Kwame Nkrumah 1967

African Socialism Revisited

Paper read at the Africa Seminar held in Cairo at the invitation of the two
organs At-Talia and Problems of Peace and Socialism.

Published: by Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague, 1967, in a volume

titled “Africa: National and Social Revolution”;Transcribed: by Dominic
Tweedie.

The term “socialism” has become a necessity in the platform diction and
political writings of African leaders. It is a term which unites us in the
recognition that the restoration of Africa’s humanist and egalitarian
principles of society calls for socialism. All of us, therefore, even though
pursuing widely contrasting policies in the task of reconstructing our
various nation-states, still use “socialism” to describe our respective
efforts. ‘The question must therefore be faced: What real meaning does
the term retain in the context of contemporary African politics? I warned
about this in my book Consciencism (London and New York, 1964, p. 105).

And yet, socialism in Africa today tends to lose its objective content in
favour of a distracting terminology and in favour of a general confusion.
Discussion centres more on the various conceivable types of socialism
than upon the need for socialist development.

Some African political leaders and thinkers certainly use the term
“socialism” as it should in my opinion be used: to describe a complex of
social purposes and the consequential social and economic policies,
organisational patterns, state structure, and ideologies which can lead to
the attainment of those purposes. For such leaders, the aim is to remold
African society in the socialist direction; to reconsider African society in
such a manner that the humanism of traditional African life re-asserts
itself in a modern technical community.

Consequently, socialism in Africa introduces a new social synthesis in

which modern technology is reconciled with human values, in which the
advanced technical society is realised without the staggering social
malefactions and deep schisms of capitalist industrial society. For true
economic and social development cannot be promoted without the real
socialisation of productive and distributive processes. Those African
leaders who believe these principles are the socialists in Africa.

There are, however, other African political leaders and thinkers who use
the term “socialism” because they believe that socialism would, in the
words of Chandler Morse, “smooth the road to economic development”. It
becomes necessary for them to employ the term in a “charismatic effort
to rally support” for policies that do not really promote economic and
social development. Those African leaders who believe these principles
are supposed to be the “African socialists”.

It is interesting to recall that before the split in the Second International,

Marxism was almost indistinguishable from social democracy. Indeed, the
German Social Democratic Party was more or less the guardian of the
doctrine of Marxism, and both Marx and Engels supported that Party.
Lenin, too, became a member of the Social Democratic Party. After the
break-up of the Second International, however, the meaning of the term
“social democracy” altered, and it became possible to draw a real
distinction between socialism and social democracy. A similar situation
has arisen in Africa. Some years ago, African political leaders and writers
used the term “African socialism” in order to label the concrete forms that
socialism might assume in Africa. But the realities of the diverse and
irreconcilable social, political, and economic policies being pursued by
African states today have made the term “African socialism” meaningless
and irrelevant. It appears to be much more closely associated with
anthropology than with political economy. “African socialism” has now
come to acquire some of its greatest publicists in Europe and North
America precisely because of its predominant anthropological charm. Its
foreign publicists include not only the surviving social democrats of
Europe and North America, but other intellectuals and liberals who
themselves are steeped in the ideology of social democracy.

It was no accident, let me add, that the 1962 Dakar Colloquium made
such capital of “African socialism"’ but the uncertainties concerning the
meaning and specific policies of “African socialism” have led some of us
to abandon the term because it fails to express its original meaning and
because it tends to obscure our fundamental socialist commitment.

Today, the phrase “African socialism” seems to espouse the view that the
traditional African society was a classless society imbued with the spirit of
humanism and to express a nostalgia for that spirit. Such a conception of
socialism makes a fetish of the communal African society. But an idyllic,
African classless society (in which there were no rich and no poor)
enjoying a drugged serenity is certainly a facile simplification; there is no
historical or even anthropological evidence for any such society. I am
afraid the realities of African society were somewhat more sordid.

