Second Response To gonmaoist From Revolupedia
Gonmaoist keeps on holding on to their white chauvinism and settler fascism
Edit 03/18/2026: revolupedia ceased to be a couple of weeks ago. This is a good thing because there is no longer an online encyclopedia that claims to be “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist” while embracing very chauvinistic talking points.
I’m going to start this article by mentioning and criticizing this disclosure written on this second response by this individual. I’m pointing it out because this is also crucial to the argument we’re having here: https://revolupedia.net/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:ANOTHER_Response_to_Accusations_of_Chauvinism
This is an essay by Gonmaoist.
It contains personal views or rhetoric written or shared by its author. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it a policy or guideline written by Revolupedia.
Regarding Marxism, there is simply no “personal views” by an individual that is posted in a Communist space (or a space that claims to be “Communist”) that that space could possibly shirk or wash its hands off. Marxism is totalizing because reality itself is. There is no point in embracing the science of Dialectical Materialism if that was not the case. That this “personal view” is allowed in that place and the “Communist” encyclopedia washes its hands clean of that person’s position means it simply cannot be taken seriously and should be discarded as revisionist from the get go. If this person is writing this piece then it is going to be shared by everyone of those who are a part of that online encyclopedia, Marxists are not liberals, were the individual is allowed to “share their point of view” but thanks to “freedom of association” the organization is allowed to share that “point of view” but it “does not reflect the views of the media outlet”. If you’re allowing the ‘rhetoric’ of a person on that outlet the views of that person are shared by the whole outlet. You cannot shake your hands clean of this fact.
I also want to point two things first. I am not a “third worldist” as I mentioned in my past article. It has already been proven by MLM (prisons) studies and by the Communism and Communism 101 reddit subs that “third worldism” is not a thing. The term has only become a a buzzword used as a slur against Communists (specially Communists from the exploited and overexploited countries). It is used by those who fail to recognize the working class of settler colonial genocidal entities like the yankee entity and klanada and white countries (western europe) as the labor aristocracy (the lowest segment of the petite bourgeoisie) and as such are not part of the proletariat. The same people who use that slur do not want to recognize that the working class (the white suburbanites) of those countries and settler colonial entities are the main benefactors of imperialism. Secondly and lastly, I am a Third Worlder, and I’m not white. I do not come from klanada, white South Afrika, au$tralia, new zealand nor western europe, I'm not even european, I am from the Third World (as anyone who has read my first articles can tell) and I am not from the white world. Thus for this hack to call me a “crakkka” is fascism and racism of the most repugnant kind, as that person assumes a proletarian or any other Third World person would automatically agree with them (white person’s burden). This is why the white working class (labor aristocrats) need to submit to the proletariat and start listening.
On to the article.
as we can see, this self-hating white crackkker automatically assumes that ANYBODY criticizing their line is a "white maoist showing their white anxiety" which is not only a racially charged assumption but a liberal one too
This is actually rich coming from someone that writes on revolupedia. A website that was clearly created by crakkkers, for crakkkers and disregarding anyone else but crakkkers. If that wasn’t the case they would have shown their true intentions in their statements right away. However they are clearly leaving their intentions as open as possible so that their “Maoism” (which disregards the struggle of the proletariat and conflates it with the struggle of the labor aristocracy) can be regarded as correct, while denying Settlers and not vowing for the destruction of amerika. I’m going to keep calling these hacks crakkkers, who’ll keep conflating the white suburbanites, the main benefactors of imperialism with the proletariat.
This white then proceeds to quote Mao, but there is no reason to quote him here. These aren’t “personal attacks”, I do not care if this person lives or dies tomorrow, the term ‘crakkker’ is headed to all the whites of the world alive today. I am not “picking quarrels”, this person (nor anyone in Revolupedia) is not an ally of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and the more this distinction is made between those who accept the labor aristocracy as the first world/white world ‘working’ class and the proletariat (the exploited/overexploited world working class) the better, so yes, these Revolupedia people are the enemy of the proletariat, it is not a “quarrel”, it’s a declaration of war. I am not “seeking revenge,” I am acknowledging that the first world ‘working’ class are not proletarians and there is no “understanding” the proletariat should have with the ones who mainly benefit from imperialism, they’re the ones who’ll be in the receiving end of the revolution, these people (who are quick to wash their hands clean of the opinion of one of their members, like the liberals they are) are the enemies of the proletariat. “Entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views” is precisely something I’m doing, and I’m doing it for the sake of progress and getting the work done properly, I am separating those who are actually proletarian (Third World workers) and those who accept the proletarian struggle (those who accept Settlers and the labor aristocracy and consumption aristocracy theses) from those who don’t, I won’t have any unity with those who don’t because there is no reason to compromise with reactionaries (petit bourgeois, bourgeois or otherwise), one divides into two.
This disgusting fascist goes on to believe I said they have accepted the JDPON.
self-determination for the oppressed nations. Keyword: oppressed, not settled. As America does not have a settler-colonial mode of production anymore.
Of course this person does not accept the JDPON. There won’t be any “protracted people’s war in the U.S.,” there will be a Protracted People’s War against the yankee entity that will dismantle it completely. The fact this person does not believe the yankee entity does not have a settler colonial mode of production anymore means that they simply do not recognize the internal colonies and oppressed peoples as settlements utilized by settlers (the whites, the main benefactors of such settlements) to further their status as labor aristocracy, this as a settler colonial entitynon top of the imperialism that they already perpetrate on the world. Yes, the settler colonial mode of production lives on.
division of land doesn't entail deportation of people living on said land.
Then this person does not believe that the yankee entity is a settler-colonial entity, but a legitimate country of sorts that will be divided among “peoples” according to the will of the people living there (including the whites, the settler colonials) rather than the self-determination of peoples and nations that are oppressed and exploited. These peoples and nations are exploited so that the whites keep being the main benefactors of the settler colony. This person thinks that:
There is no settler-colonial mode of production present in the U.S.
What does this person think the united snake$ is in the first place if not a settlement built on the exploitation of oppressed peoples (New Afrikans, Abya Yala/Pindorama peoples, peoples from all around the Third World) on the taken lands of people who were genocided (Turtle Island peoples) if not a settler mode of production?
wars waged in order to open up room for settlement haven't happened for hundreds of years.
The chauvinism keeps reaching comical levels.
No expansion needs to happen for a settler colonial entity to keep…being a settler colonial entity. And hundreds of millions (within that genocidal entity) and billions of peoples and nations (outside of it) keep being oppressed. And just as that thing they call “israel” shall be dismantled (its settlers, the israelis, removed) so too shall the yankee entity be dismantled and the settlers (the whites) be removed from Turtle Island and the rest of oppressed nations. As for “wars waged to open up room for settlement haven’t happened for years,” we can always talk about the plans of many settlers to landgrab Groenland and klanada and even expand further south to keep ‘control’ of the ‘hemisphere’ and even possibly have more stars all the to argentina, but whether these expansions happens or not doesn’t deny the fact that amerika (just like israel) is a settler colonial entity created by whites for the benefit of the whites, where the main benefactors are the whites and where the rest of nations and peoples (inside and outside that settler colony) are oppressed and exploited.
What policies are currently being aimed towards settler expansion?
This denies the fact that the united states and israel are settler colonial entities themselves and since current “territorial expansion” isn’t happening, that means it “no longer is a settler colonial entity”. There is a divide between white people in that entity and the rest of peoples and nations. This cannot be denied and to do so means that person is a white chauvinist. There are some peoples (some New Afrikans and Asians, specially the latter than the former) who’ve been incorporated into settlerism (they’ve never been made white though) and some other peoples as well, but the main benefactors are the whites, and it’ll keep being the whites.
No, they refuse to accept your self-hating crackkka perspective because it is objectively anti-Marxist and anti-dialectical materialist.
This is a “no you” response. As I said, I’m not “self-hating” and I’m not a “crackkka”. This person has yet to prove what I said is wrong.
Again, this self-hating crackkka is using crude “materialism”
I have no idea what this settler apologist is saying, no idea what “crude” materialism is. I know there is vulgar mechanical materialism but what I’m saying is in lime with dialectical materialism, as I am able to see the divide between the first world and the Third World.
First of all, saying that you're only proletarian if you can't get clean water or something is simply insane, and I don't feel the need to explain why, as it's completely irrelevant whether or not you're a proletarian.
And here Gonmaoist is yet again showing their white chauvinism. The proletariat are not only not able to get clean water, they are not able to get ahold of any social programs at all, they risk facing wild life on the way to the mines (no vehicle at all, not even a tuk tuk, nor even a cycle rickshaw, there aren’t any loosely built trails anyway so there’s no reason for them to get a cycle rickshaw), bandits and warlordists are a risk, there is no “rule of law” for them, they work at the mines, the swestshops and in disgusting conditions that the whites would be horrified to work in. Meanwhile, the labor aristocrats know none of that. They have their pensions, the comodities they get from the Third World workers, the fruits and vegetables sowed and ripped by the Colombian peasant (or the Mexican, Honduran, Nicaraguan and Salvadorian immigrant), they get their goods from the Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai and Indonesian assembly line worker, their clothing from the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker, their computer and other devices from minerals extracted by Congolese miners, and many services these chauvinistic labor aristocratic “Maoists” take for granted. They don’t even have the luxury to communicate through this media the same way this person from Revolupedia and I are doing. All of these are thanks to the labor power of the Proletariat (the Third World workers) and the labor aristocrats sit comfortably at the top of that labor power. Gonmaoist is not able to see that divide because (most probably) they live in a white country, and can’t imagine losing Social Security (which the Congolese and Bangladeshi workers do not have at all) and many of the benefits they do have already. When we say “the Proletariat has nothing to lose but their chains” we really mean it. The white amerikan worker will lose much more than their chains when the revolution comes.
it did not prove empirically that there is no exploitation present!
Any exploitation there is is negligible compqred to the exploitation the Proletariat goes through. The benefits the labor aristocracy receive far exceed the exploitation they go through, and everything they receive (thanks to the labor power of the proletariat) is specially made for them.
Marx says here that the more rapid the growth of capital, the larger the crumbs will be for the workers. As we can see in America, there are huge gross companies who grow the most rapidly in the world and get the most profits, which allows for the workers to get the most crumbs, but Marx also says that the capitalist keeps the majority of the pie.
Ha! Good old populist (fascist) argumentation that has nothing to do with Marxism and relies on 1840’s Marx…in an interpretation of a pamphlet from 1891, translated by some people from the first world. An era where imperialism hadn’t even started and that indeed hadn’t seen those “Crumbs” this “Maoist” fascist mentions, that anyone would undoubtedly call more than “crumbs” (more like real miracles) compared to what the Proletariat has (nothing). The “capitalist” this person is talking about is simply another person owned by the corporation, so the “capitalist” (by which I’m guessing the fascist “Maoist” means the bourgeois) who owns shares, (which are nothing but “assets” wrapped up in nothing but speculation) can be given the boot just as anyone else in amerika can. The corporation owns that person (the “capitalist”) as much as Riley the white suburbanite. And we’ve seen the “capitalist” fall from grace time and time again, and they do. So no, these so-called “slaves” are not there becsuse of the “increase of capital”. They are there to benefit from imperialism (they’re the main benefactors as I’ve mentioned). This is why Marxism isn’t populism and precisely why all Communists should avoid populism like it’s the plague. Populism is nothing but fascism. “The elites vs the people”, “the capitalists vs the workers”, “the billionaires vs the common folk”, “eat the rich”, etc. Not only does this obscure the serious study of society and how humans have evolved throughout history. There is no systemic analysis, the masses are not addressed, the (most) revolutionary segment is obscured (how convenient), and the most benefited segment is not talked about, we’re talking about “the 1%” instead. “Blame the billionaires! Validate me! It’s all due to them, they’re the source of our problems!” Says the labor aristocrat, dramatically diminishing the agency that the labor aristocracy has, and the benefits it receives (which aren’t “slightly more crumbs,” but a world of difference for imperialism, and what keeps it alive). Thus:
although workers have slightly more crumbs, there are many billionaires in America who hold thousands or millions of times more wealth than workers.
Is fascist baloney that relies on blaming “the billionaires” (or “the capitalist” although Gonmaoist is now pointing at “the billionaires” for some reason) for “all of our troubles” due to their (completely speculative) wealth (owned by the corporation, not them). That the amerikan workers, the labor aristocracy has a partial ownership claim on the labor power of the Global South is never mentioned. Such populist rhetoric has been panned by real Communists before. Here:
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/communism/comments/1iyvpja/we_own_you_top_20_american_billionaires_control/
And that person was destroyed for the exact same thing Gonmaoist is doing here, rightfully so. The hundreds of millions (10-12% or about 800 million to 950 million people) are not the subject of study as the real beneficiaries of imperialism (the main contradiction of our time), it’s the “1%” that is “keeping the people down,” eventhough that is NOT how reality works.
Well, this self-hating crakkka says that if someone gets welfare, they're not proletarian (don't laugh!),
This person can keep assuming my identity while not understanding that the proletariat has nothing to lose but their chains. So yes, a Congolese miner, a Bangladeshi sweatshop worker and a Colombian farm worker do not receive welfare at all. It is indeed difficult for this white chauvinist to understand this but that is because they live in a first world country that at least gives them ‘food stamps’ and allows them for some other type of social program here and there, but this is also forgeting about the conditions under which the labor aristocracy live in (roads, social services, all the goods they receive everyday to fulfill all of their needs, etc.) which are luxuries to thw proletarian, something they couldn’t even fathom.
So while:
welfare already exists to an extent in the third world
And not many countries in the Third World have it, and whatever ‘welfare’ this person may be talking about is nothing but compensation in kind disguised as “welfare” (I’ll give you a bi-monthly pay of 16 dollars, but even the pay may be even much lower than that, or I’ll give you a sack of potatoes instead but there is no guarantee you’ll always get it bi-monthly, and there is no reason to believe the Bangladeshi or the Congolese will get this welfare at all) and there are Third World countries that DO have it but the Third World people that receive it are NOT proletarian. Not everyone who is a Third Worlder is a proletarian but the vast majority of proletarians in the world ARE from the Third World (except for the illegal immigrants in the first world, doing the work no one does there, which are indeed proletarian, but those are not the labor aristocracy at all for obvious reasons). What this person is trying to prove with this ‘gotcha’ is anyone’s guess.
but this person will obviously special plead in that case.
There is no “special plead” to be had here. I already know how to identify a proletarian, whereas this person doesn’t (or refuses to do so). I know that whoever this is is not a proletarian already (I see they’ve got the time and lifestyle to afford a device in which they can make long replies in a wiki and a social media platform over the internet, something which the lowest 40% of the world does NOT have the luxury to do), and I already know that with all of the non-arguments they keep throwing at me to deny the labor aristocracy and its difference from the proletariat they just keep digging themselves a hole from which they cannot escape, unless they admit their chauvinism.
Again, no empirical evidence is shown here; there is only an MIM citation.
This person also needs to read Divided World, Divided Class (if MIM theory is not enough):
“The labour aristocracy is that section of the international working class whose privileged position in the lucrative job markets opened up by imperialism guarantees its receipt of wages approaching or exceeding the per capita value created by the working class as a whole. The class interests of the labour aristocracy are bound up with those of the capitalist class, such that if the latter is unable to accumulate superprofits then the super-wages of the labour aristocracy must be reduced. Today, the working class of the imperialist countries, what we may refer to as metropolitan labour, is entirely labour aristocratic.
The labour aristocracy provides the major vehicle for bourgeois ideological and political influence within the working class. For Lenin, "opportunism" in the labour movement is conditioned by the preponderance of two major economic factors, namely, either "vast colonial possessions or a monopolist position in world markets." These allow for ever-greater sections of the metropolitan working class to be granted super-wages so that it is not merely the haute bourgeoisie which subsists on profits. Thus, according to Lenin, it is not simply capitalists who benefit from imperialism:
The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.
For Lenin, superprofits derived from imperialism allow the globally predominant bourgeoisie to pay inflated wages to sections of the (international) proletariat, who thus derive a material stake in preserving the capitalist system:”
“In all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob---either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting "gain" from formally independent weak countries---they rob a population many times larger than that of "their own" country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain super-profits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.”
On to the next argument.
First off, all this doesn't take into account real wages (i.e., the wages the workers receive and what they can actually buy)
The divide is clear, and has been so since the arrival of imperialism, and it clearly had increased more and more with each passing decade. The real wages of an amerikan worker were and to this very day are not the ones of a Colombian, a Bangladeshi or a Nepali worker. Thus the quote “Amerikan society and its “leftists” would have us believe that an average of $10 an hour and a $44,000 house for whites is necessary for the reproduction of the white working class as workers” holds true (and in this next section Gonmaoist seems to be conceding as far as anyone could tell). But now, let’s see how they move the goalpost and concede in the process, shall we?
inflation is rising in the U.S., and I can guarantee you that there are like 2 houses that have a price of 44 thousand dollars:
Then it is true that when MIM wrote this ““leftists” would have us believe that an average of $10 an hour and a $44,000 house for whites is necessary for the reproduction of the white working class as workers” the white working class, the labor aristocracy was able to leech of the Proletariat, the labor power of the Third World workers. It is still able to do so, even if we assumed the lowest house prices are usually around u$d342,206 for a small home of sorts and the wages went stagnant enough that they’re no more than u$d16 an hour, the history of imperialism to the benefit (mainly, of course) of the working class, a history that has lasted for many, many decades, that had started well over a century ago and had seen its prime over the course of near the second half, the second half and the very early 21st century (and that to this day sees no end, regardless of whether a white chauvinist who receives u$d16 an hour vs the u$d0.60 of a proletarian thinks they and the proletarian are the same) is there, and the difference is still there, even if it no longer is the same. So when this white chauvinist equals themselves to a proletarian, always point out the history of parasitism of the white suburbanites and the legacy of imperialism of their country (which they should have benefited from just a few decades ago, and which is a very clear divide still, from which they still benefit). The white working class is not the same as the Third World working class is clear today. The yankee entity, because in recent times has seen its monopoly capital taking a hit, it is plotting expansion on several different countries. The united snake$ has committed some transgressions today, this includes kidnapping the Venezuelan president, blackmailing the current Venezuelan president (and former vice-president) with assassination if she doesn’t proceed to hand over resources to the yankee entity and depriving Cuba of basic commodities that could stop their economy and further damage their society (like the oil they received from Venezuela). These transgressions on other countries will simply not stop, but Gonmaoist isn’t helping, as they do not seem to even identify who’s stoodds to gain from all of these actions over the course of u$ history, and thinks this is the perpetration of some “elites” who twirl their mustaches while the main benefitiaries of imperialism are there, helpless while they…receive the benefits that the rest of the world do not have and are actually being exploited so those ‘helpless’ benefitiaries can have the best lifestyles in the world and in history. “This isn’t because of masses of hundreds of millions of people, it’s not us, BLAME THE CAPITALISTS! You and I are both the same!”
Also, I don't deny that the labor aristocracy is counter-revolutionary; I think that's pretty well established.
This person is not being honest regarding the definition, nor have they shown they actually know the definition. They haven’t shown any interest in knowing the definition and whatever definition they will tell us is most probably in line with the trotskyite definition of labor aristocracy (“people in high places in (white, of course) labor power organizations,” “public officials and union leaders colluding and getting bribed,” etc.) There is no reason to believe they agree with those of us who have actually accepted the definition and see the clear divide between the Proletariat and the white working class.
I do also disagree that they're brainwashed; I think they're just bribed by imperialist benefits.
If Gonmaoist believes that the white working class are bribed by imperialism then this means they have conceded that the white working class (the lowest part of the petit bourgeoisie) and the proletariat are simply not the same, it means the labor aristocracy do this off their own accord. There is no reason to believe ”the capitalists” are the main benefactors when masses of people (around 10% of thw world population) have got the best lifestyles in all of history for about a century thanks to the expansion and export of monopoly capital.
They act in the interest of the bourgeoisie because they receive benefits from imperialism.
Which they clearly are a part of. The labor aristocrat is a vital component of imperialism, and without the labor aristocrat imperialism wouldn’t be possible. They do not do this in spite of the labor aristocracy, but for them and because of them.
"of a small upper stratum of skilled workers--the so-called labour aristocracy--by means of higher wages and other sops." Unless you think the definition is outdated and that we need to REVISE it.
The point had always been to know why the workers in the first world never had a moment of revolutionary conquest in the first place. The theory that is developed never stops and this has been studied for a while now (at least some decades), and while Lenin and other Communists did investigate on the subject, he clearly couldn’t reach the correct conclusions as imperialism had barely just started a few decades ago when he wrote about it, and he was only able to speak on it and describe it up to that point. All of this can be explain with the imperialist bribery and all of its aspects (racism/whiteness, patriarchy, sexism, colonialism, settlerism, etc.) that have led us to this point. Yes, this definition is not satisfactory to know that divide between the masses of the exploited/over-exploited countries and the first world worker, but once you know that the first world workers are the rank and file of imperialism you know that the first world worker meets all of the requirements to be the labor aristocracy, and they are.
Many parties in the third world are also reactionary; for example, the MRTA in Peru was incredibly reactionary, but is this person going to label Peru as a majority labor aristocracy?
If this person is allowed to be this disingenuous (or ignorant) then no wonder there really is no difference between revolupedia and the other “left” wikis. The only parties that are revolutionary (the CPP, the Nepali Communists, the CPI (Maoist), some factions of the PCP) are in the Third World, regardless of how reactionary this person thinks some Third World parties are. Currently, the CPP and the CPI (Maoist) are clearly risking their lives fighting fascist regimes with all they have, they uphold MLM and have lost members fighting those fascists. Gonzalo himself was one who actually had a good portion of the Peruvian population on his side and also fought the fascist regime at the time. Meanwhile, the “Communist” parties of the first world have never done anything remotely similar, and you even have parties who have condemned a person with real revolutionary intent like Elias Rodriguez while singing the praises of a fascist like mangione. So no, Peru is not a majority labor aristocracy, quite the contrary, while the yankee entity is full of labor sristocrats.
considering the third world is also incredibly reactionary.
As I said, the Third World in recent decades (and to this day) has shown real Maoist, revolutionary movements, while the exploiter world has never had any such thing, it doesn’t matter how many reactionary movements in the Third World there are, the evidence is clear.
you objectively reject and twist the definition of labor aristocracy.
Whichever definition this person is using it clearly comes from a time that didn’t see imperialism develop clearly, and this “definition” (as if society was a static, undialectical phenomenon) is instead preached to no end by trotskyites so as to conceal the real nature of imperialist bribery and the benefits the first world workers receive (which are above the Proletariat by leaps and bounds). It’s actually very funny these so called “Maoists” from Revolupedia have so much in common with trotskyites, because when push comes to shove (just like the trotskyists) they keep on making excuses for the behavior of the first world workers (specially the whites). But it doesn’t matter that they call themselves “Maoists” or “anti-revisionist MLMs”, at the end of the day we’ve got people like the Maoist Communist Union who are the typical reactionary, settler ‘communist’ organization while people at the MIM (Prisons) are clearly legit in what they’ve written and the theory they’ve developed. The tendency in the first world though, because of chauvinism, is the MCU and not the MIM (Prisons).
Lastly, this person (who kept calling me a “white crakkka” throughout the entire article, in spite of me having a blog where I’ve made clear my own identity) keeps using this “third worldist” slur because they can’t even fathom that they’re not proletarian. Then they go on and take a Lenin quote out of context and went on to say the rest of the article was a “self-hating diatribe”. They didn’t even address what I said regarding one of their contributors (JCRev1978) and how that person had also been exposed as a chauvinist (and thus we can clearly see a pattern here with the people from that space):
https://reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1qse9fz/why_i_think_china_is_fascist/o2w011l/
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1qrkslc/comment/o2wtuj2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Like I said at the beginning of my post, “there is simply no “personal views” by an individual that is posted in a Communist space (or a space that claims to be “Communist”) that that space could possibly shirk or wash its hands off.” Gonmaoist refused to talk about this detail on their article because it exposes revolupedia as not only a revisionist space but also one that tolerates white chauvinism and defends settlerist “communism” against real criticism and real praxis. I didn’t write these two articles to expose an “anti-revisionist” or a “maoist” ideology, what I’ve written here is to expose this person (Gonmaoist), one of the contributors (JCRev1978) and the entire online space (revolupedia) as a whole. I do not care that they think this is a “personal beef” with them and their website, in fact, they’re more than welcome to think so. There are way too many revisionists in amerika and the rest of the first world that “personal beefs” with all of them are the least of concerns of the proletariat. However, these articles are written to expose all of the (poor attempts at) sophistry and weasel tactics that this person uses to embrace white chauvinism. There is simply no way rhat a serious Maoist organization or space could write “It contains personal views or rhetoric written or shared by its author” and be taken seriously or not expect any sort of retribution by real Maoists, specially knowing (as I pointed out) the behavior these people engage in.