MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
This computer animated story could have been a feature length ad for the
popular children’s toy, funded by Lego itself, but it’s not hard to read
a not-too-subtle communist message into this movie. From the main plot
it appears that Marx’s conclusions are logical to anyone thinking about
organized work and struggle against those dominating the world for
persynal gain. What is particularly refreshing about this movie is the
strong theme that heroes are not people with special talent but rather
the masses are all heroes when we unleash their creativity.
The movie starts off in Lego world with regular ordinary construction
worker Emmet, as he follows the instruction booklet for life, produced
by the Octan Corporation, which details how he should dress, what music
to listen to, the expensive coffee to drink, what brainless TV to watch,
and how to do his job working with lots of other people building things
that are without purpose and will be torn down to be built again another
day. These workers are uncreative, but very cooperative in their work.
When it comes time to fight back against President Business, the CEO of
Octan Corp., who is trying to dominate the world, it is Emmet who
realizes that the collective organization of the workers is
indispensable to building the resistance against Octan. In fact, the
Lego heros (batman, spaceman, superman, NBA players, etc.) find their
heroic individualism an impediment in their attempts to fight back as an
organized group.
These are themes of Marxism, which sees that the organized labor of the
industrial proletariat will make up the leadership of the communist
revolution because of their unique position exposed directly to the
contradiction of collective labor being deployed for individual profit.
But there is another layer to this Marxist theme because the workers are
not actually proletarian in the Lego land. There is no profit in the
construction work which appears to just be happening to keep everyone
busy. The workers are paid a high salary, judging from Emmet’s living
conditions. In reality these workers are a labor aristocracy just like
we have in the imperialist countries today, where workers are bought off
with the superprofits from exploitation of unseen workers in the Third
World. The complete lack of productivity of the Lego workers underscores
the impossibility that they are the ones creating the profits. No longer
a part of the proletariat in the real world, these workers will defend
imperialism against revolutionary forces to maintain their elevated
standard of living. So we wouldn’t actually expect them to lead the
revolution that is serving the interests of the global proletariat.
However, at some point a contradiction may arise that is such a threat
to the labor aristocracy that they will be compelled to join the forces
of revolution. This threat will likely be life threatening, like Lord
Business’s plot to kill everyone. But until that contradiction arises,
we should expect the labor aristocracy to join in the chorus of the Lego
theme song “Everything is Awesome,” and continue their unproductive
labor, enjoying their capitalist-created entertainment.
In the beginning of the movie Vitruvius, the white-haired god-like
leader of the forces of good, prophesies that there will be an
individual who will rise up to lead the resistance and foil the ultimate
plot of Lord Business. These strong religious overtones are nicely
dispelled later when Vitruvius confesses that he made up the prophesy
because he thought it would help average people believe in themselves,
and in fact he knows that the creativity of the masterbuilders (heroes)
exists within everyone.
In the end Emmet is able to convince Lord Business that he doesn’t have
to be evil and so the communist theme is undermined by the pacifist view
that we can convince those with money and power to give up exploiting
and oppressing the people of the world. Communists know that this
fairytale ending is far from the reality that will require violent
overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and ongoing military force to keep them
from reclaiming power until we can transform society and create a
culture that does not nurture individualism and profit over people.
In the richest country in the world, access to wealth and material goods
can be a relative strength we have compared to most of the rest of the
world, namely the global proletariat we aim to represent. We must
consider what the best tactics are to leverage wealth to support our
goals. Yet, we must not fetishize money or technology as panaceas to all
our problems. We know people are decisive in social change. How we get
money is mostly a tactical question. How we use it or campaign around
financial issues is generally a strategic one.
We have at least one USW comrade in California who has been pushing the
prison movement in that state to take up a boycott tactic to push the
demands to end torture and group punishment. Prisoners in Virginia
report of money taken from their accounts, decreased wages and have
launched a fast to
protest
the extortion of Keefe Commissary. Also in this issue, Loco1 offers
an alternative tactic on how to relate to commissary. And one comrade in
Texas offers up a different sort of
[url=https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/fighting-the-system-appealing-the-100-medical-co-pay-in-texa/boycott
tactic around medical co-pays that could help focus our resources.(see
p.X)
We say these questions are tactical, meaning they will vary from time to
time or place to place. One tactic may work well in one prison, or under
certain conditions, which won’t work well in another circumstance. There
are strategic considerations which serve as general guidelines for all
of us and can help us make our tactical decisions. One stratetic
orientation we hold is to not fetishize money, and remember that the
people must change the system. An example of how this strategic
orientation helps us choose tactics is in deciding whether we should
spend more time and energy raising money, or writing letters to
prisoners and developing study groups. If we believed money were
decisive, we would spend more time fundraising or working at bourgeois
jobs to pad our “revolutionary” bank account.
The concept of the “almighty dollar” leads the consumer class that
dominates this country to see consuming as their means of expressing
their political beliefs, and their main tool for promoting the world
they want to see. Consumer politics are very popular in our bourgeois
society, and these boil down to individual/lifestyle politics. Vegans
may feel better about themselves because they know their nutritional
sustenance doesn’t rely on the abuse and murder of any non-humyn animal.
But veganism itself doesn’t challenge the capitalist system that makes
factory farming profitable in the first place. Capitalists don’t care
what industry their money is in so long as they are drawing a profit.
And no matter how many “fair trade”, “local” or “ethical” products one
purchases, capitalism relies on humyn exploitation to function. We can’t
buy our way out of imperialism itself.
Boycotts can easily fall into the realm of individual/lifestyle
politics. Without a strong political movement with clear demands at the
head of a boycott (i.e. the campaign to divest from Israel), our
consumption habits will do nothing to change the structural problems of
imperialism. Boycotting the commissary as an individual is just like
choosing veganism. It may make you feel better about the role you are
directly playing, but it doesn’t actually have an impact on the prison
system. This is partially because your individual $40 per month is a
drop in the bucket of the prison budget, and also because, like the
capitalists, it’s only a matter of policy change to ensure prisons are
extorting the balance they desire from prisoners. If they can’t get it
from you via commissary, then they’ll instill an exorbitant medical
co-pay, or financial penalties for disciplinary infractions. If you keep
your bank account empty to avoid these fees, they limit indigent
envelopes and postage to limit your contact to the outside world.
That doesn’t mean you should pour your money down the drain or that
there is no use for money in our revolutionary movement. But we have to
be realistic about the impact our money is making. Spending $40 on
mail-order fiction books rather than at commissary has no real political
impact. But sending $40 to MIM(Prisons) allows us to send ULK
to forty subscribers. This money allows us to send study group
mail to eighty participants! That’s enough to cover an entire
level 1 study group! Send us $40 twice and you can cover the printing
and postage of a whole introductory study group, both levels. This is a
good demonstration of the political impact money can have on our ability
to build up people’s political understanding, without worshiping money
as the be all and end all of our political work.
Any reader of ULK should be familiar with our line on the
inflated
minimum wage in imperialist countries. In line with our criticism of
lifestyle politics above, we don’t say Amerikans should refuse to be
paid more than $2.50 per hour as an act of solidarity with Third World
workers. Instead we say revolutionary comrades should funnel as much
money as they can into the anti-imperialist movement. Get raises and
make bigger donations, but don’t waste all your time in your bourgeois
job!
Prisoners and migrant workers differ from the rest of this country in
that there is a progressive aspect to their struggles for higher wages.
The proletarians currently on hunger strike in an ICE detention center
in Washington have pushed internationalist demands to the front of their
struggle. While they ask for higher wages and better conditions in the
private prison they are being held, their primary demand is an end to
deportations from the United $tates. Facing deportation themselves,
these prisoners have a different class perspective than the vast
majority in this country.
In an article titled
“Sending
a Donation is Contraband” from
ULK 25, a comrade
relates being prevented from sending MIM(Prisons) a donation to the
overall political repression and censorship by the prisoncrats. In a
bizarre interpretation of California’s mail policies, CDCR effectively
and illegally prevented this subscriber from exercising their First
Amendment right to free speech. Similarly, in the
last issue of
ULK, another comrade in California
explains
the direct connection between a stamp drive for the SF BayView,
a New Afrikan nationalist newspaper, and the pigs’ mass disallowing of
stamps and increased terrorist activities in San Quentin State Prison.
The state has an interest in preventing any growth of the
anti-imperialist movement, no matter how small.
Naturally it is among the most oppressed that we find the greatest
support for anti-imperialism. Thus, campaigns for a few more $0.49
stamps for indigent prisoners in Texas are of vital importance. Such a
concern is unfathomable to the vast majority in the imperialist
countries.
Cutting
postage stamps and radio service are not only tactics to further
deteriorate the mental health of prisoners, but are also attempts at
political repression under the thinly veiled guise of budget cuts. Here
we see the oppressor using economic tactics to reach their political
goals. While the material basis of what we’re fighting for is in the
people, we must be smart about finance and other material resources to
end hunger, war and oppression as soon as possible.
8 March 2014, Jackson, MS – Today hundreds attended the funeral service
for Mayor Chokwe Lumumba who died after just eight months in office. His
son, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, eulogized his father. He has also announced
his plans to run in an April 8 election to replace his father as Mayor
of Jackson.
Days before his death Chokwe was sick with a cold. On 25 February, he
was pronounced dead of “natural causes,” with local officials claiming
it was heart failure. But family requests for an autopsy were denied.
His family is working with the National Caucus of Black Lawyers to fund
an independent autopsy. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has
offered to put up the money for the autopsy.(1)
Chokwe Lumumba was a leading figure in the struggle for the liberation
of New Afrika since the founding of the Provisional Government of the
Republic of New Afrika in 1968. He went on to launch and work with
organizations such as the New Afrikan Peoples’ Organization and the
Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. As a lawyer he fought many historic cases
for New Afrikan humyn rights in the United $tates. He represented Assata
Shakur, Tupac Shakur and the Scott sisters, to name a few.
Many close to Lumumba are questioning his sudden death, following his
election in a state with a long history of murdering New Afrikans. In
our report on his election, we questioned his ability to
build
dual power in Mississippi in line with the New Afrikan Liberation
Movement from within the city government. We pointed out that true dual
power must have an independent base of force from which to defend
itself. Only an independent autopsy can tell whether this was a case of
political assassination, brutally proving that very point. Whatever the
cause of death, it was quite untimely for such a leading national
liberation figure who just won a major election. We will continue to
watch the developments in Jackson where young New Afrikans must prove
themselves as determined as Lumumba and so many others of his generation
who fought for socialism and national independence for New Afrika.
In November 2013, the elected government of Ukraine caused a stir for
rejecting a deal with the European Union citing the overly burdensome
terms of the aid package offered by the U.$.-dominated International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Since
we
last reported on Ukraine (see ULK 36), opposition forces
with Western support have implemented a regime change, ousting president
Viktor Yanukovich from the country. This put a deal with the IMF back on
the table. Ukrainians once again face the prospect of more wealth being
sucked from their country via imperialist loans and imposed economic
policies.
While opposition to the oligarchy that has ruled Ukraine has united the
Western imperialists with Ukrainian fascist parties, austerity measures
imposed by the IMF will threaten this alliance shortly. The new offer
from the IMF will require hiking energy prices that have been subsidized
by the state, one of the deal breakers cited by Yanukovich in November.
