Why is Black Nationalism allowed on the Forum?

[The Man]

if White Nationalism isn't allowed, why should Black Nationalism be?

Racial Nationalism is putrid and disgusting, no matter if it Black or White, Red or Blue. Were all humans. So why should we allow a Black Nationalist? But not a White Nationalist?

There is literally no difference in between the Black (Wo)man and the White (Wo)man.

I am in favor of banning Black Nationalists and White Nationalists, or for that matter, any type of Racial Nationalists. I want to see what you guys think.

[Khunying]

The simple answer: because certain elements of the left have co-opted black politics and made them an specially designated victim class.

White Nazis, Black Nazis, same difference to me; except unlike blacks whites actually do have a real culture as something other than barbarians. All this fake-Africa shit and naming yourself 'Mutumbo' and converting to Islam (lol, the main slave traders) just makes them look retarded.

And the Nation of Islam is a God damn joke.

[a rebel]

I know it doesn't make sense, but for some reason it's racist if we say anything.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Nationalists are idiots. I don't really care who they identify with. German nationalists, Jewish nationalists, Rhodesian Nationalists, Black nationalists, white nationalists, etc.

All of them, are blind to the real issue of class, and in fact cause division in class and hinder the class struggle.

I voted "I don't care". Because I don't care. If you think 5x2 =7, then you're an idiot, and I don't care if you want to tell people that publicly.

Edit: This applies to nationalism in the sense of superiority, not in the sense of liberation. Which is why Black "nationalists" such as the Black Panthers, should use the term liberation, not nationalism.

[Tommy4ever]

I guess its the same reason why Irish Republicanism is supported so much whilst Ulster Unionism is condemned as Fascist (in the revleft sense of the word - ie a totally meaningless insult).

With both Irish Republicanism and Black Nationalism the nationalist ideology seeks to fight on the side of a blatantly oppressed group (perhaps the situation in Ireland has changed over the past 2 or 3 decades, but in America the black population remains clearly oppressed). This idea of fighting against oppression, even if that means using rather vile ideas like nationalism and racism, if generally seen as acceptable on the Left whilst fighting for the status qou is regarded as despicable.

These nationalism have also traditionally mixed together with left wing ideology in the same way as the 'oppressive nationalisms' have mixed together with right wing ideologies. These nationalisms, if not always openly socialistic, very often contain ideas of wealth distribution, civil rights etc.

Black Nationalism, Irish Republicanism and other 'left wing nationalisms' are therefore both tolerated and supported.

[Khunying]

(in the revleft sense of the word - ie a totally meaningless insult).
This made me smile, so true.

[hatzel]

unlike blacks whites actually do have a real culture as something other than barbarians

I have literally no idea why you're restricted. Seriously. No idea.

:closedeyes:

EDIT: oh, now banned. Ignore me!

[Die Rote Fahne]

I have literally no idea why you're restricted. Seriously. No idea.

:closedeyes:

EDIT: oh, now banned. Ignore me!
Lolz! Banned for being a homophobe...after 6 posts...

[#FF0000]

Black nationalism a la Huey Newton and the Black Panthers have really nothing in common with white nationalism.

There are a lot of other arguments as well, e.g. that black nationalism/black pride aren't oppressive like white pride is because white pride/nationalism reinforce privilege in society while black pride/nationalism is a defensive thing that is aimed to correct inequality and privilege.

[tachosomoza]

I'd actually support the banning of black nationalism, along with other nationalistic tendencies. They give leftists as a whole a bad name, and supporting them makes us look extremely contradictory and hypocritical.

FF: The Black Panthers, in their early stages, were a racist organization that wanted to create a seperate state for people of African descent only. The NoI still supports this.

[agnixie]

Black nationalism a la Huey Newton and the Black Panthers have really nothing in common with white nationalism.

There are a lot of other arguments as well, e.g. that black nationalism/black pride aren't oppressive like white pride is because white pride/nationalism reinforce privilege in society while black pride/nationalism is a defensive thing that is aimed to correct inequality and privilege.

The Black Panthers also rejected black nationalism in the 70s and reject the NBPP on that charge, among others.

[tachosomoza]

The Black Panthers also rejected black nationalism in the 70s and reject the NBPP on that charge, among others.

The NBPP is like the black version of the National Socialist Movement. Half of their members have been to prison, and they exist only to instigate and cause trouble for the people they claim to represent.

[ComradeMan]

All nationalisms are stupid... but what about this...

reposted later on in thread ->

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

'if White Nationalism isn't allowed, why should Black Nationalism be?'

As African Americans and Africans have been systematically oppressed by Imperialism throughout History and require the need for Self-Determination against Imperialism and White Political Rule.

Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism is not to be confused with White Nationalism, as Black Nationalism is pushing forward Self-Determination and Liberation against Imperialism. Where as White Nationalism exists in order to maintain Racial Supremacy, Imperialism and Fascism.

'Racial Nationalism is putrid and disgusting, no matter if it Black or White, Red or Blue.'
Left-Nationalism that is used in an Anti-Imperialist fashion in order to push forward Liberation is to be accepted.
'Were all humans.'
Indeed, however while Imperialism and Capitalism continues to exist... Humanity is currently divided and in order to achieve liberation, racially oppressed and marginalized groups must push forward a cause of Self-Determination.
'So why should we allow a Black Nationalist?'
As Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism is Anti-Imperialist in nature and seeks to push forward Self-Determination and Liberation. Africans have historically and continue to suffer under the conditions of Imperialism and the response to Imperialism has been the need for African Unity in order to form a United Front against Imperialism and maintain a Unified African State.

Black Nationalism seeks to build a Self-Determined State as a response to the conditions put upon the African American Community by those that had systematically enslaved, exploited and slaughtered Africans. Not to mention, have forced the African American Proletariat into Urban Areas that have some of the worst conditions in American Society and offer them Economic Enslavement and potentially Physical Enslavement through the Prison Environment.

'But not a White Nationalist?'

As 'White' Nationalism is Parasitic in its very nature and is built out of Fascism, Capitalism and Imperialism. White Nationalism seeks to ethnically cleanse Non-Whites, engage in Segregation-Esque activities and continually push forward Imperialism based out of Racial Beliefs.

[JustMovement]

Well you have to look at these words and what they mean:
I think Black Nationalism can be reactionary; for example The Nation of Islam in the U.S. Usually, though, it is about the struggle for rights in the U.S. and reclaiming a culture that was almost destroyed through the institution of slavery. Also Black Nationalism is an expression of economic and cultural solidarity between Blacks in the U.S. and the Carribean, and Blacks who are exploited in Africa. In this context, and when given this meaning, black nationalism is a progressive, anti-racist struggle, the "black" in black nationalism is not about race, but about cultural and historical ties, and solidarity in the face of oppression.

White Nationalism on the other hand refers exclusively to Nazi/Fascist ideology. There are definetly progressive struggles in "white" nations, but no one in their right mind would describe Irish or Basque national lib movements as "white nationalism".

Basically what I am trying to get at is that it is all a matter of terminilogy. Black nationalism can be about race (reactionary) or it can be about class and cultural liberation (progressive). White nationalism is only about race.

[Kamos]

Both white nationalists and black nationalists perceive themselves as the victim, though. Just go on Stormfront - they always scream "look at us, we're going extinct, blacks and Muslims are trying to kill us". For blacks the way they describe it may be true, but that doesn't matter. I say, ban both. In the long term, it's better to weed out bad ideologies early, instead of forming unholy alliances with the enemies of our enemies.

For the record, white nationalism =/= fascism, although the two very often go together.

[Che a chara]

The difference I think is what both wish to achieve. i haven't seen anyone on here who would describe themselves as a black nationalist seek to excerpt black domination or segregation or any sort of discriminatory societal existence at the expense of whites -- just emancipation and determination, whereas white nationalists predominantly want to impose white privilege, segregation and ethnic cleansing.

historical context must also be taken into equation.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Both white nationalists and black nationalists perceive themselves as the victim, though. Just go on Stormfront - they always scream "look at us, we're going extinct, blacks and Muslims are trying to kill us". For blacks the way they describe it may be true, but that doesn't matter. I say, ban both. In the long term, it's better to weed out bad ideologies early, instead of forming unholy alliances with the enemies of our enemies.

For the record, white nationalism =/= fascism, although the two very often go together.

'Both white nationalists and black nationalists perceive themselves as the victim'
As African Americans had been physically enslaved and brought to the United States and other countries due to Capitalism and Imperialism. Not to mention African Countries suffering under direct Imperialism that has acted in a parasitic nature.

'White' Nationalists however have used 'White' Nationalism in the past to:

*Push forward Imperialism and physically enslave those that were Non-White and found White Nations.
*Ethnically cleanse those within their Homelands in order to allow for their White Nations that were founding on an illegitimate basis to exist.
*Economically exploit Non-Whites and gentrify.

Nor are 'White' Nationalists oppressed as 'White' Nationalists are not enslaved on a racial basis as they live in a 'White' Nation that is founded on illegitimacy.


American 'White' Nationalists:

*Live in a 'White' Nation based upon illegitimacy and the enslavement of the former Non-White Population. (White Nationalism)
*Accuse Non-Whites of attempting to 'Take Over' 'their' Nation as they've been granted legal rights that are at level with Whites...
*Attempt to class said land as 'Theirs' when it is built upon the labor of Non-Whites and the Enslavement of Non-Whites.

'Just go on Stormfront - they always scream "look at us, we're going extinct, blacks and Muslims are trying to kill us". '
They accuse others of this due to the continual legacy of their own Racial Based Imperialism and using this attempt to justify further Racial Imperialism and Supremacy. Not to mention they parade White Settlers as legitimate in nature as opposed to being illegitimate and based out of Racial Supremacy.

'Extinct' is silly as they attempt to deny their privilege as compared to Non-Whites and continual attempts at furthering domination. Not to mention that they attempt to class the United States, South Africa and various other countries as 'White' when the 'White' countries of said countries are based out of Imperialism, Parasitic Relations, Racial Supremacy, Imperialism and Ethnic Cleansing.

[Che a chara]

except unlike blacks whites actually do have a real culture

Cl0q89WzTbg

[tachosomoza]

'Both white nationalists and black nationalists perceive themselves as the victim'
As African Americans had been physically enslaved and brought to the United States and other countries due to Capitalism and Imperialism. Not to mention African Countries suffering under direct Imperialism that has acted in a parasitic nature.

'White' Nationalists however have used 'White' Nationalism in the past to:

*Push forward Imperialism and physically enslave those that were Non-White and found White Nations.
*Ethnically cleanse those within their Homelands in order to allow for their White Nations that were founding on an illegitimate basis to exist.
*Economically exploit Non-Whites and gentrify.

Nor are 'White' Nationalists oppressed as 'White' Nationalists are not enslaved on a racial basis as they live in a 'White' Nation that is founded on illegitimacy.


American 'White' Nationalists:

*Live in a 'White' Nation based upon illegitimacy and the enslavement of the former Non-White Population. (White Nationalism)
*Accuse Non-Whites of attempting to 'Take Over' 'their' Nation as they've been granted legal rights that are at level with Whites...
*Attempt to class said land as 'Theirs' when it is built upon the labor of Non-Whites and the Enslavement of Non-Whites.

I agree with all except that in bold. Most white nationalists come from proletarian backgrounds, and have been duped into siding with the forces of reaction.

[Kamos]

'Both white nationalists and black nationalists perceive themselves as the victim'
As African Americans had been physically enslaved and brought to the United States and other countries due to Capitalism and Imperialism. Not to mention African Countries suffering under direct Imperialism that has acted in a parasitic nature.

'White' Nationalists however have used 'White' Nationalism in the past to:

*Push forward Imperialism and physically enslave those that were Non-White and found White Nations.
*Ethnically cleanse those within their Homelands in order to allow for their White Nations that were founding on an illegitimate basis to exist.
*Economically exploit Non-Whites and gentrify.

Nor are 'White' Nationalists oppressed as 'White' Nationalists are not enslaved on a racial basis as they live in a 'White' Nation that is founded on illegitimacy.


American 'White' Nationalists:

*Live in a 'White' Nation based upon illegitimacy and the enslavement of the former Non-White Population. (White Nationalism)
*Accuse Non-Whites of attempting to 'Take Over' 'their' Nation as they've been granted legal rights that are at level with Whites...
*Attempt to class said land as 'Theirs' when it is built upon the labor of Non-Whites and the Enslavement of Non-Whites.

You're preaching to the choir there - I know the difference between the evils of white and black nationalism. Thing is, nationalism is nationalism. Both ideologies are, in one way or another, based on the reactionary principles of nationalism, and thus should be treated in the same way IMO. Just like we treat social democrats and conservatives in the same way (restriction) despite the fact that the former are almost decent while the latter are usually hideously evil.

Think about it this way. Both WNs and BNs encourage deepening the conflict between different cultures with their ideologies by definition - WNs are just more successful at it by their own standards.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I agree with all except that in bold. Most white nationalists come from proletarian backgrounds, and have been duped into siding with the forces of reaction.
'Racial Basis'
'White Nationalists have not been systematically oppressed on a Racial Basis.

'Most white nationalists come from proletarian backgrounds, and have been duped into siding with the forces of reaction.'
Whether or not this is the case or not. 'White Nationalists' are inherently Fascist and based out of Racial Supremacy and should be regarded as such, as opposed to sympathizing with 'White Nationalists'.


You're preaching to the choir there - I know the difference between the evils of white and black nationalism. Thing is, nationalism is nationalism. Both ideologies are, in one way or another, based on the reactionary principles of nationalism, and thus should be treated in the same way IMO. Just like we treat social democrats and conservatives in the same way (restriction) despite the fact that the former are almost decent while the latter are usually hideously evil.

Think about it this way. Both WNs and BNs encourage deepening the conflict between different cultures with their ideologies by definition - WNs are just more successful at it by their own standards.

'Thing is, nationalism is nationalism'

Nationalism that seeks to empower a systematically oppressed population is not simply Nationalism. As it is used in order to resist Imperialism. Especially when Nationalism is based out of Proletarian Nationalism that seeks to build the foundations of an Anti-Imperialist Proletarian Society.

'reactionary principles of nationalism, and thus should be treated in the same way IMO.'

You're confusing Proletarian Nationalism with Bourgeois Nationalism.

'Both WNs and BNs encourage deepening the conflict between different cultures with their ideologies by definition - WNs are just more successful at it by their own standards.'

As 'White' Nationalists have suppressed, enslaved and have attempted to systematically destroy other cultures.

Black Nationalists however attempt to regain their systematically suppressed and enslaved cultures and seek to be self-determined as a response to the legacy of Imperialism and Capitalism.

[tachosomoza]

'Racial Basis'
'White Nationalists have not been systematically oppressed on a Racial Basis.

'Most white nationalists come from proletarian backgrounds, and have been duped into siding with the forces of reaction.'
Whether or not this is the case or not. 'White Nationalists' are inherently Fascist and based out of Racial Supremacy and should be regarded as such, as opposed to sympathizing with 'White Nationalists'.

I don't sympathize with them, but I try to get inside their heads and analyze their reasons for turning fash. With the BNs like NoI, they are oppressed and marginalized, so they seek to separate from the rest of society and form their own state.

[Kamos]

With the BNs like NoI, they are oppressed and marginalized, so they seek to separate from the rest of society and form their own state.

Again, that's also what WNs want to do - except for the execution of their theory (instead of separating from society, they want to separate the rest of the society from themselves). Forget how they try to realise their objectives - the ideology itself is nearly the same.

[Queercommie Girl]

Black nationalism a la Huey Newton and the Black Panthers have really nothing in common with white nationalism.

There are a lot of other arguments as well, e.g. that black nationalism/black pride aren't oppressive like white pride is because white pride/nationalism reinforce privilege in society while black pride/nationalism is a defensive thing that is aimed to correct inequality and privilege.

I agree Black nationalism is not the same as White nationalism in the concrete sense, but if Blacks have their nationalism, then Yellows, Reds and Browns should too, wouldn't you say? Blacks are hardly the only oppressed people by white or Western imperialism.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Again, that's also what WNs want to do - except for the execution of their theory (instead of separating from society, they want to separate the rest of the society from themselves). Forget how they try to realise their objectives - the ideology itself is nearly the same.

'Again, that's also what WNs want to do.'
'White' Nationalists encourage maintaining the foundations of Racial Based Settler States and the continuation of racially based Imperialism and Expansionism.
'the ideology itself is nearly the same'
The Ideology is not the same as Black Nationalism is a response to the legacy of Racial Based Imperialism and oppression. However, 'White' Nationalism is a continued attempt of pushing forward Racial Based Imperialism, Expansionism and Fascism.

However more or less, Black Supremacy of which the Nation of Islam are apart of is massively similar.

'then Yellows, Reds and Browns should too, wouldn't you say? Blacks are hardly the only oppressed people by white or Western imperialism.'

And so all of these ethnic based groups shall achieve Self-Determination and allow for the foundations of a New Society that is based upon their own cultures as a direct opposition to the legacy of Imperialism and Racial Based Supremacy. However these Self-Determined States shall be allowing of others of different ethnicities as they're not founded out of Racial Supremacy.

[Game Girl]

Any nationalism or supremecy, reguardless of race, is ignorant and pathetic. Why must we class ourselves in races? Do you think a dog or a cat discriminates their own kind because they are not the same breed? No, they don't. Why should we? At the end of the day, we're all human.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Any nationalism or supremecy, reguardless of race, is ignorant and pathetic. Why must we class ourselves in races? Do you think a dog or a cat discriminates their own kind because they are not the same breed? No, they don't. Why should we? At the end of the day, we're all human.

'Why must we class ourselves in races?'
As these Racial Classifications unfortunately exist presently and certain groups within these Ethnic Classifications face Imperialism, Racial Based Domination and Exploitation-- And the legacy of this thereof.
'Why should we?'
You're confusing the liberation of oppressed racial groups and groups seeking Self-Determination due to continued exploitation and the legacy of Imperialism, as attempting to 'discriminate'... When the gaining of Self-Determination is to exist in order to ensure that discrimination, Imperialism and exploitation towards Ethnic Groups is not to occur, while maintaining Self-Determination.

[Ocean Seal]

The way that I see it. Black nationalism as originally envisioned by the Black Panthers is about the separation of blacks from white society because of the extreme oppression of blacks at that time. It was the idea of creating a society out of necessity. However, the Black Panthers later changed their platform to integrating and equalizing the races. Black power is about increasing the power that blacks have in order to either decrease white privilege or equate power between blacks and whites. White nationalism is the desire to split apart society along race lines because they simply don't like anyone who doesn't belong into the same arbitrary race as them. They also support white power which is either maintaining the unequal power of blacks and whites or expanding the power of whites to create more oppressed blacks. Also I don't believe that this forum allows black supremacists.

[Leftsolidarity]

I agree Black nationalism is not the same as White nationalism in the concrete sense, but if Blacks have their nationalism, then Yellows, Reds and Browns should too, wouldn't you say? Blacks are hardly the only oppressed people by white or Western imperialism.

They do have their nationalism.

[Misanthrope]

You can try to justify black nationalism all you want when the bottom line is, it distracts from class struggle. There is nothing wrong with fighting racism or being proud of your heritage but when you start advocating dominance rather then equality then there's a problem.

[tachosomoza]

We need to focus on the big picture. That's the problem with the left. We're so divided and factionalized into little special interests that we aren't as effective as we should be. Focus on the class war. Personally, if you start talking "Brown Power, Black Power, Yellow Power, etc." with me, you've lost from the get-go.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

We need to focus on the big picture. That's the problem with the left. We're so divided and factionalized into little special interests that we aren't as effective as we should be. Focus on the class war. Personally, if you start talking "Brown Power, Black Power, Yellow Power, etc." with me, you've lost from the get-go.

'We need to focus on the big picture'
Self-Determination against Imperialism and Exploitation is a single piece within a large puzzle that forms a massive image of a Class War that is to result in triumph.
'problem with the left. We're so divided and factionalized into little special interests that we aren't as effective as we should be'
The main issue currently plaguing the Left is due to a lack of formulating new ideas and promoting alternatives to Bourgeois Culture and Society in order to show the capability of Proletarian Accomplishments.
'Focus on the class war. '
Self-Determination allows for Proletarian Liberation to occur through the systematic destruction of the conditions of Exploitation, Capitalist Social Relations and the legacy of Imperialism.

It however is key to align said cases of Liberation with the Class Struggle in order to ensure a Proletarian Victory.



You can try to justify black nationalism all you want when the bottom line is, it distracts from class struggle. There is nothing wrong with fighting racism or being proud of your heritage but when you start advocating dominance rather then equality then there's a problem.

'it distracts from class struggle.'
Exploited Communities seeking Self-Determination against Bourgeois Society isn't a 'Distraction' from the Class Struggle, it simply is the Class Struggle occurring within Economically Exploited, Culturally Exploited and Racially Exploited Communities seeking Self-Determination.

'advocating dominance rather then equality then there's a problem'
Proletarian Communities largely made up of African Americans seeking to resist Bourgeois Society and Exploitation along with allowing for their own Self-Determination is not 'dominance.'

[Kamos]

'White' Nationalists encourage maintaining the foundations of Racial Based Settler States and the continuation of racially based Imperialism and Expansionism.

White nationalists by definition only want a separate white state. White separatists do, anyways - many are white supremascists and those do want more than the separatists. White supremacism is to be compared with black supremacism, however.


The Ideology is not the same as Black Nationalism is a response to the legacy of Racial Based Imperialism and oppression. However, 'White' Nationalism is a continued attempt of pushing forward Racial Based Imperialism, Expansionism and Fascism.

Again, the definition of white nationalism does not include racial based imperialism/expansionism, nor does it include fascism. I must stress once again: White nationalists are NOT necessarily fascists.


'Why must we class ourselves in races?'
As these Racial Classifications unfortunately exist presently and certain groups within these Ethnic Classifications face Imperialism, Racial Based Domination and Exploitation-- And the legacy of this thereof.

We should work towards eliminating them, then, not acknowledging them. It doesn't matter if the red and/or black flag is flying over the whole Earth, if we aren't fighting to eliminate racism and nationalism, we have accomplished nothing. While those exist and are not suppressed heavily, a counterrevolution is inevitable.


'Why should we?'
You're confusing the liberation of oppressed racial groups and groups seeking Self-Determination due to continued exploitation and the legacy of Imperialism, as attempting to 'discriminate'... When the gaining of Self-Determination is to exist in order to ensure that discrimination, Imperialism and exploitation towards Ethnic Groups is not to occur, while maintaining Self-Determination.

All in all, you advocate self-determination for blacks and other racial groups, forgetting that this is racism itself. Certainly not in the same sense as calling someone names based on skin color, but you're basically legitimising scientific racism. The way I see it, differences must be eliminated, not acknowledged, and this process must be started from day one, along with any thoughts of a revolution.

Self-determination does not stop discrimination. It just treats the symptoms (the violence, for example) while making the disease worse.

[Agapi]

Because race and class are hugely conflated and revolution is not quite so simple as to be brought about by saying, "gee, why don't we all try getting along for once and killing the boss?"

[Queercommie Girl]

We need to focus on the big picture. That's the problem with the left. We're so divided and factionalized into little special interests that we aren't as effective as we should be. Focus on the class war. Personally, if you start talking "Brown Power, Black Power, Yellow Power, etc." with me, you've lost from the get-go.

I don't agree with "racial nationalism" per se, but it's naive to think that socialism can be effectively fought for by solely focussing on class issues in an economical reductionist sense. It's simply not acknowledging the political reality in the concrete sense, but rather imposing an abstract paradigm onto it.

It's not just racism either. Sexism and queerphobia (homophobia and transphobia) are important issues too.

No-one is denying that ultimately base determines superstructure and therefore class is the determining factor. But this is not just a mechanical relation, but a dialectical one. Reality is complex and if you don't acknowledge the special issues of workers who are not white heterosexual males, then you can't really attract many of them into the movement. (I for one would definitely think twice about joining into a socialist group in which transphobia is widespread, for instance) It's not just a matter of "abstract morality", it's also a question of concrete and pragmatic tactics. Furthermore, one runs into the risk of assuming implicitly that the "white heterosexual male" worker is somehow the "modal image" of the global working class, which frankly is rather chauvinist. (Objectively around half of the global working class are women, and the numerical majority are non-European - so white heterosexual males need to become more humble and actually realise that they are the minority within the global working class...after the socialist revolution, by the logic of proletarian democracy white heterosexual male culture will no longer be the dominant one)

[The Man]

. Also I don't believe that this forum allows black supremacists.


This forum does allow Black Nationalists.

[jake williams]

It depends on the concrete politics of the nationalism, not the "race". It's just a fact that virtually all white nationalists are fascists, and racists, both restrictible offenses. Irish republicans, however, are typically both white and nationalists. They and black nationalists, at least historically, have both been leftists and sometimes even communists. In fact, the notion that the black community in the southern US (historically, rather than racially defined) constituted a distinct nation in large part originated in the communist movement. It's a bit of an antiquated idea today, and generally speaking black nationalists in the US today have some odd ideas that end up with them being restricted to. But the point isn't that (colour word) nationalisms are intrinsically wrong, but that the actual politics of white nationalists are considerably more reactionary, generally speaking, than those of black nationalists.

[Kamos]

It depends on the concrete politics of the nationalism, not the "race". It's just a fact that virtually all white nationalists are fascists, and racists, both restrictible offenses. Irish republicans, however, are typically both white and nationalists.

There is a world of a difference between white nationalists and nationalists who are white.


They and black nationalists, at least historically, have both been leftists and sometimes even communists.

Again: are you talking about black nationalists or nationalists who are black?


But the point isn't that (colour word) nationalisms are intrinsically wrong, but that the actual politics of white nationalists are considerably more reactionary, generally speaking, than those of black nationalists.

I refer you to a former argument of mine. Social democrats may have less reactionary politics in practice than conservatives, but we still lump them into one group: capitalists.

[ComradeMan]

Guys we can intellectualise this to the end of time but...

a) nationalism usuually means hating other people rather than being proud of your "own"
b) putting skin colour in front of politics is dangerous- we have seen it in practice and it isn't pretty
c) combining skin colour with nationality is even more dangerous- we have seen it put in practice and it is even less pretty than b)

Let's be human nationalists and liberate humanity from all the nationalists....;)

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

White nationalists by definition only want a separate white state. White separatists do, anyways - many are white supremascists and those do want more than the separatists. White supremacism is to be compared with black supremacism, however.



Again, the definition of white nationalism does not include racial based imperialism/expansionism, nor does it include fascism. I must stress once again: White nationalists are NOT necessarily fascists.



We should work towards eliminating them, then, not acknowledging them. It doesn't matter if the red and/or black flag is flying over the whole Earth, if we aren't fighting to eliminate racism and nationalism, we have accomplished nothing. While those exist and are not suppressed heavily, a counterrevolution is inevitable.



All in all, you advocate self-determination for blacks and other racial groups, forgetting that this is racism itself. Certainly not in the same sense as calling someone names based on skin color, but you're basically legitimising scientific racism. The way I see it, differences must be eliminated, not acknowledged, and this process must be started from day one, along with any thoughts of a revolution.

Self-determination does not stop discrimination. It just treats the symptoms (the violence, for example) while making the disease worse.
'White nationalists by definition only want a separate white state. '

What is a 'White' State... 'White' States that are to be founded within Non-'White' lands that are founded on the basis of Ethnic Supremacy are inherently based upon Racial Expansionism and Imperialism.

'do want more than the separatists'

However you're forgetting that historically Bourgeois Whites have out of 'White' Nationalism:

*Continually Settled Non-White Nations in order to build a 'White' Nation. (Which is based out of Racial Supremacy.)
*Continually oppressed and exploited Non-White Racial Groups.
*Ethnically Cleansed in attempts to maintain Racial Supremacy.
'Again, the definition of white nationalism does not include racial based imperialism/expansionism'

Yes, it does. :lol:


'We should work towards eliminating them, then, not acknowledging them. It doesn't matter if the red and/or black flag is flying over the whole Earth, if we aren't fighting to eliminate racism and nationalism, we have accomplished nothing.'

However, while Bourgeois Society exists:


*Racially Marginalized Populations will continue to exist.
*Non-White Racial Groups will continually suffer from Exploitation.
*Nationalities will continually suffer under the effects of Imperialism.

The Elimination of Bourgeois Society through the Self-Determination of Oppressed Nationalities and Ethnic Groups is key when said Ethnic Minorities and Nationalities are seeking a Proletarian Society.

[Kamos]

'White nationalists by definition only want a separate white state. '

What is a 'White' State... 'White' States that are to be founded within Non-'White' lands that are founded on the basis of Ethnic Supremacy are inherently based upon Racial Expansionism and Imperialism.

They are inherently based on ethnic cleansing, nothing more. I really don't see what imperialism has to do with it. Please consider the difference between white separatists and white supremacists.


'do want more than the separatists'

However you're forgetting that historically Bourgeois Whites have out of 'White' Nationalism:

*Continually Settled Non-White Nations in order to build a 'White' Nation. (Which is based out of Racial Supremacy.)
*Continually oppressed and exploited Non-White Racial Groups.
*Ethnically Cleansed in attempts to maintain Racial Supremacy.

They were white supremacists, yes. I must stress this again: if we're talking about white supremacism, we must compare it with black supremacism. The black nationalism you are thinking of here is to be compared with the orthodox WNism, a.k.a. white separatism.


'Again, the definition of white nationalism does not include racial based imperialism/expansionism'

Yes, it does. :lol:

Expansionism, maybe, but do explain imperialism.


'We should work towards eliminating them, then, not acknowledging them. It doesn't matter if the red and/or black flag is flying over the whole Earth, if we aren't fighting to eliminate racism and nationalism, we have accomplished nothing.'

However, while Bourgeois Society exists:


*Racially Marginalized Populations will continue to exist.
*Non-White Racial Groups will continually suffer from Exploitation.
*Nationalities will continually suffer under the effects of Imperialism.

The Elimination of Bourgeois Society through the Self-Determination of Oppressed Nationalities and Ethnic Groups is key when said Ethnic Minorities and Nationalities are seeking a Proletarian Society.

The way you want to accomplish this, though, is by establishing an uneasy ceasefire between whites and non-whites. I answered this in the last part of my previous post, the one you didn't quote here: self-determination like what you propose makes non-whites' lives easier, but doesn't solve the conflict, which is the main goal.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

They are inherently based on ethnic cleansing, nothing more. I really don't see what imperialism has to do with it. Please consider the difference between white separatists and white supremacists.



They were white supremacists, yes. I must stress this again: if we're talking about white supremacism, we must compare it with black supremacism. The black nationalism you are thinking of here is to be compared with the orthodox WNism, a.k.a. white separatism.



Expansionism, maybe, but do explain imperialism.



The way you want to accomplish this, though, is by establishing an uneasy ceasefire between whites and non-whites. I answered this in the last part of my previous post, the one you didn't quote here: self-determination like what you propose makes non-whites' lives easier, but doesn't solve the conflict, which is the main goal.


'They are inherently based on ethnic cleansing, nothing more'
In order to achieve Expansionism and Imperialism which in return maintains the existence of a 'White' Settler Nation.
'. I really don't see what imperialism has to do with it.'
As Bourgeois White Settlers had:

*Continually used Imperialism in order to found their own 'White' Nation through the elimination and conquering of those whom were Indigenous to the region.
*Used Imperialism in order to engage in the bringing of Africans to their 'White' Nation in order to serve as Slaves in order to be the labor that their 'White' Nation was built upon.
'orthodox WNism, a.k.a. white separatism.'
'White' Nationalism that allows for upholding the legacy of Ethnic Cleansing, Racial Supremacy and Racial Expansionism in Non-'White' lands is venomous with White Supremacy.
'self-determination like what you propose makes non-whites' lives easier, but doesn't solve the conflict, which is the main goal.'

Self Determination allows for:

*An Urban Proletarian Uprising of Non-White Communities against the Bourgeois.
*The Historical Reversal of the legacy of Imperialist Domination and Exploitation.

[Misanthrope]

'it distracts from class struggle.'
Exploited Communities seeking Self-Determination against Bourgeois Society isn't a 'Distraction' from the Class Struggle, it simply is the Class Struggle occurring within Economically Exploited, Culturally Exploited and Racially Exploited Communities seeking Self-Determination.

I agree. Racism is a product of capitalism, 'racial struggle' (for lack of a better word) is class struggle. But when these black nationalists are so hung up on race that they don't realize it's class struggle, it's a problem, that's all I'm saying. You're not realizing there are racists and non-leftists who identify as black nationalists.





'advocating dominance rather then equality then there's a problem'
Proletarian Communities largely made up of African Americans seeking to resist Bourgeois Society and Exploitation along with allowing for their own Self-Determination is not 'dominance.'

I never said it was......


You're missing my point which is very simple, maybe I just wasn't clear. There is nothing wrong with black "nationalists" as long as they realize their struggles as a race are due to class oppression. As long as they see the bigger picture. What's more is your implying that all African-American or African proletariat are self proclaimed black nationalists. This isn't a discussion about if the proletariat resisting oppression is just, that shouldn't even be discussed. It's a discussion about self-proclaimed black nationalists and if their ideology is in line with leftism.

[#FF0000]

mfw no one in this thread knows what they are talking about

[Coach Trotsky]

Wait a second...Lunacharsky specifically draws the RACE line when he says:

Self Determination allows for:

*An Urban Proletarian Uprising of Non-White Communities against the Bourgeois.
*The Historical Reversal of the legacy of Imperialist Domination and Exploitation.
After reading this and other post Lunacharsky made in this thread, I have some questions for him:

Are all "whites" bourgeois in your eyes, Lunacharsky? Aren't all the original "white" colonial settlers LONG SINCE DEAD? Are you familiar with how many of the early "white" settlers actually ended up being brought to North American shores as indentured servants and as exiled convicts? Were those old "white" runaway and indentured servants also bourgeois?
What specifically is meant by "historical reversal of the legacy of imperialist domination and exploitation"...do you actually mean, in part or in whole, the forced deportation of all whites to Europe, or some other means of imposing a race-based penalty upon "whites" in order to acheive some sort of "reversal"?
Just what exactly determines which land belongs to whom?

I want to actually hear the key concrete steps for implementing this Third Worldist stuff. Don't be bashful now. Come right out and reveal what its real program is.

[Red Future]

I was under the assumption that Racist shit like the Nation of Islam would be banned anyway.

[#FF0000]

I was under the assumption that Racist shit like the Nation of Islam would be banned anyway.

NOI isn't representative of all black nationalism.

[Leftsolidarity]

This forum does allow Black Nationalists.

There is a huge difference between Black Nationalists and Black Sepremacists.

[Leftsolidarity]

To clear this up:

Revleft allows Black Nationalists

but

I'm am almost positive that Revleft does not allow Black Sepremacists or racists


If an Admin or something could confirm this that would be nice since I think a lot of confusion is stemming from this.

[Coach Trotsky]

What difference has the increasing globalization and development of capitalism meant to the way that revolutionary socialists look at the questions of special social oppression? To what degree have the forces and forms and essence of special oppressions changed in this globalized context, and to what degree have the remained quite the same?

Does the bourgeoisie classes of the world still play by the same script on these questions that they did 100 years ago? 50 years ago?
Do we play by the same script on these questions from 100 years ago? 50 years ago?

These questions are totally relevant to this topic. Think about it. The world changes, the ruling classes adapt to these changes for their maximum benefit, and pretending otherwise isn't very Marxist.

[jake williams]

There is a world of a difference between white nationalists and nationalists who are white. Again: are you talking about black nationalists or nationalists who are black?
Yes, which I think causes the confusion, and if all I did was make things worse I'm sorry. The point is that the term "white nationalists" refers to something other than nationalists who are white, but instead refers almost always to a particular racist, fascistic ideology, something which "black nationalism", in general, does not. Insofar as "black nationalism" has come to refer to little more than a calque of white nationalism, it represents a deviation from the historical tradition.

Black nationalism historically has been attached to the notion, in the United States, of a "black nation" constituted through former slave populations, geographically situated in the US south, but also in significant national minority populations within northern and western urban centres. And, that this nation is politically and economically oppressed and has a right to self-determination.

There are problems with the analysis, and often, with the politics that comes from such an analysis. But it's not at all intrinsically fascistic or racist.


I refer you to a former argument of mine. Social democrats may have less reactionary politics in practice than conservatives, but we still lump them into one group: capitalists.
Ok, except you can have "nationalists" who are Marxists, but you can't have "social democrats" (in the modern sense) who are. You can have people who consider the abolition of their particular national oppression a central project, and still be nonracist and anti-capitalist. The latter cannot be said of social democrats.

[black magick hustla]

The Black Panthers also rejected black nationalism in the 70s and reject the NBPP on that charge, among others.

the bpp rejected what newton called "porkchop nationalism", but they never rejected nationalism (otherwise, why would they organize along racial lines?)

[Insurgency]

the bpp rejected what newton called "porkchop nationalism", but they never rejected nationalism (otherwise, why would they organize along racial lines?)

When Huey got out of prison he was never the same again (torture can do that to the best of people) and there was a move in the BPP from national liberation towards "inter-communalism" as they disintergrated. They rejected what they considered "cultural" or reactionary nationalism from the start but you only have to listen to Stokey Carmichael's famous speech about "survival" to know that yes they were nationalists, at least of a sort. To pretend otherwise is silly.

[Grillix]

Well, in the days of martin luther king, malcom x, huey, frad hamptom, they were Black revolutionaries (apart from king), and were labelled black nationalists to make division between the whites and blacks.

Banning Black nationalism, could be like taking class politics out of marxism, it was relevent for its period, not at all racist or divisive, the movement at the time was of all colours.
Those calling for black nationalism, unconsciously because of the label, should check their politics again.

[ZrianKobani]

"The political philosophy of black nationalism means: we must control the politics and the politicians of our community."~Malcolm X

[Desperado]

Nationalist =/= Supremacist

[The Man]

I formally ask the mods and admins to take this into consideration.

[727Goon]

wow

[Who?]

"Not every colony of people oppressed by imperialism lies outside the boundaries of the US Black people within North America, brought here 400 years ago as slaves and whose labor, as slaves, built this country, are an internal colony within the confines of the oppressor nation." - You Don't need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25

It's an interesting read, that's for sure. It reads like something Holden Caulfield would write.

Still, it manages to make a fair bit of sense.

[tachosomoza]

"Not every colony of people oppressed by imperialism lies outside the boundaries of the US Black people within North America, brought here 400 years ago as slaves and whose labor, as slaves, built this country, are an internal colony within the confines of the oppressor nation." - You Don't need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25

It's an interesting read, that's for sure. It reads like something Holden Caulfield would write.

Still, it manages to make a fair bit of sense.

The Weathermen knew their shit.

[∞]

Most of them don't believe that blacks are better than whites. Historically, they wanted to elevate the status of black people to be equal to white people.

[Who?]

"Not every colony of people oppressed by imperialism lies outside the boundaries of the US Black people within North America, brought here 400 years ago as slaves and whose labor, as slaves, built this country, are an internal colony within the confines of the oppressor nation." - You Don't need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_9 25

It's an interesting read, that's for sure. It reads like something Holden Caulfield would write.

Still, it manages to make a fair bit of sense.

To elaborate on my pervious post, basically, you should support black national liberation in the same way you would support the national liberation of an overseas colony.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Guys we can intellectualise this to the end of time but...

a) nationalism usuually means hating other people rather than being proud of your "own"
b) putting skin colour in front of politics is dangerous- we have seen it in practice and it isn't pretty
c) combining skin colour with nationality is even more dangerous- we have seen it put in practice and it is even less pretty than b)


This seems to encompass reactionary nationalism only and not revolutionary nationalism of a particular group that is being oppressed by a given system or nation in general. I don't see what's the big deal with black nationalism, yeah, reactionary or what Huey Newton called pork-chop nationalism is bad but revolutionary nationalism? How so?

[Geiseric]

I support Black Nationalism as opposed to white nationalism because instead of the race who is de facto on a higher plane of society, voulantarilly or non voulantaraly suporting whte ideas and culture which almost always ends up with nazism, racism, fascism, etc. black nationalism forms so that the race who is on the lower plane forms togather to fight as a community (because black nationalists usually live in predominately black communities) not against other races, but against the oppression they are targeted at because of being black, hispanic, jewish, or any other oppressed minority. By all means black nationalists sometimes have been a little counter racist towards sympathetic whites, but the purpose isn't to oppress a different race with black nationalism, its to stop the oppression of their race. Read up on Malcolm X's later stuff if there's any questions.
As Lenin said, "Oppressed nations have the right to self determination." and that's the goal of black nationalists, in the U.S. at least by this point. The New Black Panther Party isn't black nationalist, it's simply a black counterspin of the KKK. The goal of Black Nationalists, in the case of the Black Panthers and Maolcolm X in his last most important year was to elevate the black community to be equals of the whites, not superior than them.
To be clearer, i support black nationalism for the same reason as Palestinian Nationalism.

[Thug Lessons]

Are white people really still scared of black nationalists? Their policies can only really be carried out with the consent of the white majority, and that's unlikely to begin with, and generally black nationalists serve to push the debate on race to the left which is a good thing overall.

[Thug Lessons]

In fact, the notion that the black community in the southern US (historically, rather than racially defined) constituted a distinct nation in large part originated in the communist movement.
That's not really true. Its modern incarnation was more a result of the Garvey movement, (which grew out of the right wing of the black liberation movement in the early 20th century), but was later (occasionally) adopted by the CPUSA, which never had that much influence in communities of black workers to begin with.

[tachosomoza]

Are white people really still scared of black nationalists? Their policies can only really be carried out with the consent of the white majority, and that's unlikely to begin with, and generally black nationalists serve to push the debate on race to the left which is a good thing overall.

If the black nationalists wanted to revolt, they wouldn't have to ask the permission of the white majority to do so.

[NormalG]

Black nationalism was more relevant as progressive prior to the 80s. At that time black people, bieng the most oppressed people in the US, were seen as people who would have enough motivation to carry on the revolution. This black nationalism was the main underlying factor of the nationwide revolutionary fervor going on at that time. It was black nationalism that almost led a revolution, partcipated in by all races, in the U.S.! cointelpro has been so successful at dissolving any type of black collective mobilization other means need to now be sought. White nationalism has done nothing but destroyed& dominated people of color as well as white people., and has never been used as an asset for positive global change!

[Thug Lessons]

If the black nationalists wanted to revolt, they wouldn't have to ask the permission of the white majority to do so.
Sure. But black nationalists have never constituted a majority of the black population in the United States, let alone an absolute majority.

[Geiseric]

In certain areas I think it is arguable that Black Nationalists did constitute the majority of the black population, or at least was sympathised by. Places such as Pittsburgh, Oakland, Berkley, New York, big cities. Eventually the movements were crushed, in the same matter that any other progresive movement in the U.S. has.

[The Man]

Well, a Member named Kleber just negrepped me saying that "Black Nationalism is not Imperialist".. This has nothing to do with Imperialism.. This has to do with so called 'races' being nationalized.. There is one race: The Human Race.

[Queercommie Girl]

Black nationalism is (mostly) not imperialist but white nationalism (mostly) is. That's the difference. The logic is very simple. Blacks and Whites are not equal in the concrete socio-economic sense.

Having said this, I don't advocate explicitly promoting any kind of racial nationalism. The only kind of "nationalism" one might want to support sometimes is left-wing national liberation movements of oppressed ethnicities of all races.

[Olentzero]

The Black Panthers, in their early stages, were a racist organization that wanted to create a seperate state for people of African descent only.

Kinda like this?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh317kI6pv1qap9gno1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1308062373&Signature=%2BNGLZM2tX3EWkySOw2M7uPNJ2w8%3D

Nationalism of the oppressed is not the same thing as nationalism of the oppressor, just as the violence of the oppressed is not the same as violence of the oppressor. Otherwise we'd have to condemn slave revolts alongside the whips and pistols of the slaveowners. This is not to say we have to uncritically support Black nationalism; obviously the way some groups apply it (like NOI) is highly reactionary and bigoted. Being proud of being Black after centuries of being told you're little better than an animal, a lesser (or barely) evolved member of the human race fit for nothing more than being someone else's property, is a healthy reaction and one that should be encouraged. It's crossing the line from "Blacks are equal to whites and you'd better goddamned recognize that" to crazy theories about Yacoub and the origins of white people to bolster the idea that Blacks are superior that we need to reject. Rejecting all Black nationalism is a mistake, as it fails to recognize the genuinely progressive and radical elements within it. The NOI isn't all of Black nationalism and - as has been argued regarding many other groups and political stances here - we can't reject Black nationalism simply for the actions of one group within it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Personally I feel that the desired outcome is to get the consturct of race and the practice of categorising towards fenotype should be opposed in all its expressions.

There is no real philosophical difference between saying white people are superior to black people or the other way around....its stemming from the same fucked up source in the believe that there is a superior and an inferior when it comes to human beings and it ultimately leads to a system of repression and exclusion.

That said. There is a huge qualitative and practical difference between white supremacy and non-white supremacy in the current state of affairs: The fact that there actually is a repressive system agaist non-whites which has maintained its dominance over centuries.

Within western culture white supremacy and the domination and exclusion of non-whites is comming from years of domination and victory mentality. It has become a logical state of affiars and anything that threatenes that will, by some groups, be seen as a threat to their position. Its not quite that simple...but is a good generalisation to start.

Non-white supremacy is ultimately a counter reaction within western culture and the former colonies or parts of empire. That does not mean it isn't a bad thing in itself....but it puts things in perspective.

It is however not prevalent or noticeable within society to any large scale non induvidualised respect towards white people. In short...non-white groups are in no position currently to actually have a large scale means of oppression. That is still the exclusive position of white people in general. Nor is it a sole leading force behind the emancipation movements.

It can and does occur on a micro, induvidual level and when it does its eqaully bad. But it does not form a system of repression in the sense that white oppression does.


Our end goal however is to unite the working class and create a post revolutionary society. Racism and superiority ideology has no place in that future no matter who the source is and no matter what the origin is.

Groups who express racial dominance, superiority and inferiority principles should in my opinion be avoided in favor of a more productive ones who actually want to reach a soctiety free from the convines of race.

In the mean time we should strife to create a movement which in the end is free from classifying and categorizing according to skin colour, background, culture, genetic make-up and we should avoid using language an tactics which perpetuate the practice.

Thats my 2 cts.

[Steve_j]

Given the amount of people on this forum that support Palestinian nationalism, to implement the proposal would result in this forum fast becoming a very lonely place.

I say we just restrict all nationalists and supporters of nationalist movements ;)

[☭The Revolution☭]

Why the fuck are some of you defending black nationalism? It's nationalism, nationalists are the enemy of communism, period!!!

[tachosomoza]

Kinda like this?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh317kI6pv1qap9gno1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1308062373&Signature=%2BNGLZM2tX3EWkySOw2M7uPNJ2w8%3D

Nationalism of the oppressed is not the same thing as nationalism of the oppressor, just as the violence of the oppressed is not the same as violence of the oppressor. Otherwise we'd have to condemn slave revolts alongside the whips and pistols of the slaveowners. This is not to say we have to uncritically support Black nationalism; obviously the way some groups apply it (like NOI) is highly reactionary and bigoted. Being proud of being Black after centuries of being told you're little better than an animal, a lesser (or barely) evolved member of the human race fit for nothing more than being someone else's property, is a healthy reaction and one that should be encouraged. It's crossing the line from "Blacks are equal to whites and you'd better goddamned recognize that" to crazy theories about Yacoub and the origins of white people to bolster the idea that Blacks are superior that we need to reject. Rejecting all Black nationalism is a mistake, as it fails to recognize the genuinely progressive and radical elements within it. The NOI isn't all of Black nationalism and - as has been argued regarding many other groups and political stances here - we can't reject Black nationalism simply for the actions of one group within it.

I agree, self determination and equality are musts if Black people are to be effective fighters of the class struggle. I do admire the Panthers' point plan.


WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES. We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.
WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE. We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every person employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.
WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES. We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. We will accept the payment in currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of our fifty million Black people. Therefore, we feel this is a modest demand that we make.
WE WANT DECENT HOUSING, FIT FOR THE SHELTER OF HUMAN BEINGS. We believe that if the landlords will not give decent housing to our Black and oppressed communities, then housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that the people in our communities, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for the people.
WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY. We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of the self. If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else.
WE WANT COMPLETELY FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE. We believe that the government must provide, free of charge, for the people, health facilities which will not only treat our illnesses, most of which have come about as a result of our oppression, but which will also develop preventive medical programs to guarantee our future survival. We believe that mass health education and research programs must be developed to give all Black and oppressed people access to advanced scientific and medical information, so we may provide our selves with proper medical attention and care.
WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO POLICE BRUTALITY AND MURDER OF BLACK PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, ALL OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. We believe that the racist and fascist government of the United States uses its domestic enforcement agencies to carry out its program of oppression against black people, other people of color and poor people inside the United States. We believe it is our right, therefore, to defend ourselves against such armed forces and that all Black and oppressed people should be armed for self defense of our homes and communities against these fascist police forces.
WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION. We believe that the various conflicts which exist around the world stem directly from the aggressive desire of the United States ruling circle and government to force its domination upon the oppressed people of the world. We believe that if the United States government or its lackeys do not cease these aggressive wars it is the right of the people to defend themselves by any means necessary against their aggressors.
WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE NOW HELD IN U. S. FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, AND MILITARY PRISONS AND JAILS. WE WANT TRIALS BY A JURY OF PEERS FOR ALL PERSONS CHARGED WITH SO-CALLED CRIMES UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. We believe that the many Black and poor oppressed people now held in United States prisons and jails have not received fair and impartial trials under a racist and fascist judicial system and should be free from incarceration. We believe in the ultimate elimination of all wretched, inhuman penal institutions, because the masses of men and women imprisoned inside the United States or by the United States military are the victims of oppressive conditions which are the real cause of their imprisonment. We believe that when persons are brought to trial they must be guaranteed, by the United States, juries of their peers, attorneys of their choice and freedom from imprisonment while awaiting trial.
WE WANT LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are most disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security

[Leftsolidarity]

Why the fuck are some of you defending black nationalism? It's nationalism, nationalists are the enemy of communism, period!!!

:huh:

If you are a Leninist you should understand why that is not true

[Desperado]

I formally ask the mods and admins to take this into consideration.

Look, nationalism is almost an empty word. If you're just going to come to conclusions by abstracting from your own definitions you may as well sit in a dark room on your own - you'll get just as far.

Do the vast majority of so-called "white nationalists" see and treat other races as lesser human beings? Yes.

So much that "white nationalism" and white supremacist racism are almost synonymous?
Yes.

Do the majority of "black nationalists" (or the ones on this forum at least) see and treat other races as lesser human beings? No.

Is "black nationalism" synonymous with racism in the way "white nationalism" is? No.

Does it in fact, to the contrary, espouse the values of (mostly working class) struggles against hierarchy, discrimination and even capitalism which leftists hold dear? Yes.

[Desperado]

Being proud of being Black after centuries of being told you're little better than an animal, a lesser (or barely) evolved member of the human race fit for nothing more than being someone else's property, is a healthy reaction and one that should be encouraged.

Yes, however you don't have to be part of an oppressed nation (or race) to be given some field-equalising right to be proud. Everyone has the right to be "proud" of whatever they like, collectively or individually. "White pride" could be ok. The problem is the meaning of the proud (it is generally either a: positive inflection (not necessarily bad) or b: 'a' and feeling superior (not so good)), and the resultant actions (and generally with white pride it's about the latter). Of course - why you'd want to be proud (in either sense) is a pretty good indicator as to what the pride means.

I don't give a poo if someone (or some group) feels good because they have white skin, or brown eyes, or webbed toes, or whatever. But why you'd be fervently (and politically) proud of something which tends (or tended) to be on the oppressing or higher side gives a good clue as to what the pride entails, and vice versa. Hence gay, black and disabled pride tends (though of course not always) to be good; straight and white pride bad.

It's never as clear cut as oppressed people's pride = good (and of course, supremacists often see themselves as victims, even when this is blatantly not the case), but this is often a good rule of thumb.

[tachosomoza]

I've talked to white nationalists, they've got some pretty confused types, to put it mildly. Some hide behind BS like "Race mixing is bad for ALL races, hybrid vigor, random pseudoscientific study, yaddayaddayadda". The funniest WN group in my opinion is the Northwest Front, which wants to establish an "Aryan Homeland" in the PACIFIC NORTHWEST. :lol:

Check it out.

http://northwestfront.org/

[ComradeMan]

I've talked to white nationalists, they've got some pretty confused types, to put it mildly. Some hide behind BS like "Race mixing is bad for ALL races, hybrid vigor, random pseudoscientific study, yaddayaddayadda".


Out of curiosity... if race mixing is bad (according to them) then what's the deal with hybrid vigour? You don't get hybrids without mixing and vigour can hardly be described as a negative.

[tachosomoza]

Out of curiosity... if race mixing is bad (according to them) then what's the deal with hybrid vigour? You don't get hybrids without mixing and vigour can hardly be described as a negative.

Something about outbreeding depression post hybrid stage, IDK....I let that shit run in one ear and out the other. The point is that they want to justify segregating themselves from reality.

[Thug Lessons]

Hybrid vigor isn't some sort of universal rule. It happens most often with domestic animals that suffer from inbreeding depression, and 'races' are genetically diverse enough that it's unlikely there'd be any sort of hybrid vigor or depression outside of populations that are already genetically isolated like, say, Ashkenazi Jews.

[tachosomoza]

Hybrid vigor isn't some sort of universal rule. It happens most often with domestic animals that suffer from inbreeding depression, and 'races' are genetically diverse enough that it's unlikely there'd be any sort of hybrid vigor or depression outside of populations that are already genetically isolated like, say, Ashkenazi Jews.

Tell that to Stormfront. I guarantee you they'll twist it around to make it fit their view of the world. If they can't, they'll just plug their ears and go "lalalalalala, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!". The same with the NBPP, NoI, Nation of YahWeh, or other nutty black nationalist/supremacist group. I wouldn't waste any time on them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

if White Nationalism isn't allowed, why should Black Nationalism be?What is white nationalism in the context of the US? It is an ideology based not on simply celebrating or liking white people but of maintaining a specific hierarchical structure in the US or white supremacy. In other words, white nationalism in the US or South Africa during apartheid or whatnot is more about oppressing the non-white population and as such white nationalism in the US bolsters the system and helps the ruling class increase repression which ultimately hurts all workers.

Black nationalism (of which there are various types some middle class other more revolutionary) for any flaws and there are many from a radical socialist perspective, is qualitatively different than white nationalism. Black nationalism does not bolster the ruling class system even if it is a poor strategy for liberation or accepts the logic of capitalism (which is true of some forms of black nationalism, but not of others).


There is literally no difference in between the Black (Wo)man and the White (Wo)man.No difference in the abstract in a vacuum, but do white men get pulled over for being in the wrong place? Does unemployment or housing discrimination effect black people the same as white? No, to say that white people and black people in the US are treated the same and have the same experience socially is idealism at best.


I am in favor of banning Black Nationalists and White Nationalists, or for that matter, any type of Racial Nationalists. I want to see what you guys think.Black nationalists should be restricted as not being revolutionary socialists/anarchists, but should not be banned like white nationalists. If a black nationalist is advocating the death of all white people, then that is an anti-working class view (since some workers are white) and they should be banned, but that's really a straw-man version of black nationalism and I would be suprized if a serious black nationalist activist actually proposed this - my guess is a that a white racist trolling would be more likely to post this while pretending to be a black nationalist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's one thing to debate the relationship of the radical left to nationalism among oppressed people or how effective the nationalism of the oppressed is, but frankly I'm shocked that it's even a debate here on RevLeft about if white and black nationalism is the same.

Painting groups like the Panthers or people like Malcolm X with the same brush as the KKK or neo-nazis has been a project of the right-wing in the US since the 1980s - it's sad it's made such inroads here.

[Olentzero]

Black nationalists should be restricted as not being revolutionary socialists/anarchistsAll due comradely respect, Jimmie, but go back and read the Black Panther point program quoted in response to my CPUSA election poster. What's not revolutionary about any of that?

[Jimmie Higgins]

All due comradely respect, Jimmie, but go back and read the Black Panther point program quoted in response to my CPUSA election poster. What's not revolutionary about any of that?

True. That's what I meant above about black nationalism being made up of various different stands. If someone is a black nationalist and believes that the answer to oppression is getting politicians elected, or that black people need to subscribe to a specific set of morals, or setting up black-owned firms hen they should be restricted like social democrats or liberals are on this site. If they are essentially revolutionary socialists who believe that oppressed people need to organize first among people in the same oppressed group, then (while I think that method ultimately comes up short in the struggle against oppression) why would they be banned. Painting all kinds of black nationalism with the same brush (let alone lumping the nationalism of the oppressed with nationalism of oppression together) just doesn't work and so, you're right, people shouldn't be restricted just on the basis of being black nationalist alone; but restricted or not-restricted on the basis of their positions.

[Crux]

We restrict reactionaries,thus people from the NOI and NBPP would be restricted on that basis. I do not advocate Black Nationalism myself, but there is nothing inherently reactionary in the nationalism of oppressed people, at least not more than people we already allow on the forum.

[freenation26]

They are inherently based on ethnic cleansing, nothing more. I really don't see what imperialism has to do with it. Please consider the difference between white separatists and white supremacists.



They were white supremacists, yes. I must stress this again: if we're talking about white supremacism, we must compare it with black supremacism. The black nationalism you are thinking of here is to be compared with the orthodox WNism, a.k.a. white separatism.



Expansionism, maybe, but do explain imperialism.



The way you want to accomplish this, though, is by establishing an uneasy ceasefire between whites and non-whites. I answered this in the last part of my previous post, the one you didn't quote here: self-determination like what you propose makes non-whites' lives easier, but doesn't solve the conflict, which is the main goal.

But both seek the same end goal - a racial state. You could say that black nationalism is based on liberation while white nationalism is based on oppression, but there can be supremacist black nationalists, just as there can be non-supremacist white nationalists.

[Olentzero]

Let's take, for the sake of argument, that the end goal of Black or white nationalism is a racial state. Yet you say that there is such a thing as a non-supremacist white nationalist (which I'd like to see, frankly). If, as a white nationalist, they want a racial state, how can they not be supremacist?

[Zav]

Two words: white guilt.

[W1N5T0N]

The simple answer: because certain elements of the left have co-opted black politics and made them an specially designated victim class.

White Nazis, Black Nazis, same difference to me; except unlike blacks whites actually do have a real culture as something other than barbarians. All this fake-Africa shit and naming yourself 'Mutumbo' and converting to Islam (lol, the main slave traders) just makes them look retarded.

And the Nation of Islam is a God damn joke.

Black Nazis?

[Leftsolidarity]

Two words: white guilt.

What are you talking about?

[tachosomoza]

What are you talking about?

I think he's saying that a lot of leftists give prejudiced black nationalist groups like the NoI a pass because they think that black people can't be prejudiced.

I tried to organize my ARA chapter have an action at a Nation of Islam meeting a while back, but they didn't want to do it. I wonder why...

[Leftsolidarity]

White guilt refers to the concept of individual or collective guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_guilt) often said to be felt by some white people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) for the racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist) treatment of people of color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_color) by whites both historically and presently.

I don't see how this fits here. People throw around the term 'white guilt' too often just to try to make the other argument look childish while having no real argument of their own.

Edit:btw that was just copy and paste from Wikipedia

[#FF0000]

attn all white people please be white and privileged somewhere else thanks

[Die Rote Fahne]

Racial nationalism ignores the fact that race is a social construct. It chooses to fight other races or "preserve" their own, fight for their own, instead of all injustices.

I think that's the point sometimes, that supporters of black nationalism miss. The goal is to end all injustice, not just your injustice. A lot of us will still support them because they fight an injustice, contrary to white nationalists who wish to keep them, or create false injustices.

[#FF0000]

Holy shit everyone just stop posting god fucking damn

[Die Rote Fahne]

Holy shit everyone just stop posting god fucking damn

Ra ra ra raaaaageeeee modeeee.

Lol. <3

[Leftsolidarity]

holy shit everyone just stop posting god fucking damn

free speech man! You can't hold me down!

Edit: God damn it. It won't let me do all caps. Imagine that I yelled that at the top of my internet lungs.

[tachosomoza]

attn all white people please be white and privileged somewhere else thanks

I'm not white OR privileged.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm not white OR privileged.

I think the correct grammar would be "nor".

[Desperado]

But both seek the same end goal - a racial state.

Massive generalisation.


Racial nationalism ignores the fact that race is a social construct.

Does feminism ignore the fact that gender is a social construct? Or gay rights movements that strict sexuality is? No. But besides, the gay culture, black culture or whatever attached to these things are also not social constructs.


It chooses to fight other races or "preserve" their own, fight for their own, instead of all injustices.
Not necessarily. Eco warriors don't think this harm to the environment is the sole injustice. One could be a black nationalist, a feminist, an environmentalist and communist all at the same time, just as a communists we necessarily see all the former things as ultimately attached to socialism.

[Manic Impressive]

Holy shit everyone just stop posting god fucking damn
y'know what i'm sick of people just writing in a thread "this thread's shit" and contributing nothing. There's a really simple alternative if you've read a thread and are not interested or think that the premise is stupid and this aggravates you then don't click on the thread again. It's that simple

Deal
With
It.

[#FF0000]

y'know what i'm sick of people just writing in a thread "this thread's shit" and contributing nothing. There's a really simple alternative if you've read a thread and are not interested or think that the premise is stupid and this aggravates you then don't click on the thread again. It's that simple

Deal
With
It.

I posted a p. decent and short explanation of black nationalism earlier in this thread and it is literally like one of the few posts of any value in this thread. Hardly anyone knows what they are talking about at all.

[Dacaru]

I think one should be careful not to so flippantly equate Black Nationalism with White Nationalism. This may seem like a smooth cognitive gesture, like the often equating of Black prejudice with White systemic racism, but the historical, structural, and day to day facts in the world do Not support this equivalence. While I disagree with some versions Black Nationalism and also Afrocentrism on many points; the points in which I think they simply change the content but keep the form of White supremacist and/ Eurocentric strategies and tactics. I do empathize with the situation of Black nationalism for two reasons:
1. For African-Americans race is difficult to separate from ethnicity, of course this is a result of the African American community being conceived in the furnace of slavery. So solidarity and community was built upon the common racial experience in the 'peculiar institution.'
2. Other peoples have land and so use spatial concepts/ nationhood as a basis for solidarity, all the revolutionary national movements for example. Of course African-Americans don't have that luxury, but people like the Panthers used community scale through national networks to attempt to achieve Black control of Black communities. Is that counter-revolutionary?
Lastly, the oppressed tend to internalize the ways and tactics of the oppressor, among other false consciousness, that's one of the central reasons people accept oppression/ exploitation.
P.S. Part of the expansion of the capitalist system worldwide was the creation of a White Supremacist caste order, well before Nazi was a word/ acronym, even though that has change significantly it has not been erased, so we must pay close attention to White supremacy as articulated within Liberalism and dare I say the Left also.

[freenation26]

Let's take, for the sake of argument, that the end goal of Black or white nationalism is a racial state. Yet you say that there is such a thing as a non-supremacist white nationalist (which I'd like to see, frankly). If, as a white nationalist, they want a racial state, how can they not be supremacist?

Well many white nationalists seek a state entirely for white people, if there are no non-whites in the nation, who would there be to oppress? Obviously the country could be supremacist in that it would be imperialistic, and seek to dominate the people of other nations, but a white nationalist state does not necessarily need to be imperialistic.

[freenation26]

Massive generalisation.

I was under the impression that nationalists want political independence for their nation.

[Leftsolidarity]

I was under the impression that nationalists want political independence for their nation.

Not in the same Nation-state context you are thinking of.

[Dacaru]

Well many white nationalists seek a state entirely for white people, if there are no non-whites in the nation, who would there be to oppress? Obviously the country could be supremacist in that it would be imperialistic, and seek to dominate the people of other nations, but a white nationalist state does not necessarily need to be imperialistic.
Uhm, what is the economic system of this hypothetical non imperialist White nation? Black nationalist want to determine the destiny of their community, which has been denied them because of their Blackness in a White supremacist society! They are wrong for minimizing the importance of class etc...I myself prefer world revolution. But I ask, when and where have Whites have been prevented from controlling their communities/ nations because of their whiteness? PS please don't say Zimbabwe

[ComradeMan]

I posted a p. decent and short explanation of black nationalism earlier in this thread and it is literally like one of the few posts of any value in this thread. Hardly anyone knows what they are talking about at all.

But the trouble is, you aren't black- therefore your opinion is bound to be influenced by your privileged white American background that could not possibly empathise with the reality of the black struggle in America. ;)

On a personal note, WTF- white nationalists and black nationalists in America are on shaky ground as really they are all immigrants in one sense or another and the only nationalists I could possibly, remotely, even understand would be Native Americans-


....but I don't support nationalism!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well, I'm anti-nationalist in general. To think that the injustices of any group can be solved within capitalist society, is fucking dumb.

[Desperado]

I was under the impression that nationalists want political independence for their nation.

And political independence = nation state? Who are you, Woodrow Wilson?

[Desperado]

Well, I'm anti-nationalist in general. To think that the injustices of any group can be solved within capitalist society, is fucking dumb.

And what if my nationalism is synthesised with wanting to end capitalist society?

[#FF0000]

But the trouble is, you aren't black- therefore your opinion is bound to be influenced by your privileged white American background that could not possibly empathise with the reality of the black struggle in America. ;)

It's basically cut-and-paste from a lot of explanations that I have heard over the ages so nice try I guess man. I definitely don't claim to be an expert on these matters and I'm not a fan of identity politics generally, but absolutely no one in this thread has the slightest clue what in the fuck black nationalism is.


On a personal note, WTF- white nationalists and black nationalists in America are on shaky ground as really they are all immigrants in one sense or another and the only nationalists I could possibly, remotely, even understand would be Native Americans-


Black Nationalists and White Nationalists aren't the same thing. They do not propose the same things. One is not just a different colored version of the other. You do not understand what Black Nationalism is.

[9]

Do any Black nationalists even post on this forum to begin with...?

[Die Rote Fahne]

And what if my nationalism is synthesised with wanting to end capitalist society?
Still against it. Nationalism is divisive, and hinders the class struggle.

[freenation26]

Uhm, what is the economic system of this hypothetical non imperialist White nation?

How about socialism.


Black nationalist want to determine the destiny of their community, which has been denied them because of their Blackness in a White supremacist society! They are wrong for minimizing the importance of class etc...I myself prefer world revolution. But I ask, when and where have Whites have been prevented from controlling their communities/ nations because of their whiteness? PS please don't say Zimbabwe

I don't know one.

[Coach Trotsky]

And what if my nationalism is synthesised with wanting to end capitalist society?

See, this is what I want to hear serious responses to.
Peoples of European ethnic national origins, who are against ethnic chauvinism/racial supremacism, against capitalism, support revolutionary socialism from below and workers' states, who extend actual and unwavering international solidarity to the struggles of workers and oppressed peoples of all nations... but their own national self-determination is not to be permitted? What? Why not?

Quo bono? Who benefits from that policy in today's globalized capitalist context? Has anybody considered the precarious working-class youth of European ethnic origins, and how they very well could support revolutionary socialism, but ONLY if the Left drops that vulgar simplistic "white people are bad" relic script and embraces them and their right to independent national self-determination in much the same way as it embraces the workers and oppressed of all other peoples/nations and their? Has anybody even considered the fact that instead of requiring that Euro-ethnic working people and youth being forced to choose "we're all evil bad white people" and racist reactionary nationalist identity/views, a uniquely revolutionary socialist and progressive national identity could be offered to them instead (the sort described in the first paragraph of this post)?

Why would they want this progressive national identity if they are revolutionary socialists? Because, let's face it, there is the trendy image of Sci-fi and MTV-style globalism, and then there is the reality of historical oppression, conflict and intense competition between peoples that continues to this day, there is a shitload of mistrust because the ruling class has pitted and used each people against the others, and so this will require quite some time and effort to rectify during the building of socialism through the international collaborative efforts and voluntary unions of free independent national workers' states.
Let us not forget the history of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, up to and through the collapse of the regimes there. Lots of national oppression and national mistrust now as a result. How are you going to deal with this question effectively in the 21st Century? Not by pretending the problem doesn't exist, and not by pretending that "white people are too backwards" to be permitted rights of independent national self-determination, while other peoples are seen by the Left as inherently not contradictory and their national sentiments and aspirations and acts of self-determination are always progressive. If most "white" workers are "backwards", then I blame the leaders of the Left and labor movement first and foremost for letting the bourgeoisie determine the forms and essence and ideological basis of their national identity rather than taking the lead on that question, and for treating them as if they were enemies when these "whites" respond accordingly since their working class has been offered no other resonating just alternatives by their revolutionary socialist vanguard. Either revolutionary socialists step up to the plate and speak to this question justly and effectively for all the workers and oppressed, or else there will be more trouble, more confusion, and more misleadership provided courtesy of our foes in the present and even more in the future.

[Die Rote Fahne]

See: "The National Question" - Rosa Luxemburg

[Coach Trotsky]

See: "The National Question" - Rosa Luxemburg

Got anything that deals with TODAY'S conditions?
You don't believe that things are fundamentally unchanged since that time, do you?

[Leftsolidarity]

[QUOTE=Coach Trotsky;2143519]but their own national self-determination is not to be permitted? What? Why not?

but ONLY if the Left drops that vulgar simplistic "white people are bad" relic script and embraces them and their right to independent national self-determination in much the same way as it embraces the workers and oppressed of all other peoples/nations and their?
QUOTE]


These are wrong/not true.

Those European countries and their occupants HAVE self-determination. There is not a group (like African Americans in the USA) that are oppressed and need to struggle for self-determination. There is not a significant racial struggle (at least that I know of) that would constitute a need to achieve self-determination. The class struggle is the main and only struggle there.

I don't think the Left holds a "white people are bad" mentality. What do you base this statement off of?


Edit: That top part was a quote from Coachtrotsky

[tachosomoza]

[QUOTE=Coach Trotsky;2143519]but their own national self-determination is not to be permitted? What? Why not?

but ONLY if the Left drops that vulgar simplistic "white people are bad" relic script and embraces them and their right to independent national self-determination in much the same way as it embraces the workers and oppressed of all other peoples/nations and their?
QUOTE]


These are wrong/not true.

Those European countries and their occupants HAVE self-determination. There is not a group (like African Americans in the USA) that are oppressed and need to struggle for self-determination. There is not a significant racial struggle (at least that I know of) that would constitute a need to achieve self-determination. The class struggle is the main and only struggle there.

I don't think the Left holds a "white people are bad" mentality. What do you base this statement off of?


Edit: That top part was a quote from Coachtrotsky

Roma? What about the minority ethnic groups of Europe that are oppressed and fucked over by the majority?

I think what Trotsky is saying is that white ethnics are turned off by the fact that we seem to want them to give up their unique cultural identities, while the African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics aren't expected to do so. That seems pretty damn hypocritical to me.

[Leftsolidarity]

[QUOTE=Leftsolidarity;2143558]
I think what Trotsky is saying is that white ethnics are turned off by the fact that we seem to want them to give up their unique cultural identities, while the African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics aren't expected to do so. That seems pretty damn hypocritical to me.

How do we ask them to do that at all?

Edit: WTF IS WRONG WITH THE QUOTES?!

[tachosomoza]

[QUOTE=tachosomoza;2143565]

How do we ask them to do that at all?

I didn't say that we're asking them to, we're implying it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't see where you are getting that implication though. Could you please give me an example?

[freenation26]

[QUOTE=Leftsolidarity;2143558]

Roma? What about the minority ethnic groups of Europe that are oppressed and fucked over by the majority?

I think what Trotsky is saying is that white ethnics are turned off by the fact that we seem to want them to give up their unique cultural identities, while the African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics aren't expected to do so. That seems pretty damn hypocritical to me.

Hm, I'd have to say I agree tachosomoza. And especially, when they begin thinking we are hypocritical and that we don't truly support them, they get turned off by socialism. They become easy prey for the right wing. They want revolutionary leadership, and when they feel the left is being hypocritical, they'll go elsewhere, e.g., to right-wing fascist groups.

[tachosomoza]

Hm, I'd have to say I agree tachosomoza. And especially, when they begin thinking we are hypocritical and that we don't truly support them, they get turned off by socialism. They become easy prey for the right wing. They want revolutionary leadership, and when they feel the left is being hypocritical, they'll go elsewhere, e.g., to right-wing fascist groups.

Which is why we have to promote self determination for all. Here in the US, the left has essentially ignored the demands of working class ethnic Europeans, such as Italians, Greeks, Poles, Finns, Irishmen, and the like. As a result, people from these ethnicities tend to gravitate towards the far right. Most of the Reagan Democrats were people like this. A revolutionary organization that promotes self determination for one group of proletariat, while ignoring the demands of another group simply because they share skin color in common with a lot of bourgeoisie is shooting itself in the foot. After all are self determined, we can then focus on the class war.

[Coach Trotsky]

[QUOTE=Leftsolidarity;2143558]

Roma? What about the minority ethnic groups of Europe that are oppressed and fucked over by the majority?

I think what Trotsky is saying is that white ethnics are turned off by the fact that we seem to want them to give up their unique cultural identities, while the African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics aren't expected to do so. That seems pretty damn hypocritical to me.

Yes, that is a big part of what I'm saying, and that is how many Euro-ethnic working people who would otherwise largely agree with revolutionary socialists perceive this. It comes off as uneven internationalism and even forced internationalism, even anti- Euro-ethnic bigotry, and it plays right into the fascists' script. Young "white" working class folks face a near-future of precarious working/living conditions and regular long-term unemployment, and great difficulty getting into college (because they can't fucking afford it), with barely any hint of institutional special privilege remaining from Jim Crow days (uh, globalization means the old simple Left explanations don't fly), austerity measures will slash the living standards in America and European countries tell it is unrecognizable from what most know it as today. These people could be won over, but not if we see them and talk to them like MIM did explicitly and much of the rest of the Left does a bit more underhandedly/rigidly. If we continue dropping the ball in this regard, guess where these folks will go to find answers and leadership instead? If you want to obliterate capitalism and fascism, then you better embrace and lead those young Euro-ethnic class folks who WILL hit the streets sooner or later in a fight for their future, and you better give them red flags and a revolutionary program and aim that specifically INCLUDED THEM as much as it includes the workers and oppressed of all nations of the world, and you'd better respect their independent self-determination in the same way that you'd respect all other peoples, if you expect them to show genuine internationalist solidarity and support to others.
All these people have been played against each other by our foes for long enough...and now, with intensely globalized modern capitalism, this will be an even bigger part of the strategy of the ruling classes against the workers and oppressed peoples. We must not make the mistake of playing right into their hands and assisting their oppressive divide and conquer global games while imagine ourselves to be progressive...but that is exactly what will happen if we play by the old Leftist scripts from the past era, acting as if the world's dominant imperialist bourgeoisies are still principally operating on the basis of the Jim Crow/apartheid/old colonialism/Cold War strategies, and nothing has changed.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Got anything that deals with TODAY'S conditions?
You don't believe that things are fundamentally unchanged since that time, do you?

You can't apply it to today why? Do explain.

[tachosomoza]

[QUOTE=tachosomoza;2143565]

Yes, that is a big part of what I'm saying, and that is how many Euro-ethnic working people who would otherwise largely agree with revolutionary socialists perceive this. It comes off as uneven internationalism and even forced internationalism, even anti- Euro-ethnic bigotry, and it plays right into the fascists' script. Young "white" working class folks face a near-future of precarious working/living conditions and regular long-term unemployment, and great difficulty getting into college (because they can't fucking afford it), with barely any hint of institutional special privilege remaining from Jim Crow days (uh, globalization means the old simple Left explanations don't fly), austerity measures will slash the living standards in America and European countries tell it is unrecognizable from what most know it as today. These people could be won over, but not if we see them and talk to them like MIM did explicitly and much of the rest of the Left does a bit more underhandedly/rigidly. If we continue dropping the ball in this regard, guess where these folks will go to find answers and leadership instead? If you want to obliterate capitalism and fascism, then you better embrace and lead those young Euro-ethnic class folks who WILL hit the streets sooner or later in a fight for their future, and you better give them red flags and a revolutionary program and aim that specifically INCLUDED THEM as much as it includes the workers and oppressed of all nations of the world, and you'd better respect their independent self-determination in the same way that you'd respect all other peoples, if you expect them to show genuine internationalist solidarity and support to others.
All these people have been played against each other by our foes for long enough...and now, with intensely globalized modern capitalism, this will be an even bigger part of the strategy of the ruling classes against the workers and oppressed peoples. We must not make the mistake of playing right into their hands and assisting their oppressive divide and conquer global games while imagine ourselves to be progressive...but that is exactly what will happen if we play by the old Leftist scripts from the past era, acting as if the world's dominant imperialist bourgeoisies are still principally operating on the basis of the Jim Crow/apartheid/old colonialism/Cold War strategies, and nothing has changed.

I couldn't fucking agree more, bro. :cool:

Like I've said before, we have to build a UNITED FRONT AGAINST CAPITALISM.

Enough of this liberal implied "white people are inherently oppressive" bullshit. People don't want white guilt, blacks and Hispanics don't want to be coddled and treated like 5 year old children, they want jobs, they want to get rid of the system that has fucked them for forever and a day, and they want freedom from exploitation, lies and oppression. I want self-determination for the working class. Some may have to be nudged a little more, though, I admit.

[Coach Trotsky]

Which is why we have to promote self determination for all. Here in the US, the left has essentially ignored the demands of working class ethnic Europeans, such as Italians, Greeks, Poles, Finns, Irishmen, and the like. As a result, people from these ethnicities tend to gravitate towards the far right. Most of the Reagan Democrats were people like this. A revolutionary organization that promotes self determination for one group of proletariat, while ignoring the demands of another group simply because they share skin color in common with a lot of bourgeoisie is shooting itself in the foot. After all are self determined, we can then focus on the class war.

It will be even more so like this in the future, if the revolutionary socialists keep dropping the ball. Yes, fight racism! But don't treat these working people as inherent enemies just because they're "white". Matter of fact, if we really want the young Euro-ethnic American working people to break with this reactionary construct that they have something special in common with the Euro-ethnic "white American" segment of the US ruling class and its superstructure, then please stop calling them "whites". Enable and encourage them to express a distinct independent and progressive national identity that is thoroughly based upon the principles and greatest ideals of revolutionary socialism, one that does NOT pit them as adversaries of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Jews or any other peoples living on this continent and does NOT lock them into a class-collaborationist identity paradigm with the ruling class and its American empire. I mean, we have got to stop forfeiting these folks, and then acting astonished that they respond in opposition, then basically spinning it as "ah ha...they're all evil bad backwards racist privileged bought-off white enemy reactionary scum". Can we please put an end to this self-fulfilling prophesy cycle?

[Coach Trotsky]

[QUOTE=Coach Trotsky;2143607]

I couldn't fucking agree more, bro. :cool:

Like I've said before, we have to build a UNITED FRONT AGAINST CAPITALISM.

Enough of this liberal implied "white people are inherently oppressive" bullshit. People don't want white guilt, blacks and Hispanics don't want to be coddled and treated like 5 year old children, they want jobs, they want to get rid of the system that has fucked them for forever and a day, and they want freedom from exploitation, lies and oppression. I want self-determination for the working class. Some may have to be nudged a little more, though, I admit.

The capitalists are creating a hellish barbaric present and future for the vast majority of humanity. We need to extend our hand out to all of them, and offer what we uniquely have to offer---REAL LIBERATION, REAL SOLUTIONS, REAL DECENT FUTURES, secured and created by their own WORKERS POWER!
If we really did that, we'd win sooner or later.

[tachosomoza]

It will be even more so like this in the future, if the revolutionary socialists keep dropping the ball. Yes, fight racism! But don't treat these working people as inherent enemies just because they're "white". Matter of fact, if we really want the young Euro-ethnic American working people to break with this reactionary construct that they have something special in common with the Euro-ethnic "white American" segment of the US ruling class and its superstructure, then please stop calling them "whites". Enable and encourage them to express a distinct independent and progressive national identity that is thoroughly based upon the principles and greatest ideals of revolutionary socialism, one that does NOT pit them as adversaries of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Jews or any other peoples living on this continent and does NOT lock them into a class-collaborationist identity paradigm with the ruling class and its American empire. I mean, we have got to stop forfeiting these folks, and then acting astonished that they respond in opposition, then basically spinning it as "ah ha...they're all evil bad backwards racist privileged bought-off white enemy reactionary scum". Can we please put an end to this self-fulfilling prophesy cycle?

As a sidenote, we should urge revolutionaries of all colors to avoid the use of the terms "redneck, cracker" or other variants. It further seals our stereotype as rich, naive, hypocritical white kids from the suburbs or racist, selfish people of color.

[freenation26]

It will be even more so like this in the future, if the revolutionary socialists keep dropping the ball. Yes, fight racism! But don't treat these working people as inherent enemies just because they're "white". Matter of fact, if we really want the young Euro-ethnic American working people to break with this reactionary construct that they have something special in common with the Euro-ethnic "white American" segment of the US ruling class and its superstructure, then please stop calling them "whites". Enable and encourage them to express a distinct independent and progressive national identity that is thoroughly based upon the principles and greatest ideals of revolutionary socialism, one that does NOT pit them as adversaries of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Jews or any other peoples living on this continent and does NOT lock them into a class-collaborationist identity paradigm with the ruling class and its American empire. I mean, we have got to stop forfeiting these folks, and then acting astonished that they respond in opposition, then basically spinning it as "ah ha...they're all evil bad backwards racist privileged bought-off white enemy reactionary scum". Can we please put an end to this self-fulfilling prophesy cycle?

Hm, this is interesting. You mean like nationalism that is still supportive of the proletariat?

[tachosomoza]

Hm, this is interesting. You mean like nationalism that is still supportive of the proletariat?

No, the concept of "nation" is bourgeois. We're saying that they need something to distance themselves from the bourgeoisie.

[freenation26]

No, the concept of "nation" is bourgeois. We're saying that they need something to distance themselves from the bourgeoisie.

nation - A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory

How is that bourgeois?

[tachosomoza]

nation - A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory

How is that bourgeois?

Because the concept is used often to support oppression of other "nations", war, genocide, and other nasties.

[Coach Trotsky]

Hm, this is interesting. You mean like nationalism that is still supportive of the proletariat?

It's not really about "liking it" as much as being convinced that an authentic proletarian internationalism and international revolution will not successfully emerge without it.

Think about this: what was really being expressed when workers and youth protesting in Wisconsin said "we're all Egyptians now"? Now, you and I know that they didn't literally think that they were exactly the same as Egyptians. So, what did they mean?

[freenation26]

Because the concept is used often to support oppression of other "nations", war, genocide, and other nasties.

Then what do you support instead?

[freenation26]

It's not really about "liking it" as much as being convinced that an authentic proletarian internationalism and international revolution will not successfully emerge without it.

Think about this: what was really being expressed when workers and youth protesting in Wisconsin said "we're all Egyptians now"? Now, you and I know that they didn't literally think that they were exactly the same as Egyptians. So, what did they mean?

National solidarity in the cause of international proletarian revolution? :confused:

[tachosomoza]

Then what do you support instead?

I support the development of an international working class identity.

[freenation26]

I support the development of an international working class identity.

As do I.

[tachosomoza]

As do I.

Alrighty then, we've got common ground. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

ugh i'm done with this thread.

btw your vote shows that revleft either doesn't care about Black Nationalists or sides with them

[freenation26]

Alrighty then, we've got common ground. :)

Good :)

[tachosomoza]

ugh i'm done with this thread.

btw your vote shows that revleft either doesn't care about Black Nationalists or sides with them

Why are you leaving? Stay, stay!

