Arkansas Study Group Responds to UFPP Discussion
I hope this letter finds you and your family in good health and high spirits. I received the information on how to form a study group and a copy of Fundamental Political Line of MIM(Prisons) you sent. Thank you. It has been very helpful. I also received Under Lock & Key No. 45.
The study group I started only has three people involved so far. It’s difficult because we are currently being housed in administrative segregation, so we basically have to yell back and forth to one another. But it’s not all bad. Having to yell to one another might get others involved in our discussions because they might hear something that touches base with them.
The material we used in our first study group was ULK 45. After passing it around we discussed some of the articles. One of those articles was “UFAO Links Up with UFPP [United Front for Peace in Prisons].”
The comrade in the article did some good things, like setting up a “poor box” and doing tournaments, but we feel that he stopped making progress when he waged a war against officers and a lumpen organization (LO). The comrade said that by a member of one LO breaking into the boxes of two other LOs, somehow his treaty was broken. I’m curious, did the comrade investigate the incident to determine whether the theft was sanctioned by the leadership of the one LO? If the theft was just an isolated incident then it should not have had any effect on the treaty. That’s assuming, of course, that the treaty in question was a peace agreement reached between the leadership of each LO in that particular barracks or at that particular unit.
We believe that if it was just an isolated incident then the comrade should have let the leadership of the LO the thief belonged to hand down punishment. However, since the comrade is the leader of the UFAO, he could have called together a “committee” to determine how the situation should be handled. We feel that if the comrade would have just prevented the thief from participating in, or benefiting from, UFAO function, he would still be in population pushing the cause forward.
We’ve learned from the comrade a lot of positive things we might try out in the future, like the poor box, but we also learned to never rush a decision, especially one that could possibly result in a “war.” We believe that all decisions made should be in line with the progress of our cause, and any decision reached should be a collective effort to ensure the best path forward is taken.
MIM(Prisons) responds: In our response to the UFAO article that this Arkansas study group is responding to from ULK 45, we asked others to share tactics for how to handle a breach of a peace treaty without resorting to violence if possible. Everyone’s conditions will be different, and what works in some facilities might not apply to others. This writer’s suggestion of approaching the leading members of the treaty-breaker’s organization is one potential option.
Even though the specific agreements you adopt will vary, it’s a good idea for everyone forming a peace treaty to discuss this question in advance, before an actual breach of the treaty happens. That way you’ll already be in agreement about how to handle a situation like the one explained by UFAO in ULK 45 where the peace treaty was thrown out the window, a “war” was initiated for retribution, and the leader of the peace treaty ended up in solitary confinement.
We hope to continue this discussion of how to make our efforts to build the United Front for Peace in Prisons as fruitful as possible. Send in tactics that have worked in your peace-building efforts to maintain course when it seems to be going off the tracks.
