Self-Criticism of Writing “Collapse”
Self-Criticism for Writing “Collapse”
Author of "Collapse"
January 2025
In the spring of 2022, I wrote an article titled “Collapse,” which was initially published without authorization by a now-dissolved small group—the “Revolutionary Study Network” (RSN)—and later briefly posted by myself through an anonymous Twitter account. Comrades and friends have uncritically used this document as a basis for understanding the history of the American Maoist movement, but given the influence it has generated, it is now necessary to discuss and issue a self-criticism. The article contains factual errors and semi-truths provided by poor historians and even some politically unreliable rumor-mongers. Its underlying methodology also contains several harmful fallacies that require in-depth analysis and understanding.
Before delving into these fallacies, I believe it is necessary to provide some introductory explanations and clarify why “Collapse” was initially published. Regarding the efforts to dismantle and rebuild the American Communist Party (the “Reconstruction Committee of the Communist Party of the United States,” or CR-CPUSA), Red Library website has compiled extensive materials. I encourage everyone to study these documents carefully to understand the development of the cancel culture and the mistakes of previous leadership.
As a supporter and writer active in Pittsburgh since 2015, I was once part of the command center initiating the disintegration actions. Initially, I supported efforts aimed at removing incompetent leaders because their subjective errors led to—activities involving active practical work around workers and supporting families of those killed by police—activists becoming physically and mentally exhausted. I suddenly realized I was being used. I thought I was fighting alongside comrades, but they suddenly became indifferent, and I was told I could no longer participate in discussions or organizational work, and that I had to report to a rightist cancel culture representative. This person pretended to be a friend, inviting me out for drinks or meals, but used these meetings to collect my information and pass it to one of the main planners of the split. This person then issued instructions on what I could say and do. At first, they even claimed they would give me a “review” opportunity to discuss my mistakes, but they broke their promise, and I was told to keep silent.
I learned from several comrades involved in the “People’s Forum” that cancelists had organized activists still active after 2020 into a committee called the “National Working Group” (NWG). Upon discovering that the rightist cancel group did not intend to use the “National Working Group” as a tool for reconstruction but as a means of disintegration—cutting off leadership from grassroots activists, dismembering all organizations, infiltrating existing struggles, and destroying communication channels—I began writing “Collapse” as a guide and call to action. The only positive aspect of “Collapse” is its initial critique of Avakianism and postmodernism, but it fundamentally failed to escape these erroneous ways of thinking.
“Collapse” remains fundamentally flawed—it follows a cancelist line within the so-called “Maoist” framework and ignores Maoist principles. As its author, I have a responsibility to revise it and urge future readers and audiences to understand its complex full picture when summarizing this phase. Likewise, those truly committed to party rebuilding have a responsibility to understand that people and events are not labeled with clear, simple tags—if there are tags, they should read “Gathering Cannot Do Without Investigation.” Rightist cancelers have no interest in investigation; in the struggle between two lines, they are never concerned with rebuilding a new organization based on collecting and systematizing correct ideas and positions, but focus instead on destroying any such attempts.
The failure to recognize the chaos of division can be seen from this document’s failure to follow proper procedures. It was published based on the assumption that there was no organization or center I could consult, nor any leaders or comrades urging me not to publish it, for collective self-criticism and summary. This reveals a pessimistic outlook and also exposes a perspective problem: speculating that the organization is dead, yet even after the so-called “collapse,” it still exists; meanwhile, due to splits, several opposing but still somewhat surviving independent organizations have emerged. Understanding and expressing the development process in a dialectical way is crucial: many revolutionaries once organically united—whether through the “Forum” support committee, student organizations, or workers’ factions—were suddenly split into different parts, and these parts now must struggle for unity.
Principled unity requires unwavering commitment to resolving the contradictions that caused the splits—through collective analysis and mutual accountability. Mistakes and deviations must be understood within the context of the movement’s historical development, focusing on their material roots and lessons learned, rather than individualist theories or rumors. I failed to resist the temptation to spread rumors or personal grievances publicly, which fostered division and suspicion among comrades.
The main errors in this document stem from populist agitation in information gathering, especially relying on politically unreliable sources—including cancelists—whose logical fallacy is believing that accusers (even second-, third-, or fourth-hand accusations) are always correct, and the more激烈的指控越多，就越应该相信这个来源！This document also exhibits subjectivist tendencies in its methodology and error correction plans—almost inevitably, because I often had to write based on false information. Finally, it should be noted that when criticizing certain issues, this document actually echoes criticisms already raised by the left, but then turns against the left itself.
Part of this document’s argument is based on fallacies, and overall it fails to clearly distinguish Yan’an from Xi’an, revolution from reaction—rashly labeling them as “revisionist” without analyzing how the accused’s ideology, political, and organizational lines are involved. It attacks those who serve the revolution and make sacrifices—these people, though mistaken, have never abandoned Maoism. The solution for comrades who have made mistakes is Maoist unity, not excluding comrades facing severe repression and isolation, but rather unity with those who oppose cancelism or social democracy and seek reconciliation.
On Criticism, Facts, and Fiction
First, it is easy to see that this article is filled with conjectures about personal lives, which are harmful and politically counterproductive. This approach not only lacks principles and runs counter to the Marxist spirit of criticism and self-criticism but also distorts memory. From rhetoric that doubts the class background and personal experiences of relevant individuals to sports-commentator-style speculations about personal motives—based on their supposed interests in popular culture or historical topics—such vulgarization of criticism is one of the stubborn diseases of the American Maoist movement, related to subjectivism, sectarianism, and postmodernism—these ideologies have infiltrated the movement since its inception in 2013 and have never been truly eradicated—manifesting as obsession with individualism and personalizing issues rather than solving problems collectively on a broader level. Since cancelists originate from the right wing of the movement, it is not surprising that they adopt this approach.
The title “Collapse” itself is a mistake, reflecting a lack of investigation. The “Declaration on the Situation of Maoists in the United States” published by ci-ic.org clarifies what happened in March 2022. To label the complex and ever-changing situation as “collapse” is an oversimplification. Even after the split, many still organize as Maoists—although the initial split did indeed cause morale to drop among some, including myself.
Regarding group composition, the data in the article is incorrect. Moreover, careful readers can find contradictions—namely, that members do not know each other but suddenly have detailed knowledge of who remains in or has left the organization. Also, facts not mentioned in “Collapse” or cancelist websites include that most members of the so-called “small groups” (like most of the movement) are women. However, when cancelist networks dig into (or “uncover”) these groups, the high proportion of women is deliberately ignored. I cannot assert their motives for not publishing photos and names of these women leaders, but I suspect it contradicts their claim that the movement is “patriarchal,” dominated and manipulated by men.
Further investigation—including legal documents provided by the state and reactionaries—has discredited many claims made in “Collapse.” We should take time to reflect, and thus the following discussion will proceed chronologically. To avoid redundancy, not all errors in “Collapse” will be addressed. Also, as the author, I have not interviewed people from Los Angeles, Oxnard, or Charlotte; I solely rely on information provided by publicly opposed elements of the movement—these claims about these cities have not been corrected to date, which does not mean I agree with previous assertions, only that these places require further investigation.
The fact is that the history of the Maoist movement in the U.S.—especially for the new generation of participants—has been distorted by enemies. Restoring the inverted history is crucial for clarifying facts and defending revolutionaries.
On the Red Guards
The preface itself contains several known historical errors. The “Liaison Committee of the New Communist Party” (LC-NCP) actually traces back to the 2011 “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which marked a resurgence of Marxist class consciousness among dispersed Marxists under the influence of postmodernism, social democracy, and various forms of revisionism (Avakianism, Masiism, Trotskyism, etc.). This organization was initially established in 2013 as the “New Communist Party—Organizing Committee” (OC-NCP), later splitting into the “Liaison Committee of the New Communist Party” (LC-NCP) and the “Maoist Communist Group” (MCG).
The Red Guards (RG or RGs) movement arose amid the coexistence of sectarian left-wing and postmodernist right-wing currents. However, the left did not fall into “the distortion of Maoism through eclecticism and empiricism” as “Collapse” claims; they were still developing their understanding and application of Maoism at that time. Studying the publicly available writings from this period allows more critical readers to see the disputes between left and right, correctness and error. There was indeed struggle between the two sides, but this struggle was not always well-organized or properly handled. Sometimes, tensions between the left and right influenced certain actions of the left.
The choice of the name “Red Guards” reflects immature political lines—implying it was a youth organization and also suggesting the initiation of the Cultural Revolution without seizing power, with Avakian-style practices still present today, such as online doxxing and glorifying it as exposing revisionists’ big-character posters. “Condemned To Win” was a stance document published during this period, advocating unifying the party under Bob Avakian’s federal model initiated in the Bay Area Revolutionary Union, and calling for implementing STP (Serve The People)—a community charity project reportedly associated with the Black Panther Party. “We Will Not Integrate Into a Burning House” reveals contradictions within this period: the “New Communist Party—Liaison Committee” (LC-NCP) had many problems and was controlled by opportunists adopting wrong positions; the left’s Red Guards believed the LC was worse and compromised with the right. The LC was weak in organization, politics, and ideology, making it prone to splits, and the “burning house” metaphor was politically inappropriate. The problems with federalism and phenomena like accusations under the guise of ideological debate continue to recur in other organizations.
What “Collapse” does not mention is that, although the left did not always correctly oppose the right, they did recognize these errors and tried to overcome them. It was the so-called “small groups” that identified postmodernism, vulgar anti-fascism, aristocratization, community projects, and federalism. Notably, the left introduced Chairman Gonsalves into the Red Guard movement. His teachings began to be applied, and initially, there were followers of “Anti-Avakianism”—those influenced by the LC’s attacks on “Gonsalvism” within the Red Guards. However, due to the lack of international contacts and experienced veterans in the U.S. movement, and because the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) controlled unity work, and the Peruvian People’s Movement (MPP) was absent in the U.S., work was limited, and some ideological flaws persisted. Yet, claiming that “Collapse” shows no progress in this limited development is mistaken.
Austin Red Guards, Suppression
Regarding reports of suppression in the article, an important clarification is needed. Much of the information related to the suppression of the Austin Red Guards (RGA) comes from a suspected informant cancelist and other unreliable sources. This person previously participated in student movements, was on felony probation for drug crimes during that time, then suddenly disappeared and went abroad. First, the actions against Alex Jones did not force anyone to move to Los Angeles. Investigations show that the reports from InfoWars (the far-right media operated by Alex Jones) actually increased the organization’s visibility, prompting more people to explore the true situation of the Austin Red Guards.
“Collapse” claims that a police officer “attempted” to break Dallas’s neck, which is false—he actually did break his neck, and at the time of arrest, he was not even treated. The claim of an “entirely avoidable arrest” is inaccurate because the protester with a neck fracture had participated in and led demonstrations for several nights prior. The story about “stealing” hats from Trump supporters never happened; police never claimed such an event. The real situation was that a six-foot-tall, un-tattooed man tried to ignite a banner previously held by a Trump supporter. The accusations against Dallas are fabricated to excuse police violence. All charges that night were either dropped or dismissed in jury trials. The false portrayal of recklessness—used as an excuse by critics of the Red Guards, often without evidence—to defend their peace-oriented and social-democratic activities that attempt to integrate masses into the government is a matter for self-criticism. What actually happened that night was a police riot incited by Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Austin Police Department (APD)—as opponents intensified conflicts with protesters, police launched violence, and a protester nearly got killed.
My reports on the Maldurk protest also contain inaccuracies. In Austin’s Riverside community, a fascist named Colin, obsessed with black metal music, was organizing and recruiting neo-Nazis. Colin was determined to attend Maldurk’s performance, so anti-fascists went to intimidate him and, naturally, engaged in physical confrontation. Despite poor planning and execution, and problematic strategies against fascists, this action successfully forced the fascist to leave the community, ending his organizational activities there. This anti-fascist action did not “expose the movement to repression”; any revolutionary action inevitably faces repression. The state is a repressive machine whose purpose is to carry out counter-revolutionary violence. In May 2020, police in Austin arrested a non-violent convoy demanding rent freezes, and attacked and attempted to arrest revolutionaries involved in the “Red March”—who had previously clashed with reactionaries trying to disrupt the protest. “Collapse” attempts to smear the movement’s achievements as flaws, which is mistaken. Although propaganda can and should be discussed, clarity is essential.
While state repression aims to dismantle and disperse revolutionaries and can indeed intensify internal contradictions (including “high-pressure control” in some areas due to surveillance and arrests), the view that “the movement worsened because it was repressed” is unfounded. The most important point is the attempt to exonerate the informant who provided intelligence to the police, leading to federal gun charges. This traitor, who betrayed Dallas, engaged in anti-election, anti-Trump organizing while registering as a Republican; he had extensive, unexplained contacts with law enforcement; and he threatened comrades, leading to estrangement before the so-called “attack incident.” No one else can testify to this except his ex-girlfriend, who refused to testify, resulting in the case being dismissed. He also confronted defense lawyers for revolutionary activists, attempting to intimidate them into abandoning the movement. “Collapse” whitewashes this informant, relying entirely on official narratives that even the courts cannot justify.
Most absurd is the claim that “Dallas” was in a federal prison. These baseless speculations were provided by a Pittsburgh cancelist, relayed to me when returning from Austin with another local leader (later shifted to cancelism). Some claim Dallas tried to organize and lead the movement from prison, indirectly providing information to the state about organizational issues. The facts are as follows: the federal prison has multiple security levels; because the comrade was accused of links to “Antifa” during pre-sentencing investigations and labeled a “communist,” and because police reports mentioned “violent incidents,” he was placed in a medium-security prison surrounded by double fences and under tighter surveillance in a two-person cell. All calls made after 23 hours were monitored by a lieutenant of the prison administration, possibly in real-time, and all mail was read before delivery. The state is fully aware that Dallas did not make any decisions in prison; he was released early due to the “First Step Act” reduction and lack of disciplinary records.
In fact, several incidents in prison reveal attempts by the state to control him. Guards retaliated after he called a contact in his address book and requested a call with another person listed there, even though these actions did not violate regulations. They confiscated Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit citing “potential danger,” initially refused his wife and child’s visitation claiming he posed a “threat,” and so on. For an entire year, they tried to impose punitive segregation. In prison, this comrade maintained his revolutionary stance by organizing study groups, even helped initiate hunger strikes, provided legal advice to undocumented immigrants, and persisted in reading and learning.
Given cancelists’ efforts to implement counter-revolutionary dispersal, these actions are revealing.Insurgent, literally translated as “反叛乱” (rebellion against disorder), and the united strategy to attack this comrade, who deliberately spread rumors and shifted the blame onto him—he is the member who suffered the deepest oppression and harm within the entire movement, second only to Garrett Foster and his comrades. Collapse repeats this lie, revealing why this document must be refuted: regardless of which aspects help to re-propagate the criticisms already raised by the left, overall, this article is fabricated and exploited by cancel cultureists, aiming to cloak their disuniting acts in the guise of “Maoism.”
Events Before March 2022
The Three Major Fields [Translator’s note: referring to the self-criticism of the “Central Committee of the Reconstruction Committee of the American Communist Party”] should be studied seriously by the entire movement as a proper foundation for understanding the events leading to this split and deepening self-criticism. In this document, responsible comrades take responsibility for their actions, and this attitude must be promoted among all of us. Whether ordinary members or leaders, everyone must collectively evaluate their work since the split (whether active or inactive) and draw universal lessons from it. Reducing criticism to personal level, with petty-bourgeois class content, reflects the ideological tendency of postmodernism—elevating interpersonal relations to the level of class struggle—this is a major ideological issue rooted in our minds. I learned indirectly about the events of March 2022 from a female leader in Pittsburgh—she was one of the main planners of the disintegration action. But initially, both she and I took it for granted—until she shifted to advocating the complete destruction of the organization: leftist and rightist tendencies are no different, neither a rightist tendency that would gradually evolve into a right opportunist line, nor a correctable left tendency, just a few harmful elements. Although we both held subjectiveist views, I separated ideology—politics from organization, viewing complex issues through a commandist lens, fantasizing about simple solutions to complex problems that require investigation; she went further, advocating for the complete destruction of the entire organization, ultimately turning to classical anti-communism. Pittsburgh has three responsible persons, and I am one of them. “E” is my name for this female leader, a young activist who moved here in 2020, initially responsible for leading women’s and students’ work. There is also “A,” from Austin, responsible for leading and supervising regional and local work. Collapse did not reveal the internal contradictions that truly existed in the year and a half before 2022—the contradiction between organization and disorganization, related to the misunderstanding of the “two-line struggle” and neglect of the development process of contradictions. For example, let’s talk about the incessant “overwork” or “exhaustion” issues raised by cancel cultureists. The core is not about comrades receiving instructions and being expected to work—this is part of voluntary obedience to organizational discipline. In fact, most comrades did not experience excessive control and could maintain a considerable degree of autonomy in their local work. Especially those involved in rightist tendencies, who even casually violated organizational discipline to do their own things, only criticizing instructions when cancel cultureists launched their attacks. This chaos led to poor quality, and the struggle positions were unpredictably opened and closed. In Pittsburgh, after homeless Jim Rogers was killed by police, workers at Amazon sorting and delivery centers began to focus on organizational building, tenant struggles, and the rise of fights around defending abortion rights. The objective need among the masses to “catch up” with revolutionary subjective forces increased, to better mobilize the masses, maintain discipline, and assume leadership responsibilities. The serious problem here in Pittsburgh is: although I initially believed there was sincere impulse based on central instructions and ideology to serve the people, A and E exploited this autonomy, placing the main work on auxiliary fronts (targeting petty-bourgeois students concerned with abortion rights), and viewing work among the most bottomed-out proletariat masses as marginal tasks. They often forced activists, who were originally told to focus on learning Amazon work skills and lacked training and capacity, to overextend themselves in this auxiliary front—organizing students and those interested in abortion rights. As cancel cultureists launched attacks, this peripheral front was ultimately disintegrated. In this example (and many other issues exist locally), we see mistakes in work gradually manifesting, rightist tendencies consolidating and preparing to launch attacks, while the left remains completely unaware or unprepared. E (who once led the “Revolutionary Women’s Study Group” among middle-class students and organized actions around abortion rights) increasingly accepted postmodernist claims, including support for queer theory, feminism/separatism, and rejection of socialist revolution and Marxist bourgeois feminism, and used her leadership position to call for abandoning integration with the proletariat at Amazon and elsewhere, focusing on her own front. A became demoralized, completely abandoning his position, and three months before the split, in contact and guiding local work with the central leadership, he was passive toward E and me. E supervised most local work, and I continued assisting Amazon work. Since I only met with E once a week and did not receive her work reports, I only realized after many years how degenerate she had become. During this period, calls for reorganization and recall emerged in Pittsburgh, Austin, Los Angeles, and other places. However, the left’s mistake was not planning carefully, allowing a more organized and better-prepared right wing to take advantage. Although strategic retreat from some fronts was necessary due to overextension of limited forces—and this call came from the left—there was no concrete plan to implement it. The March 1 meeting and subsequent events, coinciding with International Women’s Day, marked the beginning of the right-wing offensive—A and E began to use their communist reputation to implement anti-communism and guide activists to establish organizations in the region to attack comrades. As for what happened later, it is well known and need not be elaborated. [Translator’s note: The original phrase is “The rest they say is history,” a common idiom meaning “what happened after that is well known and need not be repeated.”] Those activists who were initially most covert and cunning in attacking the central movement have mostly resigned or gone behind the scenes now. The “Maoist cult exposure” project was ultimately launched by a small group of former comrades mainly associated with Pittsburgh, who embraced anti-communism, revisionism, liberalism, and postmodernism, and after the leadership split, continued to act as police accomplices.
