MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
www.prisoncensorship.info is a media institution run by the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons. Here we collect and publicize reports of conditions behind the bars in U.$. prisons. Information about these incidents rarely makes it out of the prison, and when it does it is extremely rare that the reports are taken seriously and published. This historical record is important for documenting patterns of abuse, and also for informing people on the streets about what goes on behind the bars.
Our aboveground parties must be
centralized
The revolution shall not be televised
all party disagreements must be internalized
Because the foe uses the media to spread lies
and the likes to use their snitches to stigmatize
They use their C.I’s (confidential informants) to infiltrate our party
lines
Some of their C.I’s
are pretty tempting to the eyes
They’ll spew back at you revolutionary rhetoric to deceive and
hypnotize
They’ll give you a spiel that their “handlers” help them organize
But they’re really pigs in disguise
The real reason they’re around us is to spy,
and gain access to our leadership
So they can tag and identify
Because they’re really working for the F.B.I
Trying to assassinate our leadership
marking them to die.
Like Huey p. Newton said, it’s Revolutionary Suicide,
C.I’s quoting revolutionary jargon and slogans that they memorized
Rhetoric that they falsely digested and regurgitated in order to keep us
mesmerized
This is why the revolution shall not be televised
Because the media stay spreading lies,
So we must be forever cautious and wise
Because its through the crosshairs of that rifle scope that our leaders
are crucified
So you better open your eyes
and recognize
That these are the lessons from the past to help us better
organize!
My skin
My oh so
Beautiful skin
Is a blessin’ and a curse
for me
As I journey
Across this beautiful earth
But the curse of my skin
Is not even the worst
Oh no
What’s worse
Is the hate that come cause of my skin
A hate that live in fear everyday
And in every way
They hate my skin
Due 2 the hate u give
My skin
My oh so
Beautiful skin
Scream T.H.U.G L.I.F.E.
It’s my skin they fear
Yet it’s I that live in fear
Because of my skin
Any and everyday I could die
With no other reason why
Than their fear of my skin
And with that fear of my skin
They can shoot me dead in the street
With impunity
My oh so beautiful skin
I luv dearly
With impunity
As I live this T.H.U.G. L.I.F.E
The New Communist Party of Canada [(N)CPC] was formed by the Kanadian
communist group Revolutionary Initiative (RI) in early 2024. The RI
announced the (N)CPC through the journal Kites which it
co-publishes alongside the Organization of Communist Revolutionaries
(OCR), a communist group in the United States.
In February 2024 the OCR Issued a “red salute” to the (N)CPC
containing mostly praise. In May 2024, the journal Kites
disbanded, explained with reference to the unique circumstances in
Kanada vs. Amerika as well as unspecified ideological disagreements
between the two organizations.
While unity between the (N)CPC and the OCR may have appeared
unprincipled based upon the latter’s criticism of the former, this
polemic argues that they shared a rejection of two crucial political
lines: the labor aristocracy thesis and the significance of national
liberation struggles. To support these claims, first the Dawnland Group
examines the (N)CPC’s political program followed by the OCR’s response,
each published in Kites.
(N)CPC says natives
should ally with settlers
It is difficult to separate the influence of Trotskyism from its
settler-colonial baggage and the (N)CPC demonstrates this truth well.
The Political Program of the New Communist Party of Canada
opens with the (N)CPC’s two “innately linked” objectives: “a) establish
working class rule in the economic and political spheres of Canada; and
b) Usher in a new, non-colonial, equal and fraternal type of relations
between all nations which today remain forcefully and unequally united
within the Canadian state.”(1)
Alone, the second objective is agreeable. But the (N)CPC clarifies
how these two goals are interlinked, writing that neither “is likely to
be achieved in a lasting, meaningful way without the other.
Working-class power without national liberation and national equality
would have to be built on an illegitimate, coercive basis. National
liberation without working-class power would mean a mere reform of
Canadian law, or else create powerless statelets that would fall prey to
any of the multiple imperialist powers contending for domination and
survival in the world today.”
Despite claiming that equality and national liberation are necessary
for indigenous peoples, the (N)CPC supports this only conditionally,
demanding “working class” power come first. Charitably interpreted, the
(N)CPC can be read as considering the “proletariat” of indigenous
nations to be an important aspect of the Kanadian “working class”. In
any case, considering settlers proletariat as (N)CPC does, this would
make the Kanadian “working class” overwhelmingly settler.
Support of indigenous sovereignty contingent upon prior proletarian
revolution renders this support meaningless. Thus, when the (N)CPC
claims that “the only conceivable way to resolve the separate legal
status of Indigenous people without liquidating Indigenous nations as
legal entities is collective rights under the banner of the full right
to self-determination, up to and including secession” and the necessity
of “upholding of the right to secede by popular referendum for all
component republics of the Multinational Socialist Confederacy;” their
conditions render these rights null until proletarian revolution.
National Liberation is a value as much as a strategy. All peoples
have the right to autonomy and self-determination and these rights must
be supported without regards to the opinions of settlers.
Beyond values there are strategic concerns. This “alliance” is
directly risking the sustained colonization of indigenous groups by
“socialist” settlers. The Israeli Kibbutz movement historically
purchased lands form Arabic landlords, where they would evict
Palestinian tenants in order to create “communes.” Despite Kibbutzniks
being considered “left wing” and “socialist,” their settlements encircle
the Gaza strip and they have been used to condemn the October 7
resistance operation (2), the newest stage of the Palestinian national
liberation war. Here the Israeli “working class” has achieved power and
constitutes the main foot-soldiers of genocide. Demanding working class
power in exchange for indigenous sovereignty also neglects the inverse
possibility that national liberation of colonies will be prerequisite
for overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
As addressed in A
Polemic Against Settler “Maoism”, settlers have an inherently
reactionary class role.(3) While isolated settlers reject this role, the
vast majority occupy indigenous lands, stealing their resources and
cheap labor. The basis of settler-colonialism has never been a deceitful
bourgeoisie but their transparent alliance with settlers:
former-proletariat, offered petty-bourgeois class positions through the
redistribution of land acquired through theft and genocide. The (N)CPC
is wrong that the bourgeoisie is the only force standing in-between the
settler-workers and decolonization, and that through “excluding the
monopoly bourgeoisie from this process entirely,” Kanada can negotiate
more just treaties with the First Nations. Settlers are not deceived
by the capitalists against their better interest – a supposed alliance
with the indigenous masses. Settlers assume such a class role because,
with respect to the capitalist mode of production, it is their best
interest.
Settlers are knowing, willful participants in genocide as part of a
bargain with those capitalists in exchange for a petty-bourgeois class
position.(4) This is their best material interest as a class permitted
to escape proletarian existence through conquest. The bargain between
settlers and their bourgeoisie is not conceived via ignorance or
deception, it is the rational consequence of pursuing one’s material
interest within class society: ascension up class and/or national
hierarchy to positions of greater wealth and culpability in
oppression. Settlers fill niches where the bourgeoisie wishes to
expand private property and commodity production, dispose of surplus
populations and compete with other imperial powers. In exchange for
exterminating the original inhabitants, settlers are allowed free reign
of the land and resources of the dead.
There may be a more subconscious belief involved in apologizing for
settlers and manufacturing their innocence, namely that, although
settlers are indeed rationally pursuing their material interests, this
betrays their human interest to live in a world without
exploitation, and that communists can win over the masses of settlers to
this superior moral position.
As discussed in the Polemic Against Settler “Maoism”, there are
important differences between classes and individuals. It is possible to
successfully appeal to the morals and internationalist sentiments of
certain individuals from each class and nation. This will vary wildly
depending on the individual in question and their background. But at the
macro-level, only oppressed nations and classes have the material
interest in a world without oppression which has historically been
wielded to make revolution. Settlers are oppressors. As Black Liberation
Army soldier Assata Shakur famously says, “Nobody in the world, nobody
in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral
sense of the people who were oppressing them.” The (N)CPC suggests just
that failed strategy.
While morals are required to undertake communist revolution, morals
can never be abstracted from their class context. Settler morals,
including the belief that settlers’ working conditions are more
important than indigenous rights, were created with the rise of
capitalism in Europe whose surplus proletarian population was offered
overseas class roles similar to that of Auschwitz guards. The Nazis’
thirst for lebensraum, which slaughtered millions of Jews and Slavs
during the holocaust, was directly copied from manifest destiny and the
treatment of indigenous peoples on Occupied Turtle Island where between
10 and 15 million were murdered (5).
In their first few paragraphs of published writing the (N)CPC have
downplayed the Kanadian “worker” role in ongoing genocide of First
Nations, manufacturing a myth of innocent, deceived settlers. Further,
they dictate the terms of national liberation to the indigenous
communities of Canada in service of the more important “proletarian
revolution.” This is settler “Marxism” and Trotskyism.
Trotskyists believe that third-world revolutions are doomed to
failure without the aid of the more “advanced” proletariat of the
western nations, that socialism is not possible within one country. The
ideas are best summarized by the man himself, discussing how:
“A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of
which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power,
is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its
conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power
in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent
fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not
only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the
development of the international socialist revolution.”(6)
Thus, even if a colonial or semi-colonial country managed to seize
state power, it would fail if international “proletarian” revolution did
not quickly follow. This was as true for Trotsky in the USSR as it later
became for him in China, where he argued with extremely poor foresight
that alliance with the Koumintang had defeated the revolution and that
instead “permanent revolution” was necessary to liberate China.(7) To
the Trotskyist, the proletariat of these nations is insufficiently
numerically developed to lead a revolution. They forget the fact that no
(western) European nation – those initially with the greatest industrial
proletariat – has ever waged a successful struggle for state socialism,
and the fact that third-world national liberation struggles have
accomplished the most significant strategic advances towards communism
in history. Finally, as covered below, most of the populations in core
imperialist countries are labor aristocrats who hold petty-bourgeois
class positions despite receiving wages: they won’t be leading
revolution anytime soon.
Trotskyism is pervasive in Amerika and Kanada. Even without reference
to Trotsky, without explicit statements of the inferiority of national
liberation struggles, it is still perfectly possible for
“Marxist-Lenninist” and “Maoist” groups to uphold Trotsky’s ideas
through organizing settlers of an oppressor nation instead of organizing
the oppressed.
As discussed in the Polemic against Settler-Maoism, settler “maoism”
and Trotskyism share certain chronology with regards to national
liberation, another characteristic of belief that proletarian revolution
takes priority. The (N)CPC believes socialist revolution will
precede national autonomy for indigenous peoples:
“The only way to cut the proverbial Gordian knot is for the
Indigenous national struggle to link up with the proletarian struggle
for socialism in overthrowing the extant Canadian State. Once it
is overthrown, new agreements can be reached over the use of land,
resources and their sharing between nations. True sovereignty
can be enshrined in a new, multinational constitution. This sovereignty
can ensure full, distinct national rights without the need for
any”Indian status,” which would be replaced by full citizenship in a
sovereign nation. Full independence can be achieved by those
nations who want it and have the resources needed to sustain
it.” (Bold ours)
There are no legitimate “agreements” between settlers and indigenous
peoples, because the settlers have used genocide and theft to acquire
their negotiating assets. This is why DLG advocates for the Joint
Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations, which will
enforce the will of the oppressed nations at the expense of the
imperialist and settler nations, such as the Amerikan and Kanadian
nation, a process involving extensive redistribution of land and
resources as well as peoples’ tribunals for criminals against humanity.
Finally, the notion that settlers can decide if indigenous nations
“want” or are “ready” for independence, has been used by colonial powers
for centuries to continue oppressing their subjects.
There is a related issue throughout the (N)CPC political program of
advocating for a homogeneous Kanadian culture without the consent of the
indigenous peoples. Deciding autonomously on such a path long after
achieving independence and having received back all stolen land and
resources, plus some for interest from the settlers, would be a
consensual decision. Settlers should not be advocating for any such
cultural assimilation today. The (N)CPC writes that:
“The monopoly bourgeoisie and its State willfully confuse the
potential of Canada for its actual reality. Canada really could be a
brand-new type of country, one where national sovereignty is not the
preserve of a small parasitic class but is instead granted to the myriad
national groups that give it its rich cultural mosaic. We really
could all work together to preserve our respective cultures, develop our
economy in sustainable ways which benefit all working people, embrace
cultures and traditions originating from pre-colonial North America,
from Europe and now from the entire world. We could collectively take
everything that is old and make it into something new.” (Bold
ours).
Settlers have no right to advocate for the creation of international
cultures together with their colonial subjects. This reduces to an
argument for cultural integration which, in Kanada and the United
$tates, represents genocide through sterilization, kidnappings,
residential schools, and murder by colonial militias and police. Whether
or not they understand this, their language is overtly colonial,
advocating for assimilation and continued unequal relationships between
oppressed and oppressor nations. They need an explicit, unconditional
recognition of indigenous sovereignty or they are no different than
other settlers seeking to maintain unfair treaties with First Nations
without reparations or sovereignty.
The Dawnland Group (DLG) writes this polemic because the (N)CPC’s
understanding of indigenous sovereignty directly contradicts with DLG’s
support for New Democracy in Occupied Turtle Island. In 1940 Mao argued
that imperialism and feudalism prevented China from directly pursuing
socialism. Rather, New Democracy was required first, a dictatorship of
revolutionary classes over the country in order to liberate it from
outside domination, so that socialism may be constructed thereafter:
“The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and
cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the
dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the
establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship
of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese
proletariat The revolution will then be carried forward to the second
stage, in which a socialist society will be established in China.”
To liberate China, the Communist Party led a united front with the
peasants, proletariat, petty-bourgeoisie and some national bourgeoisie
who sided with the communists against Japan in the war for national
liberation. Whereas in Europe, feudalism could be overthrown by the
bourgeois-democratic revolution due to the bourgeoisie’s antagonism with
the feudal mode of production, in colonies and oppressed nations,
imperialism is inclined to promote feudalism from without and thus a
broader united front is required. Despite the defeat of the Cultural
Revolution and the capitalist road taken in 1976, the strategy of New
Democracy liberated China from foreign domination.
Here Mao gives context as to how New Democracy applies to Chinese
conditions:
“Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and
oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a
certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain
degree… Since tsarist Russia was a military-feudal imperialism which
carried on aggression against other countries, the Russian bourgeoisie
was entirely lacking in revolutionary quality. There, the task of the
proletariat was to oppose the bourgeoisie, not to unite with it. But
China’s national bourgeoisie has a revolutionary quality at certain
periods and to a certain degree, because China is a colonial and
semi-colonial country which is a victim of aggression. Here, the task of
the proletariat is to form a united front with the national bourgeoisie
against imperialism and the bureaucrat and warlord governments without
overlooking its revolutionary quality.”
DLG views the application of New Democracy in Occupied Turtle Island
to mean that, in the oppressed nations, similarly to China, the
bourgeoisie may be an importantly ally in the national liberation
struggle. In the oppressor nations (Amerika, Kanada), not only is the
bourgeoisie entirely counter-revolutionary but this is true of the
petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy as well due to benefiting from
and carrying out imperialism and settler-colonialism.
Most bourgeoisie and rich peasantry in China were less wealthy than
the petty-bourgeoisie and much of the labor aristocracy today on
Occupied Turtle Island. The petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy of
oppressor nations in OTI have no great interest in being won over to a
communist cause, because most face no national oppression and are
bought-off from imperialist superprofits. Thus, DLG argues that the role
of the Amerikan/Kanadian communist vanguard is to treat these classes as
hostile and instead support the national liberation wars of the internal
semi-colonies and oppressed nations.
By contrast, the (N)CPC writes of the Kanadian situation that “an
Indigenous petty-bourgeoisie and intelligentsia have also been fostered
by the State as part of its counter-revolutionary strategy. The
revolutionary camp will have to cautiously navigate in building a class
alliance that unites the broadest interests of the Indigenous peoples
while isolating and struggling against these new reactionary classes.”
While imperialism promotes neo-colonial sections of each oppressed
nation’s ruling class who collaborate with the oppressor nation, the
(N)CPC is confusing this small segment of the indigenous (petty)
bourgeoisie with its entirety.
The (N)CPC argues the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie of the First
Nations must be struggled against but the labor aristocracy and
petty-bourgeoisie of the settler nation are important allies to the
revolution. This is a paradoxical reversal of New Democracy, in which it
is inapplicable in the oppressed nations where it was designed
and synthesized successfully, and yet it is applicable in the
core imperialist countries where it has never been employed. Concluding
on their views about national liberation, the (N)CPC recognizes:
“oppressed nations’ right to self-determination up to and including
secession. But we do not content ourselves with this: we recognize that
given the way Canada has been built, total separation between
its various nations is likely to be counterproductive.
Therefore, we intend to build a new form of political and economic
unity, a multinational socialist confederacy whose component parts
are not arbitrarily-drawn provinces, but really-existing peoples and
nations…” (Bold ours)
They provide no explanation for why “separation between various
nations is likely to be counterproductive,” although this is a
convenient platitude for settlers who wish to have an input about when
indigenous people are “ready” for independence, as the (N)CPC indicated
above. It is historically illiterate of the complicity of settlers in
genocide and naive in assuming somehow this time things will be
different and the settler-majority will solve the very contradiction
that their class exists because of.
The (N)CPC pitch must be confusing for First Nations, who have been
systematically slaughtered, expelled and forced onto reservations for
centuries not by capitalists but by settlers pursuing their material
interests. By contrast, a vanguard among the settler nation would be
formed through a revolutionary defeatist position, unequivocally bent
towards the destruction of the settler class role through the
repatriation of land, resources and sovereignty to First Nations via
revolutionary national liberation war.
The small chance of a vanguard position emerging in Kanada and
Amerika will be squandered so long as Trotskyism continues selling
indigenous peoples the promise of new negotiations with the same settler
class that has been occupying their lands and seeing their genocide
through for centuries.
Making proletarians
from labor aristocrats
The (N)CPC writes that,
“comprised of all those deprived of the means to produce and forced
to sell their labour power to survive, the proletariat is the largest
class in society, forming somewhere between 60 and 65% of the
population.”
There are two crucial Trotskyist components involved in viewing
Kanada as 60% proletarian. First is the view discussed above that
settlers can occupy revolutionary class positions; that they can still
be “workers”. Second is the view that labor aristocrats who are paid
above the value of their wages through super-exploitation of the global
south can be proletarian rather than petty-bourgeois. These ideas
closely overlap because the labor aristocracy on Occupied Turtle Island
is mostly settler and the settler nation (Amerika/Kanada) is
overwhelmingly labor aristocratic, save for a tiny minority who fall
into the lumpenproletariat including homeless and prisoners.
Throughout their political program, the (N)CPC rejects the labor
aristocracy thesis. The (N)CPC views the three main contradictions in
the world as
“(a) between the imperialists themselves, which means the struggle
for the re-division of the world is always in motion, albeit to varying
degrees; (b) between imperialist countries and oppressed countries,
which means imperialist exploitation and oppression, and the struggle
for self-determination and independent national development; and (c)
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in each country, which means
class struggle and the potential for socialist revolution.”
Contradiction (b), an important mention, is suspect based on their
treatment of oppressed-nation struggles within Kanada as shown above.
Because of their use of the term “countries”, it is unclear if they
believe this imperialist/oppressed dynamic plays out among the nations
internal to settler-colonies. Contradiction (c) however is wholly
incorrect as in Kanada and Amerika, the proletariat is numerically
insignificant. The vast majority are allied to the bourgeoisie as
settlers and/or Labor Aristocrats, making class struggle minimal on
Occupied Turtle Island at the present time.
The (N)CPC disagrees. They write that
“Through the housing market an ever-growing portion of workers’
paycheques are transferred back to the bourgeoisie in the form of rent
or interest. Either enslaved to mortgages or rents, workers are often
one step away from the streets.”
The term slavery is best reserved for slaves, not home owners. The
view that swaths of workers are “enslaved” to their rent via landlords
is subjective, equally so to being “one step away from the streets.”
In Occupied Turtle Island, these terms are overused as much as living
“paycheck to paycheck.” In the imperial core where minimum wages are ten
times that of the global proletariat, where public services provide the
vast majority with water, electricity and transportation, it is
chauvinistic to discuss “slavery” to anything. The global proletariat
often choose between extremely limited and poor quality food and
housing, or earns too little for this choice, subsisting parasitically
or dying prematurely. It should be clear that the (N)CPC is attempting
to minimize the wages of imperialism paid to the labor aristocracy
through super-exploitation of the global south. The Polemic Against
Settler-Maoism and MIM(Prisons)’s
study on the housing market (8) are invaluable demonstrations of the
growth of the labor aristocracy in Occupied Turtle Island
throughout the previous half century.
The (N)CPC’s specific examples of the proletariat exemplify another
Trotskyist approach:
“At its core are those who work in natural resources, manufacturing,
construction, transport, and logistics — labourers at the centre of
capitalist exploitation. They are key to the revolutionary movement
not only by their large number – around 4 million – but
because they are the producers of commodities and wealth… those working
in industries which allow labour-power to reproduce itself over time –
chiefly health care and education – totalling approximately 4 million
workers… those working to facilitate the circulation of capital –
primarily workers in retail and services with about 3 million workers.
Without these workers the bourgeoisie cannot maintain itself in the long
run or realize its profit. Together with the labourers, these sections
of the proletariat, totalling about 11 million people, hold the
potential to establish a new, socialist economy.” (Bold ours)
Here is a typical Trotskyist confusion of the “importance” of a given
trade to the economy for the revolutionary potential of the workers
therein, which the (N)CPC states as the
“principle of workers’ centrality. That is, the principle that the
workers at the centre of production – and found in great concentration,
specifically, the labourers in large-scale industry and the health and
education workers in the major service centres – form the heart of the
proletariat and the main force for socialist revolution in Canada. The
Party must therefore, first and foremost, establish and build itself
within these workplaces.”
As discussed in the Polemic Against Settler-Maoism, this is a
Trotskyist obsession with numbers and a mechanical application of the
conditions of other historical revolutions onto the imperial core,
assuming revolutionary insurrection will play out along similar lines
despite the bargain of the majority with imperialism. This follows
Trotsky’s belief in a quantity of “advanced” “workers” in capitalism as
prerequisite for socialism, a condition missing from “backwards”
(oppressed) nations.
This opportunistic error leads to mass work among a numerically
enormous yet counter-revolutionary base who benefit from imperialism.
This mass-work is ultimately not communist because improving the lot of
labor aristocrats is important to the bourgeoisie. Social democratic
policies greatly expanding the labor aristocracy were implemented during
the 1930s and 1940s across western Europe and Occupied Turtle Island in
order to compete with socialism in the USSR and materially dissuade
workers from communist politics. This strategy succeeded and that’s why
only oppressed nations have led communist vanguards in OTI since; there
is next-to-no more economic exploitation.
OCR “Revolutionary
Salute” to Trotskyism
All should salute the OCR for criticizing a major (former) partner
organization. A complete assessment of OCR line and practice is far
beyond the scope of our discussion – perhaps impossible during a human
lifespan given their volume of writing.
Unfortunately though, they must be criticized for their unity with
the (N)CPC as well as what this demonstrates: deeper held agreements
with a Trotskyist political formation. This should serve as cause for
reflection and struggle for OCR membership and readers.
Lets begin discussing some strengths of the OCR’s Red Salute.(9)
Readers will have noticed the (N)CPC does not even claim to uphold
Maoism as the most advanced science of the proletariat and the OCR is
correct to criticize them for this, although it is strange the latter do
not require Maoism for joint publications with other communist groups.
All the same, their section on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
in the Red Salute develops many interesting criticisms of the
(N)CPC not addressed in this polemic.
OCR criticisms of the (N)CPC’s betrayal of the labor aristocracy
thesis and their failure to recognize the class nature of imperialism,
as well as pointing out the ludicrous idea of a 60% proletarian Kanada,
are all strong. We praise their criticisms that college-degree
occupations including teachers and medical workers are petty-bourgeois,
and their criticisms of economism and “worker centrality” are good.
Yet, despite acknowledging that they are not Maoist nor sufficiently
anti-imperialist in their class analysis, the OCR still issues a
revolutionary salute to the (N)CPC. At first this seems odd, given the
significance of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and mention of
labor aristocracy in the OCR Manifesto and within Kites 8.
Ultimately, DLG concludes that the unity of these two groups derived
from a shared lack of ideological commitment to national liberation and
the labor aristocracy thesis.
OCR’s soft Labor Aristocracy
thesis
Regarding the (N)CPC’s view that the labor aristocracy forms a mass
base for revolution, the OCR’s manifesto says those gaining from
imperialism in the United States include:
“the petty-bourgeoisie – people who own and operate small
enterprises or who possess skills and education that enable them to sell
their labor at a higher rate – as well as the labor aristocracy
and bourgeoisified workers, whose work is more proletarian in
character but who make substantial wages above what they need to survive
and have significant job security and health and retirement benefits…
However, among these middle classes and the ideological state
apparatuses and political institutions of the US, there is always
conflict and struggle with the bourgeoisie which at times becomes quite
acute.” (Bold Ours)
This concept is evident within Kites 8, the OCR’s most
significant work, an attempt to summarize all those communist parties
across U.S. history which they consider important. (10) They praise the
Revolutionary Communist Party(USA), saying that the latter “developed a
united-front-level program that addressed the key social faultlines of
the time and could unite, in a broad resistance movement, all those in
political motion who were objectively on the proletariat’s side of those
social faultlines.” Much like the (N)CPC, the OCR is claiming there are
segments of each class that can potentially be united to fight for the
proletariat.
Written by an OCR author named Kenny Lake in Kites #2, the
second article in the “Specter” series’s conception of proletarian
revolution is put similarly. Lake writes that:
“revolutionary civil war can only be initiated after the proletariat,
led by communists, has built up the organized forces for revolution
through a lengthy process of class struggle and creates and takes
advantage of favorable conditions for the launch of an insurrection.
The proletariat cannot do this alone, but must forge an alliance
of classes under its leadership by taking advantage of the conflicts and
struggles between the various middle classes and the bourgeoisie and
within the bourgeoisie’s ideological state apparatuses” (Kites
2, pg 36. Bold ours).
It is crucial to say that the proletariat “cannot do this alone.”
