Under Lock & Key

Party People
Written by Mildred Ruiz-Sapp, Steven Sapp, and William Ruiz a.k.a. Ninja
Directed and Developed by Liesl Tommy
Berkeley Repertory Theater
24 October 2014 - 16 November 2014, extended to 30 November 2014

The premise of the play revolves around two young men planning and then actualizing a gallery event to commemorate the legacy of the Black Panther Party and Young Lords Party. Malik (a Panther cub whose father is locked up) and Jimmy (whose uncle was a Young Lord) invite several former party members to their gallery opening, and thus it doubles as a reunion of the rank and file. The play takes you through the day-of preparations for the event, which the party members help with, and through the event itself, which is attended by party members, an FBI informant, and the wife of a dead cop. Dialogue centers around the inter-persynal conflicts between party members and between generations, with conservatively half of the 2 hours and 35 minutes spent yelling and in-fighting between party members, and with their offspring.

The main downfall of revolutionary struggles of the 1960s was a lack of deep political education. Whether at the level of the masses, rank and file, or party leaders, a lack of political education allows political movements to be co-opted, infiltrated, and run into the ground by enemy line. In its heyday, the BPP grew so rapidly that much of the new membership did not have a deep understanding of why they did what they did. The play itself doesn’t say that political consciousness needs to be raised, but it is a strong testament to that need. Unfortunately, neither does it contribute to that political education, which is likely due to the exact thing i am criticizing. “Party People” would have you believe the main legacies of the BPP and YLP were in creating exciting memories, and setting models for government programs. In “explaining” the origin of the BPP, the cast breaks into song: all it took to get it off the ground was shotguns, grits, and gravy.

Omar X is one of the more intriguing characters in the play. He operates more on intellect than emotions, and has an air of self-discipline and militancy. Omar enters the play as a self-appointed protector of the Black Panther legacy. He approaches Malik and Jimmy prior to the gallery opening, very skeptical of what they are going to say and how they might twist the history. Finally giving his approval to the art project, Omar by proxy grants legitimacy to the play itself. In real life, former Black Panthers Bobby Seale and Ericka Huggins also both gave their seal of approval.(1) The People’s Minister of Information JR Valrey, an outspoken member of today’s generation of Black media who promotes the Panthers as an example to be followed, was more critical.(2)

The open brutality of pigs on party members is only given cursory examination, primarily through dialogue. Yet there is a graphic scene where Omar is tortured by several fellow Panthers, led by an FBI infiltrator. Recollecting this event in the gallery, 50 years later, Omar’s comrades are still telling him “You were so outspoken and critical! Why didn’t you just follow orders! We just did what we were told!” with remorse. It is apalling that in 50 years of reflection, these characters haven’t figured out that dissent and criticism should be encouraged in the party, and that the real error here was that they themselves were “just” following orders. Again, the problem goes back to political development, whereas the play would have you believe that this brutality was just an unavoidable outcome of this type of organizing work.

Learning directly from the downfall of the Black Panther Party and COINTELPRO operations, rather than quash dissent, we would encourage political organizations to practice democratic centralism. Resolving contradictions through debate is the only way we can grow as political organizations. But instead of airing our dirty laundry for every infiltrator or wannabe cop to take advantage, as was common in the 60s, we take a democratic vote within the organization and then uphold the party line in public, while continuing to debate behind closed doors as needed.

Democratic centralism is also closely related to the mass line. Developing mass line happens when the party refines and promotes the best ideas from the masses, making the party their voice. The masses would include people who are workers in the party-led programs, but who have not yet reached a level of understanding and participation to join the party. One of the contradictions within the Panthers was that they had new people become party members, but then excluded them from the decision-making process. There was not a transparent decision-making process with a defined group of people. This led the rank and file to believe they should just do what Huey or Eldridge said, as was depicted in the play.

Security practices are again thrown out the window in Omar’s criticism of Malik and Jimmy’s stage names (MK Ultra and Primo, respectively). Omar says they should put their real names on their project, because aren’t they proud of their work? Don’t they want to be accountable to what potential lies they are about to disseminate? Is this just a game to them? Are they “really” revolutionaries if they are “hiding” behind their stage names? On the other hand, we strongly encourage revolutionaries inside the belly of the beast to protect their identities from the state. We forgive the BPP for making this error at the time, but Omar should have figured it out by now.

Enthusiasm is given to the question of gender and blaming of wimmin for the downfall of the parties. The dialogue states that all the men were on drugs or locked up or dead, so of course wimmin had to lead. But then when the parties dissintegrated, the wimmin were blamed. “Pussy killed the party!” is a sexually-choreographed song performed by the female cast, criticizing the machisimo and male chauvinism in both the BPP and YLP. But little if any mention is given to the female-focused programs of the Young Lords to curb forced sterilization and provide access to abortion for Boriqua wimmin. Selectively applying hindsight, “Party People” disregards the fact that these revolutionary organizations were the vanguard of proletarian feminist organizing in their day.(3)

At the gallery during the reunion, a white womyn demands attention for an emphatic monologue about her husband, a cop who was killed in a shootout with the Panthers. Subjectively i found this monologue to be too damn long and the response to be too damn weak. For the hundreds of times the word “fuck” is thrown around in this play, i half expected the Panther’s response to this accusation that he had killed the cop to be “fuck your pig husband.” Instead he calmly explains that he did not kill the cop and that he was imprisoned 25 years for a murder he did not commit, washing his persynal hands of the “crime.” He then goes and sits down and everyone takes a pause to feel sad. This was a perfect opportunity to educate the audience on casualties of war and group political action. Instead the playwright chose to build empathy for our oppressors.

