Weak Nationalism

He’s been talking about the ways the idea of Black Nationalism has been perverted and diluted. Then he mentions how Italians faced discrimination, so they created a community of Italian businesses which got strong enough that they were eventually integrated into “mainstream American society.” The idea here is a “nation within a nation”, which he calls “weak Black nationalism” or “community nationalism.”

Anyway, then we get to this quote from Carmichael and Hamilton’s book Black Power:

“Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks. By this we mean that group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength in a pluralist society… by building Irish Power, Italian Power, Polish Power, or Jewish Power, these groups got themselves together and operated from positions of strength.”

Then later, from Andrews:
“From a radical perspective, the fundamental problem with the idea of the nation within a nation is that it leaves the regressive structure of the nation state intact.”

More real early economics

We’re starting with two imaginary people from an early section. Josh who has shoes but needs potatoes, Henry who has potatoes but needs shoes.
-If they were Iroquois, Henry would tell his wife he needs shoes, his wife would tell the other matrons, and if they approved he’d get some shoes from the community stockpile. To each according to his needs, basically
-If they were in a small, intimate community, Henry would tell Josh his shoes were nice, and Josh would give them to him. The potatoes wouldn’t enter in because both would assume that if Josh ever needed potatoes, Henry would give him some.
–One interesting little aside, particularly nice things thus get passed around a lot, since people compliment them and then are given them. But if you really want to keep something, you say it was a gift.
-Even in a fairly large, impersonal town, Henry’s wife would strategically mention he needs shoes, Josh’s wife would get him to give Henry the shoes, and then Henry owes Josh “one,” which Josh would call in when he needed/wanted something from Henry.

“In any of these scenarios, the problem of ‘double coincidence of wants’ so endlessly invoked in the economics textbooks, simply disappears. Henry might not have something Joshua wants right now. But if the two are neighbors, it’s obviously only a matter of time before he will.

This in turn means that the need to stockpile commonly acceptable items in the way that Smith suggested disappears as well. With it goes the need to develop currency. As with so many actual small communities, everyone simply keeps track of who owes what to whom.”

pg 34-36