Under Lock & Key

In December 2024, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) published an article by J Sykes titled “Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States”(1), which repeats many of the same errors that appear in eir July 2022 article (2) arguing against Sakai’s thesis in Settlers that the white Amerikan working class constitutes a petty-bourgeois labor aristocracy.

While Sykes does not present any particularly new or interesting points about settler-colonialism or the imperialist country labor aristocracy, ey does present us with an opportunity to dissect revisionist arguments and identify the underlying theoretical errors that lead our opponents to take up an enemy line on this question. Our focus will therefore be on exposing how the FRSO line on this particular question is a reflection of their general tendency toward idealist dogmatism and metaphysical reasoning. We will see how this national chauvinist line on the Euro-Amerikan working class is connected to their enthusiastic support of revisionists like Deng Xiaoping and the bourgeois counterrevolution that restored capitalism in China.

Although it is perhaps not immediately obvious, both of these incorrect ideas arise from how they misunderstand the fundamental contradiction of capitalism in general and conflating it with the principal contradiction in particular.

General Remarks on Terminology

Before getting started, a quick note on terminology is in order. The words “white”, “settler”, “Amerikan”, and “Euro-Amerikan” will be used interchangeably here unless otherwise noted. The term “Euro-Amerikan” (often just shortened to “Amerikan”) is the most specific and precise term to use for the First World imperialist country oppressor nation. This is preferred over more colloquial terms like “white” (an unscientific “racial” category) and “settler” (potentially ambiguous) when referring to a specific oppressor nation in a particular historical context.

For readers who are not yet very familiar with Marxist terminology in general, MIM’s Glossary of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a useful resource that is available online and can be provided to prisoners for free upon request.

It is also worth mentioning that while the MIM line on the white working class was significantly influenced by Sakai’s work in Settlers, our analysis has generally focused on the labor aristocratic (rather than settler-colonial) nature of the Euro-Amerikan working class. This is because the emergence of a labor aristocracy in the advanced countries is a general feature of imperialism rather than a particular consequence of settler-colonialism. Sakai’s detailed historical investigation on how the Amerikan working class became a labor aristocracy under concrete conditions provides us with enough information to theorize about the entire First World in general. While there are unique contradictions in nations that developed in a historical context of settler-colonialism, we agree with Lenin and the Comintern that imperialism in general has chained entire nations to finance capital and that these oppressor nation workers have material interests that are more aligned with the continued exploitation of colonized labor-power than communism.

One may reasonably ask, then, why even bother to distinguish settler-colonialism from other forms of colonialism or imperialism? We have both practical and theoretical reasons to make this distinction. On a practical level, having a correct and rigorous understanding of settler-colonialism in a particular historical context would be critical for a revolutionary government addressing the land question and calculating reparations owed to internally colonized nations for the crimes of settlers (genocide, slavery, land theft, environmental destruction, etc). On a theoretical level, it is important because we can arrive at knowledge about the contradictions of imperialism as an abstract mode of production in general by investigating the particular contradictions governing the development of imperialism in a concrete historical setting. We will see what this means in more detail in our response to Sykes and critique of FRSO revisionism.

Responding to Sykes on Settler-Colonialism

In this section, we will quote from the Sykes’ article so it is clear to our comrades reading this in prison what exactly we are responding to here and to contrast our differences in line and method. Unless otherwise specified, all quotes in this section are from Sykes.

Sykes begins with a straightforward appraisal of Marxism:

“The purpose of Marxist analysis is so that we can know how to make revolution, so that we understand the terrain of struggle, formulate correct strategy and tactics, and identify our friends and enemies. We must understand the contradictions at work in society and unite all who can be united if we want to win. So, we need to be very careful and precise in that analysis.”

So far, we do not disagree. We will see, however, that nobody at FRSO is apparently up to the task of actually performing this analysis or correctly identifying any of the glaring theoretical errors that immediately follow.

Having paid lip service to dialectical materialism, Sykes proceeds to abandon it completely in eir analysis of U.$. class structure and idealist proposition that the principal contradiction in the United $tates is “between the capitalist class on the one hand, and the multinational working class and its allies on the other, particularly the oppressed nations.”

If FRSO had any “theorists” who had bothered to actually understand Marx’s work or the categories laid out by Mao in On Contradiction, they would know the fundamental contradiction is between the forces of production and the relations of production. This contradiction is the driving force of hystory. The class struggle is a reflection of this contradiction under a particular mode of production in a concrete hystorical context where class divisions exist. The class struggle is not equivalent to the fundamental contradiction. The fundamental contradiction existed in primitive communal societies and will also exist in an advanced communist society, since any humyn society will have forces of production (labor-power, natural resources, tools/machines) and collectivized ownership is a form of production relations. Class struggle is resolved through the abolition of class distinctions under communism. The fundamental contradiction would still exist, but it would no longer reproduce the conditions for class antagonism. These are totally separate concepts that describe different things. The distinctions may seem subtle but it is important for communists to get it right, otherwise we risk saying nonsense and taking up enemy positions, which is precisely our charge against FRSO here. This confused and distorted use of terminology is in fact a load-bearing pillar of Sykes’ argument, the theoretical core of an old and rotten line.

Sykes acknowledges the existence of national oppression in some vague sense and admits that Amerika “began as a settler colonial project, founded on the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans”, but rarely identifies the oppressor nation in any concrete terms. This is what Maoists call “one-sided thinking”, which completely fixates on one aspect of a contradiction while ignoring the whole. We cannot have national oppression without an oppressor nation, just as we cannot replace the oppressor nation with the monopoly capitalist, no matter how convenient it would be if we could.

Sykes continues by dressing up this ahistorical idealism as if it actually has anything to do with Marxism:

“While it is true that the legacy of settler-colonialism in the United States certainly persists, the systems of oppression have not remained static. Dialectical materialism understands that the nature of a thing is defined by the contradictions inherent to it. Things aren’t fixed, but always changing and developing according to these contradictions.”

What is the difference between “the legacy of settler-colonialism” persisting into the present and actually being a settler-colony? This is the kind of language games revisionists use to vacillate on a question rather than take a clear, coherent and principled position. They know it would be absurd to claim that national oppression has ended in the United $tates, but they also want to argue that class struggle is the principal contradiction, so they do this sleight-of-hand that places the white Amerikan working class at the center of national liberation struggles by saying it is the same thing now as the class struggle. It is how they present ideas they presume, or perhaps wish, to be true as if they are material facts. It is how they smuggle the reactionary petty-bourgeois class interests of the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation into the international communist movement and to divert resources from national liberation struggles that could actually develop the principal contradiction and deliver serious blows to imperialism. This is a counterrevolutionary line that runs contrary to the interests of the proletariat.

Without providing any evidence or concrete reasoning for it, Sykes claims that “different contradictions have taken the principal, determining role” throughout U.$. hystory. The national question has always been the principal contradiction in the United $tates. This analysis so far is just a long, meandering way to argue that Amerika is not a majority exploiter oppressor nation. It is also a strange, even absurd, claim to make after admitting that the United $tates was founded on slavery and genocide from the very outset.

Those of us who live in reality know that the contradiction of national oppression cannot be resolved without national liberation. The FRSO position seems to be that the national question was subsumed by the class struggle in the United $tates at some point in hystory. This is reductionist and ahystorical.

We are finally offered something resembling a thesis on what settler-colonialism is and the role it played in U.$. hystory:

“U.S. settler-colonialism is a particular social formation with a particular set of contradictions at the heart of it. Historically it is a transitionary period in the early development of the capitalist mode of production. It is characterized by the dominant role played by the contradiction between settlers on the one hand and colonized people on the other. This contradiction is the main thing shaping the trajectory of the capitalist mode of production in the period of “primitive accumulation” during its nascent development. In this way, settler-colonialism fueled the rapid growth of the capitalist mode of production in the early United States.”

There is a concrete, material claim being made here without any evidence provided to support it. The definition of settler-colonialism as being a “transitory period” is dogmatic as it is self-serving to Sykes’ argument.

Sykes mentions that class divisions existed among the settlers, many of whom were indentured servants or otherwise indebted. This is presumably meant to suggest that only the upper echelons of the settler population drew material benefits from colonialism. However, even the lowest strata of the white settlers who originally came to the colonies as indentured servants were eventually able to pay off their debts and become land owners in the early 1700s. From the very earliest days of colonization, the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation considered access to land and upward mobility reserved to itself.(3) Meanwhile, well after the U.$. Civil War that nominally ended slavery (1865), white settlers continued to struggle to keep land promised by the government out of New Afrikan hands and expanded their land grab from First Nations.

Sykes claims that “this transitional settler-colonial period had to give way to mature competitive capitalism, bringing forth new contradictions”, suggesting that the contradictions of settler-colonialism were resolved in the United $tates by “two bourgeois revolutions, the War of Independence which overthrew the British colonial system and the Civil War, which overthrew the slave system of the Southern planter class.”

It would be more correct to say that the particular contradictions of settler colonialism had a profound (and continuing) influence on the development of capitalism and imperialism in the United $tates. If these particular contradictions (between settlers and the colonized masses) did in fact simply “give way” to the fundamental contradiction of capitalism (between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), then how do we explain the material fact that national oppression still exists in occupied Turtle Island today? Sykes would like us to believe the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation was simply replaced by the “monopoly capitalists” at some point, conveniently resolving the contradictions between settlers and the colonized masses. Note that this again conflates the contradiction of nation with the contradiction of production. We cannot simply substitute the capitalist class with the oppressor nation and call it a day. That is not how dialectical reason works. Sykes is resorting to metaphysics to defend an idealist proposition by arguing backwards from the white chauvinist presumption that national liberation is not the principal struggle for communists to focus on today.

Amerikan independence from Britain did not fundamentally change the class structure or relations of production in the Euro-Amerikan settler colony. The economic base and ideological superstructure that developed in Amerika remain inseparable from the genocidal land theft and exploitation of slave labor that remained at the very foundation of settler life. Whether a settler colony achieved independence from its host country or not is an irrelevant detail, what matters is the class structure that develops. Kanada never had a war for independence and is still to this day a subject of the British monarchy. This did not impede the development of capitalism in Kanada and the impact of any lingering “feudal remnants” is limited to the realm of superficial things such as street names, anthems and portraits on bank notes. While the aristocratic classes in Europe certainly enjoyed the spoils of colonial exploitation, it was settlers at the front lines who directly engaged in the plunder and genocide.

The Civil War did have a more significant impact on the class structure and property relations in the United $tates, chiefly by resulting in the abolition of chattel slavery and eventually giving limited neocolonial status (e.g. voting rights, property rights) to New Afrikans. This did not resolve the contradictions of national oppression, although it did transform external conditions such that the struggle for national liberation entered a distinctly new phase of development. According to Sakai, there were two distinct conflicts playing out in the Amerikan Civil War. The first “was between two settler nations for ownership of the Afrikan colony – and ultimately for ownership of the continental Empire” and the second was “the protracted struggle for liberation by the colonized Afrikan Nation in the South.”(4) It should also be noted that the abolition of slavery did not come from the class consciousness of white workers, nor did it engender among them any meaningful or lasting sense of solidarity with Afrikan labor.

