We share an translated article which was firstly published on the website "demvolkedienen". In the preface it is written:
In the following we publish an article out of the "Harbinger - For way and destination of the revolutionary movement", an communist theoretical organ from Austria. We want to recommend this article all readers of DemVolkeDienen, because it is an very successful contribution for deepening the struggle against revisionism and chauvinism and to push back its influence in the revolutionary movement step bý step. Mainly in the German speaking area (but unfortunately not only) the MLPD and the from her led ICOR tries to confuse the revolutionary ranks and to lead them to an bourgeois way - the more necessary it is, to destroy this supposedly "new" theories from Stefan Engel, by expressing an proletarian and with that internationalist standpoint! To all readers which want to send their views, critics and compliments to the editors of the "Harbinger", please send them to us (email@example.com) and we will pass it on in the meanwhile with pleasure. Your editors of DemVolkeDienen. (Source: Vorbote, April/May 2018)
On the ICOR's chauvinism and the thesis of the "new-imperialist countries" Stefan Engel, as theoretical leader of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), attempts to "further develop" Marxism-Leninism with his thesis on "new-imperialist countries", something he has turned into his mission. Unlike his petty-bourgeois thesis on "ways of thinking", his theory on "new-imperialist countries" faces many reactions from different sectors of the MLPD-led "International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR)", which rightfully criticized, even though in a narrow manner, this desired "further development". The fact that this thesis was presented on the 100th anniversary of the Great Socialist October Revolution, an occasion on which the ICOR decided to hold its third world congress, makes it all the more unbelievable, when all this thesis does is an attempt at distorting and contradicting Marxism-Leninism by juxtaposing bourgeois statistics, making cryptic interpretations and chaotically experimenting with numbers. Without blushing out of shame (something which would be completely understandable in this situation!) Stefan Engel explains in front of his international guests that the majority of people in the world do not live in oppressed countries, but in imperialistic ones. He then proceeds to put countries like Indonesia, India, Turkey and South Africa on par with Russia, China and the USA. At first glance the comparison looks out of touch with reality, but on a closer look it contains only sophistry and chauvinistic opportunism, which at its core has not much "new" to offer to those, who have recognised as bourgeois or petty-bourgeois the different theories on "developing countries" or on "dependency theory". Since the MLPD and (its friends) the ICOR try to present themselves as "the germ form of a new International", others as an "instrument for international collaboration"  and the ICOR want their "thesis" to be known as "generally valid" and "acknowledged", we find it necessary to develop some points of criticism on Stefan Engel's "On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries". "In its analysis the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD) identifies mainly a group of 14 countries as new-imperialist; they differ in size, are in different stages of development, and have different socioeconomic structures and histories: the BRICS countries Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa; the MIST countries Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey, as well as Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. These countries developed their new-imperialist character in a certain period and in connection with the most recent social developments. 3.7 billion people, more than half the world population, live in these 14 countries. The process of the formation of new-imperialist countries already is in evidence in a number of other countries."  Lenin's work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" as a starting point is shortened and contorted for the "analysis" of Stefan Engel, in which he ignores the economic and political conditions that give rise to imperialism, denying the starting point of every Marxist and inbefore every scientific world view. Engel writes: "So imperialist countries are countries whose economy is determined by monopolies, where the monopolies have increasingly subordinated the state, and that strive for the domination of other territories and countries."  Lenin however writes: "As we have seen, the deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is capitalist monopoly, i.e., monopoly which has grown out of capitalism and which exists in the general environment of capitalism, commodity production and competition, in permanent and insoluble contradiction to this general environment."  