On the Distortion of Pan-Africanism and the Need for Revolutionary Clarity
It was recently brought to my attention that a socialist Pan-Africanist group known as Horn of Africa Leftists has been denouncing me. I am familiar with the organization and the individual behind the recent attacks since this individual has a history of denouncing me. Most recently, the Horn of Africa Leftists released a somewhat lengthy critique in the form of an article. The aim of the article was to denounce the distortions of Pan-Africanism — which the group claims that I promote — and to develop revolutionary clarity within the Pan-African movement.
I will respond here not only to offer a defense of myself but also because such a response will also help bring clarity to the conversation around Pan-Africanism. One thing that I do agree with the author of the abovementioned piece (Filmon Zerai) about is that there does need to be clarity around Pan-Africanism. I myself have been critical of those self-professed Pan-Africanists who have created confusion within the movement, so my hope is that this response allows me to offer more clarity here.
The piece describes me as follows:
Dwayne Wong is one of the hyper-visible self labeled Pan-African account relentlessly promoting liberal campaigns, including targeting Eritrea with pro-State Department talking points for years. Recently, he has rebranded himself as a critic of AFRICOM and often co-opts socialist and Marxist revolutionary thoughts on Twitter, misleading audiences about his actual ideological leanings. Wong launders third-way ideological persuasions by pretending to align with socialist-oriented African theorists and anti-imperialist analysis.
This idea that I’ve recently rebranded myself as a critic of AFRICOM is itself a misleading claim. My critiques of AFRICOM can be found in my book Faure Must Go, which was published in 2018, so this is not a recent rebrand. One thing that I want to bring attention to is that this attempted critique of my ideology is obviously written by someone who hasn’t actually read my books. I mention this because it’s very intellectually lazy to scrape together a bunch of social media posts and then use such posts to critique my ideological vision. I published an essay titled “Developing a Revolutionary Pan-African Ideology” which lays out my ideological leanings. There’s no attempt to mislead anybody about my ideological leanings since I make my position very clear in my publications, which Filmon Zerai has not read.
We are already off to a bad start when the person offering a rebuke of me for engaging in ideological distortions does not even know what my actual ideology is because he hasn’t read my writings. This ignorance of my work is further demonstrated by claims such as this:
Wong promotes both-sidesism by redeeming narratives that favor Abyssinian feudalism and the Greater Ethiopia mythology. He does this by presenting a redeeming framing that pretends to criticize the genocide, conquest, and subjugation by Menelik and other Abyssinian feudal monarchs, while simultaneously speaking positively about them.
What Filmon Zerai refers to as “both-sidesism” is what I would refer to as being objective. As I pointed out in my essay “The Colonial Nature of Menelik’s Ethiopia,” there were certain aspects of Menelik’s rule that were positive. There were also aspects that were extremely negative. The same point could be extended to Haile Selassie as well. Selassie’s support of anti-colonial struggles in Africa was positive. The feudal policies which he continued in Ethiopia and the repressive nature of his rule were extremely negative, and resulted in him being overthrown. Filmon Zerai included this screenshot below:
Regardless of how one may feel about Haile Selassie, there is no denying the significant influence that he had on the Pan-African movement, which includes the development of Rastafarian movement in the Caribbean. The Pan-African vision of Rastas in the Caribbean was inspired in part by Haile Selassie’s own Pan-African statements, although Rastas also drew from Marcus Garvey’s ideas as well.
One can certainly denounce the abuses which took place under Haile Selassie’s regime, but it’s also a reality that he played a major role advocating for African unity. This was a reality which Kwame Nkrumah acknowledged in Africa Must Unite. In that book, Nkrumah cited Selassie as being among the African leaders who met with Nkrumah and expressed support for a united Africa. Regardless of how one feels about Haile Selassie, one cannot write him out of the history of the Pan-African movement, which was the point that I made in my Facebook post.
I do wish that Filmon Zerai would have taken the time to read my writings so as to avoid statements such as this: “Dwayne Wong clings to outdated and incorrect views from previous generations, such as those of Marcus Garvey and John Henrik Clarke, who romanticized Ethiopia.” As I demonstrated in my writings, Garvey had denounced Selassie as being a “coward” among other things. He certainly did not romanticize the monarchy in Ethiopia. It’s also strange that Filmon Zerai critiques me for clinging to the views of Garvey, but then quotes Kwame Nkrumah in his piece, stating: “According to Nkrumah, all black people of African origin are Africans, their only home is Africa, and only when Africa is free (i.e., liberated, unified, and socialist) will Africans throughout the world be free (Nkrumah, 1970: 87–88; 1973: 421–431).” Nkrumah himself wrote: “I think that of all the literature I studied, the book that did more than any other to fire my enthusiasm was the philosophy of Marcus Garvey published by his wife.”
