“The tool of analysis is for us a further development of the Historical Materialist method, the dialectical method.

We will not even waste our time debating the values of Marxism with those who are emotionally hung up on white

people hung up to the point of ideological blindness. We understand the process of revolution, and fundamental to

this understanding is this fact: Marxism is developed to a higher level when it is scientifically adapted to a peoples'

unique national condition, becoming a new ideology altogether. Thus was the case in China, Guinea Bissau,

Vietnam, North Korea, the Peoples Republic of the Congo and many other socialist nations. For Black people here

in North America our struggle is not only unique, but it is the most sophisticated and advanced oppression of a

racial national minority in the whole world. We are the true 20th century slaves, and the use of the dialectical

method, class struggle and national liberation, will find its highest development as a result of us. This dialectic

holds true not only for Marxism, but for revolutionary nationalism as well it holds true for concepts of revolutionary

Pan-Africanism it is true of the theoretical basis in developing revolutionary Black culture. All of these ideological

trends will find their highest expression as a result of our advanced oppression. Yet, we must be ever mindful that

the same objective process is true for reactionary refinement as a result of our struggle. This is the unity of

opposites in struggle with each other. To defeat our enemy and render his reactionary allies impotent, we must have

a truly revolutionary perspective informed by concepts of revolutionary class struggle, a movement without such a

perspective will fail to defeat our common oppressor. We are not afraid of white people controlling our movement,

for our formations, guns, and ideas are built with our own hands, efforts, and blood. With this in mind, we address

ourselves to the Black Liberation struggle, its activist elements and organizations.”

Our call is for UNITY, FOR A NATIONAL BLACK LIBERATION FRONT. We must build to win! Nyurba

Source: Black Liberation Army Political Statement

“A Critical Thinking, Critical Analysis Tutorial”

N.B. - In order to further facilitate your interpretation of these essays within a “Black Nationalist

PanAfrikanist” context please refer to RBG Tools for Analysis

George Jackson Re-visited

Icebreaker Video

"To the slave, revolution is an imperative, a love-

inspired, conscious act of desperation. It's aggressive. It

isn't `cool' or cautious. It's bold, audacious, violent, an

expression of icy, disdainful hatred! It can hardly be

any other way without raising a fundamental

contradiction. If revolution, and especially revolution

in Amerika, is anything less than an effective

defense/attack weapon and a charger for the people to

mount now, it is meaningless to the great majority of

the slaves. If revolution is tied to dependence on the

inscrutabilities of `long-range politics,' it cannot be

made relevant to the person who expects to die

tomorrow." (Blood in My Eye pp. 9-10)

An establishment documentary (FORD Foundation perspective) that

details of the murder of George Jackson at San Quentin Prison in 1971

A RW analysis of the quote above for your consideration

August 1971: The Day the Pigs Offed Brother George

Jackson

Source: Revolutionary Worker#1230, February 22, 2004, posted at rwor.org

This article originally appeared in the Revolutionary Worker (issue #618) in August 1991—20

years after George Jackson was murdered by cold blood at San Quentin Prison. For more on

George Jackson and his writings, see RBG Black August Studies Collection

George Jackson was eighteen in 1961 when he was sentenced to prison for stealing $70 from a

gas station. In the California prison system racist attacks on Black prisoners by white-Nazi gangs

and guards were intense. Jackson led others to fight back--in the beginning by organizing a Black

countergang. George Jackson spent the remaining ten years of his life in prison, nearly eight of

them in the solitary punishment cells. The special punishments were usually for defending or

avenging others.

Heavy political winds blew into prison from ghetto streets. George Jackson became a

revolutionary. He studied Marx, Lenin and Mao Tsetung and wrote, "I don't want to die and

leave a few sad songs and a hump in the ground as my only monument. I want to leave a world

that is liberated from trash, pollution, racism, nation states, nation state wars and armies, from

pomp, bigotry, parochialism, a thousand brands of untruth, and licentious, usurious economics.''

