Patriarchy is a central issue in the development of proletarian political
organization, and if a revolutionary line on the liberation of women and
non-men is not correctly grasped errors relating to this question will be
repeated. Many correctly uphold the need for proletarian feminism, a feminist
orientation rooted in a Marxist analysis of class and capitalism, and identify
the need for women and non-men to be involved in the leadership of
organizations. This is absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient for
a revolutionary proletarian feminist orientation overall.
Since this summer, Mass Proletariat engaged in a work place struggle
in Boston. The struggle comprised two fronts: struggle against the
oppression of the workers at the hands of the reactionary capitalists,
and the struggle to show the basis for revolutionary politics among
the workers in the face of the dominant ideology of reform and
trade-unionism. Before we joined the struggle there were positive
elements in the workers’ ranks. They had recently overwhelmingly voted
down a poor contract that management claimed was their “best and final
offer.” This confrontation displayed a sharpening of contradictions in
the workplace. Also, several comrades had participated in actions
organized by the workers at the site. Through this work, these
comrades had developed links with the workers, which enabled them to
coordinate initial meetings and investigation of the situation.
Our engagement in the struggle made clear to us that the strengthening of
proletarian organization and development of mass struggle are two separate
processes, mutually reinforced and dialectically related by the united front.
In this document we describe how our understanding of developed through the
course of the struggle.
Our involvement in this struggle can be divided into three periods, an early,
middle, and late period. The early period saw the initial development of
contacts with the workers and the beginning of organized protests. The middle
period saw qualitative changes in the character of the protests, the
development of a united front, and expanded outreach and participation among
the workers. The late stage saw further developments in the protests and
a setback in the local situation, in the form of signing a ‘sugar coated
bullet’ of a contract.
This statement follows several months of involvement in a workplace
struggle, an experience that has greatly informed our engagement with
Maoism as well as with the Maoist left. Even in this early stage of our
work, the need to unite with other struggles and forces on the left is
clear. Dialectically relating the particular and the universal is
necessary to advance Maoist politics. We encourage all who aspire to
a principled proletarian politics to begin the conversation by mailing us
questions and comments at email@example.com (PGP
key). We eagerly solicit principled
engagement, in particular criticism where relevent. This is vital to
advance the process of party building in the U.S.
In the last few years we have seen the emergence of nearly a dozen collectives
in the U.S. which aspire to promote Maoist politics. This is a necessary break
from bourgeois revisionist trends that have historically acted like daggers in
the backs of the masses. While this turn towards Maoism is a positive
development, we must intervene to address various deviations in the U.S. Maoist
left. If these deviations are left unchecked, they will work to conceal
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism behind walls of ignorance and dogmatism.
The Maoist left in the United States understands the need to build the
foundation of proletarian power. However, at present there is a lack of clarity
on how to carry out this task. This confusion is the result of the lack of
a revolutionary pole, analogous to that which existed prior to Deng Xiaoping’s
counter-revolution in 1976, capable of orienting and inspiring advanced
elements of the masses. In this vacuum of mass support for communist politics,
many comrades are disoriented about how to apply the lessons of past
revolutions in the present situation. Instead, the default tendency is to
suspend disbelief, and imagine that because of a nominal adherence to Maoism as
‘correct and universal’ the people’s liberation army is bound to materialize
at any moment, or that the establishment of base areas is around the corner.
This idealist evaluation of our present situation is rooted in the notion that
revolutionary advance is simply a matter of a ritualistic practice rather than
a struggle that passes through the fire of principled criticism and material
analysis. This error is the result of a failure to grasp and apply foundational
principles of Maoism. As such, we call for our movement to undergo a course
correction that shows the basis for navigation is not a Maoist aesthetic
(punchy though it may be), but rather the firm and diligent application of
Following the decision last week for the People’s Forum
to become a weekly event, our comrades met with a contact
to continue the discussion. The People’s Forum was created in
an effort to go beyond the organizational form of reformist
marches, and build a discussion and exchange of experiences
that could serve as a basis for building proletarian power.
Much like last week, the discussion was centered on the question of
political organization. This week, our discussion opened with the topic of
identity as a basis for organization. The question was posed, should
revolutionary politics be based on an identitarian determination of one’s
political role. For instance, should white people primarily organize white
neighborhoods, and black people organize black neighborhoods? A position
commonly put forward by practioners of liberal identity-politics is that
the division of labor within political organizations should be strictly
determined by one’s nationality.
In April, following the dissolution of the New Communist Party - Liason
Committee (NCP-LC), the Boston and Richmond branches of the Maoist
Communist Group (MCG) published a document titled “The Externalization of
the Anti-Revisionist Struggle is the Negation of Proletarian Politics”.
This document was an attempt to sum up the disagreements that the Boston
and Richmond branches had developed with the New York branch. Since the
document’s publication, the Boston branch has become increasingly
concerned with the politics being put forth by the VA branch, and in
recently reviewing the document, we noted many articulations with which we
do not agree. We’ve come to the determination that we need to publish
a self-criticism of our endorsement of some of the positions put forth in
the document. To be clear, we still uphold the criticisms of the NY branch
with whom we have since split. What is at stake in this self-criticism is
not reneging on the critiques of NY and their small-clique politics of
supposed purity, but rather clarifying our opposition to left-adventurism.
For a succinct definition of left-adventurism we turn to Mao:
In the wake of recent acts of police violence in Louisiana and
Minnesota, members of Mass Proletariat attended a meeting for the
planning of a left unity rally as part of the national upsurge in public
protests against police violence. At both the meeting, and at the
subsequent rally, our comrades pursued the two-line struggle, putting
forth the distinction between reformist politics which diffuse the correct
ideas of the masses and proletarian politics which concentrate the correct
ideas of the masses.
Since the national meeting of the Maoist Commmunist Group in April, we in Boston have
been engaged in sustained invesigation and struggle into the internal contradictions
within our group. We view internal contradictions as primary and understand
the need to constantly work to correctly handle contradictions among the people by
following the principle unity-struggle-unity. This, in addition to our focus on struggling
against the division of labor within our organization, is an important break from
the practices of the NY branch of the MCG. Externally, we have been focused on outreach,
propaganda and agitation work in Dorchester. This is a form of social investigation
to determine contradictions which define the situation in Dorchester and, more broadly,
Boston as a whole. These investigations have also included prolonged follow-up meetings
with contacts to explore mutual grounds for political development in a clear and
non-mystified manner. We have identified a lack of prompt follow-up with contacts
as a key barrier in developing sustained relations with contacts and making inroad into
a ongoing struggle. There are also substantial barriers in communicating our
political orientation without being conflated with NGO groupings that also table in the area.
We need to more thoroughly investigate and merge with ongoing workplace and housing
struggles across the city. In addition to this, we are currently struggling over the best
ways to improve our overall presentation, engagement, and agitation work among mass contacts.
Through addressing these contradictions we will continue to improve our political practice
and advance the cause of the proletarian revolution.
The Boston branch of the MCG is announcing the dissolution of organizational ties
with the NYC branch of the MCG. Attempts to pursue ideological struggle over basic
questions were constantly ignored by the New York branch, culminating in the public
articulation of these differences in the Boston/Richmond piece The Externalization of the Anti-Revisionist struggle is the Negation of Proletarian Politics.
This article was met with no ideological engagement from the New York branch and resulted
in the total cesation of communication from New York. Such a response fits a pattern of
unprincipled politics from New York, including the previous promotion of a phantom branch,
as well as the denial and stalling of real branch formation and membership, acts that the
New York members boasted were necessary in order to preserve their total control over the
organization. Despite our disappointment with the backwards direction the New York group has
taken, through the sequence comrades in Boston have forged a greater political unity.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win.
