Under Lock & Key

Beyonce is the Queen of pop in the United $tates, so this review isn’t meant to uphold em as a revolutionary force. Eir ties to Empire and the lack of internationalism in eir recent series of publicity stunts is a reminder of Beyonce’s attachment to U.$. institutions. Instead this article is meant to analyze eir performance at Super Bowl 50, and eir recently released song and music video, “Formation”, from a revolutionary Maoist perspective.

The “Formation” video is the most interesting thing in pop culture in a long time, and the Super Bowl performance was likely the most interesting thing in all football history. Beyonce’s dancers donned afros and berets (yet, not pants), and performed eir new song “Formation.” Like Nina Simone, Beyonce is being compelled by the struggle of eir nation to take an explicit political position. Simone correctly stated that “desegregation is a joke” and Beyonce is suggesting that cultural integration is not worthwhile. After Martin Luther King was assassinated, Simone performed a poem which called for violent uprising against “white things”, imploring New Afrikans to “kill if necessary” and to “build black things” and “do what you have to do to create life.”(1) Simone was a reflection of eir nation at the time. While Beyonce’s twirling of albino alligators is a weak replacement for Simone’s poetic diatribe, we hope today’s New Afrikans will keep pushing cultural icons in more militant and separatist directions.

The Song

Let’s start with what holds this whole phenomena together. The lyrics for “Formation” are not revolutionary.(2) They promote consumerism, making billions, drinking alcohol, being light-skinned, and fucking. They primarily promote cultural nationalism and economic integration with Empire. What comment the lyrics make on the international relationship between New Afrika and the Third World is more promotion of Black capitalism, on the backs of the most oppressed people in the world – those who are slaving over eir Givenchy dress and dying to mine the diamonds in the Roc necklaces ey is rocking.

Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, correctly calls out Beyonce’s bad economic recommendations in this song, “her celebration of capitalism – an economic system that is largely killing black people, even if some black people, like her, achieve success within it – [has] also been a source of important critique.”(3) Although Garza’s comment is tame, it’s an important generalization to be made. Considering Garza’s following, it’s an important persyn to be making it.

On a positive note, the song celebrates New Afrikan culture that is still under so much attack in the United $tates. While we prefer the revolutionary content and gender relations contained in Dead Prez’s “The Beauty Within”, “Formation” is still an exercise of Black pride. Whether that pride is then mobilized into a revolutionary internationalist direction is up to the New Afrikan masses, who aren’t getting a whole lot of clarity from Beyonce on that tip.

“Formation” calls for New Afrikan unity of the sexes, and of females as a group (not unusual for Beyonce’s typical pseudo-feminist fare). In the lyrics about going to Red Lobster, or going on a flight on eir chopper, or going to the mall to shop up, Beyonce advocates a reward-based system for harmonious sexual relations. Beyonce also brings in gay and trans New Afrikan culture, from the use of the word “slay” over and over, to the voice samples and New Orleans Bounce style of music used for the song.(4) Resolution of gender antagonisms within New Afrika are a good thing. But if the goal is Black capitalism, that’s bad for the international proletariat and just an extension of the gender aristocracy phenomenon into the relatively privileged New Afrikan internal semi-colony.

MIM(Prisons) upholds the line that all sex under patriarchy has elements of coercion(5), and offering perks for enjoyable sex is still an expression of patriarchal gender relations even if Beyonce is not a typical male father figure. Within the predominantly white Amerikkkan nation, rewards for compliance with patriarchy help to unite Amerika against the oppressed nations.(6) But within the oppressed internal semi-colonies, these lyrics are more interesting, especially considering the long tradition of the Amerikkkan-male-dominated recording industry’s use of divide-and-conquer tactics in selecting which music to record and promote. Beyonce isn’t promoting sexual entitlement or sexual passivity – patriarchal values that do more to divide New Afrika in practice, and which are heavily promoted in mainstream culture. Assuming whoever is fucking Beyonce could still feed emself without relying on that trade, it’s not a matter of life and death, and so these lyrics are less of a threat of starvation than a promotion of national unity. When united against a common oppressor, subsuming the gender struggle to the fight for national liberation, gender harmony in the oppressed nations can be a revolutionary force.

The best part about the song is the separatism and militancy. If the song were to get stuck in your head, it could be a mantra for working hard and uniting. It even gets into who the unity is directed against – Beyonce twirls on them haters, albino alligators. Ey twirls them, as in alligator rolls them, as in kills them. The haters are albino alligators, as in they’re white. Ey calls on others to slay these enemies, or get eliminated. In other words, choose a side.

The Video

The “Formation” music video, which was released as a surprise the day before the Super Bowl, is a celebration of New Afrikan national culture and a condemnation of oppression of New Afrikans. It is thick with important and unmistakably New Afrikan cultural references. Beyonce sings, poses, raises a Black fist, and drowns on top of a New Orleans Police car, sinking in floodwaters. A little Black kid hypnotizes a line of cops with eir incredible dancing, and the cops raise their hands in surrender. Beyonce raises two middle fingers on a plantation. There are references to the Moorish Science Temple, gay and trans New Afrikan culture, hand signs, a Black church service, and more, more, more…(7) “Stop Shooting Us” is spraypainted in the background. The subjects of the video look directly into the camera, confidently, and say “take what’s mine,” including Beyonce’s kid Blue Ivy, complete with eir baby hair and afro.

This video doesn’t clearly distinguish between integration and secession. Should New Afrikans just keep trying to make peace with Amerikkka, but while asserting a Black cultural identity? Should New Afrika honor its culture, and lives, by separating itself from Amerikkka and forming its own nation-state? Should this nation-state be capitalist or communist? Outside of a revolutionary context, much of the cultural markers that are present in this video could be taken as integrationist. Hopefully the militance and anti-white sentiment of the video will push New Afrika to get in formation to study up and push for actual (not just cultural) liberation from the many forms of oppression highlighted in the video.

