Black Liberation and Socialism

by Ahmed Shawki

A sharp and insightful analysis of historic movements against racism in the United States—from the separatism of Marcus Garvey, to the militancy of Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party, to the eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr. and much more—with essential lessons for today’s struggles.

In the 40 years since the civil rights movement, many gains have been made—but there is still far to go to win genuine change. Here is a badly needed primer on the history and future of the struggle against racism.

Ahmed Shawki is the editor of the International Socialist Review. A member of the National Writers Union, he is also a contributor to The Struggle for Palestine (Haymarket). He lives in Chicago, Illinois.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Race, Sociology, Social Justice, Theory

296 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2005

Reviews

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

Confession time: I didn't actually read this. Well, not the whole thing anyway. Just most of it. I skimmed parts of it, but is that so bad? Ok maybe it is, but here's the deal: I know a lot of this stuff already. Also, like any close-minded, stubborn asshole, I pretty much have my mind made up about this book, and that's not really going to change. Yes you read that right; I'm claiming my word is the sole authority on a book I haven't even finished. Sue me.

I actually do like Black Liberation and Socialism. This book would work well as an introduction to a lot of historical figures that don't really get their fair due in history class. For someone who doesn't know anything about, say, Marcus Garey, this is actually a pretty good starting point. A lot of history is covered in a short amount of time, and Shawki goes out of his way to name drop a lot of obscure but still important people. If you don't know much about black history or its relation to American labor, this is a very accessible read.

So as far as content, its not so bad. Well, there is one bit close to the beginning where Shawki seems to imply that it was slavery, and not disease, that was the main cause of the obliteration of pre-Columbian peoples. If he actually believes that, even such a small mistake hurts his credibility.

But that points to the real problem with this book: scholarship. Shawki is an editor, not an historian. I obviously have no problem with journalists writing histories per se, as sometimes having such a background can make history feel timely and original (Charles C. Mann for example) Shawki's main problem is that he makes it painfully obvious that he has no background in this sort of thing. All it takes is a skim through the works cited to see what I mean. Ibid. Ibid, ibid, ibid. There are pages of ibids back there. Not only that, the sources he does cite are almost never primary. If you are going to quote an author, why not quote the actual author instead of quoting someone else quoting an author? Why not find original statistics or track down old documents? You can't go to a library? Instead of doing historical research, Shawki does what he knows how to do: he edits other peoples ideas into one narrative. Even the theoretical asides aren't his own. Because of this, the book is more edited by Shawki than written by him.

On top of that, the books that are cited are often by left-leaning authors. I am aware this is a book on socialism, by a socialist, for a socialist press. That being said, I should not have to see Philip S. Foner's name on ever freakin page. Its not going to kill Shawki to branch out a litle bit. For example: early in the book, Shawki makes the case that racial categories and racial prejudice were developed to justify the cruelty of slavery, and therefore to justify the profit of slave traders and owners. To do this he quotes Eric Williams in a book from 1944. Why? Shawki could find the same exact idea in any Sociology text book from at least the last 10 or 15 years. I can only assume Shawki slapped this book together from material he had on hand, and what he had on hand was a bunch of Marxist literature. Its great that Shawki has made that investment, but I'm pretty sure he can get a library card for free.

[Justin Goodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

By and large Black Liberation and Socialism, like has been said in every other review, is a good overview of the development of the idea of Black Liberation and how it presented itself through time. A strictly linear narrative helps to bring the full weight of history up to Shawki's then-present day of 2005. Jake makes a fair point about the sourcing and fairly notes that has an editor's inclinations and not a historians, and I can agree that's not great. On the other hand, I find the age of his references oddly compelling in their own rhetorical way. It's the tie that binds past struggles to the present.

That said, the conclusion has probably aged the worst. Even though Shawki's explicitly arguing against doing so, It seems to ground all issues into those of economic and class. He states, for instance, "acceptance of racist ideas by white workers should not be confused with their having material interest in perpetuating racial oppression" and then goes on to detail how "capitalist competition is a barrier to working class unity." However it's hard not to see the material benefits of adopting racist ideas (the so-called "the wages of whiteness") within Shawki's framework.

I think this would be paired nicely with David Roediger's The Wages of Whiteness to expand on W.E.B. Du Bois' original concept and Kimberlé Crenshaw's "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex" to complicate the seemingly easy distinction between class and race Shawki seems to be making.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

People can say what they want about Karl Marx, but no one is or has been more prophetic when it comes to an analysis of Capitalism. This is not the place to expand on the theory of dialectical materialism, but we are seeing the final stages of unsustainable Capitalism very much as Marx thought it would occur. This book of course is a radical examination of racism from a radical writer and publisher. Yet no one can deny that the history of this country is itself a history of tension - a history of "the land of the free" and the "ideal democracy" using an economic system that gained its initial wealth from the forced labor of human beings. This forced labor system developed structures of hierarchy and dehumanization that continues to the present day. Racism may not have started with Capitalism, but Capitalism certainly began with racism as a fundamental element of its rise to global dominance. Shawki accurately extends this from the way the United States has dealt and continues to deal with issues of race at home to the way we treat nations deemed "inferior" to the United States abroad. American exceptionalism and racism are very closely intertwined. The "two-party" system in America has arisen out of a racist Capitalist construct, therefore the mechanisms of this political system will not be able to dismantle the structural elements that have engrained racism into the very fiber of our society. A form of dismantling these structures will have to occur, and it will likely have to occur by default as we are dealing with a very powerful system that is nevertheless reaching its limit of sustainability. What the future will look like is anyone's guess. This is where I part ways ideologically with the author (although not entirely). As my own political consciousness has advanced, I see myself incorporating elements of anarchist thought - specifically the more mystical and spiritual "anarchism" of Tolstoy or even some Sufi Islamic thinkers who could rightly be said to have "anarchist" tendencies. Whatever the future looks like, it will have to incorporate a more horizontal view of community vs. the hierarchical competitive and individualistic elements of the current system. Such a system as we have right now will always label someone "inferior" to another, and will continue to do so through blanket labels applied to entire sections of society. Shawki's analysis of all this is spot on, yet I could not give the book a full five stars as it failed to give space to the criminal justice and prison system in America, as well as The War on Drugs. As the book was written in 2006, I find that inexcusable and crucial to a proper examination of racism in modern day America. Otherwise, a fantastic read, and one that steps outside of normal boundaries to present American racism in all of its ugly historical manifestations.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant analysis of race and class through american history. Clarified a lot for me. Everyone I know should read it.

[JRT · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book purports to be an explanatory account of the relationship between socialism and Black liberation. It contends that socialist ideology and organizing is at the heart of the Black American liberation movement. While the author correctly identifies capitalism and bourgeoisie democracy as a socioeconomic and political system that maintains anti-Black racism, he consistently fails to articulate the importance of race consciousness and organization in the struggle against white supremacy and capitalism.

This book traces the evolution of class, race, and national consciousness among Black folks from as far back as the days of slavery. Unfortunately, there were many moments throughout the book where the author seemed intent to gloss over and outright ignore the history and impact of terroristic racism on the part of the “white working class,” instead choosing to focus on the handful of examples of “Black-white” solidarity in labor union organizing. Indeed, the author highlights the white proletariat’s “solidarity” efforts so much that one might forget how instrumental poor and working class whites were (and still are) in the violent subjugation of African Americans (see J. Sakai’s “Settlers” for this history). Simply put, the author seems more interested in putting the onus on Black people to open themselves up to “solidarity” with the white proletariat, rather than directing the white left to organize themselves and their communities on an anti-racist basis.

The author spends a lot of time discussing the impetus behind Black Nationalism, as well as its potential “limitations.” While he correctly notes that Black separatism / nationalism was a reaction to virulent white supremacy throughout the various stages of American history, he spends more time discussing the “reactionary” forms of Black Nationalist thought, rather than its more revolutionary iterations. This is odd coming from a book supposedly about Black liberation.