On the contrary, white workers began to form organizations like the National Labor Union (NLU) to protect their jobs and wages from being in free competition with Afrikan workers. Groups like the KKK functioned as the paramilitary wing of this reactionary class interest. The abrupt end of Black Reconstruction in the southern United $tates and the institution of Jim Crow laws is proof that the reactionary nature of the Amerikan oppressor nation precluded revolutionary “multinational” class solidarity. The NLU (the first major federation of white labor unions, similar to the AFL-CIO today) is an instructive example on this point. As Sakai pointed out, “when the National Labor Union was formed in 1866, most of its members and leaders clearly intended to simply push aside Afrikan labor” and that a major point of contention among the white workers expressed in the first meeting was over “how the capitalists had used Afrikan workers to get around strikes and demands for higher wages by white workmen” and that the most “advanced” white workers argued for taking Afrikan workers into the NLU as a means of “driving them out of the labor market”.(5)

Similarly, it was not the monopoly bourgeoisie who organized pogroms against Chinese workers, forcing entire villages out of their homes at gunpoint – it was white workers acting in their own class interest. The bourgeoisie were generally quite content to exploit Chinese labor, which is why the white workers took it upon themselves to violently attack Chinese workers throughout the west coast and form reactionary anti-Chinese organizations such as the “Workingmen’s Party of California” and to support policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

The most significant historical event responsible for consolidating the contemporary class structure in Amerika was World War II, where the United $tates emerged as the hegemonic imperialist world power and was consequently able to expand and intensify exploitation of the Third World to such an extent that the entire white Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation could be subsidized with plundered wealth from abroad. Suburbs became the new frontier homesteads on stolen land. While the rest of the world was recovering from a horrifically destructive war, the United $tates was able to leverage its military and economic advantages to become wealthier than ever. This allowed the United $tates to further shift the burdens of capitalist exploitation to the Third World and further consolidate the Amerikan labor aristocracy as loyal subjects of imperialism.

Sykes attempts to excuse all of eir ahystorical idealism by digging up a quote, presented with no citation or context, where Lenin described the U.$. War for Independence as “one of those great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been so few”. Sykes also invokes a similar “famous” quote from Mao, who said that “In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people.”

Just because a great revolutionary like Lenin or Mao said something does not make it true or above scrutiny. Mao was being unscientific in making this assessment, which should be criticized regardless of the context. Like all ideas, the national chauvinism of white workers has a material basis in concrete social relations that developed in a particular hystorical context. Lenin’s remark appears in the context of a letter to U.$. workers in the early days of Soviet power and should be understood as more of a diplomatic gesture intended to garner political support for the Soviet Union rather than as a scientific statement about Amerikan hystory. It was also perhaps not so clear in Lenin’s time that the entire Euro-Amerikan nation was so firmly in the enemy camp, although even in March 1919 the Comintern was focusing their attention on struggling against the Second International and labor aristocracy by putting out statements like this:

“At the expense of the plundered colonial peoples capital corrupted its wage slaves, created a community of interest between the exploited and the exploiters as against the oppressed colonies – the yellow, black and red colonial peoples – and chained the European and American working class to the imperialist ‘fatherland’.”(6)

For an in-depth review of the how Lenin and the Comintern actually viewed the imperialist country oppressor nation working class, see Lessons from the Comintern: Continuities in Method and Theory, Changes in Theory and Conditions from MIM Theory 10.

Interestingly, Sykes admits that the United $tates does “solve its growing crises through the oppression of whole nations and peoples…in order to extract superprofits to prop up its rotten system” but then draws an erroneous conclusion that “the multinational working class and the liberation movements of oppressed nationalities [have] a common enemy – the monopoly capitalist class.”

This term “multinational working class” is used frequently in attempts to smuggle in oppressor nation chauvinism to allegedly Marxist politics! They simply cannot imagine a socialist revolution happening unless it has a white majority. This idea that a united front that includes white workers as a class is “necessary” to defeat imperialism comes from an idealist and national chauvinist assessment of the actual balance of forces. They assume pandering to white workers must be a strategic necessity and invent a political line that fits that assumption. However, hystory shows that most Amerikans will sooner rush to the defense of empire rather than struggle for the overthrow of a system that places them in materially privileged position in the global class structure.

We can draw a parallel between FRSO urging the national liberation struggles to unite with the white working class and the NLU urging New Afrikan workers to join their unions as a means to ensure the class position of New Afrikans remains subordinate to the interests of oppressor nation labor aristocracy parasitism. The practical ramification of the FRSO line would divert resources from the internal semi-colonies struggle against imperialism into pushing for the economic demands of First World parasitism. This holds back the communist movement and serves the imperialists. Hence, it is not merely wrong, it is an enemy position!

Sykes claims that a “real revolutionary movement” in the United $tates “must have working class leadership” and since “the working class…is fundamentally multinational in character” any revolutionary movement that doesn’t assume the necessity of settler leadership is based on “wishful thinking” and doomed to failure. This provides us with a good example of postmodern idealism, which rejects the scientific method and dialectical materialism by reifying subjective individual experience as the foundation for a theory of knowledge. In this context, the term “working class” seems to be understood as more of a vague cultural identifier rather than an objective material relationship to production. Sykes concludes that even though capitalism places some (unspecified and abstract) “greater pressure” on oppressed nation workers, their “white siblings” have a shared class interest because they are exploited by the “same bosses” and “the higher rate of exploitation in the oppressed nations drives down living standards for the entire multinational working class.”

If whites are exploited the same as everybody else, then why do they own more property and control more wealth than oppressed nations within U.$. borders? Why are oppressed nations incarcerated at such staggeringly higher rates than white Amerikans? How can we say that national oppression even exists if white workers are truly suffering the same oppression at the hands of the “bosses and landlords” as everybody else and that it is only the “monopoly capitalist class who reaps the superprofits from national opression”?

MIM has written and distributed volumes of literature showing precisely how the oppressor nation “workers” materially benefit from imperialism in general and how white Amerikans benefit from the oppression of internally colonized nations. This “monopoly capitalist” class has bought off the entire Euro-Amerikan nation with plundered wealth and rewarded them with preferential treatment in everything from home ownership, access to higher education, employment in higher paying white-collar professions and every other aspect of life in bourgeois society. This is not only about buying off the loyalty of white workers, it is also a practical necessity to have a large non-productive working class to oversee administration of the empire in exchange for access to a share of the surplus value produced by colonized labor power, allowing the imperialist country petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy to consume far beyond their own productive means. This is how imperialism maximizes the realization of surplus value as profit and reproduces a class structure where entire nations are chained to the interests of capital.

Sykes argues this basic realization about imperialism comes from “petty bourgeois ideas about the backwardness…of the working class”, rather than a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, and that it reflects a “pessimistic and defeatist attitude” toward the “revolutionary potential of the [imperialist country] working class”, rather than strategic confidence in the international proletariat.

The real “pessimistic and defeatist” line is Sykes’, who seems to believe that 220 million Euro-Amerikans have a decisive role to play in the movement to liberate 8 billion people from exploitation. If the international proletariat has to wait for a majority of Amerikkkans to wake up and join the revolutionary struggle against oppression, then it is indeed a bleak situation. Thankfully, we know that is not the case and have strategic confidence in the masses. It is neither necessary nor expedient for the proletariat to tail the left wing of white nationalism.

We should at least credit the FRSO for not calling their position “Maoist”, even though they do claim to uphold the Chinese revolution and dogmatically quote from Mao’s works. We can also credit Sykes with coming up with the new argument that a desire to “copy and paste an analysis of the Palestinian struggle onto U.S. conditions” is why communists consider the United $tates to be a settler colony. This absurd claim does not deserve a serious response, but at least it is something we have not heard before!

Having squeezed all that we can out of the idealist metaphysics lurking beneath the FRSO brand of revisionism on the labor aristocracy, national liberation and the principal contradiction, we will now discuss how this fits in with their revisionist line on the restoration of capitalism in China.

Theory of Productive Forces

It is generally the case in hystory that the forces of production constitute the principal aspect of the fundamental contradiction and that changes to the relations of production primarily follow as a consequence of changes in the forces of production. For example, the rise of technology like the steam engine and mechanized agriculture (forces of production) had a transformative effect on the class structure of feudal societies (relations of production). This led to the emergence of new social classes (namely, the bourgeoisie and proletariat) with a revolutionary interest in overthrowing feudal aristocracy and building industrial capitalism.

Deng Xiaoping’s “theory of productive forces” essentially claims that a similar development in the forces of production was necessary to transform the relations of production in socialist China. The revisionist coup that began in 1976 implemented policies that replaced socialist economic planning with a return to capitalist price speculation and market incentives, opened up Chinese industry to foreign investment, and forcibly shut down collectivized farms in favor of private agriculture and family ownership. Maoists view this as a bourgeois counterattack on the masses in China, who had achieved great victories in constructing socialism and mobilizing hundreds of millions to engage in ideological struggle and serve the people.

During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Mao led the masses of China to show how it is possible (under certain circumstances) for the relations of production to become the principal aspect of the fundamental contradiction and consequently transform the forces of production. This approach to constructing socialism requires mass mobilization and sharp ideological struggle, such that the whole of society is engaged in consciously revolutionizing the relations of production. In practice, this means industrial and agricultural development is oriented toward meeting humyn needs (rather than profits) and ideological struggle against “bourgeois right” (the idea that some people deserve to have more than others due the nature of their work, their social position, etc) was heavily emphasized and continually advanced. This is why Maoists uphold the Cultural Revolution as the greatest advance towards communism thus far in history. This is also why we view a return to NEP-style economic policies, the dissolution of collectivized agriculture and the reification of bourgeois right as counterrevolutionary.(7)

Criticize Settler Revisionism! Criticize Deng Xiaoping!

FRSO has basically the same line as their predecessor organization, the League of Revolutionary Struggle (LRS), in supporting Deng Xiaoping, the arrest and imprisonment of the “Gang of Four”, and the end of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). They defended this counterrevolution in China on the grounds of empricism and bourgeois individualist lifestyle fixations about the Gang of Four. See MIM’s 1999 congress resolution Repudiate sub-reformism; fight revisionism! for a more detailed polemic against the LRS and FRSO on this topic.

We are not surprised(8) to see an organization that still upholds Deng’s counterrevolutionary theory of productive forces consider the Euro-Amerikan working class as being part of the proletarian camp. Trotskyists make a similar error in how they understand the fundamental contradiction in the context of imperialism by obfuscating the nature of superprofits to support their chauvinist view that imperialist country workers are actually the most exploited in the world. Both of these revisionist errors are rooted in a one-sided view of contradiction and a dogmatic belief that First World wages are higher because the class struggle has advanced so much due to the more developed productive forces in advanced capitalist countries. In reality, imperialist country workers are able to live far beyond their own productive means by receiving wages many times higher than the actual value of labor-power and entire nations are subsidized by exploitation of the Third World proletariat. The imperialist country oppressor nation is an enemy class that cannot be relied upon to advance the struggle for communism.

For a recent critique of organizations nominally supporting the GPCR, but still promoting “working class unity” in the United $tates, see A Polemic against Settler “Maoism” by the Dawnland Group.

<sup>Notes:
1. J. Sykes, _Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States
2. J. Sykes, Red Theory: Against Sakai on settler colonialism and the national question in the U.S.
3. J. Sakai, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat from Mayflower to Modern, Fourth Edition, pp. 21 - 22
4. Ibid., pp. 88-89

5. Ibid., pp. 99-100
6. Jane Degras, The Communist International: 1919-1943 Documents, Vol. I, p.18
7. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented in the early days of socialist Russia to transform backward economic conditions. It made use of capitalist profit incentives.
8. MIM Theory 10, Coming to Grips with the Labor Aristocracy, p. 28</sup>

Thank you for the Under Lock & Key 87 and 88. I just finished reading through ULK 87 and Grim is right Christianity is being forced on every individual in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This violates all Texans’ rights to religious practice through the tablets in prison.

