Pan-African Political Economy

[RWalker]

According to Marcus Garvey the situation of the Africans in the World (at the particular period in history) could be summarized as follows:

"As far as Negroes are concerned, in America we have the problem of lynching, peonage and dis-franchisement.

"In the West Indies, South and Central America we have the problem of peonage, serfdom, industrial and political governmental inequality.

"In Africa we have, not only peonage and serfdom, but outright slavery, racial exploitation and alien political monopoly."


He went on to elaborate on the state of Africans in the US:

"I believe, as far as the Negro is concerned politically, that there are three stages relating to our contact with the white man:

"The First Stage in the life of the Negro in this Western Hemisphere was the stage when the white man shackled us in Africa and brought us here and kept us for two hundred and fifty years. During this period we worked and received no recompense, no pay for our labor, and we were satisfied because of the white man's Christian teaching "Learn to labor and to wait."

"The Second Stage was the thing called Emancipation, which we have enjoyed for fifty-eight years. This stage came when they gave us partial freedom, and a petty existence by way of wages, and we were satisfied during that stage to do just what they told us to do. We worked for small wages and voted Republican Democratic and so forth, until after fifty-eight years we discovered that a change was necessary.

"Now we have entered into the Third Stage of our existence, wherein we say to the white man "After two hundred and fifty years of slavery and fifty eight years of partial freedom under your leadership we are going to try but fifty years under our own direction.

"This new stage calls for all the manhood within the race and means that we must throw off all the conditions that affected us in the first and second stages, and go out and do—acquit ourselves like men in the economic, industrial and political arena."

Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey
http://www.wordowner.com/garvey/chapter4.htm

This general assessment essentially mirrors the analysis of other African revolutionaries such as Dr. Nkrumah, who pointed out that our suffering was based on a general class exploitation and oppression that is amplified by racial oppression. Thus the African people, and the African nation, suffer from both race and class oppression; and the sisters suffer the added burden of gender oppression, from the general environment and from backward elements within our culture.


Garvey, like Nkrumah, Malcolm X, Kwame Ture, DuBois, Seku Ture, Robert Sobukwe, Patrice Lumumba, Jeanne Martin Cisse, his wife Amy J. Garvey, Shirley DuBois, Padmore, and countless of others, known and unknown, understood that the circumstances of our people required Pan-Africanism as the answer.

Garvey raised the necessity for institutions such as continental African government, our own army, our own maritime and naval institutions and so forth. It is no wonder that Nkrumah wrote that of all the things he read the Philosophy and Opinions of Garvey had the greatest impact on his development.

Yet here in the 21st century, we still do not have such a government or army or naval force or any of the others things associated with true independence; we still do not have Pan-Africanism.

Pan-Africanism can be said to be a particular blend of political economy involving an emphasis on physiocratic aspects (that is the land), capital (i.e., the human capital of the African people in particular), and the societal superstructure (especially ideological assets) that it requires.

If we look at the obstacles that confront us we can see that they are essentially, military force, including the law enforcement-judiciary apparatus, and non-military coercion: ahistorical myths about our history deliberately circulated by our oppressors, so-called education -- that is indoctrination, negative and positive reinforcement, operant conditions and other psychological/philosophical operations aimed at inculcating ideas in mind that will facilitate our continued slavery, mass media in the form of "information" or "entertainment" are all classic examples of this non-military coercion, (when I say non-military I do not mean these tactics are not used by the military, as they are, I only mean that they do not generally involve overt violence).

These can all be defeated, given the proper superstructure response (essentially ideological) and agency response (organizational) from us. Proper meaing responses that correspond to our culture and our interest(s). This is the Pan-African political economy.

[New Dwaben Chief]

Was Garvey a Pan African? Looks like Garvey fell under the Black Nationalist head instead of the Pan African title.

Garvey was a capitalist for sure and believed that socialism was an abomination.

