The Black Panthers and Maoism

The Panthers might have had their Maoist trappings, but you can't lump them in with the "new left" and idiot anti-imperialism.

New Left basically means any err new left group from about 56 onwards that was critical of social democracy and official Leninism, in so far as there is a current of thought running through that this was a shift in a libertarian direction. Can't understand why "new left" would be bad, except that it, mostly ended up as the 'old left' in the English speaking world, particularly in Trotskyism. I actually think it is the movement and historical period that contemporary revolutionaries should pay the most attention to, to see what they did right, and where they went wrong, as the times they operated in far more resemble our own than pre-WW 2 times.
Don't know why anarchists are particularly enamoured of the Black Panther Party. They were very authoritarian, - there is an article from their paper I think called anarchism and petit bourgeois individualism denouncing party members who refused to clean the leaders' cars. They were a mixed bag though, but very 'Third Worldist'.

are they dancing or doing bayonet practice on a spain '36 budget?

OK, I guess I have to talk slow for the Peanut Gallery ;-P

The BBP was politically quasi-maoist. While the founders started the Party on a black-nationalist model they soon moved left towards maoism. When i started reading the Black Panther newspaper in 1973 or so, it was most definately a maoist orientation, but then again, mao was the political flavor of the month - much like anarchism in the 1990s. Of course, Mao could have paraphrased Marx and said "I am not a Maoist".

Mao was very influencial to BBP for several reasons:

1) The leading Maoist in the country was a former CPUSA African-American leader named Harry Haywood. As he was based in NYC, he probably didn't have as huge influence with the California based BBP, but his writings were very well regarded in Black Nationalist circles. The CPUSA had done much good and principled work alongside US Blacks and the CPUSA and it's black leaders were (and still!) held in high regard in the black community.

2) Being based on the Pacific Coast, the BBP had ties with various Chinese radicals. The only outlet for PR China goods in the entire US was in San Francisco at that time. I heard Bobby Seale talk one time and said that the BBP needed money so they went down to the Chinese bookstore and bought as many copies of Mao's Quoted as they could at 25 cents per. They went back to Berkeley to the campus and sold them for $1. Seale laughed saying that they hadn't even read Mao yet, but that's how Mao was introduced to Berkely radicals and the BBP!

3) The BBP wasn't founded upon any particular political platform outside of some 10 reforms which just sounded "just". They built their politics as they went. Mao talked allot about nationalism and freeing oppressed nations, which Black Nationalists of course saw themselves as. Because Maoism is politically a anti-colonialist programme based of state-capitalism, it fits well with indeginous politics of oppressed nations being able to run their own business models. If you look at the BBP's 10 points program, there's no talk of abolishing capitalism, just it's better and more just administration.

And it WAS a graveyard smash!!

The miltiant black left in the U.S. was an ad hoc of politics and allegiances. Its a mistake to underestimate the positive influences the Panthers had and the variety of influences they took in during the organizations development. A significant porion of the BLA moved towards militant anarchism at a time in the U.S. when anarchism was the sole purview of a tiny milieu of self-indulgent white academics and empowerment cultists. Oh wait...

While the anarchists were playing at the counter-culture personal development psychosis, the authoritarian left was providing material support to the Panthers. People in danger tend to pay attention to the politics of the people that actually help them. Go figure.

I'm not attempting to defend either the BPP or the BLA's politics. Just throwing out that they developed in a social context that makes a lot of sense.

As for why they weren't drawn more to the white liberals... there're a lot of basic reasons for that. The BPP was founded by politicized street criminals and the hustle fit nicely into the internal culture. More importantly the militant stances around arms and military fetishism was a response to the internal liberal and social justice politics of black america coupled with a smart understanding of their communities being fed up with rampant police brutality as southern blacks migrated west.

Clearly there's a romanticization by nascent white radicals. I just think it doesn't matter that much in trying to analyze what is useful to take away from a particular movement from a particular time.

The BLA funded an awful ot of things I respect. A lot of things that people today still reap the benefits from while not even knowing how and why it was started. Does that mean I think the expropriation program was the thing to do? No in the least. I do think that knee-jerk reaction against the BPP and BLA (and others) by anti-authoritarians puts blinders on useful analysis.

1. I think there's a reason for above ground organizations and social programs to not trumpet some of their early funding sources.

2. I haven't been disagreeing with you.

I haven't. What did you think of it? I haven't been too impressed by George Katsiaficas' work, it always seems like he's confirming what he already believes.