A Critical Reading of the Tampa Summation

tbrc pic

“A leading group that is genuinely united and linked with the masses can be formed only gradually in the process of mass struggle, and not in isolation from it. In the process of a great struggle, the composition of the leading group in most cases should not and cannot remain entirely unchanged throughout the initial, middle and final stages; the activists who come forward in the course of the struggle must constantly be promoted to replace those original members of the leading group who are inferior by comparison or who have degenerated. One fundamental reason why the work in many places and many organizations cannot be pushed ahead is the lack of a leading group which is united, linked with the masses and kept constantly healthy. A school of a hundred people certainly cannot be run well if it does not have a leading group of several people, or a dozen or more, which is formed in accordance with the actual circumstances (and not thrown together artificially) and is composed of the most active, upright and alert of the teachers, the other staff and the students. In every organization, school, army unit, factory or village, whether large or small, we should give effect to the ninth of Stalin’s twelve conditions for the bolshevization of the Party, namely, that on the establishment of a nucleus of leadership. The criteria for such a leading group should be the four which Dimitrov enumerated in his discussion of cadres policy—absolute devotion to the cause, contact with the masses, ability independently to find one’s bearings and observance of discipline. Whether in carrying out the central tasks—war, production, education (including rectification)—or in checking-up on work, examining the cadres’ histories, or in other activities, it is necessary to adopt the method of linking the leading group with the masses, in addition to that of linking the general call with particular guidance.”—Chairman Mao Zedong

First and foremost, congratulations are in order to the comrades in Tampa for not giving up organizing after such a difficult attempt at forming a Maoist collective. Every new formation will encounter many hardships that are common to collectives in any city in the US. The transition from being casual activists, or even organized workers, to becoming disciplined communist cadres is not simple. In this process of attack and retreat, trial and error, many people will come and go until a stable core is developed, and most importantly tested in class struggle. Class struggle is the furnace that forges all true communists worthy of the title.

Given that the recent document from Tampa mentions a theoretical disparity in their former project, the aim of this response will be focused mostly on the theoretical errors that existed—and in this case, persist—as well as the theoretical content of their document titled “If You Don’t Struggle You Don’t Deserve to Win.” This response is public, rather than kept private between organizations, so that others with similar mistakes might make use of it as well. The mistakes these comrades have made are certainly not exclusive to the Tampa Bay area.

Initially, many comrades were glad to see a split form in the revisionist formation that calls itself Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back!), an organization that has carried out pigwork against Maoists and covered up allegations of serious anti-women crimes. These errors and crimes, apart from being rooted in the patriarchal society that capitalism produces, are also rooted in revisionist ideology and practice. After all, revisionism is capitalist ideology that has the nerve to call itself communist. It is not surprising that their capitalist ideology produces patriarchal practice and conceals it. As always with revisionist organizations, their training of cadres, ideological development, and political education are mismanaged in the interests of maintaining revisionism, preventing line struggle, and thwarting the questioning of leadership. Any training provided by a revisionist organization should be understood as nothing but lessons in what not to think, in what not to do or believe in.

The fact that the comrades in Tampa split principally on the basis that their former comrades covered up allegations of a crime, or possibly covered up the crime itself, and that the split was not primarily over the capitalist political lines and capitalist ideology of the FRSO, was the first mistake. It should not take crimes to compel breaking with revisionism; revisionism itself is a crime against communism, against the masses. This first error shows that the comrades still have a long way to go before they can fully assess their own mistakes. Fortunately, their desire to proceed offers the chance for this to be fixed, too. Only a group with the correct ideological basis is capable of transforming itself. FRSO is not such a group. Members of FRSO should vacate on the principle of anti-revisionism first, regardless of the sordid interpersonal behavior or crimes carried out by individual or former members.

It seems that the comrades in Tampa have yet to fully grasp that all the errors they describe in their piece are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism—especially in regard to the Maoist conception of the role of leadership.

This fundamental misunderstanding is most concerning and apparent in their section dedicated to their understanding of “democratic centralism.” In this section, these comrades do not manage to speak at all about actual democratic centralism or show any understanding of what democratic centralism means. This leads to the principal error these comrades still engage in—a failure to grasp leadership, both in theory and in practice, both in form and essence.

Democratic centralism is the basis for party discipline; it maintains party unity, which is based in two-two line struggle. Democratic centralism is the very thing that gives communists prestige, separating them from the anarchists, liberals, and bourgeois parties. Not only does it elevate the communists, but it also places them in opposition to all non-proletarian parties, as discussed in Lenin’s masterpiece “What Is to Be Done?” In democratic centralism, the party, or in this case the pre-party formations/collectives, are organized a certain way, with a certain structure. TMC liquidates this structure completely. Democratic centralism forms a contradiction in which centralism is principal. The result is a unity of opposites that allows freedom of discussion and unity in action. The proletariat produces its own form of organization with the party, and there are no methods other than democratic centralism with which to structure a genuine anti-revisionist communist organization.

This means that leadership is decisive for a communist organization. The only communist method of leadership is the mass line—the process in which all leaders unite the masses and their subordinates around themselves (read “Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership” by Mao). In this unity of opposites, the centralism is at the core of democracy, while both aspects act and react upon one another.

While TMC’s document does identify “ultra-democracy” as an error, it fails to do so completely. Instead of being thoroughgoing, it puts forward an incorrect policy of having every cadre hold “chair positions.” This is not a communist structure in the slightest. It is correct that every revolutionary organization should have a division of labor, allocating posts according to a sober estimation of members’ ability to fulfill their tasks, based on the objective tasks before the organization as a whole. But this is not what the former TMC is espousing with their “everyone is a chairperson” line.

“Collective leadership” is only one part of the equation. These comrades neglect individual leadership and the role of top leaders. As expressed by Chairman Gonzalo, “we base ourselves on the collective leadership and individual leadership and we are mindful of the role of leaders and how through the People’s War, through the renewal of leadership, the leadership of the revolution is coalescing and being tempered. We maintain the principle that the leadership never dies.” He would elaborate later: “Lenin had warned us of the problem of negating leadership just as he emphasized the need for our class, the Party and the revolution to promote our own leaders, and more than that, top leaders, and a Great Leadership,” and, “In Engels’ view, it is necessity that generates leaders, and a top leader.”

While every cadre should emerge as a leader among the mass movement, not every cadre can or should be a leader in the pre-party communist organization. The notion that they should all be leaders flies in the face of all Leninism, and is in reality tailist—that is to say, it is a right-opportunist liquidation of leadership better suited for anarchists or other so-called horizontalists. Leadership and principally a single leader is an inevitability of class struggle. If this process is not encouraged and carried out formally by democratic centralism, by its democratic process, in which leaders can be recalled at any time and are not awarded special privileges, then neither democracy nor centralism can be accomplished. Without democratic centralism, the leaders who do emerge will do so based on force of personality, ego, boisterousness, and/or social status—and not on political line, their ability to organize two-line struggle, or their actual merit as leaders. It should never be left up to individuals to “desire to take leadership.” A collective must elect its leaders, and its top leadership must emerge in struggle with the recognition of the organization. Eligibility for leadership is based on an assessment of the cadres’ work and history as well as their mastery of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist, theory.

This line of “everyone is a chairperson” did not fail due to the subjective factor of them not “being at” the desired “stage of development,” as TMC suggests, but instead due to the objective factor that this form of leadership is theoretically incorrect and at odds with MLM. This kind of thinking is a throwback to errors of social democracy that were defeated by the Leninist conception of the vanguard party. The “everyone is a chairperson” position was never part of Marxism-Leninism, and should never be allowed to be smuggled into MLM. MLM cannot accept the ideology of horizontalism. It cannot tolerate this “anti-hierarchical” deviation.

The issue of people not taking their roles seriously is also an issue of incorrect understandings of leadership. Lack of leadership causes and allows comrades to carry out their tasks insufficiently or unsatisfactorily, because cadre cannot be sufficiently trained without leadership. This aversion to the communist theory of leadership is not an error exclusive to TMC; it is found in many new collectives. This is due to the default and abysmal liberalism inherent in the US “left.” Most have been indoctrinated in this anti-leadership position, which is in reality subtle and not-so-subtle anti-communism.

On the question of combining the general with the specific, Mao explains that communist cadres must be good at uniting with the masses by issuing a general call to the masses (as well as to their subordinates) and that they must follow up on that call. This is the process in which people are united around leaders, in which cadres can stand as the spinal column of the mass movements. This same reiterative process allows for demoralized, defunct, or corrupt cadres to be replaced by the advanced masses who are developed into communists. The comrades of the former TMC would do well to master this concept and apply it to all their future work. All who are interested in carrying out communist work should closely study “Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership” as well as the chapters on replacing cadres found in the book A Basic Understanding of the Communist Party of China. The latter was republished in the US recently with the explicit purpose of confronting the contradictions that new communists and their supporters face. It has served as a great tool in the broader MLM movement in the US.

The lack of organized leaders and a top leader produces continued mistaken formulations such as “we did not understand that we are all leaders of the collective.” This formulation liquidates communist structures completely. It is true that in communist organizations, leaders do not think for the general membership, because no communist is without critical thinking—communists are not robots carrying out orders mindlessly. In any case, leadership is tasked with the responsibility of synthesizing the experience, ideas, thoughts, victories, and mistakes of their organization, and hence fixing the problems and moving forward along the revolutionary path. To do this, leaders carry out the mass line within the organization (via democratic centralism) and outside of it. Not every member is a leader, not every member can be a leader, and not every member should be in leadership of the party. Instead, labor must be divided sensibly, and leadership must be good at inspiring those around them and following up on their work. Future implementation of the “we are all leaders” line will only result in the same issues that limited the collective’s past work and ultimately dissolved it. Any attempts at founding a new organization will fail, too, unless this mistake is corrected. The conception of democratic centralism and leadership must be corrected in order to carry out rectification—to do this, studying the Marxist classics is a necessity.

We Maoists know discipline directly relates to democratic centralism. The chapter of Chairman Mao’s Quotations regarding party discipline focuses mainly on democratic centralism. The TMC summation separates these two into different sections. All of their errors in discipline can be seen as connected to their still unchecked liberalism, which means no proper leadership is produced, no general calls are made, and no timely follow ups occur. Lenin taught that discipline must be enforced in various forms, including fines and, in severe cases, expulsion from the party. This is how the party holds its members accountable. It is not left up to the individual. This error, volunteerism, is the error seen over and over again in this summation as well as the ideas they base their plans for future work on.

Another major error that stems directly from what in essence constitutes an avoidance of leadership is what could be called the “self-care” line regarding mental health. This line is in command of the reformulated Tampa Bay “Serve the People,” a project that must be criticized as a counterfeit. This “STP” has poached the name of the countrywide STP organization but lacks its principles and any relationship to it. If comrades wish to carry out mass community service work or service programs, they should be encouraged and supported in doing so, just not under the same name as Serve the People, which is already an organization. If comrades wish to affiliate and accept the leadership of this organization, they should do so in a principled way and through the correct channels. By taking up the name while lacking affiliation, they present themselves to the masses falsely. Had the Tampa Bay comrades developed a correct understanding of leadership and rejected the tailist view of anarchists, they would agree with this principle. They would alter their presentation. STP is not an anarchist project; it is not a free-for-all the way Food Not Bombs is; it is not a project that anyone can take up simply by calling themselves STP. This is because STP follows the leadership of organized communists and advanced masses. It is attached to the MLM party-building effort. STP has democratically determined to authorize and vet potential and new branches. To not even seek the consent of the much bigger existing STP shows a level of individualist entitlement that is beyond the pale.

If the Tampa Bay comrades were to call their project “Refuse Fascism,” people would associate them with the revisionist RCP-USA, and they would be rightly criticized for this distortion and poaching. By taking the name STP, they have taken up a ruse that is dishonest and unprincipled. The same can be said for their visual counterpart in Brooklyn, the revisionist “STP” in Tacoma, and others who have changed their names or dissolved when confronted. These charlatans should either accept the leadership of STP and its parent organization Red Guards or else they should forge their own path, under their own name that correctly reflects their own projects and not the projects given prestige by organizers in cities like Austin, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, and Houston.

Had comrades in Tampa reached out to experienced MLM formations outside of their city and accepted guidance from those who have successfully overcome or avoided the errors listed in their summation, they would have already hardened themselves against the notion of “self-care” that commands their new project. The hesitancy or outright refusal to seek or accept guidance from those who have proven their merit in the practice of mass work is nothing but liberal individualist anti-communism, with a tinge of anarchist lack of principle. Had they been receptive to support, they could have learned a great deal from the failures of the Revolutionary Student Front’s mental health program. It seems localism prevented them from studying the content of RSF’s summation.

In all of TMC’s “summation” of mental health and their vows to move forward on this trench, they forget synthesis. They never state a single communist position in regard to mental health. They say that “comrades cannot leave their rooms for days,” yet the experience of every other collective would indicate that this can be overcome, provided they receive the proper kind of support and political guidance to overcome their barriers.

