Ashanti Alston: Beyond Nationalism But Not Without It

Posted on Oct 08, 2009 Posted by Eric Ribellarsi

We are reposting the following essay by Ashanti Alston for discussion. Special thanks to the Sedition Books for forwarding this our way.

ASHANTI ALSTON is a former member of the Black Panther Party and ex-political prisoner. Formerly an Institute for Anarchist Studies board member, he publishes the zine "Anarchist Panther" and has been a guest lecturer at the Institute for Social Ecology in Vermont, speaking on the Panthers and the history of Black nationalist movements. He has spent time in Chiapas, Mexico, studying the autonomous structure of Zapatista communities and working on his memoirs. Ashanti resides in New York, where he is presently the national co-chair of the Jericho Amnesty Movement, and an active member of Estacion Libre, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, and Critical Resistance.

Topics: lessons from the Black Panther Party; the history of Black nationalist movements; Black and postmodernist anarchism; and the relevance of the Zapatistas.

He will be speaking in Houston on Feb. 19, time and place TBA.

Beyond Nationalism But Not Without It

(from Anarchist Panther zine #1)

What motivates me more than anything else about anarchism and its relevance to Black revolution is that it has offered me some powerful insights into why we have not been able to recover from our defeat (the 60’s revolution) and advance forward to the kinds of untities, organizations and activities that make for invincible revolutionary movements.

There are all kinds of Nationalisms and there are all kinds of reactions to nationalism. I would like to address this issue from the perspective of someone who has moved through and grown within some of the Black Nationalisms specific to the Black Community. I would like to share what that means to me as it pertains to the questions you raised for this ONWARD theme of Anarchism and Nationalism.

…we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.

– Audre Lorde

Great quote. I’ve taken it from the latest issue of Arsenal #4 (page 4) as it introduces its own discussion into the very same theme. As a Black anarchist TIRED of primarily white anarchists just totally dismissing nationalism, I truly appreciate Arsenal & Onward taking this on as two of the newest newspaper/mags on the scene.

Black nationalism saved my life, in a sense, as a teenager in the 1960’s. It "jarred" my unconscious acceptance of amerikkanism dogging my peoples and helped me to see the larger picture. I am a 60’s child. There was Malcolm, there was H. Rap Brown and Stokeley Carmichael of the Black Power movement, and then there was the Black Panther Party. All were nationalists, all represent, also, an evolution of nationalism within the black community. But because of the totally racist, genocidal dynamic within this Babylonian Empire, the black nationalist understood that we must…we must…we must primarily look to ourselves to free ourselves. Point blank. And none of these thinker felt it was necessary to ‘check in’ with The White Man (from the ruler to the revolutionary) to see if it was okay. Ha! Picture that. It was about our survival as a people, not as that mythical "working class" or that equally mythical "citizen." SO, for me, as this teenager who had just witnessed the 60’s Rebellions in my own hometown, my own thoroughly racist hometown, nationalism was a lifesaver. WE MUST LOVE EACH OTHER. BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL. WE MUST CONTROL OUR OWN COMMUNITIES. Etcetera, etcetera.

Its funny cause as an anarchist searching for some good anarchist shit from the 60’s to be able to hold up and show "proof" that the anarchist were better on the position of Nationalism than the Marxists and Leninists, I found hardly anything! I found some positive stuff from a "libertarian" publication but to my surprise they represented the "anarcho-CAPITIALIST tendency! Yet, I found them to be on point and consistent on RESPECTING nationalism and national liberation. ("The Libertarian Forum" of the late 60’s and early 70’s. Karl Hess, Joseph Peden, and Murray N. Rothbard). They, at least, understood that black people’s nationalist struggle was a struggle against the State, the Babylonian state. They, also, looked at what the nationalist groups were doing in their actual grassroots practice, like creating concrete defenses against repression and alternatives in survival institutions. Thus, they liked what the Panthers were doing on the ground through their programs and supported that kind of nationalism as being compatible with "anarchism on the ground." Paul Goodman made similar observations of the early civil rights movement groups. But it was understood that these groups were dealing with issues of survival against genocide, and that these groups were developing their own analyses and programs to rally their communities. One last thing about the libertarians of LF, they interestingly enough were critical of the Panthers when the Party turned towards Marxism and other authoritarian ideologies because in their "on the ground" practice the survival programs were no longer spontaneous responses to specific oppressions but increasingly had to be kept under the tight control of the Party.

