Should we feel flattered? (1965)

From the November 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When, in 1904, the founders of our Party were attempting to formulate a clear and correct statement of Socialist principles upon which to base the new organization, they found an earlier declaration which had appeared in William Morris’s Commonweal of the greatest value as a starting point. From time to time during the intervening years it has been suggested that the continued prominence we give to this declaration, to which we steadfastly adhere, could lead to misunderstanding, so great, it is said have been the changes in the style of language since the beginning of the century. So it is with considerable interest and, we must admit, a certain degree of amusement that we have recently come across a curiously distorted version of our declaration of principles published in the August issue of "Africa and the World” which retains the period-style if little else.

NIGERIAN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT


(Incorporating “Forward with Nigeria Movement”)


DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

The Nigerian Socialist Movement holds:

1. That Nigerian society as at present constituted is oriented to capitalist form of social relations and the consequent exploitation and enslavement of the working class and the peasants whose labour produces the bulk of the wealth of the community.
2. That there is necessarily an antagonism of interests between the privileged, aristocratic and plutocratic class on the one hand and the working class and peasants on the other.
3. That this antagonism of interests manifests itself in Nigeria in mounting industrial disputes, but that tribalism confuses and divides the workers and peasants and is encouraged as a means of diverting them from a genuine struggle to obtain their rights.
4. That the antagonism of interests can only be abolished by the adoption of a truly socialist system where the workers and peasants are secured the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
5. That as all political parties are an expression of class interests and the interests of the workers and peasants are diametrically opposed to those of the privileged, aristocratic and plutocratic class, the workers and peasants must organise themselves in unity, with progressive and revolutionary intellectuals as a political force for the conquest of governmental powers—national and local—so that the machinery of government may be converted from an instrument of oppression and exploitation into an agency of emancipation and the abolition of all privilege whether aristocratic, plutocratic or economic.
6. That racialism, wherever it is practised is opposed to the universal principles of equality and social justice and therefore the Nigerian Socialist Movement considers the abolition of racialism and the economic and political exploitation of the people of Africa the most urgent problem facing the world today.
7. That in order to liquidate colonialism; to arrest the present tendency to neo-colonialism; to emancipate the people of Africa from all forms of exploitation; to restore the dignity of African culture and personality; and the promotion of world peace; a Socialist Union Government of Africa is a necessity now.
8. That the Nigerian Socialist Movement therefore enters the field of political action as a force representing the aspirations and yearnings of the workers, peasants, the progressive and revolutionary intellectuals and youth, calls upon the workers, ; peasants and the people of Nigeria to muster under its banner so as to bring a quick end to the system of exploitation and slavery; and that comfort, equality, true freedom and social justice may prevail in Nigeria, Africa, and the world as a whole.

Issued by The Political and Policy Bureau of the Nigerian Socialist Movement, 192 High Street, Stoke Newington, London, N16.

Were it not for the fact that this declaration of a London based group calling itself “The Nigerian Socialist Movement” follows our word order somewhat more closely, it might have been a mere adaptation of an earlier one which was put out in Nigeria by the Northern Elements Progressive Union. As it is, it looks very much as if it has been plagiarized direct from source. However, whatever were the circumstances in which this Nigerian group drew up its standpoint, we consider it necessary to deal with its tenets one by one.

(1) Their first error is to confine their analysis of society to Nigeria which is merely the successor state to the arbitrary contrived British colonial unit of the same name, Nigeria's problems are not unique. They are characteristic of formerly colonial Afro-Asian territories which are now emerging as distinctive capitalist entities. The fact that we are dealing here with an emerging capitalist state does presuppose the existence of remnants, at times quite substantial, of earlier social structures and this is indicated by the reference to the peasants. But with an economy so utterly geared to the world market (palm-oil, cocoa, tin and sides) capitalism has for some time had a predominating role in Nigeria and it is to the working class born of this development, and not to the peasantry, that the call for socialism is relevant and can be made meaningful. And even allowing for the difference in the level of capitalist development in Britain and Nigeria, it still remains true that wealth is entirely the product of the labour of those who produce but do not possess, not just the “bulk” of it.

(3) We can allow clause (2) to pass, but in clause (3) we must point out the dangerous lack of precision when reference is made to workers obtaining “rights.” We can readily agree that for workers to retain tribal loyalties, just like feudal or national loyalties, does stand in the way of their becoming aware of the international class character of their problems.

(4) By borrowing from the British Labour Party’s clause 4 the declaration descends into deep confusion and woolliness. Socialism does not mean the “equitable distribution of the fruits of the industry of the workers and peasants.” Having converted the means of production and distribution into the common property of society the working class will, by so doing, have emancipated itself and, indeed, the whole of mankind from the entire class system. There will no more be workers or peasants to have “fair shares” secured for them than there will be capitalists or landowners to deny them. Each member of a classless socialist society will have free access to the things that he or she considers he needs. These may well vary from person to person, just as in working according to his ability each man will be contributing differently.

(5) To state that political parties are but the expression of class interests is true enough, but if, by what follows, it becomes evident that what constitutes a social class is not understood such a statement is rendered meaningless. Who are the “progressive and revolutionary intellectuals” with whom the workers and peasants are exhorted to unite? If by intellectuals we are to understand people possessing a high degree of understanding then we say that it is only when the majority of workers become intellectuals, in the sense of attaining a basic understanding of the nature of capitalism, their position in it and the socialist solution, that they will be able to bring about the Socialist Revolution. Furthermore, the history of human development shows that our fellow workers do have the capacity to achieve this. If, on the other hand—and this is more likely the case by “intellectual” is meant a person possessing superior mental powers, an élite, a leadership, then it is evident that what is envisaged is a non class-conscious working class being led to its salvation by the chosen few, an idea proven by bitter experience to be quite erroneous. And in the context of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, just who are such “intellectuals” anyway? They are, almost without exception, the embryo capitalist class, those with the skills, techniques and ambitions of power who, upon the emergence of a locally governed state become its ruling class and who, far from abolishing privilege, entrench it upon the new capital and wage labour basis.

