Henry Giroux and “America’s Addiction to Violence”

horiz grey line

//


=By= Allen Ruff Interviews Henry A. Giroux

gun culture

“Gun Culture,” bu Christopher Dombres. (CC BY 2.0)

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]llen Ruff interviews Henry A. Giroux on the manifestations and mechanisms of the addiction to violence in the United States. Dr. Giroux responds in his typical sweeping style integrating everything from disentitlement and the capitalist system, to the concentration of wealth and the politics of fear. He also veers off into state terrorism and how that plays into the addiction to violence.

Henry A. Giroux

Henry A. Giroux

 


Contributing Editor Henry A. Giroux currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His books include: Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism (Peter Land 2011), On Critical Pedagogy (Continuum, 2011), Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability (Paradigm 2012), Disposable Youth: Racialized Memories and the Culture of Cruelty (Routledge 2012), Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013). Giroux’s most recent books are America’s Education Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013), are Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education, America’s Disimagination Machine (City Lights) and Higher Education After Neoliberalism (Haymarket) will be published in 2014). He is also a Contributing Editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today / The Greanville Post, and member of Truthout’s Board of Directors and has his own page The Public Intellectual. His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.

Source: WORT 89.9 FM Community Radio, Madison, WI.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





Check your privilege, says multi-millionaire politician

horiz grey line

//


=By= Ben Norton

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]When warmongering Wall Street-backed neoliberal multimillionaires start telling you to check your privilege, you know the word has lost all meaning.

“We need to recognize our privilege and practice humility, rather than assume that our experiences are everyone’s experiences”, Hillary Clinton tweeted on 16 February.

Coincidentally, just a day before Clinton implored working class Americans to check their privilege, a new, more exhaustive study of her wealth was released. It is quite telling.

“For Hillary Rodham Clinton, Politics Is a Money-Making ‘Family Business’”, was one of the titles of a Fortune Magazine article detailing her wealth — the other, “How Hillary and Bill Clinton Parlayed Decades of Public Service into Vast Wealth”.

Waxing poetic on “the model that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have pursued – with astonishing success”, the neoliberal publication notes: “For them, politics is the family business. There is no distinction between business careers and political careers. Holding and serving in public office provides a platform from which they can monetise experience, connections and prominence. And then they use the wealth gained through, say, speaking engagements and media tours, to lay the groundwork for the next campaign. Electoral office, business, wealth, and public service, all meld together seamlessly”.

Fortune calls this “a remarkably high-reward strategy”. That is one way of describing it. Another would be “corruption”.

How much wealth are we talking here? Millions. Lots and lots of millions. The Clintons made $28 million in 2014 alone. Bill took home $8.44 million from speaking, and an additional $6 million from consulting. Hillary earned $8.7 million from speaking and $4.6 million from book sales.

Together, Bill and Hillary have $110 million in wealth – or $0.11 billion.

“In 2013, Hillary gave 36 speeches for about $8.5 million, most at about $225,000 a pop, to customers such as Goldman, Sachs and Fidelity Investments”, Fortune reports. “The same year, Bill gave 34 talks for $10.22 million.”

And, for her poorly selling ghost written memoir of the Obama era, Hard Choices, Clinton got a $14 million advance.

Yet working-class Americans who struggle to make ends meet, have no healthcare (single-payer will “never, ever” happen, Clinton declared!),  struggle on the verge of homelessness, are brutalised by police, and stumble under the weight of gargantuan debt must check their privilege, we are told.

Discussions of “privilege” dominate contemporary identity politics. Privilege-checking is a fundamentally reactionary neoliberal discourse, one that reinforces an individualist perspective that sees one’s lifestyle, personal experiences, and feelings as the principal locus of struggle and distracts from materialist structural analysis of systems of oppression. This is precisely what explains its popularity among the liberal faction of the ruling class.

There is nothing in privilege discourse that poses a challenge to capital – nothing at all. The easiest way to tell is to take a glance at how enthusiastically the Ford Foundation has embraced it.

Wall Street-backed multimillionaire Hillary Clinton understands, at a visceral level, how identity politics dovetails so nicely with her stridently right-wing neoliberal politics, and – by virtue of her inability to counter the genuinely left-wing politics of fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders – she has wielded it incessantly in order to bludgeon her socialist rival.

Her use of liberals’ favourite buzzword “intersectional” on the same day she tweeted the above invocation of privilege is just one example of such an apolitical tactic, among many.

Political scientist and race theorist Adolph Reed has long maintained that identity politics “is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature”.

The fact that a politician who served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, for six years – and while it was viciously cracking down on its workers’ attempt to unionise, no less — has the gall to tell Americans to check their privilege exemplifies, more than any of the other already bountiful and obscene examples, just how politically bankrupt “privilege” discourse is, and just how correct Adolph Reed and the Left is in its analysis of the fundamentally reactionary nature of identity politics.


Source: Red Flag

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





The Wisdom of Michael Parenti: Select Talks


horiz grey linetgplogo12313



Michael Parenti – The Assassination of Julius Caesar
So it turns out that Cesar, depicted by most bourgeois historians as an ruthless dictator and tyrant down the ages, and consecrated as such even by Shakespeare, was nothing of the kind.


BONUS:

Michael Parenti – The 1% Pathology and the Myth of Capitalism

AND, of interest—
Parenti confronts Hitchens over US foreign policy

 


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR…

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Antonio Gramsci – Italian Professional Revolutionary

horiz grey line

//


=By= Gaither Stewart

Antonio Gramsci's grave - Rome

“Telling the truth is always revolutionary.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]oday I visited the tomb of Antonio Gramsci in the Poets’ Cemetery in Rome, a final resting place for artists, poets, writers and illustrious foreigners and lovers of Italy. January 22 is the birthday of the Italian professional revolutionary and founder of the Italian Communist Party in 1921. An inconspicuous urn resting in the center of the mound contains the ashes of the philosopher and Marxist thinker. The tombstone bears only his name and his dates—1891-1937. Fresh red flowers indicate that the site is regularly tended.

I visited the tomb of Gramsci also because I wanted to speak of the man who in my mind is most representative of the better side of tormented twentieth century Italy, an advocate of a new social-political-economic structure and a major figure in shaping progressive thought from the early XX century.

I wanted to speak of Gramsci because the Italy that many people love continues to be threatened by a contagious right-wing populism. Since the demise of the Italian Communist Party in 1991 and in the wake of successive right, center-right and center governments often led by populists, Italy has experienced depths of reaction and wishy-washy governments that would cause Gramsci’s progressive spirit to wing its way to other worlds.

The figure of Antonio Gramsci is emblematic of the profound dichotomy between progress and reaction that has marked much of Europe since the end of the nineteenth century. The Marxist Gramsci would have ambivalent feelings about his neighbors in the Poets’ Cemetery: lying near him are dozens of “White Russian exiles,” whose culture was dedicated to maintaining the hegemony of the Russian upper class over the masses, which Gramsci opposed. They were the adversaries of the Bolshevik revolution in Tsarist Russia in 1917, which Gramsci supported.

On the other hand, Gramsci must have had sympathy for the progressive English poets, John Keats and Percy Byshe Shelley, who lie under two pines in a distant corner of the same cemetery. Keats (“I saw pale kings, and princes too” from his La Belle Dame san merci) wrote, as Gramsci must have at some point, “I am ambitious to do the world some good.”

Antonio Gramsci & wife Julia Schucht

Antonio Gramsci, 30 years old, and his Russian wife, Julia Schucht. Gramsci went to Moscow in May 1922 and became a member of the Comintern Executive Committee. He lived in Moscow until November, 1923. During that time he met and married Julia Schucht, a member of the Bolshevik Party, the daughter of a friend of Lenin, Apollon Schucht. Julia was rumored to be an agent of Lenin’s secret services, the OGPU under Feliks Dzerzinsky. So Gramsci’s meeting with her was either a romantic love at first sight or Julia was controlled by Lenin. I set my novel, Time of Exile, at the Poets’ Cemetery and in a house on the short, cobblestone street, Via Trapani in the Nomentano district of Rome, where Julia and some of the Trapani family lived while Gramsci was in prison. Julia returned to the Soviet Union after Gramsci’s death, while some of the family remained in Italy. See Julia Schucht on the web for many curiosities of the era.

Keats arrived in Rome a sick man—as Gramsci was all his life—and died at age twenty-six after choosing the Poets’ Cemetery for his resting place. Shelley, who preferred “painful pleasures to easier ones”, also lived his last years in Italy where he died in a Mediterranean storm near Lerici and joined his friend Keats a year later.

As much as he appreciated their culture and admired Keats’ universal words, ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’ Antonio Gramsci, did not worship all the names of the Western literary canon because, he believed, there was usually an unacceptable ideology involved in their canonization. In his Selections from the Prison Notebooks he writes of the difficulty of intellectuals to be free of the dominant social group (the major problem of western intellectuals today and especially in the USA!); he was mistrustful of the esprit de corps and the compromises running through the Italian and European intellectual community of his times.

While poetry, for example, in the Anglophone world has often remained distant from the political world in the popular belief that “poetry does not count”, in the world at large poets have often led the charge against colonialism, imperialism and fascism: like Martì in Cuba, Ernesto Cardenal in Nicaragua, Federico Garcìa Lorca in Spain, Paul Eluard in France, Quasimodo in Italy, Pablo Neruda in Chile.

Poetry can and does fuel free-thinking and democratic strivings. The poet is an intellectual in Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci’s sense: “Non-intellectuals do not exist,” he writes, because “there is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens.” Gramsci suggests that activism, not only eloquence, is a determining principle of the intellectual’s function “as constructor, organizer, permanent persuader, and not just a simple orator.”

Born in Sardinia, Gramsci moved to Turin in 1913. At the university there he came into contact with the strong Socialist movement. He was then a co-founder of the Italian Communist Party in 1921 and became its head the year after. He was elected to Parliament in 1923. Three years later he was arrested by the Fascist police and spent most of the rest of his life in prison.

Like most great men Gramsci hoped to change the world. His point of departure was the Marxist idea that everything in life is determined by capital. The class that controls capital is the dominant class. The capitalist class formulates its ideology to secure its control—or in Gramscian language, its hegemony—over the people. Class struggle results when the people try to change the rules and take power.

The task of intellectuals is to lead and act politically in order to change the world. “Let men be judged by what they do, not what they say.”

The Marxist Gramsci knew nothing of Lenin until 1917 and Lenin probably only learned of Gramsci when he founded the Italian Communist Party and while he was in Moscow. In any case, Leninism was only one ingredient in Gramsci’s theory for social change. While Leninism is now largely history, many of Gramsci’s contributions to Socialist thought are intact: the intellectual pursuit and culture.

Though Gramsci was interested in political action and believed in the necessity of a political movement, in his thinking revolutionary violence is not the only path to challenge the hegemony of the capitalist class. Though a revolutionary, not a pacifist, he did not advocate a Leninist totalitarian world outlook.

Gramsci amended Marx’s conviction that social development originates only from the economic structure. His distinction of culture was a major advance for radical thought, and it still holds today. His point was and is: although culture does not lead social change, it is just a step behind.

The Italian Marxist recognized that political freedom is a requisite for culture; if religious or political fanaticism suppresses the society, art will not flower. To write propaganda or paint conformist art is to succumb to the allures and/or the coercion of the reigning system. For that reason most artists, like Keats and Shelly, are countercurrent. That is also why artists should stay far away from the White House or the Elysées Palace.

Gramsci like other Marxists insisted on the role of intellectuals to lead the way toward reform. Gramsci believed that mass media, the instrument used by the dominant class to spread its hegemony, can also be used to counter that hegemony. Throughout the world today we see the confrontation—still unequal—between establishment media on the one side and the spread of alternative media on the other: independent publishers and filmmakers and the free “alternative” press.

 

 



gaither-new GAITHER photoSenior Editor Gaither Stewart, based in Rome, serves—inter alia—as our European correspondent. A veteran journalist and essayist on a broad palette of topics from culture to history and politics, he is also the author of the Europe Trilogy, celebrated spy thrillers whose latest volume, Time of Exile, was just published by Punto Press.


 

Source
Lead Graphic:  The grave of Antonio Gramsci in Rome.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





Refusing to Choose Between Martin and Malcolm: Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and a New Nonviolent Revolution

horiz grey line

//


=By= 

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King

The triple-threat crisis of racism, militarism and materialism continues to define the American empire: unprecedented levels of racially-biased incarceration, increasingly disempowering and divided educational systems based on race and class, and statistics which show that Blacks are 9 times more likely to be killed by police. Despite a President (in an extraordinary act of self-denial) proclaiming in his final major address that there is no Black America, the evidence suggests that we are living in a particularly dangerous period of time, particularly if you are or know a young person of African descent.

2015 was not only a year of fear, brutality and injustice, it was a year of sustained resistance that honoured not only a strong national Black radical politics of organising, but also helped cultivate a new and thriving, nonviolent international movement for Black Liberation. As we enter 2016, the Movement for Black Lives must navigate itself in uncharted territory and hazardous spaces, but is accompanied by a vigourous knowledge of self, a thriving and committed community of activists and organizers who are cognizant of the need for guiding principles and the creation of a Black Radical national policy platform.

The Movement is malleable – to be shaped and reshaped depending on the needs of both specific moments and long-term, community-based goals. At the core will remain three essential demands: divestment from racist systems and investment in Black communities; community self-control and community-centered decision making; and the creation of alternative Institutions and radical spaces which express and reflect one’s right to live freely. These principles are inspired by a re-imagination of what it means to build radical democracy, laid down by a generation of youth organisers like Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, Ella Baker and Fannie Lou Hamer, Kwame Ture and Angela Davis, and so many others.

It is fitting that on Dr. King’s 2016 birthday weekend, an intergenerational, intersectional movement of Black radicals and their allies are collectively organising to reclaim the moment, using MLK’s tools of nonviolent civil disobedience and direct action to launch a “Year of Resistance and Resilience.” Coordinated actions taken across the US and the world will ensure that this birthday weekend is understood as a time for visible resistance to current injustices, not simply celebratory affirmations of past victories.

Building an Affirmation

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks as human, and an affirmation of our contributions to society, humanity, resilience, and resistance in the face of deadly oppression.

At the root of this movement is a critique of violence. At times this past year, it seemed that the empire commonly known as the USA has rarely been so divided. Alongside of the social divisions, however, it seems that the rising new movements may, at last, be in the process of uniting different struggles working across the many landscapes of oppression, and uniting philosophical approaches too often used to divide us.

The current movement emerging from the Ferguson uprising, #BlackLivesMatter and other Black Liberation formations have learned from the leader-focused movements of the past not to rely on single, charismatic, too-often-male leaders that centralize, mainstream or silo organizational life, principles or culture(s). Nevertheless, even though some youth organisers will say “This Ain’t Yo Daddy’s Civil Rights Movement,” the philosophical specter of past generations echo through modern debates about strategy and tactics. These include real differences of styles and preferences, including the efficacy of reform versus radical demands, the power of mass civil resistance and nonviolence versus the legitimacy and need for armed self-defense, and the different roles which solidarity and alliance-building can take. This differences, however, have too often been posited as do-or-die dichotomies, falsely suggesting that there is only one path to effective and lasting social change.

X Vs Jr

The images of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Minister Malcolm X are rolled out by the movement and their critics in equal measure. They swiftly and elegantly deliver historical visions which slot conveniently into particular, not-always accurate, not-often-useful, historical narratives. One is the Pro-Violence and Revolutionary, the other is Pacifist and Reformist.

We are too often instructed to forget the intersections where their actions, movements and messages met, and there is good reason why we are distracted from connecting these dots: to connect is to find new meaning in cooperation and collaboration between organising groups. Yet, there is much evidence we can draw from that bridge the gap between Martin and Malcolm, including one bright, smiling, brotherly, moment captured when the two men met and shook hands across the divides of their times. That moment – with two men committed to both racial justice and human rights for all, committed to an internationalism which understood the US empire and the struggle of Black folks in a global context, committed to an understanding that tactical differences should never stand in the way of principled unity – beckons us to a 21st Century imperative.

We must REFUSE TO CHOOSE between Martin and Malcolm. This time is our time to reimagine and practice revolutionary nonviolence.

Rejecting and Accepting the Past

While rejecting the representation of two myopic heteronormative male narratives of liberation, Malcolm and Martin offer a recognizable context to begin a critical conversation about what our Black liberation past has inspired, and what popular culture can diminish.

Scholarship and common sense have already laid down most of what we need to know. As each of those two giants engaged with the world outside the U.S. borders, they grew in understanding that the problem of the “Black” world within the U.S. could not be solved merely through U.S. legislative or political remedies, nor through a single ideological or tactical approach. They clearly understood that the reforms of their earlier days would not be sufficient in ridding the U.S. or the world of white supremacy which lay at its very foundation; a revolution – whether of values or of arms or of a combined social resistance – would be needed for true emancipation on a Global, diasporic scale.

There is, of course, a dualism here which we shouldn’t simply avoid: armed and nonviolent approaches suggest different types of tactical considerations with likely different results. Missing, though, in almost all past tactical debates, but present in the #BlackLivesMatter movement is the creation of spaces that develop a revolutionary and militant nonviolence mindset and discipline, borne of highly organized mass civil disobedience and resistant direct actions to “shut down and completely disrupt ‘Business as Usual’, dismantle racist systems, and transform institutions through acts of self-determination and reparations.

Most historians agree that Malcolm and Martin were killed for beginning to make transnational, strategic, and philosophical connections, and that the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program which hunted them both continues to this day, though in different names and forms. It continues to seek to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities” of all those struggling for Black liberation.

The US National security state went to outright war against the Black Panthers, their allies, and others who came after, but the spirit of the Panthers marches strong in the minds and on the t-shirts of youth organisers bearing such slogans as “Assata Taught Me.” It is also in the present, intergenerational radical learning spaces created to facilitate dialogue with the elders of past struggles.

By anchoring to the traditions of Black radical politics, the movement builders of today refuse to perpetuate the continued assassination of Dr. King, burying him in a soft-focused, nostalgic and “dreamy” 1963. We refuse to end King’s story with “I Have a Dream,” as if he never was a young radical who was imprisoned, beaten and discredited, as if he never grew into a powerful movement leader defying many advisors and funders by speaking out sharply against the war in Vietnam and in favor of economic justice for all. We refuse to go along with state-sponsored attempts to bury Black radicals behind bars as US political prisoners, or in exile with bounties on their heads, and so spotlight the words – sent from Cuba – of Black Liberation Army leader Assata Shakur. Her most recent writing implores us to remember that “this is the 21st century and we need to redefine r/evolution. this planet needs a people’s r/evolution. a humanist r/evolution. r/evolution is not about bloodshed or about going to the mountains and fighting… the fundamental goal of r/evolution must be peace…r/evolution is love.”

In August 1963, as hundreds of thousands were marching on Washington DC to assert that “jobs and freedom” were still necessary for the descendants of enslaved Africans one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, Martin declared that America had offered Black folks “a bad check,” one marked “insufficient funds” in the areas of liberty and justice. On that day, when Malcolm was suggesting that the march itself was a sell-out, a conscious person wanting to take action would have had to make a logistical choice: to go to DC or stay home. A few months later, in Malcolm’s “Message to the Grassroots,” he clarified his differences with the civil rights leadership, and sharpened his own definition of revolution. “The Black revolution,” he stated, “is world-wide in scope and in nature. The Black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, rearing its head in Latin America…Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way…Revolution is based on land.”

More than fifty years since those thunderous messages, we no longer need to make a choice. The mainstream history textbooks would like to freeze-frame Martin in 1963, having his dream and nothing more. They would like to cut Malcolm out altogether, or else freeze him in some internal extremist, Muslim-based, fratricidal debacle. Martin came closer to Malcolm in his concern for what might be described as reparations or redistribution of wealth. Malcolm’s attempt to take the US to the United Nations for its violation of human rights offers a glimpse into his strategic, peaceful, coalition thinking, similar to King’s gathering of international support and cross-movement, interfaith work.

New Moments, Nuances, New Movements

Theologian James Cone taught us to look beyond the white-washed images of Malcolm-versus-Martin. Student activist Ashoka Jegroo told us that today’s movements need not dichotomize those men as opposing sentinels. Charles Cobb and Akinyele Umoja and Sally Bermanzohn and others have provided detailed works showing the nuances involved in the real movements of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, suggesting that today we can and must go beyond false dichotomies.

In 2016, we must do more than simply acknowledge that we need not choose between Martin and Malcolm. To be effective, we must actively engage in the texts of Baldwin and Fanon; Dellinger and Braden; Lee-Boggs, Butler and Lorde; as well as hooks and Abu-Jamal and West. We must learn from a diasporic history of resistance and rebellion, from Haiti, Trinidad and Jamaica; Ghana, Guinea Bissau and Mozambique; Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil; India, East Timor, and Vietnam, and – yes – the streets of San Juan and Brixton. We must interweave, interconnect and intersect nuanced arguments, achievements and concerns, and be willing to critique and challenge one another as we reimagine society and explore our universe for new suns.

There is much debate about what makes for effective and transformative movement-building – on local, national, or transnational scales. This much at least, from the last half-century of history, seems clear: a merger of ideological and technical thinking will be needed, along with full access to and (re)distribution of all natural, material, and human resources. A revolutionary nonviolent praxis will require:

*A combination of reform and more radical measures, leading up to fully transformative and lasting change;

*A multiplicity of intersectional strategy and tactics that expand what we consider as nonviolence;

*A disciplined understanding and preparation for the fact that casualties and bloodshed occur in all revolutions, and that militarism on the part of revolutionaries is always a costly error;

*Massive training for mass organising between social, economic, political and environmental movements, by imaginative, creative, resistance-oriented means;

*Concrete, grassroots constructive programs, that seek to build new societies and alternative institutions, and that invest in Black communities and the communities of other historically oppressed peoples and nations;

*Explicit programs to eradicate white supremacy and hetero-normative patriarchy, with the goal of liberation for all people;

This is not to say that the U.S. today, despite the ebullient mood on some campuses, is – to use a favorite phrase of Kwame Ture (aka Stokely Carmichel) – “ready for revolution.” It IS to say that radicals today, across different struggles and movements, might do well to step carefully around the dividing lines of past decades. We must find intersections and opportunities that exist in these new spaces, building unity where our elders could not. As the U.S. empire shows growing signs of decline, lashing out and closing ranks at anything beyond the 1% ruling elite, opportunities for radical change – as well as for vicious backlash and repression – will emerge with growing frequency. Let us not allow our people’s movements to be divided, co-opted, or conquered – especially not along historic fault lines so clearly set up to divide and conquer us.

Liberation educator Paulo Freire noted that “violence is the tool of the master,” and feminist poet Audre Lorde reminded us that “You cannot dismantle the Master’s House with the Master’s Tools” So, let us reimagine new ways to build a society where Black people can live freely and dream, and let’s find, as Barbara Deming implored, “equilibrium” in our revolutionary process.

Constantly the hegemonic status quo re-equips to co-opt, capture, and destroy our dissent. Today’s movements must not seek to be “brought into the fold.” The fold can only hold a few, and we no longer want the morphine of acceptance. Let us speak Truth to Empire, like the people of Ferguson and like U.S. political prisoners have been trying to do. It is time to refuse to fight our grandfather’s battles, and refuse to be limited by unnecessary past choices and false dichotomies.

It is time to build power, unite, and win!


Matt Meyer is coordinator of the War Resisters’ International Africa Support Network, and serves as a representative of the International Peace Research Association at the UN; he is a New York City-based author and educator, locally affiliated with the Resistance in Brooklyn collective. Natalie Jeffers is the founder/director of Matters of the Earth, a global social justice organisation that places creative, innovative tools into hands to educate and empower people in organising, strengthening and building movements. She is a London-based activist with the Black Lives Matter movement. David Ragland is a co- founder/co-director of the Truth Telling Project based in Ferguson, MO, and assistant professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Juniata College. He is also a Board member of the Peace and Justice Studies Association

Source
Article: CounterPunch
Lead Graphic:  Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. Public Domain from Library of Congress Prints & Photos Collection.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.