"Was 'narrowing' of the fight against slavery necessary to 'think' that fighting it as a system was the answer?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i think so. slavery was and is still is institutionalized. to fight an institution requires planning and implementing whatever
agreed on actions of the fighters/people/massess/oppressed. otherwhise
the peoples actions can easily be squashed. it took over 400 years to 'officialy' abolish the
africa slave trade. so of course individuals had to narrow their approach in determining how they
were going to engage in the liberation struggle.
+++++++++++++++
I don't think your 'reason' for 'accepting the status quo' is a valid one...but I can understand wanting more detail for actual implementation... implementation can only be discussed with those actively participating.
+++++++

"true leaders generally reason with the masses of the people" posted by ras marcus here:

http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/config.pl?read=84370

+++++++++++++++++++
dont quite overs what you mean by suggesting that i accept the status quo. im not seeking details of anything that you engage in. but it can be reasoned that ideas pertainig to only sharing information to those that are 'actively participating' could be perceived as elitist and bouergois (sp), attributes that i a hope are contrary to your belief system; but attributes that are quite similar to those many might suggest are capitalist in nature
+++++++++++++++++++
regarding the statment by hon. krumah capitalism is slavery when solely defined from a uropean perspective. i am sure that we could find ones that might say the same thing about other economic/social system. there are african social
models that have some similarities in structure
as their uropean counterparts. the same could be reasoned on the development of a 'capital' social model that is not inherently linked to the accumalation of wealth and exploitation which are the primary consideration of the western model. but capital can be education/economic/natural reosurces etc, which all could be used for the development of societal infrastructure. i am not advocating for either simply reasoning on the topic at hand of unity for the masses.

+++++++++++++

Personally, one of my 'current' roles in organizing is part of the 'propoganda army', ideologically spreading info to the masses to politically educate, or as you call it 'spouting rhetoric '....lol. It's a natural role for me because my background is in education. But there are lawyers, doctors, economists, technicians, chemists, architects, military experts ect. ect., quite active in fullfilling their 'roles' and applying their expertise.
++++++++++++++++++
if your role in the propoganda army is to spread info to the masses which entails 'fighting the system' without a framework by which to organize and lead your soldiers...you will get your troops killed and or imprisoned.
++++++++++++++=
Or are you talking about a cost/benefit analysis for the few people who manage to eat some scraps off of master's table?
++++++++++++++++
if you are suggesting the "few people" who encompass the massive of the poor people of the earth then yes. there have been countless civil wars where there was revolution and hundreds of thousands died. as in most revolutions/fights against systems there is wide blood shed so a cost/benefit analysis in this scenario would be appropriate in the strategic planning of the fight.
+++++++++
Are you talking about the cost/benefit for bourgeoise individuals?
++++++
no
++++++++++++
Would you prefer to have the option/possibility under capitalism to be a rich slave while the masses continue to suffer? Some people do...
+++++++++
unfortunately many of us have that option. including you.
++++++++
Oh, also, just because people have no choice to currently participate or rather, have their labour exploited under this system, does not make them a capitalist. To be a capitalist on must have the accumulated CAPITOL that comes from the exploitation itself.
+++++++++
exploitation is the culprit of oppression not simply 'capital.'
++++++++
Only the elite who own the means of production are the capitalists. Those that are oppressed and exploited under said system are not 'capitalists'.
++++++
if someone owns a business and owns the means of production for their business but does not exploit their workers, what are they considered?
+++++++++++
You seem to have already created your opinion without information that "you personally dont think that "fighting against a capitalist" system is the answer"
+++++++++
we all have an opinion. i have presented this opinion obviously based on the information we have all shared during this reasoning. i have not suggested that i am an economist or social scientist or deeply knowledgeable about social systems. however, it can only be expected if you are communicating that most africans, (assumtion-based on the context of your words)"see liberation as being successful in a capitalist system, not fighting against said system;" its necesarry if you want your propaganda to be seriously considered and not blindly followed-- it becomes necessary to elaborate on your judgement pertaning to africans liberation tactics and your perceived judement of their unwillingness to fight.
++++++++++++++
...I don't know if you do not think it is possible, or if you are basing your opinion on your mis-informed idea that one can't 'own a buisiness' outside of a capitalist system(which is highly inaccurate). Or if you are basing your opinion on a pure lack of information and investigation of other economic/political options...You can't expect to get the answers you seek by the internet.
+++++
please detail where i stated that you cant own a business in a non capitalist system. we have ben communicating on the internet. you advocated for fighting against the system on the internet. why take issue with one questioning your proposition on the same format by which you initiated your communication?