This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
I N T E R N E T ' S M A O I S T BI-M O N T H L Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
XX XX XXX XX XX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX
X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X
X V X X X V X X X X X X X XX XXX
X X X X X X XX X X X X X
X X XXX X X X V XXX X XXX XXX
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
MIM Notes 182 MARCH 15, 1999
MIM Notes speaks to and from the viewpoint of the
world's oppressed majority, and against the
imperialist-patriarchy. Pick it up and wield it in
the service of the people. support it, struggle
with it and write for it.
IN THIS ISSUE:
1. FOUR NYPD PIGS MURDER UNARMED AFRICAN IMMIGRANT
2. LETTERS
3. MICHIGAN STUDENT GOVERNMENT SIDES WITH IRAQI PEOPLE AGAINST
AMERIKA
4. RAIL ARGUES WITH PACIFISTS ON IRAQ
5. NEW ECONOMIC REPORT FEEDS MIM ANALYSIS
6. PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENTALISTS CALL FOR BAN OF MIM
7. GREETINGS TO MAURITIUS COMRADES
8. GREETINGS FROM REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST YOUTH
9. EAST TIMOR FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES
10. NEW PHILIPPINES PUPPET REGIME CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
11. PUERTO RICO: ONGOING STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIALISM
12. REVIEW: INDIVIDUALIST APPROACH SINKS REFORMIST FEMINISM
13. RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IS LATEST CASUALTY
14. MUMIA BENEFIT SENDS MIXED MESSAGE TO MIXED CROWD
15. UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND FROM PRISONERS
The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is a
revolutionary communist party that upholds
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, comprising 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
Spanish-speaking Maoist internationalist parties
of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of
the U.S. Empire. MIM Notes is the newspaper of
MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-
speaking parties or emerging parties of MIM.
MIM is an internationalist organization that works
from the vantage point of the Third World
proletariat; thus, its members are not Amerikans,
but world citizens.
MIM struggles to end the oppression of all groups
over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM
knows this is only possible 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
human history.
(3) MIM believes the North American
white-working-class is primarily a non-
revolutionary worker-elite at this time; thus, it
is not the principal vehicle to advance Maoism in
this country.
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
* * *
FOUR NYPD PIGS MURDER UNARMED AFRICAN IMMIGRANT
by MC234
On February 4, four plainclothes New York Police fired 41 shots at
a West African immigrant street peddler standing in his doorway.
Amadou Diallo was hit 19 times and died instantly. No gun was
found.(1)
The swine aren't talking and were the only witnesses so it's
unclear exactly what happened. It appears that the pigs say Diallo
looked suspicious (read: African) and was entering his apartment
with a hand in his pocket reaching for keys. The pigs left their
car, came up behind him and shouted in English for Diallo to
freeze. They say Diallo didn't freeze so they killed him. Even if
their self-corroborating story is true (and it's probably about as
pro-police as any story that could be told at this point) there
are clearly better ways for police to approach a suspect where 41
bullets wouldn't erupt.
Less than a week later, Pig Commissioner Howard Safir announced a
switch by N.Y. Pigs to hollow-point bullets. These bullets, which
are banned by the Geneva Convention for use in war, expand on
impact and cause more bodily injury. Pigs like the bullets because
they "stop" the victim sooner and require less bullets. But dead
is dead, as many victims of white Amerikkka's war against the
oppressed Black nation can attest, including Amadou Diallo.(2)
The bullets are already in used in most other major cities of the
u.$. empire, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, San
Francisco, Honolulu and by the FBI and the U.$. Marshall
Service.(2)
The swines responsible are part of the elite Street Crime Unit,
publicly charged with seizing guns. The NYPD overall are 13% Black
and 17% "Hispanic," but this elite unit is only about 10%
oppressed nations and national minorities, with only a handful of
Black comprador troops.(3) All four of the white pigs responsible
for shooting Dallio were from elsewhere in New York City. At 23%,
the Bronx has the smallest percentage of white people in the
city.(8)
The Street Crime Unit is known for its aggressive tactics. Former
members of the unit described their tactics in the early 1980s to
the New York Post. The Unit would "toss every mother-----r in
sight" for a search, and make bogus 911 calls about armed
individuals matching the description of any who complained.
According to the ex-swine, the tactics have since been toned down,
but clearly not enough for Amadou Diallo.(3)
According to official numbers, the relatively small unit stopped
and frisked 45,000 people in 1997 and 1998.(4)
Official condemnation of Officers Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon,
Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy has been slow in coming. They are
no longer on the streets, but still working in administrative
duties. It's unclear exactly why the pigs aren't talking. Mayor
Giuliani says the pigs were invoking the "48 hours rule" which
gives pigs two business days to consult with their union lawyers.
But police investigators say that the Bronx District Attorney
asked them not to talk to the officers. Apparently, this is common
practice in police shootings. Regardless of which reason is at
play here, all can only serve to give them time to concoct cover
stories, although they can be disciplined for permanently refusing
to answer questions.(7)
When the tables are reversed, no such courtesies are extended. For
example, when Mumia Abu Jamal was arrested for allegedly shooting
Pig Daniel Faulkner in Philadelphia, Mumia was driven around in
the ambulance in the hopes he would die and also beaten in the
hopes of killing him if they couldn't elicit a confession.
Under socialism, the police will be held to a higher standard than
the general public. Such "union rules" won't exist, and "Fifth
Amendment" rights won't apply at all to government officials. This
is important in order to gain and maintain the trust of the
masses.
The top swines responsible for overseeing the colonization of
oppressed nations and national minorities in New York City are
trying to play both sides. They try and protect their murderous
soldiers, while also co-opting or defusing the movement to condemn
extra-judicial murder by police. Giuliani and Safir made an
appearance at the memorial service for Diallo, but were jeered by
the masses.(5)
Diallo's family has no attention of being manipulated by two-faced
Giuliani, repeatedly refusing to meet with him until the pigs
responsible are arrested or suspended.(6) It is correct to avoid
such treachery.
Only when the people of the oppressed nations themselves control
their territory and police will policy brutality and murder end.
Notes:
1. New York Post 6 Feb 99, p. 2.
2. New York Post 14 Feb 99, p. 2.
3. New York Post 14 Feb 99, p. 3.
4. New York Post 6 Feb 99, p. 4.
5. New York Post 13 Feb 99, p. 2
6. New York Post 14 Feb 99. p. 4
7. New York Times 5 Feb 99, p. A25
8. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary Tape File 3A tables
(www.census.gov).
* * *
LETTERS
MIM too tame?
Dear Maoists,
You, my friends, are heading in the right direction. Why, I
wonder, are you so tame? You know the truth, yet you hedge. I
mean, take your December 15 issue, for example. I perused your
article on the School of Assassins, which, I was pleased to note
was front page and left set. That us where it should be in every
fucking paper in America. But, that won't happen. Not yet, and
probably, not for quite a while. Not in every paper, anyway. The
papers that count? Well, that's another story.
Take the New York Times, for example. Some years ago, 1993 I
believe, November 18 to be exact, they published an article on
Canada's payment on behalf of the Bay of Pigs. Oops! Did I say
that? What kind of Freudian slip was that? Maybe it had something
to do with the fact that the CIA funded the invasion of the Bay of
Pigs back in 1961, assassinated Kennedy, and his brother, and then
assassinated Dag Hammerskjold. No that came first. They
assassinated him in 1960 or 1961? I'm not sure which. So why, I
ask you, didn't you mention the CIA assholes in your article?
--A reader from the northwest
MIM responds: First, you are right that MIM Notes prints news the
New York Times didn't see fit to print. We continually stress the
importance of independent, party-led media. On the one hand,
imperialist mouthpieces won't print the facts which expose the
crimes of u.$. imperialism. On the other hand, we need to have a
forum where we can discuss the issues which affect the proletariat
the most with a proletarian perspective, instead of having to
address the bourgeois media on its own terms. For example, as we
discussed in a recent article ("Mumia case proves need for
independent media," MN178), it is important to show that Mumia
Abu-Jamal received an unfair trial even by bourgeois standards,
but we also need to be able to talk about how cops occupy Black
communities like a foreign army occupies territory.
Second, we are not quite sure what you mean when you say that MIM
Notes "hedges." Because we failed to mention CIA machinations?
Consistent readers of MIM Notes that we have not shied away from
exposing the CIA's crimes. MIM Notes 180 carried an article on
exactly this topic. As far as the assassination of the Kennedys,
MIM Notes does not report on this because we honestly do not know
what to make of it. It appears to be a case of intra-bourgeois
rivalry, but we do not know what the basis of that rivalry was or
who actually committed the deeds, and (most importantly) we do not
know how we can take advantage of this intra-bourgeois conflict.
Of course, we do know that the CIA was involved in overthrowing
the Arbenz government in Guatemala, overthrowing the Allende
government in Chile, the Bay of Pigs adventure, etc. etc. etc.
These actions are clear evidence of the CIA's main task as a tool
of violence and repression against those who would go against the
wishes of the u.$. imperialists.
On Mumia and Iraq
Dear MIM,
Just a couple of questions.
1. Your January 15 issue criticizes Mumia's jury as not one of his
peers. What would be? Am I to infer a panel of similar activists,
or is this a racial question?
Would you accept a panel including Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas, Actor Denzel Washington, University of California Regent
Ward Connerly, Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, Detroit
Mayor Dennis Archer, and others, or must they be black,
revolutionary activists? Should a crooked Wall Street stockbroker
be entitled to a jury of his peers? If not, why not?
2. Regarding Iraq. Do you bestow your benevolent support upon
Hussein? Does he pursue the type of socio-political structure that
you espouse? Do you want continued use on his part of chemical
weapons, thus legitimizing such use for the next guy? Don't forget
he gassed Iran and some Iraqi Kurds. Why don't you call for
Hussein to abandon his weapons of mass destruction so the
sanctions will be lifted? Doesn't it bother you that he spent so
much on his military, and not so much on food?
--a reader February, 1999
MIM responds: On the question of Mumia: Our definition of peer is
a nation/class definition, not a "racial" one. So, no, Clarence
Thomas and them wouldn't cut it. The whole bourgeois democratic
concept of a jury of one's peers assumes a false sense of equality
that isn't present in imperialist, capitalist Amerika. The Black
nation is an internal colony of the United Snakes; the concept of
peer doesn't really apply between nations under that system of
hierarchy and domination. Mumia's peers are other oppressed
nationals, and were not sufficiently represented on the jury that
convicted him. As for a Wall St. stockbroker, his or her peers are
the ruling class and the judicial establishment; the police are
his or her police. We don't think such a persyn needs a
proletarian internationalist communist party to advocate on his or
her behalf in the bourgeois courts.
On the question of Iraq: Internal oppression has always been the
rhetorical justification for imperialists invading, bombing,
taking over and dominating oppressed nations. "But he bombs his
'own' people!," they cry. "They need us!" MIM is most concerned
with the principal contradiction: imperialism vs. oppressed
nations. The worst harm to the Iraqi people since 1991 has
undeniably come from the United Snakes, not Saddam Hussein. This
is not an endorsement of Hussein, but neither will we get sucked
into a debate of his regime that frames the issue on imperialist
terms.
* * *
MICHIGAN STUDENT GOVERNMENT SIDES WITH IRAQI PEOPLE AGAINST
AMERIKA
At the end of January, the University of Michigan Student Assembly
(MSA) student government passed a resolution to support lifting
u.$. sanctions against Iraq. The resolution passed by a vote of
11-10, from which eight representatives, including the MSA
president abstained. The president explained his abstention saying
that "it takes a lot longer [than a two-hour debate] to make sure
we are doing the right thing." But he had already attacked the
resolution before the official debate began, questioning the
relevance of a resolution on u.$. sanctions against Iraq to the
student government.
MIM supports the demands of students who have recognized that for
as long as we live within u.$. borders we are responsible for
opposing Amerikan aggression against other nations. The MSA and
other student governments should attack their government's
imperialist actions for several reasons: as youth, they can more
clearly see the wasteful brutality of embargoing basic necessities
from an entire nation; and as students they must understand that
shrinking educational budgets are directly affected by increased
military spending to enforce this embargo.
The MSA resolution fails in one major area, by supporting some
continued actions against Iraq while calling for the end of
others. The resolution both allows that special conditions should
be made for "military technology and machinery," and vilifies
Saddam Hussein as "an unelected dictator." MIM argues that once
activists have recognized that sanctions on food, medicine and
commerce generally are a brutal violation of human rights, they
should not recognize the authority of a government that supports
such brutality to enforce any restrictions on another.
The anti-sanctions resolution was brought to MSA by members of the
Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and Prevent --
the campus anti-war-on-Iraq group. Members of these same
progressive organizations lobbied the MSA to pass the resolution.
The party in the MSA with the votes to get the anti-sanctions
resolution passed was the so-called Defend Affirmative Action
Party (DAAP). This group is connected to the Coalition to Defend
Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary (BAMN) -- a front-group
of the Revolutionary Workers League (RWL), a Trotskyist party.
BAMN and its covert RWL leadership do sometimes voice support for
progressive causes. Like other phony communist parties and their
front groups, the RWL/BAMN latches onto certain progressive
struggles in limited ways as a means of gaining support for their
organizations. The RWL/BAMN support for affirmative action however
-- as for an end to sanctions against Iraq and reduced police
activity in Ann Arbor -- is deceptive. These phony communists
agitate around progressive causes but in ways that champion the
interests of the middle classes (including the working-class labor
aristocracy) instead of the interests of the most oppressed.
While it is fine for middle class organizations to openly gather
support for their own class, any organization that claims
communism is claiming to work in the interests of the
international proletariat. The phony communists, or revisionists,
are enemies of the most oppressed because they split progressive
forces from proletarian interests while pretending to champion
them. In the example of the MSA resolution, the DAAP/BAMN/RWL
supports military and technological sanctions against Iraq. This
is an abhorrent position to any genuine communist party. No true
ally of the international proletariat should support the largest
imperialist power in the world to continue its control of an
oppressed nation's ability to sustain hospitals, transportation or
national defense. While MIM does not uphold Iraq as a proletarian
socialist state, we reject any u.$. claim to determine that
nation's destiny.
MIM looks to see more campus governments taking a stance against
u.$. military actions, as the number of students recognizing the
direct contradiction between public education and military
spending grows. We further urge the students to directly promote
the interests of education against the interests of increased
militarism.
Just as universities are being pitted against prisons in u.$.
government budgets, Amerika must choose between spending more
money on military actions overseas or spending more money
educating its youth. The laissez-faire Liberals and right-wingers
try to will this contradiction out of existence by arguing that
MSA's place is governing the student body and advocating its
narrow interests. The reactionary campus paper, the Michigan
Review, wrote in response to the MSA resolution that "MSA should
mediate between the student body and University administrators,
and represent the student body at certain inter-collegiate
conventions." But wishing will not divide education policy and
spending from military policy and spending. Advocating for
students includes opposing militarism and prisons because military
jobs, imprisonment and education are all in competition for their
claim on young adults' lives.
The Michigan Review should in fact support the lifting of
sanctions rather than ridiculing MSA for spending two hours
discussing them. Side by side with its editorial opposing the MSA
resolution, the Review ran an editorial opposing "Big Government,"
decrying the new u.s. Federal budget that "places the hand of
Washington everywhere." If the conservatives want to be
consistent, they should join MSA in arguing for Washington to get
its hands off Iraq. Surely a two-hour debate among University of
Michigan student representatives is less a drain on the taxpayers
whose cause the Review champions than an eight-year war by
starvation and now almost daily bombings waged against the Iraqi
people.
While people going to college are generally the petty-bourgeoisie
and not the proletariat, MIM supports the demands of college
students for more attention to education in arguments like that in
the MSA over sanctions. In general, MIM does not rally round the
demands of the privileged classes within the imperialist nations,
because usually these demands come at the expense of the
international proletariat. But it is better for the petty-
bourgeoisie to go to college than for the military to bomb and
enforce sanctions against Iraq. If the college students can
successfully pit their own interests against the interests of u.$.
militarism, then they are acting as true allies of the Iraqi
people.
Sources: Michigan Daily, 27 January 1999; Michigan Review, 10
February, 1999.
* * *
RAIL ARGUES WITH PACIFISTS ON IRAQ
This letter was sent from RAIL to a local pacifist organization
which is not named here. The arguments are pretty general, so MIM
prints it here to inform others having similar debates. --ed.
Dear [pacifist organization],
From last week's Iraq vigil, I went home with a flyer bearing
[your] name. I didn't read it at the time and don't remember from
whom I got it. I was surprised to see [your] name and this text:
"This [sanctions] is not foreign policy.
"Sanctions do nothing to hurt Sadaam Hussein. The Iraqi people
suffer because of both the US/UN policy and because of Sadaam."
Is this flyer really from [you]? If you need it, I can make a copy
of the whole thing for you.
First, sanctions most definitely are U.$. foreign policy. Killing
people to make a buck has been the Amerikan way for hundreds of
years. We can disagree as to whether that aspect can be removed
without destroying the whole Amerikan system, but I know from
observing [your organization's] work over the years that we agree
that genocide is a common occurrence.
Secondly, demonizing Saddam Hussein serves U.$. interests and not
those of the Iraqi people. The United Snakes is at war with the
people of Iraq and its leadership. In order to personalize that
conflict, Hussein is the only leader in the world commonly
referred to by politicians and the more jingoist newspapers by his
first name. The reactionary propagandists theorize that this will
make building support for war easier. Why does [your organization]
join in this trend?
The question of Saddam Hussein's leadership in Iraq is a
complicated one. There is a very real reason the millions of
people in the Middle East support Hussein, at least compared to
the support they show towards their own lackey governments. Sure,
I'd like to see the exploited workers and peasants of Iraq control
the country, but no more so than I'd like to see that in any other
country including this one.
Singling out Hussein for special criticism is inappropriate and
helps to build public support for more U.$. interference in the
internal affairs of Iraq. The U.$./U.N. makes many charges against
Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Some of them are true, but every single
one of them are things that are done in far greater fashion by the
United States. I know that [your organization] knows the facts
about who really uses chemical, biological and nuclear weapons,
for example.
We agree that sanctions are a weapon that only effects the people
on the bottom of the targeted society. But would [you] would
support CIA assassinations of Hussein, or the bombing of purely
military facilities, or any of a myriad of other interventions in
Iraq? From your past practice I know this not to be the case, but
your flyer ends up supporting these very common -- and very
dangerous ideas.
In struggle,
RAIL
* * *
NEW ECONOMIC REPORT FEEDS MIM ANALYSIS
The 1999 Economic Report of the President, released February 4, is
an annual report with use to communist political economists. Here
MIM touches on three sets of findings in the report. This U.S.
Government book is available many places, but one is on the
Internet at http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/catalog/erp99.html. --ed
U.$. profits up
Data finalized for 1997 show that 1997 was a record year for
profits and that 1998 -- for which not all data is in yet -- looks
to be similar based on the first three quarters of the year.
After adjustments for inventory valuation fluctuations and capital
consumption, corporate profits after taxes in 1997 were $572
billion, of which $275 billion were distributed as dividends and
$297 billion were kept on hand in the corporations.
In 1997, the manufacturing sector earned $214 billion and private
sector banks received $107 billion -- both of which are figures
not counting capital consumption. A small annoyance for us
Marxists is that the figures show $23.3 billion for the Federal
Reserve Bank, which is an accounting device of not much interest
to ordinary people or Marxist scientists.
Nonetheless, whenever we use imperialist government statistics we
can only use them to get a rough idea of something and we need to
cross-check them with other statistics. U.$. profit statistics in
general MIM has cross-checked before, and since we have no better
accounting to offer our readers, we present them with this
information.
Profits from abroad totaled $99 billion in 1997.
In 1990 the Consumer Price Index (a marker of inflation) by one
calculation stood at 130.7 and in 1997 it was 160.5 -- a less than
30% growth. Meanwhile, in the same time, profits with inventory
and capital consumption adjustments but before taxes more than
doubled from $397 billion to $818 billion.
For MIM, the $572 billion is an important figure in the question
of whether or not it can be said that oppressor nation workers are
exploited. We have shown elsewhere and by numerous accountings
that there is no way that such a figure can be construed to mean
that oppressor nation workers are exploited, given the
contributions of foreign workers, immigrants and internal semi-
colony workers to profits (see MIM Theory 10, for example).
There is as yet not a single organization in the imperialist
countries that has attempted to refute our proofs, which to MIM is
an indication of the low level of scientific struggle going on in
the imperialist country so-called communist movement. It is not
surprising that the growth of super-profits has itself
extinguished discussion of super-profits in the imperialist
countries. The representatives of the petty-bourgeoisie do not
like to talk about the sources of their gravy.
Between 1990 and 1997, inflation was low and productivity growth
was anemic. However, trade with the non-OPEC (oil producing) Third
World grew to rival that with the other industrialized countries.
Such imports were $159 billion in 1990 but grew to be $347 billion
in 1997. Meanwhile, trade with the industrialized countries was
$387 billion in 1997.
Ignorant critics of the MIM line believe that imperialist country
trade with the Third World is insignificant. These critics are
both out-of-date and theoretically stunted. Trade with the Third
World allows for a "transfer of surplus-value from the Third World
productive sector to the imperialist country unproductive sector"
to use precise Marxist scientific language.
It is this transfer of surplus-value -- especially thanks to the
former leader Deng Xiaoping in China -- that is responsible for
the doubling of profits in less than seven years. Although
inflation in the imperialist countries must be accounted for,
productivity growth and greater employment in the imperialist
countries are not significant contributors to profit growth.
Indeed, so called productivity figures for U.$. workers mask the
transfer of gravy from the Third World. Profit growth in the U$A
reflects the growth of super-profits thanks to global conditions
of the class struggle in the Third World.
Labor aristocracy owns more and more bonds
In September, 1998, the whole world of investors that were not
federal governments combined held $3.3 trillion in U.S. government
bonds. One might be surprised to learn that of that only $260
billion was held by U.$. commercial banks. Interest from these
bonds would be reported as profits after expenses.
The total of bonds held by individuals was $352 billion, of which
we can say based on previous studies half is probably owned by the
capitalist class. The rest goes to the petty-bourgeoisie. A persyn
who owns enough bonds can afford not to work. Such a persyn is a
capitalist -- the ultimate in parasitism.
Dwarfing the U.$. banks and individual investors are various
international investors, coming in at $1.2 trillion. MIM does not
have a class breakdown on these investors, such as what percentage
is owned by the Japanese labor aristocracy in pensions and life
insurance; however, the second biggest source of investment is not
the corporations, at $271 billion, but the state and local
governments at $469 billion in September 1998.
State and local governments hold money in bonds for the pensions
of workers and sometimes for short-term accounting reasons. In any
case, there is no escaping that the principal beneficiary of the
interest from such bonds is the labor aristocracy and not the
capitalist class.
Non-U.$. imperialists invest more in U$
Foreign investors continue to invest in the United $tates faster
than the United $tates invests abroad. As a result, the net
investment position of U$A crossed the negative trillion dollar
mark in 1997 and nearly doubled in one year.
The market value of investments in the U$A made by foreigners was
$167 billion more than what U$ investors held abroad in 1990. In
1996, the net figure was negative $744 billion and in 1997 it was
negative $1.3 trillion.
With the collapse of the Soviet social-imperialist bloc, U$
imperialism imposed its unipolar will on the world. The carrot it
is currently offering to other junior imperialists is the chance
to invest in the U$A. Any superprofit gravy that the U$A cooks up
in the Third World, the other imperialists are being allowed to
share.
Occasionally we see in the newspapers nationalist alarm that this
is being allowed to happen. The idea that the United $tates is
being sold to other countries alarms the nationalists.
One thing to watch for is the move to ice the Chinese capitalists
out of business. Ultra-right organizations on the Internet are
arguing Clinton should be impeached for allowing the People's
Republic of China to buy ports and industrial complexes on the
West Coast. The noise about Clinton's campaign funding from
Indonesians and Chinese is related. However, thus far, the
internationalist bourgeoisie in control of the government has
managed to squelch these nationalist noises and prevent their
becoming policy.
We Leninists must admit that the current situation of cross-
national investment by imperialists is a new twist of great
significance in the current situation of inter-imperialist
rivalry. In the past when a mother country owned colonies it kept
other colonial powers iced out of the action. In other situations,
blocs of countries would ice each other out while favoring
countries within the bloc.
Today, there is still trade bloc maneuvering of a very intensive
sort. However, in the sense of profits, the intensity of conflict
amongst the imperialists is receding. There is only one
imperialist bloc at the moment. All imperialists invest in the U$A
if they want to.
* * *
PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENTALISTS CALL FOR BAN OF MIM
In mid-February, critics called for a ban of MIM from
alt.politics.greens, an Internet newsgroup. The call came after
posting of MIM articles titled "Earth First! martyr died for
environment, proletariat," and a review of "The Natural Wealth of
Nations: Harnessing the Market for the Environment."
On February 15, a writer responded to the following quote: "Fox
News is nothing more than a mouthpeice for the extreme right wing
in. . . This [newsgroup] is just a mechanism for MIM propaganda.
Please ask MIM to start alt.policics.propaganda. Yet, if all of us
do this, it will still make no impact." It was a sarcastic comment
paralleling a call for a boycott of Fox News.
Raising the charter, one writer actually thought it could be used
to ban MIM. The critic said:
"Actually, alt.politics.greens has a specific charter. The
following message created the group, in December 1992:
'This newsgroup is a forum for matters pertaining to Green
movements worldwide. This includes the Green parties of various
countries and localities, as well as less formally organized
alliances and movements. This newsgroup was proposed and discussed
in alt.config and other relevant forums. The newsgroup name
proposed was "alt.politics.green-party," but a number of
correspondents suggested "alt.politics.greens," which is more
inclusive and is a more elegant name. <_Jym_>'
"In retrospect, 'alt.politics.green-party' would have been a
better name. Folks who don't know what Green politics is about
often mistake a.p.g for talk.environment or
alt.politics.liberalism.
"Now, as I understand Mao, it is a central tenet of 'Maoism' that
armed insurrection and revolution are a necessary step along the
road to social justice. Greens reject violence as a means to
achieve the social changes that will achieve the situation
described in, for example, the United Nations Universal
Declaration on Human Rights. We believe violence is both unethical
and extremely unlikely to succeed. (Personally, I think it's just
another failed "quick fix" approach to a problem with no simple,
easy solution. I've been an engineer for twenty years, and all my
experience says quick fixes never work.) Instead, Greens work for
social change through the democratic process, nonviolent civil
disobedience, and educational outreach.
"Therefore, IMHO 'Maoism' (both advocacy and denunciation) are
pretty much off charter here."
Apparently the writer did not notice that the charter was
specifically written to include discussion with people not
agreeing with every single Green Party platform plank. Meanwhile,
lengthy discussions of "conservatism" and subjects not about the
environment pervade the newsgroup, but MIM is the only group being
suggested for a ban.
On February 17, 1999, out of 85 posted articles, exactly three
were by MIM. Another eight were responses to MIM articles. None of
the eight responses were by MIM or MIM allies. Such vicious and
disproportionate anti-communism as expressed above is rooted in
the middle-class nature of society, and the labor aristocracy's
alliance with imperialism in particular.
Articles not posted by MIM included "Secret Clinton rape
evidence."
Calling us "crazies" who "subvert" the green movement, an author
of the Young People's Socialist League said nonetheless that we
should not be banned. The critic who said we are "off-charter" is
an engineer who owns a large part of the computer administration
for the Green parties -- judi.greens.org and petra.greens.org.
MIM's reply to the newsgroup is excerpted below: "This is a
distortion of Maoism: We are for continuous revolution, not 'quick
fixes.' To us, it is you who are likely proposing the 'quick fix'
without a thorough mechanism of change.
"Mao's revolution was literally fought over 20 years to get to
power. And the process of 'Cultural Revolution' was another 10 by
itself when it was proposed that we needed 'continuous
revolution.' . . .
"Was our first post discussing the Green Party platform 'off-
charter' because we disagreed with one or two planks? Are you
going to tell me everyone who is a Green Party supporter believes
in all of the planks?
"We probably have higher unity with the Green Party platform than
the average poster on this list. Don't think I didn't notice all
the stuff about conservatism, impeachment, etc. Regardless, the
charter explicitly rejects that this is a group for the Green
Party only, however that is certified."
* * *
GREETINGS TO MAURITIUS COMRADES
MIM sent the following greetings to the Socialist Workers Party
(SWP) of Mauritius for their Congress of February 20, 1999. The
Socialist Workers Party there is unconnected to the Trotskyist and
neo-Trotskyist parties of the same name in the imperialist
countries. --ed.
Comrades of the SWP of Mauritius: We send you greetings for your
February 1999 Congress.
We are delighted to introduce ourselves to any organization from
the oppressed nations upholding Marx, Lenin and Stalin. In fact,
we share with you a history of forming in separation from
Trotskyism and crypto-Trotskyism.
In the world today, the most successful communist parties are
those waging Maoist People's War in Peru, the Philippines, Nepal,
India and Bangladesh. Nonetheless, in every country there is a
most advanced element -- not just in those countries with People's
Wars going on.
There is never an excuse not to work with the most advanced
element (vanguard) in the country one is in. Thus we are glad you
have formed a place to separate from social-democracy and
Trotskyism -- a place where the advanced may congregate and
struggle with each other.
In the imperialist countries our movement has produced no
revolutions since 1917, but still there is a most advanced element
even in countries with weak or non-existent communist parties. We
should in each country start from the material position we are in
and not wait for communism to drop from heaven. This requires that
we make concrete analyses of our own conditions.