(6) Again in error racialism is seen as a problem in itself. Properly perceived, racialism is a noxious by-product of economic exploitation and competition. Consequently its disappearance is dependent upon the attainment of socialist understanding by working men and women of the entire human race and their acting upon it. Racialism, like war, poverty and other monstrous facets of present-day society, is an inescapable consequence of capitalism. It is, therefore; the abolition of the wages system itself which is the most urgent task facing workers throughout the world today.

(7/8) The problems of capitalism are world-wide. The socialist solution must, if it is to be a solution at all, be world-wide, too. There can be no national, regional or even continental solution, no Nigerian or British, West African or West European solutions. Human dignity requires an end to exploitation of man by man everywhere.

Eddie Grant

The case of the decorated donkey (2001)

From the September 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Suhuyini reports on the African Union – the brainchild of Col Gadhafi – and in whose interests it can be expected to operate

The Zambian capital played host to African Heads of State for three days from 9-11 July. Their mission? To bury the dead Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and give birth to an African Union (AU). It took African leaders almost four decades to realise that their continental body was a woeful failure. But the sad aspect of the Lusaka summit is their inability to understand that they only met to enact a farcical scenario of a decorated donkey which still remains an ass.

The OAU

Created in 1963 ostensibly to address problems of the people of the continent, the OAU ended up only serving the selfish interests of African Heads of State, their foreign ministers and the staff of the secretariat in Addis Ababa like Salim Ahmed Salim. The masses of the African people still wallow in poverty and disease, die in senseless wars whilst illiteracy and ignorance are on the increase. The toothless bulldog that was the OAU looked on helplessly.

These leaders were able to see the hopelessness of the body. What they failed to discern, however, is the reasons for its uselessness. If they did, they would not have deceived themselves in renaming it as AU. The OAU could not stand the test of time for one main reason. The reason was because it was founded on the basis of money. Member States were to contribute money to run the affairs of the organisation. The resources of every country are controlled by a few very wealthy individuals. Even military regimes are not free from the influence of the owners of capital. Thus, having been formed with the resources of the rich, what else could the OAU do if not working in the interest of the owners of capital and not the poor masses? Is it not the one who pays the piper who calls the tune?

The OAU would not, for instance, take firm measures on the numerous conflicts and wars in Africa because wars are a matter of big business. Producers and distributors of arms and weapons make super-profits in war situations. Part of the money they make is used to sponsor governments’ contributions to the OAU. So, how can the OAU bite the finger that feeds it? In other words, the OAU was a reformist organisation, seeking to work within a world system which puts profits first and people second. Nothing can ever go on for the benefit of humankind as long as money is around. Only those who own capital can be free from want for they have the purchasing power.

And the AU?

The AU is to be modelled on the European Union and is the brainchild of Col Gadhafi, the life-president (or dictator?) of Libya. Reports have it that he has already given one million US dollars to fund the transformation. It is therefore not suprising that at the summit he was seen by the other Heads of State as the boss. In fact he reportedly (and surely on the basis of his cash) wanted the house to maintain Salim Ahmed Salim, the outgoing secretary-general, in the seat to effect the transformation.

Another VIP (“Very Ignorant Personality”) at the summit was the outgoing chairman General Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo. A ruthless military dictator who took power in 1967 and has since been on top there. Then there was the host, President Frederick Chiluba, who reneged on his promise to abide by the constitutional demands to step down at the end of his second term. It was only through mass protests and resignations by his party’s bigwigs that it appears he will now back down. And even only three days before the summit his former close ally was assassinated and it is rumoured that the government had a hand in it.

This throws some light on the nature of the people promoting and ushering in the AU. We are told that this time a central bank, a parliament and a court will be established. The idea of an African Central Bank is a novelty, even though we have seen the African Development Bank based in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Like any other bank, the ADB and the one to be set up by the AU have one purpose—to create profits for the shareholders who part-own the company.

As regards the continental parliament, the following example will give us an insight into what it will be doing. In Gambia the average worker earns about 600 Dalasis a month. A member of parliament gets 7000 Dalasis a month though most of the decisions taken in all parliaments the world over are anti-working class. Therefore a Gambian in an all-African parliament will undoubtedly receieve more than what they are getting now. All at the expense of the poor masses.

Finally, who is an African court of justice going to try? Even those in the Hague and Arusha (Tanzania) have not done anything to the benefit of the people of the world. So what is the farce being staged?

Where parliaments and courts are institutions of oppression under the profit system, banks are the places from where all evil transactions are carried out with the intention of defrauding the masses. No wonder that the Heads of State said they were turning the OAU into a “larger trading bloc”.

Which way for Africa?

The operations of the AU can be predicted by considering the main programme the leaders discussed at the summit on the way forward for Africa. It was a plan called “The African Initiative” which is a merger of “The Millennium African Recovery Programme” (MAP) championed by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and “Omega Plan” spearheaded by Abdoulie Wade of Senegal. The two main points of the Initiative are that democracy be consolidated and that the West should increase investment in Africa.

In our money-dominated world of today democracy can only mean the right of the rich to dictate to the poor. In the same vein increasing investment in Africa means pumping in more money to reap more profits. Investors are in search of profits, they are not humanitarians seeking to help the poor. The call for democracy and investment which the AU will implement means that governments should hold down the masses so that the rich can pillage and plunder without any hinderance.

Consciousness has many stages. The lowest stage is centred on people who think only about themselves. Selfishness. Others are a step higher. They are concerned only about their family. Then, there are those who check only their tribe mates, tribalists. Then there are the many nationalists defending their national flags no matter what. We also have the so-called Pan Africanists, the pax romana, the white supremacists, etc. But the highest stage of consciousness has to do with those who are internationalists. These are socialists who are not limited by space. They see every issue from a global perspective. Therefore whether it is ECOWAS, OAU, AU, Commonwealth, name it, no problem can ever be solved unless the money system is booted out and a moneyless system put in place where every one has a free access to any product or service. It is only then that Africans and humankind as a whole will be free from want.

Suhuyini

Black nationalism in Africa (1965)

From the June 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nationalism as a political theory originated in Germany around the beginning of the 19th century, when the German nationalists put forward the theory that those who speak the same language form a natural community which ought to govern itself.

This was to develop into racialism and to give rise to talk of the “Anglo-Saxon race ” and the “German race".

Despite the fact that nationalism has no scientific basis for its claims, it has been a powerful force in the world. Of course, it was not something which suddenly appeared out of the blue; its roots are to be found in the beginnings of capitalist development in Britain and France and the effect this had on intellectual life in Germany. This put Germany in a peculiar historical position.

Germans who had absorbed ideas developed in Britain and France turned to nationalism—the unity of all German speaking people—as part of the drive to modernise their country. Similar nationalist movements and theories appeared in Poland, Italy and Hungry, though only in Italy was the movement to have success in the nineteenth century. Here the achievement of national unity and independence was the equivalent of France’s revolution of 1789; it created the political conditions in which the evolution of capitalist society could continue.

In short in many of those countries which underwent capitalist development after Britain and France, the overthrow of the old order was represented as a form of national revolution—in some cases as a move for national unity, in others for national independence and in others for national regeneration. To refer to nationalism as a weapon of the social revolution from feudal society to capitalism is not to say that the nationalist movements were composed of traders and small factory owners. In fact the relationship is not as simple as this.

Capitalism created the social conditions for the spread of nationalism by alienating sections of the population from the old order. It is among this section—students, past and present, modern army officers and wage workers — that nationalists were to be found. These set about agitating among those they considered their fellow nationals in order to awaken their national consciousness.

From Europe, nationalism spread out during the twentieth century to the Middle East and Asia. Today it is spreading through Africa—Macmillan’s wind of change. The outward form of this nationalism varies from country to country depending on historical circumstances, but its essential remains the same; it is an instrument of the capitalist social revolution in relatively backward countries

In Europe the nationalist theories were based on language. In Africa they are based on colour and “race”. For this reason African nationalism is sometimes referred to as “racist ”. This use is permissible in so far as African nationalism does claim to champion the interests of the black people or “race”. Perhaps a better term would be Black Nationalism; this however should not obscure the fact that there are groups working among Africans which do preach race hatred and race domination. These can be called Black Racialist groups.

The intellectual roots of African nationalism go back to the Negro nationalist movements which appeared in America and the West Indies in the first part of this century. These ranged from openly black racialist organisations such as that of Marcus Garvey — the forerunner of the present day Black Muslims in America and the Rastafarians in Jamaica — to the cultural nationalism, so-called negritude, of the poet Aimé Césaire.

From this developed the doctrine of Pan-Africanism, which proclaimed the unity of interest of all Africans and those of African descent. Educated Africans and African students abroad joined in this movement. On returning to Africa, the students set about agitating for national independence. They would have had no success had not social conditions been ripe for the spread of their ideas.

As in Europe and Asia, nationalism in Africa spread only to the degree that the old order was breaking up. The colonial powers, in training Africans as soldiers and priests and civil servants, in employing them in the mines and on the plantations, undermined their own position. For these detribalised Africans formed the social base of the anti-colonialist struggle. Since the war the further break-up of the old order has proceeded apace. So has nationalism. It is only nine years since the first black African state, Ghana, became independent from colonial rule. Now, with the important exceptions of parts of central and southern Africa, most of black Africa has achieved independence.

The regimes that have taken over from the colonial governments have been various. Some have consisted of a motley collection of tribal leaders and opportunist and corrupt politicians. Others have an iron handed industrialising clique. Ghana provides the model of this last type; there the administrative techniques of Russia have been combined with the doctrine of Pan-Africanism to get what Nkrumah calls "African socialism ”.

Other nations which are modelled on Ghana — Guinea, Kenya, Tanzania — are one party states in which a vanguard party is used to mobilise the population for carrying through the capitalist social revolution. Because of the role of the state —and the influence of Russia—it was perhaps inevitable that these regimes would label themselves socialist. In fact they are totalitarian state capitalist regimes in which an élite uses the state power to try to extend capitalism rapidly throughout the area under their political control.

The situation in central and southern Africa is complicated by the presence of a not inconsiderable minority of persons of European descent. These—the whites—once enjoyed certain political and economic privileges at the expense of the Africans. It is in these circumstances that ugly black-white clashes have occurred and will almost certainly occur again. Among both white people and black there are groups preaching race hatred and intolerance. Many of the white workers are under the impression that they can preserve their security through discriminatory legislation. The African workers, on the other hand, see the solution to their miseries in African nationalism. The murders of Mau Mau in Kenya, and those of the Congo rebels, are examples of nationalism in action, just as the terrorist tactics employed by European nationalists in the past were. In Africa, however, they are now complicated as a clash between black and white.

African nationalism and the one party regimes it tends to set up are respectively the theory and practice of the capitalist social revolution in Africa. The spread of African nationalism together with the attempt by the Whites to maintain their privileges, is almost .certain to lead to further inter-racial violence and terror. Nationalism, with its talk of equality, may not at first sight appear as repugnant as racialism pure and simple. It often however, has the same results: bloodshed in which members of the working class are killed—not for their own interests but for those of their masters present and future.

Adam Buick

Pan-African "Socialists" (1963)

From the February 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Pan-African socialism, so-called, is essentially a creation of West Africa. But with the spread of education and the growth of communications in Africa these ideas have been absorbed also by Africans living in the East and the South of the continent. The main African political parties in these areas all claim to be Socialist. Frequently their leaders appear in London and ask the workers of Britain to support them in their struggle against imperialism. But nationalism is incompatible with Socialism and it is actually a barrier against the spread of Socialist ideas. On occasions it is even worse; for nationalism frequently hinders even the effective organisation of workers on the trade union field which is so essential under capitalism. Recent events in Central Africa well illustrate this point.

In Southern Rhodesia the Pan-Africanists whose political party, the Zimbabwe African Peoples' Union was recently outlawed, have provoked a split among the African workers. Previously there was only one organisation claiming to represent the African worker, the Southern Rhodesia Trade Union Congress (SRTUC), led by Reuben Jamela. However, Jamela betrayed a pro-Western leaning by maintaining, in defiance of Ghana, that the SRTUC should remain affiliated to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). In addition, Jamela, although himself a nationalist, held that . . .

the declared position of Jamela's trade unionism is that the workers as workers must not be involved in politics and it has been argued by politicians and trade unionists that the two cannot mix: trade unionism must be for economical well-being of the working class, while politics is the game of both the worker and employer for political and social rights.

Without in any way supporting Jamela, we must say that the arguments which he presents against the association of the trade unions with the nationalist parties are basically sound. After all, trade unions are primarily organised to protect the workers of a particular trade section, or of a group of more or less allied trades. People of varying political and religious views are united in trade unions on one issue alone: the recognition that collective action is more effective than individual action when dealing with employers. Politics within the trade union tends to destroy this unity. This is what has happened in Southern Rhodesia. The Pan-Africanists have broken away from the SRTUC and set up their own African TUC which is rapidly gaining support at the expense of the SRTUC and which, incidentally, has not been banned.

The particular party which it is suggested the unions support is, despite its Socialist pretensions, basically capitalist and nationalist. The nationalist case for turning the trade unions into little more than the labour wing of the nationalist party is based on an appeal to racial sentiment. “The absence of large African companies,” argues The People's Voice, “of African-owned mines and large factories—a natural consequence of colonial oppression—turns the African workers in an anti-imperialist direction. The European colonialist became the enemy of the African workers,” but the paper goes on to suggest that because of this the trade union struggle is against the “European rulers” just as is the African political movement and hence it is reasonable for them to unite.

But is the trade union struggle exclusively anti-European? Whatever may have been the position in West Africa, the idea that the European in Central Africa is merely a “monopolist” or a capitalist is as absurd as the notion that all Jews are financiers. First, there are over 80,000 European workers in Southern Rhodesia compared with 9,000 European employers and self-employed and, second, although nearly all the large businesses and factories are European or foreign owned, there are in actual fact more African businessmen than European. Nor the the Europeans the only people who have opposed African strikes. ZAPU’s allies in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have done just this and worse.

In July this year the supreme council of the Northern Rhodesia African Mineworkers’ Union decided to call a strike for higher pay as they considered the copper mining companies' offer inadequate. Kenneth Kaunda's United National Independence Party decided that a strike at this time might harm their chances in the October general elections. UNIP therefore advised the workers to accept the offer and itself took steps to prevent the strike. During the weekend before the strike was due to begin leaflets were distributed calling on the workers not to strike. One such leaflet, signed by A. B. Mutemba, UNIP Kitwe, Kalulushi and Mufilira Regional Secretary, read:

Tell all our people that UNIP docs not agree to the strike call. This strike will spoil our forthcoming elections. We ask you all to report for work as usual. If you want a strike you will do so after October — not now. Anyone who strikes on Tuesday will be regarded as an enemy of the African cause (Northern News 9/7/62).

Other leaflets, later repudiated, accused the union leaders of organising the strike for their own selfish ends. As a result of these leaflets so much confusion was created that the union decided to call off the strike. At least this is one explanation, but the strike was called off after Kaunda had met the union leaders. Only later did it become known that one of these leaders, previously not known as a nationalist, had agreed to stand as a UNIP candidate in the elections. Whatever the reason, UNIP and the Companies won. This episode clearly shows the attitude of the Pan-Africanists towards the trade unions: they want to see the African workers organised in order to use them for their own ends.

The Malawi Congress Party, led by Our Great Ngwasi Kumuzu Banda (Ngwasi means '‘sage" but is probably better translated “fuehrer”), which rules Nyasaland has also clashed with the unions. No sooner had the MCP formed the government than it acted against some strikers, members of the Motor and Allied Workers Union, whose leaders had called a strike for higher pay. A Pan-Africanist writing later complained “what a burden it was for the new African Minister to start his duties by solving a strike problem," and went on:

In any event, the Malawi Congress Party condemned the strike and since then the destructive actions by this Union have been less apparent. (Daily News 22/6/62.)

Trade Unions

This turned out to be a little optimistic as the Motor and Allied Workers Union and the Commercial and General Workers’ Union continued their “irresponsible*’ and “destructive actions” of trying to improve their members’ working conditions and living standards; For their trouble the leaders of these unions were suspended from membership of the MCP and accused of “importing Trade Union ideas from America and Western Europe in this country.” This was judged incompatible with the principles and policy of the party. Which is a frank admission that the MCP is not in favour of allowing the workers to form genuine trade unions or of allowing them to strike.

Banda and his colleagues have continued to abuse and insult these union leaders whose only crime appears to be their belief that trade unions should be independent of Government. In August Dr. Banda referred to these trade unionists as “self seekers who are misleading the workers” and accused one of getting money from Europeans to “further his selfish ends.” Banda went on to say that his ruling Malawi Congress Party “will crush mercilessly anyone who allows himself to be used by imperialists and colonialists.”

Such is the way the Pan-Africanists treat the workers when once in power. With African businessmen it is a different matter. Far from saying that the African worker has no interests in common with these African property-owners the Pan-Africanists seek to win them for their cause. UNIP has a clause in its programme which reads: "to work and protect the interests of commercial traders and help them in their progressive business schemes." The Daily News (10/9/62) reported that at a ZAPU meeting “Mr. S. J. Ndebele ... urged African businessmen to rally behind ZAPU and sacrifice both money and time.” In addition the President of the African Farmers’ Union is also a well-known ZAPU member. Such is the confusion of Pan-African “Socialism” that it preaches the identity of interests between African worker and African capitalist and ignores the European worker. Indeed one of the smaller African nationalist parties in Southern Rhodesia which calls itself Socialist, the Pan-African Socialist Union, has denounced ZAPU as a “capitalist multi-racial organisation ” and one of its leaders is on record as having said: “I loathe European membership in a pure African nationalist organisation.” Pan-Africanism as a political creed has more in common with Fascism, insofar as it is a radical nationalist movement, than with Socialism and there are no grounds at all on which Socialists can support it.

It is not an accident that African nationalist parties, once in power, “crush mercilessly,” to use Banda’s own words, the workers’ independent trade unions. Even people with more regard for democracy than Banda or Nkrumah, people like Nyerere, who have taken in Western liberal ideas, are forced to pass laws restricting civil liberties and trade union freedoms. They do so because they have chosen to develop capitalism in their respective countries. Why this means they must attack the workers was recently well explained by a writer in Africa Today. “Independence,” he writes, “upset the conditions under which the African union movement had flourished. The state is African now, not European; the issue of patriotism can be, and is, turned against the unions if they oppose the government. The state is concerned with holding down labour costs in both private and public sectors. ... Governments dedicated to rapid economic development obviously must hold down, or reduce, real wages in order to raise capital.” So it is in Ghana and in Tanganyika; so it will be in Central Africa. It is for this reason that the right to strike is more often denied than granted in post-colonial Africa.

This in itself is a good enough reason why the workers of Britain should not listen to these glib nationalist leaders who come here asking for help — help to “crush mercilessly” the workers back home. Nor is there any hope for the workers of Africa in nationalism or racialism; Socialism remains the only hope for the workers of the world. But in Central Africa the workers of all races have yet to learn that the dividing line there, as elsewhere, is that of class not colour. White and non-White workers should stand together against White and non-White property owners. The sooner the workers realise this the better. Meanwhile the danger of racial clash remains.

Adam Buick

Rhodesian background (1962)

From the November 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

In South and East Africa lives that peculiar person, the white settler. To some people he is a farmer who has robbed the African of his land. But, in fact, especially in southern Africa, most Europeans are ordinary workers or business men. Many can't really be called settlers since they were born in Africa and have never been to Europe.

The two most important areas, South Africa and Rhodesia, are moving politically in opposite directions. South Africa has chosen “apartheid" or separate development; Rhodesia appears to be moving, however slowly, towards a society in which a man will not be judged by the colour of his skin. But certain actions—or lack of actions—of the Southern Rhodesian Government have raised doubts about its sincerity when it talks of partnership. First, it has until now been slow to remove legal discriminations against Africans and, second, it has taken very wide powers, encroaching considerably on recognised civil liberties, to deal with anything it regards as a threat to law and order.

Three trade union leaders were recently sentenced to eight months hard labour under these laws for calling for a general strike in Salisbury last May.

The ruling United Federal Party does not, however, stand for white supremacy. It stands for free enterprise capitalism and represents the growing multi-racial business class. By a unanimous decision of its 1961 Conference the UFP is committed to remove all legal discriminations against Africans which Cabinet Minister Abrahamson has denounced as “morally wrong and absolutely indefensible.” This, of course, includes the notorious Land Apportionment Act which means that it is no longer true to say, if ever it was, that “multiracialism" is but another name for Verwoerd's fascist policy of apartheid.

The European business man is in favour of African advancement for a number of reasons. Firstly, he knows that Africans can eventually be trained to be as skilled as any European and, secondly, he sees in the Africans a vast expanding market for his goods. The capitalist in Africa therefore tends everywhere to be an opponent of racial privilege. He is against racism, black or white; in fact he generally wants to be free to employ the man he considers to be the most suitable for the job, regardless of race or colour.

The European worker, however, is not so keen on African advancement. He sees the African as a threat to his job. Most European workers are craftsmen, a section of the working class which the march of capitalism everywhere tends to eliminate. The skilled worker is replaced by the semi-skilled machine operative. In Europe and America the redundant craftsman tends to feel resentment against those who replace him, but in Central Africa the position appears more dangerous since the man who would take his job has a black skin. As a result many of the European workers support parties wanting to “keep the African in his place.” These, together with a section of the farmers and others still living in the past, provide the bulk of the support for the main European opposition party, the Rhodesia Front. This party looks South for inspiration and, although it has African members, it is the party of white supremacy.

The main African nationalist party is, or was, the recently banned Zimbabwe African Peoples’ Union led by “Great” Nkomo. ZAPU is the recognised Pan-Africanist party in Southern Rhodesia (or Zimbabwe) and has the blessing of the Osagyefo in Accra. The main ZAPU demand' for “One man, one vote” has won it the support of a number of European and Asian radicals. African support, however, is won on a different basis. ZAPU flourishes among Africans on widespread discontent over low wages, unemployment and land reform. This is not something peculiar to Africa, for the birth of capitalism is always accompanied by unrest. In Central Africa this unrest appears as African resistance to white authority, as African nationalism.

