Walter Rodney, Resistance, and Defeat: An Anti-Imperialist View
“The rise of states governed by Marxism sharpened the contradictions between socialist and bourgeois ideologies, producing an ideological war for the possession of the whole world. The writing of history has been a facet of, and a weapon in, that war, and historians interpreting the Russian Revolution itself have been active combatants.” – Walter Rodney[1]
“For us, defeatism is a crime, and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus, in wars of national liberation, patriotism is applied internationalism.” – Mao Zedong[2]
In May 1980, Walter Rodney secretly traveled to Zimbabwe to take part in the country’s independence celebrations. Zimbabwe had just defeated the white settler regime of Rhodesia in a protracted anti-colonial struggle. The trip’s clandestine nature stemmed from the fact that Rodney and his comrades faced severe repression in Guyana, from where he travelled. Soon after his return, on June 13, 1980, Rodney was assassinated by a Guyanese government agent who supplied him with a walkie talkie implanted with an explosive. The CIA was likely complicit in the operation.
Despite facing overwhelming repression throughout his adult life—including censorship, deportation, incarceration, and finally, assassination—Rodney died an undefeated revolutionary. He shares this quality with the recently passed Assata Shakur, who evaded the U.S. authorities for forty-five years after escaping from prison in 1979 and eventually relocating to Cuba. The late radical intellectual John Bracey once asserted that revolutionaries must not overdetermine the state’s power to the point of political paralysis.[3] Walter Rodney and Assata Shakur embodied this revolutionary spirit and relentlessly sustained their activities until their last breaths. Defying state repression, both Rodney and Shakur refused to withdraw into the petty bourgeois pessimism that engulfs Western academia. Their continued resistance against and disavowal of U.S. imperialism meant that neither they nor their ideas were defeated.
Walter Rodney lived a life of applied internationalism, in Mao Zedong’s words. He unapologetically carried his Pan-African and Marxist principles throughout his academic career, including in Tanzania and Jamaica. During his time at the University of Dar es Salaam, Rodney supported but also offered principled criticism of the Julius Nyerere government and its Ujamaa policies. In Jamaica, his teachings were so influential that the government banished him from the country, which led to the Rodney rebellion in 1968. Rodney’s titanic status as an intellectual stemmed from his material commitments to national liberation and socialism. His famed book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1972), immortalized Rodney among Pan-African and Third World revolutionaries.
Rodney commenced work for a book on the Russian Revolution as he was completing How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. The new book stemmed from a series of lectures he gave in 1970 and 1971. His essay “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution” was to be the preface in this book. As Rodney explained, the Russian Revolution “was the first decisive break away from international capitalism, affecting thereby the subsequent course of events around the world, including Africa.”[4] The revolution’s world-historical import made it a necessary subject of study through an African lens. Yet, due to his political commitments and the repression he faced, Rodney was unable to complete the book.[5] His notes on the Russian Revolution finally saw daylight in 2018 with the posthumously published volume The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World. The book is a testament to the steadfastness of revolutionary thought.
Historians and activists may pontificate on what Rodney would say about today’s Russia, its current conflict against NATO in Ukraine, or even the Zionist genocide in Palestine. However, these questions amount to the very bourgeois idealism that Rodney vigorously rejected. It matters less what Rodney would say in today’s world than what he said and did in his time. Our task is to study and apply Rodney’s ideological outlook and methodological prescriptions according to our own historical context. In doing so, we find that his half-century-old assertions about the century-old Russian Revolution remain deeply pertinent. Rodney’s conclusions specifically challenge contemporary intellectuals to avoid the pitfalls of defeatism amid imperial war and genocide.
The Two Worldviews of the Russian Revolution: Idealism vs. Materialism
“The Two World Views” begins with an epigraph from Mao Zedong, who asserted that the history of human knowledge boils down to two competing conceptions of the world: the metaphysical and the dialectical.[6] Rodney builds on Mao’s observation to delineate two historiographical approaches toward the Russian Revolution, both of which are undergirded by class ideology. Rodney identifies the two ideological positions as the bourgeois and Soviet camps. The bourgeois camp commits itself to a metaphysical or idealistic conception of the world, whereas the Soviet tradition practiced dialectical and historical materialism. Readers may further deduce that the Soviet camp represents a revolutionary and Marxist worldview while the bourgeois camp embodies a reactionary outlook.
