MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
I strongly disagree with the exclusion of whites from the ranks of the
lumpen within the United $tates. (see the tenth paragraph of Wiawimawo’s
article
“Sakai’s
Investigation of the Lumpen in Revolution” in ULK 64)
Although most whites in the United $tates. enjoy “white privilege” there
are also whole communities of disenfranchised, impoverished whites.
These communities are heavily reliant on government support systems to
survive (i.e. food stamps, SSI, welfare, section 8 housing, etc.) They
are also rife with crime, drugs, and street gangs.
For example, take the lumpen organizations (L.O.s) from Chicago
(i.e. the Gaylords and the Simon City Royals). Both of these
organizations were started by disenfranchised, impoverished communities
consisting of mostly whites. They were originally founded to protect
their communities from outside forces.
By stating that only oppressed “minorities” can be considered lumpen,
Wiawimawo is engaging in paternalist politics that causes divisions
within the movement. The truth is that any people that fit the
political, social, and economic profile are lumpen. Disenfranchisement
is not unique, nor immune, to any nationality. In solidarity!
Wiawimawo of MIM(Prisons) responds: We are sending you a copy of
“Who is the Lumpen in the United $tates?” so you can better understand
our position on this question. First let’s look at the quote from my
article that you are responding to:
“This is why, in our work on the First World lumpen in the United
$tates, we excluded white people from the model by default. We did this
despite knowing many white lumpen individuals who are comrades and don’t
fit the model.”
Note i say that we know “many white lumpen individuals who are
comrades,” meaning we agree with you that there are white lumpen, we
just excluded them from the model presented in the paper cited. So why
did we do this? Well, it is mostly based in our assessment of the
principal contradiction in the United $tates being between the white
oppressor nation and the oppressed nations. In the paper we do write:
“White men [who are currently/formerly incarcerated lumpen] number about
1.3 million, but are much more likely to find employment and join the
labor aristocracy after release from prison. While in prison white men
do fall into the lumpen class but lack the oppressed nation outlook and
so often join white supremacist groups rather than supporting
revolutionary organizing. This is just one factor contributing to a
national outlook that leads us to exclude whites overall when discussing
the revolutionary potential of the First World lumpen.”
We also point out that historically the settler nation made up of
Europeans has always been a petty bourgeois nation, while the oppressed
nations have histories that are largely proletarian, but also
lumpen-proletarian. History affects our national and class
consciousness, so we can’t just look at a snapshot in time. But the
point of the paper was to show the size of the First World lumpen in the
oppressed nations of the United $tates and a snapshot of how their
conditions differ significantly from the white nation.
We’d say the examples you provide are exceptions that prove the rule. It
takes some digging to come up with them, but certainly they exist. And
in the context of the topic of this issue of Under Lock & Key
we can certainly agree with you that they should not be ignored.
Most often, in U.$. prisons, when we talk about white L.O.s we are
talking about white nationalist groups of some type. In our study, white
supremacist organizations that are promoting fascism in this country
today are made up of three main groups: former military, members of
lumpen organizations/prisoners, and alienated petty bourgeois youth
gathering around racist subcultures on the internet. The first two are
the more dangerous groups, though the third gives the movement more of a
feeling of a mass base of popularity. In our work it is with the second
group that we can have the most impact. And we’ve had a number of former
hardcore white supremacists become leaders within United Struggle from
Within, and many more have participated in progressive battles for
prisoner rights. It is in such alliances with the oppressed nations
around the common interests of the imprisoned lumpen that we can really
win over potential recruits who were initially drawn to fascism.
We welcome reports on examples of white lumpen organizing in the
interests of ending oppression, and further analysis of the white lumpen
as a base for progressive organizing.
This is the first article I have written for ULK. I was
especially interested in writing about the topic above because, all too
often, I have witnessed how the ‘gangster’ type are eager to dictate to
others how their mission is to bring unity, yet their actions and
attitudes are completely misplaced. For instance, if we are to fight
oppression within the prison system, how is extorting other prisoners,
assaulting others, et cetera, a means to that end?
I am not, nor would I ever become, gang-affiliated. In my opinion, if a
person joins a gang, it is because they are too weak to stand up for
themselves. Prison has become a daycare. Whites sell out whites, blacks
team up with whites and babies have babies. What the hell? I’ve met
pedophiles who are ranking gang officials, and snitches are free to roam
as they please. Nothing makes any sense anymore and, just for the
record, any gang which encourages a prisoner to extend their sentences
or which demand that parents of children perform acts which result in
them not being able to see them, that crap is no better than the lowest
of the lowly.
The things gangs in Missouri do and continue to do are stupid and their
actions bring upon us all the oppression. Gang members in Missouri,
though they continuously spout the B.S. about solidarity, unity and
integrity are, in turn, the cause and continuing justification for our
being oppressed.
Instead of fighting for our right to not be abused by ‘the system,’
Missouri gangs are the tinder with which the fire under oppression is
fueled. For every instance of stupidity by Missouri gang members, we, as
a whole, lose an integral part of the overall voice with which we need
to be able to defend ourselves from the wrongs of the system.
MIM(Prisons) responds: This author asserts that “if a person
joins a gang, it is because they are too weak to stand up for
themselves.” We ask in return: why is it wrong to seek out others to
help you defend yourself? Lumpen organizations arose, on the streets and
in prisons, in response to very real threats to the safety of oppressed
nation people. It is not realistic to think that, in the face of
institutional violence and attacks, or organized violence from other
groups of people, one should stand alone. And seeking this help and
unity is not a sign of weakness.
However, we do agree with this writer that organizations that require
their members to engage in anti-people activity, or which engage in
actions that harm the general prisoner population, are not friends of
the fight against the criminal injustice system. There are many
different types of lumpen organizations and conditions vary in different
areas. In some situations staying away from L.O.s might be the best
practice for anti-imperialists. But at this stage, to organize the
lumpen masses, we need to be building unity between lumpen organizations
where possible, not perpetuating the fighting that the prison
administration encourages. We regularly print articles in ULK
from comrades in lumpen orgs doing just this sort of building behind
bars. This is the leadership we need to highlight and learn from as most
of our readers in prison are in or have been in lumpen organizations..
Arguably the hardest aspect of organizing (especially revolutionary
organizing) is building consciousness. Not specifically of the subject
matter (i.e., anti-capitalist/imperialist, socialism, equality, prisoner
struggle) but of their role in the larger picture and its influence on
their lives. Such consciousness leads to meaningful action. Due to this,
it is the most rewarding of political objectives. It is also the most
difficult to cultivate.
In pursuit of building consciousness, revolutionaries face many
obstacles. A predominant, recurring obstacle is expanding peoples’
perspective beyond their individual material concerns. A person’s
material interests constitute primary motivation for activism against
and contributing to capitalism. In the Third World we see stringent
struggles against capitalism. The opposite is equally true within
capitalist societies. Material interests/motivations are inextricably
welded to an individual’s perspective of, and instinct for,
self-preservation. This leads to a spectacular (depending on your
ideological bent) narrowing down of alternatives, options and ultimately
choices. A non-conducive situation for First World revolutionary
organizing.
Our natural inclination is to allow self-preservation to impulse our
actions once fear or a threat exceeds acceptable levels. People react as
basic as scared animals in danger. Due to social evolution, our
responses are more complex and advanced, more involved, what one can
call a “social” self-preservation instinct. Similar to the brain
shutting down because of excessive stress or trauma, emerging
consciousness among First Worlders regresses when one’s standard of
living is threatened. Breaking First World attachment to
physical/material comforts (possessions, commodities, thing-centrism) is
first imperative to any revolutionary organizing, in particular; and
wider political consciousness, in general.
A great amount of time, energy and attention must be given to shattering
these real constraints. Class suicide among First World activists is the
end result of such efforts. Through a patient, methodical process of
expansive efforts (educational of real costs of capitalism/imperialism),
diligence in those efforts and demonstrating the feasibility of
alternative means (non-capitalistic), an organizer can make a meaningful
contribution to supplanting capitalism.
People are selfish and revolutionary anti-imperialists should remind
themselves that their target is the personal element, first and
foremost. Even the perfect rally/demonstration, regardless of how
correct its politics, will have a difficult time penetrating the
calloused minds of those long accustomed to, and blinded by, capitalism.
Especially when it concerns prisoners and penal systems/institutions.
Most First Worlders simply deem it a necessary evil to preserve society.
MIM(Prisons) responds: Those First Worlders this author refers to
are right that the prison system and institutions are a necessary evil
to preserve the society as it is. That’s the main difference between our
prison work and that of many prison abolitionists – we know that we
can’t get rid of prisons in their current form unless we also get rid of
capitalism.
This article brings up real challenges in our work. In ULK, we
hope to host an ongoing conversation about ways we can be most effective
in accomplishing the tasks this author calls out as most imperative:
building consciousness, changing value systems, showing alternatives,
etc. Send in your experiences and successes so we can continue learning
from each other!
by a North Carolina prisoner February 2019 permalink
I have been fighting for better conditions in my current prison since I
got here in June 2017. Tell the prison masses they have to write en
masse to their unit managers, warden and director of prisons in their
state. It’s free!! There is no excuse.
The easiest thing to do, which I did, is to write up your declarations
and remonstrations using carbon copy paper. Make 2-3 copies for each
block/pod in every unit. Pass them out to comrades in those blocks, so
they can encourage/force/persuade the masses to take 15 minutes to
recopy and post it out. Done.
The first time I initiated these shots the warden called me to his
office for a meeting with him, the unit manager, and assistant warden.
He stopped the early counts, the 9 p.m. count, and turning off of
phones. This sh!t works. On the second salvo he initiated recreation
seven days a week. We are still pounding.
MIM(Prisons) responds: More reasonable hours for count, more
contact with the outside world, and more recreation are all related to
our anti-imperialist struggle, even though they may seem like petty
reforms. Better sleep makes us mentally sharper, for writing,
self-control, and creativity. Interaction with the outside world can
give us motivation and positive social contact. And exercise (especially
outdoors) helps with our physical as well as mental health.
We’d love to analyze a little deeper the benefits of running a campaign
like the one described, because it’s not just good for changing
conditions. The people who are copying the letters and seeing results
are at a special place in their recruiting. They might not be ready to
initiate a campaign like this, and they might not even identify as part
of “the struggle.” But they have some interest in this work and are
putting in some (albeit relatively small) effort.
At this stage, the best thing we can do for them is help set up “easy
wins.” They probably aren’t dedicated enough to remain committed after a
big setback. So asking them to put in a ton of effort for no reward is
just not realistically going to inspire them to stay engaged. Whenever
we can devise campaigns or activities that give this positive feedback
to the people participating, with minimal effort, we should jump on
those projects. These folks might not have learned the relationship
between working hard and reward, so we can help teach that association.
“Without directly experiencing the connection between effort and reward,
animals, whether they’re rats or people, default to laziness.”(1)
Also keep in mind that all is not lost on the folks who are not
participating, and are watching the campaign from the sidelines. Like we
wrote in our response to “Sack the Sack Lunches,” this type of campaign
can help spark people’s interest, just by witnessing and experiencing
the results. Let’s not condemn these folks for not participating, and
instead let’s try harder to inspire them with our successes, and then
help them with easy wins when they are ready to participate.
In some states like Texas, where even indigent mail is restricted to 5
letters per month, it’s not free to write to these administrators
to change conditions. There are plenty of excuses (or reasons) why
people can’t engage in this type of campaign. Still, whenever possible,
we agree that we should be pushing campaigns like these. It just means
we have to get more creative in developing them.
I feel inspired by the fact that you decided to use my
Liberation
Theology article in ULK 65. I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to contribute to our movement. I will continue to submit
articles to you in the future.
The feedback you gave on the article was great. Under the MIM(Prisons)
responds section, you agreed with me that Liberation Theology can be a
useful revolutionary tool, and that it’s good to “try to approach people
where they are at.” However, you also said that “we should be careful
not to mislead them into thinking that we endorse their mysticism. The
very belief in a higher power discourages people from believing that
they can control the development of their own and all of humanity’s
future.” You also warned against neglecting materialism.
