Down With the Politics of Social-Imperialism! Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!

The necessity of a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Communist Party that firmly applies independence, initiative, and self-reliance.¹

Relations between socialist countries are international relations of a new type. Relations between socialist countries, whether large or small, and whether more developed or less developed economically, must be based on the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and must also be based on the principles of mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism.²

Revolutionary movements can be neither exported nor imported. Despite the fact that aid was accorded by the Communist International, the birth and development of the Communist Party of China resulted from the fact that China itself had a conscious working class. The Chinese working class created its own political party — the Communist Party.³

We address this document to the Left wing of the international Communist movement in general and the Committee Red Flag in particular.

As the strategic offensive of the proletarian world revolution develops through the reconstitution and constitution of the Communist Parties on the basis of Maoism, the initiation and development of the people's wars, and the «50 to 100 years»,⁴ in which imperialism and world reaction will meet their demise gradually coming to a close, we find it to be of extraordinary importance to reaffirm the great slogan, «Proletarians of all countries, unite!»,⁵ and the Campaign for Maoism, the Campaign to Defend Chairman Gonzalo's Life, and the struggle for the reconstitution of the Communist International. We are in favour of this process of struggle to reunify the international Communist movement in order to serve the proletarian world revolution.

In October 2020, the proletarian revolutionaries in Switzerland organized a split from the work of the Committee Red Flag abroad. This work abroad had been present in this country since April 2020, when it usurped the apparatus led by the Red Star — Switzerland. During the period of Committee Red Flag control over our work, problems arose and were developed more and more, until it became clear to all of the Swiss comrades that the work abroad was revisionist and it was not possible (or fitting) to wage the two-line struggle inside of the apparatus abroad. Thus, the split was concretized, and the Red Star was reestablished.

In this document, we seek to elaborate on the root causes and reasons for the split, which concretely means to criticize the way in which the Committee Red Flag led its work abroad in this country. We believe this to be of importance — not to «wash our own hands», as the Germans might claim, but, because of the role the Committee Red Flag plays internationally (and particularly in the imperialist countries), its problems have far-reaching consequences for the German revolution, the revolutions in the countries where its work abroad operates or operated (such as Denmark or Switzerland), and the revolutions in the countries where comrades follow its advice.

We believe that the German comrades are able and willing to listen to criticism. Therefore, we hope that this document will serve to correct the mistakes of the Committee Red Flag, correct the problems caused by those mistakes in other countries, and thus contribute to the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Germany, the reunification of the international Communist movement, and the reconstitution of the Communist International.

#1. HOW AND WHY THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG USURPED THE APPARATUS OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONARIES IN SWITZERLAND

As we understand it, the Committee Red Flag had two contradictions it needed to solve. The first contradiction was that of its own advanced general understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and its task of imposing Maoism in Europe. For us, this meant imposing it in France and Italy. The second contradiction was that of its Campaign for Gonzalo's Thought in the Federal Republic of Germany, which required creative application to complete, and its outright negation of creatively applying Gonzalo's Thought.

The solution to the first objective would be, on the one hand, the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Germany and the initiation of the People's War in the Federal Republic of Germany; and, on the other hand, developing patient, honest international work on the basis of proletarian internationalism. With the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Germany and the initiation of the People's War, this international work would be able to bear fruit, as the French and Italian comrades would see the validity in the standpoints of the Committee Red Flag. However, because the Committee Red Flag was unable to solve this contradiction, it ended up focusing on convincing the other organizations through two-line struggle only. However, the comrades were not convinced by the Committee Red Flag, and, thus, new impulse to its prestige was needed.

The solution to the second objective would be, on the one hand, putting more emphasis on understanding the history of the proletariat in Germany, in order to identify, reclaim, and further develop the Red Line in the light of Gonzalo's Thought; and, on the other hand, the construction of the Committee Red Flag, so that the process of grasping history could be expressed in the Communists tempered in the class struggle and the Campaign for Gonzalo's Thought completed, serving the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Germany. However, because the Committee Red Flag was unable to solve this contradiction, it ended up focusing on purely quantitative steps: translating more documents, gathering more people for demonstrations, doing more actions, and so on, and so forth. But, because there was no creative application of Gonzalo's Thought, this did not lead to a leap, but rather to political degeneration.

Therefore, the Committee Red Flag faced two problems: How to get international prestige and how to get more forces for the campaign. They found the solution in the establishment of their work abroad.

In Switzerland, since early 2019, there had been an organization of proletarian revolutionaries: the Red Star. The comrades involved were inexperienced and needed assistance, in particular regarding style of work, but they had opened up the grand perspective of reconstituting the Communist Party of Switzerland and launching the People's War. The comrades had potential — but the development of the Swiss revolution contradicted the two objectives of the Committee Red Flag.

The Committee Red Flag established a plan for Switzerland: firstly, develop bilateral relations with the Red Star to gain respect; secondly, establish a system of joint decisions and planning in order to influence the Swiss comrades more; thirdly, usurp the leadership and put the Swiss comrades under the leadership of the Committee Red Flag. If these three steps were completed, the Committee Red Flag would be able to develop a paper organization in Switzerland, firstly to support it in front of the French and Italian comrades, and, secondly, to contribute forces to the completion of the campaign. This was the plan of the Committee Red Flag, as explained by the person responsible for the political work of its South-Western Committee to the former person responsible for its local work in Switzerland.

The first phase of the German plan began in April 2019. The second phase began in November 2019. And, in April 2020, the person responsible for the leadership of the Red Star was resettled to the Federal Republic of Germany with the promise of «tempering her». During her stay in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Germans isolated her completely from the masses; ordered her to do translations and other petty work; used every method to break her mentally (for instance, threatening her with a ban on political work in all of Europe if she didn't clean her room when her psychological state was at its worst, because of past abuse that the German Comrades just continued instead of aiding in rectifying it); provided her too little food (her host had little food in the house, but a lot of alcohol); didn't shield her from repression, even though she was an illegal immigrant; her attempts to raise criticism were undermined through administrative measures; she was officially permitted to see her fiancee, but wasn't actually told so; and so on, and so forth. As a result of months of this abuse, the comrade was pushed to give up responsibility for the comrades in Switzerland to a person responsible for the local work. Shortly thereafter, the work abroad was imposed, disguised as «cooperation between the proletarian revolutionaries in Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany». After this, the Committee Red Flag even wanted her to stay in the Federal Republic of Germany to keep carrying out the translations for their campaign, since they didn't have the forces to do it themselves.

