The Third Congress of the MKP continues to attack the main columns of Marxism and of the modern scientific socialism - this time via the proposition of multi-party socialism: "The multi-party system is an objective reality of both democratic people's power and of socialism." (p. 115) The Congress Documents continue on to argue that the one party socialist state model has done great damage to the humanity, the proletariat, and the toilers. (p. 116) Further on, it is claimed that in socialism, along with the communist party, other parties in the ranks of people should be able to get organized as well. The Documents state: "Masses of the people can, besides the communist party, prefer, change, put in power or dismiss any other party or organization that is within the people category." (p. 117)

If you live in the world of dreams and not of the reality; if you are not encircled by enemy forces; if the scale is tilted in favour of socialism worldwide; if you were dealing with a society that is conditioned for centuries with the worry of sustaining their livelihood and survival, that is curbed with the bourgeois ideology and way of life and with the cultural slavery of imperialism, if there were no restraining barriers set before your development, if you did not inherit a human material that is corrupt and adulterated with the vices of old societal models, if you were actually attempting to build socialism in optimal conditions and matured elements; and of course if there were no classes and class contradictions left and no need to wage class struggle, in such a picture, the MKP could had been right to a certain point.

Alas, the reality of the current world do not match this picture at all. Let's take China, as an example - for albeit timidly, the MKP is still trying to lean against this example. Long before the victory of the revolution in China, there was the tradition of alliance with the bourgeoisie. This goes back to the periods of the red political bases. As it is known, due to the specific conditions of the Chinese revolution, the revolution progressed on its path while it had formed a block, was in an agreement and alliance with the bourgeoisie. And this was the correct path for that particular revolution. Right after the revolution, a political, organizational, and economic block was formed with them. Consequently, this traditional alliance line, allowed the existence of multiple democratic parties. However, were these parties, a consequence of China's particular conditions, and equivalent to the Communist Party of China (CPC)? Did Mao approached matter in such a manner? And what about the post-Cultural Revolution period? Besides, other bourgeois democratic parties had to recognise both the monopoly of the CPC and its leadership.

Let's listen to Mao: "In our country, there are several criteria by which to judge whether the bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals are politically honest or dishonest, good or bad. The main thing is to see whether they really accept socialism and really accept the leadership of the Communist Party. They agreed to both long ago, but now some want to go back on their word, and this will not do. Once they back out, there is no place for them in the People's Republic of China. Your ideals are those of the Western world (also known as the free world), you might as well go there." (Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works V, p. 510-511) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_61.htm]

So, accepting the Communist Party's leadership and socialism is taken as baseline. In other words, "monopoly" of the Communist Party is the basic criteria for Mao. It seems that even in the traditional alliance line in China, democratic parties are never the equivalent of the CP; on the contrary, they are subjected to leadership of the CPC.

Socialism is incompatible with the multi-party system. Even in pre-socialism revolutionary stage, other parties that are formed must recognise the CP's leadership and "monopoly". Multi-party system is not an objective reality of socialism, as claimed by the MKP. On the contrary, the objective reality of socialism requires the one-party regime, that of the Communist Party.

The MKP claims that the one-party system has done great damage to the proletariat, to the toilers, and to the humanity (whatever that means!). In order to be able to say that the one-party system of the periods of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao has caused damage to the humanity, one's head must be spinning under the influence of bourgeois propaganda. In fact, this is the state that the MKP has fallen into with its theoretical despair. Since the MKP was not able to find any supportive materials in the history of Marxism for its theory on this matter, it invests its hopes on one of Lenin's sentences, which is pulled out of context with tweezers.

We find the following in the Congress Documents: "By 1918's Lenin had said that 'if the workers are not satisfied with their own party, they can prefer another party, they can change the government'." (p.116)

There is more. They cling on to the example of the post-October Socialist Revolutionaries. They write: "After the October Revolution, the Socialist Revolutionaries were a component of the Soviet Union, they possessed the many ministries. China also had a power partnership with other allies of the proletariat."(p. 116)

As for the post-October Soviet Union: the MKP will not be able to find a basis for its theory on this matter. That is because the concerned quote's context is as follows. Let's hear it from Lenin himself: "At the very moment of the October Revolution, we entered into an informal but very important (and very successful) political bloc with the petty-bourgeois peasantry by adopting the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian programme in its entirety, without a single alteration—i.e., we effected an undeniable compromise in order to prove to the peasants that we wanted, not to “steam-roller” them but to reach agreement with them. At the same time we proposed (and soon after effected) a formal political bloc, including participation in the government, with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who dissolved this bloc after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and then, in July 1918, went to the length of armed rebellion, and subsequently of an armed struggle, against us."(Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 10, p. 129.130) [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm]

It seems that this block, which was formed during the early days of the revolution, was annulled by the Socialist Revolutionary themselves and by initiating an armed insurgency and armed struggle against the socialist government, they eliminated themselves from the process. Secondly, this block was not formed after the revolution. It was formed during the period when there were still Kulaks; and when the middle peasantry had just begun to take side, changing their position from neutrality. And this alliance was shattered with the progression of the class war to the point that the interests of the proletariat no longer overlapped the interests of the Socialist Revolutionaries. And it should be noted that such an alliance never again entered the agenda afterwards.

Before finishing this section, another point needs to be underlined. According to the MKP, "practices of public ownership, as called in socialism, are far from representing the actual and real sense of expropriation. On behalf of the Party and the masses, the economy, production, repartition, and distribution were controlled by the party and the leadership of the party. Deep polarization and alienation that this practice caused is beyond any dispute." (p. 106)