Editor’s note: We ask that the reader pay attention to the footnotes. In them you will find direct references, elaborations, and practical definitions for the terms we are using.
American Maoism Today and its Approach to Study1
As history shows, the mass movement in general and labor movement in particular developed independently of Marxism. This will continue to be the case, despite whatever limited efforts are undertaken by Marxist sympathizers who are unprepared to approach their historic roles properly. Unfortunately, nearly the entire body of Maoist organizations that have emerged since 2008 have fallen into the error of dismissing theory and just trying to learn ‘Marxist principles’ from scratch. Without going too in depth with the organizations that emerged and collapsed between the years 2008-2016, we can say with confidence that the splinters from the largest trend at the time, the New Communist Party-Organizing Committee (NCP-OC) and its mass contingent of the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee (RSCC), continued the practice of ideological eclecticism and theoretical ignorance. Broadly speaking, there arose three different ‘Maoist’ trends: a rightist trend (which we will portray with Maoist Communist Party-Organizing Committee [MCP-OC] and its successors as representative); a ‘leftist’ trend (represented by the Red Guards movement and its successors in the Committee to Reconstitute the CPUSA [CR-CPUSA] and Revolutionary Study Group [RSG] trend that emerged from its collapse); and a centrist trend (represented by the Maoist Communist Union [MCU]).
Among the rightists, those that arose from the Winstonite2 splinter of the developing RG movement who created MCP-OC (and their For the People [FTP] “intermediate organizations”3), were much more honest in their economism and clumsy practice. They didn’t act as if they knew theory, but believed it was all the better that they didn’t and prided themselves in being “connected with the masses”. Their various red charity projects fell through, and soon enough, the MCP-OC itself collapsed, being unable to follow through on any of their projects. In their public statement declaring their dissolution4, they present little of any reflection of their past work, with the statement amounting to a reiteration of vulgarized ideological beats on the one hand while doubling down on vague organizational tasks on the other (with no mention on any matter of principle aside from the emphasis of practice). There’s also a strange prophylactic denial of liquidationism (even though that is literally what they’ve done) while placing all organizational responsibility of party construction (though they themselves were the organizing committee to facilitate precisely that process) upon the FTP pre-party formations/mass organizations (i.e. red charities).
In the FTP’s last joint statement from 20215, they have shown to not have learned much of anything with a superficial assessment of the current situation and redoubled emphasis of practice through ‘mutual aid’. Here, we at least see some pleasantries extended in the need to familiarize oneself with Maoists principles as those contained in the “MLM Basic Course” (2016) and the 150 year history of class struggle6. As the Basic Course is the only theoretical text they cite, it is quite revealing with regards to their understanding of Maoist principles! Of course, this is only in passing; the emphasis as they see it remains to be ‘mass work’ with the caveat of avoiding ‘right opportunism’ in the form of getting “bogged down in the logistics of these programs” (!?). This apparently was controversial enough to warrant a criticism from among their own with FTP-Boston’s response to the joint statement shortly afterwards7. In that statement, we see a frustration with precisely that lack of reflection by the FTP signatories and the complete bankruptcy of that whole faction in being able to do anything aside from their red charity work. Though they could point out the problems that arise from their approach to work, their solutions are not a break from their revisionism, but a reiteration of them in another form. Concretely, they called for continuing to emphasize practice through engaging in “concrete struggle with concrete stakes”; summating those experiences and the history of their work thus far8, lacking any call for study at all. The apple really doesn’t fall far from the tree, with Engels’s description of Americans seeming to be quite apt as he calls our forerunners “so conceited about [their] ‘practice’ and so frightfully dense theoretically”9.
Since the dissolution of MCP-OC and the steady process of the various FTP’s going defunct, most successors that have reorganized into groups like the Revolutionary Maoist Coalition (RMC) appear not to have learned from their mistakes. Occasionally they study individual texts, but most organizing is around the usual mutual aid work or political rallies. The successor of FTP-Boston, Red Star Communist Organization (RSCO), appears to have held true to their critical stance of FTP where they appear to recognize the greater importance of theory and consequently the task of study in rectifying their past errors. We hope to see a more explicit position from them on this in the future. So long as these groups do not undertake serious theoretical work, it is very likely that their cycle of theoretical confusion, practical tailism10, stagnation, and collapse will continue as it would for any other contemporary group.
