This is absurd. My answer to Rakesh has nothing to do with his national or racial origin. I just object to his sectarian brand of politics.
Now as to the substance. Rakesh knows an awful lot, but is continuously distorting things to make ideological points. For example, when he says that self-determination might mean "bantustans," he is saying that war might mean peace, or that dictatorship might mean democracy. In other words, it is an Orwellian use of language. Among leftists and Marxists, it is well understood that bantustans are the exact opposite of self-determination. They were created by the apartheid state as internal places of exile. This is not what Lenin was referring to, nor any leftists on this list. To make this connection is a tactic to spread confusion, since the underlying point that Rakesh is making is basically quite reactionary and would be anxious to disguise: blacks should not organize themselves independently from whites since it causes "white backlash."
Rakesh, who I have gotten to know quite well as a thinker over the past four years, is an interesting combination of the most pedantic sort of academic citation-mongering and ultrasectarian Marxism. In one breath, he can cite Korsch and Postone and, in the next, crudely savage environmentalists in terms lifted from your own publication, or the Spart newspaper. I find it all quite wrong and hostile to Marxism, just as I find nearly all of your own ideas. Although I respect both of your polished writing styles and continue to be impressed with your almost computer-like recall of everything that Marx and other leftists have written. I wish my own memory was so keen.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)