Part One: By Way of Introduction
Today, i started the fifth draft of this piece. My original intent had been to shape it for print, and for distribution among a wide (and rather academic) audience. However, i?ve abandoned that aim, for two reasons. First, because i?m anxious to complete this project, and move on to others?i?ve been working on this for much too long, putting it to the side several times in order to address other concerns. Second, i want to return to a style of writing similar to that used to produce Book One of the Journal, i.e., when i wasn?t concerned about ?style? or about meeting the assumed expectations of an (academic) audience.
i hope that these ?Meditations? will prove useful to you. They give me an opportunity to work out some ideas and to put some of what?s in my head onto paper?as seeds, hopefully, for later development, and which may help to clear the way. i strongly suggest that none of you be content with reading these reflections. You should study and reflect upon your own copy of Wretched, the sources that i list, and any other related materials.
A Note on Citation
Because there are several editions of Wretched in print (i?m using the Grove Press, First Evergreen Edition, 1966), i?m not using the standard form of citation, because something that i?d cite as being on page ten of my copy, may be on page eight or fifteen of yours. Therefore, i?ve devised a chapter-and-paragraph system. i?ve designated the chapters as follows:
Preface = ?P?
Concerning Violence = ?1?
Violence in the International Context = ?1 A?
Spontaneity; Its Strength and Weakness = ?2?
The Pitfalls of National Consciousness = ?3?
On National Culture = ?4?
The Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom = ?4A?
Colonial War and Mental Disorders = ?5?
Conclusion = ?C?
i?ve also numbered each paragraph, separately for each chapter, so that (P.1) cites the first paragraph of the Preface; (2.5) cites the fifth paragraph of the second chapter; (4A.2) cites the second paragraph of Reciprocal Bases…; and (C.3) cites the third paragraph of the Conclusion.
1. Background on How and why the Project Was Begun
1A. The project was initially inspired by the reading of a paper by Ron Karenga, in which he cited Fanon and a number of others (including Cabral, DuBois, Lenin and Gramsci), in support of his contention that petty-bourgeois intellectuals (or, the petty-bourgeois class as a whole?at some points he lumps these together), play ?the decisive role in the theoretical and practical project of liberation.?1 (my emphasis) i believed that Karenga had distorted Fanon (and others) on this question, i happened to have a copy of Wretched, and i went to it to first check the lines that Karenga had quoted or paraphrased, and then to search the entire book for all references to the petty-bourgeoisie, and to intellectuals.
During this time, i mentioned to Amilcar that i was checking out Wretched, and that i had gained new insight into some of the issues that now confront us. He suggested that i write something that would help ?unravel the book?s complexity,? as he had recently encountered young activists who?d picked up Wretched only to put it down before completing it, because they?d found it ?too hard to read.?
i didn?t feel up to the task, nor did i want to put other projects to the side in order to give time to this. However, while not fully committed to writing on Wretched, i did begin to study it more meticulously, primarily for my own benefit, but also knowing that such study would be necessary should i decide to do a ?breakdown? of sorts, for an audience of young activists, and attempt to emphasize the relevancy of the book?s subject matter to our struggle, i.e., to strongly suggest that the book is relevant to contemporary issues, and that Fanon is as worthy of attention (if not more so) than most of the contemporary ?public intellectuals? or ?activist-scholars? feigning a radical or revolutionary stance these days.
As time passed, i began to feel as though i was experiencing something of a revelation, all the more so because i wasn?t unfamiliar with the book. i?d read it for the first time in 1967 or 1968, and can?t recount the number of times that i?ve opened its pages to check a reference or to read a few pages as a way of obtaining inspiration or orientation. i became convinced that i should write ?something??if only for myself and my comrads.
1B. If you complete the reading of a (non-fiction) book today, you?ll usually feel as though you know what it?s about, that you?ve ?got it? and don?t have to return to it. However, if you pick up that book a month from now, or a year from now, you?re bound to be surprised when it appears that you?re reading lines that weren?t there originally. You?ll gain new insight into certain concepts that you thought you?d fully understood; you?ll gain an understanding of propositions that had previously shot past you. What?s happened between the first reading and the second? You?ve ?grown??had more experience, acquired more knowledge, become able to make more connections, grasp nuances that previously slipped through unnoticed or unappreciated.
It took me several readings before i was able to make out the outlines of the ?forest? of Wretched. It was at this point that i could begin to distinguish sections within each chapter, and i then began to number the paragraphs of each chapter?and to read and meditate upon one paragraph at a time, then one section at a time. Sometimes i?d read through three or four paragraphs, or two or three sections, and then start over again. (For example, i divided ?Concerning Violence? into eight (8) sections: paragraphs 1-6; 7-15; 16-30; 31-44; 45-66; 67-76; 77-87; and 88-99.)
Now, i know that some people will resist the adoption of a similar method, but i strongly suggest that anyone desiring to ?fully? understand this book adopt a similar process. i?ve come across several references to Wretched made by academics (e.g. Cornel West), and it seems to me that they don?t understand the book, and maybe a re-read would help them?assuming, of course, that they really want to be helped, since so many of them are representative of the ?wily intellectuals? that Fanon scorches. (1.24)
The proposed process is also time consuming, and some folks will feel that they could be reading other, more contemporary books, and not ?wasting time? with this one. i?m reminded of a section of Wretched that somewhat applies here. (3.85) It?s not about being ?fast? or reading everything that?s published, or of reading whoever seems to be most popular at the moment. Don?t let the market dictate your taste. Time taken to fully grasp this book will be made up in the better practice and the development of consciousness that result from adopting this method. Time taken to read and re-read Wretched will enable you to: 1) discern the b.s. in some of the other stuff that you read; 2) make more relevant connections to issues and concepts that you confront on a daily basis.
1C. The cover of my edition of Wretched says that it?s Fanon?s ?study of the problems of racism and colonialism in the world today.? Colonialism confronts us today, in a form more unique than is normally the case (i.e., forms always differ from one country to another), shaping the context for OUR engagement with: racialized capitalist exploitation; internal class struggles; the nature and role of armed politics; relations between the people and the organizations that claim to represent them; Pan-Afrikanism/internationalism; the relations between our people and their allies in the imperialist state; the strengths and weaknesses in the theory and practice of nationalism?all this, and more, is spoken to by Fanon in Wretched, and there are nuances and connections to our situation that We can?t afford to ignore.
While reading Wretched it?s of course necessary to base ourselves on the concrete reality out of which it came and primarily speaks to. However, We must also be able to use our understanding of the laws of contradiction, i.e., be able to see the general in the particular (and, the particular in the general), and to recognize the extent to which OUR reality is being ascribed and critiqued; the extent to which Fanon points the way forward for US.
It helps to know, going in, that Fanon speaks in several ?voices,? so to speak. He uses the ?voice? of the ?native? or ?negro? who, during the colonial period (before the ?fighting? starts), avoids confrontation with colonialism and directs all violent impulses inwardly?while being envious of the colonialist?s position. He speaks in the ?voice? of the ex-?native? or ex-?negro? who, having decided to redirect violence toward the colonialist, is not yet fully conscious, and thus suffers set-backs and allows the betrayals of the bourgeois forces that claim to speak for and to lead the struggle. And, he speaks in the ?voice? of the person who?s overthrown colonialism, only to now confront neo-colonialism, realizing that ?national independence? wasn?t the end of the struggle, and that the fully new people will develop only with the construction of the fully new social order.
Fanon is carrying us through a process of ?decolonization??through the stages of struggle for national independence and social revolution. However, he doesn?t take us through a ?linear progression? as (western) convention may have it. At one point he?ll be talking about conditions and consciousness characteristic of the ?period of colonization? or the ?colonial period??this is the ?first voice? heard during the ?peaceful? stage between colonial conquest and the beginning of the struggle to decolonize. He?ll then move to some reference or discussion of the ?decolonization? period?that between the beginning of the struggle and the winning of independence, and he may not always leave easily recognizable signs of transition. In the third chapter, he tends to move from the ?decolonization? stage to the ?post-independence? or neo-colonial stage?and then back again. Therefore, one must be able to distinguish the terms used to describe the several stages, because an inability to do so or a failure to do so can lead to confusion and a feeling that the book is ?too complex?.
Fanon treats the major themes in the same way, e.g., ?violence? is not left to the first chapter, but actually runs from cover to cover; ?spontaneity? (of ?violence?) is taken up initially in the first chapter; the ?racism? and/or Manichean ideologies of both the colonizer and the colonized are treated, too, practically from cover to cover. How could these themes not be so treated, since We?re dealing with the PROCESS and the stages in the evolution of peoples? consciousness, social revolution, and social development?
Maybe i should suggest that the chapters be read in the following order:
First, read the Preface.
Then, read Chs. 1, 2, and 5, as parts of a whole.
Then, read Chs. 3, 4, and 4A, also as parts of a whole.
Then, read 1A?which is not so much about ?violence? as it is about reparations.
Then, read the Conclusion.
Chapter One introduces the themes of ?colonial violence? and ?revolutionary violence,? i.e., that the violence of colonialism isn?t merely physical or military, and that the violence of the oppressed peoples, once re-directed, must also take other than physical or armed forms. Ch. 2 is also on the theme of colonial and revolutionary violence, but focuses on the ?spontaneity? of the initial forms of the people?s violence?a spontaneity essentially characterized by its lack of coherence and consciousness and foresight. Read Ch. 5 with Chs. 1 and 2 because it deals with violence and the need for the liberatory process to ?concern itself with all sectors of the personality?. (5.182) Ch. 3 is about class struggle and what could be called a form of ?critical race theory?. Ch. 4 and 4A deal with the formation of new (national) identity, with a focus on the need to deconstruct ?blackness? or ?niggerhood?. Ch. 1A is, as i said above, on the subject of reparations. The Conclusion sums it all up.
1D. i?m not sure that anything i say here will actually ?unravel the complexity? of Wretched for anyone, but i am sure that if one sincerely wishes to understand what?s being said by Fanon in the book, then one must read it, cover to cover, at least twice.
Don?t, for example, read only the first chapter and then think that you know Fanon?s position on ?violence?; don?t read the eleventh paragraph of the first chapter, without reading the last four paragraphs of the second chapter (or, the relevant lines in the third chapter), and think that you understand Fanon?s position on ?race? or ?racism?. An incomplete reading means superficial understanding and a distortion of your own development.
Moreover, i wouldn?t suggest that one rely solely upon a book or paper by any author claiming to ?explain? Fanon or Wretched, from any perspective, on any theme. Such material will probably prove useful, in one way or another, but it?s no substitute for the real thing.
Shortly after our discussion, Amilcar sent me a copy of Fanon for Beginners, which has a chapter devoted to Wretched.2i found the book and the chapter in question to be informative. However, i also found the author to have certain biases which lent themselves toward an inaccurate appraisal of Fanon, and of Wretched.
Whatever one gets from an ?easy read? (e.g., Fanon for Beginners), will be less rewarding than what will result from a personal venture through the ?difficult? process of going to the source and struggling with whatever obstacles one may encounter. You?ll come away with self-confidence, and an awareness appreciated all the more because it was achieved as part of a self-development undergone by mastering your fears, completing an intellectual process that you at first thought too difficult to attempt. Such a process of self-transformation and intellectual development is the central theme of Wretched, stated explicitly or implicitly on nearly every page (e.g., 3.85-96).
Read Wretched (for) yourself. Study it. Take as much time as you think necessary. Don?t be put off by any apprehensions or assumed ?complexity,? wanting everything to come to you easy and fast. You are equal to the task, and you?ll get better as you go along. Dare to struggle?with your self. Dare to learn?and to apply what you learn to the transformation of your world.
2. Speaking to the Subtitle
2A. This piece is subtitled: ?For NAC?s and Other Activists Who Struggle Against Racism and Neo-colonialism (Capitalism) and for the ?Setting Afoot? of New People (Socialist/Communist Humanism).?
i?ve come to think of these ?Meditations? as an exercise in the process of creating a New Afrikan Communist ?school of thought,? developing, in part, through ideological struggle, theoretical development, the critique of past and present institutions, concepts, practices, etc.
Stretch yourself, and consider: Can We regard as an ?historical necessity? that We are here today, calling ourselves ?New Afrikan Communists,? engaged, collectively, in the development of a shared world-view, in struggle for a socialist society? Are We not carrying on a tradition that, in one context, goes back thousands of years, to ?communalism? or ?primitive communism,? and, in another context, (?modern?) goes back, on these shores, at least to Peter H. Clark and the 1820s? Can We say that We?ve already begun to share the ?school? as manifested by our practice?that the words We?ve produced, and the lines and ideas We?ve tested over the years, already lend themselves toward shaping a distinct body of thought? Can We pull from the Journals, from Crossroad, from the New Afrikan Community Bulletin, and from The Grassroots?from anything written by any of us?and say that We have examples of ?New Afrikan communist thought??
i?m not being purely rhetorical here. i?m suggesting that We should get more serious about who We are and what We should be doing, i?m suggesting that affirmative answers can be given to the above, but We also have to work at it more consciously and systematically.
2B. Why call it ?New Afrikan? communism, and not plain old ?communism?? For much the same reason as We continue to say ?Russian Communism? or ?Chinese communism?; because ?plain old communism? only exists as an ideal. There?s theory, and there?s practice… practice engaged on the base of the concrete conditions of one?s own social situation. The actual construction of a communist society within any particular nation can only result in a form unique to that nation, no matter any similarities to the theory of communism held by other(s) nations.
Angolan, Russian, Algerian, Chinese, French, Vietnamese, Cuban, Korean, Tanzanian?these are nationalities. Our nationality is New Afrikan. We don?t refer to ourselves as ?black? because We don?t base our nationality (nor our politics) on ?race? or color or a biological element of our being. Social factors are the primary determinants of our national identity (and our politics).
Why not call ourselves ?African-American? or ?American? communists? For much the same reason that folks still talk about a ?black America? and a ?white America??We are oppressed and exploited as a distinct people, and the particular development and present reality of ?America? as a settler-imperialist state prevents any such identification. ?Race? has been used to help realize and perpetuate the material and sociological factors that make us a distinct people. ?America? (i.e., the United States) is an empire with a distinct nationality and world-view. So long as ?America? means what it means, to people here and throughout the world… and so long as We?re oppressed as a distinct people, it?s hard for me to see us ever calling ourselves ?Americans? of any political persuasion.
Why call it New Afrikan ?communism? and not, say, ?Marxism? or ?Marxist-Leninism?? Well, on one hand, because Marx wasn?t a ?marxist,? and Lenin wasn?t a ?Leninist?; because this kind of reductionism is part of the problem We face while sorting out what?s relevant from the many other ?schools,? and trying to find our own way. Because ?The struggle against narrow interpretations of Marxism, against West-centered reductionism, is part of the struggle for social and national liberation, of the struggle against ideological imperialism.?3
We look back as far and as accurately as We can, into the social thought and practice of people on the planet, and We say that We can see an ?original? socio-economic formation that We call ?primitive communism? or ?communalism?: there was collective use of means and instruments of social production, prior to the development of huge surpluses, commodities and their exchange (value), and division of labor based on the exploitation of one group of people by another group of people; no concept of ?ownership? or ?private property? as We now know it; group interests were valued over individual ones, even while the individual was respected as an end in her or himself?yet, always within the context of collective work and responsibility, for no individual survived alone. The Bambara have a saying: ?Who am i without the others: In coming to life i was in their hands, and in leaving it i will be in their hands.? We outline the primary characteristics of that type of formation?those kinds of social relations?and, together with a critique of the way We now live, We shape a vision of ?modern communalism??only these days We call it ?communism.?
Marx called it ?scientific communism? or ?scientific socialism,? and he made particular contributions to that body of thought. However, We must remember that neither Marx nor anyone else singlehandedly ?created? what We now regard as the theory of communism. From the communalism of the past, unto today, untold numbers of individuals and peoples have made and are making contributions to that body of thought, as they practice/struggle(d) to approximate the ideal in their actual social situations. (Nor can We overlook the roots of the philosophical base, i.e., dialectics, and a materialist world-view. That is, for example, as New Afrikan communists, when We begin to write our texts, We?ll look to Egypt and other places along the south-eastern coast of Afrika as the source of understandings of the relation between thinking and being, from a materialist standpoint. If Marx, et al claim to rest on the Greeks, then it must be understood that the Greeks rested upon the Egyptians. The fact is, the Greeks were unable to reconcile, to absorb or fully understand the system that they were ?given?, e.g., they were faced with a system that talked about ?four elements? as the source (earth, air, fire, water), and Thales, for example, could only deal with water, and Democritus, as another example, could only deal with air. This disjointed system was, say, passed down to Hegel?it was thus ?upside down? and when Marx made the switch on Hegel, he simply tried to right the distorted world-view of the Afrikans.)
2C. The struggle against ?racism? is, in the spirit of Fanon, one in which We struggle to become ?anti-racist? in uncommon ways, in both our thought and our practice. It?s also an attempt to approximate the communist ideal, transcending the boundaries of racialized discourse and practice that were erected by the oppressive apparatus, and which serve to reproduce, reinforce, and sustain it.
Because ?race? and ?racism? (like class and communism) will be discussed below, all i wanna say here is: NO matter how We see the relation between ?racism? and capitalism (e.g., that they arose simultaneously, or that one preceded the other), i think they should always be mentioned together. That is, i believe it?s counter-productive to ever talk about ?racism? without immediately and thoroughly linking it to capitalism, so that no one can be unmindful of the need to struggle against capitalism if they claim to be ?anti-racist? or ?against racism.?
?Racism? is used to justify and facilitate the exploitation of peoples, and it?s based on the false belief that humanity is divided into a plurality of ?races? that stand in relation to each other as ?inferior? or ?superior? based on physical and/or cultural differences. There are no ?races??only people(s) and groups of people(s), united and distinguished by common history (social development), habits, interests, etc.?sometimes We call all of this ?nationality? or ideology.
To be ?anti-racist? is, first of all, not to hold the false belief in an alleged plurality of ?races?; to be ?against racism? is to combat all beliefs and practices that facilitate the exploitation of peoples, particularly when such exploitation is supported by the social construction of ?race.? Any attempt to destroy ?racism? without an explicit link to the struggle against capitalism ultimately serves only to reinforce ?racist? ideology and to shield capitalism from attack. On the other hand, an attempt to combat capitalism without an explicit link to anti-racist discourse and struggle allows capitalism to use the belief in ?race? held by oppressed peoples, and appeal to the ?racism? of citizens of the oppressive state, thus undermining all revolutionary initiative.
This combat also requires that We begin to de-link ourselves from the use of language that reinforces and reproduces racial ideology, e.g., the terms ?white? and ?black? in reference to the identity of people. This will be a difficult process, because: 1) the capitalist system depends upon continued use of such language, and its ideological apparatus is designed to oppose and undermine all attempts to de-link; 2) peoples oppressed through means of racial ideology have come to accept these terms as legitimate and as their own?even as they tend to acknowledge the constructedness of ?race? and the terms used to make and perpetuate its ?reality? (its reification):
References to the realness of race are the means through which race as a reality is constructed.
…(W)e always agree that ?race? is invented, but are then required to defer to its embeddedness in the world.
Some of the seeds for my present perspective were given to me by Ngugi wa Thiongi, in an article in which he discussed the thought and practice of writers under colonialism, who,
…did not always adequately evaluate the real enemy… Imperialism was far too easily seen in terms of the skin pigmentation of the colonizer.
Labor was not just labor but black labor; capital was not just capital but white owned capital. Exploitation and its necessary consequence, oppression, were black. The vocabulary by which the conflict between colonial labor and imperialist capital was perceived and ideologically fought out consisted of white and black images sometimes freely interchangeable with the terms Europe and Africa.
The sentence or the phrase was ?…when the white man came to Africa…? and not ?…when the imperialist or the colonialist came to Africa…?; or, ?…one day these whites will go…? and not ?…one day imperialism or these imperialists will go…?! Except in a few cases, what was being celebrated in the writing was the departure of the white man, with the implied hope that the incoming black man?by virtue of his blackness?would right the wrongs and heal the wounds of centuries of slavery and colonialism.
As a result of this reductionism to the polarities of color and race, the struggle of African people against European colonialism was seen in terms of a conflict of values between the African and European ways of perceiving and reacting to reality. But which African values? Which white values? The values of the European proletariat and the African proletariat? Of the European imperialist bourgeoisie and the collaborationist African petty-bourgeoisie? The values of the African peasant and those of a European peasant?
An undifferentiated uniformity of European or white values was posited against an equally undifferentiated uniformity of African or black values. In short, the writer and the literature he/she produced did not often take and hence treat imperialism as an integrated economic, political and cultural system whose negation had also to be an integrated economic, political and cultural system of its opposite: national independence, democracy, and socialism…4
Now, check this; Even as Thiongi says all this, he himself defers to the embeddedness of ?race? and its language, as he critiques the ?reductionism to the polarities of race and color.? More from habit, and failure to follow through on his own logic, Thiongi (and so many others these days) continues to use ?white? when he means ?European? or ?British? or ?colonialism? or ?capitalism?… he continues to use ?black? when he means ?African? or ?Kenyan?…
2D. The ?setting afoot of new people? is taken from Fanon. The last line in the book is: ?For Europe, for ourselves and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man.? Of course, We read and say ?new people,? but the line captures, for me, what the book is really about?what the struggle for decolonization or for national independence… what the struggle for socialism is about.
To ?turn over a new leaf? can mean, in this instance, the creation of a new set of social relations?socialist social relations. On the basis of these relations We seek the ?attainment of so high a level of consciousness in all members of society that the norms of law and morality merge into a single code of conduct? for all members of the society.5
The phrase ?new people? thus refers to the ?immediate? (new) identity and social reality of the people as they struggle, and upon reaching a stage of independence and revolutionary seizure of power. It also refers to the on-going struggle and development of social relations that carry us toward that ideal code of social conduct, and economic arrangement.
Decolonization… influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally… It brings a natural rhythm into existence introduced by new [people], and with it a new language and a new humanity. Decolonization is the veritable creation of new [people]… the ?thing? which has been colonized becomes [human] during the same process by which it frees itself. (1.3)
i think it?s important to keep this concept of the ?new people? in mind as We think and move all through each day, especially as it relates to the objectives of the struggle?objectives to be kept in mind no matter what the particular issue one deals with, because all issues are important, all are ?revolutionary? and all are related to our need to help ?modify individuals?. Simply put: The objective of the struggle is to ?modify? the people…
2E. ?Humanism? is mentioned several times by Fanon in the book and, as i pointed to earlier, the book is about the struggle for a revolutionary, socialist, humanism, e.g.:
The struggle for freedom does not give back to the national culture its former value and shapes; this struggle which aims at a fundamentally different set of relations between [people] cannot leave intact either the form or the content of the people?s culture. After the conflict there is not only the disappearance of colonialism, but also the disappearance of the colonized [people].
This new humanity cannot do otherwise than define a new humanism, both for itself and for others. It is prefigured in the objectives and methods of the conflict. A struggle which mobilizes all classes of the people and which expresses their aims and their impatience, which is not afraid to count almost exclusively on the people?s support, will of necessity triumph… (4A.19-20)
The humanism that We seek?a humanism that truly places its emphasis upon the social and political needs of the whole of the people?is the opposite of what passes as humanism under the bourgeois order. The bourgeois order claims to value the dignity and inherent worth of people, but its ideals of private property, individualism, and exploitation unmask the true concerns of capitalism?s inhumane essence.
The revolutionary, socialist humanism that We seek has to be based on the collective/social ownership of the major means of production, the end of exploitation and all forms of oppression, because only on this basis can all people be allowed the conditions to fully develop as individuals, and to realize the ideals of humanism.
As We develop our new concept and practice of humanism. We?ll need to keep the struggle against patriarchy and all forms of gender oppression also up front. How can We claim to seek to create a social environment that will allow the full and free development of each person, and not pull out all pillars of oppressive social relations?
3. A Few Words on the Preface to Wretched
You may be tempted, as i was, to skip the reading of the Preface, thinking it a poor substitute for the words of Fanon. Or, you may think it unnecessary to read what appears as one European?s address to other Europeans, on purely European concerns. In either case, you?d be mistaken.
Sartre ?says beforehand? essentially what Fanon says on most of the major themes of the book. i only take issue with one assertion made by Sartre, as you?ll see below. Otherwise, the Preface is as good a place as any to begin one?s study of, and meditation upon, Wretched.
3A. The struggle(s) against ?racism? and colonialism (capitalism) involve struggle between classes (in both the objective and subjective senses of the term, i.e., as groups whose position is narrowly defined in economic terms, and as groups distinguished by their ?stands??their consciousness and their political and social practice). Sartre opens on the theme of class (struggle), i.e., the ?manufacture? of a ?native elite???a bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end,? which serves as intermediary between the people and colonialism, and is branded with ?the principles of western culture.? (P.1)
The contemporary decolonization process (our own, in particular), involves struggle between the class forces within colonized society, and is of central importance in the fight for liberation and social revolution. To paraphrase both Sartre and Fanon: In order to effectively engage and overcome the settler-imperialist state, We must fight among ourselves?the two struggles forming parts of a whole, from beginning to end.
