Immanuel Wallerstein
in Peuples/Popoli/Peoples/Pueblos No 1 (May 1983)
The first part of the report underlines the theoretical engagement of Amilcar Cabral, particularly for what concerns the constructions of a new society after independence. In his report Wallerstein intends precisely to follow the method of analysis and of action that marked the whole activity of Cabral.
In the twentieth century, in a great number of countries, different revolutionary movements have taken the power, generally – but not always – under the leadership of a revolutionary party, after long periods of struggles preceding the seizure of power. These periods of struggle – whenever sufficiently prolonged – allowed the growth of popular consciousness, as a general rule, which is by itself a revolutionary phenomenon.
It is not my intention to deal in this report with all the complicated processes taking place in post-revolutionary States. I want to point out only two factors which, in my opinion, are common to all of them. In the first place, all revolutionary parties experienced – once they got the power – that controlling the apparatus of the state increased considerably their political power, but not as much as they hoped or planned. This means that all these parties experienced the limits of state sovereignty; in other terms, they discovered that all states, including post-revolutionary States, continue to be an integrating part of an inter-state system, which hinders seriously the actions of any single state; in fact, they perceived directly the existence of world economic system whose viability binds every single state, whatever its ideological leanings may be, to adapt itself to the dictate of the law of value, at least to a certain level.
Different post-revolutionary States reacted differently to this experience, and we could say that their national histories consist in the debates on the means to react to this reality. “War communism” and the “New economic policy” – not as temporary tactics, but as long term strategies – are two of the main models of action, though not the only ones, to face the reality of the “Worldsystem”.
The reactions to this situation and, as a consequence, the fluctuation of national policies of post-revolutionary States originated the second factor which is common to all these states. The climate of high collective revolutionary consciousness and of wide engagement in politics has shown a decreasing trend, a tendency to dissolve and even disappear.
Considering the statements of the parties, the governments and the leaders of post-revolutionary States, we can notice a permanent effort to revive ideology, renew enthusiasm, fight cynicism and weariness, preserve a climate of struggle. Disillusion about these experiences is spreading within these countries and abroad.
If we reflect upon the reasons why in this countries, in a way or another, political disaffection of the working classes is growing, we find out that the main source of discontent is the fact that social transformations have not been as deep as the working classes hoped. The troubles of the old society, like the unequal distribution of income, and the existence of corruption and arbitrary acts, remain at levels unacceptable to post-revolutionary States. Undoubtedly, as the revolutionary parties constantly assert when they recognize that discontent is well-grounded, this is due to the first of the two common factors: the integration of these states in a world system which they cannot control and which exerts negative pressures on them. But it is also true that the working classes cannot be easily convinced that this is the only explanation.
Political disaffection in post-revolutionary States encouraged the greatest hopes of the supporters of the capitalist system, as they see in it the weapon to neutralize the growing strength of the forces fighting on an international scale against the system.
As we know, political disaffection is never politically indifferent. It is, in the first place, the weapon used by those who lack of political strength and wait for the moment when conditions are ready for a political change.
Is there something that the revolutionary movements all over the world can do in order to direct the rebellion of workers mainly against the world capitalist system, and to prevent this rebellion from being diverted into a negative attitude towards post-revolutionary States and revolutionary movements? I think that Amilcar Cabral would ask himself this question if he were among us. Let us question ourselves about it, for him and his memory.
I think we can find some hints for the answer in the title of my report, as it has been formulated by the organizers of this symposium: “The integration of liberation movement in the frame of international liberation”.
The capitalist system is a world system. Class struggle is effective only if it is an international struggle, which in turn cannot be defined as a series of national struggles connected only by international solidarity. This does not mean that national struggle is not an important goal of our engagement. On the contrary, it is very important indeed. In fact, national struggle is relevant because it is an aspect of the international class struggle. I am going to submit to you some controversial points regarding international class struggle, which are not intended to be a complete analysis but only a basis for discussion.
