Thoughts on pan-africanism/african internationalism?

there's a huge difference between drawing borders for colonialist and exploitative activities and united the peoples of Africa with a common interest toward socialism instead of having everyone kill each other and conduct ethnic genocide like what they're doing now.

there's also a huge difference between using ones minority identity (being African/female/transgender/etc) to censor others and gain undeserved power, which is what idpol is, and simply recognizing a group's right to unite together for a common goal.

But that's absolutely not what idpol is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identity_politics
dictionary.com/browse/identity-politics
collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/identity-politics

It's done a lot of good for the left in America.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity-politics

Idpol to the max. No different from white nationalism of pan-Europeanism.

...

his definition is the kind of idpol thats detrimental to a united struggle, a group of people joining a struggle and bringing in their own struggle is not something that should immediately be looked down upon, instead be examined with consideration. by immediately pushing out any small struggle instead of being willing to co-op it into your own, you're marginalizing an entire group of people and basically dooming yourself to failure.

dont you think there are obvious economic and social differences between Europe and Africa?

Its different because black people are actually oppressed. This is like saying MLK is no different than Hitler.

Exactly.

It doesn't matter. Using race or ethnic origin as the driving force of your movement inevitably results in the poor sacrificing for the rich just because of idpol.

MLK was a socialist, not a black nationalist. And white people are oppressed too, that's what capitalism is. It does that to everyone, you retarded SJW.

African internationalism =/= black supremacy, in fact if you look at Thomas Sankara, one of the best example of an African internationalist, he was vehemently anti-corruption and anti-bourgeois elements, since they benefit directly from the colonial exploitation of the people of his country, Burkina Faso. The only issue with what you're saying is the lack of class consciousness, which can easily be solved by mere education.

Why not just plain internationalism? I'm sure this includes Africa. Or is it that you just really want people to know that black people are doing the same thing we're all doing? Because that makes no sense. Or are you merely saying that Sankara was an African man who was also internationalist? Because then white internationalism exists and is also good, since I can be a white man that is also internationalist. When did Sankara describe himself as an African internationalist other than to say he was an African man?

Africa is a continent.
I think that's why.

This thread never use to come up, why does it come up weekly now? Not complaining, just curious.

So is Europe. So what?

Hey, both continents are basically property of europe too, neat.

Property of Europe? So all Europeans own part of Africa, or the shapeless "Europe" owns this? Is that some kind of entity we fail to observe? Or is it simply capitalists owning everything like we see all over the world? Gee, one of these seems to make sense and the other one doesn't. Maybe you should stop being retarded now.

lets not ignore the continuing exploitation of Africa, not just by European capitalists but also Chinese and (I think) Japanese capitalists too. Much of the resources these countries have don't benefit the people of their own land, the local bourgeois and bureaucrats are most of the time weak and just tools for the imperialist overlords. Before they seize the power to themselves, they'll have to remove outside influence.

Yes, and why does their ethnic origin matter? A capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist.
So we're to have African capitalists to be an improvement? Or will we simply fight capitalism overall? Why the need for an African focus instead of simply the standard internationalist model?
Seize power? Whom? And what outside influence? I thought it was just capitalist influence. Or are we to believe that they'll also limit European proles from helping them or refuse help when they can give it?

...

...

So all whites are responsible for capitalist exploitation of Africa? Why limit it there, since it seems, according to you, that they empower European capitalists. Europeans are responsible for their own exploitation too. I guess Europe doesn't deserve liberation from capitalism after all.

its not the local capitalists that the power should be given to, its the African community, thats the whole point of African internationalism, not unnecessary class collaborationism. historically the bourgeois of Africa has always been Western collaborators, so there's absolutely no way of uniting the working class of Africa with the bourgeois, and that's not desirable in the first place anyways.

So only Africans can live in Africa? Does this mean that we should empower Europeans to exclude outsiders and empower the European community?
The bourgeoisie collaborate among themselves. They don't really care about race as much as some would prefer to think.

No? Jeez

So what do you mean by "European Nations," then?

United Africa is taking power back from the foreign colonialists and traitorous local bourgeoisie, for the local working class, which includes all of the working people within Africa, regardless of their race or origin. I think you're mistaking African internationalism for African racial superiority, historically African internationalists have always had leftist leanings, and this is to be encouraged. In a continent dominated by violent infighting and religious fundamentalism, nothing would be better than socialist unity and secularism. An internationalist movement by definition is willing to collaborate with other foreign internationalist movements, provided that they arent just bourgeois struggles.

Unity of the European peoples under an internationalist socialist union, something like that of a socialist EU is a good thing, not this pan-racial supremacist unity the Identitarians are looking to achieve.

of course the bourgeois collaborate among themselves, which is why I said the African bourgeois will always side with the foreign colonialists instead of the African working class, which is why African internationalism seeks not to include these local bourgeois elements but to recognize that they're just as hostile toward the African working class as the foreign colonialists are.

England

So how is this different and superior to plain internationalism? We only let Africa do this and nobody else?

Again, so why call it African Internationalism? This sounds no different than plain internationalism. Just that it seems to be happening in Africa. Does this mean that if science happens in Africa we call it "African Science?"

Unity of the European peoples under an internationalist socialist union, something like that of a socialist EU is a good thing, not this pan-racial supremacist unity the Identitarians are looking to achieve.
Yes, but my problem is that you're limiting scope a bit. Why can't internationalist coalitions be formed without boundary? Like why can't Italy somehow be united with Egypt if they were both socialists-tending nations? Why limit it to other African nations? Or if there is no limit, what is the special thing about it?

I can see that, but regular internationalism does that too.

You just named a country. What specifically do you mean by "European Nations?" Or let's boil it down. What do you mean by England. What exactly is England? Every English person? Just the Queen? What?

The people with actual political power in those nations. Obviously.
If I said america is an imperialist shithole would you think I'm speaking out against everyone who lives in the country?

So then why make this post:

?

No, but if you said
I might be tempted to think you think Americans as individuals are trash? Then why did you make the other post?

the difference is the scope of the possible movements for this action, for example, the EU was created as a neliberal globalist organization, and it is a large and influential part of global neoliberalism, but it directly focuses on several European countries. The same way African socialist internationalism would work, it's scope and influence should include the entire world, but as Africa is a historically very divided continent with countless struggles, a unity of Africa is first and foremost important for the well-being of the African people, and just the possibility of African participation internationally. Right now they're being divided intentionally by colonialist powers, because the unity of the most diverse continent on the planet with an incredible supply of resources could pose a threat to imperialist powers, their unity is necessary for them to reach the same conditions for international unity.

of course Italy can unite with Egypt, do you think the EU exclusively does economic deals within the members? the unity is meant as a way give power to the local peoples, a unity between an incredibly developed European country and an impoverished African nation will most likely result in social imperialism, the only way to avoid this is to give the African peoples autonomy and self-reliance so that they dont become dependent on foreign social imperialism disguised as "humanitarian aid" and whatnot.

and yes, African internationalism is a part of regular socialist internationalism, if they were opposed, it wouldnt be socialist in the first place

To be a smug cunt?

Okay, but I'm not advocating for the EU. I'm advocating for socialist internationalism.

So should we advocate European internationalism for the benefit first and foremost of the European people?

Are they being divided? Or are they being divided because each separate nation has competing interests and the capitalists of those nations dictate what those interests are?
And why is it important that they become united to each other first and not just to the first socialist power to offer aid, whether it be African or otherwise? Why focus on African unity when there might seriously be a war of capitalist African powers against Socialist ones?

No, but then what is the point of calling for African internationalism if it's just going to look like regular internationalism and you might have a socialist block in Europe sooner than in Africa?

This makes no sense. Either they are socialist allies trying for a socialist world or they are not. If you're going to shun a strong ally because they might engage in "social imperialism" whatever that means, then maybe your theory is not as workable as you think. As for unity with other African nations giving them more power somehow also does not make sense. Wouldn't simply being stronger with stronger allies make them stronger?

You're thinking of liberalism again, as for autonomy, I don't know what you mean by this. Explain.

In what way is this a subset of internationalism? Because so far you have not defined how exactly it's different.

i was using the EU as an example of how such an organization could be structured to benefit the local people after centuries of foreign oppression. and you have to consider, who oppressed and took resources from the Europeans over the past few centuries? African internationalism isnt meant as an exclusively African interest, much the same way the Black Panther Party was not an exclusively pro-black organization, its that Africans were historically and are still currently marginalized and exploited, and they need to gain self-reliance before they can unite in equality with other peoples of the world.

of course the interest of national bourgeoisie conflict, and of course that conflicts with the interest of the united African internationalists, which is exactly why they're *internationalists* and not *African nationalists*. and just because you recognize Africans should unify does not mean at all that you should ignore internationalist unity, they're not at all mutually exclusive, and in fact rely upon one another.

we call it African internationalism because its necessary to first unify all of Africa before you unify Africa with the world, looking at the continent of Africa right now and you can see why, with the constant wars and destruction, you cant possibly unite anyone with the world if you cant even unite them together in Africa, where they're more economically and socially connected. and thinking a socialist revolution has a better chance of happening in Europe is a complete disregard for what is actually happening right now in Europe.

no, i did not mean to say they should shun their developed European allies, i merely said they should have self-reliance in order so that the alliance is equal and not have the possibility of falling for social imperialism. thinking a developed European superpower can unite equally with an impoverished African nation is moronic, and its exactly that mindset that's not workable. Giving Africa self-reliance is the point, and self-reliance is what socialism is about, not asking for aids and help from Europe. they'll be strong if they make themselves strong, strength that relies on foreign powers is just submission.

autonomy is exactly that, the African working class gaining self-rule over their own united will. its a subset of internationalism because internationalism is the end goal, but the unity of the African peoples is necessary in order to achieve that goal, with the reasons listed above.

african internationalism is a fucking oxymoron. its every bit as moronic as 'american internationalism'

i also have a pretty good grudge against most 'pan african' types as they couch their language in communist rhetoric but aren't real communists to me as they have a massive chip on their shoulder about slavery, and rightfully so, but they take it out on other socialists who happen to have lighter skin.

so, in essence, they're fake commies because they care more about color than class. i am not even joking about this, i believe most 'pan africans' are the same assholes that would gleefully forget about the socialist internationalism as long as they could have some shitty black state capitalism to call their own.

retarded and arbitrary
idk, what is it?