Under Lock & Key

In order to prescribe the Marxist ideology to our Maoist thought much needs to be understood. I believe there is a contradiction that exist that’s unspoken here: race. There seems to be a strong emphasis embraced on race as a “white” verses all other “non-white” races. The contradictions that exist here are that the “white” race is the only oppressor race. There is a huge historical analysis missing here if MIM(Prisons) is going to promote such race politics in what is fundamentally a human attribute that exists in all races of homo sapiens. To include such a factor in any discussion that involves a dialectical materialistic view of economy and government is destructive to the revolution.

The revolution is to promote equality. Ideally I believe to my understanding, an equality based on, “…each one according to their needs.” With that understanding my question becomes, what is the standard of equality on an international scale and how do we get there?

“Race” has nothing to do with our dialectical materialistic analysis because capitalism is based on only one color right now, green. The color of the Amerikan dollar which is the world’s reserve currency! So if MIM(Prisons) comrades are going to discuss economy, based on capitalism, socialism, and communism through Maoist thought then speak from the perspective of an economist. Or if it is government, then I guess the contradictions need to be explored to define the nation MIM(Prisons) looks to build because as a comrade I feel alienated based on “race.”

Wiawimawo of MIM(Prisons) responds: You’ll be hard-pressed to find MIM(Prisons) talking about race, since, as this comrade points out, race is not real. The problem is, we talk about the New Afrikan nation, or the Chican@ nation, and our readers think we’re just using fancy words to talk about race.

Perhaps this is an example of us getting a bit ahead of the masses here leading to miscommunication. Another comrade recently submitted a long paper explaining what the New Afrikan nation was because they felt new readers of ULK were confused by it. It’s interesting, since we adopted the term New Afrikan from the prison movement. But goes to show how things have changed. We will be utilizing this feedback to consider how we can improve ULK. But New Afrika is already well-defined in our pamphlet Power to New Afrika, which our New York comrade above has read.

Another source of confusion is that the imperialists will always try to deny the nationality of the oppressed. It’d be hard to find someone who doesn’t recognize Haiti as a nation, because they fought and won their liberation in 1804. Like New Afrika, they are a nation of people from all over the African continent, with a sprinkling of Europeans, that were merged by force to form a new nation. New Afrika has not yet won it’s liberation, so it gets less recognition than Haiti does.

We agree with our comrade above that capitalism is motivated by profits. Racism, and the idea of race itself, arose with the system of capitalism. Though there were certainly other systems of caste and class before. The United $tates of Amerika project was central to the development of race theory. In fact, the internal semi-colony of New Afrika would not exist without racial ideology that separated the first slaves based on what continent they came from. So we may be one of the last places to rid ourselves of this backwards way of thinking, it was so important to what this project is about.

The comrade also asks about our vision for the future. Well we’d suggest reading Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism and other works by V.I. Lenin on the national question for background. Because imperialism is a system of oppression/exploitation of most nations by a few, we see the most important source of change, towards a world of equality, to be found in national liberation struggles that challenge that system; from Palestine to Aztlán. Decades ago MIM put forth the theory of the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON) as a vision for how socialism can be imposed on Amerika itself. This is because we don’t believe a majority of Amerikans will support socialism at this stage. This idea is also found in Lenin and in Chinese Maoist thought. At the time MIM was discussing the carving up of what is now the United $tates territory into a New Afrikan Black Belt, Aztlán for the Chican@ nation, various First Nation territories. MIM also suggested that Amerika and Kanada were one oppressor nation. Some of these ideas seem much closer to reality today with Amerikan imperialism looking to incorporate Canada, and California looking for separate trade deals with China with popular support.

We have readers who say we’re anti-Black for citing Marx, and readers who say we’re anti-white for applying the ideas of Lenin. The reality is, all of these critics are too brainwashed by the “white man” to see things beyond this racial lens. Yes, the New York prisoner above we’re talking to you as well, you are the one too stuck thinking in racial ideas, not us.

Now to be fair, this is the dominant thinking of our society. So we must learn to speak Marxist truths that people stuck in imperialist, racist thinking will understand. We also recognize that the oppressed nations are more likely to be led to the truth. So we cannot avoid alienating people who identify as “white” and generally should not try to. These forces are either enemies of the revolution, enemies of equality, enemies of communism, or will have to be won over in a later stage of struggle. This is true because of their racial identities, which are the subjective reflections of their material reality as exploiters. Race is divisive – that’s why the imperialists have used it for hundreds of years.

This is Part 2 of the review of this revealing work.

Could many in the U.$. left be colorblind?

In summarizing the intro to the sixties the writers once more fall into the ideological swamp that we noticed in Part 1 of our review of this work. They state in part:

“Students, Black People, and (at the end of the Sixties ) soldiers constituted the main forces of rebellion…”

This continues in the same erroneous tradition as the RCP line. Statements like this highlight that, and RCPers have heard our stance before, but much of the non-Chican@ left, here in the snakes are what we of the ROA have come to define as colorblind. That is they only see Black and White struggles against empire. This outdated line needs to be “buried” along with the CP-USA that was previously criticized in Part 1 of our review. This colorblindness is what prevents any real revolution on these shores, especially with the Third World on our doorstep. Colorblindness is a major obstacle to many. Asked about the nation by us in the past, the RCP and their ilk have brushed it off.

“We don’t agree with those who say ‘Put my nation in front of the line’”, the RCP and their ilk have said in prior talks. Our point here is that the Chican@ nation simply be acknowledged as being in line period. For perspective of the times, the Organization of Communist Revolutionaries (OCR) declare erroneously that “Students, Black people and soldiers” were the supposed “main forces” of rebellion. Yet, since the end of the sixties Chican@ revolutionary orgs were developing throughout Aztlán. Groups like the Brown Berets, Chican@ Liberation Party and the Crusade for Justice that were brewing in this time would later be alleged by U.$. “law enforcement” of mobilizing the largest student strike on these shores with the school “blow outs” that included over 10,000 Chican@ youth, that mobilized over 10,000 people in a Chican@ anti-imperialist action in East L.A. called the Chicano Moratorium that downed a police helicopter and was alleged to have committed the only bombing of a CIA office on U.$. soil ever(1) not to mention many other instances of armed struggle.

The idea that any rebellion in these false U.$. borders does not include the Chican@ Nation is simply mierda. Those who uphold this thinking deserve full membership in the RCP-USA as their line is in goose step.

The tactics of “divide and conquer” employed by massa have worked so well on all of the masses here in the United Snakes; even within the so-called “Left” that not only are some folks pitted against other oppressed but some have come to not even acknowledge those in the trenches right beside them. Mao warned about who are our friends, who are our enemies. Malcolm X reiterated how we can end up loving our enemies and hating our friends.

BPP Legacy

As this work delved into the history of the Black Panther Party, it highlighted lessons learned. We agree with the analysis on the Panthers for the most part. The Panthers carved a path of resistance yet unseen in many ways for all of us. At the same time their imprint taught us the limits under U.$. imperialism, even when united fronts and allies are strongly in support, it is still not enough, without structural foundations in place. In this writing the authors frame it nicely in regard to the Panthers:

“The development of a vanguard party is not the same thing as and cannot wait for the development of a revolutionary situation. The ideological consolidation, theoretical development program and organizational apparatus of a vanguard party must be built consciously and systematically before the emergence of a revolutionary situation if the vanguard is to have the ability to withstand and advance through the pressure of intense events and vicious repression.”(2)

The state repression will come with victories small and large. Even when victories are small and an organization is not numerically large the organizers may down play the threat they pose to the state. But the state and their agents sometimes see the threat before the organizers, before the revolutionaries can see it and react. For this reason the vanguard must move in accordance to our potential threat to the capitalist state.

White Proletarians?

We disagree with the writers on their economic analysis in regards to who is a proletariat here in the snakes. The writers state:

“Labeling oppressed nations and nationalities in the U.S. as internal colonies, while morally justified, does not provide the analytical foundation for such a strategy and program. Instead suggesting separate struggles to liberate each”internal colony” perhaps linked by solidarity and a common enemy. The “internal colony” analysis fails to grasp that there is a multinational proletariat in the U.S. disproportionately made up of people of oppressed nation(s) and nationalities but also including white proletarians which bring together people of different nationalities who have a common class interest and similar but variegated experiences of exploitation and conditions of life that is in the strategic position, as a class, to lead the revolutionary overthrow of U.S. imperialism.”

Although many revolutions were fought and won by multi-national parties and organizations – including the Chinese Revolution and victory of 1949 – we disagree with the writers that a “white proletariat” exists within these false U.S. borders. Furthermore we do believe that there are internal semi-colonies, and the Chican@ nation, aka Aztlán, is one such internal semi-colony. The writers state that labeling the oppressed nations as such does not provide the analytical foundation for such a strategy and program but we would refer to the Chicano Red Book as the ROA refers to our precious book Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán, which does indeed provide the analytical foundation for such a strategy and program as it is Chican@ Maoist ideology. As for the bourgeoisified crumb-snatching First World labor aristocrats that are referred to as “white proletariat” we will refer the readers to MIM Theory # 1: A White Proletariat? for a more in depth examination of the white labor aristocracy in the occupied territories or Zak Cope’s Divided World, Divided Class.

Despite the writers alluding to the problematic nature of revolutionary nationalism we feel otherwise and side with Lenin on this:

“In the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, it can arrive at the inevitable integration of nations only through a transition period of the complete emancipation of all oppressed nations, i.e. their freedom to secede.”(3)

Aztláns secession will be a prelude to how the Chican@ nation votes via plebiscite on our way forward. No bourgeoisiefied worker will define our struggle or pre-determine who we consider the proletariat here in the First World. As we have come to the conclusion through our own scientific study that the reserve army of labor here in the United Snakes is imported, that is, the proletariat is Mexican@ for the most part.

We run into more colorblind assumptions in this writing in regards to the writers views on mass imprisonment. They seem to continue with the outdated 50 year-old lenses of mass incarceration when they state:

“The entire justice system, from the police to prosecutors to prisons, was (and still is) used to keep the Black masses”in their place” and became a defining feature of their daily lives.”

It seems to be describing the 1960’s or 70’s but in TODAY’S world it is the Brown masses who are feeling the brunt heel of the injustice system. The U.S. Federal prison system today reports 8% of its population being Mexican citizens, and another 8% not being U.$. citizens. Meanwhile 38.6% are reported as “racially Black”, while 29.4% are “ethnically Hispanic”.(4) The Federal prisons are often more harsh than state prisons, and more isolated, with families living in other states or other countries. Children and babies are being imprisoned in ICE kamps; babies handcuffed in kourt; Brown babies separated from parents and then “lost” in foster care. Brown people are now being sent to Guantanamo Bay to await deportation, or straight to supermax prison in the U.$.-fascist state in El Salvador.

The new greaser laws ensure that U.S. control units and solitary confinement units are also well stacked with Brown masses via “Gang” enhancements and classification within the concentration kamps. The 2013 California Hunger Strike exposed that the SHU, or control units, were populated by 80%+ Chican@s. With the brutality of the injustice system in this country used against raza, it is ridiculous to say it is only used on Black people. In general, the U.S. penal colonies are used for population control of Aztlán and the other oppressed nations on these occupied territories.

The section on postmodernism was refreshing to read. Much of the movement papers and writings these days not only gloss over the ills of “postmodern” ideology but even become influenced by it in many cases. In addressing this assault, the movement and its affect on the youth the writers state:

“For students, the bourgeoisie worked on two main fronts (1) they promoted, in academia, ideologies and politics that appeared oppositional but in reality fortified bourgeois rule and in effect steered students away from communism and other revolutionary ideas. Postmodernism was chief among these ideologies and has since become the dominant discourse within liberal academia.”

For the Chican@ nation we see the injection of the terms Latino, Latina, Latinx and all such derivatives as being part and parcel to the postmodernism project. For Aztlán, these terms move under the guise of “inclusiveness” only to obscure the identity of Chican@s, thereby detouring our focus on national liberation and land into simple multinational reforms within the confines of the bourgeois electoral politics arena. Those who espouse the postmodernist views within a raza context have clipped their wings which compels them to walk the road of brown capitalism, never soaring for secession or national liberation because the framers of their line have negated these paths starting with their identity.

As our Chican@ scholars sank into the swamp of academia their drive for Chican@ power and self-determination also sank. As Montaya put it:

“Most tenure-track scholars are aware that academic institutions rarely recognize grassroots activism and other non-traditional forms of scholarship.”(5)

In short the path and pull of integration into the empire is too strong for many who cannot resist the trinkets of blood and treasure squeezed out of the Third World by U.S. imperialists.

It becomes apparent that the writers were in the orbit of RCP-USA. The description of life surrounding the RCP-USA seemed like a scene out of Thomas More’s Utopia. Lots of talk of life surrounding the RCP being a vibrant socialist experience having “an atmosphere of theoretical discussion and debate.”…the writers say, I was captivated for a brief moment, very brief, especially when I realized that all this “theoretical discussion” left out the Chican@ Nation – as much of the so-called U.S. “left” seems to do so cleverly. The writers leave out in their lofty description that the RCP-USA is also colorblind, like the writers and most of the posers parading like communists in these occupied territories. “Racial” scientists would likely find unity with this colorblind RCP line which infects much of the U.$. “left.”

The national liberation struggle is very much necessary despite the rhetoric from some like the RCP-USA. The “All Lives Matter” crowd swear that the society we are oppressed in has somehow developed beyond national struggle and then we picked up some “progressive” rag and read it cover to cover and not read the word Aztlán, “Chican@” or any mention of the Chican@ struggle, despite many of these same parties and orgs existing in the Chican@ National territory (the U.S. Southwest) at this time. Raza must grasp that exploitation and dehumynization of the Chican@ did not end with the U.S. “civil rights” movement. Political exploitation and cooptation remains a threat to the Chica@ nation.

Much of the content on the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) was spent “dick riding” Avakian, although in the latter part there was some good criticism of Avakianism and the RCP more generally. The “dick riding” mostly being the writers gushing over some of Avakians writings and books.

The criticism of the RCP and Avakian was in pointing out various errors. One such error was in attempting to create a cult of personality for Avakian placing Avakian above the masses, above the movement. Claiming Avakian developed a “new synthesis” and “new communism.” Some of our members remember reading this claim years ago and not seeing it then, we do not see it now either. The writers correctly highlight that Revolution newspaper began to focus almost obsessively on filling its rag with quotes of Avakian speeches that he gave to the party. The closing of Revolution Books, the RCP-ran bookstores, was also criticized, especially when RCP said it was done to focus on promoting Avakian literature, when Avakian lit was mostly distributed at the bookstores. More striking was the fact that Avakian promoted voting for Biden when Biden and Trump squared off the first time. It appears that when it comes to Bourgeois democracy: the RCP can’t do better than that.

The portion at the end is informative on the organizational functions of the vanguard party on what the writers define as the “nuts and bolts” of the vanguard. There is much to learn from studying the development and disasters of revisionist parties like the CP-USA and the RCP-USA. We take our duties here in the beast serious and the Chican@ nation will not be bamboozled via neo-colonial projects that masquerade in communist barb. The Republic of Aztlán is re-building the nation and studying the errors of the past to be successful in our struggle.

Free Aztlán!

<sup>Notes:
1 The Crusade for Justice by Ernesto Vigil.
2. “The CP, The Sixties, The RCP and the Crying need for a Communist Vanguard Party Today” by The Organization of Communist Revolutionaries.
3. V.I. Lenin, “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, January-February 1916 from Selected Works Vol. 1, International Publishers, NY, 1971, P. 160.
4. https://www2.fed.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citizenship.jsp 5. “Chicano Movement for Beginners” by Maceo Montoya, 2016, page 202.</sup>

Florida DOC Tablet Saga

When tablets came out in 2017 the very first tablets were sold to the prisoners. I had a loved one to buy me one. Then the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) decided to change the mail to digital mail, so FDOC picked up all tablets that the prisoners paid for and came back around and passed out free tablets for every one. Since then all tablets have been updated no less than three times.

This comrade just got released from a Close Management Unit and was transferred to Hamilton C.I. Since I got here I found out that for the past year the Property Room Sergeant has been confiscating tablets, most of the time giving prisoners a disciplinary report for tablet tampering in which prisoners are found guilty 99% of the time and are suspended indefinitely from having another tablet. On top of this, most now have a loan on their inmate trust fund account of $130 restitution. FDOC gave a little for a period of time, then turned around and took everything. They gave the tablets, tablets belong to the state, and now they have an excuse to take them.

The Prisoner Population

I’ve been in prison for 28 years and this whole thing changed. This is not a prison anymore, this is a child care center for these fools to hang out. Everybody wants to belong to a gang but let me remind you that before you take that oath, you need to find out why that nation, group, or gang was born. It was born by the oppressed to fight in unity as a group against oppression. Who is the oppressor? Pigs that work here, the administration, the system, the state, the government. I know my history, do you know yours?

FDOC have a total of no more than 30 officers per shift (with 1/4 of them pushing overtime) and that is counting the front controls operators. It is embarrassing how that small group of pigs can control, oppress, and abuse no less than 1250 to 1500 prisoners, thugs, gangsters, criminals, and gang members. FDOC prisoners have no unity and no self-respect. I said self-respect because I might have a debt of a 78 cent soup and you ready to kill me, but the pigs call you and the whole dorm a “bunch of bitches” and you put your head down.

FDOC prisoners, mostly gang members, would rather have the pigs as a friend than anybody else with the same uniform color. They respect the pigs more than their fellow prisoners. Ali-al haf from Georgia, I read your article in the ULK Winter 2025 issue – you are not alone! I think it is a virus that is spreading. Now prisoners do the pigs’ jobs. They check and make sure that your cell door is secure, they pass mail, they make sure you don’t eat twice in the chow-hall, they even stand next to some of the pigs like bodyguards. All this ass kissing and at the end of the night your ass is just like mine: locked down behind a door. It doesn’t matter how down you might think the pigs will be, at the end of the day they will not put their paychecks on the line because of you. Coño Preso – look at the fucking color of your uniform. Ain’t you noticed that it has a different color!

Learn the difference between a right and a privilege. Use the grievance process, you must leave a written historical track in case issues need to be handled at another level. Written proof is all there is that shows a peaceful avenue was tried before going all the way out. All those comrades that in the past sacrificed their prison sentences, release dates, family, and some of them even their lives for this new generation to throw their hands up and surrender. Really? That is how we’re doing time in 2025?? Where are your cojones??

Let’s get together in the same line of thought. Before you complain about not having a tablet or not being able to watch the game on TV, we need to think about how high canteen prices are, receive more gain time, bring parole to lifers like me, get better food. Sorry, but prison is not a place that you come to to hang out with your homies and have a good time. This is the cemetery of the walking living dead, where your whole future could change in 15 seconds. Don’t forget where you are, your culture, where you came from. Do not submit to do the pigs’ work. I won’t be surprised if in a few more years visitation is done solely via video and they stop all contact visits. If we don’t get together and stand up and work as a group, as a family, we are going to keep losing. Remember that before you became a gang member you were a man, a human being – not a beast. And I refuse to be trapped like one. No quiero abrazos con la vida hasta que mi pueblo sea libre.

A Georgia prisoner echoes Ali-al haf’s report: Here at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, some things are the same as Valdosta, GA. Gang members having a room all to themselves and picking on the weak, taking all their property.

In one building the unity manager has her boys, [gang members] to beat some prisoners up (mostly whites). It is told that the female officer unit manager is a [gang] member. She is always talking down to the whites.

The drugs are plenty here and the drug called strips is where most go to.

The mail system is really screwed up. Mail is passed out maybe two times a week. The mailroom officer puts mail out daily for night shift to pass out.

Stabbings happen daily. Some cut themselves to be placed in the hole to get away from the gang members. Some gang members force some, mostly whites, to put money on their books or send them cash and make them go to the store for the full amount only to take it from them and officers let it happen.

Baldwin State has nicknames such as “Bloody Baldwin”, “Body Bag”, and “Cut Throat”. The names fit well and also life flight.

$prayer responds from Pennsylvania: Our comrades here in the PADOC would rather be focused on going at each other and being on the C.O.’s side and doing a bunch of nonsense, it’s sad. Our comrades aren’t even focused on their own lives like they should be instead of worrying what others are doing. They oppress their other comrades like they’re the oppressor, like they’re not oppressed by the oppressors too. The oppressing comrades do what the oppressors want them to do so they take the heat off of their own backs and put it on their own comrades’ backs. Like I really can’t believe all of the OPPRESSION between comrades, it’s really sad. Like the oppressing comrades call us (who stand against the criminals of permission “cops”) rats, but look at what they’re doing, they’re doing the oppressors’ bidding. So who’s the real rat? They are, aren’t they, since they’re doing the oppressors’ bidding right? They really need to ask themselves who’s the rat. We’re supposed to stand up to our oppressors, not stand with them against our own comrades. Am I right or am I wrong?

MIM(Prisons) adds: We also published a report in February from a Tennessee prisoner being extorted by a drug gang that was protected by staff. Ali-al haf’s article really struck a cord with our readers, indicating the state of affairs across the prisons systems on occupied Turtle Island. This relates to our campaign: Stop Snitching, Stop Collaborating, where comrades have repeatedly pointed out that you can’t snitch on pigs. These prisoners described above are collaborating with the enemy.

But lumpen orgs working with the imperialists is not a forgone conclusion. We know this because there are plenty examples in history of lumpen orgs working on the side of anti-imperialism, especially in the internal colonies of the United $tates. We also know this because, as Trauma points out, there is a common material interest in the lumpen coming together for conditions and for respect. And as $prayer says, most prisoners should be comrades on the same side. We can make that happen through education and organization. We must build institutions that serve the interests of the lumpen better than the state does, to win over the masses.

MIM(Prisons) regularly publishes articles speaking on the reprehensible conditions in U.$. prisons. Why do oppressed nationalities suffer these life conditions disproportionately, and what is the solution?

The United $tates has been the largest economy in the world for some time. How is that possible? It is made possible because the United $tates reaps this profit out of the Third World. Many people know this subconsciously, but do not put all the pieces together. There is a common joke about Asian children making smartphones, but we do not question why this is the case. It is the case because it is profitable for the United $tates, because the company makes more profit when they pay lower wages, then these commodities are brought to the United $tates and sold for cheap, and everyone here benefits. The company makes a profit and the Amerikans get cheap goods. That much is clear from a cursory look, and proved by the recent literature on “unequal exchange.”

It is obvious why the Third World is placed into poverty by this system, but why the oppressed nationalities within the United $tates? Historically, the internal semi-colonies were sources of wealth as well, but today it is a question of distributing that wealth from the Third World. The Amerikan nation recognizes, consciously or unconsciously, that they have an interest in keeping their plunder to themselves. For that reason, Black and Brown people are excluded from employment, education, housing, and all the benefits of Amerikan empire. Racism, therefore, is the way that Amerikans assert their economic interest in keeping others from getting a hold of their money.

The movement against racism stems mostly from the desire of the oppressed nationalities to integrate into the empire; the desire here is for an empire free of national bigotry, wherein the currently oppressed nations have equal access to the wealth which is pulled out of the Third World, the globally oppressed nations. Anyone with two eyes, however, can see that this struggle has been raging for decades without an end in sight. The oppressed nationalities within the United $tates cannot leave behind the Third World on the low chance that they may succeed in becoming one with the beast; they must ally with the Third World in the struggle against imperialism. Only by overthrowing this system of class and national divisions can the oppressed within this country live to see a day where oppression in general is dying out, and prisons in particular become based on rehabilitation instead of “punishment,” and where people are not restricted from life opportunities in the interest of protecting the wealth of the privileged nation.

Does anyone today believe that true integration, true “equality” between nationalities in this country is possible through the ballot or any other means? The response to this question will be “if not, what hope is there?” The choice seems to be between the gradual struggle for equality on the one hand or nothing on the other, since the only method of achieving liberation without reform is revolution, and most cannot imagine the oppressed nations in this country winning any real fight against the empire. But why are we imagining this fight as only between these two competitors? The oppressed nations within the United $tates are only one component part of the oppressed nations of the whole world. The struggle for the revolutionary overthrow of imperialism is a global one, uniting all who can be united. Yes, none of the oppressed nations in this country can liberate themselves: neither the Black nation, nor the indigenous nations, nor the Chicano nation. But the struggle of all these nations, by themselves too weak to overthrow imperialism, together form a mass which vastly outweighs the strength of the United $tates, and this is where our strength lies. This is where our strategic confidence in success comes from. Through the international struggle imperialism will overextend itself, and it will open inroads for success in national liberation struggles. These successes will weaken imperialism further, eventually setting the scene for the truly anti-imperialist force, the socialist working class, to make its appearance.

MIM(Prisons) adds: We’ve published a paper by the Dawnland Group discussing the organizations that were behind the now defunct magazine Kites. As summarized in that essay, these organizations reject the labor aristocracy thesis and the importance of national liberation struggles (see What is MIM(Prisons)? for more on our positions).

In addition, this month we are publishing on our website the final version of our paper, “Why the International Communist Movement (ICM) Must Break with the Legacy of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM).” This paper is a critique of the RCP-U$A, and the RIM that it helped lead, on the grounds that they put First Worldist and revisionist ideology at the forefront of the ICM. This paper was inspired in part by the work of the OCR and the ideas and papers (by Bob Avakian) that they promote. Part 2 of this review by ROA addresses the section of Kites #8 on the RCP-U$A.]

In this piece put out by the Organization of Communist Revolutionaries (OCR) they attempt to shed light on two organizations – the Communist Party-USA (CP) and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA (RCP-USA). This paper further delves into the 1960’s and the communist movement in general, particularly within these false U.$. borders.

As the writers point out little has been written about the RCP-USA so not much is known for the newer generation of revolutionaries. Some of the members of our organization however have experience with the RCP-USA and have debated and struggled with them for a couple of decades over their neo-colonial line toward Aztlán to no avail. Their failure to recognize the existence of the Chican@ Nation has led us to label them as a revisionist party to say the least. So this paper was welcoming and a way for our comrades to sum up this relic of a distorted past called the RCP-USA.

The writers list the Socialist Party of America (SP) and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as the forerunners to communist organization in the United $tates. It should also be noted that white supremacy and language barriers hindered the recruitment of Chican@s, or other raza, into these organizations. It is interesting that 100 years later white supremacy continues to affect the line of many multi-national organizations like the IWW, especially when they attempt to put our national interests on the back burner while accusing us of wanting to put our nation first. It is not that we simply want to put the national struggle to the forefront for some subjective reward, we do so as revolutionary nationalists because we have determined that the principle contradiction is between the oppressed nations and the oppressor nation. A people cannot be free to determine their future if they are suffering from oppression.

As noted in this paper, the early days of the communist movement in the United $tates had a proletariat that was “substantially immigrant”, today we see the same with the proletariat being mainly migrant workers, particularly those from Mexico. This seems to make the vanguard’s job easier organizationally. Back then there was a proletariat of various migrants from various countries, including many from Europe, so a communist vanguard role would have been to create agit/prop material in these various languages in an attempt to raise consciousness in these populations. We see the Chican@ nations role as key in today’s environment where the proletariat is largely Mexican@ and from Central and South America making Aztlán’s job of uniting the Brown exploited workers under the Chican@ leadership much easier than any other national organization. The trail of liberation on these shores is Brown.

At one point the issue of Black oppression was addressed in this paper, noting that the communist movement of this time essentially dropped the ball and:

“Subjectively, the failure of US communists to prioritize making an analysis of the Black national question – the oppression of Black People and how that oppression can be ended through communist revolution and begin making political interventions in struggles over the oppression of Black people was a serious, strategic blunder that only compounded the objective problem.”(1)

Another “strategic blunder” of the time was in not prioritizing an analysis of Chican@ national oppression – not only back in the early 1900’s but the continued blundering of today when many political organizations within these false U.$. borders continue to ignore the very essential Chican@ struggle in their analysis. This also highlights the continued necessity of single-nation building for Aztlán. After all if the Chicano nation does not organize for the liberation of Aztlán who will?

The early 1900’s was prime time for the Chican@ nation in terms of rebellion, it was just about 50 years since colonization at the hands of U.$. imperialism but it was also a time of the Plan de San Diego. As our Chicano Red Book put it:

“During the first decade of the 1900’s a group of unidentified Mexican@s or Chican@s put out a document calling for armed resistance by Chican@s. The Plan de San Diego called for Armed Struggle against Amerika and proclaimed that upon victory the”South West United States” would become a Chican@ state, New Afrikans would form their own state and First Nations their own state. This was the first united front of the oppressed nations on these shores that sought independence for all oppressed nations upon victory: the Plan demonstrated true internationalism.”(2)

So although Chican@s have been resisting and organizing for independence even before U.$. communists began to organize in the SP, IWW, CP or Communist Labor Party (CLP), none of these so-called revolutionary orgs developed an analysis on raza or our colonization during the early 20th century. The RCP-USA still has not supported Chican@ independence. Marxism taught us historical materialism which we use to learn from hystory. Hystory has taught us that anytime we have lifted the boot of the white oppressor nation off our necks it has been by Chicanos coming together and struggling. Whether it was against white terror that las Goras Blancas (the white caps) fought or against Amerikkka which compelled the Plan de San Diego to develop, we have, as a people, always struggled against national oppression from the factories to the field. The most significant labor strike in U.$. hystory, which was a Chican@ strike but which white labor has hijacked and renamed “The Ludlow Massacre”.

During the time that the SP, CP, IWW and CLP were committing the blunder on the Black nation, they likewise committed a great blunder on the Chican@ nation who was also struggling against national oppression. Because of this hystory we set out to create the Republic of Aztlán, the government in waiting for the Chican@ nation. The writers note the CP’s “foreign language workers clubs” and their role in organizing non-English speakers. Taking into account the almost non-existent analysis of the Chican@ struggle by the movement in U.$. borders, it highlights the need for Raza workers org’s and clubs to help organize and develop immigrants who suffer from exploitation.

This piece sums up the trials and tribulations of the CP. Their factionalism and devotion to the unions seemed to drown out the suffering of the internal semi-colonies of the time. The Comintern and, in particular, Stalin’s guidance, led the CP to finally give the Black nation and their struggles against national oppression some attention. Aztlán was ripe for development during this time when white labor denied Chican@s as well as many other oppressed at the time.

An interesting mention in this piece was on the development of a “guerilla military force.” In discussing the communist activities of the 1920’s the writers state:

“There is a question of whether Communists could have developed some type of guerrilla military force to supplement the mass labor struggles that erupted and to contend with the repression by way of organized armed defense of strikers where appropriate (some of that happened spontaneously) and selective assassinations of agents of repression!!” (3)

Although we do not promote People’s War today, the fact remains that a vanguard’s role is to be prepared to defend the people, especially when the capitalist state unleashes the most vile forms of repression. One has to be prepared for the inevitable, this includes the understanding that a strike force is a very necessary vehicle for defense of an oppressed peoples. No nation will ever acquire liberation without such a mechanism in place. Cadre should grasp this, teach this and prepare for the time when such a force is necessary. Fanon was clear in that colonial violence can only be overcome by a greater violence, the oppressor nation understands no other language. At the same time, the cadre should accept that such a dialogue is a great sacrifice of the highest form. Indeed, we cannot study revolution without studying what such warfare would deliver society to such a transformation. The Black Liberation Army sliced to the heart of it when they said:

“Bombings, kidnappings, sniping, revolutionary executions, surprise raids, bank robbery: all of these are rightfully weapons of urban guerrilla warfare. As we use them we must take care to maintain high principles and keep in mind that power to the people is more than just”campaign rhetoric”.” (4)

Although campaign rhetoric may be leading much of the public discourse, a realistic view of national liberation leads us to develop plans of attack and self defense even if the plans do not become operational until after our demise. The future of any socialist revolution demands this.

Subjectively, the part of this writing that hit the hardest to those of us who organize within the U.$. concentration kamps was the portion describing the story of the young womyn named Marian Morna, the 18 year old member of the CP’s Young Communist League who describes integrating with the masses to organize strikes in the fields of California’s Imperial Valley. Her description was incredibly moving, in her words:

“The years with the fruit pickers became a world within the world, a microcosm of feelings that never left me, not even when I left them. I lived with the pickers, ate, slept, and got drunk with them. I helped bury their men and deliver their babies. We laughed, cried, and talked endlessly into the night together. And, slowly, some extraordinary interchange began to take place between us. I taught them how to read, and they taught me how to think. I taught them how to organize, and they taught me how to lead. I saw things happening to people I’d never seen before. I saw them becoming as they never dreamed they could become. Day by day people were developing, transforming, communicating inarticulate dreams, discovering a force of being in themselves. Desires, skills, capacities they didn’t know they had blossomed under the pressure of active struggle. And the sweetness, the generosity, the pure comradeship that came flowing out of them as they began to feel themselves! They were—there’s no other word for it—noble. Powerful in struggle, no longer sluggish with depression, they became inventive, alive, democratic, filled with an instinctive sense of responsibility for each other. And we were all like that, all of us, the spirit touched all of us. It was my dream of socialism come to life. I saw then what I could be like, what people could always be like, how good the earth and all things upon it could be, how sweet to be alive and to feel yourself in everyone else.”

If one were to replace the words “fruit pickers” with “lumpen” or “prisoners” it would be spot on to an organizer’s experiences in the concentration kamps. I feel it. The connections that develop with the masses in any environment cannot be manufactured insincerely. Oppressed people, wherever they may be struggling against an oppressor, at some point develop relations that give us a glimmer of what social interaction and struggle will feel like as society transforms to a higher level, we taste it and this sampler compels us forward for more.

