Haz Al-Din and Feng Jiaxin: New Situations, New Strategies, and New Developments in the American Communist Movement—An Interview with Haz Al-Din, Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party (ACP)
Today's world is undergoing profound changes: imperialist hegemony is accelerating its decline, and the systemic crisis of capitalism is daily deepening. Socialist trends of thought are regaining vitality. Against this backdrop, however, a trend of divergence and reconstruction has emerged within the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). In 2024, rifts appeared within the CPUSA due to disagreements over the political line and organizational concepts. Some members left the party to establish a separate entity, the American Communist Party (ACP). The ACP advocates for a return to a Leninist revolutionary line and organizational principles, attempting to rebuild close ties between the Party and the masses on a new social foundation. To analyze and understand the latest situation of the American communist movement, I conducted an exclusive interview with Haz Al-Din, the first Executive Chairman of the ACP.
I. The Background and Reasons for the Establishment of the ACP
Interviewer: In recent years, domestic class contradictions in the United States have intensified and political polarization has worsened. In this context, the establishment of the ACP has drawn widespread international attention and stimulated further discussion on its political significance and potential impact. Could you please introduce the background and reasons for the founding of the ACP?
Haz Al-Din: Although there are significant ideological differences between the leadership of the ACP and the CPUSA, I still encouraged supporters to join the CPUSA while I was popularizing Marxism through live broadcasts. This was because the American Left has long suffered from a vicious cycle of sectarianism, where many organizations were founded based solely on minor ideological nuances. The newly formed ACP should not only be an ideological platform but also a practical institution; it should be a party of the American working class and remain open to different perspectives. But at the same time, we strive to maintain the integrity of the Party's organization. Party building cannot succeed without discipline; if a certain ideology becomes the majority within the Party, the minority should submit to the collective will [1] rather than stubbornly clinging to individual positions. The deep-seated individualism in American culture is one of the roots of the long-term fragmentation within the American Left. In fact, I never envisioned rebuilding a party through a fracture. Looking ahead, it is foreseeable that as the number of new ACP members continues to grow, the Party's National Convention will inevitably involve more intense discussions surrounding the line and direction.
Politically, we have always maintained that the CPUSA's stance is not firm enough and lacks true independence, especially reflected in its dependence on the Democratic Party. The CPUSA is not a legalistic party in the traditional sense; its logic of operation emphasizes substantive content over institutional procedures. However, the reality is that more than half of the party members are disappointed with the current strategy and look forward to finding a new direction. Although this inclination has become dominant, the Party leadership has consistently avoided this issue and is seriously detached from the grassroots. After three to four years of observation, we realized that the current leadership's mode of operation has become an obstacle to the Party's development. The CPUSA leadership has neither achieved any significant results nor taken effective measures to promote the Party’s growth. They turn a deaf ear to internal criticism, refusing not only to make necessary adjustments but instead attempting to turn the Party into an appendage of the Democratic Party, which further weakens its independence and influence.
By contrast, a new generation of party members, including myself, holds a stronger conviction in communism. We view Marxism-Leninism as an intellectual resource oriented toward the future. We believe that the most progressive ideas can be combined with the support of the broad masses to form a new general committee. In 2024, the Democratic Party lost support among the Left due to its handling of the situation in Gaza. This sense of disappointment also spread to the CPUSA; my supporters and many more party members held deep doubts about the future of the CPUSA. Consequently, some members, including myself, chose to break away during the 32nd National Convention. We believe that, from the perspective of institutional statutes, because the CPUSA's 32nd National Convention failed to reflect the will of the majority and violated the Party Constitution, the party can actually be said to have dissolved. Therefore, we officially announced the establishment of the ACP. In our founding document, the Manifesto, one of the most important changes is placing practice at the core. This shift partially inherits the American tradition of pragmatism—that is, the legitimacy of a communist party comes from its capacity for action, rather than a certain pure ideology. We need a party that can truly mobilize the masses to respond to the political challenges of the New Era.
Interviewer: What are the main differences between the ACP and the CPUSA in terms of ideology, organizational strategy, or policy direction?
Haz Al-Din: From an ideological perspective, we clearly support a theoretical system of Marxism called "the unified tendency" in our Party Constitution and Manifesto. The criteria for measuring Marxism-Leninism are historical; its validity depends on whether it contributes to the development of human society in practice. For us, as long as communists have made positive and concrete contributions in history and promoted the progress of social practice, these practical achievements should be regarded as components of this theoretical system. For example, we believe that successive generations of the leadership of the Communist Party of China have embodied the continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism. The Reform and Opening-up [2] promoted by Deng Xiaoping was a major contribution to socialism. Judging from current practice, Xi Jinping's governing achievements are equally significant. Unlike some American Maoists, we do not view the Soviet Union or other socialist countries collectively as "revisionist." We affirm the socialist development paths with distinct characteristics of countries like China, Cuba, and Vietnam; in particular, the Chinese path is currently the most successful, and we have gained much valuable experience from it. Our position has triggered controversy within the American Left, especially among some communists. These people often deny the legitimacy of some actually existing socialist countries; their views are a manifestation of a lack of historical consciousness and theoretical reflection.
One difference between the ACP and the CPUSA is that the CPUSA lacks a systematic understanding of the 20th-century socialist movement and has failed to establish a clear framework to explain or respond to this historical process. It accepted Khrushchev's "Secret Report" and supported Gorbachev's reforms; in a sense, it can be called a typical revisionist organization. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the CPUSA failed to maintain a clear Marxist-Leninist position. Relevant theoretical journals ceased publication, and the party almost completely abandoned the study and propagation of Marxism, instead following the American Democratic Party politically. Its worldview does not fundamentally differ from that of the Democratic Party; they are more like liberals than true Marxists.
Another major divergence between the ACP and the CPUSA is that the ACP recognizes "socialist patriotism" as an important component of the Marxist theoretical system. Although we criticize and resist many policies of the U.S. government, we do not support burning the national flag, nor do we encourage hatred of the country, let alone instill feelings of hatred toward one’s own nation in the workers. On the contrary, we affirm the progressive significance of American history—such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Movement—and advocate for maintaining the continuity of this progressive tradition. Within the American Left, many liberals are influenced by bourgeois cosmopolitanism and deny all forms of national identity and patriotism; we maintain a critical attitude toward this tendency.
On cultural issues, the basic position of the ACP is to maintain political neutrality, especially on LGBTQ+ issues, by not actively intervening. Although some comrades in the Party are indeed skeptical of certain extreme cultural trends, such as the emergence of dozens of different gender classifications in recent years, we believe that gender politics is not a core concern of Marxism. We will not promote an "LGBT agenda," nor will we hold up LGBT flags in political activities. Of course, this does not mean we exclude LGBTQ+ people; it is just that this issue is not directly related to our primary task of striving for socialism, and therefore does not receive special attention.
Interviewer: How does the ACP view the fragmentation of American left-wing political forces?
Haz Al-Din: The American Left currently faces two main problems: first, a serious tendency toward sectarianism. Many leftists place personal ideological preferences above the objective needs of organizational development, overemphasizing personal emotions and ideological purity. This leads to frequent factional disputes and internal strife, which in turn forms long-term antagonism and conflict. This subjectivist tendency is extremely harmful, making it difficult for them to maintain the necessary objective stance and political maturity. Second, there is a serious detachment from the working masses of their own country. Many on the American Left are unable to truly go deep into the grassroots and establish connections with ordinary people. They rarely go into small towns, villages, or factories, and are almost unable to engage in in-depth dialogue with the working class. This detachment is particularly evident at the cultural level. A popular view in some ultra-left organizations is that the majority of the American working class consists of illegal immigrants, and the only "true" proletariat are Native Americans, plus perhaps African Americans. This position causes their political focus to lean excessively toward marginal issues, even denying the core position of the majority of American laborers in the class struggle. This is not only a misjudgment of the actual social structure but also reflects a kind of theoretical arrogance—they are often unwilling to reflect on their own limitations, but instead blame the failure of political mobilization on the "backwardness" of the masses. This way of thinking is precisely one of the key sticking points of the contemporary American Left.
In the view of the ACP, the American Left should conduct profound self-reflection, go deep among the masses, and learn from them. Currently, some leftists have artificially built a barrier between themselves and the masses, accusing the working masses of being too ignorant, backward, and intolerant. However, it is precisely these leftists who need to conduct self-criticism. For the ACP, the core goal is to bring Marxism back into the public eye and establish links with the broadest working masses. We advocate actively talking to ordinary people, even if they are deeply influenced by anti-communist propaganda, and even if they hold prejudices against communism. Our members will go deep into small American towns, participate in community service, and provide what help they can, such as cleaning, distributing food and clothing, or providing appropriate assistance during natural disasters. When the masses see our concrete work, they will not care whether we call ourselves communists; instead, they will gradually develop a new understanding of communism.- This kind of practical work can effectively break the ideological barriers constructed by mainstream media. Many Americans have long been indoctrinated with anti-communist thoughts, but actions speak louder than words [3], and work that truly goes deep among the masses can change their views and win their trust.
II. The Theoretical Propositions and Specific Practices of the ACP
Interviewer: How does the ACP view electoral politics? Do you plan to become the governing party by winning the presidential election?
Haz Al-Din: If you want me to be blunt, our Party does not expect to become the governing party by winning the presidential election or by other means. Because running for president is extremely expensive, in our view, this attempt is essentially a waste of resources. Furthermore, we are well aware that under the current American political system, it is impossible for us to win the presidency through an election. Therefore, our core goal is not the presidential election, but rather to root ourselves in the grassroots and gain local authority.
We are neither adventurers nor extremists, but we anticipate that when the internal contradictions of the United States reach a peak and cause a concentrated outbreak of internal problems, the country will face a severe constitutional crisis. This is not to say that a collapse will happen overnight, but we have already seen some signs. We are not the only organization that holds this view. German media reported that the German government once sent officials to investigate the American political environment during the Trump administration and concluded that the U.S. constitutional order is coming into conflict with current political realities, and its future is full of uncertainty. In a society like the United States that highly prizes individualism, the political party best able to mobilize the people at the local and grassroots levels will possess political authority. Therefore, our goal is to build a party capable of surviving a systemic collapse and organizing the masses.
We are not predicting a revolution, nor do we believe we will be the leaders of a revolution—such a thought is far too absurd. We believe that the constitutional order of the United States is moving toward collapse, national governance will become increasingly chaotic, and social conflict will become more intense. In places like Chicago, conflicts between gangs already reflect the decline of the state’s governing capacity; we hope to gain authority at the grassroots. Perhaps this sounds like a wild prediction, but regardless, we see no future for the U.S. constitutional order. We anticipate that future political struggle in the U.S. will no longer be limited to elections but will continue to expand into domains beyond elections. This struggle may last for years, and our task is to be prepared before this crisis arrives.
Q: In local elections, does the American Communist Party (ACP) support specific candidates for public office?
A: Although the ACP does not pay particular attention to the presidential election, in local elections, the Party organization does receive attention, and many regions have shown an active willingness to nominate the Party’s own candidates. One of our Executive Committee members also took the initiative to get involved and played an important role. This committee is the highest decision-making body within the Party. This member was successfully elected to the position of High Bailiff [4] in Vermont. Although this position is relatively marginal within the national political system as a whole, it still wields significant influence within its jurisdiction. In the future, we plan to push further in this direction. We do not currently have suitable candidates to participate in all local elections, but if suitable candidates emerge, we do not rule out the possibility of continuing to expand our influence in local elections. However, we know that the way to truly drive social transformation is always class struggle.
Q: How do you view Trump’s re-election and his specific policies in his second term?
A: The Trump phenomenon itself is full of contradictions and ambiguity. In the 2016 election, he successfully attracted the support of a large number of blue-collar workers; these people were disillusioned with the Democratic Party and, at the same time, weary of the Republican establishment. Blue-collar workers want high-paying manufacturing jobs to return to the U.S., while also seeking a reassertion of national sovereignty. Interestingly, this political demand directly challenges the traditional American imperialist system of hegemony, including the CIA, federal agencies, and the vast administrative bureaucracy (often referred to as the "fourth branch"). In a sense, these voters do not care how the U.S. expands its power globally, but rather care more about putting America’s own interests first—which is exactly the core of Trump’s "America First" principle. The 2016 election undoubtedly became an intriguing turning point in American political history.
The Trump phenomenon reveals the deep contradictions of the United States: on the one hand, Trump attempts to save American global hegemony, but on the other hand, he unintentionally accelerates its decline. In the process of governing, Trump attacked many of the core institutions that maintain the operation of the empire and attempted to comprehensively audit and reshape federal agencies, but he was strongly obstructed by the judicial system. This triggered a conflict between the executive and judicial branches, which precisely highlights the crisis of the American constitutional system. A deeper contradiction lies in the fact that the United States must maintain its position as the core of the global economy while ensuring the stability of dollar hegemony. The essence of dollar hegemony is to make the dollar the world currency through a global military presence, financial dominance, and the support of allies. However, Trump’s logic deviates from this traditional model. He believes that the cost of U.S. global troop deployments is too high while allies (such as the EU, South Korea, and Japan) benefit from them; he therefore advocates making allies "pay the bill" for U.S. military stationing. This "ledger-style" imperialism may seem to align with the "America First" principle in the short term, but in the long run, it weakens the foundation of U.S. global hegemony. Traditionally, the United States traded military protection for the economic support of its allies, but Trump’s demand that allies pay military expenses directly may instead lead them to reduce their dependence on the dollar system. This contradiction causing Trump, in his attempt to maintain American hegemony, to unintentionally promote the disintegration of the U.S. unipolar system. Furthermore, a series of the Trump administration's diplomatic strategies—such as the threat to annex Canada and the creation of rifts in U.S.-Canada relations—have further damaged the traditional American alliance system. This would have been unimaginable ten years ago, but it has become a reality under Trump’s political style. Regardless of his subjective intentions, his policies have objectively accelerated the decline of the U.S. global system.
Q: What is the ACP’s position on the labor movement, healthcare reform, and housing security issues?
A: Regarding the labor movement, we have always gone all out, actively mobilizing Party members to cooperate with unions and various labor organizations. Currently, some truck drivers at a port in New Jersey are preparing to form a union, and we have sent personnel to the area to assist them with organizational mobilization. We also take the initiative to intervene in major strikes and actively participate in picket lines. The most recent was the Costco employees' strike on January 31, 2025, which followed the Amazon employees' strike on December 19, 2024. Labor organizing is one of the core tasks of the ACP; our goal is to provide practical support for the labor movement in our capacity as a political party and to establish close and stable ties with it.
As for issues such as healthcare and housing justice, we are well aware that these structural problems cannot be solved by external initiatives alone; therefore, we have formulated relevant policy proposals within the Party. For example, we advocate for cracking down on real estate speculation, advancing housing reform, and promoting the construction of new types of cities to guarantee basic residential rights; in the healthcare system, we advocate for the establishment of a universal healthcare system. These policies are an important part of our political program because the ultimate goal we pursue is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and achieve the leadership of the proletarian party. Of course, proceeding from current practical conditions, the area where we are most capable of directly intervening and playing a role remains the field of the labor movement.
Q: Has the ACP proposed solutions for some of the current social problems in the U.S., such as increasing social inequality, racial tension, and the ecological crisis?
A: In our planning, debt relief is regarded as one of the most fundamental and indispensable measures. Our policy conceptions are deeply inspired by the economist Michael Hudson. He pointed out that the legitimization of state power is often accompanied by the cancellation of debt. Historically, the establishment of new regimes has usually been accompanied by large-scale debt abolition. The socialist revolutions in China and the Soviet Union both reflected this principle: Mao Zedong abolished the peasants' debts to landlords during the land reform; after the October Revolution, the Soviet government not only refused to repay the foreign debts accumulated by the Tsarist regime but also exempted the private debts of Russian peasants. Therefore, we advocate for cancelling the existing debt system and advancing the comprehensive nationalization of the banking system. This means abolishing the current Federal Reserve system and having the state monopolize credit, just like the Chinese financial model. We believe that establishing state dominance over credit is the fundamental prerequisite for achieving economic democratization and social redistribution; this policy will greatly release the potential for economic development.
The problem of social inequality manifests in two aspects: first, the high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few monopoly oligarchs—the so-called chasm between the "1% and the 99%." This billionaire class is essentially an oligarchic class of monopoly capital. If the ACP takes power, this class will be completely eliminated, and the monopoly enterprises they control will be reorganized into state-owned enterprises owned by the state or the people. Second, the problem of regional developmental imbalances—that is, the serious gaps between different regions in infrastructure, medical services, and educational resources, leading to vast differences in the quality of life for the general public. Given the above understanding, we maintain that the fundamental way to solve social inequality is not to rely on tax instruments for simple redistribution between high- and low-income groups, but rather to seize the mechanisms of common development and its driving forces, bringing them into the framework of the public interest. The true source of wealth is monopoly capital; only by publicizing monopoly industries can the problem of social inequality be fundamentally solved. Based on this logic, we advocate for comprehensive nationalization reforms of major American enterprises, making key areas such as land, mineral resources, and natural energy all state-owned. This model is similar to China's current system of public land ownership and the state-owned economy. To truly overcome inequality, the only way is to build the nation's developmental goals upon the foundation of the common interests of all the people, and to supervise and manage economic operations through the Party and the state via "Five-Year Plan" style macro-control.
The reason the ACP emphasizes development is that American democratic socialists (such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others) generally believe that the key to solving social inequality lies in raising taxes, but this policy is extremely unpopular among the working people. In fact, the tax burden on the American working class is already quite heavy, and further increasing taxes will only exacerbate social conflicts. Therefore, we believe that the true solution is to promote economic nationalization and formulate a unified development strategy to ensure that the country's economic growth serves the common interests of all the people, rather than placing hope in the accidental results of capitalists seeking private interests.
In addition, we have proposed an important principle: linking the operating goals of state-owned enterprises with human quality-of-life indices. For example, if certain state-owned enterprises can significantly improve the basic quality of life for members of society, we will tilt resource allocation, capital investment, and credit support toward them. This policy thinking reflects our conception of a socialist economic system—that is, using state intervention and planned economic means to ensure that economic growth truly serves social development and the people's well-being. To sum up, our goal can be summarized as: promoting the transformation of the United States toward a modern socialist economy.
Q: In the information age, how does the ACP use informational means to advance Party building?
A: The ACP has constructed a party model adapted to the information age, integrating this model with the new, decentralized forms of association and identity brought by social media. This model makes the Party more flexible and self-adaptive in organization and mobilization.
We have more or less established a system in which the primary goal of local chapters is to learn how to carry out collective contact and practice. Unlike a traditional top-down command system, we do not issue specific instructions to every chapter; instead, we encourage them to independently choose appropriate modes of action based on their own circumstances, rather than mechanically executing uniform orders.
Of course, the ACP still has basic rules, procedures, and clear organizational discipline to ensure the consistency of the overall direction. However, at the specific level of execution, we give local organizations great flexibility. Suppose a chapter has a new idea that they think might work; they can go and try it. If it succeeds, it can spread rapidly throughout the Party and be borrowed by other chapters. If it fails, this does not mean the failure of the Party, but rather provides us with more experimental data, allowing us to better understand which strategies are effective and which still need adjustment. This model allows us to integrate into communities more effectively and win the support of workers and ordinary people. We mainly rely on social media to deliver messages and use its communicative and interactive characteristics to promote the development of the organization. We provide a space for people to test and practice their own ideas in reality, rather than just passively receiving instructions. It is precisely this experimental, organic way of developing that allows the ACP to find its unique position in the political environment of the information age and continuously expand its influence.
▲ Communism still faces severe stigmatization and misunderstanding in the United States. In this context, how does the ACP respond to media challenges and public skepticism?
● Regarding anti-communist trends in America, I would say that one characteristic of capitalism is that it makes people very forgetful, focusing only on the immediate present. Americans forget the injustices they have committed—they forget the Iraq War and the Vietnam War, and even the oppression of the working class by capitalists. However, they also forget many traditions, including the tradition of anti-communism. As long as we demonstrate our good deeds and virtues to Americans through community service and show them the beauty of communism, they will not care about the negative impressions of communism they were once fed. They might say: "Those are communists—that's great, I think I'm interested in communists." This is a very effective way to guide Americans toward learning and education and understanding the truth of the past. We work with churches and local community organizations, and none of them are intimidated by the "communist" label. In the eyes of most people, if you want to do good, it doesn't matter if you are a communist or even an alien; they only care about results—this is a very American perspective. Therefore, we are not intimidated by anti-communist ideology. In fact, we haven't been worried recently, partly because we realize the Trump administration is facing a massive crisis; they are so focused on internal chaos that they don't even have the resources to pay attention to us.
▲ What is your view on left-wing organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Will the ACP cooperate with other American left-wing parties or progressive organizations in the future?
● When it comes to these left-wing organizations in the U.S., it is difficult for me to speak their names directly. We have indeed established cooperative relationships with some organizations, such as the Teamsters union, the Puerto Rican independence movement, Haitian-American communities, Irish-American communities, and Black organizations. We always uphold the principle of open cooperation and are willing to work with any interested group, but the DSA maintains an extremely hostile attitude toward us. For example, a member within the DSA created the concept of "purity superstition," [5] arguing that cooperating with us is impure because we do not support LGBT issues in the same way they do, and we are independent of the Democratic Party and its subordinate NGOs. For the ACP, the existence of differences is a bridge to cooperation; but for the DSA, it is the opposite, which is why they are so hostile toward us. They are extremely conservative; their leaders are defensive and unwilling to accept any new ideas or things. Ironically, they appear extremely liberal on social issues. When discussing the definition of socialism, organizational forms, and who should be organized, they believe only academics and sexual minorities need to be organized, with Black people added at most. The popular term "Baizuo" [6] (white left) describes them quite well.
They refuse to accept a pragmatic view—namely, that one must learn how to speak with the laboring masses; even if the masses do not align with you ideologically, you must manage to become a respected organizer and leader. They are morally self-righteous but are actually severely detached from ordinary people and the real world. In the United States, it is undoubtedly a misfortune that Marxism is shackled by this tendency. Marxism was meant to be closely linked to the broad laboring masses. However, in America, the bourgeoisie has very cleverly linked Marxism with elitism, making it inefficient and unpopular. This is just like Hollywood movies, television, and music—it is a typical problem of cultural hegemony under the dominance of the ruling class—where a detached elite class imposes unpopular views on the working class through bourgeois institutions. This phenomenon occurs not only in Hollywood but elsewhere, and the voices it transmits do not come from the masses, but from the ruling stratum.
▲ Has the ACP established cooperative relations with foreign political parties? What are your considerations for inter-party exchanges between Communist Parties in the future?
● Our International Secretary, Chris Helali, has made great contributions to establishing international ties with communist and left-wing parties. We are part of the World Anti-Imperialist Platform, have certain ties with many Communist Parties, and have recently made progress in relations with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. We are establishing contact with the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and trying to establish contact with the Communist Party of Cuba. Furthermore, we very much hope to establish contact with the Communist Party of China to engage in more dialogue on contemporary Marxism, open up more opportunities for exchange, and bring Marxism-Leninism into a new era of world history.
▲ What are the ACP’s primary goals for the next five years? What are the party's key guiding principles regarding strategy, tactics, and priorities?
● Our goal for the next five years is to become a significant voice in the broad political discourse of the United States, reaching an influence comparable to that of the DSA today. We hope to bring communism and Marxism-Leninism into the mainstream, becoming a political possibility that people consider viable and worth taking seriously. Regrettably, communism is not yet taken seriously by most Americans and is still seen as an outdated ideology. We must work hard to prove that communism, as an independent and viable political form, deserves a place on the political agenda.
In the next five years, our goals are relatively modest. First, to achieve financial self-sufficiency for the Party and establish stable revenue sources to ensure the continuous operation of various tasks. Second, to establish operational strongholds in small towns and communities, starting from the local level to gradually take root and accumulate influence. If we can achieve these goals within five years, we will consider it a significant success.
We have no illusions about seizing state power in the short term; as far as we know, this could be a decade-long process. Currently, the work facing us remains heavy. At the same time, we do not expect rapid economic success, but rather place importance on strengthening the organizational power of local chapters. We are undertaking a somewhat controversial experiment—creating enterprises and economic cooperatives at the regional level as an alternative practice to the capitalist model. These cooperatives can not only provide funding for the Party but also help build influence in communities. This model carries shadows of utopian socialism, which has a profound influence in American history. As a modern continuation of cooperatives, it allows the public to more intuitively understand the practical feasibility of socialism. These economic cooperatives could also become sources of employment for some small communities. For example, in northern and western Michigan, many people are unemployed, heavily in debt, and dependent on government relief. We hope to provide them with another choice through economic cooperatives.
Our Party also hopes to be proactive economically. If we only focus on political goals, then we would have to seize power rapidly in the short term, but clearly, that is unrealistic. If we are to become a long-standing political force in this country, we must possess the capacity for economic independence and be able to self-fund for long-term operations. What we need to do is survive. If we can weather the storm, we will achieve victory. Of course, some may have another mindset, hoping that we actively destroy and overthrow the system. But we believe this idea is impractical. We are very weak, and the system is very strong, but the system itself has many internal contradictions that are causing it to collapse on its own. If we can prove we have the ability to survive amidst these contradictions, we will become a legitimate source of political authority for the people of this country. In a moment of true crisis, they will look to us for the help, order, and organization the people need.
III. The ACP's Views on China's Achievements and Experience
▲ What are the ACP's views on the socialist path of countries like China?
● We believe that China is the most advanced socialist country in history, and its development path is highly forward-looking. When explaining the concept of socialism to Americans, we often use China as an example to show what a modern socialist state looks like. We do not advocate for the total destruction of the free market or economic organizations formed spontaneously through contractual relations; rather, we emphasize combining market vitality with decentralized, dynamic forms of socialist economy. The market can provide necessary price signals, but it should be combined with an economic model dominated by state-owned enterprises. We also value China's public ownership of land, believing that the management of land and natural resources is equally vital. We firmly believe that China's socialist path is the most advanced, and if a similar path could be realized in the United States, it would be a monumental achievement.
China has not only pushed socialist ideas into the 21st century but has also provided important practical experience for the ACP. We have always regarded China as a model for communist countries and often tell the public: "Look at China; they are doing much better than we are." Of course, this does not mean we see the Chinese path as the only viable way. We pay close attention to the impact of the information age and cybernetics on modern socialist economic construction. The Soviet planned economy once encountered difficulties due to rigidity and lack of vitality, but today, with the rise of AI and supercomputers, large-scale economic regulation has become possible. We believe that modern socialism can explore new forms of development in a post-market economy. At the same time, we are aware of the significant differences between the national conditions of the U.S. and China; the U.S. is a highly technologically advanced country, whereas China was not, at least before the Reform and Opening-up. Therefore, considering the unique national conditions of the U.S., we believe a new form of socialism can be explored. This is not a denial of the success of socialism with Chinese characteristics, but an emphasis that different countries can explore socialist paths suited to their respective conditions.
▲ How do you understand and evaluate Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era?
● I believe that Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era not only defines the meaning of socialism in the 21st century but also responds to the unique challenges posed by this era at a critical moment in current world history. With the development of AI and information technology, the wavering of American hegemony, and the decline of the unipolar order, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era provides a clear direction and guidance for China's modernization. We believe this thought reveals the possibility for socialism to adapt to global competition, survival, and development, especially in the context of China-U.S. competition.
