MIM Notes ***

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 1

MIM Notes

Sept. 5, 2003, Nº 287

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Weather Underground * Under Lock & Key * 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

www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/prisons

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

MIM recently mailed this letter to

known prison activists.

Dear prison organizer,

As we fight to eliminate the oppression

of all groups of people, the Maoist

Internationalist Movement has

consolidated its efforts to improve the

condition of prisoners in the United $tates

into a nationwide campaign. This

campaign focuses on a particularly

repressive and growing aspect of prisons

in this country: the control units. We need

to expose and fight the brutal conditions

facing so many prisoners across the

country housed in control units. We invite

you to join us in demanding the elimination

of all control units in prisons in the United

$tates. We are circulating the petition

below and asking that prison activist

organizations, as well as anyone who

supports basic humyn rights for prisoners,

to add their signature to it. We will also

be expanding this campaign to gather

information and resources and raise our

voices against control units across the

country. If you would like to get involved

further, please contact us at the address

below.

For justice,

Maoist Internationalist Movement

Shut down all
Control Units

Control Unit prisons confine people to

small cells in isolation for long periods of

time. These prisons were first officially

used in Alcatraz and then in 1972 in

Marion, Illinois to house prisoners who

were "institutional problems" or "too

dangerous." Since then the idea has

spread, and control units have become a

common tool of repression throughout the

Amerikan prison system.

These control units are used for the

political and social control of prisoners

already locked in secure institutions. They

target Black, Latino and indigenous people

who are a disproportionate part of control

Open letter

Shut Down All Control Units!

CALIFORNIA

RECALL: A

FARCE, BUT

NOT UNUSUAL

As the recall vote on Governor Gray

Davis approaches, over 130 people are

in the race as potential replacements

should Davis be voted out. Anyone could

put their name on the ballot with $3,500

and 65 signatures. Candidates could

gather more signatures to pay a smaller

fee.

At the October 7 election a candidate

with even a small percentage of the

overall vote could become Governor as

the ballot question will first ask voters if

they want to recall Davis and then if he

is recalled, who would they like to replace

Davis. If the recall vote passes, whoever

gets the most votes will be governor.

Davis blamed for
failures of capitalism

The recall effort was able to

successfully gather the signatures

needed--equal to 12% of the people who

voted in the election for the person in

question--with financial backing by

prominent Republicans. Petition gatherers

were paid to collect signatures.(1)

Support for candidates like Arnold

Schwarzenegger (who kicked off his

campaign with a one liner that could have

come from one of his movies: "we will

clean them out") suggests that the

opposition to Davis was not about any

specific political goals on the part of the

voters of California. Davis, a Democrat,

served as governor through the recent

years of economic slowdown which hit

the Bay Area particularly hard.

Voters seem unhappy that Davis misled

them about the extent of the budget

deficit. The Financial Times also quoted

complaints about him being "incompetent,

unpopular, boring and indecisive."(2)

Stupid persynality criticism aside, the

reality is that California has suffered an

economic slowdown and voters find it

easy to blame Davis for the stock market

collapse and dot-com failure. Many still

remember the energy crisis of 2000- 2001

which they blame on Davis as well since

Continued on page 4...

Continued on page 8...

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Living History
New York: Simon & Schuster
2003, 562pp. hb

reviewed by MC5

Sometimes in an autobiography like this

one, we learn about virtual secrets of state

or profound matters of economics and

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Red-baiter and gender bureaucrat

f o r e i g n

affairs. This

book casts

some light on

intra-White

H o u s e

struggles in

the Clinton

administration,

but it has

nothing new in the areas of economics or

foreign affairs.

After the failure of health care reform

that Hillary Clinton tried to lead from 1992

to 1994, she shifted to symbolic roles

typical of first ladies and vice-presidents-

arranging social events and attending

funerals for heads of state and other

famous people. In such a role, it is possible

to visit many countries without getting too

deeply involved in the issues. Living

History seems a little shallow on the issues

of foreign policy, by simply accepting

mainstream imperialist demagoguery in

passing-e.g. the idea that the Sandinistas

did not win legitimate bourgeois elections

in Nicaragua in the 1980s, (p. 312)

Continued on page 6...

MIM Notes 287 · September 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

UNITED

FRONT

Get 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 below.

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>

Lara Croft Tomb

Raider: The Cradle of
Life

Charlie's Angels: Full

Throttle

These summer films deserve to be

reviewed together because they are

basically the same idea: sexy wimmin in

revealing outfits performing outrageous

stunts to fight the bad guys and save

humanity from impending doom. Overall

MIM opposes the pornography that is so

prevalent is this patriarchal capitalist

society. This is not because of some

Christian purism or moral code, but

because we can see that pornographic

portrayals of wimmin in mainstream

culture perpetuate gender oppression and

inequality. Even looking beyond the

pornography there is little redeeming in

either of these films.

The doom that they are saving us from

is reactionary in both movies. Lara Croft

has to stop the opening of Pandora's Box,

and so the plot explains that humyn life

actually did come from some mythic

source, refuting science in the process.

But at least this evil will decimate the

masses of the world and, if it were real,

is worth fighting against. The Angels

have to save the FBI's list of people in

protective custody, not exactly a calamity

for humanity if it gets out and not an

organization MIM would be helping

regardless. But at least Charlie's Angels

had the decency to put a high ranking FBI

member as the cause of all the troubles.

Unfortunately he was just a rogue agent

and the rest of the agency is portrayed

as be beyond reproach.

Lara Croft works for herself, mostly

searching for archeological wonders but

saving the world whenever she comes

across a situation that calls for it. Not

exactly a revolutionary superhero. The

Angels work for Charlie, who

anonymously runs an independent agency

that fights evil, without explaining why

they don't just join up with the cops or

some other government agency. Not

exactly a model of feminism having three

sexy wimmin running to Charlie for

advice and orders. And again, not

revolutionary superheros.

Charlie's Angels plot was pretty sparse,

but at once point they did introduce some

drama by putting a former Angel as the

mastermind behind the for plan to steal

the FBI list. She went to work for herself

so that she won't have to take orders but

instead could give them, as she explained.

She is confronted by Charlie who tells

her that she needs to work for the good

of the group and that there must still be

some good in her. She responds

emotionally, and this, combined with one

of the Angels mentioning that she faced

some severe trauma years before, implies

that this one Angel went bad after

psychological problems.

MIM doesn't care to psychoanalyze

those who are perpetuating harm against

humanity. We look for materialist

reasons, like profit and power. We can

not say what part of individuals'

behavior is attributed to chemical

imbalance as long as we have a

culture influencing them that teaches

and encourages oppression. In

general it is not a psychological

disease that causes people to do

these things, and pretending that it is

only leads people down the wrong

path to end the problems in the world.

In the end the evil Angel wasn't put

in therapy: they killed her, so at least

Charlie's Angels got that right.

MIM recommends sending us your

$20 to help produce revolutionary

feminist action films instead of

spending your money seeing these

Summer softcore porn movies reviewed

Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft.

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 3

FILM MISSES THE

POINT OF

IMPORTANT

CHAPTER IN

AMERIKAN

RADICAL HISTORY

The Weather Underground
Directed by Sam Green and Bill
Siegel
2003

This documentary about the radical

group that split from Students for a

Democratic Society (SDS) in 1969 to take

up armed struggle against the U.$.

government includes interviews with

former Weather Underground (WU)

members and clips from the 1960s and

1970s. The footage and interviews

provide useful information but the

perspective of the film is useless at best

and reactionary at times.

For MIM the WU is an example of the

failure of the strategy of focoism. In a

nutshell, the idea behind focoism is that

violent revolutionary acts, carried out by

a few people, will inspire the masses to

join the struggle.(1) In adopting this

strategy, the WU discarded their own

scientific class analysis which explained

why armed struggle in the United $tates

was out of the question then (and now).

Instead, they justified their actions with

a version of Judeo-Christian morality.

That said, there are aspects of the WU

that we like. They were part of a general

movement that correctly broke with the

old-style Communist Party, which they

saw as reformist and irrelevant. The

Weatherman's 1969 line on the Euro-

Amerikan working class was similar to

MIM's, namely that "virtually all of the

white working class has short-ranged

privileges from imperialism, which are not

false privileges but very real ones which

give them an edge of vested interest and

tie them to a certain extent to the

imperialists, especially when the latter are

in a relatively prosperous phase."(2)

This film concludes the WU was a

failure but fails to analyze the reasons

for its failure or discuss the implications

for revolutionary organizing today.

Instead it relies on former SDS president

Todd Gitlin for analytic commentary.

Gitlin criticizes the WU for being

charismatic and then compares their "evil"

to that of, in his words, other great "evil"

people in the world, specifically Hitler,

Stalin and Mao. Gitlin is heavily featured

in the film to provide perspective and

analysis, but in reality he doesn't say much

of any use.(3)

In interviews the audience is introduced

to members of the WU who look back on

their activism with a range of reactions.

Several of the people featured in the film

turned themselves in to the police in the

mid-1970s. They escaped prosecution

when it came out that the FBI had used

illegal methods to collect evidence against

them. MIM is pleased with this outcome,

but we note that this is a clear example of

white privilege. Black Panther Party

leaders were being killed or put in prison

by the same FBI COINTELPRO

program without so much as a peep from

the Amerikan public, while many

members of the white members of the

WU got off free. One former member

commented on this, noting that while the

FBI did harass WU people at home--

hanging one outside a window by his feet,

for example--this was nothing compared

to the murders of Black people going on

at the same time.

Mark Rudd, one of the WU founders

and a former SDS president, now

teaching math at a community college,

says he has mixed emotions about what

he did. He does a good job representing

the atrocities of the Amerikan war in

Vietnam and the compelling need to take

some action to stop the massacre. He puts

the SDS and the WU in the context of

the revolutionary activism of the Black

Panther Party and other groups in the

U.$. and around the world.

Rudd says that during those years there

was not a time when he wasn't thinking

about Vietnam. It may be hard for people

in Amerika to understand this, especially

those who didn't live through the 1960s,

but it was a very radicalizing thing for

people to see Amerika blatantly murdering

hundreds of thousands--eventually

millions--of people in Vietnam. And it

inspired many people to commit their lives

to stopping it however they thought

possible. SDS grew to a group with more

than 100,000 members. The film contains

some graphic footage of Amerikan

Weather Underground pic foggy

CHOMSKY ON 9-11 AND

HOW TO REBUT THOSE

SPEAKING OF MAO'S AND

STALIN'S `CRIMES'

9-11
by Noam Chomsky
NY: NY, Seven Stories Press,
2002, 140 pp. pb

Reviewed by MIM, 5 Aug 2003

In this book we see Noam Chomsky

serve as a talking head after 9-11. The

demand for interviews with him after 9-

11 was great and the number of people

needing to hear a talking head to place

the world in context even greater. In this

book, Chomsky handles really basic

elements of understanding 9-11. As a

result, we are going to pick on some of

the tangents he raised as more interesting

to us at MIM.

Referring to the World Court ruling on

Nicaragua vs. the United States, Noam

Chomsky says that the United $tates

should have honored the World Court

ruling that called Uncle $am "terrorist"

and after 9-11 it should have pursued the

matter the way Nicaragua did in 1985:

"It is worth remembering--particularly

since it has been so uniformly

suppressed--that the U.S. is the only

country that was condemned for

international terrorism by the World Court

and that rejected a Security Council

resolution calling on states to observe

international law.

"The United States continues

international terrorism. There are also

what in comparison are minor examples.

. . .I didn't see anybody point out that

Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of

the reason is that the Reagan

administration had set off a terrorist

bombing there in 1985 that was very much

like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing

outside a mosque timed to kill the

maximum number of people as they left.

It killed 80 and wounded 250, mostly

women and children, according to a report

in the Washington Post 3 years later. The

terrorist bombing was aimed at a Muslim

cleric whom they didn't like and whom

they missed."(p. 44) With this example,

Chomsky demonstrates a high degree of

internationalism, by telling a whole

nation's people some uncomfortable facts

about themselves that they have to know

if they expect other peoples to get along

Existential `crimes' versus scientific `crime rates'

Continued on page 5...

Continued on page 9...

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) lied when it said the air around

"ground zero" in New York was safe to

breathe, according to a report by EPA

Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley

released on Aug 21. In fact, the air

contained elevated levels of toxins like

PCBs, soot and dioxin more than six

months after 911.(1) Almost half of the

firemen and clean-up workers who spent

long hours on the site without adequate

protective gear now have respiratory

problems, as do hundreds of workers

cleaning offices and apartments.(2)

The report claimed that the Bush

Administration told the EPA to tone down

its air quality reports to calm public fears.

For example, the administration convinced

the EPA "to omit guidance for cleaning

indoor spaces and tips on potential health

effects from airborne dust containing

asbestos, lead, glass fibers and

concrete."(1)

Marianne L. Horinko, the EPA's acting

administrator, justified the government's

actions, saying that the scientific evidence

was not 100% clear. Rather than confuse

the public with contradictory claims,

Horinko argued, the administration

wanted clear-cut action. "The White

House's role was basically to say, `Look,

we've got data coming in from

everywhere. What benchmarks are we

going to use, how are we going to

communicate this data? We can't have

this Tower of Babel on the data.'"(1)

This is at heart an anti-scientific

argument, which relies on ignorance and

all-Amerikan, father-knows-best

authoritarianism. When talking about

observational studies there is no such

thing as 100% scientific certainty. The

best we can talk about is which of several

hypotheses is best supported by available

data. It may have been 90% likely that

10,000 people would be come ill if no

precautions were taken; it may have been

1% likely that 900,000 people would

become ill. In either case, the risks should

have been weighed seriously, and not

dismissed out of hand because the

consequences were not 100% certain.(3)

Key air measurements were not

available the week after 911, yet rather

than make an informed assessment based

on what we know about the health risks

associated with airborne PCBs, asbestos,

etc.--or even say the matter was under

further study--the EPA announced on

September 18 2001 that the air in New

York was safe to breathe.

The Bush administration is using the

probabilistic nature of risk assessment to

chuck science out the window altogether

and replace it with the will of the leader.

George Bush wanted to do this so damnit

he did it, to hell with all those pencilnecks

and their hemming and hawing. Not

coincidentally, Hitler and Mussolini

promoted such ideas as well.(4)

The Inspector General's recommended

that EPA public announcements reflect

science of the matter--to which MIM

says, "duh, no shit, you think so?" The

fact that the report had to remind the EPA

of this indicates the EPA was not basing

their recommendation on science but on

something else: electoral politics, say, or

the needs of monopoly capital. Of course,

the EPA is not alone in this. Other health

regulatory agencies tweak their

recommendations for the same reasons.

For example, Marion Nestle, who was

Report: EPA misled public on post-911 health risks

Continued on page 8...

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 4

Hearts of Iron
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/
hearts.asp
2003

by RC666

HOI is an excellent WWII simulation

for those who wish to understand what

decisions were made leading up to and

during WWII, why they were made, and

if it was possible to make better decisions.

This game is of particular relevance to

MIM because it allows the player to play

a large selection of countries, from fascist

Italy or Germany to "democratic"

America and Britain to the socialist

USSR.

The player can choose to start the game

in 1936, or later in the timeline. Events

proceed as they did historically, except

for the potential changes that you are

responsible for. Starting as the Soviet

Union in 1936 is a challenge because you

start with a very low IC [Industrial

Capacity.] The game has several

measures of your economic/military

capability such as Industrial Capacity,

Coal, Steel, Rubber, Oil, Manpower, and

Diplomatic Points (a score-like

representation of your diplomatic

leverage.)

Players must carefully allocate their

industrial capability. How much goes to

consumer goods, supply production,

technological research, and military

production? Consumer goods are

necessary to satisfy the populace and

therefore stave off rebellion. Fortunately,

in HOI, communist societies require only

half the amount of consumer goods that

other countries do. This industrial

allocation simulation is a small

representation of a command economy.

Technological research is obviously

important, and the player will have to

choose research paths. Are you aiming

for nuclear weapons by 1941 or heavy

tanks by 1940? Or do you concentrate

on ways to synthesize strategic materials

and accelerate production. It is a

balancing act, especially because

technological research is just one area to

allocate resources to.

If you play as Stalin/USSR, you will be

presented with several unique problems/

choices. For example, the game asks you

if you would prefer to support the Spanish

revolution with some of your valuable and

scarce material supplies (as the USSR

did historically) or let the "revisionists"

(as the game puts it!) hang in the wind.

Additionally, the game periodically asks

you if you want to purge officers. If you

do, you lose the services of valuable

officers (following the typical bourgeois

line) but if you don't conduct purges, the

"dissent" in the country rises! (Dissent

leads to revolt) This is accurate since

Stalin was trying to purge traitors, fear-

mongers, and rabble-rousers in order to

prevent large internal strife in the USSR.

You can choose to accept or refuse the

Stalin/Hitler pact. Accepting it is

advantageous because of the relatively

easy territorial gains it allows. Being

ideologically/morally "pure" will hurt you

materially.

Besides use of the military to conquer

countries (this aspect of the game

resembles a `triphibious' version of Risk

and you can assign leaders such as

Zhukov to particular units), there is a wide

variety of diplomatic methods that the

player can use to take over countries. The

player can stage a coup to replace a hostile

government with a friendly government,

you can ask for military access, you can

install puppet governments, make

alliances, and perform other such actions.

Besides international politics, the player

will have to deal with all sorts of shadow

cabinets and political opposition.

Altogether, these features interestingly

portray the backroom political and

diplomatic maneuvers that can be as

deadly and effective as a military

conquest.

This game is potentially a tool for

combating idealism or stupid views

regarding the history of the USSR in the

WWII period. It shows the difficult

decisions that the Soviet Union had to

make. Perhaps the player would like to

not conduct purges and forego the rapid

industrialization. Then she could fight

Hitler's mechanized divisions with calvary

units while Trots stir up trouble behind

the lines. (At 60% dissent, the government

can be overthrown and replaced with a

new type.)

Unfortunately, this reviewer had a

buggy version of the game and no ability

to patch it. I have only been able to

explore some of the complexities of the

game and there are probably more

interesting finds inside. Anyone interested

in this game should pick up a copy and

add to what I've learned from the game.

Video game review: Hearts of Iron

he was in office at the time.

This is the narrow mentality of the

bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie under

capitalism. They want to change leaders

in response to economic downturns rather

than using science to understand that

under capitalism economic cycles are

inevitable. Without centralized planning

there will always be overproduction and

speculation on un-needed goods. And this

leads to economic crises. A planned

economy does not leave room for the

waste of overproduction by taking the

guesswork out of the system: goods are

only produced to fill needs.

Pornography in the press

The race is being mocked by domestic

and international press as a circus, in part

because entrants include a porn king, a

womyn selling thong underwear from her

web site,(3) former TV star Gary

Coleman, and many other similarly

unlikely candidates. MIM sees the focus

on the California election as something

of a failure on the part of capitalist

reporters. Sure, the California recall is a

decadent farce, but is that so different

from the "serious" national elections?

Readers will recall that for much of the

last Presidential election Al Gore's

wardrobe was a major issue. In fact, the

California recall elections are slightly

more democratic, as the state will pay

for a campaign booklet that goes to 11

million households in the state. Each

candidate can publish a 250-word

statement in the booklet, including a link

to their website. One candidate is using

CALIFORNIA RECALL: A FARCE, BUT NOT UNUSUAL

his website to agitate for lower student

fees for California universities and

colleges, acknowledging this agitation is

his main goal, as he has no chance of

winning.(4)

Class and nation key to
politics in Amerika

Schwarzenegger, famous actor most

known for his role in the Terminator

movies, entered the race for California

governor and within a few days emerged

as the front runner. He is a staunch

Republican and an old friend of George

Bush Senior. Schwarzenegger is just one

of several millionaires who joined the race,

where money will be a major factor as

people like Davis have not been amassing

campaign budgets and will not have the

usual financial advantage of long-term

politicians. The fame Ah-nold enjoys from

his acting career has given him prominent

media attention. Fame and wealth can

buy political offices in Amerika.

Schwarzenegger is also just one of

several foreign born candidates. Born

and raised in Austria, he moved to

Amerika 35 years ago and has emerged

as a financially and politically powerful

republican. That the voters in California

would support propositions like 187 (on

behalf of which Schwarzenegger actively

campaigned) barring illegal immigrants

from receiving state services, but support

foreign born candidates like

Schwarzenegger proves what MIM has

been saying about national oppression.

Foreign born white people can enjoy the

privileges of Amerikan life without

difficulties, while those from oppressed

Continued from page 1...

nations can count of discrimination,

oppression and imprisonment.

Even with so many candidates MIM is

confident this election will not result in

any improvement for the condition of the

majority of the world's people. Governors

are a part of the imperialist system,

specifically helping to perpetuate and prop

up that system at the state level. Anyone

who genuinely works to undermine

imperialism can not succeed within that

system.