This is quite similar to the (N)CPC’s view of the petty-bourgeoisie, who
they claim is
“neither exploiter nor exploited…For a large part of this class, the
lower petty-bourgeoisie, living conditions are similar to that of much
of the proletariat…stuck between a rock and a hard place, we must win
this class to allying with the proletariat for a better life in
socialism. The proletariat must struggle to win them over under its
leadership in a united front against the bourgeoisie, as they can be
powerful allies, holding much influence in universities, trade unions,
media outlets, religious organizations and other such institutions.”
Thus, one explanation of the OCR’s unity with the (N)CPC despite the
latter rejecting the labor aristocracy thesis outright is because the
former hold a weak version of it. For the OCR, even though the
proletariat is the primary revolutionary class, the petty-bourgeoisie
and “various middle classes” still hold revolutionary contradictions
with the U$ bourgeoisie. As such, it may not matter if a struggle
revolves around the concerns of the proletariat or the petty bourgeoisie
or the labor aristocracy because there are advantageous contradictions
among each group.
It is true that actual oppressed classes and nations at times must
make alliances with others. The potential for progressive alliances
depends heavily on the class or nation in question. The OCR and (N)CPC
are misguided because the “middle classes” in Amerika and Kanada are
direct perpetrators of imperialism and settler-colonialism, and as
classes have conflicts with the bourgeoisie only over dividing
spoils.
National
Liberation and New Democracy on Occupied Turtle Island
As previously indicated, the OCR and (N)CPC “class alliance” theories
are an inverted application of the Maoist idea of New Democracy to the
United $tates / Kanada context, these countries being inundated with
settler-colonialism and labor aristocracy. Settlers have a
counter-revolutionary class position with regards to indigenous peoples,
and labor aristocrats have a counter-revolutionary class position with
regards to their nation’s imperialism.
The application of New Democracy to Occupied Turtle Island means that
revolutionaries in various nations have highly distinct
responsibilities. The Amerikan vanguard is distinct from that of
oppressed nation vanguards. The main role of the Amerikan vanguard is to
promote the formation of a Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the
Oppressed Nations through the national liberation struggles of colonies
and internal semi-colonies on Occupied Turtle Island. Amerikan
revolutionaries will not liberate themselves because they suffer no
oppression or exploitation.
By contrast, labor aristocrats within oppressed nations hold certain
revolutionary contradictions by virtue of experiencing national
oppression. Their class can be organized towards the goal of liberation
for their respective nation. This is true for the petty-bourgeoisie and
some of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations in Occupied Turtle Island
as well.
The same is untrue in the oppressor/settler nation. The few
revolutionaries who form the oppressor/settler vanguard take a
class-suicidal position, sacrificing and attempting to destroy their
petty-bourgeois class through supporting external national liberation
struggles. While the OCR agrees with us on paper with the attitude labor
aristocrat and settler revolutionaries should have regarding
self-sacrifice, they are incorrect to search for revolutionary
contradictions between these groups and their ally-bourgeoisie. If the
alliance is in each party’s mutual interest, there can be no
contradiction.
As identified in the Polemic Against Settler Maoism, the labor
aristocracy has grown wealthier from the 1960’s until the 2020’s. This
signifies to all settlers as well as those from oppressed nations the
opportunity for petty-bourgeois life through rejecting revolutionary
struggle. As such, only a small portion of people from these groups will
constitute a revolutionary vanguard rejecting their class status, as is
demonstrated by the historical record in the U$ and Kanada which shows a
very small amount of communist revolutionaries. Compare this to China in
which hundreds of millions joined the communist party. The bases for
this difference were national oppression and exploitation in China.
The OCR praise the (N)CPC for having developed a “creative” solution
to national liberation struggles through a “clear analysis.” There are
important examples of the OCR qualifying their belief in the
significance of national liberation struggles such that this praise
accords. In Kites 8, they write that:
“Labeling oppressed nations and nationalities in the US as internal
colonies, while morally justified, does not provide the analytical
foundation for such a strategy and program, instead suggesting separate
struggles to liberate each ‘internal colony’ perhaps linked by
solidarity and a common enemy. The “internal colony” analysis fails to
grasp that there is a multinational proletariat in the US,
disproportionately made up of people of oppressed nation(s) and
nationalities but also including white proletarians, which brings
together people of different nationalities who have a common class
interest and similar but variegated experiences of exploitation and
conditions of life, that is in the strategic position, as a
class, to lead the revolutionary overthrow of US
imperialism.”(11)
Submerging the national struggles of all oppressed nations into the
primary “multinational proletarian” struggle is a recipe for Trotskyism,
especially when combined with the implication that some whites hold
revolutionary class positions. It makes struggling with Trotskyist
groups such as the (N)CPC impossible. Having demoted national liberation
struggles compared to “multinational proletarian revolution”, how could
the OCR disagree that class struggle is more significant?
Despite their affirmation of the right of separate nations to their
own revolutionary organizations, OCR says that this trend
ideologically
“strengthened revolutionary nationalism and weakened the potential
hegemony of the communist world outlook over the growing revolutionary
movement. Practically, it meant that the best of the Sixties generation
were in separate organizational structures rather than combining their
strengths and debating out the crucial questions before the
revolutionary movement within one united democratic centralist
structure.”
This echoes the (N)CPC’s claim that it would likely be
“counterproductive” to have separate vanguards for First Nations,
despite the strong risk that white chauvinism will corrupt the formation
of a vanguard party as the OCR documents having happened to the
Communist Party(USA) and the Revolutionary Communist Party(USA) within
Kites 8.(12)
Towards the end of Kites 8 the OCR writes how US revolution
could hinge on developments in nations like Puerto Rico, the Dominican
Republic, Jamaica, Haiti, other Caribbean nations as well as countries
in Central and South America. They write that
“To maximize potential for revolutionary spillover, a communist
vanguard must carry out political work among the immigrant populations
in the US from the countries in question and link the struggles in their
homelands with the struggle in the diaspora.”
While we agree with the attention necessary towards these oppressed
nations, their value is not about “spillover” but about the necessity of
destroying imperialism before proletarian revolution can happen
on Occupied Turtle Island. Until this time, there will be almost no
proletariat whatsoever, but rather a mass of bought-off labor
aristocrats, even among the oppressed nations. The toppling of
imperialism and settler-colonialism will break the class basis for the
labor aristocracy and shift the tide in the favor of a Joint
Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON). This
would allow the return of all First Nation lands and resources alongside
reparations for all internal semi-colonies. At such point, Amerika would
no longer be living parasitically from the Third World or oppressed
peoples and the class base of bought-off settlers and labor aristocrats
would disappear.
Conclusion
That the two organizations co-published Kites for over three
years and the disagreements we discuss above go unmentioned by the
(N)CPC raises the question if some aspects of their theoretical line
were discarded during party formation. As much is particularly suggested
by the Spectre series – originally published by Revolutionary
Initiative (RI), precursor to the (N)CPC – where a version of the Labor
Aristocracy thesis is employed to study the United States class
structure and locate the US proletariat.
It is the responsibility of the communist movement, particularly in
the imperial core where socialists far and wide are attempting to win
over the labor aristocracy, to establish firm boundaries of cooperation.
Although there is not a single correct method to determine such
boundaries, those claiming to be vanguard formations owe it to the
global proletariat to establish them transparently. Unity between groups
who supposedly disagree about fundamental principles is irresponsible
and deeply confusing to the masses. Here it raised the questions: how
did the RI and OCR cooperate for years to publish Kites without
struggling out some of these differences? Did the (N)CPC’s formation
include a (faction-based) ideological drift the OCR was not aware of? If
not the labor aristocracy thesis, Maoism or the importance of national
liberation, what is the basis for unity with the OCR?
Ultimately, we can only conclude that neither group considers these
lines dividing. Despite everything worth praise from the OCR and the
journal Kites, they need to develop higher ideological
standards and more explicit ideological lines. Although their recent
disassociation from the (N)CPC may be a positive change, the OCR must
allow no further opportunistic alliances to fester, internal or
external. Finally, they should struggle with DLG ideologically and
engage with the critiques we’ve laid out here.
The student movement for a free Palestine must correct the following
errors: capitulation, the First World obsession with “mutual aid”,
refusal to learn from history, blind fumbling in the interest of “doing
something”, hastiness to condemn (rather than critique) the struggle
here and abroad, surface level third-worldism as a justification for
inaction, and the fetish for determining who’s making “real communist
revolution” in place of a dialectical-materialist analysis of
history.
1: The Liberal Trend, The Capitulationists, The Refusal to
Stand IN OPPOSITION to Empire
The first trend I will critique consists of centering one’s own
pro-Palestine political action around things that in fact stop short of
anything that aids the fight for a free Palestine and an end to i$rael.
