For Du Bois, Pan-Africanism was at all times an anti-racist, anti-imperialist concept. But the Pan-Africanism of Innis, Baraka, Foreman, Boggs, Carmichael and others, while invoking the name of Du Bois, takes its inspiration from George Padmore, C. L. R. James and Marcus Garvey.
For a brief interval—during the period of his work with the Communist International—Padmore’s activity harmonized with Du Bois’ anti-imperialist, internationalist conception of Pan-Africanism. It was only in this three or four year interval, ending in 1934, that Padmore appeared to genuinely share Du Bois’ views. After that, while he found it to pay lip service to this great genius of the 20th Century liberation struggles, Padmore—whose closest friend, C. L. R. James, always openly opposed Du Bois—was in fact going in a direction opposite from Du Bois.
Unlike Padmore, Du Bois never departed from the conviction that anti-imperialist struggle demanded unity with the Soviet Union and all oppressed and exploited classes and peoples of every race on earth. Socialism in the multi-national, multi-colored Soviet Union coincided with his own deepest convictions and strivings toward Black liberation, both in the U.S. and in Africa. It was characteristic of Du Bois that, returning from his first visit to the USSR in November 1926, he proudly affirmed: “l have been in Russia something less than two months . . . I stand in astonishment and wonder at the revelation of Russia that has come to me. I may be partially deceived and half-informed. But if what I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears in Russia is Bolshevism, I am a Bolshevik.” As Padmore was moving away from an anti-imperialist conception of Pan-Africanism, Du Bois was moving to its support ever more consistently.
From 1934 until his death, Padmore’s views derived not from Du Bois, but from Garvey and James. In this connection, it is important to recall that while Du Bois hailed the October Revolution from the beginning, James denied both the possibility and the necessity of solidarity between the oppressed of Africa and the land of socialism. James’ concept of Pan-Africanism never in any way coincided with Du Bois’. And Padmore’s divergence from Du Bois developed as he came closer to James’ anti-Soviet, bourgeois-nationalist ideology.
Especially because of their anti-Communist, anti-Soviet opposition to Du Bois’ Pan-Africanism, the policies of Padmore and James objectively led them into accommodation to the imperialist oppressors of the African peoples who have always given top strategical priority to the aim of isolating the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America from their anti-imperialist allies on a world scale. Above all, the target of U.S. imperialism is to isolate the oppressed peoples and workers of all countries from the Soviet Union and the growing influence of its example. For these reasons, the Padmore-James revision of Du Bois’ Pan-Africanism, now widely promoted in the U.S., has become a serious menace to the unity of the struggle against the monopolists within the U.S. and to the post-independence struggles against neo-colonialism in Africa.
The observation has been made that corporate monopoly combines the techniques of Detroit with those of Madison Avenue in promoting its ideological offensive against the people’s struggles. One can see how this operates as the new anti-Marxist ideological fashions come rolling off the ideological assembly lines like the latest model cars. And, like new cars, these anti-Marxist concepts have a high rate of obsolescence, especially since they must be road-tested on the rugged terrain of the class and national struggles of the oppressed.
To help make up for this rapid obsolescence, the monopolists sometimes revive “old” models, repainted and fitted with the latest ideological trimmings. The old model is then presented as a newly discovered classic. This is what is being done, for instance, with the reputation of George Padmore on the appearance of a new edition of his book, Pan-Africanism Or Communism?, first published in 1956 in England.
On the basis of this book, which attempts to merge Pan-Africanism with anti-Communism, the corporate controlled mass media now acclaim Padmore as the great genius and theoretician of Pan-Africanism. These are the same corporate masters who brutally persecuted Paul Robeson and W. E. B. Du Bois because they consistently pointed out that anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism, along with racism, were weapons of oppression.
In his introduction to his book, Padmore revealed that his ideology, though expressed in the lofty language of pan-Africanism and “African socialism,” treats the imperialist powers who carved up Africa as gently as Booker T. Washington treated the oppressors of his people in the United States. (It is interesting to note that in arranging for the publication of his book in Africa, where anti-Communism finds a less receptive political climate, Padmore changed the title simply to Pan-Africanism, and also discarded his own foreword in the Original English edition.) Padmore wrote:
Africans are quite willing to accept advice and support which is offered in a spirit of true equality, and would prefer to remain on terms of friendship with the West. But they want to make it under their own steam. If, however, they are obstructed they may in their frustration turn to Communism as the only alternative means of achieving their aims. The future pattern of Africa, therefore, will, in this context, be in large measure determined by the attitudes of the Western nations. (Pan-Africanism Or Communism?, Dobson Books Ltd., London, 1956, pp. 17-18.)
It would be difficult to accuse anyone of bias in coming to a harsh judgment of Padmore’s ideology, an ideology which allows him to proclaim to the world his willingness to accept support from Western imperialism provided “it is offered in a spirit of true equality.” This talk of “’true equality” between imperialist oppressor and the oppressed is no less a fantasy than the idea of equality between slave and master on the plantation! Padmore continues:
Our criticism of British colonial policy is not what it professes to stand for—”self government within the Commonwealth”—but the failure to make good this promise unless actually forced to do so by the colonial peoples. It has always been a case of “too little and too late.” The result is that the dependent peoples, who would otherwise be Britain’s friends and allies, become her implacable enemies. What British colonial policy needs to do today is to make open recognition of awakening African self-awareness, and instill its own acts with boldness and imagination. Deeds and not vague promises are what is wanted (Ibid., p. 20.)
The views Padmore expressed about the colonialists were based on a lack of scientific understanding of imperialism. For him, as for Karl Kautsky—an ex-Marxist who betrayed the anti-imperialist struggles before and during World War I—imperialism was not an inherent stage in the development of capitalism, but a “policy” that corporate capital could turn on or off at will. Padmore, too, on the basis of anti-Marxist illusions, betrayed the peoples’ struggles with appeals to the “good will” of the imperialists, exhorting them to change their “policies.”
And to-day’s neo-Pan-Africanists have simply translated Padmore’s abject, illusory pleading—as an alternative to struggle—into “militant” rhetoric in the hope of making it palatable to radicalized youth.
In his great classic, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin Challenged the illusions of Kautsky’s adherents in words that apply most aptly to Padmore and to the neo-Pan-Africanists now active in the United States. He wrote:
Where, except in the imagination of sentimental reformists, are there any trusts capable of concerning themselves with the condition of the masses instead of the conquest of colonies? (Collected Works. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. 22, p. 261.)
And further:
Kautsky’s obscuring of the contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism in bright colors, leaves its traces in this writer’s criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified becomes the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of independence (Ibid., p. 297.)
When Padmore pleaded with British imperialism to “instill its own acts with boldness and imagination,” he simply anticipated Roy Innis by 16 years. Innis calls for a “Marshall Plan” to help free Africa at a time when U.S. imperialism is trying to expand its penetration of Africa—and if need be, yes, with a “Marshall Plan.” Not of course, for Africa’s economic development, but to maintain NATO and South African and Portuguese military and economic domination and brutal aggression against the African liberation movements.
If any doubt still remains that the Pan-Africanism taking its inspiration from Padmore is alien to that of Du Bois, then consider Padmore’s own appeal to the U.S. monopolists for “Marshall aid” to Africa:
In this connection of aid to Africa, if America, the ’foremost champion and defender of the free world’ is really worried about Communism taking in Africa and wants to prevent such a calamity from taking place, I can offer insurance against it. This insurance will not only forestall Communism, but endear the people of the great North American Republic forever to the Africans. Instead of underwriting the discredited regimes, especially in North, Central and South Africa with military aid, let American statesmen make a bold gesture to the Africans in the spirit of the anti-Colonialist tradition of 1776.
The gesture should take the form of a Marshall Aid program for Africa. (Op. cit., p. 375.)
Obviously, this exposes the real reasons for Padmore’s break with the Communist International; there was no place then, as there is no place now, in the Communist and Workers Parties for those with illusions about imperialism, those who deny that the issue in Africa is between imperialism and the oppressed peoples.
While rejecting Marshall Plan type “aid,” Communists make it clear that they do not take a nihilistic attitude to aid and trade between former colonial or dependent countries and the imperialist powers. But they oppose “aid” or trade which continues a relationship of unrestricted plunder of the under-developed nations, Neo-colonial terms of trade, investment and “aid” bring super-profits to imperialism. And it should not be overlooked that the “aid” imperialism advances always comes out of its super-profits with the aim of perpetuating monopoly’s domination over these countries.
The socialist countries do not, as the imperialists claim, seek exclusive economic relations With the emerging nations. On the contrary, they strive for a united front of all the world’s anti-imperialist forces to support the newly independent countries against the economic or military aggression of neo-colonialism.
Within this context, the socialist countries, and especially the Soviet Union, have inaugurated—for the first time in history—equitable terms of trade and credit for the developing countries. With such material aid and equitable economic relations, extended by the socialist countries as an integral part of the solidarity of the world’s anti-imperialist forces, the former colonies now have the perspective of dealing with the imperialists from positions of increasing strength.
In struggling to realize this perspective, these countries will have begun the process of moving away from the days of subjugation—subjugation which was not relieved but reinforced by “aid” from the oppressor.
In all parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America, it is increasingly apparent that the existence of the socialist countries makes it increasingly difficult for imperialism to impose its dictates, whether militarily or economically, upon the peoples of the earth.
Time is running out on imperialism’s long unchallenged control over the terms by which it appropriates resources and products of the nations of the world. And one example of the new perspective opened up to the formerly oppressed peoples can be seen in Africa, the Mid-East and Latin America where the oil producing countries are at long last beginning to have a say in fixing the price of oil in the capitalist world market place. And this anti-imperialist “price-fixing,” in addition to bringing billions in income to these formerly impoverished countries, has an even more important asset—it helps strengthen their independence and development and leads to sharper struggles for social advance within the revolutionary process.
Capitalism, which has for centuries plundered the wealth of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, must be compelled to do more than alter its terms of trade and credit. The monopolists must also be forced to use part of their super-profits for reparation to these countries—first and foremost to the Indo-Chinese peoples, to assist their recovery from the most barbaric aggression in all history, and to the African peoples who suffered the centuries-long genocide of the slave trade and of colonial oppression.
Trade, credits and aid must be based on recognition of the right of peaceful co-existence for each country of Asia, Africa and Latin-America regardless of the social system each may choose. This Leninist concept of the right of co-existence for different social systems goes to the heart of the question of self-determination. Those neo-Pan-Africanists who call for anti-Communist “Marshall aid” to Africa make a mockery of the principle of self-determination as viewed by Du Bois and Lenin.
Calling for “aid” to African countries, while simultaneously echoing the neo-colonialists’ anti-Communism and advocating a divisive skin strategy, weakens the world revolutionary process. In practice it means denying the right of co-existence of African countries, opening the door to the renewed economic, and military pressures of neo-colonialism.
This, in turn, actually results in the denial of the elementary right of self-determination, of independent political existence. It also means denial of the right to choose a non-capitalist instead of a capitalist path—thus leading to submission to neo-colonialist terms of trade as well as “aid.” To paraphrase Lenin in another situation, anti-Communist, neo-Pan-Africanist appeals for ”aid” would, if answered, Africa the way a rope supports a hanging man.
This is exactly what happened to Ghana when anti-Communist nationalists, echoing Padmore, plotted with U.S. and British imperialism against Nkrumah and isolated the country from the socialist nations and the world anti-imperialist forces. In denying Ghana’s right to choose a different social system, did not this result in tightening the noose against Ghana and tighten neo-colonial domination over the Ghanaian economy and people?
In calling for U.S. “Marshall aid” to Africa, Padmore’s aim was not one of struggle to oust imperialism. His perspective was for imperialism to remain on the African continent—and he helped it to stay there by implying that it had already gone, was no longer a threat. He said:
In the coming struggle for Africa, the issue, as I have already inferred, will be between Pan-Africanism and Communism. Imperialism is a discredited system, completely rejected by Africans. (Ibid., p. 21.)
Can any rational person believe, as Padmore suggests, that because imperialism has been rejected by Africans, it is already a dead dodo?
There is still another question that must be asked of today’s neo-Pan-Africanists: Is there any contradiction between Padmore’s anti-Communist ideology and the actions, for example, of Mobuto, accomplice of the Belgian bankers in the murder of Patrice Lumumba, or of General Thieu, partner of U.S. genocide in Vietnam, both of whom also, like Padmore, claim that the issue is between Communism and the people?
In one of his mildest criticisms of Booker T. Washington, Du Bois wrote of his “bending to the will” of the racists. (Dusk of Dawn, Shocken Books, New York, 1940, p. 196.) Earlier, in The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois discussed a particular example of this form of abject submission:
To gain the sympathy and cooperation of the various elements comprising the white South was Mr. Washington’s first task, and this, at the time Tuskegee was founded, seemed, for a black man, well-nigh impossible. And yet ten years later it was done in the words spoken at Atlanta: “In all things purely social we can be as separate as the five fingers, and yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This “Atlanta Compromise” is by all odds the most notable thing in Mr. Washington’s career. The South interpreted it in different ways: the radicals received it as a complete surrender of the demand for civil and political equality; the conservatives, as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding. So both approved it, and to-day its author is certainly the most distinguished Southerner since Jefferson Davis. (The Souls of Black Folk, Washington Square Press, New York, 1970, p. 35, originally published in 1903.)
And when today’s neo-Pan-Africanists follow in Padmore’s footsteps, are they not also “bending to the will” of the racists? Is this not also “complete surrender”?
The policies of neo-Pan-Africanism are ardently welcomed by today’s conservatives. The anti-Communist version of Pan-Africanism can accurately described, in Du Bois’ words, “as a generously conceived working basis for mutual understanding” with neo-colonialism, U.S. racism and imperialism.
