MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
Mail the petition to your loved ones inside who are experiencing issues
with the grievance procedure. Send them extra copies to share! For more
info on this campaign, click
here.
Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the
addresses below, which are also on the petition itself. Supporters
should send letters of support on behalf of prisoners.
Warden (specific to your facility)
Office of Inspector General HOTLINE P.O. Box 9778 Arlington,
Virginia 22219
ADC Office of Inspector General Mail Code 930 801 South 16th
Street Phoenix, AZ 85034
United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division Special
Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, PHB Washington,
D.C. 20530
Senator John McCain 4703 S. Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1 Tempe, AZ
80282
Representative Raul Grijalva 810 E. 22nd Street, Suite 102 Tucson,
AZ 85713
And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140
Petition updated January 2012, July 2012, December 2014, October
2017, and April 2019
Under Lock & Key 41 is focused on gang validation and step
down programs in U.$. prisons. Gang validation is used as a
justification for locking people in long-term isolation cells, commonly
known as control units. Most civilians would say that controlling gang
violence is a good thing, and that perspective is exactly what the
criminal injustice system is relying on for its gang validation
programs. The assumption is that all groups classified as gangs are
engaged in criminal activity, and anyone in contact with the gang must
be a member.
Let’s put aside for now the reality that the U.$. military and police
force is the biggest gang in world history. If anyone is organized in
criminal activity and terrorism, it’s them. That any U.$. government
agency claims to be against gang activity without being critical of
itself is just a joke.
The entities identified as gangs by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) include correspondence study
groups such as the
William
L. Nolen Mentorship Program. In Texas, Under Lock & Key
is
cited
as a security threat group, despite actually being a newspaper. The
National
Gang Crime Research Center recently published a report which
included the Maoist Internationalist Movement as a potential threat to
prison security. It is obvious that the gang label is not used for
criminal, but instead political, reasons.
Often, validation is based on secret evidence that the prisoner cannot
challenge, and can include things like talking to the wrong persyn in
the yard, being
in
possession of books on history and politics, or even sending someone
a birthday card. In some cases validation is based on a prisoner
receiving an unsolicited letter mentioning the name of another prisoner,
or even just participating in MIM(Prisons) correspondence study groups.
A Connecticut writer describes the difficulty fighting “evidence” about
security risk group activity:
“In August I was taken to segregation because a prisoner got caught with
4 pages of Security Risk Group (SRG) paperwork and the pigz try to say
one of the 4 pages was in my handwriting. Due to this assumption I was
given a class A SRG ticket for recruiting, even though this prisoner
signed a statement explaining the paperwork is his. I never gave it to
him, and I never wrote it. The crazier thing is the prisoner who got
caught with these papers was released back into Phase 3 (back into the
block) and I sat in segregation for over a month till I was transferred
back to Phase 1 in Walker Correctional Institution.”
Once validated, it’s very difficult to get out of isolation without
giving the administration information (snitching) on others; information
that many prisoners don’t even have because they aren’t actually members
of the groups the prison has “validated.” In the article
“(Un)Due
Process of Validation and Step Down Programs” cipactli gets into the
politics behind these programs.
Some people who are validated are members of lumpen organizations (LOs),
and the prisons use the “gang” label to make them out as scary and
dangerous groups. But lumpen organizations are a natural response to
national oppression, and many of these LOs have the potential to lead
their members in anti-imperialist organizing. The unity and organization
of LOs scares the imperialists and their lackeys. After all, LOs operate
outside of the state-approved capitalist economy and serve a lumpen
population whose interests are not tied up in that system, unlike the
vast majority of U.$. citizens.
Often validation is used to target and isolate politically active
prisoners who speak up and fight the criminal injustice system, whether
or not they are part of an LO. Fighting against gang validation is an
important part of the fight against prison control units and other
methods of social control that target politically active prisoners.
These comrades are the leaders of the movement against the criminal
injustice system behind bars.
The overwhelming response to our call for information on validation for
ULK suggests that a disproportionate number of readers of
anti-imperialist literature are a target for gang validation
(about
half of our readers are in some kind of solitary confinement). This
issue of ULK includes a variety of articles describing the
false justifications used for validation, the targeting of activists,
and the consequences of isolation and torture for those who are
validated.
