MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
Most Amerikan self-described “communists” will not even listen to this
album as soon as they see the title. Those same white nationalist
socialists refuse to read MIM’s writings because of all the KKKs and
dollar $igns. They claim it’s too distracting. We say transforming the
oppressors language is a necessary part of building a revolutionary
culture to replace the old one.
A week ago, the top results brought by a search for “Amerikkka” on
youtube.com(1) brought up songs from Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most
Wanted album, some other hip hop singles, and videos from a former
associate of MIM with explicit anti-Amerikkkan messages. This week, Joey
Bada$$’s new album is rising to the top for that query. All
Amerikkkan Bada$$ isn’t as edgy as Ice Cube (it does lack Cube’s
misogyny) and certainly not as edgy as Shubel Morgan (who did music
videos for MIM and LLCO), but it’s got a pretty strong message of New
Afrikan unity and struggle.
In one interview Joey Bada$$ said:
“It’s like hella vegetables. It’s hella good for you, and it’s almost my
hesitance with it: the fact that it’s so good for you, because these
kids these days want candy.”(2)
It’s an interesting quote, because Shubel Morgan often talked about the
need for “sugar-coated bullets” in their artwork to help the message go
down.
The album title, All Amerikkkan Bada$$ is no doubt a reference to
Badass’s late partner in rhymes, Capital STEEZ’s mixtape Amerikkkan
Korruption. Lyrics on this new album hit references to that mixtape as
well, such as the track “Dead Prez” that was produced by Joey Bada$$.
Both Capital STEEZ and Joey Bada$$ are respected as lyricists, with fast
New York styles of rapping.
The album cover (and associated art) features an Amerikkkan flag made
out of red, white and blue bandannas. The song “Legendary” makes a
reference to Crip culture with the line “the legends they never die, the
niggers they only multiply.” More explicit are the lines in “Rockabye
Baby”:
“Peace to my Slimes, and peace to my Crips Neighborhood police and
they always on the shift Protect my Bloods, look out for my cuz
When it’s all said and done, we be the realest there was Who else if
just not us? If you ’bout this revolution, please stand up”
ScHoolboy Q of the Hoover Crips in Los Angeles comes into eir verse
with, “I’m part of the reason they still Crippin’ out in Brooklyn” and
goes on to echo the struggles of New Afrikans against police brutality
and unemployment.
While the first single, “Devastated” has been out for months, the
second, “Land of the Free”, came out just before the album dropped this
week. The first song is about success, and the video has a party vibe to
it. “Land of the Free” is about the struggle, and the video features
some strong imagery, including all-white pigs executing Black and Brown
people in all black. Joey Bada$$ intervenes to free some of them, but is
later shot and hung by cops in Ku Klux Klan robes. And while the video
shows Joey Bada$$’s U.$. flag made of bandanas throughout, what is not
so prominent is the upside down U.$. flag on the back of eir jacket.
“Land of the Free” features lyrics like, “sorry Amerikkka, but i will
not be your soldier, Obama just was not enough, i want more closure.”
The apt-titled opening track, “Good Morning Amerikkka” references Black
Panther Geronimo Pratt’s framing for murder by the state.
While the album features the usual “fuck the police” and “fuck the
government” refrains, the last track, “Amerikkkan idol”, also says,
“Fuck white supremacy,” a slogan that seems to be coming into vogue
following the election of Donald Trump.(3) This track closes with some
pretty sober and explicit lyrics:
“What the government is doing amongst our people is downright evil,
disturbing. But not surprising, that’s for certain… I believe they are
simply trying to slander, start a civil war within the U$A amongst Black
and white. They want us to rebel so that it makes it easy for them to
kill us and put us in jails… Alton Sterlings are happening every day in
this country, around the world…And it’s time for us to rebel, better yet
raise hell. I just want everyone to be cautious about how they go about
it… not only battling them on a physical plain, but to outsmart them… As
Black men, i think our gangs need to do a better job at protecting us,
the people, our communities and not assisting in destroying them
brutally. It’s time they even the score… We need solutions. You better
start plotting now.”
Rogue One trata de la historia desconocida detrás del primer episodio
que se produjo de Star Wars (que ahora, cronológicamente, es ahora el IV
en la inacabable y productiva saga de películas de Star Wars). En esta
película descubriremos cómo se las arregla la Alianza Rebelde para
conseguir una copia de los planos de la Estrella de la Muerte, una pieza
fundamental de información utilizada para destruir esa arma. Esta
película es un sorprendente ejemplo de cómo algunos instrumentos de la
cultura capitalista bien financiados pueden gastar millones de dólares
para obtener beneficios del entretenimiento. El presupuesto estimado fue
de 200 000 000 $; imaginen lo que se podría haber hecho con esos
recursos en un sistema que se guiase por las necesidades de la gente en
vez de por los beneficios.
Por ese dinero obtenemos una historia que tiene algunos elementos
progresistas pero también muchos mensajes discutibles y reaccionarios.
Rogue One trata sobre la lucha de la Alianza Rebelde contra el Imperio,
lo que puede ser una excelente analogía anti-imperialista. Y hay algunas
temáticas sólidas de sacrificio revolucionario y de la unión de l@s
oprimid@s para luchar contra un@ enemig@ común en un frente unido. Sin
embargo, al final gana el individualismo ya que, por supuesto, eso hace
la historia más emocionante en nuestra cultura.
Este episodio supone un esfuerzo bastante satisfactorio de unir los
episodios III y IV y nos explica mejor por qué la Estrella de la Muerte
podría destruirse por completo la Estrella de la Muerte con un disparo
certero. El saboteador detrás de ésta debilidad nos da uno de los muchos
ejemplos de sacrificio revolucionario de esta película. Asimismo,
ejemplifica cómo es posible que alguien se resista aun estando obligad@
a permanecer en una situación en la que no parece haber resistencia. A
pesar de que se describe a este personaje como alguien con capacidades
únicas, su forma de actuar sirve de buen ejemplo del axioma
existencialista de que siempre hay elección. Esto puede servir de
inspiración para aquell@s en los países imperialistas que están rodead@s
por enemig@s de clase, o para aquell@s en celdas de aislamiento que no
tienen más contacto con el mundo exterior que cartas esporádicas.
Aunque el sacrificio revolucionario es un tema fuerte con muchos
personajes en la Rebelión, no es un mensaje propiamente
anti-imperialista, como probablemente reafirmen aquell@s que luchan por
el imperio de EE UU y que creen que lo que están haciendo está bien. En
la película, el Imperio, más que ser un ejemplo de los males del
imperialismo, sigue pareciendo una caricatura de lo que Estados Unidos
piensa del comunismo. Tod@s van vestid@s con el mismo uniforme y están
obligad@s a trabajar para conseguir el dominio militar del mundo bajo el
liderazgo de un@ líder egoísta. No obstante, para aquell@s con una
mentalidad revolucionaria, podemos simular que quería representar al
imperio imperialista, apoyar a la Rebelión y honrar sus sacrificios.
Aparece un grupo que se asemeja a l@s rebeldes árabes que han emprendido
el foquismo contra el Imperio, y con l@s que la Alianza Rebelde quiere
trabajar a regañadientes. Esta visión es, en cierto modo, mejor que la
representación que se suele hacer de l@s árabes en las películas de
Hollywood, en las que a menudo son solo terroristas. Pero en este caso
aparecen como si no fueran lo suficientemente inteligentes para
participar en una batalla unida, haciendo solo lo que ordena el líder y
en ataques foquistas aleatorios. Aún así es una imagen bastante
estereotipada.
La misma Alianza parece ser un frente unido de varias especies de todo
el universo que trabajan juntas para derrotar al Imperio. Esto podría
verse como un paralelismo con el frente unido de las naciones oprimidas
que será necesario para derribar el imperialismo estadounidense. En la
historia humana tenemos grandes ejemplos de frentes unidos entre
naciones, como China. Sin Embargo, pero tenemos poca experiencia del
frente unido multinacional y de la dictadura colectiva del proletariado
que, probablemente, será necesaria tras derribar al imperialismo
estadounidense. La Rainbow Coalition (Coalición del Arco Iris) de Fred
Hampton en Chicago fue una forma temprana de dicho frente unido pero se
reprimió antes de que pudiera surgir una guerra anti-imperialista.
La película utiliza este frente unido para promover actos de
desesperación ultraizquierdistas e individualistas. Cuando se estancan
en la lucha sobre si deben o no emprender acciones militares o huir y
esconderse, un pequeño grupo de combatientes emprenden acciones
independientes porque lo único que conocen es la guerra. Es@s son l@s
valientes héroes y heroínas de la película. La principal discrepancia
dentro del frente unido era sobre si era posible o no ganar en una lucha
contra la Estrella de la Muerte. Este debate acerca de las tácticas
podría haber sido una buena lección de lucha y unidad, una posibilidad
de reunir más información y de ensayar varias tácticas para aprender de
la práctica. En vez de eso, se produjo una pequeña discusión verbal y,
después, se tomó la decisión de no actuar debido a todas las
discrepancias, representando al frente unido como inútil.
En Rogue One aparecen más personajes femeninos de los que suelen
aparecer en una película de Hollywood, pero los personajes principales
nacieron en sus papeles, en vez de alzarse para tomar posiciones por
convicción y trabajo duro, mientras que los personajes principales
masculinos superaron grandes dificultades o luchan contra circunstancias
personales para rebelarse. A pesar de todo, la gran mayoría de los
personajes de la película son masculinos, un hecho extraño para una
sociedad de un futuro tan lejano. Sin duda, el patriarcado sigue
dominando en Star Wars.
En todas las películas de Star Wars aparecen referencias a “la Fuerza”
en mayor o menor grado. En este argumento, la Fuerza se convierte
básicamente en una religión, practicada únicamente por un hombre
asiático que protege ciegamente el templo (literalmente, es ciego). La
fe ciega de este hombre (no es muy sutil) se convierte en una parte
importante de la lucha rebelde. Y, en un momento determinado, dicha fe
salva la situación, promoviendo de nuevo, un tipo de ultraizquierdismo.
Con todos estos fallos, MIM(Prisons) no puede recomendar Rogue One más
que para realizar análisis críticos.
Rogue One is the backstory behind the very first episode of Star
Wars ever produced (which is now chronologically number 4 in the
unendingly profitable Star Wars series of movies). In this movie we
learn how the rebel alliance managed to get a copy of the blueprints for
the Death Star, a critical piece of information used to destroy that
weapon. This movie is an impressive example of how well-funded elements
of capitalist culture can spend millions of dollars in order to make a
profit off of entertainment: the estimated budget was $200,000,000.
Imagine what could have been done with those resources in a system
guided by peoples’ need instead of profit.
For this money we get a story that has some progressive elements but
also many questionable and reactionary messages. Rogue One is
about the rebel alliance’s fight against the Empire. This could be a
great anti-imperialist analogy. And there are some solid themes of
revolutionary sacrifice and the oppressed coming together to fight a
common enemy in a united front. But in the end it is individualism that
wins, as of course that makes for a more exciting story in our culture.
This episode is a fairly satisfactory effort to stitch together episode
3 and episode 4, and provides us with a better explanation for why the
Death Star could be completely destroyed with one good shot. The
saboteur behind this weakness gives us one of the many examples of
revolutionary sacrifice in this movie. It also offers an example of how
resistance is possible from someone who is forced into a situation where
there seems to be no resistance. While this character is depicted as
having unique skills, eir course of action serves as a good example of
the existentialist axiom that we always have a choice. This may serve as
inspiration for those in the imperialist countries surrounded by class
enemies, or those in isolation cells with no contact with the outside
world but occasional letters.
While revolutionary sacrifice is a strong theme with many characters in
the Rebellion, this message is not inherently anti-imperialist as it
will likely reinforce those fighting for U.$. empire who believe what
they are doing is good. The Empire in the movie, rather than being an
example of the evils of imperialism, continues to come across as a
caricature of what Amerika thinks of communism. Everyone wears the same
uniform and is forced to work for the military dominance of the world
under the leadership of one egotistical leader. But for those with a
revolutionary mindset, we can pretend this was meant to represent the
imperialist empire, and root for the Rebellion and honor their
sacrifices.
There is a group that resembles Arab militants who have taken up focoism
against the Empire, and who the Rebel Alliance grudgingly wants to work
with. In some ways this is better than the average portrayal of Arab
peoples in Hollywood movies, where they are often just the terrorists.
But in this case they come across as not smart enough to participate in
a united battle, just doing what their leader directs, in random focoist
attacks. Still a rather stereotypical picture.
The Alliance itself appears to be a united front of various species from
around the universe who are working together to defeat the Empire. This
could be seen to parallel the united front of oppressed nations that
will be necessary to take down U.$. imperialism. In humyn history we
have strong examples of united fronts within nations, such as China. But
the multinational united front and the joint dictatorship of the
proletariat that will likely be necessary after defeating U.$.
imperialism are things that we have little experience with. Fred
Hampton’s Rainbow Coalition in Chicago was an early form of such a
united front, but it was repressed before an anti-imperialist war could
emerge.
The movie uses this united front to promote ultra-leftism and
individualist acts of desperation. When they get bogged down in fighting
over whether or not they should take military action or run and hide, a
small group of fighters take independent action because they don’t know
anything but war. These are the brave heroes of the movie. The main
disagreement within the united front was over whether or not it was
possible to win in a fight against the Death Star. This debate over
tactics could have been a good lesson in struggle and unity, perhaps
greater gathering of information and a testing of various tactics to
learn from practice. Instead there was a short verbal fight and then a
decision that no action could be taken because of all the disagreement,
portraying the united front as futile.
Rogue One did feature more female characters than the average
Hollywood movie, but the main characters were born into their roles,
rather than rising up to take positions out of conviction and hard work.
While the lead male characters overcame great hardship, or fought
against persynal circumstances, to take up the rebel struggle. And still
the vast majority of the characters seen in the movie are male, an odd
feature for a society so far in the future. Clearly the patriarchy still
dominates in Star Wars.
Star Wars movies all feature reference to “The Force” to greater or
lesser degrees. In this storyline The Force is basically turned into a
religion, practiced only by one Asian man who blindly guards the temple
(literally, he is blind). This man’s blind faith (it’s not very subtle)
becomes an important part of the rebel fight. And at one point this
faith saves the day, again promoting a sort of ultra-leftism.
With all of these failings, MIM(Prisons) can’t recommend Rogue
One for anything more than critical analysis.
Lumpen: The Autobiography of Ed Mead Kersplebedeb,
2015
Available for $20 + shipping/handling from: kersplebedeb
CP 63560, CCCP Van Horne Montreal, Quebec Canada H3W 3H8
As anti-imperialists and prison activists, we can recommend Ed Mead’s
recent autobiography as a useful read. There are a couple
inconsistencies with the form and the line promoted in the book,
however. While Mead critiques anarchism and reformism in the book, at
the end is a list of a number of organizations that struggle for
prisoners’ rights, and they are all reformist/mass organizations with a
couple anarchist groups thrown in. Mead stresses that he does not
believe communists should hide their beliefs. Yet it is odd that he
finds no communist prison support groups to be worthy of mention.
Moreso, it seems that for much of Mead’s life ey couldn’t find a
communist organization to be a part of and support.
We also must question the form of an autobiography. Our culture promotes
the idea of writing one’s own story. While this author has been told to
write an autobiography multiple times, having lived much less of my life
than Ed Mead, i don’t plan to ever do so. I hope that if i do live as
long as Mead i’m too busy fulfilling my tasks in a communist cadre org
(or hopefully state by then) to spend a bunch of time writing about
myself. Certainly there is some value in terms of the building of humyn
knowledge of documenting the conditions of the time and places that Mead
experienced. But it does not seem a high priority for communists. It was
probably for this reason that i found the first chapters of the book
tiring to read. I didn’t really need to know all about Mead’s family
growing up to learn some lessons about how to organize with prisoners
effectively. But perhaps that was my own problem as that was never a
stated purpose of this book.
The foremost stated purpose of the book by Mead is to “extend an
invitation to sections of the lumpenproletariat to join the
international working class.” While not a bad goal, it does hint at
differences we have with Mead and other communists within California
Prison Focus (CPF) regarding whether nation or class is the principal
contradiction. This has led to divisions in our work to shut down
Security Housing Units in California. In the 2000s, MIM was part of the
United
Front to Abolish the SHU, which was dominated by parties and
organizations struggling for national liberation. While CPF was
nominally a member, their difference on this issue led to a lack of
working together. This was despite the fact that the United Front
explicitly allowed for organizational independence in terms of political
line outside of our agreement on shutting down the SHU. In the 2010s,
CPF was part of the leadership that created the Prisoner Hunger Strike
Solidarity coalition. Mead was perhaps the only one who tried to include
MIM(Prisons) in that effort. But the coalition structure forced us to
the outside this time as MIM(Prisons) refused to subsume our politics to
the coalition.
While recognizing whites as obviously having advantages over others,
Mead does believe there is a significant white nation working class in
this country. While citing Mao favorably multiple times, Mead points out
Mao’s failure to put class first as a point of disagreement.(p. 164)
Mead’s line is also reflected in an off-hand comment saying Stalin was
wrong to condemn the German social-democrats as social-fascists. We
think Stalin and the Comintern correctly saw the class nature and
interest of the social democrats as being labor aristocracy and petty
bourgeois, who wavered towards fascism, paving its way to power.(1)
Mead talks about “white skin privilege” and uses it as an agitational
point to push people to join the class war while discussing eir
participation in the militant George Jackson Brigade. Mead admits that
eir decision to use revolutionary violence was a direct result of the
lack of mass support for abused prisoners.(p. 181) At the same time ey
mentions other groups at the time doing similar things and believing
that small bands carrying out armed struggle would spread across the
country. Mead does not conclude anywhere in the book that it was a
mistake to take up this line even though comrades died, while the rest
spent the prime of their lives in prison. As we discussed in a recent
article on the Black
Panthers, it was both common and understandable to conclude that
armed struggle would become a reality in the United $tates at that
time.(2) Yet, not only are conditions less advanced today, history also
proved that armed struggle in the United $tates was premature in the
conditions of 1966-72.
From what we know about Mead in real life and from reading the book, it
is clear that ey was good at and focused on uniting all who could be
united. And while we say it is better for communists to work within
cadre organizations than mass organizations, as Mead did much of eir
life, ey certainly did so in a principled way according to the book. And
most of those principles are ones that we too support.
As mentioned, i came to this book in search of some lessons on
anti-imperialist organizing in prisons. And while some of the stories
are very abbreviated, the book is not short on examples of Mead’s
efforts, pitfalls and successes. Mead talks about the importance of
determining the principal contradiction at each prison ey organized in.
While in most cases ey sait it was related to nation, ey said it was
related to sexism in Walla Walla, which led to the formation of
Men
Against Sexism.(3) Interestingly, Mead takes the position that while
nation is principal inside prisons, it does not make sense to build a
Black-only prison movement (at least on a large scale).(p. 280) We are
sympathetic to this view and spend a lot of time calling for unity
between nationalities in prison, while promoting national liberation as
a strategy for the oppressed nations overall. A couple of good lessons
are well-put in Mead’s own words:
“…if the immediate demands address prisoners’ rights and living
conditions, then the backwards elements will either be won over or
neutralized by the growing consciousness of the rest of the
population.”(p. 305) This was one of the most inspiring parts of Mead’s
story. In a situation where the prison system was dominated by one
lumpen organization (LO) that was guided by self-interest, Mead had the
revolutionary fearlessness to organize those victimized by the LO to
build a mass movement that the whole population came to identify with.
“An organization that depends upon one person for direction is doomed to
fail; each level of cadre should be able to take the place of a fallen
or transferred comrade, even if that person occupies a leadership
position.”(p. 306) Mead learned this from experience, both in situations
where ey was that sole leader and others where ey was surrounded by a
dedicated cadre. Inspiring stories include the first strike ever at
McNeil Island, which had 100% participation.(p. 139) While many of the
challenges of prison organizing are still the same decades later, you’ll
find many other inspiring stories in this book as well. It demonstrates
both the importance of the prison movement as part of the overall
movement for liberation and against imperialism, while showing the
limitations of a prison movement that is not complemented by strong
movements on the outside. As the current struggle focused on police
murders continues to ferment, we work to build a prison movement, and
they will feed each other as we move towards the next revolutionary
period in history.