The rightists also include the disorganized and spontaneous mass of individuals and groups who mostly are only known for their online presence (e.g. Winston) or activity in the spiritual successor to the opportunist SPA, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA suits this trend well, as its disorganized, ‘big tent’, and unprincipled character attracts them with the aesthetic of organization and an outlet for political work without the seriousness that comes with it. As per its eclectic character, we see many confused ideas by muddling postmodern, classical revisionist, and even anarcho-syndicalist positions. Granted, some factions within DSA have a political education track. One of the more robust ones is Marxist Unity Group’s (MUG), but as expected of an SPA successor, it is little more than a means to propagandize a Neo-Kautskyite program. As the various Maoist trends over the years have struggled to solve their internal problems, many of its members fall to attrition as these former organizers end up settling for less. This will continue as long as Maoism in the US fails to resolve its theoretical crisis.
The ultra-leftist Gonzaloite cult11 of the CR-CPUSA and its successors in the RSG’s clearly express in their many articles how they must ascertain truth only through the ‘mass line’12 and vulgarized interpretations of Mao’s quotations. What they mean by the ‘mass line’ is best expressed by the chief representative of the RG movement, Red Guards-Austin. In one of their most significant declaratory pieces “Condemned to Win”13, they clearly show their stance that truth is derived solely from mass work, and assert that mass work alone defines someone as a Communist14. Assuming that cadres already possess the “most advanced revolutionary concepts”, it is their responsibility to guide the masses with it, and spontaneously generate correct politics through their commandist15 leadership. There is lip service to study, as a vague study of “Maoism and the history of class struggle” is in the same breath tied to the concrete analysis of each collective’s local conditions (and local revolutionary history), and then organizational work more broadly. For them this amounted to simply using study circles as a recruiting tool for their political cult (as shown in their 1 year summation16).
The Red Guards movement quickly gained support from other collectives across the country, and these collectives’ independent study efforts began to mirror the RGA’s position. This was because, as independent collectives formed (mostly spontaneously after the 2016 election or otherwise splitting from various revisionist trends) this necessitated an attempt at studying some Maoist classics; however, as best shown by Red Guards-Charlotte (RGC) in their summation of their early RSG project17, this soon shifted. This is a great example of how prior to unity with RGA, RGC directly struggled against the tailist pragmatism of their contemporaries, but in doing so exposed their own ignorance of theory and a lack of understanding on how to approach theoretical study in particular. Their scattered studies lacked a serious approach to understanding the fundamentals of Marxism (by their own admission, they hadn’t studied a single text on Marxist philosophy or political economy!18), and for several subjective and petty reasons, they justified their liquidation of the study circle to focus on practical work. Rather than reassessing the mistaken approach towards study, they rejected any structured process towards it entirely, leaving individuals to take responsibility for studying themselves. As such, by stopping an organized effort towards study before it even really began, they effectively capitulated to the very thing they were so adamant in struggling against, i.e. the pragmatist tailism as expressed in their red charity organizing through Serve The People19.
Over the subsequent years, the erroneous practice of the Red Guards developed into an outlook in which only local and central leadership (those responsible for the various Gonzaloite blogs) would regularly study theory, while the broader membership would just listen to orders or read their articles. Whenever both studied theory, they did so dogmatically; they merely memorized ideas from texts and moved on, lacking a critical understanding of Marxist analysis and a holistic approach to learning20. This reflected in many of their articles lacking any theoretical substance, amounting to declaratory phrase mongering to hide their ignorance. However, the popularity of their militant aesthetic and overwhelming activity21 was enough to garner a lot of interest, particularly after 2020. By this point they have formed the CR-CPUSA22, formalizing the left-opportunist line into a proper nationwide political cult. Their ambitious but hollow conception of party building prevented any real class analysis; instead, they directly agitated workers to participate in their front organizations or contribute to their blogs23 without a clear understanding of propaganda and agitation.
In the end, it was precisely because of the CR-CPUSA’s lack of care in studying Marxism that their practice amounted to superficially applying slogans and insisting on their applicability in every context. The trend collapsed under its own weight, from which various Revolutionary Study Groups (RSGs) emerged, often with eclectic assessments of the cult itself, let alone how they should approach study after such a failure. These organizations seem to still uphold the same outlook, though in word they vacillate between emphasizing the importance of theory and study in our context while they continue to repeat the same errors of dismissing it and approaching it haphazardly in practice24. This dismissal and half-hearted approach toward study, while dogmatically insisting on the applicability of this or that text, reflects in the incredibly confused understanding of even the basics of Marxist thought. As such, this too fails to address the theoretical shortcomings of the American left, reflective of Gonzaloism’s failure to do this in particular, serving as one more negative example.
Finally, among the ‘centre’, who are best represented by the Mass Proletariat ->MCU continuity formed from the split with the Maoist Communist Group (MCG)/New Communist Party-Liaison Committee (NCP-LC) around the same time the RG movement started coming around; their writings indicate that at least some of their members have studied, but they appear to be impatient and apply their limited knowledge incorrectly. The amateur character of MCU was evident in their 2020 launch, which emphasized coalition building as expressed in the unsubstantiated claim that the revolutionary movement has been objectively improved just by their formation, completely disregarding any theoretical groundwork20. By 2023, they had reflected to some extent on their erroneous work21. They summarized past work, criticized their overemphasis on practice without a coherent plan, and presented a plan for the future. They emphasized the role of theory, seeing it as principal. But then they undermined that role with one position to the next, elevating practice without theory once more. Particularly, emphasizing union organizing (among the industrial proletariat) inspired by work conducted by the CPUSA (though it appears they don’t see the inherited labor outlook from the SPA that it reflected). This amounts to a muddle of their priorities and contributed to them struggling to accomplish their ambitious goals.
After yet another year, MCU appears to have reflected on their errors and thoroughly criticized them (again). In fact, they make points that we ourselves attempt to do here22. They point out how their vague and broad directives had resulted in many organizational mistakes, while their membership’s organizational and theoretical weaknesses limited their theoretical work. We suspect this is because of their lack of rigor in studying MLM internally, and their external ‘short courses’ in MLM show how narrow the leadership views the need for such rigor. Though seemingly a significant improvement, they still need to clarify their priorities as they try to do tasks historically reflective of Marxist study circles, pre-party formations, and parties themselves simultaneously! As observed from their digital footprint and attendance at their open studies, these amount to the same level of rigor and superficial understanding that can be observed among most of the RSGs. Their attempts to establish an oppositional left union movement are, by their own admission, significantly hindered by organizational constraints and competing priorities in theoretical work. Trying to do everything all at once in a haphazard fashion, with an insufficient grasp of the fundamentals, is a recipe for repeated failures and repetitive summations of those failures. With that said, we want to be clear in that out of the new generation of the ‘Maoist’ milieu (in exclusion of the RCP continuity and its splinters including OCR, they have their own serious issues that are outside the scope of this presentation), they’re the most theoretically developed of all the aforementioned trends (though this isn’t saying much). Because of this, we hope they clarify their priorities and take more seriously studying Marxism rigorously, with special attention to the fundamentals (especially in the realm of political economy, as their confused ideas on neomercantilism and the industrial proletariat show their weakness).
These cases prove that refraining from sufficient theoretical training among aspiring Marxists results in political liquidation and failure to play any decisive role in the mass movement they covet so highly. Meaning, where we are members of the broader social mass, we can and should contribute to these mass movements without sacrificing our revolutionary priorities and neglecting the principal tasks at hand. Marx and Lenin themselves were very clear on the importance of taking part in spontaneous movements given the examples of the 1905 Revolution and Paris Commune23. However, if we intend to be Marxists, only after we understand how to act as organized Marxists can we take the first steps of engaging with the mass movement as Marxist Revolutionaries. This necessitates that we initially limit engagement to narrow propaganda; the scope will broaden to reflect the work of Marxists within the mass movement, soon encompassing widespread agitation. Finally, this corresponds with higher levels of organization seen developing both spontaneously as the mass movement disseminates class consciousness and organized under the influence of Marxists. To quote Lenin “It is thus, and only thus—by studying the history of the movement, by pondering over the ideological significance of definite theories, and by putting phrases to the test of facts—that serious people should appraise present-day trends and groups. Only simpletons put faith in words24.”
