Under Lock & Key

In the first ULK I read (ULK 49 - Survival and Stamina), I read “Shun TV, Be Humble, and Check Security,” by a California comrade. It was great to know there were others with my same thoughts about the stupid box. There are multiple reasons the “babysitter” is encouraged by authorities, likewise why you should be more than cautious about getting attached to one. Let’s go straight to the pros (not for us captives) for authorities and administrators of DOCs everywhere.

Babysitters are “incentives,” but not in the normal sense. Instead of being incentives (read: prizes) to earn through excellent behavior, it’s used as an incentive to lose through defiance. Pay attention, this is more than just a simple play on words. In the former, you may by your own will (read: volition or choice) decide it in your best interests to excel as a “model” prisoner in order to earn the incentive. This would be a choice exercised through your own judgment. In the second predicament is where 95% of prisoners find themselves.

In the latter, babysitters are used as coercion. Here’s the reality: the authorities establish rules and norms of expected behaviors. Break any rule, or fail to meet an expected norm, and the babysitter won’t be there when you get “home.” Their message is clear: do as we say, behave as we say, or sit in a cell with your thoughts and yourself (if you don’t have a celly). To me it doesn’t seem like much of a threat, but I’m the odd man out. I’ve been in and out of Ad-Seg, or whatever is the en vogue term now, since 2012, and have always preferred to read, study and grow. The majority of us are so caught up in consumerism and what I call “reality avoidance,” that the threat of no canteen (commissary, special packages) or no babysitter (TV) is effective to smother defiance (outside of extreme circumstances) and gain compliance.

Over decades prison officials have figured out how to condition prisoners to cherish things of no importance. A lot of hombres just want to watch Castle, Pawn Stars, Storage Wars, or whatever, eat their food, exercise when they have homies on their case, and be left to themselves. This is the overwhelming majority mentality here in RH-Max (formerly Ad-Seg). Why is this? Simply because nobody’s taken the time to explain the dynamics. In theory we all know what babysitters are used for. In practice, how many internalize this knowledge?

As long as authorities can say “here’s a TV, sit down, shut up and don’t make us do our job” then we’ve failed, because the authorities have rocked us to sleep with something stronger than a lullaby. With TV and being “left alone,” we are content enough to fight amongst ourselves instead of the puercos. As long as a babysitter can sedate us, the puercos are complacent and can run their program as they see fit. I don’t know about you, but I’m not down for catering to the puercos’ agenda.

MIM(Prisons) responds: You don’t have to sit in your cell alone with your thoughts and nothing to do. Pushing this comrade’s observations further, we call on everyone to get involved in the MIM(Prisons) political study group. Or trade some labor for books to study. Make use of your time, like this writer, to read, study and grow. Write to us today to join the next introductory study group.

MIM(Prisons) responds: Thanks for this criticism. We print it now since it slipped past our editors last issue. Terms like “baby boy” and boy are often used as terms of affection, especially by older comrades. But the word has a different meaning when written by a white persyn describing an oppressed national, especially by a member of the Aryan Nation. Specifically, boy was commonly used by white Amerikans when bossing around, threatening and just generally oppressing New Afrikans during slavery and after. It was a mistake for us to let such a use of the term slip into ULK without criticism.

Most Amerikan self-described “communists” will not even listen to this album as soon as they see the title. Those same white nationalist socialists refuse to read MIM’s writings because of all the KKKs and dollar $igns. They claim it’s too distracting. We say transforming the oppressors language is a necessary part of building a revolutionary culture to replace the old one.

A week ago, the top results brought by a search for “Amerikkka” on youtube.com(1) brought up songs from Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted album, some other hip hop singles, and videos from a former associate of MIM with explicit anti-Amerikkkan messages. This week, Joey Bada$$’s new album is rising to the top for that query. All Amerikkkan Bada$$ isn’t as edgy as Ice Cube (it does lack Cube’s misogyny) and certainly not as edgy as Shubel Morgan (who did music videos for MIM and LLCO), but it’s got a pretty strong message of New Afrikan unity and struggle.

In one interview Joey Bada$$ said:

“It’s like hella vegetables. It’s hella good for you, and it’s almost my hesitance with it: the fact that it’s so good for you, because these kids these days want candy.”(2)

The album title, All Amerikkkan Bada$$ is no doubt a reference to Badass’s late partner in rhymes, Capital STEEZ’s mixtape Amerikkkan Korruption. Lyrics on this new album hit references to that mixtape as well, such as the track “Dead Prez” that was produced by Joey Bada$$. Both Capital STEEZ and Joey Bada$$ are respected as lyricists, with fast New York styles of rapping.

The album cover (and associated art) features an Amerikkkan flag made out of red, white and blue bandannas. The song “Legendary” makes a reference to Crip culture with the line “the legends they never die, the niggers they only multiply.” More explicit are the lines in “Rockabye Baby”:

“Peace to my Slimes, and peace to my Crips
Neighborhood police and they always on the shift
Protect my Bloods, look out for my cuz
When it’s all said and done, we be the realest there was
Who else if just not us?
If you ’bout this revolution, please stand up”

While the first single, “Devastated” has been out for months, the second, “Land of the Free”, came out just before the album dropped this week. The first song is about success, and the video has a party vibe to it. “Land of the Free” is about the struggle, and the video features some strong imagery, including all-white pigs executing Black and Brown people in all black. Joey Bada$$ intervenes to free some of them, but is later shot and hung by cops in Ku Klux Klan robes. And while the video shows Joey Bada$$’s U.$. flag made of bandanas throughout, what is not so prominent is the upside down U.$. flag on the back of eir jacket. “Land of the Free” features lyrics like, “sorry Amerikkka, but i will not be your soldier, Obama just was not enough, i want more closure.” The apt-titled opening track, “Good Morning Amerikkka” references Black Panther Geronimo Pratt’s framing for murder by the state.

While the album features the usual “fuck the police” and “fuck the government” refrains, the last track, “Amerikkkan idol”, also says, “Fuck white supremacy,” a slogan that seems to be coming into vogue following the election of Donald Trump.(3) This track closes with some pretty sober and explicit lyrics:

“What the government is doing amongst our people is downright evil, disturbing. But not surprising, that’s for certain… I believe they are simply trying to slander, start a civil war within the U$A amongst Black and white. They want us to rebel so that it makes it easy for them to kill us and put us in jails… Alton Sterlings are happening every day in this country, around the world…And it’s time for us to rebel, better yet raise hell. I just want everyone to be cautious about how they go about it… not only battling them on a physical plain, but to outsmart them… As Black men, i think our gangs need to do a better job at protecting us, the people, our communities and not assisting in destroying them brutally. It’s time they even the score… We need solutions. You better start plotting now.”

Rogue One: Una historia de Star Wars (2016)

Rogue One trata de la historia desconocida detrás del primer episodio que se produjo de Star Wars (que ahora, cronológicamente, es ahora el IV en la inacabable y productiva saga de películas de Star Wars). En esta película descubriremos cómo se las arregla la Alianza Rebelde para conseguir una copia de los planos de la Estrella de la Muerte, una pieza fundamental de información utilizada para destruir esa arma. Esta película es un sorprendente ejemplo de cómo algunos instrumentos de la cultura capitalista bien financiados pueden gastar millones de dólares para obtener beneficios del entretenimiento. El presupuesto estimado fue de 200 000 000 $; imaginen lo que se podría haber hecho con esos recursos en un sistema que se guiase por las necesidades de la gente en vez de por los beneficios.

Por ese dinero obtenemos una historia que tiene algunos elementos progresistas pero también muchos mensajes discutibles y reaccionarios. Rogue One trata sobre la lucha de la Alianza Rebelde contra el Imperio, lo que puede ser una excelente analogía anti-imperialista. Y hay algunas temáticas sólidas de sacrificio revolucionario y de la unión de l@s oprimid@s para luchar contra un@ enemig@ común en un frente unido. Sin embargo, al final gana el individualismo ya que, por supuesto, eso hace la historia más emocionante en nuestra cultura.

Este episodio supone un esfuerzo bastante satisfactorio de unir los episodios III y IV y nos explica mejor por qué la Estrella de la Muerte podría destruirse por completo la Estrella de la Muerte con un disparo certero. El saboteador detrás de ésta debilidad nos da uno de los muchos ejemplos de sacrificio revolucionario de esta película. Asimismo, ejemplifica cómo es posible que alguien se resista aun estando obligad@ a permanecer en una situación en la que no parece haber resistencia. A pesar de que se describe a este personaje como alguien con capacidades únicas, su forma de actuar sirve de buen ejemplo del axioma existencialista de que siempre hay elección. Esto puede servir de inspiración para aquell@s en los países imperialistas que están rodead@s por enemig@s de clase, o para aquell@s en celdas de aislamiento que no tienen más contacto con el mundo exterior que cartas esporádicas.