I 100% agree. While I did mention that I was an atheist in the article,
I failed to mention that materialism truly is the best world view if
you’re going for revolution. After all, materialism deals with reality
in so far as we humyns are capable of comprehending it. And proper
theory leads to proper action which leads to better theory.
But I just like how you do feedback in general. You encourage the people
to submit their views and if you ever disagree with or wish to qualify a
comrade’s ideas, you publicize eir views and then explain why you
disagree underneath it. Mao would have it no other way. This is why ey
encouraged the people and the intellectuals to think for themselves,
because ey knew that because eir method is sound, ey would be able to
refute errors on logical grounds without having to lie or undermine the
people’s freedom, which is what the U.$. power-elite does.
Also, I read the book Grit that you sent me. I learned some
valuable lessons from it. The main thing I’ve been able to utilize was
the simple chart Duckworth advocates for organizing goals. I’ve made it
a habit to review my own goal chart. My highest goal says “undermine and
liberate,” which means undermine the imperialists and liberate the
oppressed. My low level goals are different throughout the week. Writing
this letter to you, comrades, was one of these goals. Every little goal
adds up to the top one.
MIM(Prisons) responds: Comrade, you were not the only one glad we
printed your piece. Multiple USW comrades wrote us mentioning your
article as being useful. We appreciate this comrade’s feedback on our
feedback, and we’re always looking for more info from our subscribers on
how we can do our job better. It’s a topic we are always reviewing and
trying to improve, like any good organizer should! We especially
appreciate hearing feedback from people who have contributed to our
programs and campaigns.
We all need to be able to learn from constructive criticism, and this
ongoing discussion is an example of the criticism/self-criticism process
in action. Only by learning from our mistakes (and those of others) will
the revolutionaries and the movement continue to grow and move forward.
People, and organizations, that dogmatically insist they are always
right will quickly stagnate and offer no real hope for the oppressed.
And as you can see in the pages of ULK this is a two-way street.
It’s not just about MIM(Prisons) telling writers where we think they are
wrong. It’s also about us learning from readers of and writers for
ULK. The self-criticism printed in this issue regarding our
George Jackson article in ULK 65 is a small example of this.
In the interest of transparency, we want to underline that MIM(Prisons)
is the editor of this newspaper. So we choose what letters we respond
to, and we often cut parts out of those. We aim to give a platform to
the articles that contribute to the ongoing conversations in ULK,
and that contribute to anti-imperialist organizing in general. So
ULK is not a reflection of what everyone is writing to us about,
but it is a reflection of the anti-imperialist organizing going on
behind bars.
Editorial power is one reason why we advocate for single-nation
organizations to lead their own nations, including having their own
ideological platforms such as newspapers. Newspaper editors inherently
filter what they think is most important to include and discuss, and our
judgement on what is important to all nations could be wrong.
[The following was written about the same time as we were writing
Intersecting
Strands of Oppression for ULK 65. This author echoes our own
discussion of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing while heavily citing MIM
Theory 2/3, as we did in our piece. This question of how gender and
nation interact, and how revolutionaries should approach these topics in
order to push things in the right direction continue to be of utmost
importance. - MIM(Prisons)]
On 27 September 2018, in the United States Senate’s Judiciary Committee,
the nation heard riveting testimony of an attempted sexual assault, and
the denial of that assault. A Crime that had occurred 37-years ago with
no corroborating witnesses.
In a he-say, she-say trial, who gets the benefit of the doubt? The
accused, or the accuser? In this era of #MeToo, is it guilty until you
can prove yourself innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? Could due
process be sacrificed at the altar of gender politics and why does it
matter?
In reviewing my in-cell library on feminist theory, these matters and
debates are not new, and the answers to these questions have long been
addressed. The first question that has to be asked, “Who speaks for the
feminist?” “Who has her girlfriend’s back?” The demarcation in the
feminist lines can best be exemplified by the research compiled by one
feminist researcher, Ealasaid Munro:
“The emergence of ‘privilege-checking,’ however, reflects the reality
that mainstream feminism remains dominated by straight white
middle-classes. Parvan Amara interviewed self-identified working class
feminists for a piece published on the internet magazine The F Word and
noted that many of the women she spoke to found themselves excluded from
mainstream feminism both on the internet and ‘in real life.’ Amara notes
that many women tend to encounter feminism at university. Women who do
not go on to further education face a barrier when attempting to engage
with those academic debates that drive feminism.”(1)
So if academia is where the debates that are driving feminist theory are
occurring, what does that academic debate look like if she is not white?
“Ignoring the difference of race between women and the implications of
those differences presents the most serious threat to the mobilization
of women’s joint power. Refusing to recognize difference makes it
impossible to see the different problems and pitfalls facing us as
women. Some problems we share as women, some we do not. You fear your
children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you, we
fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down on the
street, and you will turn your backs upon the reasons they are
dying.”(2)
Another theorist surmised, “Black women’s own views on rape can’t help
being shaped by the actions of their white sisters. That is to say, that
Black people cannot use a white supremacist justice system without
perpetuating white supremacy.”(3)
These other theorists have long been critical of weaponizing process.
This was recently on display in California. There, a recall movement was
taking place to remove a judge for imposing a light sentence on a
Stanford University student for sexual assault. The most vocal opponents
to the recall were Black women. The most visible, former California
Supreme Court justice, Janice M. Brown.(4) She argued, that punishing a
judge for exercising discretion will only harm defendants of color.
Statistics bear this out. Per 100,000 of the Black and Brown population
in 2010, 6,000 were imprisoned; while per 100,000 of the white
population in 2010, 640 were imprisoned.(5) Black and Brown persons of
color are in front of Criminal Court judges far more than whites.
Another theorist called this type of feminism Carceral Feminism, and
rails against the federal passage of the 1999 Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA). “Many of the feminists who had lobbied for the passage of VAWA
remained silent about countless other women whose 911 calls resulted in
more violence. Often white, well-heeled feminists, their legislative
accomplishment did little to stem violence against less affluent, more
marginalized women.”(6) And a further theorist noted, “If women do not
share ‘common oppression,’ what then can serve as a basis for our coming
together?”(7)
These other feminist theorist, the marginalized, had observed that the
debate was about rational-feminism versus emotional-feminism. This
feminist theorist argues that rational-feminism must prevail over
emotional feminism.
“The sisterhood line as currently practiced (but not in the 1960s and
early 1970s) is white, bourgeois, sexist propaganda. Women just turn
around from seeking approval from men that they never got; to demanding
unconditional approval from women. They put each other on a pedestal and
imagine each other to be flawless goddesses.”(8)
This same theorist argues, the root of emotional feminism is nothing
more than a chauvinist plot to keep women marginalized and caught up in
their emotions, rather than applying her faculties of reasoning.
“The root of this is the patriarchal socialization of women to restrict
themselves to the sphere of feelings, while letting men develop the
rational faculties necessary to wield power. Women are taught to read
romantic novels, major in English, or maybe psychology, if the women
seem like they are getting too many scientific ideas.”(9)
Is the rallying cry, “I BELIEVE HER”, the death nails to due process? Is
process going to be sacrificed at the alter of gender politics? Is the
new standard for America’s fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons
“GUILTY, UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT”?
One theorist’s 1992 writings used the 1986 rape convictions of white
women by the race of their rapist. 68% of their rapists were white; 22%
of their rapists were Black; 5% were Other; and 2% of their rapists were
Mixed. The theorist begs feminists to take a serious look at the 22% of
white women raped in 1986 who were raped by Black men.
The theorist goes on to state a general proposition that all feminists
can generally agree upon, “Three-quarters of all rapes are by
acquaintances, and the figures on rape should reflect that women are
raped by the type of people they date.”
In 1986, 12% of the men available to white women were Black. However, no
where near 12% of the sex white women were having were with Black men.
Thus the 22% of white women’s rapist being Black is disproportionately
high. Furthermore, the population of white women was more than six-times
the population of Black men. For every [1% of] white women who had a
sexual acquaintance with a Black man, it takes [6% of] Black men to be
those acquaintances. Out of those acquaintances charged with rape, the
22% figure means a very high proportion of Black men generally are
convicted of rape of white women compared to white men.
The theorist takes note, up to this point, the figures have been
examined from the perspective of the rape victim. But taken from the
Black man’s perspective, white women are a large group of the American
population, while Black men are a relatively small one. For Black men,
63.3% of their rape accusers were white women. If Black men had 63.3% of
their sexual interactions with white women, then the accusations might
be fair, but this was far from the case.
The theorist surmised we could get an idea of how skewed the accusations
were looking at “interracial dating.” The theorist could not give a
figure for what percentage of the dates people went on were interracial.
Instead, the theorist surmised we could guess that it was similar to the
figures for the percentage of people in interracial marriages. Black men
married to white women accounted for 0.3% of total marriages in the
United States as of 1989. In 1989, less than 4% of Black married men
were married to white women, so we estimate that less than 4% of Black
men’s dating were with white women. Hence, less than 4% of accusations
faced by Black men should come from white women. Instead, the figure was
63.3%.(10)
The history of that story is the other side of sexual politics here in
America. An America where the LAPD and Oakland-PD have had 100s of
convictions overturned, due to incredibly, credible, false testimony of
police officers. A land where 15% of the Black population in Tulia,
Texas, were incarcerated by the incredibly, credible, testimony of a
single racist officer.(11) According to the San Quentin News, 139
prisoners nationwide were exonerated in 2017.(12)
Credible demeanor in testimony has never been foolproof. The National
Academy of Sciences, along with the FBI, have noted eyewitness testimony
is the most unreliable testimony.(13) While this would obviously be in
reference to witnesses testifying against strangers, but the juries
which wrongly convinced these defendants were doing so from witnesses
who were credible and convincing in their testimony. In 2013, 153 of the
268 exonerations by the Innocence Project were for rape.(14) 72% of all
DNA exonerations are people of color. Of the 72%, 61% are African
Americans.(15)
Theorists can clearly see, “I BELIEVE HER,” with its lock-in-step
demands of sisterhood, is classic emotional-feminist theory. What is the
emotional-feminist rationale to do away with “INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY”? Nor could emotional-theorists surmise they are not doing away
with this unitedly, American, idea. […] “I BELIEVE HER” is a
presumption-of-guilt, rather than the presumption-of-innocence that the
rational feminist are standing for, and for years have been arguing
against the emotional-feminist assault on process. While
emotional-feminism, with its well-heeled, racial, social, and economic
status is having the loudest voice, their marginalized sisters, whose
rational-feminist approach, is the only voice of hope for fathers,
brothers, husbands, and sons; a hope the other side doesn’t win the
debate.
Last year statements appeared in another newsletter from a USW leader
who spoke in the voice of a subcommittee of the United Struggle from
Within Countrywide Council (USW CC). These statements were not first run
by, nor approved by the Countrywide Council.
The previous year, the USW CC, established policies for official
correspondence with other organizations. We published an article in
ULK 58 describing these efforts and giving
guidance
to all USW members. USW is a mass organization, meaning that people
with differing beliefs can be members and might write or state things as
USW members that contradict. In the cited article we instructed USW
members to pass on communications with other organizations to the USW CC
once you are unable to handle the discussion on your own. Meanwhile the
USW CC established official policy that any statements from the CC would
come through official MIM(Prisons) communication channels:
our P.O. Box in San Francisco
our website www.prisoncensorship.info
our official email with GPG signature (mimprisons@posteo.net)
The statements in question, printed in Turning the Tide, did not
go through this process. We cannot expect other publications to know and
enforce this. Rather it is the USW leader who broke protocol, and wrote
a
self-criticism
to that effect. But this does go to show that comrades should not take
as gospel anything in print that claims to be from USW or even the USW
CC. If it appears in Under Lock & Key, then you can be
assured that it went through the proper channels of approval.
This incident triggered us to address the question of how to verify
communications from MIM(Prisons) and the USW CC in general.
Unfortunately the only sure fire way to verify an isolated communication
is cryptographically. This makes it hard to verify things in print,
coming through the mail, etc.
Every regular reader of our website who has a computer should copy and
save our public gpg key from our
contact page.
