Marx, Du Bois, and the Black Underclass: RAM’s World Black Revolution

Bar­bara Jones-Hogu, Nation Time (1969)

No doc­u­ment bet­ter rep­re­sents the con­tra­dic­to­ry, syn­cret­ic rela­tion­ship of Black Pow­er nation­al­ism to the Com­mu­nist move­ment of the 20th Cen­tu­ry than “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion,” pub­lished by the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Action Move­ment (RAM) in the sum­mer of 1966.

From its spec­tral open­ing line – “All over Africa, Asia, South, Afro and Cen­tral Amer­i­ca a rev­o­lu­tion is haunt­ing and sweep­ing” – to its resound­ing final appeal – “Broth­ers and sis­ters of the Black Under­class in all coun­tries, UNITE” World Black Rev­o­lu­tion was meant to mark a dialec­ti­cal leap for­ward in, and break with, the his­to­ry of Marx­ism. Its simul­ta­ne­ous re-artic­u­la­tion and rup­ture applied espe­cial­ly to Marx­ist con­cep­tions of class strug­gle and what the Com­mu­nist Inter­na­tion­al had called in 1919 “world rev­o­lu­tion,” its pro­gram for build­ing Com­mu­nism across the globe. Specif­i­cal­ly, World Black Rev­o­lu­tion argued that polit­i­cal actors in the Third World, nom­i­nat­ed here the “Black Under­class,” had shift­ed the grav­i­ty of rev­o­lu­tion: colo­nial caste, not class, was now the “pri­ma­ry con­tra­dic­tion” of world rev­o­lu­tion As well, the geo­graph­i­cal coor­di­nates of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strat­e­gy had under­gone a pro­found adjust­ment. In an epochal shift, a “unit­ed front” of peo­ples from Africa to Asia had replaced Europe and the Euro­pean pro­le­tari­at as the van­guard of inter­na­tion­al strug­gle for human lib­er­a­tion.1

Yet more than a state­ment on history’s changed telos, “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” was a crit­i­cal exe­ge­sis, lit­er­al­ly a reimag­in­ing, of the pri­ma­ry tenets of Marx­ist thought dat­ing back to the 1848 pub­li­ca­tion of the Com­mu­nist Man­i­festo. Its authors, mem­bers of a small cadre of trained black rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies, sought to demon­strate that every major premise of west­ern Marx­ist his­to­ri­og­ra­phy and Com­mu­nist his­to­ry had failed to address what in Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. Du Bois, who is cit­ed in the doc­u­ment, called “the col­or line.” Racism, the authors argued, was in the his­tor­i­cal DNA of the West: Greek slav­ery did not enslave black peo­ple, but pre­dict­ed social rela­tion­ships of a racial future; 19th-cen­tu­ry West­ern his­to­ry, reput­ed­ly a “gold­en age” of Marx­ist thought, engen­dered colo­nial­ism and the slave trade. The Enlight­en­ment itself as Paul Gilroy and oth­ers would lat­er argue was buoyed by bones strewn across the Black Atlantic.2

No the­o­ry or prac­tice of world rev­o­lu­tion, RAM con­tend­ed, could fail to account for these events. Thus, the World Black Rev­o­lu­tion, ele­vat­ed to the lev­el of a strate­gic con­cept, aspired to define Black Pow­er as an epochal stage and inter­pre­ta­tion of world his­to­ry, a new hermeneu­tic for a revised his­tor­i­cal total­i­ty. The inter­na­tion­al­ism of the Com­intern peri­od 1919 to 1943 was now super­seded by the age of Pan-African­ism and the age of Ban­dung, the lat­ter sig­nalling the con­fer­ence of 29 African and Asian coun­tries meet­ing at Ban­dung, Indone­sia in 1955. Where­as Lenin had defined turn of the cen­tu­ry impe­ri­al­ism as the “high­est stage of cap­i­tal­ism,” the Ban­dung Era was one of “neo-colo­nial­ism,” hailed as the “last stage of impe­ri­al­ism.” The World Black Rev­o­lu­tion would resolve the “prin­ci­pal” con­tra­dic­tion of the neo-colo­nial sys­tem “White Over­class” over “Black Under­class” result­ing in a “dic­ta­tor­ship of the Black Under­class” and a black glob­al state ded­i­cat­ed to build­ing a “world com­mu­nal­ist soci­ety.” This was lit­er­al­ly an apoc­a­lyp­tic his­to­ry: a “War of Armaged­don,” that would leave the “old world” of white West­ern his­to­ry in ruins and a new World Black Rev­o­lu­tion stand­ing in its place.

Indeed, the argu­men­ta­tive scope of “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” demon­strates a rig­or­ous, if incom­plete, grasp of “weak links” in clas­si­cal Marxism’s ori­en­ta­tion to the ques­tion of pro­le­tar­i­an rev­o­lu­tion. Marx, like Lenin and Trot­sky, the authors argued, mis­tak­en­ly assumed that com­mu­nist rev­o­lu­tions would pri­mar­i­ly be incit­ed by the indus­tri­al pro­le­tari­ats of the West­ern cap­i­tal­ist nations. Instead, in the “neo-colo­nial” peri­od, Chi­na, India, Bur­ma, Ghana, Nige­ria, Alge­riain short, “back­ward” states of the “glob­al South”were lead­ing the world’s upheavals. RAM also argued that Lenin’s con­tention that a “labor aris­toc­ra­cy” a lay­er of pro­le­tar­i­ans in Europe col­lud­ing with the bour­geoisie to prof­it from the exploita­tion of labor­ers in the colonies pre­dict­ed the “caste” dom­i­nance of the colo­nial era, and proved the cor­rect­ness of Indi­an Marx­ist M.N. Roy’s posi­tion in his Com­intern debates with Lenin that only alliance with the non-bour­geoisie sec­tions of the colonies would advance world rev­o­lu­tion. More egre­gious­ly, Stal­in­ist pro­grams like the “Pop­u­lar Front” had betrayed Com­mu­nist (specif­i­cal­ly Sovi­et) sup­port for anti-colo­nial lib­er­a­tion or for black free­dom in the U.S., where the CPUSA had retrenched its fight against racism in order to defend the Sovi­et Union against fas­cism. These com­plaints echoed the expe­ri­ences of fore­run­ners to the World Black Rev­o­lu­tion like Trinida­di­an Marx­ist George Pad­more, who famous­ly broke with the Com­intern over its betray­al of Ethiopia, and more dubi­ous asser­tions by influ­en­tial for­mer Marx­ist and Com­mu­nist Par­ty mem­ber Harold Cruse, who saw in the Marx­ist Left a con­spir­a­cy to destroy black rad­i­cal auton­o­my. “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” argued that fail­ures on the part of the Sovi­et Union and Marx­ist Left to sup­port black and Third World lib­er­a­tion had con­signed the project of Euro­pean Marx­ism to the dust­bin of white suprema­cist his­to­ry. In turn, inde­pen­dent black rev­o­lu­tion­ary orga­ni­za­tions and cadre were need­ed to sup­plant Com­mu­nist par­ties and their asso­ci­a­tions, like the Com­mu­nist Inter­na­tion­al. The Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Action Move­ment, authors of “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion,” were none oth­er than the cadre and van­guard of this new rev­o­lu­tion­ary era.

Who and What was RAM?

RAM mem­ber Muham­mad Ahmed (aka Max Stan­ford) is assigned author­ship of “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” (though its com­po­si­tion was like­ly col­lec­tive) and has writ­ten the only com­plete inter­nal his­to­ry of the Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Action Move­ment.3 Aside from that unpub­lished his­to­ry, the best account of RAM’s ori­gins lay in Robin D.G. Kel­ley and Bet­sy Esch’s 1998 essay “Black Like Mao: Red Chi­na and Black Rev­o­lu­tion.”4 Kel­ley and Esch trace the organization’s begin­nings to 1961. In that year, Robert F. Williams, an NAACP orga­niz­er in Mon­roe, North Car­oli­na, fled the U.S. to Cana­da then to Cuba to avoid trumped-up kid­nap­ping charges. Williams had estab­lished him­self as a local and nation­al spokesper­son for black self-defense ide­ol­o­gy in the U.S., and threw him­self into sup­port for Castro’s new rev­o­lu­tion once in Havana. Inspired by Williams’s exam­ple, black mem­bers of Stu­dents for a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Soci­ety, activists with the Stu­dent Non­vi­o­lent Coor­di­nat­ing Com­mit­tee (SNCC) and the Con­gress of Racial Equal­i­ty formed “Chal­lenge,” a stu­dent orga­ni­za­tion led by Don­ald Free­man, a stu­dent at Case West­ern Reserve in Cleve­land. Accord­ing to Kel­ley and Esch, the group was espe­cial­ly tak­en with Harold Cruse’s 1962 essay “Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Nation­al­ism and the Afro-Amer­i­can,” argu­ing for the inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of the black U.S. free­dom strug­gle. In 1965, Max Stan­ford would pub­lish “Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Nation­al­ism and the Afro-Amer­i­can Stu­dent” in Daniel Watts’s news­pa­per The Lib­er­a­tor, one of sev­er­al vehi­cles for ear­ly writ­ings by RAM mem­bers, along with Robert Williams’ news­pa­per pub­lished in exile, The Cru­sad­er.5

Between 1962 and 1966, RAM formed small orga­ni­za­tion­al core groups in North­ern Cal­i­for­nia, Cleve­land, and its head­quar­ters, because it was Stanford’s home, in Philadel­phia. Ear­ly mem­bers asso­ci­at­ed with RAM or its periph­ery includ­ed future Black Pan­ther lead­ers like Huey New­ton; future African-Amer­i­can Stud­ies aca­d­e­mics includ­ing Cedric Robin­son and Ernest Allen, and the future founder of the US Orga­ni­za­tion, Maulana Karen­ga. In 1964, RAM mem­bers trav­eled to Cuba, includ­ing Luke Tripp, Charles “Mao” John­son, Charles Sim­mons, and Gen­er­al Bak­er, mem­bers of the stu­dent group Uhu­ru who lat­er played key roles in the for­ma­tion of the Detroit Dodge Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Union Move­ment and the Detroit League of Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Black Work­ers. Final­ly, RAM boast­ed as men­tors for­mer com­mu­nists like Har­ry Hay­wood and Harold Cruse, “Queen Moth­er” Aud­ley Moore, and ex-Trot­sky­ists James and Grace Lee Bog­gs, one-time col­lab­o­ra­tors with C.L.R. James in the Detroit-based group Fac­ing Real­i­ty.6

RAM used its the­o­ret­i­cal organ, Black Amer­i­ca, where “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” first appeared, to delin­eate an orga­ni­za­tion­al pro­to­col heav­i­ly indebt­ed ide­o­log­i­cal­ly and tac­ti­cal­ly to Mao­ism and the Chi­nese Rev­o­lu­tion of 1949. RAM, like the Black Pan­ther Par­ty lat­er, aligned itself with Chi­na after the Sino-Sovi­et split of 1961 because of its exam­ple of a “col­ored” people’s rev­o­lu­tion, Mao’s per­son­al sup­port for black lib­er­a­tion in the U.S., and shared con­fi­dence in Maoism’s suit­abil­i­ty to an “inter­nal­ly col­o­nized” black U.S. pop­u­la­tion.7 These became key tenets of RAM’s anti-revi­sion­ist Marx­ism. For exam­ple, RAM pub­lished a “Code of Cadres” lib­er­al­ly bor­row­ing from Quo­ta­tions from Chair­man Mao. It also released a wide-rang­ing “12-Point Pro­gram” (a poten­tial­ly rough blue­print for the Ten-Point Pro­gram of the Black Pan­thers) which called for the devel­op­ment of free­dom schools, rifle clubs, and black farm coop­er­a­tives, strong­ly advo­cat­ed for “African social­ism,” and advanced an analy­sis that African-Amer­i­cans were col­o­nized sub­jects with a right to self-deter­mi­na­tion, direct­ly align­ing them­selves with the non-aligned coun­tries of the Third World. RAM cadre were also near­ly entire­ly male, mas­culin­ist, and impa­tient: rev­o­lu­tion in the Unit­ed States, they argued, might be won in 90 days.

