swampman posted:I did read the Black Agenda Report article. The tactic of "voting for the candidate that can beat Trump for sure" is not a progressive approach. Hillary Clinton will be as ruthless and murderous a president as Donald Trump. They will spend an equal amount of time making war and genocide, that is, all their waking hours until they leave office. The only difference is that Trump might not export all the violence to the third world, whereas that is a guarantee from Hillary. I don't see that as a progressive approach to electoral politics or even a practical approach.
The "decision" to be made by all leftists everywhere, between these three candidates, is not a real decision, it's a distraction. Millions of Americans get to invent some kind of game theory, find an attribute they like and glomp onto it, hate on the idiots who support the idiot candidate for dummies, but whoever wins, American imperialism will continue at the same pace. For the black community in America, oppression will continue at the same pace, Hillary will continue incarcerating black people at record rates. But black Americans are prepared to ignore that because Hillary will preserve class comforts for the 94% that aren't in prison. I call that reactionary, I'm not trying to be mean about it, it's exactly what we expect the bourgeoisie to do, act in their own class interests, regardless of race.
if you read the article you should know that it didnt mention anything about the south carolina primary result indicating any sort of material change in the livelihoods of black americans. nothing about that participation of black americans in bourgeois elections changes the fact that they still face racist colonial superexploitation in this country
c_man posted:swampman posted:I did read the Black Agenda Report article. The tactic of "voting for the candidate that can beat Trump for sure" is not a progressive approach. Hillary Clinton will be as ruthless and murderous a president as Donald Trump. They will spend an equal amount of time making war and genocide, that is, all their waking hours until they leave office. The only difference is that Trump might not export all the violence to the third world, whereas that is a guarantee from Hillary. I don't see that as a progressive approach to electoral politics or even a practical approach.
The "decision" to be made by all leftists everywhere, between these three candidates, is not a real decision, it's a distraction. Millions of Americans get to invent some kind of game theory, find an attribute they like and glomp onto it, hate on the idiots who support the idiot candidate for dummies, but whoever wins, American imperialism will continue at the same pace. For the black community in America, oppression will continue at the same pace, Hillary will continue incarcerating black people at record rates. But black Americans are prepared to ignore that because Hillary will preserve class comforts for the 94% that aren't in prison. I call that reactionary, I'm not trying to be mean about it, it's exactly what we expect the bourgeoisie to do, act in their own class interests, regardless of race.if you read the article you should know that it didnt mention anything about the south carolina primary result indicating any sort of material change in the livelihoods of black americans. nothing about that participation of black americans in bourgeois elections changes the fact that they still face racist colonial superexploitation in this country
black americans are certainly oppressed, but you would be hard pressed to show that they are facing "colonial super-exploitation."
conec posted:shut up about black ppl. why do u guys argue so much about black ppl?
because there are a bunch of self absorbed white people here who think they know better
Very few people actually think about America culturally when they think about leftist politics in America because its culture is so global we forget that American leftism has its own history which doesn't appear in textbooks or pop-culture. What are the strengths of American culture that leftists can use?
Regionalism - Almost every state has a history of radicalism and even within states there are huge regional differences. For example, North Texas supported the union during the civil war and was heavily persecuted for it. Since then it has had a long history of agrarian socialism and is now, unsurprisingly, the support base for Trump in Texas. Does Serve the People - Austin actually investigate the history of Texas? And does it choose to organize liberal students in Austin because it's easier (and the organization is itself made of students and urban proletarians) in a generic socialist manner? Or does it dismiss the 'conservative' republicans of North Texas and the rural impoverished white former working class because that's the popular prejudice? What makes the USA unique is that cities, regions, and even whole states have far more political independence than any other country in the world.
Anti-imperialism - America has one of the strongest histories of anti-imperialism, particularly compared to Europe. The problem is that the American left is stuck in the 60s when the US labor aristocracy supported the Vietnam war and petty-bourgeois students were the main opposition when the current situation resembles the 30s when broad anti-war sentiment was not used by the left and was instead seized upon by the right. Not only is broad anti-imperialism the primary task of the American left, America is lucky enough to have a strong history of it. But this again requires concrete investigation of local politics, American history, and mingling with the dirty proletarians who don't live up to the politically correctness of the current left. They might even be triggering.
Anti-racist activism - The main strength of America is the history of the civil war and reconstruction, a revolutionary legacy that is unparalleled in Europe. Not only did the political terror of the radical Republicans leave a lasting legacy in the black population of self-defense, organization through mass parties (instead of Occupy nonsense), economic self-determination, and democratic control of the means of production, it remains unfinished and thus there is a direct line of American radicalism which leads to socialism today. This is unsurprising, the radicals of 1848 and 1871 looked to the 1793 and the radicals of 1917 and 1949 looked to 1871 for their historical purpose. Does the modern American left look to 1870 for their inspiration? Unlikely, I have seen a lot of parties waving flags of Mao and Che (not to disparage them) and few radicals waving flags of Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, Nat Turner, or Abraham Lincoln. For that matter I have seen no flags of Bill Haywood, Eugene Debs, or William Z. Foster. Every once in a while black activists will reference Malcolm X, W.E.B. Dubois, Marcus Garvey, or Toussaint L'Ouverture but it's rare and white activists go out of their way to avoid the image of radicalism this promotes.
While of course the problem is the labor aristocratic nature of the American people, this concretely manifests itself as petty-bourgeois adventurism among the left. What makes this unfixable is that an environment of politically correct terror has seized these organizations and basically alienated forever the large majority of the American population who are part of the history I outlined and who are falling back into proletarian status and turning to Donald Trump because 'Serve the People -Austin' calls them fascists and mongoloids for living in rural poverty. This post will be massively downvoted as have all my other posts in this thread because petty-bourgeois socialists do not want to hear the truth: they look like children playing pretend to actual people with real problems. American radicalism is not lost forever but it is lost to them.
conec posted:shut up about black ppl. why do u guys argue so much about black ppl? is anyone here black
i agree it is worse than useless to have a white boy whine about the black bourgeoisie and their influence on black culture in the united states. trust me it is covered in house. step back and shut up.
littlegreenpills posted:famous anti imperialists of US history: Father Coughlin
realizing that the Indian people saw no difference between Hitler and Churchill, the Chinese and Koreans saw no difference between Tojo and McCarthur, to the Algerians there was no difference between Pétain and de Gualle, etc. was one of the things that really radicalized me. in fact the former was usually preferable since they were never in a position of world hegemony and therefore could be negotiated with. we live in such a bubble that we don't even consider that the large majority of humanity has completely different views than us and these are far more correct.
conec posted:so let me get this straight. u are comfortable tweeting gifs of girls twerking in their underwear yet feel a need to express the views of black ppl where there arent any black ppl... ok. u are righteous c man. nasty little pervert
my views are my own, calling out racism in others isn't "being a mouthpiece" its the duty of any white people in white spaces
babyhueypnewton posted:This may in some ways contradict my earlier point, but only because I think while blacks in Amerikkka remain oppressed, fracturing them by class has fully succeeded for the first time in American history. Of course blacks in prison, blacks on welfare, and blacks rioting against police violence remain the most radical American proletarian subject. But I believe there is no longer a connection between these groups and black people as a whole. We can think of the 'black misleadership class' Glen Ford points to as no longer a small 'black bourgeoisie' but an entire black labor aristocratic apparatus which is fully integrated into the spoils of imperialism and who are now the main support base of the finance capital party (the imperialist democrats). Black people are still oppressed in many ways but I believe black politics are no longer possible, either becoming class politics or becoming BLM petty-bourgeois twittervism. Further, I think this fracturing has made latino migrant proletarian issues and white re-proletarianized issues into separate spheres with no overlap, the exact opposite of what made the Black Panthers successful (but what Huey Newton already predicted would happen in his theory of 'intercommunalism').
the idea that there were never any strong bourgeois voices in the black communities before today is pretty bizarre. there have been strong integrationist/liberal sectors of the black liberation movement for a long time, for pretty much the same reasons that they exist today. i dont see why the ascent of people like TNC or deray is anything more than a changing of the guard
babyhueypnewton posted:realizing that the Indian people saw no difference between Hitler and Churchill, the Chinese and Koreans saw no difference between Tojo and McCarthur, to the Algerians there was no difference between Pétain and de Gualle, etc. was one of the things that really radicalized me. in fact the former was usually preferable since they were never in a position of world hegemony and therefore could be negotiated with.
how does "preference" even play a role when comparing the imperial core to its enforcers? that's like saying you prefer the hand to the head because it can be shook. oh wait you're a psychopathic ultraleft accelerationist
c_man posted:babyhueypnewton posted:This may in some ways contradict my earlier point, but only because I think while blacks in Amerikkka remain oppressed, fracturing them by class has fully succeeded for the first time in American history. Of course blacks in prison, blacks on welfare, and blacks rioting against police violence remain the most radical American proletarian subject. But I believe there is no longer a connection between these groups and black people as a whole. We can think of the 'black misleadership class' Glen Ford points to as no longer a small 'black bourgeoisie' but an entire black labor aristocratic apparatus which is fully integrated into the spoils of imperialism and who are now the main support base of the finance capital party (the imperialist democrats). Black people are still oppressed in many ways but I believe black politics are no longer possible, either becoming class politics or becoming BLM petty-bourgeois twittervism. Further, I think this fracturing has made latino migrant proletarian issues and white re-proletarianized issues into separate spheres with no overlap, the exact opposite of what made the Black Panthers successful (but what Huey Newton already predicted would happen in his theory of 'intercommunalism').
the idea that there were never any strong bourgeois voices in the black communities before today is pretty bizarre. there have been strong integrationist/liberal sectors of the black liberation movement for a long time, for pretty much the same reasons that they exist today. i dont see why the ascent of people like TNC or deray is anything more than a changing of the guard
perhaps the candidacy and selling out of Jesse Jackson is a more accurate moment in which the liberal integrationists became significant as a labor aristocracy rather than a comprador bourgeoisie. obviously the success of the black radical movement is what allowed integrationists to integrate. Booker T. Washington is probably no different than Ta-Nehisi Coates but the social conditions are different, though this claim needs more substantiation.
I do think this present moment is significant though since BLM is a fundamentally petty-bourgeois black movement organizationally, something I don't believe existed until this moment. And its relationship with Clinton and hostility to Sanders is no accident.
babyhueypnewton posted:perhaps the candidacy and selling out of Jesse Jackson is a more accurate moment in which the liberal integrationists became significant as a labor aristocracy rather than a comprador bourgeoisie. obviously the success of the black radical movement is what allowed integrationists to integrate. Booker T. Washington is probably no different than Ta-Nehisi Coates but the social conditions are different, though this claim needs more substantiation.
I do think this present moment is significant though since BLM is a fundamentally petty-bourgeois black movement organizationally, something I don't believe existed until this moment. And its relationship with Clinton and hostility to Sanders is no accident.
this is still all an argument about the ideology associated with the movements and still has nothing to do with the actual material existence of black people in the united states
Edited by c_man ()
Wrong. Clinton’s and Obama’s foreign policy is Sanders’ default policy. He wants to fund his domestic revitalization and the empire, too – a political and economic impossibility and a moral abyss. Thus, we see that Sanders is incapable of challenging his own party and president on domestic economic policy, as previously discussed, and has no substantive objections to Obama or Clinton on foreign policy.
There is nothing transformative happening here, especially regarding Black politics, which is strangled and mutilated under the same duopoly system that straitjackets Sanders (if he really needs a jacket).
The action is in the streets.
What is unique about the black labor aristocracy? 1. It is tied to the government rather than the private sector. This largely explains the devotion to the democrats and bureaucratic spoils system which Clinton perfected. 2. It is insecure. The white middle class will always have first access to the capital and the black middle class will always be the first to fall to austerity. does this mean that black as the black middle class is reproletarianized they will adopt radical politics or that they will gain social fascist characteristics to defend their privilege? I think experience shows the latter and this is the argument I am making. 3. Labor aristocracy has not spread to the black population as a whole. Not only do many black people remain impoverished, the existence of the black middle class is dependent on their role in regulating this population on behalf of white capitalism. This gives black politics a unique character, probably closer to Engels and Lenin's original concept of 'labor aristocracy' rather than the third-worldist concept that applies to the entire nation.
The existence of a black middle class is indisputable, the questions are how significant is it and what are the politics that form from its class consciousness. Well I think BLM and pro-Hillary apologia gives us the concrete answer, we just need to historicize it. To pretend black politics remain potentially capable of a new Black Panther Party (despite the existence of multiple new Black Panther Parties) is to be delusional.