Maoism, Black Nationalism, The US Left, and Our Scorching Future
Added 2021-07-16 22:12:43 +0000 UTCBlack Red Guard joins Breht to discuss a wide range of topics from the synthesis of maoism and black nationalism to the state of the US left to our projections for the coming decades.
Support STL Rising Care Fund here: https://www.facebook.com/STLRising314/
Check out BRG's new podcast here: https://anymeansnecessary.libsyn.com/
Outro Music: "Punch A N*zi" by The Muslims (check them out here: https://themuslims.com/)
Comments
Fantastic! Please have BRG back on the show sometime :)
H
2021-07-27 04:16:19 +0000 UTCI don't live in the US so my perspective might be limited, keep that in mind when reading my opinion on this episode (then again the American left broadcasts its internal issues globally at full volume so that even non-US Marxists get the gist of most issues). Also, please keep in mind that I am arguing in good faith and am aware that Black revolutionaries in the US in the past and present have been dealing with white chauvinism from "fellow" white revolutionaries. I don't mean to simply replicate the bad faith arguments uttered by these white revolutionaries from the past. So, I agree with most of what was said here by BRG, but around the 27min mark I think BRG gives an example of particularly bad Marxist identity politics and contra-productive positions to built a movement from. Note that I don't reject identity politics as such, I think they are vital to our success. While the five heads are admittedly non-black, one of them was an impoverished exile without citizenship, one was a Georgian among Russians, and one was a Chinese librarian. They are not simply a "bunch of white men from 200 years ago" indeed. I don't see the chauvinism in upholding these men in the US as they are not upheld for their non-black identity but for their theoretical contributions and practical examples in leadership positions of the workers' movement. This is in no way incompatible with black liberation, and I am sorry to say that I don't think that non-marxist black liberation can succeed long-term (not in the US nor elsewhere). Here, I get the vibe that to suggest US Marxists to reject the quite important symbolism (and that symbolism is what BRG thinks is important) of upholding either of the five heads and replace it with partially non-Marxist Black thinkers or organizers gets you a step closer to rejecting the only foundation that can bring forth actual black liberation. On the contrary, I would think that if I met a white American with a five heads banner proudly presented above the dining table, chances are pretty high that I just met one of the least chauvinist white Americans there are, and not an "extremely chauvinistic" example as BRG put it. Wouldn't the obvious solution be to simply add black "heads" to the foundation presented by the non-black heads? Wouldn't this symbolically reflect the need for a Marxist revolution in the US under non-white/cis-male leadership? If, as BRG says themselves, they simply cannot relate to a representation of people who "don't look like" them, I think the harmful disconnect here lies with BRG more than with the person flying that flag figuratively or literally, although of course BRG is right in pointing out the awful powerdynamic at play during white-to-non-white interactions in leftist organizing spaces. Another line that BRG drops that in my opinion further shows their bad takes on idpol is the statement that "the left of this country would be nothing without the energy provided by national liberation movements with a socialist perspective". Now this is obviously a false statement or edgy exaggeration. I can say that with confidence because even I, somebody who doesn't live in the US, knows examples of important movements/groups with socialist perspective that operate in US areas with low to non existent participation by non-white members of the national liberation movement. I think we all understand, that without white socialist formations accepting and supporting black leadership and the goals of liberation in the US, the entire socialist project ultimately will get nowhere, but that isn't what BRG meant. This is unfortunate because I would have much preferred BRG constructively criticizing the white socialist and (socialist) black liberation movements, for why non-white leadership is often non-existent outside of specifically anti-racist orgs. Instead, BRG meant to say that the entire struggle is carried by the non-white national liberation movement and that white orgs are borderline useless of not harmful. I mean, fuck, we all suffer under capitalism, and those of us who organize on top of that have it bad enough regardless of their identity. This shit is so tiring to hear. Not all white Marxists will send their white recruitment team to the literal wake of a black victim of a racist police shooting to hand out fliers. What good does it do, to so non-factually and antagonistically argue against those who after your own identity group are your closest allies and best understand your position despite the reality of racism in the US? Ultimately it boils down to "Do you really think, that this perspective, this approach to inner-left discourse, these principles will bring you closer to national liberation from the US settler-colonial state?" I argue in good faith and with the best wishes for your liberation AND the anti-capitalist struggle that you recognize what is relatable among workers who don't look alike. I don't think that antagonizing white Marxist out of their chauvinism will work and I have heard little other constructive input from BRG in this episode that addresses this issue. PS: in case this isn't obvious, I would gladly hear if people disagree with me and could tell me why BRGs approach to socialist identity politics is correct. I am here to learn.
R&L
2021-07-25 19:41:48 +0000 UTC