- This section includes some basic criticisms of various contemporary Maoist trends. Unfortunately, a thorough critique of them all deserve multiple articles in their own right, as does a broader critique of contemporary American Maoism as a whole. However, so as to not digress too far from the focus of this article, we’ll limit our criticisms to the most relevant errors with respect to the question of study ↩︎
- Winstonite refers to Chris Winston, an online personality and current member of DSA. He initiated this trend and the formation of the MCP-OC. While he currently is closer to MUG politically than his MCP-OC days, his progression has been one of continuing on the opportunist path that we characterize here. However, he is no longer trying to lead a trend in the way he was in the MCP; we see this as a positive thing. He was also known as a guest on Dr. Phil. ↩︎
- An intermediate organization is a group theorized to be between a pre-party formation and a mass organization; essentially it takes on tasks and characteristics of both organizations without committing to either. The idea is that usually through developing both aspects, down the line a proper demarcation will be made where pre-party and mass organizations will spring from it. This is a flawed theory that basically hampers both organizational efforts and usually ends up abortive. In this case, many FTPs went on to make their own mass organizations, putting an even less theoretically consolidated activist leadership between the masses and the already not very theoretical MCP-OC. ↩︎
- https://peoples-voice.org/2021/01/02/ ↩︎
- https://peoples-voice.org/2021/05/01/ ↩︎
- Their words, not ours. “All recorded history hitherto has been a history of class struggle, of the succession of the rule and victory of certain social classes over others” – Lenin in “Frederick Engels”. And if they’re specifically referring to the class struggle of the proletariat: “In 1831 [194 years ago], the first working-class rising took place in Lyons; between 1838 and 1842, the first national working-class movement, that of the English Chartists, reached its height. The class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie came to the front in the history of the most advanced countries in Europe, in proportion to the development, upon the one hand, of modern industry, upon the other, of the newly-acquired political supremacy of the bourgeoisie.” From “Anti-Duhring” by Engels. ↩︎
- https://forthepeopleboston.wordpress.com/2021/05/17/ ↩︎
- Also, whatever “the generalization of the confrontation between generated mass organs and the bourgeois class state into open partisan struggle wherever possible” means. Even we can’t parse through this level of jargon. ↩︎
- The full quote is even better: “A nation — a young nation — so conceited about its “practice” and so frightfully dense theoretically as the Americans are, gets thoroughly rid of so deep-rooted a fixed idea only through its own sufferings”. Letter from Engels to Sorge circa March 18th, 1893. 1893/letters/93_03_18.htm ↩︎
- Lenin coined this term in “What is to be Done?”, referring to organizers who follow the ‘tail’ of the masses rather than trying to raise their level and lead them by the front as any vanguard should do. ↩︎
- By Gonzaloite we specifically refer to the left-opportunist trend that dogmatically applies Gonzalo Thought, what they call the “Contributions of Universal Validity of Chairman Gonzalo”, and its appraisal of Maoism. We will present a thorough critique of this revisionist trend, as with the rest of those mentioned here, in future articles. By a political cult we mean a high control political organization that engages in ‘communal abuse’ of its members, and led by a charismatic absolute authority. ↩︎
- “In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily “from the masses, to the masses”. This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.” From Mao in “Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership”. We take this to refer to the application of Marxist analysis to political work which then informs and develops that work. The key thing though, and this is where Gonzaloites and other Marxist amateurs fall through, is that one needs to grasp the Marxist method of analysis. Further, concentrating and systematizing the ideas of the masses is a skill that’s necessary insofar as you have a political strategy (i.e a program upon a firm theoretical basis) to organize the masses towards in the first place. ↩︎
- https://redguardsaustin.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/ ↩︎
- In 2020, this position was updated to declare that a communist is one who is, “among and gaining leadership in the mass struggles” and further, “inside of Communist organizations.” https://tribuneofthepeoplenews.wordpress.com/2020/04/10/where-are-the-communists/ ↩︎
