No Country for Old Men: How “Veterans” of the Maoist Movement Hold it Back

They begin:

"…your document seems to overemphasize one aspect of Mt. Tai’s line (their emphasis on study) to the exclusion of others, resulting in both a cascading misrepresentation of their positions and a series of erroneous political arguments. The consequence of this is the articulation of a position which overcorrects from the misrepresentation of Mt. Tai’s line by moving away from what we understand to be the correct position (that the main task today is the rectification of the general line of the communist trend) and towards a conception of Marxism reduced to a pragmatism in which theory exists in mere service to practice, rather than as a self-sufficient body of scientific knowledge with its own set of truth procedures."

We will revisit that last part which, flying low and under the radar, is easy to miss. Now, did I misrepresent Mt. Tai’s argument? Did I “overemphasize one aspect of Mt. Tai’s line (their emphasis on study) to the exclusion of others”? Or are our Maoists, with their wide eyes, more so bewildered at the boldness of our position in the face of their own chosen ignorance? Let us see.

Misinterpretations and Misgivings

The basic argumentation of the article“When Americans Refuse to Read: The Task of Study Today” is this: if one correctly analyzes the Russian and Chinese revolutionary movements led by Lenin and Mao, it is evident how both went through an initial phase of protracted theoretical study, intentionally subordinating practical work and organizing instead into study circles, passing after some time (indicated by a mastery of Marxism by the leadership as well as the synthesization of a general political line) into higher forms of revolutionary organization and practice; i.e. giving way for the formation of the party and of actually effective mass work. Moreover, if one correctly analyzes the US Communist movement, historically, it has always been handicapped by pragmatism and empiricism and ultimately ignored a truly in-depth theoretical study of Marxism.

The argument in my article was that this articulation demonstrated the subordination of all (if not in words, in reality) revolutionary practice to study, the organization around study, and the orientation of starting from and ending at the rational stage of knowledge. Though, rather than the problem lying with a malevolent distortion on my end, it is clear that I just did not cite enough of the article. Therefore, let us quote much more of what Mt. Tai argues. Firstly, they claim that “refraining from sufficient theoretical training…results in political liquidation and failure to play any decisive role in the mass movement…” That “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 forms the basis of their argumentation as it takes basic strokes of Marxism—theoretical clarity—and stretches it to fit their own rationalist and idealist outlook (for instance, the insinuation that to “act” like a Marxist is found principally in how well someone spends their time studying and not how they apply that knowledge). They denote, practically, that we must “initially limit engagement to narrow propaganda [as the Russians and Chinese did]; the scope will broaden to reflect the work of Marxists within the mass movement, soon encompassing widespread agitation.” And as to how we must therefore organize ourselves in the present moment, which would answer the question and role of revolutionary practice, they assert that there are stages from the present day onwards beginning by the act of study, moving on to the formation of a study group (as “collective study and accompanying¹ theoretical struggle [are] the principal methods to achieve consensus on Marxist principles”) and the consolidation of its leadership, thus creating the impetus for a pre-party—an organization which can then, and only then, begin building out some amount of mass work. Although, such a formation should never over-do it because “this would be succumbing to economism and tailism, as the links are useless (!) disconnected from an established political line and national organization.” Therefore, in order to be “able to proceed ‘to the masses,’ we must first develop ourselves through the difficult work of theoretical study and ideological struggle. This is how we overcome the tradition of the SPA [Socialist Party of America] and its successors.” This is their stance. This is their line. Study first, organize second. Amateur study circle today, advanced pre-party tomorrow. Theoretical work now, practical work later, quite literally altering Liebknecht’s slogan of “Study, Propagandize, Organize,” to “study (in the first place), propagandize, organize.”² The importance of study is not just highlighted, as Long March purports, it is viewed by Mt. Tai as the north star to which the revolutionary movement is principally guided by. This, despite my lack of pasting the entire document into my original article, is nonetheless precisely articulated in the latter.

Before we go on, however, we must differentiate between two types of “study”. What Mt. Tai refers to when it calls for study circles and organizing on the sole basis of study is forming circles around book-learning. This type of study, as I note in my article, “is necessary, and in fact, [is] something which any supposed Marxist must take up at all times, at every stage and at every point of the revolution.” Moreover, one can only come to understand and grasp Marxism as a science through such book-learning, not by mere participation in the practical day-to-day struggles of the proletariat—which I never go against. However, the other type of study, as it is notably repeated, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. This sort of study, social investigation and class analysis, does not consist solely of book-learning but also of practical experience; it is both the careful reading of books and conscious examination of direct social practice—of one’s own experience and the experience of the movement as a whole. Why do we make this very obvious distinction? Because Mt. Tai uses the pressing need for more of the latter in order to excuse solely organizing around the former. In other words, it excuses organizing exclusively around book-learning by putting forward the fact that we are without a thorough-going analysis of US class society which requires much theoretical work and ideological struggle to achieve. This present and pressing task we wholly agree with. However, 1) this task does not negate nor subordinate to a minor role the need for practical work in the present moment (of which their party-building plan advocates for in essence), and 2) Mt. Tai themselves do not dedicate any level of organization around this pressing task, instead solely organizing around the first type of study (made apparent when visiting their website).³ Instead of encouraging comrades to really use their own heads and form groups that are predicated on important theoretical work regarding class analysis and thoughtful practical work, they instead promote their various curriculums, study guides, and etiquette as the form of organizing our movement should take. In their conception, the theoretical work consisting of a concrete analysis of concrete conditions (along with the development of the movement in general) will arise spontaneously or “naturally” out of the book-learning of Maoism.

This is the real danger of our movement,⁴ as it uses the duty of Marxism, its leading and guiding principles, to pass off isolated, repetitive, and scholastic book-learning as a “concrete analysis of concrete conditions.” Comrades, I must ask, is a thing’s essence simply what it says it is? Or is the essence definitive regardless of appearances? If all Mt. Tai has to do is merely say that they are doing mass work, merely preach the idea that they believe we should not abandon mass work as that would be wildly and obviously wrong, then surely we must take any phrase and posture at face value! The truth is that—when examining the content of their activity (of which cannot be distorted using words)—nothing Mt. Tai does points to treating mass work as anything other than a wretched obligation.

Though, let us imagine for a moment that they do in fact do mass work. That they do not subordinate it, that all of their members practice it. What is the essence of the mass work itself? To many comrades, it means whatever’s convenient, whether that’s organizing at the job one already has, getting a job at a place one intends to organize, or interacting exclusively with leftist groups who calendar is filled with happy hours, movie screenings, and leisurely study clubs. What is mass work if not concerted and disciplined work? What is mass work if not done with clarity? Like work which plans out specifically which strata of workers to go to (a thing hardly done if at all by many groups, even those which are pragmatic and not Maoist). Moreover, what is the point of painstakingly spelling out a scientific analysis of the political economy of American class society if not, for example, to understand where it is to concentrate the majority of our limited forces? Of how to orient ourselves in the present moment? Of course, Mt. Tai and Long March would reply that they seek to answer such questions. However, it only comes across as kicking the can further and further down the road, its implementation, in practice, only a future endeavor proceeding a “protracted period of intensive study.”

Nevertheless, Long March continues:

"We found that your document correctly points out that the phase of ideological construction should not be characterized as “ideological development and struggle to the absolute exclusion of practice” (a position which, notably, Mt. Tai does not take up either) but rather than drawing out the necessary conclusions regarding the relationship between ideological construction and practical work in the present phase, it instead strikes out at an imagined enemy to defend the honor of practical work in general against an opponent who doesn’t seem much to care either way, and does so entirely by way of an emphasis on the relationship between “theory and practice” to the exclusion of concrete discussion of the real strategic content of practice."