For the MLPD the economic and political conditions for the development of an imperialist monopoly are of complete irrelevance. This imperialist monopoly being the financial capital, which is composed at its core by the melting together of bank capital and industrial capital. Lenin analysed the development of the monopoly out of capitalism, an independent development of capitalism, which sees an independent market as a requisite. This task of nation-building was accomplished in today's imperialist countries by the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which was led by the bourgeoisie, except in the cases of present day imperialists Russia and China, which we are gonna talk about later in this article. We think it's necessary at this point to present selected quotes from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, which show how little Stefan Engel's "analysis" has in common with the method of historic-dialectic materialism. "A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others were formed into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity."  With his analysis Stalin gives us the important indication that nation-building and with it the political enforcement of capitalism are part of an epoch, which is already long past. This means for us today that these cannot simply be "applied" from the outside, something which many "developing country"-theories unsuccessfully try to prove. With the complete development of imperialism and the victory of the Great Socialist October Revolution a new epoch was initiated, something which the MLPD probably didn't miss: The epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, which abolishes the epoch of free-market capitalism and thus brings it to an end. Lenin characterized it between other things as the finalized territorial distribution of the world between the imperialists and the complete loss of the bourgeoisie's progressive character, imperialism having become reaction on the whole line. The bourgeoisie became impotent in the new epoch because of this, unable to free the oppressed lands from the yoke of national oppression. Drawing conclusions of this, Stalin sets tasks for the proletariat in the new epoch: "Thus, the October Revolution, having put an end to the old, bourgeois movement for national emancipation, inaugurated the era of a new, socialist movement of the workers and peasants of the oppressed nationalities, directed against all oppression—including, therefore, national oppression—against the power of the bourgeoisie, "their own" and foreign, and against imperialism in general."  Stalin analyses that in the new epoch national freedom movements in oppressed countries have moved from the bourgeois world revolution to the proletarian world revolution. When imperialism reached it's full completion, at the latest with the start of World War One, the bourgeoisie lost its historically progressive character once and for all, its interest laying in the preservation of imperialist rule and not in liberation as Lenin pointed out . The task of national liberation thus became the task of the oppressed peoples and nations, the task under the leadership of the proletariat, which now in order to free itself has taken this task upon its shoulders. In the past 30 years (the period in which the MLPD assumes that 14 "new-imperialist" countries appeared out of thin air) victorious democratic revolutions under proletarian leadership took place in South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Brasil, United Arab Emirates, etc., these are information Stefan Engel is withhelding. Instead he tries to deceive readers with foul tricks. He argues, that for example Turkey caught up on national liberation with the foundation of the Turkish state by Kemal Atatürk , which set the basis for capitalism in Turkey. This is an argument which Turkish communist and founder of the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist–Leninist (TKP/ML), Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, criticized already in the 1970s. In his analysis he showed that Atatürk did not liberate Turkey, but rather collaborated with imperialist powers and sold the country to them. Contrary to Stefan Engel, who describes Kemalism as a revolutionary-nationalistic movement, Kaypakkaya defined Kemalism as fascism, which built up a fascist regime in Turkey, its basis being the oppression of the Kurdish and the Armenian nations . Stefan Engel seems to have found the final proof of Turkey being apparently capitalistic in a play of numbers: "Whereas at the end of the 1970s more than 50 percent of the population still worked in agriculture, in 2014 it was just under 20 percent."  Mr. Engel measures the character of a land by the percentage of peasants and workers in it. We assume that the MLPD and Stefan Engel have read some works of Marxism and thus also assume that they should know the difference between quantity and quality. When Lenin wrote "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" the amount of peasants in the population in countries such as Germany, Italy, France or Austria was higher than the amount of workers or at least had a great importance. Following Engel's line of reasoning these countries should have counted as feudal back then, something which puts him in direct contradiction to Lenin. No one today would seriously claim such nonsense. The bourgeois-democratic revolution brought forward political truths that cannot be simply swiped away by a mere play of numbers. For this reason, we don't accept any play of numbers by Stefan Engels and we do not share the standpoint that a one-sided increase or decrease of quantity may change the quality, the character of a country. Next to Turkey, India is another country that stands out of the countries Stefan Engel classified as "new-imperialist" in his "analysis". "After India gained its national independence from Britain in 1947, as a resource-rich and populous country it built a relatively comprehensive foundation for industrialization and the production of capital goods."  