All available evidence from the history of Africa up to the eve of the
European colonisation, shows that African society was neither classless
nor devoid of a social hierarchy. Feudalism existed in some parts of Africa
before colonisation; and feudalism involves a deep and exploitative social
stratification, founded on the ownership of land. It must also be noted that
slavery existed in Africa before European colonisation, although the earlier
European contact gave slavery in Africa some of its most vicious
characteristics. The truth remains, however, that before colonisation,
which became widespread in Africa only in the nineteenth century,
Africans were prepared to sell, often for no more than thirty pieces of
silver, fellow tribesmen and even members of the same “extended family”
and clan. Colonialism deserves to be blamed for many evils in Africa, but
surely it was not preceded by an African Golden Age or paradise. A return
to the pre-colonial African society is evidently not worthy of the ingenuity
and efforts of our people.

All this notwithstanding, one could still argue that the basic organisation
of many African societies in different periods of history manifested a
certain communalism and that the philosophy and humanist purposes
behind that organisation are worthy of recapture. A community in which
each saw his well-being in the welfare of the group certainly was
praiseworthy, even if the manner in which the well-being of the group was
pursued makes no contribution to our purposes. Thus, what socialist
thought in Africa must recapture is not the structure of the “traditional
African society” but its spirit, for the spirit of communalism is crystallised
in its humanism and in its reconciliation of individual advancement with
group welfare. Even If there is incomplete anthropological evidence to
reconstruct the “traditional African society” with accuracy, we can still
recapture the rich human values of that society. In short, an
anthropological approach to the “ traditional African society” is too much
unproven; but a philosophical approach stands on much firmer ground
and makes generalisation feasible.

One predicament in the anthropological approach is that there is some

disparity of views concerning the manifestations of the “classlessness” of
the “traditional African society”. While some hold that the society was
based on the equality of its members, others hold that it contained a
hierarchy and division of labour in which the hierarchy — and therefore
power — was founded on spiritual and democratic values.. Of course, no
society can be founded on the equality of its members although societies
are founded on egalitarianism, which is something quite different.
Similarly, a classless society that at the same time rejoices in a hierarchy
of power (as distinct from authority) must be accounted a marvel of socio-
political finesse.

We know that the “traditional African society” was founded on principles

of egalitarianism. In its actual workings, however, it had various
shortcomings. Its humanist impulse, nevertheless, is something that
continues to urge us towards our all-African socialist reconstruction. We
postulate each man to be an end in himself, not merely a means; and we
accept the necessity of guaranteeing each man equal opportunities for his
development. The implications of this for socio-political practice have to
be worked out scientifically, and the necessary social and economic
policies pursued with resolution. Any meaningful humanism must begin
from egalitarianism and must lead to objectively chosen policies for
safeguarding and sustaining egalitarianism. Hence, socialism. Hence, also,
scientific socialism.

A further difficulty that arises from the anthropological approach to

socialism, or “African socialism”, is the glaring division between existing
African societies and the communalistic society that was. I warned in my
book Consciencism that “our society is not the old society, but a new
society enlarged by Islamic and Euro-Christian influences”. This is a fact
that any socio-economic policies must recognise and take into account.
Yet the literature of “African socialism” comes close to suggesting that
today’s African societies are communalistic. The two societies are not
coterminous; and such an equation cannot be supported by any attentive
observation. It is true that this disparity is acknowledged in some of the
literature of “African socialism”; thus, my friend and colleague Julius
Nyerere, in acknowledging the disequilibrium between what was and what
is in terms of African societies, attributes the differences to the
importations of European colonialism.

We know, of course, that the defeat of colonialism and even neo-

colonialism will not result in the automatic disappearance of the imported
patterns of thought and social organisation. For those patterns have taken
root, and are in varying degree sociological features of our contemporary
society. Nor will a simple return to the communalistic society of ancient
Africa offer a solution either. To advocate a return, as it were, to the rock
from which we were hewn is a charming thought, but we are faced with
contemporary problems, which have arisen from political subjugation,
economic exploitation, educational and social backwardness, increases in
population, familiarity with the methods and products of industrialisation,
modern agricultural techniques. These — as well as a host of other
complexities — can be resolved by no mere communalistic society,
however sophisticated, and anyone who so advocates must be caught in
insoluble dilemmas of the most excruciating kind. All available evidence
from socio-political history discloses that such a return to a status quo
ante is quite unexampled in the evolution of societies. There is, indeed, no
theoretical or historical reason to indicate that it is at all possible.

When one society meets another, the observed historical trend is that
acculturation results in a balance of forward movement, a movement in
which each society assimilates certain useful attributes of the other.
Social evolution is a dialectical process; it has ups and downs, but, on
balance, it always represents an upward trend.