On the other hand I’m over here on the McConnell Unit where I see religious people who are supposed to be for the people work in the place as the oppressor with the same pigs whom practice oppression. When we look at the capitalist here in American prisons we see the state abuse their authority by placing power and control in the peoples’ hands. Half of the time we can’t get nothing done because every time we stand up for what’s right here come the gang members and religious folks taking up for the pigs and it’s your fellow inmate brother whom is putting you farther in oppression. I myself experience this a lot.

The staff here, these officers rather, let the prisoners deal with the prisoners, in return the officers look the other way when the workers are dealing drugs. Just the other day a crip wanted to go on a hunger strike for the pod going on a 15 day lock down because several individuals got caught smoking. These same officers know the prisoners who are bringing the smoke over here. All these individuals are working together with a handful of gang members and religious folks. The real revolutionary prisoners are basically stuck in the cell all day.

My question is when are we gonna connect with people who can do something about the situation. We write grievances and file complaints and we still can’t get anything done. I know for a fact we sent out every letter of 35 grievances. I pack my stuff up and went to the front desk and told them to move me back [because an L.O. runs this block that I have a documented conflict with] and they threatening me with physical harm and told me to go back to my pod.

The people in Israel are evil people who hide behind the Christian religion. They want the rest of the world to follow in the Christian faith but they can’t follow in their own faith. Israel needs to stop oppressing Palestinians especially the women and children. America is supposed to stand against that kind of crime. R.I.P to Marcellus Khalifa Williams. May the brother reach the heavens and dwell in the window of God. The injustice system can still kill innocent Black men in America no matter what the people do, no matter how hard the people fight. His death did not go without a learned message. Once I’m free I’mma keep in mind that that could be me.

MIM(Prisons) adds: Yes, people inside must connect with people on the outside to build a real movement to stop this oppression. We can look to the national liberation struggle in Palestine and the connection to the prison movement there as an example. We once had stronger movements here in occupied Turtle Island. And as we build them up again, we must build that crucial link between the inside and outside.

UPDATED MAY 2025

When state-level petitions fail, we now have this petition to appeal to the Department of Justice. This federal level appeal may help put pressure on the state corrections departments ignore our appeals

Mail the petition to your loved ones and comrades inside who are experiencing issues with the grievance procedure. Send them extra copies to share! For more info on this campaign, click here.

Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the addresses below. Supporters should send letters on behalf of prisoners.

Section Chief – Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530

ACLU National Prison Project, 915 15th St NW, 7th floor, Washington DC, 20005-2112 (for those ready to bring class action lawsuits)

Office of the U.S. Attorney General, 1425 New York Ave. NW, Washington DC 20530-0001

Director/Commissioner/Secretary of Corrections (for your state)

Agency or Facility Grievance System Director or Coordinator (for your state)

And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!

MIM(Prisons), USW
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

No average free citizen, nor incarcerated individual, has hardly ever heard of the term “light pollution” (otherwise known as “constant illumination”) which is very harmful to the lives of humans and animals.

Jailers across the country continually adopt the malevolent practice of installing fluorescent lighting within housing cells of jail and prison facilities alike. Officials usually have complete power to turn the light off at night, but choose not to do so. This scheme, to my knowledge, is a sure form of corporal punishment.

To make matters worse, sheriffs and prison guards threaten convicts and detainees with disciplinary infractions for covering the light up at nighttime. When officials usually have a standard-issue flashlight that can easily be used when conducting their security checks.

Scientific studies have rendered evidence, showing how light pollution is a contributing factor to the causation of triggering diseases. These diseases can range from hypertension, diabetes, cancer, and a slew of other health problems.

Light pollution initially affects our circadian rhythms, leading to the onslaught of ensuing problems that follow afterwards, which disrupt the systems of the body. Our circadian rhythm is the body’s internal sleep-wake-clock, which is governed by the way light enters into our bodies through the retinas of the eyes. Light itself, is usually measured in the fashionable method of lumens, luxes, and candle watts. Whenever our exposure to constant illumination is 24/7 for weeks, months, and years, could be why a bunch of us may be experiencing health problems, while being totally unaware that light pollution is the hidden catalyst behind our illnesses. Especially when there’s evidence of sleep deprivation being the main culprit.

Keenan vs. Hall, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of the leading cases amongst many others in the federal district courts, where decisions have been made on this matter that have set precedence. Despite this, jailers continue to practice this form of penology that brings about the needless cruel and unusual double-whammy punishments caused by light pollution. Over the past several decades across the country, animal facilities housing monkeys and other creatures were forced to shut down due to those particular animals’ exposure to the dangers of constant illumination, that was ultimately deemed to be animal cruelty.

The question to be answered here, should one might think to ask is this: shouldn’t the life of a human be just as much valued as a precious animal’s life, if not more, regardless of incarceration?

MIM(Prisons) responds:This is just one of many examples of the disregard for prisoners’ health under imperialism. The negative impacts on the health of oppressed peoples from U.$. prison conditions is just one contributor to a system of low-intensity genocide in this country.

We fight for a socialist world, where prisoners’ health is taken as seriously as that of lab animals or of any other humyn beings for that matter. The current system dehumynizes prisoners as part of a system of national oppression, and control of surplus populations. Through national liberation we will build a system of rehabilitation that recognizes the value of restoring people who have committed crimes against the people to citizens that contribute to society.

