Under Lock & Key

If we accept MIM(Prisons)’s line and analysis that U.$. prisoners – lumpen prisoners of oppressed nations – have the most objective class-nation interest in anti-imperialism, then of course the validity of this analysis can be tested in practice, whereby objective organizing factors-forces would be evident. MIM(Prisons), to its credit of remarkable theoretical leadership, has already outlined in its article on prison organizing what the principal contradiction is driving the Prison Movement.(1) MIMP also challenged its prison cadre (of prisoner study groups) to do the same for their own specific state prison conditions. While these theoretical tasks are undoubtedly necessary, they don’t really instruct us on whether the Prison Movement is actually moving, or better yet whether there is even a Prison Movement to move.

Thus, it is the aim of this article to look deeper into the question of prison organizing, to determine what fundamental factors-forces need to be in evidence for there to be a viable Prison Movement, and above all to give an honest assessment of the U.$. lumpen prisoner’s potential to be leaders of any progressive movement, least of all, one of anti-imperialism or national liberation. However, it should be noted that the conclusions reached in this article are specific to Washington state prisons. It is the hope of the author that other cadre across U.$. prisons will pick up the pen and conduct their own serious and sober investigation.

For MIM(Prisons), the principal contradiction determining the development and direction of the Prison Movement is expressed in terms of consciousness, not class or nation. With individualistic (petty bourgeois) attitudes and behavior occupying one pole of the contradiction, the other pole is occupied by more group-oriented (progressive) conduct and concern. And at this time, as it has been for some time, individualistic consciousness is the dominant pole of the principal contradiction. In other words, within a given prison environment, most prisoners view their interests (short-term, medium-term, and even long-term) being realized through individualism (and opportunism). Accordingly, group-oriented thinking and action are rarely seen and therefore have little-to-no impact on the Prison Movement.

Washington state is no different in this regard. In fact, it is exceptional in a level of individualism, opportunism, and soft-shoe parasitism that prevail among its prisoners. Sure, the anti-people behavior of snitching, drug culture, extortion through manipulation, etc. is not exclusive to Washington prisons. Such behavior can be seen in just about any U.$. prison, in settings where violence and viciousness are the only coins with purchasing power. And yet, in Washington prisons, extremely adverse conditions are pretty much nonexistent, and with it a large part of the basis for prison organizing.

To explain further, Washington state has created a new, depoliticized prison environment, one in which traditional prison politics are not tolerated. While prison politics of old were reactionary and self-destructive, depoliticization has anesthetized the Washington state prisoner to the contradictions that come with imprisonment. With the Washington prison of today being somewhat safe, devoid of the ever-present threat of physical and sexual violence, and other forms of overt predatory behavior, the prisoner is no longer forced to question and think critically about the conditions of incarceration. Indeed, today the prisoner is numb to the political dimensions of incarceration.

There are essentially three ways in which Washington has managed to accomplish this. First, it has all but institutionalized snitching, allowing for the systematic abuse/misuse of protective mechanisms (such as PREA and other federally-mandated laws) by prisoners and staff.(2) And because consequences for snitching went out with the old prison politics, this encourages more prisoners to join the growing horde of informants. This results in more and more prisoners seeing their interests protected by the state, when unfortunately, it only reinforces the status quo of their imprisonment.

Conversely, those prisoners who refuse to be pawns of the system isolate themselves within their own close-knit groups and factions. They sit back and lament about how so-and-so is telling or they talk fondly about how things used to be. In reality, these prisoners are only engaging in their own form of individualism by resurrecting old myths or fashioning new ones from their false consciousness. Ultimately, these prisoners are just as bad as the snitches, because they are paralyzed to act or think critically (and scientifically) by the possibility of being told on. At least the snitch snitches, that is to say, “acts.”

The second way WA State has sanitized its prisons of organizing conditions is by institutionalizing privileges. WA State has done a phenomenal job in this respect. Prisoners can join culture groups where they have activities and functions. There are a bunch of special jobs as well as the most coveted Correctional Industries job. Programs range from education and vocational to religious and community support. Of course, cable TV, J Pay, food fund raisers, and quarterly food packages contribute to the sanitization of the prison environment. All of these taken together allow the prisoner to carve out eir own specialized niche of doing time, whereby ey becomes a better inmate instead of a better person. More importantly in the eyes of WA State ey becomes reliable because eir behavior is predictable. In other words, WA State doesn’t have to worry about “model inmate” given that ey is lost in doing easy time.

Finally, the third and most important way WA State created a depoliticized climate within its prisons was to dismantle and discredit the old guard. The old guard represented a collection of old-school prisoners, who were versed in prison politics of both revolutionary and reactionary iterations. (The term “prison politics” originated during the late 60s and 70s, as a liberation ideology beyond the walls found a home behind the walls. But just as the reactionaries beat back the tide of social change, those revolutionary prisoners under lock and key suffered similar fate. What was left in the walk was the same predations and parasitism we saw in lumpen communities of oppressed nations at that time. Today, most prisoners erroneously believe prison politics to mean prison LO’s pushing the line behind telephones and tables or checking in prisoners who’s paperwork didn’t check out.) Sadly, most of these prisoners have given up on handing down “game” to the younger generations, least of all organizing for better prison conditions. They are either bought off with a special status within prison reserved only for old timers, or become victims/hostages of their own vices. Those who have maintained a militant posture, over time, have their characters impinged in a pig-led campaign to discredit them and their organizing efforts. It is this dearth of political leadership and guidance that is most responsible for the depoliticization within WA State prisons.

But such a situation isn’t as discouraging when we look at the WA State penitentiary. The state penitentiary or West Complex is a closed (maximum) facility, housing lots of young lumpen org members looking to wild out. So at the West Complex it is common to have race riots or prison LO rivalries. Fights are an everyday thing creating an atmosphere electric with tension. And at just about any moment staff can be victimized too. Yet, in a seemingly chaotic environment, where WA State has not eradicated “prison politics,” that is the West Complex group-oriented action based on principled unity among all the prisoners resulted in concessions from the state. In early 2018, West Complex prisoners got fed up with the poor food (pun intended) they were being served, and as a collective group decided to go on a hunger strike. It became such a big ordeal in the state that the governor, Jay Inslee, visited the facility to speak with a few prisoners who registered the grievances of the population. Of course, the visit by the governor was more show than a show of concern. The point is, such group-oriented action actually resulted in some of the grievances of the prisoners being addressed. Most notably was the addition of a hot breakfast to the menu where previously it was a cold sack.

The point that this example serves isn’t that reactionary prison politics work or that violent prisoners are more suited for group-oriented action. No, the point here is that a repressive institution such as a maximum facility creates and nurtures violence; it promotes the continuation of reactionary prison politics. And as violence occurs and politics are pushed, the repressive nature of the institution tightens evermore. Eventually, prisoners are forced to deal with the meager, spartan existence the institution provides them. Some choose the path of more self-destructive behavior, but it is ALL who opts for the path of collective-oriented action when the conditions are ripe.

This isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement of the maximum prison. Too much reactionary stuff occurs behind its walls by too many prisoners with reactionary consciousness. Leadership must be in place, the issue to organize around must be important to most if not everyone. And more importantly, there can be no hesitation once the wheels move forward and gains momentum. The organizing effort is too delicate of a process within the WA State prison environment, which is why more often than not conditions are left to rot.

The one definite conclusion reached about organizing in WA State prisons is that the max prison fosters a rebellion among its prisoners that has the greatest potential to serve the Prison Movement. There is a level of seriousness and critical awareness seen in the West Complex that is just nonexistent in other WA State prisons, due to the depoliticization program. This isn’t to say that there aren’t some enlightened comrades on WA State medium and minimum mainlines sprinkled here and there. It is precisely this “sprinkling here and there” of righteous comrades that the cacophony of “doing easy time” drowns out their leadership, however.

