I N T E R N E T ' S  M A O I S T  BI-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 181                March 1, 1999

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.  EARTH FIRST! MARTYR DIED FOR ENVIRONMENT, PROLETARIAT
2.  U.$. BACKS KING IN WAR ON IRAQ
3.  LETTERS:
4.  ALKQN LEADER SPEAKS ON REVOLUTION AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM
5.  DAVID DUKE RALLIES WHITE WORKING CLASS FOR NATIONAL CHAUVINISM
6.  THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE IN HISTORY: STALINGRAD
7.  IN D.C., "RACE" OBSCURES NATIONAL ISSUES
8.  MEXICAN ARMY DOCTOR CHARGED WITH SEDITION FOR OPPOSING MILITARY ABUSE
9.  DRUG POLICY MAGAZINE EXPOSES CRIMINAL INJUSTICE SYSTEM
10. FACTS ABOUT U.$. IMPRISONMENT
11. UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND PRISONERS
12. REVIEW: THE NATURAL WEALTH OF NATIONS: HARNESSING THE MARKET FOR 
    THE ENVIRONMENT 
13. CULTURE AND REVOLUTION
14. PATCH ADAMS: INDIVIDUALISM CONFUSES MESSAGE THAT MEDICINE SHOULD 
    SERVE THE PEOPLE 
15. FINANCIAL CRISIS MEANS LESS MONEY FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES

* * *

WHAT IS MIM?

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

* * *

EARTH FIRST! MARTYR DIED FOR ENVIRONMENT, PROLETARIAT

The lightning rod of the environmental movement -- Earth First! -- 
has a martyr for its cause. 24-year-old David Chain died on 
September 17, 1998 and the Humboldt County District Attorney Terry 
Farmer in Northern California announced December 17, 1998 that he 
would not be prosecuting the Pacific Lumber company logger A.E. 
Ammons who felled the tree that killed Chain.

The Humboldt Sheriff's office responsible for the murder 
investigation was already being sued by Earth First! for use of 
pepper-spray at demonstrations. Humboldt County was actually 
considering manslaughter charges against the witnesses from Earth 
First!.

Earth First! protestors trying to stop logging had videotaped the 
incident. Below is the a transcript exerpted from this tape (A.E. 
is the logger).

"'A.E.' is yelling at another activist in the small group 
protesting in the forest with David:

AE: (Raging) Get the fuck out of here! You've got me hot enough 
now to fuck! 

Activist: (Apologetically) We don't want to cause you any 
problems. 

AE: (Angrily) You already have! So get out of here! You cock 
suckers! I mean it!

...

AE: (Threateningly) Get outta here! Otherwise I'll fuckin', I'll 
make sure I got a tree comin' this way!... 

AE: (Raging) Ohhhhh, fuck! I wish I had my fuckin' pistol! I guess 
I'm gonna just start packin' that motherfucker in here. 'Cause I 
can only be nice so fuckin' long. Go get my saw, I'm gonna start 
fallin' into this fuckin' draw!'"(2) Witnesses testified that is 
what Ammons did an hour later--knock down a tree toward Chain that 
knocked down the one that killed him.

"'But the Pacific Lumber president, John Campbell, said the 
logging crew, which was working two miles from the nearest public 
road,' had no knowledge that this individual was nearby. The 
feller, according to a company spokeswoman, 'had not seen the 
protesters in the area for at least an hour.'"(3)

For MIM this is a case of why we must stand for those who have 
nothing--the proletariat--against the workers of the oppressor 
nation like A.E. Ammons who are what Lenin called "labor 
aristocracy."

The fear and hatred that killed David Chain is the same fear and 
hatred that killed Vincent Chin and Jeffrey Dahmer's victims of 
cannibalism. All of the murderers involved were workers in the so-
called productive sector of the economy as we Marxists say, but 
none of them are exploited and all of them well reflect the values 
of their reactionary class, the labor aristocracy.

Under socialism, there will be a guaranteed job for everyone, so 
the irrational fears of loggers, autoworkers and other factory 
workers will gradually reside. However, there is no excuse for the 
labor aristocracy in the imperialist countries now for violence 
against non-violent protesters like David Chain.

"To tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life 
is easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid 
of 'too great' impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the 
reverse that they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is 
afraid of sacrifices, afraid of 'too great' impoverishment during 
the revolutionary struggle, cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise, 
the dictatorship [of the proletariat--MC5] is impossible."(4)

Notes: 
1. Albion Monitor 18Dec98. http://www.monitor.net/monitor 
2. http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9901/death_david.html 
3. Washington Post 19Sept1998, p. a02. 
4. V. I. Lenin, "Speech on the Terms of Admission to the Communist 
International July 30," Collected Works, Vol. 31, (Moscow: 
Progress Publishers, 1960).

* * *

U.$. BACKS KING IN WAR ON IRAQ

by RC68

Amerika is trying all possible avenues to gain control of Iraq. 
Since sanctions and bombing have yet to produce an Iraqi puppet 
government that is acceptable to the U.$., the Amerikan government 
is now openly working to overthrow Hussein and install a new 
puppet. In January, President Clinton designated seven 
organizations opposed to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as 
eligible to receive U.$. financial support under the Iraq 
Liberation Act of 1998. The act, passed by Congress before last 
year's elections, called for spending up to $97 million in overt 
military aid to Iraqi opposition groups.(1)

So far the only group to welcome this offer of aid from the U.$. 
is the Movement for a Constitutional Monarchy, which wants to 
restore the royal family overthrown in 1958. The man the U.$. will 
be supporting in his fight to take power in Iraq, Sharif Ali bin 
al-Hussein, is related to the royal families of Jordan and Saudi 
Arabia. Both of these regimes are puppet collaborationist allies 
of the U$ empire. The Saudi dictatorship is one of the worst 
repressive regimes in the Arab world and is deeply hated by most 
Arabs and Muslims, especially of course, by Saudis.

The would be king Hussein seems an ideal choice to the imperialist 
U$. He was educated in the western world and lives in London. He 
has already pledged to establish "free market" capitalism if the 
U$ and their english sidekicks will just overthrow the Iraqi 
government and put him in charge instead. This amounts to a 
guarantee from the aspiring tyrant that England and the U$ would 
have the privilege of raping and pillaging Iraq for its natural 
resources.

The made-up monarch Hussein is alleged to be the "rightful" heir 
to the throne of Iraq's last monarchy. That regime was toppled 40 
years ago by a nationalist military coup. The coup leaders 
executed King Faisal II and his immediate heir, Crown Prince 
Abdullah. Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein was only two years old at the 
time and was taken out of Iraq by his parents because they feared 
he might also be killed.

The last Iraqi monarchy was also installed by foreign 
imperialists. The Ottoman Turkish Empire sided with Germany in WWI 
and just like Germany, Turkey was stripped of colonial possessions 
after the war. As a result Iraq and many other Arab countries 
changed over from Turkish rule to English rule. In 1921 England 
installed Iraq's first modern monarchy and set King Faisal I on 
the throne. Faisal I was Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein's grandfather 
and a faithful servant of imperialism.

This arrangement worked quite well for the english imperialists 
until 1958. Then Iraqi nationalists messed everything up by 
deciding Iraqis should rule Iraq. Unfortunately, since then Iraq 
has only been ruled by different militarists who have been 
relatively loyal to imperialism. If the Iraqi people themselves 
ruled Iraq, there would be no room for the anglo-amerikkkan 
imperialists to muscle in. Now that the empires again see the 
opportunity to set up an Iraqi puppet government they are leaning 
towards using a system that has worked well for them in the past. 

MIM has said over and over again that Amerika's primary goal in 
Iraq has been to install a puppet government. It is convenient for 
us that the U$ imperialists have finally come out and said so 
themselves, helping to dispel the myth that the U$ government's 
intention is to liberate the Iraqi people (or the neighboring 
countries) from oppression. The imperialists do not at all care if 
the Iraqi people are alive or dead, healthy or sick. These pigs 
definitely do not care if Iraqis are oppressed.

To any sensible civilized human being amerika's hypocrisy should 
be crystal clear. Obviously having a king installed by a foreign 
power can not be liberation for anybody. 

Note: 
1. AP Tuesday January 19.
2. New York Times January 3, 1999

* * *

LETTERS:

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN RIGHT WING GOES AFTER MIM NOTES OVER MUMIA

By a comrade

The Michigan Review, a right wing Republican newspaper at the 
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in their January 20 issue 
attacked MIM Notes for our articles defending Mumia Abu-Jamal and 
opposing his execution at the hands of the State of Pennsylvania. 
Mumia is accused of the righteous killing of a cop caught in the 
act of beating a Black man. He says he is innocent, and his 
prosecution and trial were a gross miscarriage of justice aimed at 
silencing a radical Black voice and making sure someone went down 
for the white cop's death.

The Review used anti-Amerikan quotes from MIM Notes to try to make 
other Mumia supporters look bad -- assuming they would not take 
the charge of "a virulent anti-Americanism, extreme even by the 
standards of Fidel Castro" as a compliment, as MIM does. The 
Review went on to restate the prosecution case, calling Mumia 
supporters "infantile," and making light of Mumia's possible 
execution with reference to "the Grim Reaper."

"Many of Mr. Jamal's supporters are more eloquent and civil then 
[sic] the gentlemen [sic] who publish MIM Notes," the Review 
concluded, adding, "in short, manner, not methods form the only 
differential between the whackos who publish MIM Notes" and other 
local Mumia supporters.

The Michigan Review article is available at: 
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/1-20- 99/pg1b.htm


MIM SENT THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE:

To the Michigan Review,

Thanks for quoting MIM Notes in your January 20 article on Mumia 
Abu-Jamal's case ("Mumia: Martyr or Murderer," p.1). Your readers 
might be disappointed to know that the voice of the UM right wing 
is no further right than the ABC News show "20/20," which on 
December 9 did the same hatchet job on Mumia and his supporters 
(though without the illuminating references to MIM Notes and 
callous references to the "Grim Reaper").

However, we don't think you should use MIM's anti- Amerikan views 
to try to represent other Mumia supporters. Most organizations 
opposing the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal do not support the 
killing of officer Faulkner. In fact, most call only for a new 
trial with a different judge so that Mumia can properly defend 
himself by Amerikan injustice standards.

MIM's position is purposefully different. MIM Notes does describe 
the killing of officer Faulkner as "righteous," and we have at 
least since July 1995 issue. In response to a critic, we wrote:

"Because MIM sees the police as agents of the Amerikan state, as 
an army of occupation of this whole continent in general and of 
the land of the various oppressed internal nations in particular, 
we call the killing of this cop 'righteous.' Of course, in his 
particular case he was killed during the commission of a specific 
act of murderous violence against Mumia's brother. So, in general 
and in the specific case, we call it 'righteous.'"

MIM's position on this question is consistent with the Black 
Panther Party of the late 1960s, of which Mumia was a member. They 
wrote in their 10-point program:

"We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the 
racist police and the racist military, by whatever means 
necessary. . . We believe we can end police brutality in our black 
community by organizing black self-defense groups that are 
dedicated to defending our black community from racist police 
oppression and brutality."

From this we conclude the Panthers would agree that the 
intervention against officer Faulkner was legitimate community 
self-defense. With regard to the trial, we also quote the Panther 
program:

"We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried in 
court by a jury of their peer group or people from their black 
communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States."

However, even though we call the killing "righteous," we do not 
share the Michigan Review's disregard for the value of human life 
that leads to such callous humor about Mumia's possible execution. 
Loss of any human life is a tragic event even when it is necessary 
in the struggle for a better world.

The purpose of this letter is not to debate the Review's selective 
misreading of the record in Mumia's case. Mumia says he is 
innocent. A jury with 9 whites found him guilty after a sham trial 
in which his inexperienced public defender had $150 to conduct a 
defense, in which coerced witnesses facing prosecution themselves 
mouthed the words of the prosecutors, in which crucial witnesses 
and evidence were withheld by a corrupt and racist hanging judge 
who is a member of the police club, and in which Mumia's views in 
support of the Black Panther Party and his practice of quoting Mao 
Zedong were used to justify his execution. Anyone interested in 
truly investigating this will find very persuasive evidence of 
Mumia's innocence, or at least grounds for a new trial, regardless 
of their views on Faulkner's death. In addition, we know the 
historical police machinations against Black activists which 
cannot be ignored in this case.

For the argument that killing Faulkner was justified, however, 
organizations which have not taken that position should not be 
held accountable; we'll wear that anti-Amerikan label with pride.

We welcome all debate. MIM and the Revolutionary Anti- Imperialist 
League (RAIL) are planning a week of events at UM about the 
Amerikan injustice system -- March 20-28 -- and we welcome the 
Michigan Review or others to hold a public debate with our local 
organizers about Mumia's case.


-- the sisters and brothers at The Maoist Internationalist 
Movement

* * * 

ALKQN LEADER SPEAKS ON REVOLUTION AND ANTI-IMPERIALISM

THE COMRADE-LEADER IN QUESTION 

Jan 8, 1998

1997-1998 had been a year of substantial media for the ALKQN 
(Almighty Latin Kings and Queens Nation) from Diane Sawyer 
(PRIMETIME LIVE) to Ted Koppel (NIGHTLINE) all the way down to 
"Hard Copy." Millions were shown a "portrayal" of the "Latin 
Kings" in an imperialist point of view so we shouldn't have 
expected much. However, they focused on one particular chapter and 
one particular spokesman (who shall remain nameless) and it is his 
representation as spokesperson that I wish to discuss in the 
spirit of Constructive Criticism.

Each of the "Media Pieces" that I reviewed reminded me of the 
following quote: 

"Theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with 
revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its 
path is not illumined by revolutionary theory." -- Stalin

It is my opinion and the opinion of much of the leadership and 
membership that the Comrade-Leader in question led the public to 
believe that our organization was some sort of labor aristocratic-
like or comprador-like fraternity. This distressed us because we 
recognize that thousands of new comrades viewed these programs and 
took them as "defining" (read: characteristic forming) dialogue.

In one instance the Comrade-Leader in question encouraged a 
comrade that the solution to his pains as to the loss of his 
brother (due to a homicide) was to go to the government for 
assistance in retribution. I might have heard the simultaneous 
gasp of disgust of thousands of comrades nationwide. A comrade-
leader who documents himself as anti-imperialist supported the 
status quo so eloquently at the risk of confusing the new 
membership nationwide. More than likely the comrade leader's words 
were edited and misrepresented. However, the lack of anti-
imperialist propaganda and the embrace of status quo protocol gave 
the "nation" a sense of supporting a national bourgeoisie-style of 
struggle and this was erroneous on the comrade leaders part. 
Especially on such an immense media forum. It was contrary to 
revolutionary practice.

I would go as far as to say that the comrade-leader was "groping 
in the dark" because his "path was not illumined by revolutionary 
theory."

One of the insinuations and stands made in the previously 
mentioned interviews by the comrade leader was that UNDERLINE 
ultimately END we are a community service organization and he did 
not go beyond this stand except to say that "we aren't passive." 
The republicans aren't passive either. While actions of community 
service should be honored it is important to understand that who 
or what the ALKQN is doesn't finish or even begin there.

Revolution, Anti-imperialism, these are the main goals of the 
ALKQN but don't take my word for it...The King 
Manifesto/Constitution (KM/C) clearly states that the ALK[Q]N was 
made to fight Third World oppression these words by the authors 
Papu-King and Lord Bumba (rest in peace) are non-negotiable. It is 
my opinion that community service is one of the by-products 
(albeit an important one) of revolutionary practice however not 
the solution to our dismal plight. A united front of the people 
against the imperialist will be the solution to our plight all 
else is transitional until that day comes... DUH!

I tend to think that if the ALKQN would have adopted democratic-
centralism as its fundamental organizational discipline that the 
confusion caused by these interviews would have been avoided.

The comrade leader in question should have convened with the 
membership and co-leadership on a local, state, and national level 
to come into agreement with what should have been discussed, 
espoused, and presented in such immense media coverage.

In addition, those willing to take their fiddle to duel with the 
devil in his lair must be in the least be as proficient in music 
as "Memmoch" himself.

In other words, if you want to be the spokesperson of 50,000 
comrades become in tuned with the peoples views, the tactics of 
the tricky imperialist interviewers, and revolutionary thought, 
otherwise you are unprepared to deal in that Forum. Make sure that 
a previous written agreement with the interviewers be made whereby 
your responses are not edited in the least and if possible that 
the reporter has editing rights. Otherwise there is no use in 
putting the ALKQN in the "mainstream."

If you do not have the blessings of the ALKQN national leadership 
and national membership to be spokesperson then don't speak for 
us! It can only be divisive to do so as these past two years have 
shown.

Perhaps what is best is to create our own media forum to reach the 
comrades and I believe that is what MIM Notes and RAIL is. I am 
all too happy to receive criticisms or/and dialogue on this and 
other revolutionary subjects and please remember that the 'NEW 
KING STAGE' is Anti-imperialism. To reach me write to: Lord GRIM 
c/o MIM, P.O. Box 559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Amor De Corona! Please 
enclose two forwarding stamps. (One stamp from MIM office to me 
and another from me to you.)


Comrade Lord Grim 

Senior Advisor to ALKQN National Headquarters (I.L.)

* * *

DAVID DUKE RALLIES WHITE WORKING CLASS FOR NATIONAL CHAUVINISM

by RC68

David Duke is the first Republican to announce candidacy for the 
for the U$ House of Representatives seat recently vacated by 
Louisana's representative Robert L. Livingston. Duke openly bashes 
diversity as a destructive force that will ruin amerikkka. He says 
he will be the first person in congress "to stand up openly and 
proudly" to defend the rights of Christian whites. Though MIM does 
not doubt that Duke will keep his promise to be a true wasp pig, 
we must wonder which congress Duke has been watching because that 
is all the U$ congress defends.

In the 1970s David Duke was a KKK leader. Then he woke up and 
realized that the amerikkkan government was already an white 
supremacist organization and that it was much more influential 
than the KKK. Since he made this realization, Duke has been 
attempting to get elected for various positions and has managed to 
gain wide white nation recognition. In fact Duke has a great deal 
of popularity in the part of Louisiana he wants to represent in 
the U$ House.

Unlike the Socialist Equality Party or Worker's World, who compete 
for the same social base, Duke's electoral campaign can not be 
taken as a mere token publicity move because he actually has a 
real chance for victory and the potential to carry out his 
platform. Unlike WW or the SEP, Duke can actually rally support 
from the white amerikan working class.

Unlike most state politicians, Duke has gained so much recognition 
that he can even campaign for fundraising support in other states. 
It is hard to imagine a candidate for congress from Vermont or New 
York being famous enough to campaign for funds from a crowd in 
Pennsylvania. But David Duke had no problem getting a crowd in 
Arlington, VA to pay $10 each to come listen to his racist 
rhetoric and proposals. Duke also sold his recent autobiography 
and other books to raise money for his campaign. Among the books 
on sale were several published by the National Alliance, a vicious 
aryan supremacist organization based in West Virginia. Duke's 
campaign is also supported by the Council of Conservative 
Citizens, the National Association for the Advancement of White 
People (NAAWP), and other white supremacist organizations. Other 
settler politicians endorsed by the Council of Conservative 
Citizens include Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi and 
Representative Bob Barr of Georgia. According to the Southern 
Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, the CCC is 
steeped in bigotry and has ties with the KKK. It evolved from the 
White Citizens Councils that once flourished in the South to 
defend segregation and the subhuman treatment of the Black Nation.

It is precisely Duke's overt racism that makes him and his 
colleagues so popular with the settler population. It must be. 
Duke has not even attempted to stand for anything else. All 
genuine leftists need to pay attention to things like this. Duke's 
most substantial base of support, just like the KKK and Aryan 
Nations, is within the white working class. David Duke truly 
represents their interests as MIM has described in detail in MIM 
Theory 1 (send $4 for a copy). He also represents the reality of 
amerikkkan electoral politics. It is a stronghold of deep reaction 
and national chauvinism. The left needs to build for revolution 
against this and only a revolutionary movement led by a communist 
party that recognizes the reality of the white nation's interests 
in supporting imperialism can succeed.

Note: New York Times January 3, 1999

* * *

THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE IN HISTORY: STALINGRAD

Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-3
by Anthony Beevor
 (NY: Viking, 1998)
494 pp.

reviewed by MC5

Any history book coming out in 1998 on the subject of Stalingrad 
is probably helpful to progressives and communists. For this 
reason we rushed to review this book in time for the winter 1998 
holiday season when people purchase most of their books for the 
year. Unfortunately, we could not fit it into earlier editions of 
MIM Notes due to the imperialist attacks on Iraq and other 
pressing news. This action-packed book is an appropriate holiday 
gift for the warmonger in the imperialist country family.

At this time in the imperialist countries, the youth are victims 
of a trend in academia and teaching which says there is no truth 
and everything is relative. By simply treating the subject of 
Stalingrad with the documents becoming available today, Beevor has 
struck a blow against the predominant nonsense in academia today. 
Together the Axis powers and Russians lost approximately one 
million troops dead in the battles of Stalingrad.(pp. 394, 398) 
Unlike post-modernists, MIM has no difficulty saying that the fact 
that Stalingrad was the largest battle in history makes this book 
and its subject more important than the subjects and books 
generally spewed out by post-modernism. Feminists in particular 
should take note that battles fought predominantly by men must 
still be accorded their full weight in history by feminists or 
feminists will forever be sidelined from power by their 
unwillingness to tackle military history.

There are three main strengths of this book compared with what is 
already available on the subject. 1) Evidence on the existence of 
varied anti- and non-Nazi views in the German army. 2) Detailed 
descriptions of the role of Russian traitors fighting alongside 
the Germans. 3) An inside view amounting to a psycho-thriller 
drama on the German army elite and why it did not surrender 
sooner.

Most of the book is a blow-by-blow account of the battle and this 
will make it concrete and readable to many.

Stalin blamed again

As is the fashion with Western writers today, Beevor blames Stalin 
for not believing the information he had about the beginning of 
the Nazi invasion. Yet, more than any other writer we credit 
Beevor for undercutting his own argument.

While others simply say Stalin was napping or paralyzed by the 
Nazi invasion in 1941, Beevor says that there was "repressed 
hysteria" in the Kremlin. He also says that there had been over 80 
warnings of imminent invasion in the past eight months. (p. 3) 
Hence, Beevor understood it was a matter of not believing the 
various reports of attacks. Furthermore, Beevor does say Stalin 
did seriously consider that they were being invaded the afternoon 
it happened and Molotov took appropriate radio action almost 
immediately. (pp. 5, 10) Others write as if there were a huge 
vacuum until Stalin spoke publicly two weeks later.

Beevor was correct that Stalin was suspicious about the 
information he received. MIM believes that Stalin was right to be 
suspicious, cautious and thorough in his checking and re-checking 
of facts. The alternative would be to accidentally start a war 
along a front of thousands of miles. There had been many times 
when war almost started prematurely between Germany and the Soviet 
Union. The number of warnings that Stalin had to ignore mentioned 
by Beevor is even higher than the number mentioned by Molotov in 
his memoirs. 

Although other than Beevor few Western writers evidence knowing it 
in their writings seeking to demonize Stalin, Stalin had 
industries shipped east of the Ural Mountains during the Stalin-
Hitler pact of 1939-1941, in preparation for the German advance. 
Nonetheless, Beevor chides the German soldiers and historians who 
widely complained that the Soviets "lured" them deep into Soviet 
territory. The Germans believe this caused their defeat, because 
of overstretched supply lines and widely dispersed troops.(p. 73) 
Lazy Western scholars believe they know better than the German 
survivors and blame Stalin for giving up almost all the territory 
of the European Soviet Union. At first the West thought the Soviet 
Union would collapse even more quickly than France and then it 
blamed Stalin for not defeating Hitler from the first stroke. 

MIM has shown in the "Stalin Issue" of MT that the racism of 
Western writers like Trotskyist Isaac Deutscher was to blame for 
similar reasoning. For the West, it was unbelievable that Stalin 
would give up the European fraction of the Soviet Union as a field 
of battle and retreat to its edge bordering Asia. There was 
nothing real in the military science of their criticisms of 
Stalin.

A related point is that Beevor criticizes Stalin for not taking up 
motorized warfare for the Soviet Union in order to take back large 
pieces of European Russia. He fails to understand that Stalin 
criticized mobilized warfare in the 1920s and 1930s correctly, 
because German industry outpaced Soviet industry at that time. 

Any strategy relying on something the Germans were better at was 
bound to lose. Beevor knows this (but he does not make the 
connection) because he himself notes that once the Soviets 
relocated east of the Urals, they did have a fourfold industrial 
advantage over the Germans in the key tank categories, but not 
until 1942.(p. 223) Beevor lightly dismisses this question of when 
to oppose motorized warfare as Stalin's "ideology," (p. 221) but 
Beevor also admits, as many Western writers do, that Stalin was 
more flexible in his thinking than Hitler: Stalin was willing to 
take advice.

In fact, Stalin comes out quite passive in Beevor's book, with 
credit going to Zhukov. It's another strategy of the imperialist 
mouthpieces to minimize the credit due to Stalin for beating the 
Nazis. In actual fact, Stalin was right in the 1920s when he said 
that the Soviet Union could not fight Germany in a motorized war 
and he was right in 1942 when he organized just such a motorized 
campaign. 

Various German resistances

The oppressor always makes his system out to be invincible and 
beneficial. During slavery in the United $tates half of the clergy 
supported slavery as beneficial and godly. Yet, no matter how much 
of a juggernaut something seems to be there is always a resistance 
and a birth of new things.

Already at Christmas in 1941, German troops were criticizing the 
invasion of the Soviet Union. Some wrote anti-war slogans right on 
the headquarters building of the Sixth Army, Hitler's prized army. 
"'We want to return to Germany'" and "'We didn't want this war!'" 
were some.(p. 47) This was despite the fact that the Axis forces 
had advanced through all of Europe without any difficulty and had 
only had to withdraw from territory once, for the first time in 
November, 1941.

It was always known that German communists helped the Soviet Union 
and had small circles here and there and it has also been known 
that the German officers and intelligence included those who 
wanted to be rid of Hitler. Based on what is known today, Beevor 
focuses on what the German military officers really thought of 
what they were doing. We will not comment further on German 
officers, but the Soviet victory in Stalingrad did give rise to a 
German student movement, the "White Rose." Students and professors 
suffered beheadings for their agitation against the war in this 
movement.(p. 403)

The student movement of the "White Rose" is still what we need 
today --an anti-militarist movement in the imperialist countries. 
The arguments within the Nazi military were mostly about how to 
better defeat and oppress the Soviets.

Purges necessary

On the first page of the book in the preface, Beevor points out 
that the Soviet Union executed 13,500 of its own people in the 
Stalingrad battle. These were people who ran to desert to the 
enemy or spread defeatism in the ranks. To his credit, Beevor also 
admits that over 50,000 Soviet people fought alongside the Nazis 
in Stalingrad in front-line divisions.(p. xiv) Most Western 
writers are unwilling to connect these two facts and confront the 
moral argument about them head on. MIM says that obviously 50,000 
that should have been executed before the war got away.

Most Western writers on the subject have taken to bashing Stalin 
with facts like the first without mentioning facts like the 
second. In this way, Beevor's book is above average, because the 
blow-by-blow detail does not omit the crucial fact of anti-Soviet 
treason. Indeed, Beevor takes care to tell us about life of the 
Soviet people called "Hiwis" who fought with the Germans and how 
they were often well-treated by the German Nazis; even though, 
overall, Hitler was too racist to let Russians help win the war. 
German intelligence asked to use Russian reactionaries or lose the 
war as early as 1941, but Hitler refused. To get around Hitler and 
because Hitler could tolerate the Cossack people racially, 
Russians and Ukrainians were renamed "Cossacks," so that they 
could fight alongside the German army.(p. 185)

In wartime, no one wants a vacillator covering his or her back. 
This vacillation in a minority of the Soviet peoples cannot be 
ignored. It was made all the worse by the collapse of Liberal 
Western states too pusillanimous to put up a good fight against 
Hitler. France was a major imperialist power in Germany's league 
as a military power, supposedly stronger than the Soviet Union, 
but it turned out to be a cake-walk for Hitler, a four-week non-
existent battle. A single platoon in Stalingrad known as 
"Pavlov's" killed more Germans than all the French killed Germans 
in the defense of Paris.(p. 198)That is not to mention the smaller 
imperialist powers like Belgium that Hitler waltzed over.

The imperialists also failed to give the Republicans in Spain 
material aid to fight the Nazis and the Republicans lost. Hence, 
as Beevor correctly pointed out, Hitler took all of continental 
Europe and suffered no defeats until deep inside the Soviet Union. 
Beevor points this out, but is unable to draw the firm ethical 
conclusion that the bankruptcy of the West made Hitler seem 
invincible, contributed to panic in the Soviet Union when Hitler 
invaded and thereby caused the executions by the "Stalinists." It 
is inexcusable and obscene to this day for Western scholars to 
write about Stalingrad without acknowledging the West's own blame 
for the Soviet purges. Had Hitler been stood up to in 
Czechoslavakia, Spain or France, the 13,500 executed in Stalingrad 
would not have been.

What happened was that almost a million Italians, Finns and 
Romanians joined the three million Germans in the invasion and 
despite being joined by even more Ukrainian, Russian, Tartar, 
Cossack and other traitors, the Soviet Union still won. Beevor is 
so kind as to point out that only Japanese intelligence did not 
underestimate the Soviet Union.(pp. 13,24) The West did not want 
or know how to fight the Nazis, but Westerners complained about 
Stalin then and continue to complain even more today.

Long after the fascists had been surrounded at Stalingrad with no 
hope of victory, even the Russian traitors continued to fight to 
the death. Almost half of the 297th Infantry Division was 780 
Russians. The best anti-tank fighters opposing the Red Army were 
Tartars, a people of the Soviet Union.(p. 353) When Stalin and 
Beria said that there was a fifth column in Russia just like the 
rest of Europe and said purges and special measures against panic-
mongering were necessary, they were right. Even many Russians 
never heard about these people, because Stalin and Beria did not 
want to spread panicky ideas, but they existed. Now that we know 
the facts in 1998 about the Soviet peoples who joined up with 
Hitler it is even more obscene that the Western scribblers attack 
Stalin's purges and executions. Had the Liberal West succeeded in 
stopping Hitler, it would have had a right to complain. Since it 
didn't, it should shut up in the name of decency.

Harsh prison camps necessary

Many people ask us communists how we can complain about U.$. 
imperialism when Stalin did not allow complaints in his day, no 
"free speech." While it is true that not all of us speaking 
against imperialism are in prison for it, the percentage of Black 
people in prison is the same as the percentage of Soviet people in 
prison under Stalin in war. While Stalin had to lock up Nazi-
supporters after the war, the U.$. imperialists have no excuse.

The context of imprisonment is important, not just the war either. 
Today, production is more modern in the imperialist countries. If 
the United $tates imprisons people and does not take good care of 
them, there is no excuse. There is no war except the undeclared 
war against oppressed nationalities and there is plenty of food 
and fuel.

MIM does not support letting prisoners die today in the 
imperialist countries -- through infectious disease, guard murders 
and instigation of gang-fighting. If we could overthrow 
imperialism, deathly prisons would not be necessary anywhere in 
the world, because there is enough food and fuel for the whole 
world if it were distributed without regard to profit. In World 
War II though, the situation was different. Panic-mongering had 
concrete effects. Many troops lost their lives when their units 
became disorganized and panicked. People spreading such ideas had 
to be executed. The worst of all panic-mongers was Trotsky who 
predicted to the world that Stalin would be defeated by the Nazis. 
We at MIM wish Trotsky had been assassinated before 1940, back in 
1938 when Germany moved on Czechoslavakia or even earlier when 
Japanese imperialism seized Manchuria. More innocent lives would 
have been saved without this master panic-mongerer and splitter.

Once fascist prisoners had been seized in battle, with what 
motorized vehicles could they be shipped to the rear? Fuel and 
vehicles were in short supply and needed at the front. With what 
food would they be fed? Soviet soldiers and other innocents were 
starving, especially in Leningrad and Stalingrad. Giving food to 
fascist prisoners only took food away from innocent people. 
Finally, these captured fascists and their collaborators could not 
just be released, because they would return to fight with the 
fascists and kill more innocent Soviet people. They had to be 
guarded, but the more people to guard, the more guards there had 
to be. However, guards with guns were needed at the front. 

For all these reasons, early treatment of Axis prisoners of war 
was justifiably horrible. Hitler had rejected an offer from Stalin 
that both sides go by the Hague convention for treatment of 
prisoners.(p. 60) Executed on the spot, starved to death, left to 
bleed to death and worked to death -- these were the usual results 
for Axis prisoners. A portion did survive, especially almost all 
the top officers who the Soviets wanted to keep for historical 
reasons. However, when the rednecks tell us communists that we 
should not complain about the prisons here, they are way off the 
mark. There is no shortage of food, fuel or unemployed people to 
guard prisoners. There is no just war going on either. There is no 
excuse for treating people within U.$. borders in any way like 
Stalin treated prisoners. Molotov said as much just before he died 
recently. Things are different now in terms of production and war.

Dialectics and military tactics

We credit Beevor for talking about the small Soviet military 
advantages that added up over the course of the war. Of course 
there was patriotism and fighting on one's own soil, especially at 
night and at times when the German air force did not fly. In the 
first winter, the Germans came without any winter clothes and the 
second winter also favored the defenders.

Furthermore, Soviet industry was already superior in one sense. 
According to Beevor, the T34 tank was superior to any tank the 
Germans had. Many German anti-tank guns and tanks could not pierce 
the armor of the T34, especially at anything but point-blank 
range.


Beevor's most dialectical observation in the whole book is that 
the German air force pounded Stalingrad into unpassable streets 
strewn with everything, but it was exactly that fact that made it 
impossible to take over.(p. 149) Up to that point, the Germans had 
made the maximum use of their motorized vehicles, especially 
tanks. Now with house-to-house fighting, artillery and the air 
force were much less useful and the rubble made it difficult for 
motorized vehicles to just stomp on everything in town. In every 
crevice, underneath every piece of junk a Russian would be waiting 
for the Germans and fighting became more like that of trenches in 
World War I.

Thus, Germany's overwhelming air superiority in the early stages 
of the battle of Stalingrad turned into a liability. Just as 
everything seemed bleak for the Soviet Union, the playing field 
was "leveled" so to speak, which was in effect an advantage for 
the defenders. The dialectics of reality were on the side of 
progress.

Western bias

On the book jacket, Gitta Sereny credits Beevor's "own humanity" 
as a reason to buy the book. To MIM, we prefer Western "humanism" 
to relativism, but in truth many will read this book unable to 
derive any of its meaning because of the general failure of 
teaching in the imperialist countries.

Beevor himself correctly concludes that it was not just the SS 
involved in executions of Jews and communists. It was the army 
itself. He holds the officers responsible for carrying out orders 
to exterminate various nationalities. Moreover, he even 
acknowledges that since over 3 million Soviet peoples died in 
German camps under brutal conditions, it was not going to be 
possible to restrain the revenge of the Soviet Army against German 
soldiers at all times. For these conclusions, Beevor is already 
superior to what is sweeping academia today.

Nonetheless, Beevor clearly wishes Stalin ran a more Liberal war. 
He claims Stalin and Beria were too harsh in their assessments of 
what patriotism was necessary.(e.g., p. 385) On the other hand, 
Beevor also presents the evidence that there were massive panics 
and treason committed on the Russian side.

Those with a firm sense of weighing the benefits and losses of 
leniency during the war will be able to engage the book, but the 
many youth with no political notions or sense of how to weigh the 
issues will come to relativist conclusions from reading this book. 
The reason is that the authors present evidence but do not offer 
firm moral conclusions on the difficult questions, beyond the 
obvious that the war was a terrible thing in a terrible time. To 
succeed 50 years after the battle, a book like this should at the 
very least organize the pros and cons of the difficult ethical 
decisions made so that the questions are not dodged completely.

MIM finds nothing humynist about dodging the tough ideological or 
ethical questions of World War II. People living in that time had 
to make decisions, either right or wrong, involving life and 
death. Dodging those questions makes it more likely that they will 
have to be faced again as history ends up repeating itself. 


* * *

IN D.C., "RACE" OBSCURES NATIONAL ISSUES

by a comrade

The new mayor of Washington, D.C., Anthony Williams, is taking 
heat from Black residents over "race" issues. Williams was elected 
last year, after getting all the white vote and most of the 
middle-class Black vote in the Democratic primary. Most people did 
not vote, and turnout was especially low among Blacks.

Before that Williams was the chief financial officer for the 
Control Board, the unelected body appointed by Clinton to run the 
city after Congress took power away from Marion Barry and the 
elected city council. Barry was a former activist with the Student 
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the 1960s, who eventually 
served four terms as mayor of the city -- the last one after 
getting out of jail on an FBI-sting cocaine charge. Under Barry, 
the Black middle class was built up through an expanded city 
bureaucracy. Like neocolonial governments in a lot of places, the 
national bourgeoisie in D.C. built up a middle class using the 
government as a tool, but in the process became corrupt and 
inefficient.

When Congress took away his power, it was rightly seen as an 
affront to the Black middle class and the Black city workers who 
depended on Barry for their jobs. One of the main things Williams 
did with the Control Board was lay off a lot of Black workers in 
order to streamline the government.

A lot of Williams' first major appointments were white. These 
included Max Brown, his new legal counsel, who is now being 
accused of being white and obnoxious.(1) Then David Howard, 
Williams' white head of the Office of Public Advocate, in charge 
of constituent relations, was forced to resign after using the 
word "niggardly" in reference to a budgetary program. The word 
"niggardly" is not originally related to "nigger" the racial 
epithet, but Williams didn't try to stop him from resigning after 
people started calling the city administration to complain that 
Howard was a racist.(2)

One prominent critic, Anthony Jenkins, wrote a column in the 
Washington Post questioning whether Williams is "Black enough."(3) 
Jenkins said "Blackness, like any other characteristic that 
identifies an oppressed group, is a state of common spiritual 
idealism that serves to unite the group for the purpose of 
survival." To elaborate, he said "Blackness could be measured in 
how much one can give back, or how far one can reach down to pull 
up another."

MIM disagrees with this idealist or at best cultural- nationalist 
view. What Jenkins is really talking about is class distinctions 
within the Black nation. Clarence Thomas is completely Black, a 
completely Black comprador. The comprador bourgeoisie gets what it 
gets from the national oppressor -- in this case white Amerika -- 
by virtue of its position within the oppressed nation. It doesn't 
make sense to say that Clarence Thomas is not Black, as white 
people are not Black, because Thomas owes his position to his 
membership in the Black nation.

Jenkins showed his hand when he wrote that, "The concept of 
blackness has evolved over the years. It has gone from emphasizing 
self-worth and the importance of group recognition to acquiring 
practical skills that ensure self-determination." In other words, 
Blackness to him means whatever he thinks is the right thing for 
Blacks to do. And that used to mean nationalism, and now it means 
making it in the middle class but "reaching down."

David Howard, who was one of the highest-level city officials to 
be openly gay, said "Mr. Williams is colorblind." This was meant 
as a defense of Williams, who is now taking heat from gay 
organizations for letting Howard resign over the "niggardly" 
incident. Someone else testified, "Of anyone I've ever met, Tony 
Williams is the most colorblind of any man."(5) People who say 
they are colorblind about "race" are lying on the one hand, and on 
the other they are expressing an incorrect political line that 
whether people are Black or white does not matter.

MIM is reminded of the controversy over the lawyer to represent 
Huey P. Newton, the Black Panther Party founder who in 1967 was 
facing a murder charge after a shoot-out with California police. 
The lawyer, Charles Garry, was white; he had also defended and won 
24 previous capital cases, and was willing to defend Newton even 
if the defense fund couldn't cover all the costs. The party 
newspaper, the Black Panther, wrote:

"I wonder how many of these people who complain about the white 
attorney are really concerned about the black movement, really 
concerned about Huey's life, really concerned about the Black 
Panther Party, really concerned about putting an ending to the 
wanton murder of black people by the police, and if they are so 
concerned, what are they doing to show it? Are these the same 
people who have contributed to the Huey P. Newton Defense Fund, 
helped the Black Panther Party to grow, make constant personal 
sacrifices and endured serious danger to see their commitment bear 
fruit? Or are these people onlookers of a liberation struggle 
being waged for their benefit who just generally dislike white 
people and don't like the way it looks in court? . . . Whose 
benefit are they concerned with, Huey P. Newton's or black 
lawyers?"(4)

Under the Barry administration, much of Black Washington benefited 
from his government, although the beneficiaries were 
disproportionately middle class. Although Barry was no 
revolutionary, Williams represents a step in the direction of 
increased white control over the city -- not because of the 
individuals in Williams' cabinet, but because he does what 
Congress wants, what the white power structure wants. Because he 
cares more about a balanced budget than about keeping the 
University of the District of Columbia open to all D.C. students, 
or getting the majority-Black city a simple vote in Congress. 
Moving from a "race"-conscious civil rights oriented mayor to a 
"colorblind" one is not progress for the city.

The Black Panther also argued that because "the entire legal 
system is white . . . black lawyers do far more to weaken the 
argument for black power than the Black Panthers' using the 
assistance of white lawyers."(4) MIM agrees. The Black nation 
needs real independent revolutionary leaders. But this is not what 
is being debated in D.C. There is altogether too much concern over 
the symbolism of who will administer the neocolonial regime in 
D.C. It fools people into thinking we are talking about real Black 
national leadership of the kind represented by the Black Panther 
Party. 

Notes: 
1. Washington Post, January 25, 1999, p. B1. 
2. Washington Post, January 27, 1999, p. B1. 
3. Washington Post, January 17, 1999, p. B1. 
4. The Black Panthers Speak, Philip Foner (ed.), Lippincott: 
Philadelphia, 1970; p. 14. 
5. Washington Post, January 29, 1999. p. C1.

* * *

MEXICAN ARMY DOCTOR CHARGED WITH SEDITION FOR OPPOSING MILITARY 
ABUSE

by RC68

Mexican army lieutenant Colonel Hildegardo Bacilio Gomez has been 
charged with sedition for speaking out and protesting against the 
terrorist violence and human rights abuses committed by the U$ 
backed terrorist Mexican army in which he has served for 24 years 
as a surgeon.

In late February 1998 Colonel Gomez led a march of about 50 other 
Mexican army officers. They marched down Paseo de la Reforma, the 
main boulevard of Mexico's capital Mexico City. They were 
protesting the deteriorating condition of Mexico's armed forces 
which has recently drawn international attention for corruption 
and abuse of civilians. Colonel Gomez has openly expressed 
admiration for Zapatista leader Sub-Commandante Marcos and is 
openly critical of free-market society.

It is not just civilians that are abused by the U$ puppet regime 
in Mexico. The U$ sponsored Mexican government is not tolerant of 
anyone that exposes its corruption. It is especially intolerant of 
those that believe the Mexican army should serve the Mexican 
people instead of acting as a U$ sponsored terrorist organization. 
Five of the officers that marched with Colonel Gomez in late 
February have been arrested and charged with insubordination and 
treason. Colonel Gomez has also been charged with sedition and 
desertion but has not yet been arrested because authorities have 
been unable to locate him. Top Mexican officials have warned that 
others who join the protest will be severely punished. 

This is not a new policy for the Mexican government. In 1993 
General Jose Francisco Gallardo Rodriguez openly criticized the 
Mexican military for abusing the Mexican people. He was imprisoned 
shortly after despite protests from human rights groups. It is 
also not the first time Colonel Gomez has been in trouble with his 
corrupt leaders. In September 1996 he was jailed for abandoning 
his post at an army hospital. Colonel Gomez denies he is guilty. 
He says he temporarily left his assignment to treat a pregnant 
woman. For this "crime" Colonel Gomez spent three days in jail and 
his monthly pay was slashed from $1,500 to $200. The Mexican 
government has been a U$ puppet for far too long to want soldiers 
that want to serve the people.

Colonel Gomez sets a good example by opposing the abuse of human 
beings and the corruption of Mexico's U$ puppet regime. It is a 
good thing when soldiers in pro- imperialist armies refuse to 
accept the leadership of their rotten governments and corrupt 
superiors. In the Philippines a number of military officials have 
deserted and joined the revolutionary forces. Sometimes even high 
ranking officers serving a brutal regime will decide to join the 
side of the people and the revolutionary movement should take 
advantage of these opportunities.

The people of Chiapas and Guerrero have demonstrated that the only 
solution to a fascist dictatorship is armed struggle. The heroic 
attempts of the Chiapaneco peasants on January 1, 1994 
demonstrated to Mexico that there can be another answer to solve 
the problems of corruption and oppression besides the electoral 
booth: the just raising of arms. There is no other way to dissolve 
the ties between Mexico and u.s. imperialism, since the u.s. has a 
huge stake in maintaining Mexico a militarized, regionally-stable 
country. 

As communists, we raise the question of whether it is enough to 
pick up the gun to have as the ultimate goal a chance to reform 
the present reactionary state. For this we criticize the 
Zapatistas. This does not mean that we communists scorn the people 
who give support to the Zapatistas. No. It simply means that we 
believe that the Zapatistas need to re-evaluate their perception 
of the current Mexican state and society to see that there can be 
no talk of negotiation unless the rebel forces have a strategic 
advantage. The pro-imperialist puppet state has proven itself not 
to want peace and negotiation. It is also relatively stronger at 
this point in history than any serious opposition. It does not 
want to solve the economic and political problems facing the 
Mexican people. We criticize the Zapatistas for wanting to share 
power with the local imperialist lackeys, and not wanting to seize 
state power in the interests of the Mexican workers and peasants.

We hope that the brutal, but very real, lessons drawn from the 
state's repression will help all well-intentioned people of Mexico 
realize that the state held by people subservient to foreign 
interests does not want to negotiate. We hope that revolutionaries 
in Mexico raise the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism applied to 
the concrete conditions of Mexico as the guiding thought of their 
struggle. For only Maoist People's War in a semi-feudal, semi-
colonial country can be the answer to state massacres. People's 
War builds independent support bases amongst the people in the 
countryside as it protractedly encircles the cities. Thus we 
repudiate the focoist and sensationalist strategy of the EZLN for 
refusing to recognize the real nature of the enemy. We cite the 
historical examples of China and Vietnam and the contemporary 
examples of the Philippines and Peru as shining examples of 
People's War. Only through People's War can their be a guarantee 
that the state's actions will not go unchecked. Only People's War 
can destroy imperialism and reaction in Mexico.

Mutinous soldiers were a major force in toppling the Russian Czar 
during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. If provided with proper 
proletarian leadership these soldiers are capable doing great 
things to serve the people. We look to the example of the National 
Democratic Front led by the Communist Party of the Philippines as 
a modern-day leader in the reform of deserted army personnel. With 
Maoist leadership, officers like Gomez can begin to make up for a 
career of complicity in murder and begin to truly serve the 
people.

Note: 1. Boston Globe January 20, 1999

* * *

DRUG POLICY MAGAZINE EXPOSES CRIMINAL INJUSTICE SYSTEM

Common Sense for Drug Policy 
Vol. 1 No. 1 
(703) 353-5694 
csdp@erols.com www.drugsense.org

reviewed by MC5

MIM is very pleased to read the first issue of "Common Sense for 
Drug Policy" dated "Autumn 1998." It is a mainstream publication 
hitting on a large part of the reason why the United $tates is the 
number one prison-state per capita in the world.

Prominent on the first page of the new publication is a picture of 
Esequiel Hernandez who was a U.S. citizen killed on May 20, 1997 
by the U.S. Army. "Zeke was tending his family goat herd when he 
was shot by 22-year-old Marine Coporal Banuelos, who was part of 
Joint Task Force Six, a military unit assigned to anti-drug 
operations. The Marines, dressed in camouflage battle fatigues, 
were hiding in the bushes looking for drug smugglers. While 
tending the goats, Zeke carried a rifle that his grandfather had 
given him to use to protect the goats from snakes and wild 
animals. The Marines claim that he fired two shots in their 
direction, and that upon seeing him raise his rifle again, 
Banuelos fired the fatal shot from an M-16. Townspeople claim they 
only heard one shot. The autopsy showed that Esequiel was not 
facing Banuelos when he was killed. He lay bleeding on the ground 
unattended for twenty minutes before he died."

Also told is the story of Donald Scott killed in his own home 
October 2, 1992 by a Los Angeles narcotics squad that found no 
drugs in the home of a man who never even smoked marijuana. 

These two crimes of murder by the government against citizens are 
among many. The paper is excellent in its collection of factual 
detail. We hope that many copies are made and read again and 
again.

The public is perhaps aware that there are innocent and not-so-
innocent victims in drug trade shootouts. What needs to be 
examined is the deaths and waste of innocent life caused by the 
government.

To put 400,000 people in prison for violating drug laws, the 
government harassed and sometimes killed a population of oppressed 
people perhaps a hundred times larger.

The President of the organization who put out this publication is 
someone who can tell the difference between ideological stupor and 
what is really happening in the world. People living in a dogmatic 
ideological stupor have no solutions for the drug problem but 
repetition of the same old tired mantras. Kevein B. Zeese replies: 
"When I am accused of being a legalizer I say: 'If you mean 
selling crack on the street corner to kids, that would be absurd 
and I am against it. In fact the drug war market results in crack 
on the corner not only sold to kids but often sold by kids.

"If on the other hand you mean devising a system of regulation 
where there are limits to adolescent access and rational treatment 
for both legal and illegal drugs in accordance to their level of 
danger: let's talk about how to bring this about." 

Legalization is the best that capitalism can do about the problem. 
Cigarette taxes applied to anti-smoking advertising appear to be 
effective in reducing smoking.

We communists definitely agree with Zeese that the status quo is 
not acceptable. All the rhetoric about the drug war and the tough 
approach of putting more cops and soldiers into the battle does 
not change the fact that kids sell drugs to kids on the street. 
The Amerikan dogma that the solution is tougher sentences and more 
cops has been proved wrong time and time again. We have been 
hearing it for a generation -- since Nixon--and now it's time to 
recognize that it's wrong.

Under capitalism all that attacking the drug trade and getting 
people killed along the way accomplishes is the bribery of cops 
and perhaps occasional increases in the price of drugs. When the 
price of drugs goes up, profits for dealing go up. That is the 
logic of capitalism. Profits go up; more cops get bribed; more 
drug traders start up business and supply increases again.

It's one of the most poignant reasons for being socialist--so that 
there is no gain to be made from the illegal drug trade. Under 
socialism of the Mao variety, even if one did succeed in making a 
million dollars from the drug trade, there'd be no way to spend 
it. Since production is planned under socialism, there is no way 
that a million dollars could suddenly show up innocently. 

MIM is against the use of drugs. Even legal drugs like alcohol are 
used to escape the problems of the system instead of doing 
something about it. MIM comrades are not allowed to touch illegal 
drugs and we discourage drunkenness.

We do not have the same usually racist moralistic reasons that the 
imperialists and labor aristocracy have for waging a selective 
"war on drugs." Putting people in prison for smoking marijuana is 
definitely a crime against the people, a waste of life and 
economic well-being.

Drugs are not the whole reason the United $tates is the world's 
top prison-state, because even not counting all drug-related 
prisoners, the United $tates would still be the world's prison 
leader in most years in the last three decades, with the possible 
exception of a few recent years under Boris Yeltsin. Regardless, 
MIM does not aim to have the United $tates settle for number two 
prison-state per capita as progress. 

Imprisonment needs to be cut in half before we even begin to 
debate how far cutting back prison is too far. That means drug 
users and marijuana dealers should all be released. We also want 
all prostitutes and bad-check writers released.

Next, to cut down on the number of wrongful convictions, we want 
the death penalty for cops and prosecutors who lie in court in 
capital cases or in cases that caused or would have caused a total 
of 70 years or more prison time. Likewise, if it is proved after 
execution that someone was innocent, we would like to see the 
death penalty for the judge responsible.

Right now, cops, prosecutors and judges run for office based on 
the acclaim they get for locking people up. Even President Clinton 
is a former prosecutor. There are too many rewards for locking 
people up, guilty or not. It's time to balance the rewards with 
responsibility. After a few legal executions of judges, cops and 
prosecutors who caused wastage of humyn life, we will find out if 
Amerikans really are so much more evil statistically than other 
people in the world or whether it was all the concoction of the 
most violent ruling-class in history.

What we like most about "Common Sense" is that it sometimes seems 
that only the proletarian party itself and some Quaker pacifists 
seem to notice that we live in the world's worst prison-state, 
even worse than what the Soviet Union was in the decades before it 
fell apart. With some "legalization" movement people starting to 
notice the overall statistical situation and with groups like 
Amnesty International starting to notice conditions right here, it 
could be that the tide is turning in one phase of the class 
struggle in the United $tates.

In this period of stark reaction inside the belly of the beast, 
the dialectical silver lining is that the proletarian party stands 
out clearly by opposing the prison-state craze that is Redneck 
Amerika. In this period the backbone of the movement in the next 
upsurge forms. With progress, various bourgeois and petty-
bourgeois forces enter the fray roughly on the same side as the 
proletarian party. 

It is a mistake to believe that the entry into the fray of Amnesty 
International or "Common Sense" is bad for the party. Quite the 
contrary, the only competitors of questionable value are the 
revisionists who make life very contorted with their false claims 
to being Marxist. 

True, the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces may draw some of 
our support away and that is ultimately the reason that the 
ruling-class makes a concession on any point--in order to stave 
off revolution. On the other hand, MIM also exerts an influence on 
these bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces. Already Amnesty 
International has lost recruits to MIM, one of which was one of 
our founding members. Such petty-bourgeois organizations can 
ignore the proletarian truth and forceful presentations like MIM's 
only at risk to themselves. The stronger MIM becomes in its 
material presence, the more organizations like Amnesty 
International are forced into the fray. Then the ruling class 
risks even further exposure for not making concessions. It is the 
role of the vanguard party to continue putting forward the 
unvarnished truth without regard for our popularity with the labor 
aristocracy and imperialists.

* * *

FACTS ABOUT U.$. IMPRISONMENT

The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the 
United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita 
for the last 25 years, with a brief exception during Boris 
Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1) That means that 
while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the 
head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita. In 
supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, 
the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United 
$tates.(2,3)

To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there 
is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid 
South Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last 
situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under 
Stalin during war time.

The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the 
U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than 
China; even though China is four times our population.(5) 

The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live 
in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.

Notes: 
1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of 
Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, 
Suite 501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: 
R8965-2, 1994. 
2. Ibid., 1992 report. 
3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 
1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186. 
4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-
violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211. 
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.

* * *


UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND PRISONERS

Pigs Encourage Youth Suicide

...[This letter concerns the] psychological aspect of prison 
brutality. Two nineteen year-olds, one eighteen year-old and a 
seventeen year-old were here in the segregation unit. Three are 
here in the adult institution for putting a foot in the asses of 
some imperialist pigs while in the juvenile's KKKamp. These youths 
were given razors for the morning shavings. It does not take a 
college graduate to understand that facial hair is destitute for 
this age bracket of men of African descent. The four of them 
attempted to take themselves out as a group. Yes, suicide!

...In some aspects Comrades, a "mental" beatdown is worse that any 
physical beatdown. Its longevity is as painful as brand new shoes 
on one's feet that are a size too small; it hurts like a 
motherfucker! Whereas physical wounds do heal, given time; 
psychological wounds may drive on to an imbalance which can drive 
a person to suicide. The bottom line is that we ought not be 
subject to either psychological or physical brutality.

I found out about this attempted "four man" suicide last night 
(9/24/98). I wrote each of those comrades a letter. I told them 
that I love them and that if they needed me to call me. But all 
the while I kick myself in the ass because such a letter should 
have been given to those brothers, and been in those brothers' 
heads prior to the idea of suicide. I am an elder to them and I 
should have made damn sure that they knew that I was available, 
and would use every resource manifested to be on their behalf.

I am grateful that they are alive. I have laid down some heavy 
repercussion warnings [to other prisoners] concerning jokes, or 
attempts to humiliate these four brothers. Unfortunately Racine 
Corr. Inst. has ignorant creatures who laugh and joke at such 
essential matters, but it does not surprise me -- it's their way 
of dealing with this oppression. They fail to accept it as their 
reality also. When pigs wail on their asses, they'll have no 
further jokes and it'll be tears instead of laughter. I am here 
with open arms for them though because I know the pain and I've 
lived the fear. I had to embrace my fears and I fight now because 
I fear no more....

The Governor, Tommy Thompson, in 1995, stripped the Wisconsin DOC 
[Department of Incorrections] of all the pre-college programs and 
computers. No the highest education permitted is a GED. In 1996, 
he passed a law to place 14-year-old children in the adult 
prisons. In 1997, he stripped the adult prisons of vocational 
programs (such as woodworking and auto mechanics). Leaving us with 
degrading and unskilled trades such as kitchen work, haircutting, 
and shower attendant.

There is a great deal of forced fucking going on with these young 
brothers and it isn't sexual preference. If one isn't born that 
way or chose that play, one shouldn't have to lay that way. In 
1998, Tommy Thompson made history. He put into effect the first 
"adult prison" in this state with the sole age group of 14-21 run 
by the adult prison system. In 1999, the new "triple max" will 
complete its construction. Prisoners will have no human contact, 
with showers in the cell. Even family visits will be done via two-
way video screen. 

As we speak Comrades, those four beautiful young brothers are in a 
Segregation Unit inside of a segregated enclosure area. Allegedly 
because of the attempted suicide, they are ass naked with no 
property -- eating bologna sandwiches. At this time of year in 
Wisconsin, it's colder than a motherfucker!

...I do not know their mommas, and their daddies are not here. I 
can not be their parent, but I can show them that I'm their 
brother and I bet that these imperialists don't care to play in my 
arena. I've had my share of bumps, but I've been known to give a 
few too....



Keep this struggle as a beacon, 

-- A Wisconsin Prisoner, 30 September 1998



Prisoners try to escape madness



...I'm in what you call SMU [Segregated Management Unit] Control 
unit. We are locked down 23 and a half hours a day. I'm in chains 
and handcuffed everywhere I go, even to the showers. This is a 
mind control unit. I'm in without any outside help. The brothers 
and sisters do not know what goes on inside this hellhole, or how 
the cops beat us. I've been locked down four years going on five. 

I've seen good brothers hang themselves and take med.'s to try and 
get away from the madness that goes on in here. I see this happen 
especially to the younger brothers. 

On this unit there are 49 inmates: 2 white, 1 Puerto Rican and 46 
Black. All the staff is white. I can go on and on about the things 
that happen in here but most of the outside world would not 
believe it. If they only know what really goes on in these control 
units....



 -- A Pennsylvania Prisoner, 23 December 1998



Abuse of Physically Disabled Prisoner



...I am being illegally housed here on the Michael Unit. I'm being 
forced to drag by paraplegia body around while sitting on my 
buttock. In September 1998 (time and date) I was sitting on my 
buttock dragging my paraplegia body out of the dayroom and in 
through the Salyport doors. I stopped to rest my arms. At this 
time officer Corey Williams started yelling at me to stand up and 
walk to the lunchroom. Then he picked up the telephone and called 
someone. He told them I was coming to the chow hall and starting 
laughing and hung up the phone. 

Officer Corey Williams and Officer Kilven D. Cuba both walked over 
to where I was sitting and resting my arms. They told me to hurry 
up! I told them I was resting my arms, and Officer Williams said, 
"Fuck that!" He pulled out his handcuffs, pushed my belly and 
said, "You're going to walk now". He reached down and grabbed me 
by my shirt and the waist of my pants and picked me up. Officer 
Cuba grabbed my legs and they both lifted me up off the floor and 
slammed me down onto the rough, hard concrete floor several times. 

Officer C. Williams kicked me in the ribs several times. Then they 
both picked me up by my legs and started dragging me back to my 
cell. They both were laughing and saying "You are going to walk, 
one way or another because I ain't got no patience to be fucking 
with you!" The two officers who were working the control picket, 
opened the cell door and both officers dragged me into my cell and 
slammed me on the concrete floor several more times. Officer 
Williams kicked me in the ribs several more times. Officer 
Williams and Cuba walked off laughing and I didn't receive any 
medical treatment. I have severe back, neck and chest pain. My 
ribs are killing me. I didn't receive a hot tray or a sack lunch. 
I'm suffering from physical and psychological injuries and I'm not 
receiving any medical treatment for these problems.



 -- A Texas Prisoner, 20 November 1998



Genocide in South Carolina 



I am an inmate at the Allendale Corr. Inst. in South Carolina. It 
is a shame how they are locking up so many people in this small 
racist state. Where you are supposed to do 85% of your sentence. 
To me, that is a form of genocide because your child bearing years 
are taken away from you. Something needs to be done about this 
cruel punishment because 75% of the inmates locked up in this 
state are Black. 

Many of these inmates are locked up on bogus drug-related charges. 
Being locked up won't solve the drug problem. We need 
rehabilitation and job training. That is the only answer. It is 
time for South Carolina to come out of the Old Jim Crow Law daze 
and wake-up!



 -- A South Carolina Prisoner, 27 October 1998



Tips for South Carolina Grievances



Greetings Comrades,



I recently received my newsletter from MIM. In it, there were 
several letters from the gulags in South Carolina. I am oppressed 
at the Allendale Shit hole. I can attest to what's been said as 
true. Inmates have to medical costs if they injure another inmate, 
however I believe you only have to pay up to $150.00, which is 
considered emergency room service. 

Comrades, Don't injure a fellow inmate! Focus your energy against 
the gestapo! 

I have witnessed an inmate become very ill because his mediation 
was changed, which a specialist on the street prescribed. After 
several weeks of fighting the pigs, he finally got his correct 
medication. He finally became healthy again. You'll be happy to 
know he has a lawsuit against them in progress. 

Another inmate wanted information about not having to, or refusing 
to take the AIDS test. If you refuse any test the DOC tries to 
give you, they can charge you with a disciplinary offense. 
However, your rights are protected by law. You will have to file a 
civil lawsuit against the DOC's violations of your constitutional 
rights. Mandatory AIDS testing is not a law, only a DOC policy. 
There is a good chance you'll win, if you refuse any type of 
testing. 

Another inmate wrote about not being able to get the proper forms 
to file grievances. First try resolving the problem by talking to 
an officer. Next file a 19-11 form request to a staff member. If 
you can't get the actual form, you can make your own. Put all the 
pertinent information on it. This is an informal action so it's ok 
to just make the form up yourself. 

If your not satisfied with the answer, then file a grievance, step 
1 from 10-5. My suggestion is when you get the forms, get several 
to keep on hand. For about 90 cents you can also get the grievance 
policy from the law library. Having your own copy will help you 
follow the gestapo's procedures, so they can't deny you on 
mistakes. The policy is GA 01.12.

Some of the things I've mentioned, such as refusing tests, will 
get you in lock up. But don't give in to the oppressors if you 
believe you are right. We have to keep writing MIM and other 
organizations which will help us in our struggle against 
oppression, and let the truth be revealed! Try to keep your mind 
out, they can oppress your body, but not your mind. Stay Strong!



 -- A South Carolina Prisoner, 14 October 1998



Struggling in Delaware



Dear Under Lock and Key,



I am a prisoner in the wicked state of Delaware. At the present 
time, I am in a small prison that holds perhaps 900 to 1,000 
inmates. This has to be the most backwoods prison in the history 
of prisons. The prison is in Georgetown, Delaware. Its population 
is less that 5,000, full of Rednecks and KKK who tend to be pretty 
disrespectful much of the time.

Yet the sad part is they have brothers that get down with them. 
Inmates smile and joke with them daily.

...Another problem is that there are not enough jobs to go around. 
If there were it would be for slave wages. Yet each time you go to 
sick call you pay $4.00 for the visit and $2.00 for any meds. You 
have to pay another $4.00 if you have to see a doctor....

...You asked me to express a little more about this program I am 
in. It is called the Key South Behavior Program. How this program 
works is it attempts to brainwash you in order to have you develop 
what is commonly called pro-social behavior patterns. Yet I find 
it hard to have this if people in the program are constantly being 
lied to about their release dates, and how most of us were 
kidnapped to come here. As far as who's in this program -- you 
have a lot of weak-minded brothers that keep believing the lies. I 
on the other hand let staff know about my concerns daily. For I am 
in the struggle for my freedom and the freedom of my brothers. I 
do however realize that I can not save everyone, So I help save 
who I can.

I attempt to save, by sitting down with some of my lost brothers 
and sharing with them the power with RAIL and just what it stands 
for. Yet I must keep in mind that I am a captive in Delaware, the 
last state to do away with slavery. I am fighting for what I 
believe to hopefully provide a better life for our children. 

At any rate I am still very much interested in starting a study 
group.... Until next time continue in the struggle for it is the 
only way we will truly have freedom, justice and equality for all.



In the struggle for life, 

-- A Delaware Prisoner, 15 October 1998



Modern Slave Trade



Dear MIM,



I'm a prisoner in Connecticut who has been kidnapped from Colorado 
through the modern slave trade known as the inter-state compact. 
It's amazing to me how these devils have re-established the slave 
trade right under our noses. So once again they are splitting up 
families and selling them down the river through this new thing 
called privatized institutions. This is where states bid for new 
slaves to be sent to their state institutions for the outstanding 
housing fees they can charge, and the hell with the individual's 
rights to be close to home and family.

Since I have been out here, so many things have happened. My 
mother has passed. My father got sent to prison for life. My wife 
left me due to the strain of trying to maintain a relationship 
from 3,000 miles away. I am in culture shock. For a man who grew 
up on the West to be sent east can be not only a hardship, but 
deadly! Especially, in view of the animosity that exists, not to 
mention the different gang situations. But I am a warrior and 
upright brother of mixed races. I shall make this a learning 
experience and make the most of a bad situation. I've met a lot of 
good comrades out here. I applaud and respect the struggle of the 
MIM and hope to become a part of your movement for independence.



Yours in the struggle, 

-- A Connecticut Prisoner, 6 December 1998



High Confinement in Retaliation for Activism



I am a brother who thirsts for knowledge and my brothers share 
such goals are many. I am presently incarcerated within the New 
York State Department of Corrections [NYS DOC] where the 
conditions are no better or no worse than the conditions for any 
of the oppressed under the malicious tactics of the imperialist 
rule. 

I have been assaulted twice by the beasts (c/o's, officers) while 
incarcerated for my strong desire to speak out against the 
injustices of the system. At present I am in the middle of a civil 
claim against this department for their abusiveness. My constant 
writing to high officials of the department has resulted in me 
being retaliated against and finally moved to another facility 
under harsh and strict confinement in foolish attempts to 
discourage me. The lies told to my family as to my purpose here 
and as to the extent of my stay here at the newly built facility 
were very misleading, biased and malicious. 

This facility was supposedly built for the state's worst and 
uncontrollable inmates. Confinement to the cell is 24 hours here. 
Recreation is to the rear of the cell in a din or rec. area the 
size of your average bathroom (approx. 8'x6' space). It is my 
opinion that I've been placed here for the close monitoring of my 
correspondence. Since showers are in the cells, there is hardly 
any leaving the double bunked inhabitance, except for medical 
emergencies or visits. Upon leaving ones cell total restraints are 
required including chain belt, cuffs to waist and if ordered, leg 
shackles. Also upon exiting the cell a medical detector wand can 
be used, for any reason, to examine the entire body including body 
cavities.

This new housing and its repressive policies are being used as a 
form of retaliation against those inmates who exercise their 
rights in utilizing the complaint system against NYS DOC. Thus 
there are several inmates in here for exercising such rights. 
Since this is specified as being a special housing unit for the 
state's uncontrollable [prisoner population], placing regular 
inmates in its housing confinement is a clear example of abuse and 
retaliation against these prisoners. Thus the struggle 
continues.... And it gets a lot worse!



In the struggle for life! 

-- A New York Prisoner, 1 October 1998



Security Threat Group In Arizona



Notice to Inmate Population: Designation of the Mau-Mau as a 
Security Threat Group

The Mau-Mau is designated a Security Threat Group (STG) by the 
Arizona Department of Corrections in accordance with Department 
Order 806, Security Threat Group....



Terry L. Stewart, Director, 11 September 1998



Greetings MIM, 



I've enclosed a copy of the Security Threat Group (STG) policy and 
their inmate notice [above]. I know that they've started this 
nationwide, however my comrades and I refuse to just lay down 
while these dogs walk all over us. Some prisoners have been 
successful in their struggle against this policy while others have 
not. The main purpose is to let these pigs know that a 
revolutionary will never just lay down. No matter where they put 
us the fight will continue.

I've been in Mau-Mau for 18 years out of my 21 years of 
incarceration. For these pigs to think that we will just turn on 
what we believe in, is crazy. They really believe that they can 
end the struggle and kill the fight that lives within us, by 
simply putting us in the hole. That will only make the real fight 
harder.



Forwards ever, backwards never! 

-- An Arizona Prisoner, 12 October 1998



Unprovoked Attack



...The state is implementing a two meal per day inmate plan. At 
this time it's only on Saturday and Sunday. Yet without any 
opposition this will eventually turn into a seven day thing. Also 
before the State Legislature is a Bill to delete the word 
"comfortable" from Article 1, section 32, of the State 
Constitution which provides: "That the erection of safe and 
comfortable prisoners, the inspections of prisons, and the humane 
treatment of prisoners shall be provided for." So if this state 
constitutional amendment is passed, the results will be felt 
immediately.

Recently this writer witnessed a classic example of excessive 
force. An inmate in the high security unit, one suffering from a 
documented mental illness, was walking to the shower. His hands 
were cuffed behind his back and he started shaking, more like 
trembling. His paid escort took this as a sign of aggressive 
behavior, and grabbed the inmate around the neck and slammed him 
to the ground. One goon grabbed the prisoner's feet the other 
lifted the inmate by his Afro. The goons carried the inmate to his 
cell in this fashion. 

Many of the unenlightened captives took this for entertainment, 
and found it amusing. I happened to be working on the walk when 
this occurred. When I spoke out, I was immediately locked down and 
told that I was interfering with an officer's duty. You see, you 
are punished for speaking out against obvious acts of brutality. I 
was later instructed that I could be given a disciplinary 
infraction for inciting a riot. 

This is a maximum security unit, in which everyone is locked down 
twenty-three hours a day, all except workers. I've been on max for 
two years now, and I have witnessed many of these unprovoked 
attacks upon individuals, have been on the receiving end of one 
such assault myself. So I found the incident, anything but 
amusing!... 



Yours in Struggle, 

-- A Tennessee Prisoner, 23 November 1998

* * *

REVIEW: THE NATURAL WEALTH OF NATIONS: HARNESSING THE MARKET FOR 
THE ENVIRONMENT 

by David Malin Roodman 
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998 303 pp. pb.

reviewed by MC5

This is a book about government subsidies and taxes as they 
affect the environment. Roodman has succeeded in putting forward a 
book that simultaneously pleases the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller 
Foundation and other liberal and radical sources of grant money 
that funded the book on the one hand and the environmentalist 
movement on the other hand. For the bourgeoisie, it was worth the 
money.

The book starts by attacking subsidies to mining and lumber 
companies, fisheries and highways. Canadian seal hunters garner a 
four dollar government subsidy for every seal they club to death. 
(p. 101) The attack on such subsidies amounting to $650 billion 
globally will please conservatives and libertarians, both of which 
support economic Liberalism. Nonetheless, MIM also supports the 
end to subsidies for mining, lumber and fisheries in the 
imperialist countries, because the environmental goals supported 
by Roodman most benefit the proletariat.

We also agree with Roodman that the $111 billion in 
subsidizing U.$. roads (p. 43) should go toward mass transit and 
subsidies for renewable energy instead. The subsidies to mining, 
lumber and fisheries in particular have been called "corporate 
welfare." The rich receiving the corporate welfare have had the 
most incentive to allow the degradation of the environment. The 
proletariat is the class of people with the least interest in the 
degradation of the environment. Only people making large profits 
from pollution would consider degrading their own environment.

The end of the book is about existing pollution taxes in the 
world and tax proposals for the United $tates. Roodman correctly 
criticizes the bogus arguments raised against environmental taxes. 
Their regressive nature can be overcome and taxes on other things 
can be dropped if pollution taxes increase.

Capitalism and the environment

Roodman makes crucial admissions throughout the book only to 
soften them and argue for social-democratic reforms of capitalism. 
"Though the market is a powerful tool for economic progress, where 
its edges meet the planet it is mainly as a saw, shovel, or 
smokestack--as an instrument of destruction rather than 
protection." (p. 19) Moreover, the "market system today threatens 
environmental, thus economic, disaster."(p. 27)

Like many other market-believing environmentalists, Roodman 
says there should be a market for the right to pollute. In a back 
assward argument, he says "that people have a right to breathe air 
and drink water not contaminated by other people's wastes" and 
then he decries moralists for upholding that argument! (p. 157) To 
translate what Roodman is saying: capitalism cannot be overturned; 
hence, second-class environmental citizenship for the poor and 
middle-classes is the only choice. He calls that "pragmatism" and 
he is right to call it that. Since Roodman knows that by his own 
(conservative) estimate 300,000 to 700,000 a year die from air 
pollution and another 50 million children cough chronically 
because of it,(p. 156) so his market for pollution rights is 
nothing less than a market for murder and disease licenses.

In contrast, MIM maintains that the right to food, clothing, 
shelter and a non-toxic and non-militarist environment is non-
negotiable. By themselves, these rights imply the use of organized 
force to protect them against would-be profiteers. Such organized 
force is called dictatorship of the proletariat, which will be 
necessary until that day all humyns find it unthinkable to force 
others to negotiate their non-negotiable rights.

Politics and blame

Like other defenders of capitalism, Roodman blames the lack of 
progress on the environmental front on the environmentalists or 
the masses. He admits that the idea of environmental taxes have 
been around for 80 years, but not used. The blame goes to 
environmentalists for preferring regulation he says.(p. 22)

Yet elsewhere he does admit that businesses affected 
overturned tepid environmental reform in Louisiana in 1992. (p. 
182) Conventional fossil fuel businesses also shut down a measly 
tax proposed by Clinton to favor renewable energy sources.(p. 131) 
Moreover, Roodman recognizes that federal research priorities are 
skewed toward spending money in the most polluting energy 
industries, which is also where the most corporate clout lies.(p. 
138) 

When it comes to the famed market for sulfur emissions rights, 
Roodman makes further admissions about the reality of capitalist 
political economy. In the first place, he admits that the law 
written grants existing polluters the right to pollute based on 
their previous pollution levels. The idea is that if they cut 
their pollution below their quota, they can sell the right to 
making that pollution they cut back to someone else for a profit.

He and other die-hard marketeers do not admit it, but based on 
this principle, it is possible for companies to invent new sources 
of pollution and then go to the government to set up a pollution 
market and then profit from the pollution rights sold! For MIM 
this is the ultimate proof why patchwork policy can never reform 
capitalism and why scientific socialist planning has to be used 
throughout. Profit is an indiscriminate motivator. In the current 
system it encourages companies to "innovate" by creating new forms 
of pollution that the government has to regulate and sell rights 
to.

In fact, to even pass the law to begin with, some companies 
gained the right to pollute at 1985 levels and hence were 
guaranteed a profit in selling their rights to pollute from day 
one of the law, which came into effect in 1990 under President 
Bush. The five years of progress in reducing emissions between 
1985 and 1990 were automatic profits for companies so exempted.(p. 
238)

Another reason that socialist scientific planning needs to be 
used is that one result of the famed U.$. market for sulfur 
dioxide emissions is that production shifted toward cleaner coal 
that can only be obtained by more abusive coal-mining techniques! 
(p. 154) Environmental gains are offset by environmental losses in 
another area, because Anglo-Saxon individualists refuse to plan 
production from start to finish and instead place mystical faith 
in the market. 

We credit Roodman for recognizing the negative influence of 
big money on democracy. "It is politics, not sound policy, that 
best explains the remarkable resilience of outmoded resource 
regimes in the United States, for instance. In the 1995-96 
election cycle, oil and gas companies gave $11.8 million to 
congressional candidates to protect tax breaks worth at least $3 
billion over the period. Timber lobbies donated $3.6 million, 
mainly to members of committees that set the Forest Service's 
budget and logging quotas. Mining firms handed out $1.9 million in 
order to fend off royalty charges on public hardrock minerals, 
something they have succeeded in doing for more than 120 years. 
Ranching interests contributed $2.2 million in order to keep 
federal grazing fees low, as they have been since 1906."(p. 228) 
Total environmental lobbyist donations to Congress members was 
$1.1 million in 1995-6.(p. 229)

While Roodman recognizes the influence of big money in 
politics, he gives in to shallow and casual anti-communism. He is 
of the opinion that communism failed to protect the environment, 
(p. 234) but he gives no detailed treatment and so we won't grant 
him the benefit of a rebuttal. As Mao said, "No investigation, no 
right to speak."

Labor aristocracy

Roodman informs MIM of further reasons to oppose the demands 
of oppressor nation "workers." Although the image of the coal-
miner is central to Marxism, in Germany the subsidy to inefficient 
coal is over $7 billion.(p. 24) Thus coal-mining jobs are saved 
through a government paper-shuffle, at the cost of over $85,000 
per coal-mining job per year.

Likewise, England had a source of fuel open to it--the natural 
gas of the North Sea--but labor aristocrats and labor bureaucrats 
opposed closing the coal mines despite their higher levels of 
pollution. MIM would point out that under socialism, everyone is 
guaranteed a job, so resistance to environmental progress of this 
sort should be lower. The way it happened in England, imperialist 
Thatcher rammed change down the throats of the labor aristocracy 
and England is one of the few countries in the world experiencing 
declining carbon emissions in the midst of economic growth as a 
result.(p. 104)

The environment is often a reason we must refocus our Marxism 
into Leninism, which includes a theory of imperialism as the 
decadent stage of capitalism. As Lenin pointed out, whole 
countries become parasitic and attain decadent lifestyles at the 
expense of the Third World masses.

Environmentalists should be Leninists of the MIM sort, because 
we oppose the consumption demands of the oppressor nation workers 
and because we recognize decadence and conservatism not just in 
the imperialists, but the oppressor nation workers. 

MIM favors having the imperialist countries pay the Third 
World for the right to emit greenhouse gasses. If there is a 
global market for pollution rights created under global 
capitalism, then the Third World should receive 80 percent of the 
pollution rights as the UN has pointed out.(p. 195) Since the 
imperialist countries create 80 percent of greenhouse gas 
pollution, they will have to pay the Third World tremendous sums 
of money to emit greenhouse gasses. Roodman correctly points out 
that the rich countries have it in their self-interest to pay for 
an end to global pollution, because they cannot afford to wait 
until the poor are rich enough to do so themselves.(p. 196)

Unlike the Titoites or anarchists favoring "local control," 
MIM never favors local interests over that of the international 
proletariat. If a small group of workers or petty-bourgeoisie 
benefits from pollution at the expense of the international 
proletariat, like Marx before it, MIM stands with the 
international proletariat against the local interests of the 
workers backing pollution. It is the duty of the communist to 
apply Marxist science and support the interests of the class 
overall and not just any one of its sections. The unions opposing 
greenhouse gas emissions standards discussed at the 1997 Kyoto 
conference are wrong, pure and simple.(p. 230)

Only 1 in 300 German workers are coal-miners and 1 in 25 
workers in the Pacific Northwest of North America make their 
living in mining or lumber.(p. 53) As Spock would say in Star 
Trek, the interests of the few should not outweigh the interests 
of the many. They will not be allowed to under the dictatorship of 
the proletariat.

* * * 

CULTURE AND REVOLUTION

"A BUG'S LIFE" FALLS SHORT, BUT DEMONSTRATES POTENTIAL FOR 
PROLETARIAN ART

by MC206

Disney and Pixar's "A Bug's Life" has as good side and a bad side. 
The good side is that it portrays the successful collective 
struggle of the apparently weak oppressed and exploited (in this 
case, an ant colony) against the apparently strong oppressors and 
exploiters (in this case, a band of grasshoppers). So it could be 
used as a parable about the struggle against u.$. imperialism. The 
bad side is that it never directly ties its oppressors (the 
grasshoppers) to the biggest oppressors in the real world, the 
imperialists. 

Amerikan imperialism has always cloaked itself in the rhetoric of 
freedom and the struggle against oppression, while actually 
denying the broad masses any true freedom and oppressing entire 
peoples around the globe. So very few audiences will recognize 
themselves or their government in the grasshoppers of "A Bug's 
Life" and take home the lesson that they should be fighting 
against Amerikan imperialism. 

Although "A Bug's Life" is obviously fiction and geared for young 
children, it manages to portray many small and large aspects of 
what MIM would call class conflict. The grasshoppers demand 
tribute from the ants crops every year (feudalism); the ants bear 
this tribute because of the armed force of the grasshoppers and 
because of superstition; there is debate among the ants about 
whether to stand up against the grasshoppers at all and, once they 
decide to fight, how to do it; in this debate we see the 
importance both of leadership and of winning over the majority of 
the oppressed; the head grasshopper decides to make an example of 
the one ant with a rebellious attitude; the ants turn their 
seeming tactical weaknesses into strengths and defeat the 
grasshoppers; etc. etc. At the end of the film, we see that 
defeats of the grasshoppers and of superstition have allowed the 
ants to adopt a mechanical method of harvesting grain, leading to 
prosperity.

Art is not the same as science or politics. MIM believes that art 
should popularize scientific truths (and spur scientific thinking) 
using artistic forms. In this sense "A Bug's Life" is a positive 
example for budding proletarian artists, because as outlined above 
it crams so much experience into a short time frame using such 
simple symbolism. But "A Bug's Life" is primarily a negative 
example to budding proletarian artists, because our art should 
take a definite, proletarian class stand. "A Bug's Life" fails to 
do this. It does not connect its abstract condemnation of 
feudalism and exploitation with the concrete reality that u.$. 
imperialism is the main supporter of feudalism and the biggest 
exploiter. Proletarian art can and should be subtle, but not so 
subtle that nobody or only those "in the know" get the point.

Another problem with "A Bug's Life:" It actively works to reduce 
the attention span of those who watch it. This is a problem with 
much modern programming (and modern children's programming in 
particular.) We believe youth can and must concentrate and think 
about issues in depth.

MC234 contributed to this review.

* * *

PATCH ADAMS: INDIVIDUALISM CONFUSES MESSAGE THAT MEDICINE SHOULD 
SERVE THE PEOPLE 

review by MC234

Patch Adams is the most recent Robin Williams movie about a 
suicidal man who learns that he wants to help people by being a 
doctor. While institutionalized, he is offended that his doctor 
doesn't listen to him, and is encouraged by seeing the progress 
other patients make when he listens to them. He attends medical 
school, and challenges the medical establishment, which holds that 
doctors should be distanced from their patients. Patch Adams is 
based on a true story.

Patch is horrified to learn on his first day of medical school 
that he will not even get to see a patient until the 3rd year of 
school. Soon enough, Patch is posing as a 3rd year student to 
follow a doctor on his teaching rounds in the hospital.

Some of Patch's criticisms of how medicine is structured agree 
with the proletarian perspective of medicine. The bourgeoisie puts 
great emphasis on technical training and puts this above common 
sense and contact with the masses. Consistently, Patch Adams makes 
it clear that just because medicine has "always" been conducted 
this way doesn't mean that it always should be. In the film, Patch 
makes great solidarity with the 1970s era nurses, who are 
portrayed as better health care providers because they are not as 
divorced from their patients as the doctors.

Towards the end of the film, Patch Adams faces a medical tribunal 
to appeal his expulsion from medical school for practicing 
medicine without a license. Patch Adams and his friends had been 
operating a free medical clinic. In his own defense, Patch argues 
that since he was helping people, he was practicing medicine. He 
says that since everyone at the clinic helps each other, they are 
all doctors. And because everyone at the clinic is learning and 
healing as a result of other's actions, they are all patients too.

All through the film we were quietly rooting for Patch to take his 
struggle to the masses. And in the final tribunal scene he does. 
Over the loud objections of the tribunal, Patch Adams turns his 
back on the doctors passing judgment to speak to the medical 
students in the balcony. Regardless of the outcome of the 
tribunal, Patch calls on the next generation of doctors, the 
medical students, to serve the people.

While this film makes sharp criticisms of the anti-people medical 
system, the solution it portrays is not only non-revolutionary, 
it's confused and easily misunderstood. Patch Adams is a not good 
doctor because he uses ITAL humor END (as the film implies), but 
because he tries to connect with his patients and concretely apply 
his technical training. Humor is a means to an end, not an end in 
itself. What is important is that medicine, like all skills, be 
used in a way that serves the interests and needs of the people.

Furthermore, for bullshit Hollywood romance and melodrama reasons, 
Patch goes through a whirlwind romance with a womyn who is 
eventually murdered by a suicidal patient. Listening to the little 
girl sitting behind us after the film confirmed our suspicion that 
the real memory this film will leave will be the murder of Patch's 
girlfriend. Instead of encouraging doctors to not put themselves 
above their patients, the film could encourage more fear of those 
labeled mentally ill. 

Finally, Patch Adams latches on to an anti-scientific, 
individualist current in Amerikan society, which believes that 
"positive thinking" alone can cure disease, or vice versa, that 
disease springs from "bad vibes." This outlook is rooted in 
typical Amerikan "I can make it on my own" thinking and is fed by 
a booming industry peddling snake oil treatments and thinly veiled 
religion. It downplays the fact that disease has material reality 
outside of our subjective consciousness. It especially ignores 
that social factors influence death and disease, from exposure to 
toxic waste to the availability of adequate preventative and 
emergency medical care.

In order to make the unfocused ideas of Patch Adams a reality, 
what is needed is a revolution to change the systems of inequality 
in Amerika and around the world. While Patch Adams' free clinic is 
a progressive start, we need a revolution to transform the entire 
system.

MC206 contributed to this review.

* * *

FINANCIAL CRISIS MEANS LESS MONEY FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES

By MC12

One of the perennial problems of Third World economies is what's 
called the declining terms of trade. Over time, the prices for the 
products they export tend to fall relative to the prices of the 
things they need to import. Since their economies are not self-
reliant, they have no choice but to engage in this trade to the 
benefit of the imperialists.

In the last year, there has been a lot of talk about the drop in 
the value of major Third World currencies. It's hard to grasp what 
this really means, so here we'll give one kind of example.

When the value of the local currency falls -- for example, what's 
happened with Brazil's currency recently, and very drastically 
with some Asian currencies in the last year or two -- the price of 
that country's exports is lowered for foreigners. If someone wants 
to use U$ dollars to buy coffee from a Third World country, the 
same number of dollars will buy more coffee after the local 
currency falls.

The Commodities Research Bureau (CRB) tracks a "futures index," 
which is used to compare the prices of major commodities over 
time.(1) In the last year, as Third World currencies have fallen 
compared to the dollar, their products have become cheaper for 
foreigners. Thus the overall CRB index has dropped 19% in the year 
ending January 27. That index reflects different commodity groups, 
which have individually dropped significantly, including grains (-
22%), livestock and meats (-14%), and energy (-26%). That means 
that the same exploited and superexploited Third World workers, 
doing the same work and producing the same amount of their 
products, bring in that much less than they did a year earlier.

This drop in prices hurts some Amerikan industries, such as 
farmers, who get less for their crops, leading to layoffs at giant 
agricultural firms like Cargill, and fewer tractor sales for John 
Deere.(2) But the real victims are in the Third World economies, 
which get less and less for their exports. That means that the 
governments have to spend greater and greater proportions of their 
precious U$ dollars to pay their foreign debts (which are in 
dollars, not in local currency). And it means that local producers 
and companies get smaller profits, and pay their workers less in 
real terms.

And it means cheaper and cheaper commodities for the parasitic 
imperialist countries and their fat and lazy labor aristocracies. 
"Only 22 percent of U.S. adults are currently active enough to 
derive the health benefits attained with physical activity," 
according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.(3)

Notes: 
1. Bridge Commodity Research Bureau information from 
http://www.crbindex.com/crbindex/index.htm. 
2. New York Times, 27 January 1999, p. C1. 
3. Journal of the American Medical Association, 27 January 1999. 
See www.ama-assn.org/sci- pubs/sci-news/1999/