George Jackson wrote, "We attempted to transform the black criminal mentality into a black

revolutionary mentality.'' He described struggling with brothers who "think they don't need

ideology, strategy or tactics. They think being a warrior is quite enough. And yet, without

discipline or direction, they'll end up washing cars, or unclaimed bodies in the city-state's

morgue.'' He urged unity among prisoners of different nationalities: "I'm always telling the

brothers that some of those whites are willing to work with us against the pigs. All they got to do

is stop talking honky. When the races start fighting, all you have is one maniac group against

another. That's just what the pigs want."

The Black Panther Party made George Jackson a Field Marshal. His articles appeared in the

party press, the Black Panther newspaper.

In January 1970 a guard at Soledad State Prison shot three Black prisoners dead in an exercise

yard. Three days later a grand jury ruled the killings were justifiable homicide. Half an hour

later, a white guard was found beaten to death. George Jackson and two other prisoners were

charged with killing the second guard.

The growing radical movement outside prison walls took up the defense of these three "Soledad

Brothers." And Jackson's first book, Soledad Brother, found an eager audience.

Revolutionary Threats to the System

The San Francisco Chronicle later wrote (Aug. 24, 1971): "There was something new. Inmates

were showing signs of organized radical groups, not just within single prisons, but reaching from

prison to prison around the nation's scattered system of penal institutions."

Such developments threatened the system. The normal brutal operations of the prison system

were exposed and denounced broadly in society. Even more, the prisoners themselves were

emerging as an important revolutionary force, allied with other sections of the people.

On August 7, 1971 Jonathan Jackson (George's 17-year-old brother) walked armed into the

Marin County Courthouse. He liberated three men who were there on trial. Together they took

hostages and demanded freedom for the Soledad Brothers. A major shootout ended in four dead,

among them Jonathan Jackson and Judge Haley.

The Assassination of George Jackson

George Jackson was a powerful voice in revolutionary times. The trial of the Soledad Brothers

was coming up at the end of the summer of 1971, and the powers expected that George Jackson

would put them on trial for their tremendous crimes. And they wanted him dead.

On August 21, 1971 the authorities killed George Jackson. The full details of that day may never

be known. But this much is known: they murdered this revolutionary brother in cold blood to

silence him.

The Official Version of Events: The authorities claimed that Panthers outside had put an

automatic pistol, ammunition and an Afro wig into a small tape recorder. George Jackson's

lawyer was supposed to have smuggled the tape recorder to Jackson in prison. George, they

claimed, hid the gun under the Afro wig, planning to stash it in his cell for a later escape. He then

supposedly walked, wearing this gun and wig, 50 yards to the triple maximum security of San

Quentin's special "Adjustment Center." There they claimed that an alert guard saw something

shiny in his hair. Jackson supposedly made a break for it, sparking an uprising. The authorities

said Jackson finally ran out into the prison yard, gun in hand, heading for a 20-foot wall, and was

mowed down by gunfire. The officials claimed they found a 9mm automatic. Police records

traced the weapon to BPP Field Marshal Landon Williams.

This story had been set up so that the authorities could arrest George's contacts and comrades.

His lawyer feared assassination and went underground for fourteen years. Landon Williams was

arrested.

Prison authorities were so arrogant that they didn't even bother to construct a careful lie. They

assumed they would be automatically believed, as they had so many times in the past.

But Jackson's lawyer had gone through a battery of metal detectors and searches and could

hardly have brought in a gun and ammo without police approval.

The San Francisco Chronicle hired a model to reproduce the police story of the "gun under the

wig": "The model's attempt to hide the gun by lifting the front of the wig and sliding the weapon

onto the top of his head failed. He eventually removed the wig, placed the gun inside and forced

the hairpiece back on his head with some struggle. The wig was obviously askew, and with every

step he took, the gun wobbled dangerously, bringing his hands instinctively to his head." The

automatic stuck three inches out from under the model's wig.

The police produced a gun that had once belonged to Panther leader Williams. But it had been

confiscated by the FBI after an arrest in 1969. It was planted in the San Quentin prison yard--and

is evidence of direct involvement by the FBI's COINTELPRO program in this assassination.

Louise Tackwood, one of COINTELPRO's own agents, later said the murder plot involved

California authorities and the prison guards.

The most likely events: As Jackson was led out of the meeting with his lawyer, guards tried to

spring some kind of a trap. But it appears that instead Jackson succeeded in overpowering his

executioners temporarily. There was a brief rebellion in that wing of the prison in which three

guards and two prisoners were killed.

Inmates of the Adjustment Center later said that George Jackson did not run out into the prison

yard in a futile attempt to escape. Instead, they said, he sacrified himself. Knowing he was the

target, he separated himself from the other inmates and saved them from being massacred with

him.

His autopsy showed that a bullet had shattered his shin, bringing him to the ground. Then a

second bullet was pumped into his back at close range, killing George Jackson as he knelt on all

fours. It was a summary execution.

The Memory of George Jackson

George Jackson burned with impatience for revolution--he hated to live even one more day under

their rule. He was fearless.

From the oppressors' own dungeon, he called for revolutionary violence and blasted preachers of

slow reform. His words moved people, and his example inspired them. George Jackson stepped

into the political spotlight for only twenty short months. Though he did not develop a correct

revolutionary strategy for seizing power, he was proud to call himself a communist. He used his

time to speak for the revolutionary aspirations of those the system throws away without a

thought:

"As a slave, the social phenomenon that engages my whole consciousness is, of course, the

revolution. The slave--and the revolution. Born to a premature death, a menial, subsistence-wage

worker, odd-job man, the cleaner, the caught, the man under hatches, without bail--that's me, the

colonial victim. Anyone who can pass the civil service examination today can kill me

tomorrow.with complete immunity. I've lived with repression every moment of my life, a

repression so formidable that any movement on my part can only bring relief, the respite of a

small victory or the release of death. In every sense of the term, in every sense that's real, I'm a

slave to, and of, property."

"We've been made the floor mat of the world, but the world has yet to see what can be done by

men of our nature. There will be a special page in the book of life for the men who have crawled

back from the grave. This page will tell of utter defeat, ruin, passivity, and subjection in one

breath, and in the next of overwhelming victory and fulfillment."

Recently, I went back and re-read the writings of George Jackson, especially Blood in My Eye,

which I found very interesting and full of a lot of insights on the question of how to make

revolution in a country like the U.S.--even though, ultimately, I found I had to reject George

Jackson's basic approach as a strategy for revolution. But I didn't start re-reading his writings

with the orientation that I disagreed with them. Based on a previous reading of his work (as well

as my general understanding of the theory and practice of revolution), I thought that his basic

strategic orientation had to be rejected, but I consciously approached the re-reading of his

writings by "suspending" my previously-held conclusions on this. I said to myself, "I am going

to read this as if I've never seen his writings--I am going to look at his line and see, in light of my

basic understanding of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM), does his line make sense after all." I

had to end up concluding, once again, that we should reject his line, as a strategic approach. But

along the way there are a lot of real things--very important contradictions--that he is grappling

with, and there are some real insights in the way he is grappling with them, even though

ultimately I think the line has to be rejected as a strategic orientation.

Now, it is important to note that by the time George Jackson wrote the letters and other writings

that went into Blood in My Eye, he considered himself a communist and insisted on being

considered a communist. He specifically said I am a communist--I am not a "communalist," I am

a communist.

It is very interesting--he did have elements of the view that African society sort of naturally lends

itself to communism, to collectivism and cooperation, but he didn't want to be considered a

"communalist." He wanted to be considered a scientific communist. That is very interesting and

very positive: he openly promoted communism and was not the least bit apologetic or defensive

about it. That is very striking in re-reading these writings.

At the same time, his view of communism was somewhat of an eclectic mix of genuine

communism--as represented by his continual references to Mao Tsetung and his attempts to

apply important aspects of (what we then called) Mao Tsetung Thought. But it was an eclectic

mix of genuine communism on the one hand with aspects of revolutionary nationalism and in

fact revisionist influences (via people like Angela Davis, who had a significant influence on

George Jackson, among others). But, despite that, there is still much that we can learn from his

writings--through applying a consistently communist, that is an MLM, method and approach.

To the Slave Revolution Is an Imperative

The following from Blood in My Eye goes very much to the heart of the contradictions involved

in building the revolutionary movement among those whose conditions most cry out for

revolution, and among the basic youth in particular:

"To the slave, revolution is an imperative, a love-inspired, conscious act of desperation. It's

aggressive. It isn't `cool' or cautious. It's bold, audacious, violent, an expression of icy, disdainful

hatred! It can hardly be any other way without raising a fundamental contradiction. If revolution,

and especially revolution in Amerika, is anything less than an effective defense/attack weapon

and a charger for the people to mount now, it is meaningless to the great majority of the slaves. If

revolution is tied to dependence on the inscrutabilities of `long-range politics,' it cannot be made

relevant to the person who expects to die tomorrow." (pp. 9-10)

I think that in this statement George Jackson manages to capture and concentrate a lot of the

intense contradictions of our road--our path to revolution--and of everything we are trying to do.

Let's talk about what there is to agree with in the basic orientation expressed in this statement,

what do we have to disagree with, and what synthesis can we come up with in relation to what it

raises. It is important to note here that, to a large degree, what George Jackson is polemicizing

against, in this passage and repeatedly throughout Blood in My Eye, is the "gradualist" line of the

revisionists. Even though, ironically, he was significantly influenced by the revisionists, the fact

that he was polemicizing against the revisionist line and outlook is a reflection of the fact that the

only two real alternatives he saw were the line he put forward (as reflected in the statement cited

above) and the revisionist line of slow gradual evolutionism.

The fact that he saw these as the only two alternatives is a reflection of, on the one hand, the

eclecticism in his own thinking and, on the other hand, some real lacunae, some real gaps in his

own thinking. Even though he read Mao Tsetung--in terms of actually finding a way through the

difficult contradictions of making revolution in a country like the U.S. and not getting drawn into

either "left adventurism" or openly rightist, revisionist lines (the opposite dangers of Charybdis

and Scylla* as they pose themselves in the revolutionary process in a country like the U.S.)

George Jackson didn't find the right synthesis. He didn't find the right synthesis that would reject

the revisionist line, but reject it on a correct basis, and avoid falling into a line--which ultimately

couldn't be maintained--that would lead to getting onto a war footing with the imperialists, under

conditions where that could only lead to the revolutionary forces being smashed and defeated

politically as well as militarily.

He was grappling with the contradictions in some very important ways--and, again, I am not

saying this mainly to negate what he did or to cast him mainly in a negative light. I think that,

particularly for the time (almost 30 years ago now), his was very advanced thinking and in

particular very advanced grappling with the contradictions that continually re-assert themselves

in terms of making revolution in a country like the U.S.

We have to persevere and make breakthroughs in coming up with the necessary synthesis, in line

and in practice, particularly in terms of what revolution is, what it aims for, what kind of

revolution is needed, how such a revolution can actually be made, and what is the relation

between how the revolution is fought and what it is fighting for. (This is once again the question

of "winning...and winning"--winning in the more immediate sense of overthrowing the system

and how this relates to winning the prize in the fullest sense--moving to seize power and doing

that, carrying forward the revolutionary process as a whole, in a way that is consistent with and

advances things toward the final aim of communism, worldwide).

In this regard we can agree and also have to disagree with certain aspects of the first part of what

George Jackson says in the statement cited above here. He says, "To the slave, revolution is an

imperative, a love-inspired, conscious act." Overwhelmingly, we agree with that.

It is an act "of desperation." Well, yes, there is definitely an element of desperation, it is true, but

it cannot be essentially that. Revolution should not be principally an act of desperation, even

though if it doesn't contain an element of desperation, it won't be revolution. There is not going

to be any revolution or revolutionary sentiments that don't contain an element of desperation. If

there is no desperation there is no revolution, to put it simply. But here we have another unity of

opposites: Revolution inevitably will have and must have an element of desperation, but on the

other hand it cannot be essentially defined as an act of desperation.

Revolution "is aggressive." Yes. "It isn't cool or cautious." Yes, and no. Essentially, in the

principal aspect, that is correct. Revolution isn't cool or cautious, though there does have to be an

element of what he means by "cool and cautious," in the sense that it has to be scientific. But

essentially he is correct here, it isn't cool or cautious.

"It's bold, audacious, violent..." Yes. That goes along with Mao Tsetung's point, which I am sure

George Jackson was very conscious of, that revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay,

or doing embroidery, and so on and so forth. It can't be so courteous, refined etc. It is an act of

violence by which one class overthrows another. So, yes, it is bold and audacious and it is

violent.

What about the next part?--it is "an expression of icy, disdainful hatred!" Again--yes, and no. It

definitely must have--any real revolution will have--an element of icy disdainful hatred, but it

cannot be principally that. It also has to be more than that--and he says this himself, in speaking

of how it is "love inspired." But beyond that, it has to be guided by and essentially infused with

higher objectives than simply revenge. Revolution can't be, in its essential ideological content,

"icy disdainful hatred," even though it cannot do without icy disdainful hatred. So that's another

unity of opposites.

Again, I think the correct synthesis on these ideological points does contain elements of what he

says, but is more fully represented by what I wrote toward the end of For a Harvest of

Dragons.** There it speaks of meeting and defeating the enemy on the battlefield amidst terrible

destruction, but in the process not annihilating the fundamental and essential difference between

us and the enemy. And then the end of that passage speaks to what are after all the loftier aims,

objectives and character of what this is all about, when it points to the need to "maintain our

firmness of principle and our flexibility; our materialism and our dialectics; our realism and our

romanticism; our solemn sense of purpose and our sense of humor."

And, again, what's posed in all of this is how to correctly deal with the contradiction between the

present situation and the strategic objective of revolution, the seizure of power as the first great

leap in revolution,--the contradiction we sometimes formulate as between today and tomorrow.

In essential terms, the problem is: how to build a revolutionary movement among crucial

sections of the basic masses, and among broader sections of people, in the overall conditions of

U.S. society, and do this in accordance with the strategy, along the strategic road, that can lead to

actually waging, and winning, the revolutionary war to overthrow this system and establish

socialism as part of the worldwide advance toward communism.

Getting Over the Two Great Humps:

Further Thoughts on Conquering the World

Rereading George Jackson

By Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, USA

Source: Revolutionary Worker #968, August 9, 1998

The Road to Revolution

Let's go back to George Jackson's basic approach to these contradictions. To put it simply, what

was his basic strategy?

In a certain sense, given the emphasis that he placed on the importance of the

military element (which is sort of encapsulated in that passage from Blood in My

Eye cited above), it was surprising--and it struck me as surprising at the time--

that, when there was a split in the Black Panther Party, George Jackson ended up

going with the Huey side and not the Eldridge side. I always wondered why that

was, and in re-reading Blood in My Eye different elements of the answer come

through. It is answered very directly where he recalls how he wrote Eldridge a

letter telling Eldridge why he rejected his line (at the time Eldridge Cleaver's line

was for urban guerrilla warfare) and why what Eldridge was attempting to do

would lead to being smashed. And what George Jackson says is that to simply

engage in military activity without a political component to it would lead to

being isolated and smashed.

So what he came up with instead was what I would characterize as trying to give the best

interpretation to Huey's line--the line of "serving the needs of the people," which was

characterized at one point by Huey as "survival pending revolution." And the way that George

Jackson gave this a more revolutionary interpretation was by coming up with a line of trying to

combine the military and the political, or using the military aspect in conjunction with serving

the needs of the people. Increasingly and essentially, under the leadership of Huey P. Newton,

"serving the needs of the people" became sort of a "social service" approach. But George

Jackson tried to give this a different interpretation, make it part of a different approach.

Basically, his approach was one of establishing, as he saw it, a sort of "model" in the inner cities-

-what he referred to sometimes as a "Black commune" in the inner cities. He envisioned that the

needs of the people would be met in things like the "breakfast for children" program and other

ways; and these programs would inevitably come under attack by the authorities the more that

they were actually meeting the needs of the people; and then various forms of military activity

would be used both to defend these programs and to strike blows at the other side to get them to

back off from attacking these programs and to back off from attacking the vanguard forces that

were leading these programs.

So it was sort of a combination of political work and a military element that was objectively

largely defensive but, as he saw it, would have tactically offensive military actions within it. And

this would become an increasing pole of attraction for broader sections of basic masses and even

more broadly in the society, and through this somehow at some point it would be possible to

move from the overall defensive to an overall offensive position.

I'm trying to boil this down to its essence. If you read through Blood in My Eye, this is more or

less the essence of what he is coming up with. It is his attempt to find a way to deal with this

contradiction that is very sharply expressed in Blood in my Eye: how to find a way to involve

NOW, a lot of the youth who do not expect to live very long (and this, of course, has become

much more acute since the time George Jackson wrote this). He is searching for a way to involve

these youth now in various forms of activity while also being able to involve broader masses of

people and be able to set up a model, an attractive force, to win over broader layers of society

and eventually be able to go over to the offensive, to overthrow the system. It isn't at all clear in

his strategy how you were going to be able to go over to the offensive, and that's largely because

this isn't a strategy that would enable you to do that, but he was trying to think through these

contradictions.

Now this model, this road he was putting forward, is not one which can in fact lead to revolution,

to overthrowing the capitalist system. But, again, there is much to learn from the way he poses

the contradictions--and in particular the very acute point that if revolution is some sort of off in

the distant future type of thing it can have no meaning to someone who expects to die tomorrow.

While ultimately George Jackson's attempt to resolve this acute and profound contradiction is

wrong and has to be rejected, the fact that he is grappling with this and even the ways he

grapples with it contain important things that we can and must learn from. Another way of

saying this is that if this line should ultimately be rejected, because it is not a line and road that

can lead to victory, it should not be one-sidedly rejected or negated.

George Jackson was grappling with some decisive contradictions. And although his "resolution"

does not represent the correct synthesis--and although, in addition, there have been, over the last

25 or so years, some significant changes in the conditions and mode of life of many of the

masses that he seeks to rely on and mobilize--there are important things that can be learned and

must be learned from George Jackson's writings on these questions. Overall, there is much to be

done--in the realm of theory and of practice, and in the dialectical back-and-forth between the

two--proceeding on the basis of the line our Party has forged so far and continually enriching it

through this dialectical back-and-forth. And this overall process should include critically

assimilating important aspects of the contributions of George Jackson and his thinking on these

decisive questions.

NOTES:

* In "Getting Over the Two Great Humps" Bob Avakian discusses the challenge for

revolutionaries of avoiding two dangers in the revolutionary process--"settling in" during periods

of revolutionary preparations or getting prematurely drawn onto a war footing. In talking about

these dangers he uses the metaphor of "Charybdis and Scylla." "Charybdis and Scylla" were a

pair of monsters in Greek and Roman mythology. In ancient myths they were two perilous

hazards in a strait off the coast of Sicily: Scylla was a dangerous rock and Charybdis a dangerous

whirlpool--which threatened to sink ships navigating their way through the strait. So we have

"Charybdis and Scylla" along our road--and we have to steer our revolutionary course between

these two hazards (avoiding both "settling in" and getting prematurely drawn onto a war

footing).

Learn more: RBG Black August Studies Collection