Third Worldism: A Fanciful World Where the Privileged Play at Revolution: Part One (A Response to Jason Unruhe and the So-Called Maoist Rebel News) (2016)

Jason Unruhe of the so-called “Maoist Rebel News” (MRN), recently responded to two of my articles, which I’ll answer in two parts.

My first article1 was written in 2013, to answer a prisoner’s letter that was published in Turning the Tide (TTT) newspaper.2) In that letter, the prisoner argued a position based on teachings of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) – a now defunct group, which claimed to be Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM), or Maoist for short – that villainizes workers in the First World (especially whites) as bought off enemies of Third World workers (especially those of color), because First World workers receive higher wages at the expense of the Third World. We in the New Afrikan Black Panther Party-Prison Chapter (NABPP-PC) call this the vulgar labor aristocracy (VLA) line.

As a leading member of the NABPP-PC, which is largely prison based and upholds Maoism, I wrote my article to demonstrate the fundamental errors of the VLA line and that it does not reflect a Maoist line.

During 2015 comrades of the Democracy and Class Struggle blog apparently found unity with my article and posted it on their site where Unruhe read it, which prompted his polemical response.3

My second article was written during 20154 upon my reading Divided World Divided Class by Third Worldist Zak Cope, which promoted a similar VLA line.5 Unruhe also read that article online, and responded with his second polemic.

Neither of my two articles were against Unruhe, MRN, or any affiliate groups.

Unruhe Trolls and Lies for Attention

The opening sentence of Unruhe’s polemic admits that my first article was not addressed to him nor his coterie. In fact, he specifically named MIM as the group whose line I was critiquing, and denied any affiliation with or interest to defend them. In his own words:

“Kevin Rashid of the blog Democracy and Class Struggle attempts to take on [MIM] by claiming he can debunk the idea of a global labour aristocracy… My purpose here is not to defend MIM, they do not need my help in any way, shape or form. In truth, MIM and I have very different ideas on many subjects.”

Yet, over the next several paragraphs, he shamelessly contradicts himself, and in a completely schizophrenic about-face contends that I wrote my article against him and his coterie of Third Worldists, and made an “outright misrepresentation of [their] line.”

Under this transparent pretext, Unruhe then substituted himself and his line in place of the prisoner and MIM line that I was actually contesting. On each point he accused me of falsifying his Third Wordlist beliefs and then argued those beliefs as if to set me straight. When I did not reply to his delusional polemic, Unruhe followed with his second one, baiting me in its first paragraph to respond and not blow him off as others have done.

It’s been said when one argues with a madman, observers don’t know who the insane one is. I confront Unruhe, however, as someone being consciously dishonest and representing an equally dishonest worldview. In any event, whether his flight from reality reflects a delusional psychosis or deliberate dishonesty, it boils down to the same thing – falsehood. And he and his worldview are swimming in it. Let us count a few of the ways.

False Premises of Third Worldism

Unruhe embraces the Third Worldist line which claims to ally itself with Third World workers and demonizes First World workers as corrupted enemies of the Third World because they share in the spoils taken by the Imperialists from the Third World.

Well, if enjoying the privileges of the First World society renders one an enemy of the Third World, what the hell are Third Worldists like Unruhe doing here? What’s more, the Third Worldists are predominantly petty bourgeois (middle class) folks who enjoy even greater privileges  and wealth than do general First World workers; yet they’re somehow the friends – no, leaders! – of the exploited Third World peoples! How it is that they can rise above their own privileged lifestyles and become the friends, allies, and even the professed leaders of the peoples on whose suffering their comforts depend, yet they argue that First World workers can’t, is a contradiction in their line that goes unanswered.

A comrade recently pointed out such glaring self-contradictions concerning the Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO) – a group that came out of the dissolution of MIM – which Unruhe authoritatively cited as “the foremost Third Worldist group.”

“It’s amusing that the LLCO and their ‘Commander’ who goes by the name Augusta Luz (and is a white dude from Denver) claim that they are the vanguard of the Third World proletariat even though they are in the First World, and still find need to raise money and ask for items like computers and cars to support their ‘efforts.’ [Yet] they say there is nothing First Worldists can do in the First World except maybe oppose imperialist wars, that all First World workers are actually exploiters themselves, and that to struggle to improve people’s living conditions in the First World is ‘fascism.’”

Facial absurdities like these pervade Third Worldist theory and “practice.” It’s no wonder characters like Unruhe are drawn to it, and become its representatives.

Another example is his adhering to this Lin Biaoist theoretical line, while being an affiliate and spokesperson of an outfit that calls itself “Maoist Rebel News.” Lin Biao and Mao Tse-Tung embraced opposite political and class lines, and were in sharp opposition at the time Lin’s line surfaced. Indeed Mao denounced him as a thoroughly bourgeois thinker, conniver and saboteur, who attempted an armed coup against Mao in 1971.

Lin became a principal target of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which Mao instituted and led against counter-revolutionary elements like Lin who were angling to restore Capitalism in Socialist China. As Mao said, “if people like Lin Biao come to power, it would be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.” Yet Unruhe accuses me of waving the red flag of revolution to attack the red flag, when it is he who under a pretentious Maoist title promotes the anti-Maoist counter-revolutionary line of Lin Biao. One could go on and on, pointing out the hypocrisies, deceptions, and self-contradictions that inhere in Third Worldism and reveal themselves in its proponents’ words and deeds. But then I would never get around to answering the substance of Unruhe’s pretentious arguments.

However one looks at it, Third Worldism is wallowing in petty bourgeois opportunism and internal inconsistencies, of which I’ve given but a few examples. V.I. Lenin denounced these sorts as “petty bourgeois revolutionists,” people who are left or ultra-left in words, but right in essence. They’re fond of spouting militant sounding rhetoric, fancying themselves as the only “enlightened ones,” and regard those who make their clothes, their cars, and comforts with disdain and contempt. They want to go on record as being “anti-imperialist,” but are unwilling to integrate themselves with the masses to do what is actually needed to make revolution, and recline in reformist forms of “protest” that don’t threaten their privileges.

I’ve Already Refuted Unruhe’s Arguments

In that my first article contested the MIM line and not Unruhe (as he’s claimed in his grandiose delusions), it prompted a reply from another offshoot of MIM, the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons (MIMP).6 MIMP’s reply has generated a series of ongoing polemics between the MIMP and the NABPP-PC.

One of my responses to MIMP, titled “MIM or MLM?”7 refutes their line and practice in considerable depth. Much of what I argued and supported there also answers many of Unruhe’s arguments. So, instead of repeating what I’ve presented elsewhere, I encourage readers to review “MIM or MLM?”, but will revisit a few points.

Unruhe is clearly aware of that article because it was posted on the same sites where he’d read my two previous pieces he responded to, however, he chose to avoid any references to it in his second polemic, and made no other attempt to debate it. Also, another article of mine can be read to refute his claims that the NABPP-PC does not do theoretical work but mechanically holds to outmoded theories, titled “In Search of the Right Theory for Today’s Struggle.”8

Unruhe’s Dogmatism

“MIM or MLM?” answers Unruhe’s argument that the VLA line does not violate the fundamental principles of Marxist political economy (PE). It also gives Marx’s true definition of the proletariat, which Unruhe attempts to revise as something not based directly on productive relations. See also my 2013 article.9 And, in that he concedes that First World workers do produce surplus value, (he lied claiming I said he “didn’t believe” this when in fact I was talking about the MIM line argued by the prisoner in TTT), he per se admits they are proletarians.

That the First World proletariat receives higher wages does not render them any less a proletariat nor does it mean that, to use Marx’s metaphor, they have more than their chains to lose. Conversely they have a longer and heaver chain to cast off. As Marx observed:

“a rise in the price of labor, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it.”

Socialist reconstruction necessarily makes the conditions of the working class less severe – just as the accumulation of Capitalism (enhanced by imperialism) does for the higher paid workers. It doesn’t end, but only lessens, the tension in the struggle for survival in both the socialist and imperialist societies, and removes the sense of urgency from the class struggle. But just as Mao did in socialist China when he launched the Cultural Revolution, the vanguard elements must revive the masses’ class consciousness and lead them to continue along the road of revolution. So we see just how compatible the Third Worldist line is with that of its father Lin Biao, whose aim was to kill the people’s revolutionary fervor and activism. Just as the Third Worldists want to ensure no revolutionary vanguard rises to awaken and lead workers in the First World.

I should add that Unruhe does the very thing he accuses me of – applying outmoded principles of PE to today’s advanced Imperialist system that only applied to distinct features of pre-imperialist capitalist relations. For example, he tries to equate the role of the First World proletarians and those outside of the “traditional” industries under today’s imperialism, with the roles of merchants and clerks who served as intermediaries between banking and industry in the old decentralized capitalist system of Marx’s times. First World workers play no such intermediary role. Indeed, as Lenin demonstrated, the distinct feature of imperialism is its merging banking and industrial capital to form finance capital, hence dispensing with the need or role of intermediaries to link banking and industry.10

Unruhe fails to realize that “indirect” production under imperialism forms part of the commodity production process. Many new industries have developed with the innovations and advances in science and technology under modern imperialism, including in telecommunications, information, energy, and so on, that produce a vast array of tangible and intangible goods and services. The commodity, which forms the core of capitalist relations of production, is anything produced by humyn labor that serves a humyn need or want, and is bought or sold. Labor power, or one’s ability to work, is itself a commodity – indeed it is the principal commodity as I explain in “MIM or MLM?” Labor in commodity production is divided and spread across many discrete sectors, units, and forms of direct and indirect labor, which Marx called the “collective laborer,” (i.e. working class), each of whom participates in only a part of the manipulation of labor.

And as I point out in “MIM or MLM?” the value of labor power is determined differently from the value of other commodities. In fact it determines the value (and cost) of all other commodities bought and sold in a given society. The two factors which determine labor power’s value are: 1) the cost of reproducing the worker, which includes basic essentials – food, clothing, shelter, etc. – for the worker and her family, and training for her trade and skills development, and 2) the cost of the means of satisfying the worker’s and her family’s cultural and social wants, which differs vastly depending on her country of residence, historical stage of development, etc. These costs alone cause wages to vary greatly between First and Third World societies. So, a higher wage does not of-itself render one a member of the labor aristocracy nor enemies of one’s own proletarian class.

The Vanguard Role

Unruhe claims First World workers have no revolutionary potential because they are “generally happy with their lot within the system”. The persistence of workers’ strikes and protests across the U.S. contradicts this claim. From workers in traditional trades, to service and public sector workers, strikes have been so persistent that U.S. officials are now conceding to raise wages, moving to repress public sector unions and increase control of general union activities, etc. Then there’s the Occupy movement that swept Amerika beginning in late 2011, aiming specifically at the capitalist ruling class.

As Lenin recognized, workers’ spontaneous strikes and struggles are “embryonic forms” of their class consciousness and class struggle, which reflect their strivings toward revolutionary struggle. But it is only trade union consciousness and not communist consciousness. The latter requires a vanguard Party to awaken, because without it “the workers were not, could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e. theirs was not yet [communist] consciousness.”11

The very purpose of Lenin’s writing What is to be Done? was to elaborate the need and method of creating the revolutionary Party needed to raise the consciousness and struggle of the workers and have their spontaneous “economic strike developed into a political strike, and the latter into insurrection.”

But let Unruhe tell it, the workers are supposed to spontaneously grasp and undertake revolution, and because U.S. workers have not, they lack revolutionary potential and are enemies of the Third World. First World workers lack revolutionary consciousness because they’ve lacked a genuine mass based revolutionary party since World War II (on this point see my article, “Third Worldism and Politicizing the Blame Game.”12 ) And as pointed out in “MIM or MLM?” without a revolutionary Party, the working class naturally and inevitably falls victim to bourgeois influence and ideology. This is why Engels observed the increasing bourgeoisification of English workers, which, by the way, was before Lenin’s day when he wrote What is to be Done? to counter this tendency. I further demonstrated Lenin recognized that the higher paid workers are actually the vanguard layer of the proletariat, and prove to be the most receptive, and able to advance revolutionary theory.

But Third Worldists self-servingly turn all this on its head, arguing that higher paid workers are enemies of their own class, and that their lack of revolutionary consciousness and struggle proves there’s no point in doing the work necessary to create and give them the leadership needed to awaken and organize them (this is the Catch-22 of Third Worldism). As said, these elements are pure opportunists, which exemplifies why Lenin realized “the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.”13

Unruhe cites Lenin as recognizing that industrial workers were repeatedly misled by the bourgeoisie and its actual labor aristocracy agents within the working-class movement, and that the Second International was an organ of the labor aristocracy. What Unruhe omits, however, is that this is why Lenin founded the Third International (Comintern) with the specific program of creating revolutionary Parties, especially in the First World, to give revolutionary leadership to the workers there and unite their struggles with those in the Third World.

And of course Lenin said that externally the capitalist countries live off other countries. That is the very nature of imperialism, in fact it’s how capitalism itself developed. But he also explained that internally the imperialist countries are based upon the irreconcilable contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And his successor, Joseph Stalin, deemed First World workers the “key ally” of the Third World struggles, without whom the anti-imperialist struggle could not succeed.14)

Unruhe the Provocateur (Agent?)

Relevant here is another of Unruhe’s falsifications, where he claimed I hold that First World workers are presently ready, willing, and able to carry forward a revolutionary seizure of power. He then counters this manufactured argument asking “why then are [First World workers] not carrying out struggle/People’s War right now? Why are there no shots being fired against the U.S. government?” he then taunts, “[i]f revolution in the First World is possible then I challenge them to go out and do it.”

As I’ve made clear over and over again, like all other workers, U.S. workers have the potential to become revolutionary when and if given revolutionary leadership by a genuinely mass based revolutionary Communist Party, which they have not had. So I do not believe and have never said that they are subjectively ready for revolution at this time. It took Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades decades of difficult preparatory work to win the Russian masses over to making revolution. How absurd is it then to presume the First World masses could be won over to such a struggle overnight as Unruhe proposes we do?

He wants instant flash and bang, and like all petty bourgeois opportunists, seeks to justify avoiding the hard work and sacrifices that creating and giving real revolutionary leadership demands. Whereas genuine revolutionaries who base their political and ideological line on that of the revolutionary proletariat, like Mao, maintained that revolution is a complicated and protracted process, that in First World societies is preceded by a long period of preparation through largely legal political work.

Unruhe’s position and fascination with violent reaction serves the interests of the imperialists, which is why one of the U.S. government’s main subversive anti-Panther tactics under its Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), was to try to draw the Black Panther Party (BPP) into gun battles so to pick off its key leaders and discredit it to the general public as an apolitical violence prone hate group, gang, etc. As William Hinton reported, exposures of the FBI’s

“COINTELPRO files [revealed] that the American government had done everything possible to infiltrate the Black Panthers and other lesser-known activist groups, then had its ‘agents’ lead the groups into violent gestures that would divide them, undermine their credibility and bring down the full weight of the state on the leaders’ heads. The lethal effects of ultra-left actions by misled people’s movements have proved disastrous over and over again.”15

Unruhe’s taunts have a familiar smell.

Third versus First World Struggles

Unruhe is also correct that armed uprisings and revolutionary struggles have occurred with relative frequency across the Third World compared to the First World. The reason is not as he claims, because First World workers are inherently counter-revolutionary. On the contrary, it is because the qualitatively different conditions between the Third and First World compel qualitatively different strategies. One allows for immediate resort to armed struggle, the other requires a long period of legal political struggle. Mao explained this long ago:

“The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries.

“But while the principle remains the same, its application by the party of the proletariat finds expression in varying ways according to the varying conditions. Internally, capitalist countries practice bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external relation, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations.

“Because of these characteristics, it is the task of the party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the workers and build up strength through a long period of legal struggle, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism. In these countries, the question is one of a long legal struggle, of utilizing parliament as a platform, of economic and political strikes, of organizing trade unions and educating the workers. There the form of organization is legal and the form of struggle bloodless (non-military). On the issue of war, the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries oppose the imperialist wars waged by their own countries; if such wars occur, the policy of these Parties is to bring about the defeat of the reactionary governments of their own countries. The one war they want to fight is the civil war for which they are preparing. But this insurrection and war should not be launched until the bourgeoisie becomes really helpless, until the majority of the proletariat are determined to rise in arms and fight, and until the rural masses are giving willing help to the proletariat. And when the time comes to launch such an insurrection and war, the first step will be to seize the cities, and then advance into the countryside and not the other way about. All this has been done by Communist Parties in capitalist countries, and it has been proved correct by the October Revolution in Russia.

“China is different however. The characteristics of China are that she is not independent and democratic but semi-colonial and semi-feudal, that internally she has no democracy but is under feudal oppression, and that in her external relations she has no national independence but is oppressed by imperialism. It follows that we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organize the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the Communist Party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war, and not to seize the big cities first, and then occupy the countryside, but the reverse.”16

As I’ve pointed out, with the dissolution of the Comintern during WWII, and communist forces run underground and shattered inside the U.S., under the post-WWII Cold War, Red Scare, McCarthyism, and witch hunt persecutions of Communists, and purges of them from the worker’s unions, there have been no Communist Parties in Amerika doing the legal preparatory work which Mao discussed above is essential to prepare First World workers for a revolutionary insurrection. And, as said, the Third Worldist line upholds the imperialist’s position of working to prevent and discourage the development of such Parties.

This is why there have been no successful First World revolutions.

Also armed uprisings and anti-colonial struggles have occurred with relative frequency across the Third World because they have been sparked by resistance to foreign invasions or domination. As Afrika’s foremost Marxist and revolutionary nationalist leader Amilcar Cabral explained, the general homogeneity and horizontal character of rural Third World societies makes it relatively easy to spark mass resistance against a foreign occupier or invader, and this can be and often is done without a revolutionary vanguard.17 Similarly, Mao pointed out:

“When imperialism launches a war of aggression against a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite into a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all other contradictions among the various classes of the country … are temporarily relegated to a secondary or subordinate position.”

We see this in the popular resistance struggles against foreign domination and invasion, for example, of the Iraqi people that ultimately drove the U.S. invaders out, and of the Palestinians against their occupation by the Israeli military.

Unruhe Upholds National/Racial Chauvinism

In response to my point that the VLA line serves to divide the international proletariat along racial and national lines, Unruhe said in effect that it doesn’t matter, because the bourgeoisie has already divided people thusly. So, in effect, we should not oppose it, but just keep it that way. That says it all about whose class interests Unruhe and the Third Worldists represent. Mao correctly taught us, if we wish to change an oppressive condition we must struggle against it. “Everything reactionary is the same,” he said, “if you don’t hit it, it won’t fall. It is like sweeping the floor; where the broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself.”

In “MIM or MLM?”, I explained that racial division is ultimately a bourgeois tool of divide and rule, and showed that Mao gave the most effective example of building class based unity to counter oppressor and oppressed national chauvinism (racial division is but a cover for national division). Hence, I’m content to uphold the Maoist line (not Third Worldism) of uniting the struggles of oppressed people of color with that of workers in Amerika, including “white” workers.

Mao was no more wrong in his statement that the New Afrikan/Black liberation struggle should unite with “white” workers in Amerika, than he was in successfully joining the historically privileged Han national majority with the many historically underprivileged national minorities in their successful united struggle against imperialism and their own capitalist class in China. The difference here is there has been no revolutionary proletarian party to counter the bourgeois game of persistently whipping up racial chauvinism in Amerika, as Mao led in China. As I point out in “MIM or MLM?”, Mao’s effective work in this regard inspired BPP co-founder Huey P. Newton’s ideas on countering racial conflict in America, who witnessed its successful results in China.

Speaking of which, if Unruhe gave as much attention to investigating history as he does to looking for others’ attention, he’d answer many of his own questions, including whether New Afrikans/Blacks can catalyze the broader U.S. masses in struggle against the ruling class. The BPP exemplified this. Not only did they catalyze whites, but inspired other sectors in a widespread struggle against the U.S. power structure. And this despite the fact that the BPP wasn’t a traditional proletariat based Communist Party. In fact they sparked a new Communist movement in Amerika leading to the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Party-USA, which for a time did remarkable work amongst U.S. workers. The various forces inspired and catalyzed by the Panthers converged into such a broad mass movement on top of urban Black revolts, that the U.S. government feared escalating the Vietnam War, worried that they might not have enough troops to maintain control across the U.S. There was genuine trepidation at the highest levels of the government that it was in genuine danger of being overthrown in a mass insurgency.18

Yet Unruhe claims that the masses in Amerika have never made “even the slightest revolutionary advance,” and questions what possible impact the struggle of New Afrikans/Blacks could have on the broader U.S. masses, including whites.


As I point out in concluding “MIM or MLM?”, history proves it has been the petty bourgeoisie that has repeatedly undermined and reversed the gains of the masses, and promoted every sort of deviationist line that serves not the proletariat but ultimately the bourgeoisie. This is what we see in Unruhe and Third Worldism.

And I might add, I am no “First Worldist.” I promote unity of struggle of the workers of the entire world. It should be clear to Unruhe by now, that I oppose “Third Worldism” because it angles to divide workers of the First and Third Worlds in service to the imperialists’ old game of divide and rule.

Overall, his arguments and line reflect the class interests of the petty bourgeoisie opportunistically posturing as revolutionary. They fear to endanger their own privileges and think that expressing their untried and unproven (often downright dishonest) opinions is doing revolutionary work. Suburban leisure weighs heavily on their hands … and, apparently, as in Unruhe’s case, on some of their mental health as well.

Dare to struggle Dare to win!
All Power to the People!


Print Friendly
  1. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “Answering a Revisionist Line on the Labor Aristocracy”, []
  2. “Re: Novick Article: On the Correct Handling of Contradictions,” Turning the Tide, Vol. 26, No. 2 (April 2013 []
  3. Jason Unruhe, “The Pretend Revolution of Kevin Rashid’s First Worldism” []
  4. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “Third Worldism and Politicizing The Blame Game: What’s Revolutionary About That?” []
  5. Zak Cope, Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism 2nd Ed. (Quebec: Kersplebedeb Publishers, 2015). []
  6. MIM (Prisons), “Rashid’s Empty Rhetoric on the Labor Aristocracy” []
  7. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “MIM or MLM? Confronting the Divergent Politics of the Petty Bourgeois ‘Left’ on the Labor Aristocracy and Other Burning Issues in Today’s Revolutionary Struggle” []
  8. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “In Search of the Right Theory for Today’s Struggles: Revisiting Huey P. Newton’s Theory of Revolutionary Intercommunalism” []
  9. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “Answering a Revisionist Line on the Labor Aristocracy”, []
  10. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). []
  11. V.I. Lenin, “What Is To Be Done?”, Selected Works of Lenin (1967 ed.), vol. 1. []
  12. Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, “Third Worldism and Politicizing The Blame Game: What’s Revolutionary About That?” []
  13. V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). []
  14. J.V. Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism (1924 []
  15. William Hinton, Through a Glass Darkly: U.S. Views of the Chinese Revolution (NY; Monthly Review, 2006) []
  16. Mao Tse-Tung, “Problems of War and Strategy”, Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, Vol II. (1975) pp. 219-20. []
  17. Amilcar Cabral, “The Weapon of Theory”, Revolution in Guinea (NY: Monthly Review, 1969), pp. 105-6. []
  18. See Pentagon Papers [the U.S. Defense Department’s top-secret official history of US involvement in Indochina, leaked to the media in 1971]. Senator Gravel Edition (Boston: Beacon, 1972), especially Book IV. Also, the radicalizing effects of the BPP and prisoner movement on whites in Amerika described in John Gerassi, The Coming of the New International (NY: World Publishing Co., 1971), especially the Overview, pp. 77-81, and Eric Mann, Comrade George: An Investigation into the Life, Political Thought and Assassination of George Jackson (NY: Perennial Library, 1974). []

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *