Do gangs belong in America?
- Thread starter 2-0-NINE
- Start date
Have you read about the Vicelords in the Mid to late 1960s? They were moving in a positive Direction until dun...dun...dun "white" America, took away their power, this fascist country, didn't want them to blossom. Of course this was during the time of the civil rights movement, and racial tension was at an all time high.
You can use the Farmeros and Familianos(eventually leading to the wrong path they originally were meant to follow) as an example. When given power, they had the power to do great things for the farm workers, and their gente(people). I think the familianos fell astray because of drugs, WHO BRINGS IN DRUGS IN THE US? THE FUCKING USA themselves, so by introducing drugs, they could say, they're a threat to us, so let's isolate and try to eliminate them. People neglect the fact, that the Government was the one that introduced Drugs into the "varrios" and pinta, the PEN, so the alliances could slowly fall.
They only wanted an alliance for protection, and once drugs was introduced, the cause that The Great Cesar Chavez presented, was belittled because, it was all about drug trafficking turf!! Gotta go now, criminal justice class.
My point being, gangs originally, had a plan for doing good, only to fall short of that glory, because of the government. I believe with all my heart, the Nortenos could have made more out of their legacy, instead of this negative view we get from the general public. More to add later....
You can use the Farmeros and Familianos(eventually leading to the wrong path they originally were meant to follow) as an example. When given power, they had the power to do great things for the farm workers, and their gente(people). I think the familianos fell astray because of drugs, WHO BRINGS IN DRUGS IN THE US? THE FUCKING USA themselves, so by introducing drugs, they could say, they're a threat to us, so let's isolate and try to eliminate them. People neglect the fact, that the Government was the one that introduced Drugs into the "varrios" and pinta, the PEN, so the alliances could slowly fall.
They only wanted an alliance for protection, and once drugs was introduced, the cause that The Great Cesar Chavez presented, was belittled because, it was all about drug trafficking turf!! Gotta go now, criminal justice class.
My point being, gangs originally, had a plan for doing good, only to fall short of that glory, because of the government. I believe with all my heart, the Nortenos could have made more out of their legacy, instead of this negative view we get from the general public. More to add later....
I will address this now... I am not going to get into a long drawn out discussion...
First off, I am not going to name a gang period...
Is the military violent, exploitive, criminal? What about the police...
Where you live at now, who knows more about your hood- you or tha police...
who do you trust to protect your family, you or tha police...
Here is some game, free of charge.. I do accept credit cards and cash deposits however. I am also available for public speaking, fee is negotiable...
3 things to make a society, a political platform, a monetary system, and a militia to support tha platform..
Holla bac
First off, I am not going to name a gang period...
Is the military violent, exploitive, criminal? What about the police...
Where you live at now, who knows more about your hood- you or tha police...
who do you trust to protect your family, you or tha police...
Here is some game, free of charge.. I do accept credit cards and cash deposits however. I am also available for public speaking, fee is negotiable...
3 things to make a society, a political platform, a monetary system, and a militia to support tha platform..
Holla bac
I’m seeing some problems within this discussion.
First being the bastardized reasoning that is attempting to be applied. Much of what is being talked about is terminology popularized by groups like the black panthers as rationalization for them organizing previously established criminal gangs and other general criminal elements and integrating them into their organization.
The black panthers (using them as an example because much of the theory you pro gangsters are espousing comes from them, yet I believe you lack understanding of it, but I digress) looked toward the third world liberation movements around the world, and specifically the areas where they were having success (Algeria, China, Cuba, etc) and attempted to apply the ideas and actions of these successful anti-colonial movements toward their goal of first world minority emancipation. Central to their interpretation of third world struggle were the writings of Frantz Fanon and specifically his text “The Wretched of the Earth”.
In wretched of the earth Fanon advocates for the organizing of a class segment known as the lumpenproletariat. The lumpen in Marxist thought is a sub class of society; the criminal elements. As Marx would say the “refuse of all classes”. Marx and Engles considered the lumpen to be unproductive and a regressive force upon society and especially on organizing the proletariat and developing its power. These are the extreme criminal elements that lacked class consciousness and by attempting to buck their status as members of the proletariat were a scourge of their fellow class and were just as reactionary as the capitalists. Fanon used the term differently.
Fanon, similarly to Mao and Guevara, advocated the organizing of the peasant masses. Fanon used the term lumpenproletariat to describe non-city dwelling inhabitants of the colonies, those who are not involved in industrial production, the peasant masses. Within the colonial system Fanon argued the industrial proletariat was too endeared to the colonialist and was not sufficiently independent from the colonialists to make a revolution against them. His definition of lumpen (the peasants) were. This is where the panthers made a misinterpretation.
The panthers took Fanon’s endorsement of lumpenproletariat organizing and attempted to apply a third world solution to a first world problem. The panthers combined the Marxist definition of the lumpenproletariat with Fanon’s definition. The panthers viewed the colonized countries of the third world in the same light as they did the black population of the United States. But since there was no peasant class or no rural non-city dwelling mass to organize they looked to the down trodden city dwelling lumpenproletariat – manifested in its Marxist form – criminals. We all know how successfully that worked out for them. Many argue this to be their fatal flaw; more to their determent even than cointelpro.
Let’s talk about another term, popularized by the panthers, which has been tossed around in this thread, vanguard. It is important to discuss the dictionary definition of this word as well as how it is applied in Marxist ideology and by the black panthers.
Webster’s defines Vanguard as:
1 : the troops moving at the head of an army
2 : the forefront of an action or movement
This could be an appropriately used word when discussing gangs, yet, again the question would arise, “What are they the vanguard of?”. For vanguard to have positive connotations, it would require that this vanguard be at the forefront of a constructive or positive movement. This is often how the terminology is applied within Marxism-Leninism.
Typically Marxist-Leninist ideological groups refer to the vanguard in terms of a political party or grassroots organization. This vanguard positions itself at the front of the revolutionary movement taking the brunt of the force and inflicting the maximum damage. Lenin developed the vanguard theory because of the structure of modern capitalist society that prevented labor from organizing itself beyond basic trade union status as well as prevented any kind of in-depth study of Marxism that would be required for a true Marxist revolution to take place. The vanguard, being the Marxist intellectuals, would position themselves at the front of the movement knowing only with informed consciousness could revolutionary socialism be formed. The panthers again adapted this terminology to fit their needs.
The panthers positioned themselves as the vanguard party for the first world emancipation of the inner city black colonies. They were fond of the metaphor of a spear. The panthers were the head or blade of the spear. The part which does the cutting, the damage, the blood letting. But a spear head is virtually useless without the shaft of the spear. The people were the shaft of the spear, the part of the spear that puts the weight, the effort, the force behind the spear head. Without both pieces the revolutionary spear is virtually useless and certainly not powerful enough to fell an imperial power. But together they form a potent weapon one capable of striking the death blow. When analyzing a vanguard in respect to the panthers and other Marxist-Leninist groups one must apply the criteria “Is this vanguard truly revolutionary or progressive?”. This can be compared to other groups who by Webster’s definition would be known as vanguards.
Other vanguards include the police, the military, gangs, etc. The question which arises is again “Is this vanguard truly revolutionary or progressive?”. The police and the military are the vanguard for the elite capitalist imperialist class. So these vanguards in their essence are reactionary and regressive. Are gangs a vanguard? It is possible, but who are they a vanguard for and are they revolutionary or reactionary or are they progressive or regressive? Gangs could be considered a vanguard for the lumpenproletariat they are positioned as an organized group at the forefront of criminal activity. But criminals are not revolutionary or progressive. They are a reactionary force within society that only acts to do further damage to the working class. So those who form the vanguard for such a movement should be held with even greater distain. And as we can see from history it is this vanguard of the lumpen that worked against the panthers and against other revolutionary and progressive groups.
First being the bastardized reasoning that is attempting to be applied. Much of what is being talked about is terminology popularized by groups like the black panthers as rationalization for them organizing previously established criminal gangs and other general criminal elements and integrating them into their organization.
The black panthers (using them as an example because much of the theory you pro gangsters are espousing comes from them, yet I believe you lack understanding of it, but I digress) looked toward the third world liberation movements around the world, and specifically the areas where they were having success (Algeria, China, Cuba, etc) and attempted to apply the ideas and actions of these successful anti-colonial movements toward their goal of first world minority emancipation. Central to their interpretation of third world struggle were the writings of Frantz Fanon and specifically his text “The Wretched of the Earth”.
In wretched of the earth Fanon advocates for the organizing of a class segment known as the lumpenproletariat. The lumpen in Marxist thought is a sub class of society; the criminal elements. As Marx would say the “refuse of all classes”. Marx and Engles considered the lumpen to be unproductive and a regressive force upon society and especially on organizing the proletariat and developing its power. These are the extreme criminal elements that lacked class consciousness and by attempting to buck their status as members of the proletariat were a scourge of their fellow class and were just as reactionary as the capitalists. Fanon used the term differently.
Fanon, similarly to Mao and Guevara, advocated the organizing of the peasant masses. Fanon used the term lumpenproletariat to describe non-city dwelling inhabitants of the colonies, those who are not involved in industrial production, the peasant masses. Within the colonial system Fanon argued the industrial proletariat was too endeared to the colonialist and was not sufficiently independent from the colonialists to make a revolution against them. His definition of lumpen (the peasants) were. This is where the panthers made a misinterpretation.
The panthers took Fanon’s endorsement of lumpenproletariat organizing and attempted to apply a third world solution to a first world problem. The panthers combined the Marxist definition of the lumpenproletariat with Fanon’s definition. The panthers viewed the colonized countries of the third world in the same light as they did the black population of the United States. But since there was no peasant class or no rural non-city dwelling mass to organize they looked to the down trodden city dwelling lumpenproletariat – manifested in its Marxist form – criminals. We all know how successfully that worked out for them. Many argue this to be their fatal flaw; more to their determent even than cointelpro.
Let’s talk about another term, popularized by the panthers, which has been tossed around in this thread, vanguard. It is important to discuss the dictionary definition of this word as well as how it is applied in Marxist ideology and by the black panthers.
Webster’s defines Vanguard as:
1 : the troops moving at the head of an army
2 : the forefront of an action or movement
This could be an appropriately used word when discussing gangs, yet, again the question would arise, “What are they the vanguard of?”. For vanguard to have positive connotations, it would require that this vanguard be at the forefront of a constructive or positive movement. This is often how the terminology is applied within Marxism-Leninism.
Typically Marxist-Leninist ideological groups refer to the vanguard in terms of a political party or grassroots organization. This vanguard positions itself at the front of the revolutionary movement taking the brunt of the force and inflicting the maximum damage. Lenin developed the vanguard theory because of the structure of modern capitalist society that prevented labor from organizing itself beyond basic trade union status as well as prevented any kind of in-depth study of Marxism that would be required for a true Marxist revolution to take place. The vanguard, being the Marxist intellectuals, would position themselves at the front of the movement knowing only with informed consciousness could revolutionary socialism be formed. The panthers again adapted this terminology to fit their needs.
The panthers positioned themselves as the vanguard party for the first world emancipation of the inner city black colonies. They were fond of the metaphor of a spear. The panthers were the head or blade of the spear. The part which does the cutting, the damage, the blood letting. But a spear head is virtually useless without the shaft of the spear. The people were the shaft of the spear, the part of the spear that puts the weight, the effort, the force behind the spear head. Without both pieces the revolutionary spear is virtually useless and certainly not powerful enough to fell an imperial power. But together they form a potent weapon one capable of striking the death blow. When analyzing a vanguard in respect to the panthers and other Marxist-Leninist groups one must apply the criteria “Is this vanguard truly revolutionary or progressive?”. This can be compared to other groups who by Webster’s definition would be known as vanguards.
Other vanguards include the police, the military, gangs, etc. The question which arises is again “Is this vanguard truly revolutionary or progressive?”. The police and the military are the vanguard for the elite capitalist imperialist class. So these vanguards in their essence are reactionary and regressive. Are gangs a vanguard? It is possible, but who are they a vanguard for and are they revolutionary or reactionary or are they progressive or regressive? Gangs could be considered a vanguard for the lumpenproletariat they are positioned as an organized group at the forefront of criminal activity. But criminals are not revolutionary or progressive. They are a reactionary force within society that only acts to do further damage to the working class. So those who form the vanguard for such a movement should be held with even greater distain. And as we can see from history it is this vanguard of the lumpen that worked against the panthers and against other revolutionary and progressive groups.
Yes
Police=Gang
Politicians=Gangs
Town Vigilantes in the west=Gangs
Southern US=Gangs
Northern US=Gangs
Military=Gangs
Why do people label certain things exclusive to the negative aspects?
Gangs are a good thing, if drugs were never introduced, if gangs acquired help from the government, there wouldn't be this negative view on gangs.
Police=Gang
Politicians=Gangs
Town Vigilantes in the west=Gangs
Southern US=Gangs
Northern US=Gangs
Military=Gangs
Why do people label certain things exclusive to the negative aspects?
Gangs are a good thing, if drugs were never introduced, if gangs acquired help from the government, there wouldn't be this negative view on gangs.
Can't agree more with this. A gang is any group that labels itself and associates with its members. A gang is given the title because they are thought of as adolescents who commit organized crime for their own benefit. If you think about it Police members are gang members because they break the law themselves along with politicians. You can't deny the fact that cops kill innocent people and get away with it and politicians rip off the general public, just look into the watergate scandal. All i'm saying is that if you're going to label someone as a "gang member" it should be anyone that is part of an organized group
Gangs in America are interesting. What is valued and glamorized is very different from here. Our gangs are more mob and mafia style, they are more civilized and their main focus is to make money in an organized manner. They don't kill people for representing a color or area, if they kill someone its always about business and to the point.
Your gangs seem to value violence and a mean thuggish attitude, really pointless actually. You can blame Hollywood and studio (fake) gangsters for this.
If someone stood on a street corner in East London mean muggin' while wearing gayass baggy clothes, people would just point and laugh at what a joke you are. Chavishness and all that gay shit isn't taken seriously at all over here, by anyone.
First of all our gangsters would never be caught standing around on a street corner doing nothing (thats for schoolboys), they're out doing business. And our gangsters dress sharp, mafia-style (they can afford it because they don't waste their time posted up on street corners, they do proper mob shit). Oh and another thing you would never catch our gangsters doing is making music (now thats just a comedy idea altogether LOL).
Working around rap music in the U.S. was comedy for me. All these fake chavs would constantly want to rap about killing people and being hardass, all the same redundant gay shit. How many people you kill for no reason won't gain you any respect over here, how much money you make and how organized your mob is will gain respect. Anyone's grandmum could point a gun and pull a trigger while looking pissed off haha, and why the thing with driveby's? Thats the pussiest shit I ever heard of.
Your gangs did at one point have a purpose in the days of Al Capone when your gangs were civilized and respectable and actually made money. But now you just have a lot of little kids running around with guns and bandannas wearing huge clothes, going nowhere haha.
It's like the American cowboy shoot-em-up attitude was carried over and crossed with mafia-ism, then the mafia-ism and purpose was lost and the result is what you have today. In the end your gangs aren't exactly very gangster LOL.
Your gangs seem to value violence and a mean thuggish attitude, really pointless actually. You can blame Hollywood and studio (fake) gangsters for this.
If someone stood on a street corner in East London mean muggin' while wearing gayass baggy clothes, people would just point and laugh at what a joke you are. Chavishness and all that gay shit isn't taken seriously at all over here, by anyone.
First of all our gangsters would never be caught standing around on a street corner doing nothing (thats for schoolboys), they're out doing business. And our gangsters dress sharp, mafia-style (they can afford it because they don't waste their time posted up on street corners, they do proper mob shit). Oh and another thing you would never catch our gangsters doing is making music (now thats just a comedy idea altogether LOL).
Working around rap music in the U.S. was comedy for me. All these fake chavs would constantly want to rap about killing people and being hardass, all the same redundant gay shit. How many people you kill for no reason won't gain you any respect over here, how much money you make and how organized your mob is will gain respect. Anyone's grandmum could point a gun and pull a trigger while looking pissed off haha, and why the thing with driveby's? Thats the pussiest shit I ever heard of.
Your gangs did at one point have a purpose in the days of Al Capone when your gangs were civilized and respectable and actually made money. But now you just have a lot of little kids running around with guns and bandannas wearing huge clothes, going nowhere haha.
It's like the American cowboy shoot-em-up attitude was carried over and crossed with mafia-ism, then the mafia-ism and purpose was lost and the result is what you have today. In the end your gangs aren't exactly very gangster LOL.
thats right, they gangsta. They are streetgangs not organized crime syndicates. And whats all this "your" shit? we have organized criminal groups in America also. Always have and always will, like we've always had neighborhood gangs and still do. The UK has the same shit (street hooligans, and organized crime), so why are you trying to make this into some kind of whose country's gangsters are better? There are reasons some gangs can progress to an organized level and some can only go so far. Read some American gang history and racial history in America, and see why Italians, Jews, the Irish and so on were able to turn their streetgangs into organized crime outfits, and why many black and latino criminal groups stay at the street level.