Hillary Clinton throws out Black Lives Matter protestors

[Piff Perkins]

yall expect her to say "ok here take my mic and spread your story brehs" lmao? What is she supposed to do. She met with them, has given them lip service, etc etc.

these clowns need don't even know top down change rarely works. Are they taking over school boards and voting for prosecutors and taking over state legislatures and other shyt that actually creates change?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Can you break this down? I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Sure.

Taking for granted that capitalism is premised upon the exploitation of the working class and that racism is a key feature and tool of the capitalist class, and that American political economy is premised centrally on the exploitation of Afrikan labor and bodies, we know that the entire system is a sham and both the Democrats and Republicans are bourgeois parties not interested in Afrikan liberation.

The system must go, but at this immediate juncture, that is not on the table. Differences between bourgeois candidates are typically minuscule, but in this case, we have Sanders, probably the most progressive viable candidate in decades, who takes positions on issues of concern to the community that could free up significant space to expand, extend, and deepen the struggle for liberation. Versus Clinton, who is hardly a progressive and who played a historical role in the expansion of the carceral state which profits off the warehoused bodies of Afrikans and other peoples whose life dreams have been crushed by capitalist reality. Clinton will not confront the oligarchs that loot the wealth of Afrikan communities. She won't do anything meaningful about police brutality.

The correct move would be to recognize that the system has to go to attain liberation, and to continue organizing and fighting with that in mind, while supporting Sanders over Clinton. The recognition that Sanders, too, is a bourgeois politician, should not be lost, and he should continue to be pushed even when in office.

If liberation is the goal, I do not see any legitimate reason for voting for Clinton.

 

[Madvillain]

The further left we can push the political arena (without marginalizing oppressed groups and hiding problems), the better. That doesn't mean supporting Dems. To the point Piff made, Don’t Back Down | Jacobin there were glimmers of hope with Karen Lewis in Chicago going after Rahm. She had good support but moving from union pres. to possibly mayor she made some odd moves. She got sick and ultimately couldn't run. Her and the teachers union there did some dope longform work with Jacobin not too long ago https://www.jacobinmag.com/supplements/ctu_booklet_final_web.pdf. The education battles in places like Chicago, Newark and Philly are ripe Teachers union in Philly actually called Deray & Brittney Packnett out a couple days ago and linked their fight with "BLM" An Open Letter to DeRay Mckesson | Jacobin
You heard a good amount of these links after Baltimore, but it's harder to keep that momentum going without flat-out creative & experienced organizing.

 

[ScoopNScore]

Well, considering that BLM kinda 'd her campaign unintentonally and made Bernie Sanders relevant (not saying it was a direct cause, but you had to notice a shift after they protested Sanders), I'd e pretty heated at them too.

 

[Juggalo Fred]

Hillary threw out her marriage with Bill too

 

[The_Sheff]

yall expect her to say "ok here take my mic and spread your story brehs" lmao? What is she supposed to do. She met with them, has given them lip service, etc etc.

these clowns need don't even know top down change rarely works. Are they taking over school boards and voting for prosecutors and taking over state legislatures and other shyt that actually creates change?

Hell naw they ain't. When Hillary actually asked what they wanted their answer was for Hillary to tell them what they wanted. That lets you know these folks ain't about nothing but causing disruptions.

 

[tmonster]

But you're taking it too personal, some criticize

no, critique is one thing
being completely dismissive while you do nothing is a whole other ball game, more akin to cointelpro

they deserve our respect and appreciation, no matter how misguided we may think they are
and for that, they should be coddled and critiqued in a loving way
because the last thing you want is to squelch the ambers of their passion, as that is clearly not misguided. In the grand democratic conflict they are our foot soldiers, get in there and lead them.

and besides why critique to us, they on twitter
you can join them and change them on the inside
#BLMmattters

 

[Tate]

I don't have a problem with their group, I just see it as nonsensical. Y'all just show up and ask "what are you going to do for black people?" And then what? Who's behind this group

I can understand this sentiment. And though we likely come from different places I largely agree. BLM has legitimate grassroots framework and support, but it's not a very radical movement at its most visible.

The Democrats probably won't bend far enough to meet what should be done. But actions like these keep the discussion going nationally and snap folks out of buying into bourgeoisie politics (John Lewis exposed himself today, for example). Of course, protest actions like these don't beat organizing deeper independently and I wonder if there will be confusion and trouble when some of these high profile activists eventually sell out. I've already posted on DeRay's defense of neoliberal education "reform", for example.

Excellent post. The thought leaders of black lives matter bother me more than anything about the movement.

It's ironic that John Lewis was there because I often recall his and Bayard Rustin's career path when I think on black lives matter. Young John Lewis was more radical than any BLM ppl today, but you give them 15 years and see if their movement hasn't been coopted into the political mainstream whie still ignoring the basic faults of a system that can bring about a Jim Crow or a mass incarceration. You already see some local pols using their BLM support to shield them from critique on opposing minimum wage hikes. Deray seems like a true shill to me, he tweets promotion for companies and neoliberal think pieces often.

Think it ultimately goes back to Michelle Alexander failure to name capitalism in her excellent "The New Jim Crow." That's the bible of this movement but it goes without articulating the real systematic problem.

 

[Danie84]

Hill acting too big for her britches

 

[Jello Biafra]

That headline is kinda misleading...the group of BLM protesters got booted by Clark Atlanta University for disrupting the event.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Of course they were thrown out, what were they supposed to do? You expect them to just let the BLM group chant during her entire rally? Protestors are always thrown out.

I wish there would be a transition from just interrupting folks to doing something that would incite change like pushing their own candidates in local elections and supporting the candidates that support them. It can't all be about disruption and getting thrown out of events.

That is why I think this was a wasted moment on their part. You got Clinton at an HBCU discussing her criminal justice and race policies so the chances of getting her to agree to a meeting with the BLM chapter on campus was pretty high if for no other reason to prevent any bad press that would come from refusing.
So when presented with the opportunity to get a face to face with someone who could possibly be the next president to discuss some policy changes to US policy that they would like to see they instead went for the quick and easy route of just disrupting the event.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Sure.

Taking for granted that capitalism is premised upon the exploitation of the working class and that racism is a key feature and tool of the capitalist class, and that American political economy is premised centrally on the exploitation of Afrikan labor and bodies, we know that the entire system is a sham and both the Democrats and Republicans are bourgeois parties not interested in Afrikan liberation.

The system must go, but at this immediate juncture, that is not on the table. Differences between bourgeois candidates are typically minuscule, but in this case, we have Sanders, probably the most progressive viable candidate in decades, who takes positions on issues of concern to the community that could free up significant space to expand, extend, and deepen the struggle for liberation. Versus Clinton, who is hardly a progressive and who played a historical role in the expansion of the carceral state which profits off the warehoused bodies of Afrikans and other peoples whose life dreams have been crushed by capitalist reality. Clinton will not confront the oligarchs that loot the wealth of Afrikan communities. She won't do anything meaningful about police brutality.

The correct move would be to recognize that the system has to go to attain liberation, and to continue organizing and fighting with that in mind, while supporting Sanders over Clinton. The recognition that Sanders, too, is a bourgeois politician, should not be lost, and he should continue to be pushed even when in office.

If liberation is the goal, I do not see any legitimate reason for voting for Clinton.

If all that is how you feel and liberation is the goal then you wouldn't be voting for anyone who is a part of the two party system. As much as Sanders talks the game about revolution and whatnot, he has been staunchly allied with the Democratic Party for his entire time in Congress. He is a reliable ally to the very system you talk about and would likely be just as feckless as Hillary in combating any of the ills you speak of. So if that is the case then voting for Sanders becomes an entirely symbolic vote and if so I say the last thing you or anyone who subscribes to your way of thinking should do is vote for someone running for the Democratic Party nomination.
You should really be voting for the Green Party candidate.

 

[JahFocus CS]

If all that is how you feel and liberation is the goal then you wouldn't be voting for anyone who is a part of the two party system. As much as Sanders talks the game about revolution and whatnot, he has been staunchly allied with the Democratic Party for his entire time in Congress. He is a reliable ally to the very system you talk about and would likely be just as feckless as Hillary in combating any of the ills you speak of. So if that is the case then voting for Sanders becomes an entirely symbolic vote and if so I say the last thing you or anyone who subscribes to your way of thinking should do is vote for someone running for the Democratic Party nomination.
You should really be voting for the Green Party candidate.

The Green Party is also a bourgeois party...

Nowhere in my post was it suggested that I have any illusions about Sanders. He's not a revolutionary. He's not even a socialist.

 

[theworldismine13]

BLM and the clinton campaign are all clowns

 

[theworldismine13]

The Green Party is also a bourgeois party...

Nowhere in my post was it suggested that I have any illusions about Sanders. He's not a revolutionary. He's not even a socialist.

yeah but in your first post in this thread you said that "nikkas" need to vote for sanders en masse

so you think that "nikkas" should vote en masse for a democratic party hack?