MIM Notes ***

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 1

MIM Notes

May 1, 2004, Nº 301

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Against subjectivism * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...

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

THE WRITING

WAS ON THE

WALL EVEN

BEFORE

FALLUJAH

How we know the

draft is coming

by mim3@mim.org

The final piece of the jigsaw puzzle of

military recruitment in the United $tates

is in. Retention rates in the military will

be too low to sustain the imperialists'

vision of the world, so the draft is coming

unless there is a desperately radical

struggle that develops soon--something

we find unlikely but which we support

nonetheless. The Amerikan anti-war

struggle will develop, but later than it

should most ideally.

A survey of over 1000 spouses at

military bases in January and February

2004 indicates that half believe the

military will have problems recruiting as

current enlistments expire. This figure

came at a time when 64% said the war

was going well in Iraq and Bush was

receiving approval ratings in the 60s

percentage-wise from the military

spouses.(1) Half of the spouses expect

there to be "major" problems with

recruitment in the near future as people

refuse to re-enlist after their terms are

up and new recruits dwindle for the

mercenary army. 21% of all spouses

were already saying they had wished their

spouses had made another career choice.

Only 39% were certain their spouses

would re-enlist when their terms were up.

According to U$A Toady, the Army fell

4% short of its recruiting goals in the first

half of fiscal year 2004.(5) This number

is likely to drop further as the soldiers who

just had their term in Iraq extended come

up for re-enlistment.

It is not reflected in the press or the

DRAFT LOOMS

Stop it before it starts!

U$ MEDIA

SOUNDS THE

ATTACK ON

THIRD WORLD

MADRASSAS

Amerikan terror

schools overlooked

One of the common complaints of the

New York Times in its drumbeat for war

is that the Arab and Afghan peoples

support religious schools called

"madrassas" too much.(1) MIM

conducted an investigation into the

problem of religious schools in the United

$tates.

"Boys, raised without fathers, were sent

to religious schools, or madrassas, taken

away from daily village life and away

from the influence of women,"(1) says

the New York Times. What a shock: the

New York Times apparently has seen no

gender segregated schools in the U$A.

Nor has it thought of the interpenetration

of the military with countless schools in

the U$A.

The Boston Globe--owned by the New

York Times--is another paper hammering

on the madrassas. "Since the Sept. 11

attacks, madrassas in Pakistan and

Afghanistan have achieved global

notoriety for producing thousands of young

men dedicated to holy war."(2) The

Boston Globe goes on to call for the Indian

government to interfere in India's

madrassas.

It's hard to know who started it, the

government or the New York Times,

because the two have inseparable

approaches to foreign affairs. "Secretary

of Defense" and nutcase Donald

Rumsfeld put it this way in an October

16th 2003 memo: "Are we capturing,

killing or deterring and dissuading more

terrorists every day than the madrassas

and the radical clerics are recruiting,

training and deploying against us?"(3)

We won't bother mentioning other

This question, which the Amerikan

media dismissed offhand before the

renewed invasion of Iraq, now seems to

be the question du jour on editorial pages

and weekend talk shows. As we discuss

below, most of the pundits asking the

question have hidden, pro-imperialist

agendas, which keeps them from getting

to the truth about Iraq or Vietnam.

First, though, we will repeat what MIM

has been saying for more than a year:

"Is the war in Iraq like the war in

Vietnam? Yes and no, but mostly yes."

Of course, to understand the answer,

one has to understand the question. Pro-

imperialist "experts" of various flavors

have their own ideas about the lessons

of Vietnam, which color their answers.

For example, the "stab-in-the-back"

militarists insist Amerika lost in Vietnam

because civilian politicians withdrew

support from the war. Thus they might

answer, "Yes, Iraq is the new Vietnam,"

to encourage Amerikans to not make the

"mistake" they made in Vietnam and

"stay the course" in Iraq. Other militarists

may answer "no," because they have

illusions about the role China or Russia

played in Vietnam, or because they feel

the Amerikans now have an

overwhelming technical advantage--

although they also had an overwhelming

technical advantage in Vietnam, and the

house-to-house fighting now raging in

cities like Fallujah is a matter of small

arms, sledgehammers, and sweat, not

Apache helicopters.

Democratic "critics" of the war answer

"yes, but...," to opportunistically blame the

Republicans for getting Amerika into

another "quagmire" without getting

labeled "soft on defense" in return. The

mercenary eggheads at Harvard's

Kennedy School of Government quoted

in the April 16 Boston Phoenix adopt this

Is Iraq the new Vietnam?

Continued on page 4...

Continued on page 7...

Continued on page 8...

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 2

What is MIM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor, MC206; Production, MC12

Letters

MIM Notes

The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement

ISSN 1540-8817

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

long as we are credited.

For general correspondence, contact:

MIM

P.O. Box 29670

Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670

eMail: <mim@mim.org>

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

Dear MIM:

I am a 19 year old university student in

Australia. I look to your site as a

theoretical and practical guide in many

respects, particularly with my studies as

my majors are politics and history.

What I am up against now is a project

on the Great Leap Forward, with a

lecturer who is obviously some kind of

bourgeois opportunist, heavily critical of

Mao. I can tell this because of the set

reading for my presentation, a chapter

called "Capable women can make a meal

without food" in the book "Wild Swans"

by Chang.

I have two theories on why MIM has

not written a review of this book.

1) Its credibility is so lacking that you

chose to just ignore it.

2) Nobody has written a review of it

yet because resources are stretched or

the book hasn't come to your attention.

I wish also to thank you for your

excellent information regarding the great

leap forward in the sections "Myths about

Maoism", as well as the reviews of

MacFarquhar and Becker as well as the

Black Book of Communism.

Socialist greetings!

Web Minister replies: I checked

around and we do not have a review of

"Wild Swans" available. At MIM we do

consider it our job to rebut and criticize

all of previous reactionary thinking. We

consider it a means of setting up the all-

round dictatorship of the proletariat.

This also gives me a chance to say that

we are quite a bit behind in all our work.

I have not even posted all the material

we have available on our website in

addition to the fact that articles such as

about "Wild Swans" have not been

written yet.

Our general response is that the

capitalists have spent money and created

markets for many full-time writers

slinging mud or spinning half-truths about

Mao. Journalists and fiction writers are

especially apt to tell one story and think

they have given us a comparison of

capitalism and socialism or even the

Great Leap strategy versus other

strategies of socialist advance. Although

we could also write a lengthy fiction or

journalist story on the life of Jeffrey

Dahmer, the Amerikan cannibal, we

would not claim it to provide an overall

insight even into Amerikan decadence. It

is the bourgeoisie that must glorify

individual stories and lifestyles as a

substitute for class analysis and

comparisons of social systems overall,

because the comparison of capitalism and

socialism at the overall level is always

going to be more favorable to socialism.

Refuting the bourgeoisie, point-by-point

Read hundreds more Maoist

Movie Reviews at the only

Maoist Movie Review website

on Earth

From Aguirre: The Wrath of God ("the humyn

species has chalked up some achievements since

the time of the Conquistadors...") to Yol ("really

about the womyn question under semi-feudalism in

Turkey"), from Alien3 ("basic contradictions of

imperialism underlying the plot also undermine its

triumphant ending") to Z ("If we had the resources

to do our own films, we could do a better job, but

under capitalism, we have to take what we can"),

Maoist Movie Reviews are in a league of their own.

www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/movies

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 3

by MC5

April 11 2004

Yo, reader. Yes, you there. Tell us why

you are still paying attention to Democrats

and Republicans. We calling ourselves

communists have more differences than

the Democrats and Republicans.

It's not that the Democrats and

Republicans give you more accurate

inside information on the wars they are

carrying out, so don't tell us you listen to

them for that. The Democrats and

Republicans both said Saddam Hussein

had and would use weapons of mass

destruction. He did not use them in 2003

and now you have to ask yourself why.

They told you the Amerikans were

bringing "freedom" to Iraq, but the recent

violence in Iraq came after the Amerikans

shut down a newspaper there opposing

the Amerikan occupation.(1) These

Democrats and Republicans said the

Iraqis would appreciate what Amerikans

did in the occupation. So, tell us again,

why are you getting your information

from them?

MIM told you before the war about

weapons of mass destruction and we got

it right. When Bush said the war was

over, we did a 60-point headline saying

"The War Is Not Over." Again, we got it

right, and the president with all his billions

spent on intelligence got it wrong.

Now look at us communists. We've got

something to argue about. Kerry voted

for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and

co-authored the Patriot Act in the Senate.

Bush carried out the wars and signed the

"Patriot Act." Those are the top two issues

since 2000.

Meanwhile, the "Communist Party

USA" supports the occupation of Iraq.

You heard right. While MIM is supporting

U$ withdrawal and believes the Iraqi

liberation fighters have justice on their

side, the "Communist Party USA" is

supporting a sister party in Iraq that

actually has a seat in the U$ occupation

government. Imagine that: a "communist"

party serving as a U$ lackey in a military

occupation.

Now that's a real difference. MIM says

the nationalist liberation fighters in Iraq

are right and the "CP-USA" supports the

opposite side. So, my decadent Amerikan

readers, if you are looking for sports as in

Bush/Kerry contests, we'll give you

sports. By now you should be bored to

death with Bush/Kerry. Pay attention to

some people with some real differences.

Sometimes their website has more

readers; sometimes ours--and you

thought all that splitting among so-called

communists was for nothing.

See here what we are saying about the

phony "Communist Party USA." Listen

to them explain that the genocide in Iraq

was worth it, because their buddies in the

Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) are now

distributing a newspaper there under U$

auspices: "While the bad news of the

genocidal impact of the U.S. war and

occupation in Iraq permeates throughout

the world, the chunks of gold and hope

are found in the ICP's heroism and

Phony Iraqi Communist Party supports occupation of Iraq

The real debate is here

This is the first in a series of articles.

Further installments will address the

topics of love, sex, friends,

sectarianism and chauvinism.

I. Cigarettes

II. Drugs

III. Music and art

IV. Love

I'm going to talk about subjectivism and

its relationship to our communist goals by

giving a bunch of examples of

subjectivism--the belief that what one

feels or likes is true or supreme. What's

most important is not the individual evils

of subjectivism, but understanding the

overall approach that we as Maoist

scientists apply to everything. We at MIM

are not saying we have some long list of

behaviors that we tack on to the end of

the "Ten Commandments." It's not our

point to bring attention to hypocrisy in

individual behavior--and this is something

that we from Christian, Jewish and

Islamic cultures have to watch out for.

(Buddhism has a little better intellectual

material to work with on this question.)

We Maoist scientists are interested in the

underlying causes of behavior.

Anyone who thinks s/he does not have

something that s/he likes that is tainted

by oppression is just wrong. As Marx and

Lenin warned us, even after

overthrowing the social system of

capitalism, its corpse would continue to

rot among us. There is no way that

revolutionaries arising from capitalist

society can be instantly pure even after

revolution. It's not a leap into Heaven.

Communist purity is not going to happen

in the lifetime of the revolutionaries who

create the dictatorship of the proletariat

unless lifetimes get a lot longer.

