MIM Notes ***

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 1

MIM Notes

March 15, 2003, Nº 278

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Prison Poetry * Chomsky, VIdal, etc. * Una Página en Español...

MIM
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Return Service Requested

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT #56365

BOSTON, MA

On the web: www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext

You are not on a mailing list. You will not receive this paper again unless you take action.

Pentagon to

send 3,000

more U.$.

troops to

Philippines

Arroyo regime scuttles
implementation to save face

n agreement between the

Philippine government of

President Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo and the United $tates to allow

U.$. troops to engage in combat on

Philippine soil fell through on March 1st,

one week after the Pentagon leaked its

plans to send 3,000 troops to the southern

Philippines. Widespread opposition in the

Philippines forced the U.$.-backed

Arroyo regime first to try and renegotiate

the "semantics" of the deal, then to table

it indefinitely.(1)

The Philippine constitution (re-written

after former U.$.-backed dictator

Ferdinand Marcos' ouster) forbids foreign

troops from engaging in combat there.

The U.$.-Arroyo regime justified the

arrival of over 1,000 U.$. troops in

January of 2002 using a technicality: they

were there as part of "training exercises"

and would not participate in combat

"except in self defense."(2)

When the Pentagon's planned "military

operation" became public knowledge,

Philippine Defense Secretary Reyes flew

to Washington--not to change the

substance of the plans but, to haggle over

terminology. According to "a senior

[U.$.] defense official," "There is no gap

[in understanding the mission] between

the two militaries. They knew exactly

what we were going to say and how we

were going to say it.... [Americans] will

be on patrol with them, so they'll have to

be able to operate [in combat]."

All that remained, according to another

talking head, were "some legal niceties

that have to be massaged for public

MIM stumps for Sison,

pushes anti-imperialism

Los Angeles

IM handed out MIM Notes and

collected 26 signatures on our

petition to support Prof. Jose

Maria Sison (1) from demonstrators

calling on the Los Angeles City Council

to pass a resolution against a unilateral

Amerikan war in Iraq. The council passed

the resolution 9-4 on 21 February, and

Mayor Jim Hahn signed it, making L.A.

the largest U.$. city to oppose the Bush-

Cheney-Rumsfeld war plans.(2) In the

same meeting, the council voted

unanimously to ask the Federal

government for more money to prevent

terrorism in the city of L.A.

The crowd was extremely friendly to

Prof. Sison's cause, and most people who

Imperialist

drive in the

Middle East

1991 Continued

If we are to be successful in building

on the opposition to the war on Iraq,

today's anti-war activists need to keep

the larger imperialist picture in mind.

To that end, we reprint the following

excerpt from MIM Notes 48, January

1991. Although the economic balance

between Amerika and its allies is

somewhat different today, after a strong

showing for Amerika in the late 1990s,

the imperialist motivations today are

largely the same as they were last time

around. Amerikan leaders do have

personal motivations and political

styles, but the underlying pattern is as

old as imperialism. Protestors may

chant "Impeach Bush!", but today's

war over the Middle East is not a

product of the decision to give the

presidency to George W. Bush. For the

full text of this issue of MIM Notes,

see http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/

mn/mn.php?issue=048.

by MC12 & MC44

nstead of choosing between war and

diplomacy, the United States is

pursuing both with a vengeance.

Consolidating power over allies, creating

puppets and punishing defectors, the

USA is laying the groundwork for a

broader military victory in the war of

expansion in the Middle East. The wide-

MIM reviews

books, films on the

"war on terrorism"

In this issue we review several

popular books on the so-called "war

on terrorism" and the impending war

on Iraq: "Terrorism and War" by

Howard Zinn (page 7), "Perpetual War

for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to

Be So Hated," by Gore Vidal (page

4), and "Blowback: The Costs and

Consequences of American Empire"

by Chalmers Johnson (page 5). We

also review the film, "Power and

Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times,"

(page 8).

AGAINST THE WAR

L.A. passes weak

anti-war resolution

stopped to talk

about the

petition had

firm and

p r o g r e s s i v e

opinions on the

wrongheadedness

of the "War on

Terrorism."

Asked to sign a

p e t i t i o n

defending the democratic rights of political

refugees, one bystander quipped "that

depends on the refugee!" S/he was

referring to John Ashcroft's policy of

calling refugees whose persecution the

united snakes funds (like Palestinians),

while turning Iraqi refugees into poster

children for the need to bomb Saddam

Hussein out of office.

Other demonstrators only needed to

hear that Prof. Sison is a revolutionary

political activist smeared as a terrorist by

the Amerikan government, and they were

clamoring for our clipboard. And a couple

were already familiar with Prof. Sison and

his situation. Everyone who got a copy of

MIM Notes was pleased to see us out

there and happy to take a newspaper with

politics much more radical than the

resolution they had turned out to endorse.

In the council meeting, MIM saw the

LAPD "protect and serve" an older

white-haired woman wearing a t-shirt and

buttons with anti-war slogans. She stood

up towards the end of the debate to make

some comment, and before three words

were out of her mouth two pigs grabbed

her arms and started dragging her from

the council chamber. She later told MIM

that she had only been trying to tell the

city council of plans to carpet bomb

Go to page 9...

Go to page 5...

Go to page 6...

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 2

What is MIM?

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging

Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-

speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.

MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the

vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for

North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the

potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang

of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third

World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to

advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should

regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of
learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."

- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.

Editor, MC206; Production, MC12

Letters

MIM Notes

The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement

ISSN 1540-8817

MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM

Notes is the official Party voice; more complete statements are published in our journal,
MIM Theory. Material in MIM Notes is the Party's position unless noted. MIM Notes
accepts submissions and critiques from anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit
submissions unless permission is specifically denied by the author; submissions are
published anonymously unless authors insist on identification (prisoners are never
identified by name). MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its
comrades in order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically
been directed at communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades,
are members of the Party. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) is an anti-
imperialist mass organization led by MIM (RCs are RAIL Comrades). MIM's ten-point
program is available to anyone who sends in a SASE.

The paper is free to all prisoners, as long as they write to us every 90 days to confirm

their subsciptions. There are no individual subscriptions for people outside prison.

People who want to receive newspapers should become sponsors and distributors.

Sponsors pay for papers, distributors get them onto the streets, and officers do both
distribution and financial support. Annual cost is: 12 copies (Priority Mail), $120; 25
(Priority Mail), $150; 50 (Priority Mail), $280; 100, $380; 200, $750; 900 (Express
Mail), $3,840; 900 (8-10 days), $2,200. To become a sponor or distributor, send
anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb. branch, PO Box
400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.

Most back issues of MIM Notes are available free on our web site. The web site con-

tains thousands of documents, with ordering information for many more.

MIM grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason, as

long as we are credited.

For general correspondence, contact:

MIM

P.O. Box 29670

Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670

eMail: <mim@mim.org>

WWW: <http//www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext>

Money in Bush's
pocket

Greetings and respects to one and all.
First, thank you for MIM Notes. I have

finally received it. Second, MIM states in the
January 1 issues (#273, p. 6, "Koreans Step
Up..."): "Bush is meddling in their affairs for
profit."

MIM could not have said it any better. In

fact it seems as if Bush's main concern is
money in his pocket. His, not ours.

For example, Iraq. Now we all know that

Iraq is rich is oil, second to Saudi Arabia from
what I'm told. Okay, do you think that Bush
really cares about the treatment of the Iraqi
civilians when in fact while governor of Texas
his so-called "tough on crime" administration
killed way too many Texas prisoners on Death
Row? At the same time, Texas Department of
Correction officers were very underpaid with
the threat of physical violence and serious
harm surrounding them every day on the job.
TDC during Bush's term in Texas was the most
violent of all other state prisons, from gang
violence to individual violence.

I'm being told one thing, but my eyes see

different. I actually believe that Bush wouldn't
give a rat's ass about Iraqi civilians if I wasn't
for the billions of barrels of oil that Iraq sits
on top of. Nor would he have a care for North
Korean civilians if he didn't see a profit in
arms sales to South Korea. Bush is all about
money in his pocket and forget the rest of us.

P.S. I'm going to pass the MIM Notes down

our line. I'll let you know the responses.

--a Texas prisoner, Feb 2003

MIM replies: Thank you for writing, and

for sharing our MIM Notes with other
prisoners. We agree that Bush's action toward
Iraq and north Korea are self- interested;
however, it's important to see that the
interests he represents is a class interest, that
of the imperialist bourgeoisie, not just his own
personal interest. That means, also, that he's
not just interested in short- term profits, but
in long-term domination of Third World labor
and resources. That's why the U$ is planning
a long-term occupation of Iraq and maintains
a permanent presence in the Middle East and
Asia.

With regard to Texas prisons, we agree

Bush is hypocritical to complain about the
treatment of Iraqis after presiding over the
Texas gulag system with such a heavy hand.
However, we don't agree that Texas prison
guards are overpaid. Like other members of
the labor aristocracy in Amerika, their wages
are subsidized by the exploitation of members
of the oppressed nations in North America
and abroad. These guards are pretty low in
the labor aristocracy hierarchy, of course, and
we don't deny that they have difficult jobs in
some respects. But the solution is not to pay
them more; rather, it's to change the social
relations that make their positions necessary.
They are cogs in the machine of imperialism.
The people of Iraq and north Korea -- and
the prisoners in Texas -- are the victims of
that machine's domination.

"American patriot"
doesn't like MIM

Dear MIM: You people have no idea what

it takes to keep a nation free. You relish the
benifits [sic] of freedom and spit in the face
of those who provide it for you. If the Iraqi
people are so poor then how can their leader
pledge to spend billion$ in trade with germany
over the next year. The greatest threats to the
iraqi people are $addam Hussein and YOU!!!
Sit back, thank God your [sic] an American,
and let the Greatest President we have had in
10 years continue to provide you with the
freedom to protest.....

Thank You,
--Patriot, Veteran, AMERICAN, Feb 2003
MIM responds: These comments reflect the

typical jingoism of Amerikans who ignore
facts in favor of pleasant sound bites from
government-mouthpiece media. Anyone
denying the poverty of the Iraqi people is
living with their heads in the sand as even
government agencies admit the devastating
effects of UN sanctions. Nor can it be true
that current Iraqi misery is solely due to Mr.
Hussein enriching himself, as before 1991 Iraq
had one of the most advanced healthcare
systems in the region.

As RAIL reports on it's "Imperialism Kills"

web page: "A new survey of central and
southern Iraq by the United Nations agency
UNICEF shows that half a million children
under five years old died as a result of the
U.$. war and sanctions from 1991 to 1998. The
UNICEF survey covered the parts of the
country that are not under direct foreign
control. These regions are home to 85% of
the population. It showed that `under-5
mortality more than doubled from 56 deaths
per 1000 live births (1984-1989) to 131 deaths
per 1000 live births (1994-1999). Likewise
infant mortality -- defined as the death of

children in their first year -- increased from
47 per 1000 live births to 108 per 1000 live
births within the same time frame.'" (http://
w w w . e t e x t . o r g / P o l i t i c s / M I M / r a i l /
impkills.html)

We get this kind of hate mail from Amerikan

patriots so often we have a FAQ page on our
web site devoted to it.(1) There we state:

The facts about imprisonment in the United

$tates are that the United $tates has been the
world's leading prison-state per capita for the
last 25 years, with a brief exception during
Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of
emergency. That means that while Reagan was
talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was
the head of a state that imprisoned more
people per capita. In supposedly "hard-line"
Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the
imprisonment rate was less than half that of
the United $tates.

To find a comparison with U.$.

imprisonment of Black people, there is no
statistic in any country that compares
including apartheid South Africa of the era
before Mandela was president. The last
situation remotely comparable to the
situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent
offenders and the U.S. Government now holds
about a half million more prisoners than China;
even though China is four times our
population.

The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a

"free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984
situation where freedom is imprisonment.

Notes:
1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/

freecoun.html.

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 3

Regular readers of Under Lock & Key

will already know that after 14 months of

almost complete censorship of MIM in

Attica Correctional Facility we began to

see signs of progress in October 2002.

Thanks to the diligent work of many

RAIL comrades and USW leaders who

took up the battle immediately after being

transferred to the notorious maximum

security prison, we now have word directly

from the Chairman of Media Review that

MIM can send materials to prisoners in

Attica. Of course, Media Review

reserves the right to censor any material

it deems a "threat to security" as it does

throughout the NYS DOCS. However,

this is a substantial victory. Where

previously all letters, MIM Notes and

books were returned, now we can expect

only the occasional rejection of Under

Lock & Key as we see in other NY

prisons.

One prisoner who put a substantial

amount of energy into this campaign

recently met with Chairman Ed O'Mara

who has assured repeatedly and in print

that MIM will receive the same scrutiny

as any other incoming mail.(1) This is

significant because previously the

mailroom staff had returned materials

with notes saying "unauthorized group,"

and the across the board censorship did

not pass through the usual review process

where prisoners have a chance to

counter the decision. These statements

combined with recent reports from

prisoners in Attica receiving MIM Notes,

indicate that the Attica mailroom staff

has begun to follow NYS DOCS policies

again. The comrade mentioned above

wrote:

"It was due to my appealing a denial

to write you to the superintendent of the

facility that prisoners are now permitted

to write directly to you from Attica. I

spoke directly to the Media Review

Chairperson and wrote the

Superintendent in reference to supposed

censorship of MIM publications without

following supreme court dictates as set

forth in ITAL Procunier vs. Martinez

END. They replied to me that this isn't

their policy and that MIM is treated like

any other incoming publication."

Victory Against Censorship in Attica

In one of the recent meetings, Chairman

O'Mara showed the anti-censorship

postcards that we have been sending to

his staff. Over the course of the campaign

we have sent hundreds, if not thousands

of these postcards, which can be

downloaded from MIM's webpage.(1) At

this time we are declaring an end to this

campaign targeted at Attica. We believe

we have demonstrated that we are

watching and that we have support both

inside and outside. And we turn our

attention to other struggles in New York

prisons, such as the use of the "Loaf," as

well as other anti-censorship campaigns

still going on across the country.

Notes: 1. Chairman O'Mara's letters,

NYS DOCS Media Review policies,

examples of the anti-censorship postcards

and other campaign info are available on

RAIL's NYC and Albany webpages:

www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/albany/

campaigns.html.

UNITED

FRONT

Get the new issue of MIM Theory, #14, and read the latest
theory on building the movement to overthrow
imperialism once and for all, in 174 pages. Articles include
MIM congress resolutions, history from the Spanish Civil
War to Puerto Rico, Kenya, and Stalin -- plus international
documents, reviews, and much more. Send $7.50 to the
address on page 2.

In our report on the February 15 anti-

war rally in Los Angeles (1) we wrote

that that even though the governments of

France, Spain and Italy oppose the U.$.

war on Iraq, their populations protested

the war in more force than the

Amerikans. This was incorrect. In fact,

the French government is the only one of

these three opposing the war. Spain's

government has been vocal in trying to

gain UN support for a war in Iraq, and

Italy's leaders also support a possible war.

The countries in the European Union

(EU) are split on the impending war on

Iraq. France and Germany currently

oppose the war, while others support it--

notably Spain, Italy, and several eastern

European countries whose economies are

relatively more dependent on the United

$tates and could use the money Uncle

$am is bound to give them for their

support. France and Germany even dis-

invited several eastern European

countries from a recent EU meeting

where Iraq dominated the agenda. (The

eastern Europeans were originally invited

to attend as a courtesy in advance of their

official induction into the EU.)

This reflects both imperialist geopolitics

as usual and the potential for a future re-

alignment of the imperialist powers. On

the one hand, the United $tates can buy

support for its military adventures or crush

any principled opposition with economic

sanctions. As the U.$. ambassador said

to a country on the security council which

voted against the last Gulf War, "That's

the most expensive vote you ever

cast."(3)

On the other hand, as the United $tates

overstretches its military and economic

power (from Iraq to north Korea to the

Philippines to Afghanistan etc. etc.), other

imperialist and wannabe imperialist

powers will find it possible to stand up to

the United $tates--and be compelled to,

both by direct Amerikan insults and the

need to distance themselves from an

increasingly hated Amerika. Such a loss

of support would further overstretch the

U.$. military and create opportunities for

revolutionary anti-imperialist movements

in the Third World.

Notes:

1. MIM Notes 277, 1 Mar 2003.

2. www.expatica.com/

germanymain.asp?pad=190,230,&item_id=29189

3. "The Hidden Wars of Desert

Storm," video, 2002.

CORRECTION

By RAIL and SLALA comrades.

A new video on the 1987 Mendiola

Massacre in the Philippines headlined a

February 10 forum on the Present Peace

and Human Rights Situation in the

Philippines. The video included testimony

from veteran activists and survivors of

the Mendiola Massacre. There were also

youth performances showing the effects

of landlessness caused by the

government's drive to satisfy big

imperialists by forcibly converting

farmland into cash crops and golf courses.

A speaker introducing the film

explained how the Manila government has

been violently opposing the demands of

Filipinos since the 1970s, when it opened

fire on students protesting dictator

Marcos' changes to the constitution to

extend his stay in power. This was the

first Mendiola massacre. The film showed

how the Manila government once again

spilled Filipino blood near the Mendiola

bridge in 1987 when 30,000 peasants,

students and workers marched to the

Presidential Palace to demand that the

u.$.-Aquino regime implement its

promises for land reform. Hundreds of

police and Philippine marines stopped the

protestors near the Mendiola Bridge and

then fired upon them for more than a

minute. The police and marines shot

many of the demonstrators in the back

or in the head, killing 13 and wounding

105. To this day, victims and survivors

have not received any apology or

restitution for the murders.

The film documents disturbing aspects

of the history of u.$.-backed puppet

regimes in the Philippines that fly in the

face of the tale spun by the u.$., that u.$.-

backed "Corey" Aquino was a step

towards democracy. In reality the 1987

Mendiola Massacre triggered the

cancellation of the peace negotiations and

the 60-day cease-fire between the Manila

government and the National Democratic

Front of the Philippines. Shortly thereafter

the u.$.-Aquino regime dropped any

pretenses at peacemaking and declared

"total war" against the people.

The u.$. imperialists also claim the

current u.$.-Arroyo regime is

"democratic," yet it continues the anti-

people legacy of the Mendiola Massacre.

This is especially true following

Macapagal-Arroyo's complete

collaboration with the u.$.-led "war on

terrorism". Last year under the pretext

of helping her puppet regime fight the Abu

Sayaaf gangsters, Macapagal-Arroyo

approved the landing of U.$. troops in

southern Mindanao to participate in so-

called "military exercises." (2) Recently

Macapagal-Arroyo took her toadying up

a notch and allowed 3000 u.$. troops to

carry out direct combat operations.(3)

Public outcry forced her to renege on this

decision and "renegotiate" terms with the

Pentagon (see story on p. 1).

This incursion coincides with the u.$.-

Arroyo regime's total cancellation of

peace negotiations with the revolutionary

forces in the Philippines. It is very

probable that u.$. troops will participate

Film marks 16th Anniversary of the Mendiola Massacre

Go to page 8...

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 4

by Gore Vidal

NY: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2002,

160pp. paperback

reviewed by MC5,

February 2, 2003

Many of the big book review pundits

tried to drag this book into the category

of mediocrity. We at MIM are glad that

an author of Gore Vidal's stature put out

this book. Simply because he wrote it, it

will be available everywhere. The critics

did not like it because it was too raw, but

what Gore Vidal is saying is just what

Amerikkkans need to start confronting.

President G. W. Bush said about the

people conducting terrorism against the

united $tates: "They hate our freedoms,

our freedom of religion, our freedom of

speech, our freedom to vote and

assemble and disagree with each

other."(p. 5) Gore Vidal did not point out

the united $tates is the country with the

highest percentage of people in prison on

the planet; nor could he point to MIM's

archive of documents from censors,

because it did not exist yet when Vidal

wrote the book. Howard Zinn in his book

"Terrorism and War" said, "Sweden is

not worrying about terrorists. Denmark,

Holland, New Zealand." So one could

wonder if Bush meant to say that the

united $tates and its most gung-ho allies

are the only "free" countries.

Gore Vidal did not mention any of that,

but he told the Amerikan public exactly

what it really needed to know--that this

war did not start yesterday and the United

$tates started it, whether the public knew

it or not. It took Vidal 20 pages of tables

to list all the attacks Uncle $am has

carried out since World War II: "In these

several hundred wars against

Communism, terrorism, drugs, or

sometimes nothing much, between Pearl

Harbor and Tuesday, September 11, 2001,

we tended to strike the first blow. But

then we're the good guys, right?

Right."(p. 40)

The problem with the Amerikan public

is that it does not want to pay attention to

politics, but it wants to condemn attacks

on Amerikans when in fact, as Vidal

points out, the situation is usually a

"counter-attack," not an attack. Far from

attacking "freedom," the opponents are

defending themselves, whether in the

Middle East, Africa, Latin America or

Asia.

Yet the people who do not want to know

why attacks have taken place or what

generates them are not serious about

ending them. Simple moral fulminations

devoid of context or understanding have

never solved a problem. If so, the

churches would have succeeded in

bringing Heaven to earth a long time ago.

The naive call us "traitors" for saying so,

and we say we are tired of living under

threat of death from terrorism, war and

the fascism they provoke, because the

apathetic or greedy don't want to address

political problems seriously.

Most of the book actually explores the

Timothy McVeigh saga and how Clinton

was killing civil liberties before Bush and

the "Patriot Act." For many people of

the world, the majority of the book may

seem a trifle boring, because it deals with

the origins of the united $tates and the

theory behind how the public could keep

its government accountable.

Gore Vidal is one of the few people

around who still understands the original

intent and frame of mind of the founding

revolutionaries of the united $tates. They

believed that with everyone armed or

potentially armed equally with the

government, the government officials

would not be inclined to take advantage

of their power. Even if such officials were

totally corrupt and inclined to be despotic

for one reason or another, the power of

an armed citizenry would offset them.

The arming of the citizenry would force

all concerned to work out a solution to

underlying problems instead of victimizing

civil liberties and engaging in war--so

thought the American revolutionaries of

1776. The connection between guns and

political power was so clear in their minds

that they suspected those government

officials who wanted a standing army

wanted it to deprive the citizenship of its

liberties. We can just imagine what the

American Revolutionaries of 1776 would

say about a military so huge that it cost 9

digits a year for decades at a time and

conducts so many attacks that u.$. citizens

cannot even keep track of it all.

When Timothy McVeigh carried out the

bombing of an Oklahoma federal building,

he was taking the "American Revolution"

seriously and waging a "counter-

attack"(p. 100) to offset the killing by the

federal government of 82 religious sect

members at Waco in April 1993. Exactly

two years later, McVeigh killed 168 people

by blowing up the Murrah Federal

Building in Oklahoma. The reason the

public was to have the right to bear arms

was to prevent Waco situations from

developing, so reasoning strictly within

bourgeois Liberal limits, McVeigh

concluded that only a counter-attack

would prevent future attacks on liberties

by the federal government. For that

matter, McVeigh also raised doubts about

his role in the Gulf War attacking innocent

people. He realized that the federal

government was out-of-control globally,

not just nationally. Speaking the federal

government's own language, he called the

suffering of children in the Murrah

Building "collateral damage," a new

phrase he learned from the Pentagon

during the Gulf War.

Instead of concluding the federal

government should back off from the

public, the Los Angeles Times polled and

found 58% willing to sacrifice liberties to

end terrorism.(p. 116) Gore Vidal is one

who understands that the U.$. political

system was not meant to work that way,

and in fact cannot work that way. There

is a big connection amongst war,

government dishonesty and civil liberties.

The politically naive say, "if you have

nothing to hide, why should you fear

giving up your privacy (and other civil

liberties)." What these people do not

understand is that civil liberties protect

against corrupt and dishonest people in

government. It is not a question of hiding

something. It's a matter of preventing

government-sponsored terrorism. It is a

matter of not trusting the government and

giving it unaccountable power. This was

at the core of the racist, white founding

fathers' philosophy having suffered the

oppression of a tyrannic government. And

despite the slavery and genocide against

the First Nations rampant at the time,

MIM would say that that idea is still more

advanced than what we hear today about

the need to sacrifice freedom for safety.

The founding fathers had a "theory" of

how to keep government under control

of the people. We at MIM do not think

that theory is exactly right, but we

recognize and share concern for the

question that drove that theory. Most of

what we hear today on the subject is pure

emotion driven by fascist agitators in the

media and government.

A system of civil liberties cannot

survive when people refuse to look at the

causes of social problems. When social

disunity is not addressed at the root, there

is no hope for real society-wide civil

liberties. People like Gore Vidal say that

we should harken back to Amerikans'

original values. MIM would say no

capitalist system ever created the

conditions for civil liberties. Instead, the

rulers such as Bush use rhetoric about

civil liberties to justify war. That's why

there is a constant cycle alternating

between more freedom and more

fascism--with the Third World getting

most of the fascism. Currently the

pendulum swings toward fascism even

inside the United $tates, because the

public refuses to address underlying

problems.

It goes without saying that if

Amerikkkans cannot understand why they

don't want Uncle $am spying on them,

sending tanks to people's houses or

bombing entire neighborhoods as in the

MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, they will

not understand why people in the Third

World also strike back against

Amerikkka. This may be why Gore Vidal

has latched on to the Timothy McVeigh

case and the related questions of civil

liberties.

Review:

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

Militarism is war-mongering or the

advocacy of war or actual carrying out

of war or its preparations.

While true pacifists condemn all

violence as equally repugnant, we

Maoists do not consider self-defense

or the violence of oppressed nations

against imperialism to be militarism.

Militarism is mostly caused by

imperialism at this time. Imperialism

is the highest stage of capitalism--

seen in countries like the United

$tates, England and France.

Under capitalism, capitalists often

profit from war or its preparations.

Yet, it is the proletariat that does the

dying in the wars. The proletariat

wants a system in which people do not

have self-interest on the side of war-

profiteering or war for imperialism.

Militarism is one of the most

important reasons to overthrow

capitalism. It even infects oppressed

nations and causes them to fight each

other.

It is important not to let capitalists

risk our lives in their ideas about war

and peace or the environment. They

have already had two world wars

admitted by themselves in the last 100

years and they are conducting a third

right now against the Third World.

Even a one percent annual chance of

nuclear war destruction caused by

capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as

the people call it should not be tolerated

by the proletariat. After playing

Russian Roulette (in which the bullet

chamber is different each time and not

related at all to the one that came up in

previous spins) with 100 chambers and

one bullet, the chance of survival is

only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other

words, a seemingly small one percent

annual chance of world war means

eventual doom. After 100 years or turns

of Russian Roulette, the chances of

survival are only 36.6%. After 200

years, survival has only a 13.4%

chance.

What is militarism?

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 5

Baghdad. She wanted to stress the

importance of opposing this war to

prevent Amerikan war crimes against the

Iraqi people.(3)

For all this, MIM was surprised to learn

the "anti-war" resolution itself is a half-

assed piece of liberal twaddle and a good

argument against radicals getting involved

in Amerikan electoral battles. The

resolution calls Saddam Hussein "a despot

with aims contrary to peace," expresses

"unquestionable pride in and support for

the men and women of the Armed

Services," supports all "diplomatic

efforts" to avert this war including

ongoing weapons inspections, and

opposes only a unilateral Amerikan

war.(4)

So even forgetting the war-mongering

language in reference to Saddam Hussein

and support for the inspections that have

been shown to serve a dual function as

intelligence-gathering missions for the

Amerikan military, this resolution is hollow.

Unilateral action has been off the table

for months as England and a number of

other European countries support a war.

Resolution-sponsor Eric Garcetti

effectively said that if Colin Powell had

made a stronger case before the UN he

wouldn't have bothered: "we're not

necessarily opposed to any war, but we're

opposed to unilateral war, and we don't

think the case has been made."(5) Still, a

whole network of neighborhood activists

has organized phone trees, letter-writing

and fax campaigns around getting such

resolutions passed in the name of "peace."

L.A. resolution

MIM urges readers who think our

views are correct but too far "out there"

to check out the lobbying that went into

getting this resolution passed, and to think

about the activist-hours invested and the

return our side got out of those hours. If

your goals include peace, appealing to the

broadest Amerikan public opinion does

not matter, putting forth the most forthright

anti-imperialist line with the greatest

energy matters. As we argued in MIM

Notes 276, we do not need to appeal to

the tens of millions who pull levers for

the Democrats and Republicans. If the

200,000 who marched on Washington,

D.C. had been waving Little Red Books,

Bush would be a lot less anxious to rush

into war. From the war mongers'

perspective sending the military overseas

gets a lot less attractive when half a

million Maoists -- a tiny minority in the

u.$. population -- could be strolling into

DC in the meantime. If you really want

to oppose this war, please leave the

empty-resolution-passing work to your

city council members and throw your own

weight behind MIM.

Notes:
1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
philippines/index.html
2. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/
0222-05.htm
3. This happened at the February 18 meeting
when the resolution was first introduced.
4. http://www.neighborsforpeaceandjustice.org/
npj/id6.html
5. www.inq7.net/brk/2003/feb/22/brkafp_8-
1.htm

From page 1...

Blowback: The Costs
and Consequences of
American Empire

by Chalmers Johnson

New York: Henry Holt

2000, 268 pp. pb.

Review by MC206

3 Mar 2003

Chalmers Johnson finished this book

over a year before September 11, which

is when most Amerikans first heard the

term "blowback." In it, he lays out the

reasons why Amerika's chickens were

bound to come home to roost--as indeed

they did. The book is packed full of details

about what Johnson calls "imperial

overstretch," similar to something MIM

talked about in its founding documents

back in 1983. Thus it remains a useful

read today, although Johnson is a bitter

anti-Communist (more specifically: an

anti-Maoist) and Blowback is partly an

(unsuccessful) attempt to replace the

Communist critique of imperialism with a

bourgeois critique.

"Blowback," of course, refers to "the

unintended consequences of policies that

were kept secret from the American

people. What the daily press reports as

the malign acts of `terrorists' or `drug

lords' or `rogue states' often turn out to

be blowback from earlier American

operations."(p.8) To Johnson's credit, he

does not limit his definition of the term to

Amerikans, noting that while Amerikans

have not yet felt the impact of the Asian

economic crisis caused by Amerikan

speculators and IMF meddling,

Indonesians already have.(p. 17)

Obvious cases of blowback include U.$.

support for the Afghan mujahideen who

bombed the World Trade Center in 1993

and then flew two airplanes into it in

2001.(p. 13) Johnson provides a service

by discussing some of the lesser-known

cases of blowback--or potential

blowback.

Okinawa. Johnson starts his chapter

on the U.$. military bases on Okinawa

with a partial list of the daily wrongs

Okinawans suffer at the hands of

Amerikan troops, from the high rape rate

(pp. 34-37, 41-44) to prostitution (p. 35)

to traffic accidents (pp. 42-47) to the

constant interruptions of school lessons

by low-flying jet aircraft.(p. 47) He then

ridicules the reasons the United $tates

gives for basing over 200,000 troops in

Japan--most of them in Okinawa.

"Pentagon theorists ... are like the New

Yorker who spreads elephant bane

around his apartment and then extols its

benefits because he encounters no

elephants. The strategy `works' because

the threat is illusory."(p. 63)

Arms sales. Well, sort of illusory. In fact,

as Johnson outlines in a section on the

immense Amerikan arms industry (pp.

85-94), the "forward deployment" of U.$.

troops or sale of arms to a client state

often proves a self-fulfilling prophecy. For

example, Amerika "expands the NATO

alliance eastward in part in order to sell

Pre-911 book: Amerikans will reap what they sow

arms to the former Soviet block

countries... with certain knowledge that

doing so will... elicit a hostile Russian

reaction. This Russian reaction then

becomes justification for the

expansion."(p. 92) Or the Pentagon sells

advanced missile and submarine

technology to Taiwan, provoking the

Chinese either consciously or

unconsciously, blinded by its desire to

make a buck.(p. 89)

For Johnson, the fact that "mercenary"

Pentagon arms profiteers have turned the

world into a powderkeg is a result of the

erosion of civilian control of the

military.(p. 222) (We Maoists would

simply say that's what happens when you

put profit before basic survival rights.) He

notes that a behemoth military with

controlling economic and political powers

contradicts the thinking of Amerika's

"founding fathers."(1) "George

Washington's Farewell Address now

reads more like a diagnosis than a

warning: he counseled Americans to

`avoid the necessity of those overgrown

military establishments, which under any

form of government are inauspicious to

liberty, and which are to be regarded as

particularly hostile to Republican

Liberty."(p. 71)

China. Unlike the many grandstanding

racist nincompoops in Congress, who can

always be counted upon to thump a table

and prattle on about the threat from "Red

China" if votes or weapons contracts are

at stake, Johnson recognizes that China

has been a capitalist country since Deng's

economic reforms--even if it hasn't

adopted Anglo-Saxon "laissez-faire"

capitalism. As such, Johnson argues,

Amerika should deal with it as any other

capitalist competitor and not as an

implacable ideological enemy. Saber

rattling over Taiwan, bombing Chinese

embassies, promising to keep troops in

Korea even after reunification, etc.--all

these things make war with China in the

short-term more likely, not less.

Like Bruce Cumings, who sees

economic cooperation between north and

south Korea as the path towards peace

and reunification,(2) Johnson sees

economic cooperation between China and

Taiwan as the best guarantor of peace

and prosperity. There is some truth to

this--certainly Johnson is correct that

Amerikan military and economic

intervention provides the biggest impetus

towards war in the region.

However, again like Cumings, Johnson

overestimates the ability of the south

Korean or Taiwanese economic model to

bring development and prosperity to

larger and larger areas. Johnson correctly

argues that the relative successes of the

Japanese, Taiwanese, and south Korean

economies depended on subsidies from

the United $tates and access to its

markets. He also correctly notes that

"China's products will never enjoy the

virtually unrestricted access to the

American market and its sources of

technology that Japan and others enjoyed

in exchange for their support during the

Cold War."(p. 146) He does not put these

two points together to reach the correct

conclusion, namely, the Taiwanese path

is not open to China--or just about any

other "developing" Third World country.

The U.$. economy, as big as it is, can

only absorb a fraction of the world's

exports

Johnson admires both the Chinese

revolution of 1949 and Deng's capitalist

reforms--consistent with the aspirations

of the national bourgeoisie--while he

despises Mao. He repeats some of the

more hyperbolic slanders against the

Maoists in China, which aren't worth

rebutting here. Instead, we direct readers

to our critiques of "The Black Book of

Communism,"(3) our classic essay

"Myths about Mao,"(4) and our Tibet

FAQ page.(5)

As for Johnson's rosy perspective on

capitalism in China, we'll make two quick

comments. First, an increase in GDP does

not mean the standard of living for the

broad masses is improving. Social

problems such as unemployment,

prostitution, and drug abuse, absent in

socialist China, have returned. Johnson

himself writes, "An estimated one

hundred million people [ca. 8% of the

Chinese population], more than the entire

population of Mexico, are now adrift in

China, largely migrants from the interior

looking for work in rich coastal areas."(p.

152) Second, capitalist economies are

trapped in the boom-bust cycle. Present

growth cannot be extrapolated indefinitely.

