#rmc-chi

News has recently surfaced regarding a split in the organization known as AF3IRM. We will not go into the details of this split here, as the comrades directly involved have already published their own principled criticism of AF3IRM and summation of the issues leading up to the split (find their statement here: https://proletarianfeminist.medium.com/our-split-from-af3irm-shedding-light-on-our-issues-to-encourage-our-growth-towards-a-real-76cd1bcae395). Since the initial statement was published on February 6th, the number of signatories has only continued to grow, sitting at 48 at the time of our writing this article. 

At this time, the Chicago Chapter of the Revolutionary Maoist Coalition wants to extend our unconditional solidarity and support to the brave comrades who have broken with the liberal leadership of AF3IRM. Building a revolutionary women’s movement that is 1) free from both male-chauvinism as well as bourgeois liberal feminism, and 2) based in proletarian feminism, anti-imperialism, national liberation, and scientific socialism is one of the most pressing tasks of our movement today. We applaud the bravery and revolutionary discipline exhibited by the comrades who are now working to forge their own path forward in accomplishing this goal. Let it be known that you are not alone, and that we in RMC – Chicago are happy to aid in this work in any way possible. 

Moreover, we formally denounce the actions of AF3IRM leadership not only for the liberal, pro-imperialist, anti-democratic tendencies which led to the split, but also for the manipulation and misinformation — described by one former-member that left during the split as “psychological warfare” — employed by them in the wake of the split. Those who remain in leadership have audaciously claimed that only two members of AF3IRM have left, denied the existence of the split, and claimed that social media pages formerly affiliated with AF3IRM which have posted about the split have simply been hacked. This should be seen for what it is: utter cowardice. It exhibits nothing else other than a fear of accountability; a fear of ideological struggle and criticism; a fear of the truth. 

We wish all 48 signatories of the document shedding light on the split the best of luck in continuing their struggle for a revolutionary proletarian feminist line. You comrades are justified, brave, and supported by revolutionary women and gender-oppressed people everywhere. 

Down with imperialist “feminism”! Proletarian feminism forever!  Long live the women’s struggle!  Long live the international proletariat! 

We are an anti-capitalist, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization. It is the capitalist system which creates the exploitation, oppression, starvation, and systematic killing of the global working classes. Capitalism has exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic; capitalism keeps people from acquiring adequate healthcare; capitalism creates houselessness; capitalism creates police terror. Maoism is the only revolutionary ideology equipped to dismantle and replace the exploitative system of capitalism.

We are inspired by – and learn from – the concrete experiences of the three world-historic revolutions: the Paris Commune, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution; as well as domestic organizations such as the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords Party. In addition to these, we strive to learn lessons from the contemporary Peoples’ Wars and national liberation struggles such as those in the Philippines, India, Peru, Nepal, Turkey, Bangladesh, Palestine, Ireland, and Swaziland to name a few.

We are firmly dedicated to serving our communities and neighborhoods across Chicago by means of free food programs, combating police violence, organizing the masses into tenant unions or neighborhood committees, community gardens, political education, clothing drives, or any other means that match the needs of the oppressed masses.

We are firmly dedicated to the labor struggle and building working class power by means of unionizing our workplaces, as well as aiding and providing solidarity to our fellow workers in their struggles for unionization.

We follow and uphold the mass line. We understand that the masses – and the masses alone – are the makers of history. This means that we must be sure to learn the needs of the masses, and we must organize and mobilize the most advanced sections of them around those needs. Our leaders must come from the masses, and we must be sure to never think we know better than the masses. This principle may be briefly summed up in the formulation of “from the people, to the people”.

We are dedicated to anti-imperialism and revolutionary internationalism. We stand with all people who struggle against neo-colonialism, settler-colonialism, and imperialist domination.

We recognize the struggle of all oppressed nationalities in the United States including the Black/New Afrikan nation, the Chicano nation and other Latinos, Asian Americans, the Hawaiian peoples, Puerto Ricans, Pacic Islanders, Arab Americans, and all indigenous nations on whose land we occupy, with a particular focus on the indigenous nations which continue to live on the land called Chicago which includes the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Miami, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kickapoo, and Illinois Nations. We recognize the United States as a settler-colonial project and view the country as a prison house of nations. RMC-CHI recognizes and is rmly committed to the national self-determination of these peoples and their liberation from settler-colonial capitalist oppression including through return of occupied land, national independence and land back. This must be achieved by organizing the nationally oppressed masses into revolutionary multinational organizations as well as the formation of revolutionary national liberation organizations which will allow for the oppressed nations to simultaneously organize in their own self-interest and self-defense.

We embrace revolutionary proletarian feminism. We are dedicated to the liberation of working and oppressed women – socially, politically, and economically – from patriarchy and capitalism. RMC-CHI emphatically rejects any and all manifestations of male chauvinism. The liberation of women must be achieved by organizing working class and oppressed women into broad revolutionary communist organizations as well as the formation of women’s organizations/committees which will allow for women to simultaneously organize in their own self-interest and self-defense.

We are dedicated to the liberation of all LGBTQ2S people from patriarchal cisgender-heterosexual power structures. We must unite the struggle for queer liberation with the struggle for national self-determination, women’s liberation, and communism. This must be achieved by organizing working class and oppressed queer people into broad revolutionary communist organizations as well as the formation of queer organizations/committees which will allow for the LGBTQ2S community to simultaneously organize in their own self-interest and self-defense.

We are dedicated to the liberation of all disabled and neurodivergent people from oppressive power structures. Neurodivergent and disabled people make many valuable contributions to our society and are cherished members of our class. The struggle for disabled and neurodivergent people must be linked with the struggles for national self-determination and socialism. The liberation of disabled and neurodivergent people must be achieved by organizing disabled and neurodivergent people into broad revolutionary communist organizations as well as the formation of organizations specifically for disabled and neurodivergent people which will allow them to simultaneously organize in their own self-interest and self-defense.

We recognize the need for revolutionary self-defense. The settler-colonial capitalist system reinforces itself by means of violence using the pig police and their fascistic brown-shirt enforcers (the Klan, Proud Boys, and other reactionary organizations/individuals). Colonized, patriarchy-affected, disabled, and poor people are particularly subject to the horric violence of the capitalist-imperialist system. It is necessary to defend ourselves and our communities against this violence, by any means necessary. In this vein, we encourage our members and the masses to train in both unarmed and armed self-defense, and to utilize such training in the defense of oppressed people whenever necessary.

We recognize the revolutionary potential of the lumpen/proletariat. We reject the notion that this strata of the popular masses do not have a strong vested class-interest in proletarian socialism and that they will not play a major part in a revolution in this country. Much like the Bolshevik and Chinese Red Armies had to win the peasantry of their countries to the side of revolutionary socialism, so do we have to form a close class alliance with the lumpen/proletariat in order to make revolution here.

We recognize the revolutionary potential of the so-called United States. We believe that revolution for the working and oppressed masses can be fought and won, and that the imperialist, settler-colonial project of the US can be entirely dismantled. All of our political education, agitation, and organization are means to this end.

What Protracted People’s War Is Not

    Protracted People’s War is not necessarily the encirclement of the urban centers from the rural periphery. Yes, this is how Mao theorized it so many decades ago within the Chinese context. Yes, this is how it is practiced in the semi-feudal, colonial/semi-colonial world. But Maoism in general is not simply the word of Mao, and all universal theories require thorough examination of both the universal and particular aspects.      For example, we know that the theory of the vanguard party is a universal theory. This has been proven through practice time and time again since the Bolsheviks seized power. However, we do not seek to recreate the exact structure of the Bolshevik Party. We do not necessarily seek to split from an opportunistic sect with which we once had a larger party structure with (i.e. the Mensheviks within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party); we do not seek to have the exact same leadership bodies with the exact same officer roles; we do not seek to have the same length of a candidacy program; we do not seek to have the same educational course; we do not seek the exact path of development; we do not seek the exact same political line of the Bolsheviks. These are all particular aspects that manifested within the universal need for a vanguard party armed with the highest development of revolutionary ideology (then Marxism, today Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).      We know that two-line struggle is a universal part of revolutionary Party building, but we do not seek to have the exact debates that occurred between Lenin and Trotsky in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party; between Stalin and Bukharin in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; between Mao and Deng in the Communist Party of China. These, too, were particular manifestations of a universal theory wherein the proletarian line must struggle with the bourgeois line.      So, too, we know (or rather, we should!) that Protracted People’s War is a universal theory of revolutionary military struggle, but that revolutionaries in the imperial core do not seek to wage war from the countryside which eventually surrounds and attacks the urban centers as was done in China and Vietnam. Again, those were particular aspects which manifested during specific instances of the employment of a universally applicable theory.      Yes, Mao explained the process of surrounding the cities by way of the countryside during his initial elucidation of the protracted war. But so, too, did Marx explain the particular manifestations of 19th century capitalism when making his initial critiques of political economy; and so again did Lenin explain the particular issues and path of development of the Bolshevik party when making clear the universal need for a proletarian vanguard party. Are either of these theories any less universal?

    We do, however, disagree with those Maoist theorists who seem to somewhat erroneously define any revolutionary or protracted military campaigns as Protracted People’s Wars. In our study we have found that many Maoists point to prolonged military struggles against stronger miltiary powers as PPW regardless of their political or ideological stand in what seems to be an attempt to draw as many examples as PPW as possible. We believe that this is not only unnecessary, but incorrect.      Many of these comrades uphold that the revolutionary struggle led by the Irish Republican Army against the British colonialists during the Troubles was a form of urban Protracted People’s War. While of course we support the revolutionary armed action taken up by the Irish people, continue to support the revolutionary Irish Republican and Socialist Republican Maoist forces of Ireland, and believe that there are many lessons to be drawn from the Irish experience regarding waging armed struggle in an urbanized capitalist country, we do not believe that this was a Protracted People’s War nor do we find this argument to be at all beneficial. Neither do the Socialist Republican Maoists view the Irish guerilla struggle in this light. In fact, many of the Socialist Republicans of old who pushed for transforming the Irish guerilla struggle into a Protracted People’s War were attacked politically, some even killed, by their fellow Republicans and the colonizers over this very issue. That being said, we agree with the analysis of groups like Anti-Imperialist Action Ireland who hold the position that the experiences of the Irish armed struggle give us many insights into how a Protracted People’s War would be waged in an urban capitalist country ​​​​​​​    Others bizarrely posit that struggles waged by right-wing religious fundamentalists in places like Afghanistan could be considered a form of Protracted People’s War without the political content of a Maoist Protracted People’s War. While, again, the Afghan experience shows that it is possible to wage armed struggle against a militarily superior foe, we do not see how or why one would assign the title of Protracted People’s War to a struggle which is so openly reactionary. In our analysis, the politic of Communism in its highest form – which is of course Marxism-Leninism-Maoism today – is an essential characteristic of the Protracted People’s War, and any struggle which does not have this aspect present cannot be considered to be any kind of people’s war. 

What Protracted People’s War Is

    This question gets far too obfuscated far too often, so we are going to attempt to answer it in as simple of a manner as possible. It should be noted here that we are laying out the universal characteristics of Protracted People’s War as we have come to understand it. The particular aspects and tactics involved a) cannot be elucidated at present because we have yet to come to a comprehensive enough understanding of the american conditions throughout the entire country, which can only be grasped after extensive social investigation and class analysis, and political practice; and b) even if they could be elucidated, it would be a gross security risk to divulge such details publicly to be seen by our class enemies. 

    The universal characteristics of Protracted People’s War are as follows:

A militarized Communist Party, armed with the revolutionary ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, at the helm of both a United Front and a People’s Army. 

Deep connections with the masses so as to “swim among [them] like fish” and to serve them in such a way to draw them into the militarized Communist Party’s orbit. 

Centralization of strategy and decentralization of tactics. 

First attacking dispersed and vulnerable enemy forces and then attacking more important and concentrated forces. 

The core of Protracted People’s War: passing through the three strategic stages which are a) the consolidation of forces and the strategic defensive; b) the strategic equilibrium; and c) the strategic offensive. 

The creation of base areas where dual power has been established which will at times have to be abandoned, especially during the strategic defensive stage when we must follow the principle of “the enemy attacks, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue.” but which may be returned to at later points. 

The ability to remain undefeated, only sent back to a previous strategic stage, as long as the Maoist Party and People’s Army remain active and have not succumbed to opportunism/revisionism.

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​There is no reason that these universal aspects cannot be applied in urbanized imperialist countries. 

Defining a “Militarized Communist Party”

    Before moving forward, we believe it is necessary to define what we mean by a “militarized communist party”. This is a question of much contention, especially among the anti-PPW universalists.      The Insurrectionists imply that this means that the Communist Party will take on a strict military structure with a top-down form of organization, or that it simply means that the Communist Party must eventually wage revolution, which is a core tenet of Marxism, and is thus a useless term. As communists who embrace the theories of the vanguard Party expounded by Lenin, we uphold the democratic-centralist method of organization and thus we reject the former characterization of the militarized Communist Party. As for the latter characterization, we take the position that merely putting forward the fact that we must eventually wage revolution – especially in the contemporary era when so many revisionist “communist” organizations refuse to engage revolutionary strategy in a meaningful way – is not sufficient. This is precisely where the understanding of a militarized Communist Party becomes necessary. 

    The militarized Communist Party expresses three important points. Firstly, that once a genuine Communist Party is formed (by “genuine” we mean one that upholds Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the third and highest stage of Marxism, has successfully immersed itself in the masses, and has a core of cadres which have forged themselves through class struggle via above-ground and clandestine mass organizing), it must immediately begin preparing for the eventual armed conflict with the State. This preparation must be done by means of: drafting a revolutionary strategy as well as arming the masses, forming and training secret mass organizations, community self-defense teams and local militias which shall serve as the embryo of a People’s Army. Secondly, it means that there must be an understanding that each member of the Communist Party must themselves be prepared to be militants in the revolutionary process, even if they are not direct members of the eventual People’s Army. And thirdly, by virtue of these other two points, that the Communist Party must be a clandestine, underground organization from the moment of inception. 

    There are many organizations in the so-called united states which currently claim to be Communist Parties (Communist Party USA, Party of Communists USA, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Revolutionary Communist Party USA, etc), but none of them match any of the above characteristics, and for these reasons they cannot be expected to wage an actual revolution in this country. A militarized Communist Party is a necessity for working class, national, gender, and sexual liberation of the oppressed masses. 

The Issue of Combatting a Superior Military Force

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Those communists who stand against the universal application of Protracted People’s War often bring up the issue of combatting a superior military force when the question of PPW arises.      ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​In their arguments, we must pursue an Insurrectionary Strategy wherein we pass through a “protracted legal struggle” (note that their only example of a successful revolution by means of an Insurrectionary Strategy – which was actually, as we shall discuss later, a Protracted People’s War – did not ever go through a period of “protracted legal struggle”) until we eventually will wage quick insurrections in major cities once the masses have come to support us enough. In their words, this is because a prolonged conflict with such a superior military force is impossible to win.      ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Ironically, the fact that those who eventually choose to directly confront the bourgeois forces will be up against a larger, better trained, and far-better equipped military force is – in our analysis – all the more reason why Protracted People’s War is not only applicable, but necessary in the urbanized imperialist countries. ​​​​​​​​​​​​    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​How do these would-be revolutionaries expect to overpower the largest, best-funded military force in the world in one fell swoop? Protracted People’s War offers us the insight to understand the reality that – no matter how much revolutionary support we’ve garnered so far, no matter how intense the objective conditions of revolution have become – the vanguard Party will not be able to overthrow the current class rule in any manner other than a prolonged one. PPW universalists understand that 1) the revolutionary forces will necessarily go through a long period of being on a strategic defensive wherein they may take up tactical offensives but will remain largely outnumbered and overpowered before they reach the point of being on equal playing field with the bourgeoisie; and 2) acting as if you are on a strategically offensive stand before actually reaching that point is a devastating, fatal mistake.     ​​​​​​​​​​​​For all the opportunist drivel of PPW universalists being adventurist and bringing the masses into a struggle which cannot be won, it is actually their own Custeristic tendencies which will lead the people to slaughter and defeat if given the chance. 

The Issue of a Uniquely Proletarian Military Strategy

    ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​While it may at first glance seem strange that one would declare a single universal strategy for waging revolutionary war, in reality this is something which was foreseen even by Engels. In Conditions and Prospects of a War of the Holy Alliance Against France in 1852, he notes that, “modern warfare is the product of the French Revolution. Its precondition is the social and political emancipation of the bourgeoisie. . .”  ​​​​​    Modern warfare, as the warfare born from the “military expression” of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, is defined by Engels primarily by “the mass character of means of attack” and “the mobility of these means of attack.” The key concepts to take away from this point are that 1) Engels posits that a new form of warfare which was born from the class emancipation of the bourgeosie from the feudal landlord class; that is that the process of class war, in this case first initiated by Napeleon in the French Revolution, gave birth to a new form of warfare which was uniquely bourgeois. And 2) that the defining characteristics of this uniquely bourgeois form of warfare – that is the mass character of the armies and the mobility of these mass armies – are still characteristic of bourgeois armies today despite whatever other features of Napoleonic Warfare which have been rendered obsolete by advances in technology since the 19th century.      Moreover, Engels continues at the end of this section to state, “The emancipation of the proletariat, too, will have its particular military expression, it will give rise to a specific, new method of warfare.” Therefore, we see that the concept of a uniquely proletarian method of warfare – one that can be univerally appplied by the most revolutionary class of modern society – is not so strange afterall. Even if not yet fully theorized at the time, its existence was predicted as early as 1852 by one of the initators of Marxist thought.  

Insurrectionary Strategy In Practice

“The theory of Protracted People’s War is juxtaposed with the theory of Insurrection that takes the moment of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia as more significant than the process from 1905-1917.” (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-protracted-peoples-war-as-universal.html)

    The issue with this is that the Russian Revolution was itself a Protracted People’s War which was not yet theorized as such; the insurrection of 1917 was not just an isolated event which fell from the sky. The fine details of this are deserving of their own dedicated essay but we will attempt to summarize here.    The Russian Revolution did not begin and end with the 1917 insurrection. The Bolsheviks were, in fact, engaged in armed struggle as early as 1905. They did not, as is commonly advocated by revisionist opportunists as the correct path for communist parties in the imperialist core, engage in a period of “protracted legal struggle” or at any point engage in work which was based solely in the legal realm of politics. Obviously they had a Communist Party leading a united front (soviet systems) and a People’s Army (Red Army).      Moreover, the Bolsheviks passed through the three strategic phases of defensive, equilibrium and offensive. The experience of 1905 initiated the beginning of the untheorized Protracted People’s War. Contrary to the revisionists’ fatuity often spewed regarding the strategy and tactics of the Bolsheviks, they and the secret organizations led by them were engaged in illegal work and small armed skirmishes with the Russian police and landlords throughout the entire period of 1905 to February 1917. However, they were very much on the defensive in this period and had not built substantial power that was anywhere close to equal or truly threatening the existing ruling-class order. It was precisely the bourgeois democratic revolution of February 1917 that placed them in the strategic equilibrium phase, which was relatively short-lived with the strategic offensive stage beginning with the October Revolution of 1917, which lasted until the conclusion of the Russian Civil War in 1921. 

    Further, “all attempts to follow the October Road––attempts that failed to grasp the moment of insurrection as only part of a much larger process of PPW––have actually failed.  Every attempted insurrection based on the strategy of Insurrection has been crushed despite all arguments that this strategy is the only viable revolutionary method at the centres of capitalism.  There is no historical precedent aside from the October Revolution which, as I have already argued, was actually a protracted process.” (ibid)

    It must be understood that insurrections may become part of the process of Protracted People’s War but the Insurrectionary strategy has proven through practice to not be viable. Revolutionary history and practice has clearly shown that Protracted People’s War is the military strategy of the proletariat and that it is the only path to revolution.

Conclusion

    The Revolutionary Maoist Coalition – Chicago therefore upholds the universality of Protracted People’s War, particularly its application to the american context, as defined and justified above.     Without the proper application of Protracted People’s War, we will not be able to achieve class liberation and state power for the working and oppressed people. 

Housing prices in the so-called United States of America are at an all-time high, with prices rising precipitously since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. “Home prices hit a new all-time high in June, even as home sales declined for the fifth straight month as a lack of affordability continues to push buyers out of the market.”[1] The Revolutionary Maoist Coalition (RMC) wishes to advance some initial positions and hypotheses on the housing question, both to invite comradely criticism from other principled communists so that we might sharpen our practice, and to encourage others to take up this work.

On August 5, 2022, a coalition of activists, organizations, and ordinary working-class and lumpen people came together in Chicago’s Humboldt Park neighborhood in order to protect the residents of a home managed by the Hispanic Housing Development Corporation (HHDC), a property management and development firm that is contracted by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA, the body which administers public housing in Chicago and as such acts as Chicago’s largest landlord), from an illegal lockout. The action was successful; the housing defenders utilized a combination of legal and extralegal tactics in order to face off against dozens of police officers, private security, and officials from the HHDC, and successfully negotiate a peaceful end to the police standoff and the cancellation of the HHDC’s lockout plans. Since this action, those involved have begun developing a long-term campaign to seize vacant properties owned by the CHA with the intention to force the CHA into selling the homes to a Community Land Trust so that they may be used to house Chicagoans in need. Included in this paper will be a brief report taking a critical look at the August 5th action in order to learn from its myriad successes as well as some minor errors, in order to sharpen the ability of all activists, revolutionaries, and tenants to win further victories in the housing struggle.

Political Economy of the Housing Struggle

The foremost Marxist work on the housing struggle is Engels’s The Housing Question, published as a series of articles in the German press in 1872 and 1873. The particulars of the debate he was responding to are important but beyond the scope of this article; for our purposes it will do to restate Engels’s central observations about the role housing plays in the capitalist system before discussing how conditions have changed in the century and a half since he wrote.

Engels makes the key observation that the landlord-tenant relationship is only superficially similar to the employer-employee relationship that defines the capitalist mode of production, as the extraction of rent from a tenant does not produce surplus value in the way that work does. Because of this simple fact, challenging the system of private housing or the landlord class does NOT fundamentally challenge the capitalist system on its own.

“No matter how much the landlord may overreach the tenant it is still only a transfer of already existing, previously produced value, and the total sum of values possessed by the landlord and the tenant together remains the same after as it was before.”[2]

Despite this, Engels did not argue that the housing question was unimportant or that it was not a site of struggle for the workers. Indeed, the lack of available housing for workers, and the way that the bourgeoisie-controlled housing market corrals workers into densely-packed, substandard housing only to later gentrify their neighborhoods and displace them once again, are problems that require communist attention. Engels demonstrates that this problem cannot be solved through reformist means, such as the utopian notion of all workers owning their own homes (an ideal very much compatible with American capitalism), but only through socialist transformation: 

“One thing is certain: there are already in existence sufficient buildings for dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real ‘housing shortage,’ given rational utilization of them. This can only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers excessively overcrowded in their former houses. Immediately [once] the proletariat has conquered political power such a measure dictated in the public interests will be just as easy to carry out as other expropriations and billetings are by the existing state.”[3]

Yet there are some differences in how the housing market operates, and its role within the capitalist system, today in the United States as compared with late-19th century Europe that bear on the question. Most importantly, the post-industrial economy of the United States has led to increasing financialization of the housing market, which has transformed houses (and land) from commodities into speculative assets. 

The 2008 housing market crash, a major factor in the Great Recession, was largely driven by the financialization of housing in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). These highly-profitable investments spurred a boom in housing construction with the purpose not of housing people, but of creating more mortgages to package into MBSs. After the bubble burst, new housing construction cratered for over a decade until the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic; beginning in March 2020, the value of the US Federal Reserve’s holdings in MBSs has increased by over $1 trillion, to a total of about $2.7 trillion in August of 2022.[4] This precipitous increase was driven largely by economic stimulus measures that the Fed took in response to the pandemic, with the result being a surge of new housing stock being built: the percentage of houses on the market that are brand-new has reached one-third, an all-time high.[5] Meanwhile, demand for new construction is so high (and so focused on large, single-family luxury housing that leaves the majority of working-class people out) that construction cannot keep up.[6]

This, combined with inflation and the pandemic recession, has caused rents to skyrocket, leaving the working class and lumpen/proletariat in an increasingly precarious position.[7] The Fed is under pressure to reduce its stock of MBSs so as to stop inflating this bubble, but ironically risks bursting the bubble in the process as well as pushing already-inflated mortgage rates even higher. The Fed is unlikely to find a solution to the problem created by themselves (and the pandemic) that does not simply exacerbate the pressures on the working classes.

On the local level, all of this new construction of increasingly-unaffordable single-family housing is doing exactly what it always has. As Engels put it, “The result is that the workers are forced out of the centre of the towns toward the outskirts; that workers’ dwellings and small dwellings in general, become rare and expensive and often altogether unobtainable, for under these circumstances the building industry, which is offered a much better field for speculation by more expensive houses, builds workers’ dwellings only by way of exception.”[8] In Engels’s time, this was a “little evil” that demanded some consideration, but was not a primary site of revolutionary struggle. In the 21st century, as the financialization of housing has become more and more integral to the economy and as the conditions which lead to the shortage of housing for the proletariat and lumpen have become ever more complex, this question should be reconsidered. 

Maoists in all of our work strive to “pay close attention to the well being of the masses…All such problems concerning the well-being of the masses should be placed on our agenda.”[9] The housing struggle is one such problem. Because Maoists (and Marxists in general) in the imperial centers are currently weak, we recognize that it is not currently within our power to effectively and materially answer the entire housing question. However, we know from Engels and from our own experiences with landlords, developers, and gentrification that this problem will not go away until the masses, guided by a communist party, are able to eliminate it. Therefore we cannot simply ignore it either. Our current task is to participate in housing struggles as Maoists and dialectical materialists, hone our practice and develop revolutionary theory, and prepare ourselves and the masses to effectively seize and administer all housing under socialism.

“Squatting” and Revolutionary Strategy

Marxists, perhaps due to an understanding of the housing contradiction that is correct in essence but flawed in application, have lagged behind anarchists in advancing struggle on this front. Perhaps as a result of this fact, progressive attempts to advance the housing struggle are characterized by “internal controversies about their relationship with the authorities, with other movements and with their surrounding neighbourhoods…internal contradictions, cleavages and discriminatory behaviours among some groups of squatters.”[10] While we recognize that Marxists (including Maoists) are perfectly capable of reproducing eclecticism, commandism, chauvinism, and other forms of malpractice which lead to the above problems, we also recognize that the practices of dialectical materialism and revolutionary discipline can be wielded as a shield against these tendencies, and so advance the proposition that Marxists can develop this struggle beyond what anarchists and other progressive activists and groups have been able to achieve. We do not mean to blithely dismiss the practice that many would-be revolutionaries of all tendencies, including many anarchists, have contributed to this struggle and in fact insist that Maoists must learn from and build upon the lessons from all previous struggles for housing justice, including those advanced by anarchists, social democrats, other Marxists, and unaffiliated groups of unhoused people. 

The Humboldt Park action, along with most direct forms of housing struggle undertaken by leftists, involves “squatting,” which is a tactic in which vacant homes are entered by people intending to take up residence in them permanently or semi-permanently. While the word “squatting” has a somewhat more general colloquial usage, as well as some negative connotations in mainstream discourse, we understand it here as a particular two-pronged tactic that has both a short-term effect (provides housing to someone who needs it) and a long-term effect (undermines the ability of the landlord to put that housing unit on the market, rent it out, or dispose of it). Both of these effects should be considered separately and together to clarify what purpose they each might serve for revolutionaries. 

Providing housing. Working people, including proletarian revolutionaries and even revolutionaries drawn from the exploiting classes who have nevertheless devoted their lives to building revolution, need housing. The housing question concerns the reality that housing is not available to everyone who needs it. By meeting the immediate need of housing, a formerly-unhoused person is protected (to a degree) from harassment by the pigs and from the ill physical and mental health effects of living on the streets. This affords them more time and energy to care for their immediate needs, but it also affords them more time and energy to participate in further struggles. These benefits also apply to those who are housing-insecure, such as those at risk of eviction or those living in abusive or unsafe environments who wish to leave. 

Striking a blow to the landlords. Because of the laws surrounding tenancy, adverse possession, and eviction, occupying a home (“squatting”) places a relatively high burden on the landlord of the home that is occupied. Revolutionaries and the people being housed by these programs can take advantage of this fact to drain the landlords and the State of time, money, and public support in order to win short and medium-term concessions. In some cases, adverse possession laws can result in the landlord completely losing title to the home and it passing to the squatters. In other cases, the expenses involved in legal eviction proceedings might induce a landlord to either A.) offer to sell the home to the squatters, or B.) offer an official lease or tenancy to the squatters, both in more favorable terms than would be expected under normal circumstances. In extreme (though not uncommon, as we shall see) cases, landlords may attempt to circumvent these already-flimsy legal protections by initiating what is called a “lockout” in order to retake their property; these are often-violent and usually-illegal measures that, if properly publicized and resisted, have the potential to earn the housing activists public support and visibility for their campaign. The Humboldt Park action on August 5th, 2022, was one such case.

Before recapping the events of August 5th and drawing out the lessons from that action, it should be noted that squatting is a worldwide decentralized movement driven by numerous, occasionally conflicting aims and ideological convictions. We do not here condemn or endorse any specific squatters’ movements, but seek first to understand them, to draw lessons from them and identify their shortcomings, and to begin the process of articulating a Maoist position and strategy both for squatting and for the housing struggle as a whole. This work must be continued both by ourselves through continued participation in and refinement of the struggle in Chicago, as well as by other Maoists and revolutionaries drawing insight from the concrete conditions of their own localities.

A particular, though still-emerging strategy has developed in the wake of the August 5th action. This strategy includes participation from Maoists in Chicago (of multiple organizations), but also includes anarchists, community activists, unaffiliated members of the working-class, and even the endorsement of a DSA-backed local elected official. Before going further, it is useful here to interject with an outline of the events of the August 5th standoff.

August 5th

The genesis of the August 5th standoff was roughly nine months prior, when a group now called the Humboldt Park Housing Project, along with several homeless community members, identified and occupied several vacant properties owned/administered by the Chicago Housing Authority and managed by the Hispanic Housing and Development Corporation (HHDC). The purpose of this action was not to directly confront the state or private developers, but to put people into homes. The comrades undertook the necessary labor to make the homes habitable, which was a manageable task because they had sought out houses that were in livable or near-livable conditions.

For around nine months these people lived comfortably in these homes, fixing them up, moving furniture in, and integrating with their communities and forging connections with their neighbors. After these nine months were up, the HHDC coordinated surprise lockouts on the properties, using private security to break in doors, remove furniture and other personal items belonging to the residents, and change the locks (not to mention mocking the tenants with slurs). 

The home at the center of the August 5th standoff was one of these. The residents decided to re-occupy the house after the lockout, and this time were given a date and time – August 5th, 2022 at 11:00 AM – at which they would be removed again.

It is important to note that regardless of the fact that the residents were occupying these properties without a lease or permission, they still have tenants’ rights in the state of Illinois. To evict them, the HHDC is legally required to file a lawsuit for eviction and obtain an eviction judgment from a Cook County court. The HHDC elected to ignore this requirement, which is why these lockouts were “illegal.” Likewise, no eviction proceedings were filed and no eviction judgment was obtained for the August 5th attempt to force the residents from their home again.

The following section will detail the primary events of the August 5th standoff in roughly chronological order.

After several days spent reaching out to neighbors and activists, the housing defenders met at the property in Humboldt Park at 9:00 AM on August 5th, two hours before the HHDC were scheduled to arrive. Turnout was significant, numbering several dozen. The residents of the house barricaded themselves inside while the housing defenders remained in the front and back yards or on the sidewalk outside. Signs were made displaying slogans related to housing justice, and a table was set up with free groceries as well as donuts and water bottles to be handed out for free to the housing defenders or any neighborhood residents who needed them.

Several major news media were present, including newspapers and TV crews, having been informed by the residents. They interviewed the residents of the house, community members, and activists. 

At around 11:00 AM, right on schedule, vehicles containing officials of the HHDC as well as private security officers began to circle the block. Several security officers stopped their vehicles in front of the house, made phone calls, and then departed. For a short while, it appeared that the HHDC had folded in the face of community resistance.

The housing defenders remained on the property for some time after this, although most of the media left. Only after the media left, closer to 12:00 PM, did Chicago police begin to arrive. 

Thus began the standoff. Housing defenders posted up in both the front and back yard of the house, although the majority of police remained in the front of the house. Several police officers initially attempted to speak to the housing defenders or order them to leave, but were rebuffed. Housing defenders pointed out multiple times that in order to evict tenants from a house, even one that is “illegally” occupied, an eviction judgment is required along with a representative of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department, neither of which were present. 

More and more police joined the standoff over the course of about half an hour, including a large police truck or “paddy wagon” for transporting arrestees in a clear escalation of the conflict. Many of the housing defenders shouted antagonistic words towards the police. The news crews were contacted and asked to return to cover the escalating conflict, and several did so. Their presence may have contributed to the willingness of police and HHDC to negotiate, which over time became the objective of the action.

As the police sergeant gave successive dispersal orders (usually after three such orders, police begin beating and arresting people), negotiations took place. The primary objective of the Chicago Police was to disperse the crowd of housing defenders and assist HHDC officials in negotiating with the tenants. After a very tense back-and-forth period (details to follow), this is exactly what happened. The HHDC officials parlayed with the tenants and the housing defenders dispersed, with many remaining nearby to observe and others spreading out to make contact with neighbors who had come out to watch the scene and explain the situation. 

Results: the HHDC officials left empty-handed and clearly distraught. One of our number personally observed the lead HHDC official exclaim “I need to find a new line of work” after negotiations. The tenants were saved, for the time being, from another illegal lockout and HHDC was forced to comply with actual eviction laws, which will cost them in time and money. As short-term victories go, this one was nearly flawless.

Analysis

It is worth recapping the particular lessons from this action before moving onto universal or long-term ones. By “particular” we mean the lessons that apply specifically to this action and similar ones like it, with the short-term goal of stopping a lockout and keeping people in their home. 

“Revolutionary Unity”: The housing defenders were a seemingly-unlikely mix of “radicals from homeless encampments, anarchist affinity groups, Maoist pre-party formations[11], organizations like Chicago Union of the Homeless and the Young Lords, as well as sympathetic neighbors.”[12] In the leadup to and during the action, nobody was concerned with ideological differences; these differences were put aside in favor of a tactical unity with a definite objective that benefited all of the activists and hurt only the landlords and pigs. Even had this action been a one-off event with no plans to escalate or organize into the future, all who took part would have benefited from the morale boost, the opportunity to interface with other would-be revolutionaries and comrades, and the invaluable experience of facing off against agents of the State and the capitalists (even non-violent experience doing this is critical at this pre-revolutionary juncture). The universal counterpart of this lesson bears on the question of the United Front, which will be touched upon shortly.

Using the Press: The participation of the bourgeois press played a critical role in the success of the action. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the situation only escalated to a police standoff after the press left, and with cameras and reporters at the scene the pigs were much more inclined to behave themselves. Housing defenders spent some time beforehand going over the messaging to be presented to the press, which was tailored to garner support from the readerships/viewerships of these press organs. In our estimation, this aspect was pulled off perfectly satisfactorily, however there may be room for improvement in how thoroughly the desired messaging is disseminated to those involved, and more control over specifically who is best-suited to interface with the press. 

Tactics and Goal: It was made abundantly clear to all housing defenders that the ultimate goal of the action was to prevent a lockout. Being arrested, fighting the pigs or HHDC officials, or merely holding the property for as long as possible were not goals, merely possible outcomes of trying to achieve the primary goal. When it became clear that the police were willing to oversee a direct negotiation between tenants and HHDC officials that would prevent a lockout, there was no tactical benefit to be gained from holding the property, and so the housing defenders yielded (although, as mentioned, many remained nearby to observe). Continuing to escalate confrontation with the pigs at that point would have been adventurism and served nobody. All those participating in actions like this should have a clear idea of the ultimate goal and how to achieve it, and not risk escalation or injury to themselves or their comrades if it does not further that goal. 