1) We are presently living in a period of transition. In fact, the world capitalist system still exists and the world socialist order is not a reality yet. This situation has been lasting far fifty years and it is going to exist for at least another century. Those who live in post-revolutionary States are not the only ones involved in this transition: we are all involved in it. Transition is a phenomenon related to the entire international system suffering of a structural crisis.
2) Class struggle has never been so intense as during this transition. We are all involved in this struggle, no country is outside or above it.
3) This struggle assumes different forms, just as various are the means to take possession of surplus value. This is why the nature of both the bourgeoisie and of the proletariat on an international scale has gradually changed and has become more complex, to the extent that it is presently impossible to reduce it to the English model of the beginning of the 18th century: private entrepreneurs against industrial workers.
4) International class struggle is fought by different elements of the world proletariat organized in movements. It is up to these movements, not to the states, to fight this struggle, which in turn implies the existence of political movements and active militants. It is through this struggle that it is possible to reach political power.
5) These movements emerged in relation to different problems: oppression of a nation, oppression of the workers, oppression of the weakest social groups (women, young generations, elderly people, ethnic and racial minorities). According to circumstances, problems change and continuously will: the crucial point consists in knowing if a certain struggle is really a struggle against the capitalist system – that is, if a certain movement represents a real challenge to the concrete power of the international bourgeoisie and therefore strengthens the power of proletariat.
6) The control of the state apparatus is an instrument of the world class struggle, not an end. It is only tactics and it has not always the priority.
7) The most urgent need for every movement – within post-revolutionary States or elsewhere – is the creation of a real transnational alliance, among different movements, based on a clear distinction between movements and States.
8) “Economic development” is a double-edged weapon. Since the beginning of the world economic system, the simultaneous “economic development” of all the different regions has been impossible, due to the very nature of this development, because the law of value requires an unbalanced distribution of surpluses over the planet. In fact, the development of a less “developed” area takes always place at another area’s expenses. World socialism cannot be defined as the “growth of less developed areas”, or something similar. On the contrary, it requires the creation of a radically different mode of production – focused on production for use, in an equitable and planned way – by which States gradually disappear as individual entities and collective system.
9) The criterion for the construction of a world socialist order must be the continuous strengthening -during the period of transition- of the real and actual power of working classes, in order to enable them to manage their lives on the place of work, at home, in the community. Self-management cannot be remitted to working class representatives: it must be exercised directly by the workers. Cabral meant that when he foresaw the “suicide” of the revolutionary lower middle class, in Africa and in any part of the world. But, as we all know, this class will not commit suicide. In the frame of social reality, it is up to the workers to impose “suicide” to their representatives.
10) The crisis of the world capitalist system is also the crisis of the anti-capitalist movements, as they are a creation of this system too, and not of the system of tomorrow. We need a new formulation of our strategy, of our organizational forms, of our categories of analysis, which were all shaped in the 19th century, during the period of highest self-confidence of the capitalist system. We must ask ourselves whether our present strategies, organizational forms and categories of analysis are still valid in this period of crisis, of intense class struggle and, above all, of transformation and adaptation of the world bourgeoisie which, in completely new forms, manages to survive as the most privileged class. The real danger is that, in 20 or 30 years, everybody might consider himself a marxist or a socialist, and that private property itself might play a secondary role in the international production process, and nevertheless we could have not yet got over the period of transition and of world class struggle. Such an “ideological triumph” could be one of the most serious obstacles to the achievement of a world socialist order.
We must remember that nothing is inevitable. We are facing a historical choice. The present world capitalist system cannot survive much longer. But a world socialist order is not the only possible alternative. Another alternative is the creation of a new system based on classes, though not a capitalist one. A third alternative is a nuclear disaster. In addition, there could be other alternatives which we cannot imagine.
“The struggle goes on” is not only a slogan. It is an analysis which we must always keep in mind, especially when considering post-revolutionary States and revolutionary movements fighting against the capitalist system.
in: Peuples/Popoli/Peoples/Pueblos No 1 (May 1983)
Simposio “Amilcar Cabral”, Capo Verde, January 1983