Street Scene On 47th Street in South Side Chicago, A Busy Area Where Many Small Black Businesses Are Located.
A deep exploration of Cabral’s and Rodney’s thoughts on the petty bourgeoisie and class struggles in Africa.
Originally published in Pambazuka News.
One of the most debated ideas of Cabral is the suicide of the petty bourgeoisie. Much has been written on this idea, a few in context but much out of context, thinking of it as a dictum or an edict. In revisiting this statement, I want to locate it in its historical and political context: why was it said, in what context and with what political purpose in mind. Cabral and Rodney always emphasized the specificity of discourse - to be concrete and contextual and discuss concepts and ideas emanating from our own specific conditions and political practices. Before I do this, it is relevant to discuss the social category of petty bourgeoisie which both Cabral and Rodney use freely in their writings. This is important because the use of the social category of petty bourgeoisie, particularly in the political context, by Cabral and Rodney, is slightly different from the Marxist classics.
In the Communist Manifesto (1850) (in Fernbach 1973, vol. I: 62-98), Marx and Engels seem to imply that in the European situation, there are two types of petty bourgeoisie. The “old” petty bourgeoisie (artisans, shopkeepers, etc.) who were remnants from the pre-capitalist formations, feudalism in the case of Europe. The “new’ petty bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is formed in developed capitalism ensconced between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat[2], “fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as supplementary part of the bourgeois society.” (ibid. 89) The idea of the fickle nature of the petty bourgeoisie oscillating between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is formulated more graphically by Marx in his polemical text against Proudhon. He describes Proudhon as a petty bourgeois who is “continually tossed back and forth between capital and labour …” (Marx & Engels, 1976, vol. 6: 178). The fickle or unreliable nature of petty bourgeoisie has remained with us and is often deployed in polemical writings. However, we do not find this in Cabral or Rodney who took the role of petty bourgeoisie seriously notwithstanding its fickle nature. This is where once again Cabral’s and Rodney’s caution that we should desist from generalizations and be contextually specific.
There is another important point to add in reference to Marx’s writings on the petty bourgeoisie. From his historical conception of the petty bourgeoisie as an intermediary class, without independent material interests[3]Marx could not envisage the petty bourgeoisie to get into political power on its own and become a ruling class serving its own interests. Even where it does get into state power, it is objectively serving the interests of the bourgeoisie (see, for instance, Marx 1852). This is important because in some of Rodney’s writings we do come across the idea of the petty bourgeoisie as the ruling class (Rodney 1990: 54-55.). More on this later.
Matters stand differently when it comes to colonial and neo-colonial formations which was the dominant framework for Cabral and Rodney. On the place and political role of the petty bourgeoisie, there are certain commonalities and significant differences between Cabral and Rodney.
Firstly, the most important difference between the European situation and struggles that Marx was writing on, and the African situation, is the central factor of imperialism. Whereas in the European case the formations and the transitions from one to another were largely autonomous dependent on internal social and political contradictions which were ultimately decisive, in the colonial and neo-colonial situations, internal contradictions were muted under colonialism. The internal contradictions between classes and social groups come to the surface after independence under neo-colonialism. In the anticolonial struggle almost all colonized people are fighting against the colonial power. As soon as independence is achieved, social classes and groups begin to assert their own interests, albeit under the overall hegemony of imperialism (Cabral 1969: 57 et. seq.).
Secondly, in the colonial and neo-colonial situation the petty bourgeoisie is more than an intermediary. Tethered to the metropolitan bourgeoisie under colonialism and tied to the international bourgeoisie in various ways under neo-colonialism, the petty bourgeoisie, or at least large sectors of it, are transmission belts. Its privileged position and perks are best served by playing second fiddle to the international bourgeoisie.