The Super Bowl Halftime

That Beyonce was permitted to perform with dancers dressed up like the former Black Panther Party members is somewhat of a mystery. Is it because, ignoring any political content, one would still witness a show of tits and ass, so for the average ignoramus watching the biggest football event of the year, it’s no different? Maybe it’s because this year is the semi-centennial anniversary of the Black Panther Party, so it’s gonna come up in mainstream culture sometime, might as well come up with lots of distraction from the political content. Or maybe the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement has made room for this performance to be possible, and perhaps even necessary to quell uprisings by helping New Afrika feel included in such a paragon cultural event. For whatever reason(s), it’s obvious this half-time show would not have happened a few years ago. In fact, Beyonce led the entire halftime show in 2013 and while ey avoided any mention of patriorism, ey didn’t reference police brutality or New Afrikan nationlism either. It’s a milestone, and one that shows Black pride is definitely resurfacing country-wide.

Not surprisingly, the Super Bowl has a long history of promoting white nationalism.(8) Some overt examples include in 2002 when U2 helped the country mourn 9/11, with Bono wearing a jean jacket lined with an Amerikkkan flag which ey flashed at the audience, with the names of people who died in the “terrorist” attacks projected in the background. In 2004, Kid Rock wore an Amerikan flag as a poncho, and when ey sang “I’m proud to be living in the U.S.A.” over and over, two blondes waved Amerikan flags behind em. When necessary, the Super Bowl even has a tradition of promoting integration and “world peace,” some of which we explore below. At this year’s performance, Coldplay upheld these decidedly white traditions. Where there was one Amerikan flag, it was during Coldplay’s portion of the performance. When there was feel-good bouncing and rainbow-colored multiculturalism, Coldplay was leading it. When the audience was told “wherever you are, we’re in this together,” the singer of Coldplay was saying it. It’s not surprising that the white Coldplay frontman would be the one to promote this misguided statement of unity. As explored in the review of Macklemore’s “White Privilege II” project, no, we’re not in this together. And we don’t need white do-gooders playing leadership roles that distract from national divisions, and thus, the potency for national liberation struggles.

At the end of the Coldplay-led halftime show, the stadium audience made a huge sign that said “Believe in Love.” On the other hand, some of Beyonce’s dancers were off-stage holding a sign that said “Justice 4 Mario Woods” for cameras. One is a call to just have faith that our problems will go away. Another is a call for a change in material reality: an end to murders by police. (Side note: Someone who was allegedly stabbed by Mario Woods just prior to Woods’s 20-bullet execution has come out to tell eir story. Whether ey mean to or not, this “revelation” is being wielded in an attempt to discredit Beyonce as a competent political participant, and to lend more justification to the unnecessary police murder of Woods. Whatever Woods did just prior to eir execution, that ey is dead now is wholly unjustified. The demand for “Justice 4 Mario Woods” is correct, and underlines how New Afrikan people are gunned down in the streets without due process, which is supposedly guaranteed by the U.$. Constitution.)

While Beyonce’s performance didn’t break new ground by bringing up politics or social problems, it was done in a different way than in the past, that may be a marker for how our society has changed. The costume Beyonce wore, which was adorned with many shotgun shells, was a reference to the costume Michael Jackson wore during eir Super Bowl 1993 performance. Where Michael Jackson had banners of a Black hand shaking a white hand, Beyonce had Black Panther dancers, so touchdown for Beyonce. But where Beyonce sings “you might be a Black Bill Gates in the making”, Jackson advocated for the children of the world because “no one should have to suffer.” Beyonce’s individualist capitalism is devoid of any awareness that today’s New Afrikan wealth, especially of Gates proportions, is stolen by the United $tates military from exploited nations across the globe. Yet Jackson’s multiculturalism invites unity with oppressor nation chauvinism, which historically usurps oppressed nation struggles and drives them into the ground.

In Janet Jackson’s performance in 2004 (you know, the one where Justin Timberlake stalked em around the stage and then exposed Jackson’s breast to the world), ey performed the song “Rhythm Nation.” The video for “Rhythm Nation” features militant outfits, with pants. In the video, Jackson and eir dancers intrigue a few Black people who are wandering around what appears to be the Rhythm Nation’s underground headquarters, another reference to the enchanting powers of dance. “Rhythm Nation” is about unity and brotherhood, “break the color lines”, but it’s not about Blackness.(9) At the Super Bowl, Jackson called out various injustices faced by oppressed nations (prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, and illiteracy) and called out “No!” to each one, but didn’t make it about New Afrikan struggle. That Beyonce clearly delineates eir struggle from the struggle of whites with this performance is an advancement off of Jackson’s.

On the topic of organizing females and combating New Afrikan female internalized racism, Beyonce’s performance is a step above other performances. A few examples: Nelly and P. Diddy’s dancers in 2004 were dark-skinned but were straight-haired compared with Beyonce’s backups. In 2004 they also wore straight hair, as in Madonna’s performance in 2012 as well. Even though Madonna called on “ladies” like Beyonce does, Madonna called on them to cure their troubles on the dance floor. Beyonce calls on ladies to get organized (in formation). It should be obvious which message MIM(Prisons) prefers.

During Madonna’s performance, MIA gave a middle finger to the camera during the lyric “I’ma say this once, yeah, I don’t give a shit.” But then MIA and Nikki Minaj joined a tribe of dark-skinned, straight-haired cheerleaders revering Madonna as their blonde, white idol. Beyonce’s Panther dance-off with Bruno Mars is a step in a better direction. We also prefer Beyonce’s dancers forming a letter “X” on the field (likely another New Afrikan reference), as opposed to Madonna’s self-aggrandizing “M”.

Whether it’s dancing at the Super Bowl or dancing in front of a line of pigs, impressive dancing isn’t what’s going to get the New Afrikan nation out of the scope of Amerikkkan guns. Beyonce is a culture worker, so that’s eir most valuable weapon at this time. As long as she keeps shaking her ass, white Amerikkka might stay hypnotized and let Beyonce continue to promote New Afrikan pride. Hopefully many people in New Afrika who watched the Super Bowl will study up on history, as Beyonce hints at, and revolutionary internationalism of the Black Panther Party can be injected tenfold into the growing Black Lives Matter movement.(10)

“White Privilege II”
Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, feat. Jamila Woods
Released January 2016

This song calls people out about attending protests and tweeting, or being silent, instead of “actually getting involved” in fighting racism. The song is very introspective and what might sound like Macklemore (Ben Haggerty) dissing other artists is actually about Macklemore and Ryan Lewis themselves. Macklemore criticizes emself along with others for making money off a style that came from Black nation culture and acknowledges that “I’ve been passive.” “It seems like we’re more concerned with being called racist than we actually are with racism.”(1) Ironically, the free song will make money for someone even if it’s just through bringing more traffic to iTunes or YouTube, but that doesn’t mean Macklemore isn’t saying something correct.