MIMP has already reached the theoretical conclusion that the lumpen prisoners (of oppressed nations) will make up the vanguard of the Prison Movement. But here in WA State, unlike most other states, it is the labor aristocratic and petty-bourgeois oppressor nation prisoners who are in the majority on most mainlines. And given this group’s inclination toward fascism, it poses an obstacle to organizing in many respects. Those oppressor nation prisoners who do not flirt with fascist politics are generally sex offenders and thus seen as even more taboo to unite with. This is an interesting dynamic for lumpen prisoners’ (of oppressed nations) role within the WA State Prison Movement. It must not only overcome oppressor nation fascism but also violate prison norms set by politics.

Granted, prison politics have been eliminated on most WA State mainlines, but they have yet to be eliminated from the hearts and minds of both lumpen prisoners (of oppressed nations) and oppressor nation prisoners (fascists). Consequently, the stage of struggle with respect to the WA State Prison Movement is at the level of disunity and distrust. Coupled with the very real fact that the lumpen prisoners (of oppressed nations) are fractured into their own constituent prison and street LO’s, their leadership in the movement is without a doubt questionable at this point. For lumpen prisoners (of oppressed nations), caught in the depoliticized zones of Washington State prisons, the only objective interest for organizing is for their freedom. Everything else for this group is about drug culture, checking for wimmin, and establishing and maintaining a credible prison reputation to take with them to the street. To this point, the potential for the relatively few lumpen prisoners (of oppressed nations) to lead or even support a Prison Movement exists within the WA State closed custody institution, West Complex.

While such a conclusion is discouraging for WA State revolutionary prisoners, the hope lies in defining–maybe redefining–what the aims of the Prison Movement are relative to the specific conditions of the WA State. If, in general, the Prison Movement is about improving prison conditions, agitating and educating the larger population on the systemic injustices of mass incarcerations, or challenging the legitimacy of the prison, then the WA State Prison Movement must focus most of its effort on agitating and educating, challenging the growth of the prisons, etc. The basis for improving prison conditions has become an exclusive endeavor for the typical “legal beagle” in search of a big payday. The average prisoner has it too good to want to organize for better.

In conclusion, it is the overall contention of this article that the WA State Prison Movement exists, but solely in the individual practices of the few righteous comrades throughout the system.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer demonstrates how to study local prison conditions to determine the contradictions and where to best focus our organizing energy. This is something that has to be done from within each state by people who live there and know the conditions. It can’t be done from the outside. With this analysis we can compare conditions, learn from best practices in other similar prisons, and build our organizing work in a scientific way. We welcome comrades in other states to follow this example and send in your own analysis of your state or prison conditions. We also hope other WA prisoners will respond to this analysis with your thoughts and observations.

In the February 2019 issue of the SF BayView there was a headline that read, “California Prisoners endangered by forced merger of Snitch Yards.” And it dawns on the world, how can a prisoner in the prison state capitol affect change on a national, and international level, if they can not find unity as a population suffering under the exact same conditions of: Police Brutality, Don’t ask Don’t Tell, Code of Silence Policies, Corrupt Administrative Justices, and Counterfeit Social Justice/Prison Reform Advocates. Prisoners in California suffer, as a whole, under these conditions, yet the leaderships of the most politically advanced wrestle over popularity contests between who is “active” and who is non-active, who is with the business and who is not. Just what business is it that defines whether a person in prison is active or not? Is it not the Freedom of All Persons in Prison we struggle for, or is it but a select few?

Aren’t we all political prisoners, under these current conditions? Of course, there are those amongst the population of prisoners who are deserving of a bit more popularity than others. Those who carry the publicity of high profile cases as social justice activist, militants and radicals. All in all however, do we not share the similar suffering under this condition called imprisonment?

In California, leaders must really mature themselves and their followers to the level of love and reconciliation, this be prisoners and former prisoners. The time is: N.O.W.

Headlines like this one in the SF BayView, designating all Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) facilities as “snitch yards,” are not only mis-leading the public support of the California abolitionist population, but also an abuse of power that promotes dis-unity amongst the prison populations. Prisoner leaderships must be wise in the manner with which we allow for our movement to be represented by members of the public. The most important aspect should be the information that leaders allow to be published on the state of population affairs. It must be accurate information, based on facts, that the leaders use when representing the movement, or its population.

It is a fact, not all prisoners housed at SNY Facilities are snitches. So for the headline, “…Forced Merger of Snitch Yards” to be presented by the SF BayView does a (dis)service, to not only one of the strongest vehicles and stages for the prison abolitionist movement, but it hurts the movement as a whole. What, social justice and prison reform for all but SNY prisoners?

Prisons across North America are faced with a similar issue to the SNY facilities. Those who benefit the most from the all-too-common misnomer that all SNY are snitches, child molesters, sexual deviants, are the law enforcement agencies. This too includes mainstream corporate news reporting agencies. #Fakenews. There are individuals who testified in the event of their commitment offense all over prison, not just SNY. And what is to be said about leaderships within prisons affiliated with drug operations, serving poison to the community, gun violence involving non-combative casualties of peoples, kids, grandparents, relatives? And what about the big homies on the line affiliated with pimping, pandering and prostitution. How many underage homegirls have we condoned being out in the trap after curfew?

Prisoners across the United $tates in the states of TX, OH, LA, AL, NY, PA, FL, VA, NC, and SC have begun concerted efforts to consolidate the various factions of their prison populations, scattered across the board, for the sake of unity. This effort is known as the National Freedom and Justice Movement. If the leaderships, and their followings within California prisons do not cease in their petty quarrels and name-calling skirmishes on both sides, SNY and GP, those who have often been at the center of the global discussions for prison reform and abolitionism might find themselves on the wrong side of history. This is a most sincere call for prisoners in California, whether it be former prisoners, juvenile lifer prisoners, non-violent offender prisoners, level 4, 180 & 270 prisoners.

See, the one thing you all have in common? You’re prisoners. There may be some who hold strictly to the Agreement to End Hostilities while others will develop under the United Front for Peace in Prison. Wherever it be, get in where you fit in and carry love first of all. The movement is larger than all of us, none is without error, thus there must always be room for reconciliation.

MIM(Prisons) comments: The BayView article in question was written by someone, who, despite our disagreements on questions of Marxism, has done a lot to advocate for people in the California Security Housing Unit (SHU) system. The anti-SNY attitude is still the status quo among the lumpen organizations (L.O.s) that were once the main targets of the SHU. And some supporters of those who spent years and decades in those torture cells parrot the disparaging attitudes towards SNY, which peaked at almost one third of the California prison population before the forced integration began.

We stand with the families who are concerned about the safety of their loved ones, and who are exposing the state for using the NDPFs as coercive tools of violence against those who don’t just go along with the state’s program. Our approach remains one of advocating for and supporting comrades in these NDPFs who are advocating for the principles of the United Front for Peace in Prisons(UFPP). While the forced integration currently serves the state, this is only true as long as prisoners stay divided. By building the UFPP in the interests of all imprisoned people, we can turn this tool of oppression into an opportunity to transform decades-long divisions in the California prison system. We have a long way to go, but some day these divisions must fall.

The latest reports from withing the NDPFs are included below.

A California prisoner reports on integration at California Correctional Institution: In CCI-Tehachapi level III, the prisoners who challenge the status quo are quickly transferred out to the so-called Non-Designated Programming Facilities (NDPF). There they will become targets due to our SNY status. This is how CDCR has been rehabilitating California’s enslaved population. If we don’t jump when they tell us to jump, or crawl on our knees and hands, we are considered program failures.

The same type of racist rehabilitation that George Jackson found in the 1960s, I found it myself in 2018 at CCI-Tehachapi. CDCR is creating monsters, on purpose. This is why many of us come out hating society and would rather die off than return to prison.

A prisoner in California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility reports on 1 May 2019: Here at SATF-D facility these guys’ eyes are wired shut. We have been receiving a flux of prisoners from Soledad and New Folsom EOP facility. These individuals are New Afrikan and Chican@, they come from what are known as mainline soft yards, or 50/50 yards. These are facilities where there is very little to zero accountability to the post-George Jackson structure of prison politicking. Where most mainline facilities there will be paperwork checking (investigations into a prisoner’s commitment offense by other prisoners to determine the internal social status of prisoners on new arrival), or orchestrating the ostracizing of a persyn who co-operated with the police in their commitment offense. Although 50/50 facilities are considered mainline facilities, they don’t engage in much of this sort of behavior. Now they are being introduced to SATF-D facility, which is supposed to be a Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY).

There have been a few fist fights, but overall the masses don’t even care where these new arrivals are coming from. The leaderships within the facility are already on the look out for particular type of behavior. We ain’t tripping on an individual’s paperwork, one’s sexual gender, or activity. Even if one transfers in and is a member of an STG, we are not ostracizing people here. Give it enough time, most guys are rolling it up and having admin rehouse them, rather than come with the police tactics. One of the strongest instruments being used is the United Front for Peace in Prisons statement, the Unity Principle.

I have persynally used the works of Larry Hoover and the “Blueprint from Gangsters Disciple to Growth and Development” by Ron Erwin to spread the truth to all G.D.s, and all who have been affiliated, influenced or associated with and by our movement. From Crips of various subsets like the Five Deuce, One-O-Seven and Seven Four Hoovers. To the Bloods of various subsets like the Black P. Stones, Four Deuce Brims, Anthens, these prison politiks, that are spread by gladiator wars, all have a root. At this local level we are spreading awareness of the liberation struggle of freedom fighters like: Leonard Peltier, Mutulu Shakur and Red Fox Falcon, drawing connections between them and the fathers (and mothers) of our movements.

19 de Octubre 2018 – Una semana después de las festividades en México del Día de La Raza, una caravana de 3 o 4 mil hombres, mujeres y niños emigrantes (formando parte de lo que se apodó el Éxodo Centroamericano), tomaba por asalto la frontera Mexicana-Guatemalteca en Chiapas, un estado sureño Mexicano, exigía salvoconducto a través de México para llegar a los EE.UU. Los emigrantes habían pasado siete días andando desde Honduras, donde originaba la caravana, hasta Guatemala, donde aumentó a causa de que se unieron los guatemaltecos. Al llegar a la frontera de México-Guatemala, los emigrantes fueron detenidos por las Fuerzas Armadas Mexicanas que llevaban equipo contra disturbios, vehículos blindados y helicópteros del modelo Black Hawk, provistos por los estadounidenses. El gobierno neo-colonial Mexicano estuvo actuando bajo órdenes del presidente estadounidense, Donald Trump, quien emitió la amenaza de sanciones económicas contra México, además de advertir que podría enviar tropas a la frontera conjunta de los EUA y México, si México no evitaba que la caravana legase a los EUA. Se dieron órdenes similares a Guatemala y a Honduras,quienes ignoraron las órdenes al principio. Como resultado, el Presidente Trump amenazó con cortar la ayuda económica a los países reacios.(1)

Con hambre, sed y cansancio, la caravana atravesó la reja de la frontera y entró a México en oleadas, donde las Fuerzas Armadas Mexicanas dispararon gas lacrimógeno y tuvieron que usar sus bastones contra los emigrantes a fin de hacer retroceder a la caravana. Mientras algunos emigrantes empezaron a lanzar rocas contra la policía, el acontecimiento alcanzó un punto principal cuando un@s jóvenes empezaron a trepar las puertas del puente, donde los detuvieron, así que empezaron a saltar hacia el río bajo de Suchiate. Después de fallar en disuadir de saltar a la gente, un reportero presente, preguntó ¿Porque saltar? Un emigrante respondió que lo hacía por sus niños, y aunque no quería morir, el riesgo valía la pena si podía alimentar a su familia. Otros respondieron que preferían morir en vez que volver a la pobreza oprimente y a la violencia pandillera dominante que les aguarda de regreso a casa. “Sólo queremos trabajar”, otros emigrantes dijeron. Cuando todo ya había terminado se reportó que había muerto un niño debido a inhalación del gas lacrimógeno.(2)

Desafortunadamente, los problemas de la caravana no se acabaron allí. 48 horas después de haber sido detenida en el Rio Suchiate, casi la mitad de la caravana fue eventualmente admitida en México, mientras que un@s 2 mil optaron por subiese a los buses de regreso a Honduras. El 22 de octubre, los miembros restantes de la caravana se juntaron con con otros refugiados centroamericanos ya en Chiapas, que resultó en el aumento de la caravana de 7 a 8 mil. Esto incluyó a 2 mil niños entre la caravana junto con la organización de los derechos para los emigrantes, Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders). Miembros de la caravana hicieron una petición pública a las Naciones Unidos para que declaren al éxodo centroamericano como una crisis humanitaria. Le pidieron a las N.U. que intervinieran y enviaran unos emisarios y una escolta militar para que vigilaran el pasaje de la caravana por México, al que se refirieron como el “Corredor de la Muerte.” Representantes de la caravana acusaron al gobierno Mexicano de perpetrar abusos de los derechos humanos contra ellos. Dijeron que las mujeres habían sido violadas y que habían secuestrado menores. Además, contaron sobre niños en la caravana que de pronto viajaban solos porque sus padres habían desaparecido.(3)

Entretanto, más hacia el sur del hemisferio, la actriz Angelina Jolie, quien es una embajadora especial de la Comisión por los Derechos Humanos para refugiados de las N.U., viajó a Perú para llamar la atención a la “crisis humanitaria” que se está dando en el país vecino de Venezuela, donde la inflación y falta de comida ha conllevado a migraciones en masa hacia Perú, Brasil y Colombia.(4) L@s migraciones fuera de Venezuela han sido ampliamente cubiertas por los medios estadounidenses junto con una retórica cada vez más hostil por parte de políticos para derrocar el régimen de Nicolas Maduro, el cuál se ha manifestado en contra del control imperialista del país. En comparación, la petición de la caravana Hondureña apenas ha recibido atención por parte de los medios de difusión de habla inglesa, exceptuando por su influencia en las elecciones intermedias aquí en los E$tados Unidos. ¿Podría esto deberse a que el gobierno Venezolano ha sido una espina en el costado del imperialismo estadounidense por los últimos 20 años, mientras que los gobiernos de México, Guatemala y Honduras han sido sirvientes leales, tal vez reacios, de ese mismo poder imperialista?

Desde 2005, la cifra oficial de refugiados en el mundo aumentó de 8,7 millones a 214,4 millones en 2014.(5) Sin embargo, visto que la propia definición y criterios para calificar como refugiado están dictados por los propios imperialistas, y por lo tanto, políticamente motivados, estamos seguros de que la cifra real es mucho más alta. Por ejemplo, según a las N.U., Honduras no se considera si quiera como un país de origen para refugiados. Tampoco lo es México, y aún así la mayoría de gente emigrando a los E$tados Unidos viene de México, y ciertamente, la gente de Honduras y Guatemala están huyendo de condiciones bastante peores que la reciente crisis en Venezuela.(6)

Ya en 2014, habían 11,2 millones de emigrantes indocumentados en los EE.UU.; 67% venían de México y Centroamérica. De estos 11,2 millones de emigrantes, el 72% vive en cuatro de los 10 estados con las poblaciones más grandes de indocumentados. De estos 10 estados, 4 son Aztlán, ej., California, Texas, Arizona, y Nevada.(7) Las estáticos también demuestran que los emigrantes centroamericanos de Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador se incorporarán a Aztlán y sus niños serán asimilados por la nación Chican@.(8)

A medida que la contradicción principal del mundo (el imperialismo contra las naciones oprimidas, principalmente el imperialismo estadounidense) sigue desarrollándose y la crisis empeora, podemos anticipar más de estos éxodos en masa en el futuro cercano. Ya hay reportes de otra caravana de al menos 1000 emigrantes saliendo de Honduras. De seguro que para los estadounidenses esto debe parecer una pesadilla hecha realidad, literalmente miles de refugiados del tercer mundo golpeando las puertas de su ciudadela imperialista. Tan trágico como todo esto parece, es tan sólo un vistazo de cómo las masas del Tercer Mundo se levantarán al fin, y en su desesperación, terminarán con el imperialismo una vez por todas. Curiosamente, las fuerzas revolucionarios en México todavía no han aparecido a ayudar a la caravana, mientras que gente normal trabajadora ya ha dado un paso adelante para ayudar. ¿Cómo responderán l@s Chican@s? Eso está por verse.

