'AFRICAN SOCIALISM'
Perhaps the best known exponent of African Socialism is Julius Nyerere. Nyerere's declared purpose of building in Tanzania a new form of socialism, one based on the traditional attitude of mind of the African; a socialism not preceeded by class struggle but stemming trom the united actions of all; a socialism not led by the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry but one led, prescribed, and engineered by the bureaucratic petty-bourgeoisie; these ideas have made Nyerere propably the number one heart- Nyerere's obvious attraction to petty-bourgeois Western romantist and twentieth century philanthropists is at this point of little importance, what is important is the effect that the kind of moralist nationalist orientated anti-revolutionary Marxist mystifications propagated by Nyerere and others like him, can and does have on sections of the African petty-bourgeoisie who are potential allies of the African masses, particularly those abroad — isolated from the class struggles prevalent in all African neo-colonies. The objective and subjective appeal of nationalist rhetoric should not be underestimated, particularly where it advances progress-sounding easy solutions to the socio-politico-economic predictions of African societies, especially solutions that ascribe the African petty-bourgeoisie leading positions within these societies. 14 throb of liberals and social democrats throughout the Western world. The determinant factors for the implementation of Tanzania'a supposed socialist strategy of development was less Nyerere's utopian socialist orientation than the consequence of both external and internal pressures on T.A.N.U. Economically impotent and politically weak, confronted by the problems of economic development and the social/economic expectations of the masses who had actively supported the nationalist movement during the struggle for political independence, the new Tanzanian ruling elite was very insecure. Like their counterparts in other newly independent African states, Tanzania's newly invested political elite had to consolidate its position if it hoped to survive. It's greatest fears were not necessarily related to external forces, but those stemming from the revolutionary potential of the indigenous working masses. For instance, following independence the relationship between the government and the unions was less than cordjal, the Jatter pressed for rapid African isation and demanded better living standards for workers, and were partly successtul in pushing up wage rates. The government's answer was the Trade Disputes (Settlement) Act, which made strikes illegal, In 1964 the existing thirteen trade unions in Tanganyika (Tanzania) were dissolved by the government by legislation, instead the umbrella union organisation, the National Union of Tanganyika Workers, was created with its officials nominated by the government. Today the N.U.T.A. is the sole union organisation in Tanzania. Having attained formal political power T.A.N.U. was confronted with the problems of economic development - the question was, development with what? Tanzania has not the resources to be an attractive proposition for foreign private capital. Following independence the government made efforts to attract foreign capital; for instance, with the aim of acquiring investors and retaining those already existing, the government passed an act of Parliament protecting foreign investments. But nevertheless foreign investors were not forthcoming. In fact, between independence and 1966 there was a net outflow of private tong-term capital From Tanzania_ Unable to attract the required foreign invéstments, Tanzania based its development on another source of foreign finance. In its first Five Year Plan, the government projected a total government expenditure of sh. 2,040m and it envisaged that 78% of this would be financed from foreign aid. This heavy relaince on foreign aid proved to be totally unrealistic. By the end of the plan period total government expenditure barely reached sh. 1800m of which only a third came from foreign finance (loans approx sh. 560m and grants approx sh. 40m). Admittedly Tanzania lost a substantial amount of aid due to her external policies: lost sh. 150m in aid as a consequence of, firstly WHY? breaking diplomatic relations with Britain as a result of which the latter cancelled a £7½m interest-free loan, and secondly its reluctance to capitulate to the political demands of West Germany's Hallstein Doctrine. IN TANZANIA Aware of the difficulties of obtaining sufficient foreign investments and aid, the Tanzanian government was forced to seek an alternative approach to development. For three days in February 1967 the National Executive Committee of T.A.N.U. met at Arusha to discuss and formulate a new strategy for development. The outcome of the meeting was the 'Arusha Declaration', a document that epitomises Tanzania's path to socialism. Basically the Declaration acknowledged the inability of Tanzania at attracting sufficient foreign finance, its over riding emphasis was the imperative need for self-reliance and the crucial part to be played by T.A.N.U. in providing the leadership necessary for the attainment of the country's socialist objective; it called for the nationalisation of the major means of production, but this did not mean an exclusion of foreign private investment - foreign investors were welcomed but as minority partners in joint ventures with the government. The declaration stated; 'Our aim is to make foreign investors feel that Tanzania is a good place in which to invest because investments would be safe and profitable, and the profits can be taken out of the country without difficulty. We expect to get money through this method. But we cannot get enough,' NATIONALISATION In pursuance of the Arusha Declaration a programme of nationalisation was launched in 1967. The programme affected al enterprises "commanding heights of the economy". All banks were nationalised, during one week twenty-four companies were nationalised and the government took a controlling interest in seven others. Nationalisation, although posed in socialist terms, was not anticapitalist nor did it involve a complete break with international capitalism. Basically, what it meant was that ownership and control of a large sector of the economy was bought by the ruling class, giving them a base in the economy, something they desperately lacked before. Throughout their programme of nationalisation Full and Fair' compensations were offered to all former owners. The paying of compensation of any sort cannot be in the interest of the masses. Firstly, paying compensation can only further indebit the already impoverished workers and peasants, whose economic state is the direct consequence of the brutal exploitation by imperialism, and secondly, to pay compensation is to implicitly, if not explicitiv accept the bona fide ownership by the bourgeoisie of the means of production and resources of production and in a way vindicate imperialist exploitation and economic plunderings of the labour and land of the oppressed masses: — it is, in short, a betrayal of the masses. The transformation of the social relations of capital means the complete displacement of the bourgeoisie, without any form of compensation. But it is not too difficult to understand why the Tanzanian petty bourgeoisie, like their counterparts in other African countries, paid compensation to the imperialists, who had not only historically exploited the colonial peoples but had underdeveloped their economies. The payment of compensation is one way by which the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie can attain a measure of ownership and control of their economy without breaking their historical relationship with international capitalism. The relationship between Tanzania, as a peripheral, and the West, as centres of international capitalism, was maintained in other ways. Whereas in Kenya, imperialism maintained its hold over the economy through direct ownership of capital, in Tanzania imperialism maintained a pervasive influence over the economy through managerial control. Although nationalisation brought majority ownership into the hands of the bureaucratic petty bourgeoisie, control remained largely within the hands of foreign capitalist management. For instance, many of the former foreign owners entered into managerial agreements with the government and parastatal holding companies, and where the management were replaced was almost always with new management partners from Western capitalist countries. In addition the government and parastatal sectors extensively use Western management consultants; Loxley and Saul (1) give the example of the American company, McKinsey, a company well known amongst business circles in the West for their conservative approach to management. Another factor serving to keep Tanzania within the orbit of international capitalism is the training of her parastatals' managerial personnel, many of whom are trained in western business schools and companies. This means that the techniques and approach to management of these capitalist trained managerial personnel is bourgeois oriented, one compatible with capitalist structure and system of production. The ethos, elitism and aims of capitalist managerial systems are irreconcilable with socialist development. Nationalisation is not an automatic path to the socialisation of the means of production. Nationalisation has been a trend in many neo-colonial states in Africa, and it is one which will increase as a consequence of the Insecurity of African petty bourgeois regimes, the pressures from anti-imperialist movements and the aspiring national bourgeoiste and petty bourgeoisie on the state to indigenous ownership of the economy. These same forces have forced also the neo-colonial states to introduce measures designed to-make it increasingly more difficult for foreign companies to transfer profits and dividends to the metropolitan companies. This is not only true for self-declared socialist orientated states like Tanzania, but also for those states like Nigeria, who exhibit little delusions of socialist development. An important development which should be kept in mind in considering the absolute value of the indigenisation of the means of production are the changes in the pattern of international capitalist economy. Imperialist direct economic investment in Africa, although still very high, will decrease substantially as its investments become less and less secure and the outflow of its profits and dividends become more restricted. The pattern of imperialist investment will tend to focus on joint ventures with the government and parastatals as minority partners. This pattern is already evident, not only in Tanzania but also in many other African countries. These changes in the economic relationship between the metropolitan countries and the neo-colonies have not only been endangered by developments within the neo-colonies, but also reflect the transformations of the world capitalist economy and the international movement of capital. "The main flow of capital export is no longer from the metropolitan countries into the colonies but between the metropolitan states themselves. In the underdeveloped countries the emphasis of foreign investment has shifted from the pure production of raw materials to the manufacture of consumer goods." (Mandel "Late Capitalism' NI.B) •Today, imperialist domination and • oitation of co. nial and semi-colonial economies is not primarily a function of direct foreign ownership of these countries' means of production but that of unequal exchange rate between the metropolitans and the colonies and semi-colonies. As Mandel points out in the chapter Neo- Colonialism and Unequal Exchange' (Late Capitalism) *Unequal exchange henceforth will be the main form of colonial exploitation, the direct production of colonial surplus-profit will play a secondary role." Samir Amin estimated that the volume of losses incurred by the colonies and semi-colonial countries as a result of unequal exchange was approximately S 22 billion a year in the mid 60's. This sum, as Mandel points out, can be compared with a total gross income of $12 billion from private foreign capital investments in 1964. Imperialism is able to accrue such high super-profits from unequal exchange because the colonial and semi-colonial economies are tied to international capitalism and to the world capitalist market. For instance, in 1968 over 75% of the total of Africa's foreign trade was with the major centres of international capitalism. Although Tanzania has a substantial trade link with China, her economy is still very much tied to the world capitalist market trade with the international centres of capitalisin still very much dominates her foreign trade. With such high super-profits accruing from unequal exchange rates it becomes vital for imperialism to maintain neo-colonial regimes which, not only protect imperialist investments but also those that will ensure the continued existence of the neo-colonies as peripherals of international capitalism. There is oniy one solution for the masses of the neo-colonies, whose perpetual poverty and exploitation is ensured by the coninuation of the present politico economic relationship between its business and political elite and western capitalism, and that is to break all links with international capitalism. This cannot be achieved merely by indigenizing ownership, the question is not one of replacing European capitalists with African ones, but the complete displacement of the bourgeoisie, whether in black, yellow or white skin. Only the African proletariat in alliance with the advanced sections of the peasantry are finally capable of doing this. Ujamaa for the poor, land for the rich. Probably Tanzania's experiment in the building of socialism is best known by its policy of "ujamaaisation". The policy of ujamaa is basically an attempt to structure agricultural communities at the base of the Tanzanian system, through which the peasants themselves will be able to transform their reality by building self-reliant communities. That this policy has so far failed is reflected in the measure of success that the ujamaaisation programme has had since its implementation in 1967. So far only about one million peasants have been incorporated into ujamaa villages. This means à residual of approximately 12 million to be ujamaaised. The Tanzanian petty bourgeoisie having realised the apparent failures of its major policy has become desperate and have altered their approach to the implementation of ujamaa, from a position where the move ment by peasants into ujamaa villages was voluntary it became compulsory. Now the whole peasant population must be in ujamaa villages by 1976. The tactics of TANU cadres have increasingly beer marked by force - villages have been attacked and crops burnt. Even with these gangster politics it has become clear, even to the TANU leadership, that the 1976 target is totally unrealistic. Those peasants who have, so far, been moved into ujamaa villages have come from the lower stratum of the peasantry, people with little or no land. Virtually no attempt has been made to carry out the policy in the North and North West of the country where the wealthiest and most capitalistic farmers are to be found. Where attempts have been made to incorporate the rich peasants into ujantaa villages these have been fiercely resisted for obvious economic reasons. What has become apparent is the alliance of interest between the middle and rich peasants (kulaks) and the bureaucrats whereby the latter secures the economic interests of the former by protecting their lands from the ujamaa programme, while the former secures the political positions of the latter by landing their powerful political backing. The ujamaa villages as they now exist are a far cry from the original concept of ujamaa as conceived by Nyerere. Very little has been done towards the setting up of co-operative farming. It seems that the main object of the TANU bureaucrats is to herd poor rural people into physical structures - i.e. to create villages out of the present scattered peasantry. Of course, this may make the provision of social and auxiliary services and utilities cheaper to set up - but this is not socialism, it ignores its very bases i.e. the socialisation of production. Aside from the inadequacies of the Tanzanian leadership, the failures of the country's rural and agricultural policies is very much related to the strangling hold of the capitalist market on the neocolonial economies. These economies are largely orientated to ex- 16 ports of primary products, which means that as a consequence of unequal exchange, these economies exchange increasing quantities of indigenous labour (or the produce of labour) for a constant amount of metropolitan labour (or the product of labour). The effect of this is that firstly; for the individual peasant this means that while the product of his labour increases his returns change negligeably, in fact with falls in the world prices as was the case with sisal (Tanzania's largest export), his returns in fact decrease. All in all the peasant's economic conditions do not improve at any rate comparable with the increases in his economic production. Secondly, these economies cannot accrue sufficient surplus-product to attempt adequately the solving of their agrarian problems and the launching of full-scale industrialisation. Thirdly, unable to industrialise at a necessary pace, dependent upon single or twoproduct production most of which leaves the country in the form of exports, which means very little or no savings, these neo-colonies are very susceptible to economic crisis caused by movements in the world market prices or crop disasters, such as that caused by drought. For instance, Tanzania at present is in the midst of a severe economic crisis, probably its worst since independence. During last year her exports declined, while her imports payments mounted, causing a balance of payments deficit for 1974 as compared with a T£15m surplus in 1973. Most of this deficit resulted from the sharp rises in the cost of oil imports, but another factor was the drought which exacerbated her problems by stagnating agricultural production. This has meant that Tanzania, a predominently agricultural country, has had to import large quantities of food grains for domestic consumption. We have already mentioned the unrealistic heavy reliance by the Tanzanian petty bourgeois regime on foreign aid in its first five year plan. The irony of Tanzania's socialist development is that since embarking on her utopian socialism she has attracted a substantial amount of aid from liberal voluntary organisations in the West, particularly from Sweden and Canada, (perhaps this is not such as irony). She has also obtained substantial aid from Western capitalist governments, including those of Sweden, Canada, the USA and Britain, which resumed her aid in 1974 - the other principal donor is China. For a country seeking self-reliance, Tanzanian has heavily relied on foreign aid. Berween 1961 and 1972 an average of 34% of fotal development budget came from foreign aid. In the 1975- 76 budget, the government proposed to spend a total or T£181.35m on recurrent expenditure and T£ 129.5m on development expenditure, of which 55% is expected to be raised from foreign aid. Nyerere's visits last year to European capitalist countries was part of an effort by the Tanzanian regime to acquire foreign finance for their development programme. During his visit to Britain one of his few performances was that at the Lord Mayor's banquet attended by the financial capitalists of the City. As reported by the Observer, Nyerere "explained why he had nationalised foreign firms and why he still wanted to do business with the City". His meek and prostituting performance was rewarded by a standing ovation by the City gentlemen. Socialism based on imperial finance is a contradiction in essence. Nyerere half understood this when in the Arusha Declaration it stated; "Independence cannot be real if a nation depends upon gifts and loans from another for its development... How can we depend upon foreign governments and companies for the major part of our development without giving to these governments and countries a great part of our freedom to act as we please The truth is that we cannot." Foreign aid donors tend to be finance capital, skill and foreign exchange intensive projects, which means a greater dependence upon foreign capital imports. These projects tend to be technologically inappropriate which means a further dependency on external labour. The projects are not necessarily those most needed by the country in its present state of social/economic development. Aside from these considerations, foreign aid is an expens ive means of development. Between 1971 and 1972 external debt 'servicing cost Tanzania sh 80m or 4.5% of the country's export earnings. It has been estimated that this year the amount will have risen to 5.2%. A conservative projection to 1980 gives the country's debt servicing cost as 10% of projected export earnings at that date. These figures are by no means shocking when compared to many other African neo-colonies, but this only goes to show the extent to which other African countries are entrapped in the neo-colonia! A conclusion To talk of building socialism without a socialist revolution is nonsense. Nyerere's utopian socialism led by a 'socialist conscious petty bourgeois leadership and engineered by a national bureaucracy with an economic base in international capitalism is a fallacy. TANU is not a vanguard party, its leadership may have represented the immediate interests of the masses during the pre-independence nationalist era, but the objective interest and prevalent conditions of Tanzania today demand a new leadership, one that can only be provided by a vanguard party composed of the proletariat, the advanced sections of the peasantry and that section of the petty bourgeoisie that is completely committed to a revolutionary socialist revolution, having relinquished all its connections with the bourgeoisie (both international and indigenous). It is only these class based forces that can successfully push the colonial revolution to its logical end, i.e. a socialist revolution. There is no doubt that the most immediate task of revolutionary marxists in Tanzania, as in all other neo-colonies, is the building of a revolutionary vanguard party equipped with a class programme which amongst other things sets forth a series of demands which stems from the present conditions and consciousness of the various layers of the masses; a programme designed to raise the political consciousness of the masses and unalterably lead to the conquest of power by the proletariat and the advanced peasantry. Such a programme and the demands incorporated must be based on the concrete realities of the Tanzanian society and as such cannot be prescribed by marxist revolutionaries outside of the continent, who are alienated from these realities. But it is evident that amongst these demands must be, included the following basic 1. Tanzania must break all links with international capitf alism, which includes capitalist management. 2. Workers ownership and control of the means of production. That the nationalisation programme implemented by TANU be carried to a socialist conclusion, which involves the complete expropriation without compensation of the bourgeoisie (including the local representatives of international capitalism) and the institution of genuine workers participation at every level of 3. The expropriation of the land of the rich peasants (kulaks) and capitalist farmers. The indiscriminate (i.e. in terms of class) implementation of collective ownership and the collectivisat- 4. The right of workers to, organise themselves in defence of their living standards, independently of the State. - trade unions must be independent of the government. 5. The right of the masses to form themselves into political organisations which express their class interests, independent of and unmolested by the government. For as Fanon wrote, the single party in Africa is a form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unmasked, unpainted, unscrupulous and cynical. The idea of a national homogeneity against imperialism and the socioeconomic legacy of colonialism is a rationalisation by the ruling class to justify and perpetuate its position - there exists. no homogeneity of interest in Tanzania or any other neo-colonial state. That TANU is incapable of meeting these demands of the masses is undoubted. It is the job of marxist revolutionaries to mobilise the masses for the ultimate aim of transforming these and other socialist demands to create reality. TUNDE ANTHONY *IT IS THE JOB QF MARXIST REVOLUTIONARIES TO MOBILISE THE MASSES FOR THE ULTIMATE AIM OF TRANSFORMING .... SOCIALIST DEMANDS TO REALITY!