African Socialism edit
During the 1945 Pan-African Conference, calls for increased organization, development and self-determination in the poverty stricken African continent put the impetus on colonial powers to negotiate national sovereignty. [1] While there were few Marxist movements into the continent, USSR activity spurred anti-imperialist and globalization movements from African countries. The congress established national liberation as the main topic of their sessions, emphasizing the elimination and exploitation by the imperialist powers over authentic national sovereignty. [1] They did not, however, establish clear social or political parameters for this new liberation.
African leaders consistently viewed socialism as a direct rejection of the colonial system and, in turn, dismissed the notion of creating independent captialist systems throughout the continent. Instead, the leaders attempted to infuse various forms of socialism--some Marxist, some democratic-- into tailored ideologies specific to each country. [1]. Once these systems were in place, countries developed towards a "focal institutional" society, per sociologist William Friedland. In other words, societies adopted a totalitarian vision of rule, allowing one-party systems and institutions to "penetrate every sphere of private or public activity". [2]
Senegalese Authoritarianism edit
Senegalese President Leopold Sedar Senghor was among the first and most vocal African advocates for Socialism. Before elected president, Senghor served as one of nine African delegates to the 1945 French Constituent Assembly, negotiating for the transfer of self-governing and policy-making power through locally elected councils [3]. The measure shortly failed, keeping autonomy from the colonies until the independence movements of the 1960s.
After Senegalese Independence, Senghor's Union Progresiste Senegalaise, a derivative of the French Socialist Party, grew massive support throughout the continent. [2] Much of his party's success hinged on his 'revisionist' version of Marxism, where he advocates: "the major contradiction of Marxism is that it presents itself as a science, whereas, despite its denials, it is based on an ethic". [2] By framing it as an ethic, Senghor was able to remove the strict determinism from the ideology, allowing it to be molded towards an Afro-centric model. His revision proved similar to that of Benito Mussolini- he calls on a national movement from and for his one-party-ruled government: "In a word, we must awaken the National Consciousness ... But the government cannot and must not do it all. It must be helped by the party...Our party must be the consciousness of the masses". [2]
Ghanian Authoritarianism edit
.jpg)
Socialist leader Kwame Nkrumah, in the same vein as Senghor, sought to advance this one-party, nationalized form of socialist obedience. Nkrumah stressed the importance of government-owned property and resources. He maintained that "production for private profit deprives a large section of the people of the goods and services produced", advocating public ownership to fit the "people's needs". [4] To accomplish this, Nkrumah emphasized the importance of discipline and obedience towards the single Socialist party. If people submitted, he said, and accepted the singular party's program, political independence would be possible. [5]. By 1965, his one-party rule had produced an Assembly entirely made up of his own party members [6]
Nkrumah saw law as a malleable weapon of political power, not as a product of a complex system of political institutions [6]. As such, Ghanian power structures were dominated and controlled by his hand. Elite landowners, however, questioned the legitimacy of Nkrumah's power. These elites were only afforded one choice: to align with their government if they wanted access to the state. Gradually, those who were not granted (or did not desire) entrance into the party created regions blocs. [7] The Asante, for example, emerged as a regional force capable political sway. With the power to set the agenda, the authoritarian party often clashed with these emerging regional groups, ultimately undermining the one-party system. [7]
Tanzanian Authoritarianism edit
Julius Nyerere attempted to socialist reform for Tanzania following those in Ghana and Senegal. The tenants of his initiatives were four-fold:[8]
- Promote the Tanzanian Economy
- Secure State control over development
- Create a sole political party called the Tanzanian African National Union (TANU), which would be under his control
- Share the benefits of all gathered income
The system--called ujaama-- became a tool for nationalization of the Tanzanian people. In the system, all Tanzanains were encouraged to run for office, with no campaign funding allowed. Speeches in the election would not focus on the national issues but rather the quality of the individual, each of whom would be closely controlled by TANU. [8] Structurally, the power was shared along regional boundaries, giving increased policy making power and resource allocation to these regions. Local institutions were downplayed, with leadership organizations often facing subversion from higher governmental structures. [9]
The first wave of elections in the Tanzanian General Election, produced a 100% voting rate for TANU officials.
Maoist Socialism edit
Following the fall of the elite, land-owning class of the early 20th century, China began its Communist Revolution through the countryside. As relationships between agrarian masses and State-controlled programs splintered, the Communist Party began seizing power, led by Mao Zedong. [10] In his 1949 essay On People's Democratic Dictatorship, Zedong committed himself and the Chinese State to the creation of a strong state power with increased economic control. [10] He stressed the importance of an authoritarian state, where political order and unity could be established and maintained. Zedong committed himself to unification in the vein of complete system overthrow [10]. As Party Chairman, Zedong allowed himself complete control over the structure and execution of his Communist Party. While in control, Mao had created his own Cult of Personality: an almost mythical position as a guardian of wisdom and charisma [10].
With such power, he was able to influence popular opinions, allowing his agenda support without going through state-controlled measures. During his Great Leap Forward-- an initiative to develop China from an agrarian sector a major industrial powerhouse--he relied greatly on his prestige to influence the people. [10]. The Leap, however, proved a failure as widespread crop and irrigation failures led to the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-1961. There was no suggested end to the Revolution-- it was meant to be a continuing process of empowerment of the peasant class [11]. However, with the aggressive failure of his Cultural Revolution, Chinese support for the party and for Zedong waned. Continuing struggles after his death would undermine his communist system, allowing a more democratic, yet still one-party ruled, system to continue into today.
Evolution from Marxism edit
Maoist socialism is largely an adapted, Sino-centric version of Marxism, as Zedong relies heavily on Leninist influence.[12] Zedong believed in a democratic centralism, where party decisions are brought about by scrutiny and debate but infallible once implemented. [11] He did not, however, accept dissenters to the party's decisions. Through the Cultural Revolution, especially the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, Mao attempted to purge any subversive idea-- especially capitalist or western threat-- with heavy force, justifying his actions as the necessary way for the central authority to keep power [11]. At the same time, however, Mao emphasized the importance of cultural heritage and individual choice as a way of creating this national unity. He described his ideal system as: "a political situation in which there is both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of purpose and personal ease of mind and liveliness to facilitate the socialist revolution" [11]. While the system advocates contradiction, Mao believed the state, above all, could provide the masses with the tools for their own expression. Ironically, his own brand of self-expression was wholly manufactured, built largely on replacing traditional practices and artifacts with his own. Through this, transformation of the people towards an internal party collectiveness was possible. [11].
Notably, Zedong's authoritarianism, unlike Marx's, was rooted a collective bottom-up style of empowerment. In his system, the proletariat and peasantry were responsible for rising up against the bureaucracy and capital of the state [12]. Joining the peasant class with the bourgeoisie of the countryside (the land-holding, local farmers), the group was able to stifle the claims to power by the wealthier, urban landowners through the banner of communism. Only when this collection of peasants and petty bourgeoisie existed could Mao grow his own, custom bureaucracy. [12]. Once this unity was established, Mao argued that the people were the ones who could control the state. His government's intense control over the citizenry, however, emphasizes the contradiction in his theory-- a contradiction, he maintained, was a necessary reality of their specialized system [12]
- ^ a b c Mushkat, Marion (June 1972). "AFRICAN SOCIALISM REAPPRAISED AND RECONSIDERED". Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO). No. 2: 151-153.
{{cite journal}}:|volume=has extra text (help) - ^ a b c d Gregor, A. James (July 1967). "African Socialism, Socialism and Fascism: An Appraisal". The Review of Politics. 29 (No. 3): 324-353.
{{cite journal}}:|issue=has extra text (help) - ^ Dimier, Veronique (Feb 2004). "For a Republic 'Diverse and Indivisible'? France's Experience from the Colonial Past". Contemporary European History. 13 (1): 45-66.
- ^ Nkrumah, Kwame (1963). Africa Must Unite. New York, NY: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. p. 119.
- ^ Nkrumah 1963, p. 50.
- ^ a b Bretton, Henry L. (1966). The Rise and Fall of Kwame Nkrumah. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
- ^ a b Riedl, Rachel (Feb 2014). Authoritarian Origins of Democratic Party Systems in Africa. Cambridge University Press. p. 108.
- ^ a b Pratt, Cranford (1999). "Julius Nyerere: Reflections on the Legacy of His Socialism". Canadian Journal of African Studies. 33 (No. 1): 139.
{{cite journal}}:|issue=has extra text (help) - ^ Hyden, Goran; Anthony, Constance G. (1980). Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured Peasantry. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 51-54.
- ^ a b c d e Meisner, Maurice (1999). Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- ^ a b c d e Fetzer, James A. (April–May 1985). "Mao Zedong: A Justification of Authoritarian Practice". The High School Journal. 68 (4): 296-300.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) - ^ a b c d Esherick, Joseph W. (Jan 1979). "On the "Restoration of Capitalism": Mao and Marxist Theory". Modern China. 5 (1): 41-77.