[Coach Trotsky]

National solidarity in the cause of international proletarian revolution? :confused:

They didn't think that they were perfectly interchangeable and able to fully seamlessly integrate with Egyptian culture or society or its people. What they felt was there was a common international proletarian cause, and they expressed solidarity with that cause and those who were struggling in Egypt's streets and picket lines, and they wanted to bring that kind of mass struggle "home" in their own nation against their own ruling class. Surely, the most advanced protesters in Wisconsin and in Egypt saw that the struggles made in one country also inspired/assisted the mass struggles in other lands. At the same time, they didn't think that a successful revolution in one land would automatically mean the liberation of all of humanity, nor would they be inclined to welcome "liberation from without" (since that has historically been an excuse for imperialist subjugation and national oppression at the hands of others).

[freenation26]

Why are you leaving? Stay, stay!

Yeah, I'm finding this very constructive.

[Dacaru]

I think what is developing in this thread reveals an important issue in revolutionary politics. No matter how strongly we take the position that class struggle is fundamental, if we are to have an effective global movement we must be able to deal with differential oppression/exploitation and the specificity of experience it creates among various peoples.
Regarding whiteness and ethnicity, keep in mind that there are different racial formations around the world. However becoming "White" in America has meant diminishing, if not abandoning, ethnicity to enter the privileged racial category...
There are books on this topic "How the Irish became White" by Noel Ignatiev is one of them.

[tachosomoza]

I think what is developing in this thread reveals an important issue in revolutionary politics. No matter how strongly we take the position that class struggle is fundamental, if we are to have an effective global movement we must be able to deal with differential oppression/exploitation and the specificity of experience it creates among various peoples.
Regarding whiteness and ethnicity, keep in mind that there are different racial formations around the world. However becoming "White" in America has meant diminishing, if not abandoning, ethnicity to enter the privileged racial category...
There are books on this topic "How the Irish became White" by Noel Ignatiev is one of them.

Indeed. Promoting understanding amongst different groups is key if we are truly dedicated to toppling this system that exploits us all. But, we must remember to keep the big picture in mind.

[Coach Trotsky]

I support the development of an international working class identity.

Surely! But let's be honest. If there was a Greek or Spanish or Egyptian workers' revolution tomorrow, they wouldn't simply drop their own national identities, yet they'd be clearly in the very front of the vanguard of the worldwide working class. They'd (hopefully) establish workers' states, and these workers' states would be independent sovereign self-determined nation-states, while at the same time (again, hopefully) they would also be proletarian bastions advancing the international socialist revolution and expressing its solidarity with all the struggles of the workers and oppressed throughout the world.

Thus, to wave the flag of a Greek or Spanish of Egyptian worker's state is nothing like waving the flag of the Greek or Spanish or Egyptian states under capitalist/imperialist rule. And the revolutionary vanguard in those workers' states need to make sure that all their peoples understand that, and understand the necessity of the international proletarian solidarity and international socialist revolution.

[tachosomoza]

Surely! But let's be honest. If there was a Greek or Spanish or Egyptian workers' revolution tomorrow, they wouldn't simply drop their own national identities, yet they'd be clearly in the very front of the vanguard of the worldwide working class. They'd (hopefully) establish workers' states, and these workers' states would be independent sovereign self-determined nation-states, while at the same time (again, hopefully) they would also be proletarian bastions advancing the international socialist revolution and expressing its solidarity with all the struggles of the workers and oppressed throughout the world.

Thus, to wave the flag of a Greek or Spanish of Egyptian worker's state is nothing like waving the flag of the Greek or Spanish or Egyptian states under capitalist/imperialist rule. And the revolutionary vanguard in those workers' states need to make sure that all their peoples understand that, and understand the necessity of the international proletarian solidarity and international socialist revolution.

That makes sense. I believe that eventually, we will come to the stage where nations cease to exist, though.

[Coach Trotsky]

That makes sense. I believe that eventually, we will come to the stage where nations cease to exist, though.

Well, all the preconditions for that stage have to exist first, and the proletarians themselves have to want that. They will make the final decision.
Here is the best advice I can give to those who see an actualized voluntarily integrated world union of socialist workers' states, which together create such a level of profound material abundance that they can actually apply the distributive principle "from each according to the ability, to each according to their need" in every corner of the world to every person without exception, where the entire basis in reality for class distinctions and even states have withered away:

We have a long way to go, a long uphill fight ahead, in every land and amongst every people on this planet. There ain't gonna be a bureaucratic or reformist shortcuts, and honestly we have a lot to do in the here and now just to regain the necessary trust, rapport and roots of the revolutionary socialist vanguard with the proletariat...the cost of so many defeats, failures, and betrayals soiling the red banner in the eyes of the working class have been enormous. The revolutionary Left now can't go around dictating a damn thing to the workers, especially not such things as "drop your nations". That sounds just like the bourgeois liberals to them in today's context, and indeed the workers see why the big capitalists and their lackeys are suddenly so enthusiastic about globalization, are so thrilled about "diversity", just love mass immigration and labor arbitrage, etc. They see that at the end of the day, one way or another, ALL THE WORKERS LOSE, and ALL THE OPPRESSED ARE STILL OPPRESSED! We all get played by both the Left and the Right wings of this system!

Where's the so-called Left? Talking make-believe currently utopian dreams, nodding their heads in agreement and acceptance right along with every capitalist crime committed against the workers and oppressed of the world in the name of 'globalization' and 'diversity' and 'democracy' and 'justice', and even volunteering themselves as bureaucrats and overseers and enforcers and perpetrators of these crimes in the name of 'progress'! The liberal-Left got co-opted and became foul Establishment careerists and misleaders...they became a bunch of well-off hacks for the interests of the ruling class! Then, they dare come play the working people and the oppressed against each other, and they dare to do this because the revolutionary Left DARES NOT to stand up and tell them to go fuck off with their bullshit sellout misleadership and divide and conquer games! The main reason there is a liberal Left and sellout union bureaucracy of any significance today is because the revolutionaries let them have the field, and now unfortunately they have most "socialists" today orbiting around THEIR programs, THEIR slogans, THEIR political schemes, and their infrastuctures and misleaderships. Meanwhile, the Right emerges once again, confident as fuck, exploiting all the failures and betrayals and cowardice of the Left. In many parts of America, it's starting to feel like the Christian Taliban rolled into town, draping themselves in the Scars and Stripes and with crucifixes! These motherfuckers are looking to smash the unions and go on witchhunts (I think you can imagine the various scapegoats they'd like to put on a stake, a tree or a lamppost)! And sooner or later they'll do it and get away with it, dragging along a huge portion of the working class in the United States behind them will marching over the bodies of the rest, unless the revolutionary Left gets its head out of its ass in the here and now.

Do I have all the answers? No.
I'm trying to figure it out, just like (hopefully) you are.
I do think we can win, and I think part of getting there involves things I have suggested in previous posts in this thread, as opposed to writing off a huge portion of the working class and youth in this country as if they were hopelessly and inherently reactionary enemies, and as opposed to merely tailing or rolling over before the liberal-Left phony misleaders' script on who and what is "progressive" and who/what isn't (because today, that will lead you right into supporting the ruling class and becoming their functionaries and cheerleaders). Seriously, if the liberal-Left was actually doing something progressive and system-challenging, the bourgeoisie would crack down on them with an iron fist faster than you can say "McCarthyism", and they'd be sharing a prison cell with Pvt. Bradley Manning or with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

[Le Libérer]

To answer the question of the OP, The Black Panthers were revolutionary, therefore that is why they are allowed on revleft. Heres an excellent article (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/) on why, without having to regurgitate everything in the article.

The Panthers practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government, and fought to establish revolutionary socialism through mass organizing and community based programs. The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation — a party whose agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.

The 10 point Program (http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm)

No where in any of their literature or manifesto, do they ask to be exhalted above other races but that with self realization, all men would be equal.

[Desperado]

Still against it. Nationalism is divisive, and hinders the class struggle.

Sure, if you want to define nationalism as simply a few examples of its manifestation in history. But if you want to actually use words as they are by everybody else and not define them how you like, you'd realise that nationalism is a broad vague term, which is sometimes about divisiveness, or (as often in my country) about inclusiveness and co-operation.

When you define nationalism as supremacist, divisive and bellicose you're doing is precisely the same as when people narrowly equate communism with Stalinism.


Because the concept is used often to support oppression of other "nations", war, genocide, and other nasties.

And? So are the concepts of god, security, glory and countless others. This doesn't automatically make them "bourgeois". The concept of nation-states is primarily used by the bourgeoisie, but nations are completely different, and indeed, are opposed to nation-states.

"Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is."

[Desperado]

That makes sense. I believe that eventually, we will come to the stage where nations cease to exist, though.

You think all differences within human culture will cease to exist?

[Rainsborough]

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
Maksimov, Grigoriĭ Petrovich. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, p. 325

[Game Girl]

Alrighty then, we've got common ground. :)

I support it as well. :)

[tachosomoza]

To answer the question of the OP, The Black Panthers were revolutionary, therefore that is why they are allowed on revleft. Heres an excellent article (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/) on why, without having to regurgitate everything in the article.


The 10 point Program (http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm)

No where in any of their literature or manifesto, do they ask to be exhalted above other races but that with self realization, all men would be equal.


I agree, but they began to stagnate in their later years, like many a revolutionary movement.

Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in activities such as drug dealing and extortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion) schemes directed against Oakland merchants[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#cite_note-15) By 1972 most Panther activity centered around the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, CA, where the Party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#cite_note-16)By the mid-70s, they had devolved into a gang, for the most part.


You think all differences within human culture will cease to exist?

I'm sorry, I meant states. :lol:

[scarletghoul]

Wow, 45% of RevLeft members want to ban Black nationalism.. I'm assuming you want to ban supporters of the EZLN too, considering they are a nationalist organisation ?

Or perhaps you are just too caught up in your ultraleftism, which happens to create a perfect mirror image of the bullshit rightist argument which equates the Panthers with the KKK ..

hi btw

[tachosomoza]

I think we're referring to the NoI, lunatic types...if there are any here.

I'm lukewarm on the Panthers. They did good things in regards to promoting black self-determination, but like I've said before, I've had personal dealings with Panthers in my family, and they've had some less than progressive views.

[Le Libérer]

Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants[16] By 1972 most Panther activity centered around the national headquarters and a school in Oakland, CA, where the Party continued to influence local politics. Party contractions continued throughout the 1970s; by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[17]
By the mid-70s, they had devolved into a gang, for the most part.


Are seriously going to copy and paste from wiki to perpetuate the message of the ruling class? "These people (blacks) were acting too wild, breaking the law, selling drugs, stealing tire rims whatever?" You know they killed Panthers under similar false claims as well as beat the women partners of these men? One while she was pregnant?

I really cannot believe you would buy into this institutionalized system of belief.

You arent going to convince me, the Panthers after fighting that level of oppression stooped to petty crimes when the it in fact was the ruling class that took them down to a handful of members.

Raymond Boots of the Coup, was just interviewed on the very subject last month. A very compelling argument that in this case, class and race go hand in hand.
LHIK98sr5nc

[scarletghoul]

Right on, sister :)

[tachosomoza]

Are seriously going to copy and paste from wiki to perpetuate the message of the ruling class? "These people (blacks) were acting too wild, breaking the law, selling drugs, stealing tire rims whatever?" You know they killed Panthers under similar false claims as well as beat the women partners of these men? One while she was pregnant?

I really cannot believe you would buy into this institutionalized system of belief.

You arent going to convince me, the Panthers after fighting that level of oppression stooped to petty crimes when the it in fact was the ruling class that took them down to a handful of members.

Raymond Boots of the Coup, was just interviewed on the very subject last month. A very compelling argument that in this case, class and race go hand in hand.
LHIK98sr5nc


Personally, I think your views would change dramatically if you had personal dealings with them. They've retained some of the reactionary traits that come from centuries of Afro-American indoctrination into religion, namely, misogyny. That's something we need to work on. Like I said before, they did wonders in promoting self determination for the Black community, but they weren't perfect.

Yes, I know that they used infiltrators to commit crimes to frame the BPP. My father also knew Huey Newton personally, and told me that he had a heroin addiction reaching all the way back to the late 60s. In every movement, there is negativity. That's my point. It makes no sense to idolize a movement as perfect.

I'm not perpetuating shit, Comrade. I'm telling you what I know from experience.

[Coach Trotsky]

What would a revolutionary socialist, Black PROLETARIAN-based nationalism that rejects both the imperialists AND "its own national bourgeoisie" in America actually mean? Could it address the Black question in the USA better and more effectively than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Could it advance proletarian revolutionary consciousness and struggle in America more deeply and more effectively---both within and beyond the African-American community---than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Would such a revolutionary socialist Black proletarian-based nationalism be inconsistent/incompatable with extending genuine international class solidarity to all the workers and oppressed of all nations, and with supporting international socialist revolution?
Why should Black workers trust the American Left "as is"?
Why should Black workers trust "their own national bourgeoisie"?

[tachosomoza]

What would a revolutionary socialist, Black PROLETARIAN-based nationalism that rejects both the imperialists AND "its own national bourgeoisie" in America actually mean? Could it address the Black question in the USA better and more effectively than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Could it advance proletarian revolutionary consciousness and struggle in America more deeply and more effectively---both within and beyond the African-American community---than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Would such a revolutionary socialist Black proletarian-based nationalism be inconsistent/incompatable with extending genuine international class solidarity to all the workers and oppressed of all nations, and with supporting international socialist revolution?
Why should Black workers trust the American Left "as is"?
Why should Black workers trust "their own national bourgeoisie"?

Maybe in the 60s and 70s, but not today. The left has lost a lot of credibility in the Black community. People look at us as patronizing and condescending, and I don't blame them.

The Black community is more apt to listen to the poverty pimps and "reverends" than leftists.

[Le Libérer]

Personally, I think your views would change dramatically if you had personal dealings with them.
I'm not perpetuating shit, Comrade. I'm telling you what I know from experience.

I've had dealings with them. I dated a Panther in the 80s and more recently he came back into my life 2 years ago. In fact, I think Scarlet Ghoul and I chatted about this back then around the time he handed over the Black Panter Group to me.

[tachosomoza]

I've had dealings with them. I dated a Panther in the 80s and more recently he came back into my life 2 years ago.

Wow. :thumbup1:

Well, I'll leave it like this. They did some awesome things, like fighting police brutality and oppression in the inner cities, along with urging self defense for brothers and sisters in the South. But, they weren't totally immune to bourgeois vices. I'll admit that I went overboard in saying that they degenerated into a gang, but they were fucked up after 1973. I'd really like to see a new leftist revolutionary movement gain ground in the black community.The black proletariat, and the proletariat as a whole, needs it more than ever.

[Le Libérer]

Wow. :thumbup1:

Well, I'll leave it like this. They did some awesome things, like fighting police brutality and oppression in the inner cities, along with urging self defense for brothers and sisters in the South. But, they weren't totally immune to bourgeois vices. I'll admit that I went overboard in saying that they degenerated into a gang, but they were fucked up after 1973. I'd really like to see a new leftist revolutionary movement gain ground in the black community.The black proletariat, and the proletariat as a whole, needs it more than ever.

Right on! I am glad there still is a voice in artists like Boots who havent swayed from the original message here. And I do agree people arent willing to put themselves on the line to lose what little they have. Its less painful not to.

[Coach Trotsky]

Maybe in the 60s and 70s, but not today. The left has lost a lot of credibility in the Black community. People look at us as patronizing and condescending, and I don't blame them.
I assume that you are referring to my last questions about the issue of trusting the American Left in the Black community.
Certainly I agree.
I think they mostly feel manipulated, left behind, and betrayed by both the American Left and "their own" Black national bourgeoisie, and I agree with that sentiment. Thus, I am trying to get to the bottom of actually resolving this problem that avoids the critical mistakes made.

[Steve_j]

I'm assuming you want to ban supporters of the EZLN too, considering they are a nationalist organisation ?

Can you back that up? I know they have national liberation in the name, but i mean in terms of stated aims.

[tachosomoza]

I assume that you are referring to my last questions about the issue of trusting the American Left in the Black community.
Certainly I agree.
I think they mostly feel manipulated, left behind, and betrayed by both the American Left and "their own" Black national bourgeoisie, and I agree with that sentiment. Thus, I am trying to get to the bottom of actually resolving this problem that avoids the critical mistakes made.

Hell, when I go into a black neighborhood as a black leftist, trying to inform the people, I find myself getting shouted down by the people when I bring up the ills of private ownership, or the true nature of the Nation of Islam. There was a time when I pretty much considered giving up. The church and the bourgeois culture is so fucking entrenched there, it's ridiculous. I've found more willing audiences on college campuses and suburban neighborhoods, or with ex-white supremacists. It's sad.

[#FF0000]

Can you back that up? I know they have national liberation in the name, but i mean in terms of stated aims.

They have national liberation in their name, use the Mexican flag as a symbol, and their goals are exclusively local in scope.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've had dealings with them. I dated a Panther in the 80s and more recently he came back into my life 2 years ago. In fact, I think Scarlet Ghoul and I chatted about this back then around the time he handed over the Black Panter Group to me.

I wish I could date a Black Panther...:crying:

[ComradeMan]

Black Nationalists and White Nationalists aren't the same thing. They do not propose the same things. One is not just a different colored version of the other. You do not understand what Black Nationalism is.

The first comment was satyrical... ;)

However, please explain what it is then....

Because the way I see it, in this day and age we should not be putting ethnic/colour adjectives before -isms. I'm sorry, but I try my best not to think in terms of colour... because that's what racists do.

[tachosomoza]

I wish I could date a Black Panther...:crying:

Want me to fix you up with my dad? :cool:

[Steve_j]

use the Mexican flag as a symbol
Really? Can you link me to some more info, this is interesting.


and their goals are exclusively local in scope.
WTF? That doesnt make them a nationalist organisation.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

By the mid-70s, they had devolved into a gang, for the most part.



I'm sorry, I meant states. :lol:


'Popular support for the Party declined further after reports appeared detailing the group's involvement in activities such as drug dealing and extortion schemes directed against Oakland merchants'
COINTELPRO tactics against the Black Panther Party attempting to criminalize the struggle against Capitalism and Exploitation in order to justify techniques used to criminalize the struggle.
' by 1980 the Black Panther Party comprised just 27 members.[17]
By the mid-70s, they had devolved into a gang, for the most part.'
As the Black Panther Party had began adopting a Reformist Attitude due to the COINTELPRO techniques being used against the Black Panther Party, the majority of Black Panthers had moved onto other organizations such as the Black Liberation Army during the 1980's. The allegations of the Black Panther Party turning into a 'Gang' however is rather silly though unless they're referring to the Black Guerrilla Family.


What would a revolutionary socialist, Black PROLETARIAN-based nationalism that rejects both the imperialists AND "its own national bourgeoisie" in America actually mean? Could it address the Black question in the USA better and more effectively than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Could it advance proletarian revolutionary consciousness and struggle in America more deeply and more effectively---both within and beyond the African-American community---than the American Left "as is" has done so far? Would such a revolutionary socialist Black proletarian-based nationalism be inconsistent/incompatable with extending genuine international class solidarity to all the workers and oppressed of all nations, and with supporting international socialist revolution?
Why should Black workers trust the American Left "as is"?
Why should Black workers trust "their own national bourgeoisie"?

'What would a revolutionary socialist, Black PROLETARIAN-based nationalism that rejects both the imperialists AND "its own national bourgeoisie" in America actually mean?'
It offers a viable Revolutionary Alternative to Bourgeois Society and allows the exploited African-American Proletariat to seize the means of production in order to establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and to be Self-Determined against those that had forced exploitation onto them. 'Black Nationalism' isn't to simply establish a 'Black State' as it is to be used in the interests of the Proletariat, whether they be African-American or they be Caucasian... As it is simply enabling an exploited group through Self-Determination in their own communities.
'Why should Black workers trust "their own national bourgeoisie"?' '
They should not trust the National Bourgeois to be in their interest, as the National Bourgeois continually serves the interest of the Bourgeois and not the Proletariat.

[scarletghoul]

Can you back that up? I know they have national liberation in the name, but i mean in terms of stated aims.
LOL you're right they just decided to call themselves a national liberation army for no apparent reason.. . ... fucking hell ...

[Steve_j]

LOL you're right they just decided to call themselves a national liberation army for no apparent reason.. . ... fucking hell ...
I was looking for, and open to serious critique. Well done.

[Means to a end]

I know this is a more American themed thread and me being English (maybe relevant, but I do identify myself as English and at the end of the day I am white, not a nationalist* mind).

But I always wondered this question myself and hence I picked the 1st option on the poll.

*At least I think I ain't :p

[scarletghoul]

I was looking for, and open to serious critique. Well done. You're the one who needs to back up your assertion that a group which calls itself an 'army of national liberation' is not at all nationalist. I would offer a 'serious critique' if you actually wrote something with substance to be critiqued, instead of some vague "you cant prove it its not true its not ok they have it in the name but apart from that"

[scarletghoul]

I know this is a more American themed thread and me being English (maybe relevant, but I do identify myself as English and at the end of the day I am white, not a nationalist* mind).

But I always wondered this question myself and hence I picked the 1st option on the poll.

*At least I think I ain't :p
Blacks are oppressed as a 'race'/nation; whites are not. Black power and black nationalism is about empowering blacks, whereas white power and white nationalism means perpetrating the status quo (white supremecy), So black power is progressive and white power is reactionary.

[Steve_j]

Where did i claim they were not nationalist? I was asking for further evidence other than the name, although admittedly i know very little about them i haven't read any statements of national aspirations, only autonomy. So if you would kindly point me in the direction (ie answer my original question) or shut the fuck up and stop being a dick.

Edit, the critique i was asking for was of their nationalist politics.

[tachosomoza]

Blacks are oppressed as a 'race'/nation; whites are not. Black power and black nationalism is about empowering blacks, whereas white power and white nationalism means perpetrating the status quo (white supremecy), So black power is progressive and white power is reactionary.

You know, a lot of white supremacists have admitted that they want to keep blacks and others oppressed. A majority of the older heads know exactly what they're trying to do. We need to focus on the younger ones that may not know exactly what they're supporting. That's what a lot of Anti Racist Action people focus on.

[scarletghoul]

I don't enjoy being a dick i just dont understand why you need any more evidence of something thats explicitly stated in their name.

[Means to a end]

Blacks are oppressed as a 'race'/nation; whites are not. Black power and black nationalism is about empowering blacks, whereas white power and white nationalism means perpetrating the status quo (white supremecy), So black power is progressive and white power is reactionary.

Thanks for your answer.

Maybe in the States, but I have never been there. But I notice you live in England (as do I). Could you see such a group working over here and indeed would it have your support.

I myself seeing how the EDL have driven a wedge in my hometown (Luton) in a relative short space of time come from the camp that inclusion for all is the way forward and not superiority groups and racial '''''powers''''(whatever that power entails) which I see as something which could be seen to many as ''us'' and ''them''.

[Steve_j]

Well given that i think we could both agree there have been (and are still plenty of) parties that have communist, socialist ect in their names yet are anything but in their nature.

[scarletghoul]

Thanks for your answer.

Maybe in the States, but I have never been there. But I notice you live in England (as do I). Could you see such a group working over here and indeed would it have your support.

I myself seeing how the EDL have driven a wedge in my hometown (Luton) in a relative short space of time come from the camp that inclusion for all is the way forward and not superiority groups and racial '''''powers''''(whatever that power entails) which I see as something which could be seen to many as ''us'' and ''them''.
Well yeah I agree all working class people should work together and race-based groups are not a good idea. the reason the panthers were almost entirely black was because they were based in the black community (community, not race), which is a very distinct (national) community within the US, and they sought to empower that community. in my opinion they should have made more effort to expand their organisation into white america too, though that was obviously not an easy thing.. but yeah it would be good for there to be a party with branches working within different ethnic/regional/national communities and co-ordinating the struggle as a whole

[scarletghoul]

Well given that i think we could both agree there have been (and are still plenty of) parties that have communist, socialist ect in their names yet are anything but in their nature.
Sure but in those cases the party is still claiming to be communist/socialist (whether they act like it is another issue), just like EZLN are saying they are nationalist. Why would they call themselves national liberation army if they were not nationalists ?

[tachosomoza]

Well yeah I agree all working class people should work together and race-based groups are not a good idea. the reason the panthers were almost entirely black was because they were based in the black community (community, not race), which is a very distinct (national) community within the US, and they sought to empower that community. in my opinion they should have made more effort to expand their organisation into white america too, though that was obviously not an easy thing.. but yeah it would be good for there to be a party with branches working within different ethnic/regional/national communities and co-ordinating the struggle as a whole

Just a side note: Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 due to the anger over the assassination of the man who was keeping the black community docile (MLK, Jr.). They saw what was happening as a result (riots), and people didn't want an organized, armed leftist front comprised of groups like the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, etc. raising hell. So, they voted in Mr. "Law and Order", who turned out to be "Mr Infiltration".

[scarletghoul]

Just a side note: Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 due to the anger over the assassination of the man who was keeping the black community docile
(MLK, Jr.). They saw what was happening as a result (riots), and people didn't want an organized, armed leftist front comprised of groups like the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, etc. raising hell. So, they voted in Mr. "Law and Order", who turned out to be "Mr Infiltration".
Yeah thats true. Though an organised front wouldnt have to be an armed organisation; things like the breakfast for children programme etc would have been a probably more effective way to expand the panther movement into the rest of america and pave the way for a revolutionary front

[#FF0000]

The first comment was satyrical... ;)

The funny this is that I knew this and still angryposted in response.


However, please explain what it is then....

I did on the first page. Repostin:


Black nationalism a la Huey Newton and the Black Panthers have really nothing in common with white nationalism.

...black nationalism/black pride aren't oppressive like white pride is because white pride/nationalism reinforce privilege in society while black pride/nationalism is a defensive thing that is aimed to correct inequality and privilege.

Black nationalism aims to "liberate" black people from the overbearing system of white privilege and supremacism that exists today. It isn't about racial supremacy.

That doesn't mean, obviously, that black nationalism can't or doesn't have problems. I don't think anyone can liberate anyone from anything in a meaningful sense if they don't think there's a difference between black workers and black bosses.

But at the same time, I don't think anyone can liberate anyone if they don't recognize that there are black workers and white workers, and one is treated very differently from the other.


Because the way I see it, in this day and age we should not be putting ethnic/colour adjectives before -isms. I'm sorry, but I try my best not to think in terms of colour... because that's what racists do.

Recognizing that race is a social category used to harm people does not make one a racist. One could just as easily say "I don't look at things in terms of class because that's what classists do".

Ignoring it does not mean it doesn't exist.

[#FF0000]

treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity

.

[Steve_j]

Since you wont answer my question im gonna take it that you dont have anything else but the name and that simply is enough to satisfy you.


Sure but in those cases the party is still claiming to be communist/socialist (whether they act like it is another issue)

Claim, thats the key word, to claim something does not make it so, nor does it mean the claim is sincere. They could well have nationalist ambitions, i have been looking further and yes have found some critiques regarding some usage of nationalist rhetoric (some of it a little depressing i must add)


just like EZLN are saying they are nationalist. Why would they call themselves national liberation army if they were not nationalists ?

To counter criticism and attract support? It wouldn't be the first time organisations have behaved in such a way (remember national socialism?)

[Dacaru]

I understand where you coming from, in that the BP was not a perfect organization, with a perfect ideology, if you find one let me know! Nevertheless, should progressive/ revolutionary black nationalist a la BP be banned from this site? Come on, I'm new here, but there are Stalinist, Maoist, Lennist etc on this site. Do we really want nit pick revolutionary purity:rolleyes: I voted "I dont care" and I'm sorry I did. I should have selected the second choice. In reply Tachosomoza.

[tachosomoza]

I kinda regret voting for the first choice. Don't let the loons on, but it doesn't make sense to ban Black Panthers, etc. If we do, we'll have to ban EZLN and other groups that are centered around self determination for oppressed minorities and preparation for the revolution.

[#FF0000]

Since you wont answer my question im gonna take it that you dont have anything else but the name and that simply is enough to satisfy you.

Well I'm sorry the use of national flags, the word "National Liberation", and the use of "left-wing nationalist" rhetoric isn't enough for you.

[Steve_j]

Well I'm sorry the use of national flags, the word "National Liberation", and the use of "left-wing nationalist" rhetoric isn't enough for you.

And the use of socialist iconography, the word "Labour" in a name and talk of equality is enough for you?

[Summerspeaker]

The nationalism of oppressed groups can be revolutionary. White nationalism and black nationalism aren't even remotely equivalent.

[Le Libérer]

Want me to fix you up with my dad? :cool:

Whats he look like ? :lol:

[tachosomoza]

Whats he look like ? :lol:

He's in his 60s and bald. Also, has several health problems due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. Finally, he's a convicted felon. :)

[PhoenixAsh]

you make it sound soooo appealing. :lol:

your probably not your dads wingman....:laugh:

[tachosomoza]

you make it sound soooo appealing. :lol:

your probably not your dads wingman....:laugh:

Hey, now. :blushing:

[Coach Trotsky]

treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

Well, since you mentioned this quote, why don't you explain what it means and what it doesn't mean to you?
It might seem clear to you, but there are many who would see/hear this quote and think this means that they---being of European descent---are targeted based on their ethnicity by the one saying such a thing. Others may also make the mistake of thinking this means that anyone of European ethnic background is an enemy. In fact, even the person repeating this quote might think that.

Now, I agree that "Whiteness" as a reactionary identity construct is fundamentally originating from, was institutionally perpetuated by, and is inseparably chained to this system, and that along with the overthrow of capitalism must go its reactionary system-serving ideas (such as "Whiteness").

But, lemme ask, is Noel Ignatiev a revolutionary socialist? Or does he support this system? Don't you think that matters? Don't you think that context alters the meaning of this quote? You can hear this quote in damn near every sociology department in every university in America...and yet, haven't you even considered why that's the case?

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force" --Karl Marx, The German Ideology

Think about what Marx is saying there, before naively jumping on whatever comes out of the trendy "progressive" intellectual system-apologist system-serving bandwagon. Don't forget the material interests and relations involved here! Don't fool yourselves into thinking that this system's academics are neutral and independent of the societal context in which they live.

"The division of labour, which we already saw above as one of the chief forces of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others’ attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves."--Karl Marx, The German Ideology

[#FF0000]

Well, since you mentioned this quote, why don't you explain what it means and what it doesn't mean to you?
It might seem clear to you, but there are many who would see/hear this quote and think this means that they---being of European descent---are targeted based on their ethnicity by the one saying such a thing. Others may also make the mistake of thinking this means that anyone of European ethnic background is an enemy. In fact, even the person repeating this quote might think that.

Yup. That's exactly why I posted it in a thread full of dummies who think black nationalists are african nazis.


But, lemme ask, is Noel Ignatiev a revolutionary socialist? Or does he support this system? Don't you think that matters? Don't you think that context alters the meaning of this quote? You can hear this quote in damn near every sociology department in every university in America...and yet, haven't you even considered why that's the case?


I see what you're saying here but Noel Ignatiev's ideas aren't really all that popular outside of academia which really doesn't mean much these days. Honestly I think you're more likely to hear Marx than that "treason to whiteness" line.

[ComradeMan]

The nationalism of oppressed groups can be revolutionary. White nationalism and black nationalism aren't even remotely equivalent.

Perhaps it's better to evaluate "black" nationalism independently of white nationalism otherwise we run the risk of running into who's worst or tu quoque type arguments, nevertheless... from a leftist point of view, I still challenge anyone to justify nationalism...

[Dacaru]

@ Coach Trotsky regarding treason to humanity quote: Those people who feel the quote is anti-European ethnicity are confusing "Whiteness" as a social category and an often unconscious, due to its intense normalization, regime of behavior with ethnicity based upon language, location etc... 'Whiteness' and its often tacit superiority implications enables justification for the super-exploitation of nonwhites, while as Du Bois pointed out, it often provides a 'pyschological wage' of superiority to poor and working class whites, thus it is a part of the false consciousness of the working class. 'Blackness' has the potential to do that when used as a superiority tactic, but does not have the structural and functional power and thus effects of whiteness. I mean many nonwhite capitalists and workers even think 'Whiteness' denotes superiority. Whiteness as an identity has a long history of being counter revolutionary. But again, we are not talking about being Irish, Roma, Basque, Greeks etc. I do not think the vital aspects of these identities are whiteness.
PS Can the Roma even qualify as whites?

[Irish Left]

I guess its the same reason why Irish Republicanism is supported so much whilst Ulster Unionism is condemned as Fascist (in the revleft sense of the word - ie a totally meaningless insult).

With both Irish Republicanism and Black Nationalism the nationalist ideology seeks to fight on the side of a blatantly oppressed group (perhaps the situation in Ireland has changed over the past 2 or 3 decades, but in America the black population remains clearly oppressed). This idea of fighting against oppression, even if that means using rather vile ideas like nationalism and racism, if generally seen as acceptable on the Left whilst fighting for the status qou is regarded as despicable.

These nationalism have also traditionally mixed together with left wing ideology in the same way as the 'oppressive nationalisms' have mixed together with right wing ideologies. These nationalisms, if not always openly socialistic, very often contain ideas of wealth distribution, civil rights etc.

Black Nationalism, Irish Republicanism and other 'left wing nationalisms' are therefore both tolerated and supported.

Now that's a lie. You cannot compare Irish republicanism to white or black nationalism. Unless of course you support the British empires continued occupation of Ireland?

[Android]

Now that's a lie. You cannot compare Irish republicanism to white or black nationalism. Unless of course you support the British empires continued occupation of Ireland?

Why not?

Isn't Irish nationalism a form of nationalism?

[Irish Left]

Why not?

Isn't Irish nationalism a form of nationalism?

It depends what way you look at it. It can be described as nationalism as in the Irish people want to drive the imperialist occupation out of their lands. But many republicans aims are to set up a 32 county socialist republican free from British imperialism and Irish west Brit capitalism.
It can not be compared to right wing idiots who would happily see minorities and foreigners oppressed or thrown out of the country.
If the US invaded Cuba tomorrow would you condemn those who resist the invasion, and compare them to white or black nationalist.

[Coach Trotsky]

@ Coach Trotsky regarding treason to humanity quote: Those people who feel the quote is anti-European ethnicity are confusing "Whiteness" as a social category and an often unconscious, due to its intense normalization, regime of behavior with ethnicity based upon language, location etc... 'Whiteness' and its often tacit superiority implications enables justification for the super-exploitation of nonwhites, while as Du Bois pointed out, it often provides a 'pyschological wage' of superiority to poor and working class whites, thus it is a part of the false consciousness of the working class. 'Blackness' has the potential to do that when used as a superiority tactic, but does not have the structural and functional power and thus effects of whiteness. I mean many nonwhite capitalists and workers even think 'Whiteness' denotes superiority. Whiteness as an identity has a long history of being counter revolutionary. But again, we are not talking about being Irish, Roma, Basque, Greeks etc. I do not think the vital aspects of these identities are whiteness.
PS Can the Roma even qualify as whites?

Yes, and that is getting to my point. What about Euro-ethnic working class people and youth who entirely reject "whiteness", want to overthrow/break free of this system, and who express solidarity with the workers and oppressed of the world? Can they also have independent national self-determination rights, like everyone else? Why or why not?

[Rainsborough]

So let me see, this thread somes up as;
Non-white nationalism = liberationist, good.
white nationalism = opressive, fascist, bad
Is that right? :confused:

[Dacaru]

[O]f all struggles in which a popular victory would fatally weaken U.S. Capitalism, the fight against White Supremacy is the one with the greatest chance of success. — Noel Ignatiev
Sounds like he's a socialist, at least.
P.S. I think Anti racism and revolutionary praxis should be discussed in another thread...but as have been already point out in this thread: the lazy conflating of black and white nationalism and the ideology of the Nation of Islam with the Black Panthers is why this discussion is even taking place.:rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

You know what I'm so confused as to what Black Nationalism actually is. On one hand you have the 10 point program of the Black Panther Party which talks about freedom for Blacks and Oppressed communities, they clarify this as not excluding people on terms of race and including "poor people". On the other hand you have separatists who are opposed to multiculturalism and want the creation of an independent state. In my opinion that is reactionary but we use the same term for an ideology which has contrasting meanings.
I also strongly disagree with the American tactics used in fighting racism. The terms white privilege, race traitor and abolish the white race are inflammatory and have negative connotations which may be why they are perceived as racist. The actual theory behind the terms is progressive and about equality but if you went up to a white family on the estate I grew up on and told them that they were privileged or you wanted their help to abolish the white race you'd probably find a knife in your gut. Because oppressed people are not privileged and telling someone who has been shit on their whole life that they are privileged is only going to achieve the opposite of the desired effect of making them challenge institutional racism but instead piss them off and drive them into the arms of the far right.

[scarletghoul]

You know what I'm so confused as to what Black Nationalism actually is. On one hand you have the 10 point program of the Black Panther Party which talks about freedom for Blacks and Oppressed communities, they clarify this as not excluding people on terms of race and including "poor people". On the other hand you have separatists who are opposed to multiculturalism and want the creation of an independent state. In my opinion that is reactionary but we use the same term for an ideology which has contrasting meanings.
Yeah it's a pretty vague term.. though any oppressed people is gonna have its racist groups and its more socialist groups. Just look at Palestine for example. Also its worth noting that that BPP later rejected nationalism and internationalism in favour of "intercommunalism".

[Dacaru]

You know what I'm so confused as to what Black Nationalism actually is. On one hand you have the 10 point program of the Black Panther Party which talks about freedom for Blacks and Oppressed communities, they clarify this as not excluding people on terms of race and including "poor people". On the other hand you have separatists who are opposed to multiculturalism and want the creation of an independent state. In my opinion that is reactionary but we use the same term for an ideology which has contrasting meanings.
I also strongly disagree with the American tactics used in fighting racism. The terms white privilege, race traitor and abolish the white race are inflammatory and have negative connotations which may be why they are perceived as racist. The actual theory behind the terms is progressive and about equality but if you went up to a white family on the estate I grew up on and told them that they were privileged or you wanted their help to abolish the white race you'd probably find a knife in your gut. Because oppressed people are not privileged and telling someone who has been shit on their whole life that they are privileged is only going to achieve the opposite of the desired effect of making them challenge institutional racism but instead piss them off and drive them into the arms of the far right.
Well, as I said their are different Racial Formations and Black Nationalism and Ignatiev are mostly concerned with America. I understand and agree that "abolish the white race" is clunky rhetoric, of course he is talking about white privilege as a regime of behaviour and not killing 'white' people. However, white privilege is very real, exceptions do not disprove the rule. And race traitor, like 'n-lover', has been the term white supremacists call people categorized as white who support equality of all races. So according to this definition, any 'whites', dirt poor or filthy rich, communist, anarchist, socialist, whatever, who cannot call themselves a race traitor, in the sense of supporting equality for all races, can never be a comrade of mine!:thumbdown:
P.S. I am not implying that you feel this way

[Manic Impressive]

Well, as I said their are different Racial Formations and Black Nationalism and Ignatiev are mostly concerned with America. I understand and agree that "abolish the white race" is clunky rhetoric, of course he is talking about white privilege as a regime of behaviour and not killing 'white' people. However, white privilege is very real, exceptions do not disprove the rule. And race traitor, like 'n-lover', has been the term white supremacists call people categorized as white who support equality of all races. So according to this definition, any 'whites', dirt poor or filthy rich, communist, anarchist, socialist, whatever, who cannot call themselves a race traitor, in the sense of supporting equality for all races, can never be a comrade of mine!:thumbdown:
P.S. I am not implying that you feel this way
In the sense of supporting equality for all races, using that as a definition of being a race traitor then yeah sure I'm one. But that's not Ignatiev's definition as he makes a distinction between anti-racists and race traitors

When it comes to abolishing the white race, the task is not to win over more whites to oppose "racism"; there are "anti- racists" enough already to do the job. The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white. It is a strategy of creative provocation
A traitor to the white race is someone who is nominally classified as white but who defies white rules so strenuously as to jeopardize his or her ability to draw upon the privileges of whiteness.
The abolitionists oppose all forms of segregation in the schools, including tracking by "merit," they oppose all mechanisms that favor whites in the job market, including labor unions when necessary, and they oppose the police and courts, which define black people as a criminal class. They not merely oppose these things, but seek to disrupt their functioning. They reject in advance no means of attaining their goal; even when combating "racist" groups, they act in ways that are offensive to official institutions. The willingness to go beyond socially acceptable "anti-racism" is the dividing line between "good whites" and traitors to the white race.Lets look at the second and third quote and apply it to a real life situation which I may be facing in the near future.
I'll find out in a couple of weeks whether or not I'm going to be in court on trial for a charge which if I plead not guilty would mean a jail sentence if I was found guilty by a jury. Now it seems as if Ignatiev would like me to stand up in court and denounce the whole legal system as racist and refuse to take any part in it. I'm sure he and people of his thinking would find that a noble protest. Well....Fuck That I'm going to put on a nice suit, I'm going to grow my hair, I'm going to speak in a posh accent and be the whitest mutha fucker I can be. So no I'm probably not a race traitor by his definition and I challenge anyone to honestly say that they would do any different in that situation.
I don't think people should be rejecting the little "privilege" that the bourgeoisie grants them but instead be fighting for equal treatment by raising standards for everyone.

[Nial Fossjet]

Is Asian Nationalism allowed?

[#FF0000]

So let me see, this thread somes up as;
Non-white nationalism = liberationist, good.
white nationalism = opressive, fascist, bad
Is that right? :confused:

White Nationalism and "black nationalism" have completely different aims. One is not just the black or white version of the other.

[Manic Impressive]

White Nationalism and "black nationalism" have completely different aims. One is not just the black or white version of the other.
except when they are separatists who who would not allow mixed marriages and believe in racial purity? coz even those types like each other amirite?

[#FF0000]

except when they are separatists who who would not allow mixed marriages and believe in racial purity? coz even those types like each other amirite?

I don't know what you're saying here but even though folks like that do exist, that isn't what we're talking about when we say "black nationalism"

[Rainsborough]

White Nationalism and "black nationalism" have completely different aims. One is not just the black or white version of the other.

Really and what are they? And don't scream liberation from opression, I know quite a few whites that suffer opression, mostly from capitalists and guess what some of those capitalists are black. Dismiss nationalism if you must, but we condemn nationalist whites (not fascists) to the tender mercies of nazis and other exploiters.

[human strike]

What would Lenin do?

[ComradeMan]

What would Lenin do?

What would Che say?

[NewSocialist]

What would Che say?

Who would Stalin kill?

[tachosomoza]

Who would Stalin kill?

Not blacks, since there weren't any in the Sovietsky Soyuz.:lol:

[NewSocialist]

Not blacks, since there weren't any in the Sovietsky Soyuz.:lol:

Quite right.

[tachosomoza]

I wonder if he would have killed them if there were any....probably.

[#FF0000]

Really and what are they? And don't scream liberation from opression, I know quite a few whites that suffer opression, mostly from capitalists and guess what some of those capitalists are black. Dismiss nationalism if you must, but we condemn nationalist whites (not fascists) to the tender mercies of nazis and other exploiters.

I explained it on the first page of the thread.

And of course white people suffer from oppression but they do not suffer from oppression specifically because of their race.

[#FF0000]

I bet you guys think feminists fight for female privilege too.

[Manic Impressive]

I wonder if he would have killed them if there were any....probably.
Actually Stalin introduced scholarships for Africans to come and study in the USSR. It was soviet policy to help Africans to tackle poverty and imperialism by giving them the knowledge and skills to do so.

[Rainsborough]

I bet you guys think feminists fight for female privilege too.

:confused:

[NewSocialist]

Not blacks, since there weren't any in the Sovietsky Soyuz.:lol:

Careful now.. You don't want to Marxist-Leninists to go ape shit.

[NewSocialist]

I keep hearing about how black nationalists simply seeks to end oppression and discrimination, but the term "nationalism" obviously refers to some notion of a specific "nation." The term itself gives one the impression they seek to establish a black nation. If these black nationalists simply want to end oppression within a multiracial society, why use a label which implies ethnic separatism at all? Why use the term "nationalism"? Pretty sloppy choice of terminology, if you ask me.

[NewSocialist]

Is Asian Nationalism allowed?

Probably, because once upon a time the British oppressed the Chinese people, and we all know that the French and Spanish oppressed south east Asians.

But then, the Romans oppressed and enslaved most of Europe centuries ago. Does that validate German or Spanish nationalism?

[#FF0000]

I keep hearing about how black nationalists simply seeks to end oppression and discrimination, but the term "nationalism" obviously refers to some notion of a specific "nation." The term itself gives one the impression they seek to establish a black nation. If these black nationalists simply want to end oppression within a multiracial society, why use a label which implies ethnic separatism at all? Why use the term "nationalism"? Pretty sloppy choice of terminology, if you ask me.

The term, I think, is supposed to suggest autonomy for an oppressed group and independence from a system of white privilege/supremacy.


But then, the Romans oppressed and enslaved most of Europe centuries ago. Does that validate German or Spanish nationalism? Depends on whether or not they're being oppressed now. To which the answer is: no. Which is why people generally support the Palestinians in their struggle and to some extent the Irish and the Basques and whoever else. I don't buy into "left wing" or "progressive" nationalism but the point is you guys have no idea what the hell you're talking about with black nationalism and you are criticizing something that doesn't exist.

[#FF0000]

:confused:

What's the :confused: for? To suggest that black nationalists are the same as white nationalists (except black!) is pretty much analogous to suggesting that feminists are female chauvinists who hate men and not people who are struggling for gender equality.

Anyway, I understand why a ton of people have a problem with the word "nationalism" being used there but black nationalism does not mean what y'all think it means. If you don't want to read the first page of the thread where I kinda explain it, then just stop posting and read a book on the subject because this thread is seriously embarrassing.

[NewSocialist]

The term, I think, is supposed to suggest autonomy for an oppressed group and independence from a system of white privilege/supremacy.

By what means? Racially exclusive activism (i.e., Black organizations fighting for Black rights)?

When you conjoin the term "nationalism" with the name of an ethnic group, it seems to imply creating an actual nation for said ethnic group. If ethnic nationalism isn't their objective, then they should simply call themselves "anti-racists" or something along those lines.

[#FF0000]

By what means? Racially exclusive activism (i.e., Black organizations fighting for Black rights)?

I dunno. Different groups have different methods, I suppose. Read up on the Black Panthers, I guess?

I mean, I don't really think that a black nationalist group organizing in a black neighborhood with exclusively black members is wrong.


When you conjoin the term "nationalism" with the name of an ethnic group, it seems to imply creating an actual nation for said ethnic group. If ethnic nationalism isn't their objective, then they should simply call themselves "anti-racists" or something along those lines.Welp, that, historically, is what groups like the Black Panthers have been called. I don't know who used the term first, but it is what it is, as confusing at it may be.

I guess that's why it's important to be clear on what exactly one is talking about instead of just trying to infer meaning sometimes. I understand the confusion, though. I think groups like the NOI use the term "black nationalism" as well as old groups like the Black Panthers, who believed in very different things.

[Rainsborough]

I dunno. Different groups have different methods, I suppose. Read up on the Black Panthers, I guess?

I mean, I don't really think that a black nationalist group organizing in a black neighborhood with exclusively black members is wrong.


So, by that argument a white nationalist group organising in a white neighbouhood with exclusively white members would also pass your test?

[Olentzero]

If whites had endured 250+ years of slavery in a country, followed by another 100+ years of having their civil rights denied to the point where they could be arbitrarily killed just because they were assumed to have whistled at a Black woman, followed by 50+ years of formal 'equality' where they are the largest group among the unemployed and the prison population out of all proportion to their numbers in society as a whole, then yes.

Seriously, Rainsborough, the reasons behind Black nationalism are not the same reasons behind White nationalism, and simply equating the two is to ignore the history and legacy of profoundly unequal race relations in capitalist society. Again, this is not to say that all forms of Black nationalism are acceptable. But you need real perspective to understand the differences between BN and WN and the causes underlying them. They simply cannot be lumped together under an ultraleft rejection of nationalism as a whole.

[El Oso Rojo]

Black Nationalism is about loving yourself as a black person, not hating white people, so throw bn= racism out the window,

[#FF0000]

So, by that argument a white nationalist group organising in a white neighbouhood with exclusively white members would also pass your test?

No because being "white" in America, by definition, is to have some degree of privilege. Like I said in the first post, which you refuse to read for some reason, black nationalism is a "defensive" thing. Its aim is to gain independence and autonomy from a white supremacist system for all non-white people. Privilege is what black nationalists seek to get rid of.

White nationalism, on the other hand, aims to preserve privilege.

And nobody get started on this whole dumb "WELL MAYBE THEY SHOUDLN'T BE CALLED BLACK NATIONALISTS THEN" because you can say the same shit about feminism, which targets gender roles in general, which goes for both men and women.

The point is, if you sit here and think black nationalists are analogous to white nationalists, then you need to stop posting until you read a book. There's definitely reasonable objections and issues to raise on black nationalism but none of you are even close to hitting on them, because...

NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[#FF0000]

They simply cannot be lumped together under an ultraleft rejection of nationalism as a whole.

I am ultraleft and I don't lump them together. still reject them tho lol

[Rainsborough]

Black nationalism a la Huey Newton and the Black Panthers have really nothing in common with white nationalism.

There are a lot of other arguments as well, e.g. that black nationalism/black pride aren't oppressive like white pride is because white pride/nationalism reinforce privilege in society while black pride/nationalism is a defensive thing that is aimed to correct inequality and privilege.

Okay, I've read your first post, and in principle I agree, as long as your definition of white nationalism is one of 'blood and soil' bollox. The usual image of white nationalism, fat bellied, beer swigging neo-nazis dressed in thirties clothing, or some sharp suited fascist. But what I'm talking about is not this 'wrapped in the flag' image that you can't seem to get away from, rather the ordinary white working class that many here would happily see drowned at birth. You talk about 'white priviledge', again I ask "what white priviledge?", from where I sit (without a book) I see a lot of white folks whose only priviledge seems to be exploited by the bourgeoise, but then I suoppose its okay because its only whites exploiting whites.
Oh and before you start recomending that others go away and read a book, perhaps you should and note how many of the original socialist thinkers saw no benefit in nationalism.