In all likelihood, the revolution will be

successful only through the efforts of

Preparing for the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat

Combating subjectivism in all arenas

"hypocrites" envisioning future

generations growing up with better social

influences than they had. Understanding

this is part of understanding materialism,

as when Lenin said revolution is always

made with the imperfect social material

at hand, not by divine perfection of

humyn consciousness first. When one

critic said Mao sought "revolutionary

immortality," he was not all wrong.

Parents and teachers seek influence on

future generations, and Mao simply took

that to a whole larger level and asked to

be remembered only as a teacher.

A persyn could not like a whole list of

bad things that most other people have

as vices, but even then there would have

to be something. Everyone has a vice.

No one is a 100% pure. Hence, MIM

has acted to push aside the politics of

putting lifestyle first. Whoever comes up

with the idea that a party should set up a

list of lifestyles to condone or not condone

is setting up a huge Liberal fight to divide

the party. We have to come up with a list

of bad things, but our attack has to be on

the causes, not the bearers of those bad

lifestyles. With these warnings, I turn to

several examples of subjectivism.

I. Cigarettes

We've all seen the teenager lash into

parents saying: "what do you mean I

can't smoke? You smoke, you

hypocrite!" So the truth is some parents

smoke and forbid their children from

smoking. Yet, this is an example of a

pseudo-rebellion by the teenager, a

rebellion on behalf of the right to make

profits for the multinational tobacco

companies.

More than in any country in the world

at the moment, comrades in the United

$tates will have to conquer subjectivism

and still make revolution despite

hypocritical feelings and behaviors. The

smoking parent who cracks down on his

or her children is right. It means this: "I

know I have had my subjective feelings,

my very emotions and psychology

conditioned by the cigarette companies and

I know I am addicted. However, I know

that in a better world it would not be that

way."

In contrast, when medical researchers

discover that smoking is poisonous,

principled Trotskyists such as the

Spartacist League go so far to oppose

"totalitarianism" that they will publicly

defend the right to smoke in public (and

thus contribute to the death of more

people, both the smokers and those in

contact with them). These Spartacist

League members contribute to a rebellion

against science and for bourgeois

individualism and tobacco company

profits. They take the subjective state of

the smoker and "respect" it. That's part

of their idea of "freedom" and "opposing

totalitarianism."

When the all-round dictatorship of the

proletariat led by us Maoists gets to power,

the cigarette company executives who put

those toxic chemicals in cigarettes and

resisted medical science in the court

system will be lined up and shot as a small

repayment of their blood debt to millions

killed by smoking. Those cigarette

company executives who conquer

subjectivism will know they should be

shot to set a good example for the future.

II. Drugs

The same is true of drug addiction. How

many times have we seen established

bourgeois people look down on heroin

addicts? Oh how terrible to be in such a

state of control by the drug, we hear. Yet

most of these same people turn around

and say that life is a short experience to

enjoy as it is. They get their jollies from

something else short-term and damaging

to society in many cases.

The fact is that many heroin, cocaine

and crack addicts will say that they have

a profound experience of pleasure from

their drugs. MIM has no need to deny

such subjective statements. Post-

modernists and bourgeois individualists

need to deal with that--and we can't

imagine how they do in their own twisted

minds--but we at MIM say, "sure that

feels good to you, but where did that

desire for that kind of pleasure or pain-

killing come from?" The answer is a

combination of profiteering drug dealers

and a corrupt government defending the

profit-system leaving people alienated

from their own lives.

III. Music and art

Music is another battleground against

subjectivism. For some people, music is

the highest motivation. For others it's a

second or third place source of motivation.

At MIM and its circles we've had more

than one persyn have to get involved in

throwing out reactionary music tapes,

starting with Guns N'Roses. When we

oppose Guns N'Roses and say most of it

should be banned, it's not that we don't

know we're going to be unpopular. We

know it, because right now the

bourgeoisie controls the superstructure

and encourages everyone to be

subjectivists and not unite on an objective

basis to challenge bourgeois rule. Hell,

our reviewer on our web page "likes"

Guns N'Roses, so how could we not know

about the resistance we face right now?

The question is do we wish we lived in a

society where popular songs were not

about sick people burying their girlfriends

in their backyard. Do we wish we could

Continued on page 7...

Continued on page 9...

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 4

jubilation of the Iraqi people, but in fact,

the Iraqi people have already landed a

huge politico-military blow against Uncle

$am in one short year. If imperialism

depended on English imperialism as the

lynchpin globally and not Uncle $am, such

a blow landed under Maoist leadership

could have been the turning point to bring

down the whole global capitalist system.

It is the combined imperialist strength of

Uncle $am and others that makes this a

protracted struggle of generations.

Both Bush and Kerry will try to sidestep

the draft issue leading up to elections in

November 2004. In 2005, the push for

the draft will be on.

MIM does not generally like being in

the fortune-telling business, but our record

on Iraq is clear relative to both the

Democrats and Republicans leading the

U$A. We think we deserve greater

credibility than these bourgeois politicians

always catering for votes and corporate

donations. We told the public the truth

about WMDs, the likelihood of Iraqi

resistance and why it is that only sending

dead Amerikans back in body bags

changes the political balance. The peace

movement did not succeed, because of

its petty-bourgeois basis. On all of this

we are right and our printed record can

be checked against any political leader

with access to inside information from

intelligence agencies spending 11 digits a

year in dollars. Now we tell you this: the

draft is coming, so fight now to prevent it

and gain political experience for upcoming

battles.

Military illusions

1) The crumbling of military illusions

and the manipulation of the military for

political gain are the reasons the draft is

coming. The loose situation in Fallujah

and Afghanistan benefits a political

agenda that says more troops are

necessary in Iraq and therefore a draft.

The rulers will make it appear that the

demand for a draft came from the

situation itself, not any particular military

official or the president.

Keeping control on the ground for

contractors to do their business in Iraq

cannot be done with Predator spy planes

alone. Even driving about expensive tanks

eats up fuel. Putting unemployed or

potentially unemployed people on the

ground of Iraq seems a cheap solution

for the rulers.

2) The military thinks that Iraq has

much less population than Vietnam did

and GI Joe is much better technically

equipped. In fact, the longer the troops

stay there, the more experienced Iraqis

will get in fighting, while Amerikans rotate

in and out. Johnson had 500,000

Amerikans in Vietnam at the peak. The

military thinks it has already reached that

level in Iraq, proportionately speaking, and

its illusions about the Vietnam War say

that China and the Soviet Union were the

reasons for failure there. Bush will believe

his own rhetoric about a "small minority"

of "terrorists" and "thugs" fighting, (600

killed in Fallujah alone in one week)

because certain Amerikans never realized

it was not "outside agitators" doing the

fighting in Vietnam. This confidence in

victory in Iraq will lead to the draft.

3) There has been talk in Congress

about raising pay and improving mail

delivery to improve retention.(2) This

angle will fail miserably. That fact will

also point to the draft.

Neo-conservative illusions

1) The neo-conservatives believe

correctly that a portion of rural white U.$.

society is dumb enough to believe that

September 11th 2001 is connected to

Iraq. For many in the rural areas and even

some in the suburbs, it is difficult to

distinguish Third World or rich Arab

peoples in general. Iraqis, Saudis,

Muslims--it hardly matters, because a

solid 30% of the whites is of the Crusader

mentality. In the military that figure is 37%

evangelicals based on the spouses' poll--

a plurality.

Making use of the attack on Amerikan

soil and the rural whites correctly referred

to as "hamburger meat" by one self-

described politically incorrect humorist,

the neo-conservatives erred in thinking

they can transfer that into making Iraq a

Japan or Germany. They really have no

idea how FDR, Truman and Eisenhower

did it. After filling their heads with Ann

Coulter, it's a wonder neo-conservatives

know anything. The truth about

"hamburger meat" only led the neo-

conservatives to make an error related

to thinking Iraq is not Vietnam.

2) Neo-conservatives told the public

that Iraqis would roll over and play dead.

They told this tale partly to get the war

started. This suited the Zionists and

apocalypse-centered Christians.

The rulers do not know why their

repressions in Iraq and Afghanistan fail

while they succeeded in Japan and

Germany. This is the central hit-or-miss

proposition of bourgeois dictators

everywhere. The vast majority of

bourgeois authoritarians fail in their

missions for reasons they do not know.

They repress and repress and get no

where, unlike Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In

Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the

United $tates represents a more advanced

mode of production, Uncle $am is not able

to bring progress and therefore stability

and peace on Amerikan terms.

3) Afghan warlord Dostum is kicking

up a storm as we write this. Mao had a

solution for warlords in China. The neo-

conservatives think they do in

Afghanistan, but they do not. The

imperialists have no idea how to bring

progress and hence stability to

Afghanistan. That means they will try to

employ more troops. That means the

draft.

4) The single greatest hope of the neo-

conservatives is this: they believe they

negotiated with Saddam Hussein and

Osama Bin Laden in the past, so why is

it impossible to strike up a deal with Sunnis,

Shiites and Kurds in Iraq now they

wonder. If there is such a deal, the

military resistance should roll over and

play dead (they think) and the draft won't

be necessary.

MIM has to admit that the resistance

in Iraq is not proletarian-led. Nonetheless,

we do not believe this critical neo-

conservative assumption that the Iraqis

can be bought out will prove correct. This

appears to be a miscalculation. Easing the

sanctions and spending U.$. tax dollars

will not create the bridge of stability to a

future where Iraq pays for its own

quietude. Already the New York Times

has reported on cooperation among

Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to kick out the

Amerikkkans. Economic reality says that

they will be better off sharing their

resources among themselves rather than

among themselves and the Amerikkkans.

Democratic Party illusions

1) Led by Ted Kennedy and the

European-sympathizing imperialists, one

wing of imperialists wishes the 2003 war

on Iraq was through the UN. Some

continue to believe there might be a way

to coax the UN back in, which concretely

means getting Russian, Chinese and

French troops on the ground followed

quickly by Indian troops and others.

At this point, as Kerry said about Bush

making things "harder" for military

success, the UN is not likely to get

involved. Most of the rest of the world

does not want to cover for the United

$tates and has no interest in sanctioning

U.$.-led pre-emptive strikes. The global

imperialists would have to make a hell of

a deal to salvage Iraq and we do not think

it is likely. It is more likely that the rest of

the world's bourgeoisie realizes that Uncle

$am cannot salvage the situation. Without

UN troops, the draft for Amerikans is

more likely.

2) Although many wishy-washy anti-

war people belong to the minority

Democratic Party, even the minority

Democratic Party is divided on the draft.

That's why it will go through. The anti-

draft members of the Democratic Party

will look the other way as the leaders let

the draft through. After all, the Democratic

Party never took a clear stand against

the war and even most Democrats who

opposed it want to stay and "finish the

job" now.

One place where one can see the

growing trend of calls for the draft is in

the website called

democraticunderground.com. Because

Democrats do not have the spine to

oppose the war, many are now clamoring

for a draft.

3) The pseudo-feminist wing of

liberalism has representatives in Iraq and

Afghanistan trying to teach Iraqis and

Afghans how to live the pseudo-feminist

lifestyle. They think they know how to

bring advance in the wake of U.$.

repression. They don't. They've been

attacked by the Iraqi people, and rightly

so, but in no way will the pseudo-feminists

be able to bring progress in Iraq or

Afghanistan or the desired stability and

hence a reduction of troops according to

imperialist wishes.

Labor aristocracy illusions

1) The labor aristocracy is used to

telling white lies on a daily basis to win its

share of super-profits. When Bush told

the country clearly in public several times

that he planned on a 15 year or more

occupation of Iraq, the labor aristocracy

did not listen and did not believe him once

the casualties started. When Bush and

Rumsfeld kept talking about Japan and

Germany after World War II, the

hamburger meat did not stop to think

troops are still there in Japan and

Germany, today--sixty years later. After

all, the labor aristocracy trusts Bush

enough and Paris Hilton was about to

appear on TV, so the labor aristocracy

did not have time to go into the politics

and history.

Since the neo-conservatives told the

labor aristocracy that Iraqis would greet

them cheering with roses and rice, the

labor aristocracy filed away any thoughts

contrary to the war. This same labor

aristocracy is now to be found wondering

when its children will come back from

DRAFT LOOMS

Stop it before it starts!

Continued from page 1...

Continued on next page...

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 5

This article originally apeared in

MIM Notes 247, 15 Jan 2003. We

reprint it here for those who missed it

the first time; it complements this issue's

articles on the draft and Amerikan

madrassas.

There is a terrible dispute afoot in the

world about the U.S. military budget.

Some contend that the U.S. military

budget each year is only more than the

next 10 closest countries combined.

Others say 13, 15, 25 and some say the

whole world combined spends less than

the United $tates on the military. A writer

in Pakistan said, "Americas commitment

to peace is best exemplified by the fact

that its annual military budget, at $360

billion and counting, now exceeds the

military budgets of the rest of the world

combined. You can't get much more

committed to peace than that."(1)

Despite the obscenity of U.$. military

power, yahoos like neo-Confederates

Senator Trent Lott, Attorney General John

Ashcroft and President George W. Bush

cling in an irrational way to their

militarist ideas. Through organs like the

"conservative" Weekly Standard they still

speak in praise of "peace through

strength."(2)

Rednecks supported these yahoos for

decades and now the U.$. military is by

far the strongest. So why is it that we still

have war? And why are civil liberties

more trampled than ever in the United

$tates? It seems that "peace through

strength" could not be more false.

Here is what the Amerikkkan founders

said in the "Federalist Papers," a

collection of essays defending the U.S.

Constitution that conservatives usually

claim to uphold. "The safety of the people

of America against dangers from ITAL

foreign END force depends not only on

their forbearing to give ITAL just END

causes of war to other nations, but also

on their placing and continuing themselves

in such a situation as not to invite hostility

or insult; for it need not be observed that

there are pretended as well as just

causes of war."(3)

The Amerikan reactionaries have

focused on the latter part of the above

statement, the fact that in modern times,

military weakness invites attack. Yet, now

the United $tates is the undisputed military

power of the world and according to the

Bush administration itself, we are in a long

"war on terror."

Logic says that there are now countless

countries--more than 200--that are

easier marks than the United $tates to

attack. That leaves only one conclusion:

that the war Bush says the United $tates

is in is not an opportunist war of

"pretended" cause. Rather it is a war

where the United $tates gave "just causes

of war to other nations."

Whether today's reactionaries know it

or not, that is where their logic leads.

Those are the assumptions behind their

views--that weakness invites opportunist

attacks. Conversely if the United $tates

is strong, we must conclude that the

attacks from much weaker powers that

have much weaker potential targets than

the United $tates have a basis in just

cause. That is part of realism.

Instead of concluding that their thinking

is wrong and their leaders incompetent,

the Amerikkkan redneck votes fear and

fear alone. The "founding fathers"

warned repeatedly on the danger involved

in a permanent military built on the basis

of fear.

"The violent destruction of life and

property incident to war, the continual

effort and alarm attendant on a state of

continual danger, will compel nations the

most attached to liberty to resort for

repose and security to institutions which

have a tendency to destroy their civil and

political rights. To be more safe, they at

length become willing to run the risk of

being less free. The institutions chiefly

alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and

the correspondent appendages of military

establishments."(4)

The "founding fathers" believed

something was wrong if a country could

not summon an army for two years, get

a job done and then disband it. Once a

nation formed and demonstrated its

strength, the "founding fathers" believed

that other nations stood up and took

notice.

The U.$. military is the most powerful

in the world having spent 12 digits a year

for decades at a time. Its existence goes

way beyond what the founders envisioned

for the United $tates. Yet, still there is no

peace.

Long ago it was time to conclude that

our leaders do not have a working plan

for peace, even with the strongest military

in the world at their disposal, not to

mention the world's largest economy.

Rather than surrendering more freedoms

and more money while suffering ever

higher tech atrocities it is time to throw

the dopes out and find leaders who know

how to make peace.

Notes:

1. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/

default.asp?page=stor y_13-12-

2002_pg3_8 ; This is also the impression

of the mainstream Kanadian press. Bush

friend Paul Martin slated to be a future

Prime Minister of Canada says as much,

e.g., 29 Nov 2002, Ottawa Citizen, p. a9.

Others say U.$. military spending is only

more than the next 25 nations combined,

e.g., http://www.globalissues.org/

Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/

Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/001/

842sqqsk.asp In case anyone dares to

question MIM's facts on U.$. imperialism

again, we suggest reading the Weekly

Standard's Max Boot. He admits it all,

dredging up a series of Amerikan

provocations and usurpations from 1945

to 1991. "The reality was a good deal

more sordid. What did containment

entail? It meant support for the Greek

colonels, the Argentine generals, the shah,

Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza, and other

unsavory characters who were in `our'

camp. It meant helping to overthrow

rulers, such as Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz

in Guatemala, and Allende in Chile, who

were seen as drifting toward the other

side. It meant major wars against North

Korea and North Vietnam. It meant

invasions of the Dominican Republic and

Grenada. It meant support for anti-

Communist guerrillas in places like Cuba

(the Bay of Pigs), Angola, Nicaragua, and

Afghanistan." Boot only left out that

Allende and Arbenz won elections and

the U.$. imperialists put in a king to replace

the parliamentarian Mossadegh. Boot is

referring to U.$. destruction of

parliamentary democracies in Greece,

Iran, Guatemala and Chile.

3. Federalist Paper #4 by John Jay.

4. Federalist Paper #8 by Alexander

Hamilton.

U$ military budget would have

angered Amerikan `founding fathers'

Iraq and the war will be over. It did not

listen to Bush and now it vacillates

somewhat. The decrease in labor

aristocracy enthusiasm among volunteers

for the military means that the draft is

more likely to follow.

2) The labor aristocracy thinks it can

class struggle against the government for

higher military salaries indefinitely--even

threatening not to fight or support fighting

in Iraq. The imperialists will run much red

ink, but the draft will still come.

Take action!

For anyone aged 18 to 26 or with

children or grand-children that age or

about to become 18, we recommend that

you take action now against the war. It is

much harder to stop the draft after it has

already taken shape and once it takes

shape, the movement will be in better

shape if more people get political

experience now. Anyone can start out the

way the people in Tallahassee did--by

copying some fliers and arranging a honk-

a-thon for people to honk to oppose the

war.

Activists paying attention to Congress

have noted that the draft will have no

college deferments and wimmin will go

this time. Already the federal money is in

motion to set up the draft boards.(4) There

is talk of mandatory "homeland" service

for young people, but MIM finds it more

likely that a small percentage of the 18-

26 age group, maybe even

disproportionately the 18-22 age group will

be called up for war duties in late 2005.

Activists can try to push Kerry and

Bush against the wall during their

presidential campaigns. Feel free to

heckle them if need be to ask the question

whether they support the draft or not.

Currently they believe they have the right

to risk all our lives for their vision of oil

and contractor profits. They are wrong

and you are right. The survival rights of

draft-age people and Iraqis come before

oil, contract profits or even the dubious

"democracy" that Bush is yammering

about.

Notes:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/

wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/

poll_militaryfamilies.pdf

2. www.house.gov/hasc/

openingstatementsandpressreleases/

108thcongress/04-03-24stewart.pdf

3. See Bush mention Japan and

Germany and also say the troops will stay

as long as necessary as to bring

"democracy" to Iraq http://

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/

2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html. In

another speech, he said it again, "We must

fight this war until the work is done."

Then he mentioned Germany and Japan

again. "The United States did not run from

Germany and Japan following World War

II. We helped those nations to become

strong and decent, democratic societies

that no longer waged war on America.

And that's our mission in Iraq today."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

releases/2003/10/20031009-7.html

4. Some related plans are published

here: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Thanks to Sophie Lapaire.

5. USA Today, 16 Apr 2004.

Continued from previous page...

They believed
something was
wrong if a country

couldn't summon
an army for two
years, get a job

done and then
disband it.

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 6

The sign reads: "Bible Factory Outlet" As long as capitalists can make a profit, they don't care if people are made dumb.

Christian bookstores abound in the Bible Belt of the South and Midwest, but even in cities ranking in the top 100 in size such as

Chatanooga, TN, there is not a single real bookstore to be found, just endless rows of churches.

Amerikan terror schools overlooked

newspapers like the USA Today, where

an internal investigation found that Jack

Kelley fabricated a story about student-

terrorists at a Pakistan madrassa.(4)

MIM has known for a long time that

reporters at major newspapers doing

stories about foreign affairs find it far

easier to confirm and embolden the

imaginations of the Pentagon and State

Department than to figure out what is

actually happening in the world.

Organizations such as the National

Review condemning the madrassas are

complete hypocrites in favoring Christian

schools in the United $tates. That's

obvious. The Crusader bible-thumpers

that constitute about 30% of the U$

population need no explanation. The New

York Times hypocrisy is that it advocates

war on the madrassas without advocating

war on the religious schools and Pentagon

here. It's an example of how the Zionist

agenda (filtered through neo-conservative

intellectuals) dovetails with the bible-

thumper agenda.

After the steady drumbeat for war on

the madrassas, at least the New York

Times also reported the U.$. bombing of

a madrassa.(5) We can say the New York

Times got what it wanted.

There are many colleges in the U$A

where 10 or 20% of the cars in the

parking lot will have Defense Department

clearance. Air Force ROTC itself says it

has detachments in nearly 1000

colleges.(6) We can't help thinking that

Bush sees the war in Afghanistan and

Iraq as partly like a semester abroad

program for rural white youth.

Since the turmoil of the 1960s, an

increasing number of colleges have

become outright extensions of the

Pentagon. Rather than a series of articles

on madrassas, the New York Times

should be directing its attention to how

the government finds war to be the

solution for all problems.

The American revolutionaries who

wrote the Bill of Rights all knew about

the problem of having standing armies.

The most militarist of those revolutionaries

managed to stave off an amendment

banning permanent standing armies.

Hamilton in the Federalist Papers

acknowledged popular opinion at the time

this way: "The people of America may

be said to have derived an hereditary

impression of danger to liberty, from

standing armies in time of peace."

Yet even while holding out for federal

power and the possibility of a standing

army, Hamilton never imagined the

situation today of having a huge military

with a budget bigger than the economy

of most countries year after year.

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great

community REQUIRE TIME to mature

them for execution. An army, so large as

seriously to menace those liberties, could

only be formed by progressive

augmentations; which would suppose, not

merely a temporary combination between

the legislature and executive, but a

Continued from page 1...

continued conspiracy for a series of time.

Is it probable that such a combination

would exist at all? Is it probable that it

would be persevered in, and transmitted

along through all the successive variations

in a representative body, which biennial

elections would naturally produce in both

houses? Is it presumable, that every man,

the instant he took his seat in the national

Senate or House of Representatives,

would commence a traitor to his

constituents and to his country? Can it be

supposed that there would not be found

one man, discerning enough to detect so

atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest

enough to apprise his constituents of their

danger?"

It's astonishing, but in Hamilton's day

it was very difficult to obtain the funding

and men willing to serve in a standing

army. George Washington had a hard time

of it even in emergency. Today the

economy has advanced and indeed there

has long been an army "so large" as to

have the ability to "menace" "liberties."

Hamilton imagined that before enough

time for the militarists to plan an attack

on liberties had passed, the military would

be dissolved anyway. Hamilton would

have no choice but to conclude that indeed

Congress today has long been full of

"traitors" for their continuous excuses for

funding the military.

What Hamilton understood very well

was that having too many troops in a

country over a long time created pressure

on the economy and public opinion. Even

having too many military veterans in a

society could make that society the kind

of place no one wanted to live in. That's

all written in black and white even by the

most militarist white people of that day,

who would be considered wild-eyed

hippie-anarchist-peaceniks today. There

is no way that the "founding fathers"

could ever imagine that military schools

would penetrate into every nook and

cranny of society in the "United States."

Yet, that's not all. Where there are not

ROTC courses substituting for what

people should be learning in college, there

are religious courses filling in, just as in

madrassas. The difference of course is

that in many Islamic countries, the people

are poor and have no choice in

educational matters other than

madrassas. Here, religion has taken such

a hold that students actually choose to go

to religious colleges. One might well ask

which country is more fanatical, the one

where there is no choice but madrassas

or the one where a large portion of a well-

funded education is madrassas.

Among the goals of the madrassas in

the United $tates is to make people

ignorant of biology. 29% of Amerikans

say they are conservative Protestants,

a.k.a. bible-thumper fodder. The colleges

they support come up with replacements

for teaching evolution in school. One

replacement is "intelligent design,"(7) and

of course they aren't talking space aliens

but god.

The most conservative of the Christian

colleges stress that they have the highest

probability of keeping students born-again

upon graduation. The defection rate from

born-again Christianity is apparently

highest at public schools but also fairly

high at some Catholic and Protestant

schools.(8) We can say that these

evangelical colleges have students self-

selected to be stupid and narrow. There's

no other explanation for why higher

education so tends to eradicate religion.

In March, the federal government told

the state of Montana that the "no child

left behind law" does not require teaching

Darwinian evolution. It left open the door

for "intelligent evolution;" even though

Montana asked if it was required to teach

intelligent evolution. It's amazing this

idiocy goes on and the anti-communists

have the nerve to say Mao politicized

science. They attack Stalin for supporting

Lysenko, who at least was a scientist

good with plants. These Christians in the

United $tates are supporting "god" instead

of biology at a time when the knowledge

of evolution and genetics is much better

than in Stalin's day.

As in China under Mao, the

government in the U$A is making

decisions on what to fund. In the U$A's

case, the wrong decision has been made

to fund teaching of "intelligent design."

On the other hand, there is no way around

the fact that such decisions end up being

made politically. A majority of the U$

public wants to teach children fairy-tales

about the origins of species.(9)

In March, the Ohio Board of Education

voted to allow Christian creationist

teachings to criticize Darwin's theory of

evolution in biology classes. There is an

excellent explanation of the politics behind

that in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.(10)

Theocratic conservatives in Iran's Islamic

Republic, er, at the National Review have

also called for teaching "faith-based"

"science" against Darwin.(11)

One in ten Amerikans attend private

schools. 85% of those students are in

religious schools.(12) There are 7.6

million Catholic school attendees.(13) The

college situation is also bad in the United

$tates. In the years 1990 to 1996, college

enrollments grew fastest in religious

colleges: "Undergraduate enrollments at

religious colleges grew by 11 percent from

1990 to 1996 and continue to climb,

according to the U.S. Department of

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 7

courage in getting out their newspaper. It

is certainly good news for all progressive

forces and freedom of the press lovers

the world over."(2) Oh yes, they're

saying thank Bush, because now the ICP

can distribute its paper openly in Iraq.

There is no way Bush could find better

lackeys to prove that there is free speech

in Iraq.

Rumsfeld had his favorite Iraqi exile

lackey to bring back to Iraq in the invasion.

The "CP-USA" had its favorite lackeys

to help out Bush. The CP=U$A says,

"Iraqi communists exiled in London are a

vital conduit for accurate information from

inside the country. The party has

established a formidable reputation for

being exceptionally well-informed about

developments inside Iraq, among the

military and security apparatus and among

opposition groups."(3)

Don't be fooled by the CP=U$A

rhetoric about opposing the U$ war. It's

that rhetoric that makes you think the

CP=U$A is no different than MIM. The

ICP sister party of the CP=U$A has one

of only 25 seats in the top Iraqi body of

the occupation regime.

Bush=Bremer=ICP=CPU$A.

There is no factual dispute about this.

Again we quote the CP=U$A: "The ICP

is opposed to the present armed actions.

It estimates that political struggle can end

the occupation and armed struggle cannot.

Those conducting the armed attacks, the

ICP says, consist of Baathists trying to

restore the dictatorship, international

groups the ICP characterizes as `terrorist'

seeking a new reactionary dictatorship,

and criminal elements released from

prison by Saddam."(4) Yes, you read that

right. The CP=U$A and ICP are echoing

the Bush administration to a "t". They

oppose the liberation fight of the Iraqis

together as a united front.

In the same article, the CP=U$A openly

tells you that the U.S. Government put

the ICP in the Governing Council of Iraq:

"the U.S. recognized the council had to

have considerable popular support and at

the last moment gave in to demands to

include the ICP."(4) 25 seats up for grabs

from Uncle $am and Uncle $am reserved

one for "communist" lackeys in Iraq. That

was no elections, no revolution, not even

a coup--just Uncle $am putting someone

in the government.

It's not a surprise to MIM at all. The

CP=U$A and its sister parties

internationally have been serving

imperialism ever since Stalin died. This is

the party that supported Khruschev and

Brezhnev and did not change its tune even

after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

They are still denying Mao's thesis that a

bourgeoisie in the party came to power

and restored capitalism! Yet, there is no

explanation of who did restore capitalism

from the CP=U$A. That organization

simply does not care. The leaders are

cynical scum and their followers are as

directionless as jellyfish. They end up

cheerleading for the Amerika-first faction

of Perot, Buchanan, Nader and Kucinich,

because they are not truly for the

international proletariat, just the Amerikan

labor aristocracy's interests, including the

interests of the imperialists in Iraq.

Also supporting the CP=U$A is the

internationally influential phony

communist party called the Workers'

Party in Belgium (PTB). The CP=U$A

is the first party that PTB links to on its

web page for the U$A.(5) The PTB is a

party claiming to uphold Stalin but not

Mao. It provides a lot of camouflage for

the CP=U$A types. Belgians! Demand

that the PTB break with the ICP and

CP=U$A! Shame on the PTB for linking

to the CIA outfit called the CP=U$A!

That's not all, not at all, because there

are a lot more political debates among

those calling themselves communists.

Except for MIM, the other parties calling

themselves communist actually believe

those Amerikan civilians in Iraq are 90%

exploited people, not exploiters profiting

from the misery of Iraqis set up by

Amerikan sanctions and bombing. One

organization even calling itself "Maoist"

lately criticizes us saying that our

approach to Amerikan civilians even

justifies "terrorism."

So you see, dear reader, the so-called

communists do not agree with MIM even

about what class Amerikan people are.

The other so-called communists are

bleeding with sympathy for the Amerikan

contractors in Iraq, many of which turn

out to be "ex-" CIA and special forces,

which is not surprising given what a large

portion of the U$ population has such

links.

Yes, those other so-called communist

organizations actually think that tourism

in Iraq is good for international socialism.

Meanwhile, we at MIM do not think it's

going to come about by sending the

exploited to Iraq as civilians to join up with

the exploited there. That's a pipe dream

of all the other organizations that do not

realize that those civilians there are

profiteering on Iraqi misery.

We call on every honest communist to

condemn and boycott the "CP-USA" until

the Iraqi Communist Party withdraws

from the occupation government and

assists the liberation forces. Every

communist must ask every party where

it stands on the contractors in Iraq. MIM

says they are the enemy of the Iraqi

people and the international proletariat.

It's plain as day, but oddly enough, you

won't find any other "Marxists" inside

U$ borders saying it.

Notes:

1. If you did not hear about this, count

yourself in a cave. Here's one source:

USA Today 01Apr2004, p. 13a.

2. We are quoting from the "CP-

USA"'s own newspaper, People's

Weekly World, April 26, 2003 http://

www.pww.org/article/articleview/3336/1/

159/

3. http://www.pww.org/article/view/

2848/1/135/

4. People's Weekly World February 21,

2004. http://www.pww.org/article/

articleview/4819/1/203/

5. http://www.wpb.be/links.htm

Phony Iraqi Communist Party supports occupation of Iraq

Continued from page 3...

Education. At public schools,

undergraduate enrollments increased by

4 percent during those years. Enrollment

at nonreligious private institutions rose by

5 percent." (14) The most reactionary

group of born-again madrassas

constituting the 104 colleges of the

Council for Christian Colleges and

Universities have enrolled 1% of U.$.

college students and grew 47% in

enrollment in the 1990s.(15)

Notes:

1. http://www.williams.edu/AnthSoc/

wamp-nyt.htm

2. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/

i d e a s / a r t i c l e s / 2 0 0 4 / 0 4 / 0 4 /

rumors_of_jihad/

3. http://www.disinfopedia.org/

wiki.phtml?title=Rumsfeld_Memo_16_October_2003

4. http://www.usatoday.com/news/

nation/2001/09/27/schools.htm

5. http://www.cursor.org/stories/

oldnews.htm

6. http://www.afrotc.com/colleges/ A

list of Army ROTC schools is here: http:/

/www.armyrotc.com/schools/index.htm

7. http://slate.msn.com/

?id=1006213#ContinueArticle

8. www.sbuniv.edu/~khopkins/

WhyStatistics.pdf

9. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/

2004/03/11/news/top/news01.txt

10. http://www.cleveland.com/news/

plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/

107926172824530.xml

11. http://www.nationalreview.com/

comment/west200404010900.asp

12. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/

2001330.pdf

13. www.ncea.org/newinfo/faq/

14. www.freep.com/news/education/

15. From:www.washingtontimes.com/

national/20030908-121538-4058r.htm

Terror schools...

Militarism is war-mongering or the

advocacy of war or actual carrying out

of war or its preparations.

While true pacifists condemn all

violence as equally repugnant, we

Maoists do not consider self-defense

or the violence of oppressed nations

against imperialism to be militarism.

Militarism is mostly caused by

imperialism at this time. Imperialism

is the highest stage of capitalism--

seen in countries like the United

$tates, England and France.

Under capitalism, capitalists often

profit from war or its preparations.

Yet, it is the proletariat that does the

dying in the wars. The proletariat

wants a system in which people do not

have self-interest on the side of war-

profiteering or war for imperialism.

Militarism is one of the most

important reasons to overthrow

capitalism. It even infects oppressed

nations and causes them to fight each

other.

It is important not to let capitalists risk

our lives in their ideas about war and

peace or the environment. They have

already had two world wars admitted

by themselves in the last 100 years and

they are conducting a third right now

against the Third World.

Even a one percent annual chance of

nuclear war destruction caused by

capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as

the people call it should not be tolerated

by the proletariat. After playing

Russian Roulette (in which the bullet

chamber is different each time and not

related at all to the one that came up in

previous spins) with 100 chambers and

one bullet, the chance of survival is

only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other

words, a seemingly small one percent

annual chance of world war means

eventual doom. After 100 years or turns

of Russian Roulette, the chances of

survival are only 36.6%. After 200

years, survival has only a 13.4%

chance.

What is militarism?

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 8

By MC12

In 1969, U$ President Nixon proposed

"Vietnamization," which the New York

Times described as "the process whereby

United States forces are to turn over an

increasing share of their part of the war

effort to the South Vietnamese."(1) The

point was to leave behind a puppet

government with a surrogate army of

locals to do the fighting and dying --

always the dream of colonialists, who

want the profits and power they get from

occupying foreign countries without

having to shed their own cowardly blood

for it.

That is the goal in Iraq, too, of course.

But one problem for Amerika is there is

no government to even nominally take

over when the "transfer of sovereignty"

takes place. In both cases, it is important

to note, the Amerikan plan was not to

leave or give up control, just shift the

burden of the war to local surrogates. A

study by the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee in 1970 reported that "a

substantial American involvement would

still be required in South Vietnam" if the

policy was to succeed.(2)

The paternalistic, colonial mentality that

prevails in the rhetoric about Iraq was

also apparent in Vietnam. Nixon described

"Vietnamization" as a sort of therapy for

the over-generous or overzealous

Amerikan personality. He said on Nov.

3, 1969: "We Americans are a do-it-

yourself people -- we're an impatient

people. Instead of teaching someone else

to do a job, we like to do it ourselves.

And this trait has been carried over into

our foreign policy." Instead of following

this altruistic impulse, however, Nixon said

Amerika should transfer the responsibility

to the Vietnamese, so the poor, dependent

colonial subjects could learn to help

themselves. He said, "The defense of

freedom is everybody's business -- not

just America's business. And it is

particularly the responsibility of the people

whose freedom is threatened. . . . Under

the new orders, the primary mission of

our troops is to enable the South

Vietnamese to assume the full

responsibility for the security of South

Vietnam."(NYT 11/4/69, p. 16.)

When you consider Amerikan optimism

about Iraq, it's good to go back and look

at what the propagandists said about

Vietnam. The New York Times

editorialized in, 1969: "Most military men

agree that that South Vietnamese can be

prepared to take over all but helicopter

operations -- with, perhaps, some

Sham `transfer of power' in Iraq: deja vu all over again

American logistical and continuing air

support -- in less than eighteen

months."(NYT July 28, 1969, p. 30.) In

Vietnam, of course, the strategy was a

dismal failure, as the Vietnamese went

on to defeat Amerika in a rout by 1975.

The situation in Iraq is different than

Vietnam. But some things seem not to

have changed, especially Amerikan

line. Unilateral U$ intervention was a

mistake and created all the violence

we're now seeing in Iraq, they say, but

getting out will only make things worse.

This stubborn ignorance shows that

even Amerika's self-styled "best and

brightest" have no clue what it will take

to eliminate the threat of weapons of

mass destruction and end war. They

cannot connect the obvious dots:

Amerikan meddling in Afghanistan 25

years ago led to the World Trade Center

Bombings; Amerikan support for Saddam

Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war

backfired when he got too big for his

britches (as happened with numerous

other puppets like Noriega); etc. They are

surprised and outraged that "they" (the

oppressed masses) hate "us" (parasitical

Amerikans), while overlooking Amerikan

support for repressive regimes in the

name of Amerikan profit. They don't

understand that their ham-handed,

repressive response to "terrorism" will

only create more "terrorists." That's all

it's ever done in the past.

Furthermore, by their own reasoning,

the fact that they didn't "move heaven

and earth" (as President Bush would say)

to stop the invasion indicts them. If

Amerikans and the rest of the world are

now less safe than before the invasion,

as these Democratic "critics" argue, why

were they content to wait in the wings

and trade power with the Republicans and

the more militarist Democrats? Peace-

loving Amerikans need to break with

Is Iraq the new Vietnam?

these learned fools and their pragmatist

electoral dogma.

Then there those who fake left to run

right. These folks appear to agree with

MIM that U$ intervention in Vietnam was

unjust and doomed to failure. But then

these slimy pundits say, "No, Iraq is not

at all like Vietnam," and parrot the Bush

line as justification. Vietnamese

resistance to Amerikan intervention was

broad and just (or at least understandable)

on nationalist grounds, but the resistance

fighters in Iraq are isolated, they say, and

just a bunch of "riffraff." Diem was a

puppet and a boob, but Ahmed Chalabi is

a true Iraqi nationalist and clever

leader.(1) These smartasses play an

important role building support for U$

imperialism: undermine and confuse

opposition to the war while providing the

Amerikan warmongers an

"humanitarian" façade. It's a role they

play with gusto.

So what are some of the similarities that

MIM sees between Iraq and Vietnam?

1. They are both imperialist wars of

aggression, launched under the cover of

"liberating" an oppressed people or

"keeping the peace." The stated reasons

for the recent Iraq ground invasion keep

changing, as each is debunked in turn.

First it was weapons of mass destruction;

then it was the well being of the Iraqi

people; now it's combating "terrorism."

But as soon as Bush, Cheney, Pearle and

Wolfowitz started shooting their mouths

off after 911, MIM warned that the

imperialists' own system was driving them

to war in Iraq, and they were looking for

a handy justification. The Amerikans'

push to retain and expand control of

middle-eastern oil was one of the deeper

reasons for the war. In particular, the

United $tates wanted a puppet regime

that would act as a permanent U$ military

base in the region, to replace politically

sensitive bases in Saudi Arabia.

For that matter, Iraq isn't the "new"

Vietnam; it's the latest. Since the end of

the Vietnam War the United $tates has

waged war covertly or overtly against

Nicaragua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Libya,

Panama, and Afghanistan, to name a few.

These wars are all battles in the ongoing

World War III between the imperialists

and the oppressed nations.

2. As a corollary to 1, the peoples of

Iraq have an interest in uniting to kick out

the Amerikans on the grounds of national

self-determination, just as the Vietnamese

did. The Amerikans' claims that they are

bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq

are a bad joke, coming on the heels of

reports that Amerikan soldiers are

shutting down newspapers, firing on

demonstrators, and bombing mosques.

Furthermore, as we note in this issue's

article on the impending draft, "Economic

reality says that [Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis and

Shiites] will be better off sharing their

resources among themselves rather than

among themselves and the

Amerikkkans."

3. As in Vietnam, the reactionaries have

serious illusions about their own strength

(which they overestimate), popular

support for their puppet regime (close to

nil), and the nature of the resistance

(which is not limited to a few "thugs," as

arrogance and over-confidence, the

colonial/imperialist mentality, and the drive

to conquer Third World countries to try

to keep the empire alive.

Notes:

1. New York Times, 16 Nov 1969, p. 2.

2. New York Times, 2 Feb 1970, p. 1.

President Richard Nixon had it all figured out. Wrong.

Continued from page 1...

Continued on next page...

Peace-loving Amerikans need to break
with these learned fools and their
pragmatist electoral dogma.

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · Page 9

get a rush like we get from Guns N'Roses

but some other way? Again, for those

conquering subjectivism and preparing the

all-round dictatorship of the proletariat,

the answer is "yes." We don't think it's

necessary that music have that sick

component, so we're for revolutionizing

it.

Leon Trotsky said some good and bad

things about art, but the bad things were

mostly a concession to Liberalism and that

is how Trotsky is known relative to Stalin

and Mao. Trotsky did say this: "During

the period of revolution, only that literature

which promotes the consolidation of the

workers in their struggle against the

exploiters is necessary and progressive.

Revolutionary literature cannot but be

imbued with a spirit of social hatred, which

is a creative historic factor in an epoch

of proletarian dictatorship."(1) MIM is

OK with that line from Trotsky, but we

will note that he says revolutionary art is

necessary and progressive, but he does

not say the dictatorship of the proletariat

is going to attack and ban reactionary art.

Then weaving in the concept of the

party as the dictatorship of the proletariat

the way Rosa Luxemburg did against

Lenin, Trotsky said: "Art must make its

own way and by its own means. The

Marxian methods are not the same as the

artistic. The party leads the proletariat but

not the historic processes of history. There

are domains in which the party leads,

directly and imperatively. There are

domains in which it only cooperates.

There are, finally, domains in which it only

orients itself. The domain of art is not one

in which the party is called upon to

command."(1)

Later, Trotsky would develop this line

further to its logical conclusion and

oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat

as "totalitarian." "No less ruinous is the

effect of the `totalitarian' regime upon

artistic literature. The struggle of

tendencies and schools has been replaced

by interpretation of the will of the leaders.

There has been created for all groups a

general compulsory organization, a kind

of concentration camp of artistic

literature."(2) The Cold War machine

picked up and echoed every Trotsky

criticism supporting subjectivism.

In his same major work Trotsky said

about Stalin: "In the process of struggle

against the party Opposition, the literary

schools were strangled one after the

other. It was not only a question of

literature, either. The process of

extermination took place in all ideological

spheres, and it took place more decisively

since it was more than half unconscious.

The present ruling stratum considers itself

called not only to control spiritual creation

politically, but also to prescribe its roads

of development. The method of

command- without-appeal extends in like

measure to the concentration camps, to

scientific agriculture and to music. The

central organ of the party prints

anonymous directive editorials, having the

character of military orders, in

architecture, literature, dramatic art, the

ballet, to say nothing of philosophy, natural

science and history."(2)

Trotskyists of our day continue the

theme that art and politics are separate,

that barbarians fail to recognize why

artistic subjectivity cannot be subject to

the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bob

Avakian said for example, "art plays a

crucial role in precisely this--the forging

of new outlooks. This is true whether the

subject matter of art is explicitly political

or not.

"It is not difficult to understand why

there has been a historic tendency among

Marxists to confound art with politics per

se, and particularly with political agitation

and propaganda."(3) So here Avakian

defends art that is not explicitly political

and creates the space for art for its own

sake, and seeing art as apart from politics

as Avakian's ideological ancestor Trotsky

did. Art is not agitation, but the substance

of artistic skill itself is subject to an all-

round dictatorship of the proletariat.