Thirdly, national liberation in Africa, whether through armed struggle or “peaceful means”, is a kind of alliance between classes, led by the petty bourgeoisie, or some sectors of it. On this Cabral and Rodney agree. The leadership of the petty bourgeoisie was seen as almost inevitable. The petty bourgeoisie under colonialism was the class nearest to the colonial state apparatus, or in it; had a broader view of the world than the working people; had some education to articulate the demands of the people; knew the colonial ways of the Europeans, and had a personal interest in fighting for independence given that it subjectively felt the racial discrimination and the humiliation of petty European officials, their bosses, in spite of the latter being less qualified. This is the point made by Cabral giving his own example. Cabral was a highly qualified agronomist in the colonial civil service but earned far less than his Portuguese boss whom he could have “taught his job with my eyes shut” (ibid.: 52). Cabral added that such discrimination and affront suffered by the African petty bourgeoisie mattered “when considering where the initial idea of the struggle came from.” (ibid) This ought not to be generalized because there are cases in many African countries where the initial ideas for freedom and independence came from some sectors of the working people, even though in such cases too, eventually, the leadership landed in the hands of the more educated petty bourgeoisie.
Fourthly, while both Cabral and Rodney drew from Marxism their classification of the petty bourgeoisie, their application was not slavish. Cabral did an astute analysis of what he called “the social structure in Guinea” (Cabral 1964 in Cabral 1969: 46-61.). In this analysis Cabral separately considers the town and rural areas of Fulas and Balante. He characterizes Fula as semi-feudal in which there are two main classes, the chiefs and the peasants. In between these two classes, are intermediate social groups like artisans and Dyulas (itinerant traders) who could be classified as petty bourgeois. Balantes hardly had much stratification, land was communally owned, instruments of production were privately owned and the product went to the one who laboured. In towns, he identified several groups including workers (for example, dockworkers), European bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, African petty bourgeoisie of different social gradations, African workers in shops employed by European merchants and commercial houses, prostitutes, thieves and other déclassé elements.
In his synthesis of the social stratification of Africans, he sees higher and middle officials and liberal professionals as a group. Then follow petty officials, commercial employees, and small farm owners as petty bourgeoisie (ibid.: 48) He is somewhat hesitant to place higher officials and liberal professionals in the petty bourgeoisie but makes a rather tantalizing observation: “… if we were to make a thorough analysis the higher African officials as well as the middle officials and members of the liberal professions should also be included in the petty bourgeoisie” (Ibid.). I venture to say that Cabral was inclined to include this group in the African petty bourgeoisie. (In our East African debates of the 1970s, such a group was unambiguously included in the petty bourgeoisie, (see Shivji 1975, passim).
What is perhaps most interesting in this essay is not so much the analysis of the social structure, which is somewhat schematic, but Cabral’s political analysis of the attitude of each class and social group to national liberation and social revolution. This is rooted in the actually existing social conditions of Guinea-Bissau though in its methodology, Cabral seems to lean heavily on the classical Marx. He refuses to call workers he identifies as the working class or ‘proletariat’. His argument was that there could not be a proletariat in absence of a national bourgeoisie. By the same token, he refuses to call déclassé elements lumpen proletariat since there cannot be a lumpen proletariat in absence of a proletariat. It is difficult to agree wholly with this logical argument. But then one must keep in mind that Cabral was writing this in 1964 based on the actually existing conditions in Guinea-Bissau. He did not have behind him the experience of independent African countries since most of them had become independent only a couple of years by then. He could not be expected to predict developments in independent African countries which did experience the development of the proletariat and some bourgeoisie albeit dependent bourgeoisie, mostly compradorial classes in both public and private sectors (see below).