From this, we can clearly see how the German plan came to fruition: They explicitly wanted to get rid of our leader; they won her trust by giving advice at first; they undermined her by setting up a system of joint leadership later; and, at the end, they isolated her from her comrades, attempted to break her, and usurped our apparatus. Thus, in April 2020, the Red Star was dissolved and its members became part of the work abroad of the Committee Red Flag, even though the Swiss comrades had pledged to fight for the Swiss revolution, not to do the work of the Committee Red Flag. In this way, the Committee Red Flag laid the basis for developing a paper organization to serve its own objectives, without giving a damn about the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Switzerland and the Swiss revolution — and that is why we call this the politics of social-imperialism! You Germans should know better, since your own Communist Party was usurped and turned into the «Socialist Unity Party», the paper party of Russian social-imperialism!

We will end this section by briefly quoting the Communist Party of China on the politics of social-imperialism:

A «socialist community» indeed! It is nothing but a synonym for a colonial empire with you as the metropolitan State. The relationship between genuine socialist countries, big or small, should be built on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, on the basis of the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, respect for State sovereignty and independence and of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and on the basis of the proletarian-internationalist principle of mutual support and mutual assistance. But you have trampled other countries underfoot and made them your subordinates and dependencies. By «united action», you mean to unify under your control the politics, economies, and military affairs of other countries. By «inseparable», you mean to forbid other countries to free themselves from your control and enslavement. Are you not brazenly trying to enslave the people of other countries?⁶

#2. HOW THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG DENIED US GONZALO'S THOUGHT AND NEGATED CREATIVE APPLICATION

Later, a «Plan for the Cooperation of the Revolutionaries in Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany» was established. In this was concretized the objectives of the work abroad of the Committee Red Flag in Switzerland: «(1) Development of the Campaign for Maoism in Switzerland. (2) Establishment of a solid activist group in [...]. (3) Establishment of solid contacts in at least [...] Geneva.»⁷

Again and again, the Committee Red Flag insisted that the Swiss comrades could not have Gonzalo's Thought as their basis of ideological unity. They did not think we would be able to comprehend it, since we were, after all, not even «a solid activist group». For this reason, the Plan of the Germans stated: «[...] on the basis of the ideology of the international proletariat, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, mainly Maoism.»⁷ As the Committee Red Flag itself has made clear,⁸ the international proletariat can only have one ideology, and it is our standpoint that this ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo's Thought, mainly Gonzalo's Thought. Gonzalo's Thought is universal, it is the highest expression of the ideology of our class, and, thus, it is the main aspect, while Maoism is the basis. Since we are within the stage of Maoism, which is not yet universally grasped, the task on the international level is to carry out the Campaign for Maoism. But, in Switzerland, our basis of unity is already Gonzalo's Thought, and, thus, the negation of Gonzalo's Thought in this country by the work abroad of the Committee Red Flag is revisionist.

The Committee Red Flag also did not think we could apply Gonzalo's Thought creatively or identify the Red Line in our own history. Thus, they not only denied us Gonzalo's Thought, but also the identification of Comrade Leonie Kascher as the highest expression of the proletariat in Switzerland to date, and the creative applications by our leader (such as identifying Comrade Kascher's Red Line and developing the thesis on the «Three Nations»). With this, it became clear that the Committee Red Flag did not want us to identify, reclaim, and further develop the Red Line in order to reconstitute the Communist Party of Switzerland and launch the People's War. Instead, their negation of creative application would lead us to simply form a «new political party», which Chairman Gonzalo made clear is a crime, since it is the task of the Communists to rectify their Party when it deviates (or refound it, if it is liquidated, as the Communist Party of Switzerland).

The Committee Red Flag made it clear that it did not even consider us to be «a solid activist group». We are militants in a process of formation — but the Committee Red Flag did not want that. They wanted us to work for them, in order to achieve their two objectives (international and in the Federal Republic of Germany), and, for this reason, we had to sell the Rote Post [Red Mail] instead of developing our own newspaper, travel to Hamburg (!) for legal (!) demonstrations instead of participating in the ones here, wait for news to be posted on demvolkedienen.org before we posted them ourselves, let the Germans design and produce our propaganda material instead of doing it ourselves, and so on, and so forth. Thus, they negated our development as Communists in a process of formation completely, by simply denying that we were such to begin with.

With the objective of «solid contacts in at least [...] Geneva», we see how the strategic, international objectives of the Committee Red Flag were concretized in this plan. They established their revisionist «axes», which served to deny the development of work in several cities, even ones where there were already contacts. Instead, everything served getting to Geneva, and from there to France. The Committee Red Flag did not want a committee of Communists in a process of formation in Switzerland, but a «Border Zone Committee» with us and the French comrades, in order to pressure their local work in the border region. Their «axes» were not for the Swiss revolution, but for their own international work.

In general, the dogmato-revisionist views of the Committee Red Flag can be summed up in their own words: «If you want to learn how to creatively apply, you have to mechanically apply first.» «Everybody in this country [Germany] is an expert on the history of the Communist Party of Germany, except for us; but that is a good thing.» We will let these views speak for themselves.

It thus became clear to us that the work abroad was an obstacle on the path to the reconstitution of the Communist Party of Switzerland; an obstacle which had to be removed. That is the ideological background of the split between the Red Star and the Committee Red Flag.

#3. HOW THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG NEGATED OUR REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS

The Committee Red Flag did not work to build a vanguard in a process of formation of the proletariat in Switzerland. Instead, they worked to construct a paper organization in the style of the old Soviet-led political parties, in order to comfortably participate in legal alliance work with revisionist organizations. In the revisionist plan, political construction is wholly dedicated to this alliance work. In addition, we were instructed: «As long as there is no material from Switzerland for this purpose, newspapers, stickers, and so on, from the work in the Federal Republic of Germany will be used for this.»⁷ In this way, the purpose of doing such alliance work became to create public opinion in favour of the work of the Committee Red Flag, not to develop a revolutionary movement in Switzerland.

Additionally, the Committee Red Flag warned us: «Accordingly, an application of the ‹Three Withs› as it is being put into practice in the Federal Republic of Germany is, in the situation in Switzerland, not right, and would instead be a mechanical copy stemming from an idealist attitude.»⁷ Taken on its own, this statement is correct. However, when there is no talk of mass work in the proletarian neighbourhoods at all, no focus on developing politics for the class struggle and the political situation in Switzerland at all, then what can we understand from this? Only one thing: That the Committee Red Flag simply wanted forces following their own line as quickly as possible, and not people who cared about the Swiss revolution, since these would come from the deepest and broadest masses.

The fundamental problem is the two objectives (international and in the Federal Republic of Germany) of the Committee Red Flag. But here, the main problem is that of Right-wing opportunism, more specifically tailism. Essentially, considering the situation in the «Left Scene» in Switzerland, only doing this type of anti-imperialist alliance work would have been tailing Revolutionary Construction, the organization which leads the «revolutionary movement» in this country. And, in some cities, there is not even a genuine «anti-imperialist movement» to carry out this alliance work with! Instead, what we have are small lumpen and small-bourgeois groups overflowing with post-modernism, patriarchal and national chauvinism, and other ills. What spaces would be opening up? Our only option would be to hollow out our own politics, which would be frontism.

Regarding frontism. We issued a statement by our organization on Kampf und Kritik [Struggle and Criticism] in February 2020 entitled: Comrade Barbara Kistler, Martyr of the Proletarian World Revolution, is Immortal! This was on the occasion of the 27th anniversary of the immortalization of Comrade Kistler in the People's War in Turkey. Comrade Kistler was an activist of Revolutionary Construction in Switzerland, who went to fight for the Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist) and the Turkish Workers' and Peasants' Liberation Army. She fell in Dersim in 1993. Comrade Kistler is a great example of proletarian internationalism and a hero of the international proletariat, the Turkish people, and the revolutionaries in Switzerland. But there are some who do not view it this way. The leading core of Revolutionary Construction were angry at the Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist) for «getting their friend killed». And, when this statement was published, the Committee Red Flag first applauded it, but later heavily criticized it, because it would «antagonize the relation to Revolutionary Construction». We believe this to be a clear expression of frontism, or «everything through the united front». If we could not present our politics independently, what would we be doing other than tailing the much stronger Revolutionary Construction? It would be nothing but Right-wing opportunism.

In accordance with the frontism of the Committee Red Flag, there is also the persistent problem of legalism. Applying revolutionary violence at demonstrations is viewed by the Committee Red Flag as «‹Left-wing› radicalism» (even though most demonstrations in Switzerland result in street struggles without our interference!). Because we insist on the principle of tempering comrades in revolutionary violence and also winning daily demands through it, we criticized the 3rd of October demonstration in Hamburg this year, which was «Against the Police State of the Federal Republic of Germany». We said that it was legalist and tailist. In response, it was stated by the person responsible for the political work abroad: «Revolutionary violence and breaking with legality is when you drive to Geneva during corona», even though, because everything was closed there and there were no tasks there to fulfil, the only thing that would've been achieved was burning comrades. And, regarding a demonstration against the World Economic Forum, where the masses shot fireworks at the police, it was called «ritualized violence», something that does in fact not happen every year and is an expression of the class struggle sharpening.

By all of these examples, it can be clearly seen that the Committee Red Flag behaved as nothing but Right-wing opportunists in this country. If we didn't want to end up as a small revisionist group, we would have to leave the work abroad. This is one political reason for the split between the Red Star and the Committee Red Flag.

#4. HOW THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG BEHAVED AS CHAUVINISTS AND TYRANTS TOWARD OUR COMRADES

The Committee Red Flag wished to export all of their views to their paper organization in a process of formation in Switzerland. This included their national-chauvinist or patriarchal-chauvinist attitudes and ideas, which they had already worked hard to consolidate within the Federal Republic of Germany itself. Thus, they began not only trying to convince our comrades of their erroneous ideas, but also antagonizing comrades (such as our leader) who were deemed «degenerates» according to the chauvinist criteria of the Committee Red Flag.

Firstly, there is the point of Greater German chauvinism and how the Committee Red Flag tried to export it here. Comrade Alfred Klahr described «the Greater German idea» as follows: «The Greater German idea from 1848, then a progressive, revolutionary-democratic idea, was used as the ideological basis for the ambitions of German imperialism. Unfortunately, even the Left wing of German Social-Democracy and later the Communist Party of Germany did not understand this character of the Greater German idea in the epoch of imperialism, and imported the Greater German, Pan-Germanic poison into the working class [...].»⁹ We believe that the German comrades, despite all their talk of «Germany Must Die» and their formal publication of Comrade Klahr's document, nonetheless are deeply affected by the poison of Greater German chauvinism.

It makes sense to recall the controversy between the German and Austrian comrades. The German comrades, having no understanding of the national question in Germany and the German-speaking comrades, unofficially advocated the unification of Germany, Austria, German-speaking Switzerland, and South Tyrol. Moreover, they have no standpoint on the national question in Germany itself. What is to be done about the Sorbs, Danes, Frisians, and so on, who live within the German borders, and who, moreover, are corporatized by the German State? Moreover, what about the question of Bavaria, the Swiss-German-speaking population of Baden-Württemberg, and so on? These questions could be solved if some research was done, but the Germans choose not to do any, and so deteriorate into Greater German chauvinism. And, in the Committee Red Flag today, we see expressions of those same views: complete disregard for the wars of resistance fought against German imperialism during the Second World War; viewing the Swiss-German dialects as «not speaking like a normal person», «only a child would use that word», and so on; viewing the Danish people as «half-German anyway», so one might as well sell the Red Mail in Copenhagen; hating the Austrian partisan song Drei rote Pfiffe [Three Red Whistles], but loving Arbeiter von Wien [Workers of Vienna], since it is «German worker's music»; playing the victim by stating that the German Democratic Republic was a «semi-colony of social-imperialism», when it was really a Second World imperialist power in its own right (and, in general, portraying the fall of fascism in East Germany in 1989-90 as a complete defeat for the German people); telling Danish comrades that they «would probably like if we Anschluss'd [annexed] Denmark» (a country which was a German colony from 1940 to '45!); and so on, and so forth. There are many examples of the Greater German chauvinist attitude of the Committee Red Flag, and we could go on, but we believe that we have made our point clear. «Nobody hates Germany more than us!», say the German comrades, but, in their attitude and how they develop their work abroad, they are nonetheless thinking and acting inside of the dead, but not yet buried, Reich. Let this be a warning to you, comrades — rectify your chauvinism before it is too late!

In Switzerland, they acted based on this Greater German chauvinism. Essentially, they viewed the Swiss-German nation as part of the German nation, because they negated the thesis on the «Three Nations». So, they wanted us to sell the Red Mail, even though it was nothing but news from the Federal Republic of Germany, which the masses could not relate to. They wanted us to learn a little bit of French and go to Geneva, «they will be happy if you just speak a few words French». They converged with the most reactionary Old Swiss nationalism, which sees the Swiss-German nation as the «master race», under which the two other nations must be subjugated — only they saw the Swiss-German nation as nothing but a minority within the Greater German Volk in the first place.

Secondly, there is the point of imperialist chauvinism, or, in particular, the kind of arrogance described by Mao Zedong: «We must never adopt an arrogant attitude of great-power chauvinism and become conceited, because of the victory of our revolution and certain achievements in our construction. Every nation, big or small, has its strong and weak points.»¹⁰ This quote is a striking criticism of the way in which the Committee Red Flag views itself and speaks of comrades in other countries.

