The Politics of Liberation: Black Power and the IWCA - Autumn 2001

In the spring of 1966 whilst addressing a march to Jackson, Mississippi, Willie Ricks and Stokely Carmichael of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) first used the term Black Power. Immediately the term was picked up by the press and used throughout America. The term was interpreted literarily by the White press and used against the burgeoning civil rights movement. The term itself became a watchword for the Black political movement itself as the civil rights activists moved out of their Southern-based focus and onto anti-war agitation and a desire for wider social change. But the name was amorphous within even this constituency, which was only a reflection of the splintering methods and aims of this radicalised section of American society. To some, Black Power meant a return to Africa, to others Black cultural separation or even Black capitalism, to other groups it meant separate states. But its original meaning, as explained by Carmichael himself, was for Black control of Black communities as a precursor for fundamental social change within the United States of America and beyond.

Leaving aside the disparity between 1960s America and twenty-first century Britain, there are surprising parallels between the ideas behind the IWCA project and Black Power as articulated by the socialist wing of the movement. The first is the necessity to fortify strength from within the community as the first stage in wider social change, and the second is puzzlement, if not outright hostility, towards the conservative Left.

'The concept of Black Power rests on a fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralistic society.'

So wrote Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in their joint book, 'Black Power: The Politics of Liberation', first published in 1967. This in itself, with a few adjustments, could be the founding statement of the IWCA. The difference is that their politics are more racially based than our position, although this has to be taken within the context of the American experience (more of that later). Integration was always the eventual aim of this wing of the Black political movement, not the 'separate but equal development' of some of their contemporaries, but this integration was distinct from their forerunners in the civil rights movement. For them, racial integration was to be on the terms of the establishment, no more: equal voting rights, equal housing rights, equality before the law. The younger, angrier militants that followed in their wake from the mid-60s onwards were aiming for fundamental change that also acknowledged the importance of international struggle in the developing world. Alliances with the White working class were to be entered into at a much later date in the struggle, something that Detroit car worker James Boggs pointed out in his collection of essays 'Racism and the Class Struggle' was the entrenched position of the American White working class, not because of duping by the capitalist establishment, but because of the very real gains they had made from centuries of Black oppression.

Malcolm X, all too aware of the reactionary position of White workers, voiced his opinion about White-Black unity at a press conference in March 1964: 'Whites can help us but they can't join us. There can be no Black-White unity until there is first some Black unity first. There can be no workers solidarity until there is first some racial solidarity. We cannot think of uniting with others, until we have first united among ourselves.'

Malcolm X never really had an opportunity to demonstrate this Black unity in practice, being shot down in '65, cutting short a rapidly evolving consciousness and depriving the world of a uniquely sharp mind.

Stokely Carmichael on the other hand moved on from the SNCC in 1967, toured the world including Vietnam, Cuba and Africa, and became Honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panther Party in January 1968. What he brought into the Panthers was experience and a clear political vision that matched their ten-point programme. Point number one in the manifesto being: We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black community.

In Black Power Carmichael listed the three objectives of the revolutionary programme which he labelled 'political modernisation': the first was the questioning of the old values and institutions of society, the second was searching for new and different forms of political structure to solve political and economic problems, the third was broadening the base of political participation to include more people in the decision-making process.
These objectives are the three steps instigated by the IWCA. The criticism of contemporary society is easy, but making that criticism enthusiastically agreeable to the working-class is harder. The current staleness of working-class politics is not quite as dire as maybe initially imagined. There are many estates away from the inner-city domains of the remnants of the Left that haven't seen political activity for decades. Experience has shown in Harold Hill - one such place - that a small band of activists - determined, articulate, and ambitious - can have an impact on the local scene far outweighing their numbers. Harold Hill is just one of many estates ripe for similar intervention. The Left, polarised in the same areas, can't break from old patterns by using new methods of organising. Devoid of any strategy the current conservative Left's dilemma is a mirror image of their counterparts in the sixties. James Boggs explains:

'Since that time (1930s) socialists no longer even envisage the revolution in terms of the taking of power. Their policy centres instead around moral persuasion and embarrassment of the powers-that-be, accompanied by a vague hope that some day another Great Depression will cause the poverty-stricken masses to unite and fight again. Thus their perspective for revolution is based upon more on a catastrophe overtaking the capitalist class than on anything the people will do or do or should do to take power.'

Realising the Black-White unity was an illusion in the immediate future, Left Black Power advocates looked at organising their own communities. The Panthers support came less from ideological attractiveness and more from practical solutions such as the 'Breakfast for Kids' programme (which is still running today, incidentally), free clothing programmes and clinics set up in the ghetto to provide free health, welfare and legal rights. Former chief of staff David Hilliard later explained: 'We hoped White people would wonder why the Black Panthers could feed poor kids when the wealthy United States couldn't.'

They were also visibly seen patrolling and monitoring police patrols, which although appealing to those in the community, led to numerous deaths after shoot-outs.

In Louisiana the Deacons for Defence and Justice were set up in order to protect Black citizens from racial attacks. Armed, they also provided protection to civil rights marches. As Carmichael states: 'If a nation fails to protect its citizens, then that nation cannot condemn those who take up the task themselves.'

Voting became an essential tool within the Black movement, especially in the South. Since the mid-50s groups from the North had been travelling into the Southern Bible Belt states in order to help register Black voters. Although Emancipation after the Civil War had theoretically freed slaves and created equality between races, in practice, since 1876 gerrymandering had been gradually introduced, disenfranchising the great majority of Black voters. The price for agitation was high with frequent deaths and beatings for the activists who were overturning decades of blatant discrimination. After registering people to vote the question was whether to offer independent candidates or joint-tickets, but even then some Black people would still vote for the old parties out of fear. It was clear that although registering and encouraging people to vote was important, it was merely the start of wider work.

Familiarly, Stokely Carmichael gives his opinion on some of the 'activists' who bulked at this:

'The development of this awareness is a job as tedious and laborious as inspiring people to vote in the first place. In fact, many people who aspire to the role of an organiser drop off simply because they do not have the energy, the stamina, to knock on doors day after day. That is why one finds such people sitting in coffee shops talking and theorising instead of organising.'

Although necessarily racially based, the Black Power movement - at least in its best form - fervently positioned itself against the newly established Black middle-class. The reality of Black-on-Black exploitation wasn't an avenue that Black Power radicals wished to go down. Carmichael, writing in his 1967 publication, offers no concessions to the middle-class dream, rightly pointing out that this will only starve the ghettos of its finest minds and then leave them politically and socially inert in suburban conservatism. Class can and does override any racial allegiances.

Martin Luther King shunned the term Black Power because of its supposed violent and anti-White connotations. With equal measure the Black Power advocates poured scorn on the integrationists dream, pointing out that although great effort and attention is provided in supporting a small minority of Black kids in White schools, no attention is focused on the 95 percent of Black kids who are left in the dilapidated all-Black schools.

The Black Power movement's relationship to the rest of the Left was a frigid one. The Communist Party of America described the slogan as 'elitist', a drawback from Black-White workers unity. The activists on the ground knew full well that this 'unity' was more in the heads of ideologically fixed minds rather those positioned in reality. James Boggs had no illusions about the dogmatic Marxist analysis:

'Despite their slavish allegiance to the concept of 'black and white unite and fight,' most radicals and liberals are well aware that they do not constitute a serious social force in the United States. Few, if any of them, would dare go into a White working-class neighbourhood and advocate that slogan. That they go so easily into the Black community with the slogan but steer clear of White communities is just another example of how naturally they think White.'

Stokely Carmichael echoed similar sentiments: 'What is the most disturbing thing about almost all White supporters has been that they are reluctant to go into their own communities - which is where racism exists - and work to get rid of it.'

Of all the groups, the Black Panthers were the most enthusiastic in cooperating with White-based organisations, although as Bobby Seale explained, 'we were reserved to a lot of White radicals who wouldn't move or do anything.' They stood on a joint ticket with the Peace and Freedom Party in California pulling a respectable vote, although ill thought through, it did manage to increase the profile on the then imprisoned Huey P. Newton. Cooperation proved short-lived with Seale complaining that they 'needed to get a little more radical.'

Stokely Carmichael left the Black Panthers a year after joining, and by 1970 dozens had been shot dead and hundreds more imprisoned, effectively breaking the organisation. But the legacy that the Black Power movement left behind is for all to learn from. The last word to Carmichael:

'It is important to recognise that the political struggle is a protracted one. It is not calculated to lead to quick, substantial change, even under the best of circumstances.
Black Power, properly understood, can be a positive force not only for Blacks but for Whites who need many of the same important policies required by their Black counterparts.'