Under Lock & Key

July 2018 – We remember for all time in the future the terrible and untimely political assassinations of Comrade George and Jonathon Jackson. Black August and bloody September are fast approaching and while many people will of course mourn due to these fatalities committed by the state, we shouldn’t be saddened by these most terrible atrocities. We should rejoice and see repression as a logical response by the capitalist masters to stop our thrust upward.

The history of Amerika’s reign of terror begins with its start as a settler’s colony that exterminated the otherwise “savage and backward” Indians, and raped Africa for her peoples to build and industrialize this young nation. The trends toward monopoly capital actually began during the civil war, during the only time where the masters of capital felt the greatest threats to its power. Amerikan history has always been a story of masters and slaves, dominators and dominated, capitalists and workers, and haves and have-nots. But the centralization of state power actually began during the age of the Industrial Revolution.

The earlier vanguard parties betrayed the interest of the people by sticking to reformism, even though reformism in Amerika is an old story. At the close of World War II when the purple mushroom clouds over Japan were aired for the world to see, fascism did indeed emerge and consolidate itself in its most advance form in Amerika. In fact the trends towards monopoly capital might have begun right here in Amerika.

The Black Panther Party formed as a response to state terror. The savage repression which can be estimated by a brief reading of the nation’s dailies has not failed to register on the minds of most lower disenfranchised, especially when you couple the fact that we are worth no more than the amount of capital that we can raise. Whether they know it or not we are victims of both social and economic injustice and our economic status has reduced our minds to a state of complete oblivion.

The older vanguard parties were committed to reformism and its counter-productive nature. The Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, Black Liberation Army however were committed and prepared to take the fight to whatever level needed to be taken in order to make sure that the demands of the people were met. As a response, J. Edgar Hoover and his secret branch (COINTELPRO) devised a plan to stop a “Black Messiah” from rising out of the ghetto that could lead the people to revolution. On 4 December 1969 Gloves Davis, a black officer in Chicago, killed Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Of course the COINTELPRO was very effective in infiltration tactics, because Fred Hampton’s bodyguard was later to be revealed as a “class defector and stool pigeon” for the forces of repression.

We shouldn’t be sad that George is gone. We should be sad that no one has ushered in to take up his works, even though so many champion him and also since there are guerillas all over who shout “George,” but have yet to follow in his footsteps. Our overall situation doesn’t stand out as glaringly as it did during the 1960s and 70s. However we should not be tricked into thinking that the struggle is no more. The hip-shooting pigs still gun us and call it justifiable homicide due to the trends in the crime culture we have embraced. The crime culture only mimics the European experience. In order for us to seize the time we should think in terms of true freedom. The freedom that comrade George fought and died for. Long live the real Dragon.

MIM(Prisons) associate responds:

The author mentions that “[t]he earlier vanguard parties betrayed the interest of the people by sticking to reformism, even though reformism in Amerika is an old story.” However, not all the early vanguard parties were reformist. In general, vanguard parties are not reformist in nature, although they might work on reformist campaigns (wimmin’s rights, prisoners’ rights, etc.). Vanguard parties, by definition, aim to be the force that lead the revolution. So why did the vanguard parties fail?

One obvious reason is that the United $tates has not entered a revolutionary situation. Due to a variety of factors, and despite the presence of vanguard parties in different places and at different times, there has not been a substantial proletarian movement for freedom. In Lenin’s terms, the workers during the Industrial Revolution in the United $tates only reached basic Trade Union Consciousness, not Proletarian Consciousness. Their goal was for better working conditions, not a new system.

This goes hand-in-hand with the second reason. As J. Sakai argues in Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, there has never been a substantial proletariat in the United $tates. Despite the presence of oppressed national minorities, lumpen proletariat, and a few revolutionaries, the revolutionaries have never reached a critical mass. This is especially true today, as almost all real labor has been pushed to the Third World and Euro-Amerikkkans are living off of the superexploitation of the Third World proletariat.

The author also mentions that “fascism did indeed emerge and consolidate itself in its most advance form in Amerika.” MIM(Prisons) believes that the United $tates is not currently a fascist country (nor has it been in the past). Amerikkka is obviously imperialist and this imperialist core was inscribed into the Amerikkkan project from the very beginning, however we do not equate imperialism with fascism. Fascism is a form of imperialism, but we don’t think it’s the current state of the world. And we see the most fascist expression of imperialism in Third World countries where imperialists are imposing their will.

Fascism is a form of imperialism, and so this means fascism is a form of capitalism. Fascism is the final attempt for the bourgeoisie to remain the dominant aspect in the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. As the proletarian forces become stronger, the imperialists go to even more extreme measures to protect their beloved economic system. To say we’re in a fascist scenario now, or we’re moving toward fascism, is to overstate the strength of the proletarian forces in the present day. Fascism is enhanced imperialism, so it’s natural that we would see some elements of our current imperialist society appearing more like fascism than others, even if we haven’t moved into fascism as an overall system.

While expressing full unity with MIM(Prisons), I feel compelled to also urge those who say they are engaging in the fight against imperialism to expand their reach. We are living within a time where the public is realizing that prisons and other oppressive methods are doing more harm than good. Campaigns are being launched throughout the world on behalf of the rights of prisoners and the oppressed in general.

MIM(Prisons) encourages those struggling against imperialism to be united no matter the group one may claim as long as it’s against imperialism. We have a justice system that perpetuates the institution of racism in this country through its targeting of the most marginalized communities: people of color, women and the LGBT community. As one we are more than they are and it’s time we realize this truth and act on it NOW!

The public generally associates torture with physical violence; they sometimes have a hard time accepting that there are equally brutal forms of mental torture. It’s interesting, though. Back in the 1940s and 1950s when stories came out about communist regimes holding prisoners in isolation for very long periods of time, we had no problem calling that torture.

We all have family and friends who can be our voice as well as a way and means to destroy the system from within. If our family and friends were employees at these prisons they would expose the ill treatment we are receiving, and misconduct of the other prison officials. Shutting down prisons should be a prisoner’s main focus. We must stop funding our imprisonment by buying things from these prisons.