In addition, we have a duty to cast our scientific eye on the
facts of the whole world. There are at least three reasons. One is
to know the international situation affecting our own revolutions.
Two is to build for harmonious international relations by
understanding other peoples and their struggles. Three is that
there has now been socialist experience. Surely if we cannot agree
on whether something is socialist in practice we have no chance of
building it from thin air.
The collapse of the Soviet bloc is an important lesson paid for
with blood. The key to the collapse was internal to the so-called
communist parties of those countries. It was the bourgeoisie in
the party that restored capitalism, not imperialist invasion or
old landlord classes.
In the international communist movement's history, it was only Mao
who told us we would have to overthrow "the Khruschevs nestling
beside us" in the communist party. Toward this end he implemented
a new form of struggle called the Cultural Revolution and he
considered it one of his two great achievements along with the
national liberation of China.
True, Mao's successors and the practitioner-leaders of the
Cultural Revolution called the "Gang of Four" and others did not
enjoy Mao's own immense prestige at the time of the 1949
revolution. Popularity or not though, there is never an excuse not
to recognize the most advanced political leaders in any situation
and failing to do so only leaves an even greater opening to
reaction, often through the error of liquidationism.
Already by the early 1960s, Yeltsin was a regional party leader,
but revisionists all lined up to attack Mao one-by-one for his
thesis on the bourgeoisie in the party. We must say frankly that
Castro was one, and we find it puzzling to see a party uphold
Stalin and Mao while upholding Castro who never hid his admiration
for Khruschev. We urge you not to mention Castro and Mao in the
same breath. We hope you will take up this question with us as
well as the question of Che and Ho, whom we regard as more
progressive.
We hope you will agree with us that in our day, there can be no
downplaying the "bourgeoisie in the party" thesis and the Cultural
Revolution in China. The masses would be right not to trust any
communist party that could not admit the history of our movement
including its dastardly betrayal by the likes of Khruschev,
Brezhnev, Alia, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Castro,
Gorbachev and Yeltsin. When we call on the masses to give their
blood to fight capitalism, we can do no less.
It's a very unpleasant duty to admit to capitalist restoration by
the bourgeoisie in the party in Albania, China, Cuba, Korea, the
USSR and Vietnam. Yet, how can we ask the masses to trust us if we
do not clean house?
We call on your Congress to pass resolutions repudiating Castro
and upholding the Cultural Revolution and the "Gang of Four"
successors to Mao. The Cultural Revolution occurred almost
simultaneously with the appearance of a theory for it. A
generation later it must be us who takes up this theory as Mao's
successors.
Maoist Internationalist Movement,
February 10, 1999
Note: Speeches of Fidel Castro on the Soviet Union and China may
be found at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5973/leftover.html
* * *
GREETINGS FROM REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST YOUTH
The MIM International Minister apologizes for the mishap that
delayed publication of this greeting from the Russian comrades
that was intended for our 1999 Congress Session I, just ended.
Previously we received greetings from the RYCL(b) Secretary of
Ideology Oleg Torbasow and the Obninsk All-Union Leninist
Communist Union of Youth (VLKSM). --ed.
Comrades!
Our organization, Revolution Communist Youth of Ukraine, convey
the warmest revolutionary greetings to MIM on the occasion your
Congress! Our best wishes for its success, in your struggle for
communism.
We want to have contacts with MIM, shall be glad to get your
publishing editions. In Ukraine we have very small information
about Mao Tse-tung Thought, Great Proletarian Culture Revolution
in China, liberation' struggle of Peruvian and Philippines
fighters, about revolutionary struggle in USA.
Down with imperialism! Long live communism!
-- Bureau of Revolutionary Communist Youth (RCY)
* * *
EAST TIMOR FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES
by MC17
After 23 years of bloody colonialism which included the murder of
close to one-third of the East Timorese population, Indonesia
seems to be deciding that this colony, with its population so
determined to fight for independence, is not worth the trouble.
Indonesia is moving closer to removing its claws from East Timor
and granting the country some form of independence.
Indonesian President B. J. Habibie told a business delegation at
the State Palace: "We don't want to be bothered by East Timor's
problem anymore by Jan. 1, 2000. We will fully concentrate on the
interests of our remaining 26 provinces."(1)
Indonesia has taken a strong position against independence for
East Timor until recently when political uprising within Indonesia
led to the resignation of the military dictator Suharto. Habibie,
a former protege of Suharto, stepped in to take over and has been
plagued by on-going protests as he has made only cosmetic changes
to the government or military. The internal turmoil in Indonesia
is clearly a factor in Habibie's move to grant East Timor
independence.
Indonesia has offered to withdraw from East Timor and declare it
independent if the East Timorese reject an alternative autonomy
deal for the half-island territory. The autonomy offer is now the
subject of U.N.-sponsored negotiations between Indonesia and
Portugal, East Timor's former colonial master which resulted in a
plan for an "autonomous Timorese government." Conspicuously absent
from these U.N. talks on the future of East Timor are
representatives of East Timor itself.(2) The United Nations never
recognized the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and still
considers it territory of Portugal. The fact that the U.N. would
go to East Timor's former colonial master before talking directly
to the people of East Timor themselves reveals the imperialist
mission of the U.N.
East Timor rebel leader Xanana Gusmao was moved on February 10
from the prison cell he occupied for more than five years to house
arrest in Jakarta.(3) His transfer was a conciliatory move by
Indonesia to allow Gusmao a greater role in the independence talks
and came amid mounting international pressure -- including a call
by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- on the Jakarta government
to release him. The Indonesian government condemned Gusmao as a
common criminal but now acknowledges his role in the talks
although not recognizing him as a political prisoner.
Another positive result of these U.N. sponsored talks is a move
towards disarming thousands of militia members working for the
Indonesian government, which receives significant amounts of
financing from the U.$., responsible for harsh crackdowns on the
Timorese people.(4) The Indonesia military currently has over
10,000 troops in East Timor and has been arming local militias,
claiming that this is necessary for them to protect themselves
from pro-independence rebels if Jakarta pulls out of East Timor.
On January 28th Indonesia announced that it will grant immediate
independence to East Timor. Shortly afterwards pro-government
militias armed by the Indonesian military attacked Timorese
civilians killing at least 30 people and driving more than 6,000
people into hiding. There have been reports of increased fighting
between the pro-independence forces and the pro-integration
militias (armed and financed by Indonesia).(4) While financing and
instigating the violence, Indonesia is using this violence as an
excuse to oppose a ballot on the territory's future, saying it
could spark a civil war. The fact is that the civil war would not
even be an issue if it were not for the funding and arms provided
by the Indonesian government.
One proposal being floated at the U.N. negotiations includes a
U.N. peacekeeping operation in East Timor. The U.$. strongly
supports this option. This is under the pretext of stopping the
violence. Indonesia's on-going attacks on the Timorese people are
paying off in these proposals for a new form of colonialism for
East Timor.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard says East Timor could lose
up to 50% of its gross domestic product if Indonesia grants it
full independence. Australia has a strong imperialist interest in
Indonesia and so they oppose Indonesia losing this important
political and economic colony. The idea that a colony might lose
financially when given independence is just a myth promoted by the
imperialists. In fact, capitalism survives by sucking the
resources from the Third World so that the imperialist countries
can get rich. This includes the U.$. and Australia, which both
finance the Indonesian military dictatorship for both strategic
military as well as economic benefits. In fact, Howard has
admitted that East Timorese independence would be very expensive
for Australia.(5)
The United States has sold more than $1.1 billion in weaponry to
Indonesia since its 1975 invasion of East Timor; the sales have
gone on in Republican and Democratic administrations alike,
regardless of the rhetoric espoused by the President at the time.
According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, from
1992 to 1994 (the most recent years for which full data is
available), Indonesia received 53% of its weapons imports from the
United States.(6)
Some of the East Timorese independence leaders are now saying that
they are not sure East Timor is prepared for independence. ''We
have been so focused on raising public awareness about our cause
that we didn't seriously think about the structure of a
government,'' said Constancio Pinto. ''This is what we have been
fighting for, but what happens after independence?''(4) He and
other independence leaders are now saying that East Timor needs a
three- to five-year transition period to independence. Even Gusmao
is suggesting a transition process of one to two years before
cutting ties, either in the form of an autonomy plan like that
proposed by Indonesia or by a U.N.-regulated authority.(2)
The result of this lack of preparation for state rule by the
independence forces in East Timor is an offer from Indonesia to
help out, but only if the Timorese agree to surrender considerable
control over police, defense and judiciary. In essence continued
colonialism in exchange for "help" from Indonesia.
The failure of the East Timorese independence fighters to build an
organization that can lead the people to self-sufficiency
demonstrates the need for a revolutionary party led by the
proletariat with a firm grounding in history. Communists are not
wasting our time studying history for fun, we are preparing for
the day when we take state power so that we can learn from the
successes and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Fighting for
independence for 23 years should be more than enough time to
prepare to take state power and do better than the occupying
imperialist forces.
Notes:
1. Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb 12, 1999.
2. Washington Post, February 14, 1999; Page A31
3. Washington Post, February 10, 1999; Page A18.
4. Boston Globe, Feb 7, 1999, p. A3.
5. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sunday 14 February, 1999
6. Web site
http://amadeus.inesc.pt/~jota/Timor/TimorNews/Mar97/US.arms.transf
ers. to.Indo.I
* * *
NEW PHILIPPINES PUPPET REGIME CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Joseph Estrada, the new president of the Philippines, continues
his predecessors' tradition of using armed force to try to destroy
the Filipino people's resistance to exploitation and oppression in
order to serve u.$. military and economic interests. In
particular, the u.$.-Estrada regime is resurrecting paramilitary
terror groups in the countryside and flagrantly violating the
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), which it signed with
the revolutionary National Democratic Front (NDF) of the
Philippines last year.