Even if you don’t know what to do with this key, you could figure it out
in the future when needed. The sooner you save the key, perhaps the more
sure you can be that the key is legitimately from the original
MIM(Prisons). If someone seized control of our website, and slowly
started changing the political line on that site, and you waited to copy
the key then it might have already have been changed.
While GPG is our primary public way of verifying statements, another
tool our comrades have been promoting is a chat tool called Tox, which
is available for all common operating systems, including smart phones
like android. If you are someone who works with us already and have a
device that you can install Tox on, we can exchange Tox IDs to establish
encrypted and verifiable communications moving forward. Tox is a chat
tool (like texting), and can be easier to set up than email with GPG.
Email without GPG signing, or letters through the mail are easy to fake
as one-off communications. So repeated communications back-and-forth
should be used to confirm any questionable messages. Our website and
Under Lock & Key should be considered more reliable, and
harder to fake by our enemies.
Most of our communications with most of our readers are at the level of
line and strategy. Therefore, our allies and supporters can and must use
a political lens to verify communications. You should study our work and
our line so that you can tell when something unusual pops up. And then
you should communicate with us about it in the most verifiable and
secure line of communication that you have at your disposal. Overall, as
a movement, politics in command is the best way for us to defend against
falsified, or unofficial communications leading us astray.
by a Pennsylvania prisoner February 2019 permalink
Following a fifteen-day lockdown of all Pennsylvania state prisons, new
policies were erected for receiving mail. Publications were halted, and
hundreds of book packages from free prison book programs were returned
to sender. This occurred because several staff members at various
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC) prisons claimed to
become deathly ill after handling prisoner mail.
DOC officials assumed it was synthetic marijuana, or K-2, being sent in
through the mail. However Dr. Lewis Nelson, Chair of Emergency Medicine
at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and other prominent medical staff
called the DOC on their lies and excuses about the lockdown and new
policies and procedures dealing with prisoner mail. Dr. Nelson blew the
whistle, so to speak, when he pointed out that one must ingest or inhale
synthetic marijuana to have any type of effect on individuals.(1) One
cannot be affected by merely touching it, or paper soaked in K-2.
Furthermore, he stated that synthetic marijuana simply does not have the
type of effects that the individuals were having.
So, one might ask, what the real agenda the DOC had in the change in
procedure. The DOC has wanted to control what prisoners read and what
type of mail they received for quite some time. It goes to show just how
much prisons seek to control others. Needless to say, the DOC is
currently under investigation due to its frivolous claims. Mail must be
sent to a company in Florida, where it is scanned. It is then forwarded
to each respective prisoner at whatever prison he/she is confined.
Pennsylvania prisoners receive copies of photos, letters and greeting
cards, and the originals are eventually destroyed. Even our legal mail
is opened in the presence of each prisoner, handled in a biohazard
container, then photocopied. The copies are given to the prisoner, and
the originals placed in an “evidence” bag, and eventually destroyed, or
so the DOC claims.
We are permitted to receive books, magazines and other publications
now, as of very recently. They still must be sent to a secure processing
center, where they are searched and then forwarded to each respective
prisoner.
This is a reminder that we are all being controlled. Unless we get
together and do something about it. How long will we allow prison
officials to violate our rights and take away freedoms that are promised
to us in the U.$. constitution and its amendments? This is a call to
arms, and the need to fight the system instead of tearing down one
another. I refuse to allow the U.$. prison system to continue violating
my rights, and what few freedoms are afforded to me. I will continue to
struggle against the wretched machine that seeks to break me. This is a
call for comrades to do the same.
MIM(Prisons) responds: We wrote about this Pennsylvania mail
policy in ULK 65 and since that time, a new policy to send books
and magazines to yet another separate address was implemented.(2) In
response to outcry by prisoners and family, the PA DOC did back down on
their policy that books could only be ordered through the PA DOC, from
their approved vendors. That is no small victory.
We have instances of letters sent to the Florida processing center being
returned to us just stamped “return to sender” after being opened and
then taped shut. No reason is given. We think it’s safe to assume it’s
the contents of the letter that inspires this censorship, because not
all our mail is being returned, and it is being opened at the processing
center. In at least one case, our Guide to Fighting Censorship was the
item returned to us.
This is an important censorship battle and we join this comrade’s call
for everyone in Pennsylvania to take up the fight. This is an easy
excuse to selectively censor revolutionary material, or selectively
censor prisoners who are politically active. We anticipate an increase
in denials of our mail. When you are notified of censorship, appeal it,
and also let us know what was censored. If you haven’t received mail
from us in a while, check in and let us know. We always keep up
subscriptions for 6 months after your last letter to us. Also follow
this comrade’s example and keep us informed about changes to the rules
and updates on the fight against them. For our part, we will also be
appealing when we have evidence of censorship and working with you to
fight from the outside.
by a North Carolina prisoner February 2019 permalink
Myself and two other prisoners currently being held at Pender
Correctional in North Carolina have founded a band of like-minded
brothers that are fed up with the way the state and prison systems have
found a way to excuse slavery. They are preying on people’s downfalls,
and use them for their own gain. In North Carolina there is a lot of
overcrowding and the only way to get on good time is to work, which
saves them money, not having to pay prisoners minimum wage. This work
also makes income for the prison at their enterprise plants, where
prisoners work for 40-55 hours a week for $10.50-$21.30 in pay (for the
week). They have the workers making officers’ uniforms, chemicals,
working farms, making eye wear, and a laundry service that not only
cleans prison clothes but also hospital and rest home clothes.
If you are one of the lucky ones that gets to go to a minimum camp and
go out on work release to work an outside job, they charge you $150 a
week for room and board. Hold on, that’s double dipping. They get paid
by the federal government to house us. Then they write us up for every
petty thing they can, such as too many clothes, disrespect, profanity,
etc. and take $10 from us each time. They also invented a way to charge
us every time we receive money from our family.
We decided that we won’t go for it anymore, but we are limited to what
we can do while we’re in here, for fear of retaliation. We’re already
suffering because we refuse to work. We are building steam every day by
spreading the word. We need help from someone that knows the best ways
to organize and lead. So can you please help us with advice and resource
list and materials to pass out? Also we could really use law books to
help further some various lawsuits we have filed and need to file.
Please help in any way you can. We are a band of your fellow brothers
seeking guidance. Thank you for your time!
MIM(Prisons) responds: These comrades organizing against the
extortion of their labor are setting an example for others. Getting
like-minded people together and coming up with a unified plan of action
is an accomplishment in and of itself. We will send some materials,
grievance petitions and other resources that may be useful. But we also
call on other prisoners to respond with any advice you have for these
organizers. What can we do to have the best chances of success? Are
there problems these comrades should look out for? This is the
dialectical process that revolutionaries use, summing up our practice to
learn from successes and failures. And sharing that learning with others
makes an even bigger impact. Turn your own organizing failures into
successes by learning from them and helping others to avoid the same
mistakes.
I’ve always been revolutionary-minded, but it’s a struggle here in Bill
Clements Unit. Here’s one example that happened early last month. I work
in the laundry. Well all of us are waiting for them to call for chow
(lunch), but all of a sudden the C.O.s running chow forget to feed
laundry! So the chow C.O.s tell the laundry C.O. that they are going to
give us sack lunches. All of a sudden, this is the sad part, a bunch of
my fellow coworkers are going back into the laundry. Well a few of us
spoke up saying we’ve been working and are NOT going to accept a sack
lunch. Eventually they opened the chow hall for us. Well I guess this is
all for now. Again thank you for all you do.
MIM(Prisons) Texas Coordinator responds: Small incidents like
this one might seem inconsequential to many people, like those guys who
just went back to laundry when told they were gonna get sack lunches.
These are small wins that make a huge impact on people’s minds, though.
Showing people little successes like this whenever we can helps plant
seeds in their consciousness about resisting oppression and standing up
for themselves. It was a completely fair argument to make, that the
C.O.s made a mistake and should fix it. So rather than get hung up on
how sad it is that so many people just were going accept the sack
lunches, i think it was really great that so many people got to see what
having a backbone looks like in real life. Inevitably, this is what
inspires people to grow their own backbones and start standing up for
themselves. Thanks for this awesome report.