MIM Notes 224   December 15, 2000

Prisoner "disenfranchisement:" Even worse than we thought

In MIM Notes 223, (Dec 1, 2000) we wrote that Utah, Vermont and 
Maine allow prisoners to vote. In 1998, Utah voters 
disenfranchised prisoners. Furthermore, in 1999 Maine attempted to 
disenfranchise prisoners. While the effort received support in the 
Maine legislature, insufficient votes were received to send the 
constitutional amendment to the voters at that time. In learning 
about this, we came across the estimate that only about 10% of 
Maine's prisoners vote.(1)

This is further evidence that Amerikan democracy is hypocrisy. The 
most common reason MIM opposes "democracy" is that it is used by 
conservatives (including people calling themselves democratic 
socialists) to exaggerate the merits of the status quo. The public 
is told there is majority rule again and again in situations where 
there is in fact none.

It's important to note that political disenfranchisement is not 
just a matter of being denied the vote. For starters, large sums 
of money are needed to get access to the media and successfully 
run for elected office -- sums out of reach the oppressed. And of 
course, in "democracies" like India, millions die of the poverty 
maintained by capitalism before they reach their teens. You can't 
vote if you're dead.

Conservatives believe majority rule of the world should not apply 
in economic matters, matters of property rights. Along with the 
European and Amerikan "democratic socialists" they have a history 
of believing the majority rule of their country should decide what 
happens in other countries. For these two reasons alone, Lenin 
said communism was 1,000,000 times more democratic than the status 
quo.(2)

In fact, if we define "democracy" as majority rule, then MIM 
opposes democracy in principle because we prioritize serving humyn 
needs -- peace, healthful environment, food, clothing, healthcare 
and shelter. If a majority decided (as in the United States) that 
a minority or another country should have to do without survival 
"rights," then we communists will fight that majority to the end, 
so we cannot say we are for democracy in principle. Survival 
rights are non-negotiable. On the other hand, in the distant 
future, majority rule in a world might be acceptable where there 
are already actually existing survival rights.(3)

Democracy (vaguely defined) is a goal that often gets people 
excited and then slaughtered. The rich and the U.S. government 
spend money at home and abroad to win elections. When the Yankee 
imperialists and their lackeys lose elections they send in the 
Marines and depose elected governments or pay to subvert them. 
Money or guns settle the matter, not the interests of the 
majority.

We Maoists have read history and see that people have to be 
prepared to fight a people's war for their destinies. Some people 
in the imperialist countries see the facts but do not draw the 
same conclusions. They know "democracy" is not working in 
practice, but they downplay the problem or try to reform the 
system. 

Notes: 
1. Bangor Daily News May 3 1999.
2. Lenin, ITAL The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade 
Kautsky, END Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, pp. 25-27.
3. "Why do you oppose Democracy?" MIM FAQ, 
www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/index.html