LETTERS

ADA leads down a blind alley



Dear MIM:

The August issue of MIM Notes (MN#191) contains an excellent 
article on how the supreme court gutted the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) I would have to conclude that the ADA, as a 
viable legal remedy, was intended to lead the disability rights 
movement down a blind alley. Under the ADA, a complaining litigant 
can only obtain injunctive relief if successful. See Pona V. Cecil 
Whittakers Inc 155 F3d 1034,1039(8th,Ar,1999). No money damages 
are available, see 42 U.S.C.&121.88A. Moreover, when combined with 
other statutory legal schemes such as 42U.S.C.,1983, most courts 
have held that violations of Title 2 and 3 of the ADA are not 
cognizable as 1983 claims. Thus congress deliberately and 
explicitly limited the remedies available for violations of the 
ADA.



-- a Federal prisoner in Colorado, 21 September, 1999



MIM responds:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was based on the 
assumption that the organization of work under capitalism is 
correct. Rather than challenging it, the ADA attempts to tweak it 
to be kinder and gentler. Capitalism assumes that workers should 
compete for jobs and should fit some pre-determined list of skills 
in order to best serve their employer. Capitalism ignores the 
tremendous humyn potential brought out by cooperative work and the 
creativity that allows people to put abilities to the best use for 
the greatest good.

The ADA is a limitation on the free competition of capitalists. So 
it is logical, as this writer points out, that congress would not 
want to impose harsh penalties on capitalists who resist this 
limitation. Congress exists to support the smooth operation of 
capitalism in the united snakes. Limitations on the capitalists 
are imposed when the u.s. government decides it is necessary to 
throw a bone to a group of people to placate them. If the people 
start to notice too clearly the injustices inherent in the 
capitalist system they might cause trouble so the government tries 
to maintain a balance.

As we pointed out in the MIM Notes article, "the only movement 
that truly cherishes the rights of disabled people is the movement 
that places social good above all else. Activists for disability 
rights owe it to themselves to investigate the Maoist line on 
human worth, work and contributions to society."



Does MIM hate white people?



I get tired of all the racist statements -- against whites -- that 
come out every month in MIM Notes. I understand that the majority 
of elitist assholes in Amerika are white separatists. Yet, 
sometimes we draw color lines for everyone to see separating 
ourselves from would-be comrades. I have a hard time spreading the 
word of MIM political party members to whites in this 
predominantly white prison, just because we continue to base class 
separation on racial slander and color lines. I see all races in 
the right-wing conservative sectors, and in Forbes too!



-- a Colorado prisoner, 1 Dec., 1999



MIM responds: Here is the response to the same criticism that is 
on our "Frequently Asked Questions" page on our website:

"MIM does count the white people of the imperialist countries as 
enemy. We refer to the whites of certain advanced capitalist 
countries as 'oppressor nation.'

"However, outside the imperialist countries, the white-skinned 
people are a friend of the international proletariat. Hence, it 
cannot be said MIM hates whites. MIM sees the white peoples of 
Eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union as people with progressive 
self-interests.

"Also, MIM works with any individual regardless of national or 
race background. What one says and does is more important than who 
one is. What is true of a group on average is not true for every 
individual. We encourage oppressor nation people to give up their 
national privileges; even though most will not."

You will notice many other group analyses in MIM Notes (about 
people who are gendered male, and about capitalists for example). 
This is an important part of materialist opposition to oppression: 
identifying groups that are oppressors on the whole (that benefit 
from oppression), and explaining the mechanisms by which they 
benefit. While we welcome all members of the Amerikan white nation 
who are willing to work against their national privilege, we will 
not pretend such privilege doesn't exist. Similarly, we do not 
call those compradors of the oppressed nations -- Clarence Thomas 
of the Black Nation, Joseph Estrada of the Philippines, Dick 
Wilson of the Oglala Nation -- friends of the proletariat just 
because of their nationality.

We encourage you to study further with us on these questions. You 
are entirely correct that there is much more subtlety to these 
issues than just rejecting every white-skinned individual as 
enemy. We assure you that drawing such simplistic lines does not 
reflect MIM's theory. MIM Theory issue no. 7 on the national 
question and national oppression will be another good item for 
your reading list.