Lorenzo is def. an influence on me, but your criticisms of his theory is right on. I’m more influenced by Ashanti Alston who at least recognized that it was market anarchists (Particularly Rothbard and Karl Hess) that recognized the strength of black nationalism rather than their left counterparts. Regarding his call for allies, I would add in hackers/DIY entrepreneurs. Critics can regard mutualism as “middle class” all they want, but this usually just comes from anarcho communists who are obsessed with ideology. To be fair, for practical reasons, I just don’t see anarcho social democracy as viable nor anywhere near about to succeed in the American arena.

Synthesizing anarchism with Black Panther ideology isn’t too far off from its origins. Many Black Panthers were not Marxist… a good amount weren’t even nationalists.

““The contemporary shanzhai are rebellious, individualistic, underground, and self-empowered innovators….They [are] individualistic in the sense that they have a visceral dislike for the large companies; many of the shanzhai themselves used to be employees of large companies (both US and Asian) who departed because they were frustrated at the inefficiency of their former employers.”

Where did you pull that quote from?

Also, are you familiar with Lorenzo Komboa Ervin’s “Anarchism and the Black Revolution”? If so, what’s your assessment of it? It’s online here:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/theory/anarchism-black-revolution-part-one/

I met him about ten years ago when I was really starting to develop my current left/right populist-libertarian-anarchist positions. I explained some of my ideas to him at the time and while he wasn’t jumping with enthusiasm he didn’t seem particularly hostile and was curious about what I had to say.

I think he outlines a general framework for insurgency by the urban black lumpenproletariat that is right on target, though I differ from him a bit on a lot of the details of his analysis. For instance, I think he relies too heavily on Marxist and neo-Marxist economic theory, particularly in his dismissal of mutualism and other forms of market anarchism as middle class. Also, he’s a bit vague on how his own brand of anarcho-communism would actually work in practice, and how it would be implemented and maintained without a state. Lorenzo also seems a bit influenced by the neo-Marxist/Maoist view of the white working class as an “aristocracy of labor” which I think is a somewhat dubious and strategically destructive claim. He also veers off into Chomsky-like “anarcho-social democracy” at times with his ideas on transitional stages from state-capitalism to anarcho-communism. I see some serious problems with some of his analysis of certain social questions, and I’m sure he would dismiss criticisms of PC as right-wing sour grapes. At times with him, it’s difficult to tell where the socialism and racialism end and where the anarchism begins.

But like I said, that’s all in the details. I think his general framework of class struggle rooted in the urban lumpenproletariat is right on, even if I disagree a bit on the direction to take it in. And what I find most interesting is his effort to synthesize anarchist ideology with Black Panther ideology. That part of his thought is priceless.

1) Not all NAACP groups are created equal. The national chapter is a joke, no doubt. However, different local chapters are more radical than others. If it wasn’t for the Cincinnati NAACP’s work here, we’d probably have another private prison locking up members of the working class. They’ve also taken a position that puts them at odds with the liberal elite (Center city development “non-profits”)

2) Any “anarchist” who wants to organize the urban proletariat needs to have a clear agenda of economic development, even if it’s small.

3) The Black Panthers, by far, had the best model for organizing the American working class populations. (And not just Blacks, either) This kind of goes with #2, but it is imperative to offer something the community needs outside of politics. Whether it be breakfast for kids, health care, whatever. (I even heard about a Winston-Salem chapter that offered ambulance services) Taking this model and bringing it into a 21st century paradigm is imperative. This is where I believe that new developments in urban agriculture and desktop manufacturing will fit into place. This leads me to #4

4) “The contemporary shanzhai are rebellious, individualistic, underground, and self-empowered innovators….They [are] individualistic in the sense that they have a visceral dislike for the large companies; many of the shanzhai themselves used to be employees of large companies (both US and Asian) who departed because they were frustrated at the inefficiency of their former employers.” I don’t care what any old head says about the “hopeless” youth today, but this attitude runs rampant in Black youth to some degree. This is what we need to tap into before the arrogant corporations make their move on desktop manufacturing technologies. (Look what happened to the Electric car)

The question is not whether “white separatism is totally awesome” but whether to what degree white nationalists raise legitimate issues that merit consideration, and to what degree those who prefer “white separatism” for themselves are compatible with the libertarian-anarchist paradigm. I just had a post on that:

http://attackthesystem.com/2011/01/the-new-white-nationalism-in-america/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315078/Race-maps-America.html

I am not for purging leftists from a left/right libertarian-populist movement to oppose the state and state-allied institutions. Instead, I am for purging those among the left who vehemently oppose blurring the left/right distinction and act as a disruptive and obscurantist force towards those of us who attempt to do so. Here’s how I summarized the problem on Royce Christian’s blog:

“The biggest point of contention between my camp and yours seems to be that I believe that to build an effective anti-state movement it is necessary to collaborate with political groups and organize among populations with decidedly un-PC views on any number of issues. Your side apparently regards that as the equivalent of blasphemy. In other words, your side regards the standard laundry list of PC cultural values as trumping other concerns. That’s a conviction that I do not share.”

My criticism of the left is simple and straightforward: The Left has become so focused on cultural politics, lifestyle issues, and liberal pet causes that it has become utterly toothless as an opposition force to the state, plutocracy, the ever-growing police state, and the empire. These are things that affect everyone, and not just narrow interest groups. Besides, there is the question of the pervasive statism that has always existed in many corners of the Left and the history of leftist-sponsored bloodshed and repression. My criticism is that the anti-authoritarian left (much of it, anyway) at present waxes hysterical over social and cultural conservatives, but treats left-wing authoritarianism as virtually a non-issue, even though the former is declining and the latter is growing in influence.

As for the Infamous Essay that you are obviously referring to, see this post from the No Treason site for an accurate interpretation of that essay:

http://notreason.com/2009/06/21/on-rejecting-keith-preston/

David Letterman’s hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it’s Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who’ve gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It’s the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that’ll outdo even Hitler’s by stating that “Judah hath dealt treacherously” and “the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this” and asks “Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?”
Haven’t evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin’s continuing “crucifixion”!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in “Separation of Raunch and State” and “Bible Verses Obama Avoids.”)