[lbo-talk] Tweet

shag carpet bomb shag at cleandraws.com
Tue May 12 16:03:09 PDT 2009


At 12:16 PM 5/12/2009, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Cox: This is I think correct. Repression would have hit the Panthers,
>WU or no WU. The failure of the white movement as a whole to maintain
>solidarity with the Panthrs, as I argued in an earlier post, was
>outrageous - but perhaps that too was merely a symptom of the limits we
>were coming up against-limits that were more deeply rooted than in the
>mere mistakes of this or that section of the movment.
>
>Milton noted that though tyranny must be, that is no excuse for tyrants.
>Similarly, though left opportunism must be (will always be part of the
>terrain of struggle), that should not be regarded as ab excuse for
>ultra-leftists!
>
>A final note, that I want to developmore carefully another time. There
>was a radical difference between Weatherman and Panthers, a qualitative
>difference. The Black Pannther Party for Self-Defense proclaimed the
>right of self-defense, armed if necessary, for black people. They were
>absolutely correct in so doing. But it did not declare a _strategy_ of
>vioelnce. That was the core of the WU STRATEGY: the commission of acts
>of violence essentially for the sake of committing acts of violence.
>There may be, I suspect there are indeed, conditions under which that
>would be correct. It was not correct in the U.S. in 1969, nor I suspect
>would ever be correct inside an industrial state with even _miminal_
>rights of public assembly and protest.

heh. i was thinking your other post had to do with not making universalizing statements about how to proceed, but I see here you've pretty much made one anyway, so i guess my defense would have been a huge misinterpretation!

From reading Berger's book, _Outlaws of America_, it seems that what statements like this obscure was that, for them, it wasn't about violence for the sake of violence.

The point was to do a few things:

1. Make the government go after _white_ people. Tie up the government in chasing after them, beating them, trying to undermine their movement: bring the war home.

2. They were precursors to what would become critical race theory in their analysis. They believed they had to be "race traitors" and give up their white privilege -- even while using it. They could get away with casing a police station or a bank because no one questioned white people being in those buildings. Hence, they used their white privilege, but they did so, nearly always, in acts that were supposed to be communications about racist and imperialist atrocities -- such as the murder of George Jackson.

3. Related to both 1 and 2 is the idea that it would only be when white people betrayed solidarity with white privilege -- by refusing to do nothing -- that imperializing racializing structures would start to crack.

4. The early statements had to do with what i mentioned before: the idea that white solidarity had to be broken up by forcing people to take a side.

You're right that they did stupid stuff, especially early on, but that would be making the mistake you'd worried I'd made with the PL: freezing their behavior to once period, rather than examining how they changed -- and by ignoring their clear statements about what they were doing -- in communiques, in Prairie Fire, and in their newsletter, Osawatomi, which was named after the town in Kansas where John Brown's small band did battle with pro-slavery forces.

I do find it interesting that Dennis has so much bile for them. Like him, they weren't satisified with streetcorner protests and marches. Later on, they argued you needed it all: marches, negotiation, armed actions, etc. Like him, they had unremitting bile for the jocks of America, for street racist street toughs, for the Boston racists they spied on and exposed during the Boston Busing Crisis.

And yet, if the old peace lovin' hippies aren't doin rite, neither were the armed actions of the WUO. They are all juss doin it rong!

shag

"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."

-- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08

-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list