Opportunism vs Maoism: St. Louis Revolutionary Collective as a Lesson for the US Maoist Movement

(The following is a joint statement from Kansas City Revolutionary Collective (KCRC), Red Guards Los Angeles (RGLA), Tampa Maoist Collective (TMC), Queen City Maoist Collective (QCMC), Red Guards Austin (RGA), and Revolutionary Association of Houston (RAH). This statement details the ongoing struggle to seek revolutionary principles and practice from Saint Louis Revolutionary Collective (STLRC).

We hope to be able to dispel rumors, half-truths, and outright lies. This document is an effort to go into detail and give nuance to what we identify as the misguided practice and ideological errors of STLRC with specific focus on the leader of STLRC. While this document is quite long, we felt it was necessary to go into these errors as thoroughly as possible so as to not leave anything up to the imagination or discard any crucial analysis. We hope that comrades in St. Louis who oppose the right-opportunist revisionist line and ideology of the leader of STLRC will hold him accountable, struggle against his liberalism, and seek principled unity with the broader movement.)

———————————————————————-

Mountain-kingdom thinking and leadership by decree

Maoism has universal aspects in its ideology that can be applied anywhere across the globe. While there are particularities of revolution for each nation and locality, there are also universal tenets that are inviolable: the three magic weapons, unity-struggle-unity, criticism and self-criticism, protracted people’s war, aspects of the construction of socialism, and so on. Universality thus rejects exceptionalism. There are numerous examples of STLRC viewing St. Louis as an exceptional city and thus advocating for itself a trajectory that is “distinct” from that of all other established Maoist collectives. In reality this exceptionality is to protect it from criticism for its advocacy for hypocritical economism and movementism. It charges that the actions and organizing styles of MLMs in other parts of the country “will get you run out of St. Louis” and that the masses “will tell you to fuck off.” Its tonic for this allegedly unique problem is to advocate for unity with revisionist forces from social-democrats (left-wing and right) and crypto-Trotskyite NGOists in the name of “building a mass movement” and “winning them over to Maoism.” They advocate and justify the hijacking of revolutionary programs for depoliticized ones because “people can’t eat militant rhetoric.” None of this is actually particularly new or exceptional. St. Louis knows this and thus has tried to export this revisionist line to other cities, be that through its unsolicited “advice” to other collectives (which amounts to little more than seeking to isolate RGA and a recommendation to “get involved with people who do work”), through wrecking and outright rumor-mongering with mass members in other cities, or through duplicating its own revisionism with the promise of establishing a puppet collective in Los Angeles and other satellites with the aim to “put Saint Louis on the map” as a “leader of the Maoist movement.” All of these are direct quotes from STLRC, who advocate a political feudal kingdom for everyone in other cities, while seeking to influence and lead them with St. Louis’s brand of revisionism. We have seen no analysis from STLRC in regard to the urban conditions of Greater St. Louis to justify the “exceptional” character of St. Louis in comparison to Kansas City, New York, Austin, or Los Angeles nor any reason why this exceptional revisionism should be exported to cities with nascent collectives. We are of the opinion that there are definite particularities in cities across the US but that there are not enough to negate a generality. If there existed exceptions everywhere then a countrywide party would be futile and we should all stay home. What is exceptional about the conditions of St. Louis to justify STLRC aligning itself with social-democratic and revisionist forces across the country? Indeed, far from seeking to only work with those in the same exceptional and exclusive conditions that allegedly exist in St. Louis, STLRC seeks to unite with whoever is “active” and who “support” STLRC work, with little to no investigation into the cities where such supporters may be located. It is no surprise that in its published writing the chairman of STLRC actually mentions International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative as groups that “can gather the masses” and are to be united with. What Maoist advocates unity with social-imperialist and social-democratic organizations as a marker of good mass work?

When collectives in other cities do not seek to take the “advice” they are given, they are then lambasted on social media by name, in group chats, and so on as “idiots” or “about to collapse,” and individual members sometimes receive the epithets of “little shits,” “bought out by books,” “lazy,” “do-nothings,” and so on, all in an effort to influence elements in other cities (who are sometimes a part of these collectives) by spinning their own versions of the truth. It is in this regard that we say that St. Louis considers itself above other collectives, existing solely to advise on what “works” in St. Louis while being dismissive of the works of others—a mountain kingdom that dismisses any criticism but is liberal in laying it out. What is a kingdom without its king who rules by decree? In all of these positions laid forth by STLRC, none have come in official statements from the collective as a whole, none through meetings of said collective. Regarding the termination of communication between STLRC and KCRC, a decision made unanimously by the KCRC after a democratic vote following weeks of line struggle, the decision to go public was made by the STLRC chair—as was the cutting of ties between both PYOs—in the span of two minutes. For in St. Louis the leader of STLRC is also the leader of all of its mass organizations, and this person is therefore able to decide the fate of relations between mass organizations.

Considering that such a short period is believed to be required to discuss such important matters, combined with the fact that the chairperson of STLRC not only led the Progressive Youth Organization (PYO-STL) but also Serve the People (STP-STL)—and now leads RevAction STL, which both PYO and STP have been folded into—we charge that STLRC and its mass organizations have very little democratic organization and are structured on a commandist basis in which the chairperson of all three organizations operates through decrees made on social media websites. This centralism among the mass organizations is exemplified by the fact that the lines of the RC, PYO, and STP of St. Louis on any particular issue are not found on their social websites, statements, or even propagated by their members, but are all on the Facebook of their chairperson, who may as well declare “Le collectif, c’est moi,” since there is no other way of determining the positions of these collectives without first going to his account.

Theoretical disparities in STL: The contradiction between rank and file and glorious leader

Having paid close attention to the development, trajectory, and activity of STLRC since its inception, our analysis indicates that there is a severe theoretical disparity in the organization. This is in part based on our direct conversations with their members and observations of their members’ online arguments. In a clear violation of the question of security, the fact that their cadre meetings are held online and not in person also says something about their level of and commitment to political education. Not once has STLRC held a study group, nor have any of the mass organizations associated with the project. This is the result of the productivist, revisionist, and Dengite line of “Hei.” Revisionism always seeks to accomplish a monopoly on theory and deprive its rank and file of the ability to wield theory as a weapon out of a material and warranted fear that the phony communism of the bad leadership will be exposed. This is in part why their leadership expedited the decline in communications with other collectives: he did not want us to interfere with the mountain kingdom he had constructed for himself. In debates with other members, theoretical discussion along the lines of dialectical and historical materialism were not even on the table. At best their leader was defended by paraphrasing his eclectic mash of opportunism and revisionism, identity politics, and so on—in short, anything but Maoism.