Otherwise the bourgeoisie will rule.

What all Liberalism including

Trotskyism has in common is the common

attack that we Marxist scientists missed

the point. For them, it's what people "like"

or "don't like" and supposedly us square

and retro communist scientists don't get

it-- even when the MIM reviewer admits

to liking Guns N'Roses. Resistance to

MIM's music line is reminiscent of the

same pseudo-rebellion by teenage

wannabe smokers.

When we tell the Liberals there has to

be a party or body of scientists deciding

what is good or bad for society in terms

of art and music, they say, "who are you

to decide?" We should throw back in their

face, "who are you to decide that mega-

corporations should decide?" The whole

question of "totalitarianism" is based on

an illusion that someone is not deciding

currently.

Our critics' approach denies that in

science, someone always does decide. For

that matter, Einstein's theory of relativity

is not up for a vote based on what people

"like." In economics, these same

subjectivist people are apt to believe that

they are really making individual decisions

under capitalism when in reality it's the

boardrooms of corporations, the Pentagon

and the White House making the major

decisions and letting individuals pick within

their boundaries.

Preparing for the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat

Combating subjectivism in all arenas

Continued from page 3...

they claim). These reactionaries have

started to believe their own press

releases--in part because of everyday

bourgeois corruption and careerism (the

bosses like it if you tell them what they

want to hear). Those who avoid this

mistake still do not grasp the deeper issues

and merely quibble over tactics--witness

those Democratic "critics" who are now

among the most militant in calling for more

imperialist troops in Iraq.

4. The Amerikan media serves as a

mouthpiece for the Amerikan

government. Contrary to the myth

created by the "stab-in-the-back"

militarists, the Amerikan media was not

critical of Amerikan involvement in

Vietnam in the early sixties and largely

served to re-issue Kennedy administration

press releases. Even after some reporters

in Vietnam could no longer stomach the

obvious disconnect between

Washington's statements and reality in the

field, they did not question the underlying

rationale for the war (e.g. "South

Vietnam" was a viable "nation").

The situation is even worse today, as

fewer Amerikan media companies invest

in international correspondents. Most of

those in Iraq now fly in for a few weeks

on Pentagon-sponsored junkets and live

in the "green zone" or are "embedded"

with Amerikan troops. Few muster the

courage to ask even the obvious

questions.(2)

We agree with Howard Zinn's

observation: "I think the press has been

shamefully negligent in not asking

fundamental questions.... They will ask,

`Did Iraq have weapons of mass

destruction?' They will not ask, `Well,

what if Iraq did have weapons of mass

destruction, would we be justified in going

in and invading another country, because

they, among many, many other countries

in the world have weapons of mass

destruction?' Or you'll find the press

saying, `It was wrong because we had to

do it alone.' You mean if we had allies in

a war that was fundamentally immoral

and illegal that would legitimatize it? So

I'm finding a similarity [between Iraq and

Vietnam] in the basic lack of analysis and

lack of fundamental questioning that is

going on in the media."(3)

The biggest difference between

Vietnam and Iraq is in the subjective

forces. The Vietnamese revolutionaries

were greatly influenced by Maoism,

especially as it applied to the class

struggle within Vietnam (peasants against

landlords, comprador capitalists and

corrupt puppet politicians) and military

theory (protracted people's war). The

Vietnamese also had decades of hard-

won experience fighting guerrilla wars

against imperialist invaders, from the

Japanese to the French to the Amerikans.

The Iraqi fighters are quickly gaining such

military experience; this difference will

disappear with time. If the Iraqi resistance

fighters go on to take up proletarian

internationalism and thus strengthen the

unity of the oppressed peoples of Iraq--

then the imperialists will really be forced

to take increasingly desperate measures.

Peace-loving Amerikans must take

action now--by organizing to stop the

draft before it starts, by organizing to stop

Patriot-Act style measures, by organizing

in support of oppressed peoples fighting

for their self-determination--to try and

avoid a disastrous escalation of imperialist

war later.

Notes:

1. See e.g. Hitchens' comments in the

Boston Phoenix's cover story of April 16.

2. We mention one small exception.

During a recent press briefing in Iraq, an

Amerikan general praised the occupation

regime for fostering a free press and

chided Amerikan journalists for not

visiting Fallujah to get the "real story." A

journalist responded by asking the general

why Amerikans had not let him into

Fallujah, although he had been asking for

days. Nobody asked the general to

comment on the occupation regime

shutting down Iraqi newspapers, however.

3. Boston Phoenix 16 April 2004.

Is Iraq the new Vietnam?

Continued from previous page...

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · 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

Join the fight against

the injustice system

While we fight to end the criminal

injustice system MIM engages in

reformist battles to improve the lives

of prisoners. Below are some of the

campaigns we are currently waging,

and ways people behind the bars and

on the outside can get involved. More

info can be found on our prison web

site: http://www.etext.org/Politics/

MIM/agitation/prisons

Stop Censorship in Prison: Prisons

frequently censor books, newspapers

and magazines coming from MIM's

books for prisoners program. We need

help from lawyers, paralegals and

jailhouse lawyers to fight this

censorship.

Books for Prisoners: This program

focuses on political education of

prisoners. Send donations of books and

money for our Books for Prisoners

program.

End the Three Strikes laws: This

campaign is actively fighting the

repressive California laws, but similar

laws exist in other states. Write to us

to request a petition to collect

signatures. Send articles and

information on three strike laws.

Shut Down the Control Units: Across

the country there are a growing number

of prison control units. These are

permanently designated prisons or cells

in prisons that lock prisoners up in

solitary or small group confinement for

22 or more hours a day with no

congregate dining, exercise or other

services, and virtually no programs for

prisoners. Prisoners are placed in

control units for extended periods of

time. These units cause both mental and

physical problems for prisoners.

Write to us to request a petition to

collect signatures. Get your

organization to sign the statement

demanding control units be shut down.

Send us information about where there

are control units in your state. Include

the names of the prisons as well as the

number of control unit beds/cells in

each prison if that is known. Send us

anti-control unit artwork.

MIM's Re-Lease on Life Program:

This program provides support for our

comrades who have been recently

released from the prison system, to help

them meet their basic needs and also

continue with their revolutionary

organizing on the outside. We need

funds, housing, and job resources. We

also need prisoner's input on the

following survey questions:

1. What are the biggest challenges

you face being released from prison?

2. How can these problems be

addressed?

3. What are the important elements

of a successful release program?

Lifers in NY want

Good Time

Greeting Comrades!
I am a prisoner in the state of NY doing 25

years to life. I've been involved in a few lifers
programs here in the facility and one of our main
goals is fighting for good time for lifers. It seems
like we are not getting too much support from
organizations around the world. I'm asking why,
if we are part of the struggle, that is going on?

I read your (MIM) forms you sent out talking

about what your organization is about and I'm
feeling what you're fighting. I am also a great
admirer of communism and also feel that it would
be a way better life for our people to live.

[I] would love to help your organization in any

way I can. I have no money or stamps right now
to donate. Right now I am in the SHU for 15
months. I'm sorry.

Power to the people,
--a New York Prisoner, March 2004

Family contact in NY

This facility has just enforced an unconstitutional

(8th, 14th Amendments) policy. This facility does
not allow prisoners to hold their children during
the visiting hours. This policy is in direct violation
of the Directives. Due to your organizations
concern for prisoners, I only ask for a simple
solution.

Can you please call this number and express

your complaint that the policy being enforced by
the staff at Great Meadow Correctional Facility is
unconstitutional and in violation of Directives.

Phone: (518) 457-1993 - this is the number for

visiting room related Complaints.

This type of action should not be tolerated, it's

a further form of breaking bondage with family,
slave trade tactics!

--a New York Prisoner, March 2004

Help Build Prisoner

Re-Lease on Life

Regarding the Serve the People Prisoner Re-

Lease on Life Program; I believe that what is most
important is providing ways for ex-prisoners to
meet their basic needs -- food, clothes and shelter,
and these things can be obtained through being
gainfully employed. No man (or woman) wants a
hand- out, so by helping to provide ex-prisoners
with employment, they will not only be able to
provide for themselves, but also they will feel
more independent, raising his/her sense of self-
worth (self-esteem), rendering them more
productive, and a greater asset in the struggle.
Keeping ex- prisoners involved in the struggle
should prove to be an easy matter.

Anyone who has been in prison, and once

released, turns their back on the struggle, was not
really conscious regarding revolutionary struggle
from the beginning, but was only involved in such
activities in order to pass time. I don't believe that
a person in this imperialist country can be more
oppressed than its prisoners. Once aware of true/
correct revolutionary ideology and theory
(Marxism-Leninism-Maoism), and they are given
stable avenue in which to practice those ideologies
and theories (actually BE revolutionaries and not
merely ideological strugglers), then I'm confident
that they will not only stay involved once released

from prison, but will prove to be valuable assets.

With the Re-Lease on Life Program, MIM will

establish a sense of legitimacy in the eyes of ex-
prisoners because they will see that MIM is
walking the talk and that they are really here to
support the people. Revolution in and of itself is
illegal, so there's no way to keep a revolutionary
out of trouble, but keeping them out of non-
revolutionary situations entails continuously
raising their level of consciousness and directing
that energy towards revolutionary goals through
study groups, workshops, MIM volunteer work,
assisting USW leaders, etc.!

--A New York Prisoner, April 2004

On the "Serve the People Prisoner Re-Lease on

Life Program" you asked me for input on "How to
provide for people when they get out to keep
them out of trouble & involved in the struggle?"
Well, my Bro & Sis, coming from a brother who's
been here multiple times, the biggest worry &
downer for people coming home is, where they
gonna live? As we speak we have a comrade about
to go home in 2 days. A GOOD brother who's
been striving to stay clean and involved in positive
organizing. He doesn't know where he's going to
live and the stress has gotten to him severely. The
system won't help him cuz he's maxing out (no
parole) so he's assed out. His first steps are to go
get drugs to sell to provide for himself a place to
stay, second to get high to get his mind of the
problem, BOOM, then what, he's back to his old
cycle. We all have a common understanding that
this capitalist system is exploiting our people in
many ways, prison is ONE. I hate to say it, but
the system has his deck set up to lose and come
back to get them more money.

What do we do to break the cycle is the question?

We need to set up housing, temporary housing for
Bro & Sis. just coming out of jail, that will show
we don't just talk about giving back to our
community be we doing it! And a comrade sees
that Love, it will encourage him/her to show love
to the next. We must first revolutionize the way
we live as a community before we revolutionize
the existing order of things. Second, to get them
out of the temp housing they need a job to provide
4 his/her self. A job placement program, we find
the jobs, teach them bro/sis how to talk in an
interview, help them with resumes and
transportation. Through all of this process is where
you encourage the comrades to get involved in the
struggle, you don't ever want to force feed
someone cuz it will backfire. We need people who
do this from the heart, not cuz they obligated.
Well my Bro & Sis, I close this letter for now until
the next time.

