Since the rise of gender politics, movements in defense of marginalized groups particularly feminism, LGBTQI forums and intersectionality feminism , the black man has been at the center or a subject of scrutiny, he is believed to have or show the most repressive elements in a society, still boggles me. The black man dehumanized as he is still reaches out for engagement as to find amicable solutions

According to Linda Napikoski, a patriarchal society consists of a male dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships, well that’s fair, bell hooks reaffirms this by saying “Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior and everyone deemed weak, especially females and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence”, I partially share the same sentiments but somehow there is a very false notion in relation to the black man.

In this short paper, we will discuss the contemporary black man, Patriarchy, male privilege and the black man and subsequently arguing that that there’s no way a black man can be patriarchal supported by these suppositions.

1. THE CONTEMPORARY BLACK MAN

I would like to open this by consulting Fanon, who says, “I came into the world imbued with the will to find a meaning in things, my spirit filled with the desire to attain to the source of the world, and then I found that I was an object in the midst of other objects.”, an object that has been enslaved, colonized and mass murdered, this of the psychological trauma carried from generation to generation.

Today problems are not necessarily there nor there, these are problems that have been forever at our disposal, there’s nothing that has changed for the black man, I mean we still are at the death level, a level which I think perfectly fits because of the conditions we are subjected to, the system is very much anti-black and blacks are still at the receiving and.

We are a generation that has fully assumed the role, misery, humiliation and hardships our forefathers were faced with. We have seen recently that a black man can be called a “baboon or monkey “  and there are no repercussions about that, the same goes for the Apartheid word “kaffir”, perpetrators get less sentencing.

Indeed patriarchy is about power and privilege, here’s a scenario, Luyanda Botha and Nicholas Ninow literally committed the same crime, which is rape, Botha got sentenced a few days ago to three (3) life sentences whilst Ninow got a mere one life sentence (its worse because the victim is a child), no blurred lines there, that’s privilege, he even went to be tested for psychological reasons but this wasn’t suggested when the a black man was facing the same charge.

Patriarchy is entrenched in power, privilege and dominance, let’s perhaps agree that black man are patriarchal, today who owns the mines, banks, mineral resources or the land, the mass media? Government contracts? Who owns industries? There’s literally nowhere where you can find a fully black owned hegemonic entity which oppresses people but rather a bunch of elevated previously oppressed so as to create confusion because the national bourgeoisie is still very much in charge of everything.

The high levels of poverty, crime, societal unrest, unemployment and any serious health illness are all associated with the black man, who by the way since patriarchy is hierarchical, is at the bottom with the black women but he is called the most oppressive person on this planet, how ironic and surprising.

The historical developments which led to black man being favoured by the colonizers instead of black women, are beyond our control, it’s them who enforced the logic of masculinity for distribution of labour which they saw us fit for, I mean there are women in the pre-colonial period who were leading societies, Queen Nzinga of East Africa for example, who fought in the first resistance against slavery when Portuguese were in the east coast looking for slaves.

In the pre-colonial societies there were gender responsibilities which were reasonable according to my understanding, not all of us can do certain things and we have to respect that, in my view traditional societies were being socialist, in praxis, according to your ability.

The black man has walked a very terrible and most probably the thorniest road towards his emancipation, one of the doctrines which legitimized patriarchy which feminists don’t recognize, is Christianity. When. Missionaries came to Africa making their God a demanding God who wanted to be praised, worshipped and remembered in the midst of land dispossession, slavery and colonialism, which created an impression that this is a white God and he’s male, it’s not the black man who came up with this, it’s the colonizer.

When black women of today proclaim “black” man as trash, because it’s them who are referred to this term, to be honest, we are yet to see an activist in the compounds of the patriarchal white supremacist calling them “You are trash or Men are trash” after a certain incident has occurred, let’s say if the rich white male abused his wife or daughter or uttered some sexist remarks, it’s always the poor, dehumanized and black man.

Why is the white man not called “Trash” for oppressing black women and men for over 500 years with no remedy? The white man is still oppressive even today. Maybe the difference is because he as nothing and the latter has the economy, it then becomes difficult to see the genuineness of the cause of this “MenAreTrash” and clearly it’s rather “#BlackManAreTrash” Which comes to the question of “can black man be patriarchal? “Absolutely not although we are still discoursing about this.

Today, we even see the mass media through its publications coming up with very disturbing articles discrediting black man as people who aren’t civilized enough to be in a union called marriage, imagine in 2019, that’s what we are facing now. The name is associated with not being loyalty, disdain and abuse – a love terrorist.

Again Fanon on blackness, he says to give evidence to my point about the contemporary black man “His metaphysics, or, less pretentiously, his customs and the sources on which they were based, were wiped out because they were in conflict with a civilization that he did not know and that imposed itself on him “this makes it clear that the black man didn’t bring anything oppressive towards a black woman.

However we recognize the good black man who are trying by all means to fight these problems with a contemporary analysis of the sociological perspective.

 2. PARTRIACHY, MALE Privilege AND THE BLACK MAN?

A black man can’t be patriarchal when it’s convenient for people to assume so please respect Blackman, What does “privilege” have to do with Black men? We understand some kinds of privileges which are usually characterized by the ruling class.

The privilege to call a black man “Boy” in our communities, even if that black man happens to be 60 years old or older. The privilege to drive a car and never have to worry that the police will racially profile you, Privileges that have nothing to do with what a person has earned, but rather are based entirely on who a person is, or what colour they are, but this is respect of elders, their gender is immaterial.

As Pan Afrikanists, we have the ability to critique and condemn these types of “unearned assets” because we recognize that these privileges come largely at our expense, We have also learned from social and political movements that have sought to redress these privileges, and academic disciplines that have provided us with the tools to critically examine and explore them However, there is another type of privilege that has caused untold harm to both black men and women but has not had the benefit of being challenged by a social and political movement within our community, nor given adequate attention within our own academic community,  privilege that I am referring to is the white male privilege.

White Male privilege is more than just a “double standard”, because it is based on attitudes or actions that come at the expense of women. Just as white privilege comes at the expense of Africans and other people of colour, gender double standards come at the expense of women.

Given the devastating history of racism in this continent, it is understandable that getting black men to identify with the concept of male privilege isn’t easy, many black men, the phrase “black male privilege” seems like an oxymoron – it doesn’t go beyond that nor exist.

Patriarchy is about dominance, where do black man dominate black women besides when a black man is sexually violating a woman? Is it because of masculinity? Because politically and economically the black man doesn’t have a say, I’m saying anywhere in the world. What is this that the black man is dominating women against?

At Geopolitical level, the Britain has been ruled by Queens who have killed, enslaved, ambushed, kidnapped, bombed, raped and possibly sterilized black people and people of colour across the world, I guess it’s good when it’s done by a women, it’s more feminine. Even Cecil Rhodes was here under the auspices of the Queen.

(Conclusion) Challenges faced by black man.

One of the mistakes black man do is to constantly show up these white supremacist patriarchal traits which we have benefitted from, the black man have fallen for the master to an extent of mimicking him thinking as if they are going to be like him one day, for example a lot of contemporary black man have even ignored the practices of Africa tradition just to imitate whiteness or make them comfortable.

Black man need to unlearn a lot of nonsense instilled in their heads which will make him reconciling with the old African practices, because patriarchy and all these systematic oppressions are attached to capitalism or to a capitalist society, because in the pre-colonial societies we can’t trace patriarchy or these isn’t sufficient evidence suggesting patriarchal traits.

The black man and the psychological effects of oppression need to be understood in the context of what they are and not shifted when it’s suits certain narrative, we must be wary of people who want to articulate our perspective because previously we have seen that no one can speak for us without ourselves in the process.

I wish to close by saying, one of the biggest challenges which makes men hostile towards feminism is because of its tip-toe or shoulder-rubbing with white supremacy, that’s why it’s so difficult to ingest the fact that there are black women who would March with a white women under the disguise of toppling patriarchy, that means we envision a society where black women and man will be in unity having solved their contradictions because none of them will be liberated outside the liberation of the other.

Maybe it would be best for me to start off by stating that there is a significant difference between an organisation and a political party. Within most political formations, the terms or concepts have been used interchangeably thus creating an impression that they mean the same thing. The organisation and the political party are two aspects that define any given political formation irrespective of its geographical locus. The organisation and the political party are independent of one another but share a synergistic relation or bond. A political formation deteriorates once this synergistic relation unwinds. For the purposes of this piece, a political formation should be understood as an organisation and a political party that are bound together by a synergistic bond.

An organisation is its people, where it’s grounded, the structural make up of a body of masses to pursue common interests under the same ideological inclinations. An organisation does not exist outside the collective efforts of its people and without this particular group of people who form the organisation and strengthen its existence, the organisation perishes. An organisation is structured based on certain factors, these include who has to be organised, how they have to be organized, around what interests and issues they have to be organized; and their respective immediate and long-term goals. These are the very same factors that are used to identify the people.

