MLM Line Struggle USA


Line struggles involving American Maoist collectives


   Documentary material on radical themes & occurrences

Returning to a subject explored in America’s Maoist Mushrooms, not just Facebook entities as with the impression given by third Worldists trend, but small activists group, network building involving Maoist pre-party formations. They have drawn some local media comment along the line of Red Guards and the Modern Face of Protest and varying degrees of criticism from the Left:

  1. Reply Austin red guards CONTERPRO attacks and slanderous attack against the PSLThe Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist–Leninist group formed in 2004 as the result of a split within the ranks of the Workers World Party.
  2. The ecumenical Communist Labor Party, a multi-tendency political organization founded in 2015, compared RGA to the ultraleft Bordigist elements
  3. Black Red Guard is a native of Ferguson, Missouri, and became involved in political organizing as a result of the 2014 uprising. He runs a YouTube channel and asks: Why do People Continue to Take the US Red Guards Seriously

However summarized here is a  Recent History of US MLM Movement  before a selection of documents from their polemical engagement in line struggle.

“Our political development mirrors that of the entire contemporary Maoist movement” – RGLA-4-year-summation  (2017)

cropped-red-guards-pgh-cityscape-wide-copy-e1537219980144The contemporary Maoist movement began roughly around 2012/13 mainly in the east coast, particularly in New York City – with the NCP-OC’s first congress being held in 2013. But the Maoist movement back then – with its centre in student organizing – only now exists as a memory and contains valuable lessons on not repeating those errors. Today the U.S. Maoist movement is an integral part of the countrywide antifascist and anti-gentrification movements. U.S. Maoism, as it is now, sparked in the heart of the proletarian urban centres, mostly populated by oppressed nationalities.

RGLA – Red Guard Los Angles -was founded in October 2014 as a Maoist pre-Party cadre/ the first Maoist collective to start up, was immediately followed by our comrades-in-arms RGA – Red Guard Austin -, and then followed by and under their leadership Red Guards Philadelphia (now defunct), then Red Guards Pittsburgh, Red Guards Kansas City and most recently Red Guards Charlotte. While no summation as of yet exists for the liquidation of Red Guards Philadelphia, the Red Guards principally Maoist movement continues to be growing. This network of like-minded autonomousfile_327ff2a1de_400w collectives remain ideologically connected whilst organisational independent. The publishing programme of Fourth Sword publications reflective of their define Maoism, the Maoism brought to the world principally by the Communist Party of Peru (In Spanish, the acronym is PCP) and Chairman Gonzalo. There was a lot of struggle within the 2018 inaugural Maoist Conference for Line Struggle held in Kansas City and by the end of the conference it was eventually agreed upon by all collectives that it is not yet the appropriate time to form a National Organizing Committee.

In the aftermath of the conference there has been intensified polemical interventions that have taken on an international dimensions on websites. They sided with criticism that emerged of Sison, founder-leader of the Communist party of the Philippines. They took sides in the split in the Canadian RCP. They repost the joint statement from various parties and groups in defence of the life of imprisoned PCP Chairman Gonzalo which appeared on the website Dem Volke Dienen . Organised co-ordinated protests in November 2018 against the disappearance, Dr. Sernas—a professor of constitutional law at Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca—in the midst of defending twenty-three Maoist militants of Corriente de Pueblo Sol Rojo, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization based in Oaxaca.2018 coordinated protest at mexican consulates

The RGA Summation tagline includes a reference to the forthcoming protracted people’s war. This was the topic of an earlier collection of documents focused on an element in the construction of what constitutes “Maoist” amongst the fragmentary groups who self-identify as such, and the physiology of twenty-first century Maoism, by identifying arguments and positions attempting to shape the political strategy for the decades to come.

 Dissenting View

 Mass Proletariat

Document 1  | “A Course Correction for Maoism in the US

Document 2   |   On correcting mistaken ideas in Boston

Document 3   |   RGA Is Not an MLM Organization

Document 4   |   One More Time for Those in the Back . . .

Document 5   |   Once Again on Red Guards Austin: Lackeyism and U.S. Empire

Deterioration Relations

 Document 6 |Red Guards Kansas City | 2018 A Critique of the KC Anarchist Milieu

Document 7   |The New Line of Red Guards Kansas City

Document 8 | 2017 Deterioration in Relations

Document 9 | Statement on the History of the Tampa Maoist Collective and its Dissolving: If You Don’t Dare to Struggle, You Don’t Deserve to Win. 

Document 10 | A Critical Reading of the Tampa Summation


Document 11   | the-chicano-national-question

Document 12   | Updated position on the Chicano Nation



We recognize the PCR-RCP and its historical leadership based in Montreal as the sole representative of the Canadian proletariat, and as the only Maoist Party in North America.”

