(Offshoot of this discussion on MLK vs Malcom X on violence)
What the Black Panther Party had done breakfast programs, free health clinics, and other mutual aid, but didn't do the community safety patrols?
We know that the patrols were effective, morally good, and a big part of the BPP's public perception. We also know that the United States is still racist as fuck, and that black liberation has not been achieved yet.
I see the Black Panthers as one of the most promising leftist experiments in the US. In the spirit of scientific socialism, how do you think the movement would have gone, had the party been less militant?
Would it have just been easier to dismantle? Would it have been seen as less of a threat, so not worth extreme actions? Would the general public have been more or less supportive? Would the black community have been more or less supportive? How would its legacy be different?
My analysis
Partly informed by this interview with the BPP minister of defense
Benefits:
- Community safety: obviously. The patrols were started to address a critical need in the community.
- Recruitment: the militant aspect of the party had massive appeal to folks that had been oppressed for generations. It gave agency and a way to direct the rage into something useful
- Publicity: great way to get into the news, which helps get the message out
Drawbacks:
- Attracted more attention from the feds
- Spooked white people
- Increased risk for party members
Since we have the benefit of hindsight, we know that the feds were a major part of the dissolution of the movement. I assume that if the feds had NOT intervened, the movement would have continued to grow in power and made massive improvements to the lives of black people and Americans in general.
I trust that the BPP members made reasonable decisions to counter CoIntelPro, but I also trust that the focused power of the federal government is able to succeed in whatever fucked up stuff it wants to do. That's to say: the BPP may have simply been in an unwinnable fight.
Avoiding the eye of sauron for as long as possible is a prudent strategy, and I think a less militant BPP could have drawn less focus from the feds. Mostly, I think they received disproportionate focus because white people saw organized, armed black folks and it tickled the "enemy combatant" part of their brains.
If the party had instead focused on nonviolent mutual aid, I think it could have lessened the suppression efforts, possibly to a point where the fight was winnable. At very least, it could have given more time to grow the organization, so that once more militant actions were needed they would be more powerful.
On the other hand, I think there wouldn't have been as much excitement about the party. I do not know if having more time to grow without suppression would have been cancelled out by slower growth.
If we were able to run it back, I think a less militant BPP may have ended up making more progress towards black liberation.
It's only weird if you reduce the BPP to a fraction of what it actually was.
Self defense was a major part of their praxis, yes, and is the part that drew most attention. However, the popular narrative reduces the Panthers to a single-dimensional organization that only confronted the police. That is propaganda, and we should not buy it.
The free breakfast program was a major effort they also ran, as were free health clinics. They educated their members in Marxist theory. Gender equality was a core part of their work. I'm not an expert in all the mutual aid efforts they were involved in, but I'm confident there were more.
So the question is, what would the Panthers have been if they hadn't done the things that they were reduced to? The narrative can't be "cop killer" if they didn't confront cops, so... what would it be instead?
What would be the narrative about DPRK if they didn't have nuclear weapons? In both cases, the empire would say "a bunch of dead slurs". Political power doesn't grow out of a bowl of oatmeal no matter how hungry you are.
And it is foolish to lose a war because you've decided to fight an unwinnable battle, no matter how righteous.
The leaders of the BPP were killed. The party was essentially destroyed. They ARE "a bunch of dead slurs". Being armed did not save them.
The federal government has the power to stamp out any small movement it chooses, period. The black panthers had 50k members, and they were unable to resist government suppression.
I refuse to let their work and sacrifice not influence our strategy. They were brilliant people that were fighting the same fight we are. We must learn from their experience, or we will fail in the same ways.
The Panthers were largely Maoist. They lost.
Our options are:
I'm gonna go with 2. You sticking with 1?
What is Maoism to you, because I don’t think that the BPP would describe themselves as that.
:it-is-known:
I'd seen that Mao's little red book was pretty common among the Panthers, but don't recall where I saw it.
From a search, this article has a picture captioned: Members of the Black Panther Party hold up Mao’s "little red book."