Abstract This paper compares Harry Haywood’s, James S. Allen’s, and W. E. B. Du Bois’s interpretations of Reconstruction and its relationship to their political and social projects. By comparing their approaches, we gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between race and democracy, the political significance of Reconstruction, and reading Black history. The difference between their readings of Reconstruction was in Allen and Haywood’s belief in a Marxist, stagist teleology and Du Bois’s belief in a more open, contingent temporality. Allen’s and Haywood’s stagist approach attempted to complete Reconstruction’s unfinished revolution by establishing the right to self-determination. Skeptical of the revolution needed for self-determination, Du Bois instead proposed that Black people should follow Reconstruction through economic cooperation. Black people would create a consumer cooperative movement that would help them secure democratic control within the confines of segregation. However, Haywood’s and Allen’s approach critiques the faulty non-violent presupposition within Du Bois’s program.
Pritish Das (Tue,) studied this question.