However, we also believe that socialism once fell into confusion and hesitation at the spiritual, moral, and ideological levels. Especially beyond high-speed economic growth, while the fundamental guiding principles of China's development were grasped by the Party leadership, they were not yet fully clear at the level of popular culture and social psychology. In our view, Xi Jinping clarified the meaning behind China's development—namely, taking the path of socialist modernization. This guiding principle emphasizes how to harmoniously combine a highly competitive and dynamic market economy with the overall goals of national development to promote the common progress of society. This kind of development transcends narrow, individual interest-oriented goals, pursuing the overall coordination of the state, society, and the people at the material, spiritual, and moral levels.
We have been paying close attention to the shifts occurring in China's cultural sphere. For example, in film, The Wandering Earth series is very popular within the ACP; we are also loyal readers of Chinese science fiction literature, which is widely circulated in the United States. We are enthusiastic about these cultural products because they allow us to understand the spiritual outlook and characteristics of modern socialism. What these works display is not just a technological fantasy, but a very profound spiritual value. In the past, people often crudely associated communism with dogmatism and radicalism, believing that communism was sloganized and detached from reality. However, since socialism with Chinese characteristics entered the New Era, we have gradually realized that socialism, or communism, contains a higher-level pursuit of equality, which I would call "serenity." It allows us to think from a longer historical perspective about what this spirit means for the future of humanity and the entire planet.
▲ You mentioned Chinese-path modernization; what do you think is the difference between it and Western-style modernization?
This is an excellent question. I believe the starting point of Western modernization is private interest. Capitalists first accumulate wealth by chasing profit, thereafter organizing themselves to form an oligarchy that dominates the establishment of the political state and subsequent political transformations. However, their fundamental goal remains the unilateral maximization of profit. This logic ultimately undermines and dissolves the public interest and traditional values, occurring at the expense of human health and the natural environment. Simultaneously, the working class, representing the majority, has also waged class struggle in an attempt to counterbalance this logic. They organized trade unions and exerted pressure on the bourgeoisie, thereby driving a series of reforms. This explains why, in modern capitalist countries, our situation is not as extremely dire as it was during the era of early capitalism. This is because the working class historically gained a certain degree of influence and pushed for sustained institutional reforms.
In recent years, the standard of living for ordinary people in Western societies has continued to decline. The social security mechanisms left behind by Roosevelt’s New Deal are gradually disintegrating; the situations regarding employment, social security, healthcare, and public safety are all deteriorating. Western capitalism seems to be regressing toward its primordial state. More importantly, the Western modernization process is not dialectical, but one-sided, one-dimensional, and centered around the accumulation of profit. In contrast, the uniqueness of socialist modernization lies in its dialectical insight into the essence of "development." Development does not revolve around private interests but is carried out through planning—a planning based on forward-looking judgments regarding the needs of society as a whole.
We believe that China’s path to modernization is, in a sense, highly dialectical. It is not a one-dimensional, linear development, but a dialectical development based on feedback loops and long-term investment, such as strategic investments in science and technology and human capital, even when this requires sacrificing short-term profits. In the West, people merely unilaterally pursue profit maximization or economic standardization. The result is that, initially, the Western modernization model was faster. This is somewhat like that ancient fable "The Tortoise and the Hare" [7]; the hare runs fast while the tortoise is slow, but the tortoise ultimately wins the race. In China’s case, it focuses on the cultivation of conditions for long-term development—this requires wisdom, patience, and foresight. Over time, Western modernization has gradually shown a trend of slowing down or even degenerating and cannibalizing itself, while China has steadily advanced with a stable, reliable, and continuous rhythm. I believe this is why Chinese-path modernization has been able to catch up with, and in many respects surpass, Western modernization.
To put it simply, we must rethink what modernization means. I believe it is a process of "undulating mountains"—Western modernization is based on an immediate response to the present, while Chinese-path modernization is based on long-term wisdom regarding both the present and the future. To understand the present, one must understand how various different factors are interconnected and interact with one another. This possesses more foresight, but it always takes longer at the outset.
[Author Profiles: Haz Al-Din, Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party (ACP); Feng Jiaxin, Doctoral Student at the School of Marxism, Peking University.]
Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 4, 2025. Online Editor: Zhang Jian.