gasssmash the *neo-colonial state!
The beginning of the sixties witnessed a new phase in the domination of Africa by the imperialist countries by the successful stabilisation of the neocolonial states. However it now seems far clearer that these states (in obeyance of the capitalist mode of production) are undergoing a deep crisis due to the combined effect of the world wide crisis of imperialism and the inherent factors of decomposition in neocolonialism. The real contradictions which have been masked by the sham of formal 'independence' are now emerging into the limelight. Faced witis with the rise of colonial revolution the empirical solution of the European bourgeoisie was to disrupt the classical colonial economy. They had to remodel their exploitation according to the needs of present-day capitalism. Some colonial powers accomplished this operation, successfully at minimum cost. But a few, such as tne Belgians discovered that inter-imperialist competition was intensified in the neocolonial arena, and discovered it at great personal cost. Neocolonialism cannot be said to be the "highest form of imperialist domination'. The trasformation did not usher in a new era of bourgeois rule but appears in fact to have lead to a far worse situation, in which the plunder of neocolonial countries assumed a qualitatively different form. At the same time the peril of revolution was averted. In this sense neocolonialism was not an objectively necessary form of domination. It represented above all the defeat of the African nationalist movements who were unable to make the struggle for liberation grow into a struggle against capitalism. It is precisely because the Portuguese bourgeoisie could not affect such a transformation that African Nationalism in the colonies soon went beyond the framework of the traditional reformist demands and methods of struggle. This is why today it has to confront the question of the anti-capitalist perspective of the struggle. For those reasons the neo-colonial state apparatus was condemned from its very conception. It was not a historical stage that African socięty had to go through nor was it a necessary evil due to the backwardness of the African social formation: The neocolonial state was the reflection of the new balance of forces set up between the African masses and imperialism after twenty years of anti-colonial struggles. Secondly, it expressed the balance of forces between various imperialist countries. Tha backwardness in the African 21 social fromation had assigned to the petit-bourgeoisie the indisputable role of leadership during the rise of the nationalist movement. Therefore the class nature of their organisations has quickly led to their coming back into the claws of imperialism. Though power was entrusted to the urban petit-bourgeoisie, at the end of the fifties, imperialism was cautious enough to test out its effectiveness and to eliminate beforehand its most radical elements. The weakness, perhaps indeed the absence of African capital during this period drove the imperialist countries to rely on this heterogeneous and unstable social layer. This phenomenon was so generalised that in many countries the only force of relatively cohesive bourgeois power was the army. But 'economic development' in the framework of neocolonialism was to facilitate the rise of African small capital, particularly the petit-bourgeois elements tied or integrated to state power. Before independence, there were African capitalists in few African countries. In the seventies, there took place a rapid development of autonomous capital accumulation mainly originating from the spoils of neocolonial domination, thus giving such African capital its comprador nature. The basic principle of every bourgeoisie is the drive for profit; so today these individuals are therefore seeking to interchange their masters and to take advantage of the contradictions between various imperialist powers in order to increase the crumbs left to them by imperialism. In any case, African capitalists are restricted to either marginal sectors of the economy or, in exceptional circumstançe, participate as minorities in foreign enterprises. This practice fits effectively with the plans of the imperialists who are attempting to develop a stable bourgeois class in favour of total foreign domination, Within this general tendency of the modern development of the African social formation one must note that an important action of the bureaucratic petit-bourgeoisie in some countries is not in favour of primitive capital accumulation. And, often in these circumstances they can put a fight againsi the nascent bourgeoisie. In other cases, one can find various sectors within the bourgeoisie vying for the internal market, or even fighting around long term perspectives in order to retain total control of the state. Finally, and related to this, one can observe a struggle between emergent or national petit-bourgeoisie and a foreign community which holds the monopoly of a dominant sector of the economy. The local petit-bourgeoisie then intends to ursurp the place of the foreign one. To sum up, we can distinguish the conflicts within the neocolonial state apparatus at the present stage: 1. A conflict between various bourgeois fractions cach hinging on various imperialist countries (eg. Nigeria); 22 This often implies a certain reserve of a section of the bourgeoisie vis-a-vis the mother country eg. the Malagasy Republic. 2. A conflict between the ossified bureaucratic petitbourgeoisie and an authentic section of the bourgeoisie which has emerged in the recent period. 3. A conflict between native capital and a foreign com munity eg. Uganda, Senegal. 