HUEY P. NEWTON

by Yifeng Zhang (2023)

Huey P. Newton, born February 17, 1942, was most famously known for being the co-founder of the Black Panther Party in October 1966 alongside fellow college student Bobby Seale. The California-based political organization challenged racism, capitalism, and police brutality by encouraging their fellow Black Americans to take up arms against what was described as an imperialist American government. The Black Panther Party was well-known for the institution of its Survival Programs, such as providing breakfast for children and public transportation for the families of incarcerated individuals. The group was declared by Edgar Hoover, then director of the FBI, as a priority public enemy in 1969. Newton earned a degree in philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1980. In 1989, he was killed in an alleged drug deal gone wrong (Hassan 2016). Newton was described in his New York Times obituary as a drug addict later in his life. The controversies surrounding Newton were not limited to his political activism; Newton allegedly murdered a 17-year-old sex worker Kathleen Smith (Street 2015). The current essay does not attempt to valorize Newton or speculate on the circumstances of these events which are well-documented elsewhere; this paper stands as an analysis purely of Newton’s social theories as well as the influence of the Black Panther Parties' social activities as they continue to find relevance today. For example, Narayan (2017) likened Newton’s concept of “reactionary intercommunalism” to the concept of global neoliberalism and found utilization of it in Trump-era politics; Kamish (2021) evaluated the Black Panther Party’s survival program through the framework of infrastructural politics, a developing concept within social sciences. This is all to say that Newton’s actions and theories profoundly impacted society and remain the focus of scholarly attention today.

THE REVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF HUEY NEWTON

To Die for the People (1972) is a compilation of Newton’s various writings, speeches, and letters. Most of the analysis of what Newton’s social theory looks like stems from this publication. Newton expressed a need for armed revolution, noting the discrepancies between the ideals behind the founding of the United States and the actual material circumstances of suffering that it inflicted upon others. The enrichment of the white community simultaneously rid others of their lands (in America’s treatment of Native Americans), their rights (in the enslavement of people from Africa), and the product of their labor (evident through the poverty plaguing the modern Black populace) (Newton, 1972: 158-59). It is also important to observe the Black Panther Party's Ten-point Program, which Newton later referred to as the Twenty-Point Program, due to each point declaring a demand as well as a belief on behalf of the Black Community (Newton 1972: 46). Notably, point number 10 of the program exists as a summation of the entire directive; Newton declared socialized housing, food, and education as basic human rights on top of the material reparations the community was to receive due to the history of slavery in the United States (Newton 1972: 3-5). Newton further demanded justice in court, in the form of the emancipation of all currently incarcerated members of the Black Community on the basis of unfair trial processes, and that any future court decisions be made with juries that come from a similar socio-demographic background to that of the accused to ensure fairness. In terms of his demands for peace, Newton denied the government’s right to draft Black people into the army against other people of color in the world as well as condemned the brutality on the part of the police against the Black Community. Newton also declared that the 2nd Amendment granted the Black Community the right to arm themselves against police violence, perhaps the most famous of the Ten Points in regard to the Black Panther Party's later social impact. These were articulated as “self-evident truths” by Newton, and any government that does not ensure all the governed enjoy these rights are subject to abolishment, and it is the citizens’ right to take revolutionary action against despotic governments (Newton 1972: 6). Newton would further justify this right to remove undeserving governments with an example in history: the American Revolution against British colonization (Newton 1972: 82), quoting the right to act and institute a new government directly from the Declaration of Independence.

There is always the question of how such a revolution will come to be. Newton provided a detailed analysis of how a revolution should be conducted and who will make up the most revolutionary class. This must begin with the self-articulation of the political standpoint of the Black Panther Party. Newton described the party as “revolutionary intercommunalists” and abandoned the original revolutionary nationalist label of the Party’s stance (Newton 1972: 93, 207). Newton argued that developments in technology enabled the United States to extend its exploitation on an international level as an imperialist regime. This capability had rendered exploited nations to lose their political/economic/cultural independence, which effectively caused them to cease to be nations (Newton 1972: 32-33). Similarly, within the U.S., the Black Community cannot be technically referred to as a group of colonized people because they were ripped away from their nations (Newton 1972: 37). Newton viewed the U.S.’s articulation of their military actions in Vietnam as policing missions to correspond directly to the terrorism that the police visits upon the Black Community within American cities, making both occupied communities (Newton 1972: 36, 173). Newton would also articulate the U.S. to be the “city” of the world, while the global south collectively makes the “countryside” (Newton 1972: 178).