Migrant worker

Owing to what is known as the migrant labour system, most African workers are extremely poor. The migrant worker circulates between two different social systems, the so-called “subsistence economy” and capitalism. He spends a part of the year in his farm in the tribal reserve and a part working for money in other industries. Altogether about two-thirds of the African labour force are migrant workers. This system tends to hold wages down to a level sufficient only to maintain a single worker while staying in the “location.” As a result, many of the African families who have settled permanently in the towns live in extreme poverty. The recent Phillips Report on the development of Southern Rhodesia describes further bow this system keeps wages down: “The large and elastic supply of workers seeking employment in urban activities restrains a rise in wages, while the impermanence of this labour supply reduces the wage the employers are prepared to pay”

The employers would like to see the migrant labour system ended and to see a stable working class paid a “reasonable” wage, perhaps double the present minimum, take its place as soon as possible. They recognise, however, that their system cannot at present “provide every African urban family with an income adequate to secure minimum nutritional, housing and other standards.” “Unhappily,” explains the Report, “there is not enough wealth in the country to effect changes on this scale for the mass of the people.” This is not true for Rhodesia could, if properly irrigated, and if the mineral sources were fully exploited, more than provide an “adequate” income for its inhabitants. What the report means is that capitalism cannot use this wealth.

The African who is employed is badly enough off but many don’t even have the privilege of trying to live on near-starvation wages. These are the 70,000 or so unemployed. Unemployment is something new for Africans. “Before the Europeans settled in this country,” writes one paper:

  and before they brought their chaos creating institutions, unemployment was unknown, hence the lack of this term in any African dialect. There are other words such as ‘Simbe’ in Shona; this means a lazy person who does not want to work. This differs well from a person who is unemployed because there is just no work for him although he wants it. The whole African population lived on land and everybody who could do some work found it. There was ploughing and harvesting, ironmongery as well as many other crafts. Women were busy with domestic chores and also assisted on the land. Everyone had a piece of land to work as the whole land belonged to them. The chiefs only held it in trust for national use.

The “chaos-creating institution” which the Europeans brought was capitalism, and ever since they first settled in Rhodesia in the 1890’s the traditional African way of life has been threatened. Soon after their arrival the Europeans imposed a poll tax on the Africans to force them to spend a part of their time working for wages. Hence arose the migrant labour system.

Before the situation arose which led to the passing of the Native Land Husbandry Act in 1951 the African peasant seeking work in the town would either find it or return home to his farm. But the LHA put an end to this, for it had the same effect as the Enclosure Acts in England: it drove Africans to the towns by making them landless. The Act was revolutionary as it introduced a new concept to the African peasant: private ownership, albeit conditional, of land.

The primary aim was to eliminate soil erosion and overstocking and to bring the African peasant into the money economy. A stable African peasantry was to be created with a stable urban working class. Under the Act all indigenous Africans, who were actually cultivating land in a given area at the time at which the Act was proclaimed to apply to that area, were entitled to a certain prescribed acreage of arable land. This meant that any African from the area working in town at the time of the proclamation was dispossessed; overnight he became landless. Now the African peasant believes not only that everybody has the right to use the land, but also that nobody has the right to own it. So that such a revolutionary change as the Act envisaged was bound to create a reaction; the situation was aggravated by the fact that thousands of those entitled to a holding got no land. ZAPU has taken advantage of this land hunger and rural unrest and has been making headway in traditionally conservative areas.

In Rhodesia the vote is at present restricted to those with certain educational and income qualifications which means that although nearly all Europeans, Coloureds and Asians have the vote, only a small percentage of the Africans do. ZAPU says this is wrong and demands “one man, one vote.” The UFP feels, however, that were it to grant this immediately, dictatorship would rapidly follow.

Pan-Africanism or Pan-African Black Fascism as it has been justly called, certainly is totalitarian and racist, rejecting democracy as “ un-African ” and “ Western.” At present, however, ZAPU is able to pose as the champion of democratic liberties, just as the Communists are in such countries as Spain and Portugal. This is in accordance with the pattern elsewhere: in opposition the Pan-Africanists shout loudest for democracy, but once in power show scant regard for political or trade union opposition. The ZAPU protest, when they were banned, that African political freedom had gone was so much cant. For ZAPU, and especially its Youth League, has used all kinds of intimidation to terrorize those Africans who oppose them. The banning of ZAPU merely illustrates the fate of those who choose to challenge the State directly by using violent or illegal means to get what they want.

Adam Buick

The Passing Show: What it Means (1962)

The Passing Show Column from the January 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

What it Means

In The Times recently there was a reference to President Nasser’s nationalisation policy, under the name of "Arab Socialism"; and on the same day (27/10/61) there was a report of a speech by the President of the Senegal Republic in which he referred to “ the Negro-African form of Socialism.” So much confusion is caused by reformist politicians in every part of the world wishing to masquerade under false colours that it was not surprising to read (in the same issue) the following report of a meeting of the so-called “ Socialist International ” (which is in fact a collection of Labour Parties):

  A particularly able speech was made by a delegate from the Action Group of Nigeria, who, he said, had recently announced that they were going to embrace democratic socialism, and were now hotly discussing what that meant.

For the benefit of the Action Group of Nigeria, democratic socialism means nothing that socialism does not already mean. Socialism, being a system voluntarily entered into by society as a whole, and being without any coercive forces, is by definition democratic. In the same way, it is pointless to talk about Arab socialism or Negro-African socialism; one might as well talk about Birmingham Socialism or Tooting Socialism. Socialism is in its essence international, and knows nothing of racial or national differences.

All that is needed to complete the confusion is for the Labour Parties of the Common Market countries to join together and start talking about “Common Market Socialism.”