4. A conflict caused by the wish of an important section of the bureaucratic petit-bourgeoisie and the national capitalists to change their masters and to challenge the traditional rulers of cooperation with the metropolis. But two things have to be kept in mind: on the one hand it is quite possiblé to find combined in the same country the accumulation of various contradictions: on the other hand the ethnic factor is very often a superficial expression of these conflicts in as much as it simply reflects the different positions occupied by these groups in their relationship to the capitalist market. We must also remember that the partial industrialisation effected during the neocolonial period has given given rise to a young and stable proletariat in new econonic sectors. This has altered to a large extent the social coordinates as they existed in Africa in the fifties. This modification, which most importantly expressed itself in the strike of the M' Bao Refineries in Senegal, deepens the crisis of the traditional structures; it also modifies in an indirect way the situation in the countryside and offer the vanguard new perspectives for intervention. Conversely, the evolution of the African social formation is leading to the emergence of a vanguard and weakens the propensities of traditional nationalism. This phenomenon was the result of the considerable weight on the petit-bourgeoisie atter tne second world war as against a semi-proletarian and unstable working class. Thus, the crisis of neocolonialism, the conflicts within the state apparatus and the counter-effects of the evolution of the African social formation, are all closely linked with the serious economic crisis of Black Africa and the spectacular crash by some national economies. bonapartists In such a period, therefore, it should be no surprise to see "conflicts' taking place, when the revolt of the masses and violent clashes between the various bourgeois and petit-bourgeois fractions tend to overlap simultaneously. This explains why in a few countries one can find the emergence of regimes making use of a populist language or refined nationalism and constantly harping on the string of patriotism. This is of course done to pressurise imperialism whilst breaking the organisational automonv of the masses. But these regimes are interludes, they represent at a given moment the balance of forces between the masses and imperialism, and between different bourgeois and petit-bourgeois fractions. This type of bonapartism is in no way similar to the Bonapartism of Sekou Toure's in 1960. History does not repeat itself in such exact patterns. The objective conditions which determine military reformism in Dahomy or in Malagasy Republic are very different from those which brought the left wing of the R.D.A. I to power. The social torces. that are now involved are not the same; the inclinations to compromise with imperialism are stronger given the high level of militancy displayed by the masses. Hence-the reason why they will last but for a time only to stregthen one or the other of the two decisive classes; the working class and peasant masses or imperialism The Massemba-Debat regime and that of N Gouabi in the Congo have been the first of the sort. As an expression of the contradictions of neocolonial Congo the nationalist fraction of the army elevated its demagogy to the highest level of mystification. But this famous 'Popular Republic of Congo' never severed its In fact the bonapar* links with the imperialist market. tist nature of N'Gouabi lasted only during the period of of instability between the masses and the right. So, when the Congolese bourgeoisie decided to strike a , deep blowagainst the left of the P.C.T.2, the centrist current vanished into thin air. N'Gouabi became more a a prisoner of the right, of Yhanbis and various other mercenaries. We shall bear in mind a few of the salient features from this episode: the presence of radical elements within the state apparatus and within the P.C.T., their consequent downfall and their pragmatic attempt to lead a revolutionary struggle today. tasks of vanguard Such a new political situation in many Atrican countries poses an essential problem for revolutionaries: what is to be the practice of the vanguard? What should be the correct slogans and its attitude towards the neocolonial state? For'nationalist mystifications can have a strong influence on new vanguards still under under the domination of nationalism. Indeed the M.F.M.3 and Monima in the Malagasy Republic, the Patriotic Youth League in Dahomy and Diawara and his comrades all face this problem. Besides this is also a suitable arena for discussion to dispel once and for all any illusion in nationalism as an ideology and to explain that the socialist revolution shows the only way forward. Further we have to denouce the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies who support such regimes under the pretext of the 'national state'. In this, they reject the ABC of Leninism and stab the masses right in the back. Well should revolutionaries support these regimes or not? Should they join them? Should they play one fraction of the bourgeoisie against the other? Should they trust the anti-imperialism of some sections of the bourgeoise? Indeed the answers to these questions depend very much on the elucidation of two preliminary problems; 1. Is the socialist revolution possible in Africa? 2. Can the working masses be organised on a class programme? Let us briefly go back to our starting point: the neocolonial state is the reflection of the balance of forces between the masses and imperialism as it was at the close of the sixties. As such it is the guardian . of the global interests of capitalism both on a national and an international scale against the working class and the poor peasants. Therefore support of Ramanantsoa in the Malagasy Republic or participation in the N'Gouabi regime would mean accepting that the state loses its class nature by a putsch. But those who suggest such a practice do not go far enough. They prefer to say rather that whilst retaining its bourgeois nature the particular regime offers new perspectives to 'serious anti-imperialists'. Thus we confront once more the theory of revolution by stages and the antiimperialist national front'. It would be useful first to clarify the erroneous conception which some African comrades have as regards the theory of Trotskyists of the colonial revolution. Is it true that because of its dependence on imperialism the national bourgeoisie is unable to oppose oppose in any way imperialist domination? This is obviously false. But the struggle against foreign economic domination is not an anti-capitalist struggle; it pertains to the bourgeois democratic revolution and does not involve any rupture with the capitalist mode of production. In fact anti-colonial struggles have demonstrated that a fight against foreign oppression can be waged by bourgeois layers (as the planters of the the Ivory Coast did) Of course, new forms of oppression have emerged with formal independence. But the main lesson to be drawn from a decade of neo-coionialism is that the national bourgeoise is unable to launch any process of industrialisation. Consequently, they are unable to create a local market and to acheive the longdrawn out process of forming a classical nation. Thus, Trotskyists do not deny the fact that in the imperialist epoch various national bourgeoisies can not initiate a struggle for some demands relevant to a bourgois democratic revolution. On the contrary, on various occasions we have underlined that the beginning of these struggles was conducted under the leadership of the bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie. But we are totally opposed to the myth which erects barriers between various revolutionary tasks converting them into historical stages. The theory of permanent revolution is built on the law of uneven and combined development, ie. the combination of tasks which the masses in a backward country are simultaneously faced with. This law of history results from what Lenin used to term the 'Higher Stage of Capitalism', that is, the in internaional domination of capital. Now, the national bourgeoisie is tied to imperialism through the ramifications of the world market; it is also linked with the comprador bourgeoise through the know of the local market. So when the peasant masses rise against the puppet state, against the usuries, against the comprador property owners, they attack also the invested capital of the national bourgeoisie. They thus create a revolu tionary situation where the rule of all owning classes is severely challenged. So the peasant struggles contributes to the struggle of the proletariat against the private property of the national bourgeoisie itself. These are the lessons of April 1971 and May 1972 in the Malagasy Republic. All this demonstrates how some bourgeois layers can initiate a struggle for certain demands of the bourgeois democratic revolution. But they cannot fulfill them entirely; for instance the agrarian question will remain untouched and neither will the severingof links with the world market, a necessary condition for a free national accumilation to be effected. Finally, and especially, due to its fear of the rise of the masses, and since the revolutionary process (albeit starting around nationalist demands) inevitably prompts the peasant and working masses to struggle for their own demands, the national bourgeoisie will inevitably join the camp of counter-revolution within a matter of seconds. 23 choices.. Consequently there are two choices for any African country in the grips of a continued process of struggle by the masses and by a bourgeois fraction: either the victory of counter-revolution will prevail if the bourgeoise remains at the leadership of this process in which case even the bourgeois democratic demands will not be fulfilled; or the proletariaț and its revolutionary party will have to win the hegemony over the rural and urban petit-bourgeoisie. In the latter case the socialist revolution can triumph. This means the establishnent of the dictatorship of the proletariat allied with the poor peasantry, and the combination of the tasks of the democratic revolution, and the fulfullment of the essential tasks of the proletarian rev- We therefore reject the separation between the stage of 'real independence' and the stage of "socialism'. For all these tasks are mixed together by reason of the class reality and the balance of forces between the various classes in the countries under imperialist domination. We reject too the Menshevik and Stalinist theory of revolutionary stages, not only because the national bourgeoisie is unable to bring the anti-imperialist struggle struggle to its conclusion, but also because we refuse to postpone to a later date the uprising of the workers and peasants which will unavoidably take place on a For these reasons, then, it is wrong to present the Vietnamese or Cuban revolution as a 'struggle for national liberation'. Revolutionary marxists must see in these revolutions a typical combination of the struggle for national liberation, the agrarian revolution, democratic freedoms and the class interests of the proletariat. And this is regardless of the intentions of the leaderships as the struggle unfolds. the national question But does that imply the African Trotskyists disagree with all slogans on the National Question? The answer is clearly: no. Indeed, Lenin and Trotsky have es established a clear distinction between the right of nations to self determination and the principled opposition against petit-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalists. For in the epoch of imperialism, nationalism becomes reactionary as an ideology since it is opposed to the independent organisation of the working class necessary to win the specific class objectives of the proletariat and the poor peasantry, and also the international solidarity of workers all over the world. Indeed, class struggle politics reject the concepts of' 'national solidarity' and the 'common nauonal interest' In the African countries petit-bourgeois nationalism is a narrow and restrictive substitute and hides the objective combination of national emancipation and social liberation. When bandied around by a Ramanantsoa or a N'Gouabi, it becomes a mystification in order to hinder the independent organisation of the working class. Yet between sectarianism and opportunism, revolutionary marxists should support the national struggle for the self determination of the masses together with all its linguistic, cultural and political demands; but at the same time bourgeois and petit-bourgeois nationalism should be denounced. It is necessary also to distinguish the ex-Portuguese colonies and Southern Africa from the rest of the neo colonial countries since foreign domination manifests itself differently in these two cases. But African na- 24 tionalism, whatever be its dimension does not fall outside the scope of history and must be looked at in terms of social forces. It is therefore necessary to show that to take up slogans against the neocolonial university (an example of cultural domination) is not contradictory to the struggle against petit-bourgeols nationalism, which often influences African students. Similarly one must show how agreement with the slogans for the independence of the people of Angola is is not contradictory to polemics against the nationalist illusions of a section of the M.P.L.A. (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola). This explains why we denouce the cooperation treaties between France and the Malagasy Republic and demands that the French pull out of Diego whilst at the same time denouncing the regime of Ramanantsoa and the A. F.K.M.4 Once again it is immaterial whether these individuals succeed or fail in making Bigesand leave or seyering colonial links with France. For more important is the capacity of the working and peasant masses to win struggles hinging on these national demands and also on the social ones. Why should we not do so when it is-objectively possible to go beyond bourgeois democratic demands? In the present historical period, to stay within the limits of nationalist slogans represents an immense degree of danger of being absorbed back into neo-colonialism National democratic demands must be raised in ones revolutionary propaganda. In the Malagasy Republic for example, faced with the danger of regionalist divisions because of the political confrontations between sections of the bourgeoisie one must advance a body of anti-capitalist slogans to unite the workers of the Plateau with those of the sea coast. One must also organise the self-defence of the workers against the fascist thugs controlled by Belaunay and Resampa. utopia It is not true that nationalist demands can not be met by the bourgeoisie or even by imperialism. Some militants also propose a united front ... under the pretext that N' Gouabi and co. will be outflanked. This is sheer utopia. It could have been possible if the working class had won political and organisational hegemony over a mass movement; that is, in the last analysis, if the Marxist revolutionary vanguard had won hegemony. But in the present conditions in Africa today, this would be naive triumphalism if one takes into account the tremendous weakness of the African vanguard. Further there is also a risk that the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie will buy off the mass movements. The ways to achieve this are diverse. It can take the form of nationalisation without workers control thus allowing the bureaucratic petit-bourgeoisie to accumulate private capital e.g. Congo. It can also take the form of rupture of all links with French imperialism whilst wheeling and edealing with another imperialist country e.g. Dahomey. But should revolutionaries consider these manoeuvres as a lesser evil? No! History has taught us that these victories of the mass movement do not last long. Too soon, these nationalist generals and populist governments would launch an onslaught on the workers to stabalise bourgeois power. As for the workers, they see things differently and our nationalists of yesterday would soon join the side of reaction to quash popular unrest. Besides should they vacilate for any reason, imperialism will just sweep them away to protect its long term interests before it is too late. Yet imperialism can very well allow some regimes to undermine so some-of its interests provided these reforms would guarantee social rest in the long run and the real economic links are maintained. Good examples of this are that of French imperialism in the Congo and US imperialism in Peru. Let us then get rid, once and for all, of all illusions about national fronts, the anti-imperialist national bourgeoisie, or of critical support to a reformist military regime. A stop must be put to the myth of national homogeneity against imperialist penetration. On the contrary, the latter intensifies class struggles and deepens social differences. The national 'community' opposed to imperialism is a handful of local lackeys and a fairy-tale to trap nationalists from the petitvourgeoisie. In fact this belief has been popularised by the Maoist concept of primary and secondary contradictions. And this very same concept led the Palestinian resistance to suffer the bloody defeat by the armies of their 'Arab Brothers' It remains now to state precisely what are the tasks of revolutionaries. Many militants agree in principle with the Trotskyist movement, but lo not traslate this this agreement into practice. To many of these the cultural and political backwardness of African masses seem to pose an insoluble problem: how can one talk to an illiterate peasant about socialism? How to org anise the struggle given the verocity of imperialist oppression? Two answers, each one related to the other must be given....build the revolutionary vanguard party on the one hand, and on the other hand have a class programme equipped with slogans which can raise the level of the consciousness of the masses. It is no easy task nor is it an intellectual exercise to structure the vanguard with a common theoretical framework. Indeed the conditions in which struggles are unfolding in the imperialist epoch, the need to provide a concrete answer to each concrete situation, the necessity to understand the dynamics of the political situation on the international plane in order to grasp the balance of forces, the duty to state very clearly ones position as regards the various tendencies in the international workers movement compel African revolutionary marxists, as all others, to start building as of' now a vanguard organisation based on a clear and unambiguous programme. For no heterogeneous political formation can survive for more than a few months in the conditions of struggle in neo-colonial Africa. This incidently explains why there is no national agreement against imperialism. But it is useless to scream about division as some do, as soon as one of their own cadres expresses a precise point of view on some problem, especially if it is in the mass organisations like that of FEANS. In fact the lack of a thorough debate caused by the explosive situation compells everybody to express their position clearly on strategy and tactics; this is absolutely necessary given the political context of Africa. Therefore, it is no surprise that the main tendencies of the workers movement appear again in these conditions. Nationalists, neo-Stalinists, and revolutionary marxists confront each other more and more. In order to structure the vanguard, revolutionary marxists must be able to intervene in the masses as a compact force without capitulating to the petitbourgeois or opportunist pressures resulting from economic and cultural oppression: In addition, revolutionary marxists must equip themselves with the methods of clandestine operations, link all the strug! gles together and prepare for the confrontation. A vanguard organisation, must pledge itself to the building of the revolutionary party with an implantation in the masses. It must also assume the role of political and military leadership in the revolutionary period. If no distinction is drawn between a mass organisation and a vanguard one and if no strict procedure is observed about recruitment, the security of other militants will be very quickly endangered. So will the clarity of the political line. Opportunist deviations will also emerge very quickly. Indeed failure to organise the vanguard in a rigorous way and distinct from the mass movement befits only populists ("we trust the masses"). This betrays a total misunderstanding of the situation of these masses under imperialist domination. It is equivalent to pretiyfying' the realtiy of the neocolonial situation. Thus the vanguard properly organised must fulfill its key task before the pre-revolutionary crisis. It must raise the consciousness of the masses and educate the workers politically. Hence it is incorrect to say: 'We cannot do anything because the masses do not understand us." For this would imply that the hasses would gradually educate themselves and gradually grasp the necessity to struggle in order to join the vanguard. On the contrary, the masses will never attain any revolutionary consciousness if the vanguard does not intervene in the class struggle. This is a lesson from history ab out which Marx and Lenin had theorised a long time ago. Lenin in fact, polemicised against Kautsky when the latter failed to understand the need for revolutionary intervention. Lenin, on the other hand, understood how revolutionary initiative can alter the balance ot forces. It is obvious that the global situaion is determined by concrete objective conditions. But the task of the revolutionary party is precisely to alter these conditions in favour of a proletarian revolution and not to adapt to the present situation. This is the only way by which the party can avoid opportunism or adventurism and these are the two main dangers facing revolutionaries if they do not understand the relationship between the vanguard and the masses. In these conditions it is imperative for African rev. olutionary Marxists to formulate a series of slogans which appeal to the masses at their present level of consciousness and which can lead them through struggles until they finally become aware of the need for proletarian revolution. Therefore a series of transitional slogans which include demands of a bourgeois democratic nature and also class demands will avoid isolation among the different sectors and will accelerate the growth of a revolutionary consciousness. Such a transitional programme will accentuate the mistrust of the masses of petit-bourgeois leaders and nationalist mystifications about the army. It will help to recruit the most radical elements from the working class, peasantry and the student milieu. It will help in the intervention in the villages by taking out the day to day problems of the African peasant. It will at the same time propel some revolutionary peasants to initate a 'cultural revolution' by intervening around the programme. By stating clearly that one is strictly towards a class society and that power should be handed over 25 to workers councils and to the peasants and that work ers only should control the national economy in a democratic way, can only alienate petit-bourgeois nationalists from the vanguard. Who cares for these half-baked Kerenskys still dazzled by the classical European bourgeois state? Today, the key problem is to transform the subjective factor and to level it with the objective ones which are keeping the African revolution in effervescence. The subjective factor is still very underdeveloped and was absent in May 1968 and May 1972 in the Malagasy Republic. For illusions in reformism, gradualism or nationalism will still refain some degree of strength so long as African revolutionaries have not displayed their efficiency and dedication. In the present conjuncture under the combined upsurge of popular strugglěs and crisis within the neocolonial state apparatus, anti-imperialist militants run the danger of falling straight into the trap of rightist opportunism. For belief in the bourgeois democratic stage always ends up in implicitly or explicitly This stagist supporting a reformist military regine. conception of anti-imperialist struggle is the product of petit-bourgeois nationalism. Disregarding the pol. itical and national realities in the epoch of imperialism. the setting up of a bourgeois democratic state is looked upon as the conclusions of the struggle. Or, still it is the product of the Stalinist or neo-Stalinist theory according to which one should struggle for the stage of national democracy whilst socialism is postponed to to the Greek Calendar! In any case these two conceptions are often confused. In the PAI6 Senegal, for example, one can easily discern a neo-Stalinist approach on the part of the leadership whilst recruitment is affected largely on a nationalist. basis. The slogans are sufficiently confusing so as to please everybody. We are here concerned with military reformist regimes i.e. governments which are the outcome of an unstable situation within the native bourgeoisie Two exa:nand in their relationship with imperialism. ples will be very useful: Dahomey's revolutionary government and the N'Gouabi regime of the Congo. In both these cases, reformist myths exercise a strong prepressure over radicalised elements. In fact it was stronger than any seriods analysis on the neocolonial state apparatus and social formation could have anticipated. 26 On the 31 October 1972 the Ligue Nationale de la Jeunesse Patriotique (LNJP) wrote an open letter to the military revolutionary government which had just seized power in Dahomey. In its opening sentence the LNJP stated its conception of the Dahomeyan social formation: "except for a few profiteers and businessmen grafted to the old regime in order to enrich themselves, the coup d'etat of the 26 October was generally welcomed by the Dahomian public opinion. The proclamation and the formation of the new government were also welcomed. A 'handfull' of people as opposed to 'public' opinion! Once more we see the age old concept of 'whole nation' against imperialism. Are we quoting in good faith? Yes, for in the next page one can read this thing everybody can be sure of - it is entirely up to you the government, to transform the power which was seized by arms into a broad popular power, into a really revolutionary force against which every foreign power and every imperialist country will be Is this nationalism or not? Yes, since this famous 'national' and democratic revolution that the LNJP calls for, will be created by a revolutionary council for national salvation' andy by the 'political conference of the people'. The latter was set up by the military government and composed partly of delegates from mass organisations and partly of nominees from the army and police. Sincere militants who today are clinging to this caricature of 'anti-imperialist strategy" should quickly realise their mistake as they realise that they have to accommodate themselves to the bourgeois state apparatus and are forced into a - course of ultra opportunism. If not it means that they they are unable to understand the root causes of the regimes demagogy. As a second example we will consider the attitude of the left in the Congo towards the leadership of the PCT?. On the 2nd April 1972 we wrote the following in the Trotskyist magazine 'Quatriemme Internationale' about the strategy of Diawara and that of his comrades within the PCT: 'This reformist and gradualist strategy can not but lead to the same bloodbath as in Indonesia and in the Sudan. N'Gouabi has stepped in the shoes of Massemba Debat only in as much as he has favoured "normalisation". But he has gradually eliminated the Left. The latter sensing imminent defeat wanted to redress the situation by a putsch thus displaying their political desperation. To have hoped that the masses will politicise themselves when in fact their mobilisation was being made more difficult, means a failure to understand that the workers receive their best political education in the course of and by the struggles. 'The masses do not become antiimperialist spontaneously. Revolutionary marxists must advance their struggle and base themselves on the day to day fight against the bosses...the politics of the Left were leading to an impasse. In failing to situate their own struggle alongside that of the revolutionaries in Cameroon the left of the PCT had a narrow nationalist outlook, it proved its reformism rather than Marxism/Leninism. In the Congo as anywhere else in Africa, victory can only be achieved if one transcends the national boundaries erected by imper- A lew weeks later a self-criticism of the militants of • of tie M22 ( Movement of the 22 Feburary 1972) was being circulated around in the Congo. Interestingly enough one could read the same assesments; this is why the 22 February is the sanction of history for a series of wrong and bloody actions taken paradoxically in the name of the "revolution", clear criticisn is made of the loss of autonomy of the vanguard since 1943, of the lack of revolutionary work among the masses at the expensé of support and later participation in state power. There was also a criticism made of the subjectivism that led to the proclamation of socialism in 1964 at the PCT's congress and of the blanquism that led to the putsch. We are reminded that the Congolese state remains a bourgeois state and that the correct policy for the vanguard is to destroy it. The M22 comrades write the following: "The African state, in general, is often but a junior partner of the metropolitan capitalist state. It also at times prepresents the peak of the representatives of tribal power. The ques. tion of the state apparatus is a key problem for all those who wish to fight against imperialism and for independence. When we analyse the downfall of N'Krumah in Ghana we realise that the greatest mistake of this great militant was not to have smashed the state apparatus. Africa has no other choice...intergration (entryism) was nothing but the transfer of arms from revolution to counter-revolution; it was an act of liquidation. It means nothing to speak of the school of the people, of popular culture of a new type of army, of an independent economy, nothing will change as long as reaction wields, its most powerful weapon -- the state apparatus". This was a rich balance sheet. Yet we do not think that the M22 represents African marxism for as we shall see later, many points still remain obscure in this self criticism, particularly the reasons for the defeat of April 1973. However Diawara's and his comrades selfcriticism does constitute a new and sharp polemic on the nationalist government. Seen from this angle, we think that Diawara's switch to the guerilla warfare and the consequent regroupment of the urban movement especially in the high schools have infused the anti-imperialist movement with a knew dynamism. Such a process is taking place when the reformist image of the regime is being eroded and giving way to a more classical reactionary police state. We can not endorse totally the self criticism of the M22 comrades and regard them as having a clear political programm. We will not take up here every single ambiguity in their text. Yet one point has to be made. It concerns the three essential coordinates that the M22 proposes for an anti-imperialist struggle. They are; (a) a proletarian organisation tied to the masses, (b) an army led by this organisation and (c) a united front of classes and revolutionary