One of the foremost promises of the Trump/Vance campaign was a crackdown on gender expression and transgender existence in the United $tates; we are now watching this being carried out. On his first day in office, Donald Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14168 against “gender ideology”, and, as with most changes under his administration, the effects of this order strike most harshly at the oppressed masses – in this case, prisoners in particular. This executive order states that it “shall ensure males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers.” Though its ramifications are being fought in courts, people behind bars have already seen changes play out for trans and gender-non-conforming prisoners. The Trump regime has also instructed amendments to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) to remove special protection for gender non-conforming people in prisons, as ineffective as PREA has been.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, there are about 2200 transgender people in the feds, which is about 1.5% of federal prisoners. Of those, only 20 are trans wimmin in wimmin’s prisons. While over 1500 trans wimmin are held in men’s prisons. A prisoner in FCI-Waseca reports that the 2 trans wimmin at that facility were immediately packed out to go to men’s facilities, but one was returned a week later.(Ultra Violet Vol. XXXVI, No.4, Spring 2025) The courts have issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the E.O., and multiple lawsuits have been filed. Anyone interested in contacting the lawyers who have filed the class action lawsuit (which covers all transgender people in the BOP) against the executive order can write:

As the basis for gender oppression is located in leisure time, and as prisons seek to control prisoners’ leisure time to a degree rarely seen elsewhere in this country, MIM(Prisons) identifies the struggles of trans prisoners as a particularly sharp form of gender oppression. Furthermore, as prisons reinforce the segregation of already-oppressed people along “sexed” lines, gender diversity – especially among trans wimmin – is punished both legally and extralegally behind bars. These punitive measures have only heightened under the new administration, and MIM(Prisons) surveyed trans prisoners regarding the recent changes.

A trans womyn at FCI Seagoville responded:

“The staff under our previous warden told the transgender prisoners that we were to turn in all our dresses, blouses, bras and panties to laundry and send our commissary-bought undergarments home. That lasted a day and then the same staff told us about the E.O. stated that there was a judicial claim that rescinded the order, therefore, go to laundry and get your clothes back. That lasted about a month, then the warden left under the Trump ‘federal buy out.’ Our new interim warden took our items away, stating unless we were part of the TRO, then she could take our items. Then said if we return our clothes ‘without a fuss,’ we could keep our hormones… for now.

“We had a laser hair treatment machine and then after the E.O. came out, it just up and disappeared. All our transgender programs, including our psychology lead support group, have been eliminated.

“A trans woman has been on suicide watch ever since she was told to turn in her girl clothes. Staff let her out after 2 weeks, sent her to laundry. The supervisor there said ‘you are a man, in a man’s prison, therefore you will wear man clothes.’ She went to psychology, where they basically told her that ‘we can’t help you.’ She went back on suicide watch and is still there.

“The transgender women here decided to hold our own support group out on the recreation yard. That lasted about 3 weeks, until the interim warden shut it down supposedly because drugs were found on the yard.”

The imposition of gender as a repressive system is clear here, with the confiscation of clothes items, and the forceful insistence that one of the girls discussed “is a man in a man’s prison.” These prison staff taking glee in sexually, verbally, and physically attacking these trans prisoners on the basis of gender are undoubtedly gender oppressors (see MIM Theory 2/3: Gender and Revolutionary Feminism).

With regards to the shutting down of the support group, we see these repressive tactics wielded against any group of prisoners that poses a threat to the system. More often, we see these slanderous lies about drugs and crackdown on leisure time wielded against political organizers, but clearly the prison administration sees trans wimmin discussing their lives and struggles as something dangerous. We would love to exchange ideas around gender with this group and others and offer the pages of ULK as an organizing space as you struggle to keep your local group functioning.

In FCI Seagoville, local USW comrades are helping organize the transgender wimmin incarcerated there. The linking of the struggle for transgender rights to the movement for broader solidarity in prisons is excellent, and we hope that the comrades there continue to build broad unity.

A trans man from FMC Carswell was not able to fully respond to our survey:

“I was just released from suicide watch 3 days ago. Things are hard and oppressive as well as slanderous but I’ll speak on these things when I’m in the right headspace.”

Ey went on to forward us documents regarding a legal case ey’s filing against the designated wimmin’s prison, telling us that the Trump administration’s decree that trans prisoners cannot access transgender medical or mental health services has led to eir self-injurious tendencies worsening, and that ey is suing on the grounds that they are not giving em proper treatment to keep em safe.

The willingness to take away services at the risk of peoples’ lives exposes the inhumanity of this system. Gender oppression is a system and until we destroy it people will be subject to such treatment.

A trans womyn from USP Tucson reported:

“[The prison guards are] glad that [the executive order] is being done so that they can stop all this… We used to only be able to be pat down by female guards, now that’s gone and male guards can touch us like that!”

This E.O. further drives home how what we understand as “gender” – that is, one’s relation to gender oppression – is neither defined solely by chromosomes, nor biological sex, nor identity. Certainly, strip searches and cavity searches are sexually violating, and are a form of gendered violence that people face by the very fact of being a prisoner of the United $tates. We wholeheartedly stand with this comrade in agreement that the imposition of male guards on trans wimmin is dangerous and shows how this executive order has nothing to do with “safety.”

However, we’d like to solicit input both from this womyn and from any other prisoners reading, regarding whether having strip searches by female guards is less violating. We have printed many reports and statistics exposing the role of female staff in gender the oppression of prisoners.(see ULK No. 1) So we think there’s more to do to stop sexual assault.

This comrade from Tucson also reported that there are 25 to 32 other transgender wimmin in eir prison, and that ey has been taking charge in helping to keep them all calm. Solidarity between prisoners is a necessary first step for the struggle for a world free of all forms of oppression. Sanity and solidarity are necessary in this time, but ultimately are useless without a clear understanding of the ways to fight back (both in the short term – grievances, petitions, legal suits – and in the long term, fighting for a classless, and thus genderless, world). Can you turn your support group into a study group, or a group designated to supporting each others’ grievance campaigns, work/hunger strikes, etc.? Make contact with USW members to organize with them, as the wimmin in Seagoville have done, or join USW? We can think of no better way to support each other than to stand up for each other.

If Trump’s recent executive orders have shown us anything, it’s that concessions from the bourgeoisie towards oppressed people – trans healthcare, media representation, things like that – can be taken away just as quickly as they are granted. Oppression against trans people represents the cutting edge of gender-based oppression in the United $tates today, and trans prisoners are feeling it the most sharply.

Nobody is made safer by commissaries no longer carrying makeup and bras, or by prisoners being denied even the right to choose the name they use. The gender-oppressors in this country are by and large united around a reactionary return to “biological gender.” Just as there’s no such thing as “human nature” abstracted away from society, there’s no such thing as “biological gender” in a vacuum. No humyn is born biologically predisposed to desire makeup and small underwear, nor is a humyn born biologically predisposed to cut their hair short. Gender is a complex system almost entirely social in nature, and MIM(Prisons) defends those attacked by reactionaries who have at the heart of their attacks not “safety” or “logic” but a lashing out at the erosion of the hetero-patriarchal nuclear family.

For understandings of gender that go beyond the crude male-female hierarchical binary the state would impose, we advise reading MIM Theory 2/3, and Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. And see our resolution Attacking the Myth of Binary Biology: MIM(Prisons) Eliminates Gendered Language. We would love to correspond more with any other prisoners, but especially trans and queer ones, and discuss our thoughts on what “gender” actually is.

In a world free from oppression, what would gender look like? We don’t know for sure. What we do know, though, is that deviations from the rigid, Euro-Amerikan-centered, patriarchal gender system would see space for gender oppressed individuals to flourish rather than being punished as they are in the United $tates.

The current rollback on transgender rights is alarming and dangerous, but we can’t get caught up in simply attacking one axis of oppression without attacking the whole thing – the dominance of the oppressor class, epitomized in the world today by imperialism and in the United $tates by national oppression (of which incarceration is a significant part). Joining the anti-imperialist movement is the fastest path to ending oppression of all people.

I would like to clarify terms or, perhaps better stated, to give solidity to concepts. Those of us in these revolutionary spaces tend to preach to those who are already converted who don’t need convincing. We become a sort of revolutionary ghetto developing our own lingo so that we become isolated and our movements incognito. An essential part of any resistance is the ability to reach people, the common people, where they are, and to do that they have to know what we’re talking about. So, what does it even mean to protest? To resist? What is the best way to deal with oppression? The proletariat (common people) need to know.

Protesting usually takes the form of taking to the streets en masse to express grievance about an issue. An archaic definition of the word is “to make known,” which protesting excels at, getting the word out. The problem with this tactic is that it is the only tactic people, the masses, are familiar with. Protesting is temporal in nature, it cannot last forever, and every oppressor knows this. People come out, make a lot of noise, but ultimately go home and go back to regular life. Moreover, in the United States there are rules on how citizens are allowed to protest, because protests have to be “peaceful” and “lawful”. Note: anytime an authority is telling you how to “resist” them it is because they know it will not work. Can a movement be effective while following the rules of the oppressor? Any movement that tries to be peaceful, unoffensive or otherwise not disruptive is still-born in its inception. By nature, resistance is not peaceful. It will offend, and it must disrupt the actions of those who seek to oppress you. Protesting is a viable tactic, but we must recognize its limits.

Resistance is something different than a mere protest. Resistance makes an all-out effort against whatever power is creating the negative condition under which the people suffer. It does not marry itself to a singular strategy or tactic. Rather, resistance is “by any means necessary”. It can pick one tactic, use it, then switch to another tactic. Resistance has the flexibility to change according to circumstance. Resistance also has no time limit. It can last for months, years and even generations before victory is won. Case in point: NATO, which contains some of the world’s most powerful militaries, occupied Afghanistan for 21 years. When they pulled out in 2021, the Taliban, which had been resisting occupation for decades against military superpowers, took the country within the month. From this example we can learn some essentials of resistance. (1) It has no time limit. (2) There must be the belief that victory is possible. (3) It must come from ideology, not a mere trend. And (4), perhaps the most important, resistance comes from self-sacrifice. When you make the decision to align yourself against oppressive systems, take stock of the cost. Know that your movement may well out-live you. You must believe what you’re fighting for is not only righteous but also possible. The movement may cost you time, money, status, relationships, even your life or your freedom. You may not live to see the good you’re fighting for be actualized. Will you put in the work anyway? For the sake of future generations? If you are not able to pay the costs, this is not the right place for you. Self-sacrifice is not for everyone. “Revolutionary suicide” was the phrase the founder of the Black Panther Party coined.

Power does not lose its grasp willingly. Power wants to proliferate itself, to maintain its experience of control. It will not let go without a fight. If you’re willing to keep resisting, not just merely making noise in protest, then there is room at the table for you. And if you’re serious about tomorrow’s work you will start wherever you are, with whatever you have, today.

MIM(Prisons) responds: We agree with the righteous call of Fred Hampton, “I am the proletariat, I’m not the pig”, as we too fight in the interests of the international proletariat. However, today we’d say the vast majority of people in this country are not of the proletariat, and this is important for understanding the class interests around us and how to organize those around us to be in line with the proletariat, who are mostly located in Third World countries. And we agree sacrifice is necessary, but everyone should get in where they fit in. The movement’s success requires all levels of support.

Oakland, CA – Organizations came together on March 29 for a caravan from East Oakland to City Hall promoting the Artivists Ending Hostilities (AEH) street program. Initiators included a number of former prisoners who participated in the 2011 and 2013 hunger strikes in California, as well as the organization of currently incarcerated people P.E.P. Talk - Pre-Entry Platform. Former prisoners of CDCr spoke at the rally on the need to bring the message of peace from the original AEH (Agreement to End Hostilities) to the streets. Organizers distributed and read the text of original AEH and a recent message from Cellblock 2 Cityblock.

Kat Brooks of the Anti Police Terror Project was one of the speakers who really got to the heart of things:

“The state creates the conditions in our communities that they know creates violence.”

Ey went on to condemn Amerikan koncentration kamps as a form of violence, saying the carceral state is the most violent institution in the world. Another comrade read from/paraphrased the intro of the Communist Party of Aztlán’s essay on homelessness, making the connection that homelessness is also a form of violence that we must come together to end.

Of course, it is up to the oppressed to change our conditions. Youth from Lulu’s House participated in the event, speaking on their own recent transformations from petty criminals to active community members. One said:

“We gotta push the movement too, it starts with us.”

While another pointed out:

“If you’re scared of the youth you’ll never understand them.”

One of the adults present who wasn’t scared to help these youth change was a BART cop (Bay Area Rapid Transit). This “officer friendly” approach is a well-known counter-insurgency strategy of the occupying forces. They hire cops to do community work, who aren’t involved in the violent repression work, but do intelligence gathering for the state while helping to divide the occupied community.

Independence is one of the principles of the United Front for Peace in Prisons for this very reason. There is no progress towards liberation in the united front if it is working with the very imperialist state that is oppressing us.

Minister King X echoed this principle of independence when speaking about learning from the elders released from prison while the U.$. government is smashing the Department of Education. We must learn from the struggles of oppressed people.

Minister King X was one of the MC’s and organizers of the event, representing the Artivist Kadre trying to engage the youth and the oppressed in the movement through artistic expression. Ras Kass was also there representing the Artivist Kadre from Los Angeles. They were sporting patches promoting the New Afrikan Revolutionary Nationalist (N.A.R.N.) ideology and the AEH. The Artivist Kadre are working with P.E.P. Talk, BOSS (another release support program) and others to address racism, fascism, sex trafficking and more in California.

In order to prescribe the Marxist ideology to our Maoist thought much needs to be understood. I believe there is a contradiction that exist that’s unspoken here: race. There seems to be a strong emphasis embraced on race as a “white” verses all other “non-white” races. The contradictions that exist here are that the “white” race is the only oppressor race. There is a huge historical analysis missing here if MIM(Prisons) is going to promote such race politics in what is fundamentally a human attribute that exists in all races of homo sapiens. To include such a factor in any discussion that involves a dialectical materialistic view of economy and government is destructive to the revolution.

The revolution is to promote equality. Ideally I believe to my understanding, an equality based on, “…each one according to their needs.” With that understanding my question becomes, what is the standard of equality on an international scale and how do we get there?

“Race” has nothing to do with our dialectical materialistic analysis because capitalism is based on only one color right now, green. The color of the Amerikan dollar which is the world’s reserve currency! So if MIM(Prisons) comrades are going to discuss economy, based on capitalism, socialism, and communism through Maoist thought then speak from the perspective of an economist. Or if it is government, then I guess the contradictions need to be explored to define the nation MIM(Prisons) looks to build because as a comrade I feel alienated based on “race.”

Wiawimawo of MIM(Prisons) responds: You’ll be hard-pressed to find MIM(Prisons) talking about race, since, as this comrade points out, race is not real. The problem is, we talk about the New Afrikan nation, or the Chican@ nation, and our readers think we’re just using fancy words to talk about race.

Perhaps this is an example of us getting a bit ahead of the masses here leading to miscommunication. Another comrade recently submitted a long paper explaining what the New Afrikan nation was because they felt new readers of ULK were confused by it. It’s interesting, since we adopted the term New Afrikan from the prison movement. But goes to show how things have changed. We will be utilizing this feedback to consider how we can improve ULK. But New Afrika is already well-defined in our pamphlet Power to New Afrika, which our New York comrade above has read.

Another source of confusion is that the imperialists will always try to deny the nationality of the oppressed. It’d be hard to find someone who doesn’t recognize Haiti as a nation, because they fought and won their liberation in 1804. Like New Afrika, they are a nation of people from all over the African continent, with a sprinkling of Europeans, that were merged by force to form a new nation. New Afrika has not yet won it’s liberation, so it gets less recognition than Haiti does.

We agree with our comrade above that capitalism is motivated by profits. Racism, and the idea of race itself, arose with the system of capitalism. Though there were certainly other systems of caste and class before. The United $tates of Amerika project was central to the development of race theory. In fact, the internal semi-colony of New Afrika would not exist without racial ideology that separated the first slaves based on what continent they came from. So we may be one of the last places to rid ourselves of this backwards way of thinking, it was so important to what this project is about.

The comrade also asks about our vision for the future. Well we’d suggest reading Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism and other works by V.I. Lenin on the national question for background. Because imperialism is a system of oppression/exploitation of most nations by a few, we see the most important source of change, towards a world of equality, to be found in national liberation struggles that challenge that system; from Palestine to Aztlán. Decades ago MIM put forth the theory of the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON) as a vision for how socialism can be imposed on Amerika itself. This is because we don’t believe a majority of Amerikans will support socialism at this stage. This idea is also found in Lenin and in Chinese Maoist thought. At the time MIM was discussing the carving up of what is now the United $tates territory into a New Afrikan Black Belt, Aztlán for the Chican@ nation, various First Nation territories. MIM also suggested that Amerika and Kanada were one oppressor nation. Some of these ideas seem much closer to reality today with Amerikan imperialism looking to incorporate Canada, and California looking for separate trade deals with China with popular support.

We have readers who say we’re anti-Black for citing Marx, and readers who say we’re anti-white for applying the ideas of Lenin. The reality is, all of these critics are too brainwashed by the “white man” to see things beyond this racial lens. Yes, the New York prisoner above we’re talking to you as well, you are the one too stuck thinking in racial ideas, not us.

Now to be fair, this is the dominant thinking of our society. So we must learn to speak Marxist truths that people stuck in imperialist, racist thinking will understand. We also recognize that the oppressed nations are more likely to be led to the truth. So we cannot avoid alienating people who identify as “white” and generally should not try to. These forces are either enemies of the revolution, enemies of equality, enemies of communism, or will have to be won over in a later stage of struggle. This is true because of their racial identities, which are the subjective reflections of their material reality as exploiters. Race is divisive – that’s why the imperialists have used it for hundreds of years.