One of the most glaringly offensive themes in this play is the integrationist line slipped in subtly throughout, and hammered home thoroughly in the final blast of energy. A source of pride for the former party members is that their programs still live on today. No mention is made of the state co-opting these programs, such as free breakfast at school, in an effort to make the party seem obsolete. Feeding kids before school is of almost no cost to Amerikkka, and it’s worth it if it convolutes the need for revolutionary independence. While focusing a lot on the free breakfast program, not once is it mentioned that these kids were also receiving a political education while they ate. Lack of political education is cause and consequence of these errors of the play.

The question comes up of what today’s [petty-bourgeois] youth should do to push the struggle forward. What role do they have to play? What direction should they take? If I were a high school student watching this play, asking myself the same questions, i would not have left the theater with any better answers than i came in with, and i don’t know that i would have gone forward looking to the Panthers or Young Lords for direction. Sadly, these organizations did give us direction, but in “Party People” it is altogether discarded.

On the topic of youth, there are three characters who are representative of the offspring of the parties: Malik, Jimmy, and Clara. Malik spends a lot of time trying to dress and speak like a Panther, but not a lot of time with his nose in books. Clara’s parents are both dead, and although her tia tries to explain the importance of her parents’ political devotion, Clara resents the YLP for stealing them from her. Clara wants to go to college and get a good job so she can “join the 1%.” This “discussion” of the “1%” is the closest the play gets to an examination of class, unlike the BPP and YLP who had thorough, international class analyses.(4)

With all the examination of the contradictions between the different generations, and the time (yet not necessarily depth) given to Fred Hampton’s murder by the pigs, Fred Hampton, Jr. is not mentioned one time in the play. Nowhere do they talk about the revolutionary organizing of Chairman Fred, Jr. in Chicago, Illinois with the Prisoners of Conscience Committee. You might not even leave the play knowing that Fred Hampton had a child. Considering the youth are looking for direction, and have all these feelings about their parents and relatives abandoning them for the revolution, why wasn’t Fred, Jr. given a primary role in this play? Upholding his political work as an example might have put a lot of anxieties to rest.

Social-media-as-activism is correctly and thoroughly criticized (one of the few positive elements). Instead, a resolution to the youth’s dysphoria and lack of direction is offered in a final rap by Primo, which highlights conditions of the oppressed nations inside United $tates borders. But he ephasizes that “I am Amerikan! We are all Amerikan!” over and over and over again, really sucking the audience in on this one. The closing message of the play was decidedly not, “I am Boriqua! You are New Afrikan! Amerikans, commit nation suicide! And let’s destroy Amerikkkan imperialism for the benefit of all the world’s oppressed peoples!!”

Modern lumpen organizations are mentioned briefly as part of the fallout of the parties. In its lack of direction, “Party People” does not uphold these organizations as holding potential for revolutionary change. Again another great educational opportunity missed. As a supplement, i would recommend the documentary Bastards of the Party (2005). This film details the development of the Bloods and Crips, from self-defense groups, through the Slausons, into the Panthers, and to today. In this film, the Watts Truce in Los Angeles in 1992 is focused on, and serves as an excellent model of the positive impact lumpen organizations can have on reducing in-fighting in oppressed nation communities and building power independent from the oppressor government.

It is evident from “Party People” that the petty bourgeoisie doesn’t have much of a role to play in our current revolutionary organizing. Until they give up their attachments to the material spoils of imperialism, they will keep producing confused representations of proletarian struggle. I would advise today’s youth, especially those who feel disheartened by this play, to read up on the real history of BPP and Young Lords,(5) and contact us to get involved in political organizing work to end oppression for all the world’s people!

The comrade who reported in ULK 40 on a lawsuit around sexual assaults in California prisons(1) wrote back to reiterate that California law prohibits such behavior. “An inmate cannot validly consent to sex with a prison employee”, see California Penal Code Section 289.6 and California Code of Regulations Title 15 3401.5. This is actually a good example of a law that tackles Liberalism around the question of rape in one fell swoop by recognizing the systematic relationship between prisoners and state employees that prevents consent.

Despite this law, our comrade documents a history of administrative coverups of sexual abuse of prisoners by staff. Clearly the gender oppressed need more than words on paper to be free of the patriarchy. And for prisoners who “cooperate” with prison administrators, administrative coverups operate in the opposite direction. Our comrade points to Freitag v. Ayers, 463 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.2006), which documents the case of a female correctional officer at Pelican Bay State Prison who was discouraged by her supervisors from filing disciplinary actions against prisoners who would sexually harass her “as a sexual favor to gain [their] cooperation.”

In the previous article by this comrade, we pointed out the possibility that New Afrikan bio-males (especially youth) may be considered gender oppressed if one looks at prisons on a statistical level. Yet, we do not deny that bio-male prisoners often play the role of sexual aggressor, both against other male prisoners and female guards. The example of Freitag v. Ayers echoes one of these hypotheticals that our critics threw at us to ask the question, “who is the rapist here?”(2) Yet in this case we see the patriarchy, in the form of the CDCR administration at Pelican Bay, actively enforcing the roles of both the SHU prisoner being held in an isolation cell and the female guard who must endure the prisoner’s acting out. The obvious culprit here, and the federal courts agreed, was the patriarchal institution of the CDCR.

