Amilcar Cabral 1966

The Weapon of Theory


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address delivered to the first Tricontinental Conference of the
Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America held in Havana in January,
1966.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any of us came to Cuba with doubts in our mind about the solidity,
strength, maturity and vitality of the Cuban Revolution, these doubts
have been removed by what we have been able to see. Our hearts are now
warmed by an unshakeable certainty which gives us courage in the
difficult but glorious struggle against the common enemy: no power in
the world will be able to destroy this Cuban Revolution, which is
creating in the countryside and in the towns not only a new life but
also ? and even more important ? a New Man, fully conscious of his
national, continental and international rights and duties. In every
field of activity the Cuban people have made major progress during the
last seven years, particularly in 1965, Year of Agriculture.

We believe that this constitutes a particular lesson for the national
liberation movements, especially for those who want their national
revolution to be a true revolution. Some people have not failed to note
that a certain number of Cubans, albeit an insignificant minority, have
not shared the joys and hopes of the celebrations for the seventh
anniversary because they are against the Revolution. It is possible
that others will not be present at the celebrations of the eighth
anniversary, but we would like to state that we consider the ?open
door? policy for enemies of the Revolution to be a lesson in courage,
determination, humanity and confidence in the people, another political
and moral victory over the enemy; and to those who are worried, in a
spirit of friendship, about the dangers which many be involved in this
exodus, we guarantee that we, the peoples of the countries of Africa,
still completely dominated by Portuguese colonialism, are prepared to
send to Cuba as many men and women as may be needed to compensate for
the departure of those who for reasons of class or of inability to
adapt have interests or attitudes which are incompatible with the
interests of the Cuban people. Taking once again the formerly hard and
tragic path of our ancestors (mainly from Guinea and Angola) who were
taken to Cuba as slaves, we would come now as free men, as willing
workers and Cuban patriots, to fulfill a productive function in this
new, just and multi-racial society, and to help and defend with our own
lives the victories of the Cuban people. Thus we would strengthen both
all the bonds of history, blood and culture which unite our peoples
with the Cuban people, and the spontaneous giving of oneself, the deep
joy and infectious rhythm which make the construction of socialism in
Cuba a new phenomenon for the world, a unique and, for many,
unaccustomed event.

We are not going to use this platform to rail against imperialism. An
African saying very common in our country says: ?When your house is
burning, it?s no use beating the tom-toms.? On a Tricontinental level,
this means that we are not going to eliminate imperialism by shouting
insults against it. For us, the best or worst shout against
imperialism, whatever its form, is to take up arms and fight. This is
what we are doing, and this is what we will go on doing until all
foreign domination of our African homelands has been totally
eliminated.

Our agenda includes subjects whose meaning and importance are beyond
question and which show a fundamental preoccupation with struggle. We
note, however, that one form of struggle which we consider to be
fundamental has not been explicitly mentioned in this programme,
although we are certain that it was present in the minds of those who
drew up the programme. We refer here to the struggle against our own
weaknesses. Obviously, other cases differ from that of Guinea; but our
experience has shown us that in the general framework of daily struggle
this battle against ourselves ? no matter what difficulties the enemy
may create ? is the most difficult of all, whether for the present or
the future of our peoples. This battle is the expression of the
internal contradictions in the economic, social, cultural (and
therefore historical) reality of each of our countries. We are
convinced that any national or social revolution which is not based on
knowledge of this fundamental reality runs grave risk of being
condemned to failure.

When the African peoples say in their simple language that ?no matter
how hot the water from your well, it will not cook your rice,? they
express with singular simplicity a fundamental principle, not only of
physics, but also of political science. We know that the development of
a phenomenon in movement, whatever its external appearance, depends
mainly on its internal characteristics. We also know that on the
political level our own reality ? however fine and attractive the
reality of others may be ? can only be transformed by detailed
knowledge of it, by our own efforts, by our own sacrifices. It is
useful to recall in this Tricontinental gathering, so rich in
experience and example, that however great the similarity between our
various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation
and social revolution are not exportable commodities; they are, and
increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national
elaboration, more or less influenced by external factors (be they
favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined and formed by the
historical reality of each people, and carried to success by the
overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between
the various categories characterising this reality. The success of the
Cuban revolution, taking place only 90 miles from the greatest
imperialist and anti-socialist power of all time, seems to us, in its
content and its way of evolution, to be a practical and conclusive
illustration of the validity of this principle.

However we must recognize that we ourselves and the other liberation
movements in general (referring here above all to the African
experience) have not managed to pay sufficient attention to this
important problem of our common struggle.

The ideological deficiency, not to say the total lack of ideology,
within the national liberation movements ? which is basically due to
ignorance of the historical reality which these movements claim to
transform ? constitutes one of the greatest weaknesses of our struggle
against imperialism, if not the greatest weakness of all. We believe,
however, that a sufficient number of different experiences has already
been accumulated to enable us to define a general line of thought and
action with the aim of eliminating this deficiency. A full discussion
of this subject could be useful, and would enable this conference to
make a valuable contribution towards strengthening the present and
future actions of the national liberation movements. This would be a
concrete way of helping these movements, and in our opinion no less
important than political support or financial assistance for arms and
suchlike.

It is with the intention of making a contribution, however modest, to
this debate that we present here our opinion of the foundations and
objectives of national liberation in relation to the social structure.
This opinion is the result of our own experiences of the struggle and
of a critical appreciation of the experiences of others. To those who
see in it a theoretical character, we would recall that every practice
produces a theory, and that if it is true that a revolution can fail
even though it be based on perfectly conceived theories, nobody has yet
made a successful revolution without a revolutionary theory.

Those who affirm ? in our case correctly ? that the motive force of
history is the class struggle would certainly agree to a revision of
this affirmation to make it more precise and give it an even wider
field of application if they had a better knowledge of the essential
characteristics of certain colonized peoples, that is to say peoples
dominated by imperialism. In fact in the general evolution of humanity
and of each of the peoples of which it is composed, classes appear
neither as a generalized and simultaneous phenomenon throughout the
totality of these groups, nor as a finished, perfect, uniform and
spontaneous whole. The definition of classes within one or several
human groups is a fundamental consequence of the progressive
development of the productive forces and of the characteristics of the
distribution of the wealth produced by the group or usurped from
others. That is to say that the socio-economic phenomenon ?class? is
created and develops as a function of at least two essential and
interdependent variables ? the level of productive forces and the
pattern of ownership of the means of production. This development takes
place slowly, gradually and unevenly, by quantitative and generally
imperceptible variations in the fundamental components; once a certain
degree of accumulation is reached, this process then leads to a
qualitative jump, characterized by the appearance of classes and of
conflict between them.

Factors external to the socio-economic whole can influence, more or
less significantly, the process of development of classes, accelerating
it, slowing it down and even causing regressions. When, for whatever
reason, the influence of these factors ceases, the process reassumes
its independence and its rhythm is then determined not only be the
specific internal characteristics of the whole, but also by the
resultant of the effect produced in it by the temporary action of the
external factors. On a strictly internal level the rhythm of the
process may vary, but it remains continuous and progressive. Sudden
progress is only possible as a function of violent alterations ?
mutations ? in the level of productive forces or in the pattern of
ownership. These violent transformations carried out within the process
of development of classes, as a result of mutations in the level of
productive forces or in the pattern of ownership, are generally called,
in economic and political language, revolutions.

Clearly, however, the possibilities of this process are noticeably
influenced by external factors, and particularly by the interaction of
human groups. This interaction is considerably increased by the
development of means of transport and communication which as created
the modern world, eliminating the isolation of human groups within one
area, of areas within one continent, and between continents. This
development, characteristic of a long historical period which began
with the invention of the first means of transport, was already more
evident at the time of the Punic voyages and in the Greek colonization,
and was accentuated by maritime discoveries, the invention of the steam
engine and the discovery of electricity. And in our own times, with the
progressive domesticization of atomic energy it is possible to promise,
if not to take men to the stars, at least to humanize the universe.

This leads us to pose the following question: does history begin only
with the development of the phenomenon of ?class?, and consequently of
class struggle? To reply in the affirmative would be to place outside
history the whole period of life of human groups from the discovery of
hunting, and later of nomadic and sedentary agriculture, to the
organization of herds and the private appropriation of land. It would
also be to consider ? and this we refuse to accept ? that various human
groups in Africa, Asia, and Latin America were living without history,
or outside history, at the time when they were subjected to the yoke of
imperialism. It would be to consider that the peoples of our countries,
such as the Balantes of Guinea, the Coaniamas of Angola and the
Macondes of Mozambique, are still living today ? if we abstract the
slight influence of colonialism to which they have been subjected ?
outside history, or that they have no history.

Our refusal, based as it is on concrete knowledge of the socio-
economic reality of our countries and on the analysis of the process of
development of the phenomenon ?class?, as we have seen earlier, leads
us to conclude that if class struggle is the motive force of history,
it is so only in a specific historical period. This means that before
the class struggle ? and necessarily after it, since in this world
there is no before without an after ? one or several factors was and
will be the motive force of history. It is not difficult to see that
this factor in the history of each human group is the mode of
production ? the level of productive forces and the pattern of
ownership ? characteristic of that group. Furthermore, as we have seen,
classes themselves, class struggle and their subsequent definition, are
the result of the development of the productive forces in conjunction
with the pattern of ownership of the means of production. It therefore
seems correct to conclude that the level of productive forces, the
essential determining element in the content and form of class
struggle, is the true and permanent motive force of history.

If we accept this conclusion, then the doubts in our minds are cleared
away. Because if on the one hand we can see that the existence of
history before the class struggle is guaranteed, and thus avoid for
some human groups in our countries ? and perhaps in our continent ? the
sad position of being peoples without any history, then on the other
hand we can see that history has continuity, even after the
disappearance of class struggle or of classes themselves. And as it was
not we who postulated ? on a scientific basis ? the fact of the
disappearance of classes as a historical inevitability, we can feel
satisfied at having reached this conclusion which, to a certain extent,
re-establishes coherence and at the same time gives to those peoples
who, like the people of Cuba, are building socialism, the agreeable
certainty that they will not cease to have a history when they complete
the process of elimination of the phenomenon of ?class? and class
struggle within their socio-economic whole. Eternity is not of this
world, but man will outlive classes and will continue to produce and
make history, since he can never free himself from the burden of his
needs, both of mind and of body, which are the basis of the development
of the forces of production.

The foregoing, and the reality of our times, allow us to state that
the history of one human group or of humanity goes through at least
three stages. The first is characterized by a low level of productive
forces ? of man?s domination over nature; the mode of production is of
a rudimentary character, private appropriation of the means of
production does not yet exist, there are no classes, nor, consequently,
is there any class struggle. In the second stage, the increased level
of productive forces leads to private appropriation of the means of
production, progressively complicates the mode of production, provokes
conflicts of interests within the socio-economic whole in movement, and
makes possible the appearance of the phenomena ?class? and hence of
class struggle, the social expression of the contradiction in the
economic field between the mode of production and private appropriation
of the means of production. In the third stage, once a certain level of
productive forces is reached, the elimination of private appropriation
of the means of production is made possible, and is carried out,
together with the elimination of the phenomenon ?class? and hence of
class struggle; new and hitherto unknown forces in the historical
process of the socio-economic whole are then unleashed.

In politico-economic language, the first stage would correspond to the
communal agricultural and cattle-raising society, in which the social
structure is horizontal, without any state; the second to feudal or
assimilated agricultural or agro-industrial bourgeois societies, with a
vertical social structure and a state; the third to socialist or
communist societies, in which the economy is mainly, if not
exclusively, industrial (since agriculture itself becomes a form of
industry) and in which the state tends to progressively disappear, or
actually disappears, and where the social structure returns to
horizontality, at a higher level of productive forces, social relations
and appreciation of human values.

At the level of humanity or of part of humanity (human groups within
one area, of one or several continents) these three stages (or two of
them) can be simultaneous, as is shown as much by the present as by the
past. This is a result of the uneven development of human societies,
whether caused by internal reasons or by one or more external factors
exerting an accelerating or slowing-down influence on their evolution.
On the other hand, in the historical process of a given socio-economic
whole each of the above-mentioned stages contains, once a certain level
of transformation is reached, the seeds of the following stage.

We should also note that in the present phase of the life of humanity,
and for a given socio-economic whole, the time sequence of the three
characteristic stages is not indispensable. Whatever its level of
productive forces and present social structure, a society can pass
rapidly through the defined stages appropriate to the concrete local
realities (both historical and human) and reach a higher stage of
existence. This progress depends on the concrete possibilities of
development of the society?s productive forces and is governed mainly
by the nature of the political power ruling the society, that is to
say, by the type of state or, if one likes, by the character of the
dominant class or classes within the society.

A more detailed analysis would show that the possibility of such a
jump in the historical process arises mainly, in the economic field,
from the power of the means available to man at the time for dominating
nature, and, in the political field, from the new event which has
radically clanged the face of the world and the development of history,
the creation of socialist states.