groups (anti-imperialist front). Somewhere else in their text the comrades add that the army is subordinate to the organisation. Nothing further is said about the organisation of the proletariat. We are not claiming that the M22 has no opinion on this question. Yet it is significant that this point is not clearly explained when indeed the key problem is in fact the structuring of the vanguard, of its programmatic relationship to the masses. The self criticism played an important role in crystallising the urban movement; we realise that it was not meant as a programmatic declaration, however it is clear that even for the M22 it had more importance than a mere communique. Accordingly we will point out one of its flaws. There is no theorisation of the process of building the party; instead we notice an empirical approach when this question is treated! Secondly, is this "army led by the organisation" an armed wing of the organisation or an armed mass movement? These are not mere minor impressions. From Tchad to Erythrea, from the attempts of the PAlat the beginning of the sixties to the Simbas in the Congo-Kinsasha, the question of revolutionary violence has been trcated in ditterent ways. Sometimes the consequence have been disastrous. In view of the lack of clarificaiton on this point, we are afraid that the M22, though it quite correctly denounces. Blanquism, has itself taken a blanquist line. The last point is one the question of the united front of all classes, which is to be the anti-imperialist front. Such a formulation comes as a real surprise since it is not preceded by any analysis of the Congolese sucial formation. More surprising does it sound when we recall that participation in the Government and in the PCT was justified as a strategy in the name of the "anti-imperialist united front". . Which then are the classes likely to participate in a united front led by the proletarian organisation? What is the necessity for this front? No answer is provided. Is it the myth of the national bourgeoisie which comes back throught the window after having left through the door? The daily experiences of the world revolution vindicate fully the theory of permanent revolution. Equally, experiences show that frontist strategies always end up in a bloodbath in favour of imperialism. Thus, many organisations, in their attempts to reconcile fire and water seek to theorise their practice whilst at the same time clinging to stalinist or traditional nationalist schemas. An example is the revolutionary committee of the UPC7, which claims to be the revolutionary party. Whilst stating clearly that the working class is the revolutionary class, they still call for the creation of an united front for the formation of a "provisional government based on popular and national unity following the negotiations between the UPC and other progressive forces". . In another statement (12,4.72) they claim to strive towards a "new democstalinism? Do we then make a distinction between nationalism and stalinism? Why do we polemicise both agaisnt the PAI and the LNJP as they do not have the same history and the same strategy? The answer is simple: in the African reality there seems to be an implicit convergence of the gradualist stalinist concepts and the stalinist ones. For the stalinists, the main emphasis is to stick to the traditions of the last years of the Third International, which aimed at maintaining the status quo in the world. For the nationalists, the conclusion of the struggle should be a bourgeois state that represents the aspirations of the urban petit-bourgeoisie. This programmatic affinity is centered around a whole series of vulgar nationalist econcepts. That explains why neo-stalinists take up nationalist themes in an opportunistic manner. Did not the French Communist Party, greatly admired by the PAI, support for years the RDA and Houphet-Boigny? Does not the PCF still to-day support the AFFM8 the representative of the Merinas bourgeoisie in the Malagasy Re- This is easily explicable. Given its incapacity to build a real African stalinist movement (which would have required an implantation in the African working class), stalinists have had to fall back on the notorious "anți-imperialist classes and layers". Yet, this does 27 not mean that the PAl is a classical stalinist organisation It represents a junction where the foreign policy of the PCF and the interests of the urban nationalist layers meet. We believe it extremely important to polemicise with with organisations like the PAl and the LNJP. At a time when the African revolution is gaining its second momentum, we believe it to be our task to point out the choices involved. Are we all for the socialist revolution or for a caricature of revolution? In the years to come, the young African generation will be preoccupied with the debate on the revolutionary strategy and the construction of a revolutionary party. At the end of this debate, the political arena in Africa must have undergone a profound change; there must emerge in a few countries revolutionary organisations; they are indispensable for victory. But it would be utopian to expect "pure" revolutionary organisations, immune to deviations in a continent which has been for so long racked by imperialism, dominated by nationalism as the mobilising ideology of the mass movement. That is why the debate must continue, however sharp! The present period is a decisive one for the African Revolution. The sol-. idarity and support of the European anti-imperialist movement must be assured. Yet, in the last analysis, only their day-to-day practice will distinguish authentic revolutionaries from the petit-bourgeoisie. That is why we fraternally salute the struggle fof the conrades of the MFM in Malagasy Republic. They identify themselves as participants "in the struggle for the construction of a State, an economy and a Society under the leadership of the revolutionary proletarian masses". These comrades publicly say: "It is up to the workers to decide the use and the distribution of the product of their labour. The revolutionary proletarian masses will lead the people of the Malagasy Republic in their revolution" . The struggles that took place in 1971 and in 1972 are now beginning to bear their fruits. The MFM, which propagandises the necessity for the workers to take power, to exproprate both French and national capitalists, constitutes á revolutionary pole which contributes to the process of ideological clarification and of construction of the revolutionary narty. This article has attempted to deal with the petitbourgeois military regimes of Africa and has at the same time taken up the debate between revolution by stages and socialist revolution. It has also taken up the organisational conclusions that flow from such a debate. Only if marxists acknowledge the actuality of the revolution as the determining tendency of the epoch will this debate be correctly decided. This does not mean that we believe that seizure of state power is'immediately on the agenda in every African country. But it does mean that all the work and the struggles of the vanguard must aim in this 28 direction since on the international level, the struggle between the world proletariat and the international bourgeoisie blocks out the possibility of any classical bourgeois democratic revolution. Contempt for marxist revolutionary theory breeds disastrous consequences, It leads inevitably to an abandonment of a proletarian outlook and ultra-opportunist practice. historical task The new African revolutonary generation has an immense historical task. It has to confront the deep crisis of neocolonialism and the failures of all reformist experiences ranging from Tanzania to the Congo. It has to confront the betrayals both of the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies. It must assume the task of building revolutionary parties that will lead the African masses to the seizure of state power and to the construction of a socialist society. It must denounce the nationalists and the stalinist who superimpose the myth of "The Nation" on the reality of social classes. There cannot be any revolutionary movement without any revolutionary theory! In the coming years the African revolutionary marxists have to address them seives: to the following decisive tasks: to structure the vanguard forces, to provide them with a precise theoretical framework, to link it with the traditions of the world working class movement and to equip it with a series of slogans that advance the struggles of the workers and peasants. we cannot afford any confusion on these questions. If we do we will miss what is most important: the increased possibility today of smashing the neocolonial state. a bourgeois state! NSIRUGG 1. RDA…..... Rassemblement Democratique African African Democratic Regroupment 2. PCT......Parti Congolais du Travail Congolese Labour Party 3. MFM…...untranslatable into European languages means "Power to the small ones' 4. AFKM.. untranslatable Malagalese party (like MFM) 5. FEANF... Federation des etudients noir en France Federation of Black African students in France 6. PAL......Parti Africain pour l'independence African Party for Independence 7. UPC...... Union of the Peoples of Cameroon 8. AFFM... untranslatable Malagasy party like MFM C. Gabriel Name: Address: PORTUGAL SPAIN TOWARDS THE IBERIAN SOCIALIST REVOLUTION INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP PAMPHLET PRICE 20p Available from RED BOOKS, 97 Caledonian.Rd., London N.1. price 20p + 8p p&p THE ARAB REVOLUTION New IMG pamphlet containing translation of documents by Fourth International organisations in the Arab world. Available from RED BOOKS, 97 Caledonian Road, London N.1. price 30p & 6p p&p DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE IMG? Write to: IMG, 97 Caledonian Road, London NI Write to: RED WEEKLY (Distribution), 182 Pentonville Rd., London N1, England. RED WEEKLY NO TO ANY RED WEEKLY Basque militants face death penalty Name: Address: SOCIAL CONTRACT DEMONSTRATION Save their lives! *Bloody lip Subscription rates: Inland: £6 per year; £3 per six months. WEEKLY PAY-CUT PLAN by the F RED SLabour WEEKLY DEFEND THE ¿PORTUGUESE REVOLUTION SUBSCRIBE Overseas: £9 per year (surface); £12 per year (air). Amount enclosed: INSIDE - Jean-Pierre SMASH WILSON'S Beauvais reports from Chile (p.9) Britain will vin UNDER A STOLEN With BANNER 222 DEMONSTRATION SUBSCRIBE! ******* To soldiers, working people, revolutionary forces, and and progressives! The Portuguese revolutionary process has reached a decisive point. The imperialist system, victim of the the general crisis of its mode of rule in the world, cannot tolerate the advance of the revolution to victory in Portugal. It cannot tolerate the system of capitalist exploitation and the power of the bourgeoisie being destroyed in Portugal, for that would mean a heavy defeat for imperialism, after the defeats inflicted by the extraordinary victory of the peoples of Indochina. In the present phase, all the principal contradictions of the comination of imperialism are concentrating in Europe and in the Mediterranean zone. That is why the development of the revolution in Portugal - which has its roots in particular in the liberation struggle of the peoples of the colonies finds the possibility of victory in the crisis that is racking this system of division and domination of the world, which assured stability in the West after the war. Portugal poses the struggle for the right of peoples to decide their own destiny free of any economic, political, or military interference from imperialist powers as one of primary importance in Europe. It is only in the workers struggles and in the deepening of the class struggle in Europe that the Portuguese revolution can find decisive support against any attempt at the normalisation that the bourgeoisie, national and international, wants to impose. We also ask that internationalist solidarity with Portugal be developed along with the broadest possible mobilisations against all imperialist manoeuvres in The struggle for total liberation and for the Angola. victory of the only revolutionary and national force in Angola, the MPLA, must be developed parallel ***********************» Africa in struggle Send to: 'Africa in Struggle', London N1. An International Marxist Group ' Africa Cominission' Publication Typesetting and layout by F.l. Litho Ltd., 182, Pentonville Road, London NI. Printed by Prestgate Ltd., Reading, Berkshire. *A*A