The issue of mental health is often closely linked with the issue of drugs. This issue is avoided by TMC, and no examination is given to the broader phenomena facing our class and the masses. TMC does not present their readers with a dialectical viewpoint. Their collective failed to produce a line on this matter, showing a liberal avoiding of the need to formulate a materialist analysis on mental health issues and how they often produce and reproduce cycles of self-medication. All “self-care” lines smuggle in liberalism. They allow and apologize for substance abuse by fostering bourgeois indulgence, which actually not only harms individuals (the self) but also harms the collective as a whole. It is true that struggle must be carried out against mental illness—but this cannot be accomplished with postmodernist frameworks like “self-care” or “safe spaces.” These comrades should learn from the mistakes and mishandling of the questions of drug use and mental health as exhibited by the failures of the revisionists in Portland who claimed to be Maoists, as well as their subsequent liquidation.

“We tried uniting with other Maoist collectives throughout the US. This was an error because we were not consolidated or unified amongst ourselves.” This formulation rejects organized internal line struggle, and it also rejects external line struggle with the broader movement. It is clear from this quotation that TMC was formed prematurely and should not have claimed to be MLM cadres. They do not understand the critical principle that external struggle for unity with experienced collectives helps encourage internal line struggle and strengthens their unity. This is a fact evident in all the collectives that have not only survived but flourished under the Red Guards banner. Exchange of ideas and difficulties between groups can help all concerned; isolationism and localism are backward positions. Internationalism strengthens parties; internationalism allowed the Peruvian people’s war and the theory it produced to strengthen unity in other parties outside of Peru, consolidating them to the red line. In the same way, solidarity and struggle with groups outside of Tampa would have helped consolidate them to and unite them around the red line. This is something they have still not accomplished or even seen value in.

There is a common mechanical error in the line that “we must put our local first then reach out,” rejecting leadership and experience in favor of localism. Localism, like individualism, cannot see a thing dialectically. As dialectical materialists we understand that countrywide struggles for unity strengthen each collective and consolidate local organizations. Any organization that claims to exist for the purpose of building the party must break with localism and understand that whoever doesn’t carry out struggle in order to rise together will likely fall alone. They will not always notice the errors that are likely to destroy them. It is not sensible to insist on repeating mistakes that others in the movement have already learned from and corrected. This is also a rejection of synthesis.

Once capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union, Mao sought to correct their mistakes preemptively in China, with cultural revolution as the synthesis. It is correct that communists must be willing to make mistakes and that they must take risks, and that they must learn by doing; however they must not reject historical materialism by refusing to learn from documented mistakes of other or more experienced comrades. There are Maoists in this country already ahead of the Tampa comrades by a long shot in terms of party-building as well as mass organizing, and it’s foolish to cling to localism instead of learning from and receiving the support of the advanced formations.

Every new formation without exception is eventually going to lose some members. TMC frames each loss as a “split,” yet they make no mention of the political or ideological differences and issues behind the so-called “splits.” A member or a few leaving an organization is part of the process of trial and error, of developing a collective; it is inevitable and must not be confused with an organizational split. Sometimes people leaving is a good thing, as Lenin stressed—better fewer but better. In other cases it can genuinely be a difficult loss that can be hard to manage, and of course efforts must be taken to prevent such a loss. Where the summation falls short (and this is a big criticism) is its failure to even mention the need to train advanced masses to become communist cadres. This is one of the main reasons communists carry out mass work to begin with, and TMC seems unclear on their purpose for existing.

Ignoring the need to train the masses to replace old cadres is failing the masses. This must be evaluated as a subtle anti-masses sentiment rooted in bourgeois politics. It is an inability to grasp the mass line, which is also an issue of improper leadership. A Maoist organization, if it is worth its name, must be from the very start concerned with training the masses, with learning from and then teaching the people. This is how communists steel the masses in class struggle. For all their localism, TMC fail to provide their readers with anything resembling a concrete analysis of their local conditions. It is as if they skipped ahead, seeing no need to perform any social investigation or class analysis of their city.

Training the masses to become cadres makes it so that the loss of a few members is not a crippling blow. In a revolutionary organization, members will inevitably be sent to prison or killed, and many will just fall off. To not be defeated by this, communists must remember that it is the masses who make history and the party that must lead them. The only answer is that advanced masses consolidated around leadership must be brought up in an organized way into the party structure.

If “advanced” members of TMC felt as if the project was going nowhere, they should not be faulted for leaving a dead-end organization. What they should be criticized for is failing to take people with them on the way out in order to form a new core with the advanced masses. No evidence is provided to indicate this was even considered. In the whole section dedicated to losing numbers, no mention is made of any effort to gain numbers, which begs an answer to the question, were they ever engaged in mass work? And if so, to what end? Their understanding reveals a bad subjectivist viewpoint.

At the forefront of this section is not the political line that is in command but the hurt feelings of those who stuck around. Hurt feelings are no basis for analysis and should find no place in a summation, because they offer no synthesis and are not based in a scientific approach.

When discussing issues with “Revolutionary Youth Organization” the documents stumbles into major error in terms of the lessons they derived. They claim to have “reached the limits of student organizing.” This is an incorrect and deeply troubling analysis. From all evidence, they seem to have accomplished and attempted very little to no student organizing with RYO, let alone “reached its limit.” Failing to actually organize working-class students is not the same thing as reaching the limits of this sort of work. This failure is their flaw and not an objective flaw of student organizing.

A materialist analysis of students would prove to anyone that job scarcity has increased the anger and frustration of students, replacing their hope for class ascension with a potential interest in Marxism in many US cities. Thankfully the Communist Party of Peru, which launched its refoundation from a university campus, did not see the “limitations” that TMC apparently does. What they saw was that the educated youth often could not secure employment with their degrees and instead could be mobilized against the capitalist and semifeudal system of injustice and poverty.

The entire “summation” lacks any summary of organizing. There is almost no mention of anything they did practically or what they intend to do now that they have issued this document. This is especially clear in the section dedicated to RYO. They present student organizing as “futile distractions,” a viewpoint reflecting a class stand that only offers up working-class and radicalized students to the mercy of liberals and revisionists, ceding the university trench of combat to agents of the enemy. Universities are a site of class struggle, unless of course we are to believe that class struggle exists only off campus.

It is true that student movements that focus only on their campus issues (localism again) with no broader political view can become a futile distraction, but only if one is unwilling to challenge these views of economism and tie one’s struggles to the political struggle for power of the proletariat. In short they are distractions only to the distracted who are unwilling to lead and educate the masses. Communists must always challenge incorrect ideas wherever they are, and campus is no exception. In this case TMC blames the student masses for not on their own having transcended the organic economism that exists in all types of mass struggles.

When it comes to student work TMC has not even tested the water, let alone reached the limits. Austin and Kansas City Maoists have developed and led large and militant student organizations with a degree of success, which puts these student organizations at the forefront of all US student groups in terms of tenacity and bravery. These campus trenches are first of all not trapped on campus. Their fighters branch out to support citywide work. They are struggles in which students are trained to one day become Maoist cadres. The students in these cities must be consciously developed with the political leadership of the communists and not left to chance.

Contradicting themselves, in the very same paragraph where they claim to have met the limit of student organizing, TMC also claim that they “never put in enough work,” saying that building a student movement along the correct line “took too much time.” Are readers to believe that working-class students who face class struggle on campus are just not worth the time or effort? A discouraging position indeed, but which is it? Did they meet the limitations or not put in enough work? You cannot do both. It is certain that reaching the limit (something Austin and KC have not done) would require at least far more work than TMC have put in.

The working-class students in Tampa deserve far better than what TMC and the local revisionists they split from have provided. These comrades should have discussed student organizing with people who know what they are doing, like PYO and RSF as well as the Red Guards in those cities. Had they done this they would have seen greater success, but this too requires time and effort. It requires far more than just making prop Facebook accounts no more real than a town in a spaghetti western movie. Enough with sham organizations already—the masses deserve better, and revolutionaries must be challenged to meet that need.

The reader is left with no clear answer as to what these comrades plan to do differently. The lessons they have derived from their admitted mistakes are incorrect, and they have not come close to harvesting the truth. How do these comrades plan to meet basic organizational requirements this time around—requirements like making meetings, setting deadlines, and following through with the work? Their document offers us very little in this respect, but it expects good faith from its readers, assuming people are just not going to ask these questions. The document does the opposite of illuminating a way out of their trap and instead it indicates that all the same errors are still very present and still dominating their thinking and approach to not-organizing and calling it organizing. The same bad political line is still in command.

The statement closes saying two months were devoted to consolidating politics and political line, but what this line actually is ends up being obscured. By reading the document critically with a basis in MLM, one can only come to the conclusion that a rejection of leadership is still at the core of the political line of the new rebranded Tampa Bay Revolutionary Collective.

The future of the “STP” in Tampa Bay is dubious at best, as it is at odds with and an insult to the countrywide party-building effort, which will only negatively affect future unity, compromising their ability to work with the real Maoist movement. This fact is lost on the comrades in Tampa, and this should be a wakeup call to them so they can seek to rectify this mistake and repair their reputation with the Maoists. The reader is promised a “genuine Maoist collective in Tampa Bay,” yet these comrades persist along the very same road taken by the localists and opportunists of Portland and St. Louis—both of whom collapsed under their bad political lines—while the actual MLM movement has only grown and grown more consolidated around key issues. They end claiming that they will seek unity with “existing Maoist collectives”—great, which ones? Because nowhere in their documents do they really explain what they mean by “Maoism.”

The lack of practice combined with a lack of clear theoretical positions and their failure to grasp leadership are certainly at odds with what most of the revolutionary world means when we say Maoist. This is not intended to tear down anyone or discourage their work; it is intended as a lantern for comrades who have wandered far and desperately need to find their way back to the revolutionary road to communism. If the revolutionary movement suffers in one local, revolutionaries elsewhere in the country must offer blunt and direct advice and criticism. Best of luck, Tampa. Please take this advice.

Unite on the ideological basis of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, and be clear about what this means!

Uphold and defend correct organizational principles and a correct understanding of communist leadership!

Let the red line conquer the white in Tampa and the world!


UPDATE – Defend Comrade Dallas!

pcmaoist free dallas.png

– YOU CAN NOW WRITE DALLAS LETTERS! And if you want to, you should! He said explicitly he’d greatly appreciate it–even if you’ve never met him. If you support him, he’d love to hear from you. If you email your letter to freedallas@protonmail.com, it will be printed out and mailed in to him, and his reply will be sent back to you via that same email.

(There are many questions about what is and isn’t acceptable to write about. The guidelines are pretty simple: (1) Do not write about any details surrounding his case. (2) Also avoid discussing your or anyone else’s participation, past or present, in specific organizations. Also avoid writing anything about an organization that is not already public knowledge. (3) Beyond that, almost everything is fair game. You can discuss things that organizations have already publicly said or done, as long as you do not implicate any individuals in those activities. He would welcome summarized updates on what organizations around the country and the world have been up to. He would also welcome hearing your reflections on what you’ve been studying or writing lately, so that he can provide his thoughts and continue, as he always has, to help others advance their political education as well as his own. Be creative, it doesn’t have to be limited to these things at all.)

– Please continue to donate and ask others to donate directly via PayPal to: avantiguzman@gmail.com.

– Please continue to buy these T-shirts, which directly fund the struggle to defend Dallas. Some of them feature his original artwork: https://teespring.com/stores/urban-guerrilla-outfitters

– Please keep sharing his story far and wide. The article about him has been translated into French, German, and Danish. Keep it going! http://www.redspark.nu/en/political-prisoners/defend-comrade-dallas-and-fight-for-his-freedom/

– Finally, STAY FOLLOWING THE CAMPAIGN. This will quite likely be a protracted fight. There will be things that you can help with beyond legal fees (that is, non-monetary things). Right now, writing letters to him, especially on an ongoing basis, is one of the best things you can do, but please keep following the campaign, because there will be other ways to help in the future.

Red salute to all supporters! Free Dallas!

Defend Comrade Dallas and fight for his freedom!


“You can take everything from a man, but not what’s here [pointing at his head]. Even if you kill him. And if he dies, this remains with others.”
—Chairman Gonzalo, aka Abimael Guzman, on the night of his arrest

Midday on March 9, federal agents surrounded our beloved comrade Dallas with shotguns and arrested him. As we write, he is sitting in the state’s dungeons.

We believe that this abduction of our comrade is the most recent and aggressive attempt on the part of the pigs—city, state, and federal—to quell and repress revolutionary organizing and the militant antifascist movement. Although there can be no doubt that wherever there is true resistance to the rise of fascism, the state will be sure to try to crush it, we believe that the movement in Austin has attracted particular attention. They see that it has become an example to others—and so now they wish to make an example of it by stringing up our comrade.

In recent years, Austin, Texas, has made international headlines for its militant antifascist struggle. Communists and anarchists have turned the streets of Austin into a battleground in the fight against genocide, deportation, and torture. Around the world, comrades have shown interest in and respect for Austin’s antifascists, who show the fascists no mercy, outnumbering them and putting up a fierce fight in all confrontations. What has perhaps attracted the most serious attention, not just from fascists but from pigs as well, is the movement’s staunch, hardened militancy and its high degree of organization—and the fact that it is for the most part led by communists.

This attention and subsequent repression began even before the sharp rise in fascism in the lead-up to Trump’s presidency. Nearly two years ago, people we assume the state believed were associated with the movement were visited by FBI agents who attempted to question them. Not long before Trump was elected, antifascists painted over fascist graffiti that the University of Texas had left untouched on the pillars of a museum on campus—and the pigs struck out wildly, arresting three people who were walking nearby on no evidence we can see.

But with the growth of the movement in size, sophistication, and militancy in the aftermath of Trump’s election, the repression began to increase sharply. The week following Trump’s election, three anti-Trump protests occurred. The first was led primarily by students from UT Austin after a walkout was staged, lasting for several hours, disrupting traffic for most of the work day. The next night, communists took charge in the street, urging protestors to take up more street space and to actively resist riot pigs sent to corral the protest. Tensions were very high, and by the pigs’ violent behavior it seemed clear they were itching to arrest antifascists. Three nights later, on November 13, six protesters, one of them being Dallas (which is not his legal name), were arrested and given various charges ranging from resisting arrest to assault. On the word of the Austin Police Department, an article alleged that all six were members of Red Guards despite the lack of any proof or cause to believe the claim. During the protest, one of the six was having health issues and was further injured during her arrest. She requested medical attention and was taken to the hospital, where she was harassed by the police, who asked her about her political affiliations and pressured her to state that she was in RGA.

Since then, over the course of a series of antifascist counterprotests, militant anti-gentrification demonstrations, and communist-led rallies, the state has only further intensified and refined its attempts to intimidate and punish the movement. They have arrested whoever they could, charging them with whatever they thought would stick, including arresting people for engaging in self-defense against fascists who had assaulted them. When someone was arrested at a militant anti-gentrification march, an FBI agent came and questioned them in the jail without checking in. Not long ago, after December 9, 2017, when Austin’s antifascists confronted, embarrassed, and drove out neo-Confederates and other fascists, the police report openly described all of the antifascists on the ground as members of “Red Guard.” It could likely go without saying, but at every point the police showed bald camaraderie with the fascists on the ground, shaking hands with them, joking and laughing with them, and eagerly protecting them while leaving the antifascists open to attack and turning a blind eye toward the fascists’ own open assaults.

During all of this, the movement in Austin has only grown stronger, refusing to be rattled or deterred by the increasing intimidation and repression. Because of the state’s unchangeable commitment to a degenerate, reactionary world, we feel sure they cannot abide the example set by the movement in Austin in its courage, unflinching militancy, and sophistication. And in the face of this resolve, we believe they grew increasingly convinced that they could not destroy this movement simply through generalized repression, and therefore must do as the bourgeoisie have done so often around the world: singling out the particular individuals they see as key to the movement, and then persecuting them with violence and intimidation they believe will be harsh enough to break their will or simply destroy them, hoping that by doing so they can end the movement. We believe it is obvious that, because of the leadership he has shown in protests, and because he is a staunch supporter of RGA, they’ve had their eyes on him for at least two years, hoping to either imprison him or kill him.

On November 13, 2016, as Dallas was being arrested by a DPS officer for a supposed assault that he did not commit, in what seems clear to us to be an attempt to murder him, Texas DPS officer Goodson wrapped his arms around his neck, twisting it and breaking it in two places, nearly leaving him paralyzed from the neck down. Ignoring repeated requests from Dallas to leave in an ambulance for the hospital, another officer proceeded to arrest him and throw him in jail, where he spent the night with a broken neck. The pigs failed to kill him, and he survived that night and recovered slowly after invasive surgery, wearing a halo for months, which left him unable to bathe or cook for himself.

We believe that, after their failure to succeed in what looks to us to be attempted murder, the state decided to try to arrest him for more serious charges.

The series of events that led to his recent arrest by federal agents was set in motion by what we believe to be fabricated charges by Jesus Mares and his partner, Angelica Clarke. We are of the opinion that Dallas’s accuser, Jesus, may have been an informant for a few years or that he is now being paid to be one. He initially met Dallas in 2015 but cut contact for a while, returning in 2016, months before Dallas’s neck was broken. For well over a year, Jesus tried to incite him and other organizers to use unnecessary violence and acts of armed intimidation against federal agents. This contrasted starkly with the politics Jesus pushed at all other times, which were invariably for reconciliation with reformists. It is our opinion that Jesus, realizing that no one would help him carry out terroristic acts, chose to burn bridges with all serious organizers in the area to prepare to falsely accuse Dallas since he had no actual crimes to report. Shortly before Dallas’s arrest, Jesus and Angelica began harassing Dallas’s fiancée in person and via messaging apps.

On February 13, Jesus reported an assault with a deadly weapon that supposedly occurred two days previous, while Jesus’s partner accused Dallas’s fiancée of assault. Dallas was arrested at gunpoint in his fiancée’s apartment complex on March 3. Hearing him yelling outside, his fiancée opened the door to see what was happening, and was subsequently detained in a squad car for hours while the police obtained a warrant to search her apartment. Upon being released, she was told she could wait in the car or leave while her apartment was searched despite being earlier told during her detainment that she could be in her apartment as the search was conducted. She chose to leave only to return hours later to an upturned apartment. The pigs had left a Make America Great Again hat sitting prominently by itself, propped up near the entryway of her apartment. We believe this was an attempt at intimidation, and could be construed as a threat.

free 01

With his bail set at $70,000, Dallas remained in jail for five days as his friends, family, and comrades raised the portion needed to pay a bondsman. After his bail was paid and he was waiting to have his ankle monitor installed, his fiancée, who is pregnant with his child, was arrested. In an unsurprising show of cruelty, they kidnapped her as she was headed out the door to her nine-week ultrasound. This day, International Working Women’s Day, would have been their first chance to hear their child’s heartbeat. Although Angelica had accused her of assault at the same time Jesus accused Dallas, it was not until almost immediately after Dallas’s bail had been posted that they then arrested her. We believe this clearly shows that the pigs were trying to cause the most financial and psychological harm possible, keeping them from seeing each other and their unborn child for the very first time.

Dallas was released shortly before an International Working Women’s Day event got underway, and his first act immediately after being released was to come by in support of this event. He told everyone attending that he and his fiancée had both been facing these acts of repression. At the event, he read a deeply moving poem he had written in jail titled “To My Unborn Child.” He urged everyone to fight to get his fiancée out of jail, as she is an incredible example of a devoted woman organizer. Even after being unexpectedly imprisoned for days, and despite not knowing whether there were more warrants for his arrest, his very first priority was to rally his comrades to help defend his pregnant fiancée and to contribute to the success of this important event. Dallas has been a tireless organizer in advancing the women’s struggle. Everyone who knows him can attest to how many times he has stood up against misogyny and sexual misconduct and violence. These are the acts of a committed organizer, and are absolutely unsurprising for anyone who has known Dallas. He has always shown the deepest concern for the people, and lives above all else to see this political work continue even as his freedom and his life have come under sustained and potentially lethal attack. Inspired by his dedication and his touching call to action, his comrades immediately donated hundreds towards the bail fund and began discussing ways to aid the defense of his fiancée.

The next morning, Dallas and a friend headed to the bail bond office to meet the further requirements of his bail. Immediately upon exiting the car, they were surrounded by undercover cops and federal agents. Dallas was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon, firearms we believe he had no access to. And while Dallas is a convicted felon, what is particularly absurd is that the conviction occurred almost two decades ago, when he was 17, for spray-painting a building whose owner pursued the maximum penalty of a year in prison. Despite the fact that he never claimed to live with his fiancée and that he is not on the lease, the pigs claim that firearms they seized while raiding his fiancée’s residence are evidence of this possession, firearms that they themselves admit were legally acquired and registered. It is certainly not a crime to own guns in Texas, and we do not see the police raiding homes to seize arms from “patriots” and to accuse them of fabricated crimes.

Although the feds were there only to arrest Dallas, the person who was with him was detained and forced to identify themself. After running their name, a federal agent asked, “So what did you steal?” and began asking leading questions about a fabricated theft that this person certainly did not commit. They said they did not steal anything and that there were no warrants for their arrest. The feds stopped harassing them, but an undercover made sure to say something to the effect of “if you don’t want to be in trouble, then don’t hang around communists,” which we believe is only further evidence that the feds are eager to invent phony crimes in order to imprison communists. We feel that the pigs are clearly aiming to cause psychological terror on all sides: to Dallas, to his fiancée, and to everyone who associates with them, through arrests, detainments, and harassment, hoping that some will implicate themselves unwittingly in a fabricated crime.

Jesus and Angelica claim that the alleged assault happened before 7 a.m. on a Sunday, as they were returning books to Dallas and his fiancée. A fight over books sounds so ridiculous that it may be possible that the judge thinks Jesus and Angelica merely claimed it was over books rather than over something that would implicate them in a crime as well, like a deal in weapons or drugs. To be clear, it would be ridiculous to assume either, as Jesus is already legally well armed, and both Dallas and his fiancée are completely sober. In fact, both of these comrades are known for helping their comrades and friends achieve sobriety and stay sober, and their help has been invaluable to many.

We believe that Jesus is a compulsive liar, lying about everything from his relationships to his drug use. As far as we can tell, he brings guns everywhere, and we believe he is itching to use them. He has offered to arm various people or train them in firearm use with what seems to be no regard for their legal status, ability, and well-being. If we are correct in our assessment that the FBI is using him as an informant, then it is obvious that they do not give a shit about the reliability, character, or mental stability of their informants as long as they believe it will give them a shot to put dedicated organizers in jail.

Jesus has not ceased his harassment even after all these arrests have occurred. A couple of days after Dallas’s first arrest in this sequence of events, Jesus, after seeing one of Dallas’s attorney’s clients inside a courthouse, texted that client a picture of their own mugshot. On another day, he acted in such a way that, we believe, constituted an attempt to impersonate one of Dallas’s attorney’s legal assistants, specifically asking two of his clients whether they had completed the steps needed to finish handling their cases. Jesus also stalked Dallas’s attorney inside the courthouse, following him into a stairwell and cornering him there to loudly confront him about representing Dallas.

We expect Jesus will continue harassing people with just about any degree of connection to Dallas. We believe that he is vindictive and that he takes joy in others’ fear. This use of reckless informants and repression tactics is not new in Texas. In 2008, FBI informant Brandon Darby suggested two activists make firebombs to use against state vehicles, and they were both arrested and imprisoned for years as a result of this federal plot. Like Darby, Jesus seems to be motivated by self-interest rather than any kind of sense of duty to the state. Unlike Darby, Jesus failed to sway the organizers he was targeting to attempt any terroristic acts.

With what seems to us to be no meaningful evidence, the feds have stacked charges against Dallas that could carry a total of 30 years in prison. If he is sentenced to all 30, he would be completely unable to be a part of his unborn child’s life, and would certainly suffer psychologically, trapped for decades in the state’s dungeons.

We hold that this yet another obvious case of the hypocritical U.S. state breaking its own laws and policies to attempt to destroy a political movement that threatens its disgusting existence and the genocidal oppression and exploitation it inflicts on most people on earth.

Let us say this clearly: these arrests will not kill the revolutionary work being done daily here and across the country. We uphold as we always have that the bourgeoisie are a class damned by their own utterly decadent existence to bring the hatred of the masses upon themselves, to suffer blow after blow from the global working class led by the communist movement until they are subdued and snuffed out once and for all. The state is dreaming the diseased dreams of a doomed class when it thinks it can drown our movement and the masses in bloody and cruel repression. The reality is that all they can do is hasten their own destruction. They cannot break the will of the movement guided by the sharpest weapon the proletariat has ever wielded: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism. Though we have many lessons to learn from our errors, and though it grieves us unspeakably that someone we treasure has fallen into the hands of the enemy, we have never been embarrassed by our work and our struggle, and we never will be. We will uphold, defend, and apply Maoism until our deaths.

As anyone who has known Dallas can tell you, he is a man who seeks no praise and truly embodies the revolutionary spirit Mao speaks of in his speech “Serve the People,” one who gives his whole life and self in service to the people. After Hurricane Harvey brought unimaginable destruction and grief to the Texas coast, he was in the first convoy from Austin to join Serve the People – Houston, ready to begin disaster relief in the midst of still-high floodwaters and prowling white nationalists armed with rifles looking to kill looters. His experience with Serve the People – Austin enabled him to streamline the food and supply servings in the most affected neighborhoods. But more than that, his deep love for the people shone through in every interaction, and he was always able to connect with the masses, figuring out what they needed most and always giving more than he had promised. Being passionately dedicated to political education, he has studied many topics with virtually everyone in the Austin movement and beyond, tirelessly educating others and striving to learn more daily. Dallas is an inspiration to an untold number of people with his internationalism, self-sacrifice, humility, and dedication. For years and years he has given absolutely everything he has to the movement and to the masses, and the movement has benefited from it tremendously. Those who know him love him beyond words.

We refuse to let these crimes against a great servant of the people go unnoticed and unchallenged. We have no faith that he would be granted leniency by the state, but we intend to fight every single step of the way to protect him from every kind of harm, to see him freed from the enemy’s dungeons as soon as possible, to ensure his family and his loved ones are protected—and to bring the light of truth to this most insidious attempt to kill and criminalize revolutionaries. We call upon everyone who loves the people as Dallas does to take up this fight alongside us—tirelessly, staunchly, and wholeheartedly. Below you can find ways to show your support, and we will update going forward on how you can join in his defense.

What they seek to do to him, they will try to do to countless of us. We will never rest in the defense of the masses, Dallas, and all true revolutionaries. In our unity, guided by our ideology, we are stronger than they can possibly imagine.

Struggle with us to expose the state’s hypocritical repression!

Spread the urgency of defending and freeing Dallas to the four winds!

Free Dallas!

You can send donations directly through PayPal: avantiguzman@gmail.com

Buy a T-shirt—all proceeds will be used for this struggle: http://teespring.com/free-dallas


UPDATE: YOU CAN NOW WRITE DALLAS LETTERS! And if you want to, you should! He said explicitly he’d greatly appreciate it–even if you’ve never met him. If you support him, he’d love to hear from you. If you email your letter to freedallas@protonmail.com, it will be printed out and mailed in to him, and his reply will be sent back to you via that same email.

(There are many questions about what is and isn’t acceptable to write about. The guidelines are pretty simple: (1) Do not write about any details surrounding his case. (2) Also avoid discussing your or anyone else’s participation, past or present, in specific organizations. Also avoid writing anything about an organization that is not already public knowledge. (3) Beyond that, almost everything is fair game. You can discuss things that organizations have already publicly said or done, as long as you do not implicate any individuals in those activities. He would welcome summarized updates on what organizations around the country and the world have been up to. He would also welcome hearing your reflections on what you’ve been studying or writing lately, so that he can provide his thoughts and continue, as he always has, to help others advance their political education as well as his own. Be creative, it doesn’t have to be limited to these things at all.)

– The article about him has been translated into French, German, and Dutch. Keep it going! http://www.redspark.nu/en/political-prisoners/defend-comrade-dallas-and-fight-for-his-freedom/

– Finally, STAY FOLLOWING THE CAMPAIGN. This will quite likely be a protracted fight. There will be things that you can help with beyond legal fees (that is, non-monetary things). Right now, writing letters to him, especially on an ongoing basis, is one of the best things you can do, but please keep following the campaign, because there will be other ways to help in the future.

Red salute to all supporters! Free Dallas!


Sweep the Mountains and Assault the Skies—March 8, International Working Women’s Day


Your blood is a beautiful torrent

That has watered our revolution

With a firm oath of class,

The commitment of a red fighter,

Conquering power until Communism.

“Hymn to Comrade Norah”


RGA, since our founding, have always used International Working Women’s Day as an occasion to celebrate working-class revolutionary women leaders. We must ask ourselves, however, how we can dare utter the names of Alexandra Kollontai, Jiang Qing, Comrade Norah, and others if we don’t struggle fiercely to put their ideas into practice? We must dare to think, dare to act, dare to struggle, and dare to win. This necessitates operationalizing the ideas of our historic women comrades.

Women in the revolutionary movement have a double burden: they must fight the patriarchy inherent in the capitalist-imperialist system while simultaneously fighting the patriarchy that expresses itself in the revolutionary movement. Postmodernism and its bastard children identity politics, intersectionality, and so on have all reinforced old types of bourgeois feminism while creating new variants of bourgeois feminism. This is because at the core of postmodernism is bourgeois ideology. One aspect of proletarian revolutionary struggle is to strangle and kill bourgeois ideology in ourselves and in those around us in our movement and among the masses.

People’s Guerrilla Army soldiers Peru

We must fight to establish proletarian feminism—not only this, but we must operationalize it. This is to insist that proletarian feminism is not simply a materialist feminism; it is not simply a philosophical approach. It is not a thing that exists as an established body of theory—at least not yet. With the publication of “Marxism Mariategui, and the Women’s Movement” in 1975, Maoist-led women’s mass organization Movimiento Femenino Popular issued the first real theory on the topic of what would come to be called “proletarian feminism.” It is up to us to continue in the example of the authors. The very authors of this document were basing their positions not only on their mastery of historical materialism but also on their experience of class struggle up to that point. Carrying the memory of proletarian and oppressed women with them, these very same authors would go on to help launch, and in some cases actively fight in, the people’s war in Peru as part of the Communist Party of Peru.

This practice was the furnace in which Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, the guiding ideology of the proletariat, would be developed. Of every revolution and revolutionary movement to date, this one contained the highest participation of women—in the party, in the people’s guerrilla army, and in the revolutionary united front. The Communist Party of Peru was the only party to have 60 percent women on their central committee and two-thirds women on the politburo, its highest leading body. This can be understood only as the result of carrying out a correct line in regard to the women’s movement in Peru, which built up women leaders and educated them in revolutionary violence, steeling them as red fighters.

Never for a moment have our theories been allowed to run wild from our practice, and this is certainly still the case. If we want to bless our lips with the names of our great women fighters we must understand the necessity of further developing our theories with none other than revolutionary proletarian feminist practice. We must make good on their threats to conquer the world and liberate women. What does this look like? As with all things, we must examine our own capacity and strive to make it meet the concrete conditions in which we find ourselves.


In Austin the revolutionary mass movement has taken such strides. Revolutionary students and their supporters have stormed the kingdom of institutional bourgeois education, confronting repeat woman-abuser Prof. Richard Morrisett. Speeches were given that called for the creation of a militant women’s organization. Revolutionary LGBT people have identified the connection between their unique oppressions and patriarchy, finding common unifiers, and have reformulated their work and approach to better take their posts in combating patriarchy. On the neighborhood level, oppressed nation women have been mobilized to oppose the invasion of white upper-class parasites who wish to displace them. With gentrification, it is always working-class single mothers who face the heaviest burden of displacement. Women in the movement and among the advanced masses have been trained in regular basic self-defense. Both unarmed and armed self-defense have been mainstays of the local movement. Women and their comrades have been preparing to take this fight forward, not only in the realm of thought but in the realm of class struggle.

The developments taking place are not seen only in Austin either. Kansas City Revolutionary Collective has inspired us greatly with their work on this question; we have seen the rise of the hardest revolutionary women in the Midwest. In Los Angeles our Red Guards siblings are preparing the masses of women and their supporters to defend their community with the formation of a proletarian women’s defense unit for Boyle Heights, as the murder rate of working class Chicana’s is always rising. In Charlotte, NC, our comrades have taken the hard road of confronting postmodern distortions of the women’s struggle, stripped themselves of bad identity politics, and upheld the red banner of Maoism for all to see in their struggles for making proletarian feminism a reality. None of our organizations would be the fighting units they are without the participation and leadership of women.

Maoists must always, step by step, put their words to the test of action. Locally, abusive people have two options: when possible they are educated and corrected and worked out of their mistakes, converted from a patriarchal thinker to a proletarian feminist thinker, always according to our capacity to transform them in class struggle. Men, even working-class men, are indoctrinated in patriarchal bourgeois ideology and will likely commit some errors. To become full revolutionaries this bourgeois ideology must be confronted ideologically by an organized political force. In some cases blood crimes demand blood, and physical transgressions require physical confrontations. Rapists, abusers and other anti-women predators should face the violent wrath of revolutionary women. In all cases the great numbers of women in our class and their ability to live and act as revolutionaries are the first consideration. In order for women to rise from our class as leaders of our class, their ability to rebel must be fully grasped, respected, and defended. Anything short of this is hollow liberal feminism, running counter to the interests of the women of our class.



This March 8, it is not enough to simply talk about the women heroines of our past great communist struggles. These heroines must inspire us now to be more and more daring, to fly in the face of patriarchal social and economic relations, to sweep the mountains and assault the sky. We must remold ourselves as a movement in their fire. We call upon all supporters to strike out against the patriarchy in new and creative ways, to form women’s defense groups, to organize rectification for those who have made mistakes or retaliation against abusers who have crossed firm lines. Institutions and businesses that prey on women should not be spared. We call for the masses to be organized step by step to attack them. Ultimately if we want true equality for women we must struggle tirelessly for revolutionary communism. We must see the type of party built here that was accomplished in Peru, which is one that unlocks the full revolutionary potential of proletarian women. We must envision women at the head of this project. We must recognize, uphold and defend our women leaders who have unwaveringly served our new  and growing movement. On International Working Women’s Day we honor them and the undefeatable women of the working class.

—Red Guards Austin, March 1, 2018

Peaceful Streets Project Chooses to Harbor Racists, let’s not Harbor Peaceful Streets Project


There has been a major shakeup at local cop-watching organization, Peaceful Streets Project, as the group kicked out one of their most dedicated cop-watchers in favor of Lynn Foster, an avid Trump supporter who also has an account on GAB, an Austin-based alt-right social network.

The ousted cop-watcher tried to oppose the entry of this fascist-sympathizer into the Peaceful Streets Project, but under the leadership of Antonio Buehler, the comrade’s position was considered incompatible with Peaceful Streets stated ‘non-political’ mission, and the comrade was kicked out instead of the Trump-supporting racist. Buehler’s position is clear: he would rather keep on a fascist-sympathizers with material ties to the alt-right than a veteran antifascist who helped build the organization.




Lynn Foster’s alt-right social media account. Pepe the frog is the site’s icon

Peaceful Streets Project has chosen a path that discredits them in the eyes of all those fighting the growing fascism spurred on by the Trump administration. Whether you seek to stop the rampant deportations and the dismantling of DACA, challenge the brutality of trump-loving police forces, or resist the proto-fascism that Trump’s alt-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist help grow, in his posts on GAB, Lynn Foster has mocked the all of these battles. Peaceful Streets Project has chosen him as valid representative of their cop-watching efforts, sending a message that their conception of  ”Non-political” means harboring reactionary trash that actually pose a danger to activists and at-risk community members.

Some of Lynn’s social media activity where he mocks Black history and the DACA program

While here in Austin and around the world, pro-people and anti-fascist organizing is making sacrifices to fight the rise of fascism, Peaceful Streets Project has made a mockery of that in their claims of being ‘apolitical’ to welcome a white racist over someone who has sacrificed so much, including their own blood, in the name of documenting the abuses of local law enforcement.

Peaceful Streets Project was formed after Antonio Buehler began a crusade after trying to intervene in a brutal APD arrest. Since then, as they have grown in membership and presence in Austin’s political scene, their members have taken risks to carry out valuable work to document the brutality of the Austin Police Department, primarily through video recording, in ways that have brought justice to average Austinites, as well as activists when their independent footage is used to dispel the lies of APD.

And in more recent times, they have documented marches, rallies, and anti-fascist actions, where at times, the footage they have captured has exonerated activists accused of outlandish and severe charges by APD. Most of this work fell under the leadership of the now expelled comrade.

According to the Peaceful Streets Project mission statement;

“Through community organizing, engaging in non-political and non-violent direct action tactics, and utilizing new technologies, the Peaceful Streets Project seeks to bring about a cultural shift where individuals understand their rights and hold law enforcement officials accountable, and communities protect and serve each other.”

We are in a time where the “we are not political” mantra is exposed for the lie that it is. In reality, this lie serves as an enabler of right-wing and fascist ideology, allowing them to feel safe and flourish. This claim of non-politics comes from many people, but it’s patently absurd for a group that seeks to hold the police accountable to claim this can be done without politics. Police violence and in fact the very reason the police exist is political. What is more, it is in service of a distinct class against a distinct class—in service of the oppressor class vs. the oppressed class.

All Austin organizations that consider themselves against Trump, the police, police brutality, and against fascism must cease all working relationships with Peaceful Streets Project. They now include a member who wouldn’t hesitate to deliver the identities of activists to his white supremacist friends on GAB or elsewhere. It’s a joke that Peaceful Streets believes we should feel safe in Lynn’s hands, or theirs as long as they protect him over dedicated antifascists and anti-racist organizers.


Peaceful Streets Project is harboring a white racist and fascist-sympathizer who has on more than one occasion via his social media made racist posts and even explicitly shared “anti-antifa” material. The fact that Antonio Buehler would lack the principles to confront this matter or even take it seriously makes him untrustworthy. The fact that he would use bureaucracy to expel a long time member for the sake of Lynn Foster makes him a collaborator.

We issue this as a direct open letter to organizations like Oh Shit What Now? and Black Sovereign Nation, who claim to be either antifascist, anti-racist, and have a recent working relationship with Buehler and his organization. To be antifascist is to have principles as well as politics that demand accountability and refusing to work with orgs who harbor racists in any capacity. Traditional Austin liberalism, which encourages whole organizations to look the other way, is at its end. If you claim to be against fascists and work with any active member of Peaceful Streets Project, you are putting your own people at risk.