Prison is an extreme example, but it helps us see the patriarchy at work. As we said in our previous article on the lawsuit, even when the female guard is the clear aggressor, firing her does not do anything to lesson rape on a group level, though it might help some individuals for a period of time. There are many institutions that serve to enforce the patriarchy throughout our society that serve to undermine the gender oppressed’s power over their own bodies. We must build independent institutions that serve the gender oppressed, in order to create a world where sex can be consensual.

A great example of prisoners doing this behind bars is in the organization Men Against Sexism which was in Washington state in the 1970s.(1) Our conditions today are different than those faced by Washington prisoners at the time, but we can still address gender oppression as part of our overall struggle to build unity.

Why did we say LLCO is wrecking?

In their response to us, (see “Who has happy sex?”), the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO) questioned some accusations we made about their organization contributing to wrecking work aimed at the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM).(1) The author is either unaware of, or being dishonest about, the history of their organization. Prairie Fire was highlighted in a recent interview at llco.org retelling h young adulthood, so certainly s/he can recall what h comrades were printing about MIM a handful of years ago. They participated in a long-standing campaign to paint MIM as crazy wackos as the original MIM comrades suffered the crushing defeat of every aspect of their work. We condemned the Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH) website for this at the time, but did not call it wrecking work.(2) To accuse us of escaping “the crazy town hotel” because of our critique of the gender aristocracy is not just unprincipled, but once again echoing the imperialists who try to paint radical critiques of the status quo as the work of wackos.(4) And we don’t see a reason to give them a pass this time. We’re concluding here that this is an ongoing problem within their organization. This should have been obvious from our previous article(3), but we felt we should clarify our point here if LLCO is going to accuse us of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt in what they refer to as a “phony setup,” while their comrade accuses us of trying to deflect criticism. If we were afraid of criticism why did we publish an article linking to LLCO’s criticism of our line?

Liberalism is Liberalism

Liberalism puts individual liberty and choice at the forefront. It is not concerned with groups and systems.

Liberalism equates happy sex with consensual sex. MIM Thought does not.

We never said happy sex doesn’t exist. Rather, the main point of our article was that the gender aristocracy is very happy with its sex. We go on to argue that the happy sex of the gender aristocracy presents a challenge to our efforts to organize them against imperialism.

We also say that the struggle to have “good sex” is lifestyle politics and that it supports the pseudo-feminists’ (read pro-patriarchy) agenda. Rather than “good” or “happy,” a more precise criteria to debate would be “consensual sex.” And we say there is no such thing under patriarchy. LLCO broadens this assertion to accuse us of saying consensual sex has never existed for all of humyn history. But patriarchy has not existed forever, so we do not agree that our line implies that “consensual, happy sex has never existed.” More importantly, the theoretical existence of happy sex is not important to us in the struggle to end oppression.

LLCO doesn’t like the examples we listed in our last article, condemning them with their own hypothetical example that is essentially the same, proving our point that power and sex are intimately tied up (pun intended). Rather than measuring individuals’ power differentials to determine which one of them is the rapist (and implicitly then which persyn should be ostracized, imprisoned, or we don’t now what because LLCO hasn’t told us), maybe LLCO can speak to the problem that patriarchal society has conditioned females for centuries to enjoy sex as an oppressed gender as part of the process of producing male pleasure. Such systematic problems of power are not considered by the Liberal who is assured by the individuals involved explicitly saying the word “yes” and having fuzzy feelings inside while doing it.

Since their last post, LLCO stepped up their artwork from “Make Love Not War” to “Keep Calm and Have Good Sex.” It’s hard to believe they still don’t get it when they caricature their own line with such blatant sexual Liberalism. Rather, it seems quite clear that they do intend to promote sexual Liberalism and call it proletarian feminism.

Biological Determinism and the Self

Liberalism, as an ideology, was a progressive force in a certain period of humyn history. Around the turn of the twentieth century theorists discussing sex used animal behavior to argue against the Christian ideas of the “natural order” ordained by God. But today people read too much into Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, using it to validate their own experiences of pleasure. The biological imperative to reproduce and feelings of pleasure are not one in the same. So it has little meaning in this debate to say, “Sexuality is normal behavior for any complex species.” We would like to see some evidence that, “Most people desire a sexual life even in the context of oppression.” For the gender aristocracy, this is apparent, but the gender aristocracy is not most people. More clearly, we’d like to see evidence that most people experience the kind of pleasure from sex that the gender aristocracy does. As an aside, the assertion that “[m]ost people do not desire to be raped” is a tautology when you define rape as something that the average persyn does not desire.(4)

With the advance of the productive forces, widespread leisure societies developed for the first time in history. Members of those societies are much more gender privileged than the rest of the world, and the evolution of pleasure around sex is very tied up with the development of that power differential and an obsession with pornography that came with it. There are many nations that remain resistant to the pornography of the leisure societies, yet the imperialists use it as a tool to divide those nations. MIM saw pornography as any cultural propaganda that props up the leisure lifestyles of the bourgeois classes. LLCO’s recent articles on rape and gender oppression can easily be categorized as part of the patriarchal pornography machine.

While our critic refers to biological determinism rather than sociology to explain sexual pleasure, both explanations imply greater forces are at play than the choices of two individuals. Yet, LLCO thinks our line denies humyn agency. Against this, we already said that we cannot go around telling people how to have sex in a way that they can avoid rape. Anyone who does this is being dishonest. That does not mean that proletarian morality has ceased to exist. It just means there is no magic combination of individual actions that can get you out of the patriarchy. While we must operate within the limits of the material reality we find ourselves in, we still get to make a choice of what to do at every moment of our lives. Pretending happy fucking is the same thing as sex without patriarchal influence is ridiculous.

