Letters MIM Notes audience among whites? I just finished reading the letters section of MIM Notes 190, "Reader tells youth to turn off TV, join the revolution." MIM's response disappointed me. Let me say I can respect MIM's choice to embrace those who accept and practice Maoist principles, but this "white male, born into middle class suburban" left me wondering how many of his target audience, "white middle class suburban television youth culture" did he actually expect to reach via MIM Notes? This is not to say MIM doesn't reach a diversified audience, I just don't think his targeted audience is reading MIM Notes. I think if he sincerely wants to reach the "white middle class suburban television youth culture" it is other publications that will encompass a much, much larger number of these youth. Or s/he can use her/his direct contact with this audience to spread the much-needed vibe. I seriously doubt his message was actually intended for the white suburban youth, call it intuition? The message may be needed, and I can understand MIM taking the opportunity to build consciousness but are we to believe MIM believes that this St. Louis reader promulgates this in daily middle class suburban spheres? Let me clear up the intuition remark, historically white youth after becoming alienated from their communities feign discontent with the structure. "Hence they are 'now' people for the most part, standardless and valueless. Hence their 'revolutionary' energies are most likely to explode in rebellions and rebellious activities of the most negative kind: dropping out, copping out, freaking out, 'ripping off' and other helter skelter, individualistic and adventuristic actions." I see it everyday with the european "inmates" I'm forced to be around. As outcast, when tension is thick or their ass meets the boot they speak radical, but there is always a reconciliation between them and the gestapo and the "hey, I'm your white brother" attitude displayed toward the demented gestapo. The St. Louis reader's letter seemed tailored, I'm not impressed at all! I doubt if the sincere european youth who subscribe to MIM Notes need such a message, I wonder was there an attempt to publish this in the suburban school paper? -- a Michigan prisoner, 1 September, 1999. MIM responds: Comrade, we agree with you that it is vital both for MIM and for those who organize under our leadership to direct agitation at those who can be united in the struggle against imperialism. This includes what we publish and where we distribute it. But we also challenge you to look at what you are advocating. You support the sincerely revolutionary white youth in their struggle to build greater anti-imperialist unity among their peers, and yet you suggest that MIM Notes is not the place to do it. MIM Notes is the proletarian newspaper of the united snakes, so the question we have for you is: why would MIM Notes decline to publish correct proletarian leadership, no matter who it is aimed at? MIM Notes reaches many more readers than those with paid subscriptions! Being a prisoner subscriber this is something you no doubt know -- many more comrades read the paper through sharing copies sent to subscribers. Similarly, you'll see references in MIM Notes to "free-dropping" the newspaper and to comrades doing hand-to-hand distribution selling papers at rallies, events, and on street corners. All of these are vital means of getting MIM Notes out to more people. These are much better means of organizing than waiting for folks to step forward while we passively distribute the papers only to those who ask. You ask if the St. Louis reader attempts to discuss h revolutionary ideology with those in h community? Certainly s/he should. S/he can do this by going to college and high school campuses, hosting proletarian events, attending other organizations' events, and by using MIM Notes as a tool to organize those who are drawn to revolutionary organizing. But without publishing such a viewpoint in MIM Notes, wouldn't the St. Louis reader and the party both be hamstrung in their efforts to discuss the importance of revolutionary culture and dedicating time to revolution? You are definitely correct that comrades who have a message for students should submit letters and articles to school newspapers; similarly those who wish to reach a local audience should submit writings to their local alternative papers. But as you'll also see, most papers have advertisers and pursue at best a liberal agenda with their press. MIM has often submitted articles for other papers, but we know from experience that the articles are often censored because they're written from the vantage point of the oppressed. This is why we have our own newspaper, Lenin stressed the importance of the party having a newspaper as a central organizing tool and as a means of disseminating its line in uncompromising manner. MIM Notes is the paper of the international proletariat. This means that we must publish articles that reflect a proletarian line. And we must apply this line to organizing. Again, it is most important that we take our line out among the masses, and this goes for our supporters in St. Louis and everywhere. But before we can take our line out among the masses, we must publish it in some form for which the party can be held accountable. We cannot turn to those who would organize for proletarian internationalism and tell them "no, the people you wish to organize are not reading MIM Notes, take your organizing elsewhere." We must instead step up to our duties and struggle with others to do the same. We encourage you to broaden your thinking to account for the place MIM Notes holds in party organizing. MIM unclear on landmines Dear MIM: [...] I read through the "MIM Notes" I received and one comment I think merits criticism is MIM's support for the ban of landmines. Anyone who supports people's war must support landmines. The U.S. is opposing the landmine ban treaty for its own imperialist purposes. But, landmines have shown themselves to be essential tools of people's war in denying imperialist armies mobility and control of land. In Vietnam, landmines played an invaluable role in the Vietnamese people's heroic resistance. Landmines inflicted about 50% of u.s. causalities in that war. Landmines are easily fabricated by poor, indigenous peoples' armies that cannot purchase manufactured war weapons. It is reactionary and capitulationist to deny the people their just means of defense. Yes, landmines remaining in conflict zones do maim and kill large numbers of civilian bystanders. Yes in all these countries, Angola, Kampuchea, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc, the problem is imperialist intervention and oppression, not just 'landmines.' I hope MIM reconsiders its position on this issue. It is unfortunate that the left in the imperialist countries is unwilling to address the people's right to self-defense. In essence you would criminalize that right to self-defense and permit people to employ on those means deemed "acceptable" by the imperialists. Best wishes for a more militant new year. -- a prisoner in Washington, January 2000. MIM replies: This is a good point to make. The article was written to address Amerika's refusal to ban landmines and to criticize the imperialists for their massacre of the people as a part of their wars to control the Third World. But we left out the important point that the problem is not the method of killing but who is doing the killing. We strongly advocate the banning of landmines and as many other methods of mass destruction as possible in the hands of the imperialists. But we do recognize that revolutionary necessity will lead to people's war employing any means available to defeat the imperialists. And it is this people's war that will most quickly bring an end to the death and destruction caused by imperialism. When we wrote: "MIM sees the banning of landmines as a progressive act that will keep from escalating an already horrible toll on the people." We should have said: MIM sees the banning of landmine use by the imperialists as a progressive act.