If the state has to pay they will soon run out of money as they are doing in Louisiana, and now Louisiana is forced to release prisoners due to lack of funds and the feds refuse to give them any more money.

Many may not share my views but one can not disagree that picking up the torch after someone else or starting one’s own movement will be rewarding. As I think about all of the movements and campaigns that have been launched on behalf of prisoners or other oppressed people, I wonder why these groups have not thought to get prison jobs in order to expose the system. If they are fired or harassed because of it they can bring suit over it. We must encourage this. ULK 51 ran an article about a Louisiana correctional officer who exposed Winn Correctional Center.(1) Changes were made and the private prison group lost its contract with the state. So what I am suggesting works.

We must keep our minds on decarcerating our states by educating ourselves and others of the root cause for incarceration and working with others to create the ideal community. Create opportunities for this place, get family, friends, and the community to participate and play the role of developers. Its been proven over and again that when we invest in ourselves, plan and build for ourselves, people thrive with virtually no crime. If we are true champions of human rights and mean to fulfill our constitutional guarantees of a more perfect union, then we have a moral obligation to end prison slavery, overhaul our criminal justice system and decarcerate by fighting the system from within the system.

MIM(Prisons) responds: We want to expand on this comrade’s comment about educating on the root cause for incarceration. This is a critical point to understand. It’s definitely not profitable to lock up so many people. In reality prisons in the United $tates are a tool of social control, used mostly to keep oppressed nation lumpen in check. We can win some critical battles against the criminal injustice system, but we aren’t likely to end the mass incarceration until we take down imperialism as a whole. The prison system is too tied up in U.$. imperialist domestic policies.

This comrade brings up the interesting situation in Louisiana where prison and state officials were threatening to release a third of the prison population (10,000 prisoners) if the 2018 budget cuts were implemented. Although there was a lot of news about this potential “crisis” at the time, since then we found no follow up. Presumably the state found the money to keep people locked up. In 2017 Louisiana officials made similar threats, though on a smaller scale. Obviously funding is necessary to keep prisoners locked up, but it seems that Louisiana keeps finding enough money to keep their prison infrastructure intact. We fully support prisoner boycotts and other financial attacks on the system. But, as we explored in detail in ULK 60 most of the funding is already coming from the state budget so we need to approach these battles with a clear understanding of the potential impact.(2)

Finally, we want to comment on the “communist regimes holding prisoners in isolation.” This is common anti-communist propaganda but we’re not sure exactly what the author is talking about here. In the 1940s and 50s over a third of the world’s people embarked on the socialist road. And there is no doubt the Amerikan propaganda machine told lots of stories about those countries’ evil behavior. In hindsight a lot of these stories have been proven false.

In the case of China, the prisons were actually an example of a true system of reeducation and rehabilitation. In fact, the entire country undertook a reeducation campaign to remould individuals and the society as a whole to serve the interests of the people rather than the interests of profit. One example is shown in the book Prisoners of Liberation by Allyn and Adele Rickett, where we see that their conditions of confinement were different from conditions in U.$. prisons in significant ways. They were housed with other prisoners, and not isolated. They were provided with literature and newspapers, not cut off from society. They were encouraged to expand their perspectives and grow together, not to just watch TV and withdraw into themselves. And ultimately they came out of prison praising the communist government in China.

U.$. imperialist leaders and their labor aristocracy supporters like to criticize other countries for their tight control of the media and other avenues of speech. For instance, many have heard the myths about communist China forcing everyone to think and speak alike. In reality, these stories are a form of censorship of the truth in the United $tates. In China under Mao the government encouraged people to put up posters debating every aspect of life, to criticize their leaders, and to engage in debate at work and at home. This was an important part of the Cultural Revolution in China. There are a number of books that give a truthful account, but far more money is put into anti-communist propaganda. Here, free speech is reserved for those with money and power.

In prisons in particular there is so much censorship, especially targeting those who are politically conscious and fighting for their rights. MIM(Prisons) and many of our subscribers spend a lot of time and money fighting for our First Amendment right to free speech. For us this is perhaps the most fundamental of requirements for our organizing work. Some prisoners are denied all mail from MIM(Prisons). This means we can’t send in our newsletter, or study materials, or even a guide to fighting censorship. Many prisons regularly censor ULK claiming that the news and information printed within is a “threat to security.” For them, printing the truth about what goes on behind bars is dangerous. But if we had the resources to take these cases to court we believe we could win in many instances.

Denying prisoners mail is condemning them to no contact with the outside world. To highlight this, and the ridiculous and illegal reasons that prisons use to justify this censorship, we will periodically print a summary of some recent censorship incidents in ULK.

We hope that lawyers, paralegals, and those with some legal knowledge will be inspired to get involved and help with these censorship battles, both behind bars and on the streets. For the full list of censorship incidents, along with copies of appeals and letters from the prison, check out our censorship reporting webpage www.prisoncensorship.info/data

Michigan

ULK 63 was censored to two prisoners in Michigan because: “throughout the publication COs/police are referred to as ‘pigs.’ This reference is reasonably likely to promote or cause violence or group disruption in the facility.”

Michigan - Michigan Reformatory

This censorship notification for ULK provided a new justification: “1 booklet with sticker not able to search without destroying.”

Florida - New River Work Camp

ULK 62 was impounded because of “PG2: Stamp program advertisement” claiming this violated the rule that “It contains an advertisement promoting any of the following where the advertisement is the focus of, rather than being incidental, to the publication or the advertising is prominent or prevalent throughout the publication: (3) The purchase of products or services with postage stamps”

Colorado - Sterling Correctional Facility

We sent a prisoner the book Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán in August of 2017. On May 8, 2018, the prison sent us a notice that the book was censored because: “Safety & Security: Pgs. multiple pgs. - 5+ pgs talks about the rise and struggles for power of the Chican@ Nation within the prison system.”

