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 don’t agree with the idea of Jackson being a homophobe by stating that
unmarried white women are left to become prostitutes, nuns, and/or
lesbians; I don’t find it derogatory either. I don’t agree or disagree
with his statement. I actually have no judgement on that idea. I don’t
understand why MIM says it’s homophobic and derogatory.
MIM(Prisons) responds: The
MIM
review of Soledad Brother we sent this comrade with a copy of the
book includes this critique:
“The first part of the book, mostly letters to his mother and father, is
not very political. Jackson uses many sexist stereotypes in this
section, often to criticize his mother for failing in his brother’s and
his own education. He says, for example, that unmarried white women are
left to become prostitutes, nuns and lesbians (p. 45). While it is true
that economic forces put more pressure on unmarried women (the fastest
growing population in poverty are women and children), Jackson’s
stereotype is homophobic and derogatory.
“Much of what could be criticized as sexist in Jackson’s writing is left
as ambiguous. He says that ‘The white theory of ’the emancipated woman’
is a false idea’ (p. 46), which is an economic reality of Amerikan
capitalism, but no context is given. To his credit he does explain that
Black women are the backbone of the family (p. 74).”
The George Jackson reference is as follows:
“In the society of our fathers and in the civilized world today, women
feel it their obligation to be ever yielding and obedient to their men.
Life is purposely made simple for them because of their nature, and they
are happy. When the women outnumber the men in the black societies, the
men take as many wives as they can afford, and care for them all
equally. In the white for some nebulous reason the men can take only
one… the rest are left to become prostitutes, nuns, or lesbians.”
The beginning of the quote is perhaps the more damning part, positing
that wimmin have a simpler nature than men and therefore are happy
serving them. We hope you don’t agree with that part. The homophobia is
perhaps more subtle, but Jackson is clearly pointing to these three
options as being not good, and praising Black men for saving Black
wimmin from such fates – having sex in exchange for money/things, not
being able to have sex, or having to have sex with wimmin instead.
The grain of righteous truth in the Jackson quote is that white society
had more fully succumbed to capitalist individualism, so that wimmin are
more often left to fend for themselves in situations that are not
conducive to meeting their needs. But Jackson contrasts this with the
paternalist assumption that wimmin need to be taken care of by husbands
in order to survive, suggesting that polagamy is a selfless sacrifice by
men. The unique struggle of wimmin under capitalism is a result of the
intersection of the patriarchy and capitalism, not about wimmin needing
husbands to survive.
Echándole un vistazo al código penal para ver lo que se ha descrito como
asalto sexual por el sistema criminal de injusticias, revela una
variedad de ofensas, desde varias faltas menores hasta violaciones
graves. En los E$tados Unido$, aquellos que cometen dichos actos atroces
son considerados como lo más bajo de lo bajo y las prisiones no son
diferentes. Este ensayo intenta abordar el tema de los delincuentes
sexuales dentro de las sociedades en prisión y su importancia para el
movimiento en prisiones.
En el intento de escribir algo con respecto de este asunto, me vi
obligado a regresar a dos puntos principales de debate: (1) la
contradicción de la unidad vs las separaciones dentro del mismo
movimiento en prisión, como la hizo popular el Movimiento
Internacionalista Maoísta. La fuerza de mi argumento proviene de ambos
puntos. ¿Qué es el Movimiento en Prisión?
Antes de continuar, es necesario para mí explicar lo que alrededor de
qué intentamos construir unidad. El movimiento en prisión se define por
varios movimientos, organizaciones e individuos que en este momento
luchan contra las muchas caras del sistema de injusticia Amerikkkano.
Sea que estos movimientos se den en Georgia, California, Texas,
Pennsylvania o cualquier otro rincón del imperio de los EE.UU., no es de
mucha importancia. Lo que es importante, sin embargo, es el hecho de que
aquellas organizaciones e individuos se encuentran actualmente
desempeñando un papel progresivo y potencialmente revolucionario al
atacar al sistema opresivo en las prisiones amerikkkanas.
En las prisiones o cárceles de un estado la lucha puede tomar la forma
de una campaña de reclamo, o de acciones de otro grupo dirigidas a
abolir el trabajo forzado de los prisioneros. Estos movimientos tiene
que ser dirigidos por una variedad de organizaciones lumpen. Algunas son
revolucionarias, otras no. algunas son estrechamente reformistas por
naturaleza y no irán más allá del ganar concesiones. Otras permanecen
estancadas en la mentalidad burguesa del individualismo, mientras siguen
engañosamente usando una retórica revolucionaria para conseguir sus
metas.
Sin embargo, a pesar de sus objetivos separados, cada una en su propia
forma, están tomando acciones colectivas cuando es posible para desafiar
sus condiciones opresoras. Además, estos movimientos, organizaciones e
individuos, cuando se toman como un todo, representan el despertar de la
consciencia política y revolucionaria de los prisioneros, que no se ha
visto desde la ronda más reciente de luchas nacionales de liberación de
las semi- colonias internas. Esas son las cualidades progresivas del
nuevo movimiento en prisiones.
Los aspectos negativos y reaccionarios del movimiento en prisiones se
caracterizan por el hecho de que muchas de estas organizaciones lumpen
todavía funcionan dentro de líneas tradicionales. La mayoría sigue
participando en una economía parasitaria y llevan a cabo actividades en
contra de personas, que afectan a las personas mismas a quienes dicen
representar. Con respecto al ensayo, la mayoría de estos movimientos y
organizaciones también tienen políticas que excluyen a aquellos a
quienes el estado imperialista ha etiquetado como “delincuentes
sexuales”. No obstante, ¿pueden estos movimientos y organizaciones
realmente adherirse a dichas separaciones iniciadas por el estado?
¿Cuáles son las ramificaciones de todo esto?
De acuerdo con el Centro Nacional para Niños Explotados y Extraviados,
el número de delincuentes sexuales registrados en los E$tados Unido$
para el 2012 fue de 747,408, con los números más grandes en California,
Texas y Florida.(1) Por consiguiente, también son tres de los estados
con prisiones más grandes. ¡Todo sexo es violación!
