry over agriculture
and, at the same time, the elimination of the difference between field and city, between workers and peasants, between
intellectual and manual work. Only with the predominance of industry could it advance in this regard, however,
Only taking agriculture as the basis could march forward in socialist construction. The resolution
of this contradiction, from a relatively balanced predominance of the industry on agriculture,
is marching for the transformation of the whole society, the countryside and the city, in a superior form of
social organization that are the popular communes.
Refuting the falsification that non-antagonistic contradictions would be resolved by the combination of two in
One, an article from the Maoist Left, in November 1964, maintains that:
“A struggle of life and death is the form of struggle of antagonistic contradictions; The opposite is the form of struggle
of non-antagonistic contradictions. (…) But just like all other contradictions the contradiction
between reds and experts must be resolved through a fight against both
aspects of contradiction, by replacing one aspect with another, and not by the way of integrating
Two in one'." (Kao Ta-Sheng and Feng Yu-Chang) 107
Contradiction between reds and experts is a non-antagonistic contradiction, but as every contradiction
can only be resolved through the fight, not a fight in general, but the fight against the two
aspects of contradiction, by replacing one aspect with another. This is not a struggle of life and death, in the
However, it is still a frontal struggle, though gradual, between the two aspects of the contradiction. Regarding
The problem of the main aspect of the contradiction, in the same article it is emphasized that:
“In the contradiction between red and expert, red is the main aspect of contradiction and is the
command and the soul of proficiency; when the imbalance between red and expert is
Developed and intensified there will be only specialty and nothing red. So this contradiction
between reds and experts cannot be resolved without involving the issue of red; the struggle for
'Promote the proletariat and destroy the bourgeoisie' must be conducted previously so that it can be
achieve both: reds and experts. ” (Kao Ta-Sheng and Feng Yu-Chang) 108


Revisionist Yang Sien-chin falsifies the concept of analysis and synthesis pointing to the conclusion that
Resolution of all contradiction occurs through the combination of two in one. Present the analysis as a
Divide in two was just a ruse to camouflage his antagonism against President Mao Tsetung. A
Philosophical falsification of Yang Sien-chin transformed the unity of contrary into an indissoluble connection
among the opposite aspects. As this connection would be indissoluble, the resolution of the contradictions, according to the
Revisionists could only be achieved by harmonization or reconciliation of the two contradictory aspects.
The offensive of the Maoist left in the great philosophical debate, when rebate, this fallacy will emphasize
President Mao's important arguments on the issue. Demonstrating that both the beginning of a
process is one that is divided into two, as well as its resolution is by the division of unity
against the dissolution of this unit. When an aspect becomes its opposite modifies the
quality of the phenomenon or a new process arises. If the unity of opposites were never indissoluble
dominated aspect could become the dominant aspect. This mutual transformation of the contrary
occurs through the dissolution of the old contradictory unit. The identity of the opposites, therefore, in their
The most important sense is also one that is divided into two. When a certain pair of contrary
disappears and a new process of a new unit of contrary, this contradiction resolution
It is also one that is divided into two: from the old unity of contrary the aspects are detached, the aspect
Old man goes to the trash of history and the new aspect is divided into two giving a new process.
Returning Engels, the Maoist Left article at 1971 Peking Review, points out that:
“Materialist dialectic maintains that the nature of something is the contradictory condition within the
thing and its separation. Engels pointed out: ‘Dialectics demonstrated, from the results of the
experience we have so far had with nature, that all polar opposites are determined
by the reciprocal action of the two opposite poles, that separation and opposition to these opposites
there are within its mutual connection and its union and that, conversely, its union only exists in
Its separation, and its mutual connection exists only in its opposition '(nature dialectic). This wants
say that one cannot speak of the bonds between the two opposing aspects without their struggle and
separability. The struggle between two opposing aspects inevitably leads to the breach of
its interconnection, the disintegration of an entity and the change of nature of one thing. Therefore,
the interconnection between the two opposing aspects is conditional and relative while its
separation is unconditional and absolute. ” (Grupo Editor for Mass Criticism
Revolutionary) 109
The refutation of Yang Sien-chun's philosophical falsification about the inseparable bond of the aspects of
contradiction, she sheds light on previous formulations of Marxist philosophy that precisely emphasize
unity between interdependence and separation in all contradictions. Highlighting that the unit
affirms mutual connection and struggle leads the separation of the opposite aspects, leading to the change of
nature of the thing. This reasoning was already contained in the contradiction, but the course of the struggle of
Two lines highlight these aspects pointing to their development. In 1937, President Mao
had established that:
“Understanding each aspect of a contradiction means understanding that position
specific occupies each of them, what concrete forms assume their relationships of interdependence and
contradiction with its opposite, and what concrete means employs in the struggle with its opposite
while both aspects are in interdependence and contradiction as after the rupture of the
interdependence." (President Mao) 110
President Mao in this passage already points out that the contradiction resolution was due to the rupture of the
interdependence, by the division of the unity of opposites in two, thus disintegrating the contradiction and
giving rise to a new process or phenomenon. The fight against the philosophical falsification revisionist
boosted the left to resume this principle and to develop it with new arguments for the
Applause from the right. In the maleist left article, in July 1964, this problem is placed from the
following form:
“However, as we see, different qualitative processes cannot mix
each other. Different constitutive contrary that form different processes cannot be seen under
The same light. If a new process has begun, then this new process is by no means
"Two two combine in one" product, that is, the combination of the two contradiction of contradiction in


old process, but it is a process in which an aspect of the contradiction of the old process
triumphed on the other aspect, ending the old process by resolving the contradiction and
replacement with a new process. ” (Chin Jan) 111
As already highlighted, in a unit of contrary the new aspect arises as an aspect
dominated, through the quantitative accumulation in the fight against the dominant aspect, the new aspect
It develops even becoming the dominant. Weak and dominated even strong and dominant, this is the qualitative leap that
transforms the nature of the phenomenon. The continuity of the same contradictory pair, in inverted positions, in the
new phenomenon develops with the old aspect seeking to restore dominance and the new aspect
(now dominant) seeking to settle the outdated aspect. The resolution of the contradiction or the objective synthesis
it constitutes the separation, the dissolution of this unit, in the full triumph of the new over the old and in the
emergence of a new process.
The great philosophical controversy is publicly terminated with the publication of the article by Ai Si-Chi, in May
1965. This article summarizes the most developed formulation during the controversy and clearly points to the law
contradiction as a unique fundamental law of dialectic:
“The unity of contrary is the unity of the incessant struggle of contrary within things. (…) A
incessant struggle between the opposites constantly puts its unity in a tendency to
division and disintegration. In addition, division and disintegration will be the reality, sooner or later,
So things will become their old forms of movement to new forms of
movement, of quantitative changes to qualitative changes, from the affirmation to the
denial. This is exactly a process of dividing itself into two, the essence of the law of the unit of
contrary. ” (Ai Si-Chi) 112
The struggle in defense of the dialectical principle that one is divided into two, in the great philosophical controversy,
boosted the resolution of the question raised by Engels in a dialectic of nature, about the connection between
The three basic laws of dialectic established by Hegel in Science of Logic. As already emphasized
Previously, President Mao, on the contradiction, had already shown that the foundation of the
Conversion of quantity into quality was the law of contradiction. During the defense that one is divided into
Two is the last link of the question. The denial of denial is explained from the law of contradiction and
particularly through the synthesis that one is divided into two.
When in the course of the debate it is emphasized that both the beginning of a process and its resolution occur in
compliance with a single and same dialectical principle of the division of unity, its separation,
It is evident that the process of origin, development and resolution of a contradiction advances
quantitative changes to qualitative changes, and: from the affirmation of that unit against the
denial of the same unit of contrary. Thus demonstrates that the dominant aspect is what seeks
affirm the unity of contrary, impose its domination through the struggle and through this to prevent the dissolution of the
unit. The new and dominated aspect, in turn, is what it seeks through the struggle to deny that unit of
contrary, dissolve that unity, and through the struggle transforming in a dominant aspect - denying
Thus the old contradiction, inaugurating a new process, or a phenomenon with a new quality.
In this formulation presented by left frames and so si-chi in the last article of the great controversy
Philosophical, appears in a single formulation, around a single dialectical principle, which were the three
basic laws of dialectic: one is divided into two as the essence of the law of contradiction revealing that the
conversion of quantity into quality and the transformation of the affirmation into denial, do not constitute laws
separated from the law of contradiction. The conversion of quantity into quality, and the transformation of the statement
In denial of the unity of contrary are inseparable elements of the law of contradiction. In all and all
Thing and phenomenon The contradiction arises immediately, that is, a thing or a phenomenon only exist
as unity and struggle of the contrary. Resolution of every contradiction, in turn, is never immediate, but
always resulting from a process. The process of resolution of every contradiction invariably travels a
quantitative change stage that becomes a qualitative change. The struggle of the aspects
contrary in turn, it is always a struggle for the affirmation of the unity of contrary by the dominant aspect
against the struggle for the negation of the unity of opposites by the dominated aspect.
In substantiating the denial of denial from the law of contradiction, defining it in its universal form
as the movement of affirmation to the denial of a unity of opposites, the great philosophical debate


She sheds light and is linked to the first contributions of the great Marx in the formulation of dialectical materialism. One
Maoist left article, it uses important citations of The Holy Family (1845), in which Marx and
Engels hit accounts with the metaphysical conceptions of the Hegelian young people. These passages illustrate
enlightening manner as the grounding of the affirmation and denial of a unit of opposites is the
contradiction law:
“Proletariat and wealth are antitheses. And in this condition they form a whole. Both are forms of the world
of private property. What is about it is the determined position that both occupy in the
antithesis. It is not enough to clarify them as both sides-or extreme-from a whole. The property
private in the condition of private property, as wealth, is obliged to maintain its own
existence and with it the existence of its opposite, the proletariat. This is the positive side of the antithesis, the
Private property that is satisfied with itself. The proletariat as a proletariat, from another
part, he is obliged to abolish himself and with that to his conditioning antithesis, the one that transforms him
In proletariat: private property. This is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness in itself, the
Private property that dissolves and dissolves. (…) Within this antithesis the private owner is,
Therefore, the conservative side, and the proletarian the destructive side. Of the first, the action that aims
preserve the antithesis, of the second the annihilation action of this antithesis. ” (Marx) 113
Proletariat and bourgeoisie conform a unit of opposites. The bourgeoisie occupies the dominant position in
contradiction and with this is obliged to maintain its existence and also the existence of its opposite, the
Proletariat - which constitutes the source of its wealth. The bourgeoisie is the positive side of the contradiction, as it states
This unit of opposites is therefore the conservative side that seeks all means to keep this
unit. The proletariat is the negative side of contradiction, which needs to abolish bourgeois domination and with
This is also abolishing as a class; The proletariat is therefore the destructive side, which seeks to deny
Revolutionarily the unity of opposites that conform to bourgeois society.
Affirmation and denial is universal to all phenomena. The denial of denial, as already seen, is particular
to some types of phenomenon in which a chained and necessary sequential resolution occurs
units otherwise. Therefore, contrary to what UOC (MLM) says in its last tergiversation of
denial of denial, when President Mao speaks of affirmation and denial he is not changing the
name of the law, it is also changing its content, accordingly, as seen, with the conception of
World, revolutionary and proletarian, of Marx and Engels.
This significant philosophical development originated by the class struggle in socialist society and the
Acute two -line fight on the CCP, preceded and served as fuel and chisp for the grpc flames.
As the article at Peking Review of 1971 synthesizes:
“As promptly as the counterrevolutionary theory of Yang Sien-chos of‘ integrate two
In one, 'the proletarian headquarters headed by the President Mao reported, giving in the clove,
His true essence and drove and untyed an open criticism of Yang Sien-chos. Therefore, the vigorous
toast of masses of the great proletarian cultural revolution completely swept the Yang Sien-chos and
Your claim I love Liu Shao-Chi, as well as the bourgeois headquarters, to the mourning of history. ” (Group
Editor for revolutionary mass criticism) 114
At the same time this great philosophical controversy that precedes and helps to prepare the great revolution
Proletarian cultural, was around the law of contradiction, as an article of the Maoist left highlights:
“The center of this controversy is whether or not the heart of dialectical materialism should be recognized
fact that the law of unity of contrary is the fundamental law of things, and it should be recognized
or not as the conception of the world and the methodology of the proletariat. ” (JAO CHING-HUANG) 115
This was the question. And it was up to President Gonzalo, the direction of the PCP and the Popular War in Peru,
recognize, plant and support with the most rigorous scientific foundation, that the law of contradiction
constitutes the heart of dialectical materialism. In addition, President Gonzalo was the first to apply the law of
contradiction to the study of the development of the ideology of the international proletariat and to affirm it as the
only scientific ideology. In this way, President Gonzalo takes Marxism as a process in
course from which necessary steps of its development, corresponding to the movement of the
objective reality, societies and the world. Highlights that a new step corresponds to a
necessary development in the three constitutive parts of Marxism as a concrete of great leap


quality as a unit. Masterfully handling the law of contradiction in the fire of the class struggle of the
prolonged popular war will define Maoism as new, third and superior stage of development
Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, especially Maoism: Ideology
From the international proletariat, almighty because scientific, true. In this definition describes the
Maoism as this great leap in the three constitutive parts of ideology as unity, reaping
firmly among other conclusions to establish that the law of contradiction is the unique fundamental law of
dialectic, because it is the law that governs eternal matter in its incessant transformation, in all its
Manifestations, nature, society and human thought. So I solve it definitively
the relationship between the universal aspects of the stage of ideology with the particular aspects of its application
concrete as a unity of opposites, fully formulating the theory of guide thinking as
peremptory need for each communist party towards the revolution of its respective country, resulting
of the creative application of the universal truths of the ideology of the international proletariat, in its most
developed and superior, to the concrete and particular reality of this country and their integration with practice
of the revolution in that same country. Thus, President Gonzalo points to the world's communists to
reconstruct/constitute militarized communist parties to trigger more popular wars by
revolution in their countries and the service of the world proletarian revolution and for putting Maoism as its
unique command and guides and sweep imperialism and the entire reaction of the face of the earth.
2- AVAKIAN AND PRACHANDA: REVIEWS, CAPITULATION AND FILOSOPHICAL FRANITING
The very rich process of establishing the law of contradiction as a unique fundamental law of dialectic
Materialist traveled more than a century of development of the ideology of the international proletariat. A
more advanced theoretical formulation of Marxist philosophy resulted from fights of two lines extremely
important, led by President Mao on the CCCH and MCI, to give the necessary solution to the
challenging problems of the proletarian revolution. In the course of this process, it is confirmed that the phenomenon of
revisionism, as a reflection of the class struggle, from the point of view of the bourgeoisie, within the avant -garde
communist, tends to be enhanced when situations of major modifications of objective reality or
her requirement, in which new and crucial problems are presented to the revolutionaries, whether triumphs or
defeats. Two historical examples illustrate this phenomenon: after the triumph of the New Democracy Revolution
in China in 1949 and the challenge of becoming uninterrupted to the socialist revolution, the struggle is deepened
against the line of Liu Shao-Chi; after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, in the Social Democratic Working Party
From Russia the Empiriocriticist influence takes shape. Revisionism is the ideological expression of capitulation,
whether in situations of great setbacks, or in positive situations but represent great challenges and
Risks to the revolutionaries. In addition, revisionism as a reactionary bourgeois current within the
proletariat and its avant -garde, seeks to substantiate its capitulation with a Marxist color in order to
hide your class content. It is impossible for revisionism to be theoretically based on materialism
dialectical, hence it is inevitable to the renegades, in one way or another, to falsify Marxist philosophy in the vain
attempt to support themselves to cover up their bourgeois positions and create public opinion that
justify. Therefore, dominance by the class and its avant -garde of dialectical materialistic philosophy, its principles
and fundamentals, it is an indispensable weapon to formulate and maintain the red line and for the
Required unmasking and applauding of revisionist positions.
The detailed study of the establishment of the law of contradiction and its essential principle that a
Divides in two weapons not only to have a correct balance of the RPM and MCI process and to resolve
new problems of the revolution, as to distinguish the exact content from Avakian's philosophy,
Prachanda, from Mirian LOD and other revisionists. Allows us to clearly see that behind the
formal divergence between those there is the same content, the same reactionary bourgeois philosophy,
idealistic and metaphysics. Avakian argues that the law of contradiction is the “basic law of dialectic”, in turn
Prachanda argues that in addition to this should also include the law of quantity and quality and denial of
denial; However, they are all against and oppose themselves veiled, but antagonically, to the content
Revolutionary of the Law of Contradiction. Avakian formally defends the principle that one is divided into two,
Prachanda in practice applies the fusion between the two antagonistic principles: one divides into two and two
integrate one. However, both apply in different ways only the revisionist principle of integrating
Two in one.


These two recent modalities of revisionism, Avakianism and Prachandismo, share a
same ideological essence: the essentially negative balance of the proletariat's dictatorship experience in the
twentieth century, nonsense criticism of comrade Stalin and President Mao, the cowardly
Yankee imperialism, the defense of lasting unity with the bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie in the
socialism and the need for a refounding of communist ideology. Both represent the same type
of opportunistic right -wing revisionism. Avakianism has the responsibility of starting this review and
Renegation of Marxism in the ranks of Maoism itself; falsification systematically undertaken by
Avakian since 1981. Prachandism has the responsibility for putting these conceptions into practice
In a concrete revolutionary process, shamefully betraying the Popular War in Nepal.
UOC (MLM), since the beginning of its conformation in the 1990s, shared many of these dogs
Avakianists from the early 1980s. Although they do not openly recognize,
ideological formulations, of their analyzes on imperialism, of their conception that they no longer exist
semi -feudal relations in the field of Colombia, that the character of the revolution in his country is already immediately
Socialist, they are based on revisionist theses formulated by Avakian. UOC (MLM) assumes the position
Avakianist against the universality of the New Democracy Revolution for all colonial countries and
semicolonials of the world, therefore considers the 1984 declaration of the MRI a setback in relation to the
Declaration of the Fall Conference of 1980. The founders of UOC (MLM) state, for example that:
“Before you will examine the way MRI and its members have referred to the problem [
revolution in the countries oppressed by imperialism], it seems to me to be pertinent to mention the call of attention
that makes the comrade Avakian (…). This antimarxist, anti -materialist trend, on occasions reaches the
Cumulus of authorizing themselves in the comrade Mao TStung, literally taking his words
'Colonial or semicolonial' with which droughts referred to in his work on the new democracy
to the oppressed countries in which the revolution should cross two steps. ” [UOC (MLM)] 116
In his late criticism, insufficient and without any self -criticism of prachandism and avakianism, the
UOC (MLM), presents the Nepalese revisionist as an opportunism of the right and the 'hero' of the “new synthesis”
as "centrist", respectively. Do this for two reasons, camouflage your old affiliation with theses
Avakian reviewers of the 1980s and deny their convergence with Prachandism from 2001 to 2006,
When the capitulation and philosophical falsification of pacchanda became increasingly evident. A
UOC (MLM), in its journal, never tired of exalting the popular war in Nepal as the avant -garde of
World proletarian revolution, even in 2005, when the signs of revisionism were already too much
evident117. And this support was not restricted to the justified enthusiasm with the military achievements of
Nepalesa Revolution, as she extended to convergence with the Prachandist revisionist theses:
“Directed by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Popular War advances in its offensive
strategy and, as part of the creative combination between armed struggle and peaceful struggle,
unilateral four -month fire strengthened mass adherence to party orientation and
Union of the political forces of society against the Nepalese monarchy. ” [UOC (MLM), February
2006] 118
Blatant defense of the theory of pacchandist fusion, integration, combination, conciliation of two
Opposite aspects: armed struggle and peaceful struggle. Does not plan the problem that the main form of struggle is the
Armed struggle, not even the question that the peaceful struggle is only justified when it serves the armed struggle. To the
Contrary, they openly defend the conciliation between the two opposite aspects of this contradiction. Conciliation
This can only lead, as it led, to the disarming of the masses and the betrayal of the revolution. In March 2006, the
UOC (MLM) exalts the revisionist direction of the PCN (M) and its rotten revisionist line in the following terms:
“Since the beginning of the popular war, the [PCN (M)] party has kept a correct line (…). A
CORRECT POLITICAL LINE WATERED BY PCN (M), based on a firm strategy and a tactic
flexible, it has allowed you to get great advances in the war, to the point that nowadays the forces
communists have the domain of more than 80% of the Nepalese territory, because due to its flexible tactic
obtained, without sacrificing the strategy, which is the state of new democracy, to win the parties
parliamentarians to make a single front against the monarchy. ” [UOC (MLM), March 2006] 119
In the same year 2006, UOC (MLM) loudly attacked the capitulation of the PCN direction (M) and the
Prachanda revisionism. It was boasting that it was the first organization in the world to have done this criticism
public and spared no words on his accusations to comrade Miguel Alonso, from the committee for


Reconstitution of the Communist Party of Galicia, demanding a public self-criticism. However, the
UOC (MLM) has never made any mention of its previous convergence with the pacchandist theses,
minimum self -criticism of these.
Armed with the analysis of the process of establishing the law of contradiction and the principle that a
divides in two in the development of the ideology of the international proletariat, we advance to the
Unmasking of the philosophical falsifications of Avakian, Pachanda and the convergence of UOC (MLM)
with these.
2.1- The philosophical falsifications of Avakian from the early 1980s
In the late 1970s, the PCR-UUSA acted positively when it denounced the coup d'état
Counterrevolutionary of the Revisionist Damn of Teng Siao-Oping and the arrest of the leaders of the line of
Left of the CCP, the comrade Chiang Ching and the comrade Chang Chung-Chao. Moreover,
Next to the PCR-Chile, he summoned the 1980 autumn conference, which brought together parties and organizations
Revolutionaries seeking to reverse the dispersal of communist forces after capitalist restoration in China.
Despite the positive initiative, the limitations of the document's ideological and political content for the discussion
of the autumn conference already revealed the capitalist positions of Avakian. Analyzing Policy
China's International Revisionist of Teng Siao-Papa The document concludes that:
“(…) If China were a socialist country, its international line would represent a
extreme continuation of certain very serious mistakes previously made by MCI and, in
private, in the USSR when it was a socialist country, especially in relation to World War II
(…). ” [PCR-UUS and PCR-Chile] 120
The document implies that the international line of renegade Teng was continuity of the comrade line
Stalin. This and other counterbreaks present in the autumn conference proposition document were
Only a sample of the typically small-bourgeois ideological vacillation of Avakian in the face of defeats
temporary proletariat. The reflux of the revolutionary struggle in the USA with the end of the war in Vietnam, in
1975, with the capitalist restoration in China in 1976, and with the challenging situation against the defeat of the
Yankee imperialism in Vietnam (1975), Nicaragua (1979) and Iran (1980), in this case the theocratic regime
Islamic that complied with, performed the most brutal repression of the communists, was the environment in which
It consolidates the ideological break of Avakian. This derived the sinister of Avakian's path to seek
“Errors” in the ideology of the international proletariat with which he could present them as a cause to
those temporary defeats. Avakian denies the Marxist theory of knowledge and now consider,
Like the revisionist Yang Sien-chos, every error and all temporary defeat as a consequence of failures in
philosophical conception.
From 1981 to 1984, Avakian and his consorts systematically work on the philosophical falsification of Marxism
to give the theoretical basis to its revisionist line and to influence the MRI foundation conference. In 1981,
Avakian presents his philosophical falsifications in the following articles: once again about the issue of
dialectic, on the philosophical base of proletarian internationalism and main and fundamental contradictions to
world level. In these articles, Avakian attacks the grounds of the law of contradiction established fully
by President Mao. Still in 1981, Avakian presents his capitulating and defeatist balance of history
of MCI in the document conquer the world?, where he throws mud on the work of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and
President Mao. In 1984, they complete the theoretical foundation of its revisionist line, through the book
published on behalf of Raymmond Lotta, America in decline, where they present their rotten position that the
Interimperialist contradiction is the main contradiction in the world in the imperialist stage of capitalism.
Returning these documents is important to demonstrate how the “new synthesis” was not
something produced in the 21st century, but a revisionist line has long been gestated and cooked in the parsley of
arguments that were already formulated by Avakian before the founding of the MRI in 1984. analyze these
texts is important to demonstrate how the 1984 conference mainly represented a
defeat to the Avakianist line, as most of his theses were rejected by the set of parties in them
participants. Avakianist theses rejected, are precisely the points that the UOC (MLM) regrets that
were in the 1980 statement, but not in 1984. At the same time, analyzing this manual of


sophisticated revisionism, reveals that the negative aspects still contained in the 1984 statement are all
They were avakianist smuggling formulated in the early 1980s.
The balance of development of the ideology of the international proletariat made by the renegade Avakian, in the
early 1980s, can be synthesized in this statement of yours:
“(…) Without Leninism, Marxism is social chauvinism and Eurocentric social-democracy; without
Leninism, Maoism is nationalism (and also in certain social contexts chauvinism) and
bourgeois democracy. ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 121
In an alleged defense of Leninism, which would raise Marxism and at the same time would bark Maoism,
Avakian throws mud in the ideology of the international proletariat. Although, it formally declares that the aspect
Main in this ideology would be positive, all its evaluation leads to the contrary; broken
ideologically in the face of temporary defeats, Avakian can only take Marxism as a
huddled with errors. And of course his defense of Leninism is false, so much so that Avakian in the same text states
what:
"(…) There is a certain bourgeois logic in this reasoning of Lenin." (AVAKIAN, 1981) 122
And about President Mao, Avakian blatantly states that:
“(…) Even in hand, despite being in contradiction with its contributions to dialectic
materialistic and its development of it, manifest some metaphysical trends that
interrelate with nationalist trends in this respect. ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 123
This is the ideological balance of renegade Avakian, applauded by UOC (MLM) in the 1990s and characterized
as a centrist at the beginning of the 2000. later, in his critique of the evident capitulationism of
Prachanda, Avakian would try to present his dislike of MCI in disguise from the dialectical principle
revolutionary:
“(…) [The] Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," divides into two ": its revolutionary, correct and
scientific that, in turn, is validated is advancing to new levels; the errors that identified themselves in
politics and theory that still secondary are real and harmful and one can and need to combat them
as part of making the jump that requires. ” (PCR-UUS, 2012) 124
Another of the Small Burgers Philosophical Falsifications of Avakian. Evident, that the ideology of the proletariat
international, in each of its stages, dealt with hits and errors and progressed mainly supporting
if in the first, and through the rectification of the seconds, gaining experience in their management, in a
increasing approach to objective truth. But in each of the steps, what was defined as the
elements of the doctrine of the proletariat, in its three constitutive parts, are the true aspects
Proven by the revolutionary practice of class struggle, in the course of more than 170 years. Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism is, therefore, a set of countless integrated truths, as scientific doctrine and
Not a jumble of hits and errors. Like everything in the universe, the ideology of the international proletariat is a
which is divided into two, but not on hits and errors, but in universal truths and particular truths.
There are truths forged in Marxism that were valid only to Europe of the nineteenth century,
particular truths that are no longer universal today. But they did not become mistakes. The ideology of
international proletariat, the leap in its stages, move mainly, according to the need for
solve new problems that arise and will always arise in the arena of international class struggle and in each
country.
Avakian in his pseudoscience is a typical small-bourgeois hunter without any practice
revolutionary, in addition to their readings and speculative formulations on the revolutionary practice of others,
without the risks of the real practice of class struggle. Since the pulpit where it utters its sentences has been judging
those who actually risk doing the evolutionary work and who, in doing so, inevitably committed certain
amount of errors and suffer defeats, persist in the struggle rectifying the mistakes and advance ahead with victories,
They suffer new defeats, they persist until the struggle completely triumphs. Against this kind of people Lenin declared
powerfully:


“The capitalists and their minions (including mensheviks and right -wing socialists) shout that we have
made mistakes. Behind 100 errors, there were 100 large and heroic actions, simple actions,
discreet and hidden in the daily life of factories or villages. ” (Lenin) 125
To support this capitulating balance of the ideology of the international proletariat, it was essential
For Avakian to attack the heart of dialectical materialism, that is, the law of contradiction. All
Revisionist, Avakian makes this attack allegedly defending President Mao's formulations. The ruse of
Avakian is to attack the use of denial of denial by Marx and Engels aiming one of the foundations of the law of
contradiction. Attacking Engels' exemplification of barley cycle from the denial of denial,
Avakian declares:
“[Engels states] that grinding this grain [of barley] will not lead to the denial of denial arguing
that 'every kind of thing has its characteristic form of being denied' (anti-dühring). But what that
Does it have to do with dialectics? Why, and whoever said, that everything has its 'characteristic' way of being
denied? This smells like predetermination and notion of the unchanging essence of things. Mao opposed
this kind of thinking when he indicated that heredity and mutation are a unit of
contrary. Here we can see how the concept of denial of denial is in
antagonism with the current fundamental law of dialectical materialism, the unity of opposites
(contradiction)." (AVAKIAN, 1981) 126
Here you can see a typical procedure of Avakianist counterfeits: puts one of the classics against the
another to attack the essence of their position. In this case puts President Mao in a position
antagonistic in relation to the great Engels. Places a wall of China between the denial of denial in its
Use by Marx and Engels and the law of Maoist contradiction. Do this to find a big "error" in the first
step and an alleged “resolution” in the third. Then account for everyone's error and appears as the Redeemer
that rectifies them all in their “new synthesis”. This is a shameful, counterfeit procedure. As
We were able to analyze previously, in the very course of the first stage, particularly in the work of Engels
(Anti-dühring) The theoretical formulation of Marxist philosophy advances from denial of denial to contradiction.
We have also seen that there is no antagonism between denial of denial and contradiction; After all, the
denial of denial is only a particular form of the resolution of the contrary unit. In addition, the
Avakian's forgery is so vile that he claims that it was President Mao who would have identified the unit
of contrary between heredity and mutation in the life cycle of barley, and it is the Engels itself who
points this contradiction:
“The theory of evolution, starting with the simple cell, demonstrates how all progress to the plant
more complex on the one hand and even the human being on the other is made by the permanent conflict between
heredity and adaptation. ” (Engels) 127
Typical revisionism maneuver: Small textual fraud to smuggle great forgery in content
ideological. Avakian says that the denial of denial “smells of predetermination”, considers absurd the
Engels reasoning that each thing has a characteristic way of being denied. For the renegade, a
Conclusion as this would constitute determinism, teleology. Discovering the necessary laws in a phenomenon is the
Science task; Marxism discovered the necessary laws of capitalism and, therefore, was constituted as a
scientific ideology. It is Marx himself who synthesizes his scientific discoveries as follows:
“As far as I am concerned, it is not for me to have discovered the existence of the classes in the
modern society nor its struggle among themselves. Long before me, bourgeois historians had
exposed the historical development of this struggle of classes, and bourgeois economists the anatomy
of them. What I did again, was:
1. Demonstrate that the existence of the classes is only linked to certain phases of development
production history;
2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;
3. That this same dictatorship only constitutes the transition to overcoming all classes and to a
society without classes. ” (Marx) 128
The need for the dictatorship of the proletariat is a social law discovered by Marx and not a predetermination
teleological by it built. Bourgeois society has a particular way of being denied and this form is
The dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition to the overcoming of social classes, communism. The president


Mao, contrary to what the Avakian prestidigator states, does not turn against it. On the contrary, it establishes
as a universal law that the new aspect in a unity of contrary will necessarily become the aspect
Principal of contradiction, that is, will deny the old unity of opposites:
“We often talk about the 'replacement of the old with the new'. Such is the general and imprescriptible law of the
Universe. The transformation of one phenomenon into another, by jumps whose forms vary according to the
character of the phenomenon itself and according to the conditions under which it is, this is the process of
Substitution of the old man with the new. Whatever phenomenon is, there is always a contradiction between the
old and the new, which determines a series of winding course struggles. Of these struggles it results that the new
grows and rises to the dominant position, while the old man, on the contrary, decreases and ends
to die. As soon as the new gains a dominant position on the old man, the old phenomenon
transforms qualitatively into a new phenomenon. ” (President Mao) 129
Every process has a particular way of being denied: the new aspect denies the old process, transforms
if in the dominant aspect and changes the quality of the phenomenon. The antagonism between Engels and President Mao
It's just avakianist forgery. What he wants to deny is the Marxist theory of knowledge that
establishes that in the active process of humanity, through social practice, human consciousness can
reflect the essence of phenomena, discover their laws and thus transform reality according to their
goals. For bourgeois science, for its relativistic reactionary philosophy, this is determinism. For the
Proletariat This is science, it is materialism, it is dialectical.
Avakian from the critique of the use by Marx and Engels of denial of denial in the early 1980s,
It intended to smuggle the masked philosophical relativism of scientific criticism. Well to the taste of philosophy
Michel Foucault and Company, Precursors of Postmodernism that today's grace in
Academy, Avakian rises against the law of contradiction that states that the replacement of the old man with the new
"It is the general and imprescriptible law of the universe." Avakian is against this universal truth, and through one of his
Asseclas states that:
“This is the process of synthesis, the creation of the new, it can only proceed through the fight against and
eventually replace the old man. ” (Lenny Wolf, 1983) 130
AND:
“In a sense, the more an idea corresponds to reality the more unpredictable the
paths in which it will transform given reality. ” (Lenny Wolf, 1983) 131
In the early 1980s, Avakian presented his relativist idealism in ridiculous paradoxes like this.
In the 2000s, it uses even thicker falsifications to pass their smuggling. Analyzing
Marx's cited passage that speaks of the imprescriptible need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, Avakian
Tergiversa as follows:
“Regarding the word 'necessarily': I have to say that for me it is not totally clear,
precisely, what Marx meant by 'necessarily' in this context, but the relationship - and, in
particular, the difference - between 'necessity' and 'inevitability' is a very
important." (AVAKIAN, 2019) 132
Charlata as always, Avakian initially tries to make a distinction between “need” versus
inevitability. And then to achieve its true objective:
“The purpose of communism, the necessary process that leads to it - the revolution and the transformation
profound of society and, ultimately, of the world as a whole (…) and the possibility (not
inevitability but the possibility) of this revolution: all this is established by any
Subjective and utopian fantasy type, but which is established on a scientific base (…). Here,
as indicated in the observation that contrasts the possibility with inevitability,
crucial distinction and a profound question of methodology. In the history of the communist movement, since
The moment of its foundation, there was a tendency to 'inevitabilism' - the erroneous belief that the
historical development will inevitably lead to the triumph of communism (…). ” (AVAKIAN,
2019) 133


Avakian opposes the need for inevitability and then inevitability to the possibility; thus denies sub-
Marx's statement that “class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the
proletariat ”, transforming the need for communism into a mere possibility. Deny
of communism, to convert it to the Small Bureau taste into a possibility of many, this is the goal
ideological of Avakian's philosophical falsification. Therefore, when the President Mao is opposed to Engels, aims at
Appearance in the use of denial of denial, to get the law of contradiction right in essence.
But Avakian not only denies the Marxist theory of knowledge, that is, the possibility of reflecting the laws
society's objectives to transform it, acting in accordance with these laws, transforming the
need. Avakian, besides being a relativist is a metaphysical and opposes the dialectical conception of the world that
It predicts that the transformation of all things and phenomena occur from their internal causes; that the
external conditions influence the development of the phenomenon, but always act through their
internal contradictions.
As part of his MCI's capitulating balance, Avakian identifies a supposed nationalist “error”
Engels, Stalin and President Mao practices. According to him this “error” would be linked to a conception
metaphysics about the relationship of the internal and external factors of a given process. Managing
sophisticated way opposite aspects in a non-antagonistic contradiction, just as the
revisionists advocates of the principle of integrating two into one, Avakian presents as follows his
Pastiche:
“[For Mao]… the internal causes are indeed primarily in relation to the external ones. (…) But in certain
measure, there was a tendency to conceive and apply this principle metaphysically, which was
linked to a certain amount of nationalism in the Chinese party, including among Marxist genuine
Leninists, including hand. In fact, this trend was in opposition to another highlighted principle
on contradiction: ‘given that the variety of things is immeasurable and their development
It has no limits, which is universal in a context is particularly made in another context, and vice versa.
This means that what is internal in one context becomes external into another and vice
Versa. China, for example (or uses, or any other country), has its own particularity, its
particular contradiction itself and, in a context, the rest of the world (and struggles and transformations in this)
It is external (for China, or USA, etc). But it is also true that, in another context, China and uses and the
rest of countries in the world form parts of the world (of human society) as a whole, with their
internal contradiction and its transformation, determined in a general sense by the contradiction
Fundamental of the bourgeois time, between socialized production and private appropriation. This means that
in general the development of class struggle (and national), the development of
revolutionary situations, etc., in private countries are more determined by the
development in the world as a whole than for development in countries in particular
- Determined not only, as a condition of change (external cause) but as the base of
Change (internal cause). ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 134
Avakian is a Sicophant that seeks to intentionally confuse things. First says that President Mao
conceives the dialectical relationship between internal (as a base) and external causes (as conditioning)
Metaphysical way, that is, as if there was no identity of opposites between these two opposite aspects.
This is a blatant lie, because in the contradiction itself, President Mao gives us a
historical example and how internal transformations in a country can imply qualitative modification
of external conditions, that is, from the world as a whole:
“Does materialist dialectic exclude external causes? No. The materialistic dialectic considers that the
external causes constitute the condition of change and the internal causes, their base, and that they act
through these. (…) There is constant mutual influence between the peoples of different countries. In season
capitalism, especially at the time of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, are
extremely large the mutual influence and interaction between the various countries on the land
political, economic and cultural. The October Socialist Revolution inaugurated a new era not only
In the history of Russia, but also in world history. Has exerted an influence on
internal changes in other countries in the world and also, with special depth, in the changes
Internal China. Such changes, however, took place through their internal laws of
said countries, including China. ” (President Mao) 135
What is nationalism in the conception of President Mao about the relationship between the revolution in a
certain country and the world revolution? What is metaphysics in the Maoist formulation of the relationship


between the internal and external conditions of a particular process? By no means, President Mao
denies the identity of opposites between internal and external conditions. As evident in the passage above,
the October socialist revolution, that is, the internal transformation in a country given determined a
Modification in the world situation as a whole, inaugurating a new era in world history. What is this
Does it mean philosophically? That the internal condition of a country has become the dominant aspect of
Contradiction, determining and influenced every and one of the countries of the world. However, this identity
contrary does not deny the dialectical principle that are always the internal causes that constitute the basis of
development and transformation of a process. After all, as President Mao points out, the modification
that the Russian Revolution determines in the international situation operates in each country as and through its
internal contradictions. That is, the grass determined for example the modification of the character of the revolution
Chinese, which of the Democratic Revolution of an old type would have to be from then on new revolution
Democracy; However, the GRSO did not change the character of the French Revolution, which followed as before
demanding a socialist revolution.
In addition to falsifying and lying about President Mao's philosophical and ideological conclusions, Avakian distort
The content of the identity of opposites. According to the materialistic dialectic, the transformation of an aspect into
Its opposite means that the dominant aspect becomes dominated, and vice versa. Avakian, falsifies this
content and states that in a given context a contrary becomes the same as its opposite, thus eliminating
The difference between them. That is, for Avakian, in certain contexts, external = internal and vice versa.
Thus, it comes to the height of the sofistoria when it states that in a certain context the world, that is, the
External becomes the internal, on the basis of change. In this way, it attributes to the fundamental contradiction of the
capitalist process (social production x private appropriation) in the internal contradiction of this world. If the
World becomes the “internal”, what would be external? Each country in particular or the galaxy? None of
two, since the identity of Avakian's opposites is the old absolute identity of the opposites, for him the
mutual transformation is not one in which opposites fight with each other, change their position maintaining their
differences and their mutual struggle. For Avakian, mutual transformation is the equalization of the opposites,
There is the difference between internal and external, and a “revolution” arises that is immediately international. But
This can only be a speculative “revolution”, because in denying that the world proletarian revolution occurs in
Each country, Avakian denies that among these countries there is an unequal development of the revolutionary situation.
This theory has nothing new, it is just the reissue of the rotten Trotskyist conception that denies the possibility
of socialism in one country. Not by chance, he shamelessly states:
“We have to advance with impetus and firmness under the glorious ideological banner of‘ nihilism
national'." (AVAKIAN, 1981) 136
Avakian's attack on the law of contradiction does not stop there. With a pseudo-left option, Avakian
raises against the main contradiction, in a supposed defense that the proletarian revolution can only win if
Lock fighting against the enemy in all directions and at the same time. Thus, after attacking the supposed
"Nationalism" of President Mao who "did not take the external conditions as internal," Avakian says
what:
“And together with this, too, it reveals itself in a certain recurring tendency to convert to principle
The policy of using contradictions between enemies, of defeating enemies one by one. ” (AVAKIAN,
1981) 137
AND:
“There is no principle that determines that I have to do it that way; If I am able to defeat them to
all at once, I must because they violate them all and turn them into pieces and so much better for the
international proletariat. ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 138
This is Avakian in the early 1980s, the farce of a Wang Ming, a battle general. To the
Philosophical counterfeits are: 1) Subjectivist idealism: transforms the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat
in mere “possibility”; 2) denies that internal causes are the basis of the transformation of phenomena and
External causes the conditions of transformation; 3) denies the existence of a main contradiction in a
phenomenon and advocates the resolution of all contradictions at once. These philosophical falsifications
They were part of the Avakianist engineer to formulate their revisionist line. From the point of view of


Historical materialism, Avakian, still in 1981, turns against the law discovered by Marxism that “(…)
The class struggle is the engine of history ”139. According to the renegade:
“The driving force that drives this process is indeed the anarchy of capitalist production, still
that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is an integral part of the contradiction between the
socialized production and capitalist appropriation. Although the exploitation of the workforce is
the form and method by which the added value is created and appropriate, are the anarchic relations between the
capitalist producers and not simply the pure existence of dismissed proletarians or
contradiction of classes itself, which leads to these producers to explore the working class on a scale
more intense and extensive historical. This driving force of anarchy is an expression of the fact that the
capitalist mode of production represents the complete development of the production of goods and
of the law of value. If this were not the case where these goods of goods existed
independent of each other and at the same time were intertwined by the operation of the
law of value, would not feel the same coercion to explore the proletariat - the contradiction between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat could mitigate. It is the internal coercion of capital to expand, which
explains the dynamism without historical precedent of this mode of production, a process that transforms
continuously the relationships of value and leading to crises. ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 140
The disadvantage of a revisionist has no limits, Avakian transforms the anarchy of production, the contradiction
Among the capitalists, in the driving force of the capitalist process. Marx in The Capital, as seen above,
analyzes the importance of competition among capitalists, shows how capitalist property
through competition engenders the expropriation of the means of production among the bourgeoisie itself. This one
fact is an indispensable dynamic factor for capitalist development, but transforming this contradiction into
History driving force is just cheap revisionism. In addition, Avakian concludes that if it weren't for
Contradiction between the bourgeoisie the exploitation of the proletariat could mitigate; This is the same reasoning as
renegade Kautksy who argued that the monopolistic trend of imperialism could soften the
Antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Avakian says it is competition among capitalists and not
search for added value, which leads these “producers” to explore the working class in a more intense and
extensive.
For Marxism, the capital's self -expansion movement has a clear origin: the social contradiction between
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This production relationship has as particular product, proper to the mode of
capitalist production, the surplus value. Surplus value is the non-paid work by the capitalist who becomes
capital. Capital produces surplus value, the accumulated added value becomes capital. This is the process
Economic of self -expansion of the capital discovered by Marx. Free competition acts as an external cause
indispensable of this process, but the base is the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the production
social and private appropriation. Surplus value, non-paid work, profit constitutes the leitmotiv of production
capitalist. The self -expansion of capital is its unavoidable result; The free the competition
among the capitalists, faster this self -studio will be, faster will be the centralization of capital, more
acute will be the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society and better will be the conditions for its
resolution. However, the resolution of this contradiction can only be due to the ideological strengthening of the
aspect dominated in the contradiction, that is, the proletariat, because this is the social representative class and political
Social production in fight against private property. Capitalists are the individual representatives of
dominant aspect of the fundamental contradiction, the contradiction between them, either in the phase of free competition,
Whether in monopolies, the imperialist influence the resolution of the contradiction, but do not determine it.
Only the struggle between the opposite aspects of a contradiction can resolve this contradiction.
In 1984, in the book America in decline, Avakian and Lotta try to substantiate the political economy
Marxist plus this forgery in historical and dialectical materialism. As a typical procedure of
revisionists, they start from a small textual fraud to engender a great falsification of
Marxist principles. Lotta states that:
“There are two manifestations, two forms of movement, of the contradiction between social production and
Private Appropriation: (1) The contradiction between organized character in individual companies (or in a
higher and more integrated level of ownership) and anarchy in social production as a whole;
and (2) the contradiction in class relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. According to Engels:
‘It is in these two forms of manifestation of the immanent contradiction to him by origin that the
Capitalist mode of production. '(…) The theoretical and political implications of this anti-pass
Dühring need subsequent interpretation and elaboration. First, the fundamental contradiction of the


Capitalism is the founding material for these two forms of movement. (…) But stop
highlight the point again, the movement driven by anarchy is the main form of
contradiction movement between social production and private appropriation. ” (Lotta, 1984) 141
Lotta states that Engels would have established two forms of movement of the fundamental contradiction, but that
a subsequent development of this formulation was lacking, duly done by him and Avakian when
establish which of these forms would be the main one. Falsify the citation of Engels, to intentionally
seek a false foundation in Marxism for its rotten theory that the anarchy of social production,
Interburgers and interimperialist contradictions are more important than the contradiction between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie and between the oppressed nations and imperialism. Let us resume, the complete passage of Engels to
see with precision in what terms he puts:
“The contradiction between social production and capitalist appropriation reproduces itself as antagonism
between the organization of production in the individual factory and the anarchy of production in the whole society. AND
in these two manifestations of the immanent contradiction to him by his origin that the mode of
capitalist production ”. (Engels) 142
The two forms of movement of the contradiction, therefore, highlighted by Engels are: 1) social production
Versus Private Appropriation, and 2) Organization of production versus anarchy of social production. Both
forms are inseparable, but the first is evidently the main, as it is the basis of the production of
added value. Production anarchy results from the relationship between capitalist production, that is, the production of
added value and its corresponding circulation mode: free competition. Production of added value and free
Competition result in anarchy of social production. Lotta falsifies this passage saying that the two
forms of movement would be: 1) the anarchy of social production and 2) the contradiction of classes.
But this little textual fraud of Avakian and Lotta, retained numerous times in the PCR-Usa publications,
over the past few decades, it is nothing in the face of the content of the revised international political line that
seek to substantiate with this forgery. From this set of philosophical falsifications and the balance
capitulating ideological that make the process of the world proletarian revolution and MCI, Avakian
formulates its international line based on the following dogmas: 1) Imperialism implies the transformation
of the world in a single and same production process; 2) Therefore, the international arena becomes the condition
“Internal” for the revolution in each country, so the revolutionary transformation in a nation is
mainly determined by the international situation and not the degree of development of their
internal contradictions; 3) The fundamental contradiction of the capitalist process is the “internal” contradiction of
Revolution in the International Arena; 4) The main form of movement of this contradiction is the anarchy of
social production, the interburgers and interimperialist contradictions; 5) This main form of movement of the
fundamental contradiction determines the mainly dynamic character of imperialism that thus “sweeps
Semi -Feudal Production Relations ”in the semicolonial countries; 6) It is the development of contradictions
interIIIMPERIALISTS, a developed form of production anarchy, which creates the conditions for the advancement of the struggle
of classes and the world proletarian revolution.
Let us quickly look at the political consequences of all Avakianist philosophical falsification, synthesized in
Points 5 and 6.
“World capitalism confronts and must subsuce pre-existing social and economic structures.
On a world scale, imperialism works towards undermining and transforming the ways
Pre-Capitalists. This occurs through the force of competition or through the direct capitalization of the
productive factors, including the workforce - the result of this is to accelerate the expulsion of
peasants of subsisting economy and artisanal works of the field. ” (Lotta, 1985) 143
Thus, according to Avakian and Lotta, imperialism retains the progressive character of free capitalism
competition that expanded through the dissolution of pre-capitalist production relations. For the
AVAKIANISO IMPERIALISM develops, reaches the maximization of profits through the destruction of
pre-capitalist production modes and not relying on the semi-feudal relations that constitute a
decisive internal foundation for national oppression. For Avakianism not only imperialism in general
It acts in this regard, but even the interimperialist wars:


“In addition, the interimperialist worlds are, first and foremost, military disputes by minors
or greater victories, its immediate result can, in some important aspects, do not
economic results of lasting expansion (even because such wars objectively
recomposes the conditions for accumulation). But ignoring the specific terms of the redivision and
reorganization, jumps are made in the organization at the individual and national level of capital - and in
dissolution of precapitalist relationships around the world. ” (Lotta, 1984) 144
This is the typical Trotskyist conception of imperialism, opposite the diametrical of Leninist formulations. Lenin
repudiates the whole thesis of a supposed progressive character of imperialism, it formulates that:
“Imperialism is the time of financial capital and monopolies, which bring with them, throughout
Part, the tendency towards domination, not for freedom. The reaction in the entire line, whatever
it is the political regime; the extreme exacerbation of contradictions also in this sphere: such is the result
of this trend. Also intensifies national oppression and the tendency for
annexations, that is, for the violation of national independence (because the annexation is but the
violation of the law of nations to self -determination). ” (Lenin) 145
The revisionist forgery in defining the anarchy of production, as a form of main movement of the
fundamental contradiction of the capitalist process, aims solely and exclusively to create a theoretical basis that
Justify the rotten Avakianist thesis that the imperialist war is to decide the future of the proletarian revolution
Worldwide. Avakian's hope has always been deposited in the conflagration of a new World War
imperialist, as a condition for the advancement of the revolution. As Lotta explicitly formulates, in 2014, the
anarchy of production and the interim contradiction derived from it:
“(…) It is what prepares the main scenario for what to do to transform society
It's the world." (Lotta, 2014) 146
For these revisionists the class struggle is not the engine of history but that the development of
inter-imperialist contradiction, after all it would be the development of this contradiction that would create the conditions for
May the revolutions occur:
“Always and when the capitalist mode of production dominates on a world scale, it is the anarchy of
capitalist production to which the fundamental changes in the material sphere, the
changes that determine the milestone for class struggle. ” (Lotta, 2014) 147
The Maoist Organization of Colombia, MLM's proletarian power-organization, in one of its
Interventions in the fight of two lines in 2022, around the discussion base for CIMU, unmasked
Commitly this Avakianist philosophical falsification and its ideological-political decorrences. In your
document turning off with the Avakianist opportunism we are forging the unit among the communists, if
says:
“In the discourse of the supposed main form of movement of the fundamental contradiction, Avakian left
from outside the monopoly and its effects on free trade and, therefore, its effects on its own
anarchy." (PP-OP-MLM) 148
And after citing an important passage in which Lenin describes the transformation of free competition into
Monopoly, concludes:
“This is what is 'converted to our eyes' (ie, covered by evidence), it cannot be
unknown. Has implied that, for much of the planet, when the impositions of the
imperialism (monopolies) move free competition, anarchy is not the driving force
the development of productive forces or other contradictions. ” (PP-OP-MLM) 149
This is one of the main falsified points by Avakian, treats the effect of production anarchy on
productive forces and production relations as if there were no difference between the capitalism of the
nineteenth century and its imperialist phase.
Faced with this bourgeois philosophical basis, after these great falsifications of Marxism, Avakian & Cia only
It could elaborate a capitalist strategy - in accordance with its imperial theory. If the conditions


for the revolution are created by competition between capitalists and the interimperialist contradictions, which
It remains to the communists, the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples and nations is to wait for these
Conditions are mature and then… make the revolution. While propagating your antimarxist theses-
Leninist-Maoist and utters his following attacks on the giants of the international proletariat, remains to Avakian
launch your audicious consign:
"Accelerate while awaiting the emergence of a revolutionary situation." (AVAKIAN, 2019) 150
Avakianist capitulationism in the twentieth century and its chiefs baptized “new synthesis” is already in itself
too evident. What matters here is to demonstrate how these positions are anchored in counterfeits
philosophical from the early 1980s. What matters is to demonstrate the counterfeiting philosophical content
Marxism behind the alleged defense of the law of contradiction and the principle that one is divided into two,
source in which some organizations and their leaders have drunk to be bound. This is the most important question
to unveil in this topic. Taking down falsifications, it becomes easier to locate bourgeois content
Reactionary of Avakianist philosophy; its relativistic essence and its application, from the revisionist principle of
Integrate two in one. Avakian applies the same integration of two conform a pacchandist, but does it for
A different way. As a prachanda openly predicates the reconciliation of contradictions, Avakian applies to
absolute identity of the opposites, covered by a “leftist” discourse (in the early years of
1980).
Thus, as the revisionist Bogdanov, applauded in his idealistic positions by Lenin in materialism and
Empiriocriticism, established an absolute, metaphysical, non -dialectical identity between being social and
social awareness, Avakian establishes an absolute identity between external conditions and contradictions
internal and between theory and practice. Evident that this absolute identity is not in an equal proportion,
but as a statement of external conditions and suppression of internal contradictions and affirmation of theory
and suppression of practice. Just as the conception of Yang Sien-chos eliminated the struggle of contrary through
the reconciliation of contradictions, the absolute identity of Avakian eliminates the struggle of the opposites from the
disregard of the aspect of the contradiction that represents the new, that is, eliminates the revolutionary practice of
their unity with theory, artificially eliminates the internal contradictions of a country as the base of the
revolutionary transformation of this country to take external conditions as the determinants for said
process.
In its “scientific epistemology” Avakian completely suppresses practice. The result of your identity
absolute between theory and practice appears when he states that:
“(…) It is important to see that it is practice in the broader sense.” (AVAKIAN, 2008) 151
That is, the practice without risks of the concrete practice of class struggle, the theoretical practice of cabinet, the
Chair, completely removed from the masses and the concreteness of the class struggle. Thus, Avakian claims to be
possible to develop the revolutionary theory divorced from the revolutionary struggle and denies the active role of
Masses on the drive and forge of its scientific ideology. Avakian's conception of science is the
bourgeois conception about the truth. The Marxist theory of knowledge, the movement of practice - theory -
Practice, from the masses to the pasta, for him is but a “populist epistemology”:
“This general notion of populism and populist epistemology in an important degree has achieved
penetrate and, in a few ways, added the communist movement and its need to be
scientific." (AVAKIAN, 2019) 152
Yang Sien-chin, philosopher of Liu Shao-Chi, defended reconciliation between the opposite aspects: red and
experts, aiming to clearly promote the specialty over the detriment of the party and militant
revolutionary of the workers. Avakian promotes the same bourgeois and reactionary conception:
“All this is closely related to what it says in the 'sketch' about the new synthesis:‘
Epistemology and partidism. In the relationship between being scientific and being partisan, the main thing is to be
systematically scientific '. (AVAKIAN, 2019) 153
Avakian is a longtime revisionist, an inveterate counterfeiter, cowardly capitulating. A
characterization of the UOC (MLM) of Avakianism as centrism aims only to hide the tracks of its ancient


Ideological affiliation, camouflage the origin of a significant part of its theoretical principles. It was Avakian who
inaugurated the revisionist modality that acted in MRI, thus opening the bite of philosophical falsifications
later followed by pacchanda. Avakianism did not prosper in the 1980s, as the presence of
TKP/ML at the 1984 Conference and the later ticket of the PCP, sustained by the tremendous theoretical advances
Practical and ideological-political from the Popular War in Peru, played Avakian to a defensive position.
For years he was forced to dance the song that the left there played. After the fall of President Gonzalo,
Avakian raises his head in his most harmful actions: 1st) Articulates, in 1994, an international campaign of
President Gonzalo's defamation, who resulted in the demobilization of the international campaign in defense
of the life of the PCP leader; 2) Articulated shamefully, in 1998, the expulsion of MRI's TKP/ML.
After that it suffers an important defeat at Comri with the Millennium Declaration in 2000, but this victory
From the left it was just circumstantial. As soon as prachandism becomes openly revisionism,
markedly at the II National Conference of PCN (M), in February 2001, Avakian and Pachanda
dance together the waltz of capitulation. In 2005 they divorce, but continue to commune the same ideology
revisionist and the same bourgeois philosophy.
2.2- Prachandism as a practical realization of Avakianist speculation
When in November 2006, Pachanda signed the nefano “Global Peace Agreement” agreeing with the
aquartering and disarmament of the popular liberation army, its capitulation became wide open
revisionist. At that time, essence and appearance coincided in the pacchandist position and it was not necessary
Lots of science to identify prachandist revisionism. Despite this, many organizations and parties
inside the MRI followed for a few years defending the Pachanda's capitulatory line as
If this were a non -dogmatic application of Maoism. In 2008, when Pachanda already as first-
Minister of Nepal advised his newest invention, the mediocre and ahistoric "(...) joint dictatorship of the
proletariat and bourgeoisie ”154, the PCM of Italy, for example, declared:
“The balance of the experience of the international communist movement and socialism, the battle for
revolution in the 21st century, had an important first appreciation, as it is based on the real advance of
Nepalese revolution and theoretical contributions, practices and policies to Marxist-Leninist science
Maoists brought by the Communist Party of Nepal and the comrade Prachanda. ” (PCM da
Italy, 2008) 155
Instead of self -criticism because they have given international support and support to management positions
pacchandist, many of these organizations have their responsibility and seek to present the
Pachanda capitulation as something “surprising” and “unexpected”. Thus seek to separate the positions
pacchandists from 2006 of their previous formulations, during the early years of the war
Popular. Positions like these cover the bourgeois philosophical foundations of the Pachanda position and not
Thus, it goes out or break with the pernostic influence of this revisionist modality. Like this
Avakian begins his philosophical falsifications in the early 1980s, seeking to create a theoretical basis that
Justifying its capitulating revisionism, Pachanda begins, in February 2001, already apparently,
In the II National Conference of PCN (M), the same process. It is in this conference that the so -called
“Prachanda Way”, which is born as a revisionist modality, although it still covered with a
Left phraseology.
These pacchandist positions were not covered by the PCN (M), on the contrary, since 2001
widely publicized by its propaganda agencies: the Maoist International Bulletin, The Magazine
Worker and interviews of the renegade Prachanda for international press and communication monopolies.
The parties and Maoist organizations that the time did not realize this turn to the right of the direction of the
PCN (m) or were very inattentive deluded with appearances, or converged with positions
Prachandist ideological. In one case or another, they should self-criticize and rectify their positions. The critic
To philosophical falsifications, this ideological capitulation of pacchandism in the early 2000s is decisive
to go deep in the rectification of these positions. Possive in criticism of the deposition of weapons by the EPL
custody by the UN, the formulations of “globalized imperialist state”, “competition
Multipartisan ”, finally, of“ 21st century socialism ”is only in the shell of the capitulatory position
without giving up its essence.


Like every revisionist position, Prachandismo was the expression of capitulationism in the direction of the process
Nepalese revolutionary. Not of capitulation in the face of a defeat, but of capitulation in the face of the great
Challenges that the advance of the revolution presented towards him. The advance of the Nepalesa Revolution gave
Starks for the beginning of a new phase of the New Democracy Revolution; Given the imminent fall
of reactionary monarchy, Yankee imperialism, social-imperialism and Indian expansionism,
each other prepared a military intervention that would make it possible to curb the extraordinary advancement
of the popular war. It is in these circumstances that Prachanda capitulates shamefully, justifying this betrayal
the Nepalese revolution and nation in the following terms:
“It is a geographical fact that our country, with only 25 million inhabitants, is compressed between
Two giant countries, India and China, each with more than one billion inhabitants. The military force
Chinese develops to counteract US imperialism. The Indian Army is the fourth
strongest in the world. With the resources we have in our country and with the strength of our EPL, to
defend our geographical integrity against foreign military aggression, even though we recruit
all young people in it, we cannot think of defeating any of the neighboring armies without speaking
of the US imperialist army. ” (PRACHANDA, 2006) 156
This is the testament of a revisionist in his attempt to justify his covered capitulation
Opportunistic “realism”. Throws the whole experience of the International Communist Movement,
National liberation movement, which in the course of the twentieth century gave numerous evidence that the masses
led by the Communist Party, through the People's War, can defeat any enemy: the
Imperialism is a paper tiger. Today, the Palestinian people give the most current and heroic test, that even
surrounded by a genocidal imperialist state, such as Israel, compressed in a narrow strip of,
On average, only 9 km wide by 40 km long, consisting of just over 2 million
inhabitants, in the struggle of resistance and national liberation, can defeat imperialist domination when
a consequent direction that drives a war of prolonged masses, even though this direction
Not armed by the scientific ideology of the proletariat. The shameful capitulation of Pachanda is so
Patent that only revisionist betrayal can justify.
The direction of UOC (MLM) echoing the Trotskyists of Avakianism analyzed the capitulation of pacchanda in
following terms:
“Since a long time, there has always been a fight in MCI between Marxism and the adapted opportunism
bourgeois nationalism, and between MCI and the nationalist propensity of the democratic movement
Small Burger to the National Liberation struggle divorced from the class struggle, or on colorful occasions
of small-bourgeois socialism and, in any case, alien and opposite both the covenant with the struggle of
Classes for the Socialist Revolution, regarding the direction of the proletariat. In the background, the same content as
Current struggle between Marxism and Prachandismo ”. [UOC (MLM)] 157
Prachandism was not characterized by a nationalist deviation, on the contrary pachanda capitula
precisely the national liberation struggle; Capitula of advancing the popular war for its national phase
Revolutionary, capitulates the revolution of new democracy for its national liberation phase.
Capitulates and betrays the nation and people, the proletariat with a more advanced part of this and the proletariat
international, to fraternize with Yankee imperialism, social-imperialism and the
Indian expansionism, exchanging Nepalese national liberation for a plate of lentils. There is nothing
nationalism in this position.
The ideological expression of the pacchandist capitulation appears explicitly in the document Great Leap
Front, Resolution of the II National Conference of PCN (M), 2001, when Pachanda hugs
shamelessly the Avakianist balance of MCI. Although there are many concessions on the left in this
document, prachanda openly highlights that:
“The documents and articles written and prepared by PCR-UUS and its President Bob Avakian
They fulfilled an important role in raising the debate to a new level. ” (PRACHANDA, 2001) 158
And pachanda in this document, clarifies what the new level would consist of by the renegade Avakian:
“At this time, revolutionaries around the world are free, without any political pressure,
to extract the essence of the experiences of history and a great responsibility is placed on


your shoulders (…). In this context, we must deepen what was mentioned well initially in the
Letter entitled Stalin issue, during the big debate released by the CCP, led by Mao
against Kruschov's revisionism. ” (PRACHANDA, 2001) 159
The “deepening” of Pachanda's critique of Stalin is nothing more than the repetition of the arguments of
Avakian at the beginning of the 1980s:
“The emphasis on the defense of the Soviet society of an external threat, undermined the
internationalism and exaggerated Russian nationalism, which created many confusions in understanding
of the advance of the World Revolution and on the functioning of the Communist International. ” (PRACHANDA,
2001) 160
The same Avakianist litany about a supposed nationalist trend also in Stalin and MCI. A
Avakian's same strategy to start the ideological attack on Marxism attacking Stalin and then denying
all the essence of the ideology of the international proletariat. The “freedom” announced by Prachanda in 2001,
to “deepen” the criticism of comrade Stalin resulted in 2005 in the public announcement of the abandonment of the
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism:
“The attention of 21st century proletarian revolutionaries must be focused entirely on the fact that
that the analysis that Lenin and Mao made of imperialism and a number of concepts that
They developed on this basis, related to the proletarian strategy, became obsolete. ” (PRACHANDA,
2005) 161
Converging completely with Avakian's ideological balance about MCI, Prachandism since 2001
He became converted from the practical expression of Avakianist speculation. Thus, the “much elasticity” of this
Avakian's “hard core” presents herself as a “multi -party competition” of Pachanda. The “new synthesis”
Avakianist presents itself as “21st century socialism” of Pachanda. The thesis of production anarchy
as a dynamic element in Avakian's imperialism, applied by pachandism presents itself as the theory
of the globalized imperialist state. The Avakianist Barafunda who converts the international situation into causes
internal for the development of the revolution in a given country presented itself as the justification
Prachanda ideological for the capitulation of the popular war in the country.
And this manifestation of Avakianist theory as a prachandist practice was not only in 2006, but
since 2001. The overestimation of the strength of Yankee imperialism, so pronounced in the will
Prachanda capitulationist, it already appears in the II CN of PCN (M), in 2001:
“Mainly USA imperialism, greater and more encouraged to accumulate unlimited profits
through the combination of unprecedented progress in science and technology, including
electronics, with the cheap work of the Third World. ” (PRACHANDA, 2001) 162
Beyond the apology to the imperialism of the supposed progressive role of anarchy of social production in the
Imperialism, Pachanda repeats the Avakianist mantra about the “globalization of the production process”:
“With the process of globalization to appropriate profits, development unprecedented in the
field of information technology, mainly electronic, reduced the whole world to a single
and small rural unit. ” (PRACHANDA, 2001) 163
All this apology to imperialism was made to present the false assessment that the international situation
In the first decade of the 21st century it was very unfavorable for the World Revolution. This is the evaluation
Avakian's trumped, especially after the events of September 11. Unlike this
Balance, the September 11 machine was the Yankee reaction to the decline of the offensive
counterrevolutionary general character of imperialism and the whole reaction, triggered in the second half
of the 1980s, whose peak was reached from 1992 to 1996. This offensive counterrevolutionary
General pointed against Marxism with the harmful action of revisionism and social-imperialism Russians
(which then outlined), decreed the death of communism and even the end of history,
liquidated the Potsdam system with the sharing of Eastern Europe and the spheres of influence in the rest of the
world, all wrapped in the false slogans of “neoliberalism” and “globalization” and established the
Unique hegemonic superpower condition of Yankee imperialism. But, contrary to what I estimated
The whole reaction, the disorder in the world only increased. Extreme nationalisms aroused as well as the


fascism, ethnic and prey wars driven by imperialism by the sharing and recruudation of the
class struggle and national liberation, without giving up the expected growth and stability of the economy
worldwide. September 11 was the Yankee Machination to create public opinion without which
resume the offensive counterrevolutionary, as followed, with the occupation of Afghanistan by the coalition
commanded by the Yankee and logo from Iraq. And this offensive resumption was not based on a period of
expansion or recomposition of the profit rate of imperialism as a whole, but based on a
profound economic crisis, the same one that continues to get worse without ceasing to the present day, at levels without
Precedents of the decomposition of monopolistic capital. The most apparent manifestation than already occurred in the
objective base of the time occurred with the real estate crisis and derivatives in the USA, in late 2007 and beginning of
2008, the largest crisis of the postwar Yankee financial system that has become widespread around the world,
thus unmasking all the apologetic analysis of the imperialism of the Avakian and Prachanda.
The situation of Nepalese renegade, in turn, required a little more juggling. Because, next to the supposed
unfavorable international situation existed a formidable national situation that placed the PCN (m)
eve, not the conquest of power across the country, but from the advance to the stage of the National War
revolutionary that would carry the proletariat, the peasants and the Nepalese people as a whole their liberation
national, raising internationalist support around the world and raising tension in the class struggle
in India as in China social-imperialist. To maneuver in this conjuncture, the pacchandists give use
precisely from the Avakianist-Trotskyist precept that the international situation constitutes the main cause of the
advance or backwardness of the revolution in a given country. Thus, if the international situation was not
Favorable was justified the capitulation and delay of the Nepalese revolution, to expect a “conjuncture”
favorable on a world scale. Prachanda thus applied the Avakianist “watchword”: accelerate while
Wait. Accelerated the capitulation of the popular war while “waiting” the decant favorable situation
Worldwide, which for these masters, only a new world war can realize it. This position appears like that
formulated by directo Bhattarai when analyzing the resolution of the PCN CC (M) meeting in
September/October 2005:
“The resolution made an objective assessment of the globalized imperialism today and advanced the
conception that only taking the world initiative of the revolution in the new context is that the
Revolution in a given country can be achieved and defended. ” (Bhattarai) 164
The practical application of Avakianism to a concrete revolutionary process could only be the most
shameful of a revolution. The differences, expressed between PCR-UUS and PCN (m) in the correspondences
exchanged between 2005 and 2008, represent only the contradiction between revisionist speculation and its
Practical application. While in the world of ideas, revisionism can appear something of contestation, already
led to the 'practice of a given country' reveals entirely its dark, conservative and reactionary essence.
Capitulation and pacchandist revisionism is the same as Avakianism, both in content and form. To the
Philosophical falsifications have different shades but keep the same essence: bourgeois philosophy
metaphysics and idealistic. These philosophical falsifications of prachanda are prior to 2001 and revealing about
its ideological trajectory, which reiterates once again the importance of philosophical struggle for development
From the two -line struggle, to the strengthening of the left and applauding from the right.
Contrary to what UOC (MLM) states for its militancy, a long time ago Prachanda defends and applies to
“Law of denial of denial”. Still, in 1991, before the beginning of the popular war, Pachanda defines
following the Marxist philosophy:
“The materialistic dialectic, the conception of the world of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, considers the
absolute character of the struggle, prevailing even in the relative unity of the opposites of the matter,
considering it as the factor that causes the growth and destruction of every incident of nature,
society and human thinking. The dialectic of the evolution of every thing and event that are
interrelated and the dynamic flow of continuous changes, as Lenin says, is not a line
simple and straight, but it happens in the form of a sequence of continuity ruptures, jumps,
calamities and revolution, transformation of quantity into quality, and denial of denial. It is
It is the scientific essence of Marxist dialectic about development. ” (PRACHANDA, 1991) 165


As we study the great philosophical controversy in the CCP, the falsification is more evident
pacchandist, because the highest synthesis of the law of established contradiction, under the direction of President Mao,
On the eve of GRCP, the unity of opposites such as the heart of materialistic dialectic, which all
contradiction is resolved through the principle that one is divided into two, that the resolution of every contradiction
advances the quantitative changes to qualitative changes, and the affirmation of a certain unit of
contrary to its dominant aspect to the denial of this unit by its dominated aspect. This synthesis
philosophical, as mentioned, resolves the question posed by Engels about the interconnection between the then
Three basic laws of dialectic.
Prachanda falsifies this issue, replaces the affirmation and denial, repressing the denial of denial, as
Essential and absolute element of Marxist dialectic. In addition, in this same initial document a subtle,
but pernostic, falsification of the principle that one is divided into two:
“Deep analysis and application of the question that one is divided into two as the main aspect of
Dialectics during the anti-revisionist struggle, it made available to the revolutionaries a sharp weapon
to fight against revisionism. ” (PRACHANDA, 1991) 166
In this Prachanda formulation presents the principle that one is divided into two as an aspect of the
dialectic. What would be the other aspect? In the 1990s texts, he does not say what this would be, but this
Inaccuracy left the door open to the following falsifications. In the 2000s, Prachanda presents
Way also covered which, in your conception, would be the other aspect of dialectic:
“The process of applying the wisest lesson of GRCP that 'one is divided into two' and the unit-
struggle-transformation of opposites, has led to the development of a unique wealth in the form of
continuous development and establishment of a revolutionary current within the party
On the basis of a broad democracy, defeating all sorts of non -proletarian trends. ”
(PRACHANDA, 2000) 167
We saw in detail that the wisest philosophical lesson on the eve of GRCP was precisely that:
“One is divided into two is a form of complete, scientific and popular expression of the Unit of
contrary. This means that everything in the world (including nature, human society and
human thinking) is one that divides into two. ” (JAO CHING-HUANG) 168
Prachanda's reasons for replacing the affirmation and denial with denial of denial, within the law of
contradiction, and to put alongside the principle of whom one is divided into two the consign of unit unit
Transformation was not in vain. All of these are philosophical formulations that intentionally distort the
Dialectical materialism aimed at giving him an opposite content imperceptibly and subreptiously. A
intention behind the “subtle” for the pacchandist was the same as Liu Shao-Chi and Yang Sien-chos: join
alongside the revolutionary principle that one is divided into two the bourgeois and conciliatory principle that
Two combine in one. Like Yang Sien-chos, Pachanda advances in this regard initially
non -antagonistic contradictions, or contradictory aspects in which one fights to achieve a
relative balance between both. Let's see:
“To the extent that the popular war was advancing this distinctive understanding developed and
refined. Through the victorious implementation of the fifth plan of the Popular War this understanding of the
Party manifested itself in the particular form of balance between political attack and military attack,
balance between local and central intervention, balance between popular war and mass movement,
balance between main force and secondary force, balance between main and zones
secondary, balance between centralization and decentralization, balance between initiative
independent and tactical alliance, between dialogue and coordination, balance between local and center, balance
between internal and external activities to the country, balance between class struggle and fighting two lines, etc., and
development of the tactical level of principles and then the emergence of party guide thinking. ”
(PRACHANDA, 2000) 169
The emergence of the Pachanda Way is announced as the result of the balance between the aspects
contradictory. At no time does it stand out that any relative balance can only be achieved
through the struggle and that throughout the contradiction, even in relative balance, the most aspect must predominate
Advanced, for only then can contradiction be resolved in a revolutionary manner.


The next step of Prachandism was to present his rotten “fusion theory” in II CN in 2001. Thus
Like revisionist Yang Sien-chun, Prachanda initially presents the "fusion" of contradictions
directly related to class antagonism:
“There is a significant change in the concept prevailing the revolution model after the
80's. Today, a new merger of strategies of the armed insurrection with the Popular War and the
Prolonged popular war with armed insurrection has been imperative. Without similar merger, a
genuine revolution is impossible in any country in the world today. ” (PRACHANDA, 2001) 170
In this way, neither philosophical falsification nor its contents are evident. Because it looks
Relatively logical the need to combine prolonged popular war with the insurrection; In fact, this is
something already implicit in the military theory of the proletariat established by President Mao, after all the offensive
strategic corresponds to the completion of the city's siege by the countryside and taken from large cities
by its insurrection survey from within. This Maoist principle was also
brilliantly developed and applied by President Gonzalo, with his contribution to the “Popular War
Unit ”Main Field and City Complement City. PRACHANDA presents the theory of fusion
Initially with left colors precisely to hide its capitulatory political content.
The supposed armed insurrection contained in the theory of pacchandist fusion was nothing more than haste
capitalist to close an agreement with sectors of the ruling classes and imperialism, denying
Thus the indispensable phase in the popular war in the colonial countries which is the revolutionary national war.
Behind the altissonating consign of armed insurrection was sheltering the directive proposition of the conformation
of a constituent assembly with the reactionary parliamentary parties, the denial of
Revolution of new democracy and the revolutionary dictatorship of workers and peasants. Fusion theory
between popular war and insurrection, it aimed to hide its political content: “joint dictatorship of the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie ”. And this was already evident in the content of the resolutions of the II CN of the PCN (M):
“From a tactical point of view, the policies of centralized attacks against the main enemy, continuing
party policy for negotiations, emphasizing the tactical development of the united front etc.,
will be maintained. But this alone will not be enough to achieve the strategic objectives above
mentioned. For our party to move forward, a planned path is necessary on the following
Subjects: Organize a conference of all the political forces in which they participate through
representatives all parties and popular organizations in the country, elect an interim government in this
conference and guarantee the construction of a constitution by the people under the election of this government
interim elected. The Central Committee will develop a concrete program and a plan for its initiation.
The sketch of this plan will incorporate the tactic of the general insurrection in the prolonged popular war. ”
(PRACHANDA, 2001) 171
To say that the prachandist capitulation, in 2005 and 2006, was surprising is an unleashed lie. O
Capitulation plan was already sketched in the II CN of the PCN (M). The political content of the fusion theory of
popular war with the insurrection was already given in the proposition of the creation of an interim government from
a conference with all the reactionary parties of the country. That is, the theory of pachandist fusion, since the
Beginning was just the most blatant bourgeois philosophy to integrate two into one.
The conciliatory content of the theory of fusion, the balance between the aspects of a contradiction and the denial
Prachandist denial was also evidenced in the resolutions of the II CN of the PCN (M). The content of
integrate two in one appears clearly when Prachanda analyzes the process of the communist movement
in Nepal:
“Finally, while we systematize the Nepalese communist movement, it is possible to say that this
march below forging a new unit on a new base according to the dialectical principle
of the unit-unit-transformation or thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The foundation of the party, its manifesto
Preliminary, politics and program were the unit or thesis. In the development process, several
trends, internal conflicts, ups and downs, divisions and factions were the fight or antithesis in
Nepalese communist movement. The Great Popular War led by the PCN (M) during the last
five years is a manifestation of transformation and synthesis or a new unit in a new
base. The whole process of the Nepalese communist movement can also be seen as a
denial of denial. The correct party policy was denied by revisionism and then the


revisionism for the correct revolutionary politics and, finally the great process of the popular war
emerged." (PRACHANDA, 2001) 172
By presenting the unit-unit-transformation as a thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Pachanda makes the typical movement
Revisionist: separates the struggle from unity, separates the struggle from transformation, then make the fight the relative
and from unity the absolute in the contradiction. The fight appears only at the most negative moment of the movement
Nepalese communist, of his dispersion, the predominance of small and conspiracy conceptions. A
struggle is opposed to the transformation, so much so that it is achieved in the congress of unity, which establishes the base of the
Transformation, of synthesis. In relation to the denial of denial the sense given by pacchanda is the same given
Proudhon: an advance that is at the same time a setback, that is, a combination between the right and the
wrong. The party's degeneration in revisionist is presented by Prachanda as the first denial,
Thus, revisionism appears as the new and necessary aspect for party development. For
Prachanda The revolutionary line can only advance in alliance with revisionist positions.
This appears even more explicit when Prachanda systematizes the “method for the development of
Broken":
“This ideological struggle is linked to the struggle against metaphysical thinking that
fractionist leads to the pretext of monolithic unity, rather than the dialectical method of
Party development through the opposing unit and the struggle of two lines. ”
(PRACHANDA, 2001) 173
There is only one method and conception for party development: the struggle of two lines. The unit of
contrary is not a method that stands next to the two -line struggle; After all, the fight of two lines
part of party recognition as a contradiction and constitutes the only way to solve this
contradiction with the purpose that the left predominates. Therefore there is no method of uniting opposites
in the party, seeking to live with the party with revisionism, this is just the rotten theory of integrating
Two in one.
Prachanda reissues Yang Sien-chin's philosophical falsification just using new words. In 2006,
thus defines the law of contradiction:
“Dialectical and historical materialism is the philosophy of revolution; not only applies to society but that
also to human thinking. Unity and the struggle of contrary constitute its fundamental law.
Means that each entity is divided into two, and that each of the aspects becomes its
contrary. In our view, the second is the main aspect for us communists. ” (PRACHANDA, 2006) 174
Here Prachanda separates the division of unity into two of the mutual transformation of the aspects. It presents,
Therefore, the principle that one is divided into two only as the beginning of contradiction and not as its
resolution. As we could see in detail in the study of the great philosophical controversy, this was precisely the
argument of the revisionists, that the movement of contradiction began with one dividing in two,
but its resolution was through that two combine in one. Analysis as one is divided into two
and the synthesis as an integration of two into one. The theory of pachandist fusion is nothing more than
Redition of the rotten revisionist philosophy of Liu Shao-Chi and Yan Sien-chos. Already in the 60s, the Maoist Line
It had unmasked another essentially identical variant of the theory of fusion:
“If we act in accordance with Yang Sien-chos [Prachanda] and the point of view of others
comrades [bhattarai] of integrating two into one, this will only lead us to the merger of contradictions and
reconciliation of the struggle, and we would be fundamentally unable to achieve the objectives
revolutionaries. This is precisely the point of view that modern revisionism gives wide
advertising." (Fasi Fa-Fu, Chia Ku-Lin and Others) 175
Prachanda's philosophical falsification is identical to Yang Sien-chos, Prachanda is nothing more than Liu
Shao-Chi Nepalese. Sooner than late, it will be swept by the Nepalese masses that, directed by its
Vanguard, they will resume the path of prolonged popular war and the revolution of new democracy.
The revisionist theory of merger must be differentiated, which takes it as the conciliation of contradictions or as
Its absolute identity of the objective, natural and social process of fusion. Not every fusion implies the


“Integration of two in one” or the reconciliation of contradictions. For example, when Lenin unfurled
need to merge revolutionary national wars with the proletariat war against the bourgeoisie,
It is evident that it is not denying the differentiation between the struggle of the international proletariat and the struggle
Democratic of national liberation, but just as one develops in the other. The direction of the PCC-
FR Formulates this question in a very accurate question in its answer to UOC (MLM) in 2022, let's see:
“Given this planting, UOC comrades vehemently point out that it is a great
misconception attributing to Lenin the detestable theory of the fusion of the class struggle of the proletariat with the struggle
national'.
Without referring to what the comrades call “theory of the fusion of class struggle and the national struggle”,
let us see if it is right or not that Lenin has defined the merger of the two major currents or forces of the
World Revolution and for this what is better than quoting Lenin's words:
‘The Socialist Revolution will not be unique and especially a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians of
Each country against its bourgeoisie; No, it will be a struggle of all colonies and all the countries overwhelmed
by imperialism, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism. In the program
of our party, adopted in March of the current year, we say, when characterizing the approach of
social revolution worldwide, that the civil war of workers against imperialists and
explorers in all advanced countries begin to merge with the National War against
International imperialism. This confirms the march of the revolution and will see more and more
confirmed. The same will pass in the East. '*
From this we can say that it is not a 'great misconception' of the Coordinating Committee proposal
By referring to Lenin this 'obnoxious' theory. That it is not certain that Lenin has always denounced this 'fusion'
as a 'fatal error' for the proletarian revolution and that, far from being 'obnoxious'
integral part of the grandiose program and today constitutes an invaluable and current
guidance on the strategic world proletarian revolution, later developed by the
President Mao.
A few years later, in 1921, at the milestone of the III Congress of the Communist International, Lenin returns to
defend this idea in another way:
‘World imperialism must fall when the revolutionary impulse of exploited workers and
oppressed in each country, overcoming the resistance of the breakfast elements and the influence of
insignificant elite constituted by the working aristocracy merges with the revolutionary impulse of
millions of beings that had so far remained on the fringes of history, for which
They constituted more than a patient subject.
Even if we see in the military program of the proletarian revolution, written in 1916, this definition of
strategy of the world proletarian revolution to sweep imperialism and the reaction of the face of the earth, is
even clearer and clearer, as it shows that the path of the two forces cannot be other than
revolutionary wars and their fusion.
‘From the theoretical point of view it would be totally erroneous to doubt that every war is no more than the
continuation of politics by other means. The current imperialist war is the continuation of politics
imperialist of the two groups of great powers, and this policy is originated and nourished by the whole
of the relations of the imperialist time. But this same time will originate and nourish too,
inevitably, the policy of the struggle against national oppression and the struggle of the proletariat against the
bourgeoisie and, therefore, the possibility and inevitability, first of all, the insurrections
and revolutionary national wars; secondly, from the wars of the proletariat against
bourgeoisie; Third, the fusion of the two types of revolutionary wars, etc. ”. (PCC-FR) 176
The merger defended by Lenin corresponds to that the movement of the international proletariat present in all
World, direct the national liberation movement of colonial and semicolonial countries. In this unit of
contrary to the main aspect, which should therefore predominate is the proletarian direction, which is also
The socialist revolution in imperialist countries is the only one capable of leading to the full victory of wars
revolutionary nationals and their uninterrupted passage to the socialist revolution. The direction of UOC (MLM) does not
is opposed to the principle of “integrating two in one”, but denies the need to be planted by Lenin do
* Inform at the II Congress of All Russia of the Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East, 1919.


decisive role of revolutionary national wars, under the direction of the proletariat, to the triumph of
World proletarian revolution.
2.3- The convergence of UOC (MLM) with the revisionist principle of integrating two in a
Avakian and Prachanda make a shamefully capitulating MCI balance of MCI, in general, and
Experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the twentieth century, in particular. UOC (mlm) converges, essentially,
With this balance, starting with the attacks on the comrade Stalin called by Pachanda in 2001.
UOC (MLM) In this way it analyzes the glorious experience of proletariat dictatorship in the USSR:
“The errors of the Russian communists and Stalin in particular (…) [derive] fundamentally from change
heading in the construction of the new type of state: the Soviets, of a permanent and unique base of the entire
State power ', became mere transmission belts and ended up converted into a
apparatus identical to the bourgeois parliament. In 1936 the Soviet Constitution (the 'rule of law'
who complain Prachanda and Avakian and all the small bourgeois) formalized the spoil of the whole
Soviet power and converted them into a mere parliamentary instrument; that is, adopted, in
essence, the same form of the bourgeois parliamentary state, where the masses do not participate or
decide on public affairs, where state bureaucratic and military forces are separated
of the masses, over society and against it ”. [UOC (MLM), 2008] 177
And after launching this typically Trotskyist nonsense against the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, they
following ideological balance about the set of experiences of socialist states in the twentieth century:
“The critical analysis of the experience of the proletariat in power makes it clear (…) that did not work for
that the old class of class domination would be extinguished and in this sense the communist movement
succumbed to the superstitious faith in the state criticized by Marx and Engels and the idea kautskysta was imposed on this
respect. In practice, Kautsky won the battle in both Russia and China. ” [UOC (MLM),
2008] 178
They conclude that in the experience of the dictatorship of the USSR proletariat under the direction of Stalin and China
Under the direction of President Mao, he predominated the Kautskista conception of the state. State, that the
Soviets, in the 1930s, became a bourgeois parliamentary instrument and the Red Army
He placed separately from the masses, above these and against them. The defeat of the Naziascist invasion of the USSR, under the
Marshal Stalin Command, is the full proof of the falsehood of these revisionist attacks. UOC (mlm) only
Repeats Avakian's old Cantilena that:
“The Soviet Union participated in World War II based on a patriotic position, that is,
democratic-bourgeois. ” (AVAKIAN, 1981) 179
There is no difference between this Avakian balance and the aforementioned UOC conclusion that:
“Since a long time, there has always been a fight in MCI between Marxism and the adapted opportunism
to bourgeois nationalism ”. [UOC (MLM)] 180
Regarding the experiences of the dictatorship of the proletariat, UOC (MLM) reaches the height of highlighting the commune
of Paris as the most advanced experience, typically small-bourgeois balance convergent
Prachanda and Bhattarai positions:
“The dictatorship of the proletariat is a requirement derived from the content of the new social relations of
production. Therefore, the socialist content of these relationships requires a new form of state: the state
Paris Commune Type. ” [UOC (MLM)] 181
The glorious commune of Paris, did not have time to develop new social relations of production,
heroically outlined the content of the proletarian state, but in no way can it be
considered the typical model of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a false defense of the Paris Commune, which
It aims exclusively to conceal the capitalist balance that make socialist experience in the twentieth century.
The proletariat was in power at the USSR from 1917 to 1956, during this period made incredible exploits, defeated
the Nazi -foster beast and gave the world a huge hope; In China, the dictatorship of the proletariat is
developed from 1949 to 1976, one of the most backward countries in the world, divided by various powers


imperialists, he advanced with his own forces spectacularly, performed the GRCP, a movement of
more transcendental masses in the history of humanity, built the popular communes, and the typical model
Is dictatorship of the proletariat the commune of Paris? Like Avakian, UOC (MLM) does not say that the aspect
MCI's principal in the twentieth century was the negative, they formally say that the experience was mainly
positive. But when UOC (MLM) evaluates that the two -month experience of proletarian power in the twentieth century
in the city of Paris advanced more toward the extinction of the state than the 39 years of dictatorship
proletariat in the USSR and the 37 years in China it is evident that in essence your balance converges
Completely with that of Avakian and Prachanda, which would easily repeat these same words:
“The case of the conception of the new state, expressed by Stalin at the end of his life, was actually
The Achilles heel of the state of dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia and China. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 182
And the convergence of UOC (MLM), especially with Avakianism, is not restricted to balance
MCI Capitulationist. UOC (MLM) assumes almost entirely the revisionist conception of Avakian
about imperialism, that is, about the supposed progressive tendency of imperialism, that it liquidates
pre-capitalist relations in the semicolonies, in addition, of the alleged dynamic role of the anarchy of production
in the imperialist stage:
“Imperialism as an internationalized mode of production, it chained all countries with its
specific production modes in one world economy. The exported capital operates on the
germens or about the capitalist developments of the oppressed countries, and as a general trend,
accelerates its development, sweeps the traces of precapitalist production modes. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 183
In his criticism of prachandism, UOC (MLM) emphasizes what he considers positive in Avakianism and
criticize this for lack of consequence:
“We support the correct criticism of PCR, use the Nepal revisionist party; what
We criticize that they are not consequent to the end, it is their centrist position. ” [UOC (MLM)] 184
Avakianism is right -handed revisionism, there is nothing centrism. Avakian is the precursor
From this revisionist modality, he was the Master of Prachanda and must be criticized and held responsible as such. To the
UOC Criticisms (MLM) to Avakian's philosophy, they are just nominalist criticism, as they defend the same
Bourgeois conception only with different labels.
How an organization can say is Maoist and not take as the most developed the systematization of
Marxist philosophy contained in the contradiction of the punctual use that makes Marx of the manifestation of
Private movement of the law of contradiction which is the denial of denial? What would be the reason why a
organization that claims to be Maoist to, at some point in its history, change the name of its organ
theorist from contradicion for negación de la negación except for considering this the law as the most essential
of the materialistic dialectic? Or it was because it considers the denial of denial the law “which best explains the direction of the
movement, of the solution of contradiction ”? However, as in philosophy it would be to deny Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and
President Mao does not defend the law of contradiction as a fundamental law of materialistic dialectic, had to
explicitly declare that “we do not deny that the law of unity and struggle of contrary is the law
fundamental dialectic ”, however, continues to claim that the denial of denial” is “only the third law of
dialectic ”, but at the same time states that this is“ is the general law that indicates the direction of the movement in
various areas of social and natural life ”. Therefore, this is not an ignorance, it is falsification
philosophical. Smuggle bourgeois conceptions wrapped in the abstract concept of denial of denial is
impossible with the law of contradiction so fully formulated and applied by President Mao in all his
constructions.
UOC (MLM) takes the denial of denial not with the content defended by Marx and Engels, in The Capital
and in anti-dühring. This content as shown in the previous session is no other than one is divided into
two, that is, the unity between social production and private property, dissolves, breaks into interdependence,
Private property of the means of production - all - goes to the trash of history; social production as
The new aspect becomes a superior form: it rests on social productive forces, but advances
For the end of social classes, the social division of labor, the separation between field and city. The denial


of the denial of UOC (MLM) is an advance and at the same time a setback, a synthesis between progress and
Delay, as defines Proudhon, Dühring and Pachanda. And this forgery of the concept of denial of
negation serves the direction of UOC (MLM) to theoretically justify its revisionist positions, such as
Avakianist conception of imperialism:
“Thus at certain times and in certain oppressed countries, imperialism finds
more benefits in supporting pre-capitalist production modes, such as a hiring
capitalist development of such countries (…), in the process as a whole, the most
general and resulting from several and contradictory particular trends, has the progressive direction of
introduce and develop capitalist relations in the oppressed countries, in accordance with the law
of the denial of denial, one of the general laws of the movement, in this case of the movement of society ”.
[UOC (MLM)] 185
We have already seen that the thesis of the progressive character of imperialism, which sometimes entered and now drives the relations of
Production in colonial and semicolonial countries is authored by Renegade Avakian. What should be emphasized in
above, in addition to the total agreement of UOC (MLM) with this revisionist thesis is its attempt to
justify it from its law of denial of denial. That is, for UOC (mlm) the supposed trend
progressive of imperialism, lives with its conservative "counter-time" in accordance with the
Its denial of denial, that is, a progress that is at the same time a setback. This forgery
philosophical is but the old revisionist principle that two combine in one, that is, for the
Imperialism is the result of the combination of progress and delay. And, moreover, progress is the “trend
more general ”.
UOC (MLM) uses the denial of Avakian's defenered denial to substantiate the Avakianist thesis
about imperialism. There is no inconsistency in this argument of UOC (MLM), after all this and
Avakian, by different ways they attack the law of contradiction in the same way. By different means apply the
revisionist principle of combining two in one.
And this is not an isolated example. In its military line, UOC (MLM) repeats the same content and forms the
Prachandist theory of the fusion, taught by them until March 2006. Let's see:
“Popular war acquires different forms depending on the country that is, be the form of
insurrection in imperialist countries and capitalist countries, be the prolonged form of popular war
in semi -feudal and semicolonial countries, either in a combination of urban insurrections with
peasant surveys and armed struggle in the predominantly oppressed countries
capitalists. ” [UOC (MLM)] 186
Prachanda had announced that his fusion theory was valid for all countries in the world. A UOC (MLM)
Following its precept formulates its military line according to the revisionist mantra of Prachandismo, to
Announce the insurrection in cities with the objective of abandoning the armed struggle in the countryside. Exalts the insurrection
future as a way of eluding its capitulation in the face of the present task of organizing the peasant war as
Popular War.
In its analysis of the agrarian and peasant problem in Colombia, which we will analyze in detail but the front, the
UOC (MLM) Once again applies the philosophical forgery of integrating two into one. FUND IN ONE CATEGORY
The landowners and peasants combine two antagonistic aspects in one: landowners.
Thus conclude that in the Colombian field there is no more importance, the contradiction between the
large owners and small owners say that this antagonistic contradiction no longer exists and
defend the struggle of the "agricultural proletarians" against the "capitalist owners" and smuggling a
Trotskyist Agrarian Program:
“It is indispensable that the agricultural proletariat, which does not have the degree of concentration of the proletariat
industrial, be independent of peasantry, both by its program and its organization; only
Thus it can subtract from the rural small-bourgeois atmosphere of the owner and the illusion in the small
property. Only then can you teach the peasants that to save should be aligned with the
proletariat to fight private property and convert the property of its land into
collective property and exploitation, because the individual exploitation conditioned by the property
Individual, is the one that pushes the peasants to ruin. ” [UOC (MLM)] 187


Thus UOC (MLM) does not properly differentiate friends from enemies, transforms all owners of
Earth in enemies and leaves the just and necessary struggle of poor landless peasants or with little land
for the take -over and sharing of the land of the landlords. For this it serves its philosophical falsification,
His false denial of denial, his rotten revisionist philosophy that argues two into one.
Finally, UOC (MLM) argues that the anti-imperialist struggle is immediately an anticapitalist struggle, fuses in
The same program tasks of the new democracy revolution and tasks of the socialist revolution. With one
“Anticapitalist radical” phraseology argues that the revolution in such oppressed capitalist countries is
immediately socialist, and thus completely abandons the indispensable stage of national liberation:
“The problem is how to scientifically understand the relationship between the struggle against imperialism
foreigner and the struggle for socialism in an oppressed country. (…) And in this case, in which the proletariat
has its purpose directly in socialism, the struggle against imperialism fully coincides with
the general internationalist character of the proletarian struggle, ceasing to be a democratic struggle for
defend the bourgeois nation, and becoming an anti -capitalist struggle for determining the world the
imperialism." [UOC (MLM)] 188
They combine two in an Avakianist style suppressing the most important task of the moment. Renegade
Revolution of new democracy and assume the trotskyist assign of the “permanent revolution”.
3- Unit in MCI cannot advance under the principle of integrating two in a
The direction of UOC (MLM) in stating that the denial of denial ”(...) is the general law that indicates the direction of the
movement in various areas of social and natural life ”, at no time marks the differences between
The conception of Proudhon, Dühring, Avakian or Prachanda about the denial of the denial of understanding and
her use by Marx. Revisionism falsifies the use of denial of denial as a thesis,
Antithesis and synthesis, and takes synthesis as the integration of two into one. In the fight of two lines around the
CIMU, UOC (MLM) explained its idealistic form of application of denial of denial and synthesis as
integration of two in one. In its position last year on the discussion base, the direction of
UOC (MLM) states that the proposal presented by CCIMU:
“(…) Does not represent a base of common general unity, to continue the struggle around
of the divergences that are now legitimate within the revolutionary communists,
because such a proposal only expresses the position of a particular hue of the movement
communist." [UOC (MLM)] 189
The direction of UOC (MLM) protests against the fact of the discussion, presented by CCIMU for the
public debate at MCI, express only what it calls “a private hue” and proposed that the CCimu
should have presented a common general unit base. That is, we should present a synthesis
before the struggle develops. This method does not correspond to the communist method, as a base
Common can only be reached through the fight of two lines. After all, this common base, as an expression of
a revolutionary synthesis, not of balance and eclectic composition; could only be achieved by
the struggle of two lines that resulted in an adequate solution of differences that allowed to reach
certain commitments. This was what CCIMU did: launched a discussion base, which
evidently should express the ideological hue of its proponents, which, public post, how there is
decades did not occur in MCI, led the very important struggle of two lines about this proposition that
reflected, as it should be, in the debates of CIMU expressing itself in the political statement and
Principles and other resolutions such as the conformation of the International Communist League. Two -line fight
that follows and will continue to develop in another and new level.
It is too much idealism, to believe that an organization, or even a set of organizations,
I could soon find by its mere intellectual effort a base of common unit. What would be the
Criteria for the preparation of this document? Seek among the different positions a common result, a
Synthesis, what does unit mean? We should act as Proudhon, criticized by Marx for trying
idealistic way “(...) to tear from God, from absolute reason, a synthetic formula” 190 that represented
a general base of unit? This would be nothing but “integrate two in one”, this would represent the
Delegation of the struggle of two lines, would be to transform the communist unit into bourgeois diplomacy. For


facing the concrete problem of dispersion in the communist movement, we could not put our
positions, our shades under the rug, as some do, pretend that divergences are problems
secondary and unimportant for the proletarian revolution. These are problems that must be on the
table, to steal the fight over them is to delude ourselves with a false unit colluded with good intentions outside
of the field of the fight.
The strength of CIMU and the fortress of its political statement and principles is that it was the result of the struggle of
Two lines that preceded it and the struggle of two lines that took place within the conference itself. In the course
of CIMU, the struggle of two lines between the positions present and not the criticism of the back of
absent organizations. It was this correct method that allowed the discussion base to have modifications,
in the forms of a new understanding in certain divergences and solution of some other problems
allowing commitments between organizations to be achieved. And this unit reached there
Did you represent the end of the two -line struggle? No, it allows the two -line struggle to develop
Now at another level, a new unit on a higher base. In Cimu fully fulfilled the
President Mao was taught to us about the dialectical method for the party's internal unity:
“The fundamental concept of dialectic is the unity of the opposites. If you accept it, as you should
So treat the comrades who made mistakes? First, fight them to
End of liquidating your wrong ideas and secondly helping them. That is, first,
Fight and, second, help. Starting from goodwill, help them correct their mistakes in a way
that have a way out. (...) under the condition of not disregarding the Marxist principles
Leninists, we accept the acceptable opinions of others and discard those of ours who
can be discarded. So we act with two hands: one for the fight with the comrades
that incorporate the other for the unit with them. (...) the integration of fidelity with
principles with flexibility constitutes a Marxist-Leninist principle and is a unit of
contrary. (...) One is divided into two: this is a universal phenomenon, this is dialectical. ”
(President Mao) 191
This is the communist method in view of the differences: first, the struggle; secondly, decide for
unanimous or by majority, or reach commitments, according to the nature of differences, if antagonistic
or non-antagonistic, depending on the conditions of a given process and for a certain period, until
Even with the enemy it is possible and necessary to reach appointments. Seeking commitments before the fight is
Applying the philosophical falsifications of Proudhon or Pachanda, is to try to accommodate, balance and fuse
distinct positions. This means the end of the struggle of two lines, its replacement with colludes and,
Consequently, the impossibility of the development of communist organizations. Great
Philosophical controversy, in 1964/65, in Popular China, the revisionists of the Liu Shao-Chorado Band advocated
That President Mao's international line was an example that "two are part of one." The referred
Remina Ribao article of May 20, 1965, refutes this forgery as follows:
“They try to create the impression that this [international] line can also be made from
of your 'integrate two in one' (...) the so -called 'synthesis' of 'integrate two in one' lawyer
by Yang Sian-Chast and others abolish the fight. (...) Criticism and struggle based on the desire for unity
It is exactly the process of one dividing in two. A new unit on a more
high is achieved through criticism and struggle and after overcoming error, it is also
A result of dividing one into two. This higher base is not absolutely a base
“Integrate two in one 'of combining hit and error, but a base of dividing one into two
between hit and error. ” (Ai Si-Chi) 192
In the present fight of two lines in MCI about CIMU and Foundation of LCI, the direction of the Communist Party
of Nepal (revolutionary maleist), PCN (MR) has publicly pronounced on two occasions, a
About the discussion base, in September 2022, and another months after the announcement of the CIMU.
In the first, it greets the public position of parties and organizations on political issues and
ideological stating that “a new debate began. Many questions of unity and divergence came to
surface in these debates. This is not wrong. ” Then positions itself holding several times that
The struggle is absolute and unity is relative; This is correct and we greeted them by clear positioning, as for
this. However, it criticizes the fact that it did not appear a joint statement, among the different initiatives
who advocated a unified conference. However, this common statement could only be a result
development of the two -line struggle in a new level, that is, in CIMU itself, for which those
who publicly expressed disagreements were invited to take part with rights and duties as


the others.* Defend, therefore, the need for a joint statement before the struggle is minimally
Developed is both idealism and illusion and the possibility of “integrating two into one”. The direction of
PCN (MR) also proposed: “Conform a new organizing committee to hold a conference
Unified international through the dissolution of both coordinating committees ”. In this regard, it is
it is necessary to clarify that there was only, in 2022, a coordinating committee, which was the CCIMU, which boosted the
two line struggle, publicly, from the publication of the discussion base and had already carried out dozens
meetings and attempts to understand, as is clear from the reference note above. The defenders of
Another conference held a meeting called, via the Internet, by PCM-Italy, with its criteria
liberalists and legalists, calculating that his defamatory report on P.C.B. and the attacks against what
He called “Gonzalista Block” and others “Block of Especially Maoism”, he would in herself unite those
Parties and organizations to hold a “unity conference” at the end of that same year
began, as the meeting deliberated, in the objective of doing it before CIMU, based on the document by
a new international organization of the proletariat, PCI (M), also deliberated that would invite the
“Gonzalista Block” to participate and if he did not participate he would be reported to MCI as a divisionist etc.
These are the terms of the minutes of this meeting, in which not even any balance, to be minimally serious as
Marxist, he became the proposed at the 2013 meeting, in which some of those participants there officialized the
End of already bankrupt MRI, to promote a series of tasks and activities for a conference
international for reviving the MRI. This is not to say about the lack of any proposition about the balance of the
MCI and the historical experience of the world proletarian revolution. About the then international situation of
great disorders and sharpness of the fundamental contradictions of the world, especially the main
Opposes nation/people oppressed to imperialism, also nothing. Much less there was any self -criticism of the
their immobilism and even neglect of MCI, due to narrow and petty interests
Hegemonists. Participants of this January 2020 meeting, not all, signed the same
Declaration of May 1, 2022. Then, propose, as the PCN declaration (MR), the dissolution of the
Ccimu to merge into a single “coordination” with parties that, after all this
unilateral form the false reports on the process of CIMU presented in this meeting, by the direction
of PCM-Italy, about all done in more than ten years of hard and selfless internationalist work
for almost 20 M-L-M parties and organizations, it would be to leave CIMU and everything that had cost more than
painful but successful efforts, being dragged to the cowardly liquidationism, so we could not
consent.
* Only PCI (m) was not possible to reach the invitation to CIMU, held clandestinely. And had been, since 2014, with the
Loss of contact from our party with the PCI (m), to the present day the difficulty in restoring this contact. In the same way
None of the parties and organizations committed to the realization of CIMU did not have it. Parties that claim to have contact with the CC of
PCI (M) and who attended the January 2020 meeting, never willing to help us restore it. There have been n attempts since
2014 for restoring contact and when, as early as 2017, by a bearer, the document arrived by a new organization
International of the PCI proletariat (m) with the request to pass it on to the parties and Maoist organizations that we had contact and
May they make their comments about it. As soon as this document arrived in our party, immediately the
we transmit to all M-L-M parties and organizations that we had safe contact, including, through PCM-Galicia, was
transmitted to the PCM (Italy), one of the first to receive it, so that it also surrender it to the parties and organizations that had
contact. And we did it exactly as we asked for us through the bearer that transmitted it to us. From P.C.B .. for several
years becoming persistent efforts to get to the CC of PCI (m) our correspondence by restoring the communication channel,
Our comments to your document and a detailed report of the entire preparation process for CIMU. But unfortunately,
We do not burn him. And because PCI (m) did not make public this document, our party did not understand it because it is not
authorized to do so. However, we do not understand what the cause of all this time the direction of the PCI (m) does not contact us,
that we had fluid contact until the occurrence of security problems that interrupted it once and again, after
The channel is restored without which we stayed to the present day. It is also not a matter of less importance, by the way, the
Fact that, after the party meeting held in January 2020, our party took the initiative to look for the PCM (Italy)
proposing a meeting of our party with all the parties and organizations participating in that January meeting
which was agreed to perform it as readily as possible. Our purpose was to listen to them and present the CCIMU report on the
CIMU preparation process, since most of these parties only had the version of PCM-Italy and PCM (Galicia)
CIMU process, and that if it could come to an understanding of the preparation of CIMU. However, on the pretext of
COVID-19 pandemic problems, this meeting has never been held. It is a fact that the sanitary restrictions imposed by the states
imperialists and their lacnacies created certain difficulties, but not to the point of preventing communist parties and organizations from
gathered at some point. After all, the proletariat and other popular masses have not stopped working or fighting
Italy and not in any country. CCIMU continued to perform activities taking the necessary care, as well as the campaigns of
masses against the reactionary measures of cutting workers' rights under the pretext of the economic crisis and measures to combat
pandemic. After insistent charges of ours for this meeting was proposed by the same PCM-Italy that gathered our party, the
PCM-Italy and PCM-Galicia. Although our proposition was to meet with the maximum of the parties participating in that meeting of
January, we agreed to gather us in the hope that the broader meeting would be held, but in fact it was clear there that such a meeting was
It was not in the interest of PCM-Italy, which did everything to fail our attempts to understand. This was a serious problem
that affected the process. The direction of PCM-Galicia is an eyewitness of this.


In its second public note on CIMU and the founding of LCI, November 2023, the direction of the
PCN (MR) declares to have been late to comment, when he had already done so, because the whole year
previous one was committed to the Unification process of the PCN (MR) with the NCP (most)
dealing with this issue separately and awaited the conclusion of this process to have a single
pronouncement. It also says it is admirable that so many parties and organizations have achieved a
conference to create an international center for the proletariat, particularly the moment
crosses the world. Therefore announces that it has divergence in some topics of the political declaration and
LCI Principles and enumerates them as 9 questions. Along these claims that certain statements from
Declaration, however, considers that the declaration does not have an integral understanding of the concepts of Marxism.
Even if this declaration of the PCN (MR) is not a direct object of this document, even because the
positions expressed therein are planting in the referred document of UOC (MLM) of January 2023 that
It also deals with the founding of LCI, we cannot fail to reaffirm our criticisms of the positions of the
PCN (MR), which in this second statement about LCI were more completely externalized their nature
Directist. Take only the first point where it says is in accordance with 4 of the 5 principles of
demarcation between Marxism and revisionism defined in the LCI declaration, and that, the principle of
“Or not to recognize the omnipotence of revolutionary violence to make the revolution in its own people” is
Reduce Maoism to "Revolutionary Violence." States that violence is only “an integral part of the
Marxism but no more powerful than Marxism ”; and citing President Mao, in problems with
War and strategy all their assertions that synthesize themselves in “the power is born of the rifle”, then
argue that President Mao would have affirmed these concepts in a certain context. Why, what was
Is the context if not the treatment of war problems and strategy as a means of making the revolution?
Pure wordplay. Soon says that the statement conceives the statement that “yes we are supporters of
omnipotence of revolutionary war ”as if it was narrowly
Lenin that “Marxism is omnipotent” to say that Marxism “is more omnipotent than
violence". Here, who tries to separate violence from Marxism but the direction of the PCN (MR)? It is revisionism
Avakianist intends to dissociate revolutionary violence, the popular war of Maoism, because the fundamental
of Maoism is the power to the proletariat, power conquered and defended by an armed force directed
by the Communist Party. Then the argument revolves the other position on it and states that the
Statement is right, because today all revisionism stands against that the popular struggle is used
of violence. But, it does not stop there its incongruities, because, without more and without less, concludes that the
Declaration has “militaristic” conceptions. Does so many years of popular war and break with the
Didn't national and play classes have not served to clarify such a patent issue? Or it will be
that the break with prachandism was not about to get rid of its revisionist inventions such as
“Fusion Theory”, a new way of presenting the rotten “peaceful transition” Kruscovista in the form
deceiving the “combination of all forms of struggle”. Militaristic is the conclusion that takes the direction of
PCN (MR) in regretting the “fragility” of revolutionary forces in the world citing the surveys
of masses that explode around the world with the example of those in Sirilanka, complaining that
mass surveys in this country, those of so many countries, just as they arise, disappear soon, and
That not even, in the case of Sirilanka, there was a “small army” to follow the fight. It's not the
military organization that defines the character of the revolutionary war of the proletariat in the new revolution
democracy or socialist revolution, but the military ideology and conception that trains the party
revolutionary of the proletariat.
As a general conclusion the PCN direction (MR) closes its criticism
“Divisionist” about CIMU and LCI. On the contrary, CIMU and LCI put the fight of two lines in
a higher level, divisionism is not to join what advances based on the principles of Marxism to fight
by the unit in new and higher base. So Marx was a divisionist for sending the General Council of
Ait for the United States so that it had its purpose and does not allow it to be murdered by the
Unity without principles? Lenin was a divisionist for founding the III International passing over the
“Heroes of the II International”? Who divided MCI in 1963/64, was the PCCH of President Mao or was the
Kuschovista revisionism of the “three peaceful and two all”? How the exhaustion of I and II exceeded
International, if not by jumping ahead in the organization as an expression of ideological-political advancement with the
Total break with opportunism? When the vast majority of social democratic parties in Europe and
United States sank into the betrayal of the defense of the bourgeoisie of their respective countries in the 1st war
Imperialist world, Lenin founded the III International was with a “common base” that returned from
more advanced organizational experiences of the international proletariat or it was based on the inflexible defense
of the principles of Marxism, being the most prominent among them the organizational principle of centralism


Democratic he formulated? Defend a generic unit of MCI rejecting the principle
Organizational of the international proletariat, the democratic centralism, what is it for? Pose
responsible, prudent and cautious and being in correspondence with objective reality and speaking
In principles of Marxism: Which principles should be left out in such a “common base”? That “unit
wider ”is this one that is necessary to gather MCI? There is only one unit, the conquered in the struggle
of classes and in the struggle of two lines, based on the inflexible defense of all the principles of Marxism.
Argue that the communist movement is unable to join the basis of centralism
Democratic is to defend a unity without principles between communists. Treat the application of centralism
democratic as something sectarian because many “communist parties” would not agree,
That insisting on this causes the weakening of the international communist movement is absurd, as well as narrow.
It is not to understand this principle as unity of opposites. The principles are applied with mediations,
Applying democratic centralism does not mean having to make all decisions by majority. The just and correct
application of democratic centralism deals divergences on crucial issues for the unit in which
they manifest acute contradictions, through a patient process of fighting two lines, and that after exhausting it
to the maximum without obtaining a solid majority that does not threate
to transient duration commitments. Thus demonstrates the practice of true parties
Communists in historical experience. It is false and misleading, otherwise a pilgrim argument states that the
Adoption of the principle of democratic centralism does not join MCI today, this is a revisionist point of view.
So it is, so, in the communist parties in fact. Very strange to Marxism is not to organize with
based on the principle of democratic centralism, its defense as an organizational principle of the proletariat
revolutionary. That party can claim communist and not take democratic centralism as
Principle or take it as if it were a ruler, without mediations in its application? A party that asserts itself
communist and does not accept to unite on the basis of democratic centralism or has nothing of Marxism or should
take part in other wider forms with a single front, such as the necessary and decisive anti-movement
imperialist to be built. The end of the Entern took place in a much more complex situation than the simple
reason that it is claimed that its organic form no longer served to strengthen the MCI. There was not
Also, at least two other reasons of paramount importance, one to keep the single front together
world anti -fascist, in the midst of war, in which the allies pressured and blackmailed
existence (see secret correspondence between Stalin, Churchil and Roosevelt) and another, about the danger of
positions of directs if they worship it (signs of new revisionism already appeared in important parties of the
West, the short existence of subsequent cominform proves it too much. For various reasons to Comintern
exhausted and had to jump to a new level corresponding to the international situation of
strategic balance between proletariat and imperialism, of the reaction of the imperialists then already under the
Yankee hegemony, who drew his claws with his cold war strategy and atomic blackmail. A
Still very little known of Comiform illustrates and clarifies the issue very well. It's opportunism
to claim with the statement of President Mao that the end of Comintern "was a right decision" to justify
directism, just like that he said that Stalin “gave some bad advice” without fully taking the
That he expressed, as we can see here: “When you made mistakes, Stalin could do the self -criticism. Per
Example, gave some bad advice on the Chinese revolution. After it triumphed,
recognized your mistakes. ” (PCCH COMMENT, ABOUT THE STALIN PROBLEM).
For the new birth it is necessary that the old man who prevents the flowering of this new and is the fight, the
rupture and jump, the division of one in two that takes place with the new establishing itself as a new unit of
contrary, also one divided into two. It is necessary that in something old, the new as a dominated aspect
defeat in the struggle the old dominant aspect, submits it by passing the dominant, dividing and destroying something
old man, something new. One must divide into two. The Birth of the Communist League
International marks, there
Capitulatory in MCI; CIMU also marks the death of sectarianism, intrigue and
Hegemonism in place of the two -line struggle, which has become MRI in its last years of existence. And the
Political declaration and principles is superior to MRI's previous statements, because, in addition to advances
MCI's balance sheet positives, there are no anti-Stalin revisionist positions and unacceptable criticism
opportunists to President Mao present in the 1980 and 1984 documents. CIMU is a victory for
international proletariat, the dispersion in MCI was largely won and marched firmly and
decided for the reconstitution of the communist international amid the development of the revolution
World proletarian, in this new period of revolutions in which world history is entering.


Finally, one last question about the philosophical theme. In its recent position, the affirmation of
UOC (MLM) that the law of contradiction is the fundamental law of dialectic but that it is not its fundamental law
Unique, it is a pilgrim attempt to click the discussion. They can no longer deny that the law of contradiction is the law
fundamental, however they continue to claim that the denial of denial is the one that best explains the direction of the
movement. Its rectification must be complete: recognize that the law of contradiction is the fundamental law
unique dialectic and extend this recognition to which other laws are derived or forms of
Private manifestation of the law of contradiction. What does derived laws mean? It means they are laws
Private, specific expressions, of the only fundamental law which is contradiction. It means that, just like
explicit in the great philosophical debate, the law of quantity and quality, the law of affirmation and denial, are
derived laws or internal elements of the law of contradiction. In the great work strategic problems of
Revolutionary war in China, written in December 1936, that is, just a few months before
Formulation of the contradiction, President Mao states that:
“These are the two aspects of China's revolutionary war, aspects that exist
At the same time, that is, with favorable conditions there are difficulties. This is the law
Fundamental to the revolutionary war of China, from which many other laws are derived. ”
(President Mao) 193
Of a particular fundamental law, other laws can be derived, these derived laws are manifestations
individuals of the fundamental law. As well as the law of freedom and necessity is an expression in social life,
particular manifestation in this form of movement of the matter of the law of contradiction. In relation to denial
of denial is the same, we understand that it is a form of manifestation of the unique fundamental law of the
dialectic, the law of contradiction. However, what we consider, as the most important in the current debate of the
MCI, on Marxist philosophy is: 1) that the law of contradiction is the only fundamental law of eternal matter
in its incessant transformation, therefore, of materialistic dialectic; 2) that, as a result, the law of
contradiction is the one that rules omnimodically, describes and explains, in its complexity, the movement of
matter and its direction in infinite ascending spiral form; 3) that the application of denial of denial by
Marx is distinct from the denial of the denial of Proudhon, Dühring, Avakian and Pachanda; 4th) That the dialectic
Marxist is based on the only principle that one is divided into two, and that the revisionist philosophy, in contrast
propugates the balance between opposing principles: that one is divided into two with that two are integrated
on a.
II- Imperialism and Democratic Revolution
In their criticism of LCI's parties and founding organizations, in particular, P.C.B., UOC (MLM) points
as dogmatism on our part the defense of the validity of the new democracy revolution in countries
semicolonials. We criticize us for a supposed lack of “objectivity” in our analysis of imperialism and
The development of capitalism in oppressed countries. Both in your criticism and other documents,
the direction of UOC (MLM) formulates a “new” theory of imperialism, which tries to pass as a
concrete and objective application of Maoism to the current worldwide situation and the oppressed countries. According to
UOC (MLM) Imperialism would be a “worldwide mode of production” in which they would live “two trends:
one to the stagnation (…) and another to progress ”. This supposed progressive tendency would mean that the
imperialism “sweeps the traces of pre-capitalist modes of production” in the countries oppressed by
imperialist powers. The swept of semi -feudality by imperialism would in turn imply
full development of the capitalism of these countries, particularly in the field and that the bourgeoisie of this
It would obtain “a profit rate equal to the bourgeoisie of other countries”, that is, imperialists. According to
UOC (MLM), the oppressed countries are of two types: 1) Oppressed capitalist countries and 2) semi -feudal countries,
That is, two types of semicolonies, capitalist semicolonia and semi -feudal semicolony. In its formulation
oppressed capitalist countries and semi -feudal countries, are both semicolonies, but the character of the revolution of
first would be immediately socialist and, only for semi -feudal countries, the revolution of
New democracy.
In analyzing Avakian's revisionist positions, it is not difficult to note that the source of the formulations of
UOC (MLM) About imperialism is precisely Avakianism. Like this revisionist variant, the
UOC (MLM) defends imperialism as a mode of world production whose dynamism sweeps
semi -feudal production relations, resulting in the emergence of predominantly oppressed countries


capitalists whose revolution must be immediately socialist. In addition, UOC (MLM) applies this formulation
Avakianist in the “concrete analysis” of the Colombian situation, as we will show below.
According to the analysis of UOC (MLM), Colombia would be an oppressed capitalist country and, therefore, the character
of the Colombian Revolution would be immediately socialist. For Colombian peasants, the consign of
“Earth for those who work in it” would no longer be on the agenda. Taking only one data: Colombia is the
Latin American country champion of land property concentration, according to Oxfan investigations
(2016), 1% of the largest landowners hold 81% of land. Hence the nonsense contained in the
UOC (MLM), according to which the task of the communists in Colombia must be to “teach peasants (…)
fight against private property and convert property of its land into property and exploitation
collective ”194.
For UOC (MLM), if Colombia is an oppressed capitalist country, this condition would be even more explicit
in countries like Brazil, India and Philippines:
“(…) The behavior of the Brazilian, Indian and Philippine bourgeoisie during the last decades is not
absolutely that of a merely buying bourgeoisie. For example, the Indian state is a
peculiar type of postcolonial capitalist state characterized by a bourgeoisie that is neither
national (…), no buyer (because, not only servant and intermediate of the imperialists and
… Has made independent political decisions in contradiction with the metropolitan bourgeoisie) and
even less, an imperialist bourgeoisie (because the importance of capital by the bourgeoisie
Indiana is much larger than its capital exports that has undoubtedly increased during
last two decades). The character and role that has the Brazilian bourgeoisie in relation to the BRICS,
demonstrates that its international role has left much of being a buying bourgeoisie or
subjugated completely to imperialism and that, within its limits, aspires to be a regional actor who
expresses positions of predominance in relation to other oppressed countries. ”[UOC (MLM)] 195
That is, the direction of UOC (MLM) concludes that Brazilian, Indian and Philippines bourgeoisie are no longer
buyer character. States that the Brazilian and Indian bourgeoisie, in particular, although they are not
Imperialists, already export capital, rival the “metropolitan” bourgeoisie and subjugate other countries
oppressed. On the contrary, what the PCP, TKP/ML, PCI (M), PCF and P.C.B. And the vast majority
of Marxist-Leninist-Mao parties, UOC (MLM) suggests that revolutions in these countries would be
immediately socialist.
The international line for MCI, proposed by UOC (MLM) points to a decrease in the importance of
Revolutions of new democracy, as an integral part of the world proletarian revolution. After all, if the
imperialism follows “scanning” semi -feudality in the oppressed countries, there are more and more countries in the
“oppressed capitalists” and the immediate socialist revolution would be in force for a number
growing from countries around the world. This analysis and conclusion of UOC (MLM) is a complete review of Leninism,
mainly from his theory of imperialism.
Unlike this conclusion of UOC (MLM), the scientific ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism, points out that in the imperialist phase of capitalism, national oppression increases and does not decay, that the
trend in every line for political reaction and violence is a law of imperialism that has buried and abolished
all progressive character that had capitalism, with the passage of the capital of its free competition phase
For the monopolies phase, upper and final stage of capital. This is what the great chiefs of the
international proletariat, is ABC of Leninism and Maoism and is what we are seeing
True in the world today: the growth of colonial oppression by superpowers and powers
imperialists and, especially, the explosive growth of the wars and national liberation struggles of which the
Heroica Palestinian National Resistance is the most inspiring example to the international proletariat. O
imperialism is parasitism and decomposition of capital, it is an agonizing condition, whose crisis is the material base
of the accelerated rot of bourgeois democracy, expressed in the reactionary of state and growth
dizzying of their fascistization in all countries of the globe. Therefore, very unlike the conclusions of
UOC (MLM), the meaning of new democracy revolutions for the world revolution only increased
its importance in recent decades. Understand the relationship of the democratic revolution with the revolution
Proletarian is today, more than ever, a decisive issue for communists around the world.
1- The fallacious “progressive tendency of imperialism”


For the direction of UOC (MLM), the imperialist phase is a particular mode of production of capitalism,
repeating the Avakianist mantra state that in the stage of free competition “the world economy was not
and the economies of each country were structured as independent processes, external to the
others, gradually linked by the market ”. That is, they were linked only by the market,
in the sphere of circulation. In imperialism, the world economy would have “unified in one process (…)
converting to worldwide market, the production itself, breaking the autonomy of the economies
of the countries and chasing them in a single productive process ”196.
This mode of globalized production, as opposed to the capitalism of the phase of free competition, would consist
the “progressive” aspect of imperialism: “In the imperialist phase two trends live: one
Stanning and economic and political crises; and another to progress, the socialization of production
world. ”197 for UOC (MLM), this growth of socialization of world production would be a trend
“Progressive” because it would lead to the sweeping of semi -feudality:
“Imperialism as an internationalized mode of production, it chained all countries with its
specific production modes in one world economy. The exported capital operates on the
germens or about the capitalist developments of the oppressed countries, and as a general trend,
accelerates its development, sweeps the traces of pre-capitalist production modes. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 198
Moreover, “capitalism itself by converting to world mode of production” expresses more
clear that "the proletariat of all countries sells its workforce to the world bourgeoisie." A
bourgeoisie of semicolonial countries, in turn, becomes “partner and participant of the world system of
imperialism". And by “benefiting from imperialist relations (…) it obtains a profit rate equal to the
bourgeoisie from other countries ”. In this way the UOC (mlm) defines that:
“(…) Imperialism is an internationalized mode of production that includes others, influences them,
transforms, wears them, exhaust them, into a worldwide process of production, accumulation and
generation of added value. ”[UOC (MLM)] 199
According to the documents of UOC (MLM), its conception of imperialism can be summarized from the following
Form: In the stage of free competition the world economy cooked through the market; in the stage
imperialist, capitalism became an internationalized mode of production, chained all
Countries, regardless of their specific production modes in one world economy. This one
chain led to the sweeping of pre-capitalist production modes and the conversion of bourgeoisie
semicolonials in members of the imperialist world system, which ensures a “profit rate equal to the
imperialist bourgeoisie ”. Thus, a worldwide bourgeoisie that explores the
proletariat of all countries. Imperialism comes down to a worldwide process of production, accumulation
and generation of added value.
This conception of UOC (MLM), attentive to the Leninist Theory of Imperialism in its entirety, against
Marxist bases of the study on the capitalist mode of production and converges with “theory” Kautskista
of ultraimperialism.
First, the conclusion of the UOC (MLM) that in the free competition phase of the production mode
Capitalist “The World Economy was not covenous” is completely opposite to Marxism. Like the
Greater Marx already demonstrates in the Communist Party manifesto, the great industry and the world market
They conform a dialectical unit, in which large industry is the main aspect. However,
both determine each other, that is, the large industry determines the conformation of the market
Unique World that, in turn, accelerates the development of this same large industry. For Marx, the
Great industry develops only as it cohesides the world economy:
“Great Industry has created the world market, already prepared by the discovery of America. O
world market has prodigiously accelerated the development of trade, navigation and
means of transportation by land. This development influenced, in turn, at the height of the industry,
and as the industry, trade, navigation and iron lines were extended,
developed the bourgeoisie, multiplying its capitals and relegating the second term all classes


Legated by the Middle Ages. The modern bourgeoisie, as we see, is already the result of a wide process
development, a series of revolutions in production and exchange mode. ” (Marx and
Engels) 200
This is the period of flowering of capitalism, in which the bourgeoisie, while the new social force
Revolutionary, relegated to the past all medieval frets. Free competition capitalism does not
could develop, much less reach the imperialist phase, if the economies of each country are
structure as independent processes. The intertwining of the world economy in the only process, the
international division of labor, are not particularities of imperialism, they are historical achievements
previous stage of free competition. This is what Marx and Engels establish as follows:
“Upon exploitation of the world market, the bourgeoisie gave a cosmopolitan character to the production
worldwide and the consumption of all countries. With great feeling of the reactionaries, they settled
industry its national base. The old industries have been destroyed and are destroying
continuously. Are supplanted by new industries, whose introduction becomes a vital question
for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer employ raw materials of the place,
but raw materials sold from the most distant regions of the world, and whose products not only
They consume in their own country, but in all parts of the globe. Instead of ancient isolation and
bitterness of regions and nations, a universal exchange, an interdependence
universal of nations. And this refers to material production both and intellectual. The production
Intellectual of a nation becomes the common heritage of all. Narrows and exclusivism
nationals today result in the most impossible day; numerous national and local literature
forms a universal literature. ” (Marx and Engels) 201
There is any doubt that for Marx, as established in the founding work of scientific socialism, the
Is world production a unique process precisely in free competition capitalism? The market
Universal presupposes large industry, both constitute contradictory aspects of material production
Universal, which represents the basis for universal intellectual production. These are historical products of
World bourgeois revolution, which ended with the advent of imperialism and which, with the revolution
October 1917, in Russia, the bourgeoisie as a class historically lost its appearance
Revolutionary and progressive, completely moving to counterrevolution. Therefore, in no way
imperialism promotes any progress, if not, on the contrary, as a reaction throughout the line
also against all these achievements achieved by humanity.
But UOC (mlm) does not miss only when characterizing elements already present and constituted in the free phase
competition as if they were particularities of the imperialist stage, distort the very characterization of the
that would be this internationalized production. When dealing with the two trends of imperialism, it highlights the
socialization of world production as if it could exist in the capitalist mode of production without its
contrary aspect: capitalist private property. When this reschedule that imperialism arises as
a mode of production that chases the economies of countries as a single production process, hides the
fact that alongside the socialization of growing production the capitalists continue to confront each other in the
capitalist market as private owners. That is, the imperialist world has not become a
single factory in a single world capital that jointly exploits the proletarians of all countries in the
world. Such conclusions also smell a lot of the “postmodern” thesis of “global capital” defended by
revisionists and opportunists embellishing the bourgeois ideology of “globalization”, see Prachanda and
company.
Imperialism besides being “(...) a worldwide process of production, accumulation and generation of
VALUE ”, is, at the same time, a worldwide process of unbridled, violent and reactionary dispute for
Office of this added value, by the private appropriation of this added value. If the prehistory of capitalism
Blood sprinkling through all the pores, the present history of imperialism is the most bloody war of
imperialist bourgeoisie for the division of this surplus produced worldwide and Botim, for the loot and
prey from semicolonial countries. The imperialist bourgeoisie, in turn, disputes with the bourgeoisie of the countries
semicolonials, with the great bourgeoisie of these countries (bureaucratic and buyer) who will have the largest
portion of the social value produced in them. Therefore, it becomes completely unreasonable to say that in
Imperialism The bourgeoisies of the semicolonies earn the same rate of profit as their imperialist “partner”.


Capitalist private property constitutes the right of the bourgeoisie to appropriate the work of others
paid, to appropriate the added value. The golden dream of a progressive trend of imperialism,
widespread by UOC (MLM), hides “only” the fact that the growing socialization of production with the
private property of the means of production is the fundamental condition of existence of capitalism, it is its
fundamental contradiction, in which these two aspects conform a unity of opposites - capitalism
- whose dominant aspect is the private property of the means of production. This condition and contradiction
fundamental of capitalism is the same in its stage of free competition and in the monopolistic stage, but in the
condition that, in the second, simultaneously the acceleration of the socialization of production, it is produced
greater leaps in the concentration and centralization of capital, due to the monopolistic character of the aspect
dominant. Let's see how Lenin treats this issue in a way, when analyzing the phenomenon of
socialization of production in imperialism:
“(…) There is a gigantic progress of the socialization of production”, however “the appropriation
remains private. ” (Lenin) 202
Then, the monopolistic property, typical of the imperialist phase cannot boost this socialization of
Production without enhancing, at all times, the conflict with it. The socialization of production, at the time of
Imperialism, therefore, advances in an opposite way to the progressive character highlighted by Marx in the manifesto.
The advance of capitalist production, in its monopolistic phase, does not sweep the pre-capitalist production modes,
very unlike this, financial capital through capital export, mainly, is supported by
in these putrefate foundations, keeping them underlying and does so through the evolution of their forms, not few
sometimes in an apparent "wage". Already the monopolistic competition (brutal competition) is based on the search
of the maximum profit and leads, inevitable and especially to the imperialist wars of aggression and prey, to the struggle
by the departure of the world, the world imperialist war, colonial enslavement and fascism to
confront the world proletarian revolution. Imperialism had thus prepared the objective conditions for the
advancement of the world proletarian revolution in each country in the forms of socialist revolutions and revolutions of
new democracy uninterrupted to socialism, respectively corresponding to the nature of each country, in a
unequal development process, but of one proletarian direction.
The advent of imperialism and its contrary, the world proletarian revolution, began the disaggregation of
unique capitalist market and in no way led to a mode of production that united countries in a
Single process. As highlighted by comrade Stalin:
“The disintegration of a unique and comprehensive world market must be considered the sequence
most important economic of World War II and its economic consequences. She
determined the even greater deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system. ” (Stalin) 203
With the development of imperialism and the advent of the world proletarian revolution or the existence of
a unique world market is assured, the less one can speak of the conformation of a mode of
production that chases the countries of the world in a single process. Much less in a trend
Progressive imperialism that sweeps semi -feudality. President Mao takes up as follows
These important theses of the VI Congress of the IC, for the semicolonial countries:
“Imperialism is allied in the first term with the dominant layers of the preceding social regime
-The feudal lords and the commercial-use bourgeoisie, against most of the people. Everywhere,
Imperialism tries to preserve and perpetuate all those forms of precapitalist exploitation
(particularly in the field), which are the basis of the existence of its reactionary allies. (…) O
imperialism, with all the financial and military power that has in China, is the force that supports, encouraged,
Cultivate and retain feudal survival, with all its bureaucratic-military superstructure. '
(VI Congress of the Communist International). ” (President Mao) 204
How it is possible to try to reconcile the defense of Maoism with the fallacious thesis of the progressive tendency of the
imperialism? How it is possible to assert itself and say that imperialism sweeps semi -feudal relations
in semicolonial countries? UOC (MLM) claims not to despise that “in some countries the trend
predominantly was, especially at the beginning of the phase, reinforcing pre-capitalist production modes ”205.
Tries to reconcile his explicit deviation from Maoism with a patch: in some countries imperialism, in
Their starting, reinforced the pre-capitalist production modes. Thus convert the line of IC and the President
Mao in exception and create a false dichotomy in the history of imperialism: at the beginning of the stage, propelled


Pre-capitalist production modes; Then he swept them. It was missing only to UOC (MLM) to explain how it occurred
This imperialist metamorphosis: from the reaction throughout the line to the supposed progressive trend. In opposition
to revisionist conceptions like this, President Mao states that imperialism “(...) will never become
A Buddha. ”
Moreover, it clearly establishes that the purpose of imperialism by penetrating the countries overwhelmed
never was to develop a social formation, to make it progress, nor to sweep old modes of
production, on the contrary:
“By penetrating our country, the imperialist powers in no way proposed
Transform feudal China into a capitalist China. His goal was the opposite: to make it a
SEMICOLONY OR COLONY. ” (President Mao) 206
Imperialism does not have a progressive tendency, nor can it be considered a mode of production that
It chains the countries of the world in the only process. As the comrade Stalin establishes, imperialism is:
“The intensified export of capitalism to colonies and dependent countries; the extension of
'Spheres of influence' and colonial domains, which even embrace the entire planet; the transformation
capitalism in a world system of financial slavery and national oppression of
Gigantic majority of the globe population by a handful of 'advanced' countries; All this, for a
part, converted the different world economies and the different national territories
The same chain, called the World Economy; On the other hand, it divided the population of the planet into
two fields: the handful of 'advanced' capitalist countries, which exploit and oppress vast
colonies and vast dependent countries, and that of the huge majority of dependent colonies and countries, which
They see the struggle to break free from the imperialist yoke. ” (Stalin) 207
It is noted the clear difference in the definition, because the UOC (mlm) classifies imperialism as a mode of
internationalized production that sweeps pre-capitalist production relations; The comrade Stalin defines it
as a world system of enslavement and national oppression. For Stalin, imperialism is not a way
production that converts national economies into a single process, but which converts them into “links
of the same chain ”. In this chain of domination, most of the world, colonial countries and
Semicolonials are farmed by imperialist domination. Suppose that imperialism promotes progress
of the oppressing countries is a completely revisionist conception.
UOC (MLM) states that “the tendency to democracy proper to the old bourgeois revolution was replaced
by the tendency to political reaction throughout the line and at all orders. ”Says this Leninist thesis, to
followed the revisionist thesis about two trends of imperialism. A conscientious reading
Lenin's formulations of imperialism inevitably lead to rejecting this hypothesis of
UOC (mlm).
After all, as already seen, Lenin brilliantly establishes that imperialism has one trend:
“Imperialism is the time of financial capital and monopolies, which bring with them, throughout
Part, the tendency towards domination, not for freedom. The reaction in the entire line, whatever the
political regime; the extreme exacerbation of contradictions also in this sphere: such is the result of this
trend. Also intensifies national oppression and the tendency for
annexations, that is, for the violation of national independence (because the annexation is but the
violation of the law of nations to self -determination). ” (Lenin) 208
2- Imperialism prevents national development
As seen, the UOC (MLM) distorts the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the transformation of free capitalism
competition in monopolistic capitalism, worldwide, by attributing an alleged tendency
progressive to imperialism. This “progress” would be on a worldwide scale as imperialism
would correspond to a unique production process, and in the oppressed countries, as it sweeps the modes of
Pre-capitalist production. It is impossible to ideologically reconcile these postulates with the Leninist analysis
that imperialism particularly intensifies national oppression. That is, the result of the capital


Exported by financial capital are no progress to the oppressed countries. What Lenin
highlights as a result of this export is the “extreme exacerbation of contradictions”, “the tendency to
domination, not for freedom ”. This particular condition of imperialism results in the increase of the struggle
of national liberation and makes it an inseparable part of the world proletarian revolution; the class struggle of
proletariat acquires an international character and the proletariat rises the only consequent direction of the struggles
of national and democratic liberation as a whole. The international proletarian movement and the movement
of national liberation, the first as a guideline and the second as the basis, inseparable aspects of RPM,
They constitute the only progressive tendency at the time of imperialism.
UOC (MLM), in an opposite manner to Leninism, concludes that the main result of the export of capital
for the oppressed countries would constitute the swept of pre-capitalist production relations by
imperialism and not in the intensification of national oppression and its sister Siamese the reproduction of relations
semi -feudal through the evolution of their forms. Take the predominance of production relations
capitalist in the colonial and semicolonial countries, which occurs in the imperialist time, as if they guarded
The same progressive content that once had in the stage of free competition capitalism.
Falsely interpret that the export of capital would result in the subordination of feudalism to capitalism,
and that this subordination would occur in the countries oppressed only in the imperialist phase. The export of
goods, the creation of the world market, typical of the free competition stage
Subordination of the relations of slave and feudal production to the capitalist mode of production. Shuffle,
thus, predominance with subordination, to draw the following conclusion: poor countries in which
capitalist relations predominate in the face of semi -feudal relations are “oppressed capitalist countries” and in these
Countries The revolution must be immediately socialist. Predominance, which for UOC (MLM) is equal to
subordination, then for her the revolution of new democracy would be in force today, only in countries in the
what the capitalist mode of production was subordinate to the feudal mode of production. We question in
What country in the world today capitalism is subordinate to feudalism?
UOC (MLM), considers that the subordination of pre-capitalist production relations to the mode of production
capitalist occurred only in the twentieth century. The subordination of the modes of slave and feudal production
the capitalist mode of production is by no means a product of imperialism, or resulting from the
export of capital. This subordination occurred in free competition capitalism, and was part of the
development of large industry, the creation of the single capitalist world market and the division
International Labor. Marx analyzes this issue as follows in The Capital:
“(...) When people whose production are in the inferior stages of slavery, corveia,
etc., enter a world market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, becoming the
sale of its products abroad the dominant interest, overlap with the barbaric horrors of the
Slavery, servitude, etc., the cruelty of excess work. The work of blacks in the states
southern North America preserved a certain patriarchal character while production was intended
mainly to the direct satisfaction of needs. To the extent, however, where
cotton became a vital interest of those states, excess work of blacks and consumption
of your life in 7 years of work have become integral parts of a coldly calculated system.
This was not about obtaining a certain amount of useful products. The objective became production
more of the added value. ” (Marx) 209
Marx clearly points out that the world market emerges as a product of large industry and is born, therefore,
dominated by the capitalist mode of production. Worldwide, capitalism is already the mode of production
dominant since its development in the phase of free competition. However, the direction of UOC (MLM)
Cheers the analysis of the Maoists about Chinese society and claim that:
“Of these three texts and the cited conversations of Mao it is clear that (i) a social formation
semi -feudal and semicolonial is characterized by a limited development of capitalism and
Continuation of the domain of feudal production relations; The capitalist mode of production is
subordinate to the feudal mode of production and imperialist domination implemented through the
great imperialist commercial bourgeoisie ”. [UOC (MLM)] 210
Concludes the UOC (MLM) that there is the possibility of the mode of capitalist production to be subordinate to the mode
feudal production in the imperialist stage, and commits the nonsense to say that this can be deducted from the works


of President Mao. In The Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, the great helmsman says
what:
“The foundations of the natural economy of the feudal era were destroyed, but the exploitation of the peasantry by
landing class, base of the feudal exploration system, not only remains intact, but
linked to the exploration exerted by the buyer and usure capital, it predominates manifestly in the
China's economic and social life. ” (President Mao) 211
UOC (MLM) interprets this predominance of latifundist exploitation as the subordination of the mode of
capitalist production to feudal mode of production in Chinese society. However, to reach such
conclusion need to hide that the dominant aspect in the process of development of the Chinese nation in the
twentieth century becomes imperialism, specifically, the imperialist powers that share the
Chinese coast in the first two decades, and especially the Japanese imperialism that expands its
colonization of northeast China in the south-central direction of the country in the late 1930s. That is, what
destroyed “the foundations of the natural economy of the feudal era” was not the nascent Chinese national capitalism, but the
capital exported by imperialism. Thus, feudalism predominates in the face of national capitalism and not
Faced with imperialist capitalism, which oppresses, subordinates and subjugates the Chinese nation. President Mao
Analyzes the social development of China, as follows, on the new democracy:
“(…) With its aggression against China, the imperialist powers, by one part, accelerated the
disintegration of Chinese feudal society and the growth of capitalism, thus converting
feudal society in semi -feudal, and, on the other hand, imposed on China their cruel domination,
transforming it from an independent country into a semicolonial and colonial country. ” (President Mao) 212
The aggression of imperialist powers against China accelerate the growth of bureaucratic capitalism; you
Exported capital determined the accelerated conversion of feudal China to semi -feudal. However,
unlike the capitalist development process typical of the free competition stage, this
evolution of feudality and this growth of mercantile and capitalist relations, did not lead to a
higher national unification, on the contrary, converted China from an independent feudal country into a country
semicolonial and, therefore, colonial.
How can UOC (MLM) speak of subordination of the capitalist mode of production to the mode of
Feudal production in China? What happened was just the opposite, imperialism subordinated the forces
Feudal in China; funded, set up and directed the warlords against the democratic-bourgeois forces
Thus preventing the possibilities of development of Chinese national capitalism. This kind of
subordination, it was not a particular fact of Chinese society, but it became the general rule in the phase
imperialist of capitalism. President Mao summarizes “the means of military, political, economic and
cultural ”used by imperialist powers to gradually convert China into a semicolonia and,
Therefore, in Colony:
“1) They triggered numerous wars of aggression against China (…).
2) Forced China to complete numerous unequal treaties (…).
3) In this way, they were able to flood China with their goods, convert it into a market to
its industrial products and, at the same time, subordinate Chinese agricultural production to
imperialist needs.
4) established numerous companies in the light and heavy industry in China to use it on the
land the raw materials and cheap labor, and in this environment exert economic pressure
direct about China's national industry and directly brakes the development of its
productive forces.
5) (…) monopolized the banking system and finances of the country.
6) In order to more easily explore the peasant masses and other layers of the population, they created
In China a network of exploration formed by buyers and merchants (…).
7) They made the feudal landowner class of China, just as the buying bourgeoisie,
the pillar of its domination in China. (…).
8) (…) raise intricate wars between military caudillos and repress the people.
9) In addition, they never relaxed their efforts to fall asleep the spirit of the Chinese people.
10) Since the incident of September 18, 1931, Japanese imperialism, with its invasion in Vasta
scale, converted much of the territory of China, which was already semicolonial, in a colony
Japanese. ” (President Mao) 213


In the relationship of domination and colonial and semicolonial exploration, imperialism is the dominant aspect front
to the people and the Chinese nation. The imperialist powers make the feudal landlord and the bourgeoisie
Buying her pillars of domination in China. Therefore, it constitutes a falsification to attribute to the President
The conclusion is that in China the feudal mode of production subordinated the capitalist mode of production.
Both in the example of Marx, taken from the nineteenth century, and in the analysis of China made by President Mao, in the
Twentieth century, the capitalist mode of production is already the dominant aspect in the world economy. Marx shows, in
Capital, such as slave production relations in cotton production in the southern US, were already
Service of Mais-Valia production in England. Because to the extent that they secured a raw material
cheaper for the textile industry than the English cotom, or Indian or Egyptian cotton, cotton
produced by the blood of the blacks enslaved by the Ianques served a greater production of added value by
English bourgeoisie. In the twentieth century, what happens is that imperialism will not only chain these different
production relations in your service, how you will use all backward forces to ensure your
national domain. This is an indispensable condition to enable the profits with the capital
exported. Thus, through the unequal treaties, the subordination of agricultural production to
needs of imperialist powers, direct installation of imperialist companies that exploit the
raw material and the cheap labor force of the oppressed countries, through these means, the powers
Imperialists give a much larger profit than possible in the free competition stage. That's why
Lenin points out that increased national oppression is one of the results of the imperialist stage.
UOC (MLM) distorts President Mao's analyzes of Chinese society, confuses the prevalence of
semi -feudal production relations with the subordination of the capitalist mode of production to the mode of
feudal production, as it intends to present its proposition of socialist revolution to part of the countries
oppressed as being seated in Maoism. Thus presents China as a semi -feudal country and
semicolonial, as if semi -feudality were the dominant aspect of this social formation and as if in this
predominance was completely justification of the new democracy revolution. Therefore, it deduces that a
country in which semi -feudality no longer subordinates capitalist relations would need a revolution
immediately socialist. Thus links the revolution of new democracy solely and exclusively to the
swept of pre-capitalist production relations, and raises the national question in the scope of the revolution
socialist.
The falsehood of this reasoning consists of two points: 1) Imperialism has not swept semi -feudal relations,
It only evolved their forms by keeping them underlying; 2) The Revolution of New Democracy is not
summarizes the sweeping of semi -feudality, its most important international meaning is that it solves
full way the problem of the traffic revolution of national liberation to the socialist revolution, because
Its most important targets are feudalism and imperialism, and this is the main one. Let's see how
President Mao establishes the issue for the Chinese Revolution:
“Such are the characteristics of colonial, semicolonial and semi -feudal Chinese society. This situation
is mainly determined by the imperialist forces of Japan and other powers, and is the
result of the collusion between foreign imperialism and internal feudalism. The contradiction between the
imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the large popular masses, are
The fundamental contradictions of modern Chinese society. (…) But, of all these, the contradiction
between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the main one. ” (President Mao) 214
Note a detail, President Mao in his definition of China's character always highlights the aspect
Semicolonial before the semi -feudal, the UOC (mlm) by refers to China always reverses the concepts by placing
in front the semi -feudal aspect to falsify the conclusion that this was the only determining characteristic of
Chinese society. The decisive importance of the struggle for the destruction of landlords in semicolonial countries is
precisely because this class is the main pillar of support of imperialism, and is the most
retrograde. Against it it is possible to unify most of the social classes of the country and a large number of forces
policies, a wide revolutionary front of the proletariat with the entire peasantry (poor, medium and
rich), the small urban bourgeoisie and even the average (national bourgeoisie) under certain conditions.
Only when an imperialist invasion occurs, it becomes possible to establish a single class front
Revolutionaries under the direction of the proletariat party, which is even broader. Therefore, in general, the
contradiction against semi -feudality is the main contradiction in the early stages of the new revolution
Democracy, but in no way constitutes the only contradiction to be resolved by this revolution.


Until the early 1940s, President Mao points out that the targets of the New Democracy Revolution
In China they were imperialism and feudalism. From the mid -1940s, particularly during the
Phase of the Third Revolutionary Civil War (1947-1949) always points out three targets: imperialism, the
feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism:
“Today, our main enemies are imperialism, feudalism and capitalism
bureaucratic, while the main forces in our struggle against these enemies are all
Manual and intellectual workers, representing 90 percent of the country's population. This is it
determines that our revolution in the current stage is, by its character, a democratic revolution
Popular, of new democracy, unlike a socialist revolution as the October Revolution. ”
(President Mao) 215
This precautionary of President Mao's position is the result of the ideological development of the
Maoism, as a reflection of the transformations of China and the World in the course and after World War II. O
development of industrial production in countries dominated by imperialism is a present tendency
Throughout the twentieth century, which alternated periods of boost and setback. Resulting from
EXPORT OF CAPITALS, as we saw in the analysis above President Mao, imperialism has been implemented
companies in their colonies and semicolonies to more easily explore the raw materials present there
and overexplorate the available workforce. However, due to the interimperialist contradictions
(particularly during the I and II GM), according to the contradiction socialism versus capitalism, according to
contradiction nations and oppressed peoples versus imperialism and the proletariat contradiction versus bourgeoisie
worldwide, imperialism was also forced to intertwine with large local capital of
countries oppressed to develop capitalist companies in the semicolonies. Due to its weakness
economic in the face of imperialist financial capital, the large semicolonial capital to intertwine to this,
It had to do so, mainly, through the state. Bureaucratic capitalism in semicolonial countries
emerges as a non-state monopolistic capitalism, but when developing uses the control of the old
state machine and becomes state monopolistic capitalism, state -owned but privately
content, engendered and linked to imperialism, resulting in the differentiation of two fractions from this great
bourgeoisie, the buyer, first form of the great bourgeoisie in the oppressed countries and the bureaucratic
itself, resulting from this differentiation within the state. In China this process intensifies the
From 1945, with the defeat and expulsion of Japanese imperialism, when Chiang Kai-Shek, ahead
of the old state machine and leveraged by the financial capital Yankee, drives this capitalism
State monopolist. This process did not only occur in China, it occurred as an immediate consequence of the
advent of imperialism, in all countries that were more late and became colonies or
semicolonies of different imperialist powers, a phenomenon that was a rule in the monopolistic phase of the
capital. The class struggle in this process and the struggle of two lines in Marxism led, in a sequence, for
Lenin, Stalin and President Mao resulted in the development of the theory on New Revolution
Democracy in China, whose targets to be destroyed and removed are feudalism, imperialism and
bureaucratic capitalism, the three mountains of exploitation and oppression of the popular masses and subjugation of
nation.
Reduce the revolution of new democracy to the vanishing of feudalism, would correspond to reduce it to
Agrarian Revolution, this would be a falsification of Maoism. State that imperialism in alliance with
bourgeois latifier dictatorships of the semicolonies would have solved the agrarian and peasant problem is the
expression of the most childish revisionist illusion with imperialism and the great bourgeoisie. After all, like the
President Mao points out that:
“(…) [The path of bourgeois dictatorship at the time of imperialism to oppressed countries]
impractical. The international situation is today characterized fundamentally by the struggle between the
Capitalism and socialism and the decline of capitalism and the rise of socialism. In first
place, international capitalism or imperialism will not allow it to be established in our country
a capitalist society of bourgeois dictatorship. The modern history of China is precisely
history of imperialist aggression against it, of the imperialist opposition to its independence and the
development of your capitalism. (…) It is certain that we live in the last sighs of the
imperialism, which is about to die; Imperialism is 'agonizing capitalism'. But,
precisely because it is about to die, it depends even more on the colonies and semicolonies and not
will allow at all that in none of them a capitalist society of
bourgeois dictatorship. Precisely because Japanese imperialism is sunk in a serious crisis
economic and political, that is, because it is about to die, it has to invade China and convert it to


colony, thus closing the way to the bourgeois dictatorship and the development of the
national capitalism. ” (President Mao) 216
UOC's direction (MLM) is against these conclusions of President Mao, but does not say openly. Prefers
hide its divergence to sell its theory as a maleist that a part of the countries oppressed by the
imperialism, in the course of the twentieth century, developed in capitalist society of bourgeois dictatorship, as
result of the “progressive” tendency of imperialism. Maoism affirms the opposite: imperialism has closed the
Way to the national development of oppressed countries; after all as Lenin establishes: “
political particularities of imperialism are the reaction throughout the line and the intensification of oppression
national ”217. UOC's position (MLM) on imperialism sweeping pre-capitalist production modes and
On such oppressed capitalist countries there is nothing of Leninism, nor of Maoism.
3- Trotskyist analysis of the bourgeoisie in the countries oppressed by imperialism
Nothing easier than criticizing, in general, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries. A weak bourgeoisie
economically, politically dubious, unable to direct their own bourgeois revolution, conciliating with the
imperialism and with the landlord, fearful of the proletarian revolution, claudicating in support of the struggle for the land of
peasants. All of these qualifiers are true. However, as a rule, the more
high and generic are criticism of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, the most superficial is the analysis of
classes of said societies. The history of the proletarian revolution in the twentieth century, especially in the countries
oppressed, serves as proof of the brutal error of considering the bourgeoisie worldwide and, even in
A given country, like a unique block, without internal differences.
UOC (MLM), for example, states that “it is incorrect to always presuppose and without analysis of the class structure,
the existence of a national bourgeoisie in the oppressed countries ”. States this, because it concludes that in such countries
Oppressed capitalists there is no national bourgeoisie, there is only the local section of the world bourgeoisie;
There is no Lacaia bourgeoisie, but an international society of bourgeois who oppress
SET the proletariat of all countries. For UOC (mlm), this way:
“(…) The economic independence of the country is contradicted with its class interests, since it is not
be a simple employee in imperialist capitalist businesses: it is a partner and partitime of the system
world of imperialism ”, including the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries“ gets an equal profit rate
to the bourgeoisie of other countries ”. [UOC (MLM)] 218
Wrap everything and simply disregard the existence, in the countries oppressed by imperialism,
a wide layer of small and medium bourgeois that exploit the proletariat, but at the same time
They have contradiction with imperialism and the great bourgeoisie of these countries. In your program, do not
even a distinction between large bourgeoisie and medium bourgeoisie in Colombia. For UOC (MLM) there is
Only the bourgeoisie, which is a partner and participant of the Unit Society of the World Bourgeoisie. All this speech
“Antiburgue” may sound as revolutionary, as “left”, but there is nothing scientific, because
no way corresponds to a concrete analysis of the concrete situation of the world's oppressed countries,
particularly from Latin America.
The existence of this intermediate layer, of these small owners who exploit wage labor
but at the same time they need to work on their own businesses, it is an extremely
present in al. The huge service sector present in all these economies, of which much is
To small and medium owners, it is the patent expression of this reality. DISCONDER IT, CLASSING IT
only as proletarians-owners or as great bourgeois, it only serves to circumvent the problem
instead of solving it. This is a very important mass that has become the basis of fascist ideas,
as has happened other times in history and needs to be disputed by the communists who must present a
Program corresponding to the character of the necessary revolution the transformation of these societies. Lenin, about
This question stated that:
“What is all this scam from Martínov? Which confuses the democratic revolution with the
socialist revolution, which forgets the role of the intermediate layer, the existing popular layer
between the 'bourgeoisie' and the 'proletariat' (the small bourgeois mass of the poor of the city and the countryside, the


'Semi -proletarians', the small owners); it is due to the one that does not understand the true meaning of
our minimum program. ” (Lenin) 219
UOC (MLM) even refers to the semi -proletarians and small owners, but totally forgets the
rest of the intermediate layer and completely disregards the need for a minimum program to
The revolution, that is, of a program of new democracy. In Russia, the liberal bourgeoisie was all
reactionary, so the lenial tactic established since 1905 was to make a bourgeois revolution against the
bourgeoisie. However, this was not the same condition as the countries oppressed by imperialism, which
precisely due to this oppression, it contained particularities in the local bourgeoisie that differentiated it from
bourgeoisie in imperialist countries. Stalin deals with this issue in decisive debates in the 1920s against the
Trotskism about the IC line for the Chinese Revolution:
“The fundamental error of the opposition is that it identifies the 1905 revolution in Russia, country
imperialist who oppressed other peoples, with the revolution in China, the oppressed, semicolonial country,
Thank you to fight the imperialist oppression of other states. Here, in Russia, the revolution was going
directed against the bourgeoisie, against the liberal bourgeoisie, although the revolution was a
Democratic-bourgeois revolution. Why? Because the liberal bourgeoisie of an imperialist country
It may stop being counterrevolutionary. Precisely for this reason, the Bolsheviks did not put themselves
So they could not even put the question of the blocks and temporary agreements with the liberal bourgeoisie. ”
(Stalin) 220
And establishing the guidelines for the general line of the revolution in the oppressed countries, the comrade Stalin
underlies the question in this way:
“Revolution in imperialist countries is one thing: in them, the bourgeoisie is the oppressive of other peoples;
In them, the bourgeoisie is counterrevolutionary in all phases of the revolution; in them the national factor is missing
as a factor of liberating struggle. Revolution in colonies and dependent countries is something else; on them,
The imperialist oppression of other states is one of the factors of the revolution; in them, this oppression does not
It can at least fail to affect the national bourgeoisie; in them, in a certain phase and
For a certain period, the bourgeoisie can support the revolutionary movement of its
country against imperialism; in them, the national factor, as a factor of the struggle for liberation, is a factor of
revolution. Do not make this distinction, not understand this difference, identify the revolution in countries
imperialists with the revolution in the colonies, all of this means to deviate from the Marxist path, from the path
Leninist and be on the way to the supporters of the II International. ” (Stalin) 221
The Founding Parties and Organizations of the LCI we are in the sender of the Communist International with the
great developments brought by Maoism and therefore we defend the banner of the universality of
Revolution of new democracy for countries oppressed by imperialism. Because the main task
of these revolutions is to defeat the imperialist domination imposed on colonial countries and
semicolonials. It was President Mao who, applying the line of the communist international to the revolution
of colonial and semicolonial countries, which, when directing the first victorious revolution in an oppressed country,
He has developed this theory, establishing the formulation of the New Democracy Revolution. O
Maoism develops the understanding of the particularities of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, tracing
within these countries the distinction between large bourgeoisie and medium bourgeoisie. Part of the great bourgeoisie,
which is Lacaia of imperialism, can turn against a particular imperialist power, such as Chiang
Kai-Shek in the anti-japanese war, but never against all imperialism. The average or genuine average
national bourgeoisie, in turn, has contradictions with both the great bourgeoisie and the imperialism,
because both restrict their profits, as they are monopolistic bourgeoisie. The imperialist bourgeoisie is imposed
by the gigantic magnitude of its capital and the condition that its states dominate politics and
militarily the oppressed peoples and nations; the great bourgeoisie of the semicolonial countries, in addition to the power of
Their capitals dominate and control the state machinery of their countries. As monopolistic bourgeoisie,
They make super students at the expense of overexploitation of the proletariat, but also for restricting and limiting the rate
of profit from the medium bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie. This is the economic base of the contradiction of the bourgeoisie
national with imperialism. However, this same national bourgeoisie, in addition to suffering the competition
unequal in the national market with imported goods, also depends on the sale of part of their
goods and services for the great bourgeoisie and for imperialism itself. Depends on numerous roads
both and for its contradiction with the proletariat that explores fears the proletarian revolution, and is unstable in
New Democracy Revolution. Therefore, the national bourgeoisie is invariably hesitant, the proletariat does not
must count on it as a safe ally, but it is indispensable to establish a minimum program that


contemplate your interests, particularly the guarantee of your property and market for your goods,
to unite the maximum forces to defeat semi -feudality and imperialism. Applying the line of
Comrade Stalin, President Mao analyzes that:
“The Chinese national bourgeoisie, because it belongs to a colonial and semicolonial country and is oppressed by the
imperialism, still has in certain periods and to some extent a revolutionary character, including
time of imperialism, in the sense that opposes foreign imperialists and the governments of
bureaucrats and military caudillos of the country, as witness to the 1911 revolution and the expedition to
North, and can ally with the proletariat and the small bourgeoisie against the enemies that
It matters to fight. In this differentiates the Chinese bourgeoisie of the bourgeoisie of the old russian tsarist.
As the latter was already an imperialist military power, an aggressive state, its bourgeoisie
had no revolutionary character. There the duty of the proletariat was to fight the bourgeoisie, and
Do not ally with this. In turn, given that China is a colonial and semicolonial country,
Aggression, its national bourgeoisie has in certain periods and to some extent a revolutionary character.
Here, the proletariat has a duty not to go through this revolutionary character of the bourgeoisie
national and form with this a single front against imperialism and the governments of bureaucrats and
military caudillos. ” (President Mao) 222
And develops the position of the International clearly delimiting the distinction between the national bourgeoisie and the
great bourgeoisie in the countries oppressed by imperialism:
“But at the same time, precisely because it belongs to a colonial and semicolonial country and being,
consequently, extremely weak in the economic and political land, the national bourgeoisie
Chinese also has another character, that is, its tendency to conciliation with the enemies of
revolution. Even at times when participating in the revolution, it is reluctant to break completely
with imperialism; in addition, it is closely linked to the exploration that is exercised in the field
through the lease of the earth. So it doesn't even want to completely defeat the
imperialism and even less feudal forces. Thus, it is not able to solve either of the two
Fundamental problems of the Democratic-Bourgue Revolution of China. Already the great bourgeoisie
Chinese, represented by the Kuomintang, surrendered with open arms to imperialism and
confated with feudal forces to combat the revolutionary people during the long period of
1927 to 1937. ” (President Mao) 223
President Mao concludes, therefore, that the national bourgeoisie, to some extent, has a character
revolutionary and at the same time tends to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Differently, the
great bourgeoisie surrender with open arms to imperialism and combines with feudal forces to combat
the people. The New Democracy Revolution also targets the great bourgeoisie, capitalism
Bureaucratic, but preserves private property of the medium and small bourgeoisie, as well as other rights of them.
This was well established by President Mao with six Single Front Laws. This is the development
made by Maoism, in the analysis of social classes in the oppressed countries, particularly about how
Understand your bourgeoisie and fractions.
For UOC (MLM), in such oppressed capitalist countries there is only the bourgeoisie in general and this is so allied of
imperialist bourgeoisie that becomes a partner at the world bourgeoisie club and compare with this the same rate
of profit. Moreover, they claim to exist only monopolistic bourgeoisie, that of local and foreign origin, and in
Case of some of these countries, they claim to be both imperialist. About Colombia, they claim that:
“The so -called national bourgeoisie not only does not exist today in Colombian society, but those
who play the role of their spokesman, are actually erasing fireworks from class struggle,
conciliators impertinent with the hated enemies of the people. ” [UOC (MLM)] 224
State that the national bourgeoisie does not exist in Colombia and say that the alleged representatives of this
nonexistent class would be conciliators with the enemies of the people. Reconciling with the enemies of the people this is the
typical characteristic of the national bourgeoisie. However, this does not remove it the revolutionary role that can
comply with, particularly during periods when imperialist aggressions occur to the national territory,
either by the development of the revolution in a given country, or by the aggravation of contradictions
interimperialists.


The proletarian revolution in the countries dominated by imperialism requires the new democracy stage. In the age of
imperialism and the proletarian revolution, the bourgeois democratic tasks pending in these countries can only
be resolved by the democratic revolution of a new type, that is, directed by the proletariat and what
uninterruptedly to socialism. Stand against the importance of the struggle for the land of peasants in
revolution in these countries, rising against the importance of neutralizing the intermediate layers, among
This is the national bourgeoisie, for the democratic revolution, particularly in its national release phase
oppose the maoism and assume the rotten Trotskyist program for colonial and semicolonial countries:
“For the countries of retarding bourgeois development and, in particular, for colonial countries and
semicolonials, the theory of permanent revolution means that the true and complete solution of
their democratic and national-liberators are conceivable only through the dictatorship of the
Proletariat, which assumes the direction of the oppressed nation and, first and foremost, its peasant masses. ”
(Trotsky) 225
This is the false left -handed position carried out by Trotsky, of wanting to resolve the democratic, national and
Peasant, immediately by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The characterization of UOC (MLM) on the bourgeoisie
national because this same essence.
4- The Revolution of New Democracy and the National Question
UOC defense (MLM) about the immediate socialist revolution in semicolonial countries obeys
Next logic: “Greater premise: resulting from the progressive tendency of imperialism that sweeps the ways
Pre-Capitalist production '”arises in the world oppressed capitalist countries; minor premise: like the
Revolution of New Democracy aims to eliminate semi -feudality, therefore: the revolution in “capitalist countries
oppressed ”must be immediately socialist. Both the premises and the conclusion of this theory are
completely false. First, there is no progressive tendency for imperialism. How it highlights the
President Mao, the objective of exporting capital of imperialist powers is not to develop the
Capitalism, but colonially subjugate the oppressed countries. Secondly, the theory of revolution
of new democracy aims at the destruction of imperialist domination, feudality and capitalism
bureaucratic; therefore, even if hypothetically there was no semi -semudality in a given country
semicolonial, because it is oppressed by imperialism its revolution must necessarily be a
Uninterrupted democratic revolution to socialism. Because this revolution invariably implies a war
Civil against the great bourgeoisie and the landlord and a national war against imperialist domination.
However, UOC (MLM) has a completely distorted understanding of the content of the
Revolution of new democracy, in addition to reducing the objectives of it exclusively to the agrarian revolution,
points out that one of its objectives would be to “develop capitalism”, unlike the “revolution
socialist ”who would be intended to“ abolish ”“ capitalism ”. In addition, it eliminates the liberation character
national of such “oppressed capitalist countries”, opposing “socialist anti-imperialism” to the struggle
democratic for the national sovereignty of colonial and semicolonial countries. The question is like this in your
Program:
“The content of the anti-imperialist revolutionary movement in this era and in capitalist countries
Oppressed is no longer democratic bourgeois of liberation and becomes socialist (…).
Continue considering that also in these countries the anti-imperialist movement has content
democratic, which does not shock with the national base of the power of capital, but it favors
its development, and as such it requires a stage prior to the socialist revolution, is to solve the
problem in the way a semi -feudal country ”. [UOC (MLM)] 226
That is, for UOC (MLM) in a semi-feudal country, the democratic stage prior to the socialist stage is justified,
In this case, the anti-imperialist content of the revolution is democratic-bourgeois of liberation and, therefore, the
revolution does not clash with the national base of capital power, but on the contrary it favors its
development. How can an organization say to be maleist to present the content of the
Revolution of new democracy developed by President Mao? How can you summarize this
Way the meaning of the democratic stage of the socialist revolution formulated by the great Lenin? Not that
passes from cheap falsification to justify the old Trotskyist “theory” of the “permanent revolution” in countries
oppressed by imperialism.


For Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, national liberation is a bourgeois democratic flag
abandoned by the bourgeoisie of advanced countries still in the late nineteenth century and which, in the twentieth century in
Given, it cannot be sustained consequently by the national bourgeoisie itself of the oppressed countries.
This was the advent of imperialism, the passage of capital to its monopolistic and last stage, which marks the end
from the time of the world bourgeois democratic revolution and opens the time of the world proletarian revolution,
occurring the great socialist revolution of October and the passage of the bourgeoisie as a social class
historical for counterrevolution. But even though the democratic revolution is a bourgeois revolution, under
The direction and hegemony of the proletariat, supported by the worker-pampon covenant, it becomes a revolution
Bourgeois democratic of a new type or revolution of new uninterrupted democracy to the socialist revolution.
Consequently the struggle for national liberation there surpasses its bourgeois content, ceases to belong to
a narrow nationalism and assumes internationalist content, as it fights against the national oppression of
all peoples and not just their people. Thus assumes proletarian and not nationalist bourgeois content,
and part of the world proletarian revolution.
Similarly, although the revolution of new democracy, in destroying feudality, imperialism, and
bureaucratic capitalism, clear the way to the development of capitalism in a particular
country, as it destroys the monopolistic property of the means of production and allows growth
of the small and medium property, favoring the development of capitalism is not an objective
of the democratic revolution of a new type, since it is under the joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes under
direction and hegemony of the proletariat. After all, the purpose of the New Democracy Revolution is to pass
uninterruptedly to the socialist revolution; establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and promote the construction
of socialism; This is the main task and objective of the New Democracy Revolution. Let's see how
President Mao establishes the question:
“In its first stage or first step, the revolution of a colonial or semicolonial country, still
that by its social character follows being fundamentally democratic-bourgeois and its claims
objectively tend to clear the way to the development of capitalism, it is no longer a
old type revolution, directed by the bourgeoisie and intended to establish a capitalist society and
a state of bourgeois dictatorship, but a new type revolution, directed by the proletariat and
designed to establish, in this first stage, a society of new democracy and a state of
joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes. Therefore, this revolution opens precisely
An even broader path to the development of socialism. During your course,
crosses several phases due to changes in the opposite field and among its own allies, but its
fundamental character remains unchanged. Such revolution consequently fights the
imperialism and therefore this does not tolerate it and fights it. ” (President Mao) 227
President Mao is unmistakably clear: the claims of the first phase of the revolution in countries
Semicolonials tend to clear the way to the development of capitalism. This is a trend
inevitable, but it is not at all the content of this phase, because it is no longer a revolution
bourgeois of old type. Therefore, the objective of the democratic stage of the revolution is: to open the way to the
development of socialism. The new democracy revolution has phases, but its fundamental character
remains unchanged; What character is this? The proletarian character, so imperialism does not tolerate it and struggles
against her. To say that the purpose of the new democracy revolution is to favor the development of
capitalism, means converging with the rotten falsification of Liu Shao-Chi about the democratic revolution in
China and with directism in which, in the past, the various communist parties in the oppressed countries
they sank with the tale that the purpose of the democratic revolution was to develop capitalism,
General and the agrarian revolution was to develop capitalism in the countryside, in particular. These parties that
in its rotting, since the collapse of the revisionist and social-imperialist USSR, many of them
concluded exactly that the character of the revolution in their countries was already socialist, because they became
countries of dependent capitalism.
President Mao, in his speech pronounced in a framework conference (1948), establishes that the
Revolution of new democracy is a “revolution against imperialism, feudalism and capitalism
bureaucratic, supported by the large masses of the people under the direction of the proletariat ”228. That is, in the stage
democratic, in addition to the confiscation of the landlords by delivering land portions to poor peasants
Without or with little land, all imperialist and bureaucratic capital is expropriated,
State of New Democracy All imperialist industries and the great local bourgeoisie. That is, socialize the
most important part of industry, transport, large commerce companies, services and


Banks in the country, in addition to external business. Given this, how can UOC (mlm) say that the revolution
of new democracy “does not shock the national base of capital power”? This is a forgery
inadmissible, it is a borderfish rejection of one of the fundamental theories of Maoism that gave the solution to
problems of the revolution for the vast majority of countries in the world, for the vast majority of masses
Popular Earth! What is maoism in this?
And after completely cheering the Maoist content of the New Democracy Revolution, UOC (MLM) concludes
that this is the way to solve the national issue "in the way of a semi -feudal country." Reinforces your
understanding that the revolution of new democracy is only in force due to semi -feudality,
completely disregarding national oppression and national liberation struggle as a task
Bourgeois democratic. The falsehood of this point of view, it proves in the quotation above, when the President
Mao specifies the need for “a first step or first step” in the “revolution of a country
colonial or semicolonial ”. President Mao emphasizes the aspect of imperialist oppression and not oppression
Feudal as the distinctive question between the New Democracy Revolution and the Socialist Revolution.
In this way, UOC (mlm) completely confuses what the bourgeois revolution is and what is the revolution
Agrarian-Camponess, he takes each other and completely disregards that the fight against national oppression
and against bureaucratic capitalism are democratic tasks to be fulfilled in the first stage of
Socialist Revolution in the colonial and semicolonial countries. This same falseation was faced by Lenin
in the fight of two lines against the Mensheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1905:
“Every peasant revolution directed against medieval reminiscences - when the
character of the whole social economy - it is a bourgeois revolution. But not every bourgeois revolution
It is a peasant revolution. (…) In other words: a bourgeois country is possible without peasantry
And in such a country, a bourgeois revolution is possible without the peasantry. It is possible
bourgeois revolution in a country with considerable peasant population and that, however, this
revolution is not peasant, on the contrary it is so that it does not revolutionize relations
agrarian that affect in particular to peasants and not highlight these social forces by the
Less active, executors of the revolution. (…) The fundamental origin of the erroneous character of the whole
Plekhanov's tactical line and the followed by them, in the first period of the revolution
Russian (that is, in the years 1905-1907), it is based on which they did not understand this
Correlation between the bourgeois revolution in general and the peasant bourgeois revolution. ” (Lenin) 229
The Revolution of New Democracy, by its social characteristics, is a democratic-bourgeois revolution
again, that is, performs necessary democratic tasks under the direction of the proletariat, which reaches the
hegemony by combining the peasantry through its proletarian agrarian program and passes
uninterrupted to socialist revolution and construction. The peasant revolution is one of its most
Important, but it is not the only one. Present the democratic revolution as a peasant revolution, does not pass
UOC Sophism (MLM) to smuggle to Maoism and thus want to sustain the old woman on behalf
Thesis of the immediate socialist revolution in the countries oppressed by imperialism. Lenin is very clear in
their historical analysis: the current peasant revolutions are necessarily bourgeois revolutions, because the
which is at the center of the peasant's struggle is the right to individual private property of the earth. In turn,
Not every bourgeois revolution is necessarily a peasant revolution; That is, a certain revolution
You will not lose your bourgeois character just for not having the peasant participation. Likewise, the
national liberation revolution would not fail to have a democratic-bourgeois character for the hypothetical fact of
There is no more peasant issue in an oppressed country. This is because the national liberation struggle in
imperialist stage of capitalism remains a bourgeois task, although it can only be led to
victory under the direction of the proletariat and advanced uninterruptedly to socialism.
The direction of UOC (MLM) seeks to equal absolutely the anti-imperialist struggle to the struggle of liberation
national. The entire international proletarian movement is anti-imperialist, because in the stage of capital
Monopolist, fighting capitalism is fighting imperialism. The particularity of this struggle in countries
oppressed by imperialism is that in these the anti-imperialist struggle assumes a democratic character of
National liberation, but for UOC (MLM) thus conceiving the question is an “anti -cinned” attitude:
“The problem is how to scientifically understand the relationship between the struggle against imperialism
foreigner and the struggle for socialism in an oppressed country. (…) And in this case, in which the proletariat
has its purpose directly in socialism, the struggle against imperialism fully coincides with


the general internationalist character of the proletarian struggle, ceasing to be a democratic struggle for
defend the bourgeois nation, and becoming an anti -capitalist struggle for determining the world the
imperialism." [UOC (MLM)] 230
That is, for the direction of UOC (MLM), in the struggle for socialism in a country oppressed the fight against the
imperialism is no longer a national democratic struggle, it becomes only a social struggle of work against
The capital of the workers (combining at most with the poor peasants) against the world bourgeoisie. This
There is nothing of Leninism, no Maoism. As the great Lenin establishes:
“Every war is the continuation of politics by other means. The national wars of the colonies against
imperialism will inevitably be a continuation of the national liberation policy of
same. ” (Lenin) 231
And still:
“Those who expect the 'pure' social revolution will never see it. Will be a word revolutionary, who
does not understand the true revolution. ” (Lenin) 232
For Leninism no revolution will be socially “pure” from a social class against another social class.
The revolutions in the colonies against imperialism, by its character, are for Lenin, inevitably,
national revolutions and by, its political content, bourgeois revolutions, but bourgeois again,
New democracy, as President Mao develops. The anti-imperialist struggle in the countries oppressed by the
imperialism, therefore, has a social character (being the revolutionary classes: the proletariat - strength
leader - the peasantry - main ally, the small urban bourgeoisie and, under certain circumstances
the national bourgeoisie or medium bourgeoisie), has a national character (as it is the struggle of an oppressed nation
against an oppressive power) and has a bourgeois political character, because the nation's defense is a task
bourgeois pendant, which does not suppress the ownership of the means of production as a whole, but only the
large local and foreign monopolistic bourgeoisie, which concentrates private property of the fundamental
means of production, because the proletarian revolution is invariably internationalist. About the content
Democratic of the national liberation struggle, at the time of imperialism, Lenin states that:
“Another thing happens in unvasive countries (…), that is, in the east of Europe and in all
colonies and semicolonies. There is however and as a rule generally oppressed and unveloped nations
from the point of view of capitalism. In such nations there are, however, objectively tasks
General, namely: democratic tasks, tasks of defeat of the foreign yoke. ”
(Lenin) 233
In the oppressed nations, therefore, the anti-imperialist struggle is not limited to a social struggle, they converge in it
Democratic and national elements that are essential for the victory of the revolution. Despise these
Elements is to conduct the proletariat to defeat. Differences and convergences between war
civil revolutionary and the revolutionary national war, was brilliantly treated by President Mao in the
elaboration of the highest military theory of the proletariat, that of the prolonged popular war in the new revolution
Uninterrupted democracy to the socialist revolution in China. Let's see:
“The central task and the highest form of the whole revolution is the seizure of power through the struggle
Armed, that is, the solution of the problem through war. This revolutionary Marxist principle
Leninist has universal validity, both in China and in other countries.
However, in view of the same principle, the party of the proletariat applies it in a distinct form
according to the conditions. In capitalist countries, when they are neither fascist nor
are at war, the conditions are as follows: in the internal, there is no feudal system, but the
bourgeois democracy; outside, these countries do not suffer national oppression, but they
They even oppress other nations.
The case of China is different. The particularity of China is that it is not an independent country and
Democratic, if not semicolonial and semi -feudal, where there is no democracy, but feudal oppression. (…)
Here the fundamental task of the Communist Party does not consist of going through a long period of struggle
legal before undertaking the survey and the war, not even to seize the cities first and soon
Occupy the field, but do it in the reverse way.


When imperialists do not carry out armed attacks against our country, the Communist Party of
China, or sustains a civil war against the military caudillos (lacnacios of imperialism) combining
with the bourgeoisie, such as wars in Kwangtung and in the northern expedition that occurred between 1924 and
1927, or joins with the peasants and the small urban bourgeoisie to support a war
civil against the landlord class and the buying bourgeoisie (also lackeys of imperialism),
like the agrarian revolutionary war of 1927-1936. But when imperialists launch attacks
armed against China, the party then unites with all the classes and social layers of the country that
oppose foreign aggressors to undertake a national war against the enemy
exterior, like the current war of resistance against Japan. ” (President Mao) 234
One of the many great contributions of President Mao to the military theory of the proletariat, is in the particularity
by him discovering that the proletarian revolution in oppressed countries develops sometimes as a war
Revolutionary civilian, sometimes as a revolutionary national war. That is, in the different phases why
pass this type of revolution, change the conditions of war according to the main contradiction being
of a civil war or a national war. In the case of the Chinese Revolution, in the First Civil War
Revolutionary (1924-1927), the proletariat and the poor peasants allied with the small urban bourgeoisie and
the national bourgeoisie in the fight against the Northern military caudillos and imperialist domination; on Monday
Revolutionary Civil War (1927-1936), the proletariat was allied only with the peasants and the
small urban bourgeoisie in the fight against landowners; already in the war of national resistance against the
Japan (1937-1945), the proletariat was allied with all the classes and social layers that opposed
occupation of Japanese imperialism.
President Mao points out that understanding these changes in the characteristics of revolutionary war is
fundamental to your correct direction. Shows how the laws of war change as they change
Characteristics of revolutionary war, that is, if it is a civil war or a national war:
“Thus, the laws of the direction of war change due to the conditions of war, that is, the
time, place and character. In relation to the time factor, both the war and the laws of its
direction develop. Each historical stage has its characteristics and, therefore, the laws of
war in each historical stage has its characteristics and cannot be transposed
mechanically from one step to another. ” (President Mao) 235
And so, President Mao reschedules the modifications of the laws of revolutionary war as this is a
civil war or a national war:
“In China, the Armed Revolution fights armed counterrevolution. This is one of the
particularities and one of the advantages of the Chinese revolution. This thesis of Comrade Stalin is
entirely correct, and valid for both the North Expedition and the War of Resistance
against Japan. All of these are revolutionary wars, directed to combat the counterrevolution and
In them, mainly, the revolutionary people participate. The only differences between them are the same
that exist between a civil war and a national war, between a war sustained only
by the Communist Party and a war held together by Kuomitang and the Party
Communist. It is clear that these differences are important because they indicate the amplitude of the force
principal of war (whether it is an alliance of the workers and the peasants or an alliance of the workers,
of the peasants and the bourgeoisie) and the target to which the war is directed (if against an internal enemy
or an outer enemy, and in the first case, if against the Northern Military Grounds or against the
Kuomitang); also indicate that China's revolutionary war has content
different in the different stages of its historical development. All are revolutionary wars,
And all show the peculiarities and advantages of the Chinese revolution. The main task of the party of
China's proletariat, a task that has practically before its emergence, is to unite
with as many allies as possible and organize the armed struggle to combat, according to the
circumstances, the internal or external armed counterrevolution, and to achieve the national liberation and
Social." (President Mao) 236
President Mao highlights precisely the decisive importance of taking the difference in the content of the war
revolutionary in its different phases; It highlights as both Civil War and the National War directed
by the Communist Party identify themselves because they are revolutionary wars, but have great differences
regarding the breadth of revolutionary forces and the targets against which each of these types of
Revolutionary war is headed. After all, as President Mao synthesizes, shortly before the beginning of the
War of national resistance against Japan:


“If the Red Army of China, during the agrarian revolutionary war, was able to win
Often battles with small forces, it was largely because it had pasta
organized and armed popular. Of course, the National War must gain support
even broader popular than agrarian revolutionary war. ” (President Mao) 237
Take the different phases of development of revolutionary war in the semicolonial countries,
understanding that one of the particularities of the popular war in these countries is that it is
It develops now as a revolutionary civil war sometimes as a revolutionary national war. To understand
that the laws of revolutionary war change from one phase to another, as the targets and
forces in struggle. Understand that a revolutionary national war allows you to unite more strength and greater support
Popular than the internal civil war are great contributions from Maoism to the international proletariat. At the
However, UOC (MLM) despises all this ideological development, as they claim that:
“Whatever the particularities, the capitalist character of a society in an oppressed country
By imperialism, they require an anti-imperialist movement, not in a separate stage (…). ” And still:
“Neither nationalism, nor patriotic, nor national sovereignty, are flags of the movement
factory worker; On the contrary, they are old and flags of the bourgeoisie and the small bourgeoisie. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 238
In denying the phases in the process of developing revolutionary war in the oppressed countries, the
UOC Directorate (MLM) only reveals its tergiversation of the law of contradiction, because according to the President
Mao establishes: Every process of developing one thing has steps and phases. When they merge phases
qualitatively distinct from the prolonged popular war, they apply the rotten philosophy of “integrating two in one”,
Typical of Prachanda. By denying the need for revolutionary national war for countries
Semicolonials, repeat the rotten “national nihilism” defended by revisionist Avakian. When they watched
against the flag of national sovereignty by launching the accusation “bourgeois-mounted flags, they express
Only the little bourgeois, childish, childish and trotskyist “left” “left”; so it is
evident that the flag of national sovereignty is bourgeois, but it is a flag that was abandoned by the
bourgeoisie with the advent of imperialism and it is up to the proletariat to take it in his hands to drive from
consequently the national liberation movement. Therefore, it is not about powerful flags, because
They are on the agenda and are essential for the advancement of the world proletarian revolution. Because how
defines the great Lenin:
“In the program of our party, adopted in March of the current year, we say, when characterizing the
approximation of the social revolution worldwide, that the civil war of workers against the
imperialists and explorers in all advanced countries begins to merge with war
national against international imperialism. This confirms the march of the revolution, and each time
more will be confirmed. ” (Lenin) 239
And we conclude this point with the following words of Lenin, who fully deny the broken
UOC Small Burger (MLM) that aims to deny the validity and importance of the national liberation struggle, part
inseparable from the New Democracy Revolution, and its importance for the world proletarian revolution.
Thus demonstrate not to understand the problems of the proletarian revolution in the oppressed countries, which are the
vast majority in the world, therefore greater weight in the world proletarian revolution, as they do not understand
that the contradiction between nation/oppressed peoples is, in general, the main contradiction of the
imperialism, even the interimperialist contradiction may precipitate in World War, which
will inevitably transform into national liberation wars, as well as a revolutionary civil war
between proletariat and bourgeoisie in imperialist countries.
Says Lenin:
“And it is clear, therefore, that in the future decisive battles of the World Revolution the movement of
majority of the population of the Terraqueo globe, directed to the principle of national liberation, will turn
against capitalism and imperialism, and will perhaps play a very revolutionary role
more important than we expect. It is important to highlight that, for the first time in our international,
We have undertook the preparation of this fight. ” (Lenin) 240


The recent tactical counterofnsive of the Palestinian National Resistance Heroic resistance confirms these
Revolutionary words of Lenin. LCI honor and continues this great Leninist precept.
5- The development of capitalism in the countryside and the peasant problem in countries
semicolonials
Previously, when dealing with the revolution of new democracy, we abstract, to some extent, the analysis of the
agrarian and peasant problem in semicolonial countries. We did this to emphasize that the liberation task
national is a democratic task, possible to be resolved only by this type of revolution because
based on a front of revolutionary classes united with the proletariat and under its direction, through the party
Communist. This form of approach to the problem is more convenient, because national oppression is very
more visible than semi -feudality, as it follows existing underlying, most of the time
camouflaged by the evolution of their forms. In this topic and later, we will seek to analyze from the
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism The general characteristics of the penetration of capitalism in the field, its
development and the actuality of the peasant problem in the semicolonal countries in the imperialist stage of the
capitalism.
UOC (MLM), by interpreting the agrarian and peasant problem in Colombia and other countries adopts the same
procedure of certain Brazilian hoxhists: 1st) take the theoretical foundation of their analysis, unique and
exclusively, the Leninist work The development of capitalism in Russia, as if this were the last
Lenin's word on the question; 2) transplant mechanically to Latin America the same
Lenin analysis categories without taking into account the fields of the field in Russia; 3) consider
that the development of capitalism in Russian agriculture, in the period analyzed by Lenin, that is, 1861
1897, period still in force of the first phase of capital, free competition, as if followed without
Any alteration is already in its monopolistic phase, imperialism. Thus conclude that as in
Russia, from the nineteenth century, capitalism advanced in the Latin American field in the twentieth century,
identical or very similar. Just as Brazilian Hoxhists, UOC (MLM) concludes about the
no peasant problem, because in the field of Latin American countries would be completed to
Peasant differentiation and, therefore, there would only be two classes there: the agrarian bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat.
The small property would remain as a museum piece, which must be respected, but in practice
Play no role in the revolutionary process. The agrarian program, therefore, must be a program
socialist; And here they repeat the same confusion as Brazilian revisionists: they take nationalization for
collectivization of the land, because they fail that in the grso, Lenin in proposing the nationalization of the land, in
October 1917, would have applied a socialist program for the Russian peasantry. Let's see more
in detail the harmful consequences of this falsification of theory and reality.
As seen in a previous topic, UOC (MLM) thinks there are a supposed progressive tendency of the
imperialism, which, in turn, would imply that the capital exported to the semicolonies would have the
to sweep the pre-capitalist production modes, particularly in the field. In this way they claim that:
“Exported capital acts on the germ or capitalist developments of the oppressed countries, and
as a trend generates, accelerates its development, sweeps the traces of pre-production modes
Capitalists, accelerates the decomposition of the peasantry. ” [UOC (MLM)] 241
Thus conclude that the process analyzed by Lenin in nineteenth -century Russia completed itself
way in the twentieth century Colombia:
“In Colombia, it is a fact the decomposition and differentiation of the peasantry between agricultural proletarians and
bosses. This is the most notable phenomenon of the economic and social development of agriculture
During the last half century. The essence of the process is the differentiation of the peasantry in classes,
and not the 'evolution of semi -feudalism'. This process was done in an accelerated way,
mainly through the violent expropriation of independent producers and the concentration
of land and capital. ” [UOC (MLM)] 242
That is, according to UOC (MLM), the export of capital by imperialism accelerated the process of
Differentiation of the peasantry, dividing this into agrarian bourgeoisie and rural proletariat; as a result
From this division the process of violent expropriation of poor peasants is accelerated. Conclude, therefore,
that the agrarian bourgeoisie formed by the decomposition of the peasantry expropriated the small owners,


thus culminating capitalist development in the Colombian field. Expropriation would serve, for a
side, to strengthen this newly created agrarian bourgeoisie, concentrating in its hands the earth, and for another
would create the agricultural proletariat without any production instrument and forced to sell its force of
work.
UOC theory (MLM) about the possibility of the emergence of an agrarian bourgeoisie, from
peasant differentiation in the semicolonial countries in the imperialist time, it only serves to adore the
Peasant expropriation, to paint with progressive colors this evolution of semi -feudality forms.
UOC (MLM), in the study of the Colombian process, arbitrarily interconnects the differentiation of peasants,
the emergence of new bosses and the violent expropriation of small owners. Highlights, that
particularity of the Colombian case would be the extreme violence of these expropriations and provides us with data
Impressive 165,000 deaths in the 1946-1957. The question that UOC (mlm) escapeotia is the
Analysis of which class did these expropriations. Which class is responsible for this killing in the fields
Colombians? Would be the agrarian bourgeoisie, emerged from the peasant differentiation, the person responsible for this
process?
UOC (mlm) sly omits this question, because in formulating it would have to indicate that the class
Responsible for these expropriations was the old Criollo Latifundium. It would have to conclude that these expropriations
do not represent the emergence of a new class in the field from peasant differentiation, but the
Strengthening of the old rural oligarchies so well known and archaic in Latin America. What a
UOC (mlm) is to mix two distinct analyzes made by Lenin in 1899, and put them as a cause of
violent peasant expropriations in Latin America.
In his masterful work, the development of capitalism in Russia, the great Lenin, in studying the evolution
capitalist in the Russian field, analyzes, one by one, two processes that are conjugated in objective reality: the
peasant economy and the landlord economy. In the chapter on the capitalist development of the farm
peasant Lenin studies in detail the process of peasant differentiation, showing how
development of the mercantile economy invariably led to the process of dividing the peasantry
In two opposite classes: the agrarian bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. This study was particularly
important in Russia, therefore, the populist currents argued that the Russian peasant community
It represented the most solid base for the construction of socialism. Populists considered, therefore,
As a reactionary, the advancement of the mercantile economy and peasant differentiation. Lenin, in turn, will
show the progressive character of this process, because the peasant community, as well as the landlord,
They were inseparable parts of the Russian feudal economy. In this chapter, therefore, Lenin analyzes the emergence of
rural bourgeoisie, from the peasantry, "abstracting" the landowners, that is, not taking them into account,
initially, to more clearly demonstrate the capitalist evolutionary process of the peasant economy
Russian. Lenin shows, then, that the rich peasants to lease the land of the poor peasants
they ended up focusing on their hands these properties. The process led to a slow expropriation,
distinct from land expropriation. Therefore, Lenin highlights, at the end of the chapter, that this was not
Created bourgeoisie the true ruling class of the peasant village, but the old class
landlord:
“By saying before the Campesine bourgeoisie is the lord of the village of our day, we made abstraction
Of these factors that brake the differentiation: vassalage, usury, payment at work, etc. At
reality, the true masters of the contemporary village are not, in general, the representatives
of the peasant bourgeoisie, if not the rural usurers and the neighboring landowners. That
abstraction is, however, a method of all legitimate, because otherwise it is not possible to study the
internal regime of economic relations between the peasants. ” (Lenin) 243
The UOC (mlm) abstract absolutely who the true masters of the field in Colombia, and present
peasant differentiation and mass expropriation as chains of a continuous process of evolution
full of capitalism in the field of semicolonial countries.
The process of developing capitalism in Russia, in relation to Latin America, has significant
time differences (s. XIX and s. XX) and space. The process studied by Lenin has the initial landmark
year 1861, when the so -called “emancipation” of servants in Russia, promulgated by the Czar, occurs
Alexander II. The so -called end of servitude was a direct consequence of the growth of the peasant struggle
Against the landlord, but the "solution" was a maneuver of the tsarist government against the peasants. Since the


ancient times, the peasants in the Russian Empire were organized in these communities, which they had
some important particularities: 1) Community lands were shared equally between
Its members, and from time to time there was a rotation of possession between them; 2) Taxes and Charges
feudal were paid “collectively” by all peasants, if one stopped paying, the value would have to be
Arcado by the others; 3) Peasants were prohibited from selling their land portions and leaving the
community. Until 1861, each of these communities was dominated by a particular landowner
neighboring, or directly by the imperial family. With the decree of “emancipation” the communities
they made formally separated from the neighboring estates to which they were linked by relationship of servitude.
However, the bonds between the peasant farm and the estates remained in two ways: the rescue
and the clippings. The rescue was the value that the peasant had to pay for his "emancipation", that is, the value
who should pay for the land portion he possessed. The clippings were large areas of communities
peasants expropriated by the landowners at the time of emancipation. These areas were generally
richer in natural and most fertile resources. Clippings and rescue prevented free development
of the peasant communities, because the peasants to produce needed to lease part of the lands
Cut, the woods as a source of wood, for example; besides having to spend an important part of
your budget with the payment of redemptions.
In The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin centrally analyzes this process within the
peasant community, whose most significant result is the aforementioned peasant differentiation, in which
Wealthy peasants leased the installments of the poorest peasants, the same community. It is
differentiation led to a polarization within the community itself between rich peasants and
Poor peasants, a differentiation that tended to decomposition of peasantry in the peasant bourgeoisie
and rural proletariat. In the analysis of capitalist development in the landlord economy, in turn,
Lenin focuses on studying the transformation of the payment system into work (typically feudal) to the
salary system (typically capitalist).
As Lenin has in view of this process of capitalist development, he does not analyze, in this work, the
Anterior contradiction, older, typically feudal or semi -feudal, between landowners and peasants. No
analyzes for example the impact of rescues and clippings on peasants, as it concludes that the process
of the proletarianization of the poor peasantry was already consolidated. The agrarian program, for example, proposed
by Lenin, in 1903, at the II POSDR Congress defended the expropriation only of the clipped lands and their
Return to the peasants, not all lands of the landlord. There was no, at that moment the
understanding of the need for a peasant agrarian revolution as an indispensable part of the revolution
democratic-bourgeois, since economic data already indicated a consolidation of capitalism in the field
Russian.
However, the social process is always more sweeping than statistics. When the process is crack
Revolutionary, in January 1905, in March the peasants enter the Arena of the class struggle with
A force that surprised everyone. The struggle of this mass was not the struggle of the rural proletariat against the boss
peasant or better salaries against the contractist landowner. The claim of these masses was a
Only: Earth. Not just the clipped lands, expropriated by the aristocracy in 1861, but all the lands of the
Russia for the peasants. Arises from the struggle of these masses the claim of the nationalization of all
lands and the right to their private enjoyment for all who work in it.
Lenin is the first to grasp the meaning for the Russian revolution of that peasant insurrection, which
It would extend until December 1907. At the III Party Congress, in April 1905, Lenin advances the position
Bolshevik, which until then was the struggle for the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, for the
understanding that this hegemony could only be reached if supported by the peasants. The tactic
fundamental of the Bolsheviks becomes that of the “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of workers and
peasants ”, as the only way to bring more radically to the end the bourgeois democratic revolution and
ensure its passage uninterrupted to the socialist revolution.
In accordance with this tactic, the Bolsheviks would have to direct their attention not only to the
contradiction between the agricultural proletariat and the peasant bourgeoisie or the capitalist landlord; Lenin highlights,
from 1905, which:


“Currently, as in the future, until it reaches the total victory of the peasant insurrection, the consign
revolutionary must necessarily take into account the antagonism between the peasants and the
landowners ”. (Lenin) 244
The 1905 Revolution, with all its teachings, implied modifying important aspects of tactics and
Bolsheviks agrarian and peasant program. After all, a true revolutionary program is formulated
from the concrete struggle of the masses and not the simple cotection of statistical data. These modifications
did not disregard the importance of Lenin's genius work, the development of capitalism in Russia, as it
was fundamentally correct and rightly analyzed all Russian development trends,
thus setting the red Bolshevik fraction of social democracy with a powerful class analysis.
But the revolutionary struggle of the masses showed that the evolution of those trends would not be so fast
as then supposed Lenin in 1899. After all, the class struggle is the main data for the interpretation of
social reality:
“It is true that also at this point it must be borne in mind that the lack of an open movement of
Masses did not allow to solve the problem about the exact database (…). No one could
say safely, in advance, until what degree the peasants had been differentiated under the
Influence of partial transit of payment landowners at work to salaried payment.
No one could calculate the magnitude of agricultural workers constituted after the reform of
1861 and to what extent had its interests of the interests of the peasant mass had been different
ruined. ” (Lenin) 245
Life taught the Bolsheviks that this differentiation had not been so deep; that the contradiction
main in the Russian field was between peasants and landowners, and not between agrarian bourgeoisie and
Agricultural proletariat. Lenin was fully aware of this insufficiency and, applying the mass line to
process of development of revolutionary ideology, the guide thinking of the Russian revolution, showed
that the basis of the errors of the agrarian program of 1903, which defended the agrarian revolution only in the land
expropriated by the landowners and not in all land of the estates, it was in a “over -esteem
the degree of capitalist development in Russian agriculture ”. Thus, Lenin analyzes:
“(…) Error of our 'DOS CREAVAS' program, approved in 1903. The origin of this last error was rooted
in the fact that, by rightly defining the direction of development, we do not agree to define the
Moment of development. We supposed that the elements of the
capitalist agriculture, which had also crystallized at the Latifundian farm (exception made
to the "cutouts"; Hence the claim that the cuts were returned), which had been
also crystallized on the farm of the peasants, in which we seemed to have a strong
Peasant bourgeoisie, which is why this farm was not fit for the 'peasant agrarian revolution'.
What gave rise to this wrong program was not the 'fear' to the peasant agrarian revolution, but
yes the overdue of the degree of capitalist development in Russian agriculture. The traces of
servitude regime seemed to us then a small detail, and the capitalist farm on Earth
parcel [of the peasants] and that of landlords seemed to us a fully mature phenomenon and
consolidated." (Lenin) 246
Lenin thus describes the process of perception of line insufficiency and the need for his
development:
“The revolution put on this error. Confirmed the direction of the development defined by us. A
Marxist analysis of the classes of Russian society had been confirmed in such a brilliant way
the entire march of events, in general, and for the first two Dumas, in particular, that the
Non -Marxist socialism had been definitely disallowed. But the traces of the regime of
Servitude in the field resulted in being much stronger than we thought; Originated one
national movement of peasants and made this movement the touch stone of the whole
Bourgeois revolution. The role of hegemonic force, which revolutionary social democracy had
always marked to the proletariat in the bourgeois liberation movement, it had to be determined with
Greater accuracy, like the role of boss who takes the peasants behind him. What does it take?
For the bourgeois revolution in the most consequent and resolute sense. The correction of the error consisted of
that, instead of the private task of the struggle against the remains of the old in the agrarian regime, we had
to defend the tasks of the fight against the whole old agrarian regime. Instead of detangling
Latifaceous economy, we proposed its destruction. ” (Lenin) 247


UOC (MLM), firstly, summarizes in one distinct phenomena (peasant differentiation and
violent expropriation) and thinks do a concrete analysis of peasant expropriation in the 1950s as
a process of capitalist development in the countryside and not of strengthening and capitalization of the archaic
Latifundium. There is nothing dialectic in this analysis; Its synthesis is once again the integration of two into one.
Secondly, they completely disregarded Lenin's analyzes, after the 1905 revolution,
rectifications made regarding the speed of this development, as well as the development of the tactic of
Fight not only against the remains of the old agrarian regime, but for the destruction of the landlord system.
Thus hope the Leninist theory to allegedly anchor its erroneous analysis of the possibility of a
capitalist development in agriculture in semicolonial countries at the time of imperialism that "sweeps"
semi -feudal relations.
And this distortion becomes even more absurd when they analyze the production relations present in the
Colombia between the “rural proletariat” and the “capitalist landowns”. UOC (MLM) states that the relations of
partnership in the Colombian field are not semi -feudal relations, but covert forms of relationships
salaried, purely capitalist. Once again applies Lenin's teachings in The
development of capitalism in Russia, once again disregards the later development of
Leninist analyzes on the issue and, as opposed to them, thus formulates the question:
“The process of the rise of the agricultural proletariat is in reality the process of disaggregation of
peasants especially of small owners, who subsist in the field, not in the quality of
servants, if not semi -proletarians, playing a special role in the network of capitalist relations
production in the field, when retained on Earth through a small portion, to ensure
Cheap labor in modern plantation or livestock. (…) The partnership that was classically the
transition system between feudal relations and capitalists, that is, the typical representative of the
semi -feudalism, in Colombia evolved its real content and became one of the modalities of
retention of workers on land to obtain salaried, cheap and
close to capitalist farms, that is, it became a capitalist exploration mode
from the earth. This salaried production relationship remains disguised with the old cloak of
partnership, in semi -feudal appearance, but in essence, capitalist. ” [UOC (MLM)] 248
Lenin in The Development of Capitalism in Russia, analyzes exactly this same kind of relationship, the
partnership, in which the landowner gives a piece of land to the peasant to fix work force in the
field, to have it available at times when agricultural work requires more
workers, as in planting or harvesting. Lenin characterizes this form of exploration as a mixed
Between the payment system at work (feudal) and the capitalist (wage) system; that is, precisely
a semi -feudal form. UOC's direction (MLM) say that in Colombia this form has become a
Complete form of “Earth's capitalist exploitation mode”. But how this
conversion if one of the conditions of the capitalist production relationship is that the worker is free
(dispossessed) of production instruments? The economic explanation they give to this conversion, that is, from
partnership as a typical semi -feudal relationship in typical capitalist relationship, is as follows:
“Today in the form of the partnership, the content of a typically capitalist relationship of
Production: the capitalist (…) reverses its capital in agro: a part as constant capital
(instruments, facilities, seeds, fertilizers and other inputs) and another as variable capital (the
equivalent to the minimum wage that is obliged to 'advance' to the partner, formally on behalf of the
participation of this in 'profits'). And so much variable capital, that is, capital inverted to buy the force
work for production, which at the time of the supposed 'sharing', such 'advances'
discount on the part of the partner, when it exists; And if it does not exist, the partner is not required to
No return of such 'advances'. In reality this is a salaried production relationship
Disguised with the old cloak of the partnership. It matters little to the fact that in some cases the partner
have as supposed advantage the right to cultivate a small portion on your own. Already
we know the role that throws this access from the owner to Earth, in the whole of the capitalist relations of
Production in the field: retain cheap labor for commercial and livestock crop plantations. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 249
Firstly, to fix a worker on the earth, either by any means, forced or by the “free” delivery of
A portion is a feudal element. This form of fixation, of “partnership” is also very common in the
Brazil, and this often hides a relationship of exploration as if it were a free association between
owners. In the example provided by UOC (MLM), it is a form of partnership in which the


worker would not enter with any production instrument, only “gain” a piece of land to
own cultivation. They say, then, that the participation of the partner's profit is not actually profit, but only
wage; as proof, they present the fact that if the business gives loss and there is no profit to share, the
Partner keeps his part and does not have to return it. This fact only proves that participation in profit is
a scam, however, does not prove the conclusion of the UOC (MLM) that this type of partnership would be a
Capitalist production relationship. However, this is an impossible proof, because the fixation of the force of
work is this compulsory or “free” (upon assignment of a portion of land) cannot be interpreted
as a relationship of wisdom free, typically capitalist.
When UOC (MLM) states that “it matters little to the fact that some partners” can cultivate a
Small portion, they are simply bypassing the essential particularity of this relationship. Because it is precisely
this “right” of cultivating a “giving” portion to the worker that allows, for various reasons, the
overexploitation of the working masses. The direction of UOC (MLM) are aware of this overexploitation,
even highlight the social importance for the entire Colombian exploration regime, however,
explain what economic conditions ensure this overexploitation:
“[Partner workers] play a special role in the network of capitalist production relations
in the field: on the one hand are retained on earth, through a portion, to be cheap labor from
modern plantation or livestock (…). On the other hand are the main source of the overpopulation
latent relative, which in Colombia is one of the most important sources of the
wages, not only in the field but also in the city and end of the general overexploitation of the
proletariat." [UOC (MLM)] 250
UOC (MLM) points to an objective problem that is the relationship between the oppression of the peasantry
large estates and overexploitation of the workforce by the bourgeoisie in the process of extraction of added value in
semicolonial countries. However, once again they circumvent the problem without achieving its essence. You
They point out that the fixation of the workforce in the field, through the delivery of land portions, acts as
Source of general overexploitation in Colombian society, as it creates a latent relative overpopulation. Or
that is, they highlight only one aspect of the issue that is the increase in competition among the workers of the
Field, a competition that allows relegation, to a certain limit, from the price of the workforce.
But this competition exists so much in the countryside and even more intensely in the city; It can't be this,
Therefore, the explanation of the particularity of the phenomenon. The precise explanation of the overexploitation process
of the peasants in the partnership relationship was made by Lenin, and so we say that the direction of UOC (MLM)
EXAMINAL APPLIES THE TEACHINGS EXPOSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSUE:
“Thus, in the payment system at work (…) the price of work, ordinarily, results
be less than half than the capitalist contract. As can only be in charge of paying in
I work the peasant of the locality and, in addition to Nadiel's provisional [Communal Land Lot], this fact
of the huge drop of payment clearly indicates the importance of Nadiel as a salary
Natural." (Lenin) 251
Lenin is dealing with an example very similar to that presented by UOC (MLM). A landowner hires a
Peasant with a portion (Nadiel) neighboring his property; He spends this worker half of what
It would spend if it used the capitalist system, that is, if it hired a seasonal worker from another region. Lenin
Then it lists two reasons that enable this demotion of the price of the workforce. The first is the
competition between the peasants around the latifundium, because as they have the portion of land, in general,
can only sell their workforce to that landowner closely and in the same situation are
the other surrounding peasants. This forces the price of the workforce down because it represents,
As the UOC itself (MLM) indicates, the latent overpopulation source. The second reason points to the
Importance of the peasant portion as a natural salary of the peasant. That is, how the peasant has
a portion, even if its economy is ruined, what it provides for it serves to some extent
cover part of the annual reproduction costs of your workforce. As part of your necessary work is
covered by his work in “his” portion, which Lenin calls “natural salary”, enables the
employer landowner pay half the salary that would pay to a seasonal worker coming from another
region that had no portion of land. Lenin explains the issue even more clearly in another work:


“As a peasant can for several years do 6 rubles a work that is worth 10 rubles and
69 Kopeks? Can do so because your portion covers part of the peasant family spending and
allows you to reduce the salary below the 'free hiring'. ” (Lenin) 252
This is the secret that allows the relegation of the partner peasant salary, which in turn, as
highlights the direction of UOC (MLM), enables pressure down the wages of the workers in the set
of the economy, thus ensuring the overexploitation of work, which as Marx is the purchase of the
work for a price below its value. The question, therefore, that is in the analysis of this form of partnership is
Identify what kind of production relationship it configures, whether purely capitalist, or semi -feudal.
We can discard, however, the relegated assessment made by UOC (MLM) when considering that little
It is important if the partners can cultivate a portion on your own. No, in this case this is what the most
it matters.
In the complete economic analysis of this type of partnership, we see, as in every capitalist wage ratio,
that the “partner” in part of the journey works to reproduce his workforce, or as Marx
characterizes, constitutes the necessary work; and what part of the journey is the surplus work.
Suppose the peasant salary with a portion is 6 rubles, while the “free” wage earner is
10 rubles, for the same job and the same journey, it is easy to deduce that surplus added value
Extracted from the peasant is 4 more rubles, than that of the “free” wage earner. If the value produced on the journey is
From 20 rubles, the surplus value produced by the Warm Camanery will be 14 rubles, and that of the wage earner “free”
10 rubles. Already the rate of added value, according to one of the formulas presented by Marx will be:
surplus rate = added value
wage
For the wage earner “free” = 10/10 = 1 = 100%; while the value rate obtained by exploiting the
“Partner” will be = 14/6 = 2.3 = 230%. It is precisely the cultivation in the “ceded” portion by the landowner to
Partner that ensures this difference in the rate of added value. And UOC (MLM) states that “unimportant
Partners cultivate in a portion. ”
As Lenin indicates the secret of this overexploitation is that the peasant work in his portion constitutes the
its natural salary, covers part of the peasant family spending, so it can reproduce its strength of
work receiving from the landlord a salary 4 lower rubles. However, the landowner is the owner of the
installment provided “free of charge” to the unhealthy peasant. The production of the peasant in this portion is not
independent, because there is a relationship of exploration between the landlord that gives it, and the peasant that
Cultivate. The assignment as we have seen is not free, because the work of the peasant in it, provides the landlord a
Extra 4 rubles of 4 rubles. The peasant's work in the portion, therefore, also divides into work
necessary and surplus work, what it produces in it that serves to supply the 4 rubles that the landowner
Take out of your salary is an surplus work that the landowner appropriates indirectly. The earth therefore not
is provided for free to the peasant, the amount of covert income he pays to the landlord is exactly the
value that it discounts you from the salary.
It is this production relationship that is covered in the partnership, which aims to fix the workforce in the field.
It appears as a free assignment of the land, as a favor that the landlord grants to the peasant. This one feels
Thanks to repay this OBSEQUIO, with more extra work, for example: repair fences and others
care on the property, or the work of your wife in the household treats, in addition, it is obvious to the vote
of your family on the list of candidates appointed by the kind landowner. This is the dependency bond
guys, that alone explains why the peasant agrees to be “retained” on Earth, agrees to earn a salary below
Market, even because there is no choice in this situation in which it is. This is a wage ratio and
servile, that is, typically semi -feudal, by no means typically capitalist. This is an example that illustrates
very well as under the forms of salary, give pre-capitalist relationships that
They reproduce maintained by imperialism because they are the ones that are most used to obtain the maximum profit.
This is the historical and present reality of the oppressed countries, in which the reactionary imperialist bourgeoisie,
through the export of capital, in them engendered bureaucratic capitalism on the precapitalist base,
feudal/semi -feudal and maintain and reproduces underlying their relationships of property and exploitation of work
through the evolution of their forms. That is, contrary to the understanding of the direction of the UOC (MLM) that


Such a partnership is “in semi -feudal appearance, but in essence, capitalist” it is in capitalist appearance and in
semi -feudal essence.
However, once again the direction of UOC (MLM), besides applying badly Lenin's teachings in The
development of capitalism in Russia, do not take it in the whole of his work, how he developed,
Subsequently, your analysis of the meaning of this type of partnership relationship. So cite the following
Lenin's passage to characterize this exploration relationship as typically capitalist:
“The assignment of land to the field worker is often made in the interest of the owners themselves
Rural and, therefore, the type of rural worker with a portion is proper to all capitalist countries.
In the different states acquires different forms: English cottage is not the same as the peasant with
portion of France or the provinces of Renaas, and the latter either is the same as the wage earner or
Prussia knecht. Each boasts the footprints of a peculiar agrarian regime, of a history
peculiar to agrarian relations, but this is not an obstacle for the economist to include them in a
same type of agricultural proletariat. ” (Lenin) 253
UOC (MLM) takes this passage as support to classify this form of partnership as
typically capitalist. First, the fact that it is a relationship present in all capitalist countries
It does not mean that it is a typically capitalist relationship. Secondly, as we saw in the texts of
Lenin after 1905, he acknowledges that at times he excelled the degree of development of the
Capitalism in Russian agriculture, which was difficult: “Calculate the magnitude of agricultural workers
constituted after the 1861 reform and to what extent had its interests from the interests
of the ruined peasant mass ”. Lenin himself would later classify this type more accurately
exploration relationship:
“(…) In all capitalist countries even in the most advanced, remains of exploitation
medieval, semi -feudal, of the small peasants near the large owners
agrarian such as instleute in Germany, the metayers in France and the partners
tenants in the EE.UU. (not only blacks, which are explored in most cases in the states of the
South precisely this way, but sometimes also white). ” (Lenin) 254
Or as Lenin analyzes the typical partnership relationship in the south of the US, as a transition from work
slave to salary, a particularly important phenomenon for the study of economic
social from Brazil and Colombia, for the sharp weight of the slave exploitation of blacks also in these two
countries:
“In North America, the typical white farmer owns its land and the typical black Farmer is
tenant. (…) In no way are they concerned in the European, civilized, capitalist sense
modern of the word. Semi -feudal partners prevail or, which from the economic point of view is
the same, semi -scraves. ” (Lenin) 255
And classifies this type of partnership as a base:
“(…) Typically Russian, 'genuinely Russian', that of the payment system at work, ie the
partnership." (Lenin) 256
This type of partnership, even in its most evolved form, intended only to fix workforce in the
Field, cannot be considered as typically capitalist. Its particularity, the one that allows the
relegation of the price of the workforce below its value of this Waiver's peasant, is precisely
The indirect exploitation of the landowner over the peasant work in his installment. UOC (mlm) points to
importance of this type of relationship in the economies of semicolonies as one of the main sources of
overexploitation of the proletariat and masses of oppressed countries. However, they interpret incorrectly
The economic and social content of this production relationship classifies it as typically capitalist
when it is typically semi -feudal. This is a theoretical issue of paramount importance resolved by Lenin and
Previously pointed out by the great Engels: “Only semi -service, sanctioned by law and inertia
of customs opens unlimited possibilities for the exploration of agricultural wage earners. ”257
If the direction of UOC (MLM) is consequent in its analysis of Colombia, recognize the colossal error
to classify the partnership as a typically capitalist relationship, it will be required to conclude that the


overexploitation of the Colombian proletariat, by sitting in the partnership relations, rests on relations
semi -feudal production and non -capitalist. This conclusion has great meaning for the process
Colombian revolutionary, as understands the CCP (red fraction) and proletarian-MLM power,
which will provide new impulses to the march of the proletariat of this country towards the reconstitution of its party of
Vanguard and the Colombian Revolution.
We evaluated that from a practical point of view, from the class struggle in recent years in Colombia, there are many
Elements that justify this rectification. Colombia and Mexico are, par excellence, the homeland of the guerrillas
peasants in Latin America. The uninterrupted decades of peasant guerrillas in Colombia express
the intake effort of the peasant masses that has not prospered precisely because they lack direction
proletarian at height.
From the theoretical point of view, we evaluate that the errors in the analysis of Latin-social and economic formations
Americanas leads UOC (MLM) to present an agrarian program unable to mobilize the peasant masses.
Even because it leads to considering that this is not a strategic task of the Colombian revolution, in the
as they conclude that the process of peasantry differentiation is completed, which means
that the fundamental classes of the Colombian field would be today the agricultural proletariat and the rural bourgeoisie.
That the old landlord, based on typically capitalist relations, has evolved to become great capital.
Therefore, there would be no economic basis to speak rigorously in the antagonism between peasants and
landowners, for they would have become proletarians and bourgeois; What would remain would be just a
Rest of small production, as it is also preserved in cities.
The peasant differentiation identified by Lenin in 1899 cannot develop in the same way
Already at the time of imperialism, in the colonial/semicolonial countries. In the differentiation that exists in
rural communities today in Brazil, the peasantry is divided into a rich or medium peasant
Poor peasantry workforce, especially the landless or with little land. However, the conditions
of transformation of this peasantry rich in an agrarian bourgeoisie have completely modified. We are
at the time of imperialism, monopolistic capital, then the peasant economy, even the wealthy
how to make progress a lot, as it competes with the great agricultural production of the old large estates coupled with the great
bourgeoisie and, most of the time, intertwined with financial capital. Even if a peasant
differentiate, explore the poor peasants of your village, at most it can be a privileged lacque
Local Latifundium; very hardly will become a bourgeois, just as small industry has only
how to subsist in urban centers as an auxiliary production unit of large production, in general in
permanent ruin.
Another particularity of Latin America, in relation to Russia studied by Lenin, is that its economy
Latifundia did not evolve into a mercantile form only in the nineteenth century, it was born in this condition,
focused on the foreign market, under the sign of the international division of labor. So the content
characteristic of the economic and social formations of some Latin American countries are marked by the
plantations system, large export monoculture productions, settled in slave labor and
servile. In Russia, at the end of the 1861 reform, the peasant communities were in possession of half of the
Farming Lands. The small peasants were semi-owners of parts of these lands, the Nadiels, and
leased them. The lease of land by poor peasants in Latin America is a well
rare. In Brazil, it will appear more often in the most recent history, in the “projects of
Settlement ”of the“ bureaucratic agrarian reform ”of the old state. In them the poorest peasants
They end up leasing their lands to the neighboring landowner or the wealthy peasant of the locality. Or when
several of these peasants from the same continuous lane of land together, together,
soybean and sugarcane cultivators, surrounded by these large estates, as well as
turn their land into pasture and lease them to the cattle rainfall, or with others to
Cattle breeding by sock. But this is a recent phenomenon, result and does not cause the development of
Capitalism in agriculture. What has always happened and continues to occur is the poor peasant without any
land or small owner lease from the neighboring farmer a portion, usually for a time of ten
years, to cultivate it at sock, Tuesday, and at the end of the contract, you have to deliver the installment and hundreds
of hectares of landing land with formed pastures. Also having, as part of the contract, having to
Maintain the fences of the entire landlord and other services.


The Spanish and Portuguese crowns transposed to America a deciduous system based on the monopoly
feudal of the earth, where in many cases a feudal regime and other slave-feudal, which in
Both cases, as a rule, completely excluded the peasant property of the earth. In Brazil, in general, the
Peasant has always been a resident of the landlords. Only became free if it fled to the regions
most remote beyond agricultural border. There established its place, its natural economy and its precarious freedom
compared to the previous servitude. So it was until the “owner” of the earth arrived, with a title of
“Legal” or counterfeit property provided by the Old State notary bureaucracy, supported by power
oligarchic that he enjoyed and expropriated the peasant lands. The Saga of the Possers in Brazil,
in a permanent struggle against land expropriation, is a medular and essential part of our history, of a
Continued peasant war and interspersed with moments of rise and descent.
The capitalism that has penetrated and developed in Latin American agriculture is particularly different from
Way that took place in Russia analyzed by Lenin. Here the rich peasants had no way
transform into an agrarian bourgeoisie; As a rule, it is the old large estate. The role of
Brazil in the world economy has boosted capitalist relations in the countryside, there is a sharp
capitalist development in agriculture. But this capitalism is not the same as analyzed by Lenin, in the
19th century, at the time of free competition. It is a capitalism that is formed at the time of imperialism and in
an oppressed country; Russia was, in the words of Lenin, a "imperialist military-feudal" country. Here in Brazil,
what was developed was bureaucratic capitalism engendered by imperialism and totally in the service of
needs of imperialist powers; unlike Russia analyzed by Lenin, there was no
national industry of agricultural machinery that boosts national agricultural development
independent. Capitalist development has always been subdued to the interests of the metropolis. And for this
Imperialism never swept semi -feudal relations in the countryside; Therefore, these relationships continue to subsist
in a hidden way through the evolution of its forms.
In peasant semicolonial countries are the main and not agricultural proletariat, although peasants are
expelled from the countryside is the agricultural proletariat that moves in quantity with the advancement of mechanization -
at the robotics application stage and soon with the remote operation of the machines. Semi -feudal exploration is
basis of bureaucratic capitalism engendered by imperialism, as a need for subjugation
semicolonial of the country and for the overexploitation of its proletariat and other working masses. That's why
continues to reproduce and the peasant economy although ruined does not disappear, because it is necessary to
Type of capitalism possible to reproduce in countries dominated by imperialism. With this base
delayed and anachronistic economic, the corresponding superstructure continues to remain, in fundamental,
underlying semi -feudality in new forms apparently bourgeois and, secondarily, in the same
Old forms, as in legal the inequality of civil rights in the countryside. All an old man who only
can be swept if the landlord property is destroyed. This is a task of paramount importance for the
Proletarian revolution and the more radically it advances the more close to socialism. No
therefore, it constitutes no progress on peasant expropriation in the semicolonial countries, this is not
a sign of social development, but of delay, the emptying of the field, its depopulation, which
became the main counterrevolutionary policy of imperialism in the oppressed countries and mainly
from Yankee imperialism to Latin America, particularly after the triumph of Chinese revolutions,
Korean, Vietnamese and Cuban. Engels, in 1894, already highlighted this issue in his criticism of Kautsky, for
account of the agrarian program of the German Social Democratic Party:
“The greater the number of peasants to which we can save the effective fall in the proletariat,
and that we can win to us as peasants, - so much faster and so much easier
the transformation of society. We have no interest in waiting, so that this transformation
Perform that capitalist production develops everywhere and even its last consequences; It is
that the last small artisan and the last small peasant have fallen into the claws of the great
capitalist exploitation. ” (Engels) 258
The masses that will sweep the landlords with greater radicality and the monopoly of land ownership, in
The source of its future nationalization will be the masses of peasants, especially the poor peasants. A
Flag that can gather these masses is confiscation and immediate delivery of the land to these peasants. It is
Fight can only be made widely linked to the struggle for the conquest of power, because if the peasant problem is the
Earth problem, the problem of the earth is the problem of political power, that of the overthrow of the power of the landlord
and the semicolonial imperialist domination that rests on it by boosting bureaucratic capitalism.


Therefore, the UOC agrarian program (MLM) is completely incorrect for semicolonial countries as
You can check:
“It is indispensable that the agricultural proletariat, which does not have the degree of concentration of the proletariat
industrial, be independent of peasantry, both by its program and its organization; only
Thus can subtract from the Rural Small Burger atmosphere of the owner and the illusion in the small
property. Only then can you teach the peasants that to save should be aligned with the
proletariat to fight private property and convert the property of its land into
collective property and exploitation, because the individual exploitation conditioned by the property
Individual, is the one that pushes the peasants to ruin. ” [UOC (MLM)] 259
UOC's direction (MLM) insistently accuse us of "leftists", however, there can be no
more opportunistic agramponian program of “left” than hers; It is opportunist for “left” and
idealistic. Intend to mobilize the scarce agricultural proletariat to teach poor landless peasants and
with little land the importance of the fight against private property, to convince them to convert their
small properties in collective explorations is something more childish than the dreams of Russian populists,
which they intended to convert the peasant communities into Baluartes of Socialism. Is a demonstration of
total ignorance about the nature of the peasantry and its greatest review, the property of the earth, is
push them against the proletariat and to endure them to the field of counterrevolution. It is of a doctrineist idealism
sterile and simply foolish. More than that, a policy thus carried out between the peasantry is a
Crime against the strategy of hegemony of the proletariat in the single front and the conquest of its power.
What the peasant understands is that the absence of land, little quantity and poor quality is the cause
immediate of your ruin. This sensitive knowledge is revolutionary, as it directs the peasant fury against
The opposite class: the landlord that concentrates and monopolizes lands and natural resources. Yes, it is necessary in the
Fighting Course, convincing the peasantry that it is no use destroying only the neighboring landowner, but the whole
landing system and also confiscar the large private companies from the areas released to the new
Popular revolutionary state, until it establishes it throughout the country. In the course of this struggle, just like that, he
You can learn that private property is not a redemption, that if it interrupts your fight in the middle, it will
again to ruin; The earth will concentrate again. The same iron cycle will be repeated as the fight
Worker if she is restricted to the economic, union struggle. Under the conditions of imperialism only with power
in the hands of the single revolutionary front under the hegemony of the proletariat, through his communist party, the
Peasants will fully understand the limit of the small property. They can thus forge this
awareness in the course of revolutionary war, because there they learn the importance of the new relations of
production. And especially they learn that freedom is more important than land ownership. As
said Lenin, the peasant in the struggle for the land catches the rifle, with the rifle in hand discovers freedom, then
It becomes more important to it than the earth. Thus turning into peasants
revolutionaries firmly joined with the proletariat. And reinforces once again already exerting the dictatorship of the
proletariat about the illusion of convincing peasants with only proclamation and exhortations
Intended:
“The proletariat must now solve the second problem, show the peasantry that it can offer
the example and practice of economic relations that will result higher than those in which each
Peasant family adjusts to their space. So far, the peasants no longer believe that in this
old system and continue considering it normal. This is no doubt. It is an irremediable Sandex
suppose that our advertising can change the peasants on topics of
Vital reach, about the economy. Peasants are expecting; of a neutral-hostile attitude
before us have moved to a neutral-benévola attitude. Prefer us to any other government, because
see that the workers, proletarian, proletarian dictatorship is not brutal violence, usurpation,
as they presented it; but it is a better defender of the peasants than the sequences of Kolchak,
Deninkin, etc. ” (Lenin) 260
In addition to the illusion of convincing by advertising, UOC (MLM) presents the proposition of collectivization as
Flag of the Order of the Day. This task was not even placed by the October socialist revolution, which
despite having established the dictatorship of the proletariat, by nationalizing land ownership
peasant production immediately. Lenin thus addresses the problem of land collectivization in the revolution
Russian:


“As for the way of exploiting the confiscated lands of the large landowners by the proletariat
victorious, in Russia has predominant, because of their economic delay, the sharing of these lands
and its delivery in enjoyment to the peasants; only in relatively rare cases, does the proletarian state
maintained the so -called 'Soviet farms'. ” (Lenin) 261
The nationalization flag, raised by the peasants in 1905, adopted by the party since then,
not yet equals the collectivization of agriculture and even less its socialization, as
Revisionists, in addition to the Trotskyists. Lenin defines “the nationalization of the earth, which
less consequent complained all representatives of the peasantry between 1905 and 1907 ”as the form
more radical of van of servitude, as a democratic-bourgeois task, therefore:
“The abolition of private property on the earth does not or minimally the bourgeois base of
Commercial and capitalist rustic property. There is nothing more wrong than thinking that
nationalization of the earth has something common with socialism or even with the egalitarian enjoyment
of the same. Socialism, as we know, means the liquidation of the mercantile economy. A
nationalization means transforming land into the property of the state, and this transformation
It does not affect the private exploitation of the earth at all. (…) Nationalization completely sweeps the
medieval relations in the territorial property regime, destroys all artificial barriers in the
Earth and makes it effectively free. (…) Nationalization would accelerate the death of the regime of servitude and the
Development of purely bourgeois farms on land free of all medieval waste. This is
the true historical significance of nationalization in Russia as it appears in the end of the century
XIX. ” (Lenin) 262
Nationalization did not emerge as a peasantry flag in Latin America, so our consign
be of “land for those who live in it and works”. The experience of the great socialist revolution of October and the
Great Chinese Revolution demonstrated that the agrarian revolution was, par excellence, the
ensure the nationalization of the land and, therefore, collectivization in agriculture, ensuring the hegemony of
proletariat in both cases: the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia and the joint class dictatorship
revolutionary and their uninterrupted passage to socialism. Lenin points out that, despite the inconveniences
economic that may arise from too much land sharing, the main aspect in the application of
AGRICARY PROGRAM AGREEMENT is the question of ensuring the triumph of the revolution and consolidating the new power:
“However, it would be a very serious mistake to exaggerate this rule [of collectivization] or convert it to standard
and do not admit in any case the free delivery of a part of the land of the expropriates
expropriated to small peasants and sometimes even to the average peasants of the neighboring boundaries.
Firstly, the usual objection against this is to claim that the great explorations
Agricultural are technically superior (…). To ensure the success of this revolution, the proletariat does not
It is entitled to dwell on the temporary decrease of production (…). For the bourgeois the production
It is an end in itself; but for workers and exploited it matters to them, above all, to defeat
explorers and ensure conditions that allow them to work for themselves and not for the
capitalist. The fundamental and primordial task of the proletariat is to ensure and ensure
your triumph. And there can be no guarantee of proletarian power without neutralizing the average peasants and
without ensuring the support of a very considerable part of the small peasants, but
totality. ” (Lenin) 263
Imperialism and the development of capitalism in the countryside do not solve the agrarian-field problem
in the colonial and semicolonial countries. For this reason, semi -feudality on the basis of the fundamental social contradiction
In the field of these countries is the antagonism between the poor peasantry and the landlord. The agrarian program to be
established by the communists, it must start from the concrete experience of the direction of the struggle of these masses in defense
From their claims, especially from the land to those who live and work in it. Advance in this fight leads
invariably to the problem of revolutionary violence and the struggle for power. After all, as brilliantly
established President Gonzalo:
“(…) To talk about the peasant problem is to talk about the problem of the earth, to talk about the problem of the earth is
to talk about the military problem, and to talk about the military problem is to talk about the problem of power, the new
State to which we arrived with a democratic revolution directed by the proletariat through his party,
The Communist Party. ” (President Gonzalo) 264
Dodge the direction of the peasant struggle by the earth is invariably dodging the military problem,
Question that immediately stands in the initial and most elementary forms of the Earth Fight.


III- The maximum profit law and the main contradiction in the imperialist time
In the previous section we made the criticism of the wrong political and social conceptions of the UOC Board (MLM)
about imperialism. We seek to demonstrate the full opposition between the theses of a supposed “trend
progressive imperialism that sweeps the modes of pre-capitalist production in the oppressed countries “and the
ideology of the international proletariat, particularly with the contributions and developments of Leninism and
of Maoism. After all, as the great Lenin established: “The political particularities of imperialism are the
reaction throughout the line and the intensification of national oppression ”265.
We saw how false are the consequences of this position of UOC (MLM), therefore, considers that the export of
Capital of imperialism to the oppressed countries was responsible for the drumming of feudality. What,
Therefore, the agrarian problem was solved in this way and that the social contradiction
fundamental in the field is not between peasants and landowners, but between rural proletariat and
agrarian bourgeoisie. This leads to the direction of UOC (MLM) to advocate a semi-annual agrarian program that
It defends the need to convince poor peasants to collectivize their property and production.
This issue is ABC for the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists of the oppressed countries.
In this section we will criticize the economic foundations of this erroneous conception of the direction of
UOC (mlm). We waged this struggle not in the unique objective and need to “demonstrate serious mistakes”
UOC formulations (MLM), but mainly because these are issues of paramount importance for the
MCI. In this sense the struggle of two lines against the erroneous positions of UOC (MLM) mainly serves
to raise the communists's understanding of the particularities of imperialism and to develop the
ideology of the international proletariat aiming to solve new problems posed by the course of
World proletarian revolution. Among these, we highlight theoretical problems as understanding the issue
of land income in the semicolonial countries in the imperialist stage and the current role of the peasantry in the
World proletarian revolution. Theoretical issue related to immediate practical problems, political-
military, how communists must face the policy of the imperialism of the emptying of the
Field, aiming to make it difficult to develop prolonged popular war. These are issues in which they reside
foul ideological problems, which greatly surpass the current controversy, but that the current struggle of two
Lines requires that they are emphasized and dwell on them.
1- The maximum profit as a particularity of monopolistic capitalism
From the point of view of political economy, the direction of UOC (MLM) maintains, as seen earlier, that the
capitalism in the imperialist stage, in addition to being a monopolistic, would have “converted into a mode of production
internationalized ”266; that imperialism “chained all countries - with their specific modes of
Production - in one world economy ”267. We previously demonstrated that this chain
it already gave in the stage of free competition of capital, with the development of the contrary unit “great
Capitalist world industry and market ”. Conceive imperialism as a “mode of production
268, in the sense of understanding that at this stage of world capitalism, “imperialism broke the
national borders and has faced in the world Arena class against class ”269, constitutes a great deviation
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Understand, as UOC (MLM) does, that the contradiction versus
bourgeoisie, in the imperialist stage, becomes “a single contradiction that faces the entire proletariat of
world against the bourgeoisie of the world ”270, can sound to some as a“ left ”phrase but not
It goes from old apologetic trotskyist formulation of imperialism and pure rightism.
Lenin points out that imperialism is due to the concentration of production with which: “Competition
converts into a monopoly. This results in a gigantic progress of the socialization of production ”, however,“
appropriation is still private ”271. This progress in the socialization of production, therefore, does not occur as
Defends mr. AVAKIAN through “the integration of colonies into a new global framework that allows the
imperialist capital expands and restructures internationally with more profits and transforming
production relations of the oppressed countries to adapt them to their requirements ”272. President Mao takes
position by the conclusion of the communist international that “imperialism, with all the financial power and
military personnel in China, is the force that supports, encouraged, cultivates and retains feudal survival, with


all its bureaucratic-military superstructure ”273. Say that imperialism is a “mode of production
that by integrating the colonies into a new global landmark transforms production relations ”, or that
“Scans the modes of pre-capitalist production”, it is just apology for imperialism, the mystification of
An alleged “progressive tendency” of this.
One of the particular traits of imperialism is that it progresses the socialization of production through
elevation of national oppression and not of its overcoming, through the conservation of feudal survival, and
Not transforming or sweeping them, as the Avakian revisionist and the direction of UOC (MLM) argues. For
Lenin, the progress of the socialization of production in imperialism implies that “monopolistic capitalism
exacerbated all the contradictions of capitalism. Just indicate the famine of life and the game of cartels. It is
exacerbation of contradictions is the most powerful driving force of the historical period of transition started with
the definitive victory of world financial capital ”274. As imperialism is the reaction throughout the line, this
exacerbates contradictions and does not solve them; enables, however, that the proletariat directs the resolution of
all these contradictions (even the pending of the bourgeois revolution) and, therefore, marks the beginning of the new
Era, the age of the world proletarian revolution.
Let's see now, how the direction of UOC (MLM) seeks to economically justify this conception of
imperialism and the particular type of capitalist development in oppressed countries. In its most
recent criticism of our party and LCI, states that:
“Imperialism made the growth of the reserve army even more drastic and knew how to take advantage
‘The low prices and abundance of available salaried workers or vacant workers’ as well as the
relative delay of other productive forces in the oppressed countries, low prices that, as already
we said, means overexploitation of the proletariat in the oppressed countries and relative delay that
its turn reproduces itself by how compensated in the superlucros for imperialists and for
native ruling classes. ” [UOC (MLM)] 275
States that imperialism takes advantage of the growth of the reserve army to overeat the
proletariat in the “oppressed countries”, thus ensuring superlucros for imperialists “and classes
native dominant ”. Says that the semicolonial bourgeoisies give superlucros such as imperialism, from
The same way that states that these bourgeoisie reach the same profit rate as financial capital. As
Lenin demonstrates in his studies on imperialism, the superlucrum becomes a particularity of capital
Financial, in the phase of monopolistic capitalism.
The imperialist profit as a monopolistic profit, as we will see in detail, is necessarily exclusive, for
he argues for the monopolistic corporations and the imperialist states that are dignified by the boot
countries oppressed to make them colonies and semicolonies, exactly to ensure the best condition in the
competition and thus be able to ensure captive markets for the goods of their corporations and, at the same
time, sources of raw material and energy, in addition to the overexploitation of the workers that the conditions
of delay that impose on these countries and the impediment of the independent development of the same
provides. The monopoly implies the exclusivity of certain conditions of production and circulation of
more favorable goods. The free competition, its opposite, is that corresponding theoretically by the
less, to equal competition conditions. This economic reasoning used by UOC (MLM), has already been
previously formulated by old revisionists, but before discussing the authorship of the empallic, let's see
firstly as it is in full opposition to Leninism, which thus analyzes the particularity of the
Imperialist monopoly, in relation to the monopoly of England of manufacturing industry in the nineteenth century:
“In the thirteenth century we watched the formation of monopolies of another genre [in relation to the
Monopoly of England in the nineteenth century]: first, monopolistic unions of capitalists in all
countries of developed capitalism; second, monopolistic situation of a few rich countries,
in which capital accumulation had achieved gigantic proportions. A huge
'Capital surplus' in advanced countries. ” (Lenin) 276
Lenin makes it clear that capital accumulation in gigantic proportions occurs in a few countries
rich, never in all countries. Because the reason for the formation of this “surplus of capital” is
precisely under the monopolistic conditions of which the oppressed countries are private. The condition of
Privileged monopolist is the economic basis of the interimperialist contradiction, the powers dispute with each other
The privileges that allow monopolistic profits, as exposed above. Assume that an oppressed country can


accumulate capitals with the same profit rate as the imperialist bourgeoisie is completely opposed to
Economic foundations of the Leninist Theory of Imperialism. Lenin treats the dispute this way
interimperialist by the monopolistic condition:
“Any country that has more colonies, capital and troops than 'ours', 'us' deprives certain
privileges, of certain profits or superluchrs. Just as among different capitalists
superluchrs go to those whose machines are higher than average (…), so also among the
Nations, the one that is economically in the best condition is the one that gets superluchrs. ”
(Lenin) 277
That is, the superluchrs, the accumulation rate obtained by the imperialists, it is only possible to reach the deprive
the competing power of certain privileges. The more in relation to colonial and semicolonial countries,
Therefore, it is a complete nonsense to say that the ruling classes of these countries can earn super students
as well as imperialism. Monopoly is essentially exclusive, this is one of its particularities.
However, the monopoly of which production conditions ensure these super students? Lenin gives us this
response:
“The imperialism of the beginnings of the twentieth century ended the world's sharing among a handful of
States, each of which they currently explore (in the sense of obtaining superluch) a part
'Worldwide' (…); each occupies a monopoly position in the world market
Thanks to the Trustes, the cartels, the financial capital, the creditor relations with the debtor; each one
of them to some extent a colonial monopoly (…). ” (Lenin) 278
The question is extremely clear: a handful of states explores a part of the world to obtain
Superluklars; they earn these superlucros precisely because they occupy a monopolistic position in the market
worldwide, thanks to the high concentration of productive capital in the Trustes; They earn monopolistic profits
because they are colonial monopolists. Like the colonial or semicolonial bourgeoisie, it could reach the same
profit rate of the financial oligarchy, to the point of becoming a capital exporter? At this point
The economic formulations of the UOC Directorate (MLM) arrive, indicate that the bourgeoisie of the countries
semicolonial and colonial are becoming capital exporters: the bourgeoisie of the "countries
oppressed capitalists reached “a great accumulation of capital doing it excessive too”, not
if it can “evade its true monopolistic character and its imperialist aspirations” 279.
Consider this possibility is to make the apology of imperialism, is that the “imperialist integration”
allows all bourgeoisie to grow in the same proportion. As Marx analyzes in The Capital, when dealing with the
concentration and centralization of the capital, this harmonic growth was not possible even in the free stage
competition, because as it demonstrates the largest capitals always tend to expropriate the minors
Thus centralizing, increasingly, capital in the hands of a fewer bourgeois. The step
Imperialist results precisely from this very high concentration of capital. This makes it impossible, therefore,
that a bourgeoisie with less capital accumulate enough to become a competitor of the bourgeoisie
imperialist in the capital export market. Judge that bourgeoisie from different countries are associated
freely and share all the social value of social value, is the most foolish fantasy of liberalism and
most perverse illusion spread by revisionism.
In the imperialist stage, the superlucur of financial capital is the maximum, exclusive profit of monopolies and
Imperialist states. We will start the study of the maximum profit, starting from the economic fundamentals
established by Marx and Engels about the relationship between production, circulation and distribution of
riches of a society. The capitalist profit and its derivation, the maximum imperialist profit, belong to the
Sphere of distribution analyzed by Marx. Understand these foundations of Marxist political economy
it is essential to understand why the transformation of free competition capitalism into
monopolistic capitalism implies a transformation of the law of profit into the capitalist mode of production, that is,
of the transformation of the average profit law into the maximum profit law.
The particularity of the capitalist mode of production according to Marx
Contrary to what the direction of UOC (MLM) states, imperialism does not result in a qualitative change
as to the capitalist mode of production. Generally, the mode of production continues with the same
Fundamental characteristics analyzed by Marx. This does not mean that no changes have occurred


qualitative in the sphere of production, on the contrary, it is precisely in this sphere that the modifications begin
qualitative analyzed by Lenin, as well as in the sphere of circulation:
“Half a century ago, when Marx wrote capital, free competition was for most
Economists a 'natural law'. ” [Marx demonstrated] “with a theoretical and historical analysis of the
capitalism that competition gives rise to the concentration of production and that said concentration, in
A degree of its development leads to the monopoly. Now the monopoly is a fact. ”
(Lenin) 280
Monopolistic production and monopoly in the sphere of circulation, key economic characteristics of the time
Imperialist, do not change the essence of the capitalist mode of production. So much that the contradiction
fundamental of the capitalist process remains between social production and private appropriation, and its
Social expression remains the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The essence of the process
productive remains that highlighted by Marx, in misery of philosophy: “(...) I showed for the first
instead that the manufacturing division of work is the specific form of the capitalist mode of production ”281. This
is, the segmentation of the production process, of the same act of work, in a succession of partial acts
Combined, this is the specific form that the division of labor acquires in the capitalist mode of production. A
division of labor is prior to the capitalist mode of production, but it is only in this historical stage, that it
acquires the specificity. The division of labor in manufacturing, therefore: “It is a specific creation
of the capitalist mode of production ”282.
It is this specific form of the capitalist mode of production, prior to the machinery machines, which creates the new
social productive force:
“The effect of combined work could not be produced by individual work, and it would only be
much longer time space or on a very small scale. This is not about the elevation of
individual productive force through cooperation, but the creation of a new productive force, the
know, the collective force. ” (Marx) 283
The fact that the production process is divided into a planetary scale, of gigantically increasing the
Socialization of production, does not correspond to the qualitative change in the productive sphere in the imperialist time.
After all, as Marx analyzes, the international division of labor and its consequences had already been taken on
Step of free competition, as Marx analyzes:
“Making a part of the workers constantly, the modern industry in countries in
that is based, stimulates and incites emigration to foreign countries and their colonization, which
thus convert into the supplier colonies of raw materials for the Mother, such as Australia,
For example, which produces wool. New International Division of Labor is created, appropriate to
main centers of modern industry, transforming part of the planet into production areas
predominantly agricultural, intended for the other primarily industrial part. ” (Marx) 284
Which are, therefore, the changes in the economic base of imperialism resulting from the colossal concentration
of capital? To answer this question, take the analysis of Engels on the development of
contradiction between the mode of production and the mode of circulation in capitalism.
As we saw in the first section of this text, it is in the work of Engels Anti-Dühring, which appears formulated
more completely and developed than the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society is among the
social character of production and capitalist private appropriation. Later, in utopian socialism to
scientific socialism, Engels would complement this analysis by based on the foundations from which Lenin
would formulate his theory of imperialism. In this work, Engels analyzes how the rebellion of the mode of production
against the mode of circulation is the base of the overproduction crises and, finally, leads to the conformation of the
trustes and monopolies:
“In crises burst in violent explosions the contradiction between social production and appropriation
capitalist. The circulation of the goods is, for a paralyzed moment. The means of circulation, the
money, becomes an absstacle to circulation; all laws of production and circulation of
goods have seen the opposite. The economic conflict reaches its culminating point: the mode of
Production rebels against the exchange mode. ” (Engels) 285


This rebellion of the mode of production against the mode of circulation is the requirement of social productive forces
for the full recognition of his social and non -private condition:
“On the one hand, the capitalist mode of production reveals, therefore, its own inability to continue
existing. On the other hand, these productive forces compete with increasing intensity in the
sense that the contradiction is resolved, that they are redeemed from their condition of capital, that
its character of social productive forces is effectively recognized. ” (Engels) 286
Thus, of this economic conflict between the mode of production and the mode of circulation, important
changes in the economic base of capitalist society:
“It is this rebellion of the production forces (…) against its quality of capital, this need
increasingly imperative that its social character is recognized, which obliges the class itself
capitalist to consider them increasingly openly as social productive forces, to the extent
where it is possible within capitalist relations. Both periods of high industrial pressure,
as its excessive expansion of credit, such as crack itself, with the delay of great
capitalist companies, encourage this form of socialization of large masses of means of
production we find in the different categories of corporations. ” (Engels) 287
However, more than this formal recognition, the rebellion of social productive forces determines a
modification in the content of the mode of circulation in capitalist society:
“When reaching a certain phase of development, it is no longer enough for this form; the great
national producers of an industrial branch are unite to form a truste, a consortium
intended to regulate production determine the total amount that must be produced,
Among them and thus impose a sales price in advance fixed. In the trustes, the free
competition becomes monopoly and production without the plan of capitalist society capitula
before the planned and organized production of the nascent socialist society. ” (Engels) 288
Contradiction between social production and private appropriation invariably in the cyclical crises of
overproduction in the capitalist economy; These crises, in turn, imply the rebellion of the mode of production
Social against the mode of circulation, free competition. The result of this contradiction is pointed out
masterful way by Engels: “free competition becomes a monopoly”, the anarchy of production
Capitalist social capitulates in the face of the planned production of the nascent mode of socialist production. The rebellion
of social productive forces against the mode of appropriation and the capital circulation mode is already traffic
For another regime, as Lenin defines it, fully developing the ideas of the great Engels:
“(…) Some of the fundamental properties of capitalism began to become its
antithesis (…) what is fundamental in this process, from the economic point of view, is the
Substitution of free competition with capitalist monopolies. Free competition is the
fundamental property of capitalism and the production of goods in general; the monopoly
finds direct opposition with free competition, but the latter became our eyes
in monopoly (...). And at the same time, monopolies, which derive from free competition, not
eliminate, if not exist on top and next to it, thus engendering a series of contradictions,
particularly acute pugnas and conflicts. Monopoly is traffic to a higher regime. (...) The
The deepest economic base of imperialism is the monopoly. ” (Lenin) 289
The concentration of production, in the productive sphere, determines the qualitative modification of the circulation mode
capitalist. The monopoly imposes itself and dominates, but free competition continues to exist next to and below
monopoly; Modifies the stage of the capitalist process. As President Mao points out: in a particular
development process or in a given step, the main aspect is one, “but in another stage of the
Process, the roles are reversed ”290. Imperialism is not characterized, therefore, as a new mode of
Production, therefore, if it was so it would change the process; What happens, however, is a profound change in
productive sphere and circulation mode. That is, a superior stage of the development of capitalism.
Let's see what other changes in the economic base of society these changes determine. For this,
we follow the analysis of Engels about the relationship between production mode, circulation mode and
distribution of capitalism.
The mode of production and the circulation mode determine the mode of distribution in a society


Marx and Engels elaborate a complete theory of criticism of the capitalist economy, encompassing all their
Balls: production, circulation, distribution and consumption; defining the sphere of production as the main
therefore, it determines the others, and ultimately, all these spheres as a material basis of the
society determines its superstructure. In the introduction to the critique of political economy, Marx analyzes the
dialectical relationship between these economic factors, however, this text was not published by
founders of communism. Will be in anti-dühring, with an analysis of the relationship between these spheres of the
economy, which will more completely present the determination of the mode of distribution by the relationship
dialectic between production mode and circulation mode:
“(...) it was evident that the whole history there was the history of the class struggle, that these classes of
company that fight each other are, in each case, products of production relations and
exchange, in short of the economic relations of its time, and that, therefore, each structure
economic of society is the real basis, from which it must be explained, ultimately,
the entire superstructure of legal and political institutions, as well as the mode of representation
religious, philosophical and any nature of each historical period. ” (Engels) 291
Specifies the economic structure of society as production relations and exchange relationships. AND
defines political economy as: “The science of laws that govern production and the exchange of sustenance
material of life in human society. Production and exchange are two distinct functions. Production can
happen without exchange, exchange - precisely because it is in advance only product exchange - cannot
happen without production ”292. Rigorously supporting Marx's postulates, shows the dialectical relationship
between production and circulation, and at the same time, the ultimate determination of production in relation to
the circulation. Thus exemplifies your mutual conditioning:
“Each of these two functions [production and circulation] is influenced by external effects in
large part specific and, consequently, also has its own laws, its own laws, its
specific laws. In contrast, however, one conditions the other at all times and a
it is incurred in the other with such intensity that it would be possible to characterize them with the abscissa and the ordained of the
economic curve. ” (Engels) 293
Finally, Engels establishes the relationship between both: production and circulation with the mode of distribution of a
certain society, that is, how it is distributed among members of the social body, between the social classes
of given social formation, the productive results of the set:
“With the mode of production and [the mode] of exchange of a particular historical society and with the
historical preconditions of this society is also given, simultaneously, the mode of distribution
of the products." (Engels) 294
And still:
“(…) Distribution is, in each case, the necessary result of the production conditions and exchange of
certain society, as well as the historical preconditions of this society and this happens of such
way that, knowing these [conditions of production and circulation], we can deduce with
conviction the mode of distribution reigning in this society. ” (Engels) 295
We saw earlier that the specific form of the division of capitalist labor is the division of the same act
productive in the same manufacturer unit; that this division results in the creation of a productive force
new, the collective force, which together with the media social production (the machines) conform to the
social production. The mode of circulation proper to capitalist production is free competition. And the mode of
distribution or appropriation of the social product is capitalist private property, as Marx defines: “
mode of capitalist appropriation, which derives from the capitalist mode of production, that is, the property
capitalist private ”.296
The capitalist distribution mode, or the elements that characterize the bourgeois distribution mode,
They have two aspects. The first deals with the distribution of the new value produced in the production process
between capital and work. The second, deals with the distribution of the added value appropriate by the capitalist in this
same production process, or the distribution of surplus value among the productive branches, of their office in the
forms of profit from entrepreneur, interest and land income.