Filmon Zerai continues:
These outdated perspectives are based on emotions and identity rather than scientific analysis, overlooking how Ethiopia was formed, who was conquered, why it was created, and who benefits from it. The internal struggle between the feudal monarchy and the oppressed nationalities and working class must be addressed. We need a forward-thinking, ideologically sound lens that promotes scientific and collective emancipatory perspectives.
The essay on Ethiopia which I mentioned is over 40 pages long and obviously covers more of this history than a Facebook post which is only a few sentences long. This “scientific analysis” would benefit from taking the time to actually read my work before engaging in a critique because the essay that I wrote explores the internal struggle in Ethiopia between the feudal monarchy and the oppressed nationalities. For example, in that essay I referenced Asafa Jalat’s paper on the Oromo struggle in Ethiopia.
Next the Filmon Zerai goes on to critique my connection to Farida Nabourema of Togo:
Dwayne Wong promotes Farida Bemba Nabourema, a Togolese social activist who self-identifies as a Pan-Africanist. According to her website and the Ford Foundation, she holds several prominent positions:
2021 Jennings Randolph Senior Research Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, researching gender-based repression in nonviolent movements in Africa.
2020 Freedom Fellow at the Human Rights Foundation.
Adjunct Professor at the Joseph Korbel School of International Studies, teaching “Authoritarianism in the Digital Age.”
In an exchange with Filmon Zerai, he admitted that he had no contention on Togo, yet he still wanted to critique the efforts of those who were fighting the regime in Togo. I pointed out that critiques of such nature aren’t helpful because it provides no real alternatives.
Filmon Zerai claims that I may be “opportunistically laundering pro-State Department sentiments”, but the regime in Togo has been openly supported by the American State Department. Filmon Zerai claims to have no contention to Togo, yet he is also critical of activists who have been struggling against this Western backed dictatorship. My question is how is it revolutionary to denounce the activities of those who are struggling against a neo-colonial regime rather than denouncing the regime itself?
Togo is a nation which has been so closely tied to imperialism that it was the only African nation to vote in support of President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. I understand the line of attack which seeks to critique the institutions or organizations that Togolese activists appear to be working with, but I also wonder what Filmon Zerai would have made of Toussaint Louverture’s decision to align himself with the Spanish in his struggle against the French slave masters in Haiti or Nzinga’s decision to align herself with the Dutch in her struggle against the Portuguese slave traders.
It’s easy to theorize about revolutionary socialism on social media or through blog posts, but in an actual revolutionary struggle one cannot always take the position of only accepting material support from those with a shared ideology or a shared objective. The activists in Togo certainly do not have that luxury, so they’ve taken support from whoever will be willing to aid their struggle. Filmon Zerai is of little help to the people of Togo in this regard.
Not only do I know Farida personally, but I’ve engaged with her works over the years including listening to her speeches and reading her book La Pression de Oppression. The critique of Farida offered by Filmon Zerai is not actually rooted in the substance of Farida’s ideology because he likely has not engaged in Farida’s ideology. The end result is that Filmon Zerai has more to say about the Ford Foundation than he has to say about Farida herself and the work that she’s done:
Today, the Ford Foundation support liberal causes like anti-authoritarian African activists like Farida Bemba Nabourema. At the same time, they fund organizations advocating for regime change in Latin America and the Middle East, such as Freedom House and The Syria Campaign, promoting US interventions.
Filmon Zerai states: “If sincere, he should apologize to the Eritrean state and distance himself from NED-connected activists from Togo to Eritrea.” So to show that I am sincere I must distance myself from the comrades from Togo whom I have worked with for years? Is this really the type of Pan-Africanism that the Horn of Africa Leftists are promoting; the type of Pan-Africanism in which “sincere” individuals are those who abandon struggles which they have committed to? I certainly would not distance myself from Togo’s liberation struggle because someone who has never supported said struggle suggests that I must do so to prove my sincerity.
Filmon Zerai then tries to use a private exchange between us as a point of critique:
In 2018, I attempted to send him a message expressing how his views on Eritrea were harmful and politically insensitive. Instead of considering my perspective or showing understanding, he blocked my account from commenting. This behavior demonstrates his hostility towards the Eritrean community and other nationalist groups in the Horn of Africa who hold anti-imperialist views and critical perspectives on Ethiopia.
This is the exchange in question:
It is noticeable that Filmon Zerai does not suggest in this critique of me that anything which I stated was historically wrong. In fact, in the exchange above he even concedes that there are ethnic groups in Ethiopia and Eritrea with a shared historical link to the Aksum Empire. His response to the comment about Eritreans and Ethiopians being the same people was to object to it for no other reason than the fact that the statement was weaponized by Ethiopians. Simply because this history can be weaponized does not mean that it’s not true. When Ethiopia and Eritrea decided to reopen their borders, families who were separated from each other were finally reunited, which further demonstrates the close bonds between the two nations. It’s ironic that a self-professed Pan-Africanist would have such a hard time acknowledging these bonds.
The line of attack which I think is most important for me to address is the issue which Filmon Zerai seems to take with my statements on Marxism. In a prior exchange on Facebook he accused me of despising everything black socialist. When I asked him for a source to support his claim, none was offered. That was four years ago and Filmon Zerai still cannot offer support for his claim.
Filmon Zerai attempts to suggest that I am anti-Marxist, even though he screenshots posts where I explain that I am not anti-Marxist.
I do not oppose Marxism in theory. What I have been critical of is Marxism in practice. Part of my critique of Marxism within the Pan-African movement is that Marxists have historically struggled to build and sustain mass support. For example, in the Caribbean, Marxist-Leninists seized power in Grenada. What eventually followed was the implosion of the revolutionary government in Grenada which resulted from internal ideological disputes over Marxism-Leninism. The move towards authoritarianism in Grenada was something which concerned the Caribbean left. Walter Rodney, a Marxist, was among those who raised concerns over the direction of the revolution in Grenada. This is detailed in a book titled The Grenada Revolution in the Caribbean Present: Operation Urgent Memory by Shalini Puri.
I write this not to diminish the successes of the revolution in Grenada, but to highlight the problems encountered in trying to implement a Marxist-Leninist program in Grenada. Differences over this ideology resulted in Maurice Bishop being removed from power and then assassinated.
In Africa, many of the governments which had claimed Marxism-Leninism as their ideology eventually abandoned that ideology at the close of the Cold War. Countries such as Benin, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe all shifted away from Marxism-Leninism.
I agree with Kwame Ture who argued that a betrayal of the principles of socialism does not mean that socialism itself has collapsed, but I also think that if we are being honest we will have to acknowledge that since the end of the Cold War, socialism has not had the same impact within the Pan-African movement as it once had.
Part of the reason for this is that many prominent socialist leaders were eliminated through force — this included Kwame Nkrumah who was overthrown in a coup, the assassination of Thomas Sankara, and the destruction of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the decline in the overall impact of socialism on the struggle has been due to problems with the implementation of socialism itself. This is a point which Chris Hani noted when he addressed the abuses which were carried out by socialist governments.
As I stated, I don’t reject Marxism in theory, but I also think brothers and sisters who identify themselves as Marxists need to make a serious effort to make Marxism into something which is meaningful and relevant to the struggles of the African masses. This would include correcting the mistakes which were made by certain Marxist leaders of the past.
Filmon Zerai continues:
In Conclusion We Must Reject Dwayne Wong Version of Pan-Africanism
Why does a hyper-visible account that quotes Kwame Ture and other revolutionary Pan-Africans, using their intellectual work and credibility to build a brand, reject their ideology? What does promoting an activist linked with the Ford Foundation, given its history, have to do with true Pan-Africanism? How does promoting an Eritrean activist linked to Amnesty International and the Human Rights Foundation align with Pan-African principles?
Social media content and messaging that exceptionalize Ethiopia, as Dwayne Wong has done, cannot rally the workers of the Horn of Africa or instill fraternal unity. Instead, it damages trust in Pan-Africanism as a scientific tool of analysis and forward toward collective unity. This is not a personal issue with Dwayne Wong; it is an ideological criticism made in good faith and supported by evidence.
The call to reject my version of Pan-Africanism is easy. Even though the Filmon Zerai frames me as being hyper-visible, my brand of Pan-Africanism does not have the same political impact in Africa as the African Union, Faure’s upcoming Pan-African Congress, or others who are utilizing the banner of Pan-Africanism to push policies which are actually harming our people in Africa. Filmon Zerai takes issue with the fact that I quote socialist leaders like Kwame Ture, but one point which Kwame Ture made in his debate with Molefi Asante which I want to mention here is that he urged African people to join any organization. He presented the solutions laid out by the A-APRP, but he also told the audience that the Nation of Islam and the NAACP had programs as well.
Kwame Ture did not tell the audience which organization they should join. He told them to find the organization that they aligned with and to join it. That’s my approach as well. I am not trying to convert people to my version of Pan-Africanism (I wasn’t even aware that I have my own version). If individuals want to join a Pan-African organization which promotes a Marxist or socialist ideology then I would not stop them from doing so. Pan-Africanism is not a competition for me. Incidentally, Filmon Zerai provides this screenshot which further demonstrates my point:
I wouldn’t join an organization that I have ideological disagreements with, but I also would be willing to work with such organizations however I can to advance African people — this is precisely what Ture himself was doing with the united front that he was building. It’s also not clear to me why Filmon Zerai claims that I am trying to mislead audiences about my ideological leanings when Filmon Zerai is pulling up screenshots of me being open and honest about my ideological leanings.
The piece concludes:
The people of the Horn of Africa cannot align with a version of Pan-Africanism that includes pro-State Department talking points and advances imperial aggression while promoting a romanticized view of feudal Abyssinian slave-owning, European-backed monarchy. True Pan-Africanism should be forward-thinking, scientific, and free from reactionary persuasions.
We must believe in Pan-Africanism as a solution without falling into the traps of reactionary ideologies. Pan-Africanism must be grounded in principles of socialism, anti-imperialism, and collective liberation to truly serve the people of Africa.
My question is the principles of which socialism? Is Filmon Zerai promoting Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, or Nkrumahism-Toureism? Or is Filmon Zerai promoting African Socialism as advocated by Julius Nyerere? There is also the socialist vision of John Henrik Clarke. I mention this to show how deep these ideological discussions are. It’s not as simply as claiming that Pan-Africanism must be grounded in socialism. Socialism must be specifically defined because within the Pan-African movement there have been several types of socialist ideologies, some of which have even been at odds with each other. Take for example the ideological conflict between Walter Rodney who promoted Marxism and Forbes Burnham who promoted cooperative socialism.
It’s also worth noting that the A-APRP, which was mentioned previously, is itself splintered so that there is the A-APRP-GC and another organization claiming to be A-APRP, which again demonstrates the challenges involved in trying to develop Pan-African organizations. The call to reject my Pan-African ideology does little to address problems such as the splintering of socialist organizations and the confusion created by such splinters.
I also think it’s important to note that the history of Pan-Africanism and socialism is marked by socialist attacks against Pan-Africanism. Two particular examples which I’ve addressed in my books are Henry Winston’s book Strategy for a Black Agenda and a critique made of Pan-Africanism in a 1978 edition of the Workers Vanguard. Kwame Ture also spoke about the criticism which he recieved from Marxist-Leninists from his position on nationalism. Filmon Zerai writes as if there has not been a historical tension between the concepts of class struggle and racial unity. It’s not that I am trying to mislead people. I am actually being as honest as I can be about the nuances involved in the history of Pan-Africanism and socialism. This is a very complex topic which I have dedicated several chapters to in a number of my books.
My own position is clear. I cite Malcolm X who, when asked about which political and economic system he wanted, stated that he was “flexible.” I am not opposed to socialism or Marxism in theory, but I am opposed to the dogmatic forms of thinking that has often come with those ideologies and with other ideologies. As Pan-Africanists we should ultimately be striving for the unification and advancement of African people. This means that though we may disagree with each other on certain ideological positions, we should also formulate a united front to confront the forces which keep African people oppressed and disunited.
I welcome any ideological criticism made of me, which is why I wish that Filmon Zerai bothered to read my books before trying to engage in an ideological criticism of what he claims is my version of Pan-Africanism. That would have been much more scientific and more educational for his readers. Finally, I would caution that such critiques cannot be mere intellectual exercises. The masses of our people do not need a mere armchair analysis; they need those of us who are serious about Pan-Africanism to do the work needed to not only unify African people, but to improve the conditions of African people.