According to KARAPATAN (a human rights group in the Philippines)
and the Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace, fanatical
vigilante groups have been organized in Mindanao by the u.$.-
Estrada regime to quell people's resistance to the entry of big
business into ancient tribal lands. These paramilitary groups are
responsible for at least five assassinations, three cases of
forced evacuation, and two cases of desecration of indigenous
peoples' sacred ancestral houses. Such terrorist groups -- often
forcibly recruited from minority groups -- are part of the
counterinsurgency plan conceived and developed by the Joint US
Military Advisory Group and the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP).(1)
In December, only five months into Estrada's tenure, KARAPATAN
documented the assassinations of four other "leaders of people's
organizations" by "armed goons and security guards."(2)
Organizations struggling for true land reform and for workers'
rights have also been harassed and attacked.
The AFP has itself repeatedly taken part in summary executions and
"disappearances." On December 7 of last year, Domingo Baluncio, a
member of the Communist-led New People's Army (NPA), was murdered
by the AFP while he was wounded and out of combat. Baluncio, also
known as Ka (comrade) Mel, was wounded in his right side but very
much alive when the masses brought him to the AFP for treatment.
The AFP commander denied Baluncio timely treatment and he
suspiciously died on the way to the next village, barely one
kilometer away. An autopsy showed that none of Baluncio's internal
organs had been damaged by the gunshot wound. With prompt medical
treatment, Baluncio should have survived. The autopsy also found
numerous severe bruises on his back.
The very next day Danilo Caisip and Jayson Nieva were arrested,
manacled, and brutally mauled in another village. They were turned
over to the AFP and have not been heard from since, despite
repeated attempts of family and friends to locate them.(3)
These acts violate many of the provisions of the CARHRIHL, which
explicitly forbid "violence to life and person, particularly
killing and causing injury" towards those "placed hors de combat
[out of combat] by sickness, wounds, or any other cause." They
also violate similar provisions in the Geneva Conventions.
In contrast to the AFP, the NPA has released several AFP prisoners
as gestures of goodwill over the last two years. The prisoners
were well treated, and were turned over in ceremonies involving
officials from the NDF and the Manila government.
The human rights records of the Manila government and the NDF
reflect their respective class positions. From its beginning, the
Manila government has been a tool of the foreign monopoly
capitalists and local reactionaries. Earlier presidents suspended
the writ of habeas corpus (Quirino in 1951); declared martial law
(Marcos in 1974); launched "total war" in the countryside, leading
to the displacement of 1.2 million Filipinos from their homes
(Aquino in the late 1980s); sought to pass legislation which would
return martial law in practice if not in name (Ramos in the
1990s); and on and on. The u.$.-Estrada regime is only different
in that Estrada has openly declared that "national security" is
his number one priority.
Estrada, who is a former actor, recently used a line from one of
his tough-guy characters against striking workers: "Don't test my
patience."
The u.$. army and government has consistently led and advised the
repressive activities of the Manila government as well. Former
President Ramon Magsaysay was a CIA asset. The u.$. maintains its
control of the AFP through the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group,
joint training exercises, and other military aid.
On the other hand, the NPA is fighting to overthrow the three
mountains which oppress the vast majority of the people of the
Philippines: Feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism, and imperialism.
Led by the Communist Party of the Philippines, the NPA wages a
protracted people's war, which can only be waged by mobilizing the
masses and relying on them. Winning the support of the masses both
a matter of principle -- because people's war is fought by and in
the interests of the masses -- and a matter of practicality,
because the support of the majority of the population enables the
NPA to overcome its technological, numerical, and financial
inferiority. Signing and upholding the CARHRIHL and the Geneva
Conventions is just one way the NDF and the NPA demonstrates its
commitment to the oppressed masses, since many of the members of
the AFP are also the sons and daughters of workers and peasants.
Notes:
1. Solidaridad, December 1998.
2. "The realities of the human rights situation under the Estrada
administration," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf/natsi239.htm.
3. "NDFP condemns salvaging of captured NPA guerrilla and other
GRP violations of human rights and international humanitarian
law," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf/natsi242.htm; "KARAPATAN:
Urgent action needed," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-
ndf/natsi249.htm.
* * *
PUERTO RICO: ONGOING STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIALISM
by a Pennsylvania prisoner
December 18, 1998
Almighty King love to all my brothers and sisters and much respect
and my salute to all who fight in the struggle.
I am a Latin King incarcerated by the beast here in Pennsylvania.
I want to take this moment and drop some knowledge and a piece of
my mind on the Beloved island Borinquen, which whitey named Puerto
Rico.
The other night I was watching the news about Borinquen becoming a
state. Then they showed people in "Puerto Rico" wanting statehood
and I see that these individuals are blind.
Borinquen was a peaceful Island and the Arawaks were humble
people. Along came Columbus and his bastard crew and in the name
of greed and power, killed, raped, robbed and took Borinquen from
my ancestors. You had the young Indian warrior "Agueybana II the
Brave" who killed a spaniard and seen with his own eyes that these
bastards are not God and could die. He took up arms with the
spanish forces. But it was too late because the spaniards were
many and they had better weapons. You had "Ramos Emeteria
Betances" a great revolutionary who wanted neither Spain or the US
to control Borinquen. You have "Don Pedro Albizo Campos" who did
all he could for the independence of Borinquen. The government saw
him as a threat and killed him.
On October 30, 1950, five armed nationalists attacked La
Fortoleza, the governor's mansion in San Juan. There were already
bloody uprisings in other towns on the Island. You have Griseleo
Torresola and Oscar Collayo who tried to kill president Truman in
Washington.
In 1954, you had Lolita Lebron, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andres
Fiqueroa Codero and Irving Flores Rodriquez go inside the Congress
and opened fire on the Yankee imperialist. You have los Macheteros
who delivered a blow on Munoz airport when the nine national guard
planes were destroyed. On April 21, 1981, four individuals robbed
a Well Fargo armored car in Puerto Rico. They escaped with
$348,000 in cash. Los Macheteros soon announced they would use the
expropriation for revolution in Puerto Rico.
On May 16, 1982 four United States navy enlisted men assigned to
the USS Pensacola were attacked while returning to their ship
which was docked in Old San Juan. On January 25, 1975, an
explosion occurred at the US courthouse in old San Juan. Los
Macheteros took credit for it. They did it for the memorial to the
late Albizo Campos. In 1983, Los Macheteros robbed $7 million from
a Wells Fargo armored car in Connecticut. The money was used to
fund their organization and to continue to promote independence in
the island. When Antonio Camacho Negron was released from
Whitedeer federal penitentiary in Pennsylvania for the $7 million
armored car robbery, he said, "I am willing to die for Puerto
Rico's independence -- to serve as an offering if it is necessary
for the liberty and dignity of my people."
These are the people who gave their lives and sacrificed
themselves for the Boriquen. We have to recognize these people. In
1889, the yankee imperialist invaded Puerto Rico and took it from
the Spaniard imperialists. 500 years and we and our island are
still being oppressed by the yankee bastards.
I was born in the united fucking states, but fuck if I am
American. I am Boriquen and proud of it. This ain't no united
states. Every state here was taken from the Native Indians. The
American flag had 13 stars, now it has 51. 51 stars for every
country they conquered. And if Borinquen becomes the 52nd star,
then it will be 52 countries the yankee bastards took. If my
peoples make it statehood, then you have no respect for the ones
who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom and liberty. For
my Boriquen peoples, think twice before supporting statehood. If
it becomes a state, then it will be an open market for many. These
yankee imperialists do not give a damn about you or me and what
ever little bit we have will be lost. To the governor of Puerto
Rico, you are not Boriqua, you are a fucking sell out, sucking up
to the Yankee Imperialist...
I will end this scribe for now. My King Love to my brothers and
sisters and a salute to all who fight in the struggle against
oppression. For my peoples, I will die and for the struggle I will
die. I am a true revolutionary warrior for the cause. Fuck the
Yankee imperialist!
MIM responds: We join this comrade in celebrating the
revolutionary history of Puerto Rico and we add to this list of
individuals the important legacy of the Young Lords Party which
furthered the struggle for national liberation and Maoism for
Puerto Ricans both here within u.s. borders and on the island of
Puerto Rico.
It is true that statehood for Puerto Rico represents a further
sell-out of the island's already lacking independence. But it's
important not to be fooled by the current status of "freely-
associated state," which represents a form of colonialism where
the u.s. is able to control Puerto Rico without integrating the
country entirely into the u.s.
Recently Governor Rossello has been hyping a plebiscite or vote on
the status of Puerto Rico as the "self determination process,"
which allows the people of Puerto Rico to decide what they want.
But this so-called self determination is not real democracy. It is
not possible to talk about the Puerto Rican people exercising
their right to self determination with u.s. troops occupying their
island and the u.s. government controlling the country.
At this time, the plebiscite simply shows what the Puerto Rican
people will say with the bribery and arm-twisting of Uncle Sam.
Only the people themselves in Puerto Rico can establish a true
plebiscite of the people for self-determination. After a stage of
revolutionary nationalism, the Puerto Rican people will be able to
decide their future without the influence of imperialist power.
Anti-imperialists must use this opportunity to expose the lie of
self-determination at every turn. We must remain strong in our
demand for complete u.s. withdrawal from the island of Puerto
Rico. At the same time we must be honest with the people that a
Maoist revolution is necessary to achieve true self-determination
and national liberation. And for this we call on our comrades both
within u.s. borders and in Puerto Rico to strengthen the Maoist
pole and build forces as a part of the United Front against
imperialism led by MIM.
* * *
REVIEW: INDIVIDUALIST APPROACH SINKS REFORMIST FEMINISM
Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law
by Stephen J. Schulhofer
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998
reviewed by MC5
There is so much wrong with this book that it would take another
book to cover all its political errors and factual distortions.
Here we will focus on just three areas: communism versus
reformism, subjectivism and law, and rape as theft.
Communism versus reformism
Schulhofer is familiar with our arguments about gender and we
would not be surprised to learn that he had read our MIM Theory
2/3. "If any disparity of economic or social power is sufficient
to establish coercion, then unacceptable force is pervasive in
sexual relationships and in all human affairs" (p. 53).
His response to radical and revolutionary feminism is aggressive
liberal individualist reform. He proposes a huge array of reforms
to sexual assault law and its interpretation in the United $tates
-- for everything in every possible individual scenario to be
argued in court. He acknowledges that men have more power than
wimmin and talks about this problem -- the problem of starving
wimmin exchanging sex for humyn needs at one extreme and
supermodels sleeping with photographers and movie directors at the
other extreme.
Schulhofer considers but rejects the idea of communism. He
considers but rejects the idea that the physical act of
intercourse is itself rape (see Andrea Dworkin) -- with notable
exceptions discussed later. Furthermore, "if sexual interaction is
ruled legally out of bounds every time one of the parties has any
possible source of power over the other, our opportunities to find
companionship and sexual intimacy will shrink drastically. To
create a legal barrier to every relationship not formed on the
purely neutral ground of the singles bar or the church social
would be pathetic and absurd" (p. 14).
MIM would go further: there are no relationships that escape the
dynamics of power in our society; yet, as revolutionaries, we do
not tell the workers simply to give up working. That is not our
solution. Neither do we think that revolutionary feminism means
giving up sexual intimacy just because all sex is currently rape.
Giving up intimacy is a real option for people right now,
especially in the imperialist countries -- but the only complete
answer is eliminating the underlying power structure.
The bottom line is that Schulhofer finds it unfortunate that
starving wimmin with children might need to find a male to
sexually service to survive, but he concludes there should be
nothing illegal about that situation, especially in a short-term
relationship where there is no divorce. In fact, in Schulhofer's
individualist way of thinking, the use of power by professors
interfering with wimmin's petty-bourgeois careers is worse than
the use of food for the starving! (p. 110).
He spends pages and pages talking about various situations in the
workplace ranging from harassment for sexual favors to bribery of
superiors by wimmin seeking unjustified promotions -- where there
are both spoken and unspoken threats and promises. The simple
solution that exists under socialism -- the guarantee of a job --
eliminates the possibility that career power can be used to obtain
sexual services the way it is now. Also, with the removal of the
profit motive and the creations of a different socialist ethos,
the aspiration to "climb the ladder" for persynal benefit will be
sharply reduced.
Under socialism, there would be no reason a womyn would keep quiet
about threats for fear of her career, because business will no
longer be run by private interests. Her job and geographic job
mobility would be guaranteed no matter what one particular persyn
thought or wanted. In one swoop of socialism, we eliminate what is
probably more than a million cases per year in the U$A.
Under communism we would go a step further and eliminate the power
of people over people completely. That is the simplest and most
enforceable answer to the sexual harassment in the workplace
problem.
Subjectivism and the law
Law professor Schulhofer has found a gold mine for attorneys in
describing how unwanted sex should be tackled -- subjectivism and
individualism. The backlog of cases he wants to create will fill
the courts' dockets and lawyers' pockets.
After consciously rejecting simple and revolutionary answers to
unwanted sex, Schulhofer seeks to refocus the law on consent (p.
22) and figuring out how to determine if consent is given -- case
by ponderous case. This means that he wants courts to enter into
the subjective mind-frame of accuser and accused. The reason he
gives is that too many rape cases depend on proving the use of
violence, when there is also non-violent theft -- as when a thief
sneaks in and out of a house undetected.
Once we accept this premise of Schulhofer, we are free to conclude
that the same set of actions may result in marriage in one case
and a rape case in court in another situation. He fully admits:
"Physically assertive conduct that seems alluring to one woman may
seem terrifying to another" (p. 49). That is what we mean by
subjectivism. The fact that Schulhofer wants each case considered
in all its details demonstrates both the hopeless principle of
individualist reformism and the nature of legal discourse as
pornography.
Schulhofer opposes corroboration requirements (medical examination
or witnesses), which existed in the law until the 1970s, that made
it impossible for a womyn to convict her rapist based on just her
word against his (pp. 18, 19, 26). He claims that such did not
exist in other areas of law; although he never deals with the fact
that in murders there is usually a dead body or at least testimony
to its existence by the accused in rare cases. If someone is shot
dead in most cases it won't be because the victim wanted it.
Contrary to consistent anti-Liberals like MIM, according to
Schulhofer's view, most sex is consensual, so he has no business
drawing an analogy with murder.
In thefts there can be recovery of the wallet. So in sex there is
no consistent Liberal reason to leave it to the womyn's word in
court. Apparently Schulhofer believes that a womyn's word may be
so credible that no reasonable doubt could be raised by a man so
accused.
Marxists are familiar with such reasoning. Under feudalism in
Europe, there were many cases where no standard of proof by the
peasant was sufficient to overturn the word of the lord. This is a
hypocritical and selective introduction of non-Liberal ideas into
the court system, ideas that leave 100% discretionary power to the
ruling class to convict when it sees fit, case by hypocritical
case. Such discretionary power does not get used to eliminate
rape. It only gets used to make people think something is done
about rape when in fact the ruling class has an agenda of using
rape for oppression.
Some examples of what Schulhofer thought should be counted as
evidence of force -- the flexing of muscles (p. 76), an
unspecified threat made after sex (p. 44) and the difference in
age between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old (p. 111).
Perhaps the best subjective move made by the courts and backed by
Schulhofer was to consider the act of penetration itself force
worthy of conviction. Here is Dworkin being used against one man
in a New Jersey case of 1992. Schulhofer admits that it was not a
case where there was any "tearing of tissue, bleeding, or severe
abrasions"(p. 95). There was no damage. "The requirements for a
felony conviction -- penetration and physical force -- would be
met by the physical thrusting involved in every act of mutually
desired intercourse"(p. 95). He applauds because he believes there
was no consent, and the law be damned for having to prove force.
There were many disgusting cases in the book, from both the
defendant's and the accuser's point of view, but this one may be
the worst, because it proves that courts will take Dworkin-like
arguments and apply them only when they feel like it.
A similar case that Schulhofer wanted raised was one involving a
size differential. He was 6 foot 2 and 185 pounds and she was 5
foot 2 and 100 pounds. She did not utter any objections (pp. 268-
9). After conviction he only won on appeal. Once again, if size is
the fact of force, then we have just condemned the vast majority
of relationships, but the court typically employs this kind of
reasoning to go after one persyn. In other words, it is yet
another discretionary tool of the ruling class available at almost
all times when the court needs it.
Not all lawyers agree with Schulhofer. Michigan tried to get out
of the interpretation of consent problem, but like others, it
failed with its legal reform. A law passed that said any
intercourse that occurred while armed was non-consensual by
definition. That stood until someone got a life sentence for
having a gun in his car and having intercourse with a womyn (pp.
35-6). So then it was back to case-by-case review. For MIM it is
back to why communism is the only real solution -- an elimination
of the causes of violence. Individualists have taken on an
impossible job -- determining individual consent in sexual
relations case-by-case.
Rape as theft
In arguing for "sexual autonomy" as a humyn right, Schulhofer
derives much inspiration from looking at sex as a type of
property. He argues that theft of wallets is more protected
against by the law than theft of sexual autonomy (p. 13).
MIM considered this idea of rape as theft in place of the idea
that all sex is rape. We rejected it almost a decade before this
book and Schulhofer's flawed analogies do nothing to persuade us
to further build the police-state of Amerikkka.
As a matter of fact, if someone chops off a body part of another
persyn, that in itself is evidence like losing a wallet. There is
no failure in seeing the body as the same as a wallet within the
existing legal system.
What happens in contract negotiations between business partners --
that is more like the situation of rape in the United $tates. The
problem lies in determining whether a transaction was lawful or
not or whether it involved extortion. Just as courts are filled
with difficulties determining whether contracts have been met or
existed in the first place, so too rape is a question of examining
something that could be "mutual" or could be illegal by Liberal
ideas.
Schulhofer does admit that some court cases and laws have gone too
far in the paternalist direction of over-regulation and thus
treating wimmin as permanently frail victims. Yet he considers a
simple answer consistent with his own property type arguments and
he rejects it -- consent forms. He admits that defense lawyers in
some situations are being forced to prove consent, instead of
prosecutors having to prove guilt. In one particularly backward
case, a court used the "crush" of the accuser on the accused and
the romantic setting as evidence of the alleged rapist's guilt (p.
92). It just goes to show that courts mired in Liberal
individualism do not apply any consistent logic except that which
happens to serve the ruling class. Spreading confusion case-by-
case guarantees that the public will never come to a common
understanding. Such division benefits the patriarchy and ensures
its survival.
Schulhofer ridiculed the idea of requiring signed consent forms
for sex, presumably because they would inconvenience the majority
and break up spontaneity. In the name of spontaneity and
subjectivity, Schulhofer goes so far as wanting the public to
adopt universal ideas of "body language" (p. 272), in cases where
the word "yes" can't be obtained. We can just see all the lawyers'
bucks that will be made on that one!
From MIM's point of view, the rejection of consent forms is
typical of what is wrong with people lacking a collective spirit.
We see no reason why some people should suffer the trauma of rape
or unjust conviction just because the allegedly normal and free
majority would be inconvenienced by consent forms. It's obvious
that within property-obsessed societies, consent forms are just
one more type of contract. Hence we back this idea that Schulhofer
considers extremist; even though we do not agree with the "rape as
theft" line. We still think consent forms would be better and more
consistent than what we have now.
* * *
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IS LATEST CASUALTY
by MC12
Since 1966, the police have been legally required to read people
their "rights" before interrogating them or using their statements
against them. The point was that many people do not know that they
are legally allowed not to say anything until they have a lawyer
around to warn them about the dangers of confessing, by accident,
on purpose, or under duress.
Now a federal court with jurisdiction in Virginia, West Virginia,
Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina has said that if a
confession is "voluntary" then it's OK if the person arrested
wasn't read his or her rights before confessing. That is: "You
have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
used against you..." and all that.
This sets the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which may
very well overturn the 1966 "Miranda" case. Contrary to popular
opinion, this was a recently won "right" and not something given
in the Constitution.
In the case, Charles Dickerson confessed to the police on a bank
robbery and named an accomplice. His accomplice then confessed
that the two of them had robbed many banks. But he confessed
before anyone read him his rights. The point of the "Miranda" rule
is that a lawyer looking after his interests might have talked him
out of the confession.
Of all the injustices in the system, coerced confessions is just
one. By the time poverty and oppression, racism and patriarchy,
unequal and inadequate education, and bourgeois conceptions of
morality lead to some people getting arrested while others are
given medals, it's really too late. But even at that late date,
the "Miranda" rule helps protect some victims of the injustice
system. And it was a victory won by the struggles of the oppressed
against arbitrary abuses of power.
To lose this rule doesn't make the difference between a fair
system and an unfair one, but it does represent the erosion of
"rights" won in previous popular struggles, and highlight the need
for revolutionary organizing to take the world back from the pigs
who design and run this system.
Notes: Washington Post, February 10, 1999. p. A1.
* * *
MUMIA BENEFIT SENDS MIXED MESSAGE TO MIXED CROWD
by RC93
On January 28, Rage Against the Machine(RATM) brought together
popular acts including the Beastie Boys, Bad Religion, Black Star,
and Public Enemy's Chuck D and Professor Riff for a show in New
Jersey.(1) The concert was organized to raise money for the legal
battle of Mumia Abul-Jamal, who was framed for the murder of a
Philadelphia pig, Daniel Faulkner. There was great controversy
over this concert among government officials and the mainstream
media. Radio talk-show host Howard Stern and Faulkner's widow,
Maureen, were among those to express their outrage, resulting in
New York's K-ROCK to drop its endorsement of the concert.(2)
The controversy surrounding the concert led K-ROCK to offer
refunds to those who did not wish to support Mumia's case.
Mainstream media reported that 2,000 of the 19,000 tickets were
returned in protest of Mumia, while Zack de la Rocha of RATM
quoted the number at 567.(1)
Nonetheless, the tickets were quickly resold. But it is
interesting to ask how many of the 19,000, mostly young, mostly
white people attending the concert did support Mumia's case. From
previous experience RAIL can assume that a majority of the people
attending the mainstream concert were not concerned with the case.
One informed reviewer wrote, "I wasn't the only one though; every
single person that I saw get interviewed was well informed about
the case and to my surprise all gave solid answers."(1) It is good
to hear that young people are aware of Mumia's case, and that
others were informed by the controversy surrounding this concert.
Unfortunately, organizers of the show downplayed the political
importance of Mumia's case, misleading the mass of young fans. In
a press release Zack stated, "Let me say straight up that
tonight's benefit is not to support cop killers, or any other kind
of killers, and if there were no question about the guilt of Mumia
Abu-Jamal, we would not be holding this concert. But whether Jamal
is guilty, or is himself the victim of an outrageous miscarriage
of justice, is precisely what is at issue."(3) The Beastie Boys
made similar statements. This only gives credence to the
Amerikkkan injustice system, which has the goal of eliminating
activists such as Mumia, and has no interest in giving him a fair
trial.
Young activists who want to create a truly just society should
work with MIM and RAIL, who actively oppose police brutality as
well as the repression carried out by other sectors of the
injustice system, with goal of replacing it. While MIM does not
encourage the killing of individual police as a means of obtaining
revolutionary goals, we would support Mumia whether he did it or
not. The fact is that Mumia's brother was being beaten by Faulkner
prior to the shooting, and if Mumia had been the one to shoot the
pig (which is very unlikely) it would have been in defense of a
violent attack.
The reviewer quoted above was disappointed that RATM did not open
with their cover of NWA's "Fuck tha Police" as they had at their
Mumia benefit in 1995. In this song Zack raps, "and when I'm
finished/bring tha yellow tape/ to mark off the scene of tha
slaughter... A young nigger on a warpath/ and when I'm finished
there's gonna be a bloodbath/ All cops dying in L.A./ Yo, I got
sumfin' to say/ FUCK THA POLICE!" MIM prefers this message to the
reformist ideas Zack preached at the recent concert. This goes to
show the wishy-washy line that can result from anarchist ways of
thinking, which also led RATM to work with the reformist group
Amnesty International on this concert.
Notes:
1. Rage benefit concert for Mumia. Review by J. Moreno.
http://www.musicfanclubs.org/rage/mumiabenefit.htm
2. Morello, widow of slain police officer debate Rage/ Beasties
benefit. http://www.mtv.com/news/headlines/990121/story10.html
3. Zack de la Rocha's complete press conference statement
regarding the Mumia Abu-Jamal benefit concert in New Jersey on
January 28th, 1999.
http://www.musicfanclubs.org/rage/zackbenefit.htm
* * *
UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND FROM PRISONERS
TORTURE FOR REVOLUTIONARIES
Northern C.I. was open in Connecticut in 1995 with the usual fan
fare of housing the worst of the worst, but the reality of whom
you find here are revolutionaries, jail house lawyers, leaders of
different organizations. The institution is a very closed setting,
with a mission of total and absolute control. There are cameras
and speakers and microphones everywhere, nothing can be said
without you being heard. Your family ties are curtailed and
destroyed when ever, and wherever possible. Some of the treatment
amounts to torture.
I live in a cell that I have to be fully dressed at all time if I
am not under the covers. I am hungry all of the time, because
since I have been here my food consumption has been cut back. No
sooner that I eat a meal I'm hungry. Then I am made to wait 15 to
16 hours after the evening meal to eat again... the cold and
hunger amount to torture.
You are always under threat of the use of force, being maced and
chained down to your bed. In phase one you have mental patients
living in the cells next door. You are shackled hand and foot
anytime you are moved out of your cell. Mail is constantly
tampered with and censored. If you make complaints to the
commissioner he does nothing but revert back to the same
administration which caused the problem. The grievance system, is
a joke...using trickology and lies to answer grievances never
willing to admit they are wrong. We have just completed a lock
down, that resulted in prisoners jumping on a c/o in Phase III
because he was telling prisoners to suck his dick and grabbed
another prisoner. Instead of correcting, the officer they would
rather try to repress us more.
Pigs use shakedowns of your cell as chances to harass you. I have
had my legal books ripped, my clean clothes found on the floor
upon returning to my cell. Upon moving me from one unit to another
last year, they took and mixed together a number of my legal files
consisting of thousands and thousands of documents only to harass
me. One pig recently came down the tier with a mask over his face
symbolic of the k.k.k., instead of chastising the officer they
white washed it, and covered it up. There have been 3 to 4 deaths
of prisoners here that would not have died had they been
elsewhere. You are basically isolated from other prisoners, you
cannot even pass each other a piece of paper or a book.
-- A Connecticut Prisoner, November 1998
ILLINOIS PRISONS FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS
Tamms which opened for "business" in February 1998, was initially
lauded virtually non-stop by Illinois legislators, spin doctors
and the media as the "last stop" and punishment for the "worst of
the worst" blah blah blah.
Tamms is a $90 million, 500 bed facility... It is currently
housing many non-violent, short-term, mentally impaired, and event
protective custody inmates while operating under the guise of
public safety and justice. The majority of these inmates were
"kidnapped" from general population in the middle of the night
from various maximum, medium and minimum security facilities and
brought here (for no legitimate reason) and placed under
Administrative Detention Status.
The conditions of confinement are dehumanizing, degenerative and
psychologically toxic, to say the least. Certainly our individual
horror stories are similar to those from other "Supermax"
facilities from around the country.
For most of us, the obvious question is "why are we here?"
Although the majority of us may not have been imprisoned for
"political" reasons, circumstance has thrown us into the political
arena. The political motivation behind the actions of the
I.D.O.C., state legislators and media have effectively
"transformed" each and every man doing time here at Tamms into a
political prisoner. And as such, we are seeking strong support
from the outside and look to form a grass roots coalition that
will give a voice to our issues.
To bring you up to speed, we must go back to 1996... On January
13, an inmate named Florencio Pecina was shot (in the back) and
killed by a catwalk officer at the Pontiac Corr. Center (one of
the four max joints in Illinois, along with Joliet, Stateville and
Menard.) It has been established from eye-witness testimony that
this was at least a "bad shot" and quite possibly a criminal act
as inmate Pecina was alone, unarmed and merely walking down a
gallery when he was shot and killed. Pontiac was immediately
locked down and later re-classified as a total segregation
facility, never to re-open again. This, allegedly because the IDOC
claimed that Pecina was an influential member of an organization
which would seek retaliation. Within months of the Pontiac
incident, the other three max facilities followed suit and were
locked down for 1-1/2 years. During this time, inmates were
stripped of everything that the Supreme Court and the riots of the
70s provided when the State would not.
It was also during this time that a Chicago reporter named Bill
Kurtis mysteriously came forward with the 5 year-old, now infamous
"Richard Speck" tapes. These showed convicted mass murdered Speck
apparently using drugs and engaging in homosexual activities while
locked up at Stateville. Needless to say, the IDOC had a bad day
and Director Odie Washington was taking hits from all sides as an
old political monster was re-born. Within days, IDOC spin doctors
were on every station trying to clean up the mess. While at the
same time, mid-level correctional officers were smuggling prison
surveillance tapes (showing inmate banquets) to Oprah Winfrey and
complaining that Director Washington had to go because the inmates
ran all the joints. Illinois State legislators paraded in front of
the cameras nightly sounding off that heads must roll at the IDOC.
But in the end, it was business as usual.
The timing of these incidents was suspicious indeed, along with
the fact that no one lost their job or was even reassigned. When
IDOC unveiled its solution (Tamms) it should have become crystal
clear to any reasonable person that this entire ordeal was a
political masquerade, with a $90 million bill. The public was
hoodwinked by these shysters and we must bear the brunt of the
blow.
As political prisoners, our focus is on the emerging movement
against prisons and other social movement which fight for
political, economic and social justice.
