I assume this is a piece in response to people like Avakian, Zizek and other bellicose misleaders attempting to impose themselves and their idea as something new and fundamentally positive, yet the piece seems to fall back into some ways onto dogma and accepting original verdicts at face value.

Here’s where I think a big problem lies:

“New theories capable of serving as a valid guide to action are only produced out of the class struggle, the highest most advanced points of social practice of the masses. In short they are forged in civil war.”

Sure, new theories are forced out of class struggle. This happens all the time. In this manner, my guess is that Iraq Mujahadeen know a fair bit more about conducting guerrilla warfare than 99.9% of First World “Maoists.” Yet, that’s not really what the author is talking about. She’s talking about the really significant demarcations of revolutionary theories, namely Marxism, Leninism and Maoism. This is at least implied when she claims to value the works of Cabral yet does not include him in the ’3 head’ cannon.

The author’s point about such theories being “produced out of the class struggle, the highest most advanced points of social practice of the masses” is one sided and un-dialectical. Specially, it ignores the role of the material and social conditions under which such ideas and theories were formed, and how this necessarily shaped and informed such revolutionary social practice.

Marxism, as much as it was the product of the class struggles of the 19th century, was also the result of capitalism’s full ascendancy in Europe, its constant revolutionizing of the means of production and the invariable alterations to the social fabric both of Europe and the world which was occurring as a result.

Leninism, not only sprang from the establishment of the first large socialist state (which itself is both a lesson from practice and a significant change in material and social conditions under which proletarian struggles operated) also signified the development of monopoly capital and its division of the world into spheres of colonial influence which were occasionally redivided by means of war.

Maoism, not just marking advance in social practice by the proletariat both in terms of national liberation and the cultural revolution, occurred at a time when the US had stepped into the shoes of all previous empires and (according to the rhetoric of the time) was on the verge of defeat globally, and also at a time when there was a sharp split in the (nominally) socialist camp or revisionism or revolution, capitulation or continuing the international struggle against capitalism.

All of this is to say we can’t separate the material and social conditions out of which revolutionary theories were forged when evaluating such theories themselves.

As well, I disagree with this sediment, “Revolutionary theory worthy of consideration is the product of successful revolutionary practice and nothing else.” It begs the question, how is one successful in revolutionary practice? {“By applying revolutionary theory!” is the dogmatist response} Certainly not only learning from past success but also from past failures. In fact, revolutionary theory is usually the intellectual crystallization of a success or forward advancement that comes out of a long period of failure and stagnation or setbacks. The Chinese Communist were massacred in 1927, then later had to traverse the Long March, for example. By such a measure as laid out by the author, we could have considered Chinese Communism a dead letter during those periods.

Moreover and to state once more, revolutionary theory must also be a conscious reflection of the actual material and social circumstance of struggle. As a matter of reason, this is why a sufficient class analysis (i.e. one which takes into account things like the effects of imperialism and national oppression, the development of the First World labor aristocracy detached from the Third World-centered proletariat, etc) is one benchmark of what it actually takes to be a communist.

I feel a lot of frustration because sometimes I wonder how far we can go when so many of us are positioning ourselves away from Blackness in a global sense. So many of us don’t want to be associated with the group, and I hate this colonial mentality that we work hard to maintain. I wonder when we will see that it has not and will not get us any step closer to a united, socialist Africa. Heck, even if our people can’t understand scientific socialism, can’t we at least understand that you will never gain power, when you relinquish all control over to your oppressor. We just hand them our sovereignty with no questions and then have the gall to complain about the fact that we don’t have our own culture and land. It’s like we can’t see that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, and then complain when we feel pain!

Another key aspect of your article is the whole concept of being biracial. I had to think about your meaning, but I believe you mean any person who IDENTIFIES as biracial as opposed to understanding that they are Black with a (fill in the blank) parent. I’m thinking you’re making a distinction because people who lead with their mixed identity will always try to separate themselves from Blackness and side with the interests of that part which they believe gives them privilege. I would like to know your thoughts on that interpretation.

Finally, what are your feelings on our chances of a unified Africa while so many of us believe in these false borders? This is also a big issue on the continent. For instance, when Che was in the Congo, they were really having problems with the revolution because the Rwandan Tutsis had so much animosity toward the Congolese. While the Congolese were having contradictions in their own ranks, the Rwandans felt they didn’t need to fight if the Congolese didn’t fight because the Congo was “their country”. They couldn’t see that it was one struggle and that we need to be willing to pick up the slack if we’re serious about a revolutionary Africa.

Those are all my thoughts, thank you so much for contributing this piece.