The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Mansa Musa:

Joining us today again is William C. Anderson, author and columnist of Prism. If you missed our first conversation where we explore how Black citizenship has historically been called into question, you can find it on our YouTube channel. The history feels especially urgent this week following the United States Supreme Court’s ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act. This is clearly part of the continuation by the right to reverse black progress.

William, before you dive into your latest prism article which critiques the current left and offer a path forward, what is your assessment of what you see coming out of the Supreme Court this week?

William C. Anderson:

Yeah, it’s something that I’ve been thinking about quite a bit. I saw the news, and I wasn’t surprised by it. I thought it was to be expected. As you might know, this is something that I wrote about in the Nation on No Map, and specifically I mentioned the 2013 Voting Rights Act decision in terms of the case with Shelby v. Holder, just following it up to that point because the book came out in 2021.

So with things being where they were at that stage, I was anticipating it getting to this point and becoming even more dismantled and even more deconstructed.

And the thing that I would say about it is it’s an especially personal matter for me because I’m from Alabama, From Shelby County, who brought the case against the Obama administration withholder. And in that original ruling at that point, one of the things that Chief Justice John Roberts had said was that something to the effect of that at 50 years later, things had changed quite dramatically and it was kind of implying that there was enough progress that had been made that is not necessary anymore to have something like the Voting Rights Act. And that’s what kind of underscores a lot of these white supremacists and fascist attacks on Black history and on legislation that has been beneficial to Black people. It’s kind of trying to illuminate some sort of postracial society that we know clearly doesn’t exist because they’re becoming increasingly racist. They’re not becoming less racist.

So it’s really just more evidence that if we really want to be able to see better conditions that are permanent and that are only making progress for the betterment of our lives and the sustenance and the resources that we need, then we have to have liberatory politics that actually push for those things in a way that is wholesale, that is comprehensive, that is expansive, and that’s not incremental. And that’s not to do anything or say anything that diminishes all of the blood, sweat, and tears that were put in by the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement across the board from the more radical ends to the more moderate ends of the civil rights [movement].

What is to say is that we should be able to learn from this history that no matter what, when we’re relying on the halls of the White House and Capitol Hill and representative democracy to try to do something for us that we know it’s not designed to do, that it’s always going to end up like this. It’s always going to be dismantled. It’s always going to be rolled back. It’s always going to be trying to correct itself to get back to serving white supremacy and capitalism in the fullest extent, and not doing anything that it’s not meant to do originally.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, I agree 100%. This week, Prism published a new installment of your series, Another Way Out, titled We Need a Mosaic Movement and you write, “instead of a call for resentment field, unity or traditional fronts, we can look to what former Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army members, and political prisoner Russell Maroon Schultz called The Mosaic.” Could you walk us through the core argument of your article and could you provide a brief introduction to the life and legacy of Russell Maroon Schultz?

William C. Anderson:

For sure. I’ll start with Russell Maroon Shoatz. And Russell Maroon Shoatz was a really interesting and spectacular and dynamic individual. He was a former Panther and Black liberation army soldier, and he became active in politics, I want to say in the 60s, and was a founding member of the Black Unity Council in Philadelphia, and they later merged with the Black Panther Party.

So he put in a lot of work. He has a deep history in movement and in struggle and he got locked up in 1972 for the first time, and he becomes a really extraordinary political prisoner because he’s writing, he’s thinking, and he’s developing over time.

And what’s so interesting about Russell Maroon Shoatz is that he’s prolific. He’s a prolific thinker and individual in the sense that he spends a lot of his time questioning. He doesn’t get incarcerated and kind of sit there holding the same position for 30, 40, 50 years. He’s asking questions the whole time. He’s developing, he’s expanding his analysis, and he is moving towards politics that are ultimately really, really interesting and fascinating.

So one of the things that I really appreciate about his work is that he was bringing in elements that I would say he wasn’t necessarily always speaking about or being influenced by. There were things that were coming to him later over time If you look at the chorus of his work, the development he had as a person.

And so one of those aspects is something that comes forth in the essay that I’m referencing in my latest column at prism. And this is from an essay called The Dragon and the Hydra. The Dragon and the Hydra is an essay that is an organizational study that looks at the maroons and the slave revolts and the struggles of African descended people in the Americas and the fights against slavery, colonialism and imperialism.

And what is so dynamic about this essay is that you can see a departure really with Schoatz and certain aspects of his past. So he is making a critique of democratic centralism, he’s making a critique of vanguardism, and he’s making a critique of some of the politics that are associated with the Black Panther Party. And he’s calling in to question even a lot of the projects of Marxist Leninism and the state socialist projects that were struggling in building national socialism.

So he is making a critique that is, I think, probably controversial in some regards for some people. And he also at the same time he’s critiquing these things, he draws from them still. He still talks about his influence, the influence that these things had in his life.

but he also brings in element. He says at the beginning of the essay, “I’m going to say a lot of things that sound like anarchism.” And he says, “I’m not an anarchist, but as long as anarchists are willing to stand on mutual footing in the struggle for intercommunal self-determination, that you should be able to see the overlap and see where things have parallels.”

So ultimately in this essay, Schoatz, he puts forth this organizational study and he says that it’s important for people to be able to learn from the past and not just keep doing the same thing over and over again. That’s at the core of that essay.

I was drawing on in the essay that I wrote for prism, it is about this last section that’s included in the collected writings of Russell Maroon Schoatz called Maroon the Implacable. And what is in that last section is called the Mosaic, It’s a section called the Mosaic. What is in that last section is a solution because he doesn’t just put forth the critique. He offers a solution for how people can struggle separately and autonomously but understand their collective interest as different groups, as different genders, as different ideologies, as different political backgrounds and so on and so forth.

And it’s not a traditional or typical call for a united front. It is a call for people to understand their common interest and to be able to have mutual respect enough to come together and to struggle to overthrow the conditions that are oppressing them.

So the core argument of my essay is about challenging what I feel is really a lot of silliness with the current state of the US left, especially with my generation and, unfortunately, a lot with younger generations than me, there’s just a lot of sectarianism, there’s a lot of beef, there’s a lot of conflict, and there’s a lot of issues over things that really don’t have anything to do with the current different denominations of the US left.

And what I mean by that is that the current US left doesn’t have control over anything. It doesn’t have any blocs that it controls. It doesn’t have any territory that it controls. It doesn’t have power in the government. It doesn’t have a party. It doesn’t have an army. It doesn’t have a military. These are different fragmented individuals who at best might have an organization that can do something in the community here or there or might be able to serve some interest or need in some other way, but this isn’t like some massive part of the US population. In the article I was saying, if you put all of these folks together, these different factions of the left, they don’t even equal half a percent of the US population.

So I was just trying to really say that this is a good time when we understand that fascism is not even at the door, it’s inside of the house. It’s a good time to let go of a lot of the rhetoric, a lot of the dogma, and a lot of the silliness that is just so prevalent on the US left, people thinking that they’re way more relevant than they actually are, way more powerful than they actually are and bring forth an analysis like what Russell Maroon Schoatz offers with the mosaic.

Mansa Musa:

Your critique of the left is blistering to say the least and rightly so. You state as it stands, we do not have an oppositional or even a functional left. We have leftists and leftism, and there’s a difference. Could you expound on that distinction?

William C. Anderson:

The current state of the left, the lefts, because it is different groups and different factions and sects. The current state of things is it is basically nonexistent.

When I’m talking about the left, I should first make the distinction that there isn’t really a functioning coherent unified or homogenous group that we know as the left. When people say the term the left, they oftentimes are grouping lots of different things that are in conflict with one another.

So some people say the left and they mean like liberals and progressives, and then maybe some of the more further left elements. Typically when I’m talking about the left, I’m talking about the historical movement that divided up in the struggle to ultimately build socialism. And I’m talking about the people who would identify as Marxists, as Marxist Leninist, as anarchist, who are formerly known as libertarian socialists in the socialist movement before the meaning of that term changed, and also talking about all of the different offshoots and developments within those respective things because then you have different types of people within each of those larger umbrella terms. That’s typically what I’m talking about, which is for some people, the more radical left. So I think that it’s important to first make that distinction.

Secondly, I would say that since it is not a functional opposition and it’s not really something that exists because it’s so fragmented and divided up into these different kind of sporadic groups, it’s interesting because a lot of what you see from within these different elements that I’m referring to is largely posturing because there’s no power base that warrants the level of arrogance that you see coming from a lot of people within these different factions of the left. If you’re not in control of anything and you don’t have the power to actually overthrow or to seize or to dismantle the oppressive instruments that you’re constantly talking about, then you have to operate from a place where you’re in touch with reality, the reality of yourself and the reality of what you are in the country that you inhabit.