The Committee Red Flag views itself as «the vanguard of the proletariat in the imperialist countries». We believe that this accurately described the Committee Red Flag until 2019-20. However, being the most advanced is no excuse for being conceited and arrogant. At a summer camp in 2020, the Committee Red Flag stated: «We are the only Gonzalo's Thought organization in Europe.» At a separate comradeship, they also proclaimed: «If you want to learn Gonzalo's Thought, come to us.» We think this is a great disrespect toward comrades who belong to the Left wing of the international Communist movement, who also uphold, defend, and apply the universal contributions of Chairman Gonzalo.

Concerning the Austrian comrades specifically, it was stated: «If only they actually put proletarian internationalism in the first row, like we do.» We think the international work of the Austrian comrades in the Balkans quite clearly shows that they do put proletarian internationalism in the first row.

When a comrade stated it was a shame that the Indian comrades don't participate enough in the international Communist movement, the leader of the Committee Red Flag exclaimed: «Fuck the Indians! We are Gonzalo's Thought! We are the fourth stage of Marxism!» Do we need to elaborate on why this is chauvinist?

There are other examples, but we will let these views speak for themselves.

Thirdly, there is the point of how the Committee Red Flag, in the most patriarchal-chauvinist way, deliberately avoided developing female comrades, because they belonged to the Left wing. During the time when the proletarian revolutionaries in Switzerland were under the leadership of the Committee Red Flag, very heavy mistakes were made on the side of the persons responsible for the work. One of these mistakes was in the behaviour toward the female comrades, who, compared to most male comrades, had less experience and knowledge in ideology and politics. One female comrade was conscious of this and had therefore informed the person responsible for the local work, as well as the comrades from the Federal Republic of Germany, about her insecurity and wish for ideological consolidation. Until the split with the Germans in October, nobody had studied with the comrade or changed this behaviour. As another example of patriarchal chauvinism, the German comrades, also including ones with great responsibility, complained about the comrade wearing «too short pants».

Moreover, with the female contacts and organized masses, nothing to little was studied, and, when it happened, it was only together with their romantic partners. At these meetings, there was too little focus on the female comrades, and, together with their insecurity, this kept them back a lot. One female comrade was organized with us for more than five months and had only one time taken part in an action of military character, but she had undertaken many logistical tasks and cooked at all events and many meetings.

In synthesis, one can say that the female comrades were systematically underdeveloped under the leadership of the Germans, in order to keep them ignorant and cooperative. They were viewed as accessories to their boyfriends, and were at most developed as such. Instead of developing them in actions and educating them in style and methods of work, they were only (ab)used for logistical tasks and used aesthetically. The work abroad of the Germans in Switzerland was not only revisionist, but, above all else, also patriarchal.

And, finally, there is the point of queer antagonism, in particular trans antagonism, which was expressed to an extreme degree against comrades in our organization. We understand that the queer question is a new question, left unsolved by Marxism until this point, and that the views of the Committee Red Flag on this question are also shared by others in the international Communist movement. For this reason, we have elaborated our standpoint on this question in a separate document, which is distributed alongside this criticism.¹¹ In this criticism, we will thus focus, not on the general analysis and synthesis of the queer question on the basis of Gonzalo's Thought, but rather on the specific ways in which this kind of patriarchal chauvinism was applied by the German comrades in their work abroad in Switzerland.

What are the standpoints of the Committee Red Flag on the queer question? Since there is no public document on this question by the German comrades, we will summarize our understanding of the standpoints of the Committee Red Flag in a few points:

• The existence of LGBT+ people is viewed as a product of patriarchal oppression within class society, in particular, imperialist society. LGBT+ people are viewed as individuals who choose to live in a certain way, because they could not bear the responsibilities that come with fulfilling a certain role in patriarchy. In this way, LGBT+ people are degenerated elements, made to degenerate by patriarchy, and being LGBT+ is alien to the proletariat.
• It is a democratic right to be LGBT+, but Communists are not allowed to be, since they must be the vanguard of the proletariat, and the class is not LGBT+. In this way, being LGBT+ is viewed as similar to being religious.
• Since LGBT+ people are alien or degenerated elements to the class, the class and the masses do not like or respect them. Therefore, those comrades who have posts of responsibility cannot be allowed to be LGBT+, since the masses will not follow them.
• Transgender people have capitulated in the face of combating patriarchy and instead chosen «the easy way out», an individualist solution, so as not to be oppressed by patriarchy or having to oppress others within patriarchy. However, they cannot change their biological sex, and, as such, they end up ruining their bodies and become degenerated elements alien to the class.
• Marriage in front of the Party or the New State is between one man and one woman, since that is the proletarian conception of romantic relationships. LGBT+ relationships are cultural degenerations alien to the proletariat.
• There is no special «queer oppression» within patriarchy, only the exploitation and oppression of women and the pressure on men to oppress women.

This standpoint was expressed toward our comrades in many different ways, and mainly towards a transgender comrade. She was told that she couldn't lead, since the masses would not respect her; she was told she was an individualist, because she would not sleep and shower together with the male comrades at a summer camp; internally, she and other transgender comrades were misgendered behind their backs, and even had new cover names of the wrong gender made up for them; a remark was made that she was «ruining her body» by taking estrogen; a remark was made that her relationship amounted to «just being gay [in the male sense] with extra steps»; she was consistently referred to as male by the German comrades; and so on. Another transgender comrade experienced a similar attitude from the German comrades, for example, being criticized for doing a toast to proletarian feminism at a comradeship or told not to shout slogans at a 25th of November demonstration in Hamburg.

We completely disagree with the standpoint and attitude of the Committee Red Flag on the queer question. We will address the six points above:

• LGBT+ people exist across every mode of production and every nation, people, and tribe in the world. They are viewed and treated differently according to the content and form of each society. There is a biological, genetic basis for being LGBT+, and whether/how one chooses to live as LGBT+ depends on the concrete conditions of society. Many proletarians and masses are LGBT+. In imperialist patriarchy, LGBT+ people are oppressed, which makes them «queer».
• Queer people are a trench in the mass struggle. They have their specific democratic demands, such as combating discrimination, fighting for the right to marry and adopt, fighting for the right to free medicine for transitioning, and so on. Communists can be queer, and the Communist Parties and organizations must open their ranks to queer comrades and ban discrimination and harassment of such comrades.
• The masses do not disrespect or hate queer people. Progressive masses support them, Centrist masses accept them, and even backward masses accept them if they know them personally. It is only the most reactionary elements and the lumpen who hate or disrespect queer people. By taking up the view that «the masses would not be led by queer people», the Committee Red Flag is tailing the most reactionary factions of the masses.
• Transgender people have a medical condition, which creates an antagonistic contradiction between their psychological view of themselves (which is physically located in the body map of the brain, or Homunculus) and their physical body, on the basis of which a contradiction to social gender roles is also established. Since ideas can be turned into material reality through practice, it is possible to change one's sex and gender roles (philosophically speaking). With hormones and/or surgery, it is possible to change one's secondary sexual characteristics (fat distribution, hair growth, voice, breasts, bone growth, and so on) completely, and even parts of one's primary sexual characteristics (genitals, chromosomes). Of these, the secondary sexual characteristics determine what role one occupies in society. For this reason, transgender people materially become their desired gender when they transition, and it is gender metaphysics to suggest otherwise.
• LGBT+ marriages have existed since primitive society and were always an established institution within the queer section of the proletariat. The purpose of proletarian marriage is not having children, but serving the revolution and communism. Thus, queer people must be allowed to marry in front of the Party and the New State.
• Patriarchy has two aspects: the exploitation and oppression of women, and the oppression of queer people. Queer people are those who diverge qualitatively from the patriarchal roles of man and woman. The pressure men face to be oppressors is not relevant in this regard, since it is only based on quantitative divergence.

Regarding the attitude of the Committee Red Flag toward queer Comrades, we can see that it springs from these erroneous standpoints. But these standpoints do not correspond to the ideology of the proletariat, and they do not correspond to the actual views of the masses. They only serve to tail the most backward factions of the masses, and, for this reason, the class character is lumpen.

From all of the previous points, it can clearly be seen that the Committee Red Flag behaved as the most arrogant great-power chauvinists in this country, dripping with national and patriarchal chauvinism. If we didn't want them to dismember our apparatus, force our best comrades into capitulation, and strengthen the White Line inside of the remaining comrades' minds, we would have to leave the work abroad. This is another political reason for the split between the Red Star and the Committee Red Flag.

#5. HOW THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG REPLACED THE MAOIST CADRE POLICY WITH THE MILITARIST «PARTY SOLDIER» CRITERION

We believe that the Committee Red Flag, because of being unable to solve its two contradictions (its campaign and its international work), had to carry out its reorganization and develop its work in a new way. They were in a hurry — we do not know exactly why — so they abandoned their original plan to slowly and methodically develop thinking and acting militants in a process of formation in the various cities in the Federal Republic of Germany, and instead moved existing ones to these cities so as to control them directly. Based on this, a new criterion for development of leadership, tempering of comrades, cadre policy, was established. We refer to this criterion as the «party soldier» criterion, a criterion which negates the Maoist criterion for developing leadership, tempering of comrades, and cadre policy.

Because the Committee Red Flag was unable to find anybody who could lead their work abroad in Switzerland independently once they had usurped the leadership, they settled for a similar method in this country: they chose a comrade fit for special work, and put him in charge as the person responsible for the local work. On this basis, they could develop him as a «party soldier».

Chairman Mao Zedong summarized the Maoist cadre policy as follows:

We must know how to take good care of cadres. There are several ways of doing so. First, give them guidance. This means allowing them a free hand in their work, so that they have the courage to assume responsibility and, at the same time, giving them timely directives, so that, guided by the Party's political line, they are able to make full use of their initiative. Second, raise their level. This means educating them by giving them the opportunity to study, so that they can enhance their theoretical understanding and their working ability. Third, check up on their work, and help them sum up their experience, carry forward their achievements, and correct their mistakes. To assign work without checking up and to take notice only when serious mistakes are made — that is not the way to take care of cadres. Fourth, in general, use the method of persuasion with cadres who have made mistakes, and help them correct their mistakes. The method of struggle should be confined to those who make serious mistakes and nevertheless refuse to accept guidance. Here, patience is essential. It is wrong lightly to label people «opportunists» or lightly to begin «waging struggles» against them. Fifth, help them with their difficulties. When cadres are in difficulty as a result of illness, straitened means, or domestic or other troubles, we must be sure to give them as much care as possible. This is how to take good care of cadres.¹²

However, this is not how the Committee Red Flag applies cadre policy. Firstly, they did not give the comrades a free hand in their work. They instead insisted on decisions only being made in meetings with comrades from the Federal Republic of Germany, unilaterally established plans for the work in Switzerland, only allowed us to independently handle small, tactical problems, gave us orders on what actions to carry out, and so on.

As an example of them giving us orders without basis, for the 28th anniversary of Chairman Gonzalo's speech, they told us to do an action with the slogan: «Viva PCP!» One point is that the slogan was grammatically wrong — it should be: «¡Viva el PCP!» A second point is that the slogan is in Spanish, which Swiss people in general do not speak. A third point is that «PCP» could also refer to a drug, and there were already people in the Swiss «Left Scene» who accused our organization of glorifying drug abuse, because some comrades had been junkies before they transformed and became revolutionaries. In the end, we did not carry out the action under the slogan the Committee Red Flag ordered us to use and instead used the one thousand times more appropriate slogan: «Defend Chairman Gonzalo's life!»

Secondly, they did not raise the level of the comrades. The personal responsible for the local work abroad never understood Gonzalo's Thought as a single whole, as an integral whole, and emphasis was instead put on him learning specific aspects, such as studying the article, Small-Group Mentality or Fighting Party?, in order to crush the Left wing in our organization. Comrades were made to study things they either already knew (in the case of our leader) or had no immediate need to know (such as the democratic revolution). For study material, Klassenstandpunkt [Class Standpoint] was used instead of documents of the Communist Party of Peru. Female comrades in particular were underdeveloped on purpose and viewed only as «girlfriends of comrades». The planned «seminars on the Party's basis of unity» in Freiburg were never carried out.

Thirdly, they did not check up on our work. The Germans told us to handle all of the mass work ourselves and that they only wanted to know about serious problems. Of course, we were happy about this, since their work abroad here was parasitic and we could not allow its fingers to dig deeper into our apparatus. Later, they wished to change this, but it did not materialize. They did not care about our reports on a debased element, whom they insisted should be in our apparatus, even though we reported that he was a speed junkie, untrustworthy, and had no discipline or spine.

Fourthly, they did not use the method of persuasion. We already have elaborated on how they treated our leader — under the guise of «tempering her», bombarding her with criticism, so as to break her — and this was also reflected with other comrades. When comrades disagreed with the Committee Red Flag, they were attacked as «factionalists» and bombarded with criticism, lies, and insults. In this way, the Committee Red Flag aimed to undermine and break the comrades belonging to the Left wing, but this did not work out for them.

Fifthly, the Committee Red Flag didn't care at all about the personal difficulties of the comrades. Mental illness was dismissed as «not being tempered enough», delays in job and housing search due to State bureaucracy were blamed on the comrades, a few comrades of the Left wing had to carry the weight of all actions due to the inconsistency of the person responsible for the local work and the complete lack of discipline of the debased element, comrades did not get sleep, comrades had to miss school and work, comrades did not have time to see their families and friends, comrades were forced to translate documents in a matter of a few hours, and so on. In the case of the comrades of the Left wing, these things were specifically abused by the Committee Red Flag in order to force their capitulation.