The group pre­dictably attract­ed nation­al atten­tion, and the inten­si­ty of the scruti­ny severe­ly affect­ed its abil­i­ty to oper­ate, even clan­des­tine­ly. In 1966, the year the Cul­tur­al Rev­o­lu­tion began in Chi­na, both Life and Esquire mag­a­zines ran “exposés” iden­ti­fy­ing RAM as a Chi­na-backed inter­nal sub­ver­sive orga­ni­za­tion wag­ing war on white Amer­i­ca. As part of the fed­er­al government’s wider crack­down on black dis­si­dence, RAM mem­bers were arrest­ed and charged in 1967 with con­spir­a­cy to insti­gate a riot and to assas­si­nate Roy Wilkins and Whit­ney Young. In 1968, in an attempt to out­ma­neu­ver the FBI’s COINTELPRO pro­gram, RAM changed its name to the Black Lib­er­a­tion Par­ty, or African Amer­i­can Par­ty of Nation­al Lib­er­a­tion. By 1969, it had large­ly dis­solved.8

World Black Revolution: Limitations and Perspectives

How does one assess “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” as a guid­ing doc­u­ment for black and human lib­er­a­tion? The ledger is mixed. For exam­ple, the essay’s invo­ca­tion of Frantz Fanon’s famous dic­tum about colo­nial­ism “You are white because you are rich, and you are rich because you are white” to explain glob­al cap­i­tal­ist rela­tions falls short. Unlike Fanon, World Black Rev­o­lu­tion flat­ly equates colony with “class,” fail­ing to adum­brate cap­i­tal­ist and class rela­tions with­in the colonies, or to dif­fer­en­ti­ate ade­quate­ly the com­bined and uneven devel­op­ment of cap­i­tal­ism, there­by sus­tain­ing a false equiv­a­lence of class and race. This leads the essay to replace pop­u­la­tions and class­es with racial group­ings (white and black nation­alisms) in an unsuc­cess­ful attempt to update the Bol­she­viks’ the­o­ry of reac­tionary and pro­gres­sive nation­alisms. This ana­lyt­ic con­fu­sion spills over into the dis­cus­sion of impe­ri­al­ism. Impe­ri­al­ism, specif­i­cal­ly U.S. impe­ri­al­ism, is ele­vat­ed in this text to the lev­el of an almost autonomous sub­ject, a com­mon­place in the rad­i­cal polit­i­cal dis­course of the peri­od. But it leads to cru­cial blind spots with regards to the com­plex­i­ty of impe­ri­al­ism as a glob­al phe­nom­e­non tied to the estab­lish­ment and enforce­ment of cap­i­tal­ist rela­tions via gov­ern­men­tal pol­i­cy, mil­i­tary force, but also modes of finan­cial reg­u­la­tion and strate­gies of accu­mu­la­tion, with at times con­tra­dic­to­ry effects – par­tic­u­lar­ly in the inter­play between nation­al and inter­na­tion­al, eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal actors.

Sec­ond, and relat­ed­ly, the essay lacks a coher­ent or usable the­o­ry of the state. Its call for a “dic­ta­tor­ship” along “com­mu­nal­ist” lines (the inspi­ra­tion is Julius Nyerere’s “Ujam­maa” pro­gram of African social­ism in Tan­za­nia) does not go far in explain­ing how social rela­tion­ships between men and women and chil­dren will be trans­formed after the old old­er is swept away, nor why a specif­i­cal­ly African social­ism was a prop­er tem­plate for World Rev­o­lu­tion.9 Sim­i­lar­ly, the essay’s vari­ant on Com­mu­nist Inter­na­tion­al­ism a “world com­mu­nal­ist gov­ern­ment” and Black World Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Gov­ern­ment does not artic­u­late how old com­mu­nalisms or nation­alisms will with­er away. Indeed, the tra­di­tion­al Marx­ist argu­ment that work­er con­trol of the state, abo­li­tion of pri­vate prop­er­ty and pro­le­tar­i­an inter­na­tion­al­ism were pre­con­di­tions for the end of nation­al­ism prop­er are not con­vinc­ing­ly sub­sti­tut­ed for by the Maoist-inflect­ed exhor­ta­tion for a People’s Lib­er­a­tion Army on a world scale, or injunc­tions to burn the whole sys­tem to the ground: “burn baby burn…the fire next time.”

Final­ly, the essay dis­clos­es a weak­ness for fes­tishiz­ing mil­i­ta­riza­tion, provo­ca­tion, and guer­ril­la war absent a strat­e­gy for mak­ing rev­o­lu­tion per­ma­nent. Ren­der­ing the Watts Riots as a spark to light a “prairie fire” was a pre­fig­u­ra­tive and spon­ta­neous expres­sion of the gap between the “cell”-sized move­ment RAM rep­re­sent­ed and its epic polit­i­cal ambi­tions for rev­o­lu­tion. Like Mao’s Lit­tle Red Book, the rel­a­tive­ly short essay, fea­tur­ing exten­sive cita­tions, sought to (and was per­ceived by its authors) punch far above its polit­i­cal weight, a man­i­festo seek­ing a mass move­ment rather than the oth­er way around.

In this lat­ter regard, “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion” as a doc­u­ment belongs on a tem­po­ral and polit­i­cal chain that would include oth­er aspi­rant man­i­festos of the post-1945 peri­od: We Charge Geno­cide!, the 1952 Civ­il Rights Con­gress appeal to the Unit­ed Nations against epi­dem­ic state vio­lence and black Death; Robert Williams’s 1961 self-defense man­i­festo Negroes with Guns; the 1962 Port Huron State­ment by Stu­dents for a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Soci­ety; the 10 Point Plans of the Black Pan­ther Par­ty, Young Lords, and Red Guards, and Mao’s Lit­tle Red Book itself.

In addi­tion to the Black Pan­thers, mem­bers of the Detroit League of Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Black Work­ers and Dodge Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Union Move­ment were clear­ly influ­enced by RAM’s argu­ment for the cen­tral­i­ty of the black work­ing class, and class strug­gle, in tak­ing on and tak­ing down cap­i­tal­ism.10

Final­ly, the essay embeds impor­tant ideals, con­flicts, and fail­ures riv­ing many 20th-cen­tu­ry rev­o­lu­tions. The Com­mu­nist International’s pre­car­i­ous bal­anc­ing between sup­port for decol­o­niza­tion and build­ing work­ers’ sol­i­dar­i­ty across nation­al bor­ders is seen founder­ing on the shoals of Black Pow­er fifty years lat­er. Stalinism’s betray­al of the prin­ci­ples of Bol­she­vik inter­na­tion­al­ism both moti­vates the par­tic­u­lar anti-revi­sion­ism found in “World Black Rev­o­lu­tion,” while also serv­ing as a trau­mat­ic dis­tort­ing mir­ror of the text’s own imag­i­na­tive swerves from Marx and Lenin’s con­cep­tion of class strug­gle, par­ty, state, and rev­o­lu­tion. Chi­na and Cuba’s devo­lu­tions into cults of author­i­ty is limned in the document’s lion­iza­tion of rev­o­lu­tion­ary agi­ta­tors like Robert F. Williams (whose detailed out­line of a strat­e­gy of pro­tract­ed war in the Unit­ed States con­text, “USA: The Poten­tial of a Minor­i­ty Rev­o­lu­tion,” is cit­ed at length in the text), who learned to emu­late those same ten­den­cies in sup­port of both regimes. The essay’s nor­ma­tive mas­culin­i­ty was also a gueril­la ver­sion of the sex­ism that would fos­ter splits with­in Black Pow­er by black women who were some­times told their posi­tion in the rev­o­lu­tion was prone.11

Yet for all these lim­i­ta­tions, World Black Rev­o­lu­tion should be read by all stu­dents of the U.S. and world rev­o­lu­tion­ary Left who seek to appre­hend the dynam­ics of polit­i­cal thought which rev­o­lu­tion­ary con­di­tions can pro­duce. Its syn­the­sis of his­to­ry and ideas remains a poignant exper­i­ment in what James and Grace Lee Bog­gs called “dialec­ti­cal human­ism,” a mode of philo­soph­i­cal prac­tice that seeks to tran­scend a lim­it­ed present in the name of human free­dom and lib­er­a­tion.12

