This article reuses some content from the article “On Deviations in Modern Communist Parties: Analysis” originally published April 29, 2026, which was retracted on September 3, 2026, due to some outdated and incorrect information.
To preface this article, I will first reaffirm that on the topic of foreign policy, the American Communist Party (ACP) and I are aligned; we share a nearly perfect agreement on supporting countries targeted by imperialism. I do not claim to know the so-called “right way to do communism,” but rather voice specific criticisms that currently hold back my full support. My hope is that these issues can be clarified through principled discussion.
Socialism with American characteristics and the colonial question
History has shown that every socialist project requires its own specific method of work. Strategies must be tailored to the concrete material conditions of each state; thus, the development of the USSR as a socialist state differed greatly from that of China. Therefore, I am generally in support of developing a socialism with American characteristics in the context of Turtle Island (North America).
However, certain points of contention remain. The ACP’s Constitution seemingly ignores the colonial question entirely, and Indigenous people appear largely unrepresented within the party ranks. In practice, the ACP often seems eager to raise the settler-colonial flag of the US empire.
The final items in the Party Program touch on this topic, albeit very lightly. They advocate for cultivating a “unified American historical, national, and cultural identity” and suggest re-delimiting state territories based on historical and ethnic considerations.
Curiously, neither “colonialism” nor “colonization” appears in the document. This omission wholly sidesteps the question of non-Indigenous settlers. So, what is the ACP’s official stance on the Land Back movement? Communism must proceed “from the masses, to the masses.” Why, then, are the original inhabitants of this very land not properly represented?
“MAGA Communism” and participation in the electoral system
The ACP has become known for its “MAGA Communism,” an approach that was allegedly designed to draw right-wing voters to the left. What were the observable material results of this method? Is it still in use today?
Many commentators have noted certain nationalist and socially conservative “anti-woke” sentiments among ACP cadres and upper-level leadership, which raise serious ideological concerns, especially as they may even violate the ACP’s own Article VIII, Section 7, a section that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, or religious creed.
This rhetoric ties into the ACP’s general alignment with the Republican Party, standing in stark contrast to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)’s closer connection to the Democrats. Though, it is worth noting that the ACP has also correctly criticized the Republicans on many past occasions despite some overlap in rhetoric.
Participation in bourgeois electoral systems is, of course, not inherently anti-revolutionary. Comrade Lenin advocated leveraging parliamentary campaigns to disseminate socialist ideas to the masses who still believe in capitalist “democratic” institutions. Yet, as a Hong Kong SAR-based observer asked, how can the ACP ensure it does not go astray when engaging with these institutions?
Furthermore, Article VIII, Section 8, states that members advocating violent activity will be expelled. This raises a critical theoretical question about the party’s revolutionary strategy. Is the ACP suggesting a wholly nonviolent path to revolution? Can the national bourgeoisie of the US and Canada be overthrown without armed struggle? If the path of reformism is taken, what material difference is there between the CPUSA and ACP?
Dissemination of erroneous claims
My final criticism concerns the truthfulness of higher-level ACP members on social media. ACP co-founder and International Secretary Jackson Hinkle has previously disseminated demonstrably false content and has been considered by some to be a “misinformation spreader.”
This sets a dangerous precedent for the party’s public communications. Spreading misleading claims will ultimately harm the ACP’s long-term credibility. So, does the ACP have an official policy to ensure factual accuracy? How do they verify content on ACP-associated accounts?
Conclusion
As stated initially, these criticisms are not meant to “take down” the ACP; I will restate that I largely align with the party on crucial foreign policy matters. My intent is simply to seek clarification on these internal issues. Resolving these contradictions will allow me to offer more substantial support and is undoubtedly vital for the party’s long-term viability.
A revolutionary vanguard cannot afford theoretical ambiguity on the colonial question or electoral strategy. The American working class requires a party grounded in scientific socialism, and rhetorical compromises will do nothing but dilute revolutionary potential. Now, the burden falls squarely on the ACP leadership to provide the necessary ideological clarity.
a friend of mine sent me this article. i am a member of ACP California. i’m going to respond to your major points of question:
1. on violence — it is not realistic or advisable to suggest a public, above ground revolutionary Party advocates for violence. that is inviting repression and incarceration. all public services and statements of any Party that seeks to survive and grow within empire must do so within the bounds of legality, or otherwise fail to adventurism.
2. land back/decolonization — our public facing material is scant on nominal recognition of or commitment to the largely liberal movement of land back to the original stewards of what is now known to be America, but to separate our obvious anti-imperialism from decolonization is not coherent to me. imperialism and colonization are the same entity. currently, our Party is undergoing the construction of a new constitution. we have been working through hundreds of proposals from all over the Party. we will consider this criticism in our designs, which may result in more nominal representation you deem missing. but i must mention that this seems quite idealist to me, speaking only for myself. what does land back mean materially? the indigenous peoples are no longer the masses, literally. they (and we, as i am indigenous) are a very small minority in 2026. if you’re looking for the words “land back” and “decolonization” specifically represented and cosigned by us, then that’s nominal support at best and serves as an ideological signal with no material value. Chairman Haz has mentioned that if and once we become leaders of this nation, one of our first orders of business would be to honor all treaties signed with the sovereign indigenous nations. that’s a material strategy of “land back”, rather than an identitarian, ideological commitment. so i ask you, why does it matter if the words are in our Party platform? what have the orgs that do signal that support materially done for indigenous peoples? if you follow our material work, you can see that we materially support the indigenous peoples both directly where we can and indirectly through our attempt to seize the means of production and cease the exploitation of the indigenous peoples and destruction of the lands.
3. electoralism/MAGA — i invite you to investigate this further bc Haz has directly spoken to this criticism a few times. MAGA communism was, as you describe, an attempt to co-opt the populist promises Trump made to his base by showing them that communism actually offers those things to the people, like shorter work weeks and cheaper cost of living. it was a response to the rise of the New Right, who were doing the same thing (attempting to capture a dynamic audience away from the traditional Republican machine but to the neo-nazi right). it didn’t work, so we stopped doing it. we haven’t done it in a while, but leftists here don’t investigate very much. when i joined the Party myself i looked into the claim that we were somehow MAGA or Republican and found that to be not true. on electoralism and republicans specifically, that is just misinformation. we hardly conduct any electoral work at all. we are considering running for the lowest form of office for the reasons you identified in Lenin, and bc our local efforts would benefit from the funding available to Neighborhood Councils. but that’s it, and as far as i know that’s all there ever has been
4. Hinkle misinformation — not sure what you’re referring to. can you be more specific?
i can speak on behalf of my chapter and cell to some extent, but i highly advise making contact with the ACP near you. much of what you’ve written could have been cleared up with direct communication rather than speaking to the ether where there was no actual dialogue except by the happenstance someone sent this to me. so much of what people believe about us is just rumors. as communists, it is our duty to investigate and speak to people no?
I'm happy to see people honestly engaging with this, both from ACP and elsewhere.
Criticism and Self Criticism is bread and butter to making positive steps in every direction that is of merit, and for assessing those that aren't.
I live in Canada now, and am surrounded by indigenous people, and very left oriented people. Coding ACP as "right wing" has made it difficult to attract many in my community, but there is nothing alienating about bringing people together in a principled way against struggles we all face.
In my mind, ACP are incredibly principled and reliable in their anti-imperialist stances. That they are doing great ground work that will keep disproving misinformation campaigns and poor PR in alienated leftist spaces.
Where I see room for growth is the self acknowledgement that the US is incredibly fractured ideologically, but what humans need to build reliable trust has not. We share in our needs around trust building, self reflection, and in our material reality. The things that are a unifying message are stripped of values that cause folks to code the ACP in modern culture war nonsense. They are virtues by their very nature, and a willingness to address concerns through criticism and self criticism. There are real humans, and life on Earth at stake. We have no time for divisive nonsense. There is a very old saying and I often feel it applies to the ACP except where the very public members are stepping on people for idealogical things of little worth in engaging:
"It is a royal privilege to do good works and be illtreated for it"
Principled comrades have no reason to attack people for their personal lifestyle, but merely to identify what benefits exist in addressing over indulgence in nonproductive arenas. If your stances on things are good, it cuts through noise and is educational criticisms to those who disagree, packaged in a way they will want to make good of auch advice. We can endlessly debate things, but acknowledge that some things can't be allowed to divide us, but only so far, and remain principled.
And Sun Tsu said, when we lead by exaulting virtue and good treatment and reasoning, we beckon the forces of our opposition to relish the idea of joining our ranks, and the leadership- to adopt all that we are doing right.
which leads us to Zeno of Citium: that all the good are friends of eachother.