Black Panthers: War with the Tea Party?Bring it

[someguy]

YouTube - Black Panthers: War with the Tea Party?Bring it


Does this guy sound racist to you?

[LenInSebastopol]

Sounds like a Marxist rhetorician to me. His job is to play the race card, but that is not bothersome to me. He's got the patois but not the fire. I remember those guys walking into the State legislature with rifles! Yeah, it was staged, but it made it real hard for gun owners everywhere after that incident because of the laws passed shortly thereafter. I heard not all the assembly knew it was coming down and some released their urine onto that beautiful rug!

[CowGal]

Absolutely not. What he says makes a lot of sense! Let's get it on!

YouTube - Black Panthers: War with the Tea Party?Bring it


Does this guy sound racist to you?

[CowGal]

Dr. Shabazz rocks!

["Mad" Miles]

The New Black Panther Party, not to be confused with the Black Panther Party of the sixties and seventies, is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Black Separatist Hate Group. Here's an article of quotes by its leader, the same guy in this youtube video.

By the way, Leninsebastopol, you keep equating Hitler / Fascism with the Left. That's bullshit. Just cause Nazi has socialist in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the leftist tendencies towards socialism.

North Korea's name for itself is the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, that doesn't make it democratic, or republican. If Hitler was such a socialist, how come the first groups he rounded up and liquidated, aside from developmentally disabled children, were leftist labor activists from the socialist and communist movements?

And don't equate socialist and communist either. They may have had similar critiques of capitalism, but they didn't have similar methods or goals.

I'll give you that Mussolini started out as a socialist labor organizer, but he quickly shifted right when he saw that creating an authoritarian party in league with capitalist business interests would get him the power he craved long before advocating for the working class would.

Hitler was never a socialist, in any way, shape, form or meaning of the word. The politics of Weimar Germany was complex and fast changing. I recommend a study of that history to understand the forces that shaped WWII.

As for Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevarra, etc. They were (are in the case of Fidel) Marxist-Leninists. The only people who think Marxist-Leninists are socialists, and democrats, are Marxist-Leninists themselves. Surely you know that the socialist movement is far broader and more complex than Marxist-Leninism?

I believe you do, and choose to ignore it for rhetorical purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong and you really do think the politics of social democracies in Europe, and throughout the British Commonwealth, are the same as 20th Century Russia. (Just to name one broad example.) There are plenty of resources available to help you release yourself from that delusion.

You keep pleading your ignorance, but I find it disengenuous. It's a way to dissemble from your shoot from the hip, lump them all together, and clean up the mess later if anyone calls me on it, rhetorical "style."

You regularly betray your lack of ignorance with apropos comments that contain accurate historical knowledge. Such comments bely your protestations of innocence, innocence that you base upon your confessed ignorance.

I think you just like to sustain false stereotypes which support your own ideological biases. Even though you know they're bullshit, and are unconnected to any real understanding of the complications of history.

It reminds me of the South Park episode where the Japanese businessmen plotting the destruction of the U.S., via Pokemon toys and games which brainwash the American (U.S.) kids into wanting to wipe out their own nation, by deflecting anybody getting near to the truth by saying, "You Americun, have have such beeeg penis, huge! Not like our tiny Japanese penis, you so big!!"

They are bullshiting and deflecting, to change the topic and deter being found out.

Whenever someone calls you on a distortion, you just reply, "Well, I'm just stupid." or some such. It's weak, and transparent. You're clearly not stupid, just selective about what you say to support your views and to keep your project, of trying to needle your perceived opposition, going..

Time for a new tactic. One that actually engages in the dialog that you so often claim is your goal.

[LenInSebastopol]

The New Black Panther Party, not to be confused with the Black Panther Party of the sixties and seventies, is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Black Separatist Hate Group. Here's an article of quotes by its leader, the same guy in this youtube video.

I am sorry but when one uses words like Black Panther Party in their title, well...stupid me thinks there may be a connection...or is it just tradition? Being stupid, I like looking for patterns.
As for the SPLC, it is clear to most folks that they too define their own definitions and parameters to be inclusive or exclusive based on a pre-determined matrix. While they do expose factual groups related to hatred, they bypass groups that do not meet their "criteria". Their KISS program seems to draw a circle around those other activists that do not follow their dogma.

By the way, Leninsebastopol, you keep equating Hitler / Fascism with the Left. That's bullshit. Just cause Nazi has socialist in it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the leftist tendencies towards socialism.

Oh, well I guess that ends it. Thanks for the clarification!
And I always thought both want the state to be supreme and over ride the individual and subordinate the 'the people' to the laws to create a new social structure for the collective good. Both wanted to have the gov't control the economic "goods" and "means of production" of primary industries. Both willing to subordinate every facet of life to the good of the 'state' while both were willing to see the world as a means to its own end in a naked a raw manner, no matter what . I guess you are confused as to the separation of the two? One was based on race, the other wasn't. Outside of that you could not clarify as to the difference.

North Korea's name for itself is the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, that doesn't make it democratic, or republican. If Hitler was such a socialist, how come the first groups he rounded up and liquidated, aside from developmentally disabled children, were leftist labor activists from the socialist and communist movements?

If you ask North Korea I am positive they will "prove" they are both democratic & a republic, much the same way the Southern Poverty Law Center defines its terms of who they identify.
As for Adolph's motives, we both know hundreds of apologetic books have been written delineating his actions, everything from consolodation of power to the 'Jewish' taint of the labor movement. Of course Hitler trusted the Great Bear's influence in his region especially regarding his gov't structure, historically speaking, no? I mean he signed a pact with Uncle Joe, letting by gones be by gones. I am glad Stalin loved the Jews as well....oh, wait, they both did the same thing.....my good.

And don't equate socialist and communist either. They may have had similar critiques of capitalism, but they didn't have similar methods or goals.

I will think outside your box and equate the patterns recognized by simple observation.
Both methods involved killing individuals AND peoples that disagreed with their Supreme Heads....all for politics, some for race, most for power acquisition and the simplicity of annihilating any opposition. Both found the means justifying the ends, which is the definition of evil and both did it on a scale with unprecedented deliberation. So did every one that has declared themselves to be a communist believer.
If you wish to distinguish the difference between the two, there are religious approaches that serve the same function. IOW, I am sure it is on a theoretical level, far to heady for me. I've long ago given up on how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

I'll give you that Mussolini started out as a socialist labor organizer, but he quickly shifted right when he saw that creating an authoritarian party in league with capitalist business interests would get him the power he craved long before advocating for the working class would. Hitler was never a socialist, in any way, shape, form or meaning of the word. The politics of Weimar Germany was complex and fast changing. I recommend a study of that history to understand the forces that shaped WWII.

I've often recommended Nials Ferguson's The War of The World, 20th Century Conflict and the Decline of the West. However you may not like his economic history of the wars of last century, as he is not a Marxist. There are others but that was a good finish to others I've read. And no, Howard Zinn is not my cupa as he was more a propagandist than a historian.
I must concede that Hitler nor Mussolini were "socialists" if you define the word to your Marxist ends. The only point you may prove with that is the old Goebbels dictum about 'say a lie long and loud enough and others will believe you'.

As for Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevarra, etc. They were (are in the case of Fidel) Marxist-Leninists. The only people who think Marxist-Leninists are socialists, and democrats, are Marxist-Leninists themselves. Surely you know that the socialist movement is far broader and more complex than Marxist-Leninism?

No, I didn't know that. Well, I suppose I knew a little bit. Like Marxist-Trotskism, or Marxist-Maoism, or Marxist-Castroism.....but they all are way to complex for me. I don't have the time, as stated previously, for angels on a pinhead. I've read and seen how their followers behave and choose my life rather than a-waste-of-time.

I believe you do, and choose to ignore it for rhetorical purposes. Correct me if I'm wrong and you really do think the politics of social democracies in Europe, and throughout the British Commonwealth, are the same as 20th Century Russia. (Just to name one broad example.) There are plenty of resources available to help you release yourself from that delusion.

Thanks for thinking well of me but the truth is, I'm not interested in those fine differences based on a the Marxian slant. You wish me to compare Russian expansion of an empire that came from utter poverty of the base population to the British empire that was born out of their rising middle class of shopkeepers and wealth of the last 300 years? Do you want that sung to the tune of "O Susannah"?

You keep pleading your ignorance, but I find it disengenuous. It's a way to dissemble from your shoot from the hip, lump them all together, and clean up the mess later if anyone calls me on it, rhetorical "style."
You regularly betray your lack of ignorance with apropos comments that contain accurate historical knowledge. Such comments bely your protestations of innocence, innocence that you base upon your confessed ignorance.

It is simply the case that everyone around me keeps talking as if they know so much more. I concede that and simply wish to learn....I mean, look at your retort....I am woefully in need of Marxist training, no? I don't portend to know all that and a bag of chips...I've simply read and can remember stuff.

I think you just like to sustain false stereotypes which support your own ideological biases. Even though you know they're bullshit, and are unconnected to any real understanding of the complications of history.

You caught me. This whole thing is a false stereotype. I am not at all like the person you think you understand.
As for the complications of history, point me in the direction that explains it as clearly as you or others understand it. IOW, it is complicated for the very reason you respond: there is no simplicity, there are various views and takes, and the issues discussed will never end.
Do you wish it different?

Whenever someone calls you on a distortion, you just reply, "Well, I'm just stupid." or some such. It's weak, and transparent. You're clearly not stupid, just selective about what you say to support your views and to keep your project, of trying to needle your perceived opposition, going..

I simply thank Barry for allowing POV other than what you espouse. It is very similar in the way we both are selective about what we support to maintain our views...and it is not so much needling opposition as it takes iron to sharpen iron.

Time for a new tactic. One that actually engages in the dialog that you so often claim is your goal.

I'll try, but it's like an old jacket, it fits and is comfortable.
Forgive me if I ask questions while doing so.

["Mad" Miles]

And I always thought both want the state to be supreme and over ride the individual and subordinate the 'the people' to the laws to create a new social structure for the collective good. Both wanted to have the gov't control the economic "goods" and "means of production" of primary industries. Both willing to subordinate every facet of life to the good of the 'state' while both were willing to see the world as a means to its own end in a naked a raw manner, no matter what . I guess you are confused as to the separation of the two? One was based on race, the other wasn't. Outside of that you could not clarify as to the difference.
...
Of course Hitler trusted the Great Bear's influence in his region especially regarding his gov't structure, historically speaking, no? I mean he signed a pact with Uncle Joe, letting by gones be by gones. I am glad Stalin loved the Jews as well....oh, wait, they both did the same thing.....my good.
...
Both methods involved killing individuals AND peoples that disagreed with their Supreme Heads....all for politics, some for race, most for power acquisition and the simplicity of annihilating any opposition. Both found the means justifying the ends, which is the definition of evil and both did it on a scale with unprecedented deliberation. So did every one that has declared themselves to be a communist believer.
...
I must concede that Hitler nor Mussolini were "socialists" if you define the word to your Marxist ends. The only point you may prove with that is the old Goebbels dictum about 'say a lie long and loud enough and others will believe you'.
...
Thanks for thinking well of me but the truth is, I'm not interested in those fine differences based on a the Marxian slant.
...
As for the complications of history, point me in the direction that explains it as clearly as you or others understand it. IOW, it is complicated for the very reason you respond: there is no simplicity, there are various views and takes, and the issues discussed will never end.
Do you wish it different?
...
I simply thank Barry for allowing POV other than what you espouse. It is very similar in the way we both are selective about what we support to maintain our views...and it is not so much needling opposition as it takes iron to sharpen iron.
...
I'll try, but it's like an old jacket, it fits and is comfortable.
Forgive me if I ask questions while doing so.

Leninsebastopol,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I spend way too much time reviewing, and selectively responding to, waccobb.net traffic, but I'll try to respond to your more controversial claims. On the other hand, nobody's paying me (and I assume you) to debate history.

In loose order from your excerpted quotes above.

You've made it clear, repeatedly, that you're an anti-statist. What I object to is the broad brush approach that you use which erases salient differences between different historically contemporaneous nation states. Differences which are important, whether one is a Marxist or not, to historians and anybody else trying to understand the complex human drama.

Your description of the similarity between Stalinist Soviet "Socialism:" (remember my North Korea example?) and Hitlerian Fascism, could also be applied to Western Capitalist Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism prior to its destruction by the West, Roman Imperialism and many other instances of dictatorial, hierarchical societies.

In other words it is so general as to erase undertstanding of the realities you claim to be commenting upon. At the level of generality you apply, your description is true. I even agree with it. But it is so general as to erase other important truths.

Case in point, Hitler, along with his mentors, Franco and Mussolini, worked in cooperation with capitalist leaders of industry, they were funded by them and directed their respective national economies to expand and enhance the profit of established industrialists.

Stalin, inherited/seized a much different economy in which the capitalists had been driven out, or slaughtered, and the state owned and directed all industry.

The Hitler/Stalin pact was a temporary holding action on both their parts, to allow the carving up of Poland, give Hitler time to prepare for Operation Barbarrosa, and Stalin time to prepare for the German invasion that he knew was coming.

Subsequent events proved them both, and this decription of what motivated them, correct. To use it as an example to show their affinity is a gross exaggeration, in fact a complete distortion of the truth. It is a given in mainstream, Marxist and non-Marxist, history, that Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies with nothing in common ideologically and strategically. To say they both represented the same "system" is ridiculous.

The experiences of Jews under Soviet rule, vs. their treatment by the Nazis, which you frivolously equate, is another case of your over-generalized distortions of history. Yes, significant numbers of Russians were/are anti-semites. But to equate the anti-semitism of the Holocaust/Shoah, with the anti-semitism of Soviet rule? Please, you're not serious, you're just poking your stick at a wound seeking a reaction.

As for understanding the complications of history. Keep reading, I recommend a good Encyclopedia, and a respected dictionary of Political and Philisophical Terms to begin with. Then follow your interests but be cognizent of the biases of those you read, and read their critics as well.

As for my "Marxist" point of view. Yes, I've read Marx, Marxist Theory, Post-Marxist Theory and lots of other theory and history both Leftist, Centrist and Rightist. I don't read much Political Philosophy any more, and haven't since about 1987, because the issues and debates became repetitive and I could provide my own analysis without resorting to most other commentators. I try to read commentary from across the political spectrum, just to check my own bias.

I am not an anti-Statist, but I'm an anti-Authoritarian. To completely dismiss government as having no value, other than a source of evil, is an absurd and useless position. That's why, I don't call myself an Anarchist, even though I often find myself in sympathy with Anarchist politics, and find myself working in coalition with Anarchists.

I believe strongly in Democracy, Social Justice, Equality and Civil Rights. I support the weak against the strong. The exploited against the exploiters. I am completely opposed to dictatorship of any kind, whatever its professed goals and intentions. I could go on, but if you've been reading, anyone who's been reading, my little interventions here, you and they already know this.

Just because I use concepts from the Marxist tradition, doesn't make me a Marxist. I'm not an anything'ist. I am not reducible to an easy label that can be used to dismiss what I have to say and what I care about.

I've called you on your pattern of provocation, dismissal and making over-generalizing reductive statements. You've pretty much copped to having those tendencies. I could list at least five grossly insulting and dismissive claims that you've made about classes of people over the months of your participation here. That list would be off the top of my head, without having to go back and review your posts.

But I'm not interested in an interpersonal pissing match with you. Mostly I ignore it when you're up to your "iron sharpening." That's because I think your absurdities speak for themselves and no comment is required.

Yet, when you distort the truth, in ways that are designed to limit the discussion and reinforce false stereotypes that right-wingers have depended upon for decades to dismiss their opposition, well then, I'm gonna pipe up.

For now, I'm done and I'll go back to my usual pattern on this board. The fact that I called you on your bullshit should be taken as a sign of respect. You do have interesting, intelligent and useful things to say.

That's, partly, why I've taken the time to reply and reply to your reply.

The other part is that when someone repeatedly distorts important, generally accepted facts (even outside the Left/Marxism sphere, we're talking things that are agreed upon across the board) I am one of those persnickety types that will attempt to correct the record.

Peace Out,

[LenInSebastopol]

And so we reach an impasse. Yet we do agree on so much.. anti-authoritarian, the complexity of history, the dislike of reduction to nominalism and other things you identified well.
Aside from the ad hominum argument, which most of your retort seems to be directed, I find upon rereading that we are singing two different harmonies, and probably both off-key.
Yes, we could argue, to no end, about comparing the Hitler-fascist rise to economic power to Stalin-communist but that is simply to much of one spice in a recipe, by both noting they were not at the same ground level. Or we could bore ourselves with the dynamics and state of economic development of Germany with that of Russia in any period from 1870 on and it not being comparable when viewed at the end of what both dictators came to, especially in light of treaty signed at the end of WWI. But the real issue is how any gov't or any system responds to the individual, for they are the point of all of this palaver.
And I believe there is where we part. Or maybe it is where we come together.....we'll see. Now off, to have a good day; you do the same.

Leninsebastopol,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I spend way too much time reviewing, and selectively responding to, waccobb.net traffic, but I'll try to respond to your more controversial claims. On the other hand, nobody's paying me (and I assume you) to debate history.

In loose order from your excerpted quotes above.

You've made it clear, repeatedly, that you're an anti-statist. What I object to is the broad brush approach that you use which erases salient differences between different historically contemporaneous nation states. Differences which are important, whether one is a Marxist or not, to historians and anybody else trying to understand the complex human drama.

Your description of the similarity between Stalinist Soviet "Socialism:" (remember my North Korea example?) and Hitlerian Fascism, could also be applied to Western Capitalist Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism prior to its destruction by the West, Roman Imperialism and many other instances of dictatorial, hierarchical societies.

In other words it is so general as to erase undertstanding of the realities you claim to be commenting upon. At the level of generality you apply, your description is true. I even agree with it. But it is so general as to erase other important truths.

Case in point, Hitler, along with his mentors, Franco and Mussolini, worked in cooperation with capitalist leaders of industry, they were funded by them and directed their respective national economies to expand and enhance the profit of established industrialists.

Stalin, inherited/seized a much different economy in which the capitalists had been driven out, or slaughtered, and the state owned and directed all industry.

The Hitler/Stalin pact was a temporary holding action on both their parts, to allow the carving up of Poland, give Hitler time to prepare for Operation Barbarrosa, and Stalin time to prepare for the German invasion that he knew was coming.

Subsequent events proved them both, and this decription of what motivated them, correct. To use it as an example to show their affinity is a gross exaggeration, in fact a complete distortion of the truth. It is a given in mainstream, Marxist and non-Marxist, history, that Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies with nothing in common ideologically and strategically. To say they both represented the same "system" is ridiculous.

The experiences of Jews under Soviet rule, vs. their treatment by the Nazis, which you frivolously equate, is another case of your over-generalized distortions of history. Yes, significant numbers of Russians were/are anti-semites. But to equate the anti-semitism of the Holocaust/Shoah, with the anti-semitism of Soviet rule? Please, you're not serious, you're just poking your stick at a wound seeking a reaction.

As for understanding the complications of history. Keep reading, I recommend a good Encyclopedia, and a respected dictionary of Political and Philisophical Terms to begin with. Then follow your interests but be cognizent of the biases of those you read, and read their critics as well.

As for my "Marxist" point of view. Yes, I've read Marx, Marxist Theory, Post-Marxist Theory and lots of other theory and history both Leftist, Centrist and Rightist. I don't read much Political Philosophy any more, and haven't since about 1987, because the issues and debates became repetitive and I could provide my own analysis without resorting to most other commentators. I try to read commentary from across the political spectrum, just to check my own bias.

I am not an anti-Statist, but I'm an anti-Authoritarian. To completely dismiss government as having no value, other than a source of evil, is an absurd and useless position. That's why, I don't call myself an Anarchist, even though I often find myself in sympathy with Anarchist politics, and find myself working in coalition with Anarchists.

I believe strongly in Democracy, Social Justice, Equality and Civil Rights. I support the weak against the strong. The exploited against the exploiters. I am completely opposed to dictatorship of any kind, whatever its professed goals and intentions. I could go on, but if you've been reading, anyone who's been reading, my little interventions here, you and they already know this.

Just because I use concepts from the Marxist tradition, doesn't make me a Marxist. I'm not an anything'ist. I am not reducible to an easy label that can be used to dismiss what I have to say and what I care about.

I've called you on your pattern of provocation, dismissal and making over-generalizing reductive statements. You've pretty much copped to having those tendencies. I could list at least five grossly insulting and dismissive claims that you've made about classes of people over the months of your participation here. That list would be off the top of my head, without having to go back and review your posts.

But I'm not interested in an interpersonal pissing match with you. Mostly I ignore it when you're up to your "iron sharpening." That's because I think your absurdities speak for themselves and no comment is required.

Yet, when you distort the truth, in ways that are designed to limit the discussion and reinforce false stereotypes that right-wingers have depended upon for decades to dismiss their opposition, well then, I'm gonna pipe up.

For now, I'm done and I'll go back to my usual pattern on this board. The fact that I called you on your bullshit should be taken as a sign of respect. You do have interesting, intelligent and useful things to say.

That's, partly, why I've taken the time to reply and reply to your reply.

The other part is that when someone repeatedly distorts important, generally accepted facts (even outside the Left/Marxism sphere, we're talking things that are agreed upon across the board) I am one of those persnickety types that will attempt to correct the record.

Peace Out,