The first law of this mode of distribution is that, as a rule, the worker sells his workforce to
capitalist for its exchange value; when buying it this acquires the right to consume the value of use of the
work throughout the productive journey. However, the particularity of this commodity (
work) is that the consumption of its use value results in the production of more value. This new value produced
by the worker on a journey is divided into two parts: the first is the value necessary for reproduction
From its labor force, the second is an excess value. The necessary value corresponds to the salary,
the surplus value to the added value appropriate by the capitalist.
The second law of the capitalist mode of distribution is the one that deals with the more-value office, according to Marx a
surplus value is distributed among capitalists according to the magnitude of their capital, regardless of whether these
are employed in productive branches with greater or lesser organic composition of capital. So, one
capitalist does not appropriate the surplus value directly by him from his workers. Free circulation
of the capital, the free competition between these, determines that the totality of the more social value is divided
between capitalists according to a general profit rate. This is the average profit that is earned by the capitalists in the
proportion of the magnitude of its capital.
According to the analyzes of Engels and Lenin, at the end of the last decade of the nineteenth and early twentieth century,
substantial transformations in the productive sphere and capitalist circulation mode occurred. First
there is a very high concentration of production, the establishment of trustes and monopolies in certain
Branches of the economy, which determine the transformation of free competition into monopoly. According to the
Engels dialectical formula, given a mode of production and a mode of circulation it is possible to deduce a
corresponding distribution mode. Social production of goods and free competition determine
Thus the laws of capitalist distribution. These transformations in the productive sphere and mode of
capitalist circulation determine, in turn, modifications in the distribution mode in the monopolistic step
of capital, imperialism. What modifications are these and what tell us about this question the great
heads of the international proletariat?
Two particularities of the mode of distribution in imperialism: permanent overexploitation and profit
maximum
Lenin very clearly establishes the two modifications in the distribution mode in the imperialist step.
Demonstrates how capital concentration, cartels, monopolies, in the sphere of production and the fusion of this
inductural capital with bank capital originating financial capital, allows it to earn superluchrs,
which are precisely profit above the average profit, thus subverting the law that regulates the distribution of
VALUED IN THE CAPITALISM OF THE FREE COMPETITION STEP: “The propitious monopoly Superlukros, that is, an excess
of profits over normal, ordinary profits of capitalism around the world. ”297 These profits
Monopolists are what he later classifies as “SuperLucros of Finance Capital” 298.
Superluchrs in themselves do not constitute an exclusive phenomenon of imperialism, it is a phenomenon
common in the stage of free competition in capitalism. Whenever a particular capitalist explores
production conditions more favorable than its competitors, it can earn a superlucur
Extraordinary value. The determination of the price of a commodity is its value, which corresponds to time
socially necessary work to produce it; whenever a capitalist can produce it in a
Below the socially needed working time, it can earn a superlucro. However,
as soon as these production conditions universalize, such as a new machine or a new method of
exploration of proletarian (more intense pace of production, for example), the production time of all
Competitors tend to balance and that relative difference is eliminated. Eliminated until a new
Method of earning extraordinary added value. The search for extraordinary added value is the main furniture of
competition between capitalists of the same productive branch.
The particularity of the superlucur at the imperialist time is that it crystallizes as an exclusive form of capital
financial, as there are exclusive production conditions that only the capital of the great powers
Imperialists, that is, financial capital, can obtain. These production conditions are achieved by
imperialism from the export of capital to the oppressed countries, because in these, as Lenin points out: “
capitals are scarce, the price of the earth is relatively small, the wages are low and the raw materials


cockroaches ”299. That is, financial capital can only earn the superlucro establishing monopolistic control
of these conditions of production of colonies and semicolonies.
As Lenin and Engels highlight, the transformation of free competition into monopoly does not eliminate the
competition between the capital. On the contrary, it recruits, if it rises, transforms the commercial wars
of the national states of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in the wars of the imperialist powers at the turn of the century
XIX to the twentieth century and from this. The financial capital of a power competes with the financial capital of
another in the search of these superluchrs, in the dispute for these conditions of production that allow to achieve this
benefit. This is the economic base of the world's sharing and departure, the dispute for monopolistic control
of the colonies and semicolonies with the looting of their natural riches and the possibility of overexploving
permanently your proletariat and other workers. The role of the great local bourgeoisie of countries
oppressed, which has become a great bourgeoisie tied to international financial capital, will always be
“Subaltern” and Lacaia of this; It is not integrated, it is totally dependent and subdued and accepted in a good way
This subjugation.
Comrade Stalin, developing Leninism, extracting important economic conclusions after the end of the
World War II, it holds a decisive contribution to the analysis of imperialism:
“It is said that average profit can, however, be considered quite sufficient for the
capitalist development in modern conditions. This is not true. The average profit is the point
lower than profitability, below which capitalist production becomes impossible. But it would be
Asburdo to think that, when taking colonies, subjugating peoples and architecting wars, the tycoons of
Modern monopolistic capitalism are striving to ensure only average profit. No, it's not
the average profit, nor the superlucro - which, as a rule, represents only a slight
addition to average profit - but precisely the maximum profit that is the engine of capitalism
monopolist. ” (Stalin) 300
This is the first particularity of the mode of distribution in the imperialist stage: the objective of the bourgeoisie
imperialist, of monopolistic capitalism is not the average profit, nor an ephemeral superlucur, but the
Maximum profit. If the economic law of capital in the free competition stage is the search for profit, that of capital
Monopolist is the search for maximum profit, that profit above which there can be no other. It is also clear
that this maximum profit is monopolized by financial capital, because it is only possible to earn it if it is taken
Colonies, subjugate peoples and architect wars. We will deal with other decisions of this established concept
by comrade Stalin, but rather we will analyze the other particularity of the distribution mode in the step
Imperialist: The permanent overexploitation of the oppressed nations proletariat.
As seen earlier, the overexploitation of work, also does not constitute an exclusive stage of the stage
Capital monopolist, the imperialist. We saw how brutal form of exploitation arises in England,
It is analyzed by Marx and is a way of accelerating capitalist accumulation. However, the continuous
Overrexploitation of work has at least two economic and social consequences. Remunerate
continuously the workforce below its value, invariably leads to the decaying of the class, and the
decreased life expectancy, etc. The capitalist can only adopt this form of exploration if the
renewal of an excess overpopulation constant, so this mass outside the labor market,
replaces the one that will belating with the continuous overexploitation. The population is an economic factor
decisive for overexploitation.
On the other hand, continuous overexploitation leads to social explosions of the working class, which prefers to die
fighting than perishing hungry under the latego of capitalists. So it was in England, in the nineteenth century, with the
hatching of the Cartist Movement and the Trade-Unions, so it was in continental Europe, especially from
1848. Still in the stage of free competition, the monopolistic condition of England in the production of
manufactured, until the middle of the nineteenth century, allowed it to earn super students that were used to
bribing a certain layer of the working class of your country, aiming to reduce social tensions in your
own territory. This phenomenon was carcaten by Marx and Engels as the emergence of a
“Workers' aristocracy”.
Developing Marxism, Lenin will demonstrate that in the imperialist stage the superlucers earned by the
financial capial enable the generalization of this “working aristocracy” in all states of that
Shop from countries that oppress the rest of the vast majority of nations in the world. Establishes with this


direct binding of the emergence of imperialism with the temporary predominance of opportunistic control
in the workers' movement in oppressive countries. At the same time highlights the impossibility of prolonging for
a long time this bribe to this layer of the proletariat. Imperialism is the inevitable tendency for
crises, the dispute between the powers for the world's Britile and the competition between corporations
monopolists from their respective countries, and this situation also causes instability in the aristocracy
worker.
In this way, it also occurs in the mode of distribution of the new value created, in the dispute between capital and
Work, a change in the laws that prevailed in the free competition stage. While at this stage the
overexploitation was transitory, in the imperialist stage it also crystallizes and becomes more or less
permanent to the proletariat of the oppressed countries. Imperialism thus imposes a condition of life
much worse for the semicolonian proletariat than for the proletariat of imperialist countries. Visa
thus obtaining superluchrs with exported capital and “social peace” in their own territory. Search
thus, to make part of the proletariat of its complicit country of oppression and national subjugation of countries
oppressed.
But as seen, overexploitation is not exclusive to the oppressed countries. This in two directions:
First, this overexplorated proletariat is a source of added value, mainly for the profit of capital
financial and, only to a lesser extent, for the large capital of the oppressed countries; second, the proletariat
Of the oppressed countries is also overexploked within the territories of the imperialist powers. Today the
existence of the immigrant proletariat is decisive in maintaining industrial production, trade and the sector of
services of imperialist countries. There would be no Yankee economy without the presence of the Mexican proletariat,
Colombian, finally Latin American and Caribbean in his territory; there would be no German industry without the
Turkish and Kurdish proletariat; there would be no trade and service sector in Europe without the India proletariat,
Bangladesh, Vietnam, Senegal, Nigeria, Ecuador, Brazil, etc.
This mass of immigrant workers is a direct source of surplus value, is overexplored, because the bourgeoisie
imperialist takes advantage of his precarious legal condition to impose conditions of demeaning exploration,
extracting a much higher rate of added value than from the national proletariat. But to the same
time, this immigrant mass serves as a pressure on the country's proletariat, pressing wages to
low and allow the dominant classes to foster all kinds of reactionary, chauvinist and
Fascist who aims to blame these immigrants by increasing unemployment and relegation of wages.
On the one hand, the maximum profit is crystallized as a form of distribution of the financial capital of financial capital; in
another, the overexploitation of the proletariat is characterized as a permanent form on the masses of
semicolonial countries, are they living in their home countries or working in the territories
imperialists.
The maximum profit is the economic law of monopolistic capital
The maximum imperialist profit is a particular form of the capitalist superlucur. As seen, in the superlucro
characteristic of the free competition stage, the capitalists who hold the best conditions of
Production earn this form of profit. When these conditions are not subject to monopolization, such as the
expansive force of heated water used in the steam machine, resuming the example of Marx, they are
Universalisable, they can be used by all competing capitalists; as soon as the condition of
Most advantageous production disappears, the superlucro ceases to exist. In the imperialist stage, the superlucro
It acquires particular traits that transforms it into the maximum profit. This is because the transformations in the sphere
productive determine that the gigantic concentration of capital implies that certain productive branches
They can only be exploited in a capitalist manner exclusively by capitals of very high magnitude. A
Exploration of these branches thus becomes a monopoly of these extremely concentrated capitals. Lenin, in
His study of imperialism points out how this phenomenon appears first in heavy industry; and Engels already
It had shown this particularity necessary for capitalism in the construction of railways, for example.
The monopolistic exploitation of capital was expanded in the whole branches of the economy
Qualitative modification in the mode of circulation, free competition has become the monopoly. O
superlucrum that was ephemeral among free-competitive capitalists in the same branch of production,
initially crystallizes, in certain productive branches, in these that can only be explored by


gigantic quantities of concentrated capital. In these branches the superlucur of financial capital is
transforms the maximum profit characteristic of imperialism. Lenin gives us two examples of the constitution of
monopolies in the industrial production of sugar and cement:
“(...) The sugar cartel set monopoly prices and received so much profit that it could pay a dividend
(...) almost 70% of the capital effectively contributed to the cartel! ”(Lenin) 301
AND:
“(...) where it is possible to seize all or the most important sources of raw materials, the
Cartels and the constitution of monopolies are particularly easy. But it would be a
error to think that monopolies also do not arise in other branches of production, in which the
Conquest of sources of raw materials is impossible. The cement industry finds raw materials
cousins everywhere. However, this industry is also very portalized in Germany. (...)
Govern monopoly prices: from 230 to 280 mark the wagon, when the production cost is 180
frames!" (Lenin) 302
The sugar cartel allowed a 70%profit rate after the cartel constitution; the cement industry
portalized, in turn, allows much higher monopoly prices than normally about
production costs. This stabilization of the superlucro, initially in certain productive branches and soon
Then, in all branches, it indicates its transformation into the maximum profit. How Engels makes clear
relationship between production mode and circulation with the distribution mode is not passive, as one determines the
Development of the other: “Distribution is not a simple passive result of production and exchange; with
The same intensity, it retroacts on both ”303, so it is necessary to see in detail the implications
of this modification in the economic base as a whole in the imperialist stage.
What is the result of the monopoly price of the cement cartel? Where sugar cartel can extract this
Superlucro? Marx demonstrates in detail in the book I of The Capital, that profit cannot be explained from
of the sphere of circulation. That is, the fact that a producer sells his goods for a price above his
Value, cannot socially explain profit. As he demonstrates, in capitalist production, the only source of
Profit is added value, it is the unpaid work, extracted from the worker through the hassle production relationship.
This does not change in the imperialist step. The question, however, is that the added value appropriate by a
Capitalist is not the added value produced immediately by the workers he explores. As seen above, the
Profit of a capitalist is mediated by the sharing of the entire social value produced; is more-
value is divided among the different branches of production, between the different forms of capital (industrial,
banking and commercial), among the different forms of profit (profit of entrepreneur, interest and land income),
according to the general profit rate in given society.
From the point of view of the relationship between value and price, the distribution of surplus value in the free stage
Competition occurs, according to Marx's formulations, as follows. Different capitalists,
that produce the same merchandise, that is, which are direct competitors, manufacture in different conditions
of production. The working time necessary for the production of the goods varies, therefore, as they are
these conditions, the capitalist who holds the best condition produces in a shorter time necessary, which
It has the worst condition consumes a longer time. The value of the goods, however, is not defined by the
unique conditions of production, but by socially necessary working time. The social value of
Industrial goods is determined by the average production conditions of competing capitalists.
In the next topic, we will see that the laws that determine the social value of agricultural goods and
extractivists are different from industrial goods, in agriculture is not the average condition that
determines social value, but the condition of the worst land, but this is a point that needs an analysis
part. Let us proceed in the analysis of the production price of industrial goods.
The social value is the productive basis that determines the price of the product in the market. Under the social value, the
laws governing the distribution of social value, in the case of the free competition stage operates the profit law
average. Then the production price of a commodity is equal to social value, or production costs, more
the average profit. The producer with lower production costs, as already rescheduled, will earn an excess profit,
which does not constitute the form of particular profit of the monopolistic stage of capital, imperialism.
What happens in imperialism, as indicated in Lenin's examples, is that initially in some branches
productive, the final capital imposes a monopoly price, that is, a price above the production price


thus ensuring a profit higher than the average profit. This surplus profit cannot emerge simplemete
From exchange, it therefore implies a modification in the distribution of surplus value. That is, the branches of
production that can impose on society a monopoly price appropriates a greater portion of the
Social value than the capitalists of the other branches. Thus, the monopolistic profit of a branch implies
a profit below the average profit in the other branches. Lenin reschedule this modification of the more
VALLEY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTIVE BRADS IN THE IMPERIALIST STEP when it says that:
"(...) The 'heavy industry' receives a tribute from all other industrial branches." (Lenin) 304
Before we analyze the sources that ensure the payment of this tax to the monopolized branches, it is
it is necessary
of the monopoly of financial capital in production, this condition determines the existence of different rates
of profit in the imperialist stage of capitalism. There is no maximum profit for all
capitals because the monopolistic profit of a productive branch will always be at the expense of decreasing the rate of
Non -monopolized branches profit. However, with the progressive sagging of the productive branches
by financial capital, one by one, they fall under their domain and become branches
monopolized. When this happens, imperialist superluchrs, or maximum profit, cease to exist?
No, “the maximum profit is the engine of monopolistic capitalism” and so in imperialism competition
far from disappearing becomes the disadvantaged rivalry of the imperialist powers and between
corporations from their respective countries in search of this monopolistic profit. The maximum profit, by its nature
Monopolist, is excluding and can only arise from the violent defeat of the competitor, “in the use of dynamite” 305
against this and the growing subjugation of colonial and semicolonal possessions. How the great
Lenin:
“Imperialism is monopolistic capitalism. Each cartel, each truste, each consortium, each bank
Gigantic is a monopoly. Superlukers did not disappear, but they go on. A
exploitation by a privileged, financially rich country, of all others follows and is even more
intense. A handful of rich countries - are in total four, if one takes into account a wealth
independent and truly gigansca, a 'modern' wealth: England, France, the States
United and Germany - has extended monopolies in unachaled proportions, obtain hundreds,
if not billions, of superlucros, 'lives exploring' to hundreds and hundreds of millions of men of
Other countries, among intestinal struggles for sharing a Botín, the most sumptuous, abundant, easy. In that
it consists in prceously the economic and political essence of imperialism, whose very deep
Kautsky contradictions hides instead of putting them to discovered. ”(Lenin) 306
Maximum profit, therefore, is only possible for a handful of countries that live exploring the billions of men
and women from all other countries. This is the engine of monopolistic capitalism, because the maximum profit,
as a result of the development of the added value law became the law that regulates the distribution in the
Imperialist stage. As stalin establishes:
“Is the law of value the basic economic law of capitalism? No . The law of value is mainly a
Commodity Production Law. (...) The law of value, of course, plays a big role in
Development of capitalist production. But not only does not determine the essence of production
capitalist and the principles of capitalist profit; It doesn't even have these problems. therefore, no
It may be the basic economic law of modern capitalism. ” (Stalin) 307
AND:
“The most appropriate for the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism is the law of
Valiated, the law of origin and growth of capitalist profit. It really determines the characteristics
basic capitalist production. But the added law is a very general law; Don't cover the problem
of the highest profit rate (...) the added value law must be realized and developed even more in the
adaptation to the conditions of monopolistic capitalism ”. (Stalin) 308
Maximum profit is the law that determines the monopoly price and the distribution of surplus value in imperialism.
Let us now analyze some of the sources that feed this imperialist profit.
Maximum profit as a social tax paid to financial capital


The expansion of monopoly to all productive branches of the world economy does not make the
Superluch. While the cartoons and trusts were exclusive to the branches of the heavy industry, it received a
Tribute of other productive branches. When the monopoly is generalized, this tribute is paid by the
Set of the Society:
“Financial capital, concentrated in very few hands and enjoying the effective monopoly, obtains
a huge profit that increases without ceasing with the constitution of companies, issuance of values,
state loans, etc., consolidating the domination of the financial oligarchy and imposing the whole
society a tribute for the benefit of monopolists. ” (Lenin) 309
The surplus profit of financial capital in relation to what would be the average profit of the free competition stage
It is composed of this tax imposed by the financial oligarchy to every company in its benefit. The source
main of this tribute is found in the colonies and semicolonies and, as already seen, it is one of the
Economic fundamentals of the fight for the world's mastery among the imperialist powers. Each one wants
Ensure the best production conditions of this maximum profit. For this reason, Lenin points out that:
“The struggle between the world imperialists is sharpened. Increases the tribute that financial capital
receives from colonial and overseas companies, particularly profitable. ” (Lenin) 310
All the militarization of imperialism, the whole tendency to violence, is based and justified by the race
unbridled by the maximum profit. Therefore, it is a total of contract the conclusion of the direction of the
UOC (mlm) that semicolonial bourgeoisie would increase a profit rate equal to the profit rate of
imperialist bourgeoisie. After all, as the comrade Stalin clarifies:
“It is precisely the need to ensure maximum profits that leads to monopolistic capitalism
to risky developments such as slavery and systematic looting of colonies and other countries
late, the conversion of a number of independent countries in dependent countries, the
organization of new wars - which for the tycoons of modern capitalism is the best business
adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit - and, finally, tries to conquer economic supremacy
worldwide. ” (Stalin) 311
It is the search for the maximum profit that explains the aggravation of national oppression in the imperialist stage, the
conversion of independent countries in dependent countries. And we have seen Lenin's explanation what are the
economic reasons that allow the capital exported from imperialist countries to earn superlukers in
semicolonial countries, after all in these: “The capital is scarce, the price of the earth is relatively small, the
low wages and cheap raw materials ”312. To understand the relationship between the low price of the earth and
Cheap raw materials, we need to treat before the Marxist theory of land income, so
We will analyze this aspect in the next session. We will deal with the other two elements here: scarce capital and
low salaries.
In discussing the transformations of the mode of dysruption in the imperialist stage, we have already addressed the issue of
overexploitation of the proletariat of the oppressed nations, whether they are working in their nations or how
immigrants in imperialist countries. It is necessary to highlight that the permanent overexploitation of the
Proletariat of the oppressed nations is the main source of the maximum profit of financial capital. That is, that
of this tax paid by the whole company to the financial oligarchy most is the proletariat of countries
oppressed. As Lenin points out in analyzing the phenomenon of the working aristocracy in imperialist countries:
“In the economic aspect, the difference is that a part of the working class of oppressive countries
receives the crumbs of the superluchrs that obtain the bourgeois of the oppressive nations through the
Redoced permanent exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations. Economic data
They prove, moreover, that the percentage of workers who become 'supervisors' in the oppressive nations
It is larger than in the oppressed nations, which is greater the percentage that is incorporated into the workers' aristocracy.
This is a fact. The workers of an oppressive nation are to some extent accomplices of their bourgeoisie,
in the looting of workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nation. ” (Lenin) 313
This passage from Lenin is very important because it highlights the character of the extra exploration
permanent on the workers of the oppressed nations; because it highlights that this overexploitation is the source of
Superluchrs, which shares the crumbs with the working aristocracy; because it emphasizes the exploration not only


workers but the masses of the population of the oppressed nations; and because it binds this overexploitation of the
Proletariat and national oppression of imperialism to the complicit opportunism of financial capital.
The other element highlighted by Lenin to obtain superlucers in the oppressed countries is the scarcity of
capital. That is, the financial capital, when exported, found in the colonial and semicolonial countries
Capitals of little magnitude, in a very initial process of accumulation. This limited accumulation of
local capitals impossible to competition with financial capital, after all the conditions of production
resulting from the unprecedented concentration of capital in advanced countries become exclusive monopoly
of financial capital. To the large capitals accumulated in the colonial and semicolonial countries, the capital
financially put two situations before them: to go the path of national development in a
unequal competition with them with all the consequences of a confrontation or to be aware of these
as minions to continue accumulating as complications of national subjugation and
overexploitation of its source proletariat. In the twentieth century, already in force of imperialism ended the
time of the world bourgeois democratic revolution and entry at the time of the world proletarian revolution,
rule, the great bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries was compelled to the second path, in rare exceptions
For the first and invariably faced imperialist military retaliation.
This company of subjugation of financial capital with the accumulated capital of the great bourgeoisie and the
landlord of colonies and semicolonies is one of the most important economic traits that transit the
Economic-social formations in the countries oppressed in the imperialist stage. This condition was called by
May President of Bureaucratic Capitalism, that is, a capitalism that did not go through a
revolutionary, democratic development, but developed linked to financial capital, combined with
imperialism and local landlord. This great bourgeoisie, bureaucratic and buyer, is a subordinate part,
but indispensable of financial capital. It is under its direct responsibility to impose the overexploitation of the
proletariat of the oppressed nations. The political conditions necessary to ensure this exploitation, in these
Oppressed countries are generally and almost invariably fascism. They are centralization political regimes
absolute state power in the executive, in which the reactionary armed forces exert the guardianship
permanent of civil shift governments or direct control via military regimes, in situations
ascending revolutionaries.
These are more or less common traits to semicolonial countries around the world. From the point of view of
profit earned by this bureaucratic and buying bourgeoisie, it is evident that it cannot be the same as the
financial capital; However, it cannot be too low, after all, the great semicolonial bourgeoisie
It fulfills indispensable functions to imperialism and is returned for it. It is therefore a large
monopolistic bourgeoisie, not in the world market, but in the national market and in some
cases, in a very limited way, in a regional market. Controls through the old state device all
foreign trade, monopolizing the import and export of goods in association with capital
financial. Controls the country's industry, through state or non-state captital, based on maintenance
landlord and monopolistic relationships of ownership, monopoly and concentration of the land, all tied
to international financial capital. For all this receives fractional values much lower than profit
imperialist of the financial oligarchy, gains that allow them to reproduce as a great bourgeoisie
Monopolist, bureaucratic and buying, dominant in the control of the state apparatus.
This great bureaucratic bourgeoisie buying the oppressed countries, so it does not earn maximum profit,
But together with financial capital restricts the profit of the national bourgeoisie (average bourgeoisie). And in doing so
It earns a monopolistic profit from this non-monopolistic bourgeoisie. The production of this average
bourgeoisie always occurs on a reduced scale and being unable to compete with local monopolies and
foreigners, in general, serves as auxiliary to the enterprises of the great bourgeoisie and in the supply
of goods and services secondary to the state. Its profit rate is incomparably lower than the
of financial capital and far below the great bureaucratic and buyer bourgeoisie. From the point of view
politician lacks the privileges obtained by the bureaucratic and comprodora bourgeoisie, either as the exemption of
Taxes, access to state credits and import quotas or policies that facilitate export. AND
a bourgeoisie that also oversees the proletariat of its country, but has no economic strength to
Age nor the average profit, in addition to competing in a fully monopolized domestic market.
An important part of the asset that extracts from its workers is drained by the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and
buyer and financial capital. It is a bourgeoisie restricted by financial capital and capitalism


bureaucratic, it does not even reach the average profit; the share of the added value that would fit him by the laws of free
Competition are drained by the monopoly to compose the maximum imperialist profit. The national bourgeoisie
(average bourgeoisie) earns a minimum profit and therefore has contradictions with bureaucratic capitalism and with
Imperialism. However, as its profit comes from the overexploitation of the proletariat - which fears. AND
economically dependent on imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism and landlord, so it is a
Economically and politically hesitable weak class; but that, for its contradictions with imperialism,
with the great local bourgeoisie and the landlord tends to support the national democratic struggle, whose program of
single revolutionary front must ensure their interests and can thus be neutralized and, in determined
conditions, and for a certain time to have an active partition of their sectors, especially when the war
Revolutionary obliges the imperialist invasion of the national territory.
Overexploitation of the proletariat of the oppressed nations and the restriction of the profit of national bourgeoisie
Two sources of the maximum profit of financial capital. The first is the main source; the second most important,
as we will see below is constituted by the election by Lenin as low prices of land and
Cheap cousins. As we have seen, it was the changes in the production sphere and the circulation mode in the
transit of the free competition stage for the monopolist who determined the modification of the mode of
distribution in the capitalist economy. The distribution of the new value created in the productive act has,
fundamentally, two different rates of added value: the workers of the oppressed nations and the
Working aristocracy in oppressive countries. The distribution of surplus value, in turn, is due to different
Profit rates: the maximum profit of financial capital, that is, imperialist, the monopolistic profit of the great
bureaucratic bourgeoisie and buyer of the oppressed countries and the minimum profit of the national bourgeoisie (average
bourgeoisie) of the colonies and semicolonies.
Finally, it is important to highlight that the existence of different profit rates, according to the magnitude of the
capital, it was already a reflection of Marx and Engels that appears even in the study of capitalism of the free stage
competition. This is what we can see in the following note of Engels:
“In Marx's personal use of personal use we found the following margin note:‘ to develop
Later: If the expansion is purely quantitative, profits in the same business
in relation to the large and small capitals, in accordance with the magnitudes of
advanced capital. If the quantitative expansion results in a qualitative change, the rate of
profit increases simultaneously to greater capital '. ” (Engels) 314
In the same way, the study of maximum profit conditions are already an old object of study of the economy
policy. In the economic and philosophical manuscripts, of 1844, for example, Marx cites the following passage of
Adam Smith:
“The highest rate to which the usual gains can be climbed is the one that, in most
goods, extracts all land income and reduces the salary of the goods produced to
lower price, merely subsistence of the worker during work. The worker has
whenever it is fed, in one way or another, while being used in a work
daily; Land income can be entirely suppressed. Example: in cane, the staff of
Indian Company of Commerce ... ”. (Adam Smith apud Marx) 315
That is, according to Smith the maximum profit rate can be obtained when the salary is reduced to the minimum, and
when land income is entirely suppressed. Presents us as an example of these conditions
Bengal, when he was still a colony of England. In this topic we study the relationship between the maximum profit
imperialist and the overexploitation of the oppressed nations proletariat. Next we will study the
mechanisms of suppression of land income in semicolonies as a fundamental part for conformation
maximum profit of financial capital.
2. Land income in semicolonial countries at the time of imperialism
To analyze the process of land income in semicolonial countries in the imperialist time, it is necessary
assimilate the Marxist theory of capitalist land income. Without mastering this theory well becomes
impossible to understand the phenomenon today, in these countries that are the vast majority in the world, well
as the development of this process in the stage of monopolistic capitalism. As Marx makes clear, the
formulation of its theory of land capitalist income, part of the specific case of England, because they were


English conditions that modern land ownership “had its proper development” 316. And in
England, the classic form of bourgeois land property developed, this allowed Marx to formulate
The most universal theory about this complex and crucial issue of political economy. Departing, therefore, of
Smith and Ricardo's formulations, but above all, Marx conceives his theory of land income
capitalist.
Mastering this theory is key to correctly applying it to different particular conditions of England.
Particular distinctions of time (we are in the monopolistic stage of capitalism) and place, in this case the
Latin America, whose Genesis of economic and social formations is very different from the English. Among these
particularities stand out: a more recent colonization, the vastness of the territory and the little
industrial capitalist development. Marx himself, in his formulations, toasts the proletariat of
semicolonial countries, germ analyzes of land income from the agro -export of America, so
as the particularities of the land income of peasants when linked to a capitalist market.
These are very important starting points for understanding current phenomena; however,
demand theoretical development by the international proletariat. After all, income theory
Marx's land was formulated at a stage of the capitalist process in which they still did not predominate
large monopolies in production, in which free competition conducts the circulation of capital and the average profit
It was the Law of the Office of Mais-Valia. These conditions, as Lenin and Stalin establish, change the
From the twentieth century, what are its impacts on the functioning of land income in the imperialist stage?
This is an issue that must be answered, theoretical and practically by MCI, because it is implied in it
understanding of the relations of particular exploitation of the imperialist stage, as well as part of the foundation
economic of national oppression and the overexploitation of the proletariat and the peasant
oppressed today. Our party, amid the present fight of two lines in MCI, hopes to contribute
with your resolution.

In its critical magazine to LCI and, in particular, to our party, UOC (MLM) addresses the issue
characterizing pejoratively as “supporters of semi -feudality theory” 317. Many epipytes many
sometimes make toxic the struggle of two lines, but we accept this characterization, with quotes, is
of course, because the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist characterization and that of UOC (MLM) can only be opposite, even though
we have no idea what our UOC critics (MLM) understand by “theory of
semi -feudality ”. As Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we are supporters of the theory of feudality and
semi -feudality, as are the heads of the international proletariat: Presidente Mao, President Gonzalo,
Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Charu Mazudar and José Maria Sison. We defend this conception because scientific and
true, in addition to decisive to make the revolution in the colonial and semicolonial countries.
After launching us this “epipyto”, the direction of UOC (MLM) argues that there would be a “coincidence of theory
semi -feudality with neoliberalism theorists regarding soil capitalist income ”318.
Comparing the theory of the May President of Semi -Feudality with “neoliberal” positions is at least one
Failure, don't understand well what one thing is and another. They claim, for example, that:
“One of the main errors of the supporters of semi -feudality theory is due to the confusion of the concept
absolute soil income. Fact, of course, coincident with theses of the theorists of neoliberalism. In
Such theorization, the lender farmer is considered indistinctly of the worker
wage earner, with the only difference that the first salary is not effective except in kind.
These gentlemen completely ignore the fact that the lessee owns their means of production,
Invert capital, control the work process and make production decisions. ” [UOC (MLM)] 319
They claim that, like neoliberal theorists, we do not understand the concept of absolute income; what
For us, the tenant peasant would be considered indistinctly as a wage worker; is that
We would ignore the fact that the peasant controls the work process. The theoretical confusion of UOC (MLM) is
complete, because the neoliberal theorists do not consider the peasant render as a wage earner, the
Yes, they consider it as a “partner” of the great owners who earn profit sharing. It is
It is the liberal and neoliberal conception of the partnership relations analyzed previously. In relation to
Two other points, Marx is extremely clear in his capitalist land income theory: the peasant
It earns absolute income, not even when you own your installment, much less when you are a lessee;
Moreover, it does not control the work process, but is controlled and oppressed by it.


The direction of UOC (MLM), yes, assumes a bourgeois liberal economic position when considering the
peasants as typical capitalist tenants:
“For them [semi -feudality theorists], this lessee is a non -free and indigent worker, and
Not a capitalist lessee who has means of production. Capital must be brought by
Latifundry and the partner only presents labor. This indigent partner only receives a salary
Dad and the landowner gets an income (as expressed Ricardo!). But if we fix well, the
that these theorists call 'salary' is actually the profit of the capitalist lessee. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 320
In this criticism, they deny only their theoretical indigence, as it does not understand the formulation of the
Semi -feudality, neither of “neoliberalism”, much less Ricardo's theory of land income. After all, for
Ricardo the lessee in no way receives a “dulling salary”, on the contrary, always receives the profit
average. The error in Ricardo's theory of income, revealed by Marx, is that he could not explain the income
land of the worst land, that is, absolute income, key theoretical question solved only by
Marxist political economy. In addition, in this position of reached January 2023, the UOC (MLM)
contradicts its own formulation presented in its program, published in 2015. As we saw in its
analysis of the development of capitalism in agriculture in semicolonial countries, UOC (MLM), there are few
years ago, he considered the partnership relationship as a covered, feudal -looking range,
but of salary in practice. Remember the direction of UOC (MLM) its old formulation:
“The partnership (…) became a type of capitalist exploration of the land. It is
Production salaried relationship remains disguised with the old cloak of the partner. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 321
Today, in his critique of our party, he reformulates his position to say that the partnership relationship in
agriculture of semicolonial countries is a relationship between a capitalist lessee and a owner of
lands. Above we demonstrate that the partnership relationship is not a pure salaried such as the direction of
UOC (MLM) previously defended, however, even less can be considered a profit relationship
Capitalist of the lender peasant. Treat the exploration relationship, covered in the partnership, as a profit
capitalist, this is the most shameful “neoliberal” conception, which seeks to transform all exploited
by capital in entrepreneurs, small business owners, etc. This is what is defended by treating the peasants
as capitalist tenants:
“The peasant lease produces surpluses in the leased farm with family labor and
hired. Part of this surplus transfers to the owner in the form of income, another part to
Settlement/creditor and the rest pockets as a profit. ” [UOC (MLM)] 322
For UOC (MLM) the relationship of the lender peasant with the landlord is the typically capitalist.
Therefore, this capitalist peasant hires workforce, pays the lease of the land to the landlord and
pockets the profit that fits you. Thus, the lease paid by the peasant to the landlord is an income
capitalist land, the yield earned by the peasant with the sale of his production is a profit
capitalist and the amount paid to the contracted labor is a capitalist wage. These
Conclusions are in full opposition to the foundations of Marxist political economy. One of the criticisms of
Marx to Ricardo is that this, like the bourgeois political economists in general, saw in
Capitalist relations of production “natural” relationships that have always existed and will always exist. So that
For Ricardo every land lease was a capitalist land income. It's UOC (mlm),
Therefore, that repeats Ricardo's mistakes. Marx states that:
“Ricardo, after supposing bourgeois production as necessary to determine income, applies it,
However, the land property of all the time and all countries. This is the error of all
Economists, who present bourgeois production relations as eternal categories. ” (Marx) 323
Marx demonstrates that taking the peasants by capitalist tenants is a huge theoretical error; and if this
It was already a mistake in the stage of free competition, in the monopolistic phase of capital is completely out of
reality. UOC (MLM) is advocating here is that a tenant peasant, after marketing its
goods, receives a capitalist profit. Neither does it seem absurd or strange that he uses labor
familiar (without salaried remuneration) for production. All of this is presented by UOC (MLM), pure and


simply as capitalist relations of production. Marx had already clarified this issue
Patent, when analyzing the lease paid by the peasants of Ireland:
“This is what happens for example in Ireland. The lessee there is as a rule a small peasant. What
it pays to the landowner for lease often absorbs not only part of the profit,
that is, from the surplus work itself that is entitled as the owner of the production instruments, but
also part of the normal salary that in other conditions would receive for the same amount of
work." (Marx) 324
That is, when the lessee is a peasant, the lease paid to the land owner absorbs not only
profit, but also part of the salary, that is, the peasant lesser receives less that he would receive for
Even work if it were a wage earner. It is in this ruined peasant, with a worse life condition than
that of agricultural wage earners, which UOC (MLM) wants to see a “capitalist rental”. Marx shows, to
contrary, that there is no capitalist land income in peasant leasing, that it exists only
formally:
“The landowner can also lease it to a worker who agrees to pay him in
Form of income the total or most of what it earns, above salary, with the lease price.
In all these cases but there is no income, although lease is paid. But where
There are the conditions corresponding to the capitalist mode of production, income and lease to pay
must coincide. ” (Marx) 325
As we will see ahead, capitalist land income only exists as surplus above the average profit
established in an economy. For Marx, if the lessee does not earn this average profit, and how
lease subtracts part of what would be your salary, or part of what your profit would be, this lease
It is not a capitalist land income. UOC (mlm) completely ignores this issue and even comes to
Synthesize a new category of political (non -Marxist) political economy: the “capitalist peasant landowner”:
“Thus, capitalist agriculture may be dominated by the capitalist Rentest
(CRLL for its) or the Capitalist Peasant Latiface (CFLL), depending on
production conditions. ”[UOC (MLM)] 326
To what point there is! How capitalist agriculture may be dominated by the “peasant landowner
capitalist"? Depending on the conditions, a landowner can become a capitalist at the same time; It is
that under more specific conditions a peasant can also become capitalist. But like a
Can a great owner be at the same time a small owner? Above we saw Marx's criticism
Proudhon, for the synthesis that he made two arbitrary concepts to build “new” categories
economic; UOC (MLM), following the "dialectical" steps of Proudhon and Pachanda, gets the feat of
integrate three in one, to synthesize the concept of “capitalist peasant landowner” and still toast
with your "acronym in English".
Even after they do this “dialectical” juggling, the direction of UOC (MLM) continues to insist that we
“Theorists of semi -feudality”, we do not understand “the concept of absolute income” 327. Let's see how, how
It is understood some key concepts of the Marxist theory of capitalist land income. For UOC (mlm)
capitalist differential income can be defined as follows:
“Differential income is born or the natural fertility of land and its favorable location (income
differential i) or successive inversions of capital in the same land (differential income II). ”
[UOC (MLM)] 328
Already the absolute income, it defines it:
“Absolute income is born from the monopoly of territorial property - it is the tax that pays society to
monopoly of private land property ”. [UOC (MLM)] 329
UOC (MLM) starts from the false assumption that the capitalist differential income “is born” of the difference of
fertility or work accumulation in the same land; In the same way it defines that absolute income
“Born” of the monopoly of land ownership. Thus, it confuses factors of land income with its Genesis.
Capitalist land income is born from the capitalist mode of production, which arises in manufactures and,


Subsequently, advance to the field. That is why Marx states that the factors fertility and location are
“Independent of Capital” 330.
The difference in soil economic fertility and its limitation are part of the objective base of land income
capitalist, but do not correspond to their particularity, as these factors also acted from different
forms in other modes of production. Since the most remote times of humanity, the most fertile lands
and better localized (close to rivers, for example), constituted determining economic factors of
production. What matters to know, for understanding the Marxist theory of land income, is like these
Factors act under the domain of capitalist production. That is, what constitutes the particularity of income
Earth capitalist.
By advancing in its explanation, UOC (MLM) states that:
“(...) Differential income is an extraordinary profit that does not emerge as a quality of the land itself,
if not the use of this by the capital; It is an income that comes from the exploitation of work
wage earner in agriculture. ” [UOC (MLM)] 331
In the above quote corrects the previous statement about the “birth” of income, but now, it misses that the
Income comes from the exploitation of wage labor in agriculture. Wage labor in agriculture, a
of the fundamentals of capitalist production, explains the extraction of surplus value in the field, but in no way
explains the capitalist land income. Because it does not consist of added value in general, but in a branch
This benefits the landowner; This is what the owner of the land extracts from the capitalist and not directly from the
agricultural worker, that is, is part of the (social) added value from the city and country workers
by the general bourgeoisie that the capitalist in agriculture pays income to the landlord and this consists of
particularity that needs to be explained. For Marx, the explanation of capitalist income cannot be
confuse with the explanation of surplus value in general:
“In the analysis of income, the whole difficulty was, therefore, to explain the surplus of profit
agricultural on average profit, not the added value but the specific supplemental value of this
production branch ”. (Marx) 332
The direction of UOC (MLM) is not unaware that capitalist land income consists of a profit surplus
agricultural about the average profit, it even states that:
“The capitalist relations of production that developed in Colombian agriculture, originate a
surplus of agricultural profit on average profit. This surplus is soil income. In appearance to
Income arises from the earth, as if it should be inherent in the earth. ”[UOC (MLM)] 333
CORRECT, capitalist land income consists of the surplus of agricultural profit over average profit, is what says
Marx. But UOC (MLM) states that in Colombian agriculture were capitalist production relations
that originated this surplus; It is assumed to be what you should demonstrate in your conclusion.
Need to answer the following economic questions: Colombian peasant production earns the profit
Capitalist medium? The lease paid by the Colombian peasants to the landowners is a value
surplus to this average profit? To answer these concrete questions, however, it is necessary to explain
theoretically what is the mechanism that gives rise to this surplus profit in agricultural production above the profit
and because this surplus is appropriate by the landowner and not by the capitalist who explores the
ground. However, UOC (mlm) cannot do so, as it starts from two important errors: first, consider
that income “is born” of the difference in fertility and land limitation, as stated above; second,
It considers that income comes directly and exclusively on the wage earnings of agricultural workers.
The complexity of the problem of capitalist land income is that it is the result of the mode of production,
circulation mode and capitalist distribution mode. So Marx could only approach it in the book III of The
Capital, because there studies the relationship between these two aspects of capital: production and circulation, as well as the
distribution of added value resulting from this contradiction. Thus, differential fertility and land limitation,
constitute particular factors of agricultural production, however, are insufficient to explain the income
capitalist. Because it is also formed by the general profit rate, or average profit (distribution of surplus value);
and by a particular law of the capitalist circulation of agricultural products: the market price of these
Goods is regulated by the production price of the worst terrain. Marxist theory of land income


Capitalist demands the understanding of three spheres of political economy: production, circulation and distribution.
In production, exploration relations, differential fertility and soil limitation; in circulation, the worst
land determining the market price; in distribution, the relationship between average profit and production
capitalist in agriculture.
2.1- The Marxist Theory of Capitalist Land Income
Marx points out that all land income, that is, all payment for the use of land or all
received exclusively for owner of a portion of the globe, all this income is a
part of the surplus work produced by society. In this sense, land income in the mode of production
Slave, feudal and capitalist constitute part of surplus work. The particular trait of land income
capitalist is that it is a part of this excess work above the average profit earned by the
bourgeoisie. Therefore, Marx states that “all land income is surplus, surplus work product. (...)
But in the capitalist mode of production, land income is always left above profit ”334. In capitalism,
surplus work is surplus value, so capitalist land income is a particular branch of
Social value that is appropriate by landowners. And landowners appropriate
of this part of the added value, solely and exclusively for being owned of land, inherited, inherited,
conquered or purchased, but not resulting from human labor as the other means of
Production (tools, machines, etc.). Marx highlights this power of landowners in
appropriate part of the social value:
“The peculiar characteristic is that, with the conditions under which agricultural products
develop as values (goods) and with the conditions under which these values are realized,
the power of the land owner develops to appropriate the growing portion of these
values created without its interference, and increasing portion of surplus value becomes income
Land. ” (Marx) 335
Marx also emphasizes that:
“Income then represents part of the value, more particularly of the surplus value of the goods, the
which instead of fit the capitalist class that took it from the workers, belongs to the owners who
extracted it from the capitalists. ” (Marx) 336
Synthetically, Marx demonstrates that in the capitalist mode of production all social value is extracted by
Capitalists (in agriculture and industry) through the exploitation of workers in the city and the countryside; The
capitalist land income is a part of this social value that landowners extract from
capitalists; Thus, in capitalism, land property has the power to appropriate a portion of the
surplus value that was created without interference from the landowner. It is this process of extraction of part of the
capitalists' added value by landowners, which Marx unravels in his magnificent theory of
Earth income.
One of the theoretical challenges for the formulation of the Marxist Earth Income Theory is to maintain consistency with the
Fundamental postulate of scientific political economy: the law of value. This law was initially formulated by
classical political economy, especially by Smith and Ricardo, establishes that only human labor is
capable of creating new values. However, as it would be possible to explain, from this postulate, the phenomenon
empirical that the market value of agricultural production besides ensuring profit to the capitalist
Could a salary to the agricultural worker also pay an income to the landowner? If
according to the law of value and the law of free competition, the profits of capitalists and the salary of workers
tend to converge to the same average, such as explaining this surplus value of Earth's goods without
Make collapse the main theoretical foundation of classical political economy? The question, therefore, was
formulated correctly by the bourgeois classics: it is necessary to explain the land income that is up to the
owner of the land without using the theoretical artifice, the false explanation, that agricultural goods would be
sold for a price above its value. Although it has correctly formulated the conditions of the problem,
bourgeois political economy could not resolve it, because for this it was necessary to unravel the issue of
Valia; And so, only with the added value theory, which was made by the proletariat,
Explain capitalist land income consistently with the law of value. This great task, as
We know, it was up to the giant of thought and action, the founder of communism, Karl Marx.


In bourgeois political economy, Ricardo is the one who advances the most in solving this theoretical problem. In your
formulation of value theory, all the additional value created in the production process are resulting only from
Two factors: capital and work. However, this new value created is divided into: profit, salary and income
landowner. Land income in Ricardo's theory already appears correctly, as a part of the value
distributed only in the distribution sphere; that is, for him, the landowner has no role in the
production process of additional value, although it fits a part of this in the distribution of new wealth
produced. As Ricardo explains, then, the existence of this land income, maintaining consistently the
foundation that the agricultural markets even being sold for a price equal to their value
This extra yield to soil owners?
For Ricardo, the social value of goods, whether industrial or agricultural, would always be established
for the worst conditions of production. That is, if through competition, it is necessary that manufacturers a,
B, C and D produce to meet the needs of the consumer market, the value of this merchandise will be
Always the necessary working time consumed in the worst production condition; That is, for the longest time.
With this postulate, Ricardo assumes that producers whose individual values are lower than the value
social profit will make a supplementary profit. In industry, competition between capital tends to suppress this profit
additional; In agriculture, this production optimization process also occurs, but as the land is the
main production factor, the fertility difference between soils, will always be a limit for
Conditions of production are equalized with the most fertile lands. That is, a lower fertility ground,
will always demand more capital or more work to achieve the same productivity as a
greater fertility.
However, as for Ricardo, it is always the worst production condition that determines the social value of
merchandise and, in the case of agriculture the worst land, the capitalist land income could be explained by
Relative difference of soil fertility. Thus, in its theory of income, the social value of agricultural goods
It is defined by working time consumed on the worst terrain. The capitalist who produces in this worst land,
like all others earns the same profit rate as their competitors. However, as your
competitors explore more fertile land, even employing equal amount of capital and labor they
will obtain a larger production of goods, for example twice the amount of wheat in relation to the
obtained by the capitalist on the worst terrain. All wheat, both the worst and the best, are sold
For the same market price, which for Ricardo always the price of the worst production conditions. Being
Thus the capitalist of the best terrain earns twice as much as its competitor of the worst land, because
It sells twice as much wheat. However, it does not pocket this excess value, because what would be the excess profit
of the best production conditions is extracted from it by the landowner, who pockets this value as
Land income for giving this land to the capitalist lessee. Thus, Ricardo manages to explain the
existence of the landowner's income, without contradicting the foundation of the law of value, as it appears
even when goods are sold for a price equal to their social value.
The most evident logical problem of Ricardo's theory is that it assumes that the owner of the worst
Land would not charge lease for the use of its soil. Because if the owner of the worst land charges
Income, your theory is dismantled. After all, as is the value of the goods produced in the worst land that regulates the
market price, if the owner of this land charges an income, the market price will be: value +
Lease of the worst land, and so the price would be higher than the value. If there was income on the worst land
Capitalist land income could not be explained from the law of value. The practical problem is that the owners
of worst land charge leases to produce in their properties, after all as Marx says: “The
circumstance that the tenant can value his capital with the current profit, if he does not pay income,
absolutely does not induce the landowner to rent it for free to the lessee ”337. Although, Ricardo
advance in the explanation, could not solve the issue, because circumvent, abstract the circumstance of the income of the worst
Land, does not solve the problem, on the contrary, makes it difficult to resolve.
The merit of Ricardo's income theory, according to Marx, is that it launches the foundations of differential income, but one of
its main limits is that it denies the possibility of absolute income, that is, the income earned by the worst
ground. Ricardo could not achieve the resolution of this question by the limits in his value theory; when
Marx solves these limits the issue of income of the worst terrain becomes easy to solve. Marx comments
results of the resolution of this problem put by the classical political economy in a letter to Engels, in
1862:


“The only thing I have to demonstrate is the possibility of absolute income, without
the law of value is violated. This is the central point around which the theoretical battle has been
physiocrats. Ricardo denies this possibility; I say it. I assert, at the same time, that its denial
supports a theoretically false dogma, extracted from A. Smith-this is the supposed identity
between cost prices and the values of goods. ” (Marx) 338
With the surplus theory, Marx manages to solve the theoretically false dogma contained in the formulation of
Smith and Ricardo on the Law of Value. After all, with its formulation of the more-value office, from the
Conformation of a general profit rate, Marx demonstrates how goods are generally sold
by market prices other than their intrinsic values. That is, unlike Smith
and Ricardo the goods of the same branch of production are not always sold for a price equal to its
value. Marx demonstrates that value and price identify, only when all branches are considered
productive of a society; Only under these circumstances does the price of goods correspond exactly
to the value of this totality. However, in each productive branch, taken separately there is no such
Absolute identity between price and value.
This development by Marx, from the law of value taken from the classical economy, resolved a series of
incongruities of the continuing Smith and Ricardo, among these, the issue of land income at the worst
ground. In the first three books of The Capital, Marx theoretically summarizes the historical process of
Transformation of the value of goods into production price and from this into market price. Demonstrate
as the value of constant capital is reproduced in the value of the goods; and how the new value
Produced, product of living human labor, decomposes only in salary (variable capital) and surplus value.
Show in turn how this added value “transfigures” in profit and, as in the perception of the
Capitalist, profit is a value that exceeds the cost price. Thus details that the cost price of a goods
is equal to the constant capital actually spent in its production (raw material + machine wear) +
Variable capital (salary). And that profit is everything that exceeds this cost price. In this way, a
capitalist can make a profit, even selling its merchandise below its value, thus performs only
part of the intrinsic asset in it, being the other part of the capitalists of the other branches of
production.
Understanding, therefore, the process of sharing of surplus value is a previous condition to assimilate the theory
Marxist of capitalist land income. In analyzing the capitalist production process, in book I, Marx
abstract the effects of circulation; In this way, it considers the profit of a commodity = the added value in it
contained. This demonstration is key to revealing how all capital is non-paid work. At the
However, when studying the overall process of capitalist production, that is, considering the relationship between production and
Circulation, Marx shows us how this identity between profit and added value is not immediate. That is, she
It follows existing, all of the profit is = the totality of the surplus value produced, however, this identity is
mediated by the general profit rate, which divides this all of the social value among capitalists, the
principle, according to the magnitude of each one's capital.
Marx argues that if it were not so, it would come to another kind of incompatibility between the theory
economic and reality. After all, if the surplus value produced were identical to the appropriate added value (profit),
we would have to conclude that the productive branches in which there is greater mechanization, more
Capital constant in relation to variable capital, profit would be lower. After all, in a productive branch whose
proportion between constant capital and variable capital were 90C + 10V, at a 100%added value, the
goods would be 110. If this goods, to be sold at a market price of 110, ie,
In an immediate coincidence between price and value, the profit of the capitalists of this branch would be 10%. In turn,
a capitalist whose organic composition of its capital was distributed in the proportion of 60c + 40V, to a
100%added value rate, the value of the goods would be 140. If the market price of this commodity
It was identical to its individual value, the earned profit would be 40%. Thus would come the absurd conclusion of
That profit is much larger in less mechanized branches than in the most modern industry. This would be
only one of the absurd results, incongruous with reality, of the errors contained in the law of value
as formulated by Smith and Ricardo.
Marx demonstrates, as already seen above, that the free competition between the capitals of the different branches of the
Economy, tends to conform a general profit rate in society. Thus, it is shown that profit is
regardless of the organic composition of capital. With the general profit rate, the already studied profit


medium, which is up to all capital in proportion to its magnitude. In this way, the general profit rate will
Social value proportionately in different productive branches. Thus, the goods produced
in a higher organic composition (in the example above 90C/10V) are sold for a production price that
It is superior to its intrinsic value. In turn, the goods produced in a lower organic composition
(Like 60C/40V) are sold for a lower production price than intrinsic value.
With this development of the law of value, the relationship between value and production price, between surplus value and
Average profit, Marx solves the foundations of the problem of formulating a theory of land income that
Do not contradict this fundamental law of scientific political economy. Thus can explain the income so much
Differential regarding the income of the worst land, or the absolute income. Marx shows that the
market price of an agricultural product, competing producers who produce in the best
conditions, that is, on the most fertile land, will get an individual price of production lower than the price of
Marketplace. This difference, this supplementary profit, which in industry would fit the capitalist, in agriculture
converts to land income; In the case in the differential income, which in general had already been explained by Ricardo.
As Marx demonstrates that the market price of agricultural goods is lower than its intrinsic value,
due to the organic composition below the social average, this market price may be just above the
Individual production price of the worst land, but still below its intrinsic value. So, by
more value assurance, Marx can explain the real existence of land income on the worst land without
counteract the law of value. Classical political economy could not resolve this issue, as it was tied to
dogma that the price of any and all commodities immediately corresponded to its value. Marx to
develop the law of value established by Smith and Ricardo, shows that the identity between price and value of
goods is not immediate, but, yes, mediated by the distribution of surplus value according to the composition
Capital Organic in the different branches of production. This is the fundamental theory base for the formulation of
Marxist theory of absolute income.
In accounting terms, only to exemplify the theory, taking the data above: in the industrial field
Capital is divided into 90C + 10V and in agriculture 60C + 40V. For the same rate of added value (m ') of 100%,
The added value (m) produced in the industry would be = 10 (m = v.m ’= 10 x 100% = 10), while the added value produced in
Agriculture would be = 40 (40 x 100% = 40). The value produced in the industry (c + v + m) would be = 90c + 10v + 10m =
110; The value produced in agriculture would be = 60c + 40c + 40m = 140. The total value produced would be = 10m
+ 40m = 50m. As the added value is not immediately realized by productive branches, but is shared between
these branches, all social value, in this example, 25m for industry and 25m for the
agriculture. Thus, all the capital of 100, regardless of its organic composition and the surplus value
immediately extracted by it, earns a profit of 25. The average profit rate in society would therefore be
25%.
The capitalist land income, however, constitutes the particular branch of surplus value. The Owners
Lands in the capitalist mode of production earn this part of the social value without participating in the process
productive neither with capital nor with work. Taking the example above, part of the 50m, is appropriate by the
landowners, for example, 10m, thus reducing the assault of the capitalists of the
Industry and agriculture at 40m, and the average profit rate from 25% to 20%. The particular condition that ensures
This power to landowners is that the main economic factors of the branches of agriculture and
Extractive industry are made up of monopoly natural forces. The exercise of this monopoly
propitious landowners the collection of an income for its use. The higher the income
lower land will be the average profit rate of a particular company.
In order to further understand this particular form of distribution of surplus value, let us now take the branch of
separate agriculture to understand the Marxist theory of differential income and absolute income.
Let us start with differential income. Suppose two competing capitalists, applying the same amount
capital in the same planting area with land of different qualities. Both develop 100 from
Capital, divided into 60c + 40V; the capitalist of the land A, produces with this capital of 100 an amount of
60 kg of wheat, while the capitalist of land B, with the same magnitude of capital produces 120 kg of wheat. O
Cost price of the two capitalists is the same = 100 (60 with consisting capital and 40 with salary); The difference is
that the capitalist on the best land produces 120 kg of wheat, while the capitalist of the worst land produces
only 60 kg. However, as seen, in capitalist agriculture is the production price of the worst land that


determines the market price. The production price of the worst land, according to the formula established by
Marx would be = cost price + average profit = (60c + 40v) + 25m = 125. Thus, all 60 kg wheat bag
regardless of whether it has been produced in the best or the worst land will be sold at 125.
worst terrain, selling its 60 kg bag of wheat to 125, earns the average profit from 25, and is satisfied with this
result because it ensures the average profit rate in a given society; Although I wouldn't be paying the
lease to the owner of the worst land, question will clarify later when dealing with income
Absolute.
In the Boundar B, of superior fertility, the economic results would be distinct. In this soil, the capitalist with
The same investment of capital and labor (60c + 40v) obtains120 kg of wheat. Its cost price for
each bag of wheat (60 kg) would be = 100: 2 = 50. However, as the market price is established by
Production price of the worst land he would sell each bag at 125 and would pocket 250 for the two bags sold.
With a capital invested 100, it would make a total profit of 150. What is the reason for this supplementary profit? No
was no new method of exploitation of agriculture or greater exploitation of its workers
(We are assuming the same value rate for both of you). The reason for this difference was that a greater
natural soil fertility allowed it, with the same spending of capital and labor, to produce twice as much
to the worst terrain.
However, this naturally high fertility is a natural force monopolized by the owner
the best land B, which charges a lease of the capitalist for the use of his land, for example, of
125. Thus, the total profit obtained by selling the two bags of wheat produced by capitalist B is
Discounted the land income paid to the owner of this land, ie 150 - 125 = 25. Assim, the capitalist
that produces on the ground B receives exactly the same profit as the capitalist who produces in the worst land, which is
The same profit made in the industry, according to our example.
The lease or this land income earned by the owner of the best land constitutes the income
differential. For Marx, therefore, differential income is equal to the difference between the production price
Individual and the market price that is the production price of the worst land.
But what about absolute income?
As we know, the owner of the worst land will also charge a price for the lease. Marx no
It circumvents this practical problem as Ricardo does in his theory. For Marx, according to the example above, the
lease of the worst land could reach the value of 15 and yet the law of
value. Let's see: being the production price of the worst land of (60c + 40v) + 25m, if the lease is 15
The market price will be = 125 + 15 = 140. In this case there would be the income of the worst land and the price of the product
Agricultural would not be above its intrinsic value (140). Marx can do so, prove the existence of income
Land of the worst terrain without violating the law of value. For the capitalist who produces on the worst ground
Pay the income in the amount of 15 to the owner of A, the market price has to rise from 125 to 140. This
raising the market price also favors the owner of land B, who starts to charge a
Lease of 125 + 15. Therefore, the land income of the worst land is an absolute income, as it is earned
by all landowners in capitalist agriculture, while differential income is relative, because
It varies according to the relative fertility of land. The owner of the worst land receives only the income
Absolute, the owners of the most fertile land receive differential income + absolute income.
From the point of view of the economy, agricultural goods then constitute an exception: they are the only
whose market price is higher than production price. This is a kind of monopoly of this
branches of the economy. But as Marx highlights this is not a “proper monopoly”, how would
If you sell inferior organic composition goods for a market price greater than its value.
Marx's land income theory can thus explain the income of all landowners,
More fertile land and worst land, without violating the law of value or the law of free competition.
For Marx, the fact that the goods produced in the branches of superior organic composition are sold by
a price greater than its intrinsic value, that is, because they appropriate part of the added value produced in the
Other branches does not constitute a contract. After all, as Marx demonstrates it, these branches demand greater
accumulation and capital concentration and, therefore, dominate the whole economy. Upon receiving their
Quinhão da Mais-Valia, through the general profit rate, therefore receive the part that fits them in the production


capitalist. However, it would be a deck if the capitalists of the branches of lower organic composition, in
general agriculture and extractive industry, they would sell their goods for a market price above
of its intrinsic value. If that happened, it would imply that agriculture would be dominating the industry, being
that in practice what happens is the opposite in capitalism.
As we have seen, the monopoly price itself is one of the characteristics of the imperialist step.
We have seen that Lenin points out precisely this in the example of portalized sugar production in the USA. In this
If the agricultural product is sold for a market price greater than its value; The difference between this price
market and this value is a form of particular income of imperialism, which is different from income
Absolute studied by Marx. In Lenin's example, it is not a bustling domain of the producers of the
sugar over the Yankee economy, but from the domain of financial capital over society that by imposing this
monopoly price itself, extracts from society part of the social tax that conforms to its profit
maximum.
In Marx's formulation, different issues are contained that need reflection for their assimilation and
correct application in the studies of concrete cases. Marx in its formulation of differential income and
absolute, although developing Ricardo in many respects, maintains his correct postulates about production
capitalist in agriculture, namely: 1) the same amount of capital and labor employed in soils
different from the same land area produce different results; 2) The capitalists who apply this capital
Require to reach the general profit rate of society; 3) The production price of the worst land is the price
Market regulator. That is, the differential income for Marx is not “born” as the direction of UOC (MLM) believes
only the fertility difference of the terrain; It also depends on the average profit reached by the tenants
on all land and to such that the market price is established for the production price of the worst
ground. Therefore, Marx says that the production price of the worst soil “is the basis of differential income” 339. For
to assimilate Marx's theory, therefore, it is necessary to understand the question of why the production price
of the worst land determines the market price in the pure form of capitalist RUDIARY income.
As seen, for Ricardo are always the worst production conditions that determine the social value of
Goods and, for him, there is an immediate identity between price and value of a particular product. Marx, already
in the book I of The Capital, demonstrates that the average conditions are responsible for establishing the time of
socially necessary work for the production of a commodity. For Marx, this law is valid for both
industrial production as for agricultural production, however in the latter there is a specific functioning
of this law, which constitutes a very important particular trait in the Marxist theory of income.
The same competition that exists in the industry, among manufacturers of the same product, exists in agriculture
capitalist. All capitalist wheat producers, for example, compete with each other and seek to reduce by
maximum cost prices of your product, reducing the value of the constant capital employed (seeds and
tractors, for example) is increasing the exploitation of their workers as much as possible. Some capitalist who
can reduce wheat production costs from a new planting method, for example,
You will get the individual value of your product to be lower than the average social value of all producers.
It will thus earn supplementary profit as it occurs in the industry. As already seen, the competition pushes all
capitalist producers to use the most rational production methods and increase exploration, that
leads to an equalization of socially necessary working time, individual values tend to
converge to the same value, the supplementary profit thus tends to disappear, and the goods to become
cheapest.
However, in agriculture and the extractive industry there is a particularity that prevents to some extent
This equalization of individual values and the tendency of supplementary profit suppression. Is that in agriculture
Earth is the main element of production and in the extractive industry the main reserve of use values. One
new method of production or a new form of intensification of work, can all be widespread and
be used by competing capitalists. However, a source of oil in the soil is not a
universalizable production condition. The private property of this source necessarily excludes other
competitors to explore it. Thus, the capitalist who explores this source will have much lower production costs
than the one who explores the worst ground, such as sources of oil embedded in underground rocks. It is
Differential soil fertility cannot be universalized, it constitutes a natural force
monopolizable and monopolized by a land owner. In the capitalist mode of production, as we have seen,


The monopolization of these natural forces enables landowners to extract part of the asset
that would fit the capitalists.
These two conditions: monopoly natural force and the need for average profit, determine that in
agriculture and the extractive industry, unlike the manufacturing industry, will be the production price of the
Worst ground that will determine the market price. Following the example seen above, from two capitalists who
produce in land A (worst fertility) and B (greater fertility); capitalist a, will only plant wheat in a
earn the average profit; The landowner of B, will only lease his land to pocket as income
Land, in the case of differential income, the supplementary profit that the natural forces of its land provides; O
soil owner A, in turn will be content with an absolute income, which should be a maximum of
difference between the production price of this worst land and the intrinsic value of this merchandise. These are the
basic conditions of capitalist production in agriculture: all owners require an income from
exploration of their lands, lace that vary with value according to the economic fertility of the land; It is
All tenants require average profit.
In this way, as Marx demonstrates, so that the worst land is explored it is necessary that the price
Wheat market, for example, rise to the point where the capitalist lesser who cultivates there
The average profit, and the owner of this land receives an income, however minimal. Therefore, under the conditions
pure capitalists, in agriculture and the extractive industry will always be the production price of the worst land
Market regulator. However, this regulation for the worst land does not only imply the appreciation
surplus of absolute income, it also implies an artificial appreciation of the most
fertile. This is what Marx calls "false social value." Let's see:
“Regarding the differential income, it should be noted that the market value is always above price
global production production produced. Take for example Table I. The global product of 10
Quarters is sold by 600 xelins, because the production price of A, 60 xelins per quarter,
determines the market price. But the real price of production is:
TERRENOSQUARTS PRODUCTION
by terrain as a realrerection of
Production by quarter
A1 = 60 1 = 60
B2 = 60 1 = 30
C3 = 60 1 = 20
D4 = 60 1 = 15
Total10 = 240Medy1 = 24
The actual price of 10 quarters production is 240 xelins; They are sold for 600, 250% more expensive. O
Real 1 quarter average price is 24 xelins; The market price of 60 xelins, also 250% more expensive. AND
determination by market value, as imposed on the capitalist production system through
of competition, which generates false social value. The phenomenon stems from the market of market value, to which
Soil products are subject. The determination of the market value of the products, including the
soil products therefore, it is a social act, although its social achievement is neither conscious nor
intentional and is necessarily based on the product value of the product, not on the ground and
the differences in your fertility. ” (Marx) 340
That is, production on the four land (A, B, C and D), cultivated by different capitalist tenants,
corresponds to a total of 10 wheat quarters. The production price of the worst land is 60 xelins each
quarter, being the cost price (constant capital + variable capital) = at 50 xelins and the average profit of 10
Xelins, corresponding to a general profit rate of 20%. If the market price is not 60 xelins the quarter,
the capitalist who produces in A, will not earn the average profit, much less it will be possible to pay the income of the worst
ground. So there will only be 10 quarters available on the market if the market price reaches this level. At the
However, the greater the difference in fertility between the more fertile ground and the worst regulatory terrain
Market, the higher the differential income earned by the most fertile land. This phenomenon, governed by the “law
market value ”which is subject to soil production implies that society has to pay a
much higher market price than the actual average production price of each wheat quarter. Under these conditions
the company pays 60 xelins for each quarter of wheat, while the real average of production prices of each
Quarter is only 24 xelins. This difference, as Marx indicates, from 600 to 240 xelins, by 10 quarters of


wheat, that is, this value of 360 Xelins is the surplus value that society pays to landowners in
differential income condition. This value, as Marx points out, is not “born” the difference in soil fertility,
but is based on the law that regulates the value of exchange of soil production; which determines that the worst land regulates the
market price.
This irrational market of market prices of soil production is a reflection of the irrationality of
Private soil property in capitalist mode of production. The property of a means of production that does not
It is the product of work, enables its owner to appropriate part of the social value without participating
in nothing of the production process. Private property of the earth and the need for average profit imply that the
society, as in the example above, pay more for each quarter of wheat and support the parasitic class
of the great landowners. As Marx analyzes this situation is not inherent in agricultural production, but
of its capitalist exploitation:
“If we imagine abolished the capitalist form of society, and society converted into association
conscious and planned, the 10 quarters would represent, of autonomous working time, the same
to the contained 240 Xelins. The company would not pay for this agricultural product 2.5 times the time of
work that is inserted in it; would disappear the basis of a class of landowners. (...) A
identity of the market price of goods of the same species is the way the character is imposed
value of value on the basis of capitalist production and, in general, in the production based on the exchange of
goods between individuals. What society, in the role of consumer, pays too much for products
agricultural, which for it represents negative amount in the realization of its working time in the
agricultural production, then constitutes the surplus of part of society: the owners of
lands. ” (Marx) 341
Large landowners and capitalist production lead to irrational phenomena in production
Agricultural, as the false social value. This situation, in turn, that to some extent contradicts fundamentals
basic of the capitalist mode of production, it is due in part to the fact highlighted by Marx about the content
history of land property:
“From the point of view of capitalist production, the property of capital is actually revealed the first because it is
the species of ownership on which the capitalist production is based on where it is a factor and exercises function, which
It is not valid for land property. This patents derived because in reality the modern
land property is the feudal transformed by the action of capital, therefore the form
Modern derivative, results from capitalist production. ” (Marx) 342
The nationalization of the earth, therefore, as Marx and Lenin clarifies, is an attempt by the bourgeoisie of
return against this feudal irrationality from which its modern form derives. As Marx points out:
“The right one is reduced to this: supposedly the capitalist mode of production, the capitalist is not just an employee
Unprensible of production, but the predominant employee. The owner of the land, on the other hand, is at all
superfluous in the capitalist mode of production. This mode of production only needs that the earth does not
common property, opposes the working class as a production condition that does not
belongs to this class, and this goal is completely achieved when the earth becomes the property of the
State, that is, the state perceives land income. The landowner, such an essential employee of the
Production in the ancient and medieval world, it is in the useless industrial age, excrescence. The radical bourgeois
(also coveting the suppression of all other taxes) advances in the theoretical plan to deny the
private property of the land, which would wish to make the common property of the bourgeois class, capital,
in the form of state ownership. In practice, however, the attack on a form of
property - a form of private property of working conditions - would be very dangerous for
the other way. In addition, the bourgeois himself became the owner of land. ” (Marx) 343
If the bourgeoisie is lacking the courage to deny the private property of the land in imperialist countries, this is not
It implies that it is prevented from denying it, for its benefit, in the semicolonial and colonial countries. In this way,
The imperialist bourgeoisie supplies land income in the oppressed countries, or appropriates it as they are
the conditions. After all it would be unthinkable that financial capital will be willing to pay this false social value to
large landowners of the semicolonial countries, or who was willing to pay the tax that
represents absolute income, as a market price above the production price of the worst land, to
landowners of the oppressed nations. In the same way it would be unthinkable to conclude that the great bourgeoisie of


semicolonial countries, was willing to pay the average profit and in addition to a supplementary profit to
peasants small owners.
It is of general knowledge that the reality of the exploitation of the mineral riches of the semicolonial countries, that the
export of agricultural goods of these nations and that peasant production does not generate the payment of a
supplementary profit to these nations or these peasant masses. This seems to contradict the Marxist theory of
Capitalist land income, but there is no such incongruity. Marx fully solved the problem of laws
of the capitalist income of the land; What happens, therefore, is not a violation of the law, but the explanation that the
manifestation of these laws in mineral and agricultural production and peasant production, is different from
Its pure or classic form of land income in England in the nineteenth century. Understand the
Capitalist land income theory is key to seeing how the domain of financial capital imposes forms
of non -capitalist income to the oppressed nations and the peasant masses of these countries. Understanding this theory is
basis for understanding international meaning in the imperialist phase of the evolution of the forms of relations
semi -feudal production. Without this understanding it is impossible to analyze precisely the relationship between
Fundamental contradictions in the world today, as well as identify which one is the main contradiction. And the
Marx himself the forerunner of what the direction of UOC (MLM) calls semi -feudality theory. Because it is the
founder of communism who offers us with the demonstration that peasant production and production
Semicolonial do not provide capitalist land income. A misunderstanding of the Marxist theory of
Land income can only lead to absurd conclusions such as that of the existence of a “landing peasant
capitalist ”, and never clarifying current phenomena and the functioning of land income in imperialism.
2.2- Marx's analysis of the land income of peasants in general and the large owners
semicolonial countries
Before we advance to the analysis of the operation of land income at the time of imperialism,
necessary to resume Marx's studies on the land income of the peasants and the large
Land production in semicolonial countries in the stage of free competition capitalism. Marx does not reach
formulate a complete theory on feudal, semi -feudal land income or the operation of this
Semicolonial production already submitted to the capitalist world market. However, it points out that these
modalities do not conform capitalist forms of land income and, in doing so, in a genial way
the theoretical fundamentals that allow us to further understand the development of
production in the field and the exploration relations of imperialism in relation to the oppressed nations.
Everyone who knows the living conditions of the peasant masses in the colonial countries and
semicolonials realize that the economic relationship of these masses with the capitalist market
those principles of capitalist land income established by Marx. Are components owners of
small or medium installments of land, whether “re -lender” peasants of the latifundes, would be
difficult to conclude that these “rural producers” receive the average profit, which would fit them as capitalists, or the
supplementary profit (differential income) as owners of more fertile land, or who could impose a
market price higher than their production price (absolute income) if they owned the worst
land. As already mentioned above, Marx shows that the poor peasants, even the owners of their
Lands, as a rule, do not receive the average profit, differential income or absolute income; in most
times the results of your production cover only the value corresponds to the salary they would receive for a
equal work and in many cases do not even earn this value.
We know that in general, the peasants who own land are on the worst land. If the laws of
Capitalist land income pure the peasant economy, what would be the result? The price
production (which includes the average profit) of the peasants would regulate the market price, in addition
It would be just above this amount to provide absolute income to these small owners.
Everyone who knows the history and field of semicolonial countries minimally know that this is not
situation that prevails. As a rule, the market price is always below the production price of
Peasants, that when they let them sell all their production they can barely cover the necessary costs. It is
Condition imposes exactly the ruined economy situation, in which peasant masses live. To the
forms of manipulation of this market price are several, either through the commercialization in which the
peasants find themselves forced to sell their production at very low prices because they are unable to
drain it, either by competition with the production of the large property which it can produce with
much lower costs. Any of these or other forms converges to the same result: the


Poor peasant does not receive the average profit, does not receive differential income or absolute income. In this way,
It is not difficult to realize that in semicolonial economies, it is not the production price of the worst terrain (in general
owned or leased by the poor peasants) that regulates the market price. There is a lack of a condition
indispensable for the existence of capitalist land income; the property of the peasant land, therefore,
implies production relations other than the capitalists. Lenin points out as follows the conclusion of
Marx that peasants do not earn absolute income:
“The existence of the small agrarian property or, rather said, of the small farm introduces,
naturally, certain changes in the general theses of theory on capitalist income, but not
Destroys this theory. Marx points out, for example, that absolute income as such
ordinary in the small cultivation, mainly intended to satisfy the need of
Farmer (...). But the more the mercantile economy develops, the more applicable all the
theses of economic theory equally to the peasant farm, since it placed itself within the
conditions of the capitalist world. ” (Lenin) 344
This passage is very important, because in it Lenin emphasizes precisely the changes in the general theses of
theory on land income that it is essential to be studied by communist parties, especially
semicolonial countries. Very important also the reschedule that for Marx there is no general income
absolute to the peasants. Regarding Lenin's statement about the validity of these laws in developing the
Mercantile economy, it is correct as a general trend of the free competition stage. But in the course of
capitalist development in the twentieth century, this trend changes, as we enter the time of capital
monopolist. In the imperialist stage, the peasant economy always subsists by capital
monopolist and, therefore, it is impossible for peasants to impose on the bourgeoisie, imperialism, the city
generally, a monopoly price about their production that would assure them at least the income
absolute of the worst terrain. To survive as peasants, this mass is forced to accept only one
income corresponding to the salary for equal work, sometimes a little more, most of the time a
Little less. About the peasant economy at the time of imperialism, President Mao highlights the following
question:
“To serve the needs of its aggression, imperialism ruined the Chinese peasantry,
exploring it through the exchange of unequal values; In this way, it created immense masses of
poor peasants, which totaled hundreds of millions and represented 80% of the rural population of the
country." (President Mao) 345
President Mao, emphasizing the “exchange of unequal values” imposed by imperialism to
Chinese peasantry, is highlighting just one of the most common forms of financial capital to
control market price at the time of imperialism. In this way, it imposes on the peasants a price of
monopoly itself (ie, in which the market price of industrialized goods beyond
On the way their value also passes the average profit that would be up to these goods). So, the
tools, machines, fertilizers, pesticides, etc., are sold to peasants at prices of
monopolies, raising the cost of production of the small property, preventing it from earning the average profit,
differential income or absolute income. As President Mao points out, at the time of imperialism
confirmed the trend of the free competition stage that the laws of capitalist land income would go
peasant economy as it became mercantile. The more mercantile the economy became
Peasant in the semicolonial countries, but it became ruined. The difficult thing is not to see this situation, the difficult,
theoretically speaking, it is to realize why the reproduction of this ruined economy becomes necessary to capital
Monopolist, question that we will seek to clarify the front.
Let's look at Marx's analysis of why peasant property, under normal circumstances,
does not earn absolute income in capitalism (in the stage of free competition):
“Precisely in this form of ownership it should generally admit that there is no absolute income,
that the worst land does not pay income, because absolute income assumes that, besides the production price,
perform an surplus of the value of the product, or that a monopoly price exceeds the value of the
product. But since agriculture is largely intended for immediate subsistence and land
It is indispensable field of work and capital activity, for the majority of the population, the price
Product Market Regulator will only reach the value of it under exceptional circumstances. ”
(Marx) 346


As we saw above, Marx, developing and rectifying the failures of Ricardo's income theory, demonstrates
that the existence of capitalist land income on the worst land may exist without violating the law of value. Because as the
agriculture is a branch of production in which an organic composition lower than the social average prevails, the price
Market of these goods is sold below their value, but with an average profit. Marx demonstrates
then, that absolute income represents, in its maximum, this difference between the market price and the value
Instructing of the goods. In the passage above, he is saying that the market price of production
Peasant can only reach the intrinsic value in exceptional circumstances; That is, the peasantry only earns
absolute income in situations of demand much higher than supply, for example, when scarcity
excessive of certain goods. Under normal circumstances, Marx says there is no income
absolute for the peasantry.
Marx demonstrated in his theory of land income that the worst land is only explored in a way
capitalist, if the production price of this regulates the market price. In this way, if there is search above the
wheat offer, for example, and all the best quality land are producing its maximum, a
capitalist will only expand production to the worst land if the market price rises enough for it
earn the average profit and, in addition, climb enough for him to pay the lease to the owner of the worst
ground. This requirement, Marx highlights it, does not exist for peasant production:
“The average profit of capital does not limit the exploration of the small property, while the peasant
He is a small capitalist; nor does it limited the need for an income, while it owns
from the earth. Although small capitalist, the only absolute limit for him is the salary that pays
Even after deducting the costs themselves. While the price of the product will cover it, it will cultivate the
Earth, and frequently submitting to reduced salary to the minimum vital. ” (Marx) 347
While the market price cover the salary that the peasant pays to himself, he will produce to
market. That is, unlike capitalist production, the peasant cultivates on the worst terrain even though
Do not earn profit, even if you do not receive income if you are the owner of this soil. This is important to fix the
Following Conclusion: Even in the free competition stage, the peasant cost price does not regulate the price
market; who regulates the market price, ultimately, are the worst land cultivated by
large -scale production. Therefore, when the peasantry competes with the products of large production it
is obliged to sell its goods for the market price established by it, that is, for a price of
market that makes it impossible to earn a satisfactory yield. As President Mao demonstrates, this
Market regulation is even more unthinkable in the imperialist step. Both absolute income and
possibility of imposing a monopoly price itself of agricultural goods (as in
Lenin's example about the price of sugar in the USA in the early twentieth century), are not possible, generally to
The peasant economy, as Marx points out, these:
“[Absolute income and monopoly price are two cases that] hardly occur in the economy
parcel and in the small land property, because precisely then the production, for the most part,
It satisfies its own consumption, effective without depending on the regulatory role of the general profit rate.
Even when the parcel exploration takes place on leased land, the lease money, well
More than in any other conditions, it covers part of the profit and even absorbs part of the salary;
The income there is only nominal, not constituting autonomous category in the face of salary and profit. ”
(Marx) 348
It seems quite clear to us that for Marx, the peasant performance obtained in the small agricultural exploration
constitutes capitalist land income. Let's see now how he analyzes the income of the great exploration
agricultural in semicolonies focused on exports in the world market:
“It is wrong to suppose that because they have colonies and young countries in general, the possibility of exporting wheat to
Cheaper prices, their land necessarily has greater fertility. The cereals there are sold
below the value, below the production price, that is, below the production price determined in the
Old countries by the average profit rate. ” (Marx) 349
Marx is saying that the price of wheat exported by the colonies is not low because they are their lands
fertile, but because they are sold below the production price determined by the average profit rate of
Metropolises. The economic meaning of this conclusion of Marx is this: if the low price of the colonies wheat
if it should be the largest soil fertility, this would mean that with the same amount of capital and labor,


In the same area of terrain, in the colonies would be obtained more wheat than in the metropolis; these
conditions, as already seen, would allow a supplementary profit to the colonial wheat in relation to the wheat
Metropolis, which could be converted into differential income from the earth; If under these conditions the colonial wheat were
sold for a lower price, would only stop making the differential income, but
also providing medium profit and absolute income. However, the situation is even more acute; Marx Show
that colonial wheat is not just receiving a hypothetical differential income, because as it is produced
on worse land and sells below the production price of the metropolis wheat, similar to
Peasant production Colonial production does not earn differential income, absolute income not even profit
medium in its entirety.
There is a coincidence with peasant land income, but in this there is also a huge
difference. Because, while peasant performance supplied at best what would be the salary by a
Even work, the yield of the agro -export landowner can be huge. The conditions that determine
This enormous yield is thus highlighted by Marx when analyzing colonial production:
“(…) All surplus production [of the colony] is configured in wheat. It is what distinguishes beforehand
colonial states based on the modern world market, of those who existed before, especially
those of antiquity. Receive from the world market finished products that in other circumstances they
they would have to produce: clothing, work instruments, etc. Only on this basis could the states of
South of the union make cotton its main product. The division of labor in the market
International allows them such a thing. If, therefore, despite the recent existence and the population
relatively scarce, they have very large surplus product, this occurrence is not due to the
fertility of the earth, nor the fertility of work, but to the unilateral form of this and by
Out of the surplus product in which it materializes. ” (Marx) 350
That is, colonization based on the capitalist world market, the international division of labor, allows
that all surplus production (for commercialization) is configured in wheat. The gigantic volume of this
surplus should neither fertility of the soil, nor the productivity of work, but to the unilaterality of the
production. Thus, this gigantic volume of wheat, Marx was analyzing in this case the production in the north of the
USA, can be sold below the production price of the metropolis and still receive a sumptuous profit. This is
a huge difference from peasant production that is permanently ruined by
large property. However, in both, peasant production in general and the great production for
Export, analyzed by Marx, receive neither the capitalist land income nor the typical average profit
of this mode of production.
This condition of colonial production and peasant production, that is, of not retaining all or even
any part of the supplementary profit that configures the capitalist land income, was already the object of struggle
important between the English industrial bourgeoisie and the land aristocracy. After all, as we have seen, the land income
Capitalist is a branch of social value that landowners extract from capitalists; It is
Of course the industry reacts against this extraction and seeks to reduce land rents to the fullest. In this
peasant and colonial production, especially the latter, fulfilled an important role in the course of the century
XIX. Because as Marx analyzes, when there is importation of colonial wheat, especially without taxes, as
This is sold for a price below the production price is the one who regulates the market price.
Thus, by falling the market price, the differential income of the best metropolitan lands is reduced.
By reducing this market price thanks to the importation of the colonial wheat that does not earn or income
capitalist or average profit, the value of the workforce is decreased, because as much of this is
consisting of food costs. The reduction of the value of the workforce is accompanied by
Reduction of proletariat's salary and consequently increased value rate. Thus, the wheat
colonial, still at the time of free competition it already corresponded to the important factor to increase the rate of
added value and the profit rate. As Marx points out:
“When the value of the workforce rises, as it rises the value of the necessary subsistence means to
reproduce it, or when it descends, by descending the value of these subsistence means (…) to the high
corresponds to the decrease of added value and, at low, increased added value (…). ” (Marx) 351
Engels, in an important added to the book III of The Capital, then explains to us as if the production
agricultural (large and small), contributes to counteract the growth tendency of land income in


virtue of the occupation of increasing quantities of land of the globe and investments
successive capital in the same portion of land (type II differential income):
“The more capital applies to the soil, the more they develop in a country the agriculture and
civilization in general, the more they go up the lace for Acre and the total revenues, the more
gigantic is the tribute that with the supplementary profit.
landowners, provided that all types of land have been cultivated
continue to compete. This law explains the astonishing vitality of the class of the great owners of
lands. (…) The same law, however, explains why this vitality of the great owners of
Lands run out gradually. When abolished in England, in 1846, customs rights
on cereals, the manufacturers thought that the territorial aristocracy, with this measure, would be reduced to
indigence. Instead they got even richer. And it's easy to explain that. (…) Having not been
the worst soils, at most, used in other purposes, on a basis only provisional in
Rule, the incomes rose in proportion to the addition of the capital employed, and the situation of the aristocracy
Territorial got even better.
But everything is fleeting. Transoceanic ships and northern and south American railways
They allowed strange regions to compete in the European wheat markets. There were the
American prairies, Argentine pampas, plains, by nature ready to be plowed, earth
virgin that provided abundant yields years even with a primitive method of culture
No fertilizers. There were also the lands of the Russian and Indian peasant communities, forced to
Sell increasing part of the respective product, in order to obtain money for the products that the
Cruel despotism of the state extorts them, often employing torture. The peasant
sold these products without considering the cost of production, for the price that offered him the
trader, as it had an absolute need for money to pay taxes on time. In
face of this competition, that of the virgin land of the plains or that of the Russian and Indian peasant
By taxes, they could not mediate, on the basis of the old incomes, the lease and the European peasants.
Part of the land in Europe was definitely expelled from competition for wheat plantation, the
Laces fell everywhere (…) and so extended from Scotland to Italy and southern France to Prussia
Oriental the agrarian calamity. ” (Engels) 352
In this passage, Engels makes a very important analysis of the economic role of agricultural production in
Colonies for industrial production and agriculture in nineteenth -century industrialized Europe. A
unilaterality of large colonial production, allows landlords to export their goods with
High yield but without earning capitalist land income. The poverty of the peasants in the colonies
It forces them to sell their goods for a market price that does not cover the costs of two production.
The end of the import taxes of agricultural goods, in 1846, in England, increased entry
of these agricultural products whose market price did not pay a high capitalist land income. O
immediate result of this measure was the reduction of capitalist land income of the English aristocracy, in the
that the market price of these products fell, and, in turn, provided a substantial elevation of the
valued extracted by English industrialists. Capitalist land income does not pay colonial producers
allowed the relegation of food market prices, so the salary reduction and the increase in
Valiated and capitalist profit. This exploration relationship of oppressed nations and peasants, already identified
By Marx and Engels, far from being eliminated worsened in the monopolistic phase of capitalism.
There is no doubt, therefore, that peasant and colonial production for export, that is, the monoculture for the
world market, so characteristic of Latin American economic and social formations, according to the analysis
Marx, they do not constitute forms of capitalist income. What kind of income are these? Marx's studies on
Genesis of capitalist land income help us clarify this very important question. In this session of
Book III of The Capital, Marx shows that land income, as well as capital, is a social relationship, which
every social relationship is based on a production relationship and that in the class society every relationship of
Production is a relationship of exploration, extraction of excess work. Marx concludes, therefore, that the
characterization of the type of land income earned is the key to the characterization of production relations
predominant. Shows, for example, that for an autonomous producer, who is possessing the means of
production and working conditions, giving part of the result of its production to an exploiting agent, this
assignment can only occur through “extraeconomic coercion”:
“According to the assumptions, the direct producer holds his own means of production, the conditions
work objectives required for the accomplishment of their work and the production of their means of
subsistence; It exerts agriculture autonomously, as well as the homemade rural industry


linked to her. (...) Under such conditions, the more work can only be extracted from them by the owner
nominal of the earth through extraeconomic coercion, whatever the way this is
Present. ” (Marx) 353
As Marx's analysis demonstrates, the semmicolonian agro -export landowners and the peasants
provide their goods without earning medium profit and capitalist land income, the former with large
yields the seconds in permanent ruin. These agricultural goods without capitalist land income,
in turn, they result in greater value production, at a higher profit rate for capitalists, in
measure that provide conditions to reduce workers' wages of these countries. The income
negative of this agricultural and peasant production is carried out as an asset to capitalists, mainly
For imperialist financial capital, according to its office. Even if they are legal owners and
fact of its lands, the agro -export landowner and the peasant do not perform economically,
Integral, their property, that is, cannot transform this property into the power to extract the added value
From the bourgeoisie, which characterizes the capitalist land income. After all, as Marx points out: “(...) to appropriate
of income is the economic form in which land property takes place ”354. However, who performs
Economically the property of the semicolonial landlord and the peasantry, in general, is the great bourgeoisie
industrial, ultimately and in greater proportion to imperialist financial capital, as it transforms this
Negative land income in increased added value.
Between the metropolis and the colony/semicolonia there is a relationship of domination for the first and dependence on
second, finally, of vassalage, which by different (economic, political and military) means
landowners to deliver their goods below the production price. The unilaterality of monoculture
for export, it makes these formations doubly dependent: they need the
metropolises to obtain manufactured goods, they need metropolises to flow their production,
They need metropolis by capital to invest. What happens at the local level with the peasants, repeats
worldwide with agro -exported semicolonial landlord. The city explores the field in general and
Industry Agriculture in particular, and the metropolis exploited the colonies/semicolonies. The great
landlords, therefore, are like vassals of the metropolitan bourgeoisie, aligned politics and ideological
with the ideas, customs and culture of the metropolis.
All these trends that are still present in the nineteenth century, develop fully in the stage
imperialist. Land income of agro -export landlord is therefore an evolved form of income
Feudal land that, even based on the exploitation of wage labor, does not provide an income
capitalist land. It is therefore a semi -feudal income. The land income of the peasant is also not
capitalist, even if he is the legal owner and in fact his land lot, it is not the one who performs
economically this property. Its ruined production makes capitalist profits grow, despite the low
productivity. The negative income contained in its merchandise is the tax that the peasant pays to society to
do not descend the condition of proletarian. Or as Marx teaches us:
“For the small peasant to cultivate its land or buy land to cultivate, it is not necessary, as in
normal conditions of capitalist production, that the market price is quite high to provide
the average profit, and this is even more valid for a supplement, in the form of income, above this profit
average. It is not necessary, therefore, that the market price reaches the value or production price of the
product. This is one of the reasons for the price of wheat in countries where
PARCELARY BE LOWER THAN IN CITY PRODUCTION COUNTRIES. Part of the surplus work
of the peasants dealing with the most unfavorable conditions is given for free to society (...). That
Lower price, therefore, results from the poverty of producers and not from work productivity. ”
(Marx) 355
The peasants are oppressed violently. The estate is content with large lace at the expense of the
damage to every nation; dependent on imperialism it becomes the most faithful ally of foreign domination
in colonies/semicolonies. We will now seek to demonstrate, theoretically, the mechanisms of suppression and
Appropriation of land income by imperialism in its search for maximum profit.
2.3- Suppression or appropriation of the land income of the oppressed nations and peasants by capital
monopolist for maximum profit conformation
In the topic studied earlier, the maximum profit as a particularity of monopolistic capitalism, we have seen
as if the permanent overexploitation of the oppressed nations proletariat and the restriction of the profit of the
national bourgeoisie, that is, the non -monopolistic bourgeoisie of colonial and semicolonial countries,
They constitute two sources for the conformation of the supervision of financial capital. We saw that the search for
maximum profit constitutes a particularity of the imperialist stage, resulting from qualitative changes in the
sphere of production and the mode of circulation of free competition capitalism. At the same time,
we seek to demonstrate how Marx already considered plausible to modify the Distribution Law
social value, that is, the law governing the conformation of a general profit rate that determines an average profit
to all capitalists according to the magnitude of their capital. As seen, Marx questioned how
would hold the profit rate against the very large concentration of capital compared to small and medium
capitalists. In his studies on land income, for example, Marx states that: “(...) small
Capitalists, as in part happens in England (….), are content to make profit below the profit
medium ”356.
In the imperialist stage this trend consolidates, which does not mean the suppression of the general profit rate,
only that there is a general profit rate of financial capital, which regulates the distribution of the maximum profit
Among the imperialist bourgeoisie in his running race for the dominance of the whole globe; another general rate of
profit, which regulates the distribution of monopolistic profit between the bureaucratic and buying bourgeoisie in countries
semicolonials; and, finally, a general profit rate, which regulates the distribution of the minimum profit between the
national bourgeoisie in a given country. All these settlements in the overexploitation of the proletariat and
benefited from the suppression of land income. In semicolonial countries, the suppression of land income
of the peasants directly benefits the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and, in part, the national bourgeoisie; and, for
imperialist bourgeoisie, the suppression of the land income of the peasants, the agro -export landowner and the
nations as a whole (in the exploration of sources of raw material and energy and captive market for
goods of their corpostations) is a huge source for conforming their maximum profit.
In this way, the study of the Marxist Earth Income Theory helps us to understand that the set of
Sources of the maximum imperialist profit are: 1) the permanent overexploitation of the nations proletariat
oppressed; 2) the suppression or appropriation of land income from sources of raw materials and energy in
colonial/semicolonial countries; 3) Limitation of land income of the semmicolonial agro -export lattation that,
Although of enormous figure, it is far below what it would represent if it was capitalist land income;
4) Suppression of land income of peasants; and 5) the restriction of the profit of national bourgeoisie, which
Reduced to a minimum profit help to conform the maximum profit of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Three of these sources
are directly related to land income: suppression of land income of peasants, limitation of
land income of the semicolonial landowner and suppression or appropriation of land income related to sources of
raw materials and energy of the oppressed nations. All these particular forms of land income were
studied by Marx, quickly reschedule some of his conclusions about these three sources and their
Importance for the global functioning of capitalist production. About the peasant production Marx concludes
what:
“The moral of history, which can be extracted from other observations on agriculture, is that the system
capitalist opposes a rational agriculture or that rational agriculture is incompatible with the
capitalist system (which in the meantime favors its technical development) and needs the action of the
small farmer who lives from his own work, or control of associated producers. ”
(Marx) 357
That is, insofar as the peasant economy sells its production for a value below the price of its
Cost, this contributes to the bourgeoisie to increase the added value, as it allows it to reduce salaries. No
because peasant production, parcel, is more productive than large production, but because it does not
Requiring medium profit or capitalist land income benefits the bourgeoisie by increasing the rate of added value
and the profit rate. In turn, the semicolonial landowner, upon the agricultural goods produced
Costs of the natural riches of the oppressed nations, helps the imperialist bourgeoisie in reducing income
land in its own country, and especially providing this increase in surplus value as
the concentration of the earth imposes the existence of a peasant economy permanently ruined in the
food production below its cost:
“(...) in a country like the United States [in the nineteenth century], (...) it is possible for a long time (...) that the
surplus value produced by the lessee above the average profit is not performed on the price of its


product, but has to share it with the capitalist brothers, such as the added value of all
goods, which when performed in the price, gives them an excess profit, raises the respective rate
of profit above general. In this case it would rise the general profit rate because wheat etc., like other
Manufactured goods, would be sold below the value. This sale below the value does not
would constitute exception, but rather would prevent wheat from constituting an exception in the face of other
goods of the same category. ” (Marx) 358
This situation, particular from the United States in the nineteenth century, whose production of wheat for the English market
Provided the increase in the general profit rate for the bourgeoisie of England, becomes the market rule
world food in the imperialist stage. The agricultural goods of the oppressed nations, as a rule, are
Sold below its value, below the production price of the worst land; although it increases huge profits and,
Therefore, they do not constitute a class oppressed by imperialism, pocket money the costs of dilapidation
of the natural riches of the semicolonial countries in consortium with the imperialist powers. Similar situation
with the raw materials, whose reduction in market price below the production price, will already be
highlighted as a decisive economic measure, by Marx, to increase the profit rate:
“This is the importance of the industrial countries of low prices (...) raw materials.
It is also inferred that foreign trade influences the profit rate, even though all its
Influence on wages, by cheaping the necessary subsistence means. (…) Economists
prisoners of the general principles, such as Ricardo, are unaware, on the other hand, the influence of the
world trade in profit rate. ” (Marx) 359
Marx, unlike Ricardo, shows the double importance of the world market in shaping the
profit, both in trade in raw materials at low prices, as it results in constant capital economy and,
Therefore, reduction of cost price and increased capitalist profit; and by reducing the means of
Subsistence, food, as they allow salary reduction and increased value rate. In this way,
It is clear that for imperialism the suppression of capitalist land income, which would fit the goods
agricultural and minerals produced in colonies/semicolonies, constitute an unprecedented source for
Obtaining maximum profit. The methods of suppression of land income by financial capital obey the
same logic employed in all economic relations of monopolies. That is, the monopolistic control of
production and circulation, allows financial capital to suppress the capitalist income of primary products from
colonies/semicolonies, be paying a modest compensation, royalties capable of bribery
numerous colonial/semicolonial landing class that, although relatively high values, are very
Below what would be the capitalist land income for these goods. Or financial capital resorts to
employment of dynamite, so used by Yankee imperialism, to loot the natural resources of nations
oppressed. As Lenin points out about this logic:
“The monopoly paves the way everywhere, using all means, from the payment of
an 'modest' compensation to the US resource of employment of dynamite against the
competitor." (Lenin) 360
The result of the use of these two methods by imperialism is always the same: the control of capital
financial about all the production of colonial/semicolonial countries. When this control is established, the
land income that had previously been suppressed becomes artificially high, establishing
Thus the particular form of the market price at the imperialist season: the monopoly price. This phenomenon was
Studied by Marx, but was an exception in the circulation mode of free competition. As demonstrated
Lenin, becomes the norm in the imperialist stage: “(...) where it is possible to seize all or the most
important sources of raw materials, the appearance of cartels and the constitution of monopolies are
particularly easy. (...) govern monopoly prices ”361.
The monopoly price itself, as we mentioned, is a phenomenon distinct from the price of
Monopoly of agricultural goods resulting from absolute income. This is an important economic issue,
to understand the particular characteristics of the imperialist monopoly. We saw that income theory
absolute formulated by Marx elucid
if the law of value is violated. In the case of agricultural goods there is a monopoly price not because they sell themselves
these goods above their value, but because it is the market price higher than the production price of the worst
ground. In this case, it is the absolute income that generates the monopoly price. In the case of the monopoly price
itself, the opposite is given, it is the monopoly that generates income:


“These are two things to distinguish: (1) or the income derives from the monopoly price because there
independent monopoly price of products or soil itself, or (2) the products are sold to
Monopoly price for existing income. (…) The monopoly price there generates income. On the other hand, income
generates the monopoly price when cereals are sold above the production price and still above the
value due to the land property prevents the application of capital in uncultivated lands, if it does not
pay you income. ” (Marx) 362
The maximum imperialist profit is precisely in this case: it is an income generated by the monopoly price
and not generated by the remuneration of the worst land. The maximum profit of imperialism is income generated by the price
monopoly; This monopoly price in turn is guaranteed by the monopolistic control of production and
violence in interimperialist competition and, especially, by the national subjugation of countries
oppressed. The typical monopoly price of imperialism and the income it provides, costing a
violation of the law of value? That is, it is possible to obtain a consistent income from the price of monopoly,
sale of goods for a price above their value? Yes, it is possible that this occurs, without violating the law
value; Let's see how Marx deals with the question:
“Finally, if the leveling of the average value in average profit finds, in the different branches of production,
obstacles in artificial or natural monopolies and especially in the earth's monopoly, so that
It is possible to make monopoly price above the production price and above the value of the goods
Object of the monopoly, the limits given by the value of the goods would not be eliminated. O
monopoly price of certain goods would only transfer part of the profit of others
goods producers. Would be indirectly and topical disturbed the office of the surplus value
Among the different branches of production, but would not change the limit of the surplus value. The goods
with monopoly price, if you enter the necessary consumption of the worker, will rise the salary and in
consequence will reduce surplus value if the worker continues to receive the value of his
work. May reduce the salary at the level of the workforce, but only if the salary
is above the minimum vital limit. In this case, the monopoly price would be paid upon reduction
of the real salary (the mass of value that the worker receives in exchange for a given mass of
work) and the profit of other capitalists. The limits within which the monopoly price
would impair the normal regulation of goods prices would be clearly defined and could
be exactly calculated. ” (Marx) 363
Marx provides us with a brilliant analysis of the global operation of the monopoly price, very important
for the deeper understanding of imperialism. The monopoly price, the sale of a goods
for price above its value, or its production price, does not allow greater creation of wealth, a
Additional production of added value. What the monopoly price allows is a greater concentration of wealth
for those capital that control the production of goods that can be sold at this price. A
realization of the monopoly price of a commodity occurs at the expense of the profit of other capitalists and the
greater exploitation of the proletariat. In the world market, therefore, it is not possible that all goods
are sold at monopoly price, but as this price ensures the income that conforms to the maximum profit, it is
easy to conclude that the goods produced by financial capital are those that can impose
Monopoly price as its market price. Constitutes a particular form of the interimperialist competition to
dispute for production and market conditions that ensure the monopoly price.
But how does land income be behaved in this assault of added value to the monopoly price?
We depart once again Marx's considerations on the question:
“Capital profit (businessman's profit + interest) and land income, therefore,
private components of the value of the value, categories that are distinguished according to this is intended for
Capital or land property, classification, however, that in no way alters its essence. The sum of these
components forms the whole more social value. ” (Marx) 364
All social value value can be divided into two parts: profit from capital and land income. More-
Valia can only be created in the production process, land income does not compose the value of goods, as
Suppose Smith's value theory, it is a portion of the added value extracted by landowners
capitalists after completing the production process. Land income does not create value, absorbs value. Only as
negative income, that is, as unchallenged land income, allows the creation of more
social value. Imperialism acts to suppress, nullify the land income of the oppressed nations and


peasants of these; On the other hand, it seeks to raise it artificially when it becomes monopolistic as us
Examples of Lenin from the sugar and cement cartel. What is always at stake is the total added value
produced by society that cannot be added by the price of monopoly, but can be redistributed from
different way, which implies the existence of different profit rates: monopolistic profit and non-
monopolist.
In his average profit analysis, Marx demonstrates that the added value produced directly in agriculture
Participates in the conformation of the general profit rate. This is because the added value produced in agriculture when serving
for the payment of absolute land income to the landowners, it does not conform to the social value to be
divided between the different branches of industry. As seen, Marx assumes that all the added value produced in the
agriculture is retained by landowners in the form of land income, not allowing the
surplus value produced in agriculture is divided to other capitals. In the imperialist phase of capitalism, this
principle discovered by Marx remains valid, because the added value produced in agriculture in fact follows without
compose the general profit rate. Financial capital from colonial/semicolonial domain
on the part of this added value that in free competition capitalism would be responsible for landowners. At the
However, financial capital appropriates part of this added value not for the benefit of the general profit rate,
but of the maximum imperialist profit.
In relation to monopolistic income, that is, that income generated by the monopoly price, as is the typical case of
Maximum imperialist profit, Marx analyzes it as follows:
“Even the monopoly income (...) will be certainly fraction of the surplus value of other goods, this
It is, of the goods that change for this commodity that has a monopoly price. The sum of profit
medium and land income cannot be greater than the magnitude that both are parts and that
It is preexed to this office. ” (Marx) 365
The sum of capital profit and land income conform to the totality of the social value produced by
society. Under the conditions of free competition capitalism, where the average profit law governs, income
Total land will be the result of the subtraction of total added value by the average global profit. At the time of
Imperialimo, the profit of financial capital needs to advance the land income of the oppressed nations to
become maximum profit. The imperialist bourgeoisie thus, in the lands of the semicolonies, its project of
suppression of private property of the earth. However, it suppresses private property over natural forces
Of the oppressed nations not to social progress, but for colonial enslavement of the maximum profit. When
controls the set of primary production in semicolonies, the imperialist bourgeoisie artificially increases the
Land income, which becomes monopolistic and not typically capitalist. Does it not for the benefit of the
where natural riches are extracted, but due to its gigantic capitalist accumulation.
In this way, financial capital seeks to artificially increase the land income of primary production
Under its control, in order not to reduce the profit of its own capital, but to reduce that of its competitors;
subtracting part of the previously appropriate added value. In this game of forces of financial capital, the
Rentist and parasitic content of imperialism that seeks to increase the price of primary products auvering
Monopolistic land income as a component of its maximum profit. Of course this finds a limit
in the capitalist production itself, because the dismissal increase in the price of raw materials and food
It implies reducing the rate of added value and profit rate by raising the value of the workforce.
But it is under these conditions that the phenomena of the competition of great capital occurs at the time of the
imperialism.
The phenomenon of the suppression of land income of semicolonial countries in the world market was quite
studied in the 1950s. The process characterized by President Mao as “exchange of values
unequal ”366, in the exploration relationship between imperialism and the Chinese peasantry, it was not a process
local, but of global coverage. Numerous statistical data raised at that time proved the
Imposition by financial capital of an international price monopolized of industrialized production. This one
monopolistic price, as we have seen, implied a greater capital profit that was offset by reducing the
Land income that would fit the primary products of the oppressed nations. This is the economic cause that
Explains the monopoly price of manufactured goods and the deficit in the prices of primary products.


After the 1970s, there is a reverse phenomenon, but in which the same essence is retained: there is a
significant increase in the price of primary products. This implied a greater realization of income
Land in these articles, particularly in oil. At first it causes a problem for imperialism, because
tends to decrease the profit of financial capital. But this is circumvented by imperialism as this
gradually assumes, through the intertwining of financial capital, economic, political and
military of these sources of raw material. The strengthening of the state of Israel, as a generation of imperialism
Yankee, in the Middle East, is part of this policy of control of the region's oil sources, as well as the
Usa's intertwining with the Saudi monarchy. This condition only reinforces the importance of the advancement of
Palestinian National Resistance Heroic for the world proletarian revolution.
In this way, Yankee imperialism with its capitals exported to oil producing countries
Infringes additional profit when the price of oil is high; On the other hand, it loses profit insofar as
The oil monopoly price implies a reduction in capital profit. Today, Yankee imperialism is a
large oil producer, but oil extraction in Yankee territory occurs in drilling rocks from
Betuminous shale. This is the worst terrain of oil production, as it is of the lowest economic fertility. For
that the producers Ianques earns profit it is necessary that the market price goes up until they get income
Absolute, in addition to a sumptuous profit. Therefore it matters to Yankee imperialism that oil is above
From the $ 50 the barrel. However, as an industrialized economy, whose capitals control large sectors
of industrial production, it does not matter that the price rises far above this level, on the contrary,
Atomic superpower Russia, whose industrialization is lower and the most fertile oil sources come out
benefited from the artificial increase in the price of oil. Yankee imperialism, as it is the worst ground,
It is essential to remove more fertile sources from the competition controlled by capitals of diverse powers. Per
means of the war and the policy of embargo, restricts as much as possible, participation in the world market for
Iran and Venezuela raw oil, for example. This military control, economically artificial, is inaccurate
For Yankee imperialism to conform the maximum profit of their corporations. As the background of this question is the
particular behavior of land income at the time of imperialism.
The same question can be said in relation to soy. USA and Brazil are today the two largest producers worldwide
soy, whose production is built by China. Although, there is a lot of Yankee capital
exported to this production in our country, Brazilian sobroads also appear as competitors of the
Yankee soy. Of course it is a completely disproportionate competition, because most of the soy
Produced in Brazil depends on seeds, pesticides and machinery produced in USA; so that the
Growth of soy production here directly benefits the economy of imperialist superpower. At the
However, as the soy production in Brazil grows, there is a tendency to reduce the price of
market, a situation that would directly benefit Chinese imperialism, but which would harm the
Financial capital applied to Yankee soy. With the process of war in Ukraine, the invasion of superpower
atomic Russia, from the Ukrainian territory, the production price of agricultural inputs increased, increasing the
Soy cost price produced in both USA and Brazil. Here, the impact was distinct, because the
expansion of soy planting to the Amazon region allowed a relative advantage over the
Competition of Yankee soy. With new land of the overthrown forest, fewer inputs were consumed to
produce a larger amount of soy per hectare. By this trend, the state of Mato Grosso quickly,
In its Amazonian area, it became the largest soy producer in the country, surpassing the state of Paraná. That
High fertility allowed a greater advance of Brazilian soybeans in compraction with the Yankee. One of the forms
of the imperialism of the USA to limit this competition is the intensification of its environmental policy,
monitoring of the overthrow of the Amazon rainforest and the cerrado, aiming at not the conservation of the natural environment and
of our national wealth, but to ensure that the best land is expelled from the market,
thus ensuring the maximum profit for its financial capital invested in the production of Yankee soy.
Artificial lifting phenomena of land income can also be observed in Europe. The deal
European agricultural (AOA), for example, establishes the number of hectares that should be
Produced in each country, as well as what will be produced. Lands forced to leave the competition receive
A land income paid by the European Union are paid for nothing to produce. This artificial form of
Limiting competition aims to ensure a higher market price for French wine, for example. This is,
Therefore, an imperialist policy of manipulating land income to earn maximum profit. It is aimed at
Also, in this case, social control. Therefore, the taxation imposed by the European Union, to the milk of Uruguay, for
example, it aims to artificially conserve the land income of small milk producers on the continent
European. What European society pays to the most for its food, ensures this artificial form of


Small production yield. This is a way of European imperialism, keeping under its control and
corporately the continent's peasantry, which in the 1990s gave important demonstrations of
Fighting and organization capacity. This phenomenon was studied by Lenin and is analogous to that of the aristocracy
Worker:
“In addition, a characteristic trait of Danish imperialism is to obtain superlukers, thanks to
its advantageous monopolistic situation in the dairy and meat market market: by the more
Cheap, provides Londes, the largest market in the world. Despite this, the Danish bourgeoisie and the
Dane rich peasants (bourgeois of pure strain, despite the fables of Russian populists)
converted to 'prosperous' parasites of the English imperialist bourgeoisie, and share their
particularly safe and particularly abundant profits. ” (Lenin) 367
This phenomenon of a peasant aristocracy in imperialist countries is another byproduct of this stage
particular of capitalism. It is important to be studied, because its existence today shows that despite
partially paralyzed, this class, as the crisis of imperialism deepens, may constitute
important strength alongside the proletariat in socialist revolutions in imperialist countries. Just like the
working aristocracy cannot be maintained for long, the same will occur with this aristocracy
Peasant.
The study of imperialism and Marxist theory of land income, allow us to understand in a
deeper the current phenomena and the perspectives of the world proletarian revolution. The domain of this
Marxist Arsenal of Political Economy, it is key to understanding the relationship between contradictions
fundamental in the world today and because the contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism is the
main contradiction of the time.
3- The main contradiction of the monopolistic stage of the capitalist process
The struggle of two lines that traveled MCI in 2022, driven by the publication of the base of
Discussion, proposed by the parties and organizations that made up the then CCIMU, focused on
special way in the issue of fundamental contradictions in the world and which of which today constitutes the
main contradiction. Rightly the struggle should focus on this point, because its correct delimitation is
It is essential for the establishment of a political line common to MCI, which allows its unification.
On this issue also gave important fights of two lines during CIMU itself and how
result of this struggle, the political and principles of LCI's principles established that:
“The process of capitalist society as a whole has as its fundamental contradiction to
contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but when it goes from non -monopolistic capitalism to
monopolistic capitalism, or imperialism, develop in the world three contradictions
Fundamental:
First contradiction: between oppressed nations, on the one hand, and superpowers and imperialist powers,
for another. This is the main contradiction at the present time and, at the same time, the contradiction
main of the time of imperialism.
Second contradiction: between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Third contradiction: interimperialist. ” (LCI) 368
This definition is an important political leap in the MCI line, as it develops the established by the
PCCH in the 1963 Chinese Letter, as well as rectifies important errors and deviations in the MRI statement
1984, already pointed out by the PCP in the 1980s. Continuing the debate and the fight around this issue is
Important to raise MCI's understanding of the foundations of its general political line. Our
Party estimates that the debate in 2022 was fruitful, as it served to clarify many issues. As part of
struggle of two lines that follows in MCI, after the founding of the LCI, we also manifest publicly
on this issue, taking it in two aspects, one first: philosophical and a second: economic and
political. Before analyzing this key issue of MCI from these two aspects we will make a brief
retrospective of the development of formulations on this theme in the course of the development of ideology


of the international proletariat. Thus we aim to counter the terminological tergiversactions made by UOC (MLM)
in debates last year.
In studying, the economic essence of capitalist society, Marx masterfully established the
Economic fundamentals of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. In anti-dühring, Engels finished
This formulation, presenting it in its most developed form. In utopian socialism to socialism
scientific, the formulation becomes even more accurate, as Engels already incorporates in this the emerging elements
of monopolistic capital in the analysis of Genesis, development and resolution of the contradiction. Highlighted
following the transformation of free competition into monopoly:
“When reaching a certain phase of development, it is no longer enough for this form; the great
national producers of an industrial branch are unite to form a truste, a consortium
intended to regulate production; determine the total amount that must be produced, divide
Among them and thus impose a sales price in advance fixed. (…) In the trustes, the free
Competition becomes a monopoly and the production without a plan of capitalist society
Capitula before the planned and organized production of the nascent socialist society. Of course,
At the moment, for the benefit and benefit of the capitalists. ” (Engels) 369
And summarizes as follows the fundamental contradiction and its manifestations:
“Production becomes a social act; the exchange and, with it, the appropriation remains acts
Individuals: The social product is appropriate by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction,
which derive all the contradictions in which today's society moves and that the large industry
clearly highlights:
A) (…) bourgeois and proletariat antithesis.
B) (…) contradiction between the social organization within each factory and the social anarchy of the
Total production.
C) (…) UNLECTED DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTIVE FORCES, OVER OFFER ON THE DESCRIPTION,
Overproduction, cracking of markets, crisis every ten years, vicious circle: overproduction
(…) Contradiction is sharpened until it becomes a contradiction: the mode of production revolts
against the form of exchange. The bourgeoisie proves to be unable to continue to direct its own forces
productive social. (…)
D) partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces, pulling their own
capitalists. Appropriation of large production and transportation organisms, first by
corporations, then by the Trustes, and later by the state. ” (Engels) 370
Developing the formulated in anti-dühring, Engels then demonstrates that the constitution of monopolies
private and state in capitalism corresponds to the compulsory partial recognition of the social character of
productive forces, but not the resolution of this contradiction. When President Mao, in about the
Contradiction, summarizes the Marxist findings in the social sciences, part precisely of this formulation of
Engels, and establishes the question as follows:
“When Marx applied this law [that of contradiction] to the study of the economic structure of society
capitalist, he found that the fundamental contradiction of this society was the contradiction between the
social character of production and the private character of property. Such contradiction is manifested by
contradiction between the organized character of production in isolated companies and the
organized from production at the scale of the whole society. And, in class relations, manifests itself in
contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat ”. (President Mao) 371
That is, the economic foundation of the social contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie is the contradiction between the
social production and capitalist private appropriation. In turn, as the economic base is not restricted to
sphere of production, the fundamental contradiction manifests itself as a reflection of the sphere of circulation, that is, the
free competition on production, such as the contradiction between the organized character of production in the
individual companies and the anarchic character of social production. Improving the formulation of Engels, the
President Mao presents the same fundamental contradiction, in his different manifestations: politics and


economic (production and circulation). Both are dealing with the same question, so much so that Engels summarizes
following the proletarian revolution:
Proletarian revolution, solution of contradictions: the proletariat takes the political power and, through
It converts to public property the social means of production (…). From now on it is already
possible social production according to a previously elaborated plan. The development of
Production transforms a class survival into anachronism. As the
Anarchy of social production, the political authority of the state is also diluting. Men,
owners, at the end of their own social existence, become lords of nature, masters of themselves
same, free men. ” (Engels) 372
The resolution of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie, in its political aspect, begins with the
of power by the proletariat and, in the economic aspect, socialization of the means of production and planning of
production, now totally socialized. This set of measures transforms the classes into anachronism
social and the state is extinguished, losing part by its duties until its complete extinction
With the disappearance of the traces of the classes, culminating the proletarian revolution with communism. O
President Mao Enhances and simplifies the formulation of Engels, showing the same social contradiction in
Its different manifestations, economic and political. The content of the formulation, however, is the same.
Regarding Stalin's formulation of the most important contradictions, in the imperialist stage, something occurs
like. Stalin, also starting from the same formulation as Engels, analyzes the
most important contradictions in the imperialist time:
“Lenin called the imperialism of 'agonizing capitalism'. Why? Because imperialism leads to
contradictions of capitalism to its maximum limit, to its extreme degree, beyond which
revolution. Among these contradictions there are three that should be considered as the most
Important:
The first contradiction is that existing between work and capital.
(…)
The second contradiction is that existing between the different financial groups and the different powers
Imperialists in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for the territories of others.
(…)
The third contradiction is that existing between a handful of "civilized" nations and hundreds
millions of men from colonies and dependent countries.
(…)
Such are, in general, the main contradictions of imperialism, which converted the old
'Flowering' capitalism in agonizing capitalism. ” (Stalin) 373
President Mao, when referring precisely to this passage states that:
“Stalin, in explaining the historical roots of Leninism in its famous work the foundations of
Leninism, analyzed the different contradictions of capitalism, reached its extreme degree under the
conditions of imperialism and showed how they made the proletarian revolution a practical issue
immediate and created the favorable conditions for the direct assault on capitalism. ” (President Mao) 374
President Mao could not repeat the same term used by Stalin, main contradictions of the
imperialism, precisely because in contradiction was formulating for the first in the history of
Marxism that in every complex process, in which there are many contradictions, in a certain phase
There will always be only one main contradiction. Stalin is not dealing, on the grounds of Leninism,
of this philosophical issue, so it uses as synonyms most important contradictions and contradictions
main. Then the qualitative leap in the Marxist philosophy established by President Mao,
Of course, these terms can no longer be used as synonyms. Regarding the content
political and social, there is no difference between the formulation of Stalin and President Mao on this issue, in the
However, there is an important improvement in the formulation of the contradictions of the imperialist time,
improvement this corresponding to the development in philosophy achieved in the third stage of the
Marxism. That is, when dealing with a phenomenon, by identifying its contradictions it is necessary to establish
what are the fundamental contradictions and, of these, which is the main in each stage of the process of
transformation of that phenomenon.


Therefore, in the Chinese letter, the CCP thus presents the contradictions of the imperialist time:
“The starting point to define the general line of the international communist movement, is an analysis
concrete classes, economy and politics worldwide and the concrete conditions of the
World, this is the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world.
(…)
What are the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world? Marxist-Leninists support
invariably that they are:
- The contradiction between the socialist field and the imperialist field;
- the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries;
- contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism;
- The contradiction between imperialist countries and between monopolistic groups. ” (CPCH) 375
President Mao, when referring to the development of the Chinese Revolution, also uses the
fundamental contradictions for process characterization:
“The contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation and the contradiction between feudalism and the great
Popular masses constitute the fundamental contradictions of modern Chinese society. (…) But
The contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation is the main contradiction. ” (President Mao) 376
This improvement of the nomenclature of the concepts, made by President Mao, both in relation to Engels
Like Stalin, they correspond to the philosophical development of the Maoist Step. It makes no sense, therefore,
continuing using terms that were not wrong when used, they became outdated with the
Development of ideology. We must unify, therefore, the concepts and, instead of more contradictions
important, we adopt fundamental contradictions and we will highlight within them what is the contradiction
main. Waste a lot of time on this issue, as UOC's direction (MLM) does, is to reduce the philosophical debate
to a matter of semantics that shuffles the issue to confuse - especially themselves.
Seeking to respond to the PCC-FR, they criticize it for “abandoning the idea of the most
important to welcome the fundamental contradictions ”. And UOC (mlm) even find this
“Error” in the CCCH document:
“Returning to the problem of fundamental contradiction, no doubt the '25 points' or‘ Letter
1963 Chinese ’incurs inaccuracy by planting four fundamental contradictions.”
[UOC (MLM)] 377
The direction of UOC (MLM) says that we who conform to LCI we sink “the general line of 1963 as
if it were the tablets of Moses. ” What we do is take it as the most advanced formulation of the general
MCI, during President Mao, and we seek to apply it to the new conditions. At the same time,
We identify limits in this very important document, such as the lack of specification of which
It was the main contradiction in the world. Similarly, we recognize the positive aspect that represented the
1984 MRI conference, but mainly we criticize ideological and political errors in its
Declaration, expression of the rotten Avakianist theses, so applauded by UOC (MLM). In this statement, the
issue of fundamental contradiction appears formulated as follows:
“All the most important contradictions of the world imperialist system are accentuating
Quickly: the contradiction between the distinct imperialist powers; the contradiction between the
imperialism and the oppressed peoples and nations of the world and the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat in imperialist countries. All these contradictions have a common origin: the mode of
capitalist production and its fundamental contradiction. The rivalry between the two imperialist blocks,
headed by the US and the USSR, respectively, will inevitably lead to war, the less
that the revolution prevents it, and this rivalry is already having a great influence on
world events. ” (MRI) 378
The great mistake implicit in this formulation is that it is contained in it one of the dogmas of Avakianism: the
Interimperialist contradiction is the engine of history. For this reason, it appears listed as the first contradiction and


highlighted at the end as the contradiction that will greatly influence world events. Other
error, which our party judges the necessary correction, is the characterization today of the contradiction between proletariat
and bourgeoisie as restricted to imperialist countries. After all, already in the beginning of imperialism, as it demonstrates
Stalin in the fundamentals of Leninism, this contradiction becomes international, in force in all countries of the
World, regardless of the percentage of workers in the population of an oppressed nation.
Compared to the 25 -point letter, we consider that there are two inaccuracies, resulting from the weight of the
Right in the direction of the CCP, before GRCP. The first inaccuracy already mentioned above is that they are
Four fundamental contradictions are presented, but it is not specified which one is the main one. In the end,
according to the law of contradiction fully established by President Mao, being the world at the time
Imperialist a complex process in which there are several contradictions, one of them is the main contradiction.
In the case this is, as President Mao always stated, the contradiction between nation and imperialism,
relying on the formulated by the great Lenin that the time of imperialism the world was divided between
a handful of advanced nations, powers, on the one hand, and for the vast majority of late nations, for
other.
The second inaccuracy is in the characterization of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie in countries only
capitalists; This coincides, in part, with the position of Liu Shao-Chi, who defended the Farster Theory of the End of
contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie in socialism. These two errors were rectified by the CCP, in the
preparatory debates and resolutions of its 9th Congress in 1969. The Political Declaration and Principles
approved in CIMU corrects all these issues and therefore constitutes the most developed formulation of
Marxist-Leninist-Maoist to MCI.
3.1- The philosophical aspect of the problem
Clarified the content of the issue and demonstrated the biblical misrepresentation that makes the direction of UOC (MLM),
Let us fully address its philosophical aspect. There are two important philosophical problems in this
debate: 1) the dialectical relationship between universality and particularity of contradiction, and 2) the question of
main contradiction in a process and in the stages of this process. These two problems are part of the law
contradiction and are already sufficiently clarified by President Mao. Your resolution, therefore, can
be found directly on the contradiction itself.
Let's start with the first problem:
In its formulation of the law of contradiction, President Mao highlights the need for the study of
universality and the particularity of contradiction. It begins its exposure with the universality of contradiction,
because it is the simplest aspect, and defines that the universality or absolute character of contradiction is
that contradiction exists in the process of all things and phenomena and that its existence travels from the beginning
until the end of the whole process. Thus shows that at the beginning of a phenomenon, even if the struggle between contrary
Not apparent, the contradiction is already present. Moreover, it demonstrates that “the universality of
contradiction ”“ resides in the particularity of contradiction ”, establishing the dialectical relationship in advance,
contradictory, between the universal and the particular.
After this definition, “the special analysis of the particularity” of the contradiction begins. This is an analysis
special because it is the most complex particularity than universality, and more difficult to understand
by dogmatic thinking. Shows that various forms of movement of matter each have a
particular character. That in the study of contradiction it is necessary to take what is common between a certain
form of movement of matter and other qualitatively distinct forms and, especially, is made
It is necessary to examine what is particularly in that form of movement studied. The common element
between different forms of movement is the universal aspect, what is distinguished in each form of
movement constitutes its trait or particular aspect.
Shows how different sciences, because they study different forms of movement of matter, deal with
different particular contradictions and points out that in the social sciences the particular contradiction is in how
The contradiction between productive forces and production relations manifests itself. Reveals, however, that in every way
of the movement of matter there are different processes that are qualitatively different from the
that, therefore, it is not enough to study only the particular contradiction of a large system of


forms of movement of matter, which is necessary to study “(...) the particular contradiction and the essence of
each process ”379 In this form of movement. To discover the particularity of contradictions in the process
development of something or phenomenon, that is, the essence of this process, highlights the need for
study “the particularity of each aspect of each contradiction”.
Finally, it points out that it is not enough to study the particular contradictions of a process and the opposite aspects of
each of the contradictions of this process; in the study, of the particularity of contradiction, it is necessary,
also, study the particular traits of each of the stages of the development process of a
thing:
“Not only the total process of the movement of contradictions in the development of one thing,
considered in its interconnection, and each aspect of each contradiction have traces
particular, to which we must pay attention, but each step also has its traits
individuals, which must be equally served. ”380
Concludes by stating that “(…) the fundamental contradiction of the process of developing something” and the
essence of this process do not disappear until this process is not ended. Emphasizes, however, that in a
given process “the situation varies from step to step”, although, this does not mean that the contradiction
fundamental process is changed in the course of these steps. That is, in the course of the development of a
same process, when succeeding steps in these, each will have particular traits, which do not imply
in modifying the essence of this process.
In short, in the study of the particularity of the contradiction, President Mao part of the forms of movement
of matter, advances to the different processes existing within a certain form of movement
of matter, until it reaches the different stages of the process of developing one thing. Here already
presents the dialectical relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction: the characteristics
common in different forms of movement of matter constitute the universal aspect, while the traits
distinct, constitute the particularity of each form. Taking the same form of movement, each
process has particular contradictions, while what is common to these processes is its
Universality. Taking separately a single process of developing one thing, the
particular contradiction that distinguishes it from other processes, becomes the universal aspect of this process,
while the specific characteristics of each step constitute the particularity of a step against
Another step.
After studying philosophically this dialectical movement from Universal to the particular, President Mao illustrates
This process with the examples of social science, discovered by Marxism. Thus shows that Marx and
Engels, in studying society, as a certain form of movement of matter, discovered the
contradiction between productive forces and production relations, the contradiction between the exploited classes and
Explorers and, originating from these, the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure. When applying the law
contradiction in the study of a process determined within this form of movement, that is,
capitalist society, points out that Marx discovered the fundamental contradiction of this society between the character
social production and the private character of property - as seen in the previous topic. And describes the
dialectical relationship between universal and private present in Marxist discoveries:
“Since the variety of things is immeasurable and their development has no limits, which is
Universal in a context is particularly made in another context, and vice versa. The inherent contradiction
to the capitalist system, among the social character of production and private property of the means of
production is common to all countries from which there is and develops capitalism, and therefore
universal in relation to this. However, the proper contradiction of capitalism corresponds only to a
certain historical stage in the development of class society in general and, therefore, has
particular character in relation to the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production
within the class society in general. ” (President Mao) 381
What is universal in a context is particular in another context, and vice versa, this is the essence of the relationship
dialectic between universality and particularity, both are interdependent, opposite and, in certain
Circumstances, become each other. The contradiction between social production and private appropriation, by
example, when the capitalist society is taken as a process, it constitutes the universal aspect of this
process. However, when it is the class society that is taken as a process and society


capitalist as a stage of this process, the contradiction between social production and private appropriation, constitutes the
particular aspect in the capitalist society of contradiction between productive forces and production relations.
In this passage it is possible to note, therefore, the dialectical relationship between process and step managed by the
President Mao. In taking, class society as a whole, capitalist society is a stage of this
process; In turn, if the capitalist society is taken as a process, imperialism is a stage
particular of this process.
And President Mao concludes the chapter of the particularity of contradiction to give us the example of
Analysis of the Stalin comrade on the particular contradictions of the imperialist stage of the capitalist process.
It states, as soon as:
“The particular and the universal are united, and not only the particularity, but also the
universality of contradiction are inherent in every thing: universality lies in
particularity; So when studying something certain, we should try to discover these two
sides and their interconnections, the particular and the universal and their interconnection, and to discover the
Interconnections between said thing and the numerous things outside it. Stalin, when explaining the roots
historical of Leninism (…) analyzed the different contradictions of capitalism, reached its degree
extreme under the conditions of imperialism (…). In addition, it analyzed why Russia was the homeland of
Leninism, because the Tsarist Russia constituted the point of convergence of all contradictions of the
imperialism and because the Russian proletariat became the forefront of the revolutionary proletariat
International." (President Mao) 382
In this example three levels are gathered, whose philosophical understanding is key to moving firmly
in the common understanding of MCI about contradictions in the world, it is the universal, the private and the
specific; that is, capitalism as a process, imperialism as a stage of this process and the
Manifestation of the particular contradictions of imperialism in a specific country, in this case Russia. Like this,
we have a double relationship between universal and private, first, the particular contradictions of imperialism
Faced with the capitalist universal process; and, second, universal contradictions, common to the whole world in
imperialist epoch and its particular manifestation in a unique country. Due to this management of the relationship
Dialectic between Universal and Private, by Stalin, President Mao says:
“Stalin analyzed the universal of the contradictions of imperialism, demonstrating that Leninism is the
Marxism of the time of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, and at the same time, what
particular had these general contradictions in the case of the imperialism of the tsarist Russia,
explaining why Russia became the cradle of theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution and how
said particularity ended the universality of contradiction. This analysis of Stalin offers us a
model for understanding the particularity and universality of contradiction and its interconnection. ”
(President Mao) 383
The particular contradictions of a step cannot suppress the particular contradiction of a process; then
If in a stage it was eliminated the particular contradiction of the process, it would no longer be the stage of a
process but of a new process. However, there will only be a change of step in the same process, if
There were distinct particular contradictions between one stage and another. Were it not like that, there would be no steps in the
Process, only mechanical growth of the same contradictions. President Mao shows how
through the sharpness of the fundamental contradiction of the process, certain contradictions are deepened,
Others are resolved and new contradictions arise. It is this modification of the particular traits in the course of the
process of developing something that marks the emergence of a new stage, or the overcoming of
an old one.
In public debate last year, criticism of the definition of the main contradiction in the world, was raised
The argument that highlighting a main contradiction in the world could bring parties and organizations
revolutionaries to mechanically and immediately identify the main contradiction in the world with the
main contradiction of your country. Although such argument showed insufficiency in understanding the
law of contradiction had some meaning as a warning, since in the past, particularly in the years of
1960 and 1970, there was a tendency for parties and malery forces to erroneously identify contradiction
main of its revolution with the main contradiction of the time, that is, between oppressed nations and
imperialism. Including in the history of the Communist Party of Brazil this error occurred, the different fractions
Maoists existing in the Brazilian revolutionary process in that period characterized the military coup
fascist of 1964 as a direct intervention of Yankee imperialism, and thus mistakenly defined that


The country's main contradiction was between the nation and imperialism. Thus underestimated the fact that the
main contradiction in Brazilian society was the one that opposed the poor peasant
expressed as a contradiction between nasses and semi-feudality, manifesting itself in sharp and massive struggle
Peasant. There were very significant efforts and results of the maleist intervention in the countryside in that
period, notably the heroic guerrillas of Araguaia, the first attempt to trigger the war
Popular in our country. However, the error in this understanding of the main contradiction in society and the
Brazilian revolution, they opened gaps for the diversion of the Popular War Way to Revisionism, after
the military defeat of that important initiative. Which resulted in great ideological damage to the party,
with its almost complete settlement.
What is needed to prevent this error from repeating is to elevate the understanding and management of the law of
contradiction by the communist parties. It is necessary to apprehend the dialectical relationship more
between the universal and the private, to apprehend that in the imperialist stage, contradictions are configured
distinct individuals from the previous stage of free competition, while maintaining essential characteristics,
universal, common. That also these characteristics of imperialism that are particular to the
capitalist process as a whole, constitute “the universal of the contradictions of imperialism” that this
Universal manifests itself in a particular way in each of the countries of the globe. And that, therefore, the general line
MCI cannot never replace the need for the development of the political line of each revolution, which
will have their particularities and specificities, as well as, they will have universal aspects common to all
The revolutionary processes of the globe.
Thus, we entered the second philosophical problem we mentioned: the question of contradiction
main in a process and in the steps of this process. President Mao studies him in a chapter part of
On contradiction, but emphasizes that the issue of the main contradiction is part of the problem of
particularity of contradiction. Shows that in the process of developing a complex thing
There are many contradictions and one of them is necessarily the main one. This main contradiction, for its
instead, it is the contradiction “whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and
development of other contradictions ”384.
By illustrating the problem of the main contradiction, President Mao compares the complexity of the processes
revolutionaries in imperialist countries with the Chinese revolution. Thus states that in the revolutions in
imperialist and capitalist countries developed “the two contradictory forces, the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, constitute the main contradiction ”385. In semicolonial countries, such as China, he says, “
Relationship between the main contradiction and non -main contradictions offers a complex framework ”386.
Shows, then, that when imperialism is untied a war of aggression against a semicolonial country
different social classes can be temporarily united in a revolutionary national war:
“(…) Then, the contradiction between imperialism and the country in question becomes the contradiction
main, while all contradictions between the different classes within the country (including the
contradiction, which was the main, between the feudal system and the large popular masses)
temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. ” (President Mao) 387
As seen earlier, President Mao considered in the years 1930, the existence of two
Fundamental contradictions in Chinese society: between oppressed nation and imperialism; and between feudal system
and popular masses. What he is demonstrating now is that, depending on the circumstances, these pairs
contradictory can change places and one assume the mainness while the other becomes subordinate, and
vice versa. The modification of the main contradiction determines the modification of the stage of the Chinese revolution,
Single Front Policy of the CCP and Military Strategy in the Popular War. Perceive the modification of
Main contradiction, in a specific revolutionary process is decisive for its correct driving.
In doing this analysis of China's revolutionary process, President Mao presents a formulation that is
Key to the present controversy of MCI:
“But what happens, there is no doubt, that in each stage of development of
A process there is only one main contradiction that plays the ruling. ” (President
Mao) 388


That is, in the case of China, until there was no imperialist direct aggression, the main contradiction
From that phase of the Chinese revolution was the one that opposed the popular masses to the feudal system. It is this
contradiction that determines the party's political and military line. In turn, when there is aggression
imperialist, modifies the main contradiction and it governs all the others, including the one who opposes the
masses to feudality. Therefore, at the time of the revolutionary national war the President Mao did the
distinction between the landowners who supported the invading enemy of those who participated in the resistance
national. Only pro-japanese landowners were attacked by the party during the period of the war of
Anti -Japanese National Resistance. That is, the main contradiction of that stage of the Chinese Revolution had
modified in relation to the main contradiction of the previous step. The process was the same: the revolution
Chinese; but the main contradiction changed from one phase to another, from Agrarian to Nacional, both
part of the new democracy revolution.
Imperialism is the upper, last and particular stage of capitalism. Their particular traits are governed
by the sharpness of the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist process, which manifests itself in class relations
as the antagonistic contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. This contradiction is universal for the whole
process, will exist until the complete disappearance of the bourgeoisie and other social classes, a task that
will travel, as has already shown the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the whole period of acute
Transition struggles to communism. However, in the course of the development of the capitalist process
at least three steps were configured: from its dawn, which emerges as a mode of production subjugated by the
Feudal production mode; of its “flowering” in the stage of free competition; and your agony, in the stage
imperialist. Throughout this long process, the proletariat and bourgeoisie contradiction followed as a contradiction
particular and fundamental of this process. Will follow in the transition period, socialism, but as a new
qualitatively distinct phenomenon, as the proletariat will pass the dominant aspect and the bourgeoisie aspect
dominated from contradiction. The experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China and the formulations of the president
Mao, demonstrate that this contradiction follows as the main contradiction in the whole process of revolution
socialist until we reach all over communism. Becoming aware of this continuity is decisive to support
The dictatorship of the proletariat, to appeal to restoration attempts and transit the bright communism. Although
This particular contradiction of the process followed and continues as a fundamental contradiction until the extinction
complete of the social classes, in each of the stages of this process of matures a contradiction that
makes the main one. A new stage only arises in a particular process when a new
main contradiction that determines the new particular characteristics of this new stage. As seen in
example above the modification of the main contradiction and the emergence of new phases in the process of the
Chinese revolution.
There is full correspondence, therefore, between the law of contradiction established by the President Mao and the definition
contained in the political declaration of principles of LCI that contradiction between oppressed nations and
Imperialism corresponds to the main contradiction of the entire imperialist stage. Dialectically this
Delimitation is not only possible, as necessary. The fact that any of the other contradictions
fundamental can become, depending on the conditions, the main contradiction in the world, as in the case of
an interim world war, means that the imperialist stage is also subdivided into phases
qualitatively different. Here again we see ourselves with the dialectic between the Universal and the Private.
As well as taking class society as a process, we can characterize society
capitalist as a stage of this process, we can consider imperialism as a process whose
Different phases correspond to steps in their development. Thus each phase in the step
characterizes by a change in the main contradiction, but the mainly tends to return to the
main contradiction that marks the stage of the process.
The fundamental contradiction of a process, therefore, is that particular contradiction that distinguishes it from
Other qualitatively different processes (capitalism and feudalism, for example). But when taking the
stages of the same process, the fundamental contradiction will be the one that will continue to governing the process
as a whole, through the modification of the main contradiction in the different stages of it (free
competition and imperialism, for example). Every complex process is composed of numerous contradictions,
But what are the fundamental contradictions? Are those contradictions that conform the nature of the
process and its steps or phases of the step. Among the fundamental contradictions one will be main in the stage
in progress and the other secondary.