En 1990s, el Movimiento Internacionalista Maoísta (MIM) se volvió poco
popular entre los amerikanos de izquierda por dos razones. La primera
fue su análisis de clase, que decía que los trabajadores amerikkkanos no
eran explotados, pero que en vez, formaban una aristocracia laboral
debido al hecho de que les pagaban más del valor de su trabajo. Los
amerikkkanos fueron por lo tanto, considerados como parásitos en el
proletariado y campesino del Tercer Mundo, así como enemigos de los
movimientos tercermundistas.
La segunda razón fue el sostener la línea política de la
pseudo-feminista del Primer Mundo, Catherine MacKinnon, que dijo que no
había una verdadera diferencia entre lo que hace el violador acusado y
lo que la mayoría de hombres llama sexo, pero que nunca van a la cárcel
por ello. MacKinnon expuso la teoría de que bajo un sistema de
patriarcado (bajo el cual vivimos), todas las relaciones sexuales giran
en torno a relaciones desiguales de poder entre aquellos hombres
sexistas y aquellas mujeres sexistas. Así, las personas nunca pueden
realmente consentir a tener sexo. De esto, MIM trazó la conclusión
lógica: todo sexo es violación.(2)
Esta línea no sólo es radical, sino, revolucionaria por su acusación al
patriarcado y a su implicación en el sistema de injusticia. MIM
desarrolló aún más la frase de todo sexo es violación, cuando explicó la
importancia de las acusaciones de violación provenientes de mujeres
amerikkanas contra hombres afroamerikanos y la relación histórica con el
linchamiento de afroamerikanos por parte de chusmas amerikkkanas durante
Jim Crow. Incluso en la década de los 90, cuando MIM observó las
estadísticas para las acusaciones de violación y condenas, pudo deducir
que los afroamerikanos aún seguían estando oprimidos a nivel nacional
por las mujeres blancas, en alianza con sus hermanos blancos.(3)
Dicho eso, esto no significa que los actos violentos y penetrantes no se
comenten contra gente que son oprimidas por su género en nuestra
sociedad. En vez de eso, dirijo la atención al hecho de que la sociedad
amerikana erotiza las diferenciales de poder, y los medios sexualizan a
los niños, no obstante, ambos pretenden abominar ambos. Sin importar
quien haya hecho qué, lo que no debemos perder de vista es nuestro
enfoque principal: la unión contra el estado imperialista, el enemigo
número uno de las naciones oprimidas.
No es secreto que el llamar a alguien “delincuente sexual” en prisión es
someter a dicha persona a la violencia y posiblemente muerte. Así mismo,
es un hecho histórico que los cerdos han usado las acusaciones de ser
delincuente sexual como una forma de desacreditar las voces líderes
entre los oprimidos o, simplemente, hacer que los prisioneros tengan en
su mira a alguien contra quien ellos tienen un asunto personal. Tenemos
que resistir estas tácticas COINTELPRO y seguir uniendo y consolidando
nuestras fuerzas, puesto que el participar en estos linchamientos
autoinfligidos es sólo otra forma en que los cerdos logran que hagamos
su trabajo sucio por ellos.
Comparaciones históricas
Mao Zedong dijo, al hacer una auto-crítica, que habían habido demasiadas
ejecuciones durante la Revolución Cultural China. En particular, declaró
que, aunque podía justificarse el ejecutar a un asesino o a alguien que
hace explotar una fábrica, también podía justificarse el no ejecutar a
algunas de las mismas personas. Mao sugirió que aquellos que estén
dispuestos, deberían ir a hacer algún trabajo productivo, de forma que
la sociedad pueda ganar algo positivo y la persona en cuestión, puede
ser reformada (4).
Los Maoists creen que los problemas entre la gente se deberían manejar
de forma pacífica entre la gente, y por medio de métodos de discusión y
debate. La mayoría de prisioneros están encerrados precisamente porque
estuvieron involucrados en algún tipo de actividad contra personas, en
algún punto u otros de sus vidas. ¿Estas acciones deberían definir a los
prisioneros? De acuerdo con el pensamiento de MIM, todos los ciudadanos
de los U$ serán vistos como criminales reformistas por parte del
movimiento socialista del Tercer Mundo, bajo la Dictadura Conjunta del
Proletariado de las Naciones Oprimidas (JDPON). El lumpen del Primer
Mundo no será la excepción independientemente del tipo de crimen.
Looking at the penal code for what has been codified as sexual assault
by the criminal injustice system reveals a variety of different
offenses, from various misdemeanors to serious felony violations. In the
United $tates those accused of committing such heinous acts are
considered to be the lowest of the low and prisons are no different.
This essay attempts to address the topics of sex offenders within prison
society and their relevance to the prison movement.
In attempting to write something on these topics I was forced to keep
coming back to two main points of discussion: (1) the contradiction of
unity vs. divisions within the prison movement itself, and (2) the all
sex is rape line as popularized by the Maoist Internationalist Movement.
The strength of my argument stems from both of these points.
What is the Prison Movement?
Before moving forward it is necessary for me to explain what we are
trying to build unity around. The prison movement is defined by the
various movements, organizations and individuals who are at this time
struggling against the very many different faces of the Amerikkkan
injustice system. Whether these struggles take place in Georgia,
California, Texas, Pennsylvania or any other corner of the U.$. empire
is not of much importance. What is important, however, is the fact that
those organizations and individuals are currently playing a progressive
and potentially revolutionary role in attacking Amerikkka’s oppressive
prison system.
In one state’s prisons or jails the struggle might take the shape of a
grievance campaign, or other group actions aimed to abolish the forced
labor of prisoners. These movements tend to be led by an array of lumpen
organizations. Some are revolutionary, some are not. Some are narrowly
reformist in nature and will go no further than the winning of
concessions. Others remain stuck in the bourgeois mindset of
individualism while deceptively using a revolutionary rhetoric to attain
their goals.
However, despite their separate objectives they are each in their own
way taking collective action when possible to challenge their oppressive
conditions. Furthermore, these movements, organizations and individuals,
when taken as a whole, represent an awakening in the political and
revolutionary consciousness of prisoners not seen since the last round
of national liberation struggles of the internal semi-colonies. Those
are the progressive qualities of the new prison movement.