Another interesting point to observe in Cabral’s analysis is that he does not consider the peasantry as a revolutionary force. Although the peasantry is most exploited, that does not by itself make the peasantry a revolutionary agency (ibid: 51). And he certainly did not see revolutionary potential in the déclassé elements, what is traditionally called the lumpen proletariat. In both these respects, he departs from Frantz Fanon, who considered the working class as some kind of a labour aristocracy and the peasantry as the revolutionary force (Fanon, 1967; see also Macey 2000: 390 et seq.). In fact, Fanon disagreed with the MPLA, which based its struggle in urban areas and neglected the peasantry (Macey ibid).[4]
Whereas Cabral’s conception was based on the experience of Guinea-Bissau (and he always emphasised this and refused to generalise), Rodney’s arose from his experience of the Caribbean and East Africa where he participated in the vigorous debates of 1960s and ‘70s taking place at the University of Dar es Salaam. At the time, the term petty bourgeoisie was in vogue to the extent that many of us involved in those debates took it for granted that it was the petty bourgeoisie which was in power, albeit as a dependent class. Rodney writing in 1974 (Rodney 1975, & 1975a) and in 1975 (Rodney 1990) continued to adhere to the concept of the petty bourgeoisie, sometimes even calling African states as petty bourgeois states. In hindsight, we can legitimately ask whether not recognising the differentiation of the petty bourgeoisie in state power after independence was correct. As a participant in those debates, I had tried to develop the concept of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie particularly after 1967 nationalisations In Tanzania.
My argument then was that the petty bourgeoisie, having lacked an economic base when it came to power, had sought to create such a base through nationalisation in which the accumulation was collective by the state while consumption was individual. My position was that the state had become the site of accumulation for the collective interest of the whole bureaucratic bourgeoisie though consumption remained individual. Yet, I continued to include the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the petty bourgeoisie. I did not fully develop the argument that in fact the petty bourgeoisie had morphed into a bourgeoisie, a bureaucratic bourgeoisie. One commentator on the earlier version[5] of my Class Struggles in Tanzania observed that the author always bracketed the term in inverted commas, implying perhaps a tentative formulation or that the class was not yet fully developed (Foster-Carter: 1973: 12-24). I later changed my position recognising the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as a class. (see, for instance, Shivji et al 2020: book 3: passim). It is not clear if Rodney changed his position.
In his Hamburg lectures in 1978, Rodney had come a long way from his hopes for Tanzania’s Ujamaa and his tentative formulations on class and class struggle. According to his biographer, Rodney, while giving some credit to the nationalism of the Tanzanian petty bourgeoisie, showed surprise on how the bureaucratic bourgeoisie had abandoned the ujamaa project and embedded itself in the international capitalist system (Zeilig 2022: 268-283). I cannot conclusively say that Rodney had now come to accept that the bureaucratic bourgeoisie had developed into a class in itself because I have not heard or read the original lectures. The biographer, however, quotes one statement from the lectures which I find pregnant as if Rodney was moving towards identifying the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as a class-in-itself. “The idea of class struggle does not suit a bureaucratic bourgeoisie or any sector of the petit-bourgeoisie, because it’s an idea that speaks about the negation of their own existence over time” (ibid.: 284). Be that as it may, what is important for the purpose of this paper is to underline that in Rodney we do not find a full-fledged analysis that the petty bourgeoisie in power had morphed into some kind of a bourgeoisie.
There is another piece of analytical observation by Rodney which I find both refreshing and illustrative of his refusal to apply slavishly theories developed elsewhere. In his conversation with the comrades of the Institute of Black World which was over a period of two days on April 30 and May 1, 1975, he said:
We still have a large peasantry. Do we treat them as petty commodity producers and as a consequence as members of petit bourgeoisie, or do we see them as part of the working people, the producers in our country? What do we do with the large number of unemployed? Thirty-three per cent of our population is unemployed. Do we call them “lumpen proletariat” and with all that that implies – that they’re outside the working class, that they are even in some ways anti-social – or should we understand that this is a fundamental part of the thrust of capitalism to keep our working people from having the right to work. (Rodney 1990: 107)
In this observation, Rodney is hinting at an extremely useful concept, the concept of the working people. Inspired by Rodney, this author has developed the concept of the working people further (Shivji 2017). I consider Rodney’s concept of the working people as his most important contribution to the theory of class and class struggle in Africa and the Caribbean.
Let us return to Cabral. Did Cabral think that the petty bourgeoisie in power would morph into some kind of a bourgeoisie either through the state or in alliance with the comprador bourgeoisie outside the state? Remember, Cabral did not have the experience of neo-colonialism behind him. He was in a sense extrapolating yet his observations are very sharp and revealing. In his 1966 essay on ‘The Weapon of Theory’, Cabral begins to talk about the possible class structure and class struggles under neo-colonialism. He argues that “imperialist action takes the form of creating a local bourgeoisie or pseudo-bourgeoisie, controlled by the ruling class of the dominating country.’ (Cabral 1969: 82) “Pseudo” because in Cabral’s main thesis this class is incapable of releasing the free development of productive forces or, in the language of class, is incapable of becoming a true national bourgeoisie.[6] Fanon well describes the characteristics of the “national middle class” (pseudo-bourgeoisie in the words of Cabral or compradorial class in the language of East African debates) in his oft-quoted celebrated passage: ‘in underdeveloped countries no true bourgeoisie exists; there is only a sort of little greedy caste, avid and voracious, with the mind of the huckster, only too glad to accept the dividends that the former colonial power hands out to it. This get-rich-quick middle class shows itself incapable of great ideas or of inventiveness.”[7] (Fanon 1967: 141)
Elsewhere Cabral describes succinctly the differentiation of the petty bourgeoisie once in power: “the creation of a native pseudo-bourgeoisie which generally develops out of a petty bourgeoisie of bureaucrats and accentuates the differentiation between social strata and intermediaries in the commercial system (compradorial), by strengthening the economic activity of local elements, opens up new perspectives in the social dynamic, mainly by the development of the urban working class, the introduction of the private agricultural property and the progressive appearance of an agricultural proletariat.” (Cabral 1969: 82) This comes close to my analysis of Tanzania in Class Struggles but unlike Cabral, both Rodney and I (I now believe wrongly) continued to talk about the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as a part of the petty bourgeoisie. That, writing as early as 1966, Cabral could almost foresee the morphing of the petty bourgeoisie into a bourgeoisie after independence, is not only prescient but the result of Cabral’s deep theoretical insights and powerful belief in the socialist revolution as the most viable option for progress in a neo-colony. Contemplating a socialist path, Cabral had already begun to think of the possible class enemies that the working people would have to face. We will return to this subject again in the next two sections.
On Petty Bourgeoisie Committing Suicide
There are two places where Cabral is deploying the idea of the petty bourgeoisie committing suicide. In both these cases, the context is his political discussion on the possible trajectory of the petty bourgeoisie which led the national liberation movement, as it was poised to take over state power on the morrow of independence. In his essay on the ‘Brief Analysis’, Cabral says that the petty bourgeoisie has only two options, either “ally itself with imperialism and reactionary strata in its own country” or “ally itself with the workers and peasants” in which case “Are we asking the petty bourgeoisie to commit suicide?” “Because if there is a revolution, then the petty bourgeoisie will have to abandon power to the workers and the peasants and cease to exist qua petty bourgeoisie”.[8] (Cabral 1969: 57) The second place he comes back to the question of petty bourgeoisie committing suicide is in his 1966 theoretical essay ‘The Weapon of Theory’.
Before dealing with this, let me make one thing clear. Unlike Rodney, Cabral states very clearly that the petty bourgeoisie is not capable of retaining political power and becoming a ruling class, even if it comes to power, because it lacks an economic base. It is essentially a service class not involved in the process of production (ibid.: 89) This is very much in line with the classical Marxist view of the petty bourgeoisie discussed above.
