Under Lock & Key

Not long after the end of World War II, Comrade Mao Zedong put forward his famous thesis, “All reactionaries are paper tigers.”(1) This thesis armed the people of China ideologically, strengthened their confidence in victory and played an exceedingly great role in the People’s War of Liberation. This thesis is still relevant today and we would be wise to heed its message.

Comrade Mao Zedong regarded imperialism and all reactionaries as paper tigers. This thesis is a fundamental strategic concept for the revolutionary people. Since the Second Revolutionary War, Mao Zedong repeatedly pointed out: “Strategically, with regard to the whole, revolutionaries must despise the enemy, dare to struggle against him and dare to seize victory, at the same time tactically with regard to each part, each specific struggle, they must take the enemy seriously, be prudent, carefully study and perfect the art of struggle and adopt forms of struggle suited to different times, places and conditions in order to isolate and wipe out the enemy, step-by-step.”(1)

Year’s later, comrade Mao stated that: “Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature - they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time. In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave owning class the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive, they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites - the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat - grew in strength step-by-step struggled against them more and more fiercely these ruling classes changed step-by-step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. And eventually they were overthrown or will be overthrown by the people. Even in the face of the last decisive struggles waged by the people, the reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this dual nature. On the one hand they were real tigers, they devoured people by the millions and tens of millions. The cause of the peoples struggle went thru a period of difficulties and hardships and along the path there were many twists and turns. To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory of 1949. Look! Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers? But in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, bean curd tigers. These are historical facts.”(2)

So there you have it. Comrade Mao all those many years ago held that the Chinese people would be victorious in their war of liberation. This wasn’t hopeful idealism on Mao’s behalf, it wasn’t that the Chinese people and Mao really, really, really wanted liberation for themselves, that they just knew if only they kept on struggling they’d someday achieve liberation. No! It was through the correct practice of dialectical materialism that the Chinese people were able to finally cast the yoke of imperialism off into the sea. This is something that many bourgeois scholars just can’t grasp. Dialectical materialism is something the bourgeoisie either doesn’t correctly understand or they don’t want to understand exactly how Mao and the CCP were able to lead the Chinese people to victory against insurmountable odds or how comrade Mao was able to become such a brilliant military strategist.

However, for us to really get the full understanding of the “paper tiger” thesis put forward by Mao, and in order to see how it is still relevant today, we must dive head first into the subject of dialectical materialism.

When comrade Mao stated “just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature,”(3) he was referring to the law of the unity of opposites. The law of the unity of opposites, that is the law of contradiction in things, is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects. Dialectical materialists hold that a thing is made up of its being and of its opposite, this means that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. The basic meaning of this would be, for example, that from its very inception and all through its existence where there is light there is also darkness, because without the darkness there can be no light, because they are both mutually dependent, and in order for one to exist its opposite must also be.

So the persyn who is “good” or who does what is morally right can also be “bad” and do what is considered morally wrong. This is another example of the unity of opposites, nothing in this world is immutable.

So now that we know what the basic meaning of the law of the unity of opposites is we know exactly what Mao was talking about when he said, “Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature, so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature.” What he meant by this is that even though the imperialists, and the reactionaries were strong and terrible looking at one point in hystory, they were also weak and vacillated in another point in hystory, and furthermore it was our job (the people’s) by our will and our struggle to form the correct strategic point of view to see the imperialists and reactionaries as paper tigers and know that we can defeat them in the end. However, because of this paper tiger’s dual nature, we must also be aware that this tiger can also be a real tiger and can defeat us if we don’t respect him tactically.

Now some of you who are familiar and experienced with materialist dialectics will right away say, “wait a minute, the law of contradiction says that the motive force of a thing is internal and not external.” Yes, this certainly is true. The condition of change is internal and not external, however the law of contradiction also shows us that there is antagonism inherent in things, which basically means that from its very inception antagonism exists as the struggle of opposites, as contradiction, but not until the contradiction develops into open antagonism in a thing does it push development forward and resolve itself. So first however we must find the principal contradiction, and only by finding the fundamental contradiction can we find the principal contradiction and get along with the business of resolving it.

We already know that the fundamental contradiction on a global scale is the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and that the principal contradiction on the international level is imperialism vs. the Third World. In Amerika the principal contradiction is the oppressor vs. oppressed nations. So how do we resolve the principal contradiction in the united $tates? Once again, this is possible by a things dual nature (society), and if society has a dual nature then it has to have two opposing, yet equally dependent, aspects. In this case it would be the oppressor nation (euro-Amerikkkans) vs. the oppressed nations (Brown, Black, etc). So how do we resolve the principal contradictions in the united $tates? Just as the imperialists and the oppressor nation has their tiger, we too can have a tiger and defeat theirs. However, this is once again only possible when the struggle of opposites reaches its point of open antagonism, and to know when this happens we must take careful watch of the situation and always keep the concrete analysis of concrete conditions acutely in mind.

At this point in hystory our so-called “tiger” is non-existent – it is neither a real tiger nor a paper tiger. It is a dead tiger. What is meant by this is that we as a collective (Brown, Black, etc.) have been continuously colonized and oppressed by capitalism/imperialism and we are almost helpless to stop it from destroying us and our cultures. Yet, hystory teaches us that imperialism and the ruling classes have never been able to completely wipe out all traces of a nation or its people, even though it has come pretty damn close and continues to advance.

Therefore our only choice, if we are to survive the anarchy and destruction of capitalist construction, is to get to constructing ourselves. We must build this “People’s Tiger”, and the first step to building this internal force which will push development forward will be in the unification of the people. This means building a united front for a united struggle against the oppressors.

Unity evolves from the inside out. This begins with the revolutionization of our consciousness, our minds. First we change the way we think, then we apply this to our material conditions and in the way we interact with others, this is how we change our surroundings. This applies to all peoples of all societies, especially that society within a society, that society separated by the rest of the people, separated by concrete and steel - This is unity from the inside out in all its glory.

Power to the People!
Long live the Maoist Internationalist Movement!
Long live the United Soldiers from Within!

Notes:
1. “Talk with the American Correspondent Anna Louise Strong” August, 1946, Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung, Foreign Language Press: Peking, 1971, p.345.
2. Ibid. p. 346.
3. Mao Zedong. On Contradiction.

Comrades in MIM(Prisons) and United Struggle from Within (USW) have been studying diligently to solidify and advance the line, strategy and tactics of the anti-imperialist prison movement. This issue of Under Lock & Key will introduce this discussion, while focusing on strategies utilizing the bourgeois legal system. In the imperialist countries we face a strategic period where our battles are legal ones as we build our organization and infrastructure.

In March 2010, MIM(Prisons) recorded its 1000th incident of censorship in the u.$. prison system. And this is just a small sample of the repression that goes on in the belly of the beast. The strategy behind our legal battles is two pronged: 1) when we win we create more space to do the organizing work that is much needed in the movement, and 2) when we lose we build public opinion about the reality that there are no rights, only power struggles, and what real power looks like. Therefore, if done well, every battle moves us forward.

Organizationally, we stand at a juncture where MIM(Prisons) has established itself with a consistent practice, while upholding the political line developed by the Maoist Internationalist Movement. Meanwhile, our allies stand ready to do more to organize the movement. This includes our comrades in the anti-imperialist prisoner organization, United Struggle from Within, which is led by MIM(Prisons), as well as other lumpen organizations at various levels of political development.

As a result, we are focusing on the need to build an anti-imperialist United Front through our work in the prison movement. We are making a call to all lumpen and prison-based organizations who believe in the need for self-determination of all nations to join us in developing this United Front on the basis of some key principles. MIM(Prisons), USW and others are already hashing out these principles, and we want to make sure that it is as agreeable yet powerful as it can be.

Theoretically, we stand on the legacy of decades of struggle and political line development led by MIM. By studying their work, we are able to leap forward theoretically, as each generation must do by learning from the previous. There are some theoretical questions we will be developing further in future months, both in the pages of Under Lock & Key and in larger publications we plan to publish.

We will continue to explore important aspects of strategy for months to come. We begin here with some definitions to help our readers grasp and participate in this discussion.

Definitions

Imperialism: the global economic system that exists today. First World corporations have expanded to the point where they must invest money overseas to continue to grow, so they export their capital to the Third World. These foreign investments in Third World economies, safeguarded by military force, stifle the growth of the local bourgeois classes. With no national bourgeoisie, or a weak one at best, a national economy is unable to grow. Imperialist investment then ensures its own dominance by paying dirt wages to workers who have no options, and enjoying the freedom to escape local taxes and environmental restrictions.

Anti-Imperialism: the belief that nations have the right to struggle for liberation when faced with oppression by other nations. Opposing imperialism means opposing the system where some nations use their power to exploit other nations’ wealth. Imperialism stifles all indigenous economic and political activity. Anti-imperialists work to release local development forces to better meet the needs of the people.

Nation: a group of people on one connected piece of land with a common economy, language, and national psychology.

Principal Contradiction: the highest priority contradiction that communists must focus their energy on for a long period of time - a strategic period. The concept of the principal contradiction comes from dialectical materialism, which says that everything can be divided into two opposing forces. These contradictions are the basis for any changes that thing goes through. Defining the principal contradiction is a crucial step to developing ones political line.

The principal contradiction in the world today is between the imperialist countries and the countries they oppress and exploit. Based on this fact, we say the principal task is to build public opinion against imperialism and to build institutions of the oppressed that are independent of imperialism, in order to seize power from the imperialists.

Anti-Imperialist United Front: the loose alliance of classes and parties that work to undermine imperialist domination. To achieve our principal task, we must unite all who can be united on the side of the oppressed against imperialism. Developing an anti-imperialist united front, is facilitating the growth of the winning side of the principal contradiction in the world today.

Internationalism: ethical belief or scientific approach in which peoples of different nations are held to be or assumed to be equal.

Line: Line is generally a belief, but line can also be a goal. For instance, our belief is that only through communism can we abolish the oppression of groups of people over other people. At the same time it is our goal to abolish the oppression of people over other people.

Strategy: our long-term plans to get to various goals on the way to communism. For every stage in the revolutionary struggle, there is a strategy.

Strategic Confidence: the belief that the proletarian forces will win based on a concrete analysis of society. Our strategic confidence comes from an analysis of the contradictions within imperialism, which are bringing about its own decay and destruction. As a minority within the united $tates, the oppressed and progressive forces have a hard time developing strategic confidence when focused narrowly on local events and struggles. Therefore, internationalism is a must for the oppressed nations in the united $tates to obtain liberation from imperialism, which threatens to further immiserate and oppress a growing segment of society as crisis ensues and fascism knocks on the door.

Tactics: Short-term plans, some of which may be used again and again in slightly different circumstances. Tactics are short term and flexible based on day-to-day changes in the situation.

Rightism: In general, rightists tend to be too conservative. A rightist is someone who tends to make everything a matter of tactics. Rightists don’t care about long-term goals or plans.

Ultra-leftism: Ultra-leftists will tend to judge real-world revolutionaries in the light of principles that only Jesus/Moses/Muhammad-type figures could implement. Ultra-leftism thus smacks of religion/idealism. The ultra-left also tends to go to extremes to achieve their objectives.

(note: Rightism and Ultra-leftism are both errors WITHIN the revolutionary movement. We are not talking about the “right” and “left” wings of the amerikan government commonly referred to in the bourgeois press.)

Proletarian Morality: Proletarian morality is based in the basic concept of doing no wrong in the masses’ eyes, but it also goes further than this. It means implementing certain codes of conduct within the party to which all party members must strictly adhere to. This means that we cannot do anything which the masses could see as morally wrong, such as accepting gratuities in exchange for favors, or stealing from the masses. Proletarian morality is not idealist, but recognizes what needs to be done to create a more just world. Pacifists apply an idealist form of morality by saying that violence is never justified. Similarly, anarchists denounce hierarchy and oppression in the hands of the oppressed, even if used as tools to destroy hierarchy and oppression in the bigger picture.

Pragmatism: a philosophy of going forth without theory or line, utilizing wishy washy strategies, and pushing tactics from that thinking. Instead of seeing the whole they see the part. Pragmatists react to a situation, rather than analyze it and address the real problem.

Empiricism: the belief that knowledge is derived from experience through direct observation of phenomena. In contrast, we recognize that 99% of practice is now history and not things that we will experience directly.

Dogmatism: the belief in, or promotion of ideas without basis in fact or without depth. Dogmatists are stubborn, and view things arrogantly and narrow-mindedly.

notes: most of the definitions above came from study and discussion of MIM Theory 5: Diet for a Small Red Planet, download pdf

In a system where the threat of torture by long-term isolation and other forms of repression constantly hangs above the heads of those who hold political views different from their captors, security is a vital question. Of course, the threat is different when working outside anonymously with MIM(Prisons) than working inside, face-to-face. Repression inside prisons is much more imminent than it is for our comrades on the streets. In prison, conditions are different and freedoms are limited, leaving comrades with much different tactics to choose from.

Strategically, however, the question of security behind bars is more the same than it is different from on the streets. Semi-underground organizing is an example of a universal strategy for operating behind enemy lines. The practice of semi-underground organizing recognizes that just because you didn’t break any laws doesn’t mean you will not face repression for your actions or beliefs, and there is more cost than benefit of putting all your cards on the table. On the organizational scale, semi-underground can be applied by layering your organization with different levels of openness. This makes it harder for the pigs to pinpoint leaders and isolate an organization.

Another strategical question is, how do we deal with potential infiltrators who join our ranks in order to gather information and create disruption, or bad-jacket the organization? Many comrades have provided suggestions for how to address this issue. There is a bourgeois approach to security and there is a proletarian approach. The difference between the two is still generally applicable even in different organizing conditions, and is discussed below.

A key issue that is being raised in California is, why work with prisoners who are on Special Needs Yards (SNY)? This is a good question since a lot of potential comrades, as well as comrades already in the struggle, have contempt for individuals who collaborate with the state. It is important that we understand that not everyone on SNY is there because they debriefed or snitched. Some people are on SNY because they are victimized on mainline, or don’t want to participate in the typical bullshit that comes with mainline for whatever reason. So not everyone on SNY is there because of piggish behavior, but the rest of this article is a discussion of those comrades who are.

MIM(Prisons) is a prison ministry that seeks to organize and educate prisoners not just to see the inhumane conditions that they find themselves in, but also to see the bigger picture of imperialism. When you read what MIM has put out regarding our security practices then one should be able to gain a perspective as to why MIM(Prisons) operates the way it does. What good would it do for MIM(Prisons) to only work with people based on the fact that they haven’t snitched yet? Everyone is a possible cop or agent working for the imperialists. In fact, in this country, someone is more likely to be a cop or spy than to be a revolutionary of some sort. Even within the communist movement itself there exists a capitalist arm in the form of cops, agents, snitches, and collaborators with the imperialists.

We see this as a line struggle. Anyone can pretend to be USW inside, just like anyone can pretend to represent MIM(Prisons) or Maoism. If they uphold the line set forth by the vanguard organization and/or movement, then they’re out there working to advance the struggle. If they are upholding a bourgeois line, and people cling to it, then the people didn’t understand the vanguard line in the first place. We should work with a comrade because they have the correct line, not because they are on mainline.

Why should they be barred from being a communist if they have snitched in the past? Why should anyone not have the right to see the liberation of their people, nation, the oppressed? What matters most is what one does after they have discovered themselves as a communist revolutionary. It’s not just the lumpen who are reforming criminals, they mostly did small-time stuff. All amerikans are reforming criminals who have robbed from and victimized the majority of the world. If we are recruiting in the united $tates, we are attempting to reform criminals into communists, and this is the revolutionizing of humyns that must take place in conjunction with the revolutionizing of the economy and all the institutions that serve it.

The other side of this is that even if one is a cop, gathering info, there’s really not that much they will find if information is given out on an as-needed basis. When the movement is organized into isolated cells, they may be able to take down one or two people, but the struggle goes on. In the meantime, the cop had to put in a lot of genuine work in order to get the little information they got. Particularly where communists are the minority, the cop ends up doing more work for us than against us. This structure is part of what being a semi-underground organization means.

Of course, the fact that the state has taken the time to infiltrate and try to eliminate a group says a lot about the group’s politics. As Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, we put forth revolutionary science, or dialectical materialism. A concrete historical analysis shows that it is not WE but THEY, the imperialists, who are on the wrong side of history. They will lose eventually. Our struggle is a protracted (scientific) one, to put forth the correct line, so even if MIM(Prisons) goes down there will still be others with the tools to continue forward.

With regards to the prison movement, it’s understandable that these criticisms arise due to the fact that SHU placement falls on those who organize for better or for worse. So why does MIM(Prisons) support prisoners who walk away from their lumpen organizations? The lumpen class, by definition, is a parasitic class. Both the lumpen and the imperialists are capitalists whose material wealth comes from others’ work. One has the power to exploit by making the laws, while the other makes money outside the law in an underground economy with a law unto itself. Saying, “I understand the LOs need work, but why work with those who walk away?” is just like the bourgeoisie saying “I know we need work, but why give opportunities to prisoners or criminals to help out, they broke our law?” Just like people who walked away and are now on SNY, they too broke the law.

Divide and conquer is a tactic used by the administration to bring down revolutionary groups and to keep revolutionary groups from forming. Evidence suggests that LOs are purposefully put up against each other in order to bring each other down. This basically means that if you’re in an LO that’s victimizing other oppressed people, then you are unwittingly an agent of the state’s oppressive apparatus. Even if you say “fuck the k9s” or “fuck the administration,” your actions are counter-revolutionary.

A serious revolutionary will not determine to not work with someone who’s never had revolutionary politics or training just because when that person was in a LO they engaged in the debriefing process. A “revolutionary” that snitches is very different from someone who is put between a rock and a hard place of working with one of two organizations that are both engaged in anti-people activity. Plus, you never know who could be dropping kites on you. Just because someone exposes themselves to you doesn’t mean they’re the only threat on the mainline.

For the LOs to put an end to snitching among their membership, they will have to stop engaging in activities that might cause someone with love for their people to break ranks. When your practice does not coincide with the line you put out, discipline will fail, no matter how brutal it might be. The vanguard cannot water down its politics just to let everyone know we’re cool. Watering down politics is engaging in opportunism and will ultimately destroy the vanguard.

Another suggestion that has come up is that we look at people’s histories, where they’ve been locked up and why they were sent there, as part of our intelligence gathering. This amounts to trusting the lumpen as long as the imperialists (or their petty-bourgeois bureaucrats) can vouch for them. This is a backwards and dangerous approach to security. The bourgeois approach to security is based on intelligence gathering and psychologizing individuals, while the proletariat must look to political line and consistent practice.

Notes:
see MIM’s 2005 Congress: Resolutions on Cell Organization for more discussion of the cell structure, why persynal histories are irrelevant and security theory in general.

A California comrade who has long thought we should do an issue criticizing the rcp=u$a writes:

I disagree with MIM however on one fine point in the article where you state that “many still see the rcp=u$a as representing Maoism because their populist politics gives them a greater public face in many areas (inside u$ prisons is one exception to this).” Do you mean to imply that the rcp doesn’t hold much sway in u$ prisyns because the masses here know better? If this is the case then I would say no, they do appear to at the very least to have some kind of foothold in CA prisyns.

I’ve noticed more people than there used to be are familiar with the rcp’s rag, but not many. Some even spew their distractionist rhetoric. Of course I debate them but there’s only so much that can be said to those who already believe avakian to be the “great man of hystory.”

Since the upcoming ULK will be centered on strategies & tactics, the exposing of the rcp’s counterrevolutionary activities might be able to play some kind of role. They must be beat back to the hole from which they came! I hypothesize that the rcp is siphoning off many potential revolutionaries from inside the prisyns. Might this be MIM’s assessment as well? The deadly rcp strategy of substituting eclecticism for dialectics is I believe at the heart of their strength and success. Would you agree?

A Missouri comrade also responded:

I wanted to briefly respond to something that comrade Wiawimawo said in the article Revisiting RCP Revisionism in ULK 12. The comrade said many of the readers of ULK are not grappling with the questions facing Maoism today. And those that cannot distinguish Maoism from right opportunism of groups like the rcp=u$a have not yet grasped it.

I am not refuting what this comrade said, I just want to say that a lot of the readers lack the information and some have never been involved in revolutionary activity. We would hope that comrades would become inspired from reading ULK to go on to study harder and learn faster. But again, there is a lack of authentic material. I have quite a bit of material and none from the rcp=u$a, so even I can’t really argue against their line when I haven’t read shit they’ve wrote. I haven’t seen a Revolutionary Worker or Worker’s World in years. The same for the Burning Spear.

At the same time, it is on us to teach those who will listen and I believe that ULK is doing a tremendous job and the Book to Prisoners Program is also a great resource.

In the last couple years, MIM(Prisons) has stepped in to re-establish the prevalence of Maoist literature available to the prison movement. This came after years of inconsistency as the Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika degenerated. The need for this literature is clear from this discussion. So supporters who can provide money or other resources to expand this work should reach out to us.

We agree with our CA comrade about the importance of combating revisionism as part of building a strong movement. While the author of that article was lamenting the need to spend time on such work, it would be idealist to expect otherwise. However, as our MO comrade points out, most of our readers are not familiar with the rcp=u$a anyway. To focus an issue of our newsletter on them would give undo attention to the topic. An issue reviewing many different political lines would be more useful, as most readers will find lines that they have come across.

We do not believe that the prison masses know better than to follow the rcp=u$a, that is why we thought it important to print that review. We do believe that MIM has had much more influence on the prison movement, despite its weak points. So MIM Thought is more likely to be identified with Maoism inside prisons than on the streets in the united $tates where rcp=u$a will be.

And yes, we agree that rcp=u$a eclecticism serves its popularity. Even among prisoners, the hard line of MIM loses us many friends. But we aren’t looking for friends, we’re looking for real allies who will stand strong for the revolutionary road.

The point made by Wiawimawo was not to say that you must understand the difference between MIM(Prisons) and rcp=u$a in particular, but rather that you must understand why the MIM line is correct in general. If you don’t you will fall for the eclecticism of rcp=u$a or any other snake oil salesman that comes along.

Certainly, rcp=u$a is recruiting people who might have otherwise worked with the Maoist movement. That could be said about a number of groups out there. But we aren’t too worried about that. We are confident in our political line, which makes us strong. Other groups will come and go, or if they have state funding they will stay and stagnate. But only the correct ideological line can build a new prison movement that has real power.

Dear Reader,

Open your eyes, close your ears sometimes, and focus on your surroundings. What I am trying to say is that we have been spending more time listening to what others around us are speaking about than opening our own eyes to the big picture. Crip is not a gang, it is a foundation that represents the understood individuals; “Controlled, Respectful & Intelligent People.” I am a leader of the Rolling 60’s Crip Foundation. I am standing on my own two feet cause no one else will stand for me but me. I am also a member of the Moorish Science Temple.

We are our own worst enemy but some of us don’t realize it until it’s too late. We spend a lot of time worrying about the next person when our main concern should be self. A lot of us don’t know our own true self, but we think we do. We will never gain the understanding of self, unless we stop oppressing one another. As a leader I ask that we focus more on self than each other.

I know it’s hard because of the way we’ve become adapted to the prison institution. Love, live and let go of the situations between one another and let’s give the system a run for its money.

A very big question that raises eye brows is why do those that play that tuff role worry about going home early so much? The answer to that question is, in my opinion, that they are afraid to fight the system but will fight each other. That’s because they know that fighting each other makes them look tuff. No. Not at all in my eyes. All that says to me is that we are more ignorant than the system makes us out to be. The system wants us to be at each others’ throats. Why do ya’ll think that when we stand up for each other they become heated? But when they suit up and call a team to intimidate us a lot of us fold out of fear of being hurt & locked up in segregation. Heck, we are already locked up, what else can they do to us?

Martin Luther King didn’t have a weak dream, he had an uplifting dream for us to stand together and fight those who oppress us. Let us rise and fight for what we stand for as human beings.

MIM(Prisons) adds: The principle contradiction in the world today is that between the imperialist nations and the oppressed nations. This is an antagonistic contradiction, that must be resolved by the latter overtaking the power of the former. But before we get there, there are other contradictions that the oppressed face.

In prisons, the principal contradiction is among the people, as this comrade explains. The resolution of this contradiction requires those working for unity overcoming the mindsets of division. Sometimes those mindsets will be found in the oppressor, but currently they are very common among the oppressed. So there is a dialectical process occurring right now as people are starting to step back to see the big picture, to consider why they do what they do. Unity begins with the individual. Transforming oneself into a new revolutionary persyn is always happening simultaneously as we work with others to build unity and promote change on a larger scale.

Humyns are social beings that face large problems in how our society is structured. So focusing on yourself can’t address these problems. But for those who are still part of the problem, there is a great need to take a step back and reflect on oneself and how you fit into the greater society. Soon you will realize that there are many roles you can play, and you do not have to remain stuck in the one that has been taught to you.

While we know that MLK’s ideology cannot solve antagonistic contradictions within imperialism, his strategies may be very applicable to the needs of the prison movement at this stage in a country that claims to uphold freedom and civil rights.

While reading MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial about how all United $nakes prisoners are political prisoners, and most all of these are oppressed nations, it made me question if maybe these statistics differ much in the state of Utah?

The Utah population is mostly white, so much so that over half of us convicts in these chambers are white. This statistic must really be an anomaly in the overall U.$. percentage rate of those incarcerated. Of course it’s poor whites who can’t afford lawyers who are caged here. But what saddens me to my very soul is seeing these whites running around with swastikas saying they love Amerikkka. Saying it’s not the unjust in-justice system that targeted them for slavery but it was because they chose this path, they chose not to work and slang drugs. Did they choose too to have their fathers and uncles institutionalized, I ask? Where was your father growing up, where was your dad when you were starting to buck the system that you supposedly love so well? Not in prison? So your son is now destined for the very same fate as you and your father…and you love this system?!

We were served hot dogs for the fourth of July and these people, my peers, were happy. Yelling out on the tier, “Happy fourth of July.” I screamed back, “Fuck Amerika!” If we wasn’t all in solitary, the looks on their faces would of made the Mona Lisa frown. The audacity of this Communist to say “fuck Amerika.” We got hot dogs and fireworks, they say, we have it much better than prisoners elsewhere.

Is this what we’ve come to now? Even though our families are ripped apart, severed from each other like so many heads from chickens. Now it’s our fate to run around headless, knowledge-less, happy that our captors (with swastikas too under sleeves and on hearts) feed us a damn hot dog!

As a child I remember visiting my father here at the Draper prison and even then I felt anger at him and a sort of disgust. Isn’t that how they feel on T.V. about criminals? Isn’t that how I should feel, too? Well I did. I hated him. His very own son. And why? Because that’s what I was “taught” to do. I was mind-fucked into hating my very own father the same way these lumpen racists are mind-fucked into loving a country that takes everything from you but a damn hot dog.

Now I’m the one that’s hated when mail call or visiting comes around, (“Whats wrong with you?” looks hidden behind what could have been smiles). I see my nephew’s face and the hostility there masked, just barely, and I want to grab the little guy and tell him, whisper, don’t listen to them man! Little buddy wake up! Wake up! But visiting is over and mother and grandmother won’t allow any of that “revolution” talk in front of the child, let alone any truth in letters. Return to sender. Return to ignorance. Is this how you felt, pops, at our visits? Was that why you looked at me that way? Was it pleading? As you sit in “population” or “Lone Peak work release” and I struggle here in solitary supermax, my brother in county jail, uncles and aunts in CUCF, I understand now. But it took me twenty seven years to do so, twenty seven years of self-hate, suicidal thoughts, homicidal anger, clouds of drug smoke and alcohol fog.

All I ask you sick, demented, money hungry, cold, imperialist nation is one hour. You and me alone in a dark alley. Put down that fascist oppressive stick and take off that bullshit white power mask. We’ll see who is the better man. Even with my malnourished body and soul, you’d be the one on the cold concrete, Uncle Sam. You’d be the one eating garbage, unable to get up. Every fiber of my being is now tied up with the Maoist Internationalist Movement. I, or my son, or my son’s son will take up the gun beside the people when revolution calls. It’s not going to stop until we stop it.

Most of the time we don’t even realize anything’s going on. Hell, how could we when we have hot dogs?! We must find a way to wake everybody up to what’s happening. It’s up to us, the youth of today’s generation, to figure out how best to halt the ignorance, to wake them up! The old to teach the new and the new to redo or reinvent strategy, reinvent new agitations, new minds who maintain the same line and disciplines but with a spin on dissemination, essays, and politics.

Of course the world knows what time it is but in order for our part of the revolution to have enough strength, enough firepower and muscle to take down the bourgeoisie, we need all hands on deck. We can’t be having our own family and peers wearing the wrong colors and waving the wrong flag. In my eyes those who won’t listen to the truth, who won’t take their eyes off the Seinfeld reruns, family included, those are the ones who will first trip up the movement. They’ll give the pigs the momentum to take us down. Personally I’m in prison because a family member called the kops. The more I’m learning, the more I understand the underground status, and believe it applies universally. And that’s what makes it difficult to lead by example or spread the word. This contradiction is an important one and I think the answer or solution is right here in us, in the youth. We just have to realize this.

I send strength to all comrades worldwide. As one!

{Saved by the bell

we are made this way,
then punished for being this way!
be afraid motherfuckers
its back to school today.}

MIM(Prisons) adds: Yes, Utah is an anomaly. The Black nation makes up half of the U.$. prison population, while representing about 12% of the overall population. And that is one legacy of the material basis for building socialism among Blacks and not whites. We should try to ally with all who can be allied with, but as we see Amerikans “waking up” they are too often turning to fascism.

Actually, this is a good test case for the “re-proletarianization” of the United $tates. Some argue that we must organize Amerikans now in a mass movement for socialism because as imperialist crisis advances they will become proletarian again. First of all, Amerikans have never been a proletarian nation. They began as an oppressor nation over the indigenous people of the Americas, followed soon after by African slaves and countless other peoples throughout history.

Utah prisons are an interesting example because we actually have a majority white population losing their economic privilege as well as facing extreme repression. And technically, a portion of them are even being economically exploited. An economic collapse in the u$ will not suddenly cause a boom in industry, so a lumpenization is a more accurate description of what will occur than a proletarianization. In this sense, the Utah case study parallels the hypothetical future Amerika pretty well.

So, what is the result? A minority of whites, like our comrade here, will become radicalized towards finding solutions to the inherent contradictions in the system. The majority of whites will cling to their heritage and wave Amerikan flags and scream white power.

All U.$. citizens are criminals–accomplices and accessories to the crimes of U.$. oppression globally until the day u$ imperialism is overcome. All U.$. citizens should start from the point of view that they are reforming criminals. Comrades like the writer are already well on their way to becoming contributors to a brighter future for humynity.

Revolution #183 : Special Issue on Prisons and Prisoners in the U.S.
November 15, 2009
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Calling me an African-American
like everything is fair again, shit
Devil, you got to get the shit right, I’m Black
Blacker than a trillion midnights
–Ice Cube from the song When Will They Shoot?

Many years ago MIM had disregarded the so-called “Revolutionary Communist Party, USA” (rcp=u$a) after it repeatedly served as a mouthpiece for the CIA in relation to People’s War in Peru, the invasion of Iraq, and supporting regime change in Iran.(1) Our predecessors had spent decades drawing sharp lines between the Maoist line and rcp=u$a’s revisionism. In recent years, Monkey Smashes Heaven has continuously exposed the rcp=u$a’s phony Maoism. To date we have not spent too much time on the subject except in some discussions of Iran and a high level document entitled “Maoism Around Us” that was not printed in Under Lock & Key. We believed there was no reason to prioritize doing much more when so much was already out there on the subject that we could point to.

However, the fact remains that most of our readers do not have access to the internet, and therefore will only be aware of this longstanding battle against revisionism if they have been reading MIM Notes or MIM Theory for some time. This month the rcp=u$a published an issue of their newspaper dedicated to the topic of u.$. prisons. This caught our eye, and reiterated the need for MIM(Prisons) to continue to draw the line between Maoism and revisionism.

Many comrades write in praising the virtues of Maoism and we take this as a sign that we are doing something right in connecting the struggles of the oppressed in this country to an ever developing proletarian ideology. But we must be real, only a handful of our readers are seriously grappling with the questions facing Maoism today. And those that cannot distinguish Maoism from the right opportunism of groups like the rcp=u$a have not yet grasped it.(2) So let us begin.

“African Americans”

Did they say “African Americans”? Following the Black Power movement of the 60’s there have been debates among revolutionaries between the terms Black Nation and New Afrikan Nation. But the rcp=u$a is still writing about “African Americans.”

What’s wrong with this terminology? Well, nothing really if you believe that Black people are amerikans as rcp=u$a does. Some have suggested the term African Amerikan for our enemies of African descent; another term for Uncle Toms. You see, to Maoists, amerikans are oppressors. To be amerikan is to be the enemy of the proletariat and the struggle of all oppressed people. Rcp=u$a in contrast calls for the leadership of the multinational labor aristocracy to lead the revolution in the u.$.

We must acknowledge that the rcp=u$a came out in support of (actually it was more like giving permission to) an independent Black state in their Draft Program. They did so, while maintaining that the “other” oppressed nations in the u.$. must be part of their “multinational proletariat.”(3) In other words, they were offering a special neo-colonial deal to the Black nation.

One letter writer in this issue addresses the rcp=u$a’s predecessor, the Revolutionary Union, in their handling of the question of the Black Nation:

From the beginning, the RU’s scientific attitude impressed me. The RU’s analysis of the Black national question stood out from that of other organizations. My friend and I had read Lenin’s and Stalin’s writings on the national question, and like many people in the movement at the time, we were pretty sure that Black people in the U.S. were a nation. However, we didn’t have a very deep understanding. The lines of groups like the Black Workers Congress and the Communist League either proceeded from the point of view of the Black nation itself rather than from the international proletariat, or were bizarre attempts to shoehorn the Black national question into Stalin’s definition of a nation with little or no “concrete analysis of concrete conditions.” The RU came at this question scientifically. Guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, it analyzed the history of Black people in the U.S. from slavery, through Reconstruction, and on through the great migration to the cities in the 20th century, and developed not only a scientific explanation of this question, but a program for the revolutionary movement and for the future socialist society.”

We quote at length here so as to capture the full content of the writer’s point. She writes in typical rcp=u$a style, hyping up the “analysis” and “science” without actually giving you an analysis. She implies criticisms of Stalin, but offers no explanation of the alternative.

On this topic, in their title article rcp=u$a writes:

“The concept of the targeting of Black people and Native Americans as a ‘pariah class,’ dating back to the early days of the U.S., and the overall way in which white supremacy has served to blunt class-consciousness in the U.S. since then, has been drawn on and further developed by Bob Avakian in the important work, Communism and Jeffersonian Democracy.”

They pick up the tactics of the white communist movement dating back to at least the 1930’s of talking hard about the special oppression of Black people, while pulling them away from developing an independent movement for self-determination. Maoists have long upheld the thesis developed in the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat that there is no progressive class-consciousness among amerikans.

Letters from Prisoners

The rcp=u$a prints a number of letters from prisoners and former prisoners in this issue. They have a disclaimer saying that the views in the letters are not those of Revolution, yet fail to criticize anything in them. This is a textbook example of rcp=u$a liberalism in practice right in their so-called Maoist newspaper that is supposedly providing the great leadership of Bob Avakian that we all need in order to get free. They regularly use the “masses” to say stuff that they don’t want to take responsibility for.

One example of this is the prisoner who mentions, “The so called ‘Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo’ that called for the theft of half of Mexican land.” As referenced above, the rcp=u$a has refused to acknowledge the right of Mexicans and their descendants to independence in Aztlán. But they like to print stuff like this to give the impression that they do in order to lure revolutionary nationalists into their ranks.

Rcp=u$a gives lip-service to the principal contradiction under imperialism being between nations, but their revisionism is exposed in their applications. Another example is plain as day in a discussion of Islam:

“When I first tried to understand what Bob Avakian was talking about with the two outmoded ideologies and systems, Islamic Fundamentalism and Imperialism, I said”Damn!” this is something. And Islamic Fundamentalism, I really didn’t understand what that was until I started reading Revolution. The oppression of women, backward ideas, fighting to go back not forward, reading what was in the paper really helped me. This is not a national liberation struggle or something good. It’s not part of any solution for humanity. And, imperialism is not only no better, it’s even worse. We need to put communism and real revolution on the map. This is something way different from Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism. Where are you going to find out about this, not in the Daily News or the New York Times, or these other movement newspapers. People, and not just people locked up, need Revolution and Avakian’s leadership. I felt I can explain it to people. It’s clearer now.”

Uh, what? Actually, The New York Times is all over this shit painting Islam as a threat to feminism everywhere. Where are you going to find out about this? How about from Condoleeza Rices’ speeches when she was head of the State Department? They were given at the same time that the rcp=u$a was pushing the same line of woman’s liberation through regime change in Iran by organizing marches and rallies across the u.$.

Or you could go to frontpagemag.com and read fascist David Horowitz who fought it out with Bob Avakian over who was going to control the discussion of “Islamo-Fascism.” Horowitz has an out for using this term, he doesn’t claim Maoism so he can define fascism however he likes. As Maoists, MIM agreed with Dimitrov that fascism is “the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and the most imperialist elements of finance capital.” There are no imperialist Muslim countries, thus, no fascist Muslim countries.

As mentioned above, not all of our readers get Maoism right, but we don’t print their letters uncorrected. One letter printed in Revolution #183 claims that after reading the newspaper for awhile, “I began to see that this capitalist-imperialist system is fundamentally based on the exploitation and oppression of the vast majority of humanity at the hands of the few within the ruling class who own and control the means of production.” Not surprisingly, readers of Revolution come away with the white nationalist dogma that in the u.$. we are all united against the handful of rich who run the world, and rcp=u$a concurs.

The same writer stressed that the fight for abortion rights are vital. An accompanying article in this issue on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment reads: “This devastating development has shocked and angered many who put their hopes in the Obama presidency to bring change from years of war, repression and Christian fundamentalist onslaught and who now feel thrown under the bus instead.” Thrown under the bus by whom, RCP? If anyone was deceived, it was by the so-called Maoist party that campaigned to get Obama elected to combat the rise of the bogeyman of “Christian Fascism!”

The gender aristocracy rallying to protect their rights to sexual pleasure and promiscuity is not exactly a battle for the international proletariat. But right opportunism says to let the gender aristocracy set our gender line so that we can be more popular. This approach to gender was so disgustingly obvious in rcp=u$a’s approach to homosexuality. As long as gay rights was a minority issue they promoted homophobic literature targeting queers for their sexuality while promoting sexual liberalism for heterosexuals. It wasn’t until after the issue began to strike a popular chord, and discrimination against gays became unacceptable that rcp=u$a followed suit. Nice “vanguard.”

Back in the day, MIM promoted the sterilization of all men in order to eliminate abortion while avoiding the obvious campaign of the anti-abortion movement to control the sexuality of wimmin. While rcp=u$a debated with the Christian right about how they like their wimmin (liberated vs. barefoot and pregnant), MIM took a shot at male supremacy. More importantly today, the pro-choice movement has dovetailed nicely with the pro-war movement targeting countries that oppose abortion and sexual liberalism. But rcp=u$a has harped against Iran for years, promoting the overthrow of the anti-amerikan government there, so this is not a contradiction for them.

One more interesting note on the gender question: The rcp=u$a article reads: “If the Senate passes a health care bill that effectively prohibits abortion, women will be cast back to the days when only the very rich could determine the course of the rest of their lives.” In other words, wimmin would be coerced into having sex that leads to pregnancy. MIM has long said that all sex is rape, and this is probably the closest the sexual liberals at rcp=u$a have come to recognizing this. The problem is that they deny the existence of the gender aristocracy and the reproductive health benefits that it receives by virtue of living in the First World. Even in cases of unplanned sex, birth control is accessible after the fact without abortion. So the rcp=u$a rhetoric is just another example of their exaggerated demagoguery.

A final letter writer catches them up with a direct quote from “The Revolution We Need… The Leadership We Have,” another self-congratulatory rallying cry from the rcp=u$a. “For a revolution, there must be a revolutionary people among all sections of society but with its deepest base among those who catch hell every day under this system.” No, the revolutionary people are found among the exploited and oppressed and we don’t need the exploiters and oppressors to join us before we can be successful.

Whether Barack Obama or Bob Avakian, persynality cults have no progressive role to play in the First World today. The oppressed need to move beyond trying to pick the right candidate to vote for.

Amerikans Need to be Imprisoned

Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.
- from “Lenin on the Struggle Against Revisionism”, p.31

… right up to the very wholesale deportation or internment of the most dangerous and stubborn exploiters - putting them under strict surveillance in order to combat inevitable attempts to resist and to restore capitalist slavery - only such measures can ensure the real subordination of the whole class of exploiters.
-from “Lenin on the Struggle Against Revisionism”, p.41

Regarding our lines on prisons in general, the rcp=u$a supports a line that political prisoners make up a small portion of the population and focus on the cases of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier as examples. MIM’s line has been that all prisoners are political. In other words, the system is set up to control certain populations, while the real criminals that are murdering people en masse make fat paychecks and live free. This issue of Revolution on prisons by a self-proclaimed communist group leaves out what their approach to prisons would be (they mention the need for an “earth-shaking revolution”). They sidestep the two line struggle within the Maoist movement between mass re-education camps in the First World and a dispersal method of sending the former exploiters to the global countryside as they did on a smaller scale within China. This discussion would be too scary for their populist amerikan readership.

As revolution will come to the heart of imperialism last, MIM has long discussed the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations over the oppressor nations as we work to break down the backwards ways of our imperialist past. The rcp=u$a, like all white nationalist so-called communists, sees no reason for such a dictatorship.

In the system that communists are fighting for, much of the First World will face potential prison time in order to right the centuries of injustices that this system is built on. Prisons will serve to develop productive members of a society that serves people’s need, rather than as a warehouse of torture and wasted lives.

Covering for the bourgeoisie

Practice has shown that the active people in the working-class movement who adhere to the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie, than the bourgeoisie itself. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not have remained in power.
- from “Lenin on the Struggle Against Revisionism”, p.74

While we have no exploited working-class movement in the imperialist countries to speak of, this quote from Lenin still rings true in terms of the usefulness of what he calls “bourgeois socialism” in neutralizing those who want an end to oppression. During the Bush Jr. regime the rcp=u$a were constantly crying that “christian fascism” was taking over the country. They led the “World Can’t Wait to Throw Out the Bush Regime” campaign, which was the radical wing of a many year long campaign to get Obama into office. Rcp=u$a of course would never openly support Obama as that would totally discredit them as communists. But they do openly support the 90% of the u.$. population that they claim have an interest in socialism.

As the radical branch of the Democrats, rcp=u$a works to unite these same people for their own interests. When they see their interests in a neo-colonial u.$. president who will expand the occupation and slaughter in Central Asia for amerikan economic interests, the rcp=u$a balks and pretends that the people are confused. This is all part of their game to maintain their radical facade to continue to be an effective recruiter of youth for the Democratic Party.

In 1902, VI Lenin published “What is to be Done?”, which set the theoretical stage for the split of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were the communists led by Lenin who eventually led the successful revolution of 1917. In “What is to be Done?”, Lenin opens up by criticizing one of the Menshevik tendencies for right opportunism and economism.(4) He describes how he had to expand the essay to deal with all aspects of a group that wasn’t even speaking the same language and often playing both sides of an issue. This is a great description of the rcp=u$a’s approach to theory. Of course, rcp=u$a economism takes on a whole new meaning among the exploiter nation in this country, where economic demands actually mean increased exploitation of the proletariat.

History of Struggle vs. Revisionism

While Maoists effectively split from Avakian’s revisionism in the 1980’s, our conditions leave us at a disadvantage compared to Lenin in that many still see the rcp=u$a as representing Maoism because their populist politics gives them a greater public face in many areas (inside u.$. prisons is one exception to this).

Despite volumes of criticisms of the rcp=u$a’s revisionism from the left, they have publicly responded to the Maoist Internationalist Movement only once. It was in 1994 to respond to a paper presented by MIM at a conference, “it argued that white workers as an economic-social grouping in the United States are not exploited, are part of the process of exploitation of the workers of the Third World and have no revolutionary interests. This is a wrong and counterrevolutionary idea.” Clear as day, right? Too bad, the rcp=u$a back tracks on this line and implies certain things about the white nation more in line with MIM when it is dealing with the oppressed. The RCP’s fear of Maoism comes through in their discussion of supermax prisons where they cite vague statistics, but fail to reference the most thoroughly documented list of control units on the internet because it is produced by comrades affiliated with MIM(Prisons).

Combating revisionism is usually a frustrating task that eats up time that could be spent building the movement. While we hope to not have to spend much time on this particular group in the near future, we know that the struggle against revisionism is continuous. And ultimately it is one part of building a strong movement.

notes:
(1) See the archive of the Crypto-Trotskyists page from etext
(2) While Lenin warned that there is no shortcut to identifying revisionism, MonkeySmashesHeaven has a pretty good cheat sheet for our times. see: Clues to help you find out if someone is a revisionist
(3) 2001 MIM Congress. Resolution on the “Draft Programme of the ‘Revolutionary Communist Party, USA’ May 2001”
(4) For a full discussion of “right” and “left” errors see MIM Theory 5: A Diet for a Small Red Planet.

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/sectarian.html

Sectarianism is a term developed from the ideology of guiding ones practice by what would best promote ones sect, or organization. In other words, putting the organization itself over what the organization is supposed to be about.

In practice this looks like multiple groups all saying they are working for the same thing, but not willing to work with each other on this goal because they don’t want to share the spotlight, or they have persynal differences with another group or some other petty issue that has nothing to do with said goal.

One of the purposes of having cardinal principles is to know what things one will split over and not be acting in a sectarian way. These principles, if violated, would deem a party to no longer be working for the same thing as you.

With the dissolution of the MIM into a cell structure in 2005, the potential for sectarianism within the First World Maoist movement increased. There may be a tendency to compete for the new position of vanguard with the demise of the Maoist Internationalist Party (Amerika) around which MIM was centered up until 2007. This doesn’t necessarily stem from an inherent competitiveness among comrades, but rather their understanding of what the vanguard is and its importance for those who follow Leninism.

MIM(Prisons) has always promoted the cell structure as advantageous in terms of security as well promoting the theoretical and practical development of a small movement. With a movement made up of independent cells with different functions, we see it as appropriate to deem the movement the vanguard, even as we remain slow to support each other and work together as a coherent movement. We also continue to struggle against incorrect lines we see within the movement, as well as combat revisionism elsewhere. While revisionism can certainly creep up within MIM, the line between the revisionists and those who effectively combat revisionism is what defines who is a part of MIM.

Discerning Enemies In Struggle

While it has always been a major challenge of our movement, combating revisionism is even more challenging when revolutionaries are actively engaging the enemy in struggle. We’ve seen this with the different approaches to events in Nepal by comrades upholding the Maoist line. We’ve also seen it recently surrounding the apparent security struggles of original MIM cadre.

Before Geronimo Pratt was put away for 25 to life on a FBI frame up, the pigs regularly accused him of ego-tripping when he talked of the surveillance and harassment he faced. Of course, it was all true. Actually there was much more to it than Pratt even knew at the time.

When the FBI deals with those who are known to be armed and promote armed self-defense, if not offense, it is easy to frame such people for jail time and assassinations. It was easy for the FBI to find an excuse to shoot Luqman Ameen Abdullah after they had surrounded him, pointed their big guns and then sicked an attack dog on him. These tactics are harder to pull off on those who have consistently opposed armed struggle and breaking the law by communists, and live to that standard. These tactics are also used in desperation because they are very damaging to the state that carries out assassinations and kidnappings in plain site of the public.

There are many tactics that are often much more damaging to the targets of COINTELPRO than assassinations. They include destroying one’s livelihood, buying one off, seducing one sexually, harassment in many forms and more subtle physical attacks. All of these tactics have been well-documented along with assassinations and frame-ups. Yet, comrades seem to ignore these forms of repression because the facts are not clear or because the difficulties of dealing with them make them uncomfortable. The facts are never clear until it’s too late, that’s the whole point of counter intelligence.

We know that some comrades are upset that Henry Park talked about them publicly. We cannot explain or defend that. He recently decided to talk about MIM(Prisons). We don’t like it either. In fact, we could leave the internet altogether and continue on just as effectively with most of our work. Then those who believe “i can be googled therefore i exist” will pay us no mind.

However, the real wrecking ability is in the unknown number of MC’s who left MIM and left the cardinal principles to go on and do who knows what. According to Park, some of them are doing some very bad things. So it is curious that others are spending so much time worrying about the damage being done by someone upholding MIM’s original 3 cardinal principles and at least 9 out of 10 of the criteria spelled out by Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH). The 10th criteria is the only debatable one because it is not a question of line. It is clear that MSH and others believe that Henry Park has violated point 10. [For the record MIM(Prisons) has not proposed a list of cardinal principles that differ from MIM’s longstanding 3 cardinals, but we see a lot of value in MSH’s list and certainly agree with them on those points.]

Perhaps MIM(Prisons) is the dense party here who doesn’t get what is going on. We are not interested in getting into a debate about what is being done at Henry Park’s blog. But if there is a principled position out there that would benefit our movement we would like to hear it.

In the March 2009 Peace issue of ULK, I submitted an article entitled “More Police Not the Answer.” Since the writing of that piece, pig chief Joe Mowka has been forced into retirement after an investigative report surfaced that his estranged daughter (who has a history of drug abuse) had been using vehicles confiscated by the St. Louis City Police and held at a towing company with a lucrative contract by the City Police. But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Since December 2008, there have been 13 St. Louis City Police officers charged in state and federal indictments. New pig chief Don Isam, the Black face in a high place, says that he is committed to “rooting out those who violate the laws they are sworn to uphold.” Yeah right, we’ve heard it all before… Brotha!

The first week of October 2009, one pig was fired and another suspended after they filed criminal charges against a man for allegedly trying to run over one of them with his car. But due to the diligence of the man’s girlfriend, a videotape surfaced which showed that the officers had in fact lied. All the charges were subsequently dropped.

Two other pigs were caught lying in search warrants. Pigs Vincent T. Carr, and Bobby Lee Courrett, were recently given slaps on the wrists, after being indicted in December 2008, along with pig Leo Liston (indicted in April 2009). They were indicted for stealing drug-linked money and planting illegal evidence on an innocent man and lying to cover up their wrong doing. As a result, over 1,000 cases in which these pigs were involved have to be reviewed.

Some other cases involve pigs lying in court proceedings, doing computer database checks for buddies and theft of U.$. government property. Pigs Ronald H. Jackson and Christian A. Brezill were caught in a scheme in which they would take stolen goods from thieves and keep them for themselves, sell off what they didn’t want and break bread with the rat who set up the other crooks. The indictment involves them taking what they thought was the thieves property, which actually belonged to the FBI.

But these things are not “new” to anyone, nor are they “isolated” incidents. Corruption is part of the pig culture. I can remember back to the late 1980s when George Peach was the city’s head prosecutor, sending thousands of men and wimmin to prison, only to be caught in a federal prostitution sting.

Pig abuse and pig corruption are a part of the capitalist-imperialist system. So while some “citizens” cry for more pigs to be added to the city’s payroll, we say that the imperialist system is the root of all of these problems and that the entire system must go and not just a few greedy, fucked-up pigs!

MIM(Prisons) Adds: We’d like to emphasize the argument that this comrade makes against the “bad apples” theory, which comes from the false bourgeois psychological idea of persynalities and persynality traits. The idea of persynalities serves the bourgeoisie by focusing the masses on getting rid of the few people who are inherently “bad,” instead of analyzing society and how it feeds into some people having antisocial behavior. “If we just lock up so-and-so the rapist, and so-and-so the thief, and fire so-and-so the racist pig, then society will be a better place.” This incorrect logic is used for cleaning up the pig herd as well as locking up oppressed nations. In reality, people are a reflection of the society that they live in. If you live in an oppressive society where we have unequal power, and we’re taught to behave in antisocial ways, then it’s necessarily true that some people will abuse that power, and some will have antisocial behavior.

Not only is corruption a part of the pig culture, like this comrade says, but it’s their job to do fucked up things, that’s what they get paid to do. It’s their job to kill people, exploit people, rape people, and get away with it. Pigs of all kinds are specifically hired and promoted based on their loyalty to the amerikan nation. It’s like working at a burger joint in this society. If you don’t flip the burgers and serve them to the customers, then you aren’t enabling the restaurant to work how it needs to in order to be a restaurant. Similarly, as a pig, if you’re not locking up thousands of people, or planting drugs on them, or stopping them from organizing for liberation, then you’re not enabling society to function properly. The only way to truly get rid of the “bad apples” and corruption is to address these problems on a societal level.

We chose the title above, because this is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of Maoism around the world today. Rather it is Maoism from the limited perspective of a small organization with a fairly limited scope of work, located in perhaps the least likely part of the world for Maoism to arise, or at least to take hold.

If MIM(Prisons) had more time, we would have put out statements on the question of the state of the Maoist movement and fraternal organizations sooner. Yet, if we had more time we could do much more in our specific role as a Maoist prison organization in the united $tates, so this is not something we can promise to update often. We are going to lump a bunch of topics into this paper and make it available to the minority of our readership that has been asking these questions for some time. As things develop, we need to be accountable in the work that we do and who we do it with. The decision to work on this also followed the public disclosure of information around individuals in the Maoist movement. We will address this question first.

Old MIM, New MIM

After a couple years of intense struggle between some long-time members of the Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika and various state agents, one founding member has come forward publicly. MIM has always promoted anonymity for both security and to disarm tendencies towards identity politics and cults of persynality among pre-scientific thinkers. Therefore, the state’s success in forcing this persyn to go public was a significant task and evidently a significant set back to the movement.

In the last couple years, many comrades have moved away from those under attack. Part of this was an intentional response by the movement to protect our various forces from being pulled into further attacks. But some got frustrated with the state of the etext.org website, which had been a beacon for revolutionaries in the First World for decades, but had become a battle ground focused on discussions that most could make no sense of. This was an unfortunate setback, as those who ran the etext.org site acknowledged on many occasions.

Eventually, some who had distanced themselves from etext.org claimed to have made an open break with MIM as a whole. This paper, in part, will attempt to question that break.

First, let us define some terms as we see them. We define MIM as MIM defined itself:

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlán, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire. MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking parties or emerging parties of MIM.

MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the vantage point of the Third World proletariat.

MIM struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups; classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possible by building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle.

Revolution is a reality for the United States as the military becomes over-extended in the government’s attempts to maintain world hegemony.

This is from the 1999 Congress where “About MIM” was revised to define MIM as “a collection of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist parties.” MIM had always defined the scope of its work to be within the First World. As the movement evolved, that vision took shape and the Maoist Internationalist Party -Amerika was no longer synonymous with MIM, even though some still identify themselves as “MIM” to this day. The only part of the above definition that is no longer true is that MIM was an organization with centralized party organs called MIM Notes and Notas Rojas. MIM is now a “movement” without a central organizational structure. Therefore its members are defined ideologically and fluidly, and not by a membership roll or card.

The 2005 MIM Congress resolutions on cell organizing (1) stressed the importance of organizing and documenting the development of our political line, specifically using the worldwide web. Hence the importance of keeping the work that was hosted by etext.org online, especially in a period where our movement is so decentralized. MIM(Prisons) has a particular interest in playing this role in that we may be more true to the etext MIM-line than any other organization with an online presence. We also use these materials regularly in our education work offline.

The cell resolutions set up a division of labor that left the original MC cell as a sort of center. The current complete decentralization seems to be the logical outcome of the cell resolutions, and MIM(Prisons) holds that there is no center of the MIM today.

Those resolutions also put forth an outline for recognizing fraternal cells, stating that the MC cell would renounce such status if line changes deemed it necessary. In many instances, it is better to just talk about line and take positions in struggles within the movement without naming names. Timeless documents on these struggles will be more useful in the long run. Favoring in depth anonymous analysis over short, substanceless denunciations or lists discourages cheerleading and meddling by those who are not engaged in line struggles but want to have something to say anyway. Therefore this document is structured as an in-depth discussion and not a list of who’s hot and who’s not.

We do however, see the importance in addressing specific organizations here by name. In MIM’s original proposal they had specific projects that they were recognizing as fraternal that they were then recommending others be involved with as a form of division of labor. As long as the movement discourages the centralized party structure, we will by necessity have such a division of labor. Therefore, if one cell does not offer something, it is beneficial to be able to point to that something from another cell. This is the simplest example of cells working together. Any such work together requires accountability, especially if there are any differences in lines between the cells. Having such accountability is one of the main purposes of this paper.

Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons

MIM(Prisons) has built itself on the legacy of the MIM Prison Ministry, benefitting greatly from their work. We have improved on some aspects of the work of the Maoist prison ministry, but it has taken us some time to update all of the materials passed on to us. We have recently put out a revised version of “What is MIM(Prisons)?” which should be compared to the “What is MIM?” statement above:

In September 2007, the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons or MIM(Prisons) was formed as an independent Maoist cell. In 2007, the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) took some security hits and changed its organizing strategy as a result. One of the significant changes relates to cell-based organizing as opposed to having a centralized party. MIM(Prisons) upholds the MIM cardinal questions and uses the overall political line put forth in MIM Notes, MIM Theory and on the former website as our starting point to develop our own line and practice. We distribute MIM Theory and serve an archive of the old MIM web site, which we also use as a regular source for prison-based educational work. The MIM legacy in fighting the criminal injustice system is strong and we carry that legacy forward in our own work.

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlán, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.

MIM(Prisons) upholds the revolutionary communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the vantage point of the Third World proletariat.

MIM(Prisons) struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups; classes, genders, nations. Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time in the imperialist countries (including the United States). We do recognize that history has demonstrated that armed struggle is a necessary step to bring the oppressed to power to determine their own destinies. Revolution will become a reality within the United States as the military becomes over-extended in the government’s attempts to maintain world hegemony.

Fighting the injustice system is just one part of the anti-imperialist struggle, and it is important that organizers on the outside and prisoners not lose sight of the connections to this larger battle. For this reason, in addition to news about prisons and prison struggles, we will also publish more general news articles from both organizers and prisoners, as well as some general theoretical writings from prisoners. We welcome support and collaboration from those who are focused only on the prison struggle, but we also challenge them to see the bigger picture of imperialism and the importance of carrying out their work as a part of a larger anti-imperialist strategy.

The differences in our statement and the old MIM statement stem from the fact that we are not a centralized party, but a project with a specific role to play. As such, the question of armed struggle is not one that we must engage directly as an organization. While MIP-amerika had aspired to play a vanguard role in armed struggle some day in the future, MIM(Prisons) will never play this role. Our role is in supporting the development of other organizations and projects, whether initiated by MIM(Prisons) or our allies. We cannot give up this role in order to take on these new projects as our own as some have asked us to do. Our principal task is to maintain the prison ministry as a source of educational and agitational material and as a central coordinating body for the anti-imperialist prison movement.

To an extent, the change in wording regarding armed struggle is tactical in our efforts to reach agreements with various departments of corrections regarding our literature. But it is also strategic in relation to organizational strategy. It is not just a change of semantics, MIM(Prisons) does not now nor ever will be an organization for carrying out armed struggle. Our theory on the topic, however, does not differ from the Maoist line in any way. We recognize the need for armed struggle to achieve true independence. As long as the oppressor has a gun to the head of the oppressed, they cannot be free. Peaceful transitions to so-called “independence” have only resulted in neo-colonialism, a 0% success rate in liberating a people from poverty and oppression. Armed struggles have also ended in neo-colonialism, but armed struggle increases the chances of independence to much greater than zero. By studying history we can continue to increase the success rate by learning from past mistakes.

As mentioned, one of MIM(Prisons) primary tasks in the division of labor is as a distributor of revolutionary, particularly Maoist, materials among prisoners in the united $tates. There is always a major problem among the masses and the general public of not being able to distinguish between political lines. Many newsletters for prisoners pick and choose articles from all over the place and send them in together. While lacking in leadership, this is a fine service for a prisoner support group that is not claiming to represent a particular line to provide to those who would otherwise have no access to the information that anyone on the outside can obtain on their own. However, there have been other newsletters that claim to be produced by, or under the leadership of a Maoist organization that practice this form of distribution, muddying the waters of revisionism. This same problem is seen online, where comrades have criticized such practices already.

Currently, Under Lock & Key (ULK) is under the complete editorial control of MIM(Prisons). In ULK, most of the writing is by prisoners, but we add commentary and analysis where necessary to push the most advanced line. Most of the prisoners that write us are not Maoists themselves. Most cannot distinguish us from revisionist organizations. Many don’t understand why we are separate from liberal bourgeois organizations.

When MIM(Prisons) reprints material from other organizations we will specify our differences with the material. While we recognize that many of our readers don’t see a difference between MIM(Prisons) and reformist or single issue groups, we will not do a full review of every such organization that we work with. That is United Front work. Fraternal work is another story. Organizations that claim Maoism as their ideology (in full or in part) must be assessed in the spirit of combating revisionism and staying on the road to liberation.

In the future, ULK may expand to include materials from more sectors of the Maoist movement. At this time, MIM(Prisons) occasionally distributes materials from other Maoist cells, where those materials correctly answer questions that we have not publicly provided analysis of ourselves or otherwise play a role that we cannot. This use of the division of labor allows MIM(Prisons) to serve more prisoners, without taking on the burden of a full Maoist Party that writes its own theory journal and has an up-to-date analysis on various international questions, among other tasks that the movement must tackle.

Organizational Strategy

Some very experienced comrades have fallen into the habit of, “if you can’t google it, it doesn’t exist.” Many of the organizations we mention below are primarily or strongly online entities. We focus on them because they inherently have a broader audience and serve as potential information sources for our comrades. The division of labor puts certain cells in more prominent roles of developing political line (or muddling it as the case may be with revisionist organizations claiming Maoism). Some groups are going to get more attention, but just like number of members is not a meaningful measure of success in itself, neither is number of readers. Building public opinion does have something to do with the number of eyes and ears we can get a succinct revolutionary message to, but taking full advantage of a cell structure requires the movement to promote and embrace organizational obscurity.

There is a role for more widely read and more prominent online entities, which should in turn inspire more obscure and behind the scenes organizers. The traditional practices of announcing new chapters and describing on the ground organizing strategies are not generally a good idea. While the oppressed nation lumpen may find organization building type work to come with more ease than the petty bourgeoisie, this is still best done in relative obscurity. To the extent that the lumpen are on the periphery of amerikan society, we should use that to our advantage. Roads of outreach that are more closed and specific to the lumpen provide greater security and room for independent growth. There are already enough snitches in our ranks, we do not need to advertise to the cops and the cop-loving amerikan public. The Panthers inspired many lumpen with their audacity. Our challenge is to create the same inspiration without bringing the same attention and repression from the state.

As a cell that spans the country and is not internet only, MIM(Prisons) is unique, facing unique challenges. We support the 2005 MIM Congress cell resolution that stressed the benefits of localized cells that only work with people they know as well as internet cells that are completely anonymous. We are neither of these. We also support the resolution’s arguments for why a centralized Party is not an appropriate strategy at this time. But we are clear that democratic centralism is an essential tenant of communist organizing and that a successful revolutionary movement needs the leadership of a Leninist party.

Discussion of other groups

Since we distribute materials from a few different cells in our own work, work with other cells directly and criticize other formations, we want to be a little more accountable about where we stand. The organizations discussed below are not meant to define the MIM at this time. These are merely the organizations that we come across in our day-to-day work that also claim to uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. There are others claiming Maoism that may be doing great work for the movement (or may be revisionist). In many cases that may require that we don’t know about their work, in other cases we might just not be paying attention. Either way, this document is not meant to disparage the work of those not discussed here. In addition, there are many groups that we work with, and many others that we are in United Front with through practice, that we do not mention here. Some are mentioned elsewhere on our website. But the point here is not to assess the prison movement, but the Maoist movement. Some not discussed below have contacted us expressing interest in “working together.” There is nothing to say over email to such newcomers that is not already on our website.

Notes on the International Communist Movement

In addition to being a part of the u$ prison movement and the Maoist Internationalist Movement, MIM(Prisons) plays an additional role in the International Communist Movement (ICM). The ICM is different from MIM in that it includes, and in fact is dominated by, the Third World. Our focus as an organization is not on resolving issues within the ICM or between the MIM and others in the ICM. As a Maoist organization with a public practice we will be a voice in the ICM. And our practice, both public and not contributes to the advancement of the ICM.

While we are letting people know where we stand, we did want to mention the ICM, which is merely shorthand for the global struggle to end all oppression of groups of people over others. For without such a global perspective, our movement looses our main source of strategic confidence: the Third World. A few points that Maoists are united on include: 1) there is no Maoist (read: communist) party in state power today. 2) parties denying that imperialist nations are exploiters and oppressors are not leading the people towards a communist future, but a future based on the false hope of the theory of productive forces; thoroughly criticized during the Cultural Revolution in China. 3) the idea that there is a third choice in the principal contradiction between oppressed and oppressor nations is petty bourgeois vacillation.

The etext cell did good work in its last few years in exposing the problems within the ICM. Readers should be aware that older documents in the etext archive represent an earlier stage in MIM’s international work and so contradict these more recent developments and do not represent that current state of affairs. Other cells continue to do excellent work to push these points as well. We also have great hope for our comrades in the Third World that seem to still be on the Maoist road, and those who have yet to take it up. The internet may skew things to appear that the strongest positions in the ICM are coming from the First World. While the loudest voices claiming Maoism from the Third World are steeped in revisionism, without strong leadership from the Third World there is no ICM to speak of; that is inherent in the global class analysis of Maoism. A genuine ICM led from the First World is a Trotskyist fantasy.

Those Relating to the original MC-cell

Some have made it clear that they see splitting with the cell based around the etext.org website as a dividing line question. MIM(Prisons) still fails to see the line divisions between these groups, which we will address further below. But this does bring up an interesting question of cell structure, fraternal status and revisionism. At some point, harboring revisionism puts a cell in the revisionist camp, and it is the duty of communists to address this. But our disagreements with the critics are with their analysis, or lack thereof.

The online journal, Monkey Smashes Heaven(MSH), says this of MIM in one of their primary documents “In the past year or so, MIM degenerated into a freak-show wrecking-ball organization whose main activity is to discredit Maoism and sabotage revolutionary work.” This is about the extent of their analysis of why everyone needed to denounce the cell around etext.org before it was completely destroyed by the oppressors. We complained about this kind of substanceless bad-mouthing in April 2008, but MSH continued with such off-the-cuff “criticisms.”

Until recently, the only announcement where they attempt to explain their position was in November 2007, where they refuse to get “into the minutiae.” As we are preparing to release this draft of Maoism Around Us, MSH put out a statement on 4/25/2009 that addresses the issue in less flippant language, but still don’t get into any details. Well, MIM(Prisons) is compelled to address the few minutiae we can cull from the MSH position in order to defend our own. The main way that MSH is able to cover for its denouncing of etext.org is by tying them to the alleged Art Minister of MIM. This was truly a perplexing ordeal, and it continues to damage us. Some may argue that abandoning the MIM name is important to distance ourselves from the “Art Ministry”, who had successfully positioned itself as the primary online entity using the MIM name with etext.org’s demise. We favor the counter argument that over 2 decades of history that represent a legacy that all of us are building on should not be handed over to the pigs who have been trying to bad-jacket Maoists as wackos for just as long. With the regrowth of the genuine Maoist movement online, our position that our legacy is too strong to be hijacked like that is proving true. While etext.org once claimed the “Art Ministry” was bringing internet traffic to the MIM site, it is pretty clear to us that on the contrary the Art Ministry blog would have no readership without the MIM legacy in its name.

With recent public documents and one comrade going public as an individual, some of the gaps have been filled and the story alluded to on etext.org over those last tumultuous years has become more real. The problem is that people need to acknowledge the reality of bourgeois repression and meddling without having to out someone. The pigs have gotten exactly what they wanted. They destroyed what was left of the original MC-cell and got at least one underground organizer to come above ground.

Until its demise, etext.org continued to produce theoretically sound material. Even though the majority of the “security” related posts are meaningless to most, the posts that drew general lessons from these experiences were correct, and provide material well worth studying. With the pigs conducting a strong counterintelligence and disinformation campaign it is inevitable that some statements posted at etext.org contained incorrect information about others. MIM never claimed to be right 100% of the time. And in a fight against the state, not all actions are going to make sense to everyone all the time. But the fact that some will raise up a perceived mistake or two over MIM’s willingness to engage in scientific analysis and fight state repression head on suggests that these people are not up to the depth of commitment and struggle necessary for revolutionary politics. We cannot explain every statement made on etext.org, nor would we want to share that with the state, but can only look at the big picture and say that the political line stayed good and the security struggle was real.

Back to the so-called “Art Ministry.” The “Art Ministry” is allegedly run by a persynality that has had a long history of working with MIM. Therefore, to those paying close attention, it seemed that the “Art Ministry” was officially sanctioned by the MC-cell as was clearly implied at least once on etext.org. However, at no point did etext.org link to the blog or any of the video sites run by the “Art Ministry” or endorse them specifically. The last comments from etext.org on the subject was that others should watch the “Art Ministry” closely. There was a reason the MC’s felt they couldn’t say anything on the subject and there was implied acknowledgement that what was going on in that self-proclaimed cell was bad.

In response to the November 7, 2007 MSH policy on linking, MIM(Prisons) will no longer link to etext.org as it no longer exists.(2) We now host the most complete archive of the site on our own server which we can link to and encourage others to update their links to. With etext.org’s recent demise, we can speak more definitively of it than we can of other cells that are living, evolving organizations. If we had to review the etext.org archive we would say that it is our starting point, that no other collection of writing of comparable size is close to it in correctness, and we have no major splits with the line there, though it certainly evolved over the years (an evolution that represented advances in the line through study and practice).

We will also point out that while MIM(Prisons) still looks to the work of the original Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika as its legacy and theoretical basis, timely questions like relations with other parties should not be transferred to us. We do not have an international ministry. As for fraternal parties in the united $tates, one that always seemed a bit eclectic in its inspirations has allegedly appeared online as an organization deep in mysticism, while still claiming Mao. Another party seems to have degenerated in favor of mass work within lumpen organizations. MIM(Prisons) upholds the MIM-line on not joining mass organizations. (6) We also can point to the New Afrikan Maoist Party (NAMP) as an example of a much more correct approach to deal with the same question of organizing the lumpen that those comrades faced, without liquidating the vanguard party.

It is lamentable that the activities that pushed MIM to a cell structure seemed to destroy most of the work coming out of the party itself. MIM talked about degeneration in its discussions of these struggles, and the apparent lack of follow up by comrades around the MIP-Amerika seems to confirm that. The current generation of MIM in a very different form has already provided great leadership in pushing the movement forward. While our movement is weak, our power comes from our correct political line. And while we are far from the masses for the most part, there is much work to be done at the margins in the imperialist countries, while we work in a United Front with the world’s majority who oppose oppression and exploitation.

Crypto-Trotskyists

The crypto-Trotskyists (those claiming Maoism, but putting forth revisionist lines that come from Trotskyist tendencies) have been thoroughly criticized by those at etext.org as well as others who have followed the MIM line. Rather than repeating that analysis we want to comment on the (not so) recent split in the crypto-Trot camp, mainly because in many circles these are the people who represent Maoism in the united $tates. Namely the rcp=u$a and now the kkkasama project (led by former rcper Mike Ely). In many ways, kkkasama project is a natural progression of the liberalism and white nationalism of the rcp=u$a. They still promote Conquer the World, and are working to out do Afakean’s populism.

Overall, what we have is kkkasama project taking typical liberal pot-shots at Maoism, while rcp=u$a tries to make its revisionist drivel look good by standing up to them. Kkkasama’s attacks on rcp=u$a try to paint it as dogmatic and authoritarian, while the rcp=u$a criticizes the Cultural Revolution with its liberal democratic line popular among RIM affiliated parties. You could argue that at least Kkkasama isn’t claiming to be a Maoist vanguard, and is more openly playing the role of Mao sympathizers. But both groups are doing continued damage to a movement that they falsely represent.

It’s interesting how quick and thorough rcp=u$a is to reply to their liberal defectors, when after 2 decades they were never able to respond to MIM criticisms in a principled way. Of course it’s harder to ignore defectors from your own party. But it’s also convenient that the rcp=u$a can appear to be fighting revisionism by battling a liberal foe (though they do claim that the Ely camp is not even fighting for the same thing and might therefore be considered degeneration and not revisionism).

Kkkasama wants to tear down Afakean with identity politics by making some broad generalizations about revolutionary leaders developing their ideas through struggle. While the importance of leaders developing their ideas through struggle is not incorrect, it is also not incorrect for a First World communist with lots of leisure time and access to research material and sparse revolutionary masses nearby to take up the task of studying. Such crude anti-intellectualism has no place in a group claiming to be putting forth the scientific method.

Ely points out in the “Nine Letters to Our Comrades,” the rcp=u$a has raised the appreciation of Avakian to cardinal question for those in the united $tates. They take Lenin’s theory on leadership to a cultish extreme with a psychological approach that was never intended or useful to the oppressed.

Ely’s best criticisms are of the cult of persynality and the crisis analysis. But even these are fairly superficial compared to criticisms being made by Maoists for decades, mainly issues where Ely still agrees with the rcp=u$a.

In classes that MIM(Prisons) leads, comrades study On Contradiction and are asked to develop their own examples to demonstrate that internal contradictions determine the nature of a thing, while external conditions are secondary and can effect the development of those internal contradictions. This is a principal of Dialectical Materialism. Afakean would have answered that question wrong with his New Synthesis that “the class struggle in any particular country was more determined on the international plane than by the unfolding of contradictions within a given country somehow outside of, or divorced from, that context.”(3) It would logically follow from this understanding that the rcp=u$a is so caught up on hyping up the next crisis that is gonna bring amerikkkan imperialism toppling down, which Ely is critical of. This stems from a Trotskyist desire for global revolution, led by the imperialist country so-called “working class.”

Maoists take a dialectical approach and see that not only did WWI create opportunities for the Bolsheviks, but more importantly, the conditions for revolution evolved because of the unique conditions in Russia as the weak link in the imperialist world. And it was the oppressed classes within Russia and its neighboring states that made the revolution happen. Despite a more globally integrated economy 90 years later, the differences in internal conditions between different countries have only become more extreme.

The rcp=u$a’s strong opposition to nationalism of the oppressed nations also follows from their “international” understanding of the world. Why focus on narrow nationalist goals, when imperialism isn’t going to fall until there is a global crisis to bring it down? This is also borrowed directly from Trotsky. Today, Maoists continue to look for the weak links in the imperialist system as openings for revolution, rather than beating our head against a brick wall waiting for imperialist crisis when “our people” can become revolutionary - that is the narrow nationalism of amerikans not internationalism.

On religion, Ely tries to play the middle ground liberal. Afakean is wrong for being militantly atheist, and MIM is wrong for supporting radical Islam’s jihad against the imperialist invader. “Can’t we not be racist and oppose Islam at the same time?” the good liberal asks himself. Nope, rcp=u$a already tried it, and they get more internationalist points for pointing out to Ely that yes, silence is complicity.

Rcp=u$a wants to flirt with MIM Thought to silence the detractors, yet they still muddle the issue. Kkkasama is clear in their attacks on what they see as Afakean’s dismissal of the amerikkkan mAsses, thereby completely distancing themselves from the labor aristocracy line. Rcp=u$a brags about refocusing on the oppressed nations and lumpen in recent years; following MIM’s practice without the theory to back it up. In “Reinvisioning Communism and Revolution,” they refer to so-called “African-Americans” as “wage-slaves.” As usual, they can spit populist rhetoric while misapplying terms and hoping to avoid giving critics a clear class analysis to critique.

The most hilarious claim of the article defining the Avakian’s “New Synthesis” reads: “Avakian upheld and deepened Lenin’s understanding that the division of the world between imperialist powers and oppressed nations had given rise within the imperialist powers to a section of the working class, and an even bigger section of the middle class, that not only benefitted materially from the parasitism and plunder of imperialism, but came to politically identify with their imperialist masters.”(3) It was Engels who said that whole nations were being bought off. And it was MIM who quoted Engels and Lenin to refute rcp=u$a white populism for decades. Now they want to take it and twist it into the Trotskyist line that “some workers are bought off” or “some of the imperialist country middle class is bought off,” as if there were separate “working” and “middle” classes within the imperialist countries. Come on, can we use terms with real definitions? Can we say who is exploited and who is exploiter? The rcp=u$a avoids it at all costs.

Soon after in that essay the rcp=u$a upholds the need to “listen to criticisms” from “every quarter.” Yeah, they listened, and they stayed silent and after a long wait they responded by twisting the critics line to hide their own revisionism. Tell us rcp=u$a, have you taken up the MIM line or not? No honest communist, claiming to be combatting revisionism can put stuff like this out and be silent on the most thorough criticisms made of your organization on this very question.

This whole split and debate is useful to the enemies of Maoism in two ways. On the one hand, it may help the rcp appear to be combatting revisionism and upholding Maoist principles in its replies to kkkasama. (More recently, the government of Nepal has proven to be no more worthy an adversary to rcp=u$a’s anti-revisionist campaigning). In some individual statements the rcp criticisms are correct, but their overall orientation is the same old crap. A similar eclectic picking and choosing from Maoism on the part of kkkasama creates another revisionist alternative for the petty bourgeoisie who was never really too hot on the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing anyway. So Kkkasama mostly helps reinforce the typical anarcho-liberal anti-Maoism. For these reasons, we’ve probably said more than we should on this “split” already, because the whole thing is nothing but an attack on Maoism. If you haven’t yet read the documents behind the discussion in this section, our recommendation is not to bother. Even the article cited below that actually explains what the “New Synthesis” is, is typical rcp=u$a doublespeak: take every position so that you can agree with everyone.

A 4th Stage? - on Thoughts and isms

Now that we’ve discussed the recent split in the crypto-Trot camp it is logical for us to tackle the question of the stage of development of revolutionary science. Both the above parties and others internationally have used the perceived need for a new stage for the 21st century to leave behind the universal aspects of Maoism, i.e. take the revisionist road, or rather continue down it.

Kkkasama project describes 3 “packages” of MLM that currently exist in the International Communist Movement, yet strangely leave out MIM Thought and Maoism-Third Worldism. This isn’t too surprising since rcp=u$a’s official line for decades was to ignore MIM Thought and hope no one notices. And since Kkkasama does not agree with MIM’s principle differences with the rcp=u$a, they will follow the same path so as not to reveal the revisionist swamp that the ICM is currently sinking in. We take the opposite approach, and believe that by shedding light on the errors of others we can best combat those errors. As Afakeanites argue so strongly in their response to Ely, there is only one truth and it is in the interests of the people.

To ring in the New Year in 2008, a few groups including Monkey Smashes Heaven released “Sunrise in the East,” declaring a new stage of revolutionary science they named “Maoism Third Worldism.”(5) The Maoist Information Web Site (MIWS) then put out the most complete analysis of the question of a fourth stage of communist theoretical development we’ve seen in response.(4) We have strong agreement with the work of MIWS, and have distributed their economic works in the past. The main criticism they put forth of the Sunrise statement is that “a new stage of Marxism should not be defined in relation to the counterrevolutionary ideas of fakes, zombies and clowns calling themselves ‘Maoists.’” The Sunrise statement says it is “naming a new stage of revolutionary science” in order to get past the debates over “Maoism” dating back to at least the Cultural Revolution. While we can’t deny that an arena where contenders include Avakian’s “New Synthesis” and “Prachanda Path” is not a very worthy one, we agree with MIWS that this does not denote the emergence of a new stage, but rather an ebb in revolutionary science that must be combated.

