Date:         Wed, 24 Feb 93 21:31:32 EST
Subject:      Panel discussion on political prisoners


Notes from a Panel Discussion on Political Prisoners
by a comrade for the Maoist Internationalist Movement
January 20, 1993

Ahmad Abdur-Rahman; ex-Panther, released from MI prison in  November
Gloria House; ex-SNCCer, teaches at Wayne State U. in Detroit
Assata Shakur; ex-Panther, in exile in Cuba
Dhoruba bin-Wahad; ex-Panther, released from prison 1989

The panel spoke under a banner which said "Free all u.s. political
prisoners, prisoners of war and conscience!"  MIM has some beef  with
this slogan and with the type of political organizing that goes
along  with it.  Political prisoner solidarity work explicitly
excludes the majority of political prisoners in the u.s.--people who
are in prison based on their position in the Amerikan political
system--e.g.  being poor and knocking over a gas station for some
cash or  being Black and being within a mile of a robbery or rape,
for example.

So while we agree with the political prisoners' advocates who say
that it is irresponsible for activists to forget their comrades who
are set-up and/or imprisoned solely for their political work, mutual
responsibility for mutual security is hardly an argument for this
type of single-issue organizing.  Many of the recognized-as-
political prisoners in the u.s. today went to prison fighting for
nationalist or socialist revolution against the Amerikan state.  And
now the free whoever campaigns are saying  just to free them, often
in the process of renouncing socialism or revolutionary
nationalism.   Why should the fact that these individuals are in prison
overshadow the importance of those initial goals?

As with all other forms of political work--putting out literature,
conducting education and propaganda, feeding people, building base
areas, overthrowing the government--MIM says that individuals are
most effective working within an organization that is clear and
direct in its ideology and program.  MIM also says that activists
are most effective when they are honest with the people they are
organizing.  So if you know these prisoners are in there because the
fascists use every means at their disposal to destroy political
threats to themselves, and that the only way to put an end to the
political imprisonment of people's warriors is to fight imperialism
and national oppression, why aren't you organizing on that basis?

-------------------

Rahman started off saying that the critical difference between the
Black Panther Party (BPP) and what he sees of Black organizing
today  is that the Panthers had a clear worked-out strategy and a guiding
ideology which was Marxism-Leninism.  And they related to Mao
Zedong.  He also referred to Franz Fanon's book WRETCHED OF THE
EARTH as a key influence in the Panthers' understanding of
revolutionary consciousness and struggle in the Black Nation.

He outlined the analysis in WRETCHED OF THE EARTH in terms of
the experiences of the BPP and then went on to explain how he had
become a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and what he thinks is the
most correct path Black revolutionaries can follow today to put together
a liberation movement.

   Spontaneity has three principal characteristics:
*momentary great display of the masses' strength
*undisciplined action
*doesn't sustain lasting damage to the oppressor

Rahman talked about how the FBI's counter-intelligence program
(COINTELPRO) capitalized on spontaneous tendencies in the Black
liberation movement.  Acting to misdirect, disrupt and neutralize
the struggle, the FBI directed the masses' anger at false or less-
than-principal enemies, disrupted clear plans for action and killed
or put away a lot of Panthers.

*  National culture is revolutionary first as it cultivates a
national consciousness and forms a base for political work, but it
only stays revolutionary in as much as it changes and grows
according  to the needs of the political struggle.  He gave the examples of
Algerian women using their long dresses and skirts to smuggle guns
past checkpoints, where men would have been searched.  He also
gave the negative example of Black people dressing in Kinte cloth while
ignoring whatever political movements are going on around them.

*  Concerning Violence.  It wasn't the BPP alone that Hoover
labelled the #1 threat to security in the u.s.; it was the potential
power of the Panthers' example to Black people and all oppressed
people.  Similarly, it is never the violence of individual
revolutionaries that the oppressors fear, it is the movement they
represent.  He also talked about the oppressed dealing with the
possibility of carrying out violence against the oppressor.  He said
that initially the oppressor looms so large that it is difficult to
face the challenge of confronting him or her.  And that often the
rage against the oppressor turns into rage against one's own people
because they are easier targets and closer.  But that people have to
overcome this impulse and recognize that only systemic attacks on
the oppressor will pay off in eliminating imperialism and racism.

Ahmad still says "revolution" a fair bit but his description of his
movement to Islam sounds a lot more like working on the revolution
from within, which contradicts his own analysis of culture.   Yes,
inner consciousness is necessary to outer revolutionary activity.
But no inner consciousness is not nearly enough, you need to
combine  that with, or use it to build towards a revolutionary political
program.  He said that in the early 70s (when he began his natural-
life sentence) the Panther program was shown to be unrealistic
(presumably by the fact that the organization was largely gutted by
the number of leaders who were in prison, dead or in exile).  And
that Islam was clearly a better/more appropriate means of achieving
self-mastery and spiritual development and independence.

Ahmad closed telling young people to study some political theory--
that there is too little attention to theory and that's why so many
organizations shatter or just disintegrate when faced with
ideological struggle.  He said revolutionary nationalists should
study the theory and practice of the past to build a solid practice
for today.  Ahmad's *lessons* in words are right on.  MIM wonders
how he resolves the issue of leading by example.

-------------------------------------

Gloria House has a book of poetry out called BLOOD RIVER.  She
opened with one poem from it, judging from that one, her poetry is a
good example of oppressed nationalist consciousness--people
should  check it out.

Demonstrating the difference between the Student Non-violent
Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the BPP, House said that one of
the principal lessons SNCC learned in the mid-late 60's was the
need for independent strategies for empowerment.  She contrasted this to
SNCC's practice at the 1964 democratic national convention of
trying to seat the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP).  The
MFDP  was a group of alternative delegates organized by SNCC to replace
the Klan-run regular Mississippi delegation.  The MFDP was fucked
several ways by leading liberals in the Democratic Party--the vice
presidential candidacy was rewarded in exchange for booting the
freedom delegates--and learned the very hard way that trying to
wring justice out of the Amerikan political system don't work.

House made the excellent and infrequently-stated point that
student activists need to be aware of surveillance, and the need to be ready
to protect each other in the event of government attack.  She said
one of the most important tasks student activists have is to avoid
prison, assassination and exile.  How else are you gonna get your
work done? MIM appreciates this point, as we are constantly
arguing over the realities of government repression of radical political
groups and individuals with folks who believe the freedom of
speech stuff in the u.s. Constitution.  The experience of oppressed
national struggles in the 1960s and '70s is one of the examples we
often point to of what the state will do to people who threaten its
existence, and how not to advertise one's location, habits, friends,
etc. to the state.

The thing we didn't appreciate in House's comments on security was
what came in the question and answer period.  Students caught on to
the security issue, and some asked what were good books to read on
the subject.  The panelists suggested Assata Shakur's book, and
AGENTS OF REPRESSION by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall.
One student asked how it was possible to recognize agents in
progressive organizations.  House responded by rattling off a list of agent
behaviors:  placing oneself in charge of security at an event and
having had experience with weapons; being in a leadership position
and confounding decision-making processes when it comes time to
take  action.  While MIM recognizes these actions as techniques the FBI
could use and has used, we know that no organization is going to
protect itself from infiltration by keeping careful watch on all its
members' behaviors.

The best way to safeguard against infiltrators is to do like Ahmad
said:  have a clear strategy and ideology.   Know your goals and you
will be able to define the best route to get there.  You will also
be able to objectively judge who is blocking your progress
intentionally and who is just confused politically.  And most
importantly, you can have these discussions out on a political
level, rather than in the fashion of a witch hunt.

---------------------------

Assata Shakur sent a tape recording of her speech from Havana
where she is in exile.  She spoke about the conditions of political
prisoners in the u.s.  Detailed the means through which they are cut
off not only from politics but from any means of personal support
that could help them stay strong (both personally and politically)
while they are locked up.  Her talk was a moving statement on what
lengths guards and wardens go to to harass the politics out of the
prisoner:  denying mail, frequent moves, isolation, torture.


-----------------------

Dhoruba bin-Wahad spoke on the issue that in the struggle between
the people and the oppressor, either the people will win, or the
oppressor will win.  He said that the Panthers worked with this
understanding and reminded everyone that Mao's often-quoted-out-
of-context statement "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
was simply an observation and analysis of the nature of the modern
state.  The other part of this analysis being that there is a moral
aspect of violence only the oppressed can be in touch with, and that
the oppressed use this understanding to turn to the whole of
humanity to participate in the struggle to overthrow the oppressor.

This was the most revolutionary analysis I've ever heard out of NOI
on all sorts of issues:  gender, culture, political responsibility.
Towards the end of his talk Wahad spoke specifically to the
Muslims  in the audience asking how can Muslims possibly absent themselves
from political struggle.  Asking how you can ignore the teaching in
the Koran which says to fight your enemy and defend those who
cannot defend themselves?  And how can you "bump your head five times a
day without bumping some cracker upside the head five times a day?"

He also seemed to downplay the free political prisoners aspect of
the other speakers' presentations.  His focus was global:  "with the
collapse of the Soviet Union what we have in the world today is a
contradiction between the north and the south," and he directed
himself to all the issues he touched on from the perspective of the
obligation revolutionary nationalists and their allies have to the
people.

Wahad also spoke on the importance of analysis and ideology to
organizing--especially as it relates to identifying friends and
enemies, especially identifying friends and enemies "within" the
oppressed nation.  (He refers to Spike Lee and "pork-chop
preachers"  in the same breath.)  He criticized Black students' admiration of
Ron Maulana Karenga saying "let's not stop with Karenga [who was
invited to speak at U. Mich.],   let's invite Jonas Savimbi ... and
Buthelezi."

Wahad got down on the issue of culture in revolutionary
consciousness--repeating Fanon's statetment that culture is related
to the word "cultivate," and stating that culture is only
revolutionary so long as it cultivates revolutionary consciousness.
He upholds the Panthers' analysis of 1966 that consciousness of
Black culture in Amerika was initially progressive as it helped to
identify a basis for organizing.  But that culturalism is
reactionary when it distracts people from political struggle.

Wahad seems to agree with MIM that gender played a big part in
holding back/weakening the Panthers.  He said that nationalists
have got to deal with all aspects of oppression, and all contradictions
in the world so that they can be as advanced as possible
theoretically and so that they can grow and also respond effectively
to threats:  "if you are not in the forefront, what happened to the
Black Panther Party will happen to you."  [Not to mention:  "why is
it that we can use the term 'bitch' and 'ho' in our rap music and
can't use the term 'revolutionary overthrow of the government' in
that same music?"]

He closed by saying "I hope that you will leave here tonight with a
profound understanding of how insignificant you are."  MIM takes
this as a call to struggle through the impulse of individualism
Amerika tries to instill in all people who live here and move on to
an internationalist focus in organizing.  We hope the same thing for
all people we come into contact with, and will continue the struggle
to spread that understanding through our work and propaganda.
---------------------