As we have already seen, we do not merely take Mt. Tai at their word as Long March does. We also do not take seriously an application of mass work which, in essence, might as well amount to the “absolute exclusion of practice,” although yes, we can definitely see how Mt. Tai “doesn’t seem much to care either way.”⁵ Furthermore, how does my article fail to draw out “necessary conclusions regarding the relationship between ideological construction and practical work in the present phase”? I do, in fact, make it clear that we must move away from isolated study, from organizing solely around study, and towards taking practical work seriously by treating it with respect in relation to the theoretical tasks in the present phase, especially in connection to the prominent theoretical poverty as well as our terribly (if practically non-existent) ties to the working class. This analysis, therefore, is plainly in opposition to the view that we must first engage in a “period of protracted study,” or, how Long March puts it, first master “that ideology, that rich experience of class struggle, in a firm and all-sided way.” In other words, my argument does not strike down a fictitious poltergeist but a tangible position taken by the comrades in Mt. Tai, a position we firmly disagree with and which, also, exists a plenty in the Maoist movement (contrary to the opinion of Long March that it only permeates in “isolated bands”—but more on that later). Of course, both Long March and Mt. Tai profess that “such mastery requires participation in the struggle.” However, they erroneously conclude from the history of the Communist movement that “before one can meaningfully do so, one must take up the task of intensive study.” This was, to exhaustingly reiterate, addressed in my article where I detailed a rebuttal to the incorrect historical evaluation by Mt. Tai on the early Russian Marxist movement it issued as a way to justify this “task of intensive study,” a rebuttal notably absent from Long March’s comments. Thus, we shall repeat them once more.

On Early Russian Marxism

The claim made by Mt. Tai, already quoted above, is this: we must “initially limit engagement to narrow propaganda [as the Russian Marxists did]; the scope will broaden to reflect the work of Marxists within the mass movement, soon encompassing widespread agitation.” Elsewhere, as cited in my original article, they say that firstly “[the Russian Marxists] started in study circles looking to understand the fundamentals of Marxism. Once qualified in preparing and conducting targeted propaganda in local factories (by the early 1890s), they did so…the range of propaganda broadened up to widespread agitation, leading to the formation of a variety of pre-party organizations across the Russian Empire.” In other words, the Russians intentionally began with a protracted period of intensive study, manifesting in narrow propaganda circles which organically gave way to broad agitation. My argument was that this was a mechanical interpretation of history given that everything found in primary and secondary sources from that period suggests that narrow study and intellectual work among the industrial factory workers was consciously rejected in favor of broader work, of moving towards parallel propaganda and agitation, of fusing with the working-class much more consciously and efficiently. In my original article, for instance, I stated that Lenin himself, contrary to Mt. Tai’s insinuations,

"was one of the most ardent supporters for consciously moving away from narrow propaganda and towards parallel political propaganda and economic agitation, towards broadening up the level of activity of Russian Marxists. It was not by any account, as Mt. Tai posits, a form of strategy which necessitated dwelling in propaganda circles and detached theoretical work until it was time, whether by hitting an arbitrary accrual of forces or having simply gained enough knowledge, for broad agitation to ensue. In a short biographical pamphlet titled Lenin’s Road to the October Revolution, Bolshevik Revolutionary Cecilia Bobrovskaya makes this point absolutely clear: Before Lenin’s arrival the “old men” [St. Petersburg Marxists] had confined themselves to Marxist propaganda in circles of advanced workers, not yet approaching the broad masses of workers, although, despite the prophecies from the Narodnik camp, industry in Russia was rapidly attaining tremendous growth, and with it the revolutionary movement among the working-class masses. Naturally, Lenin felt this most acutely, and he therefore confronted the “old men” with the need of changing their revolutionary tactics. Under Lenin’s influence and leadership the “old men” came to realize the necessity of conducting, along with their propaganda, widespread agitation among the masses on the basis of their daily needs, drawing the masses into active economic and political struggle. At the same time Lenin warned them against one-sidedly overstressing the economic struggle alone in their agitation. He taught them to combine [my emphasis] the economic struggle of the working class with the political struggle, the struggle against tsarist autocracy."

Organized and concerted mass work was done—and done well—before that of a party and before the articulation of a unified political line, completely refuting Mt. Tai’s claim that “links are useless disconnected from an established political line and national organization,” which just so happens to sing the same exact tune, in essence, as Long March’s talk of a rectified “general political line” prior to any meaningful mass work, or, as they put it, “interventions in expanding the influence of Maoism or developing the capacity of the masses for combative struggle.” Like the hidebound St. Petersburg Social Democrats, our own set of “old men”—mouthing off about their “many years of work in the movement”⁶ — remain hesitant and reluctant towards broader work among the working masses in spite of the utter poverty (in both theory and practice) which currently reigns and has reigned for decades.

Although, if my own article and its illustrations were not enough for our rationalist friends, then perhaps they should have taken seriously Comrade Abundio’s article, “Lessons from Russian Marxism: From Secluded Activity to Parallel Propaganda and Agitation,” which explored this question much more thoroughly. In it, he explains how in spite of the tremendous effort of Russian comrades in educating the industrial workers via rigorous curriculums, lessons, and techniques, “the content of the activity of these groups often superseded their socialist goals, mostly limiting their activity to the deep study of anything possible and an emphasis on intellectualizing the workers themselves.” The result was clear:

"By 1893, the limitations of the study circle formations became a common observation by many Social Democrats. For the purpose of revolution, the “propaganda among the circles” strategy proved to have a counterproductive result among groups of workers which began to see the class struggle as something beneath them, as something to do later once the workers were “very” theoretically developed, and as an activity that must be done only among the advanced workers. Accounts of the activity of the study circles (also known as kruzhki) tell us a lot about the concrete issues that emanated from the activity of these organizations. Martov, at a time in which he worked closely with Lenin on the side of the proletariat, described his analysis of what the worker intelligentsia was developing into as it progressed in its intellectual endeavors: “The [main] trouble was that, given this outlook, they viewed the entire process of the future rise of their class in [an] oversimplified rationalistic⁷ manner: They thought it would occur from the spread of the knowledge and those new moral concepts which they themselves had acquired in the circles and from reading. Arguments with them lead us to the astounding discovery that their whole manner of social thinking was idealistic, that their socialism was still thoroughly abstract and utopian, and that the idea of employing the class struggle to transform the uncultured environment itself, in protest against which their own social awakening had occurred was still entirely alien to them.”⁸"

This many-sided and non-mechanical view of history, however, is often viewed by contemporary “revolutionaries”⁹ with the worst fear—a fear shared by our critics. They read the famous pamphlet What is to be Done? and come to the conclusion that economism is a danger which permeates like a haunting apparition, surmising that any form of broad agitation, any inkling of work which acknowledges the conditions of the workers, their ideas, thoughts, prejudices, concerns, etc., which seeks to understand and study them, which rejects the spreading of ready-made slogans, and which endeavors to connect the insular Maoist movement to the broader masses, is economist and tailist. Abundio, of who we quote necessarily at length, aptly cuts through this by explaining:

"Lenin understood the need of broader agitation at a time in which the principal contradiction of the social democratic movement in Russia was that of the separation between the social democrats and the working masses. Having spent a lot of time and effort polemicizing the position of the populists before On Agitation was distributed, Lenin did not hesitate to shift focus when he saw the stagnation of circle work."

And that ultimately, in the historical context of the Russian revolution,

"agitation proved to be the correct step, as it successfully furthered the connection between the social democrats and the working masses, resulting in the strike wave of textile workers in 1896 which was led principally by the League of Struggle, [a revolutionary] formation that was only possible by opening up the struggle to a broader basis and moving away from isolated circle work. Economism, which constitutes the exaggeration of economic agitation, the overemphasis of this aspect in substitution of the also essential element of political and ideological work among the masses, became an important issue. But it was the task of those social democrats, advanced workers, and working masses who had conclusively taken the stand of Marxism to struggle against this trend, solidifying the social democratic movement and the potential for revolution in Russia. Economism was, in a way, a problem that came from a correct step, one that had to be overcorrected from. Such is the process of correctly approaching revolution, one that is scientific because it understands the flow of events in history dialectically, by looking at the contradictions of a process and understanding that, as soon as a principal contradiction is resolved, another one will appear which must be dealt with. This process is anything but dogmatic or mechanical, often involving a repeated engagement with trial and error.¹⁰" We agree with Martov in his conclusion from On Agitation: “For this reason we identify with neither of the extremes, neither losing touch with the practical basis and only studying, nor agitating among the mass, without at the same time concerning ourselves with theory. Only parallel activity, the complementing of the one by the other, provides a real preparation and produces solid convictions.”"

So it goes. “To our chagrin, the abortive discussion…is…very circumscribed.” Is it, comrades? Or is such a conclusion easy to reach when ignoring entire portions of my article crucial to its argument? Had our friends at Mt. Tai and Long March took seriously these remarks by Comrade Abundio and not completely cast aside my own comments regarding the same period of history, perhaps there could have been a step forward for our movement—if only a small one. However, such comrades refused to do so, instead opting to circumvent our correct analysis, wailing on about tone, style, and “generalizations from personal anecdotes.” Moreover, how does Long March itself deal with lessons from the Russian Revolution? It transplants a famous extract from Lenin’s Iskra Declaration and surmises that “the twin errors…observed [in the Russian movement]…are similarly dominant now: narrow practicalism and ideological disorientation…while the scholastic retreat into protracted study (which we acknowledge does exist in some isolated bands of our trend) is of considerably less concern.”¹¹ How utterly convenient! Lenin analyzing his own movement of his own country over a century ago just happens to perfectly coincide with our own time! Though, we must ask our professorial comrades how that could be the case given the fact that there existed at the time of his writing this declaration 1) a tangible and real revolutionary movement, i.e. a mass movement colored largely by principles of economic emancipation of the working class in the face of tsardom (principles which faced revision into the annals of social-reform—economism) led by proven Marxists, and 2) a significant enough strata of advanced workers won over entirely to Communism due to, surprise surprise, a decade of concerted mass work in the form of propaganda and agitation up to that point, and 3) Communist organizations (the Leagues of Struggle as well as the initial formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party in 1898) which had been founded, not apart from the working class, but principally from revolutionary work within it (unlike our own “pre-parties” or “collectives” Mt. Tai supposes we ought to continue creating). This lies in stark contrast to our time, which has nothing resembling a revolutionary mass movement led by Communists and no significant strata of advanced workers having been won over to Maoist Communist principles due to concerted and consistent mass work. Therefore, of what good is it to mechanically ascribe observations Lenin made of his own movement that differed drastically from our own? Sure, theoretical disparity and poverty exists, but what is its character today? What is the historical content of our own movement up to the present? These questions are some that Long March doesn’t seem terribly eager to answer in a many-sided way, opting to instead conclude that we all ought to read all the more efficiently (judged by their subjective standards, whatever those may be). Of course there is much parochialism and practicalism, but is that what occupies the vast majority of those won over to the revolutionary principles of Maoism? And, again, what is the content of such activity? What are the class politics driving it? When Long March says:

"…your apparent naivety as regards the efficacy of the tactics you’ve described—tactics which, we emphasize, are commonplace among forces as varied as the revisionists of FRSO to the labor bureaucrat lackeys of the Democratic Party—demonstrates to us the substance of Mt. Tai’s claim which you cite derisively earlier in the document: that we oughtn’t emphasize practice before we are equipped to evaluate that practice."

Is Freedom Road Socialist Organization or, for instance, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) wrong because they agitate and propagandize among the working class? Or is it because the politics of both are non-revolutionary? Long March seems to forget that social-democracy in the present can, and will, do concerted mass work of its own. In fact, serving some reality to our idealist comrades, they have done such work at a better, far more efficient and productive pace in the last ten years than the Maoist movement has in the same amount of time! The recent victories in New York and elsewhere for the DSA should be direct proof of this. However, simply because we point to a complete dearth of any and all tactics on the question of efficient mass work which brings the Maoist perspective to the working class, it is said that we wade in the same waters as social-democracy. And it is Long March who talks of circumscription!

The Prevalence of Rationalism

Does rationalism exist in “isolated bands”? Does it hardly constitute a distinct and definite trend? To answer this, we must make a distinction that Long March does not bother to make, that of the difference between the American Maoist movement and the broader “Communist” movement, as noted in an earlier footnote. The former, having developed in relation to the latter since the New Communist Movement (NCM), is something which you can evaluate internally. If one does, you will see that since the rise of the so-called New Maoist Movement, which principally arose around 2013-2025 with groups like the Red Guards Austin, the New Communist Party Liaison Committee and Organizing Committee, the Maoist Communist Group, Tampa Maoist Collective, Mass Proletariat, among many others,¹² organization around the isolated and scholastic study of Maoism has always been a defining trait. Though, it was mostly after the collapse of most of the aforementioned groups in the early part of this decade where organizing around study developed into its own—especially as a response to the adventurist exploits of the Red Guards. Despite this understandable correction, it was taken to its ultimate extreme of only organizing from and out of study, the logic fully articulated by Mt. Tai in their 2025 article originally criticized. Some examples to note were various mass organizations run mostly by those affiliated to the remnants of the Committee to Reconstitute the CPUSA (formerly RGA—now The Worker) called Revolutionary Study Groups (RSG), as well as, and more importantly, Revolutionary Marxist Students (RMS)¹³ run by the Maoist Communist Union (MCU—formerly Mass Proletariat) which operated out of several campuses, promoting their brand of Maoism to hundreds of radical students during the height of the Anti-Israel encampments. MCU then abandoned this front group opting to become more public-facing, thereafter organizing many studies in its own name. This it did (and still does—although no longer online) quite effectively, especially its online endeavors, connecting hundreds of interested folks who were mostly intrigued by study itself, given that this was the main selling point.¹⁴ Training professional revolutionaries quickly started to become less about “militant” mass work and more about reaching a supposed mastery of the Marxist ideology—in other words, it swung back in the other direction. Of course, from MCU’s point of view, this figured principally as a method for recruits. However, once it had abandoned its chapters stationed all over the country and retreated to New York City, it left in its wake many at-large comrades who continued with this study-first orientation (ourselves included, in fact!). Today, we see this in many new public formations whose sole activity is study, organizing around study, and promoting study, like theRevolutionary Study Groups of Gambier andChicago (the latter is now called the Chicago League of Communists),Marxist Education Group Philadelphia,Indianapolis Study Group, Charlotte Marxists, andKansas City Marxists. Mt Tai itself directs, as is the purpose of its organization, comrades all over the country in forming local but largely unknown study groups and following its pre-made curriculums. We ourselves have come in contact with a handful of newly formed study groups which are not public but which follow a similar strategy outlined by Mt. Tai (even if some of them did not know of Mt. Tai themselves—these were often influenced by MCU or run by ex-MCU members). One I mentioned in my previous article “On the Struggle for Unity…,” a grouping which cut off correspondence in light of a disagreement over the same issues discussed in this article. No doubt many more have formed and are forming in this way given that this is largely the principle task put forward by the movement as a whole.¹⁵ Thus we cannot but agree with Long March when they tell us that “circles dedicated to a narrow theoreticism are potential allies,” something we never claimed to deny.¹⁶ We would just seek to struggle with these groups in overcoming their complete over-prioritization of study or, at the very least, convince them in being open to such a struggle—why else would we call for the creation of a national network? Nevertheless, that is why I wrote the original article in the first place, using the fully formulated rationalist position as stated by Mt. Tai in order to fight against the rising practice of it.

Therefore, what else is there to make of all of this besides a definite and prevalent tendency? Obviously, if we mask distinctions, if we amalgamate any and all “radical” formations regardless of any particular characteristics, we too can come to the erroneous conclusion that such a trend is non-existent, or, at the very least, incredibly minor. But reality is indifferent towards whatever our comrades in Long March have to say about it, especially given that, despite their many attempts, they do not formulate a wholly correct assessment of the current situation, downplaying the most pressing issues of our day.

Double-Edged Sword

Having explained how I did not misrepresent nor misinterpret Mt. Tai’s argument and that there does, in fact, exist a large tendency of rationalism within the Maoist movement, we must deal with the actual misinterpretation of my arguments by Long March. They first levy the charge that I constitute pasting agitational flyers, using QR codes, creating detailed questionnaires, and an implementation of both digital and physical media as “higher revolutionary practice.” A rather ridiculous claim indeed. Although, do I actually make it? In my article, within the paragraph they quote, I firstly state that “we feel extremely confident in our position not because of some idealist reasoning, but because our approach is one of achieving a higher stage of concrete revolutionary practice—rather than acting like we are already doing so simply because we are Maoists.” Besides the fact that several comrades have questioned this terrible over-confidence we posses due to the fact that we are so new and so green to the field of revolutionary practice, ignoring all of the analysis provided, I make it very clear that I am highlighting our orientation to the work, of our taking the work seriously so as to develop the movement beyond the bounds of insularity and isolation which currently prevails among our holier than thou milieu of Maoists—of doing concerted propaganda and agitation (while not diminishing our pressing theoretical and scientific tasks) with a sober attitude anyone claiming to be a Maoist should possess. In other words,

"[w]e aim…to take stock of both aspects of the contradiction, both the objective necessity of our limitations and the subjective freedom of our Marxist attitude. In practical terms, we aim to agitate to the widest amount of workers as necessary in the most efficient way possible; i.e. targeted and direct through digital and physical mediums—not simply posting online and into the void—while simultaneously politically training up those who take a further step than the others; i.e. bringing into being that of the “working class intelligentsia” or class-conscious proletarians who constitute the “elements necessary for the formation of an independent working-class political party.”"

As one can see, since I was discussing our orientation, our approach, I then outlined what we must do in the present, marking the very first steps on the road towards any sort of higher revolutionary practice. The examples of flyering, questionnaires, etc., then directly follows the above quote. I never conflate the two, I only state that in spite of our high ambitions and high standards, we must begin somewhere and begin with intention. And only by taking that seriously, can we hope to achieve higher and more revolutionary forms of organization among the working class. Long March, however, is not satisfied with the ghost of pragmatism it has conjured for itself, saying: “At risk of being too blunt, this [flyering, etc.,] is the bare minimum level of political work which even the most amateur organization should be capable of accomplishing.” And at a risk of being too blunt ourselves, such “bottom of the barrel” political work is hardly done or done well by most of the Maoist movement! As we have already explained, if mass work is undertaken, it is convenient and half-hearted, either because it is done with minimal care, or it is done with impatience, usually manifesting in the practice of getting a job at the place one intends to organize (avoiding the need to construct actual ties with the working class that have been earned) or of preaching ready-made slogans the workers themselves have no connection to. Then, from this poor outing, these rationalist intellectuals wax indignant towards the meager results of their hard work, thereby choosing to recede into their scholastic inquiries and narrow formations where their responsibility to the masses can haunt them no longer.

Nevertheless, Long March then levies the charge, one already mentioned, that my views are pragmatic and therefore constitute “the main danger common among groups of new communists and decidedly not the alternative.” This claim is strange given that nowhere in my original article do I articulate a pragmatic approach which scorns the formulation of theory. I clearly articulate that we must “help develop the class struggle today while simultaneously researching and theorizing much broader economic or political class contradictions (while summing up direct practical experience), rather than remaining locked behind closed doors waiting for our contemporary great teachers to synthesize the correct path forward.” The relation of theory to practice is spelled out, though certainly not enough for Long March, as they’d prefer us to philosophize our way into higher unity and organization. Tell me, who here is truly a slave to success? Maoists who, seeking no quick rewards, work steadily among the working class, who always remain patient in spite of victory or defeat, or Maoists who moan at the monotony of diligent political work, who complain about their lackluster returns, blaming everything but themselves? Here, comrades, is where our method, our epistemological orientation, diverges significantly to yours.

How Long March Flips Maoism on Its Head

At the crux of this disagreement is a philosophical conundrum. Long March proclaims that “the main task today is the rectification of the general line of the communist trend,” which is in opposition to my own supposed position: a Marxism confined to, they say, a “pragmatism in which theory exists in mere service to practice, rather than as a self-sufficient body of scientific knowledge with its own set of truth procedures.” A theory which merely serves practice, oh the monstrosity! Certainly such a theory like Marxism cannot exist in subordination to practice, yes comrades you are right, for that would be “movementism,” or worse, practical pragmatism! Though, what does Mao himself, in his most popular and widely read pamphlet on epistemology, have to say about this?

"The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature; it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality; it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice, and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice."¹⁷

Pardon me, comrades, I did not figure Mao to be a practical pragmatic! Of course, he later quotes Lenin saying that the “abstraction of matter, of a law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short, all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely.”¹⁸ However, this does not contend against the basis of practice, of its role as the criterion of truth. In fact, the deepening of correct theory is only possible through the correct orientation towards and from practice. As Mao rightly points out: “practice proves that what is perceived cannot at once be comprehended and that only what is comprehended can be more deeply perceived. Perception only solves the problem of phenomena; theory alone can solve the problem of essence. The solving of both these problems is not separable in the slightest degree from practice.”¹⁹

Marx himself stated long ago in the second statement of his famous Theses of Feuerbach that the

"question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness…of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

But yes, comrades, let us formulate a perfectly practical general political line separated (in essence!) far, far away from the realm of practice!