In this issue many writers describe their experiences with validation
programs, and we also talk about ways to fight the validation system.
Building unity among lumpen organizations in the United Front for Peace
in Prisons, campaigning to shut down prison control units, and fighting
the legitimacy of so-called step down programs are all ways we are
attacking this problem from many sides. Prisons serve the imperialists
as a tool of social control, and as is explained in the
“(Un)Due
Process of Validation and Step Down Programs” article, control units
are a vitally important element of this system. We can use the
contradictions inherent in the system which raises the political
consciousness of those targeted for repression, and often throws
together leaders who can join forces to build a broader movement. After
all, the recent series of California hunger strikes were led by
prisoners locked up in Pelican Bay’s notorious control unit.
The U.$ government won’t give up their tools of social control
willingly. And in the end the criminal injustice system needs to be
thoroughly dismantled, something we can’t do until we overthrow the
imperialists and replace them with a government serving the interests of
the world’s oppressed. But as a part of the work to build towards
communist revolution we battle today to shut down prison control units
and end the targeting of prison activists and oppressed nations.
Party People Written by Mildred Ruiz-Sapp, Steven Sapp, and William
Ruiz a.k.a. Ninja Directed and Developed by Liesl Tommy Berkeley
Repertory Theater 24 October 2014 - 16 November 2014, extended to 30
November 2014
“Party People” is a play about the Black Panther Party and Young
Lords Party showing this month in Berkeley, California. The play was
extended two weeks and has been a destination for many school field
trips. Well-patroned, and intellectually accessible via the
entertainment medium, “Party People” might well be the number one
cultural piece shaping the understanding of the Black Panther Party
(BPP) and Young Lords Party (YLP) in the Bay Area today. This is a major
problem.
The premise of the play revolves around two young men planning and then
actualizing a gallery event to commemorate the legacy of the Black
Panther Party and Young Lords Party. Malik (a Panther cub whose father
is locked up) and Jimmy (whose uncle was a Young Lord) invite several
former party members to their gallery opening, and thus it doubles as a
reunion of the rank and file. The play takes you through the day-of
preparations for the event, which the party members help with, and
through the event itself, which is attended by party members, an FBI
informant, and the wife of a dead cop. Dialogue centers around the
inter-persynal conflicts between party members and between generations,
with conservatively half of the 2 hours and 35 minutes spent yelling and
in-fighting between party members, and with their offspring.
The main downfall of revolutionary struggles of the 1960s was a lack of
deep political education. Whether at the level of the masses, rank and
file, or party leaders, a lack of political education allows political
movements to be co-opted, infiltrated, and run into the ground by enemy
line. In its heyday, the BPP grew so rapidly that much of the new
membership did not have a deep understanding of why they did what they
did. The play itself doesn’t say that political consciousness needs to
be raised, but it is a strong testament to that need. Unfortunately,
neither does it contribute to that political education, which is likely
due to the exact thing i am criticizing. “Party People” would have you
believe the main legacies of the BPP and YLP were in creating exciting
memories, and setting models for government programs. In “explaining”
the origin of the BPP, the cast breaks into song: all it took to get it
off the ground was shotguns, grits, and gravy.
Omar X is one of the more intriguing characters in the play. He operates
more on intellect than emotions, and has an air of self-discipline and
militancy. Omar enters the play as a self-appointed protector of the
Black Panther legacy. He approaches Malik and Jimmy prior to the gallery
opening, very skeptical of what they are going to say and how they might
twist the history. Finally giving his approval to the art project, Omar
by proxy grants legitimacy to the play itself. In real life, former
Black Panthers Bobby Seale and Ericka Huggins also both
gave their
seal of approval.(1) The People’s Minister of Information JR Valrey,
an outspoken member of today’s generation of Black media who promotes
the Panthers as an example to be followed,
was more
critical.(2)
The open brutality of pigs on party members is only given cursory
examination, primarily through dialogue. Yet there is a graphic scene
where Omar is tortured by several fellow Panthers, led by an FBI
infiltrator. Recollecting this event in the gallery, 50 years later,
Omar’s comrades are still telling him “You were so outspoken and
critical! Why didn’t you just follow orders! We just did what we were
told!” with remorse. It is apalling that in 50 years of reflection,
these characters haven’t figured out that dissent and criticism should
be encouraged in the party, and that the real error here was that they
themselves were “just” following orders. Again, the problem goes back to
political development, whereas the play would have you believe that this
brutality was just an unavoidable outcome of this type of organizing
work.
Learning directly from the downfall of the Black Panther Party and
COINTELPRO operations, rather than quash dissent, we would encourage
political organizations to practice democratic centralism. Resolving
contradictions through debate is the only way we can grow as political
organizations. But instead of airing our dirty laundry for every
infiltrator or wannabe cop to take advantage, as was common in the 60s,
we take a democratic vote within the organization and then uphold the
party line in public, while continuing to debate behind closed doors as
needed.
Democratic centralism is also closely related to the mass line.
Developing mass line happens when the party refines and promotes the
best ideas from the masses, making the party their voice. The masses
would include people who are workers in the party-led programs, but who
have not yet reached a level of understanding and participation to join
the party. One of the contradictions within the Panthers was that they
had new people become party members, but then excluded them from the
decision-making process. There was not a transparent decision-making
process with a defined group of people. This led the rank and file to
believe they should just do what Huey or Eldridge said, as was depicted
in the play.
Security practices are again thrown out the window in Omar’s criticism
of Malik and Jimmy’s stage names (MK Ultra and Primo, respectively).
Omar says they should put their real names on their project, because
aren’t they proud of their work? Don’t they want to be accountable to
what potential lies they are about to disseminate? Is this just a game
to them? Are they “really” revolutionaries if they are “hiding” behind
their stage names? On the other hand, we strongly encourage
revolutionaries inside the belly of the beast to protect their
identities from the state. We forgive the BPP for making this error at
the time, but Omar should have figured it out by now.
Enthusiasm is given to the question of gender and blaming of wimmin for
the downfall of the parties. The dialogue states that all the men were
on drugs or locked up or dead, so of course wimmin had to lead. But then
when the parties dissintegrated, the wimmin were blamed. “Pussy killed
the party!” is a sexually-choreographed song performed by the female
cast, criticizing the machisimo and male chauvinism in both the BPP and
YLP. But little if any mention is given to the female-focused programs
of the Young Lords to curb forced sterilization and provide access to
abortion for Boriqua wimmin. Selectively applying hindsight, “Party
People” disregards the fact that these revolutionary organizations were
the vanguard of proletarian feminist organizing in their day.(3)
At the gallery during the reunion, a white womyn demands attention for
an emphatic monologue about her husband, a cop who was killed in a
shootout with the Panthers. Subjectively i found this monologue to be
too damn long and the response to be too damn weak. For the hundreds of
times the word “fuck” is thrown around in this play, i half expected the
Panther’s response to this accusation that he had killed the cop to be
“fuck your pig husband.” Instead he calmly explains that he did not kill
the cop and that he was imprisoned 25 years for a murder he did not
commit, washing his persynal hands of the “crime.” He then goes and sits
down and everyone takes a pause to feel sad. This was a perfect
opportunity to educate the audience on casualties of war and group
political action. Instead the playwright chose to build empathy for our
oppressors.
One of the most glaringly offensive themes in this play is the
integrationist line slipped in subtly throughout, and hammered home
thoroughly in the final blast of energy. A source of pride for the
former party members is that their programs still live on today. No
mention is made of the state co-opting these programs, such as free
breakfast at school, in an effort to make the party seem obsolete.
Feeding kids before school is of almost no cost to Amerikkka, and it’s
worth it if it convolutes the need for revolutionary independence. While
focusing a lot on the free breakfast program, not once is it mentioned
that these kids were also receiving a political education while they
ate. Lack of political education is cause and consequence of these
errors of the play.
The question comes up of what today’s [petty-bourgeois] youth should do
to push the struggle forward. What role do they have to play? What
direction should they take? If I were a high school student watching
this play, asking myself the same questions, i would not have left the
theater with any better answers than i came in with, and i don’t know
that i would have gone forward looking to the Panthers or Young Lords
for direction. Sadly, these organizations did give us direction, but in
“Party People” it is altogether discarded.
On the topic of youth, there are three characters who are representative
of the offspring of the parties: Malik, Jimmy, and Clara. Malik spends a
lot of time trying to dress and speak like a Panther, but not a lot of
time with his nose in books. Clara’s parents are both dead, and although
her tia tries to explain the importance of her parents’
political devotion, Clara resents the YLP for stealing them from her.
Clara wants to go to college and get a good job so she can “join the
1%.” This “discussion” of the “1%” is the closest the play gets to an
examination of class, unlike the BPP and YLP who had thorough,
international class analyses.(4)
With all the examination of the contradictions between the different
generations, and the time (yet not necessarily depth) given to Fred
Hampton’s murder by the pigs, Fred Hampton, Jr. is not mentioned one
time in the play. Nowhere do they talk about the revolutionary
organizing of Chairman Fred, Jr. in Chicago, Illinois with the Prisoners
of Conscience Committee. You might not even leave the play knowing that
Fred Hampton had a child. Considering the youth are looking for
direction, and have all these feelings about their parents and relatives
abandoning them for the revolution, why wasn’t Fred, Jr. given a primary
role in this play? Upholding his political work as an example might have
put a lot of anxieties to rest.
Social-media-as-activism is correctly and thoroughly criticized (one of
the few positive elements). Instead, a resolution to the youth’s
dysphoria and lack of direction is offered in a final rap by Primo,
which highlights conditions of the oppressed nations inside United
$tates borders. But he ephasizes that “I am Amerikan! We are all
Amerikan!” over and over and over again, really sucking the audience in
on this one. The closing message of the play was decidedly not, “I am
Boriqua! You are New Afrikan! Amerikans, commit nation suicide! And
let’s destroy Amerikkkan imperialism for the benefit of all the world’s
oppressed peoples!!”
Modern lumpen organizations are mentioned briefly as part of the fallout
of the parties. In its lack of direction, “Party People” does not uphold
these organizations as holding potential for revolutionary change. Again
another great educational opportunity missed. As a supplement, i would
recommend the documentary Bastards of the Party (2005). This
film details the development of the Bloods and Crips, from self-defense
groups, through the Slausons, into the Panthers, and to today. In this
film, the Watts Truce in Los Angeles in 1992 is focused on, and serves
as an excellent model of the positive impact lumpen organizations can
have on reducing in-fighting in oppressed nation communities and
building power independent from the oppressor government.
It is evident from “Party People” that the petty bourgeoisie doesn’t
have much of a role to play in our current revolutionary organizing.
Until they give up their attachments to the material spoils of
imperialism, they will keep producing confused representations of
proletarian struggle. I would advise today’s youth, especially those who
feel disheartened by this play, to
read up
on the real history of BPP and Young Lords,(5) and
contact us to get
involved in political organizing work to end oppression for all the
world’s people!
The comrade who reported in ULK 40 on
a
lawsuit around sexual assaults in California prisons(1) wrote back
to reiterate that California law prohibits such behavior. “An inmate
cannot validly consent to sex with a prison employee”, see California
Penal Code Section 289.6 and California Code of Regulations Title 15
3401.5. This is actually a good example of a law that tackles
Liberalism
around the question of rape in one fell swoop by recognizing the
systematic relationship between prisoners and state employees that
prevents consent.
Despite this law, our comrade documents a history of administrative
coverups of sexual abuse of prisoners by staff. Clearly the gender
oppressed need more than words on paper to be free of the patriarchy.
And for prisoners who “cooperate” with prison administrators,
administrative coverups operate in the opposite direction. Our comrade
points to Freitag v. Ayers, 463 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.2006), which
documents the case of a female correctional officer at Pelican Bay State
Prison who was discouraged by her supervisors from filing disciplinary
actions against prisoners who would sexually harass her “as a sexual
favor to gain [their] cooperation.”
In the previous article by this comrade, we pointed out the possibility
that New Afrikan bio-males (especially youth) may be considered gender
oppressed if one looks at prisons on a statistical level. Yet, we do not
deny that bio-male prisoners often play the role of sexual aggressor,
both against other male prisoners and female guards. The example of
Freitag v. Ayers echoes one of these hypotheticals that our
critics threw at us to ask the question, “who is the rapist here?”(2)
Yet in this case we see the patriarchy, in the form of the CDCR
administration at Pelican Bay, actively enforcing the roles of both the
SHU prisoner being held in an isolation cell and the female guard who
must endure the prisoner’s acting out. The obvious culprit here, and the
federal courts agreed, was the patriarchal institution of the CDCR.
Prison is an extreme example, but it helps us see the patriarchy at
work. As we said in our previous article on the lawsuit, even when the
female guard is the clear aggressor, firing her does not do anything to
lesson rape on a group level, though it might help some individuals for
a period of time. There are many institutions that serve to enforce the
patriarchy throughout our society that serve to undermine the gender
oppressed’s power over their own bodies. We must build independent
institutions that serve the gender oppressed, in order to create a world
where sex can be consensual.
A great example of prisoners doing this behind bars is in the
organization Men Against Sexism which was in Washington state in the
1970s.(1) Our conditions today are different than those faced by
Washington prisoners at the time, but we can still address gender
oppression as part of our overall struggle to build unity.
In their response to us, (see
“Who
has happy sex?”), the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO)
questioned some
accusations
we made about their organization contributing to wrecking work aimed
at the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM).(1) The author is either
unaware of, or being dishonest about, the history of their organization.
Prairie Fire was highlighted in a recent interview at llco.org retelling
h young adulthood, so certainly s/he can recall what h comrades were
printing about MIM a handful of years ago. They participated in a
long-standing campaign to paint MIM as crazy wackos as the original MIM
comrades suffered the crushing defeat of every aspect of their work. We
condemned
the Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH) website for this at the time, but
did not call it wrecking work.(2) To accuse us of escaping “the crazy
town hotel” because of our critique of the gender aristocracy is not
just unprincipled, but once again echoing the imperialists who try to
paint radical critiques of the status quo as the work of wackos.(4) And
we don’t see a reason to give them a pass this time. We’re concluding
here that this is an ongoing problem within their organization. This
should have been obvious from our previous article(3), but we felt we
should clarify our point here if LLCO is going to accuse us of spreading
fear, uncertainty and doubt in what they refer to as a “phony setup,”
while their comrade accuses us of trying to deflect criticism. If we
were afraid of criticism why did we publish an article linking to LLCO’s
criticism of our line?
Liberalism is Liberalism
Liberalism puts individual liberty and choice at the forefront. It is
not concerned with groups and systems.
Liberalism equates happy sex with consensual sex. MIM Thought does not.
We never said happy sex doesn’t exist. Rather, the main point of our
article was that the gender aristocracy is very happy with its sex. We
go on to argue that the happy sex of the gender aristocracy presents a
challenge to our efforts to organize them against imperialism.
We also say that the struggle to have “good sex” is lifestyle politics
and that it supports the pseudo-feminists’ (read pro-patriarchy) agenda.
Rather than “good” or “happy,” a more precise criteria to debate would
be “consensual sex.” And we say there is no such thing under patriarchy.
LLCO broadens this assertion to accuse us of saying consensual sex has
never existed for all of humyn history. But patriarchy has not existed
forever, so we do not agree that our line implies that “consensual,
happy sex has never existed.” More importantly, the theoretical
existence of happy sex is not important to us in the struggle to end
oppression.
LLCO doesn’t like the examples we listed in our last article, condemning
them with their own hypothetical example that is essentially the same,
proving our point that power and sex are intimately tied up (pun
intended). Rather than measuring individuals’ power differentials to
determine which one of them is the rapist (and implicitly then which
persyn should be ostracized, imprisoned, or we don’t now what because
LLCO hasn’t told us), maybe LLCO can speak to the problem that
patriarchal society has conditioned females for centuries to enjoy sex
as an oppressed gender as part of the process of producing male
pleasure. Such systematic problems of power are not considered by the
Liberal who is assured by the individuals involved explicitly saying the
word “yes” and having fuzzy feelings inside while doing it.
Since their last post, LLCO stepped up their artwork from “Make Love Not
War” to “Keep Calm and Have Good Sex.” It’s hard to believe they still
don’t get it when they caricature their own line with such blatant
sexual Liberalism. Rather, it seems quite clear that they do intend to
promote sexual Liberalism and call it proletarian feminism.
Biological Determinism and the Self
Liberalism, as an ideology, was a progressive force in a certain period
of humyn history. Around the turn of the twentieth century theorists
discussing sex used animal behavior to argue against the Christian ideas
of the “natural order” ordained by God. But today people read too much
into Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, using it to validate their own
experiences of pleasure. The biological imperative to reproduce and
feelings of pleasure are not one in the same. So it has little meaning
in this debate to say, “Sexuality is normal behavior for any complex
species.” We would like to see some evidence that, “Most people desire a
sexual life even in the context of oppression.” For the gender
aristocracy, this is apparent, but the gender aristocracy is not most
people. More clearly, we’d like to see evidence that most people
experience the kind of pleasure from sex that the gender aristocracy
does. As an aside, the assertion that “[m]ost people do not desire to be
raped” is a tautology when you define rape as something that the average
persyn does not desire.(4)
With the advance of the productive forces, widespread leisure societies
developed for the first time in history. Members of those societies are
much more gender privileged than the rest of the world, and the
evolution of pleasure around sex is very tied up with the development of
that power differential and an obsession with pornography that came with
it. There are many nations that remain resistant to the pornography of
the leisure societies, yet the imperialists use it as a tool to divide
those nations. MIM saw pornography as any cultural propaganda that props
up the leisure lifestyles of the bourgeois classes. LLCO’s recent
articles on rape and gender oppression can easily be categorized as part
of the patriarchal pornography machine.
While our critic refers to biological determinism rather than sociology
to explain sexual pleasure, both explanations imply greater forces are
at play than the choices of two individuals. Yet, LLCO thinks our line
denies humyn agency. Against this, we already said that we cannot go
around telling people how to have sex in a way that they can avoid rape.
Anyone who does this is being dishonest. That does not mean that
proletarian morality has ceased to exist. It just means there is no
magic combination of individual actions that can get you out of the
patriarchy. While we must operate within the limits of the material
reality we find ourselves in, we still get to make a choice of what to
do at every moment of our lives. Pretending happy fucking is the same
thing as sex without patriarchal influence is ridiculous.
In their discussion of Descartes, LLCO argues that we are idealists for
daring to envision a world without oppression, where there would be no
coercion in sexual relations. We call that being communists.
Answering some more questions from LLCO
LLCO claims there is another hole in our logic by asking, “How are all
these systems of oppression reduced to a single measure whereby we can
determined[sic] rapist and victim?” We already stated in our article, we
don’t care. We are not trying to answer the pornographic questions that
they pose in their response, we are trying to convince people that
patriarchy needs to be overthrown!
LLCO tells you to “[t]hink about how silly this is for a moment. MIM
implies that you cannot both have a plan to eliminate individual cases
of rape as part of a broader, revolutionary plan change society
fundamentally.”(1)
No, we said you should act scientifically. In other words be aware of
the outcome of your actions. The LLCO/Liberal line means more Black
males in prison and more Amerikans happy with the status quo. Maybe this
is their strategy to strengthen the national contradiction in the United
$tates. But no, there is no mention of principal contradiction, or
overthrowing imperialism or patriarchy in their response. The whole
content of the article could have been written by the Democratic Party
if one just cut out the words “Leading Light Communism.”
We also addressed this in the article they are critiquing when we wrote:
“And we agree that under the dictatorship of the proletariat the masses
will pick out these unreformable enemies for serious punishment. Yet,
the majority of people who took up practices of capitalism or of the
patriarchy will be reformed.”
LLCO writes,
“Thus, for MIM, everyone who has ever had sex has been involved, one way
or another, in rape. Every great communist leader has been a rapist or a
victim of rape, or both. MIM even named their movement after someone who
they see as a rapist. Mao was reported to be sexually vigorous.
According to MIM, all sexually-active people of Third World and First
World are rapists or victims, or both. All children from happy homes,
from loving couples, are really products of rape.”
Hey, we’ll one up you there. Being asexual doesn’t eliminate gender
power either. The gender power that you hold is inherent in a
patriarchal society regardless of who you fuck and how.
Perhaps LLCO should disavow Lin Biao because he did not come from a
proletarian or peasant background. Lin was not from the oppressed
classes. Neither were plenty of other great communist leaders, and we
would assume the same for plenty of LLCO folks who are First World
residents. People are a product of their birth circumstances and the
society into which they are born. We don’t judge individuals for this,
we judge them for their political line and practice. Apparently LLCO can
stomach this when it comes to class but not when it comes to gender.
Pushing the debate forward
LLCO correctly argued that the slogan “all property is theft” … “can
undermine the people’s struggle under certain conditions.” They then
imply that the same is true for “all sex is rape.” Okay, but what are
those situations? Because we’re saying “all sex is rape” is a powerful
anti-Liberal slogan right now in the First World and we don’t see it
undermining the struggle to liberate the majority of the world’s people.
Since we both seem to think the other is talking past us, here are our
suggestions for points we’d like to see LLCO address to make this debate
worthwhile going forward:
In what actual conditions do you see “all sex is rape” sloganeering as
reinforcing bourgeois or patriarchal interests? and how?
Or the other side of that question, where do you see “you can have good,
consensual sex” being used to effectively challenge the patriarchy or
imperialism or working in the interests of the oppressed masses in
general?
Until they can do this, we don’t see how their arguments are based in
any attempts to overthrow patriarchy (which would be implied by their
claim to uphold proletarian feminism). It all comes across as a defense
of sex because they know sex makes people happy. While clarity may be
lacking on both sides, it is at least clear that we hold opposite views
on this issue.
For the past three years, on September 9 prisoners across the country
have joined in a solidarity demonstration on this anniversary of the
Attica uprising. It was initiated by an organization that was a part of
the United Front for Peace in Prisons. That organization is no longer
around, but new organizations and individuals have carried forward the
struggle.
The organizers call on activists to take this day to promote the United
Front for Peace in Prisons (UFPP) by building unity with fellow
captives, and to demonstrate resistance to the criminal injustice system
by fasting, refraining from work, engaging only in solidarity actions,
and ceasing all prisoner-on-prisoner hostilities. In some prisons the
demonstrations are big and involve many participants, in others just a
handful of people join in, and in some places only one persyn stands up.
But every action, large or small, contributes to raising awareness and
building unity.
This year we received only a handful of reports from comrades about
their September 9 organizing work. This is in contrast to the reports
from the past two years which showed a growing interest and involvement
in this day of protest. It is also in striking contrast to the
widespread
response and organizing around the Palestine petition by United
Struggle from Within (USW) comrades.
We take this opportunity to re-evaluate the September 9 action. The
question for all UFPP signatories and USW organizers: Why was organizing
for the September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity so limited in 2014?
Should we do something different in 2015, either to help promote the
September 9 action, or by focusing on other campaigns and protests? Send
us your thoughts so we can sum up and continue to expand our efforts to
cease prisoner-on-prisoner violence in the U.$. criminal injustice
system.
On 31 October, after weeks of mass protests in which state media
headquarters were stormed and government buildings were torched, the
President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, was forced to resign and
flee to the Ivory Coast, another French colony. The military seized
power under Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Zida, who created a committee which
appointed Michel Kafando as transitional president. Elections are to be
scheduled within 12 months. Kafando was formerly ambassador to the
United Nations for Compaoré, among other high posts he held in the
government. This change in leadership is nothing more than a shuffling
of the neo-colonial compradors who will continue to serve the
imperialists while trying to placate the righteously angry Burkinabe
(people of Burkina Faso) masses.