So I’m ultimately a bit confused because when I’m saying that there’s a lot of posturing, I’m looking at these people who might reference something like the Black Panther Party as an endorsement of their ideology. Saying they’re a Marxist Leninist, and they say, “Well, the Black Panther Party used Marxist Leninism or Maoism or anything to push their organization forward and do this, that, or the third.” The thing is, okay, that wasn’t you though. If you’re a person who identifies as an anarchist and you glorifying the zapatistas and talking about what they’ve been able to accomplish and how it influences you, that’s not you either. You’re talking about Lenin and the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks and talking about what that means to you as a Marxist, that’s not you. You didn’t do that. You’re an anarchist talking about Nestor Machno and talking about what’s being accomplished in Ukraine with that army, that wasn’t you.

So I’m very confused by the posturing because if you’re not inhabiting the position to be able to affect change and to change things for the better in your own conditions in your own time, you can’t lay claim to the accomplishments of people from the past or the present that don’t have anything to do with you or don’t have anything to do with what you’re doing in your [crosstalk] community.

You can’t just look and say, “I’m this ideology, I’m an anarchist, I’m a Marxist Leninist, I’m a Maoist, I’m a Trotskyist,” and then lay claim to historical victories and project yourself onto them and then act as if they’re yours. That’s not how that works. Your accomplishments have to speak for themselves based on the praxis and the revolutionary activity that you self-organize within your own time and your own conditions.

And so you have all these people online fighting over things that they didn’t even achieve. You have people fighting over things that they have nothing to do with. Governments that they have no role in, no stake in.

And it just blows my mind because it feels like a lot of people have lost the plot, that we are supposed to be activating ourselves within our communities to build power so that we can decide together what kind of society we want to live in based on our unique conditions and time period. Not saying I’m an ideology that I chose off of Wikipedia and I’m going to then make a decision about what the future looks like based off of my identity crisis because I’m over here with all this talk and I haven’t accomplished anything.

Mansa Musa:

Yeah, very well put. And there’s a lot of lip service and we in the age of social media, so you can give lip service to it and you can put your social media platform together, and that become your revolution. Your revolution is I’m more vocal in the social media network, but I have yet to feed people. I have yet to create a school. I have yet to create any institution or things that’s raising people’s conscience or creating an environment where people come together to talk about what kind of society they think we should live in.

But as we mark the 60th anniversary of the Black Panther Party, how do you define their ultimate contribution to social justice? Additionally, in your book, The Nation on No Maps, Black Anarchism and Abolition, what land policy do you highlight as successful examples of self-determination and sovereignty?

William C. Anderson:

The interesting thing about the way that I feel in relation to the Black Panther Party and some of the elements of what I just mentioned is that, again, a lot of what I feel is a large misstep with people who have come along after, especially in my generation, is that there is a discussion and a sort of… What’s the word I would use? I would say that there’s a lot of discussion and reverence for the Black Panther Party that oversimplifies the legacy.

And as you know, Mansa, the Black Panther Party was an organization that had different chapters, and it had different eras, and it had splits, and it had internal fighting, and a lot of other things that went on over the course it existed.

So when you talk about the Black Panther Party and you homogenize it and make it into one thing, which is what a lot of people during this era that have come all along later do, you are not able to learn from the successes and the failures of the Black Panther Party. And unfortunately, we have to discuss failures in order to not repeat them. And one of the things that gets lost is how the Black Panther Party changed course a number of times, not just in terms of leadership, but in terms of politics.

So just a second ago when I was talking about these different people within the left laying claim to things that they have no right to lay claim to, one of the things that is kind of mind boggling to me is how the Black Panther Party is oversimplified to glorify certain ideologies, whether it be Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, or whatever the case, when the current fact of the matter is, I’m on here today talking about Russell Maroon Shoatz, who’s a former Black Panther Party member. Russell Maroon Schoatz’s critique of democratic centralism is a part of a larger thread, which is the discussion that I had with you last time I was on.

The larger thread that it’s a part of is that you had a number of people who after the dissolution of the Black Panther Party or who left the party became anarchist. Russell Maroon Schoatz doesn’t fall into that category, but you have people like Lorenzo Komboa Irvin, you have people like Ashanti Alston, Kuwesi Balagun, Ojoy Lutello, all these political prisoners and revolutionaries who became attracted to anarchism, Jenina Irvin, who was the last editor of the Black Panther Party newspaper.

And so not only do certain people change later within the context of the party and at the time that it was going through different changes and splits, you had someone like Huey P. Newton who brings forth his theory of intercommunalism, which I write also about in The Nation on No Map.

When he brings forth the theory of intercommunalism and he gives a speech at Boston College in 1970, Huey P. Newton is raising this issue about a lot of the Marxist Leninist dogma getting too deep within the party, about how they were supposed to be changing, and he starts asking questions about the nation and about the state, and you see a radical sort of turn is happening within the party.

This is something that Bobby Seal also spoke about. Bobby Seal also became increasingly critical of a lot of these elements, this sort of traditional sort of state socialism that had once been a big part of the party. And they talk about the development from Black nationalism to Marxist Leninism, Maoism towards that place that they had come, or that they had arrived at.

Another person who talks about it was Phil Marshall Don Cox. Phil Marshall Don Cox was increasingly critical.

So I just named a plethora of people The Black Panther Party who started saying, “Actually, we need to start rethinking this and moving away from this. And they start saying a lot of things that if they weren’t outright anarchist, become increasingly anarchistic in their thinking. Just think that it’s important, extremely important to notice that thread, to acknowledge it and not pretend like it didn’t exist, and to talk about what it actually meant and not freeze the Black Panther Party in one era and one chapter of its development of it as an organization.

So that’s one of my biggest concerns with my work and that’s one of the reasons that I write about Black anarchism. It’s not because I’m trying to be doctrinaire or create a new ideology, or bring forth a new ideology rather, to some people’s attention for them to become zealots about or so dogmatic about. I just think it’s important to be able to look at the bigger picture of the Black Panther Party and to talk about the entire scope of what happened, what occurred, and the changes that people made at the end of their lives.

Just like I was talking about Russell Maroon Shots at the beginning being a person who developed over time, so too was everybody else that you look at from the Black Panther Party. They all developed, they all changed, they all became people who departed from positions that they had once held.

And you have to acknowledge that. You can’t just freeze them as Marxist Leninist or this or that. That’s what they were and that means that this is good forever and that’s the way it is. You have to look at the entire picture.

And I think that one of the things that leads me to do is to call into question a lot of the necessity for the politics that they started to depart from, or did depart from depending on who you’re talking about, respectively. And that’s why when I talk about land politics, when I think about land, when I think about territory, I’m a person who tries to move away from the idea of just building a nation state and having borders and having a regime that creates oppression for some and not for others or has a ruling party or a ruling class. I don’t tend to think about things that way in relation to the land. I think that we have to have a more holistic and a more thoughtful approach that doesn’t rehash or recreate any of the trappings of colonialism or the class instrument that we know as the nation state.

Mansa Musa:

And we recognize like to your point, like the Republic of New Africa, Overdele and them, they had an ideological perspective of what they wanted in terms of land. And when we look at the evolution of the thinking of party members, when we came out with the constant theory of intercommunalism, it took a change of trajectory in terms of the thinking because now we defining what we see as our role and what we see as how we go about implementing our ideas in the face of oversurmounting repression, they never seen nothing like this. You being bombarded with misinformation, disinformation, and murders.

So to your point, it’s interesting to see how people, when they take and making a historical analysis, I’m kind of questioning what is their intent. Go back to your point, you referencing valid historical events and activities to substantiate your position.

But as we close out, talk about where we stand at and how we get out this quagmire that we’re in with this, how you think we’re going to get out this contradiction?

William C. Anderson:

Mansa, I think that one of the most important things that we have to do to be able to escape this situation, and this is a lot of the subject matter that I try to focus on in my column, which is why it’s called Another Way Out. And that is, to a large extent, a reference to Amy Cesare and his resignation from the French Communist Party when he said the world is in an impasse, but that didn’t mean that there was no way out.

I’m looking at the situation as someone who has has failed a lot. I say these things with all respect to the people who have come before me, the people who exist alongside me who are operating from a place of genuineness and sincerity, and the people who are going to come along in the future. It’s with respect to them that I truly believe in my heart of hearts that at this point, what we know as leftism in the United States, like I was arguing in the article, we have an abundance of leftism and leftists, I think that at this point in time that all of this has become a bit of a trap, and I say that because the way that it’s currently functioning, the level of disconnect that you can identify amongst a lot of young people, this Schoatz essay that I’m referencing, the Dragon and the Hydra, it’s from 2006, it’s from 20 years ago. It’s not A Really old essay. That was when I first started coming into left spaces That was around the time I first started entering left spaces.

Things have gotten much worse, much worse. I’m talking about the divide, the sectarianism and the anti-intellectualism that is becoming an increasing problem. A lot of the things I’m complaining about and critiquing are actually rooted in a lot of ignorance because a lot of this for people is just rhetoric and it’s not actually based in real world experiences or conditions that are outside. It is a lot of performance that comes from a place that doesn’t seem to have much to do with making the world better. It comes from a place of repetition that I feel is indicating and exposing that leftism as we know it in the US has become secular religion.

And what I mean by that is it is turning into something that it was not supposed to have any intention of being. It’s become a faith and a zealotry for a lot of people. When you’re constantly fighting about these accomplishments and these tenets and these associations of the past, that reminds me of religions. It reminds me of the way that people adapt institutional and oppressive fundamentalist and theocratic views and then start going around trying to bash people in the head with them and say, if you don’t do and adapt to what I say, then you’re the enemy and you have to go. And I don’t understand how that’s supposed to have anything to do with liberating people and the working class seizing the means of production. I think that that is completely being lost here. I thought we were trying to get workers in control of the means of production and we were trying to make sure that everybody was able to live and have resources and be happy and at peace. I did not think that this was supposed to be something that becomes so toxic and inundated with rhetoric that is completely based off of opinion with a lack of good faith arguments found hardly anywhere. When we’re at that place, this isn’t anything that’s taking us in a progressive direction anymore.

And so I think that that was one of the problems that was at the beginnings of leftism, Western leftism as we know it in Europe that has now reared its ugly head in such a way that a lot of the warnings that happened at the beginnings of the socialist movement have now become increasingly clear.

One of the things I think about is a letter that the person who coined the term “anarchist,” Pierre Joseph Prudon, wrote a letter to Marx during their time saying something to the effect of, if we’re not careful that this is going to start looking a lot like religion, these issues that we have amongst each other, these disagreements. And that’s where we’re at. That’s the same type of reasoning that Malcolm X had when he said, “We don’t need to discuss religion when we come together. Let’s leave it at the door and let’s figure out what we need to figure out together so that we can make progress.” That’s one of the turns that Malcolm made in his life.

And I just feel like this is where we’re at and we have to depart from it. We have to depart from this relationship that is completely and overly ideological and theoretical and not rooted in praxis and humble ourselves to say, we’re going to do what we need to do here to defeat empire so that we can change the world and change our community for the better instead of just talking all this ideology, ideology, ideology. I’m not here to talk about anarchism and Marxist Leninism and all of these things as some sort of proselytizing on a soapbox. I’m preaching at you trying to convert you to my faith. I’m here to talk about these things as tools. They all [have things to] learn from respectively as tools so that we can make progress and you need different tools in order to assemble a house that we can live in together.

And so I’m here to look at those things respectively in that way and to evolve and to grow so that we can get beyond them, not be trapped by them and have fights in the name of ghosts and dead people who are not here and not living with us. I’m not here to fight on behalf of no ghosts with nobody. I don’t have any time for that type of stuff. I hope that there are other people out there who feel similarly. I know that there are, who are willing to build something like what Russell Maroon Schoatz was offering with the mosaic, because I think that that’s the format that I find really inspiring right now to help us get out of this situation.

Mansa Musa:

Well, you definitely rattle the bars today, William.

And we want to remind our audience that when you find yourself in a space where you can’t afford to pay your rent, medical insurance is high, can’t afford childcare, you can’t turn left or turn right without losing something, the last thing you want someone to talk to you about is why you should believe a certain way and that belief system has not converted, has not changed nothing, has not changed your rent, has not changed your living condition. So if we want you to look at this particular podcast and recognize that we’re talking about thinking, we’re talking about understanding social, economic, political conditions enough to understand how to change them as opposed to like, before I can change them, I got to say, I got to tag myself, I’m a leftist, I’m a Marxist, I’m a Leninist, I’m a Stalinist.

No. To change social conditions, first you need to understand what the problem is and then come together collectively how to resolve the problem.

Thank you, William. You definitely rattle the bars today.

We ask our audience to continue to support the real news and rattling the bar, because guess what? We actually the real news.