He continues: "With the “Green Revolution” the capitalist industrialization of agriculture was initiated."  To this assumption by Stefan Engel we want to respond with the analysis of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), which did not come into existence in a German desk (probably made out of oak wood?), but was developed in the long-lasting process, a people's war which in the last 50 years has grown to become the greatest revolution of the present world. The general secretary of the party, Ganapathi, explained the party's line as follows: "After 15th August 1947 (Translator's Note: Indian Independence) we never saw such integration of Indian economy, defense, internal security, polity, culture and entire state with the imperialists, particularly with the US imperialists."  According to CPI (Maoist) the "independence" of India did not lead to a strengthen independent development of the Indian economy, on the contrary it deepened the imperialist penetration. That the so-called "Green Revolution" brought forward the capitalist industrialisation of agriculture, as Stefan Engel points out, is an open pro-imperialist position that not even petty-bourgeois "globalisation critics" such as Jean Ziegler share. It has mainly strengthened the feudal large landownership and the imperialist monopolies and is responsible for the ruin of hundreds of thousands of peasants in India. We summarize. With the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution the bourgeoisie has become unable to take up the task of national liberation as a requisite for a capitalist and therefore imperialist development. The proletariat is the only class that is able to consistently lead the liberation struggle in oppressed nations. Lenin states clearly: Imperialism is reaction on the whole line, there is no forward-oriented qualitative development coming from it. Did this essential teaching from Lenin go amiss in the MLPD? Or does the MLPD stand on such bourgeois ground that the teachings of the Marxist classics nowadays only serve as lip service? Stefan Engel works in a really uncritical way with bourgeois statistics, which try to show that imperialism "elevates" as if by magic colonies and semi colonies "to the same level [as imperialists]", that it's imperialism the one that brings forth the qualitative development. The key in all of this, Stefan Engel says, is the capital export. The capital export First, let us take a look on the interpretation of the MLPD. "In the neocolonially dependent countries, with the expanding capitalist mode of production a national bourgeoisie and the industrial proletariat inevitably emerged. The domestic bourgeoisie established numerous industrial production facilities, assisted by loans from the imperialist countries, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank."  "At the same time, the flooding of the new-imperialist countries with capital unintentionally accelerated the emergence of new imperialist rivals there."  "From 2007 to 2014 the new-imperialist countries' share of worldwide capital export tripled from 10.2 percent to 30.9 percent."  The use of the word "unintentionally" by Stefan Engel is probably the peak of his sophistry, which defines the whole method of his "new theories". In order not to suffer the embarrassment of explaining how imperialism and the bourgeoisie are spreading development in a planified and conscious way and also how they overcame the anarchy of production inherent in imperialism, this small addition was incorporated in the text, which should suffice to be off the hook (as if it were that easy!). Marxist readers will not be deceived by such a small "addition" and will see what is really behind the MLPD's thesis: the potential for progress within imperialism. "Everyone can become an imperialist" is the MLPD's motto. The denser and deeper the imperialist capital penetrates the colony the better, that way the chance of the colony becoming an imperialist is all the more bigger, completely without having a democratic revolution. Practical isn't it? This much from the MLPD. Lenin analysed: "Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."  First and foremost, we want to state it's completely nonsensical to twist Lenin's thesis in such a way that every country exporting capital in one way or another be regarded as imperialist. Following this nonsensical line of reasoning it would become hard to find any "non-imperialist" countries. Lenin states that capital export has won "incredible importance", which means it constitutes the main focus, something the parasitic character of imperialism highlights. India for example exports capital to Bangladesh, Nepal, Sudan, etc., but the main focus is centered around the export of goods to imperialist countries, something even bourgeois statistics show. This example becomes all the more clearer when we take into account what kind of goods are being exported, because even imperialist countries export goods and not just capital, a fact that should be well-known especially in Germany. The goods exported by an imperialist country have a special character, they are mainly means of production, which are vastly different from other exported goods such as raw materials, food, fabrics, etc. To solve the question of capital export it seems necessary to first clarify the difference between expansionism and imperialism and second to ask ourselves where this capital is accumulating. About point one: Karl Marx defines capital as something, which in its being is always pushing towards expansion. Basing ourselves on this definition, we assume that there can be no capital that doesn't push towards expansion, not in an imperialist country and not in an oppressed country. However, if someone were to equate expansionism and imperialism, the character of imperialism would get distorted and the teachings of Lenin on imperialism wouldn't be applicable the right way. To name an example, the drive towards expansion was already present in the capital in the last epoch of free market capitalism and it was present in not such a small scale, which can be seen, if we take a look at Italy, France or Spain. Nevertheless, Karl Marx didn't start fantasizing about the enforcement of imperialism because of it. About point two: The capital that is exported from oppressed nations can be defined in its majority as "pass-through capital", imperialist foreign capital that travels through a different route passing through another country. When it comes to examples, we like to look towards India. In 2006 the German cement manufacturer HeidelbergCement increased its shares by over 50% in the Indian cement grinding plant Indorama, which had become India's biggest cement manufacturers only a couple of years later, becoming it's main owner. Formally it's still a traditional Indian company. Indorama as one of the biggest cement manufacturers worldwide not only exports its goods around the world, it also exports capital inside Asia, to Africa and Latinamerica. The capital exported is German monopol capital and the earnings of Indorama go mostly to its German owners. There are uncountable examples like Indorama, that signal that the "Indian capital export" is actually US-American, British, German, etc. capital export that travels through the "intermediate station" India. If we turn to Ganapathi, we see that the CPI (Maoist) defines the imperialist enforcement as the main cause of Indian expansionism: "Due to this significant change [Editor's Note: the strengthened political, military and economic influence of US-imperialism] the Indian expansionists are playing a crucial role in the South-Asia."  Even the Indian sector of the ICOR, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Red Star [CPI (M-L)-Red Star] partially recognized the deceiving character of Stefan Engel's thesis. They write in their open criticism: "A deeper class analysis will only show that this riddle in relation to the "capital export" remains only in the "form", while the real essence remains in the relations of production, which are defined in the process of value extraction. The finance capital can even plunder surplus value from dependent countries without even making use of the formal capital export. (...) The so-called unification and close collaboration between the ruling classes of imperialist countries on one hand and the neocolonial countries on the other, the restructuring of the nation-based manufacturing base through a new work allocation, digitalization, financial speculation and the resulting increased plundering of workers and nature, which lead to different rejections from within the country etc., in reality deepens the historic divide between both instead of solving their differences." [Editor's Note: Own translation]  Even though this criticism is justified and further proves the ruin of the MLPD, it also has to be considered as opportunistic in contrast to the clear position of the CPI (Maoist). Since at the end they write: "But since imperialism changes, it would be dogmatic to dismiss the possibility of the appearance of new imperialist countries." (ibid.) The bourgeois core of the MLPD's "analysis" is also present in this criticism, which is by far more realistic, but it also recognizes the possibility of the formation of new-imperialist countries and furthermore it brands anyone who dismisses this possibilty as dogmatic. The thesis of the MLPD, which does nothing more than openly taking the side of finance capital, inbefore imperialism, which is presented as the "unconscious" destroyer of colonialism, has to be defined as bourgeois and therefore also as reactionary. This thesis is mainly directed towards ICOR's sections from countries oppressed and pillaged by imperialism. The thesis is supposed to weaken and hold back the struggle against imperialist pillaging and oppression. With this thesis the MLPD opens an additional gateway for chauvinism in the ICOR. Not only does it deny the worldwide main contradiction between oppressed peoples' and nations, but also the role of oppressed nations as storm centers of the proletarian world revolution, which in return denys that the proletarian world revolution encompasses different types of revolution. The one-sided focus of the MLPD on the socialist revolution, their effort to contradict the validity of the democratic revolution under proletarian leadership, is set against the main content of today's proletarian world revolution: the (new)democratic revolution. No revolutionary, no antiimperialist and no Marxist-Leninist within the ICOR can have any kind of interest in such leadership, in such "new thesis", if the development of the proletarian world revolution is of real concern to them. The denial of the main content of the proletarian world revolution and as such the efforts of causing an international divide is the essence of this "new" theory, which had already been represented before by Kautsky, Chrustshow or Lin Biao in all possible forms and shapes. The fact that this theory comes from Germany is historically seen not that surprising, Lenin already called "German chauvinism" a specially opportunistic form of chauvinism. It must be said here, that we don't believe in coincidences when it comes to the formation of ideological lines and positions. As such, objective requirements must be drawn to attention, especially the relation Germany has towards the USA. Germany in its effort to gain hegemony over Europe has become US-main alliance partner worldwide. Stefan Engel's thesis tries to whitewash the USA's role as the main enemy of the world's population and as the worldwide bastion of counterrevolution, hindering with it the united front against imperialism. The MLPD has created a magnificent assistance not only for the USA, but also for "their" imperialist Germany. That is an objective fact that cannot be swiped off by simply using revolutionary phrases. In contrast to South Africa, Indonesia, South Korea, etc. Russia and China have indeed become imperialists during the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, but this happened through restauration and instauration of capitalism against socialism, which is based on the democratic and socialist revolution. Here we want to especially highlight the Communist Party of China and its chairman Mao Zedong, who brought forward the universally applicable theories of "new democratic revolution" and "bureaucratic capitalism" for the final liberation of oppressed nations from imperialism. Bureaucratic capitalism and new democratic revolution The communist Mao Zedong highlights in diametrical contradiction to Stefan Engel, basing himself on the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, that imperialism did not bring forward the capitalist development in China, but on the contrary interrupted and restrained it. "It is certainly not the purpose of the imperialist powers invading China to transform feudal China into capitalist China. On the contrary, their purpose is to transform China into their own semi-colony or colony."  In the experience of the Chinese revolution Mao Zedong developed the important theory on bureaucratic capitalism, which he defines as capitalism that does not rise on the basis of a victorious democratic revolution, but on the basis of imperialist rule. Bureaucratic capitalism takes the incomplete national-democratic revolution as starting point, which is why it builds on semi feudality and makes use of the ruling method of colonialism and semi colonialism. The Communist Party of Peru (CPP) analyses the Peruvian conditions basing itself on the thesis of bureaucratic capitalism and highlights the special meaning of this thesis for oppressed peoples's and nations: "In application of this thesis he [Chairman Gonzalo] defines bureaucratic capitalism as capitalism, that imperialism brings forth in less-developed countries, a capitalism, which is bound to historically passed feudalism, and which is submissive to imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, which doesn't serve the great majority, but the imperialist, the great bourgeois and the great land owners. (...) Building on the thesis of chairman Mao he presents five of its characteristics: 1) Bureaucratic capitalism is capitalism, which the imperialist uses in less-developed countries. It encompasses the capital of the great land owners, great banks and magnates of the great bourgeoisie. 2) It pillages the proletariat, the peasants and the petty bourgeoisie and limits the middle bourgeoisie. 3) It goes through a process in which bureaucratic capitalism and state powers unite and become a state monopolistic, comprador capitalism, which in its first phase develops into a private monopolistic great capital and in its second phase, when it unites with the state powers, develops into state monopolistic capitalism. 4) When it reaches the peak of its development it let's the conditions for revolution thrive. 5) The expropriation of bureaucratic capitalism is decisive for the finalization of the democratic revolution and for the transition to socialist revolution."  [Editor's Note: Own translation] The reason why Stefan Engel bases his "analysis" on bourgeois statistics, but completely "renounces" the theory of the communist Mao Zedong remains a mystery for us. Exactly those countries, which are defined as "new-imperialist" by the MLPD, show a strong bureaucratic capitalism, but the MLPD tries to use the growth of this bureaucratic capitalism as an argument against the newdemocratic revolution, which goes to show once more the kind of support the MLPD is giving with its "thesis" to the concealment of imperialist oppression. From the analysis of Chinese society and the contradictions that underly it, Mao Zedong develops the following present-day universally valid thesis: "Since Chinese society is colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal, since the principal enemies of the Chinese revolution are imperialism and feudalism, since the tasks of the revolution are to overthrow these two enemies by means of a national and democratic revolution in which the bourgeoisie sometimes takes part, and since the edge of the revolution is directed against imperialism and feudalism and not against capitalism and capitalist private property in general even if the big bourgeoisie betrays the revolution and becomes its enemy -- since all this is true, the character of the Chinese revolution at the present stage is not proletarian-socialist but bourgeois-democratic. However, in present-day China the bourgeois-democratic revolution is no longer of the old general type, which is now obsolete, but one of a new special type. We call this type the new-democratic revolution and it is developing in all other colonial and semi-colonial countries as well as in China. (...) Chinese society can advance to socialism only through such a revolution; there is no other way." 
Applying this thesis of communist Mao Zedong the greatest revolutionary movement in today's world has been developed in over 50 years, the newdemocratic revolution in India. It encompasses hundreds of thousands of people and has turned important parts of India into liberated territories. The peoples' war in India, led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), is a reality that cannot be denied with "new thesis", but a factor that even the Indian government points out as the "greatest threat to India's internal security". It's exactly those forces that oppose the way of the new democratic revolution that find themselves in good positions inside the ICOR. One of these forces is the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)-Red Star, which rather criticizes the peoples' war instead of joining it. That such organisations have a leading position inside the ICOR, should make any honest revolutionary suspicious. It was the ignorance and the open denunciation of the peoples' war in India from some of ICOR's sections, which led some organisations like the Norwegian organisation Tjen Folket to leave. Their justified criticism on their collaboration with CPI (M-L)-Red Star, especially their ignorance about the Indian revolution, which has special gravity since they present themselves as part of it, has to be understood as a building brick in the process of decay of the ICOR, whose leaders keep positioning themselves openly in defense of imperialist order and in opposition of the new proletarian order. Where does the ICOR lead?
An international coordination of revolutionary parties and organisations, led by a party, which with its "new-imperialist countries" thesis clearly shows its character as defender of the imperialist order, an "International" of this kind will not show the international proletariat or any oppressed peoples' and nations the way to liberation. On the contrary, we find the assumption justified, that the representatives of the ICOR run the danger of becoming appendages of imperialism, as representatives of opportunism and bureaucratic capitalism, if their theory were to become acknowledged. With this article we hope to strengthen in their criticism and self-criticism all those who have doubts on the thesis of "new-imperialist countries", with the goal to expose the opportunism and chauvinism within the worldwide revolutionary movement and to set them on the path of proletarian world revolution. Sources:  Initiative für den Aufbau einer Revolutionär-Kommunistischen Partei, Kommunistische Aktion/Marxistisch Leninistisch, Trotz alledem, Bolshevik Partizan, "1917-2017: Die Menschheit braucht neue Oktoberrevolutionen!", January 2017  Stefan Engel, On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries, 2017  ibid.  Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism  Stalin, Marxism and the National Question  Stalin, The October Revolution and the National Question  “Finance capital does not want liberty, it wants domination.” (Hilferding, cit. in Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism)  cf. Stefan Engel, On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries, 2017  cf. Ibrahim Kaypakkaya, Views on Kemalism  Stefan Engel, On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries, 2017  Stefan Engel, On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries, 2017  ibid.  Jan Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha, In Conversation with Ganapathy, General Secretary of CPI(Maoist)  Stefan Engel, On the Emergence of the New-Imperialist Countries, 2017  ibid.  Monika Gärtner-Engel, On Today's Application of Lenin's Thesis on the Emergence of New Imperialist Countries  Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism  Jan Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha, In Conversation with Ganapathy, General Secretary of CPI(Maoist)  P J James, CPI (ML) Red Star, Imperialismus heute, Mai 2017  Mao Zedong, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party  Kommunistische Partei Perus, Demokratische Linie  Mao Zedong, The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party