Readers interested in a detailed critique

of Deng's economic reforms should check

out "The Political Economy of

Counterrevolution in China," available

from MIM.

Indonesia. Johnson uses Indonesia as

a case study in how the Amerikan

military's "joint training" programs

amount "to little more than instruction in

state terrorism."(pp. 72-84) He discusses

the violence that proceeded the ouster of
Go to next page...

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 6

Suharto in some detail, arguing that "much

of the violence had been organized and

deliberately provoked by the armed

forces, probably in order to create the

enough of the look of chaos to make a

military coup seem a plausible and

acceptable step."(p. 76) In particular, the

military covertly organized simultaneous

attacks on "forty different Chinese-

owned shopping malls spread around

more than twenty-five kilometers... The

Indonesian scholar Ariel Heryanto has

observed that [these events] were not

`racially motivated mass riots' but

`racialized state terrorism.'"(pp. 81-82)

This happened less than a year after

Indonesian special forces "received

twenty-six days of American instruction

in `military operations in urban

terrain.'"(p. 78)

The Asian economic crisis of 1997 hit

Indonesia hard, leaving 20% of the

population unemployed and doubling the

number of people living on less than a

dollar a day to one hundred million.(pp.

Pre-911 book: Amerikans will reap what they sow

74, 211-212) This collapse discredited

Suharto and provided the impetus for the

coup plans and Amerikan support for the

ouster of its erstwhile puppet.

Johnson's explanation of this crisis is

closer to MIM's than he might like to

admit: it was due to currency speculation

by First World finance capitalists and

capitalist overproduction, which Johnson

recognizes is relative overproduction.

"This is not to say that all the barefoot

peoples of the world might not want to

wear athletic shoes or all the relatively

poor people who might someday be able

to afford a television set or automobile

are satisfied. But for now they are too

poor to be customers."(p. 197) The IMF,

"essentially a covert arm of the U.S.

Treasury," exacerbated the crisis through

stupidity, arrogance and greed.(pp. 210-

213)

To prevent future crises, Johnson

proposes "fixed exchange rates and

controls on the movement of capital."(p.

225) MIM supports similar reforms in its

platform, tying exchange rates to a

standard basket of goods.

Johnson predicted dire consequences

if the economic situation in Indonesia

remained unchanged. "If Indonesia is

allowed to stagnate, living off food

handouts from the Americans, it is quite

possible to predict that Islam, which until

now has shown its tolerant and broad-

minded face throughout most of the

country, will turn militant and unplacable.

This, in turn, would guarantee the end of

American influence (much as it did in

Khomeini's Iran) and it would greatly

complicate Australia's foreign

policy."(p.84) The recent bombing in Bali

proved him correct.

Johnson admits to his past as "a spear

carrier for empire," specifically as a

"China watcher."(pp. ix-xix) He knows

the basics of communist critique of

imperialism and borrows from it heavily,

although he tries to give it a "back to

Adam Smith" spin.(pp. 201-202) He still

stubbornly insists that Amerikan

capitalism is not driven "to exploit other

nations for economic gain or simply to

dominate them politically or militarily,"(p.

31) perhaps out of naiveté or the "good

sense" not to bite the hand that feeds him.

As a result, he ends up looking

backwards, much like the petty-bourgeois

critics of imperialism Lenin scolded.(7)

Still, for those looking for an introduction

to the contradictions facing the Amerikan

empire, especially in east Asia, Johnson's

book is worthwhile.

Notes:
1. Amerika's "founding fathers" had their own
theory of "blowback," which Amerika's current
leaders refuse to heed. See "U.$. military budget
would have angered Amerikan 'founding
fathers,'" MIM Notes 274, 15 Jan 2003.
2. See MIM Notes 276, 15 Feb 2003.
3. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
blackbook/index.html
4. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/
mythsofmao.html
5. www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/tibet.html
6. "Imperialism," chapters III and IX.

ranging efforts undertaken by the USA

around the world underscore the

imperialist nature of the conflict,

eliminating arguments that the war is

caused by a single policy decision or an

aggressive personality.

At a press conference on Nov. 30,

President Bush made it clear that he was

not interested in a peaceful settlement

(though of course he said he was). He

did say he had no intention of fighting a

half-assed war.

"This will not be a Vietnam," he said.

"If we get one kid that's apt to be in harm's

way, I want him backed up to the hilt by

American firepower."

In the same speech, Bush said he would

permit high-level talks between the United

States and Iraq, but was not prepared to

make any deals. The point of the talks

was not to negotiate, he said, but just to

repeat U.S. demands to Iraqi President

Saddam Hussein's face.(1)

Imperialist conflicts explode

A lot of noise has been made over the

small contributions to the war made by

U.S. allies. These critics either ignore or

don't understand that this war is not a

moral crusade to end aggression or defend

the people of the Middle East.

The era of imperialism--the highest

stage of capitalism and the precursor to

revolution--carries capitalist

contradictions to their fullest extreme. In

this era, which began around the

beginning of this century, three conflicts

are increased:

*the conflict between capital and labor,

between monopoly capitalists and the

international proletariat,

*between imperialists themselves, as

monopolists and national powers vie for

control over world resources, and

*between imperialist nations and the

oppressed nations, where increased

exploitation of land and labor produce

conditions favorable to revolution.(2)

In the imperialist stage, capitalism's

economic basis in competition (expand-

or-die) drives the capitalist powers to war

to grab more land and cheap labor for

themselves, to allow the export of capital

into underdeveloped countries to flow

freely. While force is planned to bring Iraq

back into line as a U.S.- controlled

resource, the current crisis also allows

the USA to gain more control over

vulnerable allies through diplomacy and

economic pressure, gaining an edge over

rival imperialists (especially European and

Japanese powers) in the process. The

massive war machine is the tool of choice

for the economically weaker USA [after

the economic expansion that followed the

first war against Iraq, Amerika has gained

ground economically relative to its

imperialist rival/allies. This just helps to

show that MIM was right at the time to

attribute U.$. militarism in part to

economic rivalry between the imperialist

powers -MC12, 2003].

The threat of self-sufficient oil-

producing countries is especially acute in

an era in which the United States is afraid

of losing control over Third World

countries to other imperialists. Control

over international oil markets--gained in

this case militarily--has huge potential

economic advantages for control over the

underdeveloped world.

Strategically speaking, more control

over the Arabian Peninsula and

surrounding region is an important part

of the USA's long term plans. The State

Department in the 1940s called the

Arabian Peninsula "a stupendous source

of strategic power, and one of the greatest

material prizes in world history," and

"probably the richest economic prize in

the world in the field of foreign

investment."(3)

Iraq's invasion threw a wrench in the

works of U.S. plans for expansion into

the region. In January 1990, the

administration had announced the goal of

increasing U.S. exports to Iraq, for which

the USA had become top trading

partner.(3)

Earlier, in 1988, the U.S. government

had said it was a good time to get in on

the Iraqi economy, due to a "wide range

of economic reforms to increase

productivity and encourage private sector

industrial growth and import substitution,"

largely in the agricultural sector.

"American firms are strongly

encouraged to investigate the market and

introduce their products and services to

Iraqi officials now," the government

said.(4)

The goal of trade domination extended

to Kuwait as well, which had increased

its U.S. imports from 1988 to 1989 by

24%.

The USA wants to better its trade

balance with these countries--to balance

heavy oil imports--by increasing exports,

especially of capital-intensive industries.

Seizing control of oil reserves is an

important part of creating and developing

dependency on the United States,

supplemented by increased control over

markets and imports.

Economic crisis at home

Recessions and expansion are balancing

forces in the imperialist march toward its

own grave; they drive each other,

producing greater urgency and greater

risks at every turn.

The bourgeoisie has admitted that the

U.S. economy is in a recession--

meaning the economy is shrinking overall.

And that economic pressure is increasing

the stakes for the expansionist war.

More than simply a dependent country

which has gotten out of line, such as

Nicaragua, Iraq represents the prize of

control over oil economies with huge,

capital-intensive profit-generating

industries. The potential economic

independence of oil-exporting countries

underscores the need for military control

to insure thorough and widespread

domination--with all the risks that

entails--while increasing the potential

economic rewards in terms of expansion

and stability.

The United States is putting a lot of

cards on the table in this war. Its victory

here would have catastrophic

consequences for the people of the

Middle East in particular. Its loss could

mark the beginning of a truly new world

order.

Notes:
1. New York Times 12/1/90, p. A4.
2. See V. I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage
of Capitalism.
3. Noam Chomsky in Z, 10/90.
4. Business America, 4/25/88.

Imperialist drive in the Middle East

From page 5...

We constantly update MIM's

coverage of the U.$. war on our

web site, with news and

opinion, agitation materials,
articles in English, Spanish,

French, Chinese and Russian!

Read and distribute the

newspaper -- and get the latest:

www.etext.org/ Politics/MIM

From page 1...

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 7

Terrorism and War

NY, NY: Seven Stories Press

2002, 157 pp.

by Howard Zinn

reviewed by MC5

This book came out against the war in

Afghanistan, and most of its reasoning

also applies to the war in Iraq. As the

war in Iraq threatens to intensify, it is easy

to forget that the United $tates is still at

war in Afghanistan and many other places

too. At the end of January, the military

claimed to kill 18 Afghan fighters.

In fact, since 1991, the United $tates

has also enforced a war on Iraq, including

the "no-fly" zone over Iraq which Iraq

has contested. These are just two

examples of how the massive U.$.

military is always at war.

Yet, despite the fact that the United

$tates is engaged in war after war, the

public busy reading Cosmopolitan

magazine and watching nakednews.com

acted as if the September 11th attacks

were completely out-of-the-blue. For

those who never looked up from their

Nintendo, those attacks were completely

out-of-the-blue. The benefit of more

evenly matched wars as in World War II

is that its participants all know they are

attacking the other side. In the United

$tates, many citizens pay so little attention

to the constant warring by their

government that they become

extraordinarily indignant when the other

side counterattacks.

Howard Zinn was an air force bomber

in World War II, but he is now known as

a radical historian, the one who wrote "A

People's History of the Unites States."

Zinn gets to the internationalist point right

away: "Terrorism is an international

phenomenon. American citizens are not

the only victims of terrorism. You hear

journalists and politicians talking about

globalization and the free flow of markets.

But they don't talk about international

solidarity of people. They don't say that

we should consider people everywhere

as our brothers and sisters--that we

should consider children all over the world

as our children." (p. 16)

We have disagreements with Zinn to

be sure. The book lists the neo-Trotskyist

group the ISO (International Socialist

Organization) as an important one to work

with. Zinn is also featured prominently

fund-raising for the ISO on its web page.

Along these lines, Zinn speaks of the "left"

and the typical American "left." As a

result he makes the mistake of wanting

to link the anti-war movement to

economic demands of Amerikkkans. Zinn

says he wants these economic issues

linked because he wants the "left" to

have "a much stronger bond with the

American people."(p. 38) Historically, we

have heard "jobs, not war" as a slogan.

Yet the slogan implies that if jobs are

forthcoming, then support for war could

be purchased. Historically that's exactly

what happened in England prior to World

War I. That's not to mention that MIM

does not agree that the Amerikkkan

majority today is exploited.

In any case, since the collapse of the

Soviet Union perhaps no organization has

benefitted more than the ISO. Like MIM,

the ISO held that the "Soviet Union" and

China were "state-capitalist." Since that

time, the ISO has grown where other

traditional Amerikan "left" groups like the

Socialist Party and Socialist Labor Party

have been unable to regenerate.

We agree with Zinn's anticipations of

where politics in the U$A are developing.

There is going to be a Yankee-doodle

resurgence of the "left" before the

middle-classes try something more exotic

like the MIM line. As with Zinn himself,

this "left" will distance itself from the real

world of socialism, because after all,

knowing it or not, most of the United

$tates is petty-bourgeois. The petty-

bourgeoisie as a class cannot rule, so it

tends to want the impossible--either

perfect capitalist democracy (which in

times like these it tends to realize is

impossible, thus the Bush "election" and

"Patriot Act") or perfect violence-free

socialism.

