Yu Weihai and Li Yuwei: The New "Networking" Trend of International Communist Party Relations in the 21st Century
On December 1, 2017, Xi Jinping proposed at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting: "Political parties of different countries should enhance mutual trust, strengthen communication, and close coordination. We should explore the establishment of a new type of party-to-party relations based on a new type of international relations [1], seeking common ground while reserving differences, maintaining mutual respect, and learning from one another. We should build a network of international party exchanges and cooperation in various forms and at multiple levels, gathering a powerful force to build a community with a shared future for humanity." The concept of a new type of party-to-party relations is a new initiative and approach for international party engagement proposed by Chinese Communists from the perspective of a community with a shared future for humanity; it constitutes a scientific summary of the history of the development of global party relations and its experiences and lessons. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European upheavals [2], the landscape of the international communist movement has undergone a historic shift. In the new historical period, relations between foreign Communist Parties (CPs) have undergone a series of new changes, exhibited several new characteristics, and overall demonstrated a new trend toward "networking." Researching the current state of foreign CP relations in the 21st century is not only a practical necessity for comprehensively understanding current development trends of foreign CPs and accurately grasping the reality of the international communist movement; it is also an inevitable requirement for practicing the concept of a new type of party-to-party relations.
I. The Proposal of the "Networking" of Foreign Communist Party Relations
Currently, domestic [Chinese] academic discourse on the relations between foreign CPs is scattered throughout articles concerning the developmental trends of foreign CPs. The content primarily focuses on two aspects: First, communication and cooperation between CPs worldwide have been strengthened. In the 1970s and 1980s, CPs across the world had not established extensive international ties. Upon entering the 21st century, through the holding of regional and international conferences, the once-interrupted links between Communist, Workers', and Left parties were restored. Through "vertical and horizontal alliances" [3], communication, coordination, contact, and cooperation between CPs have been strengthened, gradually forming a new multi-layered, broad-field, and networked form of association. The channels for inter-party engagement among global CPs are constantly expanding; in addition to the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (IMCWP) established in 1998, parties send representatives to one another’s party congresses and party press festivals, organize various seminars, and expand cooperation with other left-wing parties and NGOs through collaboration with new social movements. Second, internal friction and fragmentation still exist within the world communist movement. Currently, in some countries, CPs are riddled with factions, splitting into several or even dozens of groups, while sectarianism runs rampant within international communist organizations. The development of the international communist movement has long been accompanied by splits, internal friction, and disputes. Numerous communist party organizations are active on the international stage today, and each faction has its own international platform with clear boundaries and obvious exclusivity.
Contemporary relations between foreign CPs have long since broken the former pattern of centering on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), showing new changes. However, existing research's understanding of this issue remains relatively fragmented, mostly discussing the relationship between unity and division among foreign CPs at a descriptive level. Unity or division, however, is only one aspect of party relations. In the 21st century, foreign CP relations increasingly manifest as a "networked" trend, characterized by: more prominent categorized subject forces, more frequent intensive interactions, more obvious diversified connection methods, a more distinct loose internationalism, and a more significant state of normalized disputes.
II. Manifestations of the "Networking" Trend in Current Foreign Communist Party Relations
After the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the landscape of the international communist movement underwent major shifts, and a "networked" party relationship gradually formed between foreign CPs. Compared to party relations in various periods of the history of the international communist movement, this "networked" relationship exhibits a series of characteristics distinct from previous stages.
(1) More prominent categorized subject forces
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the world socialist movement has gradually emerged from the shadows of the Soviet and Eastern European upheavals and is slowly heading toward revival. Correspondingly, as the systemic crisis of capitalism continues to deepen, Marxism and socialism have gained increasing recognition, sparked more social reflection, and given rise to many new communist parties or organizations. Facing the new circumstances of the 21st century, foreign CPs have adopted differentiated understandings and applications of Marxism, forming diversified theoretical interests and strategic choices. This has made the categorized characteristics of current world CPs more prominent. According to incomplete statistics, there are over 400 CPs of various sizes in the world, which—whether in power or out, legal or illegal—remain active in various countries and regions. Furthermore, in some countries such as Turkey, India, Nepal, and the United States, there is more than just one or a few CPs; some countries even have dozens of communist party organizations.
