Appropriation and reinterpretation in the
ideology of the Black Panther Party
While the belief system of the Black Panther
Party is generally referred to as Marxist-Leninist, the reality is somewhat
more complicated. The problem with classifying the BPP in this manner is that
it can be quite misleading: while the members did study Marx and Lenin, the
concepts present in those ideologies were subject to adaptation and reinterpretation.
Understanding how the ideology of the BPP functions is important, because it is
consistent with the way other radical militant groups, such as the Rote Armee
Fraktion or Revolutionäre Zellen, functioned during the Prague Spring period.
The appropriation and reinterpretation of
ideological concepts is closely connected to the left-wing disillusionment with
more doctrinaire forms of Marxism, which was a direct result of the Prague
Spring. The following era of radical innovation that led to increased support
for violence and militant radicalisation is referred to as the Prague Spring
period. While the BPP had very focused goals in comparison to the Left as a
whole, their approach to ideology is consistent with the period.
Before giving examples of the process of
ideological adaptation, it might be useful to first define what Marxism and
Leninism actually are. The most obvious answer is that they are the respective
ideologies of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, but we obviously need to look a bit
deeper than that. Marxism is such a wide field that providing a curt
description can be somewhat difficult. In essence, it is a simultaneously an
ideology and a dialectical tool that focuses on analysing liberal and
capitalist economics. Based on the premise of labour being the source of value
(and the species-being for humans, but that is not pertinent here), it
concludes that all forms of capitalism are inherently unstable and detrimental.
By combining rhetoric, historical analysis, political science and economics
(this “combination” is referred to as historical materialism), it encourages
the ideas of class solidarity and argues that violent revolution in the form of
a class war is the only way to fix the system or to correct the course of human
history.
Leninism, on the other hand, is an ideology
that is entirely based on Marxism. Instead of assuming that the progression
from capitalism to socialism and finally to communism is inevitable, Lenin
believed that there has to be a vanguard party of some sort. You might recall
from A Huey P. Newton Story that he referred to the BPP as a “vanguard of the
revolution”. That is not a description; it’s a strictly defined ideological
concept. The vanguard party is a small group of leading thinkers and radicals
should essentially lead the charge. They are the vanguard, which clearly
indicates that they are the first ones on the field of battle. The goal of the
vanguard is to replace the current state-apparatus or take it over and replace
it with a socialist worker’s state.
The late 1960s were a period of radicalisation
to the Black Freedom Movement. The previous attempts to gain political leverage
through moderation and, occasionally, commodity riots, had not been incredibly
successful. The Civil Rights activists had made some progress, but the 60s were
largely a period of stagnancy. This, combined with the Prague Spring effect,
led to the radicalisation of the movement, which was concurrent with the
emergence of the Black Arts Movement. In terms of political science, the logic
behind militant radicalisation is not particularly complex. If one of the
defining features of a state is that it has a total monopoly on violence, then
one of the ways of gaining political leverage or power is by directing or
threatening to direct violence against the state itself by forming a base of
violence that is not controlled by the apparatus.
The process of appropriation and interpretation
can be likened to the process described in James Stewart’s The Development of the Black Revolutionary Artist. They are
constructing a mode of thought: a new Black Power dialectic. It might utilise
more traditional concepts, but it is first and foremost a Black Power ideology.
Understanding the history behind the ideas and symbols the group is taking is
still quite important, however.
The raised or clenched fist is one of the most
important symbols of the BPP. It is often described as a Black Power fist. The
first time it was used as a symbol or a logo was in Germany during the 1920s, after the
First World War. The Spartakusbund had fallen apart and was replaced by the
Communist Party of Germany, who decided to sponsor a paramilitary wing called
the Rotfrontkämpferbund, or “Alliance of Red Front Fighters”. It was led by
Ernst Thälmann, who was the first person to use the symbol to represent a
group. In essence, what the BPP did was take Thälmann’s “Faust hoch” and paint
it black. The gesture behind the symbol is older than Thälmann, but in older
depictions it is always seen wielding an implement of some sort.
The BPP was not even limited to the ideologies
of Marx and Lenin, which is another reason the term is misleading. They took
some Maoist concepts, and Eldridge Cleaver even considered himself to be a
Nechayevian. Describing Nechayev in great detail is probably not that important
to the topic at hand, but his ideology is completely incompatible with Marxism
and Leninism. Nechayev was a sort of an apprentice to Mikhail Bakunin, and the
name of his ideology has been a derogatory term for that last 150 years. The
term Nechayevschina was coined by Karl Marx, and it was later used by the
post-Stalin Soviet Union to mock the kind of communism present in China. The term
refers to barracks communism, which is a sort of forced communist system that
is structured into separated barracks or community units in a way that
resembles military organisation. The fact that Cleaver decided to be a
Nechayevian is historically rare and incredibly bizarre, and the fact that the
only Nechayevian in the Black Panther Party seems to have turned into a
Republican spokesperson of some sort in the 90s does not help matters either.
Still, it is an example of a BPP member ideologically appropriating something
that would not be consistent with Marxism, Leninism or Maoism unless it was
subject to heavy reinterpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment