Firstly, I am white so I really want to do my best to not be a shithead when discussing this topic. I was in a conversation with a classmate who has Iranian family regarding the question of reform and revolution.
She pointed to general points about harm reduction and improving conditions now, while I attempted to make the case that revolution is the only way to bring true equality and protection and that the push for liberal reforms must be coincided by militant communist action (dual power ect). I was fairly cautious about my handling of my knowledge of race issues I believe, and I mostly reiterated what I understand as written by black and 3rd world communists: the US (and capitalism) is the direct cause of the issues facing the rest of the world and there are no practical circumstances in which one would be safe from the west without the dissolution of capitalism.
Also in discussions regarding white "communists" (mostly in reference to youtubers and people like that, she brought it up) I asserted that putting effort into the education, agitation, and organization of white people is a mostly lost cause in america, and that the majority of effort should go towards the organization of people of color. I cited this with reference to the BPP's work with rural americans and their firm belief that the black minority power structure must be built first and that the support of white people is secondary.
What would be the best way to go about this in the future. How can I make the case for revolution, as a white person, to a poc? How could I communicate the communist message more clearly?
Could you clarify the first point? I think I understand what you are saying but The first sentence is confusing me.
Theory is really hard and takes a long time to produce, so in cases like this I have been informed that the best route is to reiterate the theory of of those who are more familiar with the subject matter and to platform the already existing theory. Very science like I suppose. I would appreciate if you could relate this to your prior statements.
I appreciate the advice I will try to deploy that in the future.
You and I understand the rigor of theory, but to somebody who is unfamiliar with the framework and works themselves how can they be truly convinced by what is essentially to them just something some old person wrote in a book before. Having the analysis of practice however is irrefutable without an outright refusal of reality. I guess something along the lines of "Oppose Book Worship" but more so closer to the idea that how can you be completely sure of this as fact - as that other user pointed out - and if the facts are insufficient is that a failure of your argument or facts.
Huh, I think that is a good point. I had to think about all this for a bit, and I will try to integrate this in the future. Thanks.