Pan-Africanism or Proletarian Internationalism?

The pan-Africanist idea is far spread in Africa. That is an obvious truism like that there is much water in the seas of the world. This idea used to be connected to the socialist cause but increasingly turned into a vague phrase.

No name is more connected to the term of pan-Africanism than Kwame Nkrumah, the Marxist-Leninist first president of independent Ghana. He already said in his independence speech in 1957 that Ghana’s independence would be “meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of the African continent.”¹ Was that all he had to tell us? By far not!

In December 1958 Nkrumah already spoke about “four stages of pan-Africanism” which are the following:

“(i) national independence

(ii) national consolidation

(iii) transnational unity and community

(iv) economic and social reconstruction on the principles of scientific socialism”²

Pan-Africanism was therefore to be thought of as a Marxist concept in the beginning. Scientific socialism is what Marx and Engels called their ideology.

Nkrumah demanded in May 1963 in front of the Organization for African Unity in Addis Ababa: “We need unified economic planning for Africa.”³ Economic planning is obviously the socialist way of economics. Nkrumah explicitly said that Africa should unite under socialism a few years later⁴. Nkrumah also wrote in 1970 in his “Class Struggle in Africa” clearly that the African revolutionary struggle is part of the world socialist revolution⁵.

In the same book Nkrumah also made some other important remarks to understand his Marxist-Leninist standpoint on pan-Africanism.

Nkrumah rejected the idea that the “Third World” would be sort of “progressive by nature” as a couple of years later Deng Xiaoping would claim in April 1974 in his speech to the UN in which he established his “Three Worlds Theory”. He claimed in it: “The Third World countries shared a common lot in the past and now face the common tasks of opposing colonialism, neo-colonialism and great-power hegemonism, developing the national economy and building their respective countries.”⁶ Nkrumah wrote, as if it was a reply:

“The developing world is not a homogenous bloc opposed to imperialism. The concept of the “Third World” is illusory. At present, parts of it lie under imperialist domination. The struggle against imperialism takes place both within and outside the imperialist world. It is a struggle between socialism and capitalism, not between a so-called “Third World” and imperialism. Class struggle is fundamental in its analysis. Furthermore, it is not possible to build socialism in the developing world in isolation from the world socialist system.”⁷

Instead he made clear that only socialism can make Africa independent from the yoke of imperialism and that this has to be achieved through class struggle against the bourgeoisie. He wrote:

““Peoples´ capitalism”, “enlightened capitalism”, “class peace”, “class harmony” are all bourgeois capitalist attempts to deceive the workers and peasants, and to poison their minds. A “non-capitalist road”, pursued by a “united front of progressive forces”, as some suggest, is not even practical politics in contemporary Africa. There are only two ways of development open to an Independent African State. Either it must remain under imperialist domination via capitalism and neo-colonialism; or it must pursue a socialist path by adopting the principles of scientific socialism. It is unrealistic to assert that because industrialization is in its infancy, and a strong proletariat is only beginning to emerge, that it is not possible to establish a socialist state. History has shown how a relatively small proletariat, if it is well organized and led, can awaken the peasantry and trigger off socialist revolution. In a neo-colonialist situation, there is no half-way to socialism. Only policies of all-out socialism can end capitalist-imperialist exploitation.

Socialism can only be achieved through class struggle. In Africa, the internal enemy – the reactionary bourgeoisie – must be exposed as exploiters and parasites, and as collaborators with imperialists and neo-colonialists on whom they largely depend for the maintenance of their positions of power and privilege.”⁸

This task is still unfinished and needs to be implemented by the socialists and communists of Africa under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, like Nkrumah envisioned.

Also Obote’s Common Man’s Charter stresses the connection of the socialist construction in Uganda to the “African revolution”⁹. In August 1970 Obote explicitly said: “The African Revolution and the Ugandan Revolution in particular have had a very difficult birth.”¹⁰ He later on mentioned his Common Man’s Charter as its ideological foundation. It was clear that the socialist cause in Uganda and the rest of Africa was connected.

Isn´t it obvious that pan-Africanism and proletarian internationalism used to be intertwined? Today this connection is almost forgotten. We can see in the claims of our very own political leaders that pan-Africanism got hijacked by bourgeois forces for their own purposes.

Museveni seems to support African unity under capitalist conditions. By that I don´t mean his support for the East African Community, which is obviously trying to copy the EU. He blatantly said in 1990:

“If you want pan-Africanists, you should look for capitalists because capitalists would be very good pan-Africanists. Why? Because a capitalist is a producer of wealth: he needs a market for his products and he needs labor in some cases. He cannot, therefore, afford to be parochial: he will work for integration and expansion and he will not support the splitting up of a country because this will split up his market.”¹¹

Is that true? Did the capitalists truly support pan-Africanism? If so, why is Africa then still split up? Because, just like in Europe, the existence of different legal standards and national conditions is used to optimize profit maximization. Also the recent war in Congo with the pro-Ruandan M23 rebels involved shows clashes of interests between capitalist African states. Similar clashes existed already back in the day Museveni spoke his words – he himself is a product of such a clash! Either Museveni is unable to recognize that intellectually or he is a conscious liar. No matter which of these two is the truth, Museveni is clearly wrong. And even if a united Africa could exist under capitalist conditions (which is extremely unlikely, not even Europe is able to achieve that), it would be a reactionary construct. We just need to remember Lenin´s words about the proposal of a “united Europe” under capitalist conditions: “A United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.”¹² The same applies to Africa and every other continent of the world.

That view Museveni expressed existed over the decades already. Frantz Fanon was therefore already critical of the pan-African idea. He wrote in his book “The Wretched of the Earth” already in 1961:

“African unity, that vague formula, yet one to which the men and women of Africa were passionately attached, and whose operative value served to bring immense pressure to bear on colonialism, African unity takes off the mask, and crumbles into regionalism inside the hollow shell of nationality itself.”¹³

This is exactly what happened. The class character of proletarian internationalism is undeniable while the class character of pan-Africanism is vague without further definition. This is how the bourgeoisie conquered this term. This is why pan-Africanism without connecting it to proletarian internationalism is null and void and has nothing to do with its Marxist roots in Nkrumah´s ideas.

There are even views that turned worse than simply turning pan-Africanism into a mere bourgeois phrase like it happened to pan-Europeanism already a long time ago. There is also a turn of it into fascist thinking. Marcus Garvey is not so prominent anymore because he did not succeed but he is also not forgotten. Garvey´s pan-Africanism turned over black chauvinism into fascism. In an interview with Joel A. Rogers in 1937 he openly stated: “We were the first fascists.” And: “Mussolini copied our fascism.”¹⁴ This type of pan-Africanism is effectively not abolishing oppression and exploitation of man by man nor even trying to actually unite Africa even under bourgeois conditions but a mere sham legitimization for fascism and just reverting the roles of the oppressor and the oppressed. Garvey´s fascist ideas belong into the shadows of history. Luckily that thought never spread fruitfully from North America to the African continent.

One proof for that is Kenneth Kaunda stating clearly in a 1973 interview:

“If we found a small black minority oppressing a white majority anywhere in the world we would support the white majority against the black minority.”¹⁵

We all know Kaunda´s merits for the pan-African cause. And we can see here that his pan-Africanism was clearly connected with his humanist and socialist ideas that were not guided by superficial things such as skin color but the liberation of all humankind. In that he was, despite not being a Marxist like Nkrumah, not too far off from the Marxist-Leninist cause of proletarian internationalism.

Pan-Africanism cannot persist without proletarian internationalism. Marx and Engels coined the call: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”¹⁶ That was back in 1848 before capitalism reached its imperialist stage. This call is still valid until today but was later appended to be more clear about the connection of class struggle in the imperialist centers and colonial periphery. Lenin called in 1920 for the brotherhood between the working people of the imperialist countries and the oppressed nations and peoples in the colonies¹⁷. The Communist Party of China under the leadership of Mao Zedong wrote in 1963 in its famous “Proposal concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” these words that will last in our spoken and written declarations until socialism and communism has been victoriously established all over the world:

“Workers and oppressed peoples and nations of the world, unite!”¹⁸