(as an aside, why has my traffic relatively blown up off of the Jamal Bryant Empowerment Temple stuff? all i did was point folks to the site….interesting.)
This global vs. local thing I’ve been working through has led to a few spinoffs that I think people might find interesting.
The folks at Democracy and Hiphop take issue with Grace Boggs local approach as well as her ideas about the working class.
Malik has decided to refocus his blog to focus more on local solutions in diasporal communities….and in doing so he juxtposes a local approach to EC Hopkins‘ more power elite driven approach.
Whether you agree or disagree, I think these conversations get at the crux of the matter, and should take you in interesting (and worthwhile) directions.
I didn’t catch the Democracy and Hip Hop post. Need to check it.
re: empowerment temple traffic, I’m seeing that effect too.
Here’s the conversation worth having Spence…, having read you a few times here lately on the immanence of “seismic shifts” (and you know exactly where I stand on that issue) I’m very curious to know what you think the ruthless alpha males at the helm of this post peak luxury aircraft carrier America ought to do?
We know that it is incumbent upon us to make significant changes at the local level, or get caught with our pants down and no wagontrain charter at hand. But in the spirit of E.C.’s concern for the elites, T3’s reportage of what’s coming, and the elections just around the signpost up ahead, what should we be emphasizing in our aggregate politics?
what they ought to do? i was thinking about this in the wake of the minnesota crash. three things off the rip:
1. begin a significant retooling mission to rebuild urban infrastructure.
2. take cities like detroit and do whatever they have to do to get those 20,000 plots used to generate a combination of energy and food for the local populace.
3. take over education to ensure these things happen.
what are your thoughts?
and what role will the second-line inheritors play in the process of folks seeking to articulate the communitarian aggregation political stance?
what role do they play now?
how will the powers that be (TPTB) react to an increased level of community based “personal responsibility” and “self-sufficiency”?
I’m thinkin along the same lines as T3 on this one, lotta bread and circus and whistling while Rome burns…,
second-line inheritors courtesy PTCruiser…,
i remember when ptc brought up the concept over at p6. what role they will play in the future will be the role they play now. they are interested in a set of political resources, and they also have a constituency they need to serve. but more importantly it is not just that they are interested in “preserving the status quo” they do not have the political imagination to think about any other way of going forward.
so not only will they fight to maintain and grow their resources–something they’ll do anyway because this is the nature of politics–they’ll obfuscate and confuse any attempt to do anything else.
this is nothing new by the way. same thing happened in black spaces fifty years ago. same thing happened forty years ago.
while not contemplating any formal declaration to this effect, does this make them enemies of the good, or just “enemies” for short?
I read an interesting summary analysis on the amorality of CEO’s and it basically posited a similar mechanism at play as regards the motivation and capacity to do differently/do better…, (substitute second-line inheritor leadership for corporate leaders)
begs an interesting question about the role of “Black constituents” and whether it is the functional equivalent of “mob of shareholders”? Of course we can generalize from us to the relationship of Americans in general with its own ruthless alpha leadership, flying by the trim as it were….,
the distinction you make between “enemies” and “enemies of the good” is probably an important one because it determines the degree to which we can get together with them on other issues. you and i agree on a whole range of things but there are probably some issues that will put us on different sides.
on those issues if we can’t arrive at a consensus we take care of it through political means….then we get together on the stuff that we agree on.
i’m thinking these people are more or less “enemies” period. but the thing that gives me pause is the increased need for interdependency that these shifts are going to bring. if we start figuratively cutting throats we have to be very very sure we’re cutting the right ones even assuming the reasons are right.
this passage you quote from brings up another issue though. i am not sure how well the form of electing representatives we currently employ is going to work given corporate power.
Controlling the lion’s share of resources that our community has access to and abusing the responsibility that inheres to that control seems like as good a measure of culpability as any.
These folks have been useless and retrograde since their prime. There’s no reason to believe that they will miraculously change so as to contribute anything of any value beyond sheer biomass on which one might posit some degree of future interdependency.
I think it’s very dangerous to be sentimental about identity in the abstract….,
At a bare minimum these mutafikkas need to be cory bookered straight the phuk out on front st. – better still – scrutinized like a jamal bryant in garments of unrighteous stewardship..,
It isn’t identity in the abstract. We live and will continue to live in the same space. It is clear to me that we are enemies HERE. And I don’t have any problem with figuratively cutting throats to make sure that the second line doesn’t have any possibility of retaining power or even maintaining a foothold. You appear to be suggesting something permanent that lasts across issue domains. We agree on the bare minimum. And likely more than that. How much more I don’t know…