It is glaringly clear in my mind the total incongruity of thought within
the ULK 43 article
“Pigs
Kill in Oregon”, including the non-sequetur involving disunity,
which is pointed out, and the mindless disunity and consistent
antagonism toward other prisoners this writer conveniently labels as
“rats” about ten times.
The prisoner wrote about the disunity and lack of education and then
goes on in a paragraph after that to display a disturbing level of that
same disunity and lack of education by launching into a long rant on
“f’ing snitchery.” It seems that this individual is trying to blame all
their problems in life on the perceived myriad “snitches” around him,
even to the point of somehow blaming the fight his friend got into and
then was supposedly shot for, on snitches, displaying a rather
delusional hatred and irrational deduction.
My point is this: the writer is displaying, almost throughout the entire
article, the same sort of hatred, disunity, impulsive and spite-filled
rhetoric which are all the primary thinking pattern and behaviors behind
gang mentalities and the worst disunity behind Amerika’s prison walls.
There is a clear disconnect in this person’s reasoning. Now, don’t get
me wrong, in the case of people who genuinely and perniciously “snitch”
on others, or those who spy on others as agents of the state or for
personal gain, I have as little use or tolerance for them as the writer.
But the point is that I don’t see anywhere in the article, aside from
the lip service paid in one paragraph, any demonstration or advice for
the actual practice of unity. The writer complains, for example, about
guards targeting people who refuse to sit at chow hall tables
“belonging” to other groups (gangs) - great unity! - but makes no
mention on how this may be overcome through any unity of the prisoners
themselves. It’s all the “snitches’” fault there’s no unity or
education?
Also, what exactly are they getting snitched on for so much? A planned
insurrection? At any rate, such “focoist” action will only make things
worse. And instead of making scapegoats of others, perhaps this writer
could devise ways of approaching the purportedly overwhelmingly
hate-inducing snitch problem in his prison by considering some tactics
besides hate-mongering and blame-shifting. Like, for instance, trying to
figure out why that’s going on to the seeming level the writer makes it
out to be, maybe getting inside their heads, and trying to
constructively draw the “snitches” away from their behaviors and such by
addressing their fears or convincing them that the people they tell on
are really on their side – instead of, as this writer does, target them
for wrath and redundant invective.
I refuse to subscribe to this kind of hatefulness – against anyone or
anything. It’s self-destructive and un-constructive to any positive
ends. Hate and invective like those displayed are almost invariably
products of fear, and fear is an irrational emotional response to the
unknown or a threat. This is not scientific, rational thinking and I
reject it unequivocally. Other articles in this issue are commendable
examples of effort in unity and reason, these are the types of writing I
wish to see much more of in ULK, and are of the sort more
likely to foster positive and constructive thinking patterns and effort
among readers. Keep the childish, bile-filled hate speeches out.
Even the constant references to guards as “pigs,” “swine,” etc. is
un-constructive and ignoble in my opinion. We can oppose oppression
without reducing ourselves to the same level of intolerance, hate and
bigotry as our oppressors. We can effectively deal with it in logical,
reasoned, intelligent and mature terms. Maybe, just maybe, if every
humyn being can begin seeing another not as an “it” – that “it” being a
“snitch,” “rat,” “pig,” “jerk,” “punk,” “criminal,” “saint,” etc – but
as a “thou” who holds the same great potential as every other humyn
being, be they white, Black, male/female, etc., then we can use all that
energy spent in otherwise hating each other for endeavoring to try to
bring us all to an understanding that we are not just individual units
separated from a common whole in nature, and making all those former
“its” realize that their oppositions to the “thous” is futile,
destructive and hurtful also to themselves. And maybe some of those
“rats” and “pigs” will quit their negative pursuits and join the rest of
humynity in real solidarity. That’s the kind of work I consider solid.
Hatred only begets hatred. Let’s try that line.
MIM(Prisons) responds: Overall this writer makes a good point
that we should be doing all we can to organize people for greater unity,
and in a situation like the one described in the Oregon prisoner’s
ULK article, where so many prisoners seem to be working with
the guards, it’s possible that some of them could be won over to the
side of their own people.
But this writer is suggesting that we can have unity with all people.
While that’s certainly the ideal that we always strive for, we also need
to be scientific about who are our enemies and who are our friends in
our present moment. We cannot just pray for unity with all humyns
because we are the same species, absent an analysis of our current
conditions when there is systematic class, nation and gender oppression
in the world. Appealing to the pigs’ humynity is a waste of our time,
just as it is to appeal to the bourgeoisie to voluntarily give up their
money and power in the interests of all humankind.
In Under Lock & Key we generally don’t print articles that
are just complaining about the dire conditions or general oppression
without offering a solution or talking about organizing work. When this
is missing from an article we will add it to our response. And so in
that sense we agree with this writer’s general call for scientific
articles that build unity.
We don’t share this writer’s condemnation of use of harsh language for
our enemies. The Black Panther Party started using the term “pigs” to
help disempower the cops and empower the people to fight back. As the
Maoist Internationalist Movement explained in an
essay
on tone:
“The middle-classes otherwise known as the petty-bourgeoisie constantly
ask MIM to ‘tone it down.’ The classes in-between the imperialists and
the property-less known as proletarians are inclined to believe that
there is a neutral educational tone appropriate for all communications.
In reality, a neutral tone is not appropriate when your friend is about
to fall off a cliff. You better yell in excitement: ‘Look out!’
According to the petty-bourgeoisie and the imperialists, there is no
reason within the status quo to be yelling or using a harsh tone. In
contrast, we see an emergency situation in reality, a reality so bad it
needs to be overthrown. Hence, we communists seek to match our tone to
underlying substance. …
The oppressed and exploited have a lot to be angry about. The bourgeois
and petty-bourgeois political organizations do not suit them and
sometimes the result is pseudo-rebellion through street-crime. Often
times the spirit of these pseudo-rebellious people is in the right
place, but they don’t see political leaders with the right tone.”