Some of the new concepts that We must work out involve ?class??to interpret or reinterpret the concept and break it free of definitions grounded in dogma, ?west-centeredness,? or the biases of other ?schools of thought? and political tendencies. Our emphasis regarding the concept has to shift from the purely objective (i.e., relation to means of production, the size or source of income, etc.?all rather economistic), and begin to include the subjective criteria (i.e., the recognition of common interests and a common opponent; common organization to pursue those interests and defeat that opponent; a common vision of what We want the new society to look like; a common language?the medium for the new consciousness, etc.).
We also need to work out new concepts in relation to the major forms of class struggle, i.e., ideological, political, socio-cultural, as well as economic, and begin the efforts (theoretical and practical) to ground the new forms in a mass base, a ?proletarian?/revolutionary/socialist line and class stand. i?d think that, overall, the most important form of mass-based class struggle would be ideo-theoretical?to promote the intellectual development of the majority of the people; to guide practice in all fields. It never hurts to raise these points, at every appropriate opportunity: The ?anti-intellectualism? in the U.S. and the rest of the West (or, wherever) is about having the people hooked on a ?what to think? program, rather than a ?how to think? program. Everyone is or can/should be ?intellectual,? because We all have mental capacity and a need to develop and use it in the ?collective mastery? of our society.
Fanon repeatedly points to the need for the people?not just the ?intellectuals??to be enlightened, to develop political and social consciousness; to accept responsibility for the entire social and political process. How can this be done if people don?t think, question, develop their critical capacity, study the process of social development and know that they can change social reality?
And, as touched already, it?s not just the ?West,? as We generally think of it, but ?Marxism? in its predominant forms, which emphasizes economic elements (as does the bourgeois order itself) at the expense of ideological ones, superstructural ones. Thus, We overlook the importance of ideological struggle, the role of ideology (ideas) in the maintenance of capitalism?and in the struggle to overthrow it. If people are to struggle for a particular vision, they must make conscious decisions to do so… informed decisions.
When Sartre uses the term ?manufacture? with respect to the colonized elite, he doesn?t mean that no class structure existed in African societies prior to European colonization. Similarly, when he refers to the lack of homogeneity in the colonized world as being ?born of colonial history? (P.6), that, too, needs clarification, because one would assume that any or all social, political, or economic divisions (i.e., class divisions and lack of ?unity?) in oppressed societies today are solely the result of imperialist oppression, and that?s not the reality?even though some ?elite? forces within oppressed societies find it in their interests to promote such a false image. Here?s how Kwame Nkrumah attempted to correct the false image of ?classless African societies?:
Today, the phrase ?African socialism? seems to espouse the view that the traditional African society was a classless society imbued with the spirit of humanism and to express a nostalgia for that spirit. Such a conception of socialism makes a fetish of the communal African society. But an idyllic, African classless society (in which there were no rich and no poor) enjoying a drugged serenity is certainly a facile simplification; there is no historical or even anthropological evidence for any such a society. I am afraid the realities of African society were somewhat more sordid.
All available evidence from the history of Africa, up to the eve of the European colonization, shows that African society was neither classless nor devoid of a social hierarchy. Feudalism existed in some parts of Africa before colonization; and feudalism involves a deep and exploitative social stratification, founded on the ownership of land. It must also be noted that slavery existed in Africa before European colonization, although the earlier European contact gave slavery in Africa some of its most vicious characteristics. The truth remains, however, that before colonization, which became widespread in Africa only in the nineteenth century, Africans were prepared to sell, often for no more than thirty pieces of silver, fellow tribesmen and even members of the same ?extended? family and clan. Colonialism deserves to be blamed for many evils in Africa, but surely it was not preceded by an African Golden Age or paradise. A return to the precolonial African society is evidently not worthy of the ingenuity and efforts of our people.
All this notwithstanding, one would still argue that the basic organization of many African societies in different periods of history manifested a certain communalism, and that the philosophy and humanist purpose behind that organization are worthy of recapture. A community in which each saw his well-being in the welfare of the group certainly was praiseworthy, even if the manner in which the well-being of the group was pursued makes no contribution to our purposes. Thus what socialist thought in Africa must recapture is not the structure of the ?traditional African society,? but its spirit, for the spirit of communalism is crystallized in its humanism and in its reconciliation of individual advancement with group welfare…6
Pre-colonial African societies had their own ?elites,? their own classes and class struggles?imperialism merely arrested the independent development of these social formations, and stamped them with ?the principles of western culture.? Greed, exploitation, individualism, patriarchy?these weren?t peculiar to the West, and they were among the indigenous traits looked for by colonizing agents as they sought out ?promising adolescents? to join the first generation of ?go betweens??the very first ?go betweens? were adult members of the colonized societies, whose pre-existing class consciousness and interests led them to serve the interests of imperialism, which found pre-existing African class structures and used them to serve its purposes. (P.1)
3B. Let?s give some attention to the meaning of the ?creation? of ?native? elites?of course, not unrelated to colonialism?s creation of the ?native? (and, keeping in mind that Fanon makes an effort to point out that both the ?native? and the settler, as ?species,? are creations of colonialism).
As Sartre describes the evolution of succeeding generations of the ?elite? (also succeeding generations of ?natives? or the changing structure of the colonized society under the impact of colonialism), he takes us from discussion of those who speak only when ordered, through to the fourth generation, represented by Fanon: these are ?ex-natives? (P.4-5), who begin to bend the language of the colonizer to the new requirements of the colonized people.
What is an ?ex-native?? Essentially, the same as an ex-?colored,? an ex-?negro? or an ex-?black??even an ex-?African American.? Fanon gives the key when he points out that: ?Because it is a systematic negation of the other person, and a furious determination to deny the other person all attributes of humanity, colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the question constantly: ?In reality, who am I??.? (5.6)
The ?native? and the ?negro,? the ?black? and the ?African American??these are persons who are struggling for a new identity, which can only result when they attain?or, regain?freedom as a people. They are persons who have been denied independent development and the unfettered expression of their own ideologies. They haven?t yet accepted the responsibility to develop a self-awareness, because they can?t or won?t de-link from the definition of ?humanity? established by their oppressor?an oppressor constantly telling them that they aren?t human.
Let?s pick up Fanon:
The defensive attitudes created by this violent bringing together of the colonized [people] and the colonial system form themselves into a structure which then reveals the colonized personality. This ?sensitivity? is easily understood if we simply study and are alive to the number and depth of the injuries inflicted upon a native during a single day spent amidst the colonial regime. It must in any case be remembered that a colonized people is not only simply a dominated people. Under the German occupation the French remained men [i.e., people, human, and French]; under the French occupation, the Germans remained men. In Algeria there is not simply the domination but the decision to the letter not to occupy anything more than the sum total of the land. The Algerians, the veiled women, the pain-trees and the camels make up the landscape, the natural background to the human presence of the French.
Hostile nature, obstinate and fundamentally rebellious, is in fact represented in the colonies by the bush, by mosquitoes, natives and fever, and colonization is a success when all this indocile nature has been finally tamed. Railways across the bush, the draining of swamps, and a native population which is non-existent politically and economically are in fact one and the same thing. (5.7-8) (my emphasis)
Reflect: The movie Shaka Zulu?the British ?scouting party? is swept ashore by the storm. As they gather themselves on the beach, they?re approached by a regiment of Zulu soldiers. Because he speaks the language of the Zulu, one of the party is taken to Shaka. In the next scene, Shaka asks him: ?Of what tribe are you?,? and the man answers, ?Dutch.?
When We cut to it, Shaka?s question was about what We now call ?nationality.? Shaka asked the man, ?Of what people are you?? And, Fanon has just told us?what? That under German occupation, the French remained French; that under French occupation, the Germans remained German; that the Algerians made up part of the ?landscape? to the ?human? presence of French colonialism.
We?ll get deeper into this below, but the point to be made here is that the problem arises when the colonized people ?forget? who they are??forget? that they are ?human??and succumb to the ideology of the colonizer which claims that only the settlers are ?human?. This results in the colonized people believing that they have to ?prove their humanity? to the colonizer?but the standards are those of the colonizer, not those of the colonized. The colonized people simply fail to define?fail to continue to define?themselves… for themselves.
The ?native,? the ?negro,? the ?colored,? the ?black,? and the ?African-American,? have no identity apart from that given them by the colonizer?that is, not unless they RESIST colonialism, which entails: 1) their maintenance of an identity that is separate and distinct from that of the colonizer, and from that given them by the colonizer; 2) they begin to develop a NEW identity, through the process of ?decolonization??though having remained separate and distinct, colonized people aren?t who they were prior to colonization, and they can?t return to the past. Colonization has arrested their independent development, distorted who they are, and now they must become (a) NEW people during the process by which they regain their independence.
Now, the population native to the land under colonial domination is ?non-existent politically and economically.? What exactly does that mean? In essence, it means that they aren?t sovereign (which is why Fanon uses the phrase ?the restoration of nationhood to the people?). It doesn?t mean, in a strict sense, that they aren?t ?involved? in politics or that they aren?t ?involved? in an economic system. It means that the political and economic processes that they participate in are not of their own design, not under their control, and don?t serve their interests.
This point is particularly relevant to us, and to neo-colonial situations generally, e.g., having a job and money and ?being part? of the American economy? doesn?t mean that you?re not colonized! Being able to vote in the American political process don?t mean that you?re not colonized! It all simply means that you?ve been tricked, and that you?re still avoiding reality and confrontation with capitalism in its post-neocolonial form.
Here?s another key point: It?s not like i?m saying anything ?new? here. DuBois was talking about this (the ?double consciousness? and the need to make the choice between being a ?negro? and being an ?American?); Ralph Ellison talked about it in Invisible Man (when the guy was asking ?WHO AM I??)
A ?native??or rather, an ex-?native??is one who is ?constantly in the making? (P.6; 1.22; 1.45 and 1.46) and who is cured of the ?mental pathology which is the direct product of oppression? (5.9), and who claims an identity apart from that of the colonizer and the colonial system, and struggles to become a new person and to build a new society.
3C. Another important theme touched by Sartre in the Preface is that on the successive generations of ?elites? (each generation also reflecting phases of colonial violence and the development of social/class structure and struggle, characterizing the fundamental contradiction, its aspects and forms), their role and interests… the relations between the ?elites? and the masses, and between the ?elites? and colonialism.
As you read, stop now and then to meditate upon the similar development of generations of ?elites? among our own people, and look for all of the implications and the need for re-interpretation of the Story. For example, was Phillis Wheatley representative of the ?promising adolescents? that were sought out among the Africans colonized by U.S. settler-colonialism? What she and others actually represented is, in one important respect, a matter of interpretation, i.e., from a ?proletarian?/revolutionary (New Afrikan) and nationalist perspective, or from a bourgeois, assimilationist, colonialist perspective.
In Africa?and in New Afrika?the first generation of ?elites? established under the colonial system, had little or no independent voice or initiative; they expressed little or no resistance to colonialism, and they didn?t represent the revolutionary interests of the people. Who cares if Phillis Wheatley was ?the first negro to publish??What did she say?!! Did she call George Washington a settler-colonialist/?slaveowner?? Did she call upon the newly-colonized Afrikans to rise up and throw off the chains? Did she bend the language to the new requirements of the people as they sought to regain independence and sovereignty?
The point is this: Even in 17th century ?colonial America,? (New) Afrikans were trying to regain their independence?that is, most of them were, while others were trying to accommodate themselves to the new colonial situation.
The 18th and 19th centuries, here, saw the rise of our second generation of ?elites? (e.g., William Whipper), and there was also the rise of nationalist and socialist voices, speaking to the struggle to regain independence and create a new social system.
The third generation of ?elites? was distinguished from those preceding it by a greater degree of frustration over their failure to be ?included.? They pushed the struggle for ?integration? and ?equality,? while strengthening their base as a class. But again, there were ?left? petty-bourgeois currents, the evolution of those earlier nationalist and socialist voices. Most importantly, there were the masses of the people, who had always maintained an identity and a set of interests that were (and remain) separate and distinct from those of the colonizer?without this base or foundation, the ?elite? would have no standing.
Why are We not more aware of the social reality and political consciousness of the ?lower classes? (the majority) of the people?not more aware of the existence of the nationalist and socialist currents in our social development? Because the tendencies that they represent haven?t written (enough of) the ?history? books or otherwise been legitimated as the propagators of OUR Story. The ?elite? forces that write the books (especially those ?marketable? or ?acceptable? books), get time on talk shows and space in the U.S. press?they interpret our past and issue the commentary on current events through their own class perspective, and based on their own class interests?interests that they hold in common with their capitalist/colonialist masters.
Re-building requires re-orientation and re-interpretation. We don?t yet have what could be called a revolutionary ?people?s history,? because those doing the writing are part of the wrong class, and express the wrong interests. But, a reinterpretation of OUR Story is necessary, and there?ll be no independence or socialism without it. The ?intellectuals? who write what We need must represent a combination of those who ?commit class suicide,? and those who ?come up from the people.?
3D. These days it supposedly passes as common knowledge that a major consequence of?a major aim of?the counter-revolutionary initiative that went into high gear in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the thrust of pseudo- bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces into ?leadership??and yet We claim to be confused and unable to explain the present absence of progressive and revolutionary momentum ?from the bottom up.?
i like to look to 1968?let?s call it a ?high tide? of our decolonization struggle. As symbols of the people?s revolutionary-nationalist initiative, i see those Brothers standing with raised fists during the Olympic games?raised fists that were like raised flags of Red, Black and Green.
Look to 1968 and the establishment of the Kerner Commission, and its mandate: ?To determine what happened; why it happened; what the U.S. needs to do to prevent it from happening again?!
The Kerner Commission was like any other body established by colonial powers (e.g., Kenya/Britain) to investigate ?disturbances? in the colony, to divert the revolutionary drive of oppressed peoples into mere reformism; to grant ?formal independence? and shape a neo-colonial solution. It can?t be done without an alliance between colonialism and pseudo-bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces among the oppressed people.
Underlying the ?civil rights movement? and the ?black power movement,? the ?riots,? ?rebellions,? and ?revolts,? was a revolutionary (socialist) and a nationalist initiative. So, what did the settler-colonialist say? ?Quick, quick, let?s decolonize. Let?s integrate, i.e., ?include? some of them, and make the rest of them believe that they are ?Americans,? too.?
Jump to 1972, i think?wasn?t that when George Foreman ran around the boxing ring at those Olympic games, waving the flag of the U.S.?! Even symbolically this captures the reality of the moves made between 1968 and 1972: It represents the success of counter-revolution, the success of the neo-colonial solution (but it was really a post-neocolonial solution, because the first neo-colonial structure had been established one hundred years earlier), the ascendancy of the ?new black middle class? ?and the ?black? liberation movement was turned into its opposite. (See: Vita Wa Watu, Book Eight.)
Even Robert Allen?s interpretation of the period can help to give sight to the blind:
In the United States today of a program of domestic neo-colonialism is rapidly advancing. It was designed to counter the potentially revolutionary thrust of the recent black rebellions in major cities across the country. This program was formulated by America?s corporate elite?the major owners, managers, and directors of the giant corporations, banks and foundations which increasingly dominate the economy and society as a whole?because they believe that the urban revolts pose a serious threat to economic and social stability, [and they are] attempting with considerable success to co-opt the black power movement. Their strategy is to equate black power with black capitalism.
In this task the white corporate elite has found an ally in the black bourgeoisie, the new, militant black middle class which became a significant social force following World War II. The members of this class consist of black professionals, technicians, executives, professors, government workers, etc., who got their new jobs and new status in the past two decades. They were made militant by the civil rights movement; yet many of them have come to oppose integrationism because they have seen its failures. Like the black masses, they denounced the old black elite of Tomming preachers, teachers, and businessmen-politicians. The new black elite seeks to overthrow and take the place of this old elite. To do this it has forged an informal alliance with the corporate forces which run white (and black) America.
The new black elite announced that it supported black power. Undoubtedly, many of its members were sincere in this declaration, but the fact is that they spoke for themselves as a class, not for the vast majority of black people who are not middle class. In effect, this new elite told the power structure: ?Give us a piece of the action and we will run the black communities and keep them quiet for you.? Recognizing that the old ?Negro leaders? had become irrelevant in this new age of black militancy and black revolt, the white corporatists accepted this implicit invitation and encouraged the development of ?constructive? black power. They endorsed the new black elite as their tacit agents in the black community, and black self-determination has come to mean control of the black community by a ?native? elite which is beholden to the white power structure.
Thus, while it is true that blacks have been granted formal political equality, the prospect is?barring any radical changes?that black America will continue to be a semi-colony of white America, although the colonial relationship will take a new form.7
Remember: Allen published the above in 1970?take just a peep at what?s happening today: George Curry, writing in Emerge, 11-99, that the attack on affirmative action ?would essentially wipe out the black middle class. If we can?t go to college in significant numbers, if we are not able to take our rightful place in the job market, and if we cannot take advantage of the tax dollars we provide to our government bodies, we will be relegated to a life of second-class citizenship.? (my emphasis) He?s talking to and for his class, not the people as a whole! Add to this Skip Gates, also speaking in Emerge, 3-99, as he talks about the role of his class and of his group of intellectuals at Harvard: ?Our purpose is to get more black people to the middle class.? Do i really need to expound on this?
3E. Sartre?s reference to the peasantry reminded me that Fanon?s popularity among bloods in the U.S. in the 1960s rested, in part, upon his characterization of the peasantry and the lumpen as ?revolutionary? and/or as the ?vanguard.? These characterizations have been widely and successfully challenged (or, clarified), over the years, and on an international level. While our practice has proven the unsoundness of prior beliefs, We?ve failed to put the premise to a thorough theoretical analysis, and put it to rest, which will allow this or similar incorrect views to surface again and to disrupt the momentum of the next revolutionary thrust.
A revolutionary class must: 1 ) recognize that it?s a class, and that its members have common interests and enemies; 2) engage in conscious, unified action in pursuit of its interests; 3) act as the ?vanguard? of the whole people. Fanon clearly described both the peasantry and the lumpen as initially absent these features. Why then did he refer to them as ?revolutionary?? ( 1.49; 2.45)
These questions are all the more necessary because Fanon later described both the peasantry and the lumpen in different terms (e.g., 2.5-7; 2.59). And, his subsequent comments on the peasantry seem to confirm the observation that he saw in them a ?force? that was ?spontaneously? resisting certain ?principles of Western culture,? and that segments or strata of the peasantry sporadically resisted colonial occupation. Fanon ?bends the stick? several times in Wretched in order to emphasize a point, in this instance, he bent it in order to contrast the ?elite? and reactionary bourgeois classes and strata, against the ?traditional,? ?patriotic,? and progressive strata and class (embryonic) within the people as a whole.
Moreover, Fanon?s characterization of the lumpen was also not uniform, i.e., he pointed to progressive and reactionary tendencies within the strata?leaving us to conclude that the lumpen is, essentially, of a petty-bourgeois character, i.e., vacillating, and illegitimate or would-be capitalists and parasites.
Keep in mind: Simply performing an objectively political or progressive act doesn?t reflect a subjective class/revolutionary consciousness?just as consciousness alone is insufficient to change the world.
3F. Fanon?s message to oppressed peoples does include important themes on the character and roles of citizens of settler-imperialist states. i?d like to think that Sartre was simply over zealous when, at P.24, he says of Fanon: ?If he had wished to describe in all its details the historical phenomenon of decolonization he would have spoken of us; this is not at all his intention.?
That?s simply not true, and Sartre even contradicts himself when, in P.9, he says: ?Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons: The first is that Fanon explains you to his [people] and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves…? And, In P.10, he gives the second reason: That Fanon brings ?the process of history into the clear light of day… the dialectic which liberal hypocrisy hides from you and which is as much responsible for our existence as for his.? (my emphasis)
In the first pages of Wretched, Fanon introduces us to the Manichean ideology of the colonial system (of the West)? and he makes it clear that the colonized people adopt this Manichean perspective in their evaluation of the settlers. However, as i pointed out above, Fanon is taking us through a process of development. By the end of the second chapter, he shows us how and why the colonized people begin to abandon that form of dualism.
In this connection, Deborah Wyrick asks: ?How can a people wage an anti-colonial struggle without reinforcing and replicating the very categories that have organized its own oppression? Or, put another way, how can necessarily Manichean combat promote a post-Manichean world??8
Fanon?s answer, stated simply, is that the oppressed people must reject and abandon Manichean divisions if they want to avoid reinforcing and replicating them. In a paragraph that should be reflected upon in its entirety, he points out that ?Racialism and hatred and resentment… cannot sustain a war of liberation.? (2.62) He then adds that the people reach a point in the struggle when they begin to ?take stock of the situation, increase their knowledge and their political and social consciousness,? and this allows them to ?pass from total, indiscriminating nationalism to social and economic awareness. The people who at the beginning of the struggle had adopted the primitive Manicheism of the settler?Blacks and Whites, Arabs and Christians?realize as they go along that the fact of having a national flag and the hope of an independent nation does not always tempt certain strata of the population to give up their interests or privileges… The people find out that the iniquitous fact of exploitation can wear a black face, or an Arab one, and they raise the cry of ?Treason?! But the cry is mistaken, and the mistake must be corrected. The treason is not national, it is social… in their weary road towards rational knowledge the people must also give up their too simple conception of their over-lords. The species is breaking up under their very eyes. As they look around them, they notice that certain settlers do not join in the general guilty hysteria; there are differences in the same species. Such [people], who were before included without distinction and indiscriminately in the monolithic mass of the foreigner?s presence, actually go so far as to condemn the colonial war. The scandal explodes when the prototypes of this division of the species go over to the [colonized people], become Negroes or Arabs, and accept suffering, torture, and death.? (2.67)
Fanon continues: ?The settler is not simply the [person] that must be killed. Many members of the mass of colonialists reveal themselves to be much, much nearer to the national struggle than certain sons [and daughters] of the nation. The barriers of blood and race prejudice are broken down on both sides… Consciousness slowly dawns upon truths that are only partial, limited and unstable…? (2.69)
Thus, We begin to refuse to identify ourselves?refuse to identify anyone?in ?racial? terms. When Fanon says, early on, that ?What parcels out the world is to begin with the fact of belonging to or not belonging to a given race, a given species??he?s not putting this forth as unalterable reality, but as something that needs to be changed. He?s merely describing the Manichean world, the capitalist/colonialist world, the imperialist world; he?s reflecting the state of consciousness of colonized peoples as they begin the struggle to become NEW PEOPLE.
When Fanon later talks about the ?species? breaking up before our eyes (or, about ?niggers disappearing,? at 4.44), he?s talking about the break-up of ?races? themselves?the ?races? which were constructed as part of the construction of world capitalism, and which must be de-constructed along with the de-construction of capitalism. The break-up of the ?species? now identified by skin color, become a new ?species? to be characterized by what people think and by what they do… distinguished by social and political consciousness, and economic awareness.
Wyrick also notes that Fanon didn?t separate friends from enemies by the use of any fixed notions, such as ?race? or religion, and she cites a passage from Fanon?s A Dying Colonialism: ?For the FLN, in the new society being built, there are only Algerians. From the outset, therefore, every individual living in Algeria is an Algerian.?9
How did Fanon distinguish friends from enemies? Friends were those who actively worked for Algerian independence, i.e., the FLN and its supporters in Algeria; anti-colonial people in France; formerly colonized nations throughout the world. Enemies were those who worked against Algerian independence, i.e., the colonial government in Algeria and its supporters; the government in Paris and its followers; developed nations with a vested interest in maintaining the imperialist status quo.10 This is what allows ?every individual living in Algeria? to be an Algerian, this is why friends and enemies are distinguished by the choices they make, the positions they take with regard to the struggle for independence and for socialism.
1. ?The African Intellectual and the Problem of Class Suicide; Ideological and Political Dimensions,? African Culture; The Rhythms of Unity, ed. Molefi K. Asante and Kariamu Welsh Asante, Greenwood Press, 1985, pps. 91-106.
2. Fanon for Beginners, Deborah Wyrick. Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc., 1998.
3. Class and Nation, Samir Amin, Monthly Review Press, 1980, p. 4.
4. ?The Writer in a Neocolonial State,? The Black Scholar, July/August, 1986, pps. 2-10; pps. 3-4.
5. Dictionary of Philosophy ed. Ivan T. Frolov, International Publishers, 1984, p. 76 (?Communist Public Self-Government?)
6. ?African Socialism Revisited,? Revolutionary Path, International Publishers, pps. 438-445.
7. Black Awakening in Capitalist America, Robert L. Allen. Doubleday, 1970, pps. 17-20.
8. Wyrick, op cit., p.84.
9. Ibid., p.87.
10. Ibid., p. 85.