At the time when the gains of the Civil War and Reconstruction were being lost, Booker T. Washington assured the oppressors that instead of resisting the revival of racism, Black people would remain “as separate as five fingers” from a united struggle against their main enemy.
In 1934, the German and Italian fascist imperialists were joining with Japanese imperialism to prepare for war with British, French and U.S. imperialism for a new partition of Africa and for the destruction of the first socialist state. It was at this time, when the advances achieved in centuries of struggle were threatened, that Padmore launched his anti-Communist career in the name of Pan-Africanism—assuring the imperialist powers that Black people would remain as “separate as the five fingers” from the anti-fascist struggle, from the Soviet Union and all the world’s anti-imperialist forces. Padmore did this at a time when those forces were struggling for collective resistance against the Axis assault on Ethiopia and the growing fascist threat in Europe. Padmore’s opposition to the anti-fascist movements in Europe marked the beginning of his open betrayal of Du Bois’ internationalist conception of Pan-Africanism.
Padmore turned Pan-Africanism away from anti-imperialism, and into a concept aimed at winning the “good will” of imperialism on the basis of “mutual” anti-Communist understanding. His betrayal was compounded because he did this at a time when it was still possible to defeat German and Italian fascism from within, to halt the fascist aggression in Ethiopia and prevent the Franco-Axis attack against the Spanish Republic, all of which would have immeasurably strengthened the anti-colonialist struggles in Africa and elsewhere by preventing the outbreak of World War II.
In the context of the post-independence struggles in Africa and the post-civil rights stage of struggle in the U.S., those who are inspired by Padmore’s views are in effect helping revive the submissive ideology of Booker T. Washington. In contrast to Du Bois’ concept, neo-Pan-Africanism calls for Black separation from, and anti-Communist antipathy to, the socialist countries and all anti-imperialist forces—non-Black or Black—on a world scale and in the U.S.
Can anyone doubt that this is a doctrine courting “mutual understanding” with the monopolist oppressors? Is it possible to deny that such a doctrine amounts to a resurrection of Booker T. Washington’s “separate as the five fingers” credo, that it is a strategy of division and defeat for the world’s oppressed and exploited—and first of all for the Black oppressed in the U.S. and the peoples of Africa?
Padmore started out by appealing to the good will of British imperialism. Later, with his call for “Marshall aid” to Africa, he began to include U.S. imperialism, which had emerged from World War II with mostly increased power, while British, French, Belgian and Portuguese imperialism had become secondary and even subordinate in Africa.
The purpose of the U.S. Marshall Plan, as has been noted, was to preserve capitalism in Europe by forestalling the advance of socialism, and by building a world-wide anti-Soviet encirclement aimed at containing the Soviet Union’s support of the rising liberation struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Through Marshall plan “aid,” the U.S. supported the Dutch in Indonesia, the French in their African and Asian possessions, the Belgians in the Congo, and the Portuguese, the British and South African imperialists in other parts of Africa.
Is it possible to believe that U.S. imperialism will in any foreseeable future help build the economy of African countries? The imperialist leopard cannot change its spots. U.S. imperialism even now is in a new phase of rivalry with former recipients of Marshall plan “aid” and with Japanese imperialism for control of African resources. At the same time, these rivals without exception operate within a policy aimed at preventing political independence in Africa from being followed by economic independence.
Certain sharp criticisms of Pan-Africanism come from a surprising source—Daniel Guerin, an anti-Communist French writer and close friend of Padmore’s. After receiving one of the first copies of his from Padmore, Guerin wrote his friend:
In my opinion you are too eulogistic towards the Commonwealth. And when you, very correctly, denounce the “bogus and fraudulent device to maintain French domination” why do you forget the device of the fetishist British Queen, used in order to keep together the several parts of the Commonwealth? (Quoted in James R. Hooker, Black Revolutionary: George Padmore’s Path From Communism to Pan-Africanism, Praeger, New York, 1967, p. 128.)
Guerin then went on to say:
You give the impression (because of too vague definitions) to contradict yourself when you write on p. 337 that communism is meeting with stubborn resistance from the adherents of pan-Africanism and when you somewhere else write that many of the young Negro intellectuals in Britain held “Marxist views” (p. 147) and that Garveyism and pan-Africanism “resemble Marxism” (p. 329). Then you do homage to communism when you observe that many of the present day students come from artisan families and peasant communities and are, therefore, more responsive to communist propaganda than those connected with the chieftain caste, etc. (p. 329). This means that there is a class struggle and that the communists are on the good side of the fence, the side of the poor. But, if so, why do you seem to be delighted when you say that most of these students on returning home revert to bourgeois nationalist, reactionary at fifty (p. 330) . . . Finally, my dear George, I am a little worried about a pan-Africanism which would be an empty slogan with-out much more contents than anti-communism . . . (Ibid. pp. 128-129. Emphasis in the Original.)
