The situation in Baltimore is another example of the growing popular anger towards the injustice meted out by the repressive forces of the ruling class. Protests and riots against the police and their continuous killings; this time Freddie Grey.
Every time there is an expression of popular anger among the Black population in the United States, there is an outcry of denunciation against the violence used. Those who truly are against the liberation of the Black expose themselves when they advocate peaceful protest. The liberal contingent of the population cry out in defence of the property which is destroyed in the righteous anger directed towards an unjust system. The conservative sections of the population claim they have rioted over nothing. In this we see the two faces of reaction, the two sides of the same oppressive coin.
Of course we see this most commonly from the White observers who subconsciously feel as though they are being targeted. Those who don’t face the murder rate and oppression the police deal out against the Black population. Their White identity is tied up with that of the police whom they see as the protectors of the White population. The truly heartbreaking moment is when there are Black people defending the police and denouncing the rioters. We see them in the media all the time, those who advocate peaceful protest and complain about the violent rioters and their property destruction.
Those members of the Black community see the violence that is carried out against their young men. They are not blind to it, nor are they ignorant of it. It is confusing to me as to how they can advocate non-violence when violence is clearly being carried out against their community.
This leaves me asking questions about their revolutionary potential. Given the global order of oppression and exploitation; how can we expect such people to aid global revolution in defence of the Third World, when they aren’t even will to throw off their own oppressors? How can we consider them potentially revolutionary if they won’t even defend themselves? After the entire history of the oppression of the Black population, how can they with a straight face say violence is unnecessary?
I think this shows a real lack of revolutionary potential among the Black population. True, there is righteous anger by many Blacks who are willing to smash the system that oppresses them. Their numbers however are still too small. Not to mention the near entirety of the White population who also don’t support the riots. The same ones who support the police cracking down even harder against the Black population. That leaves us with how much First World “proletariat”?
First Worldists really need to take a look at this and reconsider their position that the First World has revolutionary potential.
“There are always risks in challenging excessive police power,
but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.”
– Hunter S. Thomson
maoistrebelnews.com 
Reblogged this on Black Metal Valkyrie: Reject male identified bullshit! and commented:
“The truly heartbreaking moment is when there are Black people defending the police and denouncing the rioters.”
I agree with this. It certainly is heartbreaking, I just wish more radical leftists saw how similarly heartbreaking women with internalized misogyny are instead of demonizing them which they do not do to people of colour with internalized racism.
I agree with the analysis in this video completely too. My problem is a similar analysis of sex based oppression of women is never done by most on the radical left even though it is just as valid. I believe this is proof that most men, even those who claim to be against all forms of oppression, still do not consider women human. Their consider us their livestock, their property. Women belong to whatever male groups like skin colour or nationality that they are part of but they deny any commonality among women, which is sexist. Women are an oppressed group. #YesAllWomen
That’s a problem with feminism as well. White women nowadays make up a significant part of the “human resources” and “management” wing. This same sector plays a pivotal role in the usurpation of the working class but is a similar system that is used to contain those in the third world.
Much like Hillary Clinton, white middle class women in the university campuses, the majority will continue to support the status quo. For that reason, the revolutionary potential of first worlders including women seems quite limited, in fact. It is probably why many third world women are orienting towards a “Womanist” identity instead.
“People sometimes say that we will know feminism has done its job when half the CEOs are women. That’s not feminism; to quote Catharine MacKinnon, it’s liberalism applied to women. Feminism will have won not when a few women get an equal piece of the oppression pie, served up in our sisters’ sweat, but when all dominating hierarchies – including economic ones – are dismantled.”
― Lierre Keith
How about campus feminism? Most seem more like venture capitalists than those for revolution. They are willing to work with capitalism especially if it maintains their comfortable position vs the underclass. I am not a big fan of the Trotskyites but virtually all Feminists seemed leaned towards liberalism.
Furthermore, the comfortable – middle class- housewives/ trophy wife has no problem preserving her position as well. Nowadays she’s more educated, sexually liberated, but politically-speaking, she wants order maintained. This could even involve “peripheral” topics such as climate change or sex education. Forget rape culture discussions unless it involves big, scary, black men. Let’s totally forget that most rapists are usually closely related to the victim.
Nonetheless, I’d even argue that it’s easier finding the female version of Uncle Ruckus ( albeit fitter) than the PoC counterpart. It is true that women do often want men who fulfill a traditional “provider” role ( or at least be continuously “entertained”). However, in the third world such ideals are not realistic at all. For instance, an Afghan male “provider” is more likely to be killed by a malfunctioning missile than fulfill his “manly” role. On the other hand, men in the first world have access to the resources to be legitimate providers. It probably explains why Taylor Swift – the blonde, Aryan, virgin princess – is such a hit.
Why would white women surrender that competitive advantage? Honestly, I think these women will have to be indoctrinated out of that lifestyle much like “middle-income” peasants in pre-Maoist China. Otherwise, we’re going to have a difficult time seeing true convergence between the first and third worlds.
Many whites in the US claim to be against racism, but are not willing to change the system that creates it because they often claim that capitalism is the best we have. Richard Aoki of the Black Panther Party really says it best when he says “Capitalism is like a piece of shit. You can shape it into a ball or you can shape it into a square, but no matter how you reform it, it’s still a piece of shit.”
Because they fear their loss of comfort(privilege. Its quite obvious.
Because its a paradigm, a socio-economical dynamic that has benefited and continues to benefit them. The slightest loss of any of this privilege makes them uneasy.
Capitalism is more or less a necessary evil.
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
“Every time there is an expression of popular anger among the Black population in the United States, there is an outcry of denunciation against the violence used. Those who truly are against the liberation of the Black expose themselves when they advocate peaceful protest.”
Most pacifism is dishonest and keeps the system in place.