A conversation amongst brothers

Its been a long time....I been on my grind. won't bore you, but there's a lotta work left to do.. Here's a little snippet of a conversation with my very own brother.


Me: See I told you Obama was a warmonger
J: Obama aint no warmonger
Me: He sent 30,000 in March and now he sending another 30,000---he's a warmonger.
J: So, McCain wanted to send in troops too
Me: So he's a warmonger too
J: So what you saying? who would you vote for
Me: I vote for....... the Revolution. I'm a Revolutionary.
J: That aint no vote....

Dreams of Reality

I dream so vivid, can’t tell dream from reality
But dream become reality
So, this aint just poetry it’s prophecy

I’m ready to die like B.I.G. said
This aint no flowery bullshit
No pretty metaphor, no silly simile
This is meant to be…. taken literally
Cuz Malcolm said by any means Necessary
Cuz Martin said if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything
So I’m willing to give life and limb

I don’t know who it will be?
Most likely, somebody, who look kinda like me
I want it to reach that critical point. where they gotta kill me.
Wit cold conspiracy
But, its too late!
Cuz I done taught a whole new generation, that there’s more to life than just livin

Ima live free
by any means Necessary
and ima bring all my peoples with me like Harriet did
let this be a testament
the struggle continues
but now they got us shackled mentally

But I’m Ready for Revolution
not talking a full 360 but a 180
going from selfish to selfless
going from arrogant to humble
going from greed to generosity
Moving from instinct to consciousness
Moving from dying slowly to living greatly

Because if you aint willing to die for it you don’t deserve it
Peace if you willing to fight for it

Language does not equal Culture

So I was uptown politickin with some Egyptologists and I should have known there would be contradictions…There were plenty, but the thing that sticks in my craw a day later was the idea that we just need to learn African languages. You know the argument, we speaking the white man’s language so no matter what, whatever we think is still gonna fall into the trap of fitting into the white man’s oppression.

Language is an expression of culture. I had to agree on this point. A alien culture was imposed on us by stripping us of our language and forcing us to speak European languages. I had to agree here. But then, a brother equated the two, culture and language. If we learn African languages we will regain our African culture. Language is a product of culture, not the other way around.

We can learn African languages, we can put on African clothes, but this is not necessarily substantive change. You could still be thinking and acting in a capitalist\reactionary manner. You still haven’t created a Revolutionary culture. Once you build a Revolutionary culture, you at the same time create a language. When the Panthers called the cops pigs, that was a product of Revolutionary culture, When the Rastas call the cops Babylon it is also a product of culture. It is still the English language, but language isn’t stagnant, it grows because it comes out of your culture and your culture is dynamic. We must build a Revolutionary culture. We must start with principles we want to live by. Let principles be what guides us and what we judge everything by.

I am the People, I am not the pigs!!

So, I went to this local spot with my homegirl Aasha. You know how we do, get there early before it turns into full club mode and they start charging a cover just to get in the door. Of course, you get there early you end up spending more money on drinks, so we start up a tab. I try to give the bartender my card, but homegirl says hold it. I thought it was love, you don’t get that type of treatment in the city dammit.

Fast forward 6 hours later and as i’m leaving the parking lot I realize I never paid the tab(of course). So now the question is do I get out the car, go all the way back to the club which of course entails at this point consenting to a full pat down and the cover I just avoided a couple hours ago.

So, I feel bad for the bartender who showed love and now and at the end of the night is gonna get screwed, but rationalized it by saying it would be too much to go back in at this point. All the way back to Aasha’s house we’re talking about how this bartender showed so much love and how most people are fucked up. So now I’m thinking this is how people get screwed up in this society—with everybody just looking out for themselves, if you show love you end up getting screwed. Soon, everybody knows the rules of the game and everybody is fucked up. Then they tell you “that’s just the way it is”.

So now I’m home, changed into my basketball shorts and stocking cap and everything. But, I can’t sleep with this on my conscience. What did Jay say? “You can’t turn a bad girl good, but once a good girl goes bad, she’s gone forever”. If I was just skipping out a bill and the club owner had to eat it, I wouldn’t a had a problem, but I knew they was take it out on homegirl who showed love. And I can’t steal from my People. I am a Revolutionary, I can’t lie, cheat or steal. The words of Fred Hampton were ringing in my ears “ You gon have to tell yourself, I am the People, I am not the pigs”. Once I told myself that I realized it would only take me a few minutes to get to the spot. So I got dressed, got in my whip and went back out even though I was already in my comfortable bed. I told myself I’d consent to the pat down that always leaves me feeling more than a little uncomfortable, but I drew the line at paying a cover to go pay a bill.

So after getting semi-molested and my lighter getting taken(dammit), I was able to maneuver my way around the cover, found homegirl and settled my tab. She was oblivious to how close she came to being out a Benjamin at the end of the night. I felt guilty anyway and gave her a nice tip and felt good knowing I had done my part to make sure a good girl didn’t get screwed that night.

Beautiful Struggle

Oh I got caught up in this conversation about whether we should focus on struggle or whether this actually created struggle and what happens after the Revolution with one of these subjective reality types(which I am to some extent). She wanted us to all get on a higher plane than this material reality.

Yo, struggle is beautiful. All the most beautiful people I know are/have been strugglers-constant strugglers. Too many of us have fallen victim to this idea that we must somehow escape struggle, find "peace" in this world. Reach a stage beyond struggle. In fact, these non-strugglers have become coopted by the very forces they use to rail against(What up Roots!). There is no "after the Revolution". The Revolution is not an event, it is a process. It is a "state of being and becoming". It is a way of life, it is a journey not a destination.

I never want to be comfortable, never want to feel i've "made it". I appreciate development and know "without struggle there is no progress". If we want progress, we must want struggle! Capitalism teaches us to want progress without struggle, to want results without having to work for it. It makes us lazy. It is easier to go along with everyone else and only see life as it is rather than how it could be or should be. It seeks to make us unconscious and just reactive rather than proactive and progressive.

Imperialism in Blackface II: Wyclef

Ladies and gentleman, children of all ages, I present to you "the preacher's son" a.k.a. wyclef jean. He is Haiti's roving ambassador. Way back in '04 he was fronting for regime change in Haiti. Well, they got rid of democratically elected Aristide. They put in this puppet Preval and now Wyclef's got a job. Fronting for imperialism 101. Obama sends him and Clinton and Rice to go push some neo-liberal agenda. i.e. ima rape you and you gonna like that shit. We need to start calling out these Uncle-Tom-ass-kissing mofo's willing to sell us out and start delivering a little Revolutionary justice. Wyclef, this aint a movie and it's still bigger than hip-hop.

Imperialism in Blackface

Ladies and Gentleman, introducing another blackface(they seem to multiplying like rabbits) willing to front for the American capitalist empire: Mr. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnnnnnie Carsonnnnnn. During his speechwhere he accepted the nomination you could easily tell Africa is in for more raping and general destruction if you can sift through the b.s. Some Africanists(I can't honestly call these people Pan-Africanists) seem to think it is a bad thing it took so long for someone to be named to the post. Some people seem to have "hope" beyond "hope" in a kinder, gentler form of imperialism. Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

Allow me to translate as he breaks down America's interest in Africa. "Fifteen percent of America's oil comes from Africa and the continent supplies the majority of the liquefied natural gas consumed by the eastern United States. Africa's economic potential is vast and its importance as a trading partner will continue to grow." Yo, they got that oil son, and that natural gas. We could go head and rip them off and make crazy paper.

He goes on to mention Ghana and South Africa as models of democracy. He doesn't mention how the C.I.A. had a hand in the coup against Nkrumah and how different Ghana and Africa would be if the seeds of Pan-Africanism had been allowed to take root. Nah, he didn't mention that little bit of history. Democracy is well and good as long as its someone with the U.S.'s interests. He didn't mention the ANC has been in power for the last 15 years and has done very little to alleviate the exploitation of the masses of South Africans.

He mentions dealing with conflicts in Somalia, the Sudan and the Eastern Congo without mentioning the U.S.'s capitalistic interests in each of these conflicts. Again and again he presents these problems of Africa as if the U.S. had no hand in them and somehow they are gonna come and swoop in and solve Africa's problems. Some think we gotta wait and see what the U.S.'s Africa policy will be, but it aint changed: rape and plunder the natural resources and install "democratic" regimes that will be willing collaborators in the continued rape and plunder of Africa.

Capitalism lies all the time

Capitalism lies all the time. sometimes big, sometimes small, but all the time. Sometimes it is so subtle it is hard to notice. Son said most people are sheep and there have always been sheep and there will always be sheep. This is a lie. This is how capitalism comes to limit our thinking and limit what we seek to do. Dialectics tells us everything changes. The world is constantly in motion. So, the world is never "how it always was". That sort of reasoning is unscientific. The colonizers thought they could keep us colonized forever and they were wrong, the slavers thought they could keep us enslaved forever and they were wrong, the feudal lords thought they would rule the serfs forever and they were wrong. And some seem to think capitalism was here and will always be here and they are surely wrong too. It is crumbling everyday!! Some think our People will remain unconscious forever and they are surely wrong too. Our People can and will become conscious the same way anyone becomes conscious: by constant political education. Now our job is to go about this is an organized manner, to make as many People conscious in as efficient a manner as possible. This is why we need a mass Revolutionary Party.

Capitalist Pigs = Swine Flu

Swine Flu, bird flu, mad cow disease. Shit is fucked up. The shit, being of course, capitalism in general and agribusiness in specific. This is what I think of these days. The media spends all this time creating this mass hysteria about epidemic after epidemic, but never makes any connections that seem to be glaringly obvious. These "epidemics" don't just happen. They are the result of the insane drive of profits by an elite who don't care about the masses and it affects all of us. This is of course, the insane logic of capitalist society that will use food to fuel cars while actually people are starving. The earth is literally being devoured by global warming...Capitalism must be crushed if we are to survive as human beings.

Racists Against Racism...Not!!

So the World Conference against racism is over . Only about 10 members of the UN did not attend the WCAR. Hmmm, I wonder which countries did not want to attend a conference against racism? wait for it--o yeah probably those countries who were built on racism, who live off of exploiting the rest of the world and would probably owe a shit load of reparations if they ever admitted these facts. Some folks seem to think the problems of the U.S. started 8 years ago...I like to call these people historical illiterates. The U.S. was built on nearly exterminating a whole race of People and stealing my People from Africa. So no, I don't when the goal became to be the head of the U.S. I'm one of those modern day field Negroes looking to burn some shit down to create something new(Revolution!) and if blood trying to get up in the big house blood deserve to burn too. I gots no love for you and you aint fooling me if you fronting for racism just cuz you got black skin.


The same countries who boycotted the Conference against racism are the same countries who got veto rights on the security council, which is a form of racism if you ask me. My problem with the whole thing is you can't get rid of racism with conferences and those countries that are benefitting from racism aren't going to willingly give up their privileges. No amount of documents are going to deal with racism, you have to deal with the economic basis of it. You can't try to curry favor with your oppressor if you serious about liberation.

The tragedy of the non-violent pirate

Yo I was kickin it wit HD who said he was kool wit the whole Somalian pirates thing until it got violent. Wow, he tried to explain how it was good business and he couldn't be mad at that but
they should be more image conscious. So, as long as the pirates fit within some liberal framework, illegitimate capitalists basically, it was all good, but violence offends his sensibilities. Right away Malcolm flashed through my head. "Revolution is bloody, Revolution aint about no love thy enemy and turn the other cheek". "The Mau-Mau wasn't image conscious". Some righteous anger is necessary. That liberal non-violent b.s. can only go so far. Non-violent piracy is about as effective as bringing a knife to a gunfight. There can't be no middle ground between those who are being oppressed and their oppressors. Those who choose to seek some kind of middle ground only end up serving the oppressor and maintaining our oppression. Until we fight for our liberation "by any means necessary" we will continue to spin our wheels trying to fit into a system that seeks to continue exploiting us.

A Revolutionary's Day Off

Just back from a weekend of partying and bullshit in South Beach. I allowed myself a weekend off from the Revolution or so I thought. Justified it to myself with some rationalization of maintaining social relations and managed to not have a crisis of conscience until Sunday-- like how could I afford to take a weekend off my Job while my people still starving? It came in the form of KP pressing me, "how can you say Fuck Obama??" At this point, I knew the partying was over and it was me the Revolutionary-- the extremist versus the whole crew. I knew it would be exhausting and tried to calculate whether it would be worth the effort trying to school these fools. Then I remembered, Revolutionaries don't get days off and went to work.

"What do you think about Obama not bowing to the Queen? that was Revolutionary, wasn't it? noone ever did that before." Hell no. that wasn't Revolutionary and I couldn't care less whether he bow to the Queen or not. What difference does that make? "You keep talking about us being oppressed by the system, what system?" Capitalism. "What else is there" ummm..you ever heard of socialism? "You like Cuba so much, you ever been there? then you can't really know what's going on there" Well I wasn't born until '82 but I know some shit happened before then, and how you know if Obama bow to the Queen or not? Were you in London? "You just hate Obama cuz you hate Black People" Nah I love my People, but I know everyone who look like me aint for me and we gotta be able to make those distinctions.

And so it went for an hour or two until I think I just wore them out and exhausted them. By the end, I don't think I was any less of crazy mofo for not wanting to fuck with Obama and I still questioned was it worth the energy. But a Revolutionary cant judge his work without having a long term view and if all they got out of it is that there is an alternative to capitalism, then I at least made a dent in their consciousness. I gotta keep reminding myself, The Revolution will not be televised.

A racist can't judge racism

The U.S. and the E.U. balking at participating in the World Conference Against Racism. They against a conference against racism. Well that makes sense. How the biggest perpertrators of racism gonna be against racism. Well, at least the lines are clear. All you suckas who thought Obama was bringing something new--the game aint changed, just the players!! You can't maintain an empire and be against racism. The contradictions never been clearer. You can't be for Zionism and against racism, the contradictions never been clearer. You can't be for Capitalism and against racism, the contradictions become clear.

Carnival Time

So I got back from t&t about a month ago and finally posted some pics about a week ago to my facebook. If you haven't seen them, don't blame me cuz your socially backward ass isn't up on such things or cuz I didn't at least send you the link. You didn't ask for it and i'm way too busy to cater to your social backwardness--doesn't mean I don't still love ya. anyhoo, this was Mui's response to the flix. I thought it was hilarious. I think me and him could come up wit a book way funnier than L-Bo's and that other dude. Everytime I email him, he gives me material, plus I know he'll work for cheap..

whoa, nice pictures.. what is that light-armor you're wearing? why aren't your lower legs covered? scandalous. -and why is so much attention drawn to your head chest and groin area?

and what is this fete, eh?

and why is that guy's cock rubbing up her bumper?

such a confusing event.

thanks for sharing it. goodnight!

=)

Glen Ford is my new hero

Yes fans, i've become a corporate slave, which has severely cut down on my "free time" and until I figure out how to maneveur the inner workings of this beast and do what I need to do while appearing to be the happy slave(i'm writing this from inside the belly of the beast and it feels so good!!)or just decide to say "fuck it, you can't pay me enought to steal my soul!!", this space will not get the attention it deserves. In the meantime I'm learning to love those who do this ish for a living and so Glen Ford is my new hero. I saw him speak once and he wasn't that great, but when it comes to writtens, his flow is lyrically indefensible. check it

Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford answers Linda Burnham's recent assault on the non-Obamite Left [article posted below], whom she sneeringly refers to as victims of "Left 'anticipatory disillusionment' " and assorted other "psycho-babble. " Burnham sets up Left straw men, to knock them down, all in an attempt to justify her cohort's capitulation to Power. "One great tragedy of the current episode," writes Ford, "is that the [economic] crisis occurred at a moment when the remnants of the Left and Black movements in the U.S. have been neutralized by imperialism' s Black champion." Hilariously, Burnham credits Obama with having "wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism" when, in actuality, "Obama's government IS Clintonian. And the new president is as skilled and ruthless a triangulator as Bill ever was."

by Glen Ford

Lots of folks on the left, it is now apparent, no longer seek anything more than to bask in the sunshine of Barack Obama's smile. No matter how much national treasure their champion transfers to the bankster class, and despite his exceeding George W. Bush in military spending, so-called progressives for Obama continue to celebrate their imagined emergence as players in the national political saga. Having in practice foresworn resistance to Power, they relish in bashing the non-Obamite Left.

In tone and substance, Linda Burnham's recent, widely circulated piece, "Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency" is several cuts above last summer's vicious rant by Amiri Baraka, "The Parade of Anti-Obama Rascals." But both assaults on Left critics of Obama are based on the same false assumptions and willful illogic, and although no one can trump Baraka in argumentative foul play and sheer nastiness, Burnham's article is nonetheless littered with sneers at those who "are stranded on Dogma Beach…flipping out over every appointment and policy move [Obama] makes."

Burnham launches immediately into a denigration of non-Obamites, claiming Obama's election "occasioned some disorientation and confusion" among those on the Left who "have become so used to confronting the dismal electoral choice between the lesser of two evils that they couldn't figure out how to relate to a political figure who held out the possibility of substantive change."

Burnham's method is to invent straw men and then place words and thoughts in their fictitious mouths and brains. Certainly, we at Black Agenda Report were anything but "confused" by either Obama's political conduct or his extraordinary popularity, having placed the young upstart under intense scrutiny beginning in the early Summer of 2003, while he was still a low-ranked candidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Illinois. His phenomenal talents, hitched to a transparently corporatist, imperial worldview – and a practiced dishonesty about his rightist alliances – made Obama a person worth watching. The BAR team, then operating out of Black Commentator, had Obama pegged as a potential vector of confusion in Black and progressive ranks long before his worldwide debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And we were right. It is in Burnham's political neighborhood that confusion reigns, not ours.

Burnham claims that many on the Left "were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change." Either she's talking about herself, or she hangs around a very cloistered crowd. Or, more likely, Burnham is conflating the word "change" with "Obama" – an effect of drinking too much Kool-Aid. In either case, none of it applies to folks like us at BAR – and there are a number of others on the Left – who more than five years ago understood both Obama's mass appeal and the mass desire for real change, and feared that one would thwart the other.

Left critics of Obama, according to Burnham, fail to recognize that he is not the "lesser of two evils," but rather holds out the "possibility of substantive change." This is a core position, central to the "progressive" Obamite argument. Beyond the fact of having broken the presidential color bar, which in the American context is a positive development on its face, Obama is near-identical to Hillary Clinton on virtually every policy issue, as became evident in the primaries. Their compatibility was revealed as something closer to political intimacy when Obama erected his Cabinet – a house as Clintonian as anything Bill ever built, with plenty of room reserved for friends from the Bush gang. Color aside, whatever kind of "evil" Hillary and Bill are, Obama is.

Burnham outlines what she says is the "active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should be towards it." We will have to take her word for it, although her mischaracterization of Left Obama critics (certainly those at BAR) makes us less than confident that the "conversation" is as she describes. Below are the "two conflicting views" on Obama, on the Left:

"First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that's underway.

"Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics."

The first viewpoint is no doubt held by Burnham. It is essentially mooted by the reality that most Left Obamites only weakly "criticize" and virtually never "resist" Obama's rightist policies and appointments in the crucial military and economic arenas – which was, first, the fear and, later, the main complaint of the non-Obamite Left. The Obama Effect is to neutralize Blacks and the Left (Blacks being the main electoral base of the American Left) by capturing their enthusiasm for Obama's own corporate purposes. Obama and his Democratic Leadership Council allies (and their corporate masters) monopolize the "motion," all the while shutting out even mildly Left voices (as in the recent White House Forum on Health, from which single payer health care advocates were initially barred). Blacks and the Left have not been in any kind of effective forward "motion" since Election Day. As we shall see, Burnham's definition of "motion" does not involve confronting Power, but rather, attaching oneself to it.

Policy-wise, Obama no more "represents a substantial, principally positive political shift" than his political twin, Hillary – again, color aside.

The second viewpoint is supposedly held by the opposition, and partially reflects the views of the BAR team. Yes, Obama is "just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change." This has been easily observed, since Blacks and the Left have allowed Obama to act upon his corporate and imperial instincts, unimpeded by even the mildest counter-pressures. His presidency takes shape to the Right of Democratic congressional leaders, who have made more noise over Obama's Iraq trickle-out and his clear threats to Social Security and other "entitlements, " than have many Left Obamites.

Obama is not simply "bound to disappoint" – he has already been cause for great disappointment, even among those of us who scoped his essential corporatist nature years ago. Who would have predicted that he would play the most eager Gunga Din for the bizarre Bush/Paulson bank bailout decree, last year? Who would have foreseen that Obama would retain the loathsome international criminal Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense? That he would continue Bush's policies on Africa – Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, AFRICOM – without missing a beat? That he would so quickly offer to put Social Security "on the table" for "reform" (in the Republican sense of the term)?

But Burnham would have you believe the Left opposition are nothing but nitpickers, inflating executive pinpricks into major assaults. Thus, she seeks to make the opposition look silly, as if we "criticize every move the administration makes." In truth, her argument is designed to excuse her and her Left allies failure to "resist" or confront Obama in any meaningful way.

Like many of her cohorts, Burnham is quick to grant that Obama "is a steward of capitalism," but maintains that "his election has opened up the potential for substantive reform in the interests of working people and that his election to office is a democratic win worthy of being fiercely defended."

Again, if Obama's election opened up the "potential" for reform, so would have Hillary's. They were (and remain) political brother and sister under the skin. The Obamites would be utterly helpless if unable to deploy (and abuse) the term "potential," given the actuality of Obama's presidency. Conveniently, "potential" lives in the future, where it can't be pinned down. That's why Obama's "potential" is a central theme of his Left camp followers – it allows them to claim that the opposition's critiques of their hero might harm the "potential" good he might do in the future.

At any rate, the Obamite Left can claim no credit for Obama's progressive "potential," since they did little or nothing that might have caused him to abandon his relentless rightward drift.

Burnham & Co. want us to accept Obama's corporate orientation as "what he was elected to do." Burnham urges us to be "clear" about Obama's "job description" : "Obama's job is to salvage and stabilize the U.S. capitalist system and to perform whatever triage is necessary to restore the core institutions of finance and industry to profitability. "

That is certainly what Obama and his big campaign funders believe his job is, but a progressive' s task is to cause him to serve the people – an assignment that I am not convinced Burnham and her allies have accepted.

On the international scene (i.e., The Empire), Obama's job – as Burnham says should be clear to "us" – is "to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the world; repair the international ties shredded by eight years of cowboy unilateralism; and adjust U.S. positioning on the world stage [so far, so good, but here Burnham slips down the proverbial slope] on the basis of a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the changed and changing centers of global political, economic and military power – rather than on the basis of a simple-minded ideological commitment to unchallenged world dominance."

Obama's military budget, bigger than Bush's, his escalation in Afghanistan/ Pakistan, the unraveling of his Iraq "withdrawal" promises, and his provocations in Africa all signal that this president has no intention of relinquishing the goal of global U.S. hegemony. To paraphrase his famous statement on war, "I'm not opposed to imperialism, just dumb imperialism. "

Burnham should bring herself to admit that Obama is, indeed, merely a more charming face pasted on the imperial monster – with the same teeth (weapons), appetite and ambitions. In an indirect way, she does offer a version of the truth, packaged in what sounds like genuine, praiseful admiration:

"Obama has been on the job for only a month but has not wasted a moment in going after his double bottom line with gusto, panache and high intelligence. In point of fact, the capitalists of the world – or at least the U.S. branch – ought to be building altars to the man and lighting candles. They have chosen an uncommonly steady hand to pull their sizzling fat from the fire."

Burnham then sets up the Left straw men, so as to knock them down. These one-note Charlies, real or imagined, are incapable of sophisticated thought and analysis:

"For the anti-capitalist left that is grounded in Trotskyism, anarcho-horizontali sm, or various forms of third-party- as-a-point- of-principleism, the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively. All else is trifling with minor reforms or, even worse, capitulating to the power elite. From this point of view the stance towards Obama is self-evident: criticize relentlessly, disabuse others of their presidential infatuation, and denounce anything that remotely smacks of mainstream politics."

Such people may exist, but they don't resemble BAR or any of our allies and correspondents. Burnham is employing the cheapest trick of argumentation: she picks (or invents) the weakest, most unreasonable, narrow opponent, and savages him. I know of no serious activist that believes "the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively." If that were so, then such activists would have nothing to do for most of their lives, since chances to "cripple" capitalism "decisively" are few and very far between.

But crises of capitalism do occur, and we are living through one of them. Capitulationists are also real, and reveal themselves at the worst possible junctures. One great tragedy of the current episode is that the crisis occurred at a moment when the remnants of the Left and Black movements in the U.S. have been neutralized by the "uncommonly steady hand" of imperialism' s Black champion, to whom Burnham and countless others have, yes, capitulated.

In order to defend the capitulation, the Burnhams of the Left must credit Obama with achievements he has not made, plus the amorphous "potential" achievements to which he has "opened the door" and which will magically occur even in the absence of organized people making a demand. A hilarious Burnham example of an Obama feat: He has "wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama's center is a couple of notches to the left of the Clinton administration' s triangulation strategies)…. "

Ha! Burnham imagines "notches" that aren't there. Obama's government IS Clintonian. And the new president is as skilled and ruthless a triangulator as Bill ever was, consistently finding a position to the Right of whatever passes for Left on Capitol Hill, but nestled near to the corporate bosom.

Burnham spends additional pages working the same themes of Left "anticipatory disillusionment" and other psycho-babble to mask her own cohort's capitulation. Many Obama critics did anticipate his center-right behavior, and we were correct – but never disillusioned. Political groupies, however, are fated to suffer disillusion and betrayal.

Burnham reveals inklings of her own emotional state when she gratuitously urges "those who missed interacting with the motion of millions against the right, against the white racial monopoly on the executive branch, and for substantive change," to re-examine their political orientation. In addition to her condescending tone, which seems to assume that her targets have no experience with the "motion of millions" in actual political movements, rather than a corporate-shaped and funded presidential election campaign, Burnham appears to think of the non-Obamite Left as people who didn't RSVP for the best party of the year, and are now resentful.

In the last hundred words of the piece, we discover that her idea of "building the left" requires folding up the tent in or near the Obama camp. Examine this extraordinary passage:

"The current political alignment provides an opportunity to break out of isolation, marginalization and the habits of self-marginalizatio n accumulated during the neo-conservative ascendancy. It provides the opportunity to initiate and/or strengthen substantive relationships with political actors in government, in the Democratic Party, and in independent sectors, as well as within the left itself – relationships to be built upon long after the Obama presidency has come to an end. It provides the opportunity to accumulate lessons about political actors, alignments and centers of power likewise relevant well beyond this administration. And it provides the opportunity for the immersion of the leaders, members and constituencies of left formations in a highly accelerated, real world poli-sci class."

This sounds uncannily like Obamite Prof. Leonard Jeffries' admonition that all Black folks "study Obama-ism." Burnham's gushings are remarkable for their abject surrender, not just to Obama's persona and mystique, but to the institutional trappings and annexes of corporate-tethered rule. She wants us all to take lessons from the corporate-bought structures – to better serve the people? No. Burnham is telling us that now that she's seen the Big Party, she doesn't want to leave. She's tasted that vintage wine, drank the good stuff, and is determined not to go back to movement rations.

I do agree that Burnham can use some political education. "For the anti-capitalist left," she writes, "this is a period of experimentation. There is no roadmap; there are no recipes." Maybe, but there are abiding truths that she has willfully forgotten: "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

Those elements that refuse to make demands of Power ought to stop calling themselves part of the Left. Unless the Left is in power, it is a contradiction in terms.

************ ********

ALAI, América Latina en Movimiento

February 26, 2009

http://alainet. org

Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency

by Linda Burnham

The election of Obama, while enthusiastically embraced by most of the left, has also occasioned some disorientation and confusion.

Some have become so used to confronting the dismal electoral choice between the lesser of two evils that they couldn't figure out how to relate to a political figure who held out the possibility of substantive change in a positive direction.

Others are so used to all-out, full-throated opposition to every administration that they wonder whether and how to alter their stance.

Still others sat out the election, for a variety of political and organizational reasons, and were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change.

Now there's an active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should b e towards it. There are two conflicting views on this:

First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that's underway.

Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.

It is possible to grant that Obama is a steward of capitalism while also maintaining that his election has opened up the potential for substantive reform in the interests of working people and that his election to office is a democratic win worthy of being fiercely defended.

Obama is clear – and we should be too – about what he was elected to do. The bottom line of his job description has become increasingly evident as the economic crisis deepens. Obama's job is to salvage and stabilize the U.S. capitalist system and to perform whatever triage is necessary to restore the core institutions of finance and industry to profitability.

Obama's second bottom line is also clear to him – and should also be to us: to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the world; repair the international ties shredded by eight years of cowboy unilateralism; and adjust U.S. positioning on the world stage on the basis of a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the changed and changing centers of global political, economic and military power – rather than on the basis of a simple-minded ideological commitment to unchallenged world dominance.

Obama has been on the job for only a month but has not wasted a moment in going after his double bottom line with gusto, panache and high intelligence. In point of fact, the capitalists of the world – or at least the U.S. branch – ought to be building altars to the man and lighting candles. They have chosen an uncommonly steady hand to pull their sizzling fat from the fire.

For some on the left this is the beginning and the end of the story. Having established conclusively that Obama's fundamental task is to govern in the interests of capital, there's no point in adjusting one's stance, regardless of how skillful and popular he may be. For the anti-capitalist left that is grounded in Trotskyism, anarcho-horizontali sm, or various forms of third-party- as-a-point- of-principleism, the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively. All else is trifling with minor reforms or, even worse, capitulating to the power elite. From this point of view the stance towards Obama is self-evident: criticize relentlessly, disabuse others of their presidential infatuation, and denounce anything that remotely smacks of mainstream politics. Though this may seem an extreme and marginal point of view, it has a surprising degree of currency in many quarters.

The effective-steward- of-capitalism is only one part of the Obama story. Obama did what the center would not do and what a fragmented and debilitated left could not do. He broke the death grip of the reactionary right by inspiring and mobilizing millions as agents of change. If Obama doesn't manage to do even one more progressive thing over the course of the next four years, he has already opened up far more promising political terrain. His campaign:

Revealed the contours, composition and potential of a broad democratic coalition, demographically grounded in the (overlapping) constituencies of African -Americans, Latinos, Asians, youth across the racial groups, LGBT voters, unionized workers, urban professionals, and women of color and single white women, and in the sectors of organized labor, peace, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, and environmentalism. Obama did not create this broadly democratic electoral coalition single-handedly or out of whole cloth, but he did move it from latency to potency and from dispirited, amorphous and unorganized to goal oriented, enthusiastic and organized;

Busted up the Republican's southern strategy, the foundation of their rule for most of the last forty years, and the Democrat's ignominious concession to this legacy of slavery;

Wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama's center is a couple of notches to the left of the Clinton administration' s triangulation strategies); and

Rescued political dialogue from its monopolization by hate-filled, xenophobic, ultra-nationalistic ideologues.

This is not change of the anti-capitalist variety, but certainly it is change of major consequence.

If the criterion is that the only change to be supported is that which strikes a decisive blow at capital, then the gap between where we are now and the realignment it would take to strike such a blow is completely and perpetually unbridgeable.

A better set of criteria, in light of the weakness of the left and the decades of hyper-conservatism we are only now exiting, is change that: creates substantially better conditions for working people; broadens the scope of democratic rights for sectors of the population whose rights have been abrogated; limits the prerogatives of capital; constrains runaway militarism and perpetual war; takes seriously the prospect of environmental collapse; and creates better conditions for struggle. This is the potential for change that Obama's presidency has generated. This is the democratic opening. It is potential that will only be realized and maximized if the left and progressives step up and stay engaged.

These are also the criteria to keep in mind as the Obama presidency unfolds, rather than flipping out over every appointment and policy move he makes. Far better to de-link from the 24-hour news cycle that feeds on micro-maneuvers, stop making definitive judgments based on parsing the language of every pronouncement, and keep our eyes on the broader contours of change.

Besides the sectors of the anti-capitalist left that are stranded on Dogma Beach, there are those who see the tide running high but are still watching from the safety of the shore, hesitant to get in the water. There are those who have been so long alienated from mainstream political processes and so disgusted with both political parties and all branches of government that their default response is instinctive distrust. They view Obama's presidency through the lens of anticipatory disillusionment. Their basic orientation is to analyze the administration' s every move with the goal of concluding, "See, we told you so. Obama's gonna burn you. You're gonna be disappointed. " This is a mindset for jilted lovers, not political activists. Let us grant without argument that, from the vantage point of the left, there are many disappointments in store. This is easy enough to predict based not only on Obama's own politics but also on the alignment of forces and institutions in which he is embedded. And so what? We can survive disappointment over this or that policy or concession as long as we are making headway on the broader criteria above.

There are also those who stayed on the shoreline during the campaign because they are wedded to localism as a matter of preference, principle or habit. Others were lodged in organizational forms that, for structural, political or legal reasons, could not articulate with the motion and structures of the presidential campaign. These are complicated issues, bound up as they are with questions of resources and patterns of philanthropy. But for those who missed interacting with the motion of millions against the right, against the white racial monopoly on the executive branch, and for substantive change, their absence should, at the very least, prompt a serious examination of political orientation and organizational form.

Finally, there are those who are struggling to negotiate the existential shoals of a commitment to anti-capitalist politics in a period when the system is manifestly dying but not nearly at death's door (and there have been all too many chronicles of that death foretold); major alternative systems have only recently collapsed or capitulated; and the vision, values and program that might bind together an anti-capitalist left and win broad support are still frustratingly obscure. There's no remedy for this dilemma except to live in the times we're in meeting the challenges we've been given and making the most of every opportunity, rather than anticipating capital's demise or pining for a past beyond recovery.

In this period, then, the left has three tasks.

Our first job is to defend the democratic opening. This is a job we share with broader progressive forces and with centrists. Obama won big and retains the favorable regard of a sizeable majority. And meanwhile the Republican Party is in glorious disarray. But in no way should we take this situation for granted. The new administration faces daunting challenges and outright crises on every front. And while the right is disoriented and weakened, it has not and will not leave the playing field. The principal players and institutions of the right are, at this very moment, plotting how to undermine the administration, challenge every initiative that moves in the direction of democracy, progress and peace, and regroup to seize control, once again, of the state apparatus.

Defense of the democratic opening means many things and ought to be the subject for discussion and strategizing on the left. But in practical terms, first and foremost, it means consolidating and extending the electoral alliance that made the opening possible. Any work that strengthens and broadens the voter engagement of the constituencies and sectors that secured Obama's election is work that defends the democratic opening. This kind of voter education, registration and mobilization work can be done in conjunction with an extremely broad range of local campaigns and initiatives. And anything that hastens the demise of the southern strategy, builds on the wins in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with the significant southwestern shifts in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada), and challenges structural barriers to voter participation (e.g., felony disfranchisement, voter ID laws) is critical. All this is another way of saying that the electoral arena is an essential site of struggle for left and progressive forces in a way it has not been in at least 20 years. And this work, in which we have unity of purpose with the centrists, is vital to widening the Democratic majority in the 2010 congressional races, winning a filibuster-proof Senate majority, ensuring the successful re-election of Obama in 2012, and shaping both the parameters of viable Democratic candidates in 2016 and the outcome of that election.

Our second job is to contribute to building more united, effective, combative and influential progressive popular movements. This places the highest premium on strengthening and extending our ties with broader progressive forces, both inside and outside the Democratic Party, with an eye towards building long-term relationships and alliances among individuals, organizations and sectors. Anything that thickens and enriches the relationships among left and progressive actors in labor, religious institutions, policy think tanks, grassroots organizations, academia etc. is to be supported in the interests of strengthening the capacity of the left-progressive alliance to influence policy, to encourage and shore up whatever progressive inclinations might emerge from within the administration, and to resist administration tendencies to accommodation and capitulation to center-right forces. At this early stage of Obama's tenure it is already evident what some of the most vital left-progressive alliance building ought to focus on. In foreign policy, on war and militarism in general and on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran and non-proliferation in particular. In domestic policy, on health care and on solutions to the economic crisis that hold the financial sector accountable for reckless and predatory practices while addressing the particular vulnerabilities of working people, the poor, women, immigrants and communities of color. And, at the intersection of global and domestic policy, on oil dependency and global warming. All that enhances our capacity to constructively engage in debating and influencing policy on these issues is to the good. All that obstructs or distracts is highly problematic.

We've exited a period of collective psychic depression only to enter one of global economic depression. Each day, as the institutions of finance capital collapse, the corruption, greed and mismanagement of the nation's economic system are further revealed. Broad sectors of the population have been shocked into a more skeptical and critical stance towards capitalism, and the need for some measure of structural change wins near-universal acceptance. The clash of rising expectations (encouraged by the hope and change themes of the Obama campaign) and a sinking economy will likely spark new levels and forms of popular resistance. In this political environment, alliance building will be complicated, messy and filled with political tensions and tactical differences. It is imperative nonetheless.

Our third job, and perhaps the trickiest, is to build the left. First let it be said that unless we are able to demonstrate a genuine commitment and growing capacity to take on the first two jobs, the third is a non-starter, and a prescription for political isolation. In other words, defending the democratic opening in conjunction with the center and building long-term relationships between the anti-capitalist left and broad progressive sectors in the context of the struggle over administration policy must be understood as critical tasks in their own right, not simply as arenas in which to advance an independent left line or to recruit new adherents to an anti-capitalist perspective. Realizing the progressive potential of the Obama win requires the most committed involvement with the twists and turns of politics on the most pressing issues on the administration' s agenda.

This same engagement is critical to rebuilding the left, a long-term process that can be advanced significantly in the context of Obama's presidency if, and only if, the left can skillfully manage the relationship and distinction between its own interests, dynamics and challenges and those of broader political forces. Why is this the case? On the tell no lies front, the left is more isolated and fragmented than it has been in forty years. Truly fine work is being done by leftists in every region of the country and on every social issue. But the left qua left is barely breathing. This is not the place to go into the historical (world historical and U.S. historical), ideological, theoretical and organizational reasons why this is so. But let us, at the very least, frankly acknowledge that it is so. The current political alignment provides an opportunity to break out of isolation, marginalization and the habits of self-marginalizatio n accumulated during the neo-conservative ascendancy. It provides the opportunity to initiate and/or strengthen substantive relationships with political actors in government, in the Democratic Party, and in independent sectors, as well as within the left itself – relationships to be built upon long after the Obama presidency has come to an end. It provides the opportunity to accumulate lessons about political actors, alignments and centers of power likewise relevant well beyond this administration. And it provides the opportunity for the immersion of the leaders, members and constituencies of left formations in a highly accelerated, real world poli-sci class.

In these circumstances, among our biggest challenges is how to attend to building the capacity of the left without succumbing to the siren songs of dogma, the old addictions of premature platform erection, or the self-limiting pleasures of building parties in miniature. For the anti-capitalist left, this is a period of experimentation. There is no roadmap; there are no recipes. Those organizational forms and initiatives that enable us to synthesize experience, share lessons and develop broad orientations and approaches to seriously undertaking our first two tasks should be encouraged. Those that would entrap us in the hermetic enclosures of doctrinal belief should be avoided at all cost.

The Obama presidency is a rare confluence of individuals and events. There is no way to predict how things will unfold over the next 4-8 years. But this much we can foresee: if the opportunity at hand is mangled or missed, the takeaway for the left will be deepened isolation and fragmentation. If, on the other hand, the left engages with this political opening skillfully and creatively, it will emerge as a broader, more vibrant force on the U.S. political spectrum, better able to confront whatever the post-Obama world will bring.

Pan-Africanism or Imperialism

Went to a program Sunday on Zimbabwe and the title was Pan-Africanism or imperialism. Here's the speech I wrote for my dad

We bring you greetings from the All-African People's Revolutionary Party.
We wisht to start by first thanking the December 12th movement for organizing this historic forum and being consistent strugglers for our People's liberation.

Our supreme strategist, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah spent his whole life working for the liberation of Africa and African people all over the world. He was a Pan-Africanist of the highest order. He made great contributions to the Pan-African struggle. Nkrumah told us that Pan-Africanism is the total liberation and unification of Africa under scientific socialism. To us of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party, Pan-Africanism is an objective which all serious African (Black) Revolutionaries must work to achieve. We must understand that as an African people we will not be totally free or be able reach our full potential until Africa is free of exploitation and foreign domination. After all the years of relentless struggle against British colonialism, Kwame Nkrumah, during his speech at Ghana’s independence celebration said that Ghana's independence was meaningless unless it was linked with the total liberation and unification of Africa. He went even further and said that he would be willing to surrender his presidency at any time for a union government. That was his vision.

To further that vision one of the first things that President Nkrumah did once Ghana won its independence was to set up training camps in Ghana for the different liberation movements throughout Africa. One of those young Revolutionaries who moved to Ghana was Robert Mugabe.

Nkrumah said "Africa needs a new type of citizen, a dedicated, honest, informed man [and woman]. A man [woman] who submerges self in service to the nation and mankind. A man [woman] who abhors greed and detests vanity. A new type of man [woman] whose humility is his [her] strength and whose integrity is his [her] greatness."

We find President Mugabe to be this new type of man and this is why he is so hated by imperialism. We have found him to be incorruptible by the forces who seek to keep us oppressed. We know, we as Africans will never be fully liberated unless all of Africa is liberated., regardless of who is in the White House. We are Africans, every African, regardless of where they are on the planet must come to struggle on behalf of mother Africa. This is why we support Mugabe and ZANU-PF, not out of any kind of sentimentality, but because President Mugabe is a genuine Revolutionary, a genuine struggler for Africans. He will be 85 in 2 weeks and continues to fight for the Zimbabwe masses and on behalf of Africa. The two are not separate, a victory for Zimbabwe brings us one step closer to Pan-Africanism. The struggle that is being waged in Zimbabwe by ZANU-PF is a struggle against neo-colonialism, imperialism and exploitation of the masses by the imperialist powers and those African puppets who are receiving crumbs that have fallen from the imperialist table. The struggle that is being played out in Zimbabwe, is not just about Zimbabwe--it is a link in the chain of struggle against slavery, against colonialism, neo-colonialism, capitalism and imperialism. This struggle will show clearly the forces that are for genuine independence and the forces that seek only to collaborate with imperialism.
Imperialism has declared war against Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean masses because they dare to struggle for genuine independence. Let us not be mistaken. The sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe is a declaration of war. These sanctions have deprived the country of food, medicine, and badly needed financial assistance. Imperialism tries to confuse the issue by misstating the facts. They will tell you that the sanction is against ZANU-PF leadership and not the People. But, we are clear, ZANU represents the masses. To target ZANU-PF leadership with sanctions, is to impose sanctions on the masses of Zimbabweans.

We have already won some victories in this struggle, thanks to SADC, thanks to President MBeki, thanks to the military might of ZANU-PF. In the past, imperialism would just come and assassinate our leaders at will, but that is not the case anymore. We were divided and weak; we had no say in our own affairs. Now, we are better organized. Today when they come, we will give bullet for bullet. It becomes clearer everyday that Pan-Africanism is our only salvation.

Our history of contact with Europeans has been one of exploitation; from slavery and colonialism, to capitalism, imperialism and now neocolonialism. Suddenly, we are being asked to believe that these countries that have raped and plundered Africa for the past 600 years have Africa's best interests at heart. I don't know about you, but I certainly do not believe them. How can the same system that seeks to keep us exploited and oppressed come to serve our interests? The sanctions against Zimbabwe are in fact a maneuver of the neo-colonialists. The imperialists can no longer rule directly and instead they seek to rule through economic control. History has taught us that every people and every nation look out for their own interests. We, being no different, must look our for our own interests and be on the right side of history.

We are currently witnessing the fall of capitalism. Yes, it is crumbling under its own contradictions. Everyday we read about some type of pyramid scheme where the person at the top has stolen the money of those at the bottom. This is precisely how capitalism exploits the masses. Those who don't labor reap and plunder the resources of those who do labor. This system is bound to fail because it is an unjust system, it is an oppressive system and wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. This is a law of human nature. So our People are fighting an unjust system, even if it only on an unconscious level. Our duty as Revolutionaries is to raise the level of consciousness amongst our People from unconscious resistance to conscious organization. We must organize to change this exploitative system and bring about a system where those who labor enjoy the fruits of their labor. This, in essence, is class-warfare.

We wish to close with this; Africans, our people are scattered and suffering around the world. What we lack is organization. If you are not part of an organization that is working to alleviate the pain and suffering of our People, then you are clearly against your People. If you are not actively involved in bringing an end to imperialism, then by your inactivity you help to maintain a system that continues to oppress your People. If you love your People, then you must work for your People! We humbly suggest our organization, the All-African People's Revolutionary Party, as one of the many organizations that you could join to aid our People in this historic struggle. But, if you do not join our Party, then there is the New Black Panther Party, there is the Urban League, there is of course, the December 12th movement. Africans, let's get organized.

Organize, Organize, Organize
Ready for the Revolution!!
Forward to One, Unified, Socialist Africa!!

Individual racism vs. Institutional racism

"Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms: individual white acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community against the black community. We call these individual racism and institutional racism. The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury or the violent destruction of property. This type can be recorded by television cameras; it can frequently be observed in the process of commission. The second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type." Kwame Ture & Charles V. Hamilton Black Power The Politics of Liberation in America


As millions of Africans celebrate the inauguration of Obama around the world, we must remember we've seen over and over again that those who are willing to capitulate to institutional racism, willing to not condemn the systematic oppression too much-- get rewarded, while the rest of us continue to suffer. This symbolic victory over individual racism is in fact an insidious means for the maintenance of institutional racism.

This symbolic victory over a more blatant form of racism does nothing to attack the institution of racism. In fact, it is used as a blunt weapon to dull the political consciousness of the masses. The capitalist press in true form, uses the advancement of an individual to attempt to forestall the inevitable victory of the masses struggling for a new, just, Revolutionary society. It waxes poetically about a new post-racial America, a color blind, meritocratic society, where we could all get along. When in reality, the game aint changed, just the players. It's still the same system of exploitation with a little more color. We've become more integrated into the American political system than ever before, yet we remain powerless as a People.

One commentator tried to liken Obama's victory to Mandela's in Azania. Last I checked we still living in shanty towns over there, white farmers still got the good land over there...and we still living in the ghettos and barrios over here. The final solution will only come when we awaken to the fact that we must uproot the whole system. Until then, we just playing at it. Until then, the struggle continues.