Nice place you have here

[DigitalBluster]

I'm surprised such a place exists. Most political forums are just squabbles between "conservatives" (reactionaries) and "liberals" (conservatives).

I'm a socialist, nothing in particular yet but I know we can't vote away capitalist power (why would they let us?), so I guess that makes me a revolutionary one. I define socialism (in part) as the direct democratic management of productive resources by the producers themselves. This gets me in trouble on typical forums where "socialism" is anything not reactionary.

Having said that, I do believe in voting, so that might disqualify me as a revolutionary, even though I don't see voting as a way of achieving socialism through reforms. I see it as a contest between opposing theories on how to go about doing the same thing: run capitalism and the bourgeois state. I'm under no illusions about it, but I do think it matters. In my case, the "liberal" program is less evil than the "conservative" one, and so I vote "for" it (and immediately oppose it).

I'm a white male heterosexual which means I'm a member of at least three oppressor groups, and I take this seriously. I think taking it seriously means, at the very least, not getting in the way when members of oppressed groups fight for liberation. If people like myself want to help, we should shut up and take orders from them, not paternalistically presume to lead them.

I'll leave it at that until I hear back from you all about whether voting disqualifies me from posting here.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

There are some socialist currents, like 'orthodox' Marxism, that see elections as a valid tactic. So, you are in good company ;)

[RedWorker]

Welcome.

I hope you vote for something which is a lot more to the left of the Democrats.

[DigitalBluster]

Welcome.

I hope you vote for something which is a lot more to the left of the Democrats.

Thanks.

There's no party in contention to the left of the Democrats. I vote "for" (in quotes) Democrats as a stopgap measure to prevent the more precipitous backslide offered by Republicans, and for no other reason (I'm not trying to register my actual opinion in the public consciousness by voting). In the US, "liberal" means conservative, and "conservative" means reactionary; I take sides on that issue.

But I don't want to make more of it than there is. As I said, I'm under no illusions about voting. It isn't central to my politics. I see it as applying a bandage to hemorrhaging worker rights, not as a way to advance them. That will require seizure of power, abolition of capitalism, and dismantling of the bourgeois state.

[RedWorker]

Your voting strategy is poor, comrade.

Taking one vote away from the Democrats will never make them lose - and if enough votes shift so it actually does, that means a third party may be beginning to gain power, which is very good.

Yet re-assigning it to another party, however, may end up having a real effect. One first needs to take the step so that others do.

Also, your analysis about voting seems too simplistic.

I neither adhere to the stereotypical view liberals have, nor the stereotypical view most communists have about "voting in the current burgeois system". Both seem far too simplistic to me. It seems that any effort in discussing this here ends up in some "BUT LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO ALLENDE!" fight. Now, I'm not saying that just voting will magically bring about worldwide communism. But like I said, most views here about this topic are too simplistic.

Marxist-Leninists would have it harder to argue that "voting means nothing"; I recall that while the Soviet Union still existed, in certain countries a Marxist-Leninist party was voted in, and the state then quickly turned into a state capitalist Maxist-Leninist single-party state, carbon copy of the Soviet Union. (Edit: Not sure how accurate what I've said in this last sentence is. I recall having read about that several times long ago, but the latest time I encountered it was when reviewing elections in Czechoslovakia. The elections that led the Marxist-Leninists to rise to power were apparently held under Soviet occupation, so they may have been undemocratic. This may have happened in another instance too though, and not only Czechoslovakia.)

[DigitalBluster]

It's true, one less vote won't matter. Nevertheless, I like to go to the polls and interact with the community on a day when everyone is in a political mindset; actually voting is almost a formality. However, as I said, I do take sides. Life is empirically worse for the working class under Republicans -- that's not to say it's good under Democrats, just less bad. I find your analysis naive with regard to the US and its electoral college system. I'll leave it at that; I'm not about to defend the Democratic Party.

I regret mentioning that I vote because, despite explicitly stating that I don't believe voting can achieve socialism, I've been somehow misunderstood as believing that it can. It seems difficult for some people to hold two ideas in their head at the same time: to reject the system and yet take sides in its contests. I find this easy and not the least bit hypocritical or contradictory.

[RedWorker]

However, as I said, I do take sides. Life is empirically worse for the working class under Republicans -- that's not to say it's good under Democrats, just less bad. I find your analysis naive with regard to the US and its electoral college system. I'll leave it at that; I'm not about to defend the Democratic Party.

