This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 1
MIM Notes
March 15, 2003, Nº 278
The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)
Free
INSIDE: Prison Poetry * Chomsky, VIdal, etc. * Una Página en Español...
MIM
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Return Service Requested
PRESORTED STANDARD
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PERMIT #56365
BOSTON, MA
On the web: www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext
You are not on a mailing list. You will not receive this paper again unless you take action.
Pentagon to
send 3,000
more U.$.
troops to
Philippines
Arroyo regime scuttles
implementation to save face
A
n agreement between the
Philippine government of
President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo and the United $tates to allow
U.$. troops to engage in combat on
Philippine soil fell through on March 1st,
one week after the Pentagon leaked its
plans to send 3,000 troops to the southern
Philippines. Widespread opposition in the
Philippines forced the U.$.-backed
Arroyo regime first to try and renegotiate
the "semantics" of the deal, then to table
it indefinitely.(1)
The Philippine constitution (re-written
after former U.$.-backed dictator
Ferdinand Marcos' ouster) forbids foreign
troops from engaging in combat there.
The U.$.-Arroyo regime justified the
arrival of over 1,000 U.$. troops in
January of 2002 using a technicality: they
were there as part of "training exercises"
and would not participate in combat
"except in self defense."(2)
When the Pentagon's planned "military
operation" became public knowledge,
Philippine Defense Secretary Reyes flew
to Washington--not to change the
substance of the plans but, to haggle over
terminology. According to "a senior
[U.$.] defense official," "There is no gap
[in understanding the mission] between
the two militaries. They knew exactly
what we were going to say and how we
were going to say it.... [Americans] will
be on patrol with them, so they'll have to
be able to operate [in combat]."
All that remained, according to another
talking head, were "some legal niceties
that have to be massaged for public
MIM stumps for Sison,
pushes anti-imperialism
Los Angeles
M
IM handed out MIM Notes and
collected 26 signatures on our
petition to support Prof. Jose
Maria Sison (1) from demonstrators
calling on the Los Angeles City Council
to pass a resolution against a unilateral
Amerikan war in Iraq. The council passed
the resolution 9-4 on 21 February, and
Mayor Jim Hahn signed it, making L.A.
the largest U.$. city to oppose the Bush-
Cheney-Rumsfeld war plans.(2) In the
same meeting, the council voted
unanimously to ask the Federal
government for more money to prevent
terrorism in the city of L.A.
The crowd was extremely friendly to
Prof. Sison's cause, and most people who
Imperialist
drive in the
Middle East
1991 Continued
If we are to be successful in building
on the opposition to the war on Iraq,
today's anti-war activists need to keep
the larger imperialist picture in mind.
To that end, we reprint the following
excerpt from MIM Notes 48, January
1991. Although the economic balance
between Amerika and its allies is
somewhat different today, after a strong
showing for Amerika in the late 1990s,
the imperialist motivations today are
largely the same as they were last time
around. Amerikan leaders do have
personal motivations and political
styles, but the underlying pattern is as
old as imperialism. Protestors may
chant "Impeach Bush!", but today's
war over the Middle East is not a
product of the decision to give the
presidency to George W. Bush. For the
full text of this issue of MIM Notes,
see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/
mn/mn.php?issue=048.
by MC12 & MC44
I
nstead of choosing between war and
diplomacy, the United States is
pursuing both with a vengeance.
Consolidating power over allies, creating
puppets and punishing defectors, the
USA is laying the groundwork for a
broader military victory in the war of
expansion in the Middle East. The wide-
MIM reviews
books, films on the
"war on terrorism"
In this issue we review several
popular books on the so-called "war
on terrorism" and the impending war
on Iraq: "Terrorism and War" by
Howard Zinn (page 7), "Perpetual War
for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to
Be So Hated," by Gore Vidal (page
4), and "Blowback: The Costs and
Consequences of American Empire"
by Chalmers Johnson (page 5). We
also review the film, "Power and
Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times,"
(page 8).
AGAINST THE WAR
L.A. passes weak
anti-war resolution
stopped to talk
about the
petition had
firm and
p r o g r e s s i v e
opinions on the
wrongheadedness
of the "War on
Terrorism."
Asked to sign a
p e t i t i o n
defending the democratic rights of political
refugees, one bystander quipped "that
depends on the refugee!" S/he was
referring to John Ashcroft's policy of
calling refugees whose persecution the
united snakes funds (like Palestinians),
while turning Iraqi refugees into poster
children for the need to bomb Saddam
Hussein out of office.
Other demonstrators only needed to
hear that Prof. Sison is a revolutionary
political activist smeared as a terrorist by
the Amerikan government, and they were
clamoring for our clipboard. And a couple
were already familiar with Prof. Sison and
his situation. Everyone who got a copy of
MIM Notes was pleased to see us out
there and happy to take a newspaper with
politics much more radical than the
resolution they had turned out to endorse.
In the council meeting, MIM saw the
LAPD "protect and serve" an older
white-haired woman wearing a t-shirt and
buttons with anti-war slogans. She stood
up towards the end of the debate to make
some comment, and before three words
were out of her mouth two pigs grabbed
her arms and started dragging her from
the council chamber. She later told MIM
that she had only been trying to tell the
city council of plans to carpet bomb
Go to page 9...
Go to page 5...
Go to page 6...
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 2
What is MIM?
The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging
Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-
speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.
MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the
vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for
North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the
potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang
of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third
World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to
advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.
"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should
regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of
learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."
- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.
Editor, MC206; Production, MC12
Letters
MIM Notes
The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement
ISSN 1540-8817
MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM
Notes is the official Party voice; more complete statements are published in our journal,
MIM Theory. Material in MIM Notes is the Party's position unless noted. MIM Notes
accepts submissions and critiques from anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit
submissions unless permission is specifically denied by the author; submissions are
published anonymously unless authors insist on identification (prisoners are never
identified by name). MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its
comrades in order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically
been directed at communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades,
are members of the Party. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) is an anti-
imperialist mass organization led by MIM (RCs are RAIL Comrades). MIM's ten-point
program is available to anyone who sends in a SASE.
The paper is free to all prisoners, as long as they write to us every 90 days to confirm
their subsciptions. There are no individual subscriptions for people outside prison.
People who want to receive newspapers should become sponsors and distributors.
Sponsors pay for papers, distributors get them onto the streets, and officers do both
distribution and financial support. Annual cost is: 12 copies (Priority Mail), $120; 25
(Priority Mail), $150; 50 (Priority Mail), $280; 100, $380; 200, $750; 900 (Express
Mail), $3,840; 900 (8-10 days), $2,200. To become a sponor or distributor, send
anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb. branch, PO Box
400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.
Most back issues of MIM Notes are available free on our web site. The web site con-
tains thousands of documents, with ordering information for many more.
MIM grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason, as
long as we are credited.
For general correspondence, contact:
MIM
P.O. Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670
eMail: <mim@mim.org>
WWW: <http//www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext>
Money in Bush's
pocket
Greetings and respects to one and all.
First, thank you for MIM Notes. I have
finally received it. Second, MIM states in the
January 1 issues (#273, p. 6, "Koreans Step
Up..."): "Bush is meddling in their affairs for
profit."
MIM could not have said it any better. In
fact it seems as if Bush's main concern is
money in his pocket. His, not ours.
For example, Iraq. Now we all know that
Iraq is rich is oil, second to Saudi Arabia from
what I'm told. Okay, do you think that Bush
really cares about the treatment of the Iraqi
civilians when in fact while governor of Texas
his so-called "tough on crime" administration
killed way too many Texas prisoners on Death
Row? At the same time, Texas Department of
Correction officers were very underpaid with
the threat of physical violence and serious
harm surrounding them every day on the job.
TDC during Bush's term in Texas was the most
violent of all other state prisons, from gang
violence to individual violence.
I'm being told one thing, but my eyes see
different. I actually believe that Bush wouldn't
give a rat's ass about Iraqi civilians if I wasn't
for the billions of barrels of oil that Iraq sits
on top of. Nor would he have a care for North
Korean civilians if he didn't see a profit in
arms sales to South Korea. Bush is all about
money in his pocket and forget the rest of us.
P.S. I'm going to pass the MIM Notes down
our line. I'll let you know the responses.
--a Texas prisoner, Feb 2003
MIM replies: Thank you for writing, and
for sharing our MIM Notes with other
prisoners. We agree that Bush's action toward
Iraq and north Korea are self- interested;
however, it's important to see that the
interests he represents is a class interest, that
of the imperialist bourgeoisie, not just his own
personal interest. That means, also, that he's
not just interested in short- term profits, but
in long-term domination of Third World labor
and resources. That's why the U$ is planning
a long-term occupation of Iraq and maintains
a permanent presence in the Middle East and
Asia.
With regard to Texas prisons, we agree
Bush is hypocritical to complain about the
treatment of Iraqis after presiding over the
Texas gulag system with such a heavy hand.
However, we don't agree that Texas prison
guards are overpaid. Like other members of
the labor aristocracy in Amerika, their wages
are subsidized by the exploitation of members
of the oppressed nations in North America
and abroad. These guards are pretty low in
the labor aristocracy hierarchy, of course, and
we don't deny that they have difficult jobs in
some respects. But the solution is not to pay
them more; rather, it's to change the social
relations that make their positions necessary.
They are cogs in the machine of imperialism.
The people of Iraq and north Korea -- and
the prisoners in Texas -- are the victims of
that machine's domination.
"American patriot"
doesn't like MIM
Dear MIM: You people have no idea what
it takes to keep a nation free. You relish the
benifits [sic] of freedom and spit in the face
of those who provide it for you. If the Iraqi
people are so poor then how can their leader
pledge to spend billion$ in trade with germany
over the next year. The greatest threats to the
iraqi people are $addam Hussein and YOU!!!
Sit back, thank God your [sic] an American,
and let the Greatest President we have had in
10 years continue to provide you with the
freedom to protest.....
Thank You,
--Patriot, Veteran, AMERICAN, Feb 2003
MIM responds: These comments reflect the
typical jingoism of Amerikans who ignore
facts in favor of pleasant sound bites from
government-mouthpiece media. Anyone
denying the poverty of the Iraqi people is
living with their heads in the sand as even
government agencies admit the devastating
effects of UN sanctions. Nor can it be true
that current Iraqi misery is solely due to Mr.
Hussein enriching himself, as before 1991 Iraq
had one of the most advanced healthcare
systems in the region.
As RAIL reports on it's "Imperialism Kills"
web page: "A new survey of central and
southern Iraq by the United Nations agency
UNICEF shows that half a million children
under five years old died as a result of the
U.$. war and sanctions from 1991 to 1998. The
UNICEF survey covered the parts of the
country that are not under direct foreign
control. These regions are home to 85% of
the population. It showed that `under-5
mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths
per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths
per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise
infant mortality -- defined as the death of
children in their first year -- increased from
47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live
births within the same time frame.'" (http://
w w w . e t e x t . o r g / P o l i t i c s / M I M / r a i l /
impkills.html)
We get this kind of hate mail from Amerikan
patriots so often we have a FAQ page on our
web site devoted to it.(1) There we state:
The facts about imprisonment in the United
$tates are that the United $tates has been the
world's leading prison-state per capita for the
last 25 years, with a brief exception during
Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of
emergency. That means that while Reagan was
talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was
the head of a state that imprisoned more
people per capita. In supposedly "hard-line"
Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the
imprisonment rate was less than half that of
the United $tates.
To find a comparison with U.$.
imprisonment of Black people, there is no
statistic in any country that compares
including apartheid South Africa of the era
before Mandela was president. The last
situation remotely comparable to the
situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent
offenders and the U.S. Government now holds
about a half million more prisoners than China;
even though China is four times our
population.
The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a
"free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984
situation where freedom is imprisonment.
Notes:
1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/
freecoun.html.
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 3
Regular readers of Under Lock & Key
will already know that after 14 months of
almost complete censorship of MIM in
Attica Correctional Facility we began to
see signs of progress in October 2002.
Thanks to the diligent work of many
RAIL comrades and USW leaders who
took up the battle immediately after being
transferred to the notorious maximum
security prison, we now have word directly
from the Chairman of Media Review that
MIM can send materials to prisoners in
Attica. Of course, Media Review
reserves the right to censor any material
it deems a "threat to security" as it does
throughout the NYS DOCS. However,
this is a substantial victory. Where
previously all letters, MIM Notes and
books were returned, now we can expect
only the occasional rejection of Under
Lock & Key as we see in other NY
prisons.
One prisoner who put a substantial
amount of energy into this campaign
recently met with Chairman Ed O'Mara
who has assured repeatedly and in print
that MIM will receive the same scrutiny
as any other incoming mail.(1) This is
significant because previously the
mailroom staff had returned materials
with notes saying "unauthorized group,"
and the across the board censorship did
not pass through the usual review process
where prisoners have a chance to
counter the decision. These statements
combined with recent reports from
prisoners in Attica receiving MIM Notes,
indicate that the Attica mailroom staff
has begun to follow NYS DOCS policies
again. The comrade mentioned above
wrote:
"It was due to my appealing a denial
to write you to the superintendent of the
facility that prisoners are now permitted
to write directly to you from Attica. I
spoke directly to the Media Review
Chairperson and wrote the
Superintendent in reference to supposed
censorship of MIM publications without
following supreme court dictates as set
forth in ITAL Procunier vs. Martinez
END. They replied to me that this isn't
their policy and that MIM is treated like
any other incoming publication."
Victory Against Censorship in Attica
In one of the recent meetings, Chairman
O'Mara showed the anti-censorship
postcards that we have been sending to
his staff. Over the course of the campaign
we have sent hundreds, if not thousands
of these postcards, which can be
downloaded from MIM's webpage.(1) At
this time we are declaring an end to this
campaign targeted at Attica. We believe
we have demonstrated that we are
watching and that we have support both
inside and outside. And we turn our
attention to other struggles in New York
prisons, such as the use of the "Loaf," as
well as other anti-censorship campaigns
still going on across the country.
Notes: 1. Chairman O'Mara's letters,
NYS DOCS Media Review policies,
examples of the anti-censorship postcards
and other campaign info are available on
RAIL's NYC and Albany webpages:
www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/albany/
campaigns.html.
UNITED
FRONT
Get the new issue of MIM Theory, #14, and read the latest
theory on building the movement to overthrow
imperialism once and for all, in 174 pages. Articles include
MIM congress resolutions, history from the Spanish Civil
War to Puerto Rico, Kenya, and Stalin -- plus international
documents, reviews, and much more. Send $7.50 to the
address on page 2.
In our report on the February 15 anti-
war rally in Los Angeles (1) we wrote
that that even though the governments of
France, Spain and Italy oppose the U.$.
war on Iraq, their populations protested
the war in more force than the
Amerikans. This was incorrect. In fact,
the French government is the only one of
these three opposing the war. Spain's
government has been vocal in trying to
gain UN support for a war in Iraq, and
Italy's leaders also support a possible war.
The countries in the European Union
(EU) are split on the impending war on
Iraq. France and Germany currently
oppose the war, while others support it--
notably Spain, Italy, and several eastern
European countries whose economies are
relatively more dependent on the United
$tates and could use the money Uncle
$am is bound to give them for their
support. France and Germany even dis-
invited several eastern European
countries from a recent EU meeting
where Iraq dominated the agenda. (The
eastern Europeans were originally invited
to attend as a courtesy in advance of their
official induction into the EU.)
This reflects both imperialist geopolitics
as usual and the potential for a future re-
alignment of the imperialist powers. On
the one hand, the United $tates can buy
support for its military adventures or crush
any principled opposition with economic
sanctions. As the U.$. ambassador said
to a country on the security council which
voted against the last Gulf War, "That's
the most expensive vote you ever
cast."(3)
On the other hand, as the United $tates
overstretches its military and economic
power (from Iraq to north Korea to the
Philippines to Afghanistan etc. etc.), other
imperialist and wannabe imperialist
powers will find it possible to stand up to
the United $tates--and be compelled to,
both by direct Amerikan insults and the
need to distance themselves from an
increasingly hated Amerika. Such a loss
of support would further overstretch the
U.$. military and create opportunities for
revolutionary anti-imperialist movements
in the Third World.
Notes:
1. MIM Notes 277, 1 Mar 2003.
2. www.expatica.com/
germanymain.asp?pad=190,230,&item_id=29189
3. "The Hidden Wars of Desert
Storm," video, 2002.
CORRECTION
By RAIL and SLALA comrades.
A new video on the 1987 Mendiola
Massacre in the Philippines headlined a
February 10 forum on the Present Peace
and Human Rights Situation in the
Philippines. The video included testimony
from veteran activists and survivors of
the Mendiola Massacre. There were also
youth performances showing the effects
of landlessness caused by the
government's drive to satisfy big
imperialists by forcibly converting
farmland into cash crops and golf courses.
A speaker introducing the film
explained how the Manila government has
been violently opposing the demands of
Filipinos since the 1970s, when it opened
fire on students protesting dictator
Marcos' changes to the constitution to
extend his stay in power. This was the
first Mendiola massacre. The film showed
how the Manila government once again
spilled Filipino blood near the Mendiola
bridge in 1987 when 30,000 peasants,
students and workers marched to the
Presidential Palace to demand that the
u.$.-Aquino regime implement its
promises for land reform. Hundreds of
police and Philippine marines stopped the
protestors near the Mendiola Bridge and
then fired upon them for more than a
minute. The police and marines shot
many of the demonstrators in the back
or in the head, killing 13 and wounding
105. To this day, victims and survivors
have not received any apology or
restitution for the murders.
The film documents disturbing aspects
of the history of u.$.-backed puppet
regimes in the Philippines that fly in the
face of the tale spun by the u.$., that u.$.-
backed "Corey" Aquino was a step
towards democracy. In reality the 1987
Mendiola Massacre triggered the
cancellation of the peace negotiations and
the 60-day cease-fire between the Manila
government and the National Democratic
Front of the Philippines. Shortly thereafter
the u.$.-Aquino regime dropped any
pretenses at peacemaking and declared
"total war" against the people.
The u.$. imperialists also claim the
current u.$.-Arroyo regime is
"democratic," yet it continues the anti-
people legacy of the Mendiola Massacre.
This is especially true following
Macapagal-Arroyo's complete
collaboration with the u.$.-led "war on
terrorism". Last year under the pretext
of helping her puppet regime fight the Abu
Sayaaf gangsters, Macapagal-Arroyo
approved the landing of U.$. troops in
southern Mindanao to participate in so-
called "military exercises." (2) Recently
Macapagal-Arroyo took her toadying up
a notch and allowed 3000 u.$. troops to
carry out direct combat operations.(3)
Public outcry forced her to renege on this
decision and "renegotiate" terms with the
Pentagon (see story on p. 1).
This incursion coincides with the u.$.-
Arroyo regime's total cancellation of
peace negotiations with the revolutionary
forces in the Philippines. It is very
probable that u.$. troops will participate
Film marks 16th Anniversary of the Mendiola Massacre
Go to page 8...
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 4
by Gore Vidal
NY: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2002,
160pp. paperback
reviewed by MC5,
February 2, 2003
Many of the big book review pundits
tried to drag this book into the category
of mediocrity. We at MIM are glad that
an author of Gore Vidal's stature put out
this book. Simply because he wrote it, it
will be available everywhere. The critics
did not like it because it was too raw, but
what Gore Vidal is saying is just what
Amerikkkans need to start confronting.
President G. W. Bush said about the
people conducting terrorism against the
united $tates: "They hate our freedoms,
our freedom of religion, our freedom of
speech, our freedom to vote and
assemble and disagree with each
other."(p. 5) Gore Vidal did not point out
the united $tates is the country with the
highest percentage of people in prison on
the planet; nor could he point to MIM's
archive of documents from censors,
because it did not exist yet when Vidal
wrote the book. Howard Zinn in his book
"Terrorism and War" said, "Sweden is
not worrying about terrorists. Denmark,
Holland, New Zealand." So one could
wonder if Bush meant to say that the
united $tates and its most gung-ho allies
are the only "free" countries.
Gore Vidal did not mention any of that,
but he told the Amerikan public exactly
what it really needed to know--that this
war did not start yesterday and the United
$tates started it, whether the public knew
it or not. It took Vidal 20 pages of tables
to list all the attacks Uncle $am has
carried out since World War II: "In these
several hundred wars against
Communism, terrorism, drugs, or
sometimes nothing much, between Pearl
Harbor and Tuesday, September 11, 2001,
we tended to strike the first blow. But
then we're the good guys, right?
Right."(p. 40)
The problem with the Amerikan public
is that it does not want to pay attention to
politics, but it wants to condemn attacks
on Amerikans when in fact, as Vidal
points out, the situation is usually a
"counter-attack," not an attack. Far from
attacking "freedom," the opponents are
defending themselves, whether in the
Middle East, Africa, Latin America or
Asia.
Yet the people who do not want to know
why attacks have taken place or what
generates them are not serious about
ending them. Simple moral fulminations
devoid of context or understanding have
never solved a problem. If so, the
churches would have succeeded in
bringing Heaven to earth a long time ago.
The naive call us "traitors" for saying so,
and we say we are tired of living under
threat of death from terrorism, war and
the fascism they provoke, because the
apathetic or greedy don't want to address
political problems seriously.
Most of the book actually explores the
Timothy McVeigh saga and how Clinton
was killing civil liberties before Bush and
the "Patriot Act." For many people of
the world, the majority of the book may
seem a trifle boring, because it deals with
the origins of the united $tates and the
theory behind how the public could keep
its government accountable.
Gore Vidal is one of the few people
around who still understands the original
intent and frame of mind of the founding
revolutionaries of the united $tates. They
believed that with everyone armed or
potentially armed equally with the
government, the government officials
would not be inclined to take advantage
of their power. Even if such officials were
totally corrupt and inclined to be despotic
for one reason or another, the power of
an armed citizenry would offset them.
The arming of the citizenry would force
all concerned to work out a solution to
underlying problems instead of victimizing
civil liberties and engaging in war--so
thought the American revolutionaries of
1776. The connection between guns and
political power was so clear in their minds
that they suspected those government
officials who wanted a standing army
wanted it to deprive the citizenship of its
liberties. We can just imagine what the
American Revolutionaries of 1776 would
say about a military so huge that it cost 9
digits a year for decades at a time and
conducts so many attacks that u.$. citizens
cannot even keep track of it all.
When Timothy McVeigh carried out the
bombing of an Oklahoma federal building,
he was taking the "American Revolution"
seriously and waging a "counter-
attack"(p. 100) to offset the killing by the
federal government of 82 religious sect
members at Waco in April 1993. Exactly
two years later, McVeigh killed 168 people
by blowing up the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma. The reason the
public was to have the right to bear arms
was to prevent Waco situations from
developing, so reasoning strictly within
bourgeois Liberal limits, McVeigh
concluded that only a counter-attack
would prevent future attacks on liberties
by the federal government. For that
matter, McVeigh also raised doubts about
his role in the Gulf War attacking innocent
people. He realized that the federal
government was out-of-control globally,
not just nationally. Speaking the federal
government's own language, he called the
suffering of children in the Murrah
Building "collateral damage," a new
phrase he learned from the Pentagon
during the Gulf War.
Instead of concluding the federal
government should back off from the
public, the Los Angeles Times polled and
found 58% willing to sacrifice liberties to
end terrorism.(p. 116) Gore Vidal is one
who understands that the U.$. political
system was not meant to work that way,
and in fact cannot work that way. There
is a big connection amongst war,
government dishonesty and civil liberties.
The politically naive say, "if you have
nothing to hide, why should you fear
giving up your privacy (and other civil
liberties)." What these people do not
understand is that civil liberties protect
against corrupt and dishonest people in
government. It is not a question of hiding
something. It's a matter of preventing
government-sponsored terrorism. It is a
matter of not trusting the government and
giving it unaccountable power. This was
at the core of the racist, white founding
fathers' philosophy having suffered the
oppression of a tyrannic government. And
despite the slavery and genocide against
the First Nations rampant at the time,
MIM would say that that idea is still more
advanced than what we hear today about
the need to sacrifice freedom for safety.
The founding fathers had a "theory" of
how to keep government under control
of the people. We at MIM do not think
that theory is exactly right, but we
recognize and share concern for the
question that drove that theory. Most of
what we hear today on the subject is pure
emotion driven by fascist agitators in the
media and government.
A system of civil liberties cannot
survive when people refuse to look at the
causes of social problems. When social
disunity is not addressed at the root, there
is no hope for real society-wide civil
liberties. People like Gore Vidal say that
we should harken back to Amerikans'
original values. MIM would say no
capitalist system ever created the
conditions for civil liberties. Instead, the
rulers such as Bush use rhetoric about
civil liberties to justify war. That's why
there is a constant cycle alternating
between more freedom and more
fascism--with the Third World getting
most of the fascism. Currently the
pendulum swings toward fascism even
inside the United $tates, because the
public refuses to address underlying
problems.
It goes without saying that if
Amerikkkans cannot understand why they
don't want Uncle $am spying on them,
sending tanks to people's houses or
bombing entire neighborhoods as in the
MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, they will
not understand why people in the Third
World also strike back against
Amerikkka. This may be why Gore Vidal
has latched on to the Timothy McVeigh
case and the related questions of civil
liberties.
Review:
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
Militarism is war-mongering or the
advocacy of war or actual carrying out
of war or its preparations.
While true pacifists condemn all
violence as equally repugnant, we
Maoists do not consider self-defense
or the violence of oppressed nations
against imperialism to be militarism.
Militarism is mostly caused by
imperialism at this time. Imperialism
is the highest stage of capitalism--
seen in countries like the United
$tates, England and France.
Under capitalism, capitalists often
profit from war or its preparations.
Yet, it is the proletariat that does the
dying in the wars. The proletariat
wants a system in which people do not
have self-interest on the side of war-
profiteering or war for imperialism.
Militarism is one of the most
important reasons to overthrow
capitalism. It even infects oppressed
nations and causes them to fight each
other.
It is important not to let capitalists
risk our lives in their ideas about war
and peace or the environment. They
have already had two world wars
admitted by themselves in the last 100
years and they are conducting a third
right now against the Third World.
Even a one percent annual chance of
nuclear war destruction caused by
capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as
the people call it should not be tolerated
by the proletariat. After playing
Russian Roulette (in which the bullet
chamber is different each time and not
related at all to the one that came up in
previous spins) with 100 chambers and
one bullet, the chance of survival is
only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other
words, a seemingly small one percent
annual chance of world war means
eventual doom. After 100 years or turns
of Russian Roulette, the chances of
survival are only 36.6%. After 200
years, survival has only a 13.4%
chance.
What is militarism?
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 5
Baghdad. She wanted to stress the
importance of opposing this war to
prevent Amerikan war crimes against the
Iraqi people.(3)
For all this, MIM was surprised to learn
the "anti-war" resolution itself is a half-
assed piece of liberal twaddle and a good
argument against radicals getting involved
in Amerikan electoral battles. The
resolution calls Saddam Hussein "a despot
with aims contrary to peace," expresses
"unquestionable pride in and support for
the men and women of the Armed
Services," supports all "diplomatic
efforts" to avert this war including
ongoing weapons inspections, and
opposes only a unilateral Amerikan
war.(4)
So even forgetting the war-mongering
language in reference to Saddam Hussein
and support for the inspections that have
been shown to serve a dual function as
intelligence-gathering missions for the
Amerikan military, this resolution is hollow.
Unilateral action has been off the table
for months as England and a number of
other European countries support a war.
Resolution-sponsor Eric Garcetti
effectively said that if Colin Powell had
made a stronger case before the UN he
wouldn't have bothered: "we're not
necessarily opposed to any war, but we're
opposed to unilateral war, and we don't
think the case has been made."(5) Still, a
whole network of neighborhood activists
has organized phone trees, letter-writing
and fax campaigns around getting such
resolutions passed in the name of "peace."
L.A. resolution
MIM urges readers who think our
views are correct but too far "out there"
to check out the lobbying that went into
getting this resolution passed, and to think
about the activist-hours invested and the
return our side got out of those hours. If
your goals include peace, appealing to the
broadest Amerikan public opinion does
not matter, putting forth the most forthright
anti-imperialist line with the greatest
energy matters. As we argued in MIM
Notes 276, we do not need to appeal to
the tens of millions who pull levers for
the Democrats and Republicans. If the
200,000 who marched on Washington,
D.C. had been waving Little Red Books,
Bush would be a lot less anxious to rush
into war. From the war mongers'
perspective sending the military overseas
gets a lot less attractive when half a
million Maoists -- a tiny minority in the
u.$. population -- could be strolling into
DC in the meantime. If you really want
to oppose this war, please leave the
empty-resolution-passing work to your
city council members and throw your own
weight behind MIM.
Notes:
1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
philippines/index.html
2. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/
0222-05.htm
3. This happened at the February 18 meeting
when the resolution was first introduced.
4. http://www.neighborsforpeaceandjustice.org/
npj/id6.html
5. www.inq7.net/brk/2003/feb/22/brkafp_8-
1.htm
From page 1...
Blowback: The Costs
and Consequences of
American Empire
by Chalmers Johnson
New York: Henry Holt
2000, 268 pp. pb.
Review by MC206
3 Mar 2003
Chalmers Johnson finished this book
over a year before September 11, which
is when most Amerikans first heard the
term "blowback." In it, he lays out the
reasons why Amerika's chickens were
bound to come home to roost--as indeed
they did. The book is packed full of details
about what Johnson calls "imperial
overstretch," similar to something MIM
talked about in its founding documents
back in 1983. Thus it remains a useful
read today, although Johnson is a bitter
anti-Communist (more specifically: an
anti-Maoist) and Blowback is partly an
(unsuccessful) attempt to replace the
Communist critique of imperialism with a
bourgeois critique.
"Blowback," of course, refers to "the
unintended consequences of policies that
were kept secret from the American
people. What the daily press reports as
the malign acts of `terrorists' or `drug
lords' or `rogue states' often turn out to
be blowback from earlier American
operations."(p.8) To Johnson's credit, he
does not limit his definition of the term to
Amerikans, noting that while Amerikans
have not yet felt the impact of the Asian
economic crisis caused by Amerikan
speculators and IMF meddling,
Indonesians already have.(p. 17)
Obvious cases of blowback include U.$.
support for the Afghan mujahideen who
bombed the World Trade Center in 1993
and then flew two airplanes into it in
2001.(p. 13) Johnson provides a service
by discussing some of the lesser-known
cases of blowback--or potential
blowback.
Okinawa. Johnson starts his chapter
on the U.$. military bases on Okinawa
with a partial list of the daily wrongs
Okinawans suffer at the hands of
Amerikan troops, from the high rape rate
(pp. 34-37, 41-44) to prostitution (p. 35)
to traffic accidents (pp. 42-47) to the
constant interruptions of school lessons
by low-flying jet aircraft.(p. 47) He then
ridicules the reasons the United $tates
gives for basing over 200,000 troops in
Japan--most of them in Okinawa.
"Pentagon theorists ... are like the New
Yorker who spreads elephant bane
around his apartment and then extols its
benefits because he encounters no
elephants. The strategy `works' because
the threat is illusory."(p. 63)
Arms sales. Well, sort of illusory. In fact,
as Johnson outlines in a section on the
immense Amerikan arms industry (pp.
85-94), the "forward deployment" of U.$.
troops or sale of arms to a client state
often proves a self-fulfilling prophecy. For
example, Amerika "expands the NATO
alliance eastward in part in order to sell
Pre-911 book: Amerikans will reap what they sow
arms to the former Soviet block
countries... with certain knowledge that
doing so will... elicit a hostile Russian
reaction. This Russian reaction then
becomes justification for the
expansion."(p. 92) Or the Pentagon sells
advanced missile and submarine
technology to Taiwan, provoking the
Chinese either consciously or
unconsciously, blinded by its desire to
make a buck.(p. 89)
For Johnson, the fact that "mercenary"
Pentagon arms profiteers have turned the
world into a powderkeg is a result of the
erosion of civilian control of the
military.(p. 222) (We Maoists would
simply say that's what happens when you
put profit before basic survival rights.) He
notes that a behemoth military with
controlling economic and political powers
contradicts the thinking of Amerika's
"founding fathers."(1) "George
Washington's Farewell Address now
reads more like a diagnosis than a
warning: he counseled Americans to
`avoid the necessity of those overgrown
military establishments, which under any
form of government are inauspicious to
liberty, and which are to be regarded as
particularly hostile to Republican
Liberty."(p. 71)
China. Unlike the many grandstanding
racist nincompoops in Congress, who can
always be counted upon to thump a table
and prattle on about the threat from "Red
China" if votes or weapons contracts are
at stake, Johnson recognizes that China
has been a capitalist country since Deng's
economic reforms--even if it hasn't
adopted Anglo-Saxon "laissez-faire"
capitalism. As such, Johnson argues,
Amerika should deal with it as any other
capitalist competitor and not as an
implacable ideological enemy. Saber
rattling over Taiwan, bombing Chinese
embassies, promising to keep troops in
Korea even after reunification, etc.--all
these things make war with China in the
short-term more likely, not less.
Like Bruce Cumings, who sees
economic cooperation between north and
south Korea as the path towards peace
and reunification,(2) Johnson sees
economic cooperation between China and
Taiwan as the best guarantor of peace
and prosperity. There is some truth to
this--certainly Johnson is correct that
Amerikan military and economic
intervention provides the biggest impetus
towards war in the region.
However, again like Cumings, Johnson
overestimates the ability of the south
Korean or Taiwanese economic model to
bring development and prosperity to
larger and larger areas. Johnson correctly
argues that the relative successes of the
Japanese, Taiwanese, and south Korean
economies depended on subsidies from
the United $tates and access to its
markets. He also correctly notes that
"China's products will never enjoy the
virtually unrestricted access to the
American market and its sources of
technology that Japan and others enjoyed
in exchange for their support during the
Cold War."(p. 146) He does not put these
two points together to reach the correct
conclusion, namely, the Taiwanese path
is not open to China--or just about any
other "developing" Third World country.
The U.$. economy, as big as it is, can
only absorb a fraction of the world's
exports
Johnson admires both the Chinese
revolution of 1949 and Deng's capitalist
reforms--consistent with the aspirations
of the national bourgeoisie--while he
despises Mao. He repeats some of the
more hyperbolic slanders against the
Maoists in China, which aren't worth
rebutting here. Instead, we direct readers
to our critiques of "The Black Book of
Communism,"(3) our classic essay
"Myths about Mao,"(4) and our Tibet
FAQ page.(5)
As for Johnson's rosy perspective on
capitalism in China, we'll make two quick
comments. First, an increase in GDP does
not mean the standard of living for the
broad masses is improving. Social
problems such as unemployment,
prostitution, and drug abuse, absent in
socialist China, have returned. Johnson
himself writes, "An estimated one
hundred million people [ca. 8% of the
Chinese population], more than the entire
population of Mexico, are now adrift in
China, largely migrants from the interior
looking for work in rich coastal areas."(p.
152) Second, capitalist economies are
trapped in the boom-bust cycle. Present
growth cannot be extrapolated indefinitely.
Readers interested in a detailed critique
of Deng's economic reforms should check
out "The Political Economy of
Counterrevolution in China," available
from MIM.
Indonesia. Johnson uses Indonesia as
a case study in how the Amerikan
military's "joint training" programs
amount "to little more than instruction in
state terrorism."(pp. 72-84) He discusses
the violence that proceeded the ouster of
Go to next page...
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 6
Suharto in some detail, arguing that "much
of the violence had been organized and
deliberately provoked by the armed
forces, probably in order to create the
enough of the look of chaos to make a
military coup seem a plausible and
acceptable step."(p. 76) In particular, the
military covertly organized simultaneous
attacks on "forty different Chinese-
owned shopping malls spread around
more than twenty-five kilometers... The
Indonesian scholar Ariel Heryanto has
observed that [these events] were not
`racially motivated mass riots' but
`racialized state terrorism.'"(pp. 81-82)
This happened less than a year after
Indonesian special forces "received
twenty-six days of American instruction
in `military operations in urban
terrain.'"(p. 78)
The Asian economic crisis of 1997 hit
Indonesia hard, leaving 20% of the
population unemployed and doubling the
number of people living on less than a
dollar a day to one hundred million.(pp.
Pre-911 book: Amerikans will reap what they sow
74, 211-212) This collapse discredited
Suharto and provided the impetus for the
coup plans and Amerikan support for the
ouster of its erstwhile puppet.
Johnson's explanation of this crisis is
closer to MIM's than he might like to
admit: it was due to currency speculation
by First World finance capitalists and
capitalist overproduction, which Johnson
recognizes is relative overproduction.
"This is not to say that all the barefoot
peoples of the world might not want to
wear athletic shoes or all the relatively
poor people who might someday be able
to afford a television set or automobile
are satisfied. But for now they are too
poor to be customers."(p. 197) The IMF,
"essentially a covert arm of the U.S.
Treasury," exacerbated the crisis through
stupidity, arrogance and greed.(pp. 210-
213)
To prevent future crises, Johnson
proposes "fixed exchange rates and
controls on the movement of capital."(p.
225) MIM supports similar reforms in its
platform, tying exchange rates to a
standard basket of goods.
Johnson predicted dire consequences
if the economic situation in Indonesia
remained unchanged. "If Indonesia is
allowed to stagnate, living off food
handouts from the Americans, it is quite
possible to predict that Islam, which until
now has shown its tolerant and broad-
minded face throughout most of the
country, will turn militant and unplacable.
This, in turn, would guarantee the end of
American influence (much as it did in
Khomeini's Iran) and it would greatly
complicate Australia's foreign
policy."(p.84) The recent bombing in Bali
proved him correct.
Johnson admits to his past as "a spear
carrier for empire," specifically as a
"China watcher."(pp. ix-xix) He knows
the basics of communist critique of
imperialism and borrows from it heavily,
although he tries to give it a "back to
Adam Smith" spin.(pp. 201-202) He still
stubbornly insists that Amerikan
capitalism is not driven "to exploit other
nations for economic gain or simply to
dominate them politically or militarily,"(p.
31) perhaps out of naiveté or the "good
sense" not to bite the hand that feeds him.
As a result, he ends up looking
backwards, much like the petty-bourgeois
critics of imperialism Lenin scolded.(7)
Still, for those looking for an introduction
to the contradictions facing the Amerikan
empire, especially in east Asia, Johnson's
book is worthwhile.
Notes:
1. Amerika's "founding fathers" had their own
theory of "blowback," which Amerika's current
leaders refuse to heed. See "U.$. military budget
would have angered Amerikan 'founding
fathers,'" MIM Notes 274, 15 Jan 2003.
2. See MIM Notes 276, 15 Feb 2003.
3. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
blackbook/index.html
4. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/
mythsofmao.html
5. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/tibet.html
6. "Imperialism," chapters III and IX.
ranging efforts undertaken by the USA
around the world underscore the
imperialist nature of the conflict,
eliminating arguments that the war is
caused by a single policy decision or an
aggressive personality.
At a press conference on Nov. 30,
President Bush made it clear that he was
not interested in a peaceful settlement
(though of course he said he was). He
did say he had no intention of fighting a
half-assed war.
"This will not be a Vietnam," he said.
"If we get one kid that's apt to be in harm's
way, I want him backed up to the hilt by
American firepower."
In the same speech, Bush said he would
permit high-level talks between the United
States and Iraq, but was not prepared to
make any deals. The point of the talks
was not to negotiate, he said, but just to
repeat U.S. demands to Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein's face.(1)
Imperialist conflicts explode
A lot of noise has been made over the
small contributions to the war made by
U.S. allies. These critics either ignore or
don't understand that this war is not a
moral crusade to end aggression or defend
the people of the Middle East.
The era of imperialism--the highest
stage of capitalism and the precursor to
revolution--carries capitalist
contradictions to their fullest extreme. In
this era, which began around the
beginning of this century, three conflicts
are increased:
*the conflict between capital and labor,
between monopoly capitalists and the
international proletariat,
*between imperialists themselves, as
monopolists and national powers vie for
control over world resources, and
*between imperialist nations and the
oppressed nations, where increased
exploitation of land and labor produce
conditions favorable to revolution.(2)
In the imperialist stage, capitalism's
economic basis in competition (expand-
or-die) drives the capitalist powers to war
to grab more land and cheap labor for
themselves, to allow the export of capital
into underdeveloped countries to flow
freely. While force is planned to bring Iraq
back into line as a U.S.- controlled
resource, the current crisis also allows
the USA to gain more control over
vulnerable allies through diplomacy and
economic pressure, gaining an edge over
rival imperialists (especially European and
Japanese powers) in the process. The
massive war machine is the tool of choice
for the economically weaker USA [after
the economic expansion that followed the
first war against Iraq, Amerika has gained
ground economically relative to its
imperialist rival/allies. This just helps to
show that MIM was right at the time to
attribute U.$. militarism in part to
economic rivalry between the imperialist
powers -MC12, 2003].
The threat of self-sufficient oil-
producing countries is especially acute in
an era in which the United States is afraid
of losing control over Third World
countries to other imperialists. Control
over international oil markets--gained in
this case militarily--has huge potential
economic advantages for control over the
underdeveloped world.
Strategically speaking, more control
over the Arabian Peninsula and
surrounding region is an important part
of the USA's long term plans. The State
Department in the 1940s called the
Arabian Peninsula "a stupendous source
of strategic power, and one of the greatest
material prizes in world history," and
"probably the richest economic prize in
the world in the field of foreign
investment."(3)
Iraq's invasion threw a wrench in the
works of U.S. plans for expansion into
the region. In January 1990, the
administration had announced the goal of
increasing U.S. exports to Iraq, for which
the USA had become top trading
partner.(3)
Earlier, in 1988, the U.S. government
had said it was a good time to get in on
the Iraqi economy, due to a "wide range
of economic reforms to increase
productivity and encourage private sector
industrial growth and import substitution,"
largely in the agricultural sector.
"American firms are strongly
encouraged to investigate the market and
introduce their products and services to
Iraqi officials now," the government
said.(4)
The goal of trade domination extended
to Kuwait as well, which had increased
its U.S. imports from 1988 to 1989 by
24%.
The USA wants to better its trade
balance with these countries--to balance
heavy oil imports--by increasing exports,
especially of capital-intensive industries.
Seizing control of oil reserves is an
important part of creating and developing
dependency on the United States,
supplemented by increased control over
markets and imports.
Economic crisis at home
Recessions and expansion are balancing
forces in the imperialist march toward its
own grave; they drive each other,
producing greater urgency and greater
risks at every turn.
The bourgeoisie has admitted that the
U.S. economy is in a recession--
meaning the economy is shrinking overall.
And that economic pressure is increasing
the stakes for the expansionist war.
More than simply a dependent country
which has gotten out of line, such as
Nicaragua, Iraq represents the prize of
control over oil economies with huge,
capital-intensive profit-generating
industries. The potential economic
independence of oil-exporting countries
underscores the need for military control
to insure thorough and widespread
domination--with all the risks that
entails--while increasing the potential
economic rewards in terms of expansion
and stability.
The United States is putting a lot of
cards on the table in this war. Its victory
here would have catastrophic
consequences for the people of the
Middle East in particular. Its loss could
mark the beginning of a truly new world
order.
Notes:
1. New York Times 12/1/90, p. A4.
2. See V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage
of Capitalism.
3. Noam Chomsky in Z, 10/90.
4. Business America, 4/25/88.
Imperialist drive in the Middle East
From page 5...
We constantly update MIM's
coverage of the U.$. war on our
web site, with news and
opinion, agitation materials,
articles in English, Spanish,
French, Chinese and Russian!
Read and distribute the
newspaper -- and get the latest:
www.etext.org/ Politics/MIM
From page 1...
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 7
Terrorism and War
NY, NY: Seven Stories Press
2002, 157 pp.
by Howard Zinn
reviewed by MC5
This book came out against the war in
Afghanistan, and most of its reasoning
also applies to the war in Iraq. As the
war in Iraq threatens to intensify, it is easy
to forget that the United $tates is still at
war in Afghanistan and many other places
too. At the end of January, the military
claimed to kill 18 Afghan fighters.
In fact, since 1991, the United $tates
has also enforced a war on Iraq, including
the "no-fly" zone over Iraq which Iraq
has contested. These are just two
examples of how the massive U.$.
military is always at war.
Yet, despite the fact that the United
$tates is engaged in war after war, the
public busy reading Cosmopolitan
magazine and watching nakednews.com
acted as if the September 11th attacks
were completely out-of-the-blue. For
those who never looked up from their
Nintendo, those attacks were completely
out-of-the-blue. The benefit of more
evenly matched wars as in World War II
is that its participants all know they are
attacking the other side. In the United
$tates, many citizens pay so little attention
to the constant warring by their
government that they become
extraordinarily indignant when the other
side counterattacks.
Howard Zinn was an air force bomber
in World War II, but he is now known as
a radical historian, the one who wrote "A
People's History of the Unites States."
Zinn gets to the internationalist point right
away: "Terrorism is an international
phenomenon. American citizens are not
the only victims of terrorism. You hear
journalists and politicians talking about
globalization and the free flow of markets.
But they don't talk about international
solidarity of people. They don't say that
we should consider people everywhere
as our brothers and sisters--that we
should consider children all over the world
as our children." (p. 16)
We have disagreements with Zinn to
be sure. The book lists the neo-Trotskyist
group the ISO (International Socialist
Organization) as an important one to work
with. Zinn is also featured prominently
fund-raising for the ISO on its web page.
Along these lines, Zinn speaks of the "left"
and the typical American "left." As a
result he makes the mistake of wanting
to link the anti-war movement to
economic demands of Amerikkkans. Zinn
says he wants these economic issues
linked because he wants the "left" to
have "a much stronger bond with the
American people."(p. 38) Historically, we
have heard "jobs, not war" as a slogan.
Yet the slogan implies that if jobs are
forthcoming, then support for war could
be purchased. Historically that's exactly
what happened in England prior to World
War I. That's not to mention that MIM
does not agree that the Amerikkkan
majority today is exploited.
In any case, since the collapse of the
Soviet Union perhaps no organization has
benefitted more than the ISO. Like MIM,
the ISO held that the "Soviet Union" and
China were "state-capitalist." Since that
time, the ISO has grown where other
traditional Amerikan "left" groups like the
Socialist Party and Socialist Labor Party
have been unable to regenerate.
We agree with Zinn's anticipations of
where politics in the U$A are developing.
There is going to be a Yankee-doodle
resurgence of the "left" before the
middle-classes try something more exotic
like the MIM line. As with Zinn himself,
this "left" will distance itself from the real
world of socialism, because after all,
knowing it or not, most of the United
$tates is petty-bourgeois. The petty-
bourgeoisie as a class cannot rule, so it
tends to want the impossible--either
perfect capitalist democracy (which in
times like these it tends to realize is
impossible, thus the Bush "election" and
"Patriot Act") or perfect violence-free
socialism.
Part of what separates MIM from
others talking about internationalism is
that we stress how far Amerikkkans have
to go before they are not enemies of the
world's people. We believe people cannot
change if no one ever lays out what the
goal is and how much the economic
situation has to change for international
solidarity to come about. While Bush has
chosen not to conduct the Iraq War as
just a covert war, Zinn is wrong to say
that "there is a moral good sense in the
American people that comes to the fore
when the blanket of propaganda begins
to be lifted."(p. 120) Quite the contrary,
the U.$. population supports wars around
the world mostly in situations where there
is almost no propaganda at all. The media
said almost nothing about East Timor in
1975 for example, but the public has/had
no "moral good sense" to do anything
about that. We Leninists refer to Zinn's
error as two-fold: 1) "spontaneity" in
believing what the U.$. public will do 2)
"parasitism" for not recognizing the active
enemy component of the U.$. population
and why it lets the imperialist government
go about its business often with hardly
any propaganda effort on its part at all.
It's quite enough to take advantage of the
dynamics of the gender aristocracy in the
United $tates: with no one paying attention
to anything but their Britney $pears and
Marie Claire, there is no need for
propaganda.
For the most part, Zinn is talking about
internationalism as a moral imperative.
This becomes difficult for many
Amerikkkans to support. At the same
time, such a moral perspective either is
or is not in line with the requirements of
the times. We believe it is scientifically
discernible that internationalism is
necessary for peace. Once we set
peace--including an end to terrorism--
as the goal, the means of achieving that
have to include internationalism. That is
a scientific question. Howard Zinn puts it
this way in connection to terrorism:
"There is a reservoir of possible terrorists
among all those people in the world who
have suffered as a result of U.S. foreign
policy."(p. 17) Despite this statement
approaching science, Zinn ends the book
saying the majority of people will morally
re-evaluate the Afghanistan war and then
it will fall apart.(p. 118)
The golden rule of "do unto others as
you would have others do unto you"
applies in matters of war and peace. We
cannot expect the world to have peace
until all its component peoples treat each
other peacefully.
We are thankful that Zinn admitted that
Amerikkkans in their 90% supported war
against Afghanistan. He suggested tactics
to change that, but he did not deny it, as
those most inclined to believe in the
spontaneity of Amerikkkans would, and
he did not say we should accept evil in
order to get on the good side of that 90%.
(p. 31-2)
Unfortunately, Zinn's class analysis is
vague enough that it supports a line which
amounts to saying the Amerikkkan
The Dawn's Early Light
Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we held has
now fell into a destructive imperialist system I call hell. As I sit in this cell and
yell but no help comes, so forever I've run, but now I stand and in my hand is
my gun. At my side is my revolutionary family; together we unite. Against
oppression we fight. Making political moves day and night, because no longer
will I be blinded by the dawn's early light. Everywhere I turn is the star
spangled lie, but we the true few and the proud scream loud was we let out
revolutionary flags fly. No longer do we say why, but together we stand all
uniting in an imperialist land run by the imperialist man. Our words they try to
ban, but there's no way they can. Together we stand, divided we fall. Unite
and stand together all for one cause and each individual for all. And now is
the time to come together my friends. Now we unite and fight for what's
tight and stop being blinded by the dawn's early light.
The Pledge
I pledge no allegiance to the imperialist rag of the United Imperialists of
Oppression or to their corrupt government for which it stands as one capitalist
group over man destroying with oppression and death for all.
Oppressed Country tis of Thee
Oppressed country tis of thee corrupt land with no liberty, for thee I see. A
land where for no reason fathers die. An imperialist land that makes mothers
cry. From every mountain side destruction rings.
--a North Carolina prisoner,
August 2002
Zinn stepped forward against war in Afghanistan
majority is exploited. That's the line of
the organizations listed in the back of the
book as organizations to work with and
nothing contrary is to be found in the book.
At a couple points in the book Zinn
raises the "Stalinism" bogeyman without
detailing what it was.(pp. 75, 113) Making
use of such anti-communism, Zinn veers
into an assortment of unicorns such as
neo-Trotskyism, pacifism and anarchism.
He now points positively to the Trotskyist
resistance to fighting in World War II
against the Nazis [never mind Trotsky's
infamous statements supporting invasion
of the Soviet Union].
We are glad that people of all
persuasions, even those calling
themselves "left" like Zinn made their
own efforts to oppose the war. Our
disagreements on Stalin and the conditions
of U.S. "workers" do not invalidate our
unity in opposing the war on Afghanistan.
Much of what Zinn is talking about is
something the public needs to chew on
one way or another. We are happy this
book made into many public places on
many bookshelves.
Note: http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,76948,00.html
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 8
Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky
in Our Times (2002)
Directed by John Junkerman
Noam Chomsky is a highly visible anti-
imperialist figure in Amerikan politics. His
analysis on U.$. foreign policy and it's
harm to the rest of the world's people is
right on target. But his anarchist
abstinence from offering an alternative
solution to the failures of capitalism leave
his audience (which is quite large both in
the U.$. and around the world) without
direction at best, and misdirected at
worst.
Power and Terror is a collection of
speeches delivered by Chomsky after 9-
11, interspersed with interview questions.
Chomsky focuses on the very correct
premise that if the United $tates really
wants to end terror "there's a really easy
way: Stop participating in it." He states
that for most of the Amerikan public is it
unfathomable to question the hypocrisy
of the Amerikan government. People
believe it is correct for Amerika to go
bomb Afghanistan for terrorist acts, but
they can not even understand a question
about why the U.$. gets bombed for its
part in terrorism in Turkey, Israel,
Nicaragua or elsewhere.
Chomsky exposes this Amerikan
hypocrisy: if it is correct to bomb
Afghanistan for terrorism it should be
correct to bomb the U.$. for terrorism.
He goes further to state that Amerika
owes reparations to Afghanistan for
destroying the country (along with a long
list of other countries).
The historical examples in this film of
both Amerikan and British terrorism
around the world are an excellent history
lesson for the uninformed. As usual,
Chomsky is an encyclopedia of
information (as one audience member
commented). And his analysis of
Amerikan terrorism is much needed post
9-11.
One theme Chomsky touches on is the
relative progress of the activist movement
in the United $tates since the 1960s. He
points out that in the early 60s it was
impossible to mobilize people in the
Boston area for a meeting about Vietnam
and protesters were attacked in the streets
and unable to gather much of a crowd. It
took years for the protests about Vietnam
to grow but now the response to
Amerikan attacks on other countries
receives much greater attention.
Chomsky is clear that still the media is a
part of corporate Amerika and as such it
supports the government and still is very
much its mouthpiece. But he suggests that
in present times Amerikans enjoy more
freedoms to protest and greater influence
over the mainstream media to see
important news published.
Chomsky sees the activist movement
having broadened to include a larger cross
section of the Amerikan public. However,
MIM cautions that much popular "anti-
war" sentiment reflects Amerikans'
concerns about wasting their money on
people in other countries rather than
spending it on themselves. This typical
Amerikan chauvinism was exemplified in
the post office recently where this reporter
overheard a white man standing in line
complaining about how long he had to
wait: "We spend millions on bombs to send
to other countries but we can't even get
good service in the post office here. You
would think that as American citizens we
deserve better." As if those bombs are
helping people in other countries.
Chomsky credits the activists of the
1970s and 1980s for the progress made
in this country, even greater than he
credits those of the 1960s. Completely
ignoring the legacy of the Black Panther
Party and other revolutionary
organizations that forced the government
to compromise with middle forces, he
holds up the feminist and environmental
movements of the 70s and 80s as more
important. MIM disagrees with this
analysis and points to the power of
revolutionary communist movements to
make space for the more moderate
activists (like those of the 70s and 80s
that Chomsky holds up as examples).
Without the communists these activists
would not have been in the position to
even compromise with imperialism to
have a seat at the table.
His willingness to ignore the important
history of Maoist-influenced movements
within U.$. borders misleads his audience
in operations against the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front and the New People's
Army led by the Communist Party of the
Philippines. The u.$. has labeled these
groups "terrorist" despite their prior peace
negotiations with the Manila government.
A requirement for the resumption of
peace negotiations is the removal of the
"terrorist" label on Prof. Jose Ma. Sison,
the chief political consultant of the
National Democratic Front of the
Philippines and founder of the Communist
Party of the Philippines. (4)
In a discussion following the film, a
veteran organizer named Carol Almeda
said that the murder of peasants and
students demanding genuine social change
shows that the imperialist-landlord
dominated state doesn't serve the interest
of the people and is actually their enemy.
She described how 70% of Filipino
lawmakers are landlords and the
remaining 30% are representatives of
imperialist multinational corporations.
Despite two popular uprisings and the
removal of Marcos and Estrada there has
been no change in the economic rights of
the masses of Filipinos because the
economic policies of Aquino and
Macapagal-Arroyo are the same as those
of Marcos, Ramos and Estrada: each is
driven to suppress the domestic economy
by foreign imperialist investment. For
example, she described an arrangement
orchestrated by Macapagal-Arroyo that
prohibits Filipino farmers from growing
rice but requires the Philippines to import
rice and sell it domestically at higher
prices. Almeda blasted imperialist-
inspired "agricultural conversions" as well
as programs that destroy the development
of the industrial sector of the economy
and displace thousands to peddle goods
on the streets.
A general theme in the discussion was
that the massacre at Mendiola is only one
of the many instances of state violence
against the people. RAIL thinks that
removing the "terrorist" label from Prof.
Jose Ma. Sison and resuming peace
negotiations is an essential step towards
democracy in a region where only
national liberation and genuine land reform
can put an end to landlessness and state
sponsored violence.
Notes:
1. MIM Notes 132, 15 February 1997.
2. Associated Press. January 23, 2002.
3. Los Angeles Times. February 21,
2003. P. A1.
4. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/
agitation/philippines/index.html
Film marks 16th
Anniversary of the
Mendiola Massacre
From page 3...
`Encyclopedia Chomsky' tells necessary truth about U.$. empire
But his vision for an alternative is a dead-end
about the reality of historical activism. In
disagreeing with communism, Chomsky
downplays movements that represent
what he believes to be incorrect.
In response to a question about
Capitalism, Chomsky said that capitalism
might be good but we don't have real
capitalism in this country. This cop-out
answer implied that free market
capitalism might be better for the people
than the state controlled capitalism that
we have. This ignores the reality of the
capitalist system which is premised on the
power and wealth being concentrated in
the hands of the bourgeoisie which profits
off of the proletariat. While he was
correctly telling his audiences to fight the
government and those in power, he was
not giving them anything to fight for, only
what to fight against. And while he is
cheerleading for the dismantling of the
system of power, his implication about
what to fight for involves reformist
movements at best.
MIM is clear that Capitalism is a failure
as a system. We offer people an
alternative and one that has been tested
historically and proven superior to
capitalism: communism.
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 9
opinion inside the Philippines."(3)
The United $tates insisted on the
terminology "military operation" over the
tried-and-true "training exercise" favored
by Arroyo and Reyes, and the deal
collapsed. Apparently the Bush
administration is more worried about
public opinion in the United $tates. The
Pentagon wants to take credit for any
military successes while preparing
Amerikans for the possibility of combat
casualties (more about that later).