And to Antonio Buehler, Lynn Foster, and anyone else currently affiliated with Peaceful Streets Project, you are all banned from any event, rally or action which we are in control of or present at. We will see that this ban is carried out with force if need be and we will put your “non-violence” to the test. Lynn will be treated exactly the way we treat fascists, and Peaceful Streets Project will be treated exactly the way we treat InfoWars, as long as they harbor him. If you are a member of the organization who is not a fascist sympathizer please quit now to avoid potential confrontation.

We ask that all of our supporters tear down all Peaceful Streets Project stickers, flyers, and propaganda on sight from around town and replace them with antifascist stickers, flyers or propaganda. Any organization still covering for Peaceful Streets should expect to be challenged on this point. There is fascism and there is antifascism. The two cannot coexist and there is no grey area. We have to choose a side consistently. Peaceful Streets Project, sadly, has chosen the wrong side. No platform and no space for those who collaborate with the enemy!

-Red Guards Austin, 2018

One More Time for Those in the Back . . .


A response to Mass Proletariat

Criticism is a gift. It is a gift in two ways: The first way is that it offers revolutionary communists a way to confront our work, to challenge and correct ourselves if we are in error—that is, if the criticism is correct. The second way, which concerns us here, is when the criticism is overall incorrect. Offering the opportunity to respond to misconceptions, lies, or absurdity is also a gift. Politics is an act of demarcation. The criticism contained in the recent polemic issued against us by Mass Proletariat (MP) is really nothing new. We have heard so much of this before from a few individuals in revisionist organizations placed indirectly, and we are glad to have a chance to respond organizationally, since an organization (we presume they are an organization) has regurgitated these claims.

For starters, we have little understanding of what MP actually does—what their day-to-day work consists of or what kind of base-building they’ve accomplished over the past year. The shortage of statements and the lack of evidence that Maoism is even a force in Boston makes it hard for us to respond in kind to their attempts to prove we are not Maoists. Maybe they can prove to the world that they are Maoists, as the only evidence at our disposal proves only that they are bloggers who vaguely reference “mass work.” Lack of credentials aside, what they have produced is worth responding to even though our response is intended solely to prove them wrong and ourselves right.

Some of their criticisms go back to a few individuals in Portland. Others are rehashed from Austin Social(fasc)ist Collective or their network, Menshevik Center. The former deserves no official recognition, and the latter have already been addressed. It is good to receive polemics. The more we are politically attacked, the stronger our collective has become, and we are grateful for the experience offered by would-be opposition.

The first glaring bit of misinformation is that “RGA promotes antifa work under its command as the primary task.” We do not actually promote “antifa work”—we promote communist-led antifascist organizing and self-defense. We also do not consider this to be the “primary task.” Our documents since our founding have insisted that building the party is the principal task of revolutionaries. To defeat fascism long-term, the US needs the communist party, founded on and guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

MP seeks low-hanging fruit by invoking the “red anarchist” line presented by others who are also bad at investigation. We have consistently criticized the anarchist conception of “antifa” and have stressed the need for keeping class struggle as the key link and the necessity of the party as central to all antifascist activity. We have organized a more centralized response to fascism locally with a degree of military discipline. And yet they dedicate a whole section to this baseless charge of “tailing antifa.” In order to do so they must knowingly ignore all the other mass work and mass organizations developed or initiated by our organization. Had they taken the time to read our most recent statements, they would have seen how we stress that it is not enough to just confront reactionaries physically, and that we must serve the people and struggle to lead in their day-to-day struggles against slumlords, bosses, and the police.

MP’s limited and dim view has them reaching the conclusion that genuine communists can be active in a thing—in this case antifascism—without changing it. As Marxists we understand first that “antifa” is not a homogenous group; it is a movement with internal contradictions and varied ideas—advanced, intermediate, and backward—contained within it. We can see no justification for communists to oppose using the mass line method of leadership within the antifascist movement to consolidate the advanced and win over the intermediate to correct the backward. The antifascist movement looks strikingly different in Austin than it does in other places as a result of this approach. Much as with the Black Lives Matter movement, there are those with good ideas who are committed to rebelling and then there are those looking for grants, book deals, or positions in bourgeois office. But like “antifa,” BLM is not homogenous. There are contradictions and struggles which took place in that movement, and it is always up to communists to fight for our political lines in the mass movement. MP, by their own admittedly limited scope, chooses (at least according to their blog anyway) to focus only on organizing one job site. This is syndicalism, which avoids intervention in the mass movement for the sake of economism.

We see no principled reason not to carry out political and mass work among antifascists, always on the basis of struggling for unity, doing away with bad models, and improving antifascist work. To suggest that seeking principled unity with antifascists is “tailing antifa” without explaining how we are “tailing” is not a criticism—it’s nothing more than throwing shade without analysis. Since there is nothing of substance in their explicit argument, their objection to RGA’s participation in militant antifascism seems to boil down to nothing more than a position that communists should not be active in antifascist struggles. But coming out with this position directly would alienate any support they hope for, so they have to add dressing.

MP suggests that we ignore other class enemies, when in fact even the most brief examination of our work would show that RGA was born in anti-police struggles, and at no point in time have we ever stopped struggling against the police—and what is more, the police themselves struggle against us physically, and seek us by name specifically. Not only does MP systematically ignore our mass work outside of antifascism, but they ignore the state repression our mass work has earned.

We have no interest in exposing our links to open mass organizations publicly, and it would be irresponsible to do so. Their paper opportunistically relies on the contradiction between open and secret work. They are aware that we will not detail our networks publicly but know full well that we have and remain active in a diversity of mass struggles, be they to provide basic necessities, or fighting for housing, or organizing in the workplace or against the police. And none of this has taken a backseat to antifascism.


Let’s unpack their claims then.

MP writes, “To instead seek to unify people around opposition to the ‘coming fascist threat’—as RGA does—reflects the bourgeois premise that people will not be able to struggle together until they are confronted with an imminent violent threat to their existence. This is often portrayed in Hollywood productions in the form of alien invasions bringing at long last the unification of humanity.”

This notion flies in the face of the basic Maoist conception of the united front, which is formed when, due to their mutually being confronted by a greater enemy, the proletariat, peasantry, petite bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie enter into a temporary alliance led by the proletariat. Of course there are conditions which can unite or ally class forces who under normal conditions would not seek unity. In this process, as described by Mao, the principal contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie becomes the secondary contradiction, replaced by the contradiction between the people and imperialism. Apparently MP believes that this Maoist principle is a bourgeois one and no unity can be found on the basis of a rising fascist populism. We suppose they think that Mao too must be considered a bourgeois thinker influenced by Hollywood.

The threat of fascism is something that is not in the mail: it is on our doorsteps—not in the form of the state being fascist (and we have never claimed it is) but in the form of a popular movement for fascism which must not be allowed to grow simply because the state itself has not gone fascist. We cannot speculate on conditions in Boston; however, Texas and other parts of the South are hotbeds for far-right and fascist movements. They have been known to attack book fairs, May Day celebrations, and even anarchist bookstores. Essentially MP suggests that we do nothing in the face of this material threat. Perhaps they have the disposition to allow fascists to march in the streets of Boston; however, we are not ashamed that we lack this disposition. In essence they have issued a polemic which criticizes us for attacking neo-Nazis. We stand by our politics, which are for unifying as many as we can against fascists, be they in or out of power. MP presents zero analysis of fascism, the conditions that serve it, or how it comes to power. This reveals first their ignorance and second their lack of experience with confronting fascism.

For arguing that fascism is a growing threat, they accuse us of being “fortune tellers,” yet it is they who refuse to actually engage with fascism’s global increase. They reject the very basic political economy of Marxism to go instead for what they think is low-hanging fruit. The fact is, the rate of profit has steadily been falling since the 1950s, and the intensifying global crisis of profitability explains the deepening crisis of imperialism, which corresponds to rising fascism all over the world. You do not need a crystal ball to see this—you need only to be paying attention and using Marxist political economy to analyze conditions. As historical materialists we know that things do not just appear in history; they are developed by class struggle. The rise of fascism in the 1930s did not come from nowhere; it occurred in conditions of imperialist crisis akin to our own.

Our position is not that the ruling class has already adopted a fascist form of government, but that a concrete analysis of concrete conditions proves to us that the conditions for fascism are ripe and still ripening. Imperialism is in crisis, and fascist organizations have grown and become more bold. Fascism does not arrive readymade from the sky and so we should not wait for it to come to power before we oppose it and organize against it. We must do that now, and any sober revolutionary would agree with this. Fascists use their power in the streets as a means to unify the most backward masses. The ability to accomplish this must be stripped from them, and to neglect this work is to betray the people.

Antifascism and the mass line


To better situate our position on antifascism in the context of our overall political orientation and mass work, we would like to go back a bit in recent history. In Austin, there has for at least a decade consistently been a small group of antifascists who have done good work with the numbers they had. With no disrespect to the value of this work, we must say that this group never numbered more than a few, and focused mostly on intelligence-gathering and other necessary tasks. What they lacked however was the mass line method of communist leadership.

In order to achieve numbers and consistent street victories against fascists, many more must be mobilized. Our first antifascist action was detailed in our one-year summation. At that action our collective and the other comrades mentioned did not number even a dozen, but nonetheless we disrupted a fascist and reactionary action against an abortion clinic which was attended by five times as many enemies. It is no shame to admit that we were learning by doing, and that we made mistakes. Today we commonly mobilize over a hundred antifascists whose discipline is measurably higher than what we were able to achieve back then. We did not accomplish this by writing scathing polemics, but through deliberate and patient mass work and thorough experience in the streets, correcting mistakes, and applying new tactics—rupturing with the old, conventional, anarchist/antifa model of organic and leaderless resistance. To sum it up, we accomplished this quantitative and qualitative shift through the mass line.

MP brags about “taking proletarian jobs.” Most of us have no agency in this. We do not get to consider finding a job to be anything but a necessity—because we are actually proletarians. We are of the people and we remain among the people. Our people are working-class in multinational neighborhoods. We speak to our people daily about conditions in the country and in the world, and we gather their ideas. These discussions bear fruit. We understand how our people felt at the news of Charlottesville and we know how proud they feel every time we organize a successful action which runs the fascists out of town. We have organized smaller actions as well as larger ones with 800 to 1,200 in attendance with a large core of antifascists under communist leadership. At these actions over the past year it is the masses themselves who show gratitude. Parents are overheard telling their children that the “people in red masks are the good guys.” We do not seek recognition for this work from a handful of bloggers or activists in Boston who fancy their voluntary acceptance of finding real jobs a glowing success. We do not carry out this work for recognition at all; we do it mainly out of love for our people and their need for communities that are safe from marauding racists calling for their extermination, slavery, or deportation.

Trump’s presidency has not only passed fascist policies, but mainly it has whipped fascists up into a fervor, which has more than once resulted in murder or attempted murder. There is a dual aspect to this reality, because while they are clearly spreading fascist populism, the very same policies and rhetoric have catalyzed many into action against the very same policies and rhetoric. Many have a new interest in communism, and Trump has in some ways been great for recruitment. Simply put, if any organization ignores the ideas of the masses or their interests, this organization will fail to grow, and it will not be able to survive direct fascist attack or overcome them physically. It will not be able to survive the legal repercussions or attempted murder inflicted on antifascists and Maoists in our city. We have a saying here in Austin: when you attack one of us, three more rise up. Fighting against both state and non-state reactionaries is in service to the people, and we have no interest in relenting in this fight. It is after all the police whom we have fought the most.

When we fight racists in the streets, contrary to what MP argues, it is not detached from the overall struggles of our class. We have seen in Austin how fascism coincides with and relates to gentrification with the struggles against Blue Cat Café. We have demonstrated that it is about politics: when we fought fascists earlier this month, it was not because we just don’t like them; it is because we defend the undocumented and because we want the city of Austin to remain a sanctuary city. As we mentioned in another article, on November 4 of this year, we and our comrades were elsewhere from the action because those most at risk in our communities requested we defend their public spaces. In fact the majority of our work is like this—we work patiently, building relationships in our community and among our class. This also means that when the enemy poses a threat, we hit back. Perhaps MP feels it has to make an mutually exclusive decision between patient struggles among the masses or confronting the enemy; we however can and do undertake both at the same time, because the two overlap and interrelate with one another. Only a dysfunctional or underdeveloped organization is incapable of doing two things at once.