In their discussion of Descartes, LLCO argues that we are idealists for daring to envision a world without oppression, where there would be no coercion in sexual relations. We call that being communists.

Answering some more questions from LLCO

LLCO claims there is another hole in our logic by asking, “How are all these systems of oppression reduced to a single measure whereby we can determined[sic] rapist and victim?” We already stated in our article, we don’t care. We are not trying to answer the pornographic questions that they pose in their response, we are trying to convince people that patriarchy needs to be overthrown!

LLCO tells you to “[t]hink about how silly this is for a moment. MIM implies that you cannot both have a plan to eliminate individual cases of rape as part of a broader, revolutionary plan change society fundamentally.”(1)

No, we said you should act scientifically. In other words be aware of the outcome of your actions. The LLCO/Liberal line means more Black males in prison and more Amerikans happy with the status quo. Maybe this is their strategy to strengthen the national contradiction in the United $tates. But no, there is no mention of principal contradiction, or overthrowing imperialism or patriarchy in their response. The whole content of the article could have been written by the Democratic Party if one just cut out the words “Leading Light Communism.”

We also addressed this in the article they are critiquing when we wrote: “And we agree that under the dictatorship of the proletariat the masses will pick out these unreformable enemies for serious punishment. Yet, the majority of people who took up practices of capitalism or of the patriarchy will be reformed.”

LLCO writes,

“Thus, for MIM, everyone who has ever had sex has been involved, one way or another, in rape. Every great communist leader has been a rapist or a victim of rape, or both. MIM even named their movement after someone who they see as a rapist. Mao was reported to be sexually vigorous. According to MIM, all sexually-active people of Third World and First World are rapists or victims, or both. All children from happy homes, from loving couples, are really products of rape.”

Hey, we’ll one up you there. Being asexual doesn’t eliminate gender power either. The gender power that you hold is inherent in a patriarchal society regardless of who you fuck and how.

Perhaps LLCO should disavow Lin Biao because he did not come from a proletarian or peasant background. Lin was not from the oppressed classes. Neither were plenty of other great communist leaders, and we would assume the same for plenty of LLCO folks who are First World residents. People are a product of their birth circumstances and the society into which they are born. We don’t judge individuals for this, we judge them for their political line and practice. Apparently LLCO can stomach this when it comes to class but not when it comes to gender.

Pushing the debate forward

LLCO correctly argued that the slogan “all property is theft” … “can undermine the people’s struggle under certain conditions.” They then imply that the same is true for “all sex is rape.” Okay, but what are those situations? Because we’re saying “all sex is rape” is a powerful anti-Liberal slogan right now in the First World and we don’t see it undermining the struggle to liberate the majority of the world’s people.

Since we both seem to think the other is talking past us, here are our suggestions for points we’d like to see LLCO address to make this debate worthwhile going forward:

In what actual conditions do you see “all sex is rape” sloganeering as reinforcing bourgeois or patriarchal interests? and how?

Or the other side of that question, where do you see “you can have good, consensual sex” being used to effectively challenge the patriarchy or imperialism or working in the interests of the oppressed masses in general?

Until they can do this, we don’t see how their arguments are based in any attempts to overthrow patriarchy (which would be implied by their claim to uphold proletarian feminism). It all comes across as a defense of sex because they know sex makes people happy. While clarity may be lacking on both sides, it is at least clear that we hold opposite views on this issue.

[UPDATE: This debate was continued here]

The organizers call on activists to take this day to promote the United Front for Peace in Prisons (UFPP) by building unity with fellow captives, and to demonstrate resistance to the criminal injustice system by fasting, refraining from work, engaging only in solidarity actions, and ceasing all prisoner-on-prisoner hostilities. In some prisons the demonstrations are big and involve many participants, in others just a handful of people join in, and in some places only one persyn stands up. But every action, large or small, contributes to raising awareness and building unity.

This year we received only a handful of reports from comrades about their September 9 organizing work. This is in contrast to the reports from the past two years which showed a growing interest and involvement in this day of protest. It is also in striking contrast to the widespread response and organizing around the Palestine petition by United Struggle from Within (USW) comrades.

We take this opportunity to re-evaluate the September 9 action. The question for all UFPP signatories and USW organizers: Why was organizing for the September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity so limited in 2014? Should we do something different in 2015, either to help promote the September 9 action, or by focusing on other campaigns and protests? Send us your thoughts so we can sum up and continue to expand our efforts to cease prisoner-on-prisoner violence in the U.$. criminal injustice system.

Less than a week ago I progressed from Colorado’s control units (or what our lying Governor called “restrictive housing”) to the new maximum custody status. For a step into progress it feels like regression. Guards not only disrespect you blatantly, but come up with ways to make slick comebacks to our most basic requests. The deal is this: we are one foot out of segregation with one foot still in. If we mess up here, we will be sent back to the hole. And the guards are creating more hostile environments to get us to combat one another. Revolutionary education has never been more needed.

A few days ago, a New Afrikan and a Chicano got into a fight. The fight really wasn’t more than a two-punch-it’s-over type of thing; both individuals hit each other one time. But that triggered a wave of 30+ guards to our unit that at the time only had five people there! Two guards came in with shotguns that were loaded with rubber bullets, which do penetrate skin. This is new. Pepper spray was once used to end fights.

Colorado Department of Corrections Executive Director Rick Raemisch implemented new measures to rid the state of administrative segregation. But what this really did was create new titles for the same program. Only now, what little comfort we had is now all gone: food items off canteen gone, all tea, kool-aid, and other comfort items are gone. TVs now will be given after 90 days. So even if you’ve completed your punitive time from your other facility, it doesn’t count when you arrive in solitary at Colorado State Penitentiary.

Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) has effectively created one of the most intensively repressive systems Colorado has ever seen. Mr. Raemisch has instated runaway wardens to create lockdowns and other tensions at these places.

In the United States of Amerikkka there is no such thing as rights, only power struggles. I’ve not seen a yard in a year. I’ve spent this time trying to educate myself so that I will be ready to educate my people when I finally do get to a yard. Colorado isn’t a place where there are very many hard followed political lines. Unlike California, nations aren’t necessarily separated. It makes Colorado a prime spot to build peace among people to pave the way for better living.

It angers me how many “spiritualists” fight demons in the spiritual realm while waiting for a higher power to step in. I feel that all religion, with the exception of militant political Islam, encourages people to just accept their society as it is and do absolutely nothing to change it. These same spiritualists should invest time in changing these conditions in the physical realm to free all oppressed people now, and who knows maybe it will bring about a better world. Those who, through fear or fucked up character, embrace organized religion in prison to cop out or find some sense of self, need to find some sense of reality. These places get worse until we unite and make them better. This requires structure, discipline, leadership and hierarchy. There is no other way.

New blood must be given to this system. Education is the key to make any situation better.

MIM(Prisons) adds: To create conflict and excuses for repression we see prison workers set up conflicts between different nations. Just like this fight between a Chican@ and New Afrikan, it could be over anything but the prison has an interest in promoting division between prisoners. This is just one reason why we need a United Front for Peace in Prisons. This United Front is building peace and unity among the oppressed in prison, and then turning that unity into growth through revolutionary education. Together we can take a stand against the criminal injustice system.

While we agree with this comrade that religion is used as an excuse to wait for a higher power to bring change, we do see a role for religious groups in the United Front. Those who truly believe in putting an end to people’s suffering should step up and take a role in organizing against the oppressors. The liberation theologists in that were very popular in the 1980s in Latin America provide a solid example for this revolutionary organizing. They broke with the individualism of religions that calls all outcomes “fate” and leaves people to pray for a change that will only come through action. While Maoists are scientists who do not believe in the idealism of religion, we will not force these views on others who take up the struggle on behalf of the oppressed. We expect scientific thinking to spread to all people over time once the oppressed have been liberated and given a chance to learn and think freely.

On 31 October, after weeks of mass protests in which state media headquarters were stormed and government buildings were torched, the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, was forced to resign and flee to the Ivory Coast, another French colony. The military seized power under Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Zida, who created a committee which appointed Michel Kafando as transitional president. Elections are to be scheduled within 12 months. Kafando was formerly ambassador to the United Nations for Compaoré, among other high posts he held in the government. This change in leadership is nothing more than a shuffling of the neo-colonial compradors who will continue to serve the imperialists while trying to placate the righteously angry Burkinabe (people of Burkina Faso) masses.

The protests that led to this change in government follow long standing unrest and anger about the exploitation and oppression of the people in Burkina Faso. In recent years there has been much civil protest in the country, especially amongst peasants and miners.

Burkina Faso is a small country located in sub-Saharan West Africa. Originally called the Republic of Upper Volta, the country was established as a French neo-colony in 1960. Captain Thomas Sankara became prime minister in 1983 after a military coup, ironically led by Blaise Compaoré and a group of military leaders who considered themselves revolutionary anti-imperialists. While not an uprising of the people, Sankara’s politics were more progressive than previous leaders. Sankara implemented many programs to serve the people including nationalizing land and mineral resources, mass-vaccinations, infrastructure improvements, the expansion of wimmin’s rights, encouragement of domestic agricultural consumption, and anti-desertification projects. He also changed the country’s name to Burkina Faso (land of the upright/honest people). To promote self-reliance and end the poverty of dependency so common in African countries, Sankara called for the cancellation of African debts to Western governments. And setting an example for all Burkinabe, Sankara refused wealth and luxuries for himself and fought against corruption and bribery in the government.

Sankara was a revolutionary nationalist. And while we do not oppose those acting in the interests of the people seizing power from the imperialists through a coup, we know that it is the support of the masses and the political education and activism of the people that will ultimately determine the success or failure of a revolutionary movement.

Burkina Faso provides us with a good lesson on the importance of a cultural revolution. After the communists took power in China in 1949, they soon realized that a new bourgeois class was developing. These individuals may have come from proletarian and peasant backgrounds, but the culture that encourages individualism and self-serving advancement did not disappear with the implementation of socialism. And so some people, once they gained positions of power, abused that power. The Chinese communists realized the road from socialism to communism requires political struggle from all the people, vigilant criticism and self-criticism of and by political leaders and the masses, raising the level of political education, and a long-term campaign to build revolutionary culture. This became the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). In the end, even with the GPCR, the capitalist interests within the communist party managed to take power after Mao died. This does not negate the need for a GPCR but rather we need to learn how to start sooner and be more effective in this struggle.

Sankara was murdered in 1987 in a coup d’etat that brought Blaise Compaoré to power, a man who once called himself a revolutionary ally and leader alongside Sankara. Before the coup Compaoré held significant power within the government, and his takeover was supported by the French who were eager to return the country to neo-colonial status. Compaoré quickly demonstrated how far he had strayed from his supposedly revolutionary views, reversing nationalization of Burkina Faso’s resources, and reentering the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This year, Compaoré attempted to modify the Constitution to extend his 27-year presidency, which led to the protests by Burkinabe last month.

