Lauan Al-Khazail, Kiel University
Introduction
In this paper, I propose a comparative reading of Frantz Fanon (1925–61) and Mahdi Amil (1936–87) with regard to their respective analyses of colonial class relations. Both Fanon and Amil were deeply concerned with the (post-)colonial question in their theoretical writings and their political activism. Both authors dedicated much attention in their works and lives to the Algerian anti-colonial struggle. Amil, a Marxist theorist and member of the Lebanese Communist Party, was, to some degree, a Fanonian thinker. His intellectual debt to Fanon is most evident in his essay La Pensée Revolutionnaire de Frantz Fanon, published in 1962 in the Algerian journal Révolution Africaine, in which he discusses affirmatively the central arguments of Fanon’s Les Damnés de la Terre (engl. The Wretched of the Earth),[1] published a year earlier.
In this paper, however, I will draw on Amil’s two-part essay Colonialism and Underdevelopment (arab. al-Istiʿmār wa-l-takhalluf), published in 1968 in the Lebanese Communist journal al-Ṭarīq.[2] Through a close comparative reading of that essay and The Wretched of the Earth, I suggest a theoretical linkage between Amil and Fanon. For this purpose, I analyze how Amil’s writings resonate with Fanon’s work. In terms of his theoretical mode, I suggest that Amil adopts the Fanonian approach of stretching Marxism in the colonial context. I further demonstrate how Amil’s conception of the colonial bourgeoisie converges with Fanon’s notion of the national bourgeoisie. Yet, as I also point out, Amil diverges from Fanon’s analysis in some crucial ways, in particular with regard to his analysis of the colonial proletariat and the peasantry. I conclude my paper with a brief discussion on how the ideas of both Fanon and Amil correspond with the notion of multilinear development as developed in the later writings of Karl Marx.
Stretching Marxism in the Colonial Context
In Concerning Violence, the first chapter of The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon formulates his much-quoted argument that “Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched every time we have to do with the colonial problem.” As Fanon further explains, “Everything up to and including the very nature of precapitalist society, so well explained by Marx, must here be thought out again.”[3] Much has already been written about Fanon’s notion of stretching Marxism in the colonial context. Sara Salem points out how Fanon stretches established Marxist categories to “contextualize the specificity of capitalism in the colony without completely disregarding the assumptions underpinning Marxism.”[4] Fanon thus assumes that classical accounts of Marxist theory, developed to address historically specific material conditions, should not be applied without translation to (post-)colonial conditions. As Salem explains, Fanon thereby does not reject Marxism, but “rearticulates it to account for how capitalism and colonialism were co-constitutive.”[5]
In Mahdi Amil’s writings, there is much that resonates with Fanon’s notion of stretching Marxism. In his essay Colonialism and Underdevelopment, Amil analyzes the structural relation between these two phenomena. His aim here is to specify “the kind of causality that links underdevelopment to colonialism.”[6] For Amil, Marxism alone can provide a theory of underdevelopment. However, like Fanon, Amil argues that pre-formed Marxist thought cannot be applied to colonial reality:
“If we truly want to establish sound Marxist thinking by and for us that is capable of perceiving reality scientifically, we must not begin with Marxism as a pre-formed system of thought that we attempt to apply to our reality. Instead, we must begin with our reality in its own process of formation.”[7]
While for Marx the specific historical reality of European capitalism constitutes the starting point of his inquiry, for Amil it is the colonial relation.[8] Amil holds that Marx only deals with colonialism insofar as it helps him to explain the historical development of capitalism. Amil’s approach, on the other hand, is to “treat the problem from an entirely different perspective, that of colonialism, not capitalism. Our theoretical progression in this problem is thus the inverse of Marx’s theoretical progression.”[9] Thus, regarding the theoretical premises for analyzing the colonial relation, Amil’s approach resonates with Fanon’s. While Fanon suggests to stretch Marxism, Amil suggests to invert its theoretical progression.
The National Bourgeoisie in The Wretched of the Earth
In the third chapter of The Wretched of the Earth (“The Pitfalls of National Consciousness”), Fanon develops his well-known critique of the bourgeois class that emerges in the context of decolonization and national independence. Fanon’s notion of the national bourgeoisie, as he terms this nascent class, is however distinct from the classical Marxist concept of the bourgeoisie. Fanon thus stretches Marxism to meet the particularity of (post-)colonial relations compared to the standard account of Western European capitalist societies.