The reality is that the rank and file has been theoretically underdeveloped by their ego-driven revisionist leader, and any routes to break free from this have been closed off by him. He seems to feel well equipped in online arguments where he can present a larger shadow than he can in a face-to-face meeting. While members of the organization claimed to have criticized him for his antagonistic online behavior, no change can be detected. These comrades in the organization have been reduced to not questioning the outlandish charges leveled by their leader, who poses as a theoretician but actually has no grasp of MLM himself—Maoism is just whatever he feels like saying it is and everyone else better agree. He has even referred to himself casually as an “internet prophet.” While he levels charges of cultish devotion to RGA, he might well be projecting a cultish devotion to himself onto the rest of us. We have no prophets in our movement, and it should be clear that prophets do not exist in the communist sense, least of all in STL.

It is our main desire that the genuine Maoists in the city of St. Louis fight hard to reclaim dignity in the movement, that they take their places among the ranks of the revolution and hold this ego-driven revisionist accountable. In every organization two-line struggle emerges and there must emerge a two-line struggle in STL—this is a scientific certainty. The left line must oppose the right-opportunist revisionism of “Hei,” who puts the whole organization at risk in ways detailed by this polemic. One way to accomplish this task is to take on theoretical study, look at the actual science of MLM, and hold your leaders to it—otherwise revisionism will be what you get.

We are not dogmatists. We understand that even “Hei” can stumble upon correct positions, but only Marxism-Leninism-Maoism can be the guideline to detect those and separate them from the nonsense he so commonly spews. STLRC’s isolation from all but him has resulted in a quiet collective that has been domesticated by its egotist leader whose loud presence has disgraced their whole organization. This is an unacceptable loss for revolution in STL, an impediment to unity, and a defection from the party-building effort. Someone like “Hei” who cannot be reasoned with by those outside of his kingdom cannot hope to develop theoretically past his confused misunderstanding of MLM without struggle and accountability from his own collective. This change must arise from the internal contradictions in the STL collective. All we ask is that they study and apply Maoism from the bottom up in the interest of future principled unification. If this request is unthinkable then that says everything about the ideological basis of the organization that will prevent it from ever being a revolutionary project in the sense that every collective is driven to become one.

From the ISO to the PSL and every other revisionist formation, theoretical development is handled with elitism; philosophy is not seen as a weapon to be taken up by the rank and file and the masses themselves. Mao on the other hand and Maoism as a result have always had a focus on exporting our theories and making them available and understandable to every communist regardless of station or rank as well as the masses. When formerly illiterate Chinese masses grasped Maoism, the Cultural Revolution in all of its glory was the result—revisionists like “Hei” were discovered, criticized, and transformed or weeded out. This was the reason for the mass production of the collected works of Chairman Mao and the Little Red Book, which has become the most read and distributed book of all time next to the Christian Bible, making it the bestselling work of nonfiction ever written. We must take up this spirit when it comes to political education. The education carried out by Liu Shao-chi was geared toward pressing his revisionism and confusing people about Maoism—this is all that “Hei’s” educational work has ever accomplished. Divide and confuse, divide and confuse—this is the method of “Hei” revisionism.

Liberalism and opportunism

First, STLRC has shown liberalism in multiple ways. To go through these thoroughly we will reference “Combat Liberalism” where the types of liberalism apply.

“To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly.” The examples of “Hei’s” behavior since the line struggle over the orientation of STL’s STP program embody this understanding of liberalism. He has said that the Austin comrades should be shot and that Austin will cease to be an organization—all because of line struggle, and Austin putting Maoism into practice. What’s even more showing of “Hei’s” liberalism is that he has repeatedly quoted “Combat Liberalism” but cannot put these lessons into practice.

The root of the line struggle refers to the first type. “Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one’s own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline.” Though “Combat Liberalism” was meant for a party and there is not yet an MLM party in the US, this definitely applies to the root of this entire issue, the beginning consultation over STP-STL. St. Louis was consulting with Austin, who had started the STP program in the US, and Austin was honest that while homeless people should not be turned away, the orientation of the STP program should be around the working class because only the working class can lead a revolution. And rather than accept this principled criticism (criticism being one of the foundations of MLM organizing), St. Louis refused to accept it, and, believing its own city’s conditions to be exceptional, blew the whole thing up from there. For Austin to have thrown away their own principled criticism and just accept St. Louis’s line would have been liberal because Maoists do not throw away past disagreements for the sake of unprincipled unity. The only way Maoists can achieve true unity is through two-line struggle. The root of this disagreement began in two-line struggle that St. Louis rejected. Then, for STL to form an STP chapter after being sent a collective STP criticism asking that they not start a chapter was an outright rejection of the discipline of the program achieved on the basis of mass work. What is the point of asking for consultation to start a program if during that consultation you are going to disregard any political line that is different from your own? This individualist pride in one’s own opinion must be struggled against and eliminated in the Maoist movement. Maoism is not a set of principles that one can claim while practicing as a liberal. To put Maoism into practice requires a complete transformation of what we think of as organizing work. Currently, liberal ideas and liberal interpretations of “organizing work” do have hegemony in the US. What STLRC’s chairman responded to this two-line struggle with is similar to the anticommunism of other brands of revisionism than his own. He seeks to unite with anyone who can be united with on the basis of hating RGA, which even includes hyperrevisionists, completely disregarding the fundamental differences between Maoism and “Marxism-Leninism” or other brands of so-called “communists.”

To unite with fundamentally different groups only when it happens to be convenient for oneself or one’s organization is textbook opportunism. But let’s explore this instance of liberalism and opportunism as well as other instances in which the STLRC chairman has persisted in these errors.

A new branch of SPUSA in Austin who had yet to have their first meeting had heard rumors about RGA and by extension the Maoist movement there. The rumors revolved around the boycott of a local anarchist bookstore who refused to allow Maoists to continue carrying out study groups there. When supporters attempted to correct these rumors, “Hei” proceeded to attempt to cast doubt and suspicion on an RGA supporter. As things progressed, “Hei” began showing ever-increasing alarming signs of the online hostility. The RGA supporter saw the public argument over this matter as becoming extremely unprincipled and chose to reach out to “Hei” privately. This amounted to him taking personal private messages out of context and using these to pit the new SPUSA activist in Austin against RGA. In response to this unprincipled lack of discipline and intentional rumor-mongering on the part of “Hei” that created issues and discord where there was none, RGA was forced to expose several of its cadres in an effort to resolve the contradictions with the SPUSA branch in person. Once face-to-face, hostilities were dispelled, rumors were corrected, and RGA had offered comradely resources towards the branch. Many SPUSA members in turn left the revisionist organization completely and decided to join STP and the larger Maoist movement, and today they enjoy a comradely relationship with Austin Maoists.

“Hei’s” intentions were pretty clear: he aimed to turn Austin activists into enemies of RGA, but his attempts failed miserably, and RGA in fact gained friends through his treacherous actions. And though he was unsuccessful, this exposed him as a dangerous wrecker. When “Hei” tried to pick a quarrel with the aforementioned comrade, they explained to him that they would no longer engage with him because they did not feel that they were able to trust him. In an unbelievable attempt to gain sympathy by throwing gas on the fire, “Hei” then proceeded to take that message as well to his Facebook status, which was public. For obvious reasons many comrades were justifiably alarmed by his behavior. Other comrades who had a better rapport with “Hei” at the time attempted to criticize him for taking this liberal approach and slandering comrades. His response was to lash out at anyone in Austin whom he deemed as going against him. It appeared that his angle was to try to discredit and slander anyone who criticized his extremely unprincipled behavior.

After multiple criticisms he begrudgingly accepted that his actions could be “seen as” attempted wrecking. With continued criticisms from multiple comrades in multiple cities, he produced a lengthy self-criticism. This criticism was received well and appreciated by the comrades who placed these criticisms. It seemed that he had made a genuine effort to grapple with his liberalism—however, this self-criticism proved to be entirely performative, as he would declare publicly again (on social media) that he had self-criticized only to “appease RGA.” This is a thoroughly revisionist conception of self-criticism. Self-criticism is always carried out by communists in the interest of transformation and rectification and never as a stunt to get attention or “appease” anyone. From here he continued on the path of unprincipled bad-mouthing, reckless labeling, and backdoor gossiping. We urge any committed Maoists in St. Louis to take seriously what this admittedly phony self-criticism shows about the incredible depths “Hei” will go to in avoiding struggle and transformation, and to study and use genuine MLM to end the stifling influence he has had on the emergence of a thoroughly anti-revisionist militant communist movement in your city.

Revisionism, defense of right-opportunism, and ideological eclecticism

STLRC has put forth many revisionist and opportunist lines, whether it be via their WordPress or their “leader’s” Facebook. “We support who supports us”—this is the mechanical materialist, revisionist line continually put forth by the leader of STLRC. On the surface it seems like simple logic, but logic like everything else is based in a specific class interest and class outlook. Whether we enjoy the support of the masses or not, we must support the masses in their concrete struggle—otherwise their support will evaporate or never materialize. We call this position revisionist because it is the base thought of every opportunist throughout history. It is a moving goalpost with no regard or recognition for politics, ideology, or practice (except for the vain “support” offered to their small-group project.)

For a communist, support includes and usually begins with critical assessment of the work. When this has been provided, the recidivist liberal mindset of the STL “chairman” has only been able to view this as a personal attack, which has allowed him to respond publicly, with no short supply of vitriolic, unsubstantiated nonsense. Our support, while always critical, has a principal determining factor: the politics of the group in question. A group’s true politics are what they put into motion, not divorced from their ideological positions and conceptions of MLM. Many opportunists who have material interests positioned against revolutionary organizations in the US such as RGA will come out of the woodwork to “support” those who most loudly repeat unproven gossip about the organization. This is where the “support” for STL from the Austin Socialist (read: Social-Fascist) Collective (ASC) comes from. The common ground these two share is an opposition to Maoist politics in Austin. This is a counter-revolutionary alliance in which both organizations have sacrificed their own political lines for the sake of opposing and destroying RGA.

Let us examine some of the politics espoused by the leader of STLRC briefly and contrast those with some of the politics put forward by ASC and we can see how both are quick to change their political shoes while leaving on their same stinking socks.

The leader of STL has many times put forward an eclectic mixture of Mao Zedong Thought, Third-Worldism, weaponized identity politics, and Dengist revisionism, whichever suits him depending on the day. One line he has stuck to is that leadership of the communist movement should be based on identity principally and politics secondarily. He has been known to state things along the lines of, “The entire MLM movement is white and when the Third World invades they will greet me as the real communist.” He has launched tirades (some correct, others incorrect) about the white working class, which become incorrect at the point of suggesting that they have no revolutionary potential as a section of the proletariat. One point where he is correct is his stance that the US is a prisonhouse, a settler-colonial nation. This viewpoint should be an important factor in considering where revolutionary potential exists in an organization. He would likely agree with the thesis that in order for socialism on the continent to come into existence, the settler-colonial project must be violently ended. Too bad he does not maintain this principle when he chooses to endorse Austin’s social-fascists over its Maoists.

ASC, an organization with fairly open membership, who do not wear masks or take any precautions whatever to conceal their identities, is safely identified as “overwhelmingly white,” a slander the STL leader commonly uses against every established Maoist org in the country whether it is true or false. We do not fault ASC for their identities, nor can we ignore the more diverse minority of their membership. All that a communist can do is examine their political line and see how this line plays out for or against the settler-colonial project. While this STL cadre lambasts MLM and the MLM movement as “cracker communism,” he has no qualms whatsoever about wholeheartedly endorsing settler “socialism.”

In a document produced by ASC about “fascism,” they continually argue for the protection and preservation of bourgeois democracy, not arguing once for proletarian revolution. This alone is a huge problem that helps to earn them the slur of social-fascist. To make it more obvious to anyone paying attention, ASC continually refers to the US as “our country” and its government as “our government.” This wording is not accidental or circumstantial: for a self-congratulating, mostly white, all-liberal organization, the US truly is their country. It was violently colonized for them. This same political line has led them down so many reformist paths that we lose count, but one instance that stands out is their short-lived campaign of trying to “re-write the Texas constitution,” as if the masses themselves who overwhelmingly do not even participate in local elections have a burning desire for a reworded Texas Constitution. We have little to no interest in the content of our enemy’s constitution in occupied Aztlan. Our interest is firmly with the oppressed nations and their right to self-determination!

While they do not have public articles about the topic of self-determination and consciously avoid its mention, ASC members have often on the local level outright denied the existence of internal colonies. They have denied that Black people from the US constitute an oppressed nation at all. While they make no denial that Black people are specifically oppressed, they attribute this to liberal definitions of racism that do not account for oppressed nations. Their conception of “socialism” is one that leaves the settler-colonial project intact, enforcing an unaltered US border—making them the new wardens of the prisonhouse. While the STL leader is content to sweep this aside for a revisionist united front against Austin Maoists, we are left wondering whether he genuinely holds any politics at all.

We seek unity with genuine Maoists, not with fickle political chameleons. While we see no major issues having tactical, on-the-ground unity with organizations whom we even have fundamental political differences with, we do not take it upon ourselves to endorse them, especially in others’ cities, as the STL collective has done in Austin when promoting the white May Day event against the red May Day event. This endorsement was not only against the Maoists but an endorsement of revisionism and settler “socialism.”

While it is unclear whether the endorsement of ASC is a position held by all or most of STLRC, it is clear that their leader has gone out of his way to use their official platforms to promote and defend the social-fascists of Austin. And yet again even after they were criticized by their friends and foes, nothing was done about it. This calls into question the existence of actual democratic process internal to STL, the lack of which can only be a consequence of bad leadership who puts his personal hatred for Maoists above his own politics and the politics of his organization. We are quite certain that many revisionist organizations will support you attacking and denouncing one of the largest and strongest MLM formations in the US, but only those unscrupulous opportunists without any shame or self-awareness would be foolish enough to support those terrible projects. Politics are just inconsequential to STLRC.

Eclecticism: The sour soup of revisionism trying to hide its own taste

“Hei” seems to prefer using a personal blog to spread his personal brand of false Maoism, so it is necessary to discuss a few of his articles, since much of the differences in line, and his revisionism, are made most visible on this blog. Going in reverse chronological order from his most recent post, we can expose glaring revisionism dressed in the language of communism.

The last post he made almost immediately after five US martyrs of the YPG were announced was little more than an attack on their memory, a petty effort to assert his mechanical understanding of imperialism and replace Maoism with Third-Worldism and a modern revisionist understand of “Marxism-Leninism.” He begins by trying to invoke the name of Norman Bethune against proletarian internationalism and proceeds into an uneducated account against the Kurdish people and the YPG/J. He suggests that a better example of “socialist internationalism” is Cuba, which was never socialist and has a long history in the service of Soviet social-imperialism, which he conveniently ignores. The fact that this so-called Maoist cannot even address the support for Rojava among both the Maoist parties of Turkey (TKP/ML and MKP both) only evidences his opportunist eclecticism. He presents things as if he has a better grasp of the conditions there than the actual Maoists do. The article degenerates into identity opportunism when it suggests without any investigation at all that going to Rojava is white privilege. The privilege to risk death as an international volunteer in a war against fascism? Yes, we laughed too. He systematically ignores beloved martyrs like Paolo Todd and Ivana Hoffman, neither of whom were white. Paolo Todd was an indigenous North American, a water protector and a longtime activist for his people. To slander his memory and paint him as a “thrill seeking white boy” not even one month after his death is nothing short of disgusting. This martyr will be remembered as an anti-colonial freedom fighter long after this blog will be forgotten with the likes of its bitter and hateful author. He even has the nerve to claim,

Nobody pays attention to initiatives launched by colonized people at home in the US, but everybody has money to go to Rojava.

Was the struggle of Paolo Todd not of his own initiation as a colonized person of the US? And who is it but “Hei” himself who callously ignores this while labeling Heval Todd a white thrill-seeker? In what might be the worst part of this smear piece, he states that fighting fascism here or in Rojava “makes no difference.” Here he mixes a bit of reactionary nihilism in with his false MLM:

“If you want to participate in the antifa struggle, you’re in a perfect place to do so. . . . Or you can run off to Syria to be used. Makes no difference in the long run and grand scheme of things.”

To this cretin, antifascism “makes no difference.” This is a person who claims to be a revolutionary leader in the US, the US which sees the rise of fascist terrorism every single day. Think about this. The article, true to his self-promoting careerism, asks for money. We should all pay him—to do what? Certainly he had no plans to fight fascism or promote internationalism.

The next blog post is clearly intended to be ironic, but all it is really is a vague attack on the US MLM movement and especially RGA. The article is again projecting when he accuses others as seeing “sectarianism as a virtue.” What is a vague attack on Maoism if not sectarianism? Let’s be real: what he’s really putting forward is the sectarian demand for “left unity” that frames all ideological struggle and all stands against revisionism as “sectarianism.” He then charges the rest of the movement with holding demos that draw only a “few dozen people,” which is at least a dozen more than any demo the “Maoists” of his city have ever organized. Anyone reading this should look at photos of actions involving or organized by the Maoists of LA, Austin, and Kansas City. You will find there are more than a few dozen folks at most of these actions. Now go have a look at the PYO-STL or STLRC and count no more than 8 to 12 people including “Hei” in mostly empty parking lots and hanging out on campus.

He then defaults to his usual productivism (Dengite revisionism) when he states,

“Many Maoists in the US bawl and scoff at [Grenada’s New Jewel Movement’s] embrace of social-imperialism and chaining themselves to the Soviet bear, we know all this and the nature of the system there, but black and brown people that have made revolution generally have little time for such polemicizing and nonsense, we’ve got countries to run and people to feed.”

What matters to “Hei”? Not political line and not imperialism but whatever “works” to “feed people and run countries,” and whether it’s capitalism or socialism or imperialism does not matter to him. Being an anti-imperialist is reduced to nothing but “polemicizing and nonsense.” Perhaps he wishes to tell that to the memory of Akram Yari, murdered by agents of Soviet social-imperialism? Maybe he can inform the Communist Party of India (Maoist) that their struggles going all the way back to the Naxalite uprising were just nonsense, since it was a government and a ruling party aligned with Soviet social-imperialism that they were rebelling against. These Brown people making revolution must have just not had “Hei’s” ability to use identity politics to shill for imperialism and productivist revisionism. Instead of looking at the ways in which Soviet social-imperialism corrupted and ruined the revolutionary movements it used, he’s content to throw out all Maoist principles and just accept it.

While there is the obligatory superficial denunciation of imperialism, his thinking is laid out plainly. His identity politics and gross misunderstanding of MLM puts forward the racist thesis that “black and brown” people are just pragmatic to the point of opportunistic alignment with imperialism, all while he ignores the countless Third World revolutionaries under the banner of Maoism who rose in arms against the very same imperialism of the Soviet Union.

The author is particularly eclectic when he makes a post denouncing Third-Worldism by reiterating the work of Rashid and then in the very next post goes on to parrot the liberal and Third-Worldist idea that we have the white working class (not US imperialism in crisis) to blame for Donald Trump:

The white working class flew the coop and gave us Trump, delivering Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin into his hands. Not the petit bourgeoisie, the ever so vaunted white working class. People that used to work in steel mills and auto plants.”