Thus we see that our peoples have their own history regardless of the
stage of their economic development. When they were subjected to
imperialist domination, the historical process of each of our peoples
(or of the human groups of which they are composed) was subjected to
the violent action of an exterior factor. This action ? the impact of
imperialism on our societies ? could not fail to influence the process
of development of the productive forces in our countries and the social
structures of our countries, as well as the content and form of our
national liberation struggles.

But we also see that in the historical context of the development of
these struggles, our peoples have the concrete possibility of going
from their present situation of exploitation and underdevelopment to a
new stage of their historical process which can lead them to a higher
form of economic, social and cultural existence.

The political statement drawn up by the international preparatory
committee of this conference, for which we reaffirm our complete
support, placed imperialism, by clear and succinct analysis, in its
economic context and historical co-ordinates. We will not repeat here
what has already been said in the assembly. We will simply state that
imperialism can be defined as a worldwide expression of the search for
profits and the ever-increasing accumulation of surplus value by
monopoly financial capital, centered in two parts of the world; first
in Europe, and then in North America. And if we wish to place the fact
of imperialism within the general trajectory of the evolution of the
transcendental factor which has changed the face of the world, namely
capital and the process of its accumulation, we can say that
imperialism is piracy transplanted from the seas to dry land piracy
reorganized, consolidated and adapted to the aim of exploiting the
natural and human resources of our peoples. But if we can calmly
analyze the imperialist phenomenon, we will not shock anybody by
admitting that imperialism ? and everything goes to prove that it is in
fact the last phase in the evolution of capitalism ? has been a
historical necessity, a consequence of the impetus given by the
productive forces and of the transformations of the means of production
in the general context of humanity, considered as one movement, that is
to say a necessity like those today of the national liberation of
peoples, the destruction of capital and the advent of socialism.

The important thing for our peoples is to know whether imperialism, in
its role as capital in action, has fulfilled in our countries its
historical mission: the acceleration of the process of development of
the productive forces and their transformation in the sense of
increasing complexity in the means of production; increasing the
differentiation between the classes with the development of the
bourgeoisie, and intensifying the class struggle; and appreciably
increasing the level of economic, social and cultural life of the
peoples. It is also worth examining the influences and effects of
imperialist action on the social structures and historical processes of
our peoples.

We will not condemn nor justify imperialism here; we will simply state
that as much on the economic level as on the social and cultural level,
imperialist capital has not remotely fulfilled the historical mission
carried out by capital in the countries of accumulation. This means
that if, on the one had, imperialist capital has had, in the great
majority of the dominated countries, the simple function of multiplying
surplus value, it can be seen on the other hand that the historical
capacity of capital (as indestructible accelerator of the process of
development of productive forces) depends strictly on its freedom, that
is to say on the degree of independence with which it is utilized. We
must however recognize that in certain cases imperialist capital or
moribund capitalism has had sufficient self-interest, strength and time
to increase the level of productive forces (as well as building towns)
and to allow a minority of the local population to attain a higher and
even privileged standard of living, thus contributing to a process
which some would call dialectical, by widening the contradictions
within the societies in question. In other, even rarer cases, there has
existed the possibility of accumulation of capital, creating the
conditions for the development of a local bourgeoisie.

On the question of the effects of imperialist domination on the social
structure and historical process of our peoples, we should first of all
examine the general forms of imperialist domination. There are at least
two forms: the first is direct domination, by means of a power made up
of people foreign to the dominated people (armed forces police,
administrative agents and settlers); this is generally called classical
colonialism or colonialism is indirect domination, by a political power
made up mainly or completely of native agents; this is called
neocolonialism.

In the first case, the social structure of the dominated people,
whatever its stage of development, can suffer the following
consequences: (a) total destruction, generally accompanied by immediate
or gradual elimination of the native population and, consequently, by
the substitution of a population from outside; (b) partial destruction,
generally accompanied by a greater or lesser influx of population from
outside; (c) apparent conservation, conditioned by confining the native
society to zones or reserves generally offering no possibilities of
living, accompanied by massive implantation of population from
outside.

