PRUC Opportunism: Still Unwelcome in Charlotte.

*Update: a few short hours after we released this polemic, PRUC was renamed to “Charlotte Revolutionary Collective”. They also made a fake Twitter in our name.*

It is commonly asserted that “opportunism” is just a label charged by one side to make the other look bad. Contrary to this belief, opportunism is not just “whatever we want it to be”, it is a countercurrent that develops within every revolutionary movement seeking to nullify and destroy it from within. PRUC (People’s Revolutionary United Collective Charlotte) is still not welcome to organize in this city. Now more than ever, we encourage active boycott of this opportunist organization.

We posted our first polemic against PRUC here. It detailed why their founder and so-called leader, “Joey Steel” is not only someone we won’t work with, but who no one should work with. Since then we received intelligence that some anarchists arrived at the same conclusions about “Joey” unrelated to ours. This was based on an incident in which he displayed reckless behavior in a coffee shop when talking to people he had just met.

Copjacketing is the reckless labeling of someone as a cop, done with no evidence nor thorough investigation. We do not engage in copjacketing as PRUC has accused us of doing via their Facebook page. In fact, we have been copjacketed for standing up to abusers, and we understand that getting copjacketed may incorrectly befall anyone who shows an ounce of militancy.

Being against copjacketing does not mean we have to tolerate insecure behaviors which could objectively serve us up to state and non-state enemies. This is true regardless of whether someone is a state agent. Such behaviors are: name-dropping people and confirming you saw them engaged in illegal action, name-dropping suspected members of an illegal clandestine cadre organization, and speculating on the number of members in a cadre organization (especially one that purposely obscures such information). To make sure these behaviors cease is not copjacketing but responsible guidance of the revolutionary movement.

As we have been saying, “Joey” refused rectification for lying about felonies and bucked discipline on the matter. He also name-dropped people that according to him had been engaged in illegal activity in a room full of people among other things we won’t say here. We still have not seen any evidence to disprove that “Joey” was lying about his arrest history, nor have we heard of anyone else having seen such evidence. He is a lifetime enemy of the revolutionary movement in this city, a movement which we have built.

PRUC has failed to respond to our polemic, probably because their decentralized structure does not allow for publication to be spearheaded by one person lest they be labeled too close to a leader. Like all opportunists, their support is built in direct competition with the revolutionary leadership of the given time and place. In the process of doing this PRUC has disposed with the idea of leadership entirely. Aside from the security concerns around “Joey Steel”, we oppose PRUC on the basis of their political opportunism.

You arrive at a traffic light at which you must go forward to reach your destination. The lights–both the arrow light to take a left turn, and the circle one to go forward–are red. You must wait until the forward light turns green. While you are waiting the left-turn arrow light turns green first while the forward light remains red. Those who are impatient and impulsive, rather than waiting at the traffic light to continue the correct path to their destination, may take the first turn that makes itself available. This is done in haste to appear like they’re going somewhere regardless of how much further it will put them off from their destination. Even if because of their left turn they end up having to circle back to this same stoplight, they would rather drive in circles than be patient and strategic.

This is the essence of opportunism. PRUC is taking the first road that makes itself available– the capitalist road. Rather than having revolutionary proletarian principles and sticking to them firmly, they are doing whatever will gain them the most “likes” and popularity. Rather than remain on the road to Communism, which is painstaking and difficult, opportunists capitulate, taking the line that will make them the most immediate allies, no matter how many principles they must discard in the process! Their organizing is circular because they use the same tactics which have been not working for decades. Meanwhile Maoism has been applied and sharpened through class struggle, and its developments have been the continuation of the path laid firmly by Marx and Engels with the release of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. There is only one road to liberation. It is forward and it is Maoism.


For anyone who still is engaged in centrism on the PRUC matter, we wish to dissect even more reasons they are far from “Revolutionary” by using words from their own platform. Their main attention span seems to extend to their Facebook page, where it is quite clear they are thirsty for likes and post for the sake of posting. With no set political line to guide their organizing, they operate based on “big tent” principles. They post anything and everything that appears “left” but almost all of it is right in essence.

On August 7th, PRUC posted this description along with the graphic below to their Facebook:

“We do not advocate for contributing to the bourgeoisie electoral political system. The options are capitalist imperialist or capitalist imperialist as capitalist imperialism oppresses, manipulates, subjugates, and controls everything under its thumb…

However, occasionally, we have a chance at effecting direct democracy even within this rigged system built for the wealth class and their representative puppets. Direct democracy is also central to proletariat dictatorship in revolutionary society. (Emphases ours -RGC)

Voting against the proposed amendments to the NC constitution in November is an example of direct democracy. The work towards revolution to dismantle all of these bourgeoisie state systems and give all power to the people is central to our beliefs however direct democratic vote against these proposals does not change this, it does shout a voice against the reactionary system. Comrades should voice their opposition to these amendments and vote them down”


The above is a clear example of saying one thing in theory and doing the opposite in practice. In the first paragraph they seem to be on somewhat of a correct track. In the redacted two paragraphs they encourage people to “join in making revolution” rather than “being pacified” by the electoral system. However, in the last two paragraphs they go on to apologize for this. They then direct the attention of whatever masses they may have attracted towards the exact same system they just claimed to be against!

It is not possible to enact “direct democracy” of the people under capitalism. Capitalism, in which the primary contradiction of society is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, will always impose the will of the bourgeoisie on the people even in cases of referendums and voting for amendments. Even when people are voting “directly” for laws rather than an elected bourgeois representative, they are still in essence voting for choices which are laid out on the bourgeoisie’s terms. This is because the bourgeoisie is the class with the power—voting for or against amendments does not change who has the power, and it therefore cannot constitute direct democracy. PRUC by claiming “occasionally, we have a chance at effecting direct democracy even within this rigged system” is pandering to the bourgeois definition of democracy. In essence they are claiming that direct democracy under capitalism and direct democracy under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DoP) are the same thing. Under the DoP the proletariat is the one with the power, where representatives of the people who are recallable at any time impose the will of the proletariat upon the bourgeoisie and all of society. To act like “direct democracy” is the same in bourgeois society as it is in proletarian society is to gut the notion of democracy of a class character altogether, painting both bourgeoisie and proletarian with the same brush. It is the job of Communists to expose reality as it is, and not how the bourgeoisie defines it!

Something similar to “direct democracy”, the masses imposing their will upon society, occurred during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). During the GPCR the masses of Chinese people were given directives to rout all capitalist roaders from the party. As masters of the new Socialist society, the masses rose up in rebellion—enacting the truest form of democracy, directly participating in the continuation of Socialism on the road to Communism. This democracy never cancelled out the Great Leadership of Chairman Mao but deepened it along the political lines he had carved out.

In the picture below, “Workers and cadres of the engine workshop of Changchun No.1 Motor Vehicle Plant in Northeast China criticize the line of ‘taking the 3 directives as the key link’ which put economics ahead of politics. Mao and the Four launched this campaign in 1976 against Teng Hsiao-ping and other Party leaders promoting this line.” (Source 1)


What we see from PRUC is centrism– not a cohesive stance on bourgeois politics but an opportunist plea. They pay lip-service to boycotting bourgeois politics but in practice hop on the bandwagon of whatever is popular to be talking about right now. This tails capitalism rather than leading to Socialism.

We could go on countering the Facebook posts PRUC has made shading us, as there have been a handful. It all boils down to opportunism: they have taken our principles, borrowed the aesthetic, but removed them of their essence. Their attacks on Red Guards have not gone unpunished. One thing is certain: PRUC is not welcome to organize here openly! We encourage the masses to shut them down any time they attempt to do so.

Educate the masses in the dangers of opportunism!

Eradicate bourgeois notions of democracy!

Up the Red Guards!




1. “And Mao Makes 5: Mao Tsetung’s last great battle

If We Don’t Take Action Now, We’ll Settle for Nothing Later

Protesting Deplorable Pride August 19th, 2018

Deplorable Pride (DP) planned an event to protest Charlotte Pride who, though we oppose on the basis of their being capitalists, made the correct call in refusing to answer DP’s request to have a Gay Trump float at this year’s parade. The confrontation between DP and antifascists occurred on August 19th, 2018. The Proud Boys were not there, and there were no fascist flags waving. Antifascists opposed DP and their MAGA (Make America Great Again) Patriots and outnumbered them 3 to 1. Their demonstration had 4 people at its height during the time antifascists were there. This was a success for the antifascists in terms of continuing the struggle against the right. Though antifascists dispersed rather quickly, they effectively outran police on foot, who were in pursuit of them on bicycles and by helicopter. This was no easy feat and would have resulted in arrests had the antifascists given up to the chase and surrendered.


Brian Talbert, leader of Deplorable Pride, represents the attempt to bring the right together in our city. Deplorable Pride are ultra-conservatives who come out to the corner of Trade and Tryon downtown every few weeks to hold various tiny actions. They first received mainstream media attention when in 2017 they applied for their first Trump float at the Pride parade. They continue to work the “LGBT for Trump” angle, using identity politics to excuse ultra-nationalism, racism, and misogyny. They held a “Back the Blue” rally back in June. While it would be incorrect to label Brian Talbert an outright and confirmed fascist, he represents an enemy nonetheless, worthy of fighting. He hit a woman antifascist in the face on May 12 of this year, walking all the way across the street to do so, effectively taking the offensive. He is a protofascist, as him and his very small number of supporters represent a movement that is trending towards fascism.


The Proud Boys, on the other hand, represent a movement that is already full-blown fascist. They are proud Western chauvinists. Their leader Gavin McInnes was quoted saying, “I don’t want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life.” If there were any doubts on their fascism this should dispel those. The Proud Boys must be opposed in any attempt of theirs to organize and gain supporters.

Due to Brian Talbert’s invitation, Proud Boys were present in the streets of Charlotte on June 9th during the Taste of Charlotte festival. President of the chapter (according to their Facebook account) Willie Ray Ammons was there at that time. His address is 3315 Shore Launch Dr. Sherrills Ford, 28673. This is public information. If you don’t want to be doxed, don’t be a fascist.


Sunday’s Action

Not a single antifascist was arrested, which in these surrounded conditions, is a victory as well as a learning experience in tactics. However, avoiding arrest is never the top priority of Communists. Putting this at the top of your priority list results in rightism, refusing confrontation, and therefore the disintegration of the movement. Red Guards Charlotte cadre understand that we are condemned to win and must be prepared to sacrifice everything, including our lives, for the sake of the struggle on the long road towards communism. The threat of prison cannot scare cadre out of action. A small misdemeanor arrest here or there is nothing. A large felony arrest, while it will affect the person experiencing it, is a propaganda victory proving that repression is earned only through hard struggle. In either case, the struggle for communism should not cease based on protest-related arrests.

This needs to be understood thoroughly by lower levels of the movement: we must be arrestable. While there are legitimate exceptions to this, they are not nearly as many as the excuses some people make now. Without being willing to get arrested no real resistance will ever take place. For people who call themselves revolutionaries to live peacefully under capitalism is to vote for impending fascism without casting a ballot. We mention this here because there is a rightist line in Charlotte, propagated by other organizations, who only hold actions they are sure they will not suffer arrests at. We cannot have a movement built on comfort. Only when we dare to struggle can we dare to win!

Even the enemy who was present at yesterday’s action has multiple open cases against him for his attacks on the left, and it has not stopped him from holding his flag rallies. These charges were for hitting the antifascist as well as for cyberstalking someone else. He is aligned with the police and speaks openly with them, and so the case of his arrests versus those we may take are much different. Still, we cannot let the enemy out-organize us! We cannot be more scared than they are! The right—even actual fascists further right than this guy—will always have the system on their side. We must be twice as organized and two times braver than they are in order to beat them.

Deplorable Pride has made it quite clear that they mostly come out when large events are being held in downtown Charlotte. AIDS march, Taste of Charlotte, Pride parade–their strategy is to show up when they have heavy police cover, effectively quadrupling their forces if not more. We understand this alliance may result in actions which are meant only to bait and arrest antifascists, and we will not take the bait every time. But we will resist the alliance of fascists and police, and strengthen our own forces in the process.

Tactically, Sunday’s antifascist resistance had its shortcomings. The antifascists had too much ground between themselves and the reactionaries. Had these been Proud Boys that would have been unacceptable. Objectively speaking, the bike-cop line was successful in its quest to isolate the antifascists as they advanced towards the MAGA patriots. This must be overcome.


There were other lessons to take from this event such as the necessity to be in bloc formation, to account for height differences in the holding of the banner for propaganda, and to always agitate and resist. There are more lessons which will not be listed here because enemy eyes are watching. Above all we reaffirmed our belief that in the contradiction between democracy and centralism, centralism is principal.

In the hours leading up to the event, the leader of Deplorable Pride posted that he had openly informed Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) of North Carolina’s anti-mask law (punishable with a misdemeanor charge) and intended to make sure they enforced it. The antifascists arriving on site were aware of this new development, but it did not change their use of the tactic.

The CMPD pigs had no idea of the mask law until a civilian, Brian Talbert, informed them of it. Their lack of knowledge of their own law shows a deep flaw in their organization. As CMPD is an enemy of the proletariat, the whole people, and therefore organized Communists, we seek to find every hole their organization presents and make that hole larger. Until Sunday August 19th, there were no threats to arrest for masking coming from CMPD to protestors in the revolutionary movement. Supporters of Red Guards Charlotte have been demonstrating while masked in this city for eight months now, and other organizations as well as individual protestors have since taken up this tactic. Before Red Guards Charlotte everyone on the so-called “left” here was too scared to mask. This rightism in being too scared to mask was also apparent in various revisionist organizations across the state including in Durham. We must not engage in legalism– playing by the rules of the bourgeoisie.

Let this lapse in CMPD’s organization be a lesson in the ability of the people to navigate around bourgeois laws and truly outsmart the enemy. It is not their first battle lost and it is far from their last. While the police have the power, the Communists have the people on our side! The police are mindless robots. They punch a clock, do the work of the bourgeoisie, then go home. Though there is a rising Blue Lives Matter movement that must be taken seriously as escalating towards fascism in a decaying imperialist country, the police overall are not as internally motivated as the Communists in the revolutionary movement. Their motivation comes principally from external sources, from the system of capitalism that is built up around them, and from the pigs they take orders from. Aside from their leadership they are largely unmotivated and burned out. We can and must use this to our advantage. They are here to pay the bills, but we are here to change the world.

The revolutionary movement in Charlotte will continue to mask at actions. The universal need for antifascists to mask up is not negated by a bourgeois law in one state. We will not give Brian Talbert nor his fascist buddies the opportunity to dox those opposed to racism. The masking law in NC and its recent threat of enforcement shows even more reason for the revolutionary movement to grow in principled unity. The more red-masked militants present, the more indistinguishable each militant becomes. The more in attendance overall, the easier militants can swim through the crowd unnoticed.

The US is currently experiencing a lull in the organization of fascism, with successes such as the vast outnumbering of fascists at the “Unite the Right 2” event a week ago. Even with these victories we hold that the contradictions of capitalism-imperialism inevitably produce fascist movements. While it may be dying down right now, it will start to grow again. Therefore, we cannot use this lull as an excuse to get lax on the antifascist front. We cannot use it as an excuse to make antifascist protests “social” spaces or picnics. To the contrary we must continue to develop the organization and fighting capacity of the antifascist units in a forward motion.

Mask up to outsmart the enemy!

Fight the right to the very end!

-Red Guards Charlotte, August 20th, 2018

Fuck PRUC–People’s Revolutionary United Collective is not welcome!


Red Guards Charlotte stands for unity of the proletariat and its allies against capitalism-imperialism. That unity does not, however, extend to the left. There is only one proletarian ideology: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism.

In response to our decisive stance against “left unity” The People’s Revolutionary United Collective-Charlotte (PRUC) was formed. They were founded on May 24th , according to their Facebook profile they are a group of “…revolutionaries of various leftist ideologies under the banner of advancing socialist liberation through class consciousness & proletarian struggle.” This is a revisionist thesis.

Conditions of PRUC’s founding

PRUC was founded by “Joey Steel” (his name only on a Facebook sock account). “Joey” sought to find any and every point of contention among our supporters and isolate us from our mass contacts. He sought to take the enemies we’ve made through the class struggle and build himself an organization out of our enemies. In doing this, he has also used certain street tactics that before Red Guards Charlotte had never been used in an organization in Charlotte.  He sought to use our tactics and claim “socialism” while gutting this facade of our ideology which is revisionism. He became the rightist pole in this city.

PRUC’s sorry excuse for leadership is our enemy. We will give the back story. For a short time, “Joey” was very sympathetic to Red Guards Charlotte. We met him at D28. He made food for a serving for Serve the People Charlotte, came to the Revolutionary Study Group, and also committed to help organize events with us. He has an extremely loud mouth, bragging about doing illegal actions, even name dropping the people he had “done” things with. He kept talking about starting his own organization yet he wouldn’t come canvass working class communities with us once. We were patient and still had good faith that he was just cocky and reckless, but could improve.

Through this course he claimed he was arrested at two different protests. He claimed he was arrested during the Baltimore Uprising and that he was arrested in the Charlotte Uprising resulting from the police murder of Keith Lamont Scott. He claimed he was given a felony “Inciting a Riot” charge in Charlotte, which was the same charge actually given to a handful of political prisoners here. This was very curious to us as our collective was formed as a result of the Charlotte rebellion, and we had never heard of him. We asked him to delve deeper because things didn’t add up. He was notified that we would investigate it deeper. We did our own thorough research to find no evidence of him being arrested on anything political, let alone in Baltimore or Charlotte.

Lying about past arrest history in political work is an alarm because it begs the question–why lie? At best it is bluffing to look cool and at worst it is a sign of pig work. In either case, lying about arrest history is a good reason not to trust someone. So, with our research done, we confronted him and gave him the chance to explain. We told him what we had not found and asked if he had any proof of his own–court papers, etc. He had previously offered to show us his court papers but this time he flipped shit spewing consistent attacks of all our work, and left every group we have influence in. He used the excuse he doesn’t show his ID to pigs, even when they have their hand on their gun. He called us suspicious for having asked for this. He claimed the charges had been expunged and that’s why they weren’t showing up, but there are certain paper trails that even expungement doesn’t erase–in this case there still was not any evidence to support his story. An arrest of that magnitude during the Charlotte rebellion being completely scrubbed from all records related to arrests and media sources is impossible for any regular person no matter how good their legal team is.

He has never been called a cop by us. We can’t substantiate that–as heavy burden of proof is required. Instead of jumping to the worst conclusions we gave him a chance to explain, or to come clean, and he squandered it. With him failing to give us proof we have no choice but to conclude that he is lying about his arrest history. We must take security seriously. Let us be clear that being arrested is not what we are concerned with, but that dishonesty around this history is an alarm.

On the very off-chance that he was in fact arrested in these two cities for protesting, he should definitely be willing to show the members of his “organization” this proof. However even if he does produce proof and it turns out he was telling the truth, our position that he is an enemy will not change. His reaction to us was unacceptable behavior that he can’t take back. If he had taken the chance to explain himself we would not be taking a hard line–but it is far too late for that.

This culminated in “Joey” trying to poach our supporters. In forming PRUC he reached out to many people that he only knew through us and the organizations we have influence in. He opportunistically presented himself as the alternative “revolutionary” leadership in this city.



He sent this to one of our supporters who had commented on our Facebook page. This was right after the release of “Postmodernism is bourgeois ideology and we support violence against It.” It was before the formation of PRUC and makes it very clear that he intended to be organized opposition to us. Note that he was never an RGC member, nor does he have any clue who is in RGC. This form of speculation is pig work.

For the first meeting of PRUC once again RGC supporters were invited, behind our backs, yet of course RGC was not invited. Every single post relating to our work, “Joey” would concern-troll. We blocked him from our page.

The PRUC organization is thoroughly revisionist. Their founder is an enemy of the revolution, and we call on comrades who take revolution seriously to disband the organization and dedicate their time to mass work.

Occupation of ICE in Charlotte to Stop Deportations

During the writing of this piece PRUC called for an occupation of the ICE office in Charlotte. Many of our supporters showed up in support of a worthy cause. We live in a state of increasing fascism in the US and immigrants are one of the enemy’s first targets. Deportations are on the rise and we stand with the people resisting the capitalist-imperialist state and resisting ICE. Many of the people who came out to the event are future comrades and are looking for something to be plugged into.

We firmly believe that calling for the abolition of ICE is an infantile methodology of fighting a government institution. It didn’t work with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement so we wonder why it would work now. The abolition of ICE without the overthrow of capitalism is a social-democratic solution to the problem of the criminalization of immigrants. ICE is a part of the old state machinery, which means that in order to “abolish ICE” the state under capitalism must be destroyed. Not only is it not possible, as ICE is part and parcel of the capitalist state, but demanding ICE themselves cease to exist is an erroneous falsehood equivalent to asking cops to hand over their guns of their own volition.  We don’t ask anything from our oppressors, we take what is ours, and make no apologies for it.

Occupations serve the purpose of demanding the oppressors and exploiters choose to fix their oppressive and exploitative way, instead of attacking the enemy and forcing them into submission to give up what we are demanding. An occupation places the onus on the ruling class themselves to change their ways. With all our disagreements, we still chose to show up in solidarity with immigrants and their families during this difficult time for all oppressed people.

hoe land security

This was found in Charlotte. Photo sent in by a supporter.

We salute the bravery it took to do this as spray paint is a propaganda tactic we support. We have no idea who did this or what group it was affiliated with and we won’t speculate on that because it would be pig work. But for whoever did do this, we must criticize that an opportunity for great propaganda was squandered. “U.S. Department of Ho-land Security” hardly lives up to the task of taking the enemy seriously and sending them a message.

This joking attitude is the same thing we criticized in some of the chants that anarchists were bringing to our action at D28. It reads more like a leftist inside joke than a serious message to the masses. This kind of lackadaisical attitude towards propaganda is the default for today’s left which helps us understand why the “left” is so useless. It makes a mockery of the struggle that needs to be waged against ICE who are ruining people’s lives.

Propaganda is designed to send a specific audience a specific message. Regardless of intention, everything exists as propaganda. We ask, who is this intended to reach? Other “leftists”? And what message does it send? Aside from the whimsical tone we wonder why women have to be the butt of the joke. The term “ho” at this point is close to an anti-woman term as it’s used to describe many women who are not prostitutes. It’s used to put women a step below men which as proletarian feminists we can’t allow.

While clowning the enemy is not inherently bad, the time to clown them is when we’ve already defeated them or at least made sizeable gains against them–which we can hardly say for the struggle against ICE as it stands today. When clowning instead of working is the default groups get comfortable with the movement as it exists.

In the past we have been ridiculed for our emphasis on seriousness and labelled the same old anti-communist tropes–“robots” who don’t joke and don’t act like “real” people. These same types espouse what we call friendship politics–being in political spaces primarily because of friendship instead of primarily because of politics. We refuse to unite with this bullshit because it’s coming from a left that is more of a friend group than an organized body with specific goals.


This was found in Charlotte. Photo sent in by a supporter.


PRUC: one big tent

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” – Karl Marx

PRUC unites themselves around principles we have unabashedly rejected since our founding. We reject “left unity” not on the premise of it being impossible to carry out, since we know unprincipled unity among the left is possible–we all are drowning in it as we speak! Instead, we reject it because the masses make history, not the left. What good is unity of the left when our ultimate goal: communism, can’t be attained through its application? The class character of the majority of the “left” today actively aids the bourgeoisie and hurts the revolution. The left’s anticommunism stands in the way of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The incongruity of the beginning of PRUC’s founding statement, “revolutionaries of various leftist ideologies” leading toward an abstract “socialist liberation” must be highlighted– there has never been a socialist revolution that occurred under a ‘big tent’ leftist coalition. PRUC wants to be the big tent that puts “unity” (hence their name) above politics–above the class struggle. Having the numbers is cool until it’s time to advance and unprincipled unity will hold you back.

Continuing on, they claim that “socialist liberation” will come through “class consciousness” and “proletarian struggle”. This is more abstract description that in practice amounts to idealism. The conclusion of class consciousness is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DoP). Of course PRUC omits this because this decisive line would alienate them from their opportunist support. Socialism can only be established through Protracted People’s War (PPW). Socialism must exist as state power before we can advance to a stateless and classless society–communism. Socialism needs a state in order to break the anarchy of production through centralized state planning, mass education campaigns, cultural revolutions and defending the gains of the revolution from enemies abroad and domestic. Of utmost importance in the state’s role is the continuation of the class struggle through to communism–the application of antirevisionism.

Other than their erroneous “left unity” mantra we see another key unifying point in PRUC’s program: their hatred for Maoism. Particularly they attack PPW. This is seen all over their Facebook page. As we know, this group was a rightist pole concretely formed in response to Red Guards Charlotte. They share fraternity with the likes of Marxist (Menshevik) Center, featuring prominent groups like: Philly “Socialists” and Austin Social (Fascist) Collective.

Historical precedent set by the Bolsheviks

In Charlotte, many “leftists” have criticized RGC for being alienating for “splitting” with other radical or left formations. We hold that splits are a necessary part of the Party’s development in the class struggle. The clarification, and demarcating, through splitting is a vital role in the struggle against all incorrect trends–principally revisionism. We hardly consider it splitting with PRUC as we never had principled unity with any random assortment of leftists. They completely lack understanding of how the Party is built and this translates to confused practice.

From their mission statement, we can read a total neglect of any understanding of the history of socialism. There have been two completed socialist projects to date in the world: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the greatest of all the People’s Republic of China, and an honorable mention to the short lived but earth shattering Paris Commune. Both the Bolsheviks and the Chinese Communist Party had one decisive factor in common: the revolutions they led were headed up by a single unified vanguard Party with a specific program and constitution dedicated to building communism, guided by Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, respectively. Both did unite with non-Marxist organizations, but only temporarily to advance the revolutionary struggle. Never did they sacrifice their leading role as the definitive guarantors of the revolution. Instead, they split or cleansed themselves of the rotten, revisionist elements, leading to stronger cohesion and less eclecticism. The Party consolidates more and more with its course of development but the big-tent organizations do the opposite and spread out more, consolidating less. That unity doesn’t mean anything if it hasn’t been won through intense struggle.

In 1903, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) split into two factions–the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. They split over very key political issues namely who should be a member of the Party. The Mensheviks said it is enough to simply be an advocate for the Party but not a member/professional revolutionary in one of the Party organizations. Lenin sternly disagreed and said only those who are in total agreement with the Party programme, those who help fund the Party and those who work inside it as their life’s duty shall be a member. As history unfolded, we know that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were successful in ousting the Tsar and the bourgeois democratic government ushering in the first great socialist state: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Mensheviks reside in the dustbin of history just like all those who attempt to recreate their erroneous organizational method. PRUC are the Mensheviks of today but worse–PRUC is trying to mix a whole, eclectic array of ideologies into one organization. These eclectic ideas range from Trotsky’s social chauvinist idea of “permanent revolution” to Che’s failed focoist method of guerrilla warfare to postmodernist revolution of the Zapatistas in Chiapas (they have claimed to be at war with the Mexican government since 1994 but haven’t fired a single shot yet).

Maoism is the only proletarian ideology 

Many “leftists” take our unwavering devotion to our ideology and mistake it as a refusal to work with non-Maoists. This is simply not true–we do work with non-Maoists whether at street demonstrations or in mass work. We seek to build a revolution with the masses who are not Maoists yet. Our allegiance belongs to the Red Guards movement who are the continuators of the International Communist Movement (ICM) in what is today the US. Therefore, we stand in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Four and Gonzalo—and the organizations they led (The First International, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Peru). In the same vein we stand resolutely against revisionism. That means we cannot be in one unified organization with programs that represent a diametrically opposed world outlook, strategy for revolution and overall ideology. For example, we cannot say that regarding the Sino-Soviet split we see correct elements in both parties and choose to remain neutral on the issue. No, we firmly stand with the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao in the struggle against Khruschevite revisionism. We do not reconcile two opposing lines into one organization.

Two lines emerge in the process of class struggle, a white (right) and red (left) line. Two-line struggle is the motor to develop all forms of struggle to the highest point. However, that does not mean that those two separate lines converge into one–instead it means one line divides into two, and the red line must impose itself on the white. If those two lines were to be combined into one then we would blend revisionism with Marxism, when in reality revisionism is the negation of Marxism. The idea that you can blend revisionism with Marxism or even be soft on it is a revisionist idea itself.

Revisionism is when a group claims to be Marxist but cut the fundamental core out of their theory and practice–the class struggle. Revisionism is “socialist” in name but capitalist in practice. Any organization claiming to be socialist that isn’t organizing the development of the class struggle into PPW in the most immediate sense is revisionist. Revisionists fire sugar-coated bullets. It sounds sweet and easy but is actually the enemy to revolution. It is our duty as communists to fight revisionism tooth and nail, whether they be external to our organization, revisionists inside the Party or the revisionist ideas we must struggle against daily. Struggling against revisionism means upholding and defending PPW. In light of all our criticisms of what does not work, we have the true answer of what does.

In Defense of Protracted People’s War (PPW)

PPW is the only strategy of making revolution. PPW is the process by which the militarized communist Party arouses masses to conquer areas of proletarian power (“red base areas”) and builds a People’s Army to smash the existing state. These red base areas become what is referred to as dual power. Dual power is the process where, before the capitalist state is destroyed, communists and the People’s Army exert direct political power over many base areas. This is literally controlling a territory militarily. These pockets of socialism become what will replace the capitalist state after the People’s Army destroys it. These base areas will be in working class enclaves in which daily life is no longer dictated by the capitalist ruling class but by the future Maoist Communist Party. Our class will engage in economic production, participation in political life, propagating (and participating in) the struggle for PPW to gain state power. A base area becomes the materialization of the deepest desires of the proletariat.

PPW moves through three distinct stages on the path to liberation: strategic defensive, strategic equilibrium and strategic offensive.

  1. Strategic defensive is the stage when the capitalist armed forces and political power remains dominant over the communist forces. This is the beginning stage when revolutionary forces begin to be consolidated, the people’s army is built and guerrilla actions are taken against the bourgeoisie.
  2. Strategic equilibrium is the stage when the forces of exploiters and the communists are nearly equal or in a stalemate. Red base areas are living examples of dual power, the people’s army rivals that of the imperialist army both qualitatively and quantitatively. In this stage there will be an equal amount of defending conquered base areas and attacking the bourgeoisie. During this stage the slogan ‘preserve yourself by destroying the enemy’ becomes a vital call to arms for all friends of the revolution.
  3. Strategic offensive is the finale stage before the conquering of state power. In this stage the communist forces have reached a far higher level of politico-military power than the existing capitalist state. This is when plans for the final assault on the remaining strongholds of the bourgeoisie are made and executed. As comrade Mao teaches us, the enemy must be annihilated in its totality with not one person escaping our cast net. After this stage is completed the former base areas now become the new socialist state power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is established.

PPW is universal and the particular application is to be determined by the subjective and objective conditions of the specific area being organized. All successful socialist revolutions have used the tried and true strategy of PPW to liberate their country from the vice grips of feudalism, capitalism and imperialism. Of course we know that PPW won’t look exactly how it did in Russia or China but unlike organizations like PRUC and many on the left today, we are not trying to reinvent the wheel.

Our great teachers, millions of proletarians and the masses that came before us laid their lives down to provide us an overall guide for how to make revolution. We would be naive, petit bourgeois fools to toss out their lessons in favor of ‘trying something new.’ In the process of class struggle new leaders, new ideas, advancements of Maoism will be born but they will not discard of the classic teachings. Instead our future leaders will apply those teachings so masterfully that the “new ideas” will actually just be the continuation of Marx, Lenin and Mao in the 21st century.

-Red Guards Charlotte, July 2018


Postmodernism is bourgeois ideology and we support violence against it.

Our ideology, Maoism, was borne out of the struggle against revisionism. Anti-revisionism recognizes fundamentally that enemies can crop up within the revolutionary movement. If we negate this, or fail to uphold it, we cease to be Communists. The Collectives even when small must be sharply opposed to revisionism, and the trend of antirevisionism should only continue and deepen with the development of the Party, which we will accomplish. We are grateful for the comrades who have supported our work and made sacrifices for it. We cannot do it without supporters. We also have to draw lines of demarcation and not be so desperate for support that we allow anything and everything, including bad trends like postmodernism, to go unchecked.

These things cannot all be disconnected; they must be connected. The embodiment of confrontation is not unrelated to the history of the Maoists in Charlotte and their development. It is connected to the fight against postmodernism.

Following the Marxist theory of knowledge, we must use our knowledge to put things into practice, and then from that practice accumulate more knowledge, which we will put back into practice again. When a contradiction reaches antagonism, we must express that antagonism through violence. If we fail to recognize antagonistic contradictions as antagonistic, we have become revisionists.

As we theorized months ago, postmodernism negates power for the proletariat, and this is the principal problem with it. Postmodernism is obsessed with hating power. It is a perfect weapon today against Maoism, so it is completely opposed to the interests of the proletariat and the whole people. It is preoccupied with continuing capitalism indefinitely. It expresses itself in the revolutionary movement as not accepting discipline of the collective. The postmodernists yell and scream about accountability nonstop but what they really mean is accountability to them. By asking that we not have leadership, they ask that we not become a threat and materially what they are asking is that they be able to lead us—to nowhere.

Even after our founding, RGC still had postmodernism to uproot. It caused us to be indecisive, and it materially caused us to not develop strong enough consolidation and leadership, and therefore not to take enough action. It was even winning over some of our strongest supporters, because it is that ominous. To set healthy boundaries we have to take responsibility for our part in this, but also, we cannot take full responsibility for everyone around us, especially those who are in “spaces” we share but do not even support our work. We cannot take full responsibility for the actions of all individuals because when we do so we allow them not to grow.

Our collective unity was borne and consolidated out of the struggle against postmodernism, particularly against Charlotte Uprising. This is how Maoism first manifested in practice in Charlotte—the struggle against the enemies of our ideology should not cease. We have not ceased that struggle, and we have won supporters to our line on this. These supporters started with other activists who were part of the Charlotte Uprising crew with us and noticed the same problems we noticed, then the supporters of this line grew and poured over to Serve the People- Charlotte when CU tried to disrupt their serving. Now, the anti-identity opportunism line has grown outward to influence groups we’re not as close with—such as Customer 49. There are other supporters of this line further out even than this. Without our leadership there would be no fight against Charlotte Uprising, and therefore no fight against identity opportunism, in Charlotte.

We identified this postmodernist problem, starting with ourselves. We made necessary changes such as developing our line around gender, rejecting our own separation of women and LGBT struggles instead realizing that women’s and LGBT struggles both stem from patriarchy, embodied this understanding of proletarian feminism by kicking out abusers, encouraging action against those abusers, supporting women when threatened, and deepening our own understanding of postmodernism by studying it thoroughly. We defend these decisions.

For example, we made both the isolation Manuel issues of proletarian feminism (totalizing issues) because they are the underlying reasons behind both these abusers, and things that we have to fight structurally. We did this by taking hard lines against both these people when they refused discipline–leadership was part of both these proletarian feminist committees and lead both of these struggles. They determinedly opposed the soft “restorative justice” (which frame contradictions principally as individual, interpersonal conflicts instead of principally political) argument that was pushed by the group of postmodernists in both these committees. And people within both those committees were won over to our line of isolating abusers materially, which is correct. We will defend these decisions with action. We have had to be the ones to answer to these decisions and back them up. Organizations we lead and have influence in were the ones to officially release their isolation and back it up.

With Manuel we had made a tailist mistake of survivor self determination because we knew about their first sexual assault, and didn’t deal with it. We did this because the victim originally didn’t want us to and then didn’t respond to our requests that they work with us to. We take full responsibility for this mistake—and the root of the mistake of survivor self determination was actually a problem of us not taking enough leadership. Fear was also connected to this, in that we were fearful of how Manuel would react, and to correct that fear we are now taking courage. In attacking postmodernism materially we took leadership, and seized courage, correcting both these problems.

Running from confrontation is the reflection of a petty-bourgeois attitude. The bourgeoisie ultimately benefits from the working class taking a soft attitude towards confrontation. This is expressed in personal relationships within the revolutionary movement.

Without our leadership, D28 would not have happened. It was a victory that D28 started as something the Anti-Comm fascist group called an action for, and that we instead turned it into its opposite. We got experience using tactics never before used in Charlotte–certain tactics that we encourage others to take on for themselves without fear. We also learned lessons like not to chant nonstop because it stifles our energy, to oppose electoral politicians when they try to speak at these events, and so forth. If we had taken the postmodernist, in this case the “anti-confrontation” line, we would not have had this action at all. D28 was not a “perfect” action but it was, even with its mistakes, an overall success and we will defend it. No action is perfect because we are not idealists. In that situation there were two lines: one set whether or not we should do the action as dependent on whether or not the fascists would be there (which is tailing the fascists). The opposing line, pushed by our leadership and followed through to the end, said we should have the action regardless because Charlotte is our turf and we cannot allow the fascists to organize, or even threaten to organize here, that we should take control of the situation ourselves and build power against the fascists pre-emptively. The postmodernist’s line in that situation would be forgivable if they had uprooted the bad thinking that lead them to push this line, but they have not.

May Day was another action that we encouraged, uphold, and defend. Some activists were invited to plan as soon as the planning began. They declined saying they had more important things to do but would be part of the planning closer to the day of. Fine. So, we followed up with their commitment. They weren’t willing to use certain militant tactics, then they weren’t willing to even commit to certain tasks which involved no militancy, then they weren’t even willing to be part of the action AT ALL, all because leadership was asking why they were not willing to take risks.

Leadership must lead by example, because the collective is more important than the individual. Leadership is not inherently individualist and this is such a mechanical argument. This argument has been used against us by some activists, who said, “you are not leadership you are an individual and everything you touch turns to shit”. By saying this they are attacking the decisions we made against the enemies we have made along the way, when instead we uphold and defend these decisions. This argument has been used against all the great leaders we uphold—Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and also Presidente Gonzalo. Of course, we have not earned the leadership they did, but we follow in their footsteps and we have to start somewhere. Materially gains cannot be made when there is no leadership—this is true for the short term and the long term. In order to ask the group to uphold something, leadership must first uphold it themselves. That’s why we must encourage physical confrontation.

The reasons leadership is needed are used in certain examples. For example, a comrade, Comrade A, has said that we have to become more disciplined and must require each other to be on time. In a recent meeting, Comrade B was late. To correct this, Comrade C followed up with what leadership had suggested, which was that when the comrade is late, we directly confront the issue, and ask them why they are late. The late comrade’s answer was that she forgot things, etc. Comrade D followed up by criticizing her saying that was not a good excuse and she should plan better, and he was correct. This is an example of the mass line. One comrade pointed out the recurring issue. She gave a correct suggestion that we plan to be there early, and it was united with, and in addition, followed up with by leadership by adding a plan for how we enforce discipline, which is to ask why, and criticize if the excuse is bad. It worked. So here we see an example of why we need to have leadership follow up with things to correct the issue. Honestly, leadership should have instilled and followed up with this rule earlier, but that also means that people have to actually take the discipline and follow the rules which means they have to be won over to the idea of collective rules and discipline in the first place. At a certain point, postmodernists will reject even the tiniest bit of this, which we cannot tolerate.

Part of the line of us more effectively managing our time means setting healthy limits to how long our meetings go on. This also means that we need to be able to delegate without a constant barrage of postmodernist arguments and unwillingness to take action.

When a fight breaks out it is not principally a personal problem between the two individuals involved—it is principally rooted in the contradictions in class society in general, which is expressed through these two people in particular. The general is tied up with the particular and the political is tied up with the personal. The line that postmodernists push, which is that it’s between the two individuals primarily, is a postmodernist line. It confines situations to the interpersonal principally and therefore never allows us to take action against structural and totalizing issues. We acknowledge that personal issues exist. As communists, that is never the limit of the action we take.

Leadership is allowed to set a healthy boundary on behalf of the collective as a culmination of the experiences of the group up to this point with over a year of experience. We set healthy boundaries, such as concrete standards we hold that people must live up to in order to be a part of groups we are involved in, so that people understand we are serious about our time. Postmodernists in response to this have a lot of smart ass fucking remarks and cannot stand being “held accountable” without running and hiding from the action.

Some activists really do not support our work because we cannot delegate anything to them. Why can’t we delegate anything to them? Because they don’t like “authority”, just like all postmodernists. Authority is not the source of the problem–it’s who has authority within our society. In capitalist society the bourgeoisie has authority. What we are building in Charlotte is the cell of the body that will make revolution and give the proletariat authority over their oppressors. Even while small, our group has to be able to stand up on its own and we are not so desperate for supporters that we will let people talk to us in any type of disrespectful way that completely opposes our principles. And the root of the problem isn’t the disrespectful way some activists have responded to our leadership, it’s been the practice they don’t back it up with. We should not be expected to unite with attacks against us. If we’re not allowed to fight for our principles and for our ideology then we are fighting for nothing.


From our founding over a year ago to today, postmodernism has really had a hold on the groups we have influence in. Therefore, we have seized the opportunity to put into practice something we’ve been talking about for a while—upholding power and violence. For months and months these arguments have been going on, and at some point the time for talking ceases and the time for confrontation has arrived. Postmodernists speak a different language than us but violence is a universal language understood by all. We do not support all violence uncritically, but we do support justified violence. It matters not that it’s violence in and of itself, it’s what class is behind the violence. We are fighting for the interests of our class, for the proletariat. Even in a relatively small coalition, it clearly takes leadership to actually make the things needed to happen, happen. Without dedicated leadership the group will fall apart and flounder because people’s lives are busy.

There are comrades who must be won away from postmodernism, and we have “patiently” tried to do this, but it does reach a point where it becomes antagonistic. A power is growing and a postmodernist force is doing everything they can to stop that power from even budding.

As Maoists, we follow that the development of any revolutionary organization is marked by two-line struggle. There are two lines regarding leadership here. One line says we need leadership, and yes leadership must be accountable to the group, but the development of the organization will cease without leadership. And then the opposing line, which some activists are still towing, says that following the interests of the group negates the need for leadership. They say this because leadership is expressed in one person. The line upholding leadership is correct.

There are also two lines regarding boundaries. We should not mechanically negate boundaries at all; we need them to organize. However, as with everything else, we are more concerned with the collective than the individual overall. Using dialectical materialism, there is a contradiction between the collective and the individual. With any contradiction, we have to give one aspect more importance. In line with communism, the collective interests are more important than the individual interests. This is expressed in certain situations such as, if a comrade is late and does not have a serious excuse, their individual reasons for being late contradict the interests of the group, and they therefore admit this is wrong. Therefore the group which they have chosen to be part of is holding them to rectify something they also agreed is a problem. This is just one example of many.

We must be expected to follow up with the decisions we make to carry out solutions to problems. Some activists, who negate the need for leadership at all, have a problem with us following up in practice with what we believe in theory. Physically confronting someone who has for months tried to humiliate us for carrying out our lines, whether it came to our line on revolutionary sobriety, being too “serious”, who has run from even the smallest asks in practice, is justified. Destroying the property of someone who sabotages the revolution is correct. They were not going to take it seriously any other way. They were going to keep mouthing off at even the smallest requests. They would do this to any leadership that emerged in Charlotte, and this has been expressed in our collective. We say this with humility and without vanity, but standing up for ourselves. They want us to be so “humble” to the point that we let them control us. No.

The mass organizations we have influence in have also exhibited a lack of action and a lack of a fighting spirit. This is because in the past, we have chosen fear of confrontation instead of courage. What happened recently shows we are growing– we are not scared of confrontation, even within the revolutionary movement.

The Marxist theory of knowledge, leadership, revolutionary violence—all these things are connected. Winning people over away from postmodernism has been challenging. We are grateful for this challenge, as it has forced us to become better. We are grateful that we have had to face our fears, encourage people to burn the American flag publicly, confront the police, confront abusers, protect women when they are threatened for speaking out about their rape, and we are grateful that physical confrontation happens when it represents the culmination of the antagonistic contradiction between postmodernism and Maoism.

We seized the initiative by not waiting for postmodernism to attack us, instead attacking it first. We are not humiliated or ashamed for this, and instead stand by the decision. We put our principles into practice. We follow up with solutions to the problems in our group. We must be the change that we wish to see in the world, and we must be the change that we wish to see in the group.

Reject postmodernism in theory and in practice!

Build up the revolutionary movement and do not be silenced!

Stand by revolutionary violence!

-Red Guards Charlotte, May 2018

Celebrating May Day through rebellion

In February of 2018 we called on Charlotte to make May Day a revolutionary communist day of internationalism and rebellion. In the uphill battle to make Maoism a material force among the masses, we have succeeded in initiating the first steps towards revolution. We can classify May 1st, 2018 as a victory for the revolutionary forces in Charlotte. This action spit in the face of decades of liberalism in this city.

Politics in Command

We do not seek “left unity”–we seek the highest level of unity with the masses. This year we weren’t interested in building up May Day with groups who seek to take the rebellious history out of May Day.

To paraphrase La Gauche Prolétarienne, we are for partisan action and against mass inaction. Many on the “left” in Charlotte see no point in acting unless the numbers are large. While we do want large numbers of the working class to take up proletarian revolution, what we don’t want is the desire for large numbers to paralyze us from taking necessary action. The left in Charlotte is toothless, and has that way been for years now.

A protest on the enemies’ terms is a parade, nothing more. The NGO left, just like the fascists and the state, fear rebellion. Rebellion and destruction of the existing order would mean the abdication of their vaunted positions of royalty a top the kingdom of social capital they have reigned over for so long. We work in principled unity with organizations who are truly fighting for a better world, we send a huge thank you to the comrades over at Libre, Antifascists Charlotte, and Serve the People – Charlotte, we are eternally grateful for your support.

As outreach for this march, we passed out flyers in multiple proletarian neighborhoods, stuck up flyers, and did a fair share of online outreach. Though we learned the masses of people don’t know much about May Day, the passing out of literature in proletarian neighborhoods without follow up was a mistake. The mistake comes from a left deviation in our mass work, in which we believed that if we told people about why May Day is in their interests that alone will lead to the masses to spontaneously coming out. What this formula doesn’t account for is the fact that workers are still not conscious as a class in the necessity of militant action. That part takes awhile to build up. Our energy should have gone equally into steeling our forces under the line we took for May Day, while also doing outreach regularly among the working class. Educating on May Day is a crucial step but teaching the necessity of militant action, through practice and theory, is even more crucial if we want to lead the working class. What we will do next time is communicate our message by referencing our own actions–like this one–which prove to the masses that we are militant and will not be overrun. The people want action. They see talk without enough action and they don’t believe it—we don’t blame them.

Past “May Day” in Charlotte

Among Charlotte “organizing” folklore was May Day 2017, where 8,000 people marched through the streets of downtown Charlotte. This gets thrown in the face of revolutionaries who, with a materialist perspective, see that 8,000 people in the streets protesting is positive but we ask the question: where are those 8,000 people now? Who is engaging with those workers today? Where is the organization that lead that march now? The NGOs fail to analyze concrete reality from concrete conditions. They would have you believe that this march disrupted so much that Charlotte will never be the same when it’s just the opposite. Charlotte remains the same– the working class is still toiling and exploited. Many among the working class and its allies, especially oppressed nations, are fearful of being deported or murdered by the police.

Many of the sideline critics of Revolutionary May Day 2018 forget that May Day 2017 was a culmination of a national day of action known as a “Day without immigrants.” That doesn’t take away from impressiveness of the sheer numbers. Yet it can’t be forgotten that the anti-war protests of the early 2000’s, the Women’s march, Black Lives Matter marches after the Ferguson uprising, were quantifiably substantial, but qualitatively suffered the same fate—sputtering out or funneled into the hands of the Democratic party. We are not mass protests, and we are against protesting for the sake of protesting.

Marx taught us that “revolutions are the locomotives of history” and the masses are coal which light the fire needed to run the engine of history. Therefore, there is the kernel of truth that mass action is needed to move history forward but to what end? If our class isn’t being galvanized to engage in mass action against capitalism-imperialism, then protests should be for what they are: necessary tactics but not inherently revolutionary.

However, our march did share a district similarity with the much-lauded march of 8,000, they both occurred in Downtown Charlotte. Downtown is the financial center of Charlotte headquarters of Bank of America and Duke Energy. Charlotte is the second largest banking center in the US–with that comes a huge influx of capital being stored for the exploiters. Bank of America holds the active capital for the business owners to the monopoly capitalists. Without banks acting as holders of capital there can be no ownership over the means of production. Capital is the land, factory, machinery and money needed to hire labor. As production cannot happen without capital, banks are among the main enemies of the people. So, we marched through the downtown that was built by the working class all funded by the banks Charlotte holds so dearly. We specifically assembled in downtown to say, “fuck you Bank of America”, “fuck you America” for its crimes against humanity. Both of those entities represent two of our main enemies, and the masses must know this clearly.


Flag Burning–Every Communist’s Calling

Communists have a duty to put into practice the principles we hold. When we say “fuck America” we back it the fuck up. We say it for the hundreds of years of exploitation, slavery, genocide and imperialist wars, therefore it was only fitting to burn the flag of terrorist number 1.
After taking the streets for about a block, our supporters stopped in front of Bank of America. This was across from the Omni on Trade and College. A moment of silence was held for Justin Carr, a Black man who was killed protesting during the Charlotte rebellion, and our supporters proceeded to pull out the flag of our oppressors. The pigs snatched the flag from our supporters, but those supporters ended up getting it back because of Johnson vs. Texas which says that burning the American flag is a right all Americans have. Our supporters then proceeded to burn the flag. The look of agony and disgust in the eyes of the pigs was beautiful. This was the highest point in the march–the energy was exciting, the pigs and patriots flustered, and our people were unified. The people recorded the action and some chanted with us for a bit.

Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?

Principally the pigs were our enemy throughout, but as soon as the march reached its climax—Sam Bethea, the local street preacher, came to harass us again. As he usually does, he stumbled into our crowd chanting “Jesus Saves” to detract from our action. In his actions he is attempting to show us why we are all misguided youth who need God’s light to receive our salvation.  Under “peaceful” conditions, he is a harmless street preacher who doesn’t spew hate or bigotry, but rather a person with a competing ideology attempting to usurp the need for any sort of action to end this misery. He is a blackhole, sucking the light and energy out of our marches. He has been louder, with a seemingly-unlimited amount of energy. He should have been kicked out of our presence and shut down. His chanting turned a section of the masses looking on in support of our march against us; he was able to frame us as misguided, petulant youth, while his two-word catchphrase was the actual salvation—and not communism. It was our march, and a plan of action must be taken to neutralize non-state enemies of the people. In essence, he is nothing more than an opportunist, and a snitch who in the past has gotten our comrades arrested.

Kidnapped Comrades

As the march came to an end, Sam followed us until we got to our dispersal location—distracting us the entire way. We made it to the ending location, and as we let our guard down the pigs got the orders to arrest 3 of our supporters. The pigs blindsided them, slammed a comrade up against a wall, and tackled another one to the ground. The pigs clearly had an order called in to arrest our supporters, teach them a lesson, and end the protest. They don’t actually know or understand the law, and this can be used to our tactical advantage in the future. The main lesson we learned was that the pigs are the enemies of the people. They serve the exploiters, and brutalize working class people every day. So to them we say, “Fuck you and every other pig.” We will never fear their badges, their clubs, pepper spray or guns. For every one of us who gets captured by the state, two or three more of us will come forward, inspired by the action. We seized the moment, and the morale.

To the supporters who were arrested, we salute you. We salute your sacrifice. We work and fight to develop the courage to fight for liberation of all of humanity like you all do. Two of our supporters have been placed on suspension because of arrest and are losing income as we speak. This is the state’s ploy to stop future rebellion. They want to place huge physical, emotional and mental stress on them and their loved ones, so the idea of engaging in another militant action never crosses their mind. But as communists we are fearless, we won’t back down—we will take care of our own, to continue the fight through to the end!

Please consider donating to support these comrades for their sacrifices, send money via Google pay to:

Where to next?

Despite our small numbers, this revolutionary May Day was a step in the absolutely correct direction. The planning of this action marked our independence, and a moving up from where we were before. Our supporters publicly bore the hammer and sickle for the first time in a direct action.

We flew high the red flag in solidarity with the Palestinian people who have been protesting for 6 weeks now to reclaim their stolen land. During that 6-week period over 44 people have been killed and 1,700 have been injured. We rebel in their honor. We fought for Ahed Tamimi who, as we speak, is sitting in the dungeons of the Israeli state. We fought for Janisha Fonville, Daquan Westbrook aka Donkey Cartel, Jonathan Ferrell, Lareko Williams, and Keith Lamont Scott all who have been murdered by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department. We fought for all those who came from disaster or war-torn countries protected under “temporary protective status” and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) who are under threat of deportation. We will continue the fight every day for all oppressed and exploited people who are suffering under capitalism-imperialism globally. We will not relent until our ideology—Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism—has been grasped by the masses worldwide.

The struggle is just beginning. We have a new task ahead of us: build up Red May Day 2019! With everything we have learned from this year’s action, we must push that momentum from the refreshing militancy of May Day 2018 into our plans for next year. May Day is our day, it is a day for our class. We must cherish it with celebration and righteous rebellion.

The masses scream out for revolution–heed their call!

Impose the red banner against all who attack it!

-Red Guards Charlotte, May 8th, 2018

Isolate the Abuser Manuel Fuentes from All Revolutionary Spaces

We are hosting this statement for a guest, a local Proletarian Feminist Committee.

Name: Manuel Fuentes

Pronouns: He/ they

Facebook Accounts: Ocelotl Tecciztactl and Ocelotl Nahuatl

Instagram Handle: ocelotl_tecciztactl

Phone Number: 704-605-1269



As proletarian feminists, it is our duty to take action against all expressions of patriarchal violence. We formed this committee to address sexual assault allegations against the former activist named Manuel Fuentes, who is also known as “Oce”. We find Manuel guilty of over three instances of sexual assault including one instance of rape. The sexual assaults were directed at three people total, who all experience the oppression that women experience. In this case the survivors were one woman and two comrades who are read as women.


Concrete grounds for isolation

Case 1

In the spring of 2017 Manuel sexually assaulted a person, Comrade A, in a platonic setting. Manuel was giving this person a massage and had already been firmly told what Comrade A’s boundaries were ahead of time. He violated those boundaries touching this person sexually. Immediately he was told, by Comrade A, that he must stop. This constitutes sexual assault and there is no excuse.

Comrade A informed other comrades about what happened. These comrades proposed a way to deal with it, but ultimately waited for Comrade A to approve what course of action should be taken in direct relation to this case. The result was that immediate and direct action was not taken. The Proletarian Feminist Committee (PFC) recognizes that this was a mistake, because they should have taken action regardless of what the survivor wanted. This mistake was rooted in the identity politics of survivor self-determination. It is a rotten tailism: sometimes survivors either don’t want to be a part of the process, or cannot be. It should not be up to the opinion of the victim to decide what should be done in regard to an abuser who has access to whole groups of people. This is because the political line of how to deal with abusers is more important than who it comes from. It is the duty of the organizations involved to handle sexual assault allegations correctly, and it takes correct leadership to do so. It is not Comrade A’s fault that this was not handled correctly. Some of us were part of this group and self-criticize for following the incorrect line and failing to take initiate an official process. We should have temporarily isolated him from all spaces upon learning about this, and started this process long ago.

Manuel was asked to leave Serve the People – Charlotte (STP-CLT) as a result of the knowledge of the sexual assault, but it was not made clear to him that this was what influenced the decision. Before the advent of this Proletarian Feminist Committee, he was confronted privately about the sexual assault of Comrade A and admitted to it. He has also admitted to this act in writing.

Because of the mistake of following the survivor self-determination line, Manuel was able to continue materially unchecked for almost a year, and it resulted in the patriarchal abuse of other comrades.

Case 2

In the fall of 2017 Manuel raped Comrade B in a romantic setting. The encounter began consensually but consent can be taken at any time. The victim told him to stop and he continued for ten minutes which constitutes rape. There is no excuse that he did not know, because verbally Comrade B denied consent and told him to stop. Comrade B also reported other instances of sexual coercion. He pressured them into anal play repeatedly.

The victim kept a journal of parts of their relationship and was able to tell us the date of one of the assaults. The Proletarian Feminist Committee found out about the rape once we had already temporarily isolated Manuel.

Additionally, Manuel’s relationship with Comrade B included gaslighting, which is emotional abuse. Although gaslighting is a term that can be misapplied, it is a real thing and Manuel was guilty of it in this relationship. Here we define gaslighting as doing or saying something, especially during an argument or antagonistic moment, and later denying that it happened. This denial that it happened causes the person who experienced it to question their own sanity although they are correct. When confronted about these behaviors by the PFC, Manuel denied them and tried to make himself the victim.

Comrade B is concerned that Manuel could possibly release private video or photos in an attempt to seek revenge on this comrade for speaking out. This would do nothing but show him for the abuser he is.

Manuel has dismissed Comrade B, and we are sure he will continue to dismiss them, using a classic misogynist trope. He has portrayed Comrade B as the vengeful ex-partner who is making this up out of spite or because Manuel “doesn’t want to be with” them. This is not true. These are not lies made up out of spite, and the PFC investigated and has concluded that the things listed here did occur.