And life would be much better under a third party which is more aligned to the left.

I find "Vote Democrats, or else the Republicans will win!" to be even naiver.

[DigitalBluster]

And life would be much better under a third party which is more aligned to the left.

Exactly how far "to the left" do you think the ruling class is going to allow a contending party to go? Do you actually believe the US is democratic, such that its political landscape reflects the will of the working class? At present, as with the whole history of the US, the ruling class allows a conservative party and a reactionary party. To the extent that progress is made, it's because the ruling class deems it the best way to maintain itself.


I find "Vote Democrats, or else the Republicans will win!" to be even naiver.

One of two parties is going to win under the US electoral college. I care which faction of the business party rules. I don't have naive hopes of any third party -- much less a leftist third party -- suddenly emerging to represent the will of the working class under this system, where contending parties emerge only when it suits the interests of a breakaway faction of the ruling class. But then, I don't think voting advances the socialist cause in any case, as I've stated repeatedly.

In the US we live under capitalism, not socialism; the US political landscape reflects the will of the ruling class, not the working class. The most that can be accomplished by socialists within that landscape is to take sides in contests between factions of the ruling class. The real work is done outside that landscape.

And I really don't want to argue with a fellow socialist about this.

[RedWorker]

That's nonsense. The system of the U.S. is capitalism, yes, but that is exactly the same for any other country which, believe it or not, is fully controlled by its respective bourgeoisie. And in other countries parties which have took advantage of richness and used it to better the lives of people, parties which have expanded access to healthcare and education, parties which have worked to reduce poverty, you get the idea, have come to power. There is nothing different with the U.S. other than it is the crux of bourgeois imperialists and vastly composed of white privileged heterosexual males. (mixed up with 50 million poor)

This has nothing to do with whether voting can bring socialism or not. It seems that you are concerned with your appearance here, and concerned with looking like you don't support the Democrats, when you clearly do. It matters little whether you really share their ideology or not, or for what reason you do, whether believing the old "vote us or the others will win!" trick or not.

If the international bourgeoisie has succeeded at anything, it is at spreading the myth that "nothing can be changed". Even worse, getting people to vote for centre-right parties (like the Democrats at best) because "anything better isn't possible". In this sense, yes, you are under illusions about voting: the same illusions as the majority of people (both "nothing can be changed" + "vote for the least worse party"), but in this case applied with the "socialist" variant.

And yes, I understand that you believe that voting can't bring socialism. Not that I've ever even claimed that it can here.

[DigitalBluster]

And in other countries parties which have took advantage of richness and used it to better the lives of people, parties which have expanded access to healthcare and education, parties which have worked to reduce poverty, you get the idea, have come to power.


To the extent that progress is made, it's because the ruling class deems it the best way to maintain itself.

If you believe otherwise then you're naive. Hit it, Frank! youtube.com/watch?v=cJVewWbeBiY


It seems that you are concerned with your appearance here, and concerned with looking like you don't support the Democrats, when you clearly do.

I'm concerned with not being misrepresented, which you seem determined to do.


If the international bourgeoisie has succeeded at anything, it is at spreading the myth that "nothing can be changed".

Within bourgeois electoral politics, nothing can be, and if you believe otherwise then you're a reformist.

This will be my last reply to you.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Hey, welcome! You seem cool. I'm very against voting though, just because it legitimizes the current system. Nobody votes, the system goes stale and the bourgeoisie would panic. But it's not a big deal, it certainly doesn't disqualify you from posting. :)

[RedWorker]

Oh my. Is a voter of the Democrats calling me a reformist? :laugh:

Ok mate. Keep giving the bourgeoisie electoral support.

[DigitalBluster]

Hey, welcome! You seem cool. I'm very against voting though, just because it legitimizes the current system. Nobody votes, the system goes stale and the bourgeoisie would panic. But it's not a big deal, it certainly doesn't disqualify you from posting. :)

Thanks for the welcome. :)

I must say though, it seems like with turnouts of the voting-age population rarely exceeding 60% they would have been in a panic by now. ;)

The rulers don't seem to panic until the ruled get uppity -- not by voting one way or the other within the rulers' system, but by threatening to topple it. I don't think the rulers need legitimizing; if they can maintain power, they will, whether they have 100% voter "support" in sham elections, or no elections at all, as with absolute monarchy. If the ruled don't threaten fundamental change, the rulers consider that to be tacit consent, under any system.

[xnecron101x]

I have to say I'm with DigitalBluster on this one. While my personal views are further to the left, I have always voted for Democrats during the presidential elections. Now before you start yelling, let me explain myself.

I always try to vote for socialists/communists in local/statewide elections as they have a chance at winning. But when it comes to the presidential elections, while I believe that abstaining from the vote would eventually achieve exactly what Psycho P and the Freight Train (?) said, that would take a hell of a lot of time. A lot of time in which the Republicans can do a hell of a lot of damage.

[MarxistPC]

Hey, I'm new here to and I would like to say you are most definitely a socialist in the old way. The thought that those who work in the factories should own them. I hope you like it here and read my thread in the anti-fascism thread.

[MarxistPC]

Ah, an old fashioned socialist. Those who work the factories should own them. I love it. Welcome aboard. I recommend Noam Chomsky and David Harvey as some of the premier Leftists you can listen to and read.

[DigitalBluster]

Thanks, I'm a fan of both Chomsky and Harvey.

[consuming negativity]

we should shut up and take orders

Yeah.... no. You're a bit too stereotypical tumblr liberal for my tastes, but I nevertheless hope you find whatever it is you're looking for here.

[DigitalBluster]

Yeah.... no.

The full quote was: "If people like myself want to help [when members of oppressed groups fight for liberation], we should shut up and take orders from them, not paternalistically presume to lead them."

Those are the alternatives, as I see them.

You call me a "liberal"; but for me, it's the liberal mentality that makes members of oppressor groups, like myself, take a paternalistic "leadership" attitude toward members of oppressed groups fighting for liberation. The liberation of oppressed groups must be the work of the members themselves; if people like me want to help, we should follow or get out of the way, but not presume to lead.

Of course, that's just my view; yours evidently differs.


You're a bit too stereotypical tumblr liberal for my tastes, but I nevertheless hope you find whatever it is you're looking for here.

Why even post, if all you're going to do is offer a backhanded "welcome"?

[Crabbensmasher]

Wow, revleft is pretty vicious today. Sorry about the antagonism.

I have a question: Is what your getting at that you support 'tactical voting'?

[consuming negativity]

The full quote was: "If people like myself want to help [when members of oppressed groups fight for liberation], we should shut up and take orders from them, not paternalistically presume to lead them."

Those are the alternatives, as I see them.

You call me a "liberal"; but for me, it's the liberal mentality that makes members of oppressor groups, like myself, take a paternalistic "leadership" attitude toward members of oppressed groups fighting for liberation. The liberation of oppressed groups must be the work of the members themselves; if people like me want to help, we should follow or get out of the way, but not presume to lead.

Of course, that's just my view; yours evidently differs.

Why even post, if all you're going to do is offer a backhanded "welcome"?

You're presenting a false dichotomy. There are options apart from "paternalistic leadership" or "shut up and take orders" that you're not recognizing. First and foremost among them being healthy cooperation and mutual respect.

I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your unwarranted defensiveness. I welcomed you to the community in the same post as a critique; so what? If you signed up here to preach without having your opinions challenged, you're probably going to end up disappointed. Such is life.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You had me at Murica. :wub:

PS, I see a lot of words, I didn't read any of them, by the by, just wanted to say that.

[DigitalBluster]

Wow, revleft is pretty vicious today. Sorry about the antagonism.

I have a question: Is what your getting at that you support 'tactical voting'?

Thanks, and no worries.

That's what it amounts to, I guess, though I'd hesitate to say I "support" it as a concept, since I don't give it much thought. Ruling class political contests are one part of the real world we're presented with. We can engage that part of the world, making the most of it for what its worth, or we can pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. This goes for every facet of the world, as far as I can tell.

[DigitalBluster]

You're presenting a false dichotomy. There are options apart from "paternalistic leadership" or "shut up and take orders" that you're not recognizing. First and foremost among them being healthy cooperation and mutual respect.

The way for members of oppressor groups to respectfully cooperate with members of oppressed groups fighting for liberation is to follow and not presume to lead. If you find this "preachy" then I must have hit a nerve. I'm not sorry.


I'm not particularly interested in entertaining your unwarranted defensiveness. I welcomed you to the community in the same post as a critique; so what? If you signed up here to preach without having your opinions challenged, you're probably going to end up disappointed. Such is life.

Spare me the tough love sermon. You offered no critique in your first post, and I've just shot down the liberal-minded elaboration you offered in your second. If you'd like to offer a "challenge" to my claim -- that it's for the oppressed, not their oppressors, to lead in their own liberation -- then do so, in the most unwelcoming tone you can muster. I can ignore the tone if there's something else to focus on.

[DigitalBluster]

You had me at Murica. :wub:

PS, I see a lot of words, I didn't read any of them, by the by, just wanted to say that.

And you had me at "Slumerica." :wub:

It's probably for the best that you didn't read the thread: our wub-affair might be short-lived if you discovered I'm an alleged "liberal."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

And you had me at "Slumerica." :wub:

It's probably for the best that you didn't read the thread: our wub-affair might be short-lived if you discovered I'm an alleged "liberal."

I'm sure with proper motivation I could beat it out if you. :)

[Leftsolidarity]

Welcome :)

Hope you enjoy yourself on the board. Feel free to shoot me a message if you need help with anything.

[consuming negativity]

The way for members of oppressor groups to respectfully cooperate with members of oppressed groups fighting for liberation is to follow and not presume to lead. If you find this "preachy" then I must have hit a nerve. I'm not sorry.

Spare me the tough love sermon. You offered no critique in your first post, and I've just shot down the liberal-minded elaboration you offered in your second. If you'd like to offer a "challenge" to my claim -- that it's for the oppressed, not their oppressors, to lead in their own liberation -- then do so, in the most unwelcoming tone you can muster. I can ignore the tone if there's something else to focus on.

:laugh:

Sermon, eh? Between that and saying that you hit a nerve, you basically stole my post and shot it back at me in one of the most eloquent "no u" posts I've seen in quite some time.

Anyway, the way you word your post that there are "oppressors" and "oppressed" persons in this hypothetical revolutionary situation is essentially a nationalist position insofar as you're implying that the struggle is somehow less that of anyone not from the area, just for that reason. It is common sense that anyone seeking to join a struggle should be open to new ideas from other persons, and should not be so stupid as to discount the knowledge of people who will most likely know the subtleties, geographies, and other shit much better than any person joining an isolated struggle from far away. It is also common sense that there's no point in splitting off and forming their own group because they refuse to follow the lead of others based on some weird nationalism or racism or whatever other reason they might do that. But I disagree entirely with the idea of "shutting up and taking orders" in *any* situation, even one in which one person is acknowledging that another is more experienced in that situation or has knowledge that makes them an authoritative source. People who go to non-Western countries to shut up and take orders aren't communists... they're usually wearing about 40 pounds of gear and most likely went there because Uncle Sam promised to pay their college tuition. Not that I'm attempting to imply you're suggesting we join the Army; what I'm saying is that using your brain, and asking and questioning things is useful. But tbh I think we're in agreement but that you've just precluded yourself from admitting as much due to your flavorful wording of your point, which is as much my point as everything else I said.

[Sabot Cat]

I believe in your definition of socialism, and your entire perspective on tactical voting: but good luck convincing anyone on here of the latter. I spent like, days trying to do so in one thread. It was awful.

[DigitalBluster]

:laugh:

Sermon, eh? Between that and saying that you hit a nerve, you basically stole my post and shot it back at me in one of the most eloquent "no u" posts I've seen in quite some time.

Anyway, the way you word your post that there are "oppressors" and "oppressed" persons in this hypothetical revolutionary situation is essentially a nationalist position insofar as you're implying that the struggle is somehow less that of anyone not from the area, just for that reason. It is common sense that anyone seeking to join a struggle should be open to new ideas from other persons, and should not be so stupid as to discount the knowledge of people who will most likely know the subtleties, geographies, and other shit much better than any person joining an isolated struggle from far away. It is also common sense that there's no point in splitting off and forming their own group because they refuse to follow the lead of others based on some weird nationalism or racism or whatever other reason they might do that. But I disagree entirely with the idea of "shutting up and taking orders" in *any* situation, even one in which one person is acknowledging that another is more experienced in that situation or has knowledge that makes them an authoritative source. People who go to non-Western countries to shut up and take orders aren't communists... they're usually wearing about 40 pounds of gear and most likely went there because Uncle Sam promised to pay their college tuition. Not that I'm attempting to imply you're suggesting we join the Army; what I'm saying is that using your brain, and asking and questioning things is useful. But tbh I think we're in agreement but that you've just precluded yourself from admitting as much due to your flavorful wording of your point, which is as much my point as everything else I said.

I don't see it as a nationalist position, but so what if it was? I don't oppose national liberation movements, not even religiously motivated ones (despite my atheism); I don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and it's good when the oppressed liberate themselves, in my view. But there's nothing hypothetical about oppression, so I'm not sure why you wrap those words in quotes. You might just be quoting me, but I used many other words, and you chose to quote only those, so I wonder if I really did hit a nerve. Maybe that's why you're rolling on the floor, in pain. Or maybe you quoted me in a sneering way, the way we on the left often quote "anarcho-capitalism." Whatever the reason, it smells funny, coming from someone on my own team, as it were. Oppression is very real (I don't suggest you deny this), which means there are oppressors and oppressed. The least we can do, in my view, is identify which group we belong to, if either (even though we as individuals may not be active participants, which I hope you'll agree is as invalid an excuse as when a white racist claims to have black friends) and act accordingly. For me this means, when I'm a member of the oppressor group, not pretending it's about me. Liberation is not a gift handed down from above; it's a prize won in struggle from below. My duty in that instance is to influence other members of the oppressor group to change their behavior, and to stay out of the way when the oppressed rise up and change theirs. It isn't about being open to their ideas, because it isn't my direct fight, it's theirs. I'm not seeking to integrate their ideas into my own for the sake of improving my own struggles; I'm seeking direction from them as to how I can help without standing in the way of their self-liberation. If we were talking about a situation where disparate people were coming together to struggle against a common enemy -- against Capital, for instance -- then I'd agree with your comments on that matter entirely, but that's not what I'm talking about. When white people asked the Black Panthers what whites could do to help, the Panthers told whites to start their own organization and influence their own group; whites weren't invited to join the Panthers because that was a struggle for Black liberation by Blacks. While it's true that Black liberation benefits everyone, it remains true that not everyone is a member of the oppressed group in that instance. I hope now you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from. As to your analogy, it isn't about shutting down our brains, it's about using our brains in appropriate, non-paternalistic ways. And to your last point, I promise I'll never preclude myself from speaking my mind, and that includes acknowledging when a valid point has been made, by anyone.

[DigitalBluster]

I believe in your definition of socialism, and your entire perspective on tactical voting: but good luck convincing anyone on here of the latter. I spent like, days trying to do so in one thread. It was awful.

Thanks. I won't bother trying, not just because it's the wrong forum for it, but because it isn't central to my politics. I don't care if anyone else votes, I do it because it's one more facet of the world I can engage. I'm much more concerned that people struggle against the system, and on that we all agree. I only wanted to be candid from the beginning, in case it would debar me from posting here.

[consuming negativity]

I don't see it as a nationalist position, but so what if it was? I don't oppose national liberation movements, not even religiously motivated ones (despite my atheism); I don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and it's good when the oppressed liberate themselves, in my view. But there's nothing hypothetical about oppression, so I'm not sure why you wrap those words in quotes. You might just be quoting me, but I used many other words, and you chose to quote only those, so I wonder if I really did hit a nerve. Maybe that's why you're rolling on the floor, in pain. Or maybe you quoted me in a sneering way, the way we on the left often quote "anarcho-capitalism." Whatever the reason, it smells funny, coming from someone on my own team, as it were.

Oppression is very real (I don't suggest you deny this), which means there are oppressors and oppressed. The least we can do, in my view, is identify which group we belong to, if either (even though we as individuals may not be active participants, which I hope you'll agree is as invalid an excuse as when a white racist claims to have black friends) and act accordingly. For me this means, when I'm a member of the oppressor group, not pretending it's about me. Liberation is not a gift handed down from above; it's a prize won in struggle from below. My duty in that instance is to influence other members of the oppressor group to change their behavior, and to stay out of the way when the oppressed rise up and change theirs. It isn't about being open to their ideas, because it isn't my direct fight, it's theirs. I'm not seeking to integrate their ideas into my own for the sake of improving my own struggles; I'm seeking direction from them as to how I can help without standing in the way of their self-liberation. If we were talking about a situation where disparate people were coming together to struggle against a common enemy -- against Capital, for instance -- then I'd agree with your comments on that matter entirely, but that's not what I'm talking about. When white people asked the Black Panthers what whites could do to help, the Panthers told whites to start their own organization and influence their own group; whites weren't invited to join the Panthers because that was a struggle for Black liberation by Blacks. While it's true that Black liberation benefits everyone, it remains true that not everyone is a member of the oppressed group in that instance.

I hope now you have a better understanding of where I'm coming from. As to your analogy, it isn't about shutting down our brains, it's about using our brains in appropriate, non-paternalistic ways. And to your last point, I promise I'll never preclude myself from speaking my mind, and that includes acknowledging when a valid point has been made, by anyone.

I took the liberty of breaking your post into readable paragraphs. Hope you don't mind.

I'll admit that your attempts to ad hominem my arguments by painting me as some sort of mischievous racist spy are becoming a bit tired, and I suppose that my jovial nature isn't exactly helping my case. However, my critiques of your position are not coming from the right, but from the left. I get that you're probably not used to that, but there's a first time for everything and you need to get over it.

Now, to get to the point again: the reason your position being a nationalist one matters is because, as I suspect, you are not arguing from the position of a revolutionary socialist but from the position of a social democrat (ie. liberal) talking about revolutionary movements such as the Black Panthers as an outsider. The Black Panthers when rejecting white people from their membership were not saying that we need to go be "good allies" to help black people achieve liberation. Their goal was not liberation for just black people, but liberation for all people. They were communists (specifically influenced by Maoism), not reformists, and their original name was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. They didn't vote, they unapologetically simultaneously shot cops and fed the hungry. And no, that isn't slander - I'm a huge fan of the original BPP. So when you characterize it as "their fight" for "their liberation", you're misrepresenting their opinions in your attempt to speak on their behalf, which is precisely what you claim to be arguing against.

Moreover, struggles do not happen in a vacuum, and all things are interrelated one way or another. Especially capitalism, which is global and links all of us against a mutual enemy. Therefore, when people are struggling to overthrow the bourgeois government in the country that they live in, that is not just "their struggle". And if they aren't communists themselves, we should be attempting to show them why they should be. That isn't paternalistic, it is recognizing that a bourgeoisie of black people ruling over black people is still oppressive and capitalist, and therefore not a desirable end goal.

Which brings me back full circle to why I stuck the words "oppressed" and "oppressors" in quotes: because they're completely useless as scientific terms to describe social relationships. Referring to a poor gay white guy as "an oppressor" or a rich black heterosexual as "oppressed" is intellectually vacuous and does nothing to accurately describe complex social organization. Not only that, but people are able to recognize this and end up being pushed away from our movement for no good reason other than terminology which serves as a sort of status symbol for internet liberals who can sit around jerking each other off about how much better they are than the racist proletarian masses.

[DigitalBluster]

I took the liberty of breaking your post into readable paragraphs. Hope you don't mind.

Thanks, I don't mind. I prefer paragraphs, but in light of your previous post I opted against them in an attempt to ingratiate myself to you.


I'll admit that your attempts to ad hominem my arguments by painting me as some sort of mischievous racist spy are becoming a bit tired, and I suppose that my jovial nature isn't exactly helping my case.

I've engaged in no ad hominem against you, that I can find, nor have I attempted to portray you as a racist spy. If you feel that way, it can only be due to something inside you.


However, my critiques of your position are not coming from the right, but from the left. I get that you're probably not used to that, but there's a first time for everything and you need to get over it.

You're not the first person I've encountered, right or left, who's treated their politics like a pissing match. So far I haven't been flustered by it. But I'll try to remember in future dealings with you that you're a beacon of the left.


Now, to get to the point again: the reason your position being a nationalist one matters is because, as I suspect, you are not arguing from the position of a revolutionary socialist but from the position of a social democrat (ie. liberal) talking about revolutionary movements such as the Black Panthers as an outsider.

Your suspicion is false. I'm a revolutionary socialist, not a social democrat, much less a liberal. You attempt to derive this from my position (in this instance) as a white person who objects to whites attempting to insert themselves into leadership positions in Black liberation movements. I find your reasoning not only bizarre but backward, i.e., I consider your position the liberal one, for reasons I've already discussed. It's unlikely we'll come to an agreement on this point.


The Black Panthers when rejecting white people from their membership were not saying that we need to go be "good allies" to help black people achieve liberation. Their goal was not liberation for just black people, but liberation for all people.

The struggles, however, are not the same, and the Panthers understood this. They were fighting for the liberation of Blacks as a group, which is necessary before Blacks can be liberated as individuals. Whites, as such, have no similar need for white liberation. (Newton elaborates on this in In Defense of Self Defense. I'm sure you're aware of this, but others may not be.) But this is irrelevant to my point, that "the liberation of oppressed groups must be the work of the members themselves." You seem to take umbrage at this, presumably because you feel that as long as your intentions are good you should be accepted in leadership roles in the liberation of groups of which you're not a member. That's another disagreement we're unlikely to overcome.


They were communists (specifically influenced by Maoism), not reformists, and their original name was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. They didn't vote, they unapologetically simultaneously shot cops and fed the hungry. And no, that isn't slander - I'm a huge fan of the original BPP.

Not that it matters, since I don't engage in leftist pissing matches, but since you seem to be that sort, I'll just note for the record that I'm reasonably familiar with the Panthers as well, and I'll cite this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-control-t189192/index.html?p=2761943#post2761943) from my limited history here.


So when you characterize it as "their fight" for "their liberation", you're misrepresenting their opinions in your attempt to speak on their behalf, which is precisely what you claim to be arguing against.

As I've already reminded you, they understood that the struggle is different for different people, and I'm happy to let them speak for themselves on that. I'm hesitant to start quoting, since it will only degrade into a quote war (at which point my M.O. is to concede the entire debate, lock, stock and barrel, rather than waste my limited free time), but suffice it to say that the very existence of the Panthers demonstrates this understanding.


Moreover, struggles do not happen in a vacuum, and all things are interrelated one way or another. Especially capitalism, which is global and links all of us against a mutual enemy. Therefore, when people are struggling to overthrow the bourgeois government in the country that they live in, that is not just "their struggle". And if they aren't communists themselves, we should be attempting to show them why they should be. That isn't paternalistic, it is recognizing that a bourgeoisie of black people ruling over black people is still oppressive and capitalist, and therefore not a desirable end goal.

I agree with all this. Where we disagree, it seems, is on the role of individuals who struggle toward common goals. But I've already beaten that into the ground.


Which brings me back full circle to why I stuck the words "oppressed" and "oppressors" in quotes: because they're completely useless as scientific terms to describe social relationships. Referring to a poor gay white guy as "an oppressor" or a rich black heterosexual as "oppressed" is intellectually vacuous and does nothing to accurately describe complex social organization. Not only that, but people are able to recognize this and end up being pushed away from our movement for no good reason other than terminology which serves as a sort of status symbol for internet liberals who can sit around jerking each other off about how much better they are than the racist proletarian masses.

The existence of oppression implies both oppressors and oppressed. Tossing around words like "scientific" doesn't override this simple logic. Not all leftists are Marxists. Not only that, but people are able to recognize this and end up being pushed away from our movement for no good reason other than terminology which serves as a sort of status symbol for Internet leftists who can sit around jerking each other off about how much better they are than the unscientific proletarian masses.

Moreover, I never referred to whites, or heterosexuals, or males, as such, as oppressors. Refer back to my posts and you'll discover I'm very careful with my wording: I refer to myself (and others like me) as "members of oppressor groups" (I slipped once, depending how you read it, when I wrote "it's for the oppressed, not their oppressors, to lead in their own liberation" -- my bad). This is deliberate on my part, for the very reason you express: because not all members of oppressor groups are actively engaged in oppression. Nevertheless, we do benefit from our membership in these groups. Your "poor gay white guy" might be a swell fella, he might even have black friends, but he's still a member of an oppressor group by virtue of his whiteness. His membership in oppressed groups doesn't negate this; we're not trying to balance a scale to determine who's a net oppressor. We're trying to analyze group dynamics as such, precisely for the reason of "accurately describ complex social organization." Or, at least, [i]I am.

It's unfortunate we got off on the wrong foot, considering our mutual affection for the Panthers, which isn't universal among the left, much less the mainstream. Oh well.

[Luís Henrique]

I'll leave it at that until I hear back from you all about whether voting disqualifies me from posting here.

Well, I post here since 2005, and I definitely vote in general elections. I have at times wondered what I am doing here, but this has never had anything to do with voting.

Luís Henrique