I N T E R N E T ' S  M A O I S T  M O N T H L Y

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

     XX XX  XXX  XX XX   X   X  XXX  XXX  XXX  XXX
     X X X   X   X X X   XX  X  X X   X   X    X
     X V X   X   X V X   X X X  X X   X   XX   XXX
     X   X   X   X   X   X  XX  X X   X   X      X
     X   X  XXX  X   X   X   V  XXX   X   XXX  XXX

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 

         THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT

  MIM Notes No. 44                  September 1, 1990

MIM Notes speaks to and from the viewpoint of the 
world's oppressed majority, and against the 
imperialist-patriarchy. Pick it up and wield it in 
the service of the people. support it, struggle 
with it and write for it.


IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  INSTEAD OF WAR
    OIL: THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE REASON THE U.S. TROOPS 
    ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
2.  U.S. SEIZES MIDDLE EAST OIL FIELDS
3.  CANADIAN ARMY MUSCLES MOHAWKS
4.  GREENSBORO POLICE ATTACK BLACKS
5.  LETTERS
6.  PERU'S NEW PRESIDENTIAL TYRANT
7.  TRINIDAD: FOCOISTS OCCUPY STATE OFFICES
8.  SUBIC BAY, PHILIPPINES: U.S. BUCKS BUY BASES
9.  ANC RENOUNCES ARMED STRUGGLE AMIDST CRACKDOWN
10.  MOHAWK NATIONAL CONTRADICTIONS
11. IMPERIALIST COUNTIRES: ENGLISH-ONLY UPHELD
12. FRENCH PSEUDO-PSEUDO-SOCIALIST
13. BEHIND THE GULF WAR: IMPERIALIST EXPANSION DRIVES U.S. INVASION
14. SATILLIES, SPIES, IRAQ AND THE EMPIRE
15. STATE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES: SOVIET UNION BACKS U.S. AGAINST IRAQ
16. CLASS STRUGGLE SUBORDINATES THE NATIONAL QUESTION
17. YUGOSLAVIAN REVISIONISTS LEAD
18. BULGARIA: NOW WHAT DO WE DO?
19. UNDER LOCK & KEY: NEWS OF PRISONS AND PRISONERS
20. CORRECTION
21. REVIEWS: TOTAL RECALL; THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND 
    HER LOVER; LONGTIME COMPANION
22. FROM THE COMMUNIST "ALLIANCE" TO THE KUWAITI WAR: WHY SADDAM HUSSEIN?
23. BIG BANG FOR A BUCK
24. U.S. LEADS IN EXECUTIONS
25. LORENZO TAKES $30.5 MILLION
26. JACKSON SUPPORTS THE EMPIRE
27. MAD COWS
25. AGENT ORANGE "SAFE"
26. POLISH CAPITALISM

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is a 
revolutionary communist party that upholds 
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, comprising the collection 
of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist 
parties in the English-speaking imperialist 
countries and their English-speaking internal 
semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging 
Spanish-speaking Maoist internationalist parties 
of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of 
the U.S. Empire. MIM Notes is the newspaper of 
MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-
speaking parties or emerging parties of MIM.

MIM is an internationalist organization that works 
from the vantage point of the Third World 
proletariat; thus, its members are not Amerikans, 
but world citizens.

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

Revolution is a reality for North America as the 
military becomes over-extended in the government's 
attempts to maintain world hegemony.

MIM differs from other communist parties on three 
main questions: (1) MIM holds that after the 
proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, 
the potential exists for capitalist restoration 
under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within 
the communist party itself. In the case of the 
USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the death 
of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's 
death and the overthrow of the "Gang of Four" in 
1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural 
Revolution as the farthest advance of communism in 
human history. (3) MIM believes the North American 
white-working-class is primarily a non-
revolutionary worker-elite at this time; thus, it 
is not the principal vehicle to advance Maoism in 
this country.

MIM accepts people as members who agree on these 
basic principles and accept democratic centralism, 
the system of majority rule, on other questions of 
party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is 
universally applicable. We should regard it not as 
dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is 
not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases, 
but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of 
revolution."
-- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208


* * *

INSTEAD OF WAR
OIL: THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE REASON THE U.S. TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE 
EAST.

by MC5


MIM opposes having young men and women die in Middle East conflict so 
that the public can pay $1 a gallon instead of $1.25 and so that the oil 
companies can keep up business as usual in the Middle East and avoid 
developing solar energy.

The Associated Press wire service started running stories about Amerikans 
waving flags and giving small gifts to U.S. troops. "'I want those boys 
to know we care,'" said one Michigan woman who urged the whole country to 
fly flags.(1)

But what will all the yellow ribbons, free sun tan oil, parades and flags 
flying mean to the people who die in the Middle East?

The thoughtless response of flag-flyers only encourages the U.S. 
government to waste the lives of thousands of Amerikans and Iraqis in a 
war. People who really care for the troops in the Middle East will think 
of another way.

Why did the Iraqis take over Kuwait? Money and oil. And they are 
equivalent. Iraq owed a debt of $9 billion it wants forgiven. It also 
claims a debt from Kuwait in the billions.

So if people died fighting in the Middle East it would only be so about 
$20 billion would not change hands the wrong way.

Meanwhile, last month the United States dished out $3.2 billion to bail 
out savings and loans banks.(2) The United States plans to pay in the 
hundreds of billions in the next ten years to clean up a mess left by a 
few hundred bankers and their capitalist system.

So if the government can pay for that mess, why doesn't the government 
think of a way out of wasting lives and igniting regional war? The reason 
is simple. The capitalist government, the imperialists, don't care if 
young people of any nationality die as long their interests are 
protected. They can still make a profit. Capitalism will keep ticking 
while young people die.

If the people of Kuwait want to fight the Iraqis for the right to self-
determination, they can and MIM would support a boycott of Iraqi oil if 
Kuwaitis ask for one. The people in Panama who opposed the U.S. invasion 
might feel the same way.

To help the people of Kuwait, people here should oppose wars by bourgeois 
governments everywhere. War for oil, money and land is going to be a 
thing of the past if the whole world goes socialist. Socialism is the 
best way to assure the peaceful existence of small countries like Kuwait.

Meanwhile, the only thing that is going to prevent a war is U.S. public 
opinion. It is time to step up anti-militarist work before people's lives 
are wasted senselessly.

Notes:
1. AP in Ann Arbor News, 8/22/90, p. A8.
2. AP in Ann Arbor News, 8/22/90, p. D1.

* * *

U.S. SEIZES MIDDLE EAST OIL FIELDS

by MC12

The United States of America has once again shown the world that it is 
prepared to spill the blood of innocents to protect its economic, 
political and strategic interests in the Third World. President George 
Bush on August 9 announced that the U.S. military would invade the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, supposedly to protect that country against a 
possible invasion from Iraq, its northern neighbor.

After sending thousands of troops--as well as planes, tanks, and a fleet 
of navy vessels--the Bush administration also announced a near-complete 
naval blockade of Iraqi imports and exports. The initial force is 
supposed to be 50,000 troops, with contingency plans for as many as 
250,000, making this the largest U.S. troop deployment since the Vietnam 
War.(17) Iraq has one million people in its army.(4)

Mirroring criticism often levelled against the United States, Bush 
claimed to stake out a principled stand for the action. "A puppet regime 
imposed from the outside is unacceptable," he said, after Iraq installed 
a new government in Kuwait. "The acquisition of territory by force is 
unacceptable."(14) Those who recognize a century of imperialist takeovers 
of country after country by the United States were not fooled by 
Washington's empty words.

The Iraq-Kuwait dispute

Bush's action followed a series of rapid-fire events in the crucial Gulf 
region, home of the world's largest oil reserves.

Long-standing economic and diplomatic problems between Iraq and the tiny 
country of Kuwait came to a head in July, and when Iraqi president Saddam 
Hussein said he could not achieve a satisfactory agreement with Kuwait on 
August 1, he ordered an all-out invasion of Kuwait the next day. Within a 
few hours the entire country was under Iraqi control.(11,12)

Three issues dominated the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. First, Iraq 
claimed that Kuwait was producing and selling more oil than was allowed 
under agreements of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
(OPEC).(12) By increasing the supply of oil on the world market, this was 
driving down the price of oil. Iraq claimed Kuwait's violations had cost 
Iraq $14 billion.(11)

Second, Iraq wanted compensation for oil it said Kuwait was pulling out 
of a disputed oil field which straddled the border between the two 
countries. Iraq claimed $2.4 billion in damages for this offense.(11)

Third and perhaps most important, Iraq demanded that the loan of "an 
estimated $10 billion" made by Kuwait to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War 
(1980-1988) be forgiven, because Iraq was defending Kuwait's interests 
during the war.(11)

All of these represent Iraq's economic problems, including an $80 billion 
foreign debt.(12)

Many foreign governments have supported the U.S. action; the United 
Nations Security Council has voted three times to condemn the Iraqi 
invasion. The last time on August 9, it was unanimous in calling the 
annexation of Kuwait by Iraq invalid.(15) Britain, France, West Germany 
and Canada have committed units to the force deployed against Iraq.(16) 
Turkey has said the U.S. could use its air force bases for attacking 
Iraq--as it did for the bombing of Libya in 1986--but the Soviets are 
refusing to commit forces except in a U.N effort.(15) The Soviets have, 
however, sent several ships to join in the international naval blockade. 
(See page 8)

Publicly, the United States says it will try to starve Iraq out of Kuwait 
through international sanctions and the blockade. The CIA has warned 
that, unless removed, Saddam Hussein will dominate OPEC after taking over 
Kuwait, raising oil prices, leading to increased inflation and a 
recession in the United States. So they have planned covert action to 
oust him, hoping to enlist internal opposition generated by economic 
pressures. They say they won't try to kill him themselves, though, 
because that's illegal.(1) Uh-huh. Still, Newsweek says 34% of Amerikans 
would support offing Hussein illegally in covert action.(19)

Arab Dissolve

Twelve of 21 members of the Arab League voted in support of a resolution 
for Arab troops to defend Saudi Arabia against possible Iraqi invasion. 
Iraq, Libya and the PLO voted against; Algeria, Yemen, Mauritania, 
Jordan, Sudan and Tunisia refused to vote for it. Mostly pro-U.S., oil 
rich countries sided with the plan, devised by U.S.-puppet, Egyptian 
President Hosni Mubarak. They were: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab 
Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain--all oil states--and Egypt, Syria, 
Morocco, Somalia, Lebanon, and Djibouti.(16)

The United States has been trying for years to sink its military teeth 
into the Persian Gulf, but has not yet been able to find a home for a 
permanent military base there. This crisis could be the vehicle for just 
such a move, especially with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia coming down to his 
knees to ask publicly for U.S. help. Indeed, the U.S. imperialists might 
eventually agree to a deal--Iraq keeps Kuwait in exchange for a permanent 
military base in Saudi Arabia.

Fahd did his best to play it like a defensive move, and portray it as a 
U.S. plan, which it was: "[T]he government of the USA and the British 
government took the initiative," he said, to send forces to Saudi Arabia, 
"...with the complete emphasis that this measure is not addressed to 
anybody but is only for a purely defensive aim imposed by the current 
circumstances faced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."(15)

Many people were not fooled. Anti-American demonstrations have erupted in 
Jordan, Yemen and Palestine.(17) Playing on ever-present anti-American 
sentiment in the Arab world, Saddam Hussein launched a diatribe against 
the United States and all of its Arab backers.

He said: "The imperialists, deviators, merchants, political agents, the 
servants of the foreigner and Zionism all stood up against Iraq only 
because it represents the conscience of the Arab nation and its ability 
to safeguard its honor and rights against any harm.... O Arabs, O Muslims 
and believers everywhere: this is your day to rise and defend Mecca [the 
Islamic holy city in Saudi Arabia], which is captured by the spears of 
the Americans and the Zionists. Revolt against treachery and back-
stabbing."(16)

To further polarize the issue, and unite more Arab support behind his 
cause, Hussein offered to leave Kuwait if Israel pulled out of the 
Occupied Territories and Syria pulled out of Lebanon. They refused, of 
course, and accused Hussein of confusing the issue.(17) Pointing out that 
the moralizing imperialists support several of their own occupations in 
the region was generally considered to be way too principled for a man 
who is, after all, "the Hitler of the Middle East," according to liberal 
Democrats.(12)

Israel, rejoicing at the possibility of unlimited Arab-bashing and 
justification for hostility, test-fired a brand-new U.S. missile on 
August 9. And the Israeli media started whipping its people into a frenzy 
with dramatized headlines, especially about Iraq's threat to use chemical 
weapons. Israel and the U.S. also have huge chemical weapons stockpiles, 
they're just too "civilized" to talk about them in public.(15)

Hussein is a good example of a pseudo-socialist or phony anti-imperialist 
who knows the power of some of this rhetoric for the masses but has not 
actually committed resources and support in his own country to build 
socialism. The U.S. interests oppose him because he defies imperialism, 
not because he is building communism.

Support at home

The U.S. aggression has gone over well at home so far, according to polls 
in the mainstream press. Newsweek reports that 77% approved of the Bush 
action. And 42% say Bush should fight if Iraq refuses to leave Kuwait and 
restore its previous rulers.(19) The uncounted remained, as usual, 
uncounted.

The corporate media loves the thrill of a U.S. war, and have risen to the 
occasion in fine style. The New York Times gleefully pointed out that 
everyone from Jesse Jackson to Henry Kissinger supports the aggression in 
the Persian Gulf.(18)

But the press was angry that the official press pool wasn't notified in 
time to head out with the first troops. They even threatened to hamper 
support for the war (though no one believed them), as when the executive 
editor of the New York Times said: "A major military exercise cannot 
succeed without the sustained support and understanding of the American 
people, and it will not long be supported or understood without extensive 
and close-up news reporting."(15) The voice of the bourgeoisie was 
allowed in a few days later--to be chauffeured around in U.S. military 
vehicles to "news" events carefully selected by military censors.

