English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article aims to understand why Black Marxists and white Marxists had different theoretical and practical responses to 1930s fascism. I argue this stemmed from different conceptualizations of colonialism. Following Marx and Lenin, many white Marxists viewed colonialism as an imperial extension of capitalist conditions from western Europe to non-Europe. In contrast, Black Marxists viewed colonialism as the site of capitalism and race: the practicing of white dominance and capital accumulation through territorial dispossession, material extraction, and forced labor in the colonies. Black Marxists understood fascism as extending these racial-colonial practices into Europe, while white Marxists failed to see this because of their foreclosure of race. In viewing fascism as primarily a threat to the spread of European communism, the Soviet Union made anti-fascism a priority exceeding anti-colonialism. The interwar Black Left therefore produced a more expansive conception of colonialism, widening the spatial and temporal horizons upon which to understand the emergence of fascism and remain committed to anti-colonialism.

A Black Construction of Colonialism: The Black Marxist Response to Fascism in the 1930s