¡Raza si!
¡Muro no!

MIM(Prisiones) agrega: El Fondo Nacional de los E$tados Unidos para la Democracia estuvo implicado tanto en el golpe de 2009 para derrocar a Zelaya en Honduras y en el golpe de 2002 para derrocar a Chavez en Venezuela (posteriormente revocado). Hillary Clinton tristemente ayudó también a orquestar el golpe en Honduras. Desde entonces, generales asesinos entrenados por la Escuela Estadounidense de las Amerikkkas han aterrorizado a la población, matando a gente indígena, campesinos y activistas ambientales. Los EUA ha establecido una presencia militar grande en Honduras desde el golpe, apoyando el robo de tierras a campesinos indígenas pobres y a campesinos de descendencia africana.(9)

What is a gangster? Simply a word, an idea? No Gangster is a psychology, a mentality.

Six things, in varying degree, regardless of locale, are always present in penal institutions: authorities (the badge), prisoners (captives), oppression, resistance, manipulation and violence. Oppression and manipulation are the badges’ primary tools for controlling prisons. Captives have recourse to resistance and violence. The gangster is both target and aspiration for the badge and captives alike; if only for different reasons.

The badge sees gangsterism as a necessary evil. The “convict code” is based on gangsterism. The badge uses this to great effect. For example, misinformation offered by a “friendly” badge. There is no doubt a badge can call any captive a snitch, or worse, and be believed. Many reason that the badge does have access to every captive’s file. What possible purpose could they have in lying to a gangster?

The badge’s main concern is control. Controlling prisoner populations is most effective when the system can take advantage of pre-existing mechanisms, such as gangsterism or convict code. In such cases oppression seems organic, correct course of action instead of manipulation. More often than not a gangster learns information, suspicions emerge, questions asked, investigations follow. At the very least a captive’s credibility is destroyed; at the extreme are ostracization and violence. This is not only true for the badge. Captives also manipulate gangsterism. A gangster’s word has merit, more so than the badge’s. Here too manipulation appears organic. A gangster’s suspicions sway other captives’ opinions so that character assassination due to personal enmity is all too familiar. The issue is not the manipulation but rather the lack of resistance.

Gangster is the pillar of lumpen communities. Eir honor, integrity are above reproach. Knowing this the badge whispers in the right ears and later watches captives eating one another like sharks in a small pond. At present, the rules of gangsterism are at the service of the badge. Changing the prevailing culture of captive vs. captive violence and badge collaboration is a serious problem to be resolved in prison today. Does this mean abandoning gangsterism? Gangsterism is tied up in all kinds of capitalist principles: machoism, classism, patriarchy, etc. Yet, it is based in resisting the system: noble seed of revolutions. Understanding the forces at play is necessary for combating corrupted gangsterism, because gangsterism can be a stepping stone to revolutionary mentality.

Every social environment evinces a subjection-manipulation cycle: subjection to rules, norms, expectations, and manipulation through rewards and negative consequences. Prisons are no different, neither is criminal intercourse. Capitalism for general society, gangsterism for captives. To bring gangsterism back to its revolutionary core we can turn to the democratic method – unity, criticism, unity.

Gangsterism is at the badge’s service not only because of manipulation disseminated through gangsters but by lumpen divisions. In prison, far more than in society, lumpen become isolationists and separatists. Latinos with Latinos, further segregated by northern or southern affiliations or otherwise. Identical processes follow for all other lumpen. These divisions create barriers to communication, distrust and steady tensions. The badge plays on STG (Security Threat Group, a Homeland Security terrorist categorization term, also found in FBI documents referring to Brown Berets and Black Panther Party members or supporters) affiliations and nation prejudices as much as they do gangsterism and with the same end in view – greater control. Unity is the only real response. The badge is unified against us captives in their efforts. We, on the other hand, are barely unified against each other. First and foremost, gangsterism should be centered on opposition and resistance to the badge. Captive vs. badge.

Gangsters must be extra critical with all information received from the badge. Nine out of ten times the badge doesn’t tell you anything for your benefit. Information disseminated in the service of penological interests. Consider how many times the badge has warned you about a major shake down or offered to hold your contraband? They are always engaged in exercising more control. Beginning from a united oppositional front – captives vs. badge – it becomes possible to derail the subjection-manipulation cycle. Criticism is the second stage in this process; one must analyze eir motive, endgame and method of manipulation.

From unity in opposition and criticism of intelligence being gifted us we turn to unity in response. This last stage of the democratic method is determined on a case by case basis. Every prison is distinct in character. Gangsterism is not corrupted everywhere in the exact same degrees. In some facilities badge collaboration is excessive, in others captive vs. captive violence is the commanding concern. In progressing the struggle, captives must be able to unite against the badge. This means moving beyond nation prejudices and STG allegiances. This constitutes the hardest step in our struggle.

First and foremost, allow me to debunk an ever-present myth; one that continues obscuring and detracting from debates about prison. Prisons are NOT profitable businesses, at least, not in the manner of the Exxon Mobiles, Sam’s Clubs, Wynn Resorts and Carls Jr.’s of the world. While there are “for-profit” prisons in existence, they constitute an extreme minority within what many refer to as the Prison Industrial Complex (a mistaken belief). Reality is that 92-98% of all prisons are state-run entities. This means they are appendages of the state/federal government in whose territory they operate. Prisons are no more for-profit than is the local police department, courthouse, legislature or DMV (although the latter is debatable).

Now we turn to the heart of the matter. If prisons aren’t profit-generating behemoths, then why do they proliferate in capitalistic societies like rabbits in heat? The penal institution, as a system, is the direct byproduct of capitalism. I don’t mean commodity-centrism in economic terms. Rather, prisons came about to address political fallout consequence of a poli-economic ideology; let’s nickname it “Haves and Have Nots Syndrome” (Hahn Syndrome, for short).

It is clearer and clearer, day after day, generation following generation, that Hahn Syndrome is progressively worsening. As the syndrome advances in stages, the Haves become narrower in number. Contrarily, the Have Nots expand. Haves being not only those with wealth sufficient to manage life as they see fit, more or less. Haves are also those with authority over the processes of production, modes of exchange, political/social landscape, those with an appreciable amount of influence, power normally aligned to capitalist interests. Have Nots being not merely those without an over-abundance of wealth, but also those marginalized, disenfranchised and excluded from the political/social landscape. Have Nots are volatile, excluded masses. Of course, these must be attended to in earnest as the minority comprehends the masses’ threat. Thus, a complex inter-dependent, self-perpetuating social control mechanism: the penitentiary.

Looking at the global picture of capitalism, we can identify trends: inequality (social, economic, gender), formal systems (justifying abuses, discrimination, prejudice), excluded masses, and above all, penal institutions. No coincidences there. These are all byproducts of capitalistic systems making it all-but-inevitable that such behemoths must be employed. Capitalism has, in “civilized” society, resorted to far more effective measures than good, old fashioned plomo (read: marginalization, isolation, disenfranchisement, invalidation, forfeitures, imprisonment).

What does this do for capitalism? Take an undocumented immigrant. Ey is not a citizen – meaning without rights or validation – which translates to being exploited for labor or political ends. Trumpists push for wall funding on the political side; harvesters, nannies, etc. on the laboral. Exploited for labor when profitable and politics whenever convenient. This is only one example of Hahn Syndrome in action on Have Nots.

First World lumpen can, due to their best interests, be counted among Have Nots; especially considering they are prime targets for prison. Hence, 2-million-plus incarcerated and over 6 million under state management (according to BOP.gov and U.S. Census Bureau statistics). For those who don’t become good capitalist contributors, prison is their final or eventual destination.

An ignorant mass is the mob. The mob is easily swayed this or that way. An excluded, disaffected, educated mass means a rebellion, a resistance, a real opponent for capitalism. Something capitalists will do anything to avoid. Why spend ill-gotten gains educating disorganized, excluded masses, turning them into a potential usurper, when you could just lock them up? While penitentiaries do not generate super earnings, they are necessary for any capitalistic ideology and society to function. Such behemoths swallow whole dangerous sections of the mob resulting in its impotency.

The mob’s ignorance is bliss for capitalists. Why waste millions, billions, building behemoths to swallow the mob? Why do you avoid giving a gun to somebody who wants to kill you? Self-preservation. And capitalist logic is no different. If the central issue can be distracted from (not discussing capitalism and the role of prisons in perpetuating it) then every effort within the bounds of capitalistic systems will fail. This is why the mass must be educated, because then we’ll realize the system is just a game of smoke and mirrors. Reform? The Behemoth keeps devouring.

MIM(Prisons) responds: We agree with this author on eir fundamental point that prisons are not for profit, but rather for social control. We want to offer some clarification on the sectors of society discussed above.

First, the definition of Haves and Have Nots might seem obvious, but this is actually a point of much debate among activists. We see many so-called leftists claiming that workers in the United $tates are part of the oppressed group (the Have Nots) but we see that their wages are artificially inflated with the profits of exploitation of the Third World. And so these folks are very much the Haves on a global scale.

In general we look at the oppressed nations within U.$. borders as the groups with the greatest interest in fighting imperialism. But with the class focus that Haves and Have Nots implies, we would define the Have Nots to include undocumented immigrants and the First World lumpen. The lumpen is defined as the class of people in the First World who are excluded from the productive process. By virtue of living in the First World, this class, on average, receives more material benefits from imperialism than the global proletariat. As such their interests are not the same as the exploited classes and we do not include them in the “lumpen-proletariat.” But their conditions in many ways parallel those of the lumpen-proletariat, standing in stark contrast to the majority of the First World populations.

MIM(Prisons) published a pamphlet “Who is the Lumpen in the United States” which includes our contemporary class analysis of this group. We do not see evidence to suggest this group is growing. Send in $3 or equivalent work-trade to the address on p. 1 for your copy.

Arguably the hardest aspect of organizing (especially revolutionary organizing) is building consciousness. Not specifically of the subject matter (i.e., anti-capitalist/imperialist, socialism, equality, prisoner struggle) but of their role in the larger picture and its influence on their lives. Such consciousness leads to meaningful action. Due to this, it is the most rewarding of political objectives. It is also the most difficult to cultivate.

In pursuit of building consciousness, revolutionaries face many obstacles. A predominant, recurring obstacle is expanding peoples’ perspective beyond their individual material concerns. A person’s material interests constitute primary motivation for activism against and contributing to capitalism. In the Third World we see stringent struggles against capitalism. The opposite is equally true within capitalist societies. Material interests/motivations are inextricably welded to an individual’s perspective of, and instinct for, self-preservation. This leads to a spectacular (depending on your ideological bent) narrowing down of alternatives, options and ultimately choices. A non-conducive situation for First World revolutionary organizing.

Our natural inclination is to allow self-preservation to impulse our actions once fear or a threat exceeds acceptable levels. People react as basic as scared animals in danger. Due to social evolution, our responses are more complex and advanced, more involved, what one can call a “social” self-preservation instinct. Similar to the brain shutting down because of excessive stress or trauma, emerging consciousness among First Worlders regresses when one’s standard of living is threatened. Breaking First World attachment to physical/material comforts (possessions, commodities, thing-centrism) is first imperative to any revolutionary organizing, in particular; and wider political consciousness, in general.

A great amount of time, energy and attention must be given to shattering these real constraints. Class suicide among First World activists is the end result of such efforts. Through a patient, methodical process of expansive efforts (educational of real costs of capitalism/imperialism), diligence in those efforts and demonstrating the feasibility of alternative means (non-capitalistic), an organizer can make a meaningful contribution to supplanting capitalism.

People are selfish and revolutionary anti-imperialists should remind themselves that their target is the personal element, first and foremost. Even the perfect rally/demonstration, regardless of how correct its politics, will have a difficult time penetrating the calloused minds of those long accustomed to, and blinded by, capitalism. Especially when it concerns prisoners and penal systems/institutions. Most First Worlders simply deem it a necessary evil to preserve society.

MIM(Prisons) responds: Those First Worlders this author refers to are right that the prison system and institutions are a necessary evil to preserve the society as it is. That’s the main difference between our prison work and that of many prison abolitionists – we know that we can’t get rid of prisons in their current form unless we also get rid of capitalism.

This article brings up real challenges in our work. In ULK, we hope to host an ongoing conversation about ways we can be most effective in accomplishing the tasks this author calls out as most imperative: building consciousness, changing value systems, showing alternatives, etc. Send in your experiences and successes so we can continue learning from each other!

This statement is written under the full authority of the USW cell known as Loco1, or L1, underneath the instructions of the Countrywide Council for USW, to [members of our cell] for a self-criticism, acknowledging political incorrectness and a public mis-representation of the USW organization as a whole. These council members are involved in the release of a statement published by the Turning the Tide (TTT) news journal titled “United Struggle from Within (USW) ‘Building Bridges’ Initiative” and “United Front Public Build,” and they were out of pocket in many ways. To say the least, this is our apology.

First off, [our cell representative] had already been advised as to releasing statements that can be indicative as representing USW as a whole without clearing said statements with the Countrywide Council. [Our comrade] participated in a Countrywide Council session where it was decided that all members of the USW Double C (Countrywide Council) would get prior approval before releasing statements with other publishing groups. However, a member of eir cadre published a statement without having it cleared with the Council, thus [our comrade] is responsible for said infraction.

The statement is offensive to many groups involved with the upliftment of the oppressed First World Lumpen (FWL), to say the least. Everyone involved in this self-criticism, please understand, Loco1 is not a person, it is an entity. […]

The particular members involved in the authoring of the statement went so far as to call the very same group that published the statement a ghost group. Alongside of Anti-Racist Action, the statement calls out: Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, IWOC and members of The Committee of the Afrikan Peoples Liberation Tribunal (The Committee) to “…address the conditions which cause FWL to become petty exploiters and oppressors of their own, after suffering under similar [conditions] versus becoming liberators of the self-sufficient conscious collective?” Though these members of USW, L1 may have their heart in the right place, to raise public awareness regarding USW, as a collective USW doesn’t act off of the heart, so to say. The authors’ actions sowed seeds of dissension, where the goal is to build a united front. By calling out groups in a public forum, no matter how hard it is to get a reply from its members on the private channels, it only goes to deepen the wedge between all parties involved. And USW as a whole suffers.

The greatest damage done by L1 and its members is its violation of security policies established to protect the identity of not only the principal but also all those who engage the principal. The authors of the statement not only published private information about USW but it also took up a particular position of leadership for a sub-committee of the Countrywide Council by the name of the New Afrikan Subcommittee. Comments are made that identify the states that NAS and the Double C is operating in, a mistake that could result in enhanced censorship and targeting from the state. The statement borderline disrespects the Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, labeling him an exploiter of Black people for capitalistic preference. In short, the statements air out the dirty laundry of New Africa while occupying a leadership role of an organization that very well may have members who share citizenship with the Nation of Islam. This is wrong. USW doesn’t champion any one Nation, whether it be peoples, folks, Islamic, Jew, Latin, Spanish, Tutsi or Bantu. The statement could be construed as every bit of wrong.[…]

[The councilmember representing our cell] has been suspended from their position at the Countrywide Council because the actions of this said statement came from a cadre that answers directly to [em] as a Councilmember. For the sake of protecting sensitive topics of the Countrywide Council sessions [our representative] has been suspended until the Countrywide Council approves a self-criticism.[…]

It suffers this cadre, the entire cadre, to be disconnected from a body that it played a key role in organizing. But it goes to show, discipline will be enforced by the peer support of USW’s Countrywide Council. It is not only for the sake of re-enrollment with USW that this political apology is released, it is because as a Maoist cadre we know that when we are wrong we are wrong. We cannot allow our personal, psycho-egotistic stubbornness to get in the way of progress/success. The publishing of the statement, “United Struggle from Within (USW) Building Bridges Initiative” was driven by a selfish motive to say, “Hey look at us, we are struggling and building.” to draw attention. The intentions were right but the actions were wrong. So be it, [our representative] criticizes these members’ actions as wrong, and accepts responsibility.

It will be ensured in the future that these members of USW, who rise to the call of USW, that they are correct and exact to not make mention of USW in affiliation with themselves if they have not had their statements approved by MIM(Prisons) and the Countrywide Council. […] If ever put in the position to approve such a release again, would we? No. This is an action that we recognize as having serious consequences for all parties, if not ironed out in a timely fashion and never repeated. The revolution is not a game.

In closing, let it be understood, though USW is inclusive of all prisoners and born of the minds made accessible by MIM(Prisons) it cannot use MIM(Prisons) as a crutch for its political development of an organization of prisoners controlled by prisoners. [… We] will busy [our] cadre with some much-needed self-assessment test that will involve re-evaluating the actions of this cadre and developing plans for the future that will protect against opportunistic behavior. Until the clock strikes, power to those who deserve it!! But protect the body by all means necessary. The police don’t play fair, make no mistake about it.

MIM(Prisons) adds: This is a slightly redacted version of a self-criticism submitted in early December 2018. We wanted to print this self-criticism in ULK because we know many of our readers also read Turning the Tide and saw these articles. We also want to take the opportunity to re-address questions around who is USW and who represents USW. The Countrywide Council of USW has been discussing this matter and struggling with the comrades of the Loco1 cell since the articles appeared about 6 months ago. In ULK 64, we did briefly criticize one of the articles in question for claiming the IWOC didn’t do anything. (1) But had to go through the process, limited by mail correspondence, to come to the point of printing this statement addressing the broader issues with those articles. The self-criticism above accurately addresses the criticisms that were brought to Loco1’s attention over a series of back-and-forths in the previous months.

Another comrade from this USW cell, who was involved in submitting the articles in question also submitted a self-criticism more recently. In it, the comrade wrote, “I will not concede to no terms of censorship… I will print for whomever I choose.”

Like any publication, the editor of Under Lock & Key decides what to print. We also edit for clarity, brevity and political line. If a writer disagrees with us we will not change eir political line, but respond to it. However, we may change or clarify line in articles by people who are regular contributors to fit the line of Under Lock & Key.

We don’t consider this censorship, but normal practice. “Freedom of the Press” applies to us not being censored by the government, even though we are almost every day. It does not guarantee that any publication will print your writings. Now, what this comrade is getting at is that ey will contribute to other publications what ey wants. That is fine, and we encourage contributing to other publications. We do ask that if you send us an article that you submitted to other publications you let us know so that we can properly protect your identity and perhaps coordinate with the other publication to publish the same version of your article. Otherwise, the following rules apply if you wish to write articles as a member of USW in forums that are not led by MIM(Prisons) or the USW Countrywide Council:

1. USW members cannot openly disagree with MIM(Prisons) 6 main points (see p.2 of ULK). If you do, you are not USW, and if you write articles in the name of USW disagreeing with those points it will be treated as wrecking work.
2. To clarify, this does not mean that all USW members agree with the 6 main points, or that they accurately uphold them. Just that they do not hold opposing views.
3. USW members cannot put the struggles of one nation over another, or take stances in support of imperialism. This does not mean that USW members cannot be nationalists, as revolutionary nationalism of the oppressed is applied internationalism. [We use Stalin’s definition of nation, and do not consider lumpen organizations or religions to be nations as Loco1 implies above.]
4. Anyone who agrees to the above points and contributes to MIM(Prisons)/USW projects and/or campaigns is a member of USW, and can speak or write as a member of USW representing eir own beliefs or those of eir local USW cell. If you wish to publish something that you’re not sure represents USW’s beliefs you can either submit it to the Countrywide Council for review, or just publish it under another name that does not identify you as a USW member. We prefer you submit to the CC for review and feedback, to develop unity through struggle within USW.
5. The USW Countrywide Council is made up of the advanced cadre of USW, and works to guide USW’s work across the country by developing campaigns, positions, study materials, and strategic guidance for the organization overall.
6. Statements on behalf of the USW CC must be voted on and approved by the CC, or the appropriate subcommittee, and published via MIM(Prisons)’s P.O. Box, email address or, most likely, in the pages of Under Lock & Key where the council can be accountable to the mass membership of USW.

1. Complete the 2 intro study courses offered by MIM(Prisons)
2. Organize others around USW/MIM(Prisons) projects and campaigns
3. Submit monthly work reports to the countrywide council addressing any of the following questions that apply:
   1. What types of activities did your cell participate in that contributed to USWs mission?
   2. What campaigns did your cell participate in or promote in the last month?
   3. What Serve the People programs did your cell operate?
   4. What were the responses from the masses and USW recruits to this work?
   5. What questions came up? How did you answer them? Or do you need help answering them?
   6. What lessons did you learn in the last month?
   7. What are the most pressing issues that are of concern to the masses in your location? Are there any new or developing issues of concern to the masses there?
   8. What organizations/services have you recently found useful in your work (include contact info)?
   9. What successes have you achieved in the last month?

MIM(Prisons) will not share revealing information with the Council. Please keep in mind that your outgoing mail is being read and report on your work accordingly.

One aspect of organizing that is paramount for recruitment and retention of revolutionaries is comprehending the psychology of the oppressed. Oppressed psychology is not meant to insinuate some distinct or identifiable character flaw, or what not, inherent in those oppressed; nor something which destines us (oppressed) to be the whipping boy of the oppressor. Oppressed psychology denotes how the system influences oppressed nations into believing, accepting and living in adherence to a mentality and mode of existence calculated to promote the greatest benefits for both the oppressor classes and capitalism overall. Just contemplate: what allows us to lash out at others who are equally oppressed, but by and large do little to resist or confront our oppressors?

In prison, this wall (oppressed psyche) expresses itself in no uncertain terms: “This is what we are.” “It’s what we do, all we can do.”(1) It’s an acceptance of the lot foisted upon our shoulders. I have identified this as a type of Stockholm Syndrome, where we, the oppressed, validate and reinforce an ideology and mentality detrimental to self-determination.

An oppressed psyche is a crippling inhibitor. First, it dissuades us from considering any meaningful steps toward resistance. For instance, “This is the way things are, have always been,” or “Any resistance can only worsen an already bad situation.” Second, because we accept it as part of who we are, its loss equals our loss of identity. This is expressed in comments such as “There’s nothing else for me in life,” or “If not a criminal, then what am I?” Third, it promotes half-measures and depreciation of our value as revolutionaries. We may very well feel nobody will care one iota about what we have to say or think. These, and more, are the serious impediments to scaling the oppressed psyche wall. Indeed, these are monumental obstacles but not insurmountable.

As stated elsewhere, the surest method of overcoming walls is demonstrative action. It is the duty of revolutionary leaders to disseminate among the masses the consciousness of their destiny and their task. This duty translates to practice in “Build, Break, Build.” Once we, as organizers and leaders have forged an iron weapon of proper foundations – correct political line, appropriate application of dialectical materialism, and understanding of the struggle – it must be launched at oppressed-psyche walls like a spiked hammer, in order to chip away and break them down. After breaking down the walls, it remains to build up a new revolutionary structure.