- In “On Coalition Government”: “Commandism is wrong in any type of work, because in overstepping the level of political consciousness of the masses and violating the principle of voluntary mass action it reflects the disease of impetuosity. Our comrades must not assume that everything they themselves understand is understood by the masses. Whether the masses understand it and are ready to take action can be discovered only by going into their midst and making investigations. If we do so, we can avoid commandism.” ↩︎
- https://redguardsaustin.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/ ↩︎
- https://redguardscharlotte.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/ ↩︎
- Further, it appears that about half of the texts they studied were just articles by the various Gonzaloite blogs that were current at the time, especially during their theoretical debates on the nature of postmodernism. ↩︎
- The name of the Red Guards’ main red charity and later general front organization, as explicitly noted in “Condemned to Win”. ↩︎
- To be clear, even though each locale where the CR-CPUSA was active had differences, and varying degrees of spontaneous autonomy, what we’re describing here is a general tendency. As such, keep in mind that in the fewer than a dozen or so cities they were active in, there’s some variability. Some groups studied more independently, some less, some not at all, though all struggled with dogmatic adherence to the texts they were studying without any critical evaluation. ↩︎
- We mean this literally in that it was sustained by members ignoring their basic needs and being chronically overworked and abused. This unhealthy behavior is not only anti-human, but anti-Marxist as well. See this well documented history at “The Hub.” While we don’t agree with the politics or all the opinions on The Hub, we acknowledge it as a unique resource for understanding the CR-CPUSA and its offshoots that is full of primary source documents. https://maoistcultexposed.wordpress.com/timeline-basic-history/#2021 ↩︎
- Unfortunately, on account of their opportunistically secretive approach toward political positions, which were only spelled out in internal exchanges, very little is public about their approach to study at this period, and most of what is written here is based on personal testimonies reflecting after the fact and public pronouncements in the “Tribune of the People.” See, “The Hub,” for specifics. ↩︎
- https://tribuneofthepeoplenews.com/2022/01/28/ ↩︎
- To be clear, the RSGs generally unite around Eugene’s approach towards study which reiterates the priority of mass organizations and scattered dogmatic study of various Gonzaloite or auxiliary Marxist texts. As this is a decentralized trend, it appears that while most recognize Eugene’s representative line, there are RSGs like Oakland-Berkeley and Columbus that are more akin to MCU’s and RMC’s approaches respectively. This is evident specifically in the first Newsletter where Eugene’s political line (Draft political line originally from Cmd Hunter in Eugene) is presented; this being generally united around by the trend; the 5th one which includes Columbus’s Rightist move (SUMMARY OF A LINE STRUGGLE) and Oakland’s Centrist move (Documents From An Organizational Line Struggle on OBRSG); and the 7th one which confirmed Oakland’s trajectory (Internal Ideological Development Campaign). For any readers interested in these documents, we warn that the only thing you’ll learn is the sheer scale of the trend’s ignorance of Marxist analysis and theory. https://maoistcultexposed.com/2024/11/13/ ↩︎
- https://mcu.com/red-pages/issue-1/founding-statement-of-the-mcu/ ↩︎
- https://mcu.com/2023/12/mcu_and_the_working_class_movement-2.pdf ↩︎
- https://mcu.com/2024/11/growing-as-a-pre-party-organization-and-the-development-of-mcus-political-line.pdf On that note, one of their ‘corrections’ to the 2023 article made here, we can tie directly to an exchange they had with one of our facilitators criticizing their document at the time. The relevant passage is,“the distinction we drew in the document [MCUWCM] between theoretical/ideological work and practical work is imprecise. Within what could be called ideological work, there is a theoretical and a practical component. On the one hand there is the work of study, research, synthesizing knowledge, etc. On the other hand there are the various practical-organizational tasks associated with actually bringing this theory to the proletarian masses at various levels.” We suspect this to be after reflecting on our criticism. We can share the criticisms we raised from the exchange upon request. ↩︎
- “Preface to the Russian Translation of Karl Marx’s Letters to Dr. Kugelmann” and “Lessons of the Commune” by Lenin. ↩︎
- This is to contrast ourselves from the pragmatists and subjectivists who interpret this quote as a justification to undermine the positions of anyone who’s less active than themselves. The emphasis Lenin places in his text “Adventurism” is on the need for struggling over definite theories to elaborate the basis for a revolutionary strategy, and it is precisely those who ignore this, or otherwise expose their vulgar outlook, who end up being the simpletons here. ↩︎
Mount Tai Study Circle 