(Offshoot of this discussion on MLK vs Malcom X on violence)
What the Black Panther Party had done breakfast programs, free health clinics, and other mutual aid, but didn’t do the community safety patrols?
We know that the patrols were effective, morally good, and a big part of the BPP’s public perception. We also know that the United States is still racist as fuck, and that black liberation has not been achieved yet.
I see the Black Panthers as one of the most promising leftist experiments in the US. In the spirit of scientific socialism, how do you think the movement would have gone, had the party been less militant?
Would it have just been easier to dismantle? Would it have been seen as less of a threat, so not worth extreme actions? Would the general public have been more or less supportive? Would the black community have been more or less supportive? How would its legacy be different?
My analysis
Partly informed by this interview with the BPP minister of defense
Benefits:
- Community safety: obviously. The patrols were started to address a critical need in the community.
- Recruitment: the militant aspect of the party had massive appeal to folks that had been oppressed for generations. It gave agency and a way to direct the rage into something useful
- Publicity: great way to get into the news, which helps get the message out
Drawbacks:
- Attracted more attention from the feds
- Spooked white people
- Increased risk for party members
Since we have the benefit of hindsight, we know that the feds were a major part of the dissolution of the movement. I assume that if the feds had NOT intervened, the movement would have continued to grow in power and made massive improvements to the lives of black people and Americans in general.
I trust that the BPP members made reasonable decisions to counter CoIntelPro, but I also trust that the focused power of the federal government is able to succeed in whatever fucked up stuff it wants to do. That’s to say: the BPP may have simply been in an unwinnable fight.
Avoiding the eye of sauron for as long as possible is a prudent strategy, and I think a less militant BPP could have drawn less focus from the feds. Mostly, I think they received disproportionate focus because white people saw organized, armed black folks and it tickled the “enemy combatant” part of their brains.
If the party had instead focused on nonviolent mutual aid, I think it could have lessened the suppression efforts, possibly to a point where the fight was winnable. At very least, it could have given more time to grow the organization, so that once more militant actions were needed they would be more powerful.
On the other hand, I think there wouldn’t have been as much excitement about the party. I do not know if having more time to grow without suppression would have been cancelled out by slower growth.
If we were able to run it back, I think a less militant BPP may have ended up making more progress towards black liberation.
I agree with a lot of the general vibe. Remember what a state is. Lenin says, that a state is the tool of organized class warfare. A capitalist state is the weapon, the capitalist class weilds to crush any hope of liberation of the subjugated masses. Any kind of organization or movement that has any hope of effecting meaningful change will always be violently attacked. For this, it doesn’t matter at all whether they choose to defend themselves like the Panthers or choose to try to move the hearts of their opressors through their own suffering and blood by non-violence. If they are in any way a threat, they will be attached mercilessly. Laws will be changed, liberties revoked or ignored. And most relevant for this topic: ideology will be created to attempt to manufacture consent. For the Panthers they chose to paint them as “cop killers” not because they were militant, but because they were a threat. Whenever an organization committed to non-violence becomes a threat, other ideology is used. Any number of other reasons can always be given. And that’s exactly what happens with all these other organizations. Ideology is cheap. Our stance on when it is and when it isn’t strategically smart to use more or less militant means should never depend entirely on an unlikely bet on liberals (in)ability to find other reasons to crack down on us. They always will. Even if they have to make them up, lie, fabricate, whatever. And ultimately, they totally do act without any justification too.