The two latter cases are those which we must consider in the framework
of the problematic national liberation, and they are extensively
present in Africa. One can say that in either case the influence of
imperialism on the historical process of the dominated people produces
paralysis, stagnation and even in some cases regression in this
process. However this paralysis is not complete. In one sector or
another of the socio-economic whole in question, noticeable
transformations can be expected, caused by the permanent action of some
internal (local) factors or by the action of new factors introduced by
the colonial domination, such as the introduction of money and the
development of urban centers. Among these transformations we should
anticipate a progressive loss of prestige of the ruling native classes
or sectors, the forced or voluntary exodus of part of the peasant
population to the urban centers, with the consequent development of new
social strata; salaried workers, clerks, employees in commerce and the
liberal professions, and an instable stratum of unemployed. In the
countryside there develops, with very varied intensity and always
linked to the urban milieu, a stratum made up of small landowners. In
the case of neo-colonialism, whether the majority of the colonized
population is of native or foreign origin, the imperialist action takes
the form of creating a local bourgeoisie or pseudo-bourgeoisie,
controlled by the ruling class of the dominating country.

The transformations in the social structure are not so marked in the
lower strata, above all in the countryside, which retains the
characteristics of the colonial phase; but the creation of a native
pseudo-bourgeoisie which generally develops out of a petty bourgeoisie
of bureaucrats and accentuates the differentiation between the social
strata and intermediaries in the commercial system (compradores), by
strengthening the economic activity of local elements, opens up new
perspectives in the social dynamic, mainly by the development of an
urban working class, the introduction of private agricultural property
and the progressive appearance of an agricultural proletariat. These
more or less noticeable transformations of the social structure,
produced by a significant increase in the level of productive forces,
have a direct influence on the historical process of the socio-economic
whole in question. While in classical colonialism this process is
paralyzed, neo-colonialist domination, by allowing the social dynamic
to awaken (conflicts of interests between native social strata or class
struggles), creates the illusion that the historical process is
returning to its normal evolution. This illusion will be reinforced by
the existence of a political power (national state) composed of native
elements. In reality it is scarcely even an illusion, since the
submission of the local ?ruling? class to the ruling class of the
dominating country limits or prevents the development of the national
productive forces.

But in the concrete conditions of the present-day world economy this
dependence is fatal and thus the local pseudo-bourgeoisie, however
nationalist it may be, cannot effectively fulfill its historical
function; it cannot freely direct the development of the productive
forces; in brief it cannot be a national bourgeoisie. For as we have
seen, the productive forces are the motive force of history, and total
freedom of the process of their development is an indispensable
condition for their proper functioning.

We therefore see that both in colonialism and in neo-colonialism the
essential characteristic of imperialist domination remains the same:
the negation of the historical process of the dominated people by means
of violent usurpation of the freedom of development of the national
productive forces. This observation, which identifies the essence of
the two apparent forms of imperialist domination, seems to us to be of
major importance for the thought and action of liberation movements,
both in the course of struggle and after the winning of independence.

On the basis of this, we can state that national liberation is the
phenomenon in which a given socio-economic whole rejects the negation
of its historical process. In other words, the national liberation of a
people is the regaining of the historical personality of that people,
its return to history through the destruction of the imperialist
domination to which it was subjected.

We have seen that violent usurpation of the freedom of the process of
development of the productive forces of the dominated socio-economic
whole constitutes the principal and permanent characteristic of
imperialist domination, whatever its form. We have also seen that this
freedom alone can guarantee the normal development of the historical
process of a people. We can therefore conclude that national liberation
exists only when the national productive forces have been completely
freed from every kind of foreign domination.

It is often said that national liberation is based on the right of
every people to freely control its own destiny and that the objective
of this liberation is national independence. Although we do not
disagree with this vague and subjective way of expressing a complex
reality, we prefer to be objective, since for us the basis of national
liberation, whatever the formulas adopted on the level of international
law, is the inalienable right of every people to have its own history,
and the objective of national liberation is to regain this right
usurped by imperialism, that is to say, to free the process of
development of the national productive forces.

For this reason, in our opinion, any national liberation movement
which does not take into consideration this basis and this objective
may certainly struggle against imperialism, but will surely not be
struggling for national liberation.

This means that, bearing in mind the essential characteristics of the
present world economy, as well as experiences already gained in the
field of anti-imperialist struggle, the principal aspect of national
liberation struggle is the struggle against neo-colonialism.
Furthermore, if we accept that national liberation demands a profound
mutation in the process of development of the productive forces, we see
that this phenomenon of national liberation necessarily corresponds to
a revolution. The important thing is to be conscious of the objective
and subjective conditions in which this revolution can be made and to
know the type or types of struggle most appropriate for its
realization.

We are not going to repeat here that these conditions are favorable in
the present phase of the history of humanity; it is sufficient to
recall that unfavorable conditions also exist, just as much on the
international level as on the internal level of each nation struggling
for liberation.

On the international level, it seems to us that the following factors,
at least, are unfavorable to national liberation movements: the neo-
colonial situation of a great number of states which, having won
political independence, are now tending to join up with others already
in that situation; the progress made by neo-capitalism, particularly in
Europe, where imperialism is adopting preferential investments,
encouraging the development of a privileged proletariat and thus
lowering the revolutionary level of the working classes; the open or
concealed neo-colonial position of some European states which, like
Portugal, still have colonies; the so-called policy of ?aid for
undeveloped countries? adopted by imperialism with the aim of creating
or reinforcing native pseudo-bourgeoisies which are necessarily
dependent on the international bourgeoisie, and thus obstructing the
path of revolution; the claustrophobia and revolutionary timidity which
have led some recently independent states whose internal economic and
political conditions are favorable to revolution to accept compromises
with the enemy or its agents; the growing contradictions between anti-
imperialist states; and, finally, the threat to world peace posed by
the prospect of atomic war on the part of imperialism. All these
factors reinforce the action of imperialism against the national
liberation movements.

If the repeated interventions and growing aggressiveness of
imperialism against the peoples can be interpreted as a sign of
desperation faced with the size of the national liberation movements,
they can also be explained to a certain extent by the weaknesses
produced by these unfavorable factors within the general front of the
anti-imperialist struggle.

On the internal level, we believe that the most important weaknesses
or unfavorable factors are inherent in the socio-economic structure and
in the tendencies of its evolution under imperialist pressure, or to be
more precise in the little or no attention paid to the characteristics
of this structure and these tendencies by the national liberation
movements in deciding on the strategy of their struggles.

By saying this we do not wish to diminish the importance of other
internal factors which are unfavorable to national liberation, such as
economic under-development, the consequent social and cultural
backwardness of the popular masses, tribalism and other contradictions
of lesser importance. It should however be pointed out that the
existence of tribes only manifests itself as an important contradiction
as a function of opportunistic attitudes, generally on the part of
detribalised individuals or groups, within the national liberation
movements. Contradictions between classes, even when only embryonic,
are of far greater importance than contradictions between tribes.

Although the colonial and neo-colonial situations are identical in
essence, and the main aspect of the struggle against imperialism is neo-
colonialist, we feel it is vital to distinguish in practice these two
situations. In fact the horizontal structure, however it may differ
from the native society, and the absence of a political power composed
of national elements in the colonial situation make possible the
creation of a wide front of unity and struggle, which is vital to the
success of the national liberation movement. But this possibility does
not remove the need for a rigorous analysis of the native social
structure, of the tendencies of its evolution, and for the adoption in
practice of appropriate measures for ensuring true national liberation.
While recognizing that each movement knows best what to do in its own
case, one of these measures seems to us indispensable, namely, the
creation of a firmly united vanguard, conscious of the true meaning and
objective of the national liberation struggle which it must lead. This
necessity is all the more urgent since we know that with rare
exceptions the colonial situation neither permits nor needs the
existence of significant vanguard classes (working class conscious of
its existence and rural proletariat) which could ensure the vigilance
of the popular masses over the evolution of the liberation movement. On
the contrary, the generally embryonic character of the working classes
and the economic, social and cultural situation of the physical force
of most importance in the national liberation struggle-the peasantry-do
not allow these two main forces to distinguish true national
independence from fictitious political independence. Only a
revolutionary vanguard, generally an active minority, can be aware of
this distinction from the start and make it known, through the
struggle, to the popular masses. This explains the fundamentally
political nature of the national liberation struggle and to a certain
extent makes the form of struggle important in the final result of the
phenomenon of national liberation.

In the neo-colonial situation the more or less vertical structure of
the native society and the existence of a political power composed of
native elements-national state-already worsen the contradictions within
that society and make difficult if not impossible the creation of as
wide a front as in the colonial situation. On the one hand the material
effects (mainly the nationalization of cadres and the increased
economic initiative of the native elements, particularly in the
commercial field) and the psychological effects (pride in the belief of
being ruled by one?s own compatriots, exploitation of religious or
tribal solidarity between some leaders and a fraction of the masses)
together demobilize a considerable part of the nationalist forces. But
on the other hand the necessarily repressive nature of the neo-colonial
state against the national liberation forces, the sharpening of
contradictions between classes, the objective permanence of signs and
agents of foreign domination (settlers who retain their privileges,
armed forces, racial discrimination), the growing poverty of the
peasantry and the more or less notorious influence of external factors
all contribute towards keeping the flame of nationalism alive, towards
progressively raising the consciousness of wide popular sectors and
towards reuniting the majority of the population, on the very basis of
awareness of neo-colonialist frustration, around the ideal of national
liberation. In addition, while the native ruling class becomes
progressively more bourgeois, the development of a working class
composed of urban workers and agricultural proletarians, all exploited
by the indirect domination of imperialism, opens up new perspectives
for the evolution of national liberation. This working class, whatever
the level of its political consciousness (given a certain minimum,
namely the awareness of its own needs), seems to constitute the true
popular vanguard of the national liberation struggle in the neo-
colonial case. However it will not be able to completely fulfill its
mission in this struggle (which does not end with the gaining of
independence) unless it firmly unites with the other exploited strata,
the peasants in general (hired men, sharecroppers, tenants and small
farmers) and the nationalist petty bourgeoisie. The creation of this
alliance demands the mobilization and organization of the nationalist
forces within the framework (or by the action) of a strong and well-
structured political organization.

Another important distinction between the colonial and neo-colonial
situations is in the prospects for the struggle. The colonial situation
(in which the nation class fights the repressive forces of the
bourgeoisie of the colonizing country) can lead, apparently at least,
to a nationalist solution (national revolution); the nation gains its
independence and theoretically adopts the economic structure which best
suits it. The neo-colonial situation (in which the working classes and
their allies struggle simultaneously against the imperialist
bourgeoisie and the native ruling class) is not resolved by a
nationalist solution; it demands the destruction of the capitalist
structure implanted in the national territory by imperialism, and
correctly postulates a socialist solution.

This distinction arises mainly from the different levels of the
productive forces in the two cases and the consequent sharpening of the
class struggle.

It would not be difficult to show that in time the distinction becomes
scarcely apparent. It is sufficient to recall that in our present
historical situation ? elimination of imperialism which uses every
means to perpetuate its domination over our peoples, and consolidation
of socialism throughout a large part of the world ? 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. This operation, on which depends the compensation
for the efforts and sacrifices of the popular masses during the
struggle, is considerably influenced by the form of struggle and the
degree of revolutionary consciousness of those who lead it. The facts
make it unnecessary for us to prove that the essential instrument of
imperialist domination is violence. If we accept the principle that the
liberation struggle is a revolution and that it does not finish at the
moment when the national flag is raised and the national anthem played,
we will see that there is not, and cannot be national liberation
without the use of liberating violence by the nationalist forces, to
answer the criminal violence of the agents of imperialism. Nobody can
doubt that, whatever its local characteristics, imperialist domination
implies a state of permanent violence against the nationalist forces.
There is no people on earth which, having been subjected to the
imperialist yoke (colonialist or neo-colonialist), has managed to gain
its independence (nominal or effective) without victims. The important
thing is to determine which forms of violence have to be used by the
national liberation forces in order not only to answer the violence of
imperialism, but also to ensure through the struggle the final victory
of their cause, true national independence. The past and present
experiences of various peoples, the present situation of national
liberation struggles in the world (especially in Vietnam, the Congo and
Zimbabwe) as well as the situation of permanent violence, or at least
of contradictions and upheavals, in certain countries which have gained
their independence by the so-called peaceful way, show us not only that
compromises with imperialism do not work, but also that the normal way
of national liberation, imposed on peoples by imperialist repression,
is armed struggle.

We do not think we will shock this assembly by stating that the only
effective way of definitively fulfilling the aspirations of the
peoples, that is to say of attaining national liberation, is by armed
struggle. This is the great lesson which the contemporary history of
liberation struggle teaches all those who are truly committed to the
effort of liberating their peoples.

It is obvious that both the effectiveness of this way and the
stability of the situation to which it leads after liberation depend
not only on the characteristics of the organization of the struggle but
also on the political and moral awareness of those who, for historical
reasons, are capable of being the immediate heirs of the colonial or
neo-colonial state. For events have shown that the only social sector
capable of being aware of the reality of imperialist domination and of
directing the state apparatus inherited from this domination is the
native petty bourgeoisie. If we bear in mind the aleatory
characteristics and the complexity of the tendencies naturally inherent
in the economic situation of this social stratum or class, we will see
that this specific inevitability in our situation constitutes one of
the weaknesses of the national liberation movement.

The colonial situation, which does not permit the development of a
native pseudo-bourgeoisie and in which the popular masses do not
generally reach the necessary level of political consciousness before
the advent of the phenomenon of national liberation, offers the petty
bourgeoisie the historical opportunity of leading the struggle against
foreign domination, since by nature of its objective and subjective
position (higher standard of living than that of the masses, more
frequent contact with the agents of colonialism, and hence more chances
of being humiliated, higher level of education and political awareness,
etc.) it is the stratum which most rapidly becomes aware of the need to
free itself from foreign domination. This historical responsibility is
assumed by the sector of the petty bourgeoisie which, in the colonial
context, can be called revolutionary, while other sectors retain the
doubts characteristic of these classes or ally themselves to
colonialism so as to defend, albeit illusorily, their social
situation.

The neo-colonial situation, which demands the elimination of the
native pseudo-bourgeoisie so that national liberation can be attained,
also offers the petty bourgeoisie the chance of playing a role of major
and even decisive importance in the struggle for the elimination of
foreign domination. But in this case, by virtue of the progress made in
the social structure, the function of leading the struggle is shared
(to a greater or lesser extent) with the more educated sectors of the
working classes and even with some elements of the national pseudo-
bourgeoisie who are inspired by patriotic sentiments. The role of the
sector of the petty bourgeoisie which participates in leading the
struggle is all the more important since it is a fact that in the neo-
colonial situation it is the most suitable sector to assume these
functions, both because of the economic and cultural limitations of the
working masses, and because of the complexes and limitations of an
ideological nature which characterize the sector of the national pseudo-
bourgeoisie which supports the struggle. In this case it is important
to note that the role with which it is entrusted demands from this
sector of the petty bourgeoisie a greater revolutionary consciousness,
and the capacity for faithfully interpreting the aspirations of the
masses in each phase of the struggle and for identifying themselves
more and more with the masses.

But however high the degree of revolutionary consciousness of the
sector of the petty bourgeoisie called on to fulfill this historical
function, it cannot free itself from one objective of reality: the
petty bourgeoisie, as a service class (that is to say that a class not
directly involved in the process of production) does not possess the
economic base to guarantee the taking over of power. In fact history
has shown that whatever the role ? sometimes important ? played by
individuals coming from the petty bourgeoisie in the process of a
revolution, this class has never possessed political control. And it
never could possess it, since political control (the state) is based on
the economic capacity of the ruling class, and in the conditions of
colonial and neo-colonial society this capacity is retained by two
entities: imperialist capital and the native working classes.

To retain the power which national liberation puts in its hands, the
petty bourgeoisie has only one path: to give free rein to its natural
tendencies to become more bourgeois, to permit the development of a
bureaucratic and intermediary bourgeoisie in the commercial cycle, in
order to transform itself into a national pseudo-bourgeoisie, that is
to say in order to negate the revolution and necessarily ally. In order
not to betray these objectives the petty bourgeoisie has only one
choice: to strengthen its revolutionary consciousness, to reject the
temptations of becoming more bourgeois and the natural concerns of its
class mentality, to identify itself with the working classes and not to
oppose the normal development of the process of revolution. This means
that in order to truly fulfill the role in 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 deepest aspirations of the
people to which they belong.

This alternative ? to betray the revolution or to commit suicide as a
class ? constitutes the dilemma of the petty bourgeoisie in the general
framework of the national liberation struggle. The positive solution in
favor of the revolution depends on what Fidel Castro recently correctly
called the development of revolutionary consciousness. This dependence
necessarily calls our attention to the capacity of the leader of the
national liberation struggle to remain faithful to the principles and
to the fundamental cause of this struggle. This shows us, to a certain
extent, that if national liberation is essentially a political problem,
the conditions for its development give it certain characteristics
which belong to the sphere of morals.

We will not shout hurrahs or proclaim here our solidarity with this or
that people in struggle. Our presence is in itself a cry of
condemnation of imperialism and a proof of solidarity with all peoples
who want to banish from their country the imperialist yoke, and in
particular with the heroic people of Vietnam. But we firmly believe
that the best proof we can give of our anti-imperialist position and of
our active solidarity with our comrades in this common struggle is to
return to our countries, to further develop this struggle and to remain
faithful to the principles and objectives of national liberation.

Our wish is that every national liberation movement represented here
may be able to repeat in its own country, arms in hand, in unison with
its people, the already legendary cry of Cuba:

Patria O Muerte, Venceremos!

Death to the Forces of Imperialism!

Free, Prosperous and Happy Country for Each of our Peoples!

Venceremos!

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