Radicalizing Black Lives Matter [Archive]

ComradeAllende

29th July 2015, 00:17

I get what you're saying. I've often considered this problem myself. I also get how the white comrades on here are very reluctant or rather cautious when approaching this problem. I sometimes get concerned or even frustrated by their responses, on here and in real life. It's almost as if they push back to far in an attempt to gain some politically correct distance. And while I agree with their sentiment, often their distance creates a one dimensional aspect to our struggle. Please do not come to our hoods and varrios attempting to steer the discourse. Where the feet meet pavement the issues are distinctly our experience and the superstructure of resistance must be organically ours. But distance yourself to much and what organically develops is a one dimensional perspective of the struggle. The ways that our struggle, the black and Hispanic struggle, is interconnected to the working class white struggle become shrouded. This only deepens the rift in the working class. This is actually an internal problem that the bpp struggled with internally. The concept that this is a black problem or a Hispanic problem or a white problem is a misnomer at best and generally only serves to bolster the status quo. These "problems" are more accurately socio-cultural symptoms of a shared and diseased socioeconomic system that we all are victims of. It's too easy to forget that my struggle is essentially the same as yours. And until this becomes a common edifice of the activist culture it will be very easy to divide us. For many reasons it is important, right now, to focus on solidarity and making sure that that message gets through loud and clear.

BLM needs to tread carefully when injecting economics and inequality into the discussion. The best way to highlight the structural racism embedded within the current system is to compare black and Hispanic opportunities to white opportunities (de facto segregation, poverty rates, household wealth, etc), and this could easily antagonize members of the white working class, who (to be fair) have only a tenuous link to "white supremacy" and only possess a marginal racial advantage with respect to nonwhites. I think BLM needs to forge ties with more radical allies and spend less of its time and resources on swaying "middle class" whites; joining up with the IWW (or any number of left-wing third parties) and publicly embracing the spirit of OWS would go a long way towards building a multi-racial working class coalition, as would some sort of critique of the Democratic and Republican platforms. Of course this comes with severe risks, as alienating the white middle class with radical economics could prove costly if they cannot muster a working-class base; young activists can only do so much without attracting scorn from more "experienced" and "practical" segments of the population (i.e. old white conservatives).

John Nada

29th July 2015, 10:45

I don't think some self-styled "white savior leftist" should just swoop in and start barking orders to oppressed peoples on how they should go about fighting for liberation. If they don't already have oppressed peoples as comrades they can work with, or worse can't even get other white people either, there's already problems. Not because of some "Oh white people cannot know, so every single oppressed person instinctively is right". As someone who's half Mexican I'd probably listen to and agree with most on this board over a lot of [email protected] But in the dynamic going on in the US where white people are de facto segregated from oppressed peoples, even if they're less racist, still pick up racism from the superstructure. Even look at past Communist parties. Had the same shit with the dominate group(supposedly anti-racist and anti-imperialist) treating the oppressed peoples like their struggle was subordinate:
As for our Communist Parties in Great Britain, Holland, Belgium and other countries - what have they done to cope with the colonial invasions perpetrated by the bourgeois. class of their countries? What have they done from the day they accepted Lenin’s political programme to educate the working class of their countries in the spirit of just internationalism, and that of close contact with the working. masses in the colonies? What our Parties have done in this domain is almost worthless. As for me, I was born in a French colony, and am a member of the French Communist Party, and I am very sorry to say that our Communist Party has done hardly anything for the colonies.Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1924/07/08.htm This shit ain't new on the left. Ho Chi Minh even suggested the the parties needed to get the oppressed nationals for propaganda work in the colonies. Maybe the US left needs to do better with the US's internal colonies also?

However, white liberals have no problem whatsoever putting a saddle on oppressed peoples' progressive movements, jumping on and riding off into the non-profit industrial complex and the Democratic Party. Often recruit local "interpreters" to deflect that it's being highjacked by the white bourgeoisie and their puppet bourgeois among the oppressed peoples. What could be the beginning of a revolutionary liberation gets recuperated into a reformist voter drive.

IMO things like BLM shouldn't be treated as just about poorer people who happen to have a different skin tone. The white petit-bourgeoisie will damn near hate anything oppressed peoples do anyway. It should be anti-colonial liberation. The hoods, barrios and reservations are like colonies in the US. The police are an occupying army(hence why in Ferguson the pigs called the protesters "enemy forces") that can no more be reformed than the French colonialist in Indochina. But in the course of liberating oppressed people, that would weaken the bourgeoisie and even help the white proletariat too. That's how the BPP approached it, as self-determination for Black people.

Troika

29th July 2015, 15:38

Troika

29th July 2015, 16:03

noble brown

29th July 2015, 23:01

What's the ethnic breakdown on here? Most of you are white I'm guessing? I wonder why. Also what's the economic breakdown?

I'm an underclass Chicano fwiw. I like that you're recognizing it's wrong to tell other groups what to do from a position of relative power.

I've often wondered this myself. I'm Mexican/Korean and grew up in Southeast San Diego. I've also spent many years in various prisons, mostly for my ventures as an illegitimate capitalist. I've since reformed. I became politicized in prison, mostly through my own doing but with the help of some original BPP/BLA members.

I always assumed that the ethnic makeup here was diverse but now I'm curious if I was wrong. If so I too wonder why the ethnic makeup is so one sided. I actually just happened to google revleft while trying to navigate here in my browser and found some interesting accusations aimed at this site.

I found this today while listening to "best of the left" and immediately thought of this thread.

http://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/

Working Class Hero

29th July 2015, 23:35

noble brown

30th July 2015, 00:22

I'm very light skinned, so I do have color privilege and I recognize it and own it. I've just been disenchanted with the focus purely on the killings. Don't get me wrong, they're aggregious and wrong, and have to stop, but I'm worried that BLM isn't focused enough on the subtle, pervasive institutional racism of the prison-industrial complex, redlining and other issues.

TBH, idk that BLM has the potential that both, you and I would like to see. Its a movement that at its core is a emotional reaction to a symptomatic issue. It is very likely a precursor to a much more broad civil unrest. But as it is, its populated by a very angry group of people without any popular interest in a larger social analysis. This by no means means that its useless to try, just understand the limitations of the movement. By all means engage these people in more focused discussions, its our obligation. At the same time do it with finesse. I've always like the way that Socrates steered dialogue, he let his opponent argue with himself until the truth became a sort of self revelation. Of course, it never works out that way irl, at least not for me anyways. But the idea is to guide, not force conclusions and ideas on people. Its much easier when ppl think of it themselves. Just dont expect to much out of the situation.

John Nada

30th July 2015, 02:48

What's the ethnic breakdown on here? Most of you are white I'm guessing? I wonder why. Also what's the economic breakdown?
I always assumed that the ethnic makeup here was diverse but now I'm curious if I was wrong. If so I too wonder why the ethnic makeup is so one sided.You can't tell anything online. It could be mostly non-white women behind the screen for all we know. But it seems self-identified white and male are the majority, disproportionately male but about the same as western Europe and North America racially(probably slightly whiter). Of course some might not want to reveal personal info.

It's a primarily English language internet message board with most the regular users claiming to be from North America or Europe. This means that it's going to get:
1.Users who can type legible English(though there's other language forums on here)
2. Can afford and have access to broadband internet, uncensored
3. Are not under government suppression IRL
4.Have an ideology compatible with the general zeitgeist of the message board.

All four of these will skew the user base towards people in Anglo nations. Since a lot of the poor(the left's potential base, mostly not white) don't have computers or smartphone with internet, most of the world doesn't speak English at all and most of the "serious" revolutionary movements(with "Stalinist" ideologies most here don't like ie Naxals or CPP) are often at war with the state in the third-world, this is going to skew the makeup of the site. None of this is just a problem with Revleft either, but the internet itself.
I'm very light skinned, so I do have color privilege and I recognize it and own it. I've just been disenchanted with the focus purely on the killings. Don't get me wrong, they're aggregious and wrong, and have to stop, but I'm worried that BLM isn't focused enough on the subtle, pervasive institutional racism of the prison-industrial complex, redlining and other issues.I think there needs to be a focus on, not just on the US government policies or white people's individual racism, but the very legitimacy of capitalism(bourgeois rule and all), imperialism, the state and its tools like the military, police and NGOs. Not this "all lives matter" shit, since black people are disproportionately targeted in the US and that's just something to downplay that fact(though Native Americans are murder by the police at an even higher rate per capita, and this doesn't get much attention). But at the basis of racism, like Malcolm X said,"You can't have capitalism without racism."

This postmodern look at things like everything is just a series of unconnected isolated events will go nowhere. For example, off the top of my head I can think of lynchings by polices in Mexico, Brazil, Israel and occupied Palestine, India, Turkey, Egypt and the US. A lot of the victims are from oppressed peoples. If it's just "a few racist cops", why is such brutality so widespread? Seems All cops are bastards. A global counterinsurgency on oppressed peoples at the behest of imperialist capitalism.

Bala Perdida

30th July 2015, 04:35

Troika

30th July 2015, 19:15

John Nada

31st July 2015, 02:39

Underclass people consist of the unemployable. We're technically not proles since we can't work enough to sustain ourselves for whatever reason. Causes include things like disability and systemic discrimination. The homeless, for instance, are clearly not proletarian, though plenty of homeless do work; I've known several who hold down more than one job. The distinction here is that proles are able to survive whereas the underclass generally isn't without some kind of assistance. I think the distinction is clearest when the person is disabled or perhaps a felon who cannot find a job anywhere and that it gets less and less distinct the closer the person gets to being able to find work, creating a fuzzy boundary between prole and underclass. That said, the term is controversial within academia and has gotten mired in racism over time. It's close to lumpen but Marx/Engels injected a lot of ugly (and I think incorrect) assumptions into the term. I've been active in my local activism scene and most of them are proles. There are quite a few differences between us and their focus is rarely on the specific needs of my class (which is fine--I don't expect to be catered to in their space). There are definite differences between us.I think the label lumpenproletariat or underclass is overused. The line between the common modern stereotype of the underclass/lumpenproletariat/slum proletariat and proletariat proper has always been blurry. Proletarians not having a job, depending on welfare/charity, "hustling" to survive and being homeless has long been the norm. If anything not owning a house and working is even more "proletarian" in a crude sense. This lower stratum actually might be the core of the proletariat. Probably more revolutionary than the labor aristocracy even.

The post-WWII ideal of a lifelong career is a fluke in history. Classes are not stable. A petit-bourgeoisie can move up into the big bourgeoisie. A labor aristocrat can fall into the "lupenproletariat". Peasants can move to the city and become proletarians. Hell, even some of the bourgeoisie can get thrown down into the proletariat, like after losing an imperialist war, though rarely.

Yet if being unemployed eliminates the proletariat, then the vast majority of the proletariat swing back and forth between lumpen and proletariat. Businesses closing down, layoffs, lockouts, not getting a job for day labor, and recessions/depression that throw the masses out into the reserve army of labor, has always been the experience of the workers. Like Engels said that the slave is sold once, the proletarian daily.

Other classes can be allies of the proletariat. Just because the proletariat is the most revolutionary and the main force does not exclude other classes or individuals thereof. The poor peasantry for example, has often been a reliable ally in nations where that class is large. Petit-bourgeoisie possibly one, but wavering between the proletariat and the big bourgeoisie. The labor aristocracy has historically wavered but is a potential ally also. Lumpenproletariat in the common meaning(unemployable and forced into crime) is also a wavering class, but IMO in modern US might even be a more reliable ally than the petit-bourgeoisie or the labor aristocracy.

When Marx and Engels wrote with disgust about the lumpenproletariat, it wasn't about the poor and homeless. Rather it was the refuse of all classes. Every time the lumpenproletariat is mentioned, it's always as hired muscle for the bourgeoisie. It seems more like cops, PI, snitches, spies, hitmen, pimps, violent organized criminals, guards and mercenaries. They are certainly counterrevolutionary, period.

willowtooth

31st July 2015, 03:41

supporting BLM is like supporting the christian children's network

Tim Redd

31st July 2015, 03:42

How does the revolutionary left re-introduce the ideas of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X , the Panthers and Huey Newton into the discourse of Black Lives matter? These discourses are already prevelant to some degree, but much of the talk about ending police and vigilante killings of black folk and revitalizing "black is beautiful" don't inject a radical anti-capitalist, anti-state dialogue into the rounds. How do black radicals do this?

This is precisely what your job as revolutionary is about. Raising the existence and significance of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X , the Panthers and Huey Newton to the Black and other masses in motion around say for instance the #BlackLives Matter movement.

Tim Redd

31st July 2015, 03:46

supporting BLM is like supporting the christian children's network

Says a confused, immature activist probably of the Trot variety. The BLM (Black Liberation Movement) in many places and contexts isn't necessarily aimed at socialist revolution, but it is certainly fertile ground for revolutionaries to introduce socialist revolution to the activists in the BLM as the logical and best outcome of what the BLM leads to in its essence (or at its core).

Tim Redd

31st July 2015, 03:52

willowtooth

31st July 2015, 07:09

Says a confused, immature activist probably of the Trot variety. thats the second time ive been accused of being a trot in the last month wtf?

The BLM (Black Liberation Movement) in many places and contexts isn't necessarily aimed at socialist revolution, but it is certainly fertile ground for revolutionaries to introduce socialist revolution to the activists in the BLM as the logical and best outcome of what the BLM leads to in its essence (or at its core).no its the college black kids and church blacks gettin together again, its nothing new god bless em, but there not even leftists

i am black btw

Troika

31st July 2015, 15:45

Troika

31st July 2015, 15:52

Troika

31st July 2015, 16:39

willowtooth

1st August 2015, 05:32

Is it really that bad? I don't know anything about it other than it, more or less, points out pigs are murderers and the state/culture gives no fucks. I'm happy to march with the Brown Berets, for instance, since we're both opposed to pigs and US imperialism, and we both consider lgbtq/women's rights important, though we have little else in common. I'd honestly prefer it if Mexico had Texas back. I mean, I don't give a fuck who owns Texas, I'm opposed to all nation-states. Sure, take Texas. Great. Stir up some shit, hilarious.

I don't know anything about television, is the Christian Children's Network as bad as it sounds? Would BLM be disgusted by some radical queer hanging around? I guess I'm really asking what the movement's like/about.

the Christian children s network (i believe its called child fund today) is a christian organzation that helps provide food and shelter to 3rd world countries, its not a bad group but its a christian group, that wont accept donations from certain groups, not sure if lgbt is one of those groups, but considering the fact that video game developers, are prevented from donating i would assume lgbt is banned from donating as well

BLM however started from the trayvon martin shooting, and it evolved through michael browns "hands up dont shoot" protest, and eric garner's "i can't breathe" protests.

Now BLM isn't technically christian, they do most of their organizing through churches, its rare too go to an event and not see some reverend/preacher babbling about god and leading people in prayers. they do say that they are "reaching out" to the black lgbt community because they are typically ostracized from alot of black civil rights movements, but the fact that they have too go out of their way to say that the lgbt community is "allowed" to protest with them says alot about how black rights movements are organized these days

you see radical black groups like black panthers, or the NOI aren't really allowed or accepted in america, therefore any protests for black civil rights has to "mlk'efied" in a sense they have too appear to be a christian group, with christian leaders like MLK jr, its why black churches are usually made targets by the KKK. They cannot be leftists like huey p newton, or heaven forbid muslims like malcolm X.

if you want to radicalize them you have to get them out of the churches, but most people say that would mean it would collapse, and its not really fair because BLM wouldn't even be a movement today without them.

John Nada

1st August 2015, 11:54

Thanks for the clarification. I haven't read as much Marx/Engels as I would liked. There's so much reading to do and not enough time. You're right about proles/lumpens having a fuzzy boundary since proles, classically, only have their labor to sell. I think there is something there though. Being disabled makes it much harder to enter the labor pool.That one of the things I despise most about capitalism. A human's life is valued on how much money some rich fuck can make of her/him.
I've read that Bakunin and others used the term differently than Marx/Engels. I think it is an important distinction because while freeing the proletariat would indeed help me, I have read/heard many proles saying things like, "If you don't work you don't eat." I think this is wrong for a number of reasons. For instance, if we really want to destroy capitalism we are probably going to need to smash the nuclear family as well. The extended family would likely take care of the disabled and children. If we work toward an individualist communism then it is up to society to feed and care for everyone regardless of work. I think it's a liberal lie that people wouldn't work without the stick. Even as a disabled person with the choice to not labor I feel like shit if I don't work. I think most people want to work.The "(S)He who does not work shall not eat" quote(think it's Lenin?) was about the bourgeoisie and landlords, who get rich sitting on their asses while the masses slave away and starve. Not about people who're kids, old, disabled or too weak to work. In the capitalism case, it's just a justification for why the bourgeoisie gets a big delicious carrot cake while the proles get a fucking club to the head.
Anyway, sorry for rambling. I just think that there's an important distinction to make between people who can work and people who can't for whatever reason, even though you make a very solid point about the proletariat sometimes being indistinguishable from lumpens and class not being set in stone (which is entirely correct).Marxism is not about dogmas. Those that say "Oh, the poor and unproductive are useless and definately counterrevolutionary" are using a mechanical, determinist and reductionist view of their own making and hold an essentialist view of class. They look at Marx and Engels listing off all the shadiness of the lumpenproletariat(more like shit talking than a list of defining characteristics of the lumpenproletariat), but ignore that works describing the lumpenproletariat, like The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm), mentions its relation to the bourgeoisie. Marx said that the lumpenproletariat were organized by Bonaparte. He was their boss, and Bonaparte put commanders in charge of the gangs under his control. So less like homeless people panhandling, and more like a rightist paramilitary along the lines of the SA, AUC or Contras.

This seems to be a big source of confusion(Marx and Engels basically describing something like the Blackshirts but people thinking that it's about the poor and people forced into crime). Hell, it often seems like many think the labor aristocracy(richer workers than are closer to petit-bourgeoisie than proles) are the "real" proletariat, and the actual proletariat(with nothing to lose) are just lumpen!
Now BLM isn't technically christian, they do most of their organizing through churches, its rare too go to an event and not see some reverend/preacher babbling about god and leading people in prayers. they do say that they are "reaching out" to the black lgbt community because they are typically ostracized from alot of black civil rights movements, but the fact that they have too go out of their way to say that the lgbt community is "allowed" to protest with them says alot about how black rights movements are organized these days

you see radical black groups like black panthers, or the NOI aren't really allowed or accepted in america, therefore any protests for black civil rights has to "mlk'efied" in a sense they have too appear to be a christian group, with christian leaders like MLK jr, its why black churches are usually made targets by the KKK. They cannot be leftists like huey p newton, or heaven forbid muslims like malcolm X.

if you want to radicalize them you have to get them out of the churches, but most people say that would mean it would collapse, and its not really fair because BLM wouldn't even be a movement today without them.The (original)Black Panther Party called these reformist groups "poverty pimps"(unfortunately this label has also been appropriated by the white rightists for any prominent black person). That website BlackAgendaReport called the reformist leaders who often have the nerve to invoke MLK in defense the "Black misleadership class":lol: It's a strategy in counterinsurgency to use religious leaders to pacify rebellious people in occupied nations to calm the masses. Taking out anyone who doesn't go along, like MLK and other during COINTELPRO , help install a comprador (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador) leadership. There's a similar "Brown misleadership class" in the Latina/o community also.

I believe the Black Panthers did try to move the Black masses away from such leaders, but sadly didn't succeed.

cyu

1st August 2015, 13:33

If you're not giving people weapons, you're not radicalizing them. You're watering them down.

Tim Redd

2nd August 2015, 12:30

If you're not giving people weapons, you're not radicalizing them. You're watering them down.

That's a very narrow, or one sided definition of what it means to radicalize the masses. Primarily the radicalization of the masses means training them ideologically by way of agitation and propaganda that addresses current, especially political, affairs and relevant historical issues.

Agitation tends to focus on issues around which we want to mobilize the masses in mass political action with them having their own independent leadership in those struggles.

cyu

2nd August 2015, 13:23

cyu

2nd August 2015, 13:35

Which of the following can be ended without weapons?

A. Nazis putting Jews in concentration camps.
B. Slavery in the American South.
C. Wage slavery throughout the world.
D. None of the above.

Nobody would say A and B, because you can't really expect sociopaths to understand anything besides violence and threat of violence. The only people who would say C are the ruling class, agents of the ruling class, and dupes of the ruling class.

cyu

2nd August 2015, 13:44

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6b/57/70/6b57707a6ed7049273eb2680da384336.jpg

It may seem silly to say that there are people without a conscience. The general public assumes that's just rhetoric, since everyone around them seems to have a conscience. But the people the general public associate with is not the same as the people in power. The more power they have, the more they see laws and other people as things to be used. Laws are their plaything - something that only applies to the little people. Lying, bribery, intimidation, media manipulation, false flag attacks, they are all just part of the toolbox - they use them, because they can use them, because they can get away with using them. Do they really feel guilty when they beat down someone from the underclass? No, it is only politically inconvenient if it results in bad publicity.

Troika

2nd August 2015, 17:26

Tim Redd

2nd August 2015, 19:45

Ideas are necessary for change, but change doesn't come without weapons. Even the ruling class uses weapons to enforce change. If there are no weapons, then change is not coming. Only navel gazing. [elided graphic of Mao's slogan "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun"]

I just want to make clear that ideology isn't just necessary but is the primary factor in mobilizing the masses and is the primary factor for making sure the gun is used to fight for the proper kind of change.

cyu

2nd August 2015, 19:49

If you have a gun, but no demands, there's nothing to do with the gun anyway.

Guns are only useful when you are unhappy.

cyu

2nd August 2015, 19:55

...if the underclass is unhappy, but not a threat, then either they will be ignored, or the ruling class will kill them.

willowtooth

3rd August 2015, 02:36

...if the underclass is unhappy, but not a threat, then either they will be ignored, or the ruling class will kill them.

trust me we are already threatening enough

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/140813_POL_FergusonCops2.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

ComradeAllende

3rd August 2015, 05:44

trust me we are already threatening enough

Unless you have a revolutionary movement hiding in your back pocket you won't be for long lol

cyu

3rd August 2015, 15:49

The lords pay the knights to keep the serfs underfoot.

Is it better to go after the lords or the knights?

willowtooth

4th August 2015, 15:12

The lords pay the knights to keep the serfs underfoot.

Is it better to go after the lords or the knights?

neither, nobody from BLM is going to "go after" anyone, agian their just churchgoers and college kids, most of them are too scared to throw a rock much less start a war.

it's been going on for over 2 years now and all we've gotten is a few thousand cops to wear body cameras. Not even a decent riot, just a little bit of news coverage that's mostly been exaggerated. the worst riot we had was in Baltimore and all that happened was few broken windows,and somebody looted 1 single CVS most likely too steal oxy, and shit

have you ever seen pictures from the rodney king riots?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/gty_la_riots_bw_cops_nlock_street_ss_thg_120423_ss h.jpg

cyu

4th August 2015, 16:04

Like I said earlier, if you're not giving people weapons, you're not radicalizing them.

cyu

4th August 2015, 17:00

Tim Redd

5th August 2015, 02:54

...if the underclass is unhappy, but not a threat, then either they will be ignored, or the ruling class will kill them.

My point is that politics, ideas, theory must lead the gun, they must play the primary role in relation to the gun, in order for the gun to be most effective (in the most rapid way possible). This is the only way to achieve the kind of liberation of humanity - the abolition of classes and the elimination of all exploitation and oppression - that is deserving of the moniker "liberation of humanity".

ComradeAllende

5th August 2015, 04:57

I'm not against militant radicalism per se, but I highly doubt that riots are going to make any progress with institutional racism, especially in this country. What changed after the ghetto uprisings in the 60s? The exuberance of the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power soon gave way to law and order and Nixon's war on drugs. What changed after the Rodney King riots in 92? More prisons, more non-violent incarcerations, more poverty, and more "broken windows" policing. Whenever black protesters (and oppressed minorities in general) attempt to assert their rights and their dignity militantly, they are always crushed by the iron fist of the law. This country is fundamentally incapable of radical change barring some violent crisis like a civil war or a deep economic depression. Unless BLM can create a radical "Rainbow Coalition," they will have to settle for gradualist reforms and a generation of neglect. Anything more militant will prove disastrous.

willowtooth

5th August 2015, 08:09

White liberals are afraid of armed black people. They trust only other white liberals to run the country.

Middle-class liberals are afraid of armed poor people. They trust only other middle-class liberals to run the country.

Why? Because their position in the social hierarchy makes their biases unavoidably tainted by the propaganda of the ruling class - that those on lower levels of the hierarchy are subhuman. That's just how the system works.

exactly! so why not radicalize those further down the proverbial ladder, your essentially talking about militarizing what could be described as a christian youth outreach group. Why not try to radicalize those with weapons already like the bloods and the crips.

C.R.I.P. stands for Community Revolution In Progress, B.L.O.O.D. stands for Blood Love Over Our Depression.

BLM talks about gun control and how bad prostitution and dealing drugs is, won't hear that bullshit coming from the bloods and crips

John Nada

5th August 2015, 15:40

I'm not against militant radicalism per se, but I highly doubt that riots are going to make any progress with institutional racism, especially in this country. What changed after the ghetto uprisings in the 60s?What changed is the US applied counterinsurgency strategies(COIN) used in Vietnam to domestic law enforcement, hence COINTELPRO. The theory being that protest movements and crime are just a lower phase of a perpetual war on a continuum from a low-intensity conflict to full scale war, never real peace. And they've been perfecting it ever since, war by war. Some of the newer shit was first applied in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost like the pigs were going exactly by the book in Ferguson and Baltimore. Both were treated like a possible beginning of an insurgency, but a few key features short.
The exuberance of the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power soon gave way to law and order and Nixon's war on drugs. What changed after the Rodney King riots in 92? More prisons, more non-violent incarcerations, more poverty, and more "broken windows" policing. Whenever black protesters (and oppressed minorities in general) attempt to assert their rights and their dignity militantly, they are always crushed by the iron fist of the law. This country is fundamentally incapable of radical change barring some violent crisis like a civil war or a deep economic depression.There's already been a deep economic depression that the bourgeoisie was even scared to call it a depression, so it was called the Great Recession. And the "left" was MIA.

Also black people rioting=more oppression in the US is a myopic viewpoint. That time period also saw some progressive reforms to temporarily placate the workers and oppressed peoples. The workers' movement at its peak was violently fucking scabs up. There were wars of liberation and waves of revolution in the third-world.