One of the more hotly anticipated sequels to a classic (or, approaching
classic) science fiction film has been the new Independence Day film:
“Resurgence”. The film is set in 2016, exactly 20 years after the last
film, and is quite vague in discussing the geo-political developments
since the events of the first film. What we are given is obscure
exposition by the new president of the united $tates on the “great
advancements of humynity” since the defeat of the alien invaders. Of
course, the united $tates in this arrangement is depicted as the noble
defender of humynity and of earth in light of a humyn victory over the
aliens 2 decades ago. What is also made clear is that an entirely new
and more comprehensive military alliance has been drafted between all of
the major imperialist powers and with China playing an increasingly
prominent role in this new military coalition labeled the Earth Space
Defense (ESD), this will be important later.
What is more immediately puzzling is the talk of the great period
ushered in by the humyn victory which has allegedly seen no military
conflict and has achieved great leaps in prosperity with the use of
alien technology to benefit “all humynity.” These are some pretty big
achievements, if they were to hold water. However it seems that like
most boasts of amerika, even in this film, are just as hollow as they
are in real life. Little is ever shown of the rest of the world outside
of amerika (other than bits of Europe later in the film) although we do
get to see several glimpses of an obscure destination in Afrika that is
visited by the protagonists to meet with a local “warlord” whose people
live underneath a large alien ship which had landed there during the
first invasion.
What is interesting about their depiction of Afrikan people during this
time is not only the direct contradiction with the president’s speech
previously celebrating the great peace and prosperity, as well as the
fact that this film does little to avoid the western stereotypes of
Afrikan people in the media generally. The Afrikan people depicted in
the film seem to have gained virtually nothing from the alien technology
other than weaponry (consistent with a western worldview of what Afrikan
people would find important) as well as the fact that they explicitly
state the people in this region have been at near-constant warfare with
the remnants of the alien army, and have been ruled by a “cruel warlord”
whose aesthetic is meant to closely mirror that of a strong Communist
leader, with the red flags and red stars. So much for “peace and
prosperity” for all humynity.
This is very revealing about not only the mentalities of those who
created the movie, but also of the characters within the film itself.
The Afrikan people are summed up by this one vague and unspecified
people they encounter who are meant to be the archetypical
hyper-violent, probably Communist, and backward peoples. Furthermore, it
becomes clear that when the president of amerika says “all humynity”
what they mean is “all First World humynity” with an expressed focus on
amerikans. These are the humyns they find to be particularly important,
and worth talking about when making the generalized statements of peace
and prosperity. So while for Communists it would seem contradictory to
hear these statement and see the reality of Afrikan peoples at the same
time, it is entirely consistent with the worldview of most amerikans and
would be therefore uncontroversial to most of them.
Later in the film we are presented with the new alien threat, which is
supposed to appear much more challenging than the previous one. Again,
amerika champions itself as being the principal world leader as all of
the seemingly most important battles are fought in North Amerika and a
majority of all scenes address amerikan characters in the aftermath of
the second invasion. There is a focus on two euro-amerikan characters
who constantly paint themselves as born-of-hardship soldiers who are
entirely misunderstood by their non-white superiors, including the
Chinese commanding officer. This falls entirely in line with the
amerikan perception of being the “unwanted hero” that always must
intervene to save the world. They are underappreciated, overdeveloped,
and the model for humynity in this film’s depiction.
Though aside from the centrality of amerikan characters in this film,
another interesting aspect alluded to previously has is the prominence
of China in this. China is not only a major power depicted in the film,
but several of the most prominent characters, such as the commander of
the lunar military installation, featured in the film and one of the
more central protagonists, are Chinese. The film makes several overt
attempts to appeal to the potential Chinese audiences. This has less to
do with the film’s overall message so much as it has to do with an
increasingly popular trend in films overall in the West with regards to
China. Despite being anticipated in the united $tates and Europe,
Resurgence has not done well so far in the amerikan box office,
however its revenue was nearly matched by the Chinese opening.[1] One
could easily connect this to the overt attempts to make the film viable
in the Chinese box office.
This is not unique to this film, however, with many other recent films
now pinning their hopes on a success in both the amerikan and Chinese
box offices. Two good examples of this in recent years have been the new
Warcraft film which did extremely poorly in the united $tates and yet
was a huge success in China, as well as the Red Dawn remake, which had
actually undergone enormous changes during production to change the
antagonists from Chinese to northern Koreans in order to ensure it could
be shown in China.[2] This is a rather strange example of how China is
being transformed in its current place in the global markets as a major
contender for marketing in the West as the Chinese government primes
exclusive parts of the population for integration into the imperialist
world economy as a large power.
Overall this film’s release exposes quite a lot about not only the
amerikan consciousness, but as well the state of the global markets as
they must now recognize China as being a large and viable marketplace
for their goods. Films such as this one appeal directly to the
ultra-racist and eurocentric worldviews of the audiences in an attempt
to portray them as the saviors of the world, who take upon themselves
the full burden and prestige for rescuing the planet in its hour of
need. It goes to great lengths to demonstrate amerika and the
imperialist countries as the rightful leaders of the planet, and to
obscure all real social relations behind their prosperity and the misery
of Third World peoples.
I have on my cell wall, “Afghan Girl,” Steve McCurry’s photograph that
graced the cover of a 1985 National Geographic. I’m sure MIM is familiar
with “Afghan Girl.” It’s one of my favorite selections of photo
journalism/art.
2010, NG again dispatched McCurry to Afghanistan in search of “Afghan
Girl” in commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the famous photo.
McCurry found “Afghan Girl,” just as before - still living in the dirt.
I would wager McCurry has made tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of
thousands of dollars in proceeds from “Afghan Girl.” Obviously,
McCurry’s subject didn’t receive squat.
My question to MIM is: Should “Afghan Girl” be compensated for McCurry’s
photo commensurate to revenue generated, even though said revenue is
derived form superprofits? After all, “Afghan Girl” was McCurry’s model.
Extrapolating form the above, if prisoners are thrown nickels an dimes
by the prisoncrats, are prisoners then feeding at the imperialist
trough? I, myself, don’t give 2 hoots if Texas prisoners are paid or
not. That would just bequeath the man more authoritative leverage to be
used against us. I don’t give a fuck ’bout commissary, unless you’re
talking about boycotting or looting it. And the Texas so-called
“good-time” scheme is a farcical sham.
MIM(Prisons) responds: There is some value, in a world where the
government and its structures are actually serving the interests of the
majority of the world’s people, to superstructure systems of media and
arts that also serve the people. But in the case of a photo exposing
conditions of poverty and suffering, these should be used to identify
problems and inspire action to change, not to generate wealth for the
photographer.
The imperialists have come up with a myriad of ways to make money off
the backs of Third World people. It is true that revenue for a photo is
just a shifting around of superprofits; obviously there is no actual
value or profit created from the taking of a photograph, or from being
photographed. But instead this shows how the privileged in the First
World share the wealth stolen from the Third World, to First World
workers who are mostly engaged in unproductive labor. Rather than ask
whether the Afghan girl in the photo should be compensated for the
photo, instead we say that the entire situation is wrong and
demonstrates how imperialism is more interested in profit than the
welfare of human beings. This is just one small example further
demonstrating that capitalism is a dead end system and must be replaced
with a system that serves the interests of the majority, not the profit
of the minority.
The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution by Stanley Nelson
2015
This film screened in major U.$. cities in the fall of 2015. I was
planning to use my notes in an article for our 50th issue on the 50th
anniversary of the Black Panther Party. However, in February 2016 the
film was shown on PBS with much publicity. Knowing that our readers have
now seen the film we wanted to put some commentary out sooner rather
than later. But do make sure to check out Under Lock & Key Issue
50 for a more in-depth counter-narrative to this pop culture film.
The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution is an eclectic
collection of video and photography, along with contemporary commentary
from some who played important roles in the Party. The producer clearly
had no deep ideological understanding of the Black Panther Party, as
critics on the left and the right have already noted. What ey was good
at was picking out some good sound bites and emotionally moving clips.
Yet, even still, as someone with extensive knowledge of Panther history,
i often found the film boring. Most of the audience seemed to enjoy it
based on the loud cheering at the end.
I have not watched Stanley Nelson’s other films, but it seems that a
film on the Panthers is within the realm of previous documentaries ey
has produced (Jonestown, The Black Press, Freedom
Riders and Freedom Summer). It is curious that ey takes on
these topics, and then does such a shallow portrayal of the Panthers.
Nelson says ey was 15 when the Panthers formed and was always fascinated
with them, but was not a participant in the movement emself.(1)
In line with the lack of ideological understanding, the treatment of
Panther leaders was dismissive. The most in-depth discussion of Huey P.
Newton was related to eir downward spiral into drugs and crime after the
Panthers had been well on their way to dissolving. Nelson features sound
bites from interviews calling Newton a “maniac” and Eldridge Cleaver
“insane.” Eldridge Cleaver was cast as a misleader from the beginning in
this film. While both story lines are based in reality, the story that
is missed is the great leadership role that Huey played, both
ideologically and in practice, in building the greatest anti-imperialist
organization this country has seen. At that time Eldridge too played an
important role ideologically and organizationally, even if he was less
consistent than Huey. Fred Hampton was given a more favorable portrayal
by the film, but he died a martyr just as he was getting started. (And
despite the attention given to Hampton’s assassination there is no
mention of him being drugged beforehand, presumably by an FBI spy.)
There is a pattern of character assassination in the film that does
nothing to deepen our understanding of what the Panthers were, why they
succeeded, and why they failed. It will turn some people off to the
Panthers and push people towards an individualist or anarchist approach
to struggle.
To get an accurate portrayal of the Panthers one is better off watching
archival footage, as today you can find ex-Panthers of all stripes, and
very very few who uphold the Maoist ideology of the Panthers at their
height. Former chairman, Bobby Seale, who long ago stopped putting
politics in command, was barely mentioned in the film, perhaps because
he refused to be interviewed.(1) Elaine Brown, who took over the
chairpersyn position after the party had already moved away from a
Maoist political line, does appear but has written a scathing
denunciation of the film and asked to be removed from it.(2)
As other critics have pointed out there is a lack of mention of national
liberation, socialism, communism, and the international situation
overall at the time. It is ironic for a film titled “Vanguard of the
Revolution” to ignore the key ideological foundations of the vanguard.
This reflects a clear effort to build a certain image of what the
Panthers were that ignores the basis of their very existence. As such,
this film contributes to the long effort to revise the history of the
BPP, similar to the efforts to revise the history of other influential
revolutionary communist movements in history. This only stresses the
importance of building independent institutions of the oppressed to
counter the institutions of the bourgeoisie in all aspects of life and
culture.
As each holiday season reminds us, there are certain tunes sung again
and gain for generations. Perhaps a word or two is altered as language
changes, but the message is the same.
A man named Carolus Linneaus is honored by most amerikkkans as “one of
the greatest scientists of the Western world” for his message back in
1738.(1) While the terms aren’t in use in today’s language, let’s see if
we recognize the time.
Modern imperialism was in its nascent stage back then. Powerful and
power hungry Europeans were attempting to find a reasoned justification
for dominating and destroying other people in order to take their
resources. Good ol’ Carolus Linneaus - brilliant scientist - had already
classified the world into the various families, genus, types, etc. that
we learn in biology. But most hystory books don’t tell us he also made
four classes of humyns:
Homo Europeans: people who are light, lively, inventive, ruled by rites
Homo Americanus: people who are tenacious, contented, free, ruled by
custom
Homo Asiaticus: people who are stern, haughty, stingy, ruled by opinion
Homo Africanus: cunning, slow, ruled by caprice
This is a timeless tune, isn’t it? I suppose we could add to this
“Carolus” the jingle of Donald Kunt, er Trump kkklassifying Latinos as
murderers, rapists, and criminals. I mean, if i classify you as not
quite humyn then I can freely treat you as other than me. Like it’s okay
to steal a duck’s eggs ’cause ducks don’t have rights.
by PTT of MIM(Prisons) February 2016 permalink
Beyonce’s Michael Jackson homage costume, and Black Panther backup
dancers.
Beyonce is the Queen of pop in the United $tates, so this review isn’t
meant to uphold em as a revolutionary force. Eir ties to Empire and the
lack of internationalism in eir recent series of publicity stunts is a
reminder of Beyonce’s attachment to U.$. institutions. Instead this
article is meant to analyze eir performance at Super Bowl 50, and eir
recently released song and music video, “Formation”, from a
revolutionary Maoist perspective.
The “Formation” video is the
most interesting thing in pop culture in a long time, and the
Super Bowl performance was
likely the most interesting thing in all football history. Beyonce’s
dancers donned afros and berets (yet, not pants), and performed eir new
song “Formation.” Like Nina Simone, Beyonce is being compelled by the
struggle of eir nation to take an explicit political position. Simone
correctly stated that “desegregation is a joke” and Beyonce is
suggesting that cultural integration is not worthwhile. After Martin
Luther King was assassinated, Simone performed a poem which called for
violent uprising against “white things”, imploring New Afrikans to “kill
if necessary” and to “build black things” and “do what you have to do to
create life.”(1) Simone was a reflection of eir nation at the time.
While Beyonce’s twirling of albino alligators is a weak replacement for
Simone’s poetic diatribe, we hope today’s New Afrikans will keep pushing
cultural icons in more militant and separatist directions.
The Song
Let’s start with what holds this whole phenomena together. The lyrics
for “Formation” are not revolutionary.(2) They promote
consumerism, making billions, drinking alcohol, being light-skinned, and
fucking. They primarily promote cultural nationalism and economic
integration with Empire. What comment the lyrics make on the
international relationship between New Afrika and the Third World is
more promotion of Black capitalism, on the backs of the most oppressed
people in the world – those who are slaving over eir Givenchy dress and
dying to mine the diamonds in the Roc necklaces ey is rocking.
Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, correctly calls out
Beyonce’s bad economic recommendations in this song, “her celebration of
capitalism – an economic system that is largely killing black people,
even if some black people, like her, achieve success within it – [has]
also been a source of important critique.”(3) Although Garza’s comment
is tame, it’s an important generalization to be made. Considering
Garza’s following, it’s an important persyn to be making it.
On a positive note, the song celebrates New Afrikan culture that is
still under so much attack in the United $tates. While we prefer the
revolutionary content and gender relations contained in
Dead Prez’s “The
Beauty Within”, “Formation” is still an exercise of Black pride.
Whether that pride is then mobilized into a revolutionary
internationalist direction is up to the New Afrikan masses, who aren’t
getting a whole lot of clarity from Beyonce on that tip.
“Formation” calls for New Afrikan unity of the sexes, and of females as
a group (not unusual for Beyonce’s typical pseudo-feminist fare). In the
lyrics about going to Red Lobster, or going on a flight on eir chopper,
or going to the mall to shop up, Beyonce advocates a reward-based system
for harmonious sexual relations. Beyonce also brings in gay and trans
New Afrikan culture, from the use of the word “slay” over and over, to
the voice samples and New Orleans Bounce style of music used for the
song.(4) Resolution of gender antagonisms within New Afrika are a good
thing. But if the goal is Black capitalism, that’s bad for the
international proletariat and just an extension of the gender
aristocracy phenomenon into the relatively privileged New Afrikan
internal semi-colony.
MIM(Prisons) upholds the line that all sex under patriarchy has elements
of coercion(5), and offering perks for enjoyable sex is still an
expression of patriarchal gender relations even if Beyonce is not a
typical male father figure. Within the predominantly white Amerikkkan
nation, rewards for compliance with patriarchy help to unite Amerika
against the oppressed nations.(6) But within the oppressed internal
semi-colonies, these lyrics are more interesting, especially considering
the long tradition of the Amerikkkan-male-dominated recording industry’s
use of divide-and-conquer tactics in selecting which music to record and
promote. Beyonce isn’t promoting sexual entitlement or sexual passivity
– patriarchal values that do more to divide New Afrika in practice, and
which are heavily promoted in mainstream culture. Assuming whoever is
fucking Beyonce could still feed emself without relying on that trade,
it’s not a matter of life and death, and so these lyrics are less of a
threat of starvation than a promotion of national unity. When united
against a common oppressor, subsuming the gender struggle to the fight
for national liberation, gender harmony in the oppressed nations can be
a revolutionary force.
The best part about the song is the separatism and militancy. If the
song were to get stuck in your head, it could be a mantra for working
hard and uniting. It even gets into who the unity is directed against –
Beyonce twirls on them haters, albino alligators. Ey twirls them, as in
alligator rolls them, as in kills them. The haters are albino
alligators, as in they’re white. Ey calls on others to slay these
enemies, or get eliminated. In other words, choose a side.
The Video
Two middle fingers in the air on the plantation. Moors in the
background.
Beyonce throws a ‘b’ on top of a sinking New Orleans Police car.
Cops surrender to kid dancer.
Beyonce’s kid’s screw face and proud afro.
The “Formation” music video, which was released as a surprise the day
before the Super Bowl, is a celebration of New Afrikan national culture
and a condemnation of oppression of New Afrikans. It is thick with
important and unmistakably New Afrikan cultural references. Beyonce
sings, poses, raises a Black fist, and drowns on top of a New Orleans
Police car, sinking in floodwaters. A little Black kid hypnotizes a line
of cops with eir incredible dancing, and the cops raise their hands in
surrender. Beyonce raises two middle fingers on a plantation. There are
references to the Moorish Science Temple, gay and trans New Afrikan
culture, hand signs, a Black church service, and more, more, more…(7)
“Stop Shooting Us” is spraypainted in the background. The subjects of
the video look directly into the camera, confidently, and say “take
what’s mine,” including Beyonce’s kid Blue Ivy, complete with eir baby
hair and afro.
This video doesn’t clearly distinguish between integration and
secession. Should New Afrikans just keep trying to make peace with
Amerikkka, but while asserting a Black cultural identity? Should New
Afrika honor its culture, and lives, by separating itself from Amerikkka
and forming its own nation-state? Should this nation-state be capitalist
or communist? Outside of a revolutionary context, much of the cultural
markers that are present in this video could be taken as integrationist.
Hopefully the militance and anti-white sentiment of the video will push
New Afrika to get in formation to study up and push for actual (not just
cultural) liberation from the many forms of oppression highlighted in
the video.
The Super Bowl Halftime
That Beyonce was permitted to perform with dancers dressed up like the
former Black Panther Party members is somewhat of a mystery. Is it
because, ignoring any political content, one would still witness a show
of tits and ass, so for the average ignoramus watching the biggest
football event of the year, it’s no different? Maybe it’s because this
year is the semi-centennial anniversary of the Black Panther Party, so
it’s gonna come up in mainstream culture sometime, might as well come up
with lots of distraction from the political content. Or maybe the growth
of the Black Lives Matter movement has made room for this performance to
be possible, and perhaps even necessary to quell uprisings by helping
New Afrika feel included in such a paragon cultural event. For whatever
reason(s), it’s obvious this half-time show would not have happened a
few years ago. In fact, Beyonce led the entire halftime show in 2013 and
while ey avoided any mention of patriorism, ey didn’t reference police
brutality or New Afrikan nationlism either. It’s a milestone, and one
that shows Black pride is definitely resurfacing country-wide.
Not surprisingly, the Super Bowl has a long history of promoting white
nationalism.(8) Some overt examples include in 2002 when U2 helped the
country mourn 9/11, with Bono wearing a jean jacket lined with an
Amerikkkan flag which ey flashed at the audience, with the names of
people who died in the “terrorist” attacks projected in the background.
In 2004, Kid Rock wore an Amerikan flag as a poncho, and when ey sang
“I’m proud to be living in the U.S.A.” over and over, two blondes waved
Amerikan flags behind em. When necessary, the Super Bowl even has a
tradition of promoting integration and “world peace,” some of which we
explore below. At this year’s performance, Coldplay upheld these
decidedly white traditions. Where there was one Amerikan flag, it was
during Coldplay’s portion of the performance. When there was feel-good
bouncing and rainbow-colored multiculturalism, Coldplay was leading it.
When the audience was told “wherever you are, we’re in this together,”
the singer of Coldplay was saying it. It’s not surprising that the white
Coldplay frontman would be the one to promote this misguided statement
of unity. As explored in
the
review of Macklemore’s “White Privilege II” project, no, we’re not
in this together. And we don’t need white do-gooders playing leadership
roles that distract from national divisions, and thus, the potency for
national liberation struggles.
At the end of the Coldplay-led halftime show, the stadium audience made
a huge sign that said “Believe in Love.” On the other hand, some of
Beyonce’s dancers were off-stage holding a sign that said “Justice 4
Mario Woods” for cameras. One is a call to just have faith that our
problems will go away. Another is a call for a change in material
reality: an end to murders by police. (Side note: Someone who was
allegedly stabbed by Mario Woods just prior to Woods’s 20-bullet
execution has come out to tell eir story. Whether ey mean to or not,
this “revelation” is being wielded in an attempt to discredit Beyonce as
a competent political participant, and to lend more justification to the
unnecessary police murder of Woods. Whatever Woods did just prior to eir
execution, that ey is dead now is wholly unjustified. The demand for
“Justice 4 Mario Woods” is correct, and underlines how New Afrikan
people are gunned down in the streets without due process, which is
supposedly guaranteed by the U.$. Constitution.)
Super Bowl dancers form an “X” on the field, and hold a sign reading
“Justice for Mario Woods”.
While Beyonce’s performance didn’t break new ground by bringing up
politics or social problems, it was done in a different way than in the
past, that may be a marker for how our society has changed. The costume
Beyonce wore, which was adorned with many shotgun shells, was a
reference to the costume Michael Jackson wore during eir Super Bowl 1993
performance. Where Michael Jackson had banners of a Black hand shaking a
white hand, Beyonce had Black Panther dancers, so touchdown for Beyonce.
But where Beyonce sings “you might be a Black Bill Gates in the making”,
Jackson advocated for the children of the world because “no one should
have to suffer.” Beyonce’s individualist capitalism is devoid of any
awareness that today’s New Afrikan wealth, especially of Gates
proportions, is stolen by the United $tates military from exploited
nations across the globe. Yet Jackson’s multiculturalism invites unity
with oppressor nation chauvinism, which historically usurps oppressed
nation struggles and drives them into the ground.
In Janet Jackson’s performance in 2004 (you know, the one where Justin
Timberlake stalked em around the stage and then exposed Jackson’s breast
to the world), ey performed the song “Rhythm Nation.” The
video for “Rhythm
Nation” features militant outfits, with pants. In the video, Jackson
and eir dancers intrigue a few Black people who are wandering around
what appears to be the Rhythm Nation’s underground headquarters, another
reference to the enchanting powers of dance. “Rhythm Nation” is about
unity and brotherhood, “break the color lines”, but it’s not about
Blackness.(9) At the Super Bowl, Jackson called out various injustices
faced by oppressed nations (prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, and
illiteracy) and called out “No!” to each one, but didn’t make it about
New Afrikan struggle. That Beyonce clearly delineates eir struggle from
the struggle of whites with this performance is an advancement off of
Jackson’s.
On the topic of organizing females and combating New Afrikan female
internalized racism, Beyonce’s performance is a step above other
performances. A few examples: Nelly and P. Diddy’s dancers in 2004 were
dark-skinned but were straight-haired compared with Beyonce’s backups.
In 2004 they also wore straight hair, as in Madonna’s performance in
2012 as well. Even though Madonna called on “ladies” like Beyonce does,
Madonna called on them to cure their troubles on the dance floor.
Beyonce calls on ladies to get organized (in formation). It should be
obvious which message MIM(Prisons) prefers.
During Madonna’s performance, MIA gave a middle finger to the camera
during the lyric “I’ma say this once, yeah, I don’t give a shit.” But
then MIA and Nikki Minaj joined a tribe of dark-skinned, straight-haired
cheerleaders revering Madonna as their blonde, white idol. Beyonce’s
Panther dance-off with Bruno Mars is a step in a better direction. We
also prefer Beyonce’s dancers forming a letter “X” on the field (likely
another New Afrikan reference), as opposed to Madonna’s
self-aggrandizing “M”.
Whether it’s dancing at the Super Bowl or dancing in front of a line of
pigs, impressive dancing isn’t what’s going to get the New Afrikan
nation out of the scope of Amerikkkan guns. Beyonce is a culture worker,
so that’s eir most valuable weapon at this time. As long as she keeps
shaking her ass, white Amerikkka might stay hypnotized and let Beyonce
continue to promote New Afrikan pride. Hopefully many people in New
Afrika who watched the Super Bowl will study up on history, as Beyonce
hints at, and revolutionary internationalism of the Black Panther Party
can be injected tenfold into the growing Black Lives Matter
movement.(10)
“White Privilege II” Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, feat. Jamila
Woods Released January 2016
This song calls people out about attending protests and tweeting, or
being silent, instead of “actually getting involved” in fighting racism.
The song is very introspective and what might sound like Macklemore (Ben
Haggerty) dissing other artists is actually about Macklemore and Ryan
Lewis themselves. Macklemore criticizes emself along with others for
making money off a style that came from Black nation culture and
acknowledges that “I’ve been passive.” “It seems like we’re more
concerned with being called racist than we actually are with racism.”(1)
Ironically, the free song will make money for someone even if it’s just
through bringing more traffic to iTunes or YouTube, but that doesn’t
mean Macklemore isn’t saying something correct.
On the plus side, Macklemore doesn’t say anything supporting mass
surveillance or the expansion or legitimization of the federal
government’s power ostensibly to protect Blacks. Macklemore doesn’t
explicitly oppose Black nationalism. Notably, Macklemore says that
“white supremacy isn’t just a white dude in Idaho” and that it “protects
the privilege I hold” – taking issue with the idea that Euro-Amerikan
domination and oppression are just about something inside somebody’s
brain among the white trash, rural people, or Republicans. Macklemore
also raises that people’s actions – or their inaction – taken so they
won’t be called “racist” are compatible with doing nothing that
contributes to ending racism. As Macklemore might or might not know, in
2016 there is still a huge problem involving post-modernism-influenced
efforts that emphasize changes in speech and thought, and perfecting
those in increasing detail, over taking concrete action to end
repression. Simply participating in a protest or saying some approving
words about a well-known movement could become part of maintaining a
non-racist or anti-racist identity with which one can be satisfied – a
step toward contentment. Without development of knowledge and of the
motivation to apply it scientifically, it could also be premature
catharsis and a substitute for revolutionary work.
Also on the plus side is Macklemore’s passing critique of
petty-bourgeois “DIY” (do-it-yourself) culture that sometimes purports
to be isolated from exploitation, corporations, finance capital, and
imperialist oppression. “The DIY underdog, so independent. But the one
thing the American dream fails to mention is I was many steps ahead to
begin with.”
Macklemore also mentions those who would praise eir song “Same Love”
(“If I was gay, I would think hip hop hates me”) because of its support
for gay people, but disdain Black hip hop and claim “it’s your fault if
you run” in the context of police shootings. Macklemore implicates
emself in the treatment of Blacks as inferior. “If I’m the hero, you
know who gets cast as the villain.” It is true that many in the United
$tates and the West have rejected anti-imperialist ways of advancing gay
people’s rights, consider Muslim and oppressed nations to be incapable
or less capable of change on gender questions without Western
intervention, and cannot imagine how Black nationalism, Chican@
nationalism, First Nation nationalism and other oppressed nation
nationalism would help with gay and lesbian liberation.
A voice that’s not Macklemore’s toward the end of the song mentions “a
very age-old fight for black liberation.” Unfortunately, there is no
mention of Black nationalism specifically. There is no mention of the
Black
Panther Party, which at one time was Maoist.(2) The name “Black
Lives Matter” shares an acronym with “Black liberation movement,” and
there are many around or associated with #BlackLivesMatter who claim to
be for Black liberation. There are many, though, who are against even
using the term, and there are others who explicitly reject Black
nationalism, Black nation self-determination, Black nation independent
institutions, and Black nation-building. If Macklemore wanted to be
controversial, ey could have at least mentioned Black power, Black
nationalism, the BPP, Huey Newton, or Malcolm X, but Macklemore doesn’t
manage to leave the realm of a kind of political correctness despite
asking “Then I’m trying to be politically correct?” if ey stays silent.
(Maybe eir verbal support for Black nationalism will come with “White
Privilege III.” Probably only if Blacks themselves start popularizing
present-day nationalist struggles, for white rappers to tag on to.)
This reviewer would suggest to Macklemore that, from the point of the
view of the oppressed, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing
something when it comes to non-lumpen white Amerikans such as emself who
usually would do nothing to upset business as usual, including
Democratic Party business. Contentment and apathy are bad things when
there is really a potential to help the oppressed, but it is clear that
when Amerikans become militant or excited it is normally for the worse.
Militant integrationism and militant labor aristocracy politics are not
better than nothing from the viewpoint of the international proletariat.
For example, vigorously upholding certain aspects of Martin Luther King
while pooping on Huey Newton and even Malcolm X is not better than
nothing. Joining the outrageously chauvinistic and labor
aristocracy-influenced Progressive Labor Party – which opposed Black
nationalism when the BPP was around and still being ferociously
repressed – and continuing in 2016 the PLP tradition of criticizing
Black and other internal semi-colony nationalism isn’t better than
nothing. Talking about the Black nation occasionally, but all but
rejecting Black nationalism (and supporting it only nominally), and
making mealy-mouthed innuendo against Black nationalists as a group,
isn’t better than nothing. Insinuating that all oppressed-nation
nationalism is narrow nationalism, while advocating for U.$. exploiter
class/individual unity and economic and political interests, isn’t
better than nothing. Rejecting Black nationalism in the name of
“multiracial” unity for more super-profits in the parasitic United
$nakes isn’t better than nothing. Talking about white supremacy and then
actively denying the existence of Euro-Amerikan national oppression of
Black people isn’t better than nothing. Talking about oppression of
Black people only to hitch people to U.$.-centric social-democracy or a
fascist party isn’t better than nothing (in other words, voting for
Bernie Sanders isn’t better than doing nothing). Trying to rile up the
labor aristocracy and the U.$. middle class as if they were
revolutionary, instead of petty-bourgeois exploiters prone to supporting
fascism, isn’t better than nothing. Stirring up exploiters to march in
the streets to jail some bankers, without giving up their aspirations to
control and obtain more benefit from finance capital and imperialist
state power, isn’t better than nothing. Attacking Third World peoples in
various chauvinistic ways while flattering and pandering to the
already-chauvinistic and racist labor aristocracy and gender
aristocracy, of highly privileged U.$. so-called “workers” and globally
privileged Euro-Amerikan females, is not better than nothing.
Amerikkkans who are already going around the United $tates and the world
disrupting movements against U.$. imperialism certainly should recognize
the privilege they exercise in doing so, instead of, for example,
denying that viable alternatives to what they are doing exist. Both
white people and non-white people should understand how Euro-Amerikans,
including Euro-Amerikan settler nation workers, are privileged as
settlers, oppressors, and exploiters.
There is less utility, though, in whites dwelling on their particular
privilege as individuals with skin privilege, certain family history,
etc., rather than the privilege of their group in very broad social
relationships of global national oppression and exploitation. Suggesting
listeners also “look at” themselves, Macklemore talks more about emself
as an individual, than about Euro-Amerikan labor aristocrats as a group.
Focusing on race and variation in individual privilege could draw
attention away from national oppression by whites and the labor
aristocracy privilege that U.$. citizen workers have in common. Ideas
about inequality within U.$. borders have long been used to make the
political and strategic consequences of global international inequality
seem less important. Ideas about white privilege and individual
self-reflection often don’t address how the vast majority of U.$.
citizens are exploiters of Third World workers. Often these calls to
anti-racist activism end up as an exercise in that white privilege on a
global scale.
Euro-Amerikan acknowledgment of privilege could be a welcome step toward
ideological reform and taking responsibility for police and criminal
injustice system violence and other wrongdoing, how whites have
benefited economically, nationally and socially from imprisonment and
control of non-whites, war, national oppression, exploitation, and their
consequences. But this recognition would have to be more than halfway,
not partial, or it may end up obscuring and legitimizing the majority of
a typical Euro-Amerikan’s privilege under the guise of moving toward
helping non-whites.
At this point in history, the oppressed generally don’t need
unscientific leadership or militant do-something impulsive actions. That
may not leave Euro-Amerikans much to do if they decline to study their
position, and the position of the U.$. population, in an actually
comprehensive way. They can be cautious about accepting any prevailing
narrative. They can be wary of potentially following any Amerikan leader
into fascism and destruction. Labor aristocrats will do what they need
to do in anti-war or anti-single-war movements, and other movements, to
remind politicians to act in their interests and spend more super-profit
tax money on them as allegedly anti-Iraq-War Obama did. We don’t want a
broad anti-racist call to action to end up inspiring more Amerikkkans to
fight for their own global interests.
Macklemore raps about whites protesting and “seeming like you’re down”
as having an “incentive” to do so, in order to be liked and accepted.
Oppressors do have an incentive to co-opt movements or use them for
career reasons, but the oppressed have an incentive to fight. There’s
nothing wrong with incentive itself, contrary to mistaken notions that
all activism should be altruistic. The notion that whites should have
selfless pure motives in participating in or supporting a movement
around killings of Black people could actually be an admission that
whites don’t have an interest in the movement contrary to ideas about
Black people’s struggles positively intersecting with white worker, and
white petty-bourgeois individual so-called liberation. Either whites
have an interest in opposing police and vigilante brutality or they
don’t, and most don’t.
More important than whether somebody has “incentive” or not is
whether ey is standing in the way of Black nationalism or not.
Macklemore’s lyrics suggest a tension between “do something” and “don’t
do it for you.” Labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeois types would add,
“Do it, because it’s in your own interest.” There is an alternative to
more-involved labor aristocracy activism or more-energetic
integrationist activism, and that is to support anti-Amerikan Black
nationalism and movements and institutions that are independent of
Democratic Party and white exploiter interests and politics. Short of
that, Macklemore’s expression of “we are not we” (as opposed to “we are
not free”) is to be preferred to whites’ falsely identifying with
Blacks, claiming to be one with them, and derailing their movement via
“All Lives Matter” sentiments.