Moreover, what is this talk of Marxism as a “self-sufficient body of scientific knowledge with its own set of truth-procedures”? Is Marxism self-sufficient in relation to its correct grasp of objective reality? Or does it escape its bounds, becoming something idealistically higher and subject to its own form? Is objective reality subordinate to this “self-sufficient” Marxism? Or is this insinuation a complete bastardization of what Marxism really is? When outlining how “following the path of Marxist theory [draws us] closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it),”²⁰ Lenin precedes such a statement by articulating that “the criterion of practice, i.e., the course of development of all capitalist countries in the last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx’s whole social and economic theory in general, and not merely of one or other of its parts, formulations, etc.”²¹ The basis of Marxism is the fundamental acceptance of the primacy of practice, of its tethering role. Human conception can be deepened, but only whenever it takes stock of, or correctly reflects, objective phenomena and processes which exist apart from subjective interpretation. Does this method alter its fundamental orientation when discussing the role of our present theoretical and practical tasks? Or is the “truth process” of dialectical materialism only a rule to follow when uttering verbose abstractions and philosophical drivel? When Long March says above that we emphasize “the relationship between ‘theory and practice’ to the exclusion of concrete discussion of the real strategic content of practice,” but then later utter such inanities, they precisely admit to cutting off theory from its source, from its basis in material reality, opting to treat it, along with practice, as isolated variables under control in their ideological laboratory—that is, their own minds. That way, they can proceed from one to the other almost at pleasure, thereby starting from theory and moving towards practice in a rigid and mechanical way, following Mt. Tai’s formulation (and revision) of “study (in the first place), propagandize, organize.” For them, “the theory of knowledge, which demands the cunning concoction of ‘definitions,’ is one thing, while practice is another…[On the contrary,] all living human practice permeates the theory of knowledge itself and provides an objective criterion of truth. For until we know a law of nature, it, existing and acting independently and outside our mind, makes us slaves of ‘blind necessity.’”²²

Furthermore, what are “truth procedures” if not particularly packaged forms, or concepts, which objective reality must fit into, rather than being concepts which arose from a correct understanding of the objective world? We share the same concern as Lenin when he states: “the idea that knowledge can ‘create’ universal forms, replace the primeval chaos by order, etc., is the idea of idealist philosophy.”²³ The idea of “truth procedures,” to remain with this absurdity for longer than is really necessary, belongs to a philosophical system formulated by J. Moufawad-Paul and Alain Badiou before him, the former being an academic theorist who has centered his career around philosophizing about Maoism, the latter having been reared from the idealist and post-modernist school of Althusser, Lacan, and others, who became intellectually concerned with Maoism, and not, of course, occupied with fulfilling its historical duty. This article is not the place to delve extensively into the erroneous theory of these two (that being said, if one closely examines their work, one will quickly come to understand the theoretical poverty of the current moment). Though, it is worth sharing a few words on them because of their clear influence on our friends at Long March as well as many other comrades across the country.

Paul, in multiple of his books, makes it his main mission towards proving (among other philosophical exercises) how and why 1) Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a science, stating plainly in The Communist Necessity of the need “for a return to the recognition of ‘revolutionary science’ and its truth procedures…[resulting] in a rich theoretical terrain,”²⁴ and 2) when it was that Maoism gave way to Maoism as it is understood; i.e. when it was properly synthesized and distinct from Mao Zedong Thought, thereby evolving the theory of Marxism-Leninism to a higher stage, which was, as he asserts in Continuity and Rupture, synthesized first by the Peruvian Communist Party and its leader Chairman Gonzalo²⁵ (a fact Long March agrees with).²⁶ At first a somewhat understandable endeavor, it becomes clear to any serious reader what sort of circles and zig-zags he performs, always teetering ever so closely towards a correct (though already formulated) understanding, yet never fully allowing himself to come to such simple conclusions, his “structuralist” instincts taking control of the stick. Paul, no matter his supposed devotion to Maoism, is like any other academic philosopher: bored with reality (and thus the historical duty of any supposed revolutionary). He is more concerned with figuring out and resolving infinitely abstract dilemmas, employing obscurantist terms (as most of these philosophers do), and distracting from very real and very pressing tasks. He is interested in “solving” his own subjective interpretation of Maoism, not of pushing forth the revolutionary movement and of securing political power for the masses, regardless of how many times he repeats such principles (again, only in words!). Highlighting one instance, by coming to his conclusion that “Maoism did not properly emerge until the closing decades of the 20th-century,” he examines the similar development of the “theoretical terrain” of Leninism, saying:

"the significance of the [October] revolution retroactively forced significance upon the theoretical work most clearly connected to this event. If there was no October Revolution, then the writings of Lenin would remain theory within a general Marxist terrain, an interesting and perhaps discursively useful province that did not push the terrain further: it may provide theoretical clarity and debate regarding certain native problems, but without any practical proof that its declarations about reality are universally applicable this is all it can do.²⁷"

A glimmer of truth, no doubt. But what is this obsession with the terrain of Marxism? As we see: a purely scholastic one, explaining that “the October Revolution was not, however, enough to found Leninism even if Lenin’s theoretical practice was part of its point of origin. The origin of a given theory is not equivalent to this theory or its significance; to assume otherwise is an epistemic fallacy.” So if I have this correctly, Leninism was only “synthesized” and formulated after the fact through its expansion of the theoretical terrain of Marxism by an articulation of a definitive set of truth procedures. Of what usefulness is this circumlocutory nonsense? Of what purpose does this serve? We can only draw a blank.

"Therefore, Paul continues, we do not encounter the Leninist terrain simply through the event of the October Revolution which, by itself, was simply²⁸ the first communist revolution where the Bolsheviks operationalized (?) Marxism, as best evinced by the theoretical practice of Lenin. What was thus required for the emergence of Leninism as a salient theoretical terrain was a declaration on the meaning of the event that forced its significance; through this declaration of meaning, a successive organizing of the theoretical data was necessary: a theoretical operationalization. The point, here, is to discover what is universally applicable, what ruptural understanding this emergent terrain may or may not possess.²⁹"

This, despite any pretensions to the contrary, is sly sophistry. Does a general truth exist due to its elaboration and synthesization as a truth procedure a part of such and such terrain in relation to such and such event as categorized via grossly obscurantist language?²⁰ No. A general truth is one which properly reflects objective reality. A theory which is universally applicable, in the same way, reflects objective reality (in the case of historical materialism: the economic, social and political processes of society). Moreover, Stalin, on the contrary, asserted that

"Lenin…pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era of the Soviets. That is why Leninism is the further development of Marxism.³¹"

In other words, Leninism correctly reflected the objective development of the world, which was defined by the advent of the revolutionary triumph of the October revolution and the economic processes of global imperialism.³² Stalin, mechanical in certain ways, was no doubt closer to the mark here than whatever Paul has to say.