Aunque el sacrificio revolucionario es un tema fuerte con muchos personajes en la Rebelión, no es un mensaje propiamente anti-imperialista, como probablemente reafirmen aquell@s que luchan por el imperio de EE UU y que creen que lo que están haciendo está bien. En la película, el Imperio, más que ser un ejemplo de los males del imperialismo, sigue pareciendo una caricatura de lo que Estados Unidos piensa del comunismo. Tod@s van vestid@s con el mismo uniforme y están obligad@s a trabajar para conseguir el dominio militar del mundo bajo el liderazgo de un@ líder egoísta. No obstante, para aquell@s con una mentalidad revolucionaria, podemos simular que quería representar al imperio imperialista, apoyar a la Rebelión y honrar sus sacrificios.

Aparece un grupo que se asemeja a l@s rebeldes árabes que han emprendido el foquismo contra el Imperio, y con l@s que la Alianza Rebelde quiere trabajar a regañadientes. Esta visión es, en cierto modo, mejor que la representación que se suele hacer de l@s árabes en las películas de Hollywood, en las que a menudo son solo terroristas. Pero en este caso aparecen como si no fueran lo suficientemente inteligentes para participar en una batalla unida, haciendo solo lo que ordena el líder y en ataques foquistas aleatorios. Aún así es una imagen bastante estereotipada.

La misma Alianza parece ser un frente unido de varias especies de todo el universo que trabajan juntas para derrotar al Imperio. Esto podría verse como un paralelismo con el frente unido de las naciones oprimidas que será necesario para derribar el imperialismo estadounidense. En la historia humana tenemos grandes ejemplos de frentes unidos entre naciones, como China. Sin Embargo, pero tenemos poca experiencia del frente unido multinacional y de la dictadura colectiva del proletariado que, probablemente, será necesaria tras derribar al imperialismo estadounidense. La Rainbow Coalition (Coalición del Arco Iris) de Fred Hampton en Chicago fue una forma temprana de dicho frente unido pero se reprimió antes de que pudiera surgir una guerra anti-imperialista.

La película utiliza este frente unido para promover actos de desesperación ultraizquierdistas e individualistas. Cuando se estancan en la lucha sobre si deben o no emprender acciones militares o huir y esconderse, un pequeño grupo de combatientes emprenden acciones independientes porque lo único que conocen es la guerra. Es@s son l@s valientes héroes y heroínas de la película. La principal discrepancia dentro del frente unido era sobre si era posible o no ganar en una lucha contra la Estrella de la Muerte. Este debate acerca de las tácticas podría haber sido una buena lección de lucha y unidad, una posibilidad de reunir más información y de ensayar varias tácticas para aprender de la práctica. En vez de eso, se produjo una pequeña discusión verbal y, después, se tomó la decisión de no actuar debido a todas las discrepancias, representando al frente unido como inútil.

En Rogue One aparecen más personajes femeninos de los que suelen aparecer en una película de Hollywood, pero los personajes principales nacieron en sus papeles, en vez de alzarse para tomar posiciones por convicción y trabajo duro, mientras que los personajes principales masculinos superaron grandes dificultades o luchan contra circunstancias personales para rebelarse. A pesar de todo, la gran mayoría de los personajes de la película son masculinos, un hecho extraño para una sociedad de un futuro tan lejano. Sin duda, el patriarcado sigue dominando en Star Wars.

En todas las películas de Star Wars aparecen referencias a “la Fuerza” en mayor o menor grado. En este argumento, la Fuerza se convierte básicamente en una religión, practicada únicamente por un hombre asiático que protege ciegamente el templo (literalmente, es ciego). La fe ciega de este hombre (no es muy sutil) se convierte en una parte importante de la lucha rebelde. Y, en un momento determinado, dicha fe salva la situación, promoviendo de nuevo, un tipo de ultraizquierdismo.

Con todos estos fallos, MIM(Prisons) no puede recomendar Rogue One más que para realizar análisis críticos.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
2016

Rogue One is the backstory behind the very first episode of Star Wars ever produced (which is now chronologically number 4 in the unendingly profitable Star Wars series of movies). In this movie we learn how the rebel alliance managed to get a copy of the blueprints for the Death Star, a critical piece of information used to destroy that weapon. This movie is an impressive example of how well-funded elements of capitalist culture can spend millions of dollars in order to make a profit off of entertainment: the estimated budget was $200,000,000. Imagine what could have been done with those resources in a system guided by peoples’ need instead of profit.

For this money we get a story that has some progressive elements but also many questionable and reactionary messages. Rogue One is about the rebel alliance’s fight against the Empire. This could be a great anti-imperialist analogy. And there are some solid themes of revolutionary sacrifice and the oppressed coming together to fight a common enemy in a united front. But in the end it is individualism that wins, as of course that makes for a more exciting story in our culture.

This episode is a fairly satisfactory effort to stitch together episode 3 and episode 4, and provides us with a better explanation for why the Death Star could be completely destroyed with one good shot. The saboteur behind this weakness gives us one of the many examples of revolutionary sacrifice in this movie. It also offers an example of how resistance is possible from someone who is forced into a situation where there seems to be no resistance. While this character is depicted as having unique skills, eir course of action serves as a good example of the existentialist axiom that we always have a choice. This may serve as inspiration for those in the imperialist countries surrounded by class enemies, or those in isolation cells with no contact with the outside world but occasional letters.

While revolutionary sacrifice is a strong theme with many characters in the Rebellion, this message is not inherently anti-imperialist as it will likely reinforce those fighting for U.$. empire who believe what they are doing is good. The Empire in the movie, rather than being an example of the evils of imperialism, continues to come across as a caricature of what Amerika thinks of communism. Everyone wears the same uniform and is forced to work for the military dominance of the world under the leadership of one egotistical leader. But for those with a revolutionary mindset, we can pretend this was meant to represent the imperialist empire, and root for the Rebellion and honor their sacrifices.

There is a group that resembles Arab militants who have taken up focoism against the Empire, and who the Rebel Alliance grudgingly wants to work with. In some ways this is better than the average portrayal of Arab peoples in Hollywood movies, where they are often just the terrorists. But in this case they come across as not smart enough to participate in a united battle, just doing what their leader directs, in random focoist attacks. Still a rather stereotypical picture.

The Alliance itself appears to be a united front of various species from around the universe who are working together to defeat the Empire. This could be seen to parallel the united front of oppressed nations that will be necessary to take down U.$. imperialism. In humyn history we have strong examples of united fronts within nations, such as China. But the multinational united front and the joint dictatorship of the proletariat that will likely be necessary after defeating U.$. imperialism are things that we have little experience with. Fred Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition in Chicago was an early form of such a united front, but it was repressed before an anti-imperialist war could emerge.

The movie uses this united front to promote ultra-leftism and individualist acts of desperation. When they get bogged down in fighting over whether or not they should take military action or run and hide, a small group of fighters take independent action because they don’t know anything but war. These are the brave heroes of the movie. The main disagreement within the united front was over whether or not it was possible to win in a fight against the Death Star. This debate over tactics could have been a good lesson in struggle and unity, perhaps greater gathering of information and a testing of various tactics to learn from practice. Instead there was a short verbal fight and then a decision that no action could be taken because of all the disagreement, portraying the united front as futile.

Rogue One did feature more female characters than the average Hollywood movie, but the main characters were born into their roles, rather than rising up to take positions out of conviction and hard work. While the lead male characters overcame great hardship, or fought against persynal circumstances, to take up the rebel struggle. And still the vast majority of the characters seen in the movie are male, an odd feature for a society so far in the future. Clearly the patriarchy still dominates in Star Wars.

Star Wars movies all feature reference to “The Force” to greater or lesser degrees. In this storyline The Force is basically turned into a religion, practiced only by one Asian man who blindly guards the temple (literally, he is blind). This man’s blind faith (it’s not very subtle) becomes an important part of the rebel fight. And at one point this faith saves the day, again promoting a sort of ultra-leftism.

With all of these failings, MIM(Prisons) can’t recommend Rogue One for anything more than critical analysis.

Lumpen: The Autobiography of Ed Mead
Kersplebedeb, 2015

Available for $20 + shipping/handling from:
kersplebedeb
CP 63560, CCCP Van Horne
Montreal, Quebec
Canada
H3W 3H8

As anti-imperialists and prison activists, we can recommend Ed Mead’s recent autobiography as a useful read. There are a couple inconsistencies with the form and the line promoted in the book, however. While Mead critiques anarchism and reformism in the book, at the end is a list of a number of organizations that struggle for prisoners’ rights, and they are all reformist/mass organizations with a couple anarchist groups thrown in. Mead stresses that he does not believe communists should hide their beliefs. Yet it is odd that he finds no communist prison support groups to be worthy of mention. Moreso, it seems that for much of Mead’s life ey couldn’t find a communist organization to be a part of and support.

We also must question the form of an autobiography. Our culture promotes the idea of writing one’s own story. While this author has been told to write an autobiography multiple times, having lived much less of my life than Ed Mead, i don’t plan to ever do so. I hope that if i do live as long as Mead i’m too busy fulfilling my tasks in a communist cadre org (or hopefully state by then) to spend a bunch of time writing about myself. Certainly there is some value in terms of the building of humyn knowledge of documenting the conditions of the time and places that Mead experienced. But it does not seem a high priority for communists. It was probably for this reason that i found the first chapters of the book tiring to read. I didn’t really need to know all about Mead’s family growing up to learn some lessons about how to organize with prisoners effectively. But perhaps that was my own problem as that was never a stated purpose of this book.

The foremost stated purpose of the book by Mead is to “extend an invitation to sections of the lumpenproletariat to join the international working class.” While not a bad goal, it does hint at differences we have with Mead and other communists within California Prison Focus (CPF) regarding whether nation or class is the principal contradiction. This has led to divisions in our work to shut down Security Housing Units in California. In the 2000s, MIM was part of the United Front to Abolish the SHU, which was dominated by parties and organizations struggling for national liberation. While CPF was nominally a member, their difference on this issue led to a lack of working together. This was despite the fact that the United Front explicitly allowed for organizational independence in terms of political line outside of our agreement on shutting down the SHU. In the 2010s, CPF was part of the leadership that created the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity coalition. Mead was perhaps the only one who tried to include MIM(Prisons) in that effort. But the coalition structure forced us to the outside this time as MIM(Prisons) refused to subsume our politics to the coalition.

While recognizing whites as obviously having advantages over others, Mead does believe there is a significant white nation working class in this country. While citing Mao favorably multiple times, Mead points out Mao’s failure to put class first as a point of disagreement.(p. 164) Mead’s line is also reflected in an off-hand comment saying Stalin was wrong to condemn the German social-democrats as social-fascists. We think Stalin and the Comintern correctly saw the class nature and interest of the social democrats as being labor aristocracy and petty bourgeois, who wavered towards fascism, paving its way to power.(1)

Mead talks about “white skin privilege” and uses it as an agitational point to push people to join the class war while discussing eir participation in the militant George Jackson Brigade. Mead admits that eir decision to use revolutionary violence was a direct result of the lack of mass support for abused prisoners.(p. 181) At the same time ey mentions other groups at the time doing similar things and believing that small bands carrying out armed struggle would spread across the country. Mead does not conclude anywhere in the book that it was a mistake to take up this line even though comrades died, while the rest spent the prime of their lives in prison. As we discussed in a recent article on the Black Panthers, it was both common and understandable to conclude that armed struggle would become a reality in the United $tates at that time.(2) Yet, not only are conditions less advanced today, history also proved that armed struggle in the United $tates was premature in the conditions of 1966-72.

From what we know about Mead in real life and from reading the book, it is clear that ey was good at and focused on uniting all who could be united. And while we say it is better for communists to work within cadre organizations than mass organizations, as Mead did much of eir life, ey certainly did so in a principled way according to the book. And most of those principles are ones that we too support.

As mentioned, i came to this book in search of some lessons on anti-imperialist organizing in prisons. And while some of the stories are very abbreviated, the book is not short on examples of Mead’s efforts, pitfalls and successes. Mead talks about the importance of determining the principal contradiction at each prison ey organized in. While in most cases ey sait it was related to nation, ey said it was related to sexism in Walla Walla, which led to the formation of Men Against Sexism.(3) Interestingly, Mead takes the position that while nation is principal inside prisons, it does not make sense to build a Black-only prison movement (at least on a large scale).(p. 280) We are sympathetic to this view and spend a lot of time calling for unity between nationalities in prison, while promoting national liberation as a strategy for the oppressed nations overall. A couple of good lessons are well-put in Mead’s own words:

“…if the immediate demands address prisoners’ rights and living conditions, then the backwards elements will either be won over or neutralized by the growing consciousness of the rest of the population.”(p. 305) This was one of the most inspiring parts of Mead’s story. In a situation where the prison system was dominated by one lumpen organization (LO) that was guided by self-interest, Mead had the revolutionary fearlessness to organize those victimized by the LO to build a mass movement that the whole population came to identify with.

“An organization that depends upon one person for direction is doomed to fail; each level of cadre should be able to take the place of a fallen or transferred comrade, even if that person occupies a leadership position.”(p. 306) Mead learned this from experience, both in situations where ey was that sole leader and others where ey was surrounded by a dedicated cadre. Inspiring stories include the first strike ever at McNeil Island, which had 100% participation.(p. 139) While many of the challenges of prison organizing are still the same decades later, you’ll find many other inspiring stories in this book as well. It demonstrates both the importance of the prison movement as part of the overall movement for liberation and against imperialism, while showing the limitations of a prison movement that is not complemented by strong movements on the outside. As the current struggle focused on police murders continues to ferment, we work to build a prison movement, and they will feed each other as we move towards the next revolutionary period in history.

One of the more hotly anticipated sequels to a classic (or, approaching classic) science fiction film has been the new Independence Day film: “Resurgence”. The film is set in 2016, exactly 20 years after the last film, and is quite vague in discussing the geo-political developments since the events of the first film. What we are given is obscure exposition by the new president of the united $tates on the “great advancements of humynity” since the defeat of the alien invaders. Of course, the united $tates in this arrangement is depicted as the noble defender of humynity and of earth in light of a humyn victory over the aliens 2 decades ago. What is also made clear is that an entirely new and more comprehensive military alliance has been drafted between all of the major imperialist powers and with China playing an increasingly prominent role in this new military coalition labeled the Earth Space Defense (ESD), this will be important later.

What is more immediately puzzling is the talk of the great period ushered in by the humyn victory which has allegedly seen no military conflict and has achieved great leaps in prosperity with the use of alien technology to benefit “all humynity.” These are some pretty big achievements, if they were to hold water. However it seems that like most boasts of amerika, even in this film, are just as hollow as they are in real life. Little is ever shown of the rest of the world outside of amerika (other than bits of Europe later in the film) although we do get to see several glimpses of an obscure destination in Afrika that is visited by the protagonists to meet with a local “warlord” whose people live underneath a large alien ship which had landed there during the first invasion.

What is interesting about their depiction of Afrikan people during this time is not only the direct contradiction with the president’s speech previously celebrating the great peace and prosperity, as well as the fact that this film does little to avoid the western stereotypes of Afrikan people in the media generally. The Afrikan people depicted in the film seem to have gained virtually nothing from the alien technology other than weaponry (consistent with a western worldview of what Afrikan people would find important) as well as the fact that they explicitly state the people in this region have been at near-constant warfare with the remnants of the alien army, and have been ruled by a “cruel warlord” whose aesthetic is meant to closely mirror that of a strong Communist leader, with the red flags and red stars. So much for “peace and prosperity” for all humynity.

This is very revealing about not only the mentalities of those who created the movie, but also of the characters within the film itself. The Afrikan people are summed up by this one vague and unspecified people they encounter who are meant to be the archetypical hyper-violent, probably Communist, and backward peoples. Furthermore, it becomes clear that when the president of amerika says “all humynity” what they mean is “all First World humynity” with an expressed focus on amerikans. These are the humyns they find to be particularly important, and worth talking about when making the generalized statements of peace and prosperity. So while for Communists it would seem contradictory to hear these statement and see the reality of Afrikan peoples at the same time, it is entirely consistent with the worldview of most amerikans and would be therefore uncontroversial to most of them.

Later in the film we are presented with the new alien threat, which is supposed to appear much more challenging than the previous one. Again, amerika champions itself as being the principal world leader as all of the seemingly most important battles are fought in North Amerika and a majority of all scenes address amerikan characters in the aftermath of the second invasion. There is a focus on two euro-amerikan characters who constantly paint themselves as born-of-hardship soldiers who are entirely misunderstood by their non-white superiors, including the Chinese commanding officer. This falls entirely in line with the amerikan perception of being the “unwanted hero” that always must intervene to save the world. They are underappreciated, overdeveloped, and the model for humynity in this film’s depiction.

Though aside from the centrality of amerikan characters in this film, another interesting aspect alluded to previously has is the prominence of China in this. China is not only a major power depicted in the film, but several of the most prominent characters, such as the commander of the lunar military installation, featured in the film and one of the more central protagonists, are Chinese. The film makes several overt attempts to appeal to the potential Chinese audiences. This has less to do with the film’s overall message so much as it has to do with an increasingly popular trend in films overall in the West with regards to China. Despite being anticipated in the united $tates and Europe, Resurgence has not done well so far in the amerikan box office, however its revenue was nearly matched by the Chinese opening.[1] One could easily connect this to the overt attempts to make the film viable in the Chinese box office.

This is not unique to this film, however, with many other recent films now pinning their hopes on a success in both the amerikan and Chinese box offices. Two good examples of this in recent years have been the new Warcraft film which did extremely poorly in the united $tates and yet was a huge success in China, as well as the Red Dawn remake, which had actually undergone enormous changes during production to change the antagonists from Chinese to northern Koreans in order to ensure it could be shown in China.[2] This is a rather strange example of how China is being transformed in its current place in the global markets as a major contender for marketing in the West as the Chinese government primes exclusive parts of the population for integration into the imperialist world economy as a large power.

Overall this film’s release exposes quite a lot about not only the amerikan consciousness, but as well the state of the global markets as they must now recognize China as being a large and viable marketplace for their goods. Films such as this one appeal directly to the ultra-racist and eurocentric worldviews of the audiences in an attempt to portray them as the saviors of the world, who take upon themselves the full burden and prestige for rescuing the planet in its hour of need. It goes to great lengths to demonstrate amerika and the imperialist countries as the rightful leaders of the planet, and to obscure all real social relations behind their prosperity and the misery of Third World peoples.

I have on my cell wall, “Afghan Girl,” Steve McCurry’s photograph that graced the cover of a 1985 National Geographic. I’m sure MIM is familiar with “Afghan Girl.” It’s one of my favorite selections of photo journalism/art.

2010, NG again dispatched McCurry to Afghanistan in search of “Afghan Girl” in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the famous photo. McCurry found “Afghan Girl,” just as before - still living in the dirt. I would wager McCurry has made tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of dollars in proceeds from “Afghan Girl.” Obviously, McCurry’s subject didn’t receive squat.

My question to MIM is: Should “Afghan Girl” be compensated for McCurry’s photo commensurate to revenue generated, even though said revenue is derived form superprofits? After all, “Afghan Girl” was McCurry’s model.

Extrapolating form the above, if prisoners are thrown nickels an dimes by the prisoncrats, are prisoners then feeding at the imperialist trough? I, myself, don’t give 2 hoots if Texas prisoners are paid or not. That would just bequeath the man more authoritative leverage to be used against us. I don’t give a fuck ’bout commissary, unless you’re talking about boycotting or looting it. And the Texas so-called “good-time” scheme is a farcical sham.

MIM(Prisons) responds: There is some value, in a world where the government and its structures are actually serving the interests of the majority of the world’s people, to superstructure systems of media and arts that also serve the people. But in the case of a photo exposing conditions of poverty and suffering, these should be used to identify problems and inspire action to change, not to generate wealth for the photographer.

The imperialists have come up with a myriad of ways to make money off the backs of Third World people. It is true that revenue for a photo is just a shifting around of superprofits; obviously there is no actual value or profit created from the taking of a photograph, or from being photographed. But instead this shows how the privileged in the First World share the wealth stolen from the Third World, to First World workers who are mostly engaged in unproductive labor. Rather than ask whether the Afghan girl in the photo should be compensated for the photo, instead we say that the entire situation is wrong and demonstrates how imperialism is more interested in profit than the welfare of human beings. This is just one small example further demonstrating that capitalism is a dead end system and must be replaced with a system that serves the interests of the majority, not the profit of the minority.

The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution
by Stanley Nelson
2015

This film screened in major U.$. cities in the fall of 2015. I was planning to use my notes in an article for our 50th issue on the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party. However, in February 2016 the film was shown on PBS with much publicity. Knowing that our readers have now seen the film we wanted to put some commentary out sooner rather than later. But do make sure to check out Under Lock & Key Issue 50 for a more in-depth counter-narrative to this pop culture film.