As "Supermax" prisoners, our focus is on relief from the
dehumanizing, degenerative and psychologically toxic conditions of
confinement here at Tamms.
At this date, we have no known voice in Illinois and the
communication between inmates here is virtually impossible due to
the structure of the facility. We need to establish a dialogue
amongst ourselves and also on a national level to establish our
positions on various issues. We need strong outside support and
request any and all assistance that you may provide in this
matter.
--an Illinois prisoner, 4 February 1999
MIM responds: It was for comrades like this one that United
Struggle from Within (USW) was formed. This organization of
prisoners fighting the criminal injustice system works closely
with the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) on the
outside to establish these links between prisoners and to
activists on the outside to coordinate our united struggle.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER TACTICS
All the prison jobs are given to agent provocateurs -- they lie on
you and set you up for the KKK police just to get things done.
These agent provocateurs are allowed to have contact visits in
private with outsiders... The administration or the police will
sanction these agent provocateurs to lie on brothers who are
political conscious and prisoners who are fed up with the
administration injustice. When you become rebellious about the
plight around here, you'll end up in the dungeon all because
you're a decent human being with courage to let the oppressors
know about the bad treatment around here.
--an Indiana prisoner, 3 February 1999
DEHUMANIZING TACTICS
My name is King Celestial. I am a loyal member of the ALKQN.
Today, I received last months breath taking notes, it never fails
to take me into higher levels of understanding.
I'm locked down in New Jersey's Department of KKKilruptions at
their ad seg/STGMU. The system just recently opened this so-called
gang unit. We are placed in this unit until we denounce our
ideologies. Once that takes place, the individual starts a nine
month program. After completion, they are transferred back into
general population. Would that make us a lesser threat? They just
can't stand to see us united as one whole. They limit our phone
calls, visits, showers and recreation. They dehumanize us in every
way trying to constantly break us down. This system is very
wicked. But I blame the prisoners more. They stand up for nothing
and fall for all the tactics the oppressor pushes out. The
oppressor wants us to submit to his savage way of life -- to live
oppressed, in lies, in poverty and senile to every thing they
underhand around us.
Once the administration knows that one is a member of affiliated
with an organization you are discriminated against and denied
status and parole and access to programs. For examples, I was
given a 16 month parole hit because I was a Latin King. I've been
2 years charge free with educational programs under my belt, but
because "I am a King" Here I am maxing out. I've been abusively
transferred to prisons around the state on a "just because"! ...
Struggle is forever and as long.
-- a New Jersey prisoner, 2 February 1999
IMPRISONED FOR NOT SETTING UP FRIENDS
When I first read the MIM Notes, I thought, finally I have found
someone who sees the crookedness of the stars and stripes and
everything associated with it. I applaud and admire your
integrity. ... I would like to still receive MIM Notes. The truth
printed in them fuels my ambition.
I didn't break any laws to call for a prison sentence. The DEA
scum stepped to me and offered me material things if I set up my
people. They wanted me to wear a wire and give them information on
some alleged drug dealers I know. I refused and was jailed on 1st
degree assault on a pig and fleeing the pigs. I managed to break
out of the jail, but I later was snitched out by an unknown rat. I
received an 80 month sentence for the crimes I was accused of.
I get out [soon], 5 years of my life spent in these concrete
hells. I am very interested in keeping in contact with the MIM and
RAIL. This joint is just like any other which has the average Joe
6-pack turning keys and counting for 25 bucks an hour.
The way pigs advance to sergeant or lieutenant depends on how many
discipline reports they write. So you can imagine they make life
hell in here.
-- a Minnesota prisoner, 11 January 1999
ANTI-CENSORSHIP VICTORY
I am writing this to let you know that once again I am receiving
MIM Notes without (apparent) interference. I had to submit
multiple grievances over the paper's confiscation. And it seems
that these complaints have finally resulted in the paper getting
through to me without censorship.
--an Illinois prisoner, 19 December 1998.
A CALL FOR UNITY
To all the Florida POWs: Be on alert. Former SCDC Director Mike
Moore has just been kicked out of South Carolina and is coming
down your way. Moore is a king Ku Klux Klan from Texas who has
fucked up every state that lets him in. I don't know how Florida
prisons are, but I know there's no such things as a 'good' prison.
So if it's bad down there, Moore will try to make it worse.
My advice is simple and nothing new. Stand together and do it
firmly because this pig will only implement rules and policies
that benefit the economic concerns of him and those like him. I
close this missive with hopes that everyone continues to struggle
and don't ever give up.
-- a South Carolina prisoner, 7 January 1999
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
MIM,
I am writing to thank you and inform you that I have been
receiving all the MIM Notes and letters you've sent to me. I want
to remain on your mailing list. MIM Notes is a very powerful paper
and has opened my mind to a lot throughout the world. I will pass
the material around so others may see it. In this current prison
(a super max) I am locked up 23 hours a day Monday to Friday, and
24 Saturday-Sunday so all I am able to do is read. I've come to
know, understand and accept now is the time for change and in this
day in time change must come with revolution. I am a Five
Percenter (5%er) and understand the duty of righteous to spread
the word of truth.
-- A Connecticut Prisoner, October 1998
DENIED LIBRARY ACCESS
The Cell Block unit I'm in does not allow us to go to the library.
We Black brothers have no way of getting Black cultural reading
materials. We are not even allowed to go to the law library. Even
though we are a part of the general population, we are treated as
though we are in a discipline unit. The whole general population
is allowed the things we are not, they call this unit the release
violator unit. Most people in this unit have come back on a parole
violation and being treated like they're in segregation 23 hour
lock up.
-- a Minnesota prisoner, 18 December 1998
EDUCATION IS THE KEY
In regards to your latest communication dated November 23, 1998,
we, a small group of dedicated individuals, believe that education
is the key to success. The Department of Corrections in Tennessee
has cut back drastically in the educational/vocational
opportunities that were available on this particular institution,
citing lack of funds. We believe the focus of corrections has
shifted from rehabilitation to warehousing many of the under-
class, with an eye towards profits.
Most of the true education is self taught, with books being passed
from hand to hand. In particular we are interested in a paralegal
correspondence course that would be recognized in the free society
(outside of prison walls) which would be paid from our own funds.
We are in complete agreement with MIM's objections in the pursuit
of an higher education.
-- A Tennessee Prisoner, December, 1998
EXPOSE THE TRUTH
I am a 48 year old Moorish-American male. I've been imprisoned
since 1975, paroled from Soledad prison into the federal BOP in
1980 and have been in the system since then.
Back in the days in Soledad, we used to read the Guardian and
Burning Spear, prison newspapers, but none match the tenacity of
MIM. On my tear or range there, Maoism was an important part of
our group education. And we soldiers studied it with much
enthusiasm and respect. I am amazed to discover this regenerated
consciousness towards one of the world's greatest teachers. Plus I
explode with joy on how you expose the raw cruelty of Amerikkka's
prisons.
As a struggling jailhouse lawyer and rival of the BOP, I know that
everything that you are printing is oh! so true. And there's much,
much more that I know needs exposing to the world.
-- a Federal prisoner in Colorado, 5 January 1999
TEXAS: STATE OF PRISONS
Greetings! I write to you from a Maximum Security Segregation cell
in the Texas Gulag System of Injustice. I wish to extend my
sincerest respect to you. A fellow revolutionary shot me a few of
your newspapers, and let me say, I was deeply impressed. 95% of
the issues brought up in the articles rang a bell of Truth in my
heart. Finally. I have found what I've been looking for. An
organization dedicated to righting the wrongs of our country! And
in a manner that I agree with.
Let me say that Texas is getting out of control. By the year 2000,
we will have over 150 prisons. "Super-Seg" control units are
popping up like weeds after a storm. Parole grants are less than
8%. If you ask me, they should just erect a fence around the whole
state!
Everyday I witness my comrades being beaten and gassed. And I'm no
exception. And as I write this, a fellow convict three doors down
is lying in his cell with his hands handcuffed. He's been like
that for four hours! He's tried unsuccessfully to hang himself.
Actually, he's tried three times in two days to hang himself.
Yesterday he cut his throat. They took him to the infirmary and
brought him back to his cage. Early this morning he hung himself
again. They didn't even take him to the infirmary this time! Last
week another Black killed himself. They knew he was going to do
it, and did nothing to prevent it. Racist pigs!
-- a Texas prisoner, 30 January 1999.
PIGS DON'T BENEFIT FROM PAROLE
I know of two parole hearings in which a total of 47 inmates went
up for parole, only four inmates made parole.
I all parole hearings are consistent with this, then roughly 9% of
SC inmates get parole.
South Carolina Department of Corrections policy OP21-04 (OP)
Inmate Classification Plan states: nonviolent offenders must do
1/4 of their sentence, and violent offenders 1/3 before
eligibility for parole.
Almost all inmates are turned down parole their first time up for
it. They are given no specific reasons other than: "Due to the
seriousness of your crime, we feel you need to do more time."
Apparently, there's no objective, relevant criteria used. It
doesn't seem to matter whether or not the inmate has been a model
prisoner. Anyone with factual answers on how to make parole,
please let us know!
I have another request of fellow SC inmates or any inmates with
some answers: Pass on to MIM any information on the following
policies: OP22.19(OP) Searches of inmates and OP22.01(OP)
Restraint Chair. Both policies are conveniently restricted! I
believe both policies violate our rights. The screws are not
lettings us know for obvious reasons.
-- A South Carolina prisoner, 25 January 1999
![[About]](/archive/etext/gifs/0_about.gif)
![[Contact]](/archive/etext/gifs/0_contact.gif)
![[Home]](/archive/etext/gifs/0_home.gif)
![[Art]](/archive/etext/gifs/art.jpg)
![[Movies]](/archive/etext/gifs/movies.gif)
![[Black Panthers]](/archive/etext/gifs/blackpanther.gif)
![[News]](/archive/etext/gifs/0_hotnews.gif)
![[RAIL]](/archive/etext/gifs/0_rail.gif)