Badiou, like Paul, formulates his entire philosophical system on the same basis,³³ the integration of Marxism, of dialectical materialism, into a system of truths based on fragile terrain. We quote at length Scott Harrison, a Maoist with many faults, because we agree with him extensively when he says:

"Even if he departs from Kant in some respects, Badiou is much more of a Kantian than he is a Marxist or a Maoist. For us actual Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, what we understand as genuinely good and right is that which is in the common, collective interests of the working class—that is where our legitimacy comes from…Badiou [on the contrary] says that “For the human animal as such, absorbed in the pursuit of his interests, there is no truth…”, while for him the only valid “ethic” is the “ethic of truths” (whatever that means, exactly).³⁴"

Notwithstanding these obvious obscurities, Harrison attempts to find an inkling of logic:

"There are important “events” in the world [according to Badiou’s theory] such as the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution in China, Galileo‟s creation of physics, Schoenberg‟s invention of the unstructured twelve-tone musical scale, and so forth. These “events” have associated with them “circumstances of a truth”, and the only real “ethic” involves a “fidelity” to the “truth” of these “events”. However, [Badiou] also puts it the other way around: he defines “a truth” as “the real process of a fidelity to an event”…One immediate, and obviously difficulty is that it seems that there have been plenty of “events” in history which have been anything but good and moral. Badiou is conscious of this basic difficulty with his theory, and therefore selects one of these clear counterexamples and spends a lot of space trying to explain it away. This is the Nazi seizure of power in Germany in the 1930s. He decides, for some obscure reason, that this was not an “event” in his sense (he calls it a “simulacrum” instead), and that “Nazi politics was not a truth process”. But what justification does he have for ruling out this rather obvious counterexample to his theory? The theoretical mumbo-jumbo aside, it seems to come down to a Kantian sort of objection: the Nazis were nationalists and racists, and therefore did not represent everyone everywhere. But if this Kantian objection (implicitly applying a categorical imperative) is accepted as the test, then it seems that Badiou‟s inclusion of the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution in China have to also be ruled out as “genuine events” and actual “truth processes”. After all, these episodes also did not represent everyone everywhere (in that they were definitely directed against one section of society—either the King and the feudal nobility, or the neo-bourgeois capitalist-roaders within the Communist Party of China). The only real way to even begin to make this “ethic of truth” theory vaguely coherent is to give it a class basis. And if you do that the entire theory becomes completely unnecessary, since then we might as well go with the much simpler and clearer MLM Class Interest Theory of Ethics instead!³⁵"

He concludes, correctly, that “what Badiou has tried to do is cook up a version of classless semi-Kantian ethics which will always endorse the conclusions he had already come to approve of as a radical-liberal and some-time enthusiast for the Cultural Revolution and the 1968 events in France—events which were serious episodes of class struggle.”³⁶

Why do we harp on such a seemingly small point uttered almost in passing? Because the devil’s in the details and we must expose just exactly how pervasive it extends across the fabric of our movement.³⁷ In an effort to keep this article under an extraordinary length, we must cease our inquiry. However, before we do, we must make it absolutely clear: taken as a whole, neither Paul’s nor Badiou’s theory abides closely, consistently, and unequivocally to the principles of Marxism and thus to objective reality. Instead, like any tried and true set of intellectuals with a maligned fascination for communism, they opt to, with pen and scalpel in hand, jam the world into their brilliant systems of “scientific” thought while paying occasional philosophical lip-service to Marxism.³⁸ Practical questions, tasks, and methods bear no value to these systems, and are, more often than not, cast out as pragmatic, rash, or anti-intellectual. For Paul and Badiou, the theory becomes an end of itself, offering many descriptors, categories, and frameworks, but hardly any solutions (which we are in dire need of). Returning to our comrades in Long March, we ask plainly: do you, as stated at the beginning of your short article, truly share in our “disdain for scholasticism”? Or is it not made clear that from one simple sentence you decidedly turn the philosophical orientation of Marxism onto its head, away from the realm of practice and towards the realm of sophistry? From there, it is no wonder why the conclusion of prolonged and protracted study, of the rectification of a general political line through a priori means, has been arrived at.³⁹

First as Tragedy…

I want to end this article by placing this debate and struggle in the context to our broader historical movement. This line, much more plainly formulated today through the process of study and organizing around study, was actually articulated by a few groups during the New Communist Movement as the need to “delay fusion” until there was an already formed Communist Party and thus a sufficient enough base level of understanding of Marxism. This was spelled out most acutely by the Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective (TMLC), who Mt. Tai, in their original article, deemed one of the few groups which had some of “the most correct (on paper) approaches to party building [in the NCM].” The TMLC, nevertheless, as summed up by the Pacific Collective Marxist-Leninist (PCML) in their polemic From the Circles to the Party, stated

"that fusion requires (1) a communist party or “organization developing toward a party,” which has unified the communist movement, (2) a workers’ movement producing the advanced workers described by Lenin, and (3) Marxist-Leninist theory, understood correctly at the general level and fully applied to analysis of concrete conditions in the U.S. and elaboration of proletarian strategy and tactics.⁴⁰"

Similar to our conclusions expounded above and elsewhere, the PCML resolved: “what the Russian experience actually shows is that a significant level of fusion can take place even when the communist movement is fragmented into small circles, at least under some conditions and with the right kind of work.” Regarding the second and third points, they note that a crop of advanced workers cannot exist “in the absence of communist agitation” (i.e. advanced workers do not grow on trees, nor is such a term flexible and relative).⁴¹ Moreover,

"[w]hile communists should certainly not throw themselves into the mass movement as if the lack of theory and communist unity will be only minor hindrances to our ability to help a communist vanguard develop, we must also oppose relegating practical work to a minor role. Aside from the questionable wisdom of trying to form a petty-bourgeois communist party as a first step and transform it into a workers’ party later, the attempt itself would be futile. It would be defeated by the theoretical mistakes and opportunist deviations which cloistered intellectuals cannot avoid, and by our inability to unify without practice, both to help prove certain lines correct and to bring in workers who will struggle against petty-bourgeois sectarianism."

How else can the actual manifestation of a rectification of the general political line (or study circle to pre-party plan) result in anything else but a petty bourgeois Communist Party which must then, intoxicated with its own prideful stupor, transform itself into a workers party? This sort of clarity from within the NCM itself is hardly discussed by many groups—certainly not Long March and Mt. Tai. But here it is: the struggle against rationalism, against conscious insularity and intellectual isolation, of petty-bourgeois sophistry, almost half a century ago. And here we stand today, having learned not one iota from our own past.

Conclusion

Long March finally surmises:

"We have seen this exact pattern [of political liquidation] repeated time and time again in cities and towns across the country over more than a decade of political participation in the current phase of anti-revisionist party-building efforts…Against this, we perceive the line of march for new organizations of burgeoning communists to begin with a protracted period of study of the classics and preliminary social investigation in order to consolidate a solid nucleus of revolutionaries around a firm grasp of the Marxist method. Only upon the consolidation of such a nucleus can meaningful political work begin, and even then, such work should take the form of patient and careful attempts to build durable links with a specific layer of the masses."

To sum up, Long March, in agreement with Mt. Tai, views the progress of the movement beyond its decades-long poverty as such: theorize among ourselves first and foremost, come to theoretical unity, then, and only then, go to the masses—i.e. the making of a false promise. Whereas, to the contrary, we see mass work and participation in the advancement of the class struggle as indispensable at present even in a period of theoretical disarray, rejecting the notion that it’ll come later down the line after a supposed mastery of Marxism, and even then merely to a “specific layer of the masses,” (as if we could not figure that out right now via engagement in thoughtful practical work!). The unity of the Maoist movement cannot simply be done mechanically after some “theorizing” or “rectification.” It must be done ferociously in the development of struggle, both ideologically and practically. Moreover, those who seek to become professional revolutionaries, which are largely radical intellectuals and students (forming the base of those we are instructed to unify in the first place), must be faced with the stark reality of what that means and must therefore mold themselves beyond book-learning—while still reading and carefully studying the works of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as much as possible. The idea that intellectuals will become a “nucleus” of professional revolutionaries by study alone and detached from the masses is wrong and has been proven wrong by history. Hence, this must be ardently struggled against. Pulling once more from PCML’s book: “we are emphasizing the aspect of keeping the intellectuals firmly enough rooted in the reality of the class struggle to develop and maintain a proletarian outlook...Practice in the class struggle is important for steeling the characters and firming up the class stands of those of us who are from non-proletarian backgrounds.” We would only add that such practice must not fall into the convenient and lethargic forms it has taken up here in America.