The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution is an eclectic collection of video and photography, along with contemporary commentary from some who played important roles in the Party. The producer clearly had no deep ideological understanding of the Black Panther Party, as critics on the left and the right have already noted. What ey was good at was picking out some good sound bites and emotionally moving clips. Yet, even still, as someone with extensive knowledge of Panther history, i often found the film boring. Most of the audience seemed to enjoy it based on the loud cheering at the end.

I have not watched Stanley Nelson’s other films, but it seems that a film on the Panthers is within the realm of previous documentaries ey has produced (Jonestown, The Black Press, Freedom Riders and Freedom Summer). It is curious that ey takes on these topics, and then does such a shallow portrayal of the Panthers. Nelson says ey was 15 when the Panthers formed and was always fascinated with them, but was not a participant in the movement emself.(1)

In line with the lack of ideological understanding, the treatment of Panther leaders was dismissive. The most in-depth discussion of Huey P. Newton was related to eir downward spiral into drugs and crime after the Panthers had been well on their way to dissolving. Nelson features sound bites from interviews calling Newton a “maniac” and Eldridge Cleaver “insane.” Eldridge Cleaver was cast as a misleader from the beginning in this film. While both story lines are based in reality, the story that is missed is the great leadership role that Huey played, both ideologically and in practice, in building the greatest anti-imperialist organization this country has seen. At that time Eldridge too played an important role ideologically and organizationally, even if he was less consistent than Huey. Fred Hampton was given a more favorable portrayal by the film, but he died a martyr just as he was getting started. (And despite the attention given to Hampton’s assassination there is no mention of him being drugged beforehand, presumably by an FBI spy.) There is a pattern of character assassination in the film that does nothing to deepen our understanding of what the Panthers were, why they succeeded, and why they failed. It will turn some people off to the Panthers and push people towards an individualist or anarchist approach to struggle.

To get an accurate portrayal of the Panthers one is better off watching archival footage, as today you can find ex-Panthers of all stripes, and very very few who uphold the Maoist ideology of the Panthers at their height. Former chairman, Bobby Seale, who long ago stopped putting politics in command, was barely mentioned in the film, perhaps because he refused to be interviewed.(1) Elaine Brown, who took over the chairpersyn position after the party had already moved away from a Maoist political line, does appear but has written a scathing denunciation of the film and asked to be removed from it.(2)

As other critics have pointed out there is a lack of mention of national liberation, socialism, communism, and the international situation overall at the time. It is ironic for a film titled “Vanguard of the Revolution” to ignore the key ideological foundations of the vanguard. This reflects a clear effort to build a certain image of what the Panthers were that ignores the basis of their very existence. As such, this film contributes to the long effort to revise the history of the BPP, similar to the efforts to revise the history of other influential revolutionary communist movements in history. This only stresses the importance of building independent institutions of the oppressed to counter the institutions of the bourgeoisie in all aspects of life and culture.

As each holiday season reminds us, there are certain tunes sung again and gain for generations. Perhaps a word or two is altered as language changes, but the message is the same.

A man named Carolus Linneaus is honored by most amerikkkans as “one of the greatest scientists of the Western world” for his message back in 1738.(1) While the terms aren’t in use in today’s language, let’s see if we recognize the time.

Modern imperialism was in its nascent stage back then. Powerful and power hungry Europeans were attempting to find a reasoned justification for dominating and destroying other people in order to take their resources. Good ol’ Carolus Linneaus - brilliant scientist - had already classified the world into the various families, genus, types, etc. that we learn in biology. But most hystory books don’t tell us he also made four classes of humyns:

Homo Europeans: people who are light, lively, inventive, ruled by rites

Homo Americanus: people who are tenacious, contented, free, ruled by custom

Homo Asiaticus: people who are stern, haughty, stingy, ruled by opinion

Homo Africanus: cunning, slow, ruled by caprice

This is a timeless tune, isn’t it? I suppose we could add to this “Carolus” the jingle of Donald Kunt, er Trump kkklassifying Latinos as murderers, rapists, and criminals. I mean, if i classify you as not quite humyn then I can freely treat you as other than me. Like it’s okay to steal a duck’s eggs ’cause ducks don’t have rights.