Editorial

Editorial Unless the worldwide anti-imperialist movement grows in will become the Balkans of the 'eighties.

Today the intensification of imperialist rivalries has led to a scramble throughout the African continent for spheres of influence. Imperialism's drive towards a new redivision of the world has a particularly acute impact on Africa. In the past, capitalist relations in Africa were always guaranteed by Britain and France. Now in decline, these imperialist powers can no longer be relied upon to carry out this task.

That is why the USA launched its diplomatic initiative in Southern Africa - because Britain cannot be depended upon to assure capitalist stability in Zimbabwe.

America's intervention is not a matter of friendly assistance to two senile imperialist nations. As the crisis deepens, each imperialist power is thrown into furious battles with its competitors. More than anywhere else Africa is wide open for a new phase of imperialist penetration - a phase in which Britain and France will be the losers.

African capitalism was unstable even in periods of economic expansion. In the 'sixties imperialism had to resort to military intervention to bolster up regimes sympathetic to its interests. The Nigerian civil war of 1967, in which opposing sides were supported and armed by different imperialist powers, prefigured the heightened tensions of today. Elsewhere in Africa, Britain and France kept order by force of arms. France was particularly aggressive in defending its position in Africa: in 1962 it dispatched soldiers to save President Senghor of Senegal, in 1964 it crushed a leftist coup in Gabon and in 1968 sent troops into Chad. More recently the French army has seen action in Mauritania and Zaire.

If the rule of imperialism is to be upheld the old methods of colonial annexation must be deployed once more. To this end the USA has just established a task force of 11 000 troops to protect its investments in oil. Last summer France raised the idea of a permanent all-African intervention force. Even a second-rate imperialist power like Britain has kept up a 'quick strike' capability; though more than 13 000 of its troops are tied down in the Six Counties of Ireland, Britain still managed to spare a few SAS men for West Germany's raid on Mogadishu.

Imperialism has more at stake in Africa than massive investments. Compelled by the crisis to take up the weapons of economic nationalism, each imperialist power tries both to exert direct control over sources of raw materials and to prevent competitors from challenging it in export markets.

The potentially explosive conflict between Belgium and France over the Shaba province of Zaire shows the direction in which imperialist antagonisms are heading.

In Africa the trend towards military intervention by further reinforced by the instability that prevails in Southern Africa. One of the most profitable areas for capitalist investment in the world, depends for its existence on the continued subjugation of black population. For the imperialist powers that dominate it, liberation struggles that have developed in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia represent a direct threat; imperialism must crush them to survive.

Liberal apologists try to obscure the real tendencies of imperialism by saying that the British state's policies are misguided. Two economists commissioned by Christian Concern for Southern Africa have concluded that support for apartheid is far from beneficial to the British economy.

better served by sanctions against Even some of those who profess to identify with the struggle against apartheid have declared that the problem is Tory policy and not British imperialism. Recently the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) noted: 'The Conservative party is the only one of the major national parties to advocate policies which are in direct conflict with the interests of the people of Southern Africa'? For the AAM, Labour Party support for South Africa is best not talked about. It prefers the enlightened imperialism of Owen to the old-fashioned techniques of Carrington.3 The influence of apologists for imperialism extends movement. Such was the rise of proim penalist sentiment in the post-war period that reformist leaders could argue that Britain was no longer imperialist.

As a group of left-wing Labour MPs put it: *Everyone outside Britain recognises that Britain's financial supremacy has gone for good, and with it the basis of British Imperialism. Once we could afford all sorts of extravagances in our foreign policy. Now they are beyond our means?4 As far as the Labour left was concerned, the ruthless war of oppression then fought by Britain against Malaya "extravagance'. In reality, however, was just an left reformists were advocating an imperialist strategy They appropriate for the period.

Britain urged to "concentrate, in co-operation with France, on the development of our African colonies so as to create the conditions for African freedom and to decrease European dependence on America' 5 This strategy of transferring political power to an African government while preserving the dominant position of British imperialism was realistic enough to be pursued by successive Tory and Labour governments from the late 'fifties and throughout the 'sixties.

The trend towards decolonisation during this period confirmed the view that imperialism no longer existed. The notion of a new style capitalism, shorn of its oppressive and obnoxious features, was one of the illusions created by the post-war boom. Imperialist conflict appeared to be a The Guardian, 4 September 1974.

AAM News, May 1979, p3. 3. It is not surprising that the AAM's pre-occupation with altemative imperialist policies leads it to support the more liberal forms of imperialist oppression. It greeted the 1977 Anglo- American initiative on Zimbabwe - which promised dictatorial powers for a British-appointed Resident Commissioner during a "transitional period' prior to majority rule - as a significant and welcome advance'. AAM, Rhodesia: what chances for a settlement?, 1977, p2. 4 RH S Crossman, M Foot & I Mikardo, Keep Left, 1947, p30.

5 Ibid, p47. 1

phenomenon of the past. Even organisations on the radical left like the International Socialists (IS) - now the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) - were taken in by this. In a major one of IS's leading theoreticians summarised article, the group's abandonment of Leninism: "It hardly seems necessary to sum up one's disagrcement with Lenin on imperialism, as he defined it. It must be rejected on at least four counts: finance capital is not nearly as important for and within the system as it was; the export of capital is no longer of great importance to the system: political control in the direct sense meant by Lenin is rapidly becoming dated; and finally, resulting from these, we don't have imperialism but we still have capitalism.

The rejection of Lenin's theory of imperialism inevitably led the SWP in a reformist direction. Today the SWP's policy towards Ireland is testimony to this. Because imperialism is no longer at issue, the SWP treats Britain's oppression of Ireland as a harsh and unfair policy. In August of this year the SWP commemorated the tenth anniversary of the war in the Six Counties by uniting with the pro-imperialist Liberal Party on a demonstration intended to persuade the British state to adopt a more progressive line on Ireland.

As a current in the international working class, Leninism developed through a struggle against pro-imperialist trends in the labour movement. Lenin attacked those leaders of the working class who tried to separate oppressive policies from capitalism itself. He showed that as long as imperialism existed there was no alternative to the brutal domination of the colonial masses. By contrast, his opponent Kautsky suggested that, although imperialism was oppressive, there were other options open to capitalism. Kautsky argued that if the policies of war and colonial conquest were "proscribed', 'the results would not be the collapse of capitalism, but only methods to achieve its expansion'? Lenin demonstrated that Kautsky's prognosis of a peaceful capitalism was not only a denial of reality but also a plan for the reform of imperialism.

Whether in Africa, Asia or Ireland, political oppression is the necessary consequence of capitalist development in its imperialist stage. To be effective, therefore, with the struggles of the oppressed must be anti-imperialist in character. Support for the struggles of the oppressed was central to Lenin's programme: *Imperialism means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations... "That is why the focal point in the Social-Democratic programme must be that division of nations into oppressor and oppressed which forms the essence of imperialism, and is deceitfully evaded by the social-chauvinists and Kautsky'® Reformists will always evade the issue of imperialism because their whole approach is based on the premise that reformist policies are compatible with imperialism. For them capitalism is not necessarily oppressive and imperialism can be reformed.

Africa and pro-imperialist trends in the British labour movement The reformist leadership of the British labour movement is committed to the defence of British industry merce. While it differs with the bosses on the question of wages and working conditions, the labour bureaucracy stands shoulder to shoulder with British capitalists against forcign competition. And it wants what is best for Britain in Africa, too. Every trade union bureaucrat follows his 2 statements against apartheid with a defence of the national immediately reactionary results. Pleas about the need to accept 'economic realities' have prevented three of Britain's largest unions from putting pressure on Unilever to recognise trade unions at two of its South African plants 9 mainstream of the reformist leadership makes little pretence of opposing British strategy in Africa, the Labour left has strong feelings on the matter. It is critical of imperialist domination of Africa. However, the left reformists' commitment to economic nationalism forces them, too, to reconcile their concern for the African people with the interests of imperialism. Advancing a moral critique of imperialism, they join the ranks of those who contend that Britain would be better off if it broke its links Africa. Tribune, the paper of the Labour left, puts forward sound economic arguments why imperialism 'Today, however, the Tories take the line that Britain must continue to trade with South Africa and to invest there because "we cannot afford to do otherwise". And the Knights of the Foreign Office have had little difficulty in keeping Labour Governments close to this line. But the fact is that our trade with Nigeria alone is now larger than that with South Africa 10 Likewise, the support Tribune gives to imperialism's victims boils down to the kind of advice a capitalist gets from his accountant. Warning of the effects of an African boycott on British exports, it remarks: 'Nigeria in particular could penalise Britain with the loss of oil and of trade' 11 The interests of the British working class and of the African people are fundamentally opposed to those of imperialism. The preoccupation with trade figures shown by Tribune is an attempt to gloss over this fundamental antagonism in the hope of finding a workable imperialist solution. The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) has made an art of this chauvinist approach. It wants to win support for the liberation struggle on the grounds that it is in the best interests of British capitalism. Putting the case for banning trade with South Africa, it observes: 'Yet our exports to South Africa constitute only around 3 per cent of our total exports. Moreover, Britain's exports to our eight largest trading partners in the rest of Africa now stand at over £600 million - or nearly 4 per cent of total exports - and are thus more important for our future. This trade could be jeopardised if our exporters were to continue to cling to trade with South Africa. "12 These liberal appeals to economic good sense only reinforce pro-imperialist trends in the labour movement.

The instinctive rejection of apartheid by sections of the working class is cynically channelled towards supporting The politics of the Stalinists and the Labour left serve to liquidate the tendency towards proletarian internationalism in the British labour movement. What should workers do were it proved that South Africa is crucial for the survival of the British economy? Should they support the national liberation struggle in Africa regardless of its consequences for the health of British industry? Or should they consult reformist economists to see if, in this instance, internationalism is consistent with Britain's economic needs? The real interests of the British working class lie not with the defence of 'our exports but with the national liberation struggle. Lenin's theory of imperialism is a vital weapon in the struggle against the pro-imperialist trends in the labour movement. It shows that the survival of imperialism depends on the continued oppression of backward capitalist regions. Ignoring this, the reformists put British industry before the independent interests of the proletariat. The

CPGB calls for a ban on capital exports to South Africa as a means to assist the revival of the British economy: 'As far as investment is concerned, we will benefit since the flow of capital out of Britain to South Africa and the other countries is a major cause of our crisis at home' 13 In reality the Britain can only survive through profitable investments in South Africa and elsewhere. The victory liberation struggle in Africa will be a major blow against British impenalism. British workers have every reason for supporting this struggle against their class enemy.

The British working class must prevent British imperialism from securing its survival at the expense of the peoples of Africa. This struggle is necessary for the liberation of the British labour movement itself. As long as its struggles are restricted to wages and working conditions the working class will be unable to act as a conscious force Support for the bourgeoisie's foreign policy not only means support for imperialist oppression; it also undermines the class struggle at home. If the prosecution of the bour- 'national interest' in Africa is left unchallenged, the working class will be unable to oppose 'sacrifices' in the interest of Britain at home.

The struggle for national liberation This issue of Revolutionary Communist Papers does not only deal with the present day tendencies of imperialism. It also examines the liberation movement in Zimbabwe. The liberation movement in Africa faces considerable obstacles the diplomatic and military initiatives of imperialism. One of the most important of these obstacles is the strength of petit-bourgeois nationalism.

Marx analysed the role of the petit bourgeoisie in the struggle against oppression. He maintained that it sought only minimal change, and even that only insofar as it was consistent with its social position: 'Far from desiring to transform the whole of society for the revolutionary proletarians, the democratic petty bourgeois strive for a change in social conditions by means of which the existing society will be made as tolerable and comfortable as possible for them.'14 Because the petit-bourgeoisie can articulate the democratic aspirations of the masses it can take the leadership of the national liberation movement. However, it has no interest in the emancipation of all sections of society; it ultimately degrades the liberation struggle by making it serve its own narrow ends.

The analysis of Zimbabwe contained in this issue of Revolutionary Communist Papers shows that the petitbourgeois leadership of the nationalist movement has consistently limited the objectives of the liberation struggle.

Unable to fight imperialism consistently it has always sought to compromise. Nkomo's secret talks with Smith last year are only one example in the sordid record of the petit-bourgeois leadership.

The petit-bourgeois leaderships of the liberation struggles now being waged in Africa receive ideological support from world Stalinism. But, together with its African associates, the Soviet bureaucracy has continually used its influence to restrict the aims of the liberation movement to the bourgeois-democratic reform of capitalism. In this way it has tried to overcome the class contraseparating the African proletariat and the dictions bourgeoisie. According to the Communist Party of South Africa, socialism is not for the people of South Africa not just yet. "Today it is not the socialist but the national democratic revolution that is on the agenda in most African countries... there is a 3 against ultra-leftish forestalling of need to come out resolutely developments, against the 'infantile disorder' of leaping across the historically vital stages, and against the neglect of immediate general democratic tasks, whose fulfilment constitutes the essence of the present African revolution... '15 The Stalinists want to reconcile the African working class to capitalist democracy to maintain harmony between all classes: "Neglect for the common interests of the nation and accentuation of differences of opinion in ideological matters or problems related to the distant future can only harm the unity of the progressive forces 16 In advocating class collaboration, the Stalinists betray the interests of the African masses. As Marx and Engels defined it, The relation of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it marches together with them against the faction which it aims at overthrowing, it opposes them in everything by which they seek to consolidate their position in their interests.7 The founders of scientific socialism own explicitly warned against obscuring class differences in the interests of the 'nation': 'At the present moment, when the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach in general unity and reconciliation to the proletariat, they offer it their hand and strive for the establishment of a large opposition party... that is, they strive to entangle the workers in the party organisation in which general social-democratic phrases predominate, and serve to conceal their special interests, and in which the definite demands of the proletariat must not be brought forward for the sake of beloved peace. Such a union would turn out solely to their advantage and altogether to the disadvantage of the proletariat. 18 Lenin restated this fundamental Marxist approach. He too was faced with calls for postponing class demands in the interests of 'the people. In 1917, Lenin wrote: "The line of the petty bourgeoisie must be separated from that of the wage-earning proletariat. Fine phrases about the revolutionary people are suitable to a man like Kerensky, but not to the revolutionary proletariat 19 The Stalinist call for unity around democratic tasks means unity on the terms of the petit bourgeoisie. Capitalist social relations can only survive in Africa if the masses are politically oppressed. Backward capitalism cannot afford of bourgeois democracy. That is why all the independent "democratic governments in Africa have turned on the working class and continued the oppressive policies of the colonial regimes.

Revolutionaries in Zimbabwe have an obligation to ensure that the working class is organised as a class and not 6 M Kidron, 'International capitalism', International Socialism, No 61, p16. Cited in M Salvadori, Karl Kautsky and the socialist revolution 8 VI Lenin, 9 Financial Times, 23 May 1979.

10 Tribune, 17 March 1978.

Ibid. 10 March 1978. 11 12 Jack Woddis, Southern Africa - which side is Britain on, 1977, pS. 13 Ibid, p10. 14 K Marx & F Engels, 'Address of the Central Authority to the League', Collected Works, Vol 10, 1978, p281.

15 'A communist call to Africa', The African Communist, No 75, 1978, p24. 16 Ibid, p25 Marx & Engels, op cit, p280.

17 18 Ibid, p28l. 19 Lenin, "The Petrograd City Conference of the RSDLP', CW 24, p149.

appendage to the petit-bourgeois leadership of the nationalist movement. This is the only way to ensure a consistent fight against imperialism.

Revolutionaries cannot ignore the petit bourgeoisie; on the contrary, they must win this stratum around the struggle for a working As Lenin noted: 'A petty exists, and it cannot be dismissed'. But, he continued, 'it is in two parts. The poorer of the two is with the working class 20 The proletariat is the only class whose interests do not contradict the needs of society. That is why it is the one class that can fight imperialism consistently.

The fusion of Stalinism and petit-bourgeois nationalism that characterises the Patriotic Front (PF) has under.

mined the anti-imperialist movement in Zimbabwe. It has fragmented the liberation movement and dissipated the energies of the masses. It is not surprising that everyone, from imperialist politicians to Soviet bureaucrats, has good words for someone like Nkomo. The critique of the PF is necessary not only because of its shabby record of compro mise but also to ensure that the interests of the Zimbabwean freedom fighters are clearly expressed The RCT unconditionally supports the struggle against imperialism in Southern Africa. The war of liberation waged by the African people is progressive no matter who leads it. The British proletariat has every interest in speeding up the defeat of its ruling class in Africa. At the same time revolutionaries, in Africa and Britain, face the attempts of Stalinism to undermine class independence. In Britain, the Stalinists want to unite the proletariat around the national interest of capital; in Zimbabwe they want workers to abandon their interests for all-class unity. Antiimperialists must settle scores with these enemies of the independent interests of the working class.

This issue of Revolutionary Communist Papers is the product of discussion and debate within the RCT and with comrades from Africa. The goal of this journal is to further the struggle for proletarian internationalism. Over the past four months the RCT has extended its work in support of the Irish liberation struggle and begun to organise opposition to immigration controls in the British labour movement. This journal aims to extend this work. Discuss it with us and discuss it with your fellow workers. It you are sympathetic to the contents of this journal then join the fight against imperialism - make Africa an issue in the 15 August 1979 20 Ibid, p150. Errata Several errors in previous issues of Revolutionary Communist Papers have been brought to our attention.

Revolutionary Communist Papers No 3 p18, diagram 3. The curves giving the unemployment rates for Japan and West Germany (the bottom two curves) should be transposed from 1974 onwards: unemployment grew faster in West Germany in the period 1974-77. p20, col 2, linc 42. British Leyland came under the control of the National Enterprise Board in February 1976.

p40, col 2, line 14. Alan Sapper is a member of the film technicians' union. Revolutionary Communist Papers No 4 35, line 4. The quotation should read "policed it competently" not 'completely". 4

WE NEED £5000

TO EXTEND OUR RANGE OF

PUBLICATIONS AND TO

ESTABLISH A REGULAR REVIEW

urgent need for Marxist politics in the There is an labour movement. These articles show the importance of a scientific understanding of the events now taking place in Africa. We need your practical support to ensure the continued publication of revolutionary theory and propaganda on the vital issues facing the la bour movement. Please send your donations to:

JUNIUS PUBLICATIONS LTD

BCM JPLTD

LONDON WCTV 6XX

If you want further information about the Revolutionary Communist Tendency and its activities please write to: Revolutionary Communist Tendency BM RCT, London WCIV 6XX.

IMPERIALISM AND AFRICA

Africa was dragged into the capitalist world system during