Great article

[rebelAfrika]

Originally Posted by New Dwaben Chief

Was Garvey a Pan African? Looks like Garvey fell under the Black Nationalist head instead of the Pan African title.

Garvey was a capitalist for sure and believed that socialism was an abomination.

Great article

Garvey was a Pan-Africanist before Pan-Africanism was concretely defined. Pan-Africanism was given a concrete definition at the 5th Pan-African Congress.

[New Dwaben Chief]

Originally Posted by rebelAfrika*AAPRP

Garvey was a Pan-Africanist before Pan-Africanism was concretely defined. Pan-Africanism was given a concrete definition at the 5th Pan-African Congress.

Well Brotha Rebel, we've accepted the definition of Pan Africanism that was concretely defined in 1945. If the definition of Pan Africanism our leaders came up with was the total liberation of African people under an all African govt practicing Scientific Socialism, than where does Garvey now fall?

It seems like he's under the Black Nationalist title....

Can we say socially he was a Pan Africanist, but economically he was a capitalist?

[rebelAfrika]

Originally Posted by New Dwaben Chief

Well Brotha Rebel, we've accepted the definition of Pan Africanism that was concretely defined in 1945. If the definition of Pan Africanism our leaders came up with was the total liberation of African people under an all African govt practicing Scientific Socialism, than where does Garvey now fall?

It seems like he's under the Black Nationalist title....

Can we say socially he was a Pan Africanist, but economically he was a capitalist?

Pan-Africanism implies African Nationalism. In otherwords, Pan-Africanists are African Nationalists. The major differences between Black Nationalism and African Nationalism is the land question. I have heard definitions of Black Nationalism on these forums that focus on the economic question. African Nationalism doesn't disagree with "buying black" and things of that nature. In fact, African Nationalism says that ANYWHERE and in ANY INSTANCE that black people are the majority, then black people SHOULD be in control. That means that black communities should have political, social, and economic dominance of their communities. So this line of thinking is not contradictory to Pan-Africanism. This is what Garvey advocated, right? So if you want to call Garvey an African Nationalist as opposed to a Pan-Africanist...then I wouldn't have any problem with that. But Garvey was CLEAR on the land question. Garvey didn't say "Africa...or a carved out section of amerikkka...for the Africans...at home and abroad"...he said "AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS...at home AND ABROAD." So Garvey was VERY clear here. I think it's a matter of perspective though. Garvey was a forefather of Pan-Africanism and although he died in 1940, before the 5th PAC, I would say that even today as Pan-Africanism develops, Garvey was and is a Pan-Africanist.

[New Dwaben Chief]

Originally Posted by rebelAfrika*AAPRP

Pan-Africanism implies African Nationalism. In otherwords, Pan-Africanists are African Nationalists. The major differences between Black Nationalism and African Nationalism is the land question. I have heard definitions of Black Nationalism on these forums that focus on the economic question. African Nationalism doesn't disagree with "buying black" and things of that nature. In fact, African Nationalism says that ANYWHERE and in ANY INSTANCE that black people are the majority, then black people SHOULD be in control. That means that black communities should have political, social, and economic dominance of their communities. So this line of thinking is not contradictory to Pan-Africanism. This is what Garvey advocated, right? So if you want to call Garvey an African Nationalist as opposed to a Pan-Africanist...then I wouldn't have any problem with that. But Garvey was CLEAR on the land question. Garvey didn't say "Africa...or a carved out section of amerikkka...for the Africans...at home and abroad"...he said "AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS...at home AND ABROAD." So Garvey was VERY clear here. I think it's a matter of perspective though. Garvey was a forefather of Pan-Africanism and although he died in 1940, before the 5th PAC, I would say that even today as Pan-Africanism develops, Garvey was and is a Pan-Africanist.

I agree that its a matter of perspective, I look a Garvey Back to Africa Movement as an African Nationalist movement. Because his focus of Nationalism was in Africa....

African Nationalism doesn't disagree with "buying black" and things of that nature. In fact, African Nationalism says that ANYWHERE and in ANY INSTANCE that black people are the majority, then black people SHOULD be in control.

Your definition of African Nationalism sounds like Black Nationalism. In our history theirs been quite a few of Black Nationalist that switched to African Nationalism. A great example would probably be Bishop Henry Mcneal Turner, he preached Black Nationalism but when he was denied a congressional position because of his color he turnt his attention to Africans returning back home to Africa.

I guess I just see the Economic operations of the two movements a little different.

[rebelAfrika]

Originally Posted by New Dwaben Chief

Your definition of African Nationalism sounds like Black Nationalism.

Remember what I said about the land question?

African Nationalism = transforming the continent of Africa into a single African nation for all Africans.

Black Nationalism = creating a black nation for Africans (in amerikkka)...in Africa or in amerikkka or on "some" piece of land "somewhere" in the world.

[RWalker]

Don't forget that Garvey was very complimentary of people like Lenin; see Tony Martin's book, Race First for example. He distinguished between people who masquerade as socialist as part of their strategy to control our movements and real socialist who are rooted in their own people's struggle. Garvey was not a doctrinare capitalist his concern was using the structures to create his national dream which by definition was a critical part of the development of Pan-Africanism, including the employment and trading forms. This is not in contradiction to socialism.

Recall, that Amy Garvey participated strongly in the building of Pan-Africanism as we now understand it...and that to this day if you go to the UNIA site they talk proudly of the virtual identity of Garvey's and Nkrumah's approach. Nkrumah himself said that Garvey was a great leader of Pan-Africanism; even the backward leaning elements of the AU pay respect to Garvey's contributions.

Finally on the question of Black Nationalism and African Nationalism, I would point you to Malcolm's experience in the 64 OAU meeting when he realized the limitations and potential detriment of confusing the source of our nationalism, color or land. Malcolm being the brilliant, honest, principled and courageous man he was quickly recanted the Black Nationalist posture and declared himself an African Nationalist...this was catalyzed by his dialog with Algerian revolutionaries at the OAU.

I thank our brothers for such a useful dialog.

Roy

[Shombay]

Originally Posted by RWalker

Malcolm being the brilliant, honest, principled and courageous man he was quickly recanted the Black Nationalist posture and declared himself an African Nationalist

Please Brother RWalker help me to gain a better understanding of what is meant by this statement. I appreciated the information you give, and I am 1 of many who consider Malcolm as a spiritual Father. I just am a little confused by this statement, because of my own views of these terms. Meaning: I consider myself an Afrikan Nationalist, as I also consider myself a Black Nationalist. This is because I view these terms in meaning the same thing. I view all Black people to be Afrikans, and I view all Afrikans to be Black people. Now I'm assuming when you say Black Nationalist, it is being referred to Afrikans in amerikkka; but when you say Afrikan Nationalist, it is being referred to Afrikan people World Wide. But I dont want to assume. Please give me a better understanding of what is meant.

I also personally believe that it is incomplete for one to be a Black Nationalist without also being a Pan-Afrikanist.

Black Love Brother

This forum is a GREAT forum, Im ashamed to say I never explored this forum..LONG LIVE THE TALKING DRUM...This Website is the MOST INFORMATIVE and HELPFUL TOOL on the WEB... I BELIEVE....I LOVE THIS SITE........BLACK LOVE

[RWalker]

My brother,

First let me say how much I appreciated your exceptionally positive attitude about the efforts of the organizers of the Assata Speaks forum.

As to your specific question, allow me to try to explain it this way. Let us take Malcolm's reasoning...when he dialoged with the Algerians, many of whom, as you probably know, have skin color that we would call white...he perceived the limitation of basing nationalism on color; as Kwame Ture, who like Malcolm like you and I, initially saw himself as a black nationalist (for example see his Free Huey speech 1968), pointed out on the subject, nationalism cannot be based on color, it has to be based on land.


Nkrumah, said that the home of Black people all over the world is Africa, and that all black people are Africans...and that all the oppressed and exploited population of Africa are part of the black world, part of the struggle for black power, and in that sense black people...so you can see that your expressed understanding on the matter is not far from the mark.

The important thing is drawing a distinction between nationalism based on a color, a nationalism that would by definition not only exclude individuals such as Ben Bella, but would also include scum such as Mobutu, Condoleeza Rice, Susan Rice, Colin Powell, Moise Tshombe, Abel Muzorewa, Wilson Goode...you get picture...and nationalism based on the land...as Malcolm observed the land is the primary basis of independence and liberty, of nationhood...that is why African nationalists, true African nationalists, are in the forefront of Pan-Africanism, which is by the way the highest expression of black power. (A position articulated by both Nkrumah and Kwame Ture, among others.)

[Abdurratln]

Originally Posted by New Dwaben Chief

Well Brotha Rebel, we've accepted the definition of Pan Africanism that was concretely defined in 1945. If the definition of Pan Africanism our leaders came up with was the total liberation of African people under an all African govt practicing Scientific Socialism, than where does Garvey now fall?

It seems like he's under the Black Nationalist title....

Can we say socially he was a Pan Africanist, but economically he was a capitalist?

This issue of captilaism versus socialism, I think, is but one more example of how words are used to confuse things. Pan-Africanism is defined as being a part of the Worldwide Soacialist Movement. True. But, I do not believe, nor have I ever believed that this definiton exclude consideration of other principles and theories of economic development, not even so-called capitalism in as much as capitalism is defined as free enterprise. For instance, in the Little Green Book, His Excellency Brother Colonel Muamar Quadafi sets forth what he calls the Third Universal Principle.

The Third Universal Principle, as I understnad it, is neither strict classical socialism nor is it strict classical capitalism. Indeed, it is a third way to formulate economic development. But, Brother Qudafi did not invent this Third Universal Principle. He simply defined it and interpreted it to us.

As I understand it, the Third Universal Principle is derived from Islamic economics. Let us be clear: Islamic economics is not capitalism. But, it does contain some elements of the free enterprise system or theory. Islamic economics forbids usury, or so-called predatory lending type financing. Most all Muslims agree to this. But a few will claim justifications for not adhering to this ideal. What many Muslims are somewhat confused about is the fact that the issue of usury, or exploitative interests charged on loans, is better defined in terms of the Arabic word RIBA. RIBA not only includes usury, but also other forms of financial exploitation, such as under paying workers or slavery. RIBA is strictly forbidden in ash-Sharia or Islamic Law.

So, do not think that it is a matter of socialism versus capitalism. In today's modern financial system, Islamic economics, especially RIBA-free financing is a major force in the world's economy. Believe me if I assert that Islamic econmics is just as much a threat to capialism, American style, as socialism is. Furthermore, I see Islamic economics as holding much promise for the coming United States of Africa and Arabia. For one thing, most Africans are Muaslims. In those places where ash-Sharia is in force, such as in Northern Nigeria, Islamic financing is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

One final word: The Communist Party of China has seem the virtuals of some practices of a free enterprise system without compromising the basics of socialism. This has been so sucessful until the People' Republic of China must be considered as one of the most vibrant and viable and dynamic economies in the world. Of course, I realize that these comments expose me to attacks from all kinds of anti-Pan-Africanist quarters who pretend to be Pan-Africanists. But, if I can share valuable knowledge and insights with just one honest and sincere Pan-Africanist who can continue to develop Pan-Africanism and move this struggle closer to victory, than the risks will have been well worth taking. Keep in mind also, that Ghana under Osagyefo's leadership used the principles of socialism in conjunction with some principles from free enterprise economic theory and practice. Forward! LONG LIVE THE NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!