A Response to Stanton's Attack 

on the Black Revolutionary Left

By Lil Joe

Lil Joe: What does it mean to be "positively Black" — in contrast to what? Negatively White? If those are the ontological mathematical extremes, then what about the other, majority of Asians, and the native Americans? What is the mathematic/algebraic calculation of "Yellow," Brown," "Red," etc.? They are neither Black nor White.

Moreover epistemologically how does the "positive" derived in logic except if not by the Negation of Negation (-)(-)=(+)? Is not "growth" but moments of  the positive, derived from negation of negation thus transformation from the old into the new? Like a caterpillar into the butterfly which yet this transformation sublimates the previous moment in its genetic language, passed on by negation into offspring in new caterpillars? Similarly in the 60s and 70s, most Black rebels started out as "Black nationalists," and not communists, myself included.

But, as the Vietnam War continued, and China's Cultural Revolution in Asia, and the anti-war movement in the United States in Europe, and the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine did battle with both Zionists and reactionary nationalists in Palestine advanced we became aware that, we were part of a World Revolution, led by Marxists. The same was true in the guerrilla wars against imperialist-colonialism in Angola, in Guinea Bissau and Mozambique.

The same was true of Fidel and Che. The May- June French General Strike in 1968 and Tet Offensive in that same year along with Blacks in the streets in 120 cities doing battle with the police, national Guard and 102nd and 87th Airborne: we came to understand that what appeared to be a "race rebellion" was in reality Class War.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: Vernon Johns a human rights activist and Baptist minister who in many ways set the stage in Montgomery Alabama for the emergence of Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights icon always quoted one of his father's sayings, "If you see a good fight, get in it." I've been watching the pissing contest between Lil Joe (representing the Left) and Elder Osiris (representing the nationalists) with some interest and mixed emotions.

Lil Joe: Stanton seems not to have any grasp of contradictions, so I'll teach him. If Lil Joe "represents" the Left, then he and Osirus represent the Right. But to continue . . .

Junious Ricardo Stanton: While it certainly is not what I would call a good fight, it does have implications on the intellectual health and ultimate survival of our people.

Lil Joe: Stanton's politics is as sloppy as his epistemology and mathematic logic.  The thing obvious is that Stanton is an American with American values, or rather rhetoric that pertains to values—"human rights," Christianity or "Baptist minister," "civil rights"—terms that he does not define but assumes to be "positive" and representing "self-evident" human ontology. But they are not and they don't. "Human rights" is nothing but bourgeois ideology, euphemism for bourgeois rights. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the slave-owner/racist Thomas Jefferson asserted that the "rights" to life, liberty and property (later changed to "pursuit of happiness [based on property]) were 'unalienable'(sic!) and endowed by a creator. But he never defined the concept of “rights” or the “creator.” It was nothing but demagogic rhetoric.

Then Stanton goes on to talk about a "good" fight. Again, without defining what he means by "good"—as opposed to what? Bad? A “bad fight”? He does not present an objective criteria of what is and distinguishes a "good" fight from a “bad” fight. His axiology is as hollow, meaningless drivel as his political, ontological and epistemological assertions are.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: There is a part of me that feels impelled to join in and add my two cents to it while another part says leave it alone, it's not worth it. If the verbiage between these two brothers wasn't so pathetically revealing it would really not worth getting into. However as I said, the intellectual well being and survival of our people is at stake.

Lil Joe: This is self-contradictory ad hominem. How is something at the same time "verbiage" and determinate to the "intellectual well being," even of "our" people's survival?  Since as Stanton himself stated "Lil Joe" and communist workers represent "the Left," then he and Osirus "represent" the "Right"! We therefore have nothing in common. My "people" are the working-class whereas the constituency of nationalism is, and always has been the bourgeoisie.

Modern industry established railways and telegraph, which enabled political centralization in the great cities, centers of commerce and industry. Bourgeois political influence increased in the same proportion as capital increased its domination of the kingdom's economy. Capital subordinated to the power of money every class or estate in the kingdoms.

The feudal and decentralized authorities were crushed by the powerful absolute monarchies. The once relatively independent—or "autonomous"—territorial or/and ethnic based earldoms, dukedoms, duchies, and counties of the different regions were brought together under the boot of the absolute monarchies kingdoms politico-bureaucratic state apparatus of professional politicians. The bourgeois-democratic revolutions established on the basis of the political geography of the previous absolute monarchs national representative governments. The executive of the modern nation-state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

These processes occurred in countries’ political transformation from scattered warlord regimes into single warlord absolute monarchs along with capitalists’ commodification of labor kingdom wide, bringing the workers of different localities and perhaps even different ethnicities into the proletariat with common class interests. With capitalistic industrialization the artisans and handicraftsmen were threatened by the giant competitors and together with the reactionary feudal barons fought the manufacturing and industrializing bourgeoisie, Luddites.

Nevertheless the ruined artisans as well as the peasants forced from the land fell into the ranks of the proletariat the same as successful artisans and merchants and landlords became bourgeois.

It was export monetary and industrial capital from the European nation states into Africa, Asia, and Latin America that engendered capitalization of the productive forces and consequently commodification of labour-power in the respective European nation-states. Colonies on those continents laid the basis for the present existing national landscapes of 3rd world countries.

Export capital and the bringing into the world-market of workers, peasants, horticulturalists, Bedouin, shepherds, and hunters-gatherers could no more have been stopped than the Luddites were able to stop capitalist industrialization and commodification of labour power in Europe, and the feudal barons could stop the advancing nation-states.

Techno-economic progress moves Humanity forward on the bloodstained road of history through quantitative and qualitative changes in the economy, in politics, and cultures change and adapt. The ideologists of the new class forces present the world as though all previous human history has as though by eschatological determinism to their class taking state power. Such an ideology is useful for the rising class to justify the destruction of traditional ideas, religious and political authorities, and emerge a new class culture by the destruction of the old. Inevitably there are reactionaries, however.

The barons and the Luddites were reactionary in that they wanted to roll back historical progress to their “good ole days” where the shoemaker was a respected artisan and the feudal landed estate were the economic and political power. The international market, and capitalist manufacture, and then industry, amassed capital and the power of money that could not be successfully resisted in the evolution of the capitalist power in Europe, and their displacement of feudal lords and kingdoms by democratic representative nation-states representing capital.

Neither could the advance of export capital, nor with it colonization of American, African, and Asian lands and peoples—where at the threat of extinction—the native nobility became capitalists and political lackeys of their respective empires to which they belonged, and hunters-gatherers, herders, Bedouin shepherds, slaves, and peasants were drawn into the world markets.

Ultimately, the individuals, which comprised these pre-colonial groups, estates, or classes, became either bourgeoisie or proletariat and led national liberation movements organized on the basis of the colonial political geography. In nations where the bourgeoisie accessed power directly, neo-colonial regimes were established with the national capitalists’ political representatives in power — as in the British Commonwealth, the French Commonwealth, etc.—where the proletarian communist parties led peasants, national liberation wars came to power. Industrial colonial and domestic capital was nationalized on the basis of political economy of  state-monopoly capitalism.

As Chairman of the Communist Party Central Committee said:

"With the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucrat-capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the principal contradiction in China; therefore the national bourgeoisie should no longer be defined as an intermediate class."  (The Contradiction Between the Working-Class and the Bourgeoisie is the Principle Contradiction in China, June 6, 1952 - Mao's Selected Works Vol. 5).

 This was comment on a document drafted by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Mao criticized the head of this department for his error in regarding the national bourgeoisie as an intermediate class.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: When I say their arguments are pathetically revealing, I am not attacking either one personally or intellectually putting down either brother both of whom I believe means well. However, as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Lil Joe: So now Stanton's subjective, personal "belief" is presented as a determinate factor of the worthiness of an argument! What arrogant, American egotism! Then he brings psychobabble about “intentions” and mumbo jumbo about "hell" into the discussion.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: The point is, their arguments are old hat and many of these issues have been addressed and researched quite well by elders in the previous generation; specifically Harold Cruse in his seminal work The Crisis of The Negro Intellectual. It's as if we haven't learned anything from our past.

Lil Joe: Bullshit! Instead of critical analysis and refutation of what either Osirus or I have written, and demonstrating thereby how the issues had been long ago solved, he dismisses the issues in the polemic as "old hat"! With neither logical argument nor evidence, Stanton merely ASSERTS that the issues of reactionary nationalism versus revolutionary communism have been solved— at any rate "addressed and researched quite well by elders in the previous generation; specifically Harold Cruse in his seminal work The Crisis of The Negro Intellectual."

One would assume that Stanton would have presented the arguments by Osirus and myself, and demonstrate how these issues have been solved by the anti-communist Negro intellectual Harold Cruse in his biographical Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. But nothing of the kind! Instead of analysis of arguments all we get from Stanton is name dropping, referring to a book he has either not read, of if read didn't understand. Nothing is self-evident, and assertions not backed by argument based on evidence is bullshit. Harold Cruse was a pseudo-intellectual "Negro Intellectual" with a hard-on for White women and bourgeois culture.

Since he thought his experience was ontological reality, he arrogantly, and wrongly attributed his pathology to all Black communists, using the Stalinist Communist Party U.S.A. as model! Bullshit!

Junious Ricardo Stanton: Name-calling or assuming positions of intellectual one-up-man ship will not save our people, nor will it ameliorate the conditions we grapple with.

Elder Osiris's esoteric postings confuse many of the readers who lack his sources of information and Lil Joe's Marxist rants about black revolutionaries overthrowing the capitalists system do not jibe with reality.

Lil Joe: Stanton here not only reveals his own ignorance of political terminology, but his American anti-intellectualism as well. Characterizing a political ideology as reactionary is not "name-calling," but is a political description.

Nationalism in the 18th and 19th century in the formation of bourgeois nation-states was not reactionary, at that time, but revolutionary. But the nationalism of the Italian fascists and German Nazis in the twentieth century, which rose in large part to suppress the political advances of the European proletariat had become reactionary. Similarly, in its struggle against imperialism in China in the early 20th century was progressive in this bourgeois democratic revolution.

However, once the Chinese workers and peasants began the social expropriations of capitalists and feudal property, respectively, the nationalist Kuomintang became openly reactionary and united with the imperialists, giving them a base – Taiwan. Before accusing me of "name-calling," Stanton should have at least did his homework, in the Dictionary.com "reactionary" is defined as "Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative." Nationalistic anti-communism is reactionary.

Moreover, by attacking ideological arguments as "intellectual one-up-man-ship" is nothing but reactionary American anti-intellectualism. One is reminded of the Snopes’ Monkey Trial. Yet Stanton intimates that it is not science and polemic, but ignorance, and demagogy of his type that will "ameliorate the conditions we grapple with"! Stanton goes on to suggest that everyone on the lists are as ignorant as he is, asserting that: "Elder Osiris's esoteric postings confuse many of the readers who lack his sources of information": I am confused, therefore, everyone is confused! As to my so-called "ranting," where is the "rant"?

This is how I argued: "The American workers are the only workers in the world who campaign for the party of the class enemy rather than organizing a class party of their own—socially and financially based on the trade unions. If there is any truth to the ideology of  ‘American exceptionalism’ it is that American workers a-political pragmatism and anti-communism makes it exceptionally stupid.

“The American Labor Party is also to blame. It is completely ridiculous to have a class party that refuses to run candidates and endorse America's imperialist wars.

"What we need in this country is communists and socialists in the trade unions engaging in ideological and political war against the existing Democratic Party in the labor bureaucracy by running to unseat those Democrats on a pro-Labor Party program. Expel the Democratic Party partisans from the leadership of trade union locals, state committees and national leadership and affiliate with the Labor Party. In the Labor Party compel the party to be a political party.

"The objective of any and every political party is to win elections, to take state power for its class. Socialists, Communists, Greens, etc., should stop bullshitting and wasting money in symbolic so-called ‘educational’ campaigns for President, Senate, and State Governorships and run serious Labor Party campaigns to actually displace Democrats as well as Republicans in the House of Representatives the way Barney Saunders does as an Independent.

“We can win those seats, and it wouldn't be all that expensive. We would campaign for a Living Wage based on median income ($21+ an hour) in private industry as well as federal, state, county and city government, and escalator clause against inflation; full employment by reducing the work-week from 40+ hours to 25 - hours, with no reduction in pay based on the previous 40 week + living wage increase; free quality health care for all, citizen and non-citizen alike; free education from Head State to Graduate School, with no admissions tests; housing for all by both canceling all mortgage debts to banks and financial institutions, and giving homes to the homeless at no cost by federalizing all apartment complexes (landlords are nothing but slumlords and parasites); controlling inflation by expropriating the banks, which are already part of the Federal Reserve System, appointing trade unionists to the Board of Governors; open borders and ending tariffs, making all undocumented workers legal citizens with rights; and so on.

"We can do this, and in so doing subsume the issues of affirmative action, and end the inter-ethnic rivalry engendered by economic competition. If America is a "democracy," supposedly "of the people, by the people and for the people," and not a political dictatorship of wealth, then a Labor majority in the House of Representatives can legislate and enforce these laws!

“If the Senate and Presidency and Judiciary resist, then that would show that those institutions represent wealth and not "the people," and as elitist and undemocratic should be abolished the way the English Parliament abolished the aristocratic, elitist House of Lords in 1640.

“If America is a "democracy" and the working-class in this country is the immense majority acting in the interest of the immense majority, then why is it not practical that a Labor government ruling from the House of Representatives reorganize the economic and political systems to meet their class interests?

"Workers in trade union locals in the Labor Party could organize a union cadre in the Party to organize Congressional Districts house-to-house, door-to-door. Hold weekly public meetings throughout the Congressional District, in homes, at schools, in Churches, in parks, in the allies and everywhere else. In these meetings the trade unionists and the communists and socialists in the Labor Party could class critique the Democratic Party, sell literature, recruit to the campaign ."

Unable to deal with my arguments Stanton dismisses them as "ranting," thus making me a "ranter"— that, homeboy, is "name calling"!

Junious Ricardo Stanton: I'm writing this based upon the assumption both Lil Joe and Elder Osiris have the best interests of our people at heart and are open to suggestions.

I suggest they both revisit Harold Cruse's work and re-examine their positions' inherent contradictions and unresolved issues and juxtapose them against the pathologically insane conditions African people around the world have been subjected to and then ask themselves will intellectually cannibalizing another brother ameliorate these conditions?

Lil Joe: "Our people" are divided along with every other "people" into class relations of production. I am therefore not interested in the "best interest of our people," as bourgeois nationalists put it to hide the mutually exclusive interests derived from class contradictions, but the best interest of my class, the working-class and toiling masses all over the world. This ideological struggle will continue.

Unable to deal with any of my arguments, Stanton, the reactionary anti-communist that he is, in traditional American demagogic anti-intellectualism, denounces my political debate as "intellectually cannibalizing another brother." Yet, he does not define intellectual cannibalism."

As for Harold Cruse, I have no need to re-read neither his nor any other bourgeois autobiographical anti-communism. As to the scientific moments in Cruse’s diatribe against communism, he appropriated from the sociological works of Du Bois' Souls of Black Folks, E.Franklin Frasier's Black Bourgeoisie, and Nathan Hare's Black Anglo-Saxons and of course Franz Fanon's Black Skin, White Mask.

The critical distinction is that Black revolutionary sociologists and psychologists such as Du Bois, Frasier, Fanon, and Hare critiqued Black wannabes who desire to assimilate into the dominate racial bourgeois class culture, whereas Cruse attacked Black revolutionaries wanting to hook-up with Whites in opposition to the dominate class culture.

Cruse has been used by reactionary Black culturalists to attack Black revolutionary "Marxists." But anyone part and parcel of the Black revolutionary nationalist movement, and culture knows from experience that Kwame Toure was the revolutionary nationalist who evolved us from the bourgeois race politics of Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X to the Pan-African Communism of Nkrumah. Nkrumah and Lumumba, who were not only Black liberationists whose objectives were self-government, but partisans of African workers in defining Black liberation as complete only when foreign capital is appropriated by the African proletariat and land expropriated and redistributed among the African peasantry.

This is why Lumumba and Nkrumah were denounced by the West because of their support by the Soviet Union and the Peoples' Republic of China. Lumumba was murdered by the U.N/ C.I.A. and Nkrumah overthrown.

In the United States Elombe Brathe and Ron Wilkins are today in the politico-ideological traditions of Lumumba and Nkrumah in the Patrice Lumumba Coalition, as is Dedan in the All African People's Revolutionary Party—not just domestically, in the United States but internationally in there support for Kabila in Congo and Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

What distinguishes Revolutionary Pan-Africanists from reactionary racial culturalists is the same as revolutionaries everywhere: do the landlords and capitalists maintain ownership of the productive forces? Or do we take those productive forces, to be public property managed by the workers and peasants?

Where dose Stanton stand on the Congo issue today—the peasant's land expropriations in Zimbabwe and South Africa? The Democratic Party? The Labor Party? He does not even address it. Instead he reveals his capitalist partisanship by attacking revolutionary Pan-African Communists in advocating the anti-communist bourgeois ideology of Harold Cruse.

Just as the Patrice Lumumba Coalition, and I support in practice as well as theory the African peasant's revolutionary expropriation of settler-colonial capitalist lands in Zimbabwe, so in this industrialized capitalist country (the United States) do I fight in the Labor Party for the perspective of workers winning state power, and by that power expropriating capital—snatching the means of production and distribution, products of our labour from the clutches of capitalists.

Baraka was/is the transitional Black revolutionary personality and ideologist, who both maintained Black cultural revolutionary integrity while appropriating, not adopting and adapting to White pseudo-CP communism but sublimating the serious elements of revolutionary Black communism. Baraka is a revolutionary, and a Black one at that. So is Marvin X, and Sam Anderson.

Although Harold Cruse was a participant in the Black artist's movement in the 60s, he was then the equivalent of what Earl Ofari is today.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: The leftists worshiping at the alter of Marxism call themselves "revolutionaries" although one would be hard pressed to identify any real revolutionary action going on in AmeriKKKa unless you count talk as action.

Lil Joe: You don't know what I'm doing. Reading ad hominems such as this is why I originally decided not to respond. But, since Rudy, for whom I have complete respect, asked me to respond I do so.

In the first place, Stanton obviously does not have the faintest idea of the meaning of the concepts in the terms "leftist" and "Marxist." The term/concept of political "Leftist" is derived from the French [bourgeois-democratic] republican Revolution in French in the 1890s!

The French Revolution overthrew the Estates System, first of all by head count rather than Estates in the Estates-General. The Estates-General was voting by Estates, in which case the First and Second Estates, representing respectively the Church and Nobility, always out-voted two to one the 3rd Estate. The 3rd Estate, however, represented the commoners which including peasants, artisans, merchants, manufacturers, bankers, etc. were 90% of the French kingdom, and had most of the money, wealth.

"One Man, One Vote" did away with the political domination of the government by representatives of landed aristocracy of nobles and priest. The Estates-General was by internal contradictions dissolved into factions, and by one-man—one-vote the commoners voted to displace (overthrow) the Estates-General and replace it by a National Constituent Assembly, or National Assembly based on one-man—one-vote representative democracy.

As the politics of the revolution drew into it the masses of artisans, proletarians, merchants the various class representatives in the National Assembly formed clubs, parties. The Jacobins became the radical representatives of the sans-cullotes— the political organization of Paris into a Commune with 48 sections—in the Assembly and pushed through the establishment of a Constitutional Convention. In the Convention the radical Jacobins representing the sans-cullotes, based in the proletariat (Commune) sat left of center and the bourgeois moderate Girondists sat right of center.

This was the specific origin of the term/concept of leftist qua radical in the republican bourgeois revolution in France. However today in America the terms "left" and "right" are robbed of historical content, as on Cross Fire and other talk shows the industrial domestic capitalists represented by the Democratic Party are ostensibly the "left," and the finance transitional capitalists represented by the Republican Party are the "Right."

Proletarian communists in the United States have no seats in these "debates." Stanton's mealy-mouthing his anti-communist claptrap, murder mouthing "the left," is the same as George Will and Bill Crystal! I reject the demagogic mealy-mouthing rhetoric about "left," qua "liberal," "progressive" which refers to nothing but Democratic Party politicians on one hand, and "right" referring to the Republican Party on the other.

The pro-capitalist, therefore, conservative Democratic Party and the reactionary Republicans are both on the anti-communist "Right." So are reactionary anti-communist racial nationalists. From an historical politico-historic point of view: revolutionaries are the political representatives of the rising class, whether that rising class was the bourgeoisie in its revolutionary displacement of the feudal nobility, or today the proletariat in its class effort to displace the bourgeois ruling class. As there is no labor party fighting to take state power in the United States, there are no revolutionaries in position to change reality.

The Democratic Party is conservative, representing the industrial bourgeoisie by its wanting to maintain the gains of the New Deal and by identity of opposites, attracts industrial unions in that it has in common, for instance protectionism and the benefits of military industrial spending.

The Republican Party by contrast is “progressive,” representing transnational capital, of “Empire” analysis, supports technological innovation and tears down national tariffs. At the same time as the party of finance capital, the Republicans operate through IMF/World Bank, whereas the Democrats in WTO. The Democrats and Republicans (in any case at the Presidential level) are united in forcing through NAFTA and FTAA because of competition with the European Union.

To do an analysis of these issues, by defining the problem from the standpoint of the Black proletariat, collecting, categorizing, analysing the macro-economic data, examining the economic data and manifest political trends Marxian categories and analytical tools are correct.

This science has everything to do with proletarian science, and nothing to do with whether or not, in Cruse’s life experiences bourgeois Black members of the American Communist Party had a hard-on for White liberal women in the Communist Party, and assimilation into "White" bourgeois culture.

Marcus Garvey, when he left the Americas relocated to England. George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta, Richard Wright, Kwame Nkrumah, Martin Luther King Jr. et al., as well as Patterson in the American Communist Party loved (or loved to do sex with) White women, whereas the Black communist Du Bois with his Black wife moved to Ghana.

There were no wealthy, “cultured” White middle-class women in the Black Panther Party. When the impoverished inner-city  Black brothers and sisters picked up the gun, and studied Mao's "Little Red Book" it was in their love, and sacrifice for oppressed Black folk in a struggle to end racial oppression . They were not "Black intellectuals" in psychological "crisis." Nor were the attracted to the Black Panther Party and face to face confrontations with the "pig-police," the personifications of the bourgeois state motivated by a pathological need to access middle class White women and culture.

Talking about piss!—Stanton's entire tirade is pissing on the grades of these Black revolutionaries. The Black male icons of Black racial politics and culture were, in most cases, married to White women. If Cruse really wanted to do an analysis of the Black male attraction to liberal White women, and culture he would do an analysis of this pathology.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: [Osirus and Lil Joe] do however make some valid points we nationalists should consider, such as the patriarchal orientation of religious nationalistic movements like the Moorish Science Temple and the Nation of Islam. Likewise the leftists should be honest enough to admit Marcus Garvey did have women in prominent roles in many of his UNIA ACL local chapters.

Lil Joe: This, dear reader is nothing but a conscious, deliberate STRAW-MAN! I never wrote anything about " the patriarchal orientation of religious nationalistic movements"! And, although I said nothing about women nationalists or communists, I will say this: if an organization is considered a "revolutionary" based on having women in its leadership then the Republican Party, the Bush Administration and the U.S. Supreme Court must be considered—don't laugh: "revolutionary"! They too have "women in prominent roles."

This is a bourgeois issue that surfaces in identity politics. Neither have I written anything critiquing the Moorish "Science" Temple or Nation of Islam. Politically, and therefore ideologically, I have no more interest in these cults than I do the Jehovah's Witnesses. I have investigated neither their gender ideology, nor gender policy.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: However we must also hold the mirror of truth up to the "Leftist Revolutionaries." According to books written by female Black Panther Party members, patriarchal gender chauvinism existed in their organization also.

Lil Joe: There are a lot of former "Leftists from the 60s" who are writing books denouncing communists and revolutionary organizations of the time. It has no more relevance for such attacks being made by women than by men: its all about the money and it is always a lucrative deal to write books in America that denounce "the Left"— e.g., None Dare Call It Treason and the like.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: Some would say the Black Panthers don't really count as a revolutionary organization because they weren't originally founded on "revolutionary principles" and were more of a grassroots stop gap organization working to gain respect and credibility in the inner cities and forcing the government to do right than building a revolutionary infrastructure.

Lil Joe: I have already shown that Stanton doesn't know whereof he speaks mealy mouthing rhetoric about "Leftist Revolutionaries," and the Straw Man he erected viz. gender politics is meaningless to me. Feminism is to me neither revolutionary nor reactionary.

Yet it is interesting that in his erected straw-woman against the Panthers that Stanton doesn't even bother to do the research to find out who these women in the Party were. What are they? Nameless lumps of flesh? Instead of naming these women and presenting them with the same respect he presents Harold Cruse, Stanton refers to these un-named individuals sub-persons, merely "female Black Panther Party members."

Angela Davis, Erica Huggins, Elaine Brown, Kathleen Cleaver, Sandra Pratt, Assata, Peaches Moore, and many other Black women were loved and respected members in the leadership of the Panther Party . But, to Stanton has a fink list of nameless women. It is just another straw man assertion as a means of attacking the Panthers.

Junious Ricardo Stanton's Straw Man: The Left is quick to call nationalists homophobic and to a large degree they are correct; however, I don't see where the Left's embracing and acceptance of homosexuals has furthered their "revolution" one iota. In fact, the Left for all its recent pre-emptive assaults on the nationalists have nothing going for themselves that I can see.

Lil Joe: Straw man. Gibberish! I never wrote anything about homosexuals one way or the other. I demand evidence. Where have I written in any of my numerous post anything about homosexuals? I have never connected homosexuality and revolution. Stanton obviously is homophobic. He is obviously insecure, seeing nameless women and homosexuals everywhere.

It is also interesting how Stanton has picked up approvingly the language of the Chief anti-communists, the Bush Administration talking about "pre-emptive assaults." It is demagogy when used by Bush in his anti-Islamic rhetoric and its demagogic when used by Stanton in his anti-communist claptrap.

Junious Ricardo Stanton's Straw Man: The Ultra-Right has kicked their butts and left them wounded and whimpering for mercy as AmeriKKKa aggressively careens towards fascism. Of course no real revolutionaries would broadcast their plans beforehand so we wouldn't know if they were planning a comeback or not.

Lil Joe: This Negro thinks that he is doing something significant by spelling America AmeriKKKa rather than America. But his reactionary political attacks on Communism is the same as the real KKK - i.e., Klu Klux Klan!

DAVID DUKE WROTE, for instance: "The eccentric woman in the Citizens Council office, who railed about the Jews and Communism, obviously had some of her facts right, even if she seemed to fit the media stereotype of the anti-Semite. The facts were inescapable: Communism and Zionism were born from the same Jewish soul, personified in Moses Hess.

***** "Mattie Smith told me that the Jews had the leading role in the efforts to destroy the very underpinnings of our race and our heritage. I had read that Jews were the leaders of the academic movement promoting the idea that races are equal in their physical and mental abilities. In looking into the foundations of racial egalitarianism, I found that adherents of international Communism pioneered the modern notions of racial equality. In America, Marxist organizations quickly gained ascendancy in the remnants of the old abolitionist movements. In South Africa, they led the fight for full "democratic" rights for the Blacks."

***** "Jewish scribe Nathan Glazer stated matter- of-factly that in the 60s and 70s the Jews comprised half of all the active Communists in the United States and four out of five of its leaders. Two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, led the Marxist-Oriented, Yippie Movement, and they were two of the five Jewish members of the revolutionary "Chicago Seven" group—tried for the violent disruption of the 1968 Democratic Convention. I read a book called Behind Communism, and I was surprised to discover that at least 4 out of 5 of all those caught and convicted of Communist espionage and treason in the United States and Canada were Jews" (David Duke: My Awakening: Chapter 18 “Jews, Communism and Civil Rights”)

Stanton brags, unable to hide his glee, the state successfully suppressed the revolutionary Black communists in the 60s and 70s. This explains his anti-communist ideology, and shows that Black nationalism is counter-revolutionary.

Junious Ricardo Stanton's Straw Man: Perhaps attacking the nationalists is a form of ego compensation since the left has been so ineffective and acquiescent about AmeriKKKa's move towards fascism.

Lil Joe: You see how rhetoric and bullshit is nothing but rhetoric and bullshit? Or is it masochism? What Stanton says above (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps consciously) is that the Communist "Left" is the force resisting fascism. Then he brags on how we have suffered defeat. Stanford's attack on the “Left" therefore, by objective logic from his

premise to conclusion places him, in the Right, in the camp of the right-wing KKK—the Ku Klux Klan. Garvey bragged that he was the world's original fascist, and accuses  Mussolini and Hitler of stealing his racist ideas without attributing to him this "credit" for it.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: I'm out and about in the community and except for a few grass roots groups like the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement which is a black organization, I don't see any other black leftists doing anything in the black community.

Lil Joe: This Negro is so scared of us Field Blacks that he can visit the inner-city but by organization! This intimates a very deep significance. Whereas we live in the hood, born and raised in the brier patch, Stanton is such a stranger that he dare not enter without organizational protection. Black bourgeois nationalists are scared of the impoverished black masses. And rightly so!

Why doesn't Stanton take his coward ass down into the hood after dark, and denounce the Panthers? He wouldn't make it home alive. Why doesn't Stanton take his reactionary ass into the hood after dark, and brag about how the State, his State, destroyed the Movement in the 60s, and explain his glee in his belief that the Black Left is unable to stop the march toward fascism today?

In the hood everyone is a "Leftist". We confront the state every day. When members of Stanton's bourgeois or professional class get pulled over "for no reason" they are highly upset, and denounce it as "racism," whereas members of my class are subjected to this shit every hour of every god-damn day. When middle class "Blacks" are harassed by the state in the hood they protest and call it harassment racial profiling of "driving while Black."

What they really object to is being treated the way our class of Blacks are treated, and the way we have always been treated! What the Black bourgeois (professionals, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc.) object to is being treated by the state the way the state treats us—treated like "any other Nigger."

When have you ever read in the press, or seen on electronic news a story of a homeless man—Black or White—being pulled over by the pigs? Never. And neither will you ever!

Inner-city Blacks live squalor with mice and cockroaches in our homes, if we are fortunate to have homes, or in allies with rats. We have never heard of the "International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement." In the inner city squalor of poverty and segregation the Black Rebellion arose against racial oppression and police brutality in the “hood,” which was articulated by Malcolm X and against which organized by the Panthers.

At the job the struggle was organized/articulated the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement—DRUM, which spread into the League of Revolutionary Black Workers And culminated in the Revolutionary Black workers movement led by Nelson Perry.Thus, in this context, content, ideological struggle was Black Marxism engendered. This was the real deal and is the real deal.

Meanwhile, both the reformist-integrationists and the cultural nationalists were attacking members of the United Front, Panthers, and the Socialist Collective. The State allowed attacks on the United Front, the Panthers, and the Socialist Collective. Each group had in common was that we in each group were comprised of members the wretched of the earth, lived in inner-city squalor, and were studying the works of Fanon, Mao, and Lenin. WE were revolutionary nationalists who as serious revolutionaries as such found

our way to revolutionary theory. This is sufficient to demonstrate that none of us had anything in common with the critiqued by Harold Cruse.

Rather, Cruse was of the ilk he criticized! The State did not single the Panthers for destruction because they were Black bourgeois intellectuals motivated to Communism by love of White women, and a desire to be part/parcel of American bourgeois class culture. Rather, it was because they qua Black revolutionaries rejected that culture, and its perks. It was not Massai, but Cruse who was part/parcel of American bourgeois class culture.

Junious Ricardo Stanton: For all their derision against "Back To Africa" or the "Glories of Ancient Africa" the truth of the matter is, there is no bigger fantasy in existence than the pipe dream of black and white workers uniting to overthrow the ruling elites!!

Lil Joe: This straw man is an out right LIE! What I actually wrote was, "Black revolutionaries in the United States are fighting to build a workers movement that will expropriate capital—transferring all banks and financial institutions, industries and technology establishments from private hands to public property—effectively creating the basis for the destruction of capitalist commodity production by wage-labor, the exploitation of wage-labor by capital.

Cultural (Afro-centric) Black nationalists attack this objective. Just as the US Organization murdered socialist Black Panthers. Huey Newton defined "Black capitalism" as "cockroach capitalism," and the lumpinproletariat" (gangsters, drug dealers, loan-sharks, theives, &C.) as illegitimate capitalists.

***** "I am not saying that Blacks that have pride in their cultural heritage are reactionary, I am critiquing the program and reactionary behavior of mysticism, harking back to the 'dignity' of black African pharaohs and kings in order to exploit Black pride to turn a buck selling "Black" merchandise, denounce communism as 'racist', or/and start simi-religious organizations where they milk the Black congregation.

*****"The goal of reactionary nationalists, who believe in capitalism and promote "black capitalism", is therefore not the emancipation of Black workers from wage-slavery by taking the productive forces from private ownership, transferring these means of production and distribution to public property managed by the workers themselves, but to leave those productive forces in the grips of private capital while demanding at best "reparations"— i.e., money—by means of which Blacks can participate in the commercial system of capitalist exploitation as buyers and/or capitalists themselves. Revolutionaries want to destroy capitalism but reactionaries want to hustle it."

So, now, if Stanton has anything to say in refutation of what I have here written/argued, let him do it.

Neither did I present a melodramatic "pipe dream" about "black and white workers uniting to overthrow the ruling ‘elites’!” That's bourgeois sociological hogwash. Anyone at all familiar with anything I have ever written know that I have repeated destroyed such nonsense.

This is my position, and what I also argued: "The American workers are the only workers in the world who campaign for the party of the class enemy rather than organizing a class party of their own—socially and financially based on the trade unions. If there is any truth to the ideology of "American exceptionalism" it is that American workers a-political pragmatism and anti-communism makes it exceptionally stupid. The American Labor Party is also to blame. It is completely ridiculous to have a class party that refuses to run candidates and endorse America's imperialist wars."

***** “What we need in this country is communists and socialists in the trade unions engaging in ideological and political war against the existing Democratic Party in the labor bureaucracy by running to unseat those Democrats on a pro-Labor Party program. “Expel the Democratic Party partisans from the leadership of trade union locals, state committees and national leadership and affiliate with the Labor Party. In the Labor Party compel the party to be a political party. . . .”

I have never written anything about a "white Left" or "black Left.".So, for the rest, Stanton is doing nothing but polemicizing against straw men of his own creation. I'm finished. I will not deal with any other of his straw men, as I have shown enough for those who read on to recognize them on their own. . . .”