On the plus side, Macklemore doesn’t say anything supporting mass surveillance or the expansion or legitimization of the federal government’s power ostensibly to protect Blacks. Macklemore doesn’t explicitly oppose Black nationalism. Notably, Macklemore says that “white supremacy isn’t just a white dude in Idaho” and that it “protects the privilege I hold” – taking issue with the idea that Euro-Amerikan domination and oppression are just about something inside somebody’s brain among the white trash, rural people, or Republicans. Macklemore also raises that people’s actions – or their inaction – taken so they won’t be called “racist” are compatible with doing nothing that contributes to ending racism. As Macklemore might or might not know, in 2016 there is still a huge problem involving post-modernism-influenced efforts that emphasize changes in speech and thought, and perfecting those in increasing detail, over taking concrete action to end repression. Simply participating in a protest or saying some approving words about a well-known movement could become part of maintaining a non-racist or anti-racist identity with which one can be satisfied – a step toward contentment. Without development of knowledge and of the motivation to apply it scientifically, it could also be premature catharsis and a substitute for revolutionary work.

Also on the plus side is Macklemore’s passing critique of petty-bourgeois “DIY” (do-it-yourself) culture that sometimes purports to be isolated from exploitation, corporations, finance capital, and imperialist oppression. “The DIY underdog, so independent. But the one thing the American dream fails to mention is I was many steps ahead to begin with.”

Macklemore also mentions those who would praise eir song “Same Love” (“If I was gay, I would think hip hop hates me”) because of its support for gay people, but disdain Black hip hop and claim “it’s your fault if you run” in the context of police shootings. Macklemore implicates emself in the treatment of Blacks as inferior. “If I’m the hero, you know who gets cast as the villain.” It is true that many in the United $tates and the West have rejected anti-imperialist ways of advancing gay people’s rights, consider Muslim and oppressed nations to be incapable or less capable of change on gender questions without Western intervention, and cannot imagine how Black nationalism, Chican@ nationalism, First Nation nationalism and other oppressed nation nationalism would help with gay and lesbian liberation.

A voice that’s not Macklemore’s toward the end of the song mentions “a very age-old fight for black liberation.” Unfortunately, there is no mention of Black nationalism specifically. There is no mention of the Black Panther Party, which at one time was Maoist.(2) The name “Black Lives Matter” shares an acronym with “Black liberation movement,” and there are many around or associated with #BlackLivesMatter who claim to be for Black liberation. There are many, though, who are against even using the term, and there are others who explicitly reject Black nationalism, Black nation self-determination, Black nation independent institutions, and Black nation-building. If Macklemore wanted to be controversial, ey could have at least mentioned Black power, Black nationalism, the BPP, Huey Newton, or Malcolm X, but Macklemore doesn’t manage to leave the realm of a kind of political correctness despite asking “Then I’m trying to be politically correct?” if ey stays silent. (Maybe eir verbal support for Black nationalism will come with “White Privilege III.” Probably only if Blacks themselves start popularizing present-day nationalist struggles, for white rappers to tag on to.)

This reviewer would suggest to Macklemore that, from the point of the view of the oppressed, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something when it comes to non-lumpen white Amerikans such as emself who usually would do nothing to upset business as usual, including Democratic Party business. Contentment and apathy are bad things when there is really a potential to help the oppressed, but it is clear that when Amerikans become militant or excited it is normally for the worse. Militant integrationism and militant labor aristocracy politics are not better than nothing from the viewpoint of the international proletariat.

For example, vigorously upholding certain aspects of Martin Luther King while pooping on Huey Newton and even Malcolm X is not better than nothing. Joining the outrageously chauvinistic and labor aristocracy-influenced Progressive Labor Party – which opposed Black nationalism when the BPP was around and still being ferociously repressed – and continuing in 2016 the PLP tradition of criticizing Black and other internal semi-colony nationalism isn’t better than nothing. Talking about the Black nation occasionally, but all but rejecting Black nationalism (and supporting it only nominally), and making mealy-mouthed innuendo against Black nationalists as a group, isn’t better than nothing. Insinuating that all oppressed-nation nationalism is narrow nationalism, while advocating for U.$. exploiter class/individual unity and economic and political interests, isn’t better than nothing. Rejecting Black nationalism in the name of “multiracial” unity for more super-profits in the parasitic United $nakes isn’t better than nothing. Talking about white supremacy and then actively denying the existence of Euro-Amerikan national oppression of Black people isn’t better than nothing. Talking about oppression of Black people only to hitch people to U.$.-centric social-democracy or a fascist party isn’t better than nothing (in other words, voting for Bernie Sanders isn’t better than doing nothing). Trying to rile up the labor aristocracy and the U.$. middle class as if they were revolutionary, instead of petty-bourgeois exploiters prone to supporting fascism, isn’t better than nothing. Stirring up exploiters to march in the streets to jail some bankers, without giving up their aspirations to control and obtain more benefit from finance capital and imperialist state power, isn’t better than nothing. Attacking Third World peoples in various chauvinistic ways while flattering and pandering to the already-chauvinistic and racist labor aristocracy and gender aristocracy, of highly privileged U.$. so-called “workers” and globally privileged Euro-Amerikan females, is not better than nothing.

Amerikkkans who are already going around the United $tates and the world disrupting movements against U.$. imperialism certainly should recognize the privilege they exercise in doing so, instead of, for example, denying that viable alternatives to what they are doing exist. Both white people and non-white people should understand how Euro-Amerikans, including Euro-Amerikan settler nation workers, are privileged as settlers, oppressors, and exploiters.

There is less utility, though, in whites dwelling on their particular privilege as individuals with skin privilege, certain family history, etc., rather than the privilege of their group in very broad social relationships of global national oppression and exploitation. Suggesting listeners also “look at” themselves, Macklemore talks more about emself as an individual, than about Euro-Amerikan labor aristocrats as a group. Focusing on race and variation in individual privilege could draw attention away from national oppression by whites and the labor aristocracy privilege that U.$. citizen workers have in common. Ideas about inequality within U.$. borders have long been used to make the political and strategic consequences of global international inequality seem less important. Ideas about white privilege and individual self-reflection often don’t address how the vast majority of U.$. citizens are exploiters of Third World workers. Often these calls to anti-racist activism end up as an exercise in that white privilege on a global scale.

Euro-Amerikan acknowledgment of privilege could be a welcome step toward ideological reform and taking responsibility for police and criminal injustice system violence and other wrongdoing, how whites have benefited economically, nationally and socially from imprisonment and control of non-whites, war, national oppression, exploitation, and their consequences. But this recognition would have to be more than halfway, not partial, or it may end up obscuring and legitimizing the majority of a typical Euro-Amerikan’s privilege under the guise of moving toward helping non-whites.

At this point in history, the oppressed generally don’t need unscientific leadership or militant do-something impulsive actions. That may not leave Euro-Amerikans much to do if they decline to study their position, and the position of the U.$. population, in an actually comprehensive way. They can be cautious about accepting any prevailing narrative. They can be wary of potentially following any Amerikan leader into fascism and destruction. Labor aristocrats will do what they need to do in anti-war or anti-single-war movements, and other movements, to remind politicians to act in their interests and spend more super-profit tax money on them as allegedly anti-Iraq-War Obama did. We don’t want a broad anti-racist call to action to end up inspiring more Amerikkkans to fight for their own global interests.

Macklemore raps about whites protesting and “seeming like you’re down” as having an “incentive” to do so, in order to be liked and accepted. Oppressors do have an incentive to co-opt movements or use them for career reasons, but the oppressed have an incentive to fight. There’s nothing wrong with incentive itself, contrary to mistaken notions that all activism should be altruistic. The notion that whites should have selfless pure motives in participating in or supporting a movement around killings of Black people could actually be an admission that whites don’t have an interest in the movement contrary to ideas about Black people’s struggles positively intersecting with white worker, and white petty-bourgeois individual so-called liberation. Either whites have an interest in opposing police and vigilante brutality or they don’t, and most don’t.

More important than whether somebody has “incentive” or not is whether ey is standing in the way of Black nationalism or not. Macklemore’s lyrics suggest a tension between “do something” and “don’t do it for you.” Labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeois types would add, “Do it, because it’s in your own interest.” There is an alternative to more-involved labor aristocracy activism or more-energetic integrationist activism, and that is to support anti-Amerikan Black nationalism and movements and institutions that are independent of Democratic Party and white exploiter interests and politics. Short of that, Macklemore’s expression of “we are not we” (as opposed to “we are not free”) is to be preferred to whites’ falsely identifying with Blacks, claiming to be one with them, and derailing their movement via “All Lives Matter” sentiments.

Spotlight

Open Road Films

2015

In 2001, reporters at the Boston Globe newspaper exposed widespread sexual abuse of children by priests in the Catholic Church and the long-running coverup of this abuse by Church leadership. Priests who were known to have molested children were moved to new parishes where they repeated the abuse, with full knowledge of Church leadership. The Globe printed a series of stories that led to the resignation of Cardinal Law and great embarrassment for the Church. Spotlight dramatizes the work done by the reporting team at the Globe to uncover the facts in this case, and the resistance they faced in a city dominated by the Catholic Church.

Overall Spotlight does a good job demonstrating the tremendous harm that the institution of the Catholic Church did to thousands (likely tens of thousands) of youth, and the pervasive influence and power of the Church in the city of Boston, Massachusetts. No attempt is made to justify the actions of the Church leadership who covered for the abusive priests, nor does the movie suggest that anything was changed by the newspaper stories, instead concluding with a list of hundreds of cities around the world where similar abuse scandals were uncovered.

It is outrageous and enraging to see the stories of abused children, the lucky ones who made it to adulthood, and hear about Church authorities who, upon learning about these cases, moved to silence the abused, promising it would never happen again, even while they knew the priests had a history of exactly this same abuse against other children. It is an interesting contrast that, while quick to believe that all Muslims are terrorists when a small minority of them fight back against imperialism, Amerikans presented with so much evidence would never consider calling all Catholics child molesters. Even non-Catholics in the United $tates are well indoctrinated to believe that the churches are forces for good and Christianity is a religion of good people.

In the end the movie lets the Catholic Church off the hook. By focusing on just this sex abuse scandal, Spotlight portrays the rest of the Church activities as generally benevolent. Further, it implies that the abusive priests are just psychologically impaired in some way, and so this has allowed the Catholic Church to say they’ve solved the problem by introducing psychological screening for those wanting to enter priesthood. We believe it is the very institution of the Catholic Church, along with the patriarchy that it so ardently supports, that leads priests to be indoctrinated into eroticizing power over helpless young kids. It’s not a flaw in the individual, but rather the system itself that is flawed, and not in a way that can be fixed by psychological screenings. Religion has a long history of supporting the patriarchal dominance of male power and reinforcing gender inequality.

One problem with focusing on the serious harm the Catholic Church does to Amerikkkans is the omission of the even greater harm the Church has done globally. Consistently a force for reaction, the Church at best has pretended neutrality while watching dictators murder, plunder, and oppress entire nations of people. Just as Spotlight shows the power and influence of the Catholic Church in all levels of Boston’s city politics, in many cases there is documentation of this Church’s support for and work with reactionary governments around the world.

As a strong centralized religious institution with a long history, the Catholic Church is an easy target for people looking to document the reactionary role of religious institutions. But they are just one example of the harm religious institutions have on society. After overthrowing the imperialists and putting a government in power that serves the interests of the oppressed (a dictatorship of the proletariat), the people will have the power to ban reactionary institutions. When we see the tremendous harm that the Catholic Church did to so many children over so many years, it should be obvious that this institution should be outlawed. And those who perpetuated and covered up the molestation should face the people’s courts. There is no justification for allowing such dangerous institutions to continue.

Yet, we don’t need to outlaw religion as a belief under the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Mao explained about their policy in China under socialism:

“The Communist Party has adopted a policy of protecting religions. Believers and non-believers, believers of one religion or another, are all similarly protected, and their faiths are respected. Today, we have adopted this policy of protecting religions, and in future we will still maintain this policy of protection.” (Talk with Tibetan Delegates, October 8, 1952)

As a counter to this messaging, the Strugglen Artists Association (SAA) has emerged as a culture project of United Struggle from Within. Through the SAA prisoners can send out unique messages that reflect the transformation they’ve made from parasites to productive people and leaders.

I displayed the Chican@ greeting cards at the last dayroom with a few Chican@ prisoners who i read the bible with (illustrating Christ as a socialist :) ). They were impressed and the entire ten cards I laid out are spoken for; just have to collect the stamps!

MIM(Prisons) adds: The above report comes from a Propaganda Worker of the Strugglen Artists Association (SAA). The job of a Propaganda Worker is to spread revolutionary culture amongst those at their locale, and help fundraise for the cultural arm of the SAA. At the time of our July 2015 Congress, the SAA had raised $44 on top of the expenses to run the project! These funds are slotted to be used to expand the SAA.

Building revolutionary culture is an important task for our movement. We know that even after a successful socialist revolution the people won’t instantly learn to be selfless and automatically focused on serving the best interests of society. It will take many years to counter the reactionary culture of imperialism even after the economic system has been revolutionized. We saw this in the long struggle of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in China, which mobilized people to attack leaders who were using positions of power for personal gain. A new bourgeoisie was forming within the party, and the GPCR was an ideological attempt to defeat it. The cultural work we do today is part of the broader cultural revolution that will extend into the construction of socialism.

You don’t have to be an artist to help spread revolutionary culture; you can sign up to be a Propaganda Worker. We have blank greeting cards with revolutionary images; bookmarks with themes of spreading peace and overcoming drug addiction and alcoholism; coloring book pages to help reach children and illiterate folks, and to provide a creative outlet for those who do better with color than lines; and small posters to remind us to stay focused on a correct vision.

MIM(Prisons) is not selling these items outright; we are only sending them out in small bulk packages to be used as organizing tools. We know our subscribers have lots of skills for hawking and hustling. So why not put those skills to good use for the communist movement against all oppression? Write in for more info on how to become a Propaganda Worker.

A key theme of the film is the role of police brutality in shaping the experience of New Afrikans in Compton, particularly young males. There are multiple run-ins with police brutality depicted, and attention is given to the infamous beating of Rodney King by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the subsequent riots in Los Angeles that deeply affected all members of NWA. The strong anti-cop message of the movie will resonate with audiences who have been unable to avoid discussion of police murders of New Afrikans over the last year or so. As such, the movie will have a positive impact of pushing forward the contradiction between oppressed nations and the armed forces that occupy their neighborhoods.

Every New Afrikan rebellion in the past year has been triggered by police murders. Murders and attacks on New Afrikans by whites and their police have always been the most common trigger of rebellions since Black ghettos have existed.(1) This was true in the 1960s when the Black Panthers rose to prominence, it was true in the early 1990s after NWA rose to fame, and it’s true today when “Black Lives Matter” is a daily topic on corporate and other media. This national contradiction, and how it is experienced in the ghetto, is portrayed in the film by the fact that there are no positive roles played by white characters.

A secondary theme, that surrounded a number of high-profile groups/rappers of the time, was the question of freedom of speech. NWA was part of a musical trend that brought condemnation from the White House and the birth of the “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics” warning sticker. Ice Cube does a good job of portraying his character as righteous and politically astute, though he self-admittedly embellished from how events truly occurred.(2) We see the strong political stances Ice Cube took in his music after he left NWA, yet, only a glimpse. They do a montage of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, but don’t touch on Cube’s extensive commentary before and after the riots through his music.

They also curiously leave out any mention of Dre’s public feud with Eazy-E after Dre left Ruthless Records, though they do spend time on Ice Cube’s feuds with Ruthless.

The movie concludes by glamorizing Dre’s rise to fame and independence, after being screwed by Jerry Heller (and Eazy-E) while with NWA, and then by Suge Knight for The Chronic album. They portray his success in guiding new artists like Eminem and 50 Cent to successful careers and his marketing of Beats headphones, which were purchased by Apple, Inc. Ice Cube’s great success as an actor and producer are also featured, as are a memorializing of Eazy-E and updates on DJ Yella and MC Ren.

While this ending is a logical wrap up of the story of these five artists and where they are today, the focus on the individuals leaves out much of their real legacy. NWA was part of a cultural shift. Like all historical events, what they did represented much bigger forces in society. The character of Ice Cube recognizes this in a press interview in the film when he says they didn’t start a riot at a Detroit show, they were just representing the feelings of the youth of the day. As was stressed in that interview, and throughout their careers, NWA members were just reporters speaking on what they were experiencing. And it was an experience that until then was unknown to a majority of Amerikans. Today that experience has become popularized. It is both glamorized and feared, but it has become a prominent part of the Amerikan consciousness thanks to voices like NWA.

While reality rap has been used (and misconstrued) to reinforce racism by many, the real transformatative impact it has had is in bringing this reality to the forefront so that it could no longer be ignored by Amerikans. Again, this pushed the national contradiction in the United $tates, by making all people face reality and take positions on it.

One problem with the movie is the way it leaves the rebelliousness of NWA as something from the past, that has evolved into successful business sense. NWA was one of a number of greatly influential artists at the time that shaped the future of hip hop. When gangsta rap was breaking out, you had real voices leading the charge. Since then it has been reeled in, and there is generally a dichotomy between the studio garbage that gets corporate play and the countless popular artists who have taken rap to higher levels both artistically and ideologically. Today there is a greater breadth of politically astute artists who are quite influential, despite lacking access to the corporate outlets. A montage of the countless “fuck da police”-inspired songs that have been produced since NWA would be a better recognition of their legacy today, than the focus on mainstream success and lives of some of the individual members.

While being a longer movie, Straight Outta Compton seemed to end quickly. There are plenty of exciting musical moments to make NWA fans nod their heads, plenty of fight scenes, if you’re into that, and many rebellious statements made by members of NWA that should make you smile. We look forward to the even longer director’s cut, which promises to get deeper into some points that are only hinted at in the theatrical release.(3)

The trademark Oscar is one of a group of statuettes awarded annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for achievement in motion picture production and performance. Lately there has been a lot of buzz about the Oscar nominations, and the lack thereof when it comes to the oppressed nations. The CBS morning news, Access Hollywood, and other TV programs have made mention of the “whiteness” of this year’s acting nominees for the Oscars.

It was said on the CBS morning news that the panel that has the responsibility of deciding who to nominate for an Oscar is 94% white male. Personally, I don’t see why there’s such a “buzz”, because hystorically we know that this nation is controlled and dominated by white male imperialists who do not have the oppressed nations’ best interest at heart. After all, the “Oscar” is a gold statue of a white man; the gold representing capitalism and the exploitation of the people, and the white man of course representing colonialism and imperialism at its core.

People are complaining that the top honors of the Oscars have been whitewashed. But the Oscars have not been whitewashed – they’ve been white all the time. The Oscars were not created to honor or acknowledge the artistic endeavors of the oppressed nations. People in the hoods, ghettos, and barrios know this, and thus, don’t give a damn about the Oscars.

In Webster’s unabridged dictionary, the definition for Academy Award is: “an annual award given to a performer, director, technician, etc., of the motion picture industry for superior achievement in a specific category: judged by the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and symbolized by the presentation of an Oscar.”

The key phrase in the above definition is “superior achievement.” Traditionally and hystorically in this genocidal nation that we call Amerikkka, the lumpen and oppressed nations have never been given credit or even acknowledged as having any “superior achievement.” And the fact that the imperialists hold themselves to be “superior” is at the root of white supremacy in this country.

Therefore, how could it be a surprise that none of the 20 acting nominees for the 2015 Oscar nominations were people from the oppressed nations? I suppose what is even more important, is why should it matter? We (oppressed nations) should not look for acceptance or confirmation from the oppressor nations to validate our achievements and success.

As long as Amerikkka is dominated by an imperialistic economic system, and the injustice, racism, and oppression that come with it, she will never be color-blind. We know and understand that the Oscars do not reflect the true demographic of Amerikkka. Amerikkka is in a state of constant browning, and in a just society, this would be reflected in nominations of any kind.

However, it is clear that we do not live in a just society and we must view this lack of diversity in the nominations accordingly. In a socialist or communist society, the disparities we see today would not exist, and one reason would be because there would be no golden white man representing superior achievement. We also know and understand that the entire Hollywood apparatus is owned and controlled by those who hold capitalist values close to heart. We look forward to the day when people are recognized for their achievements in service of the people, and not the capitalists.

The imperialists use media outlets to promote their agenda, not ours. Television (tell-lie-vision) and movies are two of the most effective tools that the imperialists use to indoctrinate, brainwash and control us. Therefore, when they don’t nominate oppressed nation people for their token awards, that simply means that oppressed nation people are not embarking upon the kind of artistic endeavors that their oppressors want them to – and that is a good thing. To hell with the powers that be! Damn them and Oscar!

As for me, I say we’ve been doing too much damn acting anyway – it’s time to start doing some real revolutionary work. Power to the people who stand up, act out, and act up in the interest of freedom, justice, and equality.

MIM(Prisons) adds: This writer is correct that the Amerikan entertainment industry only represents the imperialist segment of society. Hollywood’s main ambition is to create culture that perpetuates imperialist values, and makes all the woes that are an inherent part of this economic system palletable to as many people as possible.

The exclusion of oppressed nation culture from the Academy Awards is only one reason why reforms to the imperialist system is not where we should focus our creative energies. Instead of grooming revolutionaries to seek acceptance in bourgeois cultural institutions, we need to be creating alternative culture, controlled by revolutionaries.

This is one reason why we are pushing a revolutionary art project through which prisoner artists can create art that serves the people’s struggles and share it with others. Besides creating art for the pages of Under Lock & Key and our other publications, we are distributing greeting cards, bookmarks, mini posters, and coloring book pages that spread the incredible art of the Strugglen Artists Association contributors. If you want to contribute original artwork to this project, or help distribute the materials to others, get in touch!

Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life
by Jon Lee Anderson
Grove Press Books
1997

From de-classed aristocrat, to social vagabond, to communist revolutionary and legend, Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life takes us from Che’s early beginning as a sickly kid with a tremendous appetite for reading to his miserable last days in the Bolivian mountains trying to spark a revolution. As far as biographies of political figures go this one is truly exceptional as Jon Lee Anderson does an outstanding job of focusing this book not on Che the individual but on Che the devoted servant of the people. There are just so many aspects and stages of Che’s life which this book covers that I already know I won’t have enough space to cover it all. Therefore I will stick to covering not so much what we already know about Che but what hasn’t yet been fully understood about him.

With that said, let us travel back in time to Argentina circa World War II, a country caught between Amerikan imperialism and a rising fascist influence. Ernesto “Che” Guevara was first turned on to politics as a young child through his friendships with several other children whose parents were Spanish migrants fleeing the Spanish Civil War. Che’s family was also apparently very active in Argentina’s petty bourgeois political circles. As a result of all these factors Che soon became semi-political himself, proudly joining the youth wing of Accion Argentina (Argentine Action), a pro-Allied solidarity group.(p. 23) However, he wouldn’t really begin developing a critical view of the world until his teenage years when he was shaped further by the political turmoil in his own country as well as by his Spanish émigré friends who had a measurable influence in his life. Years later they would all belong to local anti-fascist youth cells formed by Argentine students organizing against the militant youth wing of the pro-Nazi Alianza Libertadora Nacionalista (National Liberation Alliance).(p. 33) Besides this political organizing the rest of Che’s high school years were spent devouring every book he could get his hands on, including Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Che later revealed to his second wife years later that at the time of reading Das Kapital he couldn’t understand a thing. Of course this would all change.

After graduating from high school he began to study philosophy, both inside and outside of college. He took engineering classes and enrolled in medical school. He also became fascinated with psychology. It was during this time that he began studying Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Yet during this time and the year that followed he continued to avoid any serious political participation. Paradoxically, however friends and family remember that Che began to debate politics with different organizations as well as with his family who were all very political, as if he was beginning to put his reading to the test.(p. 50)

During one of these discussions Che made his first anti-imperialist condemnation of the United $tates, accusing them of having imperial designs in Korea.(p. 50) It was not until his trips up and down South and Central America that Che Guevara would start to become radicalized. And it wasn’t books that did it, but “the injustice of the lives of the socially marginalized people he had befriended along his journeys.”(p. 63) It was also during this time that Che’s criticism and hatred for the United $tates began to grow, as now more than at any prior time in his life he was convinced that it was Amerikan imperialism that was the root cause of all of Latin@ America’s problems.(p. 63)

Through subsequent trips up and down the Americas Che met various Marxist intellectuals he had a high opinion of because they were “revolutionary.”(p. 118) In addition, he began to openly identify with a political cause, aligning himself and working within the leftist government of Arbenz in Guatemala. Also, very interesting to note that during this time Che began an ambitious project to write what would have been his first book titled The Role of the Doctor in Latin America(p. 135), a project he would unfortunately never finish due to his preoccupation with other revolutionary activities. A shame too as the ideas outlined for his book apparently dealt with the role of doctors during times of revolution, and one can’t help but draw parallels with Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth written after, but around the same period of revolutionary upsurge in the Third World. Wretched not only deals with the anti-colonial struggle in Africa, but the role of the revolutionary psychiatrist.

As part of his preparation for this book, Che found it necessary “to take his knowledge of Marxism further, as he deepened his struggle of Marx, Engels, Lenin and the Peruvian Jose Carlos Marategui”(p. 136) founder of the Peruvian Communist Party which decades later would develop the Maoist Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). He also discovered Mao Zedong and read about the Chinese communist revolution, ascertaining that their road to socialism had been different than the Soviet Union’s.(p. 136) Guevara’s resolve as a revolutionary would only become steeled in the ensuing chaos that followed the CIA-backed coup against the Arbenz government. This is also when the CIA first took notice of Che starting “one of the thickest (files) in the CIA’s global records.”(p. 159)

After Guatemala, Che fled to Mexico where his political destiny would become sealed after meeting the leaders of the July 26th Movement after their failed focoist attack on a Cuban military base. The leaders were Fidel and Raul Castro. Soon thereafter, the trio, along with a band of other Cuban exiles, left Mexico and began their historic guerrilla war against the Batista dictatorship. Their point of unification was that “Batista was little more than a pimp, selling off their country to degenerate foreigners…”(p. 170) But physical training and marksmanship wasn’t enough for Che in preparation to liberate Cuba. Confident that the revolution would succeed, Che intensified “his study of economics, he embarked on a cram course of books by Adam Smith, Keynes and other economists, boned up on Mao and Soviet texts…”(p. 189) Once in the Sierra Maestra Che kept up his studies as he wanted to have a firm grasp of political and economic theory.(p. 189)

After exhibiting exemplary fighting and leadership skills Fidel made Che his “chief of staff.” After the guerrilla victory, and among many other accomplishments and activities, Che concentrated on consolidating the initial revolutionary power base – the new Cuban military. Like Mao, Che sought to “raise the cultural level of the army.” In addition to basic literacy and education, the new military academy under Che was designed to impart political awareness to the troops.(p. 384) He even helped start Verde Olivio (Olive Green), a newspaper for the revolutionary armed forces.(p. 385)

Che was also made President of Cuba’s National Bank. Indeed, Che Guevara was fully immersed in trying to build up Cuba’s independent socialist economy. He recognized that in order to completely liberate itself from imperialist dependency, the Cuban economy would have to break free from the sugar industry which subsumed Cuba, turning it into a one-crop fiefdom. Cuba would also have to industrialize. Che was also for agrarian reform believing that the peasants who worked the land should have more control and reap more from it. Fidel had similar ideas on agrarian reform but not as far reaching as Che’s. As a matter of fact, a thorn of contention between Che and Fidel was Che’s strong belief that in order to succeed as a free and independent socialist state, Cuba would have to develop its own productive forces and should bow to no one, while Fidel preferred to play various imperialist powers off of one another in order to receive assistance in modernization and military equipment. And while Che would ultimately, though not always, come to echo Fidel’s line on modernization, this seemed to be more because of Che’s position as a head of state and diplomat.

To Che’s credit however he was the principal architect in designing Cuba’s economy and re-arranging the military prior to the Soviet Union’s involvement on the island. Many just don’t realize how much influence and power Che had in Cuba and that the creation of the many progressive institutions in Cuba can be directly attributed to Che’s influence on Fidel and Raul. And while Fidel would name Raul as his political successor, it was Che that many noted as Fidel’s true right-hand man despite his not even being a native Cuban.

One also gets the sense from reading this book that after the initial seizure of power, and as the political situation worsened for Cuba on an international level, Fidel trusted no one else in certain situations and so he ceded many matters of domestic and foreign policy to Che who had a better grasp of political economy, diplomacy and military affairs. This was the period in which the USSR, which had already taken the capitalist road, began to take notice of Che, not only because of his influence, but because of his strong peasant leanings and independent initiative, for which they would begin labeling him pejoratively as a “radical Maoist.” Che denied being a Maoist, but actions speak louder than words.

According to this book Che made two major criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party. The first was in accusing China of playing hardball with their rice for sugar assistance, accusing China of trying to starve Cuba. The second criticism was in berating China for not doing more to aid the Vietnamese in their struggle against Amerikan imperialism. Besides these criticisms it was very well known that Che had a high degree of unity with China which he very much revered for having a “higher socialist morality” than the Soviets, who he would increasingly and with frequency severely criticize over the remainder of his life. Among other things Che criticized the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for their bourgeois lifestyles which he witnessed first hand. More importantly, he later publicly condemned the Soviet Union for what he deemed collusion against Cuba with the United $tates. Later Che would hold up China’s socialist revolution “as an example that has revealed a new road for the Americas.”(p. 490) Furthermore, after returning from one of his trips to China, Che was “invigorated” with a new sense and deepened understanding of socialism, replicating some of China’s volunteer work brigades. He called these programs “emulacion comunista” (communist emulation).(p. 503)

Nearing his departure from Cuba for the last time Che began two more books which like Role of the Doctor he never finished: Philosophical Notes and Economic Notes. The latter being an extended critique of the Soviet Manual of Political Economy. On the eve of his final trek into the Bolivian mountains he sent an outline of the text to the budgetary finance system (BFS) for review indicating that he was ready to put his anti-Soviet line on political economy into practice (Guevara was the head of the BFS). According to the author, what Che had in mind was “a new manual on political economy better applied to modern times, for use by developing nations and revolutionary societies in the Third World.”(p. 696) Furthermore, according to Anderson who interviewed former members of the BFS who read Che’s critique, Che wrote in the manual that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc were doomed to return to capitalism if they didn’t reform their economies.”(p. 697) Apparently these documents were left to a comrade who never found the time to push for publication in the increasingly social imperialist dominated Cuba. Today they remain in Cuba locked away along with other of Che’s documents, which Fidel deemed too sensitive to publish.(p. 697)

In the end and throughout his career it is very well known that Che was a focoist and was killed because of his ultra-left and idealized version of what a popular war looked like. Yet I was surprised to find out that Che’s war strategy for Latin@ America was somewhat similar to Mao Zedong and Lin Bao’s conception of global “Peoples War” for the Third World. As Che pointed out in Guerrilla Warfare: A Method, the liberation of the Americas from Amerikan hegemony could only come about through a virtual united front of guerrilla and other peasant forces that would use the Andean mountains which stretch from the top of South America to the bottom as a series of revolutionary base areas which they would use to attack the cities and urban zones of Latin@ American countries, slowly but surely wresting control of one country after another until all of Latin@ America was free. This is akin to the village-encircle-city strategy of Lin and Mao.

The story of Che Guevara and his iconic image has not yet been forgotten by revolutionaries today, as it continues to inspire us in our own struggles. It is truly a pity that Che succumbed to his focoist beliefs. His story should not only serve as an example as to the type of revolutionaries we should aspire to become, but should also serve as an example of what can happen if we pick up the gun too soon. Focoism has taken away too many good comrades, and in Che Guevara it took away a great comrade! Let it not take one more. So on this day the forty-seventh anniversary of the death of Che Guevara, (9 October 2014) and the day commemorating and honoring Che, “The Day of the Heroic Guerrilla” (8 October 2014) let us raise the red banner of revolution just as Che continuously raised it and died holding it. Let us raise the red banner for the proletariat, for our lumpen and for our nations! Let us be like Che! Seremos Como el Che!

The Cristal Experiment: A Chicano Struggle for Community Control
by Armando Navarro
377 pages
University of Wisconsin Press
1998

There was also a distinction in the two “electoral revolts” in that the 1963 struggle was spearheaded by the Chicano leader Juan Cornejo who, with an 8th grade education, mostly used his local popularity. His goals were to get elected and help Raza, but this struggle was limited and reformist at best. The second “electoral revolt” was spearheaded by the politically conscious Jose Angel Guitierrez who, at the time of the 1970 struggle for community control, was studying for his doctoral degree in political science.

Guitierrez displays some of his erroneous ideology when he likens colonialism to communism. Specifically he is quoted by the author as stating: “colonialism is there in South Texas and it’s comparable to some of the stable dictatorships of Latin America such as Haiti and the Dominican Republic and pre-Castro Cuba… That’s what we’re trying to fight because colonialism, like communism, is the control of many by a few.”(p. 75)

This comparison highlights the fact that although Gutierrez was an anti-colonialist, in many ways he took on colonial beliefs when it came to external belief systems outside of U.$. academia. He displays the effects of U.S. Anti-communist propaganda where the ridiculous notion is put forward that colonialism and communism are seen as the same. If Guitierrez had done as much studying of communism as he did of Amerikan political science he would have learned that communism is a stage of social development where there is no more “control” of one group over another. Communism has never been reached yet in the world, although there have been socialist governments throughout the years. But his comment defines not only his thought – because he was a leading factor of the struggle for community control in Cristal – but that of La Raza Unida Party (RUP) and what was being pushed in 1970 during this “electoral revolt.” It was reformist at heart and did not strive to overthrow U.$. imperialism or capitalism per se. It appeared to be fine with capitalism so long as brown dollars stayed in brown hands. This is bourgeois nationalism; a dead end which merely replaces a white exploiter with a brown one.

There were some positive aspects to Chican@s taking control of Cristal’s city politics. One example that was subjectively pleasing was when in 1971 the city’s exclusively white country club was shut down by the Chican@ city council citing discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights act. When the white country club members won in court, however the city then exercised eminent domain to confiscate the land of the country club and convert it to public housing among other things. This is something that Chican@s have been dealing with since 1836 in Texas, and 1848 throughout Aztlan, when our nation became occupied by Amerika, only it was Chican@s always struggling against the city. So it was pleasing to see Chican@s acquiring small forms of justice, if only temporarily.

I did enjoy the change in curriculum that occurred as a result of the RUP’s “peaceful revolution.” Full Chican@ studies were incorporated into the school curriculum, things like history, politics, and art were all Chican@-related or taught from the Chican@ experience. Even the music used by the high school band was changed to include corridos and ranchera music. In this way the schools were guiding the youth toward the Chican@ nation, rather than away from the nation as it is today in Amerikan schools. The author describes how the band members would, in formation, use a clenched fist salute. Football players in the high school would also raise a clenched fist whenever they scored a touchdown.(p. 232) The youth were being revolutionized.

The way the author sums up 1980 could be describing 2014 when he said: “The bottom line was that in 1980 Mexicanos still suffered an internal-colonial status dependent on state and federal mechanisms, which were controlled by whites. The Mexicano community essentially was left to fend for itself. People were increasingly alienated, disorganized, and lacking leadership.” Although today’s conditions still have the Chican@ nation existing as an internal semi-colony and the mechanisms Navarro discusses are controlled by Amerikans, I don’t believe simply putting Chican@s in control of U.$. “mechanisms” will solve things. Socialism which puts people before profits will be what helps resolve our situation.

Today Cristal has been left to the capitalist wolves. As of 1990, 40% of the homes in Cristal did not have proper plumbing, almost half of the population was on food stamps, and Chican@ studies was replaced with “American studies.”

The author makes clear that Chican@s exist as an internal colony and that we do need to pick up where the past Chican@ movement left off. He says we need a new movement and I agree. Let us begin to rebuild the Chican@ nation in our quest for independence. But this will take more than creating community control within U.$. imperialism; it means smashing capitalism-imperialism and replacing it with socialism. Only then can we be free.