Arizona

In June MIM(Prisons) received a letter from the ADC regarding Under Lock & Key 62 banning this issue:

“The Arizona Department of Corrections has determined that your publication described below contains unauthorized content as defined in Department Order 914.07 and, as a result, may be released in part or excluded in whole for the specific reason(s) given below.

Detrimental to the Safe, Secure, and Orderly Operation of the Facility
Street Gangs/STG
Promotes Superiority of One Group Over Another, Racism, Degradation
Promote Acts of violence”

Regarding ULK 63: “The Arizona Department of Corrections has determined that your publication described below contains unauthorized content as defined in Department Order 914.07 and, as a result, may be released in part or excluded in whole for the specific reason(s) given below. DO 914.07 - 1.2.3 Incite, Aide, Abet Riots, Work Stoppages, Means of Resistance.”

Oregon - Two Rivers Correctional Institution - and New Jersey

This report comes from a prisoner now held in Oregon.

While being held captive by this imperialistic government in the oppressive state of New Jersey, I was a regular subscriber to ULK. However, once the pigs searched my cell for contraband all they found were back issues of ULK. As a result of that cell search, the New Jersey DOC banned any and all published material from MIM publications.

In November I was transferred to the Oregon DOC, and recently I asked the comrades at MIM(Prisons) to add me back to the mailing list. On 1 May 2018 I received a mail violation for a ULK issue. Their imperialistic reasons for rejecting the issue were: “Any other material that the Department deems to pose a threat or to be detrimental to legitimate penological objectives.”

However, I am pleased to say that I did receive the May/June 2018 ULK 62 publication, so keep them coming comrades and I’ll continue my quest for liberation through education, and continue to spread the word about MIM(Prisons) to all those who remain in their oppressive darkness mentally!

Pennsylvania

Notification sent to MIM(Prisons) regarding ULK 63: “This is to notify you that the publication referenced advocates and calls for solidarity among prisoners on September 9. The decision of the correctional institution is for this publication to be DENIED, and the inmates in the PA Department of Corrections will not be permitted to receive the publication. The correctional institutions will be notified by the Policy Office of the decision.”

North Carolina

ULK 62 was denied by the NC DOC because page 2 “Has verbiage that may incite distributive behavior.” This was further clarified for a prisoner who appealed the rejection. The objectionable section is “Page 2 under What is MIM(Prisons)?” which the prison claims: “Could likely precipitate violence among races/classes of people.”

Pennsylvania DOC has a new mail policy requiring all prisoner mail be sent to Florida, care of Smart Communications (SmartCom).(1) This company scans in all mail and forwards it to PADOC to be printed and delivered on site. No original mail will actually reach prisoners. Prisoners receiving greeting cards or photos are being given shrunk, black and white copies.

Some prisoners in Pennsylvania are circulating a request for legal help to fight this new practice. They list multiple concerns. These changes will dramatically impact the mail PA prisoners can receive including almost certainly denying them access to political books and magazines. SmartCom will keep scanned mail in a searchable database. This will likely be used to profile people who send mail to PA prisoners. Under the pretense of security concerns, this new policy is also about political control.

Prisons are allowed to restrict prisoners’ First Amendment rights to free speech, but it is “only valid if it is reasonably related to ligitimate penological interests.” (Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)) In this situation, PADOC is citing incidents of “multiple staff members being sickened by unknown substances over the past few weeks.” In September 2018, it says there were eight staff emergency room trips for drug exposure.(2) It is focusing on mail restrictions because “[i]t’s speculated that the majority of contraband enters the facilities through the mail.”

PADOC is building a lot of hype on its website about how drugs come in thru the mail and with visitors. Yet in its photographic report, “Examples of Drug Introduction into Facilities,” not one example is given of staff bringing drugs in.(3) Anyone familiar with prison culture knows that prison staff are a likely source for smuggling. It’s lucrative and relatively easy. PADOC’s presentation of the situation is skewed. And according to its FAQ on the new procedures for how it’s going to handle this alleged poisoning problem, no additional screening or testing for staff seems to be on the radar.

The new mail procedures imply that subscriptions for magazines and periodicals will continue direct to the prison: “For now, you will continue to receive issues of current subscriptions. If any issue is compromised, it will be confiscated and destroyed. No future subscription orders may be purchased except through the kiosk.” The memo given to prisoners made it clear that all future subscriptions must be purchased through PADOC. PADOC will purchase subscriptions in bulk and have magazines shipped in bulk to the facility to deliver to prisoners. The DOC will set the cost and select the vendors.

As a part of this change, PA is banning anyone from sending any books in to prisoners.(4) “Inmates can make a request to purchase any book. The DOC will provide the inmate with the cost of the book. Once the inmate submits a cash slip for the book, the DOC will order the book and have it shipped to the inmate.” No independent orders are allowed: “All publications must be purchased through DOC.” Books sent any other way will be returned to sender. While outside folks can deposit money in prisoners’ accounts so that they can purchase approved books from approved vendors, they will now have to pay 20% more than the cost of the book because that is deducted from incoming money to many prisoners’ accounts as costs or restitution.

This is a ridiculous policy change, under the pretense of security. While an argument is being made that preventing all physical mail from entering facilities will cut down contraband, it is an unnecessary obstruction to First Amendment rights of prisoners. The impact on prisoners, whose contact with the outside world is mainly through the mail, will be dramatic. Mail delays will likely increase, but more importantly, many will no longer have access to education. Cutting off books and magazines, limiting people to only content that is pre-approved by the prison, means that organizations like MIM(Prisons) will no longer be able to send literature to prisoners in PA.

This new policy is only serving to impose greater control and isolation on prisoners in PA. The results of cutting prisoners off from outside contact, and denying them educational materials, will just increase the already high recidivism and likely fuel more conflict behind the bars. This is what the prison wants: keeping prisoners fighting one another rather than educating themselves, building ties to the community, and building opposition to the criminal injustice system.

We are caught up in a system of competitiveness that pits one against the other, brother against brother, family against family, people against people, braceros against domestics, ethnic groups against ethnic groups, color against color, class against class, instead of minority or lower class against the ruling class. Competitiveness creates division, distrust, suspicions, and isolation. We have too much to lose to allow ourselves to fall into the same trap over and over again. What is in it for me, for you, for us?

All of our lives, we identify with war heroes, supermen, adventurers, gold seekers, empire builders, and imaginary leaders. We dream of praise and honors and love from other people. We go through life hoping to leave some sign of accomplishment to our children, to posterity, and we end up old, tired, wrinkled, with no vision or no memories, and we leave an inheritance of weakness, boot-licking, indignity, and confusion.

We can make history. It will consist of those who tried, who resisted, who led, who dared to struggle, dared to live free. It will also expose those who are afraid, ashamed, arrogant, selfish, greedy, sellouts, malinches, social prostitutes, Tio Tacos, exploiters, and cowards.

If there is to be a movement, then there must be leaders. Those leaders must be judged by their ability to give, not take. Leadership must convert confidence, not egotism – one who sacrifices, not one who is an opportunist. Leadership is the act of using power to free people, not to control them.

All in all, we have to cleanse ourselves of “inferiority” complex, our peon complex and our immigrant complex. We are not inferior, we are no man’s peons, and we are not and never have been immigrants. As complete humans, we cannot only build an organization, start a movement, but create a nation. To take these steps we have to think positively. We have to put aside negative thoughts about each other, and especially about our capacity to succeed.

The masses will make a difference. We are educating young people. Our young people here and across this country are saying, I am leading a “Resistance” against institutional racism, racism or oppression. But when no one stands up with that young person, he commits suicide? You see the reason we have problems is because too many people do not want to get involved. When the guy in the cantina, prison cell or yard, the pool hall or the barber shop tells you, “Man, those movement people are out of their minds. I take care of me.” Ask him what he’s doing for la causa. Ask him what he’s doing for the movement. He’s not going to be able to say anything. He is part of the problem because he’s not doing anything.

So we look at the problem: the problem is the mass majority of society. It’s true. It’s true that only 6% of the population of this country controls more than 60% of the wealth of the world. It’s true that 2% of this country makes all the decisions. And everybody thinks they are living in a democratic society.

So the problem is on our backs, and the way to get rid of it is to deal with it. Now, we can deal with it by saying we are going to go into an armed Revolution with 4% of the people against maybe 50% of the people?

Long Live The Days of AZTLAN!

MIM(Prisons) responds: We are up against what seems like an insurmountable number of people either actively or passively on the side of imperialism in this country. It’s a good point that if we took up armed revolution right now we’d be a tiny minority, up against a lot of resistance. This is because the vast majority of U.$. citizens are benefiting materially from imperialism. It’s pretty obvious to most people just how well off they are compared to the rest of the world. That’s why so many people want closed borders; don’t let poor people in, they might take back some of that wealth we’ve got protected in the United $tates.

But this writer is talking about organizing the oppressed nations specifically and that’s a bit of a different story. While still benefiting from the wealth Amerika has stolen from Third World countries, oppressed nations continue to face restricted opportunities, discrimination, imprisonment, and police brutality (to name just a few elements of national oppression within U.$. borders), all because of their nationality. This makes people from oppressed nations still potentially interested in revolution for their own persynal interests.

So yes, we need to heed this comrade’s call to challenge people about what they’re doing for la causa. We need to win over everyone we can. But we might not be in a position to take on imperialism until it is weakened from the outside, by revolutions in countries where the majority of the population has an interest in taking down imperialism. Right now we do what we can from within the belly of the beast to support the battles of the oppressed and exploited masses globally and the struggles of the oppressed nations within U.$. borders.

While we frequently discuss gender oppression in the pages of Under Lock & Key, most readers will notice a primary focus on national oppression. This is intentional, as we see the resolution of the national contradiction as the most successful path to ending all oppression at this stage. But for any of our readers who like our focus on nationalism, and have not taken the time to read MIM Theory 2/3: Gender and Revolutionary Feminism, i recommend you take a look. It is in MT2/3 that MIM really dissected the difference between class, nation and gender and justified its focus on nation. Don’t just focus on nation because it’s more important to you subjectively, understand why it is the top priority by reading MT 2/3.

All USW comrades should be working their way to the level 2 introductory study program offered by MIM(Prisons). We start level 1 studying the basics of scientific thinking. In level 2, we move on to study Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons, which gives a good overview of the 3 strands of oppression: class, nation and gender, and how they interact. This issue of Under Lock & Key is intended to supplement that theoretical material with some application to prison organizing and contemporary current events. (Let us know if you want to sign up for the study group.)

Academic Individualism vs. Revolutionary Science

Bourgeois individualism looks at race, class and gender as identities, which are seen as natural categories that exist within each individual. While proponents of identity politics generally recognize these concepts have evolved over time, they generally do not explain how or why. Dialectical materialists understand nation, class and gender as dualities that evolved as humyn society developed. Under capitalism, the class structure is defined by bourgeoisie exploiting proletarians. Class looked different under feudalism or primitive communist societies. One of the things Marx spent a lot of time doing is explaining how and why class evolved the way it did. Engels also gave us an analysis of the evolution of gender in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

One self-described “Marxist-Feminist critique of Intersectionality Theory” points out that “theories of an ‘interlocking matrix of oppressions,’ simply create a list of naturalized identities, abstracted from their material and historical context.”(1) They do not provide a framework for understanding how to overthrow the systems that are imposing oppression on people, because they do not explain their causes. This “Marxist” critic, however, falls into the class reductionist camp that believes all oppression is rooted in class.

The MIM line is not class reductionist, rather we reduce oppression to three main strands: nation, gender and class. This is still too limited for the identity politics crowd. But when we dive into other types of oppression that might be separate from nation, class and gender, we find that they always come back to one of those categories. And this clarity on the main strands of oppression allows us to develop a path to success, by building on the historical experience of others who have paved the way for our model.

While MIM is often associated with the class analysis of the First World labor aristocracy, this was nothing really new. What MIM did that still sets it apart from others, that we know of, is develop the first revolutionary theory on sexual privilege. The class-reductionism of the writer cited above is demonstrated in eir statement, “to be a ‘woman’ means to produce and reproduce a set of social relations through our labor, or self-activity.”(2) MIM said that is class, but there is still something separate called gender. While class is how humyns relate in the production process, gender is how humyns relate in non-productive/leisure time. And while biological reproductive ability has historically shaped the divide between oppressor and oppressed in the realm of gender, we put the material basis today in health status.(3) This understanding is what allows us to see that things like age, disability, sexual preference and trans/cis gender status all fall in the gender strand of oppression.

Using “Feminism” to Bomb Nations

Militarism and imperialist invasion are antithetical to feminism. Yet the imperialists successfully use propaganda that they wrap in pseudo-feminism to promote the invasion of Third World countries again and again. Sorting out the strands of oppression is key to consistent anti-imperialism.

In MT 2/3, MIM condemned the pseudo-feminists by saying that “supporting women who go to the courts with rape charges is white supremacy.”(4) A recent Human Rights Watch report discussing alleged widespread rape in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) is getting lots of traction in the Amerikkkan/Briti$h press.(5) This campaign to demonize the DPRK is just like the campaign to imprison New Afrikans, with potentially nuclear consequences. We have two leading imperialist nations who committed genocide against an oppressed nation touting information that is effectively pro-war propaganda for another invasion and mass slaughter of that oppressed nation.

If it is true that rape is as widespread in the DPRK as in the United $tates and Great Britain, then we also must ask what the situation of wimmin would have been in the DPRK today if it were not for the imperialist war and blockade on that country. In the 1950s, Korea was on a very similar path as China. Socialism in China did more for wimmin’s liberation than bourgeois feminists ever have. They increased wimmin’s participation in government, surpassing the United $tates, rapidly improved infant mortality rates, with Shanghai surpassing the rate of New York, and eliminated the use of wimmin’s bodies in advertising and pornography.(6)

An activist who is focused solely on ending rape will not see this. Of course, a healthy dose of white nationalism helps one ignore the mass slaughter of men, wimmin and children in the name of wimmin’s liberation. So the strands do interact.

Distracted Senate Hearings

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went through a hearing before his appointment to assess accusations of sexual assault from his past. This was a spectacle, with the sexual content making it tantalizing to the public, rather than political content. Yes, the debate is about a lifetime appointment to a very high-powered position, that will affect the path of U.$. law. But there was no question of U.$. law favoring an end to war, oppression or the exploitation of the world’s majority. Those who rallied against Kavanaugh were mostly caught up in Democratic Party politics, not actual feminism.

A quarter century ago, MIM was also disgusted by the hearings for Clarence Thomas to be appointed a Supreme Court Justice, that were dominated by questions about his sexual harassment of Anita Hill. Yet, this was an event that became quite divisive within MIM and eventually led to a consolidation of our movement’s materialist gender line.(7) It was the intersection of nation with this display of gender oppression that made that case different from the Kavanaugh one, because Thomas and Hill are both New Afrikan. The minority line in this struggle was deemed the “pro-paternialism position.”

The minority position was that MIM should stand with Anita Hill because she was the victim/oppressed. The line that won out was that Anita Hill was a petty-bourgeois cis-female in the First World, and was not helpless or at risk of starvation if she did not work for Clarence Thomas. While all MIM members would quickly jump on revisionists and pork-chop nationalists, paternalism led those holding the minority position to accept pseudo-feminism as something communists should stand by, because they pitied the female who faced situations like this.

Similarly today, with the Kavanaugh appointment, we should not let our subjective feelings about his treatment of wimmin confuse us into thinking those rallying against him represent feminism overall.

Bourgeois theories and identity politics

The paternalistic line brings us back to identity politics. A politic that says right and wrong can be determined by one’s gender, “race” or other identity. The paternalist line will say things like only wimmin can be raped or New Afrikans can’t “racially” oppress other people. In its extreme forms it justifies any action of members of the oppressed group.

Another form of identity politics is overdeterminism. The overdeterministic position is defined in our glossary as, “The idea that social processes are all connected and that all of the aspects of society cause each other, with none as the most important.”(8) The overdeterminist will say “all oppressions are important so just work on your own. A parallel in anti-racism is that white people should get in touch with themselves first and work on their own racism.”(9) Again this is all working from the framework of bourgeois individualism, which disempowers people from transforming the system.

There is a paralyzing effect of the bourgeois theories that try to persynalize struggles, and frame them in the question of “what’s in it for me?” Communists have little concern for self when it comes to political questions. To be a communist is to give oneself to the people, and to struggle for that which will bring about a better future for all people the fastest. While humyn knowledge can never be purely objective, it is by applying the scientific method that we can be most objective and reach our goals the quickest.(10)

Imagine you have just been released from prison. What do you plan to do with your freedom? Finally eat some real food, smoke a cigarette? Buy some Jordans? Get drunk? Score some dope? Get laid? And then go report in at the parole office?

If this sounds like a good parole plan, you obviously did not spend enough time planning for your future. Maybe what you need is another term, so that you can devise an effective parole plan to enhance your chances for success. That faulty parole plan was one that I used many times. I even changed the order, and reported to the P.O. first, but for me it always ended in a violation of parole, or a new term.

Failure to plan is planning to fail, and as convicted felons the odds are stacked against us. If you are a high school dropout, woman, or minority, the opportunity for legal financial advancement are already adversely affected enough. But there are ways to level the playing field, and put the odds back in our favor.

Many prisons have pre-release classes, and re-entry services available. If your institution offers such programs, take advantage of the opportunity. If not, check your prison’s library for resource guides that often provide addresses of transitional housing, and re-entry services in your area.

Residential drug programs are also a good place to build a foundation once you are released. Due to the demand of these services there usually are waiting lists, so start writing them when you’re about a year to the house. And many have classes for life skills, computers, parenting, and resume building, while also providing you with a safe, clean and drug-free environment to reside, oftentimes at little or no cost to you.

If you do not have a GED, make an effort to get it while still imprisoned. If you do have a GED, sign up for vocational or college courses. This will optimize your time, by turning unproductive time into a constructive endeavor. A transitional re-entry plan is also an excellent way to plan for your release (see example below). You know your weaknesses, but you have the power to correct your faults.

Example Transitional Plan

1. Report to parole office to discuss parole conditions, and any issues pertaining to the expectations of a successful parole.
2. Abstain from drugs and alcohol.
3. Check in to transitional housing.
4. Call family.

1. Obtain social security card, library card, and bus pass.
2. Register with the employment development department, and update my resume.
3. Apply for general assistance.
4. Register for community college.
5. Continued abstaining from drugs and alcohol.
6. Locate and attend AA or NA meeting to find a sponsor.
7. Buy a smartphone.
8. Attend church.
9. Visit family.

1. Stay within the structured program of transitional house.
2. Get at least a part-time job.
3. Continued participation in AA/NA.
4. Open a bank account.
5. Obey all laws, and report to parole officer as scheduled.
6. Be active in my church, and volunteer in free time.
7. Meet other positive people.
8. Continue living alcohol- and drug-free.
9. Be punctual in work and school.

1. Continue following the program rules of transitional house.
2. Report to parole office as required, and obey all laws.
3. Excell at work and at school.
4. Maintain sobriety.
5. Stay active in the church.
6. Do volunteer work in the community.

1. Be an exemplary resident of transitional home.
2. Obey all laws, and comply with parole conditions.
3. Continue AA/NA participation.
4. Maintain excellence in work and school.
5. Stay active in the church.
6. Help others.

Vita Wa Watu! This is one essay on my tactics to recruit Brothas and Sistas for certain movements. Take the Day of Peace and Solidarity for instance. I sent out letters to those that have a Genuine Love for me and the Struggle and kept it real with them. I informed them that I would be fasting for the 9th day of September because it was a day that meant more to Oppressed and Lumpen than the Sabbath does to the Jews. I told them that that day is a day of Peace in the Prisons around the country and that it commemorated one of the biggest prison uprisings in the states, and also that it was the last day of the now annual prison strike.

Then I informed them that this Glorious Day meant that there would be no beatings, rapes, stabbings, or any violence of the Oppressed against the Oppressor and that it mean a lot to me if they would fast with me. I got a few confirmations and still awaiting others.

Also, I let the Brothers here in Ad-Seg know the meaning of this day. However, only one Soulja fasted with me. Nevertheless, the day was a success here at Northeastern Correctional Center. Stay strong, Comrades. I will join you again next year.

MIM(Prisons) responds: In ULK 64 we printed some early reports of actions on the September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity. We’re happy to hear about this work going on in Florida.

And this is a good example of sharing your tactics for organizing and recruiting. The next issue of Under Lock & Key is devoted to this topic and we’re seeking moreinput from readers about what’s worked for you, and also what hasn’t worked. We can all learn a lot from our practice and from the practice of others. Sum up your organizing experiences and send them in for ULK. See ULK 63 for our prior deep dive into this topic.

Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
by Angela Duckworth
Scribner, 2016

[Editor’s note: This review of Grit follows on several articles printed in ULK 63 about the book and lessons we can glean for our organizing. This comrade offers a more in-depth review of some of the practical uses for our work, but also some criticisms of the politics of the book. We encourage readers to check out ULK 63 for more on organizing theory and practice.]

I really like this book, not just because I found lots of useful tactics and strategies for pursuing my own personal goals in life, but because I was able to see that I’ve already been putting many of the author’s suggestions into practice, both in my capacity as a revolutionary and as someone pursuing a particular goal: my freedom. Therefore, in writing this review, I have not only tried to sum up the tactics and strategies I found most useful, but those which others might find use for as well. However, this review is not without criticism.

The author of this book, Angela Duckworth, is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and she wrote this book to make one basic statement: success in any endeavor is dependent on the amount of time, hard work, determination, and effort that someone puts into something.

Now this concept might not seem so special or even new to someone, but to a dialectical materialist, it speaks power to truth in that it demolishes certain idealist and metaphysical notions about what it means to be gifted and blessed in bourgeois society. Of course, as a dialectical materialist, I also understand that this book must be viewed with a critical eye, as it contains both positive and negative aspects.

Professor Duckworth makes it a point to begin eir book by explaining that lofty-minded individuals aren’t usually the type of people to accomplish much of anything. Rather, it’s those with a “never give up” attitude that will reach a marked level of success. Professor Duckworth also successfully argues against the myth that the only thing that matters is “talent.” Instead she says a bigger factor is developed skill, which is the result of consistent and continuous practice. From a Maoist perspective this means that it is people who take a materialist approach to life and who understand the dialectical interplay between people and people, and between people and their surroundings, that will go the furthest the fastest.

In addition, the author puts forward organizational guidelines that are useful to just about anyone, even the imprisoned lumpen. How prisoners decide to exercise the professor’s tools is entirely up to them. We would hope however, that USW members and other allies participating in the United Front for Peace in Prisons would use the lessons in Grit to further the anti-imperialist prison movement, as what they essentially amount to is the piecemeal approach to struggle.

So what does it take to develop grit as the author defines it? The following are just some of the book’s pointers that I could relate to and I’m sure you can too:

1. Having direction as well as determination.
2. Doing more of what you are determined to do and doing it longer equals grit.
3. Learn from your mistakes.
4. Grit is more about stamina than intensity (“Grit is not just working incredibly hard, it’s loyalty”).
5. Do things better than they have ever been done before.
6. Goals are essential to strategizing long term, and you must also have lots of short-term goals along the way.
7. Having goal conflicts can be healthy: what may at one given moment seem contradictory may in fact be complementary.
8. Don’t be intimidated by challenges or being surrounded by people who are more advanced or developed. This can only help you grow.
9. Overextending yourself is integral toward growth, it’s what helps you develop. Also, repetitive diligence cultivates.
10. Daily discipline as perseverance helps you to zero in on your weaknesses.
11. Passion is a must!
    
12. Go easy on newcomers.
13. Look for quality over quantity when measuring growth.
14. What we do has to matter to other people.
15. Have a top level goal.
16. Stay optimistic!
17. Maintain a growth mindset.
    
18. Don’t be afraid to ask for help!
19. Following through is the single best predictor of grit.
20. Getting back up after you’ve been kicked down is generally reflective of grit. When you don’t, your efforts plummet to a zero. As a consequence, your skill stops improving and you stop producing anything with whatever skill you have.

So now that we’ve looked at tools for overall improvement, growth and development let’s look at some specific tips on how to add a little more intensity to our routines and organizational skill set. The author talks about something she calls “deliberate practice.” Deliberate practice is a technique or range of techniques that people across different professions use to become masters in their fields. Whether someone is a spelling bee champ, professional basketball player, or computer programmer, all these people have one thing in common: deliberate practice. I include the message here because it can be useful to revolutionaries. Simply put, deliberate practice is all about becoming an expert at something. Deliberate practice is the essence of grit:

1. Wanting to develop.
2. Not just more time on task, but better time on task.
3. Focusing on improving your weaknesses; intentionally seeking out challenges you can’t yet meet.
4. Practicing alone, logging more hours than with others.
5. Seeking negative feedback for the purposes of improving your craft.
6. Then focus in on the specific weaknesses and drill them relentlessly.
7. Don’t be afraid to experiment if you find yourself getting stuck or even if you’re not. Sometimes you have to get out of your comfort zone even if you’re already doing good. Who knows, you might do better.

Now, at the beginning of this review, I said this book was not beyond criticism. So here are some problems I found with Grit.

To begin with, the author caters to the idealist Amerikan ideology of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” and failing to take into account the structural oppression faced by the internal semi-colonies in the United $tates. Furthermore, most of the author’s case studies, those who she refers to as “paragons of grit,” come from privileged backgrounds and their success in life can be easily linked to the surroundings in which they were allowed to develop their skills to their fullest potentials. Compare this to the experience of the oppressed nations: the lumpen in particular who exist along the margins of society, or the Chican@ semi-proletariat who must struggle in order to meet its basic needs. Therefore, all is not simply a matter of will and determination for the oppressed as we might be led to believe. There are a variety of social factors in place which the oppressed must contend with in the grind of daily life.

Another problem I have with this book is where the author makes the statement that it generally takes up to 10,000 hours or 10 years of practice for someone to become an expert in their field. The author bases this hypothesis on data she’s gathered in preparation for eir book. This inherent flaw in the professor’s work is exactly the type of problem that comes from applying bourgeois psychology and sociological methods according to bourgeois standards within a narrow strip of bourgeois society. This was something of a turn off to me as I grappled with the concepts from a revolutionary perspective. I can imagine how discouraging it can be for our young comrades or those otherwise new to the struggle to read that it takes 10 years to become an expert in something, especially when they come to us eager to put in work. I wonder if I, myself, would have continued engaging Maoism if I would have heard or read this book when I was a newcomer? I would like to think that I had enough grit to not listen to the naysayers and instead keep on pushing, but I just don’t know.

Maoist China also grappled with similar questions during the Great Leap Forward (1959-61) and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Beginning with the Great Leap Forward, there were those in the Communist Party, as well as in the economic sector, who advocated an “expert in command” approach to work and politics. The people pushing this line believed that only those with years of study or practice in China’s greatest institutions or in the West’s most prestigious universities were qualified to lead the country towards socialism. Most of these people would turn out to be enemies of the revolution and ultimately responsible for putting China back on the capitalist road.

On the other side of the discussion where the Maoists who advocated the slogan “red and expert” to emphasize the importance of revolutionary will and determination over that of expertise. In other words, it was more important to pay attention to the masses motivation of serving the people according to revolutionary principles than to the bourgeois commandist approach of top down leadership and authoritarianism that was the essence of “experts in command.” Furthermore, the Maoists understood that to overly emphasize a reliance on the bourgeois methods of organization for the purposes of efficiency and profit was not only to widen the gap between leaders and led, but to return to the status quo prior to the revolution. What’s more, those calling for expert in command were also criticized for their stress on theory over practice and adoption of foreign methods of organization over that of self-reliance and independence. As such, the Maoists opted to popularize the slogan “red and expert” as they believed this represented a more balanced approach to political, cultural, economic, and social development. To the Maoists, there was nothing wrong with wanting to become expert so long as the concept wasn’t separated from the needs of the people or the causes of the revolution.

Partly as a response to the struggles gripping China during the time, but more so as an attempt to meet Chinese needs, the Communist Party initiated the “sent down educated youth” and “going down to the countryside and settling with the peasants” campaigns in which thousands of high school and university age students were sent on a volunteer basis to China’s rural area to help educate peasants. The students lived and toiled with the peasants for months and years so that they would not only learn to empathize with the country’s most downtrodden, but so that the revolutionary will and resolve of the privileged urban youth could be strengthened. Part of the students’ mission was to build the schools in the countryside and teach the peasants how to read and write as well to help advance the peasants’ farming techniques according to what the youth had learned in the cities. While these students may not have been “experts” in the professional sense, they did more to improve the living conditions of the peasants than most professionals did criticizing this program from the sidelines.(1)

The barefoot doctors program is another Maoist success story which even Fidel Castro’s Cuba came to emulate. The majority of China’s population were peasants and had virtually zero access to modern medical care. To address this problem, peasants were given a few years training in basic medical care, and sent to work in China’s rural area. Again, the focus here was not on expertise, but on practice and revolutionary will for the sake of progress not perfection. While those trained certainly were not expert medical doctors, they were of more use to the peasants than the witch doctors and shamans they were accustomed to.

While Grit offers a lot of useful information for comrades with little organizational experience, we should keep in mind that much of what we communists consider correct methods of practice has already been summed up as rational knowledge by the revolutionary movements before us. Bourgeois psychology can be useful, but history and practice are our best teachers. Look to the past and analyze the present to correctly infer the future.

As Mao Zedong Stated: “Marxists hold that man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world.”(2)

MIM(Prisons) responds: Throughout the book, Duckworth focuses on high-performance bourgeois heroes and institutions, in order to address the question of “what makes them the best at what they do?” In answering this question, the author does briefly acknowledge that access to resources can play a decisive role in one’s success in a particular field. That might mean having money to pay for pool access to become a great swimmer. In another way, access to resources might boil down to the semi-random luck of having a decent (or crap) coach in public school sports. Of course there are socio-economic reasons why good coaches are at certain schools and not others, and why some schools have sports at all and others don’t – and those are reasons linked to the three strands of oppression.

Duckworth’s analysis of how we (as outsiders) can influence someone’s internal grit underlined how big of an influence one persyn or experience can have on someone else’s passion and perseverence. For example, we don’t need material resources to change our attitude and behavior to a “growth mindset.” And, while a broader culture of grit is certainly preferable, we can still make a big impact as single organizers – in many of eir examples, the paragons of grit cited one or two key people in their lives who played a major part in their success. And ULK’s contributors’ persynal histories in “Ongoing Discussion of Recruiting Best Practices” confirms this.

Duckworth’s analysis on this topic is outlined in “Part 3: Growing Grit from the Outside In,” and MIM(Prisons) has been discussing this section at length to improve our own practices. We have an extremely limited ability to organize and influence people – we are only struggling with our subscribers through the mail, which comes with many unique challenges. Our subscribers have access to very little resources, and we can’t buy them the world. But if we can make even our limited contact more effective – through our study, execution, experimentation, and the feedback we receive – we believe we can still make a big impact. Duckworth helped build my confidence that even though i’m only one organizer, and i’m not really that talented at it to begin with, my efforts still matter a lot.

While Duckworth does good to knock down the idols of talent, ey replaces them with the hardworking individual, rather than the knowledge of the collective, and group problem solving. The group is acknowledged as one thing that can help you as an individual become great, in eir discussion of the “culture of grit.” The examples from China that Ehecatl brings up emphasizes that our goal is not to be great as individuals, but to serve the people by bringing together different sources of knowledge, to see a problem from all sides, and to engage the masses in conquering it.

In a related point, Ehecatl says that we need to “do things better than they have ever been done before.” I’m not sure of the deeper meaning behind this point, and it’s one that i think could be read in a discouraging way. We certainly should aim to do things better than we have ever done them. But if we know we can’t do them better than everyone ever, then should we give up? No, we should still try, because “effort counts twice” and the more we try, the better we’ll get at it.(3) And, even if we’re not the best ever, we can still have a huge impact. Like Ehecatl writes above, we don’t need to clock 10,000 hours before we can make big contributions.

To deepen your own understanding of the principles in Grit, get a copy to study it yourself. Get Grit from MIM(Prisons) for $10 or equivalent work-trade.

Today’s principal contradiction, here in the United $tates, is the national contradiction – meaning that between oppressed nations and oppressor nations. MIM(Prisons) provides some very provocative questions as to secondary contractions, their influence on or by and in conjunction to the current principal contradiction. Class, gender and nation are all interrelated.(1) Many times, while organizing our efforts and contemplating potential solutions to the principal contradiction, we overlook the secondary and tertiary ones. Such narrow-mindedness oftentimes leads to difficulties, hampering efforts toward resolution. Other times it makes resolving the principal, effectively, impossible. Analogous to penal institutions making it possible to punish a citizenry but impossible to better it due to the irreconcilable contraction between retributive punishment and rehabilitation. This is why reforms consistently fail and prisons persist as a social cancer.

In regards to intersecting strands of oppression, prisons are illustrative of more than pitfalls of narrow-mindedness (i.e. reform of one aspect while leaving the rest intact). Prisons also provide numerous examples of oppression combinations. Interactions of nation and gender oppression are some of the most evident. Penal institutions are inherently nationally oppressive, because they are social control mechanisms allowing capitalism to address its excluded masses. Since the United $tates is patriarchal in practice, prisons over-exaggerate this masculine outlook, creating an ultra-aggressive, chauvinistic subculture.

Intersection occurs oft times when a female staff member is present. Other than the few brave people, most wimmin in prison are regarded as “damsels in distress.” Generally speaking (at least in Colorado prisons) a male will accompany a female; though, most males make no effort to do this for other men. Capitalism’s undercurrent to such “chivalrous actions” is rooted in wimmin being the weaker, more helpless and vulnerable gender. In prison, machismo culture such is the chauvinist’s belief. While many wimmin aid in their inequality by accepting, encouraging, or simply not protesting such “chivalry,” brave, independent wimmin experience a form of ostracism – they are derided, an effort to enjoin their conformity. At the same time men are being chivalrous, they sexually objectify females, further demeaning them, reinforcing their second-class status under machismo specifically and, capitalistic patriarchy generally.

Furthermore, there is also the ever-present nation bias (e.g. hyper-sexualizing Latina females, white females should only fraternize with whites). As prisons are “snapshots” of general society, the contradictions – their intersecting and interacting – hold useful material for revolutionary-minded persyns.

Intersection of different oppression strands (as shown above) demonstrates that the resolution of one does not automatically mean resolution of others. For instance, should machismo in prison dissolve, the national oppression will still remain and vice versa. Prisons are an encapsulation of society, meaning, their abolishment will not necessarily translate to class, nation, gender contradiction resolutions throughout society. Although, it is a very good, versatile place to start. Penal institutions are more of an observation laboratory where the effects and affects of contradiction co-mingling manifest. A place to watch, document, analyze, formulate and possibly initiate theory and practice. There is no better way to comprehend oppression than to witness it in action. Nor is there any better way of combating the many oppressions than from the front lines.