A materialist understanding would necessitate some investigation into the registered voters in the 2016 elections. About half the country did not register, and only 53% of those registered actually voted. The lowest voter registration as usual is found among the working class, which is still majority-white in the US. Despite this small number of working-class voters, he has come to the conclusion that Trump’s presidency is the product of the white working class.

In reality, the Democratic Party was one huge reason for the results of the election. Now, either bourgeois democracy works or it does not—choose one. For STL to have participated with the rest of the movement in the 2016 election boycott and then have their leader put forward this position is pretty ludicrous. The few masses who did vote for Trump mostly did so out of a desperation to rupture with the neoliberalism openly represented by Clinton. And let’s face it, if the masses were capable of surpassing the narrow class consciousness of trade unions on their own, they would never need a vanguard.

While “Hei” has opportunistically gone back and forth on many questions, it’s important to point out how he has reversed the verdict on certain actions. Today he insists to anyone who will listen that “RGA are adventurists.” He and his supporters claim that the Partisan unit in Austin open-carrying is just “white people waving guns around in brown people’s faces.” In November, when these very same people (a group of diverse nationalities and ethnicities) made international headlines, he commented in his blog that

“in Austin, communists led demonstrations. One comrade had his neck broken by the pigs, several others were arrested and charged with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. There were also partisans in the streets, armed and ready to defend the people. This is a good thing. Militancy and organization on a militant, anti-fascist basis is the correct line post-Trump, and any other time.”

We point this out to highlight his productivist mindset of offering support not on the basis of an action or a political line but on whatever he thinks can get him support. Nothing has changed since November in terms of armed demonstrations in Austin. The political line remains the same, and the unit has been consistently deployed in the same way, with support from sections of the local working class and specifically its oppressed sections. He now claims that it was always adventurism and just hopes people will forget that he ever called it a good thing in an effort to ride the coattails of the attention the armed action was receiving at that time. This is what communists call opportunism. While we expect groups to struggle and split over issues, we do not feel it is correct to reverse positions so flippantly. If we supported something in November and have since stopped, we do not pretend we always felt this way. If we change our minds, we summarize the change or self-criticize for holding mistaken positions.

In the end of this very same article he accuses critics of Fidel Castro’s service to revisionism of being “objectively white chauvinist” even if the comrades criticizing Castro’s phony communism are Black or Brown. The tendency to confuse emotions that are changing and fleeting for political line that sticks to principle is evident in his writing. We can recognize that even revisionists are on occasion capable of inspiring acts, and that the Cuban revolution itself was progressive—however, if we look at the whole of Fidel’s life, more of it was spent promoting revisionism and petit-bourgeois nationalism than anything else. He was principally a revisionist and only a revolutionary for a short time, much as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China stopped being revolutionary themselves. It is not white chauvinism to say that especially in places like Peru, the Cuban government served the ruling-class reactionaries—or to acknowledge that the myth of Cuban socialism has had the devastating effect of promoting failure in Latin America, has mainly stood against the spread of Maoism (the only hope for liberating the continent), and has constantly aligned itself with the pink tide social-democratic movements. It has lent legitimacy to “Socialism of the 21st Century,” which is nothing but a return to failure and a rejection of revolutionary science. “Hei” is content to erase the harm this revisionism has caused the people of Latin America and has the nerve to call it white chauvinism when revisionism is attacked.

Every movement has a Trotsky, a loyal opposition that contrarily takes oppositional positions with no regard for political principle. Every movement has people in it who seek personal glory by attacking whatever they view as the most revolutionary. These desperate opportunists who attack Maoists will find themselves defending all sorts of revisionism until they become revisionists themselves—especially those who follow the fool’s logic of “whoever opposes my opposition is therefore my friend” or “whoever supports me is who I support.” If you are gaining support from revisionists and losing Maoist support, you should ask yourself why—what is it about your political line that makes this your reality? To see it as a as a good thingto be supported in your opposition to Maoism by revisionists, including Trots and social-democrats, means only that you have switched sides and become a traitor.

During the Cultural Revolution, a group of Red Guards defied the correct command of the party and launched an attack against the People’s Liberation Army. They thought they were attacking the enemy—in a short time however they heard cries of support and gunshots in solidarity from exiled nationalist troops on Formosa. Upon hearing this, they came to their senses and stopped their attacks and surrendered to the PLA. Unfortunately “Hei” does not have the sense of these young mistaken rebels. He hears the support of revisionists and it goes straight to his head, and instead of waking up to the fact that these people too have a stake in attacking Maoism, he doubles down and eats up the attention because he is a revisionist himself. He shares unity and common ground with anti-Maoists not just because it helps him attack Maoists he does not like but because in truth he is against Maoism itself.

Patriarchal and misogynistic behavior

“Hei” has exhibited a repeated trend of misogynistic behavior for which he has refused criticism. The first public instance of this misogyny we encountered surrounded “Hei’s” erasure of a nonwhite woman’s leadership in RGA to justify his false projection of himself as the only nonwhite Maoist in existence in the US. “Hei” has used the blatantly patriarchal tactic of ignoring women’s leadership with the backward justification that they are just “puppets of men.” In one instance, receiving a correct criticism from a Black woman was too much for “Hei’s” ego to handle. Subsequently he conjured up the idea that there is a cabal of white men that control RGA and conspire toward his downfall. In this thinking we see three primary errors—identity opportunism, revisionism that refuses ideological struggle, and patriarchal chauvinism.

“Hei” again expressed his explicit misogyny in his opportunist alliance with the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) on May Day of 2017. The IMT has a documented history of allegations of gang rape against it. When this fact was brought up to the attention of “Hei” by comrades in Tampa, “Hei’s” response was that “no one takes this shit seriously” and it was only “an attempt by RGA to wreck May Day” because they have “nothing better to do.” No concern whatsoever was paid to issues of rape apology and misogyny in the left, which are major contradictions that have plagued the left for decades. “Hei” placed an opportunist political alliance—that led to little on-the-ground benefit—over the importance of working towards proletarian feminism in every aspect of our work. This is a revisionist position of “if it works for me, I support it,” which is antithetical to Maoism. As Maoists we place political line and principles above immediate productivity.

This same trend of misogynistic revisionism was revealed in “Hei’s” idealization of Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back). “Hei” stated, “Say what you will about FRSO, they run a tight ship and put people to work.” This reveals a vulgar Dengite productivism that emphasizes perceived work over the importance of correct political line and principled struggle. This line rings familiarly to the famous quote from the prolific arch-revisionist Deng Xiaoping, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.” In other words, this quote is saying that it doesn’t matter whether something is revolutionary or not so long as it is efficient. “Hei” treats politics in the same way. For him it seems a more fitting slogan would be, It doesn’t matter whether the cat is white or black so long as long as it isn’t RGA. FRSO is not only an organization characterized by soc-dem levels of political practice, lacking any coherent political line, but is also an organization riddled with allegations of misogyny, white supremacy, and rape apology. When a nonmale comrade from Tampa with direct experience in FRSO corrected “Hei” and explained that the perceived level of work FRSO does is actually much higher than the pathetic reality, “Hei” refused to acknowledge that a nonman with practical and rational knowledge on the topic could know better than him.

This itself is a repeated trend that many nonmen have experienced from “Hei.” He erases the knowledge, practice, and viewpoints of nonmen any time they express opposition to his own way of thinking. This has resulted in spiteful and petty attacks on nonmen and specifically trans people, especially those in Ann Arbor, Houston, and Tampa. In any casual conversation his patriarchal thinking can become visible in the flippancy and dismissal with which he treats the ideas of nonmen. For those that are organized, “Hei” will project his own limited perceptions of a city’s work to dictate to comrades in general and nonmen specifically what they should do within their own collectives. While this is in error for failing to understand on a basic level the Maoist theory of knowledge, it is yet another concrete expression of misogyny. Once a group rejects the erroneous advice of “Hei,” he immediately moves to badmouth and gossip about them on the internet.

“Hei” has gone so far as to defend the use of misogynistic slurs if they are used against white women. Communists reject the use of misogynistic slurs at any time, in any context. While it is true white women can and do oppress Black men, this is not an excuse for misogyny. Any critique of white women in this context should focus on political lines and white supremacy, not their identification as women. “Hei” again fails to hold political line primarily as a Maoist should. In one particularly disgusting incident, “Hei” told a white woman who disagreed with his politics that she was “bound for the same fate as the white women of Haiti.” When it was pointed out these women were raped, and this woman is a rape survivor herself, “Hei” responded with “that sucks.” “Hei” then went on to denounce TMC as trying to “call him a misogynist.” TMC was in fact not involved in any way in these incidents, but as the person who he was arguing with was a woman and partner of someone who had been in Tampa, “Hei” automatically assumed she was being controlled by her partner, who was assigned male at birth. This is misogynistic and transphobic.

“Hei’s” misogyny feeds into other aspects of his revisionism, specifically his failure to practice criticism/self-criticism, engage in line struggle, and hold correct political lines primary. Proletarian feminism is not a buzzword we adopt when convenient to us. It is an inseparable aspect of Maoism that “Hei” has failed to uphold. He therefore cannot be considered a Maoist.

Lack of security culture: Not wearing masks and mocking state repression

If any revolutionary organization or individual wishes to be able to carry out their work without being liquidated by the state, it is a necessity to always take security culture seriously. When we speak of security culture we mean keeping the sensitive information that could expose membership or clandestine work secret from the state and reactionary or fascist forces. In our analysis the security culture of STLRC is poor at best and other times just plain reckless.

One of first glaringly obvious security concerns that we have about the STLRC is their lack of attempt to conceal their identities at demonstrations. Wearing a mask is a principle that we see even the most “peaceful” of liberal demonstrators begin to take up. In the age of growing fascism and increasing state repression it is important for communists and antifascists that we all get accustomed to being able to conceal our identities from our enemies. To us, there can only be three possible explanations for their errors here: (1) They do not take the threat of the state seriously possibly because they do not do work that is a threat to the state, which is exactly the type of work a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collective should be engaged in; (2) People like “Hei” are in the business of trying to put their face out there in an effort to build a following based off of personality and not politics; or (3) To appear soft and palatable to the liberal centrist activists who veer to the right of intermediate and advanced elements of the masses or to distinguish themselves from the raw militancy of the Maoist and antifascist movements. Whatever their reasons may be, the disregard for this basic level of security objectively puts their cadre and anyone associated with those individuals at risk. In the age of fascists doxxing anyone and everyone they can on the left using pictures from demonstrations and actions, we can see now more than ever the need to use a mask. To cover your face is to cover your ass.

Mocking state repression

It is no secret that shortly after the election of Trump, many comrades were faced with heightened state repression. This came in the form of increasing arrests, police brutality, and general harassment in many forms from the state. All the while, “Hei” took it upon himself to poke fun at the very idea that people were facing any kind of state repression. These mocking statements just so happened to first start surfacing after RGA released a detailed account of the repression that Austin comrades were experiencing from the FBI, and the Kansas City comrades were harassed by mounted police at a PYO picnic. For those of us who have been thrown in jail for next to nothing, had our necks broken by the pigs, have cops intimidating us while we are doing mass work, and have had the feds knocking on our doors, this shit is not a joke. And anyone who attempts to make light of this reality is objectively serving our enemy. “Hei” proclaimed that “if the feds wanted you they’d have you. They could if they please arrest or kill the whole Maoist movement in the country in 24 hours. . . . They already know your name and shit you’re not important or a threat.” Firstly, idea that the state knows the membership and detailed information about our organizations is absolutely preposterous, because unlike “Hei” and his collective, the majority of active Maoists in this country take painstaking efforts to practice security culture and keep our membership secret. On top of this, “Hei’s” statement lacks all historical materialism as well as a basic understanding of what state repression is and how it functions in the US. There has been no instance of the state wiping out an entire revolutionary organization in 24 hours. Even if they had the means to do this, it is not something that would be a propaganda victory for them. This absolutely negates the lessons we have learned from our own recent history and lends far too much credibility to the state and casts a massive shadow of doubt and disbelief on the movement. We wonder why someone who has such a negative view of the viability and correctness of Maoism claim to be a Maoist? If the feds already know everything about us and are just letting us organize out of their benevolence, then what is the point? “Hei” sees the state as an omnipresent, all-knowing, benevolent entity that will do us in whenever they have had enough, but as Maoists we understand that reactionaries are paper tigers. And even though the state will succeed in putting away and killing individuals among us when they can, we have something they do not. We are revolutionaries and we fight alongside and for the people, who are themotive force that moves history, not the US government.

