(en) BLACK COLLECTIVE AUTONOMY - Interview with Lorenzo Ervin Kom'Boa activist and author of "Anarchism and Black Revolution" (fr, it, pt)

 (en) BLACK COLLECTIVE AUTONOMY - Interview with Lorenzo Ervin
Kom'Boa activist and author of "Anarchism and Black Revolution" (fr,
it, pt) [machine translation]

What made you radicalized and led to a political activism of life? What led you to 
anarchism? ---- I was raised in the "Old South" before the advent of the civil rights 
movement of the 50s and 60. Although the protests have begun and continued in southern 
cities dice 1954, it was only with the bus boycott in Montgomery (Alabama) that they are 
in fact become more than a local phenomenon, and have taken national importance. The bus 
boycott became a world-renowned event and did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a figure of 
international stature. From the Ground, this boycott influenced me and millions of other 
African e s in America as it reflected the desire of the black masses to destroy the white 
racist state institutions that existed at that time in the South.

Much of the history of the bus boycott in Montgomery is fairly well known, but as you can 
imagine, the struggle for civil rights was not the work of Dr. King. Even if we created a 
national myth saying that Dr. King was enough to make some interventions black oppressed 
masses in Montgomery for a movement born and that its cry be heard by John Kennedy, the 
white grand master ' in Washington DC, which made passing legislation to protect civil 
rights.

This simplistic version is government propaganda designed to hide the hostility and 
inaction of the federal government, and the power of the movement that obtained 
concessions from the government and its economic support. For example, why EDNixon, local 
leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored people (NAACP) and basic 
organizer in Montgomery for many years has he been forgotten in history?
The answer to this question is very important because it shows how peronnages and social 
movements have been forgotten by history, and how the revision of historical memory is 
used as an ideological weapon to handicap the next generation.

But my radicalization really began with the sit-in movement of students and young people, 
which began in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960 when four student e s black e s College 
North Carolina A & T are returned e s in a large Woolworth store, sat 're at the counter 
and asked to be served e s. Before it ends, 5000 student e s, youth and people from the 
black community took part in the protest, which spanned the entire state of North Carolina 
in the following days. Finally, strength and sheer fury of the protests forced the white 
elected officials Greensboro to make concessions and at least temporarily to dismantle 
segregation laws.

This victory has inspired the emergence of similar struggles throughout the South: 
Louisville (KY), Richmond (VA), Baltimore (MD), Nashville (TN) and other cities. In fact, 
the historian does s estimated that within fifteen days following the events of 
Greensboro, 69 other cities have been hit by similar protests.

One of the most interesting moments of your speech here in Minneapolis was about your 
discussion on the anti-authoritarian wing of the civil rights movement of the 60s in the 
South, and how his story was overshadowed by the history of the reformist wing of the same 
movement . Could you talk a bit more about the importance of this anti-authoritarian wing 
ancestor? What lessons can we learn today of anti-authoritarian struggles for civil rights?

Yes, few people know that the student struggle was from the beginning a self-managed 
struggle . It was never planned, even the Greensboro events are the result of a 
spontaneous discussion during the previous night and the fact that someone has actually 
decided to take action was a surprise for all world. But these spontaneous events gave 
rise to a movement that, during the month of February ignited the South like a prairie 
fire and re-energized the civil rights movement. The movement was indeed a bit sleepy 
after Montgomery's events and adopted bureaucratic tendencies focused on the leaders. 
Victories in other cities had inspired a movement and would soon inspire the creation of 
an organization.

Ella Barker, who at the time was the right hand of Dr. King, knew the importance of the 
struggles of student e s and youth. Barker was able to act as a mediator in the youth 
meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, and in April 1960 that brought together 300 
representatives e s black e s South and 100 student e s white he s North (which included 
leftists including among others the group that would create Students for a Democratic 
Society in which the program will be directly influenced by the Student Non-Violent 
Coordinating Committee ). This gathering resulted in the creation of the Student 
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee . It certainly was not a bureaucratic movement and he 
had made no strong leader. Even Bob Moses, the first president, was a mediator devoid of 
any real power. It was a totally non-hierarchical structure with decision-making power was 
in the hands of the members . The rally called for the creation of fully autonomous local 
groups affiliated within a wider federation. During this gathering and others that 
followed, it was decided that the SNCC would be a direct action organization bringing 
together activist e s acti ve / fs rather than a bureaucratic structure as Southern 
Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) Dr. King.

SNCC was mostly a totally different conception of SCLC on how it was leading the fight. 
The latter waited King and other national leaders integrate within the community to 
"conduct" the people. Very often they have completely ignored the militant e s loca / 
within and have agreements with the local white power often extremely hostile to the black 
community. While the primary objective of SNCC was to create autonomous organizations and 
grassroots activism at the local level able to conduct social struggles, loca them / to 
decide the program would organize protests and struggles gain. SNCC activists were there 
to provide technical support and not to divert local struggle. We were there primarily to 
encourage initiative and spontaneity.