The regime change was a loss for Russian economic interests. In
response, on 27 February 2014, Russian forces seized control of the
Crimean peninsula, a majority Russian region of the current Ukraine
state. On 6 March 2014 Crimea’s regional assembly voted to secede from
Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. The next day leaders of the
Russian Parliament said they would support this move. The decision calls
for a referendum for the people of Crimea to vote on this, scheduled for
16 March.(1)
The New York Times has made much of the battle over the right
to self-determination in recent strife between the United $tates and the
Russian Federation. Struggles in the Black Sea region in recent decades
have been primarily inter-imperialist battles, and there is no principle
behind the imperialists’ actions except for their economic interests to
have access to more markets, natural resources and people to exploit.
Meanwhile, the proletariat’s interest is defined by putting an end to
this exploitation. Therefore we support the side that most threatens the
control and penetration of the imperialists over the oppressed nations.
The Amerikans are saying the Russian invasion of Crimea is totally
different from their meddling in Libya, Venezuela, Syria, Iran… just to
name a few. But this is all posturing and a question of tactics, and the
United $tates often is able to use more subtle tactics because of its
greater power. In all cases it is the continuation of imperialist war to
maintain profits.
While the situation in Crimea is still unresolved and potentially
volatile as we write this, Russian officials have been quoted
recognizing Kiev has gone pro-West. At the same time, Russia is talking
with the IMF to get in on the Ukraine bail out.(2)
The IMF was part of the Bretton Woods project, which was organized by
the imperialist countries after World War II in an attempt to prevent
the protectionism and trade barriers that led to the economic crisis in
the capitalist core, and drove them to war in both WWI and WWII. Many
sanctions and trade barriers are being threatened in the current
conflict. But, if Russia is allowed to export some finance capital to
Ukraine as part of the imperialist plan for the country, and Russia gets
to keep Crimea under its sphere of influence, then a hot war between
Russia and the West will likely be averted.
The IMF is basically run by the United $tates, which has 16.75% of the
votes. Meanwhile the U.$.-led imperialist camp (U.$., Japan, Germany,
France, U.K., Italy and Canada) has 43.74% of votes. Russia has only
2.39%.(3) In addition to the IMF loans, the United $tates has talked of
unilateral aid, as long as Ukraine “takes the reforms it needs.”(4) So
Russia will see a significant loss in its economic interests in the
Ukraine overall, but will likely see a small piece of the pie as serving
its interests better than an all out war with the United $tates.
The framework developed at Bretton Woods has been a relatively effective
solution to one of the inherent contradictions of the imperialist
economic system. However, it does not eliminate inter-imperialist
rivalry, it just manages it. While a war on North Amerikan or Western
European soils is being avoided at all costs, it is not out of the
question. It will certainly come before socialism can reach those lands.
War is inherent to imperialism. And it is our position that World War
III has been an ongoing low-intensity war against the Third World by the
imperialists since the end of WWII.(5) In recent decades this war has
been primarily waged by the United $tates. While inter-imperialist war
has been secondary in this period, the struggle between different
imperialist interests is an antagonistic contradiction that cannot be
resolved without ending imperialism. As such conflicts heat up, those in
the imperialist countries will be reminded that imperialism does not
serve their interests when it comes to the threat of annhilation in war.
These conflicts also create breathing room for the oppressed nations to
develop their own political interests independent of imperialism. The
key to the survival of the humyn species is to develop such movements
before the imperialists kill us all.
While news of online spying by the U.$. government is growing, a court
case may provide even broader access for government agencies. This case
involves
Lavabit,
the former email provider for MIM(Prisons). On January 28, the owner
of Lavabit went to court to appeal the contempt of court ruling against
the company for failing to hand over encryption keys to his email
service. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet rendered a
verdict, but it will have significant implications on what the
government can demand of email providers in the future. This case
revolves around the Lavabit SSL keys. These keys were used to decrypt
incoming traffic from Lavabit users accessing via an encrypted
connection. If Lavabit had given up the keys before shutting down their
operation, the government could capture every users password next time
they logged in and have full access to their email.
Last June Lavabit was ordered to give the government a live feed of
email activity for a specific account. People generally assume this was
Edward Snowden’s account based on court filing information that refers
to his violations of the Espionage Act and theft of government property.
Lavabit founder Lader Levison offered to transmit the information
requested after 60 days, claiming he needed time to reprogram his system
to collect the information. We can’t be sure what Levison would have
ultimately handed over, but this is further evidence that users can not
rely on their email providers for security. In fact, in court Lavabit’s
attorney claims that Levison had complied with at least one similar
court order in the past.(1)
In July, after Levison’s delay, the FBI served Levison with a search
warrant demanding the private SSL keys that would enable them to decrypt
all traffic to and from the site. The government promised to only use
the keys for the individual targeted and said they would not spy on the
other 410,000 Lavabit users.(2)
The FBI had already begun collecting encrypted data from Lavabit’s
upstream provider in anticipation of getting the key to decrypt it, and
they still have this data.(2) If the government has the SSL keys, all
emails for an unknown period of time for all users on the Lavabit email
system are in the hands of the government.
After an August 1 court order upholding the government’s demand for the
Lavabit SSL keys, Levison did turn them over, but as an 11 page printout
in 4-point type.(1) This was clearly an attempt to comply in form
without making the key usable, or at least delaying its usability. But
in spite of the paper form, the government now has the Lavabit SSL keys,
all they need to do is manually enter the 2,560 characters. While
tedious, this is certainly doable and we think it likely that they
quickly completed this work.
The government responded to the printout by demanding an electronic
format and on August 6 began fining Levison $5,000 per day until he
complied with the FBI’s order. Levison shut down Lavabit altogether on
August 8.(2)
Although the government and the appellate court Judge hearing the case
both claim the SSL keys could not be used for anything other than the
individual target in question, the search warrant and sanctions order
both place no restrictions on what can be done with the key.(2) Not that
we think the government complies with these sorts of formalities anyway.
British Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) presentation to
the U.$, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand intelligence agencies
Newly released information about the British GCHQ and Amerikan NSA
expose the agencies’ work to manipulate and undermine online individuals
and organizations. In addition to the monitoring of online activity,
email, and phone calls, the government tactics include Denial of Service
attacks to shut down websites, releasing viruses to destroy computers,
traps to lure people into compromising situations using sex, and release
of false information to destroy reputations.
