[blind-democracy] #BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to Collaboration

  • From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 22:18:12 -0400

#BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to
Collaboration
Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 08/12/2015 - 15:22
. Black Liberation Movement

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
The #Black Lives Matter organization may believe that it is confronting,
rather than collaborating with, the Democratic Party, by disrupting
candidates' speeches. However, the tactic inevitably leads to "either a
direct or indirect, implicit endorsement of the more responsive
candidate(s)." In the absence of radical #BLM demands, "all that is left are
the petty reform promises that can be squeezed out of Democrats." That's not
movement politics.
#BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to
Collaboration
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
"If the emerging movement allows itself to be sucked into Democratic Party
politics, it is doomed."
A year after the police murder of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, an
incipient mass movement struggles to congeal and define itself. The emergent
movement is rooted in resistance to systemic state violence and repression
in Black America, yet its trajectory wobbles under the push and pull of the
contending forces that have been set in motion, and is further distorted by
relentless pressures from a power structure that pursues simultaneous
strategies of both cooptation and annihilation.
Physical annihilation is a constant threat to the "street" component of the
movement, such as the young people of Ferguson whose defiance of the armed
occupation inspired a national mobilization, and whose urban guerilla
language resonates in all the inner cities of the nation. They are the
cohort whose social existence has been shaped and defined by a mass Black
incarceration regime inaugurated two generations ago as the national
response to the Black movements of the Sixties. The clearly visible fact
that many of the cops that occupied Ferguson during this week's anniversary
of Michael Brown's murder were physically afraid - and that the "street"
brothers and sisters were demonstrably not - is all the proof we need that
Black youth in what we used to call the "ghetto" remain eager to confront
their tormentors.
Physical annihilation, or a lifetime of social death through imprisonment,
is also only a presidential executive order away for the "above ground"
activists of the movement, whose comings, goings and communications are
carefully tracked by the First Black President's secret police, as reported
by Intercept. The various components of what is collectively called the
Black Lives Matter movement are on the domestic enemies list of Homeland
Security, overseen by Jeh Johnson, a Black man, and the FBI, under the
overall direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Black woman.
"Black youth in what we used to call the "ghetto" remain eager to confront
their tormentors."
Lynch, like her predecessor, Eric Holder, believes her race entitles her to
play both Lord High Prosecutor and Black role model. Thus, as a Black
"elder" and "credit to her race," Lynch purports to have the moral authority
to define what the movement should be doing to commemorate Michael Brown's
murder. "The weekend's events were peaceful and promoted a message of
reconciliation and healing," she said - as if people should reconcile
themselves to a system that kills a Black person roughly every day, has
resulted in one out of every eight prison inmates in the world being an
African American; a system that cannot possibly be healed. "But incidents of
violence, such as we saw last night," Lynch warns, switching to her Lord
High Prosecutor persona, "are contrary to both that message, along with
everything [we] have worked to achieve over the past year."
What the Obama administration has spent the year trying to do, is co-opt the
same activists they are building dossiers on, in preparation for possible
future detention. There are clear limits, however, to the enticements that
can be offered by an administration that, like all Democratic and Republican
governments in the United States for the past 45 years, is totally committed
to maintenance of the Mass Black Incarceration regime - albeit with some
tinkering at the margins.
The greatest asset of the movement cooptation project is the Democratic
Party, itself, an institution that thoroughly dominates Black politics at
every level of community life. Not only are Black elected officials
overwhelmingly Democrats, but virtually all of the established Black civic
organizations - the NAACP, the National Urban League, most politically
active Black churches, fraternities and sororities - act as annexes of the
Democratic Party. Two generations after the disbanding of the Black
grassroots movement and the independent politics that grew out of that
movement, the Democratic Party permeates political discourse in Black
America. And the Democratic Party is where progressive movements go to die.
"There are clear limits to the enticements that can be offered by an
administration that is totally committed to maintenance of the Mass Black
Incarceration regime."
If the emerging movement allows itself to be sucked into Democratic Party
politics, it is doomed. Yet, the #BlackLivesMatter organization, a
structured group with a highly visible leadership and chapters in 26 cities,
is now circling the event-horizon of the Democratic Black Hole. To the
extent that it, and other movement organizations, have gotten money from
labor unions, they are accepting Democratic Party cash, since organized
labor in the U.S. is also an extension of - and a cash cow to - the
Democrats. Indeed, labor union money in a presidential election year is far
more dangerous to the independence of the movement than grants from outfits
like the Ford Foundation. Labor wants measureable results for its dollars,
and will make its money talk at the ballot box.
#BlackLivesMatter activists may convince themselves that they are
confronting the ruling class electoral duopoly by disrupting presidential
candidates' speeches, but the tactic leads straight to cooptation. What is
the purpose? If #BLM's goal is to push the candidates to adopt better
positions on criminal justice reform, what happens afterwards? The logic of
the tactic leads to either a direct or indirect, implicit endorsement of the
more responsive candidate(s). Otherwise, why should #BLM - or the candidates
- go through the exercise?
Former Maryland governor and Baltimore mayor Martin OMalley, whose draconian
street-sweeps resulted in the arrest of 750,000 people in one year - more
than the total population of the city - submitted a full-blown criminal
justice system proposal after being confronted by #BLM. Will it be graded?
Is #BLM in the business of rating candidates? If so, then the group is
inevitably acting as a Democratic Party lobby/constituency, and is wedded to
certain electoral outcomes. At that point, it ceases being an independent
movement, or an example of independent Black politics. It's just another
brand of Democrat.
If the goal is to pressure candidates to put forward "better" positions on
criminal justice or other issues, then what #BLM is actually doing is
nudging Democrats towards incremental reform. In the absence of radical #BLM
demands, all that is left are the petty reform promises that can be squeezed
out of Democrats. (None of this works with the Republican White Man's
Party.)
The #BLM tactic avoids formulation and aggressive agitation of core movement
demands. But, a movement is defined by its demands - which is one reason
that the current mobilization is best described as an "incipient" movement;
a mobilization with great promise.
"Any sustained Black movement must, of necessity, be in opposition to the
Democratic Party and its civic society annexes."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denounced Democratic president and sometimes ally
Lyndon Johnson over the Vietnam War, in 1967, and rejected even the
appearance of collaboration with the ruling class duopoly. King understood
that his job was to move masses of people towards their own empowerment, not
to act as an interest group or lobby in the corridors of the system.
(Malcolm X, and later, the Black Panther Party, would have pilloried King if
he had.) Half a century later, the Democratic Party is full of Black
officials, but, in light of their performance in office, this is more
evidence of defeat than victory. Two months before Michael Brown was
murdered in Ferguson, 80 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus - four
out of five full-voting members - supported continued Pentagon transfers of
military weapons and gear to local police departments, including the Black
congressman representing Ferguson, William "Lacy" Clay.
The Democratic Party, like its Republican duopoly cousin, is a criminal
enterprise, polluting the politics of Black America. Any sustained Black
movement must, of necessity, be in opposition to the Democratic Party and
its civic society annexes. They are the enemies, within, the people who have
facilitated the mass Black incarceration regime for two generations. "Lacy"
Clay and his CBC colleagues have killed thousands of Michael Browns.
People's core demands ring out in every demonstration. When Black protesters
shout, "Killer cops out of our neighborhood," they aren't referring to a
couple of especially bad apples; they're talking about the whole damn
occupation army. That's why the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice,
Peace and Reparations, which holds its national conference in Philadelphia,
August 22 and 23, believes "Black Community Control of the Police" is a
righteous, self-determinationist demand. Other groups may feel strongly
about other demands, and that's fine. Movements are lively places. But, a
movement cannot congeal without core demands.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
Glen.Ford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
#BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to
Collaboration
Submitted by Glen Ford on Wed, 08/12/2015 - 15:22
. Black Liberation Movement
/blm_and_democrats_disruption_to_collaboration
/blm_and_democrats_disruption_to_collaboration
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
The #Black Lives Matter organization may believe that it is confronting,
rather than collaborating with, the Democratic Party, by disrupting
candidates' speeches. However, the tactic inevitably leads to "either a
direct or indirect, implicit endorsement of the more responsive
candidate(s)." In the absence of radical #BLM demands, "all that is left are
the petty reform promises that can be squeezed out of Democrats." That's not
movement politics.
#BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to
Collaboration
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
"If the emerging movement allows itself to be sucked into Democratic Party
politics, it is doomed."
A year after the police murder of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, an
incipient mass movement struggles to congeal and define itself. The emergent
movement is rooted in resistance to systemic state violence and repression
in Black America, yet its trajectory wobbles under the push and pull of the
contending forces that have been set in motion, and is further distorted by
relentless pressures from a power structure that pursues simultaneous
strategies of both cooptation and annihilation.
Physical annihilation is a constant threat to the "street" component of the
movement, such as the young people of Ferguson whose defiance of the armed
occupation inspired a national mobilization, and whose urban guerilla
language resonates in all the inner cities of the nation. They are the
cohort whose social existence has been shaped and defined by a mass Black
incarceration regime inaugurated two generations ago as the national
response to the Black movements of the Sixties. The clearly visible fact
that many of the cops that occupied Ferguson during this week's anniversary
of Michael Brown's murder were physically afraid - and that the "street"
brothers and sisters were demonstrably not - is all the proof we need that
Black youth in what we used to call the "ghetto" remain eager to confront
their tormentors.
Physical annihilation, or a lifetime of social death through imprisonment,
is also only a presidential executive order away for the "above ground"
activists of the movement, whose comings, goings and communications are
carefully tracked by the First Black President's secret police, as reported
by Intercept. The various components of what is collectively called the
Black Lives Matter movement are on the domestic enemies list of Homeland
Security, overseen by Jeh Johnson, a Black man, and the FBI, under the
overall direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Black woman.
"Black youth in what we used to call the "ghetto" remain eager to confront
their tormentors."
Lynch, like her predecessor, Eric Holder, believes her race entitles her to
play both Lord High Prosecutor and Black role model. Thus, as a Black
"elder" and "credit to her race," Lynch purports to have the moral authority
to define what the movement should be doing to commemorate Michael Brown's
murder. "The weekend's events were peaceful and promoted a message of
reconciliation and healing," she said - as if people should reconcile
themselves to a system that kills a Black person roughly every day, has
resulted in one out of every eight prison inmates in the world being an
African American; a system that cannot possibly be healed. "But incidents of
violence, such as we saw last night," Lynch warns, switching to her Lord
High Prosecutor persona, "are contrary to both that message, along with
everything [we] have worked to achieve over the past year."
What the Obama administration has spent the year trying to do, is co-opt the
same activists they are building dossiers on, in preparation for possible
future detention. There are clear limits, however, to the enticements that
can be offered by an administration that, like all Democratic and Republican
governments in the United States for the past 45 years, is totally committed
to maintenance of the Mass Black Incarceration regime - albeit with some
tinkering at the margins.
The greatest asset of the movement cooptation project is the Democratic
Party, itself, an institution that thoroughly dominates Black politics at
every level of community life. Not only are Black elected officials
overwhelmingly Democrats, but virtually all of the established Black civic
organizations - the NAACP, the National Urban League, most politically
active Black churches, fraternities and sororities - act as annexes of the
Democratic Party. Two generations after the disbanding of the Black
grassroots movement and the independent politics that grew out of that
movement, the Democratic Party permeates political discourse in Black
America. And the Democratic Party is where progressive movements go to die.
"There are clear limits to the enticements that can be offered by an
administration that is totally committed to maintenance of the Mass Black
Incarceration regime."
If the emerging movement allows itself to be sucked into Democratic Party
politics, it is doomed. Yet, the #BlackLivesMatter organization, a
structured group with a highly visible leadership and chapters in 26 cities,
is now circling the event-horizon of the Democratic Black Hole. To the
extent that it, and other movement organizations, have gotten money from
labor unions, they are accepting Democratic Party cash, since organized
labor in the U.S. is also an extension of - and a cash cow to - the
Democrats. Indeed, labor union money in a presidential election year is far
more dangerous to the independence of the movement than grants from outfits
like the Ford Foundation. Labor wants measureable results for its dollars,
and will make its money talk at the ballot box.
#BlackLivesMatter activists may convince themselves that they are
confronting the ruling class electoral duopoly by disrupting presidential
candidates' speeches, but the tactic leads straight to cooptation. What is
the purpose? If #BLM's goal is to push the candidates to adopt better
positions on criminal justice reform, what happens afterwards? The logic of
the tactic leads to either a direct or indirect, implicit endorsement of the
more responsive candidate(s). Otherwise, why should #BLM - or the candidates
- go through the exercise?
Former Maryland governor and Baltimore mayor Martin OMalley, whose draconian
street-sweeps resulted in the arrest of 750,000 people in one year - more
than the total population of the city - submitted a full-blown criminal
justice system proposal after being confronted by #BLM. Will it be graded?
Is #BLM in the business of rating candidates? If so, then the group is
inevitably acting as a Democratic Party lobby/constituency, and is wedded to
certain electoral outcomes. At that point, it ceases being an independent
movement, or an example of independent Black politics. It's just another
brand of Democrat.
If the goal is to pressure candidates to put forward "better" positions on
criminal justice or other issues, then what #BLM is actually doing is
nudging Democrats towards incremental reform. In the absence of radical #BLM
demands, all that is left are the petty reform promises that can be squeezed
out of Democrats. (None of this works with the Republican White Man's
Party.)
The #BLM tactic avoids formulation and aggressive agitation of core movement
demands. But, a movement is defined by its demands - which is one reason
that the current mobilization is best described as an "incipient" movement;
a mobilization with great promise.
"Any sustained Black movement must, of necessity, be in opposition to the
Democratic Party and its civic society annexes."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. denounced Democratic president and sometimes ally
Lyndon Johnson over the Vietnam War, in 1967, and rejected even the
appearance of collaboration with the ruling class duopoly. King understood
that his job was to move masses of people towards their own empowerment, not
to act as an interest group or lobby in the corridors of the system.
(Malcolm X, and later, the Black Panther Party, would have pilloried King if
he had.) Half a century later, the Democratic Party is full of Black
officials, but, in light of their performance in office, this is more
evidence of defeat than victory. Two months before Michael Brown was
murdered in Ferguson, 80 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus - four
out of five full-voting members - supported continued Pentagon transfers of
military weapons and gear to local police departments, including the Black
congressman representing Ferguson, William "Lacy" Clay.
The Democratic Party, like its Republican duopoly cousin, is a criminal
enterprise, polluting the politics of Black America. Any sustained Black
movement must, of necessity, be in opposition to the Democratic Party and
its civic society annexes. They are the enemies, within, the people who have
facilitated the mass Black incarceration regime for two generations. "Lacy"
Clay and his CBC colleagues have killed thousands of Michael Browns.
People's core demands ring out in every demonstration. When Black protesters
shout, "Killer cops out of our neighborhood," they aren't referring to a
couple of especially bad apples; they're talking about the whole damn
occupation army. That's why the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice,
Peace and Reparations, which holds its national conference in Philadelphia,
August 22 and 23, believes "Black Community Control of the Police" is a
righteous, self-determinationist demand. Other groups may feel strongly
about other demands, and that's fine. Movements are lively places. But, a
movement cannot congeal without core demands.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
Glen.Ford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.


Other related posts:

  • » [blind-democracy] #BlackLivesMatter and the Democrats: How Disruption Can Lead to Collaboration - Miriam Vieni