There is indeed a class struggle in Africa, and now, as they were then, Communists are on the “good side of the fence”—against colonialism in all its forms. And in writing of young African radicals who, he said, later became bourgeois nationalists, Padmore was unintentionally autobiographical.
As a youth, Padmore seemed to accept Marxism and anti-imperialist Pan-Africanism. But when in his fifties he came to Ghana at the invitation of Nkrumah, he arrived not with the Pan-Africanism of Du Bois, but as a bourgeois nationalist. Between 1957 and his death in 1959, Padmore tried to influence Nkrumah away from policies reflecting Du Bois’ thinking—that is, an orientation based consistently on a scientific socialist direction internally, and on unity with the world socialist, anti-imperialist forces headed by the Soviet Union internationally.
Padmore’s activities brought him into increasing conflict with Nkrumah’s Marxist and generally left supporters, and finally with Nkrumah himself. After Padmore visited Israel, this strain became worse. James Hooker, who shares Padmore’s ideology, commented on Padmore’s attitudes toward Israel as follows:
Though he never wrote about his view of the Israeli question, certain things suggest that Padmore favored the Jewish side of the dispute . . . Certainly Ghanaian-Israeli relations were best and Ghanaian-Egyptian relations were worst during Padmore’s stint at Flagstaff House . . . In any case, there is no doubt that Padmore was unpopular in Egypt . . . He did what he could, and very effectively, too, to hamper the Egyptians at the first meeting of the All-African Peoples’ Organization, AAPO, (Accra, December, 1958) by reducing their proposed delegation’s strength from a hundred to five (Ibid., p. 135.)
But Padmore’s increasingly open betrayal of the true spirit of Pan-Africanism was not limited to cutting down Egyptian participation in this conference. He also succeeded in preventing Du Bois’ attendance at it. John Hooker relates that according to Dr. Edwin Munger, who reported this conference for the American Universities’ Field Staff:
. . . Padmore was worried about the probable attendance of Du Bois, whose communist message undoubtedly would be received with deference, such was the old man’s prestige among young Africans. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Professor Munger’s report, but it does reveal a third stage in Padmore’s relationship with Du Bois. (Ibid., pp. 136-137. Emphasis added.)
Hooker also relates that Smith Hempstone, then of the Institute of Current World Affairs, interviewed Padmore in Accra in 1958, and he quotes Hempstone as follows:
He seemed sincere in his views, but rather out of touch with the new generation of African nationalists, with the exception of Nkrumah himself, of course, to whom he was very close. I have a feeling that Nkrumah’s reliance on Padmore as an ideologue contributed to the Ghanaian leader’s failure to gain real control of the pan-Africanist movement. By this I mean that if Nkrumah himself had taken the trouble to ascertain the thinking of other African leaders on the subject of Pan-Africanism, rather than relying on Padmore’s interpretation of what the shape of Pan-Africanism should be, Nkrumah might have more stature than he has today. (Ibid., p. 137.)
Though oversimplified and distorted in interpretation, there is some truth in these observations. However, Nkrumah’s great leadership, and its potential for Africa’s future, was not based on reliance on Padmore—though some of his errors were indeed related to Padmore’s influence.
But the outstanding qualities that brought Nkrumah to the pinnacle of African leadership transcended the influence of Padmore’s ideology. Coinciding with his invitation to Du Bois to come to Ghana, Nkrumah began to more more decisively to overcome the effects of bourgeois nationalism and anti-Communism within his Convention People’s Party. However, by this time it was too late to overcome what Padmore had done to undermine the Left and stimulate the mobilization of reactionary nationalism in concert with international capital to overthrow the Nkrumah government.
Padmore’s overriding compulsion to link anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism with Pan-Africanism helped create the ideological atmosphere within which Nkrumah’s enemies mobilized their forces. This strengthened the bourgeois forces in Nkrumah’s CPP, enabling them to orient economic policies on capitalists and rich peasants as against public sectors Of the economy. As a result, the country was increasingly at the mercy of the credit, “aid” and trade policies of neo-colonialism.
While Nkrumah sought to turn Ghana toward a more consistent non-capitalist path and a more consistent recognition that true Pan-Africanism had to rely first of all on the socialist countries as the bulwark of anti-imperialism on every continent, the traditional elite in and out of the Convention People’s Party was using Padmore’s anti-Communism to challenge Nkrumah’s leadership.