There are too many variations in peoples’ characteristics, backgrounds, and such to lay down any definitive, universal rule, or guidelines to be followed in the Build, Break, Build process. The only general rule I can acknowledge is: after an initial engagement in “breakage dialogue,” organizers should chart their next steps depending on the amount of (or lack of) receptivity they encounter. Also, it is important to recognize people generally treat new concepts with ambivalence at best. A key aspect of the oppressed psyche is to cling to what is familiar, and be cautious of the new, or unknown. To be certain, the oppressed psyche is a formidable wall. Breaking it down may require several attempts, going back over old sections of the wall previously chipped away.

Focus the breakage dialogue on hard questions like those asked in “If Black Lives Matter, Don’t Integrate Into Amerika.”(2) Or the issues highlighted by the AV Brown Berets in “Mobilize Raza for Independence.”(3) The building of revolutionary consciousness and purpose is a duty which demands thoroughness.(4) Like an aggressive cancer, at times you must operate in an old area anew. Walls, such as oppressed psyche, are a cancer degrading the revolutionary movement, inhibiting the masses’ consciousness of their role and task, complicating recruitment, and all but precluding retention. In organizing we must recognize walls and be prepared for Build, Break, Build.

Revolutionary Greetings!

Just writing in to say great job to everyone who participated with the latest ULK [ULK 64]. That said, I also want to give my input on various articles that sparked my interest:

1. In the second paragraph of this article, the author states that Sex Offenders(S.O.s) constitute a more dangerous element than murderers “because S.O.s often have more victims, and many of those victims become sexual predators, creating one long line of victimization.”

2. In the second paragraph the author states: “Contrarily, sexual predators affect the entire societal composition. They perpetuate crimes against the males and females, provoking deep burrowing psychological problems and turn many victims into victimizers…The difference is not in the severity of the anti-proletariat crime, but in the after effects.”

That said, there is one huge difference when it comes to murder, sexual abuse, and their after effects. Whenever there is sexual abuse and violence victims are able to move forward and heal from their physical, emotional and psychological wounds if they receive the proper care and attention. When someone is killed, however, there is no rectifying the act. There is no coming back.

3. In the fifth paragraph you state: “…murder is more of a one-two punch knock out, where sexual deprivation is twelve rounds of abuse…Most murderers are not serial killers…”

4. In the eighth paragraph, you state that: “…rehabilitating sexual predators can be made on an individual basis by revolutionaries who are able to see past the label prejudice though their efforts, if conducted scientifically, a systematic method can emerge for once the revolutionary is successful…sex crimes will be a problem for capitalism, socialism, or communism. Revolutionaries will have to address the problem sooner or later.”

I only wanted to comment that the ghettos and barrios are not only being dispensed but shifted. The Antelope Valley, High Dessert and other under-developed regions in Southern California are good examples of this trend. Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a slow but steady trickling out of Chican@s and New Afrikans from the wider Los Angeles area and into places like Lancaster, Palmdale, Mojave, California City due to gentrification.

Also, in relation to your article on Sakai’s book, what’s the status of the MIM(Prisons) Lumpen Handbook?

MIM(Prisons) responds: We published what was intended to be one chapter of a book on the First World lumpen as Who is the Lumpen in the United $tates. Prior to that we put efforts into the book Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán. Current research efforts are aimed at summing up the final results of our updated survey on prison labor in the United $tates. We will be publishing this final report along with a larger collection of writings on the economics of prisons in the United $tates. So that’s something to look out for in 2019.

The Lumpen Handbook was envisioned to address more topics related to organizing the lumpen class in a revolutionary way in the United $tates today. We have not had the capacity to carry out that project to the scope originally envisioned, but this issue of ULK (68) is an example of our efforts to continue to tackle that topic.

We also have notes to develop into a Selected Works of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (1983-2008) book; another project we would like to see to fruition if we can garner more support for our existing work in the coming years.

Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
by Angela Duckworth
Scribner, 2016

[Editor’s note: This review of Grit follows on several articles printed in ULK 63 about the book and lessons we can glean for our organizing. This comrade offers a more in-depth review of some of the practical uses for our work, but also some criticisms of the politics of the book. We encourage readers to check out ULK 63 for more on organizing theory and practice.]

I really like this book, not just because I found lots of useful tactics and strategies for pursuing my own personal goals in life, but because I was able to see that I’ve already been putting many of the author’s suggestions into practice, both in my capacity as a revolutionary and as someone pursuing a particular goal: my freedom. Therefore, in writing this review, I have not only tried to sum up the tactics and strategies I found most useful, but those which others might find use for as well. However, this review is not without criticism.

The author of this book, Angela Duckworth, is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and she wrote this book to make one basic statement: success in any endeavor is dependent on the amount of time, hard work, determination, and effort that someone puts into something.

Now this concept might not seem so special or even new to someone, but to a dialectical materialist, it speaks power to truth in that it demolishes certain idealist and metaphysical notions about what it means to be gifted and blessed in bourgeois society. Of course, as a dialectical materialist, I also understand that this book must be viewed with a critical eye, as it contains both positive and negative aspects.

Professor Duckworth makes it a point to begin eir book by explaining that lofty-minded individuals aren’t usually the type of people to accomplish much of anything. Rather, it’s those with a “never give up” attitude that will reach a marked level of success. Professor Duckworth also successfully argues against the myth that the only thing that matters is “talent.” Instead she says a bigger factor is developed skill, which is the result of consistent and continuous practice. From a Maoist perspective this means that it is people who take a materialist approach to life and who understand the dialectical interplay between people and people, and between people and their surroundings, that will go the furthest the fastest.

In addition, the author puts forward organizational guidelines that are useful to just about anyone, even the imprisoned lumpen. How prisoners decide to exercise the professor’s tools is entirely up to them. We would hope however, that USW members and other allies participating in the United Front for Peace in Prisons would use the lessons in Grit to further the anti-imperialist prison movement, as what they essentially amount to is the piecemeal approach to struggle.

So what does it take to develop grit as the author defines it? The following are just some of the book’s pointers that I could relate to and I’m sure you can too:

1. Having direction as well as determination.
2. Doing more of what you are determined to do and doing it longer equals grit.
3. Learn from your mistakes.
4. Grit is more about stamina than intensity (“Grit is not just working incredibly hard, it’s loyalty”).
5. Do things better than they have ever been done before.
6. Goals are essential to strategizing long term, and you must also have lots of short-term goals along the way.
7. Having goal conflicts can be healthy: what may at one given moment seem contradictory may in fact be complementary.
8. Don’t be intimidated by challenges or being surrounded by people who are more advanced or developed. This can only help you grow.
9. Overextending yourself is integral toward growth, it’s what helps you develop. Also, repetitive diligence cultivates.
10. Daily discipline as perseverance helps you to zero in on your weaknesses.
11. Passion is a must!
    
12. Go easy on newcomers.
13. Look for quality over quantity when measuring growth.
14. What we do has to matter to other people.
15. Have a top level goal.
16. Stay optimistic!
17. Maintain a growth mindset.
    
18. Don’t be afraid to ask for help!
19. Following through is the single best predictor of grit.
20. Getting back up after you’ve been kicked down is generally reflective of grit. When you don’t, your efforts plummet to a zero. As a consequence, your skill stops improving and you stop producing anything with whatever skill you have.

So now that we’ve looked at tools for overall improvement, growth and development let’s look at some specific tips on how to add a little more intensity to our routines and organizational skill set. The author talks about something she calls “deliberate practice.” Deliberate practice is a technique or range of techniques that people across different professions use to become masters in their fields. Whether someone is a spelling bee champ, professional basketball player, or computer programmer, all these people have one thing in common: deliberate practice. I include the message here because it can be useful to revolutionaries. Simply put, deliberate practice is all about becoming an expert at something. Deliberate practice is the essence of grit:

1. Wanting to develop.
2. Not just more time on task, but better time on task.
3. Focusing on improving your weaknesses; intentionally seeking out challenges you can’t yet meet.
4. Practicing alone, logging more hours than with others.
5. Seeking negative feedback for the purposes of improving your craft.
6. Then focus in on the specific weaknesses and drill them relentlessly.
7. Don’t be afraid to experiment if you find yourself getting stuck or even if you’re not. Sometimes you have to get out of your comfort zone even if you’re already doing good. Who knows, you might do better.

Now, at the beginning of this review, I said this book was not beyond criticism. So here are some problems I found with Grit.

To begin with, the author caters to the idealist Amerikan ideology of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” and failing to take into account the structural oppression faced by the internal semi-colonies in the United $tates. Furthermore, most of the author’s case studies, those who she refers to as “paragons of grit,” come from privileged backgrounds and their success in life can be easily linked to the surroundings in which they were allowed to develop their skills to their fullest potentials. Compare this to the experience of the oppressed nations: the lumpen in particular who exist along the margins of society, or the Chican@ semi-proletariat who must struggle in order to meet its basic needs. Therefore, all is not simply a matter of will and determination for the oppressed as we might be led to believe. There are a variety of social factors in place which the oppressed must contend with in the grind of daily life.

Another problem I have with this book is where the author makes the statement that it generally takes up to 10,000 hours or 10 years of practice for someone to become an expert in their field. The author bases this hypothesis on data she’s gathered in preparation for eir book. This inherent flaw in the professor’s work is exactly the type of problem that comes from applying bourgeois psychology and sociological methods according to bourgeois standards within a narrow strip of bourgeois society. This was something of a turn off to me as I grappled with the concepts from a revolutionary perspective. I can imagine how discouraging it can be for our young comrades or those otherwise new to the struggle to read that it takes 10 years to become an expert in something, especially when they come to us eager to put in work. I wonder if I, myself, would have continued engaging Maoism if I would have heard or read this book when I was a newcomer? I would like to think that I had enough grit to not listen to the naysayers and instead keep on pushing, but I just don’t know.

Maoist China also grappled with similar questions during the Great Leap Forward (1959-61) and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Beginning with the Great Leap Forward, there were those in the Communist Party, as well as in the economic sector, who advocated an “expert in command” approach to work and politics. The people pushing this line believed that only those with years of study or practice in China’s greatest institutions or in the West’s most prestigious universities were qualified to lead the country towards socialism. Most of these people would turn out to be enemies of the revolution and ultimately responsible for putting China back on the capitalist road.

On the other side of the discussion where the Maoists who advocated the slogan “red and expert” to emphasize the importance of revolutionary will and determination over that of expertise. In other words, it was more important to pay attention to the masses motivation of serving the people according to revolutionary principles than to the bourgeois commandist approach of top down leadership and authoritarianism that was the essence of “experts in command.” Furthermore, the Maoists understood that to overly emphasize a reliance on the bourgeois methods of organization for the purposes of efficiency and profit was not only to widen the gap between leaders and led, but to return to the status quo prior to the revolution. What’s more, those calling for expert in command were also criticized for their stress on theory over practice and adoption of foreign methods of organization over that of self-reliance and independence. As such, the Maoists opted to popularize the slogan “red and expert” as they believed this represented a more balanced approach to political, cultural, economic, and social development. To the Maoists, there was nothing wrong with wanting to become expert so long as the concept wasn’t separated from the needs of the people or the causes of the revolution.

Partly as a response to the struggles gripping China during the time, but more so as an attempt to meet Chinese needs, the Communist Party initiated the “sent down educated youth” and “going down to the countryside and settling with the peasants” campaigns in which thousands of high school and university age students were sent on a volunteer basis to China’s rural area to help educate peasants. The students lived and toiled with the peasants for months and years so that they would not only learn to empathize with the country’s most downtrodden, but so that the revolutionary will and resolve of the privileged urban youth could be strengthened. Part of the students’ mission was to build the schools in the countryside and teach the peasants how to read and write as well to help advance the peasants’ farming techniques according to what the youth had learned in the cities. While these students may not have been “experts” in the professional sense, they did more to improve the living conditions of the peasants than most professionals did criticizing this program from the sidelines.(1)

The barefoot doctors program is another Maoist success story which even Fidel Castro’s Cuba came to emulate. The majority of China’s population were peasants and had virtually zero access to modern medical care. To address this problem, peasants were given a few years training in basic medical care, and sent to work in China’s rural area. Again, the focus here was not on expertise, but on practice and revolutionary will for the sake of progress not perfection. While those trained certainly were not expert medical doctors, they were of more use to the peasants than the witch doctors and shamans they were accustomed to.

While Grit offers a lot of useful information for comrades with little organizational experience, we should keep in mind that much of what we communists consider correct methods of practice has already been summed up as rational knowledge by the revolutionary movements before us. Bourgeois psychology can be useful, but history and practice are our best teachers. Look to the past and analyze the present to correctly infer the future.

As Mao Zedong Stated: “Marxists hold that man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world.”(2)

MIM(Prisons) responds: Throughout the book, Duckworth focuses on high-performance bourgeois heroes and institutions, in order to address the question of “what makes them the best at what they do?” In answering this question, the author does briefly acknowledge that access to resources can play a decisive role in one’s success in a particular field. That might mean having money to pay for pool access to become a great swimmer. In another way, access to resources might boil down to the semi-random luck of having a decent (or crap) coach in public school sports. Of course there are socio-economic reasons why good coaches are at certain schools and not others, and why some schools have sports at all and others don’t – and those are reasons linked to the three strands of oppression.

Duckworth’s analysis of how we (as outsiders) can influence someone’s internal grit underlined how big of an influence one persyn or experience can have on someone else’s passion and perseverence. For example, we don’t need material resources to change our attitude and behavior to a “growth mindset.” And, while a broader culture of grit is certainly preferable, we can still make a big impact as single organizers – in many of eir examples, the paragons of grit cited one or two key people in their lives who played a major part in their success. And ULK’s contributors’ persynal histories in “Ongoing Discussion of Recruiting Best Practices” confirms this.

Duckworth’s analysis on this topic is outlined in “Part 3: Growing Grit from the Outside In,” and MIM(Prisons) has been discussing this section at length to improve our own practices. We have an extremely limited ability to organize and influence people – we are only struggling with our subscribers through the mail, which comes with many unique challenges. Our subscribers have access to very little resources, and we can’t buy them the world. But if we can make even our limited contact more effective – through our study, execution, experimentation, and the feedback we receive – we believe we can still make a big impact. Duckworth helped build my confidence that even though i’m only one organizer, and i’m not really that talented at it to begin with, my efforts still matter a lot.

While Duckworth does good to knock down the idols of talent, ey replaces them with the hardworking individual, rather than the knowledge of the collective, and group problem solving. The group is acknowledged as one thing that can help you as an individual become great, in eir discussion of the “culture of grit.” The examples from China that Ehecatl brings up emphasizes that our goal is not to be great as individuals, but to serve the people by bringing together different sources of knowledge, to see a problem from all sides, and to engage the masses in conquering it.

In a related point, Ehecatl says that we need to “do things better than they have ever been done before.” I’m not sure of the deeper meaning behind this point, and it’s one that i think could be read in a discouraging way. We certainly should aim to do things better than we have ever done them. But if we know we can’t do them better than everyone ever, then should we give up? No, we should still try, because “effort counts twice” and the more we try, the better we’ll get at it.(3) And, even if we’re not the best ever, we can still have a huge impact. Like Ehecatl writes above, we don’t need to clock 10,000 hours before we can make big contributions.

To deepen your own understanding of the principles in Grit, get a copy to study it yourself. Get Grit from MIM(Prisons) for $10 or equivalent work-trade.