  1. There is sig­nif­i­cant con­cep­tu­al weight to the term “black,” although it is often elid­ed in the text. As a qual­i­fi­er of rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle, “black” car­ried an emi­nent­ly polit­i­cal and even gener­ic con­no­ta­tion; as in James and Grace Lee Boggs’s elab­o­ra­tion of Black Pow­er, the world black rev­o­lu­tion includ­ed under its ban­ner all “peo­ple of col­or who are engaged in rev­o­lu­tion­ary strug­gle in the Unit­ed States and all over the world.” James Bog­gs and Grace Lee Bog­gs, “The City is the Black Man’s Land,” in Racism and the Class Strug­gle (New York: Month­ly Review Press, 1970), 50. There are fas­ci­nat­ing over­laps here with the polit­i­cal mean­ing of black­ness in the Hait­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 1805: see Sibylle Fis­ch­er, Moder­ni­ty Dis­avowed (Durham, NC: Duke Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2004), 233. 

  2. See Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Moder­ni­ty and Dou­ble Con­scious­ness (Cam­bridge: Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1995). 

  3. Maxwell C. Stan­ford, “Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Action Move­ment (RAM): A Case Study of an Urban Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Move­ment in West­ern Cap­i­tal­ist Soci­ety” (M.A. the­sis, Atlanta Uni­ver­si­ty, 1986). 

  4. Robin D.G. Kel­ley and Bet­sy Esch, “Black Like Mao: Red Chi­na and Black Rev­o­lu­tion” in Afro-Asia: Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Polit­i­cal and Cul­tur­al Con­nec­tions Between African Amer­i­cans and Asian Amer­i­cans, ed. Fred Ho and Bill V. Mullen (Durham: Duke Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2008), 97-154. See also Kelley’s essay in the col­lec­tion Is It Nation Time?: Robin Kel­ley, “Stormy Weath­er: Recon­struct­ing Black (Inter)Nationalism in the Cold War Era, in Is it Nation Time? Con­tem­po­rary Essays on Black Pow­er and Black Nation­al­ism, ed. Eddie S. Glaude (Chica­go: Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go Press, 2002), 67-90. 

  5. Kel­ley and Esch, “Black Like Mao,” 107-109. 

  6. Ibid., 109-111. See also Dan Geor­gakas, “Young Detroit Rad­i­cals, 1955-1965,” Urgent Tasks no. 12 (Sum­mer 1981). 

  7. See for exam­ple Mao Zedong, “State­ment Sup­port­ing the Afro-Amer­i­can in Their Just Strug­gle Against Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion by U.S. Impe­ri­al­ism, August 8, 1963” in Afro-Asia: Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Polit­i­cal and Cul­tur­al Con­nec­tions Between African Amer­i­cans and Asian Amer­i­cans, 91-93. 

  8. Kel­ley and Esch, “Black Like Mao.” 

  9. See Julius Nyerere, Ujam­maa: Essays on Social­ism (Lon­don: Oxford, 1968). 

  10. A good account of DRUM remains Dan Geor­gakas and Mar­vin Surkin, Detroit I Do Mind Dying: A Study in Urban Rev­o­lu­tion (Chica­go: Hay­mar­ket Books, 2012 [1975]). 

  11. The allu­sion is to Stoke­ly Carmichael’s com­ment “The only posi­tion for women in SNCC is prone” as report­ed by James Cone in Out of the Rev­o­lu­tion: The Devel­op­ment of Africana Stud­ies, ed. Delores Aldridge and Car­lene Young (New York: Lex­ing­ton Books, 1973), 414. 

  12. For an account of “dialec­ti­cal human­ism” in the work of James and Grace Lee Bog­gs see Stephen Ward, In Love and Strug­gle: The Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Lives of James and Grace Lee Bog­gs (Chapel Hill: Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na Press, 2016). See also Bill V. Mullen, Afro-Ori­en­tal­ism, (Min­neapo­lis: Uni­ver­si­ty of Min­neso­ta Press, 2004), chap­ter 4, “‘Phi­los­o­phy Must be Pro­le­tar­i­an’: The Dialec­ti­cal Human­ism of James and Grace Lee Bog­gs,” 113-162. 

Author of the article

is Professor of English and American Studies at Purdue University. His books include UnAmerican: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Century of World Revolution (Temple UP, 2015); W.E.B. Du Bois: Revolutionary Across the Color Line (Pluto Press, 2016); andAfro-Orientalism (Minnesota UP, 2004).