Cancel Culture Conspiracy
“Maoist Cult Exposure” reposted Collapse and allowed it to remain on the site, despite the conclusion containing warnings about disintegration. This is because, in many ways, the article provides a “Maoist” facade for their conspiracy activities. Although the site and its authors have openly abandoned Maoism, they remain interested in maintaining a “unity basis” with right-wing elements within the Revolutionary Student Groups (RSGs) and the Revolutionary Student Union (RSU), surface-level positions that benefit themselves. Both Collapse and Ezra’s reflections on “Maoist Cult Exposure” pose an unsettling question: the party structure must inevitably Bolshevize—that is, to oppose the state attempting to suppress it, a “highly controlled” environment must be established to conduct secret work. They must face the reality that it is far from a “cult” that perpetuates itself through deception, nor a money-grubbing “spiritualist” organization, but a sincere and serious organization of revolutionaries who voluntarily sacrifice personal freedom for the collective revolutionary cause. For cancel cultureists, the only alternative to the “cult” and its methods is the opposite: they promote a Menshevik-style “transparency” (meaning openness) theory, exaggerate the legitimacy of political work, the so-called democracy of bourgeois democracy, the supposed guarantees of free speech, and downplay the enemy’s viciousness. Before formally betraying Marxism, they may have always adhered to this Menshevik ideology, which cannot serve as an excuse for acting as police accomplices, but it does reveal how cancel ideology has infiltrated other organizations. Collapse imitates the “exposure” websites, uncritically accepting many accusations, such as claims of being “beaten”—a vile rumor claiming abuse and related accusations are “widespread.” There was indeed an avoidable shameful incident involving someone targeted by cancel culture, later labeled as a member of a so-called “small group.” His punishment was used as evidence of “cult” violence, while the same cancel cultureists hypocritically claimed the punishment was too lenient! In fact, the erroneous line of conducting “struggle sessions”—originating from a misunderstanding of the Cultural Revolution—is often enthusiastically carried out and participated in by cancel cultureists. For example, E once criticized me and other comrades at a struggle session for not cursing and attacking a young activist more fiercely. Proletarianization, reporting, and adherence to agreements are often distorted by rightists as “abuse,” as if practicing the “Three Nos” (no criticism, no attack, no struggle) and humbly seeking integration with the masses is abuse. It is worth noting that those involved in beating, extorting, and embezzling funds meant for aiding the masses are not the so-called “small group,” but the cancel cultureists! No need to detail every aspect—readers can investigate the situation after the split and listen to those directly affected. If you have doubts about specific accusations in Collapse or on cancel culture sites, follow my example: raise questions and conduct thorough investigations. Do not trust those who have openly declared themselves anti-communists; engage in dialogue with all factions, listen to as many different voices as possible, and establish your stance based on who insists on, uses, and defends the proletarian ideology, who promotes conspiracy theories, revisionism, incites splits, acts inconsistently, and continues betraying comrades’ trust, etc.
Conclusion
In summary, as part of efforts to clarify facts and uphold truth, Collapse should be criticized. We should recognize how many well-meaning comrades have been deceived, their trust abused by cancel cultureists, turning friends against each other, serving disintegration, ultimately serving our enemies—the imperialists, police, and fascists, who delight in chaos within the organization. Like the cancel culture sites, Collapse openly names and links specific individuals and groups, which exceeds proper channels and violates comrades’ appeals—this is a serious mistake. Such actions not only endanger those involved but also hinder the struggle against the two-line opposition and the long-term process of improving the entire movement. I once called these cancel cultureists comrades, working with them daily for years. I developed an illusory trust and belief that they were supporters of socialism, willing to serve the people. Yet suddenly, almost without explanation, they turned into political opponents, using their influence to isolate me first, then threaten me. How could this be? Those I thought understood thoroughly, those I had spoken with for hundreds of hours, betrayed me? Not only betrayed me but threatened to socially “cancel” me if I dared oppose them? When I wrote Collapse, despair, confusion, fear, loneliness, and nihilism were my feelings—the one leg still firmly standing in their decayed old world, hoping they would stop their ongoing attacks and seek unity, while the other leg barely touched the new world, calling for reorganization and the continuation of Maoism. Although Collapse is almost like police work and foreshadows larger conspiracies by cancel cultureists, my mistakes are not isolated—many others have also participated in spreading rumors and gossip. We can humbly admit mistakes and take measures to correct them—this must be done. Today, as the masses’ demand for organization grows and the objective situation favors revolution, we need to recognize more clearly who are the true enemies of the people and who are not. We can learn from mistakes and provide a way out for those who have erred. Not only do the broad masses generally oppose “denunciation culture,” but everyone aspiring to become communists should abandon it. Despite our current significant disagreements and past misunderstandings causing trouble, we can and must transform these differences through struggle—truly seeking unity through struggle.