Part of what separates MIM from

others talking about internationalism is

that we stress how far Amerikkkans have

to go before they are not enemies of the

world's people. We believe people cannot

change if no one ever lays out what the

goal is and how much the economic

situation has to change for international

solidarity to come about. While Bush has

chosen not to conduct the Iraq War as

just a covert war, Zinn is wrong to say

that "there is a moral good sense in the

American people that comes to the fore

when the blanket of propaganda begins

to be lifted."(p. 120) Quite the contrary,

the U.$. population supports wars around

the world mostly in situations where there

is almost no propaganda at all. The media

said almost nothing about East Timor in

1975 for example, but the public has/had

no "moral good sense" to do anything

about that. We Leninists refer to Zinn's

error as two-fold: 1) "spontaneity" in

believing what the U.$. public will do 2)

"parasitism" for not recognizing the active

enemy component of the U.$. population

and why it lets the imperialist government

go about its business often with hardly

any propaganda effort on its part at all.

It's quite enough to take advantage of the

dynamics of the gender aristocracy in the

United $tates: with no one paying attention

to anything but their Britney $pears and

Marie Claire, there is no need for

propaganda.

For the most part, Zinn is talking about

internationalism as a moral imperative.

This becomes difficult for many

Amerikkkans to support. At the same

time, such a moral perspective either is

or is not in line with the requirements of

the times. We believe it is scientifically

discernible that internationalism is

necessary for peace. Once we set

peace--including an end to terrorism--

as the goal, the means of achieving that

have to include internationalism. That is

a scientific question. Howard Zinn puts it

this way in connection to terrorism:

"There is a reservoir of possible terrorists

among all those people in the world who

have suffered as a result of U.S. foreign

policy."(p. 17) Despite this statement

approaching science, Zinn ends the book

saying the majority of people will morally

re-evaluate the Afghanistan war and then

it will fall apart.(p. 118)

The golden rule of "do unto others as

you would have others do unto you"

applies in matters of war and peace. We

cannot expect the world to have peace

until all its component peoples treat each

other peacefully.

We are thankful that Zinn admitted that

Amerikkkans in their 90% supported war

against Afghanistan. He suggested tactics

to change that, but he did not deny it, as

those most inclined to believe in the

spontaneity of Amerikkkans would, and

he did not say we should accept evil in

order to get on the good side of that 90%.

(p. 31-2)

Unfortunately, Zinn's class analysis is

vague enough that it supports a line which

amounts to saying the Amerikkkan

The Dawn's Early Light

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we held has

now fell into a destructive imperialist system I call hell. As I sit in this cell and

yell but no help comes, so forever I've run, but now I stand and in my hand is

my gun. At my side is my revolutionary family; together we unite. Against

oppression we fight. Making political moves day and night, because no longer

will I be blinded by the dawn's early light. Everywhere I turn is the star

spangled lie, but we the true few and the proud scream loud was we let out

revolutionary flags fly. No longer do we say why, but together we stand all

uniting in an imperialist land run by the imperialist man. Our words they try to

ban, but there's no way they can. Together we stand, divided we fall. Unite

and stand together all for one cause and each individual for all. And now is

the time to come together my friends. Now we unite and fight for what's

tight and stop being blinded by the dawn's early light.

The Pledge

I pledge no allegiance to the imperialist rag of the United Imperialists of

Oppression or to their corrupt government for which it stands as one capitalist

group over man destroying with oppression and death for all.

Oppressed Country tis of Thee

Oppressed country tis of thee corrupt land with no liberty, for thee I see. A

land where for no reason fathers die. An imperialist land that makes mothers

cry. From every mountain side destruction rings.

--a North Carolina prisoner,

August 2002

Zinn stepped forward against war in Afghanistan

majority is exploited. That's the line of

the organizations listed in the back of the

book as organizations to work with and

nothing contrary is to be found in the book.

At a couple points in the book Zinn

raises the "Stalinism" bogeyman without

detailing what it was.(pp. 75, 113) Making

use of such anti-communism, Zinn veers

into an assortment of unicorns such as

neo-Trotskyism, pacifism and anarchism.

He now points positively to the Trotskyist

resistance to fighting in World War II

against the Nazis [never mind Trotsky's

infamous statements supporting invasion

of the Soviet Union].

We are glad that people of all

persuasions, even those calling

themselves "left" like Zinn made their

own efforts to oppose the war. Our

disagreements on Stalin and the conditions

of U.S. "workers" do not invalidate our

unity in opposing the war on Afghanistan.

Much of what Zinn is talking about is

something the public needs to chew on

one way or another. We are happy this

book made into many public places on

many bookshelves.

Note: http://www.foxnews.com/story/

0,2933,76948,00.html

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 8

Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky
in Our Times (2002)
Directed by John Junkerman

Noam Chomsky is a highly visible anti-

imperialist figure in Amerikan politics. His

analysis on U.$. foreign policy and it's

harm to the rest of the world's people is

right on target. But his anarchist

abstinence from offering an alternative

solution to the failures of capitalism leave

his audience (which is quite large both in

the U.$. and around the world) without

direction at best, and misdirected at

worst.

Power and Terror is a collection of

speeches delivered by Chomsky after 9-

11, interspersed with interview questions.

Chomsky focuses on the very correct

premise that if the United $tates really

wants to end terror "there's a really easy

way: Stop participating in it." He states

that for most of the Amerikan public is it

unfathomable to question the hypocrisy

of the Amerikan government. People

believe it is correct for Amerika to go

bomb Afghanistan for terrorist acts, but

they can not even understand a question

about why the U.$. gets bombed for its

part in terrorism in Turkey, Israel,

Nicaragua or elsewhere.

Chomsky exposes this Amerikan

hypocrisy: if it is correct to bomb

Afghanistan for terrorism it should be

correct to bomb the U.$. for terrorism.

He goes further to state that Amerika

owes reparations to Afghanistan for

destroying the country (along with a long

list of other countries).

The historical examples in this film of

both Amerikan and British terrorism

around the world are an excellent history

lesson for the uninformed. As usual,

Chomsky is an encyclopedia of

information (as one audience member

commented). And his analysis of

Amerikan terrorism is much needed post

9-11.

One theme Chomsky touches on is the

relative progress of the activist movement

in the United $tates since the 1960s. He

points out that in the early 60s it was

impossible to mobilize people in the

Boston area for a meeting about Vietnam

and protesters were attacked in the streets

and unable to gather much of a crowd. It

took years for the protests about Vietnam

to grow but now the response to

Amerikan attacks on other countries

receives much greater attention.

Chomsky is clear that still the media is a

part of corporate Amerika and as such it

supports the government and still is very

much its mouthpiece. But he suggests that

in present times Amerikans enjoy more

freedoms to protest and greater influence

over the mainstream media to see

important news published.

Chomsky sees the activist movement

having broadened to include a larger cross

section of the Amerikan public. However,

MIM cautions that much popular "anti-

war" sentiment reflects Amerikans'

concerns about wasting their money on

people in other countries rather than

spending it on themselves. This typical

Amerikan chauvinism was exemplified in

the post office recently where this reporter

overheard a white man standing in line

complaining about how long he had to

wait: "We spend millions on bombs to send

to other countries but we can't even get

good service in the post office here. You

would think that as American citizens we

deserve better." As if those bombs are

helping people in other countries.

Chomsky credits the activists of the

1970s and 1980s for the progress made

in this country, even greater than he

credits those of the 1960s. Completely

ignoring the legacy of the Black Panther

Party and other revolutionary

organizations that forced the government

to compromise with middle forces, he

holds up the feminist and environmental

movements of the 70s and 80s as more

important. MIM disagrees with this

analysis and points to the power of

revolutionary communist movements to

make space for the more moderate

activists (like those of the 70s and 80s

that Chomsky holds up as examples).

Without the communists these activists

would not have been in the position to

even compromise with imperialism to

have a seat at the table.

His willingness to ignore the important

history of Maoist-influenced movements

within U.$. borders misleads his audience

in operations against the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front and the New People's

Army led by the Communist Party of the

Philippines. The u.$. has labeled these

groups "terrorist" despite their prior peace

negotiations with the Manila government.

A requirement for the resumption of

peace negotiations is the removal of the

"terrorist" label on Prof. Jose Ma. Sison,

the chief political consultant of the

National Democratic Front of the

Philippines and founder of the Communist

Party of the Philippines. (4)

In a discussion following the film, a

veteran organizer named Carol Almeda

said that the murder of peasants and

students demanding genuine social change

shows that the imperialist-landlord

dominated state doesn't serve the interest

of the people and is actually their enemy.

She described how 70% of Filipino

lawmakers are landlords and the

remaining 30% are representatives of

imperialist multinational corporations.

Despite two popular uprisings and the

removal of Marcos and Estrada there has

been no change in the economic rights of

the masses of Filipinos because the

economic policies of Aquino and

Macapagal-Arroyo are the same as those

of Marcos, Ramos and Estrada: each is

driven to suppress the domestic economy

by foreign imperialist investment. For

example, she described an arrangement

orchestrated by Macapagal-Arroyo that

prohibits Filipino farmers from growing

rice but requires the Philippines to import

rice and sell it domestically at higher

prices. Almeda blasted imperialist-

inspired "agricultural conversions" as well

as programs that destroy the development

of the industrial sector of the economy

and displace thousands to peddle goods

on the streets.

A general theme in the discussion was

that the massacre at Mendiola is only one

of the many instances of state violence

against the people. RAIL thinks that

removing the "terrorist" label from Prof.

Jose Ma. Sison and resuming peace

negotiations is an essential step towards

democracy in a region where only

national liberation and genuine land reform

can put an end to landlessness and state

sponsored violence.

Notes:

1. MIM Notes 132, 15 February 1997.

2. Associated Press. January 23, 2002.

3. Los Angeles Times. February 21,

2003. P. A1.

4. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/

agitation/philippines/index.html

Film marks 16th

Anniversary of the

Mendiola Massacre

From page 3...

`Encyclopedia Chomsky' tells necessary truth about U.$. empire

But his vision for an alternative is a dead-end

about the reality of historical activism. In

disagreeing with communism, Chomsky

downplays movements that represent

what he believes to be incorrect.

In response to a question about

Capitalism, Chomsky said that capitalism

might be good but we don't have real

capitalism in this country. This cop-out

answer implied that free market

capitalism might be better for the people

than the state controlled capitalism that

we have. This ignores the reality of the

capitalist system which is premised on the

power and wealth being concentrated in

the hands of the bourgeoisie which profits

off of the proletariat. While he was

correctly telling his audiences to fight the

government and those in power, he was

not giving them anything to fight for, only

what to fight against. And while he is

cheerleading for the dismantling of the

system of power, his implication about

what to fight for involves reformist

movements at best.

MIM is clear that Capitalism is a failure

as a system. We offer people an

alternative and one that has been tested

historically and proven superior to

capitalism: communism.

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 9

opinion inside the Philippines."(3)

The United $tates insisted on the

terminology "military operation" over the

tried-and-true "training exercise" favored

by Arroyo and Reyes, and the deal

collapsed. Apparently the Bush

administration is more worried about

public opinion in the United $tates. The

Pentagon wants to take credit for any

military successes while preparing

Amerikans for the possibility of combat

casualties (more about that later).

Filipinos--including Philippine

legislators--first heard about the plans for

"joint exercises" or "joint operations" or

whatever you want to call them from a

Pentagon official interviewed the New

York Times. Given that and the

Pentagon's insistence that the Philippine

military understands the plan for U.$.

troops is really a duck, although they want

to call it a swan, many Filipinos accuse

the Arroyo regime of lying to them.(4)

Philippine senator Aquilino Pimentel

went so far as to accuse Reyes of

treason. "My take is that Secretary Reyes

is trying to cover up for what was actually

a done deal between the department of

national defense and the Pentagon," he

said. "Somebody is lying, and it's our own

people."(5)

Not that the Pentagon hasn't told its

share of lies. The Pentagon promoted the

line that the 1,000 troops who arrived in

the Philippines last year were engaged in

"training exercises," even though they

participated in patrols and carried

weapons. Indeed, Amerikan troops have

already been involved in "combat" of a

sort. Last July an Amerikan participated

in a raid on a civilian house and shot

Buyong-buyong Isnijal as he lay on his

back on the floor.(6)

Of course, the rationale both the United

$tates and the Arroyo regime have laid

out for U.$. military involvement in the

Philippines is a lie. According to their

story, Abu Sayaaf is a formidable gang

of "terrorists" with links to Al Queda. In

truth, there is more evidence linking Abu

Sayaaf to the Philippine military and the

Amerikan CIA than to Al Queda, and

Abu Sayaaf membership has dwindled to

under 200.(7)

Even bourgeois mouthpieces are now

too embarrassed to repeat the charge of

links between Abu Sayaaf and Al Queda

without the disclaimer, "it's not clear

whether any connection still exists."(5)

The Los Angeles Times slipped up

recently and printed a story which made

no reference to the supposed Al Queda

link at all, saying simply, "The Abu

Sayyaf, which once espoused a militant

Islamic philosophy, degenerated into a

bandit gang that makes a living from

kidnapping for ransom."(1)

Nor has the Abu Syaaf been the only--

or principal--target of these "training

exercises," as the United $tates and the

Arroyo regime claimed. Last August,

declaring the Abu Sayaaf defeated (which

leads one to wonder why she needs

another 3,000 Amerikan troops),

President Macapagal-Arroyo ordered her

newly U.$.-trained troops to move against

the Communist-led New People's

Army.(8)

There are several reasons why the

United $tates wants to send troops to the

Philippines besides the "war on terrorism."

First, it wants to prop up an important ally

in east Asia and strengthen its authority

over its southern islands. Second, "joint

exercises" pave the way for new U.$.

bases, to replace the bases Filipinos

closed in the early 1990s. Such bases

could support U.$. military action in

Korea, the Taiwan straits, southeast Asia

and even Iraq. The islands of Basilan and

Jolo, where Abu Sayaaf operates, are

near Malaysia and the shipping lanes

which supply much of the region with oil.

Finally, the U.$. wants to increase its

military presence to secure its access to

raw materials. The islands in the Southern

Philippines are rich in timber and minerals.

Progressive Philippine representative

Liza Maza made internationalism a core

component of her opposition to the

Pentagon's plans. "The Bayanihan

military exercises can exacerbate the

armed conflict in Mindanao. Moreover,

the Philippines may be used as a

launching pad for the US war on Iraq. It

is for our people's safety and the

upholding of our nation's sovereignty that

we must push for the immediate pullout

of US troops in the country."(9)

No statute of limitations on
"blowback"

One of the reasons the Pentagon is

worried about U.$. casualties in the

southern Philippines is lingering hatred

towards the United $tates because of its

atrocities during the Filipino-Amerikan

war, over 100 years ago. It's worth

quoting from the Los Angeles Times at

length on this subject.

When U.S. troops land on this

forbidding jungle island in the coming

weeks, they will find a proud tribal

people with a historic hatred of the

United States and a deep suspicion

of American motives.

They will find a land where

mothers put their children to bed with

lullabies telling them to become

strong so they can avenge atrocities

by U.S. forces a century ago...

About 95% of the island's people

are Tausug, an Islamic tribe that has

fought invaders for centuries - first

the Spaniards, then the Americans

and the Japanese.

After the Philippines became a

U.S. colony in 1898, Washington sent

troops to subdue the Tausugs. They

fought with traditional long knives

known as bolos against soldiers who

were armed with guns. The

tribesmen earned a reputation for

being unstoppable even when

wounded.

Tausugs boast that the .45-caliber

pistol was developed to stop their

ancestors in their tracks.

During the American campaign,

Philippine historians say, U.S. troops

under Gen. John J. Pershing

committed atrocities against the

Tausugs. The troops massacred

hundreds, perhaps thousands, of

people, including women and

children, they say. Photos taken at

the time show American soldiers

standing amid hundreds of bodies.

Now, some Tausugs welcome an

opportunity to fight the Americans.

"They have been rejoicing over the

news that the Americans are

coming," Parouk Hussin, a Tausug

who is governor of a Muslim

autonomous region that includes Jolo,

said in an interview. "They say, `This

is our chance to avenge the atrocities

committed against our forefathers.'"

The Tausugs were not the only people

to suffer Amerikan atrocities. "It is

certain that U.S. imperialism killed

between 10-15% of [the Philippine]

population then of some 8 million, or from

800,000 to over a million deaths. By any

account, that is a staggering amount.(3)

Amerikans must wake up and realize

that the Filipino people have their own

national aspirations. Aside from this

history of genocide and subsequential

colonial exploitation, Filipinos have to bear

the insult that they need Uncle $am to

help round up a small criminal gang--

analogous to French troops arriving to

patrol the streets of Los Angeles or

Washington DC to allegedly stamp out

the drug trade or catch the beltway sniper.

Only when the imperialists have been

driven out will the masses be able to carry

out their own desires to quash banditry

and all reactionary thugs.

Ultimately, the best thing people within

the united snakes can do to support the

Filipino people's desire for national self-

determination is build a strong anti-

imperialist movement here. We must

stubbornly resist the chicanery of those

who would make Amerika's international

war into one of self-defense. Get in touch

with MIM to lend your voice and end this

madness.

Notes:

1. Los Angeles Times, 1 Mar 2003.

2. MIM Notes 251, 1 Feb 2002.

3. Los Angeles Times, 28 Feb 2003.

4. MIM does not know whether Arroyo

and Reyes really cut a back-room deal

with the Pentagon or whether the

Pentagon just claimed they had, to put

the pressure on or discredit them. Either

way, the United $tates has no business

fucking around with other countries

sovereignty--especially on the key issue

of whether foreign troops participate in

those countries internal conflicts.

Furthermore, again either way, it shows

the United $tates is willing to use up and

throw away even its most ardent

bootlickers. The life of a running dog is

not as easy as it looks.

5. Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb 2003.

6. "U.$. soldier shoots Filipino civilian,"

MIM Notes 265, 1 Sep 2002.

7. " California forum on the Philippines

builds OUT NOW! movement in the

United $tates," MIM Notes 254, 15 Mar

2002; MIM Notes 251, 1 Feb 2002.

8. "U.$.-Arroyo regime launches "all-

out war" on communists," MIM Notes

265, 1 Sep 2002.

9. Press release, 21 Feb 2003.

Pentagon to send 3,000 more U.$. troops to Philippines

We must

stubbornly resist

the chicanery of

those who would

make Amerika's

international war

into one of self-

defense.

From page 1...

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 10

MIM on

Prisons & Prisoners

MIM seeks to build public opinion

against Amerika's criminal injustice sys-

tem, and to eventually replace the bour-

geois injustice system with proletarian jus-

tice. The bourgeois injustice system im-

prisons and executes a disproportionately

large and growing number of oppressed

people while letting the biggest mass mur-

derers -- the imperialists and their lack-

eys -- roam free. Imperialism is not op-

posed to murder or theft, it only insists that

these crimes be committed in the interests

of the bourgeoisie.

"All U.S. citizens are criminals--

accomplices and accessories to the crimes
of U.$. oppression globally until the day
U.$. imperialism is overcome. All U.S.
citizens should start from the point of view
that they are reforming criminals."

MIM does not advocate that all

prisoners go free today; we have a
more effective program for fighting
crime as was demonstrated in China
prior to the restoration of capitalism
there in 1976. We say that all prisoners
are political prisoners because under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, all
imprisonment is substantively
political. It is our responsibility to
exert revolutionary leadership and
conduct political agitation and
organization among prisoners --
whose material conditions make them
an overwhelmingly revolutionary
group. Some prisoners should and will
work on self-criticism under a future
dictatorship of the proletariat in those
cases in which prisoners really did do
something wrong by proletarian
standards.

Under Lock & Key

News from Prisons & Prisoners

Kansas prisoners cry
out for rev. ed.

Dear Reader,
I'm writing on behalf of the Rastafarian

community at El Dorado Correctional Facility.
We are writing in an attempt to better our
situation, as well as that of our brothers and
sisters across the country.

So many of our brothers have fallen victim

to the seemingly endless cycle of
incarceration, and have been outcast or
labeled a menace to our own communities.
This branding has made us seem unfit to be
leaders and builders in the continuing African
struggle. We often hear about brothers and
sisters who are released only to reoffend, but
we hear very little about brothers and sisters
who become successful. Remember Malcolm
X, and many others who were incarcerated
but later in life did positive things for our
people.

The African mind has a psychological

sickness that stems from 500 years of
oppression. The Rasta community here feels
the only antidote to our sickness is
organizing, planning and re-educating
ourselves and if possible all African-based
communities. Information is the cornerstone
of knowledge, and to be knowledgeable is to
be intelligent.

We must ask: who would you want to return

to society: productive men and women, or
people stuck in a criminal mind-set? We feel
the recidivism rate in Kansas is so high
because of the lack of educational resources.
The little that is available only goes to a few.
Afro-Americans are less than 7% of the
Kansas population, but we are over 35% of
the prison population. These numbers are
alarming.

Our struggle transcends religion, for we are

seeking the light of truth about our African
ancestors and self. If it is possible for you to
donate books or any other materials, we
would greatly appreciate it.

Aluta Continua, Harambee Pomoja Tu Ta

Shinda Uhuru Sasa. In Swahili that means
"The Struggle Continues, Pull Together,
Together we will Win, Freedom Now."

-- an EDCF, Kansas prisoner, 25 January

2003

MIM responds: Disproportionate

imprisonment of the internal semi-colonies is
a problem throughout the united snakes.
There are more Black prisoners than white
prisoners in Amerika, even though Blacks are
only 12% of the u.$. population and whites
are nearly 70%. In 1998, those U.$. states with
the highest imprisonment rates are those with
the largest pockets of oppressed nation
members: Louisiana (736 sentenced prisoners
per 100,000 residents), Texas (724), Oklahoma
(622), Mississippi (574) and South Carolina
(550). The states with the lowest imprisonment
rates were the whitest: Minnesota (117),
Maine (125), and North Dakota (128).(1)

The criminal injustice system is an

indispensable part of the state. It serves the
interests of the bourgeoisie by caging those
elements of the population most likely to rebel.
Our task as revolutionaries is to push the
righteous anger of the oppressed toward the
struggle against imperialism. Prisoners can
better their conditions today by fighting
against censorship and for the right to read

MIM Notes and other revolutionary
literature, or to shut down control units, or to
resolve the burning issues in their states.(2)

Donate books, stamps or cash to MIM to

help us get MIM Notes, MIM Theory and
other revolutionary literature into the hands
of prisoners. In appreciation of your donation,
we will work with prisoners to analyze and
report on their conditions, and to take up
agitation to improve better these conditions.

Notes:
1. "Prison boom rockets despite `crime' drop"
MIM Notes 194, 15 September 1999.
2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
prisons/

IL prisoner sends $20

Dear MIM,
Enclosed is $20. I must commend you on

the good work and statements of facts in your
paper that help brothers like myself who are
incarcerated and made blind. I am donating
to your paper so that you will continue to
send it to me and I'll pass it on to others. I'm
going to represent y'all all the way.

A true supporter.
-- A prisoner in Pontiac
MIM responds: We hope our readers on

the outside will be inspired by the donations
from our comrades behind bars. Prisoners can
not get jobs that even pay minimum wage
and yet they donate money, stamps and much
hard work.

Oregon prisoner down
for the struggle

I wrote to you for the first time about 2

months ago, asking for a subscription to MIM
Notes and this letter is written in response to
your reply.