Prior to decolonization, Fanon argues, the bourgeoisie in the colonies is a foreign or Western bourgeoisie which acts as an agent of the metropole.[10] Fanon underlines that the economy of a colony is not a national economy in a strict sense. Rather, the economy’s organization serves to complete the economy of the colonialist metropole.[11] In the context of decolonization, the emerging national bourgeoisie takes control over the economic conditions inherited from the colonial period. Fanon terms this class an “underdeveloped bourgeoisie”[12] which, in contrast to the Western capitalist one, lacks economic power and “is not engaged in production, nor in invention, nor building, nor labor.”[13] After national liberation, the national economy still resembles that of the colonial period. The national bourgeoisie, Fanon argues, is rather ignorant of its own economy failing to build its industrial sector: “We go on sending out raw materials; we go on being Europe’s small farmers, who specialize in unfinished products.”[14] Fanon emphasizes that the national bourgeoisie’s ambition to nationalize the economy and the trading sectors is not to put the national economy at the service of society. For this class, nationalization means “the transfer into native hands of those unfair advantages which are a legacy of the colonial period.”[15] For Fanon, the historical mission of the national bourgeoisie is its role as an intermediary. In this capacity, it constitutes a “transmission line between the nation and a capitalism […] which puts on the mask of neo-colonialism.”[16] The national bourgeoisie acts as “the Western bourgeoisie’s business agent,”[17] directing its attention toward the former colonialist metropole and foreign capital.[18]
In concluding his observations about the national bourgeoisie, Fanon refers to a question that had been debated already for decades in his time: is it possible for underdeveloped societies to skip the bourgeois phase of development? For Fanon, this is not a theoretical question, but one of revolutionary praxis.
“In fact, the bourgeois phase in the history of underdeveloped countries is a completely useless phase. When this caste has vanished, devoured by its own contradictions, it will be seen that nothing new has happened since independence was proclaimed.”[19]
Thus, the national bourgeoisie should be prevented from finding “the conditions necessary for its existence and its growth.”[20] Fanon here envisions a combined effort of the masses, organized by a party and intellectuals with revolutionary consciousness and principles, which should block the way to the formation of this class.[21] The bourgeois phase of development, so essential to the historical emergence of Western European capitalism, should be skipped over in the colonial context.
Fanon’s Conception of the Peasantry and the Proletariat
Fanon’s approach of stretching Marxism is further expressed, in a much more controversial manner, with regard to his conception of the urban proletariat and the peasantry. In traditional Marxist terms, the proletariat, that is the large-scale industrialized working class, constitutes the revolutionary subject.[22] Fanon’s colonial class analysis is different. In the chapter Concerning Violence, Fanon writes that “in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary.”[23] The urban working class, on the other hand, is assumed to benefit from the colonial system. Fanon thus shifts the revolutionary role from the proletariat to the peasantry. He deals with this question in more detail in the second chapter: “The proletariat is the nucleus of the colonized population which has been most pampered by the colonial regime. The embryonic proletariat of the towns is in a comparatively privileged position.”[24] Privileged, of course, in relation to the peasantry, a class “systematically disregarded” by the nationalist parties and the urban workers.[25] While the peasant masses constitute “the only spontaneously revolutionary force of the country”[26] and “have nothing to lose and everything to gain”[27] in the revolutionary struggle for decolonization, the urban proletariat “has everything to lose.”[28]
Fanon is aware of the inverted role he ascribes to the peasantry as he acknowledges that in the history of bourgeois and proletarian revolutions, they have often played a non-revolutionary, at times reactionary role.[29] The landless peasants who constitute the “Lumpenproletariat,”[30] another term borrowed from Marx, figure as “the urban spearhead” of anti-colonial rebellion in Fanon’s account.[31] It is this class that will carry the anti-colonial struggle into the urban centers of the colonies as it constitutes “one of the most spontaneous and the most radically revolutionary forces of a colonized people.”[32] Fanon’s notion of spontaneity, however, is not to be misunderstood as referring to an unorganized or unexpected rebellion. For Fanon, spontaneity refers to the bottom-up nature of anti-colonial struggle which is not organized and controlled by the nationalist parties in the urban centers of the colonies.[33]
While Fanon’s conception of the national bourgeoisie has been received with more sympathy, his analysis regarding the peasantry and the urban proletariat has provoked a more critical debate among Fanon scholars. Jack Woddis, for example, accuses Fanon of having created the myth about an “bourgeoisified” African working class.[34] The urban proletariat, Woddis argues, in no way constituted a “bourgeois fraction of the colonized people,”[35] as Fanon thought, but rather lived under “deplorable conditions”[36] of colonial exploitation of labor. Woddis further argues that workers contributed a lot more to the struggle for independence than Fanon had envisioned.[37] Adding to this line of critique, Leo Zeilig argues that Fanon’s analysis conflates the colonial working class with the leadership of the nationalist parties as these two distinct classes become almost conjoined in Fanon’s thought.[38] Zeilig is furthermore critical of the revolutionary role Fanon attributes to the peasantry as historically they have neither played an independent role nor led the national liberation struggle.[39]
Other authors, however, are more approving of Fanon’s conclusions. Peter Hudis, for example, supports Fanon’s approach of stretching the standard Marxist model by identifying the peasantry instead of the proletariat as the revolutionary class. As Hudis emphasizes, Fanon addresses the specificity of colonial class relations and thus avoids imposing a model that would only be applicable to Western capitalist societies.[40] Fanon thus recognizes that the colonial proletariat has not been socialized by capitalist industrialization, unlike the European working class. While the peasantry constitutes the majority of the colonial population, the urban working class is no majoritarian force. This is what Fanon means with the term “embryonic proletariat of the towns.”[41] Moreover, Hudis argues that Fanon’s analytical approach is quite close to Marx, although it differs from his conclusions as they apply to European capitalist societies.[42] Referring to social revolution, Marx writes in The Communist Manifesto: “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.”[43] For Fanon, on the other hand, social revolution could only be identified with the peasant class since it constitutes the immense majority in colonial underdeveloped societies.
Class Relations in Amil’s Colonial Mode of Production
In his two-part essay Colonialism and Underdevelopment, Amil defines the colonial relation and develops his concept of the colonial mode of production (namaṭ al-intāj al-kūlūnyālī). For Amil, this is a necessary theoretical step to arrive at an adequate understanding of underdevelopment in the context of colonialism. Amil defines the colonial relation as a “relation between two different systems of production.”[44] These two systems of production, the capitalist and the colonial, exist within a single structural unit which defines their mutual dependency.[45] The structural relation is determined by “the domination of capitalist production over colonial production.”[46] Amil elaborates on the dialectical relationship between the capitalist-colonialist metropoles and the colonies that determines their respective path of development as follows:
“The development of Western Europe, and the development of the capitalist West generally within the colonial relation, was a historical outcome of the ‘underdevelopment’ of colonized countries just as the ‘underdevelopment’ of these countries is the historical result of Western capitalist development.”[47]
In a sense, Amil’s formulation here echoes Fanon’s often-cited argument that “Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.”[48] How, then, is Amil’s concept of the colonial mode of production distinct from the capitalist mode of production? While the capitalist mode of production emerged from the specific historical development of feudal relations in Europe, the mode of production that emerged in colonized societies is not a product of the necessary internal development of pre-colonial relations of production. Amil thus identifies an organic development with regard to capitalist relations in Europe, whereas he holds that new relations of production were violently established by colonialism.[49] The colonial mode of production is further distinguished by its structural dependency in terms of both historical formation and internal development.[50] In Amil’s conception, colonialism manifests itself primarily in the relations of production. Colonial domination, Amil writes,
exists first and foremost in the class relations particular to the colonial structures in these countries and not in a direct or active colonial presence. It is embodied in the form in which classes, particular to the colonial social structure, exist.[51]
How, then, are these specific class relations determined in Amil’s analysis? The basic characteristic of the colonial social structure is “the lack of differentiation between the social classes which constitute it.”[52] In traditional Marxist terms, social classes are “determined by their position in the social process of production.”[53] Within capitalist relations of production, “bourgeoisie and proletariat directly confront one another; the exploitation of the proletariat makes possible the existence of capital.”[54] While the capitalist class differentiation seems rather clearly determined, in the colonial relation, the main contradiction is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as these classes have not been differentiated or socialized in the same way. Amil explains the lack of class differentiation in the colonial context as follows:
“The class relations of exploitation linking the exploited classes to the ruling class (the colonial bourgeoisie) are not in their essence relations of direct exploitation actualized in the framework of production.”[55]
Regarding this indirect nature of exploitation, Amil further elaborates that in the colonial mode of production, colonialism itself is “the fundamental exploitative force.”[56]
Amil’s Notion of the Colonial Bourgeoisie
The colonial bourgeoisie, Amil writes, “exists as a class merely to bring the process of colonial exploitation into effect.”[57] Amil’s conception of the colonial bourgeoisie resonates with Fanon’s notion of the national bourgeoisie. It should be noted here that Amil explicitly rejects the term used by Fanon (national bourgeoisie) to refer to this class. Yet, their conclusions concerning this class remain relatively close to one another. Like Fanon, Amil emphasizes how the bourgeois class of colonial societies is incapable of fulfilling its historical mission as it is unable to initiate an industrial phase of development.[58] Rather, the colonial bourgeoisie is determined as a mercantile bourgeoisie by its historical formation within the colonial relation.[59] In Amil’s account, the colonial bourgeoisie is a class composed of two distinct social factions: “Urban merchants and landowners who direct their agricultural production towards colonial trade.”[60] The colonial bourgeoisie’s economic activity is thus limited to providing capitalist industry with raw materials and selling its products.