For our part, when we are not initiating food, housing, and other service programs through our mass work, we are organizing those we serve, as well as those we serve with, to push dangerous fascists out of our city. MP misses the point in all of this. They attack us for suggesting that antifascism is first and foremost internationalism, but the truth of this statement is particularly clear when a simple look around reveals that every contemporary brand of fascism in the US embraces aggressive nationalism. While obviously not everything in history that has ever called itself antifascism has  understood the necessity of internationalism being a core value, the fact that MP suggests that genuine antifascism is not also anti-imperialist, pro-people, and internationalist shows a remarkably dull perception of what we are actually about when we oppose fascism. Imperialism, hyper-nationalism, and white supremacy all go into the mix of most US fascist organizations. We attack the problem at its root instead of just looking at the branches.

In all of these things there is the important aspect of political education, recruitment, and training new Maoists. Is it really acceptable for MP to simply state without evidence that we ignore the day-to-day struggles of the masses? Are we wrong to ask them to prove it? A united front exists in Austin in embryo among an array of organizations who follow the political leadership of the Maoists. This is a modest accomplishment and we do not consider it enough. What unifies these groups around Maoist leadership is the mass line and its application in the day-to-day struggles of the masses. We will continue to build our party in all struggles we are engaged in, be they antifascist struggles or anything else.

On the conception of the masses

3A word search of our position paper turns up 29 uses of the word “without” and not a single use of the term “those without,” yet in spite of all their citations, MP manages to pretend that we conceive of the masses exclusively as “those without” (their quote, not ours). What MP is actually challenging here is the basic communist principle that the world is constantly divided into two antagonistic camps—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as explained in the most basic text of our ideology, the Communist Manifesto. They are not wrong in mentioning allied classes of the proletariat, who are important to a Maoist class analysis. This is why, in Condemned to Win, we explained that mass struggles see the have-nots as well as those who support them on one side and the haves as well as those who support them on the other. This is a very basic position about class interests and who can come to be allied with the proletariat to begin with. While they mention a future of support for and from the oppressed-nations petite bourgeoisie, Maoists in Austin have established links with these class allies locally though mass work and they have come to support us in the here and now—not out of some moral guilt but out of their own class interests, which align in some respects with those of the proletariat, whom we always seek to represent first.

On the primacy of armed struggle


Without any obfuscation, we must be direct: the primary contradiction for the proletariat in an imperialist country is not the contradictions among the people, but the contradiction with the bourgeoisie. This is an antagonistic contradiction, and the primary way of solving it can only be through revolutionary violence. The section of our paper which they attack is in defense of this very basic Maoist position: political power grows from the barrel of a gun. At the very center of Maoism is the question of taking political power. The PCP stated it clearly: “What is fundamental in Maoism? Political Power is fundamental in Maoism. Political power for the proletariat, power for the dictatorship of the proletariat, power based on an armed force led by the Communist Party.”

MP distracts by attempting to make the central task not taking power through means of war but instead “resolving contradictions among the people,” an important task no doubt but not what must be held at the center of the political line. MP arrive at this position out of typical legal-left squeamishness when it comes to revolutionary violence. This is really nothing new.

They write that making revolution “necessarily involves holding meetings, facilitating mass debates, and producing and distributing media.” These are in fact all things we do on a day-to-day basis. Our writings as anyone can see are not only available online but are also in print—this is because they are distributed among the people locally in our communities. This fact does not negate that revolutionary violence is the highest form of expressing class struggle. While Mao states clearly that all of Marxism boils down to one slogan, “it is right to rebel,” MP would no doubt respond by shouting to the ceiling, “Not all of the time!”

In spite of their own rejection of the universality of protracted people’s war, they suggest that we are focoists, simply because we aim to learn to fight by fighting, another basic Maoist principle. We do not aim to build the party as an afterthought to small guerrilla battles, but we do intend to train our people in street combat and low-level insurgency, since the party we aim to create must itself be a fighting party. We stand for the construction of a militarized party of professional revolutionaries, who must necessarily be battle-tested. We stand for the army of a new type, which is engaged in serving the people. We stand for the establishment of base areas won through struggle and war. In all of this the party leads. Through their rejection of protracted people’s war and their condemnation of the Communist Party of Peru, they see anything which aims to learn to fight by fighting as “foco.” All they achieve in airing their analysis here is displaying a total ignorance of military theory, of the difference between tactics and strategy, between self-defense and movement defense on the one hand and focoism on the other.

In an even more astounding display of ineptitude, MP attacks our use of the term “strategic offensive of the world revolution.” They quote Chairman Gonzalo, who was paraphrasing Mao, while just assuming the greatest living Maoist philosopher was wrong but not having the ability to engage with his position philosophically.

The strategic offensive of world revolution speaks to the conditions present, which Mao was referring to when he stated, “The next 50 to 100 years or so, beginning from now, will be a great era of radical change in the social system throughout the world, an earth-shaking era without equal in any previous historical period. Living in such an era, we must be prepared to engage in great struggles which will have many features different in form from those of the past.” Mao was not saying this for no reason—he was not grandstanding. He was basing this statement on the development and crisis of imperialism and the science developed by proletarian revolution. Imperialism cannot go on objectively or infinitely, and this objective fact is not dependent on the current state of any individual people’s war. MP is showing its subjectivism by claiming that it does.

When Chairman Gonzalo of the Communist Party of Peru was paraphrasing Mao in 1980, he was declaring that the world revolution is in strategic offensive not based on his own party’s success in war either, since this remark was made before the initiation of the war. Furthermore, the conditions of the other existing people’s wars were at an all-time low. The conditions that existed then also exist now: there were no actually existing socialist states and the people’s wars were all in the low stages of strategic defensive. This is not “macho sophistry”; it’s just history, and an attempt to correct a theoretical misreading on the part of MP. We simply reiterate Mao and state that we live in an earth-shaking era. The view that the world revolution proceeds only quantitatively, through the gradual accumulation of socialist states, is a classic revisionist outlook. Objectively, even if every people’s war were defeated tomorrow MLM would still be the third and highest stage of Marxism and the world revolution would still be in the stage of strategic offensive, as objective developments are not contingent exclusively on subjective factors.

We stand by our assertion that we (the proletariat) are at war, simply in the fact that a war has been waged on us since our emergence as a class. Our aim is turn a thing into its opposite, to turn the tables of class struggle so that it is our class which suppresses the bourgeoisie. As far as our line that the proletariat is not a stranger to violence, we insist that the reality of our class is violent. This material conditions of our torment and exploitation have provided our class with creative potential for revolutionary violence. Class struggle is violent, and the proletariat is the final class in human history—which needs violence to carry out its purpose of ending all classes. It is MP that reflexively conceives of violence as a purely negative phenomenon and not a potentially positive one.

MP again presents a poor reading of our text when they claim that we argue that a violent approach is necessary for resolving contradictions among the people:

“RGA justifies this approach to resolving contradictions among the people by claiming that ‘most appealing to the working class is physical violence. In popular neighborhoods, most serious disputes are solved by violent means.’ This claim is absurd to anyone who has spent significant time among the working class. The vast majority of disputes among working people are resolved by non-antagonistic and non-violent means.”

In order to make their job at reading a bit easier, let us add emphasis on the section they quote: “Most appealing to the working class is physical violence. In popular neighborhoods, most serious disputes are solved by violent means.”

This is not an inconsequential use of the words “most serious.” The choice of the word “serious” means we are discussing the severest of offenses resulting in disputes. Somehow MP reads this as being a claim about the “vast majority” of disputes. Obviously we agree that the vast majority of disputes are solved nonviolently. While the masses themselves have many non-antagonistic contradictions among them, in plenty of cases a contradiction can become antagonistic, as in the case of serial rapists and others who commit predatory anti-people crimes. The masses and particularly the working-class masses of a given area can and do enact their own forms of justice.

MP even lapses into the same funny tropes as InfoWars by stating, “In contrast, RGA prefers to live-action-role-play and posture online.” “Role-play” implies a lack of consequence as well as a lack of force. Perhaps if they are so influenced by the enemy press as to rehash its positions, they would be interested in reading the police reports that claim RGA or our supporters regularly put up stiff resistance, with numbers in the streets. A recent police report read, “The Red Guard Austin group continuously escalated their violent actions causing the State Trooper bike unit to form a ‘buble’ [sic] around the Highway men to prevent imminent assault. … The Red Guard Austin became extremely violent striking the bicycle Unit Troopers and shoving them.”

Live-action role-playing as we understand it means to pretend to do something, not to actually do it. We are not engaged in organizing pretend struggles with no effect. We are committed to winning. Any communist worth his or her salt would be glad that anti-immigrant bigots were outnumbered and defeated by communists, and we simply cannot fathom why anyone claiming to be a Maoist of all things would simply choose to rehash an InfoWars narrative.

They simply cannot imagine a physical fight, let alone one they could win, and only manage to reveal their cynicism and lack of vision. They see anything so alien to them as “live-action-role-playing.” We assure them that we use real sticks, real guns, real bullets, and real fascists in our “role-playing.” We are actual antifascists in real life, and we are seeing success in this.

MP takes another sad group at its word without ever even trying to investigate the situation on the ground by unpacking a choice quote from the publicly inactive group which was called Portland Maoist Group, who criticized us some time back. We chose not to publicly address them or recognize them for private reasons, but since it’s being brought up, a few things deserve clarification.

For starters we were never deceptive about our interests and objective in running a cadre school: we were clear with all those who could potentially attend that we expect to follow up with them and have them continue making reportbacks on their progress, in part so we could gauge our own success or failures in training them to be leaders but also because we are communists and wish to train good leaders who can improve new or stagnating collectives. As communists we are not ashamed to seek influence over other groups. We do not believe in horizontal organizing and seek to let different schools of thought contend. We do this without shame. If a group is on a bad track, we hope to influence them to improve. We want to build the party and let leadership emerge in struggle.

MP quotes the following from the defunct Portland group:

“When they felt the need to finalize the severing of their relationship with the rest of the group [RGA] advised this comrade to leave the group, gather new Maoists and form their own collective, with the intent that the new collective would be more loyal to them and the assumption that the existing group would collapse. This can be understood as wreckerism. Trying to get multiple people at different times to leave the group, for unprincipled reasons, one time with the hope of it collapsing, is uncomradely meddling.”

The person in question who had attended our cadre school had expressed numerous times her struggle with drug addiction, which we had worked with her on during her brief stay in Austin, during which, without discussing the details, we can state that there were some important breakthroughs. Upon her return to Portland in one of our follow-up conversations (conversations she consented to and requested), she expressed to us that the group in Portland lacked any consideration for her in this regard  and told us that not only would they offer her drugs but also that, according to her report, they would use drugs at meetings in her presence.

She expressed that this made her struggles with sobriety very difficult and expressed concern that she would not be able to stay off of drugs in that environment. We stand by the advice we provided her: that if the environment created by this group in Portland was detrimental to her physical and mental health to the point of promoting a relapse, and if those she was attempting to work with proved unable or unwilling to change, then she should find others to work with who would respect her commitment to staying clean. Comrades should care for and support each another; they should not encourage addicts to relapse. This is such a shameful and horrible way to treat comrades and is absolutely not communist conduct.

Our advice was simple enough: if those you are working with do not support positive transformation, then that’s okay—do not give up on organizing, just find better comrades. However, eventually the temptation to use substances won out, and her addiction became active. We offered the comrade treatment, housing, and to find her a job. We set a healthy boundary that we would do anything in our power to help her reassert control over her addiction but would not be able to support her using. We could only do so much remotely, and once more the drug addiction won out, our offers to help were declined, and she decided then (as those gripped with addiction often tend to decide) that using is more important than politics. She was found to have been lying to both sides to win favor and hedge her bets. We informed her that our line was for her to get better and contact us when she wanted to do that.

What she failed to inform anyone in Portland and bears mention here is that all of our correspondence with them politically was on the basis of information she provided us. Our letter to them—which contained a direct criticism of patriarchal male chauvinism on the part of two “cadres” as well as a criticism of Third-Worldism on the part of one “cadre”—was read and approved by her before we sent it. She supported its content as a way to help improve the group she would be rejoining. The “collective” in Portland had not fully established itself or developed a political identity, so charges of “wreckerism” miss the mark. In spite of MP’s declaration that we do not believe in transformation or criticizing cadres, our whole approach here was based on those two considerations.

We have remained silent on this issue up until now because we do not want to encourage the spectacle of call-out culture and we do not enjoy having to report the details of someone’s personal struggle with addiction. Nonetheless, the double-talk and lies told by the Portland drug club have forced us to speak on the record. We will say that it was their own lack of discipline and commitment which “wrecked” their work and isolated them, and no action on our part externally could hope to accomplish this.

MP has shown repeatedly and at great length that they do not investigate. They take anything anti-RGA at face value. Their faulty analysis here also shows a failure in understanding dialectical materialism. By ignoring the internal contradictions in the Portland group, MP is able to deflect their issues which prevent them from ever accomplishing real and protracted mass work onto the specter of “RGA wreckerism.” We prefer a sober and sound analysis and to learn not only from our own mistakes in party-building but also from the many mistakes of other attempted collectives. MP pretends RGA just crushes small, vulnerable collectives. This is opportunist: they have not bothered to contact any of the Maoist collectives which are newer than our own, in Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Houston, Kansas City, or Tampa, whom we have not only not “wrecked” but instead have helped or supported, even when we have had sharp political struggles with them. What is more, these collectives have helped us greatly as well and have never had to fear giving us direct criticism. Portland never adhered to communist discipline or communist principles. Any unity with them would not have served the interests of the party-building effort in the US, a fact we learned the hard way. We are glad that they have no audience, platform, or potential. Good riddance.