Revolutionary Greeting to all,
--a New York Prisoner, April 2004

MIM responds: As our readers can see, the

need for the Re-Lease on Life program is great. We
are currently soliciting resources in the forms of
housing and job opportunities. We are also exploring
different options for providing treatment for
addictions and planning ways to immerse comrades
in the struggle upon their release. This is
particularly urgent in NY and CA, but wherever
you live there are prisons nearby and there is the
need for such a program. Get in touch with MIM
to begin building it.

Walls of Destruction

Take off your shoes, socks, and shirt. Now take

off your boxers. Squat, spread your cheeks and
cough. Again, cough. Louder!

Imagine that, but it's security, or is that the

abuse of authority? Okay, now let's walk in and
see Corcoran-SHU. Wait, listen--did you hear
that? "Ahh! I can't take this anymore! Why!
Why!" Don't worry about him, he's a killer or
he's serving life for stealing only because it's the
Three Strike Law. It's understandable, it just
"makes society safer." He's just a low life, he has
no education, he's a drug addict. Just another
criminal off the streets or is he a perpetrator? That's
what the news says, doesn't it? No, let me tell
you who that person is. He's a J-Cat, a term used
by inmates but deriving from prison psychologists.
It means Category J, which is an inmate who's
normal mind state has deteriorated from stress,
anxiety, misery, psychological disorders, all due
to external influences.

This place is called the Department of

"Corrections." I wonder how a place can drive a
man insane when it's supposed to correct him.
Here's the government's all time favorite word:
rehabilitation. But once again, how can such a place

MIM Notes 301 · May 1, 2004 · 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.

do such dehumanizing things to people? This place
is not for rehabilitation but for psychologically
destroying the minds of the people it holds captive.

The people in here lose their normal state of

mind. It becomes so weak that whatever the guards
wish is their command. Prisoners not only tell on
inmates in hopes of their time being shortened,
but they also tell lies which will satisfy the guards
assumptions of the living functions in prison. How
can that possibly be rehabilitation? People are so
blind to see it. They think these places help society,
but in reality, it's psychological torture. It makes
strong men so weak that they are, in reality,
mentally crawling on the floor, begging for a taste
of that sweet apple pie that is on the outside world
and they are willing to do what it takes to taste the
pie.

I am a person who believes that for every action

comes a reaction and that every unjust crime should
have a punishment. While I do believe that it should
be imprisonment, there should be treatment and
training with true correction and not just all
education and training either a few or none and all.
To top it all off, after serving time and supposedly
paying dues to society, prisoners lose their right
to bear arms but we're still supposedly a threat to
society. Or better yet, we gave up our rights. If a
place which didn't breed hatred, anger, and pain
instead gave righteous programs to us, programs
guaranteeing jobs with good surviving pay then
we would have no reason to rob, steal, or even kill.

-- A California Prisoner, April 2004

California moves to

take away appliances

On December 30, 2003, the California

Department of Corrections (CDC) issued an
amendment to several sections of Title 15 of
California Code of Regulations to incorporate into
the directors' rules of provisions regarding
prisoners statewide vender packages program with
the intentions of implementing immediately. One
of the sections of Title 15 to be amended is Section
3044(9)(4)(G). What Sacramento is attempting to
do is take all appliances (radios and televisions)
from all SHU prisoners. Sacramento's justification
for this attempt is to comply with Governor
Terminator's budget cuts which, you can be sure,
us prisoners will be the first to experience.

According to the CDC's fiscal impact

statement, taking our appliances will supposedly
save the state nearly $2 million. Although how
this is supposed to save the state nearly $2 million
was unexplained. I think what's really being stated
through their unscientific fiscal impact statement
is that by taking our televisions and radios, this
will be one of the many methods of insuring the
continuance of the overpayment of these prison
guards and prisoncrats at our expense. And we all
know too well when many of these SHU prisoners
are released to general population and order another
radio or television, the CDC will be more than
happy to collect another 10% of inmate welfare
fund from the prisoners as well as its usual kickback
from the state prison's chosen vendor.

Past experiences with the CDC's tactics of

taking away our once hard earned and fought for
rights clearly demonstrate to us that similar stunts
as this one are usually not implemented at one
time but are generally implemented here and there,
slowly, with the purpose of avoiding mass
resistance. Unfortunately and quite shamefully to
us prisoners, this tactic of theirs has proven very
effective. Should this proposal concerning our
televisions and radios be implemented, it is most
likely, although not certainly, that they'll begin
their confiscation campaign with the SHU facilities
furthest South and work their way North.

That is, if we let them.
On March 5, 2004, which has come and past,

the CDC's Regulation and Policy Management
Branch held a public hearing regarding suggestions,
complains, etc., pertaining to this proposal. What
came of this is uncertain as of the present time.

Any complaints or a copy of the proposal can

be obtained from:
Rick Grenz, Chief
Regulation and Policy Management Branch
(RPMB)
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001

Through a united struggle from within, this can

be prevented.

-- A California Prisoner, March 14, 2004

Censorship Victory

I wish I could have responded sooner but my

struggle against censorship has meant sly threats,
appeals forms disappearing, and withholding my
mail. In September, you sent me a 60-page print
out of Mao and Lenin's stand on property and
state but I was only given 20 pages. The other 40
pages I either had to send home, back to you, or
destroy and since I am indigent, I had no choice
but to let these pigs get away with this injustice.

Suffice to say, I took it to Sacramento where

my appeal was granted for once. Then, all of a
sudden, I was being moved to different blocks. I'd
be in one building for a period of 3 to 5 days, then
be told to pack all of my stuff because I was going
to another building. So I filed another appeal for
harassment and retaliation, plus cruel and unusual
punishment. The moves have stopped. The pigs
are not fucking with me at all! It seems like a
dream but I know as soon as they get a chance,
they will turn a dream into a nightmare.

-- A California Prisoner, February 2004

Let us be honest with ourselves. We don't

actually believe we're American. Though some
value their U.S. citizenship, we are not the true
beneficiaries of America's empire. If we were actual
Americans, we would see ourselves reflected in
the movers and shakers of this society. The fact
that we don't unveils our second class status. In
truth, we are only allowed to subsist so long as we
remain fragmented, indoctrinated and conform.

One place where we do see ourselves reflected

is in the prison industrial complex. Let us be
courageous and face this reality, then begin to
investigate why the numbers of the internal
colonies continue to grow in these oppressive
institutions. We need to reevaluate those reasons
that perpetuate our current oppression which will
require us to reexamine the entire effect of the
justice system, from the legality of the institutions
that enforce laws to the definition of crime.

This should inevitably bring us to the realization

that we live under imperialistic conditions. Like
all imperialist societies, do not doubt that white
America's primary interest is to ensure its mental
and material domination over its internal colonies.
One way this is effectively accomplished in our
time is by the "prison industrial complex" (PIC)
which is directly derived from the "reservational
military complex." Both are off shoots of the
justice system.

Let us finally admit that the justice system is

not designed to counter crime. One analyst
accurately described the justice system as operating
with a policy of "Pyrrhic defeat," a term that
derives from an academic study of Pyrrhic victory,
"a victory in one battle that cripples the winning
army to such a degree that it cannot win the war .
. . It loses against its professed targets but yields
such benefits to those in power that it amounts to
success." The fact is, the justice system does not
want to eradicate crime because of the larger
benefits of national oppression. If the justice
system did want to reduce crime, it would simply
do those things that actually amount to reduction
like cure poverty, provide adequate education,
decriminalize drugs, etc. So if we can infer that the
main function of the justice system is not to reduce
crime, then its only serviceable purpose must be
to perpetuate itself and imperialism as each is
dependent on the other.

Imperialism cannot exist without the

maintenance of a massive PIC to serve as an
effective deterrent against opposition. (I.e., prisons
serve to disenfranchise, marginalize, intimidate,
and terrorize its internal colonies and opponents
or potential opponents.) And the PIC can not exist
without imperialism which only flourishes by way
of exploitation, oppression, neo- colonialism,
classism and racism.

From their imperialistic viewpoint, the justice

system and PIC have indeed accomplished their
goals. First, they established a system that would
disadvantage their internal colonies to such a degree
that they are unable to completely compete.

Secondly, they created an industry (the PIC) that
would be self-sustaining.

Here in California, the state opposes and defines

other forms of nationalism, be it Mexican, Indian,
African and/or socialism as criminal or terrorist to
justify the prevalence of its PIC. In this way, the
PIC serves to "legitimately" exterminate any
independent progressive political or economic
development of its internal colonies. This becomes
an undeniable fact when we recognize that prisons
are efficient tools of division. Prisons serve to
remove certain segments of society, to sever
families, to subdivide ethnicities and to marginalize
classes.

When we look at the racial make up of prisoners,

it becomes apparent that prisons are the means by
which imperialism warehouses, exploits and
oppresses its internal colonies and the poor. Thus,
from a functionary analysis, we can conclude that
prisons play a fundamental part in America's
imperialistic policy and this policy is legitimately
achieved by laws.

We must admit that every facet of law and its

enforcement is about protecting white national
interest. Therefore, laws are the tools for socio-
economic and political domination of one class/
nation over another class/nation. This becomes
particularly true when we acknowledge the
arbitrary selective application of defined notions
of criminality.

Crime is a term used to describe actions that

defeat the ruling classes' power and influence. (As
America is not per se opposed to certain acts,
only whom and what those acts are against.) It is
no secret that most crime results from the grossly
disproportionate distribution of means and
material. That is, most crime develops under
specific conditions, not due to a frame of mind but
due to material conditions that give rise to a frame
of mind. Indeed, economic disparity is the
causation of social divisions called "classes" and
any aggressive activity, economically motivated
by the impoverished classes can be interpreted as
"reactionary" against oppression via imperialism.
So it is not by coincidence but by design that the
internal colonies and impoverished classes are
categorized as criminal. Just as it was criminal to
be Indian under the "reservational military
complex," the state continues to label those it
considers undesirable as criminal. Only now,
imperialism cannot be so blatantly discriminatory
so it utilizes weaknesses in our communities, like
poverty, to maintain its authority.

We can concede society from an economic

perspective that where imperialism creates
industry (PIC), the primary objective for that
industry is growth. As the middle class and labor
aristocracy clamor for more police, laws and
prisons, that growth is occurring before our very
eyes. Leaving the internal colonies and the
impoverished classes faced with a prison pandemic
which can only be countered by a massive education
campaign and a united bloc.

We need to shed this passive second class status

and gloriously arise to face the sun. If we're burnt
at first, it is because we have been bowed for too
long!

-- A California Prisoner, March 2004

Prison industrial complex and imperialism

MIM Notes 300 · May 1, 2004 · Page 12

Notas Rojas

mayo 1, 2004, Nº 301 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista

Gratis

12 de Diciembre

Activistas latinos sostuvieron un boicot

en todo el estado de California para protestar
la decisión tomada por el gobernador Arnold
Schwarzenegger el 3 de diciembre de revocar

la ley de licencias de conducir que hubiera
otorgado el derecho de conducir a los
llamados inmigrantes ilegales. Iniciado con la

intención de demostrar el poder económico
de los latinos en California, el boicot que sólo
duró un día, se convirtió en una huelga

económica en la que los latinos del estado se
quedaron en casa en vez de ir al trabajo o al
colegio, y se negaron a ir de compras.

Una tercera parte de la población

californiana es latina y las industrias del
estado cuentan con la mano de obra latina,

cuya contribución a la fuerza trabajadora
asciende a un 45%, sobre todo en trabajos
pesados y de poco pago que otra gente no

quiere. De las nacionalidades latinas en
California, los mexicanos constituyen la
mayoría abrumadora-- un 80% según los

resultados del censo del 2000. (1) Comparada
demográficamente, esta huelga fue
compuesta en su mayoría por líderes y

participantes mexicanos, poniendo en
evidencia el nacionalismo mexicano
acompañado de banderas mexicanas volando

al viento en las protestas y en las calles del
estado.

Los colegios en distritos densamente

poblados por latinos reportaron una dramática
ausencia de estudiantes; algunos negocios
cerraron sus puertas en solidaridad con la

acción, y muchas calles llenas de tiendas
carecían de consumidores. El periódico
Fresno Bee reportó que la ausencia en el

condado de Fresno costó a los distritos
escolares aproximadamente 500,000 dólares.
Es difícil acertar el impacto económico sobre

las tiendas, pero juzgando por la ausencia de
estudiantes en colegios públicos a través del
estado, la participación en el boicot aparenta

ser extensa. Varios negocios entrevistados
por principales medios de comunicación
cerraron sus tiendas debido a su

reconocimiento de la contribución por parte
de la mano de obra barata de los inmigrantes
a sus ganancias monetarias. La pérdida

económica a causa de un solo día del paro,
aunque sea durante una temporada festiva,
no es nada comparada con las posibles

pérdidas a las que se enfrentarían los negocios
si perdieran sus trabajadores. Esta decisión
sin duda alguna también fue impulsada por el

punto de vista práctico de algunas compañías
que sabían que la mayoría de sus trabajadores
planeaban apoyar el boicot faltando al

trabajo.

Las demostraciones que tuvieron lugar a

través del estado, fueron formadas por grupos

de huelguistas latinos y algunas personas de
origen no latino que se unieron en
solidaridad. En pueblos con un gran número

de habitantes latinos como Fresno y Santa
Rosa cientos de protestantes salieron a las
calles. En Sacramento, enfrente de la casa del

estado, cientos de protestantes latinos
hicieron poco caso a la lluvia para unirse a la
lucha. El llamativo grupo recibió mucho

respaldo por parte de carros que pitaban en
apoyo de los carteles escritos pidiendo

licencias de manejo y derechos iguales a los
inmigrantes latinos.

La gran mayoría de participantes en las

demostraciones públicas fueron personas
mexicanas, siendo algunas de ellas residentes
legales y otras ilegales. La frontera imperialista

entre U.$. y México refuerza el robo de latierra
mexicana por parte de EE.UU. y mantiene a la
gente en México, y en todos los países de

América Latina, en pobreza convirtiéndola en
un blanco perfecto para la explotación. La
llamada inmigración ilegal provee al estado

de California con la mano de obra barata que
se utiliza en los campos y en otros trabajos
mal pagados y destructivos para la salud

física que los americanos blancos no quieren.
Al mismo tiempo, corporaciones americanas
tienen la libertad de poner fábricas al otro

lado de la frontera y mantener sueldos bajos,
porque los trabajadores mexicanos no pueden
cruzar la frontera para competir por los

mismos trabajos con ciudadanos americanos.

El MIM respalda dicha huelga económica

siendo ésta un ejemplo de una lucha obrera

correcta en contra de la explotación que es
parte de una larga lucha de liberación nacional.
EE.UU. es el país que está ocupando

ilegalmente las tierras mexicanas; los
americanos son los inmigrantes ilegales que
masacraron a poblaciones indígenas para

robarles su territorio. La lucha por el derecho
a licencias de conducir es sólo una pequeña
batalla en una larga pelea por una abolición

de fronteras imperialistas y una liberación
nacional de los pueblos oprimidos del mundo.

Convocado por la Asociación Política

México-Americana con su base en Los
Ángeles, el boicot no obtuvo ningún respaldo
por parte de sindicatos laborales. Es posible

que, dado el corto plazo de la convocatoria,
los organizadores de la protesta no hayan
solicitado ayuda sindical. Pero no nos

sorprende el hecho de que los sindicatos no
hayan sido representados en las
demostraciones dominadas por la presencia

de inmigrantes mexicanos. Los sindicatos
americanos tienen una larga historia de
oposición a los trabajadores inmigrantes y

de organización por los derechos de
trabajadores blancos en detrimento de las
naciones oprimidas. Los sindicatos

americanos respaldan el cierre de las fronteras
por miedo a perder puestos de trabajo que
pueden pasar a manos de inmigrantes o

pueden ser transferidos a otros países. Dichos
sindicatos luchan para mantener el alto nivel
de vida del que disfrutan los ciudadanos de

este país a costa de los países del tercer
mundo. Los trabajadores del tercer mundo
son explotados por corporaciones americanas

que traen las ganancias a casa y las
comparten con los trabajadores americanos
en forma de sueldos más altos y beneficios.

Los inmigrantes ilegales dentro de las
fronteras americanas se enfrentan a semejante
explotación.

Manifestantes del

Alojamiento de la

Unidad de Seguridad

se unen a la protesta.

Una demostración en frente del

Departamento Correccional de California en

Sacramento (CDC), convocada por el Comité
de Defensa del Barrio, una organización
comunitaria en San José, atrajo la atención de

gente a las unidades de máxima seguridad
(SHU) de las prisiones de California, cuyas
celdas de tortura se usan para encerrar a

muchos prisioneros latinos en confinamiento
solitario por tiempo indefinido. Estas
sentencias se aplican a supuestos miembros

de pandillas, pero los criterios que definen a
miembros de pandilla ponen bajo sospecha a
todos los latinos. Tanto una conversación en

un área de recreo de la prisión como un tatuaje
o una dedicatoria en una tarjeta de
cumpleaños, bastan para tachar de

sospechoso a un prisionero. Los prisioneros
activos políticamente llegan a ser blancos de
estos criterios, de modo que se les retira de

patios de recreo para que no puedan
influenciar en y educar a otros prisioneros.
Un líder del Comité de Defensa del Barrio

explica que "Juzgando por los resultados del
proceso judicial (llevado a cabo por el senado
del SHU) el 15 de septiembre del 2003, el costo

estimado de mantenimiento de una persona
en el SHU vacila entre 60,000 y 70,000 dólares,
lo cual implica un gasto inútil de millones de

dólares. Steve Castillo ha estado en el SHU
por ocho años sólo por ser abogado. Hugo
Pinell lleva un sinfín de años en el SHU por

sus ideales políticos! John Martínez fue
encerrado en el SHU por cuestionar la
brutalidad en Corcoran! Francisco Cesar Villa

está en el SHU por pedir el número correcto
de zapatos! José Luis Avina y Eddie
Bustamente están en el SHU por participar en

una huelga de hambre en 1999 en la prisión
de New Folsom. Al fin y al cabo, el único
remedio que queda es organizar a gente afuera

de las cárceles para poder llevar a cabo
cambios fundamentales y cerrar las unidades
de máxima seguridad."

Los manifestantes que se reunieron

enfrente del CDC marcharon a la casa de
estado para unirse a la demostración. Los

huelguistas firmaron una petición circulada
por el MIM para cerrar las unidades de máxima
seguridad, y muchos hablaron de sus

experiencias personales o sus parientes que
están encerrados en esos lugares.

Un pequeño grupo de activistas le entregó

una carta a la Senadora Gloria Romero,
presidenta del Comité del Senado Selecto
encargado del Sistema Correccional de

California, exigiendo un cierre del SHU. Hacía
unos meses, Romero había tenido un proceso
judicial para investigar las unidades de máxima

seguridad (véase MN 289), pero desde
entonces los activistas no habían obtenido
ningún tipo de información.

Romero no se encontraba en su oficina

pero su representante Rocky Rushing, quien
accedió a hablar con los activistas, explico

que el CDC se había reunido con el Comité la
semana anterior justo para informar sobre el

"progreso" respecto a las demandas
presentadas en el proceso judicial. Deducimos
que el CDC no iba a implementar ningún

cambio. El CDC accedió a hacer unos
pequeños cambios en el proceso de
implementación de criterios que establecen

la definición de "miembro de pandilla", lo cual
haría posible que los presos argumentaran y
cuestionaran las evidencias presentadas. Sin

embargo, la mayoría de las evidencias se
mantiene en secreto, y el CDC no hizo ningún
caso de las respuestas de los presos, de modo

que estos cambios no tienen ningún sentido.
El CDC también accedió a hacer algunos
cambios en el programa del SHU. Pero estos

cambios también son insignificantes ya que
se enfocan en la educación sobre pandillas y
en terapia. De esta forma, el CDC puede

pretender que el SHU en realidad está
solucionando el problema de las pandillas en
las prisiones de California, en vez de proveer

los medios necesarios como bibliotecas,
educación y programas de recreación.

Los activistas solicitaron información al

representante de la Senadora Romero sobre
las demandas entabladas por familiares y
amigos de los presos en el reciente proceso

judicial (es decir, sobre las promesas de la
senadora). El representante respondió que
esta responsabilidad había sido relegada al

CDC que se encargaría de revisar todas las
quejas, y que para este propósito el CDC
había recibido la transcripción del proceso.

¡Además informó que el CDC sostenía que
todos los problemas habían sido
solucionados! Claro está, los organizadores

del SHU no vieron a ningún representante
del CDC en el proceso judicial, en el cual
alrededor de cien personas dieron su

testimonio sobre los horrores del SHU. Quizás
lo más relevante fue la afirmación del asistente
de la Senadora Romero que expresó la

esperanza de poder organizar otra reunión
con representantes del CDC y la gente
preocupada por el estado del SHU, para que

en caso de que el CDC se negara a implementar
cambios, los participantes de la reunión
podrían sentirse incluidos. El MIM deduce

que el asistente de la Senadora Romero no
cree que el gobierno tenga poder sobre el
Departamento Correccional de California.

Puede convocar reuniones pero no puede
exigir cambios. Esto no es ninguna sorpresa,
ya que el presupuesto del CDC no ha sufrido

ningún cambio o recorte a pesar de los
grandes recortes presupuestarios y extensas
negociaciones entre varias ramas del

gobierno de California con el fin de aprobar
un presupuesto equilibrado.

El MIM sabe que un verdadero cambio en

el sistema de justicia criminal no provendrá
de un Comité del Senado. Pero seguiremos
explorando todas las direcciones posibles a

medida que vayamos peleando por reformas
que puedan mejorar las vidas de nuestros
hermanos y hermanas tras las rejas, mientras

nosotros sigamos educando y organizando a
la gente para acabar con el sistema
imperialista.

California: Boicot dirigido por mexicanos y prisioneros del

Alojamiento de la Unidad de Seguridad (SHU) que se unen a la lucha.