The protests that led to this change in government follow long standing
unrest and anger about the exploitation and oppression of the people in
Burkina Faso. In recent years there has been much civil protest in the
country, especially amongst peasants and miners.
Burkina Faso is a small country located in sub-Saharan West Africa.
Originally called the Republic of Upper Volta, the country was
established as a French neo-colony in 1960. Captain Thomas Sankara
became prime minister in 1983 after a military coup, ironically led by
Blaise Compaoré and a group of military leaders who considered
themselves revolutionary anti-imperialists. While not an uprising of the
people, Sankara’s politics were more progressive than previous leaders.
Sankara implemented many programs to serve the people including
nationalizing land and mineral resources, mass-vaccinations,
infrastructure improvements, the expansion of wimmin’s rights,
encouragement of domestic agricultural consumption, and
anti-desertification projects. He also changed the country’s name to
Burkina Faso (land of the upright/honest people). To promote
self-reliance and end the poverty of dependency so common in African
countries, Sankara called for the cancellation of African debts to
Western governments. And setting an example for all Burkinabe, Sankara
refused wealth and luxuries for himself and fought against corruption
and bribery in the government.
Sankara was a revolutionary nationalist. And while we do not oppose
those acting in the interests of the people seizing power from the
imperialists through a coup, we know that it is the support of the
masses and the political education and activism of the people that will
ultimately determine the success or failure of a revolutionary movement.
Burkina Faso provides us with a good lesson on the importance of a
cultural revolution. After the communists took power in China in 1949,
they soon realized that a new bourgeois class was developing. These
individuals may have come from proletarian and peasant backgrounds, but
the culture that encourages individualism and self-serving advancement
did not disappear with the implementation of socialism. And so some
people, once they gained positions of power, abused that power. The
Chinese communists realized the road from socialism to communism
requires political struggle from all the people, vigilant criticism and
self-criticism of and by political leaders and the masses, raising the
level of political education, and a long-term campaign to build
revolutionary culture. This became the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution (GPCR). In the end, even with the GPCR, the capitalist
interests within the communist party managed to take power after Mao
died. This does not negate the need for a GPCR but rather we need to
learn how to start sooner and be more effective in this struggle.
Sankara was murdered in 1987 in a coup d’etat that brought Blaise
Compaoré to power, a man who once called himself a revolutionary ally
and leader alongside Sankara. Before the coup Compaoré held significant
power within the government, and his takeover was supported by the
French who were eager to return the country to neo-colonial status.
Compaoré quickly demonstrated how far he had strayed from his supposedly
revolutionary views, reversing nationalization of Burkina Faso’s
resources, and reentering the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This
year, Compaoré attempted to modify the Constitution to extend his
27-year presidency, which led to the protests by Burkinabe last month.
While we support the uprisings and righteous demands of the people of
Burkina Faso, we also encourage them to make ceaseless efforts to again
increase their general level of political education and organization.
Only with deep revolutionary consciousness and leadership can Burkinabe
take complete control of their nation from comprador dictatorship, and
ensure that it grows with the people’s interests at the forefront.
Mail the petition to your loved ones and comrades inside who are
experiencing issues with their grievance procedure. Send them extra
copies to share! For more info on this campaign, click
here.
Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the
addresses listed on the petition, and below. Supporters should send
letters on behalf of prisoners.
Secretary of Corrections Landon State Office Building 900 Jackson,
4th Floor Topeka, KS 66612
United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division Special
Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, PHB Washington,
D.C. 20530
Office of Inspector General HOTLINE P.O. Box 9778 Arlington,
Virginia 22219
And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140
Mail the petition to your loved ones and comrades inside who are
experiencing issues with their grievance procedure. Send them extra
copies to share! For more info on this campaign, click
here.
Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the
addresses listed on the petition, and below. Supporters should send
letters on behalf of prisoners.
Officer of General Counsel PO Box 21787 Columbia SC 29221-1787
United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division Special
Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, PHB Washington,
D.C. 20530
Office of Inspector General HOTLINE P.O. Box 9778 Arlington,
Virginia 22219
And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140