Previous Snowden documents revealed
widespread
spying by U.$ and British government agencies. These new documents
confirm what we’ve said for years: the government has a long running
infiltration and misinformation campaign to disrupt and manipulate
individuals and groups they see as dangerous. This is particularly
focused on political activists.
The online attacks were detailed in a 2012 presentation from the British
Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) presented to the U.$,
Australian, Canadian and New Zealand intelligence agencies. The slides
describe this “Cyber Offensive” as “Pushing the Boundaries and Action
Against Hacktivism.” Essentially this is a way to attack people who are
not charged with any crimes but are seen as somehow dangerous, generally
because of their political protests.
One of the tactics, called false flag operations, involves posting
material online that is falsely attributed to someone, and includes
“write a blog purporting to be one of their victims”, “email/text their
colleagues, neighbours, friends etc,” and “change their photos on social
networking sites.” This is a continuation of the COINTELPRO work of the
Amerikan spy agencies targeting activist organizations in the 1960s,
moved online for faster and more efficient attacks on enemies of the
government. Those who have studied the Black Panther Party know about
the government-led infiltratration and misleadership, false letters sent
to disrupt internal communication and create divisions, and many other
tactics used to imprison and destroy the most advanced and effective
revolutionary organization of its time. Maoism is just as dangerous to
the U.$. government today as it was in the 1960s, and just as our
organizing work has advanced, their COINTELPRO work has also advanced.
It is right for our readers to ask, as
one
reader did in 2012, “I am concerned you have been already
infiltrated or you’re a CIA front organization claiming revolutionary
organizing.” We should question all individuals and organizations in
this way, and judge them by their actions. You can’t just take someone’s
word that they are a revolutionary; their political line and actions
must be correct. And even then, there is no reason to give out more
information about yourself than absolutely necessary. As we outlined in
our article
“Self-Defense
and Secure Communications”, we can make the government’s job much
more difficult by taking some basic security precautions in our work.
These latest Snowden revelations remind us of the struggle of the Maoist
Internationalist Party - Amerika (the vanguard party of the Maoist
Internationalist Movement in the United $tates in the 1980s to 2000s)
which had its information hosted on the etext.org website. Throughout
their decades of work they often encountered forces on the internet that
they characterized as cops based on their politics and behavior. This
goes much deeper than our
warnings
against using corporate online social networks for organizing work.
It requires a continued study of politics in order to guard against
online pigs who will often outnumber the proletariat forces in that
forum. Without a continued study and application of politics in such
work, people quickly degenerate into nihilism because they are unable to
trust anyone they interact with online. An unwillingness to engage in
scientific skepticism will often lead to such nihilism and/or a
degeneration to doing work that does not threaten imperialism to avoid
these struggles.
Before MIP-Amerika ceased to exist one of its underground leaders went
public with his name and persynal information in an attempt to fight
back against behind-the-scenes government attacks. Many of the attacks
he described come right out of this JTRIG playbook. In response to the
situation, many of the MIM posts on etext.org were focused on security
and confusing to most readers. But that doesn’t make the struggle
undertaken there incorrect, and these latest revelations lend further
credence to the revelations from MIM. We can only assume that as the
organization with the most correct revolutionary line within the United
$tates, the government spy agencies focused significant attention on
disrupting and destroying the MIP-Amerika. While that specific
organization no longer exists, there are new Maoist groups like
MIM(Prisons)
continuing
the legacy of MIM, and we have a responsibility to be diligent about
security to ensure our continued existence.
Ombudsman tells prisoners they must appeal file a grievance at the
unit level, while unit staff are saying this is not an issue they can
address.
Prisoners in Texas have been fighting the
recently
enacted restrictions on indigent correspondence which restricts
indigent prisoners to 5 one-ounce domestic letters per month. As we’ve
explained in
other
articles, this is an attack on the growing number of revolutionary
voices in Texas speaking out to expose the barbaric treatment and
inhumane conditions. One comrade created a grievance that prisoners can
file and a list of people to contact to demand this policy be changed.
We are now getting reports of responses to these grievances. And as
usual, the prisons are just giving us the run-around.
One prisoner got a response to his grievance stating: “TDCJ as an Agency
revised Board Policy 03.91 in August of 2013 affecting indigent mail.
Those decisions are not made at the Unit level, merely enforced. No
further action warrented.”(sic)
Further, several prisoners have received form letters from the TDCJ
Ombudsman’s Office telling them that they Ombudsman will not be
responding and they should contact the “appropriate unit staff” instead.
“Issues regarding unit operations, disciplinary disputes, property
issues, mail or any other matter relating to conditions of care or
supervision may be formally addressed through the Offender Grievance
Procedure…”
So basically the Ombudsman’s Office says prisoner’s must take up this
issue via a grievance. And the unit staff respond to prisoner’s
grievances saying they can not address this issue because it is a
state-wide policy. The original campaign urged people to contact a
variety of TDCJ leaders and Texas politicians. To date we have no
reports of any response from them.
This campaign is an important battle to ensure the voices of Texas
prisoners can be heard. Limits on correspondance mean we will be unable
to get regular reports of abuses behind bars, and unable to maintain
study and communication with politically active comrades. We must
continue the pressure and demand more than just form letters and
dismissals to our protests.
Stand Up, Struggle Forward: New Afrikan Revolutionary Writings On
Nation, Class and Patriarchy by Sanyika Shakur Kersplebedeb, 2013
Available for $13.95 + shipping/handling
from: kersplebedeb CP
63560, CCCP Van Horne Montreal, Quebec Canada H3W 3H8
While we recommended his fictional
T.H.U.G.
L.I.F.E., and his autobiographical Monster is a good read
on the reality of life in a Los Angeles lumpen organization, Shakur’s
third book is most interesting to us as it provides an outline of his
political line as a New Afrikan communist.(1) Stand Up, Struggle
Forward! is a collection of his recent essays on class, nation and
gender. As such, this book gives us good insight into where MIM(Prisons)
agrees and disagrees with those affiliated with the politics Shakur
represents here.
At first glance we have strong unity with this camp of the New Afrikan
Independence Movement (NAIM). Our views on nation within the United
$tates seem almost identical. One point Shakur focuses on is the
importance of the term New Afrikan instead of Black
today, a position
we
recently put a paper out on as well.(2) Agreeing on nation tends to
lead to agreeing on class in this country. We both favorably promote the
history of Amerika laid out by J. Sakai in his classic book
Settlers: the Mythology of a White Proletariat. However, in the
details we see some differences around class. We’ve already noted that
we
do not agree with Shakur’s line that New Afrikans are a “permanent
proletariat”(p.65), an odd term for any dialectician to use. But
even within the New Afrikan nation, it seems our class analyses agree
more than they disagree, which should translate to general agreement on
practice.
Writings that were new to us in this book dealt with gender and
patriarchy in a generally progressive and insightful way. Gender is one
realm where the conservativeness of the lumpen really shows through, and
as Shakur points out, the oppressors are often able to outdo the
oppressed in combating homophobia, and to a lesser extent transphobia,
these days. A sad state of affairs that must be addressed to improve our
effectiveness.
Where we have dividing line differences with Shakur is in the historical
questions of actually existing socialism. He seems to have strong
disagreement with our sixth, and probably fifth,
points of agreement for
fraternal organizations. We were familiar with this position from
his essay refuting
Rashid
of the New Afrikan Black Panther Party - Prison Chapter (NABPP-PC) on
the questions of national independence and land for New Afrika.(3)
The main thrust of Shakur’s article was right on, but he took a number
of pot shots at Stalin, and was somewhat dismissive of Mao’s China, in
the process. There is a legacy of cultural nationalism among New Afrikan
nationalists that dismisses “foreign” ideologies. While making a weak
effort to say that is not the case here, Shakur provides no materialist
analysis for his attacks, which appear throughout the book.
Attacking Stalin and Mao has long been an important task for the
intelligentsia of the West, and the United $tates in particular. This
has filtered down through to the left wing of white nationalism in the
various anarchist and Trotskyist sects in this country, who are some of
the most virulent anti-Stalin and anti-Mao activists. It is a roadblock
we don’t face among the oppressed nations and the less institutionally
educated in general. From the sparse clues provided in this text we can
speculate that this line is coming from an anarchist tendency, a
tendency that can be seen in the New Afrikan revolutionary nationalist
formations that survived and arose from the demise of the Black Panther
Party for Self-Defense. Yet, Shakur takes up the Trotskyist line that
the USSR was socialist up until Lenin’s death, while accepting the
Maoist position that China was socialist up until 1976.(p.162) He says
all this while implying that Cuba might still be socialist today. A
unique combination of assessments that we would be curious to know more
about. There is a difference between saying Mao had some good ideas and
saying that socialist China was the furthest advancement of socialism in
humyn history, as we do. Narrow nationalism uses identity politics to
decide who is most correct rather than science. While we have no problem
with Shakur quoting extensively from New Afrikan ideological leaders, a
failure to study and learn from what the Chinese did is failing to
incorporate all of the knowledge of humyn history, and 99% of our
knowledge is based in history not our own experiences. The Chinese had
the opportunity, due to their conditions, to do things that have never
been seen in North America. Ignoring the lessons from that experience
means we are more likely to repeat their mistakes (or make worse ones).
This is where (narrow) nationalism can shoot you in the foot. Maoism
promoted self-reliance and both ideological and operational independence
for oppressed nations. To think that accepting Maoism means accepting
that your conditions are the same as the Chinese in the 1950s is a
dogmatic misunderstanding of what Maoism is all about.
For those who are influenced by Mao, rather than adherents of Maoism,
Stalin often serves as a clearer figure to demarcate our differences.
This proves true with Shakur who does not criticize Mao, but criticizes
other New Afrikans for quoting him. For Stalin there is less ambiguity.
To let Shakur speak for himself, he addresses both in this brief
passage:
“While We do in fact revere Chairman Mao and have always studied the
works of the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Revolution, We
feel it best to use our own ideologues to make our own points. And We
most certainly will not be using anything from old imperialist Stalin.
He may be looked upon as a ‘comrade’ by the NABPP, but not by us.”(p.54)
For MIM(Prisons), imperialist is probably the worst epithet we
could use for someone. But this isn’t about name-calling or individuals,
this is about finding and upholding the ideas that are going to get us
free the fastest. In response to a question about how to bring lumpen
organizations in prison and the street together, Shakur states, “The
most fundamental things are ideology, theory and philosophy. These are
weaknesses that allowed for our enemies to get in on us last
time.”(p.17) So what are Shakur’s ideological differences with Stalin?
Shakur’s definition of nation differs little from Stalin’s, though it
does omit a reference to a common economy: “A nation is a
cultural/custom/linguistic social development that is consolidated and
evolves on a particular land mass and shares a definite collective
awareness of itself.”(p.21) In his response to Rashid, Shakur attempts
to strip Stalin of any credit for supporting the Black Belt Thesis,
while sharing Stalin’s line on the importance of the national territory
for New Afrika. Shakur opens his piece against Rashid, Get Up for
the Down Stroke, with a quote from Atiba Shanna that concludes “the
phrase ‘national question’ was coined by people trying to determine what
position they would take regarding the struggle of colonized peoples –
there was never a ‘national question’ for the colonized themselves.”
While this assessment may be accurate for contemporary organizations in
imperialist countries, these organizations did not coin the term. This
assessment is ahistorical in that the “national question” was posed by
Lenin and Stalin in much different conditions than we are in today or
when Shanna wrote this. In fact, reading the collection of Stalin’s
writings, Marxism and the National-Colonial Question, will give
you an outline of how those conditions changed in just a couple decades
in the early 1900s. It might be inferred from the context that Shakur
would use the quote from Shanna to condemn “imperialist Stalin” for
being so insensitive to the oppressed to use a term such as “the
national question.” Yet, if we read Stalin himself, before 1925 he had
explicitly agreed with Shanna’s point about the relevance of nationalism
in the colonies:
“It would be ridiculous not to see that since then the international
situation has radically changed, that the war, on the one hand, and the
October Revolution in Russia, on the other, transformed the national
question from a part of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a part
of the proletarian-socialist revolution.”(4)
This point is also central to his essay, The Foundations of
Leninism, where he stated, “The national question is part of the
general question of the proletarian revolution, a part of the question
of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”(5) So Shakur should not be
offended by the word “question,” which Stalin also used in reference to
proletarian revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. Clearly,
“question” here should not be interpreted as questioning whether it
exists, but rather how to handle it. So, in relation to Stalin at least,
this whole point is a straw person argument.
On page 86, also in the response to Rashid, Shakur poses another straw
person attack on Stalin in criticizing Rashid’s promotion of “a
multi-ethnic multi-racial socialist amerika.” Shakur counter-poses that
the internal semi-colonies struggle to free their land and break up the
U.$. empire, and implies that Stalin would oppose such a strategy. Now
this point is a little more involved, but again exposes Shakur’s shallow
reading of Stalin and the history of the Soviet Union. Promoting unity
at the highest level possible is a principle that all communists should
uphold, and this was a challenge that Stalin put much energy and
attention into in the Soviet Union. He was dealing with a situation
where great Russian chauvinism was a barrier to the union of the many
nationalities, and that chauvinism was founded in the (weak) imperialist
position of Russia before the revolution. Russia was still a
predominantly peasant country in a time when people had much less
material wealth and comforts. While one could argue in hindsight that it
would have been
better
for the Russian-speaking territories to organize socialism separately
from the rest of the USSR, all nationalities involved were mostly
peasant, and secondarily proletarian in their class status.(6) The path
that Lenin and Stalin took was reasonable, and possibly preferable in
terms of promoting class unity. Thanks to the Soviet experiment we can
look at that approach and see the advantages and disadvantages of it. We
can also see that the national contradiction has sharply increased since
the October Revolution, as Stalin himself stressed repeatedly. And
finally, to compare a settler state like the United $tates that
committed genocide, land grab, and slavery to the predominately peasant
nation of Russia in 1917… well, perhaps Shakur should remember his own
advice that we must not impose interpretations from our own conditions
onto the conditions of others. Similarly, just because Stalin clearly
called for a multinational party in 1917, does not mean we should do so
in the United $tates in 2014.(7)
While Stalin generally promoted class unity over national independence,
he measured the national question on what it’s impact would be on
imperialism.
“…side by side with the tendency towards union, there arose a tendency
to destroy the forcible forms of such union, a struggle for the
liberation of the oppressed colonies and dependent nationalities from
the imperialist yoke. Since the latter tendency signified a revolt of
the oppressed masses against imperialist forms of union, since it
demanded the union of nations on the basis of co-operation and voluntary
union, it was and is a progressive tendency, for it is creating the
spiritual prerequisites for the future world socialist economy.”(8)
In conclusion, it is hard to see where Shakur and Stalin disagree on the
national question. While upholding very similar lines, Shakur denies
that New Afrika’s ideology has been influenced by Stalin. While we agree
that New Afrika does not need a Georgian from the 1920s to tell them
that they are an oppressed nation, Stalin played an important role in
history because of the struggles of the Soviet people. He got to see and
understand things in his conditions, and he was a leader in the early
development of a scientific analysis of nation in the era of
imperialism. His role allowed him to have great influence on the settler
Communist Party - USA when he backed Harry Haywood’s Blackbelt Thesis.
And while we won’t attempt to lay out the history of the land question
in New Afrikan thought, certainly that thesis had an influence. We
suspect that Shakur’s reading of Stalin is strongly influenced by the
lines of the NABB-PC and Communist Party - USA that he critiques. But to
throw out the baby with the bath water is an idealist approach. The
Soviet Union and China both made unprecedented improvements in the
conditions of vast populations of formerly oppressed and exploited
peoples, without imposing the burden to do so on other peoples as the
imperialist nations have. This is a model that we uphold, and hope to
emulate and build upon in the future.
Having spent the majority of his adult life in a Security Housing Unit,
much of this book discusses the prison movement and the recent struggle
for humyn
rights in California prisons. His discussion of the lumpen class in
the United $tates parallels ours, though he explicitly states they are
“a non-revolutionary class.”(p.139) His belief in a revolutionary class
within New Afrika presumably is based in his assessment of a large New
Afrikan proletariat, a point where he seems to agree with the NABPP-PC.
In contrast, we see New Afrika dominated by a privileged labor
aristocracy whose economic interests ally more with imperialism than
against it. For us, to declare the First World lumpen a
non-revolutionary class is to declare the New Afrikan revolution
impotent. Ironically, Shakur himself embodies the transformation of
lumpen criminal into revolutionary communist. While he is certainly the
exception to the rule at this time, his biography serves as a powerful
tool to reach those we think can be reached, both on a subjective level
and due to the objective insights he has to offer.
One of the points Shakur tries to hit home with this book is that the
oppressors have more faith in the oppressed nations ability to pose a
threat to imperialism than the oppressed have in themselves. And we
agree. We see it everyday, the very conscious political repression that
is enacted on those in the U.$. koncentration kamps for fear that they
might start to think they deserve basic humyn rights, dignity, or even
worse, liberation. We think this book can be a useful educational tool,
thereby building the confidence in the oppressed to be self-reliant,
keeping in mind the critiques we pose above.
As of 27 December 2013 we have received reader surveys back from 7.6% of
our subscribers over the last 11 months. We began running the survey in
Under Lock & Key requesting some basic persynal information
and feedback on the content of ULK. Our goal was to assess who
is reading ULK and what we can do to improve the content. The
survey respondents overall represent a distribution of prisoners in line
with the general prison population, with a few exceptions consistent
with the focus of our work. In particular, we have significant
over-representation from Texas, California and Pennsylvania among our
readers. This means prisoners in those states are getting more input
into the content of ULK. While we are no longer collecting
survey responses, we welcome readers to send us your feedback on what
you like and what you think could be improved as we are constantly
looking to improve ULK.
Demographics Summary
Assuming that respondants to our reader survey represent the general
readership of ULK, we evaluated the information on their
demographics to see how this compares to the prison population overall
in the United $tates. Below we discuss some differences between
ULK readers and the general prison population.
Our average surveyed age is 40, but in 2011 only 40% of the prison
population was over 40. This is not a surprising fact: people who are
older and more educated behind the bars are turning to revolutionary
politics. We could conclude that a longer time in prison leads people to
become more politically advanced.
Relative to the U.$. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on “race” of
prisoners, our survey respondents include a slight over-representation
of New Afrikans and a significant underrepresentation of Latinos (16%
compared to a 23% “Hispanic” population in 2011 overall). We are not
surprised to have an undercount of Spanish-speaking folks responding to
an english language survey, especially as Spanish-only
migrants
have been the fastest growing segment of the U.$. prison population
in recent years. In addition, there was a significant percentage (8.3%)
of people who identify as indigenous in our survey (including those who
identified as half indigenous and half white). The BJS does not collect
statistics on First Nations, so we must assume they are included in the
remaining 5% that they do not class as Black, white or Hispanic. This
indicates 8.3% is a relatively high percentage compared to the general
prison population. As an organization fighting for the national
liberation of oppressed nations, both internationally and within U.$.
borders, we are not surprised that our readership in prison is even more
skewed away from whites than the general prison population which is
already only 34% white.
The latest study we found (2006) reports that 52% of prisoners are
re-incarcerated. 61% of our respondents were incarcerated at least once
before. This may be because those with a prison record get longer
sentences and so are more likely to come into contact with ULK.
They are also more likely to be older and active in prison, if our
theory about age of prisoners is correct.
A very high percent (48%) of survey respondents are locked up in some
form of solitary confinement (RHU, SHU, Control Units, Administrative
Segregation, etc.). This is consistent with our experience that
politically aware and active prisoners are targeted for isolation as
punishment for their activism, and to try to isolate them from other
prisoners to reduce their influence. Our research on control units
indicates that
less than 5% of
prisoners are in long-term isolation in the United $tates.
Reader Suggestions
In response to our question about what people like best about
ULK, the most popular response (22%) was “all of it!” We
appreciate the enthusiasm of our readers. More specific responses that
were popular included a lot of support for the unity demonstrated by
ULK articles (11%) and the stories about other prisoner’s work
and organizing (20%). There was also a lot of appreciation for
state-specific and legal reporting (6%). Five percent of survey
respondents liked best the core mission of ULK (which people
described as Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, internationalism, reporting the
truth, or just “the mission”). In addition, we saw responses in support
of book reviews, culture, Spanish, country-wide and world news
reporting, and general education.
In response to the question about what our readers would like to see
more of in ULK, aside from the third of the respondents who
thought it was just perfect as is or just requested more of
ULK, one of the popular responses (9.5%) was a request for more
theory, including information on the history of revolutionary movements
and revolutionary heroes, quotes from communists, Maoist theory in
general, and more in depth analysis from MIM(Prisons). Related to the
request for theory, because strategy is developed from theory, and
tactics come from strategic direction, we also had a lot of people
asking for strategic direction in general (5.5%), and many asking for
more campaigns and tactical campaign work they can do in their prisons
(5%). This is a good reminder for our USW leaders as well as our
ULK writers and editors that we should tie general prison news
to campaign work when possible, and we should be looking for
opportunities to initiate new campaigns that will be both educational
and lead to potential tactical victories for the revolutionary movement.
A lot of people (9%) want to see more state-specific information (every
prisoner wants more information on their own state). We can only
increase the content about your state if you take action and
write about what’s going on there. We rely on our readers for all of the
state-specific reporting in ULK. And to really make good news,
people need to be organizing so that we have campaigns, successes and
failures to report on. So this is a response we hope comes from comrades
who are sitting down now to write about their organizing efforts for the
next issue.
There were also a lot of requests for resource lists (14.5%) or
connections to other resources, and requests for legal information
(12%). This is not part of our core mission for Under Lock &
Key. We do run the Prisoners’ Legal Clinic to help fight key legal
battles, such as the censorship of political material. But
MIM(Prisons)’s core mission is to build the anti-imperialist prison
movement, and so we prioritize communist political organizing. We do not
have the labor or funding to provide general resource lists and legal
assistance in addition to our core work. We know there are not many
groups out there doing this, but resource lists and legal assistance
will ultimately only provide band-aids to a fundamentally broken system
of imperialism. And anti-imperialist organizing is even more scarce in
prisons than legal and resource work.
Additional suggestions from readers for specific areas of expansion
included: art, control units, current events, international news,
poetry, security, Spanish, U.$. government reporting, and issues faced
by the elderly, wimmin and LGBTQ prisoners. There were a wide range of
topics suggested and the ULK staff will be discussing all of
them as we strive to improve Under Lock & Key.
A few prisoners responded to some of the survey questions requesting
that ULK be “less racial”, and “stop generalizing whites as
oppressors” while one respondent liked “your hate against white people.”
These responses represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the
MIM(Prisons) political line around nation. We do not hate white people;
we hate the imperialist system which kills, tortures and oppresses the
majority of the world’s people for the wealth and enjoyment of the
minority. We are scientists and we see clearly that in the United $tates
the white nation is part of the minority of imperialist allies leading
global oppression. But we also can see that the majority of the people
in Russia before the revolution in 1917 who were oppressed were “white.”
It is not skin color that determines people’s status as oppressor or
oppressed. However, because of national oppression in the world today,
we do see whole nations of people oppressed as a group by other nations.
The white nation in the United $tates is an oppressor group, and there
are many oppressed nations in the Third World. From an economic
perspective, the other nations within U.$. borders are also part of the
oppressors (New Afrikans, Chican@s, etc.), but these groups also face
national oppression and so have some interest in anti-imperialism. It’s
a complex system, that requires careful analysis and cannot be boiled
down to race or hate against white people. We hope these readers will
engage with us further for study to understand our position.
In this issue of Under Lock & Key we are featuring an extra
four pages of content, which we hope our readers find to be educational
and helpful in their organizing work. These four pages were funded by
donators and the ULK Sustainers group, a group of United Struggle from
Within members and supporters in prison who send in donations to expand
ULK. To help fulfill the requests for more that was loud and
clear in the survey results, join the ULK Sustainers group today.
Even using PPP to adjust minimum wages, all countries in this
graphic except for Mexico have minimum wages that are at least an
order of magnitude higher than those in the poorest countries.
Recently the small town of SeaTac, Washington passed a ballot measure to
raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Across the United $tates the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) labor union has led an
effort to demand $15 per hour for all fast food workers. For a 28
November 2013 strike, organizers said that there were demonstrations in
over 100 cities.(1)
In 2014 the minimum wage will be going up in many states. Leading the
way are Washington($9.32) and Oregon($9.10), with New York making the
biggest jump to $8.00 per hour. New York City was center to the recent
fast food strikes. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have plans for a
bill this year that would raise the federal minimum from $7.25 to $10.10
per hour.(2)
Another place that minimum wage struggles made a lot of noise in 2013
was the garment industry in Bangladesh. As we mentioned in the
last issue of
Under Lock & Key, those workers had a recent victory in
the minimum wage being raised from $38 to $68 per month. In Cambodia,
garment workers have been promised a raise in the minimum wage from $80
to $95 per month. Unsatisfied, the workers have joined recent protests
against the current regime to demand $160 per month.(3)
With 48-hour work weeks, garment workers are making around $0.35 per
hour in Bangladesh, and $0.42 in Cambodia. Believe it or not, these are
the privileged workers who have special protections because they are in
important export industries. The common Bangladeshi has a minimum wage
of $19 per month, which is less than 10 cents an hour.
Now, the first cry of our chauvinist critics will be “cost of living,
you forgot about cost of living.” Our proposal for a global minimum wage
would tie this wage to a basket of goods. That means the worker in the
United $tates and the worker in Bangladesh can afford comparable
lifestyles with their pay. Maybe the Amerikan gets wheat where the
Bangladeshi gets rice, for example. But the Amerikan does not get a
persynal SUV with unlimited gasoline, while the Bangladeshi gets bus
fare to and from work. To maintain such inequality the Bangladeshi is
subsidizing a higher standard of living for the Amerikan.
It happens that the World Bank has taken a stab at this calculation with
their Purchasing Power Parity. Using this calculation, the minimum wage
in Bangladesh, which appears to be $0.09 per hour, is really a whopping
$0.19 per hour.(4) So, we must apologize to our critics. The proposed
minimum wage of $10 per hour would only put the lowest paid Amerikans at
50 times the pay of the lowest paid Bangladeshi if we account for cost
of living.
Recently the
New
Afrikan Black Panther Party (Prison Chapter) accused our movement of
dismissing the possibility of revolutionary organzing in the United
$tates because we acknowledge the facts above. Just because struggles
for higher wages, and other economic demands, are generally
pro-imperialist in this country does not mean that we cannot organize
here. But revolutionary organizing must not rally the petty bourgeoisie
for more money at the expense of the global proletariat. Besides, even
in the earliest days of the Russian proletariat Lenin had criticisms of
struggles for higher wages.
While we expressed doubts about
Chokwe
Lumumba’s electoral strategy in Jackson, Mississippi, we remain
optimistic about the New Afrikan Liberation Movement’s efforts to
mobilize the masses there. Organizing for cooperative economics and
self-sufficiency is a more neutral approach to mobilizing the lower
segments of New Afrika than the SEIU clamoring for more wages for
unproductive service work. While our concerns rested in their ability to
organize in a way that was really independent of the existing system,
creating dual power, the SEIU’s begging for more spoils from the
imperialists does not even offer such a possibility. To really address
the inequalities in the world though, we must ultimately come into
conflict with the capitalist system that creates and requires those
inequalities.
One agitational point of the fast food protests has been that 52 percent
of the families of front-line fast food workers need to rely on public
assistance programs.(1) One reason this is true is that most fast food
workers do not get to work 48 or even 40 hours a week. Throw children
and other dependents in the mix and you have a small, but significant,
underclass in the United $tates that struggles with things like food,
rent and utility bills. Most are single parents, mostly single mothers.
Collective living and economic structures could (and do) serve this
class and can offer a means of political mobilization. The Black
Panthers’ Serve the People programs and Black houses (collective living)
are one model for such organizing. But state-sponsored programs and the
general increase in wealth since the 1960s makes distinguishing such
work from working with imperialism a more daunting task.
The campaign for a global minimum wage has little traction among the
lower paid workers in the United $tates, because they do not stand to
benefit from this. This is a campaign to be led by the Third World and
pushed through international bodies such as the World Trade
Organization. We support it for agitational reasons, but don’t expect
mass support in this country. It allows us to draw a line between those
who are true internationalists and those who are not.(5)
Any campaign working for economic interests of people in the imperialist
countries is going to be problematic because the best economic deal for
them will require teaming up with the imperialists, at least for the
forseeable future.