Notes:
1. Sacramento Bee, August 11, 2003
2. Financial Times, August 11, 2003
3. Guardian, August 4, 2003
4. http://www.wattsforgovernor.com/index.asp

Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 5

The following is taken from MIM's

new SDS history page, http://

www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/sds/

index.html.

The Students for a Democratic Society

(SDS) was the pre-eminent student

movement organization of U.$. history.

Active from the mid-1960s to early 1970s,

the problem with the SDS is that its history

is increasingly dominated by social-

democrats who did not like its increasing

radicalization throughout the 1960s.

Joining the social-democrats who never

agreed with SDS are certain less

important members of SDS who have

since sold out and also many SDS leaders

themselves who got jobs and families and

now sing a different tune.

SDS did not start out by deeply

antagonizing the existing propagandists of

the status quo. In retrospect, many more

conservative elements are rather fond of

the "Port Huron Statement" toward the

beginning of SDS history. In contrast,

MIM puts more emphasis on the high tide

reached in 1969, with the two years

before and after 1969 the most interesting

to us.

In a very few years SDS "moved far

left." There were three main factors in

the background that led to the

radicalization of SDS proved by surveys

that showed one million students

considered themselves "revolutionary."

1) The Vietnam War left anti-

communists ranging from Michael

Harrington and to his right defending a

war of genocide. Much as in World War

I, the events of war left the bourgeois

respectable elements talking about

"socialism" behind in the dust as far as

people concerned with basic justice

including internationalism were

concerned.

2) Mao was preparing the grounds

ideologically by opposing Khruschev's

"peaceful coexistence" and "peaceful

road" to power. By 1962, Mao was

successful in getting the Progressive

Labor Party (PLP) to break away from

the Communist Party USA. Likewise,

Mao was meeting with individual Blacks

including Robert Williams.

3) A stirring among Black people in

general that resulted in the civil rights and

Black Power movements.

By 1966, the PLP was infiltrating the

SDS. Huey Newton was haranguing

students to buy Mao's books and the

Vietnam War was only sending more and

more body bags back.

Perhaps even more important than

observations [about political trends within

SDS] are some of the practical facts of

life of the SDS. One, students have to

realize that it may be easier to be

revolutionary in college when thousands

of other students are nearby, at least some

of which are wondering about the same

things. Instead of putting all their energy

into denouncing other students who do

not share their views, student

revolutionaries should think hard about the

future, how they are going to sustain their

revolutionary politics after college. SDS

did not sustain itself. The parties formed

out of its midst are pitiful in comparison

to the original SDS in size and energy.

Two, as SDS proves, trying to evade

struggles over principle can at most put

off a split a couple years. Rather than

putting off struggles over profound

questions in the name of a false unity,

students should fight as hard as they can

for everyone to advance their thinking as

much as possible and hope that the most

correct position garners the most

supporters.

There is no one history of SDS that

MIM is happy with. When MIM

predecessors were active in the anti-

apartheid movement at Harvard

University, the SDS posters were still up

in the offices we used. We were able to

piece together some of the relics of the

movement ourselves, and former SDS

organizers worked with us from the very

beginning by attending our events and

tabling for their causes, but we invite

others to help us turn our SDS web page

into a complete archive of history and

analysis. In this regard, we do not expect

all material in this archive to have the

hard-edge Maoism of the vast majority

of the late SDS. We do not seek to

suppress the non-Maoist aspects of the

SDS history. Along these lines, we can

expect that MIM will eventually review

all the books connected to SDS already

existing. If anyone would like to put

forward memories of SDS as testimonials

for our archive, we welcome them.

Obviously we are interested in the

questions of sustaining revolutionary

commitment and how people thought they

were going to preserve unity and their

success or failure, but other topics are

welcome.

MIM starts Students for a Democratic Society history project

Contributions invited!

massacres in Vietnam as well as the

murder of Fred Hampton, doing the

service of presenting this history of

Amerika.

The WU members believed that white

people needed to step up to fight Amerika

and put themselves at risk the same way

Black people were. They saw the SDS

stance as too pacifist and wanted to "bring

the war home". And they believed that a

revolution was possible in Amerika, so

they determined to contribute to it by

attacking Amerikan institutions with

bombs. They were careful to never kill

any people, but they bombed two dozen

buildings during the few years they were

active, including the Pentagon.

The WU demonstrated very clearly that

focoist violence does not succeed. As

time went on the WU became more and

more isolated rather than gaining more

mass support. Even Fred Hampton of the

Black Panther Party publicly condemned

the actions of the WU saying that they

may be well intentioned but their strategy

was all wrong. In the end they succeeded

in bring down greater FBI surveillance

and repression and removing their ability

to do effective educational work amongst

the people.

The movie also touches on another

lesson we can learn from the WU: in 1969

shortly after they formed they spent a

summer going out in the cities amongst

the working youth with the theory that

these people would be more revolutionary

than the student youth. This theory clearly

comes from the revisionist idea that the

workers in Amerika are proletarian and

Weather Underground pic foggy

so have great revolutionary potential.

They gave up this work quickly but the

movie doesn't bother to explore why.

MIM hopes people who see this will draw

the correct conclusion that the white

workers in Amerika are petty bourgeois

and as a class have little interest in

revolution--a conclusion the WU also

adopted for a time.

One former WU member, Brian

Flanagan, who now owns a bar, provides

the most reactionary perspective on their

history. He seems unclear why he joined

the WU, but he is very clear that he thinks

what they did was wrong. He compares

the WU actions to the 911 attack on the

World Trade Center and the Okalahoma

City bombing (ignoring the fact that the

WU never even killed anyone).

Naomi Jaffe, on the other hand,

provides some good perspective on the

actions of the WU saying "We felt that

doing nothing in a period of repressive

violence was itself a form of violence.

That's really the part I think is hardest

for people to understand." This is correct,

and she goes on to say that if she had the

chance again she would do it again but

try to correct mistakes. (Unfortunately the

film does not go into what she considers

those mistakes to be.) She later qualifies

her commitment by saying she would do

it again if she didn't have kids and a

family, inadvertently pointing out one

reason why white youth are the most

revolutionary among white people -- they

have less tying them to capitalist society.

Overall the wimmin in the film end up

saying the believe in what they did and

would do it again while the men are either

fully regretful of their actions or, at best,

have mixed emotions, with the exception

of David Gilbert who is serving a life

sentence in prison after joining another

focoist group and being caught carrying

out a bank robbery.

Another aspect of the WU that is

featured in the film was their decision to

"Smash Monogamy" by banning it among

their members and instead having group

orgies and attempting to justify this as

politically progressive. The film doesn't

offer any analysis of this but MIM would

point to it as one of the failed practices

of the WU. While we don't think

monogamy is great as a long term

practice for humanity, we do see that

under the patriarchy non-monogamy

reinforces patriarchal relations and

generally harms wimmin.

Notes:

1. For a much more in-depth discussion

of focoism, see MIM Theory #5, pp. 61-

77. Also, for more about SDS, see http:/

/www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/sds/

index.html.

2. MIM Theory #5, p. 66, quoting from

the collection of WU documents, "You

don't need a weatherman to know which

way the wind is blowing," Harold Jacobs,

ed.

3. Gitlin, it turns out, is part of the

vicious "pragmatic" Democratic-party

backlash against Communists, radicals,

anarchists and Greens--basically

anybody who the Democrats feel splits

their vote. In his book Letters to a young

activist (Basic Books 2003) Gitlin argues

that the anti-Vietnam war movement

"must...shoulder the blame for nudging

some voters [away from Democratic

candidate Hubert Humphrey] towards

Nixon, who proceeded to extend the

Vietnam War for five years and expanded

it to Laos and Cambodia, killing more than

a million people." Gitlin does not mention

that as President Johnson's Vice

President Humphrey shared responsibility

for the Vietnam war--and in any case,

MIM's response to these "pragmatists"

is that if the Democrats truly opposed

Amerikan military aggression they would

not simply sit by when the Republicans

invaded several countries in the course

of eighteen months (of course not just the

Republicans, but let's leave Democratic

sins of commission from Clinton to Kerry

aside for now and focus on sins of

omission). If it were possible to stop

Amerikan imperialism and militarism

within the rules of Amerikan

"democracy," fine. But that last 130

years (at least) have shown that it is not.

Gitlin and his ilk put the formalisms of

bourgeois democracy ahead of basic

humyn rights to life and self-

determination. They lost the public opinion

battle on this question to the radicals a

generation ago, and now they are

opportunistically using 911 and younger

activists unfamiliarity with history to

"overturn correct verdicts."

Continued from page 3...

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 6

contrary to countless international

observers.

Hillary Clinton's first concerns are

health care, children and wimmin.

However, defeating the domestic right-

wing Republican agenda was also high

on her list. In this book, she tells the public

what the Washington Post and New York

Times never explained on domestic

politics, so it's a matter of a getting her

side of the story out.

Red-baiting

Hillary Clinton makes it no secret that

she came from a red-baiting household

where the father's regular dinner-time

conversation denounced communism.(p.

12) He was also rather a bigot against

gays, Blacks and the usual suspects for

white bigots.

When her father campaigned for Bill

Clinton he did so saying he made an

exception for Bill Clinton, because he

believed that the Democratic Party was

only "one step short of communism"(p.

164)--to which MIM would say, "if only."

There is a whole section of Amerikkka

with views similar to Hillary Rodham's

father's-ready for fascism or

monarchism.

Fear so much rules Amerikkkan

politics, that the fearful fascist, monarchist

and other reactionary currents have no

clue what this "communism" thing is that

they denounce. They only know that it

rocks the boat of their economic privileges

to rob other countries for cheap gas and

benefit from slave labor.

Hillary Clinton fits in that category of

the ignorant channeled onto a pre-set

path as well. She started life as a

"Goldwater girl" active for ultra-

reactionary Barry Goldwater in the 1964

presidential campaign. In college she was

a college Republican leader before

resigning to become more of a Democrat.

She admits that she hardly read anything

but her home town paper well into

college,(p. 31) while nonetheless gaining

political leadership roles as a youth.

She admits that in her era, her

generation debated endlessly about what

it meant to serve the country. Many men

she and Bill Clinton knew had died in

Vietnam. However, Bill Clinton's and

Hillary Clinton's opposition to the war was

not based on internationalist principle.

