INTRODUCTION For black people in the USA and increasingly so in Britain, Engel's description of the State as a "body of armed men" is a very meaningful reality.
Black people are under daily attack from the front line of the State namely police, courts, prison and (at least in the US), the Army. Thus in the US we see Attica, murder of George Jackson, frame-up of Angela Davis, etc. etc. Here we have constant harassment of blacks in Notting Hill, the Metro affair, the trial of the Mangrove Nine, etc. etc. This explains why all the recent writings of black militants have at their centre a description of police, prisons and the courts. As George Jackson says: "Black men born in the US and fortunate enough to live past the age of 18 are conditioned to accept the inevitability of prison."
(Letters from Prison). And as Eldridge Cleaver says, "The police are the armed guardians of the social order" (Soul on Ice).
Of course the penal system is not the only way blacks are attacked. The Immigration Bill, for example, is a much more generalised measure. However, police and prison brutality and court frame-ups are for blacks the most immediate and most vicious weapons in the State's armoury. Moreover it is not just a coincidence or an accident that these weapons are being increasingly used. Instead, just as racism itself is intensified by capitalism in a period of economic crisis and decline with blacks being made the chief scapegoat, so likewise the basic repressive machinery of the state is intensified. It's true that it is not only blacks who are attacked by this machinery. White militants (and even liberals) feel the lash as well hence the Chicago 7, hence deportation of Rudi Dutschke. However, blacks are doubly susceptible to the "body of armed men" -both because they are black and also because at the moment many of them are trying to fight back. Finally, just as capitalism is (outside of the workers' states) an international phenomenon, so likewise its decline is international and so likewise racism becomes intensified internationally. That is why it is fatally wrong to dismiss as hysterical or makebelieve, allegations of police brutality in Britain. Matters are getting as vicious here as in the US.
Indeed, this last week has shown the similarity of prison, police and court brutality here and in the USA. This is revealed on the one hand by the publication of Angela Davis's book, If they come in the Morning, and on the other hand by the trial of the Mangrove Nine in London.
"IF THEY COME IN THE MORNING" This is issued here by the "Save Angela Davis Committee" and was compiled as part of the campaign for the release of herself and other political prisoners. It is a collection of writings by herself, other black militants (Eldridge Cleaver being a conspicuous absence) and a few white "radicals"-most of which has hitherto been unpublished. There are three basic remarks to make. Firstly the book is excellent. Secondly the various writers are by no means in agreement on every matter. Thirdly, the aim of this review is not to summarise every point made but to bring out what appear to be the most interesting and important political facts and ideas (some of which are arguable) contained in the various writings.
1. WIDTH OF STRUGGLE OF NATIONAL MINORITIES IN USA One of the facts that is constantly brought home in this book is that the struggle of the blacks is not the only struggle by oppressed national minorities in the States. For instance in 1963 a mass land movement by the rural Chicano (US-Mexican) population in Northern Mexico began in Alienza Federale de Mercedes.
This had a membership of over 14,000 families who in October 1966 took over Carson National Forest, renaming it the People's Republic of San Joaquin. The leader of the movementReies Tijerina-is now in prison. Unfortunately, no information is given about the subsequent history of this movement-but it is important not least because it shows that the recently published efforts of the Chicano grapepickers to form a union is not, as the bourgeois press would have us believe, an isolated incident to remove an isolated grievance. Again there are quoted examples of struggle by the native American "Indians" and by the Puerto Rican community and its recently formed revolutionary organisation, the Young Lords Party. Ih particular, there is the example of the Puerto Rican Lolita Lebron who is still in:
prison since leading araid on the House of Representatives in Washington in 1954.
2. U.S. PRISONS-SCHOOLS FOR BLACK REVOLUTIONARIES Interesting points emerge about what is happening in the prisons themselves. In particular it's quite apparent that the effect of prisons is to politicise many of the prisoners.
This is the case with all the Soledad BrothersGeorge Jackson, John Clutchette and Fleeta Drumgo (who are being framed for the murder of a guard at Soledad, with Jackson himself being subsequently murdered by a guard). None of these comrades were politically active or politically conscious before being in prison.
Similarly, this was the case also for example with Ruchell Magee (who is now on trial with Angela Davis) and Cleaver. However, these again are not isolated cases-literally hundreds of blacks are being politicised in US prisons. As Fleeta says, "There's a growing awareness behind the walls; we're seeing through the madness of capitalism, class interest, surplus value and imperialism.."
The reasons for this are probably many. One is the general politicisation of blacks outside as well as inside prison (as Huey Newton said, the only difference is one is maximum and the other minimum security). Secondly, the already politicised prisoners do extensive educational work and lead political struggles in the prisons (thus Malcolm X in his autobiography shows how he became political by coming into contact with Black Muslims in prison). Likewise there are now Panther and Chicano cells in various prisons. Thirdly, it seems that through the contradictions of American capitalism, in desperately attempting to preserve a liberal facade, it allows its prisoners almost unlimited reading material. Thus George Jackson read Lenin, Marx, Mao, Trotsky, when in Soledad.
It would seem that a comparison can be made here between the politicisation of black prisoners in the US and the politicisation of prisoners in Czarist jails in pre-revolutionary Russia-both breeding grounds for revolutionaries.
3. DEMANDS OF THE PRISONERS THEMSELVES-LIBERAL OR REVOLUTIONARY?
A relatively large proportion of the book is taken up with the struggle of prisoners (mainly black) within many prisons in the US and the demands they are putting forward. The most comprehensive list of such demands was made during a strike at Folsom prison last year. They ranged from the demand that all imprisoned revolutionaries should be allowed to go to the Workers States to better visiting conditions for the families of prisoners. Two other demands often raised are the end to the indeterminate sentence law whereby a prisoner can be sentenced "from one year to life" (thus ransoming his freedom for his "good behaviour") and the abolition of penal code 4500 under which an inmate facing a life sentence who is convicted of assaulting a noninmate (i.e. a guard) must receive a mandatory death sentence. Both these provisions were particularly highlighted in the case of George Jackson, who on an indeterminate sentence of "one to life" for stealing $70, had already been in prison 12 years before his murder, which took place before his own framed-up case of murder of a guard got to trial whereupon 4500 would have applied).
Angela Davis says of these demands, "It is the mark of an immature revolutionary to dismiss such 'actions' as 'reformist' or "liberal'"
and "Such a stand can too easily become a tool in the hands of our adversaries"
This raises the important question of how Various points can be made.
Firstly, we do not support all demands merely because they are raised or followed by the masses. (itself a relative term). To do so would be sheer populism. Many demands raised or followed by the masses are reactionary and must be actiyely fought against-e.g. Blacks Go Home, Secondly, however, there is no excuse not to support the demands of the masses merely because they are reformist. In fact just the opposite there is a duty of revolutionaries to support such demands. This is precisely why we support all demands made by workers for higher wages-which in themselves don't challenge the idea of capitalism (it is only anarchists and ultra-lefts who denounce such demands as "reformist"). Likewise it is quite imperative for revolutionaries to support the demands of the Attica, Falsom, Soledad prisoners, etc. Similarly it is important for revolutionaries in Britain to support the demand of the Mangrove Nine for an all-black Jury even though this in itself does not call into question the very idea of capitalism Thirdly, though, hot only is it the duty of revolutionaries to support reformist demands, it is also the duty of revolutionaries to try and raise these demands to a level which actually does challenge the idea of capitalism. As John Clutchette says, this means "Changing the picture itself, not just the frame on the wall."
In other words, what revolutionaries should be doing is attacking the whole concept of prisons and the court system as such in capitalist society. On our own initiative we should demand the release of the Mangrove Nine on the grounds that we don't accept bourgeois justice.
Incidentally it's one of the main criticisms of the Angela Davis Committee-which is essentially the creation of the CP-that in campaigning for the release of Angela Davis and all political prisoners, it itself tends to conceal polities behird the demand (the committee in most of its propaganda merely speaks of bail for Angela). For instance, when Louise Patterson spoke in Manchester, she played down the fact that Angela is a Communist and emphasised that in New York the Angela Davis Committee has churchmen and other "respectables" on it. Again, the whole impression she gave was that Angela was an unfortunate woman who just "happened" to be in prison. Similarly, in the USA one of the main activities of the Angela Davis Committee is the circulation of a petition for one million signatures. Petitions of course are a typical CP tactic to evade polities in that in themselves they don't raise anyone's consciousness and commit anyone to do anything.
Fourthly, though revolutionaries must support reformist demands already raised in the mass movement, it is hardly the duty of revolutionaries to initiate such demands themselves. All demands raised by revolutionaries should challenge the system itself and be "transitional" in content. This is what's so criminal about International Socialism's raising of the demand here of a "fair trial" for Irish political prisoners. In point of fact this demand of IS is actually below that of the mass movement in Ireland led by the IRA which is for immediate release of all political prisoners.
4. ROLE OF THE BLACK "LUMPEN.
PROLETARIAT"
We come now to some more contentious points. Thus Angela emphasises what she considers the vital role of the black lumpenproletariat in the revolutionary struggle. She says, "There is an urgent need to organise the lumpenproletariat as the Black Panther Party as well as activists in prison have already begun to do." Now Marx dismissed the revolutionary character of the lumpenproletariat-i.e, that section of the working class which is virtually declassé by being semi-permanently jobless and therefore divorced from the productive forces. He did this on the grounds of their consequent polltical demoralisation and therefore inability to organise consistently. In arguing for the revolutionary vitality of the black lumpenproletariat Angela makes a point which is made revolutionaries should treat "reformist" demands. by many black militants in Britain as well as the US.
Now it is true that a large section of the black community is through racism semipermanently unemployed and thus "lumpen". Again it is true that the Black Panthers are very much based on this section. However, what is equally true is that with the murder and imprisonment of the Panther leaders, this movement has shown itself too volatile and disorganised to continue in anything but a spasmodie way. Compared with this is the continued steady growth of revolutionary black organisations in the US who are doing political work not only in the "community" but also in the factories in particular the League of Revolutionary Black Workers which now plays a significant role in the black community of Detroit and in certain of the essential car plants there. Again in Britain it is the case that those black groups who have organised "in the community"—e.g. Black Panthers and the Black Unity and Freedom Party have not attracted the support that groups here who are also organised around the workplaces eg. Indian Workers Association.
The conclusions one can draw from all this seem to be (a) Angela is correct in arguing that the black "lumpen" do have a vital revolutionary potential quite unlike their white counterparts; and (b) this potential however will only be realised if it is part of a wider black revolutionar movement which is also doing habitual work round the points of production.
Finally another contentious point which is raised in Angela's book is the question of the nature of fascism. Clarification of this question is of absolutely key importance for revolutionaries, and it merits a separate article. Red Mole will be publishing material on fascism (how we define it, the idea of "creeping" or "galloping" fascism, ete.) in a forthcoming issue.
-S.C.