The expression of guiding ideologies in the party constitutions and programs of these CPs also varies. Some use the term "Marxism-Leninism," intending to emphasize that while upholding the guiding role of Marxism, they also adhere to Leninism, believing it remains significant in guiding the working class to seize power and conduct socialist construction. Others use the term "Marxism," viewing it as the theoretical foundation for working-class parties but maintaining a questioning, critical, or even negative attitude toward Leninism. Some use "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," which, while emphasizing the guiding role of the first two, places special emphasis on Mao Zedong Thought, viewing Maoism as the product of the third stage of world revolution and a scientific guiding ideology following Marxism and Leninism. Still others use "Scientific Socialism," treating it as a synonym for Marxism-Leninism while seeking to draw a clear line against Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism and rejecting personality cults. This pluralism in ideological expression reflects the categorized nature of foreign CPs. Based on these differences, major foreign CPs can be divided into several types: (1) Innovative development of Marxism; (2) Traditional revolutionary Leninism; (3) Western democratization leaning (advocating the negation of Leninism and a move away from ideological coloring toward daily life and reality); (4) Western Marxism; (5) Localized nationalism; (6) Maoist People's War; (7) Trotskyism; (8) Hoxhaism, and so on.
(2) More frequent intensive exchanges and interactions
Although foreign CPs in the 21st century display clear categorized characteristics and follow different paths toward socialism, intensive interactions have become more frequent, whether driven by the needs of party development or the internationalist nature of the communist movement. Regarding methods of exchange, CPs deepen communication and cooperation through mutual visits, multilateral meetings, and invitations to party press festivals or congresses. With the development of digital technology, they maintain contact via telephone calls between leaders and multilateral video conferences when offline meetings are inconvenient. Regarding content, in addition to exchanging views on traditional issues such as the "relationship between the two systems" [4], "socialist revolution and construction," "theories and strategies regarding capitalism," and "war and imperialism," they focus on contemporary topics such as "political parties and modernization," "ecology," and "gender politics," reaching many points of consensus. Regarding frequency, using international conferences as an example, world CPs hold multilateral meetings every year via various platforms to discuss topics of mutual concern. The IMCWP has operated on an annual basis since its inception, having held 23 consecutive annual meetings. Regarding timing, CPs typically conduct inter-party contact during major anniversaries of the international communist movement, important holidays, or significant events through online letters, joint statements, or offline visits. For instance, in early October 2024, as tensions in the Middle East escalated, multiple CPs published joint statements on left-wing websites like "In Defense of Communism" and "SolidNet" to support the people of Palestine and Lebanon and oppose the expansion of war, such as the statement signed by 59 parties on October 7 and another by 61 parties on October 8.
(3) More obvious diversified methods of connection
Faced with a harsh survival environment and the practical needs of socialist struggle, foreign CPs have actively pursued international unity following the Soviet and Eastern European upheavals, exploring new forms of solidarity for the 21st-century international communist movement through more diversified methods. At the organizational level, they have established a series of regular institutional mechanisms. Regarding regional mechanisms, there are solidarity organizations in every active region: the "Union of Communist Parties—Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (UCP-CPSU) in the post-Soviet space; the "São Paulo Forum" (FSP) for Latin American left-wing parties; the "Arab Left Forum"; the "Africa Left Networking Forum" (ALNEF) initiated by the South African and Sudanese CPs; the "Party of the European Left" (PEL); and the "European Communist Action" (ECA) led by the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). The IMCWP serves as a global international cooperation organization. At the behavioral level, parties conduct coordinated actions, ranging from joint protests and collective statements of support to forming party alliances or united fronts. In addition to traditional offline visits and protests, internet technology provides convenient avenues for engagement; they frequently utilize party media and web platforms to issue joint statements. Today, most CPs have official websites and social media. Different types of CPs have created their own platforms, such as the Marxist-Leninist "SolidNet," the Maoist "CI-IC" and "Maoist Road," the Trotskyist "In Defence of Marxism," and the Hoxhaist "International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations" (ICMLPO). They use these platforms to coordinate with offline struggles, publishing statements on global hotspots and struggle objectives at key historical nodes.