Ignoring patriarchy?


One thing which really sticks out in the MP attack is their use of the term “machismo,” which is employed systematically against militancy with no concrete examples given of actual macho behavior. What MP is getting at here is that any show of force, any act of physical fighting, any promotion of violence is inherently masculine and hence patriarchal. This is an old bourgeois feminist line which should be exposed as sexism. To keep combat and military strategy and tactics as the property of men and to alienate women from their right to self-defense and revolutionary violence is patriarchal. Women like men have the duty to participate in class struggle. The women in our organization and our movement are without a doubt some of our most committed fighters.

It would appear from MP’s thorough documentation of their citations and style of writing that they do actually have adequate reading comprehension skills, so we are left to think that they have deliberately misread our positions and our documents in an attempt to convince our detractors to support them. They have undertaken so many bad-faith readings and outright misquotations that it is tedious to keep repeating, but this proved a major part of their method in arriving at the analysis in their polemic.

MP’s arguments are only coherent if they think that by the term “call-out culture” we mean criticism in general, criticism in any form. But we explained plainly the differences between the two in our document “On Identity Opportunism,” and we will not be repeating them here. We hold that all organizations (if they are living) experience two-line struggle. This is a Maoist viewpoint which is challenged by MP.

According to MP, “RGA claims that a supposed Marxist expertise is needed to offer communist criticism and to ‘overcome subjectivism.’ This negates the reality that the masses do often possess correct ideas and can and should voice these ideas, including criticisms of revolutionary collectives and of individuals.” Well if it is communist criticism, then yes, to be a communist you need a basic grasp of Marxism. We do not expect the masses who are not yet communists to be able to make communist criticisms any more that we expect them to be able to make a communist analysis. The organic mass communist consciousness presupposed by MP’s argument does not exist, and if it did then revolution would happen tomorrow with no need for a party or professional revolutionaries.

One doesn’t need to be an expert to place a criticism, but for a criticism to be based in Marxism and not metaphysics one should at least comprehend basic Marxist principles. Mao stressed time and time again the need to oppose subjectivist mindsets in our work. This does not mean that subjectivist criticism cannot contain anything useful; it simply means that so-called communists who cannot make an overall assessment are limited in their ability to criticize and are often prone to insufficiently investigating and not moving past the perceptual level of knowledge.

While non-communists can place valid criticisms, Marxists are likewise capable of placing invalid criticisms. Often the masses do have correct criticism. This does not change the fact that we are under no compulsion to unite with what is false. Analyzing a criticism and dissecting it is the communist method of engagement with criticism. It is correct to point out subjectivism and encourage dialectical materialist analysis when making or receiving criticism. We will not self-criticize for approaching criticism as Marxists must, and we will not self-criticize for refusing to unite with lies or criticism that is just incorrect. We maintain that we look for correct aspects even in bad-faith criticism, extract them, and apply them.

Mao states, “Subjectivism is an improper style of study; it is opposed to Marxism-Leninism and is incompatible with the Communist Party. What we want is the Marxist-Leninist style of study.” MP is asserting above that by calling for a Maoist style of studying contradictions and the need for this style to influence the way in which comrades place criticism, that we are rejecting criticism outright. We are not demanding that critics be experts or even that they be red; we are simply encouraging other communists, or those who profess to be communists, to aspire to be both expert and red, to be communists when placing criticism and analyzing errors.

Mao also said that “certain muddled ideas find currency among many people.” This is without a doubt true, and it is the communist’s duty to seek to clarify these muddled ideas which are in contradiction with Maoist ideas. We only seek to correct mistaken ideas, whether they come from “communists,” comrades, or the masses.

MP refers to “needed call-outs.” This is amusing, because it is organizing activists and supporters to take material actions which can lead to abusive people being held accountable; it is not simply “calling it out” that can get this job done. We are not against speaking of injustice; we are mainly for speaking responsibly, from a position of having investigated the matter. And most importantly, we are for action in dealing with those found guilty of abuse. This is something we have consistently done; it is reflected in our struggles against the LC and in the local mass work in Austin.

They quote us again divorced of context: “Society is transformed by violent revolution against the economic base and is continuously transformed afterward by continued revolution in the superstructure in the form of cultural revolution.” They take this somehow to mean that we do not think individuals can change without attacking the economic base! We defend this position, as society is different from individuals.

We hold that many individuals with patriarchal thinking can be transformed as individuals, which is precisely why reckless call-out culture comes into contradiction with mass work, as it aims to shame people into compliance rather than change their thinking by uniting them according to their common interests with the masses. For massive, wide-scale social change, revolution is the way; for correcting mistaken ideas and changing individuals, we encourage transformation, criticism, accountability, and so on. For all their talk about resolving contradictions among the people, they intentionally distract from this principle by defending call-out culture by conflating it with criticism. When a criticism or even a call-out is made, communists have a responsibility to determine what is true and what is false within it.

We stand unequivocally for the struggle against bad ideas among cadres and the masses. If we did not, we would allow the bad ideas coming out of Boston to go totally unchecked. We respond to them now as we did in our document “Correcting Mistaken Ideas in Boston” in the interest of changing views or at the very least preventing others from uniting with MP or their bad ideas.

MP writes, “The implications of RGA’s approach are deeply concerning. It effectively serves as a justification for protecting anti-people practices among its cadres because there are oppressive tendencies among the masses.”

If MP has evidence of anti-people practices among our cadres, they have a responsibility to state what these are. Instead they prefer insinuation that such practices materially exist without any evidence or investigation. They also incorrectly suggest that RGA does not impose a different standard of conduct for communists than it does for the masses, which negates the use of the term “cadres.” Members of communist organizations are explicitly held to a different standard: the standard of professional revolutionaries who place the masses and the political organization first, before their personal interests. This is detailed at length in Condemned to Win, but they are content with cherry-picking sections and not engaging with it honestly.

Any anti-people practices, some of which will inevitably occur in our organization, are challenged collectively in organized line struggle or organized struggle sessions. We focus on advancing the masses in class struggle and winning over the most advanced to MLM. Once they have come to accept the ideology, it is through continued struggle that any backward practices or views are brought to light, challenged, and corrected. Contrary to the ill-informed notions of MP, we consider the basis for unity being MLM and not “violence.” By depoliticizing violence in the liberal sense MP, creates a mirage that, in Quixotic delusion, only they can see.

MLM is not reduced to “violence,” but it is concerned mainly with the conquest of power, which specifically relies on the universal principle of revolutionary violence. Pacifism ideologically levels out all contradictions to a vague “violence,” which lacks an understanding of class character. In spite of their insistence to the contrary MP, uses pacifism in place of Marxism when leveling these charges against us. In other documents, we have even addressed the need to reclaim violence and not to recruit on the basis of violence alone.

MP clearly hopes that people have a short memory when they say,

“RGA’s conclusions shows they have not substantially broken from the negative tendencies of the New Communist Party-Liaison Committee (NCP-LC), which collapsed under a heap of bad theory and practice. The ‘leadership’ of this organization defended patriarchal abusers and rejected democratic criticism—both from their cadre and from outside the organization—that could have prevented this and other egregious errors. The group’s leadership justified this practice because of their belief, analogous to that of RGA, that such mistakes were ‘proletarian’ or ‘where the masses were at’ and hence tolerable.”

  1. The NCP-LC did not simply “collapse under a heap of bad theory and practice,” isolated from the activity and participation of communists and masses. In reality, we ourselves struggled with this bad organization for over a year, placing criticism and suggesting corrections to no avail. Ultimately we issued a polemic which set in motion a series of complicated rebellions against them.
  2. Our position was always that they were rightist-revisionists who were tailing backward elements among the people and engaging in economism.
  3. Again we should stress that here, as we always have, we pressed the contentious principle that communists must be held to a much higher standard than should be used for the average worker—that backwardness among the people is no excuse for communists to forget principles.
  4. Others had identified these errors with the LC but failed to carry out struggle to actually rid the movement of their influence. Our line was that the project was lost and should not remain operational, and that those with errors albeit less severe still needed to rectify. What followed was branch after branch of the LC outside of NYC defecting to our side, and a prolonged and successful gender rectification campaign in LA. Had we used “meeting the masses where they are at” as an excuse to pardon patriarchy, none of this rectification would have happened. These charges are so false that it is insulting to everyone’s intelligence that MP thinks they are slick enough to pass this off. If their line is correct, it should not rely on ahistorical distortions and the hope that people in our movement just have incredibly short memories.

We are self-critical on much of the way we handled the crisis of patriarchy in the movement then. We did not know well what we were doing and have learned a great deal in the process. These contradictions are never easy to resolve for anyone involved, but they are serious contradictions which require long-term commitment. We do not regret the overall result of our struggles and have seen a dramatic increase in women’s involvement in the Maoist movement since then.

By MP’s own confused standard, subjectivist and sectarian criticism are also “bad ideas,” yet we are wrong for criticizing these bad ideas? Even criticism should not be beyond criticism. MP stumbled into this paradoxical impasse—it is not a thing of our making. We see it simply: right or wrong, air your views; if you are right, we will unite with them, and if you are wrong, we will criticize your views; and if you are both right and wrong, we will struggle with your views in order to come up with the most correct line.

The Kurdish question

In regard to the role of Daesh, we encourage readers to study the document “On Jihadism” by our comrades in the PCM. While MP tries to argue for nuance in understanding the dual nature of Daesh, something we agree is necessary, this logic does not end up getting applied by them in any attempt to understand the YPG/J, who are also plagued by a dual nature. The situation has far more gray areas than appear in the black-and-white outlook promoted by MP. They are the best existing representatives of the oppressed Kurdish nation in the region, locked in struggle not only against Daesh but also against US imperialist ally Turkey. On one hand, the YPG/J has accepted US imperialist aid, something many legitimate revolutions have done when facing a massive threat posed by groups like Daesh. On the other hand, their relationship to the PKK and against the Turkish state puts them in contradiction with US imperialism. The PKK cannot play nice with the Turkish state, as Turkey occupies 40% of Kurdish land. This contradiction means that whatever support they receive via the YPG/J is temporary and shaky at very best. The PKK-aligned Kurds simply cannot become compradors in the region long-term unless they concede their claim on Turkish-occupied Kurdistan.

MP falsely states that we show “unabashed” and “uncritical” support for YPG/J. Of course they do not bother to engage with anything but a solidarity video made for US martyrs of the YPG. It is correct that we did not criticize YPG during a memorial for martyrs. To suggest that such a place is appropriate to criticize is farcically unprincipled; we honored their courage and their sacrifice. This does not mean that think there are no contradictions within the Kurdish struggle, nor does it mean that we find nothing to criticize.

We do not deny the class character of the YPG/J any more than we deny the revisionism of PKK. We support them critically as progressive bourgeois nationalists and as idealists who lack the ideology of the proletariat, MLM.

What’s worse is, it’s not only our articles that MP likes to cherry-pick—they’ve also done the same thing to TKP/ML. That party has been undergoing complicated and drawn-out line struggle for over a year on these questions, and much of this struggle has not been translated into English. Yet by cudgeling their brains on their own, MP has determined correctness and chosen a side without even mentioning this monumental struggle taking place within TKP/ML. They do not do this out of reverence or respect for the foremost MLM organization in Turkey; instead they opportunistically attempt to use them as a stick to attack RGA. We have no comment on this line struggle and eagerly await more information in order to make an informed position. We do not take the quotes from them out of context to fake legitimacy for narrow views, as MP has opportunistically done.

Not unlike TKP/ML, we too limit our support for YPG/J to its democratic content. We too do not agree with the ideas of “democratic confederalism.” We believe in oppressed nations’ right to self-determination, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the leadership of the party. On the contrary, MP’s cheap view is to ignore the democratic content of the YPG/J and instead (!) to play up the “anti-imperialist” content of Daesh! This puts them sadly close to the hard-Trot defense of Daesh by groups like the Sparticists. US imperialism, like its ally Turkey, is more likely to find common ground with Daesh long term as it has done in the region by waging war against a group to turn around and support it later, or inversely by supporting a group to make war on it later. US imperialism is no one’s friend, and it changes up regularly whom it works with and whom it fights; it can and does at times even support both sides. There is no sense in ignoring the evidence that US imperialism has provided aid to Daesh while claiming to fight it or actually fighting it.

Regarding not being concerned with the school of thought of the martyrs, we mean that on that day, the principal thing was to honor their sacrifice. In no way do we ever promote concessions on questions of ideology. People with many different ideologies make sacrifices. If MP were to have martyrs in the struggle against reaction, then we would honor them too. This prospect seems unrealistic only because in essence they promote legalism and a fool’s hesitation to militantly oppose the spread of fascism. We are firmly Maoist and have made plenty of enemies by unapologetically attacking revisionists. This does not mean we embrace unprincipled sectarianism.

MP incorrectly states, “RGA could not be bothered to condemn U.S. intervention in the region at all.” This is false, because although we did not center the memorial for the martyrs around criticizing the complex situation in the region, we have organized against US imperialist intervention in Syria; this was one of the rallying calls for this past May Day in Austin, and it would have remained one of its main focuses had the march not had to take a defensive position against immediate fascist attack. Nonetheless, our chants and propaganda still opposed US imperialist intervention in Syria. Their criticism is not formulated from anything other than casually observing the criticisms of opportunists who deliberately promote distortions. Our supporters and cadres have consistently attended events and actions against US imperialism, in the Philippines, Turkey, Palestine, and Syria alike.

We take no issue at all with the content of the Ganapathy quote which MP uses to imply that we oppose Muslims generally. This false conflation of Daesh with Muslims is akin to the right suggesting that all Muslims are like Daesh. MP’s suggestion that our opposing Daesh means we oppose Muslims generally is disgusting and should be swept away. Meanwhile, where they insist that we are “tailing antifa,” we are actually building links with our local Muslim community, and our supporters are volunteering to physically defend Mosques and cultural centers from reactionary attacks. We have organized or helped organize large-scale actions against Islamophobia locally. We helped to gather over 300 people to shut down the “March against Sharia Law” in Austin on June 10 of this year. Reports of these actions are found on our blog, but these are of no interest to MP, which seeks to make cheap attacks by looking at isolated aspects of things.

Class stand and urgency


A concrete analysis of climate change, which has already begun to show devastating effects globally, does in fact merit a sense of urgency. Although it is far from correct to say that no other communists recognize this, nonetheless, in past socialist projects the difficult-to-understate gravity of climate change was not yet fully grasped. Of course there are great examples of environmentalism under the leadership of Mao, and we do not wish to diminish these by stressing the importance for Maoists today to grapple with climate change. Again, we encourage our readers to study the articles of our comrades the PCM on the question of climate change.

Grasping revolutionary necessity and urgency does not in and of itself negate “the need to work methodically to resolve contradictions among the people.” Nowhere do we suggest that it does. On the contrary, MP is arguing against urgency and militancy under the guise of prioritizing resolving contradictions among the people.

It is mainly repression and consent which the bourgeoisie rule through; it is not mainly the contradictions among the people which prevent them for making revolution, but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which we live under in a capitalist country. By overemphasizing the contradictions among the people, MP seeks to distract from the contradictions between the people and the enemy. They would rather ignore the very nature of the bourgeois state than ever confront it. Instead, they want to behave as NGOs do: as a mitigation unit which focuses attention away from the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Yes, there are contradictions among the people, but they are secondary contradictions, not the principal contradiction, which in imperialist countries can only be between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This principal contradiction explains climate change too—it is not the proletariat which destroys the planet but capitalism-imperialism itself, which the bourgeoisie are the only class with an interest in maintaining.

MP promotes faulty notions of developing “proletarian power within individuals.” Proletarian power, for Maoists, means the establishment of base areas and the dictatorship of the proletariat—it is developed and conquered through war, not in individuals by resolving contradictions among the people. This diffused concept of power is a hallmark of postmodernism and does not at all capture the Maoist understanding and use of the word “power.” In the very document in which MLM was synthesized for the first time, the PCP explains power:

1) Political power under the leadership of the proletariat in the democratic revolution;

2) Political power for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the socialist and cultural revolutions;

3) Political power based on an armed force led by the communist party, conquered and defended through people’s war.

We do not deny that through the resolving of contradictions among the people (which can only occur meaningfully in class struggle) individuals within the masses and collectives can gain a sense of agency and empowerment—but this is not to be conflated with proletarian power, and claiming that it does is a gimmick used by MP to pass off their revisionism as love for the people. What they really mean concretely is that it is premature to fight the class enemy in any way at all, and they think we should instead focus on the secondary contradictions among the people. All revisionists serve the capitalist class; MP does so in a funny way by trying to divert the revolutionary activity of communists and the masses to focus principally on interpersonal and secondary contradictions.

Concerning leadership


Communist leadership is developed inevitably and in class struggle. It is because of class struggle that many comrades have looked to Austin for leadership, regardless of the fact that we never sought to become any sort of movement leaders. We do not impose organizational leadership on any outside of Austin. Nonetheless, many comrades, organized into collectives or not, have looked to us for political leadership, guidance, or both. We seek to live up the task at hand not out of some demented personal interest but in the interest of serving revolution.

Revisionists and conservative forces are panicked by the very thought of leadership emerging in class struggle. They are tormented by the ghost of leadership. They in their anti-communist hysteria are gripped with the impulse to attack and lash out at what they correctly or incorrectly identify as emerging leaders. The revisionist always acts in service of its bourgeois master by trying to rob a movement of its leaders, trying to prevent leaders from emerging, and trying to discredit all revolutionary leadership. They demand absolute egalitarianism among collectives and refuse any attempts at principled unity for the sake of arriving at false unity. They seek to separate the militant from the masses.

This is the form and essence of the MP polemic against us. Lenin explains leadership concisely as something that is earned through experience and theoretical mastery; Mao explained leadership as uniting the masses around cadres. MP’s attempt to label us everything from focoists to fascists and US imperialists (all charges they have adopted from unorganized online trolls or outright fascists) does not engage at all with reality and almost no one is fooled by this ruse.

In essence, the goal of MP is not to develop proletarian politics by resolving contradictions among the people—it is to negate the role of theory in doing this, to claim that proletarian politics do not exist and that the content of MLM itself is yet to be determined. Their whole attack against us is an attack against both militancy and leadership.

This all boils down to the business-as-usual model of right-opportunism, of avoiding sharp struggles and confrontations. Their position as well as their practice cannot be discerned from that of reformists. They call us focoists due to their total lack of military theory, understanding neither our politics nor focoism and conflating tactics with strategy. They do not understand that focoism is a failed military strategy that aims to negate the role of the party among the masses. Focoism is not comparable to implementing proletarian politics and using physical confrontations and self-defense tactically—something no Maoist should oppose. Their line in practice is nothing but the conventional NGO and revisionist line which is explained well in the PCR-RCP document on the tactic of what they call red fists:

“The greatest danger that stems from these passive and predictable demos is that revolutionaries become complacent and reproduce within their own organizational structures those of these types of protests. Instead of putting to use the knowledge already gained by the revolutionary movement, they give into the disorganization proposed by the reformists. This will have as a result that any denunciation will become senseless, because the form of protest will be unworthy of properly conveying the message. … It must be said that faked-communists (revisionists) have completely estranged themselves from these firm and solid advancements. They have adopted in fact the discipline and the legal practices imposed by the bourgeoisie. This results in demos where the demonstrators are passively kept in toe with the reformist leaders.”

To refuse to be at the very forefront of mass struggle is to refuse being a communist. We have consistently and militantly held our posts in Austin in spite of hardship. While we do spend the majority of our time focusing on the political preparation of the people, prior to the initiation of armed struggle, we do not see this condition as an excuse to not resist. We again reassert our position that communist militants must be developed in class struggle, that self-defense and antifascism are correct and must be conducted under communist leadership. Every struggle that is in the interest of the proletariat is one where you should find communists organizing and recruiting.

We have no doubt that the MP polemic will find a sympathetic ear among those who already hate us or consider us political enemies, among the Menshevik Center and other revisionist groups. This does not concern us. If they liked us and their politics remained as they are now, this would be unacceptable to us. It should also be stated clearly that their polemic is nothing more than a poorly investigated and incorrect attempt at gaining relevancy in the US Maoist movement, a movement which enjoys greater unity than it has in years—and it is no coincidence that fake-communists, bloggers, and meme-creators are not part of that unity, including but not limited to MP.

We are communists, and this means that we are not simply a mitigation unit to solve problems among the people but revolutionaries organizing for political power. We exist to defeat the class enemy. Maoists have encountered these MP types before who balk at the first sign of danger and waste no time at all trying to discredit the militant, people who will lie to cover up their cowardice.

“Since May ’68 there are people who go all over the place saying; nothing can be done without a party. The conclusions they draw from this are: let’s do nothing. Let’s build a party, and afterwards we’ll see what happens. . . . Some wanted to capitulate. They said: ‘We can’t do anything more now. If we continue to fight we’re going to be massacred. Let’s stop now and build a party. Once we’re organized we’ll pick up the struggle.’”—Gauche Prolétarienne

“Organize the masses so that they can go beyond what is permitted by the existing legal order, so that they struggle to destroy the old order and not to maintain it. This is accomplished by use of the three instruments of the revolution: The Party where the few converge, the Army with more participants, and new state/united front which is the base which progressively accumulates the masses through leaps.”—Communist Party of Peru

“The struggle for power as the principal aspect does not mean that from the beginning we are going to incorporate the masses all at once. Chairman Mao teaches us that developing Support Bases and armed forces is what generates the high tide of the revolution. This has to do with the law of incorporation of the masses into the revolution, . . . an incorporation that shall be through progressive leaps; with more people’s war shall come a greater incorporation of the masses.” —Communist Party of Peru

“The masses are avid for politics and it is incumbent upon Communists to organize and lead them. The masses have concrete problems everywhere and we must worry about them and attend to them. Mass work is done within the class struggle and not on its margins. If we do not do mass work, the reactionaries and revisionists shall utilize it for their own ends, whether it is to develop fascism and to corporativize them or hand over their struggles to another imperialist master. These are two wills that are distinct and opposed.” —Communist Party of Peru

Our will and those of ineffective grouplettes like MP are indeed distinct and opposed.

—Red Guards Austin, December 2017

Solidarity with Charlotte Antifascists


On December 28th our comrades in Charlotte North Carolina will be prepared and ready to defend their city from white nationalists and other fascists who have threatened to march there. Some months back an Anti-Communist group declared that they would hold a rally on December 28th. The “rally against communism” which they also call “Charlottesville #2” was supposed to take place at Marshall Park and was supposed to feature Richard Spencer, who allegedly got cold feet since he cannot seem to go anywhere without being rightfully punched in the face, tormented and silenced. The communist, progressive and anti-racist forces in Charlotte called for a counter rally to shut down the right. There has been some slippery back and forth from the fascist’s side as to whether or not they will actually show up. This does not matter. What matters is that the Communists, progressives and anti-racists do show up.

The Alt-right is notoriously dishonest, as with all fascists they base their propaganda on lies and eclecticism; they have no consolidated ideology and change up with the weather. No one should take them at their word; it is safe to assume that they are only pretending to cancel so that their pathetic numbers have a better chance of terrorizing the city unopposed. And if they do not show up it is not due to their better judgment but due to their cowardice in the face of antifascist victories all over the country in response to the murder they committed in Charlottesville Virginia. The people and the revolutionaries have made it clear—alt-right not welcome!

We have learned this much, when fascists are scared to show up, or forced to back down this gives antifascists another cause for celebration. If the fascists have successfully been cowed without even showing face then our side is presented with the opportunity to rise to the occasion and spread our message of anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-fascism. Our side can spread its message of comradery, equality, solidarity and love for our people—the message of communism!

In the long drawn out and bloody battles we know clearly what we are against, it is equally if not more important to know what we are for. Antifascism means serving the people, it is not enough to just show up and smash a racist’s head into the concrete or hit them with ax handles, this is great and noble work which must be done, but it is not enough. We must consistently turn out for the masses of people. We must fight against slum lords, predatory businesses, police and police abuse, hunger and poverty. We must battle day to day alongside the working class for a better lot in life—which can only be brought about with the promise of socialism. This is what it means to be an antifascist and anything less just characterizes a movement by what it’s against leaving it blinded to what it is for. We hate fascists because they spell out the very worst of capitalism.

Our comrades will turn out for the masses, they will bring their best and they will make the day worth celebrating, they will be able to send a deafening message to any fascist with his sights on Charlotte—do not go there, unless of course they just want the same hell, humiliation and defeat they face in Austin.  We have the utmost respect for the Maoists and other antifascists of that city and full faith that they will hold it down. The south gets more red every year and racists are not welcome to parade in southern streets, as long as there are communists, we will fight to the last one of us.

Since the very first moment fascists emerged in history they have been fought tooth and nail, blow for blow by communists, we are honored to continue this tradition and have no fear of sacrifice. We know that should we fall, three more will arise to pick up our clubs, our theories and our riffles. With this attitude we communists are invincible. The masses of Charlotte have showed the best of courage during the Charlotte Uprising, these masses with communist leadership will make that city the grave of the alt-right. We have no pity for our enemy we are just glad we do not march to that grave in their boots.

Turn out for the masses! Thursday, December 28th. 4:00 pm, Marshall Park (near the statue) 800 E. 3rd St, Charlotte NC

Long live Antifascism

Long live the masses and Communists of Charlotte!