Unfortunately, while the book is heavy on the socialism, it’s light on the Black liberation. It offers an incomplete analysis of the Black Power movement, dismisses the Black Belt Theory (how does a book about socialism and Black liberation not mention the Republic of New Afrika?), fails to analyze (or even mention) the historical shortcomings of “racial solidarity,” overlooks the importance of all-Black organizing, and comes dangerously close to denigrating Marcus Garvey. Further, the book spends more time discussing white socialists than Black ones. No mention of Hubert Harrison, Claudia Jones, Harry Haywood, Ben Fletcher, Paul Robeson, etc., and basically glossed over Du Bois' socialist activism. Put simply, in an effort to stress the importance of cross-racial solidarity, the author overlooks and removes the most important aspects of Black liberation—agency and the empowerment of the Black masses.

[Barbie Birgül · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zware hap

[Inem · Rating 1 out of 5]

Maaaaaan....

So this book was off to a good start with the introduction. I assumed that it may gloss over or overlook Pan-Africanism, but that it would still be deeply rooted in African/ Black revolutionary socialist traditions in the United States and would serve as a good introduction that I could recommend to others who are open to moving further left.

NOPE.

This book would be better off titled "Black Integration and Assimilationism" because Ahmed Shawki spends the entire book trying to discredit Black nationalism and argue that the only solution for Africans in America is to give up African/ Black organisations and to unify with white workers and to stop with all the Blackity Black shit. Really.

As I mentioned, the introduction was fine and didn't hint at his thesis, but Shawki's stance was loud and clear in the first couple of chapters. He pits Frederick Douglass against those pesky 19th-century Pan-Africanists and nationalists like Martin Delany and Henry Highland Garnet. His argument was that Douglass believed in America and American values and wanted the Negro to integrate into American society, and Douglass was a true radical, so integrationism is the correct position for true radicals. Meanwhile, Delany and Garnet believed in repatriation to Africa, and the colonisation of Liberia was reactionary; therefore, Pan-Africanists and Black nationalists are reactionary. WHAT HE DOES NOT MENTION, however, is that Frederick Douglass SUPPORTED the US occupation of Haiti!! Douglass was an ancestor with various contradictions. I am not saying we should write him off. But yes, he did support the US imperialist project in Haiti, and it is precisely BECAUSE of his attachments to the US empire, the exact posture that Shawki wants us to believe is radical. On the other hand, I am soooo tired of the 19th era of [proto- or emerging] Pan-Africanism and the back to Africa movement being written off as a reactionary failure. Someone needs to write a book about 19th-century Pan-Africanism because the overwhelming majority of repatriation from the Americas to Africa was very successful, and that's a historical fact. The research has been done (to some extent) on Cuban and Brazilian repatriation to Nigeria (lesser so on Cuban and Brazilian repatriation to Ghana, Benin, and Togo, but my goodness, does the work need to be done to better document African repatriation from the United States to West Africa during this era? Were mistakes made in Liberia? Absolutely. Is that only a fraction of the story of 19th-century Pan-Africanism? Yes. I am really excited to read Lisa A. Lindsay's Atlantic Bonds because that is a first step towards correcting this narrative.

Anyways, the rest of this book proceeds to go through various prominent Black leaders and movements from Marcus Garvey to Du Bois to MLK to Malcolm X to DRUM to the Black Panther party etc. etc. touching on SNCC and Kwame Ture (referred to in the book as Stokely Carmichael) along the way. Most of the book sounds like this: "So and so was a great person who advanced the cause of Black liberation in many ways, but his one great flaw was that he was a Black nationalist who didn't want to give up a focus on racial politics when we all know racial politics don't matter as much as class politics so we can all forget about organising on the base of race so the person ultimately failed and we should not replicate *insert name here.*

One sentence that stood out to me was, "Destroying capitalism was a task beyond the grasp of the eleven per cent of the population that Black people represented." Yeah, Shawki, you're right, the 11-13 per cent of Africans living in the US cannot defeat capitalism alone....but that is why we need PAN-AFRICANISM. Shawki insists that the solution to everything is to just pardon racism among the white proletariat because it's not their fault, and the ruling class told them to be racist so just stop organising around race and focusing on that and just unite across racial lines already. BUT, Shawki, with a proper understanding of Pan-Africanism, we don't need to. Why should we consolidate with racist settlers over forming an INTERNATIONAL Pan-African movement that CAN defeat US capital? Answer that!

