Monday, April 30, 2012

Junious Ricardo Stanton: Their Plan Is Working

From The Ramparts
by Junious Ricardo Stanton ~

  "Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086." A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The Kleptocrats want to gut the social safety nets and reduce us to grovelling serfs and peons as they turn the US into a neo-feudal third world banana republic under the guise of restoring fiscal sanity. In 2004 George W Bu$h fresh off another theft of the presidential election called for privatizing Social Security. Remember that? But even the mass media mind control apparatus couldn't help him sell that one and the push back was loud and swift. By then most people were getting tired of Bu$h's lies, the good ol boy cronyism and hubris. Imagine what Social Security would be like today if Bu$h had gotten his way and turned it over to Wall Street? Can you say, Bernie Madoff?
Sensing they could not win that one, the fascists in the board rooms who run this country tried another tactic; starve Social Security of funds to hasten its demise. So under the guise of a "payroll tax holiday" Obama and the Congress critters reduced the amount of money they take out of your pay check that goes to Social Security. This way they kept the Bu$h era tax cuts in place (the very cuts that led to fiscal insolvency in the first place) and they stealthfully undermined Social Security in the guise of giving usmore money to spend. "In 2010, Congress passed a payroll tax holiday which reduced the amount of Social Security tax paid by employees by 2%. As a worker, you are aware that you have taxes withheld from your paycheck. A portion of those taxes are for federal, state and local income taxes (depending on where you live, you may not have all of these), but a large portion of your tax withholding is for Social Security and Medicare, also called FICA. FICA taxes are paid by both employees and employers. In 2010, the amount was 6.2% for Social Security (on income up to $106,800) and 1.45% for Medicare, for a total of 7.65% each. At the end of 2010, the amount of Social Security tax for 2011 was reduced 2% to 4.2% for employees only. No changes were made to Medicare or to federal, state or local income taxes. This 2% payroll tax reduction was created to help boost the economy and was intended to be for 2011 only. However, since the economy has grown slower than expected in 2011, President Obama is calling for the tax cut to be extended into 2012." Congress Expected to Extend Payroll Tax Holiday into 2012 by Kristine on December 5, 2011 http://www.socialsecurityretirementincome.com/social-security/payroll-tax-holiday/
By now we should have learned Reaganomics doesn't work, its a sham and trick. The only way cutting taxes works is if you simultaneously cut spending. Neither Reagan, the Bu$hes nor Obama cut spending,they always seem to have money for wars and killing. Even if the legislation was well intended, and I have my doubts it was, the affect reduced the funds flowing in the the Social Security Trust Fund coffers on two levels. First the 2% tax reduction was an obvious and predicable loss in revenue. No discussion is needed on that one. Second the economy remains depressed. It has not turned around and I don't think they thought this so called tax holiday would make that much difference in the overall economy. They just wanted the Bu$h tax cuts to remain in effect and they punked Obama into going along with it. As more companies go belly up, as more workers are laid off or get reduced hours the various governments: local, state and federal take in less tax revenues due to the failing economy. We are in a depression but Obama, Congress and the media are not telling us the real deal.
However in its' latest report the Social Security Board of Trustees shares why their revenue stream is down significantly. "A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to 'replicate to the extent possible' payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012." A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
What they are saying is the "tax holiday" legislation caused a major drop in revenue and is forcing the federal government to appropriate the funds to cover the revenue shortfalls. The fascists are cunning, they needed a pretext to gut Social Security and by it now being a drain on the US Treasury this is their excuse. They knew this was going to happen. So look for Obama to push for "Social Security reform" as a way to further gut the program. The real reason the Social Security Trust Fund is broke is because every president since Lyndon B. Johnson has raided it, used the money to pay bills and create the illusion of a lower deficit. They took the moneyand left worthless IOU's as accounting tools to let folks know just how much money they took.
It's a scam, the trust Fund money still has to be paid back. The IOU's in the account are not interest bearing T Bills so there is no government backed money that Social Security can draw on to replace the money the federal government took from the Fund!! The money is coming directly from the US Treasury which is already way in the red. The federal government is broke! This gives the Kleptocrats the ammunition they need to undermine Social Security which was the goal all along.
The Social Security Trustees have this recommendation "Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare." http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html What they mean is so we can prepare to get shafted because there is no way the US government/Treasury can pay back all the money it has "borrowed" from the Social Security Trust Fund over the past forty-five years.



Follow TheBlackList on these networks
      Facebook Twitter Ning foursquare StumbleUpon Digg Blogger
    



Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Woman Thou Art Loosed On The Seventh Day Review

Woman Thou Art Loosed on the Seventh Day

My wife and I went to see Rev T.D. Jakes' newest motion picture Woman Thou Art Loosed On The Seventh Day. The film is only being shown and exhibited in AMC theaters but it is well worth going out of your way to find a theater to see the film. I was reluctant to see it. I thought it was going to be a low budget, poorly produced propaganda piece for T.D. Jakes and Christianity. Jakes is a prominent minister and he has produced several films in the past. Jakes even has a cameo role in this film as a preacher and pastoral counselor. I must admit the film is well written and extremely well acted. The dialogue and acting do not beat you over your head with doctrine and dogma. Rather the film addresses a myriad of issues facing Africans in America such as forgiveness, the cultural pathology of the dominant culture, dysfunctional male female relationships, marital, infidelity, trust, class issues, personal choice and redemption.
To his credit Jakes assembled a stellar writing, directing and production team who made the characters real rather than card board caricatures and stereotypes. The film takes place in New Orleans and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina is still evident. The pale of devastation still hangs over the city despite the well off lifestyles of the main characters. The city is experiencing a serial kidnapping and killing spree reminiscent of the child killings in Atlanta decades ago. Most of the victims are not affluent or from well off neighborhoods. In this milieu Blaire Underwood and Sharon Neal's characters are living large with a seemingly great relationship together with their six year old daughter. But this is a veneer for the secrets in their past and present which come unraveled following their daughter's kidnapping. The kidnapping drastically alters their lives, as one by one their secrets are revealed first Neal's then as the film progresses, Underwood's past undoes him. During the crisis their marriage is put to the ultimate test, their friends desert them, they feel powerless with nowhere to turn as their world gets turned upside down and torn apart. Underwood's character turns on his wife once her secrets are exposed. He becomes judgmental and aloof. Neal's character flirts with drinking as the demons from her past come back to haunt her.
Pam Grier plays a tough, no nonsense New Orleans police detective who in the course of doing the routine background work of her job exposes Neal's past. The film contains numerous twists and turns, back stories and character proclivities that keep the viewer engaged and emotionally invested as the story unfolds. Underwood's character uses his influence to have additional resources brought in the help look for his daughter. The help comes in the form of an FBI agent who unbeknownst to Underwood knows his wife and has past history with her. The FBI agent's character has more empathy for Neal's character than does her husband because he knows her past and what she has been through which adds to the tension and plot line. The suspense mounts as the days pass and the daughter is not found. The MO of the psychopathic serial killer is the child is killed within six days. As the days dwindle, the twists and turns keep the viewer guessing trying to follow as the plot gets complicated.
The writers don't descend into feel good churchianity or get preachy. They let the story, visuals and actors make their point as the characters desperately struggle to stay afloat and not allow the tidal waves of their past crashing in on them to take them under. Underwood and Neal have had their sordid pasts revealed and exposed to the world. Now they have to decide how to go about mending their lives. I'm not going to reveal the outcome. See the picture for yourselves. You will be glad you did.


[TheBlackList] Woman Thou Art Loosed On The Seventh Day Review




Follow TheBlackList:
Facebook
 Twitter Ning foursquare StumbleUpon Digg Blogger
 





Open Letter to U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee and Other Supporters of HR 4173

OPEN LETTER TO U.S. REP. BARBARA LEE AND OTHER SUPPORTERS OF HR 4173

From: ohiolaborparty@aol.com via mx.aol.com
To: ohiolaborparty

Dear Congresswoman Lee:

We wish to express our deepest admiration and respect for the vote you cast in 2001 against the U.S. going to war with Afghanistan. Since you were the only legislator in either House of Congress to cast such a vote, it was indeed a rare act of courage. And to your credit, you continued taking a strong antiwar stance the following year when you voted against giving Bush authority to attack Iraq.

We are writing you now to express our dismay that you are the principal sponsor of HR 4173, a bill that contravenes the Iranian people's right to self-determination. We urge you to give consideration to the reasons stated below which explain why we oppose the bill. But first a brief note on what we believe should be the strategy for preventing a U.S. war against Iran.

The Ohio State Labor Party, together with a number of other antiwar formations, believes that the key to preventing a U.S. military attack against Iran is building a broad, massive, united, independent, international movement in the streets to support such basic demands as "No to War, No to Bombing, No to Sanctions Against Iran!"

These demands are anchored on the fundamental respect for the right of peoples of other countries to settle their own destinies without outside dictation, intervention or occupation -- in short, their right to self-determination.

The struggle for peace proceeds on several levels, including the legislative one. Here, we believe, the goal should be to win support of legislators for the antiwar movement's demands. A classic example of this was the introduction of a resolution to Congress in 1971 by Sen. Vance Hartke of Indiana calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam, with no conditions or qualifiers. Of course this followed the huge antiwar demonstrations that had been organized by the movement and the increasing public sentiment favoring immediate withdrawal.

Regarding the situation we face today, we have learned to be wary of bills and resolutions which on their face appear to advance the struggle for a peaceful resolution of the U.S. government's confrontation with Iran, but, when scrutinized, leave the door wide open for U.S. and Israeli military attacks against that country. This, in our view, is the case with HR 4173.

Let us explain the reasons we have reached this conclusion:

1. President Obama's Announced Policy is to Conduct Diplomacy to Prevent Iran From Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon and Thus Avoid War; HR 4173's Stated Goal is to Conduct Diplomacy to Prevent Iran From Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon and Thus Avoid War.

There is absolutely no daylight between the two. To be sure, President Obama says no options are off the table, including the military one, and he is not bluffing. HR 4173 has language purporting to require Congressional approval before military action is taken against Iran (more on this below). But the intent of both is exactly the same.

As you know, here is HR 4173's actual wording: "A Bill to direct the President of the United States to appoint a high-level United States representative or special envoy for Iran for the purpose of ensuring that the United States pursues all diplomatic avenues to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, to avoid a war with Iran, and other purposes." That is not only the title of the bill but it is repeated for emphasis in its first paragraph.

2. National Sovereignty and the Right to Self-Determination

If we in the antiwar movement are to remain true to our beliefs and program, we must recognize and respect Iran's right to defend itself as that nation sees fit. But this is violated by HR 4173. It is a gratuitous intrusion into Iran's internal affairs.

3. Current Status of Iran's Nuclear Program

Iran today has no nuclear weapons, nor is there any evidence that it is building such weapons. In fact, both American and Israeli intelligence report that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon. Iran's "Supreme Leader" has several times called for a "fatwa" condemning nuclear weapons.

4. What's Wrong With Not Wanting Iran to Have Nuclear Weapons?

Absolutely nothing, so long as it's part of an agreement to ban such weapons arrived at by Iran, Israel and the other states in the neighborhood, including those that have nuclear weapons. In absence of such an agreement, there is not even the pretense of even-handedness in singling out Iran. Instead it reflects a policy of lining up with Israel and the U.S. government against Iran. Meanwhile, the ever-more punitive and harsh sanctions against Iran continue to violate international law.

5. Parallels With Iraq

Not so long ago the U.S. was threatening Iraq with war if Iraq did not agree to destroy its alleged weapons of mass destruction. Remember Condoleeza Rice's warning of mushroom clouds that ostensibly would poison us if Iraq were allowed to continue its build up of nuclear weapons unchecked?

Of course, it was all a Big Lie. But as a consequence of the false and misleading claims of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. engaged in a patently unjust war against Iraq, which led to the death of a million Iraqis -- including a half-million children -- and some 40,000 U.S. casualties, along with the expenditure of a trillion dollars that could have been spent on urgently needed social programs.

It's worth emphasizing that no one that we know of in the antiwar movement saw fit to call upon Iraq to give up its alleged weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid war. We were united in demanding no war against Iraq -- period! -- and never felt compelled to get involved in its internal affairs. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for doing so now vis-a-vis Iran. With regard to Iraq, we said it was a war for oil and empire. The same would be true with a war against Iran.

6. Experience of Other Countries

Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program and the U.S., together with its allies, proceeded to unleash a withering bombing attack against that country, resulting in the overthrow of the Libyan government. North Korea retains its nuclear program and has been spared such a military attack. Obviously, having nuclear weapons is a deterrent, and if Iran decided to build them, it would be perfectly within its rights.

7. Does HR 4173 Really Restrict the President From Taking Military Action Against Iran Without Congressional Approval? The Answer is NO!

Support for HR 4173 cannot be justified by the claim that it includes language restricting the president's authority to conduct a military operation against Iran without "prior authorization by Congress, as required under article I, section 8, clause 2 [it's actually clause 11] of the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the sole authority to declare war." However, HR 4173 undercuts this wording by listing three situations where such Congressional authority is NOT required, the third of which states: "This requirement shall not apply to a military operation or activity ... to directly thwart an imminent offensive military action to be launched from within the territory of Iran against United States forces or an ally with whom the United States has a mutual defense agreement."

One would have to be naive in the extreme to rely on this language as a safeguard against unilateral presidential action. Based on the Iraqi experience, we must exercise the skepticism that is warranted and recognize that U.S. intelligence agencies are fully capable of concocting a situation where under HR 4173 the requirement for Congressional approval would effectively be waived.

8. If There Is A U.S. War Against Iran, How Will It Be Justified?

We should never forget that if the U.S. ends up bombing Iran, the justification will be, "We tried diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon but it did not work. They continued to enrich uranium and have been proceeding step-by-step to develop nuclear weapons. We made clear that we will not permit this to happen and the action we are taking now demonstrates that we mean what we say."

In fact, HR 4173 actually opens the door for military action against Iran. After all, if the results of diplomacy fail to satisfy the U.S. government and Israel, then what's left other than invoking the military option? HR 4173 does not bar war against Iran; under certain circumstances it sanctions such a war even without Congressional approval!

We strongly believe that that the people of this country must oppose a U.S. war against Iran, whether or not diplomacy succeeds or fails, and despite the measures Iran takes to defend itself.

As the movement to prevent a U.S. war against Iran continues to gather momentum, we can only hope that you will follow the example set by Sen. Hartke and introduce a new bill that explicitly endorses and incorporates the antiwar movement's demands, which in today's world means rejecting war, bombing and sanctions against Iran - a bill without loopholes or conditions. That would be a bill that the entire antiwar movement could enthusiastically embrace and promote.

Sincerely yours,

Jerry Gordon
Chair, Ohio State Labor Party






[TheBlackList] Open Letter to U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee and Other Supporters of HR 4173







Follow TheBlackList:
Facebook
 Twitter Ning foursquare StumbleUpon Digg Blogger
 









Monday, April 23, 2012

Considerations on the African National Question by Kwesi K.Prah



Department of Sociology, University of Botswana and Swaziland, extracted from

‘PULA-Botswana Journal of African Studies’,

Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1978



Stating Objectives

Briefly, the main aim of this paper is to discuss the issue of the African nationality.  Of particular importance in the exercise has been the need to explain the class character of African national expression, and in the process of analysing the subject of the paper concepts like, Pan-Africanism, Nationalism, Populism, and the Right to National Self-Determination have had to be subjected to relevant scrutiny.

In a late edition of the radical African journal “Ikwesi”, the following statement is attributed to one of the greatest men of the 20th century, the great Vietnamese revolutionary and leader Ho Chi Minh.  “It is a well-known fact that the black people are the most oppressed of human-kind.”  For centuries ever since the beginnings of capitalism, the labour of black people has been an important source for surplus value in the global process of capitalists accumulation.  Almost everywhere where people of African descent are outside Africa; they have been taken there as slaves.  Today in a large parts of Africa, in the south, white fascist minorities in a manner presently unique for the whole world, ruthlessly oppress, exploit, and treat Africans as inferior humans, sub-human types in the land of their fathers and forefathers.  The aura of servitude which has hung around Africans for centuries lingers on as echoes and reminders of the sad past.  In black culture and politics, expression has been given to the black human condition, for the history of the African people is indeed a history of resistance and protest, which was carried into sublime music and bloody warfare.  Again today, the possibility of organized proletarian struggles co-ordinated on a broader African level has opened up perspectives of the African revolution in a fresh and historically more advanced way.  Students of African history are cheered by Blydens’s last sentence in his The Negro in Ancient History (1871).  “Time’s noblest offspring is the last”.  Indeed, the most violent and the most benign expressions, war and music, have been used by blacks to register their records.  With respect to “Africans in Diaspora”, it is interesting to remember that in all their exteriorization of spiritual and physical anguish attendant on slavery in the form of deeply moving music, there was solace in the millenarianism which saw “judgement day” and the destruction of “Babylon” round the corner; on which day the tribulations and woes of black people will end.  This was the use to which christian mythology was put.  It was set into music as a form of political protest.  Black protest and nationalism, also developed a more direct political form, under the aegis of Pan-Africanist ideas.  But what are the constituent elements of these concepts of African nationhood?

Nationalism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Naitonalism1  has been one of the difficult politico-sociological concepts to define.  To some it is a state of mind, a mere ideological orientation, within which the idea is held that ones ultimate loyalty and social commitment lies with the nation-state which is his or her native land, ancestral traditions, customs and people.  Defined in such loose terms, it represents a purely super-structural phenomenon with all the attendant problems of subjectivism and terminological discrepancies.  When the concept is placed within a historical framework, it tends to be less elusive, it is more materially grounded, and yields more cognitive gold.  In the sense that it is generally understood contemporarily, it is a modern phenomenon dating from the late 18th century in Western Europe and North America.  It is not however so easily understood that it arose at a specific stage of socio-economic development, and represented the super-structural exteriorization of material substructural conditions.  The nation-state which was its existential crucible was essentially the post-feudal state constituted structurally for the expansion of capitalism and its dominant class, the bourgeoise.  The emergence of the nation-state shifted the point of focus of political allegiances.  Before the era of nationalism in the West political allegiances often focussed on the secularized remains of the Holy Roman Empire, the Christian world community; and specifically on the feudal potentates, principalities, and sometimes religious sects.  Thus in a sense ironically the specific parochialism of the feudal period was replaced by yet another form of parochialism whose frame of reference was more extended in terms of its ethnographic prerequisites.  It would be however quite mistaken to overemphasize its ethnic specifications at the expense of its fundamental class character.  The National movements which swept Western Europe between 1789 and 1871 represented in fact the ascendancy of the bourgeois classes, and the collapse of the older dominant classes i.e. the feudalist groups.  The ideology of nationalism, and its political expression, the emergence of nation-states was nothing more, and nothing less, that the development of more favourable conditions for capitalist development at its pre-monopoly stage.  As Lenin explained: “Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements.  For the complete victory of definitions or ‘inventing’ abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.”3  In the theses of the 2nd Comintern Congress (1920) it was, among other things, stated that “real national freedom and unity can be achieved by the proletariat only through revolutionary struggle and by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie”.  Stalin’s brief treatment of the subject “Nationalism outside Europe”4 summarized precisely the essence of these ideas.

In Africa, because capitalist colonialism was imposed by whites throughout the continent, nationalist reaction albeit populist has been anti-white colonialist.  Historical conditions have made it nothing else.  To most Africans colonial oppression simply means the national oppression of African people by Whites.

Hodgkin’s5 argument that often nationalist propaganda in Africa “is liable to be emotionally highly charged, relying on rhetoric rather than argument” is very true but mass nationalist politics in Africa, because of the basically morally justified character of its demands has needed often only slogans to make sense to masses whose rejection of colonialism and European oppression is so well and easily understood, that arguementation on such basic issues becomes rather superfluous.  That is the catch about choruses like: “You Europeans are nothing but robbers, though you pretend you came to lead us.  Go away, go away, you Europeans, the years that are past have been more that enough for us”.6  A more stylized rendering of the same idea can be read in the Mau Mau secret society oath of the mid 20th century:-

I speak the truth and now before God
And before this movement
The movement of Unity
The Unity which is put to the test
The Unity that is mocked with the name of “Mau Mau”
That I shall go forward to fight for the land,
The lands of Kirinyaga that we cultivated
The lands which were taken by the Europeans.
And if I fail to do this
May this oath kill me,
May this seven kill me,
May this meat kill me.7

Under conditions of colonialism in the past and settler-colonialism in the present, these expressions are the substance of reality for large sections of the exploited African classes, although obviously pre-Marxist in an ideological developmental sense, the millernarianism and messianism of groups like the “Mau Mau”, the Kimbanguists of the Congo, and others represented the politico-religious protest of deprived classes with relatively low class consciousness.

Pan-Africanism

The prefix pan, which preceeds Africanism in the concept of Pan-Africanism derives from the Greek word Pan (all).  Panmovements have historically not been confined to Africa, and this is no surprise, for the wish and recognition of identity in the broad basis of culture, history and ethnicity, transcending contemporary state boudaries, are sentiments which have in different ways and to different degrees, affected most peoples on this globe at different historical periods.  The Slavs have articulated Pan-Slavic views, which originated at the beginning of the 19th century and envisaged a union of the Slavic language speaking peoples.  It started as a movement among intellectuals, scholars, poets, etc., under the influence and in the wake of the French Revolution.  In the 19th century Russia, Pan-Slavic ideas crystallized into Slavophilism as opposed to Westernism.  In the Moslem world, Pan-Islamism originally underlied the  efforts of Muslim states in the 19th century to resuscitate Muslim power and achieve Moslem unity.  These notions have lingered on into the 20th century, with contemporary Neo-Pan-Islamism.  Pan-Germanism has been another species in this genus.  Its aim has broadly been a union of all Germanic people.  In the Western hemisphere, Pan-views exist particularly in Latin America where the common Latin culture has been a fertile ground for the breeding of such sentiments.  Not all these varieties of Pan-ism have had the same politico-ideological focus.  Some have in general terms represented essentially right-wing views while others have carried a leftist orientation, depending on the historical specifics of the societies and peoples involved, so that Japanese views of the “Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” and the Pan Germanic theories of Nordic-Aryanism, and the ideas which lay at the bottom of the Hilterian contention for Germanic “lebensraum”, were based on purely extreme right-wing racialist views.  Other less openly fascistic notions which have had clearly right-wing expansionist and imperialist inclined intentions have been such views as the Pan-Americanist ideas enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine, and Pan-Slavic views under Tsarist Russian leadership; this latter indeed became a vehicle of Russian domination over the Slavs.  However even within the same broad framework of Pan-Slavism, a more progressive version representing popular, generally leftist, aspirations has also been historically present.  The first Pan-Slavic congress of the Slavic nationalities of the Habsburg monarchy held in June 1848 in Prague under the leadership of the Czech patriot Frantisek Palacky highlighted demands of Austrian Slavs for the transformation of the Habsburg monarchy into a federation of equal peoples under democratic Habsburg rule.  The same can be said for Pan-Africanism which till today has largely represented the demands of African people in and out of Africa for unity, freedom, and self-determination.  Historically for Africa and people of African descent it has for most of its life span been a rallying point for African resurgence and unity, a popular reference category in the aspirations of black people.  However, today it is clear that the idea of African unity as understood by Pan-Africanists has been largely a populist apology for the African Revolution and class struggle.

Generally whatever credit and emphasis is placed on the contribution of others before the 20th century, it is agreed that the dominant figure of Pan-Africanist thought this century is W.E.B. Du Bois.  Du Bois’ impact has been perhaps only equalled socially, although not intellectually by Marcus Aurelius Garvey, who has been variously called, “The Negro Moses”,  “the black Zionist”.  These two figures stood at opposite poles in the ideological spectrum.  Garvey was a blackist who divulged: “I believe in a pure black race just as all self-respecting whites believe in a pure white race, as far as that can be”.8   On another occasion he said: “We were the first Fascists.   We had disciplined men, women and children in training for the liberation of Africa.  The black masses saw that in this extreme nationalism lay their only hope, and readily supported it.  Mussolini copied fascism from me, but the negro reactionaries sabotaged it”.9  Garvey collaborated with the Ku Klux Klan and other white right-wing extremists.  Du Bois on the other hand was a highly sophisticated left-wing scholar.

In a preface to the Jubilee edition of his “Souls of Black Folk” Du Bois noted that: “As I re-read these messages of more than half a century ago, I sense two matters which are not so much omission on my part as indications of what I then did not know or did not realize:  one is the influence of Freud and his co-workers in their study of psychology; the other is the tremendous impact on the modern world of Karl Marx …. My college training did not altogether omit Karl Marx …. He was mentioned at Harvard and taken account in Berlin.  It was not omission but lack of proper emphasis or comprehension among my teachers of the revolution of thought and action which Marx meant … I still think today as yesterday that the colour line is a great problem of this century.  But today I see more clearly than yesterday that at the back of the problem of race and colour, lies a greater problem which both obscures and implements it; and that is the fact that so many civilized people are willing to live in comfort even if the price of this is poverty, ignorance and disease of the majority of their following; that to maintain this privilege men have waged war.  Until today war tends to become universal and continuous and the excuse for this war continues largely to be colour and race.”10

Pan-Africanism originated not in Africa, but the New World.  It was precisely those Africans, taken from their homeland into slavery and servitude in the Americas and the Caribbean who articulated their aspirations for Africa and “Africaness” into what later became known as pan-Africanism.  The picture was caught in the poetry of the black American writer Claude Mckay’s often quoted poem “Outcast”:

“For the dim regions whence my fathers came
My spirit, bondaged by the body, longs.
Words felt, but never heard, my lips would frame;
My soul would sing forgotten jungle songs.
I would go back to darkness and to peace.
But the great western world holds me in fee,
And I may never hope for full release
While to its alien gods I bend my knee.
Something in me is lost, forever lost,
Some vital thing has gone out of my heart,
And I must walk the way of life a ghost
Among the sons of earth, a thing apart
For I was born, far from my native clime,
Under the white man’s menace, out of time.”11

Evidence of the attitude of black slaves in America to Africa can be gleaned from the references and sentiments expressed in their songs (the spirituals).  Inspired closely by the metaphor of the old testament, the slaves in America compared themselves to the Israelites in Egyptian bondage.  In the structure of this lyrical imagery “Heaven”, “Jerusalem”, and “Zion” represented Africa and ‘River Jordan” the wide Atlantic.  “Ethiopia” was part of this vocabulary, and till today the Rastafarians of Jamaica, latter day millernarianism and messianists regard the Negus as their messiah and Ethiopia their Valhalla.  During the early nineteenth century, a French writer observed that in parts of the New World, (Haiti in particular) among blacks the myth persisted that the souls of black folk went to Africa after death in America.12

Obviously one factor which enhanced the development of Pan-Africanist notions in the New World was that here Africans from different parts were thrown together under conditions of extreme degradation and suffering.  The commoness of their history, lot, and destiny was an immediate reality to perceive.  Thus although they were cut off from their various and specific ethnic origins and the cultural references this provided, their loss was replaced by a new consciousness which recognized and “embraced the totality of African humanity”.  Stuckey13 indicates that the wish for independent and autonomous development of blacks in the New World is probably as old as the 1600s, however it may have matured into clear ideological form about the mid-19th century.  Even then in some parts of the New World militant proto-black-nationalism was definitely pre-mid 19th century.  With respect to the Guianas, Anton de Kom’s “Wij Slaven van Surinam” is particularly illuminating.

Denmark Vesey’s14 leader of the 1822 Charleston slave conspirary had been an activist of a black separatist church movement who had been greatly inspired by the Haitian revolution.  In North-East Brazil, a variety of religious cults became the protective setting for black consciousness.15 Robert Alexander Young’s “Ethiopian Manifesto” (1829), David Walker’s “Appeal (1830)”, H.H. Garnet’s “Address to the slaves” (1843), and Martin Delany’s “the Political Destiny of the Coloured Race” appartently went some way in laying the ideological foundations of Black nationalism in the U.S.16

In so far as the political goals of Black nationalism in the U.S. and Africa are concerned, on important point has to be borne in mind.  Whereas in America black nationalism is the political expression of a minority nationality for equality and self-determination, in Africa nationalism has been the expression of the majority nationality for freedom, independence and self-determination in the land of their forefather.  However, there is a fundamental and persistent notion among people of African descent, in and out of Africa, this is the belief that they all belong to the African nation.

Ideas in Practice

As Padmore17 points out the concept of Pan-Africanism arose out of the feeling of brotherhood which exists between Africans and people of African descent.  It was apparently thrown into currency by the Trinidadian lawyer H. Sylvester-Williams.  He convened the first Pan-African Conference in London in 1900 to which he invited Du Bois among others, this conference addressed itself to the black human condition and as Legum18 sadly admits, at that time, over three-quarters of a century ago they were protesting against the treatment of Africans in South Africa and Rhodesia smarting under the social torture of white racist chauvinism maintained in support of developing capitalism.  Three years after this congress Du Bois broke with the more pacifist ideas of Booker T. Washington.  The second congress took place in Paris (1919) under Bu Bois’ leadership.  The third and fourth congresses were held in 1921 and 1923, and the fifth which has held in New York took place in 1927.  Between the 5th and 6th congresses, the ideas of figures like C.L.R. James, George Padmore and Peter Milliard became influential in Pan-Africanist circles.  The 6th congress was held in Manchester (1945).  By now the youthful African element had become predominant.  It boasted members as R.G. Armattoe, Peter Abrahams, Chief S.L. Akintola, Jomo Kenyatta, Chief H.I. Davies, Joe Appiah, J.C. de Graft Johson, Otto Makonnen, Magnus Williams, E.J. Du Plan, Dr K.K. Taylor, Kwame Nkrumah, C.L.R. James, George Padmore and of course the “grand old man” “father of Pan-Africanism,” W.E.B. Du Bois.

The West African National Secretariat, (organized by Nkrumah in 1945) at its conference in August 1946 launched the idea of a West African Federation, as a step towards a United States of Africa.  Dr. N. Azikiwe the older veteran African nationalist endorsed these ideas which he had been known to support in earlier years.19  Between the late 40s and 1960 many of these young militants got back to Africa and started translating their ideas in practise.  Its first success story was Ghana’s independence in 1957.  With this foothold secured, the first conference of Independent African States was held in Accra in 1958.  A second such conference was held in Addis Ababa in 1960.  The All African Peoples Conference of political parties and movements in Africa also took place in Accra, 1958.  Subsequently follow-ups took place in Tunis (1960) and Cairo (1961).  At its meeting, which drew people like Patrice Lumumba, Felix Moumie, representatives of ANC (South Africa), nationalists from Nothern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya, Tanzania, etc., it adopted a resolution in support of the ultimate aim of a Union of free African States.  Between the 60s and the 70s these ideas have hobbled along and even the only existing political organization, which in the late 50s – early 60s based itself on Pan-Africanist principles, the Pan-African Congress of  South Africa, in recent years is drifting slowly from this position to a more thorough-going marxist viewpiont.
In East Africa during the last quarter century, Jomo Kenyatta has been the most prominent Pan-Africanist.  He had been one of the leaders of the Pan-Africanist Congress in Manchester (1945).  His historical status in a way makes him a lonely figure in so far as Pan-Africanist traditions in East Africa are concerned.  James Gichuru the former president of the Kenya African Union argues that Pan-Africanism appeared in East Africa as an open political force between 1955 and 1960.  Tom Mboya’s remarks suggest the late 50’s as a crucial watershed in the development of ideas of African unity20.  Apparently Julius Nyerere caught up with these ideas also in the mid-50’s.21  However already in 1945 the concept of an all-embracing East African movement was being discussed.  In 1953, Ugandan nationalists sent telegrammes to Nehru, Fenner Brockway, Nkrumah and others proposing an All Africa government.22

In Africa, early nationalist thought emerged in the 1850s and 60s.  The resettlement of former slaves in Sierra Leone and Liberia was not inspired or instigated by Africans.  But once it happened, it brought in its wake a cross-fertilization of ideas between the former slaves and the merging westernized African classes on the West coast.  The early leading advocates of Black nationalist ideas were probably Africanus Horton and Edward Blyden.  They were followed closely both historically and intellectually by other bourgeois African nationalists like J.M. Sarbah Jr., Attoh-Ahuma, J. Casely-Hayford, Holy Johnson to mention a few of the better known ones.  Some of them actively sought to create political organisations with a wide African geographical and historical base, and in their writings the nationalist unitary African sentiment was never overlooked.

Booth, the Baptist missionary who came to Nyasaland in 1892 became close to Nyasaland’s first African nationalist, John Chilembwe.  In 1894, at Blantyre, a politico-religious grouping, the African Christian Union was formed under the auspices of Chilembwe, Booth and others.  Among other things, their stated desire was “to unite together in the name of Jesus Christ such persons as desire to see full justice done to the African race and are resolved to work towards that day when African people shall become an African Christian nation”; it also desired “to pursue steadily and unswervingly the policy of ‘Africa for the Africans!”23  Further down south in Natal the first South African black medical doctor, N. Yembula and others like Solomon Kumalo welcomed the ideas of the Christian Union.  Already in the 1970’s isolated groups of Africans had started organizing their own church communities in the face of racism of the whites in the two Boer Republics, Transvaal and Orange Vrystaat.  As Legum points out, the emphasis was on “the African to write and work for his own redemption, political, economic and spiritual”.24  Apparently Booth brought together in Natal about 120 educated Africans who in the end rejected his proposals on the grounds that they could not trust any whiteman with a project like that.  “No trust or reliance at all would be placed in any representative of the blood-stained whiteman who had killed scores of thousands of Zulus and their Matebele relations”.25  Today these feelings among Africans have been reinforced even further by apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa.  So powerful were nationalist ideas from the U.S. during the early part of this century, that it is interesting to observe26 that among the about 20 South African students who went to America at about that period, P.K. Isaka Seme (one of the founding members of the ANC – 1912) Sol Plaatjie, J.L. Dube, D.D.T. Jabavu and A.B. Xuma were all prominent in South African early nationalist history.  Later others from elsewhere in Africa like Hastings Banda, P.M. Koinange and N.Azikiwe caught the nationalist fever in the U.S.A.

Nationalism as a Populist Form

In 20th century Africa, nationalism has been very much a populist ideological form.  Its thrust has been a anti-colonial (or anti-settler-colonial) in an overt way.  The state structures it has given birth to have been all either laissez faire capitalist or state capitalist, or a mixture of the two dominant varieties of capitalism.  In some instances state capitalism has been catchily dubbed socialism or African socialism.  But any real analysis of these state structures revels their basic bourgeois character.  Above all these nationalist independence movements have said and done all “in the name of the people”.  It is interesting to note that populism where and whenever it has historically reared its head, has vocalized and idealized the interest of “the people”.  It has thus tended to attract popular sentiment.  However invariably no structurization is accorded the concept of “the people”; no precise definition of the content of ‘the people’is given.  Rather socio-economic differentiation among “the people” is avoided or under-emphasized, although superficially, slogans in favour of the common-man are fanfared far and wide.  Populist nationalism thus has been adaptable both to right and left-wing radicalism and rhetoric.  In this sort of populist language “the African people” becomes a holistic unit within which both tycoons and paupers are supposed to have a common destiny.  This absence of a clear ideological structure dialectically delimits its weaknesses and strength depending of course on the specific historical conditions within which it is espoused and advocated.  Under those conditions where the expulsion of a colonial master or white settler racism is the main item on the agenda, populist nationalism appears as a progressive force unifying all Africans against their oppressors.  With the establishment of African bourgeois-democracy,  the internal class contradictions among the various African classes which supported the independence movement, becomes more open and antagonistic.  Under such latter conditions populism becomes reactionary and becomes an ideological weapon of mystification, and oppression in the hands of bourgeois and petty bourgeois interest.  Because of its vague ideological orientation, populist nationalism tends to be philosophically highly syncretic.  Witness Nkrumah in the early years of the Independence struggle in Ghana.  “Today I am a non-denominational christian and a Marxist socialist and I have not found any contradiction between the two.”27  In the same vein populist nationalism often attempts to synthesis traditional and modern values.  These tendencies are present in the ideas of Julius Nyerere on African socialism and Ujamaa, Sekou Toure on “Communaucratique”, Jomo Kenyatta’s African socialism, Numeiry’s Arab socialism, Kenneth Kaunda on “Humanism”, Leopold Senghor on “Negritude” and Mobutu Sese Seko on “Authencit√©” etc.  In all these instances the philosophical character of their substantive ideas are eclectic “radical often in ideals but fundamentally reformist in methods”.  These theories in practice supervise neocolonial states for the expansion of capitalism.  In this effort sometimes a superficial but often loud anti-imperialist position is adopted, and social contradictions are represented as emanating from outside.  The links between imperialism and internal reaction are not established.  As I have elsewhere argued, contemporarily, populist nationalism often takes up a so-called Marxist or Marxist-Leninist garb.28  The experiments in Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Angola fall under this category.  It should be added that actually Leninism represents both historically and philosophically a rejection of populism, as can be seen in Lenin’s polemics against the Narodniki.

Recent Unitary Efforts

Most of the recent conceptions of Unitary African Organizations have had buried deep in them all the contradictions inherent in the international capitalist order.  As such their successes and failures have actually been reflective of trends in the international capitalist system, and to a steadily increasing degree the international fortunes and misfortunes of the super-powers in their tussles for spheres of influence and control.

The most important of these organizations of the last two decades is the Organization of African Unity (OAU).  This body created originally on May 25, 1963, to enhance the aim of African unity has displayed purpose and strength only in so far as the neocolonial masters of Africa would permit.  Compounding this problem has been the petty bourgeois chauvinism of the African ruling classes.  All this has gone a long way into making this body a showground and debating club for African Heads of State.  In a sense the OAU historically merged two closely preceeding histories in contenental African politics.  These were the political expressions of the Monrovia and Casablanca groupings.29  The former tended to group the conservative governments which leaned heavily on the West, the latter were militant progressist African states, champions of “non-alignment” and “positive neutrality.”

In a sense the Casablanca group had an earlier progenitor dating from May, 1959, this was the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union.30  This was a radical populist group of sub-Saharan African states.  Its extreme opposite in terms of ideological colouring was the African and Malagasy Common Organization (OCAM) created in December, 1960.  Other similar mainly economically oriented organizations incorporating a number of African states are the Customs and Economic Union of Central Africa (UDEAC) founded on the 8th December, 1964; the defunct East African Community (EAC) established on the 6th June 1967, out of the older (1917) colonial British East African Customs Union:  the African Development Bank (September 10, 1964); and the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa.  Recently, a new economic union of West African States (ECOWAS) has been created.

Most of these structures of unity created within the last two decades have been rather short-lived, particularly the political groupings.  The most dramatic and traumatic of these have probably been the collapse of the Mali-Senegal Federation, and the abortive idea of an East African Federation.

Old and New Perspectives

If the criterium of language is used as a yard-stick for isolating ethnicities, there are then hundreds of ethnicities in Africa.  In many cases, the structural likeness and proximity of these languages and cultures, are so close that, it serves little purpose to differenctiate them as separate groupings.  They are rather sub-units of larger nationalities, and there are about 54 odd countries accommodating this profusion of nationalitites and subnationalities.  Within each country invariably, there are a few majority nationalitites, with a host of minorities sharing a given state.  There is no instance in which only one nationality inhabits a given country.

Furthermore, in all African countries, existing state borders cut through the historico-geographical locations of hundreds of these nationalities, for these borders were demarcated by the colonial powers in the 19th century without any consideration for the aspirations and wishes of the African people.  Today, in many ways they have become sources of tension and conflict among African countries.  Since most of Africa is still seriously neo-colonial, a lot of the tensions between African countries are actually inherited by proxy from the various imperialist powers.  As such, they represent more the effects of imperialist rivalry, than internally generated conflicts.  When and where inter-ethnic conflicts exist, they are often hyper-exacerbated.32  Although too often the real horizontal class character of these confilcts are buried under vertical and ethnically oriented analysis common among idealists.  In recent decades the oppression of various nationalities in multi-national African states has led to armed struggle.  In the Southern Sudan, Arab oppression from the north provoked a cruel war which partial autonomy in the south has now quietened.  In Eritrea, Ethiopian oppression has been met with a vigorous national war of liberation by the Eritreans.  It is to be expected that as time goes on, and capitalist development expands in Africa, the need for wider markets for the free and speedy development of capitalism will tend to stimulate bourgeois African inspired moves towards larger unities, the ECOWAS is a case in point.

Much as such trends will facilitate the welcome movement of Africans in Africa, this is in fact, also the aim of capital at that stage of development when its further growth depends on wider markets and sources of production.  As has been explained:  “Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national question.  The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of nation-states.  The second is the development and growing frequency of international inter-course in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.  Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism.  The former predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterises a mature capitalism moving towards its transformation into socialist society.”34

In the development of larger unities on the African continent, the African bourgeoisie would place national demands and issues in the forefront.  On the other hand, the African masses specifically the proletariat and peasantry, as their class consciousness deepens would place the class struggle above narrow national demands.  In the historical phase of transition from feudalism to capitalism, expectedly the African proletarian and peasant masses supported and continue to support national demands in unison with the propertied classes.  However in order to achieve its strategic goal of “a world of unity between the working people of all nations, a world in which there is no place for any privileges or for the oppression of man by man”35 the African labouring classes cannot from the standpoint of their own strategic interests support the permanence and entrenchment of petty bourgeois nationalism within the context of existing state structures.  Its support would tend to be thrown behind the removal of existing national divisions and distinctions.  In other words it would tend to support those moves aimed at bringing nationalities together; towards the fusion and merger of African nationalities; towards African unity based on principles of free unification.  This freedom to unite naturally has meaning only if the right of seccession is also implied.  For as Lenin explained, “without freedom to secede, unification cannot be called free.”35  From the viewpoint of the African peasant and worker masses, in Africa today, Fanon’s description of the colonial world is still too real:  “the town belonging to the colonized people, or at least the native town, the Negro village, the medina, the reservation, is a place of ill fame, peopled by men of evil repute.  They are born there, it matters little where or, nor how.  It is a world without spaciousness; men live there on top of each other, and their huts are built one on top of the other.”36

In all parts of Africa, without exception one finds that the pattern of capitalist penetration cuts across borders and nationalities.  For this reason often the classes which have developed across adjacent border areas are extremely similar in both national and class terms.  The possibility of organizing them also on similar revolutionary lines and around similar agrarian programmes is very real, for it is the agrarian revolution under proletarian leadership which will draw the majority of African people into the revolution of the 20th century.  The development of productive forces in Africa depends on the elimination of imperialism.  But imperialism itself in practice is among other things “balkanization”; the fractionalization of a unit.  It precisely truncates unified development, stifles the holistic and total development of productive forces.



1.                  Various idealist but scholarly interpretations of the subject prominently include the following:  E.H. Carr,Nationalism and After, London, 1946.  A Cobban, National Self-Determination, Chicago, 1947.
K. Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication, Cambridge-Mass., 1953.

            J.S. Coleman, Nationalism in Tropical Africa.  American Political Science Review, June 1954.  R. Emerson, From Empire to Nation, Cambridge, Mass., 1960.

            C.J.H. Hayes.  Essays on Nationalism, New York.  1926.

            Elie Kedourie.  Nationalism, New York.  1961.

2.                  V.I. Lenin.  The Right of Nations to Self-Determination.  Collected Works.  Vol. 20.

3.                  V.I. Lenin.  The Right of Nations to Self-Determination.  Collected Works.  Vol. 20.

4.                  J. Stalin.  Nationalism outside Europe.  In Foundations of Leninism 1924.  Reprinted in Problems of Leninism.  Moscow.  1945.

5.                  T. Hodgkin.  Nationalism in Colonial Africa.  London.  1956.  P.169.

6.                  Chorus of Kenya African Union “hymn” quoted in T. Hodgkin.  Ibid.  P.169.

7.                  J.M. Kariuki.  The “Mau Mau” Oath from “Mau Mau” Detainee,  1963.  P.26.  Quoted here from E. Kedourie, Nationalism in Asia and Africa,  London 1970, page 463

8.                  M. Garvey.  Philosophy and Opinions.  New York.  Vol. 2. P.37

9.                  See, G. Padmore.  Pan-Africanism or Communism.   New York.  1972.  P.75.

10.              W.E.B. Du Bois.  The Souls of Black Folk.  New York.  1953.  (preface).

11.              Claude McKay.  Outcast.  Quoted here from Colin Legum. Pan Africanism.  New York.  1965. P.15.

12.              I. Geiss.  The Pan-African Movement.  Metheun.  1974.  P.28.

13.              S. Stuckey.  The Ideological Origins of Black Nationalism.  Boston.  1972.  P.2.  In the Caribbean and South America as opposed to the U.S., blacks managed to maintain a purer African cultural world.  G. Shepperson, “Notes on Negro American influences on the Emergence of African Nationalism.”.  Journal of African History.  Vol. 1.  No. 2.  Pp.229-312.

14.              See, R.S. Starobin.  Denmark Vesey.  Englewood Cliffs.  1970.

15.              Till today many of these cults exist, and Bahia in fact has the most “authentic” African cultural lore in the whole of the New World.

16.              See, S. Stuckey.  The Ideological Origins of Black Nationalism.  Boston.  1972.  See, also H. Lynch.  Pan-Negroism in the New World Before 1862.  In. O.E. Uya (ed)  Black Brotherhood,  Lexington,  1971. and H. Aptheker.  Conserveness of Negro Nationality to 1900.  In, Toward Negro Freedom.  New York.  1956.

17.              G. Padmore.  Pan-Africanism or Communism.  P.95.

18.              C. Legum.  Pan-Africanism.  London.  P.31.

19.              C. Legum.  Ibid.  P.33.

20.              J.S. Nye.  Pan-Africanism and East African Integration.  Cambridge-Mass., 1966.  P.31.

21.              J.S. Nye.  Ibid.

22.              J.S. Nye.  Ibid.  P.96.

23.              See, C. Legum.  Op cit.  P.22.

24.              Ibid. P.23.

25.              Ibid. P.23.

26.              Ibid. P.27.

27.              K. Nkrumah.  Autobiography.  London.  1957.  P.12.

28.              See, K.K. Prah,  Social Background of Coup d’etat.  Publikatie No. 18.  Afdeling Zuid end Zuidoost Azie.  Amsterdam.  1973.  P.116.  In this particular chapter the author gives an extended discussion on Populism.  See also, P. Worsley,  The Third World.  London.  1967.  G. Ionescu and E. Gellner,  Populism.  London.  1972.  R. Cohen,  Class in Africa.  In Socialist Register London.  1972.  P.231.

29.              The Casablanca Group was the result of a meeting held in Casablanca on January 7, 1971 between representatives of Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Lybia, Egypt and the Algerian Provisional Government.  They adopted a charter which provided for a joint military command and an African Common Market.  Members of this group were pro-socialist, and a strong centrally organized African unity.  They were supported b a newly created body – the Pan African Movement for East, Central, and Southern Africa (Pafmesca).  The Monrovia Group (19) met in the Liberian capital May 8-12, 1961.  They met again in Lagos, January 1962 to adopt a draft charter for an organization of Inter-African and Malagasy states.

30.              Also this grouping had a predecessor in the Ghana-Guinea Union of 1958.

31.              See, Africa Yearbook and Who’s Who.  London.  1976.  P.8.

32.              In the late 60’s the Dutch Newspaper (Amsterdam) Waarheid published a number of revealing articles about Nigeria.

See Waarheid (12/10/1968) Oorlog in Nigeria … stinkt naar olie (27/11/68) Shell and BP Investeren in Nigeria (31/5/67) Nigeria een van die rijkste olielanden van Afrika.  (31/7/67) and (1/8/67) Shell and Biafra.

            In 1968 the American Magazine Ramparts revealed that European and American oil companies invested over 1 billion dollars in Nigeria.  These companies include Gulf Oil, Mobil, Texaco Standard Oil and Phillips;  French companies ERAP, Italy ENI.  The most important of these companies was the combination of Shell-BP.

            Gowon asked for higher oil royalties as his predecessor Ironsi.  Gulf Oil refused.  Shell-BP waited for time.  The oil companies speculated that the Nigerians would be better partners.  In the meantime following the massacre of Ibos in the North of Nigeria, Biafra declared its independence and the question of whom to pay the oil royalties became important.  Nigeria blocked the Biafran coast but allowed oil tankers free passage.  Biafra was considered by the oil companies to be an ideal “oil-state” (just like the oil sheikdoms in the Arabian Gulf).  In the course of the civil war, when it became clear that Biafra was loosing ground the oil companies started backing more fully the federal government.  Only the French oil company continued to openly support Biafra.  The French company (ERAP) bought oil concessions in Biafra (¾ of Nigerian oil area) for 15 million dollars for an area which could then deliver 2 million tons of oil per year.  The French branch  of Rothschild-Bank also bought mining concession (15 million dollars for tin, coal, gold and uranium), French support for Biafra and British support of the Federal Nigerian Government was as such for purely capitalist interests.  Waarheid(12/10/68).

33.              V.I. Lenin.  Collected Works.  Vol. 19.  P.92.

34.              V.I. Lenin.  Collected Works.  Vol. 19.  P.92.

35.              V.I. Lenin.  Collected Works.  Vol. 29.  P.176.

36.              F. Fanon.  Concerning Violence.  Quoted here from E. Kedourie.  Nationalism in Asia and Africa.  London.
           


SOURCE:
B.F.Bankie
Sudan Sensitisation Project (SSP)



Follow TheBlackList on these networks
      Facebook Twitter Ning foursquare StumbleUpon Digg Blogger