Another glimmer of hope we learn about in this piece was in the lesson of the Yokinen Show trial in 1931. August Yokinen was a member of the CP who refused to allow Black folks to enter the Finnish Workers Club in Harlem and went on to say their place was in Black Harlem. The reaction to this was the CP having a show trial charging Yokinen with white chauvinism. It was public and even got coverage in the bourgeois press with The New York Times putting it on the front page. The trial provided good agit prop for the masses and highlighted the inability of the capitalist state to address white supremacy and hold white chauvinism accountable and the CP did. This educated the masses and put Amerika on blast. This reminded me of our org’s action around a gun buy-back program by the pigs. We had a comrade announce on the radio live that there was going to be a gun buy back, where the pigs can turn in the stolen “hot” guns they had in their trunks that they regularly planted on people. We announced they can remain anonymous and that we will not ask for a badge number. Our goal was simply to keep our streets safe from pig terror. We did this to raise consciousness and, although in our case we did not get coverage in the bourgeois press, we addressed a real form of repression in a very audacious way which, to our knowledge, had not been previously done.

Raising consciousness is our job as communists however because of the brainwashing that the state does on a mass scale we have to be bold, creative and audacious in our efforts, all without crossing the line where the state has ammunition to lock us up. In the end sometimes they’ll make shit up and lock us up anyways. The Republic of Aztlán has taken up its responsibility to serve the people by all means necessary and we overstand the dangers that come with this role!

This piece has many lessons within it, too many to address in our writing here. The case of the Scottsboro boys is worth a mention though. It was of course a sad case of injustice and imprisonment but the lesson was definitely on how communists of the time responded and struggled with bourgeois liberals on which way that struggle developed. This struggle reminded me in a small way to the prisoner hunger strike of 2011/2013 in Califas and how a variety of orgs entered the arena of coalition.

It is always a struggle to at once unite with the masses in struggle while resisting the pull towards reformism which often engulfs mass struggles. This first part of our review framed the CP and its good and bad characteristics that we can learn from today. Soviet revisionism ultimately sank the CP ship. Despite all of its efforts, it continues to be anchored in the graveyard of bourgeois elections today. This first part of the review was successful in “burying” the CP for our organization.

<sup>Notes:
1. “The CP, the Sixties, the RCP and the Crying Need for a Communist Vanguard Party today: Summing up a century of Communist leadership , organization, strategy and practice in the United States so that we can rise to the challenges before us.” By Organization of Communist Revolutionaries
2. Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán by a MIM Prisons Study Group, 2nd Edition 2021, Aztlán Press, Page 40.
3. Organization of Communist Revolutionaries IBID.
4. Collected Works of the Black Liberation Army, Rookery Press, Page 92.</sup>

Organizations in Occupied Turtle Island organizing under the label of Palestine solidarity take various tactics and ideological positions. A great portion of these efforts are negative, representing leftist organization-building and guilt-soothing for populations who benefit from imperialism.(1)

Still, there is much to be appreciated in Palestine solidarity organizing. The fact that as a class, U.$. workers are wedded to imperialism as a labor aristocracy(2) does not mean that select individuals and segments of the same class, such as youth, immigrants and members of oppressed nations, don’t have a righteous impulse to rebel against genocide.(3) Further, drawing the line between practicing manufactured discontent to gain social capital (for example, peaceful, permitted and policed “solidarity” marches, or gathering social media clout) versus genuine rebellion (involving significant self-sacrifice) can be a difficult strategic question and a complicated moral matter. It’s the job of communists to answer these questions, drawing those who can be allied in a united front under the leadership of the global proletariat.

In the United $tates, only small percentages of the country ever will protest for progressive causes, and usually only a few thousand people are liable to turn up at anti-imperialist protests, if we’re lucky. But even this small size of protest crowds can be confusing. We see large events put on in the name of helping Palestine and, ignoring the lack of ideological unity required for such crowds, perceive that there is a strong movement against genocide here. To move how? Against which genocide? You’ll find that the larger the event, the less likely it is for such questions to be answered.

Let’s examine one specific way this numbers game is lost among the U.$. left. A very common protest narrative goes something like this: X city/institution is partnering with Israel. That partnership uses funds which could otherwise be spent “on our community” (healthcare, jobs, public resources). Therefore, we must divest from Israel and invest back into “our community”. The messaging behind agitational work tells the organizers, audience and onlookers at protests the purpose and goals of the work: they represent the ideology pushing our practice forwards. Here, this oft-repeated messaging about divestment explains that everyone should join the cause to reclaim what is theirs from an immoral misappropriation.

This narrative about redirecting resources away from genocide and towards “community” can be found in endless settler-left slogans such as “build more schools, not bombs!” or “money for jobs and education, not for war and occupation!” All such ideas revolve around the mythos of the Amerikan “community”: a fictitious multi-national concept in which, abstracted from the violence at the base of the Amerikan colony and the national conflicts therein, we can imagine harmonious and communal ways of life involving sharing our resources. This imagination goes back to the root of settler consciousness in Occupied Turtle Island which imagines a “Thanksgiving” where the colonists shared food with the First Nations rather than poisoning, raping and murdering them by the millions.

An almost identical narrative is wielded by referencing the “tax dollars” spent on Palestine-solidarity campaigns’ targets, begging Amerikans to rise up against a supposed misuse of money which is otherwise rightfully owed to them. This relies on the same conceptual basis as a “community.” If we believe this narrative then absent specific policy mistakes (such as funding Israel) there would exist the basis for peaceful redistribution of the spoils of genocide and imperialism, and this would be a righteous redistribution. At the base of these common yet mistaken ideas are 1) a genuine impulse towards fascism by U.$. citizens who wish to become even more wealthy compared to the Third World, and 2) ignorance regarding the source of global wealth disparity to begin with.

We cannot resolve #1, the fascist impulse among a majority here, without overturning imperialism and settler-colonialism entirely. To address #2 however, we can study how “communities” in Occupied Turtle Island are literally built and sustained off of genocide, slavery and imperialism, especially regarding the “average jo.” There are two main groups in the United $tates: the settlers and the oppressed nations. Euro-Amerikan settlers have been a consistently reactionary group for the past five centuries as their life here is founded on slavery and land theft.(4) They are the numeric majority of the U.$. population and have consistently subjected the First Nations, New Afrika and the Chican@ nation with oppressive, genocidal campaigns.(5)

These oppressed nations on the other hand vacillate between progressive and regressive tendencies depending on proximity to the spoils of imperialism. Independence movements among oppressed nations represent a progressive impulse wishing to sever connections with U.$. imperialism, whereas participation in DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) initiatives, reforming political parties and redistributing wealth to the oppressed nations represent an integrationist trend which serves to either enlarge the (petty-)bourgeoisie of these nations at the expense of their oppressed masses or incorporate swaths of the nation into the capitalist-imperialist world system.(6) Overall there are substantial parts of oppressed nations here who still face genocide while other portions steadily receive a bit more of the imperial pie.

To the extent that anyone here enjoys it, the First World lifestyle includes housing, food, medicine, transportation and extensive leisure-time bought from the blood of indigenous peoples and manipulation of global labor prices which under-pay workers in the Third World and deprives them of basic necessities.(7) An over-accumulation of profits in the United $tates has led to excess money supply and higher domestic wages: the surplus available to create a complacent consumer base beyond the settlers alone.(8) This is why wages here are approximately 10x normal wages in Palestine. Thus while some U.$. workers suffer under national oppression, they are almost all economic oppressors of the Third World.(9)

So if we convince the majority here that they are actually impoverished through imperialism, or would be enriched through its end, we are misrepresenting the facts and tarnishing the cause of Palestinian liberation. When imperialism inevitably falls, internationalist forces in the imperial core will probably be encircled by fascism: citizens here attempting to cling to lifestyles and social roles which can no longer exist, led by whichever elements of the bourgeoisie can rally them around new extractive outlets to replace old imperialism. The faster we can pull away from self-interested economic thinking here, the faster we will eventually construct socialism. The more here who search for their own best interest through the fall of imperialism, the longer such a task will take.

United front work in the imperial core on behalf of the global proletariat will involve grappling deeply with the labor aristocracy and the settler nation. We must investigate this majority’s interests as they unfold in street protests, unions, universities and even prisons. We shouldn’t reject them wholesale: we should condemn their economic gluttony while simultaneously uniting those who will commit to fighting on the behalf of the international proletariat. We must educate each and every Amerikan who will listen about how their wealth comes from genocide and how their lives will change when imperialism finally falls.

Having rejected the fantasy of an abstract, multi-national Amerikan “community,” we could instead support the many progressive causes belonging to the oppressed nations here who have suffered under genocide like Palestine. But such campaigns must be specific in their slogans and selection of organizing base, as well as how to relate to those with varying proximity to imperialism. Connecting progressive campaigns such as those against police brutality, which predominantly affects oppressed nations, to Palestinian sovereignty is a righteous cause. Trying to connect Palestine to the reactionary dissatisfaction of everyday Amerikan workers, especially settlers, is a recipe for fascism and genocide.

<sup>Notes:
1. A Million Tiny Fleas “The Anti-War Movement that Wasn’t” Substack, Jun 13 2023.
2. Cope, Zak “Divided World Divided Class” Kersplebedeb 2012, pg. 9.
3. The Dawnland Group, “A Polemic against Settler Maoism”, MIM (Prisons) website, June 2024.
4. Sakai, J. “Settlers: The mythology of the White proletariat from mayflower to modern.”(2014). Kersplebedeb.
5. Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons, “Proletarian Feminist Revolutionary Nationalism” June 2017, pgs 96 – 108.
6. Labor unions from oppressed nations integrating with settler and imperialist labor unions is an important historic evidence of this trend. See: Sakai, J. “Settlers: The mythology of the White proletariat from mayflower to modern.”(2014). Kersplebedeb, pgs 152 – 174.
7. Jason Hickel, Christian Dorninger, Hanspeter Wieland, Intan Suwandi, “Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990–2015,” Global Environmental Change, Volume 73, 2022.
8. Cope, Zak “Divided World Divided Class” Kersplebedeb 2012, pg 200.
9. Undocumented migrants, prisoners, homeless people, and the chronically unemployed lumpenproletariat are generally not economic oppressors.</sup>

Let The Memory of Marcellus Khaliifah Williams, A New Afrikan Poet and Revolutionary, Reaffirm Our Commitment to the Struggle

Marcellus Williams, also known as Khaliifah ibn Rayford Daniel, was murdered by the amerikkkan state on 24 September 2024. He was a proud Muslim New Afrikan, a poet, an advocate for Palestinian children, and a prison imam at Potosi Correctional Center. Despite a vast quantity of evidence showing that Williams did not commit the crime of which he was convicted -

“Williams was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery and burglary in 2001 for the 1998 killing of Felicia “Lisha” Gayle, a 42-year-old reporter stabbed 43 times in her home. His conviction relied on two witnesses who later said they were paid for their testimony, according to the Midwest Innocence Project, and 2016 DNA testing conducted on the murder weapon “definitively excluded” Williams.”

The state nevertheless passed the decision, with the approval of the Supreme Court, to murder him in cold blood.

Williams was convicted in 2001, by a jury consisting of 11 white men and one New Afrikan. According to Al Jazeera, a New Afrikan juror was improperly dismissed from the jury, with the justification that they would not be objective.

Prosecutor Keith Larner said that he had excluded a potential Black juror because of how similar they were, saying “They looked like they were brothers.”