In “Marxism and African Liberation,” another posthumously published essay, Rodney designates Marxism as a methodological approach that provides a comprehensive understanding of the world. Marxism, he explains, “dissociated itself and pitted itself against all other modes of perception which started with ideas, with concepts and with words; and rooted itself in the material conditions and in the social relations in society.”[7] Using this framework, Rodney conceptualized “The Two World Views,” which constitutes a review of previous literature on the Russian Revolution and his commentary on it.
Rodney is transparent about his ideological position, and he criticizes the idealist worldview and the bourgeois scholarship that derives from it based on its inherent contradictions. As he explains, “To categorize a view as either Marxist or bourgeois—materialist or idealist—is to identify its most important bias.”[8] Yet, Rodney clarifies that bourgeois scholars rarely declare their position because doing so exposes their own biases. This is the very basis on which they criticize the Marxist position. Bourgeois scholars must refuse their own political subjectivity to retain the pretense of a monopoly on truth and reason. Rodney in effect unveils how the bourgeois tradition, which becomes the intellectual basis for imperialism, rests on a false ideological foundation. Bourgeois scholars deny a dialectical approach that identifies contradictions as the basis for understanding reality precisely because their own ideological position is rooted in the concealment of social relations and class conflict. Instead, these reactionary scholars hold to abstract ideals, or the claim “to be concerned with humanity rather than a given class,” to advance their worldview.[9]
Abstract universalism is a pillar on which the bourgeois liberal tradition repudiates the legitimacy of national liberation. It does so, according to Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros, by advancing the ungrounded notion that all nations and all proletariats are on equal footing, thereby denying imperialism’s functional existence.[10] Moyo and Yeros explain that even the Western left, or what they call the "international left," adheres to a bourgeois worldview. This “international left” does not seriously consider the validity of political issues specific to Third World countries. Practicing what Moyo and Yeros call reformist opportunism, the international left submerges the national question, especially in the Third World. By contrast, the “nationalist” left in the Third World exercises a more genuine commitment to internationalism by insisting on “the substantive dissolution of hierarchies among nations and proletariats in the struggle against capital.”[11]
The nationalist left in the Third World shares the ideological outlook and methodological approaches of the Soviet historians that Rodney discusses in “The Two World Views.” Those historians, committed to a Marxist analysis, emphasize dialectics. Dialectical materialism proceeds from the basis that “every phenomenon is constantly transforming itself, owing to its own internal contradictions and to contradictions between itself and other phenomena.” Material realities dictate the development of ideas, Marxist argue. Ideas come after matter.[12] Marxists uphold contradiction as fundamental to class formation.
Social contradictions at their most elevated state can lead to revolutionary change. The bourgeois tradition, perhaps best represented by Enlightenment philosophy, is itself the product of the sociohistorical contradictions that gave rise to the European bourgeoisie. Liberal revolutions in Great Britain and France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries catapulted the bourgeoisie to power in the world’s two largest empires. Yet, bourgeois scholars deny the efficacy and authenticity of workers’ and peasants’ revolutions. Whether in Russia, Haiti, China, Korea, or Cuba, the bourgeois tradition claims that revolutions in these countries were led by “strongmen” who duped the purportedly naïve masses. As Rodney explains, bourgeois ideologists aim to preoccupy their audience with individuals rather than broad social forces. This bourgeois ideology becomes imperial policy. For instance, an internal CIA memorandum from 1959 claimed that Fidel Castro’s “mesmeric appeal” beguiled the Cuban masses. The same memo concluded that Castro’s “disappearance…would greatly accelerate the fall” of the Cuban government.[13] Cuba’s socialist state endures more than six decades later despite U.S. imperialism’s continued predations.
