You said I need to study philosophy like Kwame Ture. Well, Kwame said Nkrumah was not a Marxist. Maybe you need to do the studying of hat Kwame said.<quoted text> Duh....the link is interesting, but irrelevant to the dispute currently on the table.
Funny how no knowledgeable person agrees with you on that one<quoted text> At any rate, Nkrumahism is an a kind of Marxism in the African context
Actually, Positive Action always prefer the non-violent path. But when the non-violent avenue is closed, there is no hesitation in pursuing the Armed Struggle. Nkrumahism is clear on this point. Malcolm said it best: by any means necessary.<quoted text> As for the liberation of Africa from imperialism there could be no disagreement between King and Nkrumah. On that they agreed. But the philosophical idealism of King constitutes a different point of view vis-à-vis Nkrumahist materialism. And King's nearly unqualified commitment to nonviolence, both tactically and morally, clearly differed from Nkrumah, Fanon, Mandela, and others who were prepared at some point to take up arms against colonialism. And that's notwithstanding the fact that Nkrumah (and many others) at first resorted to nonviolent resistance.
But MLK was first and foremost a preacher and a minister. Like Gandhi, he avoided political activity. He was somewhat other-worldly, but I would not say absolutely other-worldly. Some of us are better at some things than others. We cannot all do the exact same thing. Somebody has to concentrate on religious affairs. Others on statecraft. King was not a statesman. Thus he had no need to deal with the political realities that Nkrumah had to deal with.
Nkrumah was also a minister. But politics called him into a more immediate reality here on earth.
Luthuli was a minister. I think h may have become weak minded or senile in his later years. He spent his life focused on non-violence. And when the war came, he did not seem to grasp or understand what it all meant.<quoted text> The same issue happened in South Africa when the fascistic repression convinced Nelson Mandela and others that the time of nonviolence had passed, while other members of ANC and some tried to hold onto nonviolence. There was NEVER a question about whether South Africa--indeed all of Africa--needed to be liberation. The question of HOW, by what methods was an issue.