$ £ Unity and Struggle: Speeches and Writings. Amilcar Cabral with an Introduction by Basil. Davidson and Biographical Notes by Mário de Andrade. $ £8• Unity and Struggle: Speeches and Writings. Amilcar Cabral with an Introduction by Basil. Davidson and Biographical Notes by Mário de Andrade. Amílcar Lopes da Costa Cabral was a Guinea-Bissauan and Cape Verdean agricultural engineer, intellectual, poet, theoretician and.
|Language:||English, Dutch, Arabic|
|ePub File Size:||23.50 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.86 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Amilcar Cabral and the Pan-african Revolution (Ameth Lo). 5. people,” () in Unity and Struggle: Selected Writings on Amílcar Cabral New York: Monthly em: smigabovgrisus.ga~cesa/files/Doc_trabalho/smigabovgrisus.ga study examines Amilcar Cabral as both a political leader and as a popular educator, once commented that for Cabral, ‗words are always in dialectical unity liberation struggle helped the Timorese struggle, and that Amilcar Cabral ideas. Unity & Struggle: Speeches And Writing Of Amilcar Cabral unity and struggle: speeches and writings amilcar cabral with an introduction by basil davidson.
Alfredo Saad-Filho, ed. Google Scholar 7. Google Scholar 8.
Craig N. Google Scholar 9. While many neo-Gramscians have addressed these themes, the work of Rupert is the most prominent and systematic, and hence, forms the main focus of this part of the discussion, though the general argument is more broadly applicable. Manfred B. Google Scholar CrossRef Google Scholar These structures, which are mental constructions summarize the cumulative result of collective human action over time. Both concepts allow us to make sense of the way that practices and understandings come to pervade many areas of social and political life, in complex, perhaps unpredictable and contested, ways.
This includes mental frameworks—for example the way we think about social institutions and forms of political authority. Ontology more broadly involves shared understandings of the universe, the cosmic order and its origins; thus of time and space, and also of the interaction of social forces and nature.
Stephen Gill and James H. This article developed a militant semantics for soil reclamation that was part of a project of liberation. As a young student of agronomy, Cabral carried out research in Cuba, a flat and dry area in southern Portugal that was economically disadvantaged. This gave him early insights into the importance of connecting a militant knowledge with theory The scientific data Cabral gathered during his work as an agronomist first became instrumental in the theoretical and political argument denouncing the injustice perpetrated on land inscribed by colonial rule, and would later inform his military strategy.
Care for the soil was crucial for Cabral as part of the work of reclamation of soil and more necessary in the project of national reconstruction in the postcolony This fieldwork allowed him to develop his distinct interest in soil and the phenomenon of its erosion, drawing particularly from work in the field of soil science that had emerged since the mid-nineteenth century such as Justus von Liebig, Ferdinand von Richthofen and especially, Vasily Dokuchaev.
Oxidations, reductions, carbonisations, dissolutions, hydrolyses, volume variations, compost translocations, micro-organic activities.
A force is the capacity to move things. It is pure, nonontological agency. As stated earlier, meteorisation — the conflict between lithos and atmos — involves two elements in a relation of contradiction. The metonymy is that people are a part of the soil, the soil is a part of the people. The approach Cabral takes is reminiscent of the historical materialist operation Karl Marx carries out in Capital, although expanding the analysis in order to include environmental phenomena as having agency Operating under the constraints of dictatorial Portugal, his activity as an agronomist was subversive — he advanced the liberation struggle from inside, using colonial resources to inform and strengthen the liberation movement.
This natural balance can be threatened by the erosion caused by human intervention. However, they were of course influenced by European and pan-African thinkers. Cabral does not emulate the words of Liebig or even the theories of Marx, but operates similar gestures of cognisance assembled with situated knowledge, ie, from a non-Eurocentric perspective In , Cabral was employed by the Overseas Ministry to engage in a one-year study on the farming practices in Portuguese Guinea, the land of his birth.
As Guinean agronomist Carlos Schwarz suggests, when Cabral started work as an agronomist in Guinea he was convinced that the independence process would unfold peacefully, in the form in which it proceeded in many of the African countries that had been colonised by other European powers.
However it maintains the nomadic system of cultivating the land. Attempts are made to apply this to the itinerant system without taking into account the specificities of the mesologic [ecological] conditions. In reality, the country was deeply backwards. The illiteracy rate of the population was close to fifty percent in Within this context, Cabral initially avoids overt politics and diligently develops constructive alternatives to the colonial system. One of his last official acts as a state agronomist was to propose sugar beet plantations in Portugal.
“Tell No Lies, Claim No Easy Victories”
Cabral turned the mirror back to Europe, suggesting a solution to a European agricultural crisis. With the simple trade in goods, including enslaved black men, Europeans spent the rewards of the exploitation of the land. But like black Africans, the aim was to produce essential food. Europeans cultivated or forced black Africans to cultivate farm products. If the repeated interventions and growing aggressiveness of imperialism against the peoples can be interpreted as a sign of desperation faced with the size of the national liberation movements, they can also be explained to a certain extent by the weaknesses produced by these unfavorable factors within the general front of the anti-imperialist struggle.
On the internal level, we believe that the most important weaknesses or unfavorable factors are inherent in the socio-economic structure and in the tendencies of its evolution under imperialist pressure, or to be more precise in the little or no attention paid to the characteristics of this structure and these tendencies by the national liberation movements in deciding on the strategy of their struggles.
By saying this we do not wish to diminish the importance of other internal factors which are unfavorable to national liberation, such as economic under-development, the consequent social and cultural backwardness of the popular masses, tribalism and other contradictions of lesser importance.
It should however be pointed out that the existence of tribes only manifests itself as an important contradiction as a function of opportunistic attitudes, generally on the part of detribalised individuals or groups, within the national liberation movements.
Contradictions between classes, even when only embryonic, are of far greater importance than contradictions between tribes. Although the colonial and neo-colonial situations are identical in essence, and the main aspect of the struggle against imperialism is neo-colonialist, we feel it is vital to distinguish in practice these two situations.
[PDF] Unity and Struggle: Speeches and Writings of Amilcar Cabral (Monthly Review Press Classic
In fact the horizontal structure, however it may differ from the native society, and the absence of a political power composed of national elements in the colonial situation make possible the creation of a wide front of unity and struggle, which is vital to the success of the national liberation movement. But this possibility does not remove the need for a rigorous analysis of the native social structure, of the tendencies of its evolution, and for the adoption in practice of appropriate measures for ensuring true national liberation.
While recognizing that each movement knows best what to do in its own case, one of these measures seems to us indispensable, namely, the creation of a firmly united vanguard, conscious of the true meaning and objective of the national liberation struggle which it must lead. This necessity is all the more urgent since we know that with rare exceptions the colonial situation neither permits nor needs the existence of significant vanguard classes working class conscious of its existence and rural proletariat which could ensure the vigilance of the popular masses over the evolution of the liberation movement.
On the contrary, the generally embryonic character of the working classes and the economic, social and cultural situation of the physical force of most importance in the national liberation struggle-the peasantry-do not allow these two main forces to distinguish true national independence from fictitious political independence. Only a revolutionary vanguard, generally an active minority, can be aware of this distinction from the start and make it known, through the struggle, to the popular masses.
This explains the fundamentally political nature of the national liberation struggle and to a certain extent makes the form of struggle important in the final result of the phenomenon of national liberation. In the neo-colonial situation the more or less vertical structure of the native society and the existence of a political power composed of native elements-national state-already worsen the contradictions within that society and make difficult if not impossible the creation of as wide a front as in the colonial situation.
But on the other hand the necessarily repressive nature of the neo-colonial state against the national liberation forces, the sharpening of contradictions between classes, the objective permanence of signs and agents of foreign domination settlers who retain their privileges, armed forces, racial discrimination , the growing poverty of the peasantry and the more or less notorious influence of external factors all contribute towards keeping the flame of nationalism alive, towards progressively raising the consciousness of wide popular sectors and towards reuniting the majority of the population, on the very basis of awareness of neo-colonialist frustration, around the ideal of national liberation.
In addition, while the native ruling class becomes progressively more bourgeois, the development of a working class composed of urban workers and agricultural proletarians, all exploited by the indirect domination of imperialism, opens up new perspectives for the evolution of national liberation. This working class, whatever the level of its political consciousness given a certain minimum, namely the awareness of its own needs , seems to constitute the true popular vanguard of the national liberation struggle in the neo-colonial case.
However it will not be able to completely fulfill its mission in this struggle which does not end with the gaining of independence unless it firmly unites with the other exploited strata, the peasants in general hired men, sharecroppers, tenants and small farmers and the nationalist petty bourgeoisie.
The creation of this alliance demands the mobilization and organization of the nationalist forces within the framework or by the action of a strong and well-structured political organization.
Another important distinction between the colonial and neo-colonial situations is in the prospects for the struggle. The colonial situation in which the nation class fights the repressive forces of the bourgeoisie of the colonizing country can lead, apparently at least, to a nationalist solution national revolution ; the nation gains its independence and theoretically adopts the economic structure which best suits it.
The neo-colonial situation in which the working classes and their allies struggle simultaneously against the imperialist bourgeoisie and the native ruling class is not resolved by a nationalist solution; it demands the destruction of the capitalist structure implanted in the national territory by imperialism, and correctly postulates a socialist solution.
This distinction arises mainly from the different levels of the productive forces in the two cases and the consequent sharpening of the class struggle. It would not be difficult to show that in time the distinction becomes scarcely apparent. It is sufficient to recall that in our present historical situation — elimination of imperialism which uses every means to perpetuate its domination over our peoples, and consolidation of socialism throughout a large part of the world — there are only two possible paths for an independent nation: to return to imperialist domination neo-colonialism, capitalism, state capitalism , or to take the way of socialism.
This operation, on which depends the compensation for the efforts and sacrifices of the popular masses during the struggle, is considerably influenced by the form of struggle and the degree of revolutionary consciousness of those who lead it. The facts make it unnecessary for us to prove that the essential instrument of imperialist domination is violence.
If we accept the principle that the liberation struggle is a revolution and that it does not finish at the moment when the national flag is raised and the national anthem played, we will see that there is not, and cannot be national liberation without the use of liberating violence by the nationalist forces, to answer the criminal violence of the agents of imperialism.
Nobody can doubt that, whatever its local characteristics, imperialist domination implies a state of permanent violence against the nationalist forces. There is no people on earth which, having been subjected to the imperialist yoke colonialist or neo-colonialist , has managed to gain its independence nominal or effective without victims. The important thing is to determine which forms of violence have to be used by the national liberation forces in order not only to answer the violence of imperialism, but also to ensure through the struggle the final victory of their cause, true national independence.
The past and present experiences of various peoples, the present situation of national liberation struggles in the world especially in Vietnam, the Congo and Zimbabwe as well as the situation of permanent violence, or at least of contradictions and upheavals, in certain countries which have gained their independence by the so-called peaceful way, show us not only that compromises with imperialism do not work, but also that the normal way of national liberation, imposed on peoples by imperialist repression, is armed struggle.
We do not think we will shock this assembly by stating that the only effective way of definitively fulfilling the aspirations of the peoples, that is to say of attaining national liberation, is by armed struggle. This is the great lesson which the contemporary history of liberation struggle teaches all those who are truly committed to the effort of liberating their peoples.
It is obvious that both the effectiveness of this way and the stability of the situation to which it leads after liberation depend not only on the characteristics of the organization of the struggle but also on the political and moral awareness of those who, for historical reasons, are capable of being the immediate heirs of the colonial or neo-colonial state. For events have shown that the only social sector capable of being aware of the reality of imperialist domination and of directing the state apparatus inherited from this domination is the native petty bourgeoisie.
If we bear in mind the aleatory characteristics and the complexity of the tendencies naturally inherent in the economic situation of this social stratum or class, we will see that this specific inevitability in our situation constitutes one of the weaknesses of the national liberation movement.
The colonial situation, which does not permit the development of a native pseudo-bourgeoisie and in which the popular masses do not generally reach the necessary level of political consciousness before the advent of the phenomenon of national liberation, offers the petty bourgeoisie the historical opportunity of leading the struggle against foreign domination, since by nature of its objective and subjective position higher standard of living than that of the masses, more frequent contact with the agents of colonialism, and hence more chances of being humiliated, higher level of education and political awareness, etc.
This historical responsibility is assumed by the sector of the petty bourgeoisie which, in the colonial context, can be called revolutionary, while other sectors retain the doubts characteristic of these classes or ally themselves to colonialism so as to defend, albeit illusorily, their social situation.
The neo-colonial situation, which demands the elimination of the native pseudo-bourgeoisie so that national liberation can be attained, also offers the petty bourgeoisie the chance of playing a role of major and even decisive importance in the struggle for the elimination of foreign domination. But in this case, by virtue of the progress made in the social structure, the function of leading the struggle is shared to a greater or lesser extent with the more educated sectors of the working classes and even with some elements of the national pseudo-bourgeoisie who are inspired by patriotic sentiments.
Unity & Struggle: Speeches and Writings of Amilcar Cabral
The role of the sector of the petty bourgeoisie which participates in leading the struggle is all the more important since it is a fact that in the neo-colonial situation it is the most suitable sector to assume these functions, both because of the economic and cultural limitations of the working masses, and because of the complexes and limitations of an ideological nature which characterize the sector of the national pseudo-bourgeoisie which supports the struggle. In this case it is important to note that the role with which it is entrusted demands from this sector of the petty bourgeoisie a greater revolutionary consciousness, and the capacity for faithfully interpreting the aspirations of the masses in each phase of the struggle and for identifying themselves more and more with the masses.
But however high the degree of revolutionary consciousness of the sector of the petty bourgeoisie called on to fulfill this historical function, it cannot free itself from one objective of reality: the petty bourgeoisie, as a service class that is to say that a class not directly involved in the process of production does not possess the economic base to guarantee the taking over of power. In fact history has shown that whatever the role — sometimes important — played by individuals coming from the petty bourgeoisie in the process of a revolution, this class has never possessed political control.
And it never could possess it, since political control the state is based on the economic capacity of the ruling class, and in the conditions of colonial and neo-colonial society this capacity is retained by two entities: imperialist capital and the native working classes.
The Revolutionary Legacy of Amilcar Cabral
To retain the power which national liberation puts in its hands, the petty bourgeoisie has only one path: to give free rein to its natural tendencies to become more bourgeois, to permit the development of a bureaucratic and intermediary bourgeoisie in the commercial cycle, in order to transform itself into a national pseudo-bourgeoisie, that is to say in order to negate the revolution and necessarily ally.
In order not to betray these objectives the petty bourgeoisie has only one choice: to strengthen its revolutionary consciousness, to reject the temptations of becoming more bourgeois and the natural concerns of its class mentality, to identify itself with the working classes and not to oppose the normal development of the process of revolution. This means that in order to truly fulfill the role in the national liberation struggle, the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must be capable of committing suicide as a class in order to be reborn as revolutionary workers, completely identified with the deepest aspirations of the people to which they belong.
This alternative — to betray the revolution or to commit suicide as a class — constitutes the dilemma of the petty bourgeoisie in the general framework of the national liberation struggle.
The positive solution in favor of the revolution depends on what Fidel Castro recently correctly called the development of revolutionary consciousness.
This dependence necessarily calls our attention to the capacity of the leader of the national liberation struggle to remain faithful to the principles and to the fundamental cause of this struggle. This shows us, to a certain extent, that if national liberation is essentially a political problem, the conditions for its development give it certain characteristics which belong to the sphere of morals.
We will not shout hurrahs or proclaim here our solidarity with this or that people in struggle.The foregoing, and the reality of our times, allow us to state that the history of one human group or of humanity goes through at least three stages.
After securing an area via military and political means he proceeded to establish institutions which were to improve the living conditions of the people in all facets of life.
This operation, on which depends the compensation for the efforts and sacrifices of the popular masses during the struggle, is considerably influenced by the form of struggle and the degree of revolutionary consciousness of those who lead it.
In every field of activity the Cuban people have made major progress during the last seven years, particularly in , Year of Agriculture.
Among these transformations we should anticipate a progressive loss of prestige of the ruling native classes or sectors, the forced or voluntary exodus of part of the peasant population to the urban centers, with the consequent development of new social strata; salaried workers, clerks, employees in commerce and the liberal professions, and an instable stratum of unemployed.
And it never could possess it, since political control the state is based on the economic capacity of the ruling class, and in the conditions of colonial and neo-colonial society this capacity is retained by two entities: imperialist capital and the native working classes. Though, on scholarship, he worked extra jobs to sustain himself.
Google Scholar 4. Nobody can doubt that, whatever its local characteristics, imperialist domination implies a state of permanent violence against the nationalist forces.