Sharing internal documents

Based on multiple interactions, it is clear that the chairman of STLRC rejects line struggle. This rejection of disagreement leads him to expose secure information. In the nascent stages of STP-STL, there was an ideological disagreement about the trajectory and objective of STP as a countrywide project. The chairman was convinced of the exceptional nature of St. Louis, stating that the homeless were the group that they would focus on. Rebutting this, STP-ATX pointed out that the point of STP is not be a “red” Food Not Bombs and that STPs should orient toward the proletariat, the revolutionary class. This criticism was brought up very principally, in a comradely way, to help build up STP-STL, but was met with pure hostility leading to the chairman posting the private messages of another STP member, with no names blocked out, as another way to please his sycophant audience.

“Hei” proceeded to make a Facebook group called “Maoists of Oppressed Nationalities in the US.” First, he made this group and explicitly stated in the group description that RGA was not allowed in the group, and that RGA sympathizers would not be welcome in the group. He then proceeded to post screenshots of a joint STP email drafted by all of the existing STP organizations sent to STP-STL privately. This shows blatant disregard for secure communication; what is designed to be internal should stay internal. While two-line struggle is not a secret, things shared in private (in good faith) can include specific information about revolutionary organizing that when exposed, objectively helps the state. When Charlotte comrades who had been added to the group brought these criticisms to the STLRC chairman, they were called RGA supporters (as if it’s a bad thing to support existing collectives engaged in mass work) and removed from the group.

STLRC’s treatment of other collectives

From his extremely frequent Facebook statuses, anyone that happens to connect with “Hei” on this social media platform will see on their newsfeed a bombardment of rumors, smears, half-truths, and outright lies about the Maoist collectives around the country as well as about individuals in those collectives. In doing this he has effectively become one of the most prolific mouthpieces for anticommunism against US Maoism on the revisionist internet left. Some of these include statements attacking the Maoist movement in Austin, TX as “crackers,” “petit-bourgeois students,” “a Gonzaloite cult,” and as people “from the suburbs . . . trying to colonize a black/brown area.” He has said that Maoists in Austin think that “their cracker friends and hipsters are the masses.” He has called other collectives around the country that have expressed solidarity with Austin’s Maoist movement “puppets” that are “controlled by Austin.” He has repeatedly referred to Maoists of color who have criticized him as “crackers.” When people have directly quoted the outrageous things that he has said, in an effort to get him to see his unprincipled behavior, he has resorted to manipulative techniques of questioning the intelligence of the critic with insults such as “moron” and “idiot.” In addition, he accuses anyone who criticizes his political line as an “enemy of black Maoists”even when these criticisms come from Black Maoists. He has deflected all criticism of himself and his collective with the justification of “refusing to kiss white asses” as if accepting a criticism is so degrading that it is the equivalent of prostration. It goes without saying that this belittling and mud-flinging is a real problem, but it’s not just his impetuosity alone that has so many collectives unwilling to work with him in any capacity—it’s the way in which he recklessly champions his behavior as that of a principled Maoist and preys upon newer activists who may have a genuine interest in becoming an anti-revisionist communist. For people who are not familiar with Maoism or the movement that has been growing here in the US, “Hei’s” representation and dramatic denunciations of this and that collective could really be disheartening. It’s a shame to think that those potential communists who don’t come to communism via our mass work, actions, and demos may stumble upon this outlandish character parades as a “great leader of the Maoist movement.” He claims that through all of his divisiveness, fame-seeking, undisciplined actions that he has “made god knows how many people into Maoists” but we have yet to see any evidence of this even being possible since what he preached is not Maoism. In fact, if you take the time to go through his posts, you will see that he has definitely sown ideological seeds in some people, but they are of anything but Maoism. On any given status you’re bound to find plenty of people that are happy to wallow in the notion that the Maoist left is full of petty infighting and that all the collectives (aside from STLRC of course) are full of irresolvable contradictions and therefore they all must be isolated. But if these same people climbed out of the despairing echo-chamber that is the “Hei Show” on Facebook, they would see a Maoism that is growing: A Maoism that leads large demos, and has a variety of different mass organizations and mass work that it can show for all its efforts. They would see collectives who share each other’s accomplishments and encourage each other to always become better communists. A Maoism that shares solidarity with Third-World armed struggles for liberation and has maintained support and solidarity with Maoist parties and organizations across the globe. This is the Maoism that is being built all around the country.

“Hei” has spared no small detail, to anyone who will listen to him, of his absolute disdain for RGA. But as time has carried on and lines have played out more and more, people have begun to question the claims made by “Hei” against RGA, and, much to his frustration, the way in which he conducts himself toward other Maoists and Maoist collectives. As his flame of legitimacy has flickered among newer Maoists, he has resorted to two modes of operation when it comes to his orientation towards new and existing collectives: to either discredit and “isolate” them through aligning them with the efforts of RGA, or else clamoring to win them over to his line of hatred and mistrust of RGA and all collectives that maintain support for it. Revisionists often prey upon the inexperience of new activists, and “Hei” has proven to be no different. One of the most disturbing behaviors “Hei” has displayed is a predatory attitude toward newly established collectives, and he has repeatedly sought to influence new collectives in his revisionist line. The question of revisionism is a matter of life and death for a new collective.

The lack of practical experience for these collectives, especially those made up of activists with little to no previous experience with organizing, makes them vulnerable to the revisionist line of people like “Hei,” and it is this vulnerability that he seeks to exploit. He views newly formed collectives as a potential weapon to use against the RGA he so despises. He often hides his real intention, to act as an enemy of Maoism generally, behind seemingly sincere and benign efforts to extend advice and solidarity. Almost immediately after RAH was formed earlier in May of this year, “Hei” started to push his revisionist wrecker line on certain members. He would smear RGA with anticommunism and made a significant portion of the Houston collective very hesitant to work with Maoists in Austin due to the almost incessant smearing of them, both in private chats and on the Facebook news feed of anyone that follows his activity on that platform. His line and its influence on the organization in Houston was not totally discredited until they had the opportunity to investigate his claims about Austin’s Maoists and in particular RGA for themselves. Through this investigation they discovered that virtually all of “Hei’s” claims against RGA amounted to nothing but outright lies. When an RAH member tried to struggle in a principled manner with him, he dismissed the criticism and attacked the person making the criticism as a “white chauvinist” and has since been extremely hostile to this collective, spreading lies and slander about them as he does with so many others.TMC has faced a similar experience. When TMC was first formed, after pretending to extend sincere solidarity, “Hei” repeatedly told a cadre to avoid RGA and not to listen to any “lies” they told about him, even though RGA never discussed STLRC with TMC. When TMC told him that they sought to establish unity with RGA, he mocked this desire and told them that RGA was not worth uniting with. When he became aware that contacts were established between TMC and RGA, he began to denounce TMC privately and openly became increasingly hostile to this collective. He began to charge that TMC was being “led” by RGA, reflecting his obsession with a single collective supposedly leading the Maoist movement in the US and projecting his own warped, revisionist idea of party-building. He continued to spread lies and gossip about TMC until ties were severed between the two organizations.

