October 7th, 2026: Three years since the Al-Aqsa Flood
It has now been three years since the Palestinian people made their historic decision to break free from the prison walls of the Zionist state of Israel through a surprise attack against an economically and technologically superior enemy backed by imperialism. Over these three years, the world has evolved, and today we wish to highlight a few aspects we consider important for commenting on the global situation. We therefore choose to comment on the similarities between the liberation movement in Palestine and those in Iran, Cuba, Ukraine, and Venezuela, and in doing so, raise the issue of the united front.
The Al-Aqsa Flood was a justified counteroffensive
We would like to begin by paying tribute to the action carried out on October 7, 2023, by the Palestinian liberation movement. This action is a fine example of how, with a decision, a plan, and the participation of the masses, one can achieve great feats against an enemy that outwardly seeks to appear invincible. They broke through the prison gates of Gaza—the world’s largest open-air prison, surrounded by walls, fences, and a military blockade—by land, through the air using paragliders, and by sea. The just resistance movement launched a shock operation. On October 7, not only the Israeli state but also the imperialists suffered a major loss of prestige, and the myth of an “unshakable power” took a serious blow. The Palestinian national liberation forces demonstrated that it is possible to defeat a powerful force with the help of a weak but organized movement rooted in the people. This possibility holds profound lessons for all revolutionary and national resistance movements.
The Al-Aqsa uprising split the Palestinian movement into two:
a) Those who said that it is right to revolt, who understood that if the struggle requires violence and authority, one must support it without any cowardly reservations, as opposed to
b) Those who began to waver in the face of the Zionists’ war propaganda and lamented that the masses had “gone too far.” By extension, they acknowledged that only the oppressor has the right to use violence against the oppressed—and not the other way around. Thus, they have condemned the Palestinian people to a life of eternal oppression.
There are also those who retroactively seek to reduce the Al-Aqsa uprising to an Israeli conspiracy by claiming that Israel knew in advance that the counteroffensive would take place and even aided it as it unfolded. This is a tactic employed by the global reactionary forces to spread myths intended to undermine the complexity and impact of the masses’ struggle. By exaggerating Israel’s demagogic actions, they diminish the Palestinian people’s resolve and their actions.
The limitations of the Palestinian resistance
Despite this exemplary act of resistance—the uprising and self-sacrifice of the masses—the Palestinian people have suffered major setbacks. Gaza has been demolished, and Israel has shown the world that the imperialists are experts at genocide. Israel is in an obvious political crisis, as its only method for resolving the Palestinian question has proven to be precisely genocide and expulsion—which damages its international reputation. With their genocidal plans, they have attempted to deter the Palestinian people from remaining in Gaza and/or ceasing their resistance. These are illusions that reality has dispelled, as the Palestinian people continue to fight. In this way, the dividing line between the people and the enemy has become clearer than ever in Palestine. Despite this, the resistance faces major difficulties.
This must be understood in light of the nature of Hamas. There is no proletarian leadership over the Palestinian liberation movement, only a bourgeois-bureaucratic one. It is in the class nature of its leadership to compromise, reconcile, and sell out in order to win victories at the negotiating table. The armed struggle is thus used only as a complement to the negotiating table—which is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
And, yes, it is entirely true that the Palestinian war of liberation is a war of the masses and that Hamas makes use of the armed people. But—and this is important—that does not mean they employ the methods of people’s war; rather, the truth is that the war of the masses is limited by the line that dominates the Palestinian resistance.
What is needed is a proletarian leadership that prioritizes the battlefield over the negotiating table. This can only be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, since liberation requires a break with imperialism and all its lackeys—the bureaucratic capitalists, compradors, and landlords. To defeat the Zionist beast, the war of the masses cannot be waged on a leash in order to make themselves fit for a government approved by the imperialists; rather, the full fury of the masses must be unleashed.
Communists view negotiations solely as a complement to the armed struggle and harbor no illusions about reconciliation within the imperialist system. Furthermore, the proletarian leadership does not allow individuals to sell out the struggle for their own gain. Instead, it embodies its class’s characteristic of having nothing to lose but its own chains.
U.S. imperialism makes a fool of itself in Iran
Over the past year, U.S. imperialism has escalated its aggression against the Iranian nation. U.S. imperialism has an interest in bringing about a regime change that can break up the so-called “axis of resistance” consisting of Iran, pre-Assad Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. However, this has proven not to be so simple.
U.S. imperialism began the war by sending in provocateurs from the opposition in Iran, Mossad agents from Israel, and some CIA specialists in the hope of staging a popular movement that could overthrow the Islamic Republic. This failed because they were unable to garner any real popular support. They then attempted to find support among the Kurdish population and sought to exploit the conflict between the Kurds and the Islamic Republic to unleash their war in the region. This, too, failed. This left U.S. imperialism without any allied force capable of carrying out a ground invasion. Subsequently, U.S. imperialism instead attempted to seize the islands in the Strait of Hormuz to hold them hostage and thereby exert more pressure on the regime in Iran. This, too, failed, as it is militarily very difficult to defend and stabilize islands.
This has left U.S. imperialism with only one remaining method: bombing. U.S. imperialism is attempting to hold the Iranian people hostage while simultaneously trying to eliminate key figures within the regime in order to force a surrender or regime change. However, this strategy is backfiring, as the pro-Yankee forces within the country are becoming less popular as U.S. imperialism reveals its true, ugly face. At the same time, Iran continues to carry out military actions against U.S. imperialism’s allies in the region. The Gulf states have experienced drone attacks, and the facade of “business as usual” is difficult to maintain.
In short, U.S. imperialism has therefore become bogged down in the Middle East. It has backed itself into a corner from which it is unable to extricate itself. It does not help that the self-satisfied President Trump has repeatedly lied and glossed over the results of U.S. imperialism’s wars, which only makes a withdrawal all the more humiliating.
The axis of U.S. imperialism is shifting westward
In the absence of success in the world’s most oil-rich region, U.S. imperialism’s focus is instead shifting south of its border. In its historically most crucial sphere of interest and backyard—which is all of the Americas south of its own border—dissatisfaction is growing among the population. Nor does it please the U.S. imperialists that there are numerous bureaucratic-capitalist regimes there that openly flirt with both the European and Russian imperialists, but perhaps worse than anything else, they are flirting with Chinese social-imperialism: its greatest competitor. For U.S. imperialism, it is crucial to secure its own backyard. It intends to build an axis across all of the Americas, from north to south, that can serve as an aircraft carrier against all resistance to its hegemony. But the trend shows that this is becoming more difficult as anti-Yankee sentiments among the peoples grow stronger.
Therefore, it is once again crucial for U.S. imperialism to eliminate the regimes that harbor the strongest anti-Yankee sentiment. They succeeded in doing so in Venezuela earlier this year by kidnapping President Maduro. Afterward, many expected this to be followed by a war. But true to its lackey nature, the Venezuelan regime chose to sell out and align itself with the pro-Yankee camp. Since then, we have seen how the Yankees have escalated their aggression against Cuba.
Why Cuba? Well, since the interrupted revolution of 1959, Cuba has been a symbol of anti-U.S. sentiment for the entire continent. Even though the socialist path was abandoned by completely submitting to Russian social-imperialism and reducing itself to remaining a sugar colony under a new master, its national liberation from the Yanks’ chains and its defense against the Yanks’ invasion attempts have served as proof that it is possible for a small country to defeat a large one. Consider that the U.S. economy is more than 200 times larger than Cuba’s, and that the U.S. is the world’s military superpower, spending more in a single day than Cuba spends on its defense forces in an entire year.
The U.S. imperialists hope that a regime change in Cuba would be easier to carry out than a regime change in Iran. CBS News reported last week that Trump is planning an invasion of Cuba to take place in 90 to 120 days. This follows a year of preparations.
At the beginning of the year, new sanctions were imposed on Cuba, which has already endured a stranglehold embargo for many years. Most notably, an energy blockade was initiated, which the UN General Assembly described as a naval blockade and an act of war. These sanctions have been catastrophic for the people of Cuba. They have caused a collapse of Cuba’s power grid and all transportation across the country, and have severely disrupted access to food, drinking water, health care, and education. In just a few months, the U.S. has, quite literally, reduced Cuba to a pre-industrial state. The sanctions have exacerbated shortages of meat, flour, vegetables, infant formula, and other goods on the island, which imports 80% of its food. Today, there is a nationwide shortage of medicine and contraceptives, which has led to a public health crisis. According to the Cuban Observatory for Human Rights, as many as 94% of Cubans live in extreme poverty. Eight out of ten Cubans reported that they are forced to skip at least one meal a day due to food shortages or lack of money, and 68% of the households surveyed get by on less than 20,000 Cuban pesos per month. That’s just 87 cents per day for an entire household.
So what is the purpose of these starvation tactics? Let’s have Trump’s right-wing ally and “Cuba expert,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, explain: “What we’re trying to teach them is that there are no easy ways out,” he told Axios in August.
In Europe, the warmongering continues on both sides
The war in Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022, continues unabated. The U.S. imperialists, who in the early stages of the war were vocal in their support for Ukraine in the war they themselves provoked, have grown silent over time and shifted their focus elsewhere. This is not particularly surprising, since the outcome of the war is not of existential importance to the Yanks. However, those who have not fallen silent are the European imperialists, who have increased their support for Ukraine and expanded their war machines under the pretext of the threat from Russia. Russian imperialism, too, has stepped up the restructuring of its economy toward continental war in response to the warmongering on the other side of the front lines. Caught in the middle of all this are the Ukrainian people.
The nature of the war remains that of an imperialist war of aggression against the Ukrainian nation, which must respond with a national war of liberation. The problem in Ukraine is that the subjective forces are incredibly weak, and at the head of the anti-Russian front stands the lackey Zelenskyy, who is despised by his own people and is willing to carry out the orders of his imperialist masters to his grave as long as he gets paid. This means that the secondary aspect of the war—the inter-imperialist aspect—becomes more visible in the public eye, while the fundamental contradictions remain those of imperialism versus the nation.
Here, it is important to highlight how this war, in combination with the wars in the Middle East, is exacerbating the crisis that exists primarily within the European economy. This has occurred mainly because German imperialism’s dependence on imported energy has increased, which has brought the economy to a standstill. German imperialism acts as the engine of the European economy. This dependence has caused the engine to run more slowly, bringing the entire economy to a standstill as energy prices have risen sharply, which in turn has driven up other prices. This has made it increasingly difficult for European imperialists to remain competitive, particularly against the Chinese, as we see, for example, in the German auto industry, which produces cars at half the rate of the Chinese, while spending on war preparations is rising. As a result, the struggle within European national borders between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is intensifying, as exploitation must increase to pay the bills.
Has the Al-Aqsa wave radically changed the global landscape?
The simple answer to this question is no. We see that the situation in all these countries is the same and clearly follows the laws of both class struggle and war. In Palestine, just as on the other battlefronts against imperialism, there is an obvious principal contradiction between the nation and imperialism, which mobilizes more forces within the country than just the progressive classes—the proletariat, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie. In Palestine, Iran, Ukraine, Cuba, and Venezuela, representatives of bureaucratic capitalism, compradors, and landlords—to varying degrees—oppose the imperialist aggressor and choose to fight alongside the people. However, they also choose to limit and sell out the resistance for their own gain. In all these countries, the magic formula for true liberation is missing: the masses and the Communist Party.
In the Middle East, there is a great deal of discontent and struggle, but without the formation or reformation of communist parties, these struggles cannot be led in a way that breaks with the imperialist system. The people are struggling in every country, and in the region especially in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. But without proletarian leadership, the struggle turns into a tail-end following for various imperialist masters. Then, such bourgeois representatives—who have no choice but to take the bureaucratic path of reconciliation with imperialism—become the bottlenecks and executioners of the people. Why, then, is the bureaucratic path taken? Because there is no third way: it is either national liberation through new democracy or continued imperialist oppression.
The masses’ participation in the resistance determines the actions of the states
Okay, but how should we analyze the contradictions in these countries? We begin by noting that in oppressed nations, the principal contradiction—the nation versus imperialism—is transformed during an imperialist war of aggression. For all forces fighting against the aggressor, the primary focus becomes driving out the aggressor. This means that even though the communists’ fundamental revolutionary task is to replace the old state—which serves imperialism and the exploiting classes—with a new state, this struggle is put on hold during the war of aggression. The fighting between the revolutionaries and those elements of the domestic reaction and the old state that choose to fight against the aggressor ceases temporarily. This is a temporary ceasefire in service of the defensive war against the aggressor. Chairman Mao Zedong taught us during the defensive war against Japanese imperialism that we could not even begin to talk about communism unless we had a country in which to implement it.
What would happen if the communists chose not to temporarily ally themselves with those elements of the domestic reactionary forces and the old state that are defending the country against the imperialist aggressor? Well, in that case, the communists would actually strengthen the imperialist aggressor by weakening part of the resistance.
This leads us to another problem. If the communists are to temporarily ally themselves with those elements of the domestic reactionary forces that are fighting against the imperialist aggressor—how should this alliance function? After all, the domestic reactionary forces usually enjoy the support of other imperialist powers and detest the communists. Is it not the case that the Islamic Republic of Iran receives substantial support from Chinese social-imperialism, and that the Zelenskyy regime in Ukraine is entirely dependent on and corrupted by some of the most reactionary elements among the Western imperialists? The same problem obviously applies in both Palestine and Cuba, where Hamas previously turned its guns on its own people during protests in 2019, and in Cuba, where the social-fascist regime cracks down hard on dissidents.
For those sections of the old state and the domestic reactionary forces that choose to fight against the invader, the question of mass mobilization becomes of immense importance, especially in cases where the invader is superior in terms of economy, material resources, and technology. The more superior the invader is in these respects, the more important the participation of the masses becomes. Every military strategist in the world who has ever opened a history book knows this. The problem, however, lies precisely in the reactionaries’ capacity to mobilize the masses for war. In Ukraine, for example, the Zelenskyy regime is experiencing immense problems precisely in mobilizing the masses for the army. This is not surprising, since the regime is one of the people’s oppressors and is therefore extremely unpopular. The difference is that in Palestine and Cuba, the people’s hatred of the invader is significantly greater, and the necessity to fight is increasingly a matter of survival. Therefore, the conditions are more favorable for the resistance to wage a war of the masses.
However, there is a problem for those elements of the domestic reactionary forces and the old state that choose to resort to a war of the masses. It is that when the masses themselves take the initiative, with weapons in hand, and decide their own fate, it is not entirely clear that their fighting spirit will diminish once the negotiating tables are opened for the domestic reactionaries and their aggressors. A people ready for battle may choose to sweep away the forces within the old state apparatus that are selling out the country and betraying the people. This makes it more difficult for the political representatives of comprador and bureaucratic capital, as well as for the landlords, to restore “business as usual” by capitulating to the aggressor’s demands. In Venezuela, where popular resistance was extremely weak, the regime was able to change course immediately after U.S. aggression. However, this seems less likely in a country like Cuba, where the people are more combative and organized and will not allow the Cuban state apparatus to capitulate. Therefore, there is always, to varying degrees, a campaign among the reactionaries to pacify the masses in order to maintain control and ensure that the masses “do not go too far.”
But since the masses are the decisive factor in popular resistance, the role of the communists in the war of liberation becomes increasingly clear. History teaches us that it is the participation of the masses, along with their ideology and guidance, that determines the outcome of major battles. In national wars of liberation, it is the participation of the masses that is most often the prerequisite for national resistance. The communists are far better equipped than the domestic reactionaries to lead the masses and integrate them into the war of resistance. It is precisely this that made it difficult for figures like Chiang Kai-shek—who had the blood of countless communists on his hands—to turn his guns on the communists instead of on the Japanese invaders.
The domestic reactionaries allow the communists to operate within the resistance not because the communists are toothless or choose to parrot the reactionaries’ slogans, but because the communists’ own capabilities within the resistance compel the reactionaries to let them operate. It is the communists’ ability to wage war that is decisive for this alliance.
The question of the united front becomes extremely relevant for communists
This is precisely why understanding the front—as one of the three instruments of the revolution—is of immense importance to communists around the world today. To be capable of waging a war that is superior to domestic reaction and thereby forcing a temporary alliance, communists need a superior apparatus.
The prerequisite for communists to be able to lead a broad front against imperialism is that they understand what the united front is. In the Communist Party of Peru’s text On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism from the Fundamental Documents (1988), the united front is described as follows:
“It was Chairman Mao who for the first time developed a complete theory on the united front and established its laws. A front of social classes based on the worker-peasant alliance as a guarantee of the proletariat’s hegemony in the revolution, which is led by the proletariat represented by the Communist Party; in synthesis, a united front under the leadership of the Communist Party, a united front for the people’s war, for the revolution, for the conquest of power for the proletariat and the people. In synthesis, the united front is the grouping of the revolutionary forces against the counter-revolutionary forces in order to wage the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution mainly through the armed people’s war. The united front, obviously, is not the same in every stage of the revolution and, furthermore, it has its specifications according to the various historical periods of each stage; likewise, the united front in a concrete revolution does not equal the one on a world level, although both follow the same general laws. Apart from this, it is important to emphasize the relation between the front and the State that Chairman Mao established when the war of resistance against Japan was evolving, setting forth that the united front is a form of joint dictatorship, a question that deserves to be especially studied by those who face democratic revolutions.”
Here we wish to highlight certain passages, such as the assertion that the front is “a class front led by the proletariat represented by the Communist Party; in synthesis, a united front under the leadership of the Communist Party, a united front for the people’s war, for the revolution” as well as “in synthesis, the united front is the grouping of the revolutionary forces against the counter-revolutionary forces in order to wage the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution mainly through the armed people’s war. ” Furthermore, we consider it worth emphasizing that the front does not take the same form at all stages of the revolution; rather, the front that can be formed with the domestic reactionaries during a war of liberation ceases to exist once the invasion is over and the guns are then turned against the domestic reactionaries.
In the national war of liberation, when the main contradiction is between the nation and imperialism, the front consists of the sum of all the forces fighting against the invader. The front thus becomes a war front—it is the dividing line on the battlefield. This front is in itself a battlefield, as it can serve, as in Ukraine, the interests of other imperialists, or, as in China during the anti-Japanese war, the people. The decisive factor is the communists’ ability to lead the front.
The PKP is extremely clear on this point. The prerequisite for uniting all anti-invasion forces at this stage is a Communist Party capable of leading the front in waging a people’s war. This requires that the party itself be militarized and that it lead its own armed forces: the army, the second instrument of the revolution. Without their own capacity and organization, the communists fall into the trap of becoming the tail of the domestic reactionaries unless they center their work on building their own strength. If the communists do not fight to build a party that leads its own army, they cannot enforce their line within the front. It should not be a question of the balance of power within the front that determines the communists’ strategy, what is relevant is merely the tactics used. If the communists are weak in a given country, they should not become cheerleaders for the domestic reactionaries’ struggle for national sovereignty; rather, they should focus their efforts on building their own organization to wage people’s war. With a correct ideological-political line, the communists will be able to win the trust within the front and build an alliance based on military strength.
The main task for communists in all these countries thus remains to build up their own forces, which are the only ones capable of leading the country out from under imperialist domination. The old ruling classes limit the struggle for national sovereignty to their own regime, which is accepted by the imperialist order as the administrators of the country’s territory. They have no intention of achieving true liberation from imperialism and are therefore unwilling to pay the necessary price for this end, which is to unleash the fury of the masses. Under these rulers, the war can only come to a temporary end, since within imperialism, war is permanent and will inevitably flare up again later.
Communists must draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and the other factions within the front. Consider how the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, was able to win over large sections of the front during the war against the Japanese, even though they began at a numerical, technological, and economic disadvantage compared to the domestic reactionaries who also participated in the resistance war. They were able to win broad trust among the people because they criticized the Kuomintang’s policy of selling off the country and capitulation, and because, by developing people’s war, they were able to gain the upper hand over the reactionaries in military matters.
It is therefore incumbent upon the Communists to set an example within the front by building up their own war-fighting apparatus. To this end, they must stand firm in their principles and always continue to draw a clear line of demarcation between proletarian and bourgeois leadership. The other classes never intend to go far enough to liberate the country but, in one way or another, seek to reduce the battlefield to a mere complement to the negotiating table. Consider the situation in Palestine, where the people clearly have nothing to lose. At the same time, the struggle is hampered by all those representatives who sit at the negotiating table, are offered an individual way out of misery, and accept agreements that undermine the struggle. This is a fundamental difference between the bourgeois and the proletarian. The proletarian leadership has nothing to lose but its chains and will always prioritize the battlefield over the negotiating table.
Palestine will inevitably triumph!
We communists know very well that the Palestinian people will inevitably triumph. There is no shortage of struggle or fighting spirit in Palestine. Moreover, the necessity to fight grows greater with each passing day as the Israelis, together with U.S. imperialism, advance their sinister plans. But what is lacking is precisely proletarian leadership. However, it is not impossible—but highly likely—that this leadership will emerge. Yet it is incumbent upon the international communist movement to present Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory clearly and unambiguously to the peoples of the world so that it can be embraced by the communists in Palestine. Then they can understand the laws governing the united front—which is a class front for the war—and thereby fulfill their task of building up their own forces: the Communist Party and the people’s army, which can win leadership within the front. The Al-Aqsa Flood will sweep forward again, and the Zionist genocidal murderers will pay the price these scum of the earth deserve. Nothing can stop the wheel of history!
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA—PALESTINE WILL BE FREE!
Kontakta oss via Kommunisten@riseup.net!