the Black Panther Party

[Rawthentic]

I have been doing my research on the Black Panthers, and I have a quite important question to ask: does anyone think that the Black Panther Party was a model for socialist revolution? I'd like to know how and why. Thanks

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 08:55 pm
does anyone think that the Black Panther Party was a model for socialist revolution?
Socialist revolution in what context? Black liberation or national multi-ethnic revolution?

[Rawthentic]

Both I assume. Remember that black liberation is a national liberation struggle just like the VC in Vietnam and such.

[Chocobo]

Yes, I think their a great example. Black nationalism showed very well how easily and fluently communitys can work together. Their a great example of socialism.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 09:02 pm
Both I assume. Remember that black liberation is a national liberation struggle just like the VC in Vietnam and such.
Speaking in terms of ethnic liberation yes, the original BPP provided a pretty good revolutionary model, and in terms of national multi-ethnic revolution, they were Marxist-Leninist-Maoist I do believe, so in regards to your original question, wouldn't the revolutionary paradigm of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, be the same for the BPP at least theoretically, and tactically?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 09:09 pm
Black nationalism
The BPP, black nationalists? I don't think so, :unsure: .

[Colombia]

The only issue I see is the fact that they had no issue working alongside other races, but admitted only people of their own race into the party.

Such division is not a good model.

[Hampton]

Black nationalists in the beginning then they stopped calling themselves that and went on to internationalists and other such labels.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The BPP was the most revolutionary proletariat movement in modern US history. They were Maoist revolutionaries so, yes, they were definately advocating Socialist Revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: A model for revolution today (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rysu6a.html)

[Rawthentic]

Really good article there, comrade. For today I believe, such a model would have to include membership for all races, not just Black or Latino, etc. One problem I do have with them is that power was concentrated too greatly in the hands of Newton, Seale, Hampton, etc, which allowed the FBI to knock it down. I think that it would need to be a bit less centralized.

[KC]

In general I'd say that it's a model for socialist revolution. Only in general, though. Their organizational elitism, coupled with their centralized party structure, as well as an inability to defend themselves against the state and their theories on Marxism and revolution, did them in.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with a centralized party; however, when it's centralized to the extent that the Panthers were, it also becomes hierarchical. All the government had to do was destroy its leadership for it to fall apart.

Their attempts at developing alternate state structures before the revolution is the best lesson that we can draw from the Panthers. This provides not only assistance to poor and working people so that they can have the time to develop political and class consciousness, but also it shows that there can be an alternative to what there is right now. We can take our lives into our own hands and we don't have to listen to bosses or the capitalists or the government. This goes a very long way in helping develop proletarian class consciousness and is a very powerful weapon against the bourgeois state.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 01:55 am
I have been doing my research on the Black Panthers, and I have a quite important question to ask: does anyone think that the Black Panther Party was a model for socialist revolution? I'd like to know how and why. Thanks
yes, because they organized the people that elseway wouldnt give a fuck about politics.
they used the analysis of Frantz Fanon on the lumpen-proletariat, wich i agree with.
wich was that the lumpens were the biggest victim of the system and so they supplied for them while the government looked on.
they genuinly cared for the society and had revolutonary plans and worked with alot of other political organizations sush as the Gay Liberation Front, the Yippies, the Young Lords and the SCLC wich proves they wernt homophobic and anti-white racist, wich with other contempary revolutonaires are doubts of...

im not a fan of MIM but they have a nice collection of orginal BPP articles here: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bpp/index.html

[YSR]

Zampano pretty much hits the nail on the head. The ultimate downfall and mistake of the BPP was their Marxist-Leninist structure. Not because it was bad theoretically, per se, but because it crippled them and allowed the FBI to destroy the organization.

We should definitely try to emulate their model and update it to the modern context.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

No that is actually Anarchist Bullshit. They were crippled because they only had several hundred members and were considered too militant by most so they couldn't grow.

[Dimentio]

Funny that the LNSG supports them. But the LNSG supports Che as well as an example of a "nationalist".

[Cryotank Screams]

No that is actually Anarchist Bullshit.

Quite being an over-zealous sectarian.

I agree with Zampanò's analysis of the the ultimate downfall of the BPP, and that it could possibly be coupled with your own, if you would elaborate upon it, however I don't think it was solely due to lack of membership, and militancy.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 11, 2006 09:45 pm

No that is actually Anarchist Bullshit.

Quite being an over-zealous sectarian.

I agree with Zampanò's analysis of the the ultimate downfall of the BPP, and that it could possibly be coupled with your own, if you would elaborate upon it, however I don't think it was solely due to lack of membership, and militancy.
Nope, I was just calling it. It is upsurd to claim that the BPP fell because of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, in particular the Party Line factor of Democratic Centralism, was most likely the reason that they were such an effective party despite having less than a 1000 members.

I think their demise came because, they were small and they were a target. If they had a decentralized form of "oraganization", they would fail to be as coordinated as they were. They wouldn't be unified on action and would most likely be ignored. Their size led to their demise as it meant that the BPP could be easily contained and suppressed and that's what happened. Many members were jailed (or even killed) and the movement basically faded away along with the new-left movement of the 60s.

[More Fire for the People]

Yes! By far the Black Panthers represent one of the most advanced types of organisation developed thus far. However, the BPP was limited — both historically and politcally.

They organized amongst Black workers, which is important and a key component of revolutionary communism in America, but they were limited to organizing Black workers. A BPP style organisation needs to be adapted to the whole of the working class — embracing the specific struggles of each worker as a whole ['an injury to one is an injury to all'].

They also had a variety of tendencies — most of which fucked up. The pork chop nationalists and their 'Marxian' equivalents created an internal tension between the progressives and the black capitalists. Also the organisation was constantly being watched and infiltrated.

[Cryotank Screams]

Nope, I was just calling it.


No that is actually Anarchist Bullshit.

Sounds very sectarian to me.


It is upsurd to claim that the BPP fell because of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, in particular the Party Line factor of Democratic Centralism, was most likely the reason that they were such an effective party despite having less than a 1000 members.

The argument wasn't over Marxism-Leninism the ideology lead to the downfall per se, it was more that due to the democratic centralist belief of a centralized and hierarchal power structure of a group (thus following the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theoretical paradigm set by the BPP), it lead the BPP to become highly centralized to the point where it made it easy for the government, to pick out the leaders, and influential members, that I believe was the argument; highly centralization and lack of membership was their downfall, and not Marxism-Leninism as the sole cause and reason.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Does Anyone have a link for Hispanic Socialism/ Communsim Party in USA?

[Hampton]

Lack of membership was never a problem, infact they had too many members. This is shown when Huey got of jail and stopped letting people in because the group had gotten so big and he had to expell some due to paranoia as well as well grounded fears.

Towards the end I don't think it was a problem either, it was more of the more experience members being in jail, expelled, or killed that would upset the security and wellness of the Party.

They also were not limited to working with black workers. They focused on the black community because they wanted to uplift their own people, but they worked with white liberals as well all gang members as in Fred's Rainbow Coalition.

[Rawthentic]

Its quite absurd the way that LeftHenry responds to most things, as if Leninism was top-notch and failure free. Take a look at all the so-called socialist states and say that again. Capitalism has never been overthrown. Leninism only accelerated the historical process. I believe that most of us agree that the BPP fell due to its centralized structure, a theoretical practice of Leninism. Thanks

Power to the People

[KC]

The ultimate downfall and mistake of the BPP was their Marxist-Leninist structure.

First, saying that the Black Panthers had a party structure similar to that of the Bolsheviks is wrong. Second, there's no such thing as a "Marxist-Leninist" party structure.


Nope, I was just calling it. It is upsurd to claim that the BPP fell because of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, in particular the Party Line factor of Democratic Centralism, was most likely the reason that they were such an effective party despite having less than a 1000 members.

Their party structure wasn't "Marxist-Leninist"; it was incredibly hierarchical and disciplined and, while it might have been necessary, they completely failed to provide any strategies to withstand state oppression within the organization. That is largely why they fell apart.


Capitalism has never been overthrown.

And capitalism will never be overthrown. The bourgeois state will be overthrown. Capitalism will merely fade and die as it gives birth to a new system.


I believe that most of us agree that the BPP fell due to its centralized structure, a theoretical practice of Leninism. Thanks

So because the Bolsheviks practiced it in one specific historical situation that means that Lenin intended for it to be applied everywhere and therefore that it's a "Leninist" idea? Sounds like bullshit logic to me.

[YSR]

First, saying that the Black Panthers had a party structure similar to that of the Bolsheviks is wrong. Second, there's no such thing as a "Marxist-Leninist" party structure.

Alright. But we can agree it was the centralization of the party, consistent with Leninist thought, that brought about the end of the party.

[Chocobo]

Gonna add this. Don't blame the BPP downfall on their structure, COINTELPRO was (and is (patriot act) ) one of the most terrible, infilitrating, and diabolical plans ever manifested by the FBI. For those who are unfamiliar as to the degree that COINTELPRO would go to to shut down various organizations (Including BPP) are;
-Anonymously attacking the political beliefs of targets in order to induce their employers to fire them
-Anonymously mailing letters to the spouses of intelligence targets for the purpose of destroying their marrages
-Obtaining from IRS the tax returns of a target and then attempting to provoke an IRS investigation for the express purpose of deterring a protest leader from attending the Democratic National Convention
-Falsely and anonymously labeling as Goverment informants members of groups known to be violent , thereby exposing the falsely labeled members to expulsion or physcial attack
-Pursuant to instructions to use "misinformation" to disrupt demonstrations, employing such means as broadcasting false orders on the same citizens' band radio frequency used by demonstration marshals to attempt to control demonstrations, and duplicating and falsely filling out forms soliciting housing for persons coming to a demonstration, thereby causing "long and usless journeys to locate these addresses"....

And of course there was a lot worse shit then just this that happened, but considering the degress and measures the FBI were going to take I don't pin this entirely on the wobbly structure of the group, but that they were entering into frightening territory. Personally, I believe the group was bound to dissolve one way or another due to the police and their hideous degrees of "protection".

[KC]

Alright. But we can agree it was the centralization of the party, consistent with Leninist thought, that brought about the end of the party.


No, we certainly cannot agree on that. There's no such thing as "Leninist" thought. Also, I never even discussed centralization; I discussed hierarchy. The hierarchical structure of the Panthers, along with strict discipline and obedience, certainly played a role in their demise. However, the problem wasn't in the hierarchy or discipline itself, but the fact that they never planned any means to defend from state oppression. This, combined with the structure of the party, is certainly one of the causes that led to their dissolution. However, saying that it's the thing that brought about the end of the Panthers is simplistic and wrong, not to mention a completely idiotic thing to say.


Gonna add this. Don't blame the BPP downfall on their structure, COINTELPRO was (and is (patriot act) ) one of the most terrible, infilitrating, and diabolical plans ever manifested by the FBI. For those who are unfamiliar as to the degree that COINTELPRO would go to to shut down various organizations (Including BPP) are;
-Anonymously attacking the political beliefs of targets in order to induce their employers to fire them
-Anonymously mailing letters to the spouses of intelligence targets for the purpose of destroying their marrages
-Obtaining from IRS the tax returns of a target and then attempting to provoke an IRS investigation for the express purpose of deterring a protest leader from attending the Democratic National Convention
-Falsely and anonymously labeling as Goverment informants members of groups known to be violent , thereby exposing the falsely labeled members to expulsion or physcial attack
-Pursuant to instructions to use "misinformation" to disrupt demonstrations, employing such means as broadcasting false orders on the same citizens' band radio frequency used by demonstration marshals to attempt to control demonstrations, and duplicating and falsely filling out forms soliciting housing for persons coming to a demonstration, thereby causing "long and usless journeys to locate these addresses"....

And of course there was a lot worse shit then just this that happened, but considering the degress and measures the FBI were going to take I don't pin this entirely on the wobbly structure of the group, but that they were entering into frightening territory. Personally, I believe the group was bound to dissolve one way or another due to the police and their hideous degrees of "protection".

Of course this was a huge reason why they fell apart, but in saying that state oppression led to their dissolution, you also have to say that they didn't provide adequate defense against state oppression.

[Hampton]

The question then is how were they supposed to know that they would be under perhaps the most severe and oppressive form of government pressure that has been put on a radical group? And if and group, regardless of structure or ideology, could have indured it? Because I don't think any group could have lastest as long as the Panthers did with that much oppression coming down on them, it was just a matter of time. The government would never let a group like that survive for to long.

[Chocobo]

Of course this was a huge reason why they fell apart, but in saying that state oppression led to their dissolution, you also have to say that they didn't provide adequate defense against state oppression.
Indeed, their structure was flimsy and we should learn by their example of how and why it was this way, but there is need to pin the entire fault by that. Though the state did use their structure against them, they also used measures outside of the structure to attack then, which was of equal downfall.

[Jesus Christ!]

Isn't Maoism largely based on the use of and the peasant class in general rising up rather than just the proletariat? SO how could the BPP be specifically maoists when we don't have a peasant class in America?

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@December 12, 2006 10:35 pm
Isn't Maoism largely based on the use of and the peasant class in general rising up rather than just the proletariat? SO how could the BPP be specifically maoists when we don't have a peasant class in America?
i think they were Marx-leninists with some maoist influence

[Rawthentic]

So because the Bolsheviks practiced it in one specific historical situation that means that Lenin intended for it to be applied everywhere and therefore that it's a "Leninist" idea? Sounds like bullshit logic to me.

The Party "idea" is a "Leninist" one. No way around that.

[Chocobo]

Isn't Maoism largely based on the use of and the peasant class in general rising up rather than just the proletariat? SO how could the BPP be specifically maoists when we don't have a peasant class in America?
Yes, and that is how they developed their liberation techniques. Theres more to Maoism then peasent uprising, just like Leninism with proletariat uprising.

[KC]

The Party "idea" is a "Leninist" one. No way around that.

No it's not. Marx participated in "parties" and even wrote about them as early as The Manifesto.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@December 12, 2006 09:35 pm
Isn't Maoism largely based on the use of and the peasant class in general rising up rather than just the proletariat? SO how could the BPP be specifically maoists when we don't have a peasant class in America?
No not quite. Maoists support proletariat led revolutions. Mao Zedong basically advocated a greater role of the peasants in the revolutionary movement.

[combat]

Mao was a nationalist leader "painted" in red. The only class that can defeat capitalism is the working class.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 11:39 pm
Mao was a nationalist leader "painted" in red.
He was many things, but I wouldn't go that far.

[Rawthentic]

No it's not. Marx participated in "parties" and even wrote about them as early as The Manifesto.


But not an elitist vanguard, he advocated for an actual working people's organ led by the proletariat.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 13, 2006 03:51 am

The Party "idea" is a "Leninist" one. No way around that.

No it's not. Marx participated in "parties" and even wrote about them as early as The Manifesto.
I've don't think you should interpret Marx' "party" as an formal organization.

[KC]

But not an elitist vanguard, he advocated for an actual working people's organ led by the proletariat.

Lenin's theories on the party weren't about an "elitist vanguard" either.


I've don't think you should interpret Marx' "party" as an formal organization.

I don't think you should interpret Marx's "party".

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:39 am
Mao was a nationalist leader "painted" in red.
you know that some pragmatic nazi&#39;s, like eite hopman from the dutch NVU, say the same thing <_< ?

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+December 14, 2006 01:51 am--> (hastalavictoria @ December 14, 2006 01:51 am)
No it&#39;s not. Marx participated in "parties" and even wrote about them as early as The Manifesto.


But not an elitist vanguard, he advocated for an actual working people&#39;s organ led by the proletariat. [/b]

[email protected] 14, 2006 01:51 am

No it&#39;s not. Marx participated in "parties" and even wrote about them as early as The Manifesto.


But not an elitist vanguard, he advocated for an actual working people&#39;s organ led by the proletariat.
I have to agree. Lenin was for a working class revolution led by marxist (bourgeois) intellectuals. He claimed that the socialist ideals could not come from the working class itself but had to be &#39;implanted&#39; by the intellectuals. I find this concept very wrong and even though I am no suporter of dogmatism I would like to quote Marx on this:

The working class revolution can only be a product of the working class itself.

I admire Lenin, I think he was a great revolutionary and a credit to our struggle but I think that he failed big time on this particulair issue. The kind of centralization that was produced by the intellectuals to implement the socialist ideas in the working class is the same as that of the bureaucracy that destroyed the Soviet Union. The only way to emancipate the working class is to let them make their own decissions.

Now back to the panthers because these cool mutherfuckers are still active as hell in the US of A. And I happen to have found some really cool pictures of them kicking ass. Check this out:
Pic1 (http://static.flickr.com/51/138436166_74e878eabc.jpg?v=0)
Pic2 (http://static.flickr.com/50/138435984_cbc0c97a27.jpg?v=0)
Pic3 (http://static.flickr.com/47/138436074_966bf6c824.jpg?v=0)

These pictures were taken in may 2006. Check out this (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-05-11/cb3.shtml) article for more information on this event.

[YSR]

Read the article carefully. That&#39;s a totally different group than the Black Panthers.

[Springmeester]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 14, 2006 05:43 pm
Read the article carefully. That&#39;s a totally different group than the Black Panthers.

Though this call doesn&#39;t amount to much, members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) plan on being around more often since they recently opened their headquarters near Sixth Street and Allegheny Avenue.

You are right... I have been reading more on the subject and the NBPP has been accused more than once of being anti-semitic. Although that kind of accusastion isn&#39;t really rare any more.

NBPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panthers)

I read a lot of critisism on zionism from the NBPP, wich I support, but hating jews is a whole different thing. Nowadays you are anti-semitic when you say Israel has got no right to exist.


Although it says it sees capitalism as the fundamental problem with the world and "revolution" as the solution, the new party does not draw its influences from Marxism or Maoism as the original party did. Instead, in a carefully-worded, roundabout form of ethnic nationalism, [3] they say that Marx himself based his ideology and teachings on indigenous African cultures, and that the NBPP therefore need not look to Marxism or Maoism as a basis for their program, but can look to ideologies that stem directly from those African origins. [4]

Many groups subscribing to varying degrees of radicalism over the past generation have called for the "right to self-determination" for blacks, particularly U.S. blacks. But critics of the NBPP claim that this self-proclaimed descendant group represents a dangerous departure from the original; specifically, that it is loudly anti-white, and also anti-Semitic. The NBPP is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a "black racist" hate group, and even many of the mildest critics of the organization seem to believe that, at the very least, the NBPP&#39;s provocative brand of black nationalism undermines other civil rights efforts.

[Springmeester]

There Is No New Black Panther Party: An Open Letter From the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation
In response from numerous requests from individual&#39;s seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group&#39;s exploitation of the Party&#39;s name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party&#39;s name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party&#39;s name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party&#39;s true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party&#39;s banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party&#39;s name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party&#39;s fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.

Because the Party believed that only the masses of people would make the revolution, the Party never presumed itself to be above the people. The Party considered itself a servant of the people and taught by example. Given massive black hunger, the Party provided free breakfast for children and other free food programs. In the absence of decent medical facilities in the black community, the Party operated free medical clinics. In the face of police brutality, the Party stood up and resisted. Considering the overwhelming number of blacks facing trials and long prison terms, the Party developed free legal aids and bussing-to-prison programs.

The question the Foundation raises, then, is who are these people laying claim to the Party&#39;s history and name? Are they reactionary provocateurs, who would instigate activities counterproductive to the people&#39;s interests, causing mayhem and death? Are they entertainers, who would posture themselves before the media, and, according to numerous sources, with empty guns, to spin gold for themselves? Are they, given the history of their late-leader Khalid Muhammad, a group of anti-Semites like the very Ku Klux Klan they allegedly oppose? What is their agenda?

Conditions for blacks in America today are worse than when the Black Panther Party was formed in 1966. Blacks in the main continue to live in poverty; disproportionate percentages of blacks die from AIDS and cancer, as the black infant mortality rate continues to be double that of whites. There is a desperate need for liberation agenda. The Black Panther Party unarguably set the example, espousing principles and a history that certainly should be embraced by all those still struggling for freedom. Rather than appropriating the Party&#39;s name, however, groups that purport to represent African Americans ought to follow the Party&#39;s true historical example. In the absence of such commitment, the Foundation denounces the usurpation of the Black Panther Party name by this questionable band of self-appointed leaders.

For further reading on the Black Panther Party, please visit our website at www.blackpanther.org. Books by and about the Black Panthers can also be purchased online through this site. Suggested reading includes Revolutionary Suicide, To Die for the People, War Against the Panthers, This Side of Glory, and A Taste of Power.


Source: www.blackpanther.org