Commenting on some of the factors that led to Nkrumah’s Overthrow, two academic writers state:
We maintain that Nkrumah lost his opportunity partly because, despite his ideological commitment to socialism, he did not have a vanguard party on which he could rely if he wished to nationalize the economy . . He could have chosen a “conservative path” of development . . . or he could have opted for the “radical path” . . . As the first independent African state and one of the few with real immediate development potential, Ghana was in a position to bargain for socialist cooperation, especially from the Soviet Union, which might have put Ghana in a position similar to that of Cuba. Cuba, with a population about the size of Ghana’s, has received a price from the Soviet Union for its primary export, sugar, which provides a basis for economic development. In 1968 Cuba received $365 million over the world price from the Soviet Union for sugar. (Barbara Callaway and Emily Card in The State of the Nations, Michael F. Lofchie, ed., University of California press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971, p. 92.)
One cannot help recalling that in 1966, the year Nkrumah was overthrown, there was a disastrous drop in the price of cocoa—manipulated by the same imperialists who engineered the coup against Nkrumah and whose “good will” Padmore preferred to the solidarity and support of the Soviet Union.
The story of the contrast between the role of cocoa in disrupting social and political advances in Ghana with the role of sugar in Cuba’s development is a fundamental expression of lhe consequences of neo-Pan-Africanism as compared to the internationalist Pan-Africanism of Du Bois.
On July 26, 1972, on Cuba’s National Day, what Fidel Castro had to say about the Soviet Union is as valid for Africa as it is for Cuba, and for the anti-imperialist struggles all over the world:
. . . in the future humanity will fully appreciate what the Soviet people have done for it. Our country is one of the many relevant examples.
What perhaps irks the imperialists and their stooges the most is the fact that this small country of ours, situated on the very doorstep of the United States in the Caribbean which the Yankees once considered their private preserve, was able to cancel out the past, to carry out the revolution, to defend itself and hold its own. They will not forgive the Cuban revolution for this. They will not forgive the U.S.S.R. for the support it has given us not in order to take possession of Cuba’s mines, to seize Cuban soil, or to exploit our people, not to implant vice, prostitution, gambling, poverty, not to grab, not to appropriate the fruits of our labor, not to conquer the country, not to exploit anyone. The Soviet Union supported us in conformity with revolutionary and internationalist principles.
And, Continued Castro
The Soviet state does not own a single mine, not a single factory outside the frontiers of the U.S.S.R. Everything it has, everything it owns, every credit it extends, the aid it gives, all this derives from its own natural wealth, from the labour and sweat of its people.
The imperialists and capitalists at times grant loans. But on what terms? At exorbitant interest rates! . . . And even if a capitalist country does extend long term credits, in 10 years’ time you have to pay back twice as much, more through non-equivalent exchange, buying at high prices and selling at low, whether it is a matter of coffee, cccoa, sugar, minerals, or anything else. And the money the capitalists lend is money they have squeezed out of other peoples. The economic relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union have always been the most unselfish and most revolutionary possible between two countries . . .
What would have happened had there been no socialist camp, had not the Soviet Union existed? The least that would have happened is that we would all have been wiped out. The least!
We say that in the world today where imperialism exists and remains powerful leaving behind a legacy of poor and undeveloped countries, it is impossible to carry out revolution, to win independence, without socialism and international solidarity. This is our credo.
The Cuban experience demonstrates that those who fight for liberation against imperialism do not have to bargain with the Soviet Union for its support and solidarity.
And, it may added, Castro’s credo expressed the internationalism that is the basis of Du Bois’ Pan-Africanism—which, I believe, is one of the basic reasons fighters for Black liberation in the U.S. will reject the anti-Communist variants of Pan-Africanism. They will understand that anti-Communism linked to Pan-Africanism is an ideology as alien to the needs of Black liberation in the U.S. as it is to achieving African liberation. Every fighter for Black liberation will appreciate these closing remarks of Castro’s:
I would like to ask this of the quasi-intellectuals, pseudo-revolutionaries, schemers and vilifiers: how many million lives would the Cuban revolution have cost had it not had the support of the socialist camp, especially the Soviet Union?
But for the influence of Padmore’s anti-Communist perversions of Pan-Africanism, Ghana would now probably have been advancing towards socialism—an inspiration to all Africa as Cuba is to all Latin America.
Du Bois’ anti-imperialist Pan-Africanism embodies the Leninist concept of anti-imperialism—which applies to each country, each oppressed people and exploited class, in accordance With that country’s specific historical conditions. It is a concept of internationalism which rejects the idea that a continent can become free through an anti-Communist color strategy that would separate liberation struggles from the socialist and anti-imperialist forces on a world scale. It rejects out of hand the idea that the people of Africa, Latin America or any other continent can end oppression and exploitation by going-it-alone on a color or nationality basis. That is the meaning of Castro’s message, and that is why it harmonizes with the legacy left us by Du Bois.
To carry out this legacy in the United States calls for challenging the “quasi-intellectuals and pseudo-revolutionaries” who would have us abandon the struggle by denying the Class basis of racism. Fighting racism, expecting liberation, is inconceivable without a strategy directed against the class source of racism. The same principle, taking into account the differences in their conditions and peoples, applies to each country on the African continent.
If one recognizes that most of the countries of Africa are dominated by imperialism, then one must also recognize that the content of the anti-imperialist struggle must reflect the specific class relations in each African country. If one says that no classes exist in Africa, as the rationale for claiming that Marxism does not apply to Africa, then one is saying that imperialism does not exist in Africa.
It is quite true that the development of both the bourgeoisie and the working class in Africa has been restricted by external domination. The struggle for the interests of the working class—which correspond with national independence and self-determination—and the tendency of the national bourgeoisie to compromise with neo-colonialism are at the center of the politics, the class struggle, in every African country. If one recognizes that imperialism must operate on the basis of the general laws of capitalism, then one cannot deny the fundamental fact of the existence of classes and class struggle in Africa, even though what is involved in most instances is a more or less emergent national bourgeoisie and proletariat.
When Nkrumah came to recognize the class struggle as basic to the struggle on the African continent, he began to express his unequivocal rejection of Padmore’s ideology—the myth of anti-Communist “African socialism.” In one of his latter works, Nkrumah stated:
The African Revolution is an integral part of the world socialist revolution, and just as the class struggle is basic to world revolutionary process, so also is it fundamental to the struggle of the workers and peasants of Africa. (Class in Africa, International Publishers, New York, 1970, p. 10.)
And again emphasizing the distance he had put between himself and Padmore, Nkrumah wrote:
Myths such as African socialism and pragmatic socialism, implying the existence of a brand or brands of socialism applicable to Africa alone, have propagated . . . one of these distortions has been the suggestion that class structures which exist in other parts of the world do not exist in Africa.
Nothing is further from the truth. A fierce class struggle has been raging in Africa. The evidence is all around us. In essence it is, as in the rest of the world, a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. (Ibid., p. 10.)
The future course of each African country will be shaped by the outcome of the class struggle. In this struggle, the national bourgeoisie tends to play an anti-imperialist role inconsistently, vacillatingly, and after independence tries to restrict the revolution by controlling economic developments in the image of its own selfish class interests, aimed at orienting the economy along capitalist lines. In the context of neo-colonialism, this would threaten independence and risk subjection to international capital and the further impoverishment and exploitation of the masses.
Some argue that the Marxist concept of class is inapplicable to Africa since both the bourgeoisie and the working class are underdeveloped as compared with advanced industrial countries. However, the nascent bourgeoisie in these countries, striving toward national independence, is also subject to the general laws of capitalism, and therefore tends to rely on international capital against its own people.
On the other hand, the interests of the nascent working class can only be advanced within a consistently anti-imperialist strategy—one that seeks, for example, to enlist allies on the African continent, while at the same time rejecting a narrow strategy that would limit allies to those with a similar skin color.
The necessity of such a strategy becomes clear to those fighting for the interests of the working class in Africa, who in so many instances have seen their own national bourgeoisie—whose skin color is no different from their own—betraying newly-won independence to imperialists of another color. This is why it becomes more apparent to them that they must reject an anti-Communist skin strategy which conflicts with their anti-imperialist interests.
And that is why the Pan-Africanism of Du Bois, unlike Padmore’s, is essential to the African struggle for economic as well as political independence—why those who base themselves on the emerging working class in Africa increasingly see the need for applying those Pan-African principles that harmonize with and extend solidarity to the socialist countries and all anti-imperialist forces.
There is both tragedy and irony in the fact that Padmore’s anti-Communist, anti-Marxist policies were continued after his death by one of Nkrumah’s bitterest enemies, Dr. Kofi A. Busia, when the coup that overthrew Nkrumah made Busia Ghana’s new Prime Minister. (Busia Was later removed from power by still another coup.)
In the struggle against Nkrumah, Busia—like Padmore—stressed “African socialism” instead of scientific socialism. The vague generalities of “African socialism” served as the rationale for expanding the struggle against Marxist and other Left-oriented Ghanaians who favored cooperation with the world socialist and anti-imperialist forces. With the support of the imperialist powers, Busia mobilized the class forces that sought to bring Ghana within the orbit of neo-colonialism.
According to Busia, “African socialism” aims:
at the equitable distribution of wealth, and at social justice and freedom . . . The literature on African socialism contains criticism of Communism because its methods destroy equality and freedom in the name of the ’dictatorship of the proletariat’. (Africa In Search Of Democracy, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1967, pp. 85-86.)
For us in the United States, it is important to note that Baraka’s “Ujamaa”—”economic cooperation” and “self sufficiency”—is a close replica of Busia’s “African socialism.” Although Busia and Baraka manipulate the symbols of African tradition when they speak of “equitable distribution” or “communalism,” the content of their language is that of capitalism.
Even the U.S. monopolists claim they are for “equitable distribution.” But when auto or steel workers strike for higher wages, the bosses do everything in their power to defeat them. “Equitable distribution” is impossible as long as the capitalist class controls the means of production, thereby exercising the dictatorship of capital over the working class and the people in general.
In his opposition to Communism and “the dictatorship” of the working class, Busia reveals that he preferred that Ghana take a capitalist instead of a non-capitalist path, relying on the dictates of international capital instead of the of the socialist countries where the working class controls the means of production.
For Busia, “Ujamaa” is “African socialism” based on “familyhood.” (Ibid., p. 78.) This, too, is akin to Baraka’s ideology—an ideology of class collaboration which encourages Black workers and masses to accept the political direction and economic domination of their “own” national bourgeoisie which objectively means accommodation to the monopoly ruling class. For Baraka, class divisions among Blacks do not exist; instead there is one big “family.” This not only leads to collaboration with the Black exploiters of Black people; more important, it is an ideology leading to collaboration with the racist monopoly oppressors.
In the references he makes in his book to Kenya, Busia most clearly confirms that he speaks in the language of “African socialism” in order to camouflage capitalism. “Equally opposed to capitalism is African socialism as espoused by the Kenya Government,” states Busia, which he approvingly follows with a quote from a Kenyan state Paper: “(Kenya’s) socialism differs from capitalism because it prevents the exercise of disproportionate political influence by economic power groups.” (Ibid., p. 73.)
Do not these remarks simply reveal that the Kenyan state supports the development of capitalism—that its emerging capitalist class is using state power to prevent the exercise of political influence by the working masses?
One can identify the class character of Busia’s politics from his background as well as from the orientation of his “African socialism.” He came from the Ashanti professional elite which administered Ghana for the British and he continued to stay within the state apparatus under Nkrumah. The Ashanti professionals were linked with the Ashanti traditional elite who controlled most of Ghana’s cocoa production, and Busia became the leader of the political opposition which first established its base among these cocoa growers, This was the base from which the political opposition put Padmore’s anti-Communist neo-Pan-Africanism into action against Nkrumah.
In his Africa and the Politics of Unity, Emanuel Wallerstein, a U.S. bourgeois writer, admits that as:
. . . more and more African nations became those states considered to be neo-colonial by the revolutionary core used liberally the concept of African socialism both to strengthen themselves internally against radical opposition movements and to abjure international policies which would involve systematic rejection of the West and its replacement by new links with the Communist world. As this occurred, the revolutionary core became more and more chary of the concept of African socialism. In time the concept was repudiated, and then denounced. (Random House, New York, 1970, p. 231.)
Wallerstein goes on to quote Mobido Keita, who gave the following warning in 1962 when he was President of Mali:
Let us not be deceived by word-magic. Most of the other African states speak of African socialism . . . if we don’t watch out, the word socialism will be emptied of its content, and the most capitalist systems and the most reactionary bourgeois can hide themselves behind the slogan of socialism. (Ibid., p. 232.)
Then Wallerstein states:
It was in Ghana, once again, that the ideological position was elaborated in great detail. This can be found in Nkrumah’s Consciencism and throughout the various issues of The Spark and L’Entincelle. On the one hand, African socialism was denounced categorically. The historic mission of “African socialism” is to combat and, if possible, defeat scientific socialism firstly by introducing elements alien to socialist thought, and secondly by denying some of the foundations of socialist ideology. (Ibid., p.233.)
Such criticism, appearing in Nkrumah’s writings in 1964, exposed the essence of Padmore’s ideology. Unfortunately, Nkrumah’s evolution away from Padmore’s concepts did not develop its full thrust quickly enough to offset counter-revolution in Ghana.
And now that Padmore’s neo-Pan-Africanism has been resurrected in the United States, it would be appropriate to keep in mind Mobido Keito’s warning of 1962: “Let us not be deceived by word-magic.” Today’s word-magicians include Baraka, who now ironically speaks in the name of Nkrumah; and Stokely Carmichael, self-styled protege of Nkrumah, who has been sounding more like Nkrumah’s enemy, Busia. One and all, the advocates of neo-Pan-Africanism—from the “militants” to the proponents of “Black capitalism” have turned the anti-imperialist, liberating Pan-Africanism of Du Bois into its opposite.
Next: CONTRADICTIONS IN BARAKA’S “WORD MAGIC”