Capitalism is in decay, so it needs ever increasing levels of repression to maintain the dictatorship of capitalists. That's why you had shit like Iran-Contra with the US selling cocaine in the black community to support near-fascist paramilitaries in Latin America, then slapping on harsh prison sentences for reselling that shit. And the same shit earlier with selling heroin in the black community to support anti-communist warlords in Southeast Asia.
Unless BLM can create a radical "Rainbow Coalition," they will have to settle for gradualist reforms and a generation of neglect. Anything more militant will prove disastrous.Those gradualist reforms have been demanded since a hundred years ago. IMO the era of reform is gone. Imperialist-capitalism has nothing more to offer except war and austerity. It is capitalism in its death thrones. Expect generations of neglect anyway. Being more militant is not necessarily better, but reformism is at least equally disastrous.
exactly! so why not radicalize those further down the proverbial ladder, your essentially talking about militarizing what could be described as a christian youth outreach group. Why not try to radicalize those with weapons already like the bloods and the crips.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice Unfortunately a lot of oppressed peoples believe in religions, including Crips and Bloods. It's possible to radicalize them too, and steer people away from opportunists. In various revolutionary movements religious groups have been allies, such as with liberation theology or Buddhist groups in south Vietnam. Even the Bolsheviks worked with the movement led by Father Gabon(who was later found to be a snitch) in order to peal away the workers from his fake "non-violent" movement set up by the cops. This does not mean socialists should give in to or support the reactionary shit they often demand.
C.R.I.P. stands for Community Revolution In Progress, B.L.O.O.D. stands for Blood Love Over Our Depression.Yeah, it could've been a revolutionary movement if not for COINTELPRO fucking shit up. Even made virtually "no-go" zones in the 70's-early 90's. But that was not seized upon for progressive causes.
BLM talks about gun control and how bad prostitution and dealing drugs is, won't hear that bullshit coming from the bloods and cripsThe fucking Crips and Bloods listened to the comprador leaders and cops in Baltimore and stayed in their houses! Of course, this could've been propaganda in an elaborate psychological operation to make it look like,"Hey, hardcore gangsters want peace. Maybe we need to do better too?"

It's about the class in command. The Black Panthers were not a lumpen org. It was a proletarian movement in an anti-imperialist united front with the black petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat. The vast majority of the black petit-bourgeoisie have only themselves as their employee, and the racist police state forces disenfranchises large sections of African-Americans. Ignoring those classes would be like the Bolsheviks or Chinese Communists ignoring the peasantry, suicide. Those classes are potential allies of the black proletariat. Neither one can lead the revolution, since those classes tend to waver between the proletariat and the comprador bourgeoisie. But it doesn't matter because the vast majority of black Americans and oppressed peoples in general are proletarians. There's a similar dynamic among other oppressed peoples' like Chicano/as and indigenous nations.

With the white Americans, the proletariat is the majority. However due to imperialism and racism, there's a sizable petit-bouergeoisie and labor aristocracy, as well as a smaller lumpenproletariat. The petit-bourgeoisie tends to be reactionary, since imperialism benefits that class. The lumpenproletariat also often turns to reaction, forming racist gangs(prison politics reinforces this). Both those classes may form a basis for fascism. Nevertheless, some sections may sympathies with the proletariat. The labor aristocracy is a potential ally. Though the labor aristocracy has been closer to the petit-bourgeoisie in the past, they now find themselves under attack by the bourgeoisie who wants a greater share of imperialist superprofits.

This is the fucking real "Rainbow coalition". The proletariat as the principle and main force, along with other oppressed masses. Not for reformism, but for socialist revolution. "Socialism or Barbarism".

cyu

5th August 2015, 16:04

they must play the primary role in relation to the gun

What changed after the ghetto uprisings in the 60s?

There are certainly tactical considerations in uprisings. As mentioned in other threads, I'd recommend using weapons to go after the local media outlets, then use the local media outlets to go after the local weapons.

John Nada

5th August 2015, 16:16

^Hmm, attack the superstructure, in order to seize the base. Interesting concept. "Armed propaganda".

willowtooth

6th August 2015, 07:02

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice the difference between then and now, is that there is no group of white people going nigger hunting. Even if you count police brutality, more whites are killed each year by the cops than blacks, blacks have a higher rate based on population. But it's not something totally directed at the black community. you could even go as far, as to make the argument, that police brutality effects white people more so than blacks.

Unfortunately a lot of oppressed peoples believe in religions, including Crips and Bloods. most don't believe in god actually, they find religion and "reform out" of the gangs, there are some superstitions, like that religious tattoos of bible scripture, or the virgin mary, or medallions of crucifixes, will protect you from bullets, but it goes no further than a lucky rabbits foot in most cases. Their famillies might try too convince them to go too church to "get their life together" but they rarely go too church unless they quit the gang altogether

which is a different case from immigrant mafias from europe or drug cartels from latin america. That are often very devout catholics.... but thats another story

It's possible to radicalize them too, and steer people away from opportunists. In various revolutionary movements religious groups have been allies, such as with liberation theology or Buddhist groups in south Vietnam. Even the Bolsheviks worked with the movement led by Father Gabon(who was later found to be a snitch) in order to peal away the workers from his fake "non-violent" movement set up by the cops. This does not mean socialists should give in to or support the reactionary shit they often demand.by starting with the church your starting off on the wrong foot. Obviously a church leader would snitch because he's the last person who would want communism, I think alot of socialist movements all around the world fail because they start off organizing with one religious group or the next. hell look at ukraine that couldve been a great movement as well but they almost immediately capitulated to the russian orthodox church.

Yeah, it could've been a revolutionary movement if not for COINTELPRO fucking shit up. Even made virtually "no-go" zones in the 70's-early 90's. But that was not seized upon for progressive causes. I actually lived in one, the city placed giant concrete blocks with two do not enter signs in them, blocking off my streets so that there was only one road in my neighborhood, and one road out. some of the blockades had little ramps and signs saying emergency vehicles could go through, most people from the neighborhood would just go through, and it was always funny getting a ride from somebody, because i would tell them too go through "its not a real do not enter sign" otherwise we'd have too drive 4 blocks down the road and come back in. lol

The fucking Crips and Bloods listened to the comprador leaders and cops in Baltimore and stayed in their houses! Of course, this could've been propaganda in an elaborate psychological operation to make it look like,"Hey, hardcore gangsters want peace. Maybe we need to do better too?"the crips and bloods didn't know what the fuck was going on, nobody came to them, nobody organized them or told them what was going on, they just saw a bunch of kids trashing stores (drug fronts) in their neighborhood and either defended stores against rioters or some just stood there with a big "the fucks going on here" look on their faces

aHHBPQg_d1k

PCrp3A4c_G0

It's about the class in command. The Black Panthers were not a lumpen org. It was a proletarian movement in an anti-imperialist united front with the black petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat. The vast majority of the black petit-bourgeoisie have only themselves as their employee, and the racist police state forces disenfranchises large sections of African-Americans. Ignoring those classes would be like the Bolsheviks or Chinese Communists ignoring the peasantry, suicide. Those classes are potential allies of the black proletariat. Neither one can lead the revolution, since those classes tend to waver between the proletariat and the comprador bourgeoisie. But it doesn't matter because the vast majority of black Americans and oppressed peoples in general are proletarians. There's a similar dynamic among other oppressed peoples' like Chicano/as and indigenous nations.

With the white Americans, the proletariat is the majority. However due to imperialism and racism, there's a sizable petit-bouergeoisie and labor aristocracy, as well as a smaller lumpenproletariat. The petit-bourgeoisie tends to be reactionary, since imperialism benefits that class. The lumpenproletariat also often turns to reaction, forming racist gangs(prison politics reinforces this). Both those classes may form a basis for fascism. Nevertheless, some sections may sympathies with the proletariat. The labor aristocracy is a potential ally. Though the labor aristocracy has been closer to the petit-bourgeoisie in the past, they now find themselves under attack by the bourgeoisie who wants a greater share of imperialist superprofits.

This is the fucking real "Rainbow coalition". The proletariat as the principle and main force, along with other oppressed masses. Not for reformism, but for socialist revolution. "Socialism or Barbarism".by "Rainbow coalition" i assume you mean like the white fighting force the weather underground tried forming, not like al sharptons "Rainbow coalition" right?

Bala Perdida

6th August 2015, 07:36

Os Cangaceiros

6th August 2015, 08:28

The lords pay the knights to keep the serfs underfoot.

Is it better to go after the lords or the knights?

Who are the "lords" in this scenario? Heads of state? Heads of the Fortune 500?

Even if you got rid of them, what would change? Some new assholes would take their place. There are many instances in history of ruling structures within nations being overturned, and often some very formerly powerful people get eliminated in the process...but how does that actually relate to creating the kind of meaningful social change that the left wants to bring about?

That's why I think Tim Redd's point is more persuasive than yours (even though I'm not a Maoist, and have no sympathy for Maoism, so I probably don't fully back his position). Merely having a gun and a reason to use it doesn't mean anything productive will happen...for example, if I'm starving and I use a gun to rob someone of some food, that doesn't indicate anything other than an animal instinct to survive. The objectives of the far left obviously go far beyond that, as they involve the entire reconstruction of social relationships on the planet.

ComradeAllende

6th August 2015, 08:36

There's already been a deep economic depression that the bourgeoisie was even scared to call it a depression, so it was called the Great Recession. And the "left" was MIA.

That's true, but there was no depression (at least not a long-term one) for the bourgeoisie. If there was one, just like during the 30s (when industrial production and general investment plunged), the ruling class would face an even bigger crisis of legitimacy, which could lead to significant divides between the leaders and their "supporters" (petite-bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy, etc). Nevertheless, you're correct about the absence of the "left"; the demise of Occupy and the resilience of reactionary forces like the Tea Party and the Troika led to this cognitive dissonance between appeals for relief (anti-austerity, redistribution) and the actual policies (aggravation of inequalities). This is the direct consequence of the left's inability to form an effective opposition, and it is only a taste of what may soon come.

Also black people rioting=more oppression in the US is a myopic viewpoint. That time period also saw some progressive reforms to temporarily placate the workers and oppressed peoples. The workers' movement at its peak was violently fucking scabs up. There were wars of liberation and waves of revolution in the third-world.

Yes, the urban uprisings of the 1960s did bring about positive changes (enforcement of civil rights, increased spending on poverty programs, etc), but they were overshadowed by the reaction of bourgeoisie; the potential of the War on Poverty was consumed by the Vietnam War and buried by the policies of mass incarceration in the 1970s and 80s. The social justice movements of the 60s and 70s were overwhelmed by the reactionary blowback to their initial success and their militant methods (whether violent or otherwise). If organizations like BLM are to make serious change that is neither reformist nor purely symbolic, they must prepare themselves for the inevitable reaction, and even then they may not be able to support a broader message (the white bourgeoisie is not too comfortable with the idea of an "Economic" Civil Rights movement).

Capitalism is in decay, so it needs ever increasing levels of repression to maintain the dictatorship of capitalists. That's why you had shit like Iran-Contra with the US selling cocaine in the black community to support near-fascist paramilitaries in Latin America, then slapping on harsh prison sentences for reselling that shit. And the same shit earlier with selling heroin in the black community to support anti-communist warlords in Southeast Asia.Those gradualist reforms have been demanded since a hundred years ago. IMO the era of reform is gone. Imperialist-capitalism has nothing more to offer except war and austerity. It is capitalism in its death thrones. Expect generations of neglect anyway. Being more militant is not necessarily better, but reformism is at least equally disastrous.

I will agree that reformism will dilute the strength of BLM, however I cannot see BLM transforming into a revolutionary class-based movement overnight. The working class in the developed world is either too isolated from the bourgeoisie system or leaning towards fascism as an alternative. In the US, the working class has little voting clout left in it, with low rates of political participation (partly due to rising economic instability and the demise of trade unions).

How can we facilitate a revolutionary working-class movement when the working class is unable to exact reformist concessions? This is why I think the left needs to advocate for "non-reformist reforms" that serve as the launching pads for more revolutionary undertakings, such as strengthening trade unions (even the most bureaucratic and accommodationist ones) to end the general helplessness of the workers and advocating for a basic income to eliminate poverty. These need not be conceived as plain vanilla "reformism" if organizations like BLM can use them to rally support and build up a broad class-based movement. Either way, the modern left cannot embark on major revolutionary projects in its diminutive state.

John Nada

6th August 2015, 10:03

the difference between then and now, is that there is no group of white people going nigger hunting. Even if you count police brutality, more whites are killed each year by the cops than blacks, blacks have a higher rate based on population. But it's not something totally directed at the black community. you could even go as far, as to make the argument, that police brutality effects white people more so than blacks.Yet there's no white people protesting other white people getting killed. I doubt most of them are bourgeois.
most don't believe in god actually, they find religion and "reform out" of the gangs, there are some superstitions, like that religious tattoos of bible scripture, or the virgin mary, or medallions of crucifixes, will protect you from bullets, but it goes no further than a lucky rabbits foot in most cases. Their famillies might try too convince them to go too church to "get their life together" but they rarely go too church unless they quit the gang altogether

which is a different case from immigrant mafias from europe or drug cartels from latin america. That are often very devout catholics.... but thats another storyThey also push that religion shit in prison. Nothing to do really anyway, so it's easy.
by starting with the church your starting off on the wrong foot. Obviously a church leader would snitch because he's the last person who would want communism, I think alot of socialist movements all around the world fail because they start off organizing with one religious group or the next. hell look at ukraine that couldve been a great movement as well but they almost immediately capitulated to the russian orthodox church.Ukraine was fucked up on arrival. Inter-imperialist meddling insured it was just going to be reactionary. In the West nothing at all, in the East musical chairs on whoever has an office, camera and a gun. But I digress.

It's not about tailing a church/mosque/synagogue/temple, but moving away from the church/mosque/synagogue/temple. The dog waging the tail, not the tail waging the dog.

The state views everything as war, not Sunday service. A lot of those church leaders, even if they are well meaning, hold a metaphysical and not dialectic materialist view. The former is useless, the latter makes things clear as day. There is no god to intervene, so masochism is pointless. The state is more than willing to make martyrs and partners, which are useless.
I actually lived in one, the city placed giant concrete blocks with two do not enter signs in them, blocking off my streets so that there was only one road in my neighborhood, and one road out. some of the blockades had little ramps and signs saying emergency vehicles could go through, most people from the neighborhood would just go through, and it was always funny getting a ride from somebody, because i would tell them too go through "its not a real do not enter sign" otherwise we'd have too drive 4 blocks down the road and come back in. lol:laugh:
the crips and bloods didn't know what the fuck was going on, nobody came to them, nobody organized them or told them what was going on, they just saw a bunch of kids trashing stores (drug fronts) in their neighborhood and either defended stores against rioters or some just stood there with a big "the fucks going on here" look on their facesFigured. News was throwing out that the Crips and Bloods were going after the cops, then saying they made a truce to keep peace. It seemed like it was the media pulling its usual bullshit in collusion with the state. That bus thing and the messages on social media were probably part of a PSYOP thing. Baltimore is close to DC after all.

That whole "protect the businesses" thing shouldn't be because burning that shit down will look bad, like the peace police make it to be. Many of those businesses are just funneling money out of the community to corporate for investors anyway. Superexploitation. IIRC with the Panthers they were getting "donations" from fellow travelers among the petit-bourgeoisie. Similar things are done in other movements across the world.
by "Rainbow coalition" i assume you mean like the white fighting force the weather underground tried forming, not like al sharptons "Rainbow coalition" right?Nah, fuck him. I mean something like this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/43/66/114366d636ceda3eed106aa2ff56f9bb.jpg

willowtooth

8th August 2015, 03:18

Yet there's no white people protesting other white people getting killed. I doubt most of them are bourgeois. interestingly enough this was posted on rt today http://www.rt.com/usa/311783-police-kill-sc-teen/

They also push that religion shit in prison. Nothing to do really anyway, so it's easy.Ukraine was fucked up on arrival. Inter-imperialist meddling insured it was just going to be reactionary. In the West nothing at all, in the East musical chairs on whoever has an office, camera and a gun. But I digress.

It's not about tailing a church/mosque/synagogue/temple, but moving away from the church/mosque/synagogue/temple. The dog waging the tail, not the tail waging the dog.right the churches and mosques, control our protests and our prisons, but they do not control our street gangs. So you cannot organize in prison or in a civil rights protest but you might have some luck inside of a gang

The state views everything as war, not Sunday service. A lot of those church leaders, even if they are well meaning, hold a metaphysical and not dialectic materialist view. The former is useless, the latter makes things clear as day. There is no god to intervene, so masochism is pointless. The state is more than willing to make martyrs and partners, which are useless. what do you mean by that? are you saying religious leaders represent the state? or that they are dupes of the state

:laugh:Figured. News was throwing out that the Crips and Bloods were going after the cops, then saying they made a truce to keep peace. It seemed like it was the media pulling its usual bullshit in collusion with the state. That bus thing and the messages on social media were probably part of a PSYOP thing. Baltimore is close to DC after all. i wouldnt go so far as too say it was a psyop (but i wouldn't rule it out) i think it was the media hyping things up and making it as newsworthy as possible i swear they showed that burning cvs in the news a hundred times, just google baltimore riots and try finding a picture wiithout that damn cvs in the background.

they showed pictures like this of 13 year olds throwing rocks under the headline "Baltimore descends into total chaos"

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8722/17295178401_a849fd5131_b.jpg

meanwhile the gang neighborhoods looked like this

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/471375012-man-sits-in-the-street-near-burning-cars-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QakbwyOFtfEJj21J07a0XRy8iOGN Z50bZ9ml9A2qdohPqJNa1QQHX57D%2B4QckDMB3A%3D%3D

http://cdn.news12.com/polopoly_fs/1.10342780.1430240616!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG

That whole "protect the businesses" thing shouldn't be because burning that shit down will look bad, like the peace police make it to be. Many of those businesses are just funneling money out of the community to corporate for investors anyway. Superexploitation. IIRC with the Panthers they were getting "donations" from fellow travelers among the petit-bourgeoisie. Similar things are done in other movements across the world.
not really, there are alot of corporate owned business that do that, but for the most part these business are owned by people in the community, very few people commute to work in the ghetto lol

Nah, fuck him. I mean something like this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/43/66/114366d636ceda3eed106aa2ff56f9bb.jpgyou mean like the people's war? i actually think that this one of the main reasons why weed is being legalized, because people were essentially setting up maoist base camps in the mountains and in the woods, too grow weed, and thats the hardest part of the peoples war, setting up base camps;)

John Nada

8th August 2015, 06:02

That's true, but there was no depression (at least not a long-term one) for the bourgeoisie. If there was one, just like during the 30s (when industrial production and general investment plunged), the ruling class would face an even bigger crisis of legitimacy, which could lead to significant divides between the leaders and their "supporters" (petite-bourgeoisie, labor aristocracy, etc). Nevertheless, you're correct about the absence of the "left"; the demise of Occupy and the resilience of reactionary forces like the Tea Party and the Troika led to this cognitive dissonance between appeals for relief (anti-austerity, redistribution) and the actual policies (aggravation of inequalities). This is the direct consequence of the left's inability to form an effective opposition, and it is only a taste of what may soon come.Those recessions happen like every ten years. The left should at least prepare for them. Because the "wait for everything to go to shit" theory isn't something the left has a monopoly on. The right was lying in wait to use the "shock" of a recession to push their austerity through, and the far-right to stir up bigoted demagoguery. I remember "libertarians" turned into Tea partiers, blaming the whole recession on immigrants and affirmative action, claiming that POC were irresponsible and deserved to loose their houses, to deflect blame away from the bourgeoisie!
Yes, the urban uprisings of the 1960s did bring about positive changes (enforcement of civil rights, increased spending on poverty programs, etc), but they were overshadowed by the reaction of bourgeoisie; the potential of the War on Poverty was consumed by the Vietnam War and buried by the policies of mass incarceration in the 1970s and 80s. The social justice movements of the 60s and 70s were overwhelmed by the reactionary blowback to their initial success and their militant methods (whether violent or otherwise). If organizations like BLM are to make serious change that is neither reformist nor purely symbolic, they must prepare themselves for the inevitable reaction, and even then they may not be able to support a broader message (the white bourgeoisie is not too comfortable with the idea of an "Economic" Civil Rights movement).Reaction nearly always follows progress. A restoration of a monarchy after a republic, like in France or Britain. Or Jim Crow after Reconstruction in the US. There's the perpetual class struggle between the proletariat(progress) and the bourgeoisie(reaction). Even if BLM gets modest reforms, I wouldn't be shocked if there was a corresponding reaction. "One step forward, two steps back."
I will agree that reformism will dilute the strength of BLM, however I cannot see BLM transforming into a revolutionary class-based movement overnight. The working class in the developed world is either too isolated from the bourgeoisie system or leaning towards fascism as an alternative. In the US, the working class has little voting clout left in it, with low rates of political participation (partly due to rising economic instability and the demise of trade unions).I don't think the US proletariat leans so much to fascism as just plain apathetic altogether. Things like the Tea party or Patriot movement are petty-bourgeoisie movements, that at best get some useful fools to parrot their shit. Those bourgeois institutions and labor bureaucracy led unions aren't that helpful anyway. I'd say if there was an attempt in earnest to organize the proletariat over 10-20 years it yield something.
How can we facilitate a revolutionary working-class movement when the working class is unable to exact reformist concessions? This is why I think the left needs to advocate for "non-reformist reforms" that serve as the launching pads for more revolutionary undertakings, such as strengthening trade unions (even the most bureaucratic and accommodationist ones) to end the general helplessness of the workers and advocating for a basic income to eliminate poverty. These need not be conceived as plain vanilla "reformism" if organizations like BLM can use them to rally support and build up a broad class-based movement. Either way, the modern left cannot embark on major revolutionary projects in its diminutive state.Yeah I'd like a basic income. And it's possible to twist the system to an extent. But I think whoever actually want a revolution needs to seriously plan for power, and drop some of the tactics that are no longer relavent. For example, there's no rival power to the US, capitalism has proven more durable than previously thought, technology has evolved, most colonies just turned neo-colonies and the threat of human extinction comes not as much from nuclear war(though still possible, maybe even growing) but from climate change too. Praxis should change around these.
interestingly enough this was posted on rt today http://www.rt.com/usa/311783-police-kill-sc-teen/I don't like RT framing that as "reverse-racism". That black cop's a puppet for a white supremacist police state. And he's acting like a fucking cop, a bastard. Rather than say that exploitation is bad, so why complain about superexploitation, complicity of the state should be attacked. I'm mean over fucking 10gr of weed! Fuck, I used to smoke that in one fat blunt.:unsure:
right the churches and mosques, control our protests and our prisons, but they do not control our street gangs. So you cannot organize in prison or in a civil rights protest but you might have some luck inside of a gangYou can organize in all of the above, though there's a risk of getting thrown in the hole over it in church.:laugh: But wouldn't having contacts in churches and gangs give access to prisons? And protesters get thrown in jail or even prison also, they shouldn't just be left out to dry.
what do you mean by that? are you saying religious leaders represent the state? or that they are dupes of the stateSome of them maybe. But they're job(knowingly or unknowingly) is part of maintaining the capitalist superstructure. There's the base(means of production and productive relations, ie proletariat and bourgeoisie) and the superstructure(culture, laws, customs family, media, politics, art, ect.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure There's a two-way non-linear relation between the two, base shaping the superstructure usually, but sometimes the other way too.

It was a reference to Clausewitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz). He said,"War is a continuation of politics by another means." I noticed the police were using military tactics described in various literature. I think if there was some organizing that recognized that, things would been different.
i wouldnt go so far as too say it was a psyop (but i wouldn't rule it out) i think it was the media hyping things up and making it as newsworthy as possible i swear they showed that burning cvs in the news a hundred times, just google baltimore riots and try finding a picture wiithout that damn cvs in the background.

they showed pictures like this of 13 year olds throwing rocks under the headline "Baltimore descends into total chaos"I think there was some psyop shit in the media. CVS could've just been a "tactical retreat" and a "controlled burn".

Young people throw a few rocks and the state and media freaks out.:lol: People in other countries probably laughed, since honestly they go hard in some places, like a whole different level. US would flip the fuck out if they had protest like in parts of Europe even.
not really, there are alot of corporate owned business that do that, but for the most part these business are owned by people in the community, very few people commute to work in the ghetto lolSee. Analyze the class situation, and work with it. Are the petit-bourgeoisie hostile and reactionary, or potentially allies? Is this partly why the CVS and the check-cashing place were hit hardest(yeah, yeah I know, I have a good idea why;))? Besides the obvious both are exploitative in different ways.
you mean like the people's war? i actually think that this one of the main reasons why weed is being legalized, because people were essentially setting up maoist base camps in the mountains and in the woods, too grow weed, and thats the hardest part of the peoples war, setting up base campsWell, in some countries there literally is guerrilla bases growing shit.:lol: Might not be winning the people's war, but perhaps we should thank them for helping us win the drug war, on the good side;).

Theoretically, the hood can be bases too. Not about being isolated from the people, but amongst and with them.

cyu

8th August 2015, 07:24

Who are the "lords" in this scenario? Heads of state? Heads of the Fortune 500?

I would start with the mayor and the police chief, and the people who fund their political campaigns. It doesn't mean you have to kill them, but it's much harder to intimidate police officers, since they can't survive without a paycheck anyway, which means they are loathe to disobey orders. On the other hand, those at the top are easier to intimidate.

ComradeAllende

8th August 2015, 07:58

Those recessions happen like every ten years. The left should at least prepare for them. Because the "wait for everything to go to shit" theory isn't something the left has a monopoly on. The right was lying in wait to use the "shock" of a recession to push their austerity through, and the far-right to stir up bigoted demagoguery. I remember "libertarians" turned into Tea partiers, blaming the whole recession on immigrants and affirmative action, claiming that POC were irresponsible and deserved to loose their houses, to deflect blame away from the bourgeoisie!

Actually, we haven't had a depression of this severity since the early 1980s (if not the 1930s). I agree that we should prepare for super-crises like these (and recessions in general) and that there could have been an opening for the left in this one, but we were pretty beat up after the pounding of the past few decades, not to mention 9/11 and the whole "homeland security" business.

I don't remember much about the early beginnings of the Tea Party (I wasn't old enough to care, at least as much as I do now) except the mostly-white patriot rallies on the National Mall and the animus surrounding Obamacare and the bailouts. I don't think the bourgeois right (at least in terms of neocons/business conservatives) was entirely prepared for the crisis; it was more that they handled the reaction better. I mean, while the center/center-left was busy picking up the pieces and distancing themselves from the more populist and class-based rhetoric of past "left" governments, the right was manipulating the crisis to suit its interests (turning public outrage against the banks towards "negligent homeowners" and "socialists in the govt"), which the real left couldn't do since we were practically nonexistent at the time.

Reaction nearly always follows progress. A restoration of a monarchy after a republic, like in France or Britain. Or Jim Crow after Reconstruction in the US. There's the perpetual class struggle between the proletariat(progress) and the bourgeoisie(reaction). Even if BLM gets modest reforms, I wouldn't be shocked if there was a corresponding reaction. "One step forward, two steps back."

You can already see that with people "defending" law enforcement, not to mention all those reactionaries (mostly white) who donate to the legal funds of killer cops.

I don't think the US proletariat leans so much to fascism as just plain apathetic altogether. Things like the Tea party or Patriot movement are petty-bourgeoisie movements, that at best get some useful fools to parrot their shit. Those bourgeois institutions and labor bureaucracy led unions aren't that helpful anyway. I'd say if there was an attempt in earnest to organize the proletariat over 10-20 years it yield something.

The proletariat is practically nonexistent as a political force; there's many (predictively) more fascistic tendencies in the petite-bourgeoisie. Even in the ostensibly "conservatarian" Tea Party, you can see elements of "national rebirth mythology" regarding their Constitution-worship and their obsession with the Founding Fathers. They may not be fascists, but I think that the real bastards will look a lot like them; all gussied up with the flag and whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy. At least, they will when the petite bourgeois need them to.

Hatshepsut

8th August 2015, 20:24

I don't remember much about the early beginnings of the Tea Party...manipulating the crisis to suit its interests.... You can already see that with people "defending" law enforcement, not to mention all those reactionaries (mostly white) who donate to the legal funds of killer cops...The proletariat is practically nonexistent as a political force...

A reasonable thumbnail analysis. We were a lot closer to collapse in the last go round than most people suspected, still it didn’t happen. Nobody’s ever had to give up driving for lack of gas money in any of the postwar downturns. The Tea ca. 2008 of course has antecedents in the John Birch ca. 1958, but toned down and dressed up for the comfortable crowd who don’t want to be tarred as “right wing nuts,” who take their morning coffee browsing slick websites on an iPad with politics after “Home Improvement.” You didn’t miss much if you weren’t watching then.

I think the label lumpenproletariat or underclass is overused. The line between the common modern stereotype of the underclass...and proletariat proper has always been blurry. Proletarians not having a job, depending on welfare/charity, "hustling" to survive and being homeless has long been the norm...This lower stratum actually might be the core of the proletariat...The post-WWII ideal of a lifelong career is a fluke in history. Classes are not stable...

One of the so many fault lines and cracks riddling our structure we’ve long been unable to cement. Alongside race, mentioned earlier in thread. Jah, I’m white. Based only on race, I might not care what happens to black people in Ferguson. That’s the division capital (the class that lives on what others produce) exploits to keep labor down—meaning nearly all the homeless and street people and blacks and so on too, because these are either workers future or workers past or the brothers, sisters, and dads of workers.

“Communists believe in the use of violence only when reaction has closed off other channels...Armed uprisings can’t be undertaken successfully by the black communities alone, no matter how courageously they struggle. They require powerful allies in the working class—black and white...We believe that conspiratorial, terroristic actions not based on a program for improving the conditions of life for the masses...are politically irresponsible, inviting reprisals against the black community” (Henry Winston, CPUSA Chair, 1968).

We’ll have to have violence to obtain revolutionary social change; the capital simply won’t yield the chairs until enough of them are shot to convince the rest their day’s up. Yet revolutionaries hardly worship violence; they don’t use it before exhausting alternatives or continue it once the need passes. Ideally. Most historical revolutions have violated this principle. Basically, I’m in the boat with the blacks in Ferguson and the illegal immigrants camping in the Sonoran because what the police are doing to them today is what the police will be doing to me tomorrow. I don’t think a win is possible unless the labor can overcome factionalism and subcategories that play into our enemy’s hand.

My familiarity with Black Lives Matter quite limited, what I can see nonetheless suggests cooptation of this movement by capital. They might even back off policing in Cleveland and Ferguson now that the DOJ official reports agreed to “racism” stamps, thus placating black spokes the capital hopes will remain self-centered on race lines. Given SUVs and big houses as carrots, unemployment and prison as sticks, capping a plethora of identity distinctions on the left, capital’s had a smooth ride over the whole postwar era.

John Nada

9th August 2015, 00:42

Actually, we haven't had a depression of this severity since the early 1980s (if not the 1930s). I agree that we should prepare for super-crises like these (and recessions in general) and that there could have been an opening for the left in this one, but we were pretty beat up after the pounding of the past few decades, not to mention 9/11 and the whole "homeland security" business.Yeah, I've heard the one in the 80's was the closest to the one in the late 2000's, though the 2007 one was probably worse even. And 9/11 threw the US at least into a patriotic fervor. People would get all pissed if you didn't act all patriotic and shit. Rightist bigots saw it as an opportunity to spread their racist, Islamophobic and xenophobic shit, first against anyone who looked Arab or Muslim, then against "illegal aliens"(AKA Latinos/as). Kind of weakened the anti-globalization and even anti-war movement. And when a progressive movement could've reached new heights with the Great Recession, all that energy was channeled into the Democrats and Obama's presidency in "hopes" that they would be the counter-reaction and something like New Deal reforms would happen. Nope, more neoliberalism:(.
I don't remember much about the early beginnings of the Tea Party (I wasn't old enough to care, at least as much as I do now) except the mostly-white patriot rallies on the National Mall and the animus surrounding Obamacare and the bailouts. I don't think the bourgeois right (at least in terms of neocons/business conservatives) was entirely prepared for the crisis; it was more that they handled the reaction better. I mean, while the center/center-left was busy picking up the pieces and distancing themselves from the more populist and class-based rhetoric of past "left" governments, the right was manipulating the crisis to suit its interests (turning public outrage against the banks towards "negligent homeowners" and "socialists in the govt"), which the real left couldn't do since we were practically nonexistent at the time.I think the precursor to the Tea Party movement sprang forth from the slightly earlier racist and xenophobic "Minutemen" movement that popped up in the mid-2000's. It really made life miserable for Latinas/os. My families names and skin color made it all the more personal.:(. Swear it set back civil rights like 30 years. So the right was already prepared to an extent.

Though on the plus side the immigrant rights movement in response to the xenophobia did re-popularize May day in the US(ironically started in solidarity with a police massacre on striking workers and execution of the striking workers' leaders in US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair), but not celebrated much before in said country). The symbolism seemed kind of lost in the general public at the time though, viewing it as strictly a race thing.

A lot of people put their "hopes" that the liberals would go back to the pre-DLC line, and all this continuation of Clinton's neoliberalism was just part of a "strategy" to put the real reforms through after the mid-terms. Of course, people became disenchanted and saw there the Democrats shit by mid-term elections, so they didn't vote, the right played up people's racism on the election of the first black president and a bunch of Tea Partiers even further to the right gained.[/quote]You can already see that with people "defending" law enforcement, not to mention all those reactionaries (mostly white) who donate to the legal funds of killer cops.[/quote]Yeah fuck those ignorant ass motherfuckers. Ranting about how bad "da gobermint" is, how they need guns "to fight tyranny", but go running to the tyrannical state for protection and kissing its ass. Tells you what they really mean.
The proletariat is practically nonexistent as a political force; there's many (predictively) more fascistic tendencies in the petite-bourgeoisie. Even in the ostensibly "conservatarian" Tea Party, you can see elements of "national rebirth mythology" regarding their Constitution-worship and their obsession with the Founding Fathers. They may not be fascists, but I think that the real bastards will look a lot like them; all gussied up with the flag and whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy. At least, they will when the petite bourgeois need them to.Its basically the John Birch society with a new mask. I think it's fascists' dressed up. But that might not be obvious if you're not familiar with US politics, particularly in the past.

The proletariat exists. It's a political force just by actually running things for the bourgeoisie and its(our) massive numbers. But there's not yet strong subjective conditions. Not yet a class for itself, at least in the US.
A reasonable thumbnail analysis. We were a lot closer to collapse in the last go round than most people suspected, still it didn’t happen. Nobody’s ever had to give up driving for lack of gas money in any of the postwar downturns The Tea ca. 2008 of course has antecedents in the John Birch ca. 1958, but toned down and dressed up for the comfortable crowd who don’t want to be tarred as “right wing nuts,” who take their morning coffee browsing slick websites on an iPad with politics after “Home Improvement.” You didn’t miss much if you weren’t watching then.I'm sorry, maybe you didn't mean it like this, but the bold is bullshit. I've given up driving for lack of gas money(assuming that I even had a car att). I've gone hungry without food. I know tons of people like that too. There's real poverty in the first-world too, recession or not.

Though yeah, the news and media was fucking depressing with all the reactionary shit that became mainstream discourse. Like shit the right-wing of the Republicans dismissed as John Birch nonsense in the past was legitimized. The Tea parties basically a front for the John Birch Society, as are many "libertarians". It's their strategy post-cold war to go mainstream. Occupy, for all its faults, was a breath of fresh air compared to all that other shit.
One of the so many fault lines and cracks riddling our structure we’ve long been unable to cement. Alongside race, mentioned earlier in thread. Jah, I’m white. Based only on race, I might not care what happens to black people in Ferguson. That’s the division capital (the class that lives on what others produce) exploits to keep labor down—meaning nearly all the homeless and street people and blacks and so on too, because these are either workers future or workers past or the brothers, sisters, and dads of workers.That's what the bourgeoisie do best, divide and rule. Only way a class that small can rule. Like the "princes" in Engels's The Peasants' War in Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm). The princes' forces were way outnumbered, but able to pick of the peasants and their allies one by one.

“Communists believe in the use of violence only when reaction has closed off other channels...Armed uprisings can’t be undertaken successfully by the black communities alone, no matter how courageously they struggle. They require powerful allies in the working class—black and white...We believe that conspiratorial, terroristic actions not based on a program for improving the conditions of life for the masses...are politically irresponsible, inviting reprisals against the black community” (Henry Winston, CPUSA Chair, 1968).We’ll have to have violence to obtain revolutionary social change; the capital simply won’t yield the chairs until enough of them are shot to convince the rest their day’s up. Yet revolutionaries hardly worship violence; they don’t use it before exhausting alternatives or continue it once the need passes. Ideally. Most historical revolutions have violated this principle. Basically, I’m in the boat with the blacks in Ferguson and the illegal immigrants camping in the Sonoran because what the police are doing to them today is what the police will be doing to me tomorrow. I don’t think a win is possible unless the labor can overcome factionalism and subcategories that play into our enemy’s hand.True, I don't like violence fetishes. I'd prefer to keep it as peaceful as possible.

However I disagree with the Kautskyite notice of basically "waiting for the Apocalypse", as Pannekoek called it. What constitutes "exhausted options"? With all due respect to Winston(sounds like he was a good progressive guy, but held back by the CPUSA's rightist revisionism, ie repudiation of the Black Belt Thesis, "peaceful co-existences", etc.), black people didn't even wage an all-out insurgency, yet what followed was one of the most massive wave of arrests and imprisonment against black and oppressed peoples in history. The attempt from people like W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robes, to bring attention to the UN about the crimes the US commits against African-Americans via the petition We Charge Genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Charge_Genocide), damn near still sounds relevant, if not far enough. Willowtooth even linked an article to a "guy like you" getting blasted by the pigs. And as you mentioned, there's another mass killing by the US governement going on in the Sonoran Desert, with hundreds if not thousands of immigrants killed every year. Don't investigate it usually, or even find the bodies either.
My familiarity with Black Lives Matter quite limited, what I can see nonetheless suggests cooptation of this movement by capital. They might even back off policing in Cleveland and Ferguson now that the DOJ official reports agreed to “racism” stamps, thus placating black spokes the capital hopes will remain self-centered on race lines. Given SUVs and big houses as carrots, unemployment and prison as sticks, capping a plethora of identity distinctions on the left, capital’s had a smooth ride over the whole postwar era.The spectacle of capitalism consumes all. But the ride only appears smooth in this instance. It's in constant chaos. All the wars, all the recessions, every strike, every protest, even inter-bourgeoisie infighting is constant struggle for capitalism's survival. There wouldn't be a massive police and military if everything was smooth sailing. Class struggle is the motor of history after all.

While I disagree with the postmodern liberal discourse on the "identity", usually to downplay class, class reductionism is a different but equal flaw. There's still national oppression and patriarchy under imperialist-capitalism, in addition to the principle contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

ComradeAllende

9th August 2015, 03:23

Yeah, I've heard the one in the 80's was the closest to the one in the late 2000's, though the 2007 one was probably worse even. And 9/11 threw the US at least into a patriotic fervor. People would get all pissed if you didn't act all patriotic and shit. Rightist bigots saw it as an opportunity to spread their racist, Islamophobic and xenophobic shit, first against anyone who looked Arab or Muslim, then against "illegal aliens"(AKA Latinos/as). Kind of weakened the anti-globalization and even anti-war movement. And when a progressive movement could've reached new heights with the Great Recession, all that energy was channeled into the Democrats and Obama's presidency in "hopes" that they would be the counter-reaction and something like New Deal reforms would happen. Nope, more neoliberalism:(.

Lol my bad. We don't get much left-flavored politics like they do over in Europe (neoliberal platforms aside, they actually have Socialist Parties), so the anti-Iraq stance that Obama took was probably the closest many young voters ever got to anti-imperialism without thinking of hippies. I actually believed in all that "Hope and Change" bullshit, but then again my only exposure to communism were the pictures of Stalin in old World War II books.

I think the precursor to the Tea Party movement sprang forth from the slightly earlier racist and xenophobic "Minutemen" movement that popped up in the mid-2000's. It really made life miserable for Latinas/os. My families names and skin color made it all the more personal.:(. Swear it set back civil rights like 30 years. So the right was already prepared to an extent.

That may be true (especially after seeing those monsters blocking buses full of child refugees), although I always thought they were connected to the anti-war protests affiliated with Ron Paul and his political cult. I understand your pain (to a degree); being Arab-American ain't easy, although I get off easy compared to most other Middle Easterners cuz of my lighter skin. I remember my dad telling me about how they profiled Arabs during the 70s and 80s, when the PLO was bombing airplanes and smuggling weapons into Lebanon for the fight against the Israelis.

Yeah fuck those ignorant ass motherfuckers. Ranting about how bad "da gobermint" is, how they need guns "to fight tyranny", but go running to the tyrannical state for protection and kissing its ass. Tells you what they really mean.

Usually those are the same people railing against gun-control measures. Funny how they get to brandish AK's and AR-15s at Chipotle while a black guy eating a sandwich is put down like a rabid dog.

willowtooth

9th August 2015, 06:20

Looks like BLM is picking on poor old bernie sanders again they kicked him out of his own event while the crowd of 15,000 people booed and screamed at them to get lost, great job seattle!:lol:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/bernie-sanders-leaves-seattle-stage-after-event-disrupted-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/

BWOuCfdJYMM

6BnbwUT7lBg

I don't like RT framing that as "reverse-racism". That black cop's a puppet for a white supremacist police state. And he's acting like a fucking cop, a bastard. Rather than say that exploitation is bad, so why complain about superexploitation, complicity of the state should be attacked. I'm mean over fucking 10gr of weed! Fuck, I used to smoke that in one fat blunt.:unsure: they actually didn't reveal his identity in that article but i doubt he was black considering seneca,SC has about 8000 people in it.

You can organize in all of the above, though there's a risk of getting thrown in the hole over it in church.:laugh:I think it would be harder to talk about marxism in a church than in a prison, most inmates would think you were strange, but unless your organizing prison riots youd pretty much be left alone by the gaurds, meanwhile talking about marxism in church would have you excommunicated you can try organizing civil rights protests but that will only go so far.

But wouldn't having contacts in churches and gangs give access to prisons? the gangs would, but not the churches, and this is america were talking about a place where 1 out of every 100 people are in jail, I think there are very few americans who don't know someone in prison

And protesters get thrown in jail or even prison also, they shouldn't just be left out to dry.do they? american protesters get arrested in mass but they usually spend only a few days in jail, and few leave the holding cells for real prison. and most of them don't mind, Cornell West said at the feguson rally "I came here to go to jail". unless your talking about kazakhstan or somalia

Some of them maybe. But they're job(knowingly or unknowingly) is part of maintaining the capitalist superstructure. There's the base(means of production and productive relations, ie proletariat and bourgeoisie) and the superstructure(culture, laws, customs family, media, politics, art, ect.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure There's a two-way non-linear relation between the two, base shaping the superstructure usually, but sometimes the other way too.
well i don't think they need to be led astray from the church they need too have their needs fulfilled. their misery is what drove them to the church and only by curing their miseries can you get them out by, spreading their religion your spreading their reasoning for not solving their problems in the first place

It was a reference to Clausewitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz). He said,"War is a continuation of politics by another means." I noticed the police were using military tactics described in various literature. I think if there was some organizing that recognized that, things would been different. like what literature?

I think there was some psyop shit in the media. CVS could've just been a "tactical retreat" and a "controlled burn".

Young people throw a few rocks and the state and media freaks out.:lol: People in other countries probably laughed, since honestly they go hard in some places, like a whole different level. US would flip the fuck out if they had protest like in parts of Europe even.lol the egyptians put everyone on the left to shame during the arab spring though didn't they?

See. Analyze the class situation, and work with it. Are the petit-bourgeoisie hostile and reactionary, or potentially allies? Is this partly why the CVS and the check-cashing place were hit hardest(yeah, yeah I know, I have a good idea why;))? well i think it can be somewhat anecdoctal i know a man from yemen who owns 33 small stores (bodegas) throughout nyc he only hires yemeni immigrants and he pays for them too come over too america, he pays for their college, their housing, and everything, if he kept his money he would be a millionaire, but he gives almost everything away to people who might be dead or starving and homeless in yemen without him, if you met him you would think he was broke and poor based on the way he dresses. Is he hostile and reactionary?

Well, in some countries there literally is guerrilla bases growing shit.:lol: Might not be winning the people's war, but perhaps we should thank them for helping us win the drug war, on the good side;).

Theoretically, the hood can be bases too. Not about being isolated from the people, but amongst and with them. where i wanna go?

Hatshepsut

9th August 2015, 06:49

We were a lot closer to collapse in the last go round than most people suspected, still it didn’t happen. Nobody’s ever had to give up driving for lack of gas money in any of the postwar downturns.

I'm sorry, maybe you didn't mean it like this, but the bold is bullshit. I've given up driving for lack of gas money(assuming that I even had a car att). I've gone hungry without food. I know tons of people like that too. There's real poverty in the first-world too, recession or not.

To say "nobody" was figurative. Poverty in the USA is as real and hurtful as it's ever been. But it's largely invisible to those outside its orbit, and there's not nearly enough of it to generate real national discontent. The postwar recessions don't light a candle compared with the 1930s Great Depression, which has almost passed from living memory but can be visualized to some extent in Steinbeck's novels or in photos of apple carts on Wall Street. Hoovervilles stood in plain sight to those who hadn't yet lost their jobs, and these "lucky" folks knew they were next in line to go down if trends continued.

We’ll have to have violence to obtain revolutionary social change...Yet revolutionaries hardly worship violence; they don’t use it before exhausting alternatives or continue it once the need passes.

However I disagree with the Kautskyite notice of basically "waiting for the Apocalypse", as Pannekoek called it. What constitutes "exhausted options"? With all due respect to Winston(sounds like he was a good progressive guy, but held back by the CPUSA's rightist revisionism, ie repudiation of the Black Belt Thesis, "peaceful co-existences", etc.), black people didn't even wage an all-out insurgency, yet what followed was one of the most massive wave of arrests and imprisonment against black and oppressed peoples in history.

As for use of options when they are available, the example of FARC in Columbia during the earlier years comes to mind. Some of their gains in the countryside were achieved without use of arms. They paid attention to civil governance in regions they controlled and were able to win sympathy in areas they were seeking to take, making the actual takings easier and less bloody. This didn't always happen, especially as levels of U.S. intervention hiked up. Yet I suspect their relative success and longevity came in part from their willingness to learn from Soviet-era mistakes and refrain from excess.

The CPUSA of course was never a revolutionary organization, at most fellow travelers; it's fully down the Yellow Brick Road to accommodation. Winston's stated beliefs on the role of violence remain correct, however. Communism isn't about violence: It's about improving the material conditions of life. Violence is a tool used to reach goals and it's not preferred if other tools will work. In short, we may be waiting now simply because we have little choice. No one possesses the werewithal to effect a revolutionary regime change in the USA right now and pointless acts of violence carried out in anger won't change that. Indeed, that's a good way to get the actors destroyed.

I'm deferring an opinion on the advisability of Black Lives Matters affairs with the Democrat candidates since I don't know. Sanders won't win the nomination anyway. This community, for better or worse however, does need allies in the government system who might provide interim relief. We've seen disproportionate savagery in official crackdowns, regular homicides by police, and tenfold expansion of prison populations over the last 40 years become disgusting hallmarks of our government's "civil rights program." I can only hope it's a sign that the USA is starting to trip up on its historical contradictions.

Sewer Socialist

9th August 2015, 07:57

ComradeAllende

9th August 2015, 08:51

But since I can't find any reference to any, has BLM been trying to make demands? What do they hope to say if they are given the chance to speak? I don't really understand their strategy. Why they focused on Michael Brown specifically at a Seattle event, a year after his death, also seems odd to me. Why not someone from Seattle, or someone more recent like Sandra Brown?

I think they focused on Michael Brown because of the symbolism representing his death, the protests, and the state-led repression that ensued. But to your main point, it would be helpful if BLM did formulate a manifesto clarifying their ideological outlook and their grievances/demands. Kinda like the Black Panthers and their Ten-Point Program. While Sanders is too economistic in his left-populism (and overly hesitant to discuss racial discrimination in schools and the criminal justice system), I personally think that BLM ought to include economic demands that reflect on the racialized conditions of poverty and precarity. Then again, I'm not in BLM (not yet, at least), so they're the ones who're gonna manage this kinda stuff.

John Nada

9th August 2015, 12:30

To say "nobody" was figurative. Poverty in the USA is as real and hurtful as it's ever been. But it's largely invisible to those outside its orbit, and there's not nearly enough of it to generate real national discontent. The postwar recessions don't light a candle compared with the 1930s Great Depression, which has almost passed from living memory but can be visualized to some extent in Steinbeck's novels or in photos of apple carts on Wall Street. Hoovervilles stood in plain sight to those who hadn't yet lost their jobs, and these "lucky" folks knew they were next in line to go down if trends continued.Yeah, figures of speech, metaphors and sarcasm don't always come through over the internet.:) Sometimes there's actually people that literally think what they type online, so it can be hard to tell.:lol:

I see your point. The Great Depression was one of those instances where the proletariat didn't want to be ruled, but the bourgeoisie couldn't rule in the old ways and was in crises. If there was stronger revolutionaries, there was a risk of them getting overthrown, so they had to do some reforms.

I'm reminded of something Chomsky(yeah I know, but he's often a good critic of imperialist-capitalism even if his solutions are lacking to say the least) said. That back during the depression, people still had optimism that things were eventually going to get better. But at that time, and probably still, there wasn't that same optimism but greater pessimism. I kind of got that impression from older relatives too, who lived that Steinbeck-style poverty back then.[/quote]As for use of options when they are available, the example of FARC in Columbia during the earlier years comes to mind. Some of their gains in the countryside were achieved without use of arms. They paid attention to civil governance in regions they controlled and were able to win sympathy in areas they were seeking to take, making the actual takings easier and less bloody. This didn't always happen, especially as levels of U.S. intervention hiked up. Yet I suspect their relative success and longevity came in part from their willingness to learn from Soviet-era mistakes and refrain from excess.[/quote]First off, I don't think it's a good thing that this discussions turned into violent vs. non-violent. The nature of the topic(police killings) is both depressing and outrageous, if someone in the BLM movement supports strict non-violence or wants a more militant stance, I can understand that. It's been a question brought up during the Black Lives Matter movement, but there's more to it than that. I apologize, it's partly my fault(thought to be fair the title is how to radicalize it:grin:)

That's the thing. In revolutions, even during a straight-up civil war, the most important stuff did not involve violence. That's mostly what I was thinking of, the non-violent means of building dual power, just that I don't think the electoral path can contribute must to that end with the US-style electoral system. And because of that inflexibility in the way things are set up, I do think it may exacerbate things when shit hits the fan, if nothing changes. Even the Sendero Luminoso, for all its outrageous homicidal shit, said most of and probably most important things of their people's war involved non-war and non-violent related things. I don't 100% support either org, and they did a lot of bad things, but can understand why people would turn to that path and refuse to condemn it.
The CPUSA of course was never a revolutionary organization, at most fellow travelers; it's fully down the Yellow Brick Road to accommodation. Winston's stated beliefs on the role of violence remain correct, however. Communism isn't about violence: It's about improving the material conditions of life. Violence is a tool used to reach goals and it's not preferred if other tools will work. In short, we may be waiting now simply because we have little choice. No one possesses the werewithal to effect a revolutionary regime change in the USA right now and pointless acts of violence carried out in anger won't change that. Indeed, that's a good way to get the actors destroyed.Just to be clear, I don't advocate pointless acts of violence, though I don't condemn them. And communist should not advocate individual acts either.

Reading some of his stuff I get the impression that he was sticking to the CPUSA's line of their "dumb it down for the average worker" and tone down the revolution language, though he didn't seem as bad as some. And I disagree with what appeared to be sectarian swipes at groups like the Black Panther Party(and by extension, many other liberation movements like the Chicano/a movement with similar beliefs), though he didn't call them out by name AFAIK, using the more broad "there's some who'd...".

The problem in "wait, because we have little choice" of the CPUSA(that has gotten even worse today), it's original basis is flawed and outdated(to be clear I'm not accusing you of upholding the CPUSA's line at all). Not that the old "ultra-leftism" is always correct per se but their line on it is mechanical and dogmatic. For example Lenin's Left Wing Communism, An infantile Disorder (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm), it's used as justification for right deviationism and social democratic revisionism. Though important and gives some good insight, it's very flawed(ie entryism into the UK Labour Party) in many places. Nevertheless, Lenin advocated both legalist and illegalist means of struggle. Both were to complement each other when possible, and illegalist structures(not necessarily violent) were also supposed to be maintained. This is conveniently ignored by reformists. For example:
In many countries, including the most advanced, the bourgeoisie are undoubtedly sending agents provocateurs into the Communist parties and will continue to do so. A skilful combining of illegal and legal work is one of the ways to combat this danger. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm And something else good too to glee from it:
The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm Herman Gorter (https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) and Sylvia Pankhurst (https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch13.htm) have very good criticisms of that work. Both are more relevant, particularly Pankhurst's.

Also the CPUSA's people's front strategy was formulated during the Great Depression. Which, like you said, even the bourgeoisie was in crises and seemed greatly weakened. It too has many flaws, though I don't think it's without some merit like many claim. There's supposed to be a united front(workers' movements) inside of the people's front(non-socialist and other classes movements), the proletariat in a leading role, and "it has a dialectical contradictions"(paraphrasing the Comintern's wording). Meaning the bourgeoisie was supposed to have been weaken and under threat of fascism(or imperialism in the case of the anti-imperialist united front), making it in a weaker positions to call the shots, and easier to seize power. There was supposed to be the DotP(USSR) to help too.

If the USSR ever cared about revolution, it sure as hell was in no position to help or call for it after the WWII without risking nuclear war. Also rather than lead, most the Communist Parties ended up just tailing the bourgeois parties. Many of the Revisionist cite the "suscess" of the people's fronts as "proof" that "peaceful co-existence" was possible, capitalism had become progressive, reforms were good enough, and revolution was off the table.:glare: Now most those parties, if they didn't get annihilated in crackdowns and massacres, fall into irrelevant zombies(particularly with the wave of the counterrevolution's "final victory" in the late 80's-early 90's) or liquidate themselves, are to the right of the social democrats of the past!

Yet this strategy is still pushed. CPUSA overestimated the revolutionary potential of the labor aristocracy(seemingly to the point of viewing them as the main force, rather than the proletariat) and the progressiveness the labor bureaucracy, section of the bourgeoisie, many reformist movements and the Democratic Party. As well as the progressive potential of the state, and underestimating the reaction that follows.

This is a few things I meant:

1. Imperialist-capitalism more durable than previously thought

2. The State is stronger and more reactionary.

3. No foreign backing from a country even pretending to be revolutionary.

4. The state has fine tuned its tools and means to suppress progressive movements. 5. Reformist and Class allies are not as reliable as thought before.

6. Technology has improved, both for the better(communication and travel) and worse(surveillance tech)

7. Small burst hear and there can add up. Everything from a small protest and strike to mostly reformist movements like Occupy and BLM will likely add up to more over the long run.

8. Any movement needs to seriously plan for power(at any moment), and think long-term. Decades even, but not sit and wait for a comet to hit the planet.

I'm not saying this can be done overnight, or people should do foolish shit. Just food for thought.
I'm deferring an opinion on the advisability of Black Lives Matters affairs with the Democrat candidates since I don't know. Sanders won't win the nomination anyway. This community, for better or worse however, does need allies in the government system who might provide interim relief. We've seen disproportionate savagery in official crackdowns, regular homicides by police, and tenfold expansion of prison populations over the last 40 years become disgusting hallmarks of our government's "civil rights program." I can only hope it's a sign that the USA is starting to trip up on its historical contradictions.If those allies are to be found, it won't be the Democrats.

John Nada

9th August 2015, 12:57

Regarding the disruption in Seattle, Sanders is clearly trying to avoid talking about race; at the previous event protested by BLM, Sanders, when prompted, he only goes so far as to state that his emphasis on economics, like paid leave, minimum wage, free education, etc. are issues that affect black people. While that is true, he is purposefully ignoring the treatment of black people in this country; he could easily decry the de facto white supremacy and racial double standards employed by the state and especially law enforcement. Instead, his response to Ferguson was to introduce a fucking jobs bill (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/citing-crisis-in-ferguson-sanders-to-propose-youth-jobs-bill). I mean, this is probably a result of his representing lily-white Vermont, but for someone who is really a left populist, his stances on race are puzzling.He was involved in the Civil Rights Movement earlier in his life. He should know better. I'd swear it's like he's going out of his way to be a vague class reductionist. "Middle class shrinking"? Proletariat has always been there and growing, unless he means the petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy. Like it's part of the Democrats scrip, so Clinton(who's even worse on this, ignoring it and basically saying she want to give Black people the chance to prove themselves to white people and maybe get rich also) looks better.

Last calling out on Sanders in Phoenix, AZ seems like it was just Hillary Clinton's people. From liberal front org for the Democrats. Vague liberal identity politics rather than Black Liberation. http://www.blackagendareport.com/netroots-nation-confrontation And I don't like how he or even the protesters didn't addressed immigration(he's really bad on this issue, like way worse than on BLM) or [email protected] rights, which is even more relevant in Phoenix too. But I digress.

The woman in Seattle though, was much better:grin: I'll start a thread on it if one hasn't already.
But since I can't find any reference to any, has BLM been trying to make demands? What do they hope to say if they are given the chance to speak? I don't really understand their strategy. Why they focused on Michael Brown specifically at a Seattle event, a year after his death, also seems odd to me. Why not someone from Seattle, or someone more recent like Sandra Brown?Seems like everything from Anarchist and Marxists, to liberals, to just people fed up with racism and police brutality Had no idea there was that many anarcho-communists in my city att:ohmy:.

Hatshepsut

9th August 2015, 17:57

As for black focus on Michael Brown, perhaps to emphasize that the lives of those labeled as offenders matter particularly:

He was 18 years old.
12 rounds were fired at him.
In reprisal for a trivial offense.

You won’t hear in the news that some of these bullets whizzed past bystanders and slammed into nearby buildings, just as in drive-by shootings pig-propaganda is fond of. Nothing is said about these bullets because they didn’t hit anyone. All of which exemplify what used to be called “sanguineous.” Michael Brown was hardly a Bambi character—Contrast the bit of thug in him with the 12-year old boy and pellet gun (Tamir Rice, Cleveland), or that broken tail light in South Carolina where even a southern bourgeois court had to charge murder. Brown was, however, in Ferguson, and he was summarily killed on the street like the others.

BLM itself began after Trayvon Martin, in part by way of creating public opinion support for the criminal and civil suits against Zimmerman, so I admit being puzzled regarding details of its evolution, too. However former officer Wilson has also been sued.

...Lenin advocated both legalist and illegalist means of struggle. Both were to complement each other when possible, and illegalist structures (not necessarily violent) were also supposed to be maintained. This is conveniently ignored by reformists...Sylvia Pankhurst [2 Int'l 13] ha[s] very good criticisms of [Lenin 1920]. ... As well as the progressive potential of the state, and underestimating the reaction that follows.

Regarding women’s suffragist Pankhurst from your citation, her observation that: “It is quite impossible to tell workers what difference there is between the Communist Party, the BSP and the Labour Party, [meaning] it is very characteristic of Britain in general that no clear demarcation lines exist in politics there” (2nd Int’l 13) stays right on the money today describing the condition of politics on both sides of the pond. Although she also proved unable to resist the temptations of faction, breaking the WSF off from its parent movement yet refusing to turn editorial control of her newspaper, the Worker’s Dreadnought, over to WSF.

Pankhurst correctly predicted Labour would be the biggest player. Yet I must agree with Lenin that to support the reactionary Hendersons and Snowdens of our day doesn’t constitute treachery to the revolution; it simply takes reality into account where the uncompromising strategy does not. The more so now. The U.S. military are completely loyal; there will be no recruiting ground, even on the very modest scale that was possible among disaffected Vietnam veterans. Illegal things are very difficult to conceal from 21st century secret police: A face-recognition computer program can pick you out on a store surveillance camera that feeds into the local cop shop in some cases, not to say at an airport. If Lenin declined attempt to confront the Tsar, I see less merit in going up against one of the planet’s most efficient regimes 100 years later.

Unfortunately, I’m neither historian nor political theorist enough to offer advice—Lenin obviously and completely wrote off the USA as unwinnable in any strategy at the national level. I do think the U.S. system has one major hole: the possibility of an action taking place in one or more of its cities or states. We’re all familiar with Paris 1871. Although such an action will almost certainly be crushed, it just might set a precedent, opening a crack in the USA’s 150-year time wall of political cohesion.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 03:33

they actually didn't reveal his identity in that article but i doubt he was black considering seneca,SC has about 8000 people in it.Yeah, you're right. They didn't reveal it in the article. And he's probably white, though his names been released haven't see anything about that yet. I blame it on booze and sleeping pills. Responsible for too much of the zany shit and grammar errors I type on here.:confused:
I think it would be harder to talk about marxism in a church than in a prison, most inmates would think you were strange, but unless your organizing prison riots youd pretty much be left alone by the gaurds, meanwhile talking about marxism in church would have you excommunicated you can try organizing civil rights protests but that will only go so far.Assuming that fascists groups haven't gotten to them first(ie. skinheads, though they're not the same as white gangs that also use Nazi imagery), they'd probably think Marx was like a fucking prophet. In church it'd have to be vague social justice shit, like Jesus saying a rich man has as much of a chance to go to heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. But Chritians are hypocrits and yeah, churches, if they were progressive at various points in the past(liberation theology), that shit seems like it's gone, at least in US religion.
the gangs would, but not the churches, and this is america were talking about a place where 1 out of every 100 people are in jail, I think there are very few americans who don't know someone in prisonPrison chaplains. Fascists do something similar with Paganism(though not all pagans are fascists). Also there's the indigenous religions that some Latino/a or Native American inmates have.
do they? american protesters get arrested in mass but they usually spend only a few days in jail, and few leave the holding cells for real prison. and most of them don't mind, Cornell West said at the feguson rally "I came here to go to jail". unless your talking about kazakhstan or somaliaThere's been many instances of protesters getting charged with assault, theft or even terrorism(because of fucking Molotov cocktails). Often complete bullshit too.
well i don't think they need to be led astray from the church they need too have their needs fulfilled. their misery is what drove them to the church and only by curing their miseries can you get them out by, spreading their religion your spreading their reasoning for not solving their problems in the first placeThat's what I mean by it's part of the capitalist superstructure. It's the ideology of the ruling clas,s the bourgeoisie. It's the opiate of the masses. Might make one feel better for a little bit, but you're still sick and need a cure. As tempting as it may be, I don't think we make everyone atheist at gunpoint(this often turns into Islamophobia and antisemitism), but people need to see through the churches' and mosques' lies on their own, via material changes.
like what literature?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Field_Manuals other countries have their own stuff too worth reading. Also there's some Marxist (https://www.marxists.org/subject/war/index.htm) stuff on military(though IMO the critique of people's war on there is crap). Mostly Maoist (http://www.bannedthought.net) stuff. Engels knew some stuff about war too since he actually fought in an insurrection. Both he and Marx wrote a lot about insurrection, though that seems to be lost on many for some strange reason. Che not so much a good strategist, but a decent tactician, though his foco theory isn't applicable everywhere, every time and has mostly failed strategically. With Che I wish he focused on economics like he was before he died instead, because I've heard he had good critiques on Soviet-style economics. Even Trotsky(he was head of the Red Army, after all) wrote about war. There's some anarchist literature too, but I can't think of some off the top of my head now.
lol the egyptians put everyone on the left to shame during the arab spring though didn't they?I liked it how everyone was fucking up the cops, so the cops were even scared to go to work!:laugh:
well i think it can be somewhat anecdoctal i know a man from yemen who owns 33 small stores (bodegas) throughout nyc he only hires yemeni immigrants and he pays for them too come over too america, he pays for their college, their housing, and everything, if he kept his money he would be a millionaire, but he gives almost everything away to people who might be dead or starving and homeless in yemen without him, if you met him you would think he was broke and poor based on the way he dresses. Is he hostile and reactionary?Perhaps not any more than the average person. He sounds like he's of the petit-bourgeoisie, at worst the national-bourgeoisie of a oppressed nation. Both have wavering characteristics. Latter generally just wants more democracy or want's to be an imperialist intermediary bourgeoisie.

Yemen's all fucked up now. US backed GCC, led by sub-imperialist puppet Saudi Arabia waging a war of aggression against that country. Though no side is revolutionary, it's all fucked up. And Yemen was already one of the poorest places on the planet before too.
where i wanna go?I don't know. Me personally, the base area with the best dank.:cool:
Pankhurst correctly predicted Labour would be the biggest player. Yet I must agree with Lenin that to support the reactionary Hendersons and Snowdens of our day doesn’t constitute treachery to the revolution; it simply takes reality into account where the uncompromising strategy does not. The more so now. The U.S. military are completely loyal; there will be no recruiting ground, even on the very modest scale that was possible among disaffected Vietnam veterans. Illegal things are very difficult to conceal from 21st century secret police: A face-recognition computer program can pick you out on a store surveillance camera that feeds into the local cop shop in some cases, not to say at an airport. If Lenin declined attempt to confront the Tsar, I see less merit in going up against one of the planet’s most efficient regimes 100 years later.I agree with Lenin to the point that you won't go to hell for violating "purity" and being stubborn for the fuck of it is pointless. However it's entirely possible to not support the Hendersons and Snowdens of today and still not betray some future revolution.

People somehow manage to shoplift. Insurgents still fuck up first-world militaries. And the military/police is not the most revolutionary and essential class, the proletariat is. The modern professional military/police should effectively be considered the lumpenproletariat as Marx described in France. And Lenin mixed above-ground with underground struggles. He even mentioned in "Left-wing" Communism that people are going to get killed and arrested(legit or not), the bourgeoisie will violate its own legality, and that's how things are.
Unfortunately, I’m neither historian nor political theorist enough to offer advice—Lenin obviously and completely wrote off the USA as unwinnable in any strategy at the national level. I do think the U.S. system has one major hole: the possibility of an action taking place in one or more of its cities or states. We’re all familiar with Paris 1871. Although such an action will almost certainly be crushed, it just might set a precedent, opening a crack in the USA’s 150-year time wall of political cohesion.I'm totally content with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat not starting in the US. I don't even think it has to be Western Europe or North America. Those to places may well be the last on the planet to have a revolution. And wherever the revolution really takes off will probably be the new yardstick on how to do a revolution.

US is probably the biggest bastion of reaction in the world right now. IMO the US is probably closer to about the 19th century Russian Nihilist movement in 19th in terms of revolutionary potential. Just saying maybe a decade or two from now things might change.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 10:32

Did anyone see the completely over the top aggressive women interrupting the Bernie Sanders platform and screeching in some old white dudes face yelling "we are reasonable" and literally manhandling and basically accosting him?

I was in a room with multiple black people in it and their reactions were unanimously saying those women were entitled assholes who were acting abusively and in a manner that if a man had of done it he would of gotten a smack in the mouth.

One of them made the point that Bernie Sanders while not someone any of us support, was marching with MLK and black and white sanitation workers back before it was cool to be "down with the cause" and it didn't get you social brownie points like the white SJW's get today from one another.

The vibe I got from them was that BLM is made up of conveyor belt white "radicals" and incredibly aggravating elements within the black community who they don't feel represent them, the black community or the black people they know. For example none of them thought it was at all acceptable to pretend Mike Brown was shot without reason and putting that in the same category as the Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Walter Scott cases was simply wrong.

One had just robbed a store, assaulted a cop and tried to go for his weapon and the others were black people killed by the police with no justifiable reason at all. Black witnesses made statements that Brown assaulted the officer and went for his weapon.

Basically the black people I know feel like they are being used by SJW's to further their political agenda without lots of black people feeling the way they as a community as a whole, are being represented to feel.

I tend to stay out of taking that stance because I don't think either the black people I know or the BLM crowd are purposefully misrepresenting the other, but I think they raised some good points. Especially about how a fringe element of black people yelling and screaming, looting and shooting people are being pushed as a dominant narrative and voice of the black community by white slacktivists.

I could tell they did feel almost embarrassed by the white characterisation of their supposed feelings though and having been pandered to and kind of talked down to and belittled on a class and cultural level before I could understand their sensitivity regarding BLM and felt genuine empathy fot them even if I don't agree with all their points.

Tim Cornelis

10th August 2015, 11:32

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 11:51

"One had just robbed a store, assaulted a cop and tried to go for his weapon and the others were black people killed by the police with no justifiable reason at all. Black witnesses made statements that Brown assaulted the officer and went for his weapon."

so?

So comparing black unarmed people not attacking anyone to someone who was terrorising people, assaulted a cop and went for his gun with the intention to kill him was not a passive victim of police brutality.

James Carr one of the wolfpack with George Jackson actually addresses this point on the attempt to hijack thugs and criminals and turn them into victims for political currency. An example being James Carr and George Jackson gang raped another black inmate with other criminals for 12 hours while being championed as political prisoners railroaded for a 15 dollar gas station robbery.

Most black people and BLM members are not marxists, they don't view the [olice and the bourgeois state inherently oppressive, they are not against police as an institution but want fair treatment from the cops. Communists trying to pretend the BLM analysis is consistent and trying to pretend BLM has the same analysis as them is purposefully misleading.

If you believe that cops are inherently oppressive and killing them is ok then sure Mike Brown was a victim. But BLM are not of that opinion. They don't want to do away with the police, they want the police to offer equal protection and services to their community and not abuse and kill them without justifiable reasons.

But you can't be in favour of a police force as an existing institution you want to make better/reform and also think any action by a cop resulting in the killing of a black man attacking them is unjustified.

willowtooth

10th August 2015, 12:51

Assuming that fascists groups haven't gotten to them first(ie. skinheads, though they're not the same as white gangs that also use Nazi imagery), they'd probably think Marx was like a fucking prophet.

I know the nazis are still pretty big on the west coast but most other places they dont even exist, they only make up 1% of US prisons in total

In church it'd have to be vague social justice shit, like Jesus saying a rich man has as much of a chance to go to heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. But Chritians are hypocrits and yeah, churches, if they were progressive at various points in the past(liberation theology), that shit seems like it's gone, at least in US religion. well I don't know about the whole liberation theology movement, but black liberation theology was created purely as a reaction too Malcolm X saying Christianity was the "white man's religion and saying things like this

MKDUsRoZ0ig

Prison chaplains. Fascists do something similar with Paganism(though not all pagans are fascists). Also there's the indigenous religions that some Latino/a or Native American inmates have.so how would you translate that into marxism? would you protest the governor to get marxist terrorist training centers in prison lol? Seriously though I think what your describing is what gave the NOI such influence, there use of prisons as recruitment centers am I right? do you really think converting a few black prisoners too islam is a good idea??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Field_Manuals other countries have their own stuff too worth reading. Also there's some Marxist (https://www.marxists.org/subject/war/index.htm) stuff on military(though IMO the critique of people's war on there is crap). Mostly Maoist (http://www.bannedthought.net) stuff. Engels knew some stuff about war too since he actually fought in an insurrection. Both he and Marx wrote a lot about insurrection, though that seems to be lost on many for some strange reason. Che not so much a good strategist, but a decent tactician, though his foco theory isn't applicable everywhere, every time and has mostly failed strategically. With Che I wish he focused on economics like he was before he died instead, because I've heard he had good critiques on Soviet-style economics. Even Trotsky(he was head of the Red Army, after all) wrote about war. There's some anarchist literature too, but I can't think of some off the top of my head now. I would be more interested in CIA feild manuals especially from latin america around the 1970's and 80's......... but I imagine those are harder too come by

willowtooth

10th August 2015, 13:09

One had just robbed a store, assaulted a cop and tried to go for his weapon and the others were black people killed by the police with no justifiable reason at all. Black witnesses made statements that Brown assaulted the officer and went for his weapon.

bullshit darren wilson was out fucking with brown people when he grabbed michael brown for jaywalking he fought back a little and ran away just before Wilson got out of his car to shoot him in the back (like Walter Scott (http://gawker.com/video-of-cop-shooting-black-man-in-back-leads-to-murder-1696334898)) Michael brown turned and put his hands up he was then shot 12 times even though he was 150 feet away from darren wilson, and unarmed

the only witness saying otherwise was a crazy old woman who it turned out wasn't there that day, and had ties with KKK, as did Wilson (http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/racism/anonymous-suggests-darren-wilson-tied-to-ku-klux-klan-promises-more-info-screenshots/)

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 13:24

bullshit darren wilson was out fucking with brown people when he grabbed michael brown for jaywalking he fought back a little and ran away just before Wilson got out of his car to shoot him in the back (like Michael brown turned and put his hands up he was then shot him 12 times even though he was 150 feet away from darren wilson, and unarmed

the only witness saying otherwise was a crazy old woman who it turned out wasn't there that day, and had ties with KKK, as did

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong.

Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen
Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

... he stopped and when he stopped, he didn't get on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can't recall the movement that he did. I'm not sure if he pulled his pants up or whatever he did, but I seen some type of movement and he started charging toward the police officer. The police officer returned fire, well, not returned fire, opened fire on Mr. Brown. If I had to guess the shots and the distance between him and Mr. Brown, it would have to be five to ten yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired. Mr. Brown was still sanding up. My thoughts was ... is he hitting him? Because Mr. Brown, there was no reaction from him to show that he was hit.

After that Mr. Brown paused.

He stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer ... I'm seeing him coming at an aggressive speed and just in charge mode toward the police officer ... I feel like the police officer he didn't have time to really react and holster his weapon and then reholster with a taser ...

Every single claim of wrongdoing has been shown to be fabricated or forensically debunked. Hands up don't shoot for example might be catchy, but it does not describe the situation at all. It was made up, by a people who later admitted they had not seen the incident.

Police brutality against minorities is real, happens all the time something o one has to explain to me, it is horrific, trying to make every single incident where a police officer has to use his firearm an unjustifiable act of murder is not helping us address the problem.

There comes a point when a police officer has a legitimate reason to use his gun. When you violently rob a store, abuse the staff, assault and beat a cop and then go for his gun, you can't portray it as an innocent unarmed black man slain by a cop for the fun of it.

* I had to remove your link otherwise I could not quote you.

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 13:56

bullshit darren wilson was out fucking with brown people when he grabbed michael brown for jaywalking he fought back a little and ran away just before Wilson got out of his car to shoot him in the back (like Walter Scott (http://gawker.com/video-of-cop-shooting-black-man-in-back-leads-to-murder-1696334898)) Michael brown turned and put his hands up he was then shot 12 times even though he was 150 feet away from darren wilson, and unarmed

the only witness saying otherwise was a crazy old woman who it turned out wasn't there that day, and had ties with KKK, as did Wilson (http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/racism/anonymous-suggests-darren-wilson-tied-to-ku-klux-klan-promises-more-info-screenshots/)

I haven't read the reports in a long time but I remember besides the crazy lady, another key witness for the defense was a black male who 'saw' the shooting while he was in a moving vehicle that was 100 or 200 ft away (curious how those sort of discrepancies invalidate witness testimonies for the prosecution and not the defense...). Anyways when he was on the stand he started going on about how black women are actually the ones who are responsibly for police violence by yelling at cops and escalating situations and the defense was like "shhhhh save it for later"...

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:08

I haven't read the reports in a long time but I remember besides the crazy lady, another key witness for the defense was a black male who 'saw' the shooting while he was in a moving vehicle that was 100 or 200 ft away (curious how those sort of discrepancies invalidate witness testimonies for the prosecution and not the defense...). Anyways when he was on the stand he started going on about how black women are actually the ones who are responsibly for police violence by yelling at cops and escalating situations and the defense was like "shhhhh save it for later"...

The "black women cause police violence" bit has been a staple in black entertainment for years, Chris Rock, Dave Chapelle, Godfrey, Martin Lawrence, Keith Robinson have all either done jokes about it or referenced it or wrote about it.

Not that this is relevant in this case but do you think there is any truth to this stereotype? I can't post links but there is a famous one online where a black guy is being talked to by police and his wife starts shouting saying "I know my rights" "I don't have to do that" etc and then proceeds to wrestle the police officer and ends up being dragged to the ground and cuffed along with her husband. There are hundreds of situations like this on videos online.

willowtooth

10th August 2015, 14:15

A review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made that were inconsistent or provably wrong.

Autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back, despite witness Dorian Johnson claiming he saw it happen
Another said he saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air' before later admitting he hadn't seen the shooting

... he stopped and when he stopped, he didn't get on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can't recall the movement that he did. I'm not sure if he pulled his pants up or whatever he did, but I seen some type of movement and he started charging toward the police officer. The police officer returned fire, well, not returned fire, opened fire on Mr. Brown. If I had to guess the shots and the distance between him and Mr. Brown, it would have to be five to ten yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired. Mr. Brown was still sanding up. My thoughts was ... is he hitting him? Because Mr. Brown, there was no reaction from him to show that he was hit.

After that Mr. Brown paused.

He stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer ... I'm seeing him coming at an aggressive speed and just in charge mode toward the police officer ... I feel like the police officer he didn't have time to really react and holster his weapon and then reholster with a taser ...

Every single claim of wrongdoing has been shown to be fabricated or forensically debunked. Hands up don't shoot for example might be catchy, but it does not describe the situation at all. It was made up, by a people who later admitted they had not seen the incident.

Police brutality against minorities is real, happens all the time something o one has to explain to me, it is horrific, trying to make every single incident where a police officer has to use his firearm an unjustifiable act of murder is not helping us address the problem.

There comes a point when a police officer has a legitimate reason to use his gun. When you violently rob a store, abuse the staff, assault and beat a cop and then go for his gun, you can't portray it as an innocent unarmed black man slain by a cop for the fun of it.

* I had to remove your link otherwise I could not quote you.

you have a choice between beleiving darren wilson the cop with ties to the KKK who murdered somone and should be in jail, or dorian johnson his best friend who was standing right there, there were alot of witness' some claimed to be looking through windows, or driving by etc, that might conflict with eachother as any prosecutor will tell you often happens, but wilson was technically let go due to lack of sufficient evidence it was not proven that evidence was "fabricated" or conflicted with forensics. In fact the opposite is true

forensics shows he was 150 ft away when he was shot (which is half a football field away), meaning he was not in danger of anything, no matter how fast Brown could run. The only conflicting part of anyones testimony is whether he started grunting and making animal noises and charged a cop while unarmed and pointing a gun at him like wilsons OFFICIAL account says, or is Dorian Johnson story, Michael brown's best friend, who was standing there with him true

this is what happened

Johnson, a friend of Brown, who was with him that day, gave his account of the incident to media outlets in August and testified before the grand jury in September. In media interviews, Johnson said that Wilson pulled up beside them and said, "Get the f— on the sidewalk." The young men replied that they were "not but a minute away from [their] destination, and [they] would shortly be out of the street".Wilson drove forward without saying anything further and abruptly backed up, positioning his vehicle crosswise in their path. Wilson tried to open his door aggressively and the door ricocheted off both of their bodies and closed back on Wilson. Wilson, still in his vehicle, grabbed Brown around his neck through the open window, and Brown tried to pull away, but Wilson continued to pull Brown toward him "like tug of war". Johnson stated that Brown "did not reach for the officer's weapon at all", and was attempting to get free, when Wilson drew his weapon and said, "I'll shoot you" or "I'm going to shoot", and fired his weapon hitting Brown. Following the initial gunshot, Brown freed himself, and the two fled. Wilson exited the vehicle, and fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once in the back. Brown turned around with his hands raised and said, "I don't have a gun. Stop shooting!" Wilson then shot Brown several more times, killing him

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Evidence

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 14:26

The "black women cause police violence" bit has been a staple in black entertainment for years, Chris Rock, Dave Chapelle, Godfrey, Martin Lawrence, Keith Robinson have all either done jokes about it or referenced it or wrote about it.

Not that this is relevant in this case but do you think there is any truth to this stereotype? I can't post links but there is a famous one online where a black guy is being talked to by police and his wife starts shouting saying "I know my rights" "I don't have to do that" etc and then proceeds to wrestle the police officer and ends up being dragged to the ground and cuffed along with her husband. There are hundreds of situations like this on videos online.

Even if that stereotype was 100% true in 100% of cases it would still be victim blaming.

"Look at what you've done to make me commit this act of violence upon you!"

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:29

you have a choice between beleiving darren wilson the cop with ties to the KKK who murdered somone and should be in jail, or dorian johnson his best friend who was standing right there, there were alot of witness' some claimed to be looking through windows, or driving by etc, that might conflict with eachother as any prosecutor will tell you often happens, but wilson was technically let go due to lack of sufficient evidence it was not proven that evidence was "fabricated" or conflicted with forensics. In fact the opposite is true

forensics shows he was 150 ft away when he was shot (which is half a football field away), meaning he was not in danger of anything, no matter how fast Brown could run. The only conflicting part of anyones testimony is whether he started grunting and making animal noises and charged a cop while unarmed and pointing a gun at him like wilsons OFFICIAL account says, or is Dorian Johnson story, Michael brown's best friend, who was standing there with him true

this is what happened

So you are completely set on not retracting your original knee jerk response that the cop had to be guilty? Did you not just read when I explained that Dorian Johnson claimed Mike brown was shot in the back, the autopsy revealed mike brown was not shot in the back

Thank goodness you are not in charge of judging guilt in a court of law. Absolutely shocking mental gymnastics because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

As for the other friend, he was also shown to be completely fabricating testimony:
Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air.' He added: 'I seen him shoot him in the head.'
But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.
'What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence,' the investigator told the friend.
Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.
'I ain't feeling comfortable,' he said.

Every single point you make is based on debunked forensics or debunked provably false testimony.

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 14:31

Did you make an account here just to blame black people for police brutality?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:32

Even if that stereotype was 100% true in 100% of cases it would still be victim blaming.

"Look at what you've done to make me commit this act of violence upon you!"

I am simply asking whether that stereotype is accurate. Because If I wrestle a cop and scream at him I am liable to get my face smashed into tiny pieces. As is my white neighbor, my Indian ex girlfriend and my black cousins are too. In other words it isn't about race, if you scream at and put your hands on a cop you are getting a beating. That isn't specific to black people. None of us do that though because we don't think telling the cops our rights and putting our hands on them will result in anything but blunt trauma to our heads.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 14:35

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:45

Did you make an account here just to blame black people for police brutality?

Why don't you ask me when I stopped beating my wife while you are at it? Honestly how lazy.

The only people responsible for Police brutality are police. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if the evidenc eis sufficient given the maximum penalty including the death penalty.

But basically trying to mix your worldview where all police actions are inherently unjust as the police force in your eyes, is the monopolistic use of violence by the oppressive state, with that of black lives matter which are not communist, do not support communism, do not want to end the existence of the institution of the police force and do agree police are nescessary and should have certain powers and can kill someone if there life is in danger, is basically supporting a hypocritical stance.

If you support the validity of the police force as an institution, then you can't be against police using lethal force in self defence. So while you can be non hypocritical and consistent in being against all cops, black lives matter, who do support the existence of the police, are being hypocritical, because if you support the existence of the police, this instance of an officer using lethal force in this situation is completely justified.

If that is supporting police brutality, then I guess a police officer stooping a rape in progress and shooting the rapist who goes on to try and attack the officer and go for his gun would also be a case of police murder and brutality.

But I am guessing the fact the person in question was a young black male, had only committed a robbery, abused a worker there, then assaulted a cop and attempted to grab his gun to kill him with it, so that makes it murder.

Basically you are dismissing all the evidence and letting your political narrative decide a man should go to prison for murder when there is no evidence that is what happened.

How revolutionary of you.

willowtooth

10th August 2015, 14:48

So you are completely set on not retracting your original knee jerk response that the cop had to be guilty? Did you not just read when I explained that Dorian Johnson claimed Mike brown was shot in the back, the autopsy revealed mike brown was not shot in the back

Thank goodness you are not in charge of judging guilt in a court of law. Absolutely shocking mental gymnastics because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

As for the other friend, he was also shown to be completely fabricating testimony:
Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown 'on his knees with his hands in the air.' He added: 'I seen him shoot him in the head.'
But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.
'What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence,' the investigator told the friend.
Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.
'I ain't feeling comfortable,' he said.

Every single point you make is based on debunked forensics or debunked provably false testimony.
dorian johnson claimed wilson shot at brown while he was running away and believed brown turned around and stopped running because he was hit, but never saw him get shot in the back.

there was over 60 witness' i can pull up as many as i want that agree with dorian johnson, but with many people claiming to be witness that ended up being proven not too be there, and the heavy influence by the media, johnson and wilsons are the only accounts that matter

so what your saying is you beleive wilson is innocent and his story is 100% true. which means you think this bullshit is true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-darren-wilson-said-he-killed-michael-brown/

reads like a fucking cartoon

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:48

Sounds like the stereotypical black woman isn't as subservient and craven as you.

Are you honestly trying to make the claim that the police aren't institutionally racist?

Of course not that would be absurd. Are you claiming every case involving black women or black people in police confrontations is caused by racism racism?

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 14:49

But I am guessing the fact the person in question was a young black male, had only committed a robbery, abused a worker there, then assaulted a cop and attempted to grab his gun to kill him with it, so that makes it murder.

There is no evidence that this happened apart from the account of Darren Wilson, who let us all remember for a minute, is a pig.

Of course not that would be absurd. Are you claiming every case involving black women or black people in police confrontations is caused by racism racism?

I never made that claim. However you did make the claim that black women for some unknown reason are willing to put themselves in danger and confront the police when "the rest of us know better." It's all very suspect to tell you the truth.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:53

Sounds like the stereotypical black woman isn't as subservient and craven as you.

Are you honestly trying to make the claim that the police aren't institutionally racist?

That is true, then on these videos online after wrestling and screaming at cops they get hit they are completely shocked and can't believe the police could do such a thing. Simply not wrestling and screaming in cops faces most of the time means I don't get choke slammed. How craven of me to take steps to ensure as best i can I don't get killed or injured.

Then again being a male and knowing I can't scream and yell and put my hands on other men without repercussions from age 5 onwards, I like all other men in society, for the most part, have conditioned myself to be aware that if I initiate violence or aggression I will receive it back and the blame will be placed squarely upon my shoulders.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 14:57

That is true, then on these videos online after wrestling and screaming at cops they get hit they are completely shocked and can't believe the police could do such a thing. Simply not wrestling and screaming in cops faces most of the time means I don't get choke slammed. How craven of me to take steps to ensure as best i can I don't get killed or injured.

Those silly blacks, they just don't know any better do they?

Then again being a male and knowing I can't scream and yell and put my hands on other men without repercussions from age 5 onwards, I like all other men in society, for the most part, have conditioned myself to be aware that if I initiate violence or aggression I will receive it back and the blame will be placed squarely upon my shoulders.

Those silly women, they just don't know any better do they?

If only they could be white and male...

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 14:58

dorian johnson claimed he shot at him while running away and beleived he turned around and stopped running once he was hit, but never saw him get shot in the back.

there was over 60 witness' i can pull up as many as i want that agree with dorian johnson, but with many people claiming to be witness that ended up being proven not too be there, and the heavy influence by the media, johnson and wilsons are the only accounts that matter

so what your saying is you beleive wilson is innocent and his story is 100% true. which means you think this bullshit is true

reads like a fucking cartoon

Here is what Dorian Johnson said:

'It struck my friend in the back.'

Here are the facts:

"autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back."

So you want me to send a man to prison based on the provenly false testimony of the best friend of the person who was shot and killed after robbing a store, assaulting the staff, beating a cop and attempting to go for his gun?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:01

Those silly blacks, they just don't know any better do they?

Those silly women, they just don't know any better do they?

Maybe the problem is that they are not white and male.

Hmmm sounds like someone is losing his ability to construct a basic defence of their position.

Maybe there is not one single problem. Maybe sometimes the racist cop just wants to abuse a black person, maybe sometimes the problem is she wrestles a cop and spits at him resulting in the same use of force that would be employed against anyone else, maybe sometimes nuance and context vary? Just a thought.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 15:03

Here is what Dorian Johnson said:

'It struck my friend in the back.'

Here are the facts:

"autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back."

So you want me to send a man to prison based on the provenly false testimony of the best friend of the person who was shot and killed after robbing a store, assaulting the staff, beating a cop and attempting to go for his gun?

Oh shit! How dare someone not remember a traumatic event 100% accurately when their friend is being murdered by a police officer.

Hmmm sounds like someone is losing his ability to construct a basic defence of their position.

Not really, it's just that your racism and sexism is showing.

Maybe there is not one single problem. Maybe sometimes the racist cop just wants to abuse a black person, maybe sometimes the problem is she wrestles a cop and spits at him resulting in the same use of force that would be employed against anyone else, maybe sometimes nuance and context vary? Just a thought.

Maybe, just maybe the two event are connected. Not that I think many people spit at and wrestle with the police, (especially when they're likely to murder you) but you've seen one whole video so who am to stop you painting an entire population of people with the same brush just because they happen to have the same colour skin...

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:05

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:06

Oh shit! How dare someone not remember a traumatic event 100% accurately when their friend is being murdered by a police officer.

Not really, it's just that your racism and sexism is showing.

You just caved and resorted to personal attacks because you can't refute the points I raised. That is sad for you.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2015, 15:07

That is true, then on these videos online after wrestling and screaming at cops they get hit they are completely shocked and can't believe the police could do such a thing. Simply not wrestling and screaming in cops faces most of the time means I don't get choke slammed. How craven of me to take steps to ensure as best i can I don't get killed or injured.

Then again being a male and knowing I can't scream and yell and put my hands on other men without repercussions from age 5 onwards, I like all other men in society, for the most part, have conditioned myself to be aware that if I initiate violence or aggression I will receive it back and the blame will be placed squarely upon my shoulders.

Did you reach this site by accident while trying to type "www.democraticunderground.com" in the address bar of your browser?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:12

There is no evidence that this happened apart from the account of Darren Wilson, who let us all remember for a minute, is a pig.

I never made that claim. However you did make the claim that black women for some unknown reason are willing to put themselves in danger and confront the police when "the rest of us know better." It's all very suspect to tell you the truth.

So we should have courts where we substitute evidence for conformation bias against certain people based on their job, ethnicity, religion, race etc? How is automatically being biased against a man because he is a police officer, in legal matters, any different to automatically thinking a person is not to be trusted or guilty because they are black?

Is that how you feel your ideal legal system should be run? Based on purely biased predetermined judgement of someone based on who they are without evidence that finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

I just can't wait until we the masses get to live under your ideal society. Lets just hope you don't get to send people to prison for the rest of their lives based on nothing more than you not trusting them because of their job or their skin colour or some other irrelevant detail that has no baring on their innocence or guilt.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 15:13

No I brought up that this stereotype is a running one within the black community and has been used as material by many black performers such as Chris Rock, Chapelle, Martin Lawrence, Keith Robison etc. I am asking you whether those comedians and performers were racist against blacks and or hated black women or there was some truth to that stereotype.

Is there?

Comedians often use exaggerated stereotypes for... guess what? Comedic effect. Whether that stereotype is true or not is really beside the point.

You just caved and resorted to personal attacks because you can't refute the points I raised. That is sad for you.

That's not a personal attack, It's an accurate description of the views you've put forward. A personal attack would be calling you a "gaping hamster anus" or something.

So we should have courts where we substitute evidence for conformation bias against certain people based on their job, ethnicity, religion, race etc? How is automatically being biased against a man because he is a police officer, in legal matters, any different to automatically thinking a person is not to be trusted or guilty because they are black?

Cops often lie to cover up their wrongs, happens all the time. Probably more likely to happen if the police officer has ties to the KKK and has just killed a black person.

I just can't wait until we the masses get to live under your ideal society. Lets just hope you don't get to send people to prison for the rest of their lives based on nothing more than you not trusting them because of their job or their skin colour or some other irrelevant detail that has no baring on their innocence or guilt.

My ideal society wouldn't have prisons. (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Goldman/prisons.html)

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:14

Did you reach this site by accident while trying to in the address bar of your browser?

Sorry are you not open to other opinions ? Let me guess, you are really good at public speaking when you are not in front of your computer screen?

I can tell these type of things.

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 15:16

Why don't you ask me when I stopped beating my wife while you are at it? Honestly how lazy.

I'll admit it was more of a smartass comment than anything meant to be particularly insightful, but honestly, the vehemence with which you're defending police (and your particularly noxious evocation of the stereotype of black women as uncontrollable savages) does make me question your motives.

The only people responsible for Police brutality are police. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if the evidenc eis sufficient given the maximum penalty including the death penalty.

I'm more concerned with abolishing an institution that exists to wage war on the poor.

But basically trying to mix your worldview where all police actions are inherently unjust as the police force in your eyes, is the monopolistic use of violence by the oppressive state, with that of black lives matter which are not communist, do not support communism, do not want to end the existence of the institution of the police force and do agree police are nescessary and should have certain powers and can kill someone if there life is in danger, is basically supporting a hypocritical stance.

I am not affiliated with BLM. My understanding is that the movement is not monolithic, and while some participants seem to adhere to an individualistic "let's punish the bad apples" analysis, I don't think all of them do. If that individualistic analysis ends up pushing out a more systemic analysis, then BLM will, in the end, have little to do with the left.

If you support the validity of the police force as an institution

The thing is, I don't, so the rest of your response should be directed at someone else.

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 15:18

I am simply asking whether that stereotype is accurate. Because If I wrestle a cop and scream at him I am liable to get my face smashed into tiny pieces. As is my white neighbor, my Indian ex girlfriend and my black cousins are too. In other words it isn't about race, if you scream at and put your hands on a cop you are getting a beating. That isn't specific to black people. None of us do that though because we don't think telling the cops our rights and putting our hands on them will result in anything but blunt trauma to our heads.

When I was like 8 or 9 I remember going on my grandfather's computer. He was a retired officer at the time but he still frequented various police websites and had many of the links open. The front page of one of the websites had a warning to police officers about pulling over drivers who were driving at night with their lights out because they are likely gang members who need to kill a cop to get initiated or something. I remember thinking "wow being a police officer is scary". Only later did I realize that, well, that kind of shit just doesn't happen. But the article shows one of the deep-seated beliefs within the police community, which is that, any potential interaction (especially with an african-american) is potentially life-ending. I saw recently in the news a man tried flagging down police because he was in a car accident or his car broke down (I forget) and he ended up being shot.

My point is, I really don't think of my grandfather as an individual who is "racist" (and especially not compared to other cops I know) but I wouldn't be surprised if he always kept his hand near his holster anytime he had to interact with an african-american. While being belligerent or wrestling with a cop is generally not a wise thing to do (even if you are a white person), the racial background of the perpetrator plays a huge role in determining how an officer will respond.

And on top of this there are quite a number of police officers who actively and consciously hold racist views, and while I can't speak to how prominent those people are in law enforcement, I would assume its quite high.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:19

Comedians often use exaggerated stereotypes for... guess what? Comedic effect. Whether that stereotype is true or not is really beside the point.

That's not a personal attack, It's an accurate description of the views you've put forward. A personal attack would be calling you a "gaping hamster anus" or something.

No that would be a depressing reminder to you not to give up your day job.

And those stereotypes they talk about and make material out of isn't just in stand up comedy, both Chris Rock and Keith Robinson have talked about this in serious contexts like on the radio etc. So I ask again are these people racist against black women or being sexist or is there truth to that stereotype?

Why is that such an open and widely propagated stereotype within the black community? Why are there so many videos, so many of them showing black women starting confrontations with the police outnumbering the videos of black men and white men doing the same thing?

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 15:19

Did you reach this site by accident while trying to type "www.democraticunderground.com" in the address bar of your browser?

Do you really consider this site too different from democraticunderground?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2015, 15:21

Sorry are you not open to other opinions ? Let me guess, you are really good at public speaking when you are not in front of your computer screen?

I can tell these type of things.

Well don't quit your day job. Your "other opinions" are the opinions of a bourgeois liberal. Part of the notional appeal of RevLeft is the ability to discuss matters without having to wade through liberal rhetoric about Personal Responsibility (TM), blaming American blacks for the gruesome oppression they face at the hands of the US state, talking about ideal "justice systems" with prisons and the police, as if that's what socialists advocate etc.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:26

When I was like 8 or 9 I remember going on my grandfather's computer. He was a retired officer at the time but he still frequented various police websites and had many of the links open. The front page of one of the websites had a warning to police officers about pulling over drivers who were driving at night with their lights out because they are likely gang members who need to kill a cop to get initiated or something. I remember thinking "wow being a police officer is scary". Only later did I realize that, well, that kind of shit just doesn't happen. But the article shows one of the deep-seated beliefs within the police community, which is that, any potential interaction (especially with an african-american) is potentially life-ending. I saw recently in the news a man tried flagging down police because he was in a car accident or his car broke down (I forget) and he ended up being shot.

My point is, I really don't think of my grandfather as an individual who is "racist" (and especially not compared to other cops I know) but I wouldn't be surprised if he always kept his hand near his holster anytime he had to interact with an african-american. While being belligerent or wrestling with a cop is generally not a wise thing to do (even if you are a white person), the racial background of the perpetrator plays a huge role in determining how an officer will respond.

And on top of this there are quite a number of police officers who actively and consciously hold racist views, and while I can't speak to how prominent those people are in law enforcement, I would assume its quite high.

Racism within all police forces is higher than you insinuate in your post. Racism is tied to the police forces and the legal system. Drug laws are designed so that they criminalise and brutalise minority groups. Police abuse against minorities but especially black people is extremely high, out in the open and largely accepted.

My family has been against police repression for generations, my family has a history of helping immigrants through union and other organised labour connections. I am not a stranger to the ugly open face of the police and the terror they can and do inflict on people in this society.

I am merely not going to go along with this whole notion that even when all the testimony has been shown to be false, the autopsy has contradicted the claims of the prosecution, the defence is to be ignored and over ruled in favour of political expediency.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 15:28

No that would be a depressing reminder to you not to give up your day job.

And those stereotypes they talk about and make material out of isn't just in stand up comedy, both Chris Rock and Keith Robinson have talked about this in serious contexts like on the radio etc. So I ask again are these people racist against black women or being sexist or is there truth to that stereotype?

If either Chris Rock or Keith Robinson have said that police brutality happens because black women are like a bull seeing red when they see a cop then they are both idiots.

Why is that such an open and widely propagated stereotype within the black community? Why are there so many videos, so many of them showing black women starting confrontations with the police outnumbering the videos of black men and white men doing the same thing?

Why don't you tell us? To be honest I hadn't even heard of this "stereotype" before you brought it up, so you clearly know more about it than me. So come on, what are the answers? This should be interesting to say the least.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:29

Well don't quit your day job. Your "other opinions" are the opinions of a bourgeois liberal. Part of the notional appeal of RevLeft is the ability to discuss matters without having to wade through liberal rhetoric about Personal Responsibility (TM), blaming American blacks for the gruesome oppression they face at the hands of the US state, talking about ideal "justice systems" with prisons and the police, as if that's what socialists advocate etc.

I advocate people having fair trials and if all the testimony against them is shown to be false, if the autopsy contradicts the prosecutions case, then an individual should not be convicted for the alleged crime.

If support the right to a free trial by a jury of yours peers is racist consider me, Huey newton, Bobby Hutton and Flores Forbes racist.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:33

If either Chris Rock or Keith Robinson have said that police brutality happens because black women are like a bull seeing red when they see a cop then they are both idiots.

Why don't you tell us? To be honest I hadn't even heard of this "stereotype" before you brought it up, so you clearly know more about it than me. So come on, what are the answers? This should be interesting to say the least.

Once again you can't talk about something without taking it and rewording it to have completely different meaning and context and saying, well, if you believe that you are a moron.

If you are going to be so lazy why use the energy to lift your fingers?

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 15:37

Why is that such an open and widely propagated stereotype within the black community? Why are there so many videos, so many of them showing black women starting confrontations with the police outnumbering the videos of black men and white men doing the same thing?

Are there? My guess is probably not but assuming that this is correct (that black women start more confrontations with law enforcement than black men or white men) the answer is probably that police officers tend to view african-american women with contempt. Now first off complaining to law enforcement about shit doesn't usually help since in their minds they are constantly under siege and its an "us vs. them" mentality so to them, expressing grievances is just a way for people to harass them. But I wouldn't be surprised if police officers are more likely to respond with force when being "harassed" by african-american women.

There's a stereotype in pop-culture of the "crazy" African-american women who just complains for the sake of complaining (look at the responses to when BLM disrupted Bernie Sanders' campaign) and that their opinions are worthless. So that probably exacerbates the feeling for police officers that someone shouting "I know my rights" or complaining about excessive force is just there way of attacking/harassing the police.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 15:37

Once again you can't talk about something without taking it and rewording it to have completely different meaning and context and saying, well, if you believe that you are a moron.

If you are going to be so lazy why use the energy to lift your fingers?

What exactly are you saying then?

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 15:46

Racism within all police forces is higher than you insinuate in your post. Racism is tied to the police forces and the legal system. Drug laws are designed so that they criminalise and brutalise minority groups. Police abuse against minorities but especially black people is extremely high, out in the open and largely accepted.

I don't disagree with that, I was just trying to say that while assaulting a cop in general is a pretty dumb idea (I don't think for one minute though that Brown assaulted Wilson though but I guess that's not the point...), there's a much, much higher chance of the end result being fatal if its an african-american involved compared to a caucasian.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:55

Are there? My guess is probably not but assuming that this is correct (that black women start more confrontations with law enforcement than black men or white men) the answer is probably that police officers tend to view african-american women with contempt. Now first off complaining to law enforcement about shit doesn't usually help since in their minds they are constantly under siege and its an "us vs. them" mentality so to them, expressing grievances is just a way for people to harass them. But I wouldn't be surprised if police officers are more likely to respond with force when being "harassed" by african-american women.

There's a stereotype in pop-culture of the "crazy" African-american women who just complains for the sake of complaining (look at the responses to when BLM disrupted Bernie Sanders' campaign) and that their opinions are worthless. So that probably exacerbates the feeling for police officers that someone shouting "I know my rights" or complaining about excessive force is just there way of attacking/harassing the police.

No I am referring to the massive amount of online videos where the police are dealing with someone else and black women approach law enforcement, begin to shout at law enforcement, begin to swear at them, begin to put their hands on he police, wrestle with them, start physical confrontations that end with both the woman and the original party involved being slammed/restrained and arrested.

When you compare the amount of these types of videos with for example black men beginning to swear and wrestle with police, or white men, the numbers are far lower.

This has been a stereotype within the black community for years, has been a source of material forever with so many black performers using it. I can actually bring up a personal example were I witnessed it myself.

I was seeing a woman years back who was first generation Jamaican, we were at her mothers house watching TV after a family dinner. There was a clip show with a black guy hosting and commentating on videos. One of these clips was the above mentioned scenario where a male is being questioned by law enforcement, the woman starts shouting, saying she knows hers rights, they can't question him, she then grans the police officers arm and drags it away from the man, the police officer tries to restrain her for over a minute, she is a large woman and he is clearly failing to control her.

Then a second woman, also very large comes from behind and grabs him pulling the officer off the first woman, the other cop stays controlling the male. After about two minutes of struggling the cop hits the woman in the face and struggles with her to drag her down and arrest her. The other woman is now screaming and grabbing the officer saying you can't do this.

The entire living room was absolutely in hysterics, this included the entire family, her sisters boyfriends who were also black guys and they were laughing and intimating that this was well known behaviour and especially pointing out the eldest sister as someone prone to this kind of behaviour.

It was funny to them on a level it simply wasn't to me because of my lack of familiarity with the stereotype. In the years since that incident as I said numerous Black entertainers have brought this up as material, on the radio etc.

So that made me ask whether those entertainers and I guess my at the time girlfriend and her entire family were racist or sexist or this was an established stereotype within the black community itself about itself?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 15:58

I don't disagree with that, I was just trying to say that while assaulting a cop in general is a pretty dumb idea (I don't think for one minute though that Brown assaulted Wilson though but I guess that's not the point...), there's a much, much higher chance of the end result being fatal if its an african-american involved compared to a caucasian.

There was physical evidence of that assault, did you see his face ? He got his ass beat. And that is the point because if as there is evidence of, Brown assaulting Officer Wilson and going for his gun, then the shooting of Mike Brown was not murder but a justified shooting.

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 16:27

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 16:31

Not sure if you know what an "ass beating" looks like

So it has gone from there was no assault on Officer Wilson to, meh, that isn't so bad. He does not have to be beaten to within an inch of his life until he can defend himself you know.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 16:42

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 16:51

Don't lie, you're a fascist troll

Although your argument is extremely in depth and analytic I think I understand the basic, core of your argument. It seems you are pushing the idea that actually substantiating your argument through discourse isn't working for you so the next best thing is to make wildly bizarre child like accusations that conform to all the confirmation bias and lack of stimuli you require to type out that dull unimaginative response.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 16:59

Although your argument is extremely in depth and analytic I think I understand the basic, core of your argument. It seems you are pushing the idea that actually substantiating your argument through discourse isn't working for you so the next best thing is to make wildly bizarre child like accusations that conform to all the confirmation bias and lack of stimuli you require to type out that dull unimaginative response.I don't owe you shit. You pop up on the anniversary of Michael Browns murder to start talking shit and kissing piggy ass. You choice to start victim blaming exactly one year after somebody's son got shot by an agent of the state. You have yet to address anything else in the post but the point of your fascist tendencies. This is really telling.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 17:02

So it has gone from there was no assault on Officer Wilson to, meh, that isn't so bad. He does not have to be beaten to within an inch of his life until he can defend himself you know.

http://www.faithfullymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Darren-Wilson1.jpg

I've had worse "ass beatings" getting out of the shower. What happened here is obvious to anyone, he got one of his filth friends to give him a love tap when he got back to the station.

Ele'ill

10th August 2015, 17:04

since this thread is so busy right now you might want to check out the Ferguson thread there was another shooting at the anniversary demo last night

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferguson-t191397/index.html

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:07

I don't owe you shit. You pop up on the anniversary of Michael Browns murder to start talking shit and kissing piggy ass. You choice to start victim blaming exactly one year after somebody's son got shot by an agent of the state. You have yet to address anything else in the post but the point of your fascist tendencies. This is really telling.

Who said you owed anyone anything? Your child like angst, it is showing. Do you understand what fascism is? what political or economic tendencies or positions have I put forth?

Believe it or not arguing for free trials for everyone and looking at the evidence that the defence and prosecution provided and seeing that this one single case shows clearly that the officer involved was attacked and Mike brown did indeed go for the cops gun, means this individual case was a justified shooting.

How many fascists are pointing out that the police officer that shot walter Scott to death should recieve the death penalty? How many ? Can you show a single fascist poster anywhere online on any site making that argument?

How many fascists would describe the police force like this:

Racism within all police forces is higher than you insinuate in your post. Racism is tied to the police forces and the legal system. Drug laws are designed so that they criminalise and brutalise minority groups. Police abuse against minorities but especially black people is extremely high, out in the open and largely accepted.

My family has been against police repression for generations, my family has a history of helping immigrants through union and other organised labour connections. I am not a stranger to the ugly open face of the police and the terror they can and do inflict on people in this society.

I am merely not going to go along with this whole notion that even when all the testimony has been shown to be false, the autopsy has contradicted the claims of the prosecution, the defence is to be ignored and over ruled in favour of political expediency.

Basically when you grow out of your rebel angsty phase, read some Marx, some Alain Badiou and maybe listen to some Sabbath and then try and put out something of substance or at least entertaining.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 17:10

Believe it or not arguing for free trials for everyone and looking at the evidence that the defence and prosecution provided and seeing that this one single case shows clearly that the officer involved was attacked and Mike brown did indeed go for the cops gun, means this individual case was a justified shooting.

You've yet to show any evidence for this.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:11

http://www.faithfullymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Darren-Wilson1.jpg

I've had worse "ass beatings" getting out of the shower. What happened here is obvious to anyone, he got one of his filth friends to give him a love tap when he got back to the station.

Thankfully you have no ability to send people to prison. How many personal hunches would you allow to drive you to send poor sods to prison for the rest of their lives?

Like 9/11 truthers, you demolish one of their spiderwebs and ten more even more ridiculously paranoid ones pop up for you to start addressing.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:13

http://www.faithfullymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Darren-Wilson1.jpg

I've had worse "ass beatings" getting out of the shower. What happened here is obvious to anyone, he got one of his filth friends to give him a love tap when he got back to the station.

So if a woman reported domestic abuse and she had a similar mark on her would you be declaring she obviously lying and was not worthy of belief?

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 17:15

<snip>

<snip>

One reply to a post is more than enough, and if you want to add something there is an "edit" button for you to use.

So if a woman reported domestic abuse and she had a similar mark on her would you be declaring she obviously lying and was not worthy of belief?

Would receiving such a "light assault" be justification for me murdering someone?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:22

One reply to a post is more than enough, and if you want to add something there is an "edit" button for you to use.

Would receiving such a "light assault" be justification for me murdering someone?

You didn't answer my question, if a woman reported domestic abuse with the same marks upon her would you dismiss her as "obviously making it up" ?

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 17:26

You didn't answer my question, if a woman reported domestic abuse with the same marks upon her would you dismiss her as "obviously making it up" ?

I don't have to answer your question, it's got nothing to do with what's at hand. You've failed to answer more than half of the questions that have been put to you so I tell you what, you go back an answer the questions you've ignored and I'll answer your idiotic, irrelevant question.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:30

I don't have to answer your question, it's got nothing to do with what's at hand. You've failed to answer more than half of the questions that have been put to you so I tell you what, you go back an answer the questions you've ignored and I'll answer your idiotic, irrelevant question.

I will mark that down as you don't want to answer. What a stunningly hypocritical stance. Some might say rather outlandishly sexist too, but that is none of my business.

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 17:35

I will mark that down as you don't want to answer. What a stunningly hypocritical stance. Some might say rather outlandishly sexist too, but that is none of my business.

Yeah, your analogy was just too good. You've got me! :rolleyes:

I'm out, enjoy your trolling while it lasts.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 17:41

Who said you owed anyone anything? Your child like angst, it is showing. Do you understand what fascism is? what political or economic tendencies or positions have I put forth?You don't have to recite Mein Kampt for an educated guess that you're at least a troll, likely of the ScumFuck variety. Also your posting style is familiar. Anyone remember which reactionary?
Believe it or not arguing for free trials for everyone and looking at the evidence that the defence and prosecution provided and seeing that this one single case shows clearly that the officer involved was attacked and Mike brown did indeed go for the cops gun, means this individual case was a justified shooting.There was no trial, it was a grand jury. A weird bullshit one that I've never heard or seen anything like it. It's almost always a rubber stamp. And you know that.
How many fascists are pointing out that the police officer that shot walter Scott to death should recieve the death penalty? How many ? Can you show a single fascist poster anywhere online on any site making that argument?

How many fascists would describe the police force like this:

<b>Racism within all police forces is higher than you insinuate in your post. Racism is tied to the police forces and the legal system. Drug laws are designed so that they criminalise and brutalise minority groups. Police abuse against minorities but especially black people is extremely high, out in the open and largely accepted.

My family has been against police repression for generations, my family has a history of helping immigrants through union and other organised labour connections. I am not a stranger to the ugly open face of the police and the terror they can and do inflict on people in this society.
It is you who pretends not to know of fascism. Fascists can and have said similar things. They aren't even necessarily Hitlerites or even white. But I'm not going to do the work for you.
What makes you think I am merely not going to go along with this whole notion that even when all the testimony has been shown to be false, the autopsy has contradicted the claims of the prosecution, the defence is to be ignored and over ruled in favour of political expediency.Yet you chose here and now to do this. This is not a court of law. All that proves is you're an edgy liberal at best.
Basically when you grow out of your rebel angsty phase, read some Marx, some Alain Badiou and maybe listen to some Sabbath and then try and put out something of substance or at least entertaining.More shit talking from a reactionary. At best a shelter entitled petty-bourgeois teen know-it-all. It's not my job to entertain you. There's better sites to whack off.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 17:50

More shit talking from a reactionary. At best a shelter entitled petty-bourgeois teen know-it-all. It's not my job to entertain you. There's better sites to whack off.

I am a blue collar worker, I am from a blue collar family. I work for what I have and I am proud of that. Are you a union member in a manual labour job? I think you are probably a college teen? Sure sound like it. Entitlement and angst go hand in hand with the faux rebel student.

5 years later working at some software firm for good money driving a Nissan. All the kids threw eggs at those cars and ran into the flats. You d a good job sounding "down with the cause" though, so there is that.

soup

10th August 2015, 19:24

BLM is just another liberal hot air parade like OWS. Without any real leadership or praxis, it'll fizzle out just like OWS did.

Like OWS, they won't succeed in doing much of anything to reverse/stop their primary concern.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 19:29

I am a blue collar worker, I am from a blue collar family. I work for what I have and I am proud of that. Are you a union member in a manual labour job? I think you are probably a college teen? Sure sound like it. Entitlement and angst go hand in hand with the faux rebel student.

5 years later working at some software firm for good money driving a Nissan. All the kids threw eggs at those cars and ran into the flats. You d a good job sounding "down with the cause" though, so there is that.You don't know me, I don't know you, so shut the fuck up. You can pretend to be some petty-bourgeois labor aristocrat and shit to make yourself look real(it doesn't), but I see through it. You're supposed "blue-collar" shit means nothing to me, other then you're probably the boss's pet. You go on about entitlement, yet you demand everyone make it all about you. You accuse me of edginess when you said yourself you just want to be a contrarian. You're intentionally trying to derail a thread on BLM with victim blaming. You're a fucking troll , reactionary and tool.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 19:47

You don't know me, I don't know you, so shut the fuck up. You can pretend to be some petty-bourgeois labor aristocrat and shit to make yourself look real(it doesn't), but I see through it. You're supposed "blue-collar" shit means nothing to me, other then you're probably the boss's pet. You go on about entitlement, yet you demand everyone make it all about you. You accuse me of edginess when you said yourself you just want to be a contrarian. You're intentionally trying to derail a thread on BLM with victim blaming. You're a fucking troll , reactionary and tool.

You are showing yourself to lack a basic understanding of manual labour, there is no boss to suck up to, you would know that if you ever actual had to graft through a shift. But nice desperate swing.

You have reached the glass ceiling for idiocy. I actually work for a living, which is why I have life experience and don't sound like some spoiled middle class child rebelling against mummy and daddy. You are irritating. You lack any sort of maturity or common sense. You type like a petulant child foaming at the mouth.

Now instead of stalking posters and rambling on about some fascist poster conspiracy that only exists inside your head, focus on what is actually being said.

Case in point when someone says there is systemic racism against minorities and police who murder them need to be punished to the full extent of the law, don't then cite that as proof of fascist sympathies. Because it does nothing but make you look like a raving lunatic. Sound good?

And yes I do know you, you are a carbon copy of every other over the top embarrassing cliched college radical who has no life experience but feels like he has a vast wealth of insight to share to us workers. From all that reading of Lenin and Che and all that time spent posturing and trying to fit into the herd of unique voices, all sounding identically unique and radical.
Basically you are a fraud and that is why you are trying so hard to sound like the rebel you think you are.

That is why you cast out defensive "you don't now me" lines which tell me what I need to know. You are a college kid who does not work who lives off their parents. Now go and talk about the pigs before you stop sounding authentically lame.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2015, 20:40

I advocate people having fair trials and if all the testimony against them is shown to be false, if the autopsy contradicts the prosecutions case, then an individual should not be convicted for the alleged crime.

If support the right to a free trial by a jury of yours peers is racist consider me, Huey newton, Bobby Hutton and Flores Forbes racist.

Fair trial? Sure, why not, and maybe give everyone a free ice cream sundae with a cherry on top. Trials are held by the bourgeois state, which is not a neutral entity. Cops are the enforcers of bourgeois class rule, of course they are going to have an easy time in front of bourgeois courts. And before you start about the supposed objectivity of evidence, let's just note that the use of forensics and expert testimony by bourgeois courts has repeatedly proven itself to be politically-motivated and unscientific, from the mostly made-up field of blood spatter analysis to "Munchhausen syndrome by proxy" a.k.a. "bitter old misogynist ruins the lives of dozens of women with baseless claims". At this point, you don't have to be a socialist to distrust bourgeois courts.

And you know that awful word that is constantly heard in American politics, "non-partisan"? Socialists are partisan. We're on the side of the oppressed blacks against the bourgeois state and its enforcers.

But good luck trying to build the prefect, "fair" bourgeois police system. Hey, it's a hobby.

John Nada

10th August 2015, 20:53

You are showing yourself to lack a basic understanding of manual labour, there is no boss to suck up to, you would know that if you ever actual had to graft through a shift. But nice desperate swing.Uh, the foremen. Unless you're mowing lawns or something. But you do manual labor, so I'm sure you knew that already.:rolleyes:

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 21:10

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

10th August 2015, 21:12

Yeah, those of us who have done manual labor know all to well that there is a boss, for Christ's sake.

But what can you expect from somebody whose arguments consist of dredging up every hoary stereotype about black people to justify police violence (except for those elusive "bad apples") and then goes on to brag about being "self-made." If he starts whining about a war against Christianity he could apply for a spot on Fox News. :laugh:

Also someone who uses statements by comics as an argument. I mean damn son, what's next, are you going to base your analysis of the situation in Afghanistan on Robin Williams?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 21:51

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 21:53

Also someone who uses statements by comics as an argument. I mean damn son, what's next, are you going to base your analysis of the situation in Afghanistan on Robin Williams?

Did you completely miss where I also mentioned my black partner and her entire family and the incident where they all expressed it plus black entertainers talking about it not as stand up material but in serious conversation on the radio etc. But it is much easier to take bits out and take them out of context, right?

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 21:57

Yeah, those of us who have done manual labor know all too well that there is a boss, for Christ's sake.

But what can you expect from somebody whose arguments consist of dredging up every hoary stereotype about black people to justify police violence (except for those elusive "bad apples") and then goes on to brag about being "self-made." If he starts whining about a war against Christianity he could apply for a spot on Fox News. :laugh:

What are you rambling about about? How many ears have you worked in construction or factory work, where are all these bosses monitoring you ? How do you suck up to a line manager you see 5 minutes of a 12 hour shift, these seems like a bunch of people who don't have much experience as workers talking about what it is like. Seems weird.

Also as I said the stereotype i within the black community, it isn't a secret, hence why my partner and her entire black family found the bringing up of that famous stereotype hilarious. Hence why it is material for dozens of black entertainers. Stop trying to turn it into something you can feign outrage at you poser.

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 21:58

I spent years in an auto parts factory. Most of my family and friends work or worked in factories. There are always foremen. Not to mention office staff that has arbitrary authority over workers, and in smaller shops you'll even get the owners parading around the plant. I would have loved it if there were no bosses but I don't know anyone who's ever been lucky enough to work under such an arrangement.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:02

I spent years in an auto parts factory. Most of my famy and friends work or worked in factories. There are always foremen. Not to mention office staff that has arbitrary authority over workers, and in smaller shops you'll even get the owners parading around the plant. I would have loved it if there were no bosses but I don't know anyone who's ever been lucky enough to work under such an arrangement.

Half my family worked at a local factory with aerosol, toothpaste, shaving foam etc. We never had issues with any managers, we did however run twofers every week and squeeze continentals out of that place as often as possible.

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 22:06

Oh, right, i forgot, you're "just asking questions" about these stereotypes that you've already decided are accurate.

Stereotypes about lawless, uncontrollable black people date back to slavery. You're using them to justify police brutality and murder.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:08

Also someone who uses statements by comics as an argument. I mean damn son, what's next, are you going to base your analysis of the situation in Afghanistan on Robin Williams?

Basically you are furious because I simple explained to you, with great patience how witness testimony had been proven by the defence and forensic evidence to be false.

Brown assaulted a worker in a store and then assaulted a cop and went for his gun, Officer Wilson was justified in shooting him to defend himself. The same thing would of happened if anyone else had done the same thing.

Now you can accept that evidence like a grown up or you can act like an extremely biased already convinced because of political reasons despite the evidence dogmatist, exploiting the case for political expediency.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:11

Oh, right, i forgot, your're "just asking questions" about these stereotypes that you've already decided are accurate.

Stereotypes about lawless, uncontrollable black people date back to slavery. You're using them to justify police brutality and murder.

No the black community uses this stereotype, this stereotype is brought up almost exclusively by the black community, which is something you don't want to accept. as I asked, was my black girlfriend and her entire black family all racist and sexist for laughing hysterically when a clip show hosted by a black man brought the stereotype up and offered commentary over it to a clip of the stereotype playing out in real life.

Does that stereotype have any basis in reality? Yes or no? If not why are there hundreds and hundreds of videos of that stereotype playing out?

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 22:16

Brown assaulted a worker in a store and then assaulted a cop and went for his gun, Officer Wilson was justified in shooting him to defend himself. The same thing would of happened if anyone else had done the same thing.

You've yet to prove this yet you keep repeating it.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:16

I believe this may of been the clip my black partner and her entire black family laughed at as hilarious because of it being true as a broader stereotype of black women getting involved in police stops involving black males. Also the black host was talking about it in a familiar "we've all seen this scene before folks" way basically saying this is something that often happens and laughing about it.

Oh8M72m7ckU

Also why has this case not got far more outrage or a conviction for the police officer? Unarmed white kid on police cam gunned down. Almost zero media coverage, was this racially motivated? : zQTEjW3qxuY

Lord Testicles

10th August 2015, 22:20

Oh8M72m7ckU

He punched her, clearly she would have been more than justified in shooting him... :rolleyes:

Counterculturalist

10th August 2015, 22:24

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:31

Stereotypes sometimes have a basis in reality but become decontextualized and used as a justification for oppression. Often they become so far removed from the historical reality that inspired them that they lose any grounding in reality, but people continue to believe them, and yes, members of oppressed groups can and do internalize stereotypes about themselves.

Is it not possible that this notion of black women causing police violence is more a result of confirmation bias than any observable behaviour?

It's really an unimportant question. Police violence has nothing to do with black women's behaviour and everything to do with capitalism. Blaming black people for being brutalized by the police is identical to blaming the poor for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

Right but my initial mentioning of it was a simple response to someone who brought that a cop had brought that stereotype up.I merely explained that stereotype has its roots in the black community and black guys making fun of white women for it. Hence why I even brought up comedians etc, to point out that stereotype was popular in the black community and one that has existed for generations. Not saying i support it.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 22:36

He punched her, clearly she would have been more than justified in shooting him... :rolleyes:

Police officers have power bestowed on them to apprehend and arrest you, that woman was clearly stopping a police officer arresting someone else, police officers legally have the right to use force to detain you.

Whether you support that fact or not the vast majority of the population do and are not socialist or agains the state or the police on socialist grounds, including black people, despite this noble savage racist characterisation of black people white radicals are pushing at the moment for a political agenda, not supporting law enforcement and police officers and being looters and inherent rebels is not representative of the vast majority of black people

But yes if Mike Brown had assaulted a regular worker in a store and then assaulted that woman and punched her in the face and she was a legal gun owner she would have the right to shoot and kill him.

Or should women not be able to defend themselves against men?

Cliff Paul

10th August 2015, 22:47

No I am referring to the massive amount of online videos where the police are dealing with someone else and black women approach law enforcement, begin to shout at law enforcement, begin to swear at them, begin to put their hands on he police, wrestle with them, start physical confrontations that end with both the woman and the original party involved being slammed/restrained and arrested.

When you compare the amount of these types of videos with for example black men beginning to swear and wrestle with police, or white men, the numbers are far lower.

No offense but simply stating that "there are massive amounts of these videos" doesn't constitute as an argument since there's no evidence here. Unless you can pull out some numbers or facts you simply restating this claim doesn't make it true.

So that made me ask whether those entertainers and I guess my at the time girlfriend and her entire family were racist or sexist or this was an established stereotype within the black community itself about itself?

As I said before there's definitely a trope in pop culture about crazy black women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Black_Woman) and I'm not convinced that the whole black women goes crazy on cops and causes them to respond aggressively is anything more than an outgrowth of that. And yes you can be black and still hold negative stereotypes about black people, that's a thing...

Hatshepsut

10th August 2015, 22:49

There was physical evidence of that assault, did you see his face ? He got his ass beat. And that is the point because if as there is evidence of, Brown assaulting Officer Wilson and going for his gun, then the shooting of Mike Brown was not murder but a justified shooting.

The official report makes for interesting reading between the lines. I concede the general legitimacy of having peace officers on the street, as well Mr. Brown’s culpability in the altercation at the police SUV which started events. Had he been killed here I might have a different opinion on the case; racist policing patterns don’t imply every adverse encounter between police and a black civilian entails bias, though a lot of them apparently do. Earlier (post #72, p. 4) I observed that Mr. Brown was hardly a Bambi character.

DOJ Report on Brown shooting, Mar. 2015
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

What clinches the nexus of racist groupthink for me is that Mr. Brown fled and Officer Wilson pursued him. I think Wilson became angered and decided to exact retribution under color of law. His statement in the report that he considered Brown more dangerous to bystanders than an immediate shootout might be is difficult to believe. Wilson did not know whether Brown was armed, but it seems likely Brown would have simply continued to run until away from the area if not chased down. I doubt such a level of pursuit and stopping force would have been employed in a theft/simple assault had Brown been a bad white kid in a nicer neighborhood.

One notes that bystanders were indeed close at hand as bullets flew from Officer Wilson’s gun. Should we consider this hazardous, perhaps even a disregard for the safety of the innocent? The misses traveled at roughly shoulder level above ground in a scene with an officer lacking time to determine whether the field was clear downrange, who wouldn’t need to open fire a second time had he elected to refrain from pursuit and wait for backup. Precisely what most officers are trained to do when alone after physical exchange with a suspect. While we picture Wilson serving his ten-round volley, let us recall that bullets can also retain lethal velocity after passing through a target, especially given today’s higher propellant charges. One projectile fragment was recovered from the exterior wall of a nearby apartment house.

Wilson’s biography includes a prior history of racist involvements at Ferguson and on the police force in neighboring Jennings, where he was dismissed alongside the rest of his colleagues in a reorganization of police service by a new city government. Post Ferguson ground zero, he describes himself as “unemployable” in an interview with Jake Halpern, hinting at a blame for the recently heightened popular consciousness of discrimination rather than for his own behaviors; see

New Yorker, Aug. 2015
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop

9639

Another episode in the melodrama on paramilitarized law enforcement I’ve watched all my life. I remember when cops wore blue caps and carried revolvers. Now they belt on a large-caliber automatic pistol and 12- to 15-round magazine to finish up a uniform in Ninja black. Must one even harbor communist leanings to be disgusted by this evolution? Witness a bourgeoisie determined to impose its will on public streets come hell or high water, possessed little vision of how to do so with reasonable tact.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 23:09

The official report makes for interesting reading between the lines. I concede the general legitimacy of having peace officers on the street, as well Mr. Brown’s culpability in the altercation at the police SUV which started events. Had he been killed here I might have a different opinion on the case; racist policing patterns don’t imply every adverse encounter between police and a black civilian entails bias, though a lot of them apparently do. Earlier (post #72, p. 4) I observed that Mr. Brown was hardly a Bambi character.

DOJ Report on Brown shooting, Mar. 2015
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

What clinches the nexus of racist groupthink for me is that Mr. Brown fled and Officer Wilson pursued him. I think Wilson became angered and decided to exact retribution under color of law. His statement in the report that he considered Brown more dangerous to bystanders than an immediate shootout might be is difficult to believe. Wilson did not know whether Brown was armed, but it seems likely Brown would have simply continued to run until away from the area if not chased down. I doubt such a level of pursuit and stopping force would have been employed in a theft/simple assault had Brown been a bad white kid in a nicer neighborhood.

One notes that bystanders were indeed close at hand as bullets flew from Officer Wilson’s gun. Should we consider this hazardous, perhaps even a disregard for the safety of the innocent? The misses traveled at roughly shoulder level above ground in a scene with an officer lacking time to determine whether the field was clear downrange, who wouldn’t need to open fire a second time had he elected to refrain from pursuit and wait for backup. Precisely what most officers are trained to do when alone after physical exchange with a suspect. While we picture Wilson serving his ten-round volley, let us recall that bullets can also retain lethal velocity after passing through a target, especially given today’s higher propellant charges. One projectile fragment was recovered from the exterior wall of a nearby apartment house.

Wilson’s biography includes a prior history of racist involvements at Ferguson and on the police force in neighboring Jennings, where he was dismissed alongside the rest of his colleagues in a reorganization of police service by a new city government. Post Ferguson ground zero, he describes himself as “unemployable” in an interview with Jake Halpern, hinting at a blame for the recently heightened popular consciousness of discrimination rather than for his own behaviors; see

New Yorker, Aug. 2015
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop

9639

Another episode in the melodrama on paramilitarized law enforcement I’ve watched all my life. I remember when cops wore blue caps and carried revolvers. Now they belt on a large-caliber automatic pistol and 12- to 15-round magazine to finish up a uniform in Ninja black. Must one even harbor communist leanings to be disgusted by this evolution? Witness a bourgeoisie determined to impose its will on public streets come hell or high water, possessed little vision of how to do so with reasonable tact.

Here is the crux of the issue, no evidence for your claims. If the roles were reversed and Mike brown was up on murder charges for killing Officer Wilson and the only thing the prosecution could say was, we think he did it, socialists would be going ballistic about injustice and railroading etc.

We have proof the testimony was fake, the accounts could not be true the autopsy and forensic evidence debunk them. There is no case to make, the shooting was legal and justifiable.

Spectre of Spartacism

10th August 2015, 23:12

To Hezadukii.

The reality is that nobody knows whether Michael Brown grabbed for the officer's gun. What we do know based only on cases selected from the past few months, is that officers routinely murder people of color, lie about it after the fact in their reports to justify their actions, and sometimes even get their partners and other police to corroborate their lies.

We also know that the reason Brown was ever confronted in the first place was not that he assaulted a storekeeper (something he did do). He was confronted because impoverished neighborhoods inhabited primarily by people of color are heavily patrolled by the bourgeois state, with the agents of that state frequently harassing residents there for petty things like jaywalking that an affluent white person in an upscale neighborhood could only strain to imagine happening to him. We also know that the way the grand jury worked in the case of Brown was slanted even more heavily by the pro-cop, son-of-a-slain-cop DA than it normally is. Add all of that up and look at the totality of the situation and what you get is Brown, his family, and his neighbors being just the latest victims of capitalism's many millions, billions, of victims worldwide.

The reason people are angry at you isn't, if you ask me, that you suggested there was a possibility that Brown grabbed for the officer's gun (it is a possibility). Why people are not being particularly nice to you is that you assume the police officers' side of the story, which is sort of like assuming by default that rape allegations made by women are false rather than the reverse, regardless of the obviousness that we don't lock people away purely on assumptions. It is also because you are trying to look only at the specific details of the case without accounting for the meaning those details have within the wider context of class society.

BIXX

10th August 2015, 23:25

So if a woman reported domestic abuse and she had a similar mark on her would you be declaring she obviously lying and was not worthy of belief?
Have you read the officers statement? It's full of contradictions. Like, 100% c;ntradicts itself.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 23:53

Have you read the officers statement? It's full of contradictions. Like, 100% c;ntradicts itself.

So before when I talked about witnesses testimony being provably false everyone went "oh you can't expect someone who went through such a harrowing experience to not contradict themselves"

Now though the police officer supposedly contradicts himself it is time to release the hounds. This is the issue, massive bias, inherent in every post.

Hezadukii92

10th August 2015, 23:59

Spectre of Spartacism

11th August 2015, 00:11

So I should assume He is guilty because he is a cop and he shot a black guy ? How would you respond if someone aid we should assume Brown was guilty because he was a large black male with a criminal record?

Your default switch should be on assuming the side of the categorical victims against their categorical victimizers. This doesn't mean that the assumption should pass muster as evidence in a specific encounter between the two in a legal proceeding, but if you make the reverse assumption in an ambiguous case, don't be surprised when people begin to arch their eyebrows and make their own assumptions about the kind of person you are.

In cases where concrete facts are less than clear, people's biases one way or the other will predominate. You point fingers at others for those biases while ignoring your own. The difference is that their bias lies toward the person far more likely to be the victim, if not in the details immediately surrounding this specific incident, then in the vast array of determinations that landed those two individuals on that Ferguson street that hot August afternoon.

And people are being rude because they can't bare to be exposed to another opinion, especially one based on actual facts that completely disprove the initial testimony, hands up don't shoot, he was shot in the back etc etc.

Mike Brown dehumanised and robbed a worker in a store, he then attacked a police officer. He was shot and killed.

Mike brown is not Walter Scott or Tamir Rice and no amount of lies will change the facts of the incident. The truth is what matter not that you hate cops so this cop is guilty, that is not how a functioning fucking legal system works.There is evidence Mike Brown attacked a worker in the store and robbed him. I don't see anybody here defending that. There is no evidence that Brown attacked the police officer, because the evidence you present could also be evidence that Brown was trying to protect himself against an overzealous officer. It turns out that is what another eyewitness account in the case claims.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 00:23

Your default switch should be on assuming the side of the categorical victims against their categorical victimizers. This doesn't mean that the assumption should pass muster as evidence in a specific encounter between the two in a legal proceeding, but if you make the reverse assumption in an ambiguous case, don't be surprised when people begin to arch their eyebrows and make their own assumptions about the kind of person you are.

In cases where concrete facts are less than clear, people's biases one way or the other will predominate. You point fingers at others for those biases while ignoring your own. The difference is that their bias lies toward the person far more likely to be the victim, if not in the details immediately surrounding this specific incident, then in the vast array of determinations that landed those two individuals on that Ferguson street that hot August afternoon.

There is evidence Mike Brown attacked a worker in the store and robbed him. I don't see anybody here defending that. There is no evidence that Brown attacked the police officer, because the evidence you present could also be evidence that Brown was trying to protect himself against an overzealous officer. It turns out that is what another eyewitness account in the case claims.

No I should be unbiased when judging guilt and rely on evidence and facts. What you are saying is simply unworkable in any society where citizens have basic fundamental rights.

The entire premise brown was running away from Officer Lewis despite forensic evidence ruling that out, despite the autopsy exposing him being shot in the back with his hands up was a blatant lie.

Rather than confront the truth, that people got whipped into a frenzy over false witness statement, the far left would rather pretend the autopsy didn't exist, would rather pretend, the witness testimony was provably false, they want to basically ignore all the facts and simply say they think the cop murdered a black man and believe he should be sent to prison for the rest of his life, despite the evidence clearly showing he was not guilty.

Spectre of Spartacism

11th August 2015, 00:26

No I should be unbiased when judging guilt and rely on evidence and facts. What you are saying is simply unworkable in any society where citizens have basic fundamental rights.

The entire premise brown was running away from Officer Lewis despite forensic evidence ruling that out, despite the autopsy exposing him being shot in the back with his hands up was a blatant lie.

Rather than confront the truth, that people got whipped into a frenzy over false witness statement, the far left would rather pretend the autopsy didn't exist, would rather pretend, the witness testimony was provably false, they want to basically ignore all the facts and simply say they think the cop murdered a black man and believe he should be sent to prison for the rest of his life, despite the evidence clearly showing he was not guilty.

You claim you should rely on evidence and facts, but the evidence regarding whether Brown reached for the officer's gun or initiated an attack against the officer is ambiguous, basically just the conflicting accounts of the eyewitnesses.

You have consistently gone beyond what that evidence has shown to condemn Brown for things not in evidence, because of your biases. Biases that do exist and don't look particularly leftist to be honest.

Hatshepsut

11th August 2015, 00:27

Also why has this case not got far more outrage or a conviction for the police officer? Unarmed white kid on police cam gunned down. Almost zero media coverage, was this racially motivated?

No, not racial, but class. And yes, police aggressiveness is perennial. I don't want to take the thread off topic; this certainly deserves a thread of its own: Police as tool on the home front of imperialism, making the city safe for a dainty bourgeoisie in ostrich-plume hats who live in gated communities anyway. Or more likely a concern over public image; the USA wishes to brag about its spotless streets to the rest of the world.

White people get shot in the class war by police using excessive force, too, only it never gets beyond the local alt-weekly. I think this is because while bourgeois media has chosen to allow candid race discussion as a social safety valve, parallel discussion on the class war is limited mainly to the topic of income inequality, the uglier aspects left out.

In Utah, law enforcement fashion seems to call for shooting unarmed white drivers in their cars after the vehicles have come to rest. For instance, in Salt Lake City Weekly,

Wade Pennington, May 28, 2009, highway chase. (died, officers cleared)
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/shoot-first/Content?oid=2151180

Danielle Willard, Nov. 22, 2012, parking lot of drug house. (died, lawsuit settled)
http://www.cityweekly.net/TheDailyFeed/archives/2015/02/05/danielle-willard-wrongful-death-lawsuit-settled-for-14-million

Kristine Biggs, Nov. 24, 2012, highway chase. (survived with loss of eye)
http://e.cityweekly.net/cityweekly/2013/01/24/?g=print#?article=1792598

For blacks this is worse: They can get shot over both race and class. And they do: more than twice as frequently per capita as the general population, if one relies on the following chart. No comprehensive official stats on killing by cops are kept; the FBI tabulates about 400 per year total. Note the chart makes no claims on whether any or all of these shootings were justifiable. But it does show why races should band together on the issue.

9643

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th August 2015, 00:32

Did you completely miss where I also mentioned my black partner and her entire family and the incident where they all expressed it plus black entertainers talking about it not as stand up material but in serious conversation on the radio etc. But it is much easier to take bits out and take them out of context, right?

Oh, sorry, your black partner and her entire family laughed at that, I'm sure this completely erases the history of racist capitalism in America and the role of the police as enforcers of bourgeois rule, which in the US means murderous oppression of black workers.

Because you're so extra reasonable, unlike those dogmatic leftists. We've never heard that one! Oh you're so un-dogmatic, so brave defending Officer Wilson, always capitalising the Officer.

And of course you never answered the important point - as socialists, we don't extend any credibility to bourgeois courts in matters such as this. The state is not neutral. Of course, since you don't appear to be a socialist of any kind, that you don't recognise this is hardly surprising.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 00:34

You claim you should rely on evidence and facts, but the evidence regarding whether Brown reached for the officer's gun or initiated an attack against the officer is ambiguous, basically just the conflicting accounts of the eyewitnesses.

You have consistently gone beyond what that evidence has shown to condemn Brown for things not in evidence, because of your biases. Biases that do exist and don't look particularly leftist to be honest.

So there is evidence that brown assaulted the officer but no conclusive proof he went for the gun. So then you would have to find insufficient grounds to charge Wilson with murder then, free legal systems don run on the idea you have to prove innocence and merely proving brown committed a robbery and assault then an assault on an officer is leaning extremely heavily to the fact that brown went for the officers gun, even if you ignore witness testimony.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 00:37

Oh, sorry, your black partner and her entire family laughed at that, I'm sure this completely erases the history of racist capitalism in America and the role of the police as enforcers of bourgeois rule, which in the US means murderous oppression of black workers.

Because you're so extra reasonable, unlike those dogmatic leftists. We've never heard that one! Oh you're so un-dogmatic, so brave defending Officer Wilson, always capitalising the Officer.

And of course you never answered the important point - as socialists, we don't extend any credibility to bourgeois courts in matters such as this. The state is not neutral. Of course, since you don't appear to be a socialist of any kind, that you don't recognise this is hardly surprising.

No you personally don't, like you don't I take it support bourgeois wars, however Marx supported the North in the civil war. Basically taking a mindless robotic pred determined stance on anything makes you an idiot.

I would not advise you to do that.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 00:39

No, not racial, but class. And yes, police aggressiveness is perennial. I don't want to take the thread off topic; this certainly deserves a thread of its own: Police as tool on the home front of imperialism, making the city safe for a dainty bourgeoisie in ostrich-plume hats who live in gated communities anyway. Or more likely a concern over public image; the USA wishes to brag about its spotless streets to the rest of the world.

White people get shot in the class war by police using excessive force, too, only it never gets beyond the local alt-weekly. I think this is because while bourgeois media has chosen to allow candid race discussion as a social safety valve, parallel discussion on the class war is limited mainly to the topic of income inequality, the uglier aspects left out.

In Utah, law enforcement fashion seems to call for shooting unarmed white drivers in their cars after the vehicles have come to rest. For instance, in Salt Lake City Weekly,

Wade Pennington, May 28, 2009, highway chase. (died, officers cleared)
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/shoot-first/Content?oid=2151180

Danielle Willard, Nov. 22, 2012, parking lot of drug house. (died, lawsuit settled)
http://www.cityweekly.net/TheDailyFeed/archives/2015/02/05/danielle-willard-wrongful-death-lawsuit-settled-for-14-million

Kristine Biggs, Nov. 24, 2012, highway chase. (survived with loss of eye)
http://e.cityweekly.net/cityweekly/2013/01/24/?g=print#?article=1792598

For blacks this is worse: They can get shot over both race and class. And they do: more than twice as frequently per capita as the general population, if one relies on the following chart. No comprehensive official stats on killing by cops are kept; the FBI tabulates about 400 per year total. Note the chart makes no claims on whether any or all of these shootings were justifiable. But it does show why races should band together on the issue.

9643

Right but you can't simply use probability to determine someones guilt without evidence. Ironically this is what racist conservatives do to imprison black people with insufficient evidence, they cite black crime statistics relative to their population size etc.

Using statistics to try and cast guilt upon someone in criminal proceedings is despicable, stop doing it, everyone.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th August 2015, 00:43

No you personally don't, like you don't I take it support bourgeois wars, however Marx supported the North in the civil war. Basically taking a mindless robotic pred determined stance on anything makes you an idiot.

I would not advise you to do that.

Ah, of course, how could we have been so blind, we've been taking mindless robotic pred (sic) determined stances all this time, thankfully another selfless saviour, the consummate anti-dogmatist, has appeared to rescue us from our... listen, you're not as original or clever as you think. People like you are a dime a dozen, and the liberal bromides you're selling were stale in Marx's time. We refuse to put any trust in the bourgeois state both because of its proven record of manipulating evidence and because we understand that the state is an instrument of class rule. Whereas you don't tell us what you consider the state to be, probably because it would make your stay on this site quite short.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 00:48

Ah, of course, how could we have been so blind, we've been taking mindless robotic pred (sic) determined stances all this time, thankfully another selfless saviour, the consummate anti-dogmatist, has appeared to rescue us from our... listen, you're not as original or clever as you think. People like you are a dime a dozen, and the liberal bromides you're selling were stale in Marx's time. We refuse to put any trust in the bourgeois state both because of its proven record of manipulating evidence and because we understand that the state is an instrument of class rule. Whereas you don't tell us what you consider the state to be, probably because it would make your stay on this site quite short.

You put trust in the bourgeois state when you support a rape victim prosecuting her rapist or you pay taxes or you use public education or welfare. Stop the self aggrandisement and flagellation.

We get it you are unique and not a liberal, congrats, believe it or not that isn't exactly original, in fact it is entirely unoriginal. You have all your stances ready made. I have to think about mine for myself.

I am sure you will jump right back in with some more snazzy one liners and grand summaries of what you are so nobly against. Looking forward to hearing the great content of your posts.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th August 2015, 00:56

You put trust in the bourgeois state when you support a rape victim prosecuting her rapist or you pay taxes or you use public education or welfare. Stop the self aggrandisement and flagellation.

Never!

We aren't talking about rape, and we're not talking about paying taxes - the notion that paying taxes constitutes political support for the bourgeois state being a particularly daft one. We are talking about the state going through the motions of prosecuting one of its own enforcers. If the rest of us need to repeat the basic socialist line that the police are enforcers of class rule and the state is not a neutral arbiter, it's because the notion has not yet gone through your skull. And it probably won't, since you sound about as socialist as the average Republican voter.

We get it you are unique and not a liberal, congrats, believe it or not that isn't exactly original, in fact it is entirely unoriginal. You have all your stances ready made. I have to think about mine for myself.

Oh you poor dear, does it hurt? How are you thinking for yourself again, by upholding the faith that the state is a neutral arbiter in cases such as these? By going on about poor Officer Wilson? Some thought.

And of course my positions aren't original. Unlike you, though, I don't make an arse out of myself by posting these self-aggrandising spiels about how you Think for Yourself whereas everyone opposed to you Takes Predetermined Stances.

Spectre of Spartacism

11th August 2015, 00:58

So there is evidence that brown assaulted the officer but no conclusive proof he went for the gun. So then you would have to find insufficient grounds to charge Wilson with murder then, free legal systems don run on the idea you have to prove innocence and merely proving brown committed a robbery and assault then an assault on an officer is leaning extremely heavily to the fact that brown went for the officers gun, even if you ignore witness testimony.

There is no evidence Brown "assaulted" the officer, if you use the legal definition of assault as excluding cases of self-defense. Or rather, the evidence is ambiguous, as I said, because of the conflicting eyewitness testimony. You assume the cop was telling the truth. That is your bias.

Hatshepsut

11th August 2015, 01:39

Here is the crux of the issue, no evidence for your claims. If the roles were reversed and Mike brown was up on murder charges for killing Officer Wilson and the only thing the prosecution could say was, we think he did it, socialists would be going ballistic about injustice and railroading etc...

...as would anyone who favors due process. But I made no claims of fact outside the two sources I linked to, the Department of Justice investigation and Wilson's own statements to a journalist at the New Yorker. You may peruse these at post #157, p. 8 if desired. I inferred prior racist ideology in Mr. Wilson based on what he said to Halpern in the New Yorker, and anger from the intensity of the struggle in the driver's seat. There is of course uncertainty when doing that; mind reading hasn't been invented yet. That's why I prefaced the relevant sentence (bolded in your quotation of it) with the words "I think that..." The rest is based on what DOJ says happened.

I also identified the pursuit and gun-down outside the SUV as the actual wrong, not the initial encounter while Wilson was still in the vehicle. Although police had a legal right to stop Brown, doing so in this manner cannot be justified given the circumstances. Waiting for backup in order to effect arrest in a less violent manner was required, morally and possibly by law. Diving into the business of defending Mr. Brown goes beyond the scope of this thread and isn't the project of communist advocacy for that matter. This a larger issue, one where I feel racism, alongside the resulting historical resentments in the black and white communities both, are dividing wedges that help keep capital firmly on top of our globe.

We see an ultimate hypocrisy where Crippie drive-by shootings are molded into trope yet a lawman spraying lead at high noon in a black district with bystanders outdoors and apartment house windows all around garners a confetti parade on Fox News.

#FF0000

11th August 2015, 03:21

Every single claim of wrongdoing has been shown to be fabricated or forensically debunked. Hands up don't shoot for example might be catchy, but it does not describe the situation at all. It was made up, by a people who later admitted they had not seen the incident.

Popping in to tell you that you're just factually wrong about this and this statement betrays an ignorance of what the witness testimonies actually consisted of. You didn't see them yourself -- you clearly only read about them, because because most of ones that still check out supported the cases against Wilson. No one saw Brown charge the officer except for 4 witnesses -- none of whom were in a position to see the situation to begin with, and one of whom actually wasn't in the neighborhood at all, but was a delusional racist who said in her original statement to police that she was in the neighborhood so see could observe black people and learn to see them as human.

Tim Redd

11th August 2015, 03:37

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2845406#post2845406)
Says a confused, immature activist probably of the Trot variety.

thats the second time ive been accused of being a trot in the last month wtf?

Because Trots tend to place an overemphasis on the ideal, or maximum program in most instances. They do this rather than like Maoists unite with what's progressive in a movement that might have reformist aspects and using the events in that struggle to educate that masses, esp. the advanced, to see that revolution is the real ultimate solution.

Traditional Trots like Sparticist League (vs the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)) tend to downplay or ignore the possibilities for using all opposition to various aspect of capitalism to educate the masses in revolutionary theory and use the present movement to strengthen the overall struggle for proletarian revolution.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

11th August 2015, 04:12

Because Trots tend to place an overemphasis on the ideal, or maximum program in most instances. They do this rather than like Maoists unite with what's progressive in a movement that might have reformist aspects and using the events in that struggle to educate that masses, esp. the advanced, to see that revolution is the real ultimate solution.

Traditional Trots like Sparticist League (vs the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)) tend to downplay or ignore the possibilities for using all opposition to various aspect of capitalism to educate the masses in revolutionary theory and use the present movement to strengthen the overall struggle for proletarian revolution.

Sure, and if we beat the dead horse of the popular front enough, by the magic of Bob Avakian Thought the horse will become alive again, and the "overall struggle for proletarian revolution" will be strengthened, as demonstrated by the incredible success of the popular front in Nepal, in Iran, in Greece and so on.

willowtooth

11th August 2015, 04:15

is the asshole gone? holy fuck 80 posts of pure bullshit in one day that's gotta be a new revleft record

willowtooth

11th August 2015, 04:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2845406#post2845406)
Says a confused, immature activist probably of the Trot variety.

Because Trots tend to place an overemphasis on the ideal, or maximum program in most instances. They do this rather than like Maoists unite with what's progressive in a movement that might have reformist aspects and using the events in that struggle to educate that masses, esp. the advanced, to see that revolution is the real ultimate solution.

Traditional Trots like Sparticist League (vs the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)) tend to downplay or ignore the possibilities for using all opposition to various aspect of capitalism to educate the masses in revolutionary theory and use the present movement to strengthen the overall struggle for proletarian revolution.

that's a bit extreme don't you think? Did Mao really ally with everyone in opposition to capitalism? Is that really a good idea? Hitler was technically against capitalism atleast in talk, didn't he used to ramble about the evil of the "international jewery of capitalism" or something? were maoists and nazis ever allies?

The black panthers were mostly maoist. Were they allies with neo-nazis in america?

Spectre of Spartacism

11th August 2015, 04:33

that's a bit extreme don't you think? Did Mao really ally with everyone in opposition to capitalism?

As a matter of fact, Mao allied with quite a few people who were pro-capitalist, or were even capitalist themselves. Look at his three worlds theory. Like all variants of Stalinism, Maoism ultimately reduces down to a nationalist bureaucracy maneuvering and forming alliances with other nationalist bureaucracies including those among capitalist states.

Hatshepsut

11th August 2015, 04:49

Right but you can't simply use probability to determine someones guilt without evidence. Ironically this is what racist conservatives do to imprison black people with insufficient evidence, they cite black crime statistics relative to their population size etc. Using statistics to try and cast guilt upon someone in criminal proceedings is despicable, stop doing it, everyone.

No one’s gone to criminal court that I know of; a sample of three ain’t a stat case anyhow. Yet City Weekly, a bourgeois publication, found these shootings all questionable. Not that the victims weren’t doing crimes, but in the necessity of the shootings when none were armed or claimed to be reaching for weapons. Instead, they did things that anger cops, like ramming their cars at low speed when boxed in at the end of a chase. The lady whose family won a settlement was just trying to flee a parking lot in her car with her small stash of drugs.

[A]s socialists, we don't extend any credibility to bourgeois courts in matters such as this. The state is not neutral...

...but fraught with politically convenient guess regarding what only the gods know now. Unlike some contributors, I’m willing to place limited credibility in DOJ and court sources even though they are slanted. It’s too difficult to lie about everything; hence bourgeois institutions will apply torque to facts in a selective way. I consider it established that Brown did punch Wilson and grab the officer’s gun hand and/or gun. But when, and why? Was it like the cop told DOJ:

Wilson warned Brown to stop or he was going to shoot him. Brown stated, “You are too much of a pussy to shoot” (DOJ Report, pp. 13-14),

here grabbing the gun? Or did he grab it in fear, in an effort to keep Wilson from shooting him as the officer grinned or scowled and drew the pistol? It goes to show that we have way too many guns in unqualified private hands and way too many heavily armed, often racist cops chasing people around. Everyone’s finger’s on the trigger in this powder keg, all wondering who’s strapped. Racism makes it that much easier to pull those triggers first, asking the questions only later.

What we do know based only on cases selected from the past few months, is that officers routinely murder people of color, lie about it after the fact in their reports to justify their actions, and sometimes even get their partners and other police to corroborate their lies....[T]he way the grand jury worked in the case of Brown was slanted even more heavily by the pro-cop, son-of-a-slain-cop DA than it normally is.

Yes. Please bring those buckets of whitewash right up, we need ’em quick. Personal testimony by the accused? And so on. A rather inflated grand jury proceeding, I'd say.

The entire premise brown was running away from Officer Lewis despite forensic evidence ruling that out, despite the autopsy exposing him being shot in the back with his hands up was a blatant lie.

No, I don’t take the witnesses at face value either, expecting they’ll circle wagons for one of their own. But the fact witnesses were there indicates people on the street and behind windows downrange of the business end of a pistol pumping a lot of lead that day. A bullet hit a residence. Already enough to show an armed pursuit was improper given that Brown was wounded and could be bagged later in a more favorable venue, like an ER. I sniff a lot of racism around Ferguson and some of those other towns, going back a ways, which makes me suspicious whether Wilson’s actually guilty of a criminal act or not.

I’m hearing the autopsy shows Brown wasn’t shot in the back. True, the torso wounds were frontal. But one wound was perpendicular through the top of his skull, which suggests a face-down posture bent at the waist. There’s one problematic autopsy finding for me. And from the horse’s mouth:

Given the mobility of the arm, it is impossible to determine the position of the body relative to the shooter at the time the arm wounds were inflicted. Therefore, the autopsy results do not indicate whether Brown was facing Wilson or had his back to him (DOJ Report, p. 19)

when his arm was struck. Did getting hit there motivate Brown to turn and face Wilson? I’m not gonna say it’s so absent evidence, yet what I do see is a shooting that wouldn’t have taken place absent racism and the fear this poison generates.

#FF0000

11th August 2015, 07:28

is the asshole gone? holy fuck 80 posts of pure bullshit in one day that's gotta be a new revleft record

Spoiler alert: I actually just joined yesterday.

#FF0000

11th August 2015, 07:33

No, I don’t take the witnesses at face value either, expecting they’ll circle wagons for one of their own

I live in a pretty small community and people here don't think that way, though. Obvs you can't take what witnesses say at face value but when you have (iirc) 11 different people who are only general acquaintances with each other giving separate testimonies that all match on key points, it's pretty safe to say that you've got a rough picture of how things happened. Eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable but when you have 11 of them giving a similar story, chances are they aren't far from the truth.

Also it's been a long, long time since I've looked into this case at all but I don't remember anything about Mike Brown ever fleeing. I do remember that most of the witnesses said he had his hands up when he was finally killed, though (there was even a video, not of the shooting itself but of two white cablemen who witnessing it and reacted to the shooting, exclaiming "he had his arms up!" and raising their arms as the last shots were fired).

Honestly tho if anyone buys the police's story on this, one is missing a large chunk of their brain and needs to get that sorted.

StromboliFucker666

11th August 2015, 09:30

Hatshepsut

11th August 2015, 12:22

Eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable but when you have 11 of them giving a similar story, chances are they aren't far from the truth...Honestly tho if anyone buys the police's story on this, one is missing a large chunk of their brain and needs to get that sorted.

I don't really buy the cop shop version either, other than that it wasn't planned in advance. The whole thing is a diversion anyway. Fatal police shootings are relatively rare; the bourgeoisie currently prefers to rob people than to shoot them. They rob blacks through predatory lending, substandard employment arrangements, price gouging, rent gouging, turning off the heat in the winter, millions of times a year. Not to mention Incarceration Nation, a penal edifice that's coming to resemble a set of kinder, gentler Sachsenhausens and Ravensbrücks, incidentally undergoing privatization.

This x 1000If the rich class actually cared, we would not even need a revolution. We could just tell them all the problems that capitalism has and they would relinquish their power. However this is not the case.

Palace intrigues and arsenic tell us how much the rich and powerful care about members of their own families, much less the commoners in the world beneath their sandals. It's been like that since 3000 BC or so. Only today the CEO and hedge fund manager have replaced ancient Egypt's Nesubitty. And each new system has been more effective at penetrating and exploiting the economy than its predecessors.

Hezadukii92

11th August 2015, 14:24

I live in a pretty small community and people here don't think that way, though. Obvs you can't take what witnesses say at face value but when you have (iirc) 11 different people who are only general acquaintances with each other giving separate testimonies that all match on key points, it's pretty safe to say that you've got a rough picture of how things happened. Eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable but when you have 11 of them giving a similar story, chances are they aren't far from the truth.

Also it's been a long, long time since I've looked into this case at all but I don't remember anything about Mike Brown ever fleeing. I do remember that most of the witnesses said he had his hands up when he was finally killed, though (there was even a video, not of the shooting itself but of two white cablemen who witnessing it and reacted to the shooting, exclaiming "he had his arms up!" and raising their arms as the last shots were fired).

Honestly tho if anyone buys the police's story on this, one is missing a large chunk of their brain and needs to get that sorted.

The DOJ found that those witnesses who claimed brown had his hands up were not credible and had not even seen the incident only the aftermath. Those same witnesses were claiming Brown was finished off execution style with a bullet to the head.

That was then taken back by them as soon as they realised oh, there is no bullet wound matching that claim so it is impossible to keep claiming that. Then the main witness Dorian was claiming Brown was shit in the back, what a surprise not true, autopsy showed he had not been shot in the back.

Whatever anyone says all the autopsy reports and forensic evidence points to this being a justified shooting. If you are inherently against cop because you are socialists and against the state fine, pull all cops out of that area, you would be abandoning all the black people there to the criminal gangs that are victimising the community.

This is what happened in L.A too. and Chicago. The cops backed off and basically let areas have very low police presence. The community got massively angry claiming they don't get the same protection white areas do. So the police cracked down and set up presences and targeted gang members and trouble areas and what happened? Crime went down it got safer. Liberals went crazy about police militarisation.

Any reform BLM gets will be working in a capitalism system with the state. They are not communists and they are not if favour of the abolition of the state. So what can they do? If they support the premise of police and the state but jut don't want cops to ever use their firearms on people attacking them and others? Well that just seems incredibly unrealistic.

Counterculturalist

11th August 2015, 15:44

Whatever anyone says all the autopsy reports and forensic evidence points to this being a justified shooting. If you are inherently against cop because you are socialists and against the state fine, pull all cops out of that area, you would be abandoning all the black people there to the criminal gangs that are victimising the community.

This is what happened in L.A too. and Chicago. The cops backed off and basically let areas have very low police presence. The community got massively angry claiming they don't get the same protection white areas do. So the police cracked down and set up presences and targeted gang members and trouble areas and what happened? Crime went down it got safer. Liberals went crazy about police militarisation.

You're starting from the premise that crime happens because of a lack of police presence, and the only way to curb it is to increase police presence, and strengthen the level of force that police can use.

There are many problems with this, the first being that the police operate as guardians of private property, capital and the state, not as friends of the people. Part of their reason for existence involves keeping members of poor communities powerless by attacking them, dividing them, terrorizing them, locking them up, and killing them. This is not a commentary on any cop's individual character or motivation for joining the force, but it is an accurate description of the police as an institution. Because of America's history, poverty and racism are inextricably linked. Thus, the police force is by definition an occupying force that targets and attacks African Americans.

Crime rates don't depend on the amount of officers that patrol any given neighborhood. Crime accompanies poverty, whether or not cops are out there cracking heads for minor offenses. Did killing Michael Brown do anything to curb gang violence? Of course not.

The solution to crime is ending poverty, not bringing the state's lapdogs in to brutalize people. Poverty can only end when a socialist revolution reorganizes society.

Haze92

11th August 2015, 15:47

Cliff Paul

11th August 2015, 16:24

Some pathetic mod just banned me for sexism and rape apologism. Basically the far left won't tolerate you have a different opinions and will ban you for having them by making up claims with no evidence.

Mo wonder you guys want to send a man to prison for life for something you have no evidence of.

I guess you were banned for defending dolphin rape... idk. You didn't really do a very good job at pretending to be a leftist but maybe if you weren't so damn annoying you would have only been restricted and not banned.

Hatshepsut

11th August 2015, 19:22

So, banhammers back in their sheaths and all letters to the dead mailed, how do we Radicalize BLM? One of the banned has said BLM is hardly revolutionary and I agree with that assessment. I think it's already in process of co-optation. It'll look like something's being done for black people whilst the rent gouging, utility shutoffs, payday loans, and sweepage into the maw of our lovely incarcerative institutions continues unabated.

John Nada

11th August 2015, 20:55

that's a bit extreme don't you think? Did Mao really ally with everyone in opposition to capitalism? Is that really a good idea? Hitler was technically against capitalism atleast in talk, didn't he used to ramble about the evil of the "international jewery of capitalism" or something? were maoists and nazis ever allies?Marxism-Leninism-Maoism really only emerged in the late-80's early-90's. Before that it was either anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism or called Mao Zedong-thought. Kind of like how Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky weren't Leninist, they were just Marxists, and Mao was just a Marxist-Leninist.

Maoists don't agree 100% with Mao or the PRC(don't agree at all with the PRC after Deng took over). They don't believe that bullshit "three worlds theory", that's more Deng's opportunistic pet theory, and think capitalism was restored in a coup led by Deng Xiaoping after Mao's death.

Mao and the CCP were in an anti-imperialist united front(led by the proletariat) against fascism and imperialism. Fascist Imperial Japan(co-founder of the fascist Anti-Comintern Alliance with Nazi Germany) was their mortal enemy. Any alliance with the bourgeois factions, such as the Kuomintang post-Shanghai massacre in the Second United Front, was out of the desperate circumstances of the war. And a couple Generals even had to kidnap the Kuomintang's leader Chiang and force him to agree to it. Even after the formation of the Anti-Japan United Front, the Communist and the Kuomintang clashed a lot. They did not liquidate themselves into the Kuomintang and were de facto independent.

Imperialism held back China from developing a larger proletariat and trapped the peasants in near feudal oppression. China was basically a colony with a primitive countryside, hence it was semi-feudal, semi-colonial capitalism. The alliance the workers and peasants had with the petite and middle national bourgeoisie was to fight the feudal landlords, various warlords, the big-bourgeoisie, bureaucrats, imperialist invaders and the comprador(imperialist puppet) bourgeoisie. Those class enemies were propped up by imperialist-capitalist abroad and had no interest in developing the country beyond what benefited their imperialist backers in Japan, US and Europe. Those classes were the principle enemy of the proletariat and poor peasantry in semi-feudal, semi-colonial China.

At the same time, the bourgeoisie was divided between the not as rich national bourgeoisie(who wasn't getting rich off imperialism) and the comprador bourgeoisie(bourgeoisie allied with imperialist bourgeoisie). There was infighting in that class. In this instance the national bourgeoisie wavered between helping imperialism and fighting it. The national bourgoeisie faced ruin either way, so the CCP took advantage of that infighting in that class. The proletariat isn't the only class that can be divided and conquered. However it's unlikely that after the revolution, they'll go along with the proletarian socialist revolution. In that case, the proletariat and peasantry will fight them too.

This class alliance with the proletariat was for the minimum program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_programme) of the New Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. A phase similar to 1905 and 1917 February Revolution in Russia. After this, it supposed to move uninterrupted into maximum program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_programme) of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction.

The alliance with the national bourgeoisie was for the minimum program in a semi-feudal(capitalist and in the capitalist totality of the world, but some feudal hangovers) and semi-colonial(colony with some independence) country, New Democracy. In nations where capitalist features are predominate, or are "independent" if not imperialist, the minimum program(list of demands to lead up to the maximum demand of a socialist revolution) will be different. The US had its democratic revolution after the American Civil war. The proletariat is the supermajority AFAIK. The imperialist-bourgeoisie is thoroughly reactionary, and the petit-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy will waver between the proletariat and haute-bourgeoisie. So the US proletariat task would be a proletarian socialist revolution, not a new democratic one.
The black panthers were mostly maoist. Were they allies with neo-nazis in america?Hell no! Maybe that "New Black Panther Party", even then probably no. They're rightist who appropriated the name and have nothing to do with the original Black Panther Party.

Like I said, it was anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong-thought back then.
So, banhammers back in their sheaths and all letters to the dead mailed, how do we Radicalize BLM? One of the banned has said BLM is hardly revolutionary and I agree with that assessment. I think it's already in process of co-optation. It'll look like something's being done for black people whilst the rent gouging, utility shutoffs, payday loans, and sweepage into the maw of our lovely incarcerative institutions continues unabated.I'm not so sure we could do the radicalizing. Seems like the state is doing a good job at radicalizing it themselves.:lol: If the state doesn't even give some decent reforms, then they're not letting the pressure valve off. I can't see BLM turning reactionary, but it could continue to just be parochial but primarily reformist.

IMO to turn revolutionary it there would have to be another co-current movement also potentially radical to link up with. But it seems like everyone boxes each cause into different compartments. Labor(each sector, trade and even workplace no less), various minorities rights, women's rights, LGBTQ liberation, immigrant rights, anti-war, anti-imperialism, and environmentalism. It's all atomized, the dots aren't connected yet.

It's like the dominate NGO, often funded by the bourgeoisie(either out of charity, vanity or soft power), mimic the division of labor in commodity production onto their cause. The "commodity" being the NGO's services, the cause a target market. So you end up with something like different factories, different branches, different departements, different trade skills, or deskilled on an assembly line. The Spectacle playing out in a seemingly "progressive" way, but really the capitalist superstructure doing its thing.

Tim Redd

12th August 2015, 00:54

Sure, and if we beat the dead horse of the popular front enough, by the magic of Bob Avakian Thought the horse will become alive again, and the "overall struggle for proletarian revolution" will be strengthened, as demonstrated by the incredible success of the popular front in Nepal, in Iran, in Greece and so on.

Avakian is not magic, he's a narcissistic theoretical pretender. In reality he has been a role player on the Maoist team that has had others making greater overall theoretical innovations and contributions to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory. I am one of those theoretical personages. See Risparty.org. To the degree that Avakian fails to acknowledge the work of theoretical innovators and heinously tries to take credit for their ideas and works, as he does mine, Avakian is a negative force in the revolutionary struggle.

willowtooth

12th August 2015, 07:53

I guess you were banned for defending dolphin rape... idk. You didn't really do a very good job at pretending to be a leftist but maybe if you weren't so damn annoying you would have only been restricted and not banned. I knew that guy raped a dolphin, there was just something about his posts, as I was reading them I just kept thinking "this guy rapes fucking dolphins"

So, banhammers back in their sheaths and all letters to the dead mailed, how do we Radicalize BLM? One of the banned has said BLM is hardly revolutionary and I agree with that assessment. I think it's already in process of co-optation. It'll look like something's being done for black people whilst the rent gouging, utility shutoffs, payday loans, and sweepage into the maw of our lovely incarcerative institutions continues unabated.I think that assumes there is a strong central organization, which there isn't. Its more of a slogan, that three girls trademarked and started organizing under via the internet, its not like they have an office, or a president I did see Alicia Garza (one of the founders) speaking on msnbc the other night she seems pretty reasonable, but the entire black civil rights movement going on right now, is not centered around BLM but rather just co-opting their slogan and banners. which is how you get this fundy christian girl Marissa Johnson calling herself a founder and acting like a moron, because basically anyone could be a founder, im thinking about founding BLM Baghdad because all you need is twitter handle apparently lol

but she's not alone, the black community is insanely christian, and that is an element that will exist, no matter how hard you try to get rid of it. What BLM needs to do is design a logo with a big crucifix in the middle and outright call themselves christian, put a preacher in charge, and play the "holier then thou" game with white chritians on tv.

There needs to be a seperation between leftists and black christian organizations, the civil rights movement was led by black leftists and radicals, MLK was the "way out" so too speak for bourgeois white people. So they gave him a holiday and signed the civil rights act, but if it wasn't for groups like the black panthers or the NOI, the weather underground bombing the pentagon and the capitol building and bringing ak-47's to the CA state house, then they wouldn't have given 2 shits about MLK

DLF2H8jigPc

Hell no! Maybe that "New Black Panther Party", even then probably no. They're rightist who appropriated the name and have nothing to do with the original Black Panther Party.I know:grin: I was just saying the idea that we should ally with anyone who even hints at being anti capitalist or being vaguely leftist is a bad idea, because then why shouldn't we ally with hitler if thats the case

Like I said, it was anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong-thought back then.I'm not so sure we could do the radicalizing. Seems like the state is doing a good job at radicalizing it themselves.:lol: If the state doesn't even give some decent reforms, then they're not letting the pressure valve off. I can't see BLM turning reactionary, but it could continue to just be parochial but primarily reformist.could you then say that everyone who calls themselves moaist is actualy describing their tendency as something that was created years after mao and has little if anything too do with mao in china?

Sewer Socialist

13th August 2015, 22:43

To those complaining that BLM hasn't been sitting other candidates than Sanders: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/black-lives-matter-activists-interrupt-jeb-bush-rally-n409066

willowtooth

13th August 2015, 23:05

To those complaining that BLM hasn't been sitting other candidates than Sanders: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/black-lives-matter-activists-interrupt-jeb-bush-rally-n409066

i saw that too, why wasn't a single person chanting black lives matter actually black? are there no black people in vegas?

Hermes

13th August 2015, 23:19

I think that assumes there is a strong central organization, which there isn't. Its more of a slogan, that three girls trademarked and started organizing under via the internet, its not like they have an office, or a president I did see Alicia Garza (one of the founders) speaking on msnbc the other night she seems pretty reasonable, but the entire black civil rights movement going on right now, is not centered around BLM but rather just co-opting their slogan and banners. which is how you get this fundy christian girl Marissa Johnson calling herself a founder and acting like a moron, because basically anyone could be a founder, im thinking about founding BLM Baghdad because all you need is twitter handle apparently lol

but she's not alone, the black community is insanely christian, and that is an element that will exist, no matter how hard you try to get rid of it. What BLM needs to do is design a logo with a big crucifix in the middle and outright call themselves christian, put a preacher in charge, and play the "holier then thou" game with white chritians on tv.

There needs to be a seperation between leftists and black christian organizations, the civil rights movement was led by black leftists and radicals, MLK was the "way out" so too speak for bourgeois white people. So they gave him a holiday and signed the civil rights act, but if it wasn't for groups like the black panthers or the NOI, the weather underground bombing the pentagon and the capitol building and bringing ak-47's to the CA state house, then they wouldn't have given 2 shits about MLK

no offense, but I've seen several other people, as well as you, focusing mostly on the fact that she's some brand of christian, focusing on this and then using it to discredit the whole thing.

yeah, christianity is pretty awful, what exactly is your issue with their action? all you've done so far is called it moronic.

there are tons of criticisms you could make of the action, but focusing on the fact that one of the people who did it is christian isn't really substantive. could you also link to where she's called herself a co-founder of BLM? as far as I was aware, she was only ever identified as a co-founder of the local seattle 'chapter' of blm

John Nada

14th August 2015, 04:31

To those complaining that BLM hasn't been sitting other candidates than Sanders: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...-rally-n409066 i saw that too, why wasn't a single person chanting black lives matter actually black? are there no black people in vegas?11% of Las Vegans are black, but doubt many are Republican. Smaller pool there to draw from.

They meet and talked to Bush before the rally. Considering how awful Bush's father, brother, fascist grandfather and himself as Governor of Florida(a racist as fuck state) were to black Americans, they were easy on him, and he didn't address shit. And Bush was the one that signed the "Stand Your Ground" law that was used to defend Zimmerman after he murdered Trevon Martin. You know, where BLM started.:rolleyes:.

He said vague shit about "communities" just need more trust and civility that was for some strange reason lost a few years ago, and there's still racism(note he didn't specify if it's anti-black real racism or "reverse racism") but it's not that bad because kids can get an education and have a purpose in life. This postmodernism translated into English: "Black people need to pull themselves up by there bootstraps and stop complaining. Get a diploma and prove you're worthy of white people's respect. Reverse racism is just as bad if not worse.#AllLivesMatter". Bush just busted out the "dog whistle" supposedly right in front of BLM.:lol:

Both Bush-Clinton redux do this postmodern populist shit, hell all politicians do. Vague shit about how they're going to let you help yourself sometime in the future.

Hatshepsut

14th August 2015, 21:43

There needs to be a seperation between leftists and black christian organizations, the civil rights movement was led by black leftists and radicals, MLK was the "way out" so too speak for bourgeois white people. So they gave him a holiday and signed the civil rights act, but if it wasn't for groups like the black panthers or the NOI, the weather underground bombing the pentagon and the capitol building and bringing ak-47's to the CA state house, then they wouldn't have given 2 shits about MLK

The MLK analysis seems reasonable, although I don't favor separating movement fronts now, leaving each front powerless before Leviathan Capitalism. The bourgeoisie certainly didn't want militants to grow more numerous, so they handed out airline peanuts.

The Left today is largely an alliance of convenience I suspect. All are against the extant state, yet were that state to go belly up the Left would likely split. Some leftist tendencies are individualistic or family-oriented; others are communitarian. Anarchists and communists agree in a stateless ultimate end, but communists believe achieving that end will take a long time over an evolutionary process while anarchists think we're ready now.

I don't worry about an intra-Left war because I won't live to see it. Yet I think it's highly likely once the Reactionaries are defeated for good. The historical socialist bloc featured infighting. Despite that pessimism, I still feel we must have a united front. We'll never have a revolution in the first place under false consciousness, the non-class identity factors that keep the productive class divided with the capitalists on top. And Marxists won't be good allies if they insist on orthodoxy, denying reality to the lived viewpoints of the other tendencies while oppression persists.

Most of those other identity distinctions are creations of the class system. Even gender and sexual orientations are Class critters, because these are either subjugated to extract surplus value from their labor directly, or else the system markets their identities for profit as it's doing with LGBTQ. The bourgeoisie sells homophobia, misogyny, and rape, too, accumulating wealth off both ends of the candle. I think that in communism such distinctions would become irrelevant and persons would adopt whichever develops naturally for them.

willowtooth

14th August 2015, 21:57

no offense, but I've seen several other people, as well as you, focusing mostly on the fact that she's some brand of christian, focusing on this and then using it to discredit the whole thing.i didn't even know she was christian before i started making fun of it

yeah, christianity is pretty awful, what exactly is your issue with their action? all you've done so far is called it moronic.i don't have much of an issue really, just that its moronic. I don't think shes a bad person for doing this, but its just like the christian child fund network i mentioned earlier in the thread, sending them 50 cents a day too feed a random starving child somewhere in the world, will help save lives, but it's not going too solve the problem

there are tons of criticisms you could make of the action, but focusing on the fact that one of the people who did it is christian isn't really substantive. could you also link to where she's called herself a co-founder of BLM? as far as I was aware, she was only ever identified as a co-founder of the local seattle 'chapter' of blmyour saying this like im upset that this girl did this because its "besmirching the great and powerful BLM which must be preserved and cleansed of outsiders" lol or that bernie sanders a person who isn't even going too win an election, was wronged, im not saying that at all, what im saying is that BLM is as "organic" as Christianity in black civil rights movements, and they should be proud of that and wave a big shiny crucifix with a big dead jesus on it.

that way another leftist radical organization (black or not) can organize outside of churches, and BLM will save even more lives if they self identify as christian, and since their mostly being organized through churches now anyway its not that much of a change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOLPS-efw8 8:00 mark

willowtooth

15th August 2015, 20:00

11% of Las Vegans are black, but doubt many are Republican. Smaller pool there to draw from.they weren't repubs though? they were protesters, so there's also a million people in greater las vegas so over 100,000 black people could've shown up, but it seems only one actually did, plus this was in north las vegas which is 20% black and very ghetto

They meet and talked to Bush before the rally. they didn't actually meet with him, jeb bush just claimed that he did for some reason

Considering how awful Bush's father, brother, fascist grandfather and himself as Governor of Florida(a racist as fuck state) were to black Americans, they were easy on him, and he didn't address shit. And Bush was the one that signed the "Stand Your Ground" law that was used to defend Zimmerman after he murdered Trevon Martin. You know, where BLM started.:rolleyes:.
jeb bush signed stand your ground law in florida?????? lol holy fuck i cant wait till around march when this makes national news lol

yeah the whole bush family is shitty and Preston bush was a real life nazi who physically helped hitler and definitely deserved to be locked up in an internment camp far more than the majority of the Japanese that were in WW2

but still................................

jeb bush wont be the nominee, neither will trump, fiorina, or carson this is all just a rouse, a rodeo show, its a fake, a foolgazi, a fulagazi, its a wazi, its a woozy, its whatever the fuck you wanna call it, but its not real

walker, cruz, rubio maybe even kasich...... maybe but those other 4 are just a joke that nobody seems to be in on;)

He said vague shit about "communities" just need more trust and civility that was for some strange reason lost a few years ago, and there's still racism(note he didn't specify if it's anti-black real racism or "reverse racism") but it's not that bad because kids can get an education and have a purpose in life. This postmodernism translated into English: "Black people need to pull themselves up by there bootstraps and stop complaining. Get a diploma and prove you're worthy of white people's respect. Reverse racism is just as bad if not worse.#AllLivesMatter". Bush just busted out the "dog whistle" supposedly right in front of BLM.:lol:yeah of course he didn't address black lives matter if he says one word that supports women's rights, racial rights, or even supporting welfare he will be labelled a "RINO".... a traitor to this new half-assed conservative revolution that's currently going on, which i like too call "the blitzkreig of rascal scooters"......... if that makes any sense:wub:

Both Bush-Clinton redux do this postmodern populist shit, hell all politicians do. Vague shit about how they're going to let you help yourself sometime in the future.hey!!! until a few years ago clinton was officially black:grin:

willowtooth

15th August 2015, 20:55

The MLK analysis seems reasonable, although I don't favor separating movement fronts now, leaving each front powerless before Leviathan Capitalism. The bourgeoisie certainly didn't want militants to grow more numerous, so they handed out airline peanuts. so BLM is mainly a christian black rights organization that "exists" so what?

why do we need too radicalize them? there is alot of leftists in the USA who I would say need a new organization, but BLM certainly isn't it, suggesting its something new or important is just a reaction to the media coverage of a handful of people

a bunch of middle schoolers throw rocks its "BLM", yet at the same time a bunch defense lawyers march on chicago's city hall and they are "BLM" too LOL???

its nice that black lives matter has created a new form of protests against civil right causes in the USA (only) but it does nothing too solve real problems and should be labelled for what it is.... a christian youth outreach movement.......... and nothing more

The Left today is largely an alliance of convenience I suspect. All are against the extant state, yet were that state to go belly up the Left would likely split. Some leftist tendencies are individualistic or family-oriented; others are communitarian. Anarchists and communists agree in a stateless ultimate end, but communists believe achieving that end will take a long time over an evolutionary process while anarchists think we're ready now.
I don't worry about an intra-Left war because I won't live to see it. Yet I think it's highly likely once the Reactionaries are defeated for good. The historical socialist bloc featured infighting. Despite that pessimism, I still feel we must have a united front. We'll never have a revolution in the first place under false consciousness, the non-class identity factors that keep the productive class divided with the capitalists on top. And Marxists won't be good allies if they insist on orthodoxy, denying reality to the lived viewpoints of the other tendencies while oppression persists.there are alot of very real leftist organizations. BLM is not one of them, your questions about anarchism vs marxism is a different subject and i encourage you too start a thread about it in the learning forum because im sure alot of people here would be more than glad too explain what the difference is between the two..........but this has nothing too do with "black lives matter"

Most of those other identity distinctions are creations of the class system. Even gender and sexual orientations are Class critters, because these are either subjugated to extract surplus value from their labor directly, or else the system markets their identities for profit as it's doing with LGBTQ. The bourgeoisie sells homophobia, misogyny, and rape, too, accumulating wealth off both ends of the candle. I think that in communism such distinctions would become irrelevant and persons would adopt whichever develops naturally for them.being black or white is not a distinction of a class system

Xenophobia, just like homophobia, or transphobia, or agoraphobia are real things that need to be addressed psychologically,it is a very real fear

Tim Redd

16th August 2015, 04:29

a bunch of middle schoolers throw rocks its "BLM", yet at the same time a bunch defense lawyers march on chicago's city hall and they are "BLM" too LOL???

its nice that black lives matter has created a new form of protests against civil right causes in the USA (only) but it does nothing too solve real problems and should be labelled for what it is.... a christian youth outreach movement.......... and nothing more

Another effectively right wing, anti-revolutionary position promulgated by someone who is pretending to be progressive, but in fact actually is not. willowtooth's position is a negative energy sink hole for the various people's struggles' against various forms of exploitation and oppression and it is a negative energy sink hole for the whole proletarian revolutionary struggle.

This is a negative sink hole position because it fails to understand why revolutionaries should unite with what's good about various of the people's struggles and link them up to proletarian revolution. And it's a 2 way street. The people's struggles invigorates the proletarian revolutionary movement and the proletarian movement informs and lights the way for mass struggles.

willowtooth

16th August 2015, 21:29

Another effectively right wing, anti-revolutionary position promulgated by some Trots who are revolutionary in name only. willowtooth's position is a negative energy sink hole for the various people's struggles' against various forms of exploitation and oppression and it is a negative energy sink hole for the whole proletarian revolutionary struggle.

This is a negative sink hole position because it fails to understand why revolutionaries should unite with what's good about various of the people's struggles and link them up to proletarian revolution. And it's a 2 way street. The people's struggles invigorates the proletarian revolutionary movement and the proletarian movement informs and lights the way for mass struggles.

what do you think my position is exactly?

and why is that black people, specifically have to lead the worldwide social revolution? We legalized interracial marriage, ended segregation, established laws against discrimination for jobs, housing, and school, and we did this for all races and religions, we survived the crack era, and got a black man elected president, all in the course of less than one persons lifetime. And now we have too start a worldwide revolution?

what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies"?

Nrh5YOQHvFw

Tim Redd

17th August 2015, 02:43

what do you think my position is exactly?

and why is that black people, specifically have to lead the worldwide social revolution? We legalized interracial marriage, ended segregation, established laws against discrimination for jobs, housing, and school, and we did this for all races and religions, we survived the crack era, and got a black man elected president, all in the course of less than one persons lifetime. And now we have too start a worldwide revolution?

what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies"?

From the reactionary, dip s**t way you just replied, I can see that you are an actual right wing, ultra-conservative, racist a**hole. No need to respond to you further.

[Moderator this person should be restricted to 'Opposing Ideologies' - if that since he's basically spouting racist Naziism - e.g. "what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies".]

willowtooth

17th August 2015, 04:38

From the reactionary, dip s**t way you just replied, I can see that you are an actual right wing, ultra-conservative, racist a**hole. No need to respond to you further. oh fuck off you have no clue what your talking about

[Moderator this person should be restricted to 'Opposing Ideologies' - if that since he's basically spouting racist Naziism - e.g. "what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies".]that was a joke i was calling you the racist, I would have thought the south park clip made that clear but i forget this is an international forum, im guessing english is your third or fourth language right?

Tim Redd

18th August 2015, 02:35

what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies"?

I then wrote that this poster had no place on RevLeft due to the evident blatant racism he shows in the above quote.

that was a joke i was calling you the racist, I would have thought the south park clip made that clear but i forget this is an international forum, im guessing english is your third or fourth language right?

Oh yeah it's jokey jokey now. But there aren't any two ways to see what you said other than that you are a crass right wing racist a**hole. And why would you joke in that way anyhow unless you were somehow serious about you said?

willowtooth

18th August 2015, 03:05

I then wrote that this poster had no place on RevLeft due to the evident blatant racism he shows in the above quote. who are you even talking too?

I thought you weren't responding anymore I was fine with that, you seem like nothing but an uptight asshole too me, your entire contribution to this thread has been nothing but personal insults then at the same time (just like an asshole) you preach about unity

Oh yeah it's jokey jokey now. But there aren't any two ways to see what you said other than that you are a crass right wing racist a**hole. And why would you joke in that way anyhow unless you were somehow serious about you said?yeah I was seriously calling you a racist, because based on your posts I suspect you are one, but I did it light heartedly because I don't know you and you haven't contributed one iota of useful information to this thread topic.

I didn't want to come off like an uptight lil asshole and just insult someone for no reason like your doing, what the fuck is a Trotskyist nazi anyway? I dont think they exist and I also think your just being a dickhead

Hatshepsut

18th August 2015, 05:11

...your questions about anarchism vs marxism is a different subject and i encourage you too start a thread about it in the learning forum because im sure alot of people here would be more than glad too explain what the difference is between the two..........but this has nothing too do with "black lives matter"

Agreed that passage was off-topic. I may take up your idea of asking the forum more about it, as I've oversimplified and probably have some of it down wrong.

...being black or white is not a distinction of a class system. Xenophobia, just like homophobia, or transphobia, or agoraphobia are real things that need to be addressed psychologically,it is a very real fear

Regarding xenophobia, I meant the anti-foreigner prejudices, not a psychological phobia. Similarly for homophobia. These were the folks who went out with baseball bats to do "gay bashing" on Saturday nights and obviously weren't afraid of anyone. Consulting a recent Merriam-Webster, I see the definitions for these words have broadened to include fear or aversion as well as hatred, although the hatred sense is the one I've encountered most often.

While being black or white is genetic, systematic discrimination against dark-skinned persons of African descent is indeed a product of the class system as far as I know. Slaves were a class, below the serfs, free peasants, and proletariats.

The ideology of racism hasn't always existed; ancient Egypt didn't have it for instance. Even the Spanish when enslaving Native Americans upon their entry into Mexico justified this mostly by religion, not race. It was said that putting the Indians to work would help Christianize them; friars accompanied the conquistadors everywhere they went. Racism seems to have been invented about the time the Atlantic slave trade started up.

By the Antebellum era, theorists held that "negroes" were fit only for servitude while law enforced intergenerational slavery, meaning the children of slaves were automatically slaves. This was a new development in slavery. In previous arrangements of the institution involving whites or Middle Easterners, the children might or might not be enslaved as there was no consistent doctrine on that issue. Yet no stigma attached to freed slaves or their children in the way we see with blacks, who still face marginalization some 150 years after freedom.

I'll grant your word that BLM isn't radical. Hence the thread title, "Radicalizing BLM." The discussion has drifted toward BLM's internals, which itself is fine with me. Though perhaps a moderator should edit the thread title if no more posts on radicalizing it are desired.

Tim Redd

19th August 2015, 02:38

yeah I was seriously calling you a racist, because based on your posts I suspect you are one,

No you never called me a racist, you sick psychopathic liar because it is I who have been calling you out on your lowlife racism. There's no racist statement that has been made by anyone other than yourself:

"what exactly are you trying too lead there tim redd? "operation get behind the darkies"?"

Throughout this thread it is you who has been belittling and berating the BLM movement. Please quote where I've been racist. If this quote below by me in a previous post by me in this thread, sounds racist to you, you have serious cognitive problems:

"This [willowtooth] [has] a negative sink hole position because [he] fails to understand why revolutionaries should unite with what's good about various of the people's struggles [e.g. the BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement, for which I made this statement in opposition to what willowtooth is spouting] and link them up to proletarian revolution. And it's a 2 way street. The people's struggles [like the Black Lives Matter movement] invigorates the proletarian revolutionary movement and the proletarian movement informs and lights the way for mass struggles."

Tell me how that's racist.

You are such a worthless piece of garbage, that you figure you'll take the heat off yourself by falsely alleging that the person who is calling you a racist, is a racist.

I just hope one day the moderators see through your despicable double dealing behavior and act appropriately. But I do think most other sane readers who have followed this thread, know you for the anti-Marxist position against the BLM movement that you have been puking out.

willowtooth

19th August 2015, 03:57

[QUOTE=Tim Redd;2848459]No you never called me a racist, you sick psychopathic liar because it is I who have been calling you out on your lowlife racism. There's no racist statement that has been made by anyone other than yourself: whatever you say sweetheart:rolleyes:

Throughout this thread it is you who has been belittling and berating the BLM movement. Please quote where I've been racist. If this quote below by me in a previous post by me in this thread, sounds racist to you, you have serious cognitive problems: well as far as I know there is only one black person (other than me) on this forum and they haven't participated in this thread yet, so im calling you racist because you seem hell bent on attacking the only black person in this thread and the only person (as far as i know) who has actually marched with and participated in BLM, and other black rights movements, with nothing but petty childish insults..... seriously grow the fuck up dude what are you 12?

because im gonna feel really bad if your 12

Tell me how that's racist.
as was said by campesina in the first response, this forum has almost no black members and said some people wonder if theres any here at all, so its pretty fucked up for a bunch of white people to go in and start telling everyone what do which seems to be exactly what you want them too do, and I don't think this about racism any way, your just a whiny spoiled asshole, and you were perfectly fine insulting me before i made the joke, that since you can't speak english you probably didn't understand

You are such a worthless piece of garbage, that you figure you'll take the heat off yourself by falsely alleging that the person who is calling you a racist, is a racist. im not feeling any "heat" your just being a boring asshole

I just hope one day the moderators see through your despicable double dealing behavior and act appropriately. But I do think most other sane readers who have followed this thread, know you for the anti-Marxist position against the BLM movement that you have been puking out.we get it you reported me to the mods since you have no argument and can't do anything but ask your mommy to make the bad men go away

so please continue flaming but atleast try too make it interesting for me

willowtooth

19th August 2015, 04:41

Regarding xenophobia, I meant the anti-foreigner prejudices, not a psychological phobia. Similarly for homophobia. These were the folks who went out with baseball bats to do "gay bashing" on Saturday nights and obviously weren't afraid of anyone. Consulting a recent Merriam-Webster, I see the definitions for these words have broadened to include fear or aversion as well as hatred, although the hatred sense is the one I've encountered most often.well psychologically speaking all bigotry comes from fear, people who spread bigotry rarely talk about some inferiority that makes people their lesser, while that does exist mostly they spread fear when obama was elected white supremacist were screaming about black people killing them all and putting in them in slave camps. homophobes actually wont even hang out with gay people they think it will turn them gay (and their kids their usually obsessed with kids)

Here this was written about islamophobia but i think applies

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201009/what-is-bigotry

While being black or white is genetic, systematic discrimination against dark-skinned persons of African descent is indeed a product of the class system as far as I know. Slaves were a class, below the serfs, free peasants, and proletariats.
i think it definitely translates into classism, in that it eventually means people of a different race are turned into the lower class, but it does come from a literal fear, people can be afraid of a black person who is a billionare, or even obama the leader of their country is met with fear

The ideology of racism hasn't always existed; ancient Egypt didn't have it for instance. Even the Spanish when enslaving Native Americans upon their entry into Mexico justified this mostly by religion, not race. It was said that putting the Indians to work would help Christianize them; friars accompanied the conquistadors everywhere they went. Racism seems to have been invented about the time the Atlantic slave trade started up. Christianity and racism do go hand in hand, the bible specifically condones racism and slavery and theres even a passage claiming black people are cursed with black skin for being evil

but the atlantic slave trade started with eastern europeans being enslaved, (the word slave comes from the word slav) and sell to in western europe and western africa, so while ive heard the theory that racism didn't exist until the slave trade im not sure its as simple as that, most if not all bigotry can be traced to fear

By the Antebellum era, theorists held that "negroes" were fit only for servitude while law enforced intergenerational slavery, meaning the children of slaves were automatically slaves. This was a new development in slavery. In previous arrangements of the institution involving whites or Middle Easterners, the children might or might not be enslaved as there was no consistent doctrine on that issue. Yet no stigma attached to freed slaves or their children in the way we see with blacks, who still face marginalization some 150 years after freedom.
yes but every civilization going back thousands of years had some concept of superiority over their slaves, it was usually local slaves with the same skin color, but they were from a defeated kingdom, or tribe, in east asia, darker skinned people were workers because they would be outside all day, so even people of the same kingdom could use skin color to separate people calling lighter skin more beautiful.

I think inter generational slavery which you said began in the antebellum period was a form of abolishing slavery, a compromise too say "alright we won't get rid of slavery for everyone, but we'll get rid of it for white people"