Filipinos--including Philippine
legislators--first heard about the plans for
"joint exercises" or "joint operations" or
whatever you want to call them from a
Pentagon official interviewed the New
York Times. Given that and the
Pentagon's insistence that the Philippine
military understands the plan for U.$.
troops is really a duck, although they want
to call it a swan, many Filipinos accuse
the Arroyo regime of lying to them.(4)
Philippine senator Aquilino Pimentel
went so far as to accuse Reyes of
treason. "My take is that Secretary Reyes
is trying to cover up for what was actually
a done deal between the department of
national defense and the Pentagon," he
said. "Somebody is lying, and it's our own
people."(5)
Not that the Pentagon hasn't told its
share of lies. The Pentagon promoted the
line that the 1,000 troops who arrived in
the Philippines last year were engaged in
"training exercises," even though they
participated in patrols and carried
weapons. Indeed, Amerikan troops have
already been involved in "combat" of a
sort. Last July an Amerikan participated
in a raid on a civilian house and shot
Buyong-buyong Isnijal as he lay on his
back on the floor.(6)
Of course, the rationale both the United
$tates and the Arroyo regime have laid
out for U.$. military involvement in the
Philippines is a lie. According to their
story, Abu Sayaaf is a formidable gang
of "terrorists" with links to Al Queda. In
truth, there is more evidence linking Abu
Sayaaf to the Philippine military and the
Amerikan CIA than to Al Queda, and
Abu Sayaaf membership has dwindled to
under 200.(7)
Even bourgeois mouthpieces are now
too embarrassed to repeat the charge of
links between Abu Sayaaf and Al Queda
without the disclaimer, "it's not clear
whether any connection still exists."(5)
The Los Angeles Times slipped up
recently and printed a story which made
no reference to the supposed Al Queda
link at all, saying simply, "The Abu
Sayyaf, which once espoused a militant
Islamic philosophy, degenerated into a
bandit gang that makes a living from
kidnapping for ransom."(1)
Nor has the Abu Syaaf been the only--
or principal--target of these "training
exercises," as the United $tates and the
Arroyo regime claimed. Last August,
declaring the Abu Sayaaf defeated (which
leads one to wonder why she needs
another 3,000 Amerikan troops),
President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered her
newly U.$.-trained troops to move against
the Communist-led New People's
Army.(8)
There are several reasons why the
United $tates wants to send troops to the
Philippines besides the "war on terrorism."
First, it wants to prop up an important ally
in east Asia and strengthen its authority
over its southern islands. Second, "joint
exercises" pave the way for new U.$.
bases, to replace the bases Filipinos
closed in the early 1990s. Such bases
could support U.$. military action in
Korea, the Taiwan straits, southeast Asia
and even Iraq. The islands of Basilan and
Jolo, where Abu Sayaaf operates, are
near Malaysia and the shipping lanes
which supply much of the region with oil.
Finally, the U.$. wants to increase its
military presence to secure its access to
raw materials. The islands in the Southern
Philippines are rich in timber and minerals.
Progressive Philippine representative
Liza Maza made internationalism a core
component of her opposition to the
Pentagon's plans. "The Bayanihan
military exercises can exacerbate the
armed conflict in Mindanao. Moreover,
the Philippines may be used as a
launching pad for the US war on Iraq. It
is for our people's safety and the
upholding of our nation's sovereignty that
we must push for the immediate pullout
of US troops in the country."(9)
No statute of limitations on
"blowback"
One of the reasons the Pentagon is
worried about U.$. casualties in the
southern Philippines is lingering hatred
towards the United $tates because of its
atrocities during the Filipino-Amerikan
war, over 100 years ago. It's worth
quoting from the Los Angeles Times at
length on this subject.
When U.S. troops land on this
forbidding jungle island in the coming
weeks, they will find a proud tribal
people with a historic hatred of the
United States and a deep suspicion
of American motives.
They will find a land where
mothers put their children to bed with
lullabies telling them to become
strong so they can avenge atrocities
by U.S. forces a century ago...
About 95% of the island's people
are Tausug, an Islamic tribe that has
fought invaders for centuries - first
the Spaniards, then the Americans
and the Japanese.
After the Philippines became a
U.S. colony in 1898, Washington sent
troops to subdue the Tausugs. They
fought with traditional long knives
known as bolos against soldiers who
were armed with guns. The
tribesmen earned a reputation for
being unstoppable even when
wounded.
Tausugs boast that the .45-caliber
pistol was developed to stop their
ancestors in their tracks.
During the American campaign,
Philippine historians say, U.S. troops
under Gen. John J. Pershing
committed atrocities against the
Tausugs. The troops massacred
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
people, including women and
children, they say. Photos taken at
the time show American soldiers
standing amid hundreds of bodies.
Now, some Tausugs welcome an
opportunity to fight the Americans.
"They have been rejoicing over the
news that the Americans are
coming," Parouk Hussin, a Tausug
who is governor of a Muslim
autonomous region that includes Jolo,
said in an interview. "They say, `This
is our chance to avenge the atrocities
committed against our forefathers.'"
The Tausugs were not the only people
to suffer Amerikan atrocities. "It is
certain that U.S. imperialism killed
between 10-15% of [the Philippine]
population then of some 8 million, or from
800,000 to over a million deaths. By any
account, that is a staggering amount.(3)
Amerikans must wake up and realize
that the Filipino people have their own
national aspirations. Aside from this
history of genocide and subsequential
colonial exploitation, Filipinos have to bear
the insult that they need Uncle $am to
help round up a small criminal gang--
analogous to French troops arriving to
patrol the streets of Los Angeles or
Washington DC to allegedly stamp out
the drug trade or catch the beltway sniper.
Only when the imperialists have been
driven out will the masses be able to carry
out their own desires to quash banditry
and all reactionary thugs.
Ultimately, the best thing people within
the united snakes can do to support the
Filipino people's desire for national self-
determination is build a strong anti-
imperialist movement here. We must
stubbornly resist the chicanery of those
who would make Amerika's international
war into one of self-defense. Get in touch
with MIM to lend your voice and end this
madness.
Notes:
1. Los Angeles Times, 1 Mar 2003.
2. MIM Notes 251, 1 Feb 2002.
3. Los Angeles Times, 28 Feb 2003.
4. MIM does not know whether Arroyo
and Reyes really cut a back-room deal
with the Pentagon or whether the
Pentagon just claimed they had, to put
the pressure on or discredit them. Either
way, the United $tates has no business
fucking around with other countries
sovereignty--especially on the key issue
of whether foreign troops participate in
those countries internal conflicts.
Furthermore, again either way, it shows
the United $tates is willing to use up and
throw away even its most ardent
bootlickers. The life of a running dog is
not as easy as it looks.
5. Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb 2003.
6. "U.$. soldier shoots Filipino civilian,"
MIM Notes 265, 1 Sep 2002.
7. " California forum on the Philippines
builds OUT NOW! movement in the
United $tates," MIM Notes 254, 15 Mar
2002; MIM Notes 251, 1 Feb 2002.
8. "U.$.-Arroyo regime launches "all-
out war" on communists," MIM Notes
265, 1 Sep 2002.
9. Press release, 21 Feb 2003.
Pentagon to send 3,000 more U.$. troops to Philippines
We must
stubbornly resist
the chicanery of
those who would
make Amerika's
international war
into one of self-
defense.
From page 1...
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 10
MIM on
Prisons & Prisoners
MIM seeks to build public opinion
against Amerika's criminal injustice sys-
tem, and to eventually replace the bour-
geois injustice system with proletarian jus-
tice. The bourgeois injustice system im-
prisons and executes a disproportionately
large and growing number of oppressed
people while letting the biggest mass mur-
derers -- the imperialists and their lack-
eys -- roam free. Imperialism is not op-
posed to murder or theft, it only insists that
these crimes be committed in the interests
of the bourgeoisie.
"All U.S. citizens are criminals--
accomplices and accessories to the crimes
of U.$. oppression globally until the day
U.$. imperialism is overcome. All U.S.
citizens should start from the point of view
that they are reforming criminals."
MIM does not advocate that all
prisoners go free today; we have a
more effective program for fighting
crime as was demonstrated in China
prior to the restoration of capitalism
there in 1976. We say that all prisoners
are political prisoners because under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, all
imprisonment is substantively
political. It is our responsibility to
exert revolutionary leadership and
conduct political agitation and
organization among prisoners --
whose material conditions make them
an overwhelmingly revolutionary
group. Some prisoners should and will
work on self-criticism under a future
dictatorship of the proletariat in those
cases in which prisoners really did do
something wrong by proletarian
standards.
Under Lock & Key
News from Prisons & Prisoners
Kansas prisoners cry
out for rev. ed.
Dear Reader,
I'm writing on behalf of the Rastafarian
community at El Dorado Correctional Facility.
We are writing in an attempt to better our
situation, as well as that of our brothers and
sisters across the country.
So many of our brothers have fallen victim
to the seemingly endless cycle of
incarceration, and have been outcast or
labeled a menace to our own communities.
This branding has made us seem unfit to be
leaders and builders in the continuing African
struggle. We often hear about brothers and
sisters who are released only to reoffend, but
we hear very little about brothers and sisters
who become successful. Remember Malcolm
X, and many others who were incarcerated
but later in life did positive things for our
people.
The African mind has a psychological
sickness that stems from 500 years of
oppression. The Rasta community here feels
the only antidote to our sickness is
organizing, planning and re-educating
ourselves and if possible all African-based
communities. Information is the cornerstone
of knowledge, and to be knowledgeable is to
be intelligent.
We must ask: who would you want to return
to society: productive men and women, or
people stuck in a criminal mind-set? We feel
the recidivism rate in Kansas is so high
because of the lack of educational resources.
The little that is available only goes to a few.
Afro-Americans are less than 7% of the
Kansas population, but we are over 35% of
the prison population. These numbers are
alarming.
Our struggle transcends religion, for we are
seeking the light of truth about our African
ancestors and self. If it is possible for you to
donate books or any other materials, we
would greatly appreciate it.
Aluta Continua, Harambee Pomoja Tu Ta
Shinda Uhuru Sasa. In Swahili that means
"The Struggle Continues, Pull Together,
Together we will Win, Freedom Now."
-- an EDCF, Kansas prisoner, 25 January
2003
MIM responds: Disproportionate
imprisonment of the internal semi-colonies is
a problem throughout the united snakes.
There are more Black prisoners than white
prisoners in Amerika, even though Blacks are
only 12% of the u.$. population and whites
are nearly 70%. In 1998, those U.$. states with
the highest imprisonment rates are those with
the largest pockets of oppressed nation
members: Louisiana (736 sentenced prisoners
per 100,000 residents), Texas (724), Oklahoma
(622), Mississippi (574) and South Carolina
(550). The states with the lowest imprisonment
rates were the whitest: Minnesota (117),
Maine (125), and North Dakota (128).(1)
The criminal injustice system is an
indispensable part of the state. It serves the
interests of the bourgeoisie by caging those
elements of the population most likely to rebel.
Our task as revolutionaries is to push the
righteous anger of the oppressed toward the
struggle against imperialism. Prisoners can
better their conditions today by fighting
against censorship and for the right to read
MIM Notes and other revolutionary
literature, or to shut down control units, or to
resolve the burning issues in their states.(2)
Donate books, stamps or cash to MIM to
help us get MIM Notes, MIM Theory and
other revolutionary literature into the hands
of prisoners. In appreciation of your donation,
we will work with prisoners to analyze and
report on their conditions, and to take up
agitation to improve better these conditions.
Notes:
1. "Prison boom rockets despite `crime' drop"
MIM Notes 194, 15 September 1999.
2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
prisons/
IL prisoner sends $20
Dear MIM,
Enclosed is $20. I must commend you on
the good work and statements of facts in your
paper that help brothers like myself who are
incarcerated and made blind. I am donating
to your paper so that you will continue to
send it to me and I'll pass it on to others. I'm
going to represent y'all all the way.
A true supporter.
-- A prisoner in Pontiac
MIM responds: We hope our readers on
the outside will be inspired by the donations
from our comrades behind bars. Prisoners can
not get jobs that even pay minimum wage
and yet they donate money, stamps and much
hard work.
Oregon prisoner down
for the struggle
I wrote to you for the first time about 2
months ago, asking for a subscription to MIM
Notes and this letter is written in response to
your reply.
To start, please let me remind you that all of
us readers do appreciate the efforts that USW
and MIM in general are making. It is so
important to educate both "free" persyns and
prisoners in regards to the inhumanity of the
current injustice system; a system that is
indicative of the true greed that capitalism
tends to breed. As large and seemingly
insurmountable hurtles present themselves,
please don't let yourselves forget how
important it is to keep it up.
Please be assured that I am more than willing
to devote time to the battle against the
exploitation of the Third World. When my
own MIM notes start arriving, I'll make sure
that after I read them they are passed to my
friends along with a recommendation of which
articles to "check out." I know that it is
important to make available more information
for our Spanish speaking comrades. I will be
sending you translations of some of the
articles in Under Lock & Key so that you can
perhaps include them in future editions of
Notas Rojas. And as my writing skills improve,
I may start sending in some articles for Under
Lock and Key. I have a lot to say about
mandatory minimum sentencing and the
current definition of "violent offender."
I am interested in helping you guys out
with distribution. My release date is in 2007,
so please expect to see me out there in the
not-too-distant future. I can't wait to bring
some truth to people with closed eyes and
covered ears!
-- a prisoner in Oregon, February 2003
MA prison illegally
creates `gang blocks,'
blackmails so-called
STG members
Those convicts being illegally housed in
the Security Threat Group (STG) Plymouth
blocks at Walpole are kept there unless they
partake in and graduate from this "Criminal
Thinking Program." Even if you remain
disciplinary-report free for years, the only way
out of those "gang blocks" is through this
program. The courts have recently made a
decision that those blocks are illegal and they
said the DOC has to change its racist policy
in regards to putting "gang members" in those
blocks. The vast majority is Latino. I will try
to forward you a copy of the lawsuit, I don't
know if they will make a copy for me.
[The STG renouncement program] is a 3
phase, 8-month program aimed at helping us
change our criminal ways of thinking and
acting. We are housed in the special
management unit for the first 6 months (phase
I, intensive phase). Then we are herded out
to general population for phase II, which is a
2-month graduate maintenance program,
which can be at any level 4 prison in MA.
The phase III is called reintegration, which is
about pre-release. As to the curriculum, we
are supposed to attend classes Monday
through Friday at least 2 to 5 hours at a
minimum. I don't know exactly what they will
try to indoctrinate us with. Basing my opinion
on the orientation we had, their aim is to make
us conform. Seeing that it is our political
awareness that places us in Security Threat
Group blocks, I know that "teacher" will target
me. I will not compromise my political position
just to graduate. So there is a big question
mark as to if they will let me graduate. I asked
the "teacher" if one's religious/political
persuasion will be a factor come graduation
and he, as expected, avoided the question by
saying it comes down to morality. I intend on
challenging all discrepancies I find in their
brainwashing courses.
I noticed that they have something called
system bashing, where blaming the system
for our faults is part of our criminal thinking. I
personally think an individual is partly
responsible under capitalism. Because
although we do have the choice of saying
yes or no, one's socio-economic status is in
fact what dictates our position. The
proletarian/lumpen proletarian is a social
outcast because of nationality and the state's
criminalization of urban males. He/she is also
economically oppressed in that less
opportunity is afforded him/her. This then
gives rise to the neo-colonial mentality, where
ignorance is supreme. Individualism,
opportunism, and focoism corrode the
individual. I can't wait to see how they
respond to my shock wave.
--a MA prisoner, November 2002
Latin Kings repressed
in Utah
Greetings from the land of the Almighty
Latin King Nation in the State of UT. Screaming
Almighty Nationwide!!
I recently received the MIM Notes that you
sent me. I really appreciate it because the
prison authorities have continued to censor
all my mail. They copy each letter that I
receive, including newspapers, magazines,
pictures and legal mail. Then they send copies
to the federal government of anything that
shows a picture of a 5-point crown and return
it to the sender. The prison has even deleted
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 11
Facts on U$ imprisonment
The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last
25 years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1)
That means that while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita.
In supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United $tates.(2,3)
To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid South
Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than
China; even though China is four times our population.(5)
The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.
Notes: 1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, Suite
501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: R8965-2, 1994
2. Ibid., 1992 report.
3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186.
4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211.
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.
phone numbers from my phone list per the
u.$. marshals. Including my house number! If
I want to call or write my house and my family
I have to get approval from the warden.
This is the type of censorship I have been
subject to because supposedly I am a leader
of my Nation. Keep up the good work MIM.
To all my people representing Black and
Gold, don't let these pigs keep oppressing
our Nation. We are the Lions in the Concrete
Jungle, let them hear our call. Amor the Rey!
--An ALKQN Lord in Utah
MIM Theory censored
for revolutionary
articles
Dear MIM:
I am writing to inform you that the literature
that you sent me was not allowed and should
be on its way back to you. Enclosed is a copy
of the disapproval form and a copy of our
California Code of Regulations Title 15. I
marked the section CCR 3006(c). I am
appealing the decision with a 602. I do now
know what was sent and did not sign the
form because it was not opened in front of
me. I'll keep you up to date with the progress
of the appeal 602. It's a disappointment for
me because I want to educate myself but am
unable to. My appeal is copied below:
On 2-16-02 I was informed that incoming
mail/package "literature" was not allowed per
CCR 3006(c) "material has revolutionary
articles and articles based on or about
violence." which was being returned to
sender. This material is historical literature.
The continence is based on he forming of
what is called the United States of American
and the struggles of people of color. It may
have violence within its pages but no more
than a daily newspaper, Time or Newsweek
magazine which speaks on war and murder.
Racism is unfair because the institutional
library here at CCI-Tehachapi is allowed to
issue these types of materials...
-- a prisoner in California, CCI Tehachapi,
February 2003
MIM responds: There is no justification in
the California mail regulations which states
that revolutionary material can be rejected
based on its content. The CDC is violating its
own policies with this censorship. The
literature censored was a copy the MIM
Theory magazine, "Amerikan Prisons on
Trial". We are particularly alarmed by this
censorship because we are beginning a state-
wide study group in the California prisons
reading this theory journal. This is a clear
attempt to stop prisoners from educating
themselves and participating in revolutionary
education. We need help from lawyers on the
outside to join the fight against censorship
being waged by MIM and our comrades
behind bars.
Repression in Cal.
outpatient program
Sadly I must report the oppressive and very
petty environment of the Pelican Bay
enhanced outpatient program (EOP). On
January 31, 2003 the pig in the gun tower
informed a prisoner under medication that the
next time he was late getting ready for chow
he would not be given breakfast (the guy only
took about 2 minutes). I saw and heard this
personally. Yesterday the prisoner woke up
disoriented from a heavy medicated induced
sleep only to find his door was closing during
breakfast. He hurriedly got dressed and
informed control (who was the same person
and was still releasing for breakfast
elsewhere) to open his door for breakfast. The
pig in the gun tower said "what did I tell you
the other day. If you were late you weren't
going to breakfast." With that he closed the
window and left him in the cell. We figured
that he (the pig) was going to wait until
breakfast was finished and the prisoner would
be given his meal. But that was not the case.
The pig withheld the meal as punishment for
being unable to get up on time.
The prisoner asked me to write a complaint
form (called a 602) which I did. Citing the
prison rule book (title 15) 3050 as well as the
orientation packet you receive when you
arrive which states that all staff (Correctional)
are specially trained to deal with prisoners
who have mental difficulties. I guess that
means denying somebody their most basic
human right to food.
The prisoner later on told me never mind
that he isn't tripping and that it was ok. I
explained to him that it was not ok. I also
explained that it is a violation of his 8th
amendment right not to be subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment which it is. I also
explained how to bypass the informal level
by turning in a citizen complaint, which will
put the pig under investigation (hopefully)
plus the citizen complaint will stay open for 5
years.
-- a prisoner in CA, February 2003
The Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has made its
way deep into the American prison system.
With 2 million men and women incarcerated
in America, it is estimated that 20 percent to
60 percent are infected with HCV. The fact
that prison systems are notorious for
providing substandard medical care --
whose systemic incompetence, neglect, and
institutionalized disregard for human life is
the premise for innumerable lawsuits --
renders this national epidemic a matter of
life and death.
HCV: A stealth virus
HCV is often referred to as the "Silent
Epidemic." It is the most common blood-
borne disease in the U.S. Since
approximately half of those infected do not
realize they have the disease, in too many
instances, treatment doesn't begin until after
the virus has progressed to the chronic
stage. Hepatitis C can lay dormant for
decades. One can have it from 10 to 30 years
before they begin to show symptoms. By
then it could already be too late.
HCV is a deadly disease. Approximately
85 percent of those infected develop chronic
hepatitis C. Although there is no cure,
undergoing treatment has been successful
in clearing the virus from the body in about
15 percent of the time. They are the lucky
ones. The end stages of chronic HCV
involves a myriad of liver problems --
including cirrhosis, cancer, and failure of the
liver. The disintegration of a vital organ
brings about an excruciating death.
Most associate HIV, the virus which
causes AIDS, as being the nations'
foremost blood-borne disease. Yet, HCV has
surpassed it four-to-one. One million
Americans are infected with HIV, while 4
million have HCV. At least 1/3 of HIV patients
are also co-invfected with hepatits C. Either
virus can exacerbate the other.
To make matter even worse, hepatits C is
equally fatal. In the U.S., 8,000 to 10,000
deaths a year are attributed to this silent
killer, with the totals expected to reach
30,000 a year by 2010 -- twice the toll AIDS
claims.
Even though HCV has outpaced HIV, very
few know much about this invection. Until
very recently it has not received much
coverage. All the intense activism
associated with the AIDS movement hit a
peak in the mid-90s and has subsequently
subsided. Since HCV paralleled HIV, it would
have been ideal if the AIDS movement had
focused on both viruses.
HCV awareness is beginning to pick-up
some momentum, although relaunching
another movement has been a struggle.
Celebrities going public with their affliction
has helped bring the far-reaching implications
of the HCV to the attention of the public.
Former star of "Baywatch," Pamela Anderson,
brought HCV awareness to the front pages
when she disclosed to the public that she
had contracted the disease from her husband
while getting a tattoo. One can contract such
viruses through a number of ways: syringes,
unprotected sex, tattoo needles, exposure to
blood, to name just a few.
Co-infection and the Prison
Intravenous Drug User
In 1996 a research study completed in
cooperation with the California Department
of Human Services uncovered how
widespread are HCV and HIV within the
California Department of Corrections.
Incoming male prisoners were testing
positive for HCV at a rate of 39.4 percent --
with 61.3 percent of them co-infected with
HIV. Incoming female prisoners tested positive
for HCV at a rate of 54.5 percent -- with an
astounding 85 percent being co-infected with
HIV.
These are alarming, troubling, and eye-
opening numbers. Both being blood- borne
maladies and epidemic in proportions, co-
infection can be traced to intravenous drug
use within the community of drug addicts who
lead high risk lifestyles. The sharing of
needles is the unfortunate common
denominator in how the virus spreads easily
within the American prison system.
While the actual infection rates of those
carrying either of these diseases vary from
state to state, the disturbing fact of the matter
are the prodigious numbers of incarcerated
individuals who have one or both of these
disease. For these high risk individuals,
unkonowingly, diseases are passed around
like a bottle of cheap wine. Being a largely
uneducated and self- destructive
demographic, the numbers of those affected
will get much worse before they get any better.
Despite a significant body of information
illustrating the dangers of exposure to blood,
the message is not getting to the nation's
population of hard core drug addicts who
share needles -- many of who m end up in
prison and continue to reinforce their
addiction.
Generally, if available, a drug addict will use
drugs. Even for those in remission, relapse is
a problem. The incarcerated addict will often
go to great lengths to use drugs if they are
even remotely available. Thoughts of
thoroughly sanitizing a syringe, which is a
rather simple process, come a distant second
to the immediate desire to "get high."
Moreover, if one uses drugs intravenously
while serving time -- which is a rather
unfortunate reality -- one has volunteered
to be a member of a group whose lifestyle
poses the greatest danger to themselves and
others. Using a syringe to get high ahs
become a very deadly endeavor -- especially
while incarcerated.
Hepatitis C and the American Prisoner
MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 12
Notas Rojas
marzo 15, 2003, Nº 278 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista Gratis
Por el MIM
Traducido por Células de Estudio para la
Liberación de Aztlán y América Latina
La diferencia de opinión sobre la cuestión
de la inmigración entre un yanqui común y
corriente y una "élite" o el círculo de poder,
supera el nivel del año 1998, según una
encuesta publicada el día 17 de diciembre. El
presidente Bush ha puesto en práctica los
reglamentos migratorios más salvajes sobre
sus vecinos, México y Canadá, y ha causado
molestia a los conservadores del occidente
canadiense con las tarifas sobre la madera.
Sin embargo, menos del 30% de los yanquis
apoyan a Bush sobre sólo dos asuntos: los
cambios en el clima y la inmigración. La
corriente del chovinismo nacionalista que
comenzó el 11 de septiembre alimenta la
opinión injusta con respecto a la inmigración.
La encuesta fortalece la tesis del MIM que
la aristocracia obrera está más opuesta al
internacionalismo que la misma burguesía
imperialista. Lenin explicó extensamente que
la psicología de esta clase sostiene que
apenas han logrado sus privilegios y por lo
tanto son más feroces en protegerlos.
Sólo el 14% de la élite norteamericana, de
"los líderes de la opinión," están de acuerdo
con la posición popular según la cual se debe
reducir la inmigración. El 60% del público
norteamericano sostiene que la política del
gobierno debe ser reducir la inmigración
oficial. Y todo esto es a pesar de la retórica
del "país de los inmigrantes" y de que aun la
ciudad de Nueva York se adorna con la
"Estatua de la Libertad." Está bien claro que
los yanquis no creen en el derecho de poder
viajar abiertamente y gracias a la estupidez
electoral de la aristocracia obrera, el promedio
de encarcelamiento en EE.UU. es el más alto
en todo el mundo.
"Según la encuesta, el 70% del público
norteamericano opina que reducir la
inmigración ilegal es `una meta muy
importante de la política internacional de
EE.UU.', mientras sólo el 22% de la élite
sostiene la misma posición." (1) Esta es la
razón de la victoria de Pat Buchanan sobre
Bush en las elecciones preliminares de Nuevo
Hampshire en 1992. En 1992, año de recesión,
tanto Perot como Buchanan lanzaron sus
programas con el lema "Yanquis Primero."
La propuesta aceptada casi por todos los
tal llamados yanquis "marxistas" es una
ilusión que postula la existencia de un
proletariado explotado que propaga el
internacionalismo de este lado de la frontera.
Al contrario, lo que debe quedar bien claro es
que el pueblo yanqui carece del
internacionalismo más que la clase con el
poder estatal y que de esta manera es aún
más reaccionario. No basta el chantaje de la
clase dominante: la aristocracia obrera es
consciente de su lucha para lograr una
lucrativa división de superganancias. La
aristocracia obrera no es nada indiferente
hacia el tema de superganancias, y no está a
punto de despojarse de una supuesta
conciencia engañosa para reemplazarla con
un internacionalismo revolucionario. Los
intereses de la aristocracia obrera son fáciles
de identificar y ésta los persigue
diligentemente, de lo cual resulta la enorme
diferencia entre su posición sobre la
inmigración y la posición de la clase
dominante.
El pueblo yanqui no aguanta a los
verdaderos representantes de la burguesía
internacionalista como los Rockerfeller, Jimmy
Carter y Bush el mayor. El iniciar pláticas
sobre el desempleo y el empeoramiento de
los salarios (¡menos beneficios!) con la
aristocracia obrera la llevaría a tomar el lado
de Buchanan. No entender esto iguala a no
entender la situación contemporánea ni la
teoría leninista de la aristocracia obrera. Salvo
los inmigrantes y la población de habla
hispana, no hay campo para discutir lo del
proletariado dentro de las fronteras de EE.UU.
Esto sólo tiene como resultado que se
molesten y se encierren más los chovinistas.
Entender la realidad en los países
imperialistas con una población burguesa
implica luchar para forjar una alianza con el
lumpenproletariado y con la pequeña ala
izquierdista de la burguesía internacionalista.
La prensa imperialista no ignora del todo este
asunto como cuando ridiculiza las protestas
en contra del Fondo Monetario Internacional
dirigidas por los "nenes anarquistas con
fondos de inversión" quienes poseen
recursos suficientes para viajar de una
manifestación a otra. En los años 60 y 70, la
prensa dijo lo mismo con respeto a los
miembros del grupo "Weather Undeground"
quienes eran poderosos millonarios y
abogados.
La sección de la burguesía
internacionalista que posee una visión de
largo plazo
no se encuentra en el poder. Esta sección
ha salido en Seattle y en otras protestas a
nivel mundial pero aún es muy pequeña. El
ala izquierdista de la burguesía
internacionalista es comparable a lo que
Lenin, Stalin y Mao llamaban "burguesía
nacional," una clase que podía unirse a la
revolución en los países semifeudales. Por lo
tanto, el ala izquierdista de la burguesía
internacionalista es una amiga del proletariado.
Aunque aún sobreviven, tanto la burguesía
nacional como el ala izquierdista de la
burguesía internacionalista están en peligro
de extinción. Debemos entender que estos
grupos tienen intereses distintos a los del
imperialismo.
No es nuestro deber oponernos a tipos
como Bush, Blair, Carter y Clinton con
demandas nacionalistas en contra del Tratado
de Libre Comercio (TLC) o la inmigración.
Nuestro deber es demonstrar que la única
forma de lograr la paz y la prosperidad es
nuestra estrategia para conseguir un salario
minimo mundial, un cuerpo para la protección
universal del medio ambiente y, por
consecuencia, una lucha de clases mundial.
Aunque el Centro para Estudios
Migratorios ha llevado a cabo las encuestas,
aún carece de una teoría: "No está muy claro
porqué hay ideas tan distintas sobre la
inmigración entre los líderes del país y el
público." También se distingue la opinión
del yanqui común y corriente de la de los
líderes sobre la protección del empleo para
los yanquis y la competición económica con
otros países. Esta diferencia indica firmemente
que una de las principales razones por la cual
los yanquis se preocupan por la inmigración
es el temor que tienen a la competición por el
empleo.
El tremendo espacio entre los imperialistas
internacionalistas y la aristocracia obrera ha
rendido una serie de situaciones políticas
hipócritas. Mientras la aristocracia obrera se
aprovecha de los negocios de los empresarios
en el Tercer Mundo, a los empresarios
tercermundistas que buscan hacer negocios
en los países imperialistas se les echa de
aviones porque tienen pinta de "terroristas."
También se organizan movimientos
antiinmigrantes al estilo Le Pen en Francia y
Buchanan en EE.UU.
No debemos alegar que los tratados de
comercio e inmigración y los convenios
representan únicamente la conciencia
burguesa embucando la falsa consciencia
sobre el proletariado de los países
imperialistas. Debemos defender estos
tratados y promover su lógica.
El gobierno de Los Países Bajos le permitó
entrar a José Maria Sisón y firmó tratados y
convenios garantizándole ciertos derechos.
Los camaradas filipinos lo entienden muy
bien, hacen hincapié en dichos tratados y
convenios, los defienden y no permiten que
el gobierno Holandés los anule. Los
camaradas filipinos serían culpables de
promover una conciencia falsa si sólo se la
pasaran discutiendo tratados y los derechos
humanos de los europeos y al mismo tiempo
fuese verdad que existe algún proletariado
europeo a punto de lanzarse a la revolución
internacionalista. Pero las cosas no son así y
todavía no se alcanza este nivel de ventaja
política y, por consequencia, lo correcto es
apoyar tratados internacionals en contra de
la aristocracia obrera.
Muchos de los tratados, convenios y leyes
no prohiben que la aristocracia obrera europea
organice protestas en contra de los
inmigrantes. Así lo dijo un típico aristócrata
obrero en el grupo de Usenet
soc.culture.filipino: "Pobre JoMa Sisón. Se
queja al gobierno holandés para que le
restauren los beneficios estatales. Se queja
porque sólo recibe una miserable asignación
de 201.93 euros y porque el gobierno no paga
por su hogar. Discúlpenme pero mis
impuestos pagan por todo esto. Si tienes
alguna molestia lárgate a las Filipinas y
averigua cuánto te dan allá. Nos acusa de ser
un gobierno policíaco. Sí, qué lástima. ¿Si te
encuentras tan infeliz en los Países Bajos
entonces qué haces aquí?" Le informamos a
este imbécil que gracias a la presión política
de tipos como él los Países Bajos prohiben
que Sisón consiga empleo. Y al mismo tiempo
le acusan de no pagar impuestos.
JoMa Sisón y otros comunistas están de
acuerdo con la idea de firmar un tratado para
que los imperialistas saquen sus empresarios
de las Filipinas. Pero la aristocracia obrera lo
quiere de los dos modos. Por un lado, quiere
tratados que le permiten comprar ropa de
marca GAP fabricada por empresarios que
visitan y llevan a cabo negocios en el Tercer
Mundo y , por el otro lado, prohibe que las
personas del Tercer Mundo visiten los países
imperialistas para hacer negocios.
Estos aristócratas primero deberían chocar
con su propio gobierno sobre los tratados y
convenios que éste ha firmado antes de lanzar
su agresión contra los inmigrantes. Si la
aristocracia obrera logra que su gobierno y
las impresas internacionales salgan del Tercer
Mundo, la gente del Tercer Mundo no tendrá
razón para venir a los países imperialistas. Es
raro que un pueblo busque salir de su país de
origen; sólo lo hace bajo circunstancias
desastrozas causadas por los imperialistas.
No vale quejarse cuando el Tercer Mundo
busca visitar y vivir en los países imperialistas
ya quel imperialismo se ha adueñado de sus
tierras.
Los marxistas falsos que nos critican
buscan pretextos para torcer los resultados
de la encuesta y demostrar que los "obreros"
se encuentran en peores condiciones que los
imperialistas. Como no identifican la
contradicción entre la aristocracia obrera y
los imperialistas no logran utilizarla
correctamente. No distinguen entre diversos
intereses de clase.
La miopía de la aristocracia obrera tiene
como resultado guerras entre naciones sobre
ciertos temas de la economía doméstica. Esta
miopía encontró su máxima expresión en la
postura de Adolfo Hítler sobre la inmigración
y el comercio internacional. Por su parte, la
burguesía internacionalista cuenta sólo
consigo misma y por lo tanto su opinión sobre
la inmigración no es muy popular. La estrecha
base social para su tipo de internacionalismo
resulta en que los países imperialistas oscilen
entre el facismo y la democracia liberal.
Está bien claro que los imperialistas se
aprovechan del comercio internacional y de
la subversión en el Tercer Mundo mientras
que la aristocracia saca beneficios al punto
de venta pero siente que se ponen en peligro
sus empleos. Sólo el internacionalismo
proletario es capaz de conseguir que teoría
de la coperación internacional económica se
haga realidad. Cuando el MIM llegue al poder
nos aseguraremos de que el pueblo entienda
y descubra los beneficios del comercio y la
cooperación económica en general.
La posición de la aristocracia obrera según
la cual el mundo no saca beneficios del libre
comercio, el mercado obrero y la resultante
cooperación, es equivocada. Su posición es
cobarde e ignorante. Precisamente son los
imperialistas los que no pueden llevar a cabo
el "libre comercio" y la "libertad de
movimiento" porque ofrecen los derechos
más basicos a una pequeña élite. Sólo la línea
del MIM puede resolver esta contradicción.
Notas: (1) http://www.cis.org/circle.html
La inmigración: Se distinguen la aristocracia
obrera y la burguesía internacionalista