ROAPE Publications Ltd.

Afrocommunism by David Ottaway; Marina OttawayReview by: Barry MunslowReview of African Political Economy, No. 27/28, Women, Oppression and Liberation (1983),pp. 216-217Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4005620 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and ROAPE Publications Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Review of African Political Economy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:47:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216 REVIEW OF AFRICAN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Afrocommunism by David and Marina Ottaway (Africana Publishing Co., London, 1981).

David and Marina Ottaway have their reasons for choosing the term 'Afrocommunism'. They use it to characterise those African states propounding Marxism-Leninism as distinct from the 'African socialist' states which generally preceded them historically. Whilst it is undoubtedly useful to distinguish between these two groupings, it is my contention that the concept is both misleading and unhelpful, although the book itself is a useful addition to the literature on the socialist project in Africa. The concept 'Afrocommunism' is explictly drawn from a prior notion of Eurocommunism. An explicit parallel is made between the two, in particular concerning the rejection of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty and a strong determination to maintain national autonomy and sovereignty. Whilst agreeing with this, a fundamental difference between the two is that Eurocommunism was an explicit breakaway from the Stalin model previously adhered to by the Western European communist parties.

By contrast, the so-called Afrocommunist states, notably Mozambique, Angola and Ethiopia, had never adopted the Stalin model, hence they did not have to re- fashion their politics and policies in the same way. Furthermore, Eurocommunism is based upon a notion of a common cultural similarity and system. Are the social structures and political economy of Ethiopia and Mozambique, say, equally comparable? Not only do the histories and class structures of these two countries differ, but the routes to power of the two revolutionary movements were totally dissimilar. In the case of Ethiopia there was a coup from above by a left-wing group of military officers, whereas in Mozambique a protracted national liberation struggle was fought from below. To this day, only the latter and not the former has a vanguard party. There is much to distinguish the African Marxist states from the Eurocommunist ones, therefore, and in their turn much to distinguish one African Marxist state from another.

However, I would agree with the Ottaways in drawing a distinction between African Marxist states and the 'African socialist' ones. The authors argue that the first distinction is an ideological one, as the former adopt an explicitly Marxist theory based on class struggle as the motor force of change rather than a belief in a primitive classless society alleged to have existed prior to colonisation. A second difference concerns foreign policy, with African socialist states upholding Panafricanism and non-alignment. For the Marxist states, according to these authors, Panafricanism has been virtually dropped and non-alignment is defined more in terms of a common set of interests with the socialist countries in opposition to imperialism and neo-colonialism. A third difference is the more carefully thought out stages of transformation and change by the Marxist states. Fourthly, these states are much less personalised and dependent on a single leader than the socialist ones, and there is a much greater continuity both of policies and political structures. Finally, the Marxist regimes are much more openly statist in their approach, in particular regarding the economy. The authors admit that the distinctions are not always hard and fast ones and that transitional societies also exist, in that certain African socialist societies did move towards a greater acceptance of the need for a vanguard party and the existence of class differences. One beautiful quotation from the pen of Nkrumah is cited, written after his overthrow in 1966: 'an idyllic African classless society (in which

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:47:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 217

there were no rich and 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 are somewhat more sordid'.

Whilst the book draws out some interesting similarities between the African Marxist states, there are obvious dangers in taking these too far. Each movement is stubbornly determined to develop its own interplay of theory and practice, for to do otherwise would spell disaster on the ground. Each country has its own very unique set of circumstances. To apply the term 'communist' first of all implies a replication of a model devised elsewhere and brings with it a burdensome and not necessarily helpful ideological heritage. To go beyond this and apply the term 'Afrocommunist' implies both an incorrect parallel with Eurocommunism and a spurious level of conformity between the African Marxist states. The term is unlikely to enter the political lexicon.

Barry Munslow

The Politics of Basic Needs: Urban Aspects of Assaulting Poverty in Africa by Richard Sandbrook, Heinemann, 1982, 250pp., ?5.95. A Third World Proletariat? by Peter Lloyd, George Allen and Unwin, 1982, 139pp., ?3.95.

Both of these books examine the role of the urban poor (and particularly the working class) in the political economy of the post-colonial state. In their ideology, their methodology, and their standard of analysis, however, they are very different.

Sandbrook's analysis revolves around two fundamental questions: Why does poverty persist in Africa? and How might it be eradicated? Answering the first question, the author demonstrates that Africa's material deprivation derives from the distorted pattern of peripheral capitalist development which has taken place throughout the continent. Dependent urbanisation, urban over-population, dependent industrialisation, and an involuntary informal sector are the poverty- producing legacies of colonialism, perpetuated in the post-colonial era by the external relations of African states and by their internal class structures. Sandbrook insists, though, that these features of the state in Africa are not unchangeable or over-determined. Moving on to answer his second question, the author argues that poverty could be eliminated by means of 'basic needs' development strategies which redistribute income, reorient production systems, and provide equitable access to improved public services. Sandbrook takes a realistic view of such strategies. Some 'basic needs' programmes, such as that promoted by the World Bank, are fundamentally conservative and offer no hope for a genuine assault on poverty. Others, such as the ILO's World Employment Programme, are more radical but tend towards utopianism since they fail to construct a concrete strategy of change which recognises the political dimension of the poverty problem. For Sandbrook, the eradication of poverty is inseparable from the question of progressive political change. Any real assault on mass poverty will require a profound restructuring of human relations which permanently deprives Africa's dominant classes and their foreign allies of the privileges they currently enjoy. Such a restructuring, of course, demands a class struggle.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.116 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:47:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions