(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.

  • woodenghost [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    8 days ago

    In “Critique of nonviolent politics” Howard Ryan writes on the common argument that “Non-violence wins more public support”:

    Proponents have maintained that a nonviolent response to government repression not only appeals to the opposition but also wins greater sympathy and support from the public at large than does a violent response. Yet history provides abundant examples of violent uprisings winning mass sympathy, support, and participation. None of the armed revolutions and anti-colonial struggles of this century could have succeeded without the massive popular support they received. Observe the international support given in recent years to liberation struggles in Central America and Southern Africa. Some of the finest victories of the American labor movement have involved rallying public sympathy and support behind strikers who fought violently against police attacks. Examples were the three great city-wide strikes in 1934 in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Toledo. Each won broad public support and each involved workers violently defending their picket lines–combined, of course, with nonviolent actions as well.86 If one’s cause is clearly just, it isn’t necessary to suffer peacefully the brutalities of the government in order to win popular support. To fight violently in defense of one’s life, one’s home, or one’s freedom is a widely respected human right. In fact, where a movement faces heavy government repression, people may more likely join the struggle if resisters are fighting to defend their lives rather than allowing themselves to be beaten and punished. A campaign which emphasizes voluntary suffering may alienate rather than attract public support and participation. The question of which method will draw greater public support is an historical one: it cannot be answered in the abstract. Often, violent action would be a disaster; at other times, refusal to use violence may be disastrous. It depends on the situation. Just as with converting government troops, the best way to win the hearts of the people, besides convincing them our cause is right, is by choosing an historically appropriate strategy and showing people we can succeed.