PAN-AFRICAN MARXISMOR THE REDUCTIONOF MARXISMTO A
REACTIONAR      Y IDEOLOGY: A REPLY TO AGYEMAN'S"PAN AFRI-
CANISMANDTHE SUPERMARXISTS".
Jacques Depelchin+
      Q.  Agyeman's paper "P an-Africanism and the supermarxists" is
meant to be an attack against what he calls the "Dar es Salaam School of
African Marxologists".     This school (which on the basis   of the paper is
constituted by two people: Mishambi and myself) is castigated for the
"morbid zeal" with which its members "conform to orthodoxy" and "posit
a contradiction between Marxism and        Pan-African nationalism (since
Africans are without a nation in the real sense, this is what is at issue),
proclaiming the scared paramountcy of the former". (Agyemanp. 4)++. It
is Agyeman's privileg~ to use sarcasm, but I shall try to refrain from his
paying in kind and stick to the objective position that is derived from his
argument. If he is interested in crea1;i.nga school of African Pan-Africa-
nologists at this 'university, that is his privilege, but'he should not extra-
polate those objectives to Marxist teachers.
      His paper requires a prompt reply because of the manner in which it
develops an anti-Marxist attack under the guise of encouraging the practice
of what he would consider "reasonable" or "non-doctrinaire" (non-orthodox
?) Marxism. This non-doctrinaire      Marxism would be of the kind -- one
presumes - - advanced by "the proponent of the most radical school of
pan-Mricanism,      KwameN~rumah", who, ,,fdeclaredpan-Africanism and
scientific socialism to be organically complementary"'. (Agyeman, p. 1)
      However, this assertion is not followed by a demonstration, but by
another assertion of the nature of what a socialist pan-African state would
be:
           A socialist pan-African state, then -- in the thinking of
           the Osagyefo -- is the credible and viable anti-imp""erialist
            strategy, B,S also of African resurgence, in the continent.
           (Agyeman, p. 2)
 +Lecturer,   Department of History, University of Dar es Salaam.
++The page numbers in bracket 'refer to O. Agyeman, "The Supermarxist
   and Panafricanism", Mimeo, University of Dar es Salaam, 1077.
                                         65


However, under the pretense and pretext of combating doctrinaire Marxism
the author goes on to show that unlike Nkrumah he is not interested in mar-
rying Pan-Africanism with Marxism. The whole paper is an attack, against
Marxism. It is a vicious and misleading attack because it poses as a con-
structive criticism. At the end of the paper, as 1 will show, the notion
of any possibility of complementarity between Marxism and Pan-Africanism
has totally disappeared notwithstanding the author's assurances that he is
deeply committed to socialism. For example how can the author's pledges
of allegience to socialism be reconciled with his stated preferences:
            What I am saying, in other words, is that an Africa
            that turned into a Japan would be preferable to an
            Africa that remained in its present feeble condition
            waiting vainly and indefinitely for a world socialist
            revolution. (Agyeman p. 16)
        As Agyeman proves it is possible to reconcile proclamations of
adherence to socialism with a preference for capitalism. The petty bour-
geois as a class has excelled in this exercise. The purpose of this reply
is not to attack Agyeman personally, but to denounce and expose the kind
of arguments that he develops for what they are; the product or petty
 bourgeois intellectualism. Petty bourgeois ideology is characterized by
vacillation between siding with the ruling classes and the oppressed and
 exploited classes. The petty bourgeois ideology that is at work in the
 "Supermarxists and Pan-Africanism" is not only anti-Marxist, but it is
 also intellectually dishonest, blatantly racialist and chauvinistic. With
regard to the latter, the author may well wish to ponder the words of
one who did try, without success, to reconcile Pan-Africanism with some
aspects of Marxism:
            In our struggle for national freedom, human dignity
            and social redemption, Pan-Africanism offers an
            ideological alternative to Communism on the one side
             and Tribalism on the other. It rejects both white
            racialism and black chauvinism. It stands for racial
             co-existence and respect for human personality.!
        The focus of Agyeman1 s paper is not so much to make a case for
 Pan-Africanism as to attack those teachers who are applying Marxism
 to demonstrate the reactionary nature of Pan-African ideology and how
 it is used in various African social formations to freeze the class stru-
 ggle. "Phus Mishambi comes under attack for having critically reviewed
 Rodney1 s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, pointing out some of the
                                         66


   serious    weaknesses     from the point of view that Rodney himself chose to
   write the book, i. e. "from a revolutionary,           socialist,   and peopleT
   centered    perspective"      (Rodney p.    308). I was crit1.cised for being critical
   of, indeed;    for dismissing      Pan-Africanism     as a revolutionary     ideology
   for the workers      and peasants.      These are the basis upon which we were
   branded "super-marxists",           a term which is never specifically        defined
 .but seems to be explicitly         synonimous with "marxologist"       "doctrinaire
 I
   marxism"     "defender    of Marxist     orthodoxy".   Presumably,     in oppostion
   to these   "deviationists"      one would find the defenders      of non-sloganeer-
   ing so characteristic       of student essays".     (Agyeman p. 18) The reader
   is left to conclude that the super-marxists          are the promoters      of sloga-
   neering,    the result   of which is to make the students        "the main casualty
   in an educational     production     which might turn out graduates        who have
   barely begun to think for themselves".           (Agyeman p. 18)
I
           It would be erroneous       to conclude from the above that Agyeman is
   the defender     of non-sloganeering        Marxism.   He is not and could not be
   for he does not even seem to know what Marxism is all about. Agyeman' s
   notions of Marxism are reduced to quotations from secondary                  sources.
   When Agyeman alludes to class analysis             or to class struggles     he conveys
   conceptions     which are straight       from what can only be called bourgeois
   catechisms     of "how to combat Marxism".          One of the consistent      ways in
   which he does this is by reducing Marxism to an unrecognizable                  carica-
   ture as he does for example when he summarizes the "vision" of the
   Communist Manifesto (Agyeman, p. 16). But what is astounding is that
   in the same paragraph         where he states that an African turned into a
   Japan would be preferable         he prolaims his adherence       to "the vision of
   the Communist Manifesto"           by announcing that it "has to be the ultimate
   goal".    A brilliant  exercise     in petty bourgeois vacillation:      from wishing
    "an African    turned into a Japan" to wishing that it be some sort of way
    station on the road to "the ultimate goal" (1. e. the vision of the Commu;nist
   Manifesto).     We may discard       this "ultimate goal" for the time1:>eing becau-
    se "which society has attained it? If this is the acid test,           does the
    world have a Marxist        state yet?" (Agyeman p. 16) His answer no, ours;
   NO; and there will never be one for these cannot be -- for a Marxist,
    state.   A socialist  state or a communist state,        yes.  While there is such
    a thing as a Leninist     conception of the State,      there cannot be and will
   never be -- conceptually         speaking -- such a thing as a Marxist          state.
                                                  67


If Agyemanhad an elementary understanding of Marxism he would not use
terms like Marxist state. 'For him, as is the case with most vulgar bour-
 geois denunciators of Marxism there is no difference between socialism,
 communismor Marxism. "They are all the same". Not so. When one
 reads this one cannot help but wonder who is sloganeering. L. Colletti's
 distinctions between all these terms are to the point and eloquently
 stated:
            The task of Marxism as a science is to "describe casual
            relationships". Though they are always being confused,
             'socialism and Marxism are not (Colletti's emphasis) the
            same thing. Socialism is an end, a goal, an objective and
            impartial knowledge.2
 This distinction is extremely important for the failures of specific
 Marxist-Leninist political organisations in the USA or SA       to chart
 a correct revolutionary strategy cannot be attributed to an inherent
 weakness or failure of Marxism.
       Of course he has a ready-made answer, for those who will castigate
him for not knowing anything about Marxism:
            1 have not undertaken this exercise just to savour
            the satisfaction of scoring points off these latter-
            day defenders of Marxist orthodoxy whose inter-
            pretive absurdities remind one of the predicament
            which induced Marx himself, just before he died,
            to painfully declare: "1 amnot a Marxist". The
            intension is rather to do battle with a dangerous
            dogmatismwhose end result can only be the foster-
            ing of a new mental honda ge amongAfrican people".
            (A~emall' p. 17)
Quite clever. If Marx himself declared that he was not a Marxist, what
then is being a Marxist supposed to mean. If Marx himself did not know;
why should he, an avowed Pan-Africanist,      know: What Agyemanis
trying to tell his audience is that to call one-self Marxist - - When Marx
himself repudiated the term -- is tantamount to dogmatism. Worse:
Marxism will "foster a new mental bondage amongAfrican people" .
(Agyemanp. 17). Which African people is he talking about? Is there
something that the gold mine workers of South Africa has in commonwith
the bourgeoisie of Cape Coast or Lagos?
       To defend his brand of Pan-Africanism, Agyemandoes not hesitate
to use slanderous tactics as when he equates Africa's anti-Pan-Africa-
nism to the "case of the Super-Marxists against Pan-Africanism"
(Agyemanp. 6) He obviously knows or he should know that Afrifra was
                                        68


 no representative    of the working class, and yet he leaves the impres-
 sion that the class distinction is of no importance. This is an argument
 that is central to Agyeman's pan-Africanism, I shall come back to it later.
        Another manner in which Agyeman's ignorance of elementary
 Mapxismis displayed acan be seen         from his conception of the class
 struggle, the nature and the character of the contradictions that must
 be resolved.   He compoundsthis ignorance by attributing to Marxism the
 same goals that the would attribute to Pan-Africanism. Since Pan-
 Africanists are interested in forging a "massive and potent African
"nation so are the Marxists interested in creating a ""Marxiststate",
 a proletarian nation.
        At one point Agyemanpresents himself as the realist and that it
 is the Marxists who are the mystiliers of realities.     But what is the
 reality that Agyeman starts with? Pan-Africanism: the construction
 of which is carried out entirely in his    OWR head. He uses his conception
 of Pan-Africanism to extrapolate on how the Marxists are going to
 bring the revolution: a typical bourgeois exercise. Throughout t:l1e
 entire paper, Agyeman's way of posing questions and giving answers is
thoroughly rooted in a bourgeois problematic •.
       He accuses the supermarxists of going beyondthe Chinese and
 SoViet (sic) MarxistS' because of the former advocate a hationless
universalism whereas the latter "think in terms of proletarian~
nationalism presupposing the firm and solid existence of Viable prole-
tarian nations". (Agyemanp. 7) Quite Revolutionaries start from an
analysis of concrete sitution, i. e. social formations. But where do pan-
Africanists start from? Ideas and conceptions which are entirely taking
place in their heads. Agyeman's distortions of the goals and objectives
of Marxism were dealt with by Marx and Engels in the CommunistMani-
~
            The COmmunistsare further reproached with desiring
            to abolish countries and nationality • We cannot take
            from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat
            mustfirst of all aCfluirepolitical supremacy, must rise
            to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute it-
            self the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not
            in thetlie bour~eois sense of the word (emphasis a<GIed)
       If Agyemanwanted to be a credible pan-Africanist he wouldhave
quoted Comrade Samora Machel on the question of proletarian inter-
                                           69


nationalism      and not referred    to a general    description   of how the Chinese
and the Russtans        dealt with this question.     In a certain  sense,   the
experiences       of the Mozambiquan revolutionaries         are of more immediate
relevance     to the conditions prevailing       on the African continent because
of the similarities      of their historical    experiences.
        No one on this continent today is better placed than Machel and his
comrades in arms to explain what international             solidarity   means. Nq one
is in a better position to appreciate         the value of the support offered by
working classes        from allover    the world:
             Another essential factor of our victorious struggle
             is our capacity to assume the internationalist           dimen-
             sion of the revolution; an isolated revolutionary
             struggle is bound to fail. 3
       In fact,    for every charge made by Agyeman one finds an ansWer to
it in the lessons      drawn the the FRELlMO fighters.          But of course,     here
again Agyeman will point out that it is the super-marxists               who are not
interested     in "suggesting    a new pan-African      organization    of radical   states
like Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau.                The fact of the matter is
that the subject does not interest         him" (Agyeman p. 5) The question of
unity is not one which is constructed          out of the blue. The question of
unity is one which must be based on conrete             analysis of concrete his-
torical   specific situations.     Agyeman has absolutely no class conception
of the nature      of imperialism,    and because of this he can assert       that
the only available developmental strategy            to pull off Africa's   break
 with the international      capit81ist system is "a unified African
rally"   (Agyeman p. 7) He never posses the question of who are the
natural   allies of imperialism on the continent and who are the objective
 enemies of imperialism.        Since he never poses the question of the domi-
nation of imperialism in those terms he is allowed to get away with the
 assertion   that anti-imperialist      struggle  will be carried    out successfully
under the ideological leadership          of "progressive    Pan-Africanism"
(Agyeman p. 5)
       Assuming we go along with this kind of subjectivism,              how are we
going to decide on what is meant by "progressive             pan-Africanism?"
Which criteria       are we going to use?
       Whatever the various failures         (which are part of the price paid in
struggle) of the various organizations          that have resorted     to Marxism-
                                               70


 Leninism,    at least  they know that unity must be built around certain
 basic principles.     Again Machel is more eloquent than I could hope to be:
             Unity and correct political line are two essential
             factors of our victory, but not the only ones. For
             the continuity and the consolidation of the unity the
             political line must be constantly defended against
             ideological aggression and subversives. 5
 In the same message he specified what he meant by a correct                political
 line and ideological     aggression   and subversives:
             Lastly, refusing to correctly define the enemy, these
             forces sought to define a race and a people as the target
             of our weapons. In fact, these elements did not want the
             armed struggle taken to its ultimate consequences. Their
             true objective was to hinder the popular process of the
             struggle and to prevent its ideological development, their
             aim was to use the masses' blood and sacrifice only as a
             means of pressure which would lead to the replacement
             of a foreign exploiting class by a national exploiting
             class. 5
        For his own purpose      Agyeman would probably like to appropriate
 Machel as a hero of pan-Africanism,           of progressive    pan-Africanism.
 But the two are not reconcilable.        Agyeman would accept a "Marxism
 which is bein.g called into use to serve the redemption of African people
 and not one in which Marxism becomes an absolute value to which
:everything,    black people themselves       included,   is subordinated".       (Agye-
omanp. 16) Here Agyeman reduces            Marxism to a philosophy,        he reduces
 it to the level at which he conceives       of Pan-Africanism;       that is,   an
 idea. By reducing      Marxism to a philosophy or another political            doctrine
 Agyeman strips     Marxism of its most distin.guishing character           namely
 that it is first  and foremost    a revolutionary     ideology and a revolutionary
 theory.   As such and as a science       "it is the analysis    of reality   from the
 viewpoint of the workin.g class".      6
             Furthermore      "contrary to reactionary theses, revolutionary
             theory is unique, it is forged and developed in the struggles
             and experiences of all peoples and is the property of the                .
             labouring masses of the whole world. 7 (Emphasis aq.ded)
        From the way Agyeman describes           all the sins of supermarxists,
 defenders    of Marxist   orthodoxy and marxologists,        it would seem that
 Comrade Samora Machel would also qualify.              And if being a supermarxist
 means to share the same platform as our Mozambiquan comrades then it
 would be false modesty to refuse       such an honour.       But then this accept-
                                              71


ence would give our pan-africanist the satisfaction of seeing his "ana-
lytical categdries" given a stamp of approval by the supermarxist them-
selves. Analytical rigour requires that this satisfaction not be given.
      Samora Machel's perspective as well as his numerous analysis
of the Mozambiquan situation would certainly jar with Agyeman's pan-
africanist sensitivities. Even during that period when racism was most
prominent, Comrade Machel always insisted on a correct definition pf
the enemy. This principled position was most clearly formulated when
Machel answered the following question:
           What about captured Portuguese soldiers?
           What is your attitude towards them and to-
           wards white civilians who live in Mozambique?
Answer:
           When we capture Portuguese soldiers we do
           not kill or mistreat them. Our people know
           that these men are participating in the war
           because they were forced to. They are not
           defending their own interests or the interests
           of the Portuguese people, but the interests of
           the Portuguese capitalists and international
           imperialism. Then there are the Portuguese
           soldiers who desert to u s . These we consider
           our allies. Their desertion is an act. of
           support to our struggle.
           And there are whites born in Mozambique who
           want to join in our ranks. We do not consider
           these as foreigners who support us. Such a
           man is one of us and it is his duty," just as it
           my duty, to liberate Mozambique. Our policy
           regarding civilians is clear. We do not fight
           the Portuguese who are in our country because
           they are Portuguese. We fight the forces of
            colonial occupation.. .8
       On the basis of this answer would Agyeman say that Machel is
 one of those Africans who "truly have a knack for carrying every
 adopted creed to a disease". As an example of this disease he points
 to the black woman in Soweto who saved the life of a white pest control
 overseer by sheltering him "from the host of furious Africans seeking
 to wreak vengeance on him". (Agyeman p. 3) And this is how Agyeman
 condemns the overzealous Christian woman of Soweto:
            It was not possible for our Soweto woman to
            see that God might decide the symbolic murder
            of that white man for all the un-christian atro-
            cities committed by Apartheid against black
                                         72


          people. No, the black woman of Soweto was
          capable of only one form of Christian reaction - -
          one which conduced to her worst interests
          (Agyeman p. 3)
      But how are the interests of that Christian black woman going to
be defended? And how should they be identified? For Agyeman the class
struggle in South Africa can only be resolved through a race war.
Never mind the fact that the white racist regime is furthering its own
brand of pan-Africanism by making overtures to the emerging black
              Q
bourgeoisie.
      The passage quoted above illustrates one of the main aspects of
Agyeman1 s argument which is predicated on a racialist view of Marxism.
Before dealing with this it must also be pointed out that in the same
passage he resorts to one of his favourite tactics of distorting Marxism
by reducing it to a form of religious faith. It is a slanderous statement
worthy only of the most vulgar bourgeois writers.
      While Agyeman would like to see himself as a progressive pan-
Africanist he is in fact expounding a vulgar version of it. It is vulgar
because it fails to take into account some of the elementary principles
laid down by one of the recognized founders of Pan-Africanism: G.
Padmore, who reminded his readers that Pan-Africanism must "reject
both white racialism and black chauvinism".
      The Soweto incidence involving a black woman who saved the life
of a white man is not enough, he must go on to prove that the founders
of Marxism, Marx and Engels were racists.
      The logic of Agyeman is as follows: Marx and Engels did not care
one bit about the black man therefore why should the black man care
about their theories. He could have put it more simply and said, since
 Engels and Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro were not black, they and their
Marxism could be of no help to the emancipation of the black man. In-
deed he does say something similar to this when he writes:
           We are not told what makes Marx's or Lenin's view-
           point, ipso facto, more valid than that of Nkrumah or
           Rodney. Is it on account of the differential colour of
           their skin? We must ask the Marxologists. Is colour
           what determines the chances of an opinion to the claim
           of validity? (Agyeman pp. 5-6)
                                        73


       Not only is this passage racialist,        but it also implies that MarxisIll
condones racism.      And in order to push this point through he resorts         to
the quote from Engels who approved the invasion of Algeria by French
troops.
       First of all for Engels,      it was not only people of colour who dis-
played barbaric     qualities.  It seems as if anything that lay outside of
Western Europe was branded barbaric.             See for example his refereq.ces
to the "barbarism     of the slavonic East". 10
       Secondly, what Engels and Marx were witnessing was the revolu-
tionizing of social relations      among the pre-capitalist     formation through
their contact with industrial       capital,  but they were clearly   sensitive
to the brutalization    process    that this entailed:
            Napoleon said: "War is the Science of Barbarians".
            By means of that science, England has subjugated
            over one hundred millions of people or nearly all of
            the East Indian Empire, and now must subjugate the
            rest ....  Hence, the majority of the representatives
            of the noble families are scientific barbarians;         and
            the wars of the White and Red Roses, of Scotland
            and Ireland, having ceased, they must find employ-
            ment in attacking distant nations .11
       Later on still on the same subject of the colonization of India,
 Marx pointed out:
            England it is true, in causing a social revolution
            in Hindostan, was actuated only be the vilest intere-
            sts, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them.
            But that is not the question. The question is , can
            mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revo-
            lution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever
            may have been the crime of England she was the un-
            conscious tool of history in bringing about the revo-
            lution. Then whatever bitterness the spectacle of
            the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our
            personal feelings, we have the right, in point of
            history, to exclaim with Goethe:
                         Should this torture then torment us
                         since it brings us greater pleasure?
                        Were not through the rule of Timur
                         Soul devoured without measures?"12
 By quoting from Cesaire's       letter  of resignationfrom    the French Com-
 munist Party it is hoped that the reader        will draw the only possible
 conclusion:   Marxism or Communism is of no use to blacks.            The case
 is not as simple. First     of all in view of the practice    of the French.CP,
                                              74


any    sensible     Marxist  would lend support to Cesaire's        arguments,     but
the main question is what has been the practice            of Aime Cesaire      since
he resigned      from the French    CP? In the struggles      that the people of
Martinique     have waged against French imperialism,            Cesaire   has always
sided with repression.        Frantz  Fanon had only scorn for the kind of
politics  practiced     by the likes of Cesaire.13
       As I read over what I have written so far I realize            that I have
trespassed      one of Agyeman's warnings       about the abusive use of quota-
tions:
            As is so often the case with these Marxologists,             every
            logic, every argument, is supposed to be decisively cli-
            nched by the mere citation of a Marxian authority.
            CAgyeman p. 5)
       Nevertheless      Agyeman proceeds      to quote from his own authorities
who he would like to consider        as pan-Africanists.      The quotes that are
attributed   to Earl Ofari and Angela Davis give the impression that,               on
the whole, they support Agyeman's political           and ideological pQsitions.
Not so. Angela Davis is a central          committee member of the Communist
Party of the United States.        She belongs to a political     orgnization    which
has been famous for its revisionist        political  strategy.    On the basis of
this it might be easy to conclude that it would not be surprising             that through
opportunism,       the CP USA would adopt a pan-Africanist           line.  Angela
Davis however,        is not a pan-Africanist    and the term is not mentioned once
by her in the whole interview.        S he does talk about black people and black
consciousness.        But on at last two occasions    where Agyeman cites Angela
Davis he stops short and therefore         only give a truncated       and hence dis-
torted version       of Angela Davis' position.    Agyeman's footnote 42 quoting
Angela Davis continues        as follows:
             Black people, in the way we look, the way our hair
            is, and all those things, are good because that l..S
            the way we are. But at the same time we have to
            realize that in itself cannot provide a strategy for
            liberation.     Taken in isolation black consciousness
             can be used often by the ruling class, by the reac-
            tionaries to confuse smr people. 14
As to footnote 36 it should end as follows:
              .•. that the struggle against racism is a struggle
             for their own interests,     is a struggle for class
             unity, a struggle without which we will not be able
             to lay the basis for a revolutionary battle for
             socialism. 15
                                              75


             Agyeman quotes profusely         from Earl Ofari and in the process,
again as with Angela Davis,          gives the impression   that E. Ofari is a pan-
Africanist    ideologue.     Indeed Agyeman seems to have used Ofari's          piece
in Monthly Review as the main source for various             sections  of his paper.
He gives the impression         that he and Ofari agree on Engels' racism
when in fact E. Ofari was simply trying to point out a fact that no serioUs
Marxist    would deny, namely the fact that Marxism took root in European
formations     and that as a result     of that the founders of Marxism paid
 scant attention to the national movements of non-whites.           "But",    wrote
Ofari,    "as time passed Marx mid Engels began slowly to rethink many
 of their positions     of the question of national movements of non-whites"          •
 And in recognition      of this Engels is quoted by Ofari as having written
 the following in 1857:
             From the first occupation of Algeria by the French ... '
             the unhappy country has been the arena of unceasing
             bloodshed. rapine and violence •...        The Arab and
             Kabyle tribes, to whom independence is precious and
             hatred of foreign domination a principle dearer than
             life itself, have been crushed and broken by the
             terrible razzias ....      The tribes still assert their
             independence and detestation of the French regime. 16
             Agyeman's rendition of this change is not similar:
             Whatever modifications took place over the years
             in Marx and Engels view of the worth of non-
             Europeans, they were not of sufficient weight to
              "lift classical Marxism into a comprehensive social
             models: The seeds of ,conscension, sown in the
              early years, were to take root and sprout.(Agye-
             man p. 11)
        I do not by all means,       agree with all the analytical formulation     of
 Ofari,   but it is certain that he is not a propagandizer       of pan-Africanist
  ideology,   even if his understanding      of Marxism-Leninism      suffers  from
  a pan-Africanist     twist.  The last sentence of his essay is quite explicit:
              The utilization of Marxism- Leninism as a scientific
              tool of analysis certainly poses no contradictions when
              strictly applied to the unique conditions of blacks. 17
        He has articulated      his position even more forcefully     in his book
 on the Myth of Black Capitalism.
        To strengthen his case Agyeman uses also W:E. B. Dubois' resig-
 nation from the socialist       party in 1902 as an example of Marxists       comp-
 lacency towards racism in the US. As explained above he makes no dis-
                                                76


tinction between Marxism and socialism            and a socialist    Party is not
Marxist.    This allusion to an episode of W. E. B. Dubois' life is,           like
the use of A. Davis and E. Ofari quotations,            intellectually   dishonest
because it distorts     the position of these individuals with regard         to the
relevance    of class   analysis   and class   struggles   if the emancipation of
black workers      and black peasants     is going to be achieved.
As far as Dubois is concerned,         it must not be forgotten that he later
became an avowed communist. 18 In his autobiography he does refer                  to
his resignation     from the socialist    party,   but in the same paragraph
where he mentions the incident he wrote:
            Then came war, the Russian Revolution and the fight
            of England, France and the US against the Bolsheviks.
            I began to read Karl Marx. I was. astounded and wondered
            what other areas of learning had been ropped off from
            my mind in the days of my "broad" education. I did not,
            however, jump to the conclusion that the new Rus sia
            had achieved the ideal of Marx. 19
 and then of course the following confession          which is almost a classic:
            It was .not until I saw the miracle of Modern China
            that I realized how splendidly and surely the world
             could be led by the working class; even if at times
             they wavered and made mistakes. 20
       With regard     to Dubois's   notion of Pan-Africanism        before his com-
munist period,     we are reminded by Azinna Nwafor that:
             Dubois's Pan-African movement was a veritable elite
            movement of bourgeois black intellectuals who insisted
             that 'while the principle of self-determination          cannot
             be applied to uncivilized peoples, yet the educated
             blacks should have some voice in the disposition of the
             German colonies. 21
       Nwafor goes on to analyze the class position of those who call for
Pan-Africanis,       and how the emerging African bourgeoisie            wanted to set
itself  apart from the rest of the masses.         This was the very strategy       that
the colonizers     so eagerly pushed and the US ruling class            advocated a~
a means    of undermining the revolutionary         potential of the Bl'a.ckPower
movement. The very locatiop that the organizers              of the Fifth Pan-African
Congress    had to choose for their meeting -- Manchester              (England) __ is
an ironic,    but telling illustration   of the kind of accommodation and under-
standing that the colonizers       and the petty bourgeoisie       could reach.   The
Congress    was forced to meet in Manchester          by the colonizers     whom the
participants    vowed to oust from the continent. 22
                                              77


       It is not enough, to call on Angela Davis, E. Ofari, W.E.B. Dubois.
Amilcar Cabral is also appropriated, again in a fundamentally truncated
manner which turns Cabral into a woolly thinker and indecisive revolu-
tionary which he never was. According to Agyeman Cabral is quoted as
having lamented:
             Obviously, 1 don't think it is possible to forge close relations
             between the peasantry in Guinea and the working class move-
             ment in Europe... (But) there are two alternatives: either
             we admit that th^re really is a struggle against imperialism
             which interests everybody, or we deny it. . . . (Agyeman,
             p. U)
The unfinished quotation leaves the reader in doubt as to Cabral's
position on the question of internationalism; but at the end of the para-
graph the author resolves the doubts of the reader in the following
manner:
             in a world of racism in which contempt for the black
             race is a fundamental datum of the global system...
             i s the much harped*upon expectation of a consolidated
             worldtworkers1 alliance predicated on realism or on
             faith? And is such an expectation easier to entertain
             than f&at which posits that the mass of the world's
             bla ck peoples, the most battered victims of imperia-
             lism be united to fight against domination and indignity
             which they all, irrespective of their economic station,
             share? Which is more in consonance with global rea-
             lities and which is close to the mystification of the
             realities. (Agyeman pp. 14--15)
 If this is so, how does Agyeman explain that Andrew Young the US per-
 manent representative at the UN can walk the corridors of power in
 Pretoria while his "fellow black brothers" get trampled upon in the
 gold mines of Johannesburg. What kind of a unity can exist between an
 Andrew Young and the revolutionary students of Soweto? Whatever
 the limitations of the African peasantry's consciousness, its represe-
 ntatives would answer such a question in the negative. In the eastern
 rural areas of Zaire a muzungu is no longer juSst a white man, but he
 is a man with all the economic and social attributes that were once
 assigned to whites only.
         But let us return to Cabral and give the full quote;lest the readers
  of Agyeman1 s paper get the impression that Cabral had not denounced
  the kind of reactionary ideology peddled by the petty bourgeois intellec-
  tuals . The first part of the quote reads in its entirety as follows:
                                           78


            Obviously 1 don't think it is possible to forge close
            relations between the peasantry in Guinea and the
            working clas.s movement in Europe; what we must
            do first is try and forge close links between the
            peasant movement and the wage-earners          movement
            in our own country.23 (my emphasis)
 The second part reads:
             To end up with, 1 should just like to make one last
            point about solidarity between the international
             working class movement and our national liberation
             struggle. There are two alternatives:       either we
             admit that there really is a struggle against imperia-
            lism which interests everybody, or we deny it. If,
             as would seem from all the evidence, imperialism exi-
             sts and is trying simultaneously to dominate the wor-
            king class in all the advanc.ed countries and smother
            the national liberation movements in all the underde-
            veloped countries, then there is only one enemy agai-
            nst whom we are fighting. 24
 I would like to conclud.e by focusing on two aspects        of Pan-Africanism.
 In my paper on African history       and ideology I rejected    it as essentially
 a reactionary    ideology,  but since the point was not fully elaborated,
 maybe it is worth going over .once again.
       Can Pan-Africanism       really  emancipate the oppressed      masses of
 the continent?    Can Pan-Africanism     really  provide the analytical tools
 and the ideological    basis for bringing about the liberation      of the toiling
.peasants   and workers?     But of course Agyeman never poses this kind of
 question.   I .cannot but agree with Azinna Nwafor when he writes:
             Measured in these terms, Pan-Africanism did not
             offer a revolutiOnary choice to the emancipation of
             Africa from its centuries of conquest, domination,
             and colonial exploitation. The necessarily       progre-
             ssive role which the movement played in the evolu-
             tion of Africa to independent status should not be
             underestimated:     but the severe limitations of the
             scope and method are such that it contributed in
             no small degree to the disarray of the contemporary
             African scene and the general disenchantment with
             the fruits of political independence. It would seem
             that the sto.rm centres of popular uprising for
             African emancipation were in fact headed off with
             the aid of Pan-Africanists,     who represented them-
             selves to the colonial authorities as the only
             forces capable to curbing the violence of the masses.25
       Let us focus the well ~own riots        of Kinshasa which took place in
 January 4, 1959. As a petty bourgeois ideology Pan-Africanism              could
                                            79


 not but blunt the rage of those who rioted         in the streets  of Kinshasa.
 in January    4, 1959. The spontaneous outburst of anger brought about
 a swift and bloody repression        from the colonizers.     But as if this -was
not outrageous      enough, the killing by the colonizers       was duplicated or
 made worse by the attitude adopted by the rising petty bourgeoisie:
 and attitude which sought to demonstrate          to the colonial authorities
 that they were not responsible        for the rioting.   Indeed they condemned
 the rioting through their mouthpiece:         La Voix du Congolais.     The emer-
 ging political   class,   in order to inherit political    power, had to demon-
 strate  its reasonableness      ~   to the masses they were going to lead,
 but to those who were going to hand them power.            There were struggles
 for independence,      but these struggles    were conducted by different
 classes   at different levels.    The violence of January 4,      1959 could .be
 said to have been the single event that awoke the Belgian colonizers
to reality,    a reality  which was quite different from the one that they
had been reading or learning through their contacts with the emerging
petty bourgeoisie.
        The current    ruling classes    in Africa   are always eager to point
out their common experience,         their   common subjugation they experie-
nced with the masses.        In a general sense this is     true,  but again op-
pression    and exploitation took different forms according to the social
and economic position occupied by the colonized people. This is a
crucial   question to settle in view of Agyeman's efforts to down play
class   differences    within the black population in order to say that it is
not capitalism but racism that oppresses          the black people. Here I am
purposely    using the vague terms of "black population" and "black
people" as Agyeman does. He does not actually say so in the paper,
but he is very close to saying the absurd thing that capitalism is evil
because it is a system "invellted" by whites.
        On economic differences      among.black people,      a fact that he would
wish t9 discard,     but which is too glaring to hide he wrote:
             To be sure, there are, up to a point, social and economic
             differences among black people. But this has to be viewed
             against the fact that the economic status of a black person
             no matter how high, does not gain him equality of social
             status with the white conterpart.       In other words, the ranks
             of the world's Qropertied class (emphasis added) is marked
             by social heterogeneity crippling to the club member.
             (Agyeman, p. 15)
                                             80


Again a typical petty bourgeois discourse           which vacillates     between join-
ing the ranks      of the oppressed    and joining the ranks of the oppress~r.
What bothers       Agyeman is that racism prevents        "the- black-club-member-
of-the-propertied-class         from being treated    equally.  Conveniently,      he
does not clarify this,       supposedly because it is something which is of
such common knowledge that it does not require             elaboration.
        It is true that during colonial rule racism        stood in the way of the
emerging petty bourgeoisie         with such overwhelming       presence     that it --
one of the ideological       manifestations   of the capitalism   - - became the main
enemy to       combat. Although the racism of colonial rule was aimed at
the colonized population as a whole it was most vociferously               attacked by
that section of the population which was bound to gain the most economi-
cally by its removal,        and that section of the population was in the main
the future ruling class of independent Africa.
        No amount of down playing class differences           will demonstrate     that
black workers        and black peasants    will gain anything by allying themselves
to their bourgeoisies        on the basis of a pan-Africanist     ideology.    I have
 shown earlier      that when their political future appeared in jeopardy the
 emerging ruling class ran way from its "black brothers".               It happened in
January     4, 1959, but it had also happened before:
              After the Force Publique mutiny in Luluabourg               evolues'
              had prepared a memorandum demanding 'if not a special
              stature at least a special protection of the government,
              shielding them from the application of certain treatments
              and measures which could be applied to a retarded and
              ignorant mass. 26
        Believers     in Pan-Africanism     do not like to insist  on class because
that would smack of doctrinaire         marxism,    but there is nothing doctrina-
ire" in demonstrating      that where class    distinctions   do exist,   these
class    distinctions    will determine not only the social and political
positions     adopted by these different classes        but also their    ideological
stance.
        Some may think by now that our calling Agyeman's paper typical
petty bourgeois propaganda          is overly vindictive    and could indeed      be
seen as an unwarranted         term of abuse.    This may be the place to deal
effectively with one of the most pernicious ways in which Agyeman
presents himself as deeply committed to a socialist pan-Africa".                 (p.15)
 BUt the sentence preceding        this pledge of allegiance     to socialism
 reads:
                                               81


           But 1 will go even further to assert the advantages
           of a 'bourgeois' black power achievement over an
           unrealizable global proletarian revolution. (Agye-
           man p. 15)
      Again here we see at play the balancing act of the petty bourgeois;
on the one hand committed to a socialist pan-African state and on the
other asserting the advantages of a "bourgeois" black power. But it is
on the side of the latter that the balance must be tipped since the
possibility of creating the former is far from certain:
           But if such a goal (for a socialist, pan-African state)
           were to prove unrealizable, then surely it would make
           sense to entertain the next best conjecture of a non
           socialist pan-African state, provided it contained the
           instruments for a great economic, scientific and tech-
           nological achievements which could earn for the black
           man the heretofore lacking spiritual self-satisfaction
           of a worthy, competent and powerful people. (Agyeman
           p. 15)
           and the next paragraph continues in the same vein: What
           1 am saying, in other words, is that an Africa that
           turned into a Japan would be preferable to an Africa
           that remained in its present feeble condition waiting
           vainly and indefinitely for a world socialist revolu-
           tion (Agyeman p. 16)
      First of all in this paragraph, Agyeman has totally rejected the
notion of any kind   of complementarity between Pan-Africanism and
Marxism.
      Secondly, Agyeman has absolutely no sense of history when he
suggests wishfully that Africa be turned into a Japan. Japan is one
social formation whose characteristics are rooted in historical pro-
cesses which are specific to that formation. Africa on the other hand
is characterized by a combination of varied heterogeneous formations
which underwent certain common historical experiences; the most
important of which were slavery and colonial rule.
      Finally why the example of Japan? Could Japanese capitalism have
some relieving features which would make it a model to be emulated by
 a hypothetical pan-African state? Because it is not white capitalism
therefore it might be a good system to adopt? These question are raised
because of his assertion that:
            That the most important contradiction in the world of
            the black man is that between his total submergence,
                                        82


             materially and s,piritually, in the haughty predomina-
             nce of other races. (Agyeman p. 15)
        While it may seem fairly          easy to see why Pan:-Africanism               as  ctll
ideology is essentially        reactionary      if seen from a class         perspective
1he same cannot be said when Pan-Africanism                     is seen as a cultural
phenomenon.        One often hears,       especially    from bourgeois         writers     that
culture   has no boundaries         that culture     is that fibre that brings         people
of different     social   and economic classes         together.       But such arguments
have been made from Marxist             corners     too: it has been argued for example
that an African       (or black) cultural      identity is a worthwhile           corrective
not only to bourgeois         cultural   imperia lism but also to dogmatic exposi-
tions by self styled Marxists           or scientific     sOcialism,,27
        On the face of it is difficult to deny that there is such thing as
black culture,       African   culture    just as there      exists    European      culture,
Asian culture       etc. It is precisely      because     of this surface       appearance
that "culture      cannot be used,      could not be used as a weapon or a method
for mobilization       against foreign domination" . 28
        And with the logic that is characteristic               of his analyses       Cabral
pointed out that it would be pre-posterous                to believe that a liberation
strll.ggle which is fundamentally           a political    act could resort        to methods
of struggle     other than political.       However,       it is extremely      impor~t         to
uuderstand      that culture    has also a class       character,       a fact that African
bour~eoisies       the continent     over will always try to deny.
      Cultural    identity,    preservation       or African      culture   has been one of the
processes     through which the ruling classes              have a.ttempted (during the
post-colonial      era) to maintain an artificial         class    alliance    between the
most oppressed        classes    of society and themselves.            Cultural     identity
and its maintenance         is a problem of the petty bourgeois              intellectual
precisely   because      of the distance      that educational        and economic forces
ha.ve put between him and the oppressed.                These educational           and econo-
mic forces     have drawn him away from his own culture                   into the. periphery
of imperialist      culture .. During colonial rule the very effective                barrier
of racism   turned him into a cultural           squatter.     Torn away from his own
culture,   he could not become one with the imported                   culture.     Hence the
problem of identity that Agyeman is talking about is also one which
must be analyzed in class terms.              "Return to Authenticity"           can only
appJy to those      who have left.     Authentic culture         has been      preserved         by
                                                   83


the most oppressed       members of society who could not by definition have
an identity problem.      Solidarity    therefore   cannot be based on culture
 especially   if the boundaries of that culture      are defined by the ruliP.g
classes.      In the process   of constantly     reproducing     their dominant
position the ruling classes ~           produce an ideology which by definition
 cannot articulate    the concrete   and objective reality     of the basis upon
which the ruling class relates       to the oppressed     classes.    Such a view
of ideology says Agyeman has          long been discarded,      in fact from the
time when Engles and Marx were still alive. If this were the case how
come Agyeman cannot produce a quote from Engels or Marx and the only
 authority he can bring to bear his point is an obscure secondary             writer
R . M. Christenson.
       In the paper 1 did not quote from what Agyeman describes             as "the
long-discarded      Marxian orthodox signification",        but it is clear from
the paper that 1 accepted and followed Marx and Engels' definition
of what is to be understood by the ruling class ideology as well as
what    its function ought to be in any particula r social formation.         In
the German Ideology, Marx and Engels wrote:
             The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the
             ruling ideas: i. e. the clas s, which is the ruling
             material force of society, is at the same time its
             ruling intellectual force. The class which has the
             means of material production at its disposal, has
             control at the same time over the means of mental
             production, so that thereby, generally speaking,
             the ideas of those who lack the means of mental pro-
             duction are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing
            more than the ideal expression of the dominant
            material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of
             that relationship which make the one class the ruling
             one, therefore the ideas of its dominance. The
             individuals composing the ruling class possess
             among other things consciousness,         and therefore
            think. In so far, therefore,      as they rule as a
            class and determine the extent and compass of an
             epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in their
            whole range, hence among other things rule also
            'as thinkers, as producers of ideas and regulate
            the production and distribution of the ideas qf their
            age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the
            epoch. 29
Quotations won't do says Agyeman, may be so. Definitely not if saying
so is an attempt to negate and deny the lessons          of those who have
engaged in revolutionary      struggles.    These lessons     we find them in
                                             84


many places of the world,         but we also find them very close to home in
Mozambique.
       The struggles      in Mozambique against Portugal           have demonstrated
that even a term like culture is not something static which is there to
be picked up by anybody who comes along. As comrade Simbine Machel
so eloquentlyput      it, culture   in a revolutionary      situationmust    be revolu-
tionary.   "The true culture is the revolution".          30
       The Mozambiquans have no use for an ideal pan-African                  state or
nation of all the progressive        African countries.       Their struggle is one
which took place within very concrete            and very real boundaries.        The
revolutionary     transformation     that they are struggling       to bring about is
one which can only take place in the process             of    struggles  between clas-
ses which are part of a single social formation.              To start from something
which does not exist in concrete         reality   - - a pan-African     nation --
is to engage in Utopian idealism just as it is to suggest that the Marxists
are out to create      a Universal    proletarian    nation.    N0t only is.it utopian
socialism,    but it is worse because it attributes          goals to Marxism or Mar-
xist organizations      which have never been put forward by them.
       Pan-Africanists       have a tendency to believe that there is something
unique in their call for Pan-African          unity.   While the historical     situation
is certainly   different    and calls for different forms of political struggle.
It is worth noting the manner in which Engels in his own day dealt with
another movement which resembles            very much Pan-Africanism:           Pan,.
Slavism.    First   Engels quoted some of the demands that were issues                at
the time during the Slav Congress          (1848):
            In the name of those of us who lived in Hungary, we
            offered a fraternal alliance ... to the Magyars, the
            furious foes of our race. In our alliance of liberation
            we also did not forget those of our brothers who sigh
            beneath the Turkish yoke. We solemnly condemned
            that criminal policy which thrice tore Poland apart. ..
            All this we said, and we demanded with all the demo-
            crats of all peo.ples: liberty, equality and the frater-
            nity of all nations.
            Then we felt certain of our cause ..• justice and
           humanity were entirely on our side. And on the side
            of our foes was nothing but illegality and barbarism.
            These were no empty dreams which we devoted our-
            selves to, but rather the ideas of the only true and
            necessary policy, the policy of revolution. 31
                                              85


rhen followe.d Engels'       comments:
              'Justice',  'humanity', 'liberty',   'e({uality', 'fraternity',
              'independence' -- so far we have found nothing more in
              the pan-Slav manifesto than these more or less moral
              categories,    which admittedly sound very fine, but pro;e
              absolutely nothing (Engles' emphasis) in historical an
              political matters, 'Justice',    'humanity', 'liberty',    etc.,
              may demand this or that a thousand times over; but if
              the cause is an impossible one, nothing will happen and
              it will remain, despite everything, 'an empty dreamf32
IThen on the fundamental choice that pan-Slavism            implied:
              L~t us in any case have no illusions about this.
              With all pan- Slavists, nationality, i. e. imagi-
              nary, general Slav nationality, comes before the
              revolution. (Engels f emphasis). The pan-Slavists
              want to join the revolution on condition that they
               are permitted to constitute all Slavs without exce-
              ption, and without regard for the most Vital necessi-
              ties, into independent Slav states. We Germans
              would have gone far in Martth if we had wanted to
              lay down the same absurd conditions! However,
              the revolution does not allow' conditions to be dicta-
              ted to it. Either one is a revolutionary and accepts the
               consequences of the revolution, whatever they may
               be, or one is thrown into the arms of the counter revo-
              lution and is one morning to be found arm in arm with
              Nicholas and Windiscgratz, perhaps entirely unknowi-
              ngly and unwillingly. 33
         The supermarxists      are said to be pathological     cases,  that is,
people who identify with something which does not even exist:              a uni-
 versal    proletarian   nation.  As   I said revolutionary    Marxists    do not
 start   from something which does not even exist.         To be a Marxist is
 to be a materialist,     and a materialist   can only analyze from concrete
 reality   not from things which are "entertained"        or "envisioned".      Let
visionaries      engage in that kind of exercise.
         And if the Marxism of     J. Saul is of the kind that is amenable and
 acceptable     to Agyeman let it be, but whatever the revolutionary          practice
of Saul is, it has not, so far,       matched the revolutionary      experience    of
the Mozambiquan comrades who strongly reaffirmed               that:
              Theories such as negritude and African authenticity
              are nothing more than theories of the dommant classes
              of neo-colonialism, of im~erialism. Mozambiquan anti-
              imperialist and anti-neocolonialist      culture affirms it-
               self through a violent rupture with these racists bour-
                                             86


            geois and therefore reactionary theories. They are
            theories aimed only at diverting the working masses from
            the true objectives of their struggle and to serve the
            new exploiters, despite their being historically un-
            masked. 34-
       Comrade Simbine Machel who spoke these words knew what she
was talking about for the simple reason that it is precisely these theo-
ries of African authenticity and various brands of Pan-Africanism that
are being broadcast from Southern Rhodesia with the direct aim of
instilling doubts and suspicions among the listeners in Mozambique.
Whether the source of these broadcats is the C.I.A. or the White
Regime itself is irrelevant. What these broadcasts show is that mono-
poly capital will resort to all available tactics in order to reverse the
victories of the masses. The ideologues of monopoly capital in Africa
are using precisely the kind of argument that is advanced in Agyeman's
paper. He may react and say that he is no part to that kind of neo-
colonial solution, but as 1 have shown throughout this reply: that is
where it is leading to. Imamu Baraka has even gone further in his de-
nunciation of the myth of Black capitalism in the USA: The target of his
flaming pen is the black mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Ken Gibson:
            He had called the dogs out. And at the same time,
            even as the people were getting beat, he was meet-
            ing with his stooges to put together a puppet leader-
            ship who would say be cool, praise neocolonialist
            Ken Gibson, and your sorrows will vanish. Columbus
            Homes will become a mansion. Your holey shoes will
            becomes two Mercedes Benzes. Your unemployed
            brothers and sisters stockbrokers in a venture yet
            to raise its head called puerto Rican capitalism.
            You heard a black capitalism aintchu?35
 and further down:
             Dig that. How neo-colonialism works. To get a
             black face to put on the black shirt and be the
             first nigger Hitler in the land. 36
       It does not require any sense of imagination to extrapolate and
 see that the possibility of Imperialism imposing a Hitler in Mozambique
is not far fetched. Look at Chile. And one of the idelogical lines that is
being used from the bastion of white racists in order to destabilize the
Mozambiquan regime is that of Pan-Africanist authenticity.
                                          87


FOOTNOTES:
1   G. Padmore, Pan-Africanism or Communist, Anchor Books,
    Double Day a n d C , New York, 1972, p. 355.
2   L. Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin, Monthly P r e s s , New York,
    1972, p. 229. The same essay, "Marxism: Science or Revolution"
    has been reprinted in R. Blackburn (ed.), Ideology in Social
    Science, Vintage Books, New York, 1973, p. 370.
3   Message to the 24-th Session of the Liberation Committee of the
    OAU, Dar es Salaam, 8-14th January 1975 as reproduced in
    Race and Class, XVI, 4, (1975), p. 408.
4   Ibid., p. 408.
5   Ibid., pp. 406-7.
6   L. Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin, p. 236.
7   Machel, Message to the 24th Session . . . Op. cit. , p. 409.
8    S. Machel, Sowing the Seeds of Revolution, p. 64. This parti-
    cular interview also appeared in the Sunday News (Dar es
    Salaam, April 2, 1972).
9   This is the famous myth of "Black capitalism is beautiful". For
    whom? The ruling class, of course. On this see Toussaint,
     "Black Bankers - - Friends or Enemies of Liberation?" The
    African Communist 64, 1st quarter 1976, pp. 63-74.
IX) K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 277.
11  Shlomo Avineri, (ed.) K. Marx on Colonialism and Modernization,
    p. 80.
12  Ibid. , pp. 94-5
13-  F. Fanon, Toward the African Revolution, Grove Press; New
     York, 1967, p. 139.
 14 A. Davis, "Howl became a Communist", The African Communist
     61, 1975, p. 34.
 15 Ibid., p. 35.
 16  E. Ofari, "Marxism, Nationalism and Black Liberation", Monthly
     Review, March 1971, p. 20.
 17  Ibid., p. 33.
 18  W.E.B. Dubois, Autobiography, International Publishers, New
     York, 1968, third printing, 1971, pp. 57-9.
 19  Ibid., p. 289.
 20  Ibid. , p. 306. For those who may think that Dubois is an exception
     t hey may wish to read the impressions of Langston Hughes when he
     travelled to Russia in the twenties. See the second part of his
     autobiography: 1 wonder as 1 wander, Hill and Wang, New York,
 21  A. Nwafor, "Liberation and Pan-Africanism1,1 Monthly Review,
     November 1973, p. 21.


22 lmamu Baraka, "Revolutionary Culture and Future of Pan-African
   Culture", (mimeo), Paper presented at the 6th Pan-African Congress
   June 19-27, Dar es Salaam.
23 A. Cabral, Revolution in Guinea, Selected Texts, Monthly Press,
   New York, 1972, p. 74.
24 Ibid., p. 75.
25 A. Nwafor, Introduction to G. Padmore's Pan-Africanism or
   Communism,Op. cit., p. xxxvii.
26 Dettes de Guerre, pp; 128-9, as quoted from C. Young, Politics
   in the Con,go, Princeton University Press, 1965, p. 77.
27 A quote attributed to Rodney in ImamuBaraka's paper cited above,
   p.  6.
28 A. Cabral, L'Arme de la Theorie, Masp~ro, Paris,    1975, p. 352.
29 K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideolo~y, International
   Publishers, New York, eighth printing, 19b , p. 39.
30 G. Simbine Machel, "Opening Address" - UNESCOConference
   on Social Structure Revolutionary Change and Culture - Maputo,
   July 19-22, 1976, Cmimeo).
31 F. Engels, "Democratic Pan-Slavism", Neue Rheinische Zeitun~,
   15th February 1849, as quoted from D. Fernbach (ed.), The
   Revolutions of 1848, Pelican Marx Libvary, London, 1973;'"
   pp. 22t$-9.
32 ~,     p. 229.
33 Ibid., p. 244.
34 G. Simbine Machel, Op. cit.
35 Imamu Baraka, "Newark Seven Years Later",     Monthly Review,
   January 1975, p. 22.
36 ~,     p. 23.
                                   89