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 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 1
MIM Notes
May 1, 2004, Nº 301
The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)
Free
INSIDE: Against subjectivism * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...
On the web: www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext
THE WRITING
WAS ON THE
WALL EVEN
BEFORE
FALLUJAH
How we know the
draft is coming
by mim3@mim.org
The final piece of the jigsaw puzzle of
military recruitment in the United $tates
is in. Retention rates in the military will
be too low to sustain the imperialists'
vision of the world, so the draft is coming
unless there is a desperately radical
struggle that develops soon--something
we find unlikely but which we support
nonetheless. The Amerikan anti-war
struggle will develop, but later than it
should most ideally.
A survey of over 1000 spouses at
military bases in January and February
2004 indicates that half believe the
military will have problems recruiting as
current enlistments expire. This figure
came at a time when 64% said the war
was going well in Iraq and Bush was
receiving approval ratings in the 60s
percentage-wise from the military
spouses.(1) Half of the spouses expect
there to be "major" problems with
recruitment in the near future as people
refuse to re-enlist after their terms are
up and new recruits dwindle for the
mercenary army. 21% of all spouses
were already saying they had wished their
spouses had made another career choice.
Only 39% were certain their spouses
would re-enlist when their terms were up.
According to U$A Toady, the Army fell
4% short of its recruiting goals in the first
half of fiscal year 2004.(5) This number
is likely to drop further as the soldiers who
just had their term in Iraq extended come
up for re-enlistment.
It is not reflected in the press or the
DRAFT LOOMS
Stop it before it starts!
U$ MEDIA
SOUNDS THE
ATTACK ON
THIRD WORLD
MADRASSAS
Amerikan terror
schools overlooked
One of the common complaints of the
New York Times in its drumbeat for war
is that the Arab and Afghan peoples
support religious schools called
"madrassas" too much.(1) MIM
conducted an investigation into the
problem of religious schools in the United
$tates.
"Boys, raised without fathers, were sent
to religious schools, or madrassas, taken
away from daily village life and away
from the influence of women,"(1) says
the New York Times. What a shock: the
New York Times apparently has seen no
gender segregated schools in the U$A.
Nor has it thought of the interpenetration
of the military with countless schools in
the U$A.
The Boston Globe--owned by the New
York Times--is another paper hammering
on the madrassas. "Since the Sept. 11
attacks, madrassas in Pakistan and
Afghanistan have achieved global
notoriety for producing thousands of young
men dedicated to holy war."(2) The
Boston Globe goes on to call for the Indian
government to interfere in India's
madrassas.
It's hard to know who started it, the
government or the New York Times,
because the two have inseparable
approaches to foreign affairs. "Secretary
of Defense" and nutcase Donald
Rumsfeld put it this way in an October
16th 2003 memo: "Are we capturing,
killing or deterring and dissuading more
terrorists every day than the madrassas
and the radical clerics are recruiting,
training and deploying against us?"(3)
We won't bother mentioning other
This question, which the Amerikan
media dismissed offhand before the
renewed invasion of Iraq, now seems to
be the question du jour on editorial pages
and weekend talk shows. As we discuss
below, most of the pundits asking the
question have hidden, pro-imperialist
agendas, which keeps them from getting
to the truth about Iraq or Vietnam.
First, though, we will repeat what MIM
has been saying for more than a year:
"Is the war in Iraq like the war in
Vietnam? Yes and no, but mostly yes."
Of course, to understand the answer,
one has to understand the question. Pro-
imperialist "experts" of various flavors
have their own ideas about the lessons
of Vietnam, which color their answers.
For example, the "stab-in-the-back"
militarists insist Amerika lost in Vietnam
because civilian politicians withdrew
support from the war. Thus they might
answer, "Yes, Iraq is the new Vietnam,"
to encourage Amerikans to not make the
"mistake" they made in Vietnam and
"stay the course" in Iraq. Other militarists
may answer "no," because they have
illusions about the role China or Russia
played in Vietnam, or because they feel
the Amerikans now have an
overwhelming technical advantage--
although they also had an overwhelming
technical advantage in Vietnam, and the
house-to-house fighting now raging in
cities like Fallujah is a matter of small
arms, sledgehammers, and sweat, not
Apache helicopters.
Democratic "critics" of the war answer
"yes, but...," to opportunistically blame the
Republicans for getting Amerika into
another "quagmire" without getting
labeled "soft on defense" in return. The
mercenary eggheads at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government quoted
in the April 16 Boston Phoenix adopt this
Is Iraq the new Vietnam?
Continued on page 4...
Continued on page 7...
Continued on page 8...
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · 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>
Dear MIM:
I am a 19 year old university student in
Australia. I look to your site as a
theoretical and practical guide in many
respects, particularly with my studies as
my majors are politics and history.
What I am up against now is a project
on the Great Leap Forward, with a
lecturer who is obviously some kind of
bourgeois opportunist, heavily critical of
Mao. I can tell this because of the set
reading for my presentation, a chapter
called "Capable women can make a meal
without food" in the book "Wild Swans"
by Chang.
I have two theories on why MIM has
not written a review of this book.
1) Its credibility is so lacking that you
chose to just ignore it.
2) Nobody has written a review of it
yet because resources are stretched or
the book hasn't come to your attention.
I wish also to thank you for your
excellent information regarding the great
leap forward in the sections "Myths about
Maoism", as well as the reviews of
MacFarquhar and Becker as well as the
Black Book of Communism.
Socialist greetings!
Web Minister replies: I checked
around and we do not have a review of
"Wild Swans" available. At MIM we do
consider it our job to rebut and criticize
all of previous reactionary thinking. We
consider it a means of setting up the all-
round dictatorship of the proletariat.
This also gives me a chance to say that
we are quite a bit behind in all our work.
I have not even posted all the material
we have available on our website in
addition to the fact that articles such as
about "Wild Swans" have not been
written yet.
Our general response is that the
capitalists have spent money and created
markets for many full-time writers
slinging mud or spinning half-truths about
Mao. Journalists and fiction writers are
especially apt to tell one story and think
they have given us a comparison of
capitalism and socialism or even the
Great Leap strategy versus other
strategies of socialist advance. Although
we could also write a lengthy fiction or
journalist story on the life of Jeffrey
Dahmer, the Amerikan cannibal, we
would not claim it to provide an overall
insight even into Amerikan decadence. It
is the bourgeoisie that must glorify
individual stories and lifestyles as a
substitute for class analysis and
comparisons of social systems overall,
because the comparison of capitalism and
socialism at the overall level is always
going to be more favorable to socialism.
Refuting the bourgeoisie, point-by-point
Read hundreds more Maoist
Movie Reviews at the only
Maoist Movie Review website
on Earth
From Aguirre: The Wrath of God ("the humyn
species has chalked up some achievements since
the time of the Conquistadors...") to Yol ("really
about the womyn question under semi-feudalism in
Turkey"), from Alien3 ("basic contradictions of
imperialism underlying the plot also undermine its
triumphant ending") to Z ("If we had the resources
to do our own films, we could do a better job, but
under capitalism, we have to take what we can"),
Maoist Movie Reviews are in a league of their own.
www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/movies
MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 3
by MC5
April 11 2004
Yo, reader. Yes, you there. Tell us why
you are still paying attention to Democrats
and Republicans. We calling ourselves
communists have more differences than
the Democrats and Republicans.
It's not that the Democrats and
Republicans give you more accurate
inside information on the wars they are
carrying out, so don't tell us you listen to
them for that. The Democrats and
Republicans both said Saddam Hussein
had and would use weapons of mass
destruction. He did not use them in 2003
and now you have to ask yourself why.
They told you the Amerikans were
bringing "freedom" to Iraq, but the recent
violence in Iraq came after the Amerikans
shut down a newspaper there opposing
the Amerikan occupation.(1) These
Democrats and Republicans said the
Iraqis would appreciate what Amerikans
did in the occupation. So, tell us again,
why are you getting your information
from them?
MIM told you before the war about
weapons of mass destruction and we got
it right. When Bush said the war was
over, we did a 60-point headline saying
"The War Is Not Over." Again, we got it
right, and the president with all his billions
spent on intelligence got it wrong.
Now look at us communists. We've got
something to argue about. Kerry voted
for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and
co-authored the Patriot Act in the Senate.
Bush carried out the wars and signed the
"Patriot Act." Those are the top two issues
since 2000.
Meanwhile, the "Communist Party
USA" supports the occupation of Iraq.
You heard right. While MIM is supporting
U$ withdrawal and believes the Iraqi
liberation fighters have justice on their
side, the "Communist Party USA" is
supporting a sister party in Iraq that
actually has a seat in the U$ occupation
government. Imagine that: a "communist"
party serving as a U$ lackey in a military
occupation.
Now that's a real difference. MIM says
the nationalist liberation fighters in Iraq
are right and the "CP-USA" supports the
opposite side. So, my decadent Amerikan
readers, if you are looking for sports as in
Bush/Kerry contests, we'll give you
sports. By now you should be bored to
death with Bush/Kerry. Pay attention to
some people with some real differences.
Sometimes their website has more
readers; sometimes ours--and you
thought all that splitting among so-called
communists was for nothing.
See here what we are saying about the
phony "Communist Party USA." Listen
to them explain that the genocide in Iraq
was worth it, because their buddies in the
Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) are now
distributing a newspaper there under U$
auspices: "While the bad news of the
genocidal impact of the U.S. war and
occupation in Iraq permeates throughout
the world, the chunks of gold and hope
are found in the ICP's heroism and
Phony Iraqi Communist Party supports occupation of Iraq
The real debate is here
This is the first in a series of articles.
Further installments will address the
topics of love, sex, friends,
sectarianism and chauvinism.
I. Cigarettes
II. Drugs
III. Music and art
IV. Love
I'm going to talk about subjectivism and
its relationship to our communist goals by
giving a bunch of examples of
subjectivism--the belief that what one
feels or likes is true or supreme. What's
most important is not the individual evils
of subjectivism, but understanding the
overall approach that we as Maoist
scientists apply to everything. We at MIM
are not saying we have some long list of
behaviors that we tack on to the end of
the "Ten Commandments." It's not our
point to bring attention to hypocrisy in
individual behavior--and this is something
that we from Christian, Jewish and
Islamic cultures have to watch out for.
(Buddhism has a little better intellectual
material to work with on this question.)
We Maoist scientists are interested in the
underlying causes of behavior.
Anyone who thinks s/he does not have
something that s/he likes that is tainted
by oppression is just wrong. As Marx and
Lenin warned us, even after
overthrowing the social system of
capitalism, its corpse would continue to
rot among us. There is no way that
revolutionaries arising from capitalist
society can be instantly pure even after
revolution. It's not a leap into Heaven.
Communist purity is not going to happen
in the lifetime of the revolutionaries who
create the dictatorship of the proletariat
unless lifetimes get a lot longer.
In all likelihood, the revolution will be
successful only through the efforts of
Preparing for the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat
Combating subjectivism in all arenas
"hypocrites" envisioning future
generations growing up with better social
influences than they had. Understanding
this is part of understanding materialism,
as when Lenin said revolution is always
made with the imperfect social material
at hand, not by divine perfection of
humyn consciousness first. When one
critic said Mao sought "revolutionary
immortality," he was not all wrong.
Parents and teachers seek influence on
future generations, and Mao simply took
that to a whole larger level and asked to
be remembered only as a teacher.
A persyn could not like a whole list of
bad things that most other people have
as vices, but even then there would have
to be something. Everyone has a vice.
No one is a 100% pure. Hence, MIM
has acted to push aside the politics of
putting lifestyle first. Whoever comes up
with the idea that a party should set up a
list of lifestyles to condone or not condone
is setting up a huge Liberal fight to divide
the party. We have to come up with a list
of bad things, but our attack has to be on
the causes, not the bearers of those bad
lifestyles. With these warnings, I turn to
several examples of subjectivism.
I. Cigarettes
We've all seen the teenager lash into
parents saying: "what do you mean I
can't smoke? You smoke, you
hypocrite!" So the truth is some parents
smoke and forbid their children from
smoking. Yet, this is an example of a
pseudo-rebellion by the teenager, a
rebellion on behalf of the right to make
profits for the multinational tobacco
companies.
More than in any country in the world
at the moment, comrades in the United
$tates will have to conquer subjectivism
and still make revolution despite
hypocritical feelings and behaviors. The
smoking parent who cracks down on his
or her children is right. It means this: "I
know I have had my subjective feelings,
my very emotions and psychology
conditioned by the cigarette companies and
I know I am addicted. However, I know
that in a better world it would not be that
way."
In contrast, when medical researchers
discover that smoking is poisonous,
principled Trotskyists such as the
Spartacist League go so far to oppose
"totalitarianism" that they will publicly
defend the right to smoke in public (and
thus contribute to the death of more
people, both the smokers and those in
contact with them). These Spartacist
League members contribute to a rebellion
against science and for bourgeois
individualism and tobacco company
profits. They take the subjective state of
the smoker and "respect" it. That's part
of their idea of "freedom" and "opposing
totalitarianism."
When the all-round dictatorship of the
proletariat led by us Maoists gets to power,
the cigarette company executives who put
those toxic chemicals in cigarettes and
resisted medical science in the court
system will be lined up and shot as a small
repayment of their blood debt to millions
killed by smoking. Those cigarette
company executives who conquer
subjectivism will know they should be
shot to set a good example for the future.
II. Drugs
The same is true of drug addiction. How
many times have we seen established
bourgeois people look down on heroin
addicts? Oh how terrible to be in such a
state of control by the drug, we hear. Yet
most of these same people turn around
and say that life is a short experience to
enjoy as it is. They get their jollies from
something else short-term and damaging
to society in many cases.
The fact is that many heroin, cocaine
and crack addicts will say that they have
a profound experience of pleasure from
their drugs. MIM has no need to deny
such subjective statements. Post-
modernists and bourgeois individualists
need to deal with that--and we can't
imagine how they do in their own twisted
minds--but we at MIM say, "sure that
feels good to you, but where did that
desire for that kind of pleasure or pain-
killing come from?" The answer is a
combination of profiteering drug dealers
and a corrupt government defending the
profit-system leaving people alienated
from their own lives.
III. Music and art
Music is another battleground against
subjectivism. For some people, music is
the highest motivation. For others it's a
second or third place source of motivation.
At MIM and its circles we've had more
than one persyn have to get involved in
throwing out reactionary music tapes,
starting with Guns N'Roses. When we
oppose Guns N'Roses and say most of it
should be banned, it's not that we don't
know we're going to be unpopular. We
know it, because right now the
bourgeoisie controls the superstructure
and encourages everyone to be
subjectivists and not unite on an objective
basis to challenge bourgeois rule. Hell,
our reviewer on our web page "likes"
Guns N'Roses, so how could we not know
about the resistance we face right now?
The question is do we wish we lived in a
society where popular songs were not
about sick people burying their girlfriends
in their backyard. Do we wish we could
Continued on page 7...
Continued on page 9...
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 4
jubilation of the Iraqi people, but in fact,
the Iraqi people have already landed a
huge politico-military blow against Uncle
$am in one short year. If imperialism
depended on English imperialism as the
lynchpin globally and not Uncle $am, such
a blow landed under Maoist leadership
could have been the turning point to bring
down the whole global capitalist system.
It is the combined imperialist strength of
Uncle $am and others that makes this a
protracted struggle of generations.
Both Bush and Kerry will try to sidestep
the draft issue leading up to elections in
November 2004. In 2005, the push for
the draft will be on.
MIM does not generally like being in
the fortune-telling business, but our record
on Iraq is clear relative to both the
Democrats and Republicans leading the
U$A. We think we deserve greater
credibility than these bourgeois politicians
always catering for votes and corporate
donations. We told the public the truth
about WMDs, the likelihood of Iraqi
resistance and why it is that only sending
dead Amerikans back in body bags
changes the political balance. The peace
movement did not succeed, because of
its petty-bourgeois basis. On all of this
we are right and our printed record can
be checked against any political leader
with access to inside information from
intelligence agencies spending 11 digits a
year in dollars. Now we tell you this: the
draft is coming, so fight now to prevent it
and gain political experience for upcoming
battles.
Military illusions
1) The crumbling of military illusions
and the manipulation of the military for
political gain are the reasons the draft is
coming. The loose situation in Fallujah
and Afghanistan benefits a political
agenda that says more troops are
necessary in Iraq and therefore a draft.
The rulers will make it appear that the
demand for a draft came from the
situation itself, not any particular military
official or the president.
Keeping control on the ground for
contractors to do their business in Iraq
cannot be done with Predator spy planes
alone. Even driving about expensive tanks
eats up fuel. Putting unemployed or
potentially unemployed people on the
ground of Iraq seems a cheap solution
for the rulers.
2) The military thinks that Iraq has
much less population than Vietnam did
and GI Joe is much better technically
equipped. In fact, the longer the troops
stay there, the more experienced Iraqis
will get in fighting, while Amerikans rotate
in and out. Johnson had 500,000
Amerikans in Vietnam at the peak. The
military thinks it has already reached that
level in Iraq, proportionately speaking, and
its illusions about the Vietnam War say
that China and the Soviet Union were the
reasons for failure there. Bush will believe
his own rhetoric about a "small minority"
of "terrorists" and "thugs" fighting, (600
killed in Fallujah alone in one week)
because certain Amerikans never realized
it was not "outside agitators" doing the
fighting in Vietnam. This confidence in
victory in Iraq will lead to the draft.
3) There has been talk in Congress
about raising pay and improving mail
delivery to improve retention.(2) This
angle will fail miserably. That fact will
also point to the draft.
Neo-conservative illusions
1) The neo-conservatives believe
correctly that a portion of rural white U.$.
society is dumb enough to believe that
September 11th 2001 is connected to
Iraq. For many in the rural areas and even
some in the suburbs, it is difficult to
distinguish Third World or rich Arab
peoples in general. Iraqis, Saudis,
Muslims--it hardly matters, because a
solid 30% of the whites is of the Crusader
mentality. In the military that figure is 37%
evangelicals based on the spouses' poll--
a plurality.
Making use of the attack on Amerikan
soil and the rural whites correctly referred
to as "hamburger meat" by one self-
described politically incorrect humorist,
the neo-conservatives erred in thinking
they can transfer that into making Iraq a
Japan or Germany. They really have no
idea how FDR, Truman and Eisenhower
did it. After filling their heads with Ann
Coulter, it's a wonder neo-conservatives
know anything. The truth about
"hamburger meat" only led the neo-
conservatives to make an error related
to thinking Iraq is not Vietnam.
2) Neo-conservatives told the public
that Iraqis would roll over and play dead.
They told this tale partly to get the war
started. This suited the Zionists and
apocalypse-centered Christians.
The rulers do not know why their
repressions in Iraq and Afghanistan fail
while they succeeded in Japan and
Germany. This is the central hit-or-miss
proposition of bourgeois dictators
everywhere. The vast majority of
bourgeois authoritarians fail in their
missions for reasons they do not know.
They repress and repress and get no
where, unlike Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In
Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the
United $tates represents a more advanced
mode of production, Uncle $am is not able
to bring progress and therefore stability
and peace on Amerikan terms.
3) Afghan warlord Dostum is kicking
up a storm as we write this. Mao had a
solution for warlords in China. The neo-
conservatives think they do in
Afghanistan, but they do not. The
imperialists have no idea how to bring
progress and hence stability to
Afghanistan. That means they will try to
employ more troops. That means the
draft.
4) The single greatest hope of the neo-
conservatives is this: they believe they
negotiated with Saddam Hussein and
Osama Bin Laden in the past, so why is
it impossible to strike up a deal with Sunnis,
Shiites and Kurds in Iraq now they
wonder. If there is such a deal, the
military resistance should roll over and
play dead (they think) and the draft won't
be necessary.
MIM has to admit that the resistance
in Iraq is not proletarian-led. Nonetheless,
we do not believe this critical neo-
conservative assumption that the Iraqis
can be bought out will prove correct. This
appears to be a miscalculation. Easing the
sanctions and spending U.$. tax dollars
will not create the bridge of stability to a
future where Iraq pays for its own
quietude. Already the New York Times
has reported on cooperation among
Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to kick out the
Amerikkkans. Economic reality says that
they will be better off sharing their
resources among themselves rather than
among themselves and the Amerikkkans.
Democratic Party illusions
1) Led by Ted Kennedy and the
European-sympathizing imperialists, one
wing of imperialists wishes the 2003 war
on Iraq was through the UN. Some
continue to believe there might be a way
to coax the UN back in, which concretely
means getting Russian, Chinese and
French troops on the ground followed
quickly by Indian troops and others.
At this point, as Kerry said about Bush
making things "harder" for military
success, the UN is not likely to get
involved. Most of the rest of the world
does not want to cover for the United
$tates and has no interest in sanctioning
U.$.-led pre-emptive strikes. The global
imperialists would have to make a hell of
a deal to salvage Iraq and we do not think
it is likely. It is more likely that the rest of
the world's bourgeoisie realizes that Uncle
$am cannot salvage the situation. Without
UN troops, the draft for Amerikans is
more likely.
2) Although many wishy-washy anti-
war people belong to the minority
Democratic Party, even the minority
Democratic Party is divided on the draft.
That's why it will go through. The anti-
draft members of the Democratic Party
will look the other way as the leaders let
the draft through. After all, the Democratic
Party never took a clear stand against
the war and even most Democrats who
opposed it want to stay and "finish the
job" now.
One place where one can see the
growing trend of calls for the draft is in
the website called
democraticunderground.com. Because
Democrats do not have the spine to
oppose the war, many are now clamoring
for a draft.
3) The pseudo-feminist wing of
liberalism has representatives in Iraq and
Afghanistan trying to teach Iraqis and
Afghans how to live the pseudo-feminist
lifestyle. They think they know how to
bring advance in the wake of U.$.
repression. They don't. They've been
attacked by the Iraqi people, and rightly
so, but in no way will the pseudo-feminists
be able to bring progress in Iraq or
Afghanistan or the desired stability and
hence a reduction of troops according to
imperialist wishes.
Labor aristocracy illusions
1) The labor aristocracy is used to
telling white lies on a daily basis to win its
share of super-profits. When Bush told
the country clearly in public several times
that he planned on a 15 year or more
occupation of Iraq, the labor aristocracy
did not listen and did not believe him once
the casualties started. When Bush and
Rumsfeld kept talking about Japan and
Germany after World War II, the
hamburger meat did not stop to think
troops are still there in Japan and
Germany, today--sixty years later. After
all, the labor aristocracy trusts Bush
enough and Paris Hilton was about to
appear on TV, so the labor aristocracy
did not have time to go into the politics
and history.
Since the neo-conservatives told the
labor aristocracy that Iraqis would greet
them cheering with roses and rice, the
labor aristocracy filed away any thoughts
contrary to the war. This same labor
aristocracy is now to be found wondering
when its children will come back from
DRAFT LOOMS
Stop it before it starts!
Continued from page 1...
Continued on next page...
MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 5
This article originally apeared in
MIM Notes 247, 15 Jan 2003. We
reprint it here for those who missed it
the first time; it complements this issue's
articles on the draft and Amerikan
madrassas.
There is a terrible dispute afoot in the
world about the U.S. military budget.
Some contend that the U.S. military
budget each year is only more than the
next 10 closest countries combined.
Others say 13, 15, 25 and some say the
whole world combined spends less than
the United $tates on the military. A writer
in Pakistan said, "Americas commitment
to peace is best exemplified by the fact
that its annual military budget, at $360
billion and counting, now exceeds the
military budgets of the rest of the world
combined. You can't get much more
committed to peace than that."(1)
Despite the obscenity of U.$. military
power, yahoos like neo-Confederates
Senator Trent Lott, Attorney General John
Ashcroft and President George W. Bush
cling in an irrational way to their
militarist ideas. Through organs like the
"conservative" Weekly Standard they still
speak in praise of "peace through
strength."(2)
Rednecks supported these yahoos for
decades and now the U.$. military is by
far the strongest. So why is it that we still
have war? And why are civil liberties
more trampled than ever in the United
$tates? It seems that "peace through
strength" could not be more false.
Here is what the Amerikkkan founders
said in the "Federalist Papers," a
collection of essays defending the U.S.
Constitution that conservatives usually
claim to uphold. "The safety of the people
of America against dangers from ITAL
foreign END force depends not only on
their forbearing to give ITAL just END
causes of war to other nations, but also
on their placing and continuing themselves
in such a situation as not to invite hostility
or insult; for it need not be observed that
there are pretended as well as just
causes of war."(3)
The Amerikan reactionaries have
focused on the latter part of the above
statement, the fact that in modern times,
military weakness invites attack. Yet, now
the United $tates is the undisputed military
power of the world and according to the
Bush administration itself, we are in a long
"war on terror."
Logic says that there are now countless
countries--more than 200--that are
easier marks than the United $tates to
attack. That leaves only one conclusion:
that the war Bush says the United $tates
is in is not an opportunist war of
"pretended" cause. Rather it is a war
where the United $tates gave "just causes
of war to other nations."
Whether today's reactionaries know it
or not, that is where their logic leads.
Those are the assumptions behind their
views--that weakness invites opportunist
attacks. Conversely if the United $tates
is strong, we must conclude that the
attacks from much weaker powers that
have much weaker potential targets than
the United $tates have a basis in just
cause. That is part of realism.
Instead of concluding that their thinking
is wrong and their leaders incompetent,
the Amerikkkan redneck votes fear and
fear alone. The "founding fathers"
warned repeatedly on the danger involved
in a permanent military built on the basis
of fear.
"The violent destruction of life and
property incident to war, the continual
effort and alarm attendant on a state of
continual danger, will compel nations the
most attached to liberty to resort for
repose and security to institutions which
have a tendency to destroy their civil and
political rights. To be more safe, they at
length become willing to run the risk of
being less free. The institutions chiefly
alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and
the correspondent appendages of military
establishments."(4)
The "founding fathers" believed
something was wrong if a country could
not summon an army for two years, get
a job done and then disband it. Once a
nation formed and demonstrated its
strength, the "founding fathers" believed
that other nations stood up and took
notice.
The U.$. military is the most powerful
in the world having spent 12 digits a year
for decades at a time. Its existence goes
way beyond what the founders envisioned
for the United $tates. Yet, still there is no
peace.
Long ago it was time to conclude that
our leaders do not have a working plan
for peace, even with the strongest military
in the world at their disposal, not to
mention the world's largest economy.
Rather than surrendering more freedoms
and more money while suffering ever
higher tech atrocities it is time to throw
the dopes out and find leaders who know
how to make peace.
Notes:
1. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/
default.asp?page=stor y_13-12-
2002_pg3_8 ; This is also the impression
of the mainstream Kanadian press. Bush
friend Paul Martin slated to be a future
Prime Minister of Canada says as much,
e.g., 29 Nov 2002, Ottawa Citizen, p. a9.
Others say U.$. military spending is only
more than the next 25 nations combined,
e.g., http://www.globalissues.org/
Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/
842sqqsk.asp In case anyone dares to
question MIM's facts on U.$. imperialism
again, we suggest reading the Weekly
Standard's Max Boot. He admits it all,
dredging up a series of Amerikan
provocations and usurpations from 1945
to 1991. "The reality was a good deal
more sordid. What did containment
entail? It meant support for the Greek
colonels, the Argentine generals, the shah,
Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, and other
unsavory characters who were in `our'
camp. It meant helping to overthrow
rulers, such as Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz
in Guatemala, and Allende in Chile, who
were seen as drifting toward the other
side. It meant major wars against North
Korea and North Vietnam. It meant
invasions of the Dominican Republic and
Grenada. It meant support for anti-
Communist guerrillas in places like Cuba
(the Bay of Pigs), Angola, Nicaragua, and
Afghanistan." Boot only left out that
Allende and Arbenz won elections and
the U.$. imperialists put in a king to replace
the parliamentarian Mossadegh. Boot is
referring to U.$. destruction of
parliamentary democracies in Greece,
Iran, Guatemala and Chile.
3. Federalist Paper #4 by John Jay.
4. Federalist Paper #8 by Alexander
Hamilton.
U$ military budget would have
angered Amerikan `founding fathers'
Iraq and the war will be over. It did not
listen to Bush and now it vacillates
somewhat. The decrease in labor
aristocracy enthusiasm among volunteers
for the military means that the draft is
more likely to follow.
2) The labor aristocracy thinks it can
class struggle against the government for
higher military salaries indefinitely--even
threatening not to fight or support fighting
in Iraq. The imperialists will run much red
ink, but the draft will still come.
Take action!
For anyone aged 18 to 26 or with
children or grand-children that age or
about to become 18, we recommend that
you take action now against the war. It is
much harder to stop the draft after it has
already taken shape and once it takes
shape, the movement will be in better
shape if more people get political
experience now. Anyone can start out the
way the people in Tallahassee did--by
copying some fliers and arranging a honk-
a-thon for people to honk to oppose the
war.
Activists paying attention to Congress
have noted that the draft will have no
college deferments and wimmin will go
this time. Already the federal money is in
motion to set up the draft boards.(4) There
is talk of mandatory "homeland" service
for young people, but MIM finds it more
likely that a small percentage of the 18-
26 age group, maybe even
disproportionately the 18-22 age group will
be called up for war duties in late 2005.
Activists can try to push Kerry and
Bush against the wall during their
presidential campaigns. Feel free to
heckle them if need be to ask the question
whether they support the draft or not.
Currently they believe they have the right
to risk all our lives for their vision of oil
and contractor profits. They are wrong
and you are right. The survival rights of
draft-age people and Iraqis come before
oil, contract profits or even the dubious
"democracy" that Bush is yammering
about.
Notes:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/
poll_militaryfamilies.pdf
2. www.house.gov/hasc/
openingstatementsandpressreleases/
108thcongress/04-03-24stewart.pdf
3. See Bush mention Japan and
Germany and also say the troops will stay
as long as necessary as to bring
"democracy" to Iraq http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html. In
another speech, he said it again, "We must
fight this war until the work is done."
Then he mentioned Germany and Japan
again. "The United States did not run from
Germany and Japan following World War
II. We helped those nations to become
strong and decent, democratic societies
that no longer waged war on America.
And that's our mission in Iraq today."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2003/10/20031009-7.html
4. Some related plans are published
here: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Thanks to Sophie Lapaire.
5. USA Today, 16 Apr 2004.
Continued from previous page...
They believed
something was
wrong if a country
couldn't summon
an army for two
years, get a job
done and then
disband it.
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 6
The sign reads: "Bible Factory Outlet" As long as capitalists can make a profit, they don't care if people are made dumb.
Christian bookstores abound in the Bible Belt of the South and Midwest, but even in cities ranking in the top 100 in size such as
Chatanooga, TN, there is not a single real bookstore to be found, just endless rows of churches.
Amerikan terror schools overlooked
newspapers like the USA Today, where
an internal investigation found that Jack
Kelley fabricated a story about student-
terrorists at a Pakistan madrassa.(4)
MIM has known for a long time that
reporters at major newspapers doing
stories about foreign affairs find it far
easier to confirm and embolden the
imaginations of the Pentagon and State
Department than to figure out what is
actually happening in the world.
Organizations such as the National
Review condemning the madrassas are
complete hypocrites in favoring Christian
schools in the United $tates. That's
obvious. The Crusader bible-thumpers
that constitute about 30% of the U$
population need no explanation. The New
York Times hypocrisy is that it advocates
war on the madrassas without advocating
war on the religious schools and Pentagon
here. It's an example of how the Zionist
agenda (filtered through neo-conservative
intellectuals) dovetails with the bible-
thumper agenda.
After the steady drumbeat for war on
the madrassas, at least the New York
Times also reported the U.$. bombing of
a madrassa.(5) We can say the New York
Times got what it wanted.
There are many colleges in the U$A
where 10 or 20% of the cars in the
parking lot will have Defense Department
clearance. Air Force ROTC itself says it
has detachments in nearly 1000
colleges.(6) We can't help thinking that
Bush sees the war in Afghanistan and
Iraq as partly like a semester abroad
program for rural white youth.
Since the turmoil of the 1960s, an
increasing number of colleges have
become outright extensions of the
Pentagon. Rather than a series of articles
on madrassas, the New York Times
should be directing its attention to how
the government finds war to be the
solution for all problems.
The American revolutionaries who
wrote the Bill of Rights all knew about
the problem of having standing armies.
The most militarist of those revolutionaries
managed to stave off an amendment
banning permanent standing armies.
Hamilton in the Federalist Papers
acknowledged popular opinion at the time
this way: "The people of America may
be said to have derived an hereditary
impression of danger to liberty, from
standing armies in time of peace."
Yet even while holding out for federal
power and the possibility of a standing
army, Hamilton never imagined the
situation today of having a huge military
with a budget bigger than the economy
of most countries year after year.
"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great
community REQUIRE TIME to mature
them for execution. An army, so large as
seriously to menace those liberties, could
only be formed by progressive
augmentations; which would suppose, not
merely a temporary combination between
the legislature and executive, but a
Continued from page 1...
continued conspiracy for a series of time.
Is it probable that such a combination
would exist at all? Is it probable that it
would be persevered in, and transmitted
along through all the successive variations
in a representative body, which biennial
elections would naturally produce in both
houses? Is it presumable, that every man,
the instant he took his seat in the national
Senate or House of Representatives,
would commence a traitor to his
constituents and to his country? Can it be
supposed that there would not be found
one man, discerning enough to detect so
atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest
enough to apprise his constituents of their
danger?"
It's astonishing, but in Hamilton's day
it was very difficult to obtain the funding
and men willing to serve in a standing
army. George Washington had a hard time
of it even in emergency. Today the
economy has advanced and indeed there
has long been an army "so large" as to
have the ability to "menace" "liberties."
Hamilton imagined that before enough
time for the militarists to plan an attack
on liberties had passed, the military would
be dissolved anyway. Hamilton would
have no choice but to conclude that indeed
Congress today has long been full of
"traitors" for their continuous excuses for
funding the military.
What Hamilton understood very well
was that having too many troops in a
country over a long time created pressure
on the economy and public opinion. Even
having too many military veterans in a
society could make that society the kind
of place no one wanted to live in. That's
all written in black and white even by the
most militarist white people of that day,
who would be considered wild-eyed
hippie-anarchist-peaceniks today. There
is no way that the "founding fathers"
could ever imagine that military schools
would penetrate into every nook and
cranny of society in the "United States."
Yet, that's not all. Where there are not
ROTC courses substituting for what
people should be learning in college, there
are religious courses filling in, just as in
madrassas. The difference of course is
that in many Islamic countries, the people
are poor and have no choice in
educational matters other than
madrassas. Here, religion has taken such
a hold that students actually choose to go
to religious colleges. One might well ask
which country is more fanatical, the one
where there is no choice but madrassas
or the one where a large portion of a well-
funded education is madrassas.
Among the goals of the madrassas in
the United $tates is to make people
ignorant of biology. 29% of Amerikans
say they are conservative Protestants,
a.k.a. bible-thumper fodder. The colleges
they support come up with replacements
for teaching evolution in school. One
replacement is "intelligent design,"(7) and
of course they aren't talking space aliens
but god.
The most conservative of the Christian
colleges stress that they have the highest
probability of keeping students born-again
upon graduation. The defection rate from
born-again Christianity is apparently
highest at public schools but also fairly
high at some Catholic and Protestant
schools.(8) We can say that these
evangelical colleges have students self-
selected to be stupid and narrow. There's
no other explanation for why higher
education so tends to eradicate religion.
In March, the federal government told
the state of Montana that the "no child
left behind law" does not require teaching
Darwinian evolution. It left open the door
for "intelligent evolution;" even though
Montana asked if it was required to teach
intelligent evolution. It's amazing this
idiocy goes on and the anti-communists
have the nerve to say Mao politicized
science. They attack Stalin for supporting
Lysenko, who at least was a scientist
good with plants. These Christians in the
United $tates are supporting "god" instead
of biology at a time when the knowledge
of evolution and genetics is much better
than in Stalin's day.
As in China under Mao, the
government in the U$A is making
decisions on what to fund. In the U$A's
case, the wrong decision has been made
to fund teaching of "intelligent design."
On the other hand, there is no way around
the fact that such decisions end up being
made politically. A majority of the U$
public wants to teach children fairy-tales
about the origins of species.(9)
In March, the Ohio Board of Education
voted to allow Christian creationist
teachings to criticize Darwin's theory of
evolution in biology classes. There is an
excellent explanation of the politics behind
that in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.(10)
Theocratic conservatives in Iran's Islamic
Republic, er, at the National Review have
also called for teaching "faith-based"
"science" against Darwin.(11)
One in ten Amerikans attend private
schools. 85% of those students are in
religious schools.(12) There are 7.6
million Catholic school attendees.(13) The
college situation is also bad in the United
$tates. In the years 1990 to 1996, college
enrollments grew fastest in religious
colleges: "Undergraduate enrollments at
religious colleges grew by 11 percent from
1990 to 1996 and continue to climb,
according to the U.S. Department of
MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 7
courage in getting out their newspaper. It
is certainly good news for all progressive
forces and freedom of the press lovers
the world over."(2) Oh yes, they're
saying thank Bush, because now the ICP
can distribute its paper openly in Iraq.
There is no way Bush could find better
lackeys to prove that there is free speech
in Iraq.
Rumsfeld had his favorite Iraqi exile
lackey to bring back to Iraq in the invasion.
The "CP-USA" had its favorite lackeys
to help out Bush. The CP=U$A says,
"Iraqi communists exiled in London are a
vital conduit for accurate information from
inside the country. The party has
established a formidable reputation for
being exceptionally well-informed about
developments inside Iraq, among the
military and security apparatus and among
opposition groups."(3)
Don't be fooled by the CP=U$A
rhetoric about opposing the U$ war. It's
that rhetoric that makes you think the
CP=U$A is no different than MIM. The
ICP sister party of the CP=U$A has one
of only 25 seats in the top Iraqi body of
the occupation regime.
Bush=Bremer=ICP=CPU$A.
There is no factual dispute about this.
Again we quote the CP=U$A: "The ICP
is opposed to the present armed actions.
It estimates that political struggle can end
the occupation and armed struggle cannot.
Those conducting the armed attacks, the
ICP says, consist of Baathists trying to
restore the dictatorship, international
groups the ICP characterizes as `terrorist'
seeking a new reactionary dictatorship,
and criminal elements released from
prison by Saddam."(4) Yes, you read that
right. The CP=U$A and ICP are echoing
the Bush administration to a "t". They
oppose the liberation fight of the Iraqis
together as a united front.
In the same article, the CP=U$A openly
tells you that the U.S. Government put
the ICP in the Governing Council of Iraq:
"the U.S. recognized the council had to
have considerable popular support and at
the last moment gave in to demands to
include the ICP."(4) 25 seats up for grabs
from Uncle $am and Uncle $am reserved
one for "communist" lackeys in Iraq. That
was no elections, no revolution, not even
a coup--just Uncle $am putting someone
in the government.
It's not a surprise to MIM at all. The
CP=U$A and its sister parties
internationally have been serving
imperialism ever since Stalin died. This is
the party that supported Khruschev and
Brezhnev and did not change its tune even
after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They are still denying Mao's thesis that a
bourgeoisie in the party came to power
and restored capitalism! Yet, there is no
explanation of who did restore capitalism
from the CP=U$A. That organization
simply does not care. The leaders are
cynical scum and their followers are as
directionless as jellyfish. They end up
cheerleading for the Amerika-first faction
of Perot, Buchanan, Nader and Kucinich,
because they are not truly for the
international proletariat, just the Amerikan
labor aristocracy's interests, including the
interests of the imperialists in Iraq.
Also supporting the CP=U$A is the
internationally influential phony
communist party called the Workers'
Party in Belgium (PTB). The CP=U$A
is the first party that PTB links to on its
web page for the U$A.(5) The PTB is a
party claiming to uphold Stalin but not
Mao. It provides a lot of camouflage for
the CP=U$A types. Belgians! Demand
that the PTB break with the ICP and
CP=U$A! Shame on the PTB for linking
to the CIA outfit called the CP=U$A!
That's not all, not at all, because there
are a lot more political debates among
those calling themselves communists.
Except for MIM, the other parties calling
themselves communist actually believe
those Amerikan civilians in Iraq are 90%
exploited people, not exploiters profiting
from the misery of Iraqis set up by
Amerikan sanctions and bombing. One
organization even calling itself "Maoist"
lately criticizes us saying that our
approach to Amerikan civilians even
justifies "terrorism."
So you see, dear reader, the so-called
communists do not agree with MIM even
about what class Amerikan people are.
The other so-called communists are
bleeding with sympathy for the Amerikan
contractors in Iraq, many of which turn
out to be "ex-" CIA and special forces,
which is not surprising given what a large
portion of the U$ population has such
links.
Yes, those other so-called communist
organizations actually think that tourism
in Iraq is good for international socialism.
Meanwhile, we at MIM do not think it's
going to come about by sending the
exploited to Iraq as civilians to join up with
the exploited there. That's a pipe dream
of all the other organizations that do not
realize that those civilians there are
profiteering on Iraqi misery.
We call on every honest communist to
condemn and boycott the "CP-USA" until
the Iraqi Communist Party withdraws
from the occupation government and
assists the liberation forces. Every
communist must ask every party where
it stands on the contractors in Iraq. MIM
says they are the enemy of the Iraqi
people and the international proletariat.
It's plain as day, but oddly enough, you
won't find any other "Marxists" inside
U$ borders saying it.
Notes:
1. If you did not hear about this, count
yourself in a cave. Here's one source:
USA Today 01Apr2004, p. 13a.
2. We are quoting from the "CP-
USA"'s own newspaper, People's
Weekly World, April 26, 2003 http://
www.pww.org/article/articleview/3336/1/
159/
3. http://www.pww.org/article/view/
2848/1/135/
4. People's Weekly World February 21,
2004. http://www.pww.org/article/
articleview/4819/1/203/
5. http://www.wpb.be/links.htm
Phony Iraqi Communist Party supports occupation of Iraq
Continued from page 3...
Education. At public schools,
undergraduate enrollments increased by
4 percent during those years. Enrollment
at nonreligious private institutions rose by
5 percent." (14) The most reactionary
group of born-again madrassas
constituting the 104 colleges of the
Council for Christian Colleges and
Universities have enrolled 1% of U.$.
college students and grew 47% in
enrollment in the 1990s.(15)
Notes:
1. http://www.williams.edu/AnthSoc/
wamp-nyt.htm
2. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/
i d e a s / a r t i c l e s / 2 0 0 4 / 0 4 / 0 4 /
rumors_of_jihad/
3. http://www.disinfopedia.org/
wiki.phtml?title=Rumsfeld_Memo_16_October_2003
4. http://www.usatoday.com/news/
nation/2001/09/27/schools.htm
5. http://www.cursor.org/stories/
oldnews.htm
6. http://www.afrotc.com/colleges/ A
list of Army ROTC schools is here: http:/
/www.armyrotc.com/schools/index.htm
7. http://slate.msn.com/
?id=1006213#ContinueArticle
8. www.sbuniv.edu/~khopkins/
WhyStatistics.pdf
9. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/
2004/03/11/news/top/news01.txt
10. http://www.cleveland.com/news/
plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/
107926172824530.xml
11. http://www.nationalreview.com/
comment/west200404010900.asp
12. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/
2001330.pdf
13. www.ncea.org/newinfo/faq/
14. www.freep.com/news/education/
15. From:www.washingtontimes.com/
national/20030908-121538-4058r.htm
Terror schools...
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
$tates, England and France.
Under capitalism, capitalists often
profit from war or its preparations.
Yet, it is the proletariat that does the
dying in the wars. The proletariat
wants a system in which people do not
have self-interest on the side of war-
profiteering or war for imperialism.
Militarism is one of the most
important reasons to overthrow
capitalism. It even infects oppressed
nations and causes them to fight each
other.
It is important not to let capitalists risk
our lives in their ideas about war and
peace or the environment. They have
already had two world wars admitted
by themselves in the last 100 years and
they are conducting a third right now
against the Third World.
Even a one percent annual chance of
nuclear war destruction caused by
capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as
the people call it should not be tolerated
by the proletariat. After playing
Russian Roulette (in which the bullet
chamber is different each time and not
related at all to the one that came up in
previous spins) with 100 chambers and
one bullet, the chance of survival is
only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other
words, a seemingly small one percent
annual chance of world war means
eventual doom. After 100 years or turns
of Russian Roulette, the chances of
survival are only 36.6%. After 200
years, survival has only a 13.4%
chance.
What is militarism?
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 8
By MC12
In 1969, U$ President Nixon proposed
"Vietnamization," which the New York
Times described as "the process whereby
United States forces are to turn over an
increasing share of their part of the war
effort to the South Vietnamese."(1) The
point was to leave behind a puppet
government with a surrogate army of
locals to do the fighting and dying --
always the dream of colonialists, who
want the profits and power they get from
occupying foreign countries without
having to shed their own cowardly blood
for it.
That is the goal in Iraq, too, of course.
But one problem for Amerika is there is
no government to even nominally take
over when the "transfer of sovereignty"
takes place. In both cases, it is important
to note, the Amerikan plan was not to
leave or give up control, just shift the
burden of the war to local surrogates. A
study by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in 1970 reported that "a
substantial American involvement would
still be required in South Vietnam" if the
policy was to succeed.(2)
The paternalistic, colonial mentality that
prevails in the rhetoric about Iraq was
also apparent in Vietnam. Nixon described
"Vietnamization" as a sort of therapy for
the over-generous or overzealous
Amerikan personality. He said on Nov.
3, 1969: "We Americans are a do-it-
yourself people -- we're an impatient
people. Instead of teaching someone else
to do a job, we like to do it ourselves.
And this trait has been carried over into
our foreign policy." Instead of following
this altruistic impulse, however, Nixon said
Amerika should transfer the responsibility
to the Vietnamese, so the poor, dependent
colonial subjects could learn to help
themselves. He said, "The defense of
freedom is everybody's business -- not
just America's business. And it is
particularly the responsibility of the people
whose freedom is threatened. . . . Under
the new orders, the primary mission of
our troops is to enable the South
Vietnamese to assume the full
responsibility for the security of South
Vietnam."(NYT 11/4/69, p. 16.)
When you consider Amerikan optimism
about Iraq, it's good to go back and look
at what the propagandists said about
Vietnam. The New York Times
editorialized in, 1969: "Most military men
agree that that South Vietnamese can be
prepared to take over all but helicopter
operations -- with, perhaps, some
Sham `transfer of power' in Iraq: deja vu all over again
American logistical and continuing air
support -- in less than eighteen
months."(NYT July 28, 1969, p. 30.) In
Vietnam, of course, the strategy was a
dismal failure, as the Vietnamese went
on to defeat Amerika in a rout by 1975.
The situation in Iraq is different than
Vietnam. But some things seem not to
have changed, especially Amerikan
line. Unilateral U$ intervention was a
mistake and created all the violence
we're now seeing in Iraq, they say, but
getting out will only make things worse.
This stubborn ignorance shows that
even Amerika's self-styled "best and
brightest" have no clue what it will take
to eliminate the threat of weapons of
mass destruction and end war. They
cannot connect the obvious dots:
Amerikan meddling in Afghanistan 25
years ago led to the World Trade Center
Bombings; Amerikan support for Saddam
Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war
backfired when he got too big for his
britches (as happened with numerous
other puppets like Noriega); etc. They are
surprised and outraged that "they" (the
oppressed masses) hate "us" (parasitical
Amerikans), while overlooking Amerikan
support for repressive regimes in the
name of Amerikan profit. They don't
understand that their ham-handed,
repressive response to "terrorism" will
only create more "terrorists." That's all
it's ever done in the past.
Furthermore, by their own reasoning,
the fact that they didn't "move heaven
and earth" (as President Bush would say)
to stop the invasion indicts them. If
Amerikans and the rest of the world are
now less safe than before the invasion,
as these Democratic "critics" argue, why
were they content to wait in the wings
and trade power with the Republicans and
the more militarist Democrats? Peace-
loving Amerikans need to break with
Is Iraq the new Vietnam?
these learned fools and their pragmatist
electoral dogma.
Then there those who fake left to run
right. These folks appear to agree with
MIM that U$ intervention in Vietnam was
unjust and doomed to failure. But then
these slimy pundits say, "No, Iraq is not
at all like Vietnam," and parrot the Bush
line as justification. Vietnamese
resistance to Amerikan intervention was
broad and just (or at least understandable)
on nationalist grounds, but the resistance
fighters in Iraq are isolated, they say, and
just a bunch of "riffraff." Diem was a
puppet and a boob, but Ahmed Chalabi is
a true Iraqi nationalist and clever
leader.(1) These smartasses play an
important role building support for U$
imperialism: undermine and confuse
opposition to the war while providing the
Amerikan warmongers an
"humanitarian" façade. It's a role they
play with gusto.
So what are some of the similarities that
MIM sees between Iraq and Vietnam?
1. They are both imperialist wars of
aggression, launched under the cover of
"liberating" an oppressed people or
"keeping the peace." The stated reasons
for the recent Iraq ground invasion keep
changing, as each is debunked in turn.
First it was weapons of mass destruction;
then it was the well being of the Iraqi
people; now it's combating "terrorism."
But as soon as Bush, Cheney, Pearle and
Wolfowitz started shooting their mouths
off after 911, MIM warned that the
imperialists' own system was driving them
to war in Iraq, and they were looking for
a handy justification. The Amerikans'
push to retain and expand control of
middle-eastern oil was one of the deeper
reasons for the war. In particular, the
United $tates wanted a puppet regime
that would act as a permanent U$ military
base in the region, to replace politically
sensitive bases in Saudi Arabia.
For that matter, Iraq isn't the "new"
Vietnam; it's the latest. Since the end of
the Vietnam War the United $tates has
waged war covertly or overtly against
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Libya,
Panama, and Afghanistan, to name a few.
These wars are all battles in the ongoing
World War III between the imperialists
and the oppressed nations.
2. As a corollary to 1, the peoples of
Iraq have an interest in uniting to kick out
the Amerikans on the grounds of national
self-determination, just as the Vietnamese
did. The Amerikans' claims that they are
bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq
are a bad joke, coming on the heels of
reports that Amerikan soldiers are
shutting down newspapers, firing on
demonstrators, and bombing mosques.
Furthermore, as we note in this issue's
article on the impending draft, "Economic
reality says that [Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis and
Shiites] will be better off sharing their
resources among themselves rather than
among themselves and the
Amerikkkans."
3. As in Vietnam, the reactionaries have
serious illusions about their own strength
(which they overestimate), popular
support for their puppet regime (close to
nil), and the nature of the resistance
(which is not limited to a few "thugs," as
arrogance and over-confidence, the
colonial/imperialist mentality, and the drive
to conquer Third World countries to try
to keep the empire alive.
Notes:
1. New York Times, 16 Nov 1969, p. 2.
2. New York Times, 2 Feb 1970, p. 1.
President Richard Nixon had it all figured out. Wrong.
Continued from page 1...
Continued on next page...
Peace-loving Amerikans need to break
with these learned fools and their
pragmatist electoral dogma.
MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 9
get a rush like we get from Guns N'Roses
but some other way? Again, for those
conquering subjectivism and preparing the
all-round dictatorship of the proletariat,
the answer is "yes." We don't think it's
necessary that music have that sick
component, so we're for revolutionizing
it.
Leon Trotsky said some good and bad
things about art, but the bad things were
mostly a concession to Liberalism and that
is how Trotsky is known relative to Stalin
and Mao. Trotsky did say this: "During
the period of revolution, only that literature
which promotes the consolidation of the
workers in their struggle against the
exploiters is necessary and progressive.
Revolutionary literature cannot but be
imbued with a spirit of social hatred, which
is a creative historic factor in an epoch
of proletarian dictatorship."(1) MIM is
OK with that line from Trotsky, but we
will note that he says revolutionary art is
necessary and progressive, but he does
not say the dictatorship of the proletariat
is going to attack and ban reactionary art.
Then weaving in the concept of the
party as the dictatorship of the proletariat
the way Rosa Luxemburg did against
Lenin, Trotsky said: "Art must make its
own way and by its own means. The
Marxian methods are not the same as the
artistic. The party leads the proletariat but
not the historic processes of history. There
are domains in which the party leads,
directly and imperatively. There are
domains in which it only cooperates.
There are, finally, domains in which it only
orients itself. The domain of art is not one
in which the party is called upon to
command."(1)
Later, Trotsky would develop this line
further to its logical conclusion and
oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat
as "totalitarian." "No less ruinous is the
effect of the `totalitarian' regime upon
artistic literature. The struggle of
tendencies and schools has been replaced
by interpretation of the will of the leaders.
There has been created for all groups a
general compulsory organization, a kind
of concentration camp of artistic
literature."(2) The Cold War machine
picked up and echoed every Trotsky
criticism supporting subjectivism.
In his same major work Trotsky said
about Stalin: "In the process of struggle
against the party Opposition, the literary
schools were strangled one after the
other. It was not only a question of
literature, either. The process of
extermination took place in all ideological
spheres, and it took place more decisively
since it was more than half unconscious.
The present ruling stratum considers itself
called not only to control spiritual creation
politically, but also to prescribe its roads
of development. The method of
command- without-appeal extends in like
measure to the concentration camps, to
scientific agriculture and to music. The
central organ of the party prints
anonymous directive editorials, having the
character of military orders, in
architecture, literature, dramatic art, the
ballet, to say nothing of philosophy, natural
science and history."(2)
Trotskyists of our day continue the
theme that art and politics are separate,
that barbarians fail to recognize why
artistic subjectivity cannot be subject to
the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bob
Avakian said for example, "art plays a
crucial role in precisely this--the forging
of new outlooks. This is true whether the
subject matter of art is explicitly political
or not.
"It is not difficult to understand why
there has been a historic tendency among
Marxists to confound art with politics per
se, and particularly with political agitation
and propaganda."(3) So here Avakian
defends art that is not explicitly political
and creates the space for art for its own
sake, and seeing art as apart from politics
as Avakian's ideological ancestor Trotsky
did. Art is not agitation, but the substance
of artistic skill itself is subject to an all-
round dictatorship of the proletariat.
Otherwise the bourgeoisie will rule.
What all Liberalism including
Trotskyism has in common is the common
attack that we Marxist scientists missed
the point. For them, it's what people "like"
or "don't like" and supposedly us square
and retro communist scientists don't get
it-- even when the MIM reviewer admits
to liking Guns N'Roses. Resistance to
MIM's music line is reminiscent of the
same pseudo-rebellion by teenage
wannabe smokers.
When we tell the Liberals there has to
be a party or body of scientists deciding
what is good or bad for society in terms
of art and music, they say, "who are you
to decide?" We should throw back in their
face, "who are you to decide that mega-
corporations should decide?" The whole
question of "totalitarianism" is based on
an illusion that someone is not deciding
currently.
Our critics' approach denies that in
science, someone always does decide. For
that matter, Einstein's theory of relativity
is not up for a vote based on what people
"like." In economics, these same
subjectivist people are apt to believe that
they are really making individual decisions
under capitalism when in reality it's the
boardrooms of corporations, the Pentagon
and the White House making the major
decisions and letting individuals pick within
their boundaries.
Preparing for the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat
Combating subjectivism in all arenas
Continued from page 3...
they claim). These reactionaries have
started to believe their own press
releases--in part because of everyday
bourgeois corruption and careerism (the
bosses like it if you tell them what they
want to hear). Those who avoid this
mistake still do not grasp the deeper issues
and merely quibble over tactics--witness
those Democratic "critics" who are now
among the most militant in calling for more
imperialist troops in Iraq.
4. The Amerikan media serves as a
mouthpiece for the Amerikan
government. Contrary to the myth
created by the "stab-in-the-back"
militarists, the Amerikan media was not
critical of Amerikan involvement in
Vietnam in the early sixties and largely
served to re-issue Kennedy administration
press releases. Even after some reporters
in Vietnam could no longer stomach the
obvious disconnect between
Washington's statements and reality in the
field, they did not question the underlying
rationale for the war (e.g. "South
Vietnam" was a viable "nation").
The situation is even worse today, as
fewer Amerikan media companies invest
in international correspondents. Most of
those in Iraq now fly in for a few weeks
on Pentagon-sponsored junkets and live
in the "green zone" or are "embedded"
with Amerikan troops. Few muster the
courage to ask even the obvious
questions.(2)
We agree with Howard Zinn's
observation: "I think the press has been
shamefully negligent in not asking
fundamental questions.... They will ask,
`Did Iraq have weapons of mass
destruction?' They will not ask, `Well,
what if Iraq did have weapons of mass
destruction, would we be justified in going
in and invading another country, because
they, among many, many other countries
in the world have weapons of mass
destruction?' Or you'll find the press
saying, `It was wrong because we had to
do it alone.' You mean if we had allies in
a war that was fundamentally immoral
and illegal that would legitimatize it? So
I'm finding a similarity [between Iraq and
Vietnam] in the basic lack of analysis and
lack of fundamental questioning that is
going on in the media."(3)
The biggest difference between
Vietnam and Iraq is in the subjective
forces. The Vietnamese revolutionaries
were greatly influenced by Maoism,
especially as it applied to the class
struggle within Vietnam (peasants against
landlords, comprador capitalists and
corrupt puppet politicians) and military
theory (protracted people's war). The
Vietnamese also had decades of hard-
won experience fighting guerrilla wars
against imperialist invaders, from the
Japanese to the French to the Amerikans.
The Iraqi fighters are quickly gaining such
military experience; this difference will
disappear with time. If the Iraqi resistance
fighters go on to take up proletarian
internationalism and thus strengthen the
unity of the oppressed peoples of Iraq--
then the imperialists will really be forced
to take increasingly desperate measures.
Peace-loving Amerikans must take
action now--by organizing to stop the
draft before it starts, by organizing to stop
Patriot-Act style measures, by organizing
in support of oppressed peoples fighting
for their self-determination--to try and
avoid a disastrous escalation of imperialist
war later.
Notes:
1. See e.g. Hitchens' comments in the
Boston Phoenix's cover story of April 16.
2. We mention one small exception.
During a recent press briefing in Iraq, an
Amerikan general praised the occupation
regime for fostering a free press and
chided Amerikan journalists for not
visiting Fallujah to get the "real story." A
journalist responded by asking the general
why Amerikans had not let him into
Fallujah, although he had been asking for
days. Nobody asked the general to
comment on the occupation regime
shutting down Iraqi newspapers, however.
3. Boston Phoenix 16 April 2004.
Is Iraq the new Vietnam?
Continued from previous page...
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · 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
Join the fight against
the injustice system
While we fight to end the criminal
injustice system MIM engages in
reformist battles to improve the lives
of prisoners. Below are some of the
campaigns we are currently waging,
and ways people behind the bars and
on the outside can get involved. More
info can be found on our prison web
site: http://www.etext.org/Politics/
MIM/agitation/prisons
Stop Censorship in Prison: Prisons
frequently censor books, newspapers
and magazines coming from MIM's
books for prisoners program. We need
help from lawyers, paralegals and
jailhouse lawyers to fight this
censorship.
Books for Prisoners: This program
focuses on political education of
prisoners. Send donations of books and
money for our Books for Prisoners
program.
End the Three Strikes laws: This
campaign is actively fighting the
repressive California laws, but similar
laws exist in other states. Write to us
to request a petition to collect
signatures. Send articles and
information on three strike laws.
Shut Down the Control Units: Across
the country there are a growing number
of prison control units. These are
permanently designated prisons or cells
in prisons that lock prisoners up in
solitary or small group confinement for
22 or more hours a day with no
congregate dining, exercise or other
services, and virtually no programs for
prisoners. Prisoners are placed in
control units for extended periods of
time. These units cause both mental and
physical problems for prisoners.
Write to us to request a petition to
collect signatures. Get your
organization to sign the statement
demanding control units be shut down.
Send us information about where there
are control units in your state. Include
the names of the prisons as well as the
number of control unit beds/cells in
each prison if that is known. Send us
anti-control unit artwork.
MIM's Re-Lease on Life Program:
This program provides support for our
comrades who have been recently
released from the prison system, to help
them meet their basic needs and also
continue with their revolutionary
organizing on the outside. We need
funds, housing, and job resources. We
also need prisoner's input on the
following survey questions:
1. What are the biggest challenges
you face being released from prison?
2. How can these problems be
addressed?
3. What are the important elements
of a successful release program?
Lifers in NY want
Good Time
Greeting Comrades!
I am a prisoner in the state of NY doing 25
years to life. I've been involved in a few lifers
programs here in the facility and one of our main
goals is fighting for good time for lifers. It seems
like we are not getting too much support from
organizations around the world. I'm asking why,
if we are part of the struggle, that is going on?
I read your (MIM) forms you sent out talking
about what your organization is about and I'm
feeling what you're fighting. I am also a great
admirer of communism and also feel that it would
be a way better life for our people to live.
[I] would love to help your organization in any
way I can. I have no money or stamps right now
to donate. Right now I am in the SHU for 15
months. I'm sorry.
Power to the people,
--a New York Prisoner, March 2004
Family contact in NY
This facility has just enforced an unconstitutional
(8th, 14th Amendments) policy. This facility does
not allow prisoners to hold their children during
the visiting hours. This policy is in direct violation
of the Directives. Due to your organizations
concern for prisoners, I only ask for a simple
solution.
Can you please call this number and express
your complaint that the policy being enforced by
the staff at Great Meadow Correctional Facility is
unconstitutional and in violation of Directives.
Phone: (518) 457-1993 - this is the number for
visiting room related Complaints.
This type of action should not be tolerated, it's
a further form of breaking bondage with family,
slave trade tactics!
--a New York Prisoner, March 2004
Help Build Prisoner
Re-Lease on Life
Regarding the Serve the People Prisoner Re-
Lease on Life Program; I believe that what is most
important is providing ways for ex-prisoners to
meet their basic needs -- food, clothes and shelter,
and these things can be obtained through being
gainfully employed. No man (or woman) wants a
hand- out, so by helping to provide ex-prisoners
with employment, they will not only be able to
provide for themselves, but also they will feel
more independent, raising his/her sense of self-
worth (self-esteem), rendering them more
productive, and a greater asset in the struggle.
Keeping ex- prisoners involved in the struggle
should prove to be an easy matter.
Anyone who has been in prison, and once
released, turns their back on the struggle, was not
really conscious regarding revolutionary struggle
from the beginning, but was only involved in such
activities in order to pass time. I don't believe that
a person in this imperialist country can be more
oppressed than its prisoners. Once aware of true/
correct revolutionary ideology and theory
(Marxism-Leninism-Maoism), and they are given
stable avenue in which to practice those ideologies
and theories (actually BE revolutionaries and not
merely ideological strugglers), then I'm confident
that they will not only stay involved once released
from prison, but will prove to be valuable assets.
With the Re-Lease on Life Program, MIM will
establish a sense of legitimacy in the eyes of ex-
prisoners because they will see that MIM is
walking the talk and that they are really here to
support the people. Revolution in and of itself is
illegal, so there's no way to keep a revolutionary
out of trouble, but keeping them out of non-
revolutionary situations entails continuously
raising their level of consciousness and directing
that energy towards revolutionary goals through
study groups, workshops, MIM volunteer work,
assisting USW leaders, etc.!
--A New York Prisoner, April 2004
On the "Serve the People Prisoner Re-Lease on
Life Program" you asked me for input on "How to
provide for people when they get out to keep
them out of trouble & involved in the struggle?"
Well, my Bro & Sis, coming from a brother who's
been here multiple times, the biggest worry &
downer for people coming home is, where they
gonna live? As we speak we have a comrade about
to go home in 2 days. A GOOD brother who's
been striving to stay clean and involved in positive
organizing. He doesn't know where he's going to
live and the stress has gotten to him severely. The
system won't help him cuz he's maxing out (no
parole) so he's assed out. His first steps are to go
get drugs to sell to provide for himself a place to
stay, second to get high to get his mind of the
problem, BOOM, then what, he's back to his old
cycle. We all have a common understanding that
this capitalist system is exploiting our people in
many ways, prison is ONE. I hate to say it, but
the system has his deck set up to lose and come
back to get them more money.
What do we do to break the cycle is the question?
We need to set up housing, temporary housing for
Bro & Sis. just coming out of jail, that will show
we don't just talk about giving back to our
community be we doing it! And a comrade sees
that Love, it will encourage him/her to show love
to the next. We must first revolutionize the way
we live as a community before we revolutionize
the existing order of things. Second, to get them
out of the temp housing they need a job to provide
4 his/her self. A job placement program, we find
the jobs, teach them bro/sis how to talk in an
interview, help them with resumes and
transportation. Through all of this process is where
you encourage the comrades to get involved in the
struggle, you don't ever want to force feed
someone cuz it will backfire. We need people who
do this from the heart, not cuz they obligated.
Well my Bro & Sis, I close this letter for now until
the next time.
Revolutionary Greeting to all,
--a New York Prisoner, April 2004
MIM responds: As our readers can see, the
need for the Re-Lease on Life program is great. We
are currently soliciting resources in the forms of
housing and job opportunities. We are also exploring
different options for providing treatment for
addictions and planning ways to immerse comrades
in the struggle upon their release. This is
particularly urgent in NY and CA, but wherever
you live there are prisons nearby and there is the
need for such a program. Get in touch with MIM
to begin building it.
Walls of Destruction
Take off your shoes, socks, and shirt. Now take
off your boxers. Squat, spread your cheeks and
cough. Again, cough. Louder!
Imagine that, but it's security, or is that the
abuse of authority? Okay, now let's walk in and
see Corcoran-SHU. Wait, listen--did you hear
that? "Ahh! I can't take this anymore! Why!
Why!" Don't worry about him, he's a killer or
he's serving life for stealing only because it's the
Three Strike Law. It's understandable, it just
"makes society safer." He's just a low life, he has
no education, he's a drug addict. Just another
criminal off the streets or is he a perpetrator? That's
what the news says, doesn't it? No, let me tell
you who that person is. He's a J-Cat, a term used
by inmates but deriving from prison psychologists.
It means Category J, which is an inmate who's
normal mind state has deteriorated from stress,
anxiety, misery, psychological disorders, all due
to external influences.
This place is called the Department of
"Corrections." I wonder how a place can drive a
man insane when it's supposed to correct him.
Here's the government's all time favorite word:
rehabilitation. But once again, how can such a place
MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · 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.
do such dehumanizing things to people? This place
is not for rehabilitation but for psychologically
destroying the minds of the people it holds captive.
The people in here lose their normal state of
mind. It becomes so weak that whatever the guards
wish is their command. Prisoners not only tell on
inmates in hopes of their time being shortened,
but they also tell lies which will satisfy the guards
assumptions of the living functions in prison. How
can that possibly be rehabilitation? People are so
blind to see it. They think these places help society,
but in reality, it's psychological torture. It makes
strong men so weak that they are, in reality,
mentally crawling on the floor, begging for a taste
of that sweet apple pie that is on the outside world
and they are willing to do what it takes to taste the
pie.
I am a person who believes that for every action
comes a reaction and that every unjust crime should
have a punishment. While I do believe that it should
be imprisonment, there should be treatment and
training with true correction and not just all
education and training either a few or none and all.
To top it all off, after serving time and supposedly
paying dues to society, prisoners lose their right
to bear arms but we're still supposedly a threat to
society. Or better yet, we gave up our rights. If a
place which didn't breed hatred, anger, and pain
instead gave righteous programs to us, programs
guaranteeing jobs with good surviving pay then
we would have no reason to rob, steal, or even kill.
-- A California Prisoner, April 2004
California moves to
take away appliances
On December 30, 2003, the California
Department of Corrections (CDC) issued an
amendment to several sections of Title 15 of
California Code of Regulations to incorporate into
the directors' rules of provisions regarding
prisoners statewide vender packages program with
the intentions of implementing immediately. One
of the sections of Title 15 to be amended is Section
3044(9)(4)(G). What Sacramento is attempting to
do is take all appliances (radios and televisions)
from all SHU prisoners. Sacramento's justification
for this attempt is to comply with Governor
Terminator's budget cuts which, you can be sure,
us prisoners will be the first to experience.
According to the CDC's fiscal impact
statement, taking our appliances will supposedly
save the state nearly $2 million. Although how
this is supposed to save the state nearly $2 million
was unexplained. I think what's really being stated
through their unscientific fiscal impact statement
is that by taking our televisions and radios, this
will be one of the many methods of insuring the
continuance of the overpayment of these prison
guards and prisoncrats at our expense. And we all
know too well when many of these SHU prisoners
are released to general population and order another
radio or television, the CDC will be more than
happy to collect another 10% of inmate welfare
fund from the prisoners as well as its usual kickback
from the state prison's chosen vendor.
Past experiences with the CDC's tactics of
taking away our once hard earned and fought for
rights clearly demonstrate to us that similar stunts
as this one are usually not implemented at one
time but are generally implemented here and there,
slowly, with the purpose of avoiding mass
resistance. Unfortunately and quite shamefully to
us prisoners, this tactic of theirs has proven very
effective. Should this proposal concerning our
televisions and radios be implemented, it is most
likely, although not certainly, that they'll begin
their confiscation campaign with the SHU facilities
furthest South and work their way North.
That is, if we let them.
On March 5, 2004, which has come and past,
the CDC's Regulation and Policy Management
Branch held a public hearing regarding suggestions,
complains, etc., pertaining to this proposal. What
came of this is uncertain as of the present time.
Any complaints or a copy of the proposal can
be obtained from:
Rick Grenz, Chief
Regulation and Policy Management Branch
(RPMB)
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
Through a united struggle from within, this can
be prevented.
-- A California Prisoner, March 14, 2004
Censorship Victory
I wish I could have responded sooner but my
struggle against censorship has meant sly threats,
appeals forms disappearing, and withholding my
mail. In September, you sent me a 60-page print
out of Mao and Lenin's stand on property and
state but I was only given 20 pages. The other 40
pages I either had to send home, back to you, or
destroy and since I am indigent, I had no choice
but to let these pigs get away with this injustice.
Suffice to say, I took it to Sacramento where
my appeal was granted for once. Then, all of a
sudden, I was being moved to different blocks. I'd
be in one building for a period of 3 to 5 days, then
be told to pack all of my stuff because I was going
to another building. So I filed another appeal for
harassment and retaliation, plus cruel and unusual
punishment. The moves have stopped. The pigs
are not fucking with me at all! It seems like a
dream but I know as soon as they get a chance,
they will turn a dream into a nightmare.
-- A California Prisoner, February 2004
Let us be honest with ourselves. We don't
actually believe we're American. Though some
value their U.S. citizenship, we are not the true
beneficiaries of America's empire. If we were actual
Americans, we would see ourselves reflected in
the movers and shakers of this society. The fact
that we don't unveils our second class status. In
truth, we are only allowed to subsist so long as we
remain fragmented, indoctrinated and conform.
One place where we do see ourselves reflected
is in the prison industrial complex. Let us be
courageous and face this reality, then begin to
investigate why the numbers of the internal
colonies continue to grow in these oppressive
institutions. We need to reevaluate those reasons
that perpetuate our current oppression which will
require us to reexamine the entire effect of the
justice system, from the legality of the institutions
that enforce laws to the definition of crime.
This should inevitably bring us to the realization
that we live under imperialistic conditions. Like
all imperialist societies, do not doubt that white
America's primary interest is to ensure its mental
and material domination over its internal colonies.
One way this is effectively accomplished in our
time is by the "prison industrial complex" (PIC)
which is directly derived from the "reservational
military complex." Both are off shoots of the
justice system.
Let us finally admit that the justice system is
not designed to counter crime. One analyst
accurately described the justice system as operating
with a policy of "Pyrrhic defeat," a term that
derives from an academic study of Pyrrhic victory,
"a victory in one battle that cripples the winning
army to such a degree that it cannot win the war .
. . It loses against its professed targets but yields
such benefits to those in power that it amounts to
success." The fact is, the justice system does not
want to eradicate crime because of the larger
benefits of national oppression. If the justice
system did want to reduce crime, it would simply
do those things that actually amount to reduction
like cure poverty, provide adequate education,
decriminalize drugs, etc. So if we can infer that the
main function of the justice system is not to reduce
crime, then its only serviceable purpose must be
to perpetuate itself and imperialism as each is
dependent on the other.
Imperialism cannot exist without the
maintenance of a massive PIC to serve as an
effective deterrent against opposition. (I.e., prisons
serve to disenfranchise, marginalize, intimidate,
and terrorize its internal colonies and opponents
or potential opponents.) And the PIC can not exist
without imperialism which only flourishes by way
of exploitation, oppression, neo- colonialism,
classism and racism.
From their imperialistic viewpoint, the justice
system and PIC have indeed accomplished their
goals. First, they established a system that would
disadvantage their internal colonies to such a degree
that they are unable to completely compete.
Secondly, they created an industry (the PIC) that
would be self-sustaining.
Here in California, the state opposes and defines
other forms of nationalism, be it Mexican, Indian,
African and/or socialism as criminal or terrorist to
justify the prevalence of its PIC. In this way, the
PIC serves to "legitimately" exterminate any
independent progressive political or economic
development of its internal colonies. This becomes
an undeniable fact when we recognize that prisons
are efficient tools of division. Prisons serve to
remove certain segments of society, to sever
families, to subdivide ethnicities and to marginalize
classes.
When we look at the racial make up of prisoners,
it becomes apparent that prisons are the means by
which imperialism warehouses, exploits and
oppresses its internal colonies and the poor. Thus,
from a functionary analysis, we can conclude that
prisons play a fundamental part in America's
imperialistic policy and this policy is legitimately
achieved by laws.
We must admit that every facet of law and its
enforcement is about protecting white national
interest. Therefore, laws are the tools for socio-
economic and political domination of one class/
nation over another class/nation. This becomes
particularly true when we acknowledge the
arbitrary selective application of defined notions
of criminality.
Crime is a term used to describe actions that
defeat the ruling classes' power and influence. (As
America is not per se opposed to certain acts,
only whom and what those acts are against.) It is
no secret that most crime results from the grossly
disproportionate distribution of means and
material. That is, most crime develops under
specific conditions, not due to a frame of mind but
due to material conditions that give rise to a frame
of mind. Indeed, economic disparity is the
causation of social divisions called "classes" and
any aggressive activity, economically motivated
by the impoverished classes can be interpreted as
"reactionary" against oppression via imperialism.
So it is not by coincidence but by design that the
internal colonies and impoverished classes are
categorized as criminal. Just as it was criminal to
be Indian under the "reservational military
complex," the state continues to label those it
considers undesirable as criminal. Only now,
imperialism cannot be so blatantly discriminatory
so it utilizes weaknesses in our communities, like
poverty, to maintain its authority.
We can concede society from an economic
perspective that where imperialism creates
industry (PIC), the primary objective for that
industry is growth. As the middle class and labor
aristocracy clamor for more police, laws and
prisons, that growth is occurring before our very
eyes. Leaving the internal colonies and the
impoverished classes faced with a prison pandemic
which can only be countered by a massive education
campaign and a united bloc.
We need to shed this passive second class status
and gloriously arise to face the sun. If we're burnt
at first, it is because we have been bowed for too
long!
-- A California Prisoner, March 2004
Prison industrial complex and imperialism
MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 12
Notas Rojas
mayo 1, 2004, Nº 301 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista
Gratis
12 de Diciembre
Activistas latinos sostuvieron un boicot
en todo el estado de California para protestar
la decisión tomada por el gobernador Arnold
Schwarzenegger el 3 de diciembre de revocar
la ley de licencias de conducir que hubiera
otorgado el derecho de conducir a los
llamados inmigrantes ilegales. Iniciado con la
intención de demostrar el poder económico
de los latinos en California, el boicot que sólo
duró un día, se convirtió en una huelga
económica en la que los latinos del estado se
quedaron en casa en vez de ir al trabajo o al
colegio, y se negaron a ir de compras.
Una tercera parte de la población
californiana es latina y las industrias del
estado cuentan con la mano de obra latina,
cuya contribución a la fuerza trabajadora
asciende a un 45%, sobre todo en trabajos
pesados y de poco pago que otra gente no
quiere. De las nacionalidades latinas en
California, los mexicanos constituyen la
mayoría abrumadora-- un 80% según los
resultados del censo del 2000. (1) Comparada
demográficamente, esta huelga fue
compuesta en su mayoría por líderes y
participantes mexicanos, poniendo en
evidencia el nacionalismo mexicano
acompañado de banderas mexicanas volando
al viento en las protestas y en las calles del
estado.
Los colegios en distritos densamente
poblados por latinos reportaron una dramática
ausencia de estudiantes; algunos negocios
cerraron sus puertas en solidaridad con la
acción, y muchas calles llenas de tiendas
carecían de consumidores. El periódico
Fresno Bee reportó que la ausencia en el
condado de Fresno costó a los distritos
escolares aproximadamente 500,000 dólares.
Es difícil acertar el impacto económico sobre
las tiendas, pero juzgando por la ausencia de
estudiantes en colegios públicos a través del
estado, la participación en el boicot aparenta
ser extensa. Varios negocios entrevistados
por principales medios de comunicación
cerraron sus tiendas debido a su
reconocimiento de la contribución por parte
de la mano de obra barata de los inmigrantes
a sus ganancias monetarias. La pérdida
económica a causa de un solo día del paro,
aunque sea durante una temporada festiva,
no es nada comparada con las posibles
pérdidas a las que se enfrentarían los negocios
si perdieran sus trabajadores. Esta decisión
sin duda alguna también fue impulsada por el
punto de vista práctico de algunas compañías
que sabían que la mayoría de sus trabajadores
planeaban apoyar el boicot faltando al
trabajo.
Las demostraciones que tuvieron lugar a
través del estado, fueron formadas por grupos
de huelguistas latinos y algunas personas de
origen no latino que se unieron en
solidaridad. En pueblos con un gran número
de habitantes latinos como Fresno y Santa
Rosa cientos de protestantes salieron a las
calles. En Sacramento, enfrente de la casa del
estado, cientos de protestantes latinos
hicieron poco caso a la lluvia para unirse a la
lucha. El llamativo grupo recibió mucho
respaldo por parte de carros que pitaban en
apoyo de los carteles escritos pidiendo
licencias de manejo y derechos iguales a los
inmigrantes latinos.
La gran mayoría de participantes en las
demostraciones públicas fueron personas
mexicanas, siendo algunas de ellas residentes
legales y otras ilegales. La frontera imperialista
entre U.$. y México refuerza el robo de latierra
mexicana por parte de EE.UU. y mantiene a la
gente en México, y en todos los países de
América Latina, en pobreza convirtiéndola en
un blanco perfecto para la explotación. La
llamada inmigración ilegal provee al estado
de California con la mano de obra barata que
se utiliza en los campos y en otros trabajos
mal pagados y destructivos para la salud
física que los americanos blancos no quieren.
Al mismo tiempo, corporaciones americanas
tienen la libertad de poner fábricas al otro
lado de la frontera y mantener sueldos bajos,
porque los trabajadores mexicanos no pueden
cruzar la frontera para competir por los
mismos trabajos con ciudadanos americanos.
El MIM respalda dicha huelga económica
siendo ésta un ejemplo de una lucha obrera
correcta en contra de la explotación que es
parte de una larga lucha de liberación nacional.
EE.UU. es el país que está ocupando
ilegalmente las tierras mexicanas; los
americanos son los inmigrantes ilegales que
masacraron a poblaciones indígenas para
robarles su territorio. La lucha por el derecho
a licencias de conducir es sólo una pequeña
batalla en una larga pelea por una abolición
de fronteras imperialistas y una liberación
nacional de los pueblos oprimidos del mundo.
Convocado por la Asociación Política
México-Americana con su base en Los
Ángeles, el boicot no obtuvo ningún respaldo
por parte de sindicatos laborales. Es posible
que, dado el corto plazo de la convocatoria,
los organizadores de la protesta no hayan
solicitado ayuda sindical. Pero no nos
sorprende el hecho de que los sindicatos no
hayan sido representados en las
demostraciones dominadas por la presencia
de inmigrantes mexicanos. Los sindicatos
americanos tienen una larga historia de
oposición a los trabajadores inmigrantes y
de organización por los derechos de
trabajadores blancos en detrimento de las
naciones oprimidas. Los sindicatos
americanos respaldan el cierre de las fronteras
por miedo a perder puestos de trabajo que
pueden pasar a manos de inmigrantes o
pueden ser transferidos a otros países. Dichos
sindicatos luchan para mantener el alto nivel
de vida del que disfrutan los ciudadanos de
este país a costa de los países del tercer
mundo. Los trabajadores del tercer mundo
son explotados por corporaciones americanas
que traen las ganancias a casa y las
comparten con los trabajadores americanos
en forma de sueldos más altos y beneficios.
Los inmigrantes ilegales dentro de las
fronteras americanas se enfrentan a semejante
explotación.
Manifestantes del
Alojamiento de la
Unidad de Seguridad
se unen a la protesta.
Una demostración en frente del
Departamento Correccional de California en
Sacramento (CDC), convocada por el Comité
de Defensa del Barrio, una organización
comunitaria en San José, atrajo la atención de
gente a las unidades de máxima seguridad
(SHU) de las prisiones de California, cuyas
celdas de tortura se usan para encerrar a
muchos prisioneros latinos en confinamiento
solitario por tiempo indefinido. Estas
sentencias se aplican a supuestos miembros
de pandillas, pero los criterios que definen a
miembros de pandilla ponen bajo sospecha a
todos los latinos. Tanto una conversación en
un área de recreo de la prisión como un tatuaje
o una dedicatoria en una tarjeta de
cumpleaños, bastan para tachar de
sospechoso a un prisionero. Los prisioneros
activos políticamente llegan a ser blancos de
estos criterios, de modo que se les retira de
patios de recreo para que no puedan
influenciar en y educar a otros prisioneros.
Un líder del Comité de Defensa del Barrio
explica que "Juzgando por los resultados del
proceso judicial (llevado a cabo por el senado
del SHU) el 15 de septiembre del 2003, el costo
estimado de mantenimiento de una persona
en el SHU vacila entre 60,000 y 70,000 dólares,
lo cual implica un gasto inútil de millones de
dólares. Steve Castillo ha estado en el SHU
por ocho años sólo por ser abogado. Hugo
Pinell lleva un sinfín de años en el SHU por
sus ideales políticos! John Martínez fue
encerrado en el SHU por cuestionar la
brutalidad en Corcoran! Francisco Cesar Villa
está en el SHU por pedir el número correcto
de zapatos! José Luis Avina y Eddie
Bustamente están en el SHU por participar en
una huelga de hambre en 1999 en la prisión
de New Folsom. Al fin y al cabo, el único
remedio que queda es organizar a gente afuera
de las cárceles para poder llevar a cabo
cambios fundamentales y cerrar las unidades
de máxima seguridad."
Los manifestantes que se reunieron
enfrente del CDC marcharon a la casa de
estado para unirse a la demostración. Los
huelguistas firmaron una petición circulada
por el MIM para cerrar las unidades de máxima
seguridad, y muchos hablaron de sus
experiencias personales o sus parientes que
están encerrados en esos lugares.
Un pequeño grupo de activistas le entregó
una carta a la Senadora Gloria Romero,
presidenta del Comité del Senado Selecto
encargado del Sistema Correccional de
California, exigiendo un cierre del SHU. Hacía
unos meses, Romero había tenido un proceso
judicial para investigar las unidades de máxima
seguridad (véase MN 289), pero desde
entonces los activistas no habían obtenido
ningún tipo de información.
Romero no se encontraba en su oficina
pero su representante Rocky Rushing, quien
accedió a hablar con los activistas, explico
que el CDC se había reunido con el Comité la
semana anterior justo para informar sobre el
"progreso" respecto a las demandas
presentadas en el proceso judicial. Deducimos
que el CDC no iba a implementar ningún
cambio. El CDC accedió a hacer unos
pequeños cambios en el proceso de
implementación de criterios que establecen
la definición de "miembro de pandilla", lo cual
haría posible que los presos argumentaran y
cuestionaran las evidencias presentadas. Sin
embargo, la mayoría de las evidencias se
mantiene en secreto, y el CDC no hizo ningún
caso de las respuestas de los presos, de modo
que estos cambios no tienen ningún sentido.
El CDC también accedió a hacer algunos
cambios en el programa del SHU. Pero estos
cambios también son insignificantes ya que
se enfocan en la educación sobre pandillas y
en terapia. De esta forma, el CDC puede
pretender que el SHU en realidad está
solucionando el problema de las pandillas en
las prisiones de California, en vez de proveer
los medios necesarios como bibliotecas,
educación y programas de recreación.
Los activistas solicitaron información al
representante de la Senadora Romero sobre
las demandas entabladas por familiares y
amigos de los presos en el reciente proceso
judicial (es decir, sobre las promesas de la
senadora). El representante respondió que
esta responsabilidad había sido relegada al
CDC que se encargaría de revisar todas las
quejas, y que para este propósito el CDC
había recibido la transcripción del proceso.
¡Además informó que el CDC sostenía que
todos los problemas habían sido
solucionados! Claro está, los organizadores
del SHU no vieron a ningún representante
del CDC en el proceso judicial, en el cual
alrededor de cien personas dieron su
testimonio sobre los horrores del SHU. Quizás
lo más relevante fue la afirmación del asistente
de la Senadora Romero que expresó la
esperanza de poder organizar otra reunión
con representantes del CDC y la gente
preocupada por el estado del SHU, para que
en caso de que el CDC se negara a implementar
cambios, los participantes de la reunión
podrían sentirse incluidos. El MIM deduce
que el asistente de la Senadora Romero no
cree que el gobierno tenga poder sobre el
Departamento Correccional de California.
Puede convocar reuniones pero no puede
exigir cambios. Esto no es ninguna sorpresa,
ya que el presupuesto del CDC no ha sufrido
ningún cambio o recorte a pesar de los
grandes recortes presupuestarios y extensas
negociaciones entre varias ramas del
gobierno de California con el fin de aprobar
un presupuesto equilibrado.
El MIM sabe que un verdadero cambio en
el sistema de justicia criminal no provendrá
de un Comité del Senado. Pero seguiremos
explorando todas las direcciones posibles a
medida que vayamos peleando por reformas
que puedan mejorar las vidas de nuestros
hermanos y hermanas tras las rejas, mientras
nosotros sigamos educando y organizando a
la gente para acabar con el sistema
imperialista.
California: Boicot dirigido por mexicanos y prisioneros del
Alojamiento de la Unidad de Seguridad (SHU) que se unen a la lucha.