The U.S. public had good reason to fear the effects of the Iraqi attack. 
Market oil prices rose 30% from the invasion to August 10, and 50% from 
the middle of July, when things started heating up in OPEC.(16) Domestic 
retail prices increased 15% on average during the same time.(19)

Even though Iraqi oil is a small part of total U.S. imports, the world 
oil market takes a brutal toll on the U.S. economy. For the first half of 
this year, Iraq supplied 8% of U.S. oil imports; Kuwait sent just over 
1%.(12)

U.S. support for Iraq

As has been reluctantly pointed out here and there, the United States 
fully supported Iraq for the last 10 years, with grain exports, cheap 
credit, and cooperation on intelligence efforts.(18)

The United States gave full public support to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War 
(1980-88), and sold Saddam Hussein civilian helicopters which were 
adapted for the war.(1) Also, the bourgeois press now admits Iraq may 
have laundered $2 billion in U.S. guaranteed loans for food and spent the 
money on arms.(19)

All this support was in part only necessary after the U.S. control over 
Iran slipped with the Islamic revolution's ouster of U.S.-puppet the Shah 
of Iran. Iran emerged with a massive military machine made in the USA.(6, 
p. 14) The Amerikans decided Iraq under Saddam Hussein was less dangerous 
than Iran under revolution, and so made the switch to Iraq.

Still, that didn't stop some U.S. opportunists from cashing in on the war 
with arms sales (as in the Iran-contra case, when arms were exchanged for 
profit and hostages). Also, U.S. client-states Israel and Turkey were 
permitted to make a buck off Iranian arms sales,(6, p. 53) and Iraq 
claimed South Korea did as well.(6, p. 130)

Chemical weapons

Further, by the end of 1983 there was good evidence that Iraq was using 
mustard gas in the war, and the Iranians alleged that use went back to 
August, 1983.(6, p. 140)

That winter the United States charged West German companies with 
providing Iraq the technological means to produce chemical weapons. But 
in March, 1984 U.S. shipments of "certain chemicals" to Iraq were quietly 
banned.(6, p. 150)

In 1984 full U.S./Iraqi diplomatic relations were reinstated, after being 
broken off in 1967.(5, p. 260). Iraq was pleased enough with the 
relationship to start making rhetorical concessions on Israel after 
that.(5, p. 262)

In further testimony to the history of U.S.-Soviet cooperation, the 
Soviets also backed Iraq during the war, although supposedly Soviet anger 
at the murder of thousands of Iraqi Communists by Saddam Hussein (See 
story, page 11) took two years to subside enough for the USSR to get back 
on the arms-selling treadmill. Iraq bought a total of $34 billion in 
weapons from 1983-1988, almost half of which came from the Soviet 
Union.(19) The Soviets eventually had 1,000-plus advisors and technicians 
in Iraq.(6, p. 103)

Other imperialist support which is now causing headaches in the 
capitalist core included help from the corrupt Chinese government under 
Deng Xiaoping, who supplied tanks, artillery, planes, and missiles.(1)

France also got in early, making a good percentage of its total arms 
sales in Iraq--for a total of $16.6 billion in arms during the eight-year 
war.(19) Saddam Hussein has made a public show of attempting to split 
France off from U.S. hegemony--which he said was crumbling in 1975--in 
his attempt to get in good with what he saw as emerging new world power 
centers, including China.

More war

The embargo on Iraqi exports appeared to be working as of August 10, and 
several other countries were already taking advantage of the situation by 
increasing production--especially Iran, which doubled or tripled its 
usual sales in a few days. Saudi Arabia and Venezuela followed suit. But 
major oil users will still have to dig in to reserves if the blockade 
keeps up, governments say.(16)

But the strategy of strangling Iraq economically has potential pitfalls. 
It is certainly easier for the United States to honor the economic 
embargo for a long time than it is for Jordan, for example, which gets 
almost all of its oil from Iraq. This works against dragging the conflict 
out, which would help  the United States by establishing its forces in 
Saudi Arabia for a permanent presence. Another alternative for gaining a 
foothold is through expanded attacks--and the possibilities for that are 
endless.


References for all material on Iraq.
Notes:
1. Washington Post, 8/6/90
2. Christian Science Monitor, 8/8/90
3. New York Times, 8/9/90
4. NYT 8/4/90
5. Marion Farouk-Sluggett and Peter Sluggett, Iraq Since 1958: From 
Revolution to Dictatorship, London: KPI, 1987.
6. Edgar O'Ballance, The Gulf War, London: Brassey's Defence 
Publishers,1988.
7. Business America, 4/23/90
8. Business America, 4/25/88
9. Saddam Hussein, On Iraq and International Politics, Baghdad: 
Translation and Foreign Languages Publishing House,1981.
10. AP in Ann Arbor News 7/26/90
11. NYT 8/2/90
12. NYT 8/3/90
13. NYT 8/890
14. NYT 8/9/90
15. NYT 8/10/90
16. NYT 8/11/90
17. AP in Ann Arbor News 8/13/90
18. NYT 8/13/90
19. Newsweek, 8/20/90
20. The Economist August 18, 1990

* * *

CANADIAN ARMY MUSCLES MOHAWKS

by MC11

Kanesatake  Territory (Oka, Quebec) Aug. 25, 1990--A two-inch white line 
laid down on the border of the Kanesatake territory by Mohawk Warriors is 
now all that separates the Mohawks from Canadian tanks, a Warrior 
spokesperson said today. Troops attempted to move into the Territory on 
Aug. 23, but were stopped by the Warriors at the barricade protecting 
their land. "They can shake hands over the line that's there now," the 
spokesperson said. 

The Mohawks have been under siege since July 11, when 500 members of the 
Quebec Provincial Police (QPP) attacked the 1,200 Mohawks who live in 
Kanesatake. The police charged the barricades which the Mohawks had 
erected to secure their land against the municipal government's plan to 
expand a golf course and build condominiums over their burial ground. The 
QPP were forced to retreat, but remained stationed at the border until 
the second week of Aug., when 4,500 Canadian troops were sent to relieve 
them. Both the police and the troops have frequently prevented food, 
medical supplies, journalists, and Mohawk supporters from entering the 
Territory.

To the dismay of the Canadian government, the Mohawks' struggle at 
Kanesatake has sparked similar actions throughout the country. Mohawks 
from Kahnawake, a nearby territory, have blockaded Montreal's Mercier 
bridge since July 12, adding an hour or more to local commutes. This has 
provoked outbursts of violence against the Indians among Montreal 
residents inconvenienced by the blockade. 

In northern Ontario, Indians blockaded the two main railway lines and 
disrupted trans-Canada rail service for several days. In British 
Columbia, Indians have blockaded highways, and in southern Ontario 
opposite Detroit, Indians on Walpole Island are threatening to block 
ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway to protest environmental damage to 
their island.(1)

The Mohawks view the presence of armed troops and the inordinate amount 
of military hardware--the Canadian troops are armed with rocket launchers 
and field Howitzers, and military helicopters and spotter planes armed 
with heavy calibre machine guns make frequent flights over Kahnawake--as 
an attempt by the government to either intimidate them or to provoke a 
violent incident which would give them an excuse to invade. 

"The force is clearly not intended to control civil unrest amongst non-
Indians surrounding the Mohawk Nation at Kanesatake and Kahnawake. It's 
objective is to threaten and ultimately assault the Mohawk Peoples in the 
two territories," another Mohawk spokesperson said.  In response to 
complaints that provocative military action could set off violence, 
Assistant Deputy Minister Pierre Coulomb replied that the troops'  
movements do not represent official "engagement" but merely 
"administrative actions."

Other attempts by the government to suppress the Mohawks' movement and 
diminish their growing support have taken the form of blackmail and 
disinformation campaigns. According to a Mohawk press statement, "the 
Micmacs of New Foundland learned at a meeting with Indian Affairs in 
Amherst that the cost of settling the Oka issue will come out of regional 
budgets. This same message is being sent to all bands." 

Another press release stated that The Mohawk Nation Office had received 
an anonymous fax from a non-existent organization calling itself the 
Algonquin Indian Association condemning the Mohawks' actions in their 
land claim negotiations. "The Mohawk nation is aware that the fax 
originated at the Department of Indian Affairs, an is a deliberate 
attempt by the Federal government to discredit the actions of the 
Mohawks...." The government has also used "smear tactics," Mohawk 
spokespeople say, to discredit the Mohawk Warriors, who have lead the 
recent actions, and to sow disunity among the Indians and their 
international supporters.  

On Aug. 25, two days after the tanks had moved within a few inches of 
Kanesatake, the government broke off negotiations with the Mohawks, which 
had been taking place since the third week of Aug. "We know what they're 
doing. They're stalling, and the army is doing its utmost to provoke 
something," said the Warrior spokesperson. Meanwhile, Canadian troops 
allow mobs to "beat, harass, and terrorize all delivery personnel who 
attempt to come through the barricades, seize medicare cards from Mohawk 
people, and permit mobs to beat Mohawk men, women and children as they 
attempt to cross barricades for the purpose of bringing food and other 
essentials."

In addition to support from other Indians, the Mohawks have received 
letters of support from groups in  Norway, Hungary, Denmark, and Sweden. 
In a letter to the Canadian government, the Green Party of Sweden 
criticized its handling of the situation. "With that kind of attitude, 
the world is left with the impression that there is not hope of effective 
legal redress within Canada for aboriginal peoples..." MIM supports the 
Mohawks' struggle for national liberation, and realizes that any pressure 
on the Canadian government will help their cause, but also believes that 
the Green Party is more correct than they realize. It is naive to think 
that there is hope of effective legal redress within Canada for 
aboriginal peoples, or within the U.S. for its national minorities. The 
capitalist state will not concede power voluntarily. 

Notes: 1. Ann Arbor News, Aug. 24.

* * *

GREENSBORO POLICE ATTACK BLACKS

by MA20

Greensboro, North Carolina--Once again the Greensboro Police have 
inflicted violence upon the Black community. On Thursday, July 22, a 
police officer shot and killed James Paschal, a 29-year old Black man. 
Less than two months before this, Greensboro police beat and maced a 
teenage Black man and his mother.

These incidents are not the result of police simply coming across violent 
individuals. Nor are they the result of poorly trained police. Rather, 
these incidents are indications of the violent nature of the Greensboro 
police, especially in their interactions with Black people.

James Paschal did not need to die. The police did not need to murder him. 
The Johnson family should not have been beaten and maced by the police, 
who claim to "protect and serve." But who is being served? Who is being 
protected?

Ice Cube, the controversial rapper, said it well in his song, "Tales from 
the Dark Side": "Every cop killing goes ignored. They just send another 
nigga to the morgue... They send ten of them to get the job correct. To 
serve, protect, and break a 'nigga's neck."

[MIM believes that some of the nationalist, anti-police rhetoric from 
both N.W.A. and Amerikkka's Most Wanted is revolutionary in that it 
aspires to break the state. However, many of the songs on these records 
amount to nihilist garbage, wanting to be cool and get down and outright 
woman hating misogyny which is so prevalent on the rap scene. Watch for 
reviews coming MIM Notes 45--MC¯]

Since the June incident, community groups have made demands of the 
police: that a police review board be established. The suspension of 
police involved in the Johnson family incident has also been demanded.

Despite the protests and demands, however, the police have made no 
changes. No one has been suspended. No criminal charges have been filed 
by the district attorney against the police.

Some Blacks and liberal politicians thought that when Sylvester Daughtry 
became police chief, he would oppose brutality against the people since 
he is Black. His actions show that "Black faces in high places" does not 
stop police brutality and terror.

So what should be done? The only way to stop police violence is to fight 
back by using all means necessary. We must build a movement against 
police violence against the people. Petition, march, protest, sit-in, 
organize on the job. [To do this it would also be best to have a Maoist 
organization, newspaper and other media outlets to promote the struggle. 
MIM has distributed copies of this paper in Greensboro--MC5.]

If we fail to act now, our loved ones may be the next ones to be murdered 
by the police. 
All the cops involved in the recent shooting and beating must be 
suspended immediately. The District Attorney must bring criminal charges 
against all the police in question.
Police Chief Daughtry must be removed from his post. A police review 
board must be established by the people with the right to fire the 
police.

In addition, the city of Greensboro must pay for all burial and funeral 
expenses for James Paschal. His family must be made whole for his loss.

The city must also pay for all medical fees for the Johnson family 
members injured by the police beating. This family, also, should be made 
whole for the trauma they suffered. 
These righteous demands will not be met unless the people act in unity to 
accomplish them.

[This is also a case where people can model their campaign for self 
defense on the Maoist parties of the past such as the Black Panther 
Party. It will be important not to repeat the errors of the Panthers or 
misjudge conditions then as being the same as conditions now. Taking up 
the gun in the 1990s has huge legal ramifications which were not present 
in the 1960s. Self-defense may be necessary on the road forward, but a 
focoist revolution--one where armed cliques hope to spark the masses into 
action--will never gain the support of the masses.--MC¯]

* * *

LETTERS

HUNG UP ON CENTRALISM AND FOREIGN POLICY

Dear MIM:
I support MIM's internationalism and do want to work to advance 
internationalism with you. I desire study notes or information on the 
white working class question, so I need to know if you all have copies of 
Labor Aristocracy: Mass Base for Social Democracy.  I have never heard of 
the book prior to reading your newspaper.

I thought the article on Cinadon in a previous issue [MIM Notes 41] was 
real trash. Such rhetoric/garbage really pisses me off.

One thing I did like was your analysis of the environmental movement as 
being the "largest social movement of any kind in the United States." 
[MIM Notes 41] I thought the coverage of the Earth First! bombing [MIM 
Notes 42] and the analysis that followed was also good. No other paper I 
subscribe to even covered this issue.

I received a copy of number 43 and found it very good.

My main weakness is on democratic centralism and Stalin. I have read 
Stalin's own writings in the past (History of the CPSU,Works, etc.) As 
far as Mao goes, I was greatly influenced by Mao Zedong. Then came the 
meeting with Nixon, the Soviet Union as the main danger position, and my 
disillusionment began and continued up until this day.

As it regards democratic centralism, the two terms are somewhat mutually 
exclusive, and my experience with it has led me to question it in 
principle. Yet, I am still open for review of the question: the books are 
not closed in my mind on its need or non-need.

I must say that the impressiveness that your paper and writing have had 
upon me have pulled toward working closer with MIM. I have no knowledge 
of the Cultural Revolution, what it was supposed to do, what happened? 
Guess I'll have to read up on it from bourgeois sources. If you have some 
references, I'd appreciate receiving them from you.

What do you have to do to distribute your paper? I don't agree with 
everything in it, but I support the spirit and would like to get it out 
there to people, at least for now.
--MA20
August 1990

MC5 replies: There are some problems in Mao's foreign policy after 1971 
when the Chinese Communist Party split with the Lin Biao faction trying 
to seize power in a military coup. After this failed coup attempt, the 
Chinese Communist Party majority changed to a more rightward drift in 
foreign policy and other issues.

Mao viewed the Soviet Union as the main danger to the oppressed in the 
world in the early 1970s. Partly he believed that the United States was 
already going down the tubes while Soviet social-imperialism seemed to be 
gaining strength.

As Bob Avakian and some China scholars have pointed out, the Soviet Union 
did represent the most serious threat to China itself by the 1970s, 
something the U.S. public may not be aware of. One thing that comes out 
in Nixon's memoirs is that the Soviets asked for U.S. permission to 
launch a nuclear strike on China. Meanwhile, the Soviet army was engaging 
China in border wars. This is covered in a series of articles in Peking 
Review, which MIM distributes.

As for meeting with Nixon, there is nothing wrong with that. As long as 
capitalist states exist socialist countries will have to conduct some 
diplomacy. As an example of this kind of thing, MIM has distributed 
literature defending the Stalin-Hitler Non-Aggression Pact in World War 
II.

China did not change its class structure in order to shake hands with 
Nixon. It merely made use of inter-imperialist rivalry to protect itself 
as much as possible.

In any case, a few foreign policy mistakes in a few years do not make a 
good case for throwing out a whole method of thinking and history of 
socialist construction in China.
MIM covers the necessity of democratic centralism at this time in history 
elsewhere. Basically the oppressed must fight in unity against the 
oppressors. Without centralism (unity in action) the oppressed will never 
have democracy, only the "freedom" to be divided and conquered one at a 
time by the oppressor.

IS MAO A LIBERAL FOR NOT SHOOTING DENG XIAOPING?

Dear MIM:
We received MIM Notes 43 and distributed them on X campus last week. The 
discussions we have on Maoism came up during the local state elections 
here where they ask you if you voted. I try to explain it's a losing game 
(the parliamentary methods) at this point because everything the 
capitalists wanted they got with regards to economic development (X 
Shopping Mall, Baseball Stadium, $3 billion airport) and we would kid 
ourselves to have all so few of us to vote against that stuff.

Their propaganda is daily. No intellectuals come out in opposition to 
their circulating the capital amongst themselves. We have learned that 
voting was out when the majority of the country are settlers and even 
with the Mexicans voting against the Colorado English Language Amendment, 
it passed by 61%. We concentrated our struggle with lawsuits.
 Since the Tiananmen Square problem the Chinese government has realized 
and tried to put the slogan "from the masses to the masses" into practice 
by building a "grassroots movement."

Though we are in general agreement with all communists and MIM Notes with 
its sense of humor, we remember that this urgency can be coupled with 
some laughs and "I can kill you, and still laugh at the same time."

My curiosity, if you could address it, is the charge of Mao's liberalism 
in his later years? Also, you might want to check on the popularity of 
the PCP (Peru), which is growing according to an article in Third World 
Quarterly's most recent 1990 issue.

--MA21
August 1990

MC5 replies: Many people are confused about the situation in China 
because the bourgeois media is telling the public that China is returning 
to Maoism. It's a game they play to say that anything good that happens 
in China is the result of Western-style capitalism. Anything bad is 
because of the influence of Mao, who died in 1976.
China is now led by the people whom Mao fought and purged from government 
in his dying days--Deng Xiaoping, for example. China is now already a 
capitalist country. To go back to Maoism and socialism, there would have 
to be another revolution.

In occasional speeches, the Chinese Communist Party is trying to cover up 
its corruption and bourgeois exploitation of the masses by claiming to go 
back to Mao, whom the masses remember as leading a less corrupt 
government by utilizing the mass line, the from the masses, to the masses 
type of leadership.

What is more, Mao regarded the Cultural Revolution as one of his two 
major accomplishments in life along with the liberation of China in 1949 
from Japanese and landlord rule. The Chinese Communist Party still 
opposes any struggle like the Cultural Revolution, so it opposes half of 
Mao's thought.

The Cultural Revolution was a struggle against the very class of people 
in the Communist Party who rule China today. Some followers of Enver 
Hoxha, in previously socialist Albania, thought that Mao was too liberal 
(lax in the class struggle) in his later years because he supposedly 
tolerated capitalist-roaders in the party.

Some would say people like Deng Xiaoping should have been shot dead and 
then China would have no problems. Since Mao let Deng Xiaoping live, he 
committed a liberal error according to the Hoxhaites and some Stalinists.

Yet, Mao saw that the Soviet Union and all the Eastern European countries 
except Albania went state capitalist despite all of Stalin's struggles to 
purge or even execute bourgeois enemies within the party. He concluded 
that because of the party's relationship to the means of production under 
socialism that the masses would have to be mobilized to struggle against 
the capitalist-roaders within the party. Intra-party struggles would not 
be enough to keep the capitalist-roaders out of power. In other words, it 
was good that the masses could struggle against Deng Xiaoping and more 
importantly what he stood for. It was good that Deng Xiaoping was out in 
the open to some extent rather than plotting as in the case of Khruschev 
in the Soviet Union.

In other words, Mao was not lax at all in his later years. Shooting one 
bourgeois accomplishes nothing if there is a material basis for the 
existence of a whole bourgeois class.

That is not to say that if Deng ordered a massacre like Tiananmen he 
wouldn't have been shot by Mao while Mao was alive. It is also a 
debatable point within Maoism whether Deng should have been shot or not 
anyway. This is a relatively minor point, an argument within Maoism, 
compared with the more serious theoretical problems involved in other 
communist trends.

For example, Stalin and Hoxha look lax in comparison to Mao because Mao 
summed up history and said that the problem was so serious that the 
masses had to get involved in "continuing the revolution under the 
dictatorship of the proletariat." Stalin and Hoxha did not mobilize a 
struggle to overthrow the capitalist-roaders. They purged some 
individuals, but they tolerated their continuous replacement by new 
bourgeois individuals.

If Stalin had lived to see what happened in the Soviet bloc, we think he 
would have agreed with Mao. Since Stalin was the first government leader 
to try socialist construction in world history, it is not surprising that 
he failed. Fundamentally, Stalin missed the role of the masses in 
strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat and that is a much more 
serious issue than whether or not a particular handful of bourgeoises 
lives or dies.

* * *

PERU'S NEW PRESIDENTIAL TYRANT

by MC¯

Alberto Fujimori was sworn in as the president of Peru, succeeding Alan 
Garcia on July 28. Fujimori was quick to promise that he would honor 
Peru's foreign debt of $17.5 billion in an effort to appease the 
International Monetary Fund.(1) His predecessor, Garcia, was famous for 
declaring that the debt was unfair and that Peru would not pay more than 
10% of its export earnings toward the debt. In the end, however, Garcia 
paid on the debt well beyond 10%.(2)

Fujimori has on the surface, however, put up resistance to accepting a 
new $36 million military aid package from the United State. This package 
was pressed on Fujimori by Vice President Dan Quayle, who claimed that 
there would be no U.S. ground troops involved in the drug war in Peru, 
but that the package would include the use of Amerikan military trainers. 
MIM has already reported that Amerikan trainers have seen combat in Peru 
at the Santa Lucia base in the Upper Huallaga Valley and that CIA-hired 
mercenary pilots have flown helicopter missions for the Peruvian 
military.(6)

Proposed talks

During his first week in office, Fujimori also made overtures to both the 
Communist Party of Peru and the Tœpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. 
Usurping Mao's words in an effort to gain the upper hand through 
negotiations, he called for mediation between the state and the 
guerrillas, saying, "I have said many times that the people have a right 
to rebel." Fortunately, neither movement responded to his offers. Perhaps 
they remember that Mao actually said, "It is right to rebel against 
reactionaries."(7)

Fujimori is assuming the helm of the bureaucratic capitalism machine 
beset by 2.2 million percent inflation in the last five years, massive 
urbanization where one-third of the country's 22 million people live in 
the capital city of Lima and a growing Yankee imperialist presence, 
ostensibly to fight the drug war, but in reality fighting the Communist 
Party of Peru (PCP), sometimes known as the Shining Path.(3)

The PCP is the most successful Maoist party in the world today. Under its 
leadership the masses of Peru are forming a new society while building to 
demolish the Peruvian state.(4)

Austerity program

The Peruvian economy is currently in a crisis as a result of the 
tremendous international debt accumulated by years of military 
dictatorships which borrowed money from the International Monetary Fund 
to build infrastructure for foreign companies. During the 1960s and 70s 
Peru succeeded in attracting foreign "investment" and now the debt drag 
on the economy has forced Fujimori to declare an austerity program to be 
able to make payments. Austerity comes in the form of taxes on the people 
to pay the First World banks.

On Aug. 9, Fujimori's government announce a 3,000% increase in gasoline 
prices and food price increases which averaged 700% for rice, sugar and 
cooking gas.(5) These serve as a tax on the masses who now pay higher 
prices to the government to service Peru's debt.

In response the Peruvian masses rioted and looted wealthier areas. 
Peruvian army troops killed several people who had erected a barricade of 
burning tires in downtown Lima.

Inflation continues to run wild even with these measures. Last month, the 
init (the Peruvian currency) lost 50% of its value; consumer prices rose 
63% and 200% inflation is predicted again for this month.

All this validates the PCP's line that elections are a change of faces, 
not a new government. The PCP's documents often cite Marx: "Every few 
years the poor are allowed to choose which members of the oppressor class 
will represent and crush them in parliament."

Anyone who wants to learn more about Peru should buy MIM's Peru Study 
Pack which contains 200 pages (bound) of PCP documents, current history, 
articles from the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and papers from 
mainstream scholars. The Peru Pack is available for $12.50, post-paid 
first class mail.

Notes:
1. New York Times 7/28/90, p. 3.
2. Develop the People's War to Serve the World Revolution by the 
Communist Party of Peru, 1986, p. 62.
3. New York Times 7/29/90, p. 8.
4. MIM Notes 41 & 43.
5. NYT  8/10/90, p. 1.
6. NYT 8/9/90, p. A12.
7. NYT 8/3/90, p. A3.

* * *

TRINIDAD: FOCOISTS OCCUPY STATE OFFICES

by MC¯

On July 28, a group of 250-500 Muslim revolutionaries lead by Inmam Yasin 
Abu Bakr attempted to overthrow the government of Trinidad, launching 
coordinated attacks throughout the capital city, Port of Spain.(1) The 
struggle ended five days latter when the Muslim force surrendered at the 
parliament building which they controlled and where they held 50 hostages 
including Prime Minister Arthur N. R. Robinson.(2)

The attack was mainly directed against parliament and the government run 
TV station for Trinidad and Tobago the two small islands off the cost of 
Venezuela. Trinidad and Tobago have a combined population of 1.3 million 
of which Muslims make up a 6% minority.(2)

According to the NYT the root of the conflict with Bakr's group is the 
Muslims' use of government land for a commune. Bakr claims to speak for 
the oppressed on the islands and has attacked the government for 
corruption.

This conflict is a good example of focoism and a mistaken analysis of 
state power. Where a Maoist group would work to raise consciousness and 
mass support for its movement before advancing to armed struggle, here it 
appears that the Muslims lead by Bakr went directly up against the 
government (whether the grievance was legitimate or not) and lost. The 
masses in Trinidad did go on a looting rampage, but they did not come out 
to support Bakr's attack on the state. A day later, the police and army 
successfully imposed a 22 hour curfew and the masses were subdued. MIM 
calls this focoism because, at best, the group hopes that its armed 
action will draw supporters from the masses at large to topple the 
regime. Maoism, on the other hand, slowly builds, one small battle at a 
time, retreating when you enemy advances, until the great masses is ready 
to attack the state.

The guerrillas confused state power and the building where the parliament 
meets. To take any given building does not destroy the government and is 
not part of the peoples' war. Rather, the peoples' war must have a 
constantly shifting and offensive focus. It raises consciousness through 
armed propaganda and when it attacks it is on the move. The strategy of 
taking hostages and a central building is a conservative one that was 
easily destroyed by the military.

Notes:
1. NYT 7/31/90, p. A5.
2. NYT 8/2/90, p. 1.

* * *


SUBIC BAY, PHILIPPINES: U.S. BUCKS BUY BASES

by MC¯
While Cory Aquino's U.S.-backed puppet regime may actually terminate the 
U.S. contract for the two major military bases in the Philippines that 
expires in Sept. 1991, the Amerikan imperialists continue to have a large 
impact on the country in the meantime. The two bases--Subic Bay and Clark 
Air Base--are two of the largest anywhere and the largest facilities in 
the South Pacific. The U.S. Navy estimates their replacement cost between 
$3 and $8 billion.(1)
Directly, the bases employ 80,000 Filipinos and inject $1 billion a year-
-5% of the gross national product--into the economy. This is exactly the 
sort of leverage the U.S. would like to have with any of its military 
arrangements. Even if the Third World decides they want to kick out 
Amerikan troops, it will hurt their dependent, dollar-oriented economy to 
do it.
Of course some of the Manila bourgeoisie would like to privatize the 
bases, or at least the building and maintenance industries contained in 
them. This fits in well with the Amerikan plan to surrender the bases to 
the benefit of the Filipino army. In fact, the Amerikans have already 
begun "the handover of surplus weapons and equipment to a needy 
Philippine military."(1)
At the same time, the U.S. regime provides special contracts for 
Philippine sugar and textiles, the latter contract worth over $1 billion 
per year in special quotas which the U.S. agrees to buy.
All this is done with the intention of keeping the facilities in the 
Philippines well within reach. Don't forget that Aquino remained in power 
during last years coup attempt largely because of the intervention of 
U.S. warplanes which attacked the Philippine army.
Notes:
1. New York Times 8/4/90, p. 2.

* * *

Liberian government massacres civilians

by MC¯

On Aug. 12, the troops of Liberian President Samuel K. Doe again attacked 
civilian refugees, killing 18 people according to the New York Times. The 
attack was part of Doe's effort to prevent the troops of rebel commander 
Charles Taylor from taking the city on the day before an African 
"peacekeeping" force arrives. The peacekeeping force is made up of 2,500 
men from Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Gambia.(1)

On July 30, Doe's troops attacked over 2,000 refugees who were staying in 
St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Monrovia, the capital city. Between 300-
600 people were massacred with bullets and machetes; men, women and 
children were killed.(2)

A force of 230 U.S. Marines also invaded Liberia to secure Americans and 
other foreigners held hostage by Prince Johnson, a rebel leader who split 
with Taylor more than six months ago in his own attempt to take power. 
Johnson had openly called for U.S. intervention and taken the hostages in 
an effort to provoke such an action.(4)

As MIM reported before none of the parties seem to have a revolutionary 
program of any kind. The civil war appears to be a military struggle for 
power.(3)

Notes:
1. NYT 8/13/90, p. A3.
2. NYT 7/31/90, p. 1.
3. MIM Notes 42
4. NYT 8/9/90, p. A4.

* * *

ANC RENOUNCES ARMED STRUGGLE AMIDST CRACKDOWN

by MA10

The South African government reimposed a state of emergency on 27 black 
townships on August 24. In an attempt to camouflage the action, the 
government in Pretoria gave the decree a different name, designating the 
townships as "unrest areas." In practice, the new regulation imposes 
essentially the same measures as the state of emergency decree which was 
first issued in 1985. Police forces are given license to arrest and 
search people without warrants, to outlaw gatherings and marches, and to 
expel non-residents from the townships. The number of police forces will 
be drastically increased. Most strikingly, (like the state of emergency 
decree) the regulation protects the police from prosecution for crimes 
they commit "in good faith" to enforce the decree.(1)

The alleged reason for the imposition of the state of emergency is the 
recent fighting in Port Elizabeth, Sebokeng, Thokoza, Katlehong, Natal, 
Vosloorus, Kagiso, Soweto, and other provinces. Over 500 people have been 
killed in the past 12 days in fighting mainly between the Zulu tribe and 
supporters of the African National Congress (ANC). On August 17, the 
Congress of South African Trade Unions and the ANC accused Inkatha--the 
Zulu organization led by Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi--of inciting 
the violence in conjunction with South African authorities. Witnesses to 
the violence and township residents have also accused the police of 
siding with Inkatha.(2)

Natal province has been the scene of fighting between Inkatha and the ANC 
for years. At least 4,000 people have been killed in fighting between the 
two groups in the province in the past three years.(3) Many members of 
the ANC, though not all, belong to the rival Xhosa tribe.   The Zulu 
tribe has approximately 6 million members, and is often cited as the 
largest single tribe in South Africa. (As a South African activist points 
out in a past interview in MIM Notes 42, the Zulu state split into two 
states; any claim Buthelezi might make about representing the largest 
ethnic group is thus rendered false.) The recent surge of violence is 
concentrated primarily in areas heavily populated with Zulu migrant 
workers. More than 90% of the workers in government coal mines are 
migrants, and are housed in single men's hostels.(4)  

The ANC has accused Buthelezi of inciting the violence, often initiated 
by Zulu migrant workers, in order to gain the leverage necessary to grant 
Buthelezi an active role in the current negotiating process between the 
ANC and the South African government. Mandela initially refused to meet 
with Buthelezi because of his complicity with the apartheid system. Chief 
Buthelezi is the government-appointed Chief Minister of the KwaZulu 
homeland. The falsity of his claim to be an opponent of apartheid is 
exposed by his complicity with the Pretoria government's homeland system. 
The ANC also claimed that to meet with him would imply that he represents 
a sizeable portion of the Black population, and would grant him a status 
he does not deserve. As the fighting continued to escalate, however, the 
ANC agreed that a dialogue with Buthelezi will be necessary to any 
attempt to end the violence.(4) 

Whether the South African authorities played an active role by working 
with Inkatha to initiate the recent wave of violent attacks, or whether 
they are now using the opportunity to solidify their control over the 
townships by siding with the Zulu migrant workers is unclear. What is 
clear is that the government uses the fighting as an excuse to brutally 
impose order on the townships, while pretending to be sincerely engaged 
in negotiations. The official reimposition of police measures makes clear 
the government's motives in initiating change in South Africa. The 
government has not renounced apartheid, rather it realized that it is no 
longer a lucrative economic policy.

The crackdown by the South African security forces in the coming weeks 
promises to be brutal and in the face of this, the ANC's recent 
relinquishment of armed struggle brings up numerous questions. Was the 
repudiation of armed struggle merely a tactical move, the halting of 
offensive attacks while negotiations are underway, or reflective of a 
broader abandonment?

Notes:
1. NYT 8/25/90.
2. NYT 8/18/90.
3. NYT 8/22/90.
4. NYT 8/24/90.

* * *

MOHAWK NATIONAL CONTRADICTIONS

by MC12, MC44 & MC5

Imperialism divides its victims into nations--colonies--and its colonies 
into groups which can be pitted against one another. So it is not 
surprising to hear that some division exists among the Mohawk people in 
the current crisis. One Warrior said of Mohawks who say the Warriors 
don't have popular support, "There are individuals who say that. And 
their views are respected even though it's not correct. You can look 
around you and see what's correct."

The newspaper Akwesasne Notes, in its Late Spring, 1990 issue, presented 
a wide range of criticism of the Mohawk Warrior Society--mostly 
criticizing their work on the Akwesasne reservation, which straddles the 
U.S.-Canada border. The criticism--which is at times contradictory--can 
be grouped into the following categories:

*Theological criticism, which says that the Warriors put too much 
emphasis on war and violence, based on interpretation of traditional 
texts and Mohawk law. Theological experts are required to resolve this 
question of Mohawk tradition, which both sides claim to uphold. MIM 
cannot comment on this matter.

*Moral criticism, claiming that the practices of gambling and smuggling 
linked to the Warriors in Akwesasne are corrupting, and that by profiting 
from white people Mohawk national sovereignty is compromised.

The Warriors counter that working with elected Indian governments under 
outside control ($4.8 million out of the $6.3 million official Akwesasne 
budget comes from the federal government, according to Akwesasne Notes), 
and seeking outside military intervention--as described in MIM Notes 43, 
the FBI has invaded the territory to bust up casinos--are much greater 
threats to the sovereignty of the Mohawk nation.

*Subversiveness and chaos. This argument attacks the Warriors for going 
outside the system of elected officials created by the U.S. and Canadian 
governments and charges the Warriors with bringing death and chaos to the 
territories.

The obvious response to this is that the real death and chaos has been 
brought about by the colonizing governments throughout the last 500 years 
(oppression which Akwesasne Notes downplays in most of its articles), and 
that seeking help from the enemy will not provide any solace from the 
effects of colonialism.

*False nationalism. One unsigned article in Akwesasne Notes warns that 
the Warriors are leading the Mohawk people down the road to fascism. The 
Warrior Society Manifesto, it proclaims, "is fashioned directly after the 
propaganda which Rudolf Hess and Joseph Goebbels devised and promoted 
under Adolph Hitler." This writer also says that "The oppression facing 
Native peoples is quite similar to that experienced by the Germans prior 
to World War II." 

At the present time, it appears to MIM that the leadership of the Mohawk 
Warrior Society is the most advanced within the Mohawk national struggle. 
[See the MIM interview with Warrior spokespeople in MIM Notes 43.] The 
claims of its detractors are weighty, but at a fundamental level they do 
not appear to take into account the true ambitions of the imperialist 
governments which are waging war on the Mohawks. Attempts to work with 
the U.S. and Canadian governments, to uphold electoral systems they put 
in place, to respect borders which were created to divide their people, 
have so far produced nothing but cultural and physical genocide for 
Indian nations--and there is no evidence that that is about to change.

Like the American Indian Movement (AIM) of the 1970s, the Warrior Society 
is rejecting the Indians-as-natural-victims sympathy offered by so many 
liberals. By taking up arms in the face of imperialist violence, the 
Mohawks signal to their international allies that they are a serious 
national political force, not just a cultural organization. Real allies 
of the Mohawk people should be inspired by this leadership.

The choice is between gradual but inevitable disappearance through 
assimilation and decimation and taking a firm stand which lays out the 
aims of national liberation for all to see. Even if the Mohawks alone 
cannot defeat the Canadian army in outright war, armed resistance in the 
long run is the only viable alternative.

Since there is no Maoist party within the Mohawk nation, it is difficult 
for MIM to say when and through what forms armed struggle should arise. 
The Mohawk Warriors have done a good job taking advantage of many 
political conditions for struggle. Still, there remains the question of 
what the Maoist strategy for change would look like. What balance of 
forces would a Maoist internationalist strategy take into account?

Divisions are inevitable within oppressed groups, and must at some point 
be resolved. As divisions are exploited by the forces working against the 
Mohawk people, the contradictions will widen until they reach a breaking 
point--when the Mohawk people will emerge victorious or be destroyed. 
Unity will not necessarily resolve the question and cannot always be 
maintained, but there is also a time for internal warfare and a time for 
temporary alliances. Internationalists must attempt to emulate the most 
militantly anti-imperialist spirit of the Mohawk people, and not use 
internal dissension as an excuse for inaction.


* * *

IMPERIALIST COUNTIRES: ENGLISH-ONLY UPHELD

by MC11

If language and cultural separatism rise above a certain level, the unity 
and political stability of the nation will, in time, be seriously eroded. 
A common language and a core public culture of certain shared values, 
beliefs, and customs make us distinctly Amerikkkans.*
-- Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) introducing the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill 
(an early version of the Simpson-Rodino immigration bill which became law 
in 1986 as the Immigration Reform and Control Act) to Congress in March, 
1982
*k's added for accuracy

Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a campaign sponsored by "U.S. 
English" and "English First" to make English the official language of 
Colorado has won the backing of Colorado's voters (89% of whom are white) 
and of the state Supreme Court, which issued a ruling in July upholding 
the passage of the Colorado's Official English constitutional amendment, 
according to a press release from the Mexicano Coalition Against English 
Only (MCAEO). Opponents of the amendment had challenged the legality of 
the vote, arguing that Secretary of State Natalie Meyer had allowed the 
English-only referendum on the ballot without certifying petition 
signatures. 

The Colorado decision is the latest in a series of legislation aimed at 
preserving the cultural and economic dominance of white Amerikans. In 
1984, California voters approved an advisory measure that would prohibit 
bilingual election ballots. In Los Angeles County, where more than half 
the schoolchildren speak Spanish, the ballot is English-only. And in 
Miami's Dade County, Florida, an ordinance prohibits the transaction of 
business in any language but English.(1, p.222) 

MCAEO called the Colorado decision "a step toward cultural genocide." Why 
do so many white Amerikans deem it essential that English, long the 
implicitly recognized language of the U.S., be made "official?" the press 
release asks. The answer, it says, can be found "only if one looks at 
possible threats to the economic and political stability of the U.S., at 
least in the minds of some U.S. government leaders who would sacrifice 
United Nations prohibitions on genocide to ensure U.S. stability." 

In other words, the U.S. government fears the revolutionary potential of 
the growing and severely exploited U.S. Latino population. Census Bureau 
projections indicate that after the year 2000 more than one-quarter of 
all Americans will be nonwhite. In 1984 there were 21.6 million Latinos 
in the U.S., 30% of whom were living below the poverty line (1, p.142). 
According to a 1984 New York City Urban League report, the Spanish-
speaking family earns less than two-thirds what a white family earns in 
terms of median household per capita income. Restrictions imposed in the 
realm of language and culture cut across economic, social and political 
boundaries and serve to subvert Latinos' power in all of those areas.

Amerikans support english-only

MIM agrees with MCAEO's logic, but would add that white workers as well 
as government leaders have supported English-only and anti-Mexican 
legislation. Claiming that Mexican immigrants steal American jobs, the 
AFL-CIO has historically supported U.S. government programs such as the 
1954 "Operation Wetback," a harsh crackdown on undocumented Latino 
workers which landed almost two million Mexicans in jail or back across 
the border. Until political pressure from Latino advocacy groups forced 
it to change its position, the AFL-CIO supported the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act, of 1986, which, before it was amended, would have 
included a clause making English "the official language of the U.S." A 
study conducted by the Center for U.S- Mexican Studies found in 1982 that 
the people in the U.S. most likely to hold anti-Mexican beliefs are white 
male members of labor unions: "It is striking that so much of the "hard 
core" of the new American nativists seems to consist of white, reasonably 
well-educated, middle to upper class, middle aged males," the study 
states. (2). 

The actions and attitudes of the U.S. government, white workers, and 
capitalists toward Mexicanos--of which campaigns for English-only laws 
are one example--is consistent with MIM's analysis of the labor 
aristocracy in the United States. MIM agrees with the argument put forth 
in J.Sakai's book, Settlers: Mythology of the White Proletariat:  
"Amerika is so decadent that it has no proletariat of its own, but must 
exist parasitically on the colonial proletariat of oppressed nations and 
national minorities." (p.9).

Cultural control

The MCAEO press release states that English-only proponents are pushing 
Colorado's Mexicano population toward "what at this point seems to be the 
only viable avenue that will allow them to maintain their culture and 
language and that is the 'consideration of a separate government' or the 
reunification of their mother land--Mexico. We will prevail because we 
recognize the true thrust of the english only movement is to control, by 
any means necessary, the perceived threat of the Mexicano people to the 
economic stability and security of the U.S. We will prevail because we 
recognize the alternative is our own genocide."   MIM supports Mexicanos' 
struggle against such forms imperialist aggression and is committed to 
fighting for the national liberation of all oppressed nations within and 
outside the borders of the United States.

Notes:
1. James D. Cockroft, Outlaws in the Promised Land, New York: Grove 
Press, 1986.  
2. Wayne A. Cornelius, "America in the Era of Limits: Migrants, 
Nativists, and the Future of U.S.-Mexican Relations." La Jolla: Center 
for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 1982.

* * *

FRENCH PSEUDO-PSEUDO-SOCIALIST

by MC89
Bernard Tapie is his name. He made his fortune buying stagnant companies 
and hyping life into them. Then he bought a few German soccer players, 
found he liked them (his Marseilles team is number one in France), 
decided to get shoes to match, and scooped up Adidas. Rumor has it that 
Tapie now wants World Cup champion coach Franz Beckenbauer to complete 
the set.

Sports and sporting goods aren't the only businesses Tapie has wheedled 
himself into. French politics, long a buyer's market, is the scene of his 
latest killing.

Six years ago, French "communists" left a socialist coalition government 
headed by the ineffable Fran�ois Mitterand, forcing his government to 
share power with right-wing Gaullists. The Gaullists left three years 
later, but right-wing politics stayed: Prime Minister Michel Rocard was 
spotted by Spy magazine photographers conversing with a genocidal maniac 
named Kissinger at the exclusive Bohemian Grove, a capitalist-class 
playground in California.

Mitterand and Rocard are still a little too left for Tapie, who won't 
join their party, though he calls himself a socialist. Admiring their 
success, he created a party of his own, calling it Forum des Citoyens, 
and imbuing it with a mission: to undermine Jean-Marie Le Pen and his 
neo-fascist National Front party.

Fine goal. A Gallic David Duke, Le Pen and his France-for-French 
chauvinism have been supported by 15% of voters recently--somebody needs 
to stop him. But for Tapie, it's just a gimmick. Tapie doesn't have the 
savvy to work within the socialist party, but he needs politics to 
promote his number one product: himself.

When Tapie leaked plans to buy Adidas, stocks jumped--until market 
managers asked him to prove he could finance the deal. They were right to 
be suspicious--Tapie is a windbag--but more and more he's a windbag the 
French listen to.

Forum des Citoyens won its first seats in the French parliament in July. 
Though it is little more than a vehicle for a populist demagogue, it is 
likely to become part of the French political landscape.

Notes: Economist 7/14/90.

 * * *


BEHIND THE GULF WAR: IMPERIALIST EXPANSION DRIVES U.S. INVASION

by MC12 and MC89

Imperialist capitalism is decaying capitalism--which at once expands to 
greater and greater lengths and becomes more and more fragile. Its power 
is fleeting; in the face of its mortality it lashes out with savage 
ruthlessness.

Imperialist powers compete among each other in world wars and in the 
carving up of the Third World. Those wars and that expansion are as 
essential to the imperialist capitalist system as wage labor is to simple 
capitalism.

So the current outbreak of violence--and the threat of more--in the 
Middle East comes as no surprise. Even among bourgeois commentators in 
the Amerikan press, there is an understanding that world-wide aggression 
is necessary for the survival of U.S. domination. So when an old reason 
for war disappears--as the Cold War did--another cause is found. One 
commentator in Newsweek wrote: "The task after World War II was to halt 
communism. The job today is to guarantee access to the energy resources 
on which the industrial world depends."(19)

Not long ago the same writer may have referred to the war on drugs as the 
new Amerikan mission abroad.

Impending U.S. recession

Expansionist wars are most likely to occur in times of economic 
uncertainty in the imperialist countries. A fragile U.S. economy--with 
speculative investments hiding the fact of little real growth--has for 
the last five years relied on low foreign oil prices. Partly the result 
of production beyond quotas mandated by the Organization of Petroleum 
Exporting Countries (OPEC, comprising Arab nations and Venezuela) on the 
part of Kuwait--among others--low prices have helped increase demand for 
oil and led to more U.S. dependence on OPEC. U.S. oil production is down 
15% from 1985, and now stands at a 25-year low.(2)

More generally, the U.S. government expects little or no growth in the 
third quarter of this year, and a contraction of 1.4% for the fourth 
quarter--as measured by Gross National Product (GNP).

U.S. inflation and unemployment, also indicators of economic trouble, 
have been increasing for several years. Inflation grew from 4.4% in 1987 
and 1988, to 4.6% in 1989 and 5.9% (annual rate) for first half of 1990. 
Likewise, official U.S. unemployment jumped to 5.5% in July, the biggest 
monthly jump (.3%) since 86. These figures can be counted on to 
understate the real case of unemployment and underemployment among the 
U.S. underclasses, but the directional trends may still be telling.(4)

U.S. expansion plans and needs

Two factors emerge as motivators for the nature of the U.S. reaction--if 
that is the word for the U.S. invasion--to the crisis. For every penny 
increase in the retail price of gas, Amerikans spend $1 billion per year 
less on other goods and services. So the increase in prices sought by 
Iraq threatens to make the recession worse.(4)

But foreign economic expansion is also an inevitable response to slowed 
growth, and the Gulf region has been heavily targeted by U.S. economic 
planners.

In 1987 the United States did a moderate level of trading with Iraq: 
exporting $683 million worth of goods and importing $526 million. But in 
1988 the government was encouraging major U.S. investment there. Citing 
favorable economic reforms in Iraq, the Department of Commerce said: 
"American firms are strongly encouraged to investigate the market and 
introduce their products and services to Iraqi officials now."(8)

These plans extended to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well, and were 
proceeding at a brisk pace.

From 1988 to 1989 U.S. exports to Kuwait increased a lot--24%--to $855 
million, greatly helping to offset the $974 million in Kuwaiti imports--
mostly oil. The government reported good new export prospects, including 
computer equipment, telecommunications equipment and medical 
equipment.(7)

But Saudi Arabia led the region as a safety valve for U.S. economic 
expansion. Fifteen percent of all U.S. oil imports come from Saudi 
Arabia,(4) for total imports in 1989 of $7.2 billion. That sum is only 
partly offset by the $3.6 billion the sold to the Saudis last year, a 
situation the U.S. profiteers would like to remedy. In 1988 the United 
States regained "chief supplier" status with Saudi Arabia, according to 
the U.S. government, and the opportunity for a major increase in that 
export market was just on the horizon. The state-owned Saudi oil company 
plans to double production capacity in the next 10 years, to 10 million 
barrels per day, at a cost of $15-30 billion, which U.S. exporters stand 
ready to profit from. So earlier this year the Commerce Department said: 
"U.S. oil equipment firms should take immediate action to establish or 
reestablish a presence in the Saudi market."(7)

This helps explain previous attempts by the U.S. government to more 
firmly establish itself in the Gulf region, and Saudi Arabia in 
particular. This is not the first venture into Saudi Arabia. At least 300 
"technical personnel" went there in 1980 to oversee new U.S. surveillance 
planes watching the Iran-Iraq War.(6, p. 56) During the 1974 oil crunch, 
Congress considered plans to seize the oil fields to guarantee Amerika's 
supply.

The Iraqi threat

The recent crisis has threatened the growing U.S. niche in the Gulf 
region, but has also offered a golden opportunity to justify a major 
military and economic invasion of Saudi Arabia--even if it means losing 
the less significant Kuwait to Iraq.

Iraq took a gamble with the invasion--standing to gain billions but 
risking an economic boycott of its economy, which depends almost 
completely on foreign trade.

By seizing Kuwait, Iraq doubled its oil reserves and increased its 
production by 60%.(2) Iraq now controls reserves second only to Saudi 
Arabia's.(12) Iraq will try to take advantage of that leverage in the 
world market to increase the price of oil, possibly doubling it.(2)

But the flip-side of the power in Iraq's economy is its dependence. 
Ninety-five percent of Iraq's foreign income is from oil, as is 60% of 
its GNP.(8) At the same time Iraq imports 80% of its food. This severe 
economic imbalance--dictated by the imperialist-dominated world market--
has left Iraq (and most Third World nations) with massive foreign debts. 
Iraq's is $80 billion.(12)

The U.S. threat

As slavery was replaced by debt bondage--jettisoning the name to preserve 
the system--in the Old South, the U.S. alternates between military and 
economic coercion of the Third World. Saddam Hussein has chosen to bite 
back rather than pay his debt. Other Arab leaders prefer to play along. 
Egypt's Mubarak, mindful of the $6 billion Egypt owes the United States 
for weapons and the $10 billion of International Monetary Fund debts that 
will have to be rescheduled--not to mention the $3.5 billion Egypt 
receives annually as the second-leading recipient of U.S. aid--could not 
do anything but join the war effort. (20)

Turkey's Ozal is in a similar position. His country is only number five 
on the aid list, but it badly wants to get along with the United States 
and the European Economic Community, which has withheld membership 
because of Turkey's too flagrant flaunting of human rights--"civilized" 
countries keep their killing secret. And Saudi Arabia's King Fahd 
realizes that his family is kept in power by U.S., not popular, support. 
None of these leaders could have said no to the United States any more 
than Kuwait could have said no to Iraq.

 U.S. war at home

Confronting a war which is so apparently popular in the United States 
requires a real international approach and an uncompromising stance 
against all forms of oppression. But the allies of the international 
proletariat have the tools to fight this war at home--with the guidance 
of a diligent vanguard party and the power of a materialist analysis.

The Amerikan imperialists can bring an awesome war to the Gulf region. 
It's up to the people to deliver an equally volatile attack at home.


* * *

SATILLIES, SPIES, IRAQ AND THE EMPIRE

by MC89

Power politics reduces diplomacy to PR work. Will Saudi Arabia's Fahd, 
Egypt's Mubarak and Turkey's Ozal support the war effort against Iraq? In 
the bourgeois media, expert correspondents ponder such questions in 
stories set next to photo-op photos. The stories delve no deeper than the 
photos. Real mechanisms of supply, surveillance, and mobilization for war 
are already in place, and they are not liable to be affected by the Iraqi 
invasion--an event which the superpowers undoubtedly saw coming.

Four to six U.S. spy satellites passing overhead produce a fresh picture 
of Iraq every two hours. Two or three KH-11s; one or two KH-12s, able to 
read a "paperback novel title" from 188 miles up, and a Lacrosse 
satellite, which can only identify a card-table sized object. Images are 
relayed through stations in Greenland and the Pacific to the National 
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, DC, arriving on the 
president's desk less than two hours after they were taken.(1)

When more information is needed, planes--a TR-1, an updated, weather-
impervious version of the U-2, a Navy "Prowler," or an Air Force "Raven"-
-can be dispatched for picture-taking. The planes will also jam 
electronic signals--useful when the two U.S. intelligence satellites on 
equatorial orbits hear disturbing walkie-talkie, phone or radio 
communications. The AWACS planes sold to Saudi Arabia amid controversy at 
the start of Reagan's presidency have the same capacity to listen-in, and 
most of them have on-board computers to sort through transmissions for 
keywords. Bigger machines run the same searches on the ground. They are 
located in Turkey and Turkish-occupied Cyprus, which explains the 
"strategic importance" of Turkey we're always hearing about.(2)

When it comes to hardware, Amerika's all right; but "human resources" 
(spies) are a problem. According to former Director of Central 
Intelligence William Colby, Iraq is "a closed, authoritarian society, and 
if anybody's slightly off-base, why they're dead."(3) 

Newswatchers will remember Iranian-born British journalist Farzad Bazoft, 
who was hanged in Iraq on charges of spying for Israel on March 15. 
Thatcher called the hanging "an act of barbarism," and the U.S. State 
Department officially deplored the hasty sentencing and punishment; they 
were joined by dozens of journalists' societies and human rights 
agencies.(4)

Another side of the story was virtually squelched. Bazoft had been 
convicted of bank robbery by an English court in 1981, and was sentenced 
to a prison term and deportation, but won an appeal two years later--a 
strange record his newspaper employers said they knew nothing of. On the 
day of his hanging British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd revealed more 
in a speech before Parliament. A colleague paraphrased: "We know now that 
he [Bazoft] offered himself four times to the British police in recent 
months as an informer. It would be highly likely that he would offer 
himself to the Israelis." Another added, "Perhaps the biggest story of 
all has yet to be told."(5)

Perhaps Bazoft bargained away his sentence for robbery in return for 
intelligence work. He would have been a perfect candidate for spy: he had 
no relatives, and he stood a better chance of infiltrating than light-
skinned Westerners.(6) Bazoft was arrested when he told guards watching 
an exploision-cite in Iraq that he was an Indian doctor. The West's 
studied indignation at the time, unlike that shown for journalists who 
were victims of Central American death-squads, showed its frustration 
with foiled attempts at spying, and its willingness to shake a fist at 
Saddam Hussein.

But with hardware alone, "We know  just as much about the disposition of 
Iraqi military forces as Saddam Hussein does" according to one defense 
analyst.(7) So did Bush (and Fahd and Mubarak and Ozal) know that Iraq 
was going to invade Kuwait? Did Roosevelt and Churchill know that Japan 
was going to bomb Pearl Harbor? Yes, as a matter of fact, they did.

Now, we just have to watch the long-planned response unfold.


Notes:
1. USA Today 8/10/90 1A.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. New York Times 3/16/90.
5. NYT 3/17/90.
6. NYT 3/16/90.
7. USA Today 9/10/90.


* * *

STATE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES: SOVIET UNION BACKS U.S. AGAINST IRAQ

by MC¯

In a less than surprising move, the two imperialist powers teamed up to 
issue a joint statement against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Moscow also 
showed its support for the U.S. position by dispatching a destroyer and 
an antisubmarine ship to join the blockade in the Persian Gulf.(1)

In his news conference of Aug. 22, President George Bush stressed that 
the U.S. was in "close communication" with the Soviets on the Iraq issue 
and though the two superpowers had differences over the timetable for 
actions, there was basic agreement.(2)

Even the mainstream press reported: "But behind such tactical differences 
is a degree of coordination that is all the more significant because the 
Middle East has long been an arena of superpower rivalry.

"Throughout the crisis, the two countries have kept in frequent contact 
in Washington, New York and Moscow."(1)

In other words, superpower rivalry has become a tactical alliance to 
carve up the Middle East. Remember that the Soviet Union is the world's 
number one oil producer. Given this, it may not be an immediate threat to 
Soviet interests for the U.S. to annex Saudi Arabia (or at least have a 
base there).

While Moscow has ruled out a joint Soviet-U.S. military action, it is 
obviously willing to go along with a so-called internationalist blockade 
under the banner of the United Nations. Moscow generally wishes to keep 
channels open with Iraq out of its own self-interest.

The Soviets certainly hope to gain influence by acting as conflict 
moderator. Still this falls in line with the USSR's own interest. First, 
Iraq owes the Soviets more than $20 billion in war debts. Second, there 
are over 900 Soviet citizens in Kuwait and 8,000 in Iraq, along with 
1,000 military advisors.

So while the Soviet and Amerikan interests in the Gulf are not identical, 
both sides hope to work together to play the situation to their own 
advantage.


Notes: 1. NYT 8/8/90, p. 1.
2. CBS Radio News 8/22/90.

* * *

CLASS STRUGGLE SUBORDINATES THE NATIONAL QUESTION

by MC¯

As Stalin predicted, when class struggles take the back seat to 
development in the Soviet Union, the national (internal) conflicts flair 
up. Certainly this is the case with the various Soviet republic deciding 
that it would be better to go it alone than stick with Mother Russia.

This can be seen in the complaints of exploitation in the Central Asian 
regions. "For one thing, Central Asians complain of economic 
exploitation. The Uzbekistan prime minister, Shukrulla Mirsaidov, 
contends his people pay out three times as much to the central government 
as they get back."(1) And he is most likely correct.

This exposes the fact that the central government neither struggles with 
the various entities that compose the country nor does it work in their 
interest. It's a big, profit-mongering, military machine.

Notes: AP in Ann Arbor News 8/8/90, p. C1.

* * *
YUGOSLAVIAN REVISIONISTS LEAD

by MA6

Yugoslavia has taken the lead in so-called reforms and serves as a good 
model for explaining what's going on in the rest of Eastern Europe. 
Beginning in December, new laws have been passed which liberalize foreign 
investment procedures so much so that $1 billion has been put in by 
Western businesses, nearly matching the total of investments for the 
previous decade.(1)

The revisionists in Yugoslavia have also come up with "clever debt-for-
equity swaps" to reduce the foreign debt. And of course, to facilitate 
matters the government will be introducing "belt-tightening measures" 
this year. Along with this, "huge" segments of state-owned industry will 
be transferred to private ownership.

These measures, of course, are necessary to reduce unemployment from 17% 
(government statistics), and to eliminate ethnic "agitation." Things look 
so bright that an American banker declared: "'I think this place is 
really poised to take off. A lot more people are compelled to look at 
this part of the world now, afraid they'll miss something.'"

The LA Times is good enough to point out that Yugoslavia had a head start 
compared with the other Eastern European countries because Yugoslavia 
tilted toward Western capitalism at least since 1965.

Actually though, to understand Yugoslavia's "head start," it is necessary 
to go back to the early 1950s, when Tito, then head of Yugoslavia, began 
to take Yugoslavia down the capitalist road.

China under Mao and Albania under Hoxha led the attack on Tito for 
selling out socialism in Yugoslavia. "Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?" 
came out in the People's Daily in 1963.

This article by the Maoists pointed out that even then Yugoslavia had 
become a dumping ground for Western products, an outlet for imperialist 
investment and a place to extract mineral wealth. Half of Yugoslavia's 
mineral exports went to the United States.

MC5 adds: So already in the 1950s, this Eastern European country leaned 
West. Historically, this was a very important moment in international 
communism. Tito led the way for the Soviet leader Khruschev to follow in 
the late 1950s. Yugoslavia may be considered the original leader of 
"reform"--capitalist counterrevolution.  The recent attempts to draw 
foreign investment can be seen as as attempts to compete with other 
Eastern European countries in staying at the forefront of capitalist 
counterrevolution.

Notes: LA Times 6/10/90.


* * *

BULGARIA: NOW WHAT DO WE DO?

by MC89

A dirty little secret about social democrats (which also applies to 
Trotskyists): they don't really want power. Proof comes when they are 
given some--they don't have the faintest idea what to do with it.

For nearly two decades, Bulgaria was ruled by a gray old pseudo-communist 
named Zhivkov. Responding to street rumblings, party hacks last year 
threw Zhivkov out, replaced him with Foreign Minister Petar Mladenov, and 
began calling themselves socialists rather than communists.

The face-lift worked, and Mladenov was elected president, beating out a 
social democratic/Christian/Green coalition calling itself the Union of 
Democratic Forces (UDF).

After Mladenov was sworn in, UDF operatives released a videotape of him 
laying plans to deal with last December's demonstrations. "Shouldn't we 
bring the tanks in?" he asked in a meeting.

Mladenov was ready with a response: First, he explained what he had 
really said was, "Shouldn't we bring Stanko in?" referring to his pal in 
parliament, Stanko Todorov. Yeah, right. Second, well, it doesn't matter, 
since tanks were not deployed. Third, anyway, the tape is a fake.

Having defended his honor, Mladenov resigned. Somehow, that caught the 
UDF off-guard. In the weeks since, they haven't been able to agree on 
anyone to replace him. The latest word is that the social democrats are 
so fed up with the bickering that they might join Mladenov's party and 
offer him up as president. That's what happens when you don't have a 
leader of your own.

Notes: Economist 7/14/90.

* * *

UNDER LOCK & KEY: NEWS OF PRISONS AND PRISONERS--
A REVOLUTIONARY GROUP TRAPPED IN THE BELLY OF AMERIKA.

GUARDS STRIKE TO USE FORCE ON PRISONERS: A LITTLE LESSON SHOWING WHY MIM 
DOES NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. WHITE WORKING CLASS IS REVOLUTIONARY

by MC11

Nearly 1,000 prison guards employed by New York City's Department of 
Corrections blocked the bridge to Rikers Island August 12-14, denying the 
13,800 people imprisoned in nine New York City jails on the island access 
to food and medical supplies for 36 hours. Protesting what they called 
"lenient" treatment of prisoners, the guards demanded a revision in the 
definition of a "use of force" rule on prisoners, in addition to a 
reduction in the amount of overtime they are required to work, and an 
increase in the number of officer posts in the complex. At one point, the 
guards stopped an emergency medical vehicle attempting to cross the 
bridge to treat an injured prisoner. Eight medical workers and three of 
the guards were injured and hospitalized. The vehicle's windshield was 
smashed. The city chose not to enforce the state's Taylor Law, which 
prohibits strikes by public employees and provides for loss of pay or 
fines as sanctions.(1)

A few hours after the protest concluded the afternoon of August 14, with 
nearly all the guards' demands met by the city, 92 prisoners were injured 
as guards beat them at random with nightsticks. 43 guards were also 
wounded. Witnesses said the walls in the ground-floor hallway were 
covered with blood. Doctors on the island said they treated prisoners for 
injuries on their heads and backs caused by a blunt instrument.(2) 

NYC Corrections Commissioner Allyn R. Sielaff assured the press that "the 
investigation is continuing." Sielaff (and the Times) seemed to think the 
problems on the island have mostly to do with the architecture. The 
barracks-style dormitories built in the 1970s and 80s, Sielaff says, are 
"the toughest structures to supervise. Fifty, sixty inmates in an open 
area. They can't be locked in. And you have guards circulate amongst 
them."(2)

Over the last ten years, New York City's budget for its jails program has 
jumped from $146 million to $765 million. The prisoner population on 
Rikers increased from 6,000 to its current 13,800 during the same 
period.(3)

What does the state do when prison guards abuse prisoners? Blame the 
prisoners, of course. Sielaff is planning to implement new programs at 
Rikers, including screening inmates to see which are likely to cause 
trouble, expanding the "punitive segregation" space for prisoners, so 
more of them can be punished more frequently, and creating education, 
exercise, drug treatment and community clean-up programs to keep 
prisoners too busy to organize.(2)

As of yet, MIM has no first-hand information about the incident, which 
corrections department officials are calling a "fairly serious 
disturbance," and the New York Times refers to as a "retaliation for the 
uprising." Prisoners who witnessed or participated in the events at 
Rikers should write to MIM so that we can publish a more accurate account 
in our next issue. 

There are a few facts about prisons and class alliances in the U.S. that 
MIM does know, however. Nationally, almost eighty percent of prison 
guards are white, according to the 1989 Corrections Yearbook published by 
the U.S. Criminal Justice Institute. Their average starting salary is 
$18,219, and it goes up after a short probationary period. In New York 
City jails, according to the Yearbook, the average starting salary is 
$25,997. In stark contrast, 47% of prisoners in the U.S. are Black. Their 
"wages" in prison range from $.95 to a whopping $5.65. Now, which is the 
group more likely to make revolution? The prison guards, whose alliance 
with the state and the capitalist class enabled them to get almost all 
their demands--including a watering down of the restrictions on the use 
of force on prisoners--met in less than two days of striking? Or the 
prisoners, who are materially oppressed by the state and its agents? 

If the numerous Trotskyist groups that advocate organizing the white 
working class as the only means to revolution in the U.S. were consistent 
with their line, they would have been out on the bridge supporting the 
prison workers' strike. The only explanation MIM can think of for their 
absence is that the prison guard strike was too glaring an example of the 
idiocy and waste of time involved in supporting white workers' strikes 
for more VCRs and more freedom to oppress poor national minorities.

MIM comrades prefer to ally ourselves with those who are oppressed by the 
U.S. capitalist state--as an objective look at their relationship to the 
forces of production will show, who have a material interest in 
supporting revolution, and who have proven to be one of the most 
responsive groups to Maoist organizing.

Notes:
1. NYT, August 15, p.1
2. NYT, August 20, p.16
3. NYT, August 25, p.11

SCRAPS FOR THE DOGS

by MA10
Fifty to one hundred times a week prisoners in Texas prisons are used as 
prey to train tracking dogs. The prisoner, wearing a padded "fight suit," 
follows a mapped route around the prison property, ending in a designated 
spot. Once the dogs pick up the prisoner's scent, they lead the prison 
officials on horseback to their quarry. The prisoner then jumps down so 
the dogs can 'wrestle' with him or her. The hunts are standard procedure 
in Texas, and take place at 19 of the states 29 prisons.(1) 

In April 1989 Jerry Hodge, a Texan prison official, took two friends 
along on a hunt to join in the fun. Soon afterward he sent them jackets 
with "The Ultimate Hunt" embroidered on the back as souvenirs. When the 
event was made public, Hodge became the target of criticism for turning 
what should have been a serious event into a social event. Prison 
officials are not finding themselves needing to defend the procedure, 
however. The practice of using inmates as prey is not under scrutiny--
only the tactlessness of turning a serious task into sport.

As Governor Bill Clements said soon afterward, he didn't object to the 
practice of using inmates as prey, but only to the fact that persons not 
associated with the prison were taken along, and then given the jackets. 
These actions he found "inappropriate."  Hodge defended himself by saying 
that his friends were merely observers, not participants in the hunt.(2) 

Robert Bodnar, canine administrator at Lancaster County Prison, was 
concerned for a different reason. He fears that inmates might learn to 
how the dogs operate, and therefore how to elude them.(3)  

Prison officials claim that inmates "volunteer" for the exercise. They 
justify using prisoners by arguing that it is a reciprocal relationship, 
with the prisoners voluntarily participating in order to earn reductions 
in their sentences. Given the power dynamics characterizing a 
relationship between armed guards with the force of the state behind 
them, and prisoners with virtually no rights, "volunteering" is a 
meaningless term. It is tantamount to offering a prisoner on death row 
the privilege of being tortured in order to prolong her life for a few 
days.

Notes:
1. NYT 8/15/90.
2. AP in Ann Arbor News 8/16/90.
3. NYT 8/15/90 .

ATTICA MURDER SPARKED PRISON PROTEST

by MC11

"Please be advised that the demonstration which took place on May 26, 
1990 was no doubt due to the killing of inmate James Charles by 
correction officers here at Attica," a prisoner at Attica wrote this 
month in a letter to MIM. Responding to MIM's appeal in MIM Notes 43 for 
first-hand accounts of the uprising, the letter confirmed MIM's 
speculation that Charles' death was not, as a New York State Department 
of Correctional Services official had claimed, the result of a heart 
attack brought on by his attack on a guard.

"Prior to inmate Charles' attack upon two correction officers he accused 
them of 'poisoning' him. He was taken out of the yard by a number of 
correction officers into the corridor whereupon correction officers were 
physically and excessively beating said inmate...." the letter continues. 
"The beating then stopped and inmate Charles was then dragged to the 
Medical Building where he later died."

"I would also like to apprise you of the fact that you were very correct 
when you stated that the recent uprising was not a spontaneous and 
momentary act of resistance, but was an organized protest against the 
brutality and oppressive prison conditions of which James Charles was a 
victim," the letter stated.

MIM's Police and Prisons Committee received another letter from a 
prisoner who was transferred from Attica after the uprising which 
contained documentation of the abuse he and other prisoners had received 
from Attica's corrections officers. An enclosed copy of a petition to the 
Office of the United States Attorney General, signed by nine inmates, 
lists examples of the racial harassment, physical threats and abuse to 
which they have been continually subjected. Dated January 8, 1990, the 
petition states that the inmates' attempts to address their complaints 
through the prison's grievance procedure have met with no results. It 
concludes with a request that the Attorney General Richard Thornburgh 
order an investigation into the conditions at Attica and enjoin Attica's 
corrections officers and administrators from retaliating against those 
who signed the petition. Nine months later, Thornburgh has apparently 
taken no action  on the request.

* * *

CORRECTION: MIM Notes 42 stated that there are now 30 prisoners on death 
row in the U.S. The correct figure is 2,327. There have been 135 
executions since 1976 (as of July 1990).

* * *
REVIEWS:

MOVIES


INTERPLANETARY CLASS STRUGGLE SOLD OUT AGAIN

Total Recall

Revolution on Mars. Total Recall dabbles in both political commentary and 
psychological fantasy. The fantasy, Arnold Schwartzenegger as a secret 
agent on the war-torn planet Mars, is fun and engaging, even though 
Schwartzenegger's invincibility gets boring (as usual), as he escapes 
every life threatening situation imaginable.

The movie's politics, which supposedly champion revolution and victory to 
the oppressed masses, are actually staunch support for the status quo, 
which acknowledges oppression as unfair but would like to keep any change 
(i.e. revolution) in the realm of fantasy.

The movie is set in the future, when there is no longer any pretense of 
an exploited, revolutionary white working class in this country (or--in a 
future where the world has taken on the role of the United States today--
on this planet). Schwartzenegger plays a "humble" and restless 
construction worker who lives in a beautiful, expensive home on Earth 
(complete with massive color TV and hologram exercise program--sound 
familiar?) but longs for adventure and self-glory.

 The adventure turns out to be his involvement in the resistance movement 
of the mutant population of Mars, which is organized to combat the evil 
capitalists who hold a monopoly on air distribution. This seems to be a 
critique of capitalism, and the absurdity of transforming vital resources 
into commodities. Schwartzenegger, in his desire for fame (he already has 
fortune) emerges as the leader of their struggle, along with a beautiful 
prostitute side-kick. One welcome feature is the bad guys reference to 
the resistance fighters as "terrorists." We all know what it means when 
the people in power warn us of the threat of terrorists.

Although the entire galaxy is inhabited by human beings, Earth is the 
center of political and economic power. This represents U.S. imperialism, 
with the oppressed Third World colonies now including oppressed planets. 
In other words, Mars is a Third World colony literally as well as 
figuratively. To hammer home this point, there is also a revolutionary 
war raging on Earth, between--fittingly--the North and the South.

The violence in Total Recall is gratuitous. This ultimately serves to 
anesthetize the public to violent oppression by the powers that be--the 
violent status quo. Portraying killing and mass destruction as easy and 
fun does a disservice to the reality of such struggles. Who benefits when 
the masses get a thrill out of watching pigs bash heads or invade the 
Middle East on TV? Where does this thrill come from?

Schwartzenegger, a symbol of individual strength, becomes a hero of the 
masses from which he is completely detached. Individuals do not make 
history, by and large. So when he essentially leads a one-man revolt to 
seize control of the air industry and liberate the planet, the reality of 
class struggle is once again sold out to Amerikan individualism. 
Suitably, it is intentionally left unclear whether or not the whole thing 
was just a dream.

--MC44 and MC12

EAT THE RICH?

The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover

This movie is centered around a posh, decadent restaurant and the 
patriarch who owns it. The anti-capitalist, anti-materialist message is 
clear, culminating in a feminist-worker alliance to smash the boss.

The "thief" who owns the place, Albert, has the resources and the 
inclination to terrorize anyone who gets in his way, as we see in the 
first scene when a man who apparently owed the thief some money gets 
badly beaten, stripped, covered with dog feces, pissed on and abandoned. 
That man and many others like him are rescued and aided by the cook, who 
is a key organizer in the struggle of the poor masses against the ruling 
class.

The restaurant is a microcosm of capitalist society, portraying the 
masses as exploited kitchen labor under the thumb of a wealthy clientele. 
The kitchen is dark and ominous; on the other side of a massive wall, the 
dining room is plush red velvet. Set in contemporary England under a 
French Revolution-era motif, the movie boils society down to the two 
extreme classes, eliminating the complication of the so-called middle 
class. (Whose side are they on anyway?)

Albert is a batterer, and his pig friends are all ready and willing 
accomplices to the repeated rape, physical torture and public humiliation 
of his wife, Georgina. But one evening, Georgina's eye is caught by a 
stranger across a crowded room, and the two of them slip away to the 
bathroom for a quick f-@x between the soup and salad. The affair proceeds 
according to that pattern.

The initial appeal of the affair seems to lie in the escapism of 
dangerous deception and anonymous lust. (It is several days before 
Georgina and Michael introduce themselves.) Eventually, Albert gets wind 
of the situation and plots a grisly revenge.

Aesthetically, this is a difficult movie to stomach. Some reactionary 
violence-ridden movies serve to anesthetize the public to violence and 
oppression--dampening criticism of the violent capitalist status quo (see 
review of Total Recall). While these movies show violence of the 
excessive, impersonal, shoot 'em up variety, The Cook has numerous 
personal, designed-for-the-situation, humiliating torture scenes. The 
upshot is that the movie correctly presents violent oppression (whether 
it be by class or gender) as ugly as it really is. It should be difficult 
to stomach, not fun to watch.

--MC44 and MC12

LONGTIME COMING--TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

Longtime Companion

In the case of a gay person's obituary, when the newspapers reluctantly 
acknowledge the existence of a lover in that person's life, the tasteful 
euphemism generally applied to the survivor is "longtime companion." 
Hollywood took a stab at "the gay issue" with a summer blockbuster of 
this title.

The purpose of the movie is to illuminate in a sympathetic light the 
collective experience of a community who for the last nine years has 
dealt with AIDS in an immediate, personal and all-consuming manner. It 
also intends to involve the audience in the emotional and psychological 
reactions of that community. The movie purposely relies on its subject 
alone to constitute its politics. In other words, if you make a movie in 
which gay people are portrayed as human beings worthy of sympathy than 
you have made a political movie. As far as it goes this humanism is an 
okay thing, but covering a political subject in a psychological manner 
inevitably fails.

Assuming you did want the only movie made about AIDS to focus on the 
rich, white male sector of the gay population, Longtime Companion 
disappoints with stale dialogue and empty characters played by actors who 
(with a few notable exceptions) can't act. The plot is entirely 
predictable from the first minute. MIM would not fault a movie for these 
flaws alone (except as constructive criticism), if it espoused a more 
correct political line.

But marketed as progressive, or even progressive "for Hollywood," 
Longtime Companion has some implicitly reactionary messages. One is, gay 
people are victims who deserve understanding and pity for their 
helplessness; there is no answer to the AIDS crisis other than passive 
acceptance of a terrible fate. Also, by choosing wealthy, white 
imperialist men as the gay community of focus the movie effectively 
ignores, or silences, the people who have suffered the most from the 
disease and the activism that has surrounded this issue since the crisis 
hit.

Of course this group has suffered immensely, but what about those who 
have no access to health care at all? Much less the luxury of dying at 
home with a paid servant, as one character so poignantly does in the 
film. While ignoring the thousands of Black and Latino people who have 
been affected by the combined attack of narcotics and AIDS, this film 
doesn't even choose to discuss those white gay activists who have brought 
the political realities of AIDS to the attention of the world, through 
relatively large-scale protests and civil disobedience campaigns.

Privileged economic status enabled the group of friends in the film to 
escape a good deal of the daily oppression faced by gay men and lesbians 
in this society, by simply isolating themselves socially in country 
clubs, condominiums and exclusive resort beaches. For a blockbuster 
movie--in many ways seeking to define public reaction to homophobia on a 
large scale--this limited portrayal of real-life oppression is especially 
dangerous.

--MC44 and MC12

* * *

BOOK REVIEWS

 APOLOGISTS FOR ETHIOPIA'S PHONY SOCIALISM

Ethiopia: Transition and Development in the Horn of Africa
Mulatu Wubneh and Yohannis Abate
Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1988.
by MC44

Although a basically sound source of raw information on the modern 
history of Ethiopia, this book's conclusions are at best hypocritical and 
at worst revisionist for a country where revolutionary change is 
demanded. It includes the colonial history of Ethiopia as necessary 
background, but mainly focuses on the climate immediately preceding the 
1974 revolution and the subsequent accomplishments and shortcomings of 
the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC), still in power 
today under the leadership Lt. Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam.

The book does a fairly good job (it could stand to be more thorough) of 
outlining the case for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia, which had its 
origin as an Italian colony. However, this seems to be in spite of 
itself, as its authors are obvious Ethiopian sympathizers in the dispute, 
only seeming to support the idea of limited, regional autonomy (and not 
independence) for Eritrea.

In portraying the federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea (1952-62) as the 
logical result of two complementary economies, the authors reveal their 
acceptance of the exploitation of Eritrea's resources by Ethiopia, most 
importantly the port of Massawa, Ethiopia's only access to the sea. The 
description of the 1962 vote for full political union by the Eritrean 
parliament follows this pattern as well.  The challenge made by the 
Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), that a campaign of "coercion 
and intimidation" was used to swing the vote, is dismissed as an 
accusation proffered by radical separatists.

The creation of the PMAC is described as a legitimate popular social 
movement against the imperial rule of Haile Salassie, and the emergence 
of Mengistu as a dictator is acknowledged but treated as an individual 
rather than a systemic phenomenon. For every criticism of the regime, 
there is praise for its positive achievements, especially in the areas of 
adult literacy and land reform.

Land reform deserves consideration. Responding to a student movement 
calling for a democratic, civilian government to replace the PMAC in 
1974, as well as to massive peasant uprisings, the government closed 
Ethiopian universities for two years in order for the students to fan out 
to the countryside and educate the peasantry on the goals of the 
revolution. They were instructed to form peasant associations to 
implement the policies of land reform, associations which the government 
actually did everything in its power to keep from materializing.

Not only was this clever scheme to disperse the leadership of the 
movement and distract them from further agitation, but, as the students 
soon discovered, the land reform program was not tailored to meet the 
needs of the largely nomadic population, or the requirements of the land 
itself, which is easily destroyed by overcultivation.

The chapter about Ethiopia's economic system justly exposes Mengistu's 
contemptuous attitude toward the peasantry. He faulted a so-called 
"capitalist mentality" among the peasants which was causing an increase 
in consumption without a simultaneous increase in production. This was 
presumed to stem from a lack of incentive for output. In truth, "Peasant 
farmers suffer from low productivity because they farm with ancient 
technology," according to a report issued by the Institute for Food and 
Development Policy. The report further charges that the reason Mengistu's 
government hasn't spent more on agricultural development is the expense 
of military suppression of independence movements in Eritrea and Tigray.

Wubneh and Abate do an adequate job of explaining the diplomatic and 
strategic position of Ethiopia with regard to the superpowers and in 
relation to the Arab world. The importance of the port of Massawa is 
explained in this section, outlining the stated Ethiopian fear of Muslim 
encirclement should they lose the port and become landlocked. Similarly, 
the book describes alliances between the EPLF and Arab countries which 
are based on support for the EPLF's national struggle.

The book is to be faulted for its coverage of the famine/drought problem. 
Reiterating a number of charges that Western nations have made against 
the government, holding it accountable for not having responded more 
quickly and effectively to their warnings of imminent doom, Wubneh and 
Abate conclude that the famine is indeed a tragedy, but that blame 
shouldn't necessarily be assigned to the Ethiopian government. 
Withholding judgement of Mengistu's regime is essentially apologizing for 
the conditions under which the impoverished peasant masses live. It is 
poverty, not famine that causes drought. Who is to blame for the poverty 
of the masses if not the rulers?

The final chapter is about the prospects for Ethiopia's future, with an 
emphasis on the viability of socialism in that (or any) country. The 
authors  turn the contradictions of capitalism on their heads until they 
become the contradictions of socialism. They claim that under socialism, 
(defined under the narrow revisionist theory of state ownership equaling 
socialism) the state expects an increase in output and productivity but 
fails to reward and provide incentive for the productive, thereby 
encouraging the lazy. They compare Ethiopia to Mao's China, claiming that 
in China, "where the contradiction between the forces and relations of 
production intensified as the state dismissed the relevance of the market 
system and material incentives, the government in Ethiopia recognizes the 
importance of these two elements." Going on to praise the so-called 
socialist state for its incentive system and fault it for its 
interference in the market system and its plans for agricultural 
collectivization, the book wraps up with a cry for the promotion of 
economic development and reform for a viable socialist Ethiopia, in which 
the nationalities would enjoy autonomy and democracy would be had by all. 
Not under capitalism.

* * *

FROM THE COMMUNIST "ALLIANCE" TO THE KUWAITI WAR: WHY SADDAM HUSSEIN?

by MC12
While Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is portrayed as the Hitler of the 
Middle East in the Amerikan press, there is no widespread discussion of 
Hussein's place in Iraqi history--his ideology or methodology--beyond 
simple-minded attacks. Like Syrian President Assad, Hussein has in the 
past associated himself with the Baath Party, a pan-Arab, vaguely 
socialist group which almost succeeded in uniting Arabs without 
fundamentalism, but which split over the issue of military force. 
Carefully neglected, this fact explains much of Hussein's self-image and 
drive. And while Hussein is being attacked now for various atrocities 
against Iranians and the Kurdish population living within Iraq's borders, 
it's important to remember that these were carefully ignored during the 
last ten years, as the United States was building up Hussein's power.

A closer look does not redeem Hussein by any means, but it does expose 
the situation more thoroughly, especially providing insight into his 
current motivations.

A conscious Arab role

Hussein faults Arab leaders who look at the world as if the Arab 
countries cannot influence international politics--who see the current 
political faultlines as inevitable and unchanging. But he also faults the 
tendency to ignore all that and think Arab countries can just act on 
their own. So he advocates acknowledging both. His speech here, from a 
1977 interview with an Egyptian journalist, reveals a strategic approach 
based on dividing the imperialist powers as they struggle for hegemony 
over the Middle East. So while his ultimate goals may be "anti-Western," 
as we have been led to believe, his strategic thinking is more 
complicated.

"The strategy of the United States covers the entire globe and is not 
confined to any part of it," he said. "It has the ambition of making the 
whole world move into its orbit and follow its line of thinking. The same 
can be said of about the strategy of the Soviet Union which is bent on 
making the world believe in and practice the ideas of the Soviet Union. 
The two countries are now the greatest powers in the world, but I do not 
expect this condition to continue much longer. When we study history we 
always find that any great major power reaches a zenith of its strength 
after which it starts to decline...(9, p. 47)

Within a context of competition between imperialist powers, Hussein sees 
the possibility of breaking the weakest link, and building Iraqi 
influence for the next international alignment.

"When the Americans consider this area sensitive in their strategic 
calculations they do not do so because of its oil resources, as some 
people think...or on account of the sensitive situation of the area from 
the strategic and military angle only.... Whoever enjoys effective 
influence in the Middle East will be able to influence Europe and 
Japan.... Where does the power of the United States lie? What is the 
principle element in its strength outside the territory of the United 
States? It lies in the alliance of Europe and Japan with the United 
States.... [The United States] fully realizes that the independence of 
Arab oil and the direct dealing of Europe and Japan with the Arabs to 
safeguard their oil needs will weaken its grip on Europe and Japan."(9, 
pp.49-50)

In other words, Arab actions directly influence the breakup of world 
powers and the transition to the next stage in international politics.

"[W]e must learn how to deal with international politics without either 
submitting to them and becoming enmeshed in their game or ignoring them. 
That is how we in Iraq understand international politics. We do not 
neglect them, fall into their traps or succumb to them. We deal with 
people as friends by virtue of the convergence of our strategies or 
interests and we deal with others as enemies or opponents on account of 
the divergence of our strategies or interests on which policies are 
based." (9, p. 51)

He mentioned France and China as the future power centers of the world, 
and his policies through the late 70s and 80s show a distinct inclination 
toward those two countries, especially France, which is still reluctant 
to join the U.S. effort against Iraq.

In Iraq

But what has Hussein's policy been toward his own people?

After taking power (again) in a coup in 1968, Hussein's Baath Party 
inherited a socialist legacy-- in rhetoric at least. Under this guise, 
Hussein adopted a policy of forming internal alliances, keeping 
dissenting groups from challenging the government while he went about the 
business of consolidating state power in the name of socialism.

He formed an alliance with the Iraqi Communist Party in 1973 to help 
build support among the masses, who were still committed to equitable 
distribution of wealth, and so on. But after nationalizing the Iraq 
Petroleum Company in  1972--effectively bringing the entire economy under 
government control, particularly the crucial area of foreign exchange--
and consolidating power in the military, the alliance was no longer 
necessary.

The deal was a foolish one for the so-called Communists, as Hussein began 
a massive repression campaign in the late 1970s--which seems to rage on 
today.(5, pp. 229-30) For example, evidence leaked out of the execution 
of 4,000 political prisoners in 1984.(5, p. 264)

Too little too late, the remnants of the Iraqi Communist Party broke with 
Hussein in 1978-79, and the group is now allied to the Democratic Party 
of Kurdistan (DPK), which fought Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.(1)

And even today, like the United States in Panama, Hussein took advantage 
of the military move in Kuwait to round up political dissidents. Amnesty 
International reported Iraq was seizing its exiles (numbering in the 
hundreds) who had been hiding out in Kuwait, including members of the 
Communist Party and Shiite activists, who may be legally executed in 
Iraq.(4)

Working against the interest of his own people, Hussein and his party 
have fostered economic dependence as a way to consolidate power within 
the government, especially after the oil industry was nationalized, 
during the time of the ill-fated Communist alliance. To build up the 
government-controlled economy, Iraq opened up to multi-nationals from the 
West, becoming the second most important Middle East market for the West 
and Japan, after Saudi Arabia. This industrialization also led to the 
growth of a large urban underclass and the use of many migrant laborers. 
Surprisingly, trade with the Soviet bloc state capitalist countries only 
accounted for one-tenth of Iraq's imports during the last three years of 
the 70s, when Iraq was supposedly closest to them, to the point of being 
called a Soviet satellite.(5, p. 251)

This article has barely scratched the surface of the historical 
underpinnings of Hussein, the Baath Party and Iraqi history in general. 
Anyone compelled to research these subjects further should submit ideas 
or articles to MIM Notes.

All citations on page 6.

* * *

BIG BANG FOR A BUCK
by MC89

The Associated Press reports that the pilot, navigator, and bombardier 
who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing 100,000, are visiting 
air shows, shopping malls, and Kiwanis and Rotary luncheons, where they 
sign autographs and hawk commemorative coffee mugs ($6), t-shirts ($9), 
sweatshirts ($12.95), videos ($19.95 and $24.95), photos ($6 and $9), and 
a copy of the order authorizing use of the atomic bomb ($5). The pilot, 
retired Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets, says he had reservations at first, but 
then realized that the tour was just a matter of "supply and demand." 
Notes: AP in the Toledo Blade 8/13/90

* * *

U.S. LEADS IN EXECUTIONS
by MC¯
Amnesty International has issued its annual report, which points to the 
truth that nation-states imprisoned, tortured and killed thousands of 
masses in their efforts to suppress the class struggle in 1989. In an 
unprecedented move, the Associated Press reports, "The human rights group 
also criticized the executions of 16 people in the United States in 1989, 
and U.S. court rulings that permit the death penalty for teenagers or 
retarded people convicted of murder."

The U.S. executed the most people in the hemisphere even by Amnesty's 
legalistic standards: one in Guyana and Antigua; four in Cuba; 16 in 
Amerikkka. And this is not to mention all the casualties at the border, 
in the Black and Latino communities, in Amerika's war on the Indian 
nations, the deaths from the Nicaraguan contras. Oh, and don't forget 
3,000-plus in Panama.

Notes: AP 7/11/90

* * *

LORENZO TAKES $30.5 MILLION
by MC¯

While white working class advocates will claim the resignation of Texas 
Air Corp. Chief Executive Officer Frank Lorenzo a people's victory, the 
man won it all in the end. Texas Air (now Continental Airline Holdings 
Inc.) runs both Continental and Eastern Airlines, the latter of which was 
crippled by Lorenzo's financial scams used to beat a machinists' strike 
during 1989.

Now Lorenzo has sold all his stock and an agreement not to work in the 
airline industry for seven years to a Scandinavian Company which paid 
well above the market rate. Lorenzo went home with $30.5 million and no 
job, but of course, what did you expect?

Notes: New York Times 8/10/90, p. 1.

* * *

JACKSON SUPPORTS THE EMPIRE
by MC¯

Just as Jesse Jackson, Democratic presidential contender in 1984 and 
1988, supported the bombing of Iranian oil platforms and the invasion of 
Panama, he now upholds U.S. intervention in the Middle East. On Aug. 3, 
he called on the Bush administration to move militarily if necessary "to 
secure an end to the military aggression by Iraq."

Of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, Jackson said, "He must know he has 
pushed us over the line and that his insistence on the occupation of 
Kuwait and the threat against Saudi Arabia is an extreme act of 
provocation that would be met with force.

"Democrats must not be quiet or indecisive in this period," Jackson 
continued. If diplomatic moves fail, Jackson said, "we must act 
militarily, either unilaterally or multilaterally...."(1)

The bottom line is that the election of Jackson would be a continuation 
of the imperialist system of exploitation and U.S. sponsored murder 
throughout the Third World. The rainbow coalition solves nothing.

"My position has been that we must defend our allies, protect our 
national interests and contribute to world stability," said Jackson.(2)

Notes:
1. New York Times 8/4/90, p. 4.
2. NYT 8/13/90, p. A5.

* * *

MAD COWS
by MC89

Pasture or asylum? Cows prance about with a peculiar high step, low 
incessantly, and sway from side to side. The cows are victims of bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly called mad cow disease. To 
date, 11, 000 infected head have been destroyed in England.

The disease resembles previously-known encephalopathies found in sheep, 
goats, and mink. BSE is also like kuru, a disease affecting New Guineas 
cannibals, and that gives scientists a clue to how it might be 
transmitted.

These days, cattle (vegetarian by nature, of course) are fed sheep offal, 
including brains, as a protein supplement. Mice fed brain tissue of 
infected cattle developed conditions of their own. There is little reason 
to think the same would not be true for humans (also vegetarian by 
nature), though there is disagreement over whether the disease is 
transmitted only through brain tissue, or "head cheese," as the butcher 
calls it.

Hard to be sure, though, since the disease has has an incubation period 
of 2.5 to 10 years. Not willing to risk being right, the British Health 
Minister has refused to stop sales of beef. He was filmed cramming a 
greasy burger down his unwilling daughter's gullet to make the point. MIM 
recalls the building contractor who, years ago, demonstrated that 
asbestos was harmless by eating a chunk of insulation.

 BSE has yet to hit American shores, but when it does, it will take the 
Food and Drug Administration by surprise. While ending this country's 
minuscule offal-imports, the FDA refuses to ban the use of offal in feed. 
The FDA will move, it seems, only when cows start dropping, and the beef 
industry is threatened by runaway shrinkage.

Notes: Scientific American, May 1990.

* * *
AGENT ORANGE SAFE

by MC89

The Reagan administration "controlled and obstructed" a Centers for 
Disease Control study of Agent Orange exposure among Vietnam veterans, 
according to a report by the House Government Operations Committee. The 
report says the 1987 cover-up was part of a federal strategy to deny 
liability in toxic exposure cases. Agent Orange is a weed-killer that was 
widely used by Amerikan troops in Vietnam to clear the countryside as 
part of a scorched-earth policy. Often the countryside included villages, 
but only rarely do concerned Amerikans take into account what Agent 
Orange did to Vietnam and the Vietnamese, saving their tears for our boys 
who inhaled the stuff, and for their children, who inherited the birth 
defects that resulted.

A communist views this news with appropriate sympathy for afflicted 
veterans and their families, poisoned and then bilked out of remuneration 
by a cynical government. But a communist--turning Orwell's 
characterization of fascism on its head--realizes that ignorance is 
knowledge. The farther the veil of lies stretched, hiding the truth even 
from imperialism's loyal soldiers, the thinner that veil becomes, 
approaching transparency. 

Notes: USA Today 8/10/90 4A

* * *

POLISH CAPITALISM
by MC89

Quaint little Poland and their quaint little capitalism. When Lech 
Grobelny, a well-known Warsaw black marketeer, opened his Safe Savings 
Bank this spring, 10,000 Poles opened accounts on the first day, though 
the government refused to license the bank or to insure its transactions. 
Grobelny said government economists "knew nothing" about finance and 
promised investors 180-200% interest per annum, betting that hyper-
inflation would leave him in the black.

But the Polish economy has been stagnant, and in July Grobelny stood to 
lose $3.5 million. Suddenly he was gone. He had left his yacht and villa 
behind and fled to--where? South Africa, West Germany, and Australia were 
all mentioned. The government snickered. Nothing it could do: the 
deposits weren't insured. Poor Poles.

For comparison, it should be noted that the U.S. government actually 
encouraged individuals to put their money in savings and loans, even 
though they were deregulated, engaging in wild speculation, and 
uninsured. The costs are expected to reach $500 billion, besides which 
Grobelny's grab looks like peanuts.

Notes: Economist, August 18, 1990.