To start, please let me remind you that all of

us readers do appreciate the efforts that USW
and MIM in general are making. It is so
important to educate both "free" persyns and
prisoners in regards to the inhumanity of the
current injustice system; a system that is
indicative of the true greed that capitalism
tends to breed. As large and seemingly
insurmountable hurtles present themselves,
please don't let yourselves forget how
important it is to keep it up.

Please be assured that I am more than willing

to devote time to the battle against the
exploitation of the Third World. When my
own MIM notes start arriving, I'll make sure
that after I read them they are passed to my
friends along with a recommendation of which
articles to "check out." I know that it is
important to make available more information
for our Spanish speaking comrades. I will be
sending you translations of some of the
articles in Under Lock & Key so that you can
perhaps include them in future editions of
Notas Rojas. And as my writing skills improve,
I may start sending in some articles for Under
Lock and Key. I have a lot to say about

mandatory minimum sentencing and the
current definition of "violent offender."

I am interested in helping you guys out

with distribution. My release date is in 2007,
so please expect to see me out there in the
not-too-distant future. I can't wait to bring
some truth to people with closed eyes and
covered ears!

-- a prisoner in Oregon, February 2003

MA prison illegally
creates `gang blocks,'
blackmails so-called
STG members

Those convicts being illegally housed in

the Security Threat Group (STG) Plymouth
blocks at Walpole are kept there unless they
partake in and graduate from this "Criminal
Thinking Program." Even if you remain
disciplinary-report free for years, the only way
out of those "gang blocks" is through this
program. The courts have recently made a
decision that those blocks are illegal and they
said the DOC has to change its racist policy
in regards to putting "gang members" in those
blocks. The vast majority is Latino. I will try
to forward you a copy of the lawsuit, I don't
know if they will make a copy for me.

[The STG renouncement program] is a 3

phase, 8-month program aimed at helping us
change our criminal ways of thinking and
acting. We are housed in the special
management unit for the first 6 months (phase
I, intensive phase). Then we are herded out
to general population for phase II, which is a
2-month graduate maintenance program,
which can be at any level 4 prison in MA.
The phase III is called reintegration, which is
about pre-release. As to the curriculum, we
are supposed to attend classes Monday
through Friday at least 2 to 5 hours at a
minimum. I don't know exactly what they will
try to indoctrinate us with. Basing my opinion
on the orientation we had, their aim is to make
us conform. Seeing that it is our political
awareness that places us in Security Threat
Group blocks, I know that "teacher" will target
me. I will not compromise my political position
just to graduate. So there is a big question
mark as to if they will let me graduate. I asked
the "teacher" if one's religious/political
persuasion will be a factor come graduation
and he, as expected, avoided the question by
saying it comes down to morality. I intend on
challenging all discrepancies I find in their
brainwashing courses.

I noticed that they have something called

system bashing, where blaming the system
for our faults is part of our criminal thinking. I
personally think an individual is partly
responsible under capitalism. Because
although we do have the choice of saying
yes or no, one's socio-economic status is in
fact what dictates our position. The
proletarian/lumpen proletarian is a social
outcast because of nationality and the state's

criminalization of urban males. He/she is also
economically oppressed in that less
opportunity is afforded him/her. This then
gives rise to the neo-colonial mentality, where
ignorance is supreme. Individualism,
opportunism, and focoism corrode the
individual. I can't wait to see how they
respond to my shock wave.

--a MA prisoner, November 2002

Latin Kings repressed
in Utah

Greetings from the land of the Almighty

Latin King Nation in the State of UT. Screaming
Almighty Nationwide!!

I recently received the MIM Notes that you

sent me. I really appreciate it because the
prison authorities have continued to censor
all my mail. They copy each letter that I
receive, including newspapers, magazines,
pictures and legal mail. Then they send copies
to the federal government of anything that
shows a picture of a 5-point crown and return
it to the sender. The prison has even deleted

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 11

Facts on U$ imprisonment

The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last

25 years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1)

That means that while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita.

In supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United $tates.(2,3)

To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid South

Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than
China; even though China is four times our population.(5)

The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.

Notes: 1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, Suite

501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: R8965-2, 1994
2. Ibid., 1992 report.

3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186.

4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211.
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.

phone numbers from my phone list per the
u.$. marshals. Including my house number! If
I want to call or write my house and my family
I have to get approval from the warden.

This is the type of censorship I have been

subject to because supposedly I am a leader
of my Nation. Keep up the good work MIM.

To all my people representing Black and

Gold, don't let these pigs keep oppressing
our Nation. We are the Lions in the Concrete
Jungle, let them hear our call. Amor the Rey!

--An ALKQN Lord in Utah

MIM Theory censored
for revolutionary
articles

Dear MIM:
I am writing to inform you that the literature

that you sent me was not allowed and should
be on its way back to you. Enclosed is a copy
of the disapproval form and a copy of our
California Code of Regulations Title 15. I
marked the section CCR 3006(c). I am
appealing the decision with a 602. I do now
know what was sent and did not sign the
form because it was not opened in front of
me. I'll keep you up to date with the progress
of the appeal 602. It's a disappointment for
me because I want to educate myself but am
unable to. My appeal is copied below:

On 2-16-02 I was informed that incoming

mail/package "literature" was not allowed per
CCR 3006(c) "material has revolutionary
articles and articles based on or about
violence." which was being returned to
sender. This material is historical literature.
The continence is based on he forming of
what is called the United States of American
and the struggles of people of color. It may
have violence within its pages but no more
than a daily newspaper, Time or Newsweek
magazine which speaks on war and murder.
Racism is unfair because the institutional
library here at CCI-Tehachapi is allowed to
issue these types of materials...

-- a prisoner in California, CCI Tehachapi,

February 2003

MIM responds: There is no justification in

the California mail regulations which states
that revolutionary material can be rejected
based on its content. The CDC is violating its
own policies with this censorship. The
literature censored was a copy the MIM
Theory magazine, "Amerikan Prisons on
Trial". We are particularly alarmed by this
censorship because we are beginning a state-
wide study group in the California prisons
reading this theory journal. This is a clear
attempt to stop prisoners from educating
themselves and participating in revolutionary

education. We need help from lawyers on the
outside to join the fight against censorship
being waged by MIM and our comrades
behind bars.

Repression in Cal.
outpatient program

Sadly I must report the oppressive and very

petty environment of the Pelican Bay
enhanced outpatient program (EOP). On
January 31, 2003 the pig in the gun tower
informed a prisoner under medication that the
next time he was late getting ready for chow
he would not be given breakfast (the guy only
took about 2 minutes). I saw and heard this
personally. Yesterday the prisoner woke up
disoriented from a heavy medicated induced
sleep only to find his door was closing during
breakfast. He hurriedly got dressed and
informed control (who was the same person
and was still releasing for breakfast
elsewhere) to open his door for breakfast. The
pig in the gun tower said "what did I tell you
the other day. If you were late you weren't
going to breakfast." With that he closed the
window and left him in the cell. We figured
that he (the pig) was going to wait until
breakfast was finished and the prisoner would
be given his meal. But that was not the case.
The pig withheld the meal as punishment for
being unable to get up on time.

The prisoner asked me to write a complaint

form (called a 602) which I did. Citing the
prison rule book (title 15) 3050 as well as the
orientation packet you receive when you
arrive which states that all staff (Correctional)
are specially trained to deal with prisoners
who have mental difficulties. I guess that
means denying somebody their most basic
human right to food.

The prisoner later on told me never mind

that he isn't tripping and that it was ok. I
explained to him that it was not ok. I also
explained that it is a violation of his 8th
amendment right not to be subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment which it is. I also
explained how to bypass the informal level
by turning in a citizen complaint, which will
put the pig under investigation (hopefully)
plus the citizen complaint will stay open for 5
years.

-- a prisoner in CA, February 2003

The Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has made its

way deep into the American prison system.
With 2 million men and women incarcerated
in America, it is estimated that 20 percent to
60 percent are infected with HCV. The fact
that prison systems are notorious for
providing substandard medical care --
whose systemic incompetence, neglect, and
institutionalized disregard for human life is
the premise for innumerable lawsuits --
renders this national epidemic a matter of
life and death.

HCV: A stealth virus

HCV is often referred to as the "Silent

Epidemic." It is the most common blood-
borne disease in the U.S. Since
approximately half of those infected do not
realize they have the disease, in too many
instances, treatment doesn't begin until after
the virus has progressed to the chronic
stage. Hepatitis C can lay dormant for
decades. One can have it from 10 to 30 years
before they begin to show symptoms. By
then it could already be too late.

HCV is a deadly disease. Approximately

85 percent of those infected develop chronic
hepatitis C. Although there is no cure,
undergoing treatment has been successful
in clearing the virus from the body in about
15 percent of the time. They are the lucky
ones. The end stages of chronic HCV
involves a myriad of liver problems --
including cirrhosis, cancer, and failure of the
liver. The disintegration of a vital organ
brings about an excruciating death.

Most associate HIV, the virus which

causes AIDS, as being the nations'
foremost blood-borne disease. Yet, HCV has
surpassed it four-to-one. One million
Americans are infected with HIV, while 4
million have HCV. At least 1/3 of HIV patients
are also co-invfected with hepatits C. Either
virus can exacerbate the other.

To make matter even worse, hepatits C is

equally fatal. In the U.S., 8,000 to 10,000
deaths a year are attributed to this silent
killer, with the totals expected to reach
30,000 a year by 2010 -- twice the toll AIDS
claims.

Even though HCV has outpaced HIV, very

few know much about this invection. Until
very recently it has not received much
coverage. All the intense activism
associated with the AIDS movement hit a
peak in the mid-90s and has subsequently
subsided. Since HCV paralleled HIV, it would
have been ideal if the AIDS movement had
focused on both viruses.

HCV awareness is beginning to pick-up

some momentum, although relaunching
another movement has been a struggle.
Celebrities going public with their affliction
has helped bring the far-reaching implications
of the HCV to the attention of the public.
Former star of "Baywatch," Pamela Anderson,
brought HCV awareness to the front pages
when she disclosed to the public that she
had contracted the disease from her husband
while getting a tattoo. One can contract such
viruses through a number of ways: syringes,
unprotected sex, tattoo needles, exposure to
blood, to name just a few.

Co-infection and the Prison
Intravenous Drug User

In 1996 a research study completed in

cooperation with the California Department
of Human Services uncovered how
widespread are HCV and HIV within the
California Department of Corrections.

Incoming male prisoners were testing

positive for HCV at a rate of 39.4 percent --
with 61.3 percent of them co-infected with
HIV. Incoming female prisoners tested positive
for HCV at a rate of 54.5 percent -- with an
astounding 85 percent being co-infected with
HIV.

These are alarming, troubling, and eye-

opening numbers. Both being blood- borne
maladies and epidemic in proportions, co-
infection can be traced to intravenous drug
use within the community of drug addicts who
lead high risk lifestyles. The sharing of
needles is the unfortunate common
denominator in how the virus spreads easily
within the American prison system.

While the actual infection rates of those

carrying either of these diseases vary from
state to state, the disturbing fact of the matter
are the prodigious numbers of incarcerated
individuals who have one or both of these
disease. For these high risk individuals,
unkonowingly, diseases are passed around
like a bottle of cheap wine. Being a largely
uneducated and self- destructive
demographic, the numbers of those affected
will get much worse before they get any better.

Despite a significant body of information

illustrating the dangers of exposure to blood,
the message is not getting to the nation's
population of hard core drug addicts who
share needles -- many of who m end up in
prison and continue to reinforce their
addiction.

Generally, if available, a drug addict will use

drugs. Even for those in remission, relapse is
a problem. The incarcerated addict will often
go to great lengths to use drugs if they are
even remotely available. Thoughts of
thoroughly sanitizing a syringe, which is a
rather simple process, come a distant second
to the immediate desire to "get high."

Moreover, if one uses drugs intravenously

while serving time -- which is a rather
unfortunate reality -- one has volunteered
to be a member of a group whose lifestyle
poses the greatest danger to themselves and
others. Using a syringe to get high ahs
become a very deadly endeavor -- especially
while incarcerated.

Hepatitis C and the American Prisoner

MIM Notes 278 · March 15, 2003 · Page 12

Notas Rojas

marzo 15, 2003, Nº 278 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista Gratis

Por el MIM
Traducido por Células de Estudio para la

Liberación de Aztlán y América Latina

La diferencia de opinión sobre la cuestión

de la inmigración entre un yanqui común y
corriente y una "élite" o el círculo de poder,
supera el nivel del año 1998, según una
encuesta publicada el día 17 de diciembre. El
presidente Bush ha puesto en práctica los
reglamentos migratorios más salvajes sobre
sus vecinos, México y Canadá, y ha causado
molestia a los conservadores del occidente
canadiense con las tarifas sobre la madera.
Sin embargo, menos del 30% de los yanquis
apoyan a Bush sobre sólo dos asuntos: los
cambios en el clima y la inmigración. La
corriente del chovinismo nacionalista que
comenzó el 11 de septiembre alimenta la
opinión injusta con respecto a la inmigración.

La encuesta fortalece la tesis del MIM que

la aristocracia obrera está más opuesta al
internacionalismo que la misma burguesía
imperialista. Lenin explicó extensamente que
la psicología de esta clase sostiene que
apenas han logrado sus privilegios y por lo
tanto son más feroces en protegerlos.

Sólo el 14% de la élite norteamericana, de

"los líderes de la opinión," están de acuerdo
con la posición popular según la cual se debe
reducir la inmigración. El 60% del público
norteamericano sostiene que la política del
gobierno debe ser reducir la inmigración
oficial. Y todo esto es a pesar de la retórica
del "país de los inmigrantes" y de que aun la
ciudad de Nueva York se adorna con la
"Estatua de la Libertad." Está bien claro que
los yanquis no creen en el derecho de poder
viajar abiertamente y gracias a la estupidez
electoral de la aristocracia obrera, el promedio
de encarcelamiento en EE.UU. es el más alto
en todo el mundo.

"Según la encuesta, el 70% del público

norteamericano opina que reducir la
inmigración ilegal es `una meta muy
importante de la política internacional de
EE.UU.', mientras sólo el 22% de la élite
sostiene la misma posición." (1) Esta es la
razón de la victoria de Pat Buchanan sobre
Bush en las elecciones preliminares de Nuevo
Hampshire en 1992. En 1992, año de recesión,
tanto Perot como Buchanan lanzaron sus
programas con el lema "Yanquis Primero."

La propuesta aceptada casi por todos los

tal llamados yanquis "marxistas" es una
ilusión que postula la existencia de un
proletariado explotado que propaga el
internacionalismo de este lado de la frontera.
Al contrario, lo que debe quedar bien claro es
que el pueblo yanqui carece del
internacionalismo más que la clase con el
poder estatal y que de esta manera es aún
más reaccionario. No basta el chantaje de la
clase dominante: la aristocracia obrera es
consciente de su lucha para lograr una
lucrativa división de superganancias. La
aristocracia obrera no es nada indiferente
hacia el tema de superganancias, y no está a
punto de despojarse de una supuesta
conciencia engañosa para reemplazarla con
un internacionalismo revolucionario. Los

intereses de la aristocracia obrera son fáciles
de identificar y ésta los persigue
diligentemente, de lo cual resulta la enorme
diferencia entre su posición sobre la
inmigración y la posición de la clase
dominante.

El pueblo yanqui no aguanta a los

verdaderos representantes de la burguesía
internacionalista como los Rockerfeller, Jimmy
Carter y Bush el mayor. El iniciar pláticas
sobre el desempleo y el empeoramiento de
los salarios (¡menos beneficios!) con la
aristocracia obrera la llevaría a tomar el lado
de Buchanan. No entender esto iguala a no
entender la situación contemporánea ni la
teoría leninista de la aristocracia obrera. Salvo
los inmigrantes y la población de habla
hispana, no hay campo para discutir lo del
proletariado dentro de las fronteras de EE.UU.
Esto sólo tiene como resultado que se
molesten y se encierren más los chovinistas.

Entender la realidad en los países

imperialistas con una población burguesa
implica luchar para forjar una alianza con el
lumpenproletariado y con la pequeña ala
izquierdista de la burguesía internacionalista.
La prensa imperialista no ignora del todo este
asunto como cuando ridiculiza las protestas
en contra del Fondo Monetario Internacional
dirigidas por los "nenes anarquistas con
fondos de inversión" quienes poseen
recursos suficientes para viajar de una
manifestación a otra. En los años 60 y 70, la
prensa dijo lo mismo con respeto a los
miembros del grupo "Weather Undeground"
quienes eran poderosos millonarios y
abogados.

La sección de la burguesía
internacionalista que posee una visión de
largo plazo

no se encuentra en el poder. Esta sección

ha salido en Seattle y en otras protestas a
nivel mundial pero aún es muy pequeña. El
ala izquierdista de la burguesía
internacionalista es comparable a lo que
Lenin, Stalin y Mao llamaban "burguesía
nacional," una clase que podía unirse a la
revolución en los países semifeudales. Por lo
tanto, el ala izquierdista de la burguesía
internacionalista es una amiga del proletariado.
Aunque aún sobreviven, tanto la burguesía
nacional como el ala izquierdista de la
burguesía internacionalista están en peligro
de extinción. Debemos entender que estos
grupos tienen intereses distintos a los del
imperialismo.

No es nuestro deber oponernos a tipos

como Bush, Blair, Carter y Clinton con
demandas nacionalistas en contra del Tratado
de Libre Comercio (TLC) o la inmigración.
Nuestro deber es demonstrar que la única
forma de lograr la paz y la prosperidad es
nuestra estrategia para conseguir un salario
minimo mundial, un cuerpo para la protección
universal del medio ambiente y, por
consecuencia, una lucha de clases mundial.

Aunque el Centro para Estudios

Migratorios ha llevado a cabo las encuestas,
aún carece de una teoría: "No está muy claro

porqué hay ideas tan distintas sobre la
inmigración entre los líderes del país y el
público." También se distingue la opinión
del yanqui común y corriente de la de los
líderes sobre la protección del empleo para
los yanquis y la competición económica con
otros países. Esta diferencia indica firmemente
que una de las principales razones por la cual
los yanquis se preocupan por la inmigración
es el temor que tienen a la competición por el
empleo.

El tremendo espacio entre los imperialistas

internacionalistas y la aristocracia obrera ha
rendido una serie de situaciones políticas
hipócritas. Mientras la aristocracia obrera se
aprovecha de los negocios de los empresarios
en el Tercer Mundo, a los empresarios
tercermundistas que buscan hacer negocios
en los países imperialistas se les echa de
aviones porque tienen pinta de "terroristas."
También se organizan movimientos
antiinmigrantes al estilo Le Pen en Francia y
Buchanan en EE.UU.

No debemos alegar que los tratados de

comercio e inmigración y los convenios
representan únicamente la conciencia
burguesa embucando la falsa consciencia
sobre el proletariado de los países
imperialistas. Debemos defender estos
tratados y promover su lógica.

El gobierno de Los Países Bajos le permitó

entrar a José Maria Sisón y firmó tratados y
convenios garantizándole ciertos derechos.
Los camaradas filipinos lo entienden muy
bien, hacen hincapié en dichos tratados y
convenios, los defienden y no permiten que
el gobierno Holandés los anule. Los
camaradas filipinos serían culpables de
promover una conciencia falsa si sólo se la
pasaran discutiendo tratados y los derechos
humanos de los europeos y al mismo tiempo
fuese verdad que existe algún proletariado
europeo a punto de lanzarse a la revolución
internacionalista. Pero las cosas no son así y
todavía no se alcanza este nivel de ventaja
política y, por consequencia, lo correcto es
apoyar tratados internacionals en contra de
la aristocracia obrera.

Muchos de los tratados, convenios y leyes

no prohiben que la aristocracia obrera europea
organice protestas en contra de los
inmigrantes. Así lo dijo un típico aristócrata
obrero en el grupo de Usenet
soc.culture.filipino: "Pobre JoMa Sisón. Se
queja al gobierno holandés para que le
restauren los beneficios estatales. Se queja
porque sólo recibe una miserable asignación
de 201.93 euros y porque el gobierno no paga
por su hogar. Discúlpenme pero mis
impuestos pagan por todo esto. Si tienes
alguna molestia lárgate a las Filipinas y
averigua cuánto te dan allá. Nos acusa de ser
un gobierno policíaco. Sí, qué lástima. ¿Si te
encuentras tan infeliz en los Países Bajos
entonces qué haces aquí?" Le informamos a
este imbécil que gracias a la presión política
de tipos como él los Países Bajos prohiben
que Sisón consiga empleo. Y al mismo tiempo
le acusan de no pagar impuestos.

JoMa Sisón y otros comunistas están de

acuerdo con la idea de firmar un tratado para
que los imperialistas saquen sus empresarios
de las Filipinas. Pero la aristocracia obrera lo
quiere de los dos modos. Por un lado, quiere
tratados que le permiten comprar ropa de
marca GAP fabricada por empresarios que
visitan y llevan a cabo negocios en el Tercer
Mundo y , por el otro lado, prohibe que las
personas del Tercer Mundo visiten los países
imperialistas para hacer negocios.

Estos aristócratas primero deberían chocar

con su propio gobierno sobre los tratados y
convenios que éste ha firmado antes de lanzar
su agresión contra los inmigrantes. Si la
aristocracia obrera logra que su gobierno y
las impresas internacionales salgan del Tercer
Mundo, la gente del Tercer Mundo no tendrá
razón para venir a los países imperialistas. Es
raro que un pueblo busque salir de su país de
origen; sólo lo hace bajo circunstancias
desastrozas causadas por los imperialistas.
No vale quejarse cuando el Tercer Mundo
busca visitar y vivir en los países imperialistas
ya quel imperialismo se ha adueñado de sus
tierras.

Los marxistas falsos que nos critican

buscan pretextos para torcer los resultados
de la encuesta y demostrar que los "obreros"
se encuentran en peores condiciones que los
imperialistas. Como no identifican la
contradicción entre la aristocracia obrera y
los imperialistas no logran utilizarla
correctamente. No distinguen entre diversos
intereses de clase.

La miopía de la aristocracia obrera tiene

como resultado guerras entre naciones sobre
ciertos temas de la economía doméstica. Esta
miopía encontró su máxima expresión en la
postura de Adolfo Hítler sobre la inmigración
y el comercio internacional. Por su parte, la
burguesía internacionalista cuenta sólo
consigo misma y por lo tanto su opinión sobre
la inmigración no es muy popular. La estrecha
base social para su tipo de internacionalismo
resulta en que los países imperialistas oscilen
entre el facismo y la democracia liberal.

Está bien claro que los imperialistas se

aprovechan del comercio internacional y de
la subversión en el Tercer Mundo mientras
que la aristocracia saca beneficios al punto
de venta pero siente que se ponen en peligro
sus empleos. Sólo el internacionalismo
proletario es capaz de conseguir que teoría
de la coperación internacional económica se
haga realidad. Cuando el MIM llegue al poder
nos aseguraremos de que el pueblo entienda
y descubra los beneficios del comercio y la
cooperación económica en general.

La posición de la aristocracia obrera según

la cual el mundo no saca beneficios del libre
comercio, el mercado obrero y la resultante
cooperación, es equivocada. Su posición es
cobarde e ignorante. Precisamente son los
imperialistas los que no pueden llevar a cabo
el "libre comercio" y la "libertad de
movimiento" porque ofrecen los derechos
más basicos a una pequeña élite. Sólo la línea
del MIM puede resolver esta contradicción.

Notas: (1) http://www.cis.org/circle.html

La inmigración: Se distinguen la aristocracia

obrera y la burguesía internacionalista