Regarding the charges of wrecking

A quick note directly from RGLA: “RGLA made repeated attempts to communicate and engage in dialogue with STLRC. After repeatedly being ignored, and after the continuous unprincipled behavior of “Hei,” we urge comrades in STLRC to hold their cadre accountable and to clarify why RGLA and others have no established relationship with STLRC. And we encourage other Maoist collectives and individuals to reflect on whether they should be engaged in dialogue with individuals who are anticommunist in practice.

“Hei” has charged the Maoist movement with wrecking his collective (or variations of this) multiple times. We are asking why he has stated this. What makes him or his collective so special? We ask this genuinely. If they have access to information we have never seen and that would prove them correct then we encourage them to share it, but due to the interactions we have had with them up until now and what we continuously see online, we feel that empty words are constantly said that can never be backed. We feel that empty words are said mainly as a way to deflect criticisms and suggestions we, and others, have made in good faith. Our movement has no interest in wrecking any collective; our only interest is in holding Maoists, or those claiming Maoism, accountable. Our only interest is in building Maoism everywhere and anywhere, and to do this principled criticism is necessary. Principled criticisms, suggestions, and comments are the only organizational ways we have communicated with STLRC and other Maoist collectives. Again, if we are wrong, please correct us. And we encourage those in the peripheries to reflect on these comments and to message RGLA if you need any clarifications.”

* * *

In the years of RG’s existence in both LA and Austin, LA has built relationships with multiple Maoist organizations throughout the country and shared criticisms and suggestions with them, as they have with LA. Comrades in LA were more unfamiliar with “Hei” and STL than other Maoist collectives were, so they approached things in good faith.

LA’s first interaction arose when STL was looking to create their STP program. By the time LA first messaged STL, “Hei” had already taken to Facebook to denounce RGA and had shared their private criticisms and suggestions in an opportunistic way. He misrepresented what RGA stated and deflected any criticism that was made of STP-STL. At this point, LA still had had no interaction with the organization, so they decided to email STL privately about our concerns, suggestions, and criticisms. “Hei” continued with his rants on Facebook and further went on to state that white men were trying to destroy him and his organization. LA never received an email back.

What does all this mean? First, it means that “Hei” has horrendous security culture. How can we create unity when even private conversations that are made in good faith are opportunistically taken to Facebook? Even if the relationship between STLRC and RGA was not the best at the time, why treat comrades like enemies? How can we create any communist movement that will face repression from the state when we are that petty and have no regard for security culture?

Second, why frame it as though everyone involved is a white man? STP-LA has no white people in it. There’s not even an inch of truth to their allegations. STP-LA are all Brown and Black people. Other branches of STP host a diverse membership and none of them are “all white,” let alone “all men.” It’s an easy way of using identity politics (incorrectly and horribly) as a way to deflect criticisms, criticisms that he never even engaged with. The erasure of mass work carried out by Brown and Black comrades does nothing to help fight white supremacy and has the opposite effect.

Third, it goes to show that “Hei” is not looking to have discussion. It’s either his way or else you’re a white chauvinist. In attempts to create dialogue with STLRC, the effort was to create unity based on struggle. Why should any organization accept a line dogmatically without a second thought? Why should Black and Brown revolutionaries be labeled white chauvinists for not accepting this? How does he reconcile this? Who knows—but one cannot be a Maoist without accepting criticisms.

These actions have the consequence of confusing people. By misrepresenting the argument and those making the criticism “Hei” is looking to confuse people, which he has, and absolve himself of the criticisms. Unsurprisingly, LA made this criticism in the past. They criticized him for creating confusion when STLRC latched on to the STP programs that exist throughout the US. This was especially opportunistic as STP-STL was born through disunity with the already existing STP programs!

“Hei” has acted like the actual wrecker numerous times. The vilest example of this has been when he wished death to our comrades in Austin; he stated that our comrades in Austin should be shot. Why are these words necessary? Why wish death on those fighting fascists on the front lines? Does he never wish to seek unity with the Maoist collectives that currently exist? Why? If we are that detrimental to the Maoist movement in the US, he has an obligation to specify why and look to isolate us. But we know that these words come from a hurt ego. We know that when push comes to shove his ego means more to him than actually creating unity with those combatting fascism.

To anyone in STL with an inch of revolutionary fervor, we urge you to step up, to challenge, and hold your comrades accountable. Is “Hei” the only one with a voice? Do you not wish to combat white supremacy? With the things described in this document happening, you will not build anything. You will simply isolate yourselvesmore and more. Maybe you will build a movementist line, mechanically chanting from rally to rally, but we should expect more of ourselves as Maoists. More and more the struggle will sharpen and we need to be prepared and united for that time to come. For that we need to be held accountable to each other.

We cannot and will not have any conversation or relationship with STLRC until this is rectified. This is nothing personal; it is our duty as Maoists to make these points clear. We cannot work with an organization that lets their members—and, even worse, their leadership—carelessly do whatever they want and toss out Maoism without a second thought because of a hurt ego. We will not build Maoism this way.

Conclusion

To those comrades who are reading this document, it is our sincere hope that you will join with the genuine MLM movement in the US! The movement that the authors of this document are aligned with takes security practices deadly seriously, and lives with the knowledge that our mission puts us at grave risks that we must seek tirelessly to understand and guard ourselves against. This movement cherishes line struggle because we know that it is only through this struggle that we will arrive at greater unity and better politics. This movement denounces patriarchal chauvinism, identity-opportunism, Third-Worldism, and petit-bourgeois careerism, regardless of the communist jargon they may cloak themselves in. This movement is eager to see the foundation of new MLM collectives by experienced, disciplined, and serious organizers with a sincere devotion to militant mass work—collectives that will help build the genuine, fiercely anti-revisionist communist party that will lead the people to destroy and bury the reactionary US state and smash the prisonhouse of nations.

Practice Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and not revisionism!

Seek unity through struggle, and reject and criticize liberalism of all forms!

Signed:

Kansas City Revolutionary Collective

Red Guards Los Angeles

Tampa Maoist Collective

Queen City Maoist Collective

Red Guards Austin

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

See real websites hosted and built by iPage customers.