The Prisons Ministry, the 15 Feb 2001 self-criticism, and where to go
from here
By MC206 April 30, 2001
1. The Under Lock and Key Campaign initiated in January 2000 (1,2) and extended in January 2001 (3) made mistakes similar to those criticized in the 15 February 2001 agitation self-criticism.(4)
The ULK Campaign did not adequately focus on current demands. Although the initial call stated, "There is room for wide participation as we fight winnable battles," the concrete tasks suggested concentrated on general scientific or ideological education.
For example, people were called on to "write essays, speeches and poems related to the Maoist philosophy of service to the people," or write "a speech concerning the fact that all imprisonment is political." Such materials would be "turned into an informational arsenal to End the Amerikkkan Lockdown."
Of course agitation demands could fit under some of the rubrics of "prisons as political repression," and perhaps even "prison slavery" and "serve the people" -- but in practice (whether or not the Prisons Minister intended it that way) the emphasis of the campaign was on general education through MIM Notes.
In emphasizing MIM Notes submissions, the campaign made the error of "false egalitarianism." Writing for MIM Notes requires a certain level of political and technical knowledge. For many reasons, many prisoners lack one or both.
Of course we should push some prisoners to write for the paper and take initiative in starting their own agitation campaigns. The ULK campaign succeeded in getting prisoners to do this, and that's good. The question is, do we call on *every* prisoner to contribute in this way, can we mobilize them in some other way?
2. The Prisons Ministry has made great strides over the last 18 months, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, branches are now able to deal with incoming prisoner letters in a timely fashion -- not just throwing them in a shoebox and then feverishly going through them over a weekend.
Qualitatively, the Prisons Minister has emphasized party leadership over prisoners, as exemplified in the struggle over Books for Prisoners.(5) Comrades were correctly criticized for sending out books with "no political or organizational follow up."
However, a mirror-image, "left" problem has arisen in our work among prisoners, namely, a stereotyped call for book reviews or articles in return for donated books. This suffers from "false egalitarianism" and is little better than not following up at all.
Of course we should be pushing some prisoners to write such reviews or articles, and be spending some time working with them to develop their political knowledge and writing skills. Sure, these reviews can be an opportunity to engage in ideological/political struggle with prisoners -- which we should be doing -- but leaning on ideological/political struggle leaves the agitation leg weak.
Both right and "left" errors rest on the same basic problems: Laziness, lack of initiative, and lack of leadership among ground-floor, in-the-trenches cadres when it comes to prisoner organizing.
Comrades working on the prisons ministry should pay attention to developing real agitation work which can engage the prisoner masses -- and not only those that are able to struggle with us over focoism or whatnot. The campaign against censorship is one example. Certainly others are possible -- we need comrades with the inventiveness and energy to launch them.
3. The main reasons for the quantitative and qualitative advance in the prisons ministry have been (a) political struggle led by the Prisons Minister and mim136 and (b) practical examples, principally those of the Prisons Minister and mim136.
The Prisons Minister has said that the shortcomings of the Under Lock and Key campaign are partly due h failure to give hands-on instructions. S/he has said that "our circles need more (very concrete) directions on how to research and develop topics."
This is not correct and will compound the basic problem. (a) It coddles laziness by handholding. (b) Conditions differ greatly from turf to turf, and not everyone is equally involved and interested in the same things -- prisoners included. This does *not* mean some branches tasked to correspond with prisoners should be excluded from agitation work among prisoners. Rather exactly what tasks (within our general strategic framework) need to be done and how to accomplish them must be determined by local cadres using their own initiative and leadership.
Of course, this does not preclude the Prisons Minister (or anyone else) from disseminating tips and pointers.
Successful leadership examples will provide more help and inspiration than hand-holding. Branches which show consistent disdain for prisons work and are not advancing have a serious political commitment problem. The problem should be addressed on the level of political struggle, not tactical hand-holding.
1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn201/ulk2k.txt 2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn201/ulk2kcal.txt 3. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn225/ULK2001.txt 4. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn228/RAILSC.txt 5. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/mn223/pmrep.txt
Contact MIM by writing mim@mim.org