We have seen that, philosophically, it is correct to identify the fundamental contradictions in the world today, in the stage
imperialist. In addition, we also saw that among these fundamental contradictions, depending on
Circumstances, one will be the main contradiction; that this does not nullify the existence of a contradiction
fundamental, particular, of the process. On the contrary, this is the form of universal contradiction to manifest itself,
for the universal can only exist specifically in particular. At the same time, we seek to demonstrate how
each particular stage is also marked by a particular contradiction, or by the main contradiction of the
Step, that the change in this main contradiction determines the overcoming of phases in the same step. And by
end, it was seen that the existence of a main contradiction in the world does not correspond to that the contradiction
main in all countries is the same.
The difficulty in understanding this complex relationship lies in the apprehension and management of the dialectical relationship between
the universal and the particular, decisive element of the law of contradiction formulated at higher level by the
President Mao. However, philosophy is not enough to correctly identify what are the
Fundamental contradictions of the world today and of these what is the main contradiction of the imperialist stage. This
It is only possible, as the letter of 25 points highlights, from a “concrete analysis of the classes,
world economy and politics ”. This is what we will seek to do next.
3.2- The economic and political aspect of the question
The immediate economic manifestation of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie, social classes
fundamental of the entire capitalist process, is presented brilliantly by Marx in his work
Salary, price and profit. In this work, the founder of the scientific ideology of the proletariat, demonstrates that the
immediate economic contradiction between the fundamental classes of capitalist society, was in opposition
Between the wage of the worker and profit of the bourgeois. In making this exhibition, directed to the direction of I International,
Marx had already fully formulated his added theory. Thus, it demonstrates in solid bases
scientific as the struggle to achieve the wage increase implied the immediate reduction of profit
capitalist. Thus refuted the erroneous understandings within the labor movement, which argued that
Every salary increase could be annulled by the subsequent increase in subsistence media prices.
Marx demonstrates that salary and profit composes two parts of the same unit: the new value added in
Productive process and therefore increasing salary implies reducing profit. At the same time, Marx
demonstrates in this same work, how the struggle of the proletariat cannot be summarized to a greater appreciation of the
Workforce, to a “fair wage”. Demonstrates that while there is wage labor, while the
bourgeoisie is the owner of the means of production, the proletariat will be a subjugated, exploited and
squeezed by competition with their own brothers through the jobs, mechanism through which
Capitalist class can impose the salary reduction and recovery of its profit.
In the capital and anti-dühring, Marx and Engels demonstrate that the economic contradiction of the background of the
Capitalist society is the one that opposes social production and private appropriation. This contradiction is not resolved,
nor momentarily, with the salary struggle, its resolution corresponds to the socialization of the means of
Production, a task that can only be fulfilled, as Marx demonstrates, through the dictatorship of the proletariat. A
immediate manifestation of this contradiction, however, occurs in the continuous effort of the capitalists to reduce
the value of the workforce at its minimum and, often below it, to increase the increase in
extraction of added value, which provides the bourgeoisie its faustic life and its gigantic accumulation of
wealth. The surplus value is, therefore, the immediate economic base of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie.
What, in turn, is the economic base of contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism? As seen
Previously, when dealing with the maximum profit, it rests on three pillars: 1) obtaining a rate
higher value, as it suits it and it is possible to explore the nations proletariat
oppressed to a more extreme degree than in imperialist citadels; 2) The restriction of the profit of the bourgeoisie
not monopolistic, imposing a minimal profit; and 3) the suppression or appropriation by the financial capital of the
Land income of primary products of the oppressed nations. The struggle of the proletariat of these countries for
Better wages constitute the immediate, fair and necessary response against this overexploitation. Interest to
imperialism, therefore, the maximum violence, political control, the minimum of union freedom, to
impose a salary below the value of the workforce. The national bourgeoisie reacts to the restriction of its profit
claiming protective measures from the old state to the fragile, small and medium, national industry. Like yours
production is, as a rule, subjugated to monopolistic production, has economic and political conditions
very precarious to achieve these goals.


Agroexporter Latifundium, for receiving high performance for its production, maintains a stable alliance
with imperialism, although it is always threatened by an overproduction crisis and a low
widespread international prices of its monoculture, are at the mercy of the financial oligarchy
International. Regarding national riches, the oppressed nations struggle to ensure national control
of this production and for guaranteeing a price policy that minimally ensures the right to land income
capitalist. As the ruling classes of these states are Lacao of imperialism, in general, this struggle for
Land income is reduced to bargains by benefits, or by “modest indemnities”, as characterized Lenin.
The resolution of the contradiction between nation and imperialism, as well as the contradiction between bourgeoisie and
proletariat, cannot be merely economic; no consortium measure of the oppressed countries, or
import replacement, can solve this trend of subjugation, permanent overexploitation of the
proletariat of these countries, the restriction of the profit of the national bourgeoisie or the suppression of land income
of national resources. Only national liberation, the definitive achievement of political independence front
To imperialism, it can ensure the realization of these claims; And this political liberation is only possible to be
achieved through the prolonged popular war in a revolution of new uninterrupted democracy
socialism, which builds from the beginning, a joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes as transit
to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The economic base of the interim partnerist contradiction is, in the first term, the control of the as much as possible
all the surplus value produced worldwide. For this, it is necessary, the control of
colonies/semicolonies to monopolize the permanent overexploitation of these proletarians, thus restricting
The volume of proletarian masses exploited by the financial capital of rival powers. In addition, the control
of semicolonies to suppress the land income of primary products of these, thus reducing the costs
with constant capital allowing it to reach maximum profit rates. When controlling certain sources
of raw material, by establishing monopoly price on this primary production, thus can reduce the
Your favor of rival imperialist powers who are just buyers of these goods.
The form of resolution of this contradiction is the imperialist wars, which begin with aggression to nations
oppressed controlled by rival powers, until it reaches the point of direct confrontation between the
powers in their territories. This contradiction can only be eliminated with the drinking of the imperialism of
face of the earth, for while imperialism there will be the inevitability of the war and
interimperialists and, as an inseparable part of the search for financial capital by the maximum profit.
Any of these fundamental contradictions can become the main
development of other contradictions. However, in the imperialist stage which of these contradictions
mainly the dominant role among the others? From the economic point of view, stop responding to this
question needs us to depart from the particular form of survey of the added value in the imperialist stage that is the
Maximum profit. The main contradiction of the imperialist stage, therefore, is the one that determines the
development of other contradictions to achieve, maintain and dispute the added value produced in the
The world to achieve the maximum profit will be the main contradiction of the imperialist stage.
Analyzing this issue from an economic point of view, helps to shed light on exploration and
Production in the stage of monopolistic capitalism; to understand the role of social classes, in general, and the
Required relationship between imperialism and bureaucratic capitalism, semi -feudal.
As the suppression of capitalist land income is a necessity for the maximum profit of capital
Financial, imperialism has always been interested in maintaining a feudal or semi -feudal monopoly of the earth.
This is the economic reason for the narrow ideological-political relationship between large landowners in the
countries overwhelmed with their mes in the imperialist powers. Either for food production, or for
Extraction of raw materials, the existence of large property in semicolonials is essential for the
Suppression of capitalist land income in the semicolonic. After all, it is much cheaper to financial capital
pay income to a small class of large parasitic owners, for the extraction of wealth
Natural from a country, than paying what the capitalist land income would be for an entire nation. When the
old state is the owner of these natural riches, in general, is content with the payment of royalties
on the part of the financial capital, which are always under what would be the land income rate
capitalist. The royalties paid by financial capital, either to the large owners or the old state
Bureaucratic, they are a semicolonial land income and not a capitalist land income. The difference


quantitative between the two is the added value retained by financial capital, which will compose its
Maximum profit.
The role that the exploration relations of imperialism with the oppressed nations is in the production of
maximum profit is similar to the exploitation of the people and poor masses of these countries by bureaucratic capitalism
and by semi -feudality. Bureaucratic capital is necessary to reproduce the peasant economy; because the
peasant produces for the domestic market in exchange for a small yield, which in no way
corresponds to the capitalist land income. Thus, peasant production even having a productivity
much lower than large mechanized production often provides a food product
cheaper. This is possible, not because small production is more efficient than the big one, but because
the subjugation of the peasantry and its permanently ruined production, because it was sold at prices below
of costs ensures these lower prices. In this way, bureaucratic capital indirectly explores the
peasantry, because the isolated peasant in his portion cannot face the capitalist domestic market
Monopolized and always is obliged to sell your production for the price they pay you. The yield that
Receives is just enough to reproduce its ruined economy. In turn, this ruined production only
It can be maintained under these conditions being surrounded by all sides by large property. If it was not
Thus, the peasant would seek better conditions to grow and prosper. In this way, it is the system
landowner that ensures peasant oppression, its miserable condition and the overexploitation in which
provides food to the domestic market without earning either income or profit, as was the case with the peasant
Irish analyzed by Marx. Yield, therefore, that earns these peasants, is not an income
Capitalist landlord, it is a semi -feudal land income. This is the first economic reason for why
Peasant production, although in constant ruin, is never completely eliminated in imperialism.
However, there is another economic reason for this phenomenon. The reproduction of the peasant economy
ruined by large landlord property, serves as a workforce reserve, always available
for the seasonal works of agriculture; but, in addition, the field in semicolonial countries exports
always, from time to time, waves of workers to the cities, obliged to subject themselves to the worst
exploration conditions in industry and service sectors. The reproduction of the peasant economy is fulfilled
thus a key role to constantly produce a relative overpopulation, which in turn is
essential for the other maximum profit factor: the permanent overexploitation of the working class. At the
Brazil, the heaviest works of the construction industry, as a rule are performed by
newly expert peasants from the countryside. If this peasant economy is liquidated, this source is exhausted
invaluable for workers to be overrexploited that in general constitutes the peasant regions of countries
oppressed.
Latifundium, due to its semi -feudal condition, is the social agent of imperialism that ensures the suppression of
capitalist land income that would fit the peasants, in the case of agricultural production, and that would be the nation,
In the case of natural riches looted by imperialism. Latifundium is essential for capitalism
bureaucratic because it ensures revenues with the export of agricultural and mineral goods, and, on the other hand,
ensures cheap production by the food peasant to the domestic market and the production of a
surplus overpopulation that migrates from the countryside to the city, thus ensuring the overexploitation of the class
worker in the semicolonian industries. In this way the landlord contributes both to the monopolistic profit
bureaucratic capital as for the maximum profit of financial capital; On the other hand, bureaucratic capital and
Finance capital ensures the landlord all military, political and legal security for the most
atrocious against peasants and original populations. Ensure the income of this class of parasites
Enemies of the people. This relationship of dependence, between large estates and bureaucratic capitalism; between capitalism
bureaucratic and imperialism, it is the basis of the exploration system that ensures the maximum profit
imperialist.
In turn, this alliance of reactionary classes, these three mountains (semi -feudality, imperialism and
bureaucratic capitalism), which weigh on the masses of the countryside and the city of the oppressed countries,
in this way the proletariat, peasants and national wealth, its last product
the endless mass of immigrants, which year after year reaches imperialist countries, to be
overexplored in all kinds of work. European industry would not survive without immigrant masses
Turks, Kurds, Poles, Arabs, Africans etc; the service sector would not work without the Indian masses,
From Bangladesh, Senegal, Vietnam, Ecuador, etc. Just as Yankee imperialism does not
It would survive one day without the masses of Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, etc., that everything produce in that country. O


bureaucratic capitalism, having by one of its foundations, the landlord, is responsible for the production and
export of this contingent essential for imperialist production. A proletariat harassed by
migratory policies, for the police persecution, which is forced to accept the conditions of overexploitation
in the metropolitan centers of the imperialist powers themselves. It is the third party of the first
World, as President Gonzalo well analyzed.
The monopoly price, studied in the previous topic, is another important economic element for
comprise the causes of the continuous reproduction of the laddown industry of the national bourgeoisie and the
ruined peasant economy in the colonial/semicolonial countries. Although with a level of productivity
much lower than that of large industry, as soon as the monopoly price of capital is established
Financial in a certain branch arises the opportunity for survival of the non-monopolistic economy.
With a much higher production cost, the small and medium production become viable when
The monopoly price arises as it allows them to earn a minimum profit. In Brazil, beans is one of
main food products of peasants and workers; Traditionally it was a commodity
produced by the peasants and was therefore sold at a very low market price, which benefited
The industrial bourgeoisie, as it implied a reduction in the value of the workforce. With pro- policies
Latifundium during Petista and Dilma's petista management (2003-2016), the peasant economy declined its
production. The lack of peasant beans in the market, caused a significant increase in the price of
Market of this merchandise, which was dominated by large latifundist production. The landlord, to
contrary to the peasant, can impose its market price, generating a 200% increase in the price
of this commodity. On the one hand, this impacted the masses of the population with increased cost of living and, for
another, allowed the return of peasant beans to the market, which with this new price was again viable for the
Peasantry, despite the low productivity. The monopoly price thus explains the survival of
domestic industry in cities, and the small and medium production in the field.
The maximum imperialist profit is explained, therefore, for this complex relationship between imperialism and capitalism
bureaucratic, between imperialist bourgeoisie and bureaucratic bourgeoisie and buyer, between imperialism and
Latifundium, between large estates and peasants in the colonial/semicolonial countries. Thus, they are under these conditions
individualist stage that the contradiction between social production and the appropriation develops
private, as well as its manifestation in the class relationship between proletariat and bourgeoisie, which cannot be
Explained only from itself, only from the immediate relationship between salary and added value. So much
Thus, that the emergence of imperialism determines the consolidation of the phenomenon of the working aristocracy in the
imperialist countries. In this way, colonial/semicolonial national oppression implies a modification in
Conditions of development of contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie in imperialist countries.
In turn, it is imperialist domination that ensures for its own benefit the existence of the monopoly
semi -feudal of land in the oppressed countries; This monopoly of the earth ensures the reproduction of an economy
rolling peasant production of basic and determining foods in the low salaries of the proletariat in
by providing fundamental goods for the reproduction of the workforce produced below the
cost price. Thus ensuring the reproduction of a gigantic industrial reserve army, which
miserable living conditions is the source of the constant export of surplus population to the large
urban centers. The mass of poor expelled from the countryside to the city by the semi -feudal monopoly of the earth
It ensures, in turn, the permanent overexploitation of the proletariat in colonial/semicolonial countries.
Overexploitation this is a source of values for the bribery of the working class in countries
imperialists. The semi -feudal monopoly of the earth, the craving of large cities in the oppressed countries and
The permanent overexploitation of the proletariat, pressures the export of huge proletarian contingents
for imperialist centers. The mass of immigrants in imperialist countries presses down the salary
of the workers of the metropolises corroborating to the deterioration of the working aristocracy. The imperialist bourgeoisie
it increasingly needs increased extraction of surplus value in its own territory, as it fights
Constantly against the law of tendency to profit rate, brilliantly discovered by Marx.
President Mao states that the main contradiction is that “whose existence and development
determines or influences the existence and development of other contradictions ”389. Economic analysis,
political and social of imperialism demonstrates that the main contradiction of this stage of capitalism is between
oppressed nations and imperialism that determines the others. Because as we have just seen it is national oppression
colonial/semicolonial, supported by the landlord, which conditions the overexploitation of the proletariat in the countries
oppressed and also in imperialist countries. In turn, it is the colonial/semicolonial national oppression and its


inseparable suppression of land income in these countries that ensures the maximum profit over profit
of rival power. Control of these sources of raw materials, the colonial/semicolonial national oppression,
also determines the interim contradiction, which comes down as Lenin establishes in the struggle for
Break of the world between a handful of powers.
It is therefore that the main contradiction of the imperialist time is between oppressed nations and imperialism. AND
This does not nullify the existence of the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist process and its manifestation in the
class relations between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Because it follows as a fundamental contradiction of the process,
even during the imperialist stage, after all, economically all the maximum profit appropriate for the powers
It is fundamentally conformed by the added value extracted from the proletariat. In addition, the maximum profit
also conforms to the suppression of land income of agricultural products and the extractive industry in
oppressed countries, which directly conducive to increased profit (by reducing constant capital costs) and
indirectly the increasing increase (when goods enter the consumption of the proletariat). A
main contradiction of the stage does not nullify the fundamental contradiction of the process, it is the dialectical relationship
Between universal and private, established masterfully by President Mao in the law of contradiction.
IV- Unite under Maoism!
“The celebration of this I International Conference and the founding of the new international organization are
of historical importance and great transcendence, they are an achievement of the international proletariat and
a clear blow to the offensive counterrevolutionary general of imperialism and world reaction, so
as against revisionism and all opportunism. If it took a big step to reunite and
overcome dispersion in MCI and opened a new stage of the struggle organized by the reconstitution of the
Communist international, under the command and guide of Maoism, a new stage that will be marked by the
development of new popular wars that will add to those already underway. ”
(Political and Principles Declaration, International Communist League) 390
The preparation and realization of CIMU was guided by the consign of uniting under Maoism! A UOC (MLM)
took part of the fight of two lines at the international level in the preparations of CIMU only from the publication
of the basis of discussion because it refused to do so before, taking part in the divisionist meeting of January
2020, convened by PCM (Italy). After intervening in the fight of two lines, they did not proceed to proceed
This struggle in the conference itself. In 2022, the two -line struggle turned around key philosophical issues
of Marxism. This year, with the publication of the UOC Magazine (MLM) of criticism of our party and LCI, and
with the two editions of the magazine Fight of Two Lines, directed by this organization and PCM (Italy),
made the political differences of these organizations more evident with those who participated in CIMU.
With this document, so far we seek to analyze the most important political differences, however if
It is necessary to reveal the true ideological background of these differences.
The direction of UOC (MLM) for many years argues that Maoism is a new, third and superior
Step of Marxism. However, when we analyze the application that make this stage of the ideology of
international proletariat in defining the political line for the world revolution and in its own country,
You can see how empty this proclamation becomes. UOC (MLM): 1st) denies the law of contradiction as the law
unique fundamental of matter; 2) denies the effectiveness of the Revolution of New Democracy in Colombia; 3) denies the
need for the national democratic stage as a preparation of the uninterrupted passage to the socialist revolution
in the oppressed countries; 4) denies the strategic importance of peasantry in the revolutions of countries
semicolonials; 5) denies the correction of the definition of fundamental contradictions in the world today, established
by the Chinese letter (proposition about the general line of the International Communist Movement); 6) in your
Balance of the proletariat's dictatorship experience in the twentieth century, concludes that “in practice, Kautsky won
The battle in both Russia and China ”391. We sincerely question the direction of UOC (MLM): which
of the contributions and developments of Maoism you use to formulate the political line of the revolution in
Your country?
UOC (MLM) in its political proselytism makes the defense of Maoism, that the ideology of the proletariat
international is “Marxism Leninism Maoism” and the importance of President Mao for the Revolution
Chinese, valuing the importance of the new democracy revolution and the city's siege strategy for
field in this experience. Also, it defends the importance of GRCP and the contributions of Maoism for the
Construction of socialism. However, to solve the present problems of the World Revolution and the


Colombian revolution, not part of the universal contributions and developments of Maoism. Thus treats the
President Mao's contributions as an ideology that was important in the past and perhaps is
necessary in the future. For the present adopt formulations foreign to the ideology of the international proletariat,
as the characterization of semicolonial countries as “oppressed capitalist countries”; Defends the existence
of a progressive tendency of imperialism; argues that the task of national liberation is resolved with the
Dictatorship of the proletariat; Defends the immediate collectivization of the peasant lands; And finally, it states that
nature of the revolution in India, the Philippines, Brazil, Bangladesh, as well as in Colombia, is
socialist, that is, that the bourgeois democratic revolution has already taken place in these countries through the trend
Progressive imperialism. And says that such conclusions are the result of a concrete analysis of the situation
concrete. This means that the Maoist parties of these countries who defend and apply the
Fundamental theories of Maoism are mechanistic transporters of the experience of the revolution
Chinese. It really believes it does an innovative analysis of the Colombian reality and the other oppressed countries,
when they are actually copying old Trotskyist “theories”, specifically the counterfeit TMD of
Gunder Frank, Rui Mauro Marini et Caterva.
In the ideological field there is no empty territory, where there is no Maoism Medra revisionism. Let's see which
They are the real ideological foundations of UOC (MLM).
1- To assume Maoism is to relentlessly combat all the revisionism: the old, the
Modern Kruschovista-Thenguista-Hoxhist and the 21st century revisionist modalities
The direction of UOC (MLM) formulate that the result of the supposed “progressive tendency of imperialism” was
the emergence in the world arena of such “oppressed capitalist countries”, in which by work and grace of capital
Financial were “swept the modes of pre-capitalist production”. In the international magazine struggle of two
lines, it does not affirm what is the source of this formulation, but when seeking in materials published in
Spanish, it's easy to find it. Because there it openly says that it takes it from the “comrade Bob Avakian”, valuing
as well as this excerpt from the 1980 MRI statement proposed by the US PCR and the
Chile:
“There is an undeniable tendency that imperialism introduces important elements of relationships
capitalists in the countries that dominates. In some dependent countries this capitalist development
It achieved such importance that it would no longer be correct to characterize them as semi-feudal countries; he would be
better qualify them as predominantly capitalist countries, even if they can be found
however important traces of semi -feudal production and that they reflect themselves at the level of
superstructure." (PCR-EUA AND PCR-CHILE) 392
The great forgery of this Avakianist formulation lies in the fact that in the imperialist stage the
Capitalist development occurs the same way than in the free competition stage. As
It was established by Lenin, imperialism is the reaction in every line. Imperialism in your search for profit
maximum capitalism in semicolonial countries supporting, retaining and reproducing relations
of land ownership and more late production and more reactionary political regimes. That is, by
means of export of capital engenders a type of capitalism that does not destroy pre-capitalist relations,
how had the revolutionary bourgeoisie of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, quite the opposite, given its character
reactionary as monopolistic capital, parasitic and decaying capital, and agonizing capital,
imperialist bourgeoisie is based on the rotten bases in force in these countries, its financial capital merges with
Capitals of feudal origin and other precapitalist forms and drives a bureaucratic capitalism.
Thus formulated Lenin about imperialism and thus deepened him the Mao. Classify countries
semicolonials as “predominantly capitalist” with only “semi -feudal traces in superstructure”
is to deny the Leninist and Maoist formulations about imperialism, is to deny fundamental theories of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is, finally, to apologize for imperialism, as if it were possible under its
mastery some kind of progress in social relations.
UOC (MLM) part of this Avakianist forgery to accentuate its trotskyist characteristics, although
1980 Declaration speaks in dependent countries and not dependent capitalism, the category of the
Kruschovista-Brejnevista and TMD Trotskism revisionism. “Predominantly capitalist countries”
formulate the revisionist thesis of the existence of “oppressed capitalist countries”, in which the revolution would already be
immediately socialist.


Regarding the peasant problem, the direction of UOC (MLM) applies to Colombia the Avakianist deviations in
same sense. In the 1984 MRI statement, the avakianist smuggling of “virtual elimination appears
peasantry ”in imperialist countries; UOC (MLM), in turn, defends the virtual elimination of
peasantry in such "oppressed capitalist countries". States that: “In Colombia, it is a fact the decomposition
and differentiation of the peasantry between agricultural proletarians and bosses ”, that is, applying Avakianism in
analysis of your country, concludes that there are no longer peasants themselves in the field, only workers
agricultural and agrarian bourgeoisie. The peasantry, like semi -feudality, would be just a trace.
The first revisionist ideological foundation, with which the UOC (MLM) converges is, therefore, the
Avakianism. Their theses on the supposed progressive tendency of imperialism, the existence of such
oppressed capitalist countries, of complete differentiation (or virtual elimination) of peasantry in countries
Semicolonials, they all start from the fallacious Trotskyist-Avakianist formulations. The importance of these
Formulations are explicitly recognized by the UOC Board (MLM) in their Spanish publications:
“[The revolution in the oppressed countries] has been a problem faced by the communists since
Lenin's times; treated, resolved and developed masterfully by Mao TStung and by
Chinese communists; resumed with special emphasis by MRI since the documents presented by
their precursors in 1980, in the 1984 statement and several articles of the magazine a world
to win; highlighted by the comrades of the PCR (EEU) and especially the comrade Bob Avakian. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 393
Evident, that Avakian does not continue the development of the great bosses of the proletariat about the
important problem of revolution in the oppressed countries. Avakian, starting from revisionist positions,
Small Burgers, notably Trotskyists, distorts and confuses the issue. Underestimate the importance of
contradiction between nations/people oppressed and imperialism and accuses comrades Stalin and President Mao de
nationalist errors. UOC (MLM) starts from these antimarxist conceptions and accentuates trends
Trotskyists of Avakianism.
Let's see now the direct convergence of UOC's (MLM) tergiversações with the Trotskyist formulations. A
UOC (MLM) in defending the supposed progressive tendency of imperialism, only repeats the analyzes of the
Sicophanta Trotsky and traitor of communism that considered the Japanese invasion to China as positive, because
it would lead to the increase of the proletariat in this country, thus creating the conditions for its revolution
permanent:
“If Japan drove to keep positions won for about ten years, that would mean,
above all, the intensive industrialization of northern China to serve the military interests of the
Japanese imperialism. New railways, mines, plants, mining and metallurgical companies and
cotton plantations emerged rapidly. The polarization of the Chinese nation would receive a boost
FEBRIL. New hundreds of thousands and millions of Chinese proletarians would mobilize in the shortest time
possible. On the other hand, the Chinese bourgeoisie would fall into an increasing dependence on capital
Japanese. It would be less capable than in the past of putting yourself in front of a national war,
both and a national revolution. Before the foreign aggressor would emerge the Chinese proletariat,
numerically stronger, socially strengthened, politically mature, intended to direct
Chinese village. ” (Trotsky) 394
Trotsky, this inveterate antileninist, considered colonial enslavement as progressive. The direction of
UOC (MLM), following the same steps, considers imperialism capable of sweeping semi -feudality. O
Great Lenin points out that imperialism exacerbates the contradictions of capitalism as much as possible
that solves them.
In relation to the necessary revolutionary national stage of the Popular War in the semicolonial countries, the
‘Maoist’ UOC (MLM) states in his program that:
“The content of the anti-imperialist revolutionary movement in this era and in capitalist countries
Oppressed, it is no longer democratic of liberation and becomes socialist. ” [UOC (MLM)] 395
And still:


“The semicolonial problem is part of the problem of the proletarian revolution, is part of the problem of
dictatorship of the proletariat. ” [UOC (MLM)] 396
What a difference there is between this position and the defended by Trotsky in his revisionist work “The Revolution
Permanent"? Compare:
“For the countries of retarding bourgeois development and, in particular, for colonial countries and
semicolonials, the theory of permanent revolution means that the true and complete solution of
their democratic and national-liberators are conceivable only through the dictatorship of the
proletariat, which assumes the direction of the oppressed nation and, first and foremost, its peasant masses. ”
(Trotsky) 397
Let's look at what the chief of the Chinese Revolution, President Mao, says on such thes
Democracy:
“We advocate for the theory of continuous development of revolution, but not by theory
Trotskyist of a permanent revolution. We are willing to achieve the triumph of
socialism, crossing all the necessary steps of the democratic republic. We oppose
Second, but we also oppose adventurerism and ultra-revolutionarity. ” (President
Mao) 398
The Maoist UOC (MLM), as well as the renegade Trotsky, conceives the solution of the national issue in countries
oppressed through the immediate dictatorship of the proletariat or as part of it. This is the complete denial of
Leninist thesis of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants and, even more, the thesis
Maoist of the joint dictatorship of revolutionary classes to carry out the socialist revolution in countries
oppressed.
In an article entitled We Are Trotskyists?, The direction of UOC (MLM), when answering negatively,
formulates that the defense of the immediate socialist revolution in Colombia would not be trotskism, because according to them,
“Trotskyism does not consist of denying the steps through which the revolution must be passed” 399. Trotskism is
composed of numerous lies and falsifications, among them, are the denial of the revolutionary role of
Campesinate directed by the proletariat in the Democratic Revolution, a decisive issue to advance to the revolution
socialist, proven by the experience of the proletarian revolution, the denial of the need for stages of
revolution, and the denial of the need for the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes in the countries
oppressed. Note:
“The Epigons Comintern began by canonizing to the entire East the formula of‘ dictatorship
Democratic of the proletariat and peasantry '. ” (Trotsky) 400
AND:
“In the course of its development, the democratic revolution transforms directly into
Socialist Revolution, thus becoming a permanent revolution. ” (Trotsky) 401
Like Trotsky accusing the IC of canonizing a formula for the Revolution in the East, UOC (MLM) accuses
Dogmatism LCI for stating that the New Democracy Revolution is valid for all countries
semicolonials. Just as Trotsky enhances in denial of the need for steps in the process
revolutionary in semicolonial countries; UOC (mlm) formulates in its program including:
“Whatever the particularities, the capitalist character of a society in the oppressed country
By imperialism, it requires an anti-imperialist movement, not in step the part. ” [UOC (MLM)] 402
In fact, Trotskism is not limited to the denial of the stages of the revolution, but this is the apology of
imperialism, the denial of the effectiveness of the democratic revolution under the direction of the proletariat and the denial of
Peasant problem. All these elements are shared by Avakian and, even more explicitly,
by UOC (MLM). Let us now compare its formulation and that of antileninist Trotsky on the issue
Peasant. As already seen, in relation to the peasant problem, UOC (MLM) advocates the need to:


“(…) Teaching the peasants, who to save should be combined with the proletariat to fight
private property and convert property of its land into property and exploitation
collective ”. [UOC (MLM)] 403
Trotsky, in turn, defends the same old anti -pampon program:
“If the representatives of the proletariat enter the government, not as hostage without power but as a strength
leader, then will settle the limit between the minimum and maximum, that is, they will include the
collectivism on the agenda ”. (Trotsky) 404
The identity of UOC positions (MLM) with Trotskism is very large and cannot be “denied”
Vacant statement that Trotskism does not consist of denying the stages of the revolution. Of course, it's a much more
nefarious, but this denial of it is the most fundamental in its rotten theories of revolutionarity
Radical appearance breakfast and anti-proleary right-wing content. UOC (MLM), when abandoning the
contributions and developments of Maoism for the revolution in the semicolonial countries, part of the smuggling
Avakianistas to end at the Trotskyist swamp. Behind such a boomed antidogmatic view, comes
anticientific formulations such as the supposed progressive tendency of imperialism and end up doing
The defense of the Falaz Trotskyist “Permanent Revolution” in the semicolonial countries.
The second ideological foundation of the false political propositions of UOC (MLM), therefore, is Trotskism.
For UOC (MLM) the revolution of new democracy would be true in the past, but false to the
gift; while the “permanent revolution” would have been false in the past but true in the present.
UOC (mlm), it should exist this late Trotskism and truly assume Maoism. But, to our
Seeing, this will not be a simple task, as the trotskyist roots of their analysis are very deep. Your
convergence with this type of opportunism ranges since its political analysis of imperialism and
semicolonial countries, openly from Avakianism to flow into Trotskism, until its analysis
economic formations of the oppressed countries when it is covered in the so-called
“Marxist theory of dependence”. TMD was formulated in the 1960s/70, by Trotskyist academics
Latin Americans linked to ECLAC. The main exponent of this theory was Brazilian Ruy Mauro Marini,
which for many years was a teacher in Chile and Mexico.
This supposed “Marxist theory of dependence” was an attempt of Latin American Trotskyism of
Economically substantiates also the supposed theory of Trotsky's “permanent revolution”. Supporting
in Kruschov's revisionist positions and his fallacious and infamous “secret report”, this mud
counterrevolutionary lies and resentments thrown over the heroic and glorious experience of dictatorship
of the proletariat in the USSR and on the contributions of the comrade Stalin, Trotskism has rehearsed a resurgence to
international level in the late 1950s. After the Cuban Revolution, in 1959 and, especially after the
announcement by decree, in 1962, made by Castro, that the revolution had become socialist, the
Latin American Trotskism sought to update the Trotskyist “Permanent Revolution” defending the thesis
revisionist that for the oppressed countries the immediate socialist revolution would solve the tasks
democratic, without the need for the revolution of new democracy. Exactly quite the opposite of
historical experience of proletarian revolutions in the oppressed countries, an experience in which the revolution of
new democracy that advanced socialist tasks, in confiscating the landlord and the great local capital and
Foreigner, as President Mao demonstrated, on the new democracy and other works of his.
To economically substantiate this ideological-political position, Marini and his consorts formulated
a false theory of dependence that aims to nullify the importance of national democratic tasks of
proletarian revolution in semicolonial countries. Falsifying Marxism, Marini seeks to reduce contradictions
of semicolonial countries exclusively to the one who opposes proletariat and bourgeoisie, and summarize the oppression of
imperialism solely to the overexploitation of the proletariat, passing over the mechanisms of
suppression and appropriation of land income from primary production produced and exported by countries
oppressed. In addition, Marini denies the existence and political importance of the bourgeoisian average (national bourgeoisie)
in the revolutionary process in these countries. As already seen in this document, the positions of UOC (MLM)
They fully coincide with these formulations of the Trotskyist theory of dependence. Let's go now, still
that quickly, only the direct comparison between the economic formulations of UOC (MLM) and those of
Marini.


Both UOC (MLM) and Trotskyist Marini conceive imperialism as a mode of production
worldwide in which different economies would be “chained” or “integrated” in the same and only
process. Both UOC (MLM) and TMD theorists conclude that the result of this chain is
that the native bourgeoisie of the semicolonial countries become “partner” of the exploration regime
imperialist, even reaching the same profit rate as financial capital. Of the enormous inequality of
labor productivity in imperialist countries in relation to dependent countries. That is, from the high
mechanization and application of more cutting -edge technologies in the production processes of the first and the low
industrialization of the seconds; superior organic composition of imperialist capital and composition
inferior organic of local monopolistic capital, both conclude that there would be a mechanism for
“Compensate” this huge difference in productivity that would be the overexploitation of work in countries
oppressed. This overexploitation would have to be exclusively of the semicolonial bourgeoisie, because if it existed
Also in advanced countries, there could be no such compensation mechanism. Let's see how
Marini formulates the question:
“Let us recall, to avoid misconceptions, that it low in the profit rate in dependent countries, such as
counterpart of the elevation of its organic composition, it is compensated for the procedures of the
overexploitation of work, in addition to the peculiar circumstances that favor, in the economies
agrarian and miners, the high profitability of variable capital. ” (Marini) 405
Similarly, for the direction of UOC (MLM) the supposed compensation that would allow the bourgeoisie
semicolonial reaching the same profit rate as financial capital is thus presented:
“The cheaping of the elements that form constant capital, that is, the depreciation of capital
existing or maintaining production without renewing machinery and facilities,
expressed especially in 'import replacement', guided by imperialists to countries
oppressed until the 1970s in the transfer of 'obsolete' machines from imperialist countries to
oppressed countries, where overexploitation compensated for the local bourgeoisie the profit rate
average capital. ” [UOC (MLM)] 406
The exclusivity of the overexploitation of work, allegedly belonging to the bourgeoisie of countries
semicolonials, as a compensation mechanism is thus presented by Marini:
“(…) This bourgeoisie depends, for the development of an industry, a technology whose
Creation is private of these monopolies. Then, then, but the alternative to offer these
a society in the production process itself, arguing with the extraordinary
profit possibilities that the coercive containment of the working class wage level contributes
to create." (Marini) 407
And even more explicitly by the direction of UOC (MLM):
“The reduction of salary under its value, that is, under the value of the workforce, has
proper name in the oppressed countries: overexploitation. ” [UOC (MLM)] 408
No! The reduction of wages under its value, identified by Marx, is called overexploitation of the
proletariat in both imperialist and semicolonial countries. The origin of this mechanism does not
originated in the oppressed countries, on the contrary, it emerged along with its industry in the most capitalist country
of your time: England.
Both Marini and UOC (MLM), distort the content of overexploitation of work, as if it is
could only compensate for the brutal difference of productivity in imperialist countries and in countries
semicolonials. Falsifying the law discovered by Marx of the tendency to the profit rate, say a
supposed advantage of overexploitation of work in the face of mechanization, because according to them, the
overexploitation would allow to increase the most-value mass produced without the “danger” of reducing the rate of
profit. However, as Marx demonstrates in detail in The Capital, when two capitalists
competitors, produce under different conditions of machinery, the one that produces in the best conditions
will obtain extraordinary added value, as it produces goods in a working time less than the
socially necessary. Overexploitation of work can reduce this difference, but never compensate it,
Marx thus exemplifies the question:


“The English director of a cotton wiring in Oldenburg [Russia] states that the work lasts there
5½ in the morning to 8 pm, including Saturdays, and that workers at this time with
English supervisors, do not produce as much as English workers in 10 hours, and with
German supervisors much less. The salary is much lower than in England, falling into many
50%cases, but the number of workers in relation to machinery is much higher, in the proportion of
5 to 3 in several sections. Redgrave gives detail and exact information on the factories
Russian cotton textiles. Provided him with data an English manager who recently was there
employee. In this Russian soil, so fertile in infamies of all species, are in full
Flowering the old horrors of the first phase of English factories. The directors of the factories
Russians are naturally English, since the native Russian capitalist does not give this kind of
activity. Despite the excessive, uninterrupted, day and night work, despite the miserable
salaries, Russian products only get their placement in the domestic market because
import from foreigners. ” (Marx) 409
Although the daily workday in Russia is from 14:30, including on Saturday, which totals a journey
weekly 87 hours; While in England the daily journey was 10 hours and the 60 hours weekly.
Although salary in Russia is 50% lower than in England; Although the possible intensity is high,
for the Russian factory was led by English directors; Despite all this the Russian goods only
They were able to compete with the English because their importation was prohibited. This practical example of
Marx completely overthrows the theory of Marini and UOC (MLM) that the overexploitation of work can
compensate for the difference in productivity and thus provide extraordinary added value to
“Dependent bourgeoisie”.
Completely falsifying the foundations of Marxist political economy, both Marini and
UOC (MLM), seek to present the overexploitation of work as a magical mechanism that
It would make it possible to compensate for the difference in productivity and grow the mass of added value and the profit rate
of the buying and bureaucratic bourgeoisie of semicolonial countries in competition with the bourgeoisie of countries
imperialists:
“The three mechanisms already identified - intensification of work, the extension of the workday
and the expropriation of part of the work necessary to the worker to replace his workforce -
configure a mode of production founded exclusively on the greater exploitation of the worker
and not in the development of its productive capacity. (...) This allows you to decrease the composition-
capital value, which, added to the intensification of the degree of exploitation of work, makes it
simultaneously elevate the added and profit rates. ” (Marini) 410
And its disciples of UOC (MLM):
“The considerable disproportion of variable capital within total capital makes the salary
below the middle level and therefore increases, both the mass of surplus value and the rate of
profit." [UOC (MLM)] 411
The extraordinary added value obtained by the bourgeoisie of “underdeveloped” countries, thanks to the “secret”
overexploitation of the proletariat, would allow the local bourgeoisie to reach the same profit rate, the same rate of
accumulation of capital, and would thus allow these bourgeoisie to become exporters of capital,
Configuring what Marini calls subfirialism:
“What was placed was the imperialist expansion of Brazil, in Latin America, which corresponds to the
truth to an submirialism or an indirect extension of American imperialism (not
let us forget that the center of such an imperialism would be a Brazilian economy integrated with
North-American)." (Marini) 412
For the direction of UOC (MLM) the bourgeoisie of the “oppressed capitalist countries”:
"(…) [Reached] a great accumulation of capital making it excessive too.” It cannot be
“Evading your true monopolistic character and imperialist aspirations.” [UOC (MLM)] 413
By taking the Trotskyist theory of dependence, UOC (MLM) concludes that the overexploitation of the proletariat in
oppressed countries, a real phenomenon, would allow the semicolonial bourgeoisie to obtain a profit rate equal to the
Financial capital, to the point of becoming an exporter of excessive capital and thus submirialist. So much


Marini as UOC (MLM) summarize imperialist oppression to overexploitation of work, unaware of
thus the other factors of the maximum profit of financial capital: the suppression of land income and the restriction of
Non -monopolistic bourgeois profit. Simplify the complex picture of reality to a single contradiction
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, denying the revolutionary role of the peasantry in particular and
Small bourgeoisie in general, as well as the height of the national bourgeoisie and national oppression:
“Imperialism has broken the national borders and has faced in the world arena classes against
class." [UOC (MLM)] 414
AND:
“Nowadays the heaviest and most dark yoke about the work of society is financial capital, the
king of imperialist capital that extended through the ends of the world, rocking whole people and taking
with the cause of its existence, survival and development: the overexploitation of
proletariat." [UOC (MLM)] 415
The cause of the existence of financial capital is not only explained by the overexploitation of the proletariat, but
Also due to the suppression of the land income of the oppressed nations, for the looting of their natural riches.
Clarify this is to deny the contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism, to summarize the contradictions
Fundamentals of the world to one: from class against class, right to the taste of Trotskism. Or how
Marini: "The foundation of dependence is the overexploitation of work." This is a foundation but not the
single. What's more, it is not exclusive to the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries; on the contrary, overexploitation
permanent proletariat in the oppressed nations, as Lenin demonstrates, is the source that will supply the profit
maximum of financial capital. This prevents the Lacaia bourgeoisie from the semicolonies to enjoy this condition
On the same proportion. This overexploitation, therefore, does not allow the compensation of the theorized profit rate
by Marini and repeated by UOC (MLM). It is part of the privileges of financial capital given to its nature and
imperialist condition.
Convergences between UOC (MLM) and Marini analyzes are so many that do not believe they are
Only a fortuitous coincidence. In this way, we can conclude that the Trotskyist theory of dependence is
A third ideological foundation of the false political conceptions of UOC (MLM).
In addition to these convergences, UOC (MLM) still approaches other revisionist variants. In your
Criticism of the international line of our party and LCI, the UOC (MLM) repeatedly accuses us of deviations
"Third Worlds". With this means that we are supporters of the rotten theory of Teng's “three worlds”
Siao-papa. Our party defended and defends the position on the basis of discussion, but is not
present in the political declaration and principles, that is, that the formulated by President Mao is correct
that “three worlds are outlined” and that this focus is opposite to the falsification of traitor Teng Siao-Ping.
As is known to everyone, in the 1950s and 1960s, President Mao presented this thesis in
which one drew attention to the contradictions within the imperialist field, between superpowers and
imperialist powers. President Mao's thesis pointed to the design of the following three worlds:
imperialist (first world) superpowers, imperialist powers (second world) and socialist countries
and oppressed countries (Third World). Teng Siao-Ping falsifies this formulation and presents in 1974 and 1977 the
his rotten “theory of the three worlds”, an revisionist international line that aimed to sabotage the world revolution and
demoralize maoism. In his fateful speech, at UN, in April 1974, Teng Siao-Ping presents
publicly for the first time your rotten theory:
“Considering from the changes in international relations, the world today consists of three
Parts, or three worlds, all interconnected and in contradiction with each other. The states
United and the Soviet Union are part of the first world. Developing countries in Asia,
Africa and Latin America and other regions are part of the Third World. Developed countries
Between these two make up the second world. (…) At the same time, all these countries
developed are in varying degrees controlled, threatened or intimidated by one or another
superpower. (…) In various degrees, all these countries [from the second world] have a desire to get rid of
of slavery or control and defend its national independence and the integrity of its sovereignty. ”
(Teng Siao-Ping) 416


That is, for the renegade Teng there would be imperialist countries (first world), developed countries
but oppressed (second world) and developing countries (third world). UOC (MLM), as
We have seen, analyzes that the world is divided into imperialist countries, oppressed capitalist countries and countries
semi -feudal; although he brands against the third worldism ending up converging with the same categories
of the rotten theory of Teng's “three worlds”. Just like this, they conclude about the existence of a “second
World ”composed of countries with developed capitalism, although oppressed by imperialism. Or how
formulate in their criticism of our party and LCI:
“It is possible that there are countries that are neither imperialist nor semi -feudal and colonial, but
that are relatively late capitalist countries ”. [UOC (MLM)] 417
This possibility of UOC (MLM), however unusual from an organization
Politics that define itself as Marxist-lenist-Maoist, it is nothing new, it has already been presented in 1974
by the rotten revisionist Teng Siao-Ping. This convergence with tenguism, therefore, constitutes the fourth
Ideological foundation of the false political positions of UOC (MLM).
Finally, in relation to the philosophical issue, dealt with in the first part of this document, it is necessary to consider the
Emphasis that UOC (MLM) gives the Law of Denial of Denial. Reaching the height of concluding that the fact of this
law, supposedly, was discarded by Stalin and President Mao would be one of the causes of restoration
capitalist in the USSR and China. As we highlight in the first part of this document, UOC (MLM) in its
formulations on the denial of denial at no time marks the difference between the meaning of the
Marx use of the conciliatory position of Proudhon and Pachanda and the false interpretations of Dühring and
Avakian. We show how for Marx the denial of denial occurs as a complete suppression of
private property on the means of production and not as a combination of social property and
Private propriety. That is, the process of permanent revolution until communism aims to put an end to the
interdependence between social production and capitalist property, it aims at the division of this unit to the contrary
in two, the development of the new aspect in a new contradiction and the historical disappearance of the
Old appearance. UOC (MLM) by not demarcating this distinction between the denial of denial in Marx and between
revisionists, approach the philosophical conception sustained by the renegade Prachanda that takes the denial
of denial as the process in which two combine in one.
By abandoning Maoism, reducing this powerful sword of the international proletariat, the teachings
Past or future, without validity in the present, UOC (MLM) ends in poor company: Avakian,
Trotsky, Marini, Teng and Pachanda. Apply a nominal and formally violating theories
its fundamental and without unfurling all its revolutionary content, it is not possible to combat the
Revisionism consequently. UOC (MLM), by not applying the revolutionary content of Maoism to the
current and concrete analysis of concrete contradictions in the world and in its own country, ends up housing in
Fundamentals of their old revisionist theses for a long time defeated in MCI. Of these
erroneous conceptions, the most serious and rooted in their formulations, are Avakianistas and Trotskyists, well
as the economic foundation of the false Marxist theory of dependence, which seeks precisely,
to substantiate a supposed validity of the Trotskyist “Permanent Revolution” in Latin America and in the countries
semicolonials as a whole.
2- Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the Democratic Revolution
The problem of the relationship between the direction of the proletariat in the revolution by socialism and the revolution
Democratic is not a new issue for the international proletariat and MCI. On the contrary, it was present
since the founding of its scientific ideology with Marxism and remains in force, updated and
developed at the time of imperialism. In the course of the process of development of the ideology of
Proletariat, this question was the subject of important two -line struggles. Just as today it is again in
Field of Maoism.
In the manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels state that: “The German bourgeois revolution
It may be but the immediate prelude of a proletarian revolution ”418. In the balance of the defeat of the revolution
Democratic of 1848, Marx analyzes the difference between the breakfast position and the proletarian, in the course of
German revolution, concluding that: “While the breakfasts want to end the revolution the most


possible (...) our interests and our tasks are to make the permanent revolution until the
proletariat conquers state power. ”419
This permanent revolution formulated by Marx, has nothing in common with the Trotskyist Mirage of
revolutions on the never performed paper that provides for the abandonment of democratic tasks, on the one hand, and the
Parliamentary cretinism, on the other*. Marx and Engels followed, throughout his life, defending the
Need to defend bourgeois democratic flags in the fight against semi -feudality in Germany,
even when these flags were abandoned by the bourgeoisie. Thus highlights Engels, in the years 1870:
“Therefore, it is in the interest of the workers to support the bourgeoisie in their struggle against all elements
reactionaries, as long as it remains faithful to itself. All gain that the bourgeoisie extracts from the reaction
It ends up benefiting the working class if this condition is fulfilled. (…) But what if the bourgeoisie is not
true to themselves and betray their own class interests, along with the principles, the
What would this imply? So there are two paths left for workers! Or boost the bourgeoisie
against your will and oblige it, as far as possible, to extend the suffrage, to grant freedom
press, association and assembly and thus create an arena for the proletariat, in which he can
move and organize yourself freely. This is what English workers have done since the bill
of reform of 1832 and the French workers since the July 1830 Revolution (…). Or,
alternatively, workers can withdraw entirely from the bourgeois movement and leave the
bourgeoisie to your own luck. This is what happened in England, France and Germany after failure
of the European workers' movement from 1848 to 1850. (…) this cannot happen when the
Working class is in good condition, as it would be the equivalent of total political abdication. ”
(Engels) 420
In 1891, Engels, in his critique of the Erfurt program, also criticized German social democracy for
Do not unfurl the democratic claim by the Republic in Germany as opposed to the Prussian monarchy.
The relationship, therefore, between the proletarian revolution and the democratic revolution, unfurled in 1848, followed
as an important question for Marxism throughout the nineteenth century. In the first stage of the ideology of
international proletariat, the fight of two most important lines around this relationship was against the
Lasalist Small Burge Socialist Positions. Lassalle acted near Marx and Engels during the
Revolution of 1848 and remained close to Marxism until the late 1850s.
1860, begins to defend openly opportunistic positions and shortly before his death in 1863 founded the
General Association of German Workers. The struggle against Lassalismo was of great importance in
development of the specific line of the revolution in Germany and is at the center of Marx's controversy with the
Social Democratic direction formulated in his genius critical work of Gotha's program.
Lassalle was a right -wing opportunist, who sought to cover up the content of his position, with phraseologies of
left. In this way, he advocated a pure social revolution, arguing that the proletariat abstained
of the democratic struggle of the bourgeoisie against the dominant feudal forces in the kingdom of Prussia. The essence
Directist of this position is explicit in the question of the forms of unification of Germany. Marx and Engels
argued that unification should occur through a democratic revolution, supported by the proletariat,
to crush the feudal reaction and the monarchy. Lassale, in turn, supported the reactionary unification route
German defending the prussian monarchy in a dynastic gerra against Austria. In the War Episode
Austro-Franco-Italian, Lassalle proposed that the “Mission of Prussia” would be to support Napoleon III in destruction
from Austria:
“Regardless of how you think about the form of this unity, if we think of it as a republic
German, as a German empire or, finally, as a strict federation of independent states
- All these questions can remain open at the moment. In any case, all these parts, if
have intelligence to understand each other, they must work together in the essential condition for each
*“The central consign of Stalinists, both in India and China, is still the democratic dictatorship of workers and
peasants. (…) The course of the historical process converted the 'democratic dictatorship' into a hollow fiction, and also
TRACK TRACK FOR THE PROTORIA. (…) Instead of giving the revolution an abstract democratic character and allow it
reach the dictatorship of the proletariat only after any kind of mystical or superstitious 'democratic dictatorship',
our strategies reject the central political consign of all revolutionary democratic mobilization, precisely
CONSITENT ASSEMBLY CONSIGN. (…) The Constituent Assembly, Ond and Formally the representatives of all the people
adjust their accounts with the past, but where in reality the different classes adjust reciprocal accounts, is the expression
widespread, natural and inevitable of the democratic tasks of the revolution, not only in the consciousness of the peasant masses that
arouse but also in the conscience of the working class itself. (…) Give the consign of the Constituent Assembly a
particularly deep revolutionary democratic content. ” (Trotsky, The Indian Revolution, Bold Our)


One of these cases: the annihilation of Austria. (…) Napoleon is about to do this work
preparatory to the constitution of the German unit. ” (LASSALLE) 421
The Marxist position on the issue, supported by Engels in The Powder and the Rhine, pointed to converting the
Attack of the French Empire in a revolutionary national war that would lead to German unification on bases
democratic and republican. Lassalle hid his right -wing position with a leftist phraseology,
saying that in addition to the proletariat the rest of the German population would be a “reactionary mass”, and that the
National issue would be resolved by a dynastic war without the participation of the working class. Engels
describes this Lassalista dogma as follows: “They adopt the sound but historically false dictation
LASSALLIANO: In relation to the working class all other classes are just a reactionary mass. ”422
Thus, like Trotskism, Lassalism had a directist essence covered by the leftist verbiage.
Years later, Lassalle's secret agreements with Bismarck were discovered, clearly revealing that
behind the discourse of abstracting from political and national issues, the position was essentially
that saw in the feudal aristocracy and absolutist monarchy a progressive tendency. Correspondence
Secret to Bismarck, Lassalle wrote that:
“[The workers] would be inclined, despite the republican convictions, (…) to see in the crown
natural bearer of a social dictatorship as opposed to the selfishness of bourgeois society, since
that the crown (…) decides to truly walk along the revolutionary and national path, and
convert from a monarchy of privileged layers, into a social monarchy and
revolutionary. ” (LASSALLE) 423
Lassalle's positions caused important damage to the German proletariat. The lack of understanding
among the relationship of the proletarian revolution with the democratic revolution, widespread widespread in Germany,
seriously influenced the errors of the spaced left in the German revolution of 1919. Franz Mehring, one of the
exponents of the Spartaquista League, for example, evaluated that Lassallse's position regarding the issue
national was correct. Mehring evaluates this question as follows in 1918: “Once the
possibility of a bourgeois revolution, Lassalle realized correctly that German unification, until
where it was possible, it could only be the result of dynastic commotion ”424.
This assessment of Mehring was not restricted to a historical balance of the German revolution. She was
loaded with positive considerations about lasallism, particularly the convergence with the evaluation
about the existence of a reactionary mass. This position, for example, influenced the erroneous league line
Spartaquist on the issue of nationalities and the peasant issue, on which they opposed
self -determination of nations and the agrarian revolution as a way to the nationalization of the earth. These two
issues, in turn, were masterfully resolved by Lenin, precisely because he knew how to drink in
Ideological source of Marx and Engels and unleashed with Lassalle. Trotsky, on the contrary, expressed
his profound admiration for this small-bourgeois socialist:
“From the experiences of the Hungarian and German revolutions, Lassalle got the conclusion that, from there
Given, the revolution could only lean on the class struggle of the proletariat. ” (Trotsky) 425
In the second stage of the ideology of the international proletariat, particularly in the course of the three revolutions
Russian: 1905, February and October 1917, Lenin established a big leap in this issue. Showed how
that the Russian Revolution, as a democratic revolution, would be done not with the Russian liberal bourgeoisie, but
against this bourgeoisie. However, not falling in the Lasasalista tale of pure social revolution, unfurled
need to raise the democratic flags of the end of monarchical absolutism, agrarian revolution and
self -determination of peoples as a step necessary for the socialist revolution. With the entrance to the Political Arena
of the peasantry, in the 1905 Revolution, it masterfully establishes the need for “dictatorship
revolutionary democratic workers and peasants ”. It also argues that the proletariat,
sustained in an armed force of its own, should dispute the direction of the Democratic Revolution, composing the
revolutionary government and aiming to bring the democratic revolution to the end to advance to socialism.
The February 1917 Revolution was the realization of this brilliant Bolshevik line. The monarchy was
knocked down, the Soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants were established, but this one, still with a lot of weight
of the Mecheviks positions did not take power, on the contrary, it began to support a provisional government
Hegemonized by the liberal bourgeoisie in composition with monarchical elements. Lenin showed, then,


that it should not be participated in this provisional government; but, yes, advance to the socialist revolution with the
Conquest all power for Soviets. And it is what is realized in October with the great revolution
Socialist, the party sends power at the insurrection of Petrograd and surrenders to the Soviets Congress of all
the Russia. For the first time in history, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Trotskyist Theory contrary to the democratic stage in the Russian Revolution, was formulated in 1905, taking
Loan the formulations of another opportunist, parvus. With the triumph of the socialist revolution in October,
Trotsky will seek to falsify the story, denying the importance of the February Democratic Revolution and
He shamelessly affirming that in October his rotten theory of permanent revolution was confirmed.
In his attempt to deform Leninism, Trotsky says Lenin late would have realized
Correction of his theory and that before April 1917, the Bolshevik tactic was identical to the Tactical Menshevik:
“It should be remembered that the official social democracy program at that time still remained
the same, both for the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, and that the practical tasks of the
Democratic Revolution were identical on both parties. ” (Trotsky) 426
And still:
“In case of victory, this common revolt against the old regime should, according to Lenin,
Establishment of the 'democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants'. This formula is today
repeated at the communist international as a general dogma, without being analyzed
Living historical experience of the last quarter of century. As if we were not actors and
Witnesses of the 1905 Revolution of the Revolution of February 1917 and, finally, the turnaround of
October! However, such a historical analysis is all the more necessary when the dictatorship regime
Democratic of the proletariat and peasants' never existed in reality. In 1905, Lenin
only spoke of a strategic hypothesis that should still be verified by the real course of the
classes. ” (Trotsky) 427
Both counterfeit! The Bolshevik line was the winner, because the February Revolution was fulfilled as
Democratic Revolution. If they were not, there would be not enough forces to overthrow the monarchy; Moreover,
all the experience of the 1917 course was necessary to make the socialist revolution possible, which would have been
defeated if it were immediate. The revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasants existed
Yes, but did not take place in the provisional government, as the theses of 1905 predict, but in the Soviets since
February. However, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries refused to recognize him and preferred,
in its tibieza, support the bourgeoisie and English imperialism, strengthening the counterrevolutionary government
Provisional. And the struggle in this organ of power, the Soviets, was decisive, because there was the battle for the
conquest of the solid alliance between proletarians and peasants (and soldiers, which were in its vast majority
poor peasants). Alliance that begins with the general peasantry and in the course of the socialist revolution
It refers centrally on the poor peasantry. This is what demonstrates the precious balance of the two revolutions of
1917, made by the great Lenin:
“At first arms given with 'all' the peasants against the monarchy, against the landlords,
Against the medieval (and, in this sense, the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois democratic).
Then, arms given with poor peasants, with the semi -proletariat, with all
exploited, against capitalism, including rich people, kulaks and speculators, and in this
Sense, the revolution becomes socialist. Want to raise an artificial china wall
between both revolutions, separate from each other that is not the degree of preparation of the
proletariat and the degree of its union with the poor peasants is the greatest tendency of the
Marxism, is to vulgarize it, to replace it with liberalism. ” (Lenin) 428
Leninism has established in a new level the relationship between the democratic revolution and the revolution
socialist, demonstrated the need and possibility of transforming the first in the second, not through
of the artificial denial of the steps of this process, but from its realization in the facts. Lenin like this
summarize the question:
“The direct and immediate task of the revolution in Russia was a democratic bourgeois: ending the
remains of all the medieval, sweep them to the end, clean Russia of this barbarism, this shame, this
immense brake for every culture and progress in our country. (…) Both anarchists and the
Small Burger Democrats (that is, the mensheviks and the instarists as Russian representatives


of this international social type) said and say an incredible amount of confusing things about the
Existing relationship between the bourgeois democratic revolution and the socialist revolution (that is, proletarian).
(Lenin) ”429
And still:
“However, in order to consolidate to the peoples of Russia the achievements of the Democratic Revolution
Bourgeois, we should go further and so did. We solved the problems of the revolution
bourgeois democratic in the course of the passing, passing as a 'accessory product' of our work
main and true, of our proletarian, socialist revolutionary work. (…) To the
bourgeois democratic transformations - we have said and we have demonstrated with facts - are a
Accessory product of the proletarian revolution, that is, socialist. ” (Lenin) 430
How the great Stalin finishes: “(...) the idea of the transformation of the democratic-bourgeois revolution
Socialist Revolution, expressed by Lenin as early as 1905, is one of the ways in which the theory of
Marx's permanent revolution ”431.
In the third stage of development of Marxism, Maoism, the question acquires its classical form and
higher. President Mao states that the transformation of the Democratic Revolution into Revolution
socialist corresponds to the uninterrupted passage of the new democracy stage to the socialist stage of
Revolution in semicolonial and semi -feudal countries. Shows how in the course of the democratic revolution
perform socialist tasks, notably the confiscation of the large local and foreign capital (imperialism), their
nationalization in the hands of the new revolutionary state, that is, the complete socialization of the means of
production controlled by imperialism and the great local bourgeoisie. In addition, it formulates that in the course of
revolution of new democracy comes a new form of dictatorship, the joint dictatorship of the classes
revolutionary, indispensable transient form for the proletarian revolution in semicolonial countries, and with
the conquest of power across the country concludes the democratic stage, transforming the class of class
of the state in the dictatorship of the proletariat:
“This form [the dictatorship of the proletariat], however, cannot be adopted by a certain
historical period, in the revolution of the colonial and semicolonial countries. Consequently, in all
These countries, the revolution can only adopt a third form of state in the said period: the Republic of
New democracy. This is the form corresponding to a particular historical period and therefore is
a form of transition, but mandatory and necessary. ” (President Mao) 432
Note that it is the President Mao who establishes the universality of the revolution of new democracy in
colonial and semicolone countries; and not in such semi -feudal countries as the UOC (MLM) falsifies, doing
Reborn the Trotskyist “Permanent Revolution” with “Maoist” seal. This universality is neither work of
President Gonzalo, neither of LCI's “dogmatism”, is the purest Maoism.
Once again, in the history of MCI, the question of the relationship between the proletarian revolution and the revolution
Democratic is put in the order of the day, dividing the fields, now, with whom denying fundamental theory
of Maoism it is maleist. In this sense we consider it very correct, the
observations on this issue raised by the PCI (m) in its greeting to the conformation of the party
Revolutionary communist of Nepal:
“Our party believes that only by performing the tasks of new democracy, in struggle
cross in the path of the prolonged popular war against imperialism, buying capitalism
bureaucratic and feudalism, at the base and superstructure, it is possible to successfully advance to
achieve new democracy and genuine popular democracy in semicolonial systems and
semi -feudal like Nepal and India. ” [PCI (M)] 433
We evaluate how very correct this point made by the PCI (m), because it goes to the political issue
Central in the current fight of two lines in MCI: the problem of the effectiveness of the new democracy revolution. O
ideological foundation of this question is the recognition that the theory of the revolution of new democracy,
that came from the Leninist theses of the Revolution in the colonial/semicolonial countries, it is one of the main
Marxism developments achieved by President Mao in the course of the Chinese Revolution. This one
problem, therefore, is related to the question of the definition of Maoism, what is the universal content
President Mao's contributions, of being the new democracy revolution a specificity for the revolution


Chinese or to be a fundamental universal contribution of Maoism to the revolution of the semicolonial countries, the
what are the vast majority of countries in the world and whose populations correspond to the overwhelming majority of
Popular masses of the earth.
In his critique of the CIMU process, on which there is already a response from LCI434 itself, PCI (m), when dealing
of the development of the ideology of the international proletariat, it points out that: “Thought Mao Tsetung
(…) It was established as a new and superior stage in the development of proletarian ideology in
time of the IX Congress of the CCP. ”435 Then he points out that he was President Gonzalo“ the first to
formulate Maoism as the third, new and superior stage of Marxism ”. We agree with the PCI (m) of
that the IX Congress of the CCP had great historical importance for the establishment of Maoism. In this
Congress on the left consolidates the logos achieved in the course of the great proletarian cultural revolution, the
reestablishment at a higher level the definition adopted in the VII Congress, of 1945, in which it was defined that
The CCP was guided by "Marxism-Leninism and the ideas of Mao Tsetung." Definition that had been
Repealed by the right in 1956 at the VIII Party Congress.
The definitions of the IX Congress, highlighted by the PCI (m), for example, advances in various issues such as the
establishment of the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie as the main contradiction, in the internal level,
of socialist construction; of the defense of GRCP, the need for the struggle of two lines for development and
forge of the Communist Party. However, it does not emphasize, for example, how it is explicit in President Mao,
In about the new democracy, the universality of the new democracy revolution for countries
semicolonials. Therefore, the definition of the Maoism made by President Gonzalo in 1988 in the course of war
Popular in Peru, it is not restricted to appointing the development of the ideology of a new stage. The main
President Gonzalo's contribution to MCI was the definition of the content of this new, third and higher stage
which is Maoism.
This is a profound ideological question on which important political errors may take place. As if
explicit in the formulations of UOC (MLM), which proclaims, for example, that Maoism is a third step,
but it is against the universality of the new democracy revolution to the semicolonial countries. A
Definition of Maoism, established by President Gonzalo, leaves no room for deviations like this, because
He establishes that Maoism is a leap in the three constitutive parts of Marxism, as unity, because the
President Mao in Marxist philosophy established the law of contradiction as the only fundamental; in the economy
politics gave great development to socialist construction and sat the foundations for the theory of capitalism
bureaucratic; and in scientific socialism resolved the question of the revolution of new democracy, the great
Proletarian cultural revolution and established the theory of prolonged popular war.
The delimitation of the universal aspect, in each of the stages of the ideology of the international proletariat, is not
A simple question. Highlight the universality in the theoretical and practical work of Marx, Lenin and Presidente Mao
It corresponds precisely to the respective definition of what Marxism, Leninism and Maoism is. The definition
of each of these stages of the formulation and development of the ideology of the international proletariat
corresponded precisely the clear delimitation of its universality, as well as the complete exposure of each
one of them as a doctrine. The definition, therefore, encompasses a synthesis, but is not reduced to it.
In the current fight of two lines in MCI, starting from the formulations about the thought Mao Tsetung made in the IX
CCP Congress seems to us insufficient. After all, to say how UOC (MLM) does that the new revolution
democracy is not valid for all semicolonial countries is to relegate Maoism to the experience of the revolution
Chinese, is therefore reduced to the condition of guide thinking and not a new stage in ideology. This is it
which makes UOC (MLM), for example, when comparing the 1980 and 1984 MRI statements:
“[In the 1980 Declaration] it was accepted since in some dependent countries capitalism was
a good development and that these were no longer semi-feudal (…). In the MRI Declaration ’
(1984), it is back in relation to the previous point of view to generalize: ‘Still in countries
predominantly capitalist oppressed (…) it is generally necessary that the revolution
go through an anti-imperialist democratic stage before you can start the socialist revolution. ’
In this way it took a step back, because the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, the living soul of the
Marxism, is replaced by mechanism, which intends to bring the conditions of China of 1938
for today's conditions, as if capitalism had been detained, as if time had
frozen." [UOC (MLM)] 436


For UOC (MLM), rigor, the revolution of new democracy was only valid in China from the 1930s. Today, today,
It would only be valid in such “semi -feudal countries,” which no one knows for sure what they would be. For Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism, from the Communist Party manifesto to the latest works of President Mao, the
Relationship between the proletarian revolution and the democratic revolution has always been a matter of paramount importance.
The revolution of new uninterrupted democracy to socialism is an inseparable part of the proletarian revolution
worldwide. To deny the validity of the new democracy revolution is to fall into the most rotten revisionism.
3- President Gonzalo generalizes and develops the Maoist Theory of Capitalism
bureaucratic
In defining Maoism as new, third and superior stage of Marxism, President Gonzalo underlies
the universality of the new democracy revolution, for all colonial and semicolonial countries in the
World, in the generalization and development of the Maoist Theory of Bureaucratic Capitalism. THE DEFENSE OF THEORY
maoist of bureaucratic capitalism was done quite properly by the PCC-FR, in 2022,
Important document response to the Communist Workers Union (UOC) pronouncement on the proposal
of the Coordinating Committee for the Unified Maoist International Conference (CIMU). How this is a
essential question to defend the effectiveness of the New Democracy Revolution, as an indispensable part of the
World proletarian revolution, nowadays, we will address, even if passing through, this decisive contribution of the
President Gonzalo to the ideology of the international proletariat.
Taking Maoism as a unit, President Gonzalo summarizes and applies the theory of capitalism
bureaucratic formulated by President Mao to Peruvian reality, developing it in numerous aspects and the
Generalizing to the conditions of all the oppressed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. O
bureaucratic capitalism is part of the world imperialist system and the formulation of his theory by the president
Mao and his robust development by President Gonzalo is a continuation of the imperialism theory of
Lenin and D'O Capital of Marx and Engels.
Bureaucratic capitalism is defined by President Gonzalo as “the capitalism that generates imperialism
in late countries, tied to feudality that is lame and subjected to imperialism that is the last phase of the
capitalism, which serves the majorities but the imperialists, the great bourgeoisie and the landlords ”and,
From President Mao, synthesizes its basic characteristics:
“1) that bureaucratic capitalism is capitalism that imperialism develops in countries
late, which comprises the capitals of the large landowners, the great bankers and the tycoons
the great bourgeoisie; 2) Explains on the proletariat, peasantry and the small bourgeoisie
and restricts the middle bourgeoisie; 3) It crosses a process by which bureaucratic capitalism is
combines with state power and owe state monopolistic capitalism, buyer and feudal,
deriving at first that develops as a large non -state monopolistic capital and
second, when it suits state power, it develops as monopolistic capitalism
state-owned; 4) Mature the conditions for the Democratic Revolution upon reaching the apex of its
development; and 5) confiscating bureaucratic capitalism is key to cable the revolution
Democratic and decisive to pass to the Socialist Revolution. ”(Communist Party of Peru-PCP) 437
Therefore, bureaucratic capitalism is diametrically opposed to national conformation, preventing liberation
productive forces, exploring the working classes of the city and the countryside and the small bourgeoisie,
restricting the average bourgeoisie and oppressing all the people and materializes the nation's subjugation, serving
imperialism to control the economic process, whether in colonial or semicolonial countries; and, tied
to the landlord, it maintains the lame forms of semi -feudal, feudal and other exploration relations
more delayed, perpetuated in society through the evolution of their forms, whether by state roads and
non-state, associative or non-associative or mixed forms of them. Thus it leaves with all
revisionist theses, casters, guevarists, trotskyists and others of “dependent capitalism” that amino
imperialist domination and the evolution of feudal forms to now change the character of revolution in countries
dominated by predicting “socialist revolution already”, sometimes they set aside their revolutionary phraseology and pass
openly to defend capitulation and pacifist reformism to integrate with the old state as
“Cold accumulation for the socialist revolution”. In fact, traffic with the interests of the popular masses,


set up in your movement through opportunistic organizations, electoralism and cretinism
Parliamentary, in the conquest of “proficient places” in the structure of the old state.
In the study of Peruvian society and its economic and social formation, President Gonzalo founded the
Three moments of the process of bureaucratic capitalism in which it is 1) begins and develops, 2) deepens and
3) goes into general crisis; process whose course takes place in cycles with gradients of “transitory recoveries,
but each new cycle starts from a lower point than the previous one. ”
President Gonzalo planting that the great bourgeoisie is divided into two fractions, the bourgeoisie buying and
The bureaucratic bourgeoisie: the first is older and more intermediate in the export processes, if
Develops mainly in banking and commercial branches and expresses itself as particular capital; Already the fraction
bureaucratic, appears when monopolistic capital merges with the state, being its main lever, and
concentrates mainly in industrial branches. Such differentiation is key, as it arms the proletariat against the
tale of the mermaid of the opportunistic “fronts” that argues to be towed one or another fraction of the great
bourgeoisie in its Pugna and collusion relationship for the Management of the Old State.
Studying the process and conditions under which bureaucratic capitalism is located is a decisive task to define
the character of the revolution in the countries oppressed as a revolution of new uninterrupted democracy to socialism,
whose content is agrarian, antiphaudal and anti-imperialist and the targets are the three mountains that oppress the people and
The nation: imperialism, feudality and bureaucratic capitalism. Such characteristics correspond to
Fundamental contradictions that are managed in these societies: contradiction between nation and imperialism;
contradiction between people and bureaucratic capitalism, as a broader expression of the contradiction between
proletariat and bourgeoisie, in the oppressed countries; and the contradiction masses-feudality, as an expression of the
Contradiction between mainly poor peasantry and landlord system. The first and last can come to
be mainly according to the phases of the revolution and modify their expressions in their course, but in general, it is the
contradiction masses-feudality the main when there is no military invasion of superpower or power
imperialist, being resolved through the agrarian revolution and, when the military invasion occurs
imperialist, the main nation-imperialism contradiction passes, whose resolution occurs through
National or anti-imperialist liberation revolution, as National Liberation War. The second
proletariat and bourgeoisie contradiction, which manifests as a contradiction between people and bureaucratic capitalism,
In turn, it changes and becomes main in the uninterrupted passage of the new democracy revolution
triumphant with the destruction of all semi -feudality and national liberation to the socialist revolution, guaranteed
by the confiscation of all bureaucratic capital and destruction of bureaucratic capitalism.
By taking the study of bureaucratic capitalism, President Gonzalo teaches how to pay close attention not only to
Economic base, but also in the ideological, political, legal and cultural superstructure; See semi -feudality
in its complete expression throughout society, from the base in the concentration and monopoly of the property of the
land, in which the servant and semi -wide relations are raised, even in gamonalism, which expresses the hegemony of
large semi -feudal property in politics and state mechanism, a factor against which
spearhead the agrarian revolution; Still, it draws attention to the political aspect of bureaucratic capitalism, which
rotten and sick is born and while perpetuating, the objective conditions for
development and triumph of the revolution.
The generalization and development of the theory of bureaucratic capitalism is, therefore, a great contribution of
Universal Validity of President Gonzalo; corresponds to a development of Marxist political economy
indispensable for the reasoning of the new democracy revolution in all countries
colonial and semicolonials in the world today. In this document, when we study the operation of income
land of the peasants and colonial and semicolonial countries, in the imperialist phase of development
capitalist, we are just adding some economic elements to this great contribution established
by President Gonzalo.
4- Two fields were turned off, the dividing line is the effectiveness of the New Revolution
Democracy for the vast majority of countries and the vast majority of the population of the earth
The fight of two lines started last year around the base of discussion, published by the then CCIMU,
as preparation of the Unified-Cimu International International Conference, as the product of a long


process of struggles and efforts to overcome the dispersion of forces in MCI and its unit, mobilized how there is
much did not see the parties and Maoist organizations in a frank and direct debate, indispensable for
boost the ongoing process. Initially, the divergences focused on philosophical issues and, in
around President Gonzalo's universal validity contributions. The realization of CIMU corresponded to
Continuity of this struggle of two lines between the parties and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations
LCI founders and its result, the political declaration and principles and as to the organic the Constitution
of a management committee, the sovereign body to the International Conference and the Council of Representatives
conforming by parties and member organizations. The continuity of the two -line struggle after the Foundation
from LCI, particularly with the UOC document (MLM), published in January 2023, and the two editions
from the Journal Fight of Dois Lines, published by this organization and PCM Italy, served to clarify
that the divergences with the LCI presented in them are not directly in the question of the contributions of the
President Gonzalo, but around Maoism's own fundamental theories, particularly
Question of the Revolution of New Democracy, the importance of peasantry in the revolution
World proletarian, the necessary relationship between imperialism and semi -feudality and the weight of the contradiction between
oppressed nations and imperialism.
We already knew the position of the UOC (MLM) of denial of the underlying semi -feudality in countries
SEMICOLONIAIS and its denial of the effectiveness of the New Democracy Revolution in the world today. However,
as a result of the development of the struggle of two lines in MCI, with the publication of the magazine
Two lines, No. 2, we learn that this position is also shared by PCM Italy, which
in his criticism of LCI states:
“A dogmatic appreciation on the 'semi -feudal' feature of all oppressed countries,
while some comrades of some of these countries reject this dogmatic appreciation, on the basis
of their own revolutionary experiences and analysis (such as Colombia Os
comrades of UOC (mlm); in other countries such as Tunisia, Iran and Nepal, some comrades are
advancing in this direction). ” (PCM Italy) 438
According to PCM Italy there is no semi -feudality in Colombia, Tunisia, Iran, nor in Nepal. I.e,
For these semi -feudality does not subsist in any country in the world! Conclude this in the name of
antidogmatism. However, they only repeat, with the same words, the theses of Bob Avakian
presented to the 1980 Conference, let's see:
“(…) It is necessary to do a concrete analysis in each country, and to avoid mechanistic trends to
respect, it is a general principle that the level of revolutionary activity in the field in development
of the revolutionary movement is directly linked to the relative quantitative importance of
peasantry and to what extent there are still pre-capitalist relations in the countryside. ” (PCR-EUA E
PCR-Chile) 439
The same cacarejo as ignorant about the peasant issue, of types that never put their foot outside the
large cities and post themselves to say that there is no longer semi -feudality in semicolonial countries. Orphans of
Avakian who join the Ratzanas of Peru's Lod Ryc, who repeat the same argument by saying that
There is no more semi -feudality in the Andes and therefore the revolution there would be immediately socialist. Such
which TKP-ML and MKP capitulators, which reject the peasantry as the main force of
Revolution of new democracy in Turkey as a justification for the abandonment and betrayal of the popular war.
The editors of the Journal of the Journal of Two Lines inherit the worst existed in MRI, both in relation to the
Avakianist-Trotskyist content of his position, regarding the methods of the relationships between parties and
Organizations. On the one hand, they censor a huge part of the PCI document (m), they blatantly cut 6
15 pages and call it "a small mistake." And cut precisely the excerpts in which the PCI (m)
defends the weight of contradiction between nation/oppressed peoples and imperialism, and the siege of the city by the countryside
in the prolonged popular war. On the other hand, they do not publish the dozens of pages of the UOC article (MLM),
in which the revolution in India, Philippines and Brazil would be suggested to be immediately socialist. No
publish the excerpts in which they argue that capitalism is developing in the field of these countries and
Sweeping semi -feudality:
“Briefly, capitalist production in agriculture is mainly realized for exchange and
using salaried work. Whatever the late forms of exploration or


land lease, can only reduce the speed of the capitalist transformation of agriculture, but
cannot stop it. Lenin showed this very clearly in the case of Russia and can also be seen
In the context of other countries today, such as the case of India or Brazil. ” [UOC (MLM)] 440
UOC (MLM) transplants Lenin's analyzes on the development of capitalism in the field of Russia,
made at the time of free competition capitalism for India and Brazil at the time of imperialism;
To conclude that such as here, the capitalist relations of production would sweep semi -feudal relations. O
that should be swept away, is the nonsense Trotskyist thesis of UOC (MLM) of progressive tendency
imperialism. As for semi -feudality in the field in India and Brazil, only the prolonged popular war
can sweep your relationships. And this is our commitment and concrete practice.
The current fight of two lines in MCI, which began in 2022, around the realization of CIMU and the founding of the
LCI, patent the demarcation line between Maoism and Revisionism (in its old and current
modalities). Maoists hold clearly and bluntly that the main contradiction in the world
Today is the one that opposes nations and oppressed peoples against imperialism. The Heroic National Resistance
Palestine, the enormous support manifested by large masses around the world, thoroughly confirm this
Truth defended by the Maoists. The only way to resolve this contradiction is the new revolution
Democracy, uninterrupted to socialism, through the popular war directed by genuine parties
Communists. Therefore, it constitutes a clear demarcation line between maoism and revisionism the recognition of
Revolution of the Revolution of New Democracy for all colonial and semicolonial countries in the world. To deny
This is the truth to fall into the most village revisionism, it is to abandon the revolutionary path in the oppressed countries.
Communists from around the world, in addition to recognizing this validity, must assume that the revolution of
New democracy is the main force of the world proletarian revolution, because it encompasses most countries and
The overwhelming majority of the popular masses in the world. The international communist movement encompasses two
large currents: the international proletarian movement and the national liberation movement, and the
First is the direction and the second the base. Contrary to what Avakianism and other revisionists argue, the
international proletarian movement is not only present in imperialist countries, but in all
countries of the world. We are in the age of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, and the communist parties in
Each country constitute the avant -garde detachment of the proletariat whose main objective is the achievement of
Political power through the socialist revolution in imperialist countries and the new democracy revolution
in the colonial and semicolonial countries. The direction of the international proletarian movement on the
national liberation materializes in each country oppressed solely through the new revolution
Democracy through the prolonged popular war. The more the new revolutions advance
Democracy in the oppressed countries, the better conditions for the advancement of socialist revolutions in
imperialist countries.
Unfurl and defend the effectiveness of the new democracy revolution and especially apply it through
Revolutionary concrete practice is a decisive line of demarcation between maoism and revisionism. The direction
of UOC (MLM) for years openly oppose this issue and without rectifying this serious revisioner deviation
It will overcome its isolation from the masses. Will only be sinked to the swamp of electoralism, practice
reformist and economist. So much so that this year the direction of UOC (MLM) abandoned the boycott
electoral and tried to justify this right position for his militancy:
“These same considerations are the ones that this year led us to the decision not to campaign
Anti -election policy (…). At this time vote or not vote, vote for candidate X or the candidate
Y, or blank as some propose no importance. ” [UOC (MLM)] 441
Argue that the electoral boycott is unimportant, that from the point of view of the politicization of the masses
makes vote or boycotting the elections, only the preparation of the terrain appears to advance a practice
Economicist for an electoral practice. After all, this is the inevitable result of the abandonment of Maoism and the
Denial of the Revolution of New Democracy in the countries oppressed by imperialism.
Finally, we would like to respond to the low attacks of the UOC Board (MLM) to the Communist Party of
Brazil -P.C.B ..
UOC (MLM) in its criticism of our party and LCI accuses us of "leftists" and sectarians. However,
the general line defended by it holds that the revolution in most semicolonial countries, such


“Oppressed capitalist countries,” would be immediately socialist. Defends, let's see more, for the revolution in
His country, an agrarian program that provides for the “collectivization” of the peasant lands. Argues that there is no
Need for a revolutionary national stage in the popular war in the semicolonial countries. Nega na
PRACTICE THE UNIVERSAL REVIEW OF THE NEW DEMOCRACY REVOLUTION FOR ALL SEMICOLONIAL COUNTRIES. Anyway,
It assumes in essence several Trotskist conclusions and we are “leftists”?
In the fight of two lines started last year (2022) with the publication of the discussion base, three
Colombian organizations took part in the debates: the proletarian power party organization M-L-M, the
Communist Party of Red Colombia and UOC (MLM). All these parties and organizations, in
different measures, criticized in some respects certain propositions contained in the base of discussion,
criticisms that have had counterpositions by other parties and organizations, due to some aspects of
Critics positions to the discussion bases. Of the three organizations of Colombia, only UOC (MLM)
refused to participate in CIMU. Both PPOPMLM and PCC-FR took part of the CIMU and participated
actively in the fight of two lines in the sessions of the conference. UOC (MLM) was the only organization of
Colombia who abandoned the fight of two lines in her first phase and sectaries are the parties and
Organizations that founded LCI?
UOC accusations (MLM) on “leftism” and sectarianism by the founders of LCI,
They simply do not support themselves. However, launching unfounded accusations seems to be becoming a
Specialty of the direction of UOC (MLM). At the end of its long critical document to P.C.B. and to
Founders of LCI, launch the following attack on our party:
“By the way, the second aspect of the incorrect method of comrades [sectarianism], we had already
known at a broad meeting in Brazil in 2016, for which we were formally invited, but
Given the presentation of our proposal to formulate a general line for MCI, the bosses
of the event incited as treatment 'death to revisionism!' (If the 'thought gonzalo' position,
intends to 'kill' revisionism, it means that they have not assimilated the A-B-C of the teachings and practices of
GRCP to combat it).
Despite the grotesque and humiliating that resulted in the treatment received in Brazil - except for
workers' comrades whose hospitality was exemplary and internationalist - we did not report
publicly (…) expecting some reconsideration of the hosts, who years later spoke to
comrades of another organization about a self -criticism, which we never receive directly (…).
Parodying the words of Engels, we have the hard choir to support the spikes of our own
comrades of struggle; Neither in Brazil 2016, not now, intimidate us their offenses. ” [UOC (MLM)] 442
And this repulsive attack was, unfortunately, backed by leaders of the party's construction committee
Maoist Communist of Galicia, insofar as, in its position on the founding of LCI,
issue of referring to this low attack from UOC (MLM) to our party, including doing it
generic and vague, as you can see:
“In all the international contacts we had at MCI, all organizations always
treated with great courtesy and campaign, the same did not happen with UOC (MLM), which was
subject to unfair treatment by an organization that dedicates efforts to contribute
with the strengthening of MCI. ” (CCCPMG) 443
UOC (MLM) wants to become a victim in the ramant goal of disqualifying P.C.B.
By stating that they were treated “grotesque and humiliating” by P.C.B. in Brazil and, including with
cheap demagogy that “except for workers' comrades whose hospitality was exemplary and
internationalist". What sense would this event be like if it was P.C.B. Who invited UOC (MLM), as
attests to his own words in the document we now appreciate. Also, by stating that it did not report
Publicly said treatment - which for P.C.B. it would not be and it is not, in itself, any problems - because, not only
did so, as he said that we would have presented a "self -criticism" to another Colombian organization, without
Refer which one, about this alleged attack. To the direction of the CCP-FR, which in correspondence communicated to P.C.B.
that would have received from UOC (MLM) such prosecution, and to whom we respond that, in all facts that occurred in the
2016 events in Brazil, the direction of P.C.B. had no information on such an occurrence and that
considered such an accusation absurd. The direction of UOC (MLM) did not even give us any criticism of
this supposed attack; did not even do his delegation to events in Brazil or later his
Direction by correspondence.


In fact, our knowledge about said attack, we only had by the said correspondence of the PCC-
FR to our party, and soon by a document published on the UOC web portal (MLM) that criticized the
joint statement in celebration of the bicentenary of the birth of the great Karl Marx, in 2018, that the
P.C.B. Firm; and in the document object of our present appreciation. Never our party would demot the fight
Ideological-political, just as we would never do a public controversy over such a low thing. Also,
our party did not do any self -criticism about it, because we do not treat any organization, however much
Be our differences, in a “grotesque and humiliating” way. We see now, with the persist of the direction of
UOC (mlm) In this cheerful attack on P.C.B., which is also of its methods the subjectivism of playing with the
words and trampled. Who do you want to deceive? To MCI or your own bases?
In 2016, shortly after that event the UOC (MLM) public appreciation on the activity was opposite:
“The celebration of the 50th anniversary of the great proletarian cultural revolution was also very
Well organized, a revolutionary and internationalist event. (…) In addition, the presence of
children, youth and women - mostly African descendants - who develop in the middle
of the struggle with great revolutionary conviction. There were also great agitators experienced
that gave vitality to the everybody. The revolutionary convictions, the state of spirit of the assistants, the
firmness of the paintings that has continued the revolutionary process in Brazil, allows you to trust
that imperialist capitalism will not last long in its agony process because
forces that will bury it. (…) For the communists of Colombia it was an honor to attend the event. ”
[UOC (MLM)] 444
UOC (MLM), on the same activity, makes two antagonistic public appreciations in 2016 exalt their
realization; In 2018, in the same press agency they say they were “treated as dogs”, attacks that
repeat in their document of 2023. Which of the two evaluations express what actually occurred and what is the
true position of the direction of UOC (mlm)?
Such insistence from the direction of UOC (MLM) repeating lies forces us to clarify the facts well. Your delegation
was in Brazil, invited like all the others, to participate in the three scheduled activities: a seminar
About bureaucratic capitalism, a meeting at closed doors only from the delegations of parties and organizations
M-L-M, to discuss the meaning of the great proletarian cultural revolution (one day, duration of
12 hours) and a political-cultural act of masses. In all of them, his delegation was franchised at the same time
intervention that to all other parties and organizations present. As UOC itself (MLM) states
In his attack on our party, his delegation was able to talk freely with the movement's militants
Revolutionary and their mass bases present in the two semi -open events. In which, without any
Restriction, they distributed photocopies of their proposal to formulate a general line to the MCI. What's
of “grotesque and humiliating” in this? Did the UOC Delegation (MLM) lacked decent hosting? No
Has you provided proper feed? Has not the use of the word been allowed to be allowed? Was denied him
Treatment equal to that dismissed to other guests? No, absolutely none of this occurred!
What the direction of UOC (MLM) does not report is that, convened its delegation to compose the event table
Political-cultural, she did not present herself and did not even deign to give any satisfaction. It was uncomfortable to have
found in the debates of previous events, that most parties and organizations present were
Defenders of President Gonzalo's contributions to the world proletarian revolution or because it was filled
With the hardness of clashes on bureaucratic capitalism? UOC's direction (MLM) launches all sorts of
epithets seeking to discredit the parties and Maoist organizations that defend the contributions of validity
Universal of President Gonzalo. It would then be the case that the direction of UOC (MLM which is very “fierce” in
Time to make your criticism and be too sensitive when receiving them?
Let's look at all the events of those events the only where we could deduce a possible cause
for the allegations of “grotesque and humiliating” treatment by our party to the delegation of
UOC (MLM), as absurd as this interpretation, was in the context of debates on capitalism
Bureaucratic, the fact that many of the participants echoed the consign of “death to revisionism”. If a
UOC Directorate (MLM) understood this as an “offense” directed to its organization, when in the context of
hard debates on bureaucratic capitalism, the blows were frontal and relentless against revisionism and
every opportunism, we just have to say that if it served as a carapuça, it is a problem with the delegation and direction of
UOC (MLM), this is a consign raised in any activity of Maoist revolutionaries. The direction of


P.C.B. It is the one who claims, understanding said consigns as directed to his organization is a very defensive attitude for
who points against so many Marxist-Leninist-Mauo parties, including those who support
Fight the popular war and accuse, as the Avakianists and Trotskyists do, of being dogmatic, who
start from the concrete analysis of the concrete situation present, that is, that violate the same soul of Marxism,
because they defend the new democracy revolution through the prolonged popular war in countries
oppressed. If it is not the case of sticking the hood in the head, we add to the said by Engels and quoted in
Your document of 2023, the teaching of President Mao, who at a conference of CCP frames
(1962), as if anticipating the radicalization that would come from the class struggle in the party between proletariat and
bourgeoisie, between Marxists and followers of the capitalist path, between left and right, summoned them to
"Thicken the scalp" to prepare to cross the storms. Because, unlike the
That affirms, your leather is still, very, very delicate.
A CCCPM leader of Galicia was present in this activity and surprised us very negatively
the support that gives the attacks of UOC (MLM), acting dubiously without openly directing the criticism of the
P.C.B .. In the struggle of two lines centrism serves to spread the confusion generated by the right and to breastfeed it.
We charge from Galicia CCCPM a clear position, which says whether or not the accusation of the
UOC (MLM) against our party, without tergiversalations, whether or not they were treated “grotesque and
humiliating ”for our party when they were in Brazil. The comrades of the CCCPM of Galicia were
proletarianly treated when they were in Brazil as it has been with the others and returned from the
even when a delegation of Brazilian revolutionaries were in Galicia. The communists
They should contribute to raising the level of the struggle of two lines and as a testimony of the alleged “unfair treatment”
To UOC (MLM), they must lend themselves to clarify the issue and not feed lies.
To conclude, we head to the Glorious MCI, the Heroic Communist Party of Peru - PCP and Party
Communist of Turkey/Marxist -Leninist - TKP/ML, founders of LCI, aiming at the bright wars
popular directed by their parties we have worked hard on boosting internationalism
proletarian and for developing the revolution in our country. The obligation and responsibility that imposes on us the
contingencies of the controversy, we saw ourselves in the duty to write at length about subjects that are
knowledge of all Marxists-Leninist-Maoists, aiming to raise the ideological struggle to the
Two lines. We also address the Heroic PCI (M) and PCF, torches of the world proletarian revolution,
we greeted the public positions of fraternal parties and publicly reaffirm our decision to
boost the old relationship between our parties, relationships that, unfortunately, were interrupted by
contingencies of the revolutionary class struggle and not for other reasons, aiming to take more steps towards
complete overcoming of dispersion in MCI and its solid unity. Particularly, PCI (M) and PCF,
As it is placed in its LCI assessments to its criticism of the political and principle declaration, P.C.B.
reaffirms the commitment to follow the debates and clarifications with the PCI (m) in bilateral form and
others, direct and organized ”.
We also address the other participating and supporters of LCI. In the present
document we seek to correspond to the very high level of discussions and the fights of two lines locked
at the Unified International International Conference. We greeted everyone for the intense campaigns and the resolute
and tireless revolutionary work brought to practice in the course of this year, driven by the thriving
Fight for the future reconstitution of the communist international international.
Finally, we head to the direction of UOC (MLM), we believe in the struggle of two lines, the critic
transformation. We seek to answer here, from the theoretical and ideological point of view, the erroneous positions
planting by your organization, we seriously study your documents and seek to extract from them
important lessons. We hope that the present fight of two lines contributes to the rectification of these errors,
for the boosting the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Colombia, for the development of
Revolution in this important Latin American country. The fate of the peoples of our countries is intertwined
Inevitably in the fight against the common enemy, imperialism, especially Yankee. The hordes
bloodthirsty of this colossus of clay feet, sooner than late, will be buried between the forest
Amazonian and the Andes of the Andes and the American people will bury him forever and ever. We are
certain that under the direction of their respective communist parties, the proletariat and the Colombian peasantry
And Brazilian will come together in this common task, in the service of the world proletarian revolution!


Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
Below revisionism and all kinds of opportunism!
Long live the invincible popular war!
Long live proletarian internationalism!
Long live the world proletarian revolution!
Long live the 130th anniversary of President Mao Tsetung's Christmas!
Long live the International Communist League!
Communist Party of Brazil - P.C.B.
Central committee


International Communist Liga, Political Declaration and Principles, 2022, our translation and our blacks.
2 International Communist Liga, Political Declaration and Principles, 2022, our translation and our blacks.
3V. I. Lenin, the three sources and the three constitutive parts of Marxism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 23, p. 41, translation
our.
4V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 143, translation and our blacks.
5V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 29, p. 300, our translation.
6Group Copywriter for Revolutionary Mass Criticism of the Party Higher School, subordinate to the CC of the CCP, Three
Major Struggles on China 'S Philosophical Front (1949-64), pp. 10-11, translation and our blacks.
7uoc (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and our blacks.
8UOC (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
9uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 10, translation and bold our.
10uoc (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 3, 2008, our translation and bold.
11uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 10, translation and bold our.
12 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 356, our translation.
13uoc (MLM), Revolution Obrera, No. 210, 2007, our translation and bold.
14PCN (M), The Great Leap Forward: AN INEVITABLE NEED OF HISTORY, 2001, our translation and bold.
15uoc (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 4, 2009, translation and bold our.
16 President Mao, Five Philosophical Thesis, Ediciones in Extranjeras, 2021, p. 167, translation and black people.
17V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 189, translation and our blacks.
18karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 879, our blacks.
19karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 879-80, bold ours.
20karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 880, our blacks.
21Karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 881, our blacks.
22Karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 881, bold ours.
23karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 882, bold ours.
24uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 10, our translation.
25 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 356, our translation and bold.
26Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 160, our blacks.
27Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 154, our blacks.
28Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 161, our blacks.
29PCR-UUS, Manifesto PCR, 2009, translation and our blacks.
30PCN (M), The Great Leap Forward: AN INEVITABLE NEED OF HISTORY, 2001, translation and our blacks.
31v. I. Lenin, Karl Marx, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 26, pp. 55-56, our translation and ours.
32Proudhon, Pierre, J, "What is the owned?, Libras Anarres, 2005, p.229, our translation and bold.
33karl Marx, Misery of Philosophy, Boitempo Publisher, pp. 98-99, our blacks.
34karl Marx, Misery of Philosophy, Editoral Boitempo, p. 100, our blacks.
35The Red Star, No. 15, September 21, 2008, our translation.
36karl Marx, Misery of Philosophy, Editoral Boitempo, p. 147, our blacks.
37 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 341, our translation and bold.
38 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 351, our translation and bold.
39Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Boitempo Editoral, 2015, p. 307, our blacks.
40Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 308, our blacks.
41FRIEDRICH ENGELS, ANTI-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 312, our blacks.
42Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Boitempo Editoral, 2015, pp. 315-16, our blacks.
43Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 316, our blacks.
44Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Boitempo Editoral, 2015, pp. 165-66, our blacks.
45Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Boitempo Editoral, 2015, p. 171, our blacks.
46FRIEDRICH ENGELS, ENGINEERING WORKS, EDITORIAL PROGRESS, T. 3, 1980, p. 246, our blacks.
47Friedrich Engels, Nature Dialectics, Editoral Boitempo, pp. 111-12, our blacks.
48V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 135, our translation.
49V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 203, translation and our blacks.
50V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 204-06, translation and our blacks.
51V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 142-43, our translation and our blacks.
52V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 18, p. 359 and 361, our black translation.
53V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 100, our blacks.
54V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 108, our blacks.
55V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 155, bold ours.
56V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 192, our blacks.
57V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 193.
58V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 197.
59V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 200, bold our.
60V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 298, bold ours.
61v. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 298-99, our blacks.
62V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 299, bold ours.
63V. I. Lenin, philosophical notebooks, OE, T. 6, Avante, p. 299, our blacks.
64J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XIV, p. 56, our translation.
65J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XIV, p. 57, translation and bold our.


66J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Languages Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XIV, p. 57, translation and black people.
67J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XIV, p. 55, translation and bold our.
68J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XIV, p. 56, translation and bold our.
69J. V. Stalin, History of the USSR Communist Party (Bolshevik), Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, digital version,
Works, T. XV, p. 58, translation and bold our.
70 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 194, our translation and bold.
71 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 197, translation and bold our.
72 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 201, translation and bold our.
73 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 214, translation and bold our.
74 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 218, translation and bold our.
75 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 232, our translation and bold.
76 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 241, translation and bold our.
MAO President, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 243, translation and bold our.
78 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 352, our translation and bold.
79 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 365, our translation and bold.
80 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 365, our translation.
81 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 368, our translation and bold.
82Jao CHING-HUANG, PERSIST IN “One Divides Into Two”, Oppose “Combine Two Into One”-A Talk to Basic-Level On The Great Polemic
On the Philosophical Front, Edited and Compiled, Nafang Ribao (Canton), January 11, 1965, our translation and bold.
83 President Mao, apud Three Major Struggles on China's Philosophical Front, Foreign Languages Press, 1973, our translation.
84three Major Struggles on China 'S Philosophical Front, 1971, Peking Review, Foreign Languages Press, 1973, our translation.
85 President Mao, it is necessary to criticize the Fondo La Teoría de la “Synthesized Economic Base”, in Three Major Struggles On
China's Philosophical Front, 1973, our translation and bold.
86 Copywriter for the Revolutionary Mass Criticism of the Party Higher School, subordinate to the CC of the CCP, ES
It is necessary to criticize the fondo theoría de la “synthesized economic base”, in Three Major Struggles on China’s Philosophical
Front, 1973, our translation.
87pcch, it is necessary to criticize the so -called “Synthesized Economic Base”, in Three Major Struggles on China's
Philosophical Front, 1973, our translation.
88 President Mao, it is necessary to criticize the Fondo La Teoría de la “Synthesized Economic Base”, in Three Major Struggles On
China's Philosophical Front, 1973, our translation and bold.
89Distor Criticism of Revolutionary Mass Criticism of the Party Higher School, subordinate to CC CC, Lucha
Transcendental in La Cuestión de La Ididad among El thinking y el ser, Peking Review, 15, April 09, 1971, translation
our.
90 President Mao, it is necessary to criticize the Fondo La Teoría de la “Synthesized Economic Base”, in Three Major Struggles On
China's Philosophical Front, 1973, our translation and bold.
91DATOR GROUP FOR REVOLUTIONARY MASS CRITICISM OF THE PARTY SCHOOL, SUBORTED TO CC CC, THREE
Major Struggles on China 'S Philosophical Front, Peking Rewiew, January 4, 22, 1971, our translation and bold.
92 President Mao, on the correct treatment of contradictions within the people, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 5, p. 431, our translation.
93 President Mao, on the correct treatment of contradictions within the people, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 5, p. 428, translation and our blacks.
94DATOR GROUP FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY MASS CRITICAL OF THE PARTY SCHOOL, SUBORTED TO CC CCP, LUCHA
Transcendental in La Cuestión de La Ididad among El thinking y el ser, Peking Review, 15, April 09, 1971, translation
and bold ours.
95 President Mao, Five Philosophical Thesis, Ediciones in Extranjeras, 2021, p. 167, translation and black people.
96DATOR GROUND FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY MASS CRITICAL OF THE PARTY SCHOOL, SUBORTED TO CC CCP, LUCHA
Transcendental in La Cuestión de La Ididad among El thinking y el ser, Peking Review, 15, April 09, 1971, translation
and bold ours.
97 President Mao, Five Philosophical Thesis, Ediciones in Extranjeras, 2021, p. 168, translation and black people.
98 President Mao, dialectical method for internal unity in the party, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. V, p.
564.
99 President Mao, apud Three great fights in the philosophical front, Peking Review, January 4, 22, 1971, translation and black
ours.
100yang Sien-chos, apud Ai Si-Chi, Surreptitious Substitution of the Theory of Reconciliation of Contradictions and Classes for
Revolutionary Dialectics Must Not Be allowed, Remina Ribao, May 20, 1965, our translation.
101ai Si-Chi, Surreptitious Substitution of the Theory of Reconciliation of Contradictions and Classes for Revolutionary Dialectics
Must Not Be allowed, Remina Ribao, May 20, 1965, our blacks, our translation and bold.
102Ai Si-Chi, Surreptitious Substitution of the Theory of Reconciliation of Contradictions and Classes for Revolutionary Dialectics
Must Not Be allowed, Remina Ribao, May 20, 1965, our translation and bold.


103The Red Star, No. 15, September 21, 2008, our translation.
104ai Heng-Fu and Lin Ching-Shan, “Dividing One Into Two” and “Combining Two Into One” Some achievement Gained in the Study of
Chairman Mao 'S Thought in Materialistic Dialetics, Kuangming Ribao, May 29, 1964, translation and our blacks.
105pan Hsiao-Yuan, the law of contradiction should be a dialectical unit between “one is divided into two” and “two combine in
one ”, HSIN CHIEN-SHE, July 20, 1964, translation and our blacks.
106chin Jan, Revolutionary Dialectics or Reconciliation of Contradictions? - A debate with comrades Ai Heng-Wu, Lin
CHING-HAN AND PAN CHING-PIN, HSIN CHIEN-SHE, No. 7, 20 July, 1964, our translation and ours.
107Kao Ta-Sheng and Feng Yu-Chang, Refute The “Combine Two Into One” Theory Over the Contradictions Between Redness and
PROFICIENCY, Peking Ribao, November 15, 1964, our translation and our blacks.
108Kao Ta-Sheng and Feng Yu-Chang, Refute the “Combine Two Into One”
PROFICIENCY, Peking Ribao, November 15, 1964, our translation and our blacks.
109Distor for the Revolutionary Mass Criticism of the Party Higher School, subordinate to the CC of the CCP, La Teoría
“Integral of the en UNO” ES UNA Philosophy Reaction to restore the capitalism, Peking Review, No. 17, April 23, 1971,
our translation and bold.
110 President, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 345, our translation and bold.
111chin Jan, Revolutionary Dialectics or Reconciliation of Contradictions? - A debate with comrades Ai Heng-Wu, Lin
CHING-SHAN AND PAN CHING-PIN, HSIN CHIEN-SHE (NEW CONSTRUCTION), No. 7, 20 July 1964, OUR TRANSLATION AND BLACK.
112Ai Si-Chi, Surreptitious Substitution of the Theory of Reconciliation of Contradictions and Classes for Revolutionary Dialectics
Must Not Be allowed, Remina Ribao, May 20, 1965, translation and our blacks.
113karl Marx, apud Hsia Shu, in The Anti-Dialectic Essence of “Two Two Combine in one,” Ribao, August 14,
1964, translation and our blacks.
114DATOR GROUP FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY MASS CRITICAL OF THE PARTY SCHOOL, SUBORTED TO CC CCP, LUCHA
Transcendental in La Cuestión de La Ididad among El thinking y el ser, Peking Review, 15, April 09, 1971, translation
and our blacks.
115Jao CHING-HUANG, PERSIST IN “One Divides Into Two”, Oppose “Combine Two Into One”-A Talk to Basic-Level On The Great Polemic
On the Philosophical Front, Edited and Compiled, Nafang Ribao (Canton), January 11, 1965, our translation and bold.
116uoc (MLM), Contradicción Magazine, No. 07, 1991, our translation.
117uoc (MLM), Revolution Obrera, 160, July 2005, our translation.
118uoc (MLM), Revolution Obrera, 182, February 2006, our translation and bold.
119uoc (MLM), Revolution Obrera, 184, March 2006, our translation and our blacks.
120pcr-euu and PCR-Chile, fundamental principles for the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and the MCI line, 1980,
our translation and bold.
121BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the fall of 1981), translation and black
ours.
122BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
123BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the Fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
124pcr-UUS, letter to Los Parties and Organizationals participants del Movimiento Internationalist revolutionary, 2012,
our translation and bold.
125V. I. Lenin, apud Cheng hsin, in exhiba comrade yang sien-chos' s replacement of the metaphysical mechanical theory for
Dialectical Materialism, Kuangming Ribao, December 25, 1964, our translation and bold.
126BOB AVAKIAN, more on the question of dialectics, March 6, 1981, Revolutionary Worker, 95, our translation and bold.
127Friedrich Engels, Nature Dialectics, Boitempo Publishing House, p. 119, bold ours.
128karl Marx, letters on “El Capital”, letter to Joseph Weydemeier, March 5, 1852, Editorial of Sciences Social, 1983,
p.62, bold and our translation.
129 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, p. 356, our translation.
130lenny Wolf, The Scient of Revolution, RCP Publications, 1983, our translation and our blacks.
131Lenny Wolf, The Scient of Revolution, RCP Publications, 1983, our translation and bold.
132BOB AVAKIAN, ABRIENDING BREACHS, 2019, translation and bold our.
133BOB AVAKIAN, ABRIENDING BREACHES, 2019, OUR TRANSLATION AND BLACK.
134BOB AVAKIAN, ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF PROTELARIAN INTERNATIONALISM, REVOLUTIONARY WORKER, No. 96, 13 March 1981,
our translation and ours.
135 PRESIDENT MAO TSETUNG, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, pp. 336-37.
136BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the Fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
137BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the Fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
138BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the Fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
139karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Brake and others, September 17, 1879, OE, Editorial
Avante, Digital Version, T. 3, pp. 96-103, our translation.
140BOB AVAKIAN, apud RAYMOND LOTTA IN ABOUT LA ‘FUERZA IMPONSOR OF LA ANARQUÍA’ Y LA DINAMICA DEL EXCHANGE, DEMARCACIANES No. 3,
2014, translation and bold our.
141Raymond Lotta, America in Decline, Banner Press, 2nd edition, pp. 49-50 and 125, our black translation.
142Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editorial Boitempo, p. 310, bold ours.
143Raymond Lotta, on the Dynamm of Imperialism and the Fettering of Social Development, Awtw, 1985/2, translation and bold
our.
144Raymond Lotta, America in Decline, Banner Press, 2nd edition, p. 162, our blacks, our translation and bold.
145V. I. Lenin, the superior phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 441, translation and black
ours.
146Raymond Lotta In About La ‘Fuerza Pressor of La Anarquía’ y La Dinámica del Exchange, Demarcaciones No. 3, 2014, translation and
Our bold.
147Raymond Lotta In About La ‘Fuerza Pressor of La Anarquía’ y La Dinámica del Exchange, Demarcaciones No. 3, 2014, translation and
our blacks.


148pp-over-mlm, turning off with Avakianist opportunism we are forging unidad between Los Communists, 2022, translation
our.
149pp-over-mlm, turning off with Avakianist opportunism we are forging unidad between Los Comunists, 2022, translation and
Our bold.
150BOB AVAKIAN, ABRIENDING BREACHS, 2019, translation and bold our.
151BOB AVAKIAN, Letter from the Revolutionary Communist Party, United States Al Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
Los parties and organizations del Mri, November 4, 2008, our translation.
152BOB AVAKIAN, ABRIENDING BREACHS, 2019, translation and our blacks.
153BOB AVAKIAN, ABRIENDING BREACHS, 2019, translation and bold our.
154The Red Star, No. 15, September 21, 2008, our translation.
155PCM (Italy), Message from the Italian Communist Communist Party to the PCN (M), April 20, 2008, our translation and bold.
156PRACHANDA, CC Letter to PCR (EEUU), July 1, 2006, translation and our blacks.
157UOC (MLM), Negación de la Negación, No. 03, 2008, translation and our blacks.
158Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation.
159Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation.
160Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
161PRACHANDA, apud Bhattarai in Epochal Ten Years of Application and Development of Revolutionary Ideas, The Worker, No. 10, 2006,
our translation and ours.
162Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
163Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
164Bhattarai, Epochal Ten Years of Application and Development of Revolutionary Ideas, The Worker, No. 10, May 2006, Translation and
our blacks.
165prachanda, on Maoism (1991), in Problems & Prospects of Revolution in Nepal, 2003, our translation and bold.
166Prachanda, on Maoism (1991), in Problems & Prospects of Revolution in Nepal, 2003, our translation and bold.
167Prachanda, The Nepalese People's War & The Question of Ideological Synthesis, The Worker, No. 06, 2000, Translation and Bold
our.
168Jao CHING-HUANG, PERSIST IN “One Divides Into Two”, Oppose “Combine Two Into One”-A Talk to Basic-Level On The Great Polemic
On the Philosophical Front Edited and Compiled, Nafang Ribao, January 11, 1965, our translation.
169Prachanda, The Nepalese People's War & The Question of Ideological Synthesis, The Worker, No. 06, 2000, Translation and Black
ours.
170Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: AN INEVITABLE NEED OF HISTORY, 2001, our translation and bold.
171Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
172Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
173Prachanda, The Great Leap Forward: An inevitable Need of History, 2001, our translation and bold.
174Prachanda, PCN letter (m) to PCR-UUS CC, July 2006, our translation and our blacks.
175Sai Fu-Petting, Chia Ku-Lin, Hsia-Nerh-Hsi-Pieh-Ko and Tien Hsi-PAO, Persist in the Class Origin of Marxist Philosophy, Oppose the
Theory of Class Reconciliation - Refuting the Theory of “Combining Two Into One,” Remina Ribao, September 20, 1964,
our translation and bold.
176PCC-FR, Respesta Al Pronunciation of La Unión Obrera Communist (UOC) About La Propesta del Coordinating Committee
For La Unified Maoist International Conference (CIMU), 2022, our translation, blacks and italics in the original.
177uoc (MLM), Negación de La Negación, No. 03, 2008, translation and our blacks.
178uoc (MLM), negación de la Negación, No. 03, 2008, our translation and bold.
179BOB AVAKIAN, conquer El Mundo?, Revolution No. 50, January 1982 (Lecture in the Fall of 1981), our translation and bold.
180UOC (MLM), Negación de la Negación, No. 03, 2008, our translation and bold.
181uoc (MLM), Negación de La Negación, No. 03, 2008, our translation and bold.
182UOC (MLM), Negación de la Negación, No. 03, 2008, translation and our blacks.
183uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
184UOC (MLM), negación de la negación, No. 04, 2009, translation and bold our.
185UOC (MLM), Negación de la Negación, No. 03, 2008, translation and our blacks.
186uoc (mlm), imperialism is the upper and ultimate phase of imperialism, it is an anteroom of the proletarian revolution and not aniorasala of
‘Ultraimperialism’, 1995, our translation and bold.
187uoc (MLM), Program for the Revolution in Colombia, 2015, translation and our blacks.
188UOC (MLM), ContradicCión, No. 7, translation and our blacks.
189uoc (mlm), about La Propesta about Del Balance delMento Communist International Y of Su current politics
General, 2022 our translation and ours.
190karl Marx, Misery of Philosophy, Editoral Boitempo, Digital Version, PS. 200, our blacks.
191 President Mao, dialectical method for internal unity in the party, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 5, p.
563-564, our translation and bold.
192Ai Si-Chi, Surreptitious Substitution of the Theory of Reconciliation of Contradictions and Classes for Revolutionary Dialectics
Must Not Be allowed, Remina Ribao, May 20, 1965, translation and our blacks.
193 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 214, translation and bold our.
194uoc (MLM), Program for the Revolution in Colombia, 2015, translation and bold our.
195uoc (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 06, 2023, translation and our blacks.
196uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, Fourth Edition, 2015, translation and ours.
197UOC (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
198UOC (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, Fourth Edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
199uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
200karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Party Manifesto, OE, Editorial Progress, T. 1, p. 59, translation and our blacks.


201karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Party Manifesto, OE, Editorial Progress, T. 1, pp. 60-61, translation and black
ours.
202V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 336, translation and black
ours.
203J. V. Stalin, economic problems of socialism in the USSR, chosen works, revolutionary science editions, 2021, p. 688,
Our bold.
204 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 323, translation and our blacks.
205uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and ours.
206 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 321, translation and our blacks.
207J. V. Stalin, Fundamentals of Leninism, Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, Digital Version, T. 6, pp. 33-34, translation and
our blacks.
208V. I. Lenin, the imperialism higher phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 441, translation and black
ours.
209karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 266, our blacks.
210uoc (MLM), negación de la Negación, No. 6, 2022, our translation and bold.
211 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 323, our translation and bold.
212 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 323, our translation and bold.
213 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
pp. 321-323, our translation and bold.
214 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 324, our translation and bold.
215 President Mao, on the problem of the national bourgeoisie and the sensible shensible, OE, editions in foreign languages of
SEVERO, T. 4, p. 214, translation and our blacks.
May 216 Mao, on the new democracy, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2, p. 369, translation and black
ours.
217V. I. Lenin, the imperialism higher phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 429, translation and bold
our.
218uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 12, 1993, our translation and bold.
219V. I. Lenin, Social Democracy and the Revolutionary Provisional Government, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 10, p. 13,
our translation and ours.
220J. V. Stalin, full set of the Central Committee and the Central PC Control Committee (B) of the USSR, August 1927, editions
Foreign Languages Moscow, 1953, Digital Version, T. 10, p. 05, translation and our blacks.
221J. V. Stalin, full set of the Central Committee and the Central PC Control Committee (B) of the USSR, August 1927, editions
Foreign Languages Moscow, 1953, Digital Version, T. 10, p. 04, translation and our blacks.
222 President Mao, on the new democracy, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 2, pp. 362-63, translation and
our blacks.
223 President Mao, on the new democracy, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 2, p. 363, translation and
our blacks.
224uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
225leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, Kairós Bookstore, 1985, p. 137, bold ours.
226uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, Fourth Edition, 2015, translation and ours.
227 President Mao, on the new democracy, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 2, p. 358, translation and
our blacks.
228 President Mao, speech pronounced in a conference of paintings from the released region of Shans-Suiyuan, OE, editions in
Foreign Languages of Beijing, T. 4, p. 247, translation and bold our.
229V. I. Lenin, the agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 16,
pp. 350-51, translation and our blacks.
230UOC (MLM), ContradicCión, No. 7, translation and our blacks.
231V. I. Lenin, on the pamphlet of Junius, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 30, pp. 06-07, our translation and bold.
232V. I. Lenin, on the pamphlet of Junius, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 30, p. 56, translation and bold our.
233V. I. Lenin, on the caricature of Marxism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 30, p. 117, translation and black people.
234 President Mao, Problems of War and Strategy, OE, Editions in Foreign Languages of Beijing, Tome 2, pp. 226-227,
our translation and bold.
235 President Mao, strategic problems of revolutionary war in China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing,
T. 1, p. 196, our translation and bold.
236 President Mao, Problems of War and Strategy, OE, Editions in Foreign Languages of Beijing, Tome 2, p. 228,
our translation and bold.
May 237 President, on the prolonged war, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 2, p. 171, translation and
Our bold.
238uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
239V. I. Lenin, inform the II Congress of All Russia, of the Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East, OC, Editorial
MOSCIDE PROGRESS, T. 39, pp. 338-39, our translation and bold.
240V. I. Lenin, report theses on the Russian Communist Party tactic, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 44, p. 37,
our translation and ours.
241uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
242uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.


243V. I. Lenin, the development of capitalism in Russia, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 03, p. 192, translation and black
ours.
244V. I. Lenin, on our agrarian program, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 09, p. 374, our translation and bold.
245V. I. Lenin, the agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 16, p.
246, translation and our blacks.
246V. I. Lenin, the agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 16, p.
283-84, our translation and ours.
247V. I. Lenin, the agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 16, p.
284, translation and our blacks.
248uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
249uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 18, 1996, our translation and ours.
250uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and our blacks.
251V. I. Lenin, the development of capitalism in Russia, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 03, p. 213, translation and black
ours.
252V. I. Lenin, the agrarian problem in Russia in the late nineteenth century, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 17, p. 74, translation and
our blacks.
253V. I. Lenin, the development of capitalism in Russia, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 03, p. 183-84, translation and black
ours.
254V. I. LENIN, Theses for the II Congress of the Communist International, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 41, p. 185, translation and
our blacks.
255V. I. Lenin, new data on the laws of the development of capitalism in agriculture, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T.
27, pp. 148-49, translation and our blacks.
256V. I. Lenin, new data on the laws of the development of capitalism in agriculture, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T.
27, p. 148, our translation.
257FRIEDRICH ENGELS, ENGINEERING WORKS, EDITORIAL PROGRESS, T. 3, 1980, p. 319, translation and our blacks.
258FRIEDRICH ENGELS, ENGINEERING WORKS, EDITORIAL PROGRESS, T. 3, 1980, p. 317, translation and our blacks.
259uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and ours.
260V. I. Lenin, PC Conference (B) R of the province of Moscow, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 42, p. 29, translation and bold
our.
261V. I. Lenin, initial sketch of theses on the agrarian problem, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 41, p. 184, translation and
our blacks.
262V. I. Lenin, the agrarian problem in Russia in the late nineteenth century, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 17, pp. 131-32, translation and
our blacks.
263V. I. Lenin, initial sketch of theses on the agrarian problem, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 41, p. 184-85, translation and
Our bold.
264 President Gonzalo, Fundamental Documents, PCP, Translation and Our Blackles.
265V. I. Lenin, the superior phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 429, translation and black
ours.
26UOC (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation.
267UO (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation.
268uoc (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation.
269uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 1, apud, No. 8, 1990, our translation and bold.
270uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 8, 1992, our translation and bold.
271V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 336, translation and bold
our.
272PCR-EUA, another turnaround in the world, apud, Contradiction Magazine, No. 8.
273 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 323, translation and our blacks.
274V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 444, translation and bold
our.
275uoc (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and our blacks.
276V. I. Lenin, imperialism and socialism in Italy, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 376, our translation and bold.
277V. I. Lenin, imperialism and socialism in Italy, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 16, translation and black people.
278V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, Editorial Progress Moscow, OC, T. 27, p. 426, translation and black
ours.
279uoc (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
280Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 330, translation and our blacks.
281karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 415.
282Karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 411.
283karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 374-75, our blacks.
284karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 517, bold ours.
285Friedrich Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, Global Editora, p. 66, our blacks.
286Friedrich Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, Global Editora, p. 66, bold ours.
287FRIEDRICH Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, Global Editora, p. 67, our blacks.
2888Friedrich Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, Global Editora, p. 68, our blacks.
289V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 404-05, translation and black
ours.
290 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 1, Tome 1, p. 356, translation and bold
our.
291FRIEDRICH ENGELS, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 55, our blacks.


292Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 177, our blacks.
293Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 177, our blacks.
294Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 178, our blacks.
295Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Editoral Boitempo, 2015, p. 183, our blacks.
296karl Marx, Capital, Book First, Editoral Boitempo, 2013, PS. 1778-79, bold ours.
297V. I. Lenin, imperialism and the split of socialism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 30, p. 180, translation and our blacks.
298V. I. LENIN, Theses for the II Congress of the Communist International, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 41, p. 200, translation and
Our bold.
299V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 377, our translation.
300J. V. Stalin, economic problems of socialism in the USSR, chosen works, revolutionary science editions, 2021, p. 693,
our blacks.
301V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 367, our translation.
302V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 339, translation and black
ours.
303Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Boitempo Editoral, 2015, p. 178, our blacks.
304V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 27, p. 349, translation and bold
our.
305V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 339, our translation.
306V. I. Lenin, imperialism and the split of socialism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 30, p. 180, translation and black
ours.
307J. V. Stalin, economic problems of socialism in the USSR, chosen works, revolutionary science editions, 2021, p. 692,
our blacks.
308J. V. Stalin, economic problems of socialism in the USSR, chosen works, revolutionary science editions, 2021, p. 693,
our blacks.
309V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 2, p. 335, translation and black
ours.
310V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 2, p. 376, translation and bold
our.
311J. V. Stalin, economic problems of socialism in the USSR, chosen works, revolutionary science editions, 2021, p. 693,
our blacks.
312V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 377, our translation.
313V. I. Lenin, on the caricature of Marxism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 30, pp. 112-13, translation and our blacks.
314karl Marx, Capital, Book First, footnote 77, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 730.
315karl Marx, economic-philosophical manuscripts, Boitempo Editoral, 2004, p.43, our blacks.
316karl Marx, Capital, Fourth Book, Volume II, Difel Editorial, 1980, p. 669.
317uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
318uoc (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
319uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
320uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
321uoc (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
322UOC (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
323karl Marx, Misery of Philosophy, Editoral Boitempo, 2004, p. 137, bold ours.
324karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p.835.
325karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p.1003.
326UOC (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
327UO (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
328uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 18, 1996, our translation and bold.
329uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
330MARX, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 868, bold ours.
331uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
332MARX, Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1038, our blacks.
333UOC (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 18, translation and bold our.
334karl Marx, the capital, third book, Brazilian civilization, 1975, p. 846, bold ours.
335karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 851, bold ours.
336karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1020, our blacks.
337karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 997, bold ours.
338karl Marx, Letters on “El Capital”, Letter to Engels, August 9, 1862, Editorial of Sciences, 1983, p.130,
bold and our translation.
339karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 984, bold ours.
340karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 879-880, our blacks. We made small adjustments in
Table to facilitate understanding of that passage.
341karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 880, our blacks.
342KARL MARX, THE CAPITAL, BOOK FOURTH, EDITORAL DIFEL, 1980, p. 584, our blacks.
343karl Marx, The Capital, Fourth Book, Editoral Difel, 1980, p. 477, our blacks.
344V. I. Lenin, the agrarian program of social democracy in the first Russian Revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 16,
pp. 312-13.
345 President Mao, abandon the illusions, prepare for the fight, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 4, 442,
our translation and bold.
346karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1062.
347karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1062.


348karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1066.
349karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 889-90.
350karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 890.
351karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 153-54.
352FRIEDRICH ENGELS, THE CAPITAL, THIRD BOOK, BRAZILIAN CIVILIZATION, 1975, pp. 965-66.
353karl Marx, the capital, third book, editorial Boitempo, 2017, p. 1025.
354karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 845, bold ours.
355karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1063.
356karl Marx, Capital, Book IV, Editoral Difel, 1980, p. 471, our blacks.
357karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 161, our blacks.
358karl Marx, The Capital, Fourth Book, Editoral Difel, 1980, p. 472, our blacks.
359karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 144-45, our blacks.
360V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 311.
361V. I. Lenin, imperialism, upper phase of capitalism, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 27, p. 339.
362Karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 1027-28, our blacks.
363karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 1112-13, our blacks.
364karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 1084, our blacks.
365karl Marx, The Capital, Third Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, pp. 1099-1100, our blacks.
366 President Mao, abandoning illusions, preparing for the fight, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome 4, 442,
our translation and bold.
367v. I. Lenin, all dozen “socialist” ministers, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, Tome 30, p. 202, our blacks.
368 International Communist Liga, Political Declaration and Principles, 2022.
369Friedrich Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, global publisher, p. 68, our blacks.
370FRIEDRICH Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, global publisher, p. 78-79, our blacks.
371 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p.351, translation and black
ours.
372FRIEDRICH Engels, from utopian socialism to scientific socialism, global publisher, p. 79, blacks.
373J. V. Stalin, Fundamentals of Leninism, Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, Digital Version, T. 6, p. 27, translation and
our blacks.
374 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p.352, our translation and bold.
375PCCH, proposition about the general line of the International Communist Movement, Marxism Collection Against Revisionism No. 2,
2003, p. 46, bold ours.
376 President Mao, the Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, T. 2,
P. 324, translation and our blacks.
377UOC (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
378MRI, Declaration of the II Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations that form MRI, 1984, translation and
Our bold.
379 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 344, translation and bold
our.
380 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 347, translation and bold
our.
381 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, pp. 351-52, translation and black
ours.
382 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 352, translation and black
ours.
383 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 352, translation and black
ours.
384 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 353, translation and bold
our.
385 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 353, translation and bold
our.
386 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 354, translation and black
ours.
387 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 354, translation and black
ours.
388 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 355, translation and bold
our.
389 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, p. 353, translation and bold
our.
390 International Communist Liga, Political Declaration and Principles, 2022, our translation and our blacks.
391uoc (MLM), Negación de la Negación, No. 3, 2008, our translation and bold.
392pcr-euu and PCR-Chile, fundamental principles for the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and the MCI line, 1980,
our translation and bold.
393uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 7, 1991, our translation and bold.
394Leon Trotsky, The Chinese Revolution, Digital Version, Bold Our.
395uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
396uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, Fourth Edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
397Leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, Kairós Bookstore, 1985, p. 137, bold ours.
398 President Mao, on contradiction, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome I, pp. 310-311, translation and bold
our.


399uoc (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 7, 1991, our translation and bold.
400leon Trotsky, The Chinese Revolution, Digital Version, Bold Our.
401Leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, Kairós Bookstore, 1985, p. 139, bold ours.
402uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
403uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, fourth edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
404leon Trotsky, results and perspectives, digital version, 2000, PS. 116, our translation and bold.
405ruy Mauro Marini, Dialectics of La Dependency, Popular Series Era, 1981, p. 91, translation and our blacks.
406UOC (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
407ruy Mauro Marini, dialectic of capitalist development in Brazil, V Ozes, 2000, p. 98, our blacks.
408uoc (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
409karl Marx, The Capital, First Book, Brazilian Civilization, 1975, p. 650, our blacks.
410 Ruy Mauro Marini, Dependency Dialectics, V Ozes, 2000, p. 125-126, our blacks.
411uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
412Ruy Mauro Marini, dialectic of capitalist development in Brazil, V Ozes, 2000, p. 70, our blacks.
413UO (MLM), Denial of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
414UOC (MLM), Contradicción Magazine No. 1, apud No. 8, 1990, translation and bold our.
415uoc (MLM), program for La Revolution in La Colombia, Fourth Edition, 2015, translation and bold our.
416TENG SIAO-MAN, Speech by Chairman of the Delagation of the People's Republic of China, Teng Hrto-Maping, At Special Session of
The U.N. General Assembly, Foreign Languages Press Peking, 1974.
417uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
418karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Party Manifesto, OE, Editorial Progress, T. 1, p. 74, translation and our blacks.
419KARL MARX, Message from the Central Committee to the Communist League, OE, Editorial Progress, T. 1, p. 98, translation and bold our.
420Friedrich Engels, the Prussian military issue and the German Workers Party, Collected Works, v. 20, pp. 77-78 Translation and
our blacks.
421FERDINAND LASSALLE, THE ITALIAL WAR AND PROSSY MISSION, GESAMMELTE RENEN UND SCHRIFTEN, v. 1, translation and black people.
422Friedrich Engels, letter to August Bebel, March 18, 1975, Collected Works, v. 45, p. 61 Our translation and bold.
423FERDINAND LASSALLE, LETTER TO OTTO VON BISMARCK, JUNE 1863 APUD FEDESSIEV AND OTHERS, IN KARL MARX - BIOGRAPHY, EDITOR
Avante, 1983, bold our.
424Franz Mehring, Karl Marx - The History of Hist Life, Routnedge Publisher, Digital Version, PS. 857, our translation and bold.
425Leon Trotsky, Results and Perspectives, Digital Version, 2000, PS. 72, translation and bold our.
426Leon Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution, v. I, editions of the Federal Senate, 2017, p. 343, bold ours.
427Leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, Preface. Kairós Bookstore, 1985, p. 20, bold ours.
428V. I. Lenin, the proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 37, p. 322, translation and black
ours.
429V. I. Lenin, due to the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 44, p. 150,
our translation and bold.
430V. I. Lenin, due to the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution, OC, Editorial Progress Moscow, T. 44, p. 153,
our translation and ours.
431J. V. Stalin, Fundamentals of Leninism, Foreign Language Editions Moscow, 1953, Digital Version, T. 8, p. 9, translation and
Our bold.
432 President Mao, on the new democracy, OE, editions in foreign languages of Beijing, Tome II, p. 365, translation and
our blacks.
433PCI (M), support the formation of the Nepal Revolutionary Communist Party, 2023, our translation and bold.
434lci, our evaluation on “The PCI (Maoist) position on the formation of the International Communist League (LCI), 2023.
435PCI (m), PCI positioning (m) on the conformation of LCI, our translation and bold.
436UOC (MLM), Contradiction Magazine, No. 4, translation and our blacks.
437PCP, Line of the Democratic Revolution, 1988.
438pcmi, two -line struggle, No. 2, translation and our blacks.
439PCR (EEU) and PCR (Chile), fundamental principles for the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and the MCI line, translation and
our blacks.
440uoc (MLM), Negation of Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, our translation and bold.
441uoc (MLM), Las Elections of Octubre and La Actuación Politic A, in www.revolutionobrara.com, October 20, 2023, translation and
our blacks.
442UOC (MLM), Denial Denial Magazine, No. 6, 2023, translation and our blacks.
443CCPMG, announced on CIMU and LCI, January 2023, our translation and bold.
444uoc (MLM), Revolution Obrera, No. 458, 2016, our translation.