Cabral argues that for the petty bourgeoisie to retain power that national liberation puts in its hands, it has two options. The first option is “to give free rein to its natural tendencies to become more bourgeois, to permit the development of a bureaucratic and intermediate bourgeoisie, in the commercial cycle, in order to transform itself into a pseudo-bourgeoise” which means allying itself with imperialism and reinforcing neo-colonialism (emphasis mine). The second option is not to betray the objectives of national liberation which means “strengthen its revolutionary consciousness, … reject the temptation of becoming more bourgeois and the natural concerns of its class mentality, … identify itself with the working classes …This means that in order to truly fulfil the role of the national liberation struggle, the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must be capable of committing suicide as a class in order to be reborn as revolutionary workers, completely identified with the aspirations of the people to which they belong.” (emphasis mine) (Cabral 1969: 89)
There is no concept of the petty bourgeoisie committing suicide in Rodney although he too urged the people of middle classes, in the words of Eusi Kwayana, “to a commitment to service of the masses of the working people.” (Kwayana n.d.: 130). Rodney also talked about certain sectors of the petty bourgeoisie like intellectuals to “ground” with the people to be able to play a revolutionary role (Rodney, Patricia et al, 2013: 300). Fanon, on the other hand, in his formulations, comes very close to the formulation of Cabral. The “authentic national middle class in an under-developed country is to repudiate its own nature in so far as it is bourgeois” and “make itself the willing slave of that revolutionary capital which is the people”. (emphasis mine) (Fanon 1967: 120) In other words, as Cabral had said, Fanon was urging the “national middle class” “to betray the calling fate has marked out for it, and to put itself to school with the people …” (ibid).
I conclude this discussion on the idea of the petty bourgeoisie committing suicide by underscoring four important issues of methodology and perspective that are embedded in Cabral’s approach. Firstly, Cabral’s approach is political based on class and not some reified or metaphysical perspective although he uses words like “reincarnate’, “reborn” and such like. Secondly, in this context, Cabral is not talking about going back to the roots or “return to the source” or identifying with the masses or return to culture/tradition. Rather he is calling on the petty bourgeoisie to repudiate its class nature (Fanon above) and “acquire … a working-class mentality”[9] (Cabral 1969: 55).
Thirdly, Cabral’s formulation in ‘The Weapon of Theory’ that the petty bourgeoisie should commit suicide “as a class” has often troubled me. Did he mean the whole of the petty bourgeoisie committing suicide which would be absurd or some individuals from the petty bourgeoisie committing suicide? After carefully re-reading the essay and its context, I came to the conclusion that the phrase “as a class” is not a reference to the petty bourgeoisie as a social category. He is rather implying that the petty bourgeoisie betrays, so to speak, its petty bourgeois class nature to become more bourgeois. Thus, Cabral is talking about the nature or aspiration of the petty bourgeoisie to become bourgeois which it is called upon to repudiate so as to become revolutionary and join the working people in their historical role to transcend the system of capitalist imperialism.
Finally, let me reemphasize that the context of this idea was the transition from anti-colonial national liberation to post-colonial revolution. Cabral was already thinking and agonizing over what would happen after the victory of national liberation, that is whether the country would fall into neo-colonialism and therefore under the hegemony of imperialism, or advance to a social revolution. This marks out Cabral from many of his contemporary African leaders, including those of Marxist orientation, of national liberation. This takes me to my final section of this paper.
National Liberation and Social Revolution
Rodney says somewhere: “Our predicament at the present time throws up new questions. Neo-colonial man is asking a different set of questions than the old colonial man.” (Rodney 1990: 69) And he goes on to urge his audience not to get trapped in the colonial moment where the struggle is of the whole people, Africans, against the dominant Europeans. Under neo-colonialism, the new question is whether Africans are a homogenous mass or differentiated into classes. And if they are differentiated, then against which class or classes are the working people struggling.
Rodney was raising these questions almost fifteen years after the independence of most African countries and therefore had the benefit of the experience of neocolonialism and internal class struggles. Cabral did not have that benefit. Cabral was writing only a couple of years after the independence of some African countries and before his own country became independent. Therefore, in Rodney’s formulation, Cabral was the “old colonial man” raising and grappling with new questions of the neocolonial man. Cabral combined in him both the “old colonial” and the new “neo-colonial” man. In this respect, Cabral was ahead of his times. He was raising questions of social revolution beyond national liberation and positing a possibility of national liberation seamlessly flowing into anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist social revolution. This is contrary to the widely held belief in many national liberation movements then of two stages, first the national democratic stage and then the socialist stage.[10] This position also suggests that Cabral appreciated the limits of nationalism spawned by anti-colonial struggles while at the same time seeing in it a potential to advance to social revolution. Presumably he would have called this a ‘national liberation revolution’ rather than simply national liberation with an ultimate goal of independence and state sovereignty.
In the context of training cadres for national liberation, in his 1964 essay, Cabral observes: “we realized that we needed to have people with a mentality which could transcend the context of the national liberation struggle …” (Cabral 1969: 55). Cabral is already thinking in terms of transcending the anti-colonial struggle. Referring to the historical situation where imperialism is dominant and socialism is consolidating itself in the large part of the world, Cabral reiterates the necessity of eliminating imperialism. Thus, there are only “two possible paths for an independent nation: to return to imperialist domination (neo-colonialism, capitalism, state capitalism), or to take the way of socialism.” (ibid.: 87) Needless to say then that for Cabral social revolution meant a revolution against imperialism and capitalism and to go to “the way of socialism”.
Almost sixty years down the line, virtually all African countries have taken the path of neo-colonialism entangled woefully in the imperialist web. Cabral’s hope and wish for national liberation to transform into a social revolution was dashed, even in his own two countries (Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde) for whose liberation he sacrificed his life.
The neo-colonial and neo-liberal reality of the African world has been so pervasive, that some scholars, even radical ones, are damning national liberation struggles for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives. Cabral indeed showed some reservations about the national liberation struggles but with a different motivation and without repudiating the anti-imperialist struggle against colonialism. His major concern was that the national liberation struggle for independence and self-determination should become a national liberation revolution which would seamlessly flow into a socialist revolution.
Cabral asked whether national liberation could simply be taken as a revolutionary trend or required a deeper analysis? “[I]n fact I would even go so far as to ask whether, given the advance of socialism in the world, the national liberation movement is not an imperialist initiative.” (Cabral 1969: 58) He continued with a series of rhetorical questions:
Is the judicial institution which serves as the reference for the rights of peoples to struggle to free themselves a product of the peoples who are trying to liberate themselves? Was it created by the socialist countries who are our historical associates? It is signed by the imperialist countries, it is the imperialist countries who have recognized the right of all peoples to national independence, so I ask myself whether we may not be considering as an initiative of our people what is in fact an initiative of the enemy? (ibid.)
Cabral then proceeds to answer his own questions explaining why he was raising them in the first place.
This is where we think there is something wrong with the simple interpretation of the national liberation movement as a revolutionary trend. The objective of the imperialist countries was to prevent the enlargement of the socialist camp, to liberate the reactionary forces in our countries which were being stifled by colonialism and to enable these forces to ally themselves with the international bourgeoisie. The fundamental objective was to create a bourgeoisie where one did not exist, in order specifically to strengthen the imperialist and the capitalist camp. … … We are therefore faced with the problem of deciding whether to engage in an out and out struggle against the bourgeoisie right from the start or whether to try and make an alliance with the national bourgeoisie, to try to deepen the absolutely necessary contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the international bourgeoisie which has promoted the national bourgeoisie to the position it holds.” (ibid.: 58-59)
The international situation has changed enormously since Cabral was raising these questions. The socialist camp does not exist anymore. But the imperialist capitalist camp does. It has become even more ferocious than ever before. The comprador classes which wield state power in our countries are hand in glove with the international bourgeoisie. Within the process of classes and class struggles, the revolutionary forces of the working people have to continuously face the question of building broad alliances so as to isolate the reactionary forces. In this context, if there are enduring lessons to learn from Cabral then they are these.
One, the absolute importance of doing a concrete analysis of our concrete conditions, in particular that of the class structure. Two, to try and understand politically the attitude of each class and social stratum towards the revolution as opposed to imposing revolutionary agency doctrinally. Third, build an ideological hegemony of the working people in civil society by engaging in intellectual and ideological struggles with the dominant hegemony both to dent the credibility of the ruling ideology but, even more important, to develop a “pedagogy of the oppressed”, to use Paulo Freire’s revolutionary concept (Freire 1970, 1993). Three, to be cautious of populist regimes which may mouth nationalist or anti-imperialist slogans. Four, radical scholars need to be cautious of some ruling classes deploying anti-imperialist slogans or even struggling for state sovereignty while at the same time using the repressive state apparatus against their own people. This does not necessarily mean that radical intellectuals may not lend critical support to such struggles depending on each concrete situation.
And, finally, to identify non-dogmatically the classes and forces with which revolutionary forces of the working people can ally at each conjuncture. All this involves organization on which also Cabral had some very profound observations to make. A discussion on revolutionary organisations would have to await another occasion.
The youth of Africa, or Generation Z[11] as the Kenyan youth called themselves, have a lot to learn from Cabral.
Cabral’s legacy endures. It teaches, inspires and mobilises, all at the same time.
Issa Shivji is a Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. First Nyerere University Professor of Pan-African Studies (2008-2013).
Endnotes
[1]* Slightly revised version of the paper presented to the International Symposium entitled ‘Amilcar Cabral: a national and universal heritage’ in commemoration of the centenary of Cabral’s birth held at Cabo Verde and Guinea-Bissau from 9th to 12th September, 2024. I am grateful to Dr Carlos Cardozo for inviting me and to Dr Godwin Murunga, through CODESRIA, for enabling me to travel to Guinea-Bissau.
My thanks to Natasha Shivji and Amil Shivji for reading the draft and making useful comments.
[2] The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the main social classes in Marxist thought. The bourgeoisie own the means of production (capital) and use it to exploit the labour of the wage-earning proletariat. The class structure leads to conflict between the two main classes in society,
[3] In Marxist political economy ‘material interests’ refers to those interests which arise from the specific role a class plays in the process of production. This is distinguished from ‘privileges’ that a class or sector of it may enjoy arising from its social status or role in the sectors servicing, directly or indirectly, production or related processes.
[4] The veteran Pan-Africanist revolutionary C. L. R. James also considered the peasantry in Africa a revolutionary force (James 2012: 60). Robin Kelly in his introduction to the book points out that “Insisting that the peasantry – in this case ex-slaves - could be a revolutionary force in and of itself was not entirely new. Indian Communist M. N. Roy had made a similar point in his 1920 debate with Lenin over the national-colonial question.” (ibid.:18)
[5] The earlier version was called ‘Tanzania: The Class Struggle Continues’ which I had shared with a group of comrades including Rodney before it was first published in 1973 in a mimeographed form by the Institute of Development Studies, University of Dar es Salaam.
[6] In the language of Samir Amin this class is incapable of developing an autonomous economy based on its own internal, rather than external, logic. (Amin 1990: xii)
[7] Fanon uses the term “national middle class” and “national bourgeoisie” interchangeably. This is probably a carry-over from the historical French discourse in which the rising bourgeoise was considered a middle-class, between the aristocracy and the peasantry, in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. In the situation of Africa, Fanon could be referring to some kind of a compradorial class or a petty bourgeoise, which is doubtful. Fanon never uses the term comprador or petty bourgeois.
[8] In the ‘Brief Analysis’, he again talks about the petty bourgeoisie having to commit suicide if it wanted to identify its interests with that of workers and peasants. However, by doing this it will not lose “by sacrificing itself [because] it can reincarnate itself, but in the condition of workers and peasants” (Cabral 1969: 59).
[9] Cabral is using this phrase in the context of training cadres who were from different social categories but is equally applicable to the petty bourgeoisie.
[10] For a more nuanced stageist argument see Slovo 1988. Joe Slovo was then the General Secretary of the South African Communist Party which was closely allied with the African National Congress (ANC), then the leading national liberation movement of South Africa.
[11] For some snippets of the struggle of Gen-Z in Kenya, see Durrani 2024: 14 et seq. Since this was written we have seen more Gen Z uprisings like in Morocco and Madagascar.
References
Amin, Samir, 1990, Preface to Azzam Mahjoub, ed., Adjustment or Delinking? The African Experience, London: Zed Books, pp. ix-xvi.
Cabral, Amilcar, (1964) 1969, Brief Analysis of the Social Structure of Guinea in Cabral, Revolution in Guinea; An African People’s Struggle, London: Stage I, pp. 46-61.
Cabral, Amilcar, (1966) 1969, The Weapon of Theory in Cabral, Revolution in Guinea: An African People’s Struggle, London: Stage I: pp. 73-90.
Durrani, Shiraz, 2024, From Mau Mau to RutoMustGo: Essays on Kenya’s Struggle for Liberation, Nairobi: Vita Books, pp.14-20.
Fanon, Frantz, 1967, The Wretched of the Earth, London: Penguin Books.
Foster-Carter, A., 1973, The Sounds of Silence; Class Struggle in Tanzania in MajiMaji No. 11, August 1973, pp. 12-24, Dar es Salaam: TANU Youth League, University of Dar es Salaam.
Freire, Paulo, (1970), 1993, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition, New York & London: continuum.
James, C. L. R., 2021, 3rd edn., A History of Pan-African Revolt, Oakland: PM Press.
Kwayana, Eusi, n.d., Walter Rodney: His Last days and Campaigns, Birmingham: R. Ferdinand-Lalljie Publishers.
Macey, David, 2000, Frantz Fanon: A Life, London: Granta Books.
Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick, (1850), 1973, The Communist Manifesto in David Fernbach, ed, 1973, The Revolutions of 1948, vol. I, pp. 62-98, London: Penguin Books.
Marx, Karl, 1847, The Poverty of Philosophy in Marx & Engels, 1976, Collected Works, vo. 6, pp. 104-212.
Marx, Karl, 1852, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte in Fernbach, David, Surveys from Exile, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 143-249.
Rodney, Patricia et al, 2013, Walter Rodney and Amilcar Cabral: Common Commitments and Connected Praxis in Firoz Manji & Bill Fletcher Jr. eds. 2013, Claim No Victories: The Legacy of Amilcar Cabral, Dakar: CODESRIA and Ottawa: Daraja Press, pp. 297-314.
Rodney, Walter, (1975) 1990, Walter Rodney Speaks: the Making of an African Intellectual, Trenton, N.J., Africa World Press.
Rodney, Walter, 1975, Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America (Paper presented to the 6th Pan-African Conference in Dar es Salaam).
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/works/internationalclassstruggle.htm
Rodney, Walter, 1975(a), Class Contradictions in Tanzania.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney- walter/works/classcontradictions.htm
Shivji, Issa G., 2017, The Concept of the Working People in Agrarian South, 6(1): 1-13.
Shivji, Issa. G., 1975, Class Struggles in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House. Also published by Monthly Review Press, New York, 1976.
Shivji, Issa G., et al, 2020, Development as Rebellion: A Biography of Julius Nyerere, Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota.
Slovo, Joe, 1988, The South African Working Class and the National Democratic Revolution available at
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/slovo/1988/national-democratic-revolution.htm
Zeilig, Leo, 2022, A Revolutionary for Our Time: The Walter Rodney Story, Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Lance Hawkins joins us from New York City to discuss the recent election of Zohran Mamdani, who will take office as the mayor of New York City on January 1. Lance Hawkins is a community, labor, and…
David Hundeyin is a Nigerian investigative journalist, bestselling author, and founder of West Africa Weekly, an independent Pan-African digital news publication focusing on West Africa and the Sahel…
New Yorkers experienced some democracy with Zohran Mamdani's victory in the mayor's race and are inspiring voters across the country to believe that change is possible. But the outcome is a challenge…
“Black Brazilians have been suffering … since the establishment of slavery more than 400 years ago.”
Genocide crime, as defined by the UN Convention on Genocide, is sadly common. When does the world decide to respond?