Although there were many people in the DCS that were, in the early years, motivated by 
religion, SNCC was indeed a secular organization that looked down priests and preachers, 
including King! I think that the refusal of the leaders marked the SNCC more than any 
other organization before and after the 60s. This organization has promoted the most 
important battles during the civil rights movement and won the most significant battles: 
the right to vote, the freedom to take public transport interstate without segregation, 
equal access to public spaces, and other fights but as the organization maintained its 
anti-authoritarian structure. Only when she abandoned this structure was bureaucratized 
with a powerful president (in the person of Stokly Carmichael), a central committee and a 
permanent staff, it has weakened and began to die - in my opinion. All this took place in 
1967.

We know that anti-authoritarian movement (even anarchist) and Black existed in this 
country and was highly effective. There has always been anarchists within the SNCC and its 
enemy e s and friend e s called "anarchist" for many reasons. We should study very finely 
SNCC, observing its successes and failures, its countryside and its effect on society. 
SNCC clearly offers us a kind of model for the kind of activist organization we want to 
create now. If the SNCC was able to survive in the most difficult conditions and with very 
limited resources, we could imagine today to create something better in more favorable 
conditions.

How white European anarchism he failed in understanding its possible involvement in and 
support the struggles of oppressed people in this country? How the anarchist movement can 
it be genuine support and no hypocrite, liberal, based on guilt?

You ask me a question about "European anarchism" and how it could be involved in the 
struggles of oppressed people in this country, that is, not only the white working class 
but also the Black e s and other groups 'racial' that are overexploited e s. Well, first I 
have to say that we must understand that the role of the white population in this system 
is to maintain oppression and reproduce racism through capitalist institutions. I do not 
think it will be radic ales / the white he s within their own organizations that lead the 
struggle to fight capitalism but rather the pioneer class worked Artists / ors most 
oppressed e s of "communities of color" (this is my only concession to the politically 
correct terminology). This segment could ally with other neglected segments of society as 
homosexuals the s, women, worked Artists / ers and others to create a social opposition 
movement capable of defeating the capitalist power.

So today, the radic ales / the white he s must begin to create serious relationships with 
people of color, help us with material and political support to build a new movement, 
continue to build a social movement "anti-racist" within the white community who subvert 
white supremacy and class collaboration among open a natur eras / ers white he s. This 
movement of white he 's racist should then be ready to be led by people of color rather 
than "guide" people with needs, different claims and live in another social reality.

For example, "leaders" white male so-called anti-racist movement do nothing to make the 
safer social environment for people of color, and in fact do nothing but moralizing and 
self congratulate liberally. In fact, we have no role in the organization of this movement 
and we have an entirely different conception of racism. These errors are related to the 
fact that anarchists do not fundamentally understand the relationship between race, class 
and capitalism. It / they think the oppression of race and class is only a marginal issue 
or external or independent phenomenon rather than intrinsic to the rules and form of 
social control of the system.

Anarchists and white he s left have generally not been involved e s historically in the 
struggles for worked Artists / ower black e s. It / they are almost always middle class 
and do not include communities of color, even if they / they claim to know everything. It 
/ they should be involved, not to handle or carry out such struggles, not by white guilt, 
but as a participant e s Direct e s. The loc ales / to decide how they / they can get 
involved and loc ales / to be convinced e s it is a sincere motivation and not an 
additional manipulation of the white left.

It is clearly important for contemporary anarchists e s to explain and publicize their 
political analyzes that anarchist ideas spread and become better known. What kind of role 
anarchists should they / they play to get people involved in anarchism?

We must get out of the anarchist ghetto and drop the dogma "purist" in order to build an 
effective movement. This movement does not even have weekly newspaper expressing his views 
and is not really seen as something more than a trend "against-cultural" for White 
children he spoiled s e s playing at revolution . There are some exceptions, but in 
general few people feel anarchism as a serious trend. The fact also that anarchists do not 
broadcast publications on a very large scale results in fascism, capitalism or Marxism are 
the only views that people know. Existing anarchist publications do not do much to explain 
world events in terms libertarian socialists or serve militants tools; they are mostly 
"against-cultural" magazines for marginal social and cultural trends. The average person 
does not know what anarchism, but what will surprise you is that it is usually not hostile 
to anarchism when it is presented to him.

According to you, what would a revolutionary movement of the working class? Is it 
different labor movements of the past? In what ways?

First, we must understand that the term "movement" and "organization" are generally 
opposed; what you mean is not very clear to me, because the terms are not necessarily 
identical. All sorts of organizations exist, some of which are called revolutionaries, but 
we must not be guided by the name of a revolution but rather by what it does. By cons, a 
movement has a life and a world view of his own.

A head movement may be constituted of different dynamics of which some may be more 
activists than others, with limited or general demands. Anarchism is supposed to be a 
social movement but I think there is currently a trend. Every worker revolutionary 
movement that emerged in the 90s can be based only on matters related to the workplace 
because it must also be a social revolutionary movement. The social life of communities, 
as well as the economic activity of worked Artists / ors as productive unit must be 
considered in their entirety. Social problems and movements exist today that did not exist 
20 years ago. Even now, the nature of work itself has changed and the working class has 
become increasingly diverse integrating women, Black e s, Asians and other groups in 
greater numbers than ever before. The exclusion of certain social groups is more important 
than during the Great Depression: without homes, without work, underemployed e s and the 
extremely poor - despite the so-called welfare state. It is clear that capitalism has 
exhausted its reforms and that it is in deep crisis inevitably making a large-scale revolt.

A revolutionary workers' movement should go beyond trade unionism and other reformisms and 
break the rules between work and play, and finally reject all reforms except those torn 
from the capitalists, who can strengthen the fight people capacity.

But class exploitation and political orientation class still exist, so the movement should 
be guided by these / those from e s lowest sectors most desperate of the working class, if 
we do not want more social reformism. If you do not want the theoretical analysis of the 
movement has inherent limitations protecting the privileged class, we must reject the 
ideas of the privileged classes dominate the theoretical analysis. In addition, the new 
movement must be a direct action movement, democratic and anti-authoritarian, 
decentralized and still well organized. I repeat, use the DCS as an example to study but 
not necessarily to copy mechanically because it was not a revolutionary movement in its 
design. I think such a movement must be based on the poorest levels of the working class 
if he wants to lead a revolution - rather than downgraded intellectuals and marginalized 
segments of the petty bourgeoisie.

A revolutionary movement can not be considered seriously only when fighting for a total 
social change rather than for limited reforms, even if these reforms can be significant. 
No one can fully predict or prepare a list of "to do" and "don'ts"; This will be partly 
forged in the struggle itself, although specific ideals are formulated in advance. We must 
be able to return to the facts and change our analysis but it must be based on events and 
verified theory.

In your speech, you spoke to redefine the race and class concepts. You also write about 
concepts like class suicide and class betrayal. Can you say a little more about their 
meaning? How do we commit a race of betrayal and a class suicide? How people from 
different classes can they work together in a revolutionary movement? In short, how would 
you characterize the relationship between race and class in America in the 90s? In what 
ways is it relationship between race and class unique compared to other countries and at 
other times in American history?

When I talk to redefine racism and working class, it is a way of a single and the same. We 
have from a non-scientific and intuitive approach to the study of racial dynamics in 
America to move towards a more scientific, materialist conception. For example, I think 
the white working class is a privileged class opportunist in America, even if it is 
oppressed by capitalism. It is however the same as the exploited working class African or 
Hispanic. The US state uses White he s to maintain a system of class privilege for the 
rich by giving them a substantial advantage to the material and social level. I started 
myself and other activists to study harder so this certain area of my ideas change, but 
not fundamentally. But we must understand this question if we want to unite the working 
class and overcome capitalism. We can not continue to believe that the white working class 
is somehow the pioneer for the entire working class. This belief is a deadly simplicity, 
it is a bad political analysis and cultural chauvinism.

The suicide of class and race for White betrayal he s place when members of that class 
refuse to identify themselves to the white power structure and begin to work for the 
defeat of that authority. It is a conscious choice to reject the protections, privileges 
and benefits of white people in this society and become a revolutionary working capital 
and to abolish the so-called white race and join the nonwhite humanity to overcome white 
supremacy.

No other country in the world is structured like the United States, with its own internal 
colony, class collaboration by the white working class and its history of oppression and 
racial slavery. People from different classes can contribute to the success of a 
revolutionary social movement but the philosophy of the petty bourgeoisie can not be the 
dominant ideology of the organization. Kropotkin, Bakunin and others are from the 
privileged classes and yet they have played important roles revolutionaries.

The race and class oppression have always been the backbone of oppression in America. This 
country was founded on the institution of slavery and is still maintained by the privilege 
of white skin and over-exploitation of African labor, and this through wage differences at 
work, making the African e s a poor reserve army, with a higher level of unemployment and 
poverty, or through the police state control of oppressed communities. The living 
standards of the white middle class is not based on a higher intellect, higher education 
or favorable birthright but rather on the fact that / they benefit materially from the 
oppression system.

This does not mean that all white people are rich, or that there is no class differences 
among the white majority, but this only means that White he s - voluntarily or 
involuntarily - working together to oppression the African population. This is the 
specific wound of American capitalism, the pedestal being African slavery and oppression 
of non-white populations. Well, that capitalism 90s may well take a neocolonial shape with 
black faces in high places such as mayors, entrepreneurs, corporate vice presidents, etc., 
but I do not see anything special in this "new capitalism ". It is not new, it's just 
restructured.

What inspired you to return to anarchism after living as racism in the anarchist movement 
in the late 70s and 80s? How things are they different or similar today?

I was very disillusioned by the anarchist movement in the United States when I joined in 
the mid 70s because he refused to fight racism and it was not a serious class struggle 
trend. Myself and black anarchist as Mark Cook, Martin Sostre and other guests that I have 
been attacked for supposedly "nationalist" trends when we were talking about the Ku Klux 
Klan and Nazis as a threat against which it was necessary to organize and when we reject 
the principle of "equal rights between whites" which we now know is the standard fascist 
slogan. We ask that white people are racist, fight the Nazis and the people of the Ku Klux 
Klan in the workplace and in the community and that we take care of racism within the same 
movement. One of these so-called anarchists "Social Revolutionary" was even a man of the 
Ku Klux Klan at the head of his union and there saw "nothing wrong".

It was madness and eventually it became too much, so I left and stayed away for almost a 
decade. I had worked with John Johnson, a white anarchist Chattanooga we created the Ad 
Hoc Coalition Against Racism and Police Brutality in 1992. John was a member of Love and 
Rage ; one day we started talking and he showed me the newspaper Love and Rage , number 
who denounced Nazi and racist and I was really impressed! So I said there might be hope 
for the anarchist movement and I immediately wrote to Love and Rage . My letter was 
published, people have contacted me and I became active again.

I am always disappointed by the fact that few Black and Color People were brought within 
the movement, and there appears a kind of defeatist or fatalistic position by the 
movement. It really bothers me and after, stupid people ask me why Black e s joining the 
Socialist Workers Party . My answer: no anarchist alternative that demonstrated that 
anarchists are interested in issues of Black e s or Color Personal and they / they wish to 
work with non-white people. This ultra-democratic position was explained to me but it 
stinks of paternalism and the nonsense appalling. The very idea of trying to "spare the 
Black e s "the difficulties of being an e militant e anarchist or activist on the ground 
is super stupid and insulting.

This is how white people misinterpret the views of black people; believe me, we are not 
concerned e s by such nonsense, we are looking for serious political alternatives and 
insulting us is that white people treat us like children incapable of understanding 
anarchist concepts. If the majority of people were treated well, that would be the general 
indignation. Still, there are not many similarities to the 70s, when the openly racist 
position was the majority position, while now it is the minority position, or at least it 
is not openly expressed. Everyone is supposed to support anti-racism, at least at the 
level of discourse.

What do you see as the main weaknesses of the contemporary anarchist movement?

The contemporary anarchist movement is too white, too anti-intellectual, too middle class, 
too young and too devoid of seriousness. There also seems serious resistance to organize 
on stronger bases, which leaves me speechless. We do not try to work with non-anarchists, 
there is too much herd mentality, too many "purism" too much politics and too navel-gazing 
with wonder for "historical figures" or highly published authors like Bookchin, against 
which I have nothing, but I do not recognize as a revolutionary. I also think that the 
movement is too idealistic and pacifist too afraid of people who do not agree with his 
ideas or needs convincing. He is a slave of spontaneity, even on organizational issues. 
Finally, I think the movement is too against-cultural rather than political.

Can you elaborate on the idea of a Double Power and why it is important for revolutionary 
activity?

When you ask me to talk about what would a revolutionary Dual Power, I guess you're asking 
me to speculate not only on the nature of the post-capitalist society as I see it, but 
also the role of municipalities and insurrectionary advice worked Artists / ors while 
capitalism still exists (I talk a lot in my book Anarchism and the Black Revolution ). 
When I speak of a cooperative community (in the form of a common self-managed) in a 
post-revolutionary society, I do not speak any of a socialist state or a provisional 
government, but a number of voluntary associations wishing to unite. I want to say is that 
a common black would probably be different from that of white areas due to common 
experiences of the cultural and historical level. I do not speak of racial segregation 
since it has always been the work of a state, I mean affinities.

First, I talk about the construction of common anti-capitalist rebels now in cities as 
part of the struggle. The free cities, regions out, neighborhoods who protest , lost to 
the government, are already reality at some level even if at the moment, it is not a 
political process. South Central Los Angeles is one example.

https://albruxelles.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/entretien-avec-lorenzo-komboa-ervin-militant-et-auteur-de-anarchism-and-black-revolution/