Case 3

Manuel admitted to gaslighting a woman with whom they were involved sexually in the fall of 2017. This intimate partner, Comrade C, was coerced. In this assault, Manuel put his hand down her pants, to which she replied, “stop”. He continued to put his hand down her pants.

Comrade C said that the two had spoken after this first sexual assault and Manuel admitted that they should not have “done that.” He denied this when confronted about it by the PFC.

She also told us about a second situation that also constitutes sexual assault in which Manuel exposed their genitalia to her non-consensually.

The PFC found out about these sexual assaults  in the days leading up to the temporary isolation of Manuel.


Intervention of the Proletarian Feminist Committee

Part of the consequence of following the line of survivor self-determination was that women victimized by Manuel were objectively pushed out of revolutionary spaces. Correcting the mistake of the handling of the first sexual assault, as well as upon learning about the second, two members of the PFC told Manuel to remove themselves from political and social spaces. This confrontation happened in person, in mid-March at the last Revolutionary Study Group (RSG) session.

The following day, the committee nominated a liaison to communicate directly with Manuel. The liaison re-stated what was happening and explained to Manuel which spaces he was isolated from. He responded negatively. This screenshot is being shared to show Manuel’s reluctance to accept discipline from the PFC.

At this time he had already admitted to one sexual assault so the allusions to “not being given clarity as to the accusations” are lies. He also called us “fascists” for standing up to him and handling him.

On the following Monday, Manuel attended a social event that one of the victims had been promoting publicly and was attending with mutual friends. Upon arriving, he walked straight up to them to greet the mutual friends. At this point he had already been told not to enter social spaces shared with the victims. He disregarded the isolation and the victim in the situation felt intimidated as a result.

Manuel was also asked to meet with the PFC. There was difficulty finding a time he was available, but he agreed to meet on the following Sunday, 12 days later. When this day arrived, the PFC was unsure whether Manuel would show or not. They informed Manuel that they would only wait 30 minutes from the set start time for him to arrive. He arrived 29 minutes late. During the meeting, which was recorded, Manuel admitted to sexually assaulting Comrade A and gaslighting Comrade C.  The entire time he attempted to change the focus onto wrongs done to him and denied all of the behaviors experienced by Comrade B (the sexual assault of this individual was not known at the time, and Manuel did confirm the events of the interaction when asked a few days later). Toward the last ten minutes of the 2-hour meeting, the committee tried to convince Manuel to participate in rectification, explaining why it’d be beneficial to him and the people around him. In the last two minutes Manuel stated, “I am just being petty… y’all have had control of the situation the whole damn time… And the fact that y’all need a concrete answer knowing that I’m going to say yes anyways”. Manuel was asked repeatedly for verbal confirmation or denial of the process, and as the PFC stood to leave he said yes therefore agreeing to acknowledge his behaviors and participate in a 3-month re-education process. This was going to include meeting with two PFC team members once a week to read about proletarian feminism as well as read about consent.

Manuel was given one week to write a statement on his actions to share on social media and with local revolutionary groups. During that week representatives of the PFC met with him once to assist with writing the statement and he sent a first draft to the liaison.


That weekend, the PFC was informed that Manuel had contacted one of the victims—Comrade B–after being told explicitly not to do so by the individual as well as the PFC as a concrete condition of his rectification. In his message, he stated “…if I owe anyone anything and need to be held accountable then it would be to you and only you”. This contradicted his earlier denial, to us, that he had done anything wrong to them.

At the same time Manuel reached out to one of the PFC members individually to inform them that he was not going to do the process. This emotional manipulation towards a woman read comrade and the use of his kids and class background to gain sympathy is disgusting.

Regardless of his own willingness, Manuel violated the terms of rectification by reaching out to a victim, and we are isolating him as a result. The choice to isolate Manuel is a choice to put the safety of women over abusers who commit patriarchal acts such as rape, sexual assault and harassment, emotional abuse, and physical abuse.

We anticipate that some may object to the choice of the PFC to proceed with isolation as opposed to prolonged engagement with Manuel, due to the fact that his behaviors have not been rectified or transformed.

We do acknowledge that abusers can be transformed. However, we have limited time for transforming people who we have found guilty of abuse, and who don’t meet the bare minimum requirements for rectification. Due to the reality of our limited time, we must make the distinction between comrades who can be struggled with and those who cannot be. This choice must be made decisively because we are not idealists and we cannot devote all our time to one person especially someone who sexually assaulted multiple women. We reject restorative justice which prioritizes the abuser.

Manuel was given multiple chances. He violated multiple terms of the rectification process knowingly. Therefore, we urge everyone reading this to isolate Manuel Fuentes. We must unite to protect women wholeheartedly, and we must choose to stand on the side of women oppressed by patriarchy across the world.

Do not allow Manuel in political or social spaces, and do not respond to them if they contact you. Please reach out to if you have information or questions.

Struggle against survivor self-determination!

Protect women at all costs!

Apply proletarian feminism without fear!

-Proletarian Feminist Committee, April 2018


Solidarity with the Palestinian Land Day


On March 30th, 1976, thousands of Palestinians marched from the northern region of Galilee all the way down to Negev in the south, protesting the Israeli government’s decision to steal a massive amount of Palestinian owned land. Before the decision had been made to forcibly displace the remaining Palestinian population, Palestinians already faced discrimination and intimidation for taking up space that the Israeli government wanted to steal for settlements. During this fateful demonstration, six Palestinians were murdered by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The anniversary of this demonstration is celebrated every year as Land Day, a reminder to Israel and the world that Palestinians are still fighting for their right to their ancestral home.

This past Friday, March 30th, 2018, over a thousand Palestinians returned and marched towards the illegal settlements occupying their land in a march of return. The day before the demonstration, the IDF set up barbed wire fences to lock the protesters in. Around 200 Israeli snipers shot live rounds into the crowed of marchers, shooting 400 people, many of which are in critical condition, and killing 16 people. The number of casualties will continue to grow as time passes and more people are discovered or pass away due to their wounds. The names available of those martyred are:

Wahid Nasrallah Abu Sammour, age 27

Mohammed Kamal Najjar, age 25

Mohammed Naim Abu Amro. Age 27

Amin Mansour Abu Moammar, age unconfirmed

Ibrahim Abu Sha’ar, age 22

Abdul-Fattah Bahjat Abdul-Nabi, age 18

Mahmoud Sa’adi Rohmi. Age 33

Sari Waleed Abu Odah, age unconfirmed

Hamdan Ismael Abu Amsha, age unconfirmed

Jihad Ahmad Freina, age 34

Ahmad Ibrahim Ashour Odah, age 16

Abdul-Qader Merdhi al-Hawarjri, age 42

Jihad Zoheir Abu Jamous, age 30

In Charlotte our supporters are involved in Palestinian solidarity organizing, engaging in education events about the incarceration of Ahed Tamimi, al-Nakba, the history of Zionism, and the history of Palestinian resistance. This is important to do on a campus where Zionism is rampant, and organizations recruit students to attend birthright trips to Israel. Currently, our solidarity with the Palestinian people is on an educational basis but their struggle deserves for our solidarity to be taken to stronger levels of concentration. Communists in the imperialist core need to be leading the active boycott against buying Israeli made goods funding the occupation, make distinct connections between the plight of Palestinians and all oppressed, colonized and displaced people around the world to awaken the masses for revolution in this country.

Every year since 1976, exiled Palestinians commemorate and remember the martyrs of their struggle for land and national liberation. Every Land Day demonstration Palestinians have been murdered and attacked by Israeli forces. Palestinians still come out in the thousands, knowing that their fight for return to ancestral lands can end in death. To many Palestinians, death is freedom; freedom to die on their land while fighting the occupation in a final act of resistance, to die for the struggle of your people’s liberation. The Palestinian people’s connection to their homeland is the driving force behind their national liberation struggle. Survivors of the first acts of occupation and al-Nakba are still fighting for a free Palestine. There are people who were born and raised by the dead sea, now barred from setting foot on the beach, not able to get close without risking being shot by the border or outside of check points. These are justifications of why the Land Day demonstrations have not and will not stop until every Palestinian refugee and descendent can enter their homeland as a free independent nation of Palestine.





–Red Guards Charlotte, April 2018