Therefore, the control of the U.S. over the world was advanced as a form of “reactionary intercommunalism”, where now people experience similar oppressions globally. Due to the reliance on technology of the capitalist ruling class that enabled the aforementioned global exploitation, increasingly more people would lose their status as proletariats and fall under the category of lumpenproletariats and become unemployable. At the same time, capitalists would increasingly rely on highly specialized technology experts whom Newton termed “technocrats” (Newton 1972: 28). Newton asserted that technocrats are “too specialized to be identified as a proletarian” (Newton 1972: 29). Hence why the Black Panther Party pushed for both material and ideological “Survival Programs”, the Ten-Point Program alongside free health, food, and clothing services (Newton 1972: 57). This would ensure the people’s survival as they become systemically unemployed and lay the foundations for them to become a revolutionary class (Newton 1972: 30). Newton made it clear that in his theory, the oppressed Black populace makes up the lumpenproletariat and embodies a social group of activists (Newton 1972: 55, 15).

The vanguard party, namely the Black Panther Party, therefore sought to teach the oppressed community the strategically sound way to achieve a revolution through encouraging participation, raising the masses’ consciousness, and serving their political and material needs (Newton 1972: 16, 50-2). Newton argued that the vanguard party must act publicly knowing full well that they will soon be suppressed by the government, as the public-facing nature of the party is how it will earn the trust of the people and get to educate them. It is hypocritical in Newton’s view to ask the public to confront a regime if the party does not face it first (Newton 1972: 17). During this period, the vanguard party would even support and endorse candidates in democratic elections. This does not indicate that the vanguard party is for a reformist approach, asserted Newton. It only means that the party sees electoral politics as an opportunity but not an end to help enforce the people’s political interests (Newton 1972: 50). When the populace becomes aware of the revolutionary message, it is also vital to maintain that connection through the development of alternative media platforms, such as the party’s own newspaper, in order to resist capitalist cultural indoctrination via the technology of mass media (Newton 1972: 35). Furthermore, should the oppressive powers increase the development of weapons in order to suppress the revolution with violence, they will in turn supply the people with more firearms that can be used against the structure as well as agitate more revolutionary fervor (Newton 1972: 18).

Black Americans’ physical proximity to the center of the imperialist metropole as well as the fact that their exploitation builds the foundation for global exploitation, uniquely enables them to sabotage the mechanisms of “reactionary intercommunalism”, but simultaneously it must be necessary for other oppressed people in the world to rise up (Newton 1972: 83, 200). The empire will not be able to fight both an international and a domestic warfare, and subsequently succumb. Finally, redistributive justice also entails an intercommunal aspect; resources taken away from the people of the world to benefit the empire, and the developed technologies from these resources must be given back to all communities in the world and not just within the country since capitalism had already broken down the concept of nations (Newton 1972: 34). To that end, although the Black Panther Party does not consider itself a nationalist party, Newton expressed support for nationalist movements for independence as they can potentially cut off the political and economic control the U.S. bourgeoisie has globally. The nationalist movements should eventually return to internationalism once all territories are liberated, as there will be no need for national divisions (Newton 1972: 199).

NEWTON AND FANON

Newton and Fanon are both considered social theorists as well as revolutionaries. They therefore both also offer theories of resistance. Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) detailed his theory of the revolution, the methods of armed resistance against colonialism, as well as the positionality of various classes to the revolution itself. Due to the overlapping themes and topics, there exist many similarities between Fanon's and Newton’s theory of revolution, but their differences in geographical as well as political circumstances contribute to important distinctions as well.

Both Fanon and Newton presented an analysis of their respective circumstances that required revolutionary action. Very similarly, the oppressed people in both cases are denied entirely of any real political power for change within the power structure of the oppressors. For Newton, the United States of America repeatedly expects the Black Community to fight for the government and pay taxes despite the fact that it never represented the interests of the Black Community (Newton 1972: 55). People of color within the U.S. or globally effectively face only violent coercion on behalf of the racist and capitalist government (Newton 1972: 7). Fanon would articulate a similar argument; the colonized people are kept docile through pure force by the military of the colonizers. There could not exist any intermediary parties between them, which begets violent revolutionary action from the peasantry class (Fanon 1961: 4).

The oppressions described by Fanon and Newton were both similarly racialized. As described by Fanon (1961: 6-7), the “natives” of the colonized countries are considered unethical, evil, and animalistic; anything they do is framed as deviant. Newton described racism as a simultaneous requirement for capitalist oppression; some citizens are framed as the betters of others in order to justify said oppression (Newton 1961: 41). However, the two theorists had vastly different opinions on the effects of such racism on the oppressed. Fanon did not express that the colonized people would internalize the humiliation of the colonizers; the colonized subjects do not take on the role of the “guilty” ascribed to them by the ruling class and are constantly waiting for the opportunity to take their place (Fanon 1961: 16). This was not the case in the U.S. in Newton’s view. Newton wrote that Black men are never sure whether they deserve the hostility of the society they inhabit and blame themselves for the situation even though the real cause lies in socio-economic inequalities (Newton 1961: 79-80). They are afraid that they cannot compete with their white peers and even give up trying; their lethargy is a way to insulate themselves from the accusation of innate inabilities. The Black man ultimately engages in a sense of fatalism and without any established role model, looks to the white man as “THE MAN” (Newton 1972: 81). Newton and Fanon, therefore, had diverging analyses of the psyche of the oppressed.

Although both theorists center violence as a legitimate form of resistance, the nature of this violence was presented differently. The violence that the colonized subjects are ready to unleash upon the colonizers was presented as an impulse or tension (Fanon 1961: 17). Newton on the other hand, repeatedly framed the gun as a means to an end; the usage of the gun by the vanguard party signals to the masses they are capable of taking power if they so choose (Newton 1972: 174). The end is to take political power, and the Black Community was not described by Newton as harboring the kind of impulse Fanon was describing. Both theorists are also for nationalism in resistance to the oppressors but also envisioned the liberated areas to then form an internationalist alliance. Fanon’s plan to freeze capitalist goods in the warehouses by refusing for the developing countries to become outlets for capitalism requires a certain level of global solidarity, at the same socially and economically conscious nationalism is to be the liberating force behind decolonization (Fanon 1961: 60, 103). Newton’s insistence that revolutionary nationalists must also be internationalists resonates with Fanon’s theory.

Both Newton and Fanon articulated a plethora of classes that occupied different political positions to that of the revolution, some of them directly comparable to one another. The classes of interest in Fanon’s theory are the genuine party, the nationalist party, the nationalist bourgeoisie, the colonized intellectuals, the peasantry, the proletariat, and the lumpenproletariat. Newton’s theory encapsulates the vanguard party, the American Communist Party, the “endorsed spokesmen”, white laborers, Black capitalists, and also the lumpenproletariat. A lot of these classes of people can be directly compared to one another despite their geographical and temporal differences. First, Fanon presented the idea of the colonized intellectuals, educated (of Western values) and platformed members of the colonized people that ultimately wish to be part of the colonizer’s class (Fanon 1961: 11, 22). Newton had a comparable concept in the “endorsed spokesmen”, Black leaders supported by the power structure to parrot their values and sentiments. The “endorsed spokesmen” hope to be competent in placating the anger of the masses so as to not fall victim to them and identify their interests to align with the ruling class (Newton 1972: 88-89). Fanon described the colonized intellectuals as thieves of the nation and Newton similarly invoked the idea that the “endorsed spokesmen” benefit materially from their political stances (Fanon 1961: 12; Newton 1972: 89-90). Fanon’s genuine party and the nationalist party can also be compared to Newton’s articulation of the Black Panther Party (vanguard party) and the American Communist Party. Fanon argued that the nationalist party cannot be relied on for decolonization because it is not in their interest to rise up against colonial oppression. Their refusal to retaliate in violence shall make them de facto losers in the decolonization process (Fanon 1961: 25). Newton, in a refutation against Patterson of the American Communist Party, accused the same weakness in the latter: the ACP members were not the ones imprisoned for their revolutionary actions, it was the Black Panther Party. The government did not take the ACP seriously due to its non-violent stance, which made them ineffective (Newton 1972: 176). The genuine party and the vanguard party exist both in contrast to the parties that supposedly claim that they are for the people but do not take real effective action. The classes that these disingenuous parties represent, therefore, do not harbor any revolutionary potential. Fanon talked about how the proletariat, being a small minority in colonized societies, is in fact privileged by the ruling class and has a lot to lose should there be armed revolts. They have in fact become the “bourgeois” by their relative positionality (Fanon 1961: 64). Newton raised the accusation that white labor unions perceived themselves as benefiting from capitalism (Newton 1972: 172-3). This rendered both of these classes of proletariats unrevolutionary for Newton and Fanon.

Finally, the two most interesting comparison of classes between Fanon and Newton lies in their articulation of the most revolutionary class and the role of the nationalist bourgeoisie within the process of resistance. Newton took the surprising stance of being pro-Black capitalism, as long as they contribute to the survival programs vital to the revolution (Newton 1972: 105-6). He even directly compared Black capitalists to the national bourgeoisie in colonized countries. Just as stated by Fanon, the national bourgeoisie is ultimately motivated by the interest to take over and become the new exploiters (Fanon 1961: 98; Newton 1972: 106). Newton noted, however, that the Black capitalists are ultimately small capital that does not compare to the ruling class. In order for Black businesses to succeed, Black capitalists necessarily need to invest back and earn the trust of the people due to their financial dependence on the Black Community. This ensures the existence of survival programs and the utilitarian role that the Black capitalists can play in the revolution. The Black Panther Party will grow stronger in return and Black capitalists will negate themselves (Newton 1972: 107-8). This is a possibility of development largely not considered by Fanon, for he advocated for the removal of the national bourgeoisie much like any bourgeoisie on the basis of their potential for exploitation (Fanon, p.99). Fanon didn’t think Newton’s proposal was possible under the political circumstance of the colonized countries. Perhaps the difference lies in that the nationalist bourgeoise remains relatively powerful due to their ties to their homeland and pre-colonial institutions, while Black capitalists are much lower on the hierarchy of exploitation in the U.S. due to having no such establishments. There is also the question of who the most revolutionary class is. Fanon declared that the peasantry is the most revolutionary because, unlike the proletariats in colonized countries, they actually have nothing to lose (Fanon 1961: 23). The lumpenproletariats of displaced and unemployed peasants near the city, on the other hand, have no political consciousness and are easily moved by monetary benefits, which makes them poor candidates to rely on for a revolution (Fanon 1961: 87-8). Newton clearly thought differently of the lumpenproletariats. He argued that the lumpenproletariats will become the revolutionary class in the U.S. because they are an emerging class and because they will become the largest class (Newton 1972: 28-9), being systemically displaced by technocrats. Of course, in Newton’s case, the peasantry as described by Fanon does not exist due to the U.S.’s status as one of the most highly developed countries in the world. Therefore, the vanguard party must ensure the survival of the lumpenproletariats and raise their consciousness.

CONCLUSION

Newton offered a practical theory of resistance in the urban environment. The geopolitical location of the theory located within the metropole (or the “city” of the world) made it highly relevant and unique. The concept of “intercommunalism” is an interesting articulation of the phenomenon caused by global capitalism in the world system today. Newton would also take on an intersectional perspective, which was indicated by his articulation of the simultaneous importance of the removal of both capitalism and racism. On top of this, Newton would also attempt to integrate the Black Panther Party with the Women’s and Gay liberation movements (Newton 1972: 152), and declared that women and gay people were perhaps among the most oppressed (Newton 1972: 154), though he did not have a theory of why that had come to be. He did state that one of the reasons to integrate the different movements was to acquire as many allies as possible. This marks another important aspect of Newton’s approach. Due to his experiences as an activist, many aspects of his theory took on utilitarian purposes, such as the alliance between the Black Panther Party and the Black capitalists, as well as his articulation of the purpose of brandishing the gun as a symbol. In other words, it is practices as theory. In comparison, there exist many influential sociologists who emphasized their analysis of social problems over how said problems can be solved. Even renowned social theorists like Robinson and Collins can both be criticized on that point, but not Newton.

The collection of Newton’s writings and speeches, on the other hand, does not allow for a systemic view of Newton’s social theories. It is by nature fragmented and glosses over certain important distinctions. Many criticisms of oversimplification can be raised against Newton. For example, Newton posited that countries that liberated themselves on the premise of nationalism would cease to be nations once the empire is no more and again take up internationalism. How that transformation can be achieved was paid little attention. Newton spoke of the importance of coordination between the global decolonization movements and revolutionary action within the U.S., and even offered to send the Black Panther Party to Vietnam (Newton 1972: 203). The logistics of intercommunal military action were not put into careful consideration. Newton spoke of the process whereby the ruling class would stock up on weapons and the weapons would subsequently be used by the people. He did not specify how that process would occur, especially considering that he acknowledged that the ruling class was capable of taking weapons away from the Black Community by introducing policies like the Mulford Act (Newton 1972: 8). Newton also did not consider if it was possible for other classes to take advantage of the 2nd Amendment and consolidate their own powers as more weapons flood the market. Considering that African Americans do not make up the majority of gun owners today, Newton’s prediction failed to address potential permutations (Statista Research Department 2021).

Newton also designated the lumpenproletariats to be the most revolutionary class. He also had an overtly homogenized view of the lumpenproletariat. If his prediction of more and more laborers becoming unemployed due to the emergence of the technocrats is true, then there will also be a large number of white laborers who will fall into the masses of the lumpenproletariat. Newton rejected the idea that solidarity will develop between Black and white workers (Newton 1972: 175), but the lumpenproletariats by Newton’s definition is bound to be a class made up of increasingly diverse and differentiated sociodemographic groups. The fact that the sheer number of people within the class increases does not make it the most effective revolutionary class.

That being said, Newton remains an important figure in social activism worthy of further scholarly analysis. There still were many concepts developed by Newton not covered by this current article, including “revolutionary suicide”. With the increase of Black gun owners for self-defense and the success of organizations like the National African American Gun Association, the philosophy of Newton and the Black Panther Party never fell out of relevancy (Young et al. 2021). It is therefore important to treat Newton’s social theory seriously as well as to give it a proper critique.

REFERENCES

Fanon, Frantz. 1961. The Wretched of the Earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.

Kamish, D. W. 2021. “Infrastructure and the Black Panther Party: Toward an Infrastructural Politics.” Journal of African American Studies 25(4):513–33.

Narayan, John. 2017. “The Wages of Whiteness in the Absence of Wages: Racial Capitalism, Reactionary Intercommunalism and the Rise of Trumpism.” Third World Quarterly 38(11):2482–2500.

Newton, Huey P. 1972. To Die for the People: The Writings of Huey P. Newton. New York City, NY: Random House.

Statista Research Department. 2021. “Gun Ownership in the U.S. by Ethnicity 2021.” Statista. Retrieved May 16, 2023 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/). 

Street, Joe. 2015. “The Shadow of the Soul Breaker: Solitary Confinement, Cocaine, and the Decline of Huey P. Newton.” Pacific Historical Review 84(3):333–63.

Young, Ryan, Dakin Andone, and Pamela Kirkland. 2021. “Gun Sales Rise among Black People as They Look for Firearm Training and Education.” CNN. Retrieved May 16, 2023 (https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/us/black-gun-owners-sales-rising/index.html).