Instead, they doubted the "wisdom" of

fighting a "land war" in East Asia-code

words for saying the united $tates could

not win, so what was it all about? She

mentioned moral values, but it appeared

to be in reference to whether making

young men die for a futile war was just

while some people escaped service. She

was not able to come out and say that

the killing of millions of Vietnamese was

wrong and not able to generate global

peace.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Red-baiter and gender bureaucrat

In another generation, Hillary Rodham

would have ended up to the right of

Barbara Bush, but Hillary Rodham and

Bill Clinton were the right-wing of a

whole generation in upheaval. She did not

avoid the interactions of the time and

admits to discussing revolution; although

only in passing and without going into

detail other than to deny that she would

ever participate, even if it did come to

the united $tates as much of her

generation believed in her day. "In my

mind, Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi had

done more to bring about real change

through civil disobedience and non-

violence than a million demonstrators

throwing rocks ever could."(p. 37) She

does not bother comparing how Gandhi's

liberated India fell behind Mao's liberated

China in every statistic of well-being of

the people. In other words, she took the

easy way out of an issue she encountered,

something that was to become her norm

to the point where she admitted she

originally even did not think about running

for New York Senate, because of the

difficulties it would entail in 2000.

In her book and apparently her whole

life, she touches on some issues without

bringing them into any coherent focus.

She mentions the Black Panthers and

how they could not get a fair trial, but not

in depth, and certainly without explanation.

"Hoover's FBI infiltrated dissident groups

and, in some cases, broke the law in order

to disrupt them. Law enforcement

sometimes failed to distinguish between

constitutionally protected, legitimate

opposition and criminal behavior. As

domestic spying and counterintelligence

operations expanded under the Nixon

Administration, it seemed, at times, that

our government was at war with its own

people."(p. 44).

With a little more detail she talks about

Nelson Mandela-mostly in reference to

steadfastness and forgiveness. Hillary

Rodham made much of her Christian

roots.

In Bill Clinton's second run for

Arkansas governor, Hillary Rodham lets

the reader know that the public red-baited

them as happened later in life as well.

When Bill Clinton lost his bid for a second

term, an enemy called on the phone to

say, "`I'm so glad that nigger-loving

Commie fag Bill Clinton lost,' and then

hung up. What could inspire such bile? I

thought. It was a question I would ask

many times in the years ahead."(p. 74)

When Cubans had rioted during Clinton's

term in Arkansas the voters punished him

for "letting" the Cubans riot. Clinton had

learned he had to nail down the "Bubba"

vote before he could go anywhere.

In 1994, the Bubba vote abandoned Bill

Clinton momentarily again: "If you

believed everything you heard on the

airwaves in 1994, you would conclude

that your President was a Communist, that

the First Lady was a murderess and that

together they had hatched a plot to take

away your guns and force you to give up

your family doctor (if you had one) for a

Socialist health care system."(p. 245)

Hillary Clinton is looking at facts like these

about a large section of the public and

coming to different conclusions than MIM

is.

In clever tactics, she red-baits her

opponents right back-by referring to their

desire to use "big government" to oppose

abortion rights-just as in China and then

"socialist" Romania. The only reference

to the Cultural Revolution in China says

that Ken Starr reminded her of what she

read in a book about the Cultural

Revolution.(p. 503) Contrary to Hillary

Rodham, the Cultural Revolution did not

empower any Ken Starr. Salacious

individuals like that were always shut up

and put in their place under Lenin, Stalin

and Mao-for example, to the point that

Stalin preferred to be blamed for

assassinating Kirov than to allow lots of

major public gossip about Kirov's love life

a la Ken Starr style publicity.

When both sides of a debate red-bait

each other with scant information about

communism, it's time to recognize that

the resulting politics is that peculiar brand

of sterility known as "Amerikkkan."

Hillary Clinton as
gender bureaucrat

Hillary Clinton is the leader par

excellence of a faction of pseudo-

feminism, the dominant one if there is such

a thing. Once Bill Clinton nailed down the

white racist vote in the South by promising

more jobs for police and more death

penalties, it was inevitable that Hillary

Clinton's life would boil and bubble in

connection to the gender aristocracy,

because the Christian Right failed to

believe it had lost the battle for the soul

of the Amerikkkan womyn.

Bill Clinton had lined up financial

interests to support his campaign. He had

also gained great popularity with the

Bubbas of Amerikkka. Thus while in

office what ended up consuming the

Clintons their last six years was the gender

aristocracy. There was no other line of

attack for the other faction of imperialists

facing them; although why the other

faction was so ferocious is something

Hillary Rodham does not really address

adequately or in an interesting fashion.

In an agreement among the imperialists,

issues of big money and which countries

to bomb, invade or subvert were matters

for the imperialists, but to give the

commoner a sense of "democracy," the

imperialists allowed the pornographers

and paparazzi to set up shop. While the

imperialists decide where to spend twelve

digit military budgets, the general

population gets to decide which imperialist

is not enough like a monk to have office.

These pornographers, paparazzi and sex-

obsessed prosecutors like Ken Starr were

all one and the same-what MIM simply

refers to as part of pornography

production for gender aristocracy

consumption. The gender aristocracy is

that social group of people with leisure-

related privileges causing it to side with

and enjoy the patriarchy, regardless of

genitalia.

Hillary Clinton was a gender bureaucrat

and not just a gender aristocrat, because

she had a hand in setting the rules or had

an influence in setting the rules for the

patriarchy and gender aristocracy. She

was one of the first of wimmin to keep

using her maiden name; she advocated

children's rights in the face of abusive

parents, sought to shorten foster care and

return children to parents in poor families

and support a "pro-choice" position on

abortion. Above all she symbolizes the

professional working womyn and that is

what a portion of the nutty reactionary

public hates her most for and what that

same public hates Bill Clinton "for

allowing."

Of course, her influence on these

questions started with her hair style and

her dress. When she strayed from the

gender aristocracy domain into health

care reform the gender aristocracy-

mostly females seeking to preserve a

backward social system-punished her

badly. So Hillary Rodham scurried back

into gender aristocracy issues (e.g., p.

265) and may yet set her dominant imprint

on these questions as president of the

united $tates. However, from 1994 to

2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton faced the

consequences that her own facile

pseudo-feminism unleashed.

She tried valiantly to stay above the fray

by supporting breast cancer research

funding for example. Really her whole

agenda was the least-controversial

portion of a feminist agenda, watered

down and smothered in electoral politics.

However, by upholding her father's "rock-

Continued from page 1...

Continued on next page...

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 7

ribbed individualism" and allowing the

focus of politics to become the lifestyle

of females, she opened the door for what

made her most miserable in office-the

non-stop pornographic attacks.

The standard "good sport" liberal

opinion of integrity is that the

pornographers have to be allowed to make

money photographing Princess Di or

Hillary Rodham as the price to pay for

"democracy" and a "free press." When

the celebrities complain, the

pornographers remind them who makes

them famous in the first place-all true

enough as the system stands now. As it

stands now, it was Hitler in favor of

shutting down the entire press just for the

reason of this pornography alone.

In contrast, we Maoists are for a

dictatorship of the proletariat. In 2002, our

party congress passed the following

statement: "In the united $tates, the

Monica Lewinsky scandal shows that

Amerikkkans too can be easily distracted

from critical questions of political power.

Under socialism, it will remain the task

of the dictatorship of the proletariat to

convince the masses not to make light of

the party in a pornographic way as part

of the deal of accepting communist

leaders. One way we do that is that we

will ask the masses not to persynally

impugn communist leaders they do not

see up close. Proletarian democracy does

not mean spending time on baseless

accusations: it means combining actual

knowledge with participation. In some

cases, it will continue to be necessary to

repress the remnants of capitalist society

so stubborn as to oppose selfless

communist leaders in power for the sake

of the overthrown bourgeoisie."

Although Hillary Rodham makes it clear

throughout the book that her work and

her husband's work suffered because of

sleaze and mud-throwing-not just during

campaigns either--Hillary Rodham never

suggested an overall solution to the

problem, and as such she is an accomplice

to the pornography made about her life

and the life of the whole political system.

The basic difference is that Hillary

Rodham knows no way out of the

generalization of pornography while we

at MIM are willing to tell people that with

MIM in power, we will be doing without

the cheap entertainment of dousing politics

with pornography. We will not alternate

power with Republicans depending on

which side did a better job hurling

pornographic accusations last. ("You

cheated on your wife"...."no you

did"...."you had oral sex with Monica

Lewinsky 13 times"....."but you had three

different interns....") We are much more

intolerant of pornography than

Republicans or Democrats.

That is another exposure of why we

say Hillary Rodham is a "gender

bureaucrat." Her power as an imperialist

or wife of labor-aristocracy-vote-getter

Bill Clinton is not in question. What is

interesting is the gender aristocracy

question; although she complains at length

about Kenneth Starr's production of

pornography, she does nothing to

challenge that system of production.

Typical was her response to Eli Wiesel:

"What is wrong with America? Why are

they doing this?" [reference to Monica

Lewinsky obsessing-ed.] he asked and

Hillary Rodham replied, "I don't

know."(p. 447) That's why she is a

gender bureaucrat, just a different faction

of power-holder in the same system of

hierarchy. She's unwilling to come out and

challenge the underpinnings of what is

happening and ends up accepting the

pornography as a "good sport."

Republican leader Newt Gingrich

cheated on his wife. He went down. The

new speaker of the House Livingstone

was caught cheating and he lost his job

and also resigned from Congress in 1998.

What had happened under the Clintons

was that political power came to depend

on whoever did a better job taking

advantage of the dynamics of leisure-

time. The Republicans played this card

especially because they believed that Bill

Clinton had them beat among the labor

aristocracy and they knew he and Hillary

had the pseudo-feminist vote locked up.

Their only counter was among Christian

wimmin, especially home-makers who the

Republicans sought to bring to the fore

with their line against abortion and

professional wimmin.

In the scheme of things, it appeared that

the Republicans are on the losing side of

a trend of history, since more and more

wimmin worked and played important

roles in the parasitism of the economy;

however, Republicans sought to make

Hillary Clinton appear to be tolerating

non-monogamy while also meeting with

men in public places without her husband-

another thing they did not like from back

in her Arkansas days to the present time.

The game was to make all wimmin fear

what privileges they were giving up with

the changes in life that Hillary Rodham

seemed to symbolize. Some Amerikkkan

wimmin thus considered the dynamics of

their own leisure-time and "family" in their

attitude toward Hillary Clinton. Many

wimmin believed she should dump Bill

Clinton and go home to bake cookies and

they placed this above any consideration

of say where the Middle East peace

process was going or how to spend or

not spend 12 digits of money on

"defense." This was one faction of the

gender aristocracy. Even more important

and indicative of the gender aristocracy

was its consumption of every aspect of

the Bill Clinton bimbo scandals-Gennifer

Flowers, Paula Jones & Monica

Lewinsky.

Hillary Rodham points this out herself

as she notes the context of how Bill

Clinton's speeches and actions against Al

Qaeda were drowned out by non-stop

coverage of Monica Lewinsky. Bill Clinton

could bomb another country he learned,

and the television stations would still give

more time to Monica Lewinsky than

anything else. Hillary Rodham again made

an important observation without drawing

any proper conclusions. What it showed

was that the parasites were so secure in

their parasitism in that time of prosperity

that they were prepared to regard as

minor and insignificant virtually any

foreign policy problem while attaching

utmost importance to the intrusion of new

oral sex into the family.

The private sufferings of Hillary Clinton

show that gender problems do have a

relatively independent dynamic in leisure-

time as only MIM stresses in the

communist movement. Too many calling

themselves "Marxist-Leninist" attempt to

do away with discussing gender

oppression by simply talking about

divisions in the working class or how the

employers save money at wimmin's

expense. When a faction of the

imperialists and the majority of parasites

themselves believe themselves to be

enjoying prosperity, we see that gender

issues can come to the fore and make

and break the top imperialist political

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Continued from previous page...

careers. True, behind-the-scenes, the top

imperialists may be manipulating the

public for unseen reasons, but there is no

doubting the sincerity of the fascination

or the effort to consume pornography by

the gender aristocracy. The phenomenon

of Monica Lewinsky cannot be reduced

to an imperialist plot and we doubt very

much that one faction of the imperialists

wanted to take down both Clinton and

Livingstone: the gender aristocracy has

to be accorded its own power for any

explanation of that whole phenomenon.

For MIM we have made it no secret

that there will have to be a "re-civilizing

stage" of the dictatorship of the proletariat

in the imperialist countries. The population

will have to live without sponging off the

Third World proletariat for a while -a stage

of several years--before it is ready to

interact in a fully humyn way with the

rest of the world as qualified and equal

participants in the building of socialism.

Beyond the economic sponging off the

Third World proletariat is also the attitude

toward politics that came with it-namely

that war, death, starvation etc. were

someone else's business. Nor will it be

proper for people to do away with

economic parasitism and still place chasing

down the latest version of Monica

Lewinsky gossip above life-and-death

issues facing the global proletariat.

Hence, MIM will also be cracking down

on pornography broadly construed, not

just ending economic parasitism in the re-

civilizing stage of the dictatorship of the

proletariat. That is how we answer the

whole Hillary/Bill Clinton problem.

Did you know?

There are more

than 200 back

issues of MIM

Notes available

on the MIM

website? Not only

can you browse

more than 15

years of the

newspaper, you

can also keep up

with the very

latest on MIM

agitation

campaigns,

prisoner news, all

the latest on the

U$ war, and much

more. MIM's

website is an

indispensable tool

for the

revolutionary

movement. Get

involved!

www.etext.org/

Politics/MIM

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

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 8

The following is an excerpt from

MIM's review of the book "Ozone

Diplomacy" by Richard Benedick. The

full review can be found at http://

w w w . e t e x t . o r g / P o l i t i c s / M I M /

bookstore/books/enviro/benedick.htm.

Within science as known in capitalist

society where people are not educated

as they should be, the fact that certain

risks can only be estimated is

disconcerting to many people. The

individualist and conservative simpleton

prefers to know something in an either/

or sense. Something is either 0% true or

100% true in the minds of many people

not accustomed to dealing with

quantitative matters.

In the case of the most important causes

of death however, they strike in small

percentages but routinely. There is only

a chance that a U.$. citizen would be one

of the 3 million with skin cancer in the

United $tates. Furthermore, there is only

a chance that the scientists in 1986 were

right about what would cause cancer.

Hence, there was only a chance that

banning CFCs would help with the ozone

problem and skin cancer.

Benedick rightly condemns the

"Panglossians" (a reference to Voltaire

and the conservative idea that everything

is fine) for neglecting dangers that are

neither zero nor one hundred percent

certain. Most people in the imperialist

countries know to buy insurance for

accidents. Yet there is no such thing as

an interstellar insurance company that will

help us out if we blow the Earth's

environment. Once it becomes unlivable,

that may be the end for the species. Under

capitalism, businesspeople take risks with

our environment every day for their

profits. Under socialism, such risks will

be minimized and only done in the interest

of the people, not the wealth of

individuals. The competition dynamic in

which the environment is damaged while

capitalists are busy fighting for market

control will not exist.

Benedick quite correctly observed that

"The world may not have the luxury of

early warning signals before an

irreversible collapse occurs in some other

segment of the planet's ecosystem."(p.

307) We won't always be able to afford

to know every last scientific detail before

acting. That was the lesson learned in the

ozone controversy. Once chemicals are

released on the surface, they often take

years to reach the ozone. Hence, the

results in the ozone now may only reflect

usage of chemical in the distant past.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is best

suited for handling environmental issues.

Because property is eliminated, there will

be less resistance when equipment has

to be scrapped or a new technology

introduced.

Such resistance will exist only to the

extent that some people are trying to

restore capitalism and property as a

whole. Under dictatorship of the

proletariat, change can be implemented

without particular individuals bearing the

brunt of the cost. For the foreseeable

future, everyone can gain from

environmental improvements because

there is a massive resource that the

dictatorship of the proletariat can tap into

globally--unemployed people by the

hundreds of millions.

Probability and causation

hired in 1986 to edit the "Surgeon

General's Report on Nutrition and

Health," recalls, "My first day on the job,

I was given the rules. No matter what

the research indicated, the report could

not recommend `eat less meat' as a way

to reduce the intake of saturated fat...

[T]he producers of foods that might be

affected by such advice would complain

to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the

report would never be published."(5)

To eliminate this combination of

opportunism, corruption, and

incompetence under socialism, economic

leaders and Party administrators will face

the stiffest possible penalties--including

the death penalty--for mistakes that harm

the public's health.

Notes:

1. Associated Press, 23 Aug 2003.

2. Associated Press, 28 Aug 2003.

3. See sidebar above, "Probability and

causation."

4. "The revolt against science, which

bourgeois society today encourages in the

ideological sphere, at the same time as it

utilizes science in practice, is not only the

expression of a dying and doomed social

class; it is an essential part of the

campaign of reaction. This is the basis

which helps to prepare the ground for all

the quackeries and charlatanries of

Report: EPA misled public

on post-911 health risks

chauvinism, racial theories, anti-semitism,

Aryan grandmothers, mystic swastikas,

divine missions, strong-man saviors, and

all the rest of the nonsense through which

alone capitalism today can try to maintain

its hold a little longer." R. Palme Dutt,

Fascism and Social Revolution, New

York: International Publishers, 1934, p. 57.

5. Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How

the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and

Health, Berkeley: University of California

Press, 2002, p. 3.

6. "As discussed in the 2001 Congress

resolutions, party members should be

volunteers willing to give their lives. That

means that whether through intentional

error or bungling, the equivalent of the

Ford Explorer tire scandal would result

in death penalties amongst the party

officials running the tire business. This

will keep the party on course and maintain

the party as a small place, not the most

sensible place to pursue money or career

ladders. When the prestige of the party

is high from such risks and responsibilities

assumed by leaders, the people will

support their leaders and anything will be

possible given time." From the MIM

Congress document, "Theses on the

vanguard party in the transition to

communism 2002," http://www.etext.org/

P o l i t i c s / M I M / w i m / c o n g /

thesesonvanguard2002.html.

unit populations (relative to their already

disproportionate representation in prisons

in general). Control units go beyond the

usual constraints of maximum security

prisons. Better defined as a prison within

a prison, control units are used to defeat

prisoners' revolutionary attitudes,

organization, militancy, legal and

administrative challenges, and anything

else the prison administrators deem

objectionable. While conditions vary from

prison to prison, the goal of these units is

always to achieve the psychological and

physical breakdown of the prisoner.

Control units have various names such

as Adjustment Center, Security Housing

Unit (SHU), Maximum Control Complex

(MCC), administrative maximum (ad-

max), Intensive Management Unit (IMU)

and administrative segregation (ad-seg).

Prisoners spend years of isolation in tiny

cells, usually 6 by 8 feet for 22 - 23.5

hours a day. In some cases the long term

isolation is complete, in others it is small

group isolation; both conditions are

tremendously damaging to humyns. The

short time that they do spend outside their

cell is within a cement or chain link "dog

pen" that lacks any kind of equipment and

proper space for physical exercise.

Participation in programs such as religious

services, educational programs, work and

job training, congregate dining and

exercise are all prohibited. Medical care

is also greatly limited.

Prisoners are usually placed in control

units as an administrative measure, with

no clear rules governing the moves. This

makes it virtually impossible for prisoners

to challenge their placement.

Control units are designed to

dehumanize inmates through sensory

deprivation. The United Nations has put

forward clear guidelines for the treatment

Shut Down All

Control Units!

of prisoners. The Basic Principles for the

Treatment of Prisoners (1990) states:

"Except for those limitations that are

demonstrably necessitated by the fact of

incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the

human rights and fundamental freedoms

set out in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, and, where the State

concerned is a party, the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights, and the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and

the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as

such other rights as are set out in other

United Nations covenants." The United

Nations Human Rights Committee has

further stressed the obligation of the state

to treat prisoners with dignity and allowing

them all rights set forward in the

International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (which the United $tates

signed in 1977).

Control units are physical and mental

torture and they very clearly violate the

humyn rights of prisoners. They

systematically target prisoners who are

challenging the legal system and other

manifestations of state authority. We, the

signatories of this statement, condemn

these units and demand that the United

$tates abide by the UN principles it claims

to uphold. We call for the elimination of

all control units in prisons in the United

$tates.

Send your signature to MIM at

mim124@mim.org or MIM, PO Box

40799, San Francisco, CA 94140

For more information on U.$.

imprisonment, Control Units and other

repression in Amerikan prisons see: http:/

/www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/

prisons

Continued from page 1...

What questions do YOU have?

Wasn't Mao a butcher? Why do you spell it "Amerika"? Shouldn't you try
non-violence first? What is internationalism? Isn't hating white people reverse

racism? Why don't you leftists work together? Why don't you tone it down?
What is a cardinal principle? What is your program? What is necessary to
join MIM? What concrete actions can I take? How do I write articles for

MIM? What is your copyright policy?

Go to http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq

and get real answers to these and other questions.

Continued from page 3...

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 9

with them.

In another comparison Chomsky shows

how Clinton's 1998 bombing of Sudan was

worse than 9-11. Referring to calculations

of the death toll Chomsky demonstrates

something about himself and most

Amerikkkans that we at MIM have

struggled against:

"Evaluating `relative cost' is an

enterprise I won't try to pursue, and it

goes without saying that ranking crimes

on some scale is generally ridiculous,

though comparison of the toll is perfectly

reasonable and indeed standard in

scholarship."(p. 52)

Let's be clear that the bombing of Sudan

killed many more people than 9-11. So

then Chomsky says we will not take up

the relative numbers, which of course as

a method has the bias inherent in it that

U.$. crimes against millions of Third

World and indigenous peoples will always

far outstrip in numbers the number of

people killed in all other crimes combined.

Hence, what Chomsky does is morally

equate the genocide against Vietnam and

East Timor for instance with street crime

in the United $tates. From MIM's point

of view, this is what we would expect

from an educated labor aristocrat,

someone still valuing Amerikan lives

above Third World lives by using this

standard of "crime" as having no

numbers.

Noam Chomsky is the most

internationalist one can be within a pre-

scientific mindframe. These essays bring

that out clearly. Most of the material

exposes U.$. terrorism without revealing

our differences with Chomsky.

Chomsky points out correctly that the

Amerikan propaganda machine uses one

standard for the rest of the world and

another for Amerika. "When we estimate

the human toll of a crime, we count not

only those who were literally murdered

on the spot but those who died as a result.

That is the course we adopt reflexively,

and properly, when we consider the crimes

of official enemies--Stalin, Hitler, and

Mao, to mention the most extreme

cases."(pp. 46-47) He goes on to point

out that most accusations against Stalin

and Mao count deaths that occurred under

them as some kind of oppression,

whether Stalin and Mao knew the dead

or intended the deaths. Chomsky then

rightly adds that we should do the same

for our own leaders, in this case Clinton

in 1998.

Chomsky reasons as much of the nihilist

"left" does--whether of libertarian or

merely mushy and confused sort. MIM

has already addressed this point in the

FAQ of its webpage, but it bears repeating

here particularly in regard to Chomsky:

1) equating the street crime of say

whoever killed Nicole Simpson with the

genocide against Jews, Vietnam and East

Timor is NOT just, and we say that at a

pre-scientific level. Even more at a

scientific level, we can say for certain

that such a definition favors the rich

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?

Existential `crimes' versus scientific `crime rates'

countries with militaries that can kill more

people more easily. 2) Anyone who enters

politics speaking of "crimes"

demonstrates one of two things: a)

amateurishness b) a fascination with pre-

industrial societies, because only pre-

industrial tribal societies can have any

claim to being without "crime."

The difference between a pre-scientific

anarchist prop of the status quo and the

scientific anarchist boils down to this: The

scientific anarchist knows that all modern

societies have states and all states are

guilty of "crimes." That is nothing more

than saying states are composed of people

who are imperfect at this time, except

arguably in those pre-industrial tribal

societies still existing. The scientific

anarchist is no longer surprised that states

are guilty of crimes. This is something

that real anarchists figured out a long time

ago. What is now interesting to scientific

anarchists is the "crime rate," how to get

it down and thereby eliminate the same

causations for the state's existence.

That is why the bottom line as a tactic

for MIM in arguing with pre-scientific

critics is to accept as given ALL their

questionable individual facts. It's not a

question of "sources" or "viewpoints," the

topics that the pre-scientific intellectuals

and their supporters spend so much time

on. The question is the relative "crime

rates." We accept every accusation

against Stalin and Mao that is possible.

The fact remains that the life expectancies

in their countries doubled in their lifetimes.

That means that the overall "crime rate"

went down faster there than anywhere

else, and yes, that means that their states

were "less criminal" than others. No, it is

not "ridiculous" to say so: it is a matter of

life and death, because as of yet, humyns

do not have any perfect choices for their

political, social and economic organization

placed in front of them. A Chomsky-like

"morality" would only be non-criminal in

the event that such an anarchist

alternative existed right now. It does not.

Chomsky and others like him have been

preaching their solution for decades and

centuries, but their preaching is not

effective, precisely because the real-

world alternative to crime-less life does

not exist yet.

Here I will address just only the most

recent evasion by anarchism hermetically

sealed from the rest of the world--the

fall of Baghdad in 2003. We heard the

standard anarchist excuses that the looting

was not "anarchy," but "chaos." These

anarchists live in such a religiously sealed

off world that it is simply not possible to

argue with them. There is no reality that

they accept as just to point to. When we

argue about reality, they respond with

definitions and moral absolutes. Instead

of thinking that the fall of the Saddam

Hussein regime shows that people do

NOT automatically prefer statelessness

when they experience it and do NOT take

up cooperative living when they suddenly

get the chance, our anarchists dwell on

moralisms and definitions. Yes, the fall of

the Saddam Hussein regime IS proof of

something against anarchism, namely that

a crime-less alternative to the state is not

on the immediate agenda of the humyn

species yet. No poetry or purified

anarchist dictionary changes that reality

on the ground for real live people.

The analogous equivalent in medicine

of Chomsky's position is this: to precisely

catalogue AIDS, it's causation, it's

symptoms and its extent but then dodge

the solution to the causation. Chomsky's

brand of anarchism is like recommending

chicken noodle soup for AIDS. Probably

"chicken noodle soup" does no harm in

itself on the AIDS question. The problem

only arises when advising chicken noodle

soup is deemed a moral substitute for

recommending protease inhibitors, or any

useful drugs that may have some nasty

side effects. When Chomsky condemns

Mao for "crimes," he is knocking the

protease inhibitors (Maoism) on behalf of

chicken noodle soup ("libertarian

socialism" or "anarchism").

Far from being "moral" and opposed

to "crime" such a position in fact should

be considered a crime. Medical doctors

like that should be shot, far from being

commended for avoiding "comparison of

the toll" as Chomsky says.

Until the day that there are no states,

to speak of states is to speak of "crime."

Only the naive believe otherwise, and they

are the tools of the Rupert Murdoch

school of justice. We at MIM make a big

deal about a society that has half the crime

rate or murder rate of another country.

As scientists not seeking to avoid any

facts, we are always willing to accept that

Stalin and Mao committed crimes in the

millions. The point is that the alternatives

were worse, measurably much, much

worse.

Condemning Mao for "crimes" is like
knocking effective AIDS treatments
with nasty side effects (Maoism) on
behalf of ineffective but inoffesive
chicken noodle soup ("libertarian
socialism" or "anarchism").

Continued from page 3...

MIM Notes 287 · September 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

Oregon uses sports
accident to punish
prisoners

I am locked up in Oregon Department of

Corruption at the concentration camp they
refer to as Eastern Oregon Corruptional
Institution. When someone was hit in the
mouth during a game by a softball causing
his tooth to go through his lip and because I
was on the yard at this time and I have a
history of assaults I was taken off the yard
and placed in segregation 3 days after the
incident with no proof except some snitches
saying what the pigs told them to say.
Currently I am doing 120 day segregation and
I'm trying to exhaust all my administrative
remedies so I can take this to state court so I
can get this dismissed.

--An Oregon prisoner, July 2003

Prisoner builds fight
against Operation
Gatekeeper

Revolutionary Greetings! I'm just writing

you a quick response because it's taken me
long to get the "Stop Gatekeeper" petition
signed --The repression at this institution
was a severe cause for this delay.

But here is the petition all filled out. Keep

sending me MIM Notes!

In struggle,
--A prisoner in Arizona
MIM adds: If this prisoner can collect a

petition full of signatures to end Operation
Gatekeeper, the reactionary attack on people
crossing the illegal southern border to the
United $tates, how many signatures should
you be able to collect? To download a copy
of the petition or read more about Operation
Gatekeeper check us out on the web: http://
www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
gatekeeper.

Maryland prisoner
fights 3-strikes law in
California

As a Black man in the struggle, I greet you

with a clenched fist --because it represents
togetherness. And we as an oppressed
people need solidarity more than anything.
I've received MIM Notes and I must say that
I am truly surprised that it got to me because
these Maryland institutions censor
everything. Also I had a few of the prisoners
around here sign a petition against the 3-
strikes law in California. One of these fools
said "Fuck them! What about us in
Maryland?" I tried to explain to him the
importance of the struggle no-matter where
it's at. Keep up the good work and keep
sending MIM Notes.

--A prisoner in Maryland
MIM adds: You can get a copy of this

petition or more information about the
reactionary Three Strikes law on our web site
at www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/
prisons.

Indiana prisoners
fight SHU

My comrades and I have just recently won

a battle to get out of the SHU unit here in
Indiana. We won it through appeals and are

now back in the general population. Our
release is just a drop in the bucket, though,
considering that no one should be subjected
to such torments and inhumane treatment.
Where some would be happy with gaining
their own releases, I will only be happy when
the SHUs are abolished. So until that time I
must continue to work towards this goal.

Keep in the struggle,
--A prisoner in Indiana

MIM adds: MIM recently initiated a

statement demanding that all control units be
shut down. Security Housing Units (SHU)
are just another name for control units. We
are looking for groups willing to add their
names to endorse it. This statement is printed
on page ??? of this issue of the paper.

Communists continue
to fight despite
repression

Greetings Comrades at MIM,
I received your recent package. I'm all about

the struggle to stop the war on our Black
communities. I'm surprised they let that
material in because these officials in this gulag
stay oppressing me. I have a tattoo of
"communist" on my back and ever since day
one they've been coming at me sideways. I
can really use any comrades advice on
methods to come at these people with. I've
tried damn near everything. A lawsuit is my
next option. However, I will continue to fight
to the death. I'm enclosing a check to support
you Brothers for the material in the study
group.

--a NJ prisoner, August 2003

Southport: a case of
U$ state terror

I must address the world on this subject of

Southport [Correctional Facility] and the New
York prison system. In the past three decades
some 400 New York prisoners have been
punished in these walls. Yet relatively little is
said about these camps which are sealed off
from international scrutiny you can ask any
inmate to describe a world of routine horror.
Prisoners are subjected to beating, handcuffs,
torture and slave-style labor. Guards practice
brute force on prisoners, who obediently line
up to pay $5.00 for fake misbehavior reports
where sometimes we end up in SHU. Inmates
are told that they are `cocksuckers' and no
longer human beings.

Some prisoners labor for 14 hours a day

exhausted when they return to their cell at
night to a place as big as your bathroom.

Inmates receive five to ten years in the box

with only one hour rec, saying it's a lesson
for resisting. The slogan is just lock them
down, and the American government denies
these actions.

Southport and S Block is arguably the worst

human rights situation in the world. Why
does not the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights condemn these actions for

systematic, widespread and grave rights
violations. No one wants to highlight the
abuse. The Bush administration pays no
attention to these jails. I see this everyday. ...
I don't know of a country in the world today
that's as repressive as america. I believe it's
the worst.

This camp serves as a frightening, if

mysterious deterrent to anti-slavery activity.
You can call S Block and Southport a prison
state that's ruled by terror.

These camps generate funds for a cash

strapped regime whose economy has raised
by about 350 billion dollars since 1992.
Prisoners make license plates, lockers, tables,
chairs, clothes etc. and manufacture goods
for export and domestic consumption.

Prisoners make license plates at $0.26 an

hour for the Department of Transportation in
New York State, and tables and lockers which
are sold all across the world. Meanwhile, some
prisoners receive a ration of 4.5 ounces of
food, cabbage leaves with bread, five days a
week.

Some run from five o'clock AM to 9 PM

with logs on there back as an everyday
regiment. Prisoners are handcuffed and
beaten. I know a comrade who lost most of
the sight in his right eye, his teeth were broken
and blood oozes out of his left ear. Sometimes
medical staff turn the other eye. It's beyond
the outside world's imagination how these
pigs treat prisoners not even like animals but
like bugs.

Inmates get segregation just for having

conversations with prisoners... There is no
way even to describe the pain we go through
in here. I want the world to know how evil
america's prison system is. Having to send
your legal work to the law library to be typed
at least three weeks to a month ahead of time,
people are missing court deadlines because
the law library doesn't send your legal work
back on time. Inmates work as intelligence for
the pigs. So to all comrades: Know who you
bring into the family. Because the enemy
comes in all shapes and sizes. Keep the
struggle alive and the movement strong.

In oneness,
--A comrade from Southport Correctional

Facility in New York, July 2003

California Three
Strikes law fills
prisons and wastes
money

Ten years ago economists predicted that

the high cost of incarcerating felons under
California's "Three Strikes" law would drive
the state into bankruptcy. Then-Governor
Pete Wilson ignored these prescient sages in
order to further his political ambitions and to
appear as a tough-on-crime politician/
presidential-hopeful. Even at an incarceration
cost of over $30,000 per inmate per year, Mr.
Wilson claimed the law would save the state
money. How exactly these voodoo economics
would occur remained unspoken, as did the

fact that crime was actually on the wane. He
made political capital off of Polly Klaas'
tragedy, pushing through a poorly-written law
that has caused unexpected consequences.
these include morally and fiscally bankrupting
California.

In the past, persons falsely charged with a

crime would often accept a plea bargain rather
than face the risk of a wrongful conviction
and lengthy prison term. Such people did not
know then the consequences they would one
day face. California's Three-Strikes law
retroactively punishes people. Ten, twenty
or fifty years ago, please accepted plea
bargains without knowing they would later
receive a life sentence for doing so.

Our Founding Fathers knew the evils of

such "ex post facto" laws, and took what they
believed were adequate steps to prevent these
laws from being enforced. However, in our
age, the courts do not hesitate to push their
political agendas. In an effort to expedite what
they felt was the will of the people, the courts
have rules that ex post facto violations were
to be tolerated in Three-Strikes cases.

Time has shown that the usual Third-Striker

MIM Notes 287 · September 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.

is a non-violent pizza thief or drug addict who
once accepted a plea bargain that now counts
as a strike. He is not the rapist, child molester
or murderous gang-banger Wilson indicated
would be the target of this law. In fact, one
unintended consequence of this law is that
in People v. Jefferson, 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252, an
allegedly violent gang-banger was prevented
from being given multiple life sentences
because the sloppy wording of the Three-
Strikes law foreclosed that possibility.

People charged with crimes now fear to

accept a plea bargain, since these strikes carry
the minimum of a life sentence. They choose
to risk all by fleeing capture in a high-speed
chase. If captured alive, they take their case
all the way to a jury trial, since being acquitted
is their only hope of avoiding lifetime
imprisonment. Court cases that were once
resolved within a month's time now run on
for years, at great expense.

The increase of prisoners seeking trial has

created such a backlog that new courts, jails
and related facilities have further burdened
tax-payers. As a direct result of the
unintended consequences of the Three
Strikes law, California is plunging further and
further into debt. One would expect to hear a
clamorous protest over this debacle. Instead,
except for a brief hue and cry over Gov. Davis'
raising the salaries of prison guards while
slashing all other public programs, the press
has been strangely quiet as to the real cause
of California's budget crisis.

Our once progressive California penal

system is now filled with non-violent lifers
and is roundly condemned by the U.N. and
the International Community as a human
rights violatorWe now sentence dope fiends
to die in prison for their crime of stealing a
videotape to bring home to their poor
children. We need to correct this unjust and
unconstitutional Three-Strikes law. It is the
main reason California is running a deficit.
There is a moral and financial const to the ill-
conceived Three-Strikes law, and Californians
are now paying it.

-- A California prisoner, August 2003

California prisoner
strike fights repression

May 9th, as pigs were serving chow, in an

ad-seg environment, my cell was skipped its
trays. Reason being, for putting my arm
outside the cell door, the slot, to clean my
window. After the entire building was fed and
after the serving area was cleaned my cell
was given the privilege of finally eating. But
while being fed I was grabbing the trays the
pig claimed I battered him. I can understand if
I hit the pig or kicked or even stabbed him,
but there was no contact between the C.O.
and myself. Being in ad-seg you're fed in your

cell through a slot in the door. Now this slot
isn't even big enough for your head to go
out, just to give you an idea of its size. So the
acclaimed charge is this: "While my hands
were full with two trays of food, I stuck my
arm out the slot and battered the pig."

Now with the pig's false charges comes

repercussions. Possible SHU terms, loss of
credit and criticism from other pigs. Those
are part of the prison life, I can take those but
when my life is at stake that's where I draw
the line. You're probably wondering how my
life is at stake? With the false charge of battery
comes a D.A. referral. With a D.A. referral
comes a strike. And if you're like me sitting
here with two strikes, you can't afford another
strike. So any D.A. referral can cost 25 years
to life in prison.

With the state budget so jacked-up as it is,

for various reasons, and with prisoners feeling
the effects here's another D.A. referral for the
state to look over, more money spent against
a budget way in debt but it's okay.

After this happens my first urge is to

explode and really cause some havoc, but in
the long run that only hurts me more. Sure
you can flood, light fires, or cell extract but
you're left with nothing in your cell. So now
not only do you have a D.A. referral you're
sitting in a pair of boxers only for a couple of
days on water control. You really showed
them, huh?

Next option, you can sit back and exhaust

your appeal rights which could take months
and in the end what do you accomplish? A
reprimand to the pig, but you still have a D.A.
referral over your head. You really showed
them.

Appeal systems (602s) are a joke, it is very

rare that you actually accomplish what you
intended. I'm not saying it doesn't work,
because sometimes it does. But in situations
where you need action, now, what do you
do?

For me I have found that one of the quickest

attention grabbers (and maybe most
successful) is strikes! They have to
acknowledge strikes.

May 10th, breakfast comes around and I

deny my first meal. The pigs actions, laughing
and bets of how long the hunger strike will
last. Two meals a day, two days go by. After
three meals passed the pigs started to take
me serious. Their first plan of action: a medical
staff brings a weight scale and takes a weigh-
in and documents it 184 pounds.

May 11th, four meals into the strike. Now

the ridicule, jokes and questions start. An
official statement of why I'm striking is taken,
my blood pressure is taken, and a psych
doctor asks his question. What's next?
Nothing.

May 11th, May 12, May 13th my weight is

checked again, 168 pounds. Ah, now I'm taken

seriously. I'm asked what I hope to
accomplish. Simple, I want the rules violation
(along with D.A. referral) thrown out. Their
reaction "It's not going to happen," two more
days pass and my weight is taken both days
158 pounds.

Now a pig with stripes and a little clout

comes to talk: "I've read the report, I'll see
what I can do about throwing it out." But
that's not my concern, I want it so NO D.A.
referral is issued. From what I've read the D.A.
won't pick this up if I get the report thrown
the D.A. goes with it. So I end the strike and
take the pigs word, the report is gone. With
the D.A.? That's now a writing game to see if
its gone as well. Sure I've lost 26 pounds, but
my gain was my life outside of prison, not a
third strike for something I did not do.

Why the pigs did this. Simple, I had others

slowly joining me. There was media attention.
Once the department of corrections is exposed
for their injustice actions they try to bury
them. So they succumbed to my request. But
they weren't requests, they were demands
and they realized it, 6-7 days down the way.
This strategy is successful with support from
the streets and within. Don't be discouraged,
if you don't get the attention you want
immediately trust me it will come, they have
no choice.

If group strikes of this sort could be

organizes throughout the system maybe some
of our repression could go into submission.
Could it be a tool against the SHUs and three-
strikes. There's one way to find out, by trying.

--Tiger, a prisoner in California, July 2003

Censorship continues
in California

Salinas Valley State Prison

I wanted to inform you of the censorship

that I am experiencing since my arrival here in
Salinas. I was told that I could not receive
your publication, MIM Notes. They told me
that it was inciteful and destructive to the
safety and security of the institution. I will
continue the struggle against oppression and
censorship, however, I can receive used
books as long as they come from a distributor/
bookstores/publisher. I am enclosing ten 37
cent stamps in support of the movement; it's
not much, but being that I have nothing but
my convictions and beliefs, it is the best I can
do at this moment in time.

-- a California prisoner at Salinas Valley

State Prison, August 2003

CCI Tehachapi

Here is an update on the appeal of the

censorship of MIM Theory 11. The appeal

was denied at the 2nd level of review for the
following reasons:

1. They say an article about C/O violence

against Blacks and Latinos promotes racism.

2. They say MIM's doctrine of armed

struggle against imperialist U.S. promotes
violence.

These are the 2 reasons they did not let

MIM Theory 11 in. I have submitted the appeal
for directors level review (3rd level). We'll see
what happens. I am preparing to file 21983
should it be denied.

-- a prisoner at CCI Tehachapi, August 03

MIM responds: It is the C/O violence

against Blacks and Latinos that is racist, not
our exposure of this practice. And it is very
convenient for the prisons to say that anti-
imperialism promotes violence. Of course they
fail to censor imperialist media which is the
biggest promoter of violence in the world
today. This double standard allows the prison
to censor all revolutionary literature while
allowing reactionary propaganda in. Our
comrades behind bars are doing all that they
can to fight these clear cases of censorship
targeting revolutionary literature. We need
people on the outside to step up and help
with the fight. Lawyers can help with the legal
battle, and others can write letters of protest
to the warden at the prison: Warden Art
Calderon, California Correctional Institution,
PO Box 1906, Tehachapi, CA 93581

Pelican Bay State Prison

MIM mailed me a book not too long ago

but the institution disallowed the book
package due to the book being used. The
book was destroyed as per gulag policy (I
don't have the funds on my trust account to
send stuff out.) Enclosed is a book address
label that must be attached to the outside of
the book package. All books must be new
and must be sent from a book store, and must
be paperback. Also the vendor's stamp and
business number must be included in the
small box in the upper left hand corner of the
label.

--A prisoner at Pelican Bay, California,

August 2003

MIM responds: Requiring books to be new

and from a bookstore means MIM can't send
prisoners at PBSP any books at all. Our Books
for Prisoners program relies on donations of
books as well as books we can buy cheaply
from used book stores. We don't have a
bookstore from which we can mail them, nor
do we have the funds to purchase new books.
This effectively censors all prisoner book
programs, restricting prisoners to the non-
existent prison libraries for their reading
materials.

MIM Notes 287 · September 15, 2003 · Page 12

Notas Rojas

set 15, 2003, Nº 287 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista

Gratis

¿Que es el MIM?

El Movimiento Internacionalista Maoísta (MIM) es un partido revolucionario

comunista que ejerce el Marxismo-Leninismo-Maoísmo. El MIM es una organización
internacionalista que trabaja desde el punto de vista del proletariado del Tercer Mundo;
es por esto que sus miembros no son amerikanos sino ciudadanos del mundo.

El MIM lucha para acabar con la opresión de todos los grupos sobre cualquier otro,

naciones por naciones, clases por clases, y géneros por géneros. La revolución es una
realidad para los Estados Unidos mientras su ejército continúa extendiendose en su
esfuerzo por asegurar la hegemonía mundial.

El MIM difiere de otros partidos en tres puntos basicos: (1) El MIM sostiene que

después que el proletariado conquiste el poder estatal, existira aún el potencial para una
restauración de tipo capitalista, bajo la dirección de una burguesía nueva dentro del
mismo partido comunista. En el caso de la Unión Soviética, la burguesía se apoderó del
gobierno después de la muerte de Stalin, en 1953; y en China después de la muerte de
Mao y del derrocamiento de la llamada "banda de los cuatro' en 1976. (2) El MIM
sostiene que la Revolución Cultural en China es la fase ms avanzada a la que llegó el
comunismo en la historia. (3) El MIM afirma que la clase trabajadora blanca de los
EE.UU. es primordialmente, una élite trabajadora no revolucionaria en el presente. Es
por esto que no es el principal vehículo para avanzar el Maoísmo en este país.

El MIM acepta como miembro a cualquier individuo que esté de acuerdo con estos

tres puntos basicos, y que acepte al centralismo democrtico, el método de gobierno por
la mayoría en lo que se refiere a cuestiones de línea del partido. El MIM es un partido
clandestino que no publica los nombres de sus miembros para evitar la represión estatal
dirigida históricamente contra los movimientos revolucionarios comunistas, y anti-
imperialistas. Si Ud. desea una suscripción para cualquiera de nuestros periódicos o
libros teóricos, en español o en inglés, por favor mandar dinero en efectivo o un cheque
al nombre de MIM a esta dirección:

MIM · P.O. Box 29670 · Los Angeles CA 90029-0670

El 30 de abril, EE.UU. y sus socios la

Unión Europea, la ONU y Rusia

entregaron a líderes israelíes y palestinos

un nuevo plan de paz "Mapa de Rutas".

Según la publicidad exagerada, este nuevo

plan requerirá iguales concesiones tanto

de parte de Israel como Palestina. De

hecho, el "Mapa de Rutas" reitera las

fallidas propuestas anteriores.

Específicamente, el plan requiere que los

palestinos renuncien incondicionalmente

la lucha armada pasando por alto el simple

hecho de que la presencia de

asentamientos israelíes atestigua el

carácter agresor de este país cuya

superioridad militar es indiscutible.

Algunos neoconservadores y zionistas

creen que el "Mapa de Rutas" es

diferente porque la situación geopolítica

ha cambiado. Según ellos, la reciente

guerra contra Irak ha demostrado al

mundo que cualquier resistencia a

EE.UU. es inútil. Los pueblos oprimidos

como Palestina deberían "tragarse la

pastilla" y aceptar las pocas migas que

el Tío Sam decida otorgarles. Estos

argumentos ponen de relieve el tipo de

"paz" que desean estos promotores

bélicos- una dominación segura por parte

de los opresores sobre los oprimidos. No

se quiere indagar de una manera justa

sobre las causas del conflicto: en este

caso, el derecho no consumido de los

palestinos a una autodeterminación.

La "paz" que dichos promotores bélicos

buscan no es más que una quimera. Al

igual que en el caso de las "exitosas"

operaciones encubiertas en Afganistán

durante los años 80 que llevaron al 11 de

septiembre, y en el caso de las "exitosas"

acciones militares y políticas por parte de

Israel contra la primera Intifada palestina

que dio como resultado el levantamiento

actual, las guerras que se están llevando

a cabo en Afganistán e Irak causarán

más tragedias y guerras. Los americanos

necesitan rechazar a sus líderes ya que

éstos han resultado incapaces de

encontrar una solución justa al problema

de la paz y seguridad. A largo plazo,

semejante rechazo corresponde a los

intereses de los propios americanos, sin

mencionar los intereses de la humanidad

entera.

Como parte de nuestro servicio público

adjuntamos una reseña de la guía de

propaganda publicada por el periódico

proisraelí Wexler Analysis. Mientras que

en privado se reconoce que los

asentamientos israelíes en Palestina son

el "talón de Aquiles" de Israel, la guía

intenta echar la culpa a los palestinos por

el inevitable fallo del "Mapa de Rutas".

La máquina de propaganda
proisraelí: un vistazo más allá de
la cortina.

Hace poco la Intifada Electrónica

publicó una copia del filtrado "manual de

comunicaciones" para los aliados de

Israel en EE.UU. El manual aconseja

mantener vivo a Saddam Hussein como

un títere por lo menos durante un año, así

como expresar simpatía a favor del pueblo

palestino y culpar a la Autoridad Palestina

por la pobreza de la nación. El Wexner

Analysis reconoce además que los

asentamientos israelíes en los territorios

palestinos son el "talón de Aquiles" del

lobby proisraelí sosteniendo que la mala

noticia en cuanto al "Mapa de Rutas" es

que los americanos esperan que Israel, y

no solamente Palestina, cumpla las

disposiciones del "Mapa de Rutas". Las

17 páginas del Wexler Analysis están

disponibles en http://electronicintifada.net/

v2/article1395.shtml. Abajo imprimimos

algunos extractos escogidos seguidos por

nuestras respuestas.

¿Porqué los EE.UU. sigue
necesitando a Israel?

"Dados el sentimiento global

antiamericano y todas las protestas y

manifestaciones, estamos buscando

aliados que compartan el compromiso que

profesamos hacia la seguridad y el fin del

terrorismo y que estén listos para

anunciarlo. Israel es uno de tales

aliados." (pág. 1)

MIM responde: Si EE.UU. de verdad

busca seguridad, debería poner alto a sus

guerras de agresión y adquisición. Una

política bélica contra la mayor parte del

mundo de ninguna manera contribuye al

intento de promover la paz interna.

Sobre Saddam Hussein.

"El día que permitamos que Saddam

asuma su lugar en el basurero de la

historia será el día en que perderemos

nuestra arma más fuerte en la defensa

linguística de Israel" (pág. 4)

MIM responde: En otras palabras,

conservemos la jerga de los tiempos

bélicos como una excusa para seguir con

la ayuda militar americana.

Sobre los asentamientos.

" `La SECURIDAD' vende. La

seguridad se ha convertido en un principio

fundamental para todos los americanos.

La seguridad es el contexto que permite

explicar la necesidad que tiene Israel de

garantías hipotecarias y ayuda militar, y

la razón por la cual le es imposible a Israel

renunciar a la tierra. Los asentamientos

son nuestro "talón de Aquiles", y la mejor

respuesta (que, sin embargo, es bastante

débil) es la necesidad de seguridad

creada por esta salvaguarda". (pág. 3)

MIM responde: Los asentamientos de

la Franja de Gaza y la Rivera Occidental

violan el derecho internacional, así como

una serie de resoluciones de la ONU. Su

presencia y la defensa de los mismos por

parte de las fuerzas armadas israelíes

trasgrede la seguridad del pueblo

palestino. Los palestinos son incapaces

de viajar, trabajar, ir a la escuela, comprar

comida o buscar ayuda médica sin tener

que pasar por los controles israelíes. Un

genocidio de los palestinos sería un precio

demasiado alto que habría que pagar por

la seguridad israelí (y que, de hecho, mina

la seguridad israelí, al igual que las

aventuras militares de EE.UU. que minan

la seguridad estadounidense).

Un servicio falso a los palestinos.

"Hay que hablar sin parar sobre su

entendimiento de la `lucha palestina' y

un compromiso de ayuda. De acuerdo,

esto sí que es un doble estándar (nadie

espera ninguna acción proisraelí de parte

de los palestinos) pero así son las cosas".

(pág. 3)

MIM responde: Israel posee un estado

y unas fuerzas armadas que ayuda a

quitarle al pueblo palestino su propio estado

mediante 3 mil millones de dólares

estadounidenses al año. Encima de esto,

¿Israel busca elogios de parte de un

pueblo cuyos pescuezos pisa?

De todas formas, no es cierto que

"nadie espera nada proesraelí de parte

de Palestina". El gobierno

estadounidense siempre ha insistido en

que los palestinos reconozcan a Israel y

su seguridad antes de que empiecen

negociaciones de paz, sin importar el

hecho de que hace tiempo que sus

lacayos favoritos como Yassir Arafat en

teoría hayan accedido a estas demandas.

Sobre Mahmoud Abbas.

"El surgimiento de Mahmoud Abbas

como el nuevo Primer Ministro palestino

no pudo haberse dado en un peor

momento. Su toma del poder parece

legítima. Es una cara fresca, una cara

bien afeitada, por decirlo así. Habla bien

y usa vestimenta occidental. Quizás hasta

tenga deseos verdaderos de paz." (pág.

13)

MIM responde: Este tipo de aserciones

es la misma habladuría racista que Israel

utiliza para justificar el hecho de que su

propia "seguridad" se mantiene a costa

del pueblo palestino. La verdad es que el

lobby proisraelí no quiere una paz justa

más que el gobierno israelí.

Planes yanquis para Palestina;

Una "ruta" hacia ningún lado