The negative and reactionary aspects of the prison movement are
characterized by the fact that many of these lumpen organizations still
operate along traditional lines. Most continue to participate in a
parasitic economy and carry out anti-people activity that is detrimental
to the very people they claim to represent. In relation to the essay,
most of these movements and organizations also have policies that
exclude those the imperialist state has labelled “sex offenders,” But
can these movements and organizations really afford to adhere to these
state-initiated divisions? What are the ramifications to all this?
According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children,
the number of registered sex offenders in the United $tates for 2012 was
747,408, with the largest numbers in California, Texas and Florida.(1)
Consequently, these are also three of the biggest prison states.
All Sex is Rape!
In the 1990s, the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) became infamous
amongst the Amerikan left for two reasons. The first was its class
analysis, which said that Amerikkkan workers were not exploited, but
instead formed a labor aristocracy due to the fact that they were being
paid more than the value of their labor. Amerikkkans were therefore to
be considered parasites on the Third World proletariat & peasantry,
as well as enemies of Third World socialist movements.
The second reason was upholding the political line of First World
pseudo-feminist Catherine MacKinnon, who said that there was no real
difference between what the accused rapist does and what most men call
sex, but never go to jail for. MacKinnon put forth the theory that under
a system of patriarchy (which we live under) all sexual relations
revolve around unequal power relations between those gendered men and
those gendered wimmin. As such, people can never truly consent to sex.
From this MIM drew the logical conclusion: all sex is rape.(2)
This line is not just radical, but revolutionary for its indictment of
patriarchy and implication of the injustice system. MIM developed the
all sex is rape line even further when it explained the relevance of
rape accusations from Amerikkan wimmin against New Afrikan men and the
hystorical relation between the lynching of New Afrikans by Amerikkkan
lynch mobs during Jim Crow. Even in the 1990s when MIM looked at the
statistics for rape accusations and convictions, it was able to deduce
that New Afrikans were still being nationally oppressed by white wimmin
in alliance with their white brethren.(3)
That said, this doesn’t mean that violent and pervasive acts aren’t
committed against people who are gender oppressed in our society.
Rather, I am drawing attention to the fact that Amerikan society
eroticizes power differentials, and the media sexualizes children, yet
they both pretend to abhor both. Regardless of who has done what we must
not lose sight of what should be our main focus: uniting against the
imperialist state, the number one enemy of the oppressed nations.
It is no secret that to call someone a “sex offender” in prison is to
subject that persyn to violence and possibly death. Furthermore, it is a
hystorical fact that pigs have used sex offender accusations as a way to
discredit leading voices amongst the oppressed or simply to have
prisoners target someone they have a persynal vendetta against. We must
resist these COINTELPRO tactics and continue to unite and consolidate
our forces, as to participate in these self-inflicted lynchings is just
another way the pigs get us to do their dirty work for them.
Hystorical Comparisons
In carrying out self-criticism, Mao Zedong said that there had been too
many executions during China’s Cultural Revolution. In particular, ey
stated that while it may be justified to execute a murderer or someone
who blows up a factory, it may also be justified not to execute some of
these same people. Mao suggested that those who were willing should go
and perform some productive labor so that both society could gain
something positive and the persyn in question could be reformed.(4)
Maoists believe that problems amongst the people should be handled
peacefully among the people and thru the methods of discussion and
debate. Most prisoners are locked up exactly because they engaged in
some type of anti-people activity at one point or another of their
lives. Should these actions define prisoners? According to MIM Thought,
all U.$. citizens will be viewed as reforming criminals by the Third
World socialist movement under the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat
of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON). The First World lumpen will be no
exception regardless of crime of choice.
Summertime mid-July 2017 – Oklahoma’s worst prison in the country
Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. I got the chance to
be moved off a security threat group unit (STG) where four gang members
was killed in one single day all stabbed to death on one unit in one
single incident in 2015. I got to move to the honor dorm where you are
required to have a job either on the unit or on the yard, somewhere like
the kitchen, laundry, or the library. All of the jobs was said to be
full, but this facility had just lost its contract for its maximum
security units. Most of the max inmates was moved to other max
facilities and some put back in population on this facility, and after
the max was empty it needed painting. I was chosen to help, I had
experience in painting.
To move unit to unit you are subject to be pat-searched or
strip-searched. These searches are routine by any officer, and are
documented supposedly. On arriving to the entrance of the units that was
to be painted my group of about 8 prisoners was stopped and told to line
up for a strip-search. We formed a line and went one by one in a tiny
bathroom where one officer had I thought one of the worst jobs that day
seeing other men’s nuts and butts, but I guess I was wrong.
When it was my turn I was already reluctant because a few of the guys
came out the bathroom complaining about how weird it was. I get in the
bathroom everybody knows the routine, take off all your clothes hand
them to the officer he hand searches them and puts them to the side or
holds them in his hands. You are to lift your nuts, turn around bend
over squat and cough at the same time. I did all of those things but the
officer had this lustful look on his face. He told me to let him see my
dick again he then bends at the waist where he is very close to my piece
and told me to pull back on it. I was beyond horrified.
You know how your back goes straight when you’re either scared or mad? I
asked him what type of shit he was on and told him I don’t get down with
that shit give me my fuckin clothes back. He smiled and handed me back
my clothes. I dressed so fast I forgot to put on a sock.
The following day I thought surely the same officer would not be doing
searches. WRONG. He was waiting on us by the bathroom with one hand on
the wall the other hand on his hip tappin his foot. Once again when it
was my turn I was somewhat scared and regretful for going back. Scared
because I can act out of control sometimes, but I was somewhat confused
and caught off guard. When I entered the bathroom I told the officer I’m
not strippin out he could send me back if I have to. He said OK put your
hands on the wall and starts a pat-down search he gets to my dick and
grabs it and holds it and ask what it was. I yank away and tell him my
dick weirdo let me out of here and push past him.
I was embarrassed and afraid to tell anyone at the time but when I did,
what I thought was going to happen did. He denied it, the facility heads
believed him and not me the prisoner and to this day I’m being
retaliated against, threatened and punished by this facility’s staff.
MIM(Prisons) responds: As this writer knows, it can be
embarrassing, upsetting, and terrifying to come forward and talk about
sexual harassment and assault. And it’s an added challenge when it’s not
the gender norm that we’re comfortable with, like when male guards
molest male prisoners. This comrade is exposing something that goes on
regularly behind bars. And the idea that reporting to the prison this,
or any other type of abuse, will help the individual’s situation is
largely a myth. Congress even passed the
Prison
Rape Elimination Act to supposedly address this problem. But even
that is just resulting in retaliation for many. Gender oppression and
sexual assault of male prisoners is a big problem that is all too often
ignored. It doesn’t matter if the harasser is male or female, it’s an
abuse of power.
I wanna talk about an upcoming topic of “sex offenders” and their role
in the struggle. A primary question is, I think, do they have a role in
the struggle? It boils down to our moral outlook on sex offenders who
were convicted by the imperialist justice system. How many
wrongfully-convicted comrades are there in prison? I mean those who are
not sex offenders. Are we wrong when we say that the U.$. imperialist
justice system is broken and biased and oppressive and due to its
historical implementation is invalid? No. I think most agree that this
is the case.
And if that is the case, we cannot make exceptions to certain crimes and
convictions. Or can we?
That leaves us to draw on what we ourselves as communists consider
unlawful under socialism. Sex crimes, like all other physical assault,
are unlawful. But how do we filter the sex offenders convicted by
imperialists into the category with the rest of the convicted so-called
“criminals” who fight within our ranks?
We know on the prison yards that we rely on what we call “paperwork”
which is any police report or transcripts from the preliminary hearing
or trial transcripts or even just mention or allegation that indicates
someone’s involvement of the crime or “snitching” for a dude to be
blacklisted as “no good” on the yard. But that goes back to relying on
an imperialist’s rule of thumb when determining guilt.
Under our own law we would need to measure someone’s guilt by our own
standards and come up with ways of determining how to do so.
But what about the sex offenders who actually are guilty of sex crimes?
Are they banned for life? Is there no “get-back” for them ever? Becuz of
their crime can they provide no contribution to revolution or to society
under a socialist state?
I think they can make a contribution to revolution. And under a
socialist state, after being appropriately punished (not oppressed) and
taught the lesson to be learned against crimes of humanity
rehabilitation can be achieved.
Note that I’m not an advocate for sex offenders, so if I must set aside
emotion and personal disgust for correct political analysis and
conclusion to further the movement on this question, then we all must.
MIM(Prisons) responds: We want to use this contributor’s
perspective as an opportunity to go deeper into looking at the current
balance of forces and our weakness relative to the imperialists. Our
difficulties in measuring guilt, and helping rehabilitate people who
want to recover from their patriarchal conditioning, are extremely
cumbersome.(1)
The imperialists are currently the principal aspect in the contradiction
between capitalism and communism. The imperialists have plenty of
resources to set social standards (i.e. laws), conduct and fabricate
“investigations,” hold trial to “determine guilt,” mete out punishment
to those convicted, and even often find those who attempt to evade the
process.
We hope by now our readers have accepted this contributor’s perspective
that we can’t let the state tell us who has committed sex-crimes by our
standards. The next step would be for us to figure out how to deal with
people who are accused of anti-people sex-crimes in the interim, while
we are working to gain state power. We can set our own social standards,
attempt to conduct investigations to a degree, establish tribunals to
determine guilt, and in our socialist morality, either mete punishment,
or, even more importantly assist rehabilitation when we have power and
resources to do so.
How much of this we can do in our present conditions is open for debate.
How much someone can actually be rehabilitated by our limited resources
while living under patriarchal capitalism is debatable. How relevant it
is to put resources into this type of activity depends on how important
it is to the people involved in the organization or movement.(1) How
much resources we put into any one of these “investigations” depends on
conducting a serious cost-benefit analysis.
For example, if someone contributes a lot to our work, and is accused of
a behavior that is very offensive and irreconcilable to others who work
with em, then that makes developing this process sooner than later a
higher priority. At this stage in our struggle, low-level offenses
should only be addressed by our movement to the degree that they build
an internal culture that combats chauvinism and prevents other
higher-level offenses from arising. Of course there is a ton of middle
ground between these two examples. But what we might be able to address
when we have state power (or even dual power) at this time may just need
to be dealt with using expulsions and distance.
There are very few labels more stigmatizing than “sex offender” in
prison. While sex crime encompasses a wide variety of “criminal”
behavior ranging from urinating in public to actual sexual depredation,
once labeled a sex offender (SO) any individual is automatically
persona non grata; black-listed.
Many, myself included, view SOs as the scourge of society, far below
cowards, and even below informants (snitches). As such prisoners
generally do not debate SOs other than in a negative light. For the
prisoner-activist/revolutionary, who is politically aware and class
conscious, the SO debate takes on an interesting color. In particular,
when we contemplate how a movement can best confront the problem of real
sexual depredations. What possible solutions can be put into practice?
Isolation? Ostracization? Extermination? Or is there some way in which
the democratic method – unity/criticism/unity – can make a difference?
Excluding all non-sexual depredations (public urination and such), SOs
constitute a dangerous element; more so than murderers because SOs often
have more victims, and many of those victims later become sexual
predators, creating one long line of victimization. What is a
revolutionary movement to do to stop this terrible cycle? In prisons, at
present, the only resolutions being practiced are ostracization and
further exploitation. SOs are deliberately excluded from most, if not
all, social interactions outside of being extorted, coerced, threatened
and or beaten. While prisoners may find approval for these actions of
victimization, these actions do nothing at all to solve the problem.
In a discussion with participants in an extension study group (debating
topics from MIM(Prisons) study group) it was advanced that all SOs
should be put on an island away from society or summarily executed.
First, such drastic measures ignore the problem just as current
solutions do. In the former (an SO’s island) case it creates a
subsociety, a subculture, dominated by sexual depredation and its
approval. As a member of our group quickly concluded “this would
definitely be a bad thing.” In the latter case all you do is commit
senseless murders.
Any possible solution with the real probability of success must be found
in the democratic method. In order to eradicate the senseless cycle of
sexual victimization revolutionaries must engage in a re-education
campaign. Beginning in unity of purpose: a society based on equality
without exploitation, class struggle and antagonism. To achieve this all
elements in society must work in concert and be healthy. Following this
is the critique phase, where the process of re-education becomes
important. Interacting with SOs, demonstrating why, how and where they
went wrong. From there one would begin inculcating an SO with proper
respect for their fellow humyn and all the rights of individuals, along
with a new comprehension of acceptable behavior. For the imprisoned
revolutionary the most important aspect is their role in engaging the SO
and initiating the re-education. This in itself is a revolutionary step
requiring fortitude and stoicism considering current prison norms and
expectations.
At any rate, assuming an SO can be brought to understand the
incorrectness of their thought and action, they will cease to be a
detriment to society. As revolutionaries, of course, this opportunity
would extend to a political education as well. In the end one can
reasonably hope to not only have reformed an SO, but to have built a
new, dedicated revolutionary. The hardest step toward any goal is always
the first one, but it must always be made.
MIM(Prisons) responds: Certainly it is correct to oppose sexually
violent behavior. But we’re still not entirely sure why “sex offenders”
are more pariahs than murderers in the prison environment. We lay out a
theory for why prisoners are so obsessed with vilifying “sex offenders”
in our article
Sex
Offenders vs. Anti-People Sex Crimes, and we welcome others
introspection on the topic.
This author presents an interesting argument, although we’re not sure
the logic is sound. When someone is murdered in lumpen-criminal
violence, often there is retaliatory murder, and subsequent prison time.
Lumpen-criminal violence (created and encouraged by selective
intervention and neglect by the state) is one of the reasons why 1 in 3
New Afrikan men will go to prison at some point in their lifetime. That
represents a long line of victimization.
Rates of sexual assault and intimate partner violence are also
staggering. We are not trying to weigh sexual violence against murder
and try to determine which is worse. Instead we highlight these
arguments made by our contributors to question why they hold the
perspectives that they hold, to encourage more scientific thinking.
We disagree this contributor where ey says that revolutionaries in
prison should make it a priority to try to rehabilitate people who have
committed sex-crimes. As we’ve explained elsewhere in this issue, we
have a limited ability to do that, and this challenge is exacerbated by
the fact that we still live in a capitalist patriarchal society. It
would make more sense to focus this rehabilitation effort on people who
are otherwise contributing to building toward socialist revolution and
an end to capitalism. But reforming people who have committed sex-crimes
for its own sake is putting the carriage before the horse. At this time,
our first priority is to kill capitalism and the patriarchy.
[This writer enclosed a People Magazine article: Sexually Harassed
by Prison Inmates, January 1, 2018. About two female COs who work at
Florida’s Coleman prison. They won a class action lawsuit regarding
sexual harassment on the job, against the Department of Justice last
February, with a $20 million settlement.]
I have an article that I got from somebody that I would like to share
about a six-year battle against sexually-harassed women staff at FCC
Coleman outside Orlando, Florida. For me, women that work in
correctional centers should know what they’re getting themselves into
working in all-male facilities.
I know that some guys can’t control themselves when they see women COs.
Some do perverted shit that I can’t even approve of because that’s not
who I am as a brother who is trying to end my criminal way of thinking.
But I can say that women who sign up for the job know that they did not
apply at Disney World or Six Flags, so they should be prepared for the
torment that they know this job is capable of doing.
Even though I don’t agree with some prisoners who pull out on the women
COs, I just feel bad for what this system of injustice has done to my
fellow brother’s mental state. Because there are some brothers who are
never going home at all and some who got a significant sentence, and
they feel like they’re a long way from home. So this situation is a
double-edge sword because you have to look at some of these guys’ mental
state and situation, because some are not going home at all, which can
influence other brothers’ behaviors.
And I cannot put all the blame on my fellow prisoners, because I have
seen for myself women COs let prisoners whip out on them and they wait
or show some skin till that brother has finished. And there has been
COs, men and women, turning tricks with prisoners. So I’ve seen both
parties at fault in these circumstances.
That is why I said this is a double-edge sword situation, but the sword
is sharper on our side because of lawsuits like this, which open the
doors for more corporal punishment and stricter rules in a place where
we barely have any say so. This case has showed me the oppressor is
coming up with new ways to keep my fellow prisoners in solitary
confinement, and to take advantage of some brothers’ fragile mind state.
Because to me these women knew when they applied for this kind of job,
being so-called law enforcers of the worst humans in confinement, that
we are labeled as what should they expect. So that is how I feel about
this article.
MIM(Prisons) responds: We share this writer’s view that prisoners
are put in shitty situations that can lead them to mental health
problems and behavior that they would not have considered on the
streets. It’s also unacceptable that people working in prisons toy with
prisoners, using their position for their own sexual pleasure.
We have little sympathy for people who choose to take jobs in prisons,
as these institutions are just tools of oppression. We do recognize that
many prisons are deliberately located in destitute rural white areas,
and so many times job options are slim. But we do still have free will,
and a lack of available does not excuse people from taking jobs that pay
them to carry out oppression and abuse daily.
That said, we don’t think there is any situation in which anyone should
just expect to be sexually harassed. Even in prisons or the military,
institutions that are fundamentally corrupt and serving imperialism,
there is no need for wimmin to suffer sexual harassment. This is the
same argument made of actresses in Harvey Weinstein movies, beauty
pageant contestants, and people wearing short skirts: “you know the
consequences and you’re choosing to get sexually harassed.” No, these
people are choosing what clothes to wear and what careers to pursue, and
those choices shouldn’t include sexual harassment.
The degradation of wimmin is a part of the system of patriarchal
oppression that is intimately tied up with capitalism. As is the
degradation of prisoners who are acting out against these COs due to
their damaged mental state. These are things we won’t be able to
eliminate while capitalism exists, but that doesn’t mean we should
pretend people just need to accept it. We are building towards a society
where all people are equal and no group of people has power over another
group. This includes eliminating all forms of harassment and oppression.
The U$A uses the sex offender label to put folks in certain stages,
legally. So the KKK uses that against you to not give you a job. So your
life will be messed up. Being a captive we get hit with it every day. If
you look at the United $tates of Amerika, some of everybody is a sex
offender. Our own president is 1 of the biggest sex offenders of all.
Once that label be upon you everything is hard. You can’t be around your
kids or some jobs. They use this control to keep the oppressed in line.
You can get locked up, catch a charge. Then the next thing you know you
are a sex offender. I hate to see somebody else’s life messed up.
MIM(Prisons) responds: The ability to buy and sell people and
sex, inherent in a capitalist economic system, leads many to behave in
ways that are extremely anti-social. Those who have been subjected to
the worst of the gender conditioning our society has to offer are much
more likely to commit sex-crimes which perpetuate the harm caused by
male chauvinism and capitalism.
It really says something that the best response the state has for
dealing with the people who have submitted to its patriarchal
conditioning is to slap a label on them and just ruin their lives. It’s
the same with the “felon” label, and even more extreme.
We need to address the root causes of anti-social behavior (which
stem from society itself), as well as rehabilitate those who have
committed anti-people crimes. Without state power, both of these tasks
are extremely difficult if not impossible. For our perspective on how to
address this problem in the immediate term, see our article [LEAD
ARTICLE FOR 61].
I am listed as a sex offender, a few friends and I caught a charge
in ninety six. We did time and got released, but can a sex
offender be fixed? Currently I’m doing life for a 2006 armed
robbery I have never violated any disciplinary measure for
masturbation on female prison staff or any sexually related
issues but I’m still listed as a sex offender Can a sex offender
become a revolutionary? Can a sex offender become a genuine
feminist? Or an anti-patriarch misogynist? Can a sex offender
have been a victim of misogyny? Or sexism like his victim? For a
sex offender, where does the healing and fixing begin? Can a sex
offender be considered or seen as equal? Can he ever be considered
or seen as a member of the people? Does a sex offender still have
human rights? Is he even still human? Can he ever be forgiven or
forgotten for his crime against the people? Aren’t almost all crimes
against the people? Can a sex offender be genuinely healed or
rehabilitated? Do we throw away the key and keep all sex offenders
gated? Yes? No? Is the justice system just or genuine? We
all agree that poverty is the mother of crime, So then affluence
must be its father by grand design. Can a sex offender be a victim
of sexual double standard or contradiction? Can a rich sex
offender be subject to the same prosecution, incarceration,
condemnation or even oppression as a poor sex offender in this
nation? Do poor sex offenders receive systematic indulgence? How
long has the #MeToo movement been in existence? Suddenly, the #MeToo
movement has after so long, gained overdue prominence. Will the real
sex offender please stand up? Let your money do your talking, prove
the law is corrupt. Rich sex offenders versus poor sex
offenders? White sex offenders versus Black, Brown, Yellow and
Red sex offenders? Ghetto, hood sex offenders versus hillbilly sex
offenders. President sex offenders, PIG (pro imperial goon) sex
offenders, evangelical sex offenders, papacy sex offenders?
Thomas Jefferson was a sex offender? Still your hero and founding
father? Because his victim was a wombman of color? Sally
Hemmings, daughter of momma Afrika Columbus was a sex offender,
still got his own day, for us to remember “Grab them by their pussy”
that’s what Trump say. I don’t see anybody throwing their keys
away. A poor sex offender can’t point the finger, can’t scream “foul
play?” rich sex offenders could be healed, poor ones can’t?
Can’t compare apples with grapes? Naw. Aren’t they all fruits? Yes,
but naw. Ain’t we all been living the misogynist culture? Won’t
we still keep doing it till so-called society fixes its mental
stature and structure? Separate the sex poorfenders from the sex
richfenders Can a sex offender practice genuine self criticism?
Can a sex offender be a guerilla for egalitarianism?
This issue of ULK is refocusing on an ongoing debate we’ve held
in these pages of the role “sex offenders” can, or can’t, play in our
revolutionary organizing. Many of our subscribers see “sex offenders” as
pariahs just by definition of their conviction, yet we also receive
letters from “sex offenders” with plenty of interest in revolutionary
organizing. How/can we reconcile this contradiction? This is what this
issue of ULK explores.
As you read through subscribers’ article submissions and our responses
on this topic, you’ll see some common themes, some of which have been
summarized below. This article also is an attempt to provide a snapshot
of where we are now on this question, and suggest some aspects of our
organizing that need to be developed more deeply.
The “Sex Offender” Label
There are three groups that are discussed throughout this issue that
need to be distinguished.
People who have committed crimes by proletarian standards, but have not
been convicted of them (i.e. Donald Trump, people whose sexual assaults
go unreported, prisoner bullies, etc.). These people are not called “sex
offenders” according to the state’s definition.
People convicted of being “sex offenders” who didn’t commit a crime by
proletarian standards (i.e. people labeled as “sex offenders” for
pissing in public).
People who are convicted as “sex offenders” by the state, for behaviors
that would also be considered crimes by proletarian standards
(i.e. physical assault, pimping, etc.).
Throughout this issue the term “sex offender” is used to mean any one of
those categories, or all three. It’s muddled, and we should be more
clear on our terminology moving forward. By the state’s definition, the
term does include some benign behaviors such as pissing in public (group
2); crimes which are convicted in a targeted manner disproportionately
against members of oppressed nations. So we put the term “sex offender”
in quotes because it is the official term that the state uses, and it
includes people who have not committed anti-people (anti-proletarian)
sex-crimes. Under a system of revolutionary justice, people in group 2
would need no more rehabilitation than your average persyn on the
street.
We cannot trust the state to tell us what “crimes” someone has
committed, and this is true for sex offenses as much as anything else.
This country has a long history of locking up oppressed-nation men on
the false accusation of raping white wimmin, generally to put these men
“in their place.” We have printed many letters from people locked up for
“sex offenses” but who have not committed terrible acts against people.
Interestingly, most of our subscribers know there are many
falsely-convicted prisoners in all other categories of crime, and they
readily believe that many are innocent. But when the state labels
someone a “sex offender” that persyn becomes a pariah without question.
This is an important thing for us to challenge as it represents, to us,
a patriarchal way of thinking in prison culture. Usually it is paired
with rhetoric about the need to protect helpless wimmin and children and
is just a different expression of patriarchal norms: in this case the
non-“sex offender” playing protector-man by attacking anyone labeled
“sex offender.”
