Angola is turning into a new Viet-Nam. The quiet retreat of the Portuguese forces, which should have meant an end to foreign interference in the country and the achievement of national independence and peace, has on the contrary provoked the start of a more ferocious and extended war which sees several states directly engaged and the two superpowers, USA and USSR, ‘indirectly’.

Angola is in fact a prized prey that whets the appetite for large and small nations: ‘Its resources (iron, diamonds, oil, coffee) are a most fertile ground for investment and speculation (the main mineral products are exploited by multinationals, with a preponderance of West-German capital for iron, Belgian and Anglo-South African capital for diamonds, and American capital for oil) (…) Two poles of particular interest are Cabinda (whose oil fields could in the near future make it into a kind of African Kuwait) and the Cunene area where a dam is being built with South-African capital that should power the industry in South Africa and Namibia’ (Relazione Interna No. 26/1975).

The countries interested in the conflict are obviously those interested in the country’s riches. To the north is Zaire, which has never hidden its claims on the Cabinda enclave with which it borders on three sides; to the south is South Africa, which would like to seize the Cunene area which, besides being useful to it economically, would also serve it politically to encircle Namibia (South West Africa). This is a former German colony that was provisionally entrusted to the South African mandate, which, once the mandate expired, was very careful not to give independence to the region. A guerrilla movement, the South African People’s Organisation (SWAPO), is currently active in the area and is causing considerable trouble for the Pretoria government.

Then there are the great imperial monsters, the world gendarmes of the USA and the USSR who, although they do not intervene directly, that is, by sending men, in the conflict they do determine its course, both by sending weapons and by political pressure on the vassal states. The riches of Angola have also drawn in the lesser calibres of imperialism, and Europe and China also intrigue, albeit more covertly, to secure their share of the profits. Cuba does what it can and in exchange for the raw materials it hopes to have tomorrow it ships the commodity it is richest in, cannon fodder.

To try to achieve their aims, these countries have made use of the existing division among Angola’s three liberation movements: the MPLA led by Agostinho Neto, the oldest liberation movement, is supported by Russia and Cuba and controls the capital, Luanda, and the central-western area of the country as well as the enclave of Cabinda; the FNLA, led by Holden Roberto, supported by Zaire, China, and the USA, a movement that has suffered the heaviest defeats in recent times; and finally UNITA, allied with the FNLA in the struggle against the MPLA and supported by South Africa and the USA.

Despite attempts at unification and the launching of a common political platform to form a coalition government (January 1975), a few days before the last Portuguese troops were to leave Angola, fighting began between the three movements to obtain the best strategic conditions and to conquer the capital before the proclamation of independence. At first, the forces of the MPLA, which undoubtedly enjoy broad popular support and constitute the most genuine of the three liberation movements, although not pushing beyond the objectives of revolutionary nationalism, gained the upper hand, coming to control, after bitter fighting, the capital and a good part of the country (12 provinces out of 16). The other two movements, however, immediately went on the counter-offensive, the FNLA from the North going so far as to threaten Luanda itself, and UNITA, the smallest of the three movements, from the South, opening the borders to the troops of the battle-hardened South Africa and not hesitating to recruit former soldiers of the Portuguese army as mercenaries.

Russia evidently took advantage of the opportunity to massively intervene in aid of the MPLA, with whom it had always been in contact, sending it some old rifles from time to time to maintain a link that would bear fruit when the time came. The reasons for Russian intervention are certainly not just economic and political, but also strategic, since Angola, with its long coastline and ports on the Atlantic Ocean, could provide an excellent opportunity for the Soviet navy, always on the lookout for new bases.

We have thus arrived at the present situation in which the MPLA, massively resupplied with weapons and with the direct support of a few thousand Cuban soldiers, has gone back on the offensive, pushing the FNLA back to the border with Zaire and halting the advance of the South African troops on both the Eastern and Southern fronts.

At the diplomatic level, meanwhile, the Organisation of African Unity, which met in Addis Ababa on 10 January precisely to discuss the Angolan problem, achieved nothing (as always), since 22 of the 46 countries in the Organisation wanted recognition of the People’s Republic of Angola, proclaimed by the MPLA, and condemnation of South Africa and the two opposing movements of the MPLA, while another 22 demanded the exit of foreign armies from Angolan territory and reconciliation of the three liberation movements; the remaining two countries abstained. The conference therefore, if it served no practical purpose, demonstrated how little African unity is worth in the face of the interests of individual nations, which have aligned with one side or the other depending on the origin of the capital invested in their territory or the political alliances to which they are linked: the result was a tie, 50% with the USA and 50% with Russia.

The struggle is also naturally taking place at the economic level, and while the USA had Gulf Oil withdraw from Cabinda to avoid paying the MPLA the taxes and royalties for the first half of January, amounting to around $110 million, ENI accepted the invitation of the government of the People’s Republic of Angola to exploit Angolan oil, thus placing itself in direct conflict with the USA.

South Africa, which after the military snubs it suffered in the last few days and the condemnation of its intervention by almost all African countries seemed inclined to withdraw from Angola, then recalled 5,000 reservists, showing that it had intentions quite different from that of withdrawing from the conflict. The decision seems to have been due to American pressure following the decision of the US Congress to limit the sending of aid to rival movements of the MPLA. The aid should thus arrive just the same but under the cover of South Africa (rejoice, worshippers of democracy, at the comedies performed in the little theatre of the White House, power lies elsewhere!). Finally, Zaire has warned the Luanda government against crossing the border again with its troops, even threatening its immediate entry into the war.

The situation, as one sees, is not rosy for the Angolan people and especially not for the poor masses, for the proletarians, for the Angolan peasants who, after having suffered colonial domination for centuries, after having given their best energies in the long anti-Portuguese guerrilla war, found themselves, upon achieving independence, having to sustain a war that, thanks to the increasingly perfected weapons now delivered to the various armies in the field by the powerful imperialist states, has already caused tens of thousands of deaths, but certainly does not correspond to their interests.

For whom does this war benefit? It certainly benefits the USA, Russia, China, and Cuba, who help the various contenders in exchange for claims on the country’s wealth and political influence over it; it benefits Zaire and South Africa who hope to enlarge their territories at the expense of their unfortunate neighbour; it benefits international capitalism which sees in a weak and divided nation a more accessible land to plunder. It does not, however, benefit the exploited masses of Angola, who, apart from supplying cannon fodder, have nothing to expect from the war except a shred of national independence, which, if it will tear them away from the archaic backwardness of largely pre-capitalist relations of production, will throw them into the infernal circle of capitalism, making them slaves of the international Companies, of the Trusts, which certainly consider the low cost of the labour of its inhabitants amongst the great riches of that land.

On the backs of these classes is based the policy of the MPLA, which, by claiming national unity and independence at any cost and the rejection of an agreement with the representatives of imperialism in Angola (FNLA and UNITA) – see Neto’s interview in Le Monde Diplomatique / Il Manifesto of 26 December – does nothing but claim the future rights of participation of the Angolan national bourgeoisie in the exploitation of these same masses which it claims today to represent and defend.

On the other hand, the MPLA has already demonstrated its anti-proletarian nature when, on the verge of independence, instead of pushing the anti-colonial revolutionary struggle to the end, fearful of the social persecution that a victory with arms in hand might provoke among the proletariat of the cities and bidonvilles which had already shown signs of restlessness, as among the poor peasants yearning for land, came to a compromise with the Portuguese forces, in agreement also with the other two liberation movements, giving, by this very action, time for imperialism to prepare itself to replace the weak and discredited Portugal in the exploitation of the rich country.

The MPLA, in fact, irrespective of its social composition, which will certainly be predominantly proletarian and peasant, represents the interests of the nationalist bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, ready to fight with arms in hand against colonial oppression to vindicate their national interests, but also ready, as soon as victory looms, to hegemonise that power for which other classes have also fought, indeed constituting the bulk of the movement.

It is the bourgeoisie who attribute a communist character to the MPLA based on the fact that it is supported by Russia, but for us Marxists, who know that Russia is no less capitalist and bourgeois than the USA, the MPLA’s programme, which puts national independence first and not only does not mention the dictatorship of the proletariat or anything similar, but does not even provide for radical agrarian reform, is anything but a communist programme. The leaders of the movement themselves, incidentally, admit that it is not a communist movement: Neto, in an interview with Tricontinental, issue 11-12, 1969, stated: ‘Although our movement is very broad, it does not currently have the characteristics of a party and is not a communist movement, as part of the population suspects’.

If the MPLA at least represents a genuine revolutionary nationalist movement, the other two liberation movements, FNLA and UNITA, are not even that, but increasingly reveal themselves as mere tools of American imperialism. Founded on a tribal, and therefore a-national basis, much weaker than the MPLA in the struggle against Portugal, they did not hesitate, upon the achievement of independence, to ally themselves with Zaire and South Africa, showing themselves willing, in order to advance their movement goals, even to accept a partition of Angola. This policy of theirs has thus to a certain extent forced the MPLA to rely so heavily on Russian aid, thereby in turn paving the way for the increasingly growing intervention of imperialism in the country.

It even seems that Savimbi, the head of UNITA, (as is evident from some documents provided to the magazine Afrique-Asie by some Portuguese army officers) was already in contact with the command of the Portuguese colonial army before independence to fight the MPLA. The fact is that this organisation did not oppose the invasion by South African troops in the slightest, even joining forces with them in a single army and giving them the opportunity to hunt down SWAPO guerrillas who had taken refuge in Angola believing themselves to be safe. We have already mentioned how former soldiers of the Portuguese Army are fighting as mercenaries alongside UNITA. The FNLA, for its part, receives aid from Zaire, whose annexationist claims on Cabinda are well known, and which has even threatened to go to war against the P.R.A. Only a few days ago, its leader, Holden Roberto, in an interview with News Week even launched an appeal to the West to save Africa from ‘Communism’!

It is therefore certainly not from these movements that the exploited masses of Angola can expect the defence of their interests, in fact, if for the indigenous bourgeoisie, national independence and the struggle against imperialism mean the possibility of exploiting the working class and the poor peasants of their nation on their own behalf, these classes, on the contrary, expect from national independence and the struggle against imperialism the end of all exploitation, agrarian reform, the crushing of the rich classes. If the bourgeoisie can promise these things, it certainly cannot grant them. Hence the need for the exploited masses of these countries to organise themselves into a Party distinct from the bourgeoisie’s so as to participate, yes, in the armed struggle against imperialism alongside them, but also so as to be able, once independence is achieved, to separate their own interests from those of the bourgeoisie and impose their own class objectives by continuing the struggle against yesterday’s allies. This perspective of ours, the Marxist perspective of all time, is well elucidated by Lenin in his pamphlet ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914).

Lenin, after explaining in the preceding chapters how the constitution of independent nation-states, which are the form of state best suited to the demands of modern capitalism, is a purely bourgeois interest, writes in chapter 4: ‘The bourgeoisie, which naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national movement, says that support for all national aspirations is practical. However, the proletariat’s policy in the national question (as in all others) supports the bourgeoisie only in a certain direction, but it never coincides with the bourgeoisie’s policy. The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in order to secure national peace (…) in order to secure equal rights and to create the best conditions for the class struggle (…) The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle’.

Referring to Angola, this means that if the Angolan proletariat does not form its own party, distinct from the bourgeoisie’s, with its own revolutionary Marxist programme, and does not already pose the problem of the struggle against its own bourgeoisie once the imperialists are driven out, it will be subjugated to the bourgeois chariot and its class interests will be subordinated to the national interest.

But we want to go back to the origins, according to our method, by going to see what old Marx has to say on the matter.

In the Address of the Central Committee of the Communist League (1850), referring to the struggles for national independence still going on in Europe at that time, Marx says: ‘Instead of lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus, the workers, and above all the League [as the Communist Party was then called], must work for the creation of an independent organisation of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a centre and nucleus of workers’ associations in which the position and interests of the proletariat can be discussed free from bourgeois influence (…) In the event of a struggle against a common enemy a special alliance is unnecessary. As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past (…) During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government (…) In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself (…) They [the workers] themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organised party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: THE PERMANENT REVOLUTION’ (London 1850). Feast your eyes, you worshippers of Stalin-brand revolution by stages!

It is this perspective, repeatedly reiterated by Lenin and the Communist International (Theses at the 2nd Congress, 1920), that the proletariat and the exploited masses of the West and East, of Asia and Africa, lack today. Throughout the cycle of struggles for national independence that began at the end of the Second World War and which saw dozens of peoples engage in struggle against imperialism, representing the only revolutionary movements, albeit in a bourgeois nationalist sense, of the last half-century, not in a single one of these states did the proletariat have the strength to constitute itself into a party independent from the bourgeois one, to avoid ‘lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus [for the bourgeois democrats]’. And this did not happen by chance, if our analysis of the Stalinist counter-revolution is true, which, originating precisely from within the first socialist state, Russia, had enormous repercussions on the entire world proletarian movement, crushing it even today, after fifty years, under its leaden cloak.

Angola certainly cannot escape this rule, which cannot be expected to be broken in these countries. It is the Western proletariat, aged in its struggles and experiences, that will have to climb back up the slope and once again take up its theoretical and practical weapons, re-launching to the peoples of colour the oath that was raised at the Congress of the Peoples of the East in Baku in 1921: PROLETARIAT OF THE WEST AND THE PEOPLES OF THE EAST UNITED IN THE HOLY WAR AGAINST WORLD IMPERIALISM!

The Western proletariat, on the contrary, even though all imperialist countries are shaken by the signs of the most serious crisis ever to hit the capitalist regime, even though their living conditions worsen by the day and the future becomes more and more uncertain under the threat of rampant unemployment, still feels strengthened by the privileges it undoubtedly still possesses vis-à-vis the starving masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and collaborates with its own national bourgeoisie in the exploitation of poor countries. It will be this crisis, deepening and spreading, with terrible consequences for a large part of the proletariat, that will bring it back onto the terrain of class struggle in a single bloc with the exploited masses of the peoples of colour.

In Angola, therefore, imperialism will have the final say. Either the soft line of the Congress’s or hard line of Ford will prevail, depending on whether or not an agreement can be reached between the two superpowers on how to divide up the proceeds that will derive from the exploitation of the Angolan masses and territory. The ‘balkanisation’ of this state is by no means ruled out and would be the worst solution, THE LEAST FAVOURABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE. But the most important fact, whatever happens in Angola, is that the Western proletariat will stand by and watch events unfold without lifting a finger, just as it did in the face of the Algerian, Congolese, or Vietnamese tragedy, limiting itself to sending a few telegrams of solidarity or asking the respective bourgeois governments to ‘recognise’ the People’s Republic of Angola. It is not in Angola that the fate of this nation is being decided, but in New York, Chicago, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, and the Western proletariat will truly be in solidarity with the peoples of the most impoverished and exploited nations by imperialism when it throws overboard all its pretended national function, when it breaks every smallest interest that binds it to its own bourgeoisie, and attacks the nerve centres of the capitalist system, causing it to collapse.

Also interesting is the stance taken in the war by the two alleged socialist countries, the USSR and China, and consequently the bleating chorus of their admirers. In the conflict, the two are armed against each other, because Russia supplies the MPLA and China supports the FNLA, thus finding themselves on the same side as the USA and South Africa. On the diplomatic front, Russia demands that only the MPLA should come to power in Angola, so that it can finally put to good use the capital invested in the country so far; China, in view of the weakness of its protégé and its lesser political influence, as well as the fact that it has to save a minimum of face as a Third World state, demands the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the territory and hopes for the unity of the three liberation movements.

Neither country is concerned with pushing and directing the exploited Angolan masses to take the only really important step for their definitive emancipation: the establishment of revolutionary communist nuclei which, linking up with the formidable tradition of the Third Communist International, would form the Communist Party in Angola, participating, then organised on their own class terrain, first in the anti-imperialist war of liberation, then in the anti-bourgeois communist revolution. In fact, though they veil their actions under a sea of supposedly revolutionary and communist rhetoric, the policies of these two supposedly socialist states is as imperialist as that of the USA.