Disorganization: First, it must be made clear that this criticism is offered in a comradely spirit. The weakest element of this action was the disorganization in how the housing defenders interfaced with the police. It is understandable that tempers run hot during confrontations with armed enforcers of the oppressive status quo, but the disorganized fashion in which negotiations with the police were handled was a risky gamble. In this instance, it paid off, but it might have had negative consequences that should be considered.

The primary law that the police cited as being broken was a state law forbidding “picketing” in a residential area; this was their justification for breaking up the housing defenders. Housing defenders yelled over each other at the police officials to define picketing so that steps might be taken to bring the gathering in line with the law, not because housing defenders cared about the sanctity of the Illinois legal code, but because the tactical imperative at the time was to stall until the press returned. In this case, disorganization served that purpose well because police were forced to make the same negotiations multiple times to different housing defenders. However, the police became notably more agitated as this went on, and in other circumstances this antagonism might have led them to choose violence. Certain housing defenders shouting things such as “kill yourselves” to the pigs did not help this, nor did it endear the housing defenders to the neighbors who were standing outside and watching.

The worst would come when one housing defender accidentally admitted to the police sergeant that what was taking place was, in reality, a “protest.” This was problematic, as housing defenders had settled on a narrative that the action was merely a neighborhood cookout in order to argue against the police breaking it up, in order to comply with the aforementioned law. Despite the haphazard way housing defenders were talking to the police, for a while this narrative held and the police wasted valuable minutes arguing against it. This changed when one housing defender admonished the police sergeant for “breaking up a peaceful protest.” While the comrade certainly did not mean any harm by doing this, and should not be ostracized or vilified for an honest mistake, the police sergeant immediately leapt upon this blunder to proudly announce “Now we have you on camera admitting that this is a picket,” and to move forward with their dispersal orders. Not that pigs need any legal justification to do what they do, but comrades should not make it any easier on them than it needs to be by admitting to any illegal activity (no matter how silly or incidental) or contradicting the narrative the organizers wish to push. 

Going forward, we know that chaos and the appearance of a decentralized, leaderless action can aid greatly in buying time from the pigs, especially when they have other reasons to be afraid of escalating the situation to violence (such as TV cameras or residential witnesses). However, actual disorganization brings with it the very real possibility that someone will say or do the wrong thing and escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated. Comrades should use the strategy of protracted and circular negotiation, but in a purposeful and practiced way that only appears disorganized from the outside. Behind the scenes, comrades should know ahead of time what not to say to pigs, and even have an idea of who should speak when to maximize confusion on the part of the pigs while giving the appearance of good-faith negotiation. 

The Struggle Continues

The August 5th action was a massive short-term success and has only emboldened the comrades in Chicago. In the weeks since, a long-term strategy has begun to emerge, modeled in part on similar recent successes in Philadelphia and elsewhere.[13] The strategy is to continue to occupy vacant CHA-owned housing in order to establish tenancy. While Illinois adverse possession law requires a tenant to occupy a property for 20 years before they legally own it, the Humboldt Park Housing Project and their allies believe that by continually occupying homes, fixing them up, forging ties with neighbors and community members, providing housing to people who need it, and forcing HHDC and other CHA-affiliated property management companies to do everything the legal (and expensive) way, they can force the CHA to sell the houses to a community land trust that they intend to found so that these houses will be made legally available to those in need of housing.

While we as Maoists know that this is no permanent solution to the housing question (and do not believe that anyone associated with the project is under any such illusions), we believe that it is worth engaging with for several reasons. First, “the expropriation of the present owners and [the] quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers excessively overcrowded in their former houses,” also known as “squatting,” is precisely the Marxist answer that Engels proposed 150 years ago to the housing question. While Engels correctly noted that this could be done to all housing only after a revolution, by training cadres and the masses in the work of doing it now, they will be better prepared to do it during and after a revolution.

Secondly, Maoists serve the people, and this struggle is a way for us to do that. Serving the people has the benefit of making the communists known to the masses, and in developing organic links between cadres and the masses. Cadres should always be immersed in the struggles of the masses.

Thirdly, the housing market is more intertwined with the larger capitalist economy than it was when Engels wrote. Though the observation that landlordism does not produce surplus value and therefore is not precisely a capitalist relation is essentially true, Maoists in the 21st-century recognize that there are other antagonistic contradictions besides the capitalist-worker contradiction, and that any group with pretenses of becoming a revolutionary vanguard cannot afford to not be on the front lines of antagonistic contradictions. The economic realities of housing in the United States point to this contradiction becoming increasingly antagonistic in the coming years, therefore Maoists must engage with it. 

Fourthly, the seizure, maintenance, defense, and occupation of urban spaces will be key to any urban military strategy, whether as a part of a future protracted people’s war (PPW), civil war, or insurrection. This struggle is a source of valuable experience for cadres and the masses in doing this, though care must be taken not to fall into adventurism, such as stockpiling weapons or treating what are meant to be people’s homes as clandestine military outposts.

Fifthly, this multi-tendency campaign offers a prime opportunity to develop a United Front (a coalition of progressive organizations representing all whose class interests align with the proletariat under the leadership of a Communist Party). To be clear, a true United Front cannot exist without the guidance of a proper Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, which does not yet exist in the United States. However, longer-form campaigns such as the one initiated by the HPHP provide opportunity for Maoist would-be cadres to practice working with these progressive elements as well as two-line struggle and the mass line, all integral to the future development of a United Front. While the incipient campaign in Chicago is not under Maoist leadership, there is opportunity for Maoists to set the tenor and character of the struggle going forward by being the most disciplined and dedicated agents and demonstrating the correctness and utility of our approach by its results. We do not intend to engage in “sectarian” behavior, or to forcibly take over any ongoing political work; rather, we should strive to make ourselves indispensable parts of the struggle through our work ethic. 

Going Forward

Now that this campaign to seize vacant houses in Chicago has begun, there are several things that both participants and outside observers should watch for. “Once squatters’ movements become visible, articulated, durable, and challenging to the status quo there is an increasing elaboration of political discourse. This process is usually controversial, both internally and externally,” writes M.A. Martinez Lopez [Martinez Lopez, Miguel A. Squatters in the Capitalist City: Housing, Justice, and Urban Politics (New York, Routledge, 2020). Maoists participating in such coalitions should be careful not to engage in splitting or wrecking behavior which would alienate potential comrades, while still being resolute in advancing the proletarian line against eclecticism, reformism, and adventurism. Maoists and anarchists (and all others participating in this struggle) can and must work together on specific tactical goals, and general strategic goals. While the Maoist position on what to do with these houses differs from the autonomism of anarchist projects, this is a contradiction to be ironed out through practice. Maoists can only “win” this struggle by centering the role of the masses and linking the struggle with other sharp contradictions of capitalist-imperialist society. In such a situation, the autonomist model’s limitations (that it is almost by definition subaltern and cannot “scale up” to provide any realistic answer to the housing question writ large) become self-evident, and the masses will (given correct application of the Mass Line) choose the communist model. 

There are some specifics communists should keep in mind when engaging in this pseudo- or proto- United Front.

Place the masses in front. This project cannot become merely a vehicle for revolutionary individuals or organizations to garner clout (whether real or imagined) or engage in adventurism for fun. The housing that is seized must be utilized, on balance, for the masses of the neighborhoods where the houses are. Were the houses to be filled exclusively with petit-bourgeois activists and white people from elsewhere, there is a real risk of the project devolving into gentrification with a revolutionary veneer. Even the appearance of gentrification with a revolutionary veneer must be avoided, as it would make fostering an organic relationship between the masses and the revolutionaries impossible. 

Avoid reformism. While the ultimate aim of this specific campaign in Chicago is the creation of a community land trust, we as Marxists know that this cannot be the end of the housing struggle because it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the housing question. Only the complete end of private property can do that. If this project were to achieve all of its aims as they stand today, this would be only a partial victory. If this project is to be revolutionary, then its purpose must not be simply to create a new community land trust and house some people, but to demonstrate that socialized housing is a model that works, and that the masses have the power to solve their own problems through direct action and organization rather than by relying on the State, NGOs, or the charity of individual capitalists and landlords.

Place the struggle in context. The struggle for affordable housing is not unique to one neighborhood in Chicago, or to Chicago, or to the United States, but is a necessary condition of the capitalist-imperialist system. It is not separate from colonization, or race, or gender, or sexuality, but touches upon all of these contradictions in complex ways. Communists must take care to identify, highlight, and accuse these contradictions and think of creative ways to ally this struggle with similar struggles in other localities as well as distinct (though interrelated) struggles in the same locality. 

Forge ties with the masses. The comrades who began this struggle did some good work talking to their neighbors and making the home they seized an unofficial community site by distributing free food and sundries to the neighborhood. However, much more is needed. Whenever a new house is occupied, residents and/or their allies should take care to canvass the block (and possibly surrounding blocks) not only to introduce themselves and let them know that they are moving in, but also to invite neighbors to events such as cookouts, parties, and other informal meetups (as is reasonable given covid and other health concerns) in order to forge organic ties with the masses in the neighborhoods we are active in. This applies more when dedicated revolutionaries are moving in, rather than ordinary workers who just need a home. Perhaps the attention drawn to these homes could help to take some of the heat off of the homes where the tenants would benefit from a lower profile. 

Conclusion

The housing defenders in Chicago have a long road ahead of us, with victory far from guaranteed. We will have to navigate amoral development and property management companies, hateful and abusive pigs, sometimes-indifferent and occasionally-hostile neighbors, the social stigma of “squatting” along with taking on a public housing agency (which is seen as “good guys” by many liberals and self-styled progressives), and contradictions within our own ranks to build a fighting organization capable of actually seizing physical land and dwellings in a major capitalist urban center. This project began with a successful spontaneous action, but now faces the challenge of organizing a protracted legal and sublegal struggle. 

Yet due to the economic conditions of 21st-century capitalist society, and the increasingly-prominent role of the housing contradiction in those conditions, this struggle cannot be ignored. It is the duty of Maoists to engage in this struggle wherever we can in order to prepare ourselves and the masses to solve the housing question under socialism and to build a United Front with progressive organizations and class elements. We can begin to do this by challenging the capitalist and landlord on their own terrain, demonstrating the viability of expropriating them and the benefits to the working class of doing so.

We have a world to win, but first we must win our own neighborhoods.

Bahney, Anna. “Home Prices Hit an All-Time High, Even as Sales Continue to Slow.” CNN, 20 July 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/homes/existing-home-sales-nar-june-2022/.

Engels, The Housing Question, Part 1 Page 3. [available at marxists.org]

Engels, The Housing Question, Part 1 Page 10.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOMCB

Richardson, Brenda. “One-Third of Houses for Sale Are New Construction, an All-Time High.” Forbes Magazine, 3 Feb. 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/02/01/one-third-of-houses-for-sale-are-new-construction-an-all-time-high/.

Arnold, Chris. “There’s Never Been Such a Severe Shortage of Homes in the U.S. Here’s Why.” NPR, 29 Mar. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/03/29/1089174630/housing-shortage-new-home-construction-supply-chain.

Arnold, Chris. “Rents across U.S. Rise above $2,000 a Month for the First Time Ever.” NPR, 9 June 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1103919413/rents-across-u-s-rise-above-2-000-a-month-for-the-first-time-ever.

Engels, The Housing Question, Part 1 Page 2.

Mao, “Be Concerned with the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work” [available at marxists.org]

Martinez Lopez, Miguel A., “The Politics of Squatting, Time Frames and Socio-Spacial Contexts” in M.A. Martinez Lopez (ed.),The Urban Politics of Squatters’ Movements, (New York, Palgrave-Macmillain, 2018), 3.

A minor, but important distinction: the Maoist groups involved (including the RMC) are more accurately described as Maoist mass organizations, not pre-party formations.

It’s Going Down, “You Don’t Need a Key If You Can Change the Locks.” https://itsgoingdown.org/you-dont-need-a-key-if-you-can-change-the-locks/.