Apes

Reviewing a recent book (African Genesis, by Robert Ardrey) a Sunday Express writer triumphantly records the author’s conclusions about monkeys and apes (22/10/61):

  He shows clearly that their most powerful inborn drive is, first, for status; next, for territory (both family and tribal); and, only third, for sex. Thus such things in men as ambition, patriotism, and a yearning for a house of one’s own are not—as many fashionable thinkers have tried to make us think—an artificial product of an artificial civilisation. They are natural and inborn, especially in the higher animals.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept what Ardrey says about apes, his premises clearly do not support his conclusions. It would only be possible to reason in this way if man was descended from the monkeys or the apes: but, in fact (although this may be news to the Sunday Express) no scientist has ever maintained that this is so. What all scientists do now maintain is that man and the other primates are descended from a common ancestor. So what has to be explained is why man has left all the other animals far behind, while the monkeys are still swinging in the trees. And if the main interests of apes are, first, status, and second, grabbing more territory, that would go a long way towards accounting for the great gulf between man and monkeys. Men have developed in the way they have simply because they co-operated—they lived together amicably in tribes and owned property in common. As Engels says (in Chapter 2 of The Origin of the Family): 

   For man’s development beyond the level of the animals, for the achievement of the greatest advance nature can show, something more was needed; the power of defence lacking to the individual had to be made good by the united strength and co-operation of the herd. To explain the transition to humanity from conditions such as those in which the anthropoid apes live to-day would be quite impossible; it looks much more as if these apes had strayed off the line of evolution and were gradually dying out or at least degenerating . . .  Mutual toleration among the adult males, freedom from jealousy, was the first condition for the formation of those larger, permanent groups in which alone animals could become men.

No satisfaction

Who said this? "There were literally thousands of jobs in industry which gave no satisfaction to the worker and never could . . .  as a result among the great working class areas of the country” men were getting no "sense of fulfilment . . . from the tedium of their day-to-day jobs.” 

It was no Socialist, agitating for a new society; it was the head of the state-capitalist board which now runs the coal-mines—Lord Robens. He was speaking at the recent national conference of the Institute of Personnel Management. It would be difficult to think of a much stronger argument against our present form of society than this—that the workers get no sense of fulfilment from their jobs, which occupy so large and so central a part of their lives: yet here we have one of our leading operators of state-capitalism saying just that.

If Lord Robens really believes this, it is about time he thought of resigning his job and joining the Socialist Party, since that is the only way he can help to bring about a change in the situation.

Alwyn Edgar

Drum (1957)

From the September 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a recent edition of the magazine Drum, published in Accra, in the new state of Ghana, edited by Mr. Drum and claiming the “Biggest Sale in Africa.”

What is it like, this paper of the rising continent? Is there anything fresh about it? Hardly. Here are all the well-known features of the less-respected and therefore well-established British journals. Consider the advertisements. A Negro woman applies, with a fetching smile, the same brand of skin cream as a million budding English roses. Successful men (Negroes, sitting at many-telephoned desks) underline their success with the right shoe polish. And here is the father and wife and picaninnies, beaming vigorously and full of a popular laxative. Detergents and blood tonics jostle on the page with disinfectants and pep-pills.

There is an interesting article alleging the existence of slavery on the Spanish-held island of Fernando Po, in the Gulf of Guinea. This article reproduces a poster issued by the Anglo-Spanish Employment Agency, which promises a life of sophisticated leisure on Fernando Po. the poster sketches a Negro in traditional pukka-sahib garb, complete with topee and carrying an umbrella! A few pages are taken up with a chillingly meticulous description of the procedure followed in executions in James Fort Prison, Accra, including pictures of a doctor and a priest leaving just after a hanging. There are comic strips (one of them about a Negro boxer taking on a Chinaman in, of all places, Switzerland), some tit-bits, jokes, and a mystery story. 

A heartbreak column is run by Dolly. A young man complains that his girl-friend drinks heavily, swears at him, has secret love affairs. Dolly's advice, If the girl is given to having secret affairs, forget her, . . .  as such a situation is not a desirable one” To a teacher who has fallen for one of his pupils she says: “To have an affair with one of your pupils would be abusing your position. Maybe when she has completed, yes. ” And there is the usual heavily guarded reply to the anonymous, desperate one whose problem cannot be discussed in the column, but who had better tell her mother.

Many African nationalists think that the developing independent states of Africa will throw up some vague and far-described moral and cultural superiority over their European counterparts. Drum gives the lie to that. Apart from the black faces and crinkly hair of its illustrations, it would not be out of place in the hands of any typist on the rush-hour tube to the West End. Capitalism always must fill the workers’ leisure with the inferior and shoddy, for to encourage them to think is dangerous. Hence the growth of die trash-press in this and other countries.

Now capitalism, lured by the markets and minerals, is developing in Africa. The markets it will exploit and the minerals develop. It will bring industrial organisation and the harsh, acquisitive sophistication that we in England know so well. That is in the future. For the present, if a reading of Drum is any guide, it has already brought, among other things, constipation and rheumatism, indigestion and neurasthenia.

Ivan.

World View: Pan-Africanism or pan-humanism? (2002)

From the February 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

When slave labour was no longer profitable as a result of the invention of machines, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished. This created a severe social problem as the ex-slaves could hardly fend for themselves. They became homeless, jobless and hungry. These problems forced them to become vagabonds, outcasts, "criminals", and (owning nothing in a society dominated by money and private ownership of property) an inferior class.

This sorry state of affairs culminated in the emergence of black (ex-slave) radicals such as Marcus Garvey who organised the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). Other activists against the appalling situation of the black ex-slaves included W E B. Dubois; James Brown, who sang "say it loud, I'm black and proud"; and several groups of the Black Consciousness Movement which sprang up in the middle of the 20th century.

This wind of awareness and defiance that was blowing across the Americas and Europe naturally touched the black students from mainland Africa who had gone to the USA and Europe to study. Prominent among these were Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Leopold Sedar Senghor. These radicals together with others from the Caribbean like George Padmore were after to become the precursors of the Pan-Africanist movement. It was also known among in the French-speaking world as "Négritude".