Nationalism and statism are different in that nationalism can be anti-state. But they can have commonalities in that nationalism may only be against a particular kind of state, such as a Racist State, or a Fascist State. Anarchism and nationalism are similar in that they are both anti-statist, but what does it mean when the specific anarchist movements within a specific country are racist and dismissive of any and all nationalism, be it reactionary or revolutionary???? For me, even the nationalism of a Louis Farrakhan is about saving my people, though it is also thoroughly sexist, capitalist, homophobic and potentially fascist. Yet, it has played an important part in keeping a certain black pride and resistance going. Their "on the ground" work is very important in keeping an anti-racist mentality going. As a black anarchist, that’s MY issue to deal with cuz they’se MY FOLKS. But it points to where anarchism and nationalism have differences, and that is in anarchists having NO understanding of what it means to be BLACK in this fucked up society. We do not have the luxury of being so intellectual about this excruciating boot on our collective neck, this modern-day middle-passage into the Prison Industrial Complex, this…that…this…that.

As a postmodernist anarchist, identity politics is important to me. Go back to Audre Lorde’s quote. Every time I hear someone talk about my people as if we are just some "working class" or "proletariat" I wanna get as far away from that person or group as possible, anarchist, Marxist, whatever. As a postmodernist anarchist I also find my people’s experience the font from which we will find our way to liberation and power. That’s what I get from being the "insurrection of subjugated knowledges. My nationalism gave me that kind of pride because it was such a rejection of White thinking or at least a decentering of the primacy of white thought, capitalist, socialist, whatever. I say this to say that folks outside of our experience need to respect that they aint got no monopoly on revolutionary thinking and dam sure aint got none on revolutionary practice. It is easy to sit back and intellectualize about our nationalism from the modernist, eurocentric framework of rational, scientific, materialist models. While one does that, it is our nationalism which constantly rally our people come together, remember our history, love ourselves, dream on and fight back. Black anarchists and anti-authoritarian revolutionaries understand the limitations of nationalism in terms of its historical sexism, hierarchy, or its modernist trappings in general. But we also recognize anarchism modernist trappings in the form of American racist privilege when it comes to people of color.

The efforts of Lorenzo Kom’boa Erving, Greg Jackson and others to build an organization/federation of black community partisans/organizers is an example of uniting black revolutionary nationalism and anarchism. I believe that Black Fist, even if called generally a people of color or third world anti-authoritarian organization, understood the necessity to be grounded in the experiences of black and brown communities. Thus, the experiences of the Panthers and the Brown Berets and other like groups were essential. The question seems to be whether white anarchists and anti-authoritarians can work with such groups. Even if those two groups no longer exists, their experiences are important.

White folks need to deal with being ANTI-RACIST ALLIES to folks of color communities and activists. Activists in particular because we are usually whites’ entry point into any possible relationship with our communities.. Anarchist theory and practice cannot take the form of a mere adherence to the founding fathers and canonal practices, such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, and the Spanish Civil War. Tired of hearing it! Anarchism HERE in Babylon must reflect our unique problems and possibilities for struggle. Our struggles are not just against capitalism. Too simple. Our struggles are not just against racism. That’s, also, too simple. There’s all kinds of negative isms we are fighting against and just as importantly, all kinds of worlds we are fighting for. That’s why I feel that the whole idea and practice of "convergences" and "spokescouncils" are sooooo important to activists in general to learn from and enhance because they are about making space for all "Voices" to be heard and factored into the decision-making so that whatever activities comes forth from it prefigures the kind of new worlds we truly want.

This rambles, right? My apologies. I end this by advising: WHITE ANARCHISTS, DEAL WITH BEING THE BEST ANTI-RACIST ALLIES YOU CAN. WE NEED YOU BUT WE WILL DO THIS SHIT WITHOUT YOU.

To my folks of color:

COME ENVISION…envision a world, of worlds within our world where there’s principled co-existence within the wonderful diversity of the Black Community.

Harlems / Spanish harlems / watts / hip-hop communities / villages of the Carolina coast / college communities / gay-lesbian-transgender communities / zulu nation / new afrikan / religious communities that come together mainly on Saturday or Sunday / squatter communities / outlaw communities / kemetic communities / ibo-ghanaian-sierra leonean-ethiopian-rasta neighborhoods / nomadic poet-artist tribes / and then those of us who just be plain ignant and harmless and crazy when we have to be and fun-loving and like to journey through and between communities and sometimes just create new mixed ones…WHAT IF ? …and HOW ?

Ella Baker said we can do it if we can trust ourselves and get away from leadership-led revolution; Kwesi Balagoon said we can do it if we willing to create a chaos that will shut this mutha down; Audre Lorde said we can do it if we LEARN TO LOVE AND RESPECT OUR BEAUTIFUL DIVERSITY and reject the tools of our oppressors; Harriet Tubman daid aint a better way t live THAN AT-WAR FOR A RIGHTEOUS CASUE; and Franz Fanon said if we smack that mutha across the face, drive that pig outta your territory at the point of a gun IS LIBERATING FOR THE SOUL.

WHAT IF ? Envision it…HOW?…

Like Huey Newton’s community of communities, BEYOND NATIONALISM and fully self-determining, embracing our diversity of beliefs, lifestyles and non-exploitative economic arrangements, reuniting Earth-loving peoples with a loving Earth.

Through the Imagination, All is possible.

Share Link:

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email this

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

eric r said:

...
There is much in this piece that I am really surprised and pleased to see... while I had some mixed feelings about the piece as a whole.

For a long time, in the anarchist movement (and in other movements of course) national liberation and questions of nationalism have been really ignored or treated in ways that were dismissive and flippant.

I can remember, in my days as an anarchist years ago, there was a strong polarization toward two trends of either "class war politics" (which were often posed in opposition to movements of national liberation) or the other more reformist lifestyle anarchism, which also ignored the need for ending oppression of oppressed nations and nationalities of people in its own way.. by focusing on the individual and self.

I think this piece really opens up a question on the need for national liberation within the anarchist framework that we should embrace and take part in.

That said, I would like to try to write a bit of my personal thinking on identity politics here, and what I see as the different elements of identity politics.

----------------------------

First, I will start by saying that I think there is a very positive aspect here. The far sighted understanding that liberation of the oppressed will have to involve leadership developing from among the most oppressed themselves is positive and something we should learn from. And I think that many people who are attracted to identity politics often do a very good job at developing leadership among the oppressed.

Historically, with groups like the RCP, there has been a whole legacy of:

1. Everyone goes and listens to one white man talk for 11 hours, and then the only engagement with people is in the form of questions written down on cards.. and then he does not even answer your question.

2. There is no program or acknowledgment for the need to develop leadership from among the oppressed, to give a special platform for the most oppressed to speak and lead, and instead there is an emphasis on the oppressed following whoever communists believe is "their most advanced leader." This should be exposed for the philosophical American pragmatism that it is (ie. whatever works, let's do that, if we can have a lot of people parroting communist phrases by training them to be "Bob Avakian followers" that's what we should go for). There is a complete lack of understanding the harmful effect that no leadership from among the oppressed will have in the long run.

3. There is an insulting and ultimately racist conclusion that this ultimately takes. Take for example the RCP's pamphlet promoting Willie Mobile Shaw. Willie was a Black proletarian, and a revolutionary communist. But what is it that is so inspiring about Willie Mobile Shaw to the RCP? Bob Avakian said this in his statement about Willie:

"I consider myself very fortunate to have met Willie and spent time talking with him. He asked me many questions--and he helped me learn many things. Willie said to me: "You are the only hope we have."

Or as Lenny Wolff put is at the RCP's Making Revolution in the USA speech, Willie was great because he would:

"Open his front door, cook up fried chicken, and blast Bob Avakian's talks so that everyone could hear."

This shit is insulting and it is racist. And it is completely in contradiction with the Mao's mass line. Mao said that:

"The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history."

and

"The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge."

So I think that there is real value to the ways that people who are attracted to identity politics are doing leadership development among the oppressed, and it is something that I want to learn from.

But I think that there is also much to identity politics which is far, far too narrow of a framework, and which ultimately would not lead us to getting beyond this society.

Is consciousness really directly related to individual identity? I don't think that it is. Take Obama for example. Here we have a Black man that faced and continues to face all kind of white racism, and yet, this mother fucker is carrying out the will of the very system that oppresses Black people. We can see this same trend in many oppressed countries as well, where leaders have emerged from among the oppressed, only to become the new enforcers of racist oppression.

And, for example, is there not a role for Mexican immigrants and Chicanos overcoming the Black/brown contradictions where oppressed people are pitted against each other, and instead becoming leaders in the struggle for Black liberation? I think that there is, and that if we don't have that, we ultimately won't break from the framework of this society.

I think that identity politics ultimately stops short of a thoroughly revolutionary consciousness, and instead settles for a concentration upon self. Where would that lead us in a society that has a parasitic relationship to the rest of the world? Can we really have a liberating revolution if we are concentrated on ourselves and our individual identities?

I don't think identity is the measure of a person's revolutionary consciousness. Identity certainly has an effect on the kind of consciousness a person develops, but there are deeper and more fundamental questions than that.

October 12, 2009

Parcero_@ said:

...
I am glad to see this posted on the website and think it's great that this collective is open to opinion and dialogue. My response is aimed at both the article and the post written below it.

First, as a young, Latino anarchist I have mixed feelings about nationalism. On one hand I recognize the positive effects it has in teaching people of color that we mus be completely self determinate, and that our culture and skin color are beautiful. Combating the effects of being bombarded constatnly with images and messages that being light skinned is more attractive, or losing our culture altogether is tough to deal with.

I see these effects on my family when my cousins dye their hair blonde, refuse to speak spanish and immitate a "culture" that works so well at assimilating and striping us of who we are, but hey, I guess thats how imperialism works. If nationalism helps in fighting any of these effects (and others not listed here) ,then I can't just dismiss it.

However, as Ashanti points out, although nationalism can share with anarchism in being anti-state, it differs in that it may be against only one specific kind of state. This is where I feel we need more discourse between anarchists, especially anarchist people of color, and different nationalist movements. We must address and prove why the state is inherently oppressive, as well as tackle things like sexism, homophobia, racism, capitalism, and hierarchy that threaten these movements. Forming things like spokes councils or convergences is a wonderful idea and needs to happen.

Being raised in this country I remember many a time feeling like I didn't know who I was, particularly in reference to my ethnicity. I felt such a disconnect to the things my parents and grandparents spoke about when it came to where they were born. Whether consciousness is really directly related to my individual identity, I feel is irrelevant.

Coming to terms with how I identify myself politically and culturally has aided me in continuing to push for revolution on a broader more inclusive scale. We must as people of color (POC) discover and develop who we are, because of the effects of colonization and imperialism, in order to free ourselves. How can we move forward with any revolution if we don't know who we are as a people, much less where we stand politically?

The fact that any person of color can assume an authoritative role and carry out actions that harm other POC speaks more towards the problem of hierarchy, power, and imperialism than anything else.

I would like to now speak to something written by the person in the comment above mine when he refers to leadership:

"The far sighted understanding that liberation of the oppressed will have to involve leadership developing from among the most oppressed themselves is positive and something we should learn from. And I think that many people who are attracted to identity politics often do a very good job at developing leadership among the oppressed."

I want to discuss the need of any "leadership" (I view this word as an anarchist very differently than I assume the author above does) developed within any movements of oppressed people to be as organic as possible. Roles white activists play when it comes to organizing amongst POC should not be at the forefront in any way. Interrelationships amongst different groups and people are important and my intention is not to exclude anyone. Forming bonds with one another is crucial in dealing with any contradictions, like the example given by the author above between Latinos and Africans in America (as Ashanti puts it).

However, we should not ignore any differences like they don' exist. Our goal should be to have as much autonomy as possible and not conform to any ideology that doesn't advance our own freedom and right to absolute self determination.

Identity politics is definitely a measure of my revolutionary consciousness, as well as how I developed and is not just a concentration upon one's self. If anything it helps fuel libratory consciousness and the desire for revolution.

October 13, 2009

Zack said:

...
Parcero, a very heartfelt and thoughtful comment. Thank you.

October 13, 2009

decolonize said:

...
Good post. Let's not forget the Black Fist collective Ashanti mentions hailed from the one and only Houston. East Side stand up! smilies/cheesy.gif

Ashanti missed a good chance to explain the differences between cultural nationalism (embracing fashions, ethnic expressions, etc. that emphasize personal pride, but are reactionary in many cases and do not challenge the white power structure that permits shaming of people of colorâ€¦ Huey Newton referred to these kinds of people [in his time, it was Kwanzaa's founder Maulana/Ron Karenga and associates] as 'pork chop nationalists') and revolutionary nationalism, which was/is down with fighting imperialism, is internationalist in character and clearly understood the score. You have to appreciate that difference when talking about nationalism.

Ashanti raises an honest point about finding little on anarchism and racial justice. Anarchism as a whole has a very difficult relationship with matters of race. Though it is easy to criticize communists (for good reasons) on national oppression issues, support of oppressed people autonomously organizing and national liberation struggles (e.g. generally the left wing of national movements) against settler colonialism, racism and repression has been a cornerstone since at least the days of Lenin.

As a former anarchist and a person of color, I feel anarchists of color need to have discussions about strategy. The reality in communities of color and Black/Brown struggles specifically is the currents are diverse. What is our purpose for being in movements? To carve out autonomy for ourselves in a mostly white movement? To play a role in influencing communities of color? To support internationalist struggles of other oppressed people? To be a conscience of the mostly white movement? I would argue revolutionary people of color have a responsibility (as people who can convey radical knowledge and vision) to be active organizers and leaders in communities. Ashanti makes a lot of correct points in this regard.

There needs to be a sophisticated conversation about the ideas of self-determination and leadership, similar to what other comments have mentioned. Self-determination, as it is politically explained in history, was a matter of economic, political and social power. Leadership in the society we have now (and, to be truthful, any new society naturally emerges from the old) is a facet of communities of color and Black/Brown movements. More importantly, people of color need to understand avoiding structure and development of organizers/leaders in a white supremacist society [and an anarchist movement with, in my own long experience, weak racial justice politics] automatically puts us at a disadvantage. As Jo Freeman writes:

"If the movement is to grow beyond elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further developmentâ€¦ Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group. This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an 'objective' news story, 'value-free' social science, or a 'free' economy. A 'laissez faire' group is about as realistic as a 'laissez faire' society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of 'structurelessness' does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly 'laissez faire' philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules."

Congrats to Sedition for bringing in a good speaker.

October 14, 2009 | url

Write comment