Universal Struggle
27th May 2010, 17:34
I SAID:
I support revolutionary non separatist black nationalism, but many people have backwards views on liberation.
Some people think, whites oppress blacks, yet whites are exploited just as much, they too must labour for a wage from their capitalists.
Racism is used to separate the workers, in history, many black slaves, Native Americans and poor white workers joined forces and attempted revolts.
White racists are reactionary, but they are racist because they are brainwashed by the ruling class to hate black people to stop us uniting.
If Black people only struggle with black people, and whites with whites, we will never achieve revolution.
Huey Newton had the right idea, black and oppressed communities must start their own groups, but unless they unite with other groups, they become isolated and trapped.
The workers cause is Marxism leninism, no matter what color or religion, a black separate nation is reactionary and would divide workers.
Not only must racism be fought, but so must its root cause, capitalism and colonialism.
Racism
Sexism
Homophobia
Islamophobia
All are symptoms of the ruling classes maneuvers to separate us.
HE SAID:
Dogmatists and purists attack this position because they call it separatist or they say that to do this were creating divisions.
In reality these divisions exist in society, lets be realistic, and we have to directly challenge these oppressive social relationships not avoid them. Society and this power structure have alienated us, it systematically dominates us -- we should not rely on this system for liberation.
Revolution means changing the social relationships and power relationships that exist in this society that perpetuates oppression, and self-hatred. These social relationships are also carried over into our organizing or the left because we do not organize in a vacuum -- we are influenced by the dominant culture of the powers that be. In the left we suffer from what Frantz Fanon called internalized oppression (where we recreate and reflect the same oppressive social relationships that exist under capitalism).
In the left there is also class-reductionism where all other forms of oppression are ignored except for class.
Class reductionists would attack the autonomous movements of the oppressed and call them identity politics when the privileged leadership of these organizations get challenged and their quest for ruling over the oppressed is threatened.
I think this all comes from whos leading and who is fighting to lead the movement. The politics of any organization will be influenced by who makes up the organization.
If you have an organization where the majority of people are from a privileged background then your politics and the political positions of your organization will reflect the social position that is probably less genuine and more liberal. This relates to the left in general in the US today.
The vanguard parties are led by people who have privileged positions in society, therefore there are going to want to gravitate to a leadership position and power -- the privileged (white, upper middle class men, who have had the privilege and the time to dig into politics) are usually the ones leading and calling the shots within these vanguard parties and also hold this notion that theyre going to liberate the oppressed which is all rooted in their social position. A lot of these white folks suffer from the messiah complex.
The same goes for anarchists, who in North America and in particular in the US are influenced by a white middle class male position because the political SCENE is made up of them -- and the ones who dominate within the anarchist organizations (especially within a structureless environment) are those same people.
"
On Strategy: Collective Ownership and Self-Defense of Our Communities (http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/contested-zone/34102-strategy-collective-ownership-self-defense-our-communities.html)
Who is right, what shouyld i say in reply to his answer?
I support revolutionary non separatist black nationalism, but many people have backwards views on liberation.
Some people think, whites oppress blacks, yet whites are exploited just as much, they too must labour for a wage from their capitalists.
Racism is used to separate the workers, in history, many black slaves, Native Americans and poor white workers joined forces and attempted revolts.
White racists are reactionary, but they are racist because they are brainwashed by the ruling class to hate black people to stop us uniting.
If Black people only struggle with black people, and whites with whites, we will never achieve revolution.
Huey Newton had the right idea, black and oppressed communities must start their own groups, but unless they unite with other groups, they become isolated and trapped.
The workers cause is Marxism leninism, no matter what color or religion, a black separate nation is reactionary and would divide workers.
Not only must racism be fought, but so must its root cause, capitalism and colonialism.
Racism
Sexism
Homophobia
Islamophobia
All are symptoms of the ruling classes maneuvers to separate us.
HE SAID:
Dogmatists and purists attack this position because they call it separatist or they say that to do this were creating divisions.
In reality these divisions exist in society, lets be realistic, and we have to directly challenge these oppressive social relationships not avoid them. Society and this power structure have alienated us, it systematically dominates us -- we should not rely on this system for liberation.
Revolution means changing the social relationships and power relationships that exist in this society that perpetuates oppression, and self-hatred. These social relationships are also carried over into our organizing or the left because we do not organize in a vacuum -- we are influenced by the dominant culture of the powers that be. In the left we suffer from what Frantz Fanon called internalized oppression (where we recreate and reflect the same oppressive social relationships that exist under capitalism).
In the left there is also class-reductionism where all other forms of oppression are ignored except for class.
Class reductionists would attack the autonomous movements of the oppressed and call them identity politics when the privileged leadership of these organizations get challenged and their quest for ruling over the oppressed is threatened.
I think this all comes from whos leading and who is fighting to lead the movement. The politics of any organization will be influenced by who makes up the organization.
If you have an organization where the majority of people are from a privileged background then your politics and the political positions of your organization will reflect the social position that is probably less genuine and more liberal. This relates to the left in general in the US today.
The vanguard parties are led by people who have privileged positions in society, therefore there are going to want to gravitate to a leadership position and power -- the privileged (white, upper middle class men, who have had the privilege and the time to dig into politics) are usually the ones leading and calling the shots within these vanguard parties and also hold this notion that theyre going to liberate the oppressed which is all rooted in their social position. A lot of these white folks suffer from the messiah complex.
The same goes for anarchists, who in North America and in particular in the US are influenced by a white middle class male position because the political SCENE is made up of them -- and the ones who dominate within the anarchist organizations (especially within a structureless environment) are those same people.
"
On Strategy: Collective Ownership and Self-Defense of Our Communities (http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/contested-zone/34102-strategy-collective-ownership-self-defense-our-communities.html)
Who is right, what shouyld i say in reply to his answer?