Amil emphasizes that the existence and maintenance of the colonial relation serves the interest of the colonial bourgeoisie. Accordingly, the “overexploitation” of underdeveloped countries by capitalist-colonialist production directly passes through the hands of this class. The colonial bourgeoisie, Amil writes, “is determined as a class exclusively through its connection to capitalist production within the colonial relation.”[61] As it does not constitute an independent class of its own, the colonial bourgeoisie is “the representation of another class existence,”[62] namely that of the metropolitan capitalist bourgeoisie. Thus, in Amil’s analysis, there are strong parallels to the Fanonian notion of the national bourgeoisie as an “intermediary” class that inherits the “unfair advantages” of the colonial period.[63]
Furthermore, in Amil’s account, there is also a link to Fanon’s call for “skipping” the bourgeois phase of development in the colonial context. Fanon argues that the national bourgeoisie should be prevented from finding “the conditions necessary for its existence and its growth.”[64] In line with Fanon, Amil writes that a bourgeois-capitalist revolution is impossible under colonial class relations:
“Class struggle in the colonized country is totally different from the class struggle in a capitalist country. In a colonized, underdeveloped country, the class struggle does not hold any potential for the development of production in a capitalist form, and the development of production does not allow a capitalist form of production to emerge.”[65]
Since the colonial bourgeoisie is an incapable class, Amil concludes, it must be abolished as a class in order “for production to be transformed and liberated.”[66]
Amil’s Conception of the Peasantry and the Proletariat
In the colonial class relations described by Amil, the main class confrontation is that between the colonial bourgeoisie and the peasantry. In a Fanonian sense, Amil stretches the classical Marxist account of the main contradiction of capitalist social relations, i.e. that between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Since agricultural land is the basic means of production in the colonial context, the peasantry constitutes the main force of production.[67] The peasantry thus represents the main subject of exploitation, or even “overexploitation.”[68] However, Amil writes, “peasants are actually confronting colonialism through their social production when they confront the colonial bourgeoisie.”[69] The proletariat, on the other hand, confronts not the colonial bourgeoisie but the petite bourgeoisie, a “productive faction of an otherwise unproductive class.”[70] As Amil emphasizes, these class contradictions are not separate or independent from one another. Rather, they exist within the unity of the colonial social structure.[71]
Regarding the working class, Amil derives some noteworthy conclusions from the lack of class differentiation in the colonial relation. In colonial societies, in contrast to capitalist societies, the migration of peasants to urban centers does not lead to a radical class transformation, i.e. a transformation of the peasant class into a proletariat. The worker, Amil writes, “is a peasant whose social transformation into a worker has failed due to the colonial nature of the social structure.”[72] With respect to the working class, Amil’s analysis contrasts with Fanon’s notion of the urban proletariat as a “privileged” class that “constitutes the `bourgeois´ fraction of the colonized people.”[73] While Fanon locates the urban proletariat as a class in proximity to the national bourgeoisie, Amil does not associate the working class with the colonial bourgeoisie. Rather, Amil argues that workers retain their former class connections or peasant background.[74]
Amil’s analysis further diverges from Fanon’s account of the revolutionary role of the peasantry. While for Fanon, “the peasants alone are revolutionary”[75] in colonial countries, Amil suggests a revolutionary model which is more inclusive of the colonial proletariat. Accordingly, the unification of class struggles constitutes a necessary condition for the overcoming of colonialism:
“If the peasants’ struggle in colonized countries were to remain a purely peasant struggle independent from the workers’ struggle, and the workers’ struggle were to remain separate from the struggle of the rest of the exploited classes, then the liberation movement itself would inevitably fail. This is because the liberation movement is a class struggle against colonialism, which is the principal class enemy of all laboring classes.”[76]
The struggle for national liberation from colonialism, in Amil’s account, thus constitutes a class struggle. It is “a violent transition from one particular mode of production to another.”[77] Amil thus envisions a transition from the colonial mode of production to a socialist mode of production.[78] For Amil, the proletariat does not have “everything to lose”[79] from the revolutionary struggle for liberation, as Fanon concludes, but rather represents an active group in the combined anti-colonial class struggle.
Conclusion – Towards Multilinearity
Through a close comparative reading of Fanon and Amil, we can observe a theoretical linkage between the two authors. Amil’s analysis of colonial class relations resonates with much that Fanon had suggested earlier. While Amil does not refer to Fanon in the essay analyzed in this paper, we know from his earlier essay in Révolution Africaine that he was well familiar with Fanon’s ideas and conclusions. Amil’s thought converges with Fanon’s on two points in particular: Firstly, Amil’s theoretical starting point is quite close to Fanon’s approach of stretching Marxist categories of class analysis to apply them to the specificity of colonial class relations. Secondly, Amil’s notion of the class that he calls the colonial bourgeoisie is relatively close to Fanon’s national bourgeoisie. The convergence of their respective analyses culminates in their call for skipping the bourgeois-capitalist phase of development in the (de-)colonial context. While Amil is, to some extent, a Fanonian thinker, he nonetheless developed his own thought organically through a materialist analysis of the colonial relation (above all with regard to Algeria, Egypt and Lebanon). Particularly with respect to the colonial peasantry and the proletariat, Amil’s analysis diverges significantly from Fanon’s conclusions. Amil attributes a more important role to the working class in the anti-colonial struggle, while Fanon mainly focusses on the peasantry in this regard.
Both Fanon’s and Amil’s positions on skipping the bourgeois phase of development in the colonial context correspond with the notion of multilinear development found in Marx’ later writings. In his later works, Marx moved away from Eurocentric and unilinear perspectives on the development of non-Western and pre-capitalist societies. According to the unilinear perspective, all forms of society must necessarily pass through a phase of bourgeois capitalism.[80] In the Communist Manifesto, there is a strong Eurocentric sense of the progressiveness of the Western bourgeoisie, contrasted with the backwardness of Asia: „The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production […] draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization.”[81] There is also a strong sense of unilinearity in the work:
“[The Western bourgeoisie] compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e. to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”[82]
The unilinear perspective on the historical development of non-Western and pre-capitalist societies is furthermore expressed in Vol. 1 of Capital where Marx writes that “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”[83] In contrast, the works of his last decade suggest that Marx eventually departed from Eurocentric and unilinear perspectives with regard to non-Western and pre-capitalist societies.[84] Marxist and Socialist movements, both in the Western and the non-Western world, often adopted an unilinear notion of development. Embracing a two-stage theory of revolution, movements and theorists held that socialism could only be reached on the basis of the material conditions created by capitalist relations of production. Socialism in an underdeveloped or colonial country therefore could only reached after an extended phase of capitalist industrialization.[85] In contrast, both Fanon and Amil, as I have shown above, adopt a model of historical development that is rather close to the notion of multilinear development, where socialism in the post-colonial context can be built without passing through a phase of bourgeois development.
References
[1] In this paper, I will use the English translation, see: Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (London: Penguin Classics, 2001).
[2] In this paper, I will refer to the English translation of the essay, see: Arab Marxism and National Liberation. Selected Writings of Mahdi Amel, ed. Hicham Safieddine (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2020).
[3] Fanon, Wretched, 31.
[4] Sara Salem, “Stretching Marxism in the Postcolonial World. Egyptian Decolonisation and the Contradictions of National Sovereignty,” Historical Materialism 27, no. 4 (2019): 6.
[5] Salem, „Stretching Marxism,“ 6.
[6] Amel, Arab Marxism, 15.
[7] Amel, Arab Marxism, 17.
[8] Amel, Arab Marxism, 17-18.
[9] Amel, Arab Marxism, 21.
[10] Fanon, Wretched, 143.
[11] Fanon, Wretched, 127.
[12] Fanon, Wretched, 125.
[13] Fanon, Wretched, 120.
[14] Fanon, Wretched, 122.
[15] Fanon, Wretched, 122.
[16] Fanon, Wretched, 122.
[17] Fanon, Wretched, 122.
[18] Fanon, Wretched, 133.
[19] Fanon, Wretched, 142.
[20] Fanon, Wretched, 140.
[21] Fanon, Wretched, 140.
[22] See Marcel van der Linden, “Workers and Revolutions. A Historical Paradox,” in Worlds of Labour Turned Upside Down, ed. Pepijn Brandon et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2021).
[23] Fanon, Wretched, 47.
[24] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[25] Fanon, Wretched, 47.
[26] Fanon, Wretched, 98.
[27] Fanon, Wretched, 47.
[28] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[29] Fanon, Wretched, 88.
[30] Fanon, Wretched, 88.
[31] Fanon, Wretched, 103.
[32] Fanon, Wretched, 103.
[33] Leo Zeilig, Frantz Fanon. The Militant Philosopher of Third World Revolution (London/New York: I.B. Tauris, 2016), 207-208.
[34] Jack Woddis, New Theories of Revolution (New York: International Publishers, 1972), 114-115.
[35] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[36] Woddis, New Theories, 108.
[37] Woddis, New Theories, 115.
[38] Zeilig, Frantz Fanon, 202.
[39] Zeilig, Frantz Fanon, 188.
[40] Peter Hudis, Frantz Fanon. Philosopher of the Barricades (London: Pluto Press, 2015), 124.
[41] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[42] Hudis, Frantz Fanon, 125.
[43] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Communist Manifesto,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works Vol. 6 (New York: International Publishers, 1976), 495.
[44] Amel, Arab Marxism, 21.
[45] Amel, Arab Marxism, 32.
[46] Amel, Arab Marxism, 65.
[47] Amel, Arab Marxism, 30.
[48] Fanon, Wretched, 81.
[49] Amel, Arab Marxism, 57.
[50] Amel, Arab Marxism, 59.
[51] Amel, Arab Marxism, 66.
[52] Amel, Arab Marxism, 67.
[53] Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012), 192.
[54] Heinrich, Introduction, 193.
[55] Amel, Arab Marxism, 72.
[56] Amel, Arab Marxism, 70.
[57] Amel, Arab Marxism, 72.
[58] Amel, Arab Marxism, 39.
[59] Amel, Arab Marxism, 67.
[60] Amel, Arab Marxism, 40.
[61] Amel, Arab Marxism, 31.
[62] Amel, Arab Marxism, 31.
[63] Fanon, Wretched, 122.
[64] Fanon, Wretched, 140.
[65] Amel, Arab Marxism, 42.
[66] Amel, Arab Marxism, 42.
[67] Amel, Arab Marxism, 70.
[68] Amel, Arab Marxism, 70.
[69] Amel, Arab Marxism, 70.
[70] Amel, Arab Marxism, 71.
[71] Amel, Arab Marxism, 71.
[72] Amel, Arab Marxism, 73.
[73] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[74] Amel, Arab Marxism, 73.
[75] Fanon, Wretched, 47.
[76] Amel, Arab Marxism, 49.
[77] Amel, Arab Marxism, 51.
[78] Amel, Arab Marxism, 51.
[79] Fanon, Wretched, 86.
[80] Kevin B. Anderson, „Marx’s Late Writings on Non-Western and Precapitalist Societies and Gender,” in Rethinking Marxism, vol. 14 (2002): 85.
[81] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Communist Manifesto,” in Marx and Engels Collected Works Vol. 6 (New York: International Publishers, 1976), 488.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Karl Marx, Capital ,Vol. 1, London Pelican (1976): 91.
[84] Anderson, „Marx’s Late Writings”.
[85] Peter Hudis, „Beyond Unilinear Evolutionism. Rethinking Marx’s Relevance for the Non-Western World,” in Theory and Practice. Reflections on the Colonization of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 2020): 31