The wounded officer asserted that he shot and wounded his attacker during the incident - and there was a trail of blood leaving the scene. Brown had no gunshot wound on his person when they picked him up.
Let’s not forget that the Black Panthers were also heavily infiltrated by the FBI under the auspices of COINTELPRO. A lot of the violence and factionalism that split the BPP up towards its end was the direct result of that infiltration.
whitetho’s statement that “actions speak louder than words” definitely applies here. The Black Panthers made an effort at instituting several community programs during their early years, like breakfasts for inner-city kids for example. The Nazis did no such thing.
While the Black Panthers definitely advocated armed self-defense in the face of police repression and supported Black nationalism as a way of asserting their rights as people, their criticism of whites was focused on the police and the government rather than all whites in general. Unlike Marcus Garvey, who mixed with the KKK in order to promote the complete and total separation of races, and who declared on one occasion that his organization was “the original fascists”.
bibliophage OK, bad assumption on my part. But arguments about ‘free vs. unfree’ and that oddball little libertarian diagram are usually spouted by people who fundamentally agree with Rand’s outlook on life. I withdraw the obviously snide remark about Atlas Shrugged and do agree with you that Hitler and Stalin had much in common, but still stand by my assertion that your generalizations are far off the mark.
tomndebb The real point that you’re missing in the comparison between the Black Panthers and fascism is that fascists depend almost entirely on the ruling classes for their support. The Black Panthers realized that the police and the government, backed by big business, was the source of Black oppression.
Overall, however, the Black Panthers sought to bring real change to society by addressing social problems experienced by Blacks and trying to eliminate them. Fascists insisted on maintaining differences and separation among working people by any criteria they could seize upon, and keeping society pretty much the way it was. Any similarities you cite between the Black Panthers and fascism are at best superficial, and any real analysis of the two programs would reveal the utter nonsense of saying the former was indeed the latter.
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don’t know who you are…
No. The real point that I have failed to make clear (and it may have not been appropriate to this thread) was that if you set out to define various social and economic political movements (Authoritarian Socialism, Democratic Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, etc.) you can lay out certain aspects of each theory for comparison. The theories proposed by the Black Panthers match very closely to the movement that Mussolini began and that still bears the name he gave it.
There is no question that each of the various countries who have actually embraced Fascism have immediately fallen into abusive practices toward their citizens. I do not make that accusation against the Panthers. I was discussing only the theories that they laid out in preparation for their call to political action.
(I would disagree, mildly, with your assertion that “fascists depend almost entirely on the ruling classes for their support.” My reading of the histories of Germany and Italy suggest that the ruling classes were co-opted once the populist movements came to power. The ruling classes certainly joined heartily, but there was a genuine populist movement that supported Mussolini and Hitler for years in each country. I do not deny your statement, but I think I’d perceive a shift in emphasis. (I don’t have quite enough knowledge of Spain and Argentina to make any assertions.) In any event, my remarks were directed at the theoretical background of the movements rather than their effects.)
One word. Bullshit. Ahh I feel better now. The theories that the BLack Panther proposed were indeed all over the map. Many of them were conflicting. But not one of them matched Fascism.
I give you the woefully inadequete Webster definition
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition*
The Black panthers opperated under the tennets of Maoism, the VietCong, and AIM. The Blakc panthers were formed as a party of Self Defense against police brutality. They later expendad out into more political action, school progams etc. They thought to use the “peasents” to overthrow Capitalism and implement Socialism. Fascism relies on the “petty-bougoisie” to accomplish it’s aims. Severe economic and social regimentation did not fiqure into the Black Panthers either. Forcible suppresion of the opposition? Sounds more like Cointelpro to me. I’m sick of right-wingers trying to remake movements that actually showed some progress as fascist movements. Blech Next they’ll be portraying AIM and SDS as Fascist.
A good book on the matter is **Agents of Repression : The Fbi’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement ** by Ward Churchill.
Not in the least. The Nazis made a serious point of meeting with leading industrialists and other political figures to garner support for their organization long before they started campaigning for power through the parliamentary route. There’s a new history of the era called The Nazis, Capitalism, and the Working Class, by Donny Gluckstein, that’s well worth the read.
Anyway… this thread is definitely on the path to the Great Debates section (guilty!) so before Nickrz or manhattan decide it should be moved there I propose we take ourselves over there and make a new thread.
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don’t know who you are…
y’know, I think oldscratch is on to something there. I guess people would call a movement ‘fascist’ if it both displayed a level of militancy and proclaimed views that observers would disagree with. Just a thought…
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don’t know who you are…
y’know, I think oldscratch is on to something there. I guess people would call a movement ‘fascist’ if it both displayed a level of militancy and proclaimed views that observers would disagree with. Just a thought…
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don’t know who you are…
oldscratch, as you noted, the dictionary definition you provided is woefully inadequate. Back in poli-sci, we looked over the original efforts of Mussolini and noted that his suppression of the opposition was simply what he and Hitler chose as their method of ascendency. It was not part of the theory.
On the other hand, the Panthers clearly
exalted the “nation or race” above the individual
stood for a centralized autocratic government (athough they were probably less into the duce/fuehrer mode than the earlier fascists)
and clearly wanted economic and social regimentation in the new nation that they proposed
said economic control did not extend in their theories to the lowest levels of the economy as in Marxist dogma, but was focused on the largest industries (a hallmark of fascism, not Marxist thought).
I’m amused at your implication that I’m a right-winger. (You can find quite a few posters around here that have already painted me pink or red.)
In its earlier efforts, I supported the Black Panther movement, although I drew the line at the separate nation concept which I found unworkable. I am well aware that they were basically destroyed by unwarranted police action. My point was, initially, and remains one of academic interest in regards to their philosophy. They certainly did look to Mao and Ho Chi Minh for much of their inspiration. On the other hand, Ho and Mao used the identity of the people with the land as a simple rallying cry to suppress opposition. For the Panthers, the national/racial identity was inherent in their doctrines. I do not oppose that aspect of their beliefs (especially considering the times in which they operated). I do note that that is one aspect of their philosophy that moves them away from the Marxist model.
I also suspect that a lot of the passions that are showing up on this thread have to do with personal associations of philosophy x=Evil. I do not bring that emotion to the discussion. There is no question that the ultimate expression of Fascism and Marxism was wholly evil. (The same can be said–over current protests–about the unregulated Capitalism of the late 19th century.) I think that all three named philosophies have failed and I would not propose trying any of them again. That does not mean, however, that people who toyed with those ideas were evil.
Execelent, just what I was waiting for. I didn’t want to be the first to move this out of the text book definition, but since you did…let me bring a few more things to the table. Let’s look at historic Fascist movements. Fascism arises in times of crises in Society, it’s not something where people just go * "Boy, it sure is boring, think I’ll go start a fascist movement.* While Fascists themselves can exist outside of these times, fascism as a movement can not. By this definition, it is true the BP could be defined as Fascists but not as a Fascist movement. Fascism is explicitly anti-working class. The BP was pro working class, the BP were not Fascists. Fascism relies on support from the ruling class, at least in the begining, later on it overshadows and subjegates the ruling class. The BP never had ruling class/corporate support. Fascism relies heavily on conservative elements in the Police and Army. The BP did not have these. I could go on but am running out of time. I’ll throw in some more examples later.
I understand where you are coming from but, it’s like saying that because I believe in one or two things Christianiy says, I’m a Christian. Not so. There are many overlapping beliefs throughout history. It is dangerous to mislabel people.
[quote]
**
On the other hand, the Panthers clearly
exalted the “nation or race” above the individual
stood for a centralized autocratic government (athough they were probably less into the duce/fuehrer mode than the earlier fascists)
**
[quote]
Many of them were quite individualistic. Also nationalists, socialists, and the millitary exalt the nation over the individual. This has been aaround far longer than Fascism.
They weren’t organized enough to stand for a centralized autcratic government, much less put one together. Fascism has always been highley organized, something the BPP was lacking.
My apologies. I was refering more to right-wingers in genral rather than you in particular though. I’m aware of many leftists who enjoy bashing the BPP.
** sorry let me repost with the proper quotes**
**
Execelent, just what I was waiting for. I didn’t want to be the first to move this out of the text book definition, but since you did…let me bring a few more things to the table. Let’s look at historic Fascist movements. Fascism arises in times of crises in Society, it’s not something where people just go * "Boy, it sure is boring, think I’ll go start a fascist movement.* While Fascists themselves can exist outside of these times, fascism as a movement can not. By this definition, it is true the BP could be defined as Fascists but not as a Fascist movement. Fascism is explicitly anti-working class. The BP was pro working class, the BP were not Fascists. Fascism relies on support from the ruling class, at least in the begining, later on it overshadows and subjegates the ruling class. The BP never had ruling class/corporate support. Fascism relies heavily on conservative elements in the Police and Army. The BP did not have these. I could go on but am running out of time. I’ll throw in some more examples later.
I understand where you are coming from but, it’s like saying that because I believe in one or two things Christianiy says, I’m a Christian. Not so. There are many overlapping beliefs throughout history. It is dangerous to mislabel people.
Many of them were quite individualistic. Also nationalists, socialists, and the millitary exalt the nation over the individual. This has been aaround far longer than Fascism.
They weren’t organized enough to stand for a centralized autcratic government, much less put one together. Fascism has always been highley organized, something the BPP was lacking.
My apologies. I was refering more to right-wingers in genral rather than you in particular though. I’m aware of many leftists who enjoy bashing the BPP.
I would not actually blast the Panthers in general. There were specific individual members of the movement that I didn’t admire and I did oppose some of their goals, but I thought they arose in response to specific pressures on their society and I thought many of their objectives and many of their achievements were laudable.
I suspect that we are just going to agree to disagree about the fascism issue. If we created a list of all their attributes and all the attributes we could define as fascist, I would probably wind up matching enough of the entries in each column to make identify them as fascist and you would not. The term is very neutral for me (much like pointing out that the Acts of the Apostles describes early Christianity as communist). Since I doubt that we are going to reach any agreement and I have no mission to promulgate my viewpoint, I’ll probably just drop out, here.
Next they’ll be portraying AIM and SDS as Fascist.