Raya Dunayevskaya (1961)
At a time when the weary American intellectual has been so brain-washed both by the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war between America and Russia, that he declaims “The End of Ideology,”1 the world that is fighting for its freedom at the cost of its very life — Africa — is charged with the dynamism of ideas. As Leopold Sedar Senghor put it in his June, 1959, report for the Constitutive Congress of his Party of African Federation: “A nation that refuses to keep its rendezvous with history, that does not believe itself to be the bearer of a unique message — that nation is finished, ready to be placed in a museum. The Negro African is not finished even before he gets started. Let him speak; above all, let him act. Let him bring like a leaven, his message to the world in order to help build a universal civilization.”2
At a time when the African revolutions are redrawing the map of the world, the arrogance of white civilisation shows itself not only in the ruling class but amongst many Western socialists. Thus Sidney Lens writes as if the Africans’ theoretical contributions are comprised of Tom Mboya’s "one man, one vote."3 Leaving aside for the moment that "one man, one vote" discloses nothing short of a revolution against white domination that parades as ‘democratic civilization,’ these intellectuals have a long way to go before they equal the African’s intellectual grasp, not to mention his courage, daring, and totality of devotion to the struggle for freedom.
In his speech Senghor said: “Let us recapitulate Marx's positive contributions. They are; the philosophy of humanism, economic theory, dialectical method.” Senghor spoke with the simplicity that comes from a profound understanding both that socialism is humanist and that socialism is a method. The fact that he aims to combine marxism with utopian socialism as well as with religion in order to create what he calls an “open socialism” or an “African type of socialism” is not without subjective motivations. But this does not obscure the fact that he wishes the humanism of Marx to be the theoretical foundation for a triple synthesis of: (1) traditional African civilization, (2) the results of the encounter of this civilization with colonialism and French civilization, and (3) the economic resources and potentialities of Africa and their necessarily interdependent relationship with the economies of the industrially advanced countries.
So powerful and polarizing a force is the marxist theory of liberation that throughout the Middle East, the Orient and Africa, that there are attempts by various religions, Buddhism, Christianity and Mohammedanism, to find a bridge to it, even as there is a similar attempt on the part of Communist China and Russia. It is not here maintained that opportunism like that also characterizes the African intellectual, rather it seems to me that part of their critique of marxism is due to the realities of present-day Africa which did not form (and could not have formed) part of Marx’s thought. Other parts of Senghor’s critique of marxism, especially on present-day economics are however either wrong, or, as in the case of religion, over subtle. “The atheism of Marx,” writes Senghor “can be considered a reaction of Christian origin against the historical deviation of Christianity.”
Oppression in Africa has always worn a white face. This weighs so heavily on Africans that they are liable to react against any white faces, even that of the worker. Thus Senghor claims that the standard of living of the European masses rose "only at the expense of the standard of living of the masses in Asia and Africa," and that, therefore, the European proletariat “has never really — I mean effectively opposed it." (My emphasis. R.D). The very fact that Senghor must himself interpret "really" as "effectively" shows an awareness of proletarian struggles and revolutions. It is certainly too easy today to use that as an excuse to appeal, not to the proletariat of advanced countries, but to the authorities. It is certainly too high a price to pay when it entails an apology for de Gaulle who is exploiting not only the white proletariat but the North African (Algerian) revolutionaries. The very fact that on all the concrete questions relating to Africa’s relationship to de Gaulle’s France, Senghor has had to appear as an apologist for de Gaulle, discloses the tragedy of the underdeveloped countries fighting for freedom in an automated nuclear age.
On the other hand, Sekou Touré of Guinea, where the people had dared to say “No” to remaining part of the French Community, is much bolder in his concepts.
“In the realm of thought, man can claim to be the brain of the world, but on the concrete level of real life, where any occurrence will affect both the physical and spiritual being, the world is always the brain of man. Because it is in the world that all the thinking forces can be found, the dynamic forces of development and perfection, it is there too that the fusion of energy takes place and where the true quantity of the intellectual capacity of man can be found. So who could claim to exclude any one school of thought, any one kind of thought, or any one human family without by so doing excluding himself to some extent from the total society of man? . . .
“The science resulting from all human knowledge has no nationality. The ridiculous disputes about the origin of such and such a discovery do not interest us since they add nothing to the value of the discovery. It can therefore be said that African unity offers the world a new humanism essentially founded on the universal solidarity and co-operation between people without any racial and cultural antagonism and without narrow egoism and privilege. This is above and beyond the problem of West Africa and as far removed from the quarrels which divide the highly developed countries as are the conditions and aspirations of the African people.”4
We cannot know in which direction these African leaders will turn in the critical 1960's. We do know that their serious concern with the theoretical foundations for the building of a new society has no parallel in the intellectual leaders of ‘the West.’ Our epoch is a “birth-time of history”5 and the contribution of the Africans to thought as well as to revolutions is an integral part of the reconstruction of society on new beginnings.
R.D.
1 Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology, New York, 1960.
2 Leopold Sedar Senghor, African Socialism, American Society of African Culture, New York, 1959.
3 Sidney Lens, “The Revolution in Africa.” Liberation, January, February, and March, 1960.
4 Sekou Toure's speeches are from those excerpted by Abdullaye Diop in his “Africa's Path In History.” See Africa South, April-June, 1960, Capetown.
5 G. W. F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind.