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 182                     MARCH 15, 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.  FOUR NYPD PIGS MURDER UNARMED AFRICAN IMMIGRANT
2.  LETTERS
3.  MICHIGAN STUDENT GOVERNMENT SIDES WITH IRAQI PEOPLE AGAINST    
    AMERIKA
4.  RAIL ARGUES WITH PACIFISTS ON IRAQ
5.  NEW ECONOMIC REPORT FEEDS MIM ANALYSIS
6.  PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENTALISTS CALL FOR BAN OF MIM
7.  GREETINGS TO MAURITIUS COMRADES
8.  GREETINGS FROM REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST YOUTH
9.  EAST TIMOR FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES
10. NEW PHILIPPINES PUPPET REGIME CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
11. PUERTO RICO: ONGOING STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIALISM
12. REVIEW: INDIVIDUALIST APPROACH SINKS REFORMIST FEMINISM
13. RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IS LATEST CASUALTY
14. MUMIA BENEFIT SENDS MIXED MESSAGE TO MIXED CROWD
15. UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND FROM PRISONERS

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


* * *



FOUR NYPD PIGS MURDER UNARMED AFRICAN IMMIGRANT

by MC234

On February 4, four plainclothes New York Police fired 41 shots at 
a West African immigrant street peddler standing in his doorway. 
Amadou Diallo was hit 19 times and died instantly. No gun was 
found.(1)

The swine aren't talking and were the only witnesses so it's 
unclear exactly what happened. It appears that the pigs say Diallo 
looked suspicious (read: African) and was entering his apartment 
with a hand in his pocket reaching for keys. The pigs left their 
car, came up behind him and shouted in English for Diallo to 
freeze. They say Diallo didn't freeze so they killed him. Even if 
their self-corroborating story is true (and it's probably about as 
pro-police as any story that could be told at this point) there 
are clearly better ways for police to approach a suspect where 41 
bullets wouldn't erupt.

Less than a week later, Pig Commissioner Howard Safir announced a 
switch by N.Y. Pigs to hollow-point bullets. These bullets, which 
are banned by the Geneva Convention for use in war, expand on 
impact and cause more bodily injury. Pigs like the bullets because 
they "stop" the victim sooner and require less bullets. But dead 
is dead, as many victims of white Amerikkka's war against the 
oppressed Black nation can attest, including Amadou Diallo.(2)

The bullets are already in used in most other major cities of the 
u.$. empire, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, San 
Francisco, Honolulu and by the FBI and the U.$. Marshall 
Service.(2)

The swines responsible are part of the elite Street Crime Unit, 
publicly charged with seizing guns. The NYPD overall are 13% Black 
and 17% "Hispanic," but this elite unit is only about 10% 
oppressed nations and national minorities, with only a handful of 
Black comprador troops.(3) All four of the white pigs responsible 
for shooting Dallio were from elsewhere in New York City. At 23%, 
the Bronx has the smallest percentage of white people in the 
city.(8)

The Street Crime Unit is known for its aggressive tactics. Former 
members of the unit described their tactics in the early 1980s to 
the New York Post. The Unit would "toss every mother-----r in 
sight" for a search, and make bogus 911 calls about armed 
individuals matching the description of any who complained. 
According to the ex-swine, the tactics have since been toned down, 
but clearly not enough for Amadou Diallo.(3)

According to official numbers, the relatively small unit stopped 
and frisked 45,000 people in 1997 and 1998.(4)

Official condemnation of Officers Sean Carroll, Edward McMellon, 
Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy has been slow in coming. They are 
no longer on the streets, but still working in administrative 
duties. It's unclear exactly why the pigs aren't talking. Mayor 
Giuliani says the pigs were invoking the "48 hours rule" which 
gives pigs two business days to consult with their union lawyers. 
But police investigators say that the Bronx District Attorney 
asked them not to talk to the officers. Apparently, this is common 
practice in police shootings. Regardless of which reason is at 
play here, all can only serve to give them time to concoct cover 
stories, although they can be disciplined for permanently refusing 
to answer questions.(7)

When the tables are reversed, no such courtesies are extended. For 
example, when Mumia Abu Jamal was arrested for allegedly shooting 
Pig Daniel Faulkner in Philadelphia, Mumia was driven around in 
the ambulance in the hopes he would die and also beaten in the 
hopes of killing him if they couldn't elicit a confession.

Under socialism, the police will be held to a higher standard than 
the general public. Such "union rules" won't exist, and "Fifth 
Amendment" rights won't apply at all to government officials. This 
is important in order to gain and maintain the trust of the 
masses.

The top swines responsible for overseeing the colonization of 
oppressed nations and national minorities in New York City are 
trying to play both sides. They try and protect their murderous 
soldiers, while also co-opting or defusing the movement to condemn 
extra-judicial murder by police. Giuliani and Safir made an 
appearance at the memorial service for Diallo, but were jeered by 
the masses.(5) 

Diallo's family has no attention of being manipulated by two-faced 
Giuliani, repeatedly refusing to meet with him until the pigs 
responsible are arrested or suspended.(6) It is correct to avoid 
such treachery. 

Only when the people of the oppressed nations themselves control 
their territory and police will policy brutality and murder end.

Notes: 

1. New York Post 6 Feb 99, p. 2.
2. New York Post 14 Feb 99, p. 2.
3. New York Post 14 Feb 99, p. 3.
4. New York Post 6 Feb 99, p. 4.
5. New York Post 13 Feb 99, p. 2
6. New York Post 14 Feb 99. p. 4
7. New York Times 5 Feb 99, p. A25 
8. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Summary Tape File 3A tables 
(www.census.gov).

* * *

LETTERS

MIM too tame?

Dear Maoists,

You, my friends, are heading in the right direction. Why, I 
wonder, are you so tame? You know the truth, yet you hedge. I 
mean, take your December 15 issue, for example. I perused your 
article on the School of Assassins, which, I was pleased to note 
was front page and left set. That us where it should be in every 
fucking paper in America. But, that won't happen. Not yet, and 
probably, not for quite a while. Not in every paper, anyway. The 
papers that count? Well, that's another story.

Take the New York Times, for example. Some years ago, 1993 I 
believe, November 18 to be exact, they published an article on 
Canada's payment on behalf of the Bay of Pigs. Oops! Did I say 
that? What kind of Freudian slip was that? Maybe it had something 
to do with the fact that the CIA funded the invasion of the Bay of 
Pigs back in 1961, assassinated Kennedy, and his brother, and then 
assassinated Dag Hammerskjold. No that came first. They 
assassinated him in 1960 or 1961? I'm not sure which. So why, I 
ask you, didn't you mention the CIA assholes in your article?

--A reader from the northwest

MIM responds: First, you are right that MIM Notes prints news the 
New York Times didn't see fit to print. We continually stress the 
importance of independent, party-led media. On the one hand, 
imperialist mouthpieces won't print the facts which expose the 
crimes of u.$. imperialism. On the other hand, we need to have a 
forum where we can discuss the issues which affect the proletariat 
the most with a proletarian perspective, instead of having to 
address the bourgeois media on its own terms. For example, as we 
discussed in a recent article ("Mumia case proves need for 
independent media," MN178), it is important to show that Mumia 
Abu-Jamal received an unfair trial even by bourgeois standards, 
but we also need to be able to talk about how cops occupy Black 
communities like a foreign army occupies territory.

Second, we are not quite sure what you mean when you say that MIM 
Notes "hedges." Because we failed to mention CIA machinations? 
Consistent readers of MIM Notes that we have not shied away from 
exposing the CIA's crimes. MIM Notes 180 carried an article on 
exactly this topic. As far as the assassination of the Kennedys, 
MIM Notes does not report on this because we honestly do not know 
what to make of it. It appears to be a case of intra-bourgeois 
rivalry, but we do not know what the basis of that rivalry was or 
who actually committed the deeds, and (most importantly) we do not 
know how we can take advantage of this intra-bourgeois conflict. 
Of course, we do know that the CIA was involved in overthrowing 
the Arbenz government in Guatemala, overthrowing the Allende 
government in Chile, the Bay of Pigs adventure, etc. etc. etc. 
These actions are clear evidence of the CIA's main task as a tool 
of violence and repression against those who would go against the 
wishes of the u.$. imperialists.

On Mumia and Iraq

Dear MIM,

Just a couple of questions.

1. Your January 15 issue criticizes Mumia's jury as not one of his 
peers. What would be? Am I to infer a panel of similar activists, 
or is this a racial question?

Would you accept a panel including Supreme Court Justice Clarence 
Thomas, Actor Denzel Washington, University of California Regent 
Ward Connerly, Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, Detroit 
Mayor Dennis Archer, and others, or must they be black, 
revolutionary activists? Should a crooked Wall Street stockbroker 
be entitled to a jury of his peers? If not, why not?

2. Regarding Iraq. Do you bestow your benevolent support upon 
Hussein? Does he pursue the type of socio-political structure that 
you espouse? Do you want continued use on his part of chemical 
weapons, thus legitimizing such use for the next guy? Don't forget 
he gassed Iran and some Iraqi Kurds. Why don't you call for 
Hussein to abandon his weapons of mass destruction so the 
sanctions will be lifted? Doesn't it bother you that he spent so 
much on his military, and not so much on food?

--a reader February, 1999

MIM responds: On the question of Mumia: Our definition of peer is 
a nation/class definition, not a "racial" one. So, no, Clarence 
Thomas and them wouldn't cut it. The whole bourgeois democratic 
concept of a jury of one's peers assumes a false sense of equality 
that isn't present in imperialist, capitalist Amerika. The Black 
nation is an internal colony of the United Snakes; the concept of 
peer doesn't really apply between nations under that system of 
hierarchy and domination. Mumia's peers are other oppressed 
nationals, and were not sufficiently represented on the jury that 
convicted him. As for a Wall St. stockbroker, his or her peers are 
the ruling class and the judicial establishment; the police are 
his or her police. We don't think such a persyn needs a 
proletarian internationalist communist party to advocate on his or 
her behalf in the bourgeois courts.

On the question of Iraq: Internal oppression has always been the 
rhetorical justification for imperialists invading, bombing, 
taking over and dominating oppressed nations. "But he bombs his 
'own' people!," they cry. "They need us!" MIM is most concerned 
with the principal contradiction: imperialism vs. oppressed 
nations. The worst harm to the Iraqi people since 1991 has 
undeniably come from the United Snakes, not Saddam Hussein. This 
is not an endorsement of Hussein, but neither will we get sucked 
into a debate of his regime that frames the issue on imperialist 
terms.

* * *

MICHIGAN STUDENT GOVERNMENT SIDES WITH IRAQI PEOPLE AGAINST 
AMERIKA

At the end of January, the University of Michigan Student Assembly 
(MSA) student government passed a resolution to support lifting 
u.$. sanctions against Iraq. The resolution passed by a vote of 
11-10, from which eight representatives, including the MSA 
president abstained. The president explained his abstention saying 
that "it takes a lot longer [than a two-hour debate] to make sure 
we are doing the right thing." But he had already attacked the 
resolution before the official debate began, questioning the 
relevance of a resolution on u.$. sanctions against Iraq to the 
student government. 

MIM supports the demands of students who have recognized that for 
as long as we live within u.$. borders we are responsible for 
opposing Amerikan aggression against other nations. The MSA and 
other student governments should attack their government's 
imperialist actions for several reasons: as youth, they can more 
clearly see the wasteful brutality of embargoing basic necessities 
from an entire nation; and as students they must understand that 
shrinking educational budgets are directly affected by increased 
military spending to enforce this embargo. 

The MSA resolution fails in one major area, by supporting some 
continued actions against Iraq while calling for the end of 
others. The resolution both allows that special conditions should 
be made for "military technology and machinery," and vilifies 
Saddam Hussein as "an unelected dictator." MIM argues that once 
activists have recognized that sanctions on food, medicine and 
commerce generally are a brutal violation of human rights, they 
should not recognize the authority of a government that supports 
such brutality to enforce any restrictions on another. 

The anti-sanctions resolution was brought to MSA by members of the 
Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and Prevent -- 
the campus anti-war-on-Iraq group. Members of these same 
progressive organizations lobbied the MSA to pass the resolution. 
The party in the MSA with the votes to get the anti-sanctions 
resolution passed was the so-called Defend Affirmative Action 
Party (DAAP). This group is connected to the Coalition to Defend 
Affirmative Action by Any Means Necessary (BAMN) -- a front-group 
of the Revolutionary Workers League (RWL), a Trotskyist party. 

BAMN and its covert RWL leadership do sometimes voice support for 
progressive causes. Like other phony communist parties and their 
front groups, the RWL/BAMN latches onto certain progressive 
struggles in limited ways as a means of gaining support for their 
organizations. The RWL/BAMN support for affirmative action however 
-- as for an end to sanctions against Iraq and reduced police 
activity in Ann Arbor -- is deceptive. These phony communists 
agitate around progressive causes but in ways that champion the 
interests of the middle classes (including the working-class labor 
aristocracy) instead of the interests of the most oppressed. 

While it is fine for middle class organizations to openly gather 
support for their own class, any organization that claims 
communism is claiming to work in the interests of the 
international proletariat. The phony communists, or revisionists, 
are enemies of the most oppressed because they split progressive 
forces from proletarian interests while pretending to champion 
them. In the example of the MSA resolution, the DAAP/BAMN/RWL 
supports military and technological sanctions against Iraq. This 
is an abhorrent position to any genuine communist party. No true 
ally of the international proletariat should support the largest 
imperialist power in the world to continue its control of an 
oppressed nation's ability to sustain hospitals, transportation or 
national defense. While MIM does not uphold Iraq as a proletarian 
socialist state, we reject any u.$. claim to determine that 
nation's destiny.

MIM looks to see more campus governments taking a stance against 
u.$. military actions, as the number of students recognizing the 
direct contradiction between public education and military 
spending grows. We further urge the students to directly promote 
the interests of education against the interests of increased 
militarism.

Just as universities are being pitted against prisons in u.$. 
government budgets, Amerika must choose between spending more 
money on military actions overseas or spending more money 
educating its youth. The laissez-faire Liberals and right-wingers 
try to will this contradiction out of existence by arguing that 
MSA's place is governing the student body and advocating its 
narrow interests. The reactionary campus paper, the Michigan 
Review, wrote in response to the MSA resolution that "MSA should 
mediate between the student body and University administrators, 
and represent the student body at certain inter-collegiate 
conventions." But wishing will not divide education policy and 
spending from military policy and spending. Advocating for 
students includes opposing militarism and prisons because military 
jobs, imprisonment and education are all in competition for their 
claim on young adults' lives.

The Michigan Review should in fact support the lifting of 
sanctions rather than ridiculing MSA for spending two hours 
discussing them. Side by side with its editorial opposing the MSA 
resolution, the Review ran an editorial opposing "Big Government," 
decrying the new u.s. Federal budget that "places the hand of 
Washington everywhere." If the conservatives want to be 
consistent, they should join MSA in arguing for Washington to get 
its hands off Iraq. Surely a two-hour debate among University of 
Michigan student representatives is less a drain on the taxpayers 
whose cause the Review champions than an eight-year war by 
starvation and now almost daily bombings waged against the Iraqi 
people.

While people going to college are generally the petty-bourgeoisie 
and not the proletariat, MIM supports the demands of college 
students for more attention to education in arguments like that in 
the MSA over sanctions. In general, MIM does not rally round the 
demands of the privileged classes within the imperialist nations, 
because usually these demands come at the expense of the 
international proletariat. But it is better for the petty-
bourgeoisie to go to college than for the military to bomb and 
enforce sanctions against Iraq. If the college students can 
successfully pit their own interests against the interests of u.$. 
militarism, then they are acting as true allies of the Iraqi 
people.

Sources: Michigan Daily, 27 January 1999; Michigan Review, 10 
February, 1999. 

* * *

RAIL ARGUES WITH PACIFISTS ON IRAQ

This letter was sent from RAIL to a local pacifist organization 
which is not named here. The arguments are pretty general, so MIM 
prints it here to inform others having similar debates. --ed.

Dear [pacifist organization],

From last week's Iraq vigil, I went home with a flyer bearing 
[your] name. I didn't read it at the time and don't remember from 
whom I got it. I was surprised to see [your] name and this text:

"This [sanctions] is not foreign policy.

"Sanctions do nothing to hurt Sadaam Hussein. The Iraqi people 
suffer because of both the US/UN policy and because of Sadaam."

Is this flyer really from [you]? If you need it, I can make a copy 
of the whole thing for you.

First, sanctions most definitely are U.$. foreign policy. Killing 
people to make a buck has been the Amerikan way for hundreds of 
years. We can disagree as to whether that aspect can be removed 
without destroying the whole Amerikan system, but I know from 
observing [your organization's] work over the years that we agree 
that genocide is a common occurrence. 

Secondly, demonizing Saddam Hussein serves U.$. interests and not 
those of the Iraqi people. The United Snakes is at war with the 
people of Iraq and its leadership. In order to personalize that 
conflict, Hussein is the only leader in the world commonly 
referred to by politicians and the more jingoist newspapers by his 
first name. The reactionary propagandists theorize that this will 
make building support for war easier. Why does [your organization] 
join in this trend?

The question of Saddam Hussein's leadership in Iraq is a 
complicated one. There is a very real reason the millions of 
people in the Middle East support Hussein, at least compared to 
the support they show towards their own lackey governments. Sure, 
I'd like to see the exploited workers and peasants of Iraq control 
the country, but no more so than I'd like to see that in any other 
country including this one.

Singling out Hussein for special criticism is inappropriate and 
helps to build public support for more U.$. interference in the 
internal affairs of Iraq. The U.$./U.N. makes many charges against 
Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Some of them are true, but every single 
one of them are things that are done in far greater fashion by the 
United States. I know that [your organization] knows the facts 
about who really uses chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, 
for example.

We agree that sanctions are a weapon that only effects the people 
on the bottom of the targeted society. But would [you] would 
support CIA assassinations of Hussein, or the bombing of purely 
military facilities, or any of a myriad of other interventions in 
Iraq? From your past practice I know this not to be the case, but 
your flyer ends up supporting these very common -- and very 
dangerous ideas.

In struggle,

RAIL

* * *

NEW ECONOMIC REPORT FEEDS MIM ANALYSIS

The 1999 Economic Report of the President, released February 4, is 
an annual report with use to communist political economists. Here 
MIM touches on three sets of findings in the report. This U.S. 
Government book is available many places, but one is on the 
Internet at http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/catalog/erp99.html. --ed

U.$. profits up

Data finalized for 1997 show that 1997 was a record year for 
profits and that 1998 -- for which not all data is in yet -- looks 
to be similar based on the first three quarters of the year.

After adjustments for inventory valuation fluctuations and capital 
consumption, corporate profits after taxes in 1997 were $572 
billion, of which $275 billion were distributed as dividends and 
$297 billion were kept on hand in the corporations.

In 1997, the manufacturing sector earned $214 billion and private 
sector banks received $107 billion -- both of which are figures 
not counting capital consumption. A small annoyance for us 
Marxists is that the figures show $23.3 billion for the Federal 
Reserve Bank, which is an accounting device of not much interest 
to ordinary people or Marxist scientists.

Nonetheless, whenever we use imperialist government statistics we 
can only use them to get a rough idea of something and we need to 
cross-check them with other statistics. U.$. profit statistics in 
general MIM has cross-checked before, and since we have no better 
accounting to offer our readers, we present them with this 
information.

Profits from abroad totaled $99 billion in 1997.

In 1990 the Consumer Price Index (a marker of inflation) by one 
calculation stood at 130.7 and in 1997 it was 160.5 -- a less than 
30% growth. Meanwhile, in the same time, profits with inventory 
and capital consumption adjustments but before taxes more than 
doubled from $397 billion to $818 billion.

For MIM, the $572 billion is an important figure in the question 
of whether or not it can be said that oppressor nation workers are 
exploited. We have shown elsewhere and by numerous accountings 
that there is no way that such a figure can be construed to mean 
that oppressor nation workers are exploited, given the 
contributions of foreign workers, immigrants and internal semi-
colony workers to profits (see MIM Theory 10, for example).

There is as yet not a single organization in the imperialist 
countries that has attempted to refute our proofs, which to MIM is 
an indication of the low level of scientific struggle going on in 
the imperialist country so-called communist movement. It is not 
surprising that the growth of super-profits has itself 
extinguished discussion of super-profits in the imperialist 
countries. The representatives of the petty-bourgeoisie do not 
like to talk about the sources of their gravy.

Between 1990 and 1997, inflation was low and productivity growth 
was anemic. However, trade with the non-OPEC (oil producing) Third 
World grew to rival that with the other industrialized countries. 
Such imports were $159 billion in 1990 but grew to be $347 billion 
in 1997. Meanwhile, trade with the industrialized countries was 
$387 billion in 1997.

Ignorant critics of the MIM line believe that imperialist country 
trade with the Third World is insignificant. These critics are 
both out-of-date and theoretically stunted. Trade with the Third 
World allows for a "transfer of surplus-value from the Third World 
productive sector to the imperialist country unproductive sector" 
to use precise Marxist scientific language. 

It is this transfer of surplus-value -- especially thanks to the 
former leader Deng Xiaoping in China -- that is responsible for 
the doubling of profits in less than seven years. Although 
inflation in the imperialist countries must be accounted for, 
productivity growth and greater employment in the imperialist 
countries are not significant contributors to profit growth. 
Indeed, so called productivity figures for U.$. workers mask the 
transfer of gravy from the Third World. Profit growth in the U$A 
reflects the growth of super-profits thanks to global conditions 
of the class struggle in the Third World. 

Labor aristocracy owns more and more bonds

In September, 1998, the whole world of investors that were not 
federal governments combined held $3.3 trillion in U.S. government 
bonds. One might be surprised to learn that of that only $260 
billion was held by U.$. commercial banks. Interest from these 
bonds would be reported as profits after expenses. 

The total of bonds held by individuals was $352 billion, of which 
we can say based on previous studies half is probably owned by the 
capitalist class. The rest goes to the petty-bourgeoisie. A persyn 
who owns enough bonds can afford not to work. Such a persyn is a 
capitalist -- the ultimate in parasitism.

Dwarfing the U.$. banks and individual investors are various 
international investors, coming in at $1.2 trillion. MIM does not 
have a class breakdown on these investors, such as what percentage 
is owned by the Japanese labor aristocracy in pensions and life 
insurance; however, the second biggest source of investment is not 
the corporations, at $271 billion, but the state and local 
governments at $469 billion in September 1998.

State and local governments hold money in bonds for the pensions 
of workers and sometimes for short-term accounting reasons. In any 
case, there is no escaping that the principal beneficiary of the 
interest from such bonds is the labor aristocracy and not the 
capitalist class.

Non-U.$. imperialists invest more in U$

Foreign investors continue to invest in the United $tates faster 
than the United $tates invests abroad. As a result, the net 
investment position of U$A crossed the negative trillion dollar 
mark in 1997 and nearly doubled in one year. 

The market value of investments in the U$A made by foreigners was 
$167 billion more than what U$ investors held abroad in 1990. In 
1996, the net figure was negative $744 billion and in 1997 it was 
negative $1.3 trillion.

With the collapse of the Soviet social-imperialist bloc, U$ 
imperialism imposed its unipolar will on the world. The carrot it 
is currently offering to other junior imperialists is the chance 
to invest in the U$A. Any superprofit gravy that the U$A cooks up 
in the Third World, the other imperialists are being allowed to 
share.

Occasionally we see in the newspapers nationalist alarm that this 
is being allowed to happen. The idea that the United $tates is 
being sold to other countries alarms the nationalists.

One thing to watch for is the move to ice the Chinese capitalists 
out of business. Ultra-right organizations on the Internet are 
arguing Clinton should be impeached for allowing the People's 
Republic of China to buy ports and industrial complexes on the 
West Coast. The noise about Clinton's campaign funding from 
Indonesians and Chinese is related. However, thus far, the 
internationalist bourgeoisie in control of the government has 
managed to squelch these nationalist noises and prevent their 
becoming policy.

We Leninists must admit that the current situation of cross-
national investment by imperialists is a new twist of great 
significance in the current situation of inter-imperialist 
rivalry. In the past when a mother country owned colonies it kept 
other colonial powers iced out of the action. In other situations, 
blocs of countries would ice each other out while favoring 
countries within the bloc.

Today, there is still trade bloc maneuvering of a very intensive 
sort. However, in the sense of profits, the intensity of conflict 
amongst the imperialists is receding. There is only one 
imperialist bloc at the moment. All imperialists invest in the U$A 
if they want to.

* * *

PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENTALISTS CALL FOR BAN OF MIM

In mid-February, critics called for a ban of MIM from 
alt.politics.greens, an Internet newsgroup. The call came after 
posting of MIM articles titled "Earth First! martyr died for 
environment, proletariat," and a review of "The Natural Wealth of 
Nations: Harnessing the Market for the Environment."

On February 15, a writer responded to the following quote: "Fox 
News is nothing more than a mouthpeice for the extreme right wing 
in. . . This [newsgroup] is just a mechanism for MIM propaganda. 
Please ask MIM to start alt.policics.propaganda. Yet, if all of us 
do this, it will still make no impact." It was a sarcastic comment 
paralleling a call for a boycott of Fox News.

Raising the charter, one writer actually thought it could be used 
to ban MIM. The critic said:

"Actually, alt.politics.greens has a specific charter. The 
following message created the group, in December 1992:

'This newsgroup is a forum for matters pertaining to Green 
movements worldwide. This includes the Green parties of various 
countries and localities, as well as less formally organized 
alliances and movements. This newsgroup was proposed and discussed 
in alt.config and other relevant forums. The newsgroup name 
proposed was "alt.politics.green-party," but a number of 
correspondents suggested "alt.politics.greens," which is more 
inclusive and is a more elegant name. <_Jym_>'

"In retrospect, 'alt.politics.green-party' would have been a 
better name. Folks who don't know what Green politics is about 
often mistake a.p.g for talk.environment or 
alt.politics.liberalism.

"Now, as I understand Mao, it is a central tenet of 'Maoism' that 
armed insurrection and revolution are a necessary step along the 
road to social justice. Greens reject violence as a means to 
achieve the social changes that will achieve the situation 
described in, for example, the United Nations Universal 
Declaration on Human Rights. We believe violence is both unethical 
and extremely unlikely to succeed. (Personally, I think it's just 
another failed "quick fix" approach to a problem with no simple, 
easy solution. I've been an engineer for twenty years, and all my 
experience says quick fixes never work.) Instead, Greens work for 
social change through the democratic process, nonviolent civil 
disobedience, and educational outreach.

"Therefore, IMHO 'Maoism' (both advocacy and denunciation) are 
pretty much off charter here."

Apparently the writer did not notice that the charter was 
specifically written to include discussion with people not 
agreeing with every single Green Party platform plank. Meanwhile, 
lengthy discussions of "conservatism" and subjects not about the 
environment pervade the newsgroup, but MIM is the only group being 
suggested for a ban. 

On February 17, 1999, out of 85 posted articles, exactly three 
were by MIM. Another eight were responses to MIM articles. None of 
the eight responses were by MIM or MIM allies. Such vicious and 
disproportionate anti-communism as expressed above is rooted in 
the middle-class nature of society, and the labor aristocracy's 
alliance with imperialism in particular.

Articles not posted by MIM included "Secret Clinton rape 
evidence."

Calling us "crazies" who "subvert" the green movement, an author 
of the Young People's Socialist League said nonetheless that we 
should not be banned. The critic who said we are "off-charter" is 
an engineer who owns a large part of the computer administration 
for the Green parties -- judi.greens.org and petra.greens.org.

MIM's reply to the newsgroup is excerpted below: "This is a 
distortion of Maoism: We are for continuous revolution, not 'quick 
fixes.' To us, it is you who are likely proposing the 'quick fix' 
without a thorough mechanism of change. 

"Mao's revolution was literally fought over 20 years to get to 
power. And the process of 'Cultural Revolution' was another 10 by 
itself when it was proposed that we needed 'continuous 
revolution.' . . .

"Was our first post discussing the Green Party platform 'off-
charter' because we disagreed with one or two planks? Are you 
going to tell me everyone who is a Green Party supporter believes 
in all of the planks? 

"We probably have higher unity with the Green Party platform than 
the average poster on this list. Don't think I didn't notice all 
the stuff about conservatism, impeachment, etc. Regardless, the 
charter explicitly rejects that this is a group for the Green 
Party only, however that is certified." 

  * * *

GREETINGS TO MAURITIUS COMRADES

MIM sent the following greetings to the Socialist Workers Party 
(SWP) of Mauritius for their Congress of February 20, 1999. The 
Socialist Workers Party there is unconnected to the Trotskyist and 
neo-Trotskyist parties of the same name in the imperialist 
countries. --ed.

Comrades of the SWP of Mauritius: We send you greetings for your 
February 1999 Congress.

We are delighted to introduce ourselves to any organization from 
the oppressed nations upholding Marx, Lenin and Stalin. In fact, 
we share with you a history of forming in separation from 
Trotskyism and crypto-Trotskyism.

In the world today, the most successful communist parties are 
those waging Maoist People's War in Peru, the Philippines, Nepal, 
India and Bangladesh. Nonetheless, in every country there is a 
most advanced element -- not just in those countries with People's 
Wars going on.

There is never an excuse not to work with the most advanced 
element (vanguard) in the country one is in. Thus we are glad you 
have formed a place to separate from social-democracy and 
Trotskyism -- a place where the advanced may congregate and 
struggle with each other.

In the imperialist countries our movement has produced no 
revolutions since 1917, but still there is a most advanced element 
even in countries with weak or non-existent communist parties. We 
should in each country start from the material position we are in 
and not wait for communism to drop from heaven. This requires that 
we make concrete analyses of our own conditions. 

In addition, we have a duty to cast our scientific eye on the 
facts of the whole world. There are at least three reasons. One is 
to know the international situation affecting our own revolutions. 
Two is to build for harmonious international relations by 
understanding other peoples and their struggles. Three is that 
there has now been socialist experience. Surely if we cannot agree 
on whether something is socialist in practice we have no chance of 
building it from thin air. 

The collapse of the Soviet bloc is an important lesson paid for 
with blood. The key to the collapse was internal to the so-called 
communist parties of those countries. It was the bourgeoisie in 
the party that restored capitalism, not imperialist invasion or 
old landlord classes.

In the international communist movement's history, it was only Mao 
who told us we would have to overthrow "the Khruschevs nestling 
beside us" in the communist party. Toward this end he implemented 
a new form of struggle called the Cultural Revolution and he 
considered it one of his two great achievements along with the 
national liberation of China.

True, Mao's successors and the practitioner-leaders of the 
Cultural Revolution called the "Gang of Four" and others did not 
enjoy Mao's own immense prestige at the time of the 1949 
revolution. Popularity or not though, there is never an excuse not 
to recognize the most advanced political leaders in any situation 
and failing to do so only leaves an even greater opening to 
reaction, often through the error of liquidationism.

Already by the early 1960s, Yeltsin was a regional party leader, 
but revisionists all lined up to attack Mao one-by-one for his 
thesis on the bourgeoisie in the party. We must say frankly that 
Castro was one, and we find it puzzling to see a party uphold 
Stalin and Mao while upholding Castro who never hid his admiration 
for Khruschev. We urge you not to mention Castro and Mao in the 
same breath. We hope you will take up this question with us as 
well as the question of Che and Ho, whom we regard as more 
progressive.

We hope you will agree with us that in our day, there can be no 
downplaying the "bourgeoisie in the party" thesis and the Cultural 
Revolution in China. The masses would be right not to trust any 
communist party that could not admit the history of our movement 
including its dastardly betrayal by the likes of Khruschev, 
Brezhnev, Alia, Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Castro, 
Gorbachev and Yeltsin. When we call on the masses to give their 
blood to fight capitalism, we can do no less.

It's a very unpleasant duty to admit to capitalist restoration by 
the bourgeoisie in the party in Albania, China, Cuba, Korea, the 
USSR and Vietnam. Yet, how can we ask the masses to trust us if we 
do not clean house?

We call on your Congress to pass resolutions repudiating Castro 
and upholding the Cultural Revolution and the "Gang of Four" 
successors to Mao. The Cultural Revolution occurred almost 
simultaneously with the appearance of a theory for it. A 
generation later it must be us who takes up this theory as Mao's 
successors.

Maoist Internationalist Movement,

February 10, 1999

Note: Speeches of Fidel Castro on the Soviet Union and China may 
be found at 
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5973/leftover.html

* * *

GREETINGS FROM REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST YOUTH

The MIM International Minister apologizes for the mishap that 
delayed publication of this greeting from the Russian comrades 
that was intended for our 1999 Congress Session I, just ended. 
Previously we received greetings from the RYCL(b) Secretary of 
Ideology Oleg Torbasow and the Obninsk All-Union Leninist 
Communist Union of Youth (VLKSM). --ed.

Comrades!

Our organization, Revolution Communist Youth of Ukraine, convey 
the warmest revolutionary greetings to MIM on the occasion your 
Congress! Our best wishes for its success, in your struggle for 
communism.

We want to have contacts with MIM, shall be glad to get your 
publishing editions. In Ukraine we have very small information 
about Mao Tse-tung Thought, Great Proletarian Culture Revolution 
in China, liberation' struggle of Peruvian and Philippines 
fighters, about revolutionary struggle in USA.

Down with imperialism! Long live communism!

-- Bureau of Revolutionary Communist Youth (RCY)

* * *

EAST TIMOR FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE CONTINUES

by MC17

After 23 years of bloody colonialism which included the murder of 
close to one-third of the East Timorese population, Indonesia 
seems to be deciding that this colony, with its population so 
determined to fight for independence, is not worth the trouble. 
Indonesia is moving closer to removing its claws from East Timor 
and granting the country some form of independence.

Indonesian President B. J. Habibie told a business delegation at 
the State Palace: "We don't want to be bothered by East Timor's 
problem anymore by Jan. 1, 2000. We will fully concentrate on the 
interests of our remaining 26 provinces."(1)

Indonesia has taken a strong position against independence for 
East Timor until recently when political uprising within Indonesia 
led to the resignation of the military dictator Suharto. Habibie, 
a former protege of Suharto, stepped in to take over and has been 
plagued by on-going protests as he has made only cosmetic changes 
to the government or military. The internal turmoil in Indonesia 
is clearly a factor in Habibie's move to grant East Timor 
independence.

Indonesia has offered to withdraw from East Timor and declare it 
independent if the East Timorese reject an alternative autonomy 
deal for the half-island territory. The autonomy offer is now the 
subject of U.N.-sponsored negotiations between Indonesia and 
Portugal, East Timor's former colonial master which resulted in a 
plan for an "autonomous Timorese government." Conspicuously absent 
from these U.N. talks on the future of East Timor are 
representatives of East Timor itself.(2) The United Nations never 
recognized the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and still 
considers it territory of Portugal. The fact that the U.N. would 
go to East Timor's former colonial master before talking directly 
to the people of East Timor themselves reveals the imperialist 
mission of the U.N.

East Timor rebel leader Xanana Gusmao was moved on February 10 
from the prison cell he occupied for more than five years to house 
arrest in Jakarta.(3) His transfer was a conciliatory move by 
Indonesia to allow Gusmao a greater role in the independence talks 
and came amid mounting international pressure -- including a call 
by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- on the Jakarta government 
to release him. The Indonesian government condemned Gusmao as a 
common criminal but now acknowledges his role in the talks 
although not recognizing him as a political prisoner.

Another positive result of these U.N. sponsored talks is a move 
towards disarming thousands of militia members working for the 
Indonesian government, which receives significant amounts of 
financing from the U.$., responsible for harsh crackdowns on the 
Timorese people.(4) The Indonesia military currently has over 
10,000 troops in East Timor and has been arming local militias, 
claiming that this is necessary for them to protect themselves 
from pro-independence rebels if Jakarta pulls out of East Timor. 

On January 28th Indonesia announced that it will grant immediate 
independence to East Timor. Shortly afterwards pro-government 
militias armed by the Indonesian military attacked Timorese 
civilians killing at least 30 people and driving more than 6,000 
people into hiding. There have been reports of increased fighting 
between the pro-independence forces and the pro-integration 
militias (armed and financed by Indonesia).(4) While financing and 
instigating the violence, Indonesia is using this violence as an 
excuse to oppose a ballot on the territory's future, saying it 
could spark a civil war. The fact is that the civil war would not 
even be an issue if it were not for the funding and arms provided 
by the Indonesian government.

One proposal being floated at the U.N. negotiations includes a 
U.N. peacekeeping operation in East Timor. The U.$. strongly 
supports this option. This is under the pretext of stopping the 
violence. Indonesia's on-going attacks on the Timorese people are 
paying off in these proposals for a new form of colonialism for 
East Timor. 

Australian Prime Minister John Howard says East Timor could lose 
up to 50% of its gross domestic product if Indonesia grants it 
full independence. Australia has a strong imperialist interest in 
Indonesia and so they oppose Indonesia losing this important 
political and economic colony. The idea that a colony might lose 
financially when given independence is just a myth promoted by the 
imperialists. In fact, capitalism survives by sucking the 
resources from the Third World so that the imperialist countries 
can get rich. This includes the U.$. and Australia, which both 
finance the Indonesian military dictatorship for both strategic 
military as well as economic benefits. In fact, Howard has 
admitted that East Timorese independence would be very expensive 
for Australia.(5)

The United States has sold more than $1.1 billion in weaponry to 
Indonesia since its 1975 invasion of East Timor; the sales have 
gone on in Republican and Democratic administrations alike, 
regardless of the rhetoric espoused by the President at the time. 
According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, from 
1992 to 1994 (the most recent years for which full data is 
available), Indonesia received 53% of its weapons imports from the 
United States.(6)

Some of the East Timorese independence leaders are now saying that 
they are not sure East Timor is prepared for independence. ''We 
have been so focused on raising public awareness about our cause 
that we didn't seriously think about the structure of a 
government,'' said Constancio Pinto. ''This is what we have been 
fighting for, but what happens after independence?''(4) He and 
other independence leaders are now saying that East Timor needs a 
three- to five-year transition period to independence. Even Gusmao 
is suggesting a transition process of one to two years before 
cutting ties, either in the form of an autonomy plan like that 
proposed by Indonesia or by a U.N.-regulated authority.(2)

The result of this lack of preparation for state rule by the 
independence forces in East Timor is an offer from Indonesia to 
help out, but only if the Timorese agree to surrender considerable 
control over police, defense and judiciary. In essence continued 
colonialism in exchange for "help" from Indonesia. 

The failure of the East Timorese independence fighters to build an 
organization that can lead the people to self-sufficiency 
demonstrates the need for a revolutionary party led by the 
proletariat with a firm grounding in history. Communists are not 
wasting our time studying history for fun, we are preparing for 
the day when we take state power so that we can learn from the 
successes and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Fighting for 
independence for 23 years should be more than enough time to 
prepare to take state power and do better than the occupying 
imperialist forces. 

Notes:

1. Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb 12, 1999.
2. Washington Post, February 14, 1999; Page A31
3. Washington Post, February 10, 1999; Page A18.
4. Boston Globe, Feb 7, 1999, p. A3.
5. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sunday 14 February, 1999
6. Web site 
http://amadeus.inesc.pt/~jota/Timor/TimorNews/Mar97/US.arms.transf
ers. to.Indo.I

* * *

NEW PHILIPPINES PUPPET REGIME CONTINUES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Joseph Estrada, the new president of the Philippines, continues 
his predecessors' tradition of using armed force to try to destroy 
the Filipino people's resistance to exploitation and oppression in 
order to serve u.$. military and economic interests. In 
particular, the u.$.-Estrada regime is resurrecting paramilitary 
terror groups in the countryside and flagrantly violating the 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and 
International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), which it signed with 
the revolutionary National Democratic Front (NDF) of the 
Philippines last year.

According to KARAPATAN (a human rights group in the Philippines) 
and the Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace, fanatical 
vigilante groups have been organized in Mindanao by the u.$.-
Estrada regime to quell people's resistance to the entry of big 
business into ancient tribal lands. These paramilitary groups are 
responsible for at least five assassinations, three cases of 
forced evacuation, and two cases of desecration of indigenous 
peoples' sacred ancestral houses. Such terrorist groups -- often 
forcibly recruited from minority groups -- are part of the 
counterinsurgency plan conceived and developed by the Joint US 
Military Advisory Group and the Armed Forces of the Philippines 
(AFP).(1)

In December, only five months into Estrada's tenure, KARAPATAN 
documented the assassinations of four other "leaders of people's 
organizations" by "armed goons and security guards."(2) 
Organizations struggling for true land reform and for workers' 
rights have also been harassed and attacked.

The AFP has itself repeatedly taken part in summary executions and 
"disappearances." On December 7 of last year, Domingo Baluncio, a 
member of the Communist-led New People's Army (NPA), was murdered 
by the AFP while he was wounded and out of combat. Baluncio, also 
known as Ka (comrade) Mel, was wounded in his right side but very 
much alive when the masses brought him to the AFP for treatment. 
The AFP commander denied Baluncio timely treatment and he 
suspiciously died on the way to the next village, barely one 
kilometer away. An autopsy showed that none of Baluncio's internal 
organs had been damaged by the gunshot wound. With prompt medical 
treatment, Baluncio should have survived. The autopsy also found 
numerous severe bruises on his back.

The very next day Danilo Caisip and Jayson Nieva were arrested, 
manacled, and brutally mauled in another village. They were turned 
over to the AFP and have not been heard from since, despite 
repeated attempts of family and friends to locate them.(3)

These acts violate many of the provisions of the CARHRIHL, which 
explicitly forbid "violence to life and person, particularly 
killing and causing injury" towards those "placed hors de combat 
[out of combat] by sickness, wounds, or any other cause." They 
also violate similar provisions in the Geneva Conventions.

In contrast to the AFP, the NPA has released several AFP prisoners 
as gestures of goodwill over the last two years. The prisoners 
were well treated, and were turned over in ceremonies involving 
officials from the NDF and the Manila government.

The human rights records of the Manila government and the NDF 
reflect their respective class positions. From its beginning, the 
Manila government has been a tool of the foreign monopoly 
capitalists and local reactionaries. Earlier presidents suspended 
the writ of habeas corpus (Quirino in 1951); declared martial law 
(Marcos in 1974); launched "total war" in the countryside, leading 
to the displacement of 1.2 million Filipinos from their homes 
(Aquino in the late 1980s); sought to pass legislation which would 
return martial law in practice if not in name (Ramos in the 
1990s); and on and on. The u.$.-Estrada regime is only different 
in that Estrada has openly declared that "national security" is 
his number one priority.

Estrada, who is a former actor, recently used a line from one of 
his tough-guy characters against striking workers: "Don't test my 
patience."

The u.$. army and government has consistently led and advised the 
repressive activities of the Manila government as well. Former 
President Ramon Magsaysay was a CIA asset. The u.$. maintains its 
control of the AFP through the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group, 
joint training exercises, and other military aid.

On the other hand, the NPA is fighting to overthrow the three 
mountains which oppress the vast majority of the people of the 
Philippines: Feudalism, bureaucrat capitalism, and imperialism. 
Led by the Communist Party of the Philippines, the NPA wages a 
protracted people's war, which can only be waged by mobilizing the 
masses and relying on them. Winning the support of the masses both 
a matter of principle -- because people's war is fought by and in 
the interests of the masses -- and a matter of practicality, 
because the support of the majority of the population enables the 
NPA to overcome its technological, numerical, and financial 
inferiority. Signing and upholding the CARHRIHL and the Geneva 
Conventions is just one way the NDF and the NPA demonstrates its 
commitment to the oppressed masses, since many of the members of 
the AFP are also the sons and daughters of workers and peasants.

Notes:

1. Solidaridad, December 1998.
2. "The realities of the human rights situation under the Estrada 
administration," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf/natsi239.htm.
3. "NDFP condemns salvaging of captured NPA guerrilla and other 
GRP violations of human rights and international humanitarian 
law," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf/natsi242.htm; "KARAPATAN: 
Urgent action needed," http://www.geocities.com/~cpp-
ndf/natsi249.htm. 

* * *

PUERTO RICO: ONGOING STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIALISM

by a Pennsylvania prisoner

December 18, 1998

Almighty King love to all my brothers and sisters and much respect 
and my salute to all who fight in the struggle.

I am a Latin King incarcerated by the beast here in Pennsylvania. 
I want to take this moment and drop some knowledge and a piece of 
my mind on the Beloved island Borinquen, which whitey named Puerto 
Rico.

The other night I was watching the news about Borinquen becoming a 
state. Then they showed people in "Puerto Rico" wanting statehood 
and I see that these individuals are blind.

Borinquen was a peaceful Island and the Arawaks were humble 
people. Along came Columbus and his bastard crew and in the name 
of greed and power, killed, raped, robbed and took Borinquen from 
my ancestors. You had the young Indian warrior "Agueybana II the 
Brave" who killed a spaniard and seen with his own eyes that these 
bastards are not God and could die. He took up arms with the 
spanish forces. But it was too late because the spaniards were 
many and they had better weapons. You had "Ramos Emeteria 
Betances" a great revolutionary who wanted neither Spain or the US 
to control Borinquen. You have "Don Pedro Albizo Campos" who did 
all he could for the independence of Borinquen. The government saw 
him as a threat and killed him.

On October 30, 1950, five armed nationalists attacked La 
Fortoleza, the governor's mansion in San Juan. There were already 
bloody uprisings in other towns on the Island. You have Griseleo 
Torresola and Oscar Collayo who tried to kill president Truman in 
Washington.

In 1954, you had Lolita Lebron, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andres 
Fiqueroa Codero and Irving Flores Rodriquez go inside the Congress 
and opened fire on the Yankee imperialist. You have los Macheteros 
who delivered a blow on Munoz airport when the nine national guard 
planes were destroyed. On April 21, 1981, four individuals robbed 
a Well Fargo armored car in Puerto Rico. They escaped with 
$348,000 in cash. Los Macheteros soon announced they would use the 
expropriation for revolution in Puerto Rico.

On May 16, 1982 four United States navy enlisted men assigned to 
the USS Pensacola were attacked while returning to their ship 
which was docked in Old San Juan. On January 25, 1975, an 
explosion occurred at the US courthouse in old San Juan. Los 
Macheteros took credit for it. They did it for the memorial to the 
late Albizo Campos. In 1983, Los Macheteros robbed $7 million from 
a Wells Fargo armored car in Connecticut. The money was used to 
fund their organization and to continue to promote independence in 
the island. When Antonio Camacho Negron was released from 
Whitedeer federal penitentiary in Pennsylvania for the $7 million 
armored car robbery, he said, "I am willing to die for Puerto 
Rico's independence -- to serve as an offering if it is necessary 
for the liberty and dignity of my people."

These are the people who gave their lives and sacrificed 
themselves for the Boriquen. We have to recognize these people. In 
1889, the yankee imperialist invaded Puerto Rico and took it from 
the Spaniard imperialists. 500 years and we and our island are 
still being oppressed by the yankee bastards.

I was born in the united fucking states, but fuck if I am 
American. I am Boriquen and proud of it. This ain't no united 
states. Every state here was taken from the Native Indians. The 
American flag had 13 stars, now it has 51. 51 stars for every 
country they conquered. And if Borinquen becomes the 52nd star, 
then it will be 52 countries the yankee bastards took. If my 
peoples make it statehood, then you have no respect for the ones 
who have sacrificed their lives for your freedom and liberty. For 
my Boriquen peoples, think twice before supporting statehood. If 
it becomes a state, then it will be an open market for many. These 
yankee imperialists do not give a damn about you or me and what 
ever little bit we have will be lost. To the governor of Puerto 
Rico, you are not Boriqua, you are a fucking sell out, sucking up 
to the Yankee Imperialist...

I will end this scribe for now. My King Love to my brothers and 
sisters and a salute to all who fight in the struggle against 
oppression. For my peoples, I will die and for the struggle I will 
die. I am a true revolutionary warrior for the cause. Fuck the 
Yankee imperialist!

MIM responds: We join this comrade in celebrating the 
revolutionary history of Puerto Rico and we add to this list of 
individuals the important legacy of the Young Lords Party which 
furthered the struggle for national liberation and Maoism for 
Puerto Ricans both here within u.s. borders and on the island of 
Puerto Rico.

It is true that statehood for Puerto Rico represents a further 
sell-out of the island's already lacking independence. But it's 
important not to be fooled by the current status of "freely-
associated state," which represents a form of colonialism where 
the u.s. is able to control Puerto Rico without integrating the 
country entirely into the u.s.

Recently Governor Rossello has been hyping a plebiscite or vote on 
the status of Puerto Rico as the "self determination process," 
which allows the people of Puerto Rico to decide what they want. 
But this so-called self determination is not real democracy. It is 
not possible to talk about the Puerto Rican people exercising 
their right to self determination with u.s. troops occupying their 
island and the u.s. government controlling the country.

At this time, the plebiscite simply shows what the Puerto Rican 
people will say with the bribery and arm-twisting of Uncle Sam. 
Only the people themselves in Puerto Rico can establish a true 
plebiscite of the people for self-determination. After a stage of 
revolutionary nationalism, the Puerto Rican people will be able to 
decide their future without the influence of imperialist power. 

Anti-imperialists must use this opportunity to expose the lie of 
self-determination at every turn. We must remain strong in our 
demand for complete u.s. withdrawal from the island of Puerto 
Rico. At the same time we must be honest with the people that a 
Maoist revolution is necessary to achieve true self-determination 
and national liberation. And for this we call on our comrades both 
within u.s. borders and in Puerto Rico to strengthen the Maoist 
pole and build forces as a part of the United Front against 
imperialism led by MIM.

* * *

REVIEW: INDIVIDUALIST APPROACH SINKS REFORMIST FEMINISM

Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law
by Stephen J. Schulhofer
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998
reviewed by MC5

There is so much wrong with this book that it would take another 
book to cover all its political errors and factual distortions. 
Here we will focus on just three areas: communism versus 
reformism, subjectivism and law, and rape as theft.

Communism versus reformism

Schulhofer is familiar with our arguments about gender and we 
would not be surprised to learn that he had read our MIM Theory 
2/3. "If any disparity of economic or social power is sufficient 
to establish coercion, then unacceptable force is pervasive in 
sexual relationships and in all human affairs" (p. 53).

His response to radical and revolutionary feminism is aggressive 
liberal individualist reform. He proposes a huge array of reforms 
to sexual assault law and its interpretation in the United $tates 
-- for everything in every possible individual scenario to be 
argued in court. He acknowledges that men have more power than 
wimmin and talks about this problem -- the problem of starving 
wimmin exchanging sex for humyn needs at one extreme and 
supermodels sleeping with photographers and movie directors at the 
other extreme.

Schulhofer considers but rejects the idea of communism. He 
considers but rejects the idea that the physical act of 
intercourse is itself rape (see Andrea Dworkin) -- with notable 
exceptions discussed later. Furthermore, "if sexual interaction is 
ruled legally out of bounds every time one of the parties has any 
possible source of power over the other, our opportunities to find 
companionship and sexual intimacy will shrink drastically. To 
create a legal barrier to every relationship not formed on the 
purely neutral ground of the singles bar or the church social 
would be pathetic and absurd" (p. 14).

MIM would go further: there are no relationships that escape the 
dynamics of power in our society; yet, as revolutionaries, we do 
not tell the workers simply to give up working. That is not our 
solution. Neither do we think that revolutionary feminism means 
giving up sexual intimacy just because all sex is currently rape. 
Giving up intimacy is a real option for people right now, 
especially in the imperialist countries -- but the only complete 
answer is eliminating the underlying power structure.

The bottom line is that Schulhofer finds it unfortunate that 
starving wimmin with children might need to find a male to 
sexually service to survive, but he concludes there should be 
nothing illegal about that situation, especially in a short-term 
relationship where there is no divorce. In fact, in Schulhofer's 
individualist way of thinking, the use of power by professors 
interfering with wimmin's petty-bourgeois careers is worse than 
the use of food for the starving! (p. 110).

He spends pages and pages talking about various situations in the 
workplace ranging from harassment for sexual favors to bribery of 
superiors by wimmin seeking unjustified promotions -- where there 
are both spoken and unspoken threats and promises. The simple 
solution that exists under socialism -- the guarantee of a job -- 
eliminates the possibility that career power can be used to obtain 
sexual services the way it is now. Also, with the removal of the 
profit motive and the creations of a different socialist ethos, 
the aspiration to "climb the ladder" for persynal benefit will be 
sharply reduced.

Under socialism, there would be no reason a womyn would keep quiet 
about threats for fear of her career, because business will no 
longer be run by private interests. Her job and geographic job 
mobility would be guaranteed no matter what one particular persyn 
thought or wanted. In one swoop of socialism, we eliminate what is 
probably more than a million cases per year in the U$A.

Under communism we would go a step further and eliminate the power 
of people over people completely. That is the simplest and most 
enforceable answer to the sexual harassment in the workplace 
problem.

Subjectivism and the law

Law professor Schulhofer has found a gold mine for attorneys in 
describing how unwanted sex should be tackled -- subjectivism and 
individualism. The backlog of cases he wants to create will fill 
the courts' dockets and lawyers' pockets.

After consciously rejecting simple and revolutionary answers to 
unwanted sex, Schulhofer seeks to refocus the law on consent (p. 
22) and figuring out how to determine if consent is given -- case 
by ponderous case. This means that he wants courts to enter into 
the subjective mind-frame of accuser and accused. The reason he 
gives is that too many rape cases depend on proving the use of 
violence, when there is also non-violent theft -- as when a thief 
sneaks in and out of a house undetected.

Once we accept this premise of Schulhofer, we are free to conclude 
that the same set of actions may result in marriage in one case 
and a rape case in court in another situation. He fully admits: 
"Physically assertive conduct that seems alluring to one woman may 
seem terrifying to another" (p. 49). That is what we mean by 
subjectivism. The fact that Schulhofer wants each case considered 
in all its details demonstrates both the hopeless principle of 
individualist reformism and the nature of legal discourse as 
pornography.

Schulhofer opposes corroboration requirements (medical examination 
or witnesses), which existed in the law until the 1970s, that made 
it impossible for a womyn to convict her rapist based on just her 
word against his (pp. 18, 19, 26). He claims that such did not 
exist in other areas of law; although he never deals with the fact 
that in murders there is usually a dead body or at least testimony 
to its existence by the accused in rare cases. If someone is shot 
dead in most cases it won't be because the victim wanted it. 
Contrary to consistent anti-Liberals like MIM, according to 
Schulhofer's view, most sex is consensual, so he has no business 
drawing an analogy with murder.

In thefts there can be recovery of the wallet. So in sex there is 
no consistent Liberal reason to leave it to the womyn's word in 
court. Apparently Schulhofer believes that a womyn's word may be 
so credible that no reasonable doubt could be raised by a man so 
accused.

Marxists are familiar with such reasoning. Under feudalism in 
Europe, there were many cases where no standard of proof by the 
peasant was sufficient to overturn the word of the lord. This is a 
hypocritical and selective introduction of non-Liberal ideas into 
the court system, ideas that leave 100% discretionary power to the 
ruling class to convict when it sees fit, case by hypocritical 
case. Such discretionary power does not get used to eliminate 
rape. It only gets used to make people think something is done 
about rape when in fact the ruling class has an agenda of using 
rape for oppression.

Some examples of what Schulhofer thought should be counted as 
evidence of force -- the flexing of muscles (p. 76), an 
unspecified threat made after sex (p. 44) and the difference in 
age between a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old (p. 111).

Perhaps the best subjective move made by the courts and backed by 
Schulhofer was to consider the act of penetration itself force 
worthy of conviction. Here is Dworkin being used against one man 
in a New Jersey case of 1992. Schulhofer admits that it was not a 
case where there was any "tearing of tissue, bleeding, or severe 
abrasions"(p. 95). There was no damage. "The requirements for a 
felony conviction -- penetration and physical force -- would be 
met by the physical thrusting involved in every act of mutually 
desired intercourse"(p. 95). He applauds because he believes there 
was no consent, and the law be damned for having to prove force. 
There were many disgusting cases in the book, from both the 
defendant's and the accuser's point of view, but this one may be 
the worst, because it proves that courts will take Dworkin-like 
arguments and apply them only when they feel like it.

A similar case that Schulhofer wanted raised was one involving a 
size differential. He was 6 foot 2 and 185 pounds and she was 5 
foot 2 and 100 pounds. She did not utter any objections (pp. 268-
9). After conviction he only won on appeal. Once again, if size is 
the fact of force, then we have just condemned the vast majority 
of relationships, but the court typically employs this kind of 
reasoning to go after one persyn. In other words, it is yet 
another discretionary tool of the ruling class available at almost 
all times when the court needs it.

Not all lawyers agree with Schulhofer. Michigan tried to get out 
of the interpretation of consent problem, but like others, it 
failed with its legal reform. A law passed that said any 
intercourse that occurred while armed was non-consensual by 
definition. That stood until someone got a life sentence for 
having a gun in his car and having intercourse with a womyn (pp. 
35-6). So then it was back to case-by-case review. For MIM it is 
back to why communism is the only real solution -- an elimination 
of the causes of violence. Individualists have taken on an 
impossible job -- determining individual consent in sexual 
relations case-by-case.

Rape as theft

In arguing for "sexual autonomy" as a humyn right, Schulhofer 
derives much inspiration from looking at sex as a type of 
property. He argues that theft of wallets is more protected 
against by the law than theft of sexual autonomy (p. 13).

MIM considered this idea of rape as theft in place of the idea 
that all sex is rape. We rejected it almost a decade before this 
book and Schulhofer's flawed analogies do nothing to persuade us 
to further build the police-state of Amerikkka.

As a matter of fact, if someone chops off a body part of another 
persyn, that in itself is evidence like losing a wallet. There is 
no failure in seeing the body as the same as a wallet within the 
existing legal system.

What happens in contract negotiations between business partners -- 
that is more like the situation of rape in the United $tates. The 
problem lies in determining whether a transaction was lawful or 
not or whether it involved extortion. Just as courts are filled 
with difficulties determining whether contracts have been met or 
existed in the first place, so too rape is a question of examining 
something that could be "mutual" or could be illegal by Liberal 
ideas.

Schulhofer does admit that some court cases and laws have gone too 
far in the paternalist direction of over-regulation and thus 
treating wimmin as permanently frail victims. Yet he considers a 
simple answer consistent with his own property type arguments and 
he rejects it -- consent forms. He admits that defense lawyers in 
some situations are being forced to prove consent, instead of 
prosecutors having to prove guilt. In one particularly backward 
case, a court used the "crush" of the accuser on the accused and 
the romantic setting as evidence of the alleged rapist's guilt (p. 
92). It just goes to show that courts mired in Liberal 
individualism do not apply any consistent logic except that which 
happens to serve the ruling class. Spreading confusion case-by-
case guarantees that the public will never come to a common 
understanding. Such division benefits the patriarchy and ensures 
its survival.

Schulhofer ridiculed the idea of requiring signed consent forms 
for sex, presumably because they would inconvenience the majority 
and break up spontaneity. In the name of spontaneity and 
subjectivity, Schulhofer goes so far as wanting the public to 
adopt universal ideas of "body language" (p. 272), in cases where 
the word "yes" can't be obtained. We can just see all the lawyers' 
bucks that will be made on that one!

From MIM's point of view, the rejection of consent forms is 
typical of what is wrong with people lacking a collective spirit. 
We see no reason why some people should suffer the trauma of rape 
or unjust conviction just because the allegedly normal and free 
majority would be inconvenienced by consent forms. It's obvious 
that within property-obsessed societies, consent forms are just 
one more type of contract. Hence we back this idea that Schulhofer 
considers extremist; even though we do not agree with the "rape as 
theft" line. We still think consent forms would be better and more 
consistent than what we have now.

* * *

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IS LATEST CASUALTY

by MC12

Since 1966, the police have been legally required to read people 
their "rights" before interrogating them or using their statements 
against them. The point was that many people do not know that they 
are legally allowed not to say anything until they have a lawyer 
around to warn them about the dangers of confessing, by accident, 
on purpose, or under duress.

Now a federal court with jurisdiction in Virginia, West Virginia, 
Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina has said that if a 
confession is "voluntary" then it's OK if the person arrested 
wasn't read his or her rights before confessing. That is: "You 
have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be 
used against you..." and all that.

This sets the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which may 
very well overturn the 1966 "Miranda" case. Contrary to popular 
opinion, this was a recently won "right" and not something given 
in the Constitution.

In the case, Charles Dickerson confessed to the police on a bank 
robbery and named an accomplice. His accomplice then confessed 
that the two of them had robbed many banks. But he confessed 
before anyone read him his rights. The point of the "Miranda" rule 
is that a lawyer looking after his interests might have talked him 
out of the confession.

Of all the injustices in the system, coerced confessions is just 
one. By the time poverty and oppression, racism and patriarchy, 
unequal and inadequate education, and bourgeois conceptions of 
morality lead to some people getting arrested while others are 
given medals, it's really too late. But even at that late date, 
the "Miranda" rule helps protect some victims of the injustice 
system. And it was a victory won by the struggles of the oppressed 
against arbitrary abuses of power.

To lose this rule doesn't make the difference between a fair 
system and an unfair one, but it does represent the erosion of 
"rights" won in previous popular struggles, and highlight the need 
for revolutionary organizing to take the world back from the pigs 
who design and run this system.

Notes: Washington Post, February 10, 1999. p. A1.

* * *

MUMIA BENEFIT SENDS MIXED MESSAGE TO MIXED CROWD

by RC93

On January 28, Rage Against the Machine(RATM) brought together 
popular acts including the Beastie Boys, Bad Religion, Black Star, 
and Public Enemy's Chuck D and Professor Riff for a show in New 
Jersey.(1) The concert was organized to raise money for the legal 
battle of Mumia Abul-Jamal, who was framed for the murder of a 
Philadelphia pig, Daniel Faulkner. There was great controversy 
over this concert among government officials and the mainstream 
media. Radio talk-show host Howard Stern and Faulkner's widow, 
Maureen, were among those to express their outrage, resulting in 
New York's K-ROCK to drop its endorsement of the concert.(2) 

The controversy surrounding the concert led K-ROCK to offer 
refunds to those who did not wish to support Mumia's case. 
Mainstream media reported that 2,000 of the 19,000 tickets were 
returned in protest of Mumia, while Zack de la Rocha of RATM 
quoted the number at 567.(1)

Nonetheless, the tickets were quickly resold. But it is 
interesting to ask how many of the 19,000, mostly young, mostly 
white people attending the concert did support Mumia's case. From 
previous experience RAIL can assume that a majority of the people 
attending the mainstream concert were not concerned with the case. 
One informed reviewer wrote, "I wasn't the only one though; every 
single person that I saw get interviewed was well informed about 
the case and to my surprise all gave solid answers."(1) It is good 
to hear that young people are aware of Mumia's case, and that 
others were informed by the controversy surrounding this concert.

Unfortunately, organizers of the show downplayed the political 
importance of Mumia's case, misleading the mass of young fans. In 
a press release Zack stated, "Let me say straight up that 
tonight's benefit is not to support cop killers, or any other kind 
of killers, and if there were no question about the guilt of Mumia 
Abu-Jamal, we would not be holding this concert. But whether Jamal 
is guilty, or is himself the victim of an outrageous miscarriage 
of justice, is precisely what is at issue."(3) The Beastie Boys 
made similar statements. This only gives credence to the 
Amerikkkan injustice system, which has the goal of eliminating 
activists such as Mumia, and has no interest in giving him a fair 
trial.

Young activists who want to create a truly just society should 
work with MIM and RAIL, who actively oppose police brutality as 
well as the repression carried out by other sectors of the 
injustice system, with goal of replacing it. While MIM does not 
encourage the killing of individual police as a means of obtaining 
revolutionary goals, we would support Mumia whether he did it or 
not. The fact is that Mumia's brother was being beaten by Faulkner 
prior to the shooting, and if Mumia had been the one to shoot the 
pig (which is very unlikely) it would have been in defense of a 
violent attack.

The reviewer quoted above was disappointed that RATM did not open 
with their cover of NWA's "Fuck tha Police" as they had at their 
Mumia benefit in 1995. In this song Zack raps, "and when I'm 
finished/bring tha yellow tape/ to mark off the scene of tha 
slaughter... A young nigger on a warpath/ and when I'm finished 
there's gonna be a bloodbath/ All cops dying in L.A./ Yo, I got 
sumfin' to say/ FUCK THA POLICE!" MIM prefers this message to the 
reformist ideas Zack preached at the recent concert. This goes to 
show the wishy-washy line that can result from anarchist ways of 
thinking, which also led RATM to work with the reformist group 
Amnesty International on this concert. 

Notes:

1. Rage benefit concert for Mumia. Review by J. Moreno. 
http://www.musicfanclubs.org/rage/mumiabenefit.htm
2. Morello, widow of slain police officer debate Rage/ Beasties 
benefit. http://www.mtv.com/news/headlines/990121/story10.html
3. Zack de la Rocha's complete press conference statement 
regarding the Mumia Abu-Jamal benefit concert in New Jersey on 
January 28th, 1999. 
http://www.musicfanclubs.org/rage/zackbenefit.htm 

* * *

UNDER LOCK AND KEY: NEWS FROM PRISONS AND FROM PRISONERS

TORTURE FOR REVOLUTIONARIES

Northern C.I. was open in Connecticut in 1995 with the usual fan 
fare of housing the worst of the worst, but the reality of whom 
you find here are revolutionaries, jail house lawyers, leaders of 
different organizations. The institution is a very closed setting, 
with a mission of total and absolute control. There are cameras 
and speakers and microphones everywhere, nothing can be said 
without you being heard. Your family ties are curtailed and 
destroyed when ever, and wherever possible. Some of the treatment 
amounts to torture. 

I live in a cell that I have to be fully dressed at all time if I 
am not under the covers. I am hungry all of the time, because 
since I have been here my food consumption has been cut back. No 
sooner that I eat a meal I'm hungry. Then I am made to wait 15 to 
16 hours after the evening meal to eat again... the cold and 
hunger amount to torture. 

You are always under threat of the use of force, being maced and 
chained down to your bed. In phase one you have mental patients 
living in the cells next door. You are shackled hand and foot 
anytime you are moved out of your cell. Mail is constantly 
tampered with and censored. If you make complaints to the 
commissioner he does nothing but revert back to the same 
administration which caused the problem. The grievance system, is 
a joke...using trickology and lies to answer grievances never 
willing to admit they are wrong. We have just completed a lock 
down, that resulted in prisoners jumping on a c/o in Phase III 
because he was telling prisoners to suck his dick and grabbed 
another prisoner. Instead of correcting, the officer they would 
rather try to repress us more. 

Pigs use shakedowns of your cell as chances to harass you. I have 
had my legal books ripped, my clean clothes found on the floor 
upon returning to my cell. Upon moving me from one unit to another 
last year, they took and mixed together a number of my legal files 
consisting of thousands and thousands of documents only to harass 
me. One pig recently came down the tier with a mask over his face 
symbolic of the k.k.k., instead of chastising the officer they 
white washed it, and covered it up. There have been 3 to 4 deaths 
of prisoners here that would not have died had they been 
elsewhere. You are basically isolated from other prisoners, you 
cannot even pass each other a piece of paper or a book.

-- A Connecticut Prisoner, November 1998

ILLINOIS PRISONS FOR POLITICAL PRISONERS

Tamms which opened for "business" in February 1998, was initially 
lauded virtually non-stop by Illinois legislators, spin doctors 
and the media as the "last stop" and punishment for the "worst of 
the worst" blah blah blah.

Tamms is a $90 million, 500 bed facility... It is currently 
housing many non-violent, short-term, mentally impaired, and event 
protective custody inmates while operating under the guise of 
public safety and justice. The majority of these inmates were 
"kidnapped" from general population in the middle of the night 
from various maximum, medium and minimum security facilities and 
brought here (for no legitimate reason) and placed under 
Administrative Detention Status.

The conditions of confinement are dehumanizing, degenerative and 
psychologically toxic, to say the least. Certainly our individual 
horror stories are similar to those from other "Supermax" 
facilities from around the country.

For most of us, the obvious question is "why are we here?" 
Although the majority of us may not have been imprisoned for 
"political" reasons, circumstance has thrown us into the political 
arena. The political motivation behind the actions of the 
I.D.O.C., state legislators and media have effectively 
"transformed" each and every man doing time here at Tamms into a 
political prisoner. And as such, we are seeking strong support 
from the outside and look to form a grass roots coalition that 
will give a voice to our issues.

To bring you up to speed, we must go back to 1996... On January 
13, an inmate named Florencio Pecina was shot (in the back) and 
killed by a catwalk officer at the Pontiac Corr. Center (one of 
the four max joints in Illinois, along with Joliet, Stateville and 
Menard.) It has been established from eye-witness testimony that 
this was at least a "bad shot" and quite possibly a criminal act 
as inmate Pecina was alone, unarmed and merely walking down a 
gallery when he was shot and killed. Pontiac was immediately 
locked down and later re-classified as a total segregation 
facility, never to re-open again. This, allegedly because the IDOC 
claimed that Pecina was an influential member of an organization 
which would seek retaliation. Within months of the Pontiac 
incident, the other three max facilities followed suit and were 
locked down for 1-1/2 years. During this time, inmates were 
stripped of everything that the Supreme Court and the riots of the 
70s provided when the State would not.

It was also during this time that a Chicago reporter named Bill 
Kurtis mysteriously came forward with the 5 year-old, now infamous 
"Richard Speck" tapes. These showed convicted mass murdered Speck 
apparently using drugs and engaging in homosexual activities while 
locked up at Stateville. Needless to say, the IDOC had a bad day 
and Director Odie Washington was taking hits from all sides as an 
old political monster was re-born. Within days, IDOC spin doctors 
were on every station trying to clean up the mess. While at the 
same time, mid-level correctional officers were smuggling prison 
surveillance tapes (showing inmate banquets) to Oprah Winfrey and 
complaining that Director Washington had to go because the inmates 
ran all the joints. Illinois State legislators paraded in front of 
the cameras nightly sounding off that heads must roll at the IDOC. 
But in the end, it was business as usual.

The timing of these incidents was suspicious indeed, along with 
the fact that no one lost their job or was even reassigned. When 
IDOC unveiled its solution (Tamms) it should have become crystal 
clear to any reasonable person that this entire ordeal was a 
political masquerade, with a $90 million bill. The public was 
hoodwinked by these shysters and we must bear the brunt of the 
blow.

As political prisoners, our focus is on the emerging movement 
against prisons and other social movement which fight for 
political, economic and social justice.

As "Supermax" prisoners, our focus is on relief from the 
dehumanizing, degenerative and psychologically toxic conditions of 
confinement here at Tamms.

At this date, we have no known voice in Illinois and the 
communication between inmates here is virtually impossible due to 
the structure of the facility. We need to establish a dialogue 
amongst ourselves and also on a national level to establish our 
positions on various issues. We need strong outside support and 
request any and all assistance that you may provide in this 
matter.

--an Illinois prisoner, 4 February 1999

MIM responds: It was for comrades like this one that United 
Struggle from Within (USW) was formed. This organization of 
prisoners fighting the criminal injustice system works closely 
with the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) on the 
outside to establish these links between prisoners and to 
activists on the outside to coordinate our united struggle.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER TACTICS

All the prison jobs are given to agent provocateurs -- they lie on 
you and set you up for the KKK police just to get things done. 
These agent provocateurs are allowed to have contact visits in 
private with outsiders... The administration or the police will 
sanction these agent provocateurs to lie on brothers who are 
political conscious and prisoners who are fed up with the 
administration injustice. When you become rebellious about the 
plight around here, you'll end up in the dungeon all because 
you're a decent human being with courage to let the oppressors 
know about the bad treatment around here.

--an Indiana prisoner, 3 February 1999

DEHUMANIZING TACTICS

My name is King Celestial. I am a loyal member of the ALKQN. 
Today, I received last months breath taking notes, it never fails 
to take me into higher levels of understanding.

I'm locked down in New Jersey's Department of KKKilruptions at 
their ad seg/STGMU. The system just recently opened this so-called 
gang unit. We are placed in this unit until we denounce our 
ideologies. Once that takes place, the individual starts a nine 
month program. After completion, they are transferred back into 
general population. Would that make us a lesser threat? They just 
can't stand to see us united as one whole. They limit our phone 
calls, visits, showers and recreation. They dehumanize us in every 
way trying to constantly break us down. This system is very 
wicked. But I blame the prisoners more. They stand up for nothing 
and fall for all the tactics the oppressor pushes out. The 
oppressor wants us to submit to his savage way of life -- to live 
oppressed, in lies, in poverty and senile to every thing they 
underhand around us.

Once the administration knows that one is a member of affiliated 
with an organization you are discriminated against and denied 
status and parole and access to programs. For examples, I was 
given a 16 month parole hit because I was a Latin King. I've been 
2 years charge free with educational programs under my belt, but 
because "I am a King" Here I am maxing out. I've been abusively 
transferred to prisons around the state on a "just because"! ... 
Struggle is forever and as long.

-- a New Jersey prisoner, 2 February 1999

IMPRISONED FOR NOT SETTING UP FRIENDS

When I first read the MIM Notes, I thought, finally I have found 
someone who sees the crookedness of the stars and stripes and 
everything associated with it. I applaud and admire your 
integrity. ... I would like to still receive MIM Notes. The truth 
printed in them fuels my ambition.

I didn't break any laws to call for a prison sentence. The DEA 
scum stepped to me and offered me material things if I set up my 
people. They wanted me to wear a wire and give them information on 
some alleged drug dealers I know. I refused and was jailed on 1st 
degree assault on a pig and fleeing the pigs. I managed to break 
out of the jail, but I later was snitched out by an unknown rat. I 
received an 80 month sentence for the crimes I was accused of.

I get out [soon], 5 years of my life spent in these concrete 
hells. I am very interested in keeping in contact with the MIM and 
RAIL. This joint is just like any other which has the average Joe 
6-pack turning keys and counting for 25 bucks an hour.

The way pigs advance to sergeant or lieutenant depends on how many 
discipline reports they write. So you can imagine they make life 
hell in here.

-- a Minnesota prisoner, 11 January 1999

ANTI-CENSORSHIP VICTORY

I am writing this to let you know that once again I am receiving 
MIM Notes without (apparent) interference. I had to submit 
multiple grievances over the paper's confiscation. And it seems 
that these complaints have finally resulted in the paper getting 
through to me without censorship.

--an Illinois prisoner, 19 December 1998.

A CALL FOR UNITY 

To all the Florida POWs: Be on alert. Former SCDC Director Mike 
Moore has just been kicked out of South Carolina and is coming 
down your way. Moore is a king Ku Klux Klan from Texas who has 
fucked up every state that lets him in. I don't know how Florida 
prisons are, but I know there's no such things as a 'good' prison. 
So if it's bad down there, Moore will try to make it worse.

My advice is simple and nothing new. Stand together and do it 
firmly because this pig will only implement rules and policies 
that benefit the economic concerns of him and those like him. I 
close this missive with hopes that everyone continues to struggle 
and don't ever give up.

-- a South Carolina prisoner, 7 January 1999

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

MIM,

I am writing to thank you and inform you that I have been 
receiving all the MIM Notes and letters you've sent to me. I want 
to remain on your mailing list. MIM Notes is a very powerful paper 
and has opened my mind to a lot throughout the world. I will pass 
the material around so others may see it. In this current prison 
(a super max) I am locked up 23 hours a day Monday to Friday, and 
24 Saturday-Sunday so all I am able to do is read. I've come to 
know, understand and accept now is the time for change and in this 
day in time change must come with revolution. I am a Five 
Percenter (5%er) and understand the duty of righteous to spread 
the word of truth. 

-- A Connecticut Prisoner, October 1998

DENIED LIBRARY ACCESS

The Cell Block unit I'm in does not allow us to go to the library. 
We Black brothers have no way of getting Black cultural reading 
materials. We are not even allowed to go to the law library. Even 
though we are a part of the general population, we are treated as 
though we are in a discipline unit. The whole general population 
is allowed the things we are not, they call this unit the release 
violator unit. Most people in this unit have come back on a parole 
violation and being treated like they're in segregation 23 hour 
lock up.

-- a Minnesota prisoner, 18 December 1998

EDUCATION IS THE KEY

In regards to your latest communication dated November 23, 1998, 
we, a small group of dedicated individuals, believe that education 
is the key to success. The Department of Corrections in Tennessee 
has cut back drastically in the educational/vocational 
opportunities that were available on this particular institution, 
citing lack of funds. We believe the focus of corrections has 
shifted from rehabilitation to warehousing many of the under-
class, with an eye towards profits. 

Most of the true education is self taught, with books being passed 
from hand to hand. In particular we are interested in a paralegal 
correspondence course that would be recognized in the free society 
(outside of prison walls) which would be paid from our own funds. 
We are in complete agreement with MIM's objections in the pursuit 
of an higher education.

-- A Tennessee Prisoner, December, 1998

EXPOSE THE TRUTH

I am a 48 year old Moorish-American male. I've been imprisoned 
since 1975, paroled from Soledad prison into the federal BOP in 
1980 and have been in the system since then.

Back in the days in Soledad, we used to read the Guardian and 
Burning Spear, prison newspapers, but none match the tenacity of 
MIM. On my tear or range there, Maoism was an important part of 
our group education. And we soldiers studied it with much 
enthusiasm and respect. I am amazed to discover this regenerated 
consciousness towards one of the world's greatest teachers. Plus I 
explode with joy on how you expose the raw cruelty of Amerikkka's 
prisons.

As a struggling jailhouse lawyer and rival of the BOP, I know that 
everything that you are printing is oh! so true. And there's much, 
much more that I know needs exposing to the world.

-- a Federal prisoner in Colorado, 5 January 1999

TEXAS: STATE OF PRISONS

Greetings! I write to you from a Maximum Security Segregation cell 
in the Texas Gulag System of Injustice. I wish to extend my 
sincerest respect to you. A fellow revolutionary shot me a few of 
your newspapers, and let me say, I was deeply impressed. 95% of 
the issues brought up in the articles rang a bell of Truth in my 
heart. Finally. I have found what I've been looking for. An 
organization dedicated to righting the wrongs of our country! And 
in a manner that I agree with.

Let me say that Texas is getting out of control. By the year 2000, 
we will have over 150 prisons. "Super-Seg" control units are 
popping up like weeds after a storm. Parole grants are less than 
8%. If you ask me, they should just erect a fence around the whole 
state!

Everyday I witness my comrades being beaten and gassed. And I'm no 
exception. And as I write this, a fellow convict three doors down 
is lying in his cell with his hands handcuffed. He's been like 
that for four hours! He's tried unsuccessfully to hang himself. 
Actually, he's tried three times in two days to hang himself. 
Yesterday he cut his throat. They took him to the infirmary and 
brought him back to his cage. Early this morning he hung himself 
again. They didn't even take him to the infirmary this time! Last 
week another Black killed himself. They knew he was going to do 
it, and did nothing to prevent it. Racist pigs!

-- a Texas prisoner, 30 January 1999.

PIGS DON'T BENEFIT FROM PAROLE

I know of two parole hearings in which a total of 47 inmates went 
up for parole, only four inmates made parole.

I all parole hearings are consistent with this, then roughly 9% of 
SC inmates get parole.

South Carolina Department of Corrections policy OP21-04 (OP) 
Inmate Classification Plan states: nonviolent offenders must do 
1/4 of their sentence, and violent offenders 1/3 before 
eligibility for parole.

Almost all inmates are turned down parole their first time up for 
it. They are given no specific reasons other than: "Due to the 
seriousness of your crime, we feel you need to do more time."

Apparently, there's no objective, relevant criteria used. It 
doesn't seem to matter whether or not the inmate has been a model 
prisoner. Anyone with factual answers on how to make parole, 
please let us know!

I have another request of fellow SC inmates or any inmates with 
some answers: Pass on to MIM any information on the following 
policies: OP22.19(OP) Searches of inmates and OP22.01(OP) 
Restraint Chair. Both policies are conveniently restricted! I 
believe both policies violate our rights. The screws are not 
lettings us know for obvious reasons.

-- A South Carolina prisoner, 25 January 1999