People following this trend do not fight for things such as divestment
from (or destruction of) weapons manufacturers or rejecting politicians
who support i$rael in words, policy, or money. Rather, these people and
groups focus on things such as organizing donations for individual
Palestinian families, securing scholarships for Palestinian refugees and
diaspora, or, in a more specific and truly condemnable example, the
schools who capitulated and abandoned their encampment for paltry
promises such as a house for Arab and Muslim students.
People rush to defend these forms of “resistance” with “we’re
centering Palestinian voices”, while not recognizing that none of the
things they’re fighting for (NGO-style refugee aid, more
Palestinian-diaspora petty-bourgeois in elite ideological institutions
of the amerikkkan state) are in any way actually opposed to the
amerikkkan empire or contribute in any way to a future in which
Palestine and its people are free from i$raeli and amerikkkan
aggression. We saw the protests in 2020 end in symbolic gains that were
not in any way contradictory to the U.$. empire, nor did they bring true
freedom from the brutality of kkkops in the ghetto. Today, this trend
threatens an unpleasant end for the currently-still-radical Palestinian
liberation movement – a ceasefire on i$rael’s terms, maybe two states,
more scholarships for the Palestinians who survived and were wealthy
enough to get to the United $tates, and everyone who was uncomfortable
chanting anything besides “ceasefire now” (the big brother of “defund
the police”) gets to feel good about “playing their part”.
In the past, people have been harsh on MIM(Prisons) for refusing to
capitulate to accepting any concessions for the First World that come at
the expense of the Third World, or even concessions that don’t
necessarily come at the expense of the Third World but serve to pacify
the First World. Most notably, this is expressed in how angry people get
about the analysis proving that prisoners, while no doubt an oppressed
class and a hotbed for potential for organizing, are not exploited, so
MIM(Prisons) doesn’t generally promote the fight for better wages for
prisoners. To self-criticize, even I myself originally was upset about
MIM(Prisons)’s stated intentions not to fight for healthcare for
transgender prisoners, interpreting this as latent transmisogyny rather
than a recognition that healthcare for trans prisoners (as important a
battle as I believe it to be) is not a struggle in the interest of the
global proletariat. Incidents like the capitulation of student
encampments at Northwestern University, Vassar College, and other elite
universities display clearly how radical a line that really is.
Going forward, two things are going to have to happen in order for
further protests for Palestine of this form to yield meaningful results:
first, protesters are going to have to recognize that everything they do
in protest should be in the actual, direct interest of the oppressed
people of Palestine, not in the interest of “anti-racism” or
“solidarity” or any bullshit half-measures. Second, protesters will have
to prepare to be faced with violence and with the full force of state
repression. Here’s a little logic-puzzle version of what happens when
you say “we’re staying here, we’re causing trouble, and we’re not moving
until you (divest/get rid of your dual degree program/get this
politician out of our town/whatever)”: there are three options. Option
one: you give in, you leave there, you stop causing trouble, you get
your House or your scholarships or your vote-in-six-months. Option two:
they give in, they accept your demands and nothing less. Option three:
they break out the tear gas, the riot batons, the robot dogs, the
big-ass battering-ram pigmobiles. And here’s the truth of it all: if you
let it be option one, you’re worthless, you’ve sold out the people of
Palestine. If you don’t let it be option one, if you make The Man choose
between option two and option three. Well, if he doesn’t have a really
good goddamn reason to choose option two, it’s gonna be option three.
That’s the unfortunate truth, so you better be ready, and start doing
wrist and shoulder stretches, because plastic flexicuffs hurt worse than
the metal ones, what’s up with that.
2. The Dogmatic Trend and its Flaws
What I just laid out describes the main current that I see “on the
ground” in so-called pro-Palestine “activism” that does nothing at all
for Palestine itself. I doubt I’m telling you guys anything new here,
besides confirming that such things are happening and making the
particulars clear. On the flip side of activism-theater, refusal to
study history, and “wins” for the First World, I also have noticed that
there is a trend to be unbelievably reductive and flippant when it comes
to what one’s orientation towards Third World liberation groups engaged
in armed struggle should be, what course of action should be taken in
the First World, and a refusal to engage in good-faith conversation
about either of those subjects without dogmatism.
I am speaking in particular about people who will say (correctly)
“fundraising and mutual aid and liberal-left protests don’t do anything
for Palestine”, but then follow that statement up with “the ONLY thing
that will ACTUALLY free Palestine is communist revolution”. Though the
last month has only strengthened my convictions that communism (in the
form laid out by Marx, Lenin, and Mao, and practiced in the USSR and
China) is correct, and true, and the only pathway to the permanent
liberation of all the oppressed peoples of the world, it seems
disgustingly chauvinistic to imply that the thing that a First-Worlder
can do that has the most material impact on the people of Palestine is
to focus on one’s home country, on some idea of “making revolution”.
Notably, other than MIM(Prisons) and another group I am working with
who I shall not name, I have noticed that people who say such things
don’t ever enjoy discussing what “making revolution” looks like, in this
day, in this country, beyond platitudes. I see this trend frequently
among communists who I know offline, but also among certain prominent
users of popular “anti-revisionist” communist online discussion boards
(I say this not to gossip or shit-talk, but rather because I believe it
behooves one to recognize that even spaces that portray themselves as
“anti-chauvinist” or “anti-revisionist” do not by default take Third
World liberation and the contradictions that it would entail seriously.
Judging by former discussions I’ve seen on the Maoist forums, this
warping of the idea of “revisionism” to defend inaction isn’t a new
trend per se).
This correct rejection of mutual aid and petit-bourgeois identity
politics, followed by the proclamation of the vulgar line of “nothing
you do has an impact for the people of Palestine if you aren’t making
communist revolution in your home country”, seems to me to be a
disguised version of the same sentiment that leads to disgusting and
chauvinistic lines such as “well, we should critically support Hamas,
but they aren’t communist, so the most important thing is to be critical
of them”. Did Torkil Lauesen believe that the most important thing that
a First-Worlder could do was “make revolution”, and that in the absence
of a clear path forward, one should sit on their heels and wait for one
to appear? did Ulrike Meinhoff? Would any of the people who say, whether
behind their screens or out on the streets or in the encampment, “the
only thing you can do for the people of Palestine is make communist
revolution”, genuinely try and claim that they’re doing more for
Palestinian liberation than Hamas, Lauesen, or Meinhoff? Of course I
don’t intend to advocate adventurism, I don’t believe that we in the
First World should be taking up the gun or robbing banks, but I do
believe that a refusal to engage with the question of what a liberated
Palestine (and, if Cuba and South Africa, for example, are any
precedent, not necessarily a communist Palestine) would look like beyond
First World radical academics’ ideas of “building revolution” is just a
flipside of the chauvinism displayed in the “well, at least we’re doing
SOMETHING” rhetoric of mutual aid and peaceful protest.
No matter whether they distort Marxism, Maoism, or third-worldism,
they inevitably find their way to the same conclusion: none of the
groups currently debating and fighting and sacrificing for the
Palestinian cause are worthy of my time; they’re all revisionist,
bourgeois, labor-aristocrats; students are all postmodernist
bourgeois-wannabes risking their educations and sometimes their lives
for the bit; protesters are all shills for the DNC; thank goodness I
don’t have to feel bad about my inaction. The dogmatists, the
“do-nothing”-ists, imply, in essence, the same thing that the first type
of chauvinists implicitly believe. The job of a First-Worlder is to
fundraise, or to go to art builds, or to read and daydream about the day
a revolution free of contradictions springs from the soil, while the job
of a Third-Worlder is to die.
3. Both Are Worse
As I’ve already said, my central point is thus: both trends, more
than anything else, serve as a justification for the ostensibly
class-conscious First-Worlder to not do anything that would compromise
their comfortable lives, a veritable “class-suicide hotline.”
“no, First Worlder, don’t go beyond liberalism and bourgeois
legality, don’t commit your valuable free time to reading and study,
don’t risk getting expelled – parade-type protests, symbolic
encampments, and mutual aid funds are totally sufficient and just as
important! You have so much to chant for, you have so many tech jobs to
land!”
“no, First-Worlder, don’t get involved, don’t join any groups, don’t
talk to the lower and deeper masses, don’t learn from resistance
movements of the past – you haven’t fought with enough other First
Worlders online or in your book clubs, god forbid you accidentally make
a mistake and learn from practice!”
These are the two trends that we must combat in the struggle for a
free Palestine here in the belly of the beast, where all the funding and
weapons for the ongoing genocide continue to flow from.
We just wrapped up our Fourth of You-Lie annual fundraiser. The
results so far aren’t great. We’ve only received about a third of the
number of donations we got from comrades inside for all of 2023, and
less than a third in the amount received. That means we need to get
twice as many donations in the next 6 months as we got in the first 6
months of this year to maintain where we were. And ideally, we want to
be increasing the percent of funding that comes from donations from
prisoners. The amount of donations we receive from prisoners is one way
we measure mass support for our work and whether we should keep doing
it.
Our education programs continue to develop. We’ve mailed out the
first group response to our University of Maoist Thought study group on
the Collected Works of the Black Liberation Army. We’ve
completed an update to our study guide for The Fundamentals of
Political Economy, a must-read text. Comrades on the outside also
completed a study of MIM Theory 14: United Front that is
reflected in the content of this issue. We will likely continue this
theme in ULK 87, looking at the united front in Palestine more
and printing your reports on building united front for the September 9th
Day of Peace and Solidarity.
We are also entering Black August as this issue hits the cell blocks.
And soon after that, the September 9th Day of Peace and Solidarity.
Besides the Runaway
Slaves Coalition statement on the United Front for Peace in Prisons,
we did not get any submissions on these topics. But as always we have
our September 9th Organizing Pack that prisoners can request to get more
information on the history of this day, and countless books and
pamphlets on the Black liberation struggle that you can get from our
Free Books to Prisoners Program in exchange for political work.
The week of December 6-13 has been marked as a week of solidarity by
Jailhouse Lawyers Speak. Over the years comrades have suggested a
boycott of any activities that financially benefit the prison system.
This is the tactic being implemented in December, with the campaign
focusing on ending prison slavery and overall abolition of prisons in
general. Our next issue will be out in early November. So if you are
organizing for this week of solidarity, send in art or articles to share
for ULK 87.
This issue features content produced by United Struggle from Within
comrades as part of our campaign to connect the prison struggle to the
student movement for Palestine. Some of these materials were also used
in a pamphlet
put together and distributed on the streets, to get these messages into
the hands of students and outside supporters.
As we finalize the content for this issue, reports are coming in of
the disproportionate deaths of prisoners in the recent heat waves.
Prisoners and prisons are being excluded from new worker protection laws
dealing with heat. This June was the hottest on record. And yet the
imperialists still aren’t getting serious about reducing CO2 emissions
to slow global warming. We welcome your reports on heat and climate
change, especially organizing efforts and how to build a united front
around these campaigns, for the next issue of ULK.
Amerikan Elections
Finally, i thought we should say a few words on the upcoming U.$.
presidential election. For those that don’t know, our slogan is, “Don’t
Vote, Organize!” We aren’t too interested in who becomes president
because there is no anti-imperialist option.
As has become the trend, the Democratic Party wing have been
campaigning hard to “stop fascism”. Our line has not changed since 2016,
when we argued that Trump was not instituting fascism as president
then either. But that does not mean we should not be vigilantly looking
for the emergence of fascism and opportunities to combat it.
Comrades in Texas have reported on lumpen gangs being used by the
state as enforcers in Coffield
Unit and Allred
Unit. Another reader in Allred more recently reported that staff
using drugs to bribe prisoners has continued:
“The prison administration here at Allred Unit have been getting away
with killing prisoners for so long with the help of these so-called gang
members that they fear not the possibility of accountability.”
The use of gangs to police prisoners is not new in Texas history.
However, in the past this role was filled by the euro-Amerikan prisoners
who enjoyed privileges in exchange for enforcing discipline on the
oppressed nation prisoners.(see Robert T. Chase’s book We Are Not
Slaves) While we have written extensively on the revolutionary
potential of the First World lumpen, and even lumpen organizations,
these organizations also have this reactionary potential, making them an
unreliable ally of the proletariat.
In fact, it is quite damning that these L.O.s are consciously working
for the imperialists to violently repress other oppressed nationals. We
address this further in this issue with the ongoing campaign (and
debate) around “Stop Collaborating!” Of course we see the same thing in
Third World countries around the world where the imperialist have built
death squads by bribing various lumpen and military men. And we do
recognize such death squads as a form of exported fascism with no real
base in the Third World itself.
Here in the heart of empire it is more typical to see the
euro-Amerikan petty bourgeoisie play the role of fascist foot soldiers.
We saw a glimpse of this in the attacks of bands of young white men on
the UCLA encampment for Palestine as cops idly stood by. And we’ve seen
it in various street clashes over the last decade with groups like the
Proud Boys attacking radical left demonstrators or gender-non-conforming
events.
But these remain fringe events. While Trump represents a certain
heightening of contradictions in this country, the U.$. state is still
very stable. No one can become president of the United $tates without
support from the imperialists. The current support of the ultra-rich for
another Trump presidency has been pinned largely on the possibility of
Trump era tax cuts expiring if Biden wins a second term. So this is
hardly a sign of the imperialists recognizing the need for a strong man
to move this country into a more authoritarian direction. On the
contrary, it is a sign of a further eating away at the stability of the
United $tates by undercutting state funding through neo-Liberalism. Yes,
the contradictions are heightening, no it is not time to join in united
front with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or whoever ends up being the more
status quo option they give us in November.
This topic keeps coming up again and again and now I see it listed in
the USW campaign list. Let’s look at this from a practical perspective
and not from an ideological one.
Snitching is telling on people. It’s giving information on someone
else to a higher authority to act on it. We can all agree on that
definition. The more important question is to what INTENTION is someone
snitching, and this is what we should analyze as it pertains to our
struggle.
I’ve been reading in ULK about these “comrades” who snitch
on other prisoners because they claim it’s for the good of our struggle.
I call Bullshit. If you really care so much about the health of the
population, become a drug counselor or start a campaign to fight drug
addiction. But you’re not doing any of those things, which actually
involve WORK. Instead you sit in your cell and file these papers to
internal affairs or whoever using the same system you claim to be
opposing, and then you beg them to protect you. Disgusting.
The cops you are snitching on are not part of some larger conspiracy
to keep inmates addicted to drugs or control the population. That’s
absurd. These cops are actually our allies, and though they may be
motivated by profit, they are still facing the same risk and fate we now
find ourselves in. If it weren’t for these allies, we would never have
phones in prison which allow us to contribute to the struggle in ways we
otherwise could never do, not to mention the obvious connections with
our loved ones without police invasion of our privacy.
I understand you who snitch probably can’t afford a phone, and this
makes you angry and spiteful so you wish to do your “public service,”
right? Or maybe you are simply envious of the power and influence of
those who have the plugs. Sorry for that; prison is rough. But don’t sit
here and claim you do it because you just care about us all so much.
That being said, are drugs beneficial to the population? No, but
unfortunately sometimes that comes with it and we should spend our
efforts to make sure the right things are coming in and not the wrong
things. We don’t need to throw out the whole baby with the bathwater. In
fact, a lot of marijuana comes in too and personally this helps a lot
with my service-related PTSD. Shame on you or anyone trying to shut down
these precious lifelines using the guise of our struggle. Getting more
people locked in prison because of your personal misery does not help
the movement. You are not fooling me or any of the real ones out
there.
MIM(Prisons) responds: This comrade is largely
responding to an article in ULK 84, CA
Silences Reports of Drug Trade in Prisons. We can acknowledge the
added nuance in this situation. However, most of the articles we’ve
printed on this topic are comrades trying to get people to file
grievances against political repression or physical abuse by staff,
and other prisoners refusing because they “don’t snitch.” Such cases are
cut and dry. While we can’t rely on the imperialist state to police
itself, grievances and lawsuits are tactics that contribute to building
power. We must expose abuses of the state to combat them. So to say
“Stop snitching on pigs” as this comrade does is truly a reactionary
statement equivalent to saying “don’t resist oppression”.
What the comrade above says about running programs to fight drug
addiction is right on. Just reporting things to the imperialists is
never gonna change things on its own. We must build our own power and
our own independent institutions of the oppressed. That is when the
imperialists will really start to make moves to out compete us by
reforming their own institutions. As far as the state conspiring to
spread drugs, we need to understand the levels at which such things
happen. Just because every C.O. didn’t come together and discuss these
plans doesn’t mean it’s not intentional. To put
it another way, if the state wanted to stop drug use in prisons they
could. It wouldn’t even be that hard. Whether prescription meds or
illicit ones, we know this is a common tool of pacification in prisons,
as is digital media as the comrade
from Pennsylvania discusses.
We discussed with this comrade the loosening of old hierarchies,
staff shortages, and the opening of opportunities in prisons today. Some
of the old ways are going away. Mostly this has led to negative things
like more drugs and neglect so far. But it does create new
possibilities. And that is why we are printing this response. We do want
comrades to be trying to understand the changes where they are
imprisoned and thinking about how our goals can expand and work within
the existing motions of change. United fronts and temporary alliances
are necessary strategic tools.
We ask our imprisoned lumpen readers, can snitching really be
stopped without independent power from the oppressor?
What would it mean to be loyal to “your people” or “your
folks”?
Can the principle of anti-snitching be applied to the enemy who it
is designed to protect fellow oppressed nations or lumpen from in the
first place?
Lumpen as Aspiring
Oppressors
First off, I’m not gonna sugar coat shit. We must identify the
‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressor’, with a concrete analysis, which can get
confusing; because the two groups are united under the flag of the 2nd
Beast and because the oppressed lumpen in the United $tates of Amerika
are struggling to ‘transform themselves’ into the oppressors, so when
they look in the mirror their reflections often resemble the opposite;
in a political, spiritual, psychological, geographical and sexual
essence. Keep in mind that, subjectively and objectively, the U.$.
lumpen are in a figurative yacht compared to the canoes of the
proletariat and peasants of the Third World, as seen in their past and
present conditions. They also sail on entirely different waters,
figuratively speaking.
However, neither ship has an arsenal of cannon balls, as does the
oppressive Imperial Navy, which is a similarity. The problem is that the
U.$. lumpen are trying to arm themselves with cannons inside their
yachts, as a means of initiating the Imperial Navy and are aspiring to
become oppressors themselves, not as a means of internationally ending
oppression/exploitation – it’s the Amerikan nightmare. They are a
spitting image of their culture. They want to grow up and get spanked by
porn stars, like Donald Trump, with herds of piggy banks to save the day
like captain-save-a-rate. The majority of them worship Amerikan Idols,
not because they have to, but because that’s what they strive, with
blood, sweat and tears, to become.
What use is it for the lumpen of the oppressed nations to wrestle
power away from the oppressors only to use that power to restore, or
intensify imperialism? Chances of success is less than a gamble, with
these people steering the ship, it’s a guaranteed loss, because they
only understand bourgeois revolution, not a communist endgame. In a
materialist sense, the lumpen have never demonstrated, throughout
history, any success in establishing socialism. The lumpen have always
failed as a vanguard for very specific reasons, because they are a root
of imperialism. And if you don’t uproot the entire plant, from the roots
up, then the weeds resurrect, inside of the garden, and we find
ourselves in the same situation. It’s a rookie mistake to paint an
idealistic picture of the lumpen dictating to the rest of the world; not
only that, it would be revisionism for the lumpen to jump the
proletariat’s place, as dictators.
The lumpen of the oppressed nations often as not tend to feed into
the weed of imperialism, by cheer leading for and supporting the pigsty
with its state and federal criminal injustice system. What I’m trying to
say is that, even if the oppressed nations establish independent power
from the oppressor, they are likely to keep the same police system in
place, or worse. So, not only will snitching not ‘really be stopped
without independent power from the oppressor,’ snitching will not stop
even with independent power from the oppressor. There’s no
telling what the lumpen will do, if they get cannon for their yacht, but
the way that it looks from my hypothetical perspective is that the
lumpen are likely to use cannons to hunt down, loot, rape and sink the
canoes of the Third World proletariat, who aspire to eliminate
imperialism. Yachts, canoes and the Imperialist Navy represent the
material forces keeping each group afloat. Cannons represents an ability
to commit piracy, to dominate and sink other ships.
The Other Side
People need to wake up and realize that the reason why the
oppressed/exploited have historically been opposed to the oppressors
(the pigs, badge-less pigs, rodents of all varieties, who serve the pigs
for many flavors of cheese/slop, and reptilian serpents of the
Illusionati) is because they were common enemies who openly oppressed
along all three strands of oppression (nation, class, and gender). The
fucked up part that’s got all of the oppressed clawing at each others’
throats is that the slick ass enemies are disguising themselves as
friends and acting out delusional charades to convince the oppressed
masses into believing that the united snakes of pigtropolis are friends
and not infiltrators.
On to the next aspect of the contradiction; silence versus full
disclosure. To this day, the oppressed lumpen do not truly uphold and
adhere to a code of silence in a solid, revolutionary way. Originally,
the code of silence was meant to bolster organizational unity and
loyalty amongst the communities, so that our oppressed nations could
grow, struggle and develop internally. Making moves in silence is a
powerful organizational strategy and tactic, when applied correctly.
Codes of silence are meant to shield allies, who we are loyal to,
from incrimination. They are not to shield enemies, who are not loyal to
us, from incrimination. Why would we show loyalty to the enemy? Showing
loyalty to the enemy is showing disloyalty to your allies. The problem
is that we’ve got snakes and such trying to silently ride with the enemy
and apply codes of silence to them, in their defense.
With that said, it’s one thing to disseminate information to the
enemy to get should-be allies targeted, but it’s on a whole other level
when somebody, who’s claiming to be anti-pig, decides to put in actual
work in collaboration with the pigs. The collaborators even go so far as
to let these pigs into their L.O.’s, so that they’re official gang
members who get to transform at will and exercise their ability to set
you up on fraudulent disciplinary reports to get you stuck in maximum
security prisons. To get away with murder and police brutality, with
manipulating sex-starved prisoners into weird ass situations, with false
jacket allies, etc. Cooperating and coordinating with pigs on these
types of levels is against the code and should be serious violations for
all L.O.’s involved.
In my experience, these L.O.’s typically police the prisons and
streets more so than the actual pigs, with detective investigations full
of incriminating ass pig-questions and their violent enforcing of
childish rules, laws, codes, etc. Different names for the same shit. The
key word is enforce. When they enforce laws, that makes them
law enforcers. Their game of dress-up comes with the same biased and
prejudiced judgments that lead to sentences which are much more
oppressive than the pigs prisons and jails. These sick mfer’s are liable
to force innocent people into physical and sexual torture chambers,
where they do fucking weirdo shit to em, on an intense level that
happens in prisons. They use coded lingo like pigs, they wear uniforms
and badges like pigs they hide behind numbers for protection like pigs
and they get paid to do evil ass shit like pigs.
It sucks if I hurt anybody’s soft, mushee-gushee, sensitive ass
feelings, but I’m not going to refrain from speaking the truth in
criticism.
Our Tasks
What I’m wondering is why do we even maintain a code of silence
towards any of these piggly-wiggly ass L.O.’s, when they ride with the
enemy against us on a regular basis?
Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that, in order for the
oppressed to win power and keep our feet down on the necks of those who
prayed on our downfall, we’ll need an independent intelligence network
of our own. So, technically we just need to redirect intelligence
gathering apparatuses in our favor and win them over to our side of the
fight, so as to counteract the counter-revolutionaries and others of
their ilk. And by this, I mean that snitching isn’t to be stopped when
we have our own independent institutions of the oppressed but that we
have to look at this aspect of the contradiction in a different light.
We have to call it something positive instead of a hackneyed,
connotative phrase that’s been abused and distorted since its conception
and use it to our advantage against our enemies, who seek to use such
tactics and strategies against us. It’s impossible to support an
emerging socialist government without an agency that specializes in this
field of work. What I’m saying is that we need to police the police.
In the meantime, we can locate the enemy’s snitches, show em mercy
and recruit em to our side without letting the enemy know. Then, we
flood the imperialists with double-agents who feed the imperialists
misleading or false intel. I mean, one way to look at this is that if we
try to “kill all the rats/pigs,” we’d have to kill almost the entirety
of every imperialist country. We can’t kill the entire world.
Oppression is a contagious disease that is transmitted through
imperialist society like an opioid addiction with withdrawals and
cravings. Once one contracts the disease, ey becomes desensitized,
individualistic and apathetic towards society. Voluntary and involuntary
participation in capitalist society is the cough that spreads this
disease. This sickness has an infinite array of symptoms, but the main
symptoms that pertain to this article are disloyalty, disunity and the
inability to distinguish ally from enemy. The oppressed nations have
maxims such as ‘it’s not about what you know, but who you know.’ The
oppressed seek to make friends with the powerful oppressors as a means
of rising from oppression to become oppressors themselves, and these
oppressed people will turn over all kinds of incriminating info (‘what
they know’) to these powerful enemies.
Successful socialist revolution is the medicine for the ailment.
Under communism, there are no pigs for rats to snitch to and no pigs to
police us. So if you wanna liquidate rats, pigs and serpents thus ending
snitching, socialist revolution welcomes you into the rank-and-file with
open arms.
The next question (one of my own) that I’ll explore is “what strands
of oppression are keeping snitching and policing alive?” Oppressed
nations don’t ‘keep snitching and policing alive’, per se. And from an
amerikan perspective one would automatically assume that the bourgeois
males of the white oppressor nations are the only ones to slam.
Nevertheless, snitching existed long before capitalism-imperialism and
long before white people had a nation. Despite what these ‘white power’
lunatics think, ‘power’ (snitching/policing being what ‘white’ people do
with ‘power’) is colorless. Ultimately, societal oppression itself, in
all three strands, is what fuels snitching/policing, because it concocts
an opportunity for all government of society to incentivize oppressed
people to desperately find a way out of said oppression through
cooperation with the oppressors, who have the power to lift the
oppressed up to their level. So if you end oppression altogether,
there’s no logical reason to snitch on anyone. Those who advocate for
the imperialist sources of oppression are to blame for keeping snitching
and policing alive. The criminal injustice system created oppressive
consequences for those who oppose their power structure and they feed
scooby snacks to the mystery-gang members who assist them in targeting
their enemies. Basically, it’s not the ‘strands of oppression’ that
keeps snitching/policing alive, but the oppressors who create oppression
that encourage people of every class, nation and gender to sell each
other out.