The result of these deviations can only be the «party soldier» criterion, whose cadre policy is:

• Give no free hand in the work. The Committee Red Flag establishes every plan and the local comrades carry out their work only based on orders (not directives, since they cannot be rejected if they don't correspond to Marxism).
• Do not raise the level of the comrades. Attack creative application. Only study the line, not the ideology. Underdevelop the female comrades and undermine the Left wing.
• Do not assist the comrades in the local work. Issue orders and only care about it when things go wrong.
• Brand comrades of the Left wing as «Left-wing» radicals and attack them. Enforce military discipline instead of achieving unity in two-line struggle, and combat opposition as «factionalism» and «betrayal of secrecy». Flood inexperienced comrades with criticism, so that they take a stand for something they don't understand.
• Personal problems must be solved individually, not collectively. When they are not solved, two-line struggle must be waged against the comrade with problems «to temper them». Mental illness is only an expression of «not being tempered» or having «capitulationist tendencies». Abuse personal problems to force comrades of the Left wing to capitulate.

This is nothing but a militarist, revisionist criterion. «Communists must always go into the why's and wherefore's of anything, use their own heads and carefully think over whether or not it corresponds to reality and is really well founded; on no account should they follow blindly and encourage slavishness.»¹³ Instead of developing Communists in this way, as Chairman Mao described, the Committee Red Flag began developing soldiers, operating under military discipline and taking orders. Sure, these comrades could maintain the cohesion of the apparatus — but at what cost? At the cost of sacrificing the German revolution on the altar of more immediate objectives. This has nothing to do with Party building. It is the negation of its vanguard role, turning it into the «political-military organization» of the armed revisionists (only without the guns).

#6. HOW THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG APPLIED FASCIST MEASURES TO SUPPRESS THE TWO-LINE STRUGGLE

In order to make it clear how the Committee Red Flag operates in the question of two-line struggle, we will use an example from Denmark. This example is a specific one, but the methods applied by the Germans and their lackeys abroad are one and the same, whether in Denmark or Switzerland. This case is simply the most obvious example to make.

This is the example of the comrade who used to be responsible for the work of the Red Wave group in Denmark. This comrade belonged firmly to the Left wing and made significant contributions in bringing Maoism to Denmark and establishing the path of reconstituting the Communist Party of Denmark. She also made contributions to understanding the queer question. However, because of unsolved personal problems she was incapable of solving, she had to give up her post of responsibility during the late summer of 2020. After this, the Committee Red Flag found another person responsible for its work in Denmark, which before had the character of jointly led work, and now began developing as work abroad due to the character of the new person responsible for the work. The new person responsible for the work in Denmark was a small-bourgeois element with no understanding of Marxism or how to apply it creatively. As he himself had put it: «I was just looking for something to dedicate myself to and die for.» He always had more respect for the Committee Red Flag than the ideology of the proletariat or the objectives of the Danish revolution. He was the perfect candidate for a «party soldier», so he was put in charge of the apparatus in Denmark.

The former person responsible for the work in Denmark was now put in charge of some specific tasks — but other comrades had to keep an eye on her, so she didn't «say wrong things to the masses». And then the deviations of the Committee Red Flag began being expressed in the work in Denmark. The comrade was banned from speaking about proletarian feminism with the masses, since it could open up a discussion about the queer question, on which the comrade didn't agree with the Committee Red Flag. In the most cowardly way, a «complete retreat from demonstrations and work in the Left Scene» was declared. The entire work fell into «Left-wing» liquidationism, with the study groups as the only expression of mass work. Documents by the former organization in Denmark were deleted from websites without it being explained why. And the comrades kept going to demonstrations in the Federal Republic of Germany, which had the character of legalism and frontism.

The comrade raised criticism of the Committee Red Flag and the new person responsible for the work in Denmark after the demonstration in Hamburg on the 3rd of October. She had raised criticism of the Committee Red Flag before, especially regarding the queer question. As a response to this, it was declared to be factionalism to discuss the question without the presence of German comrades, and betrayal of secrecy to discuss the question with the masses. When the new person responsible for the work heard the criticism regarding the 3rd of October, he refused to take a stand on it at all, neither for nor against, stating that it would be factionalism. He said that he would forward it to the Committee Red Flag. The former person responsible for the work demanded to meet with the Committee Red Flag, since that was her right as a member of the leading group in Denmark, but this was denied — a meeting with the Committee Red Flag had been held in her absence, where she was removed from her post. She would now have to work under a plan that was being developed, but she did not have the right to know anything about its content or raise any criticism. Then, she demanded a meeting of the local comrades, but this, too, was denied without any justification.

In these different ways, it became completely impossible for the former person responsible for the work in Denmark to wage any two-line struggle against the incorrect standpoints of the Committee Red Flag. The new person responsible for the work also applied revenge politics, for instance, by constantly mocking the former responsible for being «small-bourgeois» (the comrade has a proletarian class background, is a high school dropout, and has worked several unskilled jobs as early as the age of 16), even though the new person responsible had a labour-aristocratic job, has upper-small-bourgeois parents (his father is a pilot who owns villas in three different countries), went to university, and had his Swiss grandparents pay tens of thousands of Danish Crowns for surgery in England to replace his penis with a zero-depth vagina (a luxury not afforded to any proletarian transgender people — and he's not even transgender, according to his own words). The new person responsible for the work in Denmark always refused, on principle, to take a stand on criticism of the Committee Red Flag, instead acting as a middle-man. When he was criticized, for instance, for not distributing leaflets to women in the neighbourhoods and only to men, he denounced the criticism as «springing from small-bourgeois sensitivity», cancelled all planned leafleting actions, and used administrative measures to isolate the former person responsible for the work. The new person responsible for the work never arrived to meeting points on time, often showed up to the apartment of the former person responsible uninvited and for no reason, and forced her to go on long walks in the summer heat with him while she was sick with severe breathing problems, just because he was bored.

