Comrades have recently brought up the axiom that fear leads to ignorance
and that vanguard leadership is a matter of applying science with guts.
It is the science in command that is primary here. Whether it is fear,
love or rage, emotion cannot be the basis of our strategy and practice.
Similarly, emotive rallying cries and hype cannot be the primary
recruiting method of a vanguard organization.
The problem of fear often comes up in relation to those who have
privilege that they are afraid of losing (the classic carrot and the
stick). It is also used widely among the most oppressed and exploited
when it is instilled as a fear of death and torture of friends and
families. Among the lumpen who have little privilege to speak of, whose
family structure has been destroyed by oppression and who has already
faced torture as an individual, the basis for fear is very limited.
An arguable strength of the imperialist country communist movement is
our ability to produce scientific analysis with complete independence.
This is because our wealth and privilege can actually diminish both fear
and class consciousness in a minority of cases. Some of the most
dedicated activists in the oppressor nations often have a sense of
fearlessness. This is probably necessary to make it over the long haul
without turning back to the comfort of one’s class privilege.
In both cases of fearlessness we have seen the outcome where people
don’t take security seriously. Most even scoff at the security practices
put forth by the Maoist movement. Others act as if they have too much
“important” work to be dealing with to take time worrying about security
measures. Translate this to “I’m too lazy to deal with things that are
going to make my work harder or take a little longer. I’d rather focus
my time on the things that give me glory or that I somehow find some
persynal pleasure in.” This is subjectivism.
When we work with people who don’t even spend one minute a week thinking
about security we are potentially sacrificing our own security, and more
importantly, the security and integrity of the whole movement. Such
people have no role to play in a Leninist cadre organization. Security
is not something we study in addition to theory, it stems directly from
it.
Contrary to the bourgeois theory of history, bravado and individualism
do not decide the course of events. Envisioning oneself standing strong
and alone against the great oppressor may be a powerful subjective
motivator. But to build ones political practice around such a fantasy is
not going to win many battles.
Being serious about ending oppression means being serious about studying
the world around us and learning from history. It means developing a
strategic understanding of how the oppressed are rising and will succeed
and therefore having confidence in the fact that we are acting with the
tide of humyn history. If we have this understanding, then it is very
obvious to us that we are more effective in contributing to this tide
when we are not locked in an isolation cell or buried six feet deep.
Anyone who doesn’t believe death or imprisonment are real threats needs
to read some history. We may be better revolutionaries without fear, but
not without prudence. For those who know the risks but don’t care, you
need to study history even harder as well as dialectical materialism
until you can understand your own power.
There is a related point to make here in regard to the “security”
concerns of correctional officers and prison administrators. The most
common reason for censorship of our literature in u$ prisons is that
MIM(Prisons) is somehow a threat to security. As long as we can agree
that “security” for the CO’s means less violence and fighting with
guards and between prisoners, then our point here can be applied by them
as well. While it may be true that our literature tends to attract some
of the most defiant prisoners who are likely to physically defend
themselves against a guard, our literature literally teaches people not
to attack guards, or even violate any rules that would just bring down
more repression, even when we are not explicitly stating that.
Overall, we don’t expect this line of argument to convince a system that
is set up to oppress specific segments of society. But, certainly some
individual prison administrators are honestly interested in maintaining
the peace without any ulterior political or racial motivations. The rest
just keep oinking for more control units and more hazard pay.
Rashid has taken prison officials to task on this with his “The Don’t
Shank the Guards” handbook (1), which has been censored in a number of
states despite a stated purpose that COs should agree with. This
handbook provides a similar strategic orientation as MIM(Prisons) does
for prisoners who desire to improve their situation. Where this pamphlet
fails is in its pandering to the economic interests of amerikans and its
call to unite with the “masses” of the united $tates. This line leads to
a strategy of putting amerikans first, which oppressed nation prisoners
have a slim chance of ever being accepted into. If they succeed then
they have only betrayed the oppressed people of the world. MIM(Prisons)
puts forth a line that neither promotes shanking the oppressor, nor
standing side-by-side with him in political struggle.
But Rashid agrees with us in having strategic confidence and a group
approach to struggle: “Having been raised as we are with the idea of”an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” getting even is deeply
ingrained in us, but in a society based upon inequality, getting
even carries a high price and is, in fact, impossible: At least it
is impossible by individualistic retaliation.”
It is exactly such individualism that we need to combat on this side of
the fear question in relation to security. Remember, it is also the FBI
infiltrators who will have no fear in going up against the state with a
few guns, because they know when the bullets start flying you’re gonna
die and they’re gonna be rescued. So fearlessness does not mean going
toe-to-toe with an army you cannot defeat. Sun Tzu taught us the idiocy
of that centuries ago. And that is exactly what comrades are doing by
throwing security out the window. They think they’re invincible, they
think they’re hard, or they’re just too lazy to deal with security
questions.
“O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be
invisible, through you inaudible and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate
in our hands.” - Sun Tzu
With the New York State legislator passing a law that forbids “seriously
mentally ill” prisoners from being put in SHU (yet to be signed by
Governor Spitzer), we can see a clear example of what Rashid is talking
about when he writes, “[Riots, flooding cells, setting fires and
shanking guards] have only provided prisoncrats with ammunition to
demonize us and turn public opinion against us and concern away
from prison reform issues and the way we are treated.” Some editorials
and discussions online among COs and other amerikans indicate the
limited scope of this legislation. It is being used to highlight the
abuse of CO’s instead of prisoners. It is being used to bolster support
for the need for SHUs and the need for more high-security mental
institutions. And it is creating justification by saying that “we are
taking out the prisoners who can’t handle the SHU mentally, but everyone
else deserves to be there, just look how they are acting out.” We had
previously criticized the limited scope of this legislation, and passed
on campaigning in support of it. Now we are seeing it’s use by the state
to not just rally support to its side but also to divide the movement
against control units.
While amerikans are crying in outrage about all the prisoners who are
going to “fake” mental illness to get out of the SHU now, MIM(Prisons)
is still saying that the SHU is torture that creates the mental states
that exist within it. The humyn mind is but a reflection of material
reality. And decades of experience tell us that people who have been in
long term isolation often end up throwing excrement at guards as one of
the only forms of action they can take on behalf of themselves. Call it
mental illness if you want. But we know the cause and we know the cure.
If prison officials aren’t willing to eliminate the cause, perhaps they
will at least let SHU prisoners communicate with MIM(Prisons) so that we
can help them understand the futility and even counterproductivity of
such actions.
Notes:
(1) Contact Rashid c/o Art Attack, PO Box 208, Herndon, VA
20172