-The Maoist Communist Group Boston (Mass Proletariat)
Although the initial statement of differences with NY was written jointly with the MCG’s
Richmond branch, as of late the Richmond branch has endorsed a negation of Maoist politics
and a new articulation of left unity which we do not share. This has been conveyed to us
via email exchanges and certain aspects of this politics of left unity are apparent in
their article Fuck Trump! Reportback. Our
Response and ideological criticism of their recent practice can be found in our article
“We are also opposed to ‘Left’ phrase-mongering. The thinking of
‘Leftists’ outstrips a given stage of development of the objective
process; some regard their fantasies as truth while others strain to
realize in the present an ideal which can only be realized in the future.
They alienate themselves from the current practice of the majority of the
people and from the realities of the day, and show themselves to be
adventurist in their actions” Mao Zedong, On Practice, 1937.
Comrades in Richmond, VA have recently participated in an Anti-Trump
rally and posted a write-up about it which can be found
We in Boston, while being affiliated with these comrades, do not support
this sort of action or their summation of its impact. While we agree that
there is a need to struggle against and defeat fascist politics, we do not
believe that comrades in Richmond are actually engaged in a struggle
against fascism. Rather, it seems that they have posited the existence of
a fascist threat (which is equated with the supporters of Donald Trump)
instead of engaging in a material investigation of the nature of white
supremacy in this conjuncture. The lack of material understanding of the
nature of white supremacy is embodied in the statement that “[liberals]
expect us to give fascists the benefit of the doubt, and to wait until
we’re all in concentration camps before we start resisting.” Yet it is not
clear that there is an immanent threat of the creation of concentration
camps in the United States. Furthermore, this action is proportedly taken
in defense of the victims of the “white nationalist resurgence,” namely
“oppressed black and brown people” and “white women” to whom, it is claimed,
this resurgence poses an “existential threat.” Without a clear analysis of
the nature of the supposed fascist threat this effectively amounts to
a liberal politics of recognition and enumeration of supposedly
In reviewing the collapse of the New Communist Party-Liason Committee (NCP-LC), the Maoist
Communist Group (MCG) has come to the realization that there exist fundamental political
differences within our own organization.
The NY Branch has sought to promote its initial admonitions against patriarchal
behavior, issued in 2014 as the correct basis for resolving the contradictions
that surfaced in the LC prior to its recent dissolution. 1
The branches in Boston and Virginia hold a fundamentally different position. Instead, we
believe that the primary contradiction within the LC is internal to our grouping as well.
A few members of the NY Branch suppressed discussion within the national organization on
this matter. The prevention of internal debate has been justified by terming ideological
struggle “excessively tedious,” and by saying it prevents “intervention in a timely way
in a concrete situation,” presumably to communicate with the small group left following
the dissolution of the LC. This argument violates the MCG’s stated emphasis on the primacy
of mass work and principled ideological unity. 2 The NY unit has used bureaucratic
maneuvers and other unprincipled tactics to suppress dissenting views. As a result, the VA
and Boston branches are publishing a joint analysis of this situation, separate from New York’s.
Mass Proletariat came into being because of a need and a lack. A need for
principled politics, here in Boston and at large, and a lack of political
organization that was not predicated on the reproduction of the bourgeois
world. Without principled politics we are bound to reproduce the very
structures we nominally seek to oppose.
Mass Proletariat has decided to cease our work and cut off connections with one
initial member who repeatedly defined himself in opposition to our stated task
of militant politics. Rather than focusing on the political task at hand, he
continuously conflated the political and the personal. This is a deviation all
too common in contemporary left politics, that effectively reduces politics to
identity and a nominal opposition to the state. In the handling of internal
contradictions the principle of unity, criticism, unity was discarded in favor
of antagonistic struggle, which effectively changed the nature of internal
contradictions and created antagonistic divisions within Mass Proletariat. Thus
ceasing to work with this individual is not so much about this individual as
our need to break from the lifestyle political tendencies that this individual