Document 13   |   2018 Communique on the veiled “criticism” from the phony-Maoists in Canada

Document 14   |  2018 RGA LA Maoism from below On the right opportunist, revisionist, and liquidationist, theory of J. Moufawad Paul

Document 15   |   Sided with criticism that emerged of CPP from a small German group which was defended in the Joint declaration of the Red Guards Collectives from the USA. 2018 Regarding the class combat of left and right lines in Germany and the incidents following May 1


protracted people’s war as a strategy for the imperialist countries


#1    Documentary material on radical themes & occurrences

For some years now there have been efforts by some parties and organizations around the world, to try to resurrect or re-establish a new international Maoist organization that differ from the broader membership of existent groups like ILPS and ICOR . Some of these exertions involve small parties or groups (particularly in Canada and Italy) which have been theorizing the notion of the universality of people’s war (i.e. the idea that people’s war is the appropriate revolutionary strategy everywhere, even in highly urbanized, advanced capitalist countries. Whether conditions are yet ripe for this is one of the matters under debate. The arguments also have a tendency to complement their assessment of the experience of the Communist Party of Peru ). Contributing to this exploration of what constitutes the strategic advance are those groups associated with the Maoist Road magazine, and Gonzalists trend, it has seen contributions ranging from opinion blogs and general declarations to more substantial articles. Other parties and organizations would also like to see something like the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement as “an embryo of the new international” re-established, but recognize the serious difficulties in doing so at present. Not simply the short-term collapse of the revolutions in Peru and Nepal, and the degenerated lines of the parties which had been leading those revolutions, and also the bizarre political lines and behaviour of some former RIM parties, such as the RCP,USA, but also the  construction of what constitutes “Maoist” amongst the fragmentary groups who self-identify as such. What is being drawn in this selection of texts is the physiology of twenty-first century Maoism; in these contributions (of varying quality) are the identifying arguments and positions attempting to shape the political strategy for the decades to come.

Part of the point of declaring PPW as universal is to break away from the failed strategy of insurrection and instead use historical materialism to analyze past experiences and military strategies for revolution so we can draw general understandings about revolutionary war from the particular instances of it.


Document 001 General Declaration on Mao and People’s War (1998)

Document 002 For A Century of People’s Wars! A World To Win #26 (2000)


Document 003 2004 – The necessity of distinguishing between the universal and particular laws of the protracted popular revolutionary war| (n)PCI

Document 004 2004 – Protracted people’s war is the only way to make revolution | RCP(OC) Canada

Document 005 2005 – More on the question of waging revolutionary war in the imperialist countries | RCP-PCR Canada

Document 006 2011 – The Paris Commune and the socialist revolution in imperialist countries | (n)PCI

Document 007 2012 – War of Position at the Centres of Capitalism | JMP

Document 008 2012 On Protracted Peoples War as a Universal Development of Revolutionary Theory | JMP

Document 009 2013 What is Protracted People’s War? | Maosoleum collective.

Document 010 | Towards the War of Position: Gramsci in Continuity and Rupture with Marxism-Leninism| Revolutionary Initiative (Canada)

Document 011 2013 Gramsci and the PRPW |(n)PCI

Document 012 2013 Gramsci & Gonzalo Considerations on Conquering Combat Positions within the Inner Wall of Hegemony | Revolutionary Initiative (Canada)

Document 013 2013 The Strategy of Socialist Revolution in the Imperialist Countries|(n)PCI

Document 014 2015 In Defense of Protracted People’s War | PCR-RCP Canada

Document 015 2013 What We Mean When We Say Protracted People’s War, What We Don’t Mean |Black Red Guard

Document 016 2018 People’s War – The sole path to liberation|Klassenstandpunkt

Document 017 2000 The Communist Party Must Lead the Revolutionary War in the Imperialist Countries!  | PCR-RCP Canada

2b) Dissenting View

Document 018 | 2014 – Behind Enemy Lines: Strategic Theory for Revolutionary Work in the Imperialist Core | Nikolai Brown

Document 019 2018 universality of ppw |  Protracted People’s War is Not a Universal Strategy for Revolution | Mass Proletariat (Massachusetts)

  1. Summations

Document 020 1985 the false path of the west European urban guerrilla |A World to Win#4

Document 021 1986 Summing Up Five Years of People’s War in Peru A World to Win #6

Document 022 Why the Peruvian Communist Party is reviled but Marcos and the Zapatistas are loved |rustbeltrevolution

Document 023 The necessity to revise the experiences of the past | (n)PCI

Document 024 2017 OCML On People’s War in Peru, the betrayal by the leadership of the PCP and the capitulation of Gonzalo |OCML Voie Prolétarienne

Document 025 2018 Basque Country An army who learns from his own defeats is meant to win! | (n)PCI

Further Reading

T. Derbent (2006) Categories of Revolutionary Military Policy



48. Looking at Yugoslavia (2)

quote-i-am-the-leader-of-one-country-which-has-two-alphabets-three-languages-four-religions-josip-broz-tito-75-55-69         yugoslavia

These links involves the question of how to appraise the Tito clique: whether as a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism or a renegade from the international communist movement and a lackey of imperialism. Was Stalin wrong in condemning Tito’s policies, not accepting ‘Titoism’ as a specifically Yugoslav form of Marxism-Leninism? The Chinese were praising Mao for his application of Marxism to China, and a couple of years later the British Road had the endorsement of the Soviet Communist Party, and from Stalin himself. However the judgement was that Tito followed a bourgeois-nationalist line and ultimately fell into the American imperialist camp despite protestation of neutrality and non-alignment from Belgrade.

The expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform resulted in a massive  purge within the ruling party that was reflected in the overwhelming number of arrests: between 100,000 and 200,000. Most of these were tortured and killed as “Stalinists.”

Stalin’s failure to overpower Tito’s leadership had vast significance for Soviet ideological and political hegemony in both the bloc and the international movement: here was an alternative communism. After its expulsion, Yugoslavia continued to chart a self-declared communist, but distinctly independent, pathway in its domestic and foreign policies. The United States was delighted with the Soviet-Yugoslavia split, and actively courted Tito with economic and military aid in the late-1940s and 1950s. As Stalin had already discovered, however, Tito refused to be the puppet of any government.


Where is the Nationalism of Tito’s Group in Yugoslavia Leading To

J.V. Stalin

This article was first published in the Soviet Union in December 1948 in the name of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). The identity of the author became known only after the dissolution of the USSR and the opening up of the CPSU archives. The examination of the documents and materials relating to the publication of the ‘Works’ of Stalin revealed that the article was planned to be published as part of volume 15. The article had been preceded by the correspondence of Molotov and Stalin to Tito and Kardelj between March and May 1948 detailing the political and economic errors of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and which culminated in the resolution of the Cominform of June, 1948.1 The immediate background to this article were the reports presented at the 5th Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia which indicated that Tito and his associates planned to continue to pursue their anti-socialist and anti-Soviet course.2 These negative developments were confirmed in the following months and were recorded in the resolutions and reports of the Cominform meeting which was held in Hungary in November, 1949.3 Today when the full consequences of the path of Tito are clear the struggle of Molotov, Stalin, the CPSU(b) and Cominform stands as a monument to their commitment to preserve Bolshevik principles in the face of the onslaught of modern revisionism.


1. The Correspondence between the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), London, 1948.

2. Josip Broz Tito, ‘Political Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.’ Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948; Edvard Kardelj, ‘The Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Struggle for New Yugoslavia for People’s Authority and for Socialism. Report Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948; Boris Kidric, ‘On the Construction of Socialist Economy in the FPRY’, Speech Delivered at the V Congress of the CPY, Belgrade, 1948.

3. ‘The Struggle for Peace, National Independence, Working Class Unity’, CPI, Bombay, 1950. Particularly important is the resolution, ‘Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the Power of Murderers and Spies,’ pp. 54-58. See also: ed. G. Procacci, ‘The Cominform, Minutes of the Three Conferences 1947/1948/1949’, Feltrinelli Editore, Milan, 1994.

Vijay Singh

In the well-known resolution of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties adopted in June 1948 ‘On the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’ it is pointed out that in recent months the nationalist elements that covertly existed even earlier have come to dominate the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, that the leadership of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has broken away from the internationalist traditions of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and has taken up the course of nationalism. 

All the Communist Parties, the entire camp of Peoples’ Democracy and Socialism unanimously accepts the Resolution of the Information Bureau ‘On the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia’. All the Communist Parties of the world recognize that the present Yugoslavian leadership i.e. Tito’s group, by pursuing a nationalist policy, is playing into the hands of the imperialists, isolating Yugoslavia and weakening it. 

Has Tito’s group learnt any appropriate lessons from these facts? 

Has Tito’s group understood that a nationalist policy means losing Yugoslavia’s most loyal allies represented by the Communist Parties of the world and that it has already led to the isolation of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and weakening of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia both within and outside the country? 

Has Tito’s group understood that the only way out of the difficult situation into which it has lead the party and the country is to recognize its mistake, break with the policy of nationalism and return to the fraternity of the Communist Parties? 

No, Tito’s group has not learnt any lessons and it does not appear that it understands these simple and unmistakable facts. 

On the contrary, to all justified and comradely criticism of Tito’s group by the fraternal communist parties and the entire camp of Peoples’ Democracy and Socialism, Tito’s group is responding in the pages of Belgrade’s press with the foul language of the street, by igniting nationalist hatred towards the people of neighbouring democratic countries, widespread repressions, arrests and murders of communists and non-communists who dare to express doubts regarding the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group. Very recently, Colonel-General Arso Iovanovich, a hero of the liberation struggle of Yugoslavia was murdered by the agents of Tito’s assistant, the infamous Rankovic. He was killed because he expressed doubts about the policy of nationalism and terrorism of Tito’s group. In this connection it is openly said in Yugoslavia that ‘Tito’s group has degenerated into a clan of political murderers.’ 

Evidently, Tito’s group has no intentions of recognizing and rectifying its mistakes. It is afraid and does not have the courage to recognize the mistakes because to recognize and rectify ones mistakes would need courage. Even worse, out of ‘fear’ it is arresting and subjecting to repression anyone who dares to remind it of its mistakes.

Lenin says: ‘How a party relates to its mistakes is the most important and convincing criteria of a party’s significance and its capacity to fulfill in deed its obligations towards its class and the working masses. Ability to recognize one’s mistakes openly, reveal its causes, analyse the conditions leading to it and conscientiously discuss the means of rectifying it is the sign of a determined party, of fulfilling one’s obligation and educating and teaching the class and, following it, the masses.’

Evidently Tito’s group just cannot be put in the rank of such courageous, honest and devoted party leaders that Lenin speaks of.

The most important point in the evolution of nationalism of Tito’s group occurred in the spring of 1948 just before the summoning of the Information Bureau. The unconcealed policy of nationalism of Tito’s group began with its refusal to participate in the Meeting of the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties and discuss the situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia with the fraternal Communist Parties. Notwithstanding numerous requests to send a delegation of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to and explain its position in the Meeting, following the example set by other Communist Parties in earlier meetings, Tito’s group blatantly refused to participate in the working of the Meeting. It became evident that Tito’s group attaches no importance to the friendship with other communist parties, including the Communist Party of the USSR. This constituted an open split with the international united front of the Communist Parties. It was breaking away from the position of internationalism and a shift to the rails of nationalism.

The newspaper ‘Borba’ printed from Belgrade asserts that Tito and his accomplices support the united anti-imperialist front. This, certainly, is a sham, designed to deceive ‘simple people’. In reality, which anti-imperialist positions can we talk about when this group cannot stay together in a family even with the Communist Parties of the countries close to Yugoslavia. 

The second major fact indicating the falling of Tito’s group into the sin of nationalism is the improper, hypocritical and anti-Leninist conduct at the V Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Some naïve people expected the Congress would work under the banner of friendship with the Communist Parties, under the flag of strengthening of the anti–imperialist front of the countries of People’s Democracy and the USSR. In reality, however, everything happened to the contrary. In reality, Tito’s group converted the Congress into an arena of tussle against the Communist Parties of the neighbouring countries, into an arena of a tussle against the united anti-imperialist front of the countries of Peoples’ Democracy. This Congress was a campaign against the countries of People’s Democracy and their Communist Parties, against the USSR and its Communist Party. 

Of course in Yugoslavia it is not totally safe to speak openly about the campaign against the USSR and the countries of People’s Democracy as the people of Yugoslavia fully support unity with the countries of People’s Democracy and the USSR. Therefore, Tito’s group has taken to deceit and has decided to disguise this reactionary campaign behind pompous words of praise for the USSR, friendship with the USSR, the enormous role of the USSR in the national liberation movement etc. Things reached a stage that Tito’s accomplices advised Stalin to join up in this deceitful campaign and to take on himself to defend Tito’s nationalist group from criticism by the Communist Parties of the USSR and other democratic countries. The Belgrade press let loose all possible tricks and intrigues, tried out the most unexpected and ludicrous twists and turns in order to prove to the peoples of Yugoslavia that black is white and white is black, that the campaign of Tito’s group against Socialism and Democracy is of secondary importance and that ‘alliance’ with the USSR and a ‘united front’ with it is the main concern of Tito’s group. In reality it turns out that Tito’s group in this period has placed itself in a common camp with the imperialists by rubbishing the Communist Parties of countries of Peoples’ Democracy and the USSR to the satisfaction of the imperialists of the whole world. Instead of a united front with the Communist Parties we have a united front with the imperialists. The V Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia has approved and strengthened the nationalist policy of Tito’s group. 

The political acrobats from the newspaper ‘Borba’ demand that the Communist Parties stop exposing the mistakes of the group and that they extend support and confidence to this group as, otherwise, such a campaign can seriously harm Yugoslavia. 

No gentlemen, the Communist Parties cannot trust or extend support to the nationalist policy of Tito’s group. It is possible that such a situation can hurt Yugoslavia. It is not the Communist Parties that need to be held responsible for it, but Tito’s nationalist group which has broken away from the Communist Parties and that has declared war on them.

The political acrobats from the newspaper ‘Borba’ must be clear in their minds that Marxism and nationalism are incompatible, that nationalism as a bourgeois ideology is antagonistic to Marxism. It must be clear to them that Marxism cannot reconcile with nationalism or nationalist leanings in the Communist Parties and that they must eliminate nationalism in whatever form it covers itself in the name and interests of the workers, in the name of peoples’ freedom and friendship and in the name of the triumphant construction of socialism.

Lenin says: ‘Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism are two ceaselessly incompatible slogans that correspond to the camps of the two large classes of the whole capitalist world and reflect two policies (even more so, two world perceptions)’.

In circumstances when the power of the bourgeoisie has already been put an end to, the exploiter class and its agents are trying to use the poisoned weapon of nationalism in order to reestablish the old formation.

Regarding this Stalin says: ‘Nationalist leanings are an adjustment of the internationalism of the working class to the nationalism of the bourgeoisie… nationalist leanings are a reflection of the attempts by ‘our’ nationalist bourgeoisie to restore capitalism’.

Nationalism in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is a blow not only for the common anti-imperialist front, but above all, for Yugoslavia herself, the peoples of Yugoslavia and the interests of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia both in the field of foreign and internal affairs.

The nationalism of Tito’s group in foreign affairs leads to a break with the united front of the world revolutionary movement of the working people, to a loss of Yugoslavia’s most trusted allies and to self-isolation of Yugoslavia. Nationalism of Tito’s group works against Yugoslavia in the face of her external enemies. 

The nationalism propagated by Tito’s group in the sphere of internal politics leads to a policy of compromise between the exploited and the exploiter, to ‘uniting’ the exploited and the exploiter into a single ‘national’ front, to a policy of retreat from the class struggle, to propagating the falsehood of a possibility of constructing socialism without a class struggle, of a possibility of peaceful transformation of the exploiter under socialism i.e. to wrecking the combativeness and morale of the working people of Yugoslavia. The nationalism of Tito’s group is incapacitating the working people of Yugoslavia before their internal enemies. 

A year ago, when Tito’s group did not yet expound nationalist leanings and cooperated with the fraternal communist parties, Yugoslavia was forcefully and fearlessly marching ahead supported by its closest allies represented by the Communist Parties of other countries. This was the situation in the recent past. However, after the change of course by Tito’s group towards nationalism, the situation is altered radically. As Tito’s group broke away from the united front of the Communist Parties and became scornful towards the countries of Peoples’ Democracy it began to lose its most loyal allies and found itself isolated in the face of its external and internal enemies.

Such is the distressing outcome of the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group.

Tito’s group has not understood that which is absolutely clear and obvious for any Communist. It has not understood the simple truth that in the present conditions of the international situation, the solidarity of the fraternal Communist Parties, mutual cooperation and friendship of countries of Peoples’ Democracy and cooperation and friendship with the USSR is the crucial prerequisite of growth and prosperity of the countries of Peoples’ Democracy in the construction of socialism and the main guarantee of their national freedom and independence in the face of imperialist coercion.

The political tricksters from the newspaper ‘Borba’ further assert that the criticism of the mistakes of Tito’s group has now ballooned into a campaign against the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and against its people.

This, certainly, is a falsehood. There never was and there is no campaign against the peoples of Yugoslavia. It would be criminal to conduct any campaign against the peoples of Yugoslavia whose heroism is known to everyone. It is also known that the peoples of Yugoslavia strongly support a united front with the countries of Peoples’ Democracy and the USSR. They are not at all responsible for the policy of nationalism pursued by Tito’s group. We look upon the peoples of Yugoslavia as our true allies. 

There never was and there is no campaign against the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as a whole. We know very well that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia stands determinedly for friendship with the Communist Parties of other countries, for friendship with the USSR and its Communist Party. The persistence of anti-imperialist traditions among the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia is not doubted at all. We also know that the majority of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia does not approve of the policy of nationalism of Tito’s group. We know that for this particular reason it is being subjected to brutal repression by Tito’s group and his agents.

A ‘campaign’ is being conducted not against the peoples of Yugoslavia and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as a whole, but against Tito’s nationalist group in order to help the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to figure out the mistakes of Tito’s group and reverse the nationalist policy of the Yugoslavian leadership.

The political tricksters from the newspaper ‘Borba’ assert that, after all, Tito’s group is inseparable from the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and that it represents the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

This is also incorrect. A year ago Tito’s group, perhaps, represented the majority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. But that was one year ago. At present, after it has broken with the Communist Parties, after having fought the neighbouring republics and after defecting to the camp of nationalism, Tito’s group does not any more represent the majority in the party. Now Tito’s group represents Tito’s faction enjoying the trust of only a minority in the party, that uses the State apparatus for the purpose of suppressing the internationalist majority in the party, that has thrown the party under the domination of the hangman Rankovic and that has established a regime of terror with its repressions, mass arrests and murders. Indeed, now Tito’s faction is in a state of war with its own party. Only the blind cannot see this. If Tito’s faction has been incapable of maintaining discipline in the party through usual democratic methods and has been forced to make use of mass repressions, then it means that it has already lost the trust of the majority of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia.

Tito’s faction represents only a minority in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and does not enjoy the trust of the party but only of the administrative-police apparatus of Yugoslavia.

(Central Committee)

‘Pravda’, 8th December, 1948.

With acknowledgements to Svetlana Alekseyevna Bondareva and Tim Davenport.
Translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar.

Revolutionary Democracy Vol. VIII, No. 2, September 2002

The Yugoslav-Soviet reconciliation :  Link Yugoslav-Soviet Split


Twists and Turns and U-turns : Link to document

“In 1953-1954 I spoke out [against reconciliation with Tito’s] Yugoslavia at the Politburo. No one supported me, neither Malenkov nor even Kaganovich, though he was a Stalinist! Khruschev was not alone. There were hundreds and thousands like him, otherwise on his own he would not have gotten very far. He simply pandered to the state of mind of the people. But where did that lead? Even now there are lots of Khruschevs. . .”

“Tito is now [1970s at three different talks–ed.] in a difficult situation. His republic is going under, and he will have to grab onto the USSR for dear life. Then we shall be able to deal with him more firmly.”