While we support the uprisings and righteous demands of the people of Burkina Faso, we also encourage them to make ceaseless efforts to again increase their general level of political education and organization. Only with deep revolutionary consciousness and leadership can Burkinabe take complete control of their nation from comprador dictatorship, and ensure that it grows with the people’s interests at the forefront.

He iniciado una demanda alegando que la oficial Mary Brockett, de California State Prison - Sacramento (CSP-SAC) me sometió a acoso sexual. Esto ocurrió dentro del Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) el cuál es parte de los servicios de salud mental del Departamento de Corrección y Rehabilitación de California (CDCR). Cuando yo reporté el comportamiento depredador de la oficial Brockett a otros oficiales de más alto rango, ellos no me creyeron porque soy de raza negra, y Brockett es blanca-Americana. Ellos además no entendieron porque un prisionero presentaría una demanda contra una oficial por mala conducta sexual. Como un resultado directo de la mala conducta sexual de Brockett contra mi ella fue suspendida, pero altos oficiales de clasificación se negaron a arrestarla e identificarla como una ofensora sexual.

Yo solicité una investigación de la Oficina de Asuntos Internos (OIA) contra Brockett por su comportamiento depredador hacia mi. En Diciembre 2003, yo fui entrevistado por la agente especial Jill Chapman de la OIA, y yo consentí en ayudarla con una investigación contra Brockett para probar mi acusación de acoso sexual. Durante dicha investigación la OIA tiro la bola, y agentes de OIA permitieron que Brockett me agrediera sexualmente cuatro veces después de empezar la investigación.

En Enero 15, 2014 el juez Hunley de la Corte de distrito de los Estados Unidos, decidió que la conducta de la oficial Brockett violó claramente una ley establecida de la cual Brockett habría estado enterada. La corte encontró que Brockett no tenia derecho a inmunidad limitada en mi derecho a la octava enmienda sobre su mala conducta sexual.

Mi investigación había revelado que muchos otros prisioneros quienes reportaron violación y otras formas de agresión sexual por personal del CDCR fueron enviados al SHU como una forma de represalia o de intimidación. Mi equipo de defensa y yo hemos sido hábiles para identificar muchos otros casos de prisioneros sexualmente abusados por personal de salud mental, médico, y correccional, y muchos más encubiertos por supervisores, en varias prisiones estatales de California.

Yo tuve que contratar un investigador privado para ayudarme en vista de que el hecho de acudir con oficiales de clasificación me siguió poniendo en módulos encerrados. En vez de acusar a Brockett con violaciones sexuales, los oficiales de la prisión del CDCR en Sacramento permitieron que yo fuera sujeto a una serie de traslados en represalia intentando intimidarme. En Septiembre 8, 2009 oficiales de la prisión fueron informados acerca de mi demanda y ese mismo dia fui puesto en segregación administrativa (ASU) con falsas acusaciones de peleas. En Diciembre 2009 fui enviado y puesto en ASU pendiente en una falsa validación de pandillas en la prisión. Traslados en represalia son una violación a las normas del CDCR.

La evidencia mostrará que acosos y violaciones sexuales por personal de salud mental, médico, y correccional no fueron incidentes aislados dentro del EOP en el CDCR. Te pido ayudarme a mi y a mi equipo de defensa a difundir la palabra. Otras víctimas están allí afuera. Mi propósito de la demanda es aclarar abusos sexuales contra enfermos mentales en California, incluyendo tácticas de tortura a través de actividades y delitos criminales organizados dentro del CDCR.

MIM(Prisiones) responde: Las personas usualmente conceptualizan con patriarquía a esos cuando biológicamente categorizados como varones oprimiendo a esas categorizados como femeninos. Pero violación sexual de prisioneros nacidos varones por guardias nacidas hembras es un ejemplo de como opresión de género no está necesariamente relacionada a una categoria biológica sexual. En la primera edición de Under Lock & Key escribimos acerca de violaciones dentro de la prisión, y usando la mejor estadística disponible, sugerimos que hombres de raza negra podrán sexualizarse femeninos en los Estados Unidos, principalmente debido al índice de encarcelamiento y a el abuso sexual que viene con el encarcelamiento. Las abusadoras, guardias nacidas femeninas, están ciertamente sexualidadas masculinas, y son parte de lo que llamamos el género aristocracia.(1) Amerikanas (y especialmente blancas) nacidas hembras gozan de beneficios en tiempo libre basados en sus nacionales vínculos a blancos nacidos varones, basados en una larga historia de linchamientos, sufragio, y opresión del tercer mundo.(2)

Pelear el abuso sexual a través de las cortes puede ser difícil para cualquiera, y especialmente para cualquiera, y especialmente para prisioneros. Como este corresponsal escribe, Brockett (de raza blanca) no fue ni siguiera acusada de violación sexual. Cuando casos de violación sexual van a corte, el juez, el jurado, como muchos en la sociedad de E.E.U.U., quedan colgados en el debate de si el sexo fue “realmente violación”, una medida subjetiva de que si la víctima dio el consentimiento a la actividad sexual o no. Las cortes y la sociedad suponen que los prisioneros tienen una reputación de moral baja, y esta subjetividad sangra en el juicio de que si ellos fueron “realmente violados”, y si ellos deberían ser protegidos aún si ellos son considerados de haber sido violados. La gente ha debatido por décadas acerca de donde se debe dibujar la linea con consentimiento, y este debate ha recientemente reaparecido en círculos Maoístas del Primer Mundo.(3)

Cuando se está decidiendo si un encuentro sexual fue una violación, una tendencia es enfocarse en si la víctima de violación sexual verbalmente dijo que quería o no tener el encuentro sexual, qué palabras ellos usaron, en qué tono, cuántas veces ellos lo dijeron, si ellos estaban intoxicados, cómo se intoxicaron, su historia sexual, qué vestían, etcétera. Otros aún dibujan la linea donde “la mayoría de las víctimas instintivamente reconocen la diferencia entre sexo consensual y violación.”(3) Pero todo este criterio esta basado en estándares sociales subjetivos en el tiempo. Mucha gente no empieza a llamar a un incidente sexual una violación hasta meses o aún años después de eso, porque ellos han aprendido desde entonces más acerca de la sexualidad y normas sociales, o que las normas sociales han cambiado. Las cortes cambian su definición de violación dependiendo también de la opinión pública. Cuando minifaldas era atrevidas, esto fue considerado por muchos como una invitación al sexo. Ahora que minifaldas están normalizadas como bragas en nuestra sociedad, casi ninguno haría este argumento. Normas sociales y sentimientos subjetivos no son fidedignos como medidas de opresión de género. Ellos se enfocan demasiado en las acciones y sentimientos de los individuos, ignorando la relación entre el grupo y el individuo.

En vez de caer dentro de esta trampa subjetivista, MIM(Prisiones) mantiene la linea que todo sexo bajo patriarcquía es violación. Entre el público general, viviendo en una cultura altamente sexualizada con una larga historia de consecuencias materiales por admitir y negar acceso a la sexualidad de uno mismo, no “si” puede ser admitido independiente de relaciones de grupo. Esto es especialmente cierto para una población cautiva; diciendo “si” al sexo como un negocio por privilegios, o a un guardia quién tiene totalmente tu vida en sus manos literalmente, no puede ser consensual, aún si a todos los envueltos “les gustó” o “lo querían”. El juego de poder esta muy atado dentro del tiempo libre a el punto que un coactivo acto sexual puede sentirse agradable a todos los envolvidos. Otorgando consentimiento en una sociedad con opresión de género es un punto discutible. La gente siempre se comporta en una manera que es determinada por relaciones de grupo, y esto no es diferente para el género oprimido bajo patriarquía.

Mientras los Liberales están preocupados de como definimos a violadores para que podamos encerrarlos y aislarlos, miramos el problema sistemático en vez de fundamentalizar a individuos. No nos adherimos a los estándares burgueses de criminalidad por robo, entonces ¿Porqué seguiríamos sus estándares de violación? En vez de eso queremos construir una sociedad socialista que permita trabajos para todos, separados de la sexo-industria. Entonces prohibiríamos todo sexo por beneficios, toda pornografía lucrativa y todo el trafico sexual. No penalizaríamos esclavas sexuales o gente que elige tener sexo para su propio placer subjetivo, pero penalizaríamos a cualquiera que obtenga beneficio completamente del trabajo sexual, especialmente del multimilonario de dólares de los mafiosos de la pornografía y secuestro. Padrotes de bajo nivel y “autoempleandose” como trabajadores sexuales al menos necesitarían ir a través de una autocrítica y reeducación y tomar una fría y dura mirada a como sus actividades están impactando a otros. Cualquiera que quiera dejar estas industrias antipersonales tendrían otras opciones mas factibles, algo que no podemos decir por la inmensa mayoría de trabajadores sexuales en el mundo de hoy quienes fueron secuestrados o sujetos a manifestaciones de opresión nacional tales como desprotección y drogadicción.

Como con cualquier forma de opresión bajo imperialismo, animamos a las personas a usar las cortes cuando creamos que podamos ganar ventajas materiales, sentar un precedente útil para otros casos, o hacer un propósito político para movilizar las masas. Pero el expulsar a Brockett de las instalaciones solo la reemplazarán con otra oficial del género opresivo. Finalmente necesitamos cambiar las condiciones económicas que refuerzan las coercitivas relaciones de género en nuestra sociedad y atacar el sistema de patriarquía en si mismo.

1. Para saber mas sobre género (gender) consigue ULK1, ULK6, y MIM Theory 2/3.
   2. En contraste al hilo de opresión de clase la cuál esta basada en relaciones de trabajo, y el hilo de opresión de género esta basado fuera del trabajo, o en lo que llamamos “tiempo libre”. hablar de prisión como “tiempo libre” puede sonar extraño porqué esto ciertamente no es un día en la playa, pero el punto es que no es tiempo de trabajo, y no esta basado en clase. Vea “Claridad en lo que es género” 1988 MIM Congress Resolución.
   3. Comentarios sobre “Todo Sexo es Violación” 20 de Julio 2014, LLCO.org. Escribanos para una más profunda critica de esta muestra.

When we jump to actions without planning, it damages future struggles. While all political protest is good and absolutely necessary, it’s always important to keep in mind when we issue a statement it means we must follow through.

My failed hunger strike lasted for two days, and it can be seen as a need to re-develop a line that can be implemented successfully. We can’t put a strike or any other political statement ahead of knowing what we’re capable of.

By my failure I allowed the pigs to win. But you win some, you lose some, and ultimately you learn. One important factor is to define ourselves and what we stand for, and not sound off before the bullets are loaded.

My embarrassment hasn’t led me to quit, only to re-strategize. Not in all circumstances are hunger strikes needed to achieve a successful point. All actions have consequences; even and most especially those that fail. A lesson I learned was, the louder you shout, the more our enemies will watch. I guess some can say that revolutionary culture develops when we learn from our failures. By using those things that don’t work as lessons to learn from, these instances become pillars of resistance.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This comrade raises an important point about learning from our failures as well as our successes. Many times our mistakes are the best source of learning we can get. But only if we sum up honestly, and not pretend things worked well when they did not. When we plan actions we need to lay the groundwork to gain supporters, if we need supporters. And if we don’t think we need supporters we should ask ourselves what we hope to accomplish by acting alone, and what consequences we can expect. Each time we organize for an action we should have these discussions in advance, and then we should sum up and honestly criticize to determine what can be done better in the future.

It won’t always be true that we need to hide our voices from our oppressors. Under different historical circumstances, when we have gained enough supporters and hold a significant amount of power ourselves, we need to be outspoken about our criticisms of our enemies. We encourage our comrades who are struggling with questions of when and how to take action to study the magazine MIM Theory 5: Diet for a Small Red Planet. We distribute it for $5 or equal work trade, and can also send you an accompanying study guide.

Fort Collins Colorado - un joven Chicano de 25 años fue asesinado por un policía hoy, en lo que fue catalogado como un robo que salio mal. Los detalles todavía no están claros y la censuración en las prisiones esta interfiriendo con la recolección de información, pero la noticia ha creado un impacto masivo en la población chicanas dentro de las prisiones. Una pregunta que me viene a la mente, si no es suficiente estar en prisión debajo de un sistema nuevo de autoridad brutal en Colorado, y ahora los policías nos están matando, donde vamos a encontrar alivio?

Y el hecho de que los chicanos están usando violencia en contra de si mismos con las diferentes facciones de agrupaciones internas, ¿cómo nosotros vamos a usar este asesinato para crear revolución a las lineas fronterizas en Colorado? Con la mente y conciencia llena de tristeza, ¿cómo nosotros podemos usar esta lamentable situación para crear unidad?

Violencia entre los Chicanos en las agrupaciones internas solo justifica la violencia en nuestra contra por parte de la policía. Mi último articulo centrado alrededor de Mike Brown ahora empuja en genocidio, tanto externo como interno, hacia el frente y deberá de ser usado para recordarnos que nuestras condiciones son nuestra responsabilidad.

Aztlán y la responsabilidad social por su liberación empieza con la paz entre todos los chicanos dentro de todos los grupos de las agrupaciones internas. Sin embargo, por mas sorprendente que éste caso es en éste momento, me gustaría tomar éste tiempo para expresar mis mas profundas condolencias, tristeza y solidaridad a los amigos, familia y seres queridos de este joven compañero en la lucha.

Chicanos cautivos: no re-accionen con focoismo, actos prematuros de violencia encontra de algún guardia solo justificara el uso de fuerza y violencia en nuestra contra por parte de la maquina estatal.

Revolución es nuestra única opción. Para cambiar nuestro dolor a una fuerza educacional revolucionaria, que salvara a nuestros hijos y compañeros en lucha.

Entiendan que la policía estatal y la clase imperialista un general sostiene en dominio imaginario sobre nosotros, con el uso de cosas como el patriotismo, y llamando a responsabilidad social a nuestro gobierno. Esto no es nuestra obligación, nuestra obligación es terminar con las divisiones internas y crear unión. Si nosotros no lo hacemos, entonces ninguno de nosotros estará a salvo. Es tiempo de vivir por algo más. Peleemos para atrás!

On 8 October 2014 I was suddenly awoken by men in black (literally) with guns who simply stated, “Get dressed you’re leaving ADX.” The United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) is considered the end of the line in the Federal prison system and the conditions of confinement are often more extreme than other facilities. ADX is where terrorist suspects are held in the United $tates.

While I had fought for 11 years to be released from solitary confinement, I was not expecting this sudden transfer. I was compelled to leave my property in my cell, rushed to an airport nearby, and placed on a privately chartered Gulfstream Jet. It was just me and the SWAT-type team of officers and pilots, on an aircraft clearly more used to ferrying billionaires than prisoners.

I was hopeful I was finally about to be treated with dignity and released from solitary since my plight has been chronicled in the courts and national media for years. I was very wrong.

I was flown to the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri which was built in 1933. I was thrown in solitary confinement in a small 6x9 foot cell that contains only a bed and toilet. The TV, 2 hours daily recreation and other amenities I had in ADX were gone in an instant, meager as they were. My only mental stimuli is to hope for mail or to watch aircraft land out my large window. I’m told I’m being mentally “evaluated,” though no one seems to have time to do so. The conditions are so spartan and oppressive I am shocked.

That the U.$. government would respond to the largest class action lawsuit in its history, and scores of negative press (see: www.supermaxlawsuit.com), by treating me worse speaks to an audacity and arrogance only the U.S. Government is capable of. There is much left to achieve but I will continue to report on my journey through solitary nation.

MIM(Prisons) adds: For years we have been fighting to shut down prison control units because they are used just as this writer describes: as punishment for those who are resisting oppression. And for those who don’t find solitary confinement sufficient inducement to stop filing lawsuits and protesting abuses, the Federal prison system has created even more extreme isolation as punishment, including and exceeding the notorious Supermax at ADX.

The imperialist system relies on these control units to punish and intimidate activists. The end of long-term solitary confinement is not possible today given the current balance of forces in the United $tates, but public opinion against them is spreading. It is our task to push an abolishionist stance against torture and not allow for reforms that maintain this tool of repression as a legal option under bourgeois rule. In the medium-term this is a winnable battle under capitalism, but we have a long way to go.