In a country that supposedly grants everyone the right to a “trial by their peers”, the fact that a New Afrikan on trial for the murder of a white woman was not allowed a jury of his peers – of New Afrikans – makes it clear that amerikkka cannot be “reformed” into “accepting” the New Afrikan nation, no matter how much surface-level anti-racist rhetoric is in the media nor how many bourgeois New Afrikans are elected to positions of power. For skewing Williams’s jury towards white men the judge would owe blood debts to the oppressed nations and the proletariat far greater than any average criminal under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ey was right about one thing – a jury of New Afrikans, of Williams’s peers, would have been more likely than a jury of white men to consider his innocence. That is why more than half of the people with death sentences in the United $tates are Black or Latin@ according to the Prison Policy Initiative.

Williams’s conviction, for the murder of a white woman, shines clarity on why it is necessary to have a proper analysis of the gender hierarchy in the First World. The trope of a New Afrikan man murdering or “raping” a white woman has been used to stir up the most vile representations of national oppression ever since New Afrikans were imported as a permanent underclass and oppressed nation, from Emmett Till to Marcellus Williams. The rapidity at which the criminal injustice system will commit atrocities against New Afrikans accused of violence against white women makes it clear that the question of “gender oppression” is far more tied up in national and class oppression than pseudo-feminists would have one believe. Since time immemorial, the oppressor-nation men and women both have been spurred into action by the suggestion of a New Afrikan acting violently towards a white woman; Williams’s case is no different.

“From 1930 to 1985, the white courts not only executed Black murder and rape convicts at a rate several times that of white murder and rape convicts, it executed more Black people than white people in total.”(2)

Hours before ey was executed, the Supreme Court reviewed Williams’s case, and denied the request to halt or delay his execution. This is despite millions of signatures on a petition, and a great deal of social media activism around the case. The righteous anger of millions was not enough to save Williams’s life. True radicals, not reformists nor revisionists, need to look past the idea of incremental reforms, of politely asking the amerikkkan state to consider the humanities of those it has deemed worthless. If the time and energy that had been put into the (nevertheless righteous) cause of petitioning for Marcellus Williams had been put into studying, organizing, and building towards a movement of New Afrikan liberation, or towards an overturn of the amerikkkan empire and its justice system, not only would Williams’s life have likely been saved (as he would have been granted a true trial by his peers), but the lives of many others convicted (wrongfully or not) of crimes that pale in comparison to the crimes against humanity committed by the First World bourgeoisie and its lackeys would have been saved as well. Any justice for Williams can only be attained when we feed this righteous outrage into such systematic solutions.

Many of the narratives from supporters surrounding his death would have the reader believe that the only reason he was undeserving of death was his lack of culpability. Undoubtedly, the murder of an innocent man is something that will tug at the heartstrings of many, and can be used as an agitational opportunity. But as communists, we recognize that the use of the death penalty by the bourgeois state, and especially a jury of euro-amerikans deciding the fate of a New Afrikan, is always murder. So too are the deaths of New Afrikans at the hands of the police; so too are the deaths of the Third World proletariat by starvation, natural disaster, or oppression by paramilitaries serving as U.$. attack-dogs. Whether or not Williams was guilty of his crime, whether or not the hundreds of others on death row are innocent, the system will never prosecute those who uphold the world order that leads the oppressed into a life of crime, will never order the lethal injection of those with the blood of millions of oppressed-nation proletarians on their hands.

Williams was a devout Muslim and served as an imam for those in prison. The topic of religion has been covered many times before in Under Lock and Key, but this case serves as an example of how religion serves as a liberatory force for many in prison – helping them to transform themselves, and to find allies among all those fighting against amerikkka and the capitalist system throughout the First and the Third World alike. Williams’s last words were “All praise be to Allah in every situation!!!”; the author sees this as an example of why, rather than condemning religion as some pseudo-“Maoists” and chauvinists will do, we recognize religion to be, as Marx explained, the sigh of the oppressed people. Islam brought Williams a sense of comfort and cosmic justice as he headed to his death, without keeping him from organizing and speaking out against the moribund and oppressive priSSon sySStem.

Let Marcellus Williams’s death remind all of us that this country’s injustice system doesn’t care how much people protest, or petition. Ultimately, polite pleas to higher authority will go ignored. The only thing that will keep such high-profile injustices like this, as well as the more covert violence against New Afrikans and other oppressed nations, from happening again, is freedom from the amerikkkan state, won through struggle and revolution. And we must remember, unlike so many of the liberal activists who took up this cause, that we fight for Marcellus not only because the evidence shows he has a higher chance of being innocent than most people on death row, but because the oppressive and racist amerikkkan empire should not have the right to decide whether a single New Afrikan lives or dies.

Williams’s poetry is a beautiful and striking example of proletarian-internationalist art, in how it captures the revolutionary consciousness of New Afrikans in the United $tates, and in how it draws the link between New Afrika and Palestine.

^Note: 1. Elizabeth Melimopoulos, 25 September 2024, Why was Marcellus Williams executed? What to know about the Missouri case, Al Jazeera.
2. see MIM Theory 2/3:Gender and Revolutionary Feminism for more on the intersections of nation and gender*^

28 September 2024 – Protestors gathered across the world to mourn the killing of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, a founding member and leader for 32 years of Hezbollah (the Party of God) in Lebanon.(1) We know some readers in U.$. prisons will be mourning as well. Nasrallah was the strongest anti-imperialist voice among world leaders for a generation. And the recent killings of Lebanese and Palestinian political leaders have been significant victories for I$rael, at least in the short-term.

Over 1,000 people have been killed, including Hezbollah’s top leaders, and 6,000 injured by a series of attacks by I$rael on Lebanon in the last couple weeks. These included exploding pagers and walkie-talkies, as well as massive bombing strikes. Amidst these attacks, the Communist Party of Lebanon has called for national unity to focus on fighting I$rael, at a time when Lebanon faces its own crisis in government. They pledged to not let I$rael (and the United $tates, we’d add) separate the struggle of Lebanon in support of the Palestinian struggle.(2)

Hezbollah, however, has been the lead party defending Lebanon and Palestinians from I$rael for decades. They have proven there is still a progressive role for bourgeois forces to play today, even in our highly-developed imperialist world.

Nasrallah had a clear analysis of U.$. imperialism:

“America itself is the decision maker. In America, you have the major corporations; you have a trinity of the oil corporations, the weapons manufacturers and the so-called ‘Christian Zionism.’ The decision making is in the hands of this alliance. ‘Israel’ used to be a tool in the hands of the British, and now it is a tool in the hands of America.”

The Samidoun Palestinian prisoner solidarity network commented on Hezbollah’s role in the liberation of political prisoners of I$rael:

“Sayyed Nasrallah’s leadership and struggle was also directly connected to the prisoners’ movement and the liberation of the prisoners of the Zionist regime. From the liberation of Khiam prison by the victorious Lebanese resistance in 2000, liberating the torture dens of the occupiers and their collaborators and turning it into a museum of honour for those who struggled and sacrificed there, to the repeated prisoner exchanges achieved by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Resistance, including the 2004 prisoner exchange, which liberated 400 Palestinian prisoners as well as 23 Lebanese, five Syrians, three Moroccans, three Sudanese, one Libyan and one German-British prisoner jailed by the Zionist regime. These exchanges, in which Sayyed Nasrallah himself played a major role, illustrated once again that the only viable mechanism available to liberate the prisoners in occupation jails is to liberate the land and to achieve an exchange.”(3)

Hezbollah arose from the 1982 I$raeli occupation of Beirut. MIM founders organized to oppose that 1982 occupation at a time when MIM was just emerging.(4) The war in 1982 also forged the Joint Leadership, in which the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine joined forces and attempted to further unite the Palestinian liberation movement away from conciliation.(5) During the 2006 war between Lebanon and I$rael, MIM condemned RCP=U$A, various alt media, and the U.$. state department for attacking Iran and Hezbollah using gender.(6) In 2024, the imperialists are circulating clips of Nasrallah making comments calling for punishment for adultery and homosexuality. We salute the “Queers for Palestine” in the United $tates who recognize the children being bombed in Gaza and now Lebanon are a lot more gender oppressed than any of us are here in the belly of the beast.

The history of the anti-imperialist united front in the region is beyond the scope of this article. But the region has certainly demonstrated the expediency of uniting classes on the basis of national liberation to fight imperialist occupiers. Hezbollah has remarked in the past that their alliances are closer to some Marxist groups than certain Islamist groups. This shows the emptiness of those in the imperialist countries who want to pit Marxism against Islam on principle. Nasrallah also wrote that Muslims have the duty to provide charity support to any Palestinian taking up armed struggle – Marxist, nationalist or any other shade.(7)

A Hamas spokespersyn responded to the death of Nasrallah saying that it will not make I$rael any safer:

“Is Israel’s problem with armed groups with limited agendas that can be eliminated by killing their leaders, or with peoples who have rights that they have been striving to achieve for decades and have not stopped or surrendered despite the killing of many leaders? Has any resistance group disappeared after the assassination of the leaders?”(8)

Despite these recent losses by the oppressed nations in the Middle East, Hezbollah won the war with I$rael in 2006, killing as many soldiers as I$rael did without all the civilian deaths caused by I$rael in Lebanon. Just as the war on Gaza, one year out, has not been an easy victory for I$rael, further escalations into Lebanon will certainly not be either. Hezbollah and Ansar Allah (Supporters of God) in Yemen continue to be the front line of the struggle against genocide in Palestine and against U.$. imperialism in general.

You can kill a revolutionary, but you can’t kill the revolution!

<sup>Notes:
1. The New York Times, 28 September 2024, Protestors Mourn Nasrallah’s Death Around the World.
2. Omar Deeb, 25 September 2024, Transcript of interview on SSawt al-Shaab Radio.
3. Samidoun, 28 September 2024, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: The martyrdom of a great international revolutionary leader of our era.
4. MIM, 2007, Substantial Hezbollah book appears finally.
5. Interview of Habash and Hawatmeh on the Joint Leadership and PLO (Draft Translation)
6. MIM, 2006, Six percent of Amerikans support Hezbollah’s side in Lebanon
7. Nicholas Noe ed., 2007, Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, London: Verso, p. 269
8. Tom O’Connor, 27 September 2024, Hamas Warns Killing Hezbollah’s Nasrallah Will Not Make Israel Safer, Newsweek.</sup>

The New Communist Party of Canada [(N)CPC] was formed by the Kanadian communist group Revolutionary Initiative (RI) in early 2024. The RI announced the (N)CPC through the journal Kites which it co-publishes alongside the Organization of Communist Revolutionaries (OCR), a communist group in the United States.

In February 2024 the OCR Issued a “red salute” to the (N)CPC containing mostly praise. In May 2024, the journal Kites disbanded, explained with reference to the unique circumstances in Kanada vs. Amerika as well as unspecified ideological disagreements between the two organizations.

While unity between the (N)CPC and the OCR may have appeared unprincipled based upon the latter’s criticism of the former, this polemic argues that they shared a rejection of two crucial political lines: the labor aristocracy thesis and the significance of national liberation struggles. To support these claims, first the Dawnland Group examines the (N)CPC’s political program followed by the OCR’s response, each published in Kites.

(N)CPC says natives should ally with settlers

It is difficult to separate the influence of Trotskyism from its settler-colonial baggage and the (N)CPC demonstrates this truth well. The Political Program of the New Communist Party of Canada opens with the (N)CPC’s two “innately linked” objectives: “a) establish working class rule in the economic and political spheres of Canada; and b) Usher in a new, non-colonial, equal and fraternal type of relations between all nations which today remain forcefully and unequally united within the Canadian state.”(1)

Alone, the second objective is agreeable. But the (N)CPC clarifies how these two goals are interlinked, writing that neither “is likely to be achieved in a lasting, meaningful way without the other. Working-class power without national liberation and national equality would have to be built on an illegitimate, coercive basis. National liberation without working-class power would mean a mere reform of Canadian law, or else create powerless statelets that would fall prey to any of the multiple imperialist powers contending for domination and survival in the world today.”

Despite claiming that equality and national liberation are necessary for indigenous peoples, the (N)CPC supports this only conditionally, demanding “working class” power come first. Charitably interpreted, the (N)CPC can be read as considering the “proletariat” of indigenous nations to be an important aspect of the Kanadian “working class”. In any case, considering settlers proletariat as (N)CPC does, this would make the Kanadian “working class” overwhelmingly settler.

Support of indigenous sovereignty contingent upon prior proletarian revolution renders this support meaningless. Thus, when the (N)CPC claims that “the only conceivable way to resolve the separate legal status of Indigenous people without liquidating Indigenous nations as legal entities is collective rights under the banner of the full right to self-determination, up to and including secession” and the necessity of “upholding of the right to secede by popular referendum for all component republics of the Multinational Socialist Confederacy;” their conditions render these rights null until proletarian revolution.

National Liberation is a value as much as a strategy. All peoples have the right to autonomy and self-determination and these rights must be supported without regards to the opinions of settlers.

Beyond values there are strategic concerns. This “alliance” is directly risking the sustained colonization of indigenous groups by “socialist” settlers. The Israeli Kibbutz movement historically purchased lands form Arabic landlords, where they would evict Palestinian tenants in order to create “communes.” Despite Kibbutzniks being considered “left wing” and “socialist,” their settlements encircle the Gaza strip and they have been used to condemn the October 7 resistance operation (2), the newest stage of the Palestinian national liberation war. Here the Israeli “working class” has achieved power and constitutes the main foot-soldiers of genocide. Demanding working class power in exchange for indigenous sovereignty also neglects the inverse possibility that national liberation of colonies will be prerequisite for overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

As addressed in A Polemic Against Settler “Maoism”, settlers have an inherently reactionary class role.(3) While isolated settlers reject this role, the vast majority occupy indigenous lands, stealing their resources and cheap labor. The basis of settler-colonialism has never been a deceitful bourgeoisie but their transparent alliance with settlers: former-proletariat, offered petty-bourgeois class positions through the redistribution of land acquired through theft and genocide. The (N)CPC is wrong that the bourgeoisie is the only force standing in-between the settler-workers and decolonization, and that through “excluding the monopoly bourgeoisie from this process entirely,” Kanada can negotiate more just treaties with the First Nations. Settlers are not deceived by the capitalists against their better interest – a supposed alliance with the indigenous masses. Settlers assume such a class role because, with respect to the capitalist mode of production, it is their best interest.

Settlers are knowing, willful participants in genocide as part of a bargain with those capitalists in exchange for a petty-bourgeois class position.(4) This is their best material interest as a class permitted to escape proletarian existence through conquest. The bargain between settlers and their bourgeoisie is not conceived via ignorance or deception, it is the rational consequence of pursuing one’s material interest within class society: ascension up class and/or national hierarchy to positions of greater wealth and culpability in oppression. Settlers fill niches where the bourgeoisie wishes to expand private property and commodity production, dispose of surplus populations and compete with other imperial powers. In exchange for exterminating the original inhabitants, settlers are allowed free reign of the land and resources of the dead.

There may be a more subconscious belief involved in apologizing for settlers and manufacturing their innocence, namely that, although settlers are indeed rationally pursuing their material interests, this betrays their human interest to live in a world without exploitation, and that communists can win over the masses of settlers to this superior moral position.

As discussed in the Polemic Against Settler “Maoism”, there are important differences between classes and individuals. It is possible to successfully appeal to the morals and internationalist sentiments of certain individuals from each class and nation. This will vary wildly depending on the individual in question and their background. But at the macro-level, only oppressed nations and classes have the material interest in a world without oppression which has historically been wielded to make revolution. Settlers are oppressors. As Black Liberation Army soldier Assata Shakur famously says, “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” The (N)CPC suggests just that failed strategy.

While morals are required to undertake communist revolution, morals can never be abstracted from their class context. Settler morals, including the belief that settlers’ working conditions are more important than indigenous rights, were created with the rise of capitalism in Europe whose surplus proletarian population was offered overseas class roles similar to that of Auschwitz guards. The Nazis’ thirst for lebensraum, which slaughtered millions of Jews and Slavs during the holocaust, was directly copied from manifest destiny and the treatment of indigenous peoples on Occupied Turtle Island where between 10 and 15 million were murdered (5).

In their first few paragraphs of published writing the (N)CPC have downplayed the Kanadian “worker” role in ongoing genocide of First Nations, manufacturing a myth of innocent, deceived settlers. Further, they dictate the terms of national liberation to the indigenous communities of Canada in service of the more important “proletarian revolution.” This is settler “Marxism” and Trotskyism.

Trotskyists believe that third-world revolutions are doomed to failure without the aid of the more “advanced” proletariat of the western nations, that socialism is not possible within one country. The ideas are best summarized by the man himself, discussing how:

“A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.”(6)

Thus, even if a colonial or semi-colonial country managed to seize state power, it would fail if international “proletarian” revolution did not quickly follow. This was as true for Trotsky in the USSR as it later became for him in China, where he argued with extremely poor foresight that alliance with the Koumintang had defeated the revolution and that instead “permanent revolution” was necessary to liberate China.(7) To the Trotskyist, the proletariat of these nations is insufficiently numerically developed to lead a revolution. They forget the fact that no (western) European nation – those initially with the greatest industrial proletariat – has ever waged a successful struggle for state socialism, and the fact that third-world national liberation struggles have accomplished the most significant strategic advances towards communism in history. Finally, as covered below, most of the populations in core imperialist countries are labor aristocrats who hold petty-bourgeois class positions despite receiving wages: they won’t be leading revolution anytime soon.

Trotskyism is pervasive in Amerika and Kanada. Even without reference to Trotsky, without explicit statements of the inferiority of national liberation struggles, it is still perfectly possible for “Marxist-Lenninist” and “Maoist” groups to uphold Trotsky’s ideas through organizing settlers of an oppressor nation instead of organizing the oppressed.

As discussed in the Polemic against Settler-Maoism, settler “maoism” and Trotskyism share certain chronology with regards to national liberation, another characteristic of belief that proletarian revolution takes priority. The (N)CPC believes socialist revolution will precede national autonomy for indigenous peoples:

“The only way to cut the proverbial Gordian knot is for the Indigenous national struggle to link up with the proletarian struggle for socialism in overthrowing the extant Canadian State. Once it is overthrown, new agreements can be reached over the use of land, resources and their sharing between nations. True sovereignty can be enshrined in a new, multinational constitution. This sovereignty can ensure full, distinct national rights without the need for any”Indian status,” which would be replaced by full citizenship in a sovereign nation. Full independence can be achieved by those nations who want it and have the resources needed to sustain it.” (Bold ours)

There are no legitimate “agreements” between settlers and indigenous peoples, because the settlers have used genocide and theft to acquire their negotiating assets. This is why DLG advocates for the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations, which will enforce the will of the oppressed nations at the expense of the imperialist and settler nations, such as the Amerikan and Kanadian nation, a process involving extensive redistribution of land and resources as well as peoples’ tribunals for criminals against humanity. Finally, the notion that settlers can decide if indigenous nations “want” or are “ready” for independence, has been used by colonial powers for centuries to continue oppressing their subjects.

There is a related issue throughout the (N)CPC political program of advocating for a homogeneous Kanadian culture without the consent of the indigenous peoples. Deciding autonomously on such a path long after achieving independence and having received back all stolen land and resources, plus some for interest from the settlers, would be a consensual decision. Settlers should not be advocating for any such cultural assimilation today. The (N)CPC writes that:

“The monopoly bourgeoisie and its State willfully confuse the potential of Canada for its actual reality. Canada really could be a brand-new type of country, one where national sovereignty is not the preserve of a small parasitic class but is instead granted to the myriad national groups that give it its rich cultural mosaic. We really could all work together to preserve our respective cultures, develop our economy in sustainable ways which benefit all working people, embrace cultures and traditions originating from pre-colonial North America, from Europe and now from the entire world. We could collectively take everything that is old and make it into something new.” (Bold ours).

Settlers have no right to advocate for the creation of international cultures together with their colonial subjects. This reduces to an argument for cultural integration which, in Kanada and the United $tates, represents genocide through sterilization, kidnappings, residential schools, and murder by colonial militias and police. Whether or not they understand this, their language is overtly colonial, advocating for assimilation and continued unequal relationships between oppressed and oppressor nations. They need an explicit, unconditional recognition of indigenous sovereignty or they are no different than other settlers seeking to maintain unfair treaties with First Nations without reparations or sovereignty.

The Dawnland Group (DLG) writes this polemic because the (N)CPC’s understanding of indigenous sovereignty directly contradicts with DLG’s support for New Democracy in Occupied Turtle Island. In 1940 Mao argued that imperialism and feudalism prevented China from directly pursuing socialism. Rather, New Democracy was required first, a dictatorship of revolutionary classes over the country in order to liberate it from outside domination, so that socialism may be constructed thereafter:

“The first step or stage in our revolution is definitely not, and cannot be, the establishment of a capitalist society under the dictatorship of the Chinese bourgeoisie, but will result in the establishment of a new-democratic society under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes of China headed by the Chinese proletariat The revolution will then be carried forward to the second stage, in which a socialist society will be established in China.”

To liberate China, the Communist Party led a united front with the peasants, proletariat, petty-bourgeoisie and some national bourgeoisie who sided with the communists against Japan in the war for national liberation. Whereas in Europe, feudalism could be overthrown by the bourgeois-democratic revolution due to the bourgeoisie’s antagonism with the feudal mode of production, in colonies and oppressed nations, imperialism is inclined to promote feudalism from without and thus a broader united front is required. Despite the defeat of the Cultural Revolution and the capitalist road taken in 1976, the strategy of New Democracy liberated China from foreign domination.

Here Mao gives context as to how New Democracy applies to Chinese conditions:

“Being a bourgeoisie in a colonial and semi-colonial country and oppressed by imperialism, the Chinese national bourgeoisie retains a certain revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree… Since tsarist Russia was a military-feudal imperialism which carried on aggression against other countries, the Russian bourgeoisie was entirely lacking in revolutionary quality. There, the task of the proletariat was to oppose the bourgeoisie, not to unite with it. But China’s national bourgeoisie has a revolutionary quality at certain periods and to a certain degree, because China is a colonial and semi-colonial country which is a victim of aggression. Here, the task of the proletariat is to form a united front with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism and the bureaucrat and warlord governments without overlooking its revolutionary quality.”

DLG views the application of New Democracy in Occupied Turtle Island to mean that, in the oppressed nations, similarly to China, the bourgeoisie may be an importantly ally in the national liberation struggle. In the oppressor nations (Amerika, Kanada), not only is the bourgeoisie entirely counter-revolutionary but this is true of the petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy as well due to benefiting from and carrying out imperialism and settler-colonialism.

Most bourgeoisie and rich peasantry in China were less wealthy than the petty-bourgeoisie and much of the labor aristocracy today on Occupied Turtle Island. The petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy of oppressor nations in OTI have no great interest in being won over to a communist cause, because most face no national oppression and are bought-off from imperialist superprofits. Thus, DLG argues that the role of the Amerikan/Kanadian communist vanguard is to treat these classes as hostile and instead support the national liberation wars of the internal semi-colonies and oppressed nations.

By contrast, the (N)CPC writes of the Kanadian situation that “an Indigenous petty-bourgeoisie and intelligentsia have also been fostered by the State as part of its counter-revolutionary strategy. The revolutionary camp will have to cautiously navigate in building a class alliance that unites the broadest interests of the Indigenous peoples while isolating and struggling against these new reactionary classes.” While imperialism promotes neo-colonial sections of each oppressed nation’s ruling class who collaborate with the oppressor nation, the (N)CPC is confusing this small segment of the indigenous (petty) bourgeoisie with its entirety.

The (N)CPC argues the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie of the First Nations must be struggled against but the labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie of the settler nation are important allies to the revolution. This is a paradoxical reversal of New Democracy, in which it is inapplicable in the oppressed nations where it was designed and synthesized successfully, and yet it is applicable in the core imperialist countries where it has never been employed. Concluding on their views about national liberation, the (N)CPC recognizes:

“oppressed nations’ right to self-determination up to and including secession. But we do not content ourselves with this: we recognize that given the way Canada has been built, total separation between its various nations is likely to be counterproductive. Therefore, we intend to build a new form of political and economic unity, a multinational socialist confederacy whose component parts are not arbitrarily-drawn provinces, but really-existing peoples and nations…” (Bold ours)

They provide no explanation for why “separation between various nations is likely to be counterproductive,” although this is a convenient platitude for settlers who wish to have an input about when indigenous people are “ready” for independence, as the (N)CPC indicated above. It is historically illiterate of the complicity of settlers in genocide and naive in assuming somehow this time things will be different and the settler-majority will solve the very contradiction that their class exists because of.

The (N)CPC pitch must be confusing for First Nations, who have been systematically slaughtered, expelled and forced onto reservations for centuries not by capitalists but by settlers pursuing their material interests. By contrast, a vanguard among the settler nation would be formed through a revolutionary defeatist position, unequivocally bent towards the destruction of the settler class role through the repatriation of land, resources and sovereignty to First Nations via revolutionary national liberation war.

The small chance of a vanguard position emerging in Kanada and Amerika will be squandered so long as Trotskyism continues selling indigenous peoples the promise of new negotiations with the same settler class that has been occupying their lands and seeing their genocide through for centuries.

Making proletarians from labor aristocrats

The (N)CPC writes that,

“comprised of all those deprived of the means to produce and forced to sell their labour power to survive, the proletariat is the largest class in society, forming somewhere between 60 and 65% of the population.”

There are two crucial Trotskyist components involved in viewing Kanada as 60% proletarian. First is the view discussed above that settlers can occupy revolutionary class positions; that they can still be “workers”. Second is the view that labor aristocrats who are paid above the value of their wages through super-exploitation of the global south can be proletarian rather than petty-bourgeois. These ideas closely overlap because the labor aristocracy on Occupied Turtle Island is mostly settler and the settler nation (Amerika/Kanada) is overwhelmingly labor aristocratic, save for a tiny minority who fall into the lumpenproletariat including homeless and prisoners.

Throughout their political program, the (N)CPC rejects the labor aristocracy thesis. The (N)CPC views the three main contradictions in the world as

“(a) between the imperialists themselves, which means the struggle for the re-division of the world is always in motion, albeit to varying degrees; (b) between imperialist countries and oppressed countries, which means imperialist exploitation and oppression, and the struggle for self-determination and independent national development; and (c) between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in each country, which means class struggle and the potential for socialist revolution.”

Contradiction (b), an important mention, is suspect based on their treatment of oppressed-nation struggles within Kanada as shown above. Because of their use of the term “countries”, it is unclear if they believe this imperialist/oppressed dynamic plays out among the nations internal to settler-colonies. Contradiction (c) however is wholly incorrect as in Kanada and Amerika, the proletariat is numerically insignificant. The vast majority are allied to the bourgeoisie as settlers and/or Labor Aristocrats, making class struggle minimal on Occupied Turtle Island at the present time.

The (N)CPC disagrees. They write that

“Through the housing market an ever-growing portion of workers’ paycheques are transferred back to the bourgeoisie in the form of rent or interest. Either enslaved to mortgages or rents, workers are often one step away from the streets.”

The term slavery is best reserved for slaves, not home owners. The view that swaths of workers are “enslaved” to their rent via landlords is subjective, equally so to being “one step away from the streets.”

In Occupied Turtle Island, these terms are overused as much as living “paycheck to paycheck.” In the imperial core where minimum wages are ten times that of the global proletariat, where public services provide the vast majority with water, electricity and transportation, it is chauvinistic to discuss “slavery” to anything. The global proletariat often choose between extremely limited and poor quality food and housing, or earns too little for this choice, subsisting parasitically or dying prematurely. It should be clear that the (N)CPC is attempting to minimize the wages of imperialism paid to the labor aristocracy through super-exploitation of the global south. The Polemic Against Settler-Maoism and MIM(Prisons)’s study on the housing market (8) are invaluable demonstrations of the growth of the labor aristocracy in Occupied Turtle Island throughout the previous half century.

The (N)CPC’s specific examples of the proletariat exemplify another Trotskyist approach:

“At its core are those who work in natural resources, manufacturing, construction, transport, and logistics — labourers at the centre of capitalist exploitation. They are key to the revolutionary movement not only by their large number – around 4 million – but because they are the producers of commodities and wealth… those working in industries which allow labour-power to reproduce itself over time – chiefly health care and education – totalling approximately 4 million workers… those working to facilitate the circulation of capital – primarily workers in retail and services with about 3 million workers. Without these workers the bourgeoisie cannot maintain itself in the long run or realize its profit. Together with the labourers, these sections of the proletariat, totalling about 11 million people, hold the potential to establish a new, socialist economy.” (Bold ours)

Here is a typical Trotskyist confusion of the “importance” of a given trade to the economy for the revolutionary potential of the workers therein, which the (N)CPC states as the

“principle of workers’ centrality. That is, the principle that the workers at the centre of production – and found in great concentration, specifically, the labourers in large-scale industry and the health and education workers in the major service centres – form the heart of the proletariat and the main force for socialist revolution in Canada. The Party must therefore, first and foremost, establish and build itself within these workplaces.”

As discussed in the Polemic Against Settler-Maoism, this is a Trotskyist obsession with numbers and a mechanical application of the conditions of other historical revolutions onto the imperial core, assuming revolutionary insurrection will play out along similar lines despite the bargain of the majority with imperialism. This follows Trotsky’s belief in a quantity of “advanced” “workers” in capitalism as prerequisite for socialism, a condition missing from “backwards” (oppressed) nations.

This opportunistic error leads to mass work among a numerically enormous yet counter-revolutionary base who benefit from imperialism. This mass-work is ultimately not communist because improving the lot of labor aristocrats is important to the bourgeoisie. Social democratic policies greatly expanding the labor aristocracy were implemented during the 1930s and 1940s across western Europe and Occupied Turtle Island in order to compete with socialism in the USSR and materially dissuade workers from communist politics. This strategy succeeded and that’s why only oppressed nations have led communist vanguards in OTI since; there is next-to-no more economic exploitation.

OCR “Revolutionary Salute” to Trotskyism

All should salute the OCR for criticizing a major (former) partner organization. A complete assessment of OCR line and practice is far beyond the scope of our discussion – perhaps impossible during a human lifespan given their volume of writing.

Unfortunately though, they must be criticized for their unity with the (N)CPC as well as what this demonstrates: deeper held agreements with a Trotskyist political formation. This should serve as cause for reflection and struggle for OCR membership and readers.

Lets begin discussing some strengths of the OCR’s Red Salute.(9)

Readers will have noticed the (N)CPC does not even claim to uphold Maoism as the most advanced science of the proletariat and the OCR is correct to criticize them for this, although it is strange the latter do not require Maoism for joint publications with other communist groups. All the same, their section on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in the Red Salute develops many interesting criticisms of the (N)CPC not addressed in this polemic.

OCR criticisms of the (N)CPC’s betrayal of the labor aristocracy thesis and their failure to recognize the class nature of imperialism, as well as pointing out the ludicrous idea of a 60% proletarian Kanada, are all strong. We praise their criticisms that college-degree occupations including teachers and medical workers are petty-bourgeois, and their criticisms of economism and “worker centrality” are good.

Yet, despite acknowledging that they are not Maoist nor sufficiently anti-imperialist in their class analysis, the OCR still issues a revolutionary salute to the (N)CPC. At first this seems odd, given the significance of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and mention of labor aristocracy in the OCR Manifesto and within Kites 8. Ultimately, DLG concludes that the unity of these two groups derived from a shared lack of ideological commitment to national liberation and the labor aristocracy thesis.

OCR’s soft Labor Aristocracy thesis

Regarding the (N)CPC’s view that the labor aristocracy forms a mass base for revolution, the OCR’s manifesto says those gaining from imperialism in the United States include:

“the petty-bourgeoisie – people who own and operate small enterprises or who possess skills and education that enable them to sell their labor at a higher rate – as well as the labor aristocracy and bourgeoisified workers, whose work is more proletarian in character but who make substantial wages above what they need to survive and have significant job security and health and retirement benefits… However, among these middle classes and the ideological state apparatuses and political institutions of the US, there is always conflict and struggle with the bourgeoisie which at times becomes quite acute.” (Bold Ours)

This concept is evident within Kites 8, the OCR’s most significant work, an attempt to summarize all those communist parties across U.S. history which they consider important. (10) They praise the Revolutionary Communist Party(USA), saying that the latter “developed a united-front-level program that addressed the key social faultlines of the time and could unite, in a broad resistance movement, all those in political motion who were objectively on the proletariat’s side of those social faultlines.” Much like the (N)CPC, the OCR is claiming there are segments of each class that can potentially be united to fight for the proletariat.

Written by an OCR author named Kenny Lake in Kites #2, the second article in the “Specter” series’s conception of proletarian revolution is put similarly. Lake writes that:

“revolutionary civil war can only be initiated after the proletariat, led by communists, has built up the organized forces for revolution through a lengthy process of class struggle and creates and takes advantage of favorable conditions for the launch of an insurrection. The proletariat cannot do this alone, but must forge an alliance of classes under its leadership by taking advantage of the conflicts and struggles between the various middle classes and the bourgeoisie and within the bourgeoisie’s ideological state apparatuses” (Kites 2, pg 36. Bold ours).

It is crucial to say that the proletariat “cannot do this alone.” This is quite similar to the (N)CPC’s view of the petty-bourgeoisie, who they claim is

“neither exploiter nor exploited…For a large part of this class, the lower petty-bourgeoisie, living conditions are similar to that of much of the proletariat…stuck between a rock and a hard place, we must win this class to allying with the proletariat for a better life in socialism. The proletariat must struggle to win them over under its leadership in a united front against the bourgeoisie, as they can be powerful allies, holding much influence in universities, trade unions, media outlets, religious organizations and other such institutions.”

Thus, one explanation of the OCR’s unity with the (N)CPC despite the latter rejecting the labor aristocracy thesis outright is because the former hold a weak version of it. For the OCR, even though the proletariat is the primary revolutionary class, the petty-bourgeoisie and “various middle classes” still hold revolutionary contradictions with the U$ bourgeoisie. As such, it may not matter if a struggle revolves around the concerns of the proletariat or the petty bourgeoisie or the labor aristocracy because there are advantageous contradictions among each group.

It is true that actual oppressed classes and nations at times must make alliances with others. The potential for progressive alliances depends heavily on the class or nation in question. The OCR and (N)CPC are misguided because the “middle classes” in Amerika and Kanada are direct perpetrators of imperialism and settler-colonialism, and as classes have conflicts with the bourgeoisie only over dividing spoils.

National Liberation and New Democracy on Occupied Turtle Island

As previously indicated, the OCR and (N)CPC “class alliance” theories are an inverted application of the Maoist idea of New Democracy to the United $tates / Kanada context, these countries being inundated with settler-colonialism and labor aristocracy. Settlers have a counter-revolutionary class position with regards to indigenous peoples, and labor aristocrats have a counter-revolutionary class position with regards to their nation’s imperialism.

The application of New Democracy to Occupied Turtle Island means that revolutionaries in various nations have highly distinct responsibilities. The Amerikan vanguard is distinct from that of oppressed nation vanguards. The main role of the Amerikan vanguard is to promote the formation of a Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations through the national liberation struggles of colonies and internal semi-colonies on Occupied Turtle Island. Amerikan revolutionaries will not liberate themselves because they suffer no oppression or exploitation.

By contrast, labor aristocrats within oppressed nations hold certain revolutionary contradictions by virtue of experiencing national oppression. Their class can be organized towards the goal of liberation for their respective nation. This is true for the petty-bourgeoisie and some of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations in Occupied Turtle Island as well.

The same is untrue in the oppressor/settler nation. The few revolutionaries who form the oppressor/settler vanguard take a class-suicidal position, sacrificing and attempting to destroy their petty-bourgeois class through supporting external national liberation struggles. While the OCR agrees with us on paper with the attitude labor aristocrat and settler revolutionaries should have regarding self-sacrifice, they are incorrect to search for revolutionary contradictions between these groups and their ally-bourgeoisie. If the alliance is in each party’s mutual interest, there can be no contradiction.

As identified in the Polemic Against Settler Maoism, the labor aristocracy has grown wealthier from the 1960’s until the 2020’s. This signifies to all settlers as well as those from oppressed nations the opportunity for petty-bourgeois life through rejecting revolutionary struggle. As such, only a small portion of people from these groups will constitute a revolutionary vanguard rejecting their class status, as is demonstrated by the historical record in the U$ and Kanada which shows a very small amount of communist revolutionaries. Compare this to China in which hundreds of millions joined the communist party. The bases for this difference were national oppression and exploitation in China.

The OCR praise the (N)CPC for having developed a “creative” solution to national liberation struggles through a “clear analysis.” There are important examples of the OCR qualifying their belief in the significance of national liberation struggles such that this praise accords. In Kites 8, they write that:

“Labeling oppressed nations and nationalities in the US as internal colonies, while morally justified, does not provide the analytical foundation for such a strategy and program, instead suggesting separate struggles to liberate each ‘internal colony’ perhaps linked by solidarity and a common enemy. The “internal colony” analysis fails to grasp that there is a multinational proletariat in the US, disproportionately made up of people of oppressed nation(s) and nationalities but also including white proletarians, which brings together people of different nationalities who have a common class interest and similar but variegated experiences of exploitation and conditions of life, that is in the strategic position, as a class, to lead the revolutionary overthrow of US imperialism.”(11)

Submerging the national struggles of all oppressed nations into the primary “multinational proletarian” struggle is a recipe for Trotskyism, especially when combined with the implication that some whites hold revolutionary class positions. It makes struggling with Trotskyist groups such as the (N)CPC impossible. Having demoted national liberation struggles compared to “multinational proletarian revolution”, how could the OCR disagree that class struggle is more significant?

Despite their affirmation of the right of separate nations to their own revolutionary organizations, OCR says that this trend ideologically

“strengthened revolutionary nationalism and weakened the potential hegemony of the communist world outlook over the growing revolutionary movement. Practically, it meant that the best of the Sixties generation were in separate organizational structures rather than combining their strengths and debating out the crucial questions before the revolutionary movement within one united democratic centralist structure.”

This echoes the (N)CPC’s claim that it would likely be “counterproductive” to have separate vanguards for First Nations, despite the strong risk that white chauvinism will corrupt the formation of a vanguard party as the OCR documents having happened to the Communist Party(USA) and the Revolutionary Communist Party(USA) within Kites 8.(12)

Towards the end of Kites 8 the OCR writes how US revolution could hinge on developments in nations like Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Haiti, other Caribbean nations as well as countries in Central and South America. They write that

“To maximize potential for revolutionary spillover, a communist vanguard must carry out political work among the immigrant populations in the US from the countries in question and link the struggles in their homelands with the struggle in the diaspora.”

While we agree with the attention necessary towards these oppressed nations, their value is not about “spillover” but about the necessity of destroying imperialism before proletarian revolution can happen on Occupied Turtle Island. Until this time, there will be almost no proletariat whatsoever, but rather a mass of bought-off labor aristocrats, even among the oppressed nations. The toppling of imperialism and settler-colonialism will break the class basis for the labor aristocracy and shift the tide in the favor of a Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations (JDPON). This would allow the return of all First Nation lands and resources alongside reparations for all internal semi-colonies. At such point, Amerika would no longer be living parasitically from the Third World or oppressed peoples and the class base of bought-off settlers and labor aristocrats would disappear.

Conclusion

That the two organizations co-published Kites for over three years and the disagreements we discuss above go unmentioned by the (N)CPC raises the question if some aspects of their theoretical line were discarded during party formation. As much is particularly suggested by the Spectre series – originally published by Revolutionary Initiative (RI), precursor to the (N)CPC – where a version of the Labor Aristocracy thesis is employed to study the United States class structure and locate the US proletariat.

It is the responsibility of the communist movement, particularly in the imperial core where socialists far and wide are attempting to win over the labor aristocracy, to establish firm boundaries of cooperation. Although there is not a single correct method to determine such boundaries, those claiming to be vanguard formations owe it to the global proletariat to establish them transparently. Unity between groups who supposedly disagree about fundamental principles is irresponsible and deeply confusing to the masses. Here it raised the questions: how did the RI and OCR cooperate for years to publish Kites without struggling out some of these differences? Did the (N)CPC’s formation include a (faction-based) ideological drift the OCR was not aware of? If not the labor aristocracy thesis, Maoism or the importance of national liberation, what is the basis for unity with the OCR?

Ultimately, we can only conclude that neither group considers these lines dividing. Despite everything worth praise from the OCR and the journal Kites, they need to develop higher ideological standards and more explicit ideological lines. Although their recent disassociation from the (N)CPC may be a positive change, the OCR must allow no further opportunistic alliances to fester, internal or external. Finally, they should struggle with DLG ideologically and engage with the critiques we’ve laid out here.

<sup>Notes: 1. (New)Communist Party of Canada, “The Political Program of the New Communist Party of Canada” Kites, January 2024.
2. Joshua Berlinger, CNN “What is the Kibbutz? A brief history of the communes targeted in the Hamas terror attack.” Oct 11, 2023.
3. The Dawnland Group, “A Polemic against Settler Maoism” MIM (Prisons) website, June 2024.
4. Sakai, J. “Settlers: The mythology of the White proletariat from mayflower to modern.”(2014). Kersplebedeb.
5. David Cochran, Oct 7 2020. “How Hitler Found His Blueprint for a German Empire by looking to the American West.” Waging Nonviolence, Oct 7, 2020.
6. Leon Trotsky, “The Permanent Revolution” Marxist Internet Archive, 1931.
7. Leon Trotsky, “The Chinese Revolution” Marxist Internet Archive, 1938.
8. MIM (Prisons), “Building United-Front surrounded by Enemies: Case Study of the Declining U$ Housing Market” Aug 2010
9. Organization of Communist Revolutionaries, “Red Salute on the Formation of the Communist Party of Canada and the publication of its Program.” Kites, 2023.
10. Interestingly, Kites 8 gives no mention of the Maoist Internationalist Movement despite them having regularly struggled with RCP and that this was often reciprocated publicly.
11. Organization of Communist Revolutionaries, Kites 8, pg 325.
12. While the OCR claims the two were each temporarily communist vanguards, we would disagree, especially regarding the RCP.</sup>

Our movement sees the contradiction between internal semi-colonies (New Afrikan/Black Nation, First Nations, Chican@s, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiins) and the Amerikan oppressor nation as the principal contradiction in the United $tates. In practice that means if we want change, we need to push this contradiction to its conclusion. However, in the years that MIM(Prisons) has existed, we’ve seen that contradiction to be at a relatively low level, historically speaking.(1) Since we don’t have things like armed struggle today to assure us of this contradiction, a recent Pew Research study provides us with some reassurance that the national consciousness of New Afrika is alive and well.(2)

The survey showed that 74 out of 100 Black people in the United $tates believed the prison system was designed to hold Black people back. It asked this question for numerous state institutions, with slightly lower levels of agreement. Another question in the survey showed 69% of respondents feel that being Black is important to how they feel about themselves. The latter question demonstrates a level of national consciousness, even if most respondents would call it “race”. The distrust in the U.$. government places this national consciousness in conflict with Amerika and its institutions.

It’s worth noting that the results were pretty consistent along demographics of age, income, education, sex. The biggest predictor for not agreeing that the government is holding Black people back is being a Republican – but even then the majority agreed.

This survey got more attention in the press because it was originally framed as demonstrating that most “Black Americans” believe “racial conspiracy theories.” Pew Research responded by amending the language in the report, and they provide historical examples of the U.$. state using these institutions against Black people. To view such beliefs as conspiracy theories is obviously telling.

MIM(Prisons) of course upholds the belief that the U.$. prison system exists to hold back and repress the internal semi-colonies and control the population in general. It is part of the system of maintaining national, class and gender oppression. Interestingly the survey also showed 74% of Black people believing, “Black people are disproportionately incarcerated so prisons can make money.” This, as we’ve discussed extensively, is mostly a myth. It might be harsh to call it a conspiracy theory, since everything under capitalism is about money on some level. But we believe the question of whether people are imprisoned for profit, or for social control, is an important question for understanding the system and how to combat it.

The importance of surveys like this from Pew Research is scientifically investigating our conditions. Despite the fact that Pew went into this survey with some clear bias around the relationship of Black people to the United $tates, their resources allowed them to survey thousands of people across demographics to give them 95% confidence that their numbers are within plus or minus 2%. While MIM(Prisons) has done a number of surveys over the years, even our best did not have such tight confidence intervals. And to date our surveys have been limited to prisoners, who are also mostly male. Therefore bourgeois-funded surveys and government statistics are an important part of our scientific investigation of our conditions. Transforming this latent national consciousness in New Afrika into action is where revolutionary practice must come in and deepen our knowledge of our conditions.

<sup>Notes:
1. see MC5, March 1999, On the Internal Class Structures of the Internal Semi-Colonies for analysis of the modern relationship between the oppressed and oppressor nations in the United States.
2. Pew Research Center, June 2024, “Most Black Americans Believe U.S. Institutions Were Designed To Hold Black People Back”</sup>