Islamic civilisation and European colonialism are both historical

experiences of the traditional African society, profound experiences that
have permanently changed the complexion of the traditional African
society. They have introduced new values and a social, cultural, and
economic organisation into African life. Modern African societies are not
traditional, even if backward, and they are clearly in a state of socio-
economic disequilibrium. They are in this state because they are not
anchored to a steadying ideology.

The way out is certainly not to regurgitate all Islamic or Euro-colonial

influences in a futile attempt to recreate a past that cannot be
resurrected. The way out is only forward, forward to a higher and
reconciled form of society, in which the quintessence of the human
purposes of traditional African society reasserts itself in a modern context-
forward, in short, to socialism, through policies that are scientifically
devised and correctly applied. The inevitability of a forward way out is felt
by all; thus, Leopold Sedor Senghor, although favouring some kind of
return to African communalism, insists that the refashioned African
society must accommodate the “positive contribution” of colonial rule,
“such as the economic and technical infrastructure and the French
educational system”. The economic and technical infrastructure of even
French colonialism and the French educational system must be assumed,
though this can be shown to be imbued with a particular socio-political
philosophy. This philosophy, as should be known, is not compatible with
the philosophy underlying communalism, and the desired accommodation
would prove only a socio-political mirage.

Senghor has, indeed, given an account of the nature of the return to

Africa. His account is highlighted by statements using some of his own
words: that the African is “a field of pure sensation”; that he does not
measure or observe, but “lives” a situation; and that this way of acquiring
“knowledge” by confrontation and intuition is “negro-African”; the
acquisition of knowledge by reason, “Hellenic”. In African Socialism
[London and New York, 1964, pp.72-3], he proposes

“that we consider the Negro-African as he faces the Other: God, man,

animal, tree or pebble, natural or social phenomenon. In contrast to the
classic European, the Negro-African does not draw a line between himself
and the object, he does not hold it at a distance, nor does he merely look
at it and analyse it. After holding it at a distance, after scanning it without
analysing it, he takes it vibrant in his hands, careful not to kill or fix it. He
touches it, feels it, smells it. The Negro-African is like one of those Third
Day Worms, a pure field of sensations... Thus the Negro-African
sympathises, abandons his personality to become identified with the
Other, dies to be reborn in the Other. He does not assimilate; he is
assimilated. He lives a common life with the Other; he lives in a
symbiosis.”

It is clear that socialism cannot be founded on this kind of metaphysics of

knowledge.

To be sure, there is a connection between communalism and socialism.

Socialism stands to communalism as capitalism stands to slavery. In
socialism, the principles underlying communalism are given expression in
modern circumstances. Thus, whereas communalism in a non-technical
society can be laissez-faire, in a technical society where sophisticated
means of production are at hand, the situation is different; for if the
underlying principles of communalism are not given correlated
expression, class cleavages will arise, which are connected with economic
disparities and thereby with political inequalities; Socialism, therefore, can
be, and is, the defence of the principles of communalism in a modern
setting; it is a form of social organisation that, guided by the principles
underlying communalism, adopts procedures and measures made
necessary by demographic and technological developments. Only under
socialism can we reliably accumulate the capital we need for our
development and also ensure that the gains of investment are applied for
the general welfare.

Socialism is not spontaneous. It does not arise of itself. It has abiding

principles according to which the major means of production and
distribution ought to be socialised if exploitation of the many by the few is
to be prevented; if, that is to say, egalitarianism in the economy is to be
protected. Socialist countries in Africa may differ in this or that detail of
their policies, but such differences themselves ought not to be arbitrary or
subject to vagaries of taste. They must be scientifically explained, as
necessities arising from differences in the particular circumstances of the
countries themselves.

There is only one way of achieving socialism; by the devising of policies

aimed at the general socialist goals, each of which takes its particular
form from the specific circumstances of a particular state at a definite
historical period. Socialism depends on dialectical and historical
materialism, upon the view that there is only one nature, subject in all its
manifestations to natural laws and that human society is, in this sense,
part of nature and subject to its own laws of development.

It is the elimination of fancifulness from socialist action that makes

socialism scientific. To suppose that there are tribal, national, or racial
socialisms is to abandon objectivity in favour of chauvinism.