In the conclusion, Shawki just really insists that white workers do not materially benefit at all from racism and that we need to stop blaming them for being racist (because again they're only listening to their ruling class masters), but here's the thing... they do... they do materially benefit from racism. Why? Because racism is just a symptom of imperialism and colonialism, and as long as European settlers are convinced that they own property on a stolen land mass, how can you possibly argue that they're not accruing a benefit from the logic of white supremacy? How? If there's no material benefit from racism, then every white worker should support Land Back and either give up their home or their aspirations of having a home, but that's not realistic now, is it? Furthermore, let's not overlook the fact that if an iPhone were produced in the United States, it would cost $30,000 for a consumer to purchase, either that or the US worker would have to accept piss poor Global South wages. The fact that a US worker can purchase a cheap iPhone is predicated upon a logic that insists on devaluing the cost of colonised and racialised labour in the Global South. It's imperialism, and imperialism is enforced by racism and white supremacist logic. And yes, the white worker benefits from that. There's hardly an item that the white worker has in his house that doesn't come from the SUPER exploitation of the Global South. If the worker has ever had a Hershey's candy bar before, then he probably has consumed something made by enslaved children in West Africa. If he has a smartphone of any brand, then he is probably using a product powered through minerals mined by enslaved children in Central Africa. This is NOT how labour operates in the imperial core. This is the reality of the (ne0-)colonised portions of the world, and yes, Shawki is correct in asserting that it comes from a fundamentally economic basis. Imperialism is an economic system of exploitation. Racism is an inevitable byproduct of imperialism. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that the logic of racism makes it possible for the labour of racialised and colonised workers to be SO SUPER exploited that unfathomable forms of child abuse make day-to-day life in the imperial core possible -- meaning yes, yes, the white worker materially benefits from racism.

Despite my strong disagreements with a central thesis (if not THE central thesis of this book), I still almost gave it two stars because it was still historically revealing, teaching me new important things or rejogging my memory of things I haven't thought about since high school, but then this sentence happened: "But Marxists are not nationalists and supporting the struggles of the oppressed does not mean endorsing the politics that dominate that movement. The same is true when it comes to the question of independent or separate organisation of the oppressed." And this is towards the end of the conclusion as the book is wrapping up, so this really is the central point he is trying to bring home.

Shawki insists that we cannot fight oppression without fighting exploitation, which is true. But Africans are oppressed AND exploited. He argues that only the organised working class in the US has the power to make revolutionary change because workers produce everything that society needs to function. Sure. But if the European settler working class is racist AF, you know who really produces EVERYTHING society needs to function? Africans living in Africa. People living across the Global South. People that Africans in Amerikkka have historically built strong revolutionary relationships with. So this idea of dependence on white workers? I just don't buy it. Like... if Congolese workers were to break their chains and control the means of production, then the world would really stop. And do you know who would benefit from that? Africans in Amerikkka as long as they continue to forge very strong Pan-African ties and fight for the liberation of Congo. Do you see what I mean?

Just a final word because I've been thinking of this a lot recently. I am a Pan-Africanist at my core and will die on that hill, but the term Black nationalism has been used historically and in different contexts in different ways. Even in this book, Shawki points out that some people have used the term Black nationalism to refer to Black-exclusive organisations or spaces, supporting Black businesses, or advocating for an independent Black state. I would say that the struggle for the Republic of New Afrika (totally ignored in this book because it rejects one of Shawki's claims that Black people don't even want sovereignty anyway) is universally and undoubtedly Black nationalism. HOWEVER, to some people, Black nationalism is just an umbrella term referring to the rejection of assimilationist and integrationist politics vis-à-vis the US empire and includes the RNA struggle, the Pan-African struggle, and possibly the push towards Black control over Black communities in a looser sense. While I am first and foremost a Pan-Africanist and that, by far, describes my politics, when I am confronted with someone who just does not believe in or understand African self-determination, then in the face of that person, I am, for all intents and purposes, a Black nationalist.