Because of this extensive isolation, suppression, and abuse, the former person responsible decided to leave the work. In a brief meeting with the new person responsible, she raised criticism of the Committee Red Flag similar to what we are putting forward, and stated the above reasons for her leaving. The second-in-command of the Danish comrades wished to take a stand on the criticism, but was forbidden to by the new person responsible. After this, a falsified report was given to the Committee Red Flag, in which it was stated that the former person responsible for the Danish comrades had called the Committee Red Flag a «cult» and said that «the dictatorship of the proletariat is totalitarian». These were lies, everybody knew they were lies, but this criticism was still used as a basis for the Committee Red Flag to impose a ban on us working with this comrade. The Committee Red Flag used military discipline to enforce the ban at first, even though the comrades of the Left wing rejected the reasons for the ban and even the local person responsible could not take a full stand for it, stating: «I can't see where the Marxism is in this.» When comrades of the Left wing rejected the ban at first, they were flooded with attacks and lies against the comrade, in addition to reemphasizing «discipline», and so on, and the application of other dirty methods, which resulted in comrades getting panic attacks or being completely unable to respond to the far-out allegations, leading to the Germans simply declaring a hollow «unity on the discipline of the Committee», even though the comrades did not agree to the measure and had rejected it.

We share this story, because it serves as a good example of how the Committee Red Flag suppresses the Left wing instead of imposing it. We want to emphasize once again the points regarding usurpation of our leadership, underdevelopment of female comrades, and the development of «party soldiers», since all of these points were part of how the «cohesion of the apparatus» was enforced more than revolutionary politics, precisely in order to liquidate those politics. We also emphasize: When the Committee Red Flag proposed the «reorganization» of its work abroad in Switzerland, a plan was developed for this purpose. In this plan, the emphasis is put on more direct German control with our work, while comrades of the Left wing were sidelined, removed from posts of responsibility, given no tasks, and were to be gradually expelled from the work in the course of one or two months. In particular, our leader, who was to only carry out translation of German documents into French, and no other work — despite the fact that she is the best among us and, as the Committee Red Flag itself admits, «the only one who has any idea how to lead»!⁷

We also wish to make clear how the Committee Red Flag abused the illnesses of several comrades of the Left wing in order to force their capitulation. The handling in the question of psychological illnesses by the Committee Red Flag is based on a dogmatic and opportunist line, which suppresses any development in the understanding and handling of this question in general and the development of comrades in specific cases. Instead of applying the necessary care for comrades — as was made clear by Chairman Mao Zedong in the quotation above, a mechanical understanding that can be summarized in two main aspects is preached. First, that there exists no material basis for psychological illnesses, and, second, that comrades who have to deal with these kinds of problems just aren't willing enough to fight against them. Comrades who suffer from mental illnesses aren't supported in their struggle against it in any way, honest communication about it is seen as a sign of weakness and is suppressed by pure phrase-mongering. Any scientific data and discovery is blatantly dismissed as bourgeois science which isn't even worth to be analysed and understood. The conclusions and the interpretations drawn by bourgeois scientists are usually worthless and dishonest, but to discard the data collected because of that is dogmatic and wrong. We have to remember that Comrade Friedrich Engels, for example, couldn't have developed his understanding and analysis of the family to the extent that he did without data collected by bourgeois science. They compared taking medication as part of treatment for psychological illnesses to drug abuse. How exclusively ideological struggle can lead to handling more drastic illnesses, such as schizophrenia, continues being a mystery to us.

In the context of the work abroad of the Committee Red Flag in Switzerland, mental illnesses and psychological problems of comrades were used constantly to suppress the Left wing. Comrades on the Left wing who were struggling with these kinds of problems were constantly wrongly portrayed as «prospective capitulators» not to be counted on, as it was put to the illegitimate person responsible for the local work, who was appointed to his post by the Committee Red Flag in the most Prussian-bureaucratic way. By that, they effectively took any tasks away from them — specifically work that included contact with masses, with the objective of isolating these comrades. By this method, and much more manipulative and abusive behaviour toward the comrades in meetings, and behind their backs when meeting with the party soldier whom they put in charge of their local work — without regarding the limitations of the comrades in any way — the Committee Red Flag actively tried to suppress the two-line-struggle and to push comrades of the Left wing out of the work by trying to force them into capitulation.

With all of this, it became clear to us that our old methods of struggle would no longer work. It was necessary to form a faction. The comrades of the Left wing met to form the faction. They wished to slowly and methodically struggle to win over the entire apparatus, and then having the Committee Red Flag leave in May of 2021 (since this had been vaguely promised by the Germans). However, events moved too fast for this to take place. Suddenly after the usurpation of the Danish organization, the person responsible for the local work reported on the existence of a faction, and the Committee Red Flag imposed its «reorganization».

After these incidents, it had become abundantly clear that the two-line struggle against the revisionist work abroad could no longer be waged. It was being suppressed with administrative (fascist) means at every step of the way. The faction decided to carry out the split when the Committee Red Flag announced their «reorganization». And, thus, it was carried out. It was not clean or nice, but it was done, and we learned a lot from it, like how to do cultural revolution. And, in the end, we won, but the Germans did not give up so easily.

#7. HOW AND WHY THE COMMITTEE RED FLAG APPLIED WHITE TERROR AND CONTRIBUTED TO POLICE WORK AND REPRESSION AGAINST OUR COMRADES

When a member of the German Youth Resistance organization slapped a Committee Red Flag activist on the 1st of May, 2018, even though the former's own comrades attempted to hold him back, and it was in response to the lowliest verbal abuse, the Committee Red Flag and their whole wing of the international Communist movement condemned it as a «military attack against the international proletariat».

With this in mind, we want the comrades, especially those of the international Communist movement, to consider the following paragraphs in the light of this slap. You all said that this slap constituted a military action. But, when we carried out our split — and we have made it abundantly clear that it was the correct and appropriate thing to do — the Committee Red Flag not only carried out one «military attack» against us, but several. An entire campaign against us. Attempts at psychological warfare and White terror. What was this about? We will elaborate.

We made the split concrete after the person responsible for the local work abroad capitulated. It was not possible for him to carry out a reorganization and campaign which would push his comrades out of the work. He gave up his post to our leader after being convinced that the only correct and appropriate thing to do was to make the split concrete.

We then briefly met with the person mainly responsible for the organizational work abroad. We informed him of the capitulation of the person responsible for the local work and of the unanimous decision to split from the Committee Red Flag. He refused to take a stand or reply in any way, instead demanding that we show up at a specific meeting point and proceeding to (literally!) run away. We then decided to put our declaration of the split in writing by sending a letter to the Committee Red Flag.

Soon after this incident, the Germans began their attempted campaign of psychological, White terror against our comrades, our mass activists, and even unorganized masses. Firstly, they carried out doorbell terror against the roommate of a comrade, first at the street level, then somehow getting into the building and knocking on her door. This person has severe mental illness and trauma from being raped. The two German men, whom she did not know, stormed into her flat after she broke down, opened the door, and sat in her locked room with a kitchen knife.

Later, the Germans began harassing our mass contacts. Phone calls during work or in the middle of the night from virtual phone numbers was one example. At the same time, the Germans met with the previously mentioned debased element, whom we had kicked out of our organization after finding out that he was a rapist and had talked to the police about us during an interrogation. The Germans said: «He took a stand for continuing the work [abroad].» Soon after this, this scum went to the mass contacts who had been victims of phone terror, and told them to go with the Committee Red Flag, or they «would be considered revisionists». He said that our comrades «have capitulated».

This degenerate was punished swiftly and harshly. An action of the type selective liquidation was carried out against him. Don't understand this in a militarist sense — he was not killed — but the methods were the same. He had to be punished for his rape and police work. The Germans had to know that they could not support themselves on such an element. He was beaten up. The same night as the Committee Red Flag gave him crucial information about the Red Star, he went to the police and told them everything he knew about the Red Star. Then, he went to the Germans the next day and lied through his teeth. A letter was written by the cantonal intelligence service in the rat's name, in which we are referred to as «the Shining Path». The foot-soldier police arrested several of our comrades and masses and are now attempting to wage a trial about politically motivated assault. This rat, who is unmasked and is known by everybody except for the worst opportunists as complete scum, has blood debt, and the German comrades must understand and self-criticize for carrying out police work by involving this degenerate in the work and giving him crucial information about the proletarian revolutionaries in Switzerland, which led to harsh repression against several comrades and masses.

Later, other attacks were carried out against us. Some Committee Red Flag members from Freiburg broke into the home of the person formerly responsible for the local work and attempted to threaten him into leaving with them. Previously, some comrades had been at the house. The Germans sat outside and spied on the comrades for hours. The person responsible for the action said: «We considered attacking the meeting, but decided not to.» Comrades of the Committee Red Flag: You should keep your soldiers on a shorter leash. If they had attacked us, you would have lost three of your people that day.

When it became clear that they would not get the person formerly responsible, and that they could not work with the rat, the Germans began applying other methods. They sent six of their people in a car. There were not just people from Essen and Freiburg this time, but Hamburg and Bremen. First, they went to our leader's home to threaten her into giving up our websites, personal computers, and other personal and organizational property, which we had possessed long before we ever met them. The Germans said: «The material belongs to the proletarian revolutionaries of Switzerland.» Comrades of the Committee Red Flag: The Red Sun was here before you, and it will be here after you. Do not take credit or claim ownership of what you have no right to.

After this, the Germans stationed some people outside of our leader's home and proceeded to track down other comrades. They threatened the person formerly responsible for the local work and his family, who were sitting in a car. And, while harassing a comrade's neighbors to let them into the building, the police was called on them — in this way, they put our comrades in danger and led the police to them. But, when they found another comrade of ours, on his way home from work, they stated: «Your friends called the police on us», and tried to split us apart, saying: «Why don't you want to talk with us? Don't you have your own opinions?» — as though we were not a legitimate organization, but just a «group of activists»! Then, as the final act of that day, a threat was made: «Come to [...] on [...] and bring the materials, or we will continue doing this.» However, this was the last time they were here.

Are we wrong to characterize this as the politics of social-imperialism? In Leninism or Social-Imperialism?, the Chinese Comrades described acts of this exact same character: «[Social-imperialism] has adopted the most despotic and vicious methods to keep these countries under strict control and stationed massive numbers of troops there, and it has even openly dispatched hundreds of thousands of troops to trample Czechoslovakia underfoot and install a puppet regime at bayonet point. Like the old tsars denounced by Lenin, this gang of renegades bases its relations with its neighbours entirely on the feudal principle of privilege.»⁶ Did the Committee Red Flag not send its «troops» to Switzerland to threaten us and trample us underfoot? Did it not attempt to install a «puppet regime» led by the rat? Was its work abroad not precisely based «on the feudal principle of privilege»?

The Committee Red Flag has carried out all of these actions. Are these not military attacks against us? Is this not a campaign of White terror, of psychological warfare? We think that it is. But, in spite of all this, we still think that the Committee Red Flag does good work in the Federal Republic of Germany. To us, they are still «the German comrades». We believe that they can learn from this criticism and rectify their mistakes, and that they are willing to — we are certainly willing to forgive these acts against us and have diplomacy, as we have stated in multiple letters to the German comrades. But the German comrades should also know: We are patient, but we will defend ourselves if attacked.

#8. SYNTHESIS

This concludes our analysis of the revisionist character of the work of the Committee Red Flag abroad.

From this, we can draw the following points:

• The Committee Red Flag usurped the Red Star in order to fulfil its own international and domestic objectives, which it was not capable of doing otherwise.
• The Committee Red Flag negated the creative application of Gonzalo's Thought, because they did not want us to reconstitute the Communist Party of Switzerland, but instead to build a paper organization under their control.
• The Committee Red Flag deemed us «Left-wing» radicals and applied the politics of legalism, frontism, and tailism.
• In all of its dealings with us, the Committee Red Flag displayed Greater German chauvinism, great-power arrogance, and patriarchal chauvinism.
• In order to protect the cohesion of the work abroad, the Committee Red Flag developed party soldiers instead of militants in a process of formation, which is a militarist-revisionist criterion.
• The Committee Red Flag suppressed the two-line struggle by all means necessary, because it did not want a split.
• When the split was concretized anyway, the Committee Red Flag carried out a military campaign of terror, police work, and psychological warfare against the Red Star, in order to dig its buried work abroad back up.

From this, we can conclude that our comrades in the Federal Republic of Germany are experiencing some serious internal problems, which led them to develop work abroad based on the politics of social-imperialism.

We are for the reunification of the international Communist movement and the reconstitution of the Communist International. This can only be achieved on the basis of proletarian internationalism and through equal relations, respect of territorial integrity, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. We are against the politics of social-imperialism, which negate these Communist principles and would, taken to an extreme, lead to the rebirth of the Reich under the Red Flag.

We are for the reconstitution of the Communist Parties of Switzerland and Germany, as fraternal parties, and the initiation of people's war in our two countries, as parts of and to serve the proletarian world revolution. We wish for diplomatic relations with our comrades in the Federal Republic of Germany and for an end to this petty infighting. If the Committee Red Flag would agree to this and cease their wrecking activities on our soil, we would, in the interest of the international proletariat, forgive the crimes they have committed against us.

We wish to end with a quote from Mao Zedong:

What kind of spirit is this that makes a foreigner selflessly adopt the cause of the Chinese people's liberation as their own? It is the spirit of internationalism, the spirit of Communism, from which every Chinese Communist must learn. [...] We must unite with the proletariat of all the capitalist countries, with the proletariat of Japan, Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy, and all other capitalist countries, before it is possible to overthrow imperialism, to liberate our nation and people, and to liberate the other nations and peoples of the world.¹⁴

#UNITE AROUND MAOISM!

#LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!

#FIGHT FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTIES OF SWITZERLAND AND GERMANY!

#PEOPLE'S WAR UNTIL COMMUNISM!