(4) More distinct loose internationalism
Looseness characterizes the unique phenomenon of how contemporary foreign Communist Parties implement internationalism and explore new forms of party alignment. The international joint organizations established by world Communist Parties across various levels and scales are primarily intended to facilitate enhanced communication, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas and work experience; they serve as multilateral contact mechanisms to deepen mutual solidarity and cooperation. These mechanisms share certain defining traits: they do not insist on centralized leadership, they lack permanent governing bodies, and they do not possess a common program or charter. For instance, the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (IMCWP), currently the largest multilateral exchange platform for Communist and Workers' parties, has no leadership structure, maintaining only a Working Group responsible for meeting logistics. According to its regulations, the Working Group "has no mandate to make decisions on behalf of Communist and Workers' Parties on matters other than those explicitly defined in its tasks, and must fully respect the equality among members." Similarly, the International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (ICOR) stated in its founding declaration that "the exchange and cooperation of independent and autonomous parties and organizations on the basis of consensus is our organizational principle," and that "each organization decides for itself which programs and activities it will support," based on "respect for the sovereignty of member organizations and non-interference in internal affairs." The European Communist Action also explicitly stated in its founding declaration that it is not a unified political party; any Communist or Workers' party from a European country—including non-EU states—can join as long as they agree with the declaration's contents. Its organizational goal is to facilitate contacts and exchanges between parties and strengthen joint actions. Generally speaking, in actual operation, these joint organizations mostly uphold principles of independence, equality, mutual respect, and non-interference, and they place few constraints on membership, allowing parties to participate in multiple joint organizations or movements simultaneously.
The signing of joint statements or the conduct of coordinated international struggles by various Communist Parties is voluntary. For example, the 2022 IMCWP ultimately produced two distinct resolutions: 28 parties, including the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), signed the "Resolution on the Imperialist War on the Territory of Ukraine," while 37 parties and organizations, including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), signed a separate "Resolution on the Struggle Against US and NATO Imperialism for World Hegemony as a Key Task for Progressive Forces." Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there have been statements supporting the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Communist Party, anti-war demonstrations, and humanitarian aid for war refugees. These are all voluntary actions taken by Communist Parties under the guidance of the spirit of internationalism, demonstrating their absolute autonomy within international coordination mechanisms. Thus, it is evident that the current international alignment of world Communist Parties lacks both a unified organization and central leadership, as well as a written program or action framework; it is a form of loose internationalist behavior.
(5) The trend of normalized contention is becoming more prominent.
Divergence, internal friction, and contention between Communist Parties are concomitant phenomena of the International Communist Movement. Since the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe [5], struggles between foreign Communist Parties have been continuous, and internal strife and mutual contention have tended to become normalized. For example, in an effort to reintegrate forces following severe setbacks, 15 Communist Parties from 11 countries established the "Party of the European Left" (EL) in 2004. However, questioning the nature and direction of the EL, the KKE and others formed a different joint organization for European left-wing parties in 2013—the "Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties" (hereinafter referred to as "the Initiative"). Although both are joint organizations of European left-wing forces, they are fundamentally opposed in practice. As the Initiative stated in its founding declaration: "The EU is the center of European imperialism, supporting aggressive plans against peoples and aligning with the US and NATO. We are not a so-called 'European Party' within the EU, nor are we members of the 'Party of the European Left' therein." These two ran in parallel for a decade until the Initiative dissolved because internal differences could not be alleviated over the long term. However, these differences did not dissipate with the termination of the Initiative’s activities; rather, they were further exacerbated by the KKE’s unilateral announcement of dissolution, sparking sharp criticism from some former member parties and highlighting long-standing internal strife. The contentions among foreign Communist Parties are mainly concentrated on ideological and theoretical struggles, with major issues facing the International Communist Movement in the 21st century and world hotspots becoming "normalized topics" of debate. For instance, parties frequently argue over the crisis of capitalism, imperialism, social alliances, opportunism, revolution vs. reform, and socialist models. In recent years, with the frequent outbreak of local wars, foreign Communist Parties have engaged in fierce debates—and struggled to reach consensus—on the nature of war, the identification of imperialism within war, and the united front. These issues have gradually evolved into "normalized topics" of contemporary debate among foreign Communist Parties.