It follows from the above that (other considerations aside) Pan-Africanism is a concept that is limited to black people – those on the continent and the ones in the Diaspora. In this regard, one can liken Pan-Africanism to other (albeit better organised) groups like Zionism, Pax Romana, the Arab League, etc. They are concepts and groups dedicated only to the interest of their members.

The colour smokescreen

As explained, the roots of Pan-Africanism can be traced to the conditions, the concrete reality of the newly-"emancipated" slaves in the Americas. Let us assume for the moment (despite all) that they faced those hardships "because of their colour". The question which readily comes to mind, now, is whether we can say it is the same scenario today. Are the causes of our problems today due to our colour? Of course not.

Consider the following cases. Mobutu allowed himself to be used by the Western powers to inflict untold suffering on the people of the then Zaire. Together with these powers he stole all the wealth of the country. In fact it is said that he was richer than the state. There is also the case of Bokassa who squandered millions of dollars to crown himself emperor when at that time the ordinary people of Central African Republic could not afford one decent meal a day. In Angola, Jonas Savimbi and a few friends (UNITA) teamed up with Western businesses to visit a limitless insecurity on the poor people just to plunder the resources of the land. The story is no different in the case of Foday Sonko and fellow rebels in Sierra Leone; quite recently the chief whip of South Africa, Tony Yengeni, and a senior official of the ANC as such, was embroiled in multi-billion dollar arms deals. Yet South Africa is not at war; meanwhile millions of ANC supporters do not have drinking water and electricity in their ghettos.

Moving outside the continent, what can Pan-Africanists say about blacks in the Diaspora like the US Secretary of State Colin Powell who ordered the US delegation to walk out of the Durban Conference on Racism because he and his capitalist colleagues would lose if reparations are to be paid to the victims of the slave trade? On the other hand there are non-blacks who help in various ways many Africans. There are countless families in poor Africa whose survival depend on well-meaning and genuine Europeans and Americans.

But more importantly today, and even during the period of the "liberation" of the slaves and beyond, suffering in the form of insecurity, murders, poverty, illness, misinformation, boredom, exploitation, etc affected both blacks and non-blacks alike, from Africa, America, Asia to Europe. Therefore we cannot be justified when our suffering is blamed on our colour and their colour. Colour is used as a smokescreen to conceal the real cause of discrimination. There is a deeper factor underneath the black/white ruse.

The world economic order

It was not by accident that the Europeans came to Africa. They were looking for trade routes to the East. They were pursuing their business interests. It was also not by mistake that they started the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. They need cheap labour for their plantations. They were in business. It was again not out of humanitarian considerations that they stopped the slave trade and set the blacks free. Slave labour had become obsolete and a fetter on production. The Industrial Revolution had made it possible for machines to be used in the production process so slaves were no longer needed. Therefore the real and fundamental cause of the problems of the "freed" slaves (which led to the rise of Garvey, Dubois, etc and Pan-Africanism) was the world economic order.

Interestingly the problems that these ex-slaves faced upon their "release from bondage" are still the same problems facing us – humanity as a whole – today. These are hunger, poverty, disease, insecurity, no job satisfaction and joblessness, etc. These problems are a direct result of the system in operation in the world.

This system is based on private ownership. This means that the means of production and distribution of the wealth (factories, land, transportation, etc) are owned by a minority whilst the majority own nothing. The few owners of the means of production determine what to produce. Since their primary objective is to make profit but not to satisfy human needs, they do not hesitate to produce goods which are not needed by people. For instance armaments and weapons of mass destruction, sophisticated security systems fancy goods, cigarettes, etc are manufactured in huge quantities because they bring in huge profits. Yet food, medicines, textbooks, shoes, housing, etc which are necessities are either in short supply or beyond the reach of the masses. This type of economic system (call it the money-system, the profit-system or the capitalist system) was responsible for the slave trade, colonialism and today's problems. With the majority having nothing and constantly under economic pressure, tension is inbuilt and can at the least prompting explode into real violence such as is happening in many countries including the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in the US.

Which way forward?

One can clearly see from the above that Pan-Africanism can only be relevant if it seeks to address issues from a much wider perspective. Pan-Africanists have to transcend the narrow scope of seeing things from the point of view of colour. Today almost all countries are multi-racial. This is best articulated in the South African reggae star, Lucky Dube's song One people, different colours. Thus, to continue to harp on the "black race" is a matter of tackling the symptom and leaving the disease in fact.

Pan-Africanists must understand the profit system and learn to analyse issues from the angle of ownership to profit-making property. That is, from the angle of haves and have-nots. The world is divided into two antagonistic groups – the rich minority and the poor majority.

To be to achieve this, and even produce beneficial results, we need to acquire knowledge and live by it. This is tune with the socialist adage that "Practice without theory is blind and theory without practice is empty."

Acquiring knowledge means raising our consciousness. The highest level of consciousness is internationalism. Internationalists see every person as a person regardless of tribe or colour. And the cream of internationalists are socialists. Socialists do not consider the artificial boundaries dividing humanity as a barrier. Wherever they are is home.

However it is not enough to declare oneself socialist. It is necessary to understand the theory of socialism and how to get the peoples of the world to live by it. This involves, first, the knowledge that society, as at present constituted, is divided into two opposing camps. On the one hand there are the few privileged owners of the means of livelihood and, on the other, the majority who own nothing and so are forced to slave for the comfort of the propertied minority. The second phase entails striving for a society in which there will be common ownership and democratic control of the means of livelihood; free and equal access to the products of labour; and where, therefore, the concept and use of money (in all its forms) will cease to exist. This society is the socialist society.

• Suhuyini