The push for study in reaction to the troubled misadventures of the Red Guards and Co. beginning at the start of this decade has, do not get me wrong, positive elements. More and more comrades are becoming interested in grasping the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and such a thing can only be looked upon with hope.⁴² However, if one diligently and thoughtfully ingests the theory and history of Communism, it will be hard to miss the duty bound tasks of the present moment. These tasks require—they necessitate—escaping from the confines of protracted book-learning. Contrary to the idea purported by Long March about our position, we agree wholeheartedly that comrades needn’t delve into mass work for the sake of it and without direction. But it is just as true that oftentimes the spirit of those who jump headfirst into the flames of revolutionary struggle becomes blunted by supposed “veterans of the movement” like those “old men” in Long March and Mt. Tai (and elsewhere). Opposed to what you have seen, we have noticed just this: young comrades being subsumed into these trivial formations where our supposed great teachers dominate, i.e. in isolated groupings wherein the latter rides roughshod over their horribly under-educated pupils, their ignorant and bourgeoisifed young souls so lacking, so naive.43 It is no wonder why in the last few years so many have chosen the likes of the DSA and PSL!

With these criticisms many may become taken aback. Do we think ourselves superior, or others inferior, within the revolutionary movement? Are we drunk with confidence? Sectarian? Certainly not. As stated in my previous article, “On the Struggle for Unity within the American Maoist Movement,”

"…any sort of struggle over…disagreements will only ever coalesce into a higher level of unity if there are definitive and principled grounds to stand on. If I were to instead “damn to hell” these exponents of rationalism, I would only continue the typical trend of consolidating around a handful of ideas as a “political line’”and organizationally close myself off toward real struggle and real debate over important matters. I would be choosing to forego progress in favor of talking to my own group of “really real Marxists” in isolated perpetuity, only ever opening the door to discourse through private channels or on public platforms whenever it suited my own interests."

A connected national network of revolutionaries is of the utmost necessity at present. These struggles in the current moment, despite their beneficial nature in certain ways, have been disjointed and irregular. Groups and individuals are not at all obligated to respond to polemics nor prove their points. As long as their narrow set of individuals and online followers are in tact, all is well. Given the prevalence of isolated study groups and ready-made revolutionary organizations, a responsibility to the masses is virtually non-existent. We must break away from this orientation and develop a common practice through such a network, highlighting the ideological struggles of the day in a widely distributed journal as well as creating specific material which politically and economically agitates and propagandizes the working class precisely from the Maoist position—also developing all the ways we can distribute such material (i.e. practicing the mass line instead of preaching about it). If we cannot do this most basic thing, if comrades would prefer to prate on about a mastery of Marxism, of their own group’s sanctity, a vanguard Communist party—much less proletarian revolution—is truly unachievable.

So go ahead, continue boasting all day and night about your length of experience! To us, it is nothing but the admittance of our movement’s destitution at your own hands. And to the rest of those comrades still so bright and full of life: keep that fire alive within your soul to which these “old men” bitterly seek to extinguish. Just because you must pour yourselves quite correctly into the annals of the science of Marxism does not mean you must lose yourselves within its leather binds. Follow our supposedly great theoretical masters no longer and, instead, become the leaders our movement so desperately needs.

1. My emphasis.
2. When mentioning this phrase in their article (and then distorting it), they cite Lenin’s What the “Friends of the People” Are and How they Fight the Social-Democrats (1893), yet they seemingly pass over some of the key concepts regarding the relation between ideological and practical work put forward in that text. We quote at length a section towards the end of the book: “In thus emphasising the necessity, importance and immensity of the theoretical work of the Social-Democrats, I by no means want to say that this work should take precedence over practical work,—still less that the latter should be postponed until the former is completed. Only the admirers of the ‘subjective method in sociology,’ or the followers of utopian socialism, could arrive at such a conclusion. Of course, if it is presumed that the task of the socialists is to seek “different” (from actual) “paths of development” for the country, then, naturally, practical work becomes possible only when philosophical geniuses discover and indicate these “different paths”; and conversely, once these paths are discovered and indicated theoretical work ends, and the work of those who are to direct the “fatherland” along the “newly-discovered” “different paths” begins. The position is altogether different when the task of the socialists is to be the ideological leaders of the proletariat in its actual struggle against actual and real enemies who stand in the actual path of social and economic development. Under these circumstances, theoretical and practical work merge into one aptly described by the veteran German Social-Democrat, [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, as: [Study, Propagandize, Organize]. You cannot be an ideological leader without the above-mentioned theoretical work, just as you cannot be one without directing this work to meet the needs of the cause, and without spreading the results of this theory among the workers and helping them to organise. Such a presentation of the task guards Social-Democracy against the defects from which socialist groups so often suffer, namely, dogmatism and sectarianism. There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no sectarianism when the task is that of promoting the organisation of the proletariat, and when, therefore, the role of the ‘intelligentsia’ is to make special leaders from among the intelligentsia unnecessary.” My emphasis added.
3. See the following document which outlines the pathway to the mastery of Marxism via a school-like format featuring grades, marks, and modules, etc. https://mtai-study.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/participant_facilitator-structure.pdf
4. A critical thing to note here is how Long March, as well as many other Maoist groups and individuals, seem to conflate the Maoist movement with the broader “Left” movement, as if they are not distinct from one another. It is easy to speak of pragmatism and activism as the main danger when ignoring such a distinction. Furthermore, I make it abundantly clear that I am addressing those won over to Maoism and thus to really real revolutionary politics, not to those practicing and praising social-reformist and “direct aid” politics with the appearance of Communism. It is precisely with those in the former camp that, in a sort of ultimate response to the comical exploits of the Red Guards, fall into rationalism.
5. In a recent call with them, Mt. Tai, after accusing my article of the same level of misrepresentation (and failing to prove such a claim), repeatedly expressed to us that they are, in fact, not a Communist group but merely a national study organization which does not have the capacity nor the time to dedicate towards a concerted plan of mass work. That we had already deduced, comrades! But we wonder if Long March still so confidently goes up to bat for an organization that openly admits its own “exclusion of practice”?
6. A great honor the leaders of Mt. Tai made sure to let us know they too possessed.
7. Abundio’s emphasis.
8. Abundio, “Lessons from Russian Marxism: From Secluded Activity to Parallel Propaganda and Agitation.” 2026. https://abundiom.substack.com/p/lessons-from-russian-marxism-from
9. In a public presentation back in April of this year, Ryan Costello, chairman of the Maoist Communist Union, espoused in essence the same understanding of early Russian Marxism as Mt. Tai, stating: “I don't agree that [economic agitation] is actually our main task as Marxists. I think it's a mistake to say this. I'm not discounting the importance of doing so. No Marxist movement can win the working class over without carrying on economic agitation amongst the workers and without ultimately showing the basis for Marxist leadership of the working-class struggle and leading those struggles successfully. But if you look at the history of development of the Russian Marxist movement, you have a series of periods…of their development. [In] the earliest stage the key task was actually the development of the worker study circles to train the advanced workers in Marxism so that those workers could then go make ties amongst other workers and build up a base for the not-yet party. Then you had to travel from these study circles of workers and revolutionaries to carrying on mass agitation which was some of it economic but also political agitation.” Maoist Communist Union. The End of NATO: A Presentation by MCU and DKU. YouTube, 2026. Video. He goes on after to correctly say that political agitation is key in developing the class consciousness of the proletariat—that solely focusing on economic agitation falls prey to the jaws of economism. However, there is always a few missing pieces with a comrade like Costello—another “veteran” of the movement. Those being, firstly, the assumption of an already existing strata of advanced workers, secondly, the organizational sectarianism of the MCU in relation to the rest of the Maoist movement (as well as its own insular and petty nature like, for instance, practicing democratic centralism, speaking of “Menshevism” in its ranks, etc.), and thirdly, an ignorant and incorrect methodology regarding the current moment, that of dealing with the complete separation of Maoism from the working class movement. Perhaps, on this last point, they see the influx of their online followers as a quantitative reflection of fusion and maybe—just maybe—once they hit a million they can constitute for themselves, finally, the Maoist Communist Party, USA!
10. Thus, in a letter to Plekhanov in 1900, Lenin said: “…while there has been overemphasis (All emphasis by Lenin) of ‘economic’ agitation…it was the legitimate and inevitable companion of any step forward in the conditions of our movement which existed in Russia at the end of the 1880s or the beginning of the 1890s. The situation then was so murderous that you cannot probably even imagine it, and one should not censure people who stumbled as they clambered up out of that situation.” Lenin, V. I. “To G. V. PLEKHANOV.” Marxists Internet Archive, 1956. Accessed September 1, 2026. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/nov/09.htm#fwV36P052F01. Our situation is similar inasmuch as there exists a gulf between Maoism and the working class movement. Therefore, we too shall have to clamber up and out of our own hole, making our own grave missteps along the way. However, we will, and must, deal with them all the same.
11. Lenin, V. I. “Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra.”1900.
12. Despite coming from a sort of therapeutic point of view, the website maoistcultexposed.com provides a good amount of direct information regarding this embarrassing (and still ongoing!) period in US Maoist history.
13. https://marxiststudents.wordpress.com/study-groups
14. https://www.instagram.com/p/DAGeWfpOm32/?img_index=1
15. Those who go against the grain so to speak largely follow in the steps of the RGA, prioritizing mass work and upholding Gonzalo; e.g. The Worker, People’s Defense Committees, Revolutionary Student Union, among others. More upright and steadfast formations, despite our disagreements with them, are the publications of New Labor Press and The Partisan as they both reject endless study as well as non-principled mass work.
16. As I said in my original article in footnote 30: “I want to reiterate that I am not talking about those new fresh faces who hold a genuine interest in learning more about Marxism, and do not know yet (or have already been consumed into the many insular and isolated ‘collectives’ or ‘pre-parties’— L. K.) of its historical mission and of its required tasks, i.e. developing the class struggle in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The force of my criticism is aimed squarely at those who, after having studied for a significant amount of time, come face to face with these tasks and still consciously ignore them, opting to enjoy Marxism as an academic or cultural pursuit, and along the way theoretically—and childishly—defending such cowardly decisions, as our folks in Mt. Tai do.” Moreover, I would wholeheartedly include all of the aforementioned groups as part of our movement, just as much as I would the erroneous rationalists within Mt. Tai.
17. Mao Zedong, On Practice. 1937.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Lenin, V. I. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. 1908.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Moufawad-Paul, J. The Communist Necessity. 2020. 108-9. https://tucsonredaction.org/docs/readings/the-communist-necessity.pdf.
25. Moufawad-Paul, J. Continuity and Rupture: Philosophy in the Maoist Terrain. Zer0 Books, 2016. https://leftypol.org/edu/src/1728419746651-0.pdf.
26. In their article “On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,” Long March states: “it was the PCP–RIM sequence that first systematized Maoism as an internally coherent theoretical synthesis. The formal adoption of Maoism as the advanced stage of Marxism by the RIM in 1993 marked a significant, if uneven and contested, development in the history of revolutionary theory.” It is not a coincidence how many groups base themselves on this philosophical and historical crap but do not claim it outright. They never once credit Paul here (the real theoretical elaborator of this claim) or anywhere else—not to mention their use of the same “structuralist” language all throughout their articles. This is why truth from conflict, as noted by Krupskaya in her famous piece How Lenin studied Marx, is important, as we wonder whether or not our friends in Long March would have admitted this erroneous formulation without our previous criticism.
27. Ibid
28. My emphasis.
29. Ibid
30. This sort of illogical logic is precisely what allows Paul to make the assertion mentioned earlier, that Gonzalo and the PCP synthesized Maoism into what it is through the “successive organizing of the theoretical data” merely after the fact.
31. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism. 1924.
32. Maoism is similar in that it correctly reflected the objective development of the world; i.e. principally that of the struggle against the new bourgeoisie inside the Communist Party culminating in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the furthest development towards Communist relations in history. It was not, how Paul and Long March suggest, simply theorized after the fact which made Maoism into Maoism.
33. Paul views Badiou as a former Maoist, which, if one attempts to familiarize themselves with Badiou’s philosophical upbringing and his intellectual escapades in France, one will question if he ever really was a Maoist at all.
34. Harrison, S. “Alain Badiou: A Pseudo-Maoist Obscurantist.” 2008. https://www.massline.org/Philosophy/ScottH/BadiouAndEthics.pdf
35. Ibid
36. Ibid
37. If our comrades in Long March view this as pedantic, as I’m sure they will, then perhaps they should have done themselves a favor and not mentioned such a ridiculous formulation. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things, I can only but thank them for such a lousy admittance!
38. This excerpt from Paul in Continuity and Rupture provides a good example as to the contradictory nature which his system follows: “After all, a philosopher can declare anything they please to be a moment of historical rupture, and provide clever and well-reasoned arguments as to why this declaration is fact, but philosophy and clever arguments do not make history. Rather, any such arguments will only become fact, and a contested fact, if and when the historical rupture, the moment of periodization, arrives.” There is no consistency to Paul, only uncertainty—even within the bind of the same book. Like how Bogdanov attempted, and failed, to merge Machism with Marxism, so too Paul aims to merge Badiouist, Althusserian and structuralist logic with Maoism.
39. Obviously, as things go, many comrades will interpret this as my ridding the need for a political line. This is not the case. A political line (i.e. the general strategy for revolution) is obviously necessary. However, the methods needed to achieve such a unified line must match with reality. So far, the only methods both Long March and Mt. Tai have argued for don’t.
40. Pacific Collective Marxist-Leninist. From Circles to the Party. Marxists Internet Archive, 1979. https://www.marxists.org/history//erol//ncm-8/pacific-collective/index.htm.
41. Another missing piece from Long March’s article is any discussion regarding Mt. Tai’s use of advanced worker and my criticism of it. This concept has been misunderstood far too long by the majority of our movement and requires further elaboration.
42. We want to reiterate that our own group started as a study circle, but that we have formed into what we are today (which, mind you, is nothing exemplary yet given that we are very, very small and have no deep revolutionary ties with the working class—freedom of necessity!) was due to the conscious rejection of isolated study.
43. As T. Kobayashi in “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce: The Legacy of the Revolutionary Communist Party’s Revisionism in the US “Maoist” Movement Today” aptly notes: “The idea of ‘pre-party formation’ attempts to force together a revolutionary organization with a mass organization in the hopes of commanding underdeveloped cadre into the revolutionary organization. The ‘pre-party formation’ concept explicitly demands the premature creation of a democratic centralist organization to use as a means for developing correct strategy and tactics. The hope is to lure a section of the spontaneous mass movement, ‘Bolshevize’ them, and turn their opportunism into an organized, material force.”