A political party on the other hand, it is rather a colonial systematic grouping of individuals to contest and gain political power. The political party does not exist outside the contestation of political power or else it ceases to not only exist, but it ceases to be recognized and identified as a political party. The political party is a mascot of an organization’s political interests. This is to say that a political formation is completed by the synergy between an organization and a political party. Without this mascot of an organization’s political interests, the organization can simply turn into a solidarity movement.

In understanding what I meant when I proclaimed that there are no Marxists-Leninists in the EFF but rather aspiring Marxists-Leninists, also adding that none can identify themselves as Marxists-Leninists, we ought to establish a common grounds in our definition of Marxism-Leninism as well as establish a common ground as to what constitutes a Marxist-Leninist, without this common ground, we’ll have contentions from the get go.  If history suffices as an explanation for this assertion then we must agree in the fact that the fathers of Marxism, Marx & Engels, they were the biggest critics of the capitalist system of production, but they lived off this very system. There was a double standard but that is not the gist. The background of Marx & Engels has been used to justify that one does not have to come from a disadvantage background to be a Marxist-Leninist because Marx & Engels both led affluent lives.

When Lenin came into the picture, he developed according to his interpretation of Marxism, an aberrant which later became known as Leninism. Leninism was not an alternative to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism was the homogenous conceptual combination of Marxism & Leninism which could survive the test of being put into action and be achieved. Marxism – Leninism is the higher order of singled out Marxism and Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is powerful because it has been tried and tested and it has passed all tests and tries. Marxism-Leninism provides men with an integral world conception which is irreconcilable with any form of credulity.

Many problems involved in building a revolutionary party need the fullest and most serious discussion. Such discussion will only be meaningful if it occurs within the orbit of practical, Marxist-Leninist activity, and given that there is sufficient common ground between the motive forces to prevent it from degenerating into a sectarian quarrel. Practical and theoretical development towards a revolutionary party that can reconfigure an identity of the people demands an organisational structure based upon a certain level of consciousness. The EFF provides that structure, and we shall be able to judge ourselves by our ability to develop our theory and our political practice in accord with the requirements of the struggle in South Africa.

South Africa, a country where the current order of economic dominance is racial capitalism, needs a revolutionary vanguard to lead the working class and champion its struggle through revolutionary programs inspired by the Marxist-Leninist approach to combat the racial capitalism system that sees the minority owning and controlling over 80% of the means and factors of production. Sloganeering, which is what we’ve mostly been doing will not see the change of ownership of the means of production shift from the minority to the majority. A revolutionary political formation like the EFF requires revolutionary programs to not keep it afloat but to ensure that it is effective and efficient in its efforts to pursue its revolutionary strategic mission.

In order for one to be a Marxist-Leninist, you must be guided by a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist consciousness. Living off the social surplus value that Marxism critiques, disqualifies your identity as a Marxist-Leninist. Identifying as a Marxist-Leninist before the means and factors of production change ownership from the bourgeoisie is a premature identity. Your identity should be a reflection of your reality. Your reality is that you are the poor working class. You can’t be dependent on the capitalist system for food and be a Marxist-Leninist, the complete overthrow of the capitalist system is what will bring us a new identity, a Marxist-Leninist identity, that is what we are aspiring and committing ourselves to do, to overthrow the capitalist system to acquire a reconfigured identity.

Our blackness, our historical political oppression, our economic exploitation and our social degradation is what has brought us together. It is the banner under which we are organized, our common struggle out of which we want to emerge victorious, that is us. Steve Biko once said that “merely describing yourself as black you have started a road towards emancipation, you have committed yourself to fight against all forces that seek to use your blackness as a stamp that marks you out as a subservient being”. We are inclined on an ideological perspective of freedom, that is the bases upon which we are organized to form a revolutionary party. The destitute working class hoping to free itself, that is who we are.

The working class needs a revolutionary party in order to achieve power. The political party is an instrument that serves the working class in the struggle for power and the need for the party is basic because it is the means by which the class can train its cadres and begin to shape a Marxist-Leninist consciousness and build the organisational strength and unity necessary eventually to overthrow the centralised and class conscious forces of capitalism. The party brings proletarian ideology to the proletariat and stands as a vanguard detachment above all its motive forces. Until the attainment of the mission that evokes the consciousness, one cannot identify as the consciousness because a question that we could be confronted with is how can one be conscious and still be in bondages?