The colonized person “must wage war on both levels,” insisted Fanon.

Since historically they influence each other, any unilateral liberation is incomplete, and the gravest mistake would be to believe in their automatic interdependence.

For Fanon, attacking colonial power on one front, in other words, would not guarantee the subversion of its effects on the other. “This is why a Marxist analysis should always be slightly stretched when it comes to addressing the colonial issue,” Fanon would later write in TWotE

Here, I would argue that Fanon’s “stretching” of the Marxist paradigm constitutes one of the most innovative contributions to classical Marxist debates on ideology.

Unlike the position of, say, Georg
Lukacs, who boldly claimed in History and Class Consciousness that there is “no problem” and therefore “no solution” that does not ultimately lead back to the question of economic structure ...

Fanon revealed the ways in which those axes of domination historically relegated in Marxism to the superstructural realm—such as racism and the effects it has—could substantively configure the character of social relations relatively autonomously from capitalist economics."