April 22, 2026, marks the 156th anniversary of Lenin's birth. It is with an inevitably somewhat heavy heart that we look back at the initial majesty of the 20th-century international communist movement and its current low ebb. However, everything following a low ebb, before reaching the peak, is part of our progress. The road traveled is always rugged when on an incline, but as long as we move upward, the future must be bright, unless we first admit defeat and bow our heads ourselves.

History is always unexpected. From a long-term perspective, at least among humanity in the present world, the vast majority has long since moved beyond pre-state forms; yet, a situation where various ideologies are mixed still exists. Generally speaking, in terms of the grand trend, history rises in a spiral and advances in waves. In between, there are counter-attacks from various old ideologies, the coexistence of new and old systems, and situations where bodies have entered modernization while thoughts remain in the era before the Common Era—these are universally present on a global scale. Therefore, if history relied every time on productive forces developing until the old society could no longer contain them, forcing the masses into a state where they could not survive before intellectual progress occurred to complete a transformation, it might sound like the "natural development" of history, but in reality, this is clearly insufficient. When the masses cannot survive, they think only of survival; this is the iron hammer that shatters the old world. However, in the subsequent process of sweeping away old forces, consolidating victory, and building a new society, if it remains the spontaneously led process of scattered, united masses in an environment that is unorganized, fragmented in heart, and characterized by mutual suspicion, jealousy, and even internal infighting, the situation of establishing and entering a new era has, in the vast majority of historical instances, failed to materialize.

In fact, as every era nears its final conclusion, the social productive forces develop to a point where they must be supported by updated relations of production. However, the ruling classes of society, in order to maintain their class dominance, do not hesitate to adopt short-sighted, conservative, or even reactionary measures, leading to a massive dislocation, tearing, and even regression between social relations of production and actual productive forces, leaving the majority of the masses in the position of the ruled unable to survive and thus forced to resist. At this time, if the level of reaction in society becomes so severe that it threatens survival and forces the masses to spontaneously destroy the old order, they will still fall into chaos during the subsequent establishment of a new order due to uneven internal cognition. They can only slowly replace the old system over an extremely long period, and this process is inevitably one of tug-of-war, repetition, and accompanying chaos, often with even more reactionary counter-attacks from old forces.

In most cases at such times, the vanguard of history will appear. They take the scattered intuitions and emotional thoughts of dissatisfaction generated spontaneously within the old system—which might otherwise take a very long time to become popular—combine them with current observations and historical experience, and compress them into a new theory. They lead the masses to break the old system and build a new society to adapt to the new conditions of social productive forces; only then can society enter a new era. Yet, without the ideas generated from within the masses themselves to inspire them, and without the support of the masses because they represent the foundation of advanced productive forces, the vanguard cannot move history forward. Overall, the vanguard does not "change the direction" of history—that would be inconsistent with historical materialism—rather, more precisely, they accelerate the process of history moving toward the grand trend of more advanced productive forces and a better life for the masses compared to the old society, ensuring that human history always moves in the general direction of progress.

The destruction of German power, Lenin’s early death, and Stalin’s erroneous "center-in-one-country" strategy ruined the best opportunity for the international communist movement. During the historical window when the Great Depression caused spontaneous mass resistance in the capitalist world, the socialist revolution was not allowed to unfold globally, ultimately allowing capitalism to linger until today. However, thinking of it another way, we tried all the wrong paths in the last century: whether it was the overly rigid Soviet Union, China which led to upheaval through mass movements, Yugoslavia which collapsed spontaneously due to a failure to better condense consensus, or North Korea which alienated into the world's most reactionary neo-feudalist fortress—all have shown us that socialism can also be eroded, and which construction routes we must resolutely prevent. At the same time, capitalism has utilized elements of socialism to survive until today: whether it is the establishment and expansion of trade union systems, the true popularization of universal healthcare and compulsory education, the forced emergence of universal suffrage democracy, or the borrowed state intervention and planned financial systems—these things have essentially tested good elements for us in advance, providing immense historical experience for our future construction.

Look at history, comrades! It took nearly 80 years from the French Revolution to the final abolition of the monarchy in France; it took nearly 120 years from the restoration of the British monarchy to the establishment of the United States; Spain and others waited nearly 800 years for the Reconquista. The Soviet Union has been collapsed for less than 40 years; are our socialist comrades worldwide to lose heart already? In the 1840s, was the pessimistic mood of left-wing intellectuals across Europe not more severe than ours? Their historical references were far fewer than ours. Often, the more despair there is, the more it proves we are willing to face reality and history directly. If communists abandon even their own ideals, the world is truly beyond saving; on the day it collapses, no one will be prepared.

Admittedly, the Soviet Union had many problems and later alienated into revisionism and imperialism. However, this precisely provided us with historical experience for future construction: how to balance economy and politics, how to complete the transition of the vanguard in times of peace, and how the global communist movement can condense into a force—many people do not understand or even blindly oppose these things in the absence of historical experience. At the same time, the Soviet Union forced the capitalist world to frantically absorb socialist elements. Could Keynesianism have been accepted spontaneously without a crisis? Did capitalism not significantly advance social productive forces during the Cold War for the sake of a temporary ideological victory? And it is precisely these advanced productive forces that changed the social structure more rapidly, driving the social foundation of capitalism further and further away from the economic and social foundations required for further development of productive forces, accelerating the speed of social change until society can no longer support the productive forces and a revolution must be made. Looking at our present, is this not that very opportunity?

Comrades, please look at what the vanguards in history were like. From a long-term historical perspective, this refers not limited to the narrow sense of Leninist party organizations, but to that group of people who stand on the side of historical development when the old system can no longer exist under new, advanced productive forces. With advanced theory, firm will, noble ideals, and realistic organization, they lead the majority of people toward a new era. Just as the Continental Congress was to America, the Jacobins to the Kingdom of France, the Paris Commune to the French Empire, the Bolsheviks to Tsarist Russia—or in a broader sense, the New Model Army counts as half of one. We can see that even the most peaceful "Glorious Revolution" only occurred after being terrified by Cromwell. Yet we are now accustomed to feeling as though everything can be settled within parliament; this thought is exactly like that of the Social Revolutionaries who failed over a hundred years ago, as if a proletarian party could seize state power and conduct a social revolution solely through parliamentary means. This thinking is strategically immature. To transform a state that was originally built for class rule by the ruling class through entirely peaceful and legal means is as laughable as a board of directors making you CEO while your ultimate goal is to replace all the directors—and your chosen method is actually legal elections and corporate reform? In contrast to the ruling class behind the state that holds the machinery of violence, a party composed of a group of politicians, social activists, and labor aristocrats can, at most, flap their lips in parliament, exchanging so-called "voice" for mass demands for mass support to trade for status with the ruling class—and many times, having lost their will, they alienate into tools used by the ruling class to paralyze the masses in return.

Strict discipline, firm will, and noble ideals are vital in a party or vanguard dedicated to human liberation rather than self-profit, whether in the screening of sources or the process of daily construction; the advanced nature of the party and organization must be maintained. Among our tasks is to unite all forces that can be united and utilize all legal means, or illegal means depending on the situation, to match reality. However, unity does not mean unity that abandons the bottom line: which people we can directly absorb, which we can cooperate with, and which we would rather give up on to maintain organizational purity—this cannot be judged by one or two dogmas. Methods also need to be decided according to reality: use all legal means in peaceful times, but be cautious of all legal means handed to you in times of upheaval. For when the ruling class hands you a position of power, it often means they realize the situation has made the cost of suppression far greater than the cost of absorption; otherwise, why would they share power with those who want them to roll out of history? This, too, is not in the dogmas of our movement, nor can it be written in the form of dogma. The experience accumulated in specific movements and battles is not something we can come up with by slapping our heads in an office; this is why we need to accept fresh blood and have young people join, while simultaneously going out to do practical work combined with sitting down to think calmly.

To commemorate Lenin 102 years after his death is absolutely not just a commemoration. If we forget the experience Lenin gave us, or even give up the class struggle against the bourgeoisie and can no longer represent the proletariat, that is true betrayal. As the saying goes: if workers could complete the revolution spontaneously, then the vanguard would have no need to exist. Such masses would no longer be the masses themselves; scattered workers can only form trade unionism. Without the push of the vanguard, our history would sink into darkness at every transition period. Thus, we call for true vanguards of the era who can dialogue and unite with us, right here under this platform.

Unity.

Benjamin Marshall