Why don’t we see this with people with murder convictions? Isn’t killing
someone also a horrifying act that should not be tolerated? And why is
sexual physical assault in prison allowed to proliferate? In the 1970s,
Men
Against Sexism was a group organizing in Washington state against
prison rape, and they effectively ended prison rape in that state.(1)
Statistics show that people “convicted of a sexual offense against a
minor”(2) are more likely to be sexually assaulted in prison. Are the
people who are “delivering justice” to these “sex offenders” then cast
out as pariahs? Why is the state’s label, and not people’s actual
behavior, given so much validity? These are questions United Struggle
from Within comrades need to dig into much deeper.
Anti-People Crimes
Anti-people crimes include many different behaviors, from complacency
with capitalism and imperialism, to extreme and deliberate acts of
reactionary violence. Anti-people crimes include manufacturing and
selling pornography, illegal drugs, and even alcohol and cigarettes,
much of which is legal or at least permissible in our Liberal capitalist
society. And it includes all sadistic physical assault, which would
include all forms of sexual assault.
From our perspective, this discussion has raised more clearly for us the
importance of not glorifying or fostering positive images of any types
of anti-people violence among prisoners. Sometimes folks from lumpen
organizations hold up their history of reactionary violence as a badge
of honor and we need to criticize that, just like we need to be critical
of any positive or even neutral discussion of sexual violence. But we
still can’t take the labels from the criminal injustice system as the
reason for this criticism. Those locked up on protective custody yards
for sexual assault convictions don’t merit this criticism merely for
their PC status. That gets into the realm of “no investigation, no right
to speak” because we can’t take the injustice system’s labels as
sufficient evidence.
Anti-people behavior of all kinds is unacceptable both within and around
the revolutionary movement. Our challenge is in the fact that we are not
currently in a position to investigate individuals’ crimes. In truth the
change needed from all of us is impossibly difficult without a
revolutionary government and culture to back it up. As revolutionaries,
we all do the best we can to fight external influences and keep our
lives on a positive track so we can be contributing revolutionaries. But
there is a difference between people with class/nation/gender
backgrounds that will lead to counter-revolutionary thoughts and
actions, and those who commit anti-people crimes. Where to draw the line
between what we can deal with today and what we put off until after we
have a revolutionary government in power is not a clear and easy
question to answer.
In our current conditions, we have to ask ourselves, for instance, what
about the persyn who commits violence as a part of eir job (say selling
drugs) but then spends eir spare time building the revolutionary
movement? There’s a clear contradiction between these two practices. Do
we dismiss eir revolutionary work entirely as a result, or do we
consider em an ally while we struggle against eir reactionary violence?
The answer to this will come from the masses, and not from abstract
revolutionary principle.
In the real world, perhaps we don’t need to make this comparison. If
someone in a revolutionary organization engaged in some sort of
non-sexual extreme anti-people violence the organization would need to
address this directly. The intervention would at least include
independent investigation and calls for self-criticism, and if an
individual doesn’t recognize their error and take serious steps to
correct their line and practice they could be ejected from the
organization. It could also include other interventions, based on the
organization’s needs, skills, and resources.
Any anti-people violence is going to harm the movement, and of course
the people it is directed against, and so perpetrators of these actions
should not be a part of our revolutionary organizations. We will still
struggle with those who have class and/or national interests aligned
with the revolutionary movement but who are acting out extreme
anti-people violence. But until they understand why what they did/do is
wrong and demonstrate change in their practice, they should not be
admitted into revolutionary organizations.
Sex-Crimes vs. Other Crimes
One argument for why sexual violence should be distinguished from
non-sexual violence could be that gender is the principal contradiction
within any revolutionary movement that admits people of all genders, and
we need to deal with it differently within our organizations. For
example, we have contemplated the value of separate-gender organizations
because of this contradiction, though to date we have not advocated this
solution.
Another argument could be that victims of sexual violence in imperialist
countries are more likely to take up revolutionary politics, fueled by
their experience of gender oppression. And because of the pervasiveness
of sexual assault in imperialist countries, we will end up with a lot of
revolutionaries, mostly bio-females, who have experienced sexual
violence.
This could again raise gender to a principal contradiction within
imperialist-country movements because of the traumatic background of so
many members. It becomes a contradiction the movement has to deal with
(when any patriarchal violence arises within the movement), and one of
the greatest propellants forward on gender questions.
Neither of these principal contradiction arguments make a case for a
significant distinction between sexual and non-sexual anti-people
violence in the abstract. Rather they are relevant in terms of of how
our organizations need to deal with the problems. And in both cases it
has to do with the people within the movement’s perception of these
types of violence.
Applying this same concept to organizing in the hyper-masculine prison
environment, it may make sense to exclude “sex offenders” from our
projects because of the pervasive anti-“sex offender” attitude among
prisoners. However, we already discussed above that we’re not using the
state’s definitions of crime. If revolutionary prisoners determine a
need to exclude people who have specifically committed sexually violent
anti-people crimes from their organization, to maintain organizational
strength, they should do this. But of course this is different from
excluding “sex offenders.” (group 2)
Sex-Crimes Accusations
In dealing with sex-crimes accusations, the primary difference between
organizing people on the streets and organizing in prisons is the
presence of an accuser. With prisoners, we don’t generally interact with
an accuser, we just have a label from the criminal injustice system.
Though certainly prison-based organizations will have to deal with
accusers in the case of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults. This prison-based
situation is more similar to the situation in organizations on the
streets where a member brings up an accusation against another member.
And in the case of prisoners, like the Central Park 5, some “sex
offenders” did not even have an accuser on the street. The survivor of
the assault had no recollection of the event. The state picked out these
5 young New Afrikan men to target, to set an example and vilify New
Afrikans in the media. They were later all acquitted.
Whereas on the streets, or when organizing inside with non-“sex
offender” prisoners who have survived sexual violence, we are almost
always going to be directly interfacing with the survivors.
While we are here minimizing the state’s definition of “sex
offender,” we in no way mean to minimize the accusations of victims of
sexual violence. In general society, false accusations are statistically
rare, and the best practice is to put substantial weight on the validity
of accusations of sex-crimes.(3)
Anecdotally, we’ve seen a high prevalence of sexual violence survivors
attracted to revolutionary work. It’s easy to see why people who have
experienced the ugliest gender oppression in our society would be drawn
to revolutionary organizing. Suffering often breeds resistance.
Within revolutionary movements, the rate of false accusations is in all
likelihood more common than in the general population. This is because
the state will use any method imaginable to tear us down,
especially from the inside out. Many comrades have been taken down from
false sex-crime accusations from the state or agent provocateurs. We
need to build structures in to our organizations that protect against
state attacks, and simultaneously hold the claims of victims in high
regard, not just of sex-crimes but of any anti-people behavior that
could come up internally. This process will vary
organization-to-organization, but our internal strength comes in
preparation. Not only by creating a process to follow in case something
does come up, but also in creating a culture, and even including
membership policies, that prevent it from even happening in the first
place.
These principles and processes need development and input from
organizations that already have them in place and have used them. This
is definitely not a new concept to revolutionary organizations and
radical circles, and even with all that practice under our belt there
are still many unanswered questions. Some basic practices might include:
un-muddling the relationships between comrades (i.e. no dating within
the org) and establishing and practicing communication methods and
skills to create cultural norms for preventing chauvinistic behaviors
and addressing these behaviors when they do arise.
How we handle this process now in our cell structure will be different
if a cell has 2 members versus 2,000 members. The process will need to
be adapted for different stages of the struggle as well, such as when we
have dual power, and then again when the Joint Dictatorship of the
Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations has power. And on and on, adapting
our methods into a stateless communism.
Even with policies in place, we have limited means of combating
chauvinism, assault allegations and other unforeseen organizational
problems endemic to the left. Rather than wave off these contradictions,
or put them out of sight (or cover them up, like so many First
World-based parties and organizations have done), we need to build
institutions that protect those who are oppressed by gender violence.
Potential for Punishment
We do not yet have the means at our disposal to deal with crimes against
the people as thoroughly as we would like. To do that, we would indeed
need institutions tantamount to state power. If found guilty, the most
we can do is issue expulsions, orders of isolation, and disseminate
warnings privately to anyone in the movement who might be endangered by
the offender. The principle of these measures is the isolation and
(hopefully) separation from the anti-imperialist movement of
personalities that not only put comrades in physical danger, but through
their violent and narcissistic habits (seeking validation, circumventing
investigations, denying rectification) leave the movement open to plants
and pigs who have never passed up the opportunity to use such unstable
personalities as entry points. The individuals we are most interested in
excluding are those who have not only committed anti-people acts, but
who continue to pose active physical risks to the movement and
individual comrades. In all cases which can be addressed without
expulsion, we certainly encourage thorough and continual self-criticism
and rectification.
Regardless of the crime though, there is almost no way MIM(Prisons)
could investigate any of the crimes committed by people behind bars. We
have had subscribers write to us to tell us another of our subscribers
is a rat or sexual predator, and we’ve had people write to us who do say
their conviction is true. One could make an argument that we need to ask
prisoners to make a self-criticism that demonstrates that they now
understand what they did was wrong, and we should do more to encourage
this. But if someone doesn’t admit to the crime ey is accused of, then
we are at a loss.
In organizing through the mail, the most we can do is note an accusation
as something to potentially be aware of for the future. If we saw this
manifest in the accused subscriber’s actions interacting with
MIM(Prisons), or other prisoners, then we would consider cutting off
contact or taking other measures to exclude em from our organizing work.
The amount of resources required, and the risk of state meddling, to
conduct an investigation on guilt and enforce punishment, brings us back
to our line that practice must be principal in our recruiting. Comrades
demonstrate in practice their commitment to the movement and their
political line, and that is the best thing we have to judge them on from
the outside.
Potential for Rehabilitation
How should we handle people who have committed sex-crimes by proletarian
standards when they do want to continue to participate in revolutionary
organizing? Should they be banned from organizing with us (which is
basically how “sex offenders” are treated in prisons now)? Or relegated
to the role of “supporter” only, and not member? Should we avoid
organizing with them altogether, or can we work with them in united
front work? Or are people who have committed sex-crimes an exception to
our work building a United Front for Peace in Prisons?
Defining what we need to trust people to do (or not do) is a decent
starting point. Assessing whether these tasks can be trusted to someone
with a particular behavioral history is then possible. This would be
true of any crime. For example, if someone had laundered money from a
people’s support organization in the past, it would be difficult to
trust em as the treasurer of a revolutionary org. Many checks would need
to be built into place in order for this persyn to be trusted to do
bookkeeping, and probably it’s a better use of our limited time and
resources to just not have them doing the bookkeeping at all.
Whether we can actually build in these checks and balances for any crime
will depend a lot on the crime itself. For example, we organize with a
lot of former-gangbangers, who have a history of committing sexual
violence in the context of their lumpen-criminal activities. If this was
the only context in which someone engaged in sexual violence, and they
have very thoroughly engaged in a self-criticism process about eir time
banging, then it’s reasonable to expect that if ey’s not banging that ey
is most likely not committing sexual violence. On the other hand, if
someone committed sexual violence in the context of molesting people
simply because they are weaker than em, for sadistic pleasure or eir
twisted perspective of “love”, we may not have resources or expertise at
this time to reform these people before we destroy our current
patriarchal capitalist society.
In discussing rehabilitation of people who have committed anti-people
sex-crimes, we also find it useful to examine the social causes of why
people commit sex-crimes in the first place. MIM(Prisons)’s analysis is
that people commit these horrible acts because they are raised in our
horrible patriarchal, militaristic, power-hungry, individualistic,
capitalist society. Part of our challenge is we can’t remove people from
this society without first destroying the society. So can we expect
someone who is so deeply affected by our fucked up society to also
deeply heal to the point where we can trust em with whatever is needed
for our struggle? Any sadistic anti-people activity will require extreme
rehabilitation, which we may just not be in a position to assist with at
this time. We can and should encourage self-criticism for past errors
from those serious about revolution. But from a distance (through mail)
our ability to help and foster this self-criticism is greatly limited.