In a system where the threat of torture by long-term isolation and other
forms of repression constantly hangs above the heads of those who hold
political views different from their captors, security is a vital
question. Of course, the threat is different when working outside
anonymously with MIM(Prisons) than working inside, face-to-face.
Repression inside prisons is much more imminent than it is for our
comrades on the streets. In prison, conditions are different and
freedoms are limited, leaving comrades with much different tactics to
choose from.
Strategically, however, the question of security behind bars is more the
same than it is different from on the streets. Semi-underground
organizing is an example of a universal strategy for operating behind
enemy lines. The practice of semi-underground organizing recognizes that
just because you didn’t break any laws doesn’t mean you will not face
repression for your actions or beliefs, and there is more cost than
benefit of putting all your cards on the table. On the organizational
scale, semi-underground can be applied by layering your organization
with different levels of openness. This makes it harder for the pigs to
pinpoint leaders and isolate an organization.
Another strategical question is, how do we deal with potential
infiltrators who join our ranks in order to gather information and
create disruption, or bad-jacket the organization? Many comrades have
provided suggestions for how to address this issue. There is a bourgeois
approach to security and there is a proletarian approach. The difference
between the two is still generally applicable even in different
organizing conditions, and is discussed below.
A key issue that is being raised in California is, why work with
prisoners who are on Special Needs Yards (SNY)? This is a good question
since a lot of potential comrades, as well as comrades already in the
struggle, have contempt for individuals who collaborate with the state.
It is important that we understand that not everyone on SNY is there
because they debriefed or snitched. Some people are on SNY because they
are victimized on mainline, or don’t want to participate in the typical
bullshit that comes with mainline for whatever reason. So not everyone
on SNY is there because of piggish behavior, but the rest of this
article is a discussion of those comrades who are.
MIM(Prisons) is a prison ministry that seeks to organize and educate
prisoners not just to see the inhumane conditions that they find
themselves in, but also to see the bigger picture of imperialism. When
you read what MIM has put out regarding our security practices then one
should be able to gain a perspective as to why MIM(Prisons) operates the
way it does. What good would it do for MIM(Prisons) to only work with
people based on the fact that they haven’t snitched yet?
Everyone is a possible cop or agent working for the imperialists. In
fact, in this country, someone is more likely to be a cop or spy than to
be a revolutionary of some sort. Even within the communist movement
itself there exists a capitalist arm in the form of cops, agents,
snitches, and collaborators with the imperialists.
We see this as a line struggle. Anyone can pretend to be USW inside,
just like anyone can pretend to represent MIM(Prisons) or Maoism. If
they uphold the line set forth by the vanguard organization and/or
movement, then they’re out there working to advance the struggle. If
they are upholding a bourgeois line, and people cling to it, then the
people didn’t understand the vanguard line in the first place. We should
work with a comrade because they have the correct line, not because they
are on mainline.
Why should they be barred from being a communist if they have snitched
in the past? Why should anyone not have the right to see the liberation
of their people, nation, the oppressed? What matters most is what one
does after they have discovered themselves as a communist revolutionary.
It’s not just the lumpen who are reforming criminals, they mostly did
small-time stuff. All amerikans are reforming criminals who have robbed
from and victimized the majority of the world. If we are recruiting in
the united $tates, we are attempting to reform criminals into
communists, and this is the revolutionizing of humyns that must take
place in conjunction with the revolutionizing of the economy and all the
institutions that serve it.
The other side of this is that even if one is a cop, gathering info,
there’s really not that much they will find if information is given out
on an as-needed basis. When the movement is organized into isolated
cells, they may be able to take down one or two people, but the struggle
goes on. In the meantime, the cop had to put in a lot of genuine work in
order to get the little information they got. Particularly where
communists are the minority, the cop ends up doing more work for us than
against us. This structure is part of what being a semi-underground
organization means.
Of course, the fact that the state has taken the time to infiltrate and
try to eliminate a group says a lot about the group’s politics. As
Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we put forth revolutionary science, or
dialectical materialism. A concrete historical analysis shows that it is
not WE but THEY, the imperialists, who are on the wrong side of history.
They will lose eventually. Our struggle is a protracted (scientific)
one, to put forth the correct line, so even if MIM(Prisons) goes down
there will still be others with the tools to continue forward.
With regards to the prison movement, it’s understandable that these
criticisms arise due to the fact that SHU placement falls on those who
organize for better or for worse. So why does MIM(Prisons) support
prisoners who walk away from their lumpen organizations? The lumpen
class, by definition, is a parasitic class. Both the lumpen and the
imperialists are capitalists whose material wealth comes from others’
work. One has the power to exploit by making the laws, while the other
makes money outside the law in an underground economy with a law unto
itself. Saying, “I understand the LOs need work, but why work with those
who walk away?” is just like the bourgeoisie saying “I know we need
work, but why give opportunities to prisoners or criminals to help out,
they broke our law?” Just like people who walked away and are now on
SNY, they too broke the law.
Divide and conquer is a tactic used by the administration to bring down
revolutionary groups and to keep revolutionary groups from forming.
Evidence suggests that LOs are purposefully put up against each other in
order to bring each other down. This basically means that if you’re in
an LO that’s victimizing other oppressed people, then you are
unwittingly an agent of the state’s oppressive apparatus. Even if you
say “fuck the k9s” or “fuck the administration,” your actions are
counter-revolutionary.
A serious revolutionary will not determine to not work with someone
who’s never had revolutionary politics or training just because when
that person was in a LO they engaged in the debriefing process. A
“revolutionary” that snitches is very different from someone who is put
between a rock and a hard place of working with one of two organizations
that are both engaged in anti-people activity. Plus, you never know who
could be dropping kites on you. Just because someone exposes themselves
to you doesn’t mean they’re the only threat on the mainline.
For the LOs to put an end to snitching among their membership, they will
have to stop engaging in activities that might cause someone with love
for their people to break ranks. When your practice does not coincide
with the line you put out, discipline will fail, no matter how brutal it
might be. The vanguard cannot water down its politics just to let
everyone know we’re cool. Watering down politics is engaging in
opportunism and will ultimately destroy the vanguard.
Another suggestion that has come up is that we look at people’s
histories, where they’ve been locked up and why they were sent there, as
part of our intelligence gathering. This amounts to trusting the lumpen
as long as the imperialists (or their petty-bourgeois bureaucrats) can
vouch for them. This is a backwards and dangerous approach to security.
The bourgeois approach to security is based on intelligence gathering
and psychologizing individuals, while the proletariat must look to
political line and consistent practice.
Notes:
see MIM’s 2005 Congress:
Resolutions
on Cell Organization for more discussion of the cell structure, why
persynal histories are irrelevant and security theory in general.