Snitching and policing will remain if current society remains. Only
under a communist society will snitching and policing end.
MIM(Prisons) responds: While these harsh critiques of
lumpen organizations do not apply to all L.O.s for all time, they
certainly will ring true for many. And while we look to the imprisoned
lumpen in this country as one of the most oppressed groups, which has
historically produced some dedicated and effective revolutionaries, it
is true that they are not the proletariat. And they/we all must
transform ourselves and combat the class (and often nation and gender)
interests that we are born into.
As this comrade points out, L.O.s power often comes from their
willingness to act outside what is normally allowed. “The ends justify
the means” is one version of this. This is why Tupac
and Mutulu
Shakur worked together to develop the THUG
LIFE code to promote among the oppressed nation lumpen via Tupac’s
music. They recognized the progressive capacity of the L.O. rejection of
the imperialist code, but the anti-people tendency of the L.O.s that no
longer had a code of their own, or had a very reactionary one.
This comrade gets to the heart of it when ey says we need to use the
tools that work to build an independent path for the oppressed towards
socialism. Just as the imperialists have intelligence operations, so
must we. Though our intelligence cannot mimic the pigs like so many
L.O.s do that use torture, sexual abuse, and other anti-people behaviors
to promote fear among the masses.
“Snitching”, or sharing information, is a tool that goes both ways.
You can tell the imperialists on the revolution, or you can tell the
revolutionaries about what the imperialists are up to. The real crime is
collaborating with the imperialists in either direction.
I am writing to provide you a resource, for fighting mass
incarceration. The International Fire Code and Building Code applies to
prisons/jails, and we must use it to force fire and building officials
to honor it, by putting them in the public spotlight if they do not
apply the codes equally.
In December 2022, I used the codes to shutdown buildings 3 and 4 at
Sussex 2 State Prison. But now I am being ignored as I try to file more
complaints on other prisons. So I need others to join this fight.
Overcrowded
Prisons Violate Fire/Building Codes
Reduce the prison/jail populations by half, by using these c
Codes.
These codes are online at:
iccsafe.org
dhcd.virginia.gov/building-codes-and-fire-codes
dhcd.virginia.gov/statebuildingcodesandregulations
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code and Uniform Statewide
Building Code. Forms for filing complaints are online at:
courts.state.va.us/form dc 390 and form dc 380
You can call/fax violations en masse to local/state officials where
prisons/jails are located and go public/post online when they ignore
them.
State officials overseeing local officials
are:
billy.hux@vdfp.virginia.gov 540.270.6617
director@dhcd.virginia.gov 804.371.7000 Bryan Horn
Criminal Charges
Violation of the fire code is a misdemeanor, VA Code Title 27-94 to
100. 3 misdemeanors are a felony. Criminal complaints are online at:
courts.state.va,us/form dc 311
The accused is:
The Director, Chadwick S. Dotson, and they are criminally liable for
they manage/operate these buildings.
NOW the 5 main codes all prisons/jails violate are, they do not
have:
PERMITS for occupants over 49 in each pod/dorm
PERMANENT max load occupant signs in each pod/dorm
PERMITS to install top bunks/extra interior fences
ADEQUATE plumbing, ventilation and lighting for increased occupancy,
and
NO POTABLE WATER in the standpipe systems
See:
IFC 1001.3 Permits required for occupants over 49
IFC 1004.9 Max load occupant signs must be posted for occupants over
49
NFPA 25 Potable water required for standpipe systems
NFPA 75 Increase in occupants require increase in in plumbing,
ventilation/electrical [lighting]
IEBC 108.3 Permits required for alterations and installation of
additional structures like top bunks/fences
MIM Distributors has been targetted in Pendleton Correctional
Facility in Indiana for promoting “Security Threat Group” information,
usually with no justification. Sometimes they will also add “New
Afrika”, as if the whole nation of New Afrika is a Security Threat
Group. This has been used to censor our newsletter and communications
with prisoners at Pendleton. More recently, staff have accused MIM
Distributors of lacing mail with drugs and threatened to throw the
intended recipients of that mail in long-term isolation torture cells as
a result! The charge against at least one prisoner has been dropped, but
the political repression continues.
Comrades in Anti-Imperialist Prisoner Support have taken up a
campaign to get Pendleton staff to follow their own rules and stop this
baseless persecution. You can see in our Amerikan
Censorship Documentation Project that we have been appealing the
censorship for the last couple years with little progress. Therefore we
are expanding this campaign to build public opinion in support. You can
help by using these postcards to talk to people about what is going on
in Pendleton and getting them to send a postcard of protest to let the
Indiana Department of Corrections know that people are not okay with
their political persecution tactics.
download PDF above
print 2-sided on cardstock
cut into 4
add $0.56 stamp (or more)
go to event or public space and ask people to sign their name, city
and state
hand them a flyer or Under Lock & Key
ask for a donation to pay for postage & printing
drop postcards in mail box (don’t mail them all at once we want a
consistent stream of cards coming in)
All of our readers who operate within the hideous belly of the beast
that is the United $nakes prison system know about this system’s cruel
and unrelenting oppression in every facet of daily life. This article
serves to highlight and expose the asinine nature of one particular
aspect of this oppression that is particularly relevant to our work:
censorship. Every time we send out a document, book, or newspaper, there
is always the risk that whatever pig is working in the mail room on the
day it arrives will arbitrarily opt to censor it for any number of
made-up reasons. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, this behavior has
the backing of the U.$. court system which has granted the prison
bureaucrats almost total control over deciding what comes into prisons.
Like every other instrument of control wielded by the state, the pigs
use this power to repress the masses of the oppressed groups, especially
if this repression targets political content that challenges the status
quo.
However, there are still victories to be won in appealing these cases
of censorship, which comrades in Anti-Imperialist Prisoner Support
(AIPS) are striving to do for every incident that comes to our
attention. With this in mind, we hope to start publishing these
censorship reports as a way to communicate to you, our readers, our
efforts in combating censorship as well as to showcase particularly
pathetic attempts by the pigs to censor our mail.
North Carolina’s Brazen
Hypocrisy
In ULK 84, we included a piece of art sent in by a
subscriber of ours which depicted a pig officer beating a prisoner with
a baton. This was apparently too far for the North Carolina Division of
Prisons (NCDOP) who said that they don’t allow “depictions of violence”
and that this image “may encourage a group disruption.” We simply had to
scoff when we read this in light of the fact that the NCDOP specifically
lays out guidelines on when it is “appropriate” to beat prisoners with
“impact weapons” like the baton depicted in the art. To the pigs, it’s
fine to physically abuse and maim prisoners. But showing them a cartoon
of such acts? That’s where they draw the line.
MIM(Prisons):
Political Organization or Tattoo Artists?
MIM Distributors recently sent a copy of the Fundamental
Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons
(FPL) (which we recommend to all our readers who wish to get a
deeper understanding of our organization’s politics) to a comrade
serving time in the heinous Florida Department of Corrections. Usually
the FPL gets through to prisoners fine, so we were a bit
surprised to receive a censorship notice in this case. This
unfortunately means that FPL is now on the Florida ban list,
preventing any Florida prisoners from doing our intro study course (they
were already prevented
from doing our 12 Step Program). And the official reason listed for
this censorship? That the FPL contained an image “large and
distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern.” This was truly a new
one for this author (though our records show it’s been done before).
Apparently, sending any sort of art can justify censorship if some pig
decides the art might make a good tattoo! The silver lining to this
abuse of power is that it provides the perfect example of how the pigs
will use any justification to achieve their goals of repressing the
masses.
Indiana Finds “Drugs” in Our
Letters
The third and final case of censorship we’ll discuss is more aptly
described as a crusade against one of our comrades in Indiana. Nearly
every issue of ULK or any other mail we send to this comrade is
censored for some inane reason usually relating to our alleged promotion
of “Security Threat Groups.” We think it’s more likely that the state
has it out for our comrade though, seeing as ey are currently filing a
lawsuit against one of the pigs at the Indiana Department of
Corrections. Recently though, the mail room at the facility this comrade
is imprisoned in decided that MIM(Prisons) had laced one of their
letters with drugs. Not only this, they threatened the comrade with a
year in lock up and to take away all of eir legal work. After sending
our letter off to the lab it turns out that the “drugs” were simply some
ink that got smeared. When the oppressed simply try to survive, the pigs
will resort to beatings, administrative punishments, and acts of
sabotage. But when the pigs are caught actively lying to facilitate such
cruel acts, the oppressed get nothing, not even an apology.
In spite of this brutal repression, our comrade in Indiana is
continuing on with eir lawsuit in an attempt to expose and hold
accountable the pigs who think they can just violate the rights of
prisoners without a second thought. If you’d like to read more about our
campaign to support this prisoner as well as ways you can help, look to
our campaign linked below (or p. 16 of ULK).