[Juan Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is more a general history of various black liberation opportunities & movements with instances where a Socialist, Communist or general left-leaning current existed sprinkled in. I thought it was going to be more about how the two are tied together & how to move forward, on that front it is disappointing. The historical information is definitely not useless & good to know. Said information will either flesh out understanding of people & events you already know about or bring to light things you did not know.

My main gripe with this book, & Marxists in general, is the dismissal of how deeply racism influences people, especially working class whites, even without them realizing it. The benefits might be minimal but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is still entrenched & of some benefit to those that would feed into it thus making them easily exploited by the capitalist class. If it weren't there would be no need to support movements organized around this or any other issue like mysogyny or discrimination against LGBTQIA people. Yes, they are tied to class antagonism but have become monsters in their own right. To not recognize this is to severely underestimate the human mind & psychology in my opinion. It does not mean organizing around class is not important but if that is to be done, the work has to be done in convincing working people who benefit from other oppressions to stop feeding into them instead of asking the oppressed to not talk about it or subordinate it to class struggle without addressing their issues. To do so is dismissive & as I often enough see, typically comes from Marxists who tire of identity politics but still want people to take them seriously, especially when they come from the group that does the oppressing. It doesn't in any way negate whatever issues working class whites face but the reality is there are some things that they don't deal with that aren't trivial. The author's attempt to explain away racism & simultaneously agree the need to support movements that come about as a reaction to how society oppresses people of their identity is a glaring contradiction & the explanation is ultimately weak.

Over all it is a good book but the title is terribly misleading. The title should include some mention of history in it in regards to black liberation movements as it is more an overview of history with where the Marxists fit in sprinkled in.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the things I miss most about working in a public library is stumbling upon the unexpected day in and out. This book is something I just saw in the stacks of the Multnomah Public and the title was intriguing enough that I took it home.

Though it's fairly short it packs a good amount of history in. I now come to expect that a lot of the superficial history I learned growing up was skewed and screwed to compartmentalize events/people into simple good-evil, black-white categories. This book gave me some new perspective on figures like Lincoln, Garvey, King and Malcolm X that were surprising to me. Lincoln = hardly an anti-racist; King = increasingly less non-violent before his sad end; Garvey = kind of a dick.

Socialism was not addressed as deeply as I would've expected from the title, not until the end at least. I think the crux of Shawki's argument is well-reasoned, and he makes good use of Lenin. American racism, he says, has its roots and its sustenance in economic exploitation not some sui generis prejudice. BUT! He continues, that isn't to say racism hasn't become a thing in itself, so arguments that "socialism!" or economic fixes would not eliminate the idea of race/racism. Essentially, racism will continue so long as the current capitalist economy remains; however, economic changes would not necessarily lead to abolished racism.

Good book. Very informative and eye-opening. Plus it's not a long or difficult read.

[Lindsay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating read. As I am new to socialism, I didn't come to this book with the background some other readers may have, but it certainly shed light on the historical intersectionalities between class and race in the United States, and is definitely a book anyone could pick up regardless of political knowledge. It is surprisingly light reading for so dense a topic and I breezed through it. As with all books written in the light of one particular political philosophy, there are points where the author drifts into speculations and revisionism, as he attempts to align or dis-align particular movements with socialism (this happens particularly in the chapter concerning Malcolm X). This is a mistake for all philosophies, as it holds us back from viewing situations in their own contexts and can sometimes cause a LACK of important intersectionality. However, overall Shawki did a good job of pulling himself away from this tendency and I came away from this book with a much deeper understanding both of the historical role of socialism in black liberation movements and of its possibilities as a fluid, viable philosophy for other social justice efforts as well. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in either the specific topic or in a good example of socialism at work in our country.

[Camille McCarthy · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the intersection between Socialism and the struggle for Black liberation, from the founding of the U.S. to the present. I would like to view a more recent edition which might have some more up-to-date information at the end, but in all I thought the analysis was spot on. If you're looking for a concise and well-researched book on this topic, this is definitely the best place to start, and it will lead you to a number of other good sources for a more in-depth look at any particular period in history. I especially enjoyed learning about the foundation of the NAACP, the Black Power movement, Malcolm X's politics and how they relate to socialism, the AFL, and Reconstruction, which definitely seems like the most underrated period of US history.

Highly recommended, if this topic interests you.

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This small book is packed with alot of information that highlights the parallels and intersections with black liberation and socialist movements in the U.S. while offering a critical analysis. The author pays significant attention to conservative/right wing factions within the movements that appear to be more damaging than the actual right wing opposition. In Chapter eleven "The Black Panthers and DRUM", he indicates
"In DRUM and the Black Panther Party, the Black movement had produced some of the most effective revolutionaries and socialists in two generations. These leaders had real mass influence. But in the end the movement was stymied. The system proved to have more flexibility and room for reform than the revolutionaries believed was possible. In part, this was because the system fought so hard against any concessions. But faced with the choice of a real challenge to its power and granting some reforms, those in power chose the latter. While jailing, harassing, exiling, and assassinating the Black Power movement’s more radical sections (like the Black Panthers), the Democratic Party machine set out to co-opt the mainstream section of the movement, with considerable success." Although this book was published nearly 20 years ago, the Democratic Party machine has continued to stymie potential movements and any challenges from the left. I just learned that the author Ahmed Shawki recently passed away as I went to search for more of his books. Rest well Sir!

[Malik · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book basically functions as a history of (some) Black leftist tendencies, as well as the American Marxist tradition. The information is accessible, it would serve for people just dipping their toes into both fields. However, towards the concluding portion of the book, the author makes that the claim that all-Black organizations "alone can not defeat the forces that oppress Blacks." If this text is to serve as an argument proving that idea, I remain unconvinced. The author is quick to point out some failures by the white working class losing themselves (and potential class solidarity) to racist capitalists, but never seems to really discuss the possibility that white leftists continue to fail at re-programming the racist white working class. While the book is good for generation information regarding trends of various movements in the Americas, the fundamental arguments for Black people engaging in cross-racial worker-solidarity towards the end of the book seem... under-constructed?

[Tess · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shawki clearly and succinctly takes the reader through the major struggles for Black liberation throughout US history, and the theories and arguments of the leaders of those struggles. Through celebrating the successes of these struggles and examining their failings, Shawki puts forward his own arguments for how to ultimately win Black liberation—spoiler warning, it’s socialism. Excellent book, a must-read for anyone who wants to fight against racism.

[Heidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of the history of black resistance in America from a socialist perspective, with particular insight into the struggles around organizing the black and white working class in the early 20th century. People who are already serious leftists probably won't find much that they don't already know but it's a good primer for those who are just getting into the topic. Very clear and easy to read.

[Alexander · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the book over spring break and found it compelling. My favorite chapter was the politics of Malcom X. I found the book insightful, intoxicating, and a must read for most white folks. The book enticed me from the beginning with the origins of our nations dependence on slavery, and it's unabridged form through american history. Wow. Shawki, thank you for the words you have put together.

[Freddie Boadu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Civil Rights from a leftist perspective

There's the Civil Rights history we are taught in American schools and it's no surprise, the radical and socialist perspectives of even MLK and Malcolm X were not taught. Along with communist parties failure to truly be communists in the American political atmosphere since the birth of Marxism. This was the first socialist work I've ever read and I look forward to more.

[Dan Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a great read for a non-African American who wants to try to understand the history of exactly what the title says, “Black Liberation and Socialism.” At times it was hard to understand some of the terminology, but in general it was easy to understand. I learned a lot and have a better perspective of what happened from emancipation and through the civil rights era.

[Glenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely essential reading. Shawki's writing is lean and engaging, and his analysis is spot-on. Yes there are more thorough histories with more primary sources out there, but few could make the reader so familiar with so much history and so many perspectives in so few pages.

[John Salazar · Rating 5 out of 5]

extremely insightful and helped reshape a lot of my perspective!!

[Sharon E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

pretty good book. Comprehensive of a lot of major topics which the reader can take upon themselves to dig deeper into.

[connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up to 4. The most valuable parts of the book were quotes included by the author, but I found the author's analysis and own writing lacking

[Hilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

took me a year to read so i probably didn’t soak in as much as i could’ve?

[Annie Solah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought Ahmed Shawki’s book, Black Liberation and Socialism early this year, but I didn’t start reading it until mid-year, as I was consuming another half dozen or so books beforehand. I quickly consumed over half of it in a week, and then my mind wandered and I got hooked on something else. It wasn’t that the book was bad, it’s the fact that there are so many good books out there and I don’t want to be taken away by just the one book at the one time.

After finishing The Pilo Family Circus, I went back to it and quickly finished the rest. The book is about the Black liberation struggles from slavery up until the present, and of course, it’s connection with the struggle for Socialism. Shawki’s a member of the ISO in the U.S. as well as the editor of ISR, so it’s no surprise that I agree with his politics.

The depth of information and real evidence is invaluable, particularly the success of the first desegregated unions. But above all, the depth and clarity of the book comes from the fact that he quotes extensively from Black liberation activists including Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jnr. Their words and their confidence are an inspiration to anyone who wants to rid racism from the world. It’s certainly a book that I’ll be reading again, as well as a handy reference for future debates.

http://www.benjaminsolah.com/blog/?p=348

[Diana Zavala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being new to Socialism, this book was instrumental in providing the background and historical context I needed to understand the struggle for Civil Rights and union movements of the North. The book juxtaposes the work of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X nicely in a way that shows that actions was needed if change was going to happen for African Americans, it was only through direct actions that gains were made in the 60's. Capitalism is at the core of why it is challenging to achieve Black unity and at the core when challenging capitalism one has to begin by challenging the dominant ideas in society, in this case Race (ism). "The ruling class consciously cultivated racism to justify the enslavement of Africans. After the Civil War, racism became the cornerstone of the ruling class defense of its rule...at the turn of the 19th century, racial ideology was integrated into a worldview the "white man's burden" which though less explicitly racial, is still an important part of the ideological arsenal that justifies U.S. domination internationally" (241).

[mg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ahmed Shawki does a wonderful job of giving a history of Blacks in the US from the seventeenth century to the near present. I was absolutely captivated by the book, and at the end of each chapter couldn't wait to read the next - something that I can't say for a lot of other political books I've read. This book gives a wonderful perspective on why Socialists believe Black liberation an integral part of the liberation of all. I was especially glad that I read this right before the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It gave me a much wider understanding of the day as I joined other marchers.

I would agree with other reviewers, however, that it was disappointing not to have more on the 1980s and Reagan's "War on Drugs," which I believe to be so influential on today's criminal injustice system (i.e. the new Jim Crow). Maybe in an updated edition he could trim down the chapter on Socialists, Communists, and Trotskyists (which was _quite_ lengthy) and discuss the War on Drugs instead?

[Naema AbdiRazak · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have little knowledge about African America history, this books was very useful, I think it would be a great book to read if you need to build up basic knowledge about black American history, felt like its more on the (introduction) side although the author expanded on some bits. Overall I enjoyed reading this book.

[Gagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel that it sufficiently covers the topic on Black Nationalism and why we should support it. The summation is probably the best part about this book on how it ties everything together: Marxism, Capitalism, etc.
This is a great book, I highly recommend it to anyone.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Shawki gives us an extremely lucid analysis of the origins of racism and its social dynamics in the U.S. He brilliantly connects the stuggle against racism with the overall struggle for working class liberation. Highly recommended.

[Dan Sharber · Rating 5 out of 5]

read this to learn a brief history of black liberation struggles as well as how uniting across class, as opposed to racial, lines can bring about the changes we want.