From owner-marxism Sat Sep 16 17:10:20 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 13:10:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Black Panthers
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Jamal Hannah wrote:
> MIM said:
> > The Black Panthers quoted Mao and upheld Mao as clearly as
> > could be done in the English language. Not only did they
> > run articles from Mao's press in China, they quoted the CCP
> > on Maoism's role verbatim. On Jan. 4th, 1969, they quoted
> > some Mexican comrades favorably: "Without Marxism-Leninism,
> > Mao tse-Tung's Thought, there is no and will never be
> > socialism in any country."
>
> Sure, the Black Panthers (BP) ran Maoist articles
> and identified with some Maoist politcs. They also
> supported the Viet Namese struggle (Viet Nam was
> more friendly to the USSR than China, wasnt it?), and the
MIM replies: China supported Vietnam too at the time
we are talking about 1966-1969. There was no difference
between the Black Panthers and Mao on that.
> personal convictions of many poor black Americans who had
> no connection to Mao at all. And yes, one could characterize
> the BP as "internationalists". I dont see anything wrong with
> that. My point is that the BP was not _primarily_ Maoist..
> it would be alienating to the experiance of the poor American
> Blacks to be expected to wholeheartedly take everything
> the Chinese said at that time. Perhaps one could say the
> BP were "%10 Maoist".. but if they were "pure" Maoist they would
MIM replies: This is all assertion. People should read the documents. And you can't tell how much the Black Panthers have borrowed from Mao unless you have read Mao. For a start on that problem I'd recommend getting the MIM lit on the subject.
Huey Newton told many audiences and had them chanting that they only needed two things, the Red Book (Mao) and the gun. Does that mean the Black Panthers were only "50%" Maoist because one of two items was not a Mao book?
>
> I think it would be falling into the "Mao Personality Cult" for MIM
> to insist that any significant revolutionary group from the past was
> "truly a Maoist group ...even if they didnt realize it".
MIM replies: OK, I've seen enough of this on this Marxism List to call it out: why is it that every time I refer to Blacks apart from the white workers, people start saying the Black communists "didn't realize it"? Were "vague" and "misguided" etc. It's not just this one post, but this post echoing others.
The Black Panthers were consciously upholding Marxism-Leninism, Mao
Zedong Thought from their beginnings in 1966 to the time they were smashed.
True the group that claimed the Black Panther name after its
original leaders were removed by the pigs or otherwise driven away
from the party--that organization was much more eclectic; furthermore,
no party ever perfectly upholds the line it is trying to uphold.
Nonetheless, Jamal Hannah is just far from the mark on this question.
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Sat Sep 16 18:25:17 1995
From: jamal@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Jamal Hannah)
Subject: Re: Black Panthers
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 14:25:17 -0400 (EDT)
> MIM replies: OK, I've seen enough of this on this Marxism List
> to call it out: why is it that every time I refer to Blacks apart
> from the white workers, people start saying the Black communists
> "didn't realize it"? Were "vague" and "misguided" etc. It's not
> just this one post, but this post echoing others.
You mis-interpret what I said. First of all, you're putting me in the
same category as "labor aristocracy" who most likely are not so
very concerned for or connected with the black underclass in America.
(And this is not surprising, so I no longer go around complaining about
it so much as I used to) Others may have said revolutionary blacks
were "misguided", but I do not say such a thing.
Poor blacks (revolutionaries) in America will use whatever resources
are useful to them at a given time, because they must. So in 1966-68 of
course there was a lot of excitement about what was going on in China.
The fact that the BP might quote Mao or have seen the Red Book as
relevant still does not make the BP a "Maoist" group, though MIM may call it one if it likes. I see that MIM is going even further by calling them "Black communists" now. They were not Communists, they were Black Panthers. Call it "nit-picking" if you like, but the point
is, the road to emancipation for poor blacks in America is not
rigidly locked into Maoist predictions, but rather based on the
theory and praxis of the blacks themselves.
When I said "didn't realize it" I was paraphrasing MIM's apparent position:
"all relevant black revolutionaries are Maoist in nature (or must be) ...
even if they don't realize it." This is different from "labor aristocracy"
or liberals who might say: "all black revolutionaries who listen to Maoists are being duped". I don't think one is wrong to listen to what Maoists have to say. However, taking Mao's advice, I would encourage people to make it clear where they disagree with them. That's dialectics, and thats how ideas and theory evolves.
I apologize to MIM if this is all taken as some sort of personal slander. I'm less concerned with MIM's prestige and public image than with determining what is the best road for urban poor blacks to take.
- JH
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Sun Sep 17 02:25:06 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:25:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: Black Panthers
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Jamal Hannah wrote:
> > MIM replies: OK, I've seen enough of this on this Marxism List
> > to call it out: why is it that every time I refer to Blacks apart
> > from the white workers, people start saying the Black communists
> > "didn't realize it"? Were "vague" and "misguided" etc. It's not
> > just this one post, but this post echoing others.
>
> Poor blacks (revolutionaries) in America will use whatever resources
> are useful to them at a given time, because they must. So in 1966-68 of
> course there was a lot of excitement about what was going on in China.
> The fact that the BP might quote Mao or have seen the Red Book as
> relevant still does not make the BP a "Maoist" group, though MIM may call
> it one if it likes. I see that MIM is going even further by calling
> them "Black communists" now. They were not Communists, they were
> Black Panthers. Call it "nit-picking" if you like, but the point
MIM replies: You are combining factual lack of information with a spin favorable to the labor aristocracy activists. The result in this paragraph is still patronizing. And I DO NOT SUPPORT EMPLOYING GUILT TACTICS, contrary to what our labor aristocracy
activist opponents say. Now if 25 years from now someone wrote that Jamal Hannah put together this INTERNET work for anarchists, but he never meant it and was not capable of knowing what anarchism is, don't you think you'd be insulted?
> is, the road to emancipation for poor blacks in America is not
> rigidly locked into Maoist predictions, but rather based on the
> theory and praxis of the blacks themselves.
>
> When I said "didn't realize it" I was paraphrasing MIM's apparent position:
> "all relevant black revolutionaries are Maoist in nature (or must be) ...
> even if they don't realize it." This is different from "labor aristocracy"
MIM replies: We understand what you are attributing to us above, but let's be clear we didn't say it and in this circumstance the literal truth about the Black Panther Party is much more important.
We have forthcoming articles about why the politics of the Black Panthers have been so distorted when the published record is available to all: as you might imagine it has a lot to do with labor aristocracy activism seeking to deny the BPP's Marxism-Leninism as a way of maintaining the labor bureaucrats' particular strategy of using oppressed nation workers. On the Black bourgeois side, there is the attempt to tone down the original Panthers for use for everything from selling cook-books and ice cream to running for Congress.
> or liberals who might say: "all black revolutionaries who listen to Maoists
> are being duped". I don't think one is wrong to listen to what Maoists
> have to say. However, taking Mao's advice, I would encourage people
> to make it clear where they disagree with them. That's dialectics, and
> thats how ideas and theory evolves.
>
> I apologize to MIM if this is all taken as some sort of personal slander.
> I'm less concerned with MIM's prestige and public image than with determining
> what is the best road for urban poor blacks to take.
>
MIM replies: No personal slander involved. We're not trying to
make points like that. At most we would say you are unable to face
facts about the Black Panthers, and right now I wouldn't say that,
because I'm not convinced you've studied their newspapers and books.
Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver, David Hilliard and George Jackson
are all in print as being Marxist-Leninists in the years being discussed.
Even though Bobby Seale was an anti-communist just before joining
the Black Panthers, it is clear even from his book Seize the Time
that the Black Panthers were communists.
Though you disagree with us, your ability to follow our train of thought much impresses us Jamal Hannah. We at MIM didn't start out with our current line on the labor aristocracy. Sometimes it is a matter of having some thoughts laying around inside the mind for a while. Wherever you go in life, you are correct that progress occurs through struggle.
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---