“Nationalism is causing him to howl in pain, yet he himself is a nationalist, and that is his main defect as a communist. He is a nationalist, that is, he is infected with the bourgeois spirit. He is now cursing and criticizing his own people for nationalism. This means that the Yugoslav multinational state is breaking up along national lines. It is composed of Serbs, Croatians, Slovenes, and so forth.”

“When Tito visited us for the first time, I liked his appearance. We didn’t know everything about him at the time. . . .”

“Tito is not an imperialist, he is a petty-bourgeois, an opponent of socialism. Imperialism is something else again.”

 – Albert Resis intro. & ed., Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics, Conversations with Felix Chuev (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993), pp. 83-4.


Link to the 1958  Chinese publication : In Refutation of Modern Revisionism

Link to  :   Reading  – IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY 1963 


Link :


 CWM  NC Minutes November 1978:Internal Bulletin No.5: Item 4. Yugoslavia  


“I met with Comrade Tito just as an old soldier. We had a cordial talk and agreed to forget the past and look to the future. This is the attitude we adopted when we resumed relations with other East European parties and countries; we take the present as a fresh starting point from which to develop friendly, cooperative relations. Of course, it’s still worthwhile to analyse events of the past. But I think the most important thing is that each party, whether it is big, small or medium, should respect the experience of the others and the choices they have made and refrain from criticizing the way the other parties and countries conduct their affairs. This should be our attitude not only towards parties in power but also towards those that are not in power. When we had talks with representatives of the Communist parties of France and Italy, we expressed this view that we should respect their experience and their choices. If they have made mistakes, it is up to them to correct them. Likewise, they should take the same attitude towards us, allowing us to make mistakes and correct them. Every country and every party has its own experience, which differs from that of the others in a thousand and one ways.”

Deng Xiaoping. Fundamental Issues in Present-Day China.  Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. 1987:186.


Literature Search on Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute and Socialist Yugoslavia

Banc, Ivo (1984) The National Question in Yugoslavia. Cornell University Press

Banc, Ivo (1988) With Stalin Against Tito: Cominformist Splits in Yugoslav Communism. Cornell University Press

Bogdan Denitch (1990) Limits and Possibilities: The Crisis of Yugoslav Socialism and State Socialist Systems, University of Minnesota Press.

Boris Ziherl (1949) Communism and the Fatherland. Jugoslovenska Knjiga

Dedijer, Vladimir (1953) Tito Speaks: his self-portrait and struggle with Stalin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson

Dedijer, Vladimir (1978) The Battle Stalin lost: memoirs of Yugoslavia 1948-1953. Nottingham: Spokesman Books

Djilas, Milovan ( 1966 ed; 1957) The New Class, an analysis of the communist system. London: Unwin Books

Djilas, Milovan (1980) Wartime with Tito and the partisans. London: Martin Secker & Warburg

Hoxha, Enver (1982) The Titoities, historical notes. Tirana: The <8 Nentori> Publishing House

Immanuel Ness and Dario Azzellini (eds.) (2011) Ours to Master and to Own: Workers’ Control from the Commune to the Present, Haymarket Books.

Isyar, Levent (2005 Thesis) Containing Tito: US and Soviet policies towards Yugoslavia and the Balkans.

Kardelj, Edvard (1960) Socialism and War. A survey of the Chinese criticism of the policy of coexistence. New York: McGraw-Hill

Kardelj, Edvard (1982) Reminiscences. The struggle for recognition and independence, the new Yugoslavia 1944-1957.London: Blond & Briggs

Klugman, James (1951) From Trotsky to Tito. London: Lawrence & Wishart

Luther & Pusnik (2010) Remembering Utopia: the culture of everyday life in Socialist Yugoslavia. Washington: New Academia Press

Maclean, Fitzroy (1957) The Heretic: the life and times of Josip Broz Tito. New York: Harrap

Mehta, Coleman Armstrong (2005 Thesis) “A rat hole to watch”? CIA analyses of the Tito-Stalin Split 1948-50.

Michael Barratt Brown (2005) From Tito to Milosevic: Yugoslavia, the Lost Country,Merlin Press.

Milojko Drulovic (1978) Self-Management on Trial, Spokesman.

Niebuhur, Robert Edward (2008 Thesis) The Search for Communist Legacy – Tito’s Yugoslavia.

Patterson, Patrick Hyder (2001) Bought & sold: Living and losing the good life in Yugoslav. Cornell University Press

Programme of The League of Communists of Yugoslavia (1981; 1958) Belgrade: Socialist Thought and Practice

Rajak, Svetozar (2011) Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in the Early Cold War Reconciliation, comradeship,confrontation, 1953–1957. London: Routledge

Rajak, Svetozar (2004 Thesis) YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953-1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation.

Ramet, Sabrina P. (2002) Balkan Babel: the disintegration of Yugoslavia from the death of Tito to the Fall of Milosevic. Westview Press

Rubinstein, Alvin Z. (1970) Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned World. Princeton University Press

Swain, Geoffrey (2011) TITO- A Biography. London: I.B.Tauris & Co.

Velikonja, Mitja (2008) TITOSTALGIA –A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz. Ljubljana: Peace Institute

Vuksic, Velimer (2003) Tito’s Partisans. Osprey Press

Wlodzimierz Brus (1975) Socialist Ownership and Political Systems, Routledge and Kegan Paul Books.

Zukin, Sharon (1975) Beyond Marx and Tito: theory and practice in Yugoslav Socialism. Cambridge University Press


Chapman, B. (2014) Yugoslav-Soviet Split. In War in the Balkans: An Encyclopedic History from the Fall of the Ottoman Empire to the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Richard C. Hall (Ed.). (Volume 1, 353-354).

Chen Po-ta. Yugoslav Revisionism – product of imperialist policy. In Refutation of Modern Revisionism 1958

Coleman Mehta. (2011) The CIA Confronts the Tito-Stalin Split, 1948–1951. Journal of Cold War Studies 13:1101-145.

Danhui Li, Yafeng Xia. (2014) Jockeying for Leadership: Mao and the Sino-Soviet Split, October 1961–July 1964. Journal of Cold War Studies 16:124-60.

Dr. Gabriele Vargiu. The June 1948 Yugoslav-Soviet Crisis: The Italian and American Political Perception and its Consequences over the Trieste’s Dispute. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol.2 no.9 October 2003

Gheorghiu-Dej. Communist Party of Yugoslavia in the power of Assassins and Spies. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy 1950

Jakopovich, Daniel. Yugoslavia’s self-management. Unknown

Jeronim Perović, The Tito-Stalin Split: A Reassessment in Light of New Evidence

Johnson, A. Ross. The Sino-Soviet Relationship and Yugoslavia 1949-1971. Rand Corporation 1971.

Josip Broz Tito, Concerning the National Question and Social Patriotism – speech Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences, November 26th 1948

Journal of Cold War Studies, Spring 2007, Vol. 9, No. 2 , Pages 32-63

Majstorovi, Vojin. The Rise and Fall of the Yugoslav-Soviet Alliance, 1945-1948. Past Imperfect 16 (2010)

Medvedev, I. Tito Clique in service of the Instigator of a new war. Bolshevik, No.11, June 1950

Milojevic, Louie. Building Tito-Land: America’s Cold War Fantasy , Manuscript undated.

People’s Daily, Is Yugoslavia A Socialist country? Comment on the Open letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (III) September 23rd 1963

Perovi, Jeronim. The Tito-Stalin Split: A Reassessment in Light of New Evidence. Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 9, Number 2, Spring 2007


Popivoda, Pero. Tito Clique Wipes Out Communist in Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.14 July 15th 1949

R.Zambrowski, Yugoslav Trotskyites Path of Betrayal and Treachery. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.10 May 15th 1949

Rajak, Svetozar. New Evidence from the Former Yugoslav Archives. COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN, ISSUE 12/13

Reinhartz, Dennis. The Nationalism of Milovan Djilas. Modern Age Summer 1985

RESOLUTION of the Information bureau Concerning the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, For A Peoples Democracy No.13 July 1st 1948

Salaij, Djuro. Achievements of the Working Class in Building the New Yugoslavia. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.9 May 1st 1948

Where the Nationalism of the Tito Group in Yugoslavia is leading. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.18 September 15th 1948

Yugoslav Nationalists Ally With Greek Monarcho-Fascists. For A Lasting Peace, for A Peoples Democracy No.14 July 15th 1949



47. Looking at Yugoslavia (1)



Soviet Union condemns the

Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia


1948 | 1948_The Soviet-Yugoslav Dispute_Published Correspondence

London: Royal Institute of International Affairs

1949 | Communist Party of Yugoslavia In The Power of Assassins and Spies. Resolution of the Information Bureau of Communist Parties in Hungary in the latter half of November 1949.  1949_Meeting_Information Bureau_Communist Parties_November

1950 | Medvedev, Tito clique in service of the instigator of a new war . Bombay: People’s Publishing House Text of Medvedev

1953| May 1953 Zimianin reports to Molotov on the internal and foreign policy of Yugoslavia after breaking with the USSR.    Zimianin report

Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin. First published by Harcourt Brace 1962. London: Penguin [2014]

Author of The New Class [1957], Djilas was once an orthodox communist and former partisan general, expelled from the Party in 1954, his disillusion is record in this account of meeting Stalin as a representative of the Yugoslav government on three occasions.


Restoration of Capitalism in Yugoslavia

1949 Restoration of Capitalism in Yugoslavia Articles from For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy!

1951 |James Klugmann, From Trotsky To Tito London: Lawrence and Wishart

Click to access from-trotsky-to-tito.pdf

 Exchange of Letters marking improvements in relations between the two countries and the two parties.

1954 | June 22, 1954 Letter from Khrushchev to Josip Broz Tito and the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Letter from Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev to Yugoslav leader Josep B. Tito suggesting that the time is ripe for a rapprochement between the two states and parties. Blaming former NKVD chief Lavrenty Beria and former Yugoslav leadership member Milovan Djilas for doing the work of the imperialists by attempting to drive a wedge between the Soviet and Yugoslav people and parties, Khrushchev suggests that the ousting of both will increase rapprochement between the two countries and be the catalyst for a a summit between the two leaders.

Exchange of Letters  

06 | Reply of August 11th to Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Yugoslav response to Soviet approaches about normalizing relations between the two countries and the two parties. While encouraged by the Soviet gestures, the Yugoslav leadership remains cautious and suggests that the rapprochement take a slow and steady course, taking into account the differences as well as the similarities between the two countries.

07 | Letter dated September 23rd   from Khrushchev to Tito and the Central Committee of the League of Communists Of Yugoslavia

Nikita Khrushchev’s letter to Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito concerning the possibility of improving relations between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The Soviet leader suggests that rapprochement between the USSR and Yugoslavia can only be accomplished if both parties continue the exchange of views regarding mutual non-interference in the internal affairs of the other country, peaceful coexistence, equality among parties, and world peace. Khrushchev goes on to suggest that a summit between party representatives should meet in order to further rapprochement.

1956 | Khrushchev reports on his conversations with the Yugoslav leaders during his visit to Yugoslavia

Document 08

                                                                Yugoslavia’s Socialism

1950 | Workers Manage Factories in Yugoslavia. Speech by Josip Broz Tito

Tito’s Speech

1958 | Extract from Programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia



China’s changing attitude towards      Yugoslavia

1955 | June 30 1955 Conversation of Mao Zedong and the Yugoslav Ambassador [V.] Popovic

Conversation Text



1958 |  InRefutationOfModernRevisionism

Editorials and articles on modern revisionism that appeared in the Chinese press in May and June, 1958 and the Resolution on the Moscow Meetings of Representatives of Communist and Workers’ Parties adopted by the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress.

1963 | Is Yugoslavia a socialist country

Comment on the Open letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (III) by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) September 26, 1963

Enver Hoxha on his neighbours

Enver Hoxha and the Great Ideological Battle of the Albanian Communists Against Revisionism

1964 |The Belgrade Revisionist Clique – renegades from Marxism-Leninism and Agents of Imperialism

Tirana: The <<Naim Frasheri>> State Publishing Enterprise [1964]

1978 | Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav “Self-Administration” – Capitalist Theory and Practice

(Against the anti-socialist views of E. Kardelj in the book “Directions of the Development of the Political System of Socialist Self-Administration”)

Tirana: Institute of Marxist-Leninist studies of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania [1978]

1982 | Enver Hoxha, THE TITOITES Historical Notes

Tirana: The <<Naim Frasheri>> Publishing House [1982]

Chinese defence of Stalin – what’s that about?


It is complicated, and a far from comprehensive treatment of the broad issue that follows looks at some aspects of the anti-revisionist responses that were intertwined with consideration of the dominant leader in the era of building socialism in the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev’s evaluation of the Soviet era, broadly contained in reports to the 20th and 22nd Congress of the CPSU, contained a mixture of contemporary strategic considerations and historic judgements. The contentious question of Stalin, discussed under the rubric of “Cult of personality” evoke a variety of responses throughout the international movement.

As the struggle unfolded in the different arenas following the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, it became clearer that the lines of demarcation drawn by the parties in the international communist movement were not simply disagreements or the case of different perspectives based on divergent national experiences; within the Soviet leadership, nurtured under Stalin, there was a body of ideas and policies that formed an assault on what had gone before.  A critical engagement with the Soviet past became politically impossible given the nature of judgements unleashed by Khrushchev’s relentless condemnation of his dead leader.  A blanket defence, without relinquishing points to one’s opponents, saw sharp polemic lines emerge in both the arguments around de-stalinisation and the course of the international communist parties.  The tensions simmered within the movement, and the eventual split that emerged around 1963 marked an ideological watershed that subsequently is treated inconsequently, simply as a matter of history, ………………


[1] 1956

Made without warning or consultation with other parties, Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin in secret session, saw a  well documented Albanian and Chinese opposition emerge. [1]



[2] 1963

When the Chinese leadership published a  Second Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU,  although it repeated some previous positions, there were less nuances in the best known editorials of Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag), of September 13, 1963, On The Question of Stalin.


[3] Some Quotations   moscow 1957

Below are two quotes from Mao on Stalin, the first one at latter’s 60th birthday and the second one after the commencement of the 20th CPSU Party Congress.

These two quotes illustrates why context is always important in the use of quotes, and why a case built on selective quotation is hardly a rigours manner to construct a defence.



[4] Different Roads

In contrast to the creative engagement of the Chinese leadership with the issues unleashed by the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Russian leadership seem to be denying there were any lessons to be learnt from the Stalin era, others within the international camp – and not just the Chinese – were asking how much of the Soviet experience and of the Soviet model was universally valid and how much was a historical peculiarity that need not be repeated elsewhere?frauentag_jugoslawien_3



[5] Still Defending Stalin

Stalin’s service to the cause is actually well documented by his modern day defenders and in some case proves to be an obsessive attempt to prove every besmirch allegation upon him a falsehood. Their balanced assessment always seems to come down in his favour.  A local example is when, in London, in 1991, the Stalin Society-UK was formed as an organization whose stated goal was to refute anti- communist and anti-Stalin libels and slanders through rigorous scholarly research and vigorous debate.



[1] and