III. New Characteristics of the "Networked" Party-to-Party Relations of Current Foreign Communist Parties
Compared to traditional relations between Communist Parties, "networking" has become the new configuration of current party relations. This presents many new characteristics in the basic pattern of the International Communist Movement, the logic of interaction among Communist Parties, the structural forms of the movement, and ideological struggles.
(1) Coexistence of parallelism and intertwining in the basic pattern.
The tragedy of the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe made Communist Parties generally realize that "there is no single model of socialism; the starting point and realistic conditions of the path to socialism must be considered from the perspective of historical materialism." Therefore, since entering the 21st century, Communist Parties have explored socialist development paths suited to their own national conditions based on their respective historical traditions and realities, reflecting a characteristic of pluralistic and autonomous exploration. Examples include France’s "Eco-communism," the Communist Party USA’s "Bill of Rights Socialism," the Communist Party of Brazil’s "New National Development Plan," and the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s theory of "People's Democratic Government."
While different national conditions mean Communist Parties cannot follow identical development paths, they have nonetheless reached consensus in many areas through necessary communication and contact under the guidance of the socialist-communist ideal, manifesting an intertwined, multidimensional network pattern of common progress. In the wake of the 2008 international financial crisis, Communist Parties reached consensus on several fronts: re-emphasizing the political task of conducting class struggle and striving for proletarian political power; advocating for democratic nationalization to prepare the economic ground for the transition to socialism; and shifting from defense to offense by taking various measures to awaken the class consciousness of the masses. Recently, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed anti-communism in capitalist countries to rear its head, making the situation facing Communist Parties even more severe. Consequently, Communist Parties unanimously agree on the need to strengthen the Party’s political, ideological, and organizational building to enhance the capacity to lead the socialist struggle; to lead the working class and the popular strata in extensive struggle to awaken their class awareness and revolutionary confidence and improve their political literacy, preparing the conditions for socialist revolution; to value left-wing and socially progressive forces by establishing broad social alliances or united fronts; and to carry out various forms and levels of inter-party interaction under the guidance of the principle of proletarian internationalism, countering the "alliance of bourgeois brothers" with the union of proletarians. The consensus among Communist Parties on ideals, goals, values, ideology, and practical struggle is conducive to promoting the formation of a new common socialist spirit suited to the characteristics of the times, allowing scattered communist actions to be woven together by spiritual bonds to jointly push the contemporary International Communist Movement forward.
(2) Mutual exclusion of alignment and struggle in the logic of interaction.
The current alignment of world Communist Parties is neither the highly centralized and unified form of alliance seen during the Comintern period, nor the international meeting format characterized by the "Great-Party-ism" [6] once favored by the CPSU; rather, it presents a new set of methods. Communist Parties are actively exploring the establishment of various organizational mechanisms such as meetings and forums to provide platforms for strengthening inter-party contact and cooperation. Whether through joint mechanisms like the IMCWP, bilateral or multilateral meetings and exchanges, or joint statements, resolutions, and collective solidarity and action, all reflect the efforts of Communist Parties to explore new forms of solidarity and cooperation under the new international situation, further strengthening the trend of alignment.
However, it is undeniable that the current great international alignment of Communist Parties cannot be fully realized due to the persistence of internal struggle. In fact, this struggle stems from the differences between the parties. "Because of different economic, political, cultural, and historical traditions, the historical tasks to be undertaken vary; therefore, the theories and strategies of Communist Parties in different countries or of different types show certain differences." Yet, when some parties absolutize these differences—treating them as fundamental disparities and escalating them into ideological opposition—it causes ideological and organizational antagonism and splits. For example, on September 11, 2023, the official website of the Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties announced the organization's dissolution due to serious internal differences. This alignment still contains divergent trends, leading to the contradictory interaction network of the current International Communist Movement. In this movement where unity and opposition coexist, party alignment helps alleviate mutual antagonism and constrains the expansion of struggle, preventing the International Communist Movement from collapsing again; at the same time, the struggle between parties hinders the deepening of such alignment, keeping current international coordination in a state of "weak alignment."
(3) Integration of flattening and mesh-working in structural form.
Before the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the CPSU often viewed itself as the leader of the International Communist Movement, continuing the practices of "Great-Party-ism" and acting as the "Father Party" [7] established during the Comintern era. Correspondingly, an increasing number of Communist Parties sought to break free from the control of the Soviet Union and the CPSU to carry out independent inter-party exchanges and cooperation based on seeking common ground while reserving differences [8], yet the core-periphery pattern and hierarchical relationships within the movement were never fully eliminated. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the CPSU, hundreds of Communist Parties of various sizes and types were born, and the consensus that a unified leadership center is unnecessary has been adopted by the vast majority of parties. As the most successful and outstanding socialist country of the current era, the socialism with Chinese characteristics led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) has become the mainstay of 21st-century world socialism. However, the CPC has never viewed itself as a "Father Party"; instead, it upholds a new type of political party relationship based on "seeking common ground while reserving differences, mutual respect, and mutual learning," carrying out exchanges and cooperation with other parties based on equality and mutual respect. Currently, the International Communist Movement has moved beyond the "one center" and "unified leadership" model of the 20th century, truly achieving "decentralization" in its structural form.
On this basis, the International Communist Movement has transformed from the "center-periphery" movement of the past into a flattened network. The dissolution of the Soviet Union freed parties from the interference of CPSU Great-Party-ism and strict ideological shackles, achieving institutional independence and mutual equality. On one hand, regarding their own development, parties can autonomously explore socialist paths and conduct struggles suited to their own countries. On the other hand, regarding inter-party relations, although parties are distributed globally, they can voluntarily align based on common concerns, equality, and mutual respect. Utilizing various meetings, forums, and other organizational mechanisms, they carry out bilateral and multilateral cooperation and coordinate actions at the national, regional, or global levels. Communist Parties achieve overlap by participating in joint actions and multiple organizational mechanisms, manifesting as mesh-like interactions and forming an interlaced network structure in party relations.
(4) Confrontation between internationalism and sectarianism in ideology.
Internationalism is the position consistently upheld by Communist Parties. In the 21st century, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Soviet and Comintern periods, foreign Communist Parties have advocated for a return to the Marxist-Leninist principle of internationalism. "Since the dissolution of the Comintern, the forms and norms of solidarity in the International Communist Movement have naturally changed. With the maturation and growth of Communist Parties in various countries, and considering the complex national conditions they face and the different responsibilities they must undertake, it is no longer feasible to rely on an organized center to direct the world socialist movement." Consequently, most parties advocate for international alignment on the premise of respecting differences; internationalism is once again prevalent, guiding parties in fruitful practical explorations.
However, a small number of Communist Parties currently still pose as the "Marxist orthodoxy," maintaining a monist and "either-or" attitude toward differences in political views and ideological disparities. This continues the sectarianism [9] found in the history of the international communist movement and has formed distinct factions within today’s communist camp. These parties unilaterally emphasize proletarian internationalism while ignoring, denying, or even directly attacking the explorations of other Communist Parties in the areas of Sinicization, localization, and modernization. They attempt to restore the historical tradition of "one leading center" and "one line of action" characteristic of the Comintern era. Such sectarianism completely deviates from the principles and requirements of proletarian internationalism, severely severing the spiritual bond that unites the Communist Parties of various countries as a unified proletarian party. This has resulted in the long-term fragmentation of the communist camp and led to ideological antagonism.
IV. Reflections on the Current "Networked" State of Relations Between Foreign Communist Parties
The current new trend of "networked" relations between foreign Communist Parties enriches the connotation and forms of the 21st-century international communist movement. It reflects the development and progress of the movement since the 20th century, particularly following World War II. However, this "networking" also contains inherent contradictions and disputes between various Communist Parties, which prevents a true international union of foreign communist forces from being realized. As the world’s largest Marxist governing party and a Marxist mission-oriented party [10], the Communist Party of China finds the current "networked" trend of foreign party relations worthy of our reflection.
First, the current "networked" relations indicate that the international communist movement has not disappeared; rather, it has formed new content and forms appropriate for the era. This "networked" relationship reflects both the theoretical explorations of foreign communists and the practical development of the international communist movement in the 21st century. Ideologically, the movement no longer adheres to the "theory of world revolution"; organizationally, it has undergone a process of "decentralization"; and in terms of its movement model, it is no longer a "center-periphery" style proletarian revolutionary movement. Today, most Communist Parties possess a more contemporary understanding of the "international nature" of the socialist cause. Parties maintain close inter-party ties through intensive exchanges and consolidate collective strength through diverse connection methods—such as establishing joint mechanisms, issuing joint statements, and taking concerted action—demonstrating clear characteristics of unification. At the same time, due to varied explorations in ideology and practice, world Communist Parties show obvious characteristics of diversification and categorization in terms of their core forces, joint mechanisms, joint agendas, and developmental directions, which to some extent has led to internal sectarianism and dogmatism. It is evident that foreign Communist Parties currently engage in parallel exploration while advancing through interweaving, and they combine in multi-party unions while engaging in frequent struggles. This constitutes the new content and characteristics of the 21st-century international communist movement. The new changes and features presented therein undoubtedly signal that we cannot rely on inherent theoretical systems and analytical frameworks to understand and interpret the contemporary movement. Instead, we must study and establish a discourse system and disciplinary system for scientific socialism and the international communist movement that accords with the new historical characteristics of the 21st century.
Second, the true realization of a union of international communist forces remains a long and arduous task; under current conditions, promoting a "limited union" of the international communist movement is the only feasible path. Compared with the development of the movement after World War II, the current "networked" relations certainly represent progress, but the deep-seated sectarianism and factional opposition within show the divisions and splits among international communist forces. It is precisely because this fundamental problem has not been thoroughly resolved for a long time that the international communist movement remains in its current loose, "networked" state. To a certain extent, the "networking" of foreign Communist Parties today is an expression of the immaturity of Marxist parties' exploration of international union. The cause of communism is a common cause for all humanity. Achieving final victory through international union cannot rely solely on the self-association of the proletariat; it also requires proletarian parties to unite with parties representing the interests of other working classes or strata, and to unite all forces that sympathize with and support the proletarian revolutionary movement. At present, given the reality of "weak union" and "frequent struggle" among Marxist parties themselves, it is clearly impractical to achieve a great unity and great union of the proletariat and the world socialist movement. However, "networked" party relations still contain the possibility of union and connectivity. Establishing a perspective on the international communist movement based on "the Self" [11], and boosting the movement's development within a discourse system and practical mechanism under the goal and concept of "limited union," is our viable strategic choice at present.
Third, the Communist Party of China must persist in leading the healthy development of relations between Marxist parties with the concept of a new type of political party relations. At the ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, Xi Jinping pointed out: "The Communist Party of China cares about the future and destiny of humanity, and wishes to move forward hand in hand with all progressive forces in the world. China has always been a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and a defender of the international order." This fully demonstrates the mission and responsibility of the CPC as the world’s largest Marxist governing party. The "networked" relations of foreign Communist Parties indicate the complex state of the international communist movement, and the resurgence of the world socialist movement still faces many obstacles. The "new type of political party relations" proposed by Xi Jinping clarifies the basic norms and proper modes of interaction between parties epistemologically, and serves as a methodological key to guiding the healthy development of relations between Marxist parties. Therefore, it is necessary for us to deepen our research and interpretation of the formation, connotation, characteristics, value, and path of the "new type of political party relations" concept. We must effectively promote the application and transformation of this concept, relying on exchange mechanisms such as the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-level Meeting and the World Socialist Forum to build high-end political dialogue platforms with broad representation and international influence. We must tell the story of the CPC well and construct a Chinese discourse and narrative system. The CPC should fully play a leading role, promoting cohesion, unity, and collective action among the world's Communist Parties, and work together with foreign Communist Parties to make new and greater contributions to the development of world socialism and the progress of human society.