The reason we do not see MTW as a new stage of Marxism is that the 8 “breakthroughs” are mostly found in Maoism and completely found in MIM Thought. What these 8 points are is some important dividing lines between Maoism and fake “Maoists.” They clearly did not come out of thin air, but from a careful study of the dividing line questions of the day. But as MIWS pointed out, leaving the term “Maoism” as outdated further allows the fakes to lay claim to our revolutionary legacy, as if their ideology even represented a correct “Maoist” line for the last generation.

It is new in the last decade to claim the first point of the MSH statement (that there is no significant exploited population in the First World) is a universal point that communists must agree on. In its early years, MIM only held First World parties to this cardinal principle. We agree with the evolution of the MIM line that this must be upheld by anyone claiming communism anywhere, as it is a well-developed aspect (a principal aspect) of the global class analysis. But a honing of our political economy during the ebb in revolutionary activity does not represent a new stage as such.

The idea that Maoism has entered a new stage because Mao did not uphold the Maoist line of 2009 is also too simplistic.

Maoism-Third Worldism

MIM(Prisons) agrees with the 8 “breakthroughs” of Maoism-Third Worldism (MTW) listed in the Sunrise statement.(5) Those identifying as MTW have made particular contributions on a number of fronts. One is research on China and in particular the Cultural Revolution and the line struggles within the party during it. They have made important connections between the struggle against the Theory of Productive Forces and relating it to a Maoist class analysis. This is the main argument behind the position that the cardinal principle on the labor aristocracy is not something we can let slide in the Third World. To do so opens the door to revisionism after the seizure of state power.

The MTW groups have also done a worthy job of commenting on the International Communist Movement. In particular, we support their criticisms of those claiming Maoism while promoting revisionism. We have distributed some of these documents to answer questions about the struggles in other countries that we have not covered ourselves.

If there is a difference between MIM Thought and MTW, it would be that MTW is national reductionist. However, we must acknowledge that the founders of MTW have a well-documented and worked out class analysis to go along with their analysis of nation (one that comes primarily from MIM Thought). Therefore, we cannot put them in the camp with bourgeois nationalist formations such as the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP), which puts nation as primary but then follows the white nationalist class analysis. Such a class analysis would threaten their line of the New Afrikan “proletariat” as the vanguard of the world revolution. MTW comes from a much clearer internationalist position than that. The problem is when comrades at the Maoist Third-Worldist site Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH) try to deal with gender and just wrap it into nation wholesale. How many strands of oppression does MTW claim exist? MIM Thought claims 3.

In writing about MIM, the main ideological struggle MSH has taken up has been the gender question. We whole-heartedly agree with the MIM gender line and disagree with MSH. Our limited work on gender relations within the prison environment and application of MIM’s gender line to other recent political issues demonstrates this position. MSH’s gender line accepts some important aspects of MIM Thought, while tossing out the truly new work that MIM did on gender. The idea that gender is a social construct in the first world is less and less a revolutionary position that Maoists need to stress, though we still favor using language that exposes this truth. The MTW groups have taken the important gender battle of the day and pushed it to the forefront. But the MIM gender line predicted the current attacks on the Muslim world via gender a long time ago. Failure to grasp the theory behind these positions will lead to failures in positioning the movement correctly for the next attacks by the imperialists. To accuse MIM of sneaking First Worldism into Maoism via gender is a joke when MIM consistently critiqued white pseudo-feminism for decades and usually stood alone. They use incomplete MIM Thought to attack the coherent theory behind MIM line, and then act as if they have exposed MIM’s revisionism.

To be able to criticize homophobia and biological determinism in gender is not revolutionary. Branches of the Democratic Party beat the rcp=u$a in the realm of gay rights. Social democratic Kkkasama project criticizes rcp=u$a homophobia and their lack of transparency and self-criticism with a liberal line on sex. Anarchist-communists supporting the MIM-Sakai line on nation/class picked up this same article uncritically. Unless MSH really wants to throw out gender as a strand of oppression, they leave us with no alternative but this sexual liberalism by denouncing the MIM gender line without replacing it.

MSH says First Worldism is the modern incarnate of revisionism and we agree, but this is nothing new. Trotskyists have been putting forth the First Worldist line of the Theory of Productive Forces since the time Mao was still alive.

Single Nation Parties

MIM(Prisons) upholds the MIM-line on nationalism and single-nation parties.(7) While MIM Thought seemed to rely on the experience of the previous generation as the main evidence of the usefulness of single-nation formations, we believe more recent developments confirm that this is still the case. Though we also have no disagreements with those who focus on cross-national organization, even of the lumpen class where national divisions are much more pronounced. In some ways this approach is superior in promoting a humynism based on the commonalities of the lumpen situation, rather than slipping into pork-chop nationalism that attempts to capture and romanticize a culture of the past based on one’s ancestry. For example, Hip Hop culture is a more promising battle ground for the oppressed today than Egyptology or even Kwanzaa.

There are two kinds of nationalism, revolutionary nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Revolutionary nationalism is first dependent upon a people’s revolution with the end goal being the people in power. Therefore to be a revolutionary nationalist you would by necessity have to be a socialist. It you are a reactionary nationalist you are not a socialist and your end goal is the oppression of the people.

Cultural nationalism, or pork chop nationalism, as I sometimes call it, is basically a problem of having the wrong political perspective. It seems to be a reaction instead of responding to political oppression. The cultural nationalists are concerned with returning to the old African culture and thereby regaining their identity and freedom. In other words, they feel that the African culture will automatically bring political freedom. Many times cultural nationalists fall into line as reactionary nationalists. – Huey P. Newton, 1968 (8)

There are a number of groups upholding “Pantherism” and “Intercommunalism” that do not claim to be Maoists or even communists of any sort. While MIM(Prisons) sees the Black Panther Party developed by Huey P. Newton as the Maoist vanguard of the united $tates in the late 1960’s, the Panther legacy took on such a mass character that Pantherism and Maoism are often not treated as the same thing. The BPP’s own former Chief of Staff uses “intercommunalism” as a cover for the Panthers’ communist ideology.(9) Meanwhile, the Panther legacy is so strong that people use it to this day as a cover while doing work for the state.

But just as we don’t abandon Maoism to the revisionists, we do not leave the Panthers to them either. We uphold the Panther legacy and learn from their lessons. Two other organizations that we have distributed materials from and worked with also explicitly claim the Panther legacy while claiming Maoism. They are the New Afrikan Maoist Party (NAMP) and the New Afrikan Black Panther Party (NABPP), the latter we maintain to be revisionist. The MIM has had a long-standing policy of not working with revisionist organizations so as not to confuse the people. This is not a universal principal, but one that the party correctly applied for decades. In most cases we have also taken on this practice, but have made an exception with the NABPP who has had a long history of work with MIM. The nature of this work has been in the interests of u$ prisoners, fighting against abuses such as torture, censorship and ongoing COINTELPRO campaigns by the state.

It is to our dismay that the New Afrikan Black Panther Party (NABPP) has developed the political line that it has, despite some members having had a long history of exposure to MIM line. Regardless, we have continued to work with their members on specific projects and even distributed particular writings. When doing so we have specified our disagreements with NABPP. We continue to see this practice as correct in the interests of the oppressed. [For the record, there is no validity to rumors that created bad feelings between some close to the NABPP and the MIM. All we can say on that is emails can be forged just as easy as letters.]

The NABPP, formerly known as the New Black Panther Party - Prison Chapter, evolved from within u$ prisons and continues to have a significant overlap with our own work. Therefore it is of great importance that comrades understand the differences between us, even if we can admit that the NABPP has done some good work. A while back there was a discussion of publishing the debates between NABPP and those in the MIM camp. Until that happens, this will have to serve as the best public documentation of those differences.

Actually, there is not much in the debate that has not already been addressed by MIM in its debates with other Trotskyist and crypto-Trotskyist groups. The NABPP calls for working class unity within the united $tates and refers to the New Afrikan nation as an almost wholly “proletarian slave nation.” (see ULK 8 for MIM(Prisons)’s analysis of prison labor) They decry outsourcing for reducing the ranks of the labor aristocracy in the united $tates, claim that people wouldn’t be employed if they weren’t being exploited and deny the history of white nationalism spelled out in J. Sakai’s Settlers: the Mythology of the White Proletariat.

In the debates with NABPP, comrades in the New Afrikan Collectivist Association, a precursor to the New Afrikan Maoist Party (NAMP), criticized NABPP on its line on the New Afrikan proletariat as well as its line on a Pan-Afrikan nation. The latter question which NABPP addresses theoretically has been taken on in practice by the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP), whom our comrades have also allied with in the past. (The APSP does not claim Maoism but does claim the legacy of the late BPP.) In recent years they have combined their line that Africans (including New Afrikans in the united $tates) are the vanguard of the revolution with an apparent inability to build mass support for revolution within u$ borders to come to a position of forming the African Socialist International, being led by the APSP. We see this as being much closer to the rcp=u$a’s Trotskyism in building the u$-based Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, than to Pan-Afrikanism, and caution our revolutionary comrades in the Third World to be wary of any such First World-led organizations. In the earliest history of Pan-Afrikanism, the different conditions faced by New Afrikans compared to most of Africa were quickly realized by many, resulting in separate efforts. And as stated above, a correct global class analysis would lead one to conclude that there is no need for First World leadership to create a revolutionary pole in an international arena.

Internationalism will come in many forms among the internal semi-colonies. Those with links to the Third World will tend to develop special relations along those lines. But any group based in the imperialist countries that is attempting to build internationalist ties on the basis of mutual class interests is falling into Trotskyism. NAMP’s line that the New Afrikan nation is primarily a petty bourgeois nation, and that they do not form chapters in the Third World in respect of local comrades who can do a much better analysis of their conditions are key positions for any First World based communist organization or party.

NAMP sees single-nation party organizing as a logical high-priority given the principal contradiction as being between the oppressed nations and imperialism. MIM(Prisons) does not see this as a dividing line question, but would encourage all to take seriously the considerations put forth in the 2005 MIM cell resolution, particularly in reference to maintaining the security and longevity of the movement as a whole. Last we heard, NAMP was holding its first congress to tighten up its line and practice, so we have not seen any recent theoretical works. But we look forward to the outcome of that congress, and continue to be encouraged by developments within the New Afrikan Liberation Movement.

While we do not have a list of fraternal organizations to publish at this time, this paper should give a good outline on where we stand, particularly in relation to those that we work with. If you see us distributing materials by a self-proclaimed Maoist group or working with them in any other way, you can assume that we see them as part of the MIM unless we explicitly state otherwise.

NOTES:
(1) MIM. Resolutions on Cell Structure. MIM Congress 2005, Session II.
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/cong/cells2005.html
(2) MSH. Policy on linking Maoist groupings and Etext. November 7, 2007.
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/policy-on-linking-maoist-groupings-and-etext/
(3) Re-envisioning Revolution and Communism: What is Bob Avakian’s New Synthesis. Part III.
(4) MIWS. On whether there is a fourth stage of Marxism. March 2008.
http://maoist.ws/theory/fourthstage.html
(5) MSH. Sunrise in the East. January 1, 2008.
http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/sunrise-in-the-east/
(6) see Pitfalls of Single Issue Organizing by MC5 and MC17 in What is MIM? or on our website in the etext archive FAQ.
(7) see MIM Theory 7: Proletarian Feminist Revolutionary Nationalism
(8) Foner, Philip S. The Black Panthers Speak. Huey Newton Talks to the Movement… p. 50.
(9) while we do not address all of the new “Panther” groups here you can read an article on the prominent NOI-linked “New Black Panther Party” and an interview on former BPP Chief of Staff David Hilliard’s work in our archive of the etext.org website:
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bpp/defendlegacy.html https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bpp/hilliardclass.html