Ironically, the bourgeois establishment relentlessly attempts to foment contradictions in enemy countries and communities even while its intellectuals propagate idealist refrains. U.S. policy toward revolutionary Cuba again provides a prominent example. In a secret 1960 memorandum , State Department official Lester Mallory advocated for a U.S. embargo “to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” The goal, Mallory wrote, was to “bring about hunger, desperation,” and ultimately, the overthrow of the Cuban government. The United States claims to impose sanctions and embargoes against enemy governments due to alleged human rights abuses or to promote democracy, but Mallory’s memo betrays their real purpose. Washington’s sanctions against Venezuela likewise aim to induce socioeconomic contradictions that will ripen the country for U.S. military operations. Regime change in socialist Venezuela would then facilitate capitalist penetration and the extraction of its natural resources by the North American bourgeoisie.
While bourgeois scholars cloak their class loyalties in order to delegitimize socialist revolution and help foment counterrevolution, their Soviet counterparts advanced the Marxist tradition by explicitly siding with the proletariat and the peasantry. According to Marxist historians, socialist revolution arises from the contradictions between labor and capital and reflects the ideologically conscious mobilization of workers and peasants.[14] Marxism, in short, illumes what bourgeois liberalism aims to obscure. Rodney clarifies the relationship between ideology and methodology through his own Marxist analysis.
Imperialism, Idealism, and Defeatism
While revolutionaries like Rodney have shown that the distinction between idealism and materialism is not merely academic and has real-world implications, reactionary intellectuals aim to segregate their class ideology from the methods they employ to analyze the world. Nonetheless, the contradictions intrinsic to the bourgeois worldview indicate how idealism reinforces imperialism. Idealism does not simply propagate abstract conceptions of freedom and equality without providing the material means to achieve liberation. Its impact runs deeper. Amid extreme imperial and colonial violence, including genocide, idealism transforms into defeatism—that is, the notion that only oppressors can end domination of their own volition. Resistance is futile and even criminal, so the idealists say. Idealism and defeatism are mutually constitutive outlooks. Whereas idealism functions to logically rationalize and perpetuate imperialist domination, the bourgeois tradition aims to psychologically impose defeat on imperialism’s victims.
It is therefore unsurprising that the foremost anti-imperialist leaders and intellectuals utilized a dialectical and historical materialist analysis even if they did not identify as Marxist-Leninists. These figures share the quality of adamantly rejecting defeatism. “You cannot win the war if you lose confidence in victory and vacillate in the face of transient difficulties,” explains the Korean revolutionary Kim Il-Sung. “You cannot carry out a revolution the way you would take a royal road.”[15] The Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh similarly highlights the obligation to vanquish obstacles in a war for liberation. “We do not fear difficulties. But we must foresee them, clearly realize them, and be prepared to overcome them,” he concludes.[16]
In his final speech before being assassinated in September 2024, Hassan Nasrallah warned both against exaggerating the power of the enemy to the point of “self-inflicted defeatism” and against underestimating the same adversary. In commemorating Nasrallah, Yemen’s Abdul-Malik al-Houthi added that the late Lebanese leader foiled the Zionist entity’s efforts “to instill defeatism, weakness, and frailty in the nation.” The late Palestinian intellectual Nizar Banat likewise exhorted people “to fortify society against the spread of defeatist thought.”
Enslaved Africans also rejected defeatism in their war of resistance against slavery. Highlighting the revolts by Africans in Jamaica during the 1760s, Vincent Brown explains that the rebels “acted with the hope of success, and their confidence demands a reassessment of the politics of slavery.” He contrasts the rebels’ actions with the (bourgeois) historians’ perspective that the crushing of the revolts “was never in doubt.”[17]
Because defeatism and idealism serve to advance imperial power, it logically follows that the above leaders, intellectuals, and movements adopted a materialist worldview. By rooting their analyses in the concrete conditions besetting their countries and peoples, anti-imperialists dialectically struggle toward national liberation. The foremost Marxist-Leninist thinkers conceptualized and developed dialectical and historical materialism always in relation to contextual conditions. This is Marxism’s utility as a methodology, Rodney writes. One can apply a methodology irrespective of time and place, but the application is also different according to material realities.[18] Rodney’s insights on materialism therefore help us to analyze today’s imperialist wars.
A Materialist Analysis of NATO’s War against Russia
A dialectical and historical materialist approach illuminates how the war in Ukraine began long before Russia launched its special military operation in February 2022. That war commenced after a U.S.-orchestrated coup against Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Yanukovych’s government enjoyed friendly ties with its Russian neighbor. His ouster spurred a secessionist uprising in Eastern Ukraine by rebels who denied the coup’s legitimacy and who consequently sought to incorporate into Russia. The post-coup government then launched military operations against the rebels—including by supporting and eventually integrating the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion into its ranks—which marked the beginning of the now decade-long war. Russia calls its intervention a special military operation for these reasons.
For Russia, the NATO war in Ukraine is existential in nature. Russian officials have even claimed that they are waging a national liberation struggle. “Our fight for sovereignty and justice is, without exaggeration, one of national liberation, because we are upholding the security and well-being of our people, and our supreme historical right to be Russia,” President Vladimir Putin asserted in November 2023. While this framing may seem hyperbolic, it responds to NATO’s eastward expansion and gradual encroachment against Russia over the past three decades.
A dialectical approach highlights these contradictions, particularly given the West’s meddling in the former Soviet republics. It also reveals how NATO has historically functioned as an imperialist force serving the United States’ global interests. NATO was the entity that invaded and destroyed Libya in 2011. That invasion left Libya fragmented and without a functioning central state, which in turn destabilized the entire African Sahel region. A Russian perspective recognizes this history and would naturally deduce that NATO expansionism is irreconcilable with the sovereignty of Russia and even Ukraine. Finally, and perhaps most important, a dialectical analysis rooted in anti-imperialist ideology recognizes that Russia is fighting a war against all of NATO and continues to make territorial gains against NATO’s Ukrainian proxy in the contested Donbas region. Battlefield developments and the evolving ceasefire conditions indicate that Russia is winning the war. In short, Marxist dialectics predominate the Russian perspective even during the post-Soviet era.
By contrast, the bourgeois idealist position continually promulgates that Russia is waging an imperialist war on Ukraine. This position refutes the aforementioned historical and geopolitical contradictions. Bourgeois ideologists, in confirmation of Rodney’s analysis, also deride Vladimir Putin as a “strongman” and “narcissist.” They thereby simplify the war to the whims of one person. Most importantly, the bourgeois position attempts to seize the monopoly on truth by globally broadcasting the imperialist perspective on Russia. Washington aims to convince Third World countries to observe the Western sanctions against Russia by claiming the latter is the expansionist belligerent and that NATO is simply defending Ukraine. It then threatens countries that continue to trade with Moscow.
Rodney cautioned against falling into these imperialist traps with respect to the Russian Revolution. He understood that a socialist revolution had significant material implications for newly independent African countries. The imperialist position attempted to sway African consciousness on the revolution as part of the ideological Cold War. Africa’s colonizers “had national and ideological conflicts with the Soviet Union. Indeed, they were self-declared enemies,” Rodney explains.
Therefore, ‘A’ was interpreting his enemy, ‘B,’ to a third party, ‘C,’ which happens to be comprised of Africans. In the best of circumstances, such a procedure would be questionable, unless Africans had already agreed that our interests and basic outlooks coincided with those of Europe. As it is, we know for a fact how prejudiced and distorted Europe’s view of Africa has been. We know that European capitalism and imperialism continue to have our exploitation as their main objective. There is, therefore, every reason to be suspicious of the Western European (and American) view of the Soviet Revolution, and there is every reason to seek an African view.[19]
Of course, it is important to recognize that Russia today is not the Soviet Union. But the persistence of bourgeois idealist narratives on Russia are as insidious today because they still aim to advance imperialism by destabilizing Russia to the point of capitulation, disrupting its relations with Third World countries, and thereby reversing the world’s geopolitical shift toward multipolarity. Gerald Horne astutely addresses these points by detailing the convergence of Russian and African interests. Without denying the presence of a Russian capitalist class that creates contradictions “between certain interests of Russia and certain interests of sovereign and independent Africa,” Horne nonetheless concludes that these contradictions are surmountable in the face of a common adversary. Russia and Africa together aim to circumscribe “the rampant and rampaging interference of North Atlantic countries in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.” He adds that African countries and Russia share parallel interests in trade and seek reasonable prices for export commodities produced both on the continent and in Russia. Horne employs a materialist analysis to reject the bourgeois idealist claims that Russia is simply an exploitative force in Africa and that African peoples are unknowing victims to Russian “imperialism.”
This convergence of interests is a microcosm for Russia’s broader geopolitical gravitation toward the Third World since 2022. Russia’s realigning priorities, relationships, and global outlook are stimulated by the NATO war and the Western-imposed sanctions. Changing economic and geopolitical realities thus show how Russia’s shift remains as fluid as the contradictions that arise from those changes. Its shifting alignments accelerate apace with the escalating contradictions. Russia in 2025 is not the same country that existed in 2022, and we should expect this trend to intensify.
Materialism, Idealism, and Palestine
The contradictions generated from Russia’s anti-imperialist war against NATO helped to ripen the global conditions for Operation Al Aqsa Flood in occupied Palestine on October 7, 2023. Al Aqsa Flood marked a qualitative shift in Palestine’s more than century-long liberation struggle against Zionist-imperialism. While anti-imperialist intellectuals expose imperialism’s contradictions, the resistance shatters these fissures into full-blown crises. In doing so, the Palestinian resistance has effectively produced an ideological victory from which the Zionist entity of “Israel” is unlikely to recover.
The Palestinian liberation struggle has remained in the crosshairs of clashing ideological worldviews since the beginning of the Zionist colonial project. The ideological struggle intensifies in correlation with the escalating contradictions on the ground. A materialist analysis emphasizes the strategic gains of the Palestinian resistance and the concomitant degradation of the Zionist entity. Conversely, an idealist worldview obscures battlefield developments in favor of the psychological operations waged by the Zionist-imperialists to demoralize and degrade the Palestinian people and the international solidarity movement. The Palestinian resistance nonetheless has held the strategic initiative since Al Aqsa Flood. “Just as the resistance imposes equations on the ground, it will also dictate the terms of any agreement,” said Hamas official Izzat al-Rishq after a major resistance operation in July 2025.
The Zionist entity’s genocidal war directly results from its inability to seize the initiative and reflects an act of desperation amid strategic losses both on the battlefield and in the international arena. Israel failed to achieve its stated objectives during the war, which included eradicating the resistance, “securing” Gaza, and retrieving its captives through force. In early October 2025, the Zionist entity resorted to a “ceasefire” with the very resistance it attempted to destroy for the preceding two years. The strategic failures are exacerbated by a global boycott and divestment movement and importantly, Yemen’s blockade of the Red Sea. The latter forced the Israeli port of Eilat to declare bankruptcy in Summer 2024 and eventually cease operations altogether. Moreover, the Zionist entity’s unprovoked attack against Iran in June 2025 resulted in a strategic defeat. Iran’s retaliation with Operation True Promise III decimated Israel’s air defenses and significantly damaged the colony’s military and intelligence infrastructure . Unending wars and a futile quest for regional dominance have boomeranged, and the Zionist economy is suffering. Finally, the student intifada and the flotillas continue to ideologically vitiate the Zionist entity on the international front.
The idealist worldview rejects these contradictions and instead aims to advance Zionist-imperialism by imposing a defeatist mentality among the colonized and their supporters. It does so by focusing only on Palestinian trauma and suffering without offering context or even an acknowledgment of Israel’s genocide. Bourgeois ideologists do not recognize Palestinian resilience and steadfastness. And they delegitimize the resistance either as a trivial side-story that is unable to impose new realities on the oppressor, or as terrorists. The latter is a racist designation levied against all historical resistance movements. In both cases, the bourgeois worldview perversely scapegoats the resistance for Palestinian suffering. Yet, these psychological operations deter neither the Palestinian people and their resistance nor the regional Axis of Resistance and the international solidarity movement. National, regional, and international resistance have driven the Zionist colonial project into an unprecedented crisis.
Conclusion
“The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution” clarifies imperialism’s investment in idealism. Walter Rodney’s intervention on the Russian Revolution and his analysis on the distinction between the bourgeois and Marxist worldviews elucidate the contradictions of idealism. The Russian Revolution “did more than any other historical event to bring about ideological polarization on a world scale between the two world views of the socialist and capitalist systems,” Rodney explains.[20]
Rodney’s death and the decades-long neglect of his important work foreshadowed an era of socialist retrenchment during the 1980s and 1990s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the materialist worldview likewise receded amid the imperialist bourgeoisie’s ideological offensive. These developments coincided with severe escalation in political and racial repression and cooptation in the United States, along with the retreat of global resistance against U.S. imperialism. Meanwhile, bourgeois scholars celebrated “the end of history” in their claim to liberalism’s permanent victory. Metaphysics predominated the Western academy. Intellectual traditions like post-structuralism and post-modernism either tacitly subsidized or explicitly supported imperial hegemony. The idealists propounded the notion that Western power was intractable, which led to the left’s political paralysis, in John Bracey’s words.
Yet, this era was fleeting. China’s global ascendance and the reassertion of Russian power, alongside renewed national liberation movements in West Asia and West Africa, drive the resurgence of dialectical and historical materialism. Rapidly shifting material realities also catalyze an evolution in the methodological approaches used to understand the world. The materialist worldview and Marxist methodology thus reemerge in every battlefield against imperialism.
Rodney wrote that the confrontation between capitalism and socialism was the most critical issue of his time. It incorporated “all the world-shaking problems of national liberation, racial emancipation, economic development and the liberation” of humanity.[21] It is now apparent that this conflict has reached a heightened level, encompassing all the world’s imperialist and anti-imperialist forces. To paraphrase Frantz Fanon, challenging imperialism is not a rational confrontation of viewpoints.[22] Intellectuals must choose their side.
Those who choose anti-imperialism must work tirelessly to defeat bourgeois idealism and defeatism, which together reproduce the domination of the world’s oppressed peoples by normalizing imperial hegemony. This effort also demands promulgating the virtues of dialectical and historical materialism, not out of a blind ideological commitment to Marxist-Leninism, but rather by studying and applying its principles. Only then can we develop a proper analysis of today’s imperial wars and national liberation struggles, from Russia to Palestine and beyond. In short, the intellectual’s role in anti-imperialist struggle has material implications. And just as Walter Rodney did during his time, the anti-imperialist intellectuals of today must fulfill their historical mission.
Navid Farnia is a member of AISC. ____________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Walter Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” in The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World, ed. Robin Kelley and Jesse Benjamin (London: Verso, 2018), 7.
[2] Mao Zedong, “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung: Volume II (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), 196.
[3] John Bracey, “The Historical Significance of the Revolutionary Action Movement,” Association for the Study of African American Life and History Meeting and Conference, Cincinnati, 2017.
[4] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 4.
[5] Jesse Benjamin and Robin Kelley, “Introduction: An ‘African Perspective’ on the Russian Revolution,” in The Russian Revolution: A View from the Third World (London: Verso, 2018), xix-xxi.
[6] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 1.
[7] Walter Rodney, “Marxism and African Liberation,” in Decolonial Marxism: Essays from the Pan-African Revolution (London: Verso, 2022), 37.
[8] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 22-3.
[9] Ibid., 12.
[10] Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros, “The Zimbabwe Question and the Two Lefts,” Historical Materialism 15, no. 3 (2007): 174.
[11] Ibid., 173.
[12] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 20-21.
[13] J. C. King, “Memorandum for the Director of Central Intelligence from J. C. King, 11 Dec 59,” memorandum, December 1979, Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation: Volume III, ed. Jack B. Pfeiffer (Washington: The National Security Archive, 2016), 298-99.
[14] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 21-2.
[15] Kim Il-Sung, Kim Il-Sung Works, June 1950-December 1951 (Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1981), 131.
[16] Ho Chi Minh, “Political Report at the Second National Congress of the Viet Nam Workers’ Party,” in Ho Chi Minh: Selected Writings, 1920-1969 (Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1977), 128.
[17] Vincent Brown, Tacky’s Revolt: The Story of an Atlantic Slave War (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2020), 14-15.
[18] Rodney, “Marxism